Thomas Graves Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bill Simpich said: Tommy, Eyewitness IDs are among the shakiest kind of evidence that is out there - in my opinion, you have an unwieldy platform to make your case for Leonov. Sorry, I am not obliged to agree with you. I asked as politely as I could if you had other evidence - after your insults, I'm sorry I asked. I did eventually find Morales in the film, by the way, but I didn't see the need to tell you that - just like I don't see the need to agree with you or read your back posts. ..... If so, could the person who did the above-mentioned coercing have been ... (gulp) ... Fidel Castro? -- (Tommy) ************** My belief is that Castro was the focus of numerous assassination attempts - and that he was in the midst of negotiations with JFK for rapproachement. Castro and Angleton got hung out to dry just like Oswald did. The only difference is that Angleton had something to hide - his surveillance of Oswald since 1959. Bill, With all due respect, ... insults? What insults? It's okay for you to accuse me of "putting words in your mouth" when you, by a very "clever" process-of-omission, do that to me? Over the past year or so I've posted several times on this forum the words that Duran and Azcue used to describe "The Oswald Impostor" (or, as I'm coming to prefer, "The Invisible Impostor"). Duran: He was blond (haired), he was about the same short height as my 5' 3.5", and he had small blue eyes. Azcue: He was about thirty years-old, he was thin, he was blond or dark-blond (haired, obviously), he was very thin-faced, and he was wearing a blue suit (the jacket of which had a pattern of crossed lines and some kind of reddish highlights). Yet you have the gall to more-or-less accuse me in your earlier post of relying on (the only?) "three things" that Duran and Azcue said about "The Oswald Impostor" (or, as mentioned above, the concept I'm coming to prefer -- "The Invisible Impostor") which suggest, to me at least, that they were obviously talking about KGB "diplomat" Nikolai Leonov? I.E., that he was 1) shortish, 2) he had "lighter-than-jet-black-hair," and 3) he was wearing, according to Azcue, a "Prince of Wales" suit. (Which "diplomat"-like suit Azcue didn't specifically identify as a "Prince of Wales" suit, but fashion-conscious investigators and ... (gulp) ... lawyers probably correctly realized that that was exactly what Eusebio had been trying to describe.) Regarding your comment that "Castro and Angleton got hung out to dry -- just like Oswald did," -- hung out to dry by whom, Bill? That evil, evil, evil James Jesus Angleton, himself? By that incorrigible neck scratcher, David Sanchez Morales? Bill Harvey? Bill Bright? Or is it more likely that Castro "patsied" (Khrushchev's) KGB and (Kennedy's) CIA? (Oh yeah, and Oswald, too?) -- Tommy PS How does one describe a person (for whom another person goes to great lengths to point out, from a distance, somebody that's hard to "spot" in an Internet video) who cannot bring himself to say, even in a very private Personal Message, "Okay, thanks, Tommy. NOW I see who you're talking about"? "Just way too busy, busy, busy, busy ..."? or "Ingrate researcher who is loathe to acknowledge the possible discovery by another so-called "researcher" of something which might help him or her to 'connect the dots' in his or her 'grand theory,' even though said "teensy weensy putative widdle contribution" had come from someone who still, at that time, basically agreed with Head Honcho Researcher that the evil, evil, evil CIA MUST have killed JFK?" PPS The above words in lavender represent what I consider to be "advocate-words," in so many ... uh ... words. Edited February 24, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Tommy - you are unaware that your style of arguing is insulting. It’s funny you don’t see the insults. Maybe you have thick skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Tommy - you are unaware that your style of arguing is insulting. It’s funny you don’t see the insults. Maybe you have thick skin. Paul, With all due respect .... like, ... DiEugenio (and cheerleader), and Josephs, et al., aren't just a widdle bit insulting from time-to-time towards members who have the temerity to disagree with them when they rabidly proclaim that the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK? And it's okay for Bill Simpich to accuse me of "putting words in his mouth" when he hypocritically turns around and does the same thing, by omission, to me? (sigh) Regardless, do you have anything intelligent to add to this thread, Maestro? -- Tommy Edited February 24, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Only that you are your own worst advocate. No one is perfect, others here are insulting from time to time. I shouldn’t bother to try to get you to look in the mirror. But it’s in my nature to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Simpich Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Tommy, It is apparent to me that you were offended when I asked you about the three things, and I am sincerely sorry. I was truly trying to give you my best feedback - you had been posting a series of questions to me publicly - I should have done it a personal message and not in a public post. I was trying to understand your argument, and the way I did it offended you. I did not mean to give offense. What I can say is that I do see the logic in your argument that Azcue and Duran could have been persuaded to falsely finger Leonov. Although I don't agree with it, it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said: Tommy, It is apparent to me that you were offended when I asked you about the three things, and I am sincerely sorry. I was truly trying to give you my best feedback - you had been posting a series of questions to me publicly - I should have done it a personal message and not in a public post. I was trying to understand your argument, and the way I did it offended you. I did not mean to give offense. What I can say is that I do see the logic in your argument that Azcue and Duran could have been persuaded to falsely finger Leonov. Although I don't agree with it, it is possible. Bill, Thank you! -- Tommy PS Although you and I appear to have arrived at different "tentative conclusions" (yours less tentative and flexible than mine, I'm afraid), I do believe that it's very important for every "researcher" and serious student of the assassination to read and re-read "State Secret." To help "connect some dots," if nothing else ... Edited February 24, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) On 2/21/2018 at 4:48 PM, Bill Simpich said: Hi Paul and Tommy, Reading the deposition doesn't convince me that Egerter didn't know that the two posts were different - at least, not based on her say-so. Egerter's job was to run molehunts. The main role of CI-SIG was to prevent penetrations of the Agency by moles. It kind of took over the office, as Angleton focused on defensive CI maneuvers and pretty much abandoned using it as an offensive force. I don't believe Egerter told the truth when she said that "Lee Henry Oswald" was a mistake. She never corrected the file entitled "Lee Henry Oswald" - Rocca did it in 1975 when the CIA was in hot water. Note that the index cards for the HTLINGUAL program display “Lee Harvey Oswald” and Egerter’s name together. Nor did she correct the 3 by 5 cards that were used to monitor the files - one said Lee Henry Oswald, another said Lee Harvey Oswald, and a third said Lee H. Oswald to account for the New Orleans/Dallas persona after his return from the USSR. My belief is that "the impersonation of Oswald" was used to create a molehunt - which in turn became a "poison pill" for all those who were involved in the paper trail involving Oswald. Jack Whitten, who had the original responsibility for the Oswald investigation, had it taken away from him by Angleton after 30 days. I think Whitten was compromised to some degree - his fingerprints were on the Oswald file. If you asked me if he played a role in the cover-up, I would say yes - simply because he kept quiet about his suspicions about Bill Harvey and other problems in the case. But Angleton's team had a bigger problem, which led Angleton to play an active role in the cover-up after he became the lead on the Oswald investigation: Egerter had removed most of the documents from the 201 file and had put them under lock and key in her office. Those were the documents that told the full story. Whitten's assistant Charlotte Bustos only had a few documents left in the 201 file. When Bustos wrote the twin 10/10/63 letters, she was relying on Egerter. Egerter gave Bustos contradictory information for the descriptions of Oswald in those two letters. Although Bustos may have realized that there was some contradictory information in the two memos, she probably didn’t suspect a molehunt since she was directly relying on the remnants of the 201 file and whatever she was told by the coordinating officers Ann Egerter and Stephan Roll, chief Soviet analyst and Bill Bright’s ex-boss... Angleton pursued leads that pointed to possible Soviet and/or Cuban complicity in the assassination, and ignored the evidence that pointed towards the anti-Castro Cubans or other right-wing associations. Bill, Ever since 2014, when I first read your free eBook on the Mary Ferrell web site, I came away with the opinion that your Mole Hunt discovery had acquitted the JJ Angleton and the CIA high-command from any knowledge about who had Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald over the heavily wire-tapped telephone in Mexico City, at the Cuban Consulate, calling the Soviet Embassy there. Your eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) has completely changed the narrative paradigm for the JFK CT community, in my opinion. Yet I was surprised back in 2014 when you distanced yourself from my interpretation of your Mole Hunt discovery. I am still surprised, but I am grateful that you are willing to discuss this disconnect directly. I do agree with you that JJ Angleton was so obsessed with the USSR and the domino theory (to which JFK also subscribed) that he completely neglected the Radical Right in the USA. I think the same can be said of JFK, to some degree. JFK did lay down some barrier lines for the John Birch Society in one of his Los Angeles speeches -- the "fluoride" speech. Yet he did not insist that his people especially track General Walker for him -- any more than they already did. The FBI was tracking General Walker through James Hosty (according to Hosty himself, 1996). The CIA's duty was to look overseas for signs of trouble. So, one could rationally excuse Angelton for letting Hoover handle the domestic stuff. The real question for me is this -- WHO IMPERSONATED LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- and why didn't the CIA high-command know? It had to be a CIA agent, because the impersonator knew that this was the most wire-tapped phone in the world, and also that LHO had visited Kostikov (not knowing who the heck Kostikov really was) only the weekend before. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited February 24, 2018 by Paul Trejo typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Bill, Ever since 2014, when I first read your free eBook on the Mary Ferrell web site, I came away with the opinion that your Mole Hunt discovery had acquitted the JJ Angleton and the CIA high-command from any knowledge about who had Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald over the heavily wire-tapped telephone in Mexico City, at the Cuban Consulate, calling the Soviet Embassy there. Your eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) has completely changed the narrative paradigm for the JFK CT community, in my opinion. Yet I was surprised back in 2014 when you distanced yourself from my interpretation of your Mole Hunt discovery. I am still surprised, but I am grateful that you are willing to discuss this disconnect directly. I do agree with you that JJ Angleton was so obsessed with the USSR and the domino theory (to which JFK also subscribed) that he completely neglected the Radical Right in the USA. I think the same can be said of JFK, to some degree. JFK did lay down some barrier lines for the John Birch Society in one of his Los Angeles speeches -- the "fluoride" speech. Yet he did not insist that people track General Walker for him -- more than they did. The FBI was tracking General Walker through James Hosty (according to Hosty himself, 1996). The CIA's duty was to look overseas for signs of trouble. So, one could rationally excuse Angelton from letting Hoover handle the domestic stuff. The real question for me is this -- WHO IMPERSONATED LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- and why didn't the CIA high-command know that? It had to be a CIA agent, because the impersonator knew that this was the most wire-tapped phone in the world, and also that LHO had visited Kostikov only the weekend before. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Paul, How do we know that Oswald visited the Soviet embassy on Friday, September 27, and Saturday, September 28 (according to Nechiporenko, Yatskov, and ... (gasp) ... Kostikov), and on Sunday, September 29 (according to thin, short, Blond-haired, blue-eyed, very thin-faced, 30 year-old KGB "diplomat" Nilolai Leonov)? Because they said so? -- Tommy Edited February 24, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Simpich Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Hi Paul, To borrow Tommy’s phrase, I am more tentative about who impersonated LHO than you are. You say it had to be a CIA agent. That is my belief. But if could have been DFS, or FBI, or (less likely IMHO) an actual mole from the Communist side. Even the mole hunt is a hypothesis - it is dangerous to be certain about a speculation on who impersonated LHO. Similarly, although I believe Angleton was the victim of a poison pill by being goaded into the 63 molehunt, my colleague John Newman still tilts towards JJA as the mastermind - and his reasons are good too. My approach towards all this is: State your beliefs. Present your evidence. Stay flexible. To that end: I am intrigued by your statement that Marina told The WC that Lee told her that he had told Michael Paine he shot at Walker. Do you have a reference for that? Walker deserves the focus you are giving him. He is connected with so many sources - it’s hard to believe he is not connected to JFK’s death in some way. Has anyone ever created a map of Walker’s connections with principals in the JFK case? I am particularly intrigued with how Schmidt, deMohrenschildt and Paine May have pushed LHO to get caught up with Walker, both before and after 4/10/63. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) On 2/24/2018 at 5:16 PM, Bill Simpich said: Hi Paul, ...I am intrigued by your statement that Marina told The WC that Lee told her that he had told Michael Paine he shot at Walker. Do you have a reference for that? Bill Bill, Yes, it's volume 4 of the Warren Commission Hearings, on Thursday, June 11, 1964. It's around page 395. Here's a snippet: Mr. McKENZIE: Mrs. Oswald, you said a few minutes ago that Mr. Paine knows more about your husband’s attitude about the United States than you do. Why did you say that? Mrs. OSWALD: Because my husband’s favorite topic of discussion was politics, and whoever he was with he talked to them politics and Mr. Paine was with him a fair amount, and I am not sure they talked about polities. They went to meetings of some kind together, I don’t know what kind of meetings. Mr. McKENZIE: Do you know where the meetings were? Mrs. OSWALD: In Dallas. After they came back from some meeting my husband said to me something about Walker being at this meeting, and he said, “Paine knows that I shot him.” I don’t know whether this was the truth or not. I didn’t know whether it was true or not, but this is what he told me. Mr. McKENZIE: Would they go in Mr. Paine’s automobile? Mrs. OSWALD: Yes; it was about 2 days after this incident with [Adlai] Stevenson or the next day, or maybe it was the same place, or the next day that a meeting was held where General Walker appeared. The time and place check out. General Walker's US Day rally was on October 23, 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium. Adlai Stevenson's UN Day rally was on October 24, 1963 at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium. Stevenson was humiliated in Dallas that night, as planned by General Walker and his people the night before. I interviewed Larrie Schmidt about this some years ago, and he admits that Walker organized that humiliation. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited February 26, 2018 by Paul Trejo typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) Lee Henry indeed. Credit: Malcolm Blunt. Edited May 2, 2018 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Bart... How are we to know those 2 pieces of paper were ever actually "together" as it appears to me that one piece is simply overlaid the other... What those staples held would be interesting though... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) I enjoy up close examination of the docs... inverted they tell us things a regular viewing sometimes cannot... Notice how the "2nd COUNTRY INTEREST" is both crossed out and whited out... not really whited out but covered up? Any ideas what that may have said? Most areas without writing appear to be smoothed out... so just these 2-3 letters? should be CUBA - no? Edited May 2, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 This was stapled at the bottom, later on they were removed as the whole thing was laminated David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Oh and PM me your email and I will send you a higher res. copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now