JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on August 30, 2018, 05:28:12 PM
-
Excerpt:
Let's recap here:
1. Marina, part of the Soviet upper-middle class, reasonably educated and an attractive young woman, meets Lee Harvey Oswald and is so smitten by him that she agrees to marry him in a little over a month ? two weeks of which he spent courting her from a hospital bed.
2. The Soviet government grants Marina permission to marry him in the span of 10 days, despite the fact that this is an MVD colonel's niece marrying a U.S. defector.
3. Oswald immediately decides to head back to the United States, and in spite of her uncle's supposed objections ? and Prusakov could have stopped this dead in its tracks if he wanted ? she is granted permission to leave the Soviet Union in the company of an American defector. The time between her formal request and receiving permission is a matter of weeks.
If the Warren Commission has the facts right ? and we think they do ? then this is clear: the Soviet government wanted Marina and Oswald to marry and they wanted them to go together to the United States. That is crystal clear. Now, we take a leap, but a reasonable one: The only agency in the Soviet Union with the ability and interest to get this done was the KGB. If Marina wasn't KGB, she did one hell of an imitation.
Endless questions flow from this, ranging from what the mission was to why the U.S. embassy permitted Marina into the country. This now enters into the realm of speculation. However, one thing is clear to us: Any theory as to what happened on Nov. 22, 1963, that does not take into careful account the role of Marina Oswald is inherently flawed. This includes the Warren Commission's own findings. If Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, there has been no adequate explanation of Marina Oswald's role in this.
The only way to dismiss the Marina question is to make the following three assertions:
1. You have to believe that Marina, the attractive MVD princess, took one look at Oswald and said, "I've got to have that man."
2. You have to argue that obtaining permission in 10 days for an MVD colonel's live-in niece to marry an American defector was no big deal.
3. You have to argue that getting an exit permit from the Soviet Union for Marina in the space of six weeks in 1961 was no big deal.
If ever there was a cooked-up marriage, this was it. Now, how this fits into the assassination story is too speculative to bother with ? but that no explanation is possible without building this into the story is obvious.
There has been tremendous focus on Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union and speculation that his defection might have been part of a CIA plot. That is not inconceivable, although the purpose of the plot is opaque. There has been focus on Washington's decision to readmit Oswald, even though he had renounced his U.S. citizenship. All of this has focused attention on the CIA, but there has not been equal attention paid to the extraordinary story of Marina Prusakova's marriage to Oswald and her exit from the Soviet Union.
This does not necessarily clear things up, but in our mind, it sets an additional hurdle that any theory must pass over. The eagerness of the Warren Commission to pass over the strange marriage of these two is one of the reasons we have little confidence in the analysis it contains. The fact of the marriage raises questions of whether Oswald was, simply in the context of his marriage, involved in a conspiracy. If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/mystery-marina-oswald
-
"If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone."
So they doubt he was the only gunman, but even if he was, he still was not alone ?
And that's based on his marriage.
Who writes this crap ?
-
Statfor is a think tank out of TX I believe, I've known of them for a few years. They want to charge others for their services. I think they want to claim some expertise in foreign policy but I think from what I've seen, they don't have a great batting average but you end up having to subscribe to them to find out what they think in a lot of cases anyway.
Even if one is not into conspiracies, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists with integrity. I believe there are some in this forum in fact. So, when there are books out of hundreds of pages by CTs on the JFK assassination, might I be looking and think, "oh, boy, this is what Stratfor thinks!".
If one can post them having a good record in what they do, I would pleasantly, accept the correction.
-
"If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone."
So they doubt he was the only gunman, but even if he was, he still was not alone ?
Even if Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza, it doesn?t mean he was not part of a Conspiracy.
It?s not that complicated if you read slowly...
-
The Atlantic on Stratfor and before one reads it, let's remember, maybe Stratfor has some good writers and it doesn't all apply to the analysis by the Atlantic. Maybe the article above is correct. I'd just be cautious using stratfor.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/
-
Statfor is a think tank out of TX I believe, I've known of them for a few years. They want to charge others for their services. I think they want to claim some expertise in foreign policy but I think from what I've seen, they don't have a great batting average but you end up having to subscribe to them to find out what they think in a lot of cases anyway.
Even if one is not into conspiracies, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists with integrity. I believe there are some in this forum in fact. So, when there are books out of hundreds of pages by CTs on the JFK assassination, might I be looking and think, "oh, boy, this is what Stratfor thinks!".
If one can post them having a good record in what they do, I would pleasantly, accept the correction.
I believe their expertise is in the areas of Foreign Policy and National Security. So commenting on Marina?s background in the Soviet Union seems to be within the realm of their expertise...
-
The Atlantic on Stratfor and before one reads it, let's remember, maybe Stratfor has some good writers and it doesn't all apply to the analysis by the Atlantic. Maybe the article above is correct. I'd just be cautious using stratfor.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/
They?re entitled to their own opinions. Everyone has one. I have my own opinions about the Atlantic.
Do you want to comment on the content of the essay?
-
So Saint Patsy's marriage to Marina is evidence of a conspiracy ?
With whom ?
He wasn't alone ?
Who was he with ?
They doubt he was the only shooter ?
Based on what ?
-
So Saint Patsy's marriage to Marina is evidence of a conspiracy ?
With whom ?
He wasn't alone ?
Who was he with ?
They doubt he was the only shooter ?
Based on what ?
The Essay is about Marina Oswald.
Even if there was no Conspiracy, her story about their marriage and life in Russia doesn?t make sense
-
The Essay is about Marina Oswald.
Even if there was no Conspiracy, her story about their marriage and life in Russia doesn?t make sense
Fine.
But their conclusion is:
If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone.
The story of the marriage doesn't make sense, therefore this is evidence of a conspiracy ?
A conspiracy with whom ?
He wasn't alone ? Who was he with ?
They doubt he was the only shooter ?
Based on what ?
-
Fine.
But their conclusion is:
If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone.
The story of the marriage doesn't make sense, therefore this is evidence of a conspiracy ?
A conspiracy with whom ?
He wasn't alone ? Who was he with ?
They doubt he was the only shooter ?
Based on what ?
The author provides a list of reasons to doubt some of the known facts about Marina and Lee?s time in Russia.
Regardless of whether one thinks he acted alone or was part of a conspiracy, finding answers to questions about these mysteries in their respective biographies might help give a better historical understanding of the Kennedy Assassination. Or maybe it won?t. Maybe it just leads to more questions.
-
The story of the marriage doesn't make sense, therefore this is evidence of a conspiracy ?
That's almost as ridiculous as "he left his wedding ring at home, therefore this is evidence of murder".
-
The author provides a list of reasons to doubt some of the known facts about Marina and Lee?s time in Russia.
Regardless of whether one thinks he acted alone or was part of a conspiracy, finding answers to questions about these mysteries in their respective biographies might help give a better historical understanding of the Kennedy Assassination. Or maybe it won?t. Maybe it just leads to more questions.
Then there was the time Marina accidentally told Robert Webster's cover story when she was talking about Lee.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/katya-ford.png)
-
That's almost as ridiculous as "he left his wedding ring at home, therefore this is evidence of murder".
You're right again.
Your hero probably just forgot he left his ring in a cup and his life savings behind that day. Zero significance to those acts.
However, he did remember to take his 3 foot cheese sandwich.
Gives me an idea for another thread.
-
John Banks is correct, I should have commented on the article itself... but I think it is still important to know something about Stratfor.
--------
Per the article, the author says himself, they will not go full speculation but it is mostly in the direction that the Russians could have had something to do with the assassination, that's why "Lee would not be alone" because per the article, it makes it sound like Marina could be part of it. That seems pretty far-fetched.
The article also mentions the relative ease that it appears Oswald and his wife were able to come to the USA. I think stats have been checked out as in Posner's "Case Closed"; and it was not always that rare for people to return from Russia somewhat unfettered. Cold War was on but still, a number returned.
-
That's almost as ridiculous as "he left his wedding ring at home, therefore this is evidence of murder".
Did he also leave some money. Nothing like taking things out of context.
-
John Banks is correct, I should have commented on the article itself... but I think it is still important to know something about Stratfor.
--------
Per the article, the author says himself, they will not go full speculation but it is mostly in the direction that the Russians could have had something to do with the assassination, that's why "Lee would not be alone" because per the article, it makes it sound like Marina could be part of it. That seems pretty far-fetched.
The article also mentions the relative ease that it appears Oswald and his wife were able to come to the USA. I think stats have been checked out as in Posner's "Case Closed"; and it was not always that rare for people to return from Russia somewhat unfettered. Cold War was on but still, a number returned.
I think the author focuses more on Russia?s actions or non-actions than the USA?s.
That the Soviets would?ve been so non-chalant about the niece of a Security Officer dating and marrying an American defector raises some Red Flags
-
Then there was the time Marina accidentally told Robert Webster's cover story when she was talking about Lee.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/katya-ford.png)
From Bill Simpich:
One story illustrates how strong this resemblance was between Oswald and Webster. Robert Webster met Oswald?s future wife Marina Prusakova at the American Exhibition held in Moscow during the summer of 1959. They saw each other again in 1960. Curiously, Marina spoke English to Webster, while she only spoke Russian when she came to the United States with Oswald.[ 2 ] On one occasion, Marina even confused Webster with Oswald. Webster and Oswald were used to loosen Soviet tongues, and they may have never realized it.
Marina wasn?t the only woman confused by the two men. In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board interviewed Joan Hallett, the widow of the former naval attach? at the American Embassy in Moscow. Hallett remembered seeing Oswald at the Embassy on September 5, right at the end of the American Exhibition. No one could understand the discrepancy between her strong and clear recollection and the September 5 date. The solution is simple - Hallett was mistaking Webster for Oswald. Webster disappeared on 9/10/59 ? six days after the Exhibition ended. Oswald didn't arrive in Moscow until a month later.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter1.html
-
You're right again.
Your hero probably just forgot he left his ring in a cup and his life savings behind that day. Zero significance to those acts.
Wherein we discover that in Howard's world, something is either insignificant or it means murder. :D
However, he did remember to take his 3 foot cheese sandwich.
Sorry, a 3 foot sandwich wouldn't fit in that flimsy 2 foot bag either.
Gives me an idea for another thread.
Can't wait.
-
There is way more to Marina Oswald than we were told.
*****************************************
2) Was Marina Oswald Coerced Into Testifying Against LHO Or Did She Do It For Her Own Benefit?
As we just saw in the first question Marina Oswald stated to the De Mohrenschildts that she was sexually unsatisfied with LHO. The De Mohrenschildts also told others that Marina Oswald was a ?vicious and evil woman.? Furthermore we have seen in this series that she came into a good sum of money following the assassination and she always wanted money and nice things according Jeanne De Mohrenschildt.
Mr. JENNER. She was promiscuous but not malicious?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Not malicious. That is how I would put it, you know. She was so anxious to live and she was so happy to be in the United States. wanted to have it all, you know what I mean? She wanted a car and she wanted to have a little apartment and have all these little gadgets that fascinated her, just like they fascinated me when I came to the United States. She was living in that poor, poor apartment. Of course, it was depressing for her.
Mr. JENNER. Was she talking to Lee about all, that she wanted a car and these gadgets and a refrigerator?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I cannot say she did, but I am sure she did.
Who can say that she wasn?t better off financially without LHO? George De Mohrenschildt would say that Marina admired LHO?s apartment in Minsk, and dreamed of living in one like it one day.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. ?And one day she was walking by this river, which I also remember, in Minsk---the River Svisloch, which crosses the whole town, and where there are some new apartment buildings built, and in one of those apartment buildings there were very nice apartments, and that is where the foreigners lived.
She said it was her dream some day to live in an apartment like that. And that is where Lee Oswald lived. And eventually when they met---I remember they met at some dance I think he was ill, something like that, after that dance, and she came to take care of him. That is something I have a vague recollection of---that she took care of him, and from then on they fell in love and eventually got married. But she said it was the apartment house that was one of the greatest things she desired to live in, and she found out later on that Lee Oswald lived in that apartment house, and she finally achieved her dream.
It sounds ridiculous, but that is how in Soviet Russia they dream of apartments rather than people.
We see that Marina Oswald dreamed of living in a fancy apartment. Nothing wrong with that, but LHO wasn?t able to provide her with one and may not have been able to for years. De Mohrenschildt says that Russian people dream of ?apartments rather than people.?
Given the financial and sexual issues as well as the supposed repeated beatings that LHO put on Marina, can any official narrative defender show that she would be upset that LHO was no longer around? Outside of the assassination weekend, can anyone show that her life was worse than before the assassination?
-
Did he also leave some money. Nothing like taking things out of context.
Fair enough -- I'll rephrase:
That's almost as ridiculous as "he left his wedding ring and some money at home, therefore this is evidence of murder".
-
So Saint Patsy's marriage to Marina is evidence of a conspiracy ?
With whom ?
He wasn't alone ?
Who was he with ?
They doubt he was the only shooter ?
Based on what ?
Even if Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza, it doesn?t mean he was not part of a Conspiracy.
It?s not that complicated if you read slowly...
-
Even if Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza, it doesn?t mean he was not part of a Conspiracy.
It?s not that complicated if you read slowly...
Oswald was one of a few, in Dealey Plazza who was not part of the conspiracy, he was set up by the redneck racist W.A.S.P's to take the blame, in fact he did not even hear the shots as they were fired from the Dal Tex.
-
So according to Marina..."Lee was not liked by many persons [back] in Russia"
So then that made him more desirable to her?
Go figure ???
-
That article is weak sauce even by low CT standards. Very silly to make subjective arguments like it is suspicious that Marina would marry Oswald because she was too attractive. Good grief. And suggesting that the various "approvals" were obtained so quickly they evidence a conspiracy but without providing any relevant comparisons to demonstrate they were any quicker than normal. Maybe they just wanted to be rid of him because he was a nut. I don't blame them. I'm surprised they didn't pack his bags and carry him to the station.
-
Fair enough -- I'll rephrase:
That's almost as ridiculous as "he left his wedding ring and some money at home, therefore this is evidence of murder".
You're the only one saying that
-
You're the only one saying that
Nope, your hero Bugliosi said that. We've been over this before...
-
That's almost as ridiculous as "he left his wedding ring at home, therefore this is evidence of murder".
Yawn, for the gazillionth time the "wedding ring" yet again.
Oswald's wedding ring is only one half of one of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence so the "wedding ring" is not even 1% of Bugliosi's evidence.
JohnM
-
Yawn, for the gazillionth time the "wedding ring" yet again.
Oswald's wedding ring is only one half of one of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence so the "wedding ring" is not even 1% of Bugliosi's evidence.
JohnM
But Bugliosi claimed that each of his 53 pieces individually pointed to Oswald's guilt. Why is that even on the list? Just to make a longer list? If that was the only one that wasn't actually evidence of anything then you might have a point.
- Leaving his wedding ring behind at the Paine house is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he preferred Dr. Pepper is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
- Leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor is evidence that points toward Oswald's guilt.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
Nope, your hero Bugliosi said that. We've been over this before...
You're the only poster constantly claiming that LNers say each of Bug53 would convict.
You are gaslighting
-
You're the only poster constantly claiming that LNers say each of Bug53 would convict.
I never even once claimed that "LNers say each of Bug53 would convict", much less "constantly".
Gaslighter.
-
I never even once claimed that "LNers say each of Bug53 would convict", much less "constantly".
Gaslighter.
LOL
You always squeal 'how does that prove murder' every time mention of any bug53 pops up.
Trolling gaslighter.
-
The most important thing about Marina is language and I think that we must not take for granted her statements that were translated from Russian to English.
We know that she knew English quite OK but we will never know what exactly she stated in Russian during interrogations and testimonies.
I believe that her statements and testimonies (when given in Russian) were not translated correctly and even she knew English, she was too scared and stressed to pay attention if the translators were translating her words correctly.
Later, over the years, she most probably realized this but it was too late to change anything, Oswald was dead and she was receiving government help so she accepted WC conclusions.
DPD, FBI, CIA, WC done everything to frame Oswald so it is very easy to believe that translations were false.
-
LOL
You always squeal 'how does that prove murder' every time mention of any bug53 pops up.
Trolling gaslighter.
Is this your way of admitting that you attributed words to me that I never said? Quote me ever "constantly claiming that LNers say each of Bug53 would convict", or STFU.
-
Is this your way of admitting that you attributed words to me that I never said? Quote me ever "constantly claiming that LNers say each of Bug53 would convict", or STFU.
What exactly do I need to 'admit'? You are the one who automatically, like a broken record, accuses LNers of declaring Oswald guilty based solely on even one single action taken by Oswald.
Do you accuse us of claiming that we point to separate claims (in and of themselves) by Bug as proof of Oswald's guilt, or don't you?
-
What exactly do I need to 'admit'? You are the one who automatically, like a broken record, accuses LNers of declaring Oswald guilty based solely on even one single action taken by Oswald.
Gaslighter. Quote me ever saying that.
Do you accuse us of claiming that we point to separate claims (in and of themselves) by Bug as proof of Oswald's guilt, or don't you?
No, I accuse you of claiming that things are evidence of murder that are not evidence of murder.
-
Gaslighter. Quote me ever saying that.
No, I accuse you of claiming that things are evidence of murder that are not evidence of murder.
I accuse you of separating each individual moment in time?like Oswald knocking on the door of the bus, for instance?and claiming that LNers hold those single moments up as proof of murder.
To wit:
Iacoletti Reply #350 on: October 31, 2018, 11:51:16 PM ?
"It lends support to Oswald leaving the TSBD within minutes, which for some strange reason the LN brigade considers evidence of murder."
"And also (via McWatters) that Oswald was in a hurry to get on the bus since he knocked on the door to get on mid-block. Which the LN brigade also considers evidence of murder."
-
I accuse you of separating each individual moment in time?like Oswald knocking on the door of the bus, for instance?and claiming that LNers hold those single moments up as proof of murder.
To wit:
Iacoletti Reply #350 on: October 31, 2018, 11:51:16 PM ?
"It lends support to Oswald leaving the TSBD within minutes, which for some strange reason the LN brigade considers evidence of murder."
"And also (via McWatters) that Oswald was in a hurry to get on the bus since he knocked on the door to get on mid-block. Which the LN brigade also considers evidence of murder."
2 questions:
- Do you not understand the difference between proof and evidence?
- Are you saying that you don't consider these things to be evidence for murder?
Quote me ever accusing LNers of declaring Oswald guilty based solely on even one single action taken by Oswald, or STFU.
-
LOL
You always squeal 'how does that prove murder' every time mention of any bug53 pops up.
Trolling gaslighter.
Dishonest John constantly addresses the evidence in a vacuum implying that it the product of lies or fakery. Then, without missing a beat, argues it is a "strawman" to claim that he is suggesting there was a conspiracy. We are left to our imaginations to wonder why so many people, including random citizens, would intentionally lie or fake evidence against Oswald in the absence of a conspiracy. Dishonest John is trying to have it both ways. The evidence against Oswald is always suspect but he doesn't want to explain, much provide any actual evidence, as to why these people are lying or faking evidence to make it suspect as he suggests. It is a lazy, intellectually dishonest approach to the case that adds nothing except to go round and round in circles of lunacy that makes dishonest John feel as though he is relevant. Just playing the contrarian jester to his intellectual superiors. Very tiresome but also humorous as he takes himself so seriously.
-
Dishonest John constantly addresses the evidence in a vacuum implying that it the product of lies or fakery. Then, without missing a beat, argues it is a "strawman" to claim that he is suggesting there was a conspiracy.
Lyin' "Richard" accuses me of implying that the evidence is the product of lies or fakery, which is just yet another Lyin' "Richard" strawman. Lyin' "Richard" makes claims about the evidence that are just flat out false.
We are left to our imaginations to wonder why so many people, including random citizens, would intentionally lie or fake evidence against Oswald in the absence of a conspiracy.
Well that's no surprise since the claim that "so many people, including random citizens, would intentionally lie or fake evidence against Oswald" is also a product of your imagination. Which is why you are called "Lyin' Strawman 'Richard'".
If you think being an "intellectual superior" means lying about the evidence and making up strawmen to argue against instead of defending your own position, then you are even more deluded than I thought.
-
There seems to be a grooming of Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald to become entangled with the upcoming assassination of JFK . LHO actually claimed to have been set up as a Patsy and there is more than enough evidence to say that claim of being set up to take the fall is undisputable . Within hours of LHO being brought in , we have J. Edgar Hoover saying we have our man . I think Marina may have been an unknowing accomplice in the setup of her husband . When Ruby turns out the light on LHO , then it's quite obvious to Marina that she better go along with the story or she would have found herself in a whole lot of trouble with nowhere to turn . Ruth Paine seems to be up to her eyeballs in this assassination set up of Lee Harvey Oswald . If Oswald had been an assassin who was capable of killing JFK and then J.D. Tippit, then he would more than likely have had a hell of a shootout in the Texas Theater.