JFK Assassination Forum

I don't believe that story about Oswald threatening to kill JFK inside the Cuban compound. I'm surprised Gus Russo believes it tbh.

I find it questionable too but not entirely unbelievable. Remember that Oswald acted hysterically when he went to the Soviet Embassy. He supposedly took out his revolver and said he needed it to protect himself, that his life was in danger. He didn't mention JFK but he did mention the "notorious FBI." In other words, he was acting very erratically.

Question: Why would Childs make the story up? For what purpose?

Sylvia Duran/Tirado, the Cuban secretary who processed Oswald's request, said this in part about Oswald making a threat (from her HSCA testimony):

CORNWELL - What do you think, well, first let me ask you, do you think that conversation [about killing JFK] could have occurred and you just forgot it? In other words, is that the kind of conversation which, if it occurred, you would definitely remember it?
TIRADO - Yes. Because in the fight with Azcue there was shouting and crying and things like that. I could miss something, but not, because even if would say so, I mean, I could have heard, no, I mean if you kill President you're not going to change the whole system. You see, that's why I give you answer, even Azcue. I mean that's no the, I don't think so, that he had that conversation with anyone. He was arguing. . .
CORNWELL - Do you remember any part of the conversation indicating that Oswald blaming the United States or President Kennedy for his inability to get to Cuba?
TIRADO - I don't remember but that could be possible.

"I could have heard, no, I mean if you kill President...." and "I don't remember but that could be possible.." That seems pretty indefinite about her hearing any threat?

Her full testimony is here:  https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscadurn.htm

Here is Jack Child's account about what Castro told him. This is from the book "Operation Solo."

I don't believe that story about Oswald threatening to kill JFK inside the Cuban compound. I'm surprised Gus Russo believes it tbh.

Thanks much, Steve!

Given what I now know, it's hard for me to understand the enthusiasm for Bagley - except that what he said fits nicely with the narrative some people would prefer to believe. Him sitting down with Malcolm Blunt strikes me as bizarre at best.

I guess I've always been predisposed to believe Nosenko because it's literally impossible for me to believe the KGB (or the CIA, for that matter) would have had any interest in Lee Harvey Oswald.

Michael continues to demonstrate that he is not the sharpest tool in the epistemological shed.

Let’s take a silly example:

“If Fred’s claim that he fell off the edge of the earth last Tuesday and had to hang on by his fingernails until rescued by his wife is true … the spherical earth theory collapses.”

See the problem?

The spherical earth theory is established to a level of scientific certainty by a vast body of evidence. No rational person is going to give credit to Fred’s claim, or the claims of 100 like him. Even if Fred and Mrs. Fred are entirely sincere, every rational person is going to conclude they are mistaken and is going to favor an alternative explanation that is consistent with a spherical earth.

The LN narrative is supported by a very large body of evidence, analysis and logic. It is not established to a level of scientific certainty, but it is well-established and has survived as the verdict of history. (Even the LN narrative has a fair amount of wiggle room. For example, some of us lean toward Oswald having fired only two shots or the SBT not necessarily accounting for Connally’s wrist wound. There could be quite a number of fairly significant variations in the LN narrative without the narrative as a whole “collapsing.”)

All of Michael’s “smoking guns” have been considered by the WC and HSCA and God knows how many serious researchers. The LN narrative has survived because (1) it is supported by a very large body of evidence and makes by far the most real-world, Occam’s Razor sense, and (2) of the various problem areas (Michael’s smoking guns), not one of them has no explanation that cannot be fitted within the LN narrative.

To “collapse” the LN narrative, you would need something that was genuinely material to the narrative, was established to a level of certainty, with no need for assumptions or speculation, and was flatly IMPOSSIBLE to fit within the LN narrative.

Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum, to his credit, recognizes this. He insists that the alignment of the holes in JFK’s clothing, the back wound and the throat wound is IMPOSSIBLE to square with the SBT and thus the LN narrative collapses. Cliff does not want to talk about anything else. He has chided Michael for Michael’s efforts to explain away the SBT because (Cliff says) his “alignment” argument SETTLES THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY, PERIOD.

Ironically, Michael cites the “alignment” argument in his latest post.

But then you look at what Cliff does for an explanation. Everything does line up “rather closely” for there to have been two separate shots, one from the front and one from the back – a remarkable coincidence, yes? We also have the problem of where the bullets went – yes? Cliff hypothesizes CIA-issued ice bullets that melted before exiting the body. Well …

For the “alignment” to be truly IMPOSSIBLE, we would have to know PRECISELY the angle at which the bullet hit the clothing, how the clothing was arranged at that nanosecond (taking into account JFK’s back brace and the bunching of the coat and shirt that is apparent in several photos), how JFK’s body was oriented at that nanosecond, and what the bullet did as it traveled through his body. We don’t know those things with the requisite level of precision to declare the alignment IMPOSSIBLE.

Hence, given the strength of the LN narrative as a whole, most rational people are going to conclude that, yes, the alignment is a bit of a mystery but that the most plausible explanation is one consistent with the LN narrative (typically, bunching).

According to Michael, the LN narrative “COLLAPSES!” if any one of about 100 conspiracy nuggets is true. Yet all of those nuggets have been known for decades and the LN narrative remains intact. The rational majority has concluded for each nugget that there is either an explanation that is consistent with the LN narrative or that there is some flaw in the claim on which the nugget is based.

Hence, Michael’s nuggets, individually and collectively, go nowhere. He’s really just listing 100 “Fred says he fell off the edge” claims. What remains the Holy Grail for CTers is something that is genuinely material to the LN narrative, is established to a level of certainty, with no need for assumptions or speculation, and is flatly IMPOSSIBLE to fit within the LN narrative. As history has shown, the LN narrative is not fragile at all.

I would be far out over my skis if I purported to speak knowledgeably about the Bagley stuff with which TG is obsessed, so I don't want to give that impression. I did, however, read a number of reviews of Bagley's Spy Wars, which apparently serves as TG's bible. One noted that Bagley "rather conveniently" relies heavily on information provided to him by supposed - but unnamed - KGB sources. More than one noted Bagley's bitterness at his downfall with the CIA, a motivation that I believe simply must be taken into consideration in regard to all of Bagley's latter-day revelations.

Set forth below is the review from the London Sunday Times. The reviewer, Christoper Andrew, had met with Nosenko and is the co-author, with defector Vasili Mitrokhin, of several books on the famed 300,000 document Mitrokhin Archive. As you can read, he was distinctly unimpressed with Spy Wars.. The review itself appears at: https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/spy-wars-moles-mysteries-and-deadly-games-n7j9f67n78p.

I'm going to have to get at least one of the Mitrokhin Archives books, which all seem to be available at Amazon:

Mitrokhin Archive can be read online here: https://archive.org/details/mitrokhinarchive0000andr

The KGB went through great efforts to try and locate Nosenko. The plan was to try and isolate him and kill him. Kalugin book also goes over the plans the KGB had to try and either kidnap or kill Nosenko. Kalugin, who was head of counter intelligence for the KGB (sort of a Soviet equivalent of James Angleton), said Nosenko caused a lot of damage to the KGB including forcing him to return to the USSR. I used to believe that Nosenko was a false defector - the evidence was strong; but a great deal of new evidence that came out, particularly after the fall of the Soviet Union, indicates he was legitimate. Yes, he told lies, made up stories, puffed up his credentials; but so did Golitsyn, e.g., the Sino-Soviet split was a ruse.

Nut graf from Mitrokhin: