Vasili Mitrokhin says that note was forged by the KGB.
Why would the KGB want to implicate "Mr Hunt" by associating "Mr Hunt" with Lee Harvey Oswald?
If the "Mr Hunt" that the note was addressed to had been E.Howard Hunt, who was a CIA agent, then the tale about the note being forgery would make sense. The KGB would without a doubt have wanted to link the CIA to the assassination.... However, The note was delivered to the Dallas office headquarters of Hunt Oil, and it as delivered to the President of Hunt Oil Company, Mr. H.L. Hunt.
P.S. H.L. Hunt and Edwin Walker were like two peas in a pod.... They both were ultra right wing extremists (Neo Nazis) and they knew each other well. They both hated the Kennedy's.
Dear Walter,
Former KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin said that the KGB had forged the note.
Now, logically, Mitrokhin was either: 1) a false defector and a) lied about the note, or b) a false defector and told the truth about the note
-- or --
2) He was a true defector and c) lied about the note, or d) a true defector and told the truth about the note.
Which permutation do you prefer, Walter?
That he was a true defector and lied about the note?
Or, that he was an evil, evil, evil CIA agent who had lived in Russia all those years?
LOL
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy
PS As recorded in HSCA-IV, handwriting expert Joseph P. McNally testified to the HSCA that he was undecided as to whether or not the note was genuine.
In his
report, however, (HSCA-VIII) McNally provided more revealing details about the note, and stated that he found it highly suspicious:
(41) VIII. The signature, "Lee Harvey Oswald," on the Hunt note (item 4-7) does not correspond to the Oswald signatures described under section I [signatures judged to be Oswald's]. To begin with, the bulk of the documents which are signed with the full name, "Lee Harvey Oswald," are more formal in tone. For example, the full name appears on all but one of the Marine Corps documents. The full name appears infrequently elsewhere -- usually only the first name, middle initial, and last name are used. Further, in the Hunt note, the middle name "Harvey" is misspelled -- the "e" appears to be missing; the "H" of "Harvey" differs from that found in the section I signatures; the "ar" of "Harvey" is ellided to a point that does not occur in any section I signatures; the "O" of "Oswald" is retraced part of the way along the left side, not true of the section I Oswald signatures; and the ending "d" of Oswald is smaller than the preceding "l", whereas most of the ending "d"s of the section I signatures are taller than the "l" (only in signatures that appear to be "squeezed-in" is the end "d" shorter than the preceding "l").
(42) While the script writing on the Hunt note is similar in pictorial quality to the writings under section II [writings judged to be Oswald's], the format of the note differs from that of the notes and letters of section II. The writing line is so exact as almost to give the impression it has been made on a ruled line. Usually Oswald writes in an arrhythmic manner-- for example, with an irregular and crooked writing line. This writing creates the jumbled effect apparent in the section II documents.
(43) From the examinations of item 4-7, it was
determined that the signature does not correspond with any of the Oswald signatures of section I. Similarly, the writing does not correspond to that in the section II Oswald documents.
(44) I would like to note, however, that the
quality of the original photoreproductions of the Hunt note was poor. Under the best of circumstances, reproductions lack clarity and detail. Here, as can be seen from the copies, the original photo- reproduction was out of focus [as though it was a photograph of a blown-up microfilm image that itself was out of focus], giving the document a fuzzy appearance. Accurate analysis was difficult.
The note is highly suspicious. The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion."
[emphasis added]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mrhunt.7txt
