Provocation of nuclear conflict with USSR was a motif

[Ron Ecker]

You won't have to ask uncomfortable questions, such as why the FBI seized all surrounding camera footage of the Pentagon strike.

Someone did release some parking lot footage that seemed to show something hit the building. But it sure doesn't look like an airliner.

[Evan Burton]

From the linked article: "In 2009 Nasa admitted they had deleted footage of the landing for budget purposes but the footage was then restored thanks to contemporary TV recordings."

Larry or Evan, can that be true? I don't recall hearing about any such admission, though I can understand why the media might not report it. If it's true, it sounds like utter BS to me. I guess there's nothing wrong after all with Hillary Clinton deleting her State Dept. emails, or the IRS deleting Lois Lerner emails. It's just the government at work as usual.

Ron,

Put simply it is not true... but there are elements of the truth that are misrepresented. It is all to do with the original Apollo 11 broadcast.

Weight saving was very important in the Apollo programme, and so they couldn't afford to have a big TV camera on the Moon with the first landing. They needed a lightweight one. Another important consideration was signal bandwidth; the technical people already had loads of critical data being streamed back from the LM (heartrate, LM computer data, etc). There was precious little available for the transmission of TV pictures.

The TV camera people came up with a good compromise: the Slow Scan TV (SSTV), a system which some radio hams may be familiar with. This gave a reasonable B&W picture within the available bandwidth (a colour TV was available but had not been fully certified for the mission; NASA did not want to take any risks and pushed its use to Apollo 12).

The SSTV differed from regular TV in two major ways: the SSTV sent back pictures at a resolution of 320 lines (versus US TV's 525 lines) at 10 frames per second (versus TV's 30 frames per second). This meant that they had to be converted from SSTV format to the US NTSC format before being broadcast. I won't bother to go into detail about how this was done but it was not unlike showing the SSTV picture on a TV and then filming that picture with a normal (NTSC) TV camera. This conversion process led to loss of quality but no-one really cared too much about that: we were seeing pictures live from the Moon!

The SSTV tapes were put into storage and the pictures that we all saw became the standard.

Many years later, someone somewhere was looking at some pictures taken by staff at the Honeysuckle Creek (HSK) tracking station, where the Apollo 11 pictures were first broadcast (if anyone has seen the movie The Dish, it is wrong; Parkes didn't take over until about 12 mins into the moonwalk. There is a reason for this; if you want to know just ask).

It was a polaroid picture of the SSTV screen at HSK, taken during the Apollo 11 landing... and the picture quality was way better than we had seen, even though it was a polaroid. Whoever it was followed this up and learnt of the SSTV (it is all available information but only us geeks are interested in the technical details). They asked: if the SSTV picture is better, and considering we have such advanced digital processing available today, couldn't we get a better quality video image of the landing?

People slapped their heads for not thinking of this earlier, and so the search for the tapes began. For years a team searched through the various archives for the tapes but to no avail; some other mission tapes were found, and some later missions video was found but the SSTV appeared to be lost forever (the search still goes on but chances are slim to none they will be found).

The first question people ask is why would such a valuable tape be lost? Surely it would be of historical significance and be preserved forever?

It is a very reasonable question but you have to appreciate two things. Firstly, a lot of people didn't even want TV on the mission. They wanted scientific data and mission essential items; this was just pictures of no real value; besides, they had Hasselblad cameras which would take high quality pictures from the surface - there was no need for TV. Only when a number of the NASA hierarchy pointed out that millions of people want to watch - not just listen to - the first manned lunar landing did the TV camera make it on board. The second point was that the SSTV tapes were only a backup; once it was confirmed that the broadcast video was safe then there was no real need for the SSTV tapes.

The next question people ask is: so what did happen to the tapes?

No-one is absolutely sure but the mostly explanation is that they were taped over, re-used, probably during deep space probes and various Earth satellite programmes during the 1980s. Even so, NASA have decided to preserve the only machine capable of replaying them... just in case.

So why would such tapes be re-used?

As I have said, these tapes were backup that were no longer needed. As time went by they were put in an archive somewhere and forgotten. The 1980s rolled around, the Shuttle was yet to fly, NASA was basking in the glory of Viking and Voyager, and what was that Apollo thing? Oh yeah - that cool rocket with Buzz Armstrong, really great, we beat the Russians to Mars or something, didn't we?

NASA had expensive machines to record various technical data from satellites and probes and they most all used a particular type of recording tape. By the late 70s and early 80s, a few things happened with that type of tape. The first was that a large batch of the tape (Memorex, I think, but don't quote me on that) was found to be faulty. Instead of lasting for decades, it began to deteriorate within a few years. That meant recent data had to be transferred to unaffected stock before the data was lost. Around the same time, we started to realise that the Earth was a limited resource that we shared with other inhabitants. The tapes in use were made using whale oil (IIRC). Next, the real technological revolution started to take off and the demand for these specific types of tape waned; the people who made them no longer saw a profit in them and so they were discontinued. This meant NASA had to recycle to limited stock of long-life tape to use with it's current missions.

Someone grabbed a batch of tape from the archives (possibly not labelled appropriately), didn't appreciate the historical significance, and used it for a current mission.

Now, despite the SSTV tapes being most likely lost forever, the search actually turned up some items of use and generated interest in the original Apollo 11 mission. Former workers came forward with home movies of the original SSTV screen; these provided better quality images than we had. Digital processing companies expressed interest in restoring the available footage, and so that is what happened. They took the broadcast footage, newly discovered footage, and applied restoration techniques to them. The result is far superior quality than what we used to have... video artifacts and all. That's right: in the 60s, no-one would have thought anyone would claim the whole thing was a hoax. These days they know better and so when the restoration took place the company that did it left in all the things that would have normally been removed.

Sooo... very long winded but that is why what was said is wrong but has elements of truth to it. And as always, happy to answer questions or provide references.

[Evan Burton]

As for the initial moon landing in June 1969, consider these verified facts, Neil Armstrong allegedly landed the lander on the moon without any help from the lander's primitive computer. The computer, we've been told, was overloaded. OK, I can buy that. Even though Armstrong crashed a practice lander on the earth several weeks before. On earth, Armstrong had the advantage of air. On the moon, all he would have had to control the lander as it landed was its rocket engines. OK, I'll buy that.

But a day or so later, the lander has to leave the moon's surface and meet up perfectly with the space capsule orbiting the moon. And the meet-up is perfect. This is far, far better than Annie Oakley's shooting. Could anyone today, let's say a top gun flier, replicate this feat? You tell me.

Hi Jon,

Based on your comments I am guessing that you haven't been told all the details and therefore making assumption on faulty data. Let's look at your first statement: that they landed without help of the computer because it was overloaded; this is just plain wrong.

The Lunar Module (LM) landing computer was called the Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS) otherwise known as "pings". It had a backup called the Abort Guidance System (AGS or "aggs").

The PGNS was vital for every landing and if it was not functional, an abort was mandatory.

During the Apollo 11 landing were the (in)famous '1201' and '1202' alarms. This indicated a situation called 'executive overflow' and meant that there was so much data coming in that it could not do all the things it was meant to do in the required time; it would restart, dump what it considered to be non-essential, and continue to provide what it believe to be 'priority' tasks.

If you listen to the landing Flight loop audio, you hear the Mission Controller Gene Kranz call for information on the alarms; the experts in the back room (and there were experts in the back room for every systems on the spacecraft) told him they were GO on the alarm as long as it was not continuous.

So the PGNS was working, just not at the level expected (I can explain why, if required).

The reason people probably think he did without the computer is the auto-land system. A large majority of people did not know that the LM had the ability to do a completely automatic landing: this was called P65 (Programme 65). None of the astronauts ever used it, however. All of them switched to the semi-automatic landing mode called P66 (listen to the landing audio of all missions and you'll hear them switch from P64 to P66). This allowed the astronauts to control rate-of-descent and horizontal movement.

Armstrong switched to P66 because he saw that the autoland system was going to take him into a boulder strewn field; he used P66 to halt the rate of descent, increase the forward movement to a clear area, then have the computer assist him to make a soft landing.

If you have any questions, please ask.

[Evan Burton]

Even though Armstrong crashed a practice lander on the earth several weeks before. On earth, Armstrong had the advantage of air. On the moon, all he would have had to control the lander as it landed was its rocket engines. OK, I'll buy that.

Hi Jon,

That is also a much misunderstood issue. There were two variants of the "practice lander": the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) and the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV). Neither one of them was a replica of the Lunar Module but the second was meant to allow astronauts to experience something like they would experience in the final stages of the lunar landing. Being in air was NOT 'an advantage'.

The reason Armstrong crashed the LLTV was because (basically) the thrusters that controlled attitude ran out of fuel.

It must be stressed the the LLRV / LLTV was NOT the LM; the LM was designed to operate on the Moon; the LLRV / LLTV was designed to simulate - on Earth - what that experience would be like.

The LLRV / LLTV was very difficult to fly and several of them crashed; despite this, every single Commander of an Apollo lunar landing mission said that practise in them was invaluable, that a successful landing might not have been successful without that training, and that use of the LLTV for training of LM crews should continue.

[Evan Burton]

But a day or so later, the lander has to leave the moon's surface and meet up perfectly with the space capsule orbiting the moon. And the meet-up is perfect. This is far, far better than Annie Oakley's shooting. Could anyone today, let's say a top gun flier, replicate this feat? You tell me.

Hi Jon,

This is pretty simple. It's called orbital mechanics. The astronauts on the surface had a small window in which to launch otherwise they would have to wait for the next opportunity to rendezvous with the CSM. If you think this is impossible, ask yourself: how did they launch spacecraft from the Earth to meet & rendezvous with spacecraft (or docking targets) already in Earth orbit? The calculations are exactly the same and can be done far in advance of launch time.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

[Evan Burton]

You won't have to ask uncomfortable questions, such as why the FBI seized all surrounding camera footage of the Pentagon strike.

Someone did release some parking lot footage that seemed to show something hit the building. But it sure doesn't look like an airliner.

I agree... but how do you explain the large number of people whom actually saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon?

http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

[Ron Ecker]

Evan,

Thanks for the explanation on the lost moon landing tapes.

On the Pentagon hit, I don't dispute what people say they saw. I'm wondering why the one tape that was released seems to show something else. Just one of the many unanswered questions about 9/11 that ought to be answered but won't be.

[Larry Hancock]

Ron, no answer for you on the tape but I have a friend who was in a bus outside the Pentagon when the attack happened and she saw plane sections on the ground afterwards and she along with others and the whole bus she was boarding was covered by a cloud of very recognizable jet fuel....there was no doubt in her mind that a plane had been flown into the structure.

[Evan Burton]

I also apologise for the XXXXX's appear in words. I'm guessing a 'banned word' filter has been turned on and whenever that combination turns up, it automatically censors them. Sadly, it doesn't know the difference between the word itself and when that combination of letters appears within another word.

Thus when I want to describe someone who controls things, the word 'controller' gets censored. It is trying to get rid of a word that can be described to a mythical creature that live underneath a bridge.

[Vitali Zhuk]

I rearranged my list of provoking events which suits the DEG-hypothesis (the UK provoked the US against Cuba and the USSR):

1. Latin America: Cuba, Mexico, Costa Rica

A. Pedro Charles - http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Agent%20Oswald%20ExSess/Item%20044.pdf

A1. Pedro & Mario - http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/F%20Disk/FBI/FBI%20Control%20of%20Investigation%20Commission%2001/Item%2071.pdf

A2. Alberto & Miguel - http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey/Frame-up%20Evidence%20of/Item%2036.pdf

B. Alvarado - http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/U%20Disk/Ugarte%20Gilberto%20Alvarado/Item%2002.pdf

B1. Alvarado - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45577#relPageId=2&tab=page

C. Robles - http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20JFK%20Prediction/Item%2001.pdf

D. AMOT - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49992#relPageId=4&tab=page

e. Kostikov - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96258#relPageId=2&tab=page

f. Costa Rica - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39945#relPageId=2&tab=page

2. USA

a. Slusser - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54747#relPageId=2&tab=page

3. Europe

A. Diplomat - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50176#relPageId=4&tab=page

A1. Diplomat - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50010#relPageId=3&tab=page

A2. Star - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50219#relPageId=2&tab=page

B. China in Sweden - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50263#relPageId=2&tab=page

B1. China in Sweden - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50274#relPageId=2&tab=page

c. Stockholm newspaper - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50242#relPageId=2&tab=page

d. Nosenko - http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/HW%20Manuscripts/Agent%20Oswald/A-O.pdf

e. Englishman - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62258#relPageId=54&tab=page

f. Zemaitis - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54754#relPageId=3&tab=page

g. Gustafson in USA - http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62258#relPageId=26&tab=page

4. Australia

a. Anonymous phone call - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50211#relPageId=2&tab=page

a1. Anonymous phone call - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53515#relPageId=5&tab=page

P.S.

The name of Western diplomat may be the key.

P.S.S.

Guardian: "But when two letters surfaced from Castro's Cuba implying that Oswald had been paid to murder JFK, the FBI chief was prepared to change his mind."

Edited July 19, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk

[Evan Burton]

Anyone who is interested in the Apollo 11 landing might enjoy this: it is the audio from the landing, 16mm film from the LM onboard camera, on screen explanation of what is going on, etc. Highly recommended. Running time about 15 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RONIax0_1ec

[Vitali Zhuk]

The fifteen persons directly or indirectly involved, who have died murdered or mysteriously (#685):

1. Tippit

2. Oswald

3. Jim Koethe (newspaperman, who attended a meeting with Ruby)

4. William Hunter (newspapermen, who attended the same meeting with Ruby)

5. Tom Howard (lawyer, who attended the meeting with Ruby)

6. Han Killian (Howard's wife; stripteaser in Ruby's nightclub; was having an affair with John Carter, who lived in the same guest house as Oswald)

7. Earlene Roberts (lived in the same guest house as Oswald)

8. Dorothy Kilgallen (newspaperman, who attended an interview between Warren and Ruby)

9. William Whaley (taxi driver who had driven Oswald)

10. Nancy Jane Moony (stripteaser in Ruby's nightclub; gave an alibi for the person who shot at Warren Reynolds, witness to the assassination of Tippit)

11. Lee Bowers (railroad-man; witness to the assassination of JFK)

12. Karen Bennet Carlin (worked with Ruby; spoke before to tell Ruby to go kill Oswald)

13. Eddy Benavides (victim of his likeness to his brother, Domingo, who was witness in the Tippit assassination)

14. Jack Ruby

15. David Ferrie (detained immediately after the assassination of JFK, later given freedom and died)

16. Rose Cheramie

17. James Worrell Jr. (saw man flee rear of Texas School Book Depository)

18*. Warren Reynolds (witness in the Tippit assassination; lived after a bullet wound in the head)

According to the DEG-hypothesis they (#1...#17) probably have died in the interest of US national security. Only 'Lonely Nut' theory guaranteed the safety of the US. Otherwise the US could face a major crisis with probability of WW3.

P.S.

British TV says JFK was killed by 3 French gangsters.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk

[Vitali Zhuk]

According to the DEG-hypothesis, the JFK assassination was the spark that could led to war between the United States and the Soviet bloc. This confrontation was heated by the United Kingdom and began to grow strongly after Churchill's speech in Fulton on March 5, 1946. Before WW2 the UK was #1 in the World rank. And after WW2 the UK became #2. The US was the main winner of WW2 and the UK started the latent policy of creating difficulties for the United States. The UK used the USSR and Communist movement to slow down the growth of the US as well as British used the USSR against Hitler in 1941. The time of proxy wars started. The first was Korean War and the second was Vietnam War.

This post-WW2 confrontation between the United States and the Soviets had nearly three dangerous periods that could lead to WW3:

1. Berlin crisis of 1961.

2. Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

3. The assassination of JFK in 1963.

Thanks to a highly developed nuclear industry the USSR had the following strategic arsenal by the end of 1963:

A. 8 atomic submarines Hotel each with three 1 MT nuke missiles 600 km range;

B. 5 atomic submarines Echo-I with six 200 kT nuke missiles 500 km range;

C. 4 atomic submarines Echo-II with eight 20 kT nuke missiles 300 km range;

D. 23 diesel submarines Golf each with three 1 MT nuke missiles 600 km range;

E. 1 diesel submarine Juliett with four 200 kT nuke missiles 500 km range;

F. 5 diesel submarines Zulu each with three 10 kT nuke missiles 150 km range;

G. 122 intercontinental ballistic missiles;

H. Hundreds of strategic bombers with hydrogen bombs.

These Soviet achievements could only be achieved with foreign support. Despite of Churchill's speech in Fulton on March 5, 1946 relations between Britain and the Soviet Union were continued to be warm and useful. The most visible examples of their cooperation:

1. The USSR bought the Nene engines from Rolls-Royce in 1947. It was a great help for Soviet turbojet project.

2. Pyotr Kapitsa, Yulii Khariton and other Soviet physicists studied and worked in the UK in 1920s-1930s.

3. In 1950 Bruno Pontecorvo defected to the USSR. In 1948 Bruno Pontecorvo obtained British citizenship and was invited by John Cockcroft to contribute to the British atomic bomb project at AERE.

4. The first visit of a Soviet leader to the West was the visit of Khrushchev to the UK. Khrushchev, Bulganin, Kurchatov and Tupolev visited the UK in 1956 (they also visited the Atomic Energy Research Establishment - AERE). Kurchatov (the leader of the Soviet atomic project) and Tupolev (the leader of the Soviet aircraft design) were the most secret Soviet VIP. In 1955, Tupolev had designed and was about to start testing his unique turboprop strategic bomber, the Tu-95.

5. 'Cambridge Five' helped the Soviets in 1940s-1950s. According to the DEG-hypothesis the 'Cambridge Five' was invented by the United Kingdom to help Soviets.

6. The first visit of a Western leader to the Soviet Union after WW2 was the visit of British Prime Minister Macmillan in 1959.

and etc.

In 1964-1967 CIA investigated defectors and re-defectors. We see an interesting remark at the end of page '* - stationed in Europe at time of defection' that suits the DEG-hypothesis. CIA was investigating the European trace.

P.S.

The Party Congresses of the RSDLP (RSDLP later became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union):

The 1st Party Congress was held in Minsk in 1898 in a small wooden house. Oswald lived closely to this house in Minsk.

The 2nd Party Congress was held in Brussels-London in 1903.

The 3rd Party Congress was held in London in 1905.

The 4th Party Congress was held in Stockholm in 1906.

The 5th Party Congress was held in London in 1907.

The 6th Party Congress was held in Petersburg in 1917.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk

[Mike Ellwood]

Edit - Apologies - due to faulty editing, I mis-attributed this originally.

It should have been attributed to Evan Burton.

(Posted 04 July 2015 - 07:31 AM)

Someone grabbed a batch of tape from the archives (possibly not labelled appropriately), didn't appreciate the historical significance, and used it for a current mission.

Anyone who has furiously scrabbled through their collection of VHS home-recordings (possibly not labelled appropriately) in order to find one on which to record a programme going out can easily relate to this! :-)

Seriously, thanks for the interesting and comprehensive technical explanations. The BBC is guilty of similar loss of tapes for similar reasons.

[Yes that undesirable-word suppressor is annoying isn't it, and could probably be fixed easily enough with a relatively simple regular expression].

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mike Ellwood

[Vitali Zhuk]

Just return to Yuri Nosenko and the case 3.d in my list provoking of events.

The brilliant defector for the US was Anatoli Golitsyn. He defected at Helsinki in December 1961. He demanded that he be interviewed by James Angleton only. He insisted that no one else in the CIA was smart enough or knew enough to question him. Attorney General Robert Kennedy went to see Golitsyn and was told that the CIA was deliberately keeping him away from Angleton. He promised to take up the case with President John F. Kennedy.

Angleton later told a Senate Committee: "Golitsin possesses an unusual gift for the analytical. His mind without question is one of the finest of an analytical bent... and he is a trained historian by background." Golitsin told Angleton: "Your CIA has been the subject of continuous penetration..." In these interviews Golitsyn argued that as the KGB would be so concerned about his defection, they would attempt to convince the CIA that the information he was giving them would be completely unreliable. He predicted that the KGB would send false defectors with information that contradicted what he was saying.

A fellow officer, Edward Perry, later recalled: "With the single exception of Golitsyn, Angleton was inclined to assume that any defector or operational asset in place was controlled by the KGB."

In July 1963, Golitsyn travelled to London to be interviewed by MI5 officer Arthur Martin. Golitsyn like Nosenko (later defector), provided evidence that John Vassall was a Soviet agent. Soon afterwards a senior MI5 officer leaked information to British newspapers that they were interviewing a KGB defector in London. As soon as this story appeared in the press, Golitsyn returned to the United States and refused to give any more information to MI5. My question is: What game did Arthur Martin play? My hypothesis is: MI5 was constructing a new KGB defector. It did not take much time...

In January 1964 Yuri Nosenko contacted the CIA and said he had changed his mind and was now willing to defect to the United States. Nosenko claimed that he had been put in charge of the KGB investigation into Lee Harvey Oswald. Nosenko added that the KGB had never questioned Oswald about information he had acquired while a member of the U.S. Marines. This surprised the CIA as Oswald had worked as a Aviation Electronics Operator at the Atsugi Air Base in Japan.

CIA chief of intelligence, James Angleton, did not believe parts of Nosenko's story. Angleton was supported by Golitsyn. Richard Helms, the CIA's Deputy Director of Plans, was not convinced that Nosenko was telling the truth: "Since Nosenko was in the agency's hands this became one of the most difficult issues to face that the agency had ever faced. Here a President of the United States had been murdered and a man had come from the Soviet Union, an acknowledged Soviet intelligence officer, and said his service had never been in touch with Oswald and knew nothing about him. This strained credulity at the time. It strains it to this day."

Evan Thomas, the author of The Very Best Men (1995), points out that Angleton also did not believe Nosenko. "Angleton never got over suspecting that the Russians or Cubans plotted to kill Kennedy. He thought that the Russians or Cubans plotted to kill Kennedy. He thought the Russian defector, Yuri Nosenko, who claimed that the Kremlin was innocent, was a KGB plant to throw the CIA off the trail. But most reputable students of the Kennedy assassination have concluded that Khrushchev and Castro did not kill Kennedy, if only because neither man wanted to start World War III."

Hoover welcomed the information from Nosenko: "Nosenko's assurances that Yekaterina Furtseva herself had stopped the KGB from recruiting Oswald gave Hoover the evidence he needed to clear the Soviets of complicity in the Kennedy murder - and, even more from Hoover's point of view, clear the FBI of gross negligence. Hoover took this raw, unverified, and untested intelligence and leaked it to members of the Warren Commission and to President Johnson." Hoover leaked this information to the Warren Commission. This pleased its members as it helped to confirm the idea that Oswald had acted alone and was not part of a Soviet conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.

Despite the fact that the Warren Commission received information from Hoover about Yuri Nosenko his name is not mentioned in the final report. Although the commission favoured Hoover’s interpretation that he was a genuine defector, it was decided that it was better not to include the information. This was decided after Tennent Bagley, spoke to commission members on 24th July, 1964: “Nosenko is a KGB plant and may be publicly exposed as such some time after the appearance of the Commission’s report. Once Nosenko is exposed as a KGB plant, there will arise the danger that his information will be mirror-read by the press and public, leading to conclusions that the USSR did direct the assassination.”

Edited July 19, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk