Yuri Nosenko and the Warren Report

[Paul Brancato]

Ok. I just read wiki on both Mitrokhin and Leonov. Regarding the latter, fluency in Spanish is clear, no mention of English. No mention of Nosenko in the article.

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/11/2017 at 10:51 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Ok. I just read wiki on both Mitrokhin and Leonov. Regarding the latter, fluency in Spanish is clear, no mention of English. No mention of Nosenko in the article.

Paul,

You don't seem to understand.

Did I refer you to any wikipedia articles on this thread?  (No, I didn't.)

Did I say anything about Leonov on this thread?  (No, I didn't)

Did you click on the Bagley link I provided, above?  You know, the 37-page PDF I told you about?  

Better yet, have you read Bagley's Spy Wars or Spymaster yet?

--  Tommy

Edited May 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

First I read as much as I could of the Bagley link, but it's hella confusing, so I supplemented it by a little easier reading. I honestly don't know how to view this info. In the first place, one would have to have a pretty deep understanding of the writer's bonafides, as well as those he is in disagreement with. Next, a thorough understanding of CIA moles inside Russia and elsewhere would be helpful. Bagley presents an incredibly complex web from his viewpoint. It's like Mad Magazine Spy vs. Spy, no anchor in sight. 

Tommy - what does any of this have to do with the JFK assassination?

on a side note - rather than trying lead me and others down a path of discovery without first giving me/us a little background,  why don't you do a little synopsis? 

 

[Thomas Graves]

18 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

First I read as much as I could of the Bagley link, but it's hella confusing, so I supplemented it by a little easier reading. I honestly don't know how to view this info. In the first place, one would have to have a pretty deep understanding of the writer's bonafides, as well as those he is in disagreement with. Next, a thorough understanding of CIA moles inside Russia and elsewhere would be helpful. Bagley presents an incredibly complex web from his viewpoint. It's like Mad Magazine Spy vs. Spy, no anchor in sight. 

Tommy - what does any of this have to do with the JFK assassination?

on a side note - rather than trying lead me and others down a path of discovery without first giving me/us a little background,  why don't you do a little synopsis? 

 

Dear Paul,

What it has to do with the Assassination:

By sending false defector Nosenko to the U.S. one month after the assassination, the Russians had him not only discredit what genuine defector Golitsyn was telling the CIA about KGB operations, but also had him try to hide the fact that the KGB had, at the very least *and as a matter of policy*, interviewed Oswald in Russia (ironically by Kostikov's Department 13) to find out what Oswald knew about Marine Corps weapons and weapons systems, etc.

As students of the assassination, I think we've got to ask ourselves why in the world were the Russians trying to hide that fact?

--  Tommy

PS  I highly suggest that you read the Sparticus page on Tennent Bagley, and that you also read his easy-to-understand book *Spy Wars*.

You're on your own now.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

I read the Spartacus page. I agree we can put this exchange to rest.

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I read the Spartacus page. I agree we can put this exchange to rest.

Dear Paul, 

If Bagley's 37-page PDF is too difficult for you to understand, you might want to read his "Spy Wars" book, instead.

--  Tommy

BTW, ...

You're welcome.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

10 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

What it has to do with the Assassination:

By sending false defector Nosenko to the U.S. one month after the assassination, the Russians were not only discrediting what  genuine defector Golitsyn was telling the CIA about KGB operations, but also to hide the fact that the KGB, through its Department 13 had, at a very minimum *and as a matter of policy*, interviewed Oswald in Russia to find out what he knew about Marine Corps weapons and weapons systems, etc.

As students of the assassination, I think we've got to ask ourselves why in the world were the Russians trying to hide that fact?

--  Tommy

PS  I highly suggest that you read the Sparticus page on Tennent Bagley, and that you also read his easy-to-understand book *Spy Wars*.

You're on your own now.

Tommy - since you have read Spy Wars and the essay you posted, and have come to the firm conclusion that Nosenko was a false defector, you have asked yourself 'why in the world were the Russians trying to hide that fact'. In all seriousness, what answers if any have you come up with? 

 

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - since you have read Spy Wars and the essay you posted, and have come to the firm conclusion that Nosenko was a false defector, you have asked yourself 'why in the world were the Russians trying to hide that fact'. In all seriousness, what answers if any have you come up with? 

 

Dear Paul,

I haven't "come up with any answers" other than the fact that something's rotten in the state of Denmark and it probably has something to do with the KGB.

Like I said, you're on you're on your own now, Paul.  I got Bagley's Spy Wars at a library, and you probably can, too.

BTW, what answers have YOU come up with?  

Let me guess -- "Well, after years and years of study, I've narrowed it down quite a bit and I've concluded with a high degree of probability that JFK was killed by the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex."

(lol)

--  Tommy

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - downloaded it on Kindle. Have you read JFK and the Unspeakable? 

[Thomas Graves]

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - downloaded it on Kindle. Have you read JFK and the Unspeakable? 

Yes, Paul.  I have.

Why?  Would you like for me to explain it to you?

LOL

--  Tommy

Edited May 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - please refrain yourself from the condescension. I'm not as stupid as you apparently think. Douglass makes it clear, better than other writers (btw it's his book that RFK Jr. recommends to people interested in his uncle's murder) that the Cold War was a problem for both JFK and Khrushchev, and that both of them knew that their respective military establishments were against them, and dangerous.

I'm perfectly willing to consider KGB as part of the deed, but as I have previously stated on many occasions, I think we are all being fooled by the Spy Vs. Spy view of the Cold War. Money talks, Power is corruptive. These antagonists have far more in common with each other than with us. So if the KGB was active in setting up Oswald, if they hid their actual relationship with him, it was not in some Soviet anti-American vacuum. If JFK was a danger to the KGB and the Soviet military, it was for the same reasons that he was a threat to our own CIA and military. No doubt, as Douglass makes abundantly clear, the Joint Chiefs, especially Lemnitzer and LeMay, hated JFK and his humanist views. 

[Thomas Graves]

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - please refrain yourself from the condescension. I'm not as stupid as you apparently think. Douglass makes it clear, better than other writers (btw it's his book that RFK Jr. recommends to people interested in his uncle's murder) that the Cold War was a problem for both JFK and Khrushchev, and that both of them knew that their respective military establishments were against them, and dangerous.

I'm perfectly willing to consider KGB as part of the deed, but as I have previously stated on many occasions, I think we are all being fooled by the Spy Vs. Spy view of the Cold War. Money talks, Power is corruptive. These antagonists have far more in common with each other than with us. So if the KGB was active in setting up Oswald, if they hid their actual relationship with him, it was not in some Soviet anti-American vacuum. If JFK was a danger to the KGB and the Soviet military, it was for the same reasons that he was a threat to our own CIA and military. No doubt, as Douglass makes abundantly clear, the Joint Chiefs, especially Lemnitzer and LeMay, hated JFK and his humanist views. 

Dear Paul,

....... ok 

--  Tommy

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/12/2017 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul [Brancato],

What [the controversy as to whether or not Yuri Nosenko was a genuine defector] has to do with the Assassination:

By sending false defector Nosenko to the U.S. one month after the assassination, the Russians had him not only discredit what genuine defector Golitsyn was telling the CIA about KGB operations, but also had him try to hide the fact that the KGB had, at the very least *and as a matter of policy*, interviewed Oswald in Russia (ironically by Kostikov's Department 13) to find out what Oswald knew about Marine Corps weapons and weapons systems, etc.

As students of the assassination, I think we've got to ask ourselves why in the world were the Russians trying to hide that fact?

--  Tommy

PS  I highly suggest that you read the Sparticus page on Tennent Bagley, and that you also read his easy-to-understand book *Spy Wars*.

You're on your own now.

Bumping this thread for Ty

Edited May 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Jim Root]

In reading John"s excellent post I found it interesting to see the name John Abt.  Anyone else find this interesting?

 

Jim Root

[Paul Trejo]

15 minutes ago, Jim Root said:

In reading John"s excellent post I found it interesting to see the name John Abt.  Anyone else find this interesting?

Jim Root

Jim,

It is not myth, but reality that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) continually tried to telephone New York attorney John Abt for legal representation for the JFK assassination charge.

I say this because Ruth Paine herself told me that LHO called her and ordered her (did not ask, but ordered her) to call John Abt, and keep calling until she got him.

As if Ruth Paine was his personal secretary!

Ruth Paine liked Marina Oswald quite a lot.  She would do a lot for Marina, but LHO was a pain in the neck.

Anyway, Ruth Paine did call John Abt's office multiple times, and learned that Abt was out of town for the weekend.  All she could do was leave a message.

Why John Abt?   LHO never met John Abt in his life.  John Abt never heard of LHO in his life.   So, why John Abt?

The answer might be found in the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung (November, 1963) which contains an interview with General Edwin Walker.

That interview, which occurred the day after the JFK assassination, mentions John Abt, as a lawyer who "defends all the Communists".  

This is not to agree with General Walker -- I am not saying that LHO was a Communist, and that is why he named Abt.  My CT says that LHO never did anything alone.  He was always motivated by some older man.  In this case, it was Guy Banister.

Guy Banister had sent LHO to Mexico City with a bogus FPCC resume, knowing full well that Oswald would fail to get into Cuba as he demanded.  The real purpose of the trip to Mexico was to link LHO with Communists.   IT WORKED.

Therefore, my opinion is that Guy Banister told LHO to ask for John Abt as a legal counsel, and accept nobody else, and that would be a "secret code" to set the wheels in motion to secure LHO's release, just in case he was ever arrested.

The real effect was merely to link LHO even further with the Communists in the public opinion.

That's my CT.  John Abt was a real, live Communist.  LHO was a bogus Communist, working for Guy Banister.  I think Jim Garrison proved that much in 1968.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo