Yuri Nosenko and the Warren Report

[Jim Root]

Hi Paul

Was aware that Oswald repeatedly tried to get in touch with Johnathon Abt and had several others attempt to contact him.  Two of my questions have always been connected to the attempts to contact ABT.  1).  "Why and how was Oswald aware of Abt?"  2). "With the many attempts by Oswald to contact Abt, why was there only one attempt to contact John Hurt (which was left completely out of the Warren Commission Report)?"

Jim Root

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Jim Root said:

Hi Paul

Was aware that Oswald repeatedly tried to get in touch with Johnathon Abt and had several others attempt to contact him.  Two of my questions have always been connected to the attempts to contact ABT.  1).  "Why and how was Oswald aware of Abt?"  2). "With the many attempts by Oswald to contact Abt, why was there only one attempt to contact John Hurt (which was left completely out of the Warren Commission Report)?"

Jim Root

My 199 page transcript, #1 (undated)'of Ruth Paine's WC Testimony comes-up with no results when I search for "Abt".

My 20 page fragment of Ruth Paine Testimony makes no mention of John Abt.

My July 23, 1964 fragment of Ruth Hyde Testimony makes no mention of John Abt.

I found nothing in her affidavit.

My 217 page WC testimony of Ruth Paine March 21, 1964, shows one mention of John Abt.:

Mr. JENNER - At least your discussions with him do not enable you to proceed to the point at which to enable you to voice any opinions in this area or subject than you have now given?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I had not heard that name.
Mr. JENNER - And, therefore, you never suggested it to Lee Oswald?

 

Is this the only mention of John Abt in Ruth Paine's testimony? There is no mention of his name from her at all. She doesn't even have to lie if it never happened!

Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I had not heard that name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jim Root said:

Hi Paul

Was aware that Oswald repeatedly tried to get in touch with Johnathon Abt and had several others attempt to contact him.  Two of my questions have always been connected to the attempts to contact ABT.  1).  "Why and how was Oswald aware of Abt?"  2). "With the many attempts by Oswald to contact Abt, why was there only one attempt to contact John Hurt (which was left completely out of the Warren Commission Report)?"

Jim Root

Jim,

The DPD record about a telephone call involving John Hurt of Raleigh, NC, was unclear whether this was an outgoing call or an incoming call.  Further, there were two people named "John Hurt" in Raleigh, NC.

So, that item is ambiguous.

Also -- in a previous article on "Jonathan Abt" (though Wikipedia calls him John Jacob Abt) -- you cite the testimony of DPD Captain Will Fritz and also of Lee Harvey Oswald -- as spoken through Will Fritz.

You ask the question -- how would a 24 year old Texan know the name, address and cases of a New York attorney?   Good question.

Yet I would warn against taking the word of Will Fritz at face value.  He was the last to interview Oswald, and Oswald died in his custody.  I'm suspicious of him.

So -- if (and only if) Captain Will Fritz was working with General Walker (which I suspect), then Oswald never said a word about the "Smith Act" case that Abt worked on.  Instead, that was added by Will Fritz himself, from conversations he had from General Walker -- the mastermind.

We don't know what Oswald said in his final interview -- because there were no notes with a chain of possession.  The first notes we have were produced WEEKS later, with enough time for all the interviewers (e.g. Harry Holmes, James Hosty) to coordinate their notes.

By the way -- their notes are too coordinated.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

Is this the only mention of John Abt in Ruth Paine's testimony? There is no mention of his name from her at all. She doesn't even have to lie if it never happened!

Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I had not heard that name.

Michael,

The key is the phrase, "BEFORE you received the telephone call...from Lee Oswald."

This is what Ruth told me as well.  She never heard of Abt until Lee Oswald called her and ORDERED her to get in contact with John Abt for him.  

Ruth was put off by his attitude -- especially since Lee Oswald didn't seem to appreciate the massive trouble he was in.  He seemed to think he was in the driver's seat.

Yet because Ruth liked Marina Oswald so much, she did make the phone calls. 

If I was a deeper CTer, I'd opine that General Walker and Guy Banister coordinated this little gambit -- and that their sources would ensure that John Abt would be "out of town" for the weekend.

Another little laugh for them -- like the Mexico City laugh.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

The key is the phrase, "BEFORE you received the telephone call...from Lee Oswald."

This is what Ruth told me as well.  She never heard of Abt until Lee Oswald called her and ORDERED her to get in contact with John Abt for him.  

Ruth was put off by his attitude -- especially since Lee Oswald didn't seem to appreciate the massive trouble he was in.  He seemed to think he was in the driver's seat.

Yet because Ruth liked Marina Oswald so much, she did make the phone calls. 

If I was a deeper CTer, I'd opine that General Walker and Guy Banister coordinated this little gambit -- and that their sources would ensure that John Abt would be "out of town" for the weekend.

Another little laugh for them -- like the Mexico City laugh.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, Where is the evidence for what you say? There is no evidence in the WC testimony of Ruth Paine, that I have, that says she was asked by LHO to call a John Abt? There is no mention, by her, of that name.

That three letter word is mentioned once, in all of her testimony. Ambiguously.

That three letter word is not mentioned at all in Michael Paine's testimony. AFAIK

Edited May 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

37 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, Where is the evidence for what you say? There is no evidence in the WC testimony of Ruth Paine, that I have, that says she was asked by LHO to call a John Abt? There is no mention, by her, of that name.

That three letter word is mentioned once, in all of her testimony. Ambiguously.

That three letter word is not mentioned at all in Michael Paine's testimony. AFAIK

Michael,

Jenner himself refers to Ruth's previous testimony. 

Abt is simply a different spelling of Abbot.

Michael Paine had nothing to do with the short conversation in which LHO told Ruth to call Abt for him.  That was out of the blue.

As for the evidence for what Ruth Paine told me, personally, over the telephone, all you have is my word for it.  If you want to confirm it -- why not call her yourself?  She's still willing to talk with interviewers who: (1) are respectful; (2) have read all of her WC testimony; (3) have read all her FBI interviews; (4) have read all her Jim Garrison interviews; and (5) seen all of her YouTube and online interviews.

One word of caution -- if you dispute her evidence of the Walker Letter, she'll just end the interview right there. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited May 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Jenner himself refers to Ruth's previous testimony. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?

Jenner does not say that Ruth ever memtioned a John Abt.

I am heading off to search for name "abbot"

****edit** No mention of "Abbot nor Abbott"

Edited May 18, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

I found This on another thread. I don't know where it comes from though.

On Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1963, around 3:30 PM Oswald made a telephone call to Ruth Paine

Ruth Paine: I said, “Well, hi.” And he said he wanted to ask me to call Mr. John Abt in New York for him after 6:00 PM. He gave me a telephone number of an office in New York and a residence in New York…He said he was an (the) attorney he wanted to have…

 

 

[Thomas Graves]

22 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I found This on another thread. I don't know where it comes from though.

On Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1963, around 3:30 PM Oswald made a telephone call to Ruth Paine

Ruth Paine: I said, “Well, hi.” And he said he wanted to ask me to call Mr. John Abt in New York for him after 6:00 PM. He gave me a telephone number of an office in New York and a residence in New York…He said he was an (the) attorney he wanted to have…

 

 

Yes, Michael.

We old-time Super Members  are very familiar with that alleged phone call.  Now you are, too, evidently.

You've come a long way, indeed!

--  Thomas

[Michael Clark]

3 hours ago, Jim Root said:

Hi Paul

Was aware that Oswald repeatedly tried to get in touch with Johnathon Abt and had several others attempt to contact him.  Two of my questions have always been connected to the attempts to contact ABT.  1).  "Why and how was Oswald aware of Abt?"  2). "With the many attempts by Oswald to contact Abt, why was there only one attempt to contact John Hurt (which was left completely out of the Warren Commission Report)?"

Jim Root

Jim,

I wanted to quote you to make you aware. There has been a bit of off-topic banter here regarding Johnatonh Abt since you posted earlier. I also found your Johnathon Abt thread. I raised a few questions above, and was hoping you might be able to provide some insight.

Cheers,

Michael

[Jim Root]

Hi Michael

I do not get over here as much as I used to but am still committed to research on the subject.

My interest in Abt is twofold, one obvious and the second much more obscure.

First is Oswald's sophistication in knowing who Abt was.  I find this interesting on many levels but in my post above my interest in Abt is only to present Oswald obsession with getting in touch with the man as opposed to his lack of determination to get a hold of John Hurt.

(Paul, on one of my visits to the 6th floor museum, Gary Mack queued up a news reporter relaying a story on Oswald's attempt at making a phone call Saturday night.  This led both Mack and myself to believe that the "Raleigh Call" was an outgoing call.)

Secondly ( and more importantly for my point on this thread ) is the number of people Oswald tried to help him get him touch with Jonathan Abt vs his one and only attempt to call John Hurt.  I speculate that the operators felt that after the failed attempt to contact Hurt, Oswald would want them to make additional efforts to find John Hurt just as he had done with Abt....that did not happen.  More importantly the information about that call never made it into the Warren Commission Report!  WHY?

Michael, if you research my past posts you will find a great deal about a real John Hurt who was very much involved in NSA spy craft.  You will also find that Frank Rowlette and Meredith Gardner (Venona Project fame) both knew and worked with John Hurt while in the NSA.  They would also be tasked with writing a report on Oswald at the request of the CIA.

I speculate that the Hurt call was to a "cut-out" and that Oswald knew the name was all he needed to pass on.

Jim Root

[Thomas Graves]

On 10/23/2014 at 8:29 PM, Paul Brancato said:

John - this is a very thought provoking post so thank you. When I read the explanation for the WC decision to leave Nosenko out of the report, and that their decision was not appreciated by Hoover, I feel like I am reading incomplete history. What it amounts to is by not mentioning Nosenko they avoid the implications of his defection. Much later we find out through Soviet archives that he was a real defector, as was Golitsyn. But at the time Golitsyn claims that Nosenko is a KGB plant. That makes no sense to me. And it is also hard to understand how Angleton got it wrong with both Nosenko and Philby. The explanation I have read is that getting it wrong with Philby explains his later paranoia. I don't know how else to say this - it feels wrong, like we are still not seeing the deepest layer. Angleton is credited with being the smartest, cleverest guy in the room, yet we are led to believe that not only did he get bamboozled by Philby despite the fact that Philby was suspected by the Brits years before his redefection, he then got it wrong with Nosenko and later with many loyal CIA employees as his paranoia grew. Could there not be a simpler explanation? This is the same guy who took possession the contents of Win Scott's private safe, not to mention Mary Pinchot's diary. If I was looking at these set of facts without knowing anything of Angleton's WW2 background I would say he was a Soviet mole. It seems such an obvious conclusion on the surface, yet Angleton had serious fascist credentials. What was he really up to? What were his loyalties? Does his cozy relationship with Mossad shed any light?

Who were the winners of the Cold War? Military industrial establishments on both sides. Who were the losers? People living in war zones like Vietnam and Afghanistan. On some level the Cold War, intentionally or not, was the biggest divide and conquer strategy in the history of the world. The Kennedys I think figured this out, and they were eliminated. So did Kruschchev, and he was ousted. Then the Cold War comes to an end with Gorbachev and Reagan. But where are we now? Both sides upgrading their nuclear arsenals, and military industrial establishments in firm control on both sides, with Putin, the ultimate intelligence insider in firm control of Russia. The Ukraine a battleground between the remnants of WW2 fascists and the Russians. No end in sight for military spending.

Is there a way to view this confusion in which we can Imagine Angleton and Philby both working for the same reactionary forces? Can we even say anymore that Russia is Communist? Were they ever Communist? Were western industrialists really afraid of Soviet or Chinese Communism as a force that threatened Capitalism? Or was Communism just a convenient enemy?

Somehow I think the answer lies in the aftermath of WW2, when both sides drafted most of Germany's finest scientists and Nazis, and war became the endless reality it is now. And I postulate that Angleton and Philby worked on behalf of this reality, which was and is not a battle of mutually exclusive economic models, but a deal with the devil.

 

On 10/23/2014 at 8:29 PM, Paul Brancato said:

John - this is a very thought provoking post so thank you. When I read the explanation for the WC decision to leave Nosenko out of the report, and that their decision was not appreciated by Hoover, I feel like I am reading incomplete history. What it amounts to is by not mentioning Nosenko they avoid the implications of his defection. Much later we find out through Soviet archives that he was a real defector, as was Golitsyn. But at the time Golitsyn claims that Nosenko is a KGB plant. That makes no sense to me. And it is also hard to understand how Angleton got it wrong with both Nosenko and Philby. The explanation I have read is that getting it wrong with Philby explains his later paranoia. I don't know how else to say this - it feels wrong, like we are still not seeing the deepest layer. Angleton is credited with being the smartest, cleverest guy in the room, yet we are led to believe that not only did he get bamboozled by Philby despite the fact that Philby was suspected by the Brits years before his redefection, he then got it wrong with Nosenko and later with many loyal CIA employees as his paranoia grew. Could there not be a simpler explanation? This is the same guy who took possession the contents of Win Scott's private safe, not to mention Mary Pinchot's diary. If I was looking at these set of facts without knowing anything of Angleton's WW2 background I would say he was a Soviet mole. It seems such an obvious conclusion on the surface, yet Angleton had serious fascist credentials. What was he really up to? What were his loyalties? Does his cozy relationship with Mossad shed any light?

Who were the winners of the Cold War? Military industrial establishments on both sides. Who were the losers? People living in war zones like Vietnam and Afghanistan. On some level the Cold War, intentionally or not, was the biggest divide and conquer strategy in the history of the world. The Kennedys I think figured this out, and they were eliminated. So did Kruschchev, and he was ousted. Then the Cold War comes to an end with Gorbachev and Reagan. But where are we now? Both sides upgrading their nuclear arsenals, and military industrial establishments in firm control on both sides, with Putin, the ultimate intelligence insider in firm control of Russia. The Ukraine a battleground between the remnants of WW2 fascists and the Russians. No end in sight for military spending.

 ...  

Emphasis added by T. Graves

Paul, with all due respect, I'll address your statements and questions in the same order that you wrote them, above:

1)  If you're relying on the book "The Sword and the Shield" by (gullible) Christopher Andrew, or some other reference to the implausibly long, "hand-copied and smuggled out" Mitrokhin Archives, .... all I can say is ... Heaven help you, Maestro!  Or was it some other "active measures" source that you read?

 2) That's because you have refused, so far, to read in-full the 2007 book and the 2015 pdf by Tennent H. Bagley that I recommended to you some time ago.  I can only assume that your reason for that is that you've tried, but they caused you some excruciatingly painful cognitive dissonance?

3)  Hint:  Golitsin was a flawed true defector, Nosenko was a flawed fake defector.  

4)  Angleton got it wrong on Philby, but got it right on Nosenko.

5)  My rhetorical answer:  Did KGB-boy Vladimir Putin install a Russian "KGB"-mobbed-up (and therefore blackmail-able) anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-Liberalism "useful idiot" as our president?  And you seriously wonder who won the Cold War?  (As though it ever ended as far as the Kremlin was concerned.  LOL!)

6)  Kruschchev was ousted, IMHO, because his actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis had humiliated the Politburo.  Oh yeah, and his agricultural programs left much to be desired.

7)  Ukraine is a fascist country?  LOL  (Did you know that Bandera was a Ukrainian nationalist, first and foremost, who happened to commit atrocities for both the Soviets and the Germans during WWII?)

--  Tommy 

You might find this 1981 WP article interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/09/03/fbi-says-its-spy-in-kgb-was-a-fake/2f5602ba-7108-473e-9d91-dbdb92746da2/?utm_term=.32bfbb3cbf9a

  

Edited January 23, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/13/2017 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

....... ok 

--  Tommy

Paul,

Given the fact that KGB-boy Putin installed a "useful idiot" as our President, who do YOU think won the Cold War?

(Hint:  Russian KGB-Mafia)

--  Tommy 

Edited January 23, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

On 1/23/2018 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

Paul, with all due respect, I'll address your statements and questions in the same order that you wrote them, above:

1)  If you're relying on the book "The Sword and the Shield" by (gullible) Christopher Andrew, or some other reference to the implausibly long, "hand-copied and smuggled out" Mitrokhin Archives, .... all I can say is ... Heaven help you, Maestro!  Or was it some other "active measures" source that you read?

 2) That's because you have refused, so far, to read the 2007 book and the 2015 pdf by Tennent H. Bagley that I recommended to you some time ago.  I can only assume that your reason for not reading them is that you've tried, but they caused you way too much (excruciatingly painful) cognitive dissonance.

3)  Hint:  Golitsin was a flawed true defector, Nosenko was a flawed fake defector.  

4)  Angleton got it wrong on Philby, but got it right on Nosenko.

5)  Did the CIA or George Soros install a "KGB"-mobbed-up (and therefore blackmail-able) anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-Liberalism, anti-globalization "useful idiot" as our president? Or did Vladimir Putin do that? (And you seriously wonder who won the Cold War?  You know, as though it ever ended as far as the Kremlin was concerned.  LOL!)

6)  Kruschchev was ousted, IMHO, because his actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis had humiliated the Politburo.  Oh yeah, and his agricultural programs left much to be desired didn't they.

7)  Ukraine is a fascist country?  LOL  (Did you know that the far left's favorite pinata, Stefan Bandera, was a Ukrainian Nationalist, first and foremost, who, trying to prevent either one from dominating his homeland, committed atrocities for both the Soviets and the Germans during WWII?)

--  Tommy 

PS  You might find this 1981 Washington Post article interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/09/03/fbi-says-its-spy-in-kgb-was-a-fake/2f5602ba-7108-473e-9d91-dbdb92746da2/?utm_term=.32bfbb3cbf9a

  

Bumped, as the (gasp) WP article I just now added at the bottom mentions Nosenko and "The Pentagon Papers" !!!

Edited January 26, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Hi Tommy,

it would be great if you would start a thread and clearly state your hypothesis.

There is no cognitive dissonance in my thinking. My thoughts have evolved over the years, and most of all recently. But no writer, researcher, ex CIA agent will ever convince me that the KGB killed JFK, at least if we continue to assume that KGB and CIA were really at war. There is no motive, unless we begin by redefining the Cold War. You lol at my questioning of the premise of that war. As a result of killing JFK and ousting Khrushchev military establishments on both sides continued their enormously profitable arms business. I think the Cold War supported and perpetuated this, and this seems to be the best explanation for why that war continued, even up to the present day. 

You want me to read and believe Bagley, who was Angleton’s man. Until I make sense out of the contradictions around Angleton I have no way to put Bagley in context. So who was Angleton? A Soviet mole? I’m not the first to wonder about that. I’m reading Morley’s book now. Maybe I’ll reach some conclusion.