Theory-In-Progress

[Thomas Graves]

Did James Jesus Angleton knowingly risk JFK's life in an attempt to catch a high-level mole?

Could he have believed that catching such a mole was more important than protecting the current POTUS, or any POTUS for that matter? 

You know, based on the fact that presidents are, after all, replaceable, whereas an undetected high-level mole (pardon the redundancy) is an "incubus" worse than ... Alien?
 

Could it have been a case of "I Fought The Mole And The ... Mole Won"?

--  Tommy

Edited March 23, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Yawn.

[Thomas Graves]

James,

Care to say anything else about it?

--  Tommy 

[Sandy Larsen]

Tommy, you're back!

 

[Thomas Graves]

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy, you're back!

 

I can really shake 'em down, Sandy.

 

--  TOMMY 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Contours

Edited January 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

Tommy,

What makes you think that a mole might have had something to do with the assassination?

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

On 1/15/2018 at 10:48 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

What makes you think that a mole might have had something to do with the assassination? Or with Oswald?

Or is this sheer speculation?

 

Pure speculation in a wilderness of mirrors, Sandy.

All hypothetical at this point, but a paradigm that might help to explain some apparent anomalies ... 

 

 

Now let me ask YOU a question:

*IF* there was a mole or a network of embedded KGB-types, would they have been willing to kill JFK (or any other U.S. president for that matter) if they had been instructed by their KGB / GRU handler(s) to do so,  to enable ever-increasing KGB / GRU influence on our country through "active measures counterintelligence operations" (which started in 1921) and "strategic deception operations" (which started in 1959), thereby giving rise to paralyzing, cancer-like propaganda and disinformation (e.g., "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK," and "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK via the 'Harvey & Lee and Two Marguerites Program,'" and "The evil, evil CIA and the Mafia ... ")?

So that, you know, ..... EVENTUALLY a Russian Mafia-compromised (and therefore eminently blackmail-able) anti-NATO "useful idiot" like Donald James Trump could be installed as our president?

(Or do you believe that some disgruntled DNC or NSA insider not only hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails, but gave said e-mails to Julian Assange and DNCLeaks? And that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are just an evil, evil CIA "cover story" or "fantasy"?)

LOL

--  Tommy 

PS:  I would suggest that pieces of the puzzle lie in Bill Simpich's "State Secret," John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA," and Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's "Wedge".

Edited March 23, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Now let me ask YOU a question:

*IF* there was a high-level mole or network of embedded KGB-types, would he / they have been willing to help kill JFK (or any other U.S. president for that matter) if he  / they had been instructed by his / their KGB / GRU handler(s) to do so, if for no other reason than to enable ever-increasing KGB / GRU influence through disinformation and propaganda (e.g., "The Evil CIA Killed JFK") so that eventually a blackmail-able, anti-NATO "useful idiot" like DJT could be installed as our president?

Hoo boy... I'm not the right person to be asked that question. But I will say that it seems to me that eliminating a president wouldn't be a very sure way of effecting some desired long-term goal. And I don't know how killing a president would result in greater KGB influence.

 

[Thomas Graves]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hoo boy... I'm not the right person to be asked that question. But I will say that it seems to me that eliminating a president wouldn't be a very sure way of effecting some desired long-term goal. And I don't know how killing a president would result in greater KGB influence.

 

Sandy,

With all due respect, it sounds as though you should start reading (CIA Soviet Block Counterintelligence officer; Pro-Angleton) Tennent H. Bagley's 35-page PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars" (2015), *AND* Bill "The CIA Killed JFK" Simpich's "State Secret" to get an inkling of what I'm talking about ...

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Preface.html

--  Tommy 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

Tom,

I'm  so very glad you  mention State Secret by Bill Simpich. I've  recommended  it numerous  times on here but it just seems to cause a lot of eye glazing overness.

At least for me, any serious  researcher  should  read it because  it's truly a starting  point on the manipulation  of our man in TX/NY/LA.

For me as well, the closing  bookend for SS is when our man blurts out he's  nothing  but a patsy as they whisk him away.

 

[David Andrews]

One wonders what a high-level mole could have accomplished at an intelligence headquarters first run for capital by Dulles, and then run for Dulles by Angleton, Helms, and the list of hard-nose stalwarts we're familiar with.

Was Angleton's mole-hunt just a symptom of the fear that the era of the Duiles brothers in government and intelligence was slipping away?*  What were Allen Dulles's known comments on Angleton's obsession?

It may be useful to re-examine the levels of CIA officer that fell under suspicion in this era.  How high-level were any of those?

Looking at the damage done by later moles such as Aldrich Ames, which rolled up overseas networks and got foreign agents (not CIA officers) killed, one wonders if mole damage wasn't an issue of national security, but of Agency morale loss, money lost in checkbook espionage, and operational hours wasted.  It's doubtful the human lives lost mattered: they had been given up at the get-go.

Larry Hancock, any opinion here?

---------

*For that matter, were the Kennedy assassination and the spectre of a Kennedy dynasty in the Executive a symptom of this fear?  Was the whole family a threat to national security?  Oh, wait - it threatened the Vietnam War.

[Thomas Graves]

50 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

One wonders what a high-level mole could have accomplished at an intelligence headquarters first run for capital by Dulles, and then run for Dulles by Angleton, Helms, and the list of hard-nose stalwarts we're familiar with.

Was Angleton's mole-hunt just a symptom of the fear that the era of the Duiles brothers in government and intelligence was slipping away?*  What were Allen Dulles's known comments on Angleton's obsession?

It may be useful to re-examine the levels of CIA officer that fell under suspicion in this era.  How high-level were any of those?

Looking at the damage done by later moles such as Aldrich Ames, which rolled up overseas networks and got foreign agents (not CIA officers) killed, one wonders if mole damage wasn't an issue of national security, but of Agency morale loss, money lost in checkbook espionage, and operational hours wasted.  It's doubtful the human lives lost mattered: they had been given up at the get-go.

Larry Hancock, any opinion here?

---------

*For that matter, were the Kennedy assassination and the spectre of a Kennedy dynasty in the Executive a symptom of this fear?  Was the whole family a threat to national security?  Oh, wait - it threatened the Vietnam War.

David,

Have you read Bagley's 2015 PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," or his 2007 book "Spy Wars"?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames

 

--  Tommy 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

If you really want to examine the damage done by serious moles its almost entirely of fairly immediate value - providing either operational information or actual information on codes/ciphers, communications practices,  weapons or equipment plans or something that is "actionable".  The first time the CIA was seriously hurt by a mole was through the exposure of virtually all its team and agent infiltration into Eastern Europe and it was Angleton's British intelligence "buddy" who did that.  A high level mole within the CIA could spread insecurity and discord (which is why Angleton himself was suspected) but most of America's covert operations programs were so obvious (even if officially deniable) that a mole would not be needed....although of course nobody was admitting that.  The danger of a real high level mole would be more within the top levels of the military or somewhere within the National Security Council structure.

And remember, moles are normally "recruited" (even if voluntarily) in place because they do have access of some sort of value....years of KGB effort to develop sources from the ground up in the U.S. produced relatively little and very low level intel.  Check out some of the Russian moles that the U.S. recruited and it will give  you a balanced picture.

[Thomas Graves]

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

One wonders what a high-level mole could have accomplished at an intelligence headquarters first run for capital by Dulles, and then run for Dulles by Angleton, Helms, and the list of hard-nose stalwarts we're familiar with.

Was Angleton's mole-hunt just a symptom of the fear that the era of the Duiles brothers in government and intelligence was slipping away?*  What were Allen Dulles's known comments on Angleton's obsession?

It may be useful to re-examine the levels of CIA officer that fell under suspicion in this era.  How high-level were any of those?

Looking at the damage done by later moles such as Aldrich Ames, which rolled up overseas networks and got foreign agents (not CIA officers) killed, one wonders if mole damage wasn't an issue of national security, but of Agency morale loss, money lost in checkbook espionage, and operational hours wasted.  It's doubtful the human lives lost mattered: they had been given up at the get-go.

Larry Hancock, any opinion here?

---------

*For that matter, were the Kennedy assassination and the spectre of a Kennedy dynasty in the Executive a symptom of this fear?  Was the whole family a threat to national security?  Oh, wait - it threatened the Vietnam War.

David,

What did Philby, MacLean, and Burgess accomplish for the KGB while they were posted in the U.S.?

Roger Hollis in England?

Did Edward Ellis Smith betray Popov and perhaps recruit other moles, as well?

Etc.

-- Tommy

Edited January 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

43 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

If you really want to examine the damage done by serious moles its almost entirely of fairly immediate value - providing either operational information or actual information on codes/ciphers, communications practices,  weapons or equipment plans or something that is "actionable".  The first time the CIA was seriously hurt by a mole was through the exposure of virtually all its team and agent infiltration into Eastern Europe and it was Angleton's British intelligence "buddy" who did that.  A high level mole within the CIA could spread insecurity and discord (which is why Angleton himself was suspected) but most of America's covert operations programs were so obvious (even if officially deniable) that a mole would not be needed....although of course nobody was admitting that.  The danger of a real high level mole would be more within the top levels of the military or somewhere within the National Security Council structure.

And remember, moles are normally "recruited" (even if voluntarily) in place because they do have access of some sort of value....years of KGB effort to develop sources from the ground up in the U.S. produced relatively little and very low level intel.  Check out some of the Russian moles that the U.S. recruited and it will give  you a balanced picture.

Larry,

How about Soviet spies like Aleksey Kulak ("Fedora"), pre-"Bourbon" Dmitry Polyakov, the "illegal" Yuri Loginov, and my personal favorite -- Yuri Nosenko, all of whom pretended to volunteer or allow themselves to be recruited by CIA / FBI, but in fact remained loyal to the Kremlin? 

Should we include them in our Nosenko-friendly "balanced picture"?

--  Tommy 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves