The KGB and the JFK case

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/28/2018 at 8:06 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The evidence is all circumstantial, Tommy. But there's a large amount of it and it is very compelling.

My favorite evidence, because it is so simple and stands alone, is that James Angleton's CI/SIG division was investigating Oswald in 1960. Ann Egerter testified before the HSCA that the sole purpose of the CI/SIG division was to investigate CIA employees. They were tasked with "spying on spies." Therefore, Oswald was a CIA spy.

.......

 

 

On 2/28/2018 at 8:06 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The evidence is all circumstantial, Tommy. But there's a large amount of it and it is very compelling.

My favorite evidence, because it is so simple and stands alone, is that James Angleton's CI/SIG division was investigating Oswald in 1960. Ann Egerter testified before the HSCA that the sole purpose of the CI/SIG division was to investigate CIA employees. They were tasked with "spying on spies." Therefore, Oswald was a CIA spy.

.......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sandy,

With all due respect, you appear to be unwittingly oversimplifying it to your unwitting disadvantage.

Angleton's SIG staff, headed by Birch D. O'Neal, was keeping tabs on lots of suspected American spies and moles.

And potential ones as well.

As well as persons of possible future operational interest.

IIRC, Ergeter didn't open the 201 file on radar operator Oswald until after he'd already been in the USSR for a year.  I believe that those two facts alone -- his being a defecting Marine Corps (Reserves) radar operator and his having disappeared in the USSR for such a long time -- would have made him a person of interest to O'Neal's SIG, don't you?

Especially given the fact that for all CIA knew, he might "up and desire to return" to the U.S. some day.  Maybe even as ... gulp ... a KGB or GRU spy.

What makes you think SIG's simply having a 201 on a (probable, imho) person of interest like Oswald is some kind of proof that he or she was actually working for the CIA?

 

Caveat:  Regardless, even if Oswald was sent to the USSR on some kind of mission by CIA or ONI (or whomever), does that somehow prove that CIA (or whomever) killed JFK?

 

--  Tommy 

edited and bumped

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/28/2018 at 10:30 PM, Thomas Graves said:

 

On 2/28/2018 at 8:06 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The evidence is all circumstantial, Tommy. But there's a large amount of it and it is very compelling.

My favorite evidence, because it is so simple and stands alone, is that James Angleton's CI/SIG division was investigating Oswald in 1960. Ann Egerter testified before the HSCA that the sole purpose of the CI/SIG division was to investigate CIA employees. They were tasked with "spying on spies." Therefore, Oswald was a CIA spy.

.......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sandy,

With all due respect, you appear to be unwittingly oversimplifying it to your unwitting disadvantage.

Angleton's SIG staff, headed by Birch D. O'Neal, was keeping tabs on lots of suspected American spies and moles.

And potential ones as well.

As well as persons of possible future operational interest.

IIRC, Ergeter didn't open the 201 file on radar operator Oswald until after he'd already been in the USSR for a year.  I believe that those two facts alone -- his being a defecting Marine Corps (Reserves) radar operator and his having disappeared in the USSR for such a long time -- would have made him a person of interest to O'Neal's SIG, don't you?

Especially given the fact that for all CIA knew, he might "up and desire to return" to the U.S. some day.  Maybe even as ... gulp ... a KGB or GRU spy.

What makes you think SIG's simply having a 201 on a (probable, imho) person of interest like Oswald is some kind of proof that he or she was actually working for the CIA?

--  Tommy 

edited and bumped

 

 

Tommy,

Ann Egerter testified before the HSCA that, "we were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel who were suspected one way or another." She was asked a couple times to confirm this, and she answered in the affirmative. At one point she said that SIG was known in the Agency as "the office that spied on spies."

This leaves little doubt that Oswald was an agent for the CIA.

And then we have a mountain of other circumstantial evidence pointing to Oswald being CIA.

 

Quote

Caveat:  Regardless, even if Oswald was sent to the USSR on some kind of mission by CIA or ONI (or whomever), does that somehow prove that CIA (or whomever) killed JFK?

 

No, of course that doesn't prove that the CIA was involved in the assassination. But it certainly would raise that question as to whether it was an intelligence related hit.

 

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

It seems to me that the Walker-did-it case -- which seeks to investigate Dallas officials for the JFK Assassination -- has finally weakened the CIA-did-it scenario so much, that while hardcore CIA-did-it CTers are falling back to 90's nonsense from Probe Magazine (1991-1998) like "Harvey & Lee," the rest are now moving on to a KGB-did-it CT.

The KGB-did-it CT is not new -- it is one of the oldest CT's in the past 55 years.   General Walker himself promoted the KGB-did-it CT, even to the Warren Commission.   In fact, Walker supporter Revilo P. Oliver told the WC that he saw no difference between the KGB and the CIA -- they were 'all a bunch of Reds!'   

ANYTHING but investigate the Dallas Police -- right boys and girls?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

It seems to me that the Walker-did-it case -- which seeks to investigate Dallas officials for the JFK Assassination -- has finally weakened the CIA-did-it scenario so much, that while hardcore CIA-did-it CTers are falling back to 90's nonsense from Probe Magazine (1991-1998) like "Harvey & Lee," the rest are now moving on to a KGB-did-it CT.

The KGB-did-it CT is not new -- it is one of the oldest CT's in the past 55 years.   General Walker himself promoted the KGB-did-it CT, even to the Warren Commission.   In fact, Walker supporter Revilo P. Oliver told the WC that he saw no difference between the KGB and the CIA -- they were 'all a bunch of Reds!'   

ANYTHING but investigate the Dallas Police -- right boys and girls?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

LOL

[Pamela Brown]

Jim,

With all due respect, the points you have made are valid but, when used to support a conclusion of 'the KGB was not involved,' fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

The question, to me, is to what extent, if any, any part of KGB was involved?  And, if so, were there counterparts in CIA also involved, and, if so, how?  

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Pamela Brown

[Thomas Graves]

5 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Jim,

With all due respect, the points you have made are valid but, when used to support a conclusion of 'the KGB was not involved,' fall prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

The question, to me, is to what extent, if any, any part of KGB was involved?  And, if so, were there counterparts in CIA also involved, and, if so, how?  

 

 

Pamela,

Finally, a voice of reason!

--  Tommy 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Make no mistake: either Russia- Putin is the "focus of evil" in the modern world, (Tommy G.) or a beacon, a guiding light, a man whose destiny it is to make us confront our past sins and truly make us great again. (Jim Di)

Love him or hate him. Putin's ability to wrap the Republican Party around his finger is something unparalleled and completely unthinkable in my life. Perhaps a man like this comes once a century.

Is it Putin or Ras (putin)?

Edited February 10, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Thomas Graves]

25 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Make no mistake: either Russia- Putin is the "focus of evil" in the modern world, (Tommy G.) or a beacon, a guiding light, a man whose destiny it is to make us confront our past sins and truly make us great again. (Jim Di)

Love him or hate him. Putin's ability to wrap the Republican Party around his finger is something unparalleled and completely unthinkable in my life. Perhaps a man like this comes once a century.

Is it Putin or Ras (putin)?

 

 

 

Kirk,

Too bad you didn't post a photo of Putin's Rasputin -- Alexander Dugin.

 

--  Tommy 

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Kirk,

Too bad you didn't post a photo of Putin's Rasputin -- Alexander Dugin.

 

--  Tommy 

Whoa! is that this guy?

Eat your heart out Tommy!, sure you're not just jealous?

 

 

 

 

And there's no shortage of people here who are curious, and want to put in the time to really understand as well as argue with your theory. And for that, I'd imagine you gotta feel good.   KG

Edited March 6, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Whoa! is that this guy?

Eat your heart out Tommy!, sure you're not just jealous?

 

 

 

 

And there's no shortage of people here who are curious, and want to put in the time to really understand as well as argue with your theory. And for that, I'd imagine you gotta feel good.   KG

 

Kirk,

No, he's not nearly as "cute" as you.

--  Tommy 

PS  Regarding all those curious people out there, all they have to do for starters is read Tennent H. Bagley's 35-page PDF, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars" (2015).

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

 

And if it pekes their interest, they can read his book, "Spy Wars" (2007)

Edited March 6, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Ron Bulman]

http://jfkfacts.org/what-angleton-told-jfk-investigators-behind-closed-doors/#more-21832

[Thomas Graves]

23 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

http://jfkfacts.org/what-angleton-told-jfk-investigators-behind-closed-doors/#more-21832

 

Ron,

With all due respect, have you read Bagley's book "Spy Wars," or even his 35-page PDF, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars"?

If not, why not?

Afraid it will shatter your "world view"?

Convinced even before reading it that it must be disinformation from the CIA?

But wait ... didn't the evil, evil, evil CIA eventually "exonerate" Nosenko?

LOL

--  Tommy 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

17 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Ron,

With all due respect, have you read Bagley's book "Spy Wars," or even his 35-page PDF, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars"?

If not, why not?

Afraid it will shatter your "world view"?

Convinced even before reading it that it must be disinformation from the CIA?

But wait ... didn't the evil, evil, evil CIA eventually "exonerate" Nosenko?

LOL

--  Tommy 

 

 

Nope, they didn't have to, he exonerated himself.  Angleton used him, as well as Oswald, albeit in a different way.  In spite of 'the' CIA, imo.  He used just he parts he needed which he had cultivated and kept not close to the vest but inside it.  There I go again with that darn speculation and brainstorming again.  A enlightening article by Jeff, imo once again, why I linked it.  Did you read it?  

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Nope, they didn't have to, he exonerated himself.  Angleton used him, as well as Oswald, albeit in a different way.  In spite of 'the' CIA, imo.  He used just he parts he needed which he had cultivated and kept not close to the vest but inside it.  There I go again with that darn speculation and brainstorming again.  A enlightening article by Jeff, imo once again, why I linked it.  Did you read it?  

 

Ron,

 

With all due respect, I no longer read Morley, having read his (IMHO) intellectually dishonest and highly-biased-against-Angleton book, The Ghost.   For what it's worth, I concur with Robarge's review of the book.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2017/10/angletonbio.html

 

Why don't you read Bagley's Spy Wars and Ghosts of the Spy Wars and then read The Ghost to see what I'm talking about?

 

https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames

 

--  Tommy 

 

PS    Here's an edited short critique of The Ghost I posted on Amazon a few months ago:

"This book is reasonably well written as far as the prose is concerned, but to anyone who has read (former CIA Soviet Russia Division counterintelligence officer) Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars," Jefferson Morley comes across as being unreasonably biased against Angleton, as exemplified by the way he selectively presents facts surrounding the incredible challenges Angleton was up against trying to counter the Soviets' intelligence services during the Cold War.

Here's one small example: True KGB defector Pyotr Deriabin interviewed controversial defector Yuri Nosenko twelve times after Nosenko defected to the U.S. in January,1964, and came to the unshakable-for-him conclusion that Nosenko was 'fake.'  Yet in Morley's book, Deriabin is mentioned only one time, and then not to criticize Nosenko or to ... (gasp) ... support Angleton or to ... (gasp) ... support Angleton's and Bagley's favorite defector,  (pre-1965) Anatoly Golitsyn, but to point out on page 107 that Golitsyn had had, in so many words, 'a reputation back in the KGB to exaggerate and brag a lot.'

One wonders how much time Morley had to spend to find that ostensible anti-Golitsyn quote by Deriabin, and how Morley could, in good conscience, not mention that Deriabin was a Golitsyn and Angleton supporter, not a Golitsyn and Angleton detractor, as Mr. Morley would apparently like for us to infer from his book.

Like I said, just one small example. The book is full of them."

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Why don't you read Bagley's Spy Wars 

  how about giving us your POV on SPY WARS... 

What did you take from it that is so amazingly earth-shattering you insist on others read it...

What ARE you talking about and why does it matter to anyone here?

That the KGB was/is much better at infiltration and counter-intelligence than we'll ever want to admit?
That USA Intelligence was/is much more about increasing the reach of MIC especially in Central/South America... and maintaining its autonomy and funding.   The KGB is a STATE-BACKED entity while the CIA/ONI/MID/NSA is a MIC-BACKED entity with completely different priorities.

======

Curious... did you read any of Golitsyn's books?  He appears to have been correct all along.  And Putin a 100% believer.

Dec 1984: 

The Special Difficulties:

Disinformation: The special difficulties derive from the deliberate efforts of communist governments to mislead and misdirect Western studies and assessments.  These deliberate efforts are known as disinformation (in Russian, dezinformatsiya). The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia says that the word is taken from two French roots, de(s), implying removal or elimination, and information, meaning knowledge.2 The GSE defines disinformation as the dissemination through press and radio of false data with the purpose of misleading public opinion. It goes on to say that the capitalist press and radio broadly use disinformation to deceive the people of the world and to portray the new war that the Anglo-American imperialist bloc are preparing as defensive and the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union and the people's democracies as aggressive.

This would have been a broadly accurate definition of disinformation if the alleged roles of the imperialist" and Soviet blocs had been reversed. In fact, disinformation has been used to a varying extent throughout the history of the Soviet Union. This book is primarily concerned with the communist use of strategic disinformation.