The KGB and the JFK case

[David Josephs]

Paul.. I have 2 or 3 of his books on pdf... I’ll check and get back to you tomorrow. 

(Did you hear far off laughter?)... 

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/19/2018 at 8:13 AM, Paul Brancato said:

What do Golitsyn have to say about the assassinationof JFK?

Paul,

With all due respect, iirc, Golitsyn didn't offer an opinion on the assassination. Probably because he was "only" a major in KGB's Second Chief Directorate, stationed in Vienna, Austria and then Helsinki, Finland, and had no "need to know" about such things, if indeed "such things" did occur. 5/5/18 EDIT ALERT:  Only that KGB's First Chief Directorate's Department 13 had a standing policy to interview any and all military defectors to the USSR, and that Oswald would probably be killed soon by a KGB operative.

Please bear in mind that the Soviets'/Russians' intelligence services have always been more highly compartmentalized than ours.

Regardless, it is interesting to note that Golitsyn said that Second Chief Division's Department 13 had a standing policy to interview/ interrogate ANY defector to the USSR who had had some military experience in the U.S., and that it was inconceivable that the KGB hadn't interviewed and monitored Oswald, as Nosenko so implausibly claimed.

I hope that answers your question.

If not, why don't you read Tennent H. Bagley's fine book "Spy Wars," or Golitsyn's 1990 book, "New Lies for Old" (which I haven't read yet)?

--  Tommy 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

TG: Paz Marverde's entire post consisted of two short sentences

Not true.  Paz clipped my point number 6 from my original list demonstrating that the KGB had nothing to do with the plot.  Then she added the two sentences.

My point number six was about Oswald's return to New Orleans, and his association with the Shaw, Ferrie, Banister circle there.

I did not expand on this point, because I think that everyone knows most of what Oswald did there.  But I could have added that Phillips was likely involved with this also since he was the co leader of the CIA's anti FPCC program.  And it is a possibility that he supplied the Corliss LaMont pamphlet that the CIA had ordered in bulk back in 1961, just as its very possible he was in Banister's office helping to set up a telethon for the Cuban exiles in New Orleans that year.

But beyond that, this association, can then be linked to the Veciana meeting with Phillips where he says he saw Oswald with him, the stationing in Mexico City, where Phillips and Anne Goodpasture both lied their heads off about Oswald being there, and finally the phone call with his brother where he told him he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination.  And I should add, Phillips told so many lies about Mexico City--as did Goodpasture--that Danny Hardway and Eddie Lopez drew up indictments for them both.

See, this is called evidence.  Its called building a trail that involves a suspect in the set up.  Can you imagine if Danny and Eddie would have had the anti FPCC document that John Newman did not find until years later?  I mean instead of lighting one cigarette, while he had another going, Phillips may have pulled out a cigar.

And this does not even go into the DRE connection in New Orleans.

(But forget all that nonsense, the translator did it. And TG drags out threads from 2005 with which to flood the board with. )

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Eddy Bainbridge]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Eddy:

I am beginning to think that Oswald was at neither embassy. There is a distinct reason I do not think he was at the Russian embassy.  But I cannot reveal it at this time.

Why do I think Nechiporenko did what he did?

It goes back to what the Soviets and KGB were doing since Nagell's meeting with them.  They had gotten word of a CIA plot.  And they felt that the Agency was going to blame it on the commies--which they did. 

I think what Nechiporenko did, years later, was to say what he did in order to distance the Russians from the plot.  "Why would we be in league with such an unstable person" excuse.  Which is actually pretty effective. You don't get ridiculed by the MSM, "What do you mean he was not there?" and you play into a certain meme.

 

 

I agree that it is highly plausible that if the Russians feared being blamed for the assassination, then playing along in Mexico City makes logical sense, in fact its pretty shrewd thinking on their behalf. Does it start to make sense of Mexico City? A CIA plot to sheep dip Oswald, that was played along with by the Russians, once they had assessed their options?

 

I suspect a large weakness in the theory is that it seems the Russians were already pretty clued up on Oswald. After his treatment in Minsk, could the CIA really have believed he had value as an asset? Doesn't the Minsk trip make it unlikely any mole would fall for the 'Henry' marked card?

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

TG: Paz Marverde's entire post consisted of two short sentences

Not true.  Paz clipped my point number 6 from my original list demonstrating that the KGB had nothing to do with the plot.  Then she added the two sentences.

My point number six was about Oswald's return to New Orleans, and his association with the Shaw, Ferrie, Banister circle there.

I did not expand on this point, because I think that everyone knows most of what Oswald did there.  But I could have added that Phillips was likely involved with this also since he was the co leader of the CIA's anti FPCC program.  And it is a possibility that he supplied the Corliss LaMont pamphlet that the CIA had ordered in bulk back in 1961, just as its very possible he was in Banister's office helping to set up a telethon for the Cuban exiles in New Orleans that year.

But beyond that, this association, can then be linked to the Veciana meeting with Phillips where he says he saw Oswald with him, the stationing in Mexico City, where Phillips and Anne Goodpasture both lied their heads off about Oswald being there, and finally the phone call with his brother where he told him he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination.  And I should add, Phillips told so many lies about Mexico City--as did Goodpasture--that Danny Hardway and Eddie Lopez drew up indictments for them both.

See, this is called evidence.  Its called building a trail that involves a suspect in the set up.  Can you imagine if Danny and Eddie would have had the anti FPCC document that John Newman did not find until years later?  I mean instead of lighting one cigarette, while he had another going, Phillips may have pulled out a cigar.

And this does not even go into the DRE connection in New Orleans.

(But forget all that nonsense, the translator did it. And TG drags out threads from 2005 with which to flood the board with. )

 

 

James,

Not surprisingly, you and I are not on the same page, this time maybe even literally.

With all due respect, after sharing this forum with you for some ten (very) odd years, I know "where you're coming from," Mister DiEugenio, and therefore don't pay much attention to your generally all-to error-filled, incredibly biased, and windy (as in gaseous) posts.  In my humble opinion.

Take this case, for example.  Bottom line, all I noticed was Paz's two very short-sentences post which didn't add anything to "the debate," which "post" immediately followed my very well thought out and fairly lengthy one, and which two-sentence post of hers, iirc, had come shortly after another humdinger of hers (either on this thread or another one) which consisted of no words, just a "smiley face" emoticon or some such thing, and which she had posted in response to another of equally brilliant posts.

And to top it all off, Paz was doing this on MY Thread!  (You DID create it for me, didn't you, James?  You know, in the hopes that I'd stop trying to derail" your precious post about ... The Post?)

LOL

--  Tommy 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

EB: I suspect a large weakness in the theory is that it seems the Russians were already pretty clued up on Oswald. After his treatment in Minsk, could the CIA really have believed he had value as an asset? Doesn't the Minsk trip make it unlikely any mole would fall for the 'Henry' marked card?

That is a good observation and a good question. And its another point I think in David Joseph's favor.

As I said, what I think David is going to develop is a new paradigm about the whole Mexico City excursion.  One that will build on the Lopez Report, but actually go beyond it in certain aspects.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Eddy, to add to that point, Nechiporenko had an American advisor for that book.  One who was quite experienced in the ways of the MSM.  

He was an American media specialist who was living in Moscow at the time.

[David Josephs]

When Azcue speaks to Cuba, Castro hears it if important enough..

If we look at the recent memos a month in either direction of oct 1,  a lot was going on down there.   

If im right, Oswald was on FBI work for Banister thru Houston, Austin, on up to Dallas.... Assume the CIA, Angleton’s group, is aware of this....  FPCC ops is, IMO the red herring..  FPCC in total was the red herring here... They were of no real consequence and 50% FBI informants.   

Anyway, Oswald to everyone would simply not be with Marina, a mystery.  FBI reports sound clueless... “we believe he went to the Paines” .... I think the Kaack report of Oct 31 is the first to mention his whereabouts. 

Phillips, Goodpasture, Scott on the CIA side and Mann from State comes along...  the 27th has already been judged not to be Oswald....  the 28th, Saturday, and the BS begins with voices, still no names, but voices with stories. The 28th these lines are closed to the public, personal calls only... the 28th witnesses see Oswald in Dallas at a firing range.... are his 2 comrades setting him up?

Oct 1... skipping Monday, we get another call, Tarasoff says it’s the same voice... broken Russian.... Spanish....   “My name is LEE OSWALD.  I was there last Sat....”

Choaden gets a shipment in VA.  After Oct 1.  Phillips promoted to Mexi Station Cuba CI desk... arrives October 7, 8.  Goodpasture memo of the 8th says Oswald... HQ sends back Oct 9, HENRY... Mann is hot for this and sniffs the spy deep snow stuff.... FBI is Clark Anderson down there...  No photos sent in Oct.  This is Mystery Man, yet Clark has the date correct... Compared to what the CIA told them about the 1st....

The FBI knew and still had to cover for the CIA... those dirty double dealers....

..........

LITAMIL9 nor the monthly reports mention a Lee Oswald as having been at the embassy.  There was report of one call by an American to the Soviet Embassy.  Our man called the Soviet Military attaché. Out of the blue. Yet this was not mentioned in the report... 

FBI, ONI, STATE are told.... FBI knows it’s not him immediately.... he’s in Dallas.

photo and voice not him... SA Peck reports on 20 informants for traces of Oswald... all negative... even his assets at the Gobernacion, negative...  the travel evidence still makes me laugh...

So, did the catch a mole?   IDK  But I do know that on the 23rd LBJ was asking Hoover on a recorded line about Mexico.  That Castro leads to Krushchev that leads to WW3.  He must have been alone then....   the 26th and Alvarado comes in with a story to tell....  screw you says Phillips, Oswald could still have gotten money from Castro to do it.... but no... HQ overrides the rogue and has him have Alvarado recant.  

We cant give up sources and means.... Duran’s statement with some other background will keep the source safe.... and allow us never to divulge that he was never there... yet all must proceed as if he were...

To speculate, finding out that Oswald was FBI-related happened in Dallas with Wade.  If I’m right, he was in Dallas on FBI work that week... Wade was ex FBI?

He’d be the one to know.... in Dallas.

I don’t see the Soviets working that way.... to unpredictable. They like to create directed chaos... rot the US from within....   only Americans think such short term and with the Smash it Kill it mentality....

Age old question remains... is any of this assassination related at the time it occurs and if not, when does it ... 12:30 on the 22nd?

 

[James DiEugenio]

The idea that I created this thread for TG is another example of his baseless assumptions.  I started this for everyone and anyone here to examine the veracity and the underpinnings of his KGB plot, one that TG has been pushing on this forum for what seems like eons.  He did this for months on end before he (mercifully) left for a few months.  Now he has returned and is again pushing this snake oil, via none other than Pete Bagley, one of Angleton's chief assistants who still backs Golitsyn's grand conspiracy plot.  LOL

And in so doing, as I demonstrated above, TG wanders around asking, Geez, how did Putin come to power?  Therefore revealing that all he reads on the subject is Bagley.

To anyone who knows history or even just casually reads it, there were two huge events that brought Putin to power. The first was the attempted coup against Gorbachev. The second was the drunken fool Yeltsin's disastrous reign and his use of the Freidmanessque "shock doctrine".

But I left out one key point in that analysis. And that is this: Yeltsin was the darling of the American foreign policy establishment.  There were literally no limits that Yeltsin could stoop to without America backing him.  As more than one commentator has stated e.g. Steve Cohen, and the Congressional Research Service Report 98-725, what Yeltsin brought on in Russia was in many ways as bad or worse than what happened to the USA during the Great Depression.  It ended up placing 75 per cent of the Russian population in a state of poverty. It may have been the first time since WW 2, where a nation was demodernized in peace time. Investment in the economy fell by 80 per cent, and GDP contracted by half.

But that is not the worst. The worst was:  THIS WASN"T ENOUGH FOR THE NEOCONS!  Yeltsin's approval ratings had fallen to a point--six per cent-- that there was no way he could get re elected. So what did the USA do?  And please note the following for its utter hypocrisy in the face of the liberal blogosphere,  and the fact that TG has never once mentioned it.

Bill Clinton's State Department sent an entourage over to save the drunken idiot who had already ruined his country! This included Richard Dresner, and the infamous DIckie Morris.  But also, Clinton interceded with the IMF to give Yeltsin a grant of over ten billion to boost his image.  This American intervention included using dirty tricks on the opposition in order to disrupt the Zyuganov campaign. It concluded with bribery, voter fraud and ballot stuffing.

Now, why did Yeltsin fall so badly in the polls?  It was not just the disastrous economy.  It was his tyrannical and despotic fascist actions, which included the so called "Duma disaster".  At that time, in 1993, the Duma was still a  strong counterweight to Yeltsin's ruinous policies.  And they were against approving Gaidar, Mr Shock Doctrine, as Yeltsin's PM.  So what did that splendidly democratic leader Yeltsin do?  He tried to dissolve the Duma.  Which they said was unconstitutional.  They then tried to impeach Yeltsin. To prevent this, Bill Clinton's buddy turned off the water and electricity in the building.  When demonstrators showed up to protest this brutality, what did  Boris do?  He called out the tanks and artillery and started shelling the building. No one knows how many were killed.  Some say it was 200 others says it was ten times that.

After this, the cuddly neocon favorite then rewrote the constitution. See the new elections voted in too many anti Yeltsin figures so he took power from the Duma and gave it to the chief executive. Very much crippling the concept of a parliamentary republic.   Yeltsin, backed all the way by the Clintons, was determined to sell of the country's wealth to a very limited plutocracy. As David Satter of the WSJ wrote, "Russia was putting property immediately into private hands, even if those hands were criminal.  In this, they were fully supported by the US. The result was that the path was laid for the pillaging of thee country..."

All this allowed Putin to have a very strong hand both constitutionally and with the public, who were so sick of Yeltsin's rabidly reverse Robin Hood tactics.  Now, why does TG and the liberal blogosphere never mention this blatant intervention is the internal politics of the Russian federation?  Maybe because they do not want o admit the utter hypocrisy of the whole thing?  And before TG says I got this from some lefty rag, wrong.  He could have found it in Time Magazine, of July 15, 1996 and LA Times July 9, 1996.

FInally, 1.Why do I have to do this? and  2.) What does this or over half of what TG posts have to do with the JFK case? He somehow cannot see how Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers have to do with the murder of Kennedy, but somehow this does?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I believe that my explanation for Duran and Azcue describing the Oswald impersonator as someone resembling Nikolai Leonov makes a lot of sense. And I want to repeat it because I believe it deserves serious consideration. I have what I believe to be pretty good corroboration for my theory.

The goal of the CIA plotters was to link Oswald to a Russian/Cuban conspiracy. That was the whole purpose of Mexico City. They made the link to Kostikov via that phone call to Kostikov and the Oswald letter mentioning Comrade Kostin.

They made the link to Leonov by making sure a surveillance photo of him was sent to Washington. But they needed more than that. They needed witnesses who would say that this person was involved with Oswald in this (fabricated) conspiracy. They accomplished that by simply having a Leonov lookalike impersonate Oswald at the Cuban consulate.

It didn't matter whether or not it made sense for an alleged Leonov to impersonate Oswald in this (fabricated) conspiracy. The important thing was to have witnesses Duran and Azcue give descriptions that matched the man whose surveillance photo had been sent to Washington. Thus implicating both Cuba and Russia.

It was important that the blond Oswald/Leonov impersonator make a scene at the consulate. Because the plotters needed good witnesses. Azcue made for an excellent witness. Duran was less reliable.

I have corroboration for my theory. In 1978 Cuba released the photo of the narrow-faced blond man and said that he was the
Oswald impersonator at the Cuban embassy.  Azcue was interviewed by CBS News reporter Ed Rabel, and told him that that photo matched the face of the "Oswald" who had visited the Cuban Embassy. Cuba said that the CIA had this photo in their files and should release it.  See this document:

  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55413#relPageId=27&tab=page  

Thus Azcue's description of the impersonation matches mine.

(WRONG:*  It is interesting to note that James Angleton testified before the HSCA that Oswald had a photo of Leonov in his pocket when he was arrested in Mexico:)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447#relPageId=15&tab=page

All those years later Angleton was still claiming that Kostikov and Leonov were linked to Oswald in the fabricated Russian/Cuban conspiracy.

It seems quite clear to me that CIA plotters were trying to tie Oswald to both Kostikov and Leonov. The former they did with a phone call and a Kostin letter. The latter they did with a surveillance photo and a faked impersonation of Oswald designed to make witnesses out of consulate employees Duran and Azcue.

 

http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_11/LeftProfile.jpg.543f2d33983eed9ef8cef538806c8bf9.jpg

http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_11/5a0a51f1007f0_MexOz%282%29.jpg.ffaab1b3855930ed7a0e745357ba11d1.jpg

 

 

*Edit: This allegation was really against a young Castro when he was arrested in Mexico. See page 13 of the MFF document for this fact, and page 15 for the mistake about Oswald.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

What was Angleton talking about with the picture and the arrest?

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that my explanation for Duran and Azcue describing the Oswald impersonator as someone resembling Nikolai Leonov makes a lot of sense. And I want to repeat it because I believe it deserves serious consideration. I have what I believe to be pretty good corroboration for my theory.

The goal of the CIA plotters was to link Oswald to a Russian/Cuban conspiracy. That was the whole purpose of Mexico City. They made the link to Kostikov via that phone call to Kostikov and the Oswald letter mentioning Comrade Kostin.

They made the link to Leonov by making sure a surveillance photo of him was sent to Washington. But they needed more than that. They needed witnesses who would say that this person was involved with Oswald in this (fabricated) conspiracy. They accomplished that by simply having a Leonov lookalike impersonate Oswald at the Cuban consulate.

It didn't matter whether or not it made sense for an alleged Leonov to impersonate Oswald in this (fabricated) conspiracy. The important thing was to have witnesses Duran and Azcue give descriptions that matched the man whose surveillance photo had been sent to Washington. Thus implicating both Cuba and Russia.

It was important that the blond Oswald/Leonov impersonator make a scene at the consulate. Because the plotters needed good witnesses. Azcue made for an excellent witness. Duran was less reliable.

I have corroboration for my theory. In 1978 Cuba released the photo of the narrow-faced blond man and said that he was the
Oswald impersonator at the Cuban embassy.  Azcue was interviewed by CBS News reporter Ed Rabel, and told him that that photo matched the face of the "Oswald" who had visited the Cuban Embassy. Cuba said that the CIA had this photo in their files and should release it.  See this document:

  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55413#relPageId=27&tab=page  

Thus Azcue's description of the impersonation matches mine.

It is interesting to note that James Angleton testified before the HSCA that Oswald had a photo of Leonov in his pocket when he was arrested in Mexico:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447#relPageId=15&tab=page

All those years later Angleton was still claiming that Kostikov and Leonov were linked to Oswald in the fabricated Russian/Cuban conspiracy.

It seems quite clear to me that CIA plotters were trying to tie Oswald to both Kostikov and Leonov. The former they did with a phone call and a Kostin letter. The latter they did with a surveillance photo and a faked impersonation of Oswald designed to make witnesses out of consulate employees Duran and Azcue.

 

 

 

 

Sandy,

 

I wonder if the weirdo name of the mysterious double-agent "Byetkov" mentioned in Angleton's testimony (notice the little "question mark" above his name in the transcript?) might not have been an artifact of JJA's fading, overworked memory and/or a "typo" thereof, and that the dude in question might in reality have been KGB-boy Oleg Brykin, whom fake double-agent "Fedora" (Aleksey Kulak) told FBI was "Department 13," and with whom FBI double-agent "Tumbleweed" (Guenther Schulz/Schultz from Oklahoma(?) or New York(?) ) had made contact in NYC?

Just sayin'

 

Excellent work, btw, Sandy!

--  Tommy 

 

Oh, my goodness!  HERE's an interesting article! -- 

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/oct/26/jfk-angleton-world-war-iii/

 

And this little goodie from 11/27/63:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=7334&relPageId=5&search=tumbleweed

HINT: The "KGB colleague of KOSTIMOV'S (sic) was Oleg Brykin at the UN in N.Y.C.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

What was Angleton talking about with the picture and the arrest?

 

Jim,

There was apparently some "allegation" regarding Oswald and that picture of Leonov, Leonov being "the Soviet KGB operational man in Mexico" according to Angleton. That allegation has apparently been redacted.

What Angleton said prior to that is interesting. He's asked if he has an opinion as to whether or not Oswald was a Soviet agent. He says he has a strong opinion. Unfortunately it is redacted, as far as I can tell. But from context it appears -- no surprise to me -- that his opinion is that Oswald was indeed a Soviet agent. (Of course, that is NOT his opinion... that is the opinion he wants others to believe he has.)

Angleton ties both Oswald and Castro to Leonov, the KGB operational man in Mexico. And he notes that Department 13 is charged with assassination of Western Leaders. Which should be kept in mind as future generations pursue the investigation of the JFK assassination. (Which, ironically, is what Tommy is doing in this thread. I mean, pursuing it with the KGB in mind as the culprit. LOL)

Below are snippets from:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447#relPageId=15&tab=page

[redacted]

Page 10:

SENATOR BAKER:  Was there ever any inquiry? Or do you have an opinion as to whether Oswald was a Soviet Agent?

MR. ANGLETON:  Yes, I have a strong opinion.

....

Page 11:

MR. ANGLETON:  But given the fact that the Soviet Government has a Department 13, which is under the Central Committee, who is taxed with the assassination of Western Leaders, that the door is open, and that is for future generations to speculate. So that it would not be losing the door, that it would really mean the investigation would be pursued.

....

Page 12:

SENATOR BAKER:  Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Oswald was in fact a Soviet Agent?

MR. ANGLETON:  Well, let me put it this way. I don't think the Oswald case is dead. There were too many leads that were never followed up. There's too much information that has been developed later. For example, in 1966, in a Soviet book on Cuba, there is a photograph of Krushchev,....Castro,....Shettov,....and a man named Leontov [Leonov], who was the Soviet KGB operational man in Mexico. When the Mexican police arrested Castro as a student, they found in his notebooks the name of Leontov, KGB, Mexico.

[redacted]

Page 15:

MR. SCHWARZ:  Can I follow up some of the questions that Senator Baker asked you about Oswald? What about the pictures, one of which was a picture of Leontov that was on a piece of paper found in Mr. Oswald's pocket when he was arrested in Mexico?

MR. ANGLETON:  There is an allegation.

MR. SCHWARZ:  What connection is there between that picture and that allegation and Lee Harvey Oswald?

MR. ANGLETON:  The only thing is, Oswald's trip to Mexico was to go to Cuba allegedly to contact the Soviets.

 

[Thomas Graves]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jim,

There was apparently some "allegation" regarding Oswald and that picture of Leonov, Leonov being "the Soviet KGB operational man in Mexico" according to Angleton. That allegation has apparently been redacted.

What Angleton said prior to that is interesting. He's asked if he has an opinion as to whether or not Oswald was a Soviet agent. He says he has a strong opinion. Unfortunately it is redacted, as far as I can tell. But from context it appears -- no surprise to me -- that his opinion is that Oswald was indeed a Soviet agent. (Of course, that is NOT his opinion... that is the opinion he wants others to believe he has.)

Angleton ties both Oswald and Castro to Leonov, the KGB operational man in Mexico. And he notes that Department 13 is charged with assassination of Western Leaders. Which should be kept in mind as future generations pursue the investigation of the JFK assassination. (Which, ironically, is what Tommy is doing in this thread. I mean, pursuing it with the KGB in mind as the culprit. LOL)

Below are snippets from:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447#relPageId=15&tab=page

[redacted]

Page 10:

SENATOR BAKER:  Was there ever any inquiry? Or do you have an opinion as to whether Oswald was a Soviet Agent?

MR. ANGLETON:  Yes, I have a strong opinion.

....

Page 11:

MR. ANGLETON:  But given the fact that the Soviet Government has a Department 13, which is under the Central Committee, who is taxed with the assassination of Western Leaders, that the door is open, and that is for future generations to speculate. So that it would not be losing the door, that it would really mean the investigation would be pursued.

....

Page 12:

SENATOR BAKER:  Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Oswald was in fact a Soviet Agent?

MR. ANGLETON:  Well, let me put it this way. I don't think the Oswald case is dead. There were too many leads that were never followed up. There's too much information that has been developed later. For example, in 1966, in a Soviet book on Cuba, there is a photograph of Krushchev,....Castro,....Shettov,....and a man named Leontov [Leonov], who was the Soviet KGB operational man in Mexico. When the Mexican police arrested Castro as a student, they found in his notebooks the name of Leontov, KGB, Mexico.

[redacted]

Page 15:

MR. SCHWARZ:  Can I follow up some of the questions that Senator Baker asked you about Oswald? What about the pictures, one of which was a picture of Leontov that was on a piece of paper found in Mr. Oswald's pocket when he was arrested in Mexico?

MR. ANGLETON:  There is an allegation.

MR. SCHWARZ:  What connection is there between that picture and that allegation and Lee Harvey Oswald?

MR. ANGLETON:  The only thing is, Oswald's trip to Mexico was to go to Cuba allegedly to contact the Soviets.

 

 

Sandy "Of Course" Larsen,

 

With all due respect ...... LOL!

 

IMHO, you've been brainwashed by James & Co.

 

Too bad you refuse to read Bagley's "Spy Wars," or even his 30-something page PDF follow-up, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars."

 

If you did, you'd see how right Angleton was, especially about the issue at hand.

 

(Maybe you should have stuck with forensic dentistry, after all ...)

 

Never heard of Oleg Brykin?

"Fedora"?

Guenter Schulz?

 

OMG

 

--  Tommy 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Sandy "Of Course" Larsen,

 

With all due respect ...... LOL!

 

IMHO, you've been brainwashed by James & Co.

 

Too bad you refuse to read Bagley's "Spy Wars," or even his 30-something page PDF follow-up, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars."

 

If you did, you'd see how right Angleton was, especially about the issue at hand.

 

(Maybe you should have stuck with forensic dentistry, after all ...)

 

Never heard of Oleg Brykin?

"Fedora"?

Guenter Schulz?

 

OMG

 

--  Tommy 

 

 

Tommy,

I understand the usefulness of false flag operations, which I believe was the secondary goal of the JFK assassination. (The primary goal being to get rid of the traitorous SOB.)

What I can't understand is why the Soviets would want to assassination Kennedy. I mean, if he was such a pain in the xxx, why not just wait for his term(s) to end? I can't believe that Khrushchev and his comrades at the Kremlin would be so stupid as to kill an American president. Talk about a death wish.

Why do you think the Soviets would want to kill Kennedy?