Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Lance Payette

A conspiracy theory even a Lone Nutter can love ...

Recommended Posts

Lancie Boy, what is the level of your reading comprehension? Reading too much about alien abductions lately?

Anyone can see from above that when I revisited the start of this thread some of your stuff "filtered through".  In other words people were silly enough to engage with you on something besides alien abductions.

As I tried to point out, any lawyer who somehow compares that with a homicide case is really a bowl of wax. There are courses in criminal prosecution and advanced criminal prosecution at law school.  I have never heard of one in Alien Abductions 101, let alone 201.  Did you take those classes?  What were they like and can you tell us the college that offered them?

But that is not the real point is it Lancie Boy?

The real point in you bringing all that up is to imply that anybody who actually studies the record in the JFK case must be as weird and lost as someone who does Alien Abductions right, Lancie?  You know, the whole Tin Foil cap crowd. correct?

Geez Lancie, was Richard Russell into Alien Abductions?  Was Hale Boggs? Was LBJ? Was Richard Schweiker? Is Al Gore? Was John Connally? 

No they were not.  But they all had severe reservations about the Magic Bullet and some of them more than that.  Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds. Schweiker said that when he studied the WC, it collapsed like a house of cards.  After just one year of study Gore told Bud Fensterwald: You are correct, it was a conspiracy.

See Lancie, the reason we are here is not because we think the moon landings never happened or aliens are abducting humans.  I mean that might be what you are or were interested in. And you should continue to frequent those types of sites.  

We are here because Kennedy was killed by conspiracy, and that is not a theory, it is a fact. What is a theory is who killed him and why.  That is what most of us are trying to figure out.  Not because its fun, or interesting.  Its not.  But because we think something happened to this country in the sixties.  In fact, according to a 2013 Hart Associates poll, 94 % of the public feels that way, namely that something happened to America after JFK was killed that sent the country into a downturn. (Maybe it was an outbreak of alien abductions?  If so they should have called you, right Lancie?)

That is what we are trying to do here.  If you don't feel comfortable with it go to an alien abductions site, or a fake moon landing site. Should be easy to find. You would fit in much better there than here since whatever your detective skills are, they simply seem abysmal in a homicide case.  But your attitude, rhetoric, and bombast would fit right in over there.  

Let us know if you need some help finding one.  I am sure most of us would like to see you happy and wish you bon voyage  to your new home.

PS Thanks Denny.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 1:29 PM, Lance Payette said:

As one who favors the Lone Assassin explanation, it seems to me that the conspiracy theories that have Oswald as a CIA operative, fake defector, fake Marxist, fake Castro supporter, etc., are preposterous. 

21 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA


1. CIA accountant James Wilcott testified that he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”  Contemporaneous HSCA notes indicate Wilcott told staffers, but wasn't allowed to say in Executive session, that the cryptonym for the CIA's "Oswald Project" was RX-ZIM.

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

15. CIA's Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, and he said that the CIA and the FBI ignored his warnings.

16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs….

18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

20. CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960.  Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....”  When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct."  When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one."

21. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

Krock_CIA.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

KG:  But this could be an unspoken conspiracy between the two to promote Jim Di's books and traffic to DVP's website which certainly fits in with Jim Di's  grand conspiracy theories where he certainly has never met a conspiracy he didn't like. 

One of the really fruity comments ever made here...

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds.

And yet Connally said all this pro-WC stuff on November 23, 1966 (at 6:03 and 7:16). Go figure....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOak9yQlQ2MWliMGs/view

The best part of the above 1966 press conference is when John Connally called Mark Lane a "journalistic scavenger". Hear, hear!

DiEugenio and others will no doubt say that Connally (much like Robert Kennedy) was in the habit of saying one thing to the "MSM", but behind closed doors, Connally was saying something entirely different. But after listening to interviews and news conferences with John Connally (like the one above), I begin to wonder about the claims coming from CTers, such as DiEugenio's claim above----"Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds". Is there any audio or video of Connally actually saying anything like that at all? If such audio or video exists, I've certainly never heard or seen it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Lancie Boy, what is the level of your reading comprehension? Reading too much about alien abductions lately?

Anyone can see from above that when I revisited the start of this thread some of your stuff "filtered through".  In other words people were silly enough to engage with you on something besides alien abductions.

As I tried to point out, any lawyer who somehow compares that with a homicide case is really a bowl of wax. There are courses in criminal prosecution and advanced criminal prosecution at law school.  I have never heard of one in Alien Abductions 101, let alone 201.  Did you take those classes?  What were they like and can you tell us the college that offered them?

But that is not the real point is it Lancie Boy?

The real point in you bringing all that up is to imply that anybody who actually studies the record in the JFK case must be as weird and lost as someone who does Alien Abductions right, Lancie?  You know, the whole Tin Foil cap crowd. correct?

Losing it?  I don't believe I've seen a meltdown of that magnitude since fourth grade.

"With all due respect," as the saying goes, you have reached a point of irrationality.

The comparison I am making has nothing to do with "alien abductions" per se.  The phenomenon is not "people being abducted by aliens."  The phenomenon is "tens of thousands of psychologically healthy people from around the world reporting similar events and believing they have been abducted."  This phenomenon has been of interest to professionals in medicine, psychology, sociology and other disciplines, as any such phenomenon would be, as well as by the UFO research community.  A multi-discipline professional conference was held at MIT as early as 1992, chaired by the head of the department of physics.  The best people studying the phenomenon are neither "weird" nor "lost."

There has never been a clear determination as to what is going on.  From day one, there have been those who insist the phenomenon is indeed "people being abducted by aliens."  They will entertain no other theory.  Their ranks include people with impeccable academic and professional credentials who write books, make DVDs and speak at conferences about things like a massive alien hybridization program to take over the planet and all of this being undetectable because the aliens have mastered the technique of invisibility.  They are widely regarded as credulous loons by the professionals in medicine, psychology, sociology and other disciplines, as well as by serious researchers in the UFO community who no longer regard "people being abducted by aliens" as a plausible explanation.  The loons do flock together and share psychological propensities that have been identified and studied by the professional community.

The assassination of JFK is likewise a phenomenon, a historical event.  It has been investigated by professionals from appropriate disciplines.  The best of these investigators and researchers are neither "weird" nor "lost."  They have reached differing conclusions, from Lone Assassin to various conspiracies.  Some of those conspiracies are well-researched and plausible.  The people who advocate them are neither "weird" nor "lost."  But the JFK conspiracy community has its own credulous loons, who share the same psychological propensities as the alien abduction loons.  Their ranks include people with impeccable academic and professional credentials who write books, make DVDs and speak at conferences about their dark and sinister theories.

My point is that the dynamics of the two communities - and many other communities where conspiracy thinking and a fondness for bizarre explanations are prevalent - are very similar.  An awareness of what these dynamics are can be very helpful to someone in navigating these communities.  Without such an awareness, it can be very easy to be misled by high-profile characters who have seemingly impeccable academic and professional credentials and wide followings but are indeed credulous loons themselves.  Hence Lance's Axiom, which I have found to be very helpful:  Never assume that just because someone is intelligent, highly educated, seemingly reasonable and employed in a responsible position that he is not completely insane in some weird corner of his life.

The fact that you take such foaming-at-the-mouth umbrage at the modest point I am making suggests you believe the finger is pointing at you.  You do strike me as extraordinarily humorless, thin-skinned and pompous, a characterization I doubt few would dispute, but I have not suggested you are "weird" or "lost" or part of the "tinfoil hat crowd."  Others can judge for themselves, but I would suggest that I don't think you're doing yourself any favors with responses such as the above.

Why the participation of those who hold the Lone Assassin position would be so obviously threatening to someone such as yourself (and many others here) is truly a mystery to me.  Sure, I'm a smartass who enjoys egging things on - I've always enjoyed tweaking people like you simply because you're so eminently tweakable - but my points are generally substantive and legitimate.  What is the intense emotional desire for JFK to have been the victim of a conspiracy that causes you to come as unglued over essentially nothing as the above post suggests?  It's a mystery to me.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey cut out the other part of the quote.

When the reporter asked him why he did not say anything  about it he said that the country needed closure. (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 418)

And he always insisted he was hit by a separate shot.  And he told the same thing to Groden when he and his wife visited Dealey Plaza.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey cut out the other part of the quote.

When the reporter asked him [John Connally] why he did not say anything about it, he said that the country needed closure. (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 418)

Are you saying that the 8-minute press conference video I posted also should have contained Connally saying something about "needing closure"? Did Joseph McBride cite the 11/23/66 Connally News Conference as his source for that "closure" comment?

If not, do you have a video or audio clip of Connally saying that? Or is it just a text quote coming from a CTer? Just curious.

 

Quote

And he always insisted he was hit by a separate shot.  And he told the same thing to Groden when he and his wife visited Dealey Plaza.

Big deal.

IMO, he almost certainly got most of his SBT criticism from his wife, Nellie, who never believed the SBT either. But, as I have been saying for many years, John Connally is (literally) the VERY LAST PERSON in the world who can say FOR SURE whether he and JFK were struck by the same bullet ---- and that's because: John Connally, as he himself has said, did not see JFK at any time after the shooting started.

I truly think that I could have convinced John Connally of the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory in about 2 minutes if I could have shown him my webpage linked below. After viewing those Z-Film clips, Mr. Connally would have had no choice but to say to me ---- "I was wrong. I can see now that I was reacting to the shot that hit me as early as Z225. Thanks for the clips, DVP."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Al Fordiani said:

When the documents and their routing were shown to legendary CIA counterintelligence officer Pete Bagley, Bagley's conclusion was that Oswald was a witting false defector.

From what I've been able to determine, Bagley died in 2014 at the age of 88.  Malcom Blunt became "friends" with him "a few years earlier" - so he was 85, perhaps?  To what extent is this "friendship" documented?  Is this not a fair question?  I've been unable to find anything substantive about it.  A CIA lifer decides to become friends with a JFK conspiracy zealot in his ninth decade?  OK, it's possible - just show me what you have.

According to Jim's description, "Bagley asked Blunt to map the routing of the first cables about Oswald as they went through the CIA. When Bagley asked Blunt if a pattern like that betrayed whether or not Oswald’s defection to Russia was witting or unwitting, Blunt said he was not sure; but he guessed unwitting. Bagley said he was wrong. A routing pattern like that, around all the places the files should have gone, betrayed that Oswald’s defection was witting—meaning the CIA expected it and was planning in advance."  Here, likewise, I've been unable to find anything except this bald assertion, repeated in several places.  Was this documented in any way?  If so, great.  If not, I do find it somewhat unlikely that a CIA lifer would drop this bombshell on a conspiracy zealot, and that said zealot would not immediately have documented it in every way possible.

The other problem I'm having is that the entire focus of the CIA after the assassination seems to have been on the possibility that Oswald had been acting on behalf of the KGB.  On the day after the assassination, Bagley wrote ""Putting it baldly, was Oswald, wittingly or unwittingly, part of a plot to murder President Kennedy in Dallas?"  When Nosenko defected, one of the key concerns was whether the KGB had debriefed Oswald or made other use of him.  Was Nosenko telling the truth, or wasn't he?  Bagley, of course, was knee-deep in the Nosenko interrogation.  If Oswald had been a false defector and a CIA operative, I'm having a hard time understanding why Bagley would not have been fully informed as to who Oswald was and would not have put Oswald through the same sort of brutal grilling Nosenko received as to whether he had been debriefed or become a KGB operative.  Yet Bagley seemed to know little about Oswald and to still be wondering the day after the assassination whether he might have been working for the KGB.  Does that make sense to you?  If it does, enlighten me.

Moreover, Bagley wrote several books about his experiences in the spy trade, but as far as I know there is no hint of anything like he told Malcolm Blunt.  But he opens up at age 85 to a conspiracy zealot?  Not impossible, but ….

Inquiring minds would like to know whether and how this makes sense.  Perhaps it does and I'm just not seeing it.  Once again, it seems to me, we are being asked to reach a really major conclusion - Oswald was a false defector - on the basis of exceedingly thin evidence and in contravention of much more solid evidence.

What does a false defector look like anyway?  I would picture him as someone who would blend in, maintain a low profile.  I would not picture him as engaging in one-man sit-down strikes, refusing to attend mandatory meetings, getting into fisticuffs with a coworker over some girl, making fun of Lenin statutes, Lenin posters and the other trappings of Soviet society, and pilfering military sensitive parts to try to make "grenades" in his bugged apartment.  I think this is why Nosenko said, and the KGB later confirmed, that the KGB found him to be so completely unlike a false defector that they at first suspected he might be some weird new species and then concluded he was just unstable (or "being Oswald").

Everyone should read the book by Ernst Titovets - who, BTW, doesn't believe the Oswald he knew would have been capable of killing JFK (and that's probably true - the Oswald who Titovets knew probably wouldn't have been).  The book is very detailed and very credible.  The picture that emerges is a very rich one and makes the notion of a "false defector" and international man of mystery pretty laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA HA HA HA :lol:

The above is one of DVP's unintentional guffaws.

JBC knew that the WC was so full of crap it stunk.  Period.  End of story.  

Be a man DVP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

JBC knew that the WC was so full of crap, it stunk. Period. End of story. 

Maybe you'd better listen to this again, Jim. Here's my YouTube version of it....

 

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

21 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA

Jim, I appreciate your enthusiasm and know that you are acting in good faith in trying to represent a position you sincerely believe.  I really do.

Your “CIA guy” kept his baby in a cardboard box.  A cardboard box.  He didn’t attend the birth of his second child because he was afraid the hospital would charge him.  The couple was so poverty-stricken the Russian community in Dallas treated them as objects of pity.  When he went job-hunting in Dallas, his cousin (I believe it was) gave him a decent shirt to wear.  Is this what the life of a returning-defector “CIA guy” looks like?  You folks may want to consider a revised edition:  Harvey and Lee and Ozzie.  I'm thinking Ozzie lived in a beachfront condo in Miami, drove a Porsche, ate caviar for breakfast and played a fast 18 at the club with Allen Dulles whenever he was in town.

Let’s look at James B. Wilcott as just one example of why I will not take this sort of stuff seriously unless and until I see ONE PIECE of unquestionably bona fide evidence that clearly and unequivocally causes me to do so.  Why does someone like Wilcott tell these blatant whoppers, which the HSCA recognized as such?  What on earth is his motivation, his agenda?  I have no idea.  But I do know that seemingly sane and responsible people do this ALL THE TIME even in routine cases but especially in high-profile ones, for reasons known only to themselves – and the conspiracy community is grateful they do.

I won’t beat this to death, but a quick look at Wilcott’s testimony is fascinating.  Yeah, this is how the CIA operates in the aftermath of a Presidential assassination.  Scores of average slobs became supposed "mystery deaths," but THIS guy survived to tell THIS tale?

TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. WILCOTT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE HSCA IN 1978

Mr. GOLDSMITH - Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA?Mr. WILCOTT - Yes, I did.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was?
Mr. WILCOTT - Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent of the agency.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - What do you mean by the term "agent"?
Mr. WILCOTT - That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - How did this information concerning Oswald first come to your attention?
Mr. WILCOTT - The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - And how did that come to your attention:
Mr. WILCOTT - Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination. Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time went on, I began to hear more things in that line.
***
Mr. GOLDSMITH - And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?
Mr. WILCOTT - I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it going on at the station, and several months following at the station.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA?
Mr. WILCOTT - At least -- there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA.
***
Mr. GOLDSMITH - At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you discuss it with anyone?
Mr. WILCOTT - Oh, yes. I discussed it with my friends and the people that I was associating with socially.
***
Mr. WILCOTT - From the time I left I talked at various times, especially at parties and things like that, on social occasions, with people at headquarters and with people at my station, and we would converse about it and I used to say things like, "What do you think about Oswald being connected with the CIA?", and things like that.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - What was their response?
Mr. WILCOTT - The response was, among quote a few people "Oh, well, I am sure he was."

***
Mr. GOLDSMITH - How many people have you spoken to that said that Oswald was an agent of the CIA, to the best of your recollection?
Mr. SCHAAP - Do you mean, how many people who were in the CIA or how many people in the general population?
Mr. GOLDSMITH - How many people in the CIA?
Mr. WILCOTT - With any degree of certainty, other than just speculation, I would say, six or seven with some degree of certainty.
***
Mr. GOLDSMITH - How many people from the CIA did you speak to who speculated that Oswald was an agent?
Mr. WILCOTT - Dozens, literally dozens.
***
Mr. GOLDSMITH - Did you bring your allegation to the attention of the Warren Commission?
Mr. WILCOTT - No, I didn't.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - And what is the reason for that?

Mr. WILCOTT - I really didn't think that the Warren Commission was out to really get at the facts, and I am not saying that they purposely did anything, because I don't know, and maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but certainly, they didn't impress me as really trying to scrutinize the evidence that there was. And their security that there is in the Government didn't strike me as the kind of security that would keep me from getting attacked in some way, if someone wanted to do it.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - How did you know, in 1963, what type of security precautions the Warren Commission had for conducting its investigation?
Mr. WILCOTT - I don't understand.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - You have indicated that you were not inclined to go to the Warren Commission because you were concerned about their security?
Mr. WILCOTT - Yes.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - Did you have any basis for thinking that their security was poor?
Mr. WILCOTT - In 1963, I wasn't think that much about it.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - So, it never really came forward for you to go to the Warren Commission, did it?
Mr. WILCOTT - Not until after I left the agency.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - When was the first time that you alleged in public that Oswald was a CIA agent.
Mr. WILCOTT - In 1968.
Mr. GOLDSMITH - So, you first came across this information in November of 1963, is that correct?
Mr. WILCOTT - That is correct.

Mr. GOLDSMITH - And the first time you alleged in public this allegation was in 1968?
***
Mr. GOLDSMITH - Is it fair to say that the CIA is an operation that runs itself on a "need-to-know" basis? Would you tell the Committee what the "need-to-know" principle is?
Mr. WILCOTT - It is based on the principle that only those persons who are involved in a project or involved in operation -- and even things that would not seem to be at all in any way secret -- only those people should know about it and nobody else should know about it, and that was a "need-to-know" basis
Mr. GOLDSMITH - If the agency, in fact, was run on the "need-to-know" basis, how would you account for so many people supposedly knowing that Oswald was an agent?Mr. WILCOTT - The "need-to-know" principle was not all that we followed, and just about every one of the big projects that the agency was involved in, information leaked out, and we especially within the CIA knew about it, and someone would go to a party and have a little bit too much to drink and start saying things that they really shouldn't be saying to keep in mind what the "need-to-know" principle was.
***
Mr. GOLDSMITH - Did you ever bring your allegation to the attention of anyone in the CIA?
Mr. WILCOTT - No.

FINDINGS OF THE HSCA, pages 199-200

In an attempt to investigate Wilcott's allegations, the committee interviewed several present and former CIA employees selected on the basis of the position each had held during the years 1954-64.  Among the persons interviewed were individuals whose responsibilities covered a broad spectrum of areas in the post abroad, including the chief and deputy chief of station, as well as officers in finance, registry, the Soviet Branch and counterintelligence.  None of these individuals interviewed had ever seen any documents or heard any information indicating that Oswald was an agent.  This allegation was not known by any of them until it was published by critics of the Warren Commission in the late 1960's.  Some of the individuals, including a chief of counterintelligence in the Soviet Branch, expressed the belief that it was possible that Oswald had been recruited by the Soviet KGB during his military tour of duty overseas, as the CIA had identified a KGB program aimed at recruiting U.S. military personnel during the-period Oswald Was stationed there.  An intelligence analyst whom Wilcott had specifically named as having been involved in a conversation about the Oswald allegation told the committee that he was not in the post abroad at the time of the assassination.  A review of this individual's office of personnel file confirmed that, in fact, he had been transferred from the post abroad to the United States in 1962.  The chief of the post abroad from 1961 to 1964 stated that had Oswald been used by the Agency he certainly would have learned about it.  Similarly, almost all those persons interviewed who worked in the Soviet Branch of that station indicated they would have known if Oswald had, in fact, been recruited by the CIA when he was overseas. These persons-expressed the opinion that, had Oswald been recruited without their knowledge, it would have been a rare exception contrary to the working policy and guidelines of the post abroad.

Based on all the evidence, the committee concluded that Wilcott's allegation was not worthy of belief.

NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF - BUT A SHINING STAR IN THE CONSPIRACY COMMUNITY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of additional perspective on the above, from the NY TIMES:

"Mr. Wilcott said that after leaving the agency he became active in the movement against the Vietnam War and developed an interest in left‐wing political causes. He said that he began circulating his account of the conversations concerning Oswald several years ago but that they were never published.

According to one source, the House committee learned about Mr. Wilcott's story from Philip Agee, a former agent of the C.I.A. who published several years ago a book attacking the agency's operations in Latin America.

Mr. Wilcott was represented at the committee hearing by William H. Schaap, one of Mr. Agee's lawyers."

https://www.nytimes.com/1978/03/27/archives/oswald-link-to-cia-reported-at-inquiry-exemployee-of-agency-tells.html 

William H. Schaap, Radical Lawyer and Critic of C.I.A., Dies at 75

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/nyregion/william-h-schaap-radical-lawyer-author-and-publisher-dies-at-75.html 

Your post crossed with mine, Tracy - great minds think alike. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HSCA was part of the cover-up.  

Following are apparently raw notes typed by HSCA staffers following their discussions with James Wilcott.  Bill Schaap was Mr. Wilcott's attorney. Note the many details in Mr. Wilcott's secret Executive Testimony not permitted by HSCA counsel Michael Goldsmith, including the CIA cryptonym for the Oswald Project, the fact that Mr. Wilcott was anxious to take a standard lie detector test, the fact that he had already passed a voice stress analysis, and that he knew many names of CIA personnel he wasn't allowed to state.  Note the apparent involvement of HSCA counsel Michael Goldsmith who said, "Committee did not want any public revelation on his [Wilcott's] committee appearance."  According to Schaap, Wilcott was forced to agree to "not reveal specifics of specific questions."

You can make all the excuses you want, but you can't make Wilcott's testimony go away, even though it was partly censored.
 

RX-ZIM.jpg

RX-ZIM_2.jpg

Wilcott_NYC.jpg

Wilcott_Lie_Detector.jpg

Wilcott_List.jpg

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

From what I've been able to determine, Bagley died in 2014 at the age of 88.  Malcom Blunt became "friends" with him "a few years earlier" - so he was 85, perhaps?  To what extent is this "friendship" documented?  Is this not a fair question? 

Your understanding and mine are the same here.  I am familiar with this through Newman as cited above.  My understanding is that Mr. DiEugenio has had correspondence with Mr. Blunt on this matter (and on the aforementioned matter of Ms. Wolf of the HSCA).

My understanding is that Mr. Blunt gave a presentation at the 2018 Lancer Conference on his relationship with Bagley.  I was not at the conference (although I would have liked to have been) and I don't know if Mr. Blunt's presentation is recorded anywhere that we have access to.  Maybe someone here can add something.

12 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

A CIA lifer decides to become friends with a JFK conspiracy zealot in his ninth decade? 

Your use of the word "zealot" seems pejorative in this context which strikes me as patently unfair.  Are all people who search for the facts and the truth somehow tainted?  Have you met Mr. Blunt?  Prying the truth out of an organization like the CIA clearly takes dogged determination, so are you automatically a "zealot?"  Should we not applaud the efforts of men like Mr. Blunt?  You may claim that you didn't mean it in a pejorative manner, but given the whole thrust of your thread here, that wouldn't ring true.

Now you must know that Mr. Bagley ended up having a close relationship with his long-time USSR counterpart and rival, Sergey A. Kondrashev.  That might seem impossible, but it happened.  So I don't find it much of a stretch that Bagley had a relationship with Mr. Blunt, especially once he saw that Blunt was someone who did his homework.

12 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

If so, great.  If not, I do find it somewhat unlikely that a CIA lifer would drop this bombshell on a conspiracy zealot, and that said zealot would not immediately have documented it in every way possible.

But the main point here is that the CIA documents exist without Bagley.  So this "bombshell" is not dependent on Bagley or on Blunt's relationship with him.  Let's face it, when Richard Helms was confronted with the fact that Oswald's 201 file wasn't opened until 13 months after his "defection," I believe his quote (this is from memory) was, "I'm amazed."  Of course Helms was not going to admit that Oswald was an agent of the CIA; but neither could he provide a credible alternative.

The point is that to a seasoned intelligence professional, like Bagley or Newman (or John "Scelso" Whitten for that matter), it is clearly evident, obvious, that Oswald's defection was pre-planned and prepared for by the CIA.

12 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Once again, it seems to me, we are being asked to reach a really major conclusion - Oswald was a false defector - on the basis of exceedingly thin evidence and in contravention of much more solid evidence.

Agreed that this is a major conclusion.  But I strongly disagree that the evidence is "exceedingly thin."  Just the opposite.  The documents and the routing records of those documents exist (surely you do not doubt that.)  They tell the story. The evidence is, in fact, robust.

12 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

The other problem I'm having is that the entire focus of the CIA after the assassination seems to have been on the possibility that Oswald had been acting on behalf of the KGB.  On the day after the assassination, Bagley wrote ""Putting it baldly, was Oswald, wittingly or unwittingly, part of a plot to murder President Kennedy in Dallas?"  When Nosenko defected, one of the key concerns was whether the KGB had debriefed Oswald or made other use of him.  Was Nosenko telling the truth, or wasn't he?  Bagley, of course, was knee-deep in the Nosenko interrogation.  If Oswald had been a false defector and a CIA operative, I'm having a hard time understanding why Bagley would not have been fully informed as to who Oswald was and would not have put Oswald through the same sort of brutal grilling Nosenko received as to whether he had been debriefed or become a KGB operative.  Yet Bagley seemed to know little about Oswald and to still be wondering the day after the assassination whether he might have been working for the KGB.  Does that make sense to you?  If it does, enlighten me.

Well, now as you know, to answer this I must conjecture, which I am for the most part reluctant to do.  (A typical LN response would be to counter the conjecture as if that counters the underlying facts.)  I believe that there are a couple of factors in play.  Certainly, many in the CIA would by natural first reaction focus on the enemy, the USSR and KGB.  I also believe that certain members of the CIA would encourage this focus to direct attention away from themselves.  (After all, this focus was manifested in Johnson's (lying) warning to Warren.)

The Nosenko matter is a complex one wherein no one knows the whole truth, would you not agree?  The "Oswald concern" comes I believe from the fact that Nosenko offered up his Oswald information freely. I can certainly believe that Nosenko was sent by the KGB with the message that they had nothing to do with Oswald.  (At that time, who wanted anything to do with Oswald?)  I believe that like all good counterintelligence officers, Nosenko told a tale full of both truth and fiction. 

As to Bagley's contemporaneous knowledge of Oswald's defection I do not know.  As to the lack of debriefing of Oswald when he returned to the US, well you are making my point:  a man threatens to reveal secrets to the Soviets and then is welcomed back to the US without any debriefing at all?  That surely doesn't add up in a true defector scenario.

14 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

What does a false defector look like anyway?  I would picture him as someone who would blend in, maintain a low profile.  I would not picture him...

Irrelevant.  The document trail is proof whether Oswald fits your picture or not.  Maybe it is you that don't understand what the various missions might be.  Maybe Oswald was terrible at his mission.  Irrelevant to the main point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...