Thomas Graves
-
Posts
8,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Thomas Graves
-
-
9 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
LEONOV GOES BACK TO THE MID 50'S....
TAKE YOUR TIME TOMMY... LET US KNOW IF YOU FIND ANYTHING PERTINENT
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10218-10034.pdf - 162 PAGE FILE ON LEONOV...
(See buddy... I DO care... but like the rest are tired of the obtuseness... I hope this helps you)
DJ
Thank you, David!
Interesting stuff.
You da Man!
-- T.G.
PS Obtuseness? What does that mean?
PPS Hey, David. Got anything on Byetkov? -
I have recently shown in another thread that, during the 1975 and 1976 Church Committee hearings, James Jesus Angleton wasn't talking about some unknown KGB dude by the name of "Leontov," but KGB's 35 year-old, short, blond, very thin-faced operations officer in Mexico, Colonel Nikolai Leonov, whose "personal card" was allegedly found in Fidel Castro's wallet (not Oswald's pocket, and not a photograph) when Fidel was arrested in Mexico in 1956.
For what it's worth, if I understand Angleton's other testimony correctly, he seemed to believe, based on 1) the possibility that Oswald met with KGB operations officer Leonov in Mexico City (as confirmed by Leonov, himself, in the 1990s), and 2 ) that a certain KGB triple agent after the assassination had tried to convince CIA that KGB had had no relationship with Oswald, that Oswald may have been working for the Ruskies.
A Committee member, a certain Mr. Schwarz, clearly misspoke when he said Oswald had been arrested in Mexico City. He meant to say that Castro had been arrested there back in the day.
I beg to differ with Bill Simpich's interpretation of one particular part of Angleton's testimony. To wit; when Mr. Schwarz practically puts not only words but mistakes in Angleton's mouth by asking him the rhetorical question, "What about the pictures, one of which was a picture of Leontov (sic) that was in a piece of paper found in Mr. Oswald's pocket when he was arrested in Mexico City?"
And Angleton replies. "There's an allegation." Period. Full stop.
Given the context of this circus, in my humble opinion Angleton's reply should not be taken as some sinister substitute for, "That's right. Whaddaya want to make of it?," but rather ......... "Hmm, your allegation sure is news to me. Sure you got that right?"
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447#relPageId=15&tab=page
Bill Simpich, what say you?
"Angleton also claimed that a photo of Leonov was supposedly found in Oswald’s pocket when he was supposedly arrested in Mexico.[ 25 ]"
-- from Chapter 6 of State Secret
-
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Yes, I think that is very telling.It tells me that Angleton's 1963 false flag operation was specifically targeting Nikolai Leonov.
Later Win Scott sequestered Leonov's photo from Mystery Man's photos and sent it to J.C. King with the note, "a certain person who is known to you
In 1978, Cuba revealed that it has figured out the conspiracy. Its pretty much what I keep saying. And it involves Leonov's photo. They say the WC first got the photo but then it was withdrawn. See the first two or three pages of this document:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55413#relPageId=27&tab=page
This is a long-solved case. Not the whole thing is solved, but much of it. The Cubans got it right.
Sandy,
1 ) What, pray tell, do you mean by "false flag operation" in this context?
2 ) How do you know that Leonov's photo was the one Scott was referring to when he wrote "a certain person who is known to you"?
3 ) The Cubans got what right?
4) Which page(s) would you like to refer me to?
-- T.G. -
5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Here's your original post I replied to.
Ronnie,
Nice!
-- T.G.
-
2 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Tommy, I should have elaborated further. I was being sarcastic regarding O'Reilly's. I participated in the jfkfacts.org thread you refer to using another part/form of my real name, Ronnie Wayne. I thanked Marie Fonzi for a post and asked her about the positioning of the shotgun when found. I also responded to what I took as a sarcastic post by Hugh Aynesworth of "Good Reporting" which I thought related to a post supporting O'Reilly, with "Not Hardly". Maybe I was wrong, maybe even he doesn't believe O'Reilly. I responded to another post by Mrs. Fonzi "Just as Dulles remained powerful after being fired as CIA Director by JFK" on 3/5/15 with "Bingo.".
http://jfkfacts.org/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/
Ronnie,
I see.
-- T.G.
-
32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Tommy,
The difference between us is apparently this: You believe that the KGB was behind the assassination. In contrast, I believe the assassination was a CIA false flag operation designed to make it look like the KGB was behind the killing. It was really the CIA that killed Kennedy.
It makes absolutely no sense that the KGB would try to kill Kennedy. This is demonstrated by the lengths at which the Soviets went to to deny having anything to do with Oswald. The assassination and the Mexico City evidence pointing to the Soviets was a nightmare situation for them. It's not something they would have intentionally brought upon themselves.
IMO
Sandy,
As far as why Nikita Khrushchev might have killed JFK, I refer you to pages 207 - 208 in Mark Riebling's fine book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA.
If I can summon up enough energy, I might even copy-and-paste (if it's viewable on googlebooks), or ... gasp ... type up the whole one-page excerpt here for your enlightenment.
-- T.G.
PS OH MY GOODNESS, LOOKIE-LOOKIE WHAT I FOUND!But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation? From a pragmatic Western perspective, there seemed little profit indeed, but Angleton thought about the problem with more subtlety. First of all, the nuclear age precluded any massive U.S. retaliation — as Johnson’s craven cover-ups of all possible communist connections were already demonstrating. Second, if the Soviets had truly penetrated the Soviet Division at CIA, as Angleton believed, the KGB might even have hoped to steer U.S. investigation of the crime. As for the Soviet motive: Out was Kennedy, a charismatic leader who could “sell” a socially conscious anticommunism in the Third World and even to Western liberals. In was Johnson, who would only “heighten the contradictions” between East and West and therefore hasten (by Feninist dialectical reasoning) the ultimate collapse of late capitalism. Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in a November 27 memo by defector Deriabin, who cited the Kennedy administration’s opposition to long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital to survival of the USSR. Johnson, by contrast, came from an agricultural state and had always supported grain sales to Russia. Moreover, Western pressure on the USSR “would automatically ease up” if the KGB murdered the president. As evidence, Deriabin noted a “conciliatory telegram” by a frightened and disoriented Lyndon Johnson to Khrushchev. A more amenable America would “strengthen Khrushchev’s hand” at a time when the Soviet leader was under intensifying internal pressures because of mismanagement of the 1963 harvest and disputes with China. Kennedy’s death, as Deriabin put it, thus “effectively diverts the Soviets’ attention from their internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev’s longevity.” Finally, Deriabin ventured that “the death of President Kennedy, whether a planned operation or not, will serve the most obvious purpose of providing proof of the power and omniscience of the KGB.” Much later, Angleton would obliquely compare the Soviets’ probable motivation to a famous scene in Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather, in which a Mafia chieftain puts a horse’s head into the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to demonstrate “pure power.”
-
On 2/3/2018 at 5:03 AM, James DiEugenio said:
This is a good example of the differences in how some people evaluate evidence and also their knowledge of and interest in history.
I named ten pretty much indisputable observations which show that the KGB was not involved in the JFK case, including the fact that they themselves suspected a high level plot within the US government. I could have gone even further than that. For example: I think most of us understand that what happened in Chicago three weeks previous was either a dry run for Dallas, or an actual attempt to kill JFK. What was the KGB connection to Thomas Vallee? Was there a KGB double agent in the Chicago office of the Secret Service who squelched the inquiry and allowed Dallas to occur?
TG answers none of those points. He chooses to say well, the blonde guy Azcue and Duran describes resembles this Russian. To me this is about as reliable and credible as is his "Morales in the film" in New Orleans. Put them together and their probability exponentially weakens not strengthens. Simply because they are both so tenuous. He then, when Sandy shows another big hole in his concept, throws in a slur at Harvey and Lee. Again, where did I use any of that in my opening salvo?
TG then goes on to make an even more wild and unfounded claim, something that I had to read twice to understand. And I still have a hard time believing he wrote it.
Somehow whatever happened in TG's version of the JFK murder, this somehow, some way aided the rise of Trump and Putin to their places in government today? I mean did I read that right? If I did, I almost fear for this forum.
Putin's rise to power in Russia is directly related to what happened in Russia beginning in the early nineties, and can be explained by two things that anyone who is interested in history can easily learn. The first was the coup attempt against Gorbachev by the hardline communists who wished to thwart his attempts at Glasnost and Perestroika. This grievously weakened his position and gave the opening to the drunken fool Yeltsin. Yeltsin was an utter and complete disaster, and one reason he was so was his attempt at the so called Shock Doctrine economic plan which was implemented by the late Yegor Gaidar. (Maybe he was the guy in Mexico City?) Gaidar--and later Anatoly Chubais--did two things: 1.) He drove much of Russia into extreme poverty, and 2.) He and Yeltsin now gave rise to an immensely wealthy plutocratic class that, in reverse Robin Hood (or Milton Friedman style), began to rape the country of its national wealth. It was that fire sale that opened up Russia to all kinds of foreign interests, including American. In 1999, when Yeltsin was ailing and realized that he had pretty much left the country a hopeless catastrophe, he invited Putin into the government as a Deputy Prime Minister. And from there, when Yeltsin resigned, Putin became Acting President. How any of that has anything to do with the JFK case is something that only TG, or maybe Max Boot, knows.
To ignore it all, or say that somehow its directly related to Dallas 1963, that to me is to me nothing but utter and complete nonsense. It is anti-historical, anti-intellectual, and as judges say, "utterly without merit".
James,
Yes, but you left out a few widdle details, James.
I mean, I mean, I mean ... isn't it interesting that Putin's gig shortly before being named First Prime Minister by corrupt 'n drunk Yeltsin was that of head of the FSB, and that shortly after he'd left the FSB, the martial law-inducing "Russian Apartment Bombings" happened (in 1999), you know, right before the elections?Which "terrorist bombings," by the way, were traced by the local Ryazan, Russia, police to the ... gasp ... FSB?
And for writing about said bombings, by the way, former KGB officer Litvinenko was slipped some Polonium Tea by a couple of his old KGB buds in Merry Old London Town a few years back, you know ... I mean, I mean, I mean ... for having had the gall to write about Putin's connection to said bombings?
I mean, I mean, I mean, doesn't it kinda look as thought it was all planned that way so that the 1 ) "Chechen Terrorists" could be blamed for murdering 300 Russian citizens, 2 ) martial law could be declared, and 3 ) Vladimir Putin (who, as First Prime Minister, had been covering Yeltsin's corrupt xxx), would automatically, per the Russian Constitution, become interim president when good ol' Boris Y. up and decided to ... gasp ... retire?
Hard to image your buddy Vladimir Putin doing such a horrible thing as arranging the "Russian Apartment Bombings" in order to become president, James?
Well, consider the fact that your boy, recently laid off by the KGB in Dresden, East Germany, "made his bones" with the powers that be by helping the so-called "liberal" but corrupt mayor of Saint Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, steal $124 million of food funds from the mouths of practically starving Saint Petersburg residents in 1992.
You can read all about it in Marsha Gessen's fine book, "Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin," or if you prefer, you can google "Putin's Way" and watch the highly fascistic PBS's Frontline production by the same title. For free!
-- T.G.PS As to how all of this relates to Trump's becoming our president?
Well, haven't you ever heard of "active measures" counterintelligence ops (continuous since 1921) and "strategic/operational deception" counterintelligence ops (since 1958 with the dispatching to the U.S. of false double-agent Polyakov in "Operation Boomerang")?
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk ... -
On 1/20/2018 at 6:33 PM, Ron Bulman said:
Imagination's not necessary on this part. It's not drama, it's History most people are unaware of or ignore.
From what's known Morales retreated to his Arizona ranch by the Mexico border, spent a bunch on security equipment but wasn't worried about Mexicans. He went back to Washington, got sick, came home, had a 'heart attack" like many other potential witnesses for the HSCA in 1978, was surrounded by security in the hospital until he died. Multiple men in black suits and sunglasses attended his funeral.
We would know more about De Morenschild's death but Bill O'Riley heard the shotgun blast from the front steps and just left, or ran, or lied about it all. And Gaeton Fonzi's attempted investigation was stymied.
How convenient the 7 (?) upper level FBI agents under subpoena at the time died. And the recalled Roselli ended up cut up in a oil drum floating off the coast of Florida. Then or before Sam Giancana, also subpoenaed, gets shot in the back of his head while cooking eggs in his Chicago basement apartment and multiple times around his mouth, a mob warning for others not to talk. While being guarded by US/State/City law enforcement.
Correction: Bill O'Riley claimed he heard the shotgun blast ...
George de Mohrenschildt claim
In his bestselling 2013 book Killing Kennedy and on Fox and Friends, O'Reilly claimed he was knocking at the front door of George de Mohrenschildt's daughter's home at the moment Mohrenschildt committed suicide and that he heard the shotgun blast:
In March of 1977, a young television reporter at WFAA in Dallas began looking into the Kennedy assassination. As part of his reporting, he sought an interview with the shadowy Russian professor who had befriended the Oswalds upon their arrival in Dallas in 1962. The reporter traced George de Mohrenschildt to Palm Beach, Florida and travelled there to confront him. At the time de Mohrenschildt had been called to testify before a congressional committee looking into the events of November 1963. As the reporter knocked on the door of de Mohrenschildt's daughter's home, he heard the shotgun blast [Emphasis added] that marked the suicide of the Russian, assuring that his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald would never be fully understood. By the way, that reporter's name is Bill O'Reilly.
This claim has been disproven by former Washington Post editor Jefferson Morley, who cites audio recordings made by Gaeton Fonziindicating O'Reilly was not present in Florida on the day of Mohrenschildt's suicide.
-- Wikipedia article on Bill O'Reilly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#George_de_Mohrenschildt_claim
-- T.G. -
3 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:
Mr. Copeland,
On the background of Bruce Solie, Pete Bagley and the question of whether Nosenko was a false defector, I defer to Malcolm Blunt and John Newman, who have studied these issues at length - I haven't.
Bill,You mean to say you weren't impressed as much as PDS was by John Newman's presentation of Bagley's "Spy Wars"?
I did see you taking notes, and smiling and vigorously nodding your head up and down when PDS, sitting next to you, had an "epiphany" of sorts when he realized that Popov, having been betrayed by Edward Ellis Smith (or someone he helped the KGB to recruit) in early 1957, had been allowed by the Ruskies to continue spying us for awhile, then called back on a ruse and secretly arrested in Moscow in 1958, tripled against us, and finally publicly arrested (and later executed) about the same time that Oswald arrived in Moscow ( i.e., in late October, 1959).
Regardless, after Newman's presentation, do you still think that Nosenko might have been a true defector???
Have you read Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars"???
-- T.G.
PS As far as I know, the only thing Blunt adds to the "Nosenko was a false defector" conversation is that he was able to elicit from Bagley the fact that Oswald must have been a witting (dispatched by Angleton?) false defector to the USSR. -
44 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Does anyone know Buell Frazier's height. I did at one time but, have lost track of that. I'm having a hard time finding that on the internet. Is that meaningful?
6' 0.5"-- T.G.
-
29 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:
Bill, have you ever dug into Bruce Solie? I believe Blunt and Dale mentioned that he was best man at Nosenko's wedding lol? He vouched for his authenticity as a defector (compare Solie's review and Bagley's investigation) he was also his handler and...surely Solie as a security officer cannot be that blind? (speculation on my part!). Am I paranoid in even lightly wondering if Solie was up to something? I'd love Simpich's take on this guy. I know for a fact that Blunt and Dale, in their amazing series of talks, at the very least consider the guy as someone to devote serious study. I hate to to seemingly accuse the guy of evil deeds, for which I am not (without evidence) but I am looking at event contextually and simply desire to study him as a part of the context. The results could be negative or positive.
B.A. Copeland,Just curious -- Did you read the long excerpt from "Spy Wars" I posted, above?
For your edification, I'll try to find some of Bagley's assessments of Solie and post them here for you.
You do realize, don't you, that John Newman recently gave a presentation in San Francisco titled "Spy Wars," which was based on Bagley's book "Spy Wars" and a book ("Spymaster") that Bagley co-wrote with a former KGB officer (general Kondrashev), at the end of which presentation Peter Dale Scott turned to Newman and said, "You've convinced me that Nosenko was a false defector"?
-- T.G. -
7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:
Thomas, ouch -- what an author wants to hear is, "I will buy a copy." I ordered a copy of Jim's book, and it will arrive today. Support
your respected JFK assassination authors!
Joseph,
I already wasted some perfectly good money on Jefferson Morley's (IMHO) intellectually dishonest "The Ghost."
Have you seen my one-star review of it on Amazon?It's under my code name "dumptrumpputin".
-- TG
-
1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:
The first-hand account of Mr. Newman minutes after the assassination of JFK. He felt that the shots came from "The Mall" behind him.
The Mary Moreman photo shows a figure of a gunman in "The Mall" behind Bill Newman. If you can see Mr. Zapruder and Ms. Sitzman standing on the pedestal, the gunman is seen to the left of them. The Nix film shows a smoke trail in the same "Mall" that Mr. Newman thought the shots came from.
At the 26 second mark, you can see the smoke trail inside the pergola. You should put the video in slow motion to better see the smoke trail. It is hard to see.
-- T.G.
Actually, probably not from the sixth floor, but from that part of the Grassy Knoll (much closer to the TDBD than the "classic" Grassy Knoll) where "diving man" Malcolm Summers, on the other side of Elm Street on the "infield grass," said he saw something happening behind a low retaining wall. -
12 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
Does anyone know what Greenlist, or the Greenlist was?
This sentence was in a Memorandum about KUTUBE/D the CIA "Staff D" responsible for SIGINT (Signals Intelligence - electronic intercepts), where the ZR/RIFLE "executive action" (assassination) program was housed.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16542&relPageId=3
“For your information, our tracing at Headquarters consists of the following minimum: RI, RI archives, Greenlist, KUSODA files, Italian Branch files (and other branches as appropriate).”
The intent of the memo was that tracing of a certain individual was to be kept to absolute minimum.
For that matter, can you also tell me what RI, or RI archives was?
Thanks,
Steve Thomas
RI = Records Integration Department / Division?
(Just a wild guess.)-- T.G.
-
On 5/6/2018 at 1:49 PM, James DiEugenio said:
Thanks so much Vince.
I have already done a spot on RT with Sean Stone, and I did a spot on Coast to Coast with Richard Syrett.
I have about four other interviews upcoming to try and help promote the book.
James,
I'm looking forward to borrowing it from any San Diego area library (whenever the system decides to purchase a copy), reading it, and then ... (gasp) ... writing a really, really glowing review of it!
-- T.G. -
On 5/6/2018 at 6:49 AM, David Josephs said:
I thought Nosenko was simply to refute Golitsyn whose predictions and defection appear the real deal....
But without Leonard McCoy (I know, right?) refuting the Nosenko Conclusions, and somehow listened to, the entire pov towards him changed...
LEONARD MCCOY RECOMMENDATION TO REEVALUATE NOSENKO 104-10095-10126.pdf
David,
Do yourself a big favor and read this to get an inkling of what a "piece of work" your beloved Leonard McCoy was.
To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was in the employ of the Soviets.
(He, and Richard Kovich, and John Hart, that is.)
(...) Most of the ghosts I stir up here still hover undetected because back in the second half of the 1960s the CIA changed its mind and decided that the deeply-suspected KGB defector Yuri Nosenko had, after all, genuinely defected and had been telling CIA the truth. That change of mind began in 1967, five years after Nosenko first appeared to the CIA. By then the CIA's Soviet Bloc (SB) Division had concluded, on the basis of years of debriefing, interrogation, investigation, observation, and analysis, that the KGB's Second Chief Directorate (internal counterintelligence) sent Nosenko to CIA with the aim (among others) of diverting leads to its spies in the West that CIA had been given a few months earlier by the genuine KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn. The SB Division summarized its reasons in a 439-page report, one copy of which they apparently mounted in a “notebook.” But then the tide shifted. A reports-and-requirements (R&R) officer of the Division, alerted to the notebook's existence by a colleague (note: The colleague was Richard Kovich, who though not involved in the (closely-held) handling of Nosenko, had been subtly seeking for a year or more to learn—and had evidently found out—the dire assessment of Nosenko's bona fides and his situation), got hold of it and, without checking with his Division superiors, drafted a forty-page paper and three memoranda for higher Agency supervisors, pleading that his Division's position on Nosenko as set out in the notebook was wrong, mindless, and indefensible. He urged that it be reconsidered “by a new team of CIA officers.” This evidently launched the Agency's re-review of the case, with new interviews of Nosenko by others, culminating in a 1968 report by security officer Bruce Solie that exonerated Nosenko and led to his acceptance as an advisor to the Agency's anti-Soviet operations.
THE MCCOY INTERVENTION
The Soviet Block Reports & Requirements officer who started the process, Leonard McCoy, was later made deputy chief of CIA's Counterintelligence Staff (under a new CI Staff chief (note: George Kalaris), previously unconnected with anti-Soviet operations, who had replaced James Angleton). There, he continued fiercely to defend Nosenko's bona fides and, in the guise of cleansing unnecessary old files, destroyed all the CI Staff's existing file material that (independent of SB Division's own findings) cast doubt on Nosenko's good faith. Not until forty-five years later was McCoy's appeal declassified and released by the National Archives (NARA) on 12 March 2012 under the JFK Act “with no objection from CIA.” McCoy opened, as we can now see, with his own finding and with a plea: “After examining the evidence of Nosenko's bona fides in the notebook,” he wrote, “I am convinced that Nosenko is a bona fide defector. I believe that the case against him has arisen and persisted because the facts have been misconstrued, ignored, or interpreted without sufficient consideration of his psychological failings.” The evidence, he said, is that Nosenko is “not a plant and not fabricating anything at all, except what is required by his disturbed personality.” He recommended “that we appoint a new judge and jury for the Nosenko case consisting of persons not involved in the case so far” and proposed six candidates. According to McCoy, it was not only Nosenko's psychology that should determine his bona fides, but also his reporting. “The ultimate conclusions must be based on his production,” McCoy asserted, specifically claiming to be the only person qualified to evaluate that production. Certain of Nosenko's reports were important and fresh, he stated, and could not be considered KGB “throwaway” or deception, as the notebook described them. In reality, however, the value of Nosenko's intelligence reports had not been a major factor in the Division's finding. It had judged him a KGB plant on the basis of the circumstances of the case (of the sort listed in the “40 Questions” of the Appendix). McCoy did not explain—or even mention—a single one of these circumstances in his paper, so his arguments were irrelevant to the matter he pretended to deal with. His was not a professional assessment of a complex counterintelligence situation but, instead, an emotional plea. He referred with scorn to his superiors' “insidious conclusions” and “genuine paranoia” and called their analysis “very strange, to say the least.” The case against Nosenko, he wrote, was based on (unnamed) “assumptions, subjective observations, unsupported suspicions, innuendo, insinuations [… and] relatively trivial contradictions in his reporting.” Nosenko's failure to pass the lie detector test, McCoy asserted, “rules out Nosenko immediately” as a plant—because the KGB would have trained him to beat it. He dismissed (unspecified) findings as “trivial, antique, or repetitive” and cited one which “borders on fantasy. … In fact, it is fantastic!” (sic—with exclamation point). “I cannot find a shred of solid evidence against Nosenko,” he wrote, “The case would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence.” Closing his paper he asked, “What kind of proof do we need of his innocence, when we call him guilty with none?” McCoy used as argument his speculation about what the KGB would or would not do. His paper was studded with untruths, distortions, and unsupported assertions like those cited above—all designed to discredit any doubts or doubters of Nosenko's bona fides. For instance, he judged the defector Pyotr Deryabin, a former KGB Major of more than ten years' experience, to be “not experienced.” When Deryabin decided that Nosenko was a KGB plant, wrote McCoy, he was making a “snap judgment … after having been briefed on the mere facts of the case.” In reality, Deryabin had spent years reviewing and commenting upon the full record of this and related cases, listening to tapes (and correcting the transcripts) of every meeting with and debriefing of Nosenko—and had then personally questioned Nosenko in twelve long sessions. McCoy told the demonstrable untruth that Nosenko “damaged the Soviet intelligence effort more than all the other KGB defectors combined” and that “no Soviet defector has identified as many Soviet agents.” Had Nosenko not uncovered William Vassall as a spy, McCoy wrote, certain secret British documents (shown by Golitsyn to be in KGB hands) “could have been assumed to come from the Lonsdale-Cohen-Houghton net”—though they could not conceivably have been. He said that Sgt. Robert Lee Johnson “would still be operating against us” had Nosenko not uncovered him—though by then, in fact, Johnson had already lost his post and his wife was publicly denouncing him as a Soviet spy. McCoy asserted that it was Nosenko who identified Kovshuk's photo whereas Golitsyn had made the identification. He confused two separate KGB American recruits, following Nosenko's line and successfully hiding the active, valid one. And he made uncounted other equally unfounded assertions.
But by then the Nosenko case—the CIA's holding of a suspected KGB plant—had become a thorn in the side of the Agency leadership, an “incubus” and “bone in the throat,” as Director Richard Helms put it. So the CIA happily accepted McCoy's authority and as a result many KGB moles were never identified.
Let's have a look at some of these ghosts.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362
-- T.G.
-
On 5/3/2017 at 5:40 PM, Sandy Larsen said:
Tommy,
.....
My gut tells me that Oswald was never in Mexico City. Which would mean that Nikolai Leonov's Oswald/pistol/table story is a fabrication. Interestingly, it is very similar to a story told by Oleg Nechiporenko in his book "Passport to Assassination" David Lifton -- who believes that version of the story -- was touting the book on another thread and in this post specifically. Lifton paraphrased the story as follows:
"LHO was seated in a room with three (3) officials: Nechiporenko, Kostikov, and Yatsov. LHO then staged this dramatic scene, in which he was crying, said he was being followed, and then--suddenly--took out a pistol and laid it on the table. One of the three Soviets grabbed at the gun, opened it, and immediately "disarmed" Oswald by taking out the bullets."
I wonder if the Oswald/pistol/table story is a KGB or Russians fabrication used to show others that Oswald was a crackpot who they never would have trusted working for them. (emphasis added by T.G.)
Your hypothesis that Leonov was the blond Oswald seems quite possible to me. If Leonov did impersonate Oswald, maybe he (Leonov) later adopted the Oswald/pistol/table story in an attempt to hide that fact. I mean... he can't be both himself and Oswald simultaneously!
Sandy,
I couldn't agree more.
Personally, I think it's almost as though the Russians knew in advance that Oswald was either going to try to kill JFK (either for himself, for themselves, for Castro, or for the evil, evil CIA), or was going to be patsied for same, and they were trying to proactively dispel the notion that KGB had recruited Oswald during the 2.5 years he lived in the USSR.
What really "seals the deal" for me in this regard is that Nikolai Leonov, himself, is on record (in the National Inquirer newspaper and in a book written in the Russian language) as claiming that he had met one-on-one at the Soviet Embassy with an unstable, revolver-brandishing Oswald on Sunday, September 29, 1963, one day after the three stooges, mentioned above, had allegedly met with the same crazy-dangerous guy..
So, we have five dubious Ruskies alleging that Oswald couldn't have killed JFK for the KGB: KGB false defector Nosenko, KGB-boy Nechiporenko, KGB-boy Yatskov, good ol' (Department 13?) KGB-boy Kostikov, and, yep, that 35 year-old, quite short, blond-haired, blue-eyed, very-thin faced "Blond Oswald in Mexico City," KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov.
Talk about overkill! (Pardon the pun.)
-- T.G.
PS I like the idea that the Ruskies found out that Castro was going to pay Oswald kill JFK, and that Castro was gonna try to blame the assassination on the Russians ...
-
Thanks, Douglas.
I don't know how I managed to miss this interesting article from a year ago, but since I'm convinced that KGB Counterintelligence-boy Vladimir Putin (through Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, Guccifer 2.0, and Putin's legions of professional Saint Petersburg trolls) and his lackey, Julian Assange, installed a Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able, expendable-for-Putin "useful idiot" as our president, I'm gonna go ahead and "bump" this AP article so folks here can see how the Trump Campaign might have colluded with the above-mentioned usual suspects in helping to make it all happen. (Another interesting character in this regard is, of course, that Assange-friendly scumbag, Roger Stone.)
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/22/former-trump-campaign-chair-paul-manafort-secretly-worked-benefit-putin/21905514/
-- T.G. -
20 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Allen Cabell, Earl Dulles.
Thank you so much, Ron.
But unfortunately, I'd already edited it before I read this fine post of yours.My bad.
I must have been thinking of Harvey and Lee and ... gasp ... the two Marguerites.
-- T.G. -
35 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:
You’re quick. I tried to delete my post. By the way it wasn’t this one that bugged me, it was the previous very sarcastic one.
Okay.
-- T.G.
PS Why did you try to delete your post?
-
7 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:
Tommy - I’m not a moderator, but if I was I’d tell you to cease hounding Jim. Your possible reasons for doing so don’t matter - it’s the principle.
Paul,
I have been moderated twice now for violating the 24-hour "no bumping" rule.
IMHO, DiEugenio did the same thing a short time ago on this thread.
Okay?
-- TG -
4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
As Bill Simpich warned, do not let anyone derail a very good thread.
So I will repeat my observation and my question to Bill:
This is what I believe on this matter. And I implied it in the article.
I do not think that the two wallets are the same. And I think someone from the DPD, maybe Croy, brought the wallet to the Tippit scene. To me that seems to fit the evidence the best. Because as both Simpich and Armstrong have written, no one saw a wallet on the street pavement. And unlike the unreliable Bugliosi BS, it was not TIppit's wallet. To me, those factors would seem to indicate that it was not on the ground.
Also, I do not believe that anyone carries three wallets.
So Bill, I guess what you are saying is that there really is no proof that the Hidell card was in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald.
If that is the case, then it suggests that the one at the Tippit scene did not totally disappear.
Is that what you think?
Isn't "bumping" a post within 24 hours verboten, James?
I mean, I mean, I mean, .. isn't that what you've effectively done?
-- "TG" -
4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
So, the Dallas cops supposedly find Oswald's wallet at the scene of Tippit's murder, and then those same cops decide not to say a single word about finding that wallet --- even though such a piece of evidence is virtual proof that Oswald was at the Tippit murder scene. And, remember, according to many CTers, Oswald is the same guy these same cops were supposedly FRAMING for Tippit's murder all along.
Is that about the size of this insane situation?
That's about the most ridiculous reasoning I've ever heard.
The virtual proof that the wallet was definitely NOT Lee Oswald's is the fact that no police officer said a word about it right after Tippit's murder.
So how can anybody -- even a conspiracy believer -- possibly believe this wallet belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald?....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-1.html
David,
Don't you realize it doesn't really matter because James "Sacrosanct" DiEugenio and his ilk obviously, obviously, obviously proved a long, long time ago that the evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil CIA, through the auspices of that evil, evil Dallas mayor Earle Cabell (brother of that evil, evil, evil, evil, evil former Deputy Director of the CIA, Charles P. Cabell) and, of course, the evil, evil Mafia, controlled the evil, evil, evil, evil Dallas Police Department and the evil evil , etc, etc, etc, ... and killed our beloved president John Fitzgerald Kennedy, no matter what the evidence does or does not say?
(sarcasm)-- T.G.
-
31 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:
We never saw it. And if it bothered you, you should have reported it. You have been told that before.
Kathy,
Really?
None of you ever saw those threats/insults starting on page 8 of the "The KGB and the JFK Case" thread?
Just curious: How do you know that?
I mean, I mean, I mean ... Did you ask all of them?
Isn't it probable that at least one moderator did see those threats / insults, but since it is politically-correct-on-this-forum to make comments like those against me, just kinda decided to "let it slide"?
I mean, you know, ... seein' as how I hadn't complained to y'all in PMs 'n everythang?An' if you don't mind my askin', How many moderators are there, anyway?
Let's see ... You, James, Mark (?), ... anybody else?
OMG, ...gasp ... Don Jeffries?-- T.G.
The KGB and the JFK case
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Thomas Graves
Mervyn,
John Newman believes Oswald was a very important "pawn" during the Cold War.
Malcolm Blunt interviewed Newman's and my "main man," Tennent H. Bagley (RIP; have you heard of him?), a few years ago, and one of the things that came out of their conversation is that Bagley believed that, based on an analysis of the way the CIA's documents on Oswald during that period of time were distributed (or were not distributed), that Oswald must have been a witting false defector to the USSR, probably dispatched there by Angleton (if I understand correctly).
-- T.G.