Larry Hancock

Not sure about Marina but Oswald's friend and language "buddy" in Russia discusses the language and accent issues at some length in his recollections - which I certainly recommend. That would be Ernst Titovits in Oswald / The Russian Episode

The following article might be of interest to those reading this thread, it offers some interesting ideas plus some informaiton on Marine incentives for language testing: https://aarclibrary.org/lee-oswald-the-russian-language-by-greg-r-parker-jim-purtell/

Gerry, no opinion on Andy Anderson but it is not usual to find and officer's real name on CIA documents and also find he used one or more false names for social contacts, in many instances those would not even be recorded unless they became part of an actual operation. Wish I could help, Larry

I'm not sure either - and honestly I'm not a total fan of Epstein channeling de Mohrenschildt. As far as I can tell the typist did finish the Historic Diary using Oswald's notes and that's what he offered to de Mohrenschildt. George wrote about critiquing what Oswald had written and offering him suggestions - but he described those suggestions in terms of what would create a piece that would be more salable, not the sort of remarks to get more detail about the factory inserted. So we hit the wall of what Moore actually got once again...sigh.

I would definitely say that both groups were going rogue in regard to the controls JFK thought he had in place - and to an extent Des Fitzgerald was letting them get away with it, which is somewhat surprising and definitely not what JFK would have expected. Was Fitz doing it because he figured it was the only way for him to succeed in his assignment...maybe. Was he just another senior officer who got scammed because he was so distant from actual operations...maybe. But there is really no reason he should not have gone to JFK or RFK about TILT, which he was informed about after the fact, given our politically explosive that was...and it would likely have meant an end of career action for Shackley and even JC King. If TILT could happen pretty much anything could. Overall JFK thought he was bringing it under control by moving the campaign up a level to a multi-agency format (with State playing lead - and State backed JFK's positive response to Castro, while being concerned CIA would somehow undermine it). And by kicking off a transition program to move covert Cuban ops away from CIA to the military - but the front line guys at WAVE heard all about it and some of them did indeed undermine things, by going directly against JFK...my view at least.

Gerry, about all I can say is that my impression of the CIA being concerned about legalities is indeed more a matter of "after the fact" concern rather than something that constrained them too much in daily activities of the time. Certainly the Agency acted to conceal many of its activities (legal or illegal) and obfuscate legal inquiries into them. PR was a concern but possibly a greater one was their obsession with protecting the identities of personnel, sources and of course methods. I'm just not sure legalities every bothered them that much - take a look at Helms conviction for perjury and you get a feel for their attitude towards being constrained by the law. In this case I'd be more inclined to think that the basic concern, and what was being covered up was that they had paid any attention at all to Oswald once he was back in the States - distancing the CIA from knowledge of Oswald was pretty much a fixation after the assassination. By the way, I assume what is being discussed here is Oswald's Historic Diary which he had typed up shortly after his return: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_24.pdf Or have I missed your point and have the wrong thing in mind?

We actually have the FBI reports of their first two meetings with Oswald, he was very uncooperative in the first, more so in the second saying he would report any foreign contacts to them. However he also lied to them on certain points about his entry into Russia. I do not recall if those FBI reports were copied to CIA HQ, that would be important to check. What I can say is that the FBI and CIA always competed for information and the CIA generally felt that standard FBI interviews (which were very closed ended in most cases and of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet, just the facts" format) were not all that effective at getting the full story. Given that Moore already had a source in the Russian community my guess is he figured he could probably get a better read on what Oswald was really thinking and especially how he felt about Russia and communism than the FBI could - and I suspect he was right.

CIA operations against Cuba were restructured in 1963 with JFK again directing that a joint agency led by State oversee the effort and RFK participated in that committee. However a covert operations committee remained operational with oversight over what SAS under Fitzgerald was doing. It was only when Fitz decided to brief either committee about operations that they were given any details. We absolutely know that anti Castro Cubans kept proposing assassination, as part of AMWORLD, AMTRUNK and in of course in the contacts with Cuebela. But those proposals and reports certainly did not go to JFK, its not even certain RFK saw them. Fitzgerald appears to have been playing a lot of things on his own...for example he knew about TILT but never briefed either committee, nor RFK nor JFK about it...which would have caused and explosion. While JFK retained control at a very high level, having approval over specific and sanctioned sabotage missions, he appears to have not been aware that Shackley and Morales were running such missions under Commando Mambises strictly on their own initiative and Figzgerald again was doing very selective briefing on that. Things were really chaotic in regard to Cuba in 1963, increasingly so, and its quite likely that JFK was very much unaware of how often assassination was being brought up in the new anti-Castro programs. Just as he had been unaware of a number of very critical things - including the assassination plots - in the very first Cuba project back in 1961.

Given that Oswald was on record as being a defector (whether he legally was or not) as well as offering military information to a foreign power I'd say the line would bend pretty far before anyone would even consider it an issue. Of course the FBI was "spying" on him, there was no need for the CIA to do the sorts of things the FBI was already engaged in and no sign that they did; all they really did via George was to deniable update their files on Oswald in regard to his Soviet stay....as you say an "unwitting debriefing" (which by the way suggests Oswald was not a witting asset because if he was there would be no need for games). I'd say the line would be crossed only if the CIA began to "operationalize" Oswald for counter intelligence or political action - without his knowledge. Which of course is what I maintain they did via SAS/WAVE starting in the August/September time frame - and that had nothing to do with Domestic Operations. To the extent that it involved "spying" on him that would be crossing the line. David Boylan and I will be expanding on how we think that came about in our DPUK presentation and in November in the JFK Lancer virtual conference.

Ron, off the top of my head I don't remember which aide it was who cautioned JFK, it would have to have been someone pretty senior - what I do recall was that when RFK heard about the Castro outreach he strongly cautioned JFK against it because he felt it conflicted with the anti-Castro projects he was very much involved in at the time and was extremely high risk...including the possibility of a move to impeach in Congress if it leaked. As to the Jeep deal, you will find that discussed in Tipping Point, it comes from a combination of information from McKewon, from Ruby himself about the deals he had tried to organize (he even expressed his fears about people finding about his deals and about New Orleans while in jail), and fall out from the Garrison investigation in New Orleans - the sources are cited in Tipping Point. I was just lucky enough to stumble across all the pieces and see the fit... The jeeps were just part of a deal, not really blackmail, that apparently involved pay offs to several lower level officials to get Trafficante out of jail in Cuba.

All I can really say is that seems to have been a fairly common approach to using what I would call generic sources, those people who over time to provided observations to CIA officers but who were really not operational with the Agency...useful but not necessarily fully trusted or vetted. The CIA was not naive about its sources, realizing many had agendas of their own and were attempting to use the relationship - as I said above, with some of the higher level business folks quid pro quos were made available (some of the really top level sources who went beyond personal involvement to allow use of company assets as covers or resources were actually briefed before certain CIA operations). Given he CIA files on de Mohrenschieldt I'd say he was in the generic class, having taken the trouble to provide information to more than one government agency over time. And interestingly George refers to Moore as a "government man", likely one of many he had known over time without not necessarily being told specifically who they were or what agency they were with and not caring all that much. Given that de Mohrenschildt also appears to have been in touch with a variety of Russian professionals including a number of Russian speaking petroleum engineers working in Texas, the Caribbean and elsewhere, I'd really love to know how many folks he might have been covered in chats with Moore or others over time. Certainly he appears to have provided information and even collected information about Haiti for "the government". Anyway, I'm being long winded, but a "soft" approach by Moore on Oswald seems reasonable enough, simply using him as a type of "spotter". Whether he was actually asked for more than the initial contact and observations on Oswald I would love to know - but I don't know that we do.

Well the problem is we don't know how many times or when de Mohrenschildt actually provided ongoing, detailed information to Moore...or if we do I haven't seen that, has anyone else?. A timeline of that would help with the question and I'd love to see it But for reference, Oswald was already done with his manuscript by the time he became associated with de Mohrenschildt and apparently gave a copy to him as a part of their getting to be friends; it would be hard to call that theft if a copy was passed on to Moore. I've studied de Mohrenschildt at some length recently and while its clear he remained in contact with Oswald so did a number of folks from the Russian community - actually more remained in touch with Marina who they liked much more than Lee. It would be interesting to know if any of those contacts were reported to Moore, again I've not seen that. Its pretty clear to me at least that de Mohrenschieldt actually found Oswald interesting and did establish a sort of "world traveler" relationship with him, being much more liberal and politically experienced than virtually anyone else Oswald was in contact with over that period. de Mohrenschieldt even complained that Oswald was closer to him in his world view than his own kids...who did not like Oswald for that matter. As I said, what of that he passed on to Moore is the question I would ask if you want to consider him a "spy", which is not a term I use loosely. It would also be interesting to put together a detailed timeline of reports the FBI copied to the CIA about Oswald, whom they did have as an intelligence target, using a variety of tools including pretext calls to employers, mail monitoring programs, etc. As a footnote in regard to your remarks about the time spent, I've seen CIA sources who reported about persons of interest for months and even years without being "operational", they simply passed on information either for their own agendas (sometimes to smear someone or divert attention from themselves) or to collect brownie points (which the CIA easily realized). Its truly amazing how many folks were volunteer sources for either the CIA or the FBI, or both.

Gerry, I won't pretend to resolve the issue for you, all I can offer you is my personal observation from looking at actual CIA operations both domestically and overseas that Domestic Ops using a source to determine that someone who was on the State Dept defector list actually did return to the US and then returned to Texas and established himself as he had stated he would does not strike me as particularly odd. For all I know that closed out a domestic file on Oswald and from then on his activities would simply be copied to CIA by the FBI or other agencies - and of course reported by CIA assets who encountered him in suspect activities in New Orleans, as with DRE reporting to SAS/WAVE personnel in Miami. On a side note, I can also confirm to you that CIA field offices certainly did use individuals as sources of information who did not pass operational security checks, for that matter the CIA used sources who were known criminals, drug dealers, gun runners - entire classes of folks who would never have met the criteria to be certified for actual CIA operations. Having said that, I would agree that the CIA certainly would not have wanted to expose those sorts of practices in general nor would they want to openly admit that Moore had used a private citizen to collect information on Oswald. For that matter they would not want to expose Moore as a CIA officer - it was standard practice not to acknowledge agency employees other than at the highest public levels.

Actually Moore's use of de Mohrenschildt was standard practice as it relates to the use of third party sources - I can't tell you how many documents I've read which describe CIA contacts with all types of businessmen, both domestic and international for the purpose of intelligence collection, much of it just basic information on people of interest. In many cases it was all voluntary, in others there was a type of quid pro quo with the understanding that if the CIA came into information that would be helpful to an individual or a corporation they would pass it along or even make arms length introductions. And of course that does not even cover the professionals - medical, legal, banking , etc that were investigated and vetted for CIA use on an as needed but deniable basis. Interestingly enough in checking some timelines, Oswald gathered his notes and started the typing of the "manuscript" that contained information about his time in Russia and in Minsk well before he was contacted by de Mohrenschildt (something I had not realized when I myself wrote in SWHT). I have to admit as I've broadened my research and reading I've found that some what I picked up from earlier JFK literature or even made my own assumptions about has proved to be just flat wrong..sigh. As far as "hiding" contacts, again, we actually have documents relating to Moore and de Mohrenschildt and Oswald now - but of course its also SOP for officers to never talk about those things to investigations (and belive it or not, that is actually legal in respect to the authorities granted for the CIA in 1948. I'm afraid we often view the CIA's authorities in the context of civil law or even military code (Title 10) but it is very much different, something I cover in some detail in Shadow Warfare.

Gerry, it was up to the FBI to investigate both Oswald and Marina in regard to possible future contacts with Russian agents, or more likely Communist sympathizers or activists in the U.S.. The FBI did that directly and was of course also monitoring mail coming from overseas from Russia to Oswald, mail to the Russian embassy, etc, etc...and of course later mail to the FPCC as an identified subversive organization. I think its fair to say that the FBI really did try to investigate Oswald and they filed a number of reports on him in Texas and later in New Orleans. As to the CIA, we have no indication they "investigated" Oswald in the same manner in an ongoing basis. In fact we don't know that Domestic Ops via Moore and his contact with de Mohrenschieldt did much more than verify that Oswald did return to Texas as expected. It seems likely that Moore got some feedback on Oswald's arrival in Forth Worth and his appearance within the White Russian community but I've never seen any sort of Domestic Ops investigative file on Oswald so I don't think CIA was duplicating the FBI contacts and tracking of Oswald (including his various moves, addresses, jobs, etc).

Legally and operationally the CIA would turn over any actual, known Russian agents they identified overseas to the FBI to handle if they moved into the US - you can check that out by looking at the Tumbleweed saga. Its also one reason there was a connection between the FBI and CIA counter intelligence (FBI files list Angleton as a "source"). And certainly the FBI was investigating Marina as a possible agent or Russian asset (per Hosty and related files). However CIA Domestic Operations also had a brief and the right to collect information on US citizens identified as being in contact with suspected foreign agents (or sources or assets) while overseas. All of which is why we see the FBI directly investigating both Marina and Lee on their return to Dallas and also why we see CIA Domestic Agent Moore involved in collecting information on the couple within the Russian community in Fort Worth/Dallas. Per FBI memos the reason Lee and Marina did not get even more attention is that other FBI sources in the area reported that they were having no contact at all with known Communists or Communist sympathizers - only the conservative, anti-Communist social network.

Thanks Pete, well I started my serious look into the assassination circa 1990/91 so we can just sort of leave it at that without doing the numbers and making it painful. I suspect the Sparticus description goes back to some of my early participation in the Ed Forum which began...well no need to look at those numbers either....

Anyone wanting to seriously explore this should get context on Albert Schweitzer college from the deep research George Michael Evica did on it and Oswald's contacts with the college. Its all in A Certain Arrogance by Evica: https://www.amazon.com/Certain-Arrogance-Sacrificing-Manipulation-Intelligence/dp/0984185844

Two answers Paul, first off because Tipping Point is actually available for online reading (for free) on the MFF site. Second because my publisher (Rex at MFF) basically did all the work on the print book for free as we are doing it strictly for fund raising for MFF and Rex had an immense amount of trouble working with an Amazon app on the Kindle version. Basically he decided he had to move on to other MFF chores (we will be announcing some user friendly enhancements to MFF viewing and usage soon, some are already in place). Hopefully we will also be making another couple of significant announcements which Rex is involved with at MFF - and given that he is the only real volunteer working on the site hard decisions have to be made about how to use his time. It may shock a few folks, but over my career of publishing a number books I finally hit the point were even small commercial publishers were unwilling to take on the type of history books I do and if it were not for Rex (for Tipping Point) and Mike Swanson (who published In Denial which included my new Cuba Project and Bay of Pigs research) my last two books simply would never have happened.

Thanks Ron, good to hear from you! Although I am devoting much of my time to other topics these days I do remain actively involved in a couple of tightly focused JFK areas, actually looking at certain sources again after many years and revisiting some of my earlier work (and assumptions) with the extensive new detail we (well mostly David Boylan and Bill Simpich) have dug out of the CIA documents relating to the Cuba Project, the BOP, JMWAVE and in particular SAS and anti-Castro Cuban activities circa 1963. That is causing me to take a much deeper look into some areas, especially in regard to Oswald, his own agenda and how that exposed him to a number of individuals who were able to take advantage of him - including those who were able to tag him as a patsy in Dallas. Its all nothing really out of sync with what I wrote in Tipping, Point but it takes things down to yet another level of detail.

Thanks Ben, I certainly have the same problem myself....I frequently have to refer to my books and related sources for things I wrote about years ago.....of course in some cases I know I did put something into a book...but then's its a matter of which one...and where...sigh.

Jean Paul's document is very interesting but its also important to remember that we have known for years that De Mohrenschildt was a willing source for a variety of Govt. agencies including the State Department, CIA etc. In fact he himself admitted to his ongoing contact with a "government man" in Dallas whom we now know was CIA Domestic operations. In the early sixties he was also constantly positioning and networking himself within the petroleum industry in Texas and for that manner with basically anyone he could reach who might provide a valuable reference or referral - I recall reading a letter from him to JFK commenting on JFK's new national fitness program and offering his own experience in long distance walking (well something to that effect at least, its been a good while since I ran across that document). Here are a couple of additional documents that may be of interest on this thread and the related discussion: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10414-10152.pdf https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-July2017/JFK-July_2017_Release-Formerly_released_in_part/DOCID-32392773.PDF

What you said about the combat troops in Vietnam is certainly true to some extent Pat but it didn't apply to all of them: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/vietnam-veterans-against-the-war-demonstrate Some of my friends who went into combat over there - after training - were not turned on to the fighting either (others just tolerated it until their time was up). I went into the service and overseas but not to Vietnam and not into combat myself but few of the guys I knew in the service were at all eager to deploy there - well our drill instructor in BMT said he was because we were so pitiful in training but we sort of questioned that at the time. Beyond that not all the military were on board with the escalation and strategy approved by LBJ - Westmoreland was warned before he went over that his tactics would not work - but as an old artillery guy he ignored the officers who had already been on the ground there. Perhaps the most astonishing thing recently though was the resurgence and recycling of Vietnam "gurus" offering advice on how to take the counter insurgency programs from Nam to Afghanistan....really....and people actually listened to them.

I had and wrote about a document which recorded an urgent request to review and approve Bannister's office as a cover in 1960.....my discussion was that it was most likely related to Phillips and his propaganda tasks with the Cuba Project. My best recollection is you would find that document reference and the discussion in SWHT 2010....I'm not sure that I had a document stating that the request had actually been approved...but there were other sources that related meetings about a propaganda film project and referred to Phillips in New Orleans at that time.

Pat, it might be relevant to your photos but as I recall Tom Alyea claimed that Studebaker actually took two sets of crime scene photos, at least the box area; he maintained that Studebaker moved boxes during the process and could never recreate it exactly as Alyea had seen. Therefore the boxes from the second set of photos, taken on Saturday, are not truly representative of the "snipers nest". Interestingly that might explain why the DPD objected to printing everybody in the building and looking for prints other than Oswalds....Studebakers prints might have been all over. In any event the idea of two sets of photos with the second done the following day and presented officially as "first day" evidence is pretty damming if true.