Matt Cloud

P.S. Castro continues to stick around for another 40 years and the raids against "that imprisoned island nation" stop; Vietnam achieves self-determination as colonialism around the globe ends. Does this history sound like a right-wing coup took place?

Ah ... okay so Soviets say same thing as most in America do at that time. If not the Lone Nut Oswald, then the Right-Wingers and if not them then Johnson -- or maybe all of them. But not CIA. Certainly not KGB. What about actual strategic action? Move to high-alert? Not exactly, instead we see Kruschchev "resign" and Brezhnev comes in and detente begins as U.S. "withdraws" from Vietnam, which it "loses" and Soviets fill the void in the third-world in the 70s ... . Domestically, at home, US has cut deal over missile withdrawal and proceeds to usher in largest social change program in its history. Vietnam War fractures Democratic party and the country as a whole. Nixon is the last liberal president -- according to Dems in the 90s -- but has background in spy-hunting and the Red Scare and is forced to resign. Throughout, Soviet military economy is said to be on rise, and many times the beneficiary of alleged espionage as well as other tech transfer programs. Standard U.S. textbooks throughout the Cold War proclaim "crossover point" -- when command Soviet economy will outpace U.S. -- to be about 1987. Maybe Golitsyn was on to something? Hmmmm.

My suggestion would be to study the deaths less (seemingly) obviously related, as sometimes working around a subject can lead to a greater understanding of the place in the jigsaw puzzle that you are focused on. For example: Harold Talbott's wife., Margaret Talbott (d. 1962). He had been Secretary of the Air Force who gave away some say responsibility for overhead reconnaissance to CIA in the 50s. (U-2 and CORONA.) A target of RFK and the McClellan committee. William Cotter's wife, Virginia Alicia McMahon (d. 1962). He ran the mail-opening program; she had been a VENONA code-breaker in the 40s. Her brother became Deputy Director of CIA in 1982, having been in the U-2 program in the 50s, then CORONA, then brought in Nosenko as Stan Turner's DDO in the 70s when the CI staff was gutted and CIA went even more heavy into satellite recon. He had also debriefed Powers after his U-2 shoot-down as well as Golitsyn and Nosenko. Phil Graham, owner/publisher of the Washington Post, d. 1963. He had been read into VENONA during the Truman years and was becoming pro-McCarthy evidently in the 50s. Kennedy appointed him to COMSAT the privatization of CORONA, and had Clark Clifford allegedly spying on him to make sure he didn't spill secrets he learned. John Paisley, CIA (d. 1979) He had been tied up in the Nosenko affair, Team B, and The Hart Report on Angleton's Monster Plot. That's a gold mine. J.D. Tippit's son, the J.D. Tippit of Connecticut (d. 1980), whose son married another Air Force family (Kendrick), with ties to the Jupiter missiles at issue during Cuban Missile Crisis and NASA and the Paperclip Nazis. Killed by shots fired from distance at a Texas gas station. Anybody wants his name, just ask. Don't have it handy at the moment. William Colby ... Game developer for Activision when he dies, along with Oleg Kalugin. Something there? If there's foul play to be found in these, it will give a much better bird's eye perspective than most others.

Thanks, Bill. Sovietology may be out of your wheelhouse, but are there any indications as to any Soviet concern that a right-wing takeover was occurring in the U.S. during and after the assassination? Or were they just happy not to be blamed? If so, that would represent a failure in Cold War understanding would it not - that what happens on one side of its algebraic equation has to also happen on the other side? Did Soviets reciprocate, as the logic would dictate they must, with a hard-left takeover?

Or at least which direction it points away from.

Unfortunately, Newman's analysis ends where it begins -- with Solie. Any defensible discussion of Popov's allegations -- that there was a mole in the U-2 program -- would seem to require beginning with a round-up of potential candidates who would have access to this information. Newman does not provide this in his work and, again, ends his search with the same suspect that he begins it with. Solie. Simultaneously, however, yes, he also indicates Solie is working on instruction of James McCord, but why that doesn't make McCord the mole is hard to follow by Newman. Perhaps that is indeed where he is going. However the case, any thorough investigation of Popov's claim must include an individual Newman makes no mention of at all -- John N. McMahon, who had executive responsibilities in the U-2 program in 1959, and would debrief Francis Gary Powers after his shoot-down, as well as defectors Golitsyn and Nosenko, among others. In John Hart's 1976 study of Angleton's Monster Plot, McMahon's name is completely removed from Bagley's (?) draft of the report. What was submitted before Congress and HSCA, that is, contains no explicit McMahon reference whatsoever. Curious.

I understand of course the CIA is monitoring Soviet activity in Mexico and Azcue in particular, whom CIA would like to recruit although they state he is not a likely target for such. No mystery there. This understanding however does nothing towards clarifying why CIA would blow it's own monitoring operation by including information in a forged Oswald letter that would reveal the existence of the monitoring. (Or why same would appear in the newspaper in Excelsior.) Indeed, it rather does suggest, in the other way, that someone or someones opposed to the monitoring by CIA would blow the operation by including details that Oswald could not have known about but for his linkage with intelligence, one way or the other. The letter -- which again I think is forged -- hurts CIA monitoring of the Soviets. It exposes it. You should then be able to gather in which direction that understanding points in terms of authorship of the letter.

You're either not grasping that there is an elephant in the room or you're ignoring it. The Soviets, based on their cable to Dobrynin, evidently know the exact date they must say they received the letter even though they apparently received it much earlier. The date they say they must say -- as you point out -- aligns precisely with the date the HTLINGUAL program intercepted it. Pretty neat. That may mean they -- the Soviets -- know about the mail-opening program down to the most minute operational details. When I wrote before that the Dobrynin cable demonstrates that the mail-opening program is "blown" I didn't go far enough. It was not merely blown it was rendered entirely susceptible to manipulation -- by the Soviets. It was useless for Angleton, totally useful for Moscow. You have completely ignored the fundamental issue here again -- how the Soviets learned of the mail-opening program, except merely to say "Perhaps they had noticed signs of steam opening of letters from Americans." If that is the basis of their understanding of the existence of the mail-opening program, it would not explain how they knew exactly when to say it was intercepted. The "steam opening" offering is wanting, in light of their apparent knowledge as to the specific details of when it was opened. And here I would suggest consideration of the possibility that the letter was forged by the persons running the Oswald Project, neither wholly KGB or CIA, but a group privy to information within both organizations, setting the various factions at play against one another to prevent hardliners on either side from achieving the upper-hand. This would be the strategy adopted throughout the Cold War. By putting the Azcue timing issue in plan sight in the forged Oswald letter, both KGB and CIA are bound in certain respects. KGB is bound because they are implicated by Oswald having inside info as to Soviet and Cuban embassies; CIA is bound for the same reason plus because the letter -- and the cable to Dobrynin -- indicates unequivocally that the mail-opening program is blown. That's a blow to the "mole-hunt" if one accepts that terminology. In place of "mole," I would offer "KGB interlocutor," an individual known and authorized (by a few) to steer management of the Cold War, the secrecy of whose existence must be protected whatever the cost.

Okay, we'll go around again. You wrote: "The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement." I replied: That IS the issue I raised. Simply stating that you have reached a conclusion as to the question is non-responsive, without explanation as to how you can justify that conclusion. Now you wrote the same thing. "Since the letter commented on Azcue being replaced, the writer of the letter -- a CIA employee -- had to have known about the Azcue replacement." It's entirely a speculative possibility offered by you, as to authorship. Got it. Thanks for clarifying. It is one possibility, and it's still conclusory. You have assumed the answer. Assuming the answer fails definitionally to meet the definition of reasoned. You haven't established how this CIA employee knew that, let alone who that employee was. And I fully assume -- and have reason to believe -- that CIA does know the goings-on inside both embassies. But so do the Soviets. And including that knowledge in the letter hurts the CIA. It blows their monitoring operation. Deciding it favor of of the one over the other requires you to ignore that.

"On November 23, Mexico City CIA station chief Winston Scott asked the president of Mexico to arrest Silvia Duran." No argument as yet, until we get to your "because he suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true." This is conclusory. Again, you mix in the unknown as if it were known, along with the speculative. You immediately incorporate your conclusion into an explanation without establishing any of it. How do you know what he suspected? Who are the Plotters? Do you mean Scott suspected that Oswald might be involved with the Soviets and/or Cubans -- a reasonable suspicion given what information he received -- or do you mean that he suspected that there was a plot to falsely frame Oswald's involvement with Cubans and Soviets? Two very different concepts and you conflate them all and tie a bow around all of it as if any of it were established or establish-able, or even coherent. When I acknowledged that it was possible, theoretically, that the information as to the Cuban consulate in Excelsior came from Duran, as you had offered, I was being exceedingly generous in your favor, for argument's sake. As you wrote, Duran was held for days, tortured and beaten evidently. It makes little sense why statements by someone suspected of being involved with Oswald would be thrown around so liberally, so quickly, if they could even have been obtained at all by then. Who knows where things might lead in the interrogation that would cause what was released from it on day 1 to have to be altered on day 6? In any case, suspects under arrest and interrogation becoming anonymous sources to newspapers during their arrest is a new one to me, and exceedingly week as an explanation, notwithstanding my having granted it theoretical possibility status. Scott apparently told the Mexicans to keep her incommunicado. That means don't let her talk to anyone outside the interrogation room. Why they would follow his instructions on the one hand -- arrest her -- but disobey them on the other -- leak her story -- is unaccounted for by you. Again -- Excelsior is a leftist paper; it's printing information that further entangles Oswald wth Soviets and Cubans. That fact needs to be massaged a bit more, I suggest, so that its full ramifications can percolate to the surface.

To add a further point to this, if I'm Rusk, and I receive that message from Dobrynin, I could very easily interpret his not-so-subtle hint that the Soviets know of the mail-opening program as a threat. That is, don't do anything that disrupts our mole, lest we will blow Angleton's mail-opening program and your CIA will be humiliated. By Dobrynin's message alone, the Soviets are indicating to the U.S. that they have the leverage here.

As immediately above, "details" refers to the timing issue -- why Soviets feel need to say it arrived at a date later than it did -- and the existence of the mail-opening program. "The CIA knew that Azcue was going to be replaced." No, again, that is only assumed. "So why wouldn't the Soviets have not also known that?" They did know it. They might have been the only ones who knew it. There's no evidence anyone else did. That's the point. "With the Azcue replacement date in hand, and the Kostin letter in hand, the Soviets had all the details that you've pointed out. No mole needed to get it for them." Those are not the details that a mole provided. Yes, the Soviets do not need to be told a decision (azcue's replacement) they themselves have made. The detail most at issue here that appears to have come from CIA to KGB is the existence of the mail-opening program. That is information a mole could have provided. That is what indicates a security breach.

The instructions to Dobrynin indicate that the Kremlin is aware of some issue with regard to the timing of the letter. The Soviets apparently don't want to say they received the letter when they in did (the 9th evidently) and for some reason feel the need to state to the U.S. that it was received on a later date (the 18th). Why? The instructions don't resolve the timing issue, whether "in the Americans' eyes" or other. Indeed they perpetuate it. More however, what the instructions do is inform the Americans that there counter-intelligence program is blown -- that it's useless. How did the Soviets learn of the mail-opening program? How did they know to tell the U.S. that there could be delays in its delivery? That is the question.

Helms says he doesn't know how Oswald learned of the Azcue replacement. You believe Oswald's knowledge of Azcue's replacement is irrelevant because Oswald didn't write the letter in the first place. I agree. Helms' statement provides no information either way as to the outstanding question: how did the author of the letter know about Azcue's replacement? You simply say the CIA "must have known.". You can only get to the "must" if you assume CIA wrote the letter. Nothing you've written establishes that. It is merely an assumption.

You write "The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement." That IS the issue I raised. Simply stating that you have reached a conclusion as to the question is non-responsive, without explanation as to how you can justify that conclusion. And whether Azcue was in fact replaced or whether merely the decision to replace had been made, you have not answered the question as to how the author of the letter, whoever that might have been, knew either of those scenarios.

Well, Duran was apparently arrested at CIA instructions sent on the 23rd along with instructions that she be held incommunicado. The leak to the paper would seem to violate that second instruction. But it is a possibility that information obtained during her interrogation could have been a source for the goings-on inside the Cuban embassy -- albeit a very fast turnaround to get it into the paper on the 25th -- but that doesn't account for the paper's information as to the goings-on inside the Soviet embassy.

To quote Bill Safire's Lewis Carroll-like wordplay (New York Times, Jan. 22, 1979), let us go through a glass, darkly: "Beware the Family Jewels, my son The leaks that spring, the tips from SMERSH -- Taste not Nosenko's Plant, and shun The myriad Seymourhersh! Gotitzen to the Bagley man Go find who serves another skipper; Promotion lies with those who can Win one for the Double Dipper. But high in Langley's ranks he stands, The Jabbermole, untouched is he -- Kampiles' heel, a friend of Stan's He snuckles in his glee. 'Board Brillig did the bearish spies Snatch Paisley's prints before he blabbed; All flimsy were the alibis While the mole laughs, ungrabbed." https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01554R003300280025-3.pdf

Understood. That's a shame about not seeing those links because it's essential. Excuse me, "We believe its essential." Note however you don't need a twiter / x account to view the content there. You should be able to view the links in a desktop browser most ably. See https://tweetdelete.net/resources/browse-twitter-without-an-account-easy-access-outside-x/#:~:text=All you have to do,a restriction on viewing content. DM me if further issue persists, and if you are so inclined to go over the material that way. If I wasn't out of file upload space I would drop them in where where appropriate and I know there are ways around that but it's kind of a pain when I've already done it on twitter. Remember however that the materials are available elsewhere on the internet -- they don't originate on my twitter account. I can provide non social media links that will be more comprehensive in any case. If there is any specific question to get things started just shoot and maybe we can overcome that hurdle that way. I suggest we do that over at the thread which Sandy set up all for me after a complaint not appreciating some of the info I posted on the anonymous call to the tippits of connecticut thread. Link below, "Matt Cloud's compilation ..." We should be able to have a little more fun over there. Meanwhile, since you bring up Bagley and Spy Wars, let me direct your attention to p. 236 of the 2007 edition where Bagley writes, "This startling indication of the penetration of the CIA staff ... deserves investigation." If you wanted to use that as a starting off point I think it would be useful. Cheers.

It's on the record, all the same. Here and elsewhere, and will, in due time, not far from now, be disclosed. Thank you, however.

The material should not be new to you as it has been presented here by me over a month ago, repeatedly. There's more complexity than you acknowledge about what Powers says was the cause of his shoot-down, and most of it has nothing to do with Oswald, or whatever variant you claim of his existed where and when. First, the shoot-down was the result, according to most analyses, of the use of a proximity-fuse by the Soviets -- a technology which the Rosenbergs had given over. (That has significance with respect to Elizabeth Bentley, of course.) Second, there is the issue of Popov's claim that a mole in the U-2 program had given the Soviets tech details about the plane. We can discuss likely candidates for that, should you wish. Third, the history of Powers and what he said and what he was allowed to say after he came back to the US is highly detailed and any meaningful discussion would require getting into the complexities of that. The whole matter would carry on until about 1971 in fact. In short, the Kennedys were most concerned about what Powers might say after he got back and Robert Kennedy and John McMahon went to significant lengths to ensure that his statements were tightly controlled. McMahon had debriefed him, along with Golitsyn and Nosenko, and there is reason to believe that McMahon was "outed" by Powers in his interrogation by the Soviets in Moscow. Also, in addition to Oswald, Powers also pointed to NSA defectors as being responsible at least in part for the shoot-down. There's a lot more here to analyze and discuss; no work -- including John Newman's recent -- even comes close to approaching all the ins and outs in sufficient detail.

Perhaps you could direct me to where "we argue about the detail of whether LHO was being dangled in a mole hunt." That has actually, so far as I am aware, not been a significant topic of discussion within the context of the Kennedy assassination over the course of the 60+ year history. And it's not obvious he was a spy working for U.S. intelligence, no matter how many times you repeat that claim. It's not clear who he thinks he works for, who he in fact works for, who is running him, if anyone at all. Perhaps it would be helpful to acknowledge the basic fact of mole penetrations: they are intended to get the host to do things contrary to their interest, things which they would not normally do. Your dissatisfaction with the Warren Commission's explanation as to whether the state department was justified or not in 1963 in issuing him a passport skips right past that.

With above in mind, here are some details, now, regarding the “Mexico City shenanigans” as you put it. One of the as yet unexplained details is the origin of the story of Oswald going to the Soviet Consulate in the first place. The claim first appeared in public, in print, in the Mexican newspaper Excelsior on November 25, and picked up on that day by U.S. wire service U.P.I. According to U.P.I., dateline November 25, 1963: “The newspaper Excelsior said today Lee Harvey Oswald spent several days in Mexico City in late September, calling on consulates of the Soviet Union and Cuba. … Excelsior said the Cuban consulate told Oswald it could not issue the visa without talking to the United States government and that would take 10 or 12 days. [Oswald had evidently been there on September 27, 1963.] The paper said Oswald left the office in a huff and slammed the door as he went. The next day [presumably September 28] he appeared at the office of the soviet consul and asked for a visa directly to the Soviet Union. [Excelsior] said Oswald supported his argument for the visa by saying his wife was a soviet citizen, that he was a Communist, and that he had lived in Russia for three years. Told of Long Wait The soviet consul told him the normal time to process such a request would be about three months. Oswald again left in a huff, [Excelsior] said. [Excelsior] said there was no indication Oswald talked to any important officials of the soviet or Cuban embassies, other than the respective consuls.” Now, certainly one question that immediately pops out after reading this report is where the newspaper Excelsior got its information. The Excelsior was a worker cooperative, anti-imperialist, and not presumably an organ of the CIA. So how did they get their information? Would CIA leak to Excelsior and thus betray the secret (their “sources & methods”) that they had taps on the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City? That’s a question, to you. Another unexplained detail involves the letter that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly wrote to the Soviets on November 9, 1963, and reprinted in the Warren Commission as CE 15. In the letter, Oswald writes, “… the Cuban consulate [sic] was guilty of a gross breach of regulations, I am glad he has since been replaced.” Evidently indeed, the Cuban consul, Eusebio Azcue, was replaced, as Oswald had noted in his November 9 letter. The problem is Azcue was not replaced until November 18, more than a week after Oswald’s letter. This date problem in the Oswald letter to the Soviets raises a few possibilities: 1. Oswald had a very good source in U.S. intel, who kept an eye on Mexico City comings and goings, after Oswald’s return to the U.S.; 2. Oswald had a very good source in Soviet and/or Cuban intel, who kept an eye on Mexico City comings and goings, after Oswald’s return to the U.S.; or 3. The letter is a forgery, written to put more Oswald-Soviet connections out there for investigators after the assassination, albeit with the Azcue timing problem in plain sight. I expect you, Sandy, will agree with scenario number 3, that the letter is a forgery. I would agree. But I expect further you will say the forgery was by C.I.A. And there is a problem. First, according to Richard Helms, in a letter to Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission dated February 2, 1964, Helms states: “We do not know who might have told Oswald that Azcue or any other Cuban had been or was to be replaced, but we speculate that Silvia Duran or some Soviet official might have mentioned it if Oswald complained about Azcue’s altercations with him.” This would be the Sylvia Duran that had described Oswald “as a blonde.” In 1967, columnists Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott, who had been targets of RFK’s “Mockingbird Operation,” the wiretapping of various journalists in the early ‘60s who seemed to be getting unusually good information, wrote: “After receiving this reply from the CIA [Helms], the Warren Commission’s staff made no further inquiry on the Azcue reference, but centered their probe on the circumstances under which the letter was prepared and later discovered.” And now I hear you Sandy saying “but of course Helms said that; He’s one of the plotters!” I hear you. I hear you. But you’re not out of the woods. The problem grows deeper you see. Because in the late 1990s Boris Yeltsin of Russia presented to Bill Clinton some Soviet documents related to their monitoring of the Oswald situation. One document in that collection is a cable written shortly after the assassination on November 22, 1963, from Moscow to the Soviet ambassador in Washington. In it, the Kremlin instructs ambassador Dobrynin to share with Secretary of State Rusk photocopies of correspondence between their embassy and Oswald but he specifically adds: “When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.” Later in the cable, the point is more explicit: “The U.S. authorities are aware of this final correspondence, since it was conducted through official mail.” See https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0091a.htm This is hugely significant. It indicates a couple of things. One is that the Soviets knew of problems with the timing of the Azcue letter. Second, it instructs Dobrynin to tell Rusk, impliedly, that the Soviets also knew of the U.S. mail-opening program, run then by William J Cotter. (William J. Cotter, btw, who ran the mail-opening program, was the brother-in-law of John N. McMahon, who in 1962-63, back even in 1959, was an executive in the Agency’s COMOR operations — that has to do with overhead surveillance matters including the U-2 and CORONA satellite programs. His sister, William Cotter's wife, Virginia Alicia Cotter nee McMahon, died young, in her 40s, in 1962. She had been a VENONA codebreaker, BTW, in the 1940s, and is buried in Arlington.) How the Soviets knew any of these details, Sandy, is a another question put to you along with the suggestion that the Soviets’ knowledge of these activities points yet again in the direction of a mole, or at very least a U.S. KGB interlocutor, who was keeping them abreast. This supports the view that what is being targeted here — again by someone or someones, CIA, KGB, a mix of both? — is Angleton’s counterintelligence efforts, his “mole-hunt.”

I'm going to be working off of this understanding by you Sandy, unless you feel the need to revise -- which you are of course free to do. It's an excerpted compilation from at least two of your posts here. Sandy writes: “In a nutshell, what I believe is that Oswald was never in Mexico City, and that the whole MC escapade was a CIA operation designed to make it appear to post-assassination investigators (the FBI) that Oswald and some of his associates drove to MC to finalize plans with the Cubans and Soviets to have Oswald's team assassinate Kennedy. There is plenty of (planted/fake) evidence supporting this theory: Oswald meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov (a.k.a. Kostin); Oswald's affair with Cuban Consulate employee Silvia Duran; Oswald's relationship with dignitaries at Duran hosted party; the $6500 down payment paid to Oswald in the Cuban Consulate for the kill; the arrest of Duran and her associates immediately after the assassination. For this plan to work, the CIA plotters needed to have a way for the FBI to discover the (fake) Oswald trip to MC. (Otherwise they would have never discovered the (fake) Cuban and Soviet involvement.) This was accomplished by the Oswald impersonator at the Cuban Consulate making the phone call to the Russian Embassy, and giving out his name, Lee Oswald. Which, of course, was recorded by American surveillance phone taps. Furthermore, for the FBI to later discover this, the CIA had to report this call to the various agencies, as was their duty. The problem with reporting the call is that it could raise a red flag on Oswald on October 10, which would ruin the assassination plan. The CIA solved this problem by inserting disinformation into the cables... that is to say, the wrong description. … When I said that [Peter Dale Scott] shared the same theory as mine, I wasn't referring to the theory explaining the Oct. 10 disinformation. I was referring to the main theory I explained in the post that you (Michael Kalin) replied to. The theory explaining all the Mexico City shenanigans designed to make it look like Oswald was arranging to kill Kennedy for Cuba and Russia. … I personally don't see any reason to think there was any other intelligence agency involved in the whole Mexico City affair, other than the CIA. The whole thing makes perfect sense to me without adding any other agency and without adding a mole hunt.”

Interesting. Since my post on March 15 about Weinstock and Mary Metlay Kaufman going to Soviet embassy in October 1960 with information about Powers and the U-2 shoot down, The Black Vault -- paragon of transparency and disclosure -- has evidently removed that document. Hmmm. See for yourselves ... https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/historical/MaryKaufman-fbi1.pdf 3. Weinstock may be privy to information concerning what Powers told the Soviets after U-2 shoot-down as he travels from NYC to DC to Soviet and Czech embassies with CPUSA attorney Mary Metlay Kaufman in October 1960. (According to FBI report, Kaufman was guest of Moscow at Powers' trial and learned from Powers defense counsel there that Powers told Soviets more than they had asked for and explained that Soviet State Security officials were already waiting for him when he was shot down.) https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/historical/MaryKaufman-fbi1.pdf.

No, I'm going to be talking about Mexico City now, at this thread. Thus, I'm asking for a statement by you as to you seeing "no other intelligence organization" involvement there. Again -- a copy and paste will do. If you want to talk about the Oswald Project and the evidence which I introduced but which you ignored regarding the Gardos having gone from Hungary to Moscow at the exact time as Oswald's defection, or that Weinstock carried info pertaining to Powers' U-2 shoot-down -- all things which do in fact point to involvement by someone(s) outside the CIA proper, let's resume that discussion over at that thread, notwithstanding my having declared it "dead," which was of course based in light of the inability/unwillingness by participants there to discuss those facts, as introduced by me. So, here, what we want now is your statement, be it based on your belief or guess or, preferably, reasoned analysis, as to why you see no reason for non-CIA involvement in the Mexico City shenanigans.