Matt Cloud

Not clear what the conflict is here, unless it's a contrived argument over semantic definition of "spy." In any case, whether he was a spy or a wanna-be spy, the question should be "whose spy?" Then again, perhaps he was what spy-hunters call a "poisoned dwarf." From Bill Simpich's own The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend Part 4: When the U-2 Goes Down, Oswald is Ready to Return by Bill Simpich, Nov 16, 2010 https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_4.html ... What is fascinating is that there is no investigation in the CIA or FBI files dedicated to whether Oswald was handing U-2 information over to the Soviets. Nor is there anything in the military files that I am aware of, other than this complaint by his own lieutenant John Donovan. Incredibly, the Warren Commission did not ask Donovan or any of Oswald's military colleagues a single question about the U-2, even though the shootdown incident happened on the second overflight after Oswald's arrival to the USSR. Donovan said that "he did not know whether Oswald had actually turned over secrets to the Russians. But for security's sake it had to be assumed that he did". Eight days after Donovan testified to the Warren Commission, Richard Helms wrote a memo to the Warren Commission entitled, "Oswald's Access to Information About the U-2", which was classified as "Commission Document 931" and not released for thirty years. Francis Gary Powers discussed it at length in his book, as he really wanted to know what it said. Powers died in 1978. When Helms' memo was released in 1993, this was its conclusion: "To summarize: There is no evidence or indication that OSWALD had any association with, or access to, the JTAG (Joint Technical Advisors Group) operation or its program in Japan. This applies also to information regarding the U-2 or its mission." The gap between Helms' version and Donovan's version is vast. Donovan talks about how his unit provided U-2 support at Cubi Point in the Philippines, where Oswald once tracked a U-2 flying over China and showed it to him. Whether or not Oswald actually provided U-2 secrets to the Soviets, it was certainly part of the legend created on his behalf. The best tip-off is right in Oswald's own diary, where he says that Don Alejandro advised him to go back to the USA on the night of May 1, 1960, the night that the Soviets shot down Powers' U-2. "It's the first voice of opposition I have heard. I respect Ziger, he has seen the world. He says many things, and relates many things I do not know about the USSR. I begin to feel uneasy inside, it's true!" The CIA's memo says that Ziger "cautioned Oswald not to tell any Russians". Oswald's work in the Soviet Union was done. Both sides would take a long look at him, saying: "Whose man is he?" - Bill Simpich

Fascinating. At the risk of "bumping" this thread, perhaps someone could please post a link to this report on Ruby speaking Hungarian.

I know your position. Whoever "our" includes I do not know. Go ahead and clarify. I know you state that the HARVEY you allege to exist is NOT the Gardos son. Yes, I know that. That is entirely consistent with my post that you quoted. You don't like the idea of the Gardos son being a suspect here. That's why the memo hurts your case. What are you confused about? The thread is dead, Jim. You're own contortions and the yes charade of appearing to encourage enquiry and analysis on the Tippit call report while simultaneously steering research and commentary away from that analysis -- because it is fundamentally contradictory to your thesis -- killed it.

I can understand why you would wish that. But, Sandy, I'm moving over to your little mole-hunt / paitsification false dichotomy thread, and watching they way you've acted toward Bill Simpich. See you there.

To summarize for anyone following along at this point. The memo about the call to the Tippits actually hurts the Armstrong thesis. Because if it is correct, and the Oswald double was the child of the Gardos's, then HARVEY as it is claimed around here, the HARVEY of Armstrong's thesis, didn't come into the US but went out of the US circa 1948. For that reason, certain voices on this thread (Jim Hargrove specifically), have not wanted to parse too closely the words of the FBI memo about the call. As they have so stated. Instead they have seemingly preferred a needle in a haystack search for a Russian-speaking orphan somewhere in the US in the 1940s. It is actually quite simple what is going on. That's my reasoned belief.

Dealing with this thread alone, your claims are replete throughout it, as well as those of Armstrong's when you have relayed them. Notwithstanding that, neither you nor he as his collaborator evidently have addressed the issue which I have brought up numerous times, the question John Armstrong himself raises, as to the possibility that Louis Weinstock was working on behalf of the U.S. Government. That's Armstrong's question, from his book, p. 61. That question cannot seem to get an ounce of traction but for my repeated attempts at pointing it out, and adding numerous further details that support or at least further along details that add to that hypothesis. Failure to do that, here, would be an example of a charade I would cite. I'm well aware of the school records in the WC. Your posting those here is not what I was referring to. To say again, the reference was to an ostensible open thread that is in reality an adjunct for John Armstrong's work. That's not stated anywhere and yet it is evidently the controlling factor of participation here To be clear: I support in general the concept of a Oswald Project. I support consideration of the possibility of one or more youths being raised in furtherance of this, as well even of other dopplegangers inserted at multiple place along the timeline, where/when necessary. The evidence that there are two and only two, or that it was run -- if I understand the thesis correctly -- as a Soviet penetration INTO the US in the 40s needs some substantiation -- in this thread. A scenario I claim that is worthwhile to pursue is the concept that a child was taken OUT of the US and put into, say Hungary circa 1948, and then swapped in some way or at very least performed some activities inside the USSR after November 1959. Such a candidate would of course be the son of Emile Gardos, one of the persons mentioned by the anonymous caller, who may or may not have been Elizabeth Bentley, in her alleged call to the Tippits of Connecticut, the topic after all that this thread IS about. It is NOT the "John Armstrong says" thread. If that's what you intend, start it up again. Re-name it, but identify it somehow accordingly. That is the charade here.

As I indicated before, I think it would be helpful to have such data inserted here to the extent possible -- how lengthy and detailed could it actually be? -- along with the evidentiary materials in support of the places and dates enumerated. Otherwise, what results here is slight of hand trick: the thread is open for discussion on a certain subject and then certain details and analysis are offered, then the possessors of certain information, albeit without ever properly introducing or supporting such information, re-enter the discussion and say "we" don't believe that. Oh. Okay. If the thread is actually the John Armstrong thread, state it as such. Otherwise saying what is known when it is not known and, again vetoing certain analyses that "we" -- by which I mean you et al.-- believe is a silly and obvious charade.

I could surmise -- and indeed make a reasonable case -- that you do not want enquiries that might challenge John Armstrong's, and I gather Jim Hargrove's as well, work. If so, that's an unfortunate position to be in as a moderator of an ostensibly public thread in which your role as such should be neutral as to point-of-view on matters discussed here. That is the evident and necessary conclusion -- you have shut down discussion of the identification of the Tippits, anything that is that goes beyond a description of him as a mere "cartoonist," as well as any suggestion that the Tippits may have ulterior or even self-interest in reporting the details of the alleged call. Their notes about it -- still forthcoming, mind, are sacrosanct and a gold mine no doubt. What's especially odd is that, according to Jim Hargrove, with whom you seem to share an alliance, the HARVEY Oswald that you allege to have existed wasn't even in NY in the late 1940s -- Hargrove states it is documented he was in Texas -- all of which calls the entire discussion of the contents of the Tippit call into question in the first place. In other words, If Jim and/or you know the back story as to the Harvey you claim existed, and it doesn't involve NY until 1953 circa, what has been the point of running this thread around and around in circles? This thread has existed in one form or another since at least 2015. No one but me has mentioned that Louis Weinstock is in the Warren Commission. No one still has offered any analysis connecting that fact with his presence in the Tippit call memo. Instead, we have make-work projects evidently handed out to John Kowalski wherein he is told to go look through the phone books for various years. He dutifully reports back he didn't find anything -- no surprise -- and yet it keeps going. What kind of spinning-of-the-wheels is this thread really about?

Hide the ball. Feel free then to elaborate your reasoning for whatever it is you think is at issue here, something about the contents of an at-least 3rd generation hearsay document being beyond question at this thread. Please elaborate your thinking as to why the contents of that report are themselves beyond the scope of permissible inquiry.

Is this what you are referring to? It is short of reasoning, notwithstanding your claims of not knowing what you "don't buy" and what "seems more likely." However the case, the entire point, which you have now spent several posts on, is of unclear legitimacy in the first place. You think the report should not be questioned but you do think the FBI "deep-sixed" it. Okay. I think the report should be questioned and the FBI deep-sixed it. Now what? Should your view control? What are you driving at? Admin 8.9k Gender:Male Posted March 5 Paul, I don't know if I buy the idea that the FBI altered the name and the magazine title in order keep the lid on what the document was about. To me it seems more likely that Mrs. Tippit just heard those names incorrectly. Though I do buy the idea that those reading the document knew who the people and the magazine really were, and so deep-sixed the document.

Sandy -- why not quote the explanation you state you gave earlier? Where is it?

If you fail to grasp the significance of any of those items with respect to the anonymous call to the Tippits of Connecticut, just ask. Such failure, if it indeed exists, is your problem, not mine. Till then, I will assume, rightly or wrongly, that you do grasp the significance and await -- still -- discussion of the implications here by you or anyone. Statements based on mere belief, without more -- without an articulation of the sound reasoning you profess to have but do not reveal -- are just that: mere opinion. Such comments do nothing to advance understanding in any direction. Searching for the truth of history -- my history as well as yours -- is not a poll-driven exercise. I would think Admin moderators would encourage commentary which fulfills that goal, and suggest limitations upon others and themselves no less, which do not add value to the discussion as a whole. Alternatively, as Admin here, you can keep the thread devoted to more or less daily updates between two individuals as to what phone book they looked for today but couldn't find. Which do you want?

Let's see here. Since you evidently carry around in your back-pocket the entire and unquestionable "Harvey & Lee" theory -- or is that fact? -- biography, which you then seem wiling to wield as a veto over any and all comments that may in any way stray from, let alone alone merely question, that dogma, perhaps it is time, past time even, to present the chronology in your own words, with your own name and face attached to it, along with of course the supporting evidentiary citations that make the case. As far as I am aware this thread is not an advertisement for you, John Armstrong or whatever knowledge you claim -- but never present -- to possess. You keep stepping on top of comments here pronouncing what is and isn't. Why not now, "at long last," lay it out. Take the time and compose the chronology with support. Then we can test it.

Quite the contrary. Merely by looking into the Tippit call and pursuing multiple lines of assumption the following, inter alia, has been learned. 1. Elizabeth Bentley testified in 1948 that during the FDR administration, the Soviets learned the U.S. had broken, or were about to break, the VENONA cables. “That the White House informant, who remained unidentified, gave the word that the Americans ‘were about to break – or translate the Russian code.’ When excited Russians asked ‘which code’ she was at loss for explanation ‘and so was this contact man she said.’” See “Woman Links Spies to U.S. War Offices and White House; Elizabeth T. Bentley Accuses Commerce Official as Source of Data Sent to Russia; Wallace Leader Named; Senate Inquiry Witness Says Informer in President’s Home Warned of Broken Code,” C.P. Trussell, New York Times, July 31, 1948, p. 1. Most histories of VENONA attribute the Soviets learning of VENONA having been cracked to Kim Philby or William Weisband, with usual estimations of the break as occurring in 1948. That Bentley said it had occurred during the Roosevelt years is significant, and potentially alters all understandings of VENONA material and “when we knew they knew we knew.” That question, when the U.S. knew that the Soviets knew the U.S. had broken the cables’ code, was – coincidentally of course – a question repeatedly asked by Senator Moynihan of his staff to research in the late 1990s, as the state of knowledge in those years was exploding and very much in flux. The key point for now is that Soviets knew the cable was cracked and continued using it. 2. Beginning in 1945, Bentley’s FBI handler was William King Harvey, then of the F.B.I., along with Robert Lamphere and Wililiam J. Cotter. “Harvey was … among a trio of FBI agents who made up the first U.S. counterespionage team aimed at the Soviets. He was in the thick of a case that became one of the biggest spy stories of the time when it was made public several years later. In the fall of 1945, a woman named Elizabeth Bentley approached the FBI to confess that she had worked for years as a courier for a Soviet spy ring, exposing a shocking penetration of the U.S. government by Soviet intelligence. Eventually, she gave the names of more than a hundred people in the United States and Canada who were working for the Soviets, including twenty-seven people in government agencies, among them Alger Hiss, a senior State Department official.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-hick-from-indiana-who-nailed-master-spy-kim-philby As discussed here previously, Cotter was married to Virginia Alicia McMahon of Norwalk, CT, who worked as a cryptanalyst on VENONA at Arlington Hall during and after the war. She deceased at age 42 in 1962. 3. Elizabeth Bentley would begin teaching in Louisiana in 1953, at a Catholic School, around same time Lee Harvey Oswald also was in school in Louisiana. 4. Louis Weinstock, head of the Painters’ Union, would go on trial in the early to mid-‘50s for subversive activities (the Smith Act) and perjury, inter alia, in NY, before Judge Irving R. Kaufman of Rosenberg trial fame and in DC, before E. Barrett Prettyman, later famous for the Castro-Donovan-Alfred Boerum (a McMahon brother-in-law) negotiations to secure the Bay of Pigs prisoners in 1962. Weinstock served about two-years’ time, and some of the issues over which he was originally charged were dismissed or reversed over the ensuing years – the disposition of the cases is worth noting. See “Weinstock Admits Treachery of CP in Fight on Smith Act,” The Militant, Jan. 31, 1949 (highlighting divisions between Stalinists and Trotskyites) (“Weinstock used to be secretary-treasurer of Painters District Council No. 9, and it was in that capacity in 1944 that he played his part in the scabby Stalinist campaign to prevent the mobilization of the labor movement against the Smith Act when 18 Socialist Worker Party and C.I.O. members were railroaded to prison under its provisions in the Minneapolis trial. The members of the union have since then kicked Weinstock out of that post, and the forum he used in discussing The Militant’s expose was a meeting … held at Yorkville Temple on Jan. 17. He could not deny that he and his fellow Stalinists had prevented the District Council from extending aid to the Civil Rights Defense Committee, which was helping the 18 Trotskyites.”). From FBI report on Claudia Jones, part 10 of 10, p. 71: “On January 10, 1955, United States District Court Irving R. Kaufman ordered revocation of bail and ordered warrants issued for all defendants except Louis Weinstock, who was then on trial in a separate perjury proceeding in [D.C.].” See also Louis Weinstock v. United States, 231 F.2d 699 (D.C. Cir. 1956); Louis Weinstock, Petitioner, v. Subversive Activities Control Board, Respondent, 331 F.2d 75 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (Submitted October 3, 1962, Decided December 17, 1963) In Harvey and Lee (2003), p. 67, John Armstrong notes the leniency of the treatment toward Weinstock “suggests that he may have been working for the U.S. Government.” (That seems to have go unnoticed here.) 5. On December 8, 1959, an FBI Operation Solo report to Director Hoover from SAC Chicago states that in the investigation pertaining to Louis and Rose Weinstock, an informant stated “Weinstock also stated that while in Hungary, he had seen Emil and Grace Blair Gardos. They have a son who is attending a university in Hungary. He is studying to be a physicist and has almost completed his education. Emil Gardos was scheduled to leave Hungary for Moscow on or about November 1, 1959. He is scheduled to be a Commercial Attaché in Moscow.” November 1, 1959 is – coincidentally – virtually the precise date that Lee Harvey Oswald is attempting to gain entry via defection into the Soviet Union. 6. On October 25, 1960, a U.S. Department of Justice FBI background memorandum states that Louis Weinstock, along with Communist Party attorney Mary Metlay Kaufman, planned on traveling from NY to DC the next day via train to meet with Soviet Embassy officials. Kaufman had been the invited guest of Moscow to the Francis Gary Powers U-2 trial there a few weeks before. A November 2, 1960 FBI memo to Director J. Edgar Hoover from SAC NY states that an informant “advised that on August 26, 1960,” Kaufman “stated that while in Moscow, she had learned from Powers’ defense counsel Grinev (ph) that ‘Security Police Officials already were in town when Powers was brought in by the local people [after being shot-down].’ [IN OTHER WORDS – THEY WERE WAITING FOR HIM.] Grinev (ph) also informed Kaufman that Powers is a highly intelligent person. He told the Moscow officials everything and was most cooperative. He spared no details, and volunteered information regarding matters he was not questioned about.” QUERY: Is this part of the set-up for having Oswald take blame for Popov’s mole’s claim that a Soviet mole in the U.S. had given technical plans for the U-2 to the Soviets? 7. On December 15, 1960, The Joint Study Group on Foreign Intelligence Activities of the United States Government is submitted to Allen Dulles Director of CIA from Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, CIA inspector General and Robert M. Macy, Chief of the International Division, Bureau of the Budget, et al. Recall, above, it was with Bob Macy that Moynihan went around on 11/22/63 saying “We must get hold of Oswald.” 8. Spring 1962, Lee Harvey Oswald writes the International Rescue Committee for aid in returning to the U.S. The IRC had been run by Leo Cherne in the 1950s, and specialized in Hungarian relief aid. Recall, above, Cherne, along with Clare Booth Luce, who later informed CIA Director Colby of a counterintelligence op run against Oswald after he had infiltrated her anti-Castro Cubans after Bay of Pigs, and Adolf Berle, who had given the cold-shoulder to Bentley’s compatriot Whittaker Chambers’ claims of Soviet espionage in 1939, were authors of various “Situation in Hungary” reports in the 1950s. Moynihan worked for Cherne at the IRC circa ’53-55. 9. June 1, 1962. Ft. Worth Star Telegram, p. 11: “U.S. Moves to Order Registration of Reds.” “Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy formally requested a government agency Thursday to label 10 persons [including Louis Weinstock] as Communists and order them to register under the 1950 internal security act.” 10. December 19, 1962. Louis Weinstock, now of the Worker, writes to thank him for his offer of photo enlargement services for advertisement purposes for The Worker. His affidavit on the matter is even included in the Warren Commission. (That important detail, among others, seems to have been overlooked on this forum, btw.) This photographic work by Oswald would possibly be an offshoot of practices learned while in the employ of Jaggers-Chiles Stovall, and would necessary implicate photo reconnaissance work, which rely on similar enlargement procedures. See Weinstock’s affidavit to the Warren Commission. (Among other facts, that seems to have gone unnoticed around here.) Interesting that Bentley, assuming it WAS Bentley, just days after the assassination, somehow was able to link up Oswald and Weinstock – before it had become publicly known that the two had written each other. Amazing. 11. It should be noted further that matters involving the U-2, photo reconnaissance and imagery and balance of power strategic thinking in this area are all matters clearly within the purview of persons such as Whiz Kid Harold brown, formerly of RAND -- along with Paul Kecskemeti – and for who Air Force Col. J.D. Tippit of Connecticut, the person to whom Bentley placed the infamous call at issue just after the assassination, worked for, as Air Force Secretary, at least -- we know -- in 1965. I'll stick with my "M.O."

The "beliefs" of you or anyone posting here, are irrelevant unless and until they can be subjected to analysis. I cannot believe statements of personal belief fly around here as even an acceptable level of commentary, let alone being determinative of anything. So you believe something. Okay. Noted.

Well, there are problems here again. We do not know the validity of the claim about the accent in the first place. We are unable to test it. If we assume the call was real, we do not have to assume that all details about the call are authentic. Indeed, evidently, Mrs. Tippit changes her story from Eastern European accent to Spanish accent. Perhaps she had no accent at all and the accent story was created to cause the very confusion that is being displayed here. Likewise the claim that she said she was from NY. That too may have been added in to throw off the investigation. There are really quite a lot of realistic variables tied-up in this. There are other problems. The report of J.D. Tippit of Connecticut being related to J.D. Tippit of Texas -- a fact which, according to the Tippits, they did NOT want published but which was published anyway -- appeared in the Norwalk Hour. The Norwalk Hour is/was a small, regional paper serving the Norwalk and Westport areas of Connecticut. It becomes a stretch to think that a New York "governess" of Eastern European extraction was scanning the Norwalk paper and latched on to what was surely a very tiny mention in a Connecticut newspaper about the connection between CT Tippits with TX Tippits, and then decided to call. I agree that there are problems concluding outright that Bentley was the caller. But the call may have been a provocation to point to her as being the caller. Then, to counter that provocation, certain details may have been fudged to throw off the provocation. Lot of potential intrigue at play here.

As others here begin the process of compiling the names of Russian and Eastern European refugees both during and after World War II looking presumably for any bearing the name "Harvey" (!), I will point out that (very) basic discussion of this thread has been commented upon by the creator of the "NoTrueFlags" youtube channel. NoTrueFlags describes the conclusion that Bentley was in fact the caller as premature. I think that is correct, as a matter of prudence, but nonetheless it has been worthwhile to pursue an analysis based on the assumption that she was the caller. Another line of analysis, one that does not rest on the assumption, is also worthwhile. But in describing the conclusion that Bentley was the caller as premature, NoTrueFlags commits the same error he levels at this thread when he states his own conclusion that the call was, in his words, a "hoax" or that of a "crank." Whether the anonymous caller was Bentley or not, the names mentioned by the anonymous caller -- Gardos and Weinstock -- can in no one way said to be unrelated to the background of Lee Harvey Oswald or the "Oswald Project." As mentioned before here, according to FBI reports Emile Gardos would go from Hungary into Moscow at the same time that Lee Harvey Oswald was attempting to defect, in November 1959. Another FBI report indicates that Louis Weinstock visited the Soviet and Czech embassies in October 1960, possibly relaying information about what U-2 pilot Gary Powers told his Soviet captors. NoTrueFlags makes no mention of these facts in concluding that the anonymous call was a hoax. Nor does NoTrueFlags mention the incredible coincidence -- if the call was a hoax or made by a crank -- that Weinstock and Oswald wrote each other in 1962, after Oswald's return to the U.S. This correspondence, along with Weinstock's affidavit, are in the Warren Commission. But none of this information was publicly known at the time of the call. So, the specific mention of these names -- Gardos and Weinstock -- by the anonymous caller suggests that the caller was privy to highly confidential information. That takes it out of the "hoax" and "crank" category, in my view. It does not mean the call was not intended as some sort of provocation however. (NoTrueFlags also makes no mention of the possibility of intentional name distortion as recorded in the memo, and other variations in the call's memorialization. European accent by the caller getting changed to Spanish accent, etc.) In addition, NoTrueFlags makes no attempt at either inquiry or speculation as to any larger role of the Tippits in this story. As mentioned here before, J.D. Tippit of Connecticut was not a mere cartoonist. He was on active duty as a Colonel in the Air Force reserves and, in 1965 certainly, was working in Washington directly under the Secretary of the Air Force, Harold Brown. A couple of key facts that NoTrueFlags does point out, or remind us of, are these: 1. FBI communications surrounding the call indicate that the caller had said she "was from NY" and had "come here" presumably to Connecticut to make the call. In 1963 Bentley was living in Connecticut so this fact goes against the identification of Bentley as the caller. 2. FBI communications also indicate that Bentley had been in contact with the FBI for the last two weeks of her life keeping the Bureau up-to-date on what was evidently known to her to be already a terminal diagnosis. There is more surely that could be said about the analysis in NoTrueFlags videos, but that's enough for now, for starters. The NoTrueFlags video about this thread can be found here: and here:

http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/kennedy-assassination/otto-otepka-robert-kennedy-walter-sheridan-and-lee-oswald/ "Bobby Kennedy’s hostility to Otto Otepka surfaced in December 1960, even before the inauguration of John F. Kennedy, but after Otepka had begun to evaluate Lee Oswald. At 7 P.M. one evening, in the gathering winter darkness, Dean Rusk, Kennedy’s Secretary of State designate, requested that Otepka meet with him. Otepka assumed that the purpose of the meeting was a discussion of security clearances for Kennedy appointees. What turned out to be the troubling reality was that Rusk, whom Otepka had only just cleared, was functioning as an intermediary. It was Bobby Kennedy who wanted to meet with Otepka. Bobby was late. Otepka and Rusk sat twiddling their thumbs in the deserted building until Robert Kennedy finally appeared. Offering no apologies, he complained that he had become lost in the labyrinthine corridors. It was in these same corridors, nearly three years later that Bobby’s “confidential assistant,” Walter Sheridan, would be handed the tapes of the illegal surveillance of Otepka’s telephone and office." https://www.adst.org/OH TOCs/Sonnenfeldt, Helmut.toc.pdf "SONNENFELDT: He was told to keep the effort going because the Kennedy people had raised this whole issue in the first place - that there were thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, [of] people working on war and only fewer than a hundred on peace; and so this was the U.S. Disarmament Administration. Kennedy was quite interested in it right from the start. The idea developed in the transition period before Kennedy’s inauguration that relations with the Soviets were bad because of the U-2 and some other things, and that we really needed to find a way to get a new disarmament forum going again with the Soviets, to pick up some of the threads that had been tattered in the previous year. John McCloy was brought in to head the Disarmament Administration after the inauguration in 1961 .... SONNENFELDT: …but anyway, there were people who were obsessed with guilt because of Hiroshima, and so on. Congress wanted to have a rather tough man, not exactly as a supervisor, but a monitor of what the agency was doing. That was all put into this statute. I think by October 1961 or so, the Arms Control Agency was established by Congress. Mr. William Foster, a very prominent, respected Republican and a former industrialist who’d been in the Defense Department, was the first head of the Agency. His appointment was a way for Kennedy to tell the more skeptical Republicans that he had two tough guys in this arms control business. John McCloy was made the head of this advisory group, the General Advisory Committee. In the meantime, a friend of mine, Roger Hilsman, had become head of INR. He approached me and asked me whether I didn’t want to come back to INR. I figured that that’s where I really still belonged. I had enjoyed the experience of being in a more policy-oriented job, and also being more exposed to high-level Soviets. I think in October or November of 1961, I went back to INR, with a promotion and a rather friendly and sympathetic Director and a Deputy Director, Thomas Hughes, who later became Director when Hilsman became Assistant Secretary for Asian affairs. They were all people that I knew. They also finally forced a resolution of the security allegations that were still there somewhere in the files, and that re-appeared occasionally. They arranged for me, finally, to be interviewed and confronted with what I was being charged with by Otto Otepka and the Security Bureau. The SY people gave me that lie detector test, and the upshot of it was that eventually I was cleared. Louis Weinstock, mentioned in the thread here on the Elizabeth Bentley call to the Tippits of Connecticut, had visited with the Soviet AND Czech embassies in October 1960, along with with Mary Metlay Kaufman, carrying information from Powers trial in Moscow. P. 203, here: https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/historical/MaryKaufman-fbi1.pdf See also, for contrast: Otto Otepka: Victim of the New Team. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280003-0.pdf

I can't answer it either, on behalf of Newman or anyone else who has purported to deal with the allegation of the Mole in the U-2 program. That's the point, but clearly it should be dealt with. John Hart, in his testimony before the HSCA on Angleton's "Monster Plot" deliberately obscured McMahon's name from the report. I know this -- we know this -- because two versions are presently available, one with McMahon and one without, wherein the latter all "McMahon" references are substituted for "this handler." You can find the relevant links in the images here, at this Twitter post by me.

Internet sleuths need to brush up on their internet sleuthing skills. Here ya go:

My telling you, experience hath shown, generally results in reactionary rejection. 'Tis more prudent then to drop hints and ask questions which get you to the information on your own. Then when you have processed and absorbed you will be hungry for more. As to Newman, does he mention John N. McMahon as among candidates for the "mole-hunt?" How can he not? He essentially ran COMOR -- the overhead surveillance section -- and the U-2 program in the late 1950s and into the early 1960s. He debriefed Powers -- the transcript of which suggests Powers gave his name to the Soviets - and he debriefed Golitsyn and Nosenko. All well before Bruce Solie came into the picture.

Studies in Intelligence Vol. 48 No. 3 (2004) The Pond: Running Agents for State, War, and the CIA The Hazards of Private Spy Operations Mark Stout See the the thread on "The Pond."

Such elaboration would take over this thread. You can get some flavor for it, here: As well as follow me on Twitter @realmattcloud And for starters consider "those backchannel" negotiations during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Who was really serving as the intermediary? Where did this occur? Did this person do same all the way through the 80s and 90s? It's vast and important -- the vast and import -- secret of the Cold War.