Did Harvey return from Russia?

[Michael Hogan]

John Armstrong mentions the False Defector Program only briefly. He notes the testimony

of Victor Marchetti and James Wilcott to the HSCA in 1978. (Harvey & Lee, page 262)

Marchetti actually testified extensively during the Church Committee hearings.

Jim DiEugenio wrote the following in his review of the reissue of John Newman's Oswald and the CIA:

And this is where one of the most fascinating discoveries in the book is revealed. Although no 201 file was opened on Oswald until December of 1960, he was put on the Watch List in November of 1959. This list was part of the CIA's illegal HT/LINGUAL mail intercept program-only about 300 people were on it. Recall, this is at a time when Oswald's file is in the so-called Black Hole. It was not possible to find a paper trail on him until the next month. How could he, at the same time, be so inconsequential as to have no file opened, yet so important as to be on the quite exclusive Watch List? This defies comprehension. In fact, Newman is forced to conclude, "The absence of a 201 file was a deliberate act, not an oversight." (p. 54) Clearly, someone at the CIA knew who Oswald was and thought it was important enough to intercept his mail. Long ago, when I asked Newman to explain this paradox in light of the fact that his first file would be opened at CI/SIG, he replied that one possibility was Oswald was being run as an off the books agent by Angleton. In light of the other factors mentioned in this section, i.e. concerning the U-2 secrets, the "black hole" delay, plus what we will discover later, I know of no better way to explain this dichotomy.

http://www.ctka.net/2008/newman.html

From a lecture given by Joan Mellen in 2007:

The Kennedy assassination is present even in its absence in the recent film, The Good Shepherd, a movie about the CIA. Its central character, played by Matt Damon, is based largely on the late head of CIA Counter Intelligence, James Jesus Angleton. The distortions of the film return us to the meaning of the Kennedy assassination.

James Angleton in real life was the mastermind not, as the film suggests, of the Bay of Pigs (that was Richard Bissell), but of a false defector program that sent spies into the Soviet Union. Among them was one Lee Harvey Oswald. This talk is based on interviews I conducted for my book, A Farewell to Justice, as well as new interviews since its publication a year ago. I refer also to some of more than four million documents released under the JFK Records Collection Act at the National Archives.

An FBI document demonstrates that Oswald, who was indeed one of Angleton's assets in the Soviet Union, communicated back to the CIA through a CIA asset at American Express named Michael Jelisavcic. One of my discoveries for A Farewell to Justice was the original of a note that Oswald, arrested in New Orleans for a street fight, handed to police lieutenant, Francis Martello.

One CIA document refers to an FBI "65" file, an espionage file, for Jelisavic, a reference inadvertently unredacted when CIA declassified the document. This number clearly directs CIA to an espionage file. Oswald also had Jelisavcic's name and room number in his possession. Angleton's false defector program, not mentioned in The Good Shepherd, remains among the CIA's most closely guarded secrets; a secret necessary to preserve the fiction of the Warren Report.

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/kennedycurrent.html

[Jack White]

I will be adding a series of studies comparing the definitive DPD mug shot with

photos made in Russia.

Each person may examine the comparisons and decide individually whether

the Dallas Oswald and the Russian Oswald are the same.

More will follow as I do them.

Jack

[Jack White]

I will be adding a series of studies comparing the definitive DPD mug shot with

photos made in Russia.

Each person may examine the comparisons and decide individually whether

the Dallas Oswald and the Russian Oswald are the same.

More will follow as I do them.

Jack

Here is another.

[Jack White]

It will take a while to do all of these. I am quitting for the night now.

Had a long and tiring day.

Jack

[Jack White]

This Russian pic may actually be the LHO who defected.

Jack

[Jack White]

This Russian photo is provably a split face composite using the faces

of two different men.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

I wonder what he would have made of the Wrongski work? I'm not an expert, but it looks convincing to me. I understand neither you nor Jerry would have had Wrongski's work to use when you did your own analysis...

In other words, Wronski is not wrongski?

I agree.

[Jack White]

Strange studio pic, highly retouched.

Jack

Edited March 30, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Burnham]

I will be adding a series of studies comparing the definitive DPD mug shot with

photos made in Russia.

Each person may examine the comparisons and decide individually whether

the Dallas Oswald and the Russian Oswald are the same.

More will follow as I do them.

Jack

Here is another.

That one is laughably ridiculous.

[Jack White]

It may take a few days to do all of these. The thing that is

clear that in Russia, many photos were taken of "LHO". Some

are fake, some may be genuing...but few look like the man

killed by Jack Ruby.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

It may take a few days to do all of these. The thing that is

clear that in Russia, many photos were taken of "LHO". Some

are fake, some may be genuing...but few look like the man

killed by Jack Ruby.

Jack

Jack,

I wish that I had asked Hemming about the photographic record of LHO. I wish I had sent him images and asked questions. I have a lot of obscure information about LHO from both Hemming and Prouty, but unfortnately, I have no information about the photographic record. Sheesh--and I call myself a researcher...pathetic.

[Jack White]

It may take a few days to do all of these. The thing that is

clear that in Russia, many photos were taken of "LHO". Some

are fake, some may be genuing...but few look like the man

killed by Jack Ruby.

Jack

Jack,

I wish that I had asked Hemming about the photographic record of LHO. I wish I had sent him images and asked questions. I have a lot of obscure information about LHO from both Hemming and Prouty, but unfortnately, I have no information about the photographic record. Sheesh--and I call myself a researcher...pathetic.

They might have added something...BUT all I have ever studied are PHOTOS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.

These photos are sufficient to raise many questions which need answers. I never dreamed that 40+

years later I would still be studying them...nor that people would still be attacking my credibility.

Jack

[Jack White]

Another LHO Russian pic compared to the Dallas mug shot.

Jack

[Jack White]

Another one...several more to go.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I am very troubled that you would post something misleading on this new thread

when it is I who have challenged, not the existence of a "false defector program",

but one of the kind that you have described below, which, for reasons that I have

explained, would not have been workable but actually self-defeating. So I would

ask that you be more discriminating in your citations and references. Indeed, you

should make a practice of citing the posts to which you refer in lodging complaints.

Since you are insistent about this "Harvey & Lee" business, please answer a few

questions that have arisen in my mind in light of the following remarks in this post:

The question was WHETHER THE LHO WHO RETURNED FROM RUSSIA WAS THE SAME

ONE WHO DEFECTED. Either way, it does NOT materially affect the Harvey and Lee

story, but adds an EXTRA dimension. Either way, it is the one point on which I do not

fully agree with Armstrong. I have always believed that the LHO who returned from

Russia was NOT the same LHO who defected. I have always believed that the Soviets

replaced the original defector with one of their own. There is much evidence to support

this. John decided NOT to include this possibility (though he was aware of it) in his book

(1) You say "There is much evidence to support this" (yet another Oswald impersonator)

but John decided not to include it because of a lack of documentation. My first question

is, What kind of evidence do you have in mind that did not qualify as "documentation"?

(2) If John excluded this possibility from mention in his book, then is it not also the case

that he also excluded (a) the possibility that Robert was impersonating Oswald and (

that Judyth makes many assertions about the man she knew inconsistent with his theory?

(3) Given that there appears to have been no standard of selection for sorting out those

"genuine documents" he found in the public domain with false content and those "genuine

documents" he found in the public domain with true content, how do we know which is which?

(4) Frank Wisner, the propaganda genius at the CIA, was celebrated among intelligence ops

for playing "The Might Wurlitzer", which included all the major mass media from The New York

Times to TIME/LIFE and CBS, so what steps were taken to cope with a flood of phony stories?

(5) I have already pointed out that the "hunting photograph" of the one you call "Lee" appears

to be a fake photo and Judyth has observed that the photo of "Lee" on the inside-front jacket

may have been altered give the face a more rounded, plumpish aspect. Did you consider this?

I look forward to hearing more about "Harvey & Lee", Jack. Thanks for creating a new thread.

Meanwhile, since you appear to be posting quite a few photos, I will do my best to "catch up"!

Jim

COMMENTS ON "THE TWO OSWALDS" AND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE

Judyth and I are gravitating toward the same position about this "two Oswalds"

business, which she has expressed here as well as I could have put it myself:

FROM WHAT WE ARE SEEING, THIS "HARVEY AND LEE" THING HAS BEEN A

DISTRACTION OF MAJOR PROPORTIONS IN THIS CASE...SUCCESSFUL, NEARLY,

IN ISOLATING "HARVEY" AS HAVING LITTLE TO DO WITH THE PLOT AND VERY

CONVENIENT TO SAY HE WAS UNWITTINGLY TRAPPED, SO THAT HIS HEROIC

ACTIONS IN TRYING TO SAVE JFK WOULD NEVER BE RECOGNIZED OR EVER

BELIEVED BY SOME VERY FINE RESEARCHERS...AND IF A WITNESS COMES

ALONG SAYING OTHERWISE, THEN THEY COULD BE QUICKLY DISMISSED.

I THANK GOD I KNEW THE REAL LEE. I HAVE NOT YET BEGUN TO FIGHT.

But of course all of this will be explained by "the false defector program"!

WHILE TAKING A SHOWER, I STARTED TO THINK ABOUT SUCH A PROGRAM:

1) IT MUST HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED NATIONALLY, SO MARGUERITE WOULD

BE ABLE TO READ ABOUT IT;

2) CHILDREN AND PARENTS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WOULD HAVE

DESCENDED UPON NEW YORK;

3) WITH ALL THE ATTENTION, THE SOVIETS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES WOULD

NO DOUBT HAVE LEARNED ABOUT IT;

4) IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER SURVEILLANCE AND THOSE WHO

WERE RECRUITED WOULD HAVE BEEN TRACKED;

5) SO WHEN THE TIME CAME FOR A FAKE DEFECTION, THE SOVIETS WOULD

HAVE ALREADY KNOWN WHO WAS COMING;

6) WHICH MEANS THAT A PROGRAM OF THAT KIND WOULD SURELY HAVE BEEN

SELF-DEFEATING; WHICH MEANS

7) ANY RECRUITING PROGRAM WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN COVERT

AND RUN THROUGH THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS;

8) WHERE INVITATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTENDED UNDER THE MOST

CAREFULLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS; AND,

9) SECRECY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WATCHWORD--MASSIVE, TOTAL, AND

COMPLETE AND UTTER SECRECY.

SO FAR AS I AM ABLE TO DISCERN. THE PROGRAM DESCRIBED HERE WOULD

HAVE BEEN A MANIFEST ABSURDITY.

The above reply indicates a lack of understanding of the FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

Here is the probable scenario.

1. With her family's knowledge, Marguerite took Lee to New York for "mental testing".

2. The mental testing turned out to be a CIA operation to look for candidates to LEND

THEIR IDENTITY TO THE CIA for a FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM.

3. Marguerite, Robert and John Pic all considered this PATRIOTIC.

4. There was NO RISK to Lee; all he was doing was allowing his identity to be used.

5. This happened when Lee was 12 or 13 years old; he probably liked the intrigue of it...

his name being used by a spy being trained.

6. Marguerite likely received much needed compensation for doing this.

7. Armstrong documents how when Marguerite returns to Fort Worth, she began

buying real estate, though said to be destitute.

8. John Pic was first to say that there was a substitute for his half brother. A photo

of Harvey playing hookey at the Bronx Zoo during the New York stay Pic said was

not anyone he recognized.

9. Robert knew of the operation from the beginning, but did not meet HARVEY

until the Thanksgiving Reunion.

10. Lee and Harvey clearly knew each other according to Armstrong's timelines.

11. Ruth Paine was clearly the handler for both Lee and Harvey, and both of them

were involved in the JFK plot, though not witting that Harvey was to be the PATSY.

12. It was arranged that Harvey lived in a rooming house during the week, while

Lee lived at the Paine house.

13. Lee lived at the Paine house on weekends only; it is not known where Lee

lived on weekends.

14. It should be remembered that Marina said: I HAD TWO HUSBANDS, HARVEY

AND LEE.

(“I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man;

and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy.”)

Jack

JVB has made several postings scoffing at the notion of a FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM, and that

Harvey was a part of it.

James J. Angleton of the CIA was in charge of the defector program. He also managed the Nosenko

affair, in which a Russian "defector" defected to the US, coming to tell that THE KGB HAD NO

OPERATIONAL INTEREST in the defector "Lee Harvey Oswald" (when all indications are that they

were immediately aware of the "false defector" and placed him under full time surveillance and perhaps

more). The HSCA was extremely interested in Nosenko.

At the time of Nosenko's defection, the CIA split into 2 factions...pro-Nosenko and anti-Nosenko. Angleton

believed that Nosenko himself was a false defector, and had him placed in solitary confinement for

several years where he underwent "enhanced interrogation" to "break him". Nosenko could have

potentially exposed Angleton's program, and Angleton wanted to know whether the KGB had substituted

a doppelganger for his false defector. The KGB's Nosenko operation put them in the position of "protesting

too much" to distance the Soviet Union from the assassination.

The question was WHETHER THE LHO WHO RETURNED FROM RUSSIA WAS THE SAME ONE

WHO DEFECTED. Either way, it does NOT materially affect the Harvey and Lee story, but adds an EXTRA

dimension. Either way, it is the one point on which I do not fully agree with Armstrong. I have always

believed that the LHO who returned from Russia was NOT the same LHO who defected. I have always

believed that the Soviets replaced the original defector with one of their own. There is much evidence

to support this. John decided NOT to include this possibility (though he was aware of it) in his book for

several reasons:

1. There was NO documentation for the KGB doing this. John wrote nothing without documentation.

2. A whole book would be needed devoted only to this portion, and he did not have space or time.

3. Even if the original defector was replaced by the KGB, it does not negate the Lee & Harvey documentation;

it only means that someone else was substituted for the original Harvey.

4. It would complicate the story of the original false defector by adding that a false defector had been

replaced by a "double agent"...so was he working for the CIA or the KGB? Since no documentation exists,

this would make the story impossible to tell without speculation and years more of research. He decided

to put his book to bed with only what he could DOCUMENT, with no distracting speculation. I agreed

with his decision...though we both recognized that there perhaps was much more to the story. On the

same grounds, he decided not to do a chapter on Donald O. Norton...because it involved speculation

which, though documented, was not proof. He threw out at least a year of research for lack of TWO SOURCES

of documentation.

If the KGB was interested enough in the false defection to send Nosenko to say that the Soviets were

not interested in LHO, this aspect of the defection is worthy of investigation.

In this thread I will attempt to document some of the evidence that the LHO in Russia was not the same

one who defected. However, this does not mean that the original defector was not the same one who

returned. It is a very confusing story which is unlikely to be conclusive. There are NO records of

what the KGB did concerning LHO's time in Minsk.

I will start with the Ziger sisters. Their father was head of the radio factory in Minsk where LHO

worked. Mr. Ziger acted as an overseer of LHO, and he visited the Ziger home frequently, becoming

well acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Ziger and their two daughters. John Armstrong tracked down

the Ziger sisters, by then living in Argentina. John flew to Argentina to interview them about their

remembrances of LHO. Since they spoke only Russian and Spanish, he hired an interpreter to

help with the interview. He found many interesting things, but perhaps the most interesting was

that the LHO that they knew was VERY SHORT, perhaps about 5'2"! This was very puzzling since

the defector was 5'9" and LHO was once listed in Marine records as 5'11". A photo of the Zigers

with "Lee" shows a very short person. There are other conflicting photos. The possibility exists

that the KGB furnished or tampered with ALL photos of the Russian period. John decided that

he could not depend solely on the word of the Ziger sisters, since no other documentation supported

their stories. He decided correctly that he could not depend solely on photos of dubious provenance

to back up the story told by the sisters. So all of the information provided by the Zigers is not in the book.

I will start with a clipping which John obtained from the Ziger sisters in an Argentina newspaper.

I will follow with other photos from the Russian period which strongly suggest that the LHO

who was in Russia was neither Harvey or Lee.

Jack