Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Office that Spied on Its Own Spies

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, B. A. Copeland said:


I'd imagine Simpich was certainly impressed (and VERY attentive!) but as with all research, one has to ultimately study themselves and see if they arrive at the same conclusion, no? I'd say, given the weight of what Newman presented, I'd be more convinced than not that Nosenko was a false defector but I've an open mind. However, I lean more towards him being false than not. I also want to highlight a very important point that PDS (either directly or indirectly) brought up: just because Nosenko is most likely false, doesn't necessarily mean that Golitsyn is a true defector (not that I believe you've even remotely expressed that lol) but certainly a point worth repeating. 

My wish is....a 5 hour-ish round table discussion with Simpich, Dale, Blunt, Newman....please, in my lifetime lol...


B. A. Copeland,


All you need to do to be convinced, as John Newman and I already are, that pre mid-1964 Golitsyn was "golden" (except for possibly having mistaken the word "Sasha" in a secret document or two as the mole's code name rather than as the diminutive form of "Alexander," a different mole's former first name) is to read Tennent H. Bagley's Spy Wars

Since Golitsyn defected in December, 1961, that means he was (generally speaking) very good for us, indeed, for two and one-half years.

Question: Will you be the first member here (other than me, of course, and as far as I know) to have the gonads and the sufficiently open and inquiring mind to actually read it?

It's free, you know.


By the way, I hope you noticed that right after PDS tells Newman that he now believes Nosenko was a false defector, PDS says, "But ... but ... but ... but ... gasp ... that Golitsyn ... ," Newman says, in so many words, "Well, early Golitsyn was very good."  



--  T.G.


PS  Regarding what an easily duped, nuts-'n-bolts lamebrain Bruce Solie was, read Mark Riebling's 1994 book Wedge: The Rivalry Between the FBI and CIA.



Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey I’d definitely lean towards the opinion of pre-mid 1964 Goly as good for the US, a genuine defector, given the evidence that I have personally observed. I understand that, as always with this case, my mind must remain open to new information (and the interpretation of said information) that either supports or contradicts current evidence. I know one thing, anyone walking away after Newman’s presentation....at the very least should question whether or not Nosenko was genuine but certainly be more cautious to accept the official line that he was.

Thanks for the book info TG. I also downloaded the article by Bagley as well, can’t wait to dig in. Added to my library ASAP. I had no idea it was offered online. Here I am trying to push a local library to pick up the much more reasoned JFK/Cold War books. Bagley’s book will certainly be among them.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
4 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:


Deryabin memo starts at .pdf page 145 here:


The memo is from Helms's DP division to Hoover's office, and is "passed on without comment" by the DDP.  It relies on Deryabin's interpretative speculation about Oswald's Soviet experiences, and shows no Communist connection for Ruby.  Suspicious minds might say it reads like a blueprint for setting up Oswald and Ruby as KGB, using the policy changes of the LBJ admin as partial justification.  But to what end for CIA?

In the following document, Tennent Bagley suggests that Deryabin be set up to pose as a Russian interpreter for the FBI in interviewing Marina Oswald.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...