Yes, Oswald was an Intelligence agent

[Paul Brancato]

Wasn't it shown later that Kostikov was not an assassin or in charge of assassins, and that Angleton had deliberately placed that disinfo to mislead Hoover, and that Morales, or someone impersonating Oswald, used this disinfo without realizing it wasn't true?

[Paul Brancato]

Dear Tommy - Maybe that made Nosenko more appealing - because it was the truth. I'm more interested in why Angleton, who showed at best really poor judgement in ferreting out moles, was so convinced that Nosenko was a plant. That to me is the best proof that Nosenko was the real deal.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Nosenko doesn't think the KGB was interested in Marina because he said she was not very intelligent.

Deryabin believed she was KGB because she was allowed to marry an American and leave the USSR.

Deryabin believed Nosenko was either Oswald's Case Officer or a KGB plant and most likely the latter.

What do you think the CIA would do? If you were in Marina's shoes what would you do?

I think it's possible she was "turned" and made a double agent [,working for the CIA].

Chris,

I like that idea!

-- Tommy

It's more likely that Marina Oswald was exactly as she portrayed herself to the Warren Commission under oath:

(1) Marina was raised in the USSR and didn't like it.

(2) Marina loved the USA and never wanted to go back to the USSR.

(3) Marina baptized both her daughters in the Russian Orthodox Church.

(4) Marina's friends in Fort-Worth/Dallas were Russian-speaking Russian Expatriates and Anticommunists.

The people who first accused Marina Oswald of being a Communist were the JFK Killers -- who tried as hard as they could to blame Lee Harvey Oswald of being a Communist.

Ultimately, to accuse Marina Oswald of Communism is the same as to accuse LHO of Communism -- and so to play into the hands of the JFK Killers.

Even Dean Rusk admitted that LHO wasn't a Communist.

Even J. Edgar Hoover admitted LHO wasn't a Communist.

Even Alan Belmont admitted LHO wasn't a Communist.

It was essentially the bigots in Dallas who accused LHO and Marina Oswald of being Communists.

Only those duped by them still echo their falsehoods.

As for either LHO or Marina being CIA Agents -- that's incorrect -- neither one was qualified. LHO himself was a high-school dropout, young and headstrong. Although LHO was talented, he wasn't talented enough.

Marina only wanted to finally earn a decent living and raise her babies. Get real.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 20, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

Paul,

I'm no fan of JJ Angleton, but it was Golitsyn's belief that Nosenko was a false defector that instigated the treatment that Nosenko got. Golitsyn had revealed Philby among others. What happened to Nosenko later on was put an end to on moral and ethical grounds -not technically a "resolution" of true status.

[Paul Brancato]

Chris - Do you think either Nosenko or Golitsyn were real defectors?

[James DiEugenio]

I think Nosenko was.

Not sure about Golitsyn.

[Chris Newton]

Paul B. -I believe Nosenko and Kulak (Fedora) to most likely be double agents.

I think Golitsyn and Deryabin were probably true defectors.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Chris Newton

[Paul Trejo]

In any case, it is KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov that is central to the Oswald saga -- not only according to Bill Simpich and his landmark 2014 study of 21st century FOIA released CIA documents (State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City), but also according to FBI Agent James Hosty himself, in his 1996 book, Assignment Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

In any case, it is KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov that is central to the Oswald saga -- not only according to Bill Simpich and his landmark 2014 study of 21st century FOIA released CIA documents (State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City), but also according to FBI Agent James Hosty himself, in his 1996 book, Assignment Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Only because someone tried to connect LHO to him.

-- Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

In any case, it is KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov that is central to the Oswald saga -- not only according to Bill Simpich and his landmark 2014 study of 21st century FOIA released CIA documents (State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City), but also according to FBI Agent James Hosty himself, in his 1996 book, Assignment Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Only because someone tried to connect LHO to him.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

Yes, that's the main point. Bill Simpich scientifically showed that somebody had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald at the Mexico City Cuban Consulate one day after Oswald had left Mexico.

That person (who was probably David Morales, says Simpich) used the most wire-tapped phone on earth to call the USSR Embassy, and claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald, and asked to speak with KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov.

Now -- that fact was a deep, deep secret, known only to the CIA high-command. As Bill Simpich relates the account, the CIA high-command realized that this was not Oswald, and that it had to be a mole. This was proved by Bill Simpich by a careful analysis of CIA documents, showing a clear, top-secret CIA Mole-Hunt had begun in September 1963. This is the summary of Simpich's free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

Yet James Hosty had claimed that he himself had knowledge of Kostikov during 1963, and to him, this proved that Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald were Communists.

Well -- that is exactly what the JFK Killers wanted all of America to believe, according to Dr. Jeff Caufield in his recent, 900-page book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 20, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

In any case, it is KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov that is central to the Oswald saga -- not only according to Bill Simpich and his landmark 2014 study of 21st century FOIA released CIA documents (State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City), but also according to FBI Agent James Hosty himself, in his 1996 book, Assignment Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Only because someone tried to connect LHO to him.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

Yes, that's the main point. Bill Simpich scientifically showed that somebody had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald at the Mexico City Cuban Consulate one day after Oswald had left Mexico. (?)

That person (who was probably David Morales, says Simpich) used the most wire-tapped phone on earth to call the USSR Embassy, and claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald, and asked to speak with KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov.

Now -- that fact was a deep, deep secret, known only to the CIA high-command. As Bill Simpich relates the account, the CIA high-command realized that this was not Oswald, and that it had to be a mole. This was proved by Bill Simpich by a careful analysis of CIA documents, showing a clear, top-secret CIA Mole-Hunt had begun in September 1963. This is the summary of Simpich's free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

Yet James Hosty had claimed that he himself had knowledge of Kostikov during 1963, and to him, this proved that Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald were Communists.

Well -- that is exactly what the JFK Killers wanted all of America to believe, according to Dr. Jeff Caufield in his recent, 900-page book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

An Oswald impostor, speaking bad Russian, called the M.C. Soviet Consulate on Tuesday, October 1.

Oswald left Mexico City the next morning, Wednesday, October 2, and arrived at the border in Laredo around 1:30 am, October 3.

-- Tommy

Edited October 20, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Dear Paul,

An Oswald impostor, speaking bad Russian, called the M.C. Soviet Consulate on Tuesday, October 1.

Oswald left Mexico City the next morning, Wednesday, October 2, and arrived at the border in Laredo around 1:30 am, October 3.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

OK, I'll revisit the documents -- yet as I recall there are at least two different accounts about the time frames.

For one thing, the Mexican Government has records showing that Oswald entered Mexico as a passenger in an automobile, and also exited Mexico as a passenger in an automobile.

Of course, that would mean that Oswald wasn't a "Lone Nut," therefore the Warren Commission rejected the official record immediately.

Instead, the WC insisted upon a case of mistaken identity of Oswald on a bus to Mexico -- a case in which five different people claimed that Oswald was on that bus with them.

Those five WC witnesses involved in this single case of mistaken identity were: (1) Dr. John Bryan McFarland; (2) Maryl McFarland; (3) John Bowen; (4) Pamela Mumford; and (5) Patricia Winston.

After reading all their WC testimony carefully, I've decided that none of it stands up under scrutiny. All of these five witnesses had severely damaged stories, and even contradicted each other.

So -- the WC version of Oswald's trip to Mexico was a deliberate fiction -- upholding a mistaken identity case -- in order to support Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory of Oswald.

Of course, James Hosty's account of Oswald's Mexico City trip is also a fabrication, because it promotes David Morales' fiction that Oswald tried to contact the KGB from the Cuban Consulate telephone. It's a different fiction from the WC fiction -- yet it matches the JFK Kill Team fiction.

As for the Mexican Government records themselves, I will review them again to establish the dates. I'll also review Bill Simpich's timetable. It's an important point.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 21, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

It always seemed a bit of a surprise that an obvious intelligence asset like Russian-speaking "Lee Harvey Oswald" would be selected as the patsy for the Kennedy assassination, but it's also clear that the plotters knew Oswald's intel connections would be suppressed. And, after all, the CIA and JFK's administration were clearly having a PUBLIC war the very month before Kennedy was killed. See, for example:

[Jim Hargrove]

Here's the original Richard Starnes piece from 10/2/63 that so appalled the Times' Arthur Krock:

The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

By Richard T. Starnes

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.

[Paul Trejo]

The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist KGB Agent merely because he could speak Russian was a common notion in Dallas. The same was charged against housewife Ruth Paine.

But perhaps the main source of such nonsense was the John Birch Society in 1963-1964. One of the founders of the JBS testified for the WC in 1964 -- the second to the last WC witness, namely, Revilo P. Oliver. Notice what he said:

------------- BEGIN WC TESTIMONY OF REVILO P. OLIVER -- 9/9/1964 -----------------

Mr. JENNER. The report of your...speech on the evening of August 28, 1964, at least as reported in the Washington Post, on page 19, the issue dated August 30, 1964, purports to quote you as having said, "I don't know whether Oswald was paid by the CIA or by the Soviet secret police and it is just a matter of bookkeeping anyway." Did you make that statement in the course of your speech...?

.

Mr. OLIVER. ...I mentioned in the February issue of American Opinion when I was not certain that the Bolsheviks would dare to use the United States as they were then using it elsewhere in the world...[which] makes much of the possible activities of our Central Intelligence Agency...

...Recall the long list of events from the fake invasion of Cuba known as Operation Judas because it betrayed the anti-Communist Cubans into the hands of Castro, to the recent assassinations in Vietnam in which our Central Intelligence Agency with its army of 17 to 40 thousand faceless agents and the billions of dollars with which you taxpayers supply it every year, has evidently done the work of the Soviet Secret Police.

....Remember that a defector from the Soviet Secret Police has sworn that his colleagues in the Central Intelligence Agency used your money directly to subsidize, (1) the Soviet Secret Police; (2) the official Communist Party in Italy; and (3) the official Communist Party in the United States...

------------- END WC TESTIMONY OF REVILO P. OLIVER -- 9/9/1964 -----------------

The current nonsense over the CIA is nothing new. It began with the John Birch Society during the Cuban period.

Saying that Oswald worked for the KGB, claimed Oliver, is the same as saying that Oswald worked for the CIA. There was no difference.

The extremists continue to say the same thing today. It's simply unclear thinking.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2016 by Paul Trejo