The KGB and the JFK case

[Paul Brancato]

Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. Your theory did not impress Simpich, and he explained why. I would never describe someone 3.5 - 4 inches taller than me as about my height. Obviously there would be no point in impersonating Oswald in person unless they looked like him. There is no proof, only endless speculation on your part, that Leonov attempted to impersonate Oswald, or that Duran and Azcue deliberately described someone that looked like Leonov. All of it is fantasy, and your developing Castro dood it theory deserves to be put to rest.  Being clever with words is only charming when there is no repeated agenda driving them.

When I first joined the forum you sent me a message asking me to publicly support one of your posts. I don’t remember what it was now, something about Morales, but I was struck by the oddity of that message. I joined to read and share with people, not to take sides. Now you’re a lone wolf. 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - if your theory is just that, why make fun of other theories? If you think Castro did it, give your fellow forum members a serious recounting of how you came to that conclusion. Saying it’s just a developing theory isn’t enough. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Paul Brancato

[Thomas Graves]

12 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - if your theory is just that, why make fun of other theories? If you think Castro did it, give your fellow forum members a serious recounting of how you came to that conclusion. Saying it’s just a developing theory isn’t enough. 

 

Paul,

With all due respect, can you prove that the CIA did it?

And regarding Simpich, what did he say?  That Duran's and Azcue's describing an Oswald Impostor who supposedly went into the Cuban Consulate on 9/27/63 in such a way as to so closely resemble Nikolai Leonov was just a "red herring," or something like that?

I honestly don't remember, and I'm too tired to look it up right now.

You've worn me out, Big Guy.

--  Tommy 

Trivia Question:  How could world-traveler Lee Harvey Oswald or an Oswald Impostor forget to take a couple of passport size photos of Lee Harvey Oswald with him to the Cuban Consulate that day?

[Paul Brancato]

I never said the CIA did it, and I can’t prove any theory. 

[James DiEugenio]

PB to TG:  When I first joined the forum you sent me a message asking me to publicly support one of your posts.

 

In political terms this is called "astroturf".  Wow.  Thanks for that revelation Paul.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I never said the CIA did it, and I can’t prove any theory. 

But there are likely suspects within the organization and former employees who are also suspect that should be more fully investigated.  Do we need to list them?  Dulles, Angleton, Helms. Phillips, Morales, Joannidies , plenty more.

Paul, the one thing that is not a theory, as Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry said, in a book of his own making, years afterward,  "We never could put him in that window with that gun in his hands".

http://jfkfacts.org/dallas-police-chief-jesse-curry-on-the-origin-of-the-shots/

[Thomas Graves]

On 3/9/2018 at 2:24 PM, David Josephs said:

 

  
Did you read any of Golitsyn's books? Not sure why you wont answer...   

  

 

David,

 

With all due respect, Bagley wrote quite a lot about Golitsyn in his 2007 book, "Spy Wars" and his 2015 PDF, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars."

 

Here's a long but informative passage from the book, pages 57 - 58:

KGB Major Anatoly Golitsyn walked in to the CIA chief in Helsinki on 15 December 1961. For more than two years he had been preparing this break but, fearing leaks, had never taken the risk of contacting us or giving any hint of his intention. During this time he took pains to memorize details from hundreds of reports that crossed his desk and conversations with KGB colleagues, and as a result he was nearly as productive as if he had been operating in place. And he was also alive and safe here in the United States. In his KGB position Golitsyn had wide access to operational secrets because his job entailed analyzing reports on NATO coming into Moscow from KGB spies in at least eight countries. Additional information came from his indoctrination periods in several KGB departments, and from his service in two KGB residencies abroad. In the process Golitsyn had learned the precise identities of some spies but, most remarkably, had heard and seen and remembered things that would point us to many more whom he couldn’t directly place. His information led to identification of important KGB spies still active in Western governments: senior diplomats, intelligence officers, and prominent businessmen. Many were later arrested or fired from their positions of trust, including two NATO officials, a Norwegian intelligence official, a Canadian ambassador, a former CIA principal agent, a double agent misleading CIA, and some highly placed French intelligence officers. Others who could not be firmly identified or, if identified, could not be prosecuted for lack of evidence included West German intelligence officers, French diplomats, and American code clerks. Each of Golitsyn’s leads had been listed as a ‘'serial," divided by nationality and shared with the security services of the friendly countries involved. These serials might sometimes have stemmed from fragmentary hearsay—for example, ‘‘My KGB colleague X in the Y section told me in [year] that he was handling as a source a diplomat serving in Z Embassy in Moscow who kept a large dog there.’’ Or they might be descriptions of specific intelligence reports he’d handled that emanated from an unidentified source in a certain NATO country. Some serials were sharper and included the spies’ names or KGB code names. Two or more serials might apply to one and the same spy; the diplomat with the dog, for instance, might have been the source of one or more of the intelligence reports. The number of these serials was phenomenal: more than one hundred fifty British and about one hundred French, of which more than ten pointed to spies in French intelligence and security staffs. Because so many of his leads were fragmentary and could not be verified, some outsiders later criticized Golitsyn for causing turmoil and tension between allies and even suggested that this was his purpose. Shocked and feeling attacked by his revelations, some Western European officials accused him of paranoia and dismissed his information as mad ravings. They were wrong. Golitsyn was not easy to deal with, but those who did over the years attested to his effort to separate fact from supposition. When he was later shown Western files to help him identify spies about whom he knew only fragmentary facts, he erred in two or three cases and pointed in wrong directions (though the leads themselves were later found to have been valid). But what he told in the first months after his defection proved to be accurate and priceless. Those of us who worked with those leads came to call them "vintage Golitsyn," in contrast to his later, more speculative pointers and notions.

-- emphasis added

 

Sorry, "Big D", but I'm not interested in reading about his "more speculative pointers and notions," the stuff that tinfoil hat-wearing Conspiracy Theorists like to point to and shout at the top of their lungs "See dere?  I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean ..... Da guy was a delusional pair-wah-noid!" 

 

Spy Wars is full of "vintage Golitsyn," and to tell you the truth, "Big D", that's all I need to know ...

 

--  Tommy 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Great excerpt Tommy. Confirms everything I had already gleaned from reading about Golitsyn. He established his bonafides, and once he was in he became far less reliable. When exactly was it that he named Harold Wilson as a Soviet asset? He did far more to splinter the West than he did to hurt the KGB. Angleton took his bait. If Nosenko was a false defector, as you and others claim, what damage did he cause? In your view his purpose was to distance the KGB from Oswald. But when we look at Oswald what we see are the footprints of US Intel, not Soviet. Everyone has a theory about who Oswald was and what connection he had to the assassination. My theory is that he was an agent provocateur, not an assassin. Do you think he was an assassin? Straight answer Tommy. Was he on the 6th floor shooting his MC?

Edited March 11, 2018 by Paul Brancato

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, in the last part of  Destiny Betrayed, second Edition, I outline a case for a part of the CIA being involved in the plot.

 With some digressions, it begins on page 354, and it goes on to about page 394.  I conclude with a pretty much straightforward declaration that Allen Dulles was in on the plot and was an active agent in the cover up. (p. 394)  I am pretty specific in those pages about what I think happened and how it worked.  

Today, I would only make some modest changes to that scenario.  That is: how the Cubans were recruited, which ones, and how Ruby was enlisted.

In my view, the CIA controlled the operation and enlisted the Mob and Cubans to disguise that fact.  I believe something went wrong with the plot in Dallas, when Oswald was not killed at the theater. When Oswald made the call to John Hurt on Saturday night, that necessitated the contact with Ruby.  IMO, that probably came from Trafficante through McWillie.

BTW, I cannot take credit for this general outline. It first originated, as so many other things in this case, with Jim Garrison.  This was in a 1976 cover article for New Orleans Magazine. Others have since followed that imprint.

Edited March 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

I know I've said this over and over ad nauseum, but I just don't see how the Russians could have been involved in some way with 11.22. And yes, I've read both of the papers that Tom Graves recommended.  Again, as I read them, all I picked up was a lot of double crossing and spy intrigue.

Bill Simpich's State Secret IMO seems to tell the closest to what MAY have happened leading up to 11.22. And I say MAY have but SS certainly shows a pattern of leading the patsy around until he starts working in the book depository:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html

***

I want to post this here as well as an alternative to the theory of "Dulles was in on it."  When I read Markus's paper, what stood out for me was how Dulles either seemed clueless, genuinely confused, or both.  But it certainly didn't seem like it was a guy who has been heavily involved in planning the murder.

***

But below are three pages from the paper. The ongoing story about Allen Dulles was he was in on it, knew what was going to happen, planned it out and so on.

So I ask here - really? It's always been amazing about how a fired government bureaucrat could have got himself on this "blue ribbon" WC panel. But if Dulles had really been involved, is it entirely possible that he'd be this totally clueless about what was going on with the stretcher bullet?  I'm guessing not likely.  If he had been involved, he would have kept his mouth shut here and not said anything and let Specter do all of the work.  After all, Oswald was already dead so it was just a mere formality to go through the motions here with the WC - they ALL knew what the outcome was going to be anyway.

But he's actually showing interest to a reported other bullet that was supposedly found on Kennedy's stretcher - this could actually have been another wholly intact bullet that fell out of his back wound, which I think personally happened. But this Dulles testimony that Markus mentions here actually confirms for me that I really don't think Dulles was involved.

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

You already posted this and the guy's name is Ray Marcus.  Its not Markus whatever.

Now, can I ask you a question:  Did this go anywhere? Answer:  To my knowledge, no it did not. As Epstein notes in Inquest, Dulles is here thinking of the FBI report, which did not buy the SBT. Because the whole SBT malarkey had not been ironed out yet.  According to McKnight it would be so in about 25 more days. If you recall, because of that the WC would not include the FBI report in the volumes.

Now, if one lists all the other things that Dulles did on the WC, perhaps one can see why others would disagree with your assessment.

According to Talbot, Dulles was the only member who actually lobbied to get a position on the Warren Commission.  Why on earth would anyone want to do that?  Russell, did not even want to be on the panel.

Since Dulles was the only guy without a regular job, he was by far the most active member of the Commission.  And Walt Brown has shown this with charts in his fine book, The Warren Omission.

As more than one author has shown, e.g. Peter Grose, while on the WC, Dulles corroborated with Angleton on concealing who Oswald really was.

If you read Baker's testimony, Dulles gives him an excuse for him not noting that Oswald was in the witness room while he was making out his affidavit.

In one of Willens' diary entries, he actually says there that there were really only four members of the WC running the thing: Dulles, McCloy, Warren and Ford.

When the Southern Wing--Russell, Boggs, Cooper-- went down to Dallas to interrogate Marina, who Russell did not believe, those four were not there.  Neither were they when Russell went up to the sixth floor to test the rifle shots.

David Slawson,  the guy who covered up Mexico City, later said how enamored he was of Dulles personally.

If you recall, Dulles was in on the plot not to record the Southern Wing's objections to the Single Bullet Fantasy at the last executive session meeting. It was Dulles and McCloy who were the strongest backers of the SBF, according to Epstein.

 About three years later, Dulles hired electronics expert Gordon Novel to infiltrate Garrison's office and then wire it for sound. (Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, pgs.232-33)

To my knowledge, that is quite a negative record. And it does not even include the half of it.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

According to Talbot, Dulles was the only member who actually lobbied to get a position on the Warren Commission.  Why on earth would anyone want to do that? 

 Because family friends of his girlfriend were taking heat for hosting the family of an alleged Presidential assassin?

Because a fella realizes he's in the patsy chain unless he directs the cover-up to the best of his ability?

 

 

[Thomas Graves]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

  .......

As more than one author has shown, e.g. Peter Grose, while on the WC, Dulles corroborated with Angleton on concealing who Oswald really was. 

  .......

 

James,

 

With all due respect, who was Oswald?  I mean, I mean, I mean ... really? 

An extremely low-paid agent of the evil, evil CIA who was tasked with killing JFK?

An extremely low-paid CIA agent who was manipulated by the evil, evil CIA into becoming a patsy?

A wannabe high-paid CIA agent whose amateurish "programs" were piggybacked by the evil, evil CIA in such a way as to make him an unwitting patsy? 

A KGB "Manchurian candidate" or trained assassin who (maybe) couldn't be called off by Khrushchev after JFK's heartwarming American University speech?

Someone who got really, really fed up being manipulated by both sides and decided to make a name for himself? 

A volunteer assassin for Fidel Castro? 

An encouraged-by-Castro assassin?

A paid-by-Castro assassin?

Just a really, really, really, really good friend of (probable) longterm KGB "illegal" George DeMohrenschildt?

 

 

Have I forgotten any?

 

Regardless, since you seem to believe the "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" theory (which I don't), which Oswald are you talking about here, anyway?

LOL

 

--  Tommy 

PS  Corroborated or Collaborated?

Edited March 12, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Uh TG, unless you want to roll back the clock about 35-40 years, I think most of here understood who Oswald was way before Armstrong's book came out.

This is because some really good work had been done in the field before that.  By people like Henry Hurt, Phil Melanson, Anthony Summers, Jim Garrison John Newman and others.

Now, you can make believe you are unaware of this stuff, or you can make believe that none of it makes sense, but I think most of us here will see that as smoke.

I mean way back in 1977 Senator Richard Schweiker said that Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him.  

If you want us to forget about all of this work and send us back to the "What me worry?" portrait in the WC, fine TG.  No one here will buy it though.  And  anyway,  that says more about you than it does the facts of this case.

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Uh TG, unless you want to roll back the clock about 35-40 years, I think most of here understood who Oswald was way before Armstrong's book came out.

This is because some really good work had been done in the field before that.  By people like Henry Hurt, Phil Melanson, Anthony Summers, Jim Garrison John Newman and others.

Now, you can make believe you are unaware of this stuff, or you can make believe that none of it makes sense, but I think most of us here will see that as smoke.

I mean way back in 1977 Senator Richard Schweiker said that Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him.  

If you want us to forget about all of this work and send us back to the "What me worry?" portrait in the WC, fine TG.  No one here will buy it though.  And  anyway,  that says more about you than it does the facts of this case.

James,

Uhh, with all due respect ...

Once again, Oswalds' "real nature" did Dulles and Angleton collaborate on covering up while Dulles was on the Warren Commission, HARVEY or LEE?

--  Tommy 

PS  Or you'd rather not commit yourself on that one just yet?

Edited March 12, 2018 by Thomas Graves