Jump to content
The Education Forum

CIA abandoned logic to clear Soviet defector Yuri Nosenko


Recommended Posts

Tom Graves wrote on Facebook today:

KGB Counterintelligence Lieutenant-Colonel Vladimir Putin is jumping for joy because, in America and The West in general, 98 years of KGB/FSB/SVR "active measures" counterintelligence operations, artfully interwoven with 60 years of KGB/FSB/SVR "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations, are really starting to pay off, now.

The 1962-to-1967 (false defector) Yuri Nosenko versus (true defector) Anatoliy Golitsyn "case" -- which involved KGB's sending several ot...her false defectors and triple-agents to the U.S. to secretly "vouch" for Nosenko's being a "true defector" -- and which the KGB won when some gullible and/or frustrated people at CIA declared Nosenko a true defector, financially rewarded him for his troubles, and actually employed him to lecture at CIA -- is a good example. It virtually destroyed CIA counterintelligence capabilities and morale at the time, and led to a "let's not be paranoid like that crazy James Jesus Angleton, now, folks" mindset at CIA that eventually enabled, for example, Aldrich Ames to be a KGB "mole" in the CIA from 1985 until 1994.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Tom Graves wrote on Facebook today:

KGB Counterintelligence Lieutenant-Colonel Vladimir Putin is jumping for joy because, in America and The West in general, 98 years of KGB/FSB/SVR "active measures" counterintelligence operations, artfully interwoven with 60 years of KGB/FSB/SVR "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations, are really starting to pay off, now.

The 1962-to-1967 (false defector) Yuri Nosenko versus (true defector) Anatoliy Golitsyn "case" -- which involved KGB's sending several ot...her false defectors and triple-agents to the U.S. to secretly "vouch" for Nosenko's being a "true defector" -- and which the KGB won when some gullible and/or frustrated people at CIA declared Nosenko a true defector, financially rewarded him for his troubles, and actually employed him to lecture at CIA -- is a good example. It virtually destroyed CIA counterintelligence capabilities and morale at the time, and led to a "let's not be paranoid like that crazy James Jesus Angleton, now, folks" mindset at CIA that eventually enabled, for example, Aldrich Ames to be a KGB "mole" in the CIA from 1985 until 1994.

Douglas, This should have come with a warning that any persons engaging in debate that offers opinion contrary to the views stated above are likely to be met with a very ugly smiting via personal attacks on Facebook and elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA director of Security had this to say about Pete Bagley, who handled Nosenko’s encarceration:

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

Italics are mine...

 

TOP SECRET

13 October 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington

#386 38

1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive  Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of subject to a supergrade position.

 2)  I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confessed their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.

3)  I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that  Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone Bagely's  instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that  Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions. 

 

Howard J. Osborn

Director of Security

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the crux of the whole argument by Tenant Pete Bagely:

“Among the implications underlying the very real possibility that a Nosenko was planted on CIA by the KGB are these two:

A. That Lee Harvey Oswald may have been a KGB agent

B. That there was KGB penetration of sensitive elements of the United States government”.

 

The argument continues, now, today, on Facebook, that if you don’t buy Tenant Pete Bagely’s Account, then you are unpatriotic, gullible, stupid, a commie and indeed complicit in the cover-up of the “KGB” sponsored assassination of JFK.

It May very will be that that WWlll virus, which John Newman espoused, is still sitting there ticking away. Are ultra patriots, who don’t give a darn about JFK, still ready to pull that card and use it as an excuse to criminalize, to proscribe, those who believe, née know, that the conspiracy was formed from elements from inside American Government and power centers?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

This is the crux of the whole argument by Tenant Pete Bagely:

“Among the implications underlying the very real possibility that a Nosenko was planted on CIA by the KGB are these two:

A. That Lee Harvey Oswald may have been a KGB agent

B. That there was KGB penetration of sensitive elements of the United States government”.

 

The argument continues, now, today, on Facebook, that if you don’t buy Tenant Pete Bagely’s Account, then you are unpatriotic, gullible, stupid, a commie and indeed complicit in the cover-up of the “KGB” sponsored assassination of JFK.

It May very will be that that WWlll virus, which John Newman espoused, is still sitting there ticking away. Are ultra patriots, who don’t give a darn about JFK, still ready to pull that card and use it as an excuse to criminalize, to proscribe, those who believe, née know, that the conspiracy was formed from elements from inside American Government and power centers?

 

 

could you explain Newman’s WW 3 virus, or point to where Newman espouses it?

i too am bothered by the Nosenko mystery and Newman taking Bagley’s side. What’s worse for me is the irreparable harm caused by the man who would be a real defector, Golitsyn. I guess what I find most difficult is realizing that real defectors can lie and false ones can tell the truth. That’s another way of saying that discerning truth from falsehood matters far more than discerning KGB motives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

could you explain Newman’s WW 3 virus, or point to where Newman espouses it?

i too am bothered by the Nosenko mystery and Newman taking Bagley’s side. What’s worse for me is the irreparable harm caused by the man who would be a real defector, Golitsyn. I guess what I find most difficult is realizing that real defectors can lie and false ones can tell the truth. That’s another way of saying that discerning truth from falsehood matters far more than discerning KGB motives. 

Paul, I should not try to explain it, although it is not complicated. I will try to find it for you.

It really starts with this: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_1.htm

I too have a problem with Newman’s apparent acceptance of Bagely. I get the feeling that John Newman knew Bagely, or through some other means became attached to him and his story; too attached. It can happen to anyone. 

Re: The WWIII virus. I will use the following 3 key words. In my search... diabolical, Angleton, WWWlll” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Paul, here is a link I posted before. P.4 gets you to a use of the “viirus” word. It’s worth reading, but it is difficult because it is a transcription of a presentation that had visual aids that are not in the transcript. Also, as noted in the notes at the end, Newman does not necessarily ascribe to everything he says here. It is a good read, however. The big lie that it exposes, however, is that, contrary to what the FBI and CIA have said, Oswald had been on their radar, for months, to say the least.

 

P.4

Okay, so this here is the Washington Field Office of the FBI. It happens to be a couple of days before the assassination and they just intercepted a letter that Oswald wrote to the Soviet embassy up in Washington, D.C. talking about his meeting with 'Comrade Kostin' [Kostin is a pseudonym for Kostikov] in Mexico City and so they are sending this to the FBI Director. So, here, you know we find the, again by the hand of LHO the virus is spreading again, only we are getting very close to the date (of the assassination).

"Okay, that's all I have to show you prior to 11/22 and then we start in, then the shots ring out in Dealey Plaza, and it's quite interesting to see what happens.........

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, here is Larry’s response to an earlier inquiry I had made regarding the WW3 virus.

On 1/25/2017 at 1:27 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Michael, you found the transcription on Lancer that I was just about to link in for you so you have that.  Things have evolved a good bit from that particular presentation and probably your best and most current source dealing with the whole issue is Bill Simpich's book State Secret.  I wrote a bit about the MC scenarios in NEXUS and then collaborated with Bill while he was working on his book; of course he has talked with and brainstormed at length with Newman as well.

There are a couple of schools of thought (OK, that was understated) but perhaps the simplest take is that links were planted (to a great extent via telephone impersonations) in Mexico City that would have connected Oswald to Cuban or Russian sponsors, exposing that connection would have meant war.  That is a follow up to Peter Dale Scott's early research on Mexico City and give you the WWIII scenario leading to a Lone Nut alternative to prevent war.  A different and even deeper take is that the  telephone impersonation, the taping and the tapes themselves might have revealed that the impersonations were planted to frame Oswald and the Cubans/Russians, but in such a way as to have only been done by insiders - pointing not towards foreign conspiracy but a domestic one involving CIA officers or their agents working with the electronic surveillance in Mexico City.  Rather than going that route, and perhaps destroying the CIA in the process, at the height of the Cold War, it would have been decided to go Lone Nut instead.

Of course you can mix and match both scenarios too.   Hope that helps a bit, Larry

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently reading Bagley's book, Spy Wars, and Bagley goes deeply into his Nosenko dealings.  Now, like every published spook, I'm sure Bagley tells lies; however Bagley surely comes across as knowledgeable and credible in his assessment that Nosenko was a false defector.  I believe him on this point.

Now....I'm not sure how that makes the JFK assassination a KGB plot!  That is a long leap. 

It was Crown that announced Oswald as the lone assassin....Secret Service ID's and military intelligence in Dealey Plaza....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Al Fordiani said:

I am currently reading Bagley's book, Spy Wars, and Bagley goes deeply into his Nosenko dealings.  Now, like every published spook, I'm sure Bagley tells lies; however Bagley surely comes across as knowledgeable and credible in his assessment that Nosenko was a false defector.  I believe him on this point.

Now....I'm not sure how that makes the JFK assassination a KGB plot!  That is a long leap. 

It was Crown that announced Oswald as the lone assassin....Secret Service ID's and military intelligence in Dealey Plaza....

I might agree, but have to ask you to define ‘Crown’. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2019 at 4:09 PM, Paul Brancato said:

could you explain Newman’s WW 3 virus, or point to where Newman espouses it?

i too am bothered by the Nosenko mystery and Newman taking Bagley’s side. What’s worse for me is the irreparable harm caused by the man who would be a real defector, Golitsyn. I guess what I find most difficult is realizing that real defectors can lie and false ones can tell the truth. That’s another way of saying that discerning truth from falsehood matters far more than discerning KGB motives. 

I believe he actually espouses and elaborates it in his updated "Oswald & The CIA" (2008 ed.) with the newest updated chapter on Mexico City. I think Blunt and Dale deal with Bruce Solei (?), Bagley, Nosenko and others well in a couple of his shows with Blunt as a guest. Personally, after all I've been able to listen to, read and study to an extent, I too cannot believe Nosenko was treated as a genuine defector. We also have proof that Solei was pushing Nosenko as genuine in the Spring of 1964 which, as Blunt says, almost made Bagley "fall out of his chair" because for Bagley, that would've been way too early to be pushing such a position....its strange as all hell but I'm still learning I guess. I just wish the Russians would release all about LHO....audio/video (perhaps from the bugged hotel room back in '59), etc.

If what Newman has shown about Nosenko is factual then I'm not at all surprised by his being a false defector. If what he reports is accurate then......there it is. Nosenko is a fake sent to disrupt US Counter Intelligence. I mean I don't have ultimate judgement on it (when can one really when dealing with intel organizations?) but I lean towards Nosenko being a false defector. I would probably take Bagley's side inasmuch as Nosenko not being a genuine defector as well and we may have good reason to believe that. It almost does seem as though the Agency abandoned logic to clear Nosenko....I mean if you accept the guy it prevents all hell from breaking loose. Same with Oswald. Deny him and you're free. Accept him and its over. Imagine the agencies tied to him that would've probably been destroyed: ONI, CIA, FBI, Customs/INS....thats insane. How much loss just to accept that he was witting/unwitting asset.....but then again how much relief by either his death and absolute disassociation with him. That is probably one of the most fascinating aspects of it all...

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...