The sorcerer's apprentice interviews Malcolm Blunt. #3 Yuri Nosenko

[Pete Mellor]

 

[David Andrews]

Listening to the opening of this, describing Nosenko's plain vanilla report to the CIA on KGB non-interest in Oswald, it strikes me that if we can posit that the Bayo-Pawley raid on Cuba was an effort to lose anti-Castro Cubans inside the island and later use their identities for a supposed Castro-turned JFKA team, then it's not such a leap to posit that Oswald and other CIA-ONI false defectors were to be repatriated for possible use in some domestic terror act (not necessarily the JFKA) to be blamed on the Soviets.

Is this why there's an Oswald signature in the daybook of a nuclear facility?  To inculpate him in a potential domestic terror incident?

It would have been a long-game plan that was never enacted, with Oswald eventually chosen as the best established Marxist defector for use as the JFKA patsy, when that plan was greenlighted.

Were Angleton and company at CIA so angry with Nosenko because - despite their ongoing participation in the lone-nut cover story - Nosenko refused to give them any material for creating a Soviet-backed Oswald, if ever needed?

Larry Hancock - any thoughts?

Edited September 13, 2021 by David Andrews

[Douglas Caddy]

David -- you pose profound geopolitical questions of the first order. You are the type of person the National Security Council needs.  

[David Andrews]

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

David -- you pose profound geopolitical questions of the first order. You are the type of person the National Security Council needs.  

Doug, I'm not sure if I'm being twitted here, but I wouldn't blame you if I were.

It just struck me, listening to Malcolm Blunt, that the idea of losing a hit team in Cuba and having them "return" turned by Castro is not much different from repatriating defectors who could later be said to have been turned while in Russia.  Hence Angleton's interest in Nosenko on Oswald.

====

So far as I can recall, my only geopolitical idea is to encourage Pakistan to annex Afghanistan.  Some Pakistani leaders have wanted this for a long time, needing men and land to support their aggressions against India in the Kashmir.

Edited September 13, 2021 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

David, I'm pretty much of the impression that there was a propaganda program in place to build an incresingly "radical" image for Oswald.....linking that to signatures related to JFK's conservation tour (Oswald in Wisconsin in a restaurant guest list),  Oswald at an Oak Ridge visitor center (or was that related to a trail to the East Coast for something planned there).  Bits and pieces with Oak Ridge the wildest of the bunch (I can say I have a document about a scam that David Phillips ran against the Russians in Mexico City involving uranium..and got a black mark for doing).   With Phillips one can never tells, sometimes he just appeared to throw stuff around to see if it would stick.

 

[David Andrews]

Thanks, Larry.  Putting the Oswald signature in context, though, doesn't preclude repatriated defectors being earmarked as patsies for any, say, Northwoods-style false flag ops, short of assassination.  The proof would be Oswald's eventual pick-up as the JFKA patsy, an extremity which leaves the door open for less extreme deployments.

Edited September 14, 2021 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

I think we get lost in the fact that with multiple people and agendas in play around Oswald during 1963, a time slice of everything that was happening in a given month, if not a given week, has the effect of just creating seemingly random noise.  Multiple actors, activities, agendas, all occurring in a given week or month....at this point I've come to accept that it won't make sense in a linear view - and absolutely nothing was precluded, even after his arrival in Dallas.

Its like taking out several puzzles at the same time, intermixing the pieces, and expecting them to somehow all fit in one grand picture. 

[Ron Bulman]

41 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I think we get lost in the fact that with multiple people and agendas in play around Oswald during 1963, a time slice of everything that was happening in a given month, if not a given week, has the effect of just creating seemingly random noise.  Multiple actors, activities, agendas, all occurring in a given week or month....at this point I've come to accept that it won't make sense in a linear view - and absolutely nothing was precluded, even after his arrival in Dallas.

Its like taking out several puzzles at the same time, intermixing the pieces, and expecting them to somehow all fit in one grand picture. 

That last sentence says more than a mouthful Guru.  Trying to make sense of Oswald's actions or motivations in the summer of 1963, possibly Mexico then Dallas in the fall are puzzling enough to confuse some of us for years.  It's almost like that was the intent.  Not an accident or happenstance.

[David Andrews]

17 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I think we get lost in the fact that with multiple people and agendas in play around Oswald during 1963, a time slice of everything that was happening in a given month, if not a given week, has the effect of just creating seemingly random noise.  Multiple actors, activities, agendas, all occurring in a given week or month....at this point I've come to accept that it won't make sense in a linear view - and absolutely nothing was precluded, even after his arrival in Dallas.

Its like taking out several puzzles at the same time, intermixing the pieces, and expecting them to somehow all fit in one grand picture. 

You're right, Larry - it's just one more thing to ask of Oswald's already overcrowded timeline between repatriation and assassination.  I'm just saying that:

• Oswald's fate shows what range of Soviet- or Cuban-based offenses could be pinned on the false defectors
• The motive we're lately ascribing to the Bayo-Pawley raid seems to be in the same operational field
• Angleton's animus for Nosenko appears to have been partly based on frustration that no material that could tie Oswald to KGB was forthcoming, in case the current presidential admin, or a future admin, would want to go down that path

I'll go back to my Metternich-like geopolitical fancies now, redrawing the Syriana plan if some admin wants it.

Edited September 14, 2021 by David Andrews