John Newman's latest on Popov's Mole

[David Boylan]

This probably deserves its own thread.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/7338953/197-october-16-2022-with-intent-to-suppr

 

[Joseph Backes]

An amazing show.  I'd like to know more about Amazon, Kindle, and Facebook's attempts to suppress Volume 4. I'd love to see screen captures of their nonsense.

Anyway, John names the mole inside the CIA's Office of Security.  

 

 

 

[Gerry Down]

This would be a major discovery if true. Bruce Solie the mole that was so mythical alot of people, even Richard Helms, didn't even believe they existed.  

I think Malcolm Blunt could be open to being on board with this theory. In one of his last videos with Bart Kamp he questioned why Solie was pushing so hard in April 1964 for Nosenko being a genuine defector when others at the CIA were still only trying to figure things out at that stage. 

You'd feel sorry for Angleton. First Philby, then Solie. 

[Anthony Thorne]

https://www.yahoo.com/now/city-man-helps-research-book-132100494.html

[Pete Mellor]

No sign of Newman's book 'Uncovering Popov's Mole' on Amazon yet, on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Paul Brancato]

On 10/16/2022 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Backes said:

An amazing show.  I'd like to know more about Amazon, Kindle, and Facebook's attempts to suppress Volume 4. I'd love to see screen captures of their nonsense.

Anyway, John names the mole inside the CIA's Office of Security.  

 

 

 

Agree - amazing show. 

[Joseph Backes]

11 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

No sign of Newman's book 'Uncovering Popov's Mole' on Amazon yet, on both sides of the Atlantic.

As he mention in the podcast he's getting some strange repression from Facebook, And Amazon.com and Kindle.  

But, they won't succeed.

Joe

[David Boylan]

Latest info:

Uncovering Popov's Mole, the latest work by John M. Newman, is currently in-draft on Amazon for publication where it will soon be available. There have been some unusual issues regarding publication. We are hopeful that all will be resolved asap. An ultimate announcement, post-obstructions, will be made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Well, I listened to the show, and I admire the podcast hosts's enthusiasm, but on hosting...well, a gentleman's "C." The story gets scrambled, and the Solie connection to the JFKA foggy. Newman practically has to gag the host to get his point across. 

BTW, Newman said he was getting no outlets to comment or even notice his new book.

Does anyone here know him?

Surely, Newman would be received with open arms if he would present a synopsis or other aspect of his book, and posted it here. 

[Paul Cummings]

I'm not sure if Dr. Newman gave Doug Campbell the opportunity to read his book before the interview?  Newman seemed more interested in discussing the issues he's having with publishers. The flow of the interview was choppy but I think Doug did his best given the circumstances.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Paul Cummings

[David Boylan]

There was a lot of information to cover. John Newman planned on 1 hour, spoke for 2 and could have talked on this subject for 8 hours.

[David Boylan]

I checked with Doug. He didn't have the opportunity to read the book because it hasn't been published yet! I thought he and John did a great job trying to convey a trove of new and important information in a limited amount of time. I can't wait to read the book when it is finally published. I'm sure we'll be discussing it here.

[David Boylan]

The book, Uncovering Popov's Mole has just been released:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BJN2XFX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3O9HKL6TCN3UV&keywords=UNCOVERING+POPOV'S+MOLE%3A+THE+ASSASSINATION+OF+PRESIDENT+KENNEDY+VOLUME+IV&qid=1666200392&qu=eyJxc2MiOiItMC4wMSIsInFzYSI6IjAuMDAiLCJxc3AiOiIwLjAwIn0%3D&s=books&sprefix=uncovering+popov's+mole+the+assassination+of+president+kennedy+volume+iv+%2Cstripbooks%2C57&sr=1-1

[Joseph Backes]

It's out!

[Greg Doudna]

My copy of Uncovering Popov's Mole arrived yesterday. I am not well-read in the areas of the documents and matters Newman discusses so much of what Newman argues is out of my league, but I can nevertheless comment on what I understand. 

First, identification of Bruce Solie as the mole, the chief mole-hunter (who despite years of effort never could find the mole) being himself the mole, bamboozling Angleton just as that mole's predecessor Kim Philby had earlier bamboozled Angleton, is fascinating. I will be interested in more informed reviews giving opposing views or weaknesses in Newman's argument if any but I did not spot any obvious problems to what comes across as a convincing solution worthy of a Sherlock Holmes closing of a case. I immediately think of a comparative parallel: the American Indian Movement in its armed standoff at Wounded Knee in 1973. The chief of security of AIM tasked with identifying government spies and agents in their midst turned out all along to have been an undercover police officer and paid FBI informant (Durham). That came out in court and is a matter of record. A similar situation has been suspected with the IRA of Northern Ireland though I think that remains contested. So there is one and perhaps two good parallels to the idea of a chief mole-hunter being the mole. Of course that matters little except as irony, the argument depends on the evidence itself. 

In this analysis defector Golitsyn was for real and Nosenko, sent by the KGB and defended by Solie, was a fraud. Newman brings out a new document, a debriefing of an instructor in a Soviet counterintelligence school in Minsk from later than the time Oswald was there, reporting on other faculty at that school telling of having handled Oswald and Marina in Minsk. Oswald had been recruited and was an agent claimed by the Ukraine KGB. Marina was not claimed to be an agent but was a "swallow", asked to get into bed with Oswald for information, who then went her own way after coming to the U.S. This debriefing supports the same basic account of Oleg Kalugin, chief of KGB operations in the US in 1963, in Russo and Moses, eds., Where Were You? (2013), who said "Marina was planted just to find information ... Later the KGB made a deal with her that if she came here to the United States--she was recruited; let's put it that way. But she didn't perform the mission. She was actually thrown out of the Russian network of sources--totally useless". The document published in an appendix by Newman in Uncovering Popov's Mole, "The 2/27/90 CIA Report on the Debriefing of IJDECANTER", is fascinating and rings as the true story of Oswald in Minsk. According to the debriefing (also in agreement with Kalugin), Oswald was ultimately deemed unreliable and the Soviets were not in contact with him after his redefection back to the US.

Newman recapitulates a horrifying narrative of Cold War history and nuclear war planning of the 1950s and early 1960s as Kennedy came into the presidency. Newman argues in favor of the utterly terrifying argument earlier published by James Galbraith and Heather Purcell that there existed a Joint Chiefs plan in 1961, which was discussed, to launch a first-strike nuclear attack to wipe out the Soviet Union ca. 1963. At the time that argument of Galbraith and Purcell was disputed and somewhat persuasively countered as having been a misunderstanding of a contingency plan, not an actual plan to do it. Newman puts the original idea of Galbraith and Purcell back on the map, arguing there was significant support inside the Joint Chiefs for doing that, that it was more than simple contingency war-gaming. 

Reading Newman's account of the evolving nuclear war-fighting doctrine, the SIOP debates, of LeMay and Lemnitzer, the Dr. Strangelove logic in actual history, is for me psychologically like a descent into Dante's hell. What have humans come to? 

My simplified takeaway from Newman's analysis: the US had an overwhelming advantage over the Soviet nuclear arsenal, though this was secret, not publicly said by either USSR or US. That advantage was so overwhelming that apparently a majority of the Joint Chiefs believed there was a temporary window of time--a small number of years--in which the US could first-strike the USSR and China, destroying both communist superpowers (and killing and radiation-poisoning most of their people), and that compared to the alternatives that should be done. 

Then: the single most important legacy of JFK is he kept that nuclear war from happening. (Not a foregone conclusion.)

And then into the Conrad heart of darkness: the argument of a serious framing of the USSR, Castro, and Oswald for the assassination of JFK, as part of prior knowledge of planning of that assassination.  

Incidentally, trivia note: Newman is now referring to "Oswald (or an imposter) traveled to Mexico City (28 September-3 October 1963)" (p. 2). I could not find elaboration on that in the rest of the book. Newman also says in passing, without elaborating or arguing in this book, that a decision was made in 1962 to frame the USSR, Cuba, and Oswald for an assassination of JFK in 1963, and that that actual framing occurred in about a six-week period prior to the assassination in Nov 1963 (by which I think Newman means to include the Mexico City trip).