The CIA Watch List - Bombshell or Factoid?

[Mark Ulrik]

This reminds me of a discussion I had in another forum years ago. There was a poster who through he had struck gold at the MFF site when he found mentions of a "US Defector Program" apparently run by the CIA. When I found out that it was also called the "US Defector Machine Program," it became clear that it was a computer system used for collating data on known defectors. It was clear, when viewed in context, that being "considered for the program" didn't mean that you were going to be recruited for some kind of false defector program. The other guy didn't like that and refused to agree with my interpretation, but c'est la vie.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Mark Ulrik
Typo

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I don't want to get out over my skis, and I'm not the CIA Answer Man. The OS certainly investigated defectors to the U.S. https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/rockcomm/pdf/RockComm_Chap13_OtherInv.pdf. The document I linked above indicated some sort of compilation of defector information, and the one OS file on Oswald was labelled "Defectors." https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10336-10023.pdf. Beyond that, I have no idea.

The HSCA was told and confirmed that 201 files were not opened because of the ultra-secrecy and dubious legality (i.e., clear illegality) of HT-LINGUAL. Beyond that, I have no idea.

(Are you aware of the "Oswald's Midnight Press Conference" thread suggesting you should be banned because you are in fact some actor named Peter somebody?)

 

According to that link, the CIA destroyed all the HTLINGUAL files on April 8th, 1994 - well after the JFK act and literally three days before the ARRB was sworn in. You have to admit that seems a little bit questionable. So it looks like we really have no idea what sort of information the HTLINGUAL files contained on Oswald. 

I also don’t think you’ve really addressed Newman and Blunt’s actual argument. I don’t think the issue is really the timing of the 201 file, or even that the OS kept a file on Oswald; to my understanding, the biggest issue is that the standard procedure was for incoming paper on Soviet defectors to be sent to the Soviet Russia division, but in Oswald’s case, all the incoming files were sent only to OS/SRS, a mole hunting unit, and to RID. According to the notes of Betsy Wolf, the Chief of the OS in the 70s said that all dissemination requests at the time of Oswald’s defection had to be handled through the Office Mail Logistics. In other words, OS/SRS had to submit a specific form to OML in advance requesting that all incoming documents on Oswald not be disseminated to the Soviet Russia Division via the standard procedure. Blunt showed this altered dissemination to Pete Bagley which is when Bagley said that Oswald had to be a witting false defector. 

Also, the official CIA explanation for why OS kept a file on Oswald at the time of the defection is somewhat less than satisfying - as I posted in my last comment. Basically, your argument is valid, but it doesn’t really address the core issues with Oswald’s file discussed by Blunt, Newman, etc. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Gerry Down]

32 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

According to that link, the CIA destroyed all the HTLINGUAL files on April 8th, 1994 - well after the JFK act and literally three days before the ARRB was sworn in. You have to admit that seems a little bit questionable. So it looks like we really have no idea what sort of information the HTLINGUAL files contained on Oswald. 

I also don’t think you’ve really addressed Newman and Blunt’s actual argument. I don’t think the issue is really the timing of the 201 file, or even that the OS kept a file on Oswald; to my understanding, the biggest issue is that the standard procedure was for incoming paper on Soviet defectors to be sent to the Soviet Russia division, but in Oswald’s case, all the incoming files were sent only to OS/SRS, a mole hunting unit, and to RID. According to the notes of Betsy Wolf, the Chief of the OS in the 70s said that all dissemination requests at the time of Oswald’s defection had to be handled through the Office Mail Logistics. In other words, OS/SRS had to submit a specific form to OML in advance requesting that all incoming documents on Oswald not be disseminated to the Soviet Russia Division via the standard procedure. Blunt showed this altered dissemination to Pete Bagley which is when Bagley said that Oswald had to be a witting false defector. 

Also, the official CIA explanation for why OS kept a file on Oswald at the time of the defection is somewhat less than satisfying - as I posted in my last comment. Basically, your argument is valid, but it doesn’t really address the core issues with Oswald’s file discussed by Blunt, Newman, etc. 

Would a 201 file have to be set up in the first instance for info to then be passed on to the Soviet Russia division?

Or, in a hypothetical scenario, would info on Oswald normally go to the Soviet Russia division and then when the CIA would feel this guy Oswald was interesting enough only then would they set up a 201 file?

I'm a bit confused where all the data flowing to the Soviet Russia division would be held in the CIA if there was no 201 file - maybe that is what RID Indexing was for? I don't know.

 

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

In other words, OS/SRS had to submit a specific form to OML in advance requesting that all incoming documents on Oswald not be disseminated to the Soviet Russia Division via the standard procedure. Blunt showed this altered dissemination to Pete Bagley which is when Bagley said that Oswald had to be a witting false defector. 

You can't possibly imagine Pete Bagley would know more than that master of snark Lance do you?

That was precisely the problem. I don't think that can be considered bumbling by a federal agency but I admittedly haven't looked into it enough to come to a conclusion on it.

[Tom Gram]

15 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Would a 201 file have to be set up in the first instance for info to then be passed on to the Soviet Russia division?

Or, in a hypothetical scenario, would info on Oswald normally go to the Soviet Russia division and then when the CIA would feel this guy Oswald was interesting enough only then would they set up a 201 file?

I'm a bit confused where all the data flowing to the Soviet Russia division would be held in the CIA if there was no 201 file - maybe that is what RID Indexing was for? I don't know.

 

Again I haven’t really looked into this angle myself so don’t take my word for it, but I’ve heard that a 201 would be opened once either 4 or 5 documents were received on a person - and I think 5+ documents were received on Oswald within a couple weeks of the defection. It’d be interesting to see if any of the other defectors for which a 201 opening was delayed also met that criteria. 

That’s a good question on how the Soviet Russia division filed documents on people that didn’t have a 201. I have no idea. Supposedly the OS didn’t open 201 files but SR did, so Oswald’s documents being segregated from SR has been cited as one of the main reasons for the 201 delay. It’d be interesting to see if there are any examples of incoming documents on other defectors not being sent to SR - and if any of those documents were handled by OS/SRS in the so-called defector’s file. Supposedly, SR was one of the standard destinations for incoming documents on defectors - so for Oswald’s documents to only go to OS/SRS it had to be arranged in advance through OML.

Based on Lance’s post, it seems like the HSCA looked into the 201 delay but didn’t really explore the document dissemination issue. Betsy Wolf did, but her notes were not put into report form and were withheld until the early 2000s. As far as I know, those notes are pretty much all we have to go on for this stuff. 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Supposedly, SR was one of the standard destinations for incoming documents on defectors - so for Oswald’s documents to only go to OS/SRS it had to be arranged in advance through OML.

I would question the absoluteness of this deduction which Blunt posits as a result of his conversation with Pete Bagley.

Technically the decision could have been made upon the CIA receiving the first document in on Oswald. As soon as the first document came in, they could have decided they would not send them to SR as usual but to OS. Maybe they felt because Oswald was a marine at their Atsugi base with the U2, that his defection was more serious and so should be handled by the OS.

Additionally, simply because of the timing with Popov, the CIA could have decided from the get go they would use the next defector as a mole hunting exercise inside the CIA to see who would try and go looking for info on this new defector. And it just so happened that Oswald was the next defector, and a marine at that. 

 

[Guest]

On 2/6/2023 at 8:52 AM, Gerry Down said:

I would question the absoluteness of this deduction which Blunt posits as a result of his conversation with Pete Bagley.

Technically the decision could have been made upon the CIA receiving the first document in on Oswald. As soon as the first document came in, they could have decided they would not send them to SR as usual but to OS. Maybe they felt because Oswald was a marine at their Atsugi base with the U2, that his defection was more serious and so should be handled by the OS.

Additionally, simply because of the timing with Popov, the CIA could have decided from the get go they would use the next defector as a mole hunting exercise inside the CIA to see who would try and go looking for info on this new defector. And it just so happened that Oswald was the next defector, and a marine at that. 

 

Hi

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Gerry Down]

I don't believe for a second that Oswald was a false defector. I'm just wondering if when Oswald did defect, Angleton took advantage of the situation and set up Oswald's File in such a way inside the CIA to help catch any mole inside the CIA looking for info on this new defector Oswald.

That in my opinion is a plausible scenario, but one that seems to be very hard to prove one way or another because understanding the filing system and why things were done in certain ways is tricky.

[Gerry Down]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:53 AM, Lance Payette said:

Hi

Hi Lance,

Can you post your opening post on this thread again? I had found it a useful guide for understanding Oswalds 201 file to counter CTers who often post misleading info regarding this very topic.

Thanks,
Gerry

[Charles Blackmon]

On 2/5/2023 at 8:34 AM, Denny Zartman said:

Are the personal insults necessary?

First it's the constant general characterization of anyone who disagrees as "loons" and other derogatory terms. Now there are direct personal insults to other forum members by name.

I just don't understand why the moderators on this forum tolerate this kind of behavior. Is this really how we're expected to approach discussion here? By constantly insulting and demeaning the other side? Now by name? As I see it, this is not an argument in good faith. Calling someone an "agenda-driven huckster" and then expecting a genuine discussion as if the personal animus wasn't obvious is insulting. It's almost as if some people are on this forum not for honest discussion in good faith but rather with the sole purpose of actively trying to provoke responses from specific individuals. That, to me, seems like an agenda.

The Ignore feature allows one to be spared the unending personal insults from those on here who just can't help themselves.