FINALLY, PROOF: Charles Tracy Barnes was the CIA Chief of Domestic Operations Division, Support!

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'd like to thanks everyone on this thread - from Robert starting it through all the exchanges to David's eventually coming up with a document that is truly revealing as to the evolution of CIA Domestic operations - it makes me wish I could magically edit my books retroactively in real time and add or correct things, but at least I can still blog on Domestic Operations.  And I think it really opens a window to the fact that a lot more historical research should be done on Domestic Operations in the sixties than has been done in the past:

https://wordpress.com/post/larryhancock.wordpress.com/1836

It would appear the proposal in the document David Boylan discovered did not go through until well after the JFK assassination. As per the CIA charts Bob Ness linked to above, the Domestic Contacts Service remained in the Directorate of Intelligence until at least 1972. Here are those charts:

 

The above 1972 CIA map also, i think for the first time, shows the "Foreign Broadcast Information Service". I mention this because this was mentioned in one of David Boylans links on the recent "David Morales and the Agency for International Development ( AID )" thread. Here is that link:

LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=235948#relPageId=30 

I don't know if the first mention of this department in the 1972 chart is a delayed symptom of the proposed changes after the BOP. The "Foreign Documents Division" is of note as that is where Donald Deneselya worked. 

The 1975 chart shows no mention of the "Office of Operations" or "Domestic Contacts Service". 

This might be because, as per this ARRB document (LINK: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32404115.pdf ), the Domestic Contacts Service, eventually made its way to the Directorate of Operations. The Directorate of Plans did not have its name changed to the Directorate of Operations until the 1970s'. So taking the ARRB document literally, the Domestic Contacts Division did not make its way into that directorate until it got its new name - the Directorate of Operations in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, as per other CIA charts i linked to above, the DOD (where Tracy Barnes was) was in the Directorate of Plans at least in 1964. Its not clear how long before this the DOD was there. In other words, i don't know if it was there in 1962 or 1963. Or where Tracy Barnes was in 1962 and 1963. Speculating here, but i wonder if its possible the DOD was originally in the Directorate of Intelligence in 1962 and 1963 and then got moved over to the Directorate of Plans in 1964. I guess that would seem unlikely as the DOD was a hands-on, action orientated, kind of department more suited to being the Directorate of Plans. 

[Robert Montenegro]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'd like to thanks everyone on this thread - from Robert starting it through all the exchanges to David's eventually coming up with a document that is truly revealing as to the evolution of CIA Domestic operations - it makes me wish I could magically edit my books retroactively in real time and add or correct things, but at least I can still blog on Domestic Operations.  And I think it really opens a window to the fact that a lot more historical research should be done on Domestic Operations in the sixties than has been done in the past:

https://wordpress.com/post/larryhancock.wordpress.com/1836

 

Larry 

Never self-denigrate your research.

It is of the most critical importance, and your work I source constantly.

This is just what we do, we are critical thinkers, who publish the best information, until something new comes along that challenges the pervious accepted norm.

That is the Scientific Method in action and I am humbled deeply that you see substance in my small bits of critical analysis.

Bless you, Mr. Hancock, you just made my week.

Yourself, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Simpich, and yes, Mr. DiEugenio (even though we have butt heads in the past couple of days—man does he have a strong bite), are all American heroes in my eyes, and psychic veterans of a covert information war against the forces of old and evil.

Thank you.

 

PS: At the expense of sounding like a shill, I recommend everyone get copies of your books and absorb all media you have published—it is a force to be reckoned with and respected.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Robert Montenegro]

6 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I guess that would seem unlikely as the DOD was a hands-on, action orientated, kind of department more suited to being the Directorate of Plans. 

Yes.

By all indications, that is what it was.

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks for the kind words Robert - and Gerry certainly the transition would have taken a considerable period of time, after all there were turf wars involved and who reports to whom and has how many staff is always a major factor (for a lighter note, the funniest version of that sort of thing I ever came across is in a SF book titled "When they came from space", it guts government bureaucracy in side splitting fashion).

I suspect what was really going on was to give DDP some domestic reach it had not had before, especially in the area of covers, business, professional and personal for overseas covert ops.  They wanted to do that themselves. Ditto for covert air support - which was becoming critical in SE Asia.

And not that I would ever suspect CIA org charts, but they may have left contacts under DDI for a reason - Domestic Contacts had legitimate offices in major cities, offices even listed in the telephone directory.  When DDO guys needed a place to work in New Orleans there was no station, so hang your hat in the contacts office.  Which would indeed be a type of cover for Domestic Operations (trust me, I'm just here if  you have something to report).

[Gerry Down]

4 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

And not that I would ever suspect CIA org charts, but they may have left contacts under DDI for a reason - Domestic Contacts had legitimate offices in major cities, offices even listed in the telephone directory.  When DDO guys needed a place to work in New Orleans there was no station, so hang your hat in the contacts office.  Which would indeed be a type of cover for Domestic Operations (trust me, I'm just here if  you have something to report).

Yeah charts don't cover the personal way staff interact with one another, especially as alot of these people were friends going back to the OSS days. Those friendships transcend directorate structures. Moore was in the OSS. So was Angleton. I wonder if Angleton could have asked Moore directly to do the debrief especially seeing how Angleton had a special interest in LHO hiding his file in the Office of Security as part of the mole hunt.

[Larry Hancock]

He certainly could have, although it would be pretty sloppy work for Domestic Contacts not to get handed off for indirect collections from someone like Oswald.  Another interesting point is if that was done indirectly in Fort Worth, its a pretty good sign Oswald was not a voluntary asset.  We know from other research that defectors like Webster were approached on their own and directly debriefed in some detail.

[Jonathan Cohen]

20 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

He certainly could have, although it would be pretty sloppy work for Domestic Contacts not to get handed off for indirect collections from someone like Oswald.  Another interesting point is if that was done indirectly in Fort Worth, its a pretty good sign Oswald was not a voluntary asset.  We know from other research that defectors like Webster were approached on their own and directly debriefed in some detail.

This is a crucial point in my opinion, Larry.  I have yet to see compelling evidence that Oswald was a voluntary asset of any intelligence organization, in the U.S. or otherwise.

[Matt Allison]

50 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

it would be pretty sloppy work for Domestic Contacts not to get handed off for indirect collections from someone like Oswald.  Another interesting point is if that was done indirectly in Fort Worth, its a pretty good sign Oswald was not a voluntary asset. 

Larry- if LHO was being used in a vest pocket op, would this still be the case?

[Larry Hancock]

The way its generally used the term applies to one officer running something directly and personally - outside the normal structure of the agency - which means they are themselves directly involved and using resources personally under their control.  Yet it does not mean they have to be in direct contact with an asset, distance was always preferred (especially if it was truly vest pocket and unreported).  

Making use of what Oswald was doing on his own, perhaps manipulating him without his direct knowledge, otherwise taking advantage of him as a "useful idiot" or tool, would be preferable in either a vest pocket or sanctioned/re-portable action. that is another view.  And of course that means the rest of the Agency would respond to him with standard practices - which seems to be what we see, including the domestic contact in Fort Worth.

Personally I have come to follow Jonathan's view. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

The way its generally used the term applies to one officer running something directly and personally - outside the normal structure of the agency - which means they are themselves directly involved and using resources personally under their control.  Yet it does not mean they have to be in direct contact with an asset, distance was always preferred (especially if it was truly vest pocket and unreported).  

Making use of what Oswald was doing on his own, perhaps manipulating him without his direct knowledge, otherwise taking advantage of him as a "useful idiot" or tool, would be preferable in either a vest pocket or sanctioned/re-portable action. that is another view.  And of course that means the rest of the Agency would respond to him with standard practices - which seems to be what we see, including the domestic contact in Fort Worth.

Personally I have come to follow Jonathan's view. 

 

 

Tennent Bagley told Malcom Blunt in an un-recorded interview that he (Bagley) suspected LHO was a witting asset. 

Bagley joined the CIA in 1954, held serious positions and retired in 1972, worked largely on Russia stuff. 

So it goes.... 

 

[Larry Hancock]

Interviews of Soviet Division officers, at least two, show the same suspicions but of course they had no direct knowledge or documents.   I see no way this will ever be resolved for everyone, its just too hard to give up the idea and too much has been written about it as if it were proven (including by me) - and there is a plenty of evidence that he appears in the files of numerous agencies and in different areas even within the CIA so he was an object of interest - as he should have been given his actions.  

One of the more interesting things to me is how hard the State Dept tried to frustrate his return to the US, it pushed back against him for over a year and the files are full of objections and issues.  He had a real battle getting back into the States, certainly nobody greased the rails there. 

Of course the other question relates to chronology, if he was witting in going to the USR does that imply he was witting after his return, not necessarily.  Oswald himself made am ambiguous remark during his return that he would never allow himself to be "used" again.