New John Newman podcast video

[James DiEugenio]

BTW Robert, I think John makes pretty clear that it was not the KGB that took out Kennedy.

He thinks it was the Pentagon with help from CIA.

 

[David Cooper]

7 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

Because Bruce L. Solie and Lt. Col. James W. McCord were allegedly KGB, ergo their handling of the Dallas patsy's files means that KGB was indirectly responsible for President Kennedy's murder?

This seems to me to be the implication of John Newman’s understanding of Bruce Solie’s “fake” molehunt and LHO’s whole sojourn in the USSR. If there is direct KGB involvement with LHO, it changes our understanding of the JFKA. (Then, LHO was a witting accomplice to these schemes.) But I am reasonably sure that John Newman is not drawing the conclusion that the KGB was indirectly or directly responsible for the JFKA…

If LHO’s defection was faked on several levels, then it raises other questions. When did the KGB learn about the U2? Did they already know what LHO was supposed to reveal? Was LHO’s real mission to deceive Angleton? Was Gary Power’s overflight in direct contravention of Eisenhower’s orders designed to undermine his meeting with Khrushchev? Was the sabotage of his plane a CIA/Dulles plot? 

Who is fooling who in this game of smoke and mirrors?
 

 

[Anthony Thorne]

I'm not sure if Solie / McCord handling Oswald's files implicates them in JFK's death. They might have their own reasons for handling the files. One floated elsewhere (for Solie, at any rate) - he could adjust or check or add to Oswald's files and see if doing so rattled anyone involved with the mole hunt out of the woodwork. 

I can't speak for Newman's citing of McCord being part of this and will just wait till his next book is out (or the revised POPOV'S MOLE) to see what he is saying about it.

And the CIA / Pentagon might then have their own reason or reasons for guiding Oswald to be the patsy at Dallas. Burying Oswald's prior activities forever, sending a message to anyone involved previously with Oswald, or just having a useful dupe handy who would do what he was told. It could be any of those, and they could consequently then have their own reasons for messing with Oswald's files prior to Nov 1963. 

So there's a lot of elements at play, but I don't see Newman's current comments as suggesting the KGB was involved with JFK's death. Like Jim said above, Newman appears to repeatedly point to or finger Pentagon / CIA folk, but he's been cagey on that for a long while. In his current video he says he's revealing more in an upcoming talk in November, maybe because his ARMAGEDDON volume might be out in the near future. But even Newman doesn't appear to have clear answers yet, and I'm largely just waiting for most of his books to be out before I spend some weeks following everything he's written about the topic. I have the first three on my Kindle but will wait another year or so before looking to catch up on his recent stuff.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Anthony Thorne

[Robert Montenegro]

7 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I don't want to be unhelpful. My suggestion is the next time Newman makes an announcement on Facebook, and he'll probably do more later this year, just join the thread there and post a couple of simple queries, and try to gain the attention of the other commenters. If a few of them go "Fair question, what's the answer there John?", he might have another look and feel the urge to respond. 

Equally, Newman has a few other researchers that he's in contact with, and a couple are named in the recent video, and I think he regularly names a few of them in the front of each of his books. Try sending them some friendly, concise messages and it might get somewhere.

 

Well, Mr. Thorne, I may do just that—however, I must stress, that my messages were friendly and concise—as a point of fact, I sent several newly-released documents concerning the intrigue of Lt. Col. McCord's activities from 1962 to 1964 and no response

And now all of this, "...Lt. Col. McCord is a KGB mole..." hoopla, is just too much—plus the usage of Tennent Harrington Bagley as a source, I do not even know how to wrap my head around that—the intrepid, departed Kevin Coogan's posthumous release, "The Spy Who Would Be Tsar: The Mystery of Michal Goleniewski and the Far-Right Underground," spent four chapters going in-depth, academically, utilizing documents, proving Mr. Bagley's claims to be false. 

 

 

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, I do not work with John. I only read his books.  Which I have reviewed at length and made both positive and negative criticisms about.

 

I see, Mr. DiEugenio—in any case, despite me being a hot-head in the past, I respect your candor on this point—I just believe that we have enough documentation to being this issue to a peroration, and here we go compounding the issue with this highly suspicious information about Lt. Col. McCord—not to mention the usage of Tennent Harrington Bagley as a source—I mean, Bagley was a direct subordinate of diabolical power-players in CIA like Soviet Russian Division Chief David Murphy and the Queen of the Cold-War geopolitical chessboard himself, James Jesus Angleton!

 

 

5 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm familiar enough to know with certainty that @Robert Montenegro has contributed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours worth of research to several authors close to Dr. Newman. Perhaps his frustration is that no one has made overtures with Newman on his behalf. If he has made dozens of attempts himself to no avail, I believe he now rightfully expresses anger on a forum that attracts Newman's admirers who might persuade the Dr. to talk to him directly. Otherwise, what exactly do we mean when we bandy about the term "community"?

I was present during a conference call that Robert participated in as well, during which he attempted to share a critical piece of research with one of the esteemed participants; it so happened that the material included revelations of Nazi involvement in a certain dynamic.  Robert was instantly, summarily and rudely dismissed with, "get that "Nazi" guy outta here ... shut 'em down."  In some convoluted way — using MAGA tactics I might note — I believe he has since been taunted on the forum as the "Nazi Guy."  Cognitive dissonance on steroids. 

 

Thanks, Leslie, for pointing that information out—and it isn't even a matter of the literal ten metric tonnes of documents that I have scoured to the benefit of other researchers (with no personal recognition or finacial gain on my benefit, to be sure, I just want the facts to be known), but it is true, that whenever I try to contact Maj. Newman, I am hit with a literal stonewall of silence by his handlers or I am, as you have pointed out, viciously mobbed up on because of my anti-fascist leanings.

 

And yes, I am becoming more and more hesitant to describe the hardline researchers looking into the murder of President Kennedy as a "community."

 

What type of "community" destroys it's best, brightest and most youthful?      

 

 

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW Robert, I think John makes pretty clear that it was not the KGB that took out Kennedy.

He thinks it was the Pentagon with help from CIA.

 

 

Well, Mr. DiEugenio, believe it or not, but I subscribe to the concept that elements of military intelligence and, yes, assets of "The Company" having been involved—however, as you know, I believe, with the documents I have seen, that a non-aligned, international fascist element—moving within, and without—"Western" intelligence services, with no loyalty to any nation-state, were also involved.

 

So, I guess, in a peripheral sense, Maj. Newman and I are walking parallel tracks...

 

 

3 hours ago, David Cooper said:

But I am reasonably sure that John Newman is not drawing the conclusion that the KGB was indirectly or directly responsible for the JFKA…

If LHO’s defection was faked on several levels, then it raises other questions. When did the KGB learn about the U2? Did they already know what LHO was supposed to reveal? Was LHO’s real mission to deceive Angleton? Was Gary Power’s overflight in direct contravention of Eisenhower’s orders designed to undermine his meeting with Khrushchev? Was the sabotage of his plane a CIA/Dulles plot? 

Who is fooling who in this game of smoke and mirrors?

 

I will say this much, Mr. Cooper, if Maj. Newman is not drawing the conclusion that Mr. Solie and Lt. Col. McCord were inadvertently placing blame on KGB for the murder of President Kennedy, I do not even see the point of bringing it up—in any case, Mr. Oswald was not a legitimate defector and he did not engage in gunfire against President Kennedy or DPD officer Tippit—ergo, the alleged phenomenon of Mr. Solie and Lt. Col. McCord being Soviet assets, is completely immaterial.

 

Simply put, Mr. Lee H. Oswald did not murder President Kennedy or Officer Tippit, so the handling of his 201-security files by alleged KGB operatives is inconsequential to the reality of who did murder President Kennedy.

 

In any case, NSA officer Maj. Newman utilizing CIA Counterintelligence officer Tennent Harrington Bagley as a primary source is like asking Joseph Goebbels about the straight-scoop concerning the "Dreyfus Affair"—it is just completely off that damn rails...

 

As for your other points, Mr. Cooper, Soviet Intelligence knew about the Lockheed U-2 "Dragon Lady" as early was 1956, with the overflight programs from British airspace:

• https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB434/docs/U2 - Chapter 3.pdf

 

Mr. Oswald gave them nothing of any use, as the flight of Capt. Francis Gary Powers was sabotaged in order to force a retreat of US détente from the "Paris Summit." 

 

And yes, Mr. Cooper, the CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Mervin Bissell Jr. oversaw the sabotaging of Capt. Powers' flight.

 

 

2 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I'm not sure if Solie / McCord handling Oswald's files implicates them in JFK's death. They might have their own reasons for handling the files. One floated elsewhere (for Solid, at any rate) - he could adjust or check or add to Oswald's files and see if doing so rattled anyone involved with the mole hunt out of the woodwork. 

So there's a lot of elements at play, but I don't see Newman's current comments as suggesting the KGB was involved with JFK's death. Like Jim said above, Newman appears to repeatedly point to or finger Pentagon / CIA folk, but he's been cagey on that for a long while.

 

Well, Mr. Thorne, I postulate the following theorems:

 

1. The CIA's Office of Security, Chief of Research Staff, Brig. Gen. Paul Francis Gaynor suspected that both Mr. Solie & Lt. Col. McCord were moles, and forced them to handle Mr. Oswald's 201-file, to the effect of neutralizing both men after Mr. Oswald is blamed for the murder of President Kennedy.

 

—OR—

 

2. Neither Mr. Solie or Lt. Col. McCord are real moles, and are instead pretending to be moles, so they can create the narrative that their handling of Mr. Lee H. Oswald's file puts the blame of the murder of President Kennedy firmly at the doorstep of Soviet intelligence.

 

Either way, Mr. Thorne, the effect was a diabolically chilling one—the Soviet Union was to be slated as the responsible party in President Kennedy's murder.

 

Still, I stand my ground in stating that anyone utilizing CIA Counterintelligence officer Tennent Harrington Bagley as a primary source has completely forfeited any credibility, whatsoever.

 

  

Edited August 19, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Gerry Down]

Surprised to hear that McCord was Solies boss. Was he Solies boss in the SRS or in some other sense? I say this because the hierarchy I had been laying out for the SRS was as follows:

Head of SRS 
Robert Bannerman

Chief of SRS 
General Paul Gaynor

Deputy Chief 
Bruce Solie

Handler of Oswalds file
Marguerite D. Stevens

Was James McCord in the SRS?

[Anthony Thorne]

Yes he was, see page 5.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/157-10011-10121.pdf

And take this next bit with a massive grain of salt, as Google Bard is accurate only 40% of the time, but they note

 

Quote

 

The information that James McCord was in the CIA's Security Research Service (SRS) from 1951 to 1971 is not explicitly recorded in any single source. However, it can be inferred from a number of sources, including:

• His own testimony during the Watergate trials, in which he stated that he had been in the SRS for 20 years.
• A 1975 book by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, "All the President's Men," which states that McCord had been in the SRS for "nearly two decades."
• A 2017 obituary for McCord in The New York Times, which states that he had been in the SRS for "20 years."

It is possible that McCord's tenure in the SRS was shorter than 20 years, but the available evidence suggests that it was at least that long.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Anthony Thorne

[Gerry Down]

55 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Yes he was, see page 5.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/157-10011-10121.pdf

And take this next bit with a massive grain of salt, as Google Bard is accurate only 40% of the time, but they note

 

 

Thanks. The document shows that McCord was interested in an index being done of the Daily Worker membership in the 1930s and 1940s to see if any of them are now working for the CIA and thus could be Russian spies.

I wonder if it was in a similar capacity that McCord became interested in working on the FPCC in 1961. I had previously assumed it was the directorate of plans that had been running the anti FPCC operation in 1961, but now I'm thinking the SRS were involved in some capacity with McCord at the helm.

[James DiEugenio]

Robert this is kind of out there:

In any case, NSA officer Maj. Newman utilizing CIA Counterintelligence officer Tennent Harrington Bagley as a primary source is like asking Joseph Goebbels about the straight-scoop concerning the "Dreyfus Affair"—it is just completely off that damn rails...

Let me ask this of you:

Do you think Nosenko was a genuine defector?

[Anthony Thorne]

Quote

the intrepid, departed Kevin Coogan's posthumous release, "The Spy Who Would Be Tsar: The Mystery of Michal Goleniewski and the Far-Right Underground," spent four chapters going in-depth, academically, utilizing documents, proving Mr. Bagley's claims to be false. 

I'm not disinterested, but I suspect very few people here have read that book, and I also suspect Newman probably hasn't either. I had Coogan's earlier on the shelf years ago but never tackled it. Robin Ramsay's review of that new one was the same as the other reviews I saw for it - detailed, fascinating, a bit of a tough read.

[Richard Booth]

On 8/13/2023 at 12:07 PM, Joseph Backes said:

Thank you for posting, Joe.  Great to see John Newman given a long-form platform to talk about his important work without too many newbie questions thrown at him, though there were a few here. 

I get the impression the host went out to dinner with Newman (Newman mentions that once) and may have probably had a long discussion with the host to go over some of the details before the show.

John Newman is a national treasure and I think this is an example of how the long-form 3 hour podcast format is so great. John got to present a lot of details here. 

[Richard Booth]

On 8/18/2023 at 1:23 PM, Robert Montenegro said:

 

I have easily sent Maj. Newman over forty messages, with support documents, demonstrating how his narrative is factually incorrect—this means that Maj. Newman is engaged in targeted disinformation, which is demonstrated by purposeful misleading & dishonest data he has provided and outright misinformation, in the form of easily identifiable incorrect data, that may or may not be accidental on Maj. Newman's part.

 

In any case, logical fallacies on Maj. Newman's part are completely inexcusable at this point—especially his utilization of CIA Counterintelligence goon Tennent Harrington Bagley, to infer (not document, by the way) that USAF Lt. Col. James W. McCord was a KGB mole!

 

It is important to interview principle sources and players, such as Pete Bagley, for matters like this. Their answers, even if deceptive (not saying they are or are not), can prove to be illuminating.

I think that if you have data backing up your position you should write an open letter or an essay dilineating your position. It is important that we have dissenting voices and critical analysis.

If you would like to write something critical on this, a good place would be Substack.  I would like to read it, even if my position now is to give Newman the benefit of the doubt.

[Richard Booth]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:05 AM, Robert Montenegro said:

Okay, at the expense of being attacked by everyone on the forum, I just have to say that the commentary Lt. James Walter McCord of the Office of Security being a KGB mole is next to being completely ludicrous.

I agree. I think that assertion sounds ridiculous. I'll have to read the updated e-book to see what he says to form any kind of more informed opinion, but on it's face it sounds crazy and I don't understand it. It goes against everything we know about McCord. 

Would be interested to see a critical analysis of the assertion, raising some of the things you raised, with footnotes and citations. For things this important to our history, essays should be done. 

[Benjamin Cole]

On 8/19/2023 at 2:06 PM, Robert Montenegro said:

 

Well, Mr. Thorne, I may do just that—however, I must stress, that my messages were friendly and concise—as a point of fact, I sent several newly-released documents concerning the intrigue of Lt. Col. McCord's activities from 1962 to 1964 and no response

And now all of this, "...Lt. Col. McCord is a KGB mole..." hoopla, is just too much—plus the usage of Tennent Harrington Bagley as a source, I do not even know how to wrap my head around that—the intrepid, departed Kevin Coogan's posthumous release, "The Spy Who Would Be Tsar: The Mystery of Michal Goleniewski and the Far-Right Underground," spent four chapters going in-depth, academically, utilizing documents, proving Mr. Bagley's claims to be false. 

 

 

 

I see, Mr. DiEugenio—in any case, despite me being a hot-head in the past, I respect your candor on this point—I just believe that we have enough documentation to being this issue to a peroration, and here we go compounding the issue with this highly suspicious information about Lt. Col. McCord—not to mention the usage of Tennent Harrington Bagley as a source—I mean, Bagley was a direct subordinate of diabolical power-players in CIA like Soviet Russian Division Chief David Murphy and the Queen of the Cold-War geopolitical chessboard himself, James Jesus Angleton!

 

 

 

Thanks, Leslie, for pointing that information out—and it isn't even a matter of the literal ten metric tonnes of documents that I have scoured to the benefit of other researchers (with no personal recognition or finacial gain on my benefit, to be sure, I just want the facts to be known), but it is true, that whenever I try to contact Maj. Newman, I am hit with a literal stonewall of silence by his handlers or I am, as you have pointed out, viciously mobbed up on because of my anti-fascist leanings.

 

And yes, I am becoming more and more hesitant to describe the hardline researchers looking into the murder of President Kennedy as a "community."

 

What type of "community" destroys it's best, brightest and most youthful?      

 

 

 

Well, Mr. DiEugenio, believe it or not, but I subscribe to the concept that elements of military intelligence and, yes, assets of "The Company" having been involved—however, as you know, I believe, with the documents I have seen, that a non-aligned, international fascist element—moving within, and without—"Western" intelligence services, with no loyalty to any nation-state, were also involved.

 

So, I guess, in a peripheral sense, Maj. Newman and I are walking parallel tracks...

 

 

 

I will say this much, Mr. Cooper, if Maj. Newman is not drawing the conclusion that Mr. Solie and Lt. Col. McCord were inadvertently placing blame on KGB for the murder of President Kennedy, I do not even see the point of bringing it up—in any case, Mr. Oswald was not a legitimate defector and he did not engage in gunfire against President Kennedy or DPD officer Tippit—ergo, the alleged phenomenon of Mr. Solie and Lt. Col. McCord being Soviet assets, is completely immaterial.

 

Simply put, Mr. Lee H. Oswald did not murder President Kennedy or Officer Tippit, so the handling of his 201-security files by alleged KGB operatives is inconsequential to the reality of who did murder President Kennedy.

 

In any case, NSA officer Maj. Newman utilizing CIA Counterintelligence officer Tennent Harrington Bagley as a primary source is like asking Joseph Goebbels about the straight-scoop concerning the "Dreyfus Affair"—it is just completely off that damn rails...

 

As for your other points, Mr. Cooper, Soviet Intelligence knew about the Lockheed U-2 "Dragon Lady" as early was 1956, with the overflight programs from British airspace:

• https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB434/docs/U2 - Chapter 3.pdf

 

Mr. Oswald gave them nothing of any use, as the flight of Capt. Francis Gary Powers was sabotaged in order to force a retreat of US détente from the "Paris Summit." 

 

And yes, Mr. Cooper, the CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Mervin Bissell Jr. oversaw the sabotaging of Capt. Powers' flight.

 

 

 

Well, Mr. Thorne, I postulate the following theorems:

 

1. The CIA's Office of Security, Chief of Research Staff, Brig. Gen. Paul Francis Gaynor suspected that both Mr. Solie & Lt. Col. McCord were moles, and forced them to handle Mr. Oswald's 201-file, to the effect of neutralizing both men after Mr. Oswald is blamed for the murder of President Kennedy.

 

—OR—

 

2. Neither Mr. Solie or Lt. Col. McCord are real moles, and are instead pretending to be moles, so they can create the narrative that their handling of Mr. Lee H. Oswald's file puts the blame of the murder of President Kennedy firmly at the doorstep of Soviet intelligence.

 

Either way, Mr. Thorne, the effect was a diabolically chilling one—the Soviet Union was to be slated as the responsible party in President Kennedy's murder.

 

Still, I stand my ground in stating that anyone utilizing CIA Counterintelligence officer Tennent Harrington Bagley as a primary source has completely forfeited any credibility, whatsoever.

 

  

RM-

I appreciate your documents work. 

"I believe, with the documents I have seen, that a non-aligned, international fascist element—moving within, and without—"Western" intelligence services, with no loyalty to any nation-state, were also involved."--RM

This may be, although it it hard to know if the fascists, Nazis, and ex-Nazis, even if they were involved, were but mere cat's paws for the globalist imperatives in Washington. (Also, the JFKA may have been just two Cubanos from Miami, convincing LHO to participate in a false flag op, my pet theory). 

More importantly, placing the JFKA in context, it was globalists deposing JFK to maintain the worldwide US military and diplomatic presence, and prevent sensible non-interventionism on the part of the US. Globalists care little about ideology, and only about access to markets, resources and cheap labor. 

From the days of Smedley Butler through the 1960s, the globalists were mostly the resource companies, that is agriculture and mineral/oil extraction. 

That, it turns out, was the small potatoes days. 

Today we see companies such as Apple (market cap $3 trillion, with a "t") and BlackRock ($10 trillion under management), Disney, NBC-Universal, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GM, Microsoft, et al working globally, with huge exposure to Beijing and the CCP, and globally as well.

The globalist imperative is not ideology, but access to cheap labor, compliant government, resources and markets.

So, doing business with Beijing-CCP is fine and dandy.

There is a forest of DC think tanks, organizations, academics, foundations, lobbyists, journalists, lawyers  preserving this globalist imperative, as well as the Pentagon and related intel agencies.  

In this larger view, the immediate postwar international fascists (Nazis) are, well, interesting, but unimportant.  

IMHO, we have seen four US presidents deposed in the postwar era: JFK, Nixon, Carter and Trump. I am not sure what happened to Nixon, but the other three all ran afoul of globalist imperatives. 

Sad to say, the even more-powerful present-day successors to the 1960s globalists who deposed JFK are alive and well in Washington, running both major US parties, and in firm control of the federal government and mass media. 

Still, the work you are doing on the postwar Nazis inside US intel is of great interest and perhaps of historical importance. 

But why the JFKA matters today...think about the globalists and all the wars the US has been in, from Vietnam, to Iraq, to Afghanistan---is there a square inch of the planet, or a government, that someone in DC will not declare as "crucially strategic"?  

 

[Joseph Backes]

17 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

Thank you for posting, Joe.  Great to see John Newman given a long-form platform to talk about his important work without too many newbie questions thrown at him, though there were a few here. 

I get the impression the host went out to dinner with Newman (Newman mentions that once) and may have probably had a long discussion with the host to go over some of the details before the show.

John Newman is a national treasure and I think this is an example of how the long-form 3 hour podcast format is so great. John got to present a lot of details here. 

I believe John has posted on Facebook that there was even more to the podcast and he's working on bringing more information out.

[Joseph Backes]

I don't know why it's so hard to conceive of McCord taking money from the Soviets.  There is an abundance of evidence of hard Right-wing Republicans taking money from Russia today.  Anyone remember Rep. Dana Rohrabacher? see - A GOP Congressman Received “Sensitive Documents” From Russian Officials in 2016. 

Another example see 2018 DMN article - How Putin's oligarchs funneled millions into GOP campaigns

Anyway, Wikipedia's entry for McCord mentions how he rose to become director of the CIA's Office of Security. And the citation for that is, I think, an odd one, namely Edmund Callis Berkeley (1972). Computers and Automation. Edmund C. Berkeley and Associates.

I always think of Richard E Sprague ( the good Richard Sprague of the HSCA days ) when I hear of Computers and Automation. 

Here is the referred to issue - http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/magazines/Computers_And_Automation/197208.pdf

At the time, 1972, of this issue McCord was working for Nixon's Committee to Re-elect the President, known as CREEP. He was making $1209 a month, which was $14,508 a year back then. Google says to multiple that by 7.31  Today that would be $106,053.48. 

Things to remember he was involuntarily retired from CIA in August 1970, well before Watergate. See - https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10224-10006.pdf

McCord had a military permit for a special passport while he was living in Frankfurt, Germany 1954 to 1956. See 104-10224-10006. He certainly would have been a target for recruitment by the KGB around the time. 

 

I eagerly await what John will have for us in the digital update to his Popov book.  

Joe