Disinformation in Oswald's CIA File - For molehunt purposes or for Oswald patsification purposes?

[Matt Cloud]

8 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

Matt, I appreciate you engaging me on the topic, but I have to ask - have you read my book State Secret?  Chapter 5 centers on what I call the Mexico City molehunt of 1963, chapters 3 and 4 set the context, and the last two chapters touch on the aftermath.   I would ask you to at least read Chapters 3-5.  

I do want feedback!  If you've read it, great, but I don't think there's anything "oblique" about what I wrote.

Also, I'm very sensitive to not taking over other people's threads.  Jean and Sandy's instincts are good about setting up a new thread on the setting up and removal of the FBI flash, which arguably is related to the molehunt but deserves its own analysis.

McCord also deserves his own thread.  John Newman has not finished his analysis of McCord, has written almost nothing on the subject, and I think it's best not to speculate on his views until he weighs in on the topic.

 

Bill -- I have read it, yes.  If you want to discuss what the mole-hunt means let's do it.  I do not think you've adequately done so, either in State Secrets or to the extent I have read your other works, elsewhere.  You dive-in in the middle.  You state you are are unfamiliar with Bagley.  Am I correct that you make no mention of Popov, Golitsyn and/or Nosenko?  The critique that you ask for here, and in the thread you have dedicated already to the subject of your book, can just as easily take place right here, right now.  I can guide, but you gotta ask.  It's a subject which runs throughout the cold war.  It's fundamental.

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

Bill -- I have read it, yes.  If you want to discuss what the mole-hunt means let's do it.  I do not think you've adequately done so, either in State Secrets or to the extent I have read your other works, elsewhere.  You dive-in in the middle.  You state you are are unfamiliar with Bagley.  Am I correct that you make no mention of Popov, Golitsyn and/or Nosenko?  The critique that you ask for here, and in the thread you have dedicated already to the subject of your book, can just as easily take place right here, right now.  I can guide, but you gotta ask.  It's a subject which runs throughout the cold war.  It's fundamental.

I suppose you could consider that feedback.  I see by the newly-created thread on the "FBI alert notification turn-off" or whatever it's called, you quote at length from Chapter 5.  Specifically, you raise the possibility of "... whether [the FBI] had also been tipped off that a molehunt was about to begin with Oswald's file."

What does that sentence actually mean?  What does it mean that a "molehunt is about to begin with Oswald's file?"  Can you break that out a little bit?

 

 

 

[Michael Kalin]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I wonder if Google can translate from Bombast to English? You know, for us regular folk.

Stow the provocation. Concentrate on the Mencken quote.

[Michael Kalin]

3 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

John Newman has not finished his analysis of McCord, has written almost nothing on the subject, and I think it's best not to speculate on his views until he weighs in on the topic.

Anticipation is keen -- Newman built a solid case against Solie in Uncovering Popov's Mole.

Solie's role in throwing Artamonov (Shadrin) to the Russian wolves was despicable.

[Matt Cloud]

11 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Anticipation is keen -- Newman built a solid case against Solie in Uncovering Popov's Mole.

Solie's role in throwing Artamonov (Shadrin) to the Russian wolves was despicable.

I wonder what caused Newman to take up the most sensitive issue in national security history in 2019 and pin it on Solie ....  

I wonder if ... could it be ... a parallel investigation was occurring that was uncovering someone else ... Did I wrote Morley and let him know too much -- that John McMahon's identity was at risk -- and he told Newman there's a problem and Newman stepped in to fill the void?  Hold that thought ...

 

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

9 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I wonder what caused Newman to take up the most sensitive issue in national security history in 2019 and pin it on Solie ....  

I wonder if ... could it be ... a parallel investigation was occurring that was uncovering someone else ... Did I wrote Morley and let him know too much -- that John McMahon's identity was at risk -- and he told Newman there's a problem and Newman stepped in to fill the void?  Hold that thought ...

 

 

 

Is that why Bob Baer has come out to pin post-Solie activities on Redmond.  The Case of the Fourth Man?

 

(Neither Ames, Hannsen or Howard can explain all the losses, esp. from 82-86.  I suggest everyone look up and read Mike Mattson "Counterintelligence cold case file" Intelligencer Journal Winter/Spring 2009.  There was someone above them all.)

 

 

Edited April 23 by Matt Cloud

[Paul Brancato]

9 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Is that why Bob Baer has come out to pin post-Solie activities on Redmond.  The Case of the Fourth Man?

 

(Neither Ames, Hannsen or Howard can explain the all the losses, esp. from 82-86.  I suggest everyone look up and read Mike Mattson "Counterintelligence cold case file" Intelligencer Journal Winter/Spring 2009.  There was someone above them all.)

 

 

You are referring to an article he wrote called ‘the fourth mole’? How can we access it?

 

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

You are referring to an article he wrote called ‘the fourth mole’? How can we access it?

 

You're going to have to dig a bit ... it appears to not be as readily accessible as it once was.

 

Citation:

 

Mattson, Mike. Winter/Spring 2009. “A Counterintelligence Cold Case File: The Fourth Mole.” Intelligencer Journal. Vol. 17, No. 1. 

Edited April 23 by Matt Cloud

[Paul Brancato]

I found it, but not access to read it. 
Would you mind taking some time to explain exactly what you’re thinking? Your last few posts are intriguing but I don’t know some of the references. 

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

I found it, but not access to read it. 
Would you mind taking some time to explain exactly what you’re thinking? Your last few posts are intriguing but I don’t know some of the references. 

Exactly?  It's a big story, Paul.  Over 70 years of history.  And it's getting to be my supper time.  

Besides it's not really any fun for me if I just tell you.  You'd reject it it anyway, probably.  As Deep Throat is said to have said, "I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's all."

I'm willing to go further than that; I already have.  But be specific.  Good questions get good answers, better questions get better answers, and so on.

If there's something you don't understand about something I've posted, ask.  What references, for example, didn't you get?

 

 

[Matt Cloud]

Here's a big tip but a research project to boot:  Can anyone tell me where the U-2 program and the CORONA satellite program were run out of from say 1958-1963?  It's never been declassified. 

Hint #1: It wasn't in Langley, VA.  It was in Washington, DC.  

 

Hint #2:

Yenching Palace – Washington, D.C.

 

Atlas Obscura

https://www.atlasobscura.com › places › yenching-palace

 

 

 

 

Nov 16, 2016 — It was the final meeting place in negotiations between the U.S. and Russia to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis and avoid nuclear war. As the ...

 

 

Tales From the Yenching Palace

 

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com › food › 2001/03/14

 

 

 

 

Mar 13, 2001 — The place was so central to the culture of the day that, if legend (and the Yenching menu) is to be believed, during the 1962 Cuban Missile ...

[Paul Brancato]

45 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I wonder what caused Newman to take up the most sensitive issue in national security history in 2019 and pin it on Solie ....  

I wonder if ... could it be ... a parallel investigation was occurring that was uncovering someone else ... Did I wrote Morley and let him know too much -- that John McMahon's identity was at risk -- and he told Newman there's a problem and Newman stepped in to fill the void?  Hold that thought ...

 

 

 

This post especially. 

[Matt Cloud]

14 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

This post especially. 

Ah.  Okay.  Well, since it has been shared publicly otherwise, I suppose I can share it here.  I wrote Jeff Morley the following; never heard back.  

You'll want to read what he calls the "Hardaway Declaration" -- I think he's removed it from his website (?), wherein certain notations indicate essentially that John McMahon is evidently the authorizing authority to clear (or not, as the case may be) documents for release to the HSCA in the late '70s.  

So, did Jeff Morley, upon receiving this email from me, say to someone -- John Newman for instance -- something to the effect that "we have a problem ... someone's catching on to the John McMahon issue?"  Did John Neman then step into the fray, into an area which he evidently did not intend to go before, or thought perhaps he could get around (the centrality of the mole issue to the JFKA), to close the gap, get out in front? 

I don't know.  He won't answer, either of them, via email (Morley) or on Twitter (Morley and Newman).  Interesting possibilities however seemingly triflingly "inside" -- if I may be so bold -- it may be ... 

 

 

From: Matt Cloud <[REDACTED]>
Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:17 PM
Subject: Nosenko/Yurchenko
To: <morleyj@[REDACTED]>

 

Dear Jeff Morley:

 

Regarding your question from the Deep State blog, https://jfkfacts.org/was-yuri-nosenko-a-kgb-mole/:

 

                          was Nosenko a mole? And, if so, who was he protecting?  

 

In answering those questions, I wonder whether you have considered a not-so-remarked upon thread running through the Nosenko and Yurchenko defections.  

 

The attached go toward this.  One of which is the Joannides exhibits which I realize of course you secured for release.  The other is a Washington Times article from 1985 on the Yurchenko defection having reopened the "search for CIA mole."  The connection may not be obvious -- and I apologize for being cryptic here! -- but if you would like to discuss further I have quite a bit more on the subject to say (and write).  I'm in Bethesda; please feel free to give me a call at [REDACTED].  

 

I attach, too, a recent Letter-to-the Editor of The Post by me by way of credential (which did run), however unrelated it may seem to be. 

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

Matt Cloud

Edited April 23 by Matt Cloud

[Paul Brancato]

17 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Ah.  Okay.  Well, since it has been shared publicly otherwise, I suppose I can share it here.  I wrote Jeff Morley the following; never heard back.  

You'll want to read what he calls the "Hardaway Declaration" -- I think he's removed it from his website (?), wherein certain notations indicate essentially that John McMahon is evidently the authorizing authority to clear (or not, as the case may be) documents for release to the HSCA in the late '70s.  

So, did Jeff Morley, upon receiving this email from me, say to someone -- John Newman for instance -- something to the effect that "we have a problem ... someone's catching on to the John McMahon issue?"  Did John Neman then step into the fray, into an area which he evidently did not intend to go before, or thought perhaps he could get around (the centrality of the mole issue to the JFKA), to close the gap, get out in front? 

I don't know.  He won't answer, either of them, via email (Morley) or on Twitter (Morley and Newman).  Interesting possibilities however seemingly triflingly "inside" -- if I may be so bold -- it may be ... 

 

 

From: Matt Cloud <[REDACTED]>
Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:17 PM
Subject: Nosenko/Yurchenko
To: <morleyj@[REDACTED]>

 

Dear Jeff Morley:

 

Regarding your question from the Deep State blog, https://jfkfacts.org/was-yuri-nosenko-a-kgb-mole/:

 

                          was Nosenko a mole? And, if so, who was he protecting?  

 

In answering those questions, I wonder whether you have considered a not-so-remarked upon thread running through the Nosenko and Yurchenko defections.  

 

The attached go toward this.  One of which is the Joannides exhibits which I realize of course you secured for release.  The other is a Washington Times article from 1985 on the Yurchenko defection having reopened the "search for CIA mole."  The connection may not be obvious -- and I apologize for being cryptic here! -- but if you would like to discuss further I have quite a bit more on the subject to say (and write).  I'm in Bethesda; please feel free to give me a call at [REDACTED].  

 

I attach, too, a recent Letter-to-the Editor of The Post by me by way of credential (which did run), however unrelated it may seem to be. 

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

Matt Cloud

What was the McMahon issue? 
I’ve tried to contact Newman more than once, unsuccessfully. Turf wars, closed shops. 
The article you linked by Morley indicates he wasn’t about to climb on the Tennent Bagley train. Newman certainly has, and he clearly sees Golitsyn as the real defector and Nosenko as the fake one. It’s like Angleton’s ghost with Bagley as the medium. It is interesting, as you point out, that Newman went on this tangent, and my inclination is to view him as the pied piper. 
 

[Matt Cloud]

28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

What was the McMahon issue? 

WHO IS JOHN McMAHON?

I’ve tried to contact Newman more than once, unsuccessfully. Turf wars, closed shops. 
The article you linked by Morley indicates he wasn’t about to climb on the Tennent Bagley train. THAT'S RIGHT.  Newman certainly has, and he clearly sees Golitsyn as the real defector and Nosenko as the fake one. It’s like Angleton’s ghost with Bagley as the medium. It is interesting, as you point out, that Newman went on this tangent, and my inclination is to view him as the pied piper. 
 

Let me suggest a broader perspective of understanding.

If sending out information on Oswald -- who would go on to be the alleged assassin -- among various persons and departments circa 1963 protected The Mole because it could then be said that Oswald was the mole and you missed him. does sending out information on The Mole circa today -- among various persons (Morley being but one example) and departments undue that protection because it could now be said that the recipients did not act on it?  Are you following?  Consider the counterintelligence truism that it takes a mole to catch a mole.  Has a process of reverse-disclosure been occurring, now trapping those who proclaim to want to solve the Kennedy assassination on the one hand, but cannot because doing so will reveal a bigger secret?  Something to chew-on.

 

 

 

Edited April 23 by Matt Cloud