Ernst Titovets 2024 paper "The Warren Commission's Bias and Lee Harvey Oswald"

[Benjamin Cole]

On 8/24/2024 at 3:07 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Ben - from your point of view which has Oswald as being somehow involved in the JFK plot, without referring to other researchers or theories, who is that Oswald? Is he an Intel asset with a Marxist assumed persona, or is he as his Russian friend says an earnest political left leaning idealist thinker? Or both, or something else? 

PB-

Thanks for your collegial question. 

I wish I knew. 

Tennent Bagley said that LHO was a witting asset in Russia. John Newman, who at times specializes in obscurantism, seems to think as much. 

OK, likely LHO was an intel-state asset. 

Larry Hancock may soon present a view that LHO ceased being an asset in 1963, and that LHO was an earnest Marxist/socialist. 

I wonder...if LHO's sojourn-stay to New Orleans coincided with George Joannides being there (as appears the case)...seems like LHO was still an asset into 1963, October. That's a guess. But the Bannister office? Working with customs people?  Calling the FBI when he was arrested? Just happened to be palling around with CIA asset Clay Shaw? 

My guess is the LHO meeting with Kostikov in MC was contrived. By the US intel-state. 

But...I would not like to debate Larry Hancock. He is a circumspect and careful researcher and writer. 

@Larry Hancock

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 09:48 AM by Benjamin Cole

[Robert Morrow]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PB-

Thanks for your collegial question. 

I wish I knew. 

Tennent Bagley said that LHO was a witting asset in Russia. John Newman, who at times specializes in obscurantism, seems to think as much. 

OK, likely LHO was an intel-state asset. 

Larry Hancock may soon present a view that LHO ceased being an asset in 1963, and that LHO was an earnest Marxist/socialist. 

I wonder...if LHO's sojourn-stay to New Orleans coincided with George Joannides being there (as appears the case)...seems like LHO was still an asset into 1963, October. That's a guess. But the Bannister office? Working with customs people?  Calling the FBI when he was arrested? Just happened to be palling around with CIA asset Clay Shaw? 

My guess is the LHO meeting with Kostikov in MC was contrived. By the US intel-state. 

But...I would not like to debate Larry Hancock. He is a circumspect and careful researcher and writer. 

@Larry Hancock

 

 

 

 

Let's be specific about what Tennent "Pete" Bagley was saying or implying to Malcolm Blount in 2012: Lee Harvey Oswald was an asset of the CIA. A "witting" asset of the CIA as opposed to a manipulated pawn of the CIA. That was Bagley's bottom line conclusion as Malcolm Blount was laying out the still existing Oswald paper trail.

Longtime CIA officer Pete Bagley had some very interesting things to say about Oswald to JFK researcher Malcolm Blunt in 2012: “OH NO, HE HAD TO BE WITTING!” (that is a witting, willing asset/agent of the CIA as opposed to a manipulated pawn)

QUOTE

          It was during a meeting in 2012, that the most telling moment in their relationship took place. Malcolm Blunt laid out in front of Pete Bagley, piece by piece, the documents demonstrating the capture of the Oswald paper trail by the Security Office Security Research Staff (SRS) after Oswald’s defection in 1959. Bagley carefully examined the documentation. He was especially interested in the details reported by H.C. Eisenbess in 1976, on the Office of Central Reference (OCR) dissemination of non-CIA documents - discussed at length in a previous section of this chapter.

          At this point, the same switch that had turned on in Bagley’s brain when Kondrashev told him that that the Polyakov defection sequence was no coincidence, turned on again. And so, Bagley, right out of the blue, put the following question to Blunt: “Okay, was he witting or unwitting?” Bagley knew Malcolm would have no trouble understanding who “he” [Oswald] was. Blunt replied, “You can’t ask me that question, how would I know?”

          At this and, raising his voice, Bagley responded, “No, No, you have to know! Was he witting or unwitting?” Challenged in this manner, Malcolm had little choice but to proffer a guess. With some reluctance he replied, “Okay, unwitting.” With even firmer emphasis Bagley countered, “OH NO - HE HAD TO BE WITTING!”

          Malcolm believes that these were Bagley’s thoughts that resulted from suddenly seeing the documents that had been withheld from SRD: “Yes, I think in that instant  he saw that this high school dropout, a nothing, a nobody, may have indeed been utilized.” By many observers, Pete Bagley was considered the “best counterintelligence analyst of the cold war era,” as the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence later said about him. He had served as Chief of Counterintelligence in the CIA’s Soviet Russia Division (SRD/CI) and Deputy Chief of SRD and been Nosenko’s case officer. His reaction to the documents that Blunt showed him was a telling moment. It was, as Malcolm told me and Alan Dale later, “a significant departure from Bagley’s normal cautious phrasings.”

          Bagley said nothing more at the time. When asked about no mention of Oswald in Spymaster, Malcolm recalls “he went sideways and I didn’t press him.” Malcolm’s moment with Bagley that day reminds of of the day I was sitting across the table from Jane Roman, the liaison officer for James Angleton. Just as Malcolm had done with Bagley, I was showing her documents one at a time. When I asked her what she thought of the untrue statement about the CIA paper trail on Oswald in the HQS cable to Mexico Station in October 1963, she replied: “Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis.” The chains moved down the field that moment with Roman. And they moved again during Blunt’s moment with Bagley.

UNQUOTE

[John Newman, Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume II, pp. 29-30]

Tennent H. “Pete” Bagley – CIA officer – obituary in the Washington Post – Bagley dies on Feb. 20, 2014 at the age of 88

Washington Post obituary:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tennent-h-pete-bagley-noted-cia-officer-dies-at-88/2014/02/24/b2880bf2-9d6c-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

NYT obituary - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/us/politics/tennent-h-bagley-who-aided-then-mistrusted-a-soviet-spy-dies-at-88.html

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Let's be specific about what Tennent "Pete" Bagley was saying or implying to Malcolm Blount in 2012: Lee Harvey Oswald was an asset of the CIA. A "witting" asset of the CIA as opposed to a manipulated pawn of the CIA. That was Bagley's bottom line conclusion as Malcolm Blount was laying out the still existing Oswald paper trail.

Longtime CIA officer Pete Bagley had some very interesting things to say about Oswald to JFK researcher Malcolm Blunt in 2012: “OH NO, HE HAD TO BE WITTING!” (that is a witting, willing asset/agent of the CIA as opposed to a manipulated pawn)

QUOTE

          It was during a meeting in 2012, that the most telling moment in their relationship took place. Malcolm Blunt laid out in front of Pete Bagley, piece by piece, the documents demonstrating the capture of the Oswald paper trail by the Security Office Security Research Staff (SRS) after Oswald’s defection in 1959. Bagley carefully examined the documentation. He was especially interested in the details reported by H.C. Eisenbess in 1976, on the Office of Central Reference (OCR) dissemination of non-CIA documents - discussed at length in a previous section of this chapter.

          At this point, the same switch that had turned on in Bagley’s brain when Kondrashev told him that that the Polyakov defection sequence was no coincidence, turned on again. And so, Bagley, right out of the blue, put the following question to Blunt: “Okay, was he witting or unwitting?” Bagley knew Malcolm would have no trouble understanding who “he” [Oswald] was. Blunt replied, “You can’t ask me that question, how would I know?”

          At this and, raising his voice, Bagley responded, “No, No, you have to know! Was he witting or unwitting?” Challenged in this manner, Malcolm had little choice but to proffer a guess. With some reluctance he replied, “Okay, unwitting.” With even firmer emphasis Bagley countered, “OH NO - HE HAD TO BE WITTING!”

          Malcolm believes that these were Bagley’s thoughts that resulted from suddenly seeing the documents that had been withheld from SRD: “Yes, I think in that instant  he saw that this high school dropout, a nothing, a nobody, may have indeed been utilized.” By many observers, Pete Bagley was considered the “best counterintelligence analyst of the cold war era,” as the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence later said about him. He had served as Chief of Counterintelligence in the CIA’s Soviet Russia Division (SRD/CI) and Deputy Chief of SRD and been Nosenko’s case officer. His reaction to the documents that Blunt showed him was a telling moment. It was, as Malcolm told me and Alan Dale later, “a significant departure from Bagley’s normal cautious phrasings.”

          Bagley said nothing more at the time. When asked about no mention of Oswald in Spymaster, Malcolm recalls “he went sideways and I didn’t press him.” Malcolm’s moment with Bagley that day reminds of of the day I was sitting across the table from Jane Roman, the liaison officer for James Angleton. Just as Malcolm had done with Bagley, I was showing her documents one at a time. When I asked her what she thought of the untrue statement about the CIA paper trail on Oswald in the HQS cable to Mexico Station in October 1963, she replied: “Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis.” The chains moved down the field that moment with Roman. And they moved again during Blunt’s moment with Bagley.

UNQUOTE

[John Newman, Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume II, pp. 29-30]

Tennent H. “Pete” Bagley – CIA officer – obituary in the Washington Post – Bagley dies on Feb. 20, 2014 at the age of 88

Washington Post obituary:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tennent-h-pete-bagley-noted-cia-officer-dies-at-88/2014/02/24/b2880bf2-9d6c-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

NYT obituary - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/us/politics/tennent-h-bagley-who-aided-then-mistrusted-a-soviet-spy-dies-at-88.html

 

Well, it appears likely LHO was a witting asset.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

9 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Let's be specific about what Tennent "Pete" Bagley was saying or implying to Malcolm Blount in 2012: Lee Harvey Oswald was an asset of the CIA. A "witting" asset of the CIA as opposed to a manipulated pawn of the CIA. That was Bagley's bottom line conclusion as Malcolm Blount was laying out the still existing Oswald paper trail.

Longtime CIA officer Pete Bagley had some very interesting things to say about Oswald to JFK researcher Malcolm Blunt in 2012: “OH NO, HE HAD TO BE WITTING!” (that is a witting, willing asset/agent of the CIA as opposed to a manipulated pawn)

QUOTE

          It was during a meeting in 2012, that the most telling moment in their relationship took place. Malcolm Blunt laid out in front of Pete Bagley, piece by piece, the documents demonstrating the capture of the Oswald paper trail by the Security Office Security Research Staff (SRS) after Oswald’s defection in 1959. Bagley carefully examined the documentation. He was especially interested in the details reported by H.C. Eisenbess in 1976, on the Office of Central Reference (OCR) dissemination of non-CIA documents - discussed at length in a previous section of this chapter.

          At this point, the same switch that had turned on in Bagley’s brain when Kondrashev told him that that the Polyakov defection sequence was no coincidence, turned on again. And so, Bagley, right out of the blue, put the following question to Blunt: “Okay, was he witting or unwitting?” Bagley knew Malcolm would have no trouble understanding who “he” [Oswald] was. Blunt replied, “You can’t ask me that question, how would I know?”

          At this and, raising his voice, Bagley responded, “No, No, you have to know! Was he witting or unwitting?” Challenged in this manner, Malcolm had little choice but to proffer a guess. With some reluctance he replied, “Okay, unwitting.” With even firmer emphasis Bagley countered, “OH NO - HE HAD TO BE WITTING!”

          Malcolm believes that these were Bagley’s thoughts that resulted from suddenly seeing the documents that had been withheld from SRD: “Yes, I think in that instant  he saw that this high school dropout, a nothing, a nobody, may have indeed been utilized.” By many observers, Pete Bagley was considered the “best counterintelligence analyst of the cold war era,” as the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence later said about him. He had served as Chief of Counterintelligence in the CIA’s Soviet Russia Division (SRD/CI) and Deputy Chief of SRD and been Nosenko’s case officer. His reaction to the documents that Blunt showed him was a telling moment. It was, as Malcolm told me and Alan Dale later, “a significant departure from Bagley’s normal cautious phrasings.”

          Bagley said nothing more at the time. When asked about no mention of Oswald in Spymaster, Malcolm recalls “he went sideways and I didn’t press him.” Malcolm’s moment with Bagley that day reminds of of the day I was sitting across the table from Jane Roman, the liaison officer for James Angleton. Just as Malcolm had done with Bagley, I was showing her documents one at a time. When I asked her what she thought of the untrue statement about the CIA paper trail on Oswald in the HQS cable to Mexico Station in October 1963, she replied: “Well, to me, it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis.” The chains moved down the field that moment with Roman. And they moved again during Blunt’s moment with Bagley.

UNQUOTE

[John Newman, Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume II, pp. 29-30]

Tennent H. “Pete” Bagley – CIA officer – obituary in the Washington Post – Bagley dies on Feb. 20, 2014 at the age of 88

Washington Post obituary:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tennent-h-pete-bagley-noted-cia-officer-dies-at-88/2014/02/24/b2880bf2-9d6c-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

NYT obituary - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/us/politics/tennent-h-bagley-who-aided-then-mistrusted-a-soviet-spy-dies-at-88.html

 

Well, it appears likely LHO was a witting asset.

 

Expand  

That's fine. Maybe LHO was in fact a verifiable CIA asset on his sojourn to Russia. 

Maybe that could be verified if the Biden/Harris Administration had not done what they intend to be a permanent snuff job on the JFK Records Act. 

Maybe, maybe, maybe.