Discussion:
Nosenko Said Oswald was not Followed or
Add Reply
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-05 02:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.

He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).

Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.

Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.

The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.

This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-06 12:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
The Bagley book can be read here for free:

https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf

It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
b***@aol.com
2017-08-07 00:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
What a fine resource! The Google Books version is all but worthless
compared to this.

Appendix A has a detailed critique of Nosenko by a previous defector,
Peter Deriabin. Appendix B has a defense of Angleton. Appendix C has an
historical reflection on self-deception. _However_, always be aware that
authhor Bagley himself was CI and an admirer of Angleton. Those with an
interest in Cold War espionage will find this worthwhile reading.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-07 22:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
What a fine resource! The Google Books version is all but worthless
compared to this.
Appendix A has a detailed critique of Nosenko by a previous defector,
Peter Deriabin. Appendix B has a defense of Angleton. Appendix C has an
historical reflection on self-deception. _However_, always be aware that
authhor Bagley himself was CI and an admirer of Angleton. Those with an
interest in Cold War espionage will find this worthwhile reading.
Glad to help. It's an excellent book.

Deriabin is the KGB defector who asked some basic questions that Nosenko
couldn't answer.

Yes, Bagley's not a disinterested party here but he gives, I think, a fair
account of the "other" side on the Nosenko matter.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 02:26:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
What a fine resource! The Google Books version is all but worthless
compared to this.
Appendix A has a detailed critique of Nosenko by a previous defector,
Peter Deriabin. Appendix B has a defense of Angleton. Appendix C has an
historical reflection on self-deception. _However_, always be aware that
authhor Bagley himself was CI and an admirer of Angleton. Those with an
interest in Cold War espionage will find this worthwhile reading.
Glad to help. It's an excellent book.
Deriabin is the KGB defector who asked some basic questions that Nosenko
couldn't answer.
Couldn't or wouldn't?
Maybe he knew the guy was working for the CIA.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yes, Bagley's not a disinterested party here but he gives, I think, a fair
account of the "other" side on the Nosenko matter.
Sure. Angleton's lapdog?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 22:54:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
What a fine resource! The Google Books version is all but worthless
compared to this.
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
Post by b***@aol.com
Appendix A has a detailed critique of Nosenko by a previous defector,
Peter Deriabin. Appendix B has a defense of Angleton. Appendix C has an
historical reflection on self-deception. _However_, always be aware that
authhor Bagley himself was CI and an admirer of Angleton. Those with an
interest in Cold War espionage will find this worthwhile reading.
John McAdams
2017-08-07 23:02:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
What a fine resource! The Google Books version is all but worthless
compared to this.
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.

Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-08 16:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
What a fine resource! The Google Books version is all but worthless
compared to this.
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: If that link I gave to the Bagley book is in violation of copyright
laws then, of course, it should be deleted.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 02:23:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
What a fine resource! The Google Books version is all but worthless
compared to this.
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-09 02:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 11:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327


Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-09 11:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9 Aug 2017 07:49:19 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Are you really that naive, Tony?

Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.

And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"

It was, as Hinckle makes clear, Communist disinformation, although how
it came about is unclear.

So Tony, who thinks U.S. security agencies lie all the time, has been
suckered by Communist disinformation.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 20:04:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 07:49:19 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
Post by John McAdams
It was, as Hinckle makes clear, Communist disinformation, although how
it came about is unclear.
No, I made it clear that it was Communist disinformation and that's why it
was banned. And I explained that it was created by the KGB wing of the
SDECE. Read the old messages.
Post by John McAdams
So Tony, who thinks U.S. security agencies lie all the time, has been
suckered by Communist disinformation.
ALL US security agencies lie all the time and so do the Communists.
At least I'm not being paid to repeat those lies.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
From ***@panix.com Wed Aug 9 14:09:46 2017
Status: R
Return-Path: <***@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ***@panix.com
Delivered-To: ***@panix.com
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E032811F5A
for <***@panix.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:09:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from euclid.mscs.mu.edu (euclid.mscs.mu.edu [134.48.4.5])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D330517AAA
for <***@panix.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:09:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 29823 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2017 18:09:45 -0000
Received: from mcadams.posc.mu.edu ([134.48.30.18])
(envelope-sender <***@comcast.net>)
by euclid.mscs.mu.edu (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <***@panix.com>; 9 Aug 2017 18:09:45 -0000
To: ***@panix.com
Subject: Re: Nosenko Said Oswald was not Followed or
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
References: <cea569ab-4e3b-4459-a987-***@googlegroups.com>
<33018ca1-fd21-4695-ba4a-***@googlegroups.com>
<aa389653-c2e0-468d-8e89-***@googlegroups.com>
<59889204$***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <***@4ax.com>
<598914f6$***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <***@4ax.com>
<598a7b06$***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
<090b7807-aec4-48f1-aa1f-***@googlegroups.com>
<***@4ax.com>
From: Anthony Marsh <***@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:09:39 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <***@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.61.20.144
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.61.20.144
Message-ID: <598b4fe4$***@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1502302180 73.61.20.144 (9 Aug 2017 13:09:40 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 9 Aug 2017 13:09:40 -0500, 73.61.20.144
Lines: 66
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
Seems you extreme rightwingers will believe any lie that Trump says.
So you believe his lie that Ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald to
kill President Kennedy?
Again, what is that called when you are paid to spread Trump lies?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-09 20:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9 Aug 2017 16:04:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 07:49:19 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
So you really believe that promotional material for a book is a
reliable source?

Do you have *any* evidence it was actually banned?

Did you read Hinckle's account?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
You define "restructed," since you believe it was.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It was, as Hinckle makes clear, Communist disinformation, although how
it came about is unclear.
No, I made it clear that it was Communist disinformation and that's why it
was banned. And I explained that it was created by the KGB wing of the
SDECE. Read the old messages.
You have no evidence it was banned.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
So Tony, who thinks U.S. security agencies lie all the time, has been
suckered by Communist disinformation.
ALL US security agencies lie all the time and so do the Communists.
At least I'm not being paid to repeat those lies.
Nobody would pay you for the nonsense you post.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
No, it was a blurb on a book that contained essays by several people,
including Obama.

If you believe a mere comment on Amazon, why don't you believe the
blurb on the book?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Seems you extreme rightwingers will believe any lie that Trump says.
So you believe his lie that Ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald to
kill President Kennedy?
Again, what is that called when you are paid to spread Trump lies?
What is it called when you utterly fail to get the point?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-10 02:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 16:04:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 07:49:19 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
So you really believe that promotional material for a book is a
reliable source?
Who said promotional material? You?
Like the blurb you posted about Obama. Do you think Obama wrote that or
one of you extreme rightwing nuts wrote it?
Post by John McAdams
Do you have *any* evidence it was actually banned?
Yes.
Post by John McAdams
Did you read Hinckle's account?
Yes, Jeez, we've been over this hundreds of times.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
You define "restructed," since you believe it was.
No, I said restricted means things you did not know about.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It was, as Hinckle makes clear, Communist disinformation, although how
it came about is unclear.
No, I made it clear that it was Communist disinformation and that's why it
was banned. And I explained that it was created by the KGB wing of the
SDECE. Read the old messages.
You have no evidence it was banned.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
So Tony, who thinks U.S. security agencies lie all the time, has been
suckered by Communist disinformation.
ALL US security agencies lie all the time and so do the Communists.
At least I'm not being paid to repeat those lies.
Nobody would pay you for the nonsense you post.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
No, it was a blurb on a book that contained essays by several people,
including Obama.
Not legit. Just more rightwing propaganda. Who wrote it? Breitbart?
Post by John McAdams
If you believe a mere comment on Amazon, why don't you believe the
blurb on the book?
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Seems you extreme rightwingers will believe any lie that Trump says.
So you believe his lie that Ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald to
kill President Kennedy?
Again, what is that called when you are paid to spread Trump lies?
What is it called when you utterly fail to get the point?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-10 02:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9 Aug 2017 22:40:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 16:04:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
So you really believe that promotional material for a book is a
reliable source?
Who said promotional material? You?
Like the blurb you posted about Obama. Do you think Obama wrote that or
one of you extreme rightwing nuts wrote it?
A publicist for his publisher wrote it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Do you have *any* evidence it was actually banned?
Yes.
Then what is your evidence!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Did you read Hinckle's account?
Yes, Jeez, we've been over this hundreds of times.
Then you should have noticed that the book was not "banned."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
You define "restructed," since you believe it was.
No, I said restricted means things you did not know about.
But the book did not have any "restricted information." It was
disinformation, something you have admitted.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
It's a genuine thing. Which does not mean it's correct.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
No, it was a blurb on a book that contained essays by several people,
including Obama.
Not legit. Just more rightwing propaganda. Who wrote it? Breitbart?
A publicist for Obama's publisher, Acton & Dystel.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
If you believe a mere comment on Amazon, why don't you believe the
blurb on the book?
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Seems you extreme rightwingers will believe any lie that Trump says.
So you believe his lie that Ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald to
kill President Kennedy?
Again, what is that called when you are paid to spread Trump lies?
What is it called when you utterly fail to get the point?
Tony is utterly unable to get the point.

Here is the full explanation:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp

Note the blurb about Obama is genuine, but mistaken.

And Breitbart, which published it, never embraced the "birther"
nonsense.

But Tony, who thinks everybody to the right of center is some sort of
Nazi, assumed it did.

That's because Tony is a 60s leftist who has not learned anything
since.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jason Burke
2017-08-10 18:54:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 22:40:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 16:04:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
So you really believe that promotional material for a book is a
reliable source?
Who said promotional material? You?
Like the blurb you posted about Obama. Do you think Obama wrote that or
one of you extreme rightwing nuts wrote it?
A publicist for his publisher wrote it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Do you have *any* evidence it was actually banned?
Yes.
Then what is your evidence!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Did you read Hinckle's account?
Yes, Jeez, we've been over this hundreds of times.
Then you should have noticed that the book was not "banned."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
You define "restructed," since you believe it was.
No, I said restricted means things you did not know about.
But the book did not have any "restricted information." It was
disinformation, something you have admitted.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
It's a genuine thing. Which does not mean it's correct.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
No, it was a blurb on a book that contained essays by several people,
including Obama.
Not legit. Just more rightwing propaganda. Who wrote it? Breitbart?
A publicist for Obama's publisher, Acton & Dystel.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
If you believe a mere comment on Amazon, why don't you believe the
blurb on the book?
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Seems you extreme rightwingers will believe any lie that Trump says.
So you believe his lie that Ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald to
kill President Kennedy?
Again, what is that called when you are paid to spread Trump lies?
What is it called when you utterly fail to get the point?
Tony is utterly unable to get the point.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Note the blurb about Obama is genuine, but mistaken.
And Breitbart, which published it, never embraced the "birther"
nonsense.
But Tony, who thinks everybody to the right of center is some sort of
Nazi, assumed it did.
That's because Tony is a 60s leftist who has not learned anything
since.
Or prior to...
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-10 18:54:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 16:04:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 07:49:19 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
So you really believe that promotional material for a book is a
reliable source?
Who said promotional material? You?
Like the blurb you posted about Obama. Do you think Obama wrote that or
one of you extreme rightwing nuts wrote it?
Post by John McAdams
Do you have *any* evidence it was actually banned?
Yes.
Post by John McAdams
Did you read Hinckle's account?
Yes, Jeez, we've been over this hundreds of times.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
You define "restructed," since you believe it was.
No, I said restricted means things you did not know about.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It was, as Hinckle makes clear, Communist disinformation, although how
it came about is unclear.
No, I made it clear that it was Communist disinformation and that's why it
was banned. And I explained that it was created by the KGB wing of the
SDECE. Read the old messages.
You have no evidence it was banned.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
So Tony, who thinks U.S. security agencies lie all the time, has been
suckered by Communist disinformation.
ALL US security agencies lie all the time and so do the Communists.
At least I'm not being paid to repeat those lies.
Nobody would pay you for the nonsense you post.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
No, it was a blurb on a book that contained essays by several people,
including Obama.
Not legit. Just more rightwing propaganda. Who wrote it? Breitbart?
Post by John McAdams
If you believe a mere comment on Amazon, why don't you believe the
blurb on the book?
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-11 01:41:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 16:04:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 07:49:19 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
So you really believe that promotional material for a book is a
reliable source?
Who said promotional material? You?
Like the blurb you posted about Obama. Do you think Obama wrote that or
one of you extreme rightwing nuts wrote it?
Post by John McAdams
Do you have *any* evidence it was actually banned?
Yes.
Post by John McAdams
Did you read Hinckle's account?
Yes, Jeez, we've been over this hundreds of times.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
You define "restructed," since you believe it was.
No, I said restricted means things you did not know about.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It was, as Hinckle makes clear, Communist disinformation, although how
it came about is unclear.
No, I made it clear that it was Communist disinformation and that's why it
was banned. And I explained that it was created by the KGB wing of the
SDECE. Read the old messages.
You have no evidence it was banned.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
So Tony, who thinks U.S. security agencies lie all the time, has been
suckered by Communist disinformation.
ALL US security agencies lie all the time and so do the Communists.
At least I'm not being paid to repeat those lies.
Nobody would pay you for the nonsense you post.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
No, it was a blurb on a book that contained essays by several people,
including Obama.
Not legit. Just more rightwing propaganda. Who wrote it? Breitbart?
Post by John McAdams
If you believe a mere comment on Amazon, why don't you believe the
blurb on the book?
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
John McAdams
2017-08-11 01:46:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10 Aug 2017 21:41:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
I cited Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp

I don't know why you won't admit that that blurb appeared. It's
wrong, and Brietbart (which you hate) clearly said Obama was born in
Hawaii.

But all you posting really amounts to you spewing hatred toward those
who disagree with your politics.

And you have produced no evidence that "Farewell America" was ever
banned.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-11 14:01:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 10 Aug 2017 21:41:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
I cited Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
I don't know why you won't admit that that blurb appeared. It's
wrong, and Brietbart (which you hate) clearly said Obama was born in
Hawaii.
But all you posting really amounts to you spewing hatred toward those
who disagree with your politics.
And you have produced no evidence that "Farewell America" was ever
banned.
As I said before, you admitted that your source was Brietbart. Maybe I
hate them because they are racist Nazis. It doesn't look good for you to
be quoting them. Or Trump. If you don't care about your reputation or
dignity, keep it up.

Yes, I admit that I hate Nazis.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-11 14:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11 Aug 2017 10:01:47 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 10 Aug 2017 21:41:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
I cited Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
I don't know why you won't admit that that blurb appeared. It's
wrong, and Brietbart (which you hate) clearly said Obama was born in
Hawaii.
But all you posting really amounts to you spewing hatred toward those
who disagree with your politics.
And you have produced no evidence that "Farewell America" was ever
banned.
As I said before, you admitted that your source was Brietbart.
Brietbard and Snopes agreed on this.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe I
hate them because they are racist Nazis.
And what is the evidence they are racist Nazis?

I know! The same source that says "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S. One you can't produce.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It doesn't look good for you to
be quoting them. Or Trump. If you don't care about your reputation or
dignity, keep it up.
Irony alert!

Tony, who calls everybody who disagrees with him politically a "Nazi,"
talks about "dignity."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, I admit that I hate Nazis.
And you think everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-12 15:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 11 Aug 2017 10:01:47 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 10 Aug 2017 21:41:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
I cited Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
I don't know why you won't admit that that blurb appeared. It's
wrong, and Brietbart (which you hate) clearly said Obama was born in
Hawaii.
But all you posting really amounts to you spewing hatred toward those
who disagree with your politics.
And you have produced no evidence that "Farewell America" was ever
banned.
As I said before, you admitted that your source was Brietbart.
Brietbard and Snopes agreed on this.
Explain again why you think Brietbart and Snopes are reliable sources.
Just because they are extreme rightwingers?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe I
hate them because they are racist Nazis.
And what is the evidence they are racist Nazis?
The type of propaganda that they put out. Like Trump claiming that Obama
was born in Kenya, not the US?
Post by John McAdams
I know! The same source that says "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S. One you can't produce.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It doesn't look good for you to
be quoting them. Or Trump. If you don't care about your reputation or
dignity, keep it up.
Irony alert!
Tony, who calls everybody who disagrees with him politically a "Nazi,"
talks about "dignity."
False. Not everybody.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, I admit that I hate Nazis.
And you think everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
False.
You object to my hating Nazis. Why? Why do you want to defend Nazis?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-13 03:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Aug 2017 11:03:24 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
I cited Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
I don't know why you won't admit that that blurb appeared. It's
wrong, and Brietbart (which you hate) clearly said Obama was born in
Hawaii.
But all you posting really amounts to you spewing hatred toward those
who disagree with your politics.
And you have produced no evidence that "Farewell America" was ever
banned.
As I said before, you admitted that your source was Brietbart.
Brietbard and Snopes agreed on this.
Explain again why you think Brietbart and Snopes are reliable sources.
Just because they are extreme rightwingers?
Snopes is liberal.

And Snopes had a *picture* of the promotional booklet that claimed
Obama was born in Kenya.

I don't think you got the point, which was that not everything in
print is to be believed.

But you never get the point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe I
hate them because they are racist Nazis.
And what is the evidence they are racist Nazis?
The type of propaganda that they put out. Like Trump claiming that Obama
was born in Kenya, not the US?
Brietbart never claimed that.

And Trump claiming that doesn't make him a racist Nazi.

It does make him a bit of a crackpot. Like a fair number of people
here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
I know! The same source that says "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S. One you can't produce.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It doesn't look good for you to
be quoting them. Or Trump. If you don't care about your reputation or
dignity, keep it up.
Irony alert!
Tony, who calls everybody who disagrees with him politically a "Nazi,"
talks about "dignity."
False. Not everybody.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, I admit that I hate Nazis.
And you think everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
False.
You object to my hating Nazis. Why? Why do you want to defend Nazis?
See?

Anybody who disagrees with you politics you call a Nazi.

That's as bad as right wingers who call everybody they disagree with a
communist.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 12 Aug 2017 11:03:24 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
I cited Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
I don't know why you won't admit that that blurb appeared. It's
wrong, and Brietbart (which you hate) clearly said Obama was born in
Hawaii.
But all you posting really amounts to you spewing hatred toward those
who disagree with your politics.
And you have produced no evidence that "Farewell America" was ever
banned.
As I said before, you admitted that your source was Brietbart.
Brietbard and Snopes agreed on this.
Explain again why you think Brietbart and Snopes are reliable sources.
Just because they are extreme rightwingers?
Snopes is liberal.
And Snopes had a *picture* of the promotional booklet that claimed
Obama was born in Kenya.
I don't think you got the point, which was that not everything in
print is to be believed.
But you never get the point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe I
hate them because they are racist Nazis.
And what is the evidence they are racist Nazis?
The type of propaganda that they put out. Like Trump claiming that Obama
was born in Kenya, not the US?
Brietbart never claimed that.
And Trump claiming that doesn't make him a racist Nazi.
It does make him a bit of a crackpot. Like a fair number of people
here.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
I know! The same source that says "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S. One you can't produce.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It doesn't look good for you to
be quoting them. Or Trump. If you don't care about your reputation or
dignity, keep it up.
Irony alert!
Tony, who calls everybody who disagrees with him politically a "Nazi,"
talks about "dignity."
False. Not everybody.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, I admit that I hate Nazis.
And you think everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi.
False.
You object to my hating Nazis. Why? Why do you want to defend Nazis?
See?
Anybody who disagrees with you politics you call a Nazi.
No. Some are Nazis, some are kooks.
Post by John McAdams
That's as bad as right wingers who call everybody they disagree with a
communist.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-11 17:05:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 16:04:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 9 Aug 2017 07:49:19 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Are you really that naive, Tony?
Amazon just posts the promotional material from the book's publisher.
Nice slander. Unproven. And you just post what fellow cover-up artists
say.
So you really believe that promotional material for a book is a
reliable source?
Who said promotional material? You?
Like the blurb you posted about Obama. Do you think Obama wrote that or
one of you extreme rightwing nuts wrote it?
Post by John McAdams
Do you have *any* evidence it was actually banned?
Yes.
Post by John McAdams
Did you read Hinckle's account?
Yes, Jeez, we've been over this hundreds of times.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And do you really believe it "it bristled with restricted
information?"
Define restricted? You mean things that you never knew before and the WC
withheld.
You define "restructed," since you believe it was.
No, I said restricted means things you did not know about.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
It was, as Hinckle makes clear, Communist disinformation, although how
it came about is unclear.
No, I made it clear that it was Communist disinformation and that's why it
was banned. And I explained that it was created by the KGB wing of the
SDECE. Read the old messages.
You have no evidence it was banned.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
So Tony, who thinks U.S. security agencies lie all the time, has been
suckered by Communist disinformation.
ALL US security agencies lie all the time and so do the Communists.
At least I'm not being paid to repeat those lies.
Nobody would pay you for the nonsense you post.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.
No, it was a blurb on a book that contained essays by several people,
including Obama.
Not legit. Just more rightwing propaganda. Who wrote it? Breitbart?
Post by John McAdams
If you believe a mere comment on Amazon, why don't you believe the
blurb on the book?
WHat blurb on the book? Something you made up from your imagination?
You're losing it, Anthony. And it's a sad thing to watch.
McAdams just proved my point for me. He cited Brietbart.
Keep telling yourself you're relevant, while all you do is provide us with
a few laughs.
OHLeeRedux
2017-08-09 17:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
John McAdams
2017-08-09 17:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)

Loading Image...

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 20:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
It is a Review on Amazon, not from the dust jacket.
You asked me to source it so I did.
Post by John McAdams
Here is a piece of dust jacket information that Tony probably doesn't
believe. :-)
I don't even know if that is a genuine book or just some Brietbart hoax.
You don't cite a reputable source.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc4191/Craig/Obama-Closeup-2.png
Where did you find this crap? Another Trump lie.

Seems you extreme rightwingers will believe any lie that Trump says. So
you believe his lie that Ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald to kill
President Kennedy?

Again, what is that called when you are paid to spread Trump lies?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 20:05:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 8 Aug 2017 22:23:03 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 7 Aug 2017 18:54:34 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, is that because it is Canadian and bypasses US laws? I had to go to
Canada to get the book Farewell America because it was banned in the US.
That's untrue.
Go down to the end of this chapter from "If You Have a Lemon, Make
Lemonade."
http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellhinckle.html
I know all about that. We've been over this before.
Then why are you still saying the book was banned, when Hinckle makes
it clear that it wasn't?
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule
(America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in
Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination
of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published
critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of
the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests,
the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international
petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and
Mafia chieftains against JFK. <P>A combination of these powerful interests
called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting
the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and
the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies
of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their
interests by John and Robert Kennedy. <P>Heady stuff for 1968. So
incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was
squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America
wasn't just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled
with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White
House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to
have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence.
It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French
government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential
elections.
Yes, Anthony. Dust jacket hype is a reliable source of information.
[snicker] But we know that's the best you can do.
WHo said it was from the dust jacket? It was a review on the Amazon web
site.

https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-07 14:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
Doesn't Bagley argue that the KGB sent Oswald to assassinate President
Kennedy?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
Something like that. Tradecraft. Do you dispute that Nosenko was a KGB
agent? Not even Golitsyn went THAT far. He just called him a dispatched
agent. Well, technically he was, but he did not lie. He only told was he
was allowed to know.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-08 16:21:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
Doesn't Bagley argue that the KGB sent Oswald to assassinate President
Kennedy?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
Something like that. Tradecraft. Do you dispute that Nosenko was a KGB
agent? Not even Golitsyn went THAT far. He just called him a dispatched
agent. Well, technically he was, but he did not lie. He only told was he
was allowed to know.
Nosenko said that he was in charge of the Oswald case from the very
beginning; that is when Oswald first arrived in Moscow in 1959 and asked
for asylum. He said that before Oswald's arrival the KGB had no knowledge
about Oswald at all. He said he personally ordered that Oswald not be
allowed to stay, that he viewed Oswald as worthless and that Oswald be
told that if he wanted to stay he'd have to apply using the normal
procedures, e.g., visit the Consular office of Soviet Embassy in
Washington, et cetera. But after Oswald tried to kill himself - and
promised that he would if refused entry - that Nosenko was overruled out
of a fear that there'd be an international incident and Oswald was allowed
to stay.

His HSCA testimony is here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=252&search=Yuri_Nosenko#relPageId=5&tab=page

So, if his account was accurate he wasn't allowed to see the Oswald file
AFTER the assassination as some sort of coordinated plan by the KGB to
clear themselves of any involvement in the assassination. He knew about
Oswald from 1959 onward, from the start. In fact, he also said that he
personally turned down Oswald's request for a visa when he, Oswald, went
to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and asked for one.

No, I think he was an agent but I can see why Bagley and Angleton et al.
considered him a plant.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 12:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/government_information/intelligence_and_espionage/Spy.Wars.pdf
Doesn't Bagley argue that the KGB sent Oswald to assassinate President
Kennedy?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
It wasn't the lunch room, it was the restaurants and facilities inside KGB
headquarters. Nosenko reportedly couldn't provide answers to basic
questions like how to write a cable, et cetera.
Something like that. Tradecraft. Do you dispute that Nosenko was a KGB
agent? Not even Golitsyn went THAT far. He just called him a dispatched
agent. Well, technically he was, but he did not lie. He only told was he
was allowed to know.
Nosenko said that he was in charge of the Oswald case from the very
beginning; that is when Oswald first arrived in Moscow in 1959 and asked
for asylum. He said that before Oswald's arrival the KGB had no knowledge
about Oswald at all. He said he personally ordered that Oswald not be
allowed to stay, that he viewed Oswald as worthless and that Oswald be
told that if he wanted to stay he'd have to apply using the normal
procedures, e.g., visit the Consular office of Soviet Embassy in
Washington, et cetera. But after Oswald tried to kill himself - and
promised that he would if refused entry - that Nosenko was overruled out
of a fear that there'd be an international incident and Oswald was allowed
to stay.
His HSCA testimony is here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=252&search=Yuri_Nosenko#relPageId=5&tab=page
So, if his account was accurate he wasn't allowed to see the Oswald file
AFTER the assassination as some sort of coordinated plan by the KGB to
clear themselves of any involvement in the assassination. He knew about
Oswald from 1959 onward, from the start. In fact, he also said that he
personally turned down Oswald's request for a visa when he, Oswald, went
to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and asked for one.
No, I think he was an agent but I can see why Bagley and Angleton et al.
considered him a plant.
Yes, I know exactly WHY they thought that. Paranoia. They knew there was
a mole, but they didn't know who the mole was.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 22:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
Yes, they knew he was the mole and used him as the conduit to pass their
version of events to the CIA.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
Nosenko did not spend much time in HQs.
How come you don't ask about the tattoo?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
I asked my father about this and he said that although Angleton was
paranoid (that was his job) there was indeed a mole in US intelligence.
He buddy working directly for Angleton claimed that he found the mole.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-07 22:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FYI, oldies but goodies:

HSCA report on Nosenko:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81&relPageId=445&search=Yuri_Nosenko

HSCA interview: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=252&relPageId=4&search=Yuri_Nosenko

Nosenko told the HSCA that Oswald was followed and monitored when in Minsk
but it was a monthly operation - coverage for "a month and a half, take a
break, then a month and a half".

Bagley testimony: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=109752&relPageId=1&search=Bagley

Bagley's main point re Nosenko's authenticity was about the latter's claim
that the KGB never questioned/interrogated Oswald. He found that
unbelievable and evidence of Nosenko's duplicity. But Mailer and others
found out that indeed the KGB never really questioned him, that he was
considered not of interest.

One interesting claim made by Nosenko was that at the time Oswald defected
there was an American exhibit in Moscow and that the KGB was focused on
monitoring Americans with that exhibit. Oswald sort of fell through the
cracks since they were occupied with other matters. He also said Oswald,
after recovering from his first attempt, threatened to kill himself if he
was sent back to the US. That's the first I heard of that. I knew the KGB
was worried about that possibility but I wasn't aware that Oswald
explicitly threatened it.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 02:26:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81&relPageId=445&search=Yuri_Nosenko
HSCA interview: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=252&relPageId=4&search=Yuri_Nosenko
Nosenko told the HSCA that Oswald was followed and monitored when in Minsk
but it was a monthly operation - coverage for "a month and a half, take a
break, then a month and a half".
Bagley testimony: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=109752&relPageId=1&search=Bagley
Bagley's main point re Nosenko's authenticity was about the latter's claim
that the KGB never questioned/interrogated Oswald. He found that
unbelievable and evidence of Nosenko's duplicity. But Mailer and others
found out that indeed the KGB never really questioned him, that he was
considered not of interest.
Not directly. They could use cutouts the way the CIA used a fake
reporter to interview Oswald. The Intourist guide Rima Shirokova
reported to the KGB.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One interesting claim made by Nosenko was that at the time Oswald defected
there was an American exhibit in Moscow and that the KGB was focused on
monitoring Americans with that exhibit. Oswald sort of fell through the
cracks since they were occupied with other matters. He also said Oswald,
That wiould be Americans who traveled to Moscow for the exhibit. Not
defectors.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
after recovering from his first attempt, threatened to kill himself if he
was sent back to the US. That's the first I heard of that. I knew the KGB
was worried about that possibility but I wasn't aware that Oswald
explicitly threatened it.
John McAdams
2017-08-09 04:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4 Aug 2017 22:47:13 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Here is what Nosenko told Posner.

The link is flaky. You'll get a blank page, but if you go "previous"
and then "next" you will be on the page.

https://books.google.com/books?id=vV29AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT42&vq=Nosenko&pg=PT52#v=snippet&q=Nosenko&f=false

I think you also want to look up Bagley in Posner.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-09 22:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 4 Aug 2017 22:47:13 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Here is what Nosenko told Posner.
The link is flaky. You'll get a blank page, but if you go "previous"
and then "next" you will be on the page.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vV29AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT42&vq=Nosenko&pg=PT52#v=snippet&q=Nosenko&f=false
I think you also want to look up Bagley in Posner.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John: Thanks, yes I have "CC" on Kindle. I just re-read his section.
Bagley's account is, of course, different and I'm surprised Posner didn't
interview him (he was still alive at the time of CC).

Mailer interviewed a General "Marov" (pseudonym) who essentially gave the
same account that Nosenko did. That is, Oswald was viewed as a nobody - a
Marine private (they didn't know about Atsugi), unstable and erratic, and
someone that was of no use. They were worried about some sort of incident
that he might cause - a suicide - that would draw attention to themselves
and make the Soviet Union look bad.

The one thing, Mailer pointed out, that Soviet officials feared was to
draw attention to themselves. Many had gone through the Stalin years and
they learned to just be quiet.

Bagley/Angleton et al never appeared to ask themselves why the KGB would
lie about not interrogating Oswald. Just say they did a cursory
interrogation, found he had nothing of interest and moved on.
j***@gmail.com
2017-08-18 01:03:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
It is my thinking that Nosenko believed he knew all there was to know
about LHO in the USSR, but, in fact, he did not. Those above him
controlled what information Nosenko had access to, so that when he
defected, JJA and CIA would be stumped. That is just what happened,
unfortunately.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-18 17:31:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
It is my thinking that Nosenko believed he knew all there was to know
about LHO in the USSR, but, in fact, he did not. Those above him
controlled what information Nosenko had access to, so that when he
defected, JJA and CIA would be stumped. That is just what happened,
unfortunately.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Yes, but Nosenko said he handled or was in charge of the Oswald case from
the very beginning, from Oswald's arrival in the Soviet Union in 1959.
That is he was the one who, for example, who decided that Oswald couldn't
stay in the Soviet Union. And he was the person that the KGB agents
assigned to monitor Oswald would report to.

So, he was pretty much as the top of the Oswald monitoring pyramid. In
other words, he wasn't informed of this information later; he knew about
it at the time it happened.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-18 23:35:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
It is my thinking that Nosenko believed he knew all there was to know
about LHO in the USSR, but, in fact, he did not. Those above him
controlled what information Nosenko had access to, so that when he
defected, JJA and CIA would be stumped. That is just what happened,
unfortunately.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Yes, but Nosenko said he handled or was in charge of the Oswald case from
the very beginning, from Oswald's arrival in the Soviet Union in 1959.
That is he was the one who, for example, who decided that Oswald couldn't
stay in the Soviet Union. And he was the person that the KGB agents
assigned to monitor Oswald would report to.
So, he was pretty much as the top of the Oswald monitoring pyramid. In
other words, he wasn't informed of this information later; he knew about
it at the time it happened.
No. His superiors gave him the file to review and left out what they
didn't want him to know.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-19 18:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
It is my thinking that Nosenko believed he knew all there was to know
about LHO in the USSR, but, in fact, he did not. Those above him
controlled what information Nosenko had access to, so that when he
defected, JJA and CIA would be stumped. That is just what happened,
unfortunately.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Yes, but Nosenko said he handled or was in charge of the Oswald case from
the very beginning, from Oswald's arrival in the Soviet Union in 1959.
That is he was the one who, for example, who decided that Oswald couldn't
stay in the Soviet Union. And he was the person that the KGB agents
assigned to monitor Oswald would report to.
So, he was pretty much as the top of the Oswald monitoring pyramid. In
other words, he wasn't informed of this information later; he knew about
it at the time it happened.
No. His superiors gave him the file to review and left out what they
didn't want him to know.
Not according to his account. He told the CIA he handled Oswald from the
very start, when Oswald arrived in Moscow in 1959. He says he personally
turned down Oswald's request to stay at that time and he also made the
decision to turn him down when he requested a visa in 1963.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-20 13:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
It is my thinking that Nosenko believed he knew all there was to know
about LHO in the USSR, but, in fact, he did not. Those above him
controlled what information Nosenko had access to, so that when he
defected, JJA and CIA would be stumped. That is just what happened,
unfortunately.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Yes, but Nosenko said he handled or was in charge of the Oswald case from
the very beginning, from Oswald's arrival in the Soviet Union in 1959.
That is he was the one who, for example, who decided that Oswald couldn't
stay in the Soviet Union. And he was the person that the KGB agents
assigned to monitor Oswald would report to.
So, he was pretty much as the top of the Oswald monitoring pyramid. In
other words, he wasn't informed of this information later; he knew about
it at the time it happened.
No. His superiors gave him the file to review and left out what they
didn't want him to know.
Not according to his account. He told the CIA he handled Oswald from the
very start, when Oswald arrived in Moscow in 1959. He says he personally
turned down Oswald's request to stay at that time and he also made the
decision to turn him down when he requested a visa in 1963.
Not according to the KGB archives. He was only told what his superiors
wanted him to know.
Steve M. Galbraith
2017-08-20 21:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
It is my thinking that Nosenko believed he knew all there was to know
about LHO in the USSR, but, in fact, he did not. Those above him
controlled what information Nosenko had access to, so that when he
defected, JJA and CIA would be stumped. That is just what happened,
unfortunately.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Yes, but Nosenko said he handled or was in charge of the Oswald case from
the very beginning, from Oswald's arrival in the Soviet Union in 1959.
That is he was the one who, for example, who decided that Oswald couldn't
stay in the Soviet Union. And he was the person that the KGB agents
assigned to monitor Oswald would report to.
So, he was pretty much as the top of the Oswald monitoring pyramid. In
other words, he wasn't informed of this information later; he knew about
it at the time it happened.
No. His superiors gave him the file to review and left out what they
didn't want him to know.
Not according to his account. He told the CIA he handled Oswald from the
very start, when Oswald arrived in Moscow in 1959. He says he personally
turned down Oswald's request to stay at that time and he also made the
decision to turn him down when he requested a visa in 1963.
Correction: Nosenko said he didn't make the decision to turn down Oswald's
request but the Chief of Section in the department that handled defections
to do so. He was present when that decision was made.

Here's his HSCA testimony where he explains his role in handling Oswald:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=252&search=Yuri_Nosenko#relPageId=5&tab=page
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-22 11:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
spied upon when in Minsk. Yes, this is old, old stuff but still
intriguing.
He told Bagley this - his control officer - and he told the interrogators
this (at least in the latest releases I've read).
Norman Mailer went to Minsk and interviewed about a dozen KGB agents
assigned to Oswald. They watched him 24/7 for the entire period he was
there. They bugged his room, followed him around, interviewed his friends
and associates. He was treated like Trotsky returned.
Why would Nosenko say this? He told the CIA he read Oswald's entire file.
It's possible - likely - that he was given what the KGB wanted him to see;
that is a redacted file on Oswald. IOW, they knew he was providing
information to the CIA.
It is my thinking that Nosenko believed he knew all there was to know
about LHO in the USSR, but, in fact, he did not. Those above him
controlled what information Nosenko had access to, so that when he
defected, JJA and CIA would be stumped. That is just what happened,
unfortunately.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Bagley book is interesting. An ex-KGB officer who defected questioned
Nosenko and Nosenko was unable to answer basic questions. Such as where
the lunch room was in KGB headquarters, how to write a cable, et
cetera.
This was clearly more than just a paranoid Angleton seeing moles
everywhere. Nosenko may have been a legit defector but he wasn't who he
says he was. Again, old stuff but puzzling.
Yes, but Nosenko said he handled or was in charge of the Oswald case from
the very beginning, from Oswald's arrival in the Soviet Union in 1959.
That is he was the one who, for example, who decided that Oswald couldn't
stay in the Soviet Union. And he was the person that the KGB agents
assigned to monitor Oswald would report to.
So, he was pretty much as the top of the Oswald monitoring pyramid. In
other words, he wasn't informed of this information later; he knew about
it at the time it happened.
No. His superiors gave him the file to review and left out what they
didn't want him to know.
Not according to his account. He told the CIA he handled Oswald from the
very start, when Oswald arrived in Moscow in 1959. He says he personally
turned down Oswald's request to stay at that time and he also made the
decision to turn him down when he requested a visa in 1963.
Correction: Nosenko said he didn't make the decision to turn down Oswald's
request but the Chief of Section in the department that handled defections
to do so. He was present when that decision was made.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=252&search=Yuri_Nosenko#relPageId=5&tab=page
Close enough for a WC defender.

Loading...