Has Forum member Bill Simpich analyzed this anti-Bagley / anti-Newman rant yet?

[Tom Graves]

When the following rant was posted at another forum a couple of months ago, Bill Simpich said he'd look into the dude's allegations.

How's it coming along, Bill?

My comments are in brackets.
. . . . . . .

Why do [JFK assassination conspiracy theorists] trust the anecdotal words of Tennent H. ["Pete"] Bagley, CIA Chief of Counterintelligence, Soviet Russian Division (C/SR/CI), a man whose job it was, literally, on 22 November 1963, was to provide cover stories, false identities, and related false documents, for GLADIO-esque, "stay-behind" agents, operating behind enemy lines, in the USSR, and the Soviet-bloc countries?!

I mean, what gives?

Is there not one researcher on this forum that can make the logical shuffle to dictate, that if Mr. Oswald was some sort of long-range reconnaissance "asset" for Western Intelligence -- collecting technical information about Soviet electronic radio facilities, I assume  -- going into the Soviet Union, wouldn't Tennent Bagley be the man who knew that information on 22 November 1963?

[My comment: British researcher and National Archives denizen Malcolm Blunt befriended Bagley in 2008 and showed him some FOIA documents Bagley hadn't been privy to in 1959-60 / 1978. Those docs convinced him that James Angleton's confidant, mentor and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Leonard Solie in the Office of Security, may have been a KGB "mole." Based on the fact that all of the incoming non-CIA cables on Oswald's defection were routed to Solie's office rather than to where they should have gone -- the Soviet Russia Division -- and based on the fact that Solie tried to talk W. David Slawson into letting false KGB defector Yuri Nosenko testify to the Warren Commission, John Newman has carried it a step farther and now theorizes that Solie was not only a mole, but sent (or duped James Angleton into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Oswald) planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA.]

As for United States Army, "sheep-dipped," senior National Security Agency officer, Maj. John Newman, taking everything CIA counterintelligence commander Tennent Bagley anecdotally shared with him over the years as fait accompli, well shoot, shouldn't there be a whole army of researchers demanding proof -- documents -- proving the claims that Bagley allegedly made to Maj. Newman?

Of course, just as a cheap aside, the "Executive Action" capability of CIA in 1963, was hidden within a joint CIA-NSA, code breaking program called ZRRIFLE.

Never mind that Maj. Newman worked in a senior leadership, support position, for the director of the NSA -- you know, that organization that hide the existence of CIA assassination operations within its own communication intercept operations.

Well, does anybody have the cojones to debate this?

Why do we trust Tennent H. Bagley, CIA Chief of Counterintelligence, Soviet Russian Division (C/SR/CI)?

And if JFK murder researchers do not trust him, why is NSA operative Maj. John M. Newman [author of "Oswald and the CIA" and "Uncovering Popov's Mole," etc] tolerated?

I should note, Bagley wasn't just CIA Chief of Counterintelligence, Soviet Russian Division (C/SR/CI) on 22 November 1963.

He was also Acting Director of the entire CIA Soviet Russian Branch on 22 November 1963!

[Lance Payette]

To be clear, you are quoting Robert Montenegro, whose intensive research seems to be pretty well respected at the Ed Forum. On that thread, Simpich in his only post said in December that he would be conferring with Robert. On April 16, Robert made his final post expressing disgust with Simpich and Newman. He said they had spoken via Zoom and seemed to feel their only interest was in ferreting out whether he could blow Newman's latest Solie work out of the water. What was heartening to me was the number of Ed Forum regulars, including Michael Griffith, who expressed skepticism about Newman. Michael described Newman's JFKA research as "abysmal."

Here's the entire cheerful thread: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30999-tennent-h-bagley-cia-chief-of-counterintelligence-soviet-russian-division-csrci%E2%80%94why-is-he-trusted-by-nsa-officer-maj-john-m-newman/ Robert's April 16th post ("There was no god damn mole") is on page 17. (I'm not endorsing Robert, but he does seem to at least do actual, original research.)

Your theory puts an awful lot of faith in an 83-year-old Bagley, two obsessive researchers, and their spin on documents that do not necessarily require that spin. I know next to nothing about the mole issue, but I did spend a great deal of time on the HTLINGUAL mail intercept program and am satisfied all the Oswald speculation is much ado about nothing.

[Tom Graves]

To be clear, you are quoting Robert Montenegro, whose intensive research seems to be pretty well respected at the Ed Forum. On that thread, Simpich in his only post said in December that he would be conferring with Robert. On April 16, Robert made his final post expressing disgust with Simpich and Newman. He said they had spoken via Zoom and seemed to feel their only interest was in ferreting out whether he could blow Newman's latest Solie work out of the water. What was heartening to me was the number of Ed Forum regulars, including Michael Griffith, who expressed skepticism about Newman. Michael described Newman's JFKA research as "abysmal."

Here's the entire cheerful thread: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30999-tennent-h-bagley-cia-chief-of-counterintelligence-soviet-russian-division-csrci%E2%80%94why-is-he-trusted-by-nsa-officer-maj-john-m-newman/ Robert's April 16th post ("There was no god damn mole") is on page 17. (I'm not endorsing Robert, but he does seem to at least do actual, original research.)

Your theory puts an awful lot of faith in an 83-year-old Bagley, two obsessive researchers, and their spin on documents that do not necessarily require that spin. I know next to nothing about the mole issue, but I did spend a great deal of time on the HTLINGUAL mail intercept program and am satisfied all the Oswald speculation is much ado about nothing.

Dear Lance,

This is what Bill Simpich posted on Montenegro's thread on 18 December 2024:

Robert M. and I are going to huddle in a study group on McCord, Bagley, and Prouty and discuss the stories about each of them for the next three weeks during the holidays. When we come up for air we will let you all know what our perspectives are regarding these men. Until then, we ask that you keep us out of the mix for the moment and let us do some studying. Thanks!

. . . . . . .

A Question for Lance:

Has Bill posted his thoughts, yet, on the issue Montenegro raised a couple of months ago (and whose brother was murdered since then): "Shouldn't we demonize evil, evil, evil former NSA officer Newman for trusting evil, evil, evil former CIA officer Bagley?" (paraphrased) at the so-called JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum?

On16 April Montenegro said in so many words that Simpich and Newman ganged up on him and tried to extract precious "intel" from him.

You're absolutely correct -- Montenegro's research is "pretty well respected" by all the CIA-haters who dominate there.

In my humble opinion, he's a real "hoot"!!!

What do you know about Tennent H. "Pete" Bagley, anyway?

I'm guessing diddly squat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennent_H._Bagley

-- Tom

PS Here's Montenegro's most recent post from a couple of weeks ago.

MY COMMENTS ARE IN BRACKETS.

There was no god-damn mole. Mr. Angleton concocted the mole as a way of covering up the Dulles brothers (and the corporatists they worshiped) self-serving, fascist operations against democratically-elected leaders and his own disposal issues with former Third Reich functionaries that were no longer of any use to CIA proper. I spoke directly to Bill Simpich and Maj. John Newman over a Zoom chat, a few weeks before my older brother James was murdered in January (my brother's murder being the primary reason why I have dropped all of my research in the past eleven weeks). Neither man, Mr. Simpich or Maj. Newman, could hold a candle to my primary-source documentation I have developed on [possible KGB "mole"] Lt. Col. James Walter McCord, [misguided CIA Counterintelligence analyst] Clare Edward Petty, & [probable KGB "mole"] George Kisevalter. Hell, at one point, Maj. Newman was literally stuttering and drooling at the mouth, he was so mad that I had shut-down all of his, ah-hem, "research," on Bruce L. Solie. It is my considered, no-so-humble opinion, that neither Mr. Simpich or Maj. Newman ever had any intention of debating me in a public setting. In effect, they "probed" me. That is to say, Mr. Simpich & Maj. Newman were never on the "up-and-up"—they only wanted to know what information I had, and if I was going to present a viable counter-narrative to Maj. Newman's up-coming book. Of course, the forces who murdered my brother James, neutralized any further inquires I intended to entertain on this issue. I will remind everyone on this forum that Maj. John Newman was the Special Assistant to the Director, NSA, in the 1980's. That was the same position that William King Harvey placed Frank Byron Rowlett in the NSA, when Mr. Rowlett was Mr. Harvey's executive liaison to ZRRIFLE in 1963. Simply put, Maj. Newman may have been one of the commanders of ZRRIFLE-type assassination operations for Western Intelligence throughout the late-stages of the "Cold War." And of course, almost as soon as I grilled Maj. Newman on these issues, my oldest and closest friend, James Edward Montenegro—my dear older brother—was brutally murdered. I have nothing else to say on these matters—the end of all things is coming very soon. I'm gonna go have a good time before the missiles start flying. Godspeed and may God pity you all.