JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
My Amazon review of John M. Newman's "Uncovering Popov's Mole"
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Benjamin Cole on September 08, 2025, 05:43:24 AM ---Long story short, I am a pensioner, and recently Thai-US governments took away mobile banking capacities from pensioners.
The concern (I think) is that pensioners have died, and relatives/people are still collecting the money. I have to physically visit my bank, show passport, to withdraw funds. And so on.
--- End quote ---
I guess I won't be relocating to Thailand, then.
I just now reedited my post a bit as regards Priscilla Johnson, so you may want to reread it.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Benjamin Cole on September 08, 2025, 01:39:39 AM ---
From Victor Marchetti long time ago:
“A May 15, 1973, memo in the files of researcher Richard Popkin recounts a conversation with former CIA official Victor Marchetti in which Marchetti reportedly offered "a theory he claimed to have heard that fits with his own picture of the chaos in the CIA; namely that the KGB has infiltrated the CIA and the CIA has infiltrated the KGB so it is impossible at the present stage to tell who is who (he mentioned a case of having been sent to meet somebody and being shown all sorts of identification and then being totally unable to tell whether he was dealing with a U.S. or Russian agent). Marchetti thinks it is the KGB branch of the CIA that killed Kennedy and that the U.S. CIA is too embarrassed to investigate and reveal the real state of affairs."
--- End quote ---
Me: Is it true that Victor Marchetti thought that a KGB-controlled part of the CIA killed JFK and that the regular CIA was too embarrassed to investigate and reveal the true state of affairs?
ChatGPT said:
Victor Marchetti — who had been an executive assistant to CIA Deputy Director Rufus Taylor before resigning in 1969 and later becoming a public critic of the Agency — did indeed suggest that the Kennedy assassination might have been tied to a KGB penetration of the CIA.
My comment: Rufus Tayor, the DDCI who chose probable KGB mole Bruce Solie to "review" the Nosenko case?
That Rufus Taylor?
LOL!
Here’s the relevant outline of what Marchetti said:
In interviews during the 1970s, Marchetti speculated that the CIA had been penetrated by the KGB at a very high level, and that this penetration might have played a role in the Kennedy assassination.
He suggested that if a KGB-controlled faction inside the CIA was responsible for JFK’s murder, the "regular" CIA would have had an overwhelming institutional interest in covering it up.
Marchetti argued that the CIA’s subsequent failures to fully investigate (or its tendency to suppress inconvenient lines of inquiry) stemmed less from direct culpability than from fear of exposure of how badly compromised the Agency might have been.
His public comments came in the broader context of the Angleton molehunt, Golitsyn’s warnings, and later debates about Yuri Nosenko — all tied to the possibility that Soviet intelligence had manipulated the CIA at crucial moments in the early 1960s.
So, yes — it is accurate that Marchetti floated the idea that a KGB-directed element inside CIA engineered the assassination, and that the rest of CIA, rather than confront the possibility, “looked the other way” out of embarrassment and institutional self-preservation.
Would you like me to pull together direct citations from Marchetti’s writings/interviews (e.g., The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, his Spotlight interview, and later HSCA-related commentary) so you can see exactly how he phrased it?
You said:
Yes, please.
ChatGPT said:
Here’s what I found regarding Victor Marchetti’s public claims about a possible KGB-influenced faction within the CIA being responsible for JFK’s assassination, and whether he suggested the CIA covered it up due to embarrassment.
What Victor Marchetti Actually Said
1. Article in The Spotlight (1978)
In August 1978, Marchetti published an article in The Spotlight (a publication of the Liberty Lobby) focusing on the JFK assassination.
He claimed that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that implicated CIA operatives—specifically E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and Gerry Patrick Hemming—in plotting the assassination. Marchetti also cited Marita Lorenz’s supposed sworn testimony supporting this claim.
The HSCA publicly stated it had not received any such memo and officially rejected theories that Hunt or those individuals were involved.
Wikipedia
Spartacus Educational
In 1981, Hunt sued Marchetti (and The Spotlight) for defamation and was awarded $650,000.
Wikipedia
In 1985, Marchetti admitted that significant parts of the article were based on unverified rumors he heard from Penthouse columnist Bill Corson, and that he had no independent corroboration.
Wikipedia
2. No Public Evidence of “KGB-Controlled CIA” or Internal Embarrassment Theory
I could not find any credible record of Marchetti making the specific claim that a KGB-controlled faction within the CIA killed JFK, nor that the "regular" CIA suppressed an investigation out of embarrassment over that infiltration.
His more prominent and documented theories revolved around organized crime, CIA operatives, and unverified documents—none of which involve a purported Soviet takeover of a CIA faction.
3. Relevant Context from Broader Research
KGB “active measures” included spreading conspiracy theories that the CIA was behind the assassination, but this refers to Soviet disinformation campaigns—not Marchetti’s own argument that the KGB penetrated the CIA.
Independent historical investigations (e.g., the Warren Commission and HSCA) found no credible evidence of a KGB penetration of that magnitude or a CIA faction involved in JFK’s death. These remain fringe or unsubstantiated theories.
Summary Table
Marchetti claimed a KGB-controlled CIA faction killed JFK Not supported by sources found No such statement found in his published writings or interviews.
Marchetti said “regular” CIA was too embarrassed to investigate Not supported by sources found No evidence he linked CIA embarrassment to suppressing investigation.
Marchetti claimed HSCA had memo naming CIA agents. Published in The Spotlight (1978), later retracted/unverified.
Marchetti based article on rumors from Bill Corson. Admitted lack of corroboration in 1985.
Final Thoughts
Victor Marchetti did promote conspiracy theories involving CIA operatives and unverified documents regarding JFK’s assassination. However:
There's no reliable source showing he presented a theory about a KGB-controlled part of the CIA carrying out the assassination.
There’s also no indication he claimed the rest of the CIA covered it up due to embarrassment.
Most of Marchetti’s JFK-related claims were legally challenged, based on hearsay, and remain highly speculative.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Ellis J. Grant on September 08, 2025, 05:17:21 PM ---Good afternoon,
Fourteen out of how many? Is that going to be a static number do you suppose? Is your review biased in any way? I am thinking about getting the book. Have you read it through thoroughly? What did you think of it? Details. Discuss.
--- End quote ---
I already have.
Read the review a few more times and follow this thread if you want to.
You might to warm up, though, by reading Bagley's book "Spy Wars" and his follow-up article, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," for free by googling "spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously and "ghosts of the spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously.
Lance Payette:
Forget Tom's nonsense. Here's my two-star Amazon review of JFK: Public Private Secret. The author relies on Jim DiEugenio as an "acclaimed historian." BWAHAHA! :D :D :D The review is scarcely up to my usual standards, but hopefully I cost them a few sales.
____________________________________________
2.0 out of 5 stars Reads more like fiction than history
Reviewed in the United States on July 26, 2025
Verified Purchase
Yes, this is interesting in a National Enquirer sort of way. However, it disconcertingly reads much more like a work of fiction than a serious historical work. I don't know how many times - but MANY - I found myself thinking, "You could not POSSIBLY know that." We are told what people said, did and were thinking in circumstances where neither the author nor anyone else could POSSIBLY know the truth. The author does not directly footnote any of these descriptions. Instead, "Sources" are described in a huge section at the end; although that section reads as though the author and his assistant spent 100,000 hours in the preparation of this book, the text itself does not inspire confidence.
The book is not, as the author admits, intended to be a biography. It jumps around chronologically in short chapters that will sometimes move forward or back years in time. I had no problem with this, as it flows well and is interesting in a National Enquirer sort of way. There were some odd lapses that leaped out at me. For example, journalist Ben Bradlee is described at one point as "at 38, five years older than Jack." Well, no, at that point Jack was 41 and in fact Bradlee was born less than a year before JFK. How do errors like this creep into a book that is purporting to be so heavily researched?
One red flag REALLY leaped out at me due to my long involvement with the assassination of JFK: A former schoolteacher who has become one of the most prominent conspiracy buffs - he believes JFK, RFK and MLK were all killed by dark and sinister Deep State conspiracies - is described as an "acclaimed historian" and is relied on extensively. Not only is this individual not an historian AT ALL, but his work is riddled with factual errors and he is "acclaimed" only by the segment of the conspiracy community that shares his Deep State perspective. (He does, however, worship - and I mean WORSHIP - JFK.) If this was the best the author could do for an "acclaimed historian," I have grave doubts about his research.
Lastly, the author's main breaking news seems to be his interviews with 100-year-old Janet DesRosiers, who apparently became Joe Kennedy's surrogate wife (literally) when he was 60 and she was 24, became accepted as a member of the family even by Rose, later resisted JFK's advances but went to work for him, and - well, you get the idea. Suffice it to say, the reader must place a GREAT deal of trust in her memories and truthfulness.
Buy it if you like - I'll admit, I enjoyed it while feeling slightly embarrassed that I did - but take it and the author's pretentions of being a serious researcher with a large grain of salt.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 08, 2025, 06:06:37 PM ---Forget Tom's nonsense.
--- End quote ---
Dear Fancy-Pants Lance,
What "nonsense"?
-- Tom
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version