My Amazon review of John M. Newman's "Uncovering Popov's Mole"

[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!  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]

Forget Tom's nonsense.

Dear Fancy-Pants Lance,

What "nonsense"?

-- Tom

[Benjamin Cole]

Yes, AFAICT, Marchetti never published his suspicions regarding that LHO was being run by a KGB asset or mole inside the CIA.

Marchetti related those suspicions to author Popkin five decades before Newman published his work.

JFKA researchers have been diligently scouring CIA files for decades. And yet...some say LHO was not a CIA asset (such as Larry Hancock) and others say LHO might have been a de facto KGB asset (Newman). 

My take away: We still don't know what was LHO's relationship to the CIA, who, if anyone was directing him, and what role he played in the JFKA.

[Tom Graves]

Yes, AFAICT, Marchetti never published his suspicions regarding that LHO was being run by a KGB asset or mole inside the CIA.

Marchetti related those suspicions to author Popkin five decades before Newman published his work.

JFKA researchers have been diligently scouring CIA files for decades. And yet...some say LHO was not a CIA asset (such as Larry Hancock) and others say LHO might have been a de facto KGB asset (Newman). 

My take away: We still don't know what was LHO's relationship to the CIA, who, if anyone was directing him, and what role he played in the JFKA.

We do know, however, that someone in a position of authority in the Office of Security's mole-hunting Security Research Division arranged in advance, with the Records Integration Division and the Office of Mail Logistics, for all of the expected incoming non-CIA cables (e.g., from State's Richard Snyder at the U.S. Embassy, the Naval Attaché at the U.S. Embassy, and the Navy Department in Washington) on Oswald's upcoming defection to not be sent to where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division -- but to the aforementioned Office of Security's mole-hunting Security Research Division -- where its Chief, Paul Gaynor was busy with projects BLUEBIRD and ARTICHOKE and where his Deputy Chief was probable KGB "mole" Bruce Leonard Solie (who later "cleared" false or rogue defector KGB Major I mean Lt. Col. I mean Captain Yuri Nosenko in October 1968, who helped another probable "mole," Leonard V. McCoy, "lose" former Soviet destroyer captain Nicholas Shadrin to KGB kidnappers in Vienna in 1975, and who withheld OS documents on LHO from the Church Committee in 1975-76, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.).

[Michael T. Griffith]

In his book, Newman points out that when his colleague, British JFK assassination researcher and National Archives habitué, Malcolm Blunt, showed Bagley some CIA documents in 2012 or so that Bagley hadn't been privy to in 1959-60, Bagley realized that Oswald had to have been a "witting defector," i.e., that Oswald was knowingly sent to Moscow by the CIA. What Newman . . . has shown us is that he probably wasn't sent there by the CIA proper, but by a KGB-controlled part of it.

Just so I'm clear on what you're saying, let me ask you this: Are you saying that Oswald was a CIA dangle and that Oswald knew he was being sent to Russia by the CIA as a dangle?

If so, you are (1) rejecting a key tenet of the lone-gunman theory, i.e., that Oswald was not an intelligence operative and that he was a genuine defector, and (2) at least implying that Oswald's professed Marxism was part of his cover.

[Tom Graves]

Just so I'm clear on what you're saying, let me ask you this: Are you saying that Oswald was a CIA dangle and that Oswald knew he was being sent to Russia by the CIA as a dangle?

If so, you are (1) rejecting a key tenet of the lone-gunman theory, i.e., that Oswald was not an intelligence operative and that he was a genuine defector, and (2) at least implying that Oswald's professed Marxism was part of his cover.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

There's nothing to preclude Oswald's believing he was being sent by the regular CIA on an exciting "I Led Three Lives" kinda mission (which he may have thought he could "penetrate"!!!), being jerked around by both the KGB-controlled CIA and the regular KGB, getting fed up with being used as a pawn in an impenetrable chess game by those two organizations (and perhaps by the KGB-penetrated FBI as well!!!), and either trying to kill General Walker (and actually kill JFK) at the encouragement of at least one of those organizations, or . . . gasp . . . striking out and doing it on his own widdle self-described Marxist former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator volition.

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Comrade Griffith,

There's nothing to preclude Oswald's believing he was being sent by the regular CIA on an exciting "I Led Three Lives" kinda mission, being jerked around by both the KGB-controlled CIA and the regular KGB, getting fed up with being used as a pawn in an unintelligible chess game by those two organizations and, perhaps, the KGB-penetrated FBI, as well, and either trying to kill General Walker (and actually killing JFK) at the encouragement of at least one of those organizations, or . . . gasp . . . striking out and doing it all by him widdle self-described Marxist, former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator self. -- Tom

Yeah, I figured you would come up with some nonsensical, convoluted scenario to neuter and trivialize your admission. Yet, even in your specious scenario, Oswald was an intelligence operative.

BTW, Oswald was not a "sharpshooter" by any standard definition of the term. "Sharpshooter" was the name that the Marine Corps and the other Service branches used for the second category of rifle qualification. Many new recruits who had never fired a rifle before in their lives managed to qualify in that category. I saw this with my own eyes when I went through Army basic training.

On his very best day at the range, Oswald barely managed to qualify in the Sharpshooter category. He was firing with a semi-automatic rifle, so he had no bolt action that he had to work between shots. He was firing at targets that he had already practiced against. And he was firing from a level position and with ample elbow room, and not through a half-open window in a cramped space.

Do you know what happened when the WC had three Master-rated riflemen use the alleged murder rifle in a test to try to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat? They failed miserably, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, even though they were firing at stationary targets, and even though they could take as much time as they wanted for their first shot.

[Tom Graves]

Yeah, I figured you would come up with some nonsensical, convoluted scenario to neuter and trivialize your admission. Yet, even in your specious scenario, Oswald was an intelligence operative.

BTW, Oswald was not a "sharpshooter" by any standard definition of the term. "Sharpshooter" was the name that the Marine Corps and the other Service branches used for the second category of rifle qualification. Many new recruits who had never fired a rifle before in their lives managed to qualify in that category. I saw this with my own eyes when I went through Army basic training.

On his very best day at the range, Oswald barely managed to qualify in the Sharpshooter category. He was firing with a semi-automatic rifle, so he had no bolt action that he had to work between shots. He was firing at targets that he had already practiced against. And he was firing from a level position and with ample elbow room, and not through a half-open window in a cramped space.

Do you know what happened when the WC had three Master-rated riflemen use the alleged murder rifle in a test to try to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat? They failed miserably, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, even though they were firing at stationary targets, and even though they could take as much time as they wanted for their first shot.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

(How much does Vladimir Putin pay you, anyway?)

One of Oswald's former Marine colleagues (whose name escapes me at the moment) revealed about ten years ago that Oswald was a very good shot from all but the standing firing position.

Have you seen his shooting results in his Marine Corps "score book" that was auctioned off for about $50K a few years ago?

Regardless, do you think his second and third shots from the Sniper's Nest window were particularly difficult -- even if he used his short-rifle's iron sights -- given the fact that he took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots in that echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza?

-- Tom