Soviet File Given to Luna Proves a KGB Operation

[Tommy Shanks]

I think the true nature of the "Oswald letter" is getting lost here. This is a hugely important discovery and validates Hunt's own belief that the KGB were trying to set him up as part of the assassination team. The reason that the letter appeared to be in Oswald's handwriting is BECAUSE it was actually his handwriting - just cleverly combined into a "new" fake letter.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I think the true nature of the "Oswald letter" is getting lost here. This is a hugely important discovery and validates Hunt's own belief that the KGB were trying to set him up as part of the assassination team. The reason that the letter appeared to be in Oswald's handwriting is BECAUSE it was actually his handwriting - just cleverly combined into a "new" fake letter.

Yes, we (led by me) got side-tracked to the Belarus/KGB files and whether Oswald was used as a KGB asset. I thought that the Hunt letter was shown to be a forgery about 20-30 years ago? Or dismissed as not reliable? Seems the conspiracy crowd ignored it and they have very low standards when it comes to evidence. At least evidence they like. In any case, this should close the question. That Paese Sera disinformation about Shaw can be the next nonsense to be tossed into the garbage.

One last (hah) post about Oswald and the KGB: We've had numerous sources - defections and reports - supporting the conclusion that the KGB didn't use Oswald, that they viewed him as too risky and unreliable (Q: Has Marina been lying all of these decades? She was a KGB "swallow"?). And that Nosenko for all of his problems *was* truthful when he said this. He may or may not have been a legitimate defector (I think the evidence at this point is he was); but he was truthful when he said the KGB didn't use Oswald.

Oleg Nechiporenko, one of the KGB officers who Oswald talked to in Mexico City, said he reviewed Oswald's file in Moscow and it showed that the KGB had no interest in using Oswald. Too unreliable. He also quoted in his book "Passport to Assassination" from a report that the then head of the KGB, Vladimir Semichastny, sent to the Politburo after the assassination saying the same thing: the KGB didn't recruit Oswald. Oleg Kalugin, the head of KGB counterintelligence, said Nosenko was legitimate (he was seen as a drunken, womanizing buffoon but he was indeed an agent) and the KGB didn't use Oswald. Vitaly Yurchenko, the agent who defected and then changed his mind, said the same thing. Et cetera, et cetera.

Quotes from Semichastny's memo are here: https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12897371455/Key2b656lhgowhe/nechiporenko%20and%20semichastny.JPG

If you want to believe they all lied - Semichastny lied to Khrushchev? - and that all of the files were whitewashed and everything was faked by the "inner" KGB as part of a "Monster Plot" then, well, there's nowhere to go. Whatever evidence that is produced that shows the KGB didn't use Oswald will be viewed as evidence that they did use him. This is the "CIA killed JFK" view where everything showing they didn't kill JFK is evidence they did. Since it's all faked.

Up is down and down is up and we'll just go in circles.

[Tommy Shanks]

If you want to believe they all lied - Semichastny lied to Khrushchev? - and that all of the files were whitewashed and everything was faked by the "inner" KGB as part of a "Monster Plot" then, well, there's nowhere to go. Whatever evidence that is produced that shows the KGB didn't use Oswald will be viewed as evidence that they did use him. This is the "CIA killed JFK" view where everything showing they didn't kill JFK is evidence they did. Since it's all faked.

Up is down and down is up and we'll just go in circles.

Excellent point, Steve. I have rarely, if ever, met a JFK conspiracy theorist who is willing to admit when they're wrong and that the evidence does not support their claims. This is another example of how an entire line of thinking could easily be tossed in the trash forever, but the nutjobs at the JFK Education Forum will spin it backwards in a way they think proves their nutty beliefs.

[Tom Graves]

Yes, we (led by me) got side-tracked to the Belarus/KGB files and whether Oswald was used as a KGB asset. I thought that the Hunt letter was shown to be a forgery about 20-30 years ago? Or dismissed as not reliable? Seems the conspiracy crowd ignored it and they have very low standards when it comes to evidence. At least evidence they like. In any case, this should close the question. That Paese Sera disinformation about Shaw can be the next nonsense to be tossed into the garbage.

One last (hah) post about Oswald and the KGB: We've had numerous sources - defections and reports - supporting the conclusion that the KGB didn't use Oswald, that they viewed him as too risky and unreliable (Q: Has Marina been lying all of these decades? She was a KGB "swallow"?). And that Nosenko for all of his problems *was* truthful when he said this. He may or may not have been a legitimate defector (I think the evidence at this point is he was); but he was truthful when he said the KGB didn't use Oswald.

Oleg Nechiporenko, one of the KGB officers who Oswald talked to in Mexico City, said he reviewed Oswald's file in Moscow and it showed that the KGB had no interest in using Oswald. Too unreliable. He also quoted in his book "Passport to Assassination" from a report that the then head of the KGB, Vladimir Semichastny, sent to the Politburo after the assassination saying the same thing: the KGB didn't recruit Oswald. Oleg Kalugin, the head of KGB counterintelligence, said Nosenko was legitimate (he was seen as a drunken, womanizing buffoon but he was indeed an agent) and the KGB didn't use Oswald. Vitaly Yurchenko, the agent who defected and then changed his mind, said the same thing. Et cetera, et cetera.

Quotes from Semichastny's memo are here: https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12897371455/Key2b656lhgowhe/nechiporenko%20and%20semichastny.JPG

If you want to believe they all lied - Semichastny lied to Khrushchev? - and that all of the files were whitewashed and everything was faked by the "inner" KGB as part of a "Monster Plot" then, well, there's nowhere to go. Whatever evidence that is produced that shows the KGB didn't use Oswald will be viewed as evidence that they did use him. This is the "CIA killed JFK" view where everything showing they didn't kill JFK is evidence they did. Since it's all faked.

Up is down and down is up and we'll just go in circles.

Dear Steve M.,

You're naive if you believe Yuri Nosenko was a true defector-in-place in Geneva in June1962 and a true physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964, that Aleksei Kulak (FEDORA) really did spy for the FBI, that Igor Kochnov really did collude with the CIA and the FBI, and that Vitaliy Yurchenko was a true "but homesick" defector in 1985, etc., etc.

When are you going to get around to reading Bagley's book, "Spy Wars," his 35-page follow-up article, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and the parts about Nosenko in John M. Newman's book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole" (which he dedicated to Bagley)?

Here's my Wikipedia article on Bagley.

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


-- Tom