JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Anyone but Tom understand what the "KGB stuff" is all about?
Lance Payette:
Hey, hey, hey, people, Serious Researcher Lance has done what we serious researcher types do: I went to the Ed Forum and quickly skimmed all 405 posts in which the term "Bagley" is mentioned. I even found a few by me, in which I (in 2018) apparently knew more about this Bagley-Nosenko-KGB stuff than I recall now. I pointed out that the CT enthusiasm for Bagley seems almost entirely to relate to his very latter-day revelations to Blunt and Newman that Oswald was a "witting asset" of the CIA, which he (Bagley) seemed to know nothing about while he was employed by the CIA or, indeed, until he encountered Blunt at age 85.
Overall, the enthusiasm for Bagley at the Ed Forum was distinctly muted. Some enthusiasm, yes (on the part of "witting asset" fans), but little for the Monster Plot and even considerable skepticism that Bagley himself was a disinformation agent. My skepticism relates primarily to the reality that (1) he had pretty obvious monetary incentives for the bombshells he revealed long after he had been given the boot by the CIA, and (2) it's pretty easy to view those bombshells as late-in-life grudge-settling efforts. But I digress ...
What I found was the VERY FIRST thread in which TG floated his "KGB stuff." It was in 2018, and he called it a "Theory in Progress." The responses were not kind. Jim Di dismissed it as "Tommy's mole madness." Kirk G. said any KGB theory was way out of the ballpark because the Soviets had "no motive." But I disgress again ...
The value is that TG actually explained his fledgling theory fairly succinctly, as set forth below. I now understand the Trump tie-in. It seems goofy to me, but at least I understand it.
Here ya go, from the keyboard of TG in 2018:
Now let me ask YOU a question:
*IF* there was a mole or a network of embedded KGB-types, would they have been willing to kill JFK (or any other U.S. president for that matter) if they had been instructed by their KGB / GRU handler(s) to do so, to enable ever-increasing KGB / GRU influence on our country through "active measures counterintelligence operations" (which started in 1921) and "strategic deception operations" (which started in 1959), thereby giving rise to paralyzing, cancer-like propaganda and disinformation (e.g., "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK," and "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK via the 'Harvey & Lee and Two Marguerites Program,'" and "The evil, evil CIA and the Mafia ... ")?
So that, you know, ..... EVENTUALLY a Russian Mafia-compromised (and therefore eminently blackmail-able) anti-NATO "useful idiot" like Donald James Trump could be installed as our president?
(Or do you believe that some disgruntled DNC or NSA insider not only hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails, but gave said e-mails to Julian Assange and DNCLeaks? And that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are just an evil, evil CIA "cover story" or "fantasy"?)
LOL
-- Tommy
PS: I would suggest that pieces of the puzzle lie in Bill Simpich's "State Secret," John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA," and Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's "Wedge".
Still, someone needs to clarify for me: First, what did the KGB gain by offing JFK in favor of LBJ? Second, if the KGB had been almost fantastically successful over a period of more than 100 years in virtually deconstructing America, culminating in the election of a left-leaning president like Obama and the candidacies of lefties like Hillary and Kamala, why would said KGB have done an about-face and blessed us with The Donald? Why would Hillary, Biden and Harris not have meshed perfectly with the deconstruction of America via the continuing long march through the institutions? If the KGB actually thought installing The Donald would advance their deconstruction agenda more than Hillary and Kamala, one can only conclude that, far from being supermen, they were dolts.
Is it possible I'm just not clever enough to grasp the nuances of TG's KGB stuff?
Lance Payette:
No, wait, there's more! The genesis of TG's theory actually predates the election of The Donald.
Here is TG floating his "joint KGB / CIA assassination" theory in 2012:
Did They "Do It" Together?
I mean, of course, the KGB and the CIA and the assassination of JFK, not something of a kinkier nature, you naughty boys and girls!
You know, maybe they had some common "vested interests" --- that sort of thing?
Or, maybe it was a case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, and we'll both get filthy rich ...
... or at least a shiny new Lada / Ferrari and a dacha / house on the Black Sea / in La Jolla!)".
--Tommy
David Josephs of Harvey & Lee fame then fleshed it out, to which TG replied "Exactly!":
Hold up a second Robert [Morrow, who had described TG's idea as having a one-in-a-trillion chance of being correct] ...
Are you trying to tell us that you cannot see how HAWKS in the KGB as well as the ruling economic elite in Russia (yes virginia, there really are wealthy people in communist nations) would not want to perpetuate the Cold War and avoid peace at all costs...? Yet you have no problem with the HAWKS of the USA, in the Military and CIA, to perpetuate the Cold War?
I think you are missing the role of the emerging global corporations, financed by the international banks and the benefit derived by the constant state of Cold (and Hot) War.
Billions upon billions of "officially spent money" was lost in Russia when the Cold War finally ended... Where the US government & companies just shifted focus from the WAR on Communism to the WAR on Terrorism and continued to spend accordingly, the Russian economy was corrupted by organized crime taking on all shapes and persona.
Richard Case Nagell was not even sure which side was ordering him to kill Oswald...
I believe if you step back and see the overriding focus was on MONEY and POWER... and that the groups that desired control of such things continue regardless of ideology, theology, political party or any other such nonsense... AND add that the CIA as well as a number of other agencies were choked full of "communists" who thought it crucial NEVER to give in to the USA..
It is not such a stretch to see cooperation among thieves to keep their livlihoods AND organizations intact.
To dovetail back to your thesis - LBJ - he cooperated cause of all the money involved, and his freedom. "None Dare Call It a Conspiracy" helps in this question to see that the CIA and KGD were in the same business... perpetuate the organization, protect the organization, expand the organization so that a state of fear persists and people will be more and more willing to give up personal freedoms and liberty to FEEL protected...
JFK's future dictated that these two agencies would no longer be needed - or at least be seriously curtailed... and they both knew it.
And this is why men like Dub'ya Bush do not get executed... He's one of THEM.
Now you can see where I have gone awry: Silly me thought TG's notion of the superman-level success of the KGB in deconstructing America related to the long march through the institutions and the election of lefties such as Obama, Biden, Hillary and Kamala. Silly me thought it had something to do with advancing Marxist/socialist ideology and that sort of thing. No, no, no - it was all about the Benjamins from the get-go - or at least that was the theory in 2012 - and Dubya was as much of a useful idiot as The Donald.
I can't even begin to keep this stuff straight. I won't bore you further. If it all makes sense to you, keep it to yourself because I no longer care.
Breaking news: Jim Di started a thread specifically to deal (not kindly) with TG's KGB stuff. It isn't worth reading, but at last I understand: EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENDED IN AMERICA since 1921 has been KGB-orchestrated. Trump, Biden, the collapse of the educational system, my Milwaukee Braves winning the World Series in 1957, everything. At least that narrows it down.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on January 22, 2026, 02:59:22 PM ---Hey, hey, hey, people, Serious Researcher Lance has done what we serious researcher types do: I went to the Ed Forum and quickly skimmed all 405 posts in which the term "Bagley" is mentioned. I even found a few by me, in which I (in 2018) apparently knew more about this Bagley-Nosenko-KGB stuff than I recall now. I pointed out that the CT enthusiasm for Bagley seems almost entirely to relate to his very latter-day revelations to Blunt and Newman that Oswald was a "witting asset" of the CIA, which he (Bagley) seemed to know nothing about while he was employed by the CIA or, indeed, until he encountered Blunt at age 85.
Overall, the enthusiasm for Bagley at the Ed Forum was distinctly muted. Some enthusiasm, yes (on the part of "witting asset" fans), but little for the Monster Plot and even considerable skepticism that Bagley himself was a disinformation agent. My skepticism relates primarily to the reality that (1) he had pretty obvious monetary incentives for the bombshells he revealed long after he had been given the boot by the CIA, and (2) it's pretty easy to view those bombshells as late-in-life grudge-settling efforts. But I digress ...
What I found was the VERY FIRST thread in which TG floated his "KGB stuff." It was in 2018, and he called it a "Theory in Progress." The responses were not kind. Jim Di dismissed it as "Tommy's mole madness." Kirk G. said any KGB theory was way out of the ballpark because the Soviets had "no motive." But I disgress again ...
The value is that TG actually explained his fledgling theory fairly succinctly, as set forth below. I now understand the Trump tie-in. Yeah, it's nuts, but at least I understand it. As you can see, TDS was the motivating factor from the get-go.
Here ya go, from the keyboard of TG in 2018:
Now let me ask YOU a question:
*IF* there was a mole or a network of embedded KGB-types, would they have been willing to kill JFK (or any other U.S. president for that matter) if they had been instructed by their KGB / GRU handler(s) to do so, to enable ever-increasing KGB / GRU influence on our country through "active measures counterintelligence operations" (which started in 1921) and "strategic deception operations" (which started in 1959), thereby giving rise to paralyzing, cancer-like propaganda and disinformation (e.g., "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK," and "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK via the 'Harvey & Lee and Two Marguerites Program,'" and "The evil, evil CIA and the Mafia ... ")?
So that, you know, ..... EVENTUALLY a Russian Mafia-compromised (and therefore eminently blackmail-able) anti-NATO "useful idiot" like Donald James Trump could be installed as our president?
(Or do you believe that some disgruntled DNC or NSA insider not only hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails, but gave said e-mails to Julian Assange and DNCLeaks? And that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are just an evil, evil CIA "cover story" or "fantasy"?)
LOL
-- Tommy
PS: I would suggest that pieces of the puzzle lie in Bill Simpich's "State Secret," John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA," and Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's "Wedge".
Still, someone needs to clarify for me: First, what did the KGB gain by offing JFK in favor of LBJ? Second, if the KGB had been almost fantastically successful over a period of more than 100 years in virtually deconstructing America, culminating in the election of a left-leaning president like Obama and the candidacies of lefties like Hillary and Kamala, why would said KGB have done an about-face and blessed us with The Donald? Why would Hillary, Biden and Harris not have meshed perfectly with the deconstruction of America via the continuing long march through the institutions? If the KGB actually thought installing The Donald would advance their deconstruction agenda more than Hillary and Kamala, one can only conclude that, far from being supermen, they are in fact more like - yep - the Three Stooges.
Is it possible I'm just not clever enough to grasp the nuances of TG's KGB stuff?
--- End quote ---
Dear Fancy Pants Rants,
Why didn't you include the first two sentences (in bold, below) in my reply to Sandy Larsen (RIP) on 15 January 2018 at the so-called JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum when he asked me,
Tommy,
What makes you think that a mole might have had something to do with the assassination? Or with Oswald? Or is this sheer speculation?
[Dear Sandy,]
Pure speculation in a wilderness of mirrors, Sandy.
All hypothetical at this point, but a paradigm that might help to explain some apparent anomalies ...
Now let me ask YOU a question:
IF there was a mole or a network of embedded KGB-types, would they have been willing to kill JFK (or any other U.S. president for that matter) if they had been instructed by their KGB / GRU handler(s) to do so, to enable ever-increasing KGB / GRU influence on our country through "active measures counterintelligence operations" (which started in 1921) and "strategic deception operations" (which started in 1959), thereby giving rise to paralyzing, cancer-like propaganda and disinformation (e.g., "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK," and "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK via the 'Harvey & Lee and Two Marguerites Program,'" and "The evil, evil CIA and the Mafia ... ")?
So that, you know, ..... eventually a Russian Mafia-compromised (and therefore eminently blackmail-able) anti-NATO "useful idiot" like Donald James Trump could be installed as our president?
Or do you believe that some disgruntled DNC or NSA insider not only hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails, but gave said e-mails to Julian Assange and DNCLeaks? And that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are just an evil, evil CIA "cover story" or "fantasy"?
LOL
-- Tommy
PS: I would suggest that pieces of the puzzle lie in Bill Simpich's "State Secret," John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA," and Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's "Wedge".
. . . . . . .
Fancy Pants Rants asks:
Still, someone needs to clarify for me: First, what did the KGB gain by offing JFK in favor of LBJ? Second, if the KGB had been almost fantastically successful over a period of more than 100 years in virtually deconstructing America, culminating in the election of a left-leaning president like Obama and the candidacies of lefties like Hillary and Kamala, why would said KGB have done an about-face and blessed us with The Donald? Why would Hillary, Biden and Harris not have meshed perfectly with the deconstruction of America via the continuing long march through the institutions? If the KGB actually thought installing The Donald would advance their deconstruction agenda more than Hillary and Kamala, one can only conclude that, far from being supermen, they are in fact more like - yep - the Three Stooges.
Fancy Pants Rants should google the words "riebling" "wedge" and "archive" simultaneously, click on "Full Text", then press on "ctrl" and "F" simultaneously and enter the word "sinister" in the search box and press on the down arrow a few times until he gets to "Chapter 11: Sinister Implications" and read the whole chapter, but especially the paragraph that begins with the sentence, "But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation?" and the paragraphs following it.
If Fancy Pants Rants had read my reply to Sandy Larsen more carefully, he would have realized that I'd already referred to Riebling's 1994 book, Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, and he might even have read it and actually learned something,
But I doubt it.
Fancy Pants Rants makes the brilliant observation:
[My comments are in brackets.]
The CT enthusiasm for Bagley ...
[at the CT-dominated Ed Forum]
... seems almost entirely to relate to his very latter-day revelations to Blunt and Newman that Oswald was a "witting asset"...
[sic; Bagley told Blunt that Oswald had to be a "witting defector," not a "witting asset," and did so upon reading some CIA documents that Blunt volunteered to him that he hadn't been privy to in 1959 and 1960 -- which documents showed that all of the incoming non-CIA cables on his defection were sent to Bruce Solie's office in the Office of Security instead of where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division -- suggesting that someone in Solie's office had arranged in advance with the Records Integration Division and the Office of Mail Logistics for them to be routed that way, which in turn suggests that the person who requested said rerouting knew that Oswald would be "defecting"]
... of the CIA, which he (Bagley) seemed to know nothing about while he was employed by the CIA or, indeed, until he encountered Blunt at age 85.
[sic; since Bagley was born on 11 November 1925 and met Blunt at the March 2008 Raleigh Spy Conference, he was 82 years old when he "encountered Blunt"]
Overall, the enthusiasm for Bagley at the Ed Forum was distinctly muted.
[What do you expect?]
Some enthusiasm, yes (on the part of "witting asset"...
[sic; see above]
... fans), but little for The Monster Plot and even considerable skepticism ...
[by whom?]
... that Bagley himself was a disinformation agent.
[Sounds like typical paranoia of tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists, be they far-left or far-right]
My skepticism relates primarily to the reality that (1) he had pretty obvious monetary incentives for the bombshells he revealed long after he had been given the boot by the CIA, and (2) it's pretty easy to view those bombshells as late-in-life grudge-settling efforts
[I suspect that you're projecting your character onto Bagley, Fancy Pants Rants].
-- Tom
Lance Payette:
TG has apparently spoken. Did he say anything I should know?
Discerning readers may note that I went back through all my posts on this thread and removed most of the TG-oriented snarkiness. This thread is not about TG per se, although he does seem to be the only purveyor of what I have called the KGB stuff and shall henceforth call the KGB Deconstruction of America, Including Without Limitation the JFKA. We lawyers love to say "including without limitation" almost as much as "ferret out moles."
Carry on, TG. I am forced to conclude that no one else, without limitation, has a clear grasp of what you're talking about either. I see that you appear to still be an active member at the Ed Forum, albeit limited to two posts per day. Perhaps you could reintroduce the KGB stuff there and see if anyone bites.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on January 22, 2026, 05:59:11 PM ---TG has apparently spoken. Did he say anything I should know?
--- End quote ---
Dear Fancy Pants Rants,
Knowing you, you'll get so antsy that you'll have to read this:
Why didn't you include the first two sentences (in bold, below) in my reply to Sandy Larsen (RIP) on 15 January 2018 at the so-called JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum when he asked me,
Tommy,
What makes you think that a mole might have had something to do with the assassination? Or with Oswald? Or is this sheer speculation?
[Dear Sandy,]
Pure speculation in a wilderness of mirrors, Sandy.
All hypothetical at this point, but a paradigm that might help to explain some apparent anomalies ...
Now let me ask YOU a question:
IF there was a mole or a network of embedded KGB-types, would they have been willing to kill JFK (or any other U.S. president for that matter) if they had been instructed by their KGB / GRU handler(s) to do so, to enable ever-increasing KGB / GRU influence on our country through "active measures counterintelligence operations" (which started in 1921) and "strategic deception operations" (which started in 1959), thereby giving rise to paralyzing, cancer-like propaganda and disinformation (e.g., "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK," and "The evil, evil CIA killed JFK via the 'Harvey & Lee and Two Marguerites Program,'" and "The evil, evil CIA and the Mafia ... ")?
So that, you know, ..... eventually a Russian Mafia-compromised (and therefore eminently blackmail-able) anti-NATO "useful idiot" like Donald James Trump could be installed as our president?
Or do you believe that some disgruntled DNC or NSA insider not only hacked the DNC's and Podesta's e-mails, but gave said e-mails to Julian Assange and DNCLeaks? And that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are just an evil, evil CIA "cover story" or "fantasy"?
LOL
-- Tommy
PS: I would suggest that pieces of the puzzle lie in Bill Simpich's "State Secret," John Newman's "Oswald and the CIA," and Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's "Wedge".
. . . . . . .
Fancy Pants Rants asks:
Still, someone needs to clarify for me: First, what did the KGB gain by offing JFK in favor of LBJ? Second, if the KGB had been almost fantastically successful over a period of more than 100 years in virtually deconstructing America, culminating in the election of a left-leaning president like Obama and the candidacies of lefties like Hillary and Kamala, why would said KGB have done an about-face and blessed us with The Donald? Why would Hillary, Biden and Harris not have meshed perfectly with the deconstruction of America via the continuing long march through the institutions? If the KGB actually thought installing The Donald would advance their deconstruction agenda more than Hillary and Kamala, one can only conclude that, far from being supermen, they are in fact more like - yep - the Three Stooges.
Fancy Pants Rants should google the words "riebling" "wedge" and "archive" simultaneously, click on "Full Text", then press on "ctrl" and "F" simultaneously and enter the word "sinister" in the search box and press on the down arrow a few times until he gets to "Chapter 11: Sinister Implications" and read the whole chapter, but especially the paragraph that begins with the sentence, "But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation?" and the paragraphs following it.
If Fancy Pants Rants had read my reply to Sandy Larsen more carefully, he would have realized that I'd already referred to Riebling's 1994 book, Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, and he might even have read it and actually learned something,
But I doubt it.
Fancy Pants Rants makes the brilliant observation:
[My comments are in brackets.]
The CT enthusiasm for Bagley ...
[at the CT-dominated Ed Forum]
... seems almost entirely to relate to his very latter-day revelations to Blunt and Newman that Oswald was a "witting asset"...
[sic; Bagley told Blunt that Oswald had to be a "witting defector," not a "witting asset," and did so upon reading some CIA documents that Blunt provided to him that he hadn't been privy to in 1959 and 1960 -- which documents showed that all of the incoming non-CIA cables on Oswald's defection were sent to Bruce Solie's office in the Office of Security instead of where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division -- suggesting that someone in Solie's office had arranged in advance with the Records Integration Division and the Office of Mail Logistics for them to be routed that way, which in turn suggests that the person who requested said rerouting knew in advance that Oswald would be "defecting"]
... of the CIA, which he (Bagley) seemed to know nothing about while he was employed by the CIA or, indeed, until he encountered Blunt at age 85.
[sic; since Bagley was born on 11 November 1925 and met Blunt at the March 2008 Raleigh Spy Conference, he was 82 years old when he "encountered Blunt"]
Overall, the enthusiasm for Bagley at the Ed Forum was distinctly muted.
[What do you expect?]
Some enthusiasm, yes (on the part of "witting asset"...
[sic; see above]
... fans), but little for The Monster Plot and even considerable skepticism ...
[How many and whom?]
That Bagley himself was a disinformation agent.
[Sounds like typical paranoia of tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists, be they far-left or far-right]
My skepticism relates primarily to the reality that (1) he had pretty obvious monetary incentives for the bombshells he revealed long after he had been given the boot by the CIA, and (2) it's pretty easy to view those bombshells as late-in-life grudge-settling efforts
[I suspect that you're projecting your character onto Bagley, Fancy Pants Rants].
-- Tom
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version