TG has apparently spoken. Did he say anything I should know?
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
