JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 27, 2025, 03:09:48 PM
-
In 2017, the History Channel aired a seven-part documentary titled JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald produced by former CIA case officer Robert Baer. Baer and his team conducted an extensive investigation into the JFK assassination. Baer's team included a former LAPD detective (Adam Bercovici), a former FBI profiler (Steve Gomez), and a former Special Forces Army Ranger (Marty Skovlund). Baer and his team got many things wrong, but they also got many things right. WC apologists don't like Baer's documentary because it acknowledges too many facts that they reject and reaches too many conclusions that they reject, such as the following:
-- Oswald received intelligence training and had some kind of connection with the U.S. Government after he left the Marines.
-- Oswald associated with anti-Castro Cubans and even trained with them in New Orleans. Oswald also associated with Cuban intelligence operatives.
-- The owner of Henry's Market, aka Henry's Bar, in New Orleans said Oswald came to the bar many times, and that the day after the assassination two Cubans came to the bar and told him Oswald was innocent and that Oswald had been framed.
-- Oswald's job at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans was a "cover for action," that his job was a "front," a "cover." Oswald could have found a job much closer to his residence in New Orleans. Reilly's was across the street from the Crescent City Garage, which was used by federal agents as a kind of motor pool for their vehicles.
-- Adrian Alba, the owner of the Crescent City Garage, was telling the truth when he reported that he saw an FBI agent hand Oswald an envelope in front of the Reilly Coffee Company.
-- Silvia Odio told the truth when she reported that Oswald and two anti-Castro Cubans visited her residence in Dallas weeks before the assassination, and that one of the Cubans phoned her a few days later and told her that Oswald was an expert marksman and that Oswald had said that anti-Castro Cubans should have already killed JFK over the Bay of Bigs.
-- A Dallas police report noted that Oswald was seen visiting a house used by Alpha 66 members in Dallas. Alpha 66 was a violent anti-Castro and anti-JFK group. The house, located on Harlandale Avenue, was rented by Manuel Rodriguez Orcaberro, an Alpha 66 member who was known to be virulently anti-JFK.
-- Oswald was trying to reach the Harlandale house after the assassination. The bus transfer allegedly found on Oswald hours after he was arrested could have taken him to a point very close to the Harlandale house.
-- Oswald conspired with anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK. Oswald was the only shooter, but he was supported by Alpha 66 members and other anti-Castro Cubans. If Oswald had made it to the Harlandale house, Alpha 66 members would have helped him escape.
-- The Russians played no role in the assassination, and Oswald was not working for the Russians.
-- Castro was aware of the Alpha 66 plot to assassinate JFK but did nothing to stop it. He monitored it but did not intervene to prevent it.
For these and other reasons, WC apologists have been critical of Baer's documentary, even though Baer and his team argue that Oswald was the only shooter and that Oswald shot Tippit.
The documentary is available on Amazon Prime Video and on other platforms. Here are some sources on the documentary, some favorable and some unfavorable:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald
https://sofrep.com/news/sofrep-exclusive-interview-with-army-ranger-marty-skovlund-jr-from-historys-new-show-jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald/
https://time.com/4753349/oswald-kennedy-declassified-documentary/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Declassified:_Tracking_Oswald
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald-part-6
-
In 2017, the History Channel aired a seven-part documentary titled JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald produced by former CIA case officer Robert Baer. Baer and his team conducted an extensive investigation into the JFK assassination. Baer's team included a former LAPD detective (Adam Bercovici), a former FBI profiler (Steve Gomez), and a former Special Forces Army Ranger (Marty Skovlund). Baer and his team got many things wrong, but they also got many things right. WC apologists don't like Baer's documentary because it acknowledges too many facts that they reject and reaches too many conclusions that they reject, such as the following:
-- Oswald received intelligence training and had some kind of connection with the U.S. Government after he left the Marines.
-- Oswald associated with anti-Castro Cubans and even trained with them in New Orleans. Oswald also associated with Cuban intelligence operatives.
-- The owner of Henry's Market, aka Henry's Bar, in New Orleans said Oswald came to the bar many times, and that the day after the assassination two Cubans came to the bar and told him Oswald was innocent and that Oswald had been framed.
-- Oswald's job at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans was a "cover for action," that his job was a "front," a "cover." Oswald could have found a job much closer to his residence in New Orleans. Reilly's was across the street from the Crescent City Garage, which was used by federal agents as a kind of motor pool for their vehicles.
-- Adrian Alba, the owner of the Crescent City Garage, was telling the truth when he reported that he saw an FBI agent hand Oswald an envelope in front of the Reilly Coffee Company.
-- Silvia Odio told the truth when she reported that Oswald and two anti-Castro Cubans visited her residence in Dallas weeks before the assassination, and that one of the Cubans phoned her a few days later and told her that Oswald was an expert marksman and that Oswald had said that anti-Castro Cubans should have already killed JFK over the Bay of Bigs.
-- A Dallas police report noted that Oswald was seen visiting a house used by Alpha 66 members in Dallas. Alpha 66 was a violent anti-Castro and anti-JFK group. The house, located on Harlandale Avenue, was rented by Manuel Rodriguez Orcaberro, an Alpha 66 member who was known to be virulently anti-JFK.
-- Oswald was trying to reach the Harlandale house after the assassination. The bus transfer allegedly found on Oswald hours after he was arrested could have taken him to a point very close to the Harlandale house.
-- Oswald conspired with anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK. Oswald was the only shooter, but he was supported by Alpha 66 members and other anti-Castro Cubans. If Oswald had made it to the Harlandale house, Alpha 66 members would have helped him escape.
-- The Russians played no role in the assassination, and Oswald was not working for the Russians.
-- Castro was aware of the Alpha 66 plot to assassinate JFK but did nothing to stop it. He monitored it but did not intervene to prevent it.
For these and other reasons, WC apologists have been critical of Baer's documentary, even though Baer and his team argue that Oswald was the only shooter and that Oswald shot Tippit.
[...]
Comrade Griffith,
There's oodles and gobs of circumstantial evidence that Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security was a KGB mole, himself, and there is some circumstantial evidence that he sent (or duped his confidant, protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Solie) hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- which mole hunt lasted nine years, tore the Soviet Russia Division apart, and drove Angleton nuts.
If the above is true, one can only wonder how Solie and his buddies -- Nosenko-loving Leonard V. McCoy, James McCord (he of future Watergate notoriety), and Kremlin-loyal FEDORA at the FBI's NYC field office, et al., ad nauseam -- might have interjected themselves into (or outright controlled) the "Oswald In Mexico City" scenario, and even, perhaps, . . . . gasp . . . the JFK assassination.
-
Comrade Griffith,
Are you 12 or something? What kind of a juvenile mind could conclude that I am pro-Russian or pro-communist? Anyone who visits my home page will quickly see that I am staunchly anti-communist and right-of-center--and ardently anti-Russian, anti-Putin, and pro-Ukraine.
There's oodles and gobs of circumstantial evidence that Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security was a KGB mole, himself, and there is some circumstantial evidence that he sent (or duped his confidant, protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Solie) hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- which mole hunt lasted nine years, tore the Soviet Russia Division Apart, and drove Angleton nuts.
If the above is true, one can only wonder how Solie and his buddies -- Nosenko-loving Leonard V. McCoy, James McCord (he of future Watergate notoriety), and Kremlin-loyal FEDORA at the FBI's NYC field office, et al., ad nauseam -- might have interjected themselves into (or outright controlled) the "Oswald In Mexico City" scenario, and even, perhaps, . . . . gasp . . . the JFK assassination.
So you buy into the most debunked, discredited, illogical theory about the assassination: the Russians did it. There is zero evidence that the Russians had anything to do with the assassination. Khrushchev welcomed Kennedy's peace overtures and mourned his death. Khrushchev had no motive for wanting JFK dead, especially given that Kennedy's vice president, LBJ, was more hawkish and anti-Soviet.
-
What kind of a juvenile mind could conclude that I am pro-Russian or pro-communist? Anyone who visits my home page will quickly see that I am staunchly anti-communist and right-of-center--and ardently anti-Russian, anti-Putin, and pro-Ukraine.
Dear Comrade Griffith,
All JFKA CTs are "useful idiots" of the KGB* in my book. After all, they, with help from Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone, et al. ad nauseam, helped make our Body Politic sufficiently cynical, paranoiac and apathetic as to enable "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin to install The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") as our "president" on 20 January 2017.
*Today's SVR and FSB
So, you buy into the most debunked, discredited, illogical theory about the assassination: the Russians did it. There is zero evidence that the Russians had anything to do with the assassination. Khrushchev welcomed Kennedy's peace overtures and mourned his death. Khrushchev had no motive for wanting JFK dead, especially given that Kennedy's vice president, LBJ, was more hawkish and anti-Soviet.
I didn't say the Soviets did it, I just said that a probable KGB "mole" in the CIA by the name of Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) may have sent former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator Oswald to Moscow in 1959 on a different mission, the true nature of which Oswald wasn't aware of. For all I know, one of Oswald's reasons for killing JFK was that he was fed up with being jerked around by the KGB-controlled CIA and the KGB proper.
Khruschev did, however, have several reasons for killing JFK. The following excerpt is from Mark Riebling's 1994 book, "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA":
One possibility, taken seriously by Angleton and many others at CIA, was that Oswald had learned his tradecraft in Russia. A CIA report of the period asserted flatly that both Oswald and his Soviet-born wife, Marina, had been recruited by the KGB, and noted that Oswald, while living in the Soviet Union, had obtained a hunting license but never went hunting. “This would have been a good method for the KGB to meet and train him,” the report said. CIA analysts speculated that the Soviets were running a terrorist training camp in Minsk, where Oswald had lived, and considered whether he might not have been “programmed” or brainwashed by Soviet mind-control specialists using LSD. Othe questions hung unanswered: Why had Oswald maintained contact with the Soviet Embassy in Washington? What was the purpose of his contacts with Kostikov? Had he made other contacts with Kostikov, which CIA didn’t know about? Oswald had refused a lie-detector examination on those matters. That he was murdered before he could be interrogated in detail, as CIA analysts had warned, only fueled suspicion. But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy’s death that would be worth the risk of U.S. retaliation? From a pragmatic Western perspective, there seemed little profit indeed, but Angleton thought about the problem with more subtlety. First of all, the nuclear age precluded any massive U.S. retaliation — as Johnson’s craven cover-ups of all possible communist connections were already demonstrating. Second, if the Soviets had truly penetrated the Soviet Division at CIA, as Angleton believed, the KGB might even have hoped to steer U.S. investigation of the crime. As for the Soviet motive: Out was Kennedy, a charismatic leader who could “sell” a socially conscious anticommunism in the Third World and even to Western liberals. In was Johnson, who would only “heighten the contradictions” between East and West and therefore hasten (by Leninist dialectical reasoning) the ultimate collapse of late capitalism. Angleton also took seriously the observations marshaled in a November 27 memo by defector Deriabin, who cited the Kennedy administration’s opposition to long-term credits to the Soviets, which he said were vital to survival of the USSR. Johnson, by contrast, came from an agricultural state and had always supported grain sales to Russia. Moreover, Western pressure on the USSR “would automatically ease up” if the KGB murdered the president. As evidence, Deriabin noted a “conciliatory telegram” by a frightened and disoriented Lyndon Johnson to Khrushchev. A more amenable America would “strengthen Khrushchev’s hand” at a time when the Soviet leader was under intensifying internal pressures because of mismanagement of the 1963 harvest and disputes with China. Kennedy’s death, as Deriabin put it, thus “effectively diverts the Soviets’ attention from their internal problems. It directly affects Khrushchev’s longevity.” Finally, Deriabin ventured that “the death of President Kennedy, whether a planned operation or not, will serve the most obvious purpose of providing proof of the power and omniscience of the KGB.” Much later, Angleton would obliquely compare the Soviets’ probable motivation to a famous scene in Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather, in which a Mafia chieftain puts a horse’s head into the bed of a stubborn film producer, in order to demonstrate “pure power.”
-
Dear Comrade Griffith,
All JFKA CTs are "useful idiots" of the KGB in my book.
This is an absurd viewpoint and proves you are not to be taken seriously.
Using your logic, you should hold the same viewpoint about anyone who says the Moon landings really happened because the KGB/FSB/SVR also acknowledge the Moon landings really happened.
I didn't say the Soviets did it, I just said that a probable KGB "mole" in the CIA by the name of Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up) may have sent former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator Oswald to Moscow in 1959 on a different mission, the true nature of which Oswald wasn't aware of. For all I know, one of Oswald's reasons for killing JFK was that he was fed up with being jerked around by the KGB-controlled CIA and the KGB proper.
Ohl Got it! So the Soviets didn't do it, but a KGB mole may have caused Oswald to shoot JFK, and anyone who posits a conspiracy is a "useful idiot" for the KGB/FSB/SVR. Okay, thanks for sharing.
Khruschev did, however, have several reasons for killing JFK.
No, he did not. He heartily welcomed JFK's peace overtures and by June 1963 came to view JFK as an ally and friend. He deeply mourned JFK's death. Khrushchev's family later confirmed this. The idea that he would have wanted LBJ to replace JFK is ludicrous on its face.
FYI, one of the first things Bobby and Jackie Kennedy did after the assassination was to send a private message to the Soviets to assure them that they knew the Soviets were not involved in JFK's death and that JFK was killed by a domestic conspiracy.
-
The Soviets didn't do it, but a KGB mole may have caused Oswald to shoot JFK?
I said the Soviets probably didn't do it, but they may have. There's a possibility that the moles (plural) in the CIA, in conjunction with a Kremlin-loyal triple agent in the FBI and the local KGB / DGI, manipulated Oswald and/or "Oswald" in Mexico City.
One does wonder why KGB security officer Ivan Obyedkov (whom the CIA mistakenly believed it had successfully recruited) volunteered the made-radioactive-by-FEDORA* name "Kostikov" to a "forgetful" Oswald or "Oswald" over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phoneline on 10/1/63.
*FEDORA was a Kremlin-loyal triple agent by the name of KGB Major Aleksei Kulak at the FBI's NYC field office. He duped the FBI from early 1962 to 1977. FBI manager/agent James Nolan "saw the light" about the time that Edward J. Epstein published his book, "Legend," but after three years a counterintelligence-hating manager/agent by the name of James Geer, with help from "researchers" provided to him by probable KGB mole Leonard V. McCoy in the CIA, reversed Nolan's determination that Kulak was fake, and the "official" Gumshoe Bureau position today is that Kulak/FEDORA really was spying for the FBI. LOL!
Anyone who posits a conspiracy is a "useful idiot" for the KGB/FSB/SVR.
Especially a JFK assassination conspiracy theory.
A "useful idiot" is, by definition, unwitting. People who have been zombified by sixty-six years of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies are unwitting "useful idiots." Take you, for example.
Or . . . gasp . . . are you witting?
If so, does "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?
Regardless, the "KGB" no longer exists in name. To make us feel more comfortable and to get us to drop our guard, the Kremlin in 1992 renamed the KGB's two component parts (the First Chief Directorate -- foreign intelligence -- became the SVR; the Second Chief Directorate -- domestic intelligence and overall counterintelligence -- became the FSB) and did away with the overall name "KGB." Your writing it like that shows your ignorance. You should have written "SVR/FSB and GRU (military intelligence)," instead.
Khrushchev heartily welcomed JFK's peace overtures and by June 1963 came to view JFK as an ally and friend.
Analogous to how "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin views Trump as an ally and friend as he continues bombing civilians in Ukraine?
He deeply mourned JFK's death. Khrushchev's family later confirmed this.
That's what they said, so it must be true.
(LOL)
FYI, one of the first things Bobby and Jackie Kennedy did after the assassination was to send a private message to the Soviets to assure them that they knew the Soviets were not involved in JFK's death and that JFK was killed by a domestic conspiracy.
I'm sure that warmed the cockles of the Politburo's collective (pardon the pun) heart.
-
I said the Soviets probably didn't do it, but they may have. There's a possibility that the moles (plural) in the CIA, in conjunction with a Kremlin-loyal triple agent in the FBI and the local KGB / DGI, manipulated Oswald and/or "Oswald" in Mexico City.
#waffling_all_over_the_place
Especially a JFK assassination conspiracy theory. A "useful idiot" is, by definition, unwitting. People who have been zombified by sixty-six years of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies are unwitting "useful idiots."
Humm, well, that means 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world are "useful idiots."
Take you, for example. Or . . . gasp . . . are you witting? If so, does "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?
Do your parents know you're using one of their computers to post such craziness?
Analogous to how "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin views Trump as an ally and friend as he continues bombing civilians in Ukraine?
More of your juvenile silliness.
That's what they said, so it must be true. (LOL)
Uh, yeah, because his family was quite anti-Stalin and anti-hardline. They admired Kennedy, especially after his American University speech. But, I guess in your mind there were no such things as good Russians, or Russians who wanted to see the Soviet Union reform and allow more basic rights. I'm guessing you don't know that Khrushchev repeatedly tried to cut Soviet military spending and came under fierce attack from hardliners for doing so.
I'm sure that warmed the cockles of the Politburo's collective (pardon the pun) heart.
Another narrow-minded juvenile comment.
Again, you are not to be taken seriously. You come across as a troll who is obsessed with blaming everything on the Russians.
-
That means 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world are "useful idiots."
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Those who, like you, have been brainwashed by sixty-two years of KGB* disinformation via Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone, et al. ad nauseam, into believing that self-described Marxist and former sharpshooting Marine Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK, but that the evil, evil CIA, or the evil, evil Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex, or the evil, evil [fill in the blank] did sure are.
Or, OMG, are you actually working for "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin? After all, you do spend a lot of time posting here and/or at the so-called Ed Forum every day, and you do go about it with a religious zeal!
Why is it so important to you to wittingly or unwittingly spread KGB* disinfo, Comrade Griffith?
You've said that you're "right-of-center." Does that mean you're a supporter of The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx")? If so, seeing as how conspiracy theories helped "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin install him as our "president," it could explain why you're so dedicated to ensuring that tinfoil-hat JFKA CTs continue to thrive.
Please fess up Comrade Griffith!
*Today's SVR and FSB
-- Tom
-
In 2017, the History Channel aired a seven-part documentary titled JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald produced by former CIA case officer Robert Baer. Baer and his team conducted an extensive investigation into the JFK assassination. Baer's team included a former LAPD detective (Adam Bercovici), a former FBI profiler (Steve Gomez), and a former Special Forces Army Ranger (Marty Skovlund). Baer and his team got many things wrong, but they also got many things right. WC apologists don't like Baer's documentary because it acknowledges too many facts that they reject and reaches too many conclusions that they reject, such as the following:
-- Oswald received intelligence training and had some kind of connection with the U.S. Government after he left the Marines.
-- Oswald associated with anti-Castro Cubans and even trained with them in New Orleans. Oswald also associated with Cuban intelligence operatives.
-- The owner of Henry's Market, aka Henry's Bar, in New Orleans said Oswald came to the bar many times, and that the day after the assassination two Cubans came to the bar and told him Oswald was innocent and that Oswald had been framed.
-- Oswald's job at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans was a "cover for action," that his job was a "front," a "cover." Oswald could have found a job much closer to his residence in New Orleans. Reilly's was across the street from the Crescent City Garage, which was used by federal agents as a kind of motor pool for their vehicles.
-- Adrian Alba, the owner of the Crescent City Garage, was telling the truth when he reported that he saw an FBI agent hand Oswald an envelope in front of the Reilly Coffee Company.
-- Silvia Odio told the truth when she reported that Oswald and two anti-Castro Cubans visited her residence in Dallas weeks before the assassination, and that one of the Cubans phoned her a few days later and told her that Oswald was an expert marksman and that Oswald had said that anti-Castro Cubans should have already killed JFK over the Bay of Bigs.
-- A Dallas police report noted that Oswald was seen visiting a house used by Alpha 66 members in Dallas. Alpha 66 was a violent anti-Castro and anti-JFK group. The house, located on Harlandale Avenue, was rented by Manuel Rodriguez Orcaberro, an Alpha 66 member who was known to be virulently anti-JFK.
-- Oswald was trying to reach the Harlandale house after the assassination. The bus transfer allegedly found on Oswald hours after he was arrested could have taken him to a point very close to the Harlandale house.
-- Oswald conspired with anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK. Oswald was the only shooter, but he was supported by Alpha 66 members and other anti-Castro Cubans. If Oswald had made it to the Harlandale house, Alpha 66 members would have helped him escape.
-- The Russians played no role in the assassination, and Oswald was not working for the Russians.
-- Castro was aware of the Alpha 66 plot to assassinate JFK but did nothing to stop it. He monitored it but did not intervene to prevent it.
For these and other reasons, WC apologists have been critical of Baer's documentary, even though Baer and his team argue that Oswald was the only shooter and that Oswald shot Tippit.
The documentary is available on Amazon Prime Video and on other platforms. Here are some sources on the documentary, some favorable and some unfavorable:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald
https://sofrep.com/news/sofrep-exclusive-interview-with-army-ranger-marty-skovlund-jr-from-historys-new-show-jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald/
https://time.com/4753349/oswald-kennedy-declassified-documentary/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Declassified:_Tracking_Oswald
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald-part-6
Interesting series.
They made a convincing argument based on the bus routes in 1963 that Oswald was attempting to go to the alleged Alpha 66 house in Dallas before the Tippit incident.
The New Orleans and Mexico City episodes were very interesting too but they kind of danced around the issue of Oswald being impersonated in Mexico City.
I'm less convinced by the implication in the show that Castro was involved or had foreknowledge.
-
Interesting series.
They made a convincing argument based on the bus routes in 1963 that Oswald was attempting to go to the alleged Alpha 66 house in Dallas before the Tippit incident.
The New Orleans and Mexico City episodes were very interesting too but they kind of danced around the issue of Oswald being impersonated in Mexico City.
I'm less convinced by the implication in the show that Castro was involved or had foreknowledge.
The Harlandale Ave. house in Dallas was definitely used by Alpha 66.
Yes, they failed to address the evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. I'm not sure they were even aware of it, although they should have been if they read the HSCA's Lopez-Hardway report.
Regarding Castro's involvement/foreknowledge, if the Cuban intel defector whom they interviewed was telling the truth, his account indicates that Cuban intelligence had some knowledge of the plot, and it's hard to imagine that they would have kept this from Castro.
I know the series has a lot of deficiencies, but it shows that even intelligent people who began their research assuming that Oswald was the only shooter, and who continue to think Oswald was the only shooter, don't buy the arguments that WC apologists make against Oswald's intelligence ties, Silvia Odio's account, Oswald's ties with anti-Castro Cubans, and Adrian Alba's account.
-
The Harlandale Ave. house in Dallas was definitely used by Alpha 66.
Yes, they failed to address the evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. I'm not sure they were even aware of it, although they should have been if they read the HSCA's Lopez-Hardway report.
Regarding Castro's involvement/foreknowledge, if the Cuban intel defector whom they interviewed was telling the truth, his account indicates that Cuban intelligence had some knowledge of the plot, and it's hard to imagine that they would have kept this from Castro.
I know the series has a lot of deficiencies, but it shows that even intelligent people who began their research assuming that Oswald was the only shooter, and who continue to think Oswald was the only shooter, don't buy the arguments that WC apologists make against Oswald's intelligence ties, Silvia Odio's account, Oswald's ties with anti-Castro Cubans, and Adrian Alba's account.
Agreed.
Objectively, one can't view all the conflicting evidence and witness accounts then conclude that there are no holes in the Warren Commission's narrative of the JFK assassination.
-
In 2017, the History Channel aired a seven-part documentary titled JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald produced by former CIA case officer Robert Baer. Baer and his team conducted an extensive investigation into the JFK assassination. Baer's team included a former LAPD detective (Adam Bercovici), a former FBI profiler (Steve Gomez), and a former Special Forces Army Ranger (Marty Skovlund). Baer and his team got many things wrong, but they also got many things right. WC apologists don't like Baer's documentary because it acknowledges too many facts that they reject and reaches too many conclusions that they reject, such as the following:
Robert Baer, the CIA-hating former CIA officer who strongly suggests in his 2022 book, The Fourth Man, that prickly CIA mole-hunter Paul Redmond was himself a KGB "mole"?
That Robert Baer?
LOL!
Vladimir Putin is jumping for joy!
-
Robert Baer, the CIA-hating former CIA officer who strongly suggests in his 2022 book, The Fourth Man, that prickly CIA mole-hunter Paul Redmond was himself a KGB "mole"?
That Robert Baer?
LOL!
Vladimir Putin is jumping for joy!
I'll have to admit, I've never heard of Baer (did he play Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies?) or Tracking Oswald. (Jesus, do I live under a rock? Do I know anything about ANYTHING?) However, I see that he and it were the subject of rather scathing criticism from within the CT community itself. I think if I were Niedernut over at the Ed Forum, I might strongly suspect Baer of being one of them there cognitive infiltrators with which the CIA floods the world. (Well, no, if I actually were Niedernut I'd be screaming "I need help!" and checking myself into a facility, but you get the point.)
In all of these discussions where Oswald is posited as The Most Interesting Man in the World, I always wonder: (1) how come all the people who knew him best - wife, family, friends, coworkers - had absolutely no inkling that he was anything other than a mixed-up goofball? (2) where did he find the time for all these extracurricular activities; and (3) since his finances were such that they kept baby June in a cardboard box and pretty much lived like impoverished Third World villagers, did he do all this stuff pro bono - and if so, why?
Perhaps I'm just not capable of thinking far enough outside the box, but none of this Most Interesting Man in the World stuff ever makes sense to me.
-
I'll have to admit, I've never heard of Baer (did he play Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies?) or Tracking Oswald. (Jesus, do I live under a rock? Do I know anything about ANYTHING?) However, I see that he and it were the subject of rather scathing criticism from within the CT community itself. I think if I were Niedernut over at the Ed Forum, I might strongly suspect Baer of being one of them there cognitive infiltrators with which the CIA floods the world. (Well, no, if I actually were Niedernut I'd be screaming "I need help!" and checking myself into a facility, but you get the point.)
In all of these discussions where Oswald is posited as The Most Interesting Man in the World, I always wonder: (1) how come all the people who knew him best - wife, family, friends, coworkers - had absolutely no inkling that he was anything other than a mixed-up goofball? (2) where did he find the time for all these extracurricular activities; and (3) since his finances were such that they kept baby June in a cardboard box and pretty much lived like impoverished Third World villagers, did he do all this stuff pro bono - and if so, why?
Perhaps I'm just not capable of thinking far enough outside the box, but none of this Most Interesting Man in the World stuff ever makes sense to me.
A high school dropout who taught himself Russian (allegedly), worked at the U2 plane base in Japan, traveled through Europe to the Soviet Union, came home with a Russian wife, befriended George DeMorenschildt (elite socialite and friend of Jackie Kennedy and George Bush), and traveled to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City two months before 11/22/63, isn't interesting to you?
How exciting is your life then? As you noted, he was poor for most of his life. Which makes his accomplishments and travel before the age of 25 all the more impressive.
Bob Baer, like several retired CIA officers who have weighed in on the Kennedy assassination believes Fidel Castro, or Cuban agents loyal to Castro, were involved in the JFK assassination. I'm familiar with the "Castro did it" theories.
-
A high school dropout who taught himself Russian (allegedly), worked at the U2 plane base in Japan, traveled through Europe to the Soviet Union, came home with a Russian wife, befriended George DeMorenschildt (elite socialite and friend of Jackie Kennedy and George Bush), traveled to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City two months before 11/22/63, isn't interesting to you?
How exciting is your life then? As you noted, he was poor for most of his life. Which makes his accomplishments and travel before the age of 25 all the more impressive.
Bob Baer, like several retired CIA officers who have weighed in on the Kennedy assassination believes Fidel Castro, or Cuban agents loyal to Castro, were involved in the JFK assassination. I'm familiar with the "Castro did it" theories.
As related in Richard Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, DeMohrenschildt was determined by a CIA Counterintelligence analyst by the name of Clare Edward Petty -- by reading some WW II VENONA decrypts in the early 1970s -- to very probably be a long-term KGB "illegal."
Specifically, the "illegal" mentioned (but not named) in the decrypts:
1) Was a real wheeler-dealer who had
2) been born in or near Poland, had
3) emigrated to the U.S. before the war, and who had
4) lived in Mexico during the war.
-
Robert Baer, the CIA-hating former CIA officer who strongly suggests in his 2022 book, The Fourth Man, that prickly CIA mole-hunter Paul Redmond was himself a KGB "mole"? That Robert Baer? LOL! Vladimir Putin is jumping for joy!
Says the guy who claims the West lost the Cold War.
Now, why don't you grace us with your explanation for why you think it's laughable that Baer suggests Redmond was a KGB mole? Robert Hanssen was a senior FBI counterintelligence officer whose job was to study and identify Soviet spies and intelligence operatives, yet he turned out to be a KGB mole. I notice you said nothing about the reasons that Baer provides for his suspicions about Redmond in The Fourth Man, such as the profile developed by the CIA's SIU office on the suspected fourth mole? (FYI, Baer interviewed two of the SIU members.) I also notice you failed to mention that other CIA officials, along with some FBI officials, suspected Redmond was the fourth mole.
"CIA-hating"??? No, he is not. Where do you get this? I suspect this is based on your extremist brand of patriotism.
And, BTW, in his book, Baer condemns Putin as a murderous thug.
-
Says the guy who claims the West lost the Cold War.
Now, why don't you grace us with your explanation for why you think it's laughable that Baer suggests Redmond was a KGB mole? Robert Hanssen was a senior FBI counterintelligence officer whose job was to study and identify Soviet spies and intelligence operatives, yet he turned out to be a KGB mole. I notice you said nothing about the reasons that Baer provides for his suspicions about Redmond in The Fourth Man, such as the profile developed by the CIA's SIU office on the suspected fourth mole? (FYI, Baer interviewed two of the SIU members.) I also notice you failed to mention that other CIA officials, along with some FBI officials, suspected Redmond was the fourth mole.
"CIA-hating"??? No, he is not. Where do you get this? I suspect this is based on your extremist brand of patriotism.
And, BTW, in his book, Baer condemns Putin as a murderous thug.
Dear Comrade Griffith,
We did lose the Cold War. Just look at whom "former" KGB* counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, with help from fifty-eight years of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations, installed as our "president" on 20 January 2017, and who he chose as his Director of National Intelligence and his Secretary of Defense.
*Today's SVR and FSB
Regarding my criticism of CIA-hating former CIA-officer Robert Baer, did you expect me to write a 30-page dissertation?
Read this Cipher Brief article from February 2023 and you just might get the idea. My comments are in brackets.
Former CIA Counterintelligence Chiefs Weigh in on The Fourth Man
OPINION — Robert Baer’s book The Fourth Man leads readers to conclude—falsely—that highly accomplished, retired CIA officer Paul Redmond was himself a long-time spy for the KGB. As former leaders of Counterintelligence who were directly involved over decades in the Russian operations and investigations discussed in the book, we found the book to be riddled with errors and what we found to be irresponsible, false assumptions from Mr. Baer’s primary sources.
Let’s dig in to why.
CIA counterintelligence investigators who were directly involved in the issues, as well as retired and currently serving intelligence officers at all levels, have voiced strong objections to the book. We owe it to them, to Mr. Redmond, to the intelligence profession, and our commitment to solve real counterintelligence threats, to correct the record.
Dissecting all the inaccuracies in the book is beyond the scope of this article, so, our focus is on the most egregious errors and what might be done to correct them. Because of classification issues, even though we had access to sensitive details in our former roles, we cannot include all of the intelligence to which we were privy, which would further strengthen our findings.
Mr. Baer’s book purports that a still undiscovered, high-ranking CIA officer was the most damaging mole during the Cold War and beyond—the Fourth Man—after notorious Russian spies Edward Lee Howard, Aldrich Ames, and Robert Hanssen. Mr. Baer identifies three retired CIA officers and one retired FBI analyst by name in the book as his primary sources who assert—without credible facts or access—that Mr. Redmond is the alleged spy. Dramatic if true, but based on the evidence we know, it is pure fiction.
In our opinion, Mr. Baer’s sources provided a pattern of incorrect assumptions, factual errors, and a confirmation bias that falsely attributes virtually all Russian CI anomalies three decades ago, to Mr. Redmond. A reader with deeper knowledge of the facts, can see that Mr. Baer—who acknowledges he has no experience in Counterintelligence or Russian operations—omitted or downplayed important exculpatory evidence and relied largely on the views of this small set of retired CIA sources.
We know the named CIA officers and we also know that they did not have access to all Russian operations and investigations. Importantly, they lost access all together well before key developments occurred.
Mr. Baer also reveals that he was persuaded in 2019, (23 years later) to write the book by his one-time CIA Division Chief, who is one of his key CIA sources. This raises interesting questions about motivation. His former boss, Baer writes "would come around to proposing I blow the dust off the Fourth Man investigation and see what I could do to restore it to life. He didn’t think I’d solve it, let alone put the Fourth Man in jail; the FBI had tried its best and failed. But (his) hope was that in my poking through the ashes, it would come to the Fourth Man’s attention and make him pay the piper in the currency of sleepless nights. That's of course if the man indeed were guilty; if not, he’d ridicule the whole enterprise as conspiratorial bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns and not give it a second thought.”
The result is a tale falsely implicating someone in the act of espionage (in interviews Mr. Baer has used the word “treason”) without disciplined investigation, fact-based evidence, input from key experts and managers most involved for years, and due process. Mr. Baer did not give appropriate weight to others with better access, who we know told him he was on the wrong path. He possibly did not understand that true intelligence professionals would not, and should not, provide him with sensitive details on Russian operations and investigations.
In our understanding, he also did not offer Mr. Redmond an adequate opportunity to respond to the collection of false allegations prior to publication, nor give sufficient attention to key open-source information. It’s a troubling reminder of the dangerous abuses of the James Jesus Angleton [Angleton's confidant, mentor and mole-hunting superior was probable KGB mole Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up); I've noticed over the years that people who despise Angleton always include his middle name which was given to him by his Mexican mother and which he never used] era and is a case study in how not to do counterintelligence work. It certainly should not be portrayed to the public as remotely credible spy-catching work.
Here are the key facts as we see them: CIA investigations and operations, of which we are aware, dating back decades, contradict the claims from Mr. Baer’s sources and reveal no evidence that Mr. Redmond was a spy. Rather, what we did see is that Mr. Redmond spent a career rooting out traitors across the US Government, specifically managing and protecting CIA clandestine sources who identified the traitors in our midst.
One example: Mr. Redmond was the hero of the devastating Aldrich Ames espionage case, reenergizing what had become a moribund investigation in 1991, and turning it into a disciplined and focused effort which led to the identification and arrest of Ames by the FBI in 1994. He was the principal architect for CIA’s enhanced CI program based on lessons learned from the Ames case, including the creation of a follow-on, permanent Special Investigative Unit (SIU) which identified other Russian spies in the CIA, FBI and USG.
Importantly, Mr. Redmond knew the most sensitive operations in CIA which survived and thrived. In our decades of experience, a real spy would have compromised those operations for his/her own protection—as Ames and Hanssen did. The CI ecosystem that Mr. Redmond built would have been setting a sure trap for his own capture, were he a traitor. Suggestions that the Russians might give up valuable spies like Ames or CIA officer Harold J. Nicholson, to protect Redmond are also ridiculous; no CI professional we know finds this credible.
We found many examples where the book goes wrong. Let’s get into several key examples.
MATRIX BRIEFING
Mr. Baer reports that his primary CIA source created a “matrix” of leads to a senior level Russian penetration of the CIA in 1994, and briefed those details to several people, including Mr. Redmond and Mr. Ed Curran. (Mr. Curran was the senior FBI agent assigned to manage espionage investigations at CIA in 1994, by a Presidential Directive in response to the damage done by Ames.) Mr. Baer says his CIA sources believed the senior CIA spy “could only be Mr. Redmond.”
Mr. Curran and Mr. Redmond followed these issues intensely but neither recall a briefing implicating Mr. Redmond. Both raise the obvious question “why would anyone have briefed Mr. Redmond if he were indeed a suspect?”
In fact, the espionage lead described by Mr. Baer we know to have been codenamed “GRAYSUIT”, was the subject of an extensive FBI and CIA investigation in 1994, and beyond. In 2000—after Baer’s CIA sources had retired—the investigation determined that “GRAYSUIT” was senior FBI Agent Robert Hanssen, not a CIA officer.
Key lead elements to “GRAYSUIT” were provided by the Russian CI source whom Mr. Baer identifies as “Max” in his book, who mistakenly reported the Russian spy was in the CIA. An extraordinary operation produced forensic evidence in 2000, which confirmed that “GRAYSUIT” was in fact Hanssen, who was arrested by the FBI in February 2001.
The Fourth Man Mr. Baer describes is in fact the Third Man—Hanssen.
The unclassified Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on Hanssen is but one of many authoritative open-source documents that provides extensive background confirming this, and other details of the investigation.
Upon reviewing Mr. Baer’s incorrect allegations in his book, Mr. Curran confirmed that while assigned to CIA—and when he returned to FBI to oversee all Russian CI operations and investigations—he saw no information nor heard any discussion that Mr. Redmond might be the spy for whom FBI and CIA were looking. In both assignments, Mr. Curran and his team were intensely focused on resolving the “GRAYSUIT” lead. He is the key person to whom Mr. Baer’s sources should have provided any such information, if they indeed had any. They did not.
MASTER PUPPETEER
We believe that Mr. Baer and his CIA sources, portray Mr. Redmond as a “Master Puppeteer” controlling all of CIA’s Russian operations, closing down the SIU and firing its Chief (Mr. Baer’s primary source) to protect himself as the KGB mole.
These claims are both false and impossible. First, the reality is that no CIA officer no matter how senior or clever, could control all CIA officers working Russian operations worldwide, much less FBI operations.
Second, FBI agents and CIA officers involved in the investigations, know that the SIU was never closed down but was significantly expanded under Mr. Redmond and Mr. Curran and continued to manage Russian investigations with the FBI for the next three decades.
Third, Mr. Baer’s primary CIA source was relieved as SIU chief in 1995, by her immediate CIA management (below Mr. Redmond) after a year of battling her management and repeated complaints about her from the FBI agents responsible for the espionage investigation. She was replaced with a senior officer who was more willing to adopt the many post-Ames changes, particularly sharing key information and working more effectively with the FBI.
Finally, we were all personally involved in the Russian operations that Mr. Baer’s CIA source provided as examples of Mr. Redmond running “Back Pocket” cases and can confirm those claims are false and ridiculous. The facts are documented in CIA files and/or confirmed by the officers who handled the operations—including the authors.
Mr. Baer and his sources fail to explain that Mr. Redmond was in fact working in coordination with other CIA managers to direct smart, necessary compartmentation of Russian operations. He was not a “puppeteer” trying to protect himself from being caught but rather, he was protecting CIA’s valuable clandestine Russian sources from unidentified traitors. This compartmentation enabled those sources to identify American traitors—Ames, Nicholson and Hanssen, among others. One of these sources has referred to Mr. Redmond as his “Guardian Angel”—and for good reason.
NO INTEREST IN SPY CATCHING
Mr. Baer incorrectly claims that no one in CIA leadership wanted to find another spy after Ames. This is absurd. In fact, CIA leadership at all levels, was intensely focused on improving CI programs to identify spies in our midst, including “GRAYSUIT” and others. They embraced the 1994 Presidential Directive assigning senior FBI Agent Mr. Curran, to lead the effort and committed significant resources, personnel and leadership focus.
Mr. Curran, Mr. Redmond and others significantly improved the CIA-FBI partnership and many other programs. CIA maintained extensive documentation of all of this including, but not limited to, important investigative developments, interaction with the FBI, compartmented briefings for Congressional oversight, and regular updates provided to senior CIA leadership, including the Director.
In 2021, Dr. Richard Rita, a senior CI analyst, drawing from extensive CIA documentation, documented all of this and more in a classified report on the history of the SIU from 1990–2003. After reading Mr. Baer’s book, Dr. Rita identified “serious factual errors, the combined weight of which completely undercuts misguided speculation that Redmond was a Russian mole.” Dr. Rita was a senior CI analyst in the SIU and Russian CI from 1995–2014—including six years as Chief of SIU.
Mr. Baer reports that after being relieved in 1995, his principal CIA source continued to run a rogue counterespionage investigation within the CIA. If true, this was a major violation of authorities and tradecraft for conducting competent espionage investigations with the knowledge and supervision of designated senior officers of the CIA and FBI.
The FBI had primacy for investigating these espionage activities; such a rogue operation would not have access to critically important information and capabilities, such as the CIA’s Office of Security and the FBI agents in charge of the “GRAYSUIT” investigation. It rightfully would have brought strong administrative penalties in CIA—likely termination of employment—and possible obstruction of justice charges from the FBI.
HOW MIGHT THE INACCURACIES BE CORRECTED?
Fundamental ethics and principles of Counterintelligence require a comprehensive correction of this important history as it relates to allegations against Mr. Redmond and CIA leadership. Doing nothing is not acceptable given the massive contemporaneous documentation that could correct the false accusations.
We have seen first-hand the tragic results when someone is falsely accused; it’s devastating for the individual, the family, colleagues, and the credibility of the Government institutions involved. It offers tremendous opportunities for adversaries to work against US interests, diverts CIA and FBI resources from finding real traitors, and allows more time to damage US intelligence. It leaves important foreign allies—who follow our CI issues closely—with incorrect concerns about the security of their own operations and information.
From our collective experience leading Counterintelligence on these issues, we suggest the CIA take the following actions:
1) Prepare a comprehensive classified and unclassified analysis documenting the key inaccuracies in Mr. Baer’s book together with the historically correct facts.
We are familiar with vast amounts of contemporaneous documentation in the CIA, retired and serving officers with first-hand knowledge, and open-source information, which together, can correct the record. The following provides a solid place to start. Perhaps the good offices of CIA’s Center for Studies in Intelligence (CSI) can assist using these sources to document an accurate history.
CIA managers and CI experts involved at the time, should be interviewed together with a review of the extensive documentation in Dr. Rita’s classified history of the SIU.
While reviewing Mr. Baer’s book, we prepared a detailed analysis of the inaccuracies together with the corrected facts, which has been cleared by CIA for use in various unclassified articles and presentations. We would be happy to provide that to assist with the analysis and anything else, to correct the facts.
DOJ’s unclassified and classified August 2003 Inspector General’s Report entitled “A Review of the FBI’s Performance in Deterring, Detecting and Investigating the Espionage of Robert Phillip Hanssen” documents evidence the spy for whom the FBI and CIA were looking —“far more damaging than Ames“ —was in fact, Hanssen. It provides other important background as well.
2) Share the comprehensive analysis with the FBI to correct false information.
Mr. Baer’s book claims the FBI interviewed his three CIA sources in 2006, arranged and attended by Mr. Baer’s fourth source, the FBI analyst. The CIA sources allegedly provided the FBI with the same inaccurate information appearing in Mr. Baer’s book, which we assume was documented in official 302 investigative reports.
Meanwhile, the managers and longtime investigators in the CIA and FBI—including the authors of this article—were not asked to provide the facts before, during or after 2006. We believe CIA is obligated to ensure the FBI has the corrected facts from credible sources and any other contemporaneous documents or reports correcting information from Baer and his sources.
3) Draw upon the comprehensive analysis for an unclassified public statement.
While we hope that this and other unclassified articles will help correct the inaccuracies and restore Mr. Redmond’s reputation, CIA should consider issuing a public statement. Also, foreign colleagues follow these issues closely—as we would—and this would help reassure them that their operations are not at risk from the false allegations in Mr. Baer’s book.
4) Review the issues of this case for possible policy or legal change.
This case raised issues that should concern all intelligence officers who could be falsely accused of espionage or other crimes by disgruntled or ill-informed authors, employees and/or anyone trying to sell a “spy thriller.” Retired officers who have served their nation with distinction have no access to the classified information needed to defend themselves.
Beyond damaging the reputation of an honorable officer, allegations also damage Agency and USG equities. The Agency and perhaps others in the Intelligence, Law Enforcement and policy communities should consider policy or legal remedies to provide access to records to correct slanderous allegations, when CIA policy and legal authorities do not prevent false accusations.
Finally, consideration should be given as part of the review process to advise the author that the content is potentially libelous.
5) Anticipate Russian disinformation and deception operations.
The book provides a road map for an intelligence adversary to target Mr. Redmond and others through controlled sources, disinformation, media plants, etc., to further cast false suspicion, confuse other legitimate espionage investigations and protect their unidentified in-place sources.
We note that Mr. Baer has participated in numerous media presentations offering money to Russian sources to come forward with information on “the Fourth Man” which he suggests he is doing at the behest of the FBI. This will almost certainly invite disinformation operations and scams, if it has not already.
As we saw repeatedly in the Ames case, adversaries use deception operations to protect their in-place sources, tie up our resources and/or obtain large sums of money. Rigorous tradecraft and vetting and validation of any source is always critical but particularly in this scenario.
Should CIA or FBI identify disinformation and deception operations, they should consider whether it’s appropriate to adopt a “duty to warn” policy to effected individuals—serving or retired.
6) Review the review process.
CIA’s Prepublication review is important for classification concerns but is not responsible for stopping all inaccurate information. We found a great deal of what we identified as sensitive operational and investigative information in Mr. Baer’s book that apparently was cleared for publication. We do not know why and recommend a review of guidance on what is appropriate regarding sensitive operations and CI investigations.
We believe that any pre-publication submission that identifies a current or former CIA employee by name as a Russian spy (or any criminal activity) should prompt a more senior review to consider possible actions before clearing the text for publication.
7) Complete retraction and apology.
While it is impossible to undo all the damage done, one logical step is for Mr. Baer to issue a retraction and apology, acknowledge that his sources did not have access to and knowledge of all of the operational cases and investigative record, and then refrain from further promotion of this book or promotion of other media. CIA should consider providing Mr. Baer with an unclassified version of the comprehensive analysis to show him the errors his sources provided for his book.
In Conclusion
Strong Counterintelligence programs are critical to our national security. It is a complex, tough discipline requiring extensive expertise, competent leadership, and rigorous commitment to truth, investigative accuracy and honor.
There are many important lessons here, but most notably any book suggesting an intelligence officer committed espionage (or other crimes) when the accused has not been convicted in a court of law or provided any kind of due process, is never appropriate. Never.
It is the height of unethical professional conduct for former intelligence officers to write such a story in any circumstance but all the more so, with no access to historic documentation nor direct, in-depth first-hand knowledge. When there is contemporaneous documentation which directly contradicts the allegation, corrective action needs to be taken as proposed above.
It is our opinion based on our experience, that Mr. Redmond is a national hero who led strong CI programs and mentored hundreds of intelligence officers over decades; that is the story that should have been told. Beyond the Ames case, we saw him manage other complex CI programs such as investigating the Mitrokhin Archives on worldwide Russian operations, exposing the network of spies run by the East German Intelligence Services, overseeing the Hanssen Damage Assessment, working the Parlor Maid Damage Assessment of a devastating Chinese spy targeting the FBI, and conducting CI reviews of the Department of Energy and several of its National Laboratories to name a few.
The other important part of this story involves scores of CIA officers who applied the lessons from the Ames damage and embraced the many new CI programs to improve our capabilities against our most dangerous adversaries. CIA experienced devastating political and organizational crises and CIA leadership studied the lessons and built a more effective, robust CI capability. The operational successes were extraordinary; the American people deserve to know that story.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that we do not suggest that all the spies have been caught—4th, 5th, 6th man or woman and beyond. That has not been, and never will be, the case. The US Government (and other organizations) has been—and always will be—penetrated by our adversaries and we must have excellence in CI programs to identify traitors as quickly as possible. But we do believe that the confusion and inaccuracies generated by Mr. Baer’s book will make it harder for historic and more current spies to be identified, which is why it’s essential to correct the record.
We hope the critical CI programs across the USG are still effective, but as senior leaders, we found it necessary to conduct in depth reviews of CI effectiveness regularly. If not done recently, it’s a good time for a comprehensive evaluation of the current resources and effectiveness of our National Counterintelligence programs against today’s formidable adversaries.
To honor the integrity of the intelligence profession, we hope actions will be taken to correct errors in The Fourth Man. As every Agency officer knows, the inscription from John 8:32 at the entrance to CIA Headquarters serves as fundamental guidance for our profession for all who enter: “.…and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
. . . . . . .
Michael Sulick is a retired CIA executive who served 28 years in CIA’s Clandestine Service. A specialist in Russia and Eastern Europe, he served as chief of multiple overseas CIA stations, and later Chief of the Central Eurasia Division, Chief of the Counterintelligence Center (2002–2004), and Director of the National Clandestine Service (2007–2010), where he was responsible for leading CIA’s covert collection operations and coordinating the espionage activities of the US Intelligence Community. He is the author of Spying in America: Espionage from the Revolutionary War to the Dawn of the Cold War and American Spies: Espionage against the United States from the Cold War to the Present.
Lucinda Webb is a retired senior CIA executive who served 32 years in CIA’s Directorate of Operations and Directorate of Intelligence. She spent 15 years in senior Counterintelligence assignments as part of the post Ames reforms to develop managers with strong CI expertise, including Chief of Counterintelligence and Associate Deputy Director of Counterintelligence (2006–2011), Deputy Chief of Counterintelligence (2000–2003), senior CIA representative at the FBI (1997–1999), and Deputy Chief of Counterespionage (1994–1997). Her assignments outside of Counterintelligence included Chief of Recruiting for the Directorate of Operations, Chief of Staff to the Director for Operations, Chief of Liaison for Office of Congressional Affairs, Executive Assistant to the Director of Operations, 5 years in Counterterrorism and 5 years as a political analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence.
Mark Kelton is a retired senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) executive with 34 years of experience in intelligence operations. Mr. Kelton’s CIA career included more than sixteen years of overseas service, to include four assignments in key field leadership positions. He also served as Chief of European Operations at CIA. Mr. Kelton concluded his career in 2015 as Chief of CIA’s Counterintelligence Center.
-
Dear Comrade Griffith,
We did lose the Cold War.
Perhaps in your alternative reality we did, but not down here on Earth. Such nonsense shows you are unserious and fringe.
Regarding my criticism of CIA-hating former CIA-officer Robert Baer, did you expect me to write a 30-page dissertation?
No, but you treated Baer's argument about Redmond as nothing more than baseless, wild-eyed speculation, and falsely accused him of "hating" the CIA. Baer's book is a serious work of scholarship that cannot be waved aside with your fringe polemic.
Read this Cipher Brief article from February 2023 and you just might get the idea. My comments are in brackets. [SNIP]
Ah, yes, of course you automatically went running to Baer's critics and Redmond's defenders.
I should note that Baer repeatedly stipulates that he is not certain that Redmond was a KGB mole (i.e., the fourth Russian super spy). Baer also allows that the Russians may have tried to frame Redmond.
For those who want to hear the other side of the story, here are some links that explain and support Baer's research on the subject.
https://securityanddefence.pl/Robert-Baer-2022-The-Fourth-Man-The-Hunt-for-the-KGB-s-CIA-Mole-and-Why-the-US-Overlooked,153003,0,2.html
-
As related in Richard Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, DeMohrenschildt was determined by a CIA Counterintelligence analyst by the name of Clare Edward Petty -- by reading some WW II VENONA decrypts in the early 1970s -- to very probably be a long-term KGB "illegal."
Specifically, the "illegal" mentioned (but not named) in the decrypts:
1) Was a real wheeler-dealer who had
2) been born in or near Poland, had
3) emigrated to the U.S. before the war, and who had
4) lived in Mexico during the war.
DeMorenschildt was almost certainly a CIA asset or informant (J Walton Moore was his handler) but that doesn't preclude the possibility that he was also a Soviet spy. There's also speculation that DeMorenschildt tipped the CIA off about Lee taking a shot at Gen. Edwin Walker months before 11/22/63.
Broader point was, why would a high society guy like him take an interest in a peasant like Oswald?
-
Dear Comrade Griffith,
We did lose the Cold War. Just look at whom "former" KGB* counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, with help from fifty-eight years of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations, installed as our "president" on 20 January 2017, and who he chose as his Director of National Intelligence and his Secretary of Defense.
No, you're mistaken. We WON the Cold War.
The USSR no longer exists and Russia and China are now capitalist countries that engage in the global economy.
OTOH, it can be argued that we, the United States, are losing the post-Cold War race to define the 21st century world order. China is eating our lunch in the global economy only because we've wasted so much blood and treasure on conflicts in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War instead of investing in our own nation and citizenry.
-
Good grief, has no one else read this massive (800-page), exhaustive biography of De Mohrenschildt? (It is available for Kindle in two $10 volumes. The author was at the Ed Forum for a short time but then seemed to disappear.)
https://www.amazon.com/Faux-Baron-Mohrenschildt-Aristocrats-Assassination/dp/1501021494.
Sorry, but wacky George was about as "CIA" or "KGB" as Elmer Fudd. He was a genuinely fascinating guy, and a better candidate than Oswald for The Most Interesting Man in the World, but he was nothing more than a classic eccentric. I have no difficulty at all picturing him being attracted to Oswald and Marina for entirely non-CIA and non-KGB reasons.
Here is the author discussing the book on a JFKA-related site. Lest you think she's an LN advocate, she in fact thinks Oswald was "both CIA and FBI," used to appear at CT conferences, and is pretty widely regarded as a CT-oriented researcher. Nevertheless, her view of De Mohrenschildt is pretty much mine - and her biography is highly regarded even by those who have no interest in the JFKA.
-
The USSR no longer exists.
A true defector, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, who in the 1950s had helped the Kremlin draw up its new (reinstituted from the Operation Trust 1920s, actually) Sun Tzu-based plans to get us to defeat ourselves by waging disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and our NATO allies, tried to warn the CIA and the FBI in the 1960s that the coming breakup of the USSR would be a ruse to get us to drop our guard.
Russia and China are now capitalist countries that engage in the global economy.
Grok:
It is partially correct to describe Russia and China as capitalist countries engaging in the global economy. Both have adopted market-oriented reforms and participate actively in global trade, with China as a manufacturing giant and Russia as a commodity exporter. However, their economies are better characterized as state capitalist, with significant government control and political motivations shaping economic activity. Russia’s global engagement is constrained by sanctions and dependence on China, while China’s strategic integration into global markets gives it greater influence. Neither fully aligns with the free-market capitalism of Western economies, as their systems prioritize state power over economic liberalization. [emphasis in original]
-
Perhaps in your alternative reality we did, but not down here on Earth. Such nonsense shows you are unserious and fringe.
No, but you treated Baer's argument about Redmond as nothing more than baseless, wild-eyed speculation, and falsely accused him of "hating" the CIA. Baer's book is a serious work of scholarship that cannot be waved aside with your fringe polemic.
Ah, yes, of course you automatically went running to Baer's critics and Redmond's defenders.
I should note that Baer repeatedly stipulates that he is not certain that Redmond was a KGB mole (i.e., the fourth Russian super spy). Baer also allows that the Russians may have tried to frame Redmond.
For those who want to hear the other side of the story, here are some links that explain and support Baer's research on the subject.
https://securityanddefence.pl/Robert-Baer-2022-The-Fourth-Man-The-Hunt-for-the-KGB-s-CIA-Mole-and-Why-the-US-Overlooked,153003,0,2.html
Dear Comrade Griffith,
It's interesting that Baer's interviewer, Adam Lashinsky, is associated with the San Francisco-based Commonwealth Club of California, the same outfit for which honey-trapped-and-recruited-by-KGB / fired-in-1957-but-not-prosecuted-by-CIA Edward Ellis Smith (who'd been the incompetent dead drop setter-upper in Moscow for CIA's spy, GRU Lt. Col. Pyotr Popov) was the head of the club's International Relations department until he was killed in a mysterious hit-and-run accident in Redwood City, California, in 1982.
Former CIA counterintelligence officer Tennent H. Bagley, PhD., writes quite a lot about Smith in his 2007 Yale University Press book, Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games.
Bagley believed that Smith had betrayed Popov to KGB General Vladislav Kovshuk in D.C. movie houses in early 1957 and that Smith may have helped the KGB recruit another (never uncovered) CIA officer. John M. Newman (who dedicated his 2022 book Uncovering Popov's Mole to Bagley) believes that it was James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Solie, who betrayed Popov in those movie houses, with logistical support from Smith and James McCord (of future Watergate notoriety).
You can read Bagley's book for free by googling "spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously.
-- Tom
-
Sorry, but wacky George was about as "CIA" or "KGB" as Elmer Fudd.
A CIA asset or informant can be anyone. It's not as exclusive a group as CIA officers or employees.
It's highly plausible that DeMorenschildt told the truth, that he did favors for the CIA in exchange for help with his business interests as he described to Edward Epstein:
"During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas.
De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA."
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKepstein.htm
The CIA, which didn't brief Oswald when he returned from the Soviet Union, likely learned about his time in Minsk via DeMorenschildt's conversations with Lee.
Similarly, Clay Shaw, another prominent businessman, also was a CIA asset who did favors for the agency. There are many such cases in the world of international businessmen.
-
A true defector, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, who in the 1950s had helped the Kremlin draw up its new (reinstituted from the Operation Trust 1920s, actually) Sun Tzu-based plans to get us to defeat ourselves by waging disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and our NATO allies, tried to warn the CIA and the FBI in the 1960s that the coming breakup of the USSR would be a ruse to get us to drop our guard.
How old are you?
The Cold War was centered around ideology, not russophobia. The Soviet Union spent decades supporting revolutionary movements around the world and promoting communist ideology. All that ended when the Berlin Wall fell.
Russia today is a rightwing oligarchy. They're not supporting revolutionary movements or promoting international communism anymore.
And China's communist party is "communist" in name only.
Today, there is no ideological war between the West and communism. It's over. We won.
Now we're dealing with the consequences of late-stage capitalism.
-
How old are you?
Dear Righty-Lefty Banksy,
I'm old enough to have watched JFK give a commencement address (he spoke about education) five months before a self-described Marxist and former Marine sharpshooter (who may have been sent by a KGB "mole" in the CIA to Moscow in 1959 as an unwitting ostensible "dangle" in a planned-to-fail mole hunt) killed him by firing three shots over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
How old are you?
-- Tom
-
Now we're dealing with the consequences of late-stage capitalism.
Dear Righty-Lefty Banksy,
You forgot to mention "former" KGB counterintelligence officer Lt. Col. Vladimir Putin and his "enforcers," the SVR, the FSB, the GRU, and the Russian Mafia -- for whom The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") started laundering money in 1984.
-- Tom
-
Clay Shaw was a CIA asset who did favors for the agency.
Dear Lefty-Righty Banksy,
Although Clay Shaw never worked for the Agency, as a patriotic American international businessman, he was a highly valued CIA contact source from 1948 to 1956.
British JFK assassination conspiracy theorist (!!!) and National Archives habitue Malcolm Blunt has said that CIA's Bruce Leonard Solie was likely a KGB "mole."
When you go to 1:00:27 in this interview of Blunt, you'll hear him say, "Solie was all over the Kennedy investigation and all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."
(When Blunt says "Jim DiEugenio . . . Jim DiEugenio," he obviously meant to say "Jim Garrison . . . Jim Garrison")
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=%22malcolm+blunt%22+nosenko&&mid=7DBB503AA54F7BE317ED7DBB503AA54F7BE317ED&mmscn=mtsc&aps=130&FORM=VRDGAR
Enjoy!
-- Tom
-
You automatically went running to Baer's critics and Redmond's defenders.
Should I have consulted "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin as you probably did, Comrade Griffith?
Here's another article on Baer's specious book for you to read.
"Baer’s book may be more likely to shake loose a dangle or double agent controlled by Moscow and peddling disinformation."
-- Dr. Richard Rita
https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/3-Response-to-The-Fourth-Man.pdf
-
Dear Lefty-Righty Banksy,
Although Clay Shaw never worked for the Agency, as a patriotic American international businessman, he was a highly valued CIA contact source from 1948 to 1956.
I know that. Hence why I called him a “CIA asset”.
Assets and informants don’t work “for” intelligence agencies. Rather, they are witting collaborators.
-
I know that. Hence why I called him a “CIA asset”. Assets and informants don’t work “for” intelligence agencies. Rather, they are witting collaborators.
Dear Lefty-Righty Banksy,
As a volunteer to the CIA's Domestic Contacts Division from 1948 to 1956 (i.e., three years before the JFKA), Clay Shaw reported to the CIA what he'd noticed in the countries he'd visited and/or was doing business in.
By the way, did you know that overly ambitious, scandal-plagued and revengeful Jim Garrison arrested Shaw (who had embarrassed Big Jim once in a restaurant by telling him to stop verbally abusing his wife) on 1 March 1967 on suspicion of having masterminded a homosexual "thrill-kill" assassination of JFK, but started pursuing his "He supervised it for the evil, evil CIA!!!" angle a few weeks after a Communist-owned Italian newspaper (Paese Sera) had published, on 4 March 1967, an anti-CIA / anti-Shaw article which was immediately "picked up" by Pravda (imagine that!), and shortly thereafter published in Menlo Park-based "Ramparts, "Paris-based "L'Humanité," and NYC-based "National Guardian," etc., etc., and Joan Mellen's ex-husband, Ralph Schoenman (Bertrand Russell's secretary in London) probably had sent Garrison a copy of the translated-from-French-or-Italian version (which Garrison proceeded to share with the New Orleans States-Item)?
Factoid: The Mitrokhin Archive refers to a 1967 "active measures" op which involved the KGB's publishing an article in a NYC newspaper in 1967.
Hmm.
-- Tom