JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on February 02, 2026, 11:35:48 PM
-
In the below form, at the top left of the form one can either tick the "CI Operational Approval and Support Division" or "Security Support Division/Office of Security".
Under what circumstances would one tick one box over the other?
(https://i.ibb.co/wFhBfCk6/Approval.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
If Oswald had been a CIA asset, which box on the above sheet would have been ticked?
If it was CI, then this would mean that anyone from OS who had been interviewed about LHO after the JFKA would be telling the truth that LHO was not a CIA asset in so far as they understood it because their division would not have been notified if it.
Likewise if the OS box had been ticked, then this would mean that anyone from CI who had been interviewed about LHO after the JFKA would be telling the truth that LHO was not a CIA asset in so far as they understood it because their division would not have been notified of it.
Is that reasoning correct?
-
In the below form, at the top left of the form one can either tick the "CI Operational Approval and Support Division" or "Security Support Division/Office of Security".
Under what circumstances would one tick one box over the other?
(https://i.ibb.co/wFhBfCk6/Approval.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
If Oswald had been a CIA asset, which box on the above sheet would have been ticked?
If it was CI, then this would mean that anyone from OS who had been interviewed about LHO after the JFKA would be telling the truth that LHO was not a CIA asset in so far as they understood it because their division would not have been notified if it.
Likewise, if the OS box had been ticked, then this would mean that anyone from CI who had been interviewed about LHO after the JFKA would be telling the truth that LHO was not a CIA asset in so far as they understood it because their division would not have been notified of it.
Is that reasoning correct?
If John M. Newman is correct that Oswald was recruited by a KGB mole in the CIA (Bruce Solie in the Office of Security), he would have been run as a paperless "vest pocket" operation by Solie's confidant, protege, and mole-hunting subordinate, unwitting James Angleton, or by Bruce Solie, himself.
-
If John M. Newman is correct that Oswald was recruited by a KGB mole in the CIA (Bruce Solie in the Office of Security), he would have been run as a paperless "vest pocket" operation by Solie's confidant, protege, and mole-hunting subordinate, unwitting James Angleton, or by Bruce Solie, himself.
By paperless would you mean a soft file that existed only on Angletons desk?
-
By paperless would you mean a soft file that existed only on Angletons desk?
Maybe, maybe not.
-
By contrast, Clare Booth Luce resulted in the Office of Security box being ticked:
FORM - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OR INVESTIGATIVE ACTION FOR CLARE BOOTH LUCE.
NARA Record Number: 104-10120-10418
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=181302
-
[...]
Truth be told, I'm just tired of looking at your smiling face.