JFK Assassination Forum

TG==

Yes, you are correct, AFAIK.

Newman says Solie, KGB-fink, sent LHO to Russia.

Marchetti, way back in the 1970s, said the CIA was so riddled with KGB assets...that it was unclear who was working for who.

Thus, if elements within the CIA did encourage LHO to perp, or participate in the JFKA, it is still not known whether those elements were KGB or not.

The whole Nosenko defection indicates Moscow badly wanted to alter the narrative on the JFKA.

Just like the modern-day MAGA-Moscow-Putin-Oliver Stone narrative.

Pete Bagley says LHO went to Moscow "wittingly."

1) Bagley died in 2014.

2) When Bagley said Oswald was a "witting" CIA agent after reading some 1959-60 CIA documents he hadn't been privy to at the time and which researcher Malcolm Blunt showed him around 2012, he mean that Oswald was knowingly on a mission for the CIA, but neither Oswald nor James Angleton in 1959 nor Bagley in 2012 realized that it was for a KGB-controlled part of the CIA -- the mole-hunting Office of Security, where probable KGB "mole" Bruce Solie -- Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior -- was Deputy Chief of the Security Research Staff (DC/OS/SRS) and Chief of its Research Branch C/OS/SRS/RB). 

Debunked nonsense.
This thread contains a staggering amount of evidence demonstrating, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such an early shot is out of the question.
Who cares what you imagine people in the Z-film are looking at, or what they are thinking?
Do some research and provide some actual evidence to support your fantasies. It's the least a 'researcher' should do.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

You're so full of beans I can smell you from here.

The only question is:

Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?

-- Tom

GD--

Yes, in his book, Russo says he talked with both a KGB'er and a G-2'er who said LHO had been either monitored or contacted in New Orleans by G-2'ers. Unfortunately, Russo kept the identities of the two individuals confidential, but he presented the two individuals as independently corroborating each other.

Russo, of course, notes that LHO met with KGB, G-2 assets in Minsk and Mexico City.

As you may know, researcher John Newman has posited KGB mole Bruce Solie sent LHO to Russia, and CIA'er Pete Bagley says LHO went "wittingly."

Victor Marchetti said the CIA was so riddled with KGB assets he did not now who was working for who, and that the JFKA cover-up may have been to hide that situation.

Evidently, Bruce Solie was active in CIA response to Garrison. That is interesting.

My interest in this is that for decades the JFKA research community has basically focussed on the CIA, and that is fine, they should be examined.

That has left much much less examined the KGB G-2 angle, or even the US Army intel angle.

The recent ascendance of the MAGA-Moscow-Putin angle, and the "Mossad did it" (financed by Tehran?) angles is a reminder that ideology drives the agenda and the agenda writes the JFKA narrative.

I observe the EF-JFKA is run by, and largely attracts, far-left ideologues, for example.

You made up a bunch of nonsense about BRW and his lunch; that was most obviously not true. Now you follow that up with this fabricated tripe because you cannot even read what Mr. Shelley told the WC? If you cannot understand what he stated to them, it is only because you do not want too. No one can help you with that.

You need to calm down, Jack.
Let's deal with your wild, unsubstantiated claims first -

1] Quote what nonsense I have "made up" about Williams and his lunch.
By that I mean quote the actual words I have posted, not your raving opinion.

2] Quote what "fabricated tripe" I have posted.
Again, quote my actual words, not your unhinged ravings.

Shelley told the WC he 'thought' that at one time he might have said to someone that Givens was eating fried chicken, but he wasn't sure. He even had to ask Givens, he was so unsure.
But Givens is clear - he left his lunch in the domino room when he arrived at work and ate his sandwich outside the building at lunch time.
That's a fact.
What are you going to do now? Have another breakdown?

I've dealt with you before, Jack.
You usually last at least a couple of posts before you start ranting.
So, take a breath and decide whether you want to discuss this rationally or whether you are just going full rant mode from the start.

Check Givens' testimony. He states he had his sandwich outside the building.
Do you agree that a partially eaten piece of chicken was found on top of the Sniper's Nest?
Now...here's the big one - Do you agree that a small lunch sack was also found on top of the Sniper's Nest?

Let's have a rational discussion, Jack. Like two adults.