Deep Politics Forum

Jack, have you been following this link? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=14604 There is a fellow Bill Simpich who has good things to say. I have the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest:

With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency

The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.

The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".

There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.

Just a few of many examples:

1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."

2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.

3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.

4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.

In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.

Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.

Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:

"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."

Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".

This is from post #35 on the new thread. Very interesting stuff. I ask because it seems to be to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible?

Quote:Most Americans believe we went to the moon but, as you and I are aware, the evidence tends to discount that.

Well, you just lost me again.

Adrian,

If you are only going to believe in those who agree with you about every
controversial issue of our time, such as JFK, moon landings, and 9/11, you
are not challenging yourself to think these things through based on logic and
the evidence. I am sure you have reasons for believing in the moon landings,
but there are many reasons to doubt that they occurred, including extensive
studies that Jack has done of hundreds of Apollo Mission photographs. The
documentaries, including "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon",
"Conspiracy Theory: Did Man Land on the Moon?", and, most recently, "Moon
Movie", advance dozens of reasons why they probably were staged for (what
many may have regarded as worthy) political purposes, given that the USSR
had launched "Sputnik" and appeared to be far ahead of the US in the so-
called "space race". The most convincing proof that we really did go to
the moon, I believe, has been the moon rocks, which geologists confirmed
were of lunar origin. As "Moon Movie" reports, however, Werner van Braun
himself led an expedition to the Antarctic to retrieve moon rocks that had
been dislodged from the moon's surface by the impact of small astroids and
captured by Earth's gravitational field, which brought them to our surface.
The "Conspiracy Theory" film, which is very hard to find, advances a host
of objective, scientific reasons why it is most unlikely that we traveled
there, including the risks of navigating the Van Allen radiation belt in
those virtually tin-foil "space suits", the absence of physical effects in
disturbing the surface of the moon with the lander, the fashion in which
it "lifts off" from the moon as though it were being yanked on a cable,
and a large number of additional reasons that cast the whole matter in
doubt. And please consider ONE SMALL STEP: THE GREAT MOON HOAX
AND THE RACE TO DOMINATE EARTH FROM SPACE (2007) by Gerhand
Wisnewski, an explanatory framework for understanding what happened.

For an introduction to these issues--where I am hoping that you will be
willing to spend a little time on this, in spite of the indication of your
subjective conviction--you might visit my public issues web site, which is
http://assassinationscience.com, and review the five pieces that I have
archived there in the upper left, including a link to "Moon Movie" and
to Jack's Apollo studies, an article from PRAVDA, and some other stuff.
You may or may not have noticed, but NASA recently acknowledged that
it had "taped over" the Apollo moon landing tapes, which, I dare say, is
on a par with LIFE magazine inadvertently damaging the Zapruder film,
perhaps the world's other most precious footage. The material I have
cited, assuming it is authentic, provides ample grounds to falsify the
claims made about these space missions, where I could add much more.
On 9/11, however, the official account is just fine as long as you are
willing to believe impossible things. The 767 shown hitting the South
Tower in videos is flying impossibly fast, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has
confirmed; its interaction with the building violates Newton's laws of
motion; the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the
steel to weaken, much less melt; the buildings do not "collapse" but are
transformed into billions of cubic yards of very fine dust; WTC-7 was
brought down by an obvious classic "controlled demolition"; no 757 hit
the Pentagon; billowing black smoke observed by members of Congress when
they rushed out of the Capitol after the announcement that there was the
possibility that building would be next emanated from a series of huge
dumpsters, which were in front of the building, not from the building
itself. I have given hundreds of interviews about these things, where
some of my most important are found at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

You might not be willing to invest a lot of time in this research, either,
because your mind about 9/11 may also be closed. If I am wrong and
it is just the least bit ajar, please visit the web site of Scholars for 9/11
Truth, a research society that I founded in December 2005. Take a look at
"Why doubt 9/11?" in the upper left-hand corner for a summary of twenty
or so findings that refute the official account of 9/11. Then turn to the
icon for http://patriotsquestion911.com in the upper right-hand corner,
which will lead to an extensive web site featuring photos, bio-sketches,
and statements from over 1,700 experts in different fields, including a
host of military and intelligence expert, academicians across the board,
pilots and aeronautical experts, architects and engineers, on and on. If
you are still willing to consider evidence, then read Elias Davidsson's
"No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11", David Ray Griffin's
"Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners" at GLOBAL RESEARCH and my article,
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", OpEdNews. Then please visit my blog
at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and review "New 9/11 Photos Released",
Jack White's "9/11: A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation",
my "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", "Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11
an 'Inside Job'?", and "The Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement:
The Media's Response". You may know the site, where I have three blogs
about INSIDE THE ARRB. Since I am confident you aren't going to do any
of this--I'm not even sure that you are going to read this far in this post--
let me boil it down to 20 minutes of effort: read "Why Doubt 9/11?" and
watch "This is an Orange" and "9/11: The Towers of Dust" on YouTube. It
will take less than half-an-hour of your time. Then, at least, you will have
the least idea what is at issue when you dismiss research on this subject.

Make up your own mind, Adrian. But base your reasons on the evidence.

Best wishes,

Jim

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack, have you been following this link? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=14604 There is a fellow Bill Simpich who has good things to say. I have the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest:

With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency

The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.

The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".

There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.

Just a few of many examples:

1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."

2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.

3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.

4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.

In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.

Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.

Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:

"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."

Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".

This is from post #35 on the new thread. Very interesting stuff. I ask because it seems to be to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible?

[Aside: Wouldn't it be best to keep moon-landing stuff on a moon-landing thread - rather than one on JFK?]

I have long noticed the practice of both purposeful misspellings and name tossed-salad. The WC is full of this (though they act as if it is all just clerical error); it turned up in my investigation of various covert operatives - and they all claimed to be aware of its use in their lives and files - as well as those of their pals; and I had discussed it with Weisburg who was fully aware of it. I even found it being used to hide files in 1945 on a project I'm working on now...so its use is old. In fact I was able to find a file at NARA on someone, when NARA claimed they had NONE - they had quite a bit if you understood the variants that might be used to confuse. It is all part of the magic show, misdirection of attention and learning how to hide things in plain sight. Intelligence special operations activities and methods in large part use the methodologies used in professional magic and vice versa. My uncle, a professional magician, taught me some of the standard methods of hiding things, as well as misdirection of attention and it has served me well in my research life. The first item above (#1) is a corker!....that alone blows the WC out of the water....if it was a real investigation and not itself a magic show and cover-up.

Dr. Fetzer, I appreciate your considerate response, thank you. I also made it all the way to your last paragraph. And you're right that I'm not likely to shake my subjective conviction about moon hoax theories. At a minimum, I don't understand why the hoax needed to be repeated six times or why an aborted mission also needed to be faked (Apollo 13). But more importantly, I'm not sure why it matters. So I take issue with this statement:

Quote:but NASA recently acknowledged that it had "taped over" the Apollo moon landing tapes, which, I dare say, is on a par with LIFE magazine inadvertently damaging the Zapruder film, perhaps the world's other most precious footage.

I don't think these two things are on par. Not even close, since one is evidence in a murder. And I guess I'm baffled as indicated earlier why so much energy and time has been spent on debunking the Apollo missions. What has it achieved, besides providing a short-cut for critics to conflate and smear all "conspiracy theory"? Do you honestly expect to persuade a critical mass of people that we didn't land on the moon? And if you did - and you won't - what then?

Why choose to die on that hill?

I feel much the same way about Kennedy, although I'm as guilty as anyone of wallowing in detail that has trapped the research community in a closed loop for almost half a century. Why take on the burden of proof when it's the government that should be made to account for the failures of the WC and the HSCA? This is why I'm more heartened by Jefferson Morley's attempts to seal the release of the Joannides records than I am by pretty much anything else going on in the research community at the moment, including endless rancor over Judith Baker's bona fides (and just to be clear, I think Ms. Baker is the real thing).

In other words, I don't see how it's up to us to explain the plot, or how-they-did-it, or even why, when it's so much simpler to eviscerate the official bodies that presided over the cover-up; something that can be achieved beyond a shadow of a doubt with the existing research.

Ditto 9/11. You lose by trying to foist your speculation on everybody else, when the 9/11 Commission was so clearly and blindingly compromised.

Quote:And I guess I'm baffled as indicated earlier why so much energy and time has been spent on debunking the Apollo missions. What has it achieved, besides providing a short-cut for critics to conflate and smear all "conspiracy theory"? Do you honestly expect to persuade a critical mass of people that we didn't land on the moon? And if you did - and you won't - what then?

The logic of this argument is that a Big Lie that has been perpetrated on the public should be ignored simply because it succeeded so magnificently.

Joseph Goebbels would be flushing with delight.

Surely, public incredulity needs to be confronted rather left in a dark mushroom cellar?

The mounting evidence that the Appollo missions moon landing pictures were faked is now very strong. I don't know if that means that US astronauts didn't go to the moon or not, but having started off a sceptic on this subject, I am now convinced that the photo's/films are not genuine, but rather cutting edge studio imaging for their time.

Adrian Mack Wrote:Dr. Fetzer, I appreciate your considerate response, thank you. I also made it all the way to your last paragraph. And you're right that I'm not likely to shake my subjective conviction about moon hoax theories. At a minimum, I don't understand why the hoax needed to be repeated six times or why an aborted mission also needed to be faked (Apollo 13). But more importantly, I'm not sure why it matters. So I take issue with this statement:

Quote:but NASA recently acknowledged that it had "taped over" the Apollo moon landing tapes, which, I dare say, is on a par with LIFE magazine inadvertently damaging the Zapruder film, perhaps the world's other most precious footage.

I don't think these two things are on par. Not even close, since one is evidence in a murder. And I guess I'm baffled as indicated earlier why so much energy and time has been spent on debunking the Apollo missions. What has it achieved, besides providing a short-cut for critics to conflate and smear all "conspiracy theory"? Do you honestly expect to persuade a critical mass of people that we didn't land on the moon? And if you did - and you won't - what then?

Why choose to die on that hill?

I feel much the same way about Kennedy, although I'm as guilty as anyone of wallowing in detail that has trapped the research community in a closed loop for almost half a century. Why take on the burden of proof when it's the government that should be made to account for the failures of the WC and the HSCA? This is why I'm more heartened by Jefferson Morley's attempts to seal the release of the Joannides records than I am by pretty much anything else going on in the research community at the moment, including endless rancor over Judith Baker's bona fides (and just to be clear, I think Ms. Baker is the real thing).

In other words, I don't see how it's up to us to explain the plot, or how-they-did-it, or even why, when it's so much simpler to eviscerate the official bodies that presided over the cover-up; something that can be achieved beyond a shadow of a doubt with the existing research.

Ditto 9/11. You lose by trying to foist your speculation on everybody else, when the 9/11 Commission was so clearly and blindingly compromised.

By your 'logic', if I understand it correctly, if one has evidence of official lies and deception/cover-ups - no matter how important and perhaps you are saying the MORE important the greater one should avoid ,at all cost, presenting such evidence - simply because most Americans and some others are either too embedded/blinded/fooled by the propaganda, patriotic 'religion', in denial, too lacking in history and its contexts to understand, or just NOT WILLING TO GO THERE (afraid of the implications and the fact that knowledge implies responsibility to act?! You are calling for an unconditional surrender in the face of grievous crimes - some of which IMO are absolutely proven and others of which are highly suspect. It is like the button: "My government requests I only: shut-up, pay-taxes, go shopping, watch TV, and then just die." Not my style and obviously not Jim's - and many others.
Jefferson Morley is certainly to be applauded, but I think his chances are rather slim to slimmer than slim - because the evil apparatus of denials, lies and cover-ups is very strong and he is one man with few behind him. You are asking the fox to release the chickens of it own free will..if we only say 'please'?! You have to push and fight and get huge numbers to join in - strike at the Beast at every chance. If ONLY to say in the end, "I did my best to try".

Jim...Armstrong and a British researcher that John hired to help
spent months in the National Archives. They requested and copied
EVERY document which mentioned Oswald or any member of the
Oswald family. All of these documents were gathered into more than
100 4-inch 3-ring binders by subject and arranged according to date.
In addition John examined public records anywhere referenced in the
documents...and conducted hundreds of interviews of persons mentioned
in any documents.

The most crucial of these (as you will find when you read the book)
was a man named Palmer McBride, a man who worked with Lee Harvey
Oswald in New Orleans while official records showed that Lee Harvey
Oswald was in Japan.

John's book then shows that most other documents were contradictory
when compared. What emerged was two different timelines for two
different men on the same dates...a physical impossibility.

As you say, forged documents are commonplace...BUT NOT ONES
WHICH CONTRADICT EACH OTHER and raise questions. Forged
documents would NOT be created WHICH SHOW TWO OSWALDS,
BUT JUST THE OPPOSITE. At all costs, they would HIDE any evidence
of two Oswalds.

When you read the book, you will see that contrary to developing
theories, John shows evidence of two LHOs in two places at the
same time. The evidence is overwhelming.

Jack

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack, have you been following this link? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=14604 There is a fellow Bill Simpich who has good things to say. I have the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest:

With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency

The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.

The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".

There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.

Just a few of many examples:

1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."

2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.

3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.

4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.

5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.

In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.

Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.

Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:

"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."

Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".

This is from post #35 on the new thread. Very interesting stuff. I ask because it seems to be to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible?

David Guyatt Wrote:

Quote:And I guess I'm baffled as indicated earlier why so much energy and time has been spent on debunking the Apollo missions. What has it achieved, besides providing a short-cut for critics to conflate and smear all "conspiracy theory"? Do you honestly expect to persuade a critical mass of people that we didn't land on the moon? And if you did - and you won't - what then?

The logic of this argument is that a Big Lie that has been perpetrated on the public should be ignored simply because it succeeded so magnificently.

Joseph Goebbels would be flushing with delight.

Surely, public incredulity needs to be confronted rather left in a dark mushroom cellar?

The mounting evidence that the Appollo missions moon landing pictures were faked is now very strong. I don't know if that means that US astronauts didn't go to the moon or not, but having started off a sceptic on this subject, I am now convinced that the photo's/films are not genuine, but rather cutting edge studio imaging for their time.

Thanks, David...

For those still unconvinced regarding Apollo photos, may I suggest
these two URLs of my Apollo studies:

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Jack

PS...for my tutorial on 911, click on:

http://www.911studies.com/

What Adrian Mack call "foisting speculation" about Apollo and 911
instead represents thousands of hours of study of evidence by
competent researchers. To dismiss this as "foisting speculation"
is uninformed.

Jack