Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
The suspected target(s) of a mole hunt, begun at the time of Oswald's "defection," need not have been the same targets at the time of the Mexico City business.
I speculate that the leak might have been someone that betrayed Popov in the first case and someone that protected Castro in the second case.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
No one betrayed Popov.
He was captured due to a mistake by his handler.
As I said, this is a problem I have with a lot of Peter's work on the JFK case: its so theory driven.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
I understand that. I am suggesting the motivation for a mole hunt might have been his arrest.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Mangold makes clear in his book that Angleton knew the cause of the arrest.
Further, in Mangold's book, he never once mentions Angleton using a "marked card" technique at any time.
Can you make clear what you mean by protecting Castro in the second case.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
The ostensible "raison d'etre" for a mole hunt need not have really happened, so long as it is sufficiently feasible to justify the exercise.
When I said "protecting Castro" I meant that the CIA might have suspected a mole in their ranks, leaking information to Cuba, due to the failure of several of their various attempts to kill Castro. Whether Oswald was actually an agent, or merely a convenient distraction, at the time he defected to the USSR, and whether or not his mission in the USSR was a success, he could have been used for a different purpose upon his return.
If there were marked cards in Oswald's bio already in use to unmask Soviet spies, which (apparently) didn't net any result, someone just might have continued the exercise against the Cubans to see if they could get some mileage out of the operation anyway.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 2,430
Threads: 124
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Quote:"protecting Castro" I meant that the CIA might have suspected a mole in their ranks, leaking information to Cuba
This is not new news, my father writes in one of his letters that Fidel Castro is a "puppet", my conversation with Rudy will tell you that, we know that Phillip Agee was also a Castro sympathizer when it was Agee who wared Castro about an assassination plot in Moa Bay Cuba.
This is not new news, we all know this, including every anti-Castro here in Miami.
Rudy Junco Part #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPyKQ4KFGsE
Rudy Junco Part #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWwZUjvCaQw
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
But this certainly would not be Oswald, right.
And it would not be anyone at the CIA station that we know of.
The more this gets picked over, the more questions I have about it.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
I did not mean to imply that Oswald was a mole, no. There didn't even have to actually be a mole, if Angleton suspected it. Or perhaps Angleton is merely engaging in a "mole hunt" because the Joint Chiefs want to know how the Soviets (allegedly) had acquired U2 technical specs in April of 1958.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 830
Threads: 135
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
Quote:Let me add here, this is a problem I have with a lot of Peter's material on the JFK case.
I'm reminded of a comment you made (maybe on the EF, and I generally agree with it) a few years back, where you noted that someone could read a lot of PDS's work on the JFK assassination, and still have no idea of who he thought was behind the actual plot.
Peter's recent work on 9/11 is very good but suffers from the alternate problem of him being (I suspect) not entirely comfortable with putting everything he knows down in print, but you don't get to research deep politics in your 80's with loose lips.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
I'm reminded of a comment you made (maybe on the EF, and I generally agree with it) a few years back, where you noted that someone could read a lot of PDS's work on the JFK assassination, and still have no idea of who he thought was behind the actual plot.
LOL
Thanks for reminding me of that. And I stand by it.
