#11
Conspiracy JFK Forum
Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
Re: Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
Larry Hancock Wrote:Let's cut to the chase, my opinion, verified by the direction to ensure nothing was released or became visible to counter the Minsk answer produced by the CIA is that the Agency consciously screened anything that would have indicated Oswald was debriefed, knowingly or unknowingly, about matters in Russia. That certainly is not everything they screened about him, even internally - clearly CIA internal communications to their Mexico City station screened information that headquarters had on Oswald at the time.
However, to be clear, I don't try to debate or persuade anyone holding opposing views, I find that to be fruitless in any event. I'll offer elaborations or references to what I write or give opinions but that's the extent of it. I think I've added a bit to what Ben originally cited and you have my opinion so that should do it.
Yes, never admit your mistakes. Got it.
Re: Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Larry Hancock Wrote:The Larry in question would be me, Larry Hancock. Actually in the book I add a bit of additional detail of the CBS investigation, led by Daniel Schorr, of the Minsk story. In his final report on the lead Schorr stated that the CIA had confirmed the asset - but that it an ex-Navy individual in a city other than Minsk. As might be expected they offered no proof and Schorr's informant - vetted as a former CIA employee - had been adamant from the beginning that the paperwork said Minsk and ex-Marine. One piece of CIA internal paperwork about Schorr's inquiry that later surfaced says it all though - it was a directive that measures had to be taken to "ensure Mr. Schorr does not learn anything that might cast the slightest doubt on the above account (ex-Navy, not Minsk) before he produces his program.
It's too bad Schorr never saw that particular piece of correspondence...
Hi Larry,
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I haven't read your book, unfortunately, but since you don't seem to object to the thread title or the wording of the opening post, I'll take the opportunity to direct my response to you. I occasionally find Ben's "liar, liar" rhetoric too tiresome."
And, once again, you've refused to refute my post.
Each time you're caught lying, the rules of this forum is simple - if a lie can be proven by citation to the evidence, then that particular charge can be made.
Despite the fact that it's generally classified as ad hominem.
Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:But the CIA did cooperate,
This is such a blatant lie that I find it hard to believe that you thought you could say this without it being pointed out.
All I need say to prove you a liar is one name: George Joannides
And it took me all of 10 seconds to dig up this quote:
“The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation,” says G. Robert Blakey, the former general counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which issued its report in 1979.
Here's a more detailed statement by Blakey:
G. Robert Blakey Wrote:I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:
The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.
These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission's investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee's investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79.
Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!
What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency's DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?
I don't believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.
Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.
During the relevant period, the committee's chief contact with the Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but "happy." Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might "facilitate" the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would be of help to us.
I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.
That the Agency would put a "material witness" in as a "filter" between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.
The committee's researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.
They were certainly right about one question: the committee's researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency's integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.
For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.
What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.
I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.
I am now in that camp.
Any believer making the false claim you're making is nothing less than a liar. Feel free to cite if you actually believe that the CIA was honest and "cooperated" with the HSCA
A very common tactic seen all the time with WCR Supporters is to simply run away rather than address the proven lies they've told. I would contend that an honest man would instantly reply that they were wrong about CIA "cooperation" in light of the posted quote & evidence.
Re: Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben quotes from a 10/11/78 letter from Robert Blakey (HSCA) to Scott Breckinridge (CIA) requesting access to a certain contact report (and the "volume of materials" where it was supposedly filed).
[10/11/78 letter from G. R. Blakey to S. D. Breckinridge]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=3
Ben claims no response has ever been located (implying that the CIA was too afraid to answer). I have good news for him: The CIA did reply! There is both a confirmation of receipt and a follow-up letter, and (thanks to the MFF website) they're not even difficult to locate:
[10/12/78 letter from S. D. Breckinridge to G. R. Blakey]
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?doc...elPageId=2
Scott Breckinridge Wrote:As soon as we have collected these materials you will be advised. As stated to you we are searching for not only a report of an interview of a former Marine who defected from the U.S.S.R. to the U.S. in 1962, but also a record I recall of a former Navy man who redefected from the U.S.S.R. to the U.S. in the same year. The latter may be the person remembered by your source; his files have already been reviewed by members of your staff.
[10/26/78 letter from S. D. Breckinridge to G. R. Blakey]
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?doc...elPageId=2
Scott Breckinridge Wrote:We made available for review by a HSCA staff member the volume of materials referred to in your letter. There is no contact report. Your representative has confirmed this.
Breckinridge forwarded the request to USSR Division where a HSCA staff member a few days later reviewed the requested files. More details can be found in a memo authored by senior analyst Paul Fahey (CIA):
[10/17/78 memo by P. P. Fahey re: HSCA Request]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=2
Paul Fahey Wrote:1. On 12 October 1978 Scott Breckenridge, Principal Coordinator for the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Office of Legislative Counsel, forwarded a request from the HSCA (see attached). HSCA, while investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of President John Kennedy, had been informed that a CIA contact report (presumably an OOB report from Domestic Contacts Division) concerning the Minsk radio plant had been received and filed in the Minsk Radio Plant folder by CIA's Industrial Registry Branch (sic) which in 1962 was a component of the Office of Central Reference. The source of the 1962 report was believed to be a former US Marine who had defected to the USSR, and then returned to the United States in 1962. HSCA therefore wished to see the report mentioned by the informant and the dossier on the Minsk Radio Plant.
2. In July 1975, USSR Division had handled a similar request, in response to a query from Chief, Domestic Contacts Division (see Veronica Mariani's Memorandum for the Record dated 9 July 1975). At that time, the request was generated by an interview by Daniel Schorr with a former CIA employee who recalled seeing a DCD report on the radio plant in Minsk from a US re-defector who was a former Marine (apparently Lee Harvey Oswald). For this request, USSR Division searched the plant folders for the three radio plants in Minsk, as well as Intellofax (for DCD reports). There were no hits.
3. In 1975, Schorr--at the conclusion of his interview with the former CIA employee--reported that then CIA Director Colby had denied any record of a contact with Lee Harvey Oswald but that the Agency had reported that it had debriefed a re-defector in 1962 who was an ex-Navy man who had worked in a Soviet plant in another city. In October 1978, Mr. Brekenridge informed Chief, USSR Division, OCR, that the ex-Navy man was Robert E. Webster and that he had worked in Leningrad.
4. For the October 1978 HSCA request the following was done:
- --the files of the three radio plants in Minsk were searched again for OO reports from a US re-defector; no hits.
--the Minsk Town Folder was searched for a similar document; no hits.
--the biographic files were searched for information on Robert E. Webster; there was one hit (in the Consolidated File under R. E. VEBSTR)--an FBIS article (from the USSR Daily Report of 26 May 1960, pages BB 29-31) on a speech by Webster, then a USSR citizen working in the Leningrad Polymerization Institute.
--the folder on the Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Polymerization of Plastics was searched for an OO report from a US re-defector; there was one hit: OO-B 3,232,798, 14 August 1962.
--on 16 October 1978, Mr. Gary Cornwell of the HSCA staff visited USSR Division and reviewed the files on the three radio plants, the Minsk Town Folder, the FBIS article on Webster and OO-B 3,232,798. After an hour's review of file material, Mr. Cornwell left. His only comment was that he really couldn't be sure what was the correct story, whether the HSCA informant did or did not confuse the Webster case with the other defector case.
The above mentioned memo about the handling of the previous request can be found here:
[7/9/75 memo by V. B. Mariani re: Search for DCD Document]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=2
Veronica Mariani Wrote:1. On 1 July 1975, the Central Reference Service (CRS) was contacted by the Chief, Domestic Contacts Division (DCD), and asked to use its facilities to search for a DCD document mentioned in the CBS evening news broadcast of 30 June 1975 (see attached transcript).
2. The USSR Division, CRS, conducted searches of the two files that might lead to the recovery of a document such as that mentioned in the CBS broadcast. The first search was of an installation file of three USSR radio plants in Minsk. No documents or document references pertinent to the subject were found.
3. The second search was of the Intellofax document retrieval system. The search was for DCD documents produced during 1961 and 1962 and coded for the geographic area Minsk. The search turned up 15 document references. All these documents were reviewed on aperture cards. None of the documents were pertinent to the subject mentioned on the CBS news broadcast.
Interestingly, there's STILL NO RELEVANT RESPONSE - you see, I don't consider a denial to be relevant here. This reminds me of the request by the Warren Commission to the FBI on records concerning Jack Ruby... they got a "response" too... but the response failed to cover the questions raised by the request.
You see, I know and you know that there was a former Marine who worked in a Minsk Radio Plant, and came back with his family in 1962. The HSCA had two independent witnesses to a CIA file on the Minsk Radio Plant - so the denials by the CIA simply aren't credible.
Of course, someone who believes that the CIA "cooperated" with the HSCA probably also believes these CIA denials.
Re: Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Your friend Ben says the CIA was too afraid to even respond to the 1978 (HSCA) request. He's mistaken. Not only did they respond, they complied with the request, as the Breckinridge letters and Fahey memo clearly show.
Nope. A denial is not a response.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:How should the CIA have handled the 1975 (Schorr) request differently, in your opinion?
What's wrong with the truth?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:How should the CIA have handled the 1978 (HSCA) request differently, in your opinion?
Again, what's wrong with the truth?
Are you seriously asserting that the CIA was truthful in this case?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Do you agree with Ben that the CIA (Breckinridge) was too afraid to answer the HSCA (Blakey)?
Since you've been unable to cite anything that isn't simply a pro-forma denial, my statement stands.
The CIA was DEATHLY AFRAID that the facts would come out showing Oswald to be a low-level intelligence asset.
Indeed, he was on the HT/Lingual list - which you CANNOT explain away... Oswald was of EXTREME interest to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Re: Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
I Wrote:Indeed, he was on the HT/Lingual list - which you CANNOT explain away... Oswald was of EXTREME interest to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Perhaps my mind is slipping as I grow old, but I don't recall any believer who ever said a word about HT/Lingual... Is there any believer willing to address the issue?
Re: Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben quotes from a 10/11/78 letter from Robert Blakey (HSCA) to Scott Breckinridge (CIA) requesting access to a certain contact report (and the "volume of materials" where it was supposedly filed).
[10/11/78 letter from G. R. Blakey to S. D. Breckinridge]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=3
Ben claims no response has ever been located (implying that the CIA was too afraid to answer). I have good news for him: The CIA did reply! There is both a confirmation of receipt and a follow-up letter, and (thanks to the MFF website) they're not even difficult to locate:
[10/12/78 letter from S. D. Breckinridge to G. R. Blakey]
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?doc...elPageId=2
Scott Breckinridge Wrote:As soon as we have collected these materials you will be advised. As stated to you we are searching for not only a report of an interview of a former Marine who defected from the U.S.S.R. to the U.S. in 1962, but also a record I recall of a former Navy man who redefected from the U.S.S.R. to the U.S. in the same year. The latter may be the person remembered by your source; his files have already been reviewed by members of your staff.
[10/26/78 letter from S. D. Breckinridge to G. R. Blakey]
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?doc...elPageId=2
Scott Breckinridge Wrote:We made available for review by a HSCA staff member the volume of materials referred to in your letter. There is no contact report. Your representative has confirmed this.
Breckinridge forwarded the request to USSR Division where a HSCA staff member a few days later reviewed the requested files. More details can be found in a memo authored by senior analyst Paul Fahey (CIA):
[10/17/78 memo by P. P. Fahey re: HSCA Request]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=2
Paul Fahey Wrote:1. On 12 October 1978 Scott Breckenridge, Principal Coordinator for the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Office of Legislative Counsel, forwarded a request from the HSCA (see attached). HSCA, while investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of President John Kennedy, had been informed that a CIA contact report (presumably an OOB report from Domestic Contacts Division) concerning the Minsk radio plant had been received and filed in the Minsk Radio Plant folder by CIA's Industrial Registry Branch (sic) which in 1962 was a component of the Office of Central Reference. The source of the 1962 report was believed to be a former US Marine who had defected to the USSR, and then returned to the United States in 1962. HSCA therefore wished to see the report mentioned by the informant and the dossier on the Minsk Radio Plant.
2. In July 1975, USSR Division had handled a similar request, in response to a query from Chief, Domestic Contacts Division (see Veronica Mariani's Memorandum for the Record dated 9 July 1975). At that time, the request was generated by an interview by Daniel Schorr with a former CIA employee who recalled seeing a DCD report on the radio plant in Minsk from a US re-defector who was a former Marine (apparently Lee Harvey Oswald). For this request, USSR Division searched the plant folders for the three radio plants in Minsk, as well as Intellofax (for DCD reports). There were no hits.
3. In 1975, Schorr--at the conclusion of his interview with the former CIA employee--reported that then CIA Director Colby had denied any record of a contact with Lee Harvey Oswald but that the Agency had reported that it had debriefed a re-defector in 1962 who was an ex-Navy man who had worked in a Soviet plant in another city. In October 1978, Mr. Brekenridge informed Chief, USSR Division, OCR, that the ex-Navy man was Robert E. Webster and that he had worked in Leningrad.
4. For the October 1978 HSCA request the following was done:
- --the files of the three radio plants in Minsk were searched again for OO reports from a US re-defector; no hits.
--the Minsk Town Folder was searched for a similar document; no hits.
--the biographic files were searched for information on Robert E. Webster; there was one hit (in the Consolidated File under R. E. VEBSTR)--an FBIS article (from the USSR Daily Report of 26 May 1960, pages BB 29-31) on a speech by Webster, then a USSR citizen working in the Leningrad Polymerization Institute.
--the folder on the Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Polymerization of Plastics was searched for an OO report from a US re-defector; there was one hit: OO-B 3,232,798, 14 August 1962.
--on 16 October 1978, Mr. Gary Cornwell of the HSCA staff visited USSR Division and reviewed the files on the three radio plants, the Minsk Town Folder, the FBIS article on Webster and OO-B 3,232,798. After an hour's review of file material, Mr. Cornwell left. His only comment was that he really couldn't be sure what was the correct story, whether the HSCA informant did or did not confuse the Webster case with the other defector case.
The above mentioned memo about the handling of the previous request can be found here:
[7/9/75 memo by V. B. Mariani re: Search for DCD Document]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=2
Veronica Mariani Wrote:1. On 1 July 1975, the Central Reference Service (CRS) was contacted by the Chief, Domestic Contacts Division (DCD), and asked to use its facilities to search for a DCD document mentioned in the CBS evening news broadcast of 30 June 1975 (see attached transcript).
2. The USSR Division, CRS, conducted searches of the two files that might lead to the recovery of a document such as that mentioned in the CBS broadcast. The first search was of an installation file of three USSR radio plants in Minsk. No documents or document references pertinent to the subject were found.
3. The second search was of the Intellofax document retrieval system. The search was for DCD documents produced during 1961 and 1962 and coded for the geographic area Minsk. The search turned up 15 document references. All these documents were reviewed on aperture cards. None of the documents were pertinent to the subject mentioned on the CBS news broadcast.
Interestingly, there's STILL NO RELEVANT RESPONSE - you see, I don't consider a denial to be relevant here. This reminds me of the request by the Warren Commission to the FBI on records concerning Jack Ruby... they got a "response" too... but the response failed to cover the questions raised by the request.
You see, I know and you know that there was a former Marine who worked in a Minsk Radio Plant, and came back with his family in 1962. The HSCA had two independent witnesses to a CIA file on the Minsk Radio Plant - so the denials by the CIA simply aren't credible.
Of course, someone who believes that the CIA "cooperated" with the HSCA probably also believes these CIA denials.
1) The CIA did respond to Blakey's request, you just don't like the response.
2) The existence of the file on the Minsk Radio Plant is not in dispute. HSCA's Gary Cornwell reviewed it at USSR Division on 10/16/78 and didn't find the purported contact report. Your belief in the existence of the report is also contradicted by your other "witness to the file" (Thomas Casasin) who told the HSCA that he wasn't aware of any contact having been made with Oswald, adding that he would have been informed if a debriefing had taken place.
3) I don't know about other instances, but in this one the CIA did seem to cooperate. Your suspicions to the contrary are, however, noted.
Re: Why Was The CIA Afraid To Answer?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben quotes from a 10/11/78 letter from Robert Blakey (HSCA) to Scott Breckinridge (CIA) requesting access to a certain contact report (and the "volume of materials" where it was supposedly filed).
[10/11/78 letter from G. R. Blakey to S. D. Breckinridge]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=3
Ben claims no response has ever been located (implying that the CIA was too afraid to answer). I have good news for him: The CIA did reply! There is both a confirmation of receipt and a follow-up letter, and (thanks to the MFF website) they're not even difficult to locate:
[10/12/78 letter from S. D. Breckinridge to G. R. Blakey]
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?doc...elPageId=2
[10/26/78 letter from S. D. Breckinridge to G. R. Blakey]
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?doc...elPageId=2
Breckinridge forwarded the request to USSR Division where a HSCA staff member a few days later reviewed the requested files. More details can be found in a memo authored by senior analyst Paul Fahey (CIA):
[10/17/78 memo by P. P. Fahey re: HSCA Request]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=2
The above mentioned memo about the handling of the previous request can be found here:
[7/9/75 memo by V. B. Mariani re: Search for DCD Document]
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...elPageId=2
Interestingly, there's STILL NO RELEVANT RESPONSE - you see, I don't consider a denial to be relevant here. This reminds me of the request by the Warren Commission to the FBI on records concerning Jack Ruby... they got a "response" too... but the response failed to cover the questions raised by the request.
You see, I know and you know that there was a former Marine who worked in a Minsk Radio Plant, and came back with his family in 1962. The HSCA had two independent witnesses to a CIA file on the Minsk Radio Plant - so the denials by the CIA simply aren't credible.
Of course, someone who believes that the CIA "cooperated" with the HSCA probably also believes these CIA denials.
1) The CIA did respond to Blakey's request, you just don't like the response.
You responded to my post, you merely ignored the two witnesses.
Many would argue that to avoid such points is cowardice... or dishonest.
Just as the CIA absolutely refused to provide what they had. You believe the CIA, no-one else does.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:2) The existence of the file on the Minsk Radio Plant is not in dispute. HSCA's Gary Cornwell reviewed it at USSR Division on 10/16/78 and didn't find the purported contact report. Your belief in the existence of the report is also contradicted by your other "witness to the file" (Thomas Casasin) who told the HSCA that he wasn't aware of any contact having been made with Oswald, adding that he would have been informed if a debriefing had taken place.
Once again, you're lying.
The HSCA had no ability whatsoever to simply go to CIA headquarters, and meander through the files. It's not possible for anyone from the HSCA to "review" anything at all that was not provided BY the CIA.
The "existence" of the COMPLETE Minsk Radio Plant file is PRECISELY what is disputed. You wish to to claim that the CIA had a file on this plant, yet had no information in that file from a former Marine & American who worked there.
That's simply unbelievable.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:3) I don't know about other instances, but in this one the CIA did seem to cooperate. Your suspicions to the contrary are, however, noted.
I quoted the evidence for the non-cooperation of the CIA - nor did they cooperate in this case either - they refused to provide what several witnesses testified existed.
Quite clearly, the one who refuses to admit their mistakes is the very person who accuses others of it.
And quite amusingly, you dared not touch the HT/Lingual topic.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)