404-t0447-10049] - . ovine: TO : Chief, Security Research Staff - 12 August 1968 FROM : Interrogation Research Division SUBJECT =: Yuriy Ivanovich NOSENKO . IRD # 67h9L IDENTIFYING DATA Subject is a 4O year old former KGB Staffer who defected to the U.S. in 1964 in Geneva. BACKGROUND ‘Mr. Bruce L. Solie of the Security Research Staff has been de- briefing and interrogating Subject since October 1967 in order to resolve the issue whether Subject was a dispatched agent of the KGB. He has conducted a vast amount of research and checking with sources in an effort to establish the veracity of Subject's statements. PURPOSE The primary purpose of the polygraph test was to determine: 1. Whether Subject was a dispatched Agent of the KGB; 2, Whether Subject had intentionally given Mr. Solie any false information. PROCEDURE . ee € ; Subject was given a polygraph examination on 2 August 1968 at a safesite in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. The examination was conducted in the English language. Subject's comprehension and tne ability to express himself in English was completely adequate for purposes of polygraph testing. Subject was completely cooperative in all respects. Subject displayed no evasiveness and appeared to . be completely frank whenever he was questioned or gave information on a topic. The following relevant questions were asked during the first test: Is your true name Yuriy Ivanovich NOSENKO? Yes. Were you born in the year 1927? Yes. of Besides the Americans, did you tell anyone else about your intention to defect? No. 0003650
14-00000 | MEU | IRD sf 67491 Page 3 To the best of your knowledge, was PENKOVSKIY exposed to the KGB because of the mass surveillance on the British Embassy? Yes. Was thei any misleading information in the notes you brought out from the Soviet Union? No. Did you intentionally exaggerate your personal association with GRIBANOV? No. Are you hiding any adverse information about your background? No. Subject's polygraph test reflected no significant responses indicative of deception regardfng the relevant. questions asked. No further polygreph tests were administered on this date because the examiner did not want to ' run the risk of fatigue setting in and thus possibly causing adrenalin — exhaustion. Polygraph testing was resumed on 6 August 1968. ‘The following relevant questions were asked on test four: Did you join the KGB in March 1953? Yes. Were you a KGB officer from 1953 to 1964? Yes. Were you a Deputy Chief of the Seventh Department? Yes. Were you only a Captain at this time? Yes. Were you an officer in the U.S. Embassy Section from March 1953 to May 1955? Yes. In 1958 and 1959 were you the Deputy Chief of the American- British-Canadian Section in the Seventh Department? Yes. From January 1960 to December 1961 were you the Deputy to the Chief of the First Section of the First Department? Yes. From January to July 1962 were you the Chief of the First Section of the Seventh Department? Yes. vere you an officer in the First Section, First Department, SCD, at the time of the Stalingrad operation against Benson, Mule and Stroud? Yes. Me 003652
14-00000 Tx ¢ Pag ce + So The following relevant questions were asked on test five: Since 1953 do you kmow of any other KGB recruitments in the American Embassy besides ANDREY and HOWARD? No. Did the KGB know about the notes you brought out? No. Have you told us the complete truth about your KGB career? Yes. Did you intentionally exaggerate your personal involvement in cases in 1962 and 196: in order to mislead us? No. Did you intentjonally give us any false ‘operational information? No. Did GRIBANOV offer you the position of Deputy Chief of the First Department? Yes. Was an order actually prepared promoting you to Deputy to the Chief of the First Department? Yes. In early 1960 did GRIBANOV tell you that your primary responsibility — was to work against American Code Clerks? Yes. Other than you mentioned, are you hiding any other reasons for your defection? Mo. Are you deliberately withholding any information on any foreigners recruited by the KGB? No. The following relevant questions were asked on.test six: Did you enter the KGB through the influence of General BOGDAN KOBULCV? Yes. Did you succeed BAKHVALOV as Deputy Chief of the First Section? Yes. Did GRYAZNOV succeed you as Deputy Chief of the First Section? Yes. - Were the CHEREPANOY papers passed to the Americans with KGB knowledge? Wo. a,
14-00000 a SECRET IRD ; zt 67k91 Page Pa ? To your knowledge was there any misleading information in the CHEREPANOV papers? No. Did you ever personally meet GOLITSYN? No. Was there_a cable sent to Geneva for you to assist ARTEMEV in the case? Yes. ay Did you personally make an approach tof iat the Moscow Airport? Yes. The following relevant questions were asked on test seven: Did you actually review the KGB file on OSWALD? Yes. Did LEE HARVEY OSWALD receive any KGB training or assignments? No. Were there any microphones installed in the North Wing of the U.S. Embassy in-Moscow? No. Was the review of microphone reports one of your duties in 1960-61? Yes. Are you withholding any information known to you concerning KGB microphones or electronic activity against the U.S. Embassy? No. Before your official transfer to the Seventh Department did you read the surveillance report on the visit of ABIDIAN to PUSHKIN street? Yes. Did you personally conduct a certain investigation of SHAKOV in 1962 in Geneva? Yes. Was the rank of Lieutenant Colonel on your travel document to GORKIY only a mistake by KASHPEROV? Yes. The following relevant questions were asked on test eight: While in the U.S. Embassy Section did you obtain a typewriter for BORODIN for the preparation of a letter to Edward Ellis SMITH? Yes. ecgo3es& SECRET
14-00000 4 (SECRET IRD # 67491. Page - Did you_read the official report of KOSOLAPOV on his contact with on a train from Helsinki to Moscow? Yes. NS 5 Are you intentionally withholding any information concerning KGB knowledge of CIA personnel in Moscow? No. Is there any possibility that the KGB would dispatch an officer to defect to the Americans? No. , Subject's polygraph test of 6 August likewise reflected no indications of deception. CONCLUSION Based solely on the overall analysis of Subject's polygraph tests, it is the opinion of the undersigned that the Subject has been substantially truthful in answering the relevant questions asked. fe frm, > POQZESS SECRET