• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
James DiEugenio

Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

363 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

deleted, no need to do a Tommy and bump it

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Dear James Baby,

I guess my mistake was reading that particular un-annotated statement of yours in that The Assassinations book, huh?

My bad.

--  Tommy :sun

PS  The reason I'm wearing those cheap sunglasses is to hide the fact that I've had fifteen lobotomies. 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

You're the best, Mr. DiEugenio.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TG: You wrote on page 220 of The Assassinations that some CIA cables and Kostikov himself said that "the real Oswald" did meet with Kostikov in Mexico City(!), but you gave no "sources".  Bummer, dude. Could you please give us a clue or two as to where we can read the pertinent documents about that, ourselves?

This is almost funny, but it happens with paper tigers.

1.  I edited The book The Assassinations. It says on the cover that I edited it with Lisa Pease.  Its an anthology.

2.  Although I wrote more articles than anyone else, I did not write the one Tommy Baby is quoting.  Evidently, he never looked at T of C, or the essay heading.

3.  John Newman wrote that essay. Its evident if you read the essay that he is relying on the book Passport to Assassination. It says that on the previous page.  As per the CIA cables, what else would they say?

As for saying I am a great researcher, where did I say that?  I said I have a certain reputation in the eyes of many others.  That is borne out by evidence I mentioned.

As for BK,I like Bill, but the comment is  probably because I did not join CAPA.  Between KennedysandKIng, The Consortium and other commitments, I just do not have the time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

You're the best, Mr. DiEugenio.

--  Tommy :sun

edited and bumped for Mr. DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Paul Trejo said:

"Ruth Paine always told the truth.   Also, Priscilla Johnson had no reason to lie about anything.   To say otherwise is to spread cloak and dagger nonsense."

What are you doing in a discussion group where evidence is supposed to be weighed and evaluated? Why not just stick with defending the WCR on someplace like aaj? 

Edited by Pamela Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

God, I cannot ponder how you are still pushing that Leonov photo comparison, even after I told you about Webster.  

PS If you want to call me on Angleton and the RFK photos, I advise you to look at Morley's book on Scott.

 

Dear James,

I'm sorry, but what did you say about Webster?  I honestly don't remember.  Or do I have to go searching for it now. like a needle in a hay stack, as a form of punishment?

--  Tommy :sun

PS  The RFK photos?  Sorry. James. but I.m afraid you've lost me.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dear James,

In your book review you wrote,

"There are two other points about this absolutely crucial episode that Morley mentions, although not at length. First is the delay in getting the first cable to CIA HQ about Oswald visiting the Soviet Embassy. This took over a week. It has never been adequately explained."

I'm going from memory on this and I'm probably wrong anyway, but couldn't the delay be explained by the possibility that it took about seven days for CIA Headquarters and CIA Mexico City to get "on the same page" regarding how to go about smoking out the October 1 impersonator who had not only identified himself as "Lee Oswald," but had also coaxed the Russian on the other end of the line to volunteer the name "Kostikov"?  I suppose it could be argued that, after having conferred with Angleton / Egerter in Washington, by stopping off for two days of "consultations" (probably with Shackley) at JMWAVE while on his way back to Mexico City, Dave and Ted might have taken that opportunity to work on the plans for the upcoming "hit" in Dallas.

Hmmm.  I think I'm starting to see what you're getting at!

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Reason for edit: The Agency made me do it. At first I thought it was just the Devil, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:02 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I've read the book. If Simpich referred to it as a mole hunt I stand corrected. But I don't misrepresent him, and his own response to you makes it clear that he wishes you would stop doing so. And admit that Lee Henry Oswald was first used as a dangle in 1960 by Angleton's staff, no doubt at his instructions.

Paul B.,

Where does Bill Simpich say that he wishes that I would stop misrepresenting him?   I never saw that memo in my life.  Show me, please.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Paul Trejo said:

"Ruth Paine always told the truth.   Also, Priscilla Johnson had no reason to lie about anything.   To say otherwise is to spread cloak and dagger nonsense."

What are you doing in a discussion group where evidence is supposed to be weighed and evaluated? Why not just stick with defending the WCR on someplace like aaj? 

Pamela,

I am certainly willing to weigh evidence.  If you have credible evidence that Ruth Paine lied, please post it on this thread.

Also, if you have credible evidence that Priscilla Johnson lied, then please post it on this thread.

I don't agree with Priscilla Johnson on everything, because she only repeats what Marina Oswald told her, and Marina Oswald often repeated what Lee Oswald told her, and Lee Oswald often lied to Marina Oswald.  So, there are lots of errors in Priscilla Johnson's account -- but Priscilla never deliberately LIED that I can see.  There is a vast difference between an error and a lie.

If you have other information, please share it.  I'm willing to weigh it objectively.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 7:08 PM, Paul Brancato said:

...Trejo keeps saying that Angleton and others at his rank were out of the loop, and that middle level officers were operating behind his back. He bases this mostly on Simpich, who earlier this week acknowledged that he doesn't know if Angleton was or wasn't confused about the Oswald impersonation.

Same for Phillips. If, as Trejo states, Simpich uses the words 'mole hunt' to describe looking for Oswald's impersonator, it's either a new use for the term, or Angleton thought that the impersonator was a Soviet mole.

Paul B.,

CIA high-command James Jesus Angleton was the creator of Mole Hunts in the CIA.   Bill Simpich demonstrates with scientific accuracy that a top-secret Mole Hunt was started on October 1, 1963 in Mexico City when it was found out within 15 minutes that somebody inside the organization had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald over the telephone, asking for KGB assassin Kostikov.

This strongly suggests that James Jesus Angleton had no idea who the Mole was.

Whoever tried to link Oswald to Kostikov was trying to frame Oswald for the JFK assassination, scheduled for the next month.  

That was probably CIA agent David Morales.   So -- David Morales had gone rogue.   So, James Jesus Angleton was out of the loop.

It's basic logic.

Mole means a Mole inside the CIA.  It's not a new use for the term.   Phillips was equally out of the loop.  Phillips was hoping Lee Oswald would help kill Fidel Castro.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 2:23 PM, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

What I write here is to help, not to criticize.

If the CIA has a 201 file on a person that means the person works for the CIA. It does not mean the CIA is spying on you, or is checking on you, or suspects you of doing something against the USA, it means that you work for them. For every person who goes to work for a federal agency, whether it be the CIA or HUD or Homeland Security, a 201 file is started on that person. A 201 file is not a spy file, it´s an admin file. It will include your application for employment, any scores from tests you´ve taken to get the job, your selection of life insurance, your health benefits, a short bio that will be checked out by the FBI, references that the FBI will check, etc. Even after you stop working for the federal agency the 201 file will remain with the agency forever.

So, if you change someone´s name, such as changing Oswald´s middle name to ¨Henry¨, his entire 201 file must reflect the change. And then you´re talking about changing signatures and it gets real messy. That is a whole lot of changing my friend. It´s not worth the time and effort to do that sort of change. It´s much easier and less painfull to do something else to catch your mole.

From my research, I agree.  A "person of interest" does NOT have a 201 file opened by a government agency.

http://www.touchstoneresearchgroup.com/catalog/government-201-file-ompf-p-33.html

http://payrollhero.ph/product/201-file

So...if the CIA has a 201 file on you...and they testify that you never were an employee...somebody's not being completely truthful.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

TG: You wrote on page 220 of The Assassinations that some CIA cables and Kostikov himself said that "the real Oswald" did meet with Kostikov in Mexico City(!), but you gave no "sources".  Bummer, dude. Could you please give us a clue or two as to where we can read the pertinent documents about that, ourselves?

...John Newman wrote that essay... 

James,

This, by the way, is why I say that John Newman's work is now out-dated, since the Lopez Report was published in 2003 and State Secret was published in 2014.

The real Oswald never met Kostikov.   The CIA knew this within minutes after the impersonation, and started a CIA Mole Hunt for the CIA Mole who impersonated Oswald.

The Lopez Report made it clear in 2003, however, that if Lee Harvey Oswald had really met the KGB assassin in Mexico City, then it would have been 100% certain that the Communists killed JFK.

That is precisely how wrong John Newman was -- 100% wrong.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

From my research, I agree.  A "person of interest" does NOT have a 201 file opened by a government agency.

http://www.touchstoneresearchgroup.com/catalog/government-201-file-ompf-p-33.html

http://payrollhero.ph/product/201-file

So...if the CIA has a 201 file on you...and they testify that you never were an employee...somebody's not being completely truthful.

May I ask Bill Simpich to comment on this point, please?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some comments:

PT never gets tired of misrepresenting people, if he likes them or does not like them.  Concerning John Newman,  where PT gets that the Lopez Report was published in 2003 is something that is simply wrong. (No big deal with him.)  First, classified government reports do not get published in the normal sense of the word.  They get declassified by the government in paper copies.  The first version of the Lopez Report, this was declassified in 1994.  And John used it in his book, Oswald and the CIA published in 1995. Anyone can see that by reading the book, which either Paul has not done, or he was so intent on smearing John he ignored this fact. This particular article in The Assassinations, was originally published two years later in Probe Magazine,. It was not part of his book. Only PT could use false facts in order to trash someone like John.  While, in my view, he himself has not read the Lopez Report.  Instead he uses it as a propaganda device. 

Secondly, if you read that essay, John is using pieces of information to test out various possibilities.  One of them is in the Nechiporenko book, which held that Oswald was actually at the Soviet Embassy.  If you talk to John about this subject, which I have, he will predicate his thoughts with, "I don't know if you think Oswald was in Mexico City, or not..."  In other words, he is fully aware that some people do not think he was.  In this instance, to test a modification, he was using info which said he was.  Clearly, PT has not read this either.

Third, as to Tommy and the Kostikov memo, when I asked Eddie about this, he said, "Jim, don't you know, the CIA used Pony Express."  Meaning, of course, that there was no normal way to explain how something like that could have happened.  It was simply beyond the pale. Like Goodpasture not knowing the Mystery Man was shot on October 2, not October 1. In my essay in Destiny Betrayed, second edition, I tried to explain this by saying that it was part of the scheme to not alert Langley while "Oswald" was there.  The purpose being that it would cause an inquiry showing he was not there.  Dan Hardway, the last time I talked to him, now seems to think that it was made up after the fact. Which would indicate that Phillips was telling the truth in his debate with Lane when he said, when all the declassifications are over, there will be  no evidence Oswald ever visited the Soviet Embassy.  If one postulates that somehow HQ was figuring out there was some kind of unauthorized imposter down there, the question then becomes, what does that have to do with the SENDING of the Kostikov cable?  

Because from the Lopez Report, one understands that whenever MC found out that someone who spoke broken Russian talked to someone in the Soviet Embassy, that was supposed to be a "hot cable", meaning it was to be sent immediately.  For the purposes of trying to find out who that person really was and getting a backgrounder on him. Then, the CIA would order surveillance on this person, as John has shown in his book. (Which, for his own propaganda purposes, PT does not want you to read.)  That did not happen here since by the time the cable was sent, "Oswald" was gone.  So, in my opinion, there is still no adequate way to explain this lapse.

As per Leonov, as I have stated previously, I tend not to trust photographic comparisons.  Even when they are done by people with expertise.  There have been too many cases where they turned out to be wrong, e.g. the three CIA officers at the Ambassador Hotel.  Unless you have dead on, high quality, close up angles, they are not trustworthy.  Bill is not, as far as I know, a photographic expert, and many people did not buy his previous judgement about Webster and Oswald  being dead ringers. You can just Google that one.

I could not agree more with Pamela's query as to PT's comments about Ruth Paine and PJM.  As many have discovered, his level of analysis in this case, and his questionable past reading, are highly dubious.  Ernie Lazar opened the door, and now its a tsunami. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now