Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bill Simpich

Members
  • Content Count

    292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Bill Simpich

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

10,488 profile views
  1. we are up to part 6 - this week and next week we will focus on a big discussion about mary bancroft- allen dulles - and the de mohrenschildt - paine connection.
  2. Yes, Tony Summers conducted this interview with Duran and showed her the film of LHO in New Orleans in 1979, the year after her testimony before the HSCA. I should add that there was a CIA-driven smear of Duran after the assassination. Elena Garro, one of the foremost playwrights in Mexico - and the ex-partner of the famed poet and diplomat Octavio Paz - came up with a story that Duran and Oswald were sleeping together in Mexico City. Alonso Lujambio of the Mexican freedom of information institute released information pursuant to the Mexican FOIA laws about 15 years ago making it plain that Elena Garro was a spy. Because of her support for the students in 1968 - some question the veracity of the claim, saying that DFS' Fernandez Gutierrez Barrios/LITEMPO-4 made it up - the man that Silvia Duran kicked in the balls when he tried to get her to lie about Oswald. I believe Silvia - not the untrustworthy Gutierrez. (There is another story, years later, from CIA officer Wallace Rowton/pseudo unknown claiming that CIA agent LIRING-3 claimed that Duran told him she slept with Oswald - I don''t believe Rowton either!) I just found another report on a document in the Mexican archives stating that Garro was reporting on the whereabouts of the student leaders themselves in 1968 - and the authenticity of this report seems pretty well buttoned down. All this is important - because Elena Garro is not a credible witness and she has done real damage to the progress of understanding in the JFK case. Furthermore, I interviewed Gerardo Ochoa Sandy, a diplomat, who provided me with an article where Garro admitted that the whole story about Oswald and the twist party was "made up". Here is the summary of the document and the document itself, which is in Spanish. (if the document doesn't open - let me know)
  3. Thank you. That's what I was looking for, a considered summary. I will study it - no comments on that subject until after I have reviewed it. Jerry Rose, a great researcher who I regret never meeting before his recent death, was one of the first people to study the question of whether LHO went to Mexico. Rose's article was in 1985, not in 1977. The Anthony Summers interview with Duran was in 1979. The reason for my immediate concern about your analysis because Silvia Duran is "one of the most important witnesses there is" - if she is not a truth teller, that puts an entirely different cast on her statements and testimony. Jerry, like all of us, has made mistakes along the way - his mistake here was that he should have cited page 350 of Anthony Summers' book, not page 376. Here is Summers' verbatim description of his 1979 interview with Duran: "Today the consul's assistant, Sylvia Duran, points out sensibly that the passing of the years has blurred her recollection of Oswald. "She emphasizes that, back in 1963, it never occurred to her that the Dallas Oswald and the Embassy Oswald might be different people... "Sylvia Duran did see the fleeting television film of Ruby shooting Oswald and noticed nothing to make her feel the victim was different from the man she had encountered. "Astonishingly, no official investigators have ever asked to her to study either that footage or a longer film of Oswald which has been readily available ever since the assassination. "In 1979 I made arrangements for Duran to see the filmed interview of Oswald made in New Orleans a few weeks before the Mexico episode. "She was thus able to see and listen to Oswald addressing the camera for some minutes. "Duran's reaction was disturbing. She said, 'I was not sure if it was Oswald or not...the man on the film is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City.' "Asked what struck her as different, Duran replied, 'The man on this film speaks strongly and carries himself with confidence. The man who came to my office in Mexico City was small and weak and spoke in a trembling voice.' Duran found herself thoroughly confused. "The investigator can build no certainties on Duran's new bouts. Yet she supplies one further detail, and it increases the suspicion that her visitor was bogus. "In her notes on the incident, Duran writes that the man at the consulate was a diminutive fellow - at the most about 5 feet 6 inches tall. That is short for a man, the sort of detail a woman might indeed remember. "Duran told Assassinations Committee staff that Oswald was 'short...about my size.' Duran is a little woman herself, only 5 feet 3 1/2 inches. "This is noticeably shorter than the real Oswald's height of 5 feet 9 1/2 inches. "Duran and her former boss both remember the Oswald at the consulate as being blond haired. She also thinks he had 'blue or green eyes'. If she is right, neither detail fits with the authentic Oswald."
  4. David, I'm going to try this one more time. And then I'm going to stop. I am an agnostic on your argument that LHO was never in Mexico. It's not my case to make. I don't have a case. Pretend I know nothing about your argument - which is basically the case. Make the argument for a fifth grader. I will say one thing - when Silvia Duran was interviewed by Tony Summers years later, and carefully shown some photos and film, she came to the conclusion that the LHO shot by Jack Ruby was not the man she saw in Mexico City on September 27. That is an item that I don't think you know about. See this Jerry Rose article - you might have seen it - "The Trip That Never Was - Oswald in Mexico", endnote 5. What's out of character for me is not offering comradely criticism earlier to a colleague who is not squarely addressing the evidence. I don't know the history of your debate with Jeremy Bojczuk, or have a dog in that fight, but I was stunned when you accused him of "standard COINTELPRO techniques for disrupting forums" when he tried to discuss the "quality of evidence" in making one's case. It's one thing to fight with an Ed Forum member about differences about politics or evidence. It's another to say that. I have been waiting to see the evidence on which you base your belief that Ochoa and others dummied up the case about Oswald. The two signatures on the visa application are one good example. I still have hope. So please - without rhetorical flourishes or those very confusing two-tone overlays - what are the five best pieces of evidence proving Oswald was never in Mexico? Can you provide that analysis?
  5. David, Your Duran argument hinges on your belief that she is deliberately lying about Oswald. Could you briefly state the five best pieces of evidence that illustrate your theory that LHO never went to Mexico City? (I thought the two different LHO signatures on the visa form would be one of them - but that could have been done for a variety of reasons.)
  6. David, Could you try again, I don't follow you. 1. Your opening argument that "Oswald wasn't there" is irrelevant to the question of why you think Duran is not telling the truth on any subject. This commentary is very confusing and unhelpful. 2. It remains confusing when you write "she doesn't know how many copies there were or if she gave a copy to the man before her...." What are you referring to? Can you cite your source? 3. You write: "Would it have been consistent with the procedures in the consulate or you to have allowed him to take one or both of the applications typed up outside the Consulate?" Same problem. It goes from there. I assume you are saying that because she forgot certain procedures that is evidence of lying. That is a big burden you haven't met at this point.
  7. David, What evidence do you have that Silvia Duran is not telling the truth on any subject? I watch her record carefully. So far, she seems to me to be on the mark. CIA officers complained about her not being one of their agents. I know that her sister-in-law Lydia was a CIA source in Bolivia - KLAMBROSIA-29. She was in a relationship with the married man Carlos Lechuga - AMLAW-3 - while the CIA was trying to convince Lechuga's wife and ultimately Lechuga to defect. I have always viewed Silvia Duran as someone who was being spied on.
  8. Anthony, My next comment asks you to consider and address the recent problems that Mexico City was having with the security of LIENVOY - I bring this up because you write: "Why would the interception of a phone conversation between an American citizen and the Soviet Embassy give rise to a concern about the security of LIENVOY?" 1. The station was very concerned about LIENVOY's security as of September 1963 On August 6, 1963, the station wrote a memo focusing on a report "identifying and trapping of a (US) citizen who was offering his services to the Cuban embassy...posing as a Cuban embassy official to trap him into revealing his intentions." The station was concerned that such a strategy might reveal the existence of LIENVOY to the Cubans. On September 28, 1963 - a man and a woman were recorded on the LIENVOY line - yet the record of that call was entirely suppressed by the CIA station. Why? My supposition is that the Agency was concerned that now the Cubans knew about LIENVOY, and feared there was a leak, and didn't want that to be generally known. On October 1, 1963, a man calling himself Lee Oswald called back, and referred to his call on Sept 28. That call was reported. But not the Sept 28 call. Why? 2. Two of the four LIENVOY taps on the Cuban embassy were disconnected on September 23 - three days before LHO's alleged arrival in Mexico City Two of the four LIENVOY taps on the Cuban embassy were disconnected on 9/23/63. The LIENVOY taps were on cultural attache Teresa Proenza's line 14-13-26, and also on 14-42-37. There is a reference to "three Cuban lines", but redactions prevent us from knowing what the third line was. I see no signs of a LIENVOY tap on Sylvia Duran's line, 11-28-47. The Mexico City memo said that 25-07-95 was disconnected because Ramon Sinobas had gone back to Cuba, and the 14-92-14 line wasn't being used either. I have seen Raul Aparicio use the 14-92-14 line, who was the Cubans' PR man. (Sources on all this in State Secret, Chapter 4) 3. The person who called the Soviet consulate on September 28 and October 1 was the same person - & may have been a Spanish-speaker The September LIENVOY report, written by Scott on 10/8/63,. also mentions that there were "two leads from LIENVOY of operational interest in September 1963". Neither of these calls were the Sept 28 call from "Duran and Oswald" to the Soviet consulate is not mentioned.https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=53528&relPageId=4 However, the October LIENVOY report does mention that "MEXI-6453 reported a (October 1) contact by an English-speaking man with the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. This was forwarded to Headquarters for further dissemination". This, of course, was the phone call where a man identified himself as "Lee Oswald", speaking in broken Russian before resorting to English. Why do these reports ignore on what I assess as a September 28 Duran-Oswald call? Even if you disagree with their identities, it seems clear that this call was mistrusted from the day it was made, and was held very closely as a secret. It was revealed to the FBI on October 16 that Lee Henry Oswald had been at the Soviet embassy on Sept 28, with the FBI indicating an "extremely sensitive source" - the phrase usually used for LIENVOY. The October 1 call, however, was trumpeted far and wide throughout the Agency and to other governmental agencies. Even though it is unquestioned that Tarasoff identified that the September 28 caller and the October 1 caller were the same person. Ostensibly, as of October 8, Scott did not consider these Sept 28 and Oct. 1 LIENVOY calls as "operational". He only considered the October 1 call as operational, and only after he had received the October 10 memo from Headquarters. There is also a note from author Ron Kessler stating that: “…both the Mexican monitors (according to Arehart, outside staff agent) said caller (who called himself Oswald) had difficulty making himself understood (as I recall) in both English and Russian". In other words, the caller's native tongue may have been Spanish.
  9. Anthony, I am appreciating the work you are doing! It's very important. Which is why I don't understand why you persist in getting started on the wrong foot - and haven't fully addressed it when I bring it up. You write that "the (Tilton) operation was around a disinformation operation using forged FPCC documents". It's just not that simple. September 18: Tilton's promise on this date was to "not initiate the production of any fabricated material" - that is simply not the same as his plan to "also plant deceptive information" in a "foreign country" where FPCC has "some support". The false claim that LHO was a card-carrying Communist Party member was planted in Mexico City by the man who went to the Cuban consulate. - and it echoed the claim in the 9/10/63 Hosty memo that LHO was a communist, received by Anderson on 9/13/63. "Fabricated material" is clearly a reference to fabricated "quantities of propaganda in the name of the (FPCC)". It is not same as planting "deceptive information". The fabrication effort involved obtaining stationery and mailing lists. Planting deceptive information is a wholly different effort, that engages in a variety of techniques. September 26: The letter of this date affirms that the need to wait is focused on obtaining stationery and mailing lists in order to engage in "similar techniques" such as "anonymous leaflets". It gives no signal that CIA will not plant deceptive information. October 4: This letter makes it clear that Victor Vicente of the FPCC will obtain the stationery and mailing lists - again, no signal that the CIA's hands are tied "in connection with their consideration of plans to counter the activities of FPCC in foreign countries." It's a bad idea to merge the two - you are sailing towards an iceberg by doing it. I have additional comments, but want to flag this first and ask you again to address it. Thanks!
  10. Hi Anthony, Can we go back to the 9/18/63 document and what it says... "Pursuant to a discussion with the Liaison Agent, Tilton advised that his Agency will not initiate the production of any fabricated material concerning the Committee without first consulting with the Bureau, bearing in mind that we wish to make certain the CIA activity will not jeopardize any Bureau investigation." That has nothing to do with the hypothesis I am offering. My hypothesis is about the portion of the letter that states: "CIA is also giving some thought to planting deceptive information which might embarrass the Committee in areas where it does have some support." My hypothesis is that Tilton and company had the ability to subtly influence Oswald to go to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and try to get to Cuba that way. They knew it wouldn't work, because LHO needed a sponsor like someone from the CPUSA to back his play. He also had no shot at getting there by the following Monday! They may have also convinced him to believe that he could only stay 15 days after he got his visa in New Orleans (see LHO's Nov 9 letter) - that's why he left on Oct 2, 15 days after he got his visa in New Orleans on Sept. 17. in fact, the 15 days didn't start to run until after he crossed the border on Sept 26. He could have stayed until Oct 11! So he was all fired up and in a big rush - for no good reason other than operating on bad information. As I've said many times - until there is better evidence - I don't think LHO was a CIA agent - he was what the CIA refers to as an unwitting co-optee. He was being manipulated. Why do people duck this conversation? I chalk it up to wanting the romance of LHO as a CIA agent. I think this is more practical - and, in a sense, even more romantic! LHO had it in his head in mid-September that he wanted to go to Mexico City. It wasn't Tilton's job to stop him - it was his job (or someone else's) to manipulate Oswald.
  11. This might be helpful too... Right before the 10/10 memos were created, the alarm that Oswald was a security risk was turned off Meanwhile, the very men who dreamed up the notion of luring Oswald to Mexico City received one of the 10/10 memos. Even though the 10/10 memos were destined only for Soviet desks, the FBI copy was forwarded to the Nationalities Intelligence division which focused on Cuban affairs - and then directly into the hands of FBI supervisor Lambert Anderson. The words “Nat Int”, “Anderson”, and “Wannall” (Anderson’s boss) can be seen on the FBI’s copy of the memo. Ordinarily, there was no reason to forward this memo to Nationalities Intelligence - they did not work the Soviet beat. But, as we have seen from the beginning, Lambert Anderson was one of the two men at FBI headquarters who was specifically charged with handling the Oswald file and who had run the joint agency anti-FPCC operation. The other was FBI counterintelligence supervisor Marvin Gheesling, who had placed Oswald on the security watch list four years earlier when he went to the Soviet Union. The day before the 10/10 twin memos were created, Gheesling took Oswald off the security watch list after talking with Lambert Anderson. Both Gheesling and Anderson had signed off on a watch list document placed in Oswald’s file on August 13 after Oswald was arrested in New Orleans for breach of the peace while leafleting for the FPCC. Gheesling wrote that once he learned that Oswald was arrested, he told Anderson that Oswald should be taken off the security watch list because he had inadvertently forgot to remove his name after Oswald’s return from the Soviet Union.[ 38 ] Anderson confirmed that someone had told him that the security flash had been removed because it was no longer necessary once Oswald had returned to the United States. One immediate problem with both of their stories is that their boss Bill Branigan wrote on 11/22/63 that the very reason Oswald was put on the watch list was to ensure that “any subsequent arrest in the U.S. was brought to our attention”. So why take him off the list after he was arrested? An even more intriguing problem, with Gheesling’s story in particular, is that he wrote that he removed Oswald’s name from the security watch list on October 9 right after he learned about Oswald’s arrest. Gheesling’s explanation flies in the face of the aforementioned watch list document showing that both Gheesling and Anderson knew about Oswald’s arrest around August 13. Gheesling’s name and initials “wmg” are also on other memos discussing Oswald and his arrest dated August 21 and August 23. The probable solution is that Anderson got wind of a tip. On October 8 Anderson received a Sept. 24 report of Oswald’s arrest, which revealed Oswald’s request to speak with an FBI agent and share quite a bit of information while in jail.[ 39 ] My conclusion is that on the 9th the two men came to some kind of mutual understanding that Oswald was helpful to the FBI, and saw no reason to keep him on the security watch list. “Anderson” of “Nat. Int.” is written on the watch list file, underneath the date of October 10. As a result, no alarms went off at the FBI when the 10/8/63 memo about Oswald being in Mexico City and trying to contact Kostikov arrived on the 10th. Any alarm that might have sounded about Oswald being a security risk appears to have been deliberately turned off by Gheesling and Anderson. The intriguing question is whether Gheesling and Anderson took Oswald off the security watch list based solely on the report about Oswald's cooperation with the FBI, or whether they had also been tipped off that a molehunt was about to begin with Oswald's file. The timing would suggest that both factors were in play. If the officers in the Cuban division had received a copy of either one of the twin 10/10 memos, they would now know that the Cuban angle on the Oswald story had been methodically erased from the paper trail between CIA HQ and Mexico City. That would have been a key tipoff that an investigation had begun. Patch worn by John S. Tilton when he was running the assassination-driven Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Although none of the officers in the CIA’s Cuban division got a copy of either of the 10/10 memos, it does appear that Anderson got a copy of one of them. Anderson could have easily told Tilton. If that happened, then the CIA’s Cuban division officers could have learned about the 10/10 memo from Tilton. These officers had a number of ways to obtain this confirmation, but the Tilton route would have been one of the simplest. The only problem with this aspect is that it seems unlikely that Tilton would be willing to be a conduit to any organizers of a plan to kill the President, given that his role in the anti-FPCC operation was a matter of record within the Agency.
  12. Anthony, I appreciate anyone who reads my book and deals with what I found. Not many people have done it. I wrote the book primarily for researchers, to encourage greater exploration. So let me follow up - I'm not defensive - but I'm still digging. I don't agree with your supposition. Tilton had two objectives mentioned in the 9/18/63 memo - you only address one. One was- yes - to fabricate documents and distributing propaganda through appropriate cut-outs. But the other was that "CIA is also giving some thought to planting deceptive information which might embarrass the Committee in areas where it does have some support." You did not address the issue about "planting deceptive information" in "areas" - like Mexico - where FPCC "does have some support". That's what I think Tilton was up to. Hosty made two points about Oswald and communism in his 9/10/63 memo Take a look at Serial 36: In two short paragraphs, Hosty said that Oswald was a subscriber to the Worker, New York’s Communist newspaper, and that he had a track record of distributing pamphlets in Dallas on behalf of the aforementioned Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Two weeks later - the Oswald character - Oswald or not, I'm agnostic on that issue - shows up in front of Silvia Duran at the Cuban consulate and presents a card showing that he is a card-carrying Communist and documents showing that he is an FPCC activist. The Oswald character is repeating the two central contentions of the Hosty memo re Oswald's communist connection. Look at the HQ file 105-82555, serials 34 (Lee Oswald memo), 35 (Marina Oswald memo) and 36 (Hosty's general memo) Hosty hid the existence of the security flash in his one-page memo on LHO. There''s something really wrong with this Hosty memo of 9/10/63 (Serial 34). He doesn't acknowledge the existence of the security flash - he fails to check the appropriate box. This is critically important! He sends this memo hiding the security flash to Anderson - you can see Anderson's name in the right hand side of the document. But...at the same time...although the pages are jumbled, the security flash for Lee Oswald is firmly in place. The preceding two pages (pp. 122-123) are both reviewed by Anderson. Anderson undoubtedly saw the security flash at that time. The context makes it clear Anderson is reviewing both files together. It looks like Anderson had all these serials on Oswald, communism, and the security flash by Sept. 13 - not the 16th The FBI receives the files on Sept 13, according to this stamp. Anderson's name is underneath, he may have reviewed it that day. The following page, documenting LHO's arrest in New Orleans, is signed by Anderson with no date. There is a reference to the HQ file being received dated 9/16/63. The final page is the security flash, with a scribble next to it that is indistinct. Everything indicates Anderson received these three serials and reviewed them on the 13th, not the 16th. This business of not mentioning the security flash is important. Why didn't the security flash go off when the Oswald character went to Mexico, or when he returned? Because he was using the name H. O. Lee, and his name had not yet hit the documents. This is another indication that Hosty, Anderson and Tilton were up to something regarding Oswald - even if he didn't know he was being used, or how he was being used. On Sept. 17 - the Oswald character in New Orleans managed to get a visa saying Harvey Oswald Lee on it - not Lee Harvey Oswald. So when he crossed into Mexico on Sept 26 and back to the US on Oct 2 - no security flash went off. If the security flash had not been turned off on Oct. 9 - Oswald would have been carefully watched on Nov. 22 Gheesling turned it off on October 9 - the day that the first memo about Oswald in Mexico City reached the FBI - and the day before the twin 10/10/63 memos that identified Lee Oswald by name - and with two different descriptions! By turning it off, it protected Oswald from being placed on the Security Index - if LHO had been on the Security Index, security would have been all over him in Dallas on 11/22/63.
  13. Anthony - the link is below - Newman has all the routing slips neatly laid out in the back of Oswald and the CIA, if you don't have it, it's a good compendium. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=2166#relPageId=3&tab=page
  14. Greg - I think I agree with you about the typist. I went thru the typist problem in my head earlier, and it's the simplest explanation. No one was hiding the intention of sending it to Korth. The Kerr thing is more of a problem - although you are right in that Kerr is relying on his memory 25 years later - think about Kerr's memory in 1963 - he could never have forgotten about Oswald at that point, and the details of the conversation. That was his central connection with the assassination. I'm going to think about it some more. Thank you for your meditation on all this!
×
×
  • Create New...