Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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
William Kelly

Bill Simpich's State Secret

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

I assume that it was the Soviet Embassy's phone that was tapped in this instance, not the Cuban Consulate's phone?

(Yes, I do realize that the phone call was allegedly made from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy.)

--  Tommy :sun

Tommy,

Although Simpich does say that the Soviet phones were the main target -- he asks the question about the Cuban consulate telephones being tapped in the context of the so-called program, LI-FEAT.  This was a top-secret operation by Win Scott and Anne Goodpasture, and they regularly lied about it to everybody who asked -- including the US Congress.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

My goodness are you serious...?

B.A. Copeland,

Well, serious is a weird word when speaking about Oswald's Marine buddy, Kerry Thornley.  

Have you seen the worthwhile entry in Wikipedia about Kerry Thornley?

Here's the Wikipedia link:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Wendell_Thornley

It's the right starting point.  From there, review his WC testimony.  He's a colorful character.

Here's the WC testimony linkhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/thornley.htm

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

B.A. Copeland,

Well, serious is a weird word when speaking about Oswald's Marine buddy, Kerry Thornley.  

Have you seen the worthwhile entry in Wikipedia about Kerry Thornley?

Here's the Wikipedia link:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Wendell_Thornley

It's the right starting point.  From there, review his WC testimony.  He's a colorful character.

Here's the WC testimony linkhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/thornley.htm

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Trust me, I know of Thornley and I never trusted him, I don't like him and he should've been cross examined and thrown into jail. I smell "CIA" all over him as most likely an important asset even behind the strange counterculture posing. Garrison (of course) was onto him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 5:39 PM, B. A. Copeland said:

Trust me, I know of Thornley and I never trusted him, I don't like him and he should've been cross examined and thrown into jail. I smell "CIA" all over him as most likely an important asset even behind the strange counterculture posing. Garrison (of course) was onto him...

Yet this is only your subjective feeling, sir.  What about something solid?

As for Jim Garrison, he pushed as hard as he could and found nothing.

That's saying a lot in my book.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2017 at 5:04 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Bill did look into it and I assisted; the answer depends on where the call was recorded. There were two options, one at the local safehouse doing the routine phone tap operation or off the consolidated system at the telephone central office where arrangements had been made for bulk tap recording.  The CIA recorded tapes at both locations. The CIA itself would have quickly determined which of the two knowing where the tape was recorded.  As I recall we felt that it was most likely the tape was from the local monitoring unit...which means the call was either made from inside the building...or actually from the safehouse itself using the bridge tap on the phone line.  Unfortunately there was no way to be absolutely certain; however as I said, the CIA might well have determined that it was one of their own people or a contract employee who had done it based on the source of the tape.

Thanks Larry.

I'm glad I just now noticed this informative post of yours.

--  Tommy :sun

PS  I wonder if Bill Bright was involved, somehow.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newbies, of course, will probably not realize that CIA officer Bright was instrumental in making Lee Harvey Oswald appear, in the CIA's computerized Biographical Registry data base, to have the same physical attributes as another "defector", 165 lb.- Robert E. Webster, when he (Bright) apparently collaborated in early 1960 with the Marguerite-Oswald-interviewing FBI agent John Fain to do so, and that Bright was, in September-October, 1963, a rather recently-arrived "floating helper" at the Mexico City CIA Station.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bright is important.  Whether or not Oswald was a spy - and I think he was, at least in his own mind - Marina and June got to go to the USA with him, while the State Dept lent him some money, and meanwhile the military took away his honorable discharge so he was broke and completely manipulable - the CI crowd was manipulating his records.  From Chapter 1 of my book:

"WB" (William Bright) told the registry to "index page 7", which is the page in the Fain memo that has an inaccurate hand-written description of Oswald as “CIT: USSR, Res. Moscow, USSR, ex-U.S. Marine, who upon his discharge from Marine Corps, Sept 59 traveled to USSR and renounced his U.S. citizenship.” Marguerite Oswald never said that Oswald was a Soviet citizen – only that Oswald had “apparently sought Soviet citizenship”.

See how these notes from Fain’s memo were preserved on this index card; however the clerk accurately fixed the writing to say that Oswald traveled “to renounce his US citizenship” rather than “renounced his US citizenship”. The claim that Oswald was a Soviet citizen, however, was not corrected. Did Bright write the note himself? Based on a quick review of the meager amount of Bright’s handwriting that is available, I can’t rule it out yet.

This inaccurate handwritten description was on the same page as the physical description as "5 foot 10, 165 lbs, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes".[ 27 ] Now, if anyone turned from the index card to page 7 of Fain’s memo, the reader would immediately see Oswald’s inaccurate physical description.

The FBI’s version of page 7 does not include the handwritten description. It’s also possible that page 7 was indexed specifically for the “5 foot 10, 165 pounds” description, the handwriting was added later, and the index card was created last.

In either case, Bright had now successfully shoehorned the Webster-like description of Oswald into the CIA’s indexing system. Thanks to Bright focusing on this particular page to be indexed – rather than another page that did accurately describe Oswald’s citizenship status - the CIA now had quick access to an inaccurate description of Oswald’s citizenship status and an inaccurate physical description of Oswald."

Although I appreciate that Paul Trejo likes my hypothesis, I should add that we don't agree on a host of issues and Paul's views are frequently not mine.  For example, I don't think that Morales "went rogue".  Secondly, whether Morales was even involved with Mexico City is simply a hypothesis.  I based it on the likelihood that it would have been an AMOT inside the intercept station that manipulated the "voice of Oswald and Duran", or the transcript itself.  If the Oswald character actually spoke terrible Russian and terrible English as a couple of the records indicate, the one who did the impersonation was probably a native Spanish speaker.  Again, just a hypothesis.

I think a better conversation is whether there was a split (based on social class and personal ideologies) between Angleton, Scott, Goodpasture and Phillips on one hand, and Harvey,  Morales, Rip Robertson, and their Mafia buddies on the other.  If Carl Oglesby was here, he would describe Dick Helms and Allen Dulles as "the Yankees", and what I've described below as a "split within the Cowboys". 

Resolving my question about a possible split doesn't resolve who led the forces against JFK, but this type of discussion sheds more light than heat.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2017 at 3:13 PM, Bill Simpich said:

I think Bright is important.  Whether or not Oswald was a spy - and I think he was, at least in his own mind - Marina and June got to go to the USA with him, while the State Dept lent him some money, and meanwhile the military took away his honorable discharge so he was broke and completely manipulable - the CI crowd was manipulating his records.  From Chapter 1 of my book:

"WB" (William Bright) told the registry to "index page 7", which is the page in the Fain memo that has an inaccurate hand-written description of Oswald as “CIT: USSR, Res. Moscow, USSR, ex-U.S. Marine, who upon his discharge from Marine Corps, Sept 59 traveled to USSR and renounced his U.S. citizenship.” Marguerite Oswald never said that Oswald was a Soviet citizen – only that Oswald had “apparently sought Soviet citizenship”.

See how these notes from Fain’s memo were preserved on this index card; however the clerk accurately fixed the writing to say that Oswald traveled “to renounce his US citizenship” rather than “renounced his US citizenship”. The claim that Oswald was a Soviet citizen, however, was not corrected. Did Bright write the note himself? Based on a quick review of the meager amount of Bright’s handwriting that is available, I can’t rule it out yet.

This inaccurate handwritten description was on the same page as the physical description as "5 foot 10, 165 lbs, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes".[ 27 ] Now, if anyone turned from the index card to page 7 of Fain’s memo, the reader would immediately see Oswald’s inaccurate physical description.

The FBI’s version of page 7 does not include the handwritten description. It’s also possible that page 7 was indexed specifically for the “5 foot 10, 165 pounds” description, the handwriting was added later, and the index card was created last.

In either case, Bright had now successfully shoehorned the Webster-like description of Oswald into the CIA’s indexing system. Thanks to Bright focusing on this particular page to be indexed – rather than another page that did accurately describe Oswald’s citizenship status - the CIA now had quick access to an inaccurate description of Oswald’s citizenship status and an inaccurate physical description of Oswald."

Although I appreciate that Paul Trejo likes my hypothesis, I should add that we don't agree on a host of issues and Paul's views are frequently not mine.  For example, I don't think that Morales "went rogue".  Secondly, whether Morales was even involved with Mexico City is simply a hypothesis.  I based it on the likelihood that it would have been an AMOT inside the intercept station that manipulated the "voice of Oswald and Duran", or the transcript itself.  If the Oswald character actually spoke terrible Russian and terrible English as a couple of the records indicate, the one who did the impersonation was probably a native Spanish speaker.  Again, just a hypothesis.

I think a better conversation is whether there was a split (based on social class and personal ideologies) between Angleton, Scott, Goodpasture and Phillips on one hand, and Harvey,  Morales, Rip Robertson, and their Mafia buddies on the other.  If Carl Oglesby was here, he would describe Dick Helms and Allen Dulles as "the Yankees", and what I've described below as a "split within the Cowboys". 

Resolving my question about a possible split doesn't resolve who led the forces against JFK, but this type of discussion sheds more light than heat.

Bill

Bill,

I agree that Oswald was a spy -- in his own mind.

I also agree that Oswald never renounced his US citizenship, nor applied for USSR citizenship, nor joined any Communist Party while in the USSR, or the USA.

It amazes me that well-meaning scholars today still think of Oswald as a Red.

Speaking of Bright's description of Oswald, I think it mainly shows how sloppy CIA records could be.

It's significant to me, Bill, that you disagree on my interpretation of the same hypothesis, i.e. that David Morales impersonated LHO in Mexico City, starting a CIA Mole Hunt.  To me this means that David Morales "went rogue."  You disagree.  I don't follow.

To me, this remains the key conversation.  

You propose a new conversation -- whether there was an ideological split between Angleton-Scott-Goodpasture-Phillips (of the new school) and Harvey-Morales-Robertson and the Mob (of the old school.) 

Even granting that this would be a split between the "Cowboys" rather than the "Yankees" (Richard Helms and Allen Dulles) I don't see how it sheds much light on the issue.

Your original hypothesis (2014) -- that David Morales acted as a Mole inside the CIA, surprising the CIA high-command -- remains one of the most important theories in all of JFK research literature.

Also -- why worry about the heat?  Surely we have not totally lost our cool. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Bill,

 

I also agree that Oswald never renounced his US citizenship, nor applied for USSR citizenship, nor joined any Communist Party while in the USSR, or the USA.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul. I have, twice now, responded to your repeated claim that LHO did not hand in his passport, reounce citizenship, or apply for Soviet citizenship.

You keep repeating that claim.

Perhaps you are aware of some evidence that backs-up your repeated claim? If you do have such evidence I would be interested in seeing it, because I have repeatedly posted evidence to the contrary.

--------------------

Diary of LHO:

Oct.16. Arrive from Helsinki by train ;am met by Intourest Repre.and in car to Hotel "Berlin". Reges. as. "studet" 5 day Lux .tourist. Ticket.) Meet my Intorist guied Rimma Sherikova I explain to her I wish to appli. for Rus.citizenship. She is flabber;assed, but aggrees to help. She checks with her boss, main officeIntour;than helps me add.a letter to Sup.Sovit asking for citizenship, mean while boss telephone passport & visa office and notifies them about me.

Oct.31. I make my dision. Getting passport at 12"00 I meet and talk with Rimma for a few minutes she says:stay in your room and eat well, I don't tell her about what I intend to do since I know she would not approve. After she leaves I wait a few minutes and than I catch a taxi, "American Embassy" I say. 12"30, I arrive American Embassy, I walk in and say to the receptionist `I would like to see the Consular" she points at a large lager and says"if you a tourist please register". I take out my American passport and lay it o the desk. "I have come to dissolve my American citizenship. I saymatter-of-factly she rises and enters the office of Richard Snyder

American Head Consular in Moscow at that time. He invites me to sit r down. He finishes a letter he is typing and then asks what he can do for me. I tell him I have dicided to take Soviet citizenship and would like to leagly dissolve my U .S.citizenship. His assitant (now Head Consular) McVickers e looks up from his work . Snyder serys- takes down personall Information,

Jan.5. ........Iwrotemy brother & mother letters in which I said "I do not wish to every contact you again." Iam defining a new life and I don't wand any part of the old".

July - I decided to take my two week vacation and travel to Moscow (without police permission) to the American Embassy to see about getting my US passport back.

 

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Bill,

........

I also agree that Oswald never renounced his US citizenship, nor applied for USSR citizenship, nor joined any Communist Party while in the USSR, or the USA.

It amazes me that well-meaning scholars today still think of Oswald as a Red.

........

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, I am amused to see that you say that you are in agreement with Mr. Simpich. What is amusing is that he does not even make the claim with which you profess agreement. Mr. Simpich simply notes how a particular entry was rendered on a document. That document does not even make the claim that you make. 

Mr. Simpich's comments, with which you profess agreement, below:

 

"I think Bright is important.  Whether or not Oswald was a spy - and I think he was, at least in his own mind - Marina and June got to go to the USA with him, while the State Dept lent him some money, and meanwhile the military took away his honorable discharge so he was broke and completely manipulable - the CI crowd was manipulating his records.  From Chapter 1 of my book:

"WB" (William Bright) told the registry to "index page 7", which is the page in the Fain memo that has an inaccurate hand-written description of Oswald as “CIT: USSR, Res. Moscow, USSR, ex-U.S. Marine, who upon his discharge from Marine Corps, Sept 59 traveled to USSR and renounced his U.S. citizenship.” Marguerite Oswald never said that Oswald was a Soviet citizen – only that Oswald had “apparently sought Soviet citizenship”.

See how these notes from Fain’s memo were preserved on this index card; however the clerk accurately fixed the writing to say that Oswald traveled “to renounce his US citizenship” rather than “renounced his US citizenship”. The claim that Oswald was a Soviet citizen, however, was not corrected. Did Bright write the note himself? Based on a quick review of the meager amount of Bright’s handwriting that is available, I can’t rule it out yet.

This inaccurate handwritten description was on the same page as the physical description as "5 foot 10, 165 lbs, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes".27 ] Now, if anyone turned from the index card to page 7 of Fain’s memo, the reader would immediately see Oswald’s inaccurate physical description.

The FBI’s version of page 7 does not include the handwritten description. It’s also possible that page 7 was indexed specifically for the “5 foot 10, 165 pounds” description, the handwriting was added later, and the index card was created last.

In either case, Bright had now successfully shoehorned the Webster-like description of Oswald into the CIA’s indexing system. Thanks to Bright focusing on this particular page to be indexed – rather than another page that did accurately describe Oswald’s citizenship status - the CIA now had quick access to an inaccurate description of Oswald’s citizenship status and an inaccurate physical description of Oswald."

Although I appreciate that Paul Trejo likes my hypothesis, I should add that we don't agree on a host of issues and Paul's views are frequently not mine.  For example, I don't think that Morales "went rogue".  Secondly, whether Morales was even involved with Mexico City is simply a hypothesis.  I based it on the likelihood that it would have been an AMOT inside the intercept station that manipulated the "voice of Oswald and Duran", or the transcript itself.  If the Oswald character actually spoke terrible Russian and terrible English as a couple of the records indicate, the one who did the impersonation was probably a native Spanish speaker.  Again, just a hypothesis.

I think a better conversation is whether there was a split (based on social class and personal ideologies) between Angleton, Scott, Goodpasture and Phillips on one hand, and Harvey,  Morales, Rip Robertson, and their Mafia buddies on the other.  If Carl Oglesby was here, he would describe Dick Helms and Allen Dulles as "the Yankees", and what I've described below as a "split within the Cowboys". 

Resolving my question about a possible split doesn't resolve who led the forces against JFK, but this type of discussion sheds more light than heat.

Bill"

-----------------------------

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

My hypothesis that David  Morales was a mole stands.  You and I go to different places about what that means.   As it is a hypothesis, it could have been another AMOT, who reported to Morales.  Or the AMOT could have reported to someone else, although I think Morales was the most likely one to get the news. 

Furthermore, Morales and Gen. Walker were not close allies - Morales' allies were Bill Harvey, Rip Robertson, Clark Simmons...that path would lead to Mafia guys like wiretap expert Richard Cain.  Morales was buddies with Mafia guys who knew Cain (and Sam Giancana)...like Johnny Roselli.  Navy guys like Chuck Feeney.  I went to some length to say that's what I think...while staying open to new evidence because there are many other avenues of evidence to consider.  

I think it is more valuable to focus on the social relationships between the various individuals involved in the JFK story, because there is a great deal more that we can know and need to know.  If our investigation is built on marshy ground, it will lead to weak and unreliable results.

That is why I am more interested in light than heat.  What I see too often in the Education Forum - and especially on this thread - people forcefully fighting over their pet theories and not listening to one another.  I'm an attorney, I see this kind of thing every day, and don't think it's productive. 

I am calling for a spirit of cooperation where we listen to one another and don't respond in a heated fashion to items of evidence that challenge our own beliefs.   The cooler head prevails.

With that said, I'm all for the spirit of inquiry.  I agree that it is important to say what you think, and put together a hypothesis based on what you have learned. It's also important to treat each other with respect.  Especially our adversaries.

Bill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Hi Paul,

My hypothesis that David  Morales was a mole stands.  You and I go to different places about what that means.   As it is a hypothesis, it could have been another AMOT, who reported to Morales.  Or the AMOT could have reported to someone else, although I think Morales was the most likely one to get the news. 

Furthermore, Morales and Gen. Walker were not close allies - Morales' allies were Bill Harvey, Rip Robertson, Clark Simmons...that path would lead to Mafia guys like wiretap expert Richard Cain.  Morales was buddies with Mafia guys who knew Cain (and Sam Giancana)...like Johnny Roselli.  Navy guys like Chuck Feeney.  I went to some length to say that's what I think...while staying open to new evidence because there are many other avenues of evidence to consider.  

I think it is more valuable to focus on the social relationships between the various individuals involved in the JFK story, because there is a great deal more that we can know and need to know.  If our investigation is built on marshy ground, it will lead to weak and unreliable results.

That is why I am more interested in light than heat.  What I see too often in the Education Forum - and especially on this thread - people forcefully fighting over their pet theories and not listening to one another.  I'm an attorney, I see this kind of thing every day, and don't think it's productive. 

I am calling for a spirit of cooperation where we listen to one another and don't respond in a heated fashion to items of evidence that challenge our own beliefs.   The cooler head prevails.

With that said, I'm all for the spirit of inquiry.  I agree that it is important to say what you think, and put together a hypothesis based on what you have learned. It's also important to treat each other with respect.  Especially our adversaries.

Bill

 

 

Bill,

Does it make sense that "hands on" Morales, known to have a scar on his left eyebrow (just like Billing's / Garrison's "Spanish Trace" allegedly had), might have been monitoring or "mentoring" Oswald in New Orleans on 8/09/63?

--  Tommy :sun

PS. When you say Morales was a "mole", I don't suppose you mean it in the sense he was sharing American secrets with the Ruskies, do you?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2017 at 0:49 PM, Paul Trejo said:

A post by Trejo I mistakenly bumped. -- TG

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Hi Paul,

My hypothesis that David  Morales was a mole stands.  You and I go to different places about what that means.   As it is a hypothesis, it could have been another AMOT, who reported to Morales.  Or the AMOT could have reported to someone else, although I think Morales was the most likely one to get the news. 

Furthermore, Morales and Gen. Walker were not close allies - Morales' allies were Bill Harvey, Rip Robertson, Clark Simmons...that path would lead to Mafia guys like wiretap expert Richard Cain.  Morales was buddies with Mafia guys who knew Cain (and Sam Giancana)...like Johnny Roselli.  Navy guys like Chuck Feeney.  I went to some length to say that's what I think...while staying open to new evidence because there are many other avenues of evidence to consider.  

I think it is more valuable to focus on the social relationships between the various individuals involved in the JFK story, because there is a great deal more that we can know and need to know.  If our investigation is built on marshy ground, it will lead to weak and unreliable results.

That is why I am more interested in light than heat.  What I see too often in the Education Forum - and especially on this thread - people forcefully fighting over their pet theories and not listening to one another.  I'm an attorney, I see this kind of thing every day, and don't think it's productive. 

I am calling for a spirit of cooperation where we listen to one another and don't respond in a heated fashion to items of evidence that challenge our own beliefs.   The cooler head prevails.

With that said, I'm all for the spirit of inquiry.  I agree that it is important to say what you think, and put together a hypothesis based on what you have learned. It's also important to treat each other with respect.  Especially our adversaries.

Bill

 

Thank you Mr. Simpich. I was not aware that Morales and Harvey were close. What about Morales and Phillips? Or Shackley?

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

×