Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bill Simpich's State Secret


William Kelly

Recommended Posts

Paul - one could squish - more easily for sure - Morales into a Dulles Phillips plot. It only has to be Walker because you say so.

Not at all, Paul B., because for the first time in five years, I have a formidable ally, namely, Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, and his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Jeff Caufield also says that General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder plot.

As for David Atlee Phillips, his 1988 manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY, only admits that he was grooming LHO for a plot to murder Fidel Castro. That makes most sense in the context of David Atlee Phillips' career.

Phillips says that somebody hijacked LHO for the JFK murder plot -- and while its possible that Phillips found out about this only days before the JFK murder -- and might have been late to the table -- we seem also to have evidence that Phillips was present in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Still -- that doesn't make Phillips into the mastermind, but at most only a late-comer "on the sidelines," much like E. Howard Hunt.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Saying so doesn't make it so. Haven't read Caulfield's book yet. It doesn't seem that Walker was in any position to be a 'mastermind' of the assassination though...JJA, on the other hand, was...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Saying so doesn't make it so. Haven't read Caulfield's book yet. It doesn't seem that Walker was in any position to be a 'mastermind' of the assassination though...JJA, on the other hand, was...

Of course saying so doesn't make it so, Pamela. That's why Jeff Caufield wrote 987 pages to carefully research his thesis.

It's clear that Dr. Caufield has an uphill climb -- the JFK murder was more than 50 years ago, and virtually no JFK researchers have investigated General Walker.

By far most CTers favor a CIA-did-it theory of the JFK assassination -- but can never make all the puzzle pieces fit.

Dr, Caufield's idea isn't well-disseminated, yet Caufield's arguments are interesting to a new generation, IMHO.

We've briefly reviewed the first 14 chapters of Caufield's 24 chapter book in a thread entitled, "NEW BOOK" that came out this year (as Caufield's book came out).

Here's the URL: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22106&page=1

You can probably get a fair taste of Caufield's work by following that thread. Also, there's a limited copy of this book available on Google books.

What's fascinating to me is that Jeff Caufield's book agrees in so many places with Bill Simpich's eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying so doesn't make it so. Haven't read Caulfield's book yet. It doesn't seem that Walker was in any position to be a 'mastermind' of the assassination though...JJA, on the other hand, was...

Pamela, have you read Bill Simpich's STATE SECRET, yet? It's a free eBook, available from the Mary Ferrell web site.

In my reading of Bill SImpich's 2014 eBook, JJA (James Jesus Angleton) has been exonerated as a conspirator to assassinate JFK. Let me share with you my interpretation of Simpich:

(1) Somebody impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald on Monday 1 October 1963 in Mexico City using the Cuban Consulate telephone, calling the USSR Embassy telephone, claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald and asking for KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

(2) Because that line was perhaps the single most wire-tapped line on the planet at the time, the CIA senior staff in Mexico City received an English transcript with photographs and other identification within 15 minutes.

(3) The CIA translators themselves were certain that this was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

(4) The CIA senior staff agreed fully. Further, they agreed that it was an inside job by somebody who knew very well that these phones were heavily wire-tapped.

(5) The CIA senior staff therefore instigated a Mole-Hunt to find out which CIA (or FBI, or ONI) Agent had done this impersonation, and why.

(6) One SOP for a CIA Mole-Hunt, suggests Bill Simpich, is to modify the CIA 201 Files of the principals involved. So, a photo of a large Russian man was placed in Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA 201 File. Also, Oswald's middle name was changed to "Henry" in his CIA 201 File. Also, his mother's maiden name was changed, and other subtle changes were made. This was Standard Operating Procedure.

(7) The reasoning was this -- any CIA 201 File is heavily restricted to specific personnel. If a Mole tried to obtain a copy of that CIA 201 File, then, not knowing it had been changed, that Mole would begin to disseminate bogus information about Lee Harvey Oswald, according to these changes.

(8) Therefore, when this bogus data about Lee Harvey Oswald would begin to appear, the CIA high-command (the highest ranking CIA officers only) would realize that this CIA 201 File had been obtained illegally -- and they would be able to trace their Mole from that breach.

(9) Only the very highest officials of the CIA were able to start a Mole-Hunt, and they kept it ultra-secret, so that most CIA staff never knew it was happening. (In 1963, the highest ranking members included David Atlee Phillips and James Jesus Angleton, and anyone above their level.)

(10) Because of this, after JFK was murdered, and the FBI demanded the CIA 201 File on Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA staff (who were not high-level) responding to the FBI request, delivered a photograph of a large Russian man, and gave the FBI Oswald's name as "Lee Henry Oswald." This confusion is still spoken of to this very day. Bill Simpich explained it fully.

(11) The CIA tried to find this Mole for several years, and failed to do so. They never found out who it was. (Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have wondered out loud whether it might have been David Morales, who later confessed to his friend Ruben Carbajal of some role in the JFK murder. Another possible CIA rogue could be Howard Hunt.)

So, Pamela, if you haven't yet read about the Simpich Mole Hunt (2014) I invite you to do so, since Simpich's work provides a paradigm shift in JFK research, IMHO.

IMHO, Bill Simpich (perhaps without trying to) has undermined all theories that the CIA high-command was part of any plot that involved the IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

James Jesus Angleton started a Mole Hunt to learn who impersonated LHO in Mexico City. The CIA rogues who impersonated LHO were involved in a Civilian plot to murder JFK. The CIA high-command never knew what hit them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To which I say:

Pamela read the Lopez Report.

You will get the raw data there.

Instead of Trejo's spin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To which I say:

Pamela, there are three key documents on the JFK murder in the 21st century:

(1) Edwin Lopez's "The Lopez-Hardway Report" (2003) which demonstrates conclusively that LHO was certainly in Mexico City during the final week of September 1963

(2) Bill Simpich's "State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City," (2014) which is the subject of the current thread. This eBook exonerates the CIA high-command from the JFK murder, IMHO.

(3) Jeff Caufield's ."General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy" (2015). This book plainly identifies the CIVILAN plot to kill JFK, with plenty of FBI documentation.

James DiEugenio represents, IMHO, the 20th century voice of the JFK murder, which wrote hundreds of books trying to convict the CIA for the murder of JFK -- and never arrived at a consensus.

It's time to try a new theory. Look at the evidence against General Walker -- it's a new theory -- but it's a great theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS. And Pamela is no fool so she knows it is BS

Let's let Pamela speak for herself, shall we?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I certainly recall you have cited Joan as the source for the Morales contact on many occasions; but so far you have not given her source. Citing authors as a source is fine for starters, but then you need to back it up with the authors actual source so we can all evaluate it...especially on such a critical claim - and to do it justice having a quote would help too. Exactly what verbiage was used to discuss the outreach, what sort of detail does it give us. There is a world of difference between what was going on in regard to Castro that spring....his interest in talks was actually being reported in national media .....and the new and highly secret outreach that began in early fall via back channels at the UN and in New York City.

OK, Larry, all good points. As soon as PCL library opens in January, I'll provide Joan Mellen's original source for this claim that Guy Banister and his NOLA crew had a summer meeting at Carlos Marcello's Town and Country Motel to discuss JFK's Castro outreach -- which was a top-secret topic known only to the CIA in the summer of 1963.

I take this request on your part as encouraging, because my intuition tells me that Joan Mellen has detected something rare and valuable in the quest for the Truth in the JFK assassination.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Larry, I got Joan Mellen's book . The citation about the Guy Banister Team meeting in which JFK's Castro outreach was discussed -- at a time when it was still a CIA top secret -- is on page 79.

The skinny footnotes Joan Mellen offers for page 79 are as follows:

p. 79, line 14: Banister sent Burglass in in place: Interview with Allen Cambpell, July 19 2002.

p. 79, line 27: hotbed of international intrigue, Interview with Daniel Campbell, June 8, 2002.

This is all that Joan Mellen offers on this topic. Slim pickings.

Here's the actual text, evidently rooted in an interview with Thomas Beckham:

TOMMY ATTENDED MEETINGS at Algiers, on the West Bank of the Mississippi River, but still part of Orleans Parish, and at the Town and Country Motel in Jefferson Parish. The subject is always the same: what is to be done about John F. Kennedy. The group assesses the news that Kennedy has assigned his school friend, William Atwood, to meet with Fidel Castro, seeking rapprochement. This effort, not yet reported in the press, is known to everyone here.

Sometimes Clay Shaw is present, but everyone here calls him 'Clay Bertrand.' He looks like movie actor Jeff Chandler, Tommy thinks...Guy Banister himself never attends, but sends a woman named Anna Burglass to represent him. G. Wray Gill sometimes makes an appearance...Lee attends some of these meetings... (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 2005, p. 79)

I admit that without citations, Joan's reporting is subject to question and doubt. Yet for the most part, she's a solid JFK researcher.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul, certainly looks like it is a recollection by Beckham, and a very broad one....including the point that it references meetings at Algiers and at the Town and Country motel...but does not mention Marcello...who would be pretty unlikely to host group meetings of the sort described (this is the guy who felt the only way to keep a secret was to ensure that anybody else who knew it was dead). And Morales does not seem to be mentioned nor is there a time frame.

Certainly I agree that Joan is solid, I think the issue here would be with Beckham....who in my opinion is another street type guy who enhanced his story over time and who has to be taken with more than

a couple of grains of salt ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul, certainly looks like it is a recollection by Beckham, and a very broad one....including the point that it references meetings at Algiers and at the Town and Country motel...but does not mention Marcello...who would be pretty unlikely to host group meetings of the sort described (this is the guy who felt the only way to keep a secret was to ensure that anybody else who knew it was dead). And Morales does not seem to be mentioned nor is there a time frame.

Certainly I agree that Joan is solid, I think the issue here would be with Beckham....who in my opinion is another street type guy who enhanced his story over time and who has to be taken with more than a couple of grains of salt ....

OK, Larry, yet Joan Mellen reported it as an event, and not as a rumor from Beckham.

Let's say, however, that you're right, and Beckham added the bit about JFK's Fidel outreach. It does undermine my scenario in which a fairly senior CIA guy (not CIA high-command, but senior enough to get all the details about the Cuba Desk) shared top secret CIA data about JFK's Fidel outreach through Atwood with Guy Banister and crew.

It suggests that Guy Banister's team would have meetings at the Town and Country Hotel (which was owned by Carlos Marcello, IIRC) to talk about ways of getting rid of JFK for his *other* shortcomings.

By the way, Carlos Marcello would not have been the ring-leader here, even if he did loan the use of his Hotel. As I recall, Carlos Marcello was still hopeful at that Wray Gill, Guy Banister and David Ferrie would win their case against RFK. Carlos would have given Guy Banister a lot of lee-way, to do things his way, IMHO -- especially given Guy Banister's brand of radical politics.

OK -- let's say that Thomas Beckham added that bit about the JFK outreach on this own -- that still leaves ONE more linkage between Guy Banister and David Morales, namely, Mexico City, in the scenario portrayed by Bill Simpich in his eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

The credentials resume that LHO took to Mexico City (according to the Lopez-Hardway Report of 2003) made a special focus on the Fake FPCC centered at 544 Camp Street. The fight with Bringuier, the radio and TV spots about the FPCC, and the newspaper clippings of all that -- these were the bulk of the phony credentials resume that LHO showed off in Mexico City.

This links the Mexico City trip directly with Guy Banister's 544 Camp Street operation. Now, Bill Simpich opines that the leader of the plot to Impersonate LHO at the Cuban Consulate, calling the Soviet Embassy over the most wire-tapped phone on earth, was David Morales of the CIA.

The Impersonator of LHO tried to link LHO's name with the name of wanted KGB agent Valerie Kostikov -- a dangerous Communist.

So -- here's a sturdier connection -- Guy Banister touches LHO in Mexico City in the context of Red politics -- and David Morales touches LHO in Mexico City in the context of Red politics.

Doesn't that suggest a connection between David Morales and Guy Banister where LHO is concerned?

And -- if that's correct -- then perhaps Thomas Beckham actually remembered the Town and Country Hotel meetings correctly.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a really fascinating way to connect dots Paul, via "touching" broad areas of interest such as "red politics". That could be used to connect a great number

of people. And I still fail to see anything in the text you cited that mentions "Morales" as being involved with a purported meeting with Marcello or Bannister...which was what this was really all about

as I recall.

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After thinking about it a bit more, the whole timing of the purported New Orleans meetings and specific knowledge of an active Castro outreach involving Atwood seems doubtful. Atwood himself did not become involved with Lisa Howard and JFK on the backchannel contacts until mid-September and his involvement only jelled at the end of September, and in October. Oswald was leaving New Orleans just as Atwood was becoming involved. Now if you want to make it the general subject of JFK and possible talks with Castro, that dated back much earlier in the year - but it had all stalled out by late spring and only really re-ignited in October. Which is when I started to find evidence that the CIA was indeed spying on JFK and looking into the people involved in the new contacts being conducted outside normal channels. So....general talk about JFK going easy on Fidel and possible talks was circulating as gossip in late summer but nothing specific to new talks or Atwood. This is the reason we need details to go with sources such as Beckham, if you don't have dates, locations, specifics then its just talk, and not verifiable. In any event, for those interested, the full timeline, prepared by Atwood himself is at the link below:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/631108.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After thinking about it a bit more, the whole timing of the purported New Orleans meetings and specific knowledge of an active Castro outreach involving Atwood seems doubtful. Atwood himself did not become involved with Lisa Howard and JFK on the backchannel contacts until mid-September and his involvement only jelled at the end of September, and in October. Oswald was leaving New Orleans just as Atwood was becoming involved. Now if you want to make it the general subject of JFK and possible talks with Castro, that dated back much earlier in the year - but it had all stalled out by late spring and only really re-ignited in October. Which is when I started to find evidence that the CIA was indeed spying on JFK and looking into the people involved in the new contacts being conducted outside normal channels. So....general talk about JFK going easy on Fidel and possible talks was circulating as gossip in late summer but nothing specific to new talks or Atwood. This is the reason we need details to go with sources such as Beckham, if you don't have dates, locations, specifics then its just talk, and not verifiable. In any event, for those interested, the full timeline, prepared by Atwood himself is at the link below:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/631108.pdf

Larry, according to the dates that you cite, your reasoning in sound. If these dates are solid, then Thomas Beckham "misremembered" and Joan Mellen reported his faulty memoirs.

As for the broad stroke of David Morales "touching LHO's red politics," I admit it is a very broad brush -- and would be entirely speculative except for the chance that I could also link David Morales and the Atwood news with Guy Banister early in September, 1963, at the very least.

I think it may be difficult to date the Atwood episode, however -- because actively getting involved can be easily dated, but private discussions beforehand are very difficult to date.

Only if Atwood and JFK were known to be informally talking about a Fidel outreach before September 1963 would my scenario sill be plausible.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS. And Pamela is no fool so she knows it is BS

Let's let Pamela speak for herself, shall we?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Thanks guys.

I use an historical process which does not involve 'believing' or 'disbelieving' anybody. Instead, I do my best to keep an open mind and weigh and evaluate information as I read it. Eventually, an hypothesis (or two) will become clear, and then I start to take a position on the issue.

In regards to LHO in MC, I am still at the point of keeping an open mind, and have not yet formed a working hypothesis, so I am comfortable reading everything that is available. And yes, I have a copy of the Lopez Report. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To which I say:

Pamela, there are three key documents on the JFK murder in the 21st century:

(1) Edwin Lopez's "The Lopez-Hardway Report" (2003) which demonstrates conclusively that LHO was certainly in Mexico City during the final week of September 1963

(2) Bill Simpich's "State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City," (2014) which is the subject of the current thread. This eBook exonerates the CIA high-command from the JFK murder, IMHO.

(3) Jeff Caufield's ."General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy" (2015). This book plainly identifies the CIVILAN plot to kill JFK, with plenty of FBI documentation.

James DiEugenio represents, IMHO, the 20th century voice of the JFK murder, which wrote hundreds of books trying to convict the CIA for the murder of JFK -- and never arrived at a consensus.

It's time to try a new theory. Look at the evidence against General Walker -- it's a new theory -- but it's a great theory.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I am starting to take a look at State Secret today, and right off the bat I can say that I am grateful to anyone willing to step up to the plate and tackle all the gobbledygook about LHO and MC, so Simpich has my attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...