The Ultimate USAEC secrets per the JFK hit.

[Thomas Graves]

Gaal quotes Jim DiEugenio:

[...]

Neither does he [Larry Hancock in SWHT] mention the utterly fascinating evidence that John Armstrong advances in his book Harvey and Lee. Namely that Phillips sent the dubiously transcribed Mexico City tapes of Oswald by pouch to himself at Langley under an assumed name. Why would he do such a thing? Well, maybe so that no officers but he and Goodpasture would have the tapes from their origin in Mexico City to their arrival at CIA HQ.

[...]

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Evidence? What "utterly fascinating evidence"?

Shouldn't Jimbo have said "utterly fascinating theory," instead?

Regardless, it is all rather fascinating.

--Tommy

Edited September 14, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

"But surprisingly, he leaves out some of the most intriguing points about Phillips in Mexico City. Especially his work on the fraudulent tapes sent to Washington to implicate Oswald in the JFK case. For instance, Hancock does not even mention the role of Anne Goodpasture, Phillips' assistant in Mexico City. There is some extraordinary material on her in the HSCA's Lopez Report. Neither does he mention the utterly fascinating evidence that John Armstrong advances in his book Harvey and Lee. Namely that Phillips sent the dubiously transcribed Mexico City tapes of Oswald by pouch to himself at Langley under an assumed name. Why would he do such a thing? Well, maybe so that no officers but he and Goodpasture would have the tapes from their origin in Mexico City to their arrival at CIA HQ. This mini-conspiracy was blown in two ways. First, when FBI officials heard the tapes as part of their Kennedy murder investigation and concurred that they were not of Oswald. Second, when HSCA first counsel Richard Sprague showed the official transcripts of the tapes to the original Mexico City transcriber. The transcriber replied that what was on those transcripts was not what he recalled translating. It seems odd to me that these very important points would be left out of any contemporary discussion of Phillips."

....well I think it would be only appropriate to point out that I go into extensive detail on those subjects in my follow on work - NEXUS - and for that matter go a good deal further, presenting new research related to James Angleton's CI efforts in Mexico City, the mystery of the diplomatic pouch sent to DC during Oswald's visit to be claimed hands only by David Phillips. Beyond that I think I can claim to have brainstormed and helped Bill Simpich with a fair amount of material that went into his treatment of the events in Mexico City, especially the taping of the Oswald/Duran telephone impersonation.

-- Larry

[Paul Trejo]

According to Larry Hancock, the author of Someone Would Have Talked, just before his death Phillips told Kevin Walsh, an investigator with the House Select Committee on Assassinations: "My final take on the assassination is there was a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers." (Some books wrongly quote Phillips as saying: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including rogue American intelligence people.")

========

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKphillips.htm

Fabian Escalante, Cuban Officials and JFK Historians Conference (7th December, 1995)

...

==

James DiEugenio, review of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked (March, 2008)

...

Well, Steven, I'll grant that David Atlee Phillips actually said, "My final take on the assassination is there was a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers," that is, Phillips didn't use the word, "Rogue," as some books render that sentence. However, we must still interpret Phillips' sentence because of its ambiguity.

You seem to interpret the clause, "including American intelligence officers," to mean that the CIA high-command was in charge. But such an intepretation is not necessarily warranted by those words. Phillips didn't literally say that the CIA high-command was in charge -- and he would know.

I accept that statement by David Atlee Phillips as authoritative, and yet I interpret differently than you do, evidently. For me, like many other writers, Phillips was speaking of a break-away group of CIA rogues who were "included" in an external, outside, on-going plot -- specifically of a group of rightist radicals who openly preached that JFK was a Communist (and also had a paramilitary arm ready and willing to act on this ideology).

I take that "external" plot to be that of the radical rogues from the John Birch Society, led by Edwin Walker, exactly as Jack Ruby told Earl Warren in June, 1964, and as Harry Dean told Joe Pyne in January 1965, and as Sylvia Odio implied in her account of the accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Let's also, for the sake of argument, grant Fabian Escalante's sensational story about David Atlee Phillips alias Harold Benson peeing on JFK's grave and telling his confidantes that JFK was a Communist. Although I claim that the JFK Kill-Team was motivated by the conviction that JFK was a Communist, this story is still not enough proof that Phillips was personally "included" with those rogue CIA agents.

Harry Dean also repeated the John Birch Society doctrine that JFK was a Communist in 1963, and he even gave his blessing to a plot to kill JFK -- but he soon changed his mind and told the FBI about it (according to Harry Dean). In other words -- hate-talk about JFK was so common, so cheap, so wide-spread in 1963 that JFK hate-talk alone can never be enough to arrive at a conclusion about a JFK Kill-Team member. We need something material. (Even peeing on JFK's grave isn't proof of murder -- its only proof of hatred.)

Also, I appreciate your citation of James DiEugenio's remark that David Atlee Phillips was a CIA "operations officer," and that an operations officer is only a CIA officer in the field; one who supervises the proper closure of orders, and not one who sits with the high-command to plan and approve campaigns and strategies.

I would add: even if somebody comes up with material evidence implicating Phillips in the JFK murder (which always remains possible) so that logic forces me to accept it, then I'll accept it but I'll also emphasize that Phillips wasn't a part of the CIA high-command.

James DiEugenio added that David Morales was also a mid-level CIA officer, reporting to Ted Shackley at JM/WAVE in 1963, and even Ted Shackley wasn't part of the CIA high-command. David Morales was largely an executioner, allegedly responsible for the deaths of thousands of South American left-wingers from 1955-1965. That's no flunky, but it's not a General, either.

James DiEugenio raised some key points with regard to Phillips in Mexico City -- and the fraudulent tapes sent to Washington DC to implicate Oswald in the JFK case deserves a more careful review. Also, the role of Anne Goodpasture, Phillips' assistant in Mexico City, deserves serious review.

As for the transcribed Mexico City tapes of Oswald sent by Phillips by pouch to himself at Langley under an assumed name -- that suggests to me that Phillips may have learned from J.J. Angleton that a CIA mole-hunt had started, and he needed to keep the tapes extra-secure. But I'm open to other theories.

James DiEugenio, however, was unaware in 2008 of the mole-hunt that Bill Simpich revealed this year; in fact, James thought that the FBI was the first to declare that the voice was not Oswald's. So, again we are indebted to Bill Simpich in many ways, and we must also recognize Larry Hancock's work with Bill Simpich in this regard.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 15, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Its hard to figure out what this thread is actually about, since it morphed so completely. But since Skull and Bones has been mentioned, and Angleton, I thought I would share something I dug up recently. In researching whether Angleton was Skull and Bones I came upon something interesting. Angleton did go to Yale but was not apparently a Bonesman. However, his father James Hugh Angleton was a part of the military pursuit in Mexico in 1923 of Pancho Villa. We probably recall the story that Pancho's skull resides at Skull and Bones headquarters, and the story is that Prescott Bush helped acquire the skull, which had been robbed from the gravesite. Circumstantial, but interesting.

[Paul Brancato]

Actually I am not sure if its Pancho Villa or Zapata