Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

[Thomas Graves]

12 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

I thought you were aware that Bill Simpich (2014) demonstrated that the "Henry" in the CIA 201 file for Oswald was deliberately entered there as a Mole Hunt operation.

It was not a "new" Mole Hunt.  It was the original Mole Hunt of October 1, 1963, in response to the CIA *immediate* recognition that the telephone caller of October 1, 1963 was not really Lee Harvey Oswald, as he claimed when he asked for Kostikov of the KGB.

The fact that this fake middle name, "Henry," was still present after a solid year, suggests to me that the CIA had still not found the Mole by late 1964.

Yet I am still asking -- what CIA agent authored the CIA memo of October 18, 1963, which was seen by INS agent Jeff Woolsey only a few days later, when he mentioned it to FBI agent James Hosty (assuming that Hosty is telling the truth about it)?   And how can we be assured of the author?

Now -- James Hosty himself said he first heard about the CIA member of 10/18/1963 from INS agent Jeff Woolsey.   He also said in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996) that he searched high and low inside FBI records, and could not find it.   So, that should answer your question -- unless James Hosty was fabricating.

As for anything David Joseph says, he cannot divorce himself from Armstrong, so I'm already bored with it.

HOWEVER -- much depends on the complete status of that October 18 memo.   Corrected or not.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

And to think I thought you were aware that John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, and Bill Simpich have all written that James Angleton's right hand gal, Ann Egerter, opened a 201 file titled "Lee Henry Oswald" on the one-and only Oswald (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald) on December 9, 1960, more than a year after he had shown up in Moscow, and that in addition to a wrong middle name, a lot of other (Popov's-Mole-oriented) bogus biographical information "marked cards" about Lee Harvey Oswald, some of which had already been created in State Department, etc, documents about him going back to October 30, 1959 (if not even earlier), was intentionally added to that file (and files which bifurcated from it) over the ensuing three years.  

So, .....  Charlotte Bustos, who probably didn't realize that Henry wasn't the correct middle name for Oswald, did what she was told to do with the intentionally-bogus biographical information that was given to her by her mole-hunting boss, and wrote up two superficially-similar but very-different-on-a-biographical-level cables about Lee Harvey Oswald on 10/10/63, and she called him "Lee Henry Oswald" because, to reiterate, that's what her Popov's Mole - hunting boss had led her to believe Oswald's name was, and selectively sent the two different cables off to suspected or not-suspected Intelligence headquarters and agencies in accordance with the new, October, 1963, Mexico City-based mole hunt, i.e., to find out who had been manipulating and impersonating  Lee Harvey Oswald.

And the rest as they say is history EDIT: grist for the Harvey and Lee And The Two Marguerites cottage industry.

--  Tommy

Edited March 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T 

When a mexican says ¨rubio¨(male), ¨rubia¨(female) he or she means blonde. When they say ¨huero¨, they mean a person with light colored hair. They certainly know the difference between a person with blonde hair and one with light colored hair. I believe any mexican, man or women, working for the Cuban consulate is literate to the point of knowing the difference.

You will never find a mexican who asks for ice cream by saying ... ¨Por favor dame nieve¨. They would laugh at you. Ice cream is known as ¨helado¨ in spanish.

[Thomas Graves]

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

PT:

The above shows anyone who is reading that you have not read anything David has written about the whole Mumford/WInston affair.  And you do not know the latest developments about it.  That is not what David wrote and that is not how they have been discredited.

But keep on writing about this barium meals,  oat meals or whatever you want to dish out with cinnamon and raisins.  Because what you have to say on the subject is obviously derivative and, as David points out above, even at that you still get it wrong. 

As per Tommy, I already commented on your belief that Leonov is the guy in the screen capture in the Cuban embassy.  That was a while ago.  No I do not trust that photo comparison.  Historically speaking those things do not do well for evidentiary purposes.  Recall, Joannides at the Ambassdor Hotel? 

Dear James,

Oh well, sometimes you can't even lead a really, really, really stubborn horse to water, much less make him drink.

--  Tommy

PS  What did you say about whether or not Leonov was "the guy in the screen capture in the Cuban embassy"?  I honestly don't remember.

"A while ago"?  Last week? Month or two ago?  Four or five?  Years?

To save me the time of searching hopelessly for it, would you mind briefly restating what you said?

Thank you in advance,

PPS  So you don't trust photographic comparisons of people?  What about in Harvey and Lee?

Edited March 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

What is history is this:  The Warren Commission tells us all about Oswald being in Mexico City for several days at the end of September and the beginning of October.

They went down there and Scott played a tape which they thought was of Oswald to prove he was there.

What David is trying to show is that the weight of the evidence says that such is not the case.

And if Coleman and Slawson heard a tape, why did Phillips lie by saying no such tape existed?  That they were all destroyed SOP before the assassination.

And is such was the case, then what did Goodpasture send to the border for those FBI agents to listen to in Dallas?

Goodpasture and Phillips knew the voice on the tape was not Oswald, that is why they made up the BS story that they had been destroyed before hand.

Just like Goodpasture knew the Mystery Man was not Oswald, and she knew that before the assassination.

Which is why she lied her head off to Dan and Eddie about her true role in the surveillance of the embassies.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

TG: Oh well, sometimes you can't even lead a really, really, really stubborn horse to water, much less make him drink.

 

What water?  Bill tried to say that Webster was a dead ringer for Oswald.  

Some people go for that stuff.  On past experience, I don't trust it.

[George Sawtelle]

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.

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, 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.

Dear George,

It's my understanding that a 201 file can also be opened on someone who doesn't actually work for The Agency at the time, but in whom The Agency has some sort of "operational interest," e.g., the possibly of having that person "work", wittingly or unwittingly, for The Agency at some point in the future.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

--  Tommy

Edited March 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[George Sawtelle]

Thomas

The feds would need your okay to collect all the info they collect on you. They would need your signature. They place all the info in a 201 file. You would certainly know if the feds start a 201 file on you.

I can´t help you with an operational interest file since I know nothing about that type of file.

 

[Thomas Graves]

3 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Thomas

The feds would need your okay to collect all the info they collect on you. They would need your signature. They place all the info in a 201 file. You would certainly know if the feds start a 201 file on you.

[...]

Dear George,

LOL

--  Tommy

Edited March 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

9 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

No, Paul.

I thought you were aware that John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, and Bill Simpich have all written that James Angleton's right hand gal, Ann Egerter, opened a 201 file titled "Lee Henry Oswald" on the one-and only Oswald (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald) on December 9, 1960, more than a year after he (the one-and-only Oswald) had shown up in Moscow, and that much other Popov's-Mole-hunting bogus "marked card" / "barium meal" information about him, some of which had already been created in State Department, etc, documents, was intentionally added to that file (and other files about him) over the ensuing three years.  

So, Charlotte Bustos, who probably didn't even realize that "Lee Henry Oswald" wasn't the one-and-only Oswald's correct name, did what she was told to do with the intentionally-bogus information that was given to her by her mole-hunting boss, and wrote up two superficially-similar but very-different-on-a-biographical-level cables about him (the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald) on 10/10/63 (but she, of course, called him "Lee Henry Oswald"), and sent them off selectively (as part of the unknown-to-her new (October, 1963) mole hunt) to different Intelligence headquarters and agencies.

And the rest as they say is history.

--  Tommy

Tommy,

Having read John Newman's famous book, Oswald and the CIA (1995), I mainly remember that he was trying to guess what was in the Lopez Report, and that his book is full of guesswork -- countless pages of guesswork, and very little solid fact.

After the Lopez Report came out in 2003, I've regarded Newman's book as out of date -- like most of the JFK material of the 1990's.   Just because John Newman said it -- I need a second confirmation.   Newman's guesses were wrong most of the time.

I would hesitate to call Newman's work "history" -- or to try to build scenarios from Newman's work as if it was really solid history.  It's way too much guesswork in my opinion.  Now -- if you have secondary confirmation of these claims, then I'll take a second look.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[George Sawtelle]

Thomas

A 201 file is for employment. The feds ask for info and you hand it over because you want the job right.

Everyone knows the feds can spy on anyone. If the feds spy on you whatever info they discover will be placed in a file other than a 201 file.

Edited March 18, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T 

When a mexican says ¨rubio¨(male), ¨rubia¨(female) he or she means blonde. When they say ¨huero¨, they mean a person with light colored hair. They certainly know the difference between a person with blonde hair and one with light colored hair. I believe any mexican, man or women, working for the Cuban consulate is literate to the point of knowing the difference.

You will never find a mexican who asks for ice cream by saying ... ¨Por favor dame nieve¨. They would laugh at you. Ice cream is known as ¨helado¨ in spanish.

George,

You're moving too fast here.  Of course a Mexican knows the difference between a person with blonde hair and light-colored hair -- but that doesn't mean that any given Spanish sentence will always reflect it -- it depends on the context.

Also, where English is the second-language, one must also be careful.   For example, Marina Oswald wanted to say that Lee Oswald "hid" his rifle -- but the Russian word for "hid" can also mean "buried," so Marina Oswald said that Lee "buried" his rifle.

People who are too literal will cling to the literal word, without taking the sociological context into consideration.  That's my view.

Also -- the word "helado" means "ice cream bar," not ice-cream -- at least in my neighborhood.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is history is this:  The Warren Commission tells us all about Oswald being in Mexico City for several days at the end of September and the beginning of October.

They went down there and Scott played a tape which they thought was of Oswald to prove he was there.

What David is trying to show is that the weight of the evidence says that such is not the case.

And if Coleman and Slawson heard a tape, why did Phillips lie by saying no such tape existed?  That they were all destroyed SOP before the assassination.

And is such was the case, then what did Goodpasture send to the border for those FBI agents to listen to in Dallas?

Goodpasture and Phillips knew the voice on the tape was not Oswald, that is why they made up the BS story that they had been destroyed before hand.

Just like Goodpasture knew the Mystery Man was not Oswald, and she knew that before the assassination.

Which is why she lied her head off to Dan and Eddie about her true role in the surveillance of the embassies.  

There is too much cloak-and-dagger guesswork in these claims.

The CIA is trained to keep CIA secrets as secret as possible.  They will often go to extremes in this regard.  It's an occupational hazard.  It's bogus to try to make cloak-and-dagger conspiracies out of it.

Bill Simpich has completely answered all the riddles about the Mexico City episode with Oswald, in his superb eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), and anybody who doesn't know that is only pretending to have read it.

The 21st century revival of the CTKA Probe Magazine nonsense of the 1990's (e.g. DB2) is only admitting one is out of ideas.  

Just admit it was all misguided, cloak-and-dagger baloney and read Bill Simpich. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T

Helado is not limited to ice cream bar. If you asked for nieve at an ice cream store you would not get what you wanted. The worker, assuming he´s mexican, would not understand. Helado is ice cream no matter the packaging.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T

Helado is not limited to ice cream bar. If you asked for nieve at an ice cream store you would not get what you wanted. The worker, assuming he´s mexican, would not understand. Helado is ice cream no matter the packaging.

George,

Not in my neighborhood.   Helados are bars, and in fact are usually made with milk and not cream.  Nieve is a very old, traditional word for ice cream.   It was a rarity in the Mexican countryside -- like snow.

Getting back to the point -- if Silvia Duran said casually that Lee Harvey Oswald was blonde, she clearly meant light-hair-color, which was rare in Mexico, and most Mexicans would have understood in that way.   It's the American readers who don't get it -- and it's the American cloak-and-dagger Conspiracy Theorists who try to sell fiction based on it.  

It's pitiful.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo