Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

[Thomas Graves]

17 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

[dupe]

 

17 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hopeless. Mole hunt refers to what Angleton was doing as early as 1960 and increasingly until he was fired. Trejo keeps calling MC a mole hunt, when mole hunt specifically refers to trying to catch a Soviet agent, not an Oswald impersonator. And despite Trejo's repeated explanations for what Simpich discovered that no one else had, even Simpich distances himself from that, saying a few days ago on this thread or another one that Trejo was going too far by claiming that Simpich believes Trejo's theory, giving credit to Simpich for what is Trejo's invention. Preposterous. I can't even see straight right now after reading this exchange. Tommy is right. Lee Henry Oswald dates from 1960. 

Paul,

I found EF member and former Army Intel officer Jon G. Tidd's comment (before you joined, I believe) to be very interesting.  He said that he thought Angleton was trying to figure out who was manipulating Oswald (as in getting him to hand out "Commie" flyers in New Orleans, and in enticing him to try to get to Cuba via Mexico City?) before (?) Oswald was impersonated over the phone, and maybe even in person, in Mexico City.

It's obvious to me that Jon intentionally used the word "manipulating" rather than the word "impersonating."

I take this (a step or two farther?) to mean that Angelton's project (to find Oswald's manipulators) may have been hijacked / "piggy backed" by the Oswald-impersonating Really Bad Guys, or that the impersonators might not have been so bad, after all, but working for Angleton is trying to get Oswald's Non-Angleton Manipulators to "show their cards".

--  Tommy

Edited March 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hopeless. Mole hunt refers to what Angleton was doing as early as 1960 and increasingly until he was fired. Trejo keeps calling MC a mole hunt, when mole hunt specifically refers to trying to catch a Soviet agent, not an Oswald impersonator. And despite Trejo's repeated explanations for what Simpich discovered that no one else had, even Simpich distances himself from that, saying a few days ago on this thread or another one that Trejo was going too far by claiming that Simpich believes Trejo's theory, giving credit to Simpich for what is Trejo's invention. Preposterous. I can't even see straight right now after reading this exchange. Tommy is right. Lee Henry Oswald dates from 1960. 

Paul B.,

You're mistaken about the Mole Hunt.  Bill Simpich (2014) clearly refers to a Mole Hunt of October 1, 1963, to catch a CIA agent impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald over a Mexico City telephone on that same date.

This is not my invention at all.  It's Bill SImpich's discovery based on recent FOIA releases of CIA documents.  Read his superb eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

Actually -- Bill Simpich is on this thread, right?  So don't take my word for it -- ask Bill Simpich himself.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I've read the book. If Simpich referred to it as a mole hunt I stand corrected. But I don't misrepresent him, and his own response to you makes it clear that he wishes you would stop doing so. And admit that Lee Henry Oswald was first used as a dangle in 1960 by Angleton's staff, no doubt at his instructions.

[Paul Brancato]

16 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Paul,

I found former Army Intel officer Jon G. Tidd's comment (before you joined, I believe) to be very interesting.  He said that he thought Angleton was trying to figure out who was manipulating Oswald (as in getting him to hand out "Commie" flyers in New Orleans, and in enticing him to try to get to Cuba via Mexico City?) .  I believe Jon intentionally used the word "manipulating," rather than the word "impersonating."

Going from memory here, but regarding the latter scenario the names "Tilden" and "Anderson" pop into my widdle over-wracked mind!

--  Tommy

I recall that, and find myself in disagreement. Angleton was manipulating Oswald in 1960, so why should I not believe he was still in control in 1963?

 Trejo keeps saying that Angleton and others at his rank were out of the loop, and that middle level officers were operating behind his back. He bases this mostly on Simpich, who earlier this week acknowledged that he doesn't know if Angleton was or wasn't confused about the Oswald impersonation. Same for Phillips. If, as Trejo states, Simpich uses the words 'mole hunt' to describe looking for Oswald's impersonator, it's either a new use for the term, or Angleton thought that the impersonator was a Soviet mole.

[Thomas Graves]

17 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Paul,

I found ef member and former Army Intel officer Jon G. Tidd's comment (before you joined, I believe) to be very interesting.  He said that he thought Angleton was trying to figure out who was manipulating Oswald (as in getting him to hand out "Commie" flyers in New Orleans, and in enticing him to try to get to Cuba via Mexico City?) before (?) Oswald was impersonated over the phone (and maybe even in person) in Mexico City.

It's obvious to me that Jon intentionally used the word "manipulating" rather than the word "impersonating."

I take this (a step or two farther?) to unabashedly speculate that Angelton's project (to find LHO's manipulators) was either hijacked / "piggy backed" by the Oswald-impersonating Really Bad Guys, or that the impersonators might not have been so bad, after all, but were working for (maybe not so bad) Angleton in trying to get Oswald's Non-Angleton Manipulators to "show their cards".

--  Tommy

edited and bumped

Edited March 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

24 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I recall that, and find myself in disagreement. Angleton was manipulating Oswald in 1960, so why should I not believe he was still in control in 1963?

 Trejo keeps saying that Angleton and others at his rank were out of the loop, and that middle level officers were operating behind his back. He bases this mostly on Simpich, who earlier this week acknowledged that he doesn't know if Angleton was or wasn't confused about the Oswald impersonation. Same for Phillips. If, as Trejo states, Simpich uses the words 'mole hunt' to describe looking for Oswald's impersonator, it's either a new use for the term, or Angleton thought that the impersonator was a Soviet mole.

I can only conjecture that one of the things "a master manipulator" like Angleton hates most is realizing that what he has been manipulating is suddenly being (or has been being) manipulated by someone else.

The feeling of being "out foxed" or "out played" or "piggy-backed," if you will.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Sure, but it doesn't mean he was in the dark. He might have been converting his ass. Or hiding his own tracks.

[Thomas Graves]

36 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Sure, but it doesn't mean he was in the dark. He might have been converting his ass. Or hiding his own tracks.

Maybe.  But I kinda like the idea of a rogue mid-level insider or two (like Morales, Phillips, Bill Bright and / or the Potockis, maybe even the Potocki's boss -- ZRRIFLE / Staff D's Bill Harvey) piggy-backing Angleton's projects and making it look like if anyone in the CIA killed JFK, it was he.

So how will we ever know?  Find a hand-written deathbed confession or two?

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Could not agree more Paul.  I don't care who is saying it, that is not a mole hunt.  All you have to do is read David Wise's eponymous titled book on Angleton or Mangold's biography to see what a mole hunt was and is.

Secondly, is  it really a coincidence that Goodpasture is the person caught with her hand in the cookie jar?  The person who handled Phillips' operations when he was gone, and the person who knew Angleton from Staff D, and then tells him about the death of Winston Scott. Particularly the contents of Scott's safe.

 And then what does Angleton do?  He hightails it down to Mexico City, so fast he forgot his passport.  But he got approval from Helms.  He then threatened Scott's widow about her retirement benefits.  When she stood aside, he emptied the safe.  And had it jetted back to Langley.  In Scott's inventory, it was revealed that the alleged LHO voice on his tape spoke in broken Russian. (DiEugenio, p. 361, Destiny Betrayed, revised edition.)  Angleton's desperation to get the contents of the safe indicates he knew that.  How?

I mean that wasn't Bill Bright doing that was it?

Edited March 19, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Could not agree more Paul.  I don't care who is saying it, that is not a mole hunt.  All you have to do is read David Wise's eponymous titled book on Angleton or Mangold's biography to see what a mole hunt was and is.

Secondly, is  it really a coincidence that Goodpasture is the person caught with her hand in the cookie jar?  The person who handled Phillips' operations when he was gone, and the person who knew Angleton from Staff D, and then tells him about the death of Winston Scott. Particularly the contents of Scott's safe.

 And then what does Angleton do?  He hightails it down to Mexico City, so fast he forgot his passport.  But he got approval from Helms.  He then threatened Scott's widow about her retirement benefits.  When she stood aside, he emptied the safe.  And had it jetted back to Langley.  In Scott's inventory, it was revealed that the alleged LHO voice on his tape spoke in broken Russian. (DiEugenio, p. 361, Destiny Betrayed, revised edition.)  Angleton's desperation to get the contents of the safe indicates he knew that.  How?

I mean that wasn't Bill Bright doing that was it?

Dear James,

OMG. Goodpasture told JJA about the contents of Winn's safe? How do you know that, James? Did Jim or Anne tell you, or are you just kinda guessing? You mean, you mean, you mean, you mean .... the Saturday, 9/28/63, photos of LHO trying to hide his face from the LILYRIC camera with his jacket while leaving the Soviet Embassy, and everything? (Can't say I really blame LHO for doing that.  After all, I don't like to be photographed right after crying my eyes out, either!)  Did Goodpasture get caught doing something bad, you know, like you intimated when you rhetorically stated that she "got caught with her hand in the cookie jar"?Was helping JJA trying to figure out who had been manipulating LHO and / or impersonating him in Mexico City a bad thing?

By the way, did you know that Mexico City Soviet Embassy-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov (whom I personally believe might have been Azcue's "blond, thin-faced Oswald" and Duran's "short, blond Oswald" (blond, thin-faced Leonov is still alive, btw. and was known to be only 5' 6" tall in 1963) claimed a few years ago that the real Oswald had an impromptu meeting with him at the Soviet Embassy, but on Sunday, September 29, instead of the more widely-alleged "meet and greet" with Kostikov and Nxxxxxxx and that other Ruskie dude on Saturday, September 28?

Interesting, da?

--  Tommy

PS  You wrote on page 220 of The Assassinations that some CIA cables and Kostikov himself said that "the real Oswald" did meet with Kostikov in Mexico City(!), but you gave no "sources".  Bummer, dude. Could you please give us a clue or two as to where we can read the pertinent documents about that, ourselves?

Thank you in advance. 

--  Tommy

Edited March 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear James,

OMG. Goodpasture told JJA about the contents of Winn's safe? How do you know that, James? Did Jim or Anne tell you, or are you just kinda guessing? You mean, you mean, you mean, you mean .... the Saturday, 9/28/63, photos of LHO trying to hide his face from the LILYRIC camera with his jacket while leaving the Soviet Embassy, and everything? (Can't say I really blame LHO for doing that.  After all, I don't like to be photographed right after crying my eyes out, either!)  Did Goodpasture get caught doing something bad, you know, like you intimated when you rhetorically stated that she "got caught with her hand in the cookie jar"?  In your humble opinion, was her trying to help JJA figure out who had been manipulating LHO and / or impersonating him in Mexico City "a bad thing"?

By the way, did you know that Mexico City Soviet Embassy-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, whom I personally believe might have been Azcue's "blond, thin-faced Oswald" and Duran's "short, blond Oswald" (blond, thin-faced Leonov is still alive, btw. and was known to be only 5' 6" tall in 1963), claimed a few years ago that the real Oswald had an impromptu meeting with only him (Leonov) at the Soviet Embassy on Sunday, September 29?  Is it possible that Oswald went there two days in a row, having cried his eyes out the day before (Saturday, September 28) in front of  Kostikov, Nechiporenko and that other volleyball-playing Ruskie dude?

Why would eventual Lt.General of the KGB (and present Nationalistic member of the Russian Parliament and supporter of Vladimir Putin) Nikolai Leonov say that, anyway?  I mean, you know, if it wasn't true?  Just to confuse JFK assassination students and researchers?

Interesting, da?

--  Tommy

PS  You wrote on page 220 of The Assassinations that some CIA cables and Kostikov himself said that "the real Oswald" did meet with Kostikov in Mexico City(!), but you gave no "sources". Could you please give us a clue or two as to where we can read the pertinent documents about that for ourselves?

Thank you in advance. 

--  Tommy

Bumped for Mr. DiEugenio

Edited March 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - you always give Jim a hard time. Why? 

Do you seriously think there's nothing suspicious about Angleton racing to MC after Scott's death? or suspicious about Goodpasture's actions? Can they not be read as following orders by Phillips and/or Angleton for some purpose other than finding an impersonator? Serious question Tommy. Be serious when you answer please.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - you always give Jim a hard time. Why? 

Do you seriously think there's nothing suspicious about Angleton racing to MC after Scott's death? or suspicious about Goodpasture's actions? Can they not be read as following orders by Phillips and/or Angleton for some purpose other than finding an impersonator? Serious question Tommy. Be serious when you answer please.

Dear Paul,

Why?  Well, since you asked, because he doesn't think very critically for a so-called "JFK assassination expert," in my humble opinion.  And he jumps to unwarranted conclusions way too often, in my humble opinion.  And he doesn't do a very good job of "sourcing," in my humble opinion.  And ....

Okay?

 

"Do you seriously think there's nothing suspicious about Angleton (sic) racing racing to MC after Scott's death?"

Did I seriously say that, Paul?  Of course I think it's suspicious.

"or suspicious about Goodpasture's actions?"

Which actions are you referring to, Paul?  Sending cables with "marked card" false information in them, and with physical-descriptions and references to wrong-day photos of a possible but-unnamed-in-the-cable KGB spy (Moskalev) in them?

Answer:  No.

Can they not be read as following orders by Phillips and/or Angleton for some purpose other than finding an impersonator?

Yes!  Please elaborate.  That sounds fascinating!  Seriously!

--  Tommy

PS  Did you know that Duran's and Azcue's "Short, Blond.Thin-Faced,Thirty-Something 'Oswald'" was probably KGB officer Nikolai Leonov, and that many years later, Leonov claimed that the real Oswald had met with him in the Soviet Embassy on Sunday, September 29, 1963?  And fwiw, did you know that Leonov was "captured" by the LILYRIC camera near the Soviet Embassy just 11 minutes before the infamous "Mexico City Mystery Man" (Moskalev?) was "captured" by the same camera on October 2, 1963?

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

I think Jim does a great job, and I think you pick on him more than others. Heck, you're nicer to Trejo.

i did not know that Leonov was suspected of being mistaken for Oswald at the MC embassies. I do recall reading the material where the former Soviet agents expressed their views on Oswald, and was not impressed. Sounded like lies to me, without any proof other than my intuition, which I often go on. I'm not a researcher, and have no problem with my methods, scientific or not. I'm well read on the subject, and in general have no problem making assumptions that seem logical to me. If I was a lawyer in court this would clearly not suffice. But I'm not. Your posts generally come in two types - sarcasm, and minutae. I'm not a nuts and bolts guy, and not sarcastic. Yes, I could get out my books and look up Egerter and refresh myself. But I know, after reading Newman, Simpich, Scott, and others, what I generally think. She did not operate on her own, and she did some smarmy things. I could agree with you that what she did made sense given her position, which was as an employee of men who I consider evil and complicit. But so what? So I already answered your question. She inserted lies into the MC record because she was told to do so by one of her superiors, Phillips and Angleton in particular, or both. Why? I'll tell you why not. There was no mystery in my opinion who impersonated Oswald. Tapes, and photos, exist, whether we have seen or heard them or not. So her reiteration of the old false name was done to obscure the record, not to help someone figure out what happened. How else can we explain Gheesling at the FBI simultaneously taking Oswald off the watch list? Someone was setting Oswald up to take the fall, and they were responsible for the impersonation, not befuddled by it. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Paul, no need to jump in, as when Tommy meets up with what lawyers call "bad facts", he acts just like a lawyer and blames the messenger for bringing them in.  If he wants to get personal, then fine.

If you would read my books Tommy Baby (based on your glasses), you would see that I annotate every bit of key information. The revised edition of Destiny Betrayed, has over 2000 footnotes in it.  The text is only 400 pages which, if you get out your calculator, comes to five references per pages, a rate I will match with anyone.

And I only proffer  conclusions when I think I have the weight of the evidence on my side.  That is why I have the reputation I do.  That is why people ask me for speaking engagements and production entities call me up to offer ideas and consult with them on certain aspects of the assassinations.  Plural.  I long ago realized the JFK case could not be looked at in a vacuum.  And no I do not think Walker killed RFK or MLK, nor was it Morales.  But Jim Angleton did have the RFK autopsy photos in his office.  Think he was trying to figure out how Sirhan shot RFK from the front yet the shot came in from behind? I don't.

As per the episode about Angleton emptying Scott's safe to make sure his charade was not discovered, if you look in my book--which apparently you have not--you will see that the paragraph is referenced to Jeff Morley's book, Our Man In Mexico.  I guess if its not in Bill's essay, it doesn't exist right?

God, I cannot ponder how you are still pushing that Leonov photo comparison, even after I told you about Webster.  

PS If you want to call me on Angleton and the RFK photos, I advise you to look at Morley's book on Scott.  Page 282 to be exact.  Oh, its not by Bill, so you don't want to read it?  Then read my review for the important nuggets.  (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/morley-jefferson-our-man-in-mexico?tmpl=component&print=1) 

Edited March 19, 2017 by James DiEugenio