Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

George,

Despite James Di Eugenio's rant, the important work by Bill Simpich (2014) is indispensable in understanding the Mexico City trip of Lee Harvey Oswald in late September 1963.

Bill SImpich shows -- with careful scholarship -- that the photograph of the large Russian dude in LHO's 201 file was inserted there because of a top-secret Mole Hunt, to discover who had Impersonated LHO in Mexico City, over the telephone, from the Cuban consulate to the Russian Embassy -- the most wire-tapped telephone in the world at that time.

Bill Simpich's absolutely mandatory eBook is entitled, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) and it is 100% free on the Internet, just for the downloading.  It is a milestone in JFK research in the 20th century.   A work of admirable scholarship.

There were photos of LHO in Mexico City, but they were removed because of this important CIA Mole Hunt.

IMHO, those photos of LHO will be revealed to the American Public on Thursday 26 October 2017, when the JFK Records Act comes to maturity. We will all see them, then.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Even though I disagree with your overall theory, I must say this is an excellent post.

Simpich's free-to-read work is mandatory reading, imho.

--  Tommy

[George Sawtelle]

Paul T

Oswald went as far as Laredo and was informed to return to Dallas. The CIA found out the military was doing a Northwoods caper to impersonate Oswald in case it was needed after the assassination.

After it was apparent that Johnson would not allow the military to nuke Russia and invade Cuba the day of the assasssination the lone nut theory came into existence. Then Oswald wasn´t an agent of Cuba or Russia but a lone nut and the impersonation was played down.

However the CIA needed to place Oswald in MC or people would say ... ¨hey he´s not a lone nut he was impersonated in Mexico City. What´s up with that¨. And the lone nut theory could not be considered credible.

The above theory is just as viable as your Simpich/mole hunt theory except mine is more rooted in the evidence.

[Paul Brancato]

Tommy - i think Simpich's book is well worth reading. Simpich had many opportunities to respond when I pointed out that Egerter inserting the misleading photo does not prove that her superiors were in the dark about the Oswald impersonation. Someone above her, Phillips, Angleton, who knows how high this decision went, told her to do it. The term mole hunt is very misleading in this case. It is correctly used when applied to earlier insertions into Oswald's files designed to ferret out possible Soviet moles. But the Oswald impersonator was not a mole. He was part of a plot to set up a Communist as the murderer of the president, with obvious implications. To assert, as Trejo often does, that David Morales impersonated Oswald behind the backs of his superiors like Phillips, and that therefore Phillips hid the real photos of Oswald because he didn't know that his very close associate was the impersonator, is absurd on its face. Morales, if he was the impersonator, was no mole. He was the top operational henchman who worked within the CIA chain of command for his entire nefarious career. 

if we start from the assumption that Morales was the impersonator, and that he did it under orders, can we find another reason to obscure the truth about Oswald in Mexico? Well, for one, there may not exist real photos because Oswald may never have been in MC. In that case the whole thing is a charade perpetrated by the CIA, and the photo in question part of that operation. But what if Oswald was there? In that case real photos existed, but to this day have not been shared, proving only that CIA is hiding something, rather than proving that they were in the dark about who the impersonator was. As Trejo knows well, Newman and Scott and many others don't agree with Simpich on his ultimate conclusion that the false photo takes Phillips, Angleton and others off the hook. And even Simpich is not so sure that Phillips was out of the loop. So how does the insertion of the false photo prove that the CIA Brass was in the dark? They obscured the real record one way or the other, and guessing at their reasons by calling Egerter's actions proof that they did not know who impersonated Oswald, and conflating that devious move with earlier marked cards in Oswald's official record, is a leap of faith, not a foregone and obvious explanation for her actions. 

[James DiEugenio]

PB: To assert, as Trejo often does, that David Morales impersonated Oswald behind the backs of his superiors like Phillips, and that therefore Phillips hid the real photos of Oswald because he didn't know that his very close associate was the impersonator, is absurd on its face.

 

I'll say.  

[Paul Brancato]

George - I'd like to read your source or sources for your alternate view on Oswald/MC, Northwoods, Laredo, etc.

[James DiEugenio]

Anyone is free to read anything they like on Mexico City.  Whether it be Bill, John Newman, Armstrong. David Josephs etc.

But in my reference above, the Lopez Report should be mandatory.  Because just about everything else is reliant on it.  And that document is just that, its a document based  on primary sources.  And its a spin free document.  It presents the new evidence that Dan and Eddie uncovered--and there was a ton of it.  If you don't read it then you are unprepared to evaluate the other renditions that derive from it.  And one is also unprepared for claims that something is in the Lopez Report, when it is not there.  Like saying the CIA had photos of Oswald in Mexico City.

Edited March 5, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Josephs]

Quote

And PT scolds everyone for not reading the Lopez Report, when it does not appear he has done so himself.  BTW, I go through all of this skullduggery by Goodpasture in the paperback edition of Reclaiming Parkland. This whole Mystery Man imbroglio is not due to a mole hunt.  Its worse than that.  It really seems to be that, as Eddie Lopez told me, Goodpasture was carrying out orders from Phillips while he was away. (Reclaiming Parkland, revised edition, pgs 294-96)

Phillips, "Michael Choaden" orchestrated the entire thing, IMHO.  That was his specific specialty.  

 

Alvarado was Phillips' 1-2 punch in connecting the name "Oswald"  to Castro.  Within the span of a week Oswald had taken money from the red-haired negro on Sept 17/18, then 27/28, then not at all, then yes Alvarado still believes it occurs the 17/18th but was "coerced" into negating his statement...
If there were concurrent Ops, which anyone knowing the time period and geography must consider strongly, they needn't have been connected.

Despite the obvious, that man in MC was called "LHO" relentlessly in DC and Dallas...  what "he" was doing there was marginalized in the WCR 

everything from the word "pursuant" forward is inconsequential to the sentence structure.

 

It qualifies an assertion that is not made about a trip for which there is no evidence...  the Commission has no evidence that he went for any reason despite them offering one for us to consider.

Those rumors only became so when Oswald was no longer involved in a conspiracy, much to Phillips' disappointment I'd guess.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

On 3/5/2017 at 0:38 AM, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

Even though I disagree with your overall theory, I must say this is an excellent post.

Simpich's free-to-read work is mandatory reading, imho.

--  Tommy

Why do you suppose then, Tommy, that Odum of the FBI would show this photo to Marguerite in hopes of identifying him?

if this was specifically a CIA 201 file matter it's interesting that it would be known as ODUM Exh 1

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by David Josephs

[James DiEugenio]

As Fonzi wrote in his book, Phillips got very nervous when Dan and Eddie showed him that they had broken down every disinfo story about Oswald in Mexico City.  And every source turned out to be an asset of Phillips.

BTW, Eddie told me that they actually assembled a color coded chart to demonstrate this to him.

Well, yep, I'd start smoking two cigarettes also if someone sprung something like that on me. 

[James DiEugenio]

It appears that photo was sent to Dallas via a legal attache, which usually means an FBI agent.  

That is how the tapes got to Dallas also.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Why do you suppose then, Tommy, that Odum of the FBI would show this photo to Marguerite in hopes of identifying him?

if this was specifically a CIA 201 file matter it's interesting that it would be known as ODUM Exh 1

Dear Joseph,

Must have been because the evil CIA had three or four Oswalds running around impersonating each other since the early 1950's, and the requisite number of Marguerites, as well.

Either that, or there really was a new mole hunt initiated in October, 1963 (due to the impersonation of LHO in Mexico City), and the FBI or certain departments thereof was either "out of the loop" or "playing along" in trying to catch the mole.  Or hey, maybe Odum himself (or his supervisor) had been fed this barium meal by the unwitting mole?

Beats the heck outta me.

You really got me there.

LOL

--  Tommy  

Question:  Did Odum ask Marguerite specifically if this was her son, or did he ask her the more generic question as to whether or not she recognized this person?

Edited March 5, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - i think Simpich's book is well worth reading. Simpich had many opportunities to respond when I pointed out that Egerter inserting the misleading photo does not prove that her superiors were in the dark about the Oswald impersonation. Someone above her, Phillips, Angleton, who knows how high this decision went, told her to do it. The term mole hunt is very misleading in this case. It is correctly used when applied to earlier insertions into Oswald's files designed to ferret out possible Soviet moles. But the Oswald impersonator was not a mole. He was part of a plot to set up a Communist as the murderer of the president, with obvious implications. To assert, as Trejo often does, that David Morales impersonated Oswald behind the backs of his superiors like Phillips, and that therefore Phillips hid the real photos of Oswald because he didn't know that his very close associate was the impersonator, is absurd on its face. Morales, if he was the impersonator, was no mole. He was the top operational henchman who worked within the CIA chain of command for his entire nefarious career. 

if we start from the assumption that Morales was the impersonator, and that he did it under orders, can we find another reason to obscure the truth about Oswald in Mexico? Well, for one, there may not exist real photos because Oswald may never have been in MC. In that case the whole thing is a charade perpetrated by the CIA, and the photo in question part of that operation. But what if Oswald was there? In that case real photos existed, but to this day have not been shared, proving only that CIA is hiding something, rather than proving that they were in the dark about who the impersonator was. As Trejo knows well, Newman and Scott and many others don't agree with Simpich on his ultimate conclusion that the false photo takes Phillips, Angleton and others off the hook. And even Simpich is not so sure that Phillips was out of the loop. So how does the insertion of the false photo prove that the CIA Brass was in the dark? They obscured the real record one way or the other, and guessing at their reasons by calling Egerter's actions proof that they did not know who impersonated Oswald, and conflating that devious move with earlier marked cards in Oswald's official record, is a leap of faith, not a foregone and obvious explanation for her actions. 

Paul,

Excellent post and you offer much to think about.

But I gotta ask -- What does any of this have to do with whether or not there was one Marguerite Oswald, or two, or fifteen?

--  Tommy

 

Edit:

1 )  Was it Ann Egerter at Langley, or Anne Goodpasture in M.C. who inserted the photos of "Mexico City Mystery Man" into The File, and / or sent out a description of them in a possible barium meal cable to various Intel agencies and departments?  (Going from memory here, but I believe it was Goodpasture.)

2 )  Didn't Simpich hypothesize that the "Mexico City Mystery Man" photos were of a suspected Soviet spy masquerading as a nuclear scientist (whose name escapes me now) who had conveniently ("convenient" because he was dressed like an American and because M.C. Station supposedly didn't have, for whatever reason, any photos of LHO in M.C.) who visited the Soviet  (?) Cuban (?) Embassy / Consulate either a day before or after (I can't remember which, now --  Oct. 1?, Oct. 2?) the person who impersonated LHO's presence in Mexico City identified himself as "Oswald" for the first time over a CIA-tapped telephone in M.C.?

Could Goodpasture (in conjunction with Egerter?) have been trying to kill two birds with one stone?

--  Tommy

Edited March 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Absolutely none

[Thomas Graves]

7 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Absolutely none

Paul,

Oops.  I just realized that it doesn't, either.  I thought it was the Two Marguerites' thread!

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MY BAD

I must be getting ..... uh, ..... paranoid?

--  Tommy

Edited March 5, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

15 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

19 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - i think Simpich's book is well worth reading. Simpich had many opportunities to respond when I pointed out that Egerter inserting the misleading photo does not prove that her superiors were in the dark about the Oswald impersonation. Someone above her, Phillips, Angleton, who knows how high this decision went, told her to do it. The term mole hunt is very misleading in this case. It is correctly used when applied to earlier insertions into Oswald's files designed to ferret out possible Soviet moles. But the Oswald impersonator was not a mole. He was part of a plot to set up a Communist as the murderer of the president, with obvious implications. To assert, as Trejo often does, that David Morales impersonated Oswald behind the backs of his superiors like Phillips, and that therefore Phillips hid the real photos of Oswald because he didn't know that his very close associate was the impersonator, is absurd on its face. Morales, if he was the impersonator, was no mole. He was the top operational henchman who worked within the CIA chain of command for his entire nefarious career. 

if we start from the assumption that Morales was the impersonator, and that he did it under orders, can we find another reason to obscure the truth about Oswald in Mexico? Well, for one, there may not exist real photos because Oswald may never have been in MC. In that case the whole thing is a charade perpetrated by the CIA, and the photo in question part of that operation. But what if Oswald was there? In that case real photos existed, but to this day have not been shared, proving only that CIA is hiding something, rather than proving that they were in the dark about who the impersonator was. As Trejo knows well, Newman and Scott and many others don't agree with Simpich on his ultimate conclusion that the false photo takes Phillips, Angleton and others off the hook. And even Simpich is not so sure that Phillips was out of the loop. So how does the insertion of the false photo prove that the CIA Brass was in the dark? They obscured the real record one way or the other, and guessing at their reasons by calling Egerter's actions proof that they did not know who impersonated Oswald, and conflating that devious move with earlier marked cards in Oswald's official record, is a leap of faith, not a foregone and obvious explanation for her actions. 

Paul,

Excellent post and you offer much to think about.

But I gotta ask -- What does any of this have to do with whether or not there was one Marguerite Oswald, or two, or fifteen?

--  Tommy

 

Edit:

1 )  Was it Ann Egerter at Langley, or Anne Goodpasture in M.C. who inserted the photos of "Mexico City Mystery Man" into one of LHO's files, and/or sent out a description of them in a barium meal-like cable to various Intel agencies and departments thereof?  (Going from memory here.)

2 )  Didn't Simpich hypothesize that the "Mexico City Mystery Man" photos were of a suspected Soviet spy masquerading as a nuclear scientist (Yuri Moskalev!) who had conveniently (I say "conveniently" because "Moskalev" happened to be dressed like an American, and because M.C. Station supposedly didn't have, for whatever reason, any photos of LHO in M.C.) visited the Soviet or Cuban Embassy (don't remember which right now) either a day before or a day after (can't remember which; Oct. 1?, Oct. 2?) the person who telephonically impersonated LHO in Mexico City by identifying himself as "O-S-W-A-L-D" ?

Isn't it possible that Goodpasture (in conjunction with Angleton / Phillips / Egerter?) was trying to kill two or three birds with one stone?

--  Tommy

Edited and bumped for Paul Brancato.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves