Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Pat Speer

Lee Henry Oswald

Recommended Posts

While I haven't studied the CIA behavior in Mexico as much as I would like, I did stumble upon something which may or may not be well-known. I certainly found it interesting. Here's my train of thought..

I believe the CIA created a file on Lee Henry Oswald long before the assassination.

It's theorized that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico shortly before the assassination. I believe the real Oswald was there, and was observed by a mole (or caught on a bug) in the Soviet Embassy, and that a false record was put into the files to protect this mole's identity (or the existence of the bug). This false record included fake phone calls made to the embassy--the transcribers couldn't be trusted to merely create fake transcripts from whole cloth, perhaps they were even being tested. I believe this is what Helms meant by citing "sources and methods" as a reason for the CIA's lies. It should be remembered here that tapping phone lines in Mexico was not illegal for the CIA, and that the existence of these taps would have to have been suspected by the KGB, but that having actual bugs within the walls of the embassy would have to have been considered of the utmost secrecy.

The Lopez Report (the HSCA report on Oswald in Mexico) reflects that on one of the transcripts Oswald called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as Lee Oswald, and went on to tell his story, spelling out everyone he spoke to inside the embassy, etc. I believe this was planted information, that is, information derived from the mole, or the bug--but put into the record in such a way that a mole within the CIA would not know the CIA had a spy of its own (or a bug) within the Embassy.

Probe Magazine Interviews with HSCA Deputy Counsel Robert Tannenbaum in 1996 and former HSCA Counsel Richard Sprague in 2000, however, indepently report that the transcripts said the caller in Mexico identified himself as "Lee Henry Oswald." If so, since the Lee Henry Oswald file at the CIA preceded this incident, it would indicate the impersonator is working off flawed CIA information. They have thus left their fingerprints on their charade.

Are the actual transcripts available? While it's possible Sprague and Tannenbaum have maintained contact, and jointly remembered the story incorrectly, if they haven't, the chances of them both remembering this story incorrectly in the same way would have to be considered miniscule.

Or perhaps I'm simply wrong that the Lee Henry Oswald file preceded this incident. I'd appreciate some help sorting this out.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

A memo from Win Scott to the U.S. Ambassador in Mexico City dated 10/16/63 provides information on “Lee Henry Oswald”:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/fbi/...10418_0002a.htm

Two days later, a cable from FBI headquarters to the FBI legal attaché in Mexico City corrects the name to Lee Harvey Oswald:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/fbi/...10419_0002a.htm

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pat,

A memo from Win Scott to the U.S. Ambassador in Mexico City dated 10/16/63 provides information on “Lee Henry Oswald”:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/fbi/...10418_0002a.htm

Two days later, a cable from FBI headquarters to the FBI legal attaché in Mexico City corrects the name to Lee Harvey Oswald:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/fbi/...10419_0002a.htm

Ron

I gather from this that the CIA believed he was Lee Henry Oswald at the time of the impersonation, and not Lee Harvey Oswald. Now if the transcripts actually say Lee Henry we're on to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

There's a bit of doublespeak? in Phillips' 'The Nightwatch - 25 years of peculiar service,' concerning this incident. It is attributed to an error made by "Craig's wife' in Mexico City Station - shortly after the assassination. Craig is the name he applies to the case officer in charge of Soviet operations. Why his wife would be typing up cables to hand in to Win Scott is baffling. Bishop, I mean Phillips -- spends a bit of time trying to detail how the error occurred - I can't follow his logic. Pages 139 - 141.

Here's 2 different NARA hits as far back as 12/09/1960. Why is the W. Harvey document postponed in full I wonder?

- lee

Hit 1 of 1

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER : 104-10147-10388

RECORDS SERIES : JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 80T01357A

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : EGERTER, ANN, CI/SIG

TO : HEADQUARTERS, RI

TITLE : FIELD PERSONALITY (201) FILE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

ON LEE HENRY (HARVEY) OSWALD.

DATE : 12/09/1960

PAGES : 1

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

SUBJECTS : OSWALD, L. H.; FILE REQUEST

CLASSIFICATION : SECRET

RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : OPEN

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 07/26/1993

COMMENTS : JFK60:F1 1993.07.26.19:17:44:150330: PAGE 5 OF 5.

Hit 1 of 1

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : SSCIA

RECORD NUMBER : 157-10011-10038

RECORDS SERIES : FORM

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : CIA

TO : [No To]

TITLE : FIELD PERSONALITY (201) FILE REQUEST

DATE : 12/09/1960

PAGES : 1

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

SUBJECTS : OSWALD, LEE HARVEY; 201 FILE (DOCUMENT REQUEST);

HARVEY, WILLIAM

CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED

RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL

CURRENT STATUS : POSTPONED IN FULL

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 07/29/1994

OPENING CRITERIA : 0729

COMMENTS : SSCI Box 352

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I haven't studied the CIA behavior in Mexico as much as I would like, I did stumble upon something which may or may not be well-known.  I certainly found it interesting. Here's my train of thought..

I believe the CIA created a file on Lee Henry Oswald long before the assassination.

More than a year after Oswald's appearance at the US Embassy in Moscow, CIA opened a file on "Lee Henry Oswald."  One might think that a guy threatening to betray US military secrets to the Soviets would catch the CIA's attention in a more timely fashion, and that they'd at least get his name right.

However, there is an alternate explanation that I think explains both the time and name lapses, though entirely my pure unadulterated speculation:

When Oswald appeared at the Embassy, a file was opened in Langley, in his proper name, that was subsequently segregated from the central files.  This was not an unusual practice, and there may have been a fairly legitimate reason for such segregation, per below.

Later, a file was opened on "Lee Henry Oswald," that was placed into the Agency's central files.  This would have been a "marked card" or "barium meal" operation that would allow "somebody" within CIA to scrutinize where that information went within CIA, and watch from where within the Soviet infrastructure that false-name data was reflected back to Langley [via CIA moles within GRU or KGB,]

Further to the marked card speculation, we've known for some time who that "somebody" was; that it was Angleton's CI/SIG who marked the "Lee Henry Oswald" file so that anyone requesting data on him from within CIA would have to identify themselves before being allowed access to the material.  It was via this trip-wire method that Angleton could watch to see whom within CIA had an interest in him.  And, ultimately, how it might bounce back from the Soviets.

Given that Angleton's chief raison d'etre within CIA was finding enemy moles inside the Agency, this may have been a perfectly legitimate exercise.

However, after the assassination, by keeping the original true name file sequestered from others, this left the first CIA notice of Oswald in memo form as something citing the wrong name and coming more than a year after it should have done.

The fact that the false name was still being bruited about within CIA - four years after the defection, three years after the file was opened and 16 months after his repatriation - is hard to rationalize, unless the marked card operation was maintained throughout.  CIA had ample opportunity in the interim to fix the error, unless it was maintained intentionally.

It's theorized that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico shortly before the assassination. I believe the real Oswald was there, and was observed by a mole (or caught on a bug) in the Soviet Embassy, and that a false record was put into the files to protect this mole's identity (or the existence of the bug). This false record included fake phone calls made to the embassy--the transcribers couldn't be trusted to merely create fake transcripts from whole cloth, perhaps they were even being tested. I believe this is what Helms meant by citing "sources and methods" as a reason for the CIA's lies. It should be remembered here that tapping phone lines in Mexico was not illegal for the CIA,

It was a joint venture with Mexico's DFS, in order to ensure there's be no international flap in the event it was discovered.

and that the existence of these taps would have to have been  suspected by the KGB, but that having actual bugs within the walls of the embassy would have to have been considered of the utmost secrecy.

The Lopez Report (the HSCA report on Oswald in Mexico) reflects that on one of the transcripts Oswald called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as Lee Oswald, and went on to tell his story, spelling out everyone he spoke to inside the embassy, etc.  I believe this was planted information, that is, information derived from the mole, or the bug--but put into the record in such a way that a mole within the CIA would not know the CIA had a spy of its own (or a bug) within the Embassy.

Probe Magazine Interviews with HSCA Deputy Counsel Robert Tannenbaum in 1996 and former HSCA Counsel Richard Sprague in 2000, however, indepently report that the transcripts said the caller in Mexico identified himself as "Lee Henry Oswald." If so, since the Lee Henry Oswald file at the CIA preceded this incident, it would indicate the impersonator is working off flawed CIA information.  They have thus left their fingerprints on their charade.

No doubt Angleton would have been pleased to watch this use of deliberately-tainted 'marked card' information, if the above speculation is correct.

Are the actual transcripts available?  While it's possible Sprague and Tannenbaum have maintained contact, and jointly remembered the story incorrectly, if they haven't, the chances of them both remembering this story incorrectly in the same way would have to be considered miniscule.

Or perhaps I'm simply wrong that the Lee Henry Oswald file preceded this incident.  I'd appreciate some help sorting this out.

You're quite right about this, Pat.  You'll note that various government agencies also had a penchant for referring to our boy as "Harvey Lee Oswald," which may be a similar marked card gambit, or just a mistake that recurred from one file to the next like a virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Robert, for the confirmation and analysis. Now, are the actual trasncripts available? As I said, in the Lopez Report it says the caller identified himself as Lee Oswald. If they say Lee Henry we may have discovered yet another example of Angleton's sneakiness back-firing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received an e-mail from a researcher who really knows this stuff and he told me that, much like Robert, he's convinced the mis-named file was not a mistake but was related to counter-intelligence.

He also pointed out that the early CIA cables, including one from October 8 which purports to quote directly from the transcripts, say the individual identified himself as Lee Oswald. CIA headquarters then cabled them back and said thiis must be the same as Lee Henry Oswald. This indicates that Tannenbaum and Sprague both remembered this incident incorrectly, and that the man at the embassy did not specifically state he was Lee Henry Oswald.

He could not say for sure, however, since he's not aware of the original transcripts ever being released! This seems a bit odd, as the transcripts are undoubtedly in the files. Why would they still be top secret when the Lopez report, which quotes from them and summarizes them, has been released?

If anyone is aware of the status of the original transcripts, please let me know. I'm hoping to put this mystery to bed.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to see if I could revive this thread, because I think that the "Lee Henry Oswald" story leads to better understanding of how Oswald was used by James

Angleton's CI-SIG (counter-intelligence, special investigations group) and David Phillips of the SAS. Angleton's assistant Ann Egerter was the one who named the 201 file "Lee Henry Oswald" and denied to the HSCA that the word "Henry" was in her handwriting. More than 30 years later, her deposition is one of the only ones that has not been declassified. The October 1 transcripts and much more are now on-line and readily available. I hope we can keep pushing to have more documents released by the Congressional oversight committees in the coming year.

CI-SIG treated "Lee Henry Oswald" as an intelligence asset

Here are some indications that that Oswald was used wittingly or unwittingly for a molehunt by Angleton:

In “Oswald and the Search for Popov’s Mole”, Peter Dale Scott focuses on the importance of the numerous anomalies that fill Oswald’s 201 file. One important one is Angleton's assistant Ann Egerter opening a 201 file for Oswald more than a year after his defection to the Soviet Union and only after inquiries were made about his defector status by the State Department, and entitling the file “Lee Henry Oswald”.

In "Popov's Mole" Scott argues that inaccurate information was repeatedly planted in the documentary history of Oswald’s files by officials such as Egerter and FBI Special Agent John Fain, specifically to find out if this information leaked somewhere else. If it did, this was evidence that a “mole” had access to it. Jim Angleton’s search for a mole is well-known for having turned the CIA upside down.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3

The CIA's top "defector-in-place" (an agent who not only defects, but remains in and feigns loyalty to the target country), Peter Popov. code-named ATTIC, had passed on a leak in 1958 that the Soviets knew a lot more about the U-2 than the US thought. The very day that LHO arrived in the Soviet Union - October 16, 1959 - Popov was arrested. Angleton's biographer Tom Mangold wrote that this event accelerated Angleton's molehunt, believing that "Popov could only have been betrayed by a mole buried deep within

Soviet Division." Mangold also wrote that "Popov was actually lost to the Soviets because of a slipshod CIA operation; there was no treachery."

(John Newman, Oswald and the CIA, pp. 87-88)

Nonetheless, if Angleton was convinced that there was a mole in the Soviet Division, he may have believed that radar operator Oswald's presence in the Soviet Union that day had something to do with it. At a minimum, it is reasonable to believe that Angleton wanted LHO carefully watched, and that intelligence decisions would be made based on LHO's actions. That is a good working definition of an intelligence "asset". As David Phillips told the HSCA, "We covered this man all the time."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=99

Egerter told the HSCA that the 201 file for a CIA asset "would be a restricted 201 file and it might even be a false 201 file, not having anything in it. Everything would be held by the case officer...operational material is not filed in 201 files...It would be held by the operations officer, case officer." (DiEugenio & Pease, eds., The Assassinations, p. 157, citing Egerter's 5/27/78 deposition, pp. 31-38; was it reclassified?)

Even the transcript of Oswald's October 1 call to the Soviet embassy may not be authentic

The last time “Lee Henry Oswald” was seen in the files was when the CIA generated twin messages with very different descriptions of Oswald on October 10, 1963, stating that he had contacted the Soviet embassy in Mexico City on October 1. The transcript of the October 1, 1963 visit do exist. Although "Lee Henry Oswald" is not invoked there, everyone from J. Edgar Hoover on down seems to agree that LHO was impersonated during the calls that day. You can read them here...

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=8

There is a dispute about the authenticity of the October 1 transcript. Win Scott and David Phillips prepared a cable to CIA HQ on October 8 stating that Oswald spoke in

"broken Russian".

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=66

Not only does the transcript reflect that Oswald spoke in English, but Oswald's Russian in 1963 was very good.

Another discrepency is that Anita Tarasoff (she and her husband transcribed the tapes) remembered that Oswald was asking for financial aid in the October 1 transcript.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=96

Amazingly, both Win Scott and David Phillips appear to agree with her:

Win Scott: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=101

David Phillips: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=54

When Phillips tried to get around it, Chief Counsel Sprague angrily said to Phillips that "you have slithered around" recent disparaging claims he had made to the media that Oswald had been seeking financial aid. Even Phillips had to agree!

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=94

As the tapes no longer exist, there is no way to test the transcript against the tapes, only against the documentary record.

Ann Egerter's deposition testimony about the October 10 messages from the CIA is not credible, and should be released in full

Moving to the twin October 10 messages with very different descriptions of Oswald: One message was in-house, while the other went to third party agencies (FBI, State Dept., and Navy). The latter message stated that “Lee Henry Oswald” was 35 years old and balding. Egerter checked both of these messages for accuracy.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=157

These October 10 messages went out just hours after FBI official Marvin Gheesling took Oswald off the FBI’s Watchlist, claiming that it should have been done upon Oswald’s return from the Soviet Union the previous year. As stated by author James Douglass, the upshot was that Oswald’s “staged Soviet connection could then be documented for scapegoating purposes after Dallas, but without sounding a national security alarm that would have put a spotlight on Oswald and prevented Dallas from happening."

When Ann Egerter was interviewed by HSCA investigators on 3/31/78, she asked to use an alias. She said that CI-SIG was known as the “office known for spying on spies” and that its main work was infiltration of the CIA. (pages 1 and 3 of memo) She also said that the words “Henry”, “Marine Corps” and “Navy” on the 201 document did not look like her handwriting and that she did “not recognize 2nd writing”. (pages 9 and 10 of memo; other numbered pages unreadable)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=2

To see Egerter’s handwriting on the document that opened the 201 file:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=113

Egerter complained to the CIA after the deposition was over that she had not done well, citing her problem with the “Lee Henry” handwriting, among a host of other issues.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=740779

Her deposition of 5/17/78 remains one of the only depositions - if not the only deposition - still classified more than thirty years later.

Are the twin messages of October 10 related to the CIA-FBI deception program in foreign countries to counter the FPCC?

As Peter Dale Scott has said, it is important to analyze intelligence operations prior to the assassination, the assassination itself, and the cover-up. The events we have looked at so far appear to focus on a molehunt and possibly an FPCC deception program.

On 9/16/63, John Tilton of the CIA made two requests. One was for the FBI to help obtain FPCC stationery and any existing foreign mailing list in order to have a sample “to produce large quantities of propaganda in the name of the (FPCC)” in order to “counter” their activities in foreign countries. Tilton also said that the CIA was considering planting “deceptive information” which might “embarrass” the FPCC in areas where it has some support. Tilton assured the FBI that no "fabrication" would take place without advance notice and agreement. David Phillips with the SAS was in charge of Cuban affairs during this period, and specialized in actions of deception.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=377132

LHO's subsequent visit to Mexico City on September 25 may have been an effort to plant "deceptive information". Pursuant to Tilton's other request, the FBI asked FPCC activist Victor Vicente, NY 3245-S* to provide them with FPCC stationery and the foreign mailing lists.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=438314

Tilton did it, and included within the package correspondence to the FPCC, that included a typed copy of a letter from Lee Oswald to V.T. Lee that Vicente had already provided in a previous break-in in April 1963. In this typed version, prepared under the guidance of experienced Oswald investigator FBI agent Robert P. Gemberling, VT Lee was described as "Henry Lee", a phrase that was not used in Oswald's letter. Was this just a mistake, or a conscious effort to link these two men in the documentary record in some way?

The handwritten version of the VT Lee exhibit: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol20_0269b.htm

The typed version of the VT Lee exhibit referring to "Henry Lee": http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=676

Tilton was no Boy Scout. He reported to Edward Lansdale in 1962-63 as part of the Psychological Operations Group, a psy-op team designed to destabilize Cuba.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=73

Tilton was the CIA La Paz station chief involved in the capture and assassination of Che Guevara.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/

Tilton was the last chief of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, a program estimated to have killed 20,000 alleged Viet Cong.

http://www.naderlibrary.com/phoenixprog26.htm

A final anomaly brought out in "Popov's Mole" is a crucial key to the assassination itself

A false physical description of Oswald as 5 feet, 10 inches and 165 pounds can be found in three crucial places:

1. This description originated in a memo written by FBI Special John Fain in May, 1960, supposedly based from talking to Oswald’s mother, although Oswald’s weight never varied any more than 130-150 and was 150 at the time of his death. LHO's height was generally described as 5 feet, 9 inches, though the Marines reported Oswald as 5 feet, 11 inches.

LHO seemed to favor the 5'11" description when dealing with government officials, for some still-unknown purpose.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...eport_0084b.htm

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=792581

2. The last known pre-assassination use of this physical description was in the second of the twin October 10 messages was a cable sent two hours later to the station in Mexico: "Oswald is five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds..." Although Egerter checked it for accuracy, "accuracy" is not the issue. The issue is how this particular description was chosen from all the descriptions out there.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=157

3. Finally, the broadcast over the Dallas police radio fifteen minutes after JFK was shot was that the unidentified assassin was “5/10, 165 pounds...”

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol23_0438a.htm

Although confused commentators have claimed that Howard Brennan was the source, it's well documented that an "unidentified citizen" gave the above description to Inspector Sawyer after he saw someone looking like Oswald running from the Book Depository immediately after the assassination. The citizen did not comply with the sheriff's request to come to the office later to fill out a report, and Hoover said that the "sheriff's office can locate no record on this citizen".

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=109

Even after the Warren Report was published, Hoover responded to general counsel J. Lee Rankin's request that according to the Dallas police the information came from an ‘unidentified citizen’.” (There is no record of Hoover re-contacting the sheriff's department).

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=72 - also see Gerald McKnight's (Breach of Trust, p. 109)

Rankin repeated his request to Hoover for more information on this incident, but apparently to no avail.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=33

- Bill Simpich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A false physical description of Oswald as 5 feet, 10 inches and 165 pounds can be found in three crucial places:

1. This description originated in a memo written by FBI Special John Fain in May, 1960, supposedly based from talking to Oswald’s mother, although Oswald’s weight never varied any more than 130-150 and was 150 at the time of his death. LHO's height was generally described as 5 feet, 9 inches, though the Marines reported Oswald as 5 feet, 11 inches.

LHO seemed to favor the 5'11" description when dealing with government officials, for some still-unknown purpose.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...eport_0084b.htm

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=792581

2. The last known pre-assassination use of this physical description was in the second of the twin October 10 messages was a cable sent two hours later to the station in Mexico: "Oswald is five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds..." Although Egerter checked it for accuracy, "accuracy" is not the issue. The issue is how this particular description was chosen from all the descriptions out there.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=157

3. Finally, the broadcast over the Dallas police radio fifteen minutes after JFK was shot was that the unidentified assassin was “5/10, 165 pounds...”

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol23_0438a.htm

Although confused commentators have claimed that Howard Brennan was the source, it's well documented that an "unidentified citizen" gave the above description to Inspector Sawyer after he saw someone looking like Oswald running from the Book Depository immediately after the assassination. The citizen did not comply with the sheriff's request to come to the office later to fill out a report, and Hoover said that the "sheriff's office can locate no record on this citizen".

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=109

Bill,

Good info. It seems safe to assume from the above that the description given out of Oswald (that is, the "unidentified assassin") within minutes of the shooting came from within the U.S. government.

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been unable to find a context for the reference number which was on the back of a photograph. Any ideas would be appreciated.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been unable to find a context for the reference number which was on the back of a photograph. Any ideas would be appreciated.

James

James...here is your probable answer...

70116 Zip Code (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully
I wanted to see if I could revive this thread, because I think that the "Lee Henry Oswald" story leads to better understanding of how Oswald was used by James

Angleton's CI-SIG (counter-intelligence, special investigations group) and David Phillips of the SAS. Angleton's assistant Ann Egerter was the one who named the 201 file "Lee Henry Oswald" and denied to the HSCA that the word "Henry" was in her handwriting. More than 30 years later, her deposition is one of the only ones that has not been declassified. The October 1 transcripts and much more are now on-line and readily available. I hope we can keep pushing to have more documents released by the Congressional oversight committees in the coming year.

CI-SIG treated "Lee Henry Oswald" as an intelligence asset

Here are some indications that that Oswald was used wittingly or unwittingly for a molehunt by Angleton:

In “Oswald and the Search for Popov’s Mole”, Peter Dale Scott focuses on the importance of the numerous anomalies that fill Oswald’s 201 file. One important one is Angleton's assistant Ann Egerter opening a 201 file for Oswald more than a year after his defection to the Soviet Union and only after inquiries were made about his defector status by the State Department, and entitling the file “Lee Henry Oswald”.....

- Bill Simpich

Visible near the bottom right of the document displayed below; supporting Bill Simpich's point about the creation of Oswald's 201 file, is the name of one of the four men from the east side of Rochester, NY that I discuss in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14879

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=170455

3768659684_4b5737b120_o.jpg

....His name is Macomber....William B. Macomber Jr. He was USMC/OSS in Europe and in Burma. in 1946, he was the best man in GHW Bush's sister Nancy's marraige to Alexander Ellis Jr. After that, he was an usher in Bush's cousin, Harry Walker's wedding. Then, he was in CIA, then the State Dept. liason to CIA. Prescott Bush invited him to attend JFK's Senate oath ceremony. Then, he was John Foster Dulles's assistant, standing by, alongside Allen Dulles at the hospital, while Foster underwent surgery. Then, he was JFK's ambassador to Jordan. Then he married Foster Dulles's personal secretary. When the US Ambassador to Haiti was kidnapped, he was sent to Haiti to lead the bargaining for the ambassador's release. Then, in 1973, he was ambassador to Turkey and best man in the wedding of Thomas J. Devine. Also in 1973, Macomber's brother, John, was president of Celanese Corp, and hiring Thomas Devine as a VP.

Then, C. Douglas Dillon rewarded William B. Macomber with the unlikely, given Macomber's work experience, position as president of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Brother John D. Macomber, a Mckinsey partner, made a man named Michael Ainslie his protege at McKinsey & Co. Ainslie later was appointed president at Sotheby's auction house. After Edward Gordon Hooker's daughter, Susan, was divorced from Ames Braga, (Edward Hooker had died, and GHW Bush escorted Susan down the aisle when she married Braga.) and then Susan Hooker Braga married Michael Ainslie. John Macomber and Michael Ainslie are named as Lehman directors in post Lerhman failure stockholder suits.

Edited by Tom Scully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×