Bill Simpich's State Secret

[Paul Trejo]

Kerry Thornley was something of a spiritual guru, and had a wide following for it. 

Kerry also had a great sense of humor, and his WC testimony is a joy to read.

One of the most sensitive narratives of Lee Harvey Oswald anywhere can be found in his testimony.

Thornley was a genuine intellectual, unlike many of his critics.

Whoever tries to make Kerry Thornley's testimony into some cloak-and-dagger silliness is trying to sell books.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 31, 2017 by Paul Trejo
signature

[Michael Clark]

56 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Kerry Thornley was something of a spiritual guru, and had a wide following for it. 

Kerry also had a great sense of humor, and his WC testimony is a joy to read.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo 

A joy indeed, I am a couple-dozen lines into it and I am chuckling....:

-----------------------------------------

WC testimony of Kerry Thornley. May 18, 1964

Mr. JENNER. What is your age?
Mr. THORNLEY. I am 26.
Mr. JENNER. When was your birthday?
Mr. THORNLEY. April 17, this last month.
Mr. JENNER. April 17 of this last month? I am poor in mathematics, what 

year was your birth?
Mr. THORNLEY. 1938.
Mr. JENNER. When did you first become acquainted with him (LHO)?
Mr. THORNLEY. I was---it was around Easter of 1959, either shortly before or shortly after.
Mr. JENNER. Let's see. He was in the Marines at that time?
Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. I take it you also were?
Mr. THORNLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. How long had you been in the Marines?
Mr. THORNLEY. At that time I had been in the Marines over half a year. I had been in the Reserve for many years. I had been on active duty for over half a year.
Mr. JENNER. You were then 21 years of age?
Mr. THORNLEY. About; yes, sir.

LOL

I can't wait to get to the "Spiritual Guru" part!

 

Edited March 30, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Without a doubt the most absurd thing I've seen today is our dimwitted Mr. Trejo not even playing in the same state let alone ballpark as Jim continually open mouth and insert foot.

Paul - you're a disgrace to thinking people everywhere.  Whereas everything you offer is opinion, the rest of us prefer to find supporting evidence before posting.

At least you serve as a great example of how not to behave on a forum dedicated to EDUCATION.  It's posters like you who drive quality people away.

you must enjoy being that gnat on the bull's a$$...  maybe write an essay or two on your own and put them up for review...  see how you do

y'know?  

David,

You already know my opinion of your "work".   Your vicious insults here are "full of sound and fury -- signifying nothing."

Getting back to the genius of Bill Simpich and his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), IMHO anybody who reads Simpich's profound analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in 1963, will promptly toss your "work" and Jimbo's "work" into the Cosmic dumpster.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

43 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

You already know my opinion of your "work".   Your vicious insults here are "full of sound and fury -- signifying nothing."

Getting back to the genius of Bill Simpich and his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), IMHO anybody who reads Simpich's profound analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in 1963, will promptly toss your "work" and Jimbo's "work" into the Cosmic dumpster.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Sycophancy filtered; awaiting a researched, quoted, documented, foot-noted and peer reviewed back-up for your claim, Paul Trejo. It is the least that you can do inasmuch as David Josephs does not fail to meet you half-way in his research.

Even at this late hour, do not worry about me. I have water and snacks, and your utterances for entertainment, while I wait for your response.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Michael Clark

[James DiEugenio]

If you read Joe Biles' book, its pretty clear that Thornley was lying about his relationship with Oswald in the summer of 1963.  He tried to say that he had no association with LHO in New Orleans.  (Biles, In History's Shadow, pgs. 56-64)

If you read his testimony, and if you then read the affidavits Garrison had, its pretty clear that Thornley was lying about this matter.  Which obviously leads to the question:  Why was he lying?

A second factor that makes Thornley interesting is his extreme rightwing ideology and his almost pathological hatred of Kennedy.  When JFK came out, he said on TV that he wanted to see Kennedy dead at the time. Which is a point he was not lying about. Consider how Biles begins his book, with a letter by Thornley in February of 1964:

 "The whole thing was very interesting for awhile, the assassination because--on the surface--there was good reason for the unenlightened SS and FBI to suspect I might've had a had in it.  We had some polite conversations and finally, I guess, I was cleared.  No word from them lately.  I hope, though, my move to this area scared the piss out of 'em.  Whether or not I'll be asked to put my two cents in at the Warren hearing, I don't know.  Or care.  When it is all over, though, I may yet go piss on  JFK's grave: RIP."  (Emphasis added)

What happens of course with the WC is that, as opposed to other soldiers I have quoted above who say they knew LHO was being groomed as an intel agent, Thornley was the main witness who said LHO was really a communist.  Many commentators have pointed this out about Thornley, like Weisberg. In fact, Thornley became the WC's favorite witness on this issue.  For instance, in the WC volumes is an FBI report in which Thornley says, "I think Oswald became a Communist before he became a Marine, but i believe  the Marines only made things worse for him" (Biles, p. 63)

The problem with this is simple.  The day before he made the above statement to the FBI, he told them that Oswald "was not a Communist while he was assigned to EL Toro Marine base." (ibid, p. 62)  This particular statement was not declassified until 1993. Today I think we can understand why.

Some guru.

Edited March 31, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, this is what the HSCA said about Thornley: "Thornley firmly denied contact with Oswald at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans or at any time since his Marine Corps days.  His statements have been corroborated and no evidence has been found to contradict him." (HSCA V 10, p. 125)

If anything shows you how much Blakey turned around the Committee from the approach that Sprague and Tanenbaum had taken, that sure indicates it.  Because not only was there evidence aplenty that Thornley was at 544 Camp Street, but Thornley later admitted that he knew the suspects Garrison had turned up at that location!  And he told two witnesses in New Orleans, again, that Oswald was not a communist.  (See for example, Biles, p. 196)

In an affidavit that he sent to Garrison in 1976, Thornley admitted that he knew Shaw, Ferrie and Banister.  He even admitted to knowing Banister as early as 1961, and mentioning his book The Idle Warrriors to him at that time!  But further, when I interviewed Dan and Allan Campbell in New Orleans in 1994,they both told me Thornley was at 544 Camp Street in the summer of 1963.  And they should know since they worked for Banister at that time.  In fact, at the the time of the assassination, Thornley was in the company of Allan. (Biles, p.63)  Dan told me that Thornley was very afraid of revealing what he knew about New Orleans.

Then of course there is the matter of how Thornley was protected after he came under suspicion.  He demanded to meet Garrison investigator Andrew Sciambra at NASA, of all places. How Thornley could access a place like that is his secret.   Also, as Garrison's files reveal Thornley, who up until that time, was relatively lower class, somehow went up the social ladder.  He came into the possession of two cars and two homes.  One of the homes was a large house in Tampa with a picket fence on a one acre lot. 

From all of this, and much I have left out, one can make the case that Thornley was involved in creating a legend for Oswald for the WC, and in his 1965 book on the man.  When Garrison found out about this, Thornley was then protected, as some others were at the time.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, this is what the HSCA said about Thornley: "Thornley firmly denied contact with Oswald at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans or at any time since his Marine Corps days.  His statements have been corroborated and no evidence has been found to contradict him." (HSCA V 10, p. 125)

If anything shows you much Blakey turned around the Committee from the approach that Sprague and Tanenbaum had taken, that sure indicates it.  Because not only was there evidence aplenty that Thornley was at 544 Camp Street, but Thornley later admitted that he knew the suspects Garrison had turned up at that location!  And he told two witnesses in New Orleans, again, that Oswald was not a communist.  (See for example, Biles, p. 196)

In an affidavit that he sent to Garrison in 1976, Thornley admitted that he knew Shaw, Ferrie and Banister.  He even admitted to knowing Banister as early as 1961, and mentioning his book The Idle Warrriors to him at that time!  But further, when I interviewed Dan and Allan Campbell in New Orleans in 1994,they both told me Thornley was at 544 Camp Street in the summer of 1963.  And they should know since they worked for Banister at that time.  In fact, at the the time of the assassination, Thornley was in the company of Allan. (Biles, p.63)  Dan told me that Thornley was very afraid of revealing what he knew about New Orleans.

Then of course there is the matter of how Thornley was protected after he came under suspicion.  He demanded to meet Garrison investigator Andrew Sciambra at NASA, of all places. How Thornley could access a place like that is his secret.   Also, as Garrison's files reveal Thornley, who up until that time, was relatively lower class, somehow went up the social ladder.  He came into the possession of two cars and two homes.  One of the homes was a large house in Tampa with a picket fence on a one acre lot. 

From all of this, and much I have left out, one can make the case that Thornley was involved in creating a legend for Oswald for the WC, and in his 1965 book on the man.  When Garrison found out about this, Thornley was then protected, as some others were at the time.

What a humbug, James.  Given a little data, you have no problem jumping over the moon to your conclusions.

You have NOTHING on Kerry Thornley that would stand up ANYWHERE.

Furthermore, Kerry Thornley was an easy-going beatnik type, who loved to have a good laugh, and a good joke on people who were full of themselves.

If Kerry Thornley was accused of the JFK assassination (as some fools tried to do) he would just go around signing his name, "Kerry Thornley, JFK Assassin."

Some other aliases that Kerry Thornley used were:

• Grand Ballyhoo of Egypt of the Orthodox Discordian Society
• Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, President of the Fair-Play-for-Switzerland Committee
• Reverend Doctor Jesse Sump, Ancient Abbreviated Calif. of California
• Sinister Minister of the First Evangelical and Unrepentant Church of No Faith
• Ho Chi Zen (the Fifth Dealy Lama)
• Purple Sage
• Pope

Kerry Thornley, at least, had a sense of humor.  CIA-did-it CTers lost that 50 years ago.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 31, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

One more example of PT blather.

Yawn.

[Paul Trejo]

Anyway, getting back to the theme of this thread: the free eBook by Bill Simpich, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) is a new classic in JFK Research.

Meticulously researched and written by a genuine scholar, and based on FOIA documents recently released by the CIA, this explanation of the appearance of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963, and of the fact that somebody impersonated Oswald over the telephone between the Cuban consulate and the USSR Embassy -- the "most wire-tapped phone in the world at that time" -- is pure genius.

Don't miss out.  The eBook is free, so there is really no excuse for missing out.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Anyway, getting back to the theme of this thread: the free eBook by Bill Simpich, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) is a new classic in JFK Research.

Meticulously researched and written by a genuine scholar, and based on FOIA documents recently released by the CIA, this explanation of the appearance of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963, and of the fact that somebody impersonated Oswald over the telephone between the Cuban consulate and the USSR Embassy -- the "most wire-tapped phone in the world at that time" -- is pure genius.

Don't miss out.  The eBook is free, so there is really no excuse for missing out.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but do you know whether or not it was ever determined where that Saturday, September 28 bogus phone call originated from -- the phone that Sylvia Duran used every day at her desk, or some other phone inside the Cuban Consulate, or perhaps from some other outside phone (like a phone in Juarez, Mexico, for example)?

Or was that question / issue not "looked into"?

Thanks,

--  Tommy

Edited April 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[B. A. Copeland]

On 3/30/2017 at 3:37 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Kerry Thornley was something of a spiritual guru, and had a wide following for it. 

Kerry also had a great sense of humor, and his WC testimony is a joy to read.

One of the most sensitive narratives of Lee Harvey Oswald anywhere can be found in his testimony.

Thornley was a genuine intellectual, unlike many of his critics.

Whoever tries to make Kerry Thornley's testimony into some cloak-and-dagger silliness is trying to sell books.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

My goodness are you serious...?

Edited April 17, 2017 by B. A. Copeland

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but do you know whether or not it was ever determined where that Saturday, September 28 phone call (supposedly from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy) originated from -- the telephone that Sylvia Duran used every day at her desk, or some other telephone inside the Cuban Consulate, or perhaps from some other outside telephone (like a pay phone in Juarez, Mexico, for example)?

Or was that question / issue not "looked into"?

Thanks,

--  Tommy

bumped because I guess Paul missed it

Edited April 17, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

Bill did look into it and I assisted; the answer depends on where the call was recorded. There were two options, one at the local safehouse doing the routine phone tap operation or off the consolidated system at the telephone central office where arrangements had been made for bulk tap recording.  The CIA recorded tapes at both locations. The CIA itself would have quickly determined which of the two knowing where the tape was recorded.  As I recall we felt that it was most likely the tape was from the local monitoring unit...which means the call was either made from inside the building...or actually from the safehouse itself using the bridge tap on the phone line.  Unfortunately there was no way to be absolutely certain; however as I said, the CIA might well have determined that it was one of their on people or a contract employee who had done it based on the source of the tape.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but do you know whether or not it was ever determined where that Saturday, September 28 bogus phone call originated from -- the phone that Sylvia Duran used every day at her desk, or some other phone inside the Cuban Consulate, or perhaps from some other outside phone (like a phone in Juarez, Mexico, for example)?

Or was that question / issue not "looked into"?

Thanks,

--  Tommy

Tommy,

Bill Simpich only says that, "we have a wiretap transcript of a call on the Soviet line made by Duran from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet consulate."  (State Secret, 2014, Chapter 5, and he meant, "allegedly made")

Here is the web site:  https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html 

There were multiple phones at the Cuban consulate.  Trying to identify the exact telephone that was used runs into roadblocks in CIA records.  The CIA did not wish to divulge that information in 1963, and so finding the answer today is still a work-in-progress.

The details have to do with two different CIA wiretap operations/machines.  One was named LI-ENVOY (which was operated jointly with the DFS, and nicknamed, LI-JOINT) and the other was named, LI-FEAT (which was controlled solely by the CIA, and nicknamed LI-SOLO).

Now, if the tape was taken from one of the phones tapped by LI-ENVOY, the problem there is that all of its records for the first eleven months of 1963 are "missing."   Then, if the tape was taken from one of the phones tapped by LI-FEAT, then those records are still being researched, as they are far more cryptic.  

So, Simpich still isn't certain of the exact phone -- only that it was located within the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

22 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tommy,

Bill Simpich only says that, "we have a wiretap transcript of a call on the Soviet line made by Duran from the Cuban consulate to the Soviet consulate."  (State Secret, 2014, Chapter 5)  

Here is the web site:  https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html 

Trying to identify the exact telephone that was used runs into roadblocks in CIA records.  The CIA did not wish to divulge that information in 1963, and so finding the answer today is still a work-in-progress.

The details have to do with two different CIA wiretap operations/machines.  One was named LI-ENVOY (which was operated jointly with the DFS, and nicknamed, LI-JOINT) and the other was named, LI-FEAT (which was controlled solely by the CIA, and nicknamed LI-SOLO).

Now, if the tape was taken from one of the phones tapped by LI-ENVOY, the problem there is that all of its records for the first eleven months of 1963 are "missing."   Then, if the tape was taken from one of the phones tapped by LI-FEAT, then those records are still sealed by the CIA.

So, these are some of the roadblocks that Simpich encountered.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

I assume that it was the Soviet Embassy's phone that was tapped in this instance, not the Cuban Consulate's phone?

(Yes, I do realize that the phone call was allegedly made from the Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy.)

--  Tommy

PS  Thanks anyway but, believe it or not, I know very well how to get to Simpich's great State Secret.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves