Bill Simpich's State Secret

[Bill Simpich]

Paul Brancato wrote that I thought that if "Phillips (was) involved in hijacking Oswald from covert anti-FPCC operations and helping to set him up as the patsy he would have taken more precautions after the assassination, as he left plenty of clues that might have made him a suspect."

He also pointed out that I thought "the most likely suspect to have hijacked Oswald and set him up was Morales, claiming that Morales was experienced enough to know that CIA would cover his tracks rather than risk exposing Mexico City covert surveillance and wiretapping of the Cuban and Soviet embassies and their staffs."

Brancato's response was that he "would argue that if anyone knew how to play the system it was Phillips. Wouldn't he likewise have known that he was in no danger of exposure for the same reasons as Morales?"

My response is that no one knew Morales was anywhere near the JFK case until the late 70s. Phillips, by contrast, was in the cross-hairs of the HSCA committee for many obvious reasons. Alvarado, Salvador Diaz Verson, and many other disinformation story-tellers in the immediate aftermath of the assassination were Phillips' assets. Phillips was the Cuba desk chief in Mexico City and the covert action chief on Cuban affairs during the fall of 63. The buck stopped with him.

I am not convinced that Phillips was the victim of blackmail, but that's where the evidence leads me to date. The same is true for Angleton.

The reason I feel this way is because I believe a molehunt took place after Oswald was impersonated. It's been difficult to get people to weigh in pro or con on that

part of my hypothesis. If someone comes in with a plausible alternative for the events that I described as the precursor to a molehunt and the molehunt itself, I would feel differently.

Trejo is right - my tentative conclusion is that it was a rogue operation led by Morales and Harvey, or people like them within JMWAVE and/or SAS. Besides the molehunt hypothesis, I don't see strong evidence pointing to people like Angleton and Helms asnce the architects of 11/22. I see Angleton, like Phillips, very busy on the cover-up side of the assassination. With his colleague Egerter all over the paperwork of Oswald on a steady basis between 1960-63 and again in the Mexico City phase, I just can't understand why a wily man like Angleton would leave a trail like that. Oswald had to be a humiliation for his office.

I don't agree with Trejo that blackmail is a weak argument. I was not arguing the CIA botched the investigation "to save a few jobs of a few CIA people". I am saying that the political future of the CIA was jeopardized by the events of 11/22. If the American people had known how Angleton had been tracking Oswald since 1960, how Mexico City had been highly concerned about Oswald in the last few weeks before 11/22, how Phillips had gone to DC and Miami in the days after

Oswald was impersonated, how Johnson and Hoover had discussed the Oswald impersonation on 11/23...there would have been domestic upheaval.

I am open, of course, to new evidence. I am looking forward to David Talbot's book on Allen Dulles, due to come out n tihe autumn of 2015. My understanding is that he is going to point to Dulles and the Rockefeller interests as the architects of 11/22.

I have expected more critical analysis than I have received so far. Hopefully it will come in time. I know I'm not the only researcher who sometimes feels like he or she is working in the bottom of a well.

Thanks and appreciation to both Brancato and Trejo for weighing in.

[Paul Brancato]

Bill - you say that Phillips was in the crosshairs of the HSCA investigation, but that Morales was not. Would you agree that neither of them were in the WC crosshairs? Phillips managed to evade scrutiny for about 14 years in that case. We know he was instrumental after the assassination, and we know that he was involved with LHO, though we don't know why. Trejo thinks that Phillips was trying to get Oswald involved in a plot to kill Castro. I cannot see this at all, but it makes sense that Oswald was part of some anti FPCC operation in New Orleans and Mexico City. Anyway, Phillips was able to avoid investigators for quite some time, almost as long as Morales.

In your reading of the mole hunt, is there a way to tell if it's real? Is it possible that it is just another layer of subterfuge, designed to distance Angleton from the operation? John Newman has been doing some incredible work in the area of deep operations hidden under other deep operations, multiple aliases designed to confuse anyone who tried to make sense out of CIA documents.

I've posted a few times recently that I think citizen investigators are coming very close to naming the conspirators. The breakthroughs on the Mexico City period, begun by Lopez and Fonzi, and then illuminated by Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, and yourself, have led us to the cusp of truth. I would like to see Scott, Newman, and you get together to brainstorm, compare notes, and eventually, if you can find agreement, present your work in a public forum.

I am also really interested in Talbot's research into Dulles. 'Brothers' was very revealing of the real attitudes of The Kennedy family and the men who were close to them.

[Paul Trejo]

...No one knew Morales was anywhere near the JFK case until the late 70s. Phillips, by contrast, was in the cross-hairs of the HSCA committee for many obvious reasons.

...Phillips was the Cuba desk chief in Mexico City and the covert action chief on Cuban affairs during the fall of 63. The buck stopped with him.

...I am not convinced that Phillips was the victim of blackmail, but that's where the evidence leads me to date. The same is true for Angleton.

The reason I feel this way is because I believe a molehunt took place after Oswald was impersonated. It's been difficult to get people to weigh in pro or con on that part of my hypothesis.

If someone comes in with a plausible alternative for the events that I described as the precursor to a molehunt and the molehunt itself, I would feel differently.

Trejo is right - my tentative conclusion is that it was a rogue operation led by Morales and Harvey, or people like them within JMWAVE and/or SAS.

Besides the molehunt hypothesis, I don't see strong evidence pointing to people like Angleton and Helms asnce the architects of 11/22.

I see Angleton, like Phillips, very busy on the cover-up side of the assassination.

...Oswald had to be a humiliation for his office.

I don't agree with Trejo that blackmail is a weak argument. I was not arguing the CIA botched the investigation "to save a few jobs of a few CIA people".

I am saying that the political future of the CIA was jeopardized by the events of 11/22. If the American people had known how Angleton had been tracking Oswald since 1960, how Mexico City had been highly concerned about Oswald in the last few weeks before 11/22, how Phillips had gone to DC and Miami in the days after Oswald was impersonated, how Johnson and Hoover had discussed the Oswald impersonation on 11/23...there would have been domestic upheaval.

I am open, of course, to new evidence...

Thanks, Bill, for commenting on this thread dedicated to your latest book, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents and the Framing of Lee Oswald (2014).

You're right that the HSCA would have focused on Phillips for no other reason than his two 1963 jobs: (i) Cuba Desk Chief in Mexico City; and (ii) Cover Action Chief on Cuban Affairs.

You say the evidence leads you to a theory of blackmail of Phillips (and Angelton). What do you think of my theory that, instead of blackmail, the intent of the Impersonation of Oswald and Duran in Mexico City over a known wire-tapped phone was simply to link the name of Oswald with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov?

It seems to me that my explanation is the obvious one. By contrast, the CIA blackmail of the CIA lacks a sense of objective urgency.

As for your book itself, I think you successfully demonstrated that a CIA molehunt took place immediately after Oswald was impersonated. I think you made your case with a technical acumen that we have not seen in previous writers on the CIA, e.g. John Newman.

I agree with your interpretation of the Oswald Impersonation as a ROGUE operation, and I'm delighted that you are inclined to identify only ROGUES from the CIA inside the JFK assassination plot.

With the Ruben Carbajal confession of David Morales, we are on solid ground, I think. Far more solid ground than Jim Garrison in his case against Clay Shaw. I think JFK researchers can safely say, "we got one of them!"

Things are less clear regarding William Harvey, yet he is ultra-suspicious IMHO, because of his blatant insubordination toward JFK and RFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His defiant lack of respect fits the profile of a Presidential Assassin.

If anybody else from within JMWAVE or SAS was involved, then they were most likely followers of Morales and Harvey, taking behavioral cues from them.

I think you've done a superb job of proving a CIA mole-hunt, Bill. Yet I wonder how you might respond to my interpretation of the Impersonation itself -- as a simple attempt to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as a KGB agent.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 5, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

I do not believe Harvey or DAP had a hand in the assassination. First, although they didn't hesitate to do bad things, they do not appear to have been treasonous. For an officer of the U.S. Government to have conspired to kill JFK would have been treason. Harvey and DAP liked or apparently liked to think of themselves as patriots. They were incapable of treason IMO.

Second, Harvey and DAP are obvious suspects in the murder of JFK. As conspirators, they would have anticipated this would be the case. They were too skilled not, as part of their preparations, to have created a way to divert suspicion. There's nothing to suggest either created an artifice to divert suspicion.

[Bill Simpich]

Jon makes good points. I should state my skepticism on all hypotheses, including my own, at this point. I think this entire investigation should be conducted in the spirit of humility. What we believe we know - and what we're pretty sure we don't know.

I should say I remain amazed that anyone assassinated JFK from long-distance in the public square. To my knowledge, no other attempt on a president was ever conducted in such a frightening manner. Government officials as suspects add another level of mystery.

But that's where the evidence is taking me. It had to be an inside job to control the autopsy. The doctors were tightly controlled from above. I believe they were told to shut up and follow orders.

Harvey was very loyal to his men, while allegedly having sex with the women every day. He was one of the worst kind of thugs. Phillips was a xxxx. Both of them expressed their hatred for JFK. I don't know where patriotism fits in for these two.

Once you review the autopsy evidence, everything indicates the president was shot in a crossfire. Thus, there's more than one gunman.

The forensic evidence makes it hard to believe LHO did any shooting, or whether he even owned the rifle or the revolver that went into evidence.

If LHO got set up, and if he got impersonated in Mexico City (and in Dallas!) - which I also believe after all that research - the next tough question is whether he was the quarry in a Mexico City molehunt. To me, that should be the centerpoint of further analysis. If there was no molehunt, I would look at everything in another way.

If the molehunt hypothesis stands up, the next question is whether Miami was cut out of the molehunt. That's an easier call. The fascinating thing to me is how prior to 11/22 Oswald's Cuban contacts are hidden by Mexico City from Headquarters - and how Oswald's FPCC background is hidden by Headquarters from Mexico City.

To me, that means there was a back-channel agreement to cut Miami out of the action.

Where that takes me is that Miami was at least one of the suspects in the molehunt. Given the persona of LHO, and the crazy attempts by military and intel figures to move towards war with Cuba in the hours after the assassination - it seems like the motive was war on Cuba.

However, I think the Alvarado maneuver in particular (which didn't surface until 11/25) was so poorly done that it wasn't set up in advance, and Phillips' fingerprints are all over it. The same is true with Diaz Verson and other after-the-fact provocations to link LHO to Cuba. That's why (like Jon) I don't see Phillips as a suspect.

Harvey is a slightly different matter. He was allegedly in Italy during that time and couldn't have been very hands-on. But he could've been the mastermind, or the reason people like Roselli took action.

As Paul Brancato says, neither Harvey nor Phillips were ever in the cross-hairs of the Warren Commission - but they were certainly the focus of the Spanish-speakers like Eddie Lopez in the HSCA, who could read the documents and understand where things were going. It should be added that both men were considered suspects by the research community before the HSCA began.

Since Roselli talked, and Carbajal talked, I have to take Harvey and Morales more seriously b/c of their work together in assassination planning and the like. It could have been other forces out of Miami or the anti-Cuban sector - it didn't have to be them.

Paul Trejo suggests: "Instead of BLACKMAIL, I propose that whoever 'impersonated' Duran and Oswald on a wire-tapped telephone in Mexico City believed that such a media trail would convince the CIA and FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was in league with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. With that connection, the US Government might have concluded that the Communists killed JFK, and that we should immediately commit military forces to war against Cuba and the USSR."

John Newman offers the same suggestion. I am not as moved by this idea as I used to be. The reason why, as I write in the book, is that Angleton conceded to Hoover in June 1963 or so that Kostikov had nothing to with any "Chapter 13 assassination team". Hoover's people reminded Angleton of this after 11/22.

Granted, Golitsyn went back to the Kostikov story within hours of the assassination, but that to me seems more like a cover-up stunt of Angleton than anything else.

My point is that the impersonation shook up everyone who knew about it. Everyone who knew about the impersonation knew that this phone call between Oswald and Kostikov was made-up! It would turn those people away from actually believing the Commie plot theory.

For those who didn't know about the impersonation - people like Angleton's analyst Ray Rocca - Rocca went right for the Kostikov-was-Oswald's-buddy explanation. Outside of Hosty and Angleton, few people bought it, not even on the Warren Commission.

Blackmail was the way to keep officers in line. No one wanted to look incompetent by admitting they were watching Oswald between 1960 to 1963. We only found out which CIA officials were watching over him after an epic battle over release of these documents in the wake of the Stone movie.

When Win Scott tried to break away from looking incompetent - by writing a book with a whole new questionable story about how he was on top of all of Oswald's alleged entries into the Soviet and Cuban compounds - he wound up dead, and most of the book remains buried.

[Paul Brancato]

Great post, and happy that you are here sharing your insights.

I keep wanting to go back to something about DAP, and others for that matter. The HSCA looked at MC and Phillips in as much detail as they could at the time, and rightfully considered him a suspect. Jon makes the point that he was too skilled to leave a trail, and therefore that the trail that exists is enough to suggest he had no part in it. But there was not enough evidence to bring charges against him, or any of the other CIA officers and agents. Of course the same could be said about the Mafia figures. Blakey did go on to write a book suggesting Mafia involvement, but no charges were brought against them either. To me this suggests that suspicions aren't enough. DAP and the others know this. Why should they worry about leaving some trails if the end result is no proof?

To me this comes down to how deep cover operates. The orders are not written down. There is not, nor will there ever be a smoking gun that enables us to put this to rest. Plausible deniability is built in, and if it was a CIA deep cover operation it would have been given the greatest level of secrecy.

Bill - in your work have you any suspicion that General Walker might have been involved? Do you have any reason to suspect that the JBS or Minutemen might have been working with David Morales?

[Paul Trejo]

OK, I'll stipulate to Jon's points, and take William Harvey and DAP off the table for now. They aren't necessarily central to the issue at hand, in any case.

The military precision with which JFK was murdered definitely suggests advanced military expertise. William Harvey's plans for ZR-Rifle seem to be followed -- even if Harvey himself was uninvolved in that treason.

Yet, Bill, you say, "It had to be an inside job to control the autopsy. The doctors were tightly controlled from above."

I suspect we are both impressed by the early work of David Lifton -- the body is the "best evidence." Yet my question to David Lifton applies here -- Earl Warren, J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ all indicated that the Truth about the JFK murder would remain classified for 75 years because of National Security. That would explain "control of the autopsy" and "control of the doctors" without any further effort. David Wrone said that Hoover came up with the "Lone Shooter" myth by 4pm EST. He said that FBI men -- even in the field -- "immediately" picked up on it. The justification was clear: National Security.

All of the tampered evidence in the JFK murder was tampered with always one single purpose in mind -- to promote a "Lone Shooter" myth. Thus we can explain the controlled autopsy with the same paradigm.

Nobody seriously doubts a crossfire anymore -- not since the HSCA admitted "a conspiracy." JFK's brain is missing almost certainly because it gives evidence of two different bullet types. Yet that would smash the "Lone Shooter" myth, and so for National Security, it had to be hidden and classified Top Secret.

Is there any doubt at all that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City? Don't we have the material proof in hand today?

Is there any doubt at all that there was a CIA mole-hunt for the Impersonators? I thought you demonstrated that with rigorous methodology, Bill. That's my position. Nobody can reasonably doubt it now. I say it starts a whole new chapter in JFK research. The official CIA, in my humble opinion, is now completely off the table of JFK suspects.

The CIA people involved were clearly ROGUES. It's a major breakthrough, IMHO.

I am also encouraged by your statement, Bill, regarding: "military and intel figures to move towards war with Cuba in the hours after the assassination - it seems like the motive was war on Cuba."

Yet this was virtually guaranteed long ago by Jim Garrison's 1967 discovery that the FPCC that Lee Harvey Oswald ran in New Orleans was 100% Bogus. The sheep-dip of Lee Harvey Oswald was intended to link the Patsy to Fidel Castro !!

It's amazing to me that Mainstream Media continues to show Oswald passing out fake FPCC chapter leaflets, as proof that he was promoting the FPCC !!

Carbajal talked, so we do have Morales. Roselli talked, but he didn't name William Harvey -- so it's just as likely that Roselli also took his orders from David Morales.

Also, I'd overlooked that my interpretation of the Oswald Impersonation in Mexico City matched John Newman's old idea. Should I reconsider?

But is it enough to point out that James Jesus Angleton conceded to J. Edgar Hoover in mid-June 1963 that KGB Agent Valery Kostikov had nothing to do with a Chapter 13 assassination team? I ask because, even though Angleton knew this, and Hoover knew this -- can we say with assurance that David Morales also knew this? If not, then the motive of David Morales in this Impersonation can still be linked to John Newman's old idea.

Whether Angleton's message to Hoover was a stunt or not, David Morales is likely to be the source of the Impersonation, in either case.

You already made it clear, Bill, in your book, State Secret (2014) that everyone who had figured out it was an Impersonation would reject the Commie plot theory. That's why I say that David Morales failed in his Impersonation ploy. It was a flop. Morales didn't fool the people he wanted to fool.

Angleton's analyst Ray Rocca was fooled by the Impersonation, but he wasn't important enough for David Morales' purposes, IMHO.

You say, Bill, that the Warren Commission people didn't buy the Impersonation, either -- but I say, whether they bought it or not, they were never going to change their "Lone Shooter" mythology, simply because of their over-riding concern for National Security. (I'm still avoiding cynicism over that proposition.)

I still don't see what an internal CIA Blackmail would hope to accomplish in this context, Bill. It doesn't seem to have much weight in the context of a Presidential Assassination. That some top level CIA guys would lose face?

Proposed: the purpose of the JFK murder was to start a war with Cuba. That failed because Hoover, Warren, LBJ and Dulles refused to buy it -- and Hoover's "Lone Shooter" myth was their ticket to freedom.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Bill Simpich]

I don't know enough about the evidence for Walker's complicity to do that story justice, nor stories about the JBS or the Minutemen. The one that has caught my eye is the Willie Somersett tape of Joseph Milteer. The National States Rights Party were well-organized and could have been used by disaffected intel or military operatives without much fear of exposure.

I don't want to go too far on the theory about "war with Cuba". I think certain people wanted it, but I also think that more sophisticated people like Morales and Roselli may have known that it was a long shot at best. It didn't take a rocket scientist to know that the American people did not want to go to war on 11/22. They wanted to mourn.

I agree that most of the evidence was phonied up after the assassination by higher-ups who had nothing to do with killing JFK. They wanted to protect national security or prevent national pandemonium.

Let me address blackmail and the fear of leaving trails, quoting my colleague Alan Rogers at length...

"On the government side, you have LBJ and his advisors deathly afraid of having to face the public with a clear case of conspiracy.

"You have a fearful JEH facing the dissolution of his empire for not stopping someone they clearly should have paid more attention to.

"You have Rowley who had to be afraid of having his SS demoted to being an underling of the FBI due to failure of their prime duty."

I would add that the CIA officers did not want their empire dissolved either. This wasn't simply about a couple of careers.

[Larry Hancock]

Just to chime in a bit on the concept of "blackmail", whether you want to call it that or a "poison pill" as PDS and Newman have, it would have been a major national security concern. If over the weekend following the assassination Johnson had met with a small national security group - which he did on Sunday - and asked them if they were prepared to announce to the press that there were indications that Oswald had been manipulated in his actions, that others were using him (with the MC impersonation as a minimum indication) and that very possibly unknown CIA / American intelligence officers had been involved with the assassination you can bet that all hands would have been raised not to go there and to immediately quash any investigation that would pursue leads to that effect.

[Paul Brancato]

If our government and national security apparatus covered up because of fear of pandemonium, or to protect their own careers, they did us all a great disservice. I would also point out that this is not the only interpretation of their collective actions. When there is too much coincidence it's time to wonder if something else is going on. In the month leading up to the assassination, and on the day of the event both immediately before and in the hours after, so many pieces fell into place. Beginning with the impersonation in MC, removal of Oswald from the FBI watch list, maneuvering either Oswald or the motorcade into place (or both), withdrawing SS protection from the limousine, way too early and inaccurate descriptions of the wanted assassin, taking control of the body and the limousine, changing plans aboard AF 1 for the location of the autopsy and then botching the autopsy itself, undoing JFK's national security directives. I could go on but we all know this stuff. Too much coincidence for me.

[Steven Gaal]

If our government and national security apparatus covered up because of fear of pandemonium, or to protect their own careers, they did us all a great disservice. I would also point out that this is not the only interpretation of their collective actions. When there is too much coincidence it's time to wonder if something else is going on. In the month leading up to the assassination, and on the day of the event both immediately before and in the hours after, so many pieces fell into place. Beginning with the impersonation in MC, removal of Oswald from the FBI watch list, maneuvering either Oswald or the motorcade into place (or both), withdrawing SS protection from the limousine, way too early and inaccurate descriptions of the wanted assassin, taking control of the body and the limousine, changing plans aboard AF 1 for the location of the autopsy and then botching the autopsy itself, undoing JFK's national security directives. I could go on but we all know this stuff. Too much coincidence for me.

There are indications that the Mexico City visit was a CIA operation of some sort, possibly related to operations against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee "in foreign countries" where the CIA told the FBI in September 1963 that it was "giving some thought to planting deceptive information which might embarrass the Committee in areas where it does have some support." A sensitive CIA operation might explain why FBI Domestic Intelligence officer Marvin Gheesling took Oswald's name off a watch list the day before a cable reporting the Oswald visit reached Washington DC. Oswald had been on this list, which ensured that incoming information on Oswald would be routed to the FBI's espionage division, since 1959.

===

Rogue Morales got him off the watch list ???

[Paul Trejo]

...Let me address blackmail and the fear of leaving trails, quoting my colleague Alan Rogers at length...

"On the government side, you have LBJ and his advisors deathly afraid of having to face the public with a clear case of conspiracy.

"You have a fearful JEH facing the dissolution of his empire for not stopping someone they clearly should have paid more attention to.

"You have Rowley who had to be afraid of having his SS demoted to being an underling of the FBI due to failure of their prime duty."

I would add that the CIA officers did not want their empire dissolved either. This wasn't simply about a couple of careers.

Thanks, Bill, for continuing this interesting line of inquiry.

It still doesn't line up in my thinking -- why would somebody inside the CIA plan to blackmail the CIA high-command on September 28th for an Assassination planned for November 22nd?

What would the blackmail threat have said, in effect? That, "if you tell on me, then I'll implicate you"? But where's the sense in that? Did anybody really think that CIA business would become public in 1963?

To address Alan Rogers' points:

(1) If LBJ and his advisors were "deathly afraid" of having to face the public with a clear case of conspiracy, then we have the reason that LBJ would go along with Hoover's "Lone Assassin" theory starting at 4PM EST on 11/22/1963. All the evidence would have to be tampered with to fit this narrow conclusion.

So -- is that probable? Was LBJ "deathly afraid" of facing the American public with a "clear case of conspiracy?" Why? If there was clear, unanimously accepted, hard evidence of a Communist Conspiracy, with the USSR throwing parties in the street, would LBJ have really been "deathly afraid" of moving forward with military plans against the USSR and Castro? I doubt it. Look how quickly LBJ responded to the Gulf of Tonkin.

However, if there was clear evidence of a Rightist Conspiracy, with the KKK throwing parties in the street -- now that's a different question altogether -- that's a DOMESTIC issue. In that case I think LBJ would have been "deathly afraid" and for good reason. It could have spurred a Civil War. The American public was already struggling with Civil Rights. If JFK was murdered even partially as a result of his support for the Civil Rights movement, then this was a clear dare to start a Civil War.

Ex-General Edwin Walker told a young politician in early 1963 that the USA was on the verge of a race war that would become so bad that the American public would beg the Pentagon to step in -- and then we would have military rule in the USA forever after. That was evidently the favorite fantasy of Edwin Walker.

Yet a Civil War in the middle of the Cold War would have tempted the USSR to take sides, and then a full-scale World War would have erupted -- without question. So, LBJ had a great reason to be "deathly afraid" of where evidence of a Rightist Conspiracy would lead. Mass hysteria.

LBJ told Senator Richard Russell that the USSR "didn't have a damn thing to do with" the JFK murder. The only alternatives were a Rightist Conspiracy, or a Lone Nut. LBJ and Hoover agreed -- and so did Warren and Dulles -- we could handle a Lone Nut mythology far easier than a Civil War.

So, Alan Rogers is right -- with that distinction -- it wasn't a Leftist Conspiracy that made LBJ "deathly afraid."

(2) Was Hoover ever really "facing the dissolution of his empire" for failing to prevent the murder of JFK? Not really. Nobody blames the police for the crime rate. Crime is unpredictable. There was no danger of Hoover losing his job or empire. The only real fear was that Hoover had far too few FBI Agents to deal with a Civil War over Civil Rights. So, based on fear of Civil War, I think Hoover was happy to push his "Lone Shooter" theory with all his might.

(3) Was Rowley ever really "afraid of having his SS demoted"? I doubt it, for the same reasons. But the SS weren't going to contradict Hoover or LBJ, were they?

(4) Did the CIA really fear being taken over? I sincerely doubt it. The only question was how to respond to the current DOMESTIC crisis. The Hoover solution of a "Lone Shooter" was simply the easiest and most manageable route for the US Government as a whole.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 6, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I don't know enough about the evidence for Walker's complicity to do that story justice, nor stories about the JBS or the Minutemen. The one that has caught my eye is the Willie Somersett tape of Joseph Milteer. The National States Rights Party were well-organized and could have been used by disaffected intel or military operatives without much fear of exposure.

I don't want to go too far on the theory about "war with Cuba". I think certain people wanted it, but I also think that more sophisticated people like Morales and Roselli may have known that it was a long shot at best. It didn't take a rocket scientist to know that the American people did not want to go to war on 11/22. They wanted to mourn.

I agree that most of the evidence was phonied up after the assassination by higher-ups who had nothing to do with killing JFK. They wanted to protect national security or prevent national pandemonium...

Well, Bill, evidence for Walker's complicity is almost entirely undeveloped in the past fifty years. The Warren Commission explored it briefly, but not with any muscle behind it -- although Walker's name does appear more than 500 times in the testimony.

Jack Ruby told Earl Warren that those behind the JFK murder were Edwin Walker and the JBS. Warren simply ignored that remark.

Edwin Walker was a leader in the JBS, one of its first members, and also a leader in the Minutemen -- as was Guy Banister.

Both Walker and Banister were active in States Rights Parties in the South, as well as White Citizens Councils, and their continual slogan was "Impeach Earl Warren" over his Brown Decision.

The Willie Somersett tape of Joseph Milteer fits right in, because the National States Rights Party was part of the general Southern network of Right-wing, Anti-Communist forces mobilized against the Civil Rights movement of 1963.

Yet we should also ask which of the many Rightist organizations of the South (and the North) best articulated the position that JFK was a Communist. That would not be the States Rights Parties, which had grown up alongside the White Citizens Councils in response to the Brown Decision of 1954 -- their slogan was simply: Race Mixing is Communism!

That didn't have National appeal. However, the John Birch Society both called for the Impeachment of Earl Warren, and also promoted a more moderate ideology of neo-McCarthyism -- alleging that Communists were inside Washington DC, at every level of the US Government, and that this had begun with FDR, Truman and Eisenhower. JFK was simply the biggest Communist of the lot.

This ideology grabbed a wide range of American sympathizers. Edwin Walker represented this ideology to millions -- Walker appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine (12/1961) with this ideology in his speeches. Walker was "General James Mattoon Scott" to tens of thousands of Americans in the North as well as the South.

Milteer belongs to the Walker movement. This will be documented (I understand) by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield and his forthcoming book on General Walker and the JFK murder.

I'm sorry, Bill, that you don't wish to pursue the "War with Cuba" theory much deeper. Yet,even though you might be right that David Morales and Johnny Roselli considered it a "long shot at best," I would argue that it posed no risk to them. It was NOT a regular coup'd'etat where somebody would bravely stand up and take responsibility for the assassination of JFK, and state their reasons.

Instead, this Rightist Conspiracy to murder JFK was (IMHO) supposed to shock the American People into believing that they had just been attacked by the USSR/Cuba. (Something like a Gulf of Tonkin incident).

If it worked, the American People would have invaded Cuba and completed the task begun by the Bay of Pigs. If it didn't work, then, everybody would blame the Patsy -- who would soon be dead, and at least nobody could say the plotters didn't TRY.

Finally, Bill, I'm delighted that you agree with me that tampering with the JFK murder evidence was promoted by officials who simply wanted to avoid mass hysteria and a Civil War. In retrospect, looking at the material history, I don't blame them because Civil War was a very real possibility. And during a Cold War, it would have been catastrophic.

Now that there is no more Cold War, I say, and now that all the culprits are long gone, I say it's time for the American People to take a deep breath and finally take a good look at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE of the JFK murder, including the many files that have been classified Top Secret for the past half-century.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

This thread still has lots of energy, IMHO.

1. The question of an OSWALD Imposter in Mexico City is crucial on multiple levels.

1.1. If OSWALD made those Mexico City calls, then he conspired with the USSR and Cuba to kill JFK.

1.2. But if somebody impersonated OSWALD in Mexico City, then we behold a plot to frame OSWALD for the JFK murder two months before it happened.

2. The Church Committee found a memo from Hoover to LBJ and the SS on 11/23/1963 that affirms an Imposter. A phone call from Hoover to LBJ that day says the same.

2.1. So, the official (but secret) version of the Mexico City incident is that there was an Imposter.

2.2. The official, WC version of the Mexico City incident is that a Lone Nut went there and failed to get instant passage to Cuba and the USSR as he foolishly thought he could.

3. It is interesting that Hoover and the FBI would insist that Mexico City is a boring bit of evidence.

3.1. Hoover from the very first day of the JFK murder strongly insisted upon a "Lone Shooter" aka. "Lone Nut" interpretation of Lee Harvey OSWALD.

3.2. Yet the fact of an Impersonation was really proof that (i) Oswald had conspiratorial accomplices; or that (ii) Oswald was being set-up by Conspirators.

3.3. Therefore, the full data about Mexico City could not be brought forward in the Warren Commission volumes, and had to be held as Top Secret until 1993.

3.4. The evidence that OSWALD rode as a passenger of an automobile to Mexico City also had to be smashed, and replaced with an FBI official Mexican Bus Ride myth.

3.5. None of the Mexican Bus Ride data could withstand scrutiny -- but that never stopped the WC before. No lie was too big if it served the "Lone Nut" theory.

4. It is equally interesting that Bill Simpich uncovered a Mole Hunt inside the CIA over just this very question. Who Impersonated OSWALD? And Why?

4.1. Here is, IMHO, conclusive proof that the CIA high-command did not participate in the set-up of OSWALD for the JFK murder.

4.2. Yet this is also evidence that whoever the Impersonators were, they knew the CIA Mexico City Station operation like the back of their hand.

4.3. Therefore, the Impersonators were: (i) unknown to CIA high-command; and (ii) CIA personnel.

4.4. Therefore, the OSWALD Impersonators were CIA Rogues. Clearly they were setting-up OSWALD to take a fall for SOMETHING in the future.

5. Why did no photograph of OSWALD in Mexico City ever appear? There were at least ten CIA photos of Oswald, according to the Lopez Report.

5.1. Winston Scott, in his memoirs, didn't mind telling folks that Lee Harvey OSWALD was amply photographed and recorded at all times at the Mexico City compound. (Possibly he was too low below the CIA Mole-Hunt level of staff).

6. HSCA Chairman Louis Stokes wrote to CIA Director Stansfield Turner on 13 October 1978 to complain that: “Scott’s comments are a source of deep concern to this HSCA, for they suggest your Agency’s possible withholding of photo materials highly relevant to this investigation.”

6.1. Evidently Stokes didn't realize that a photo of Oswald in Mexico City could prove he had accomplices, and that the essence of the National Security order of silence about OSWALD was entirely due to the fact that OSWALD never acted alone.

7.0. Bill Simpich brilliantly showed that the whole reason for the "Mystery Man" was part of the Mole-Hunt apparatus. It seems that the CIA high-command did not expect a JFK murder, and they didn't expect to have to send OSWALD's 201 file (with the false middle name of "Henry" and this false photograph) to anybody in late November.

There is, of course, more. Yet for now I'll stand with this, hoping for comments from Bill Simpich.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 6, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

This thread still has lots of energy, IMHO.

1. The question of an OSWALD Imposter in Mexico City is crucial on multiple levels.

1.1. If OSWALD made those Mexico City calls, then he conspired with the USSR and Cuba to kill JFK. Oswald, the man Ruby killed, was not in Mexico City

1.2. But if somebody impersonated OSWALD in Mexico City, then we behold a plot to frame OSWALD for the JFK murder two months before it happened. Not true... Bill's work shows how the impersonation and the faked calls were for other reasons. The Evidence the CIA left behind and/or found and/or created prior to 11/22 had little or anything to do with the assassination. It is only when the assassination occurs does this trip and the falsehoods related to Oswald ever being there begin to take on an incriminating tone. Alvarado does not happen until AFTER... until then the actual activities of the Oswald character are painfully scripted.

2. The Church Committee found a memo from Hoover to LBJ and the SS on 11/23/1963 that affirms an Imposter. A phone call from Hoover to LBJ that day says the same. But they do not say INSTEAD OF they say IN ADDITION TO Oswald there was a 2nd man down there.

2.1. So, the official (but secret) version of the Mexico City incident is that there was an Imposter. The "official" version is not secret at all, it's all there in the evidence and does NOT suggest it was an imposter, it strives to prove that it was our Oswald, alone.

2.2. The official, WC version of the Mexico City incident is that a Lone Nut went there and failed to get instant passage to Cuba and the USSR as he stupidly thought he could. kind of Paul. He wanted a transit visa thru Cuba to Russia, to Odessa rather than wait for the ok from Russia to go on his existing passport, which specifically allowed him to travel to Russia (amazing right?) There was no need for him to go to Mexico to get a Cuband transit visa to ultimately get to Odessa. We are to remember that the Oswald at the Cuban Embassy on the 27th was NOT the man Ruby killed per Duran and Azcue.

3. It is interesting that Hoover and the FBI would insist that Mexico City is a boring bit of evidence.

3.1. The fact of an Impersonation was really proof that (i) Oswald had conspiratorial accomplices; or (ii) Oswald was being set-up by Conspirators. That's why he never said he was inpersonated. They thought that it may have been HIDELL in the photo and on the phone. (I have the CIA and FBI docs where they are still not sure about "Hidell"

3.2. Yet Hoover from the very first day of the JFK murder strongly insisted upon a "Lone Shooter" aka. "Lone Nut" interpretation of Lee Harvey OSWALD. We've had this duscussion. Hoover, even after the FBI report is delivered tells his staff that he did not want to say it was Oswald alone precisely because of Mexico City. In Jan 1964 Hoover writes that we need to be careful with the CIA due to their deception regarding Oswald in Mexico.

3.3. Therefore, the data about Mexico City could not be brought forward in the Warren Commission volumes. The data in the WCR related to Mexico is a complete FBI fabricaction from start to finish... and I prove it.

3.4. The evidence that OSWALD rode as a passenger of an automobile to Mexico City had to be smashed, and replaced with a Bus Ride Myth. Why Paul? And what was the bus ride myth all about? It is the STATE Dept consul Harvey CASH who first lies to I&NS about the mode of transportation. The CIA & STATE had one agenda while the FBI and I&NS had another... the FBI knew Oswald was not in Mexico from reports all thru Nov 1963. When they were asked to uncover how he came and went to Mexico, Hoover had to make a decision to either support the WC effort to find Oswald guilty, or expose the CIA... and/or expose what really was going on in Mexico City during that time.

3.5. None of the Mexican Bus Ride data could withstand scrutiny -- but that never stopped the WC before. No lie was too big if it served the "Lone Nut" theory. True

4. It is equally interesting that Bill Simpich uncovered a Mole Hunt inside the CIA over just this very question. Who Impersonated OSWALD? And Why? We'll let Bill stay with that question... I am only concerned with the FBI and Ochoa fabrication of the trip.

4.1. Here is, IMHO, conclusive proof that the CIA high-command did not participate in the set-up of OSWALD for the JFK murder. And as we've said in the past, the activites Oswald is steered toward can serve as both bona fides for FPCC infultration and as incriminating evidence against him if a patsy is needed... If you don't think "CIA high-command" is not savvy enough to plan his activities to be duplicitous, I believe you'd need to take another look at this conclusion.

"Let's get him to send away from a scoped rifle for Dodd using an alias - Hidell - worse comes to worse it wont look good down the road if we need to incriminate him"

4.2. Yet this is also evidence that whoever the Impersonators were, they knew the CIA Mexico City Station operation like the back of their hand. That is an assumption, not a conclusion. Whoever put the impersonator up to the task was surely aware, if this indeed was a molehunt as Bill suggests... but the impersonator himself? Other than friday morning the 27th, there were no other visits, only the phony calls. The faked Oct 1 call references the faked Sept 28th call...

4.3. Therefore, the Impersonators were: (i) unknown to CIA high-command; and (ii) CIA personnel. Speculation at best

4.4. Therefore, the Impersonators were CIA Rogues. Speculation at its worst

5. Why did no photograph of OSWALD in Mexico City ever appear? There were at least ten CIA photos of Oswald, according to the Lopez Report. "10 CIA photos of Oswald" are of the Mystery Man, not Oswald. If you go to the photo books in the Russ Holmes files you will see all the different Mystery Man photos. I see listings for at least 16 Mystery Man photos from Oct 2, 4 & 15. There are no photos of Oswald because he was never there.

5.1. Winston Scott, in his memoirs, didn't mind telling folks that Lee Harvey OSWALD was amply photographed and recorded at all times at the Mexico City compound. (Possibly he was too low below the CIA Mole-Hunt level of staff). The man HE was told was Oswlad Paul...not the actual Oswald. Up until the 22nd or 23rd the State Dept and CIA mexico thought this was Lee HENRY Oswald...

6. HSCA Chairman Louis Stokes wrote to CIA Director Stansfield Turner on 13 October 1978 to complain that: “Scott’s comments are a source of deep concern to this HSCA, for they suggest your Agency’s possible withholding of photo materials highly relevant to this investigation.”

6.1. Evidently Stokes didn't realize that a photo of Oswald in Mexico City could prove he had accomplices, and that the essence of the National Security order of silence about OSWALD was entirely due to the fact that OSWALD never acted alone.

7.0. Bill Simpich brilliantly showed that the whole reason for the "Mystery Man" was part of the Mole-Hunt apparatus. It seems that the CIA high-command did not expect a JFK murder, and they didn't expect to have to send OSWALD's 201 file (with the false middle name of "Henry" and this false photograph) to anybody in late November. again with speculation? except for the part about what Bill is doing what you offer here has no supporting evidence...

There is, of course, more. Yet for now I'll stand with this, hoping for comments from Bill Simpich.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Yes indeed... Bill has been extremely helpful in so many ways related to Mexico City and the Evidence... the mole-hunt was more concerned with FBI, Mexican and/or Cuban infultration of the CIA "LI" programs than anything related to JFK...

But ask yourself why a CIA asset goes to the local authorities to tell his Sept 18, no Sept 27/28th story - is polygraphed with Phillips in the room, is discredited and is sent away. All after the assassination.

THAT is a key to how the evidence was used to implicate Oswald as a Commie and Castro related.