Steven Gaal Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferr..._Comrade_Kostin --Tommy ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Graves, obviously Ann Goodpasture was under Walker's control. Really cant u SEE !! the obvious. sg Edited March 6, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferr..._Comrade_Kostin --Tommy ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Graves, obviously Ann Goodpasture was under Walker's control. Really, why can't you SEE the obvious? sg Good one, Mr. Gaal. "Short and sweet" and funny, too. There's hope for you yet. --Tommy Actually I think it was Guy Gabaldon and John Rouselout and John Wayne. They kinda worked together on that. Edited March 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Graves, obviously Ann Goodpasture was under Walker's control. Really cant u SEE !! the obvious. sg Clearly Ann Goodpasture was working under CIA control in Mexico City. Insofar as she was involved in the MOLE HUNT of which Bill Simpich speaks in his State Secret (2014), then she also interacted with CIA officers James Jesus Angleton and David Atlee Phillips. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these men were conspirators to murder JFK (despite the tremendous bias against them in most JFK Research literature). To the best of my knowledge, only CIA officer David Morales joined the Edwin Walker conspiracy, there in the Town and Country Motel, owned by Carlos Marcello of Louisiana, as I surmise from the reports of Joan Mellen's book, Farewell to Justice (2005). Mellen reports that Banister's team complained about JFK's reaching out to Fidel Castro through William Atwood during September 1963, although this information was known only to the CIA at the time. The likely source of this leak, IMHO, was David Morales, who evidently betrayed the CIA and JFK by joining Edwin Walker's conspiracy through Guy Banister. Frank Sturgis (who was never a CIA officer) allied himself with David Morales and tried to recruit CIA officer Howard Hunt into Morales' plot. Hunt agreed to help "on the sidelines," as he confessed on his deathbed to his son. Perhaps more CIA officers were involved in David Morales' plot -- but this is still unproven. What we do have with the work of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich is a studied suspicion of David Morales and his quislings as the plausible architect of the IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City. What Bill Simpich showed was that this was detected as an IMPERSONATION within *minutes* by the CIA translators in Mexico City, and a CIA Mole Hunt (known only to the highest levels of the CIA) was begun to try to identify the MOLES. Throughout the 1960's the MOLE was never found. My interpretation is simple: whoever was involved in the MOLE HUNT was therefore not involved on the JFK Kill Team. So far I find that David Morales and Howard Hunt were stooges of Ex-General Walker -- but no higher officers in the CIA were involved -- as far as I can see today. Anne Goodpasture was involved in the MOLE HUNT for the IMPERSONATORS of Oswald and Duran, as were Angleton and Phillips. This is, IMHO, a workable alibi for all three. All three were blind-sighted by the JFK murder. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited March 6, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Graves, obviously Ann Goodpasture was under Walker's control. Really cant u SEE !! the obvious. sg Clearly Ann Goodpasture was working under CIA control in Mexico City. Insofar as she was involved in the MOLE HUNT of which Bill Simpich speaks in his State Secret (2014), then she also interacted with CIA officers James Jesus Angleton and David Atlee Phillips. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these men were conspirators to murder JFK (despite the tremendous bias against them in most JFK Research literature). To the best of my knowledge, only CIA officer David Morales joined the Edwin Walker conspiracy, there in the Town and Country Motel, owned by Carlos Marcello of Louisiana, as I surmise from the reports of Joan Mellen's book, Farewell to Justice (2005). Mellen reports that Banister's team complained about JFK's reaching out to Fidel Castro through William Atwood during September 1963, although this information was known only to the CIA at the time. The likely source of this leak, IMHO, was David Morales, who evidently betrayed the CIA and JFK by joining Edwin Walker's conspiracy through Guy Banister. Frank Sturgis (who was never a CIA officer) allied himself with David Morales and tried to recruit CIA officer Howard Hunt into Morales' plot. Hunt agreed to help "on the sidelines," as he confessed on his deathbed to his son. Perhaps more CIA officers were involved in David Morales' plot -- but this is still unproven. What we do have with the work of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich is a studied suspicion of David Morales and his quislings as the plausible architect of the IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City. What Bill Simpich showed was that this was detected as an IMPERSONATION within *minutes* by the CIA translators in Mexico City, and a CIA Mole Hunt (known only to the highest levels of the CIA) was begun to try to identify the MOLES. Throughout the 1960's the MOLE was never found. My interpretation is simple: whoever was involved in the MOLE HUNT was therefore not involved on the JFK Kill Team. So far I find that David Morales was a stooge of Ex-General Walker -- and also Howard Hunt -- but nobody else in the CIA, so far. Anne Goodpasture was involved in the MOLE HUNT for the IMPERSONATORS of Oswald and Duran, as were Angleton and Phillips. This is, IMHO, a workable alibi for all three. All three were blind-sighted by the JFK murder. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo "Professor", Boy I sure am glad to get your opinion on this! So, you think that Edwin Walker might have been involved in the assassination of JFK, huh? Fascinating stuff! Not. --Tommy Edited March 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Graves, obviously Ann Goodpasture was under Walker's control. Really cant u SEE !! the obvious. sg Clearly Ann Goodpasture was working under CIA control in Mexico City. Insofar as she was involved in the MOLE HUNT of which Bill Simpich speaks in his State Secret (2014), then she also interacted with CIA officers James Jesus Angleton and David Atlee Phillips. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these men were conspirators to murder JFK (despite the tremendous bias against them in most JFK Research literature). To the best of my knowledge, only CIA officer David Morales joined the Edwin Walker conspiracy, there in the Town and Country Motel, owned by Carlos Marcello of Louisiana, as I surmise from the reports of Joan Mellen's book, Farewell to Justice (2005). Mellen reports that Banister's team complained about JFK's reaching out to Fidel Castro through William Atwood during September 1963, although this information was known only to the CIA at the time. The likely source of this leak, IMHO, was David Morales, who evidently betrayed the CIA and JFK by joining Edwin Walker's conspiracy through Guy Banister. Frank Sturgis (who was never a CIA officer) allied himself with David Morales and tried to recruit CIA officer Howard Hunt into Morales' plot. Hunt agreed to help "on the sidelines," as he confessed on his deathbed to his son. Perhaps more CIA officers were involved in David Morales' plot -- but this is still unproven. What we do have with the work of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich is a studied suspicion of David Morales and his quislings as the plausible architect of the IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City. What Bill Simpich showed was that this was detected as an IMPERSONATION within *minutes* by the CIA translators in Mexico City, and a CIA Mole Hunt (known only to the highest levels of the CIA) was begun to try to identify the MOLES. Throughout the 1960's the MOLE was never found. My interpretation is simple: whoever was involved in the MOLE HUNT was therefore not involved on the JFK Kill Team. So far I find that David Morales was a stooge of Ex-General Walker -- and also Howard Hunt -- but nobody else in the CIA, so far. Anne Goodpasture was involved in the MOLE HUNT for the IMPERSONATORS of Oswald and Duran, as were Angleton and Phillips. This is, IMHO, a workable alibi for all three. All three were blind-sighted by the JFK murder. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo "Professor", Boy I sure am glad to get your opinion on this! So, you think that Edwin Walker might have been involved in the assassination of JFK, huh? Fascinating stuff! Not. --Tommy BTW, the important point for us is not the fact that Goodpasture et al. participated in a mole hunt but that Oswald was impersonated, apparently by an "insider," over the phone in Mexico City on Saturday, September 28, and on Monday, October 1, 1963, and that his name was associated in these impersonations with the officials of the Soviet Embassy there, especially with one Russian Embassy official who liked to play volleyball and was rumored at times by Angleton himself to be the head of the (in reality defunct) KGB Department 13... Or were these impersonations fabricated out of whole cloth sometime before October 10, 1963, in order to serve as an elaborate Deus ex machina for the all-important mole hunt? Edited March 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Tommy, I believe {a} Oswald never traveled to Mexico City. {b} Any impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City was false. Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin --Tommy Thomas - you may also benefit from a reading of my work at CTKA.... On October 8th the initial report says the photos are from 1216 and 1222 on OCT 1. Bill S. told me who LADILLINGER was but I can't find it now. Since Goodpasture basically tells us that she has the previous day's intercepts on her desk for prep for Scott and/or Phillips the delay from the 3rd to the 8th is not believeable. Seems to me that the Oct 8th memo was park of the project Bill eludes to in his work and HAD to be Oct 1st to match the phone calls. LATER, when the FBI was trying to create an itinerary for the travel, we dont know if they knew the photos were actually taken the next day... Oswald was said to have left on the 2pm FRONTERA bus on Oct 2nd because the first Mystery Man photo was taken Oct 2 at 12:22pm. When it was found that bus did not work and that the Mexican Presidential staff had someone CREATE this document, another bus had to be found. This was the Del Norte 8:30am bus on Oct 2nd. Could not even be considered Oswald if the photo was taken AFTER he left, right? Plus, if they were going to connect the photo to the phone call, there were no calls on the 2nd... yet there are records of an Oswald call on the 3rd... and this same man on the 15th. Yet the evidence continues to claim that Oswald was there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Tommy, I believe {a} Oswald never traveled to Mexico City. {b} Any impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City was false. Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin --Tommy Thomas - you may also benefit from a reading of my work at CTKA.... On October 8th the initial report says the photos are from 1216 and 1222 on OCT 1. Bill S. told me who LADILLINGER was but I can't find it now. Since Goodpasture basically tells us that she has the previous day's intercepts on her desk for prep for Scott and/or Phillips the delay from the 3rd to the 8th is not believeable. Seems to me that the Oct 8th memo was park of the project Bill eludes to in his work and HAD to be Oct 1st to match the phone calls. LATER, when the FBI was trying to create an itinerary for the travel, we dont know if they knew the photos were actually taken the next day... Oswald was said to have left on the 2pm FRONTERA bus on Oct 2nd because the first Mystery Man photo was taken Oct 2 at 12:22pm. When it was found that bus did not work and that the Mexican Presidential staff had someone CREATE this document, another bus had to be found. This was the Del Norte 8:30am bus on Oct 2nd. Could not even be considered Oswald if the photo was taken AFTER he left, right? Plus, if they were going to connect the photo to the phone call, there were no calls on the 2nd... yet there are records of an Oswald call on the 3rd... and this same man on the 15th. Yet the evidence continues to claim that Oswald was there.... Off the top of my head, LADillinger was XXXXXXXXXXXX... and her husband was a CIA officer, too. I believe LADILLINGER was the woman who told the HSCA or whomever that something was none of their business, in so many words. Got it. It just came to me as I was typing that -- Barbara Mandell or Manell or something like that. Impressive, huh? --Tommy "Voodo Chile" Graves yes, Jo Jo, slight return https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9irsg1vBmq0 PS what you can remember when you're listening to Hendrix and typing at the same time... Edited March 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 BTW Thomas, The CIA claims that Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy on the 28th making the call to the Russian Embassy based on the interrogation of Duran "corroborating" the tapes. "No source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee OSWALD while he was in Mexico" - Jack Whitten (thanks Bill Simpich https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=50149&relPageId=10) And yeah, Goodpasture just said it was a simple mistake... yet that does not account for the Oct 8th initial memo identifying the 1st from LADILLINGER "LA Dillinger" is indeed a pseudonym (not cryptonym)by pdscott on Sun, Nov 27, 2005, 2:54 PM GMT (#1160)"LA Dillinger" is indeed a pseudonym (not cryptonym)for the Soviet case officer in the Mexico City CIA Station. And this document, MEXI 6453, is dated Oct 8, 1963, not 1965. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/marysdb/showRec.do?id=5650 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Tommy, I believe {a} Oswald never traveled to Mexico City. {b} Any impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City was false. Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin --Tommy Thomas - you may also benefit from a reading of my work at CTKA.... On October 8th the initial report says the photos are from 1216 and 1222 on OCT 1. Bill S. told me who LADILLINGER was but I can't find it now. Since Goodpasture basically tells us that she has the previous day's intercepts on her desk for prep for Scott and/or Phillips the delay from the 3rd to the 8th is not believeable. Seems to me that the Oct 8th memo was park of the project Bill eludes to in his work and HAD to be Oct 1st to match the phone calls. LATER, when the FBI was trying to create an itinerary for the travel, we dont know if they knew the photos were actually taken the next day... Oswald was said to have left on the 2pm FRONTERA bus on Oct 2nd because the first Mystery Man photo was taken Oct 2 at 12:22pm. When it was found that bus did not work and that the Mexican Presidential staff had someone CREATE this document, another bus had to be found. This was the Del Norte 8:30am bus on Oct 2nd. Could not even be considered Oswald if the photo was taken AFTER he left, right? Plus, if they were going to connect the photo to the phone call, there were no calls on the 2nd... yet there are records of an Oswald call on the 3rd... and this same man on the 15th. Yet the evidence continues to claim that Oswald was there.... Off the top of my head, LADillinger was XXXXXXXXXXXX... and her husband was a CIA officer, too. I believe LADILLINGER was the woman who told the HSCA or whomever that something was none of their business, in so many words. Got it. It just came to me as I was typing that -- Barbara Mandell or Manell or something like that. Middle initial "J" I believe. Impressive, huh? --Tommy "Voodo Chile" Graves yes, Jo Jo, slight return https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9irsg1vBmq0 PS what you can remember when you're listening to Hendrix and typing at the same time... bumped Edited March 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Since when do we need to BUMP a 3 minute old thread Tommy? I replied above your BUMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Since when do we need to BUMP a 3 minute old thread Tommy? I replied above your BUMP Because you obviously didn't read it the first time? You are insufferable sometimes, Jo Jo. Not sayin' that you are full of SH!T or that you've got your head stuck up your XXX. Just sayin'. I'll make it just a little bit easier for you by giving you a little hint as to what I wrote in it. The first time. Before I bumped it because your reply suggested very, very strongly that you hadn't read it. LADILLINGER was Barbara J. XXXXXXX. Now go read it. LOL --Tommy Edited March 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Since when do we need to BUMP a 3 minute old thread Tommy? I replied above your BUMP Because you obviously didn't read it the first time? You are insufferable sometimes, Jo Jo. Not sayin' that you are full of SH!T or that you've got your head stuck up your XXX. Just sayin'. I'll make it just a little bit easier for you by giving you a little hint as to what I wrote in it. LADILLINGER was Barbara J. XXXXXXX. Now go read it. Get it? --Tommy I read your post and replied, in 3 minutes with a reference as to what LADILLINGER did at the Mexico Station - much more important than her name imo. You wrote "Mandell" at 2:06, I replied at 2:09 and you BUMP at 2:10.... get a grip on yourself. What does her name have to do with Oct 1 being a lie related to the Mystery Man photos and the entire BS Mexico evidence for his being there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Paul - I recall Simpich saying he was 'agnostic' on whether Oswald was ever in MC. Is that you memory as well? Simpich has given us his very valuable opinion that Morales is the likely suspect for arranging the Oswald impersonation. Paul, you seem to have no trouble melding that with your Walker theory, despite the fact that there is zero evidence (anyone feel free to correct me on this) that Morales intersected with Walker, or even Banister. Meanwhile, we know for a certain fact that Morales worked for Phillips, and Angleton, and was the top operations officer in the CIA at that time, working out of Miami Station, no doubt well known to Shackley, Helms, JC King and the like. Graves makes an excellent point, and comes up with a possibility I had not thought of. My suspicion, which Simpich never responded to when I queried him, was that the mole hunt was a misdirection, providing cover for Angleton and Goodpasture who themselves arranged the impersonation of Oswald. No one would ever suspect them if they left a paper trail suggesting that they were mystified at who impersonated Oswald. Graves suggests that the paper trail was laid after the fact. Perhaps we are saying the same thing. Paul Trejo ran with the discovery by Simpich, (credit to Scott and Newman as well) jumping immediately to the conclusion that the mole hunt proves that top level CIA brass were innocent, and that Morales must have gone rogue. Somehow this lead to Walker in Paul's mind. I argued with Trejo in the past that Morales was a loyal and trusted operational CIA officer, high up the chain, and that his possible involvement in setting up Oswald in MC, by linking him to Kostikov, implicated those above him in the chain if command. So like Graves I am suspicious of the mole hunt itself. It's just another layer of the onion in my opinion. Edited March 6, 2015 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Since when do we need to BUMP a 3 minute old thread Tommy? I replied above your BUMP Because you obviously didn't read it the first time? You are insufferable sometimes, Jo Jo. Not sayin' that you are full of SH!T or that you've got your head stuck up your XXX. Just sayin'. I'll make it just a little bit easier for you by giving you a little hint as to what I wrote in it. LADILLINGER was Barbara J. XXXXXXX. Now go read it. Get it? --Tommy I read your post and replied, in 3 minutes with a reference as to what LADILLINGER did at the Mexico Station - much more important than her name imo. You wrote "Mandell" at 2:06, I replied at 2:09 and you BUMP at 2:10.... get a grip on yourself. What does her name have to do with Oct 1 being a lie related to the Mystery Man photos and the entire BS Mexico evidence for his being there ? Jo Jo, If LADilliger's real name was so unimportant to you, Jo Jo, then why did you go to the trouble of putting this in your oh-so-quick bump (post # 503) ? Jo Jo wrote: And yeah, Goodpasture just said it was a simple mistake... yet that does not account for the Oct 8th initial memo identifying the 1st from LADILLINGER "LA Dillinger" is indeed a pseudonym (not cryptonym) by pdscott on Sun, Nov 27, 2005, 2:54 PM GMT (#1160) "LA Dillinger" is indeed a pseudonym (not cryptonym)for the Soviet case officer in the Mexico City CIA Station. And this document, MEXI 6453, is dated Oct 8, 1963, not 1965. https://www.maryferr...wRec.do?id=5650 Hmmm? --Tommy Edited March 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Paul - I recall Simpich saying he was 'agnostic' on whether Oswald was ever in MC. Is that you memory as well? Simpich has given us his very valuable opinion that Morales is the likely suspect for arranging the Oswald impersonation. Paul, you seem to have no trouble melding that with your Walker theory, despite the fact that there is zero evidence (anyone feel free to correct me on this) that Morales intersected with Walker, or even Banister. Meanwhile, we know for a certain fact that Morales worked for Phillips, and Angleton, and was the top operations officer in the CIA at that time, working out of Miami Station, no doubt well known to Shackley, Helms, JC King and the like. Graves makes an excellent point, and comes up with a possibility I had not thought of. My suspicion, which Simpich never responded to when I queried him, was that the mole hunt was a misdirection, providing cover for Angleton and Goodpasture who themselves arranged the impersonation of Oswald. No one would ever suspect them if they left a paper trail suggesting that they were mystified at who impersonated Oswald. Graves suggests that the paper trail was laid after the fact. Perhaps we are saying the same thing. Paul Trejo ran with the discovery by Simpich, (credit to Scott and Newman as well) jumping immediately to the conclusion that the mole hunt proves that top level CIA brass were innocent, and that Morales must have gone rogue. Somehow this lead to Walker in Paul's mind. I argued with Trejo in the past that Morales was a loyal and trusted operational CIA officer, high up the chain, and that his possible involvement in setting up Oswald in MC, by linking him to Kostikov, implicated those above him in the chain if command. So like Graves I am suspicious of the mole hunt itself. It's just another layer of the onion in my opinion. [emphasis added by T. Graves] Excellent post, Paul Brancato. You are very good at analyzing and synthesizing here. I can't take any credit, however, because I was actually attacking disagreeing very politely with Jon for his suggesting that the impersonations themselves never took place over the phone. So if this particular theory turns out to have "legs," we're gonna be giving kudos to Mr. Jon G. Tidd for having suggested, although rather rhetorically, that the impersonations were themselves "faked." This thread is becoming very dialectical. And I like it... --Tommy PS I'm starting to like your apparently-emerging scenario in which Angleton and Goodpasture managed, for assassination purposes, the creation of the so-called "fake" Oswald impersonations on September 28 and October 1, 1963 in order . n................. This ties in with the almost unthinkable question Newman briefly poses as to whether or not the Russian personnel in the Russian Mexico City Embassy were impersonated in the Saturday, September 28, phone call, along with "Duran" and the unnamed "American" guy, unthinkable because it would suggest that a small part of the the CIA was trying to fool the .... CIA. Edited March 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now