Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[Thomas Graves]

On 11/30/2016 at 8:19 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Mark,

Your logic is dualistic -- either they were with Castro or against Castro -- and no middle term.

The logic I use is dialectical -- it recognizes nuances.  For example, there were fakes and phonies everywhere in the post-Castro Cuba Revolution.  There were pro-Castro Cubans who were pretending to be anti-Castro, and there were anti-Castro Cuband who were pretending to be pro-Castro. 

The WC testimony of Carlos Bringuier highlights this historical fact.

There can be little doubt that JURE had secret members inside Cuba, who were working for Castro's downfall.  This was true of all of the anti-Castro groups -- they had moles everywhere -- in Miami, in the training camps, and inside Cuba.

The alternative that I perceive for JURE had nothing to do with Mexico City, but with a secret voyage to Cuba -- perhaps on a Raid vessel like those used by Gerry Patrick Hemming and his Interpen group, or described by Johnny Martino.  These Cuba raid vessels would sneak onto the Cuban shores and attack farmers and burn crops and so on.  Some of them could drop off snipers, or moles, or anything they wanted -- AS LONG AS THERE WAS A RECEIVING PARTY.  In this scenario, JURE moles inside Cuba could receive LHO from a Raid vessel.  That was Loran Hall's specialty.

So, Mark, my argument retains a very strong logical component.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo 

Just thinking out loud here.

Why would ostensible anti-Casto dudes go to all this effort to "smuggle" Oswald into Cuba when they were already, as you claim, getting Spanish-speaking anti-Castro agents in?

What was so special about Oswald in their attempts to hit Castro?  That he was a former Marine who was a little bit "loco"?

--  Tommy

Edited December 11, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I still don't see it.  IF the folks of JURE managed to get Oswald into Cuba, how is this yanqui'  who speaks English and Russian, but LITTLE TO NO SPANISH, going to keep from drawing attention to himself in Cuba?  I'm trying to connect the dots, and they just aren't there.

Mark,

It wasn't a well-thought-out plan.  Guy Banster didn't plan it.  Harry Dean knew nothing about it before it happened.

The most logical explanation, IMHO, is that Oswald complained to Loran Hall and Larry Howard that his Fake FPCC resume wasn't going to work in Mexico City, and in the last day of the trip, Loran Hall contacted his buddies Kiki and Rolando Masferrer, who were connected with Alpha 66.  They said they lived in the same apartment building as a woman named Sylvia Duran, who was easy, and a member of the pansy-pants anti-Castro group called JURE. 

JURE was trying to raise money for arms to support a coup d'état in Cuba, and they circulated a letter in Spanish.  "Eugenio," one of the leaders of JURE, said he wanted to have the letter translated into English, and he asked Sylvia Duran.  This was back in August.  Sylvia said she didn't have the time.

In my CT, we find Kiki Masferrer handing Loran Hall and Larry Howard this same letter, and telling Loran Hall everything about Sylvia Duran's life, especially her father who was in a Cuban jail cell.  Well, Loran Hall was also in a Cuban jail cell, so he felt "close" to her father, so he led the charade.  Loran Hall ("Leopoldo") told Sylvia that he knew her father, and he wanted her help in getting guns for the JURE rebels in Miami and Cuba.  Larry Howard ("Angelo") handed Sylvia the same JURE letter that "Eugenio" had circulated.  So, it almost worked.

But Sylvia was smarter than they were.  Sylvia Odio was from the upper class in Cuba, and college-educated.  Her father was also a scholar, and when Loran Hall said he was a friend of her father, the first thing Sylvia Odio thought (as she testified to the WC) was that her father doesn't have any low-class friends.  So, Sylvia asked "Anglelo" if he knew "Eugenio," and when he said, no, then Sylvia knew they were fake.  So, Sylvia sent them away empty handed. 

Now -- what if the charade was successful -- what then?  "Leopoldo" tried to convince Sylvia -- multiple times -- that "Leon" Oswald was a great asset, a supporter of the Cuban cause, and a former Marine and a sharpshooter -- and was even 'loco' and eager to kill for the cause.  If Sylvia had believed "Leopoldo" she might have (maybe) convinced people in JURE that they had a sniper who was ready and willing to kill Fidel Castro.   Then JURE might have taken it from there, to sneak LHO into Cuba into a tall building with a high-powered rifle (and an English translator).

Admittedly it was a long-shot.  At the very least Loran and Larry convinced Oswald that they were sincere, and behind Oswald 100%.  According to Harry Dean, Loran Hall and Larry Howard drove Lee Harvey Oswald into Mexico City on September 26, 1963.  The WC witnesses who claimed they saw Oswald on a bus to Mexico City were merely cases of mistaken identity -- which the FBI used to their advantage in their "Lone Nut" fabrication.  (Obviously, if Oswald entered Mexico City as a passenger in a car, as the Mexican Immigration Service said he did, then there was no "Lone Nut," but clearly proof  of a conspiracy.)

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

NOT so fast, Captain Kaos - 

You're basing this on the assumption that whoever O. allegedly "saw" in either consulate was also willing to see this - what's the word - "dialectically." With nuance. On an impromptu "walk in."

Nuance is pretty much the last thing i can imagine in any of the "diplomats" manning the borders of all worlds communist.

"Who are you?"

"My name's Hidell."

"What can we do for you?"

"I'd like to go to your great country, Cuba. I've already been to Russia and am looking for something with a view."

"What are your credentials?"

"I have these papers here which say I'd kill Fidel Castro for a quarter."

"Next??!!!"

Glenn,

Actually, the credentials that Lee Harvey Oswald took to Mexico City (as demonstrated in the Hardway-Lopez Report of 2003) attempted to prove that Oswald was an officer of the FPCC -- a group that Fidel Castro liked very much.

It was well-known in 1963 politics that officers of the FPCC got instant passage into Cuba from Mexico City.  That was what Guy Banister and his team in New Orleans was hoping for.  That was what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing in the August, 1963, there in the newspapers, radio and TV, posing as an officer of the FPCC.   Ed Butler was coordinating the whole propaganda scenario.

Lee Harvey Oswald took all the newspaper clippings of all these "events" with him to Mexico City.  This was his Fake FPCC Resume that we see, word for word, in the Hardway-Lopez Report (2003).  The problem isn't that Oswald was claiming to be an enemy of Fidel Castro -- but he was claiming to be the friend of Fidel Castro -- but the Cuban Consulate and the USSR Embassy officials all agreed (cf. Lopez)  that Oswald was more likely a fake, a phony, and an infiltrator from the Radical Right. 

Whatever politics we espouse, I think we might agree that the Mexico City officials were right on the money.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

In other words...the JURE ruse that you propose is simply.... CONJECTURE ...on your part.  And you really have no idea that the purpose you stated was actually in play.

Is that correct? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

 

[Chris Newton]

I used to believe that Oswald was never in Mexico but now I'm leaning toward a theory where he was in Mexico and simultaneously impersonated in Mexico City. I think it was all part of the myth-building of the plotters with the goal of connecting him to Cuba. I agree with Mr. Lifton that he was probably deceived into believing he was infiltrating part of an entirely different operation which may have involved the smuggling of arms (and cars?). D. A. Phillips had him on a string.

[Paul Trejo]

15 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

In other words...the JURE ruse that you propose is simply.... CONJECTURE ...on your part.  And you really have no idea that the purpose you stated was actually in play.

Is that correct? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Mark,

I have used the term, IMHO, consistently throughout my narrative.  This means, ":In My Humble Opinion."   I am connecting dots that others have missed.  This is my theory.  I never claimed to have material proof -- that will come on Thursday 26 October 2017 at the fulfillment of the JFK Records Act.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

4 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

I used to believe that Oswald was never in Mexico but now I'm leaning toward a theory where he was in Mexico and simultaneously impersonated in Mexico City. I think it was all part of the myth-building of the plotters with the goal of connecting him to Cuba. I agree with Mr. Lifton that he was probably deceived into believing he was infiltrating part of an entirely different operation which may have involved the smuggling of arms (and cars?). D. A. Phillips had him on a string.

Chris,

I also believe that Oswald was both in Mexico City and also impersonated in Mexico City.

Edwin Lopez basically proves the first part, and Bill Simpich basically proves the second part.

IMHO, Oswald was in Mexico City to try to fake his way into Cuba by pretending to be an FPCC officer.  He failed.

IMHO, David Morales impersonated Oswald in Mexico City over the Cuban Consulate telephone to the USSR Embassy -- the most wire-tapped phone on the planet.  The purpose of David Morales (a CIA rogue and mole) was to try to link the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of Valerie Kostikov, a KGB assassin.

The plots were separate.  David Atlee Phillips knew about the first plot, but not the second plot (as he avers in his 1988 manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy).  David Morales, the Mole, knew about both plots, because he worked with Guy Banister in New Orleans, but also with General Walker in Dallas (as I surmise in my interpretation of Bill SImpich's 2014 classic, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:

David Atlee Phillips knew about the first plot, but not the second plot (as he avers in his 1988 manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy).

 

You can't possibly trust Phillips statements about anything. I'm sure his tale is full of lies and misdirection. Think "Treason".

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

You can't possibly trust Phillips statements about anything. I'm sure his tale is full of lies and misdirection. Think "Treason".

Chris,

I don't accuse people of Treason without material proof.  We already did that with Lee Harvey Oswald.   Once is enough.

David Atlee Phillips was in the CIA -- and for some people that is enough to accuse him of Treason -- but I don't go there.

David Atlee Phillips was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas by Alpha 66 leader, Antonio Veciana.  I accept that as historical fact.  Some people say that is enough for them to accuse David Atlee Phillips of the JFK assassination.  I don't go there.

Alpha 66 was strictly about assassinating Fidel Castro.  That's the correct context.  David Atlee Phillips said in his manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1988) that he was grooming Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate Fidel Castro.  Phillips even admitted that he monitored Oswald in Mexico City, in the context of assassinating Fidel Castro.

That is believable to me.  It makes sense logically and historically.  I take that as a historical fact.

But it is a far cry from that historical situation to jump to the JFK assassination, just because Lee Harvey Oswald was made into the Patsy of the JFK murder.

It is more likely -- as Bill Simpich showed in his fantastic 2014 eBook -- State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City -- that the JFK plot hijacked Oswald away from the Alpha 66 plot and into a local Dallas plot.

That's where logic leads me.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo
emphasis

[Paul Brancato]

Yes I agree Chris. But Trejo remains convinced that Morales was involved outside of the CIA, and so dismisses Phillips and others. I assume Trejo has seen Veciana's revelations of a few years ago when he went public identifying Phillips as Bishop. On that occasion Veciana also said that Phillips knew Oswald would never get in to Cuba, and by inference the purpose of sending Oswald to MC and the embassies had to be other than as part of a Castro assassination plot. I suppose Phillips could have kept that info to himself and that Oswald might have thought that getting into Cuba was a real possibility and that he was prepared to take part in an assassination. But the impersonator of Oswald accomplished what Phillips probably had in mind. Trejo supposes that Morales, who worked closely with Phillips, impersonated Oswald as part of Phillips' plan, and then took part in killing JFK as a rogue agent working with Walker and company, his proof being that Phillips wrote in a manuscript that the operation to kill Castro turned around and killed Kennedy instead is stretching things beyond belief. The arrow points clearly to Phillips, and the manuscript makes more sense as propaganda, Phillips' specialty, then as a confession that the anti-Castro operation he put into place went rogue without his knowledge. It's completely self serving on Phillips' part, and makes more sense read that way and  not real history.

[Chris Newton]

34 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I don't accuse people of Treason without material proof.  We already did that with Lee Harvey Oswald.   Once is enough.

I wasn't trying to accuse Phillips of Treason in that sentence, I was merely suggesting that if his tome was factual he'd be confessing to it. He was after all selling a story with the intention of profiting monetarily.

Could I accuse Phillips of Treason? Sure thing, without hesitation. Look up my ancestor Gen. Cadwalader, we have a long history of exposing and dealing with traitors, its in my DNA.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Chris Newton
spelling

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 3:27 PM, Paul Brancato said:

... Trejo supposes that Morales, who worked closely with Phillips, impersonated Oswald as part of Phillips' plan, and then took part in killing JFK as a rogue agent working with Walker and company, his proof being that Phillips wrote in a manuscript that the operation to kill Castro turned around and killed Kennedy instead is stretching things beyond belief. The arrow points clearly to Phillips, and the manuscript makes more sense as propaganda, Phillips' specialty, then as a confession that the anti-Castro operation he put into place went rogue without his knowledge. It's completely self serving on Phillips' part, and makes more sense read that way and  not real history.

Paul B.,

No, that's not my position.  Please allow me to clarify.  I do agree that David Morales worked closely with David Atlee Phillips, but only in the context of assassinating Fidel Castro.

Right or wrong, I accept both men at their word -- David Morales confessed to participation in the JFK assassination.  David Atlee Phillips said he was only involved in plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.

In my theory, David Morales impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, completely UNKNOWN to David Atlee Phillips.  Phillips had no clue this was David Morales, and that is why Phillips joined (what I call) the Simpich Mole Hunt of October 1963, to try to find the CIA Mole at top priority.

While David Atlee Phillips was trying to kill Fidel Castro, partly (in a plot with Guy Banister) by using Lee Harvey Oswald as a Fake FPCC officer, that was all that Phillips was concentrating on.  It was only David Morales who had two plots going on at the same time.

David Morales fervently wanted to kill Fidel Castro and that was his top priority.  By the way, that was the top priority of General Walker, as well.   General Walker and his people wanted to topple the Castro Cuban government, and replace it quickly.  But they failed for two years to make any major progress.

So, in my theory, David Morales joined General Walker's civilian, Radical Right Conspiracy to kill JFK in Dallas and blame Lee Harvey Oswald, because Guy Banister had so perfectly framed Lee Harvey Oswald as a COMMUNIST.  That way, General Walker (with the help of David Morales) could blame the USSR and Fidel Castro for the assassination of JFK, and then the USA would invade Cuba and finally kill Fidel Castro.

It was precisely because Lee Harvey Oswald failed to get his instant Visa into Cuba as a Fake FPCC officer that changed everything.  David Atlee Phillips simply put the project on hold, as he said in The AMLASH Legacy (1988).

David Morales, however, chose to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald in order to link Oswald with the KGB assassin Valerie Kostikov.  Morales' purpose (and Walker's purpose) was this: after the JFK assassination, the CIA would check its files and link Oswald with Kostikov, and then recommend to the Pentagon that the KGB killed JFK, and so this justified war with the USSR and Cuba.

That was the plot of Walker and the Radical Right, which David Morales joined secretly, behind the back of the CIA.  David Atlee Phillips was completely ignorant of it.  The solid evidence for my theory is the Simpich Mole Hunt (2014).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

  

Edited December 1, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

On 11/30/2016 at 1:27 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Yes I agree Chris. But Trejo remains convinced that Morales was involved outside of the CIA, and so dismisses Phillips and others. I assume Trejo has seen Veciana's revelations of a few years ago when he went public identifying Phillips as Bishop. On that occasion Veciana also said that Phillips knew Oswald would never get in to Cuba, and by inference the purpose of sending Oswald to MC and the embassies had to be other than as part of a Castro assassination plot. I suppose Phillips could have kept that info to himself and that Oswald might have thought that getting into Cuba was a real possibility and that he was prepared to take part in an assassination. But the impersonator of Oswald accomplished what Phillips probably had in mind. Trejo supposes that Morales, who worked closely with Phillips, impersonated Oswald as part of Phillips' plan, and then took part in killing JFK as a rogue agent working with Walker and company, his proof being that Phillips wrote in a manuscript that the operation to kill Castro turned around and killed Kennedy instead is stretching things beyond belief. The arrow points clearly to Phillips, and the manuscript makes more sense as propaganda, Phillips' specialty, then as a confession that the anti-Castro operation he put into place went rogue without his knowledge. It's completely self serving on Phillips' part, and makes more sense read that way and  not real history.

You quoted me out of context. Before you read Simpich, Morales was no where in your plot. When it became obvious that you had to include him you did, but out of the chain of CIA command and into your Walker/Banister theory. Of course there is no direct evidence of any ties between Morales and your key suspects. We've been down this road so many times now. 

[Paul Trejo]

16 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

You quoted me out of context. Before you read Simpich, Morales was no where in your plot. When it became obvious that you had to include him you did, but out of the chain of CIA command and into your Walker/Banister theory. Of course there is no direct evidence of any ties between Morales and your key suspects. We've been down this road so many times now. 

Paul B.,

Not exactly.  Before I read Simpich, and before I formed a Walker-did-it CT, I knew a lot about David Morales, and like most CTers, I figured that David Morales was one of the many players in the CIA-did-it scenario.

One of my late 20th century CT's was that General Edward Lansdale -- boss of Colonel Fletcher Prouty -- was one of the CIA and Pentagon folks involved in the JFK assassination, because I accepted (and still accept) Fletcher Prouty's identification of General Lansdale at Dealey Plaza among the Three Tramps. 

But Larry Hancock himself explained to me that insofar as Lansdale was there at Dealey Plaza, that is no proof that he was in a plot to kill JFK, but more likely, said Hancock, the likely scenario is that Lansdale was there to investigate rumors that there would be a JFK assassination attempt at Dealey Plaza.

When I realized that Larry Hancock was right, I changed my thinking.  It has been more than 50 years since the JFK murder.  Unless I have an ACTUAL CONFESSION by somebody regarding their participation in the JFK assassination -- then I will not jump in and accuse people, just because they were in the CIA and close by.

I continued to suspect David Morales -- since 1993 actually -- simply because David Morales himself confessed to a role in the JFK murder to his close friend Ruben Carbajal.   We have a few others who confessed:  Howard Hunt; Johnny Martino; Jack S. Martin; Frank Sturgis; Roscoe White; David Ferrie; and even Lee Harvey Oswald, insofar as a Patsy is also an accomplice.  There were others.

David Morales was on Canal Street when Lee Harvey Oswald was handing out FPCC leaflets -- that was discovered by Tommy Graves on his FORUM.  I challenged that at first, but I am now convinced that Tommy is correct.

David Morales confessed -- that's the key.  He has always been on my suspect-list.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

yes Paul - but Morales was at the top of the operational CIA, the guy that got things done on the ground under orders. So because there is an apparent mole hunt (yes, apparent, and not conclusive at all re Phillips)  it must follow, according to your logic, that Morales, who has been elevated from just another person of interest (you've named a few dozen in the years I've been here) to an integral part of the plot, was involved outside of the chain of command and in league with Banister and Walker rather than with Phillips and Helms. And once again, no direct evidence that Morales knew your protagonists, versus was the top operational officer for the CIA brass. You use Phillips' book, a work of fiction, to support your claim of his non involvement. According to Veciana, who knew Phillips as Bishop, Phillips did not send Oswald to Mexico City so he could get into Cuba and assassinate Castro. The Oswald impersonator did try, successfully, to sheep dip Oswald, which when you think logically about it must have been Phillips' plan for Oswald in MC. And Phillips was in high gear immediately after the assassination, pushing his already in place false stories trying likewise to tie Oswald to Castro. For some illogical reason, you've assumed that the 'mole hunt' proves CIA innocence. Yet even you would admit that CIA had a lot more evidence than any of us have ever seen, such as pictures, voice recordings, close up records of the interrogation of Sylvia Duran - two actually. That is not the action of innocents, certainly not where Phillips is concerned. Yet Phillips enjoyed a long and successful career. What - no punishment for Phillips, no future demotion, when it was his operation that got out of his control? When LBJ and co. decided not to go with the story that Phillips pushed? 

At some point you'll include Phillips in your theory, and draw a new line in the sand between Phillips and the rest of the CIA. You almost have to. There is too much that points to Phillips, and as others have shown here, using a somewhat fictional book by a man who kept his secrets and was an expert first and foremost in propaganda, as proof of your line between Phillps and Morales, is folly. And Even Simpich had said, here, that he is not sure that the mole hunt exonerates Phillips. He is, if I understand him, exonerating Angleton. Of course I don't agree with this either, because I view CIA records as a hall of mirrors. There is no record of Angleton or anyone else saying to anyone that they didn't know who impersonated Oswald. Angleton did leave a small trail which suggests that they were trying to find out who the impersonator was. But this presupposes that they really didn't have pictures, and I think that is a very convenient lie. And Newman, who has spent way more hours and years on MC than Simpich, has not yet to my knowledge changed his view that the most likely candidate for running the show was Angleton. If one makes the logical assumption that pictures did exist of whoever went into the embassies, and phone records exist of all phone calls, and that the CIA kept much of this evidence hidden (still), it follows that records implying they didn't know who did the impersonation(s) were planted to support their own false history.