Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Paul T

Oswald went as far as Laredo and was informed to return to Dallas. The CIA found out the military was doing a Northwoods caper to impersonate Oswald in case it was needed after the assassination.

After it was apparent that Johnson would not allow the military to nuke Russia and invade Cuba the day of the assasssination the lone nut theory came into existence. Then Oswald wasn´t an agent of Cuba or Russia but a lone nut and the impersonation was played down.

However the CIA needed to place Oswald in MC or people would say ... ¨hey he´s not a lone nut he was impersonated in Mexico City. What´s up with that¨. And the lone nut theory could not be considered credible.

The above theory is just as viable as your Simpich/mole hunt theory except mine is more rooted in the evidence.

George,

With all due respect, your theory of LHO above is not nearly as viable as Simpich's Mole Hunt theory which is based on recent FOIA releases of CIA documents.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would like to add, if you read my post, its footnoted.  I actually read the Lopez Report twice.  And I made extensive notes.  That is why I have 47 footnotes to it in RP, revised edition.

If you check the notes, you will see that its all there just as I said it was.  Goodpasture brought that picture over from the wrong day to match a phone call allegedly made by Oswald. That is what Danny and Eddie say she did.  She then tried to excuse it all as a mistake.  But Danny and Eddie did not buy it because the daily columns were set off in bright red percentage marks.  How could she have missed that?  They conclude she did not.  They also do not buy it as a mistake.  

She did it because she had no picture of Oswald. (And BTW the phone call was not by Oswald either.)  And she had to match the call to a WM.  And that was the closest one she had so she stuck that in there, hoping no one would question her about it.  The WC, of course, did not.  Dan and Eddie did.  Nothing to do with any mole hunt.  Just a CYA exercise to conceal the fact that there was no photo of Oswald.  If you read the report, this is all made crystal clear. Evidently, PT did not read it.

One last point, what I like about the Lopez Report, is this:  it is pretty much a no spin zone.  They present the evidence and the facts and the exhibits.  The report does not draw any conclusions about the adduced record.  Therefore you will not read anything about a mole hunt in there.  At least I do not recall it.  What you will read about is an inexplicable record of bizarre anomalies that simply are not explainable in any rational way.  Plus the fact that every routine, every rule of the CIA station in MC seems to have been violated in this instance about Oswald. And the real puzzler for me is that there was no formal review in the seven weeks between when the CIA says Oswald was there, and the assassination.

And clearly, Phillips and Goodpasture could not explain all these anomalies.  Which is why Dan and Eddie prepared a bill of indictment for them.  

But let me add this:  If you talk to Eddie personally, as I did at his home, he will tell you that from the evidence they collected, he personally does not think Oswald was in Mexico City doing the things the WC said he did.  He will preface that as his opinion of course. 

James,

You keep repeating that you read the Lopez Report.   That doesn't mean you understood it.  Your footnotes mean very little, actually, because they are made in the context of your faulty interpretation. 

For example, your silly attacks on Ruth Paine in your 2nd edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) merely repeat the same attacks from your 1st edition (1992), so it appears your work is stuck in the nineties. 

As for Anne Goodpasture's claim that the large Russian dude was Yuri Ivanovich Moskalev, a Soviet KGB officer, the Lopez Report says that this claim is "unconfirmed."  In any case, it does nothing to solve the question about why his photo was in LHO's 201 file.

It was no mistake that Goodpasture lied about it -- and this is well-explained by Bill Simpich's scholarly book -- and not by your retelling.

The Simpich discovery of a Mole Hunt in the Mexico City drama of Lee Harvey Oswald is a revelation of profound proportions.  To deny SImpich's discovery is to prove that one's work is stuck in the nineties.

I have not only read the Lopez Report (2003) fully and carefully, but I have read Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014) fully and carefully, and I have seen how Bill Simpich is the only writer today who has successfully surpassed the great value of the Lopez Report.  

This is because the Lopez Report is based directly on CIA documents, and SImpich's State Secret is also based directly on CIA documents.

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 6, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

There are no assassins in this manhole. Please close the cover and don't scratch my rifle.  ( a funny due to posting issues)

Edited March 6, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Thomas Graves]

6 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

There are no assassins in this manhole. Please close the cover and don't stretch my rife.  ( a funny due to posting issues)

I can neither confirm nor deny that I said that.

--  Tommy

PS  wife, rifle, life, or rife?

[Michael Clark]

Just now, Thomas Graves said:

I can neither confirm nor deny that I said that.

--  Tommy

PS  wife, rifle, life, or rife?

It doesn't matter when you can no longer count how many Margaritas you've had.

Cheers,

Michael

[Thomas Graves]

5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

It doesn't matter when you can no longer count how many Margaritas you've had.

Cheers,

Michael

Dear Michael,

Well, that just proves that the evil, evil CIA made more than one of me (and more than one of my Mother and Brother, as well) seein' as how I quit drinking, smoking, and playing Texas Hold 'Em Poker, for money, five years ago.

Oh, I see.  You're referring to yourself.  Perfect grammar, though.

--  Tommy

Edited March 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

10 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Michael,

Well, that just proves that the evil, evil CIA made more than one of me (and more than one of my Mother and Brother, as well) seein' as how I quit drinking, smoking, and playing Texas Hold 'Em Poker, for money, five years ago.

Oh, I see.  You're referring to yourself.  Perfect grammar, though.

--  Tommy

Ha ha! Your timing was perfect, I spent a bit too much time trying to make a Margarita joke for your other post, the one that was in the wrong thread, and this came along. I hope you caught it as a joke. No insult or accusation...

Cheers,

Michael

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Brancato]

I think you're right, it was Goodpasture. 

 

[Thomas Graves]

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I think you're right, it was Goodpasture. 

 

Paul,

It's interesting to note that [paraphrased from the article]:

"As regards the CIA cable sent from Headquarters to Mexico City on October 10, 1963, when Jane Roman conceded to John Newman during an interview, 'I’m signing off on something I know isn’t true,' she was not only acknowledging that somebody in the CIA's JFK /RFK-sponsored  anti-Castro Special Affairs Staff (SAS) was interested in Oswald six weeks before Kennedy was killed, she was also stating that whoever that somebody was had made an affirmative decision to withhold information about him from other CIA officers before November 22, 1963."

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_3.htm

 

It's also worthwhile noting that

"David Phillips, when he acquired his second role in the fall of 1963 as Chief of Cuban Operations in Mexico City, now answered in this capacity to the Special Affairs Staff.[191] Phillips was in effect rejoining the officers he had worked with on the Bay of Pigs in 1961, at which time he had been responsible for propaganda operations against the newly-created Fair Play for Cuba Committee.[192]  From about October 1 to October 9 Phillips made a quick trip, authorized by the Special Affairs Staff,  to Washington and then Miami.[193] On October 1 the Mexico City CIA station also sent a cable directing that a diplomatic pouch, sent on October 1 to Washington, should be held in the registry until picked up by “Michael C. Choaden” (i.e. Phillips) presently TDY (temporary duty) HQS.”[194][195] The  date October 1 catches our eye, inasmuch as it is the date of the alleged Oswald-Kostikov ["My name is Oswald"] intercept. One is also struck by Phillips’ presence in the Miami JMWAVE station from October 7-9."

 

From Bill Simpich's State Secret:

"I believe that Phillips’ trip to Washington and Miami led to an unheard-of one week delay by the highly efficient Mexico City station. Only after Phillips’ visit to Miami did the Soviet desk finally get the go-ahead to prepare a memo to CIA HQ on the October 1 phone calls [the above-mentioned cable that Jane Roman signed off on]. CIA HQ now had a total heads-up as to what would be coming from Mexico City."

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter5.html

 

[I.E., two conflicting CIA cables about Oswald, sent independently to different intelligence agencies and to different               departments of the CIA, itself.]

--  Tommy

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

You know PT, if you took some time and read my work on Mexico with the same attention as you gave State Secret, you may actually learn a thing or two about the evidence and Mexico City...  then again you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

=====

It was Goodpasture and she was questioned about it.

No photos were listed as taken on October 1st.

Tommy here is what Odum wrote... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odum_b.htm

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION 
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF 
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY 
STATE OF TEXAS, 
County of Dallas, ss :

I, Bardwell D. Odum, having first been duly sworn, depose as follows:

I am presently a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, and have been employed in such a capacity since June 15, 1942.

On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a photograph of an unknown individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and proceeded to the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where Marina Oswald was staying.

In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all background data which might possibly have disclosed the location where the picture was taken, I trimmed off the background. The straight cuts made were more quickly done than a complete trimming of the silhouette and I considered them as effective for the desired purpose.

I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to identify the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if he was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It was raining and almost dark. I went to the door of Marina Oswald's room and knocked, identifying myself. Marguerite Oswald opened the door slightly and, upon being informed that I wished to speak to Marina Oswald, told me that Marina Oswald was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed. Marguerite Oswald did not admit me to the motel room. I told her I desired to show a photograph to Marina Oswald, and Marguerite Oswald again said that Marina was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed due to that fact. I then showed Marguerite Oswald the photograph in question. She looked at it briefly and stated that she had never seen this individual. I then departed the Executive Inn. The conversation with Marguerite Oswald and the exhibition of the photograph took place while I was standing outside the door to the room and Marguerite Oswald was standing inside with the door slightly ajar.

Attached hereto are two photographic copies of the front and back of a photograph.* I have examined these copies and they are exact copies of the photograph of the unknown individual which I showed to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald on November 23, 1963.

[James DiEugenio]

Yes, from the evidence that David J adduces,  it had to be Goodpasture. 

And if you read the Lopez Report, the origin of this picture was not a molehunt, its what I said it was. Eddie and Dan spend about a page on this issue.

As for PT and his comments about the identity of the Mystery Man, let us read the whole quote, from which he edited out everything but one word:

"Since the time of the assassination, this man has been identified as Yuriy Ivanovich Moskalev, a Soviet KGB officer.  The identification is unconfirmed and comes from only one source." 

Now, since the man was photographed more than once, that source must be fairly good since he was popping up, if i recall, 3-4 times.  And its the only ID of him we have. 

As per PT's other comments, repeat, there is nothing about a molehunt in the Lopez Report as far as I can tell.  But further, to show you how bad PT is on this, this whole idea of a molehunt did NOT BEGIN with Bill.  It began with Peter Scott and it was many, many years prior.  Back in the nineties in The Fourth Decade. That is how bad PT is at historiography.

Edited March 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, concerning my other point, about how the pic got chosen in the first place, I added footnotes on that issue also, which apparently PT did not like.  So now I will quote the text of the Lopez Report:

 

"The explanation for mistakenly linking this photograph to Oswald advanced by CIA officers in Mexico who had knowledge of the circumstances is that this was the only photograph taken on October 1st, the day that a conversation occurred that appeared to be of a non Latin and hence possibly an American." (p. 137)

Nothing about a molehunt in there.  And if I am wrong, someone please point out to me where it actually is in the Lopez Report. And BTW, this discussion about this photo goes on for a few pages in the report.  And Dan and Eddie grill her on this until they found out the pic was not taken on October 1st at all. And it is very hard to believe that this was just a mistake, for reasons I stated above.  Therefore, it looks like a cover story.  Further, they later add that even if Goodpasture did not know who this was at the time, she had to have known who it was by about October 11th, since the other pics of the guy showed up.

So when PT says, read the Lopez Report about this molehunt, that is simply--as far as I can see-- unfounded. If not, then PT should provide the page numbers in the Lopez Report where Dan and Ed refer to a molehunt. And further, he does not even know how this whole molehunt idea started.  To be even more specific, it started over Scott's obsession with the use of the name Lee Henry Oswald in the file.  

Points like that matter in the long run.  So does this:  according to Tanenbaum, there actually was a Lee Henry Oswald file at CIA.  Hmm?  Shades of John Armstrong?

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

One last point about this molehunt in the Lopez Report issue.

Its not only that I do not recall it being there in the text.

But I don't ever recall Dan or Ed talking about it.  As I have said, I interviewed Eddie at his home back in the nineties for about an hour and a half to two hours.  I also interviewed Dan at the Wecht Conference for about a half hour.  I also have heard them speak a grand total of about four occasions.  I don't ever recall them bringing up the issue of a molehunt.

I don't know how more definitive one can get about this point.  Again, if I am wrong, then I will gladly look at additional information.  But if I am correct, then the issue should be settled.  The Lopez Report neither says nor concludes anything about a molehunt.  This is clearly something that was theorized  later, by others besides Dan or Eddie.  Sometimes not even using info in the Lopez Report.

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Josephs]

On 3/6/2017 at 10:29 AM, James DiEugenio said:

"The explanation for mistakenly linking this photograph to Oswald advanced by CIA officers in Mexico who had knowledge of the circumstances is that this was the only photograph taken on October 1st, the day that a conversation occurred that appeared to be of a non Latin and hence possibly an American." (p. 137)

 

These are the only 2 photos designated as taken on Oct 1 - time is 12:17.  

The Log's 1st photo for Oct 1 is taken at 12:51 yet it names 2 unknown men, not one, on the logs

 

 

It's obvious from the following that this person's identity id known to senior officers of the CIA

the stamps on the back, also shown below, either shows the stamped date to be wrong, or the logs of the photos being wrong.

 

 

Here is the log sheet for the photos.  The 2 photos from 10/1 say "2 U R M" = two unidentified Russian Men, which we see in the 2nd and 3rd photo on the proof sheet whereas Mystery Man is only photographed by himself... on Oct 2, 4 and again on the 15th.

I hadn't noticed until I looked again...  the 2 photos above are circled in the logs on the 2nd...  Win appears to be lying to JC King...

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by David Josephs

[Michael Clark]

Ironically, the upper body-posture of mystery man is uncannily similar to that of Prayer-man. That's something that I noticed a while ago, I just felt like noting it finally.

Cheers, 

Michael

Edited March 6, 2017 by Michael Clark