The Discoveries of Jim Garrison

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I'm bumping this because I think it deserves legitimate debate and no one is mentioning it. Somewhere along the line, these stories have to have a cohesive conclusion. I just find it hard to believe that if Simpich is correct on the right path to what happened, that Morales and his ilk down there with possibly Roselli and his people being involved, how does Ferrie fit into all of this?

I think it's a legitimate question that should be discussed, not ignored.  Otherwise, the whole research community will continue to have its own cliques (the right wingers did it; ferrie did it; state secret did it).

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

PREVIOUS POST:

I'm having a hard time tying together the Shaw/Ferrie story with the Morales/CIA hijacking of the hit story that Bill Simpich writes so well about in State Secret.

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

Are we to believe that while the patsifying of Oswald (per SS) was going on that over in NO Ferrie, Shaw et. al. were also involved in the Simpich story?  Were they two separate conspiracies - or one big one all somehow being worked on together?

I'm not doubting the NO aspect of the story but SS really shows a lot of "almost a smoking gun" documentation of what was taking place. If the NO part of it was involved, I'm not sure how they could have been involved when someone impersonated Oswald and Duran (per SS).

Those are really good questions and they bother me too. There may have been multiple plots. How can we piece together the apparent plans in Chicago, Tampa (or was it Miami?) San Antonio with either the Phillips or the Ferrie stories? I like to remind myself and anyone reading this that the patsification of Oswald did not have to be linked to an assassination of JFK. If the purpose was to blame Castro, a failed assassination attempt with a Castro linked patsy would have been enough. Some plotters wanted JFK dead. 

[James DiEugenio]

Michael:

If one reads the Lopez Report,  which is the primary source on Mexico City, then I think what happened in New Orleans fits hand in glove with the end result.

In New Orleans, Oswald is building up a very public and media studded profile as a social misfit who is on Canal Street at noon leafleting for the FPCC.  He then gets in a fight and goes to jail over the confrontation with Bringuier.  One of the places he leafleted at was Shaw's ITM and as Bill Davy and myself show, that was almost certainly a staged operation which Shaw knew about and the Cubans likely furnished the leaflets for.  Need I add that one of the two chiefs of the CIA's anti FPCC crusade was David Phillips.  And the CIA had ordered 45 copies of the first edition (1961) of the Corliss Lamont pamphlet , which Oswald eventually stamped with Banister's address on it in 1963.

Now, if one follows the Lopez Report, its pretty clear that the idea is to portray Oswald as a desperate man trying to get back to the USSR via Cuba first.  The whole in-transit visa episode.  But in the (phony) CIA transcripts, he is meeting at the Soviet Embassy with Valeri Kostikov, the chief of liquidation jobs in the Western Hemisphere for the KGB. And he is creating a disturbance in the Cuban consulate and railing against Kennedy because he cannot get the passport immediately.

Except--its not his voice on the tapes, and its not the real Oswald at either embassy.  In other words, its a playlet being enacted via voice and physical imposters.  And if you heard me on BOR last week, in these newly declassified files from July, there is even more evidence of that. In other words, what was being done with Oswald in New Orleans, that is all heightened and further dramatized in Mexico City.  Further, the person most responsible for what happened down there was Anne Goodpasture. She was the one who was trying to keep the lid on the ersatz enactments, and also to hide her own role in it all. Eddie Lopez told me that she was not just first assistant to Win Scott.  She also handled Phillips' operations when he was not there. And much of the time, she had first access to both the photos and audio tapes from both embassies.  In other words, it is very hard not to conclude that she knew that the whole Oswald in Mexico City thing was not  at all genuine. It was Goodpasture and Phillips who Eddie and Dan Hardway wrote up bills of indictment for when they were on the HSCA. And Eddie went further than that with me.  He said about her, "She is a lying, conniving bitch.  And if there was any justice in this world, she would be in jail."

So then upon Oswald's return, on the day of the assassination, this phony stuff about Mexico City is disseminated by the CIA.  And within about six hours all the films and photos of Oswald doing all this pro Castro activity in New Orleans in now being broadcast on the radio and television airwaves.  The first throws the entire Washington intel community and the WH into an uproar--"The guy who killed the president was meeting with Kostikov seven weeks ago!"--and the latter indoctrinates the public into who this guy was--"oh, the guy was a communist dissident".  

Pretty nice interlocking plan if you ask me. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I should add two more points:

1.) If the Clinton-Jackson episode had succeeded, they would have had the final ingredient with Oswald that they would have already had with Vallee.  The psychologically disturbed aspect. So in the Warren Report, they just assumed that.

2.) The final nail (s) in the coffin for Oswald is then furnished by the Paines. Their garage then becomes the home for all this dubious evidence about Oswald being in Mexico, about casing the Walker home, and the (wrong) camera to take the BYP with. And Ruth becomes the  lengthiest witness, by far, against Oswald for the Warren Commission.

Pretty clever operation if you ask me.

Edited September 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

One day I'll get around to reading State Secret. In the meantime, can somebody tell me how it differs from what Jim just described? What Jim said fits my understanding of Oswald's patsification and makes a whole lot of sense to me. From the way Michael is talking I get the impression that State Secret (Chapter 6?) buggers that explanation up.

(P.S. I just looked up the word "bugger" and found that it can mean something way different from what I want it to mean. Around here, if you drive a screw into a nut crooked, it will "bugger" the threads up. That's the general meaning I have in mind.)

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

LOL

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL

 

I take it you know the alternate meaning. Yeah, I was really surprised when I looked it up! The meaning of that word here in Utah is quite innocuous. Or so we thought. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

Jim what you wrote makes sense and I  can see the stories from NO to MC and elsewhere coming together. Sounds like Ferrie et al did their part while he was in NO then handed him off to the Paines when he returned to TX.

In your reply you  mention  that in your transcript  of VMI that there have been new documents  released that clarify this further.

I  just read the VMI transcript  and there's  no mention of new documents  so can you  clarify what these new files are?

[James DiEugenio]

I said on the BOR program from last week.  

Not my VMI talk, that is about why Kennedy was killed, which I think was over his foreign policy.

 

Here is the link to that BOR program

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black852a.mp3

 

In there I talk about the new July documents.  To our point, I talk about two documents concerning Mexico City.  In one, dated 11/23, Helms writes that they have done voice comparisons on the MC tapes and the voice appears to be the guy named Oswald.  Which is a bizarre statement in two ways.  First, Philips said those tapes had been destroyed or recycled within 7-8 days.  So how does Helms know this, and why was it done anyway?  Second, the voice on the tape does not match. We know that because the FBI  agents who interviewed Oswald heard the tape and said it was not him

In a second document, they discuss the two plants the CIA had in the Cuban embassy.  They both said that Oswald was not there. Which jibes with what they later told Eddie Lopez.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

Hoover said the pix and voice weren't  LHO's either. I know  you  know  this but I'm  putting  it here for newbies.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

Have you read State Secret chapter 6? If so, does it conflict with your understanding of Oswald's patsifictaion which you described above?

 

[Paul Brancato]

12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

If the goal was to generate mass anti-Communist hysteria and popular demand for an invasion of Cuba, who'd most likely have drawn that assignment in 1963?  Gen. Edward Lansdale and David Phillips, top psy-war specialists.

If the goal was to design the ambush of a slow-moving, well-armed auto convoy, who'd most likely have drawn that assignment in 1963?  Carl Jenkins and Henry Hecksher, the guys who trained cadres of the Thai Border Police and the Kuomintang to ambush slow-moving, well-armed opium caravans.

Occam's Razor.

Just say'n...

Nice to see you back Cliff. Have you read the book Gladio, NATO's dagger, by the author Cottrell? 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

 I have not read it. For a simple reason.

I am not a fan of Peter Scott's  "barium meal" concept--which i did read years ago--and which Bill adapted.  For a lot of different reasons, both technical and theoretical. And I do not, for five seconds, think Morales was in on what happened in Mexico City.

I like Bill personally and I think he has done good work on the Tippit case.  And I sure hope he does a good job, along with Larry Schnapf, in November at the mock trial.

When I discuss Mexico City, I am basing my work to a very large extent on the Lopez Report.  And,  as I mentioned on BOR, there have been some new documents declassified since July.  To me, that represents the raw data of what happened and did not happen.  And to me that is the key to Mexico City.  

For instance, in another new document, MC is requesting hundreds of new audio tapes after November. As a BOR listener noted, why would they need all that tape if, as Phillips said, they recycled their tapes every seven or eight days? Its looking more and more like Phillips was lying his head off about just about everything in Mexico City.

And BTW, let me add, Dick Sprague interviewed Phillips just two months after he took the job with the HSCA.  And I must  say Sprague really did a nice job considering how new he was. One of the things that bugged him was this:  Why did the Warren Commission not believe Sylvia Odio? He found her quite credible--as do about 98% of the people who read her testimony. (Leaving out Gerald Posner and John McAdams.)  His problem was this:  If she is telling the truth, then one of these guys--either at her door or in Mexico City--must be an imposter.  And that is what interested him even at that early stage. When he went to Mexico City and interviewed the Tarasoffs, he found that their testimony about the Oswald tapes differed from Phillips' testimony.  So he asked for their typewriter.  He wanted to find if they had really typed all the transcripts.  So he got it and was about to do a forensic test when he was canned.  

IMO, Sprague was about to find out that Phillips had actually typed at least one transcript himself.  Which would have led to a really interesting interview, since Tanenabum had already caught Phillips in another lie about the tapes not surviving.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

 I have not read it. For a simple reason.

I am not a fan of Peter Scott's  "barium meal" concept--which i did read years ago--and which Bill adapted.  For a lot of different reasons, both technical and theoretical. And I do not, for five seconds, think Morales was in on what happened in Mexico City.

I like Bill personally and I think he has done good work on the Tippit case.  And I sure hope he does a good job, along with Larry Schnapf, in November at the mock trial.

When I discuss Mexico City, I am basing my work to a very large extent on the Lopez Report.  And,  as I mentioned on BOR, there have been some new documents declassified since July.  To me, that represents the raw data of what happened and did not happen.  And to me that is the key to Mexico City.  

For instance, in another new document, MC is requesting hundreds of new audio tapes after November. As a BOR listener noted, why would they need all that tape if, as Phillips said, they recycled their tapes every seven or eight days? Its looking more and more like Phillips was lying his head off about just about everything in Mexico City.

And BTW, let me add, Dick Sprague interviewed Phillips just two months after he took the job with the HSCA.  And I must  say Sprague really did a nice job considering how new he was. One of the things that bugged him was this:  Why did the Warren Commission not believe Sylvia Odio? He found her quite credible--as do about 98% of the people who read her testimony. (Leaving out Gerald Posner and John McAdams.)  His problem was this:  If she is telling the truth, then one of these guys--either at her door or in Mexico City--must be an imposter.  And that is what interested him even at that early stage. When he went to Mexico City and interviewed the Tarasoffs, he found that their testimony about the Oswald tapes differed from Phillips' testimony.  So he asked for their typewriter.  He wanted to find if they had really typed all the transcripts.  So he got it and was about to do a forensic test when he was canned.  

IMO, Sprague was about to find out that Phillips had actually typed at least one transcript himself.  Which would have led to a really interesting interview, since Tanenabum had already caught Phillips in another lie about the tapes not surviving.

 

Jim - why do you dismiss Morales? 

Do you have an explanation other than 'barium meal' for false info on Oswald inserted by Angleton in files segregated by him? Do you think, in any case, that the false description in the Oswald 201 file was the source for a similarly inaccurate physical description that went out on DPD wires at 12:45 pm Nov. 22?

i asked Simpich on this forum if he agreed with Trejo that Morales, if he was involved, had gone rogue? His answer if I recall was 'I don't know'. He has done some impressive research, and it appears that he is not hardened into a theory.

[Paul Brancato]

21 hours ago, Dan Doyle said:

It's a false equivalency to give the 3 other venues the same quality as the Dallas venue.  If one stops to consider the political context in which Chicago, Tampa and Miami venues offered the plotters, none comes close to Dallas. I don't know about Tampa or Miami, but I can't imagine the mayor of Chicago,  the honorable Richard Daley, a fellow Irish Catholic, allowing the Chicago police department to railroad the designated patsy Valley to the exclusion of any other suspects/conspirators.  RFK would have been all over him. Recall that in the 1960 presidential election, Kennedy won the metro Chicago vote by 100k votes over Nixon which gave Kennedy a victory in Illinios.  The rural Illinios voters favored Nixon. And more than one pundit has suggested that the Democractic Daley machine rigged the vote for Kennedy.  

Now consider Dallas. Who's the mayor?  None other than Earl Cabell, the brother of Charles Cabell of the CIA who was fired by Kennedy along with Allan Dulles after the Bay of Pigs fiasco   What about the Dallas PD?  We all know from studying this history how they responded    The Mauser rifle magically becomes the Carcano.  Oswald is interrogated while in custody but the DPD fails to record his responses   And for the clincher, Ruby manages to get a clean shot that kills Oswald while Oswald is being protected by something like 70 Dallas policemen.  Like I said I can't imagine that happening in Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago.  

 

.

Dan - I agree with your point about Dallas being the perfect spot for the ambush. 

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

This thread was supposed to be about the discoveries of Jim Garrison.  Garrison was the first person to point out the importance of Mexico City to the plot.

 Its not about a debate over Scott's barium meal idea.  And I already told you I prefer oatmeal. And you can get it with cinnamon and raisins at Hof's Hut before eleven am.

The way that Morales has been aggrandized over the years from his first appearance in Fonzi's book is really weird to me. I mean, in Fonzi's book, it was just a wild comment which really did not mean that much.  But since then, the guy has been inserted in so many places that you wonder how everyone missed him for all those decades. He was actually running the world almost. Or at least half of the CIA. He is even accused of being in on the RFK case.  From someone who told me he read the book, Albarelli  has him in on the murder of Olsen in MK Ultra.  And now somehow, he is on the MC caper?  

But somehow, Eddie and Danny, and Sprague and Tanenbaum and Armstrong etc, all missed that?

How?

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio