James DiEugenio Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) Brendan: We all know that Duran has always insisted that the man she encountered was a short blonde guy. Eddie Lopez was very critical of the way Cornwell conducted that examination of Duran, and in fact, he called it "crappy". Why would Azcue be worthless? Are you saying the Cubans killed JFK? What about Contreras? Was that part of the Cuban plot also? Will you now extend Castro's plot to the informants in the Cuban embassy? Were they double agents employed by Castro since they did not see Oswald either? From the day after the assassination, the first CIA check to Langley for the entire time period was that the results were negative for any photo of Oswald at either embassy. And that is the way it has always remained. Let me add why I think this is so important. The whole first part of the Lopez Report is really dull going. Because Danny and Eddie spend dozens of pages describing the cameras in use, especially on the Cuban Embassy. They spend a long time on the pulse camera, the one that is actually air activated, that is changes in air pressure cause it to take a picture, like when a door opens. They also expose all the BS excuses that the CIA, and Phillips especially, used to try and say that the cameras were not in use the days Oswald was there. They show these are false. (In fact, the CIA would not give Eddie the names of the camera operators in MC at the time. Do you know who he got the names from? Castro! Hate so see what Brendan does with that.) And by combining that info with the fact that the coverage was so extensive and complete, they imply this fact: Its not credible they would not have a whole set of photos of Oswald. And the fact they make these excuses up shows consciousness of guilt. That is: they know they should have ten of them but they have none. In 54 years the CIA has not been able to produce a photo. Excuse me if I do not find it credible if a couple of CIA officers later say well, we did see one pic from a funny angle. Yeah, and I saw Santa Claus on Xmas eve too, but it was from a side angle, more like 3/4. But I forgot to take his picture. Now, in the newly declassified documents it is finally exposed that Win Scott was a part of this subterfuge. When Slawson, Willens, and Coleman--the three blind mice--went to MC they asked to see a photo of Oswald. Scott lied his head off about this issue, trying every way to explain that they did not have one because of lighting problems, money problems etc. (Maybe Brendan thinks Scott was a double agent also?) But when I read that, it occurred to me that this was likely the reason Angleton hightailed it down there after Scott died. Because the voice Scott played on the tapes was the same one that the FBI heard and said was not LHO. To me its simple. If there is no picture of the real LHO, then there can be no tape of his voice.. Edited November 13, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) Understood.... if he simply went to Mexico as an innocent man (at the time) the travel details would not have needed 1500 documents to prove it - no? The exchange ticket at the border was the one and only exchange ticket process that night.... the same man who typed up the cards for US Consul HARVEY CASH is the man who processed LEE's exchange ticket.... the one and only exchange order and one of the very few white people traveling.... and NO ONE remembers him... Not sure if you ever have seen this... After consul HARVEY CASH tells HQ that there is no indication of mode of transport (despite the impression he has form the evidence that Oswald was in a car)... STATE and CIA were on the same page re: Oswald from the start... Amb MANN even sends info thru non-state Dept channels The "SAME SOURCE" also provided the hotel registry, the immigration records, the tickets, and every other item of evidence to the FBI... Question then becomes - is "HARVEY OSWALD LEE - H.O. LEE" the same person, if real at all, as the man Ruby shot? I also found that GAUDET's description about the people at the I&NS office that morning... does not jive with other, non-CIA affiliated people who were interviewed. Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Boucher Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Jim, I'm not commenting directly on the OP here. I was going off something David Lifton said and I am merely speculating. To even entertain this line of thinking one must assume Oswald was in Mexico City at some point. I'm not trying to impugn anyone's work in this field, just trying to add something to the debate. On Azcue, I'm not implying any sort of Cuban connection, just that I find his testimony of little consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Azcue was most definitely Cuban intelligence Brendan... and the object of plans to get him to defect.... it was non-stop down there at this time... Agents trying to turn doubles who in turn triple the recruiter... Castro's intelligence ran circles around the US since we were and are a free society... As I read history it seems to me he knew of the assassination plans against him before most anyone. It was believed that even among those who spoke with Bobby there were double-agents reporting back to Fidel... From State Secret: I have no reason not to accept the research and docs offered.... On the other hand, when one of Castro’s double agents entered the country, Harvey treated him with kid gloves. Other CIA officers were not so careful. During December 1962, Cuban housing leader Jose Ricardo Rabel stole an airplane from an agricultural agency and defected to the USA. Rabel had been running the peasant housing program Viviendas Campesinas for the past three years. Harvey knew that Rabel was preparing to defect. Rabel was debriefed for some time. He had grown up with Fidel. He said he was now being hounded by the Cuban Communist Party. Rabel’s predecessor at the housing program was Eusebio Azcue, a famous architect and the Cuban consul. Just weeks after Rabel’s defection, Harvey proposed that Mexico City make a play to recruit the Cuban consul Eusebio Azcue. Such a bold move, if successful, would reveal a great deal about the inner workings of Castro’s leadership team. --- There was a Cuban informant that was central to the effort to recruit Azcue during the summer of 1963. This man was LITAMIL-3, a diplomat of more than 30 years in Mexico A successful recruitment of Consul Eusebio Azcue would have been an intelligence bonanza. Azcue had a colorful history that attracted the Mexico City station. Azcue had been active in the Spanish Civil War.[ 71 ] Before Castro came to power, Azcue was in a pro-Castro group that had sent guns and ammo through Venezuela into the Sierra.[ 72 ] As mentioned earlier, Azcue had even served as a bodyguard to the Communist journalist Teresa Proenza. But there was another side to Azcue, a side that American intelligence officers were hoping to exploit. While sitting as a consul at the Cuban embassy in 1962, Azcue said that he would leave the embassy if Cuba were to become a terrorist state.[ 73 ] Jose Antonio Casas felt free to confide to his old friend Azcue that he planned to defect from Cuba, and Azcue did not turn him over to the authorities.[ 74 ] --- Although Bill Harvey may have used a lead from Rabel to probe Azcue, Harvey was a stickler for security. Harvey claimed that he was always worried that Castro agents had penetrated his assassination plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 10 hours ago, Michael Clark said: And as far as Jack Ruby's motivations go, it seems likely that there must have been evidence tying him or higher level Jewish mobsters to the conspiracy as well, possibly in MC. Michael: IMHO: Jack Ruby was strictly "after the fact" and has nothing to do with "Jewish mobsters." I can elaborate. . . (and did, once, on the pages of Ramparts Magazine, decades ago). . but no time just now. DSL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 For a historically factual presentation of Jack Ruby please read thru this before accepting anyone's "IMHO" conclusions http://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html NOTE: the preceding document concerning Jack Rubenstein, of Chicago, working as an informant for the HUAC is based upon a memorandum signed by “L.S.” on 11/24/47. In 1982 Nixon told his former aide and confidante (Roger Stone), “The damn thing is, I knew this Jack Ruby. Murray (Chotiner) brought him to me in 1947, said he was one of 'Johnson's boys' and that LBJ wanted us to hire him as an informant to the Committee. We did.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) On 11/9/2017 at 6:23 PM, Paul Trejo said: David, Respectfully, if Witten was not a low-level flunky in the CIA, then how could he be so ignorant that the CIA high-command had started a Top Secret MOLE HUNT inside the CIA to find the person who had IMPERSONATED Lee Harvey Oswald in those telephone calls that are so blatantly misrepresented in this CIA report that you shared with us? Respectfully, --Paul Trejo Your question in no way proves or even implies that he was a "low level flunky". You can have high level/ranking employees who do not have, for example, a "need to know" (someone correct me if I am in error) or simply kept out of the loop, etc. Simpich writes on this quite well in State Secret, the very book you are encouraging people to read. Do you believe Simpich feels Whitten was a "low level flunky"? If you do not know this then I am astounded. Edited November 13, 2017 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) By the way, let me add a link to David Josephs' series on Mexico City at Kennedys and King https://kennedysandking.com/content/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index IMO, this is very good, state of the art work and research. What I like about this is what I like about the Lopez Report. It is almost devoid of editorializing. No barium meals, or strategic deceptions etc. Its almost all data driven. Which is the reason I used the Lopez Report so extensively in both Reclaiming Parkland and the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. Edited November 13, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said: On 11/9/2017 at 6:23 PM, Paul Trejo said: David, Respectfully, if Witten was not a low-level flunky in the CIA then how could he be so ignorant that the CIA high-command had started a Top Secret MOLE HUNT inside the CIA to find the person who had IMPERSONATED Lee Harvey Oswald in those telephone calls that are so blatantly misrepresented in this CIA report that you shared with us? First off Paul, the man's name was Jack WHITTEN. aka John H Scelso. The CIA decided early on that to protect the LI- tapping programs they would only use Duran's info. Maybe actually READ State Secret, y'know? Jack Whitten, who was the CIA’s original investigator of the assassination, wrote in the days after 11/22 that “no source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee Oswald while he was in Mexico". That is remarkable, as the CIA’s sources inside the Cuban compound later told House Select Committee on Assassinations staffer Ed Lopez that the man who visited them was not Oswald.[ 111 ] Last sentence 2nd paragraph The first investigator of the JFK assassination for the CIA was C/WH/3 John Whitten, the chief of the Central American desk for the Western Hemisphere division. low-level flunky? Secondly... please stop... your posts insult our intelligence. Bill writes: Others who may have known some kind of operation was in place – but not necessarily the details, which would have been provided on a need-to-know basis – include WH head JC King, John Whitten at the Mexican desk, Whitten’s assistant Charlotte Bustos, Soviet officers Stephan Roll and Bill Bright, and Angleton’s liaison Jane Roman. Scott was described as a “fanatic” about running a “remarkably compartmentalized station”. It’s hard to imagine Scott being cut out of the molehunt, and it’s equally hard to imagine Scott wanting more than a couple of the Mexico City personnel in the know. Edited November 13, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said: Your question in no way proves or even implies that he was a "low level flunky". You can have high level/ranking employees who do not have, for example, a "need to know" (someone correct me if I am in error) or simply kept out of the loop, etc. Simpich writes on this quite well in State Secret, the very book you are encouraging people to read. Do you believe Simpich feels Whitten was a "low level flunky"? If you do not know this then I am astounded. B.A. Copeland, Actually, I agree with you that a semi-high ranking CIA official could (and would be) excluded from a top secret CIA Mole Hunt. I was just being over-dramatic -- to emphasize my point. Just because this memo was released as part of the JFK Records Act, is no reason to imagine that there is anything important in it. Bill Simpich's work (2014) shows that Whitten clearly had no "need to know" about the top secret CIA Mole Hunt involving the 201 File of Lee Harvey Oswald. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 13, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Bill Simpich's work (2014) shows that Whitten clearly had no "need to know" about the top secret CIA Mole Hunt involving the 201 File of Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps, Paul Trejo, you could demonstrate how Simpch clearly demonstrated that. Please spare-us your dramatics and your opinions. Just present a quote or passage that illustrates that which you claim Bill Simpich claims. Edited November 13, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, David Josephs said: First off Paul, the man's name was Jack WHITTEN. aka John H Scelso. The CIA decided early on that to protect the LI- tapping programs they would only use Duran's info. Maybe actually READ State Secret, y'know? Jack Whitten, who was the CIA’s original investigator of the assassination, wrote in the days after 11/22 that “no source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee Oswald while he was in Mexico". That is remarkable, as the CIA’s sources inside the Cuban compound later told House Select Committee on Assassinations staffer Ed Lopez that the man who visited them was not Oswald.[ 111 ] Last sentence 2nd paragraph The first investigator of the JFK assassination for the CIA was C/WH/3 John Whitten, the chief of the Central American desk for the Western Hemisphere division. low-level flunky? Secondly... please stop... your posts insult our intelligence. Bill writes: Others who may have known some kind of operation was in place – but not necessarily the details, which would have been provided on a need-to-know basis – include WH head JC King, John Whitten at the Mexican desk, Whitten’s assistant Charlotte Bustos, Soviet officers Stephan Roll and Bill Bright, and Angleton’s liaison Jane Roman. Scott was described as a “fanatic” about running a “remarkably compartmentalized station”. It’s hard to imagine Scott being cut out of the molehunt, and it’s equally hard to imagine Scott wanting more than a couple of the Mexico City personnel in the know. I could read this stuff all day, every day...it makes 99% of these television spy dramas a disney kids show. Thanks for the elaboration with sources Dave. 4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Perhaps, Paul Trejo, you could demonstrate how Simpch clearly demonstrated that. Please spare-us your dramatics and your opinions. Just present a quote or passage that illustrates what you are claiming. Mike I found this relevant to your comment: Quote Why did Helms decide to have Jack Whitten conduct the investigation? Even though CIA director John McCone believed there were two gunmen, the man who was making the decisions about how the assassination would be investigated was his subordinate in charge of covert actions, deputy director Richard Helms. I believe that Helms knew about the problems in Mexico City and with the story of Lee Oswald. Helms decided to put Jack Whitten in charge of the investigation. As Whitten was the chief of WH/3 - the Western Hemisphere division covering Mexico and neighboring countries – he was a logical choice. Helms asked Whitten to focus on the events in Mexico City, believing that he could manipulate him to stay out of the troublesome areas of that story. Whitten knew the backstory about the probe of Azcue and Kostikov in the fall of 1963, and would be motivated to keep the wiretap operations secret and free of investigation. Whitten had personally signed off on the 10/10 memos without realizing their underlying significance, which was a very important plus. The goal was to avoid investigation of the other three circles of intrigue in Mexico City that Whitten knew nothing about: The Tilton-Anderson anti-FPCC operation, the molehunt that was embedded within those very 10/10 memos, and the impersonation of Oswald himself by parties unknown. I think that Helms believed that if Whitten remained ignorant of those three events, he would be an effective advocate of the official story. Quote 7. On November 23, Helms named Jack Whitten as the CIA’s lead investigator into the JFK assassination, with the focus on Mexico City. A month later, after it became clear that Whitten was heading in some dangerous directions, Helms asked Whitten to step down and named James Angleton as his replacement. Angleton immediately made the main focus of his investigation the possibility that Oswald was acting in complicity with the Soviet Union. Goodpasture referred to the “investigation”, using quotation marks. (source: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter6.html) Edited November 13, 2017 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Michael Walton said: At the end of Paul's reply he switched gears again so the real culprits were the RADICAL RIGHT. Right, Paul? Michael, Yes, it's implicit. Since the CIA high command started a Mole Hunt, this proves that they had NO IDEA which CIA Insider Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. That proves IMHO that the Impersonator was a CIA Rogue who was working in a CIVILIAN plot. That spells "Radical Right". Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 13, 2017 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 1 minute ago, B. A. Copeland said: I could read this stuff all day, every day...it makes 99% of these television spy dramas a disney kids show. Thanks for the elaboration with sources Dave. Bill did an amazing job... Like Armstrong, filled with info and sources to make one's own mind up... With a million different ways to put the puzzle together, is it no surprise the finished image looks so different in everyone's individual mind's eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Michael, Yes, it's implicit. Since the CIA high command started a Mole Hunt, this proves that they had NO IDEA who Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. That proves IMHO that the Impersonator was a CIA Rogue who was working in a Civilian plot. Regards, --Paul Trejo How does this prove that there was a civilian plot? 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