David Atlee Phillips: Oswald never went to Mexico!

[Denis Morissette]

6 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Will you be posting the full interview you have online?

I'm not planning to. Any of my audios are available to those who are serious about the assassination. People show their seriousness by paying money. 

[James DiEugenio]

Imagine this happening to Phillips twice.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c6f91dfe-68c9-4878-acf7-86fd140a083

 

😀

👋

 

I would have paid to have been there.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

That USC panel where both Phillips and Lane were present occurred not long before Phillips death (in 1988), according to Lane. I think that by then Philips was no longer interested in defending his fake Mexico City narrative. And so he admitted there was no evidence Oswald was ever there. (There WAS evidence that an Oswald impersonator was there, but not that Oswald himself was there.)

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That USC panel where both Phillips and Lane were present occurred not long before Phillips death (in 1988), according to Lane. I think that by then Philips was no longer interested in defending his fake Mexico City narrative. And so he admitted there was no evidence Oswald was ever there. (There WAS evidence that an Oswald impersonator was there, but not that Oswald himself was there.)

 

This is fascinating. I have tended to place faith in the filmed recording of the three KGB agents who said they met with the real Oswald in Mexico City.

For one thing, if they just wanted to sell books they could have invented a story they never met Oswald. That would have been explosive. 

If the three former KGB agents are in fact lying, and they only met an impersonator or no one, then that would imply they have been paid off to lie.

Which raises the question, who would have paid off the three KGB agents to fabricate a story they had in fact met the real Oswald in Mexico City?

That seems very risky, paying off people to fabricate a story. Then one would be liable to further blackmail.

But given that the Deep State is keeping 4,000 documents dark, I can believe almost anything.

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This is fascinating. I have tended to place faith in the filmed recording of the three KGB agents who said they met with the real Oswald in Mexico City.

For one thing, if they just wanted to sell books they could have invented a story they never met Oswald. That would have been explosive. 

If the three former KGB agents are in fact lying, and they only met an impersonator or no one, then that would imply they have been paid off to lie.

Which raises the question, who would have paid off the three KGB agents to fabricate a story they had in fact met the real Oswald in Mexico City?

That seems very risky, paying off people to fabricate a story. Then one would be liable to further blackmail.

But given that the Deep State is keeping 4,000 documents dark, I can believe almost anything.

 

 

Had the real Oswald visited the Russian Embassy, the CIA would have had surveillance photos of him.

I would never use a KGB agent as a source, except possibly to corroborate a non-KGB-agent.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Had the real Oswald visited the Russian Embassy, the CIA would have had surveillance photos of him.

I would never use a KGB agent as a source, except possibly to corroborate a non-KGB-agent.

 

Maybe the CIA in fact has a photo of LHO. But they have suppressed the photo.

Maybe the cameraman missed Oswald.

Why would three KGB agents state on camera that they had met the real Oswald? 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

When I first read the 3 kgb agent summary of Oswald at the Russian Embassy it threw me for a loop. It seemed so believable. But they have no proof, no photos. They only have their own credibility, and we have no way of knowing how credible they are, no matter how convincingly they tell their story. We have entered the world of deep fakes. Someday perhaps they, or the CIA, will have those photos, and they’ll look convincing. But they won’t be real. Like Sandy says….and David Josephs, who convinced me too. But I’ve always been suspicious of this story, because so much appears to hinge on MC, and the evidence is so flimsy. 
One thing that troubled me about Michael Beschloss appearance on MSNBC was his repetition of MC in his summary. Then we found out the CIA had ‘secretly’ briefed news organizations before the document release, setting up their limited hangout. They are going to stick to their basic story, and MC is central to it. 
A major question for me, perhaps only me, is whether this crafted story, seemingly in place to convince the public that LHO was up to no good leading up to Nov 22, ready for distribution soon after and still relied upon to support the WC report, proves that CIA was planning to assassinate JFK. Does it? Do LHO’s actions in New Orleans in possible cahoots with a CIA or FBI prove that his manipulators were planning an assassination? I don’t think they do prove that. I’m more inclined to think that some cabal, even one working for the highest echelons of State power, piggybacked their plans onto an existing operation whose purpose was to smear FPCC and the dupes that dared to see Castro in any positive light. Yes, he was a patsy in my view, but we’ve spent the better part of 59 years looking in the wrong place and at the wrong individual. 

[Paul Brancato]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Maybe the CIA in fact has a photo of LHO. But they have suppressed the photo.

Maybe the cameraman missed Oswald.

Why would three KGB agents state on camera that they had met the real Oswald? 

 

 

 

Those are of course good questions. But I prefer to say they did lie, like CIA lied, and the why of it is the real mystery. If there was a real photo we of course would have seen it, since the WC case hinges on it. Likewise, once we accept the fact that there are no photos we are left with a Big Lie. The problem you pose suggests some mutual benefit, since apparently money wasn’t the underlying motive. 

[Matt Allison]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But I will just add this: one reason we do not know the whole story is that Phillips and Goodpasture lied to the HSCA. And they lied on material points.

Which is why anything Phillips ever said has to be taken with a giant grain of salt.

Deception is normal in intelligence field operatives; then there's people who have a pathological love of lying. All the evidence we have points to Phillips being in the latter camp.

[Matt Allison]

A big part of the problem with regard to the KGB guys in Mexico City is that they did all their jabbering right after the fall of the Soviet Union, when Russia was like the Wild West and everything, including opinions, was for sale to the highest bidder.

[Vince Palamara]

 

[Pat Speer]

Yes, Oswald went to Mexico. There's a ton of evidence supporting as much.  

And yet, even so, the photographs a low-level CIA employee thought were of him were of someone else, quite possibly someone impersonating him. 

Why? 

Because he wasn't where the CIA said he was when they said he was there. And the higher-ups couldn't reveal this without revealing an ongoing operation. 

Because some muckety-mucks thought there was a mole within the agency with access to secret records and were thereby hiding from where certain information had been received. When they received intelligence from spies within the embassy, they would pretend they got the info from a wiretap, etc. They would have someone pretending to be that person make a phone call and leave a message revealing the nature of the info obtained from the spy. "Hi, my name is Oswald, and I like Russia and I thought I would come into the embassy and reveal national secrets", whatever. 

To admit this impersonation to the WC would have been both embarrassing and damaging to national security. 

We can suspect the CIA had photos of Oswald in Mexico in their possession in the days after the assassination. It was just that the timing of these photos was in conflict with the phony timeline they'd invented. So they tossed them in the burn bin. 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Steve Roe]

15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, Oswald went to Mexico. 

No, he wasn't photographed. 

The photographs they thought were of him were of someone else, quite possibly someone impersonating him. 

Why? 

Because some muckety-mucks thought there was a mole and they were actively hiding from where certain information had been received. When they received intelligence from spies within the embassy, they would pretend they got the info from a wiretap, etc. They would have someone pretending to be that person make a phone call and leave a message revealing the nature of the info obtained from the spy. "Hi, my name is Oswald, and I like Russia and I thought I would come into the embassy and reveal national secrets", whatever. 

To admit this to the WC would have been both embarrassing and problematic, perhaps even damaging to national security. 

 

Agree that Oswald was in Mexico City. There's lots of evidence to support that he did. For example, Oswald had Silvia Duran's name and number is his notebook. But let's remember, Oswald went to the Cuban Consulate first. It was this phony story Oswald made up about going back to Russia via Cuba he told the Cubans. Oswald had no intention of going back to Russia, PERIOD! Oswald wanted to go to Cuba. It was then the Cubans told him that he needed a Transit Visa from Russia so he could make the stop in Cuba. Then you know the rest of the story, the Russians would not grant him a quick transit visa back to the place Oswald grew tired of. All of this crazy stuff that Oswald was an Intelligence operative and witting defector is complete fantasy.   

[James DiEugenio]

1. Sandy;

The USC debate was in 1977. During the HSCA.

2.  Pat, no there is  not a ton of evidence that Oswald went to Mexico CIty.

After the work that  Armstrong, Josephs and myself have done, I would say there is a thimble full of evidence.  And even that is questionable.

What David Josephs did with the visa photo and application was one of the last bastions, and David showed this is dubious also.

Secretary of Interior Echeverria and his aide de camp Ochoa made up a flimsy paper trail for Oswald being there after the CIA could find no picture of him. They really panicked when they could not figure out how he got down and back.

3.  Ben, its not a matter of the cameraman missing Oswald.   At the beginning of the Lopez Report Danny and Eddy spend a lot of time in describing the camera operations the CIA had down there.  They especially talk about the pulse action one.  That camera was activated by any change of air pressure at the Cuban embassy stairs, in other words anyone either entering or leaving. The CIA censored this at first back in 1994-95 since they knew how important it was. But slowly, by about 1996 we began to get less redacted pages and we could figure this out.  That info, combined with the actual inventory check documents, shows there was no mistake.  The inventory check  literally said, no photo.

Edited December 26, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

A big part of the problem with regard to the KGB guys in Mexico City is that they did all their jabbering right after the fall of the Soviet Union, when Russia was like the Wild West and everything, including opinions, was for sale to the highest bidder.

That is what I have always felt also Matt.  If I recall correctly Nechiporenko had an American agent.