Which WC critics believe Mexico City shenanigans were used by CIA plotters to place blame on Cuba/Russia?

[James DiEugenio]

Remember Mitrokhin and Mark Lane. 

And the Dear Mr. Hunt letter.  Both turned out to be BS.

[Sandy Larsen]

Really?? Does nobody know of a book whose author believes that the CIA was using Mexico City stories to fake a relationship between Oswald and Cuba and Russia? I mean, besides Jim DiEugenio?

Destiny Betrayed is the only book where this theory is examined?

 

[Ron Bulman]

I've never really delved into trying to fully understand the machinations of Oswald (not?) in Mexico City.  It's all so deep and mysterious.  David Josephs work convinced me Oswald didn't get there by bus.  I need to go back and fully read Bill Simpich's work, which I've never done.

I do have a question though.  If Oswald wasn't at the embassies, or in Mexico at all, who was pulling the strings?  David Altee Phillips moving in at the time is suspicious but to my knowledge not much is known about why he was there or what he did.  In conjunction with this back in New Orleans we have George Joannides put in place by Helms paying and supervising the DRE in its interactions with Oswald, then them being the first to spread the word 'he's a Commie' after the assassination.  But someone told them to do this.  I've read James Jesus Angleton held the "full" Oswald file, close to his vest so to speak.  But why would he want to implicate Cuba or the USSR to possibly bring about WWIII?  If him, who was directing him.

So far as I know the only ones really wanting war with the USSR were LeMay and most of the Joint Chief's of Staff.  I don't think JJA would have been acting at their behest alone.  Was a farce perpetrated in part maybe to placate them, initially, then purposefully abandoned?  Who might have done this, Dulles still, from the sidelines?  Who would he have been working for, still, besides himself?  As stated on the other related thread to this he and John Foster in the 1930's, and beyond, the Harriman's, but also the Rockefeller's and others.  By 1963 in particular Averill and David, among others who may have given their blessing.

IDK.  All somewhat reasonable speculation on my part.  Food for thought.  Sorry to go slightly off topic Sandy, it's all related I think.  Not trying to derail or hijack.

[James DiEugenio]

Philips was in charge of the Cuba desk in Mexico City.

Eddie Lopez told me that when he was not there, Goodpasture took care of his operations.

Now if you talk to Eddie and Danny they will tell you that when they met Goodpasture is when they began to realize that there was something dark and malignant going on.

That is why they drew up indictments of both Goodpasture and Phillips for the HSCA.

Its really odd though that I think I am one of the very few authors who have written about all the crap that Goodpasture was involved in both back in 1963 and the BS she told the HSCA.  Its always puzzled me that I was pretty much alone in that endeavor. Because if yo read the Lopez Report, she is one l---g b---h.

[Sandy Larsen]

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its really odd though that I think I am one of the very few authors who have written about all the crap that Goodpasture was involved in both back in 1963 and the BS she told the HSCA.  Its always puzzled me that I was pretty much alone in that endeavor. Because if yo read the Lopez Report, she is one l---g b---h.

 

It's looking more and more like you're the leader of the pack in this regard, Jim. Just like you're the leader when it comes to setting things straight regarding the Jim Garrison saga.

Until recently I just assumed that all these researchers who believe the CIA made a patsy out of Oswald also believe that the CIA set Cuba and Russia up to take the blame. Well, it does seem that some kind of believe that... but without really knowing why they believe it. They seem oblivious to how the MC evidence points to Oswald being in cahoots with the Cubans and Russians.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I know that Peter Dale Scott believes this theory. He describes it in his Phase 1, Phase 2 paper.

 

[Gene Kelly]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:58 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Philips was in charge of the Cuba desk in Mexico City.

Eddie Lopez told me that when he was not there, Goodpasture took care of his operations.

Now if you talk to Eddie and Danny they will tell you that when they met Goodpasture is when they began to realize that there was something dark and malignant going on.

That is why they drew up indictments of both Goodpasture and Phillips for the HSCA.

Its really odd though that I think I am one of the very few authors who have written about all the crap that Goodpasture was involved in both back in 1963 and the BS she told the HSCA.  Its always puzzled me that I was pretty much alone in that endeavor. Because if yo read the Lopez Report, she is one l---g b---h.

I will weigh-in here, although I'm cautioned that fools rush in ...   I think that the reason we don't see a lot of responses to this topic is because its so confusing.  Its a classic disinformation counter-intelligence ploy (on all sides of the equation), so its difficult to ascertain which end is up.  And, making it more difficult is that we have a lot of credible writers/researchers (Bill Simpich, John Newman, David Josephs, et al) who don't reach a concensus on whether the real Oswald - whomever that is - was pysically in Mexico City or not. Wiretapping and recording device evidence of Oswald’s time in Mexico is non-existent ... and tapes were erased, misfiled or destroyed.  And as many have written, the FBI  wanted to prove Oswald was there. And as you have written, the Alvarado and Garro statements (about Oswald fraternizing with the Cuban Consulate and collecting $6500 inside the consulate) are fake stories, obviously planted by the CIA ... as is the story about Oswald meeting with KGB assassination chief Kostikov.

I am reminded of what one of my best bosses once stated ... that its not the answers that we get wrong, but rather the questions that we ask. So, whether Oswald was in Mexico City or not is not the key question ... its clear that he was impersonated, and that there were intelligence "shenanigans" going on.  And Goodpasture was complict, which leads to James Angleton.    

[Michael Crane]

If we only would of had Gaeton Fonzi on the case.

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm pretty sure that David Josephs pretty much agrees with Jim DiEugenio, Peter Dale Scott, and myself, as far as the fundamentals go. The fundamentals being:

The CIA plotters made it look like Oswald was dealing with Cuba and Russia in killing Kennedy.

@Gene Kelly, don't you believe that much yourself?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The fundamentals being:

The CIA plotters [used Mexico City shenanigans to make] it look like Oswald was dealing with Cuba and Russia in killing Kennedy.

 

Don't John Newman and Bill Simpich believe that much?

 

[Gene Kelly]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm pretty sure that David Josephs pretty much agrees with Jim DiEugenio, Peter Dale Scott, and myself, as far as the fundamentals go. The fundamentals being:

The CIA plotters made it look like Oswald was dealing with Cuba and Russia in killing Kennedy.

@Gene Kelly, don't you believe that much yourself?

 

Most definitely, Sandy ... 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Most definitely, Sandy ... 

 

That's great Gene! I'll add you to the list.

I have the feeling that some forum members believe this theory but just don't want to deal with the critics of it.

But I'm surprised the nobody has a book in mind that accepts this theory. Besides Destiny Betrayed.

What about JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass? Anybody read that?

 

[Gene Kelly]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Don't John Newman and Bill Simpich believe that much?

 

Sandy:

Yes... but their "spins" are different.  Newman makes a case for the CIA plotters "dimming the switches" prior to the assassination (i.e., the Kostikov virus balloon ) ... effectively setting a blackmail scheme of the FBI and Hoover (afterwards) to ensure the Bureau wouldn't turn over the wrong rocks, and support the lone-nut narrative. He states that the plotters are involved not just in killing the President but in neutralizing law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. Newman's synthesis of the Mexico City "story" that was planted ahead of time is cogent:

"It's a very powerful argument. It's a big weapon. Not just in the hands of LBJ but in the hands of anybody who would want an autopsy report burned, who would want to do anything, who would intimidate enlisted guys, techs, med-techs ..."

Simpich talks about "piggy-backing" - of one CIA group's operation by another CIA faction responsible for the assassination - hence the treatment of Win Scott and CIA Mexico City Station.  In other words, the assassination plot was grafted onto a "legitimate" Mexico City operation.

Gene

 

[Gene Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's great Gene! I'll add you to the list.

I have the feeling that some forum members believe this theory but just don't want to deal with the critics of it.

But I'm surprised the nobody has a book in mind that accepts this theory. Besides Destiny Betrayed.

What about JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass? Anybody read that?

 

Sandy

I would add that its always been my strong feeling that the FBI was blackmailed, and forced into the coverup (to protect the Bureau's reputation). And Angleton had compromising pictures of Hoover to boot.  But the details of what really went on down in Mexico City were so sensitive to national security - for many reasons, perhaps some legitimate, not just the assassination - that any real inquiry into what went down had to be discouraged or classified.  For example, the disclosure of the Hardaway/Lopez report, or Slawson and Coleman's visits to Mexico City.  There are few books likely because its a difficult puzzle to untangle (imho).

Gene

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Sandy

I would add that its always been my strong feeling that the FBI was blackmailed, and forced into the coverup (to protect the Bureau's reputation). And Angleton had compromising pictures of Hoover to boot.  But the details of what really went on down in Mexico City were so sensitive to national security - for many reasons, perhaps some legitimate, not just the assassination - that any real inquiry into what went down had to be discouraged or classified.  For example, the disclosure of the Hardaway/Lopez report, or Slawson and Coleman's visits to Mexico City.  There are few books likely because its a difficult puzzle to untangle (imho).

Gene

 

Gene,

I've long accepted as possible two opposing reasons why Mexico City was used to get the assassination blamed on Russia and Cuba. One reason was to create a pretext for war, which IMO would likely have been an invasion of Cuba. The other reason is the virus theory, where the thought of a nuclear war would cause the Johnson Administration to decide to cover up the Cuba/Russia thing and blame Oswald instead.

Well the latter is what ultimately happened. But I'm not so sure that that was the intention of the plotters. I can think of a lot of simpler ways to get the government not to investigate the CIA. And with all the effort the CIA put in to frame Cuba and Russia, that only added to the number of ways a loose end could get them caught.

So, for me, it was done as as a pretext for war. Invasion of Cuba, actually... that way there would be no nukes.