Disinformation in Oswald's CIA File - For molehunt purposes or for Oswald patsification purposes?

[Bill Simpich]

Michael - the phrase "that was not true, either" was to emphasize that Oswald was neither the Mystery Man or the 5 foot 10/165 pound man.  The analysis of memos 74673 and 74830 is a centerpiece of the book.

The 74673 memo describing LHO as the stocky "Mystery Man" was disseminated to "your representatives in Mexico City".

The 74830 memo describing LHO as the 5'10/165 pound man was disseminated to the national headquarters of the agencies.

That resulted in the "Egerter-created clash between the agencies' headquarters and the local agencies' offices."  When that kind of clash occurs, people get to talking - loose lips lead to people having information they should not have - and that can fuel a molehunt.

Again, I appreciate the civil discourse with Sandy and Jim.  I am aghast, however, that they continue to critique a book that they have not read and that MIGHT challenge their belief systems.

Sandy and Jim have been very up front in saying they didn't read my book because they didn't agree with its premise.

My response:

1.  Jim thought I didn't consider the possibility that Oswald was a spy.  But I did.  You didn't know that because you didn't read the book.  If you had read the book, you would see that I said that it is more useful to first assume that Oswald was a "wannabe spy" or a "useful idiot" before automatically assuming that he was a spy.  That does not mean that I don't think that Oswald was a spy - I do, at least at certain times, and for certain agencies.

What I think and I can 100% prove, however, are two different things.  It's useful to begin a premise by pointing to what you can prove without speculation.

2.  When you read an analysis that challenges your premise - you may learn something that supports your premise.   That's why it's important to read analyses from a variety of viewpoints.

3.  One of the best things any of us can do is to read material that challenges our assumptions.  It is the failure to do so - and the refusal to do so - that has led the USA to its sorry state today.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

 

[Michael Kalin]

5 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Michael - the phrase "that was not true, either" was to emphasize that Oswald was neither the Mystery Man or the 5 foot 10/165 pound man.  The analysis of memos 74673 and 74830 is a centerpiece of the book.

The 74673 memo describing LHO as the stocky "Mystery Man" was disseminated to "your representatives in Mexico City".

The 74830 memo describing LHO as the 5'10/165 pound man was disseminated to the national headquarters of the agencies.

Bill, makes sense now. Thanks for clearing up the ambiguity, but this is recondite subject matter. You must speak by the marked card or equivocation will undo us. The paragraph's final sentence refers to the predicate of the preceding sentence.

However, I'm fogged as to why a music video was piped into the discussion. Honey, it's no rock 'n' roll show.

[Jim Hargrove]

10 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Again, I appreciate the civil discourse with Sandy and Jim.  I am aghast, however, that they continue to critique a book that they have not read and that MIGHT challenge their belief systems.

Sandy and Jim have been very up front in saying they didn't read my book because they didn't agree with its premise.

My response:

1.  Jim thought I didn't consider the possibility that Oswald was a spy.  But I did.  You didn't know that because you didn't read the book.  If you had read the book, you would see that I said that it is more useful to first assume that Oswald was a "wannabe spy" or a "useful idiot" before automatically assuming that he was a spy.  That does not mean that I don't think that Oswald was a spy - I do, at least at certain times, and for certain agencies.

What I think and I can 100% prove, however, are two different things.  It's useful to begin a premise by pointing to what you can prove without speculation.

2.  When you read an analysis that challenges your premise - you may learn something that supports your premise.   That's why it's important to read analyses from a variety of viewpoints.

3.  One of the best things any of us can do is to read material that challenges our assumptions.  It is the failure to do so - and the refusal to do so - that has led the USA to its sorry state today.

 

After reading the introduction and first chapter of State Secret, it  was just such a shock to see all those references to Oswald being “a spy in his own mind.”  To me, even the cover story makes his spy status obvious:

Here’s this Commie-spouting, Russian-speaking U.S. Marine who sat in the U2 radar bubble in Japan, who gets an early discharge because of his mother’s sore nose, and somehow converts military script into the cash needed to travel (staying in first class hotels) to the Soviet Union and hire a private tour guide.  He says in the undoubtedly bugged  U.S. embassy in Moscow that he’s going to tell the Russians everything he knows, and, when the adventure is over the State Department loans him the money to return to the U.S. and, according to the CIA, the Agency doesn’t even bother to speak to him, even though a U2 is shot down less than a year after the “defection.”

And just a few years later, Oswald is granted a passport AGAIN, perhaps so he can “defect” yet again.  To me, this doesn’t even pass the smell test.  And, to get back to the subject matter of this thread, isn’t it remarkable that the FBI canceled the security alert on Oswald on the very same day that Agency cable indicated Russia clearly “had maturing effect on Oswald.”
 

[Matt Cloud]

Not clear what the conflict is here, unless it's a contrived argument over semantic definition of "spy." In any case, whether he was a spy or a wanna-be spy, the question should be "whose spy?" 

 

Then again, perhaps he was what spy-hunters call a "poisoned dwarf."

 

 

From Bill Simpich's own 

The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend

Part 4: When the U-2 Goes Down, Oswald is Ready to Return

by Bill Simpich, Nov 16, 2010

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_4.html

...

What is fascinating is that there is no investigation in the CIA or FBI files dedicated to whether Oswald was handing U-2 information over to the Soviets. Nor is there anything in the military files that I am aware of, other than this complaint by his own lieutenant John Donovan. Incredibly, the Warren Commission did not ask Donovan or any of Oswald's military colleagues a single question about the U-2, even though the shootdown incident happened on the second overflight after Oswald's arrival to the USSR. Donovan said that "he did not know whether Oswald had actually turned over secrets to the Russians. But for security's sake it had to be assumed that he did".

Eight days after Donovan testified to the Warren Commission, Richard Helms wrote a memo to the Warren Commission entitled, "Oswald's Access to Information About the U-2", which was classified as "Commission Document 931" and not released for thirty years. Francis Gary Powers discussed it at length in his book, as he really wanted to know what it said. Powers died in 1978. When Helms' memo was released in 1993, this was its conclusion:

"To summarize: There is no evidence or indication that OSWALD had any association with, or access to, the JTAG (Joint Technical Advisors Group) operation or its program in Japan. This applies also to information regarding the U-2 or its mission."

The gap between Helms' version and Donovan's version is vast. Donovan talks about how his unit provided U-2 support at Cubi Point in the Philippines, where Oswald once tracked a U-2 flying over China and showed it to him.

Whether or not Oswald actually provided U-2 secrets to the Soviets, it was certainly part of the legend created on his behalf. The best tip-off is right in Oswald's own diary, where he says that Don Alejandro advised him to go back to the USA on the night of May 1, 1960, the night that the Soviets shot down Powers' U-2.

"It's the first voice of opposition I have heard. I respect Ziger, he has seen the world. He says many things, and relates many things I do not know about the USSR. I begin to feel uneasy inside, it's true!"

The CIA's memo says that Ziger "cautioned Oswald not to tell any Russians".

Oswald's work in the Soviet Union was done. Both sides would take a long look at him, saying: "Whose man is he?"

- Bill Simpich

 

[David McLean]

Bill, Sandy Et Al, would  it be true to say the Oswald Legend, whether the subject was witting or not, had been used to ferret out a mole or moles amongst US agencies, but after the September/October 1963 impersonations “Oswald Legend variants”became marked cards to a-identify a mole or two and more urgently b-identify the impersonators and therefore theJFKA plotters who framed Lee?

And what are the implications that may logically follow?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/31/2024 at 6:57 AM, David McLean said:

Bill, Sandy Et Al, would  it be true to say the Oswald Legend, whether the subject was witting or not, had been used to ferret out a mole or moles amongst US agencies, but after the September/October 1963 impersonations “Oswald Legend variants”became marked cards to a-identify a mole or two and more urgently b-identify the impersonators and therefore theJFKA plotters who framed Lee?

And what are the implications that may logically follow?

 

David,

My theories explaining 1) the multiple impersonations of Oswald including in Mexico City and 2) the disinformation transmitted in the Oct. 10 cables, leave no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory #1 is shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)

In a nutshell, what I believe is that Oswald was never in Mexico City, and that the whole MC escapade was a CIA operation designed to make it appear to post-assassination investigators (the FBI) that Oswald and some of his associates drove to MC to finalize plans with the Cubans and Soviets to have Oswald's team assassinate Kennedy.

There is plenty of (planted/fake) evidence supporting this theory: Oswald meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov (a.k.a. Kostin); Oswald's affair with Cuban Consulate employee Silvia Duran; Oswald's relationship with dignitaries at  Duran hosted party; the $6500 down payment paid to Oswald in the Cuban Consulate for the kill; the arrest of Duran and her associates immediately after the assassination.

For this plan to work, the CIA plotters needed to have a way for the FBI to discover the (fake) Oswald trip to MC. (Otherwise they would have never discovered the (fake) Cuban and Soviet involvement.) This was accomplished by the Oswald impersonator at the Cuban Consulate making the phone call to the Russian Embassy, and giving out his name, Lee Oswald. Which, of course, was recorded by American surveillance phone taps.

Furthermore, for the FBI to later discover this, the CIA had to report this call to the various agencies, as was their duty. The problem with reporting the call is that it could raise a red flag on Oswald on October 10, which would ruin the assassination plan. The CIA solved this problem by inserting disinformation into the cables... that is to say, the wrong description. In addition, the name -- Lee HENRY Oswald -- was wrong. (HENRY had been used in Oswald's 201 for years, and was there for another reason.)

On the very same day that the CIA plotters sent the intentionally disinforming cables, the FBI took Oswald off of their watch list. Surely the CIA plotters were behind that move as well.

And so, Oswald could take a job at the TSBD and not be flagged as a security risk for the upcoming Kennedy motorcade.

 

The bottom line is this:

My theory explains the need for the Oct. 10 cables, and the need for disinformation to be placed in them. Therefore, there is no need to explain them otherwise.

The sole purpose of the mole hunt concept is to explain the disinformation. With my theory, the disinformation is explained and the mole hunt concept is moot.

 

P.S. The mole hunt concept also attempts to explain problems in the MC telephone calls. But my theory has an explanation for those too.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My theory (which is shared by others) explains the need for the Oct. 10 cables, and the need for disinformation to be placed in them. Therefore, there is no need to explain them otherwise.

 

Because of this, I experience severe cognitive dissonance when I try to read the mole hunt part of State Secret.

 

[Gerry Down]

On 3/26/2024 at 5:44 PM, Tom Gram said:

Oh duh. I see it now. Thank you. I got mixed up by the arrow to the file number.

The signature under the handwritten note looks like “Matos” though, which appears to match the signature on the routing slip above Manell’s. I’m crap at reading cursive, but it looks like “Gov Mat??” or something to me. Do we know who that is?

The note has a line, that I previously blended with the arrow, pointing to Manell’s name, so it looks to me like it was written by this “Matos” character to direct Manell to start the file. 

I think the "Gov Mat" you refer to is "Goodpasture".

Here is a link to the routing slip again:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=229687#relPageId=35

This P-8593 file is fascinating. So the Mexico City station set up a file on Oswald once he showed up down there. Do we have this file? Was this the file hidden in Win Scotts safe? Does this file make any mention of Oswalds visit to the cuban embassy or does it only mention the visit to the soviet embassy?

[Tom Gram]

54 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I think the "Gov Mat" you refer to is "Goodpasture".

Here is a link to the routing slip again:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=229687#relPageId=35

This P-8593 file is fascinating. So the Mexico City station set up a file on Oswald once he showed up down there. Do we have this file? Was this the file hidden in Win Scotts safe? Does this file make any mention of Oswalds visit to the cuban embassy or does it only mention the visit to the soviet embassy?

This highlights how terrible I am at reading cursive haha. Now I see it immediately. Thanks Gerry. 

What do you think about the signature below the handwritten note on the right? That’s the one I originally thought looked like “Matos”, and that might match Goodpasture’s signature on the left. Now I don’t think it’s a match cause there’s no “Good”. 

We do have the P-8593 file. It looks like it was obtained by the HSCA and is in the HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, microfilm reel 30. I have not come across any original indices or findings aids though, so I’m not sure how to check if we have the entire original file. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1146

The MFF version might be missing some documents that were released later. I think your best bet to verify the contents would be to look through ARRB documents and stuff from the original early 90s CIA review to see if there’s anything questionable in there. Robert Reynolds’ site is easily the best resource on the internet for doing that sort of thing. Here’s an article he did on CIA files on Oswald that probably has some helpful links. He doesn’t mention the MC file but this should be a good starting point at least: 

http://jfkarc.info/2024/01/23/cia-files-on-oswald/

 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

What do you think about the signature below the handwritten note on the right? That’s the one I originally thought looked like “Matos”, and that might match Goodpasture’s signature on the left. Now I don’t think it’s a match cause there’s no “Good”.

I think the line reads:

Please setup "P" file on Lee Henry Oswald and put all data in here onto it & photos? G

I think the squiggle under the word "Photos" is a "G". I'm just guessing did Goodpasture use the letter "G" like this as a shorthand way of signing her name?

The pen weight of that sentence matches the pen weight of line 4 of the routing slip which has Goodpastures name. So it looks like Goodpasture may have written that sentence. Though line 10 of the routing slip has a similar pen weight but i cant make out what it says. It looks like "Filos" or something. 

Critically, if Goodpasture is asking about photos at this point in time (she writes "Photos?" with a question mark at the end), does this indicate that she has been out of the loop in relation to Oswalds visit and completely clueless at this point in time?

[Michael Kalin]

On 3/31/2024 at 2:55 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

My theory explaining the multiple impersonations of Oswald and the disinformation transmitted in the Oct. 10 cables leaves no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory is shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)

Peter Dale Scott may have shared the disinformation theory, but he also saw plenty of room for a molehunt theory. A quote follows from Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House.
 

Quote

The Pre-Assassination Oswald Documents as a Counterintelligence “Marked Card” Operation

In 1994 I suggested that Lee Harvey Oswald, or more specifically the government documentation on Oswald, was used by the Counterintelligence Staff of the CIA in its obsessive search for a mole inside the U.S. government. CI/SIG, the Counterintelligence Special Investigation Group, the group charged by CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton with the search for the mole, opened a 201 file on Oswald in 1960. The file, I suggested, became the control point for a “marked card” operation, in which falsified bits of information, like bent cards, were passed through the system to see where, and by what route, they ended up. This article will look more closely at how that “marked card” operation worked. It will conclude that, however important and sensitive the search for the mole may have been, one or more other important covert operations were piggy-backed upon the mole search.

 From his alleged defection to Russia in 1959, to his alleged visit to Mexico in 1963, Oswald’s files in at least seven federal government agencies (CIA, State, FBI, ONI, OSI, Marine G-2, INS) became repositories for more and more conspicuously or subtly variegated data. At least some of these “marked cards” were invented inside the counterintelligence system, and some of them inside CI/SIG itself. For example “Lee Henry Oswald,” the CIA’s name for its Lee Harvey Oswald file, was a name invented in December 1960 by Ann Egerter of the CI/SIG Staff. The 201 file opened in this name remained tightly restricted by CI/SIG, so that they could keep track for almost two years of whoever had had access to it.

 A classic example of card-marking was the generation in October 1963 of two CIA messages about Oswald, by two teams, each of which included Ann Egerter of CI/SIG, Stephan Roll of the Soviet Russia Counterintelligence Staff, and Jane Roman of the Counterintelligence Liaison Staff. Both messages were released, to different addressees, on the same day, October 10, 1963. Both cables were in response to the incoming information that someone who identified himself as Lee Oswald had spoken to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. They were sent to different audiences, including CIA officers whom we know Angleton suspected of being a mole.

Complications abound, but that's the reality of compartmentalization in the intelligence field of endeavor.

In agreement with Matt Cloud: the question should be "whose spy?" [comment 3/30/24]

[Matt Cloud]

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

Peter Dale Scott may have shared the disinformation theory, but he also saw plenty of room for a molehunt theory. A quote follows from Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House.
 

Complications abound, but that's the reality of compartmentalization in the intelligence field of endeavor.

In agreement with Matt Cloud: the question should be "whose spy?" [comment 3/30/24]

Yes, and if Oswald or Oswalds, is/are being "run," "controlled," "directed," etc., as this thread has so far assumed he/they was/were, Oswald's state-of-mind as to what he knew or believed may or may not be relevant to answering the question of just who was running him.  Whether he thinks he's a spy or he is a spy doesn't necessarily move anything anywhere. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

On 3/31/2024 at 12:55 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

My theory explaining the multiple impersonations of Oswald and the disinformation transmitted in the Oct. 10 cables leaves no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory is shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Peter Dale Scott may have shared the disinformation theory, but he also saw plenty of room for a molehunt theory.

 

Apparently PDS did NOT believe the same disinformation theory that I (and others, like Jim Hargrove) believe. We believe that the purpose of the disinformation in the Oct. 10 cables was to lower Oswald's profile so that he wouldn't be perceived as a potential threat to JFK in Nov. 1963. In contrast, PDS apparently believes that the purpose of the Oct. 10 disinformation was to introduce marked cards to be used to sniff out a mole.

When I said that PDS shared the same theory as mine, I wasn't referring to the theory explaining the Oct. 10 disinformation. I was referring to the main theory I explained in the post that you (Michael Kalin) replied to. The theory explaining all the Mexico City shenanigans designed to make it look like Oswald was arranging to kill Kennedy for Cuba and Russia. PDS refers to this as Phase 1 / Phase 2 in his paper on it.

(Phase 1 is where it looks like Cuba and Russian conspired with Oswald to kill Kennedy, whereas Phase 2 is where it looks like Oswald is a lone gunman.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

In agreement with Matt Cloud: the question should be "whose spy?" [comment 3/30/24]

 

I personally don't see any reason to think there was any other intelligence agency involved in the whole Mexico City affair, other than the CIA. The whole thing makes perfect sense to me without adding any other agency and without adding a mole hunt.

You guys, of course, can believe whatever you want.