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

[Jean Ceulemans]

5 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

The whole point was to create a paper trail entangling CIA, FBI, ONI, and State Dept with a lot of knowledge about Oswald shortly before 11/22.

Then, after the assassination, the employees of these agencies would go into a reflexive cover-up to protect their agencies, their careers, and the paycheck that takes care of their families.

How much of the actual Mexico City documents made it to the Warren Commission?   Very few of them.  What they got were paraphrases.  The actual documents were not made public until after the JFK Records Act forced them out in the 90s - and the JFK Records Act would never have passed without Oliver Stone's movie JFK!

 

I get that, it was indeed effective to get them all in the same messy tub.  I just didn´t see a mole hunt in it.

[Bill Simpich]

I should add that the molehunt was conducted after Oswald was impersonated on 9/28 and 10/1.  Silvia Duran was also impersonated on 9/28 in the same taped phone conversation as "Oswald", which supposedly happened at the Cuban consulate, which was closed on Saturday, 9/28.   

Duran made it clear that she never saw Oswald after 9/27.   

There would naturally be a big reaction after the impersonation of Oswald and Duran.  Note the absence of any notes about Oswald until October 8 and then the twin messages of 10/10, both filled with different descriptions of Oswald guaranteed to get people talking.

What happened in the interim between 9/28 and 10/8? 

Once the station found out that the man who made the 9/28 call and the 10/1 calls identified himself as Lee Oswald, Phillips needed to know about it. The station would not want to leave a paper trail regarding this sensitive penetration matter that might be read by a CIA penetrator. On the night of October 1, a pouch was sent to Phillips at Headquarters. The CIA procedure at the time was that these pouched transmittals left no paper trail, other than to say that the items had been sent from point A to point B.

The pouch probably contained a transcript of the October 1 calls from the man calling himself Oswald. You have to wonder if it also contained a copy of the tape.

Many years later, Phillips told a very elaborate lie, claiming that he was in Mexico City working with the Soviet desk in preparing the draft of a response to the October 1 phone calls. He also claimed that the Soviet desk officer was lazy. That didn’t happen – even Goodpasture said Phillips’ story was not true. It is well-documented that Phillips was away from the Mexico City station at CIA HQ in Washington and then JMWAVE station in Miami between September 30 to October 9.

On October 7, Phillips consulted with key people from the CIA's forward base on Cuba office like John Tilton, who triggered this whole situation as the architect of a joint agency anti-FPCC operation aimed at Mexico in September 1963.

The molehunt was a direct result of the impersonation of Oswald and Duran.  The CIA needed to see if it could smoke out how these fake phone calls were set up.

When this documentation was brought to light, Phillips was forced to backtrack and fall back to a weak excuse that his memory was mistaken, and that he had not played any role in preparing this draft memo that was issued on October 8.

The October 8 memo set the stage for the October 10 twin memos.

 

[Matt Cloud]

20 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I get that, it was indeed effective to get them all in the same messy tub.  I just didn´t see a mole hunt in it.

 

6 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

I should add that the molehunt was conducted after Oswald was impersonated on 9/28 and 10/1.  Silvia Duran was also impersonated on 9/28 in the same taped phone conversation as "Oswald", which supposedly happened at the Cuban consulate, which was closed on Saturday, 9/28.   

Duran made it clear that she never saw Oswald after 9/27.   

There would naturally be a big reaction after the impersonation of Oswald and Duran.  Note the absence of any notes about Oswald until October 8 and then the twin messages of 10/10, both filled with different descriptions of Oswald guaranteed to get people talking.

What happened in the interim between 9/28 and 10/8? 

Once the station found out that the man who made the 9/28 call and the 10/1 calls identified himself as Lee Oswald, Phillips needed to know about it. The station would not want to leave a paper trail regarding this sensitive penetration matter that might be read by a CIA penetrator. On the night of October 1, a pouch was sent to Phillips at Headquarters. The CIA procedure at the time was that these pouched transmittals left no paper trail, other than to say that the items had been sent from point A to point B.

The pouch probably contained a transcript of the October 1 calls from the man calling himself Oswald. You have to wonder if it also contained a copy of the tape.

Many years later, Phillips told a very elaborate lie, claiming that he was in Mexico City working with the Soviet desk in preparing the draft of a response to the October 1 phone calls. He also claimed that the Soviet desk officer was lazy. That didn’t happen – even Goodpasture said Phillips’ story was not true. It is well-documented that Phillips was away from the Mexico City station at CIA HQ in Washington and then JMWAVE station in Miami between September 30 to October 9.

On October 7, Phillips consulted with key people from the CIA's forward base on Cuba office like John Tilton, who triggered this whole situation as the architect of a joint agency anti-FPCC operation aimed at Mexico in September 1963.

The molehunt was a direct result of the impersonation of Oswald and Duran.  The CIA needed to see if it could smoke out how these fake phone calls were set up.

When this documentation was brought to light, Phillips was forced to backtrack and fall back to a weak excuse that his memory was mistaken, and that he had not played any role in preparing this draft memo that was issued on October 8.

The October 8 memo set the stage for the October 10 twin memos.

 

No.  This chronology misses entirely the origin of the mole-hunt in the first place.  

Perhaps I can offer some perspective and context.  There are, generally speaking, suspicions about a mole in U.S. intelligence from at least 1958/59 via allegations made by Popov -- that the mole was in the U-2 program and had provided plans of the aircraft to the Soviets.  These suspicions were further aroused by the defector Golitsyn who is said to have confirmed and added to Popov's claim.  With this in mind, therefore, CIA counterintelligence is, we can assume, looking for possible mole candidates.  Do Oswald's activities within/around the U-2 program, plus his defection to the USSR put him in the category of possible candidates?  

The information distributed to various departments that resulted from further monitoring of Oswald is not, I think, and as the comment above suggested, rightly, some bait offered in the hope that it may be leaked.  No, it is simply what it purports to be: CIA counterintelligence is monitoring Oswald.  It is keeping other interested agencies and departments informed.  

Edited April 22 by Matt Cloud

[Matt Cloud]

56 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

 

Do Oswald's activities within/around the U-2 program, plus his defection to the USSR put him in the category of possible candidates? 

Or, if you prefer, do Oswald's activities within/around the U-2 program, plus his defection to the USSR, set him up in the category of possible candidates? 

Edited April 22 by Matt Cloud

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Noted!  Twice!!  Albeit that's not an accurate description of what has occurred, here on this thread, or on others. 

If you want to get into it, cite examples -- specific quotes -- and we can compare and contrast and analyze.  It is of course up to you.  

 

I already cited examples, after which you doubled down.

That's what led me to conclude that you cannot be reasoned with.

 

[Matt Cloud]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I already cited examples, after which you doubled down.

That's what led me to conclude that you cannot be reasoned with.

 

Okay -- we will resume substantive discussion and analysis, then.  Today gives me hope: Two comments at least that actually addressed the concept of mole-hunting generally, and whatever mole-hunt may have gone on here specifically.  We were starting to cook with gas at last.  Let's have more, I say.  

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Okay -- we will resume substantive discussion and analysis, then.  Today gives me hope: Two comments at least that actually addressed the concept of mole-hunting generally, and whatever mole-hunt may have gone on here specifically.  We were starting to cook with gas at last.  Let's have more, I say.  

 

I've stated my opinion. I will just observe you and Bill et al. discussing the alleged mole hunt, to see if there could be anything to it IMO.

 

[Matt Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I've stated my opinion. I will just observe you and Bill et al. discussing the alleged mole hunt, to see if there could be anything to it IMO.

 

Well, it takes two to tango, and I won't deny a third or more cutting in.  So, Bill, anyone, engagement is really the only way to test the ideas.  Let's flesh 'em out.  Come one, come all.  

Here is what I am subjecting to test, as written on March 20:

 

"Consider: The persons who ran the Oswald Project were themselves the persons who created -- who enticed -- the mole hunt, by sending over, or causing to have sent over, defectors alleging the existence of a mole.  Popov and the U-2 plans, then Golitsyn out of Helsinki (Frank Friberg) where Oswald had also recently passed through, Nosenko out of Geneva denying the mole, and so on.  By getting CI/SIG to bite on Oswald -- something which the Soviets didn't do, or knew not to do it seems -- and then having him blamed for the assassination, the mole hunt was paralyzed.  Indeed, there was mutual interest all around in having Oswald take the blame, including from the White House and DOJ.  "The Mole" you see is not a mole in the spy novel sense; he was rather a KGB interlocutor, a backchannel between Washington and Moscow, known in both places at the highest levels.  But revealing his existence would be a difficult explanation to the American people, to put it mildly.  And it would terminate its purpose moreover.  In any case, tying the mole hunt to the assassination foreclosed serious investigation into the assassination as well as the matter that had started the affair off in the first place -- the U-2 plans getting into the hands of the Soviets."

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Reporting an aversion to procrustean outputs from a faux blackbox constrained by speculative inputs.

 

I wonder if Google can translate from Bombast to English? You know, for us regular folk.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

 

No.  This chronology misses entirely the origin of the mole-hunt in the first place.  

Perhaps I can offer some perspective and context.  There are, generally speaking, suspicions about a mole in U.S. intelligence from at least 1958/59 via allegations made by Popov -- that the mole was in the U-2 program and had provided plans of the aircraft to the Soviets.  These suspicions were further aroused by the defector Golitsyn who is said to have confirmed and added to Popov's claim.  With this in mind, therefore, CIA counterintelligence is, we can assume, looking for possible mole candidates.  Do Oswald's activities within/around the U-2 program, plus his defection to the USSR put him in the category of possible candidates?  

The information distributed to various departments that resulted from further monitoring of Oswald is not, I think, and as the comment above suggested, rightly, some bait offered in the hope that it may be leaked.  No, it is simply what it purports to be: CIA counterintelligence is monitoring Oswald.  It is keeping other interested agencies and departments informed.  

I don't think Bill was referring to the "big mole-hunt", or Project Oswald if you like.

Now, one doesn't exclude the other IMO

CI did start "moving" when Oswald was being impersonated in MC. 

Looking for who was responsible for that, can also be called a mole-hunt.

O well, there are so many interesting bits.  Not to side-track, but what are your ideas on the removal of the FBI flash (or how it worked while it was "up" - or should I say how it didn't work....).  That removal/cancellation (dd 10/9/1963 I believe) has been bugging me for some time now...  Perhaps I should start a different topic on it, focussing on the FBI-CIA interactions.      

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

..what are your ideas on the removal of the FBI flash (or how it worked while it was "up" - or should I say how it didn't work....).  ...  Perhaps I should start a different topic on it, focussing on the FBI-CIA interactions.      

 

I think you should start a new thread. I certainly would like to see people's knowledge and ideas on the topic.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I think you should start a new thread. I certainly would like to see people's knowledge and ideas on the topic.

 

Will do

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I don't think Bill was referring to the "big mole-hunt", or Project Oswald if you like.

Now, one doesn't exclude the other IMO

CI did start "moving" when Oswald was being impersonated in MC. 

Looking for who was responsible for that, can also be called a mole-hunt.

O well, there are so many interesting bits.  Not to side-track, but what are your ideas on the removal of the FBI flash (or how it worked while it was "up" - or should I say how it didn't work....).  That removal/cancellation (dd 10/9/1963 I believe) has been bugging me for some time now...  Perhaps I should start a different topic on it, focussing on the FBI-CIA interactions.      

Well, that's just the problem.  The mole-hunt goes along, addressed obliquely here and there, but never defined, never incorporated into assassination research as a whole.  That's just my point.  Fundamental understanding of what that means needs to be aired.  John Newman is to be commended for having done one attempt at that, but as I have stated elsewhere, his work ends where it begins, with Bruce Solie.  Solie is the candidate he starts with and the candidate he concludes with.  Confusingly, Newman also suggests Solie was working at behest of James McCord.  Why that doesn't make McCord the mole I don't know.  In any case, going back to the origin of the allegation is helpful and more helpful still  would be to achieve a list of potential candidates beyond Solie.  (I have a good starting place in mind, btw.)  Solie wasn't in the U-2 program and if he was genuinely hunting the mole naturally his "tracks" would align with the mole's.  Trips to Geneva, etc.  Counterintelligence personnel are always subject to suspicions due to the fact that if they are doing their job correctly, their paths should be similar to the mole's.  

Yes, absolutely they stated moving when Oswald was said to be in MC -- he was a defector / re-defector back in the U.S. less than a year.  Notably he re-defects back here just as Cuban Missile Crisis is getting underway, an event which would force Kennedy to make concessions he would perhaps not otherwise have made.  The Jupiter missiles in Turkey.  Promises of no more raids on Cuba.

As to removal of FBI flash please post link to something I / we can read. Thanks.  Oh.  Wait, I see by Sandy's instruction, that that needs to be segregated off.  Well, I'll look for whatever you post there, should you do so.  Thanks.

[Matt Cloud]

6 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Well, that's just the problem.  The mole-hunt goes along, addressed obliquely here and there, but never defined, never incorporated into assassination research as a whole.  That's just my point.  Fundamental understanding of what that means needs to be aired.  John Newman is to be commended for having done one attempt at that, but as I have stated elsewhere, his work ends where it begins, with Bruce Solie.  Solie is the candidate he starts with and the candidate he concludes with.  Confusingly, Newman also suggests Solie was working at behest of James McCord.  Why that doesn't make McCord the mole I don't know.  In any case, going back to the origin of the allegation is helpful and more helpful still  would be to achieve a list of potential candidates beyond Solie.  (I have a good starting place in mind, btw.)  Solie wasn't in the U-2 program and if he was genuinely hunting the mole naturally his "tracks" would align with the mole's.  Trips to Geneva, etc.  Counterintelligence personnel are always subject to suspicions due to the fact that if they are doing their job correctly, their paths should be similar to the mole's.  

Yes, absolutely they stated moving when Oswald was said to be in MC -- he was a defector / re-defector back in the U.S. less than a year.  Notably he re-defects back here just as Cuban Missile Crisis is getting underway, an event which would force Kennedy to make concessions he would perhaps not otherwise have made.  The Jupiter missiles in Turkey.  Promises of no more raids on Cuba.

As to removal of FBI flash please post link to something I / we can read. Thanks.  Oh.  Wait, I see by Sandy's instruction, that that needs to be segregated off.  Well, I'll look for whatever you post there, should you do so.  Thanks.

I will say further regarding Newman and McCord, in anticipation of a comment by Bill Simpich that Newman "has set his sights on McCord" now, that if Newman thinks bringing the mole-hunt into the assassination scholarship (where it belongs incidentally) has cost him friends -- something Newman says it has -- naming Watergate burglar McCord as a Soviet agent will make him radioactive.  Wait -- you mean Watergate was a Soviet plot?!  Should be interesting.

[Bill Simpich]

Matt, I appreciate you engaging me on the topic, but I have to ask - have you read my book State Secret?  Chapter 5 centers on what I call the Mexico City molehunt of 1963, chapters 3 and 4 set the context, and the last two chapters touch on the aftermath.   I would ask you to at least read Chapters 3-5.  

I do want feedback!  If you've read it, great, but I don't think there's anything "oblique" about what I wrote.

Also, I'm very sensitive to not taking over other people's threads.  Jean and Sandy's instincts are good about setting up a new thread on the setting up and removal of the FBI flash, which arguably is related to the molehunt but deserves its own analysis.

McCord also deserves his own thread.  John Newman has not finished his analysis of McCord, has written almost nothing on the subject, and I think it's best not to speculate on his views until he weighs in on the topic.