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

[Jim Hargrove]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I quit reading State Secret when I got to the part where you wrote something to the effect that Oswald was a CIA-wannabe. I knew there was no further reason for me to read your theory because it would be completely at odds with mine.

I stopped reading it at that point also.  If memory serves, Mr. Simpich said at least three times near the start of his book that Oswald “was a spy in his own mind.”  Despite the obvious scholarship of State Secret, the author apparently didn’t even consider the possibility that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was, in fact, an actual spy!

This despite the fact that CIA accountant James Wilcott testified that he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project” and told HSCA staffers that Oswald’s CIA cryptonym was RX-ZIM.

Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA.

Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960.  Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....”  When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct."  When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one."

No one has yet explained how, before ever setting foot in the Soviet Union, Oswald scored equally on Russian-language and English-language exams in the U.S. Marine Corps.  How?

Mr. Simpich’s desire to discuss all this civilly is admirable, and I respect him for that.  And despite the apparent culpability of a number of Agency and Bureau officials in the assassination of JFK, I still believe the U.S. government, as a whole, was then and remains now better than most others.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 3/20/2024 at 6:14 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Are we all talking about the same 10/10/63 Agency document(s)? 

I’ve stored the following copy of one on my home computer and the Harvey and Lee web server for many years.  Note that, just before paragraph #3 on the second page, it says, “US EMB MOSCOW STATED TWENTY MONTHS OF REALITIES OF LIFE IN SOVIET UNION HAD CLEARLY HAD MATURING EFFECT ON OSWALD.  This cable was issued on the same day the FBI cancelled the security watch on Oswald.  Here’s the document I’ve saved for years, which, for some reason, I can’t seem to find on the Mary Ferrell site, though it was an admittedly quick search using the search phrase “Lee Henry Oswald”.

 

\

Just asking once more....

Can anyone find a copy on the Mary Ferrell JFK assassination database of the infamous 10/10/1963 CIA cable which includes the sentence: "US EMB MOSCOW STATED TWENTY MONTHS OF REALITIES OF LIFE IN SOVIET UNION HAD CLEARLY HAD MATURING EFFECT ON OSWALD".  Can anyone explain why this document was produced the same day the FBI cancelled the security watch on "Lee Harvey Oswald?"

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/17/2024 at 6:37 PM, Bill Simpich said:

...the CIA officers went to great pains to omit from their memos [cables]  any reference to any Oswald visit to the Cuban consulate, any reference to Oswald’s membership in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and any reference to his attempts to get a visa

 

Here is the reason for that:

The CIA's reason for sending the October 10, 1963 cables was primarily to fulfill their responsibility of reporting Americans making contact with Soviet agencies. There was only one incident among the surveilled telephone calls where the Oswald name was used, and that was the one where an Oswald imposter called the Soviet Embassy.  He used the name "Lee Oswald," and that was the name reported to the various government agencies.

The CIA used fake information in order to obfuscate the Soviet Embassy incident. They certainly weren't going to include details that might raise red flags. There was no need to include the Cuban Consulate visits, the FPCC incidents, or anything else that might get peoples' attention. So they didn't.

 

[David Boylan]

Jim,

Here. It's from Charlotte Bustos as mentioned by Bill.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=229687#relPageId=32

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks, David.  Searching for "Lee Henry Oswald" on the database, the first six hits did not include a page with that material, which struck me as odd.

[Paul Cummings]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks, David.  Searching for "Lee Henry Oswald" on the database, the first six hits did not include a page with that material, which struck me as odd.

Website needs better filtering options. 

Edited March 26 by Paul Cummings

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Jim,

Here. It's from Charlotte Bustos as mentioned by Bill.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=229687#relPageId=32

Do you know what the deal is with this “P4 file” business on the routing slip?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=229687#relPageId=35

There’s a handwritten note pointing to the file number P-8593 saying: 

Please setup P (4?) file on Lee Henry Oswald and (load?) all data in here onto it 

The “here” being referenced by the arrow seems to be the P-8593 MC Station Oswald file, so it kinda looks like a separate “P4” file, whatever the heck that is, was setup on “Lee Henry” as some sort of duplicate. Either that or this routing slip just marks the first entry in the P-8593 file, which would make sense…

Edited March 26 by Tom Gram

[David Boylan]

45 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Do you know what the deal is with this “P4 file” business on the routing slip?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=229687#relPageId=35

There’s a handwritten note pointing to the file number P-8593 saying: 

Please setup P (4?) file on Lee Henry Oswald and (load?) all data in here onto it 

The “here” being referenced by the arrow seems to be the P-8593 MC Station Oswald file, so it kinda looks like a separate “P4” file, whatever the heck that is, was setup on “Lee Henry” as some sort of duplicate. Either that or this routing slip just marks the first entry in the P-8593 file, which would make sense…

Tom,

I think it's just "P" just a sloppy end quote. Bill S has the Manell as Barbara Manell setting up the P-8593 file.

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=LADILLINGER&search=manell

 

[Tom Gram]

6 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

Tom,

I think it's just "P" just a sloppy end quote. Bill S has the Manell as Barbara Manell setting up the P-8593 file.

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=LADILLINGER&search=manell

 

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. 

[David Boylan]

37 minutes ago, 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. 

Ha! I'm also crap and reading bad cursive. Me, I see "Phillips". 

[Michael Kalin]

The sense I've acquired is that the thin allotropic barium meal served up to various intelligence entities by the 10/10/63 cables was not intended to launch a molehunt.

This opinion is based in part on this excerpt from the last section ("The Surplus of Deception: A Molehunt? Or Also Something More?") of Peter Dale Scott's article, "Oswald, the CIA, and the Hunt for Popov’s Mole."

Quote

I find that the most coherent explanation for the many anomalies recorded in this essay, and above all the allotropic variants of Oswald data generated by Snyder, Fain, Marguerite Oswald, Egerter, and Roman, is that the anomalous Oswald documentary record was authorized as part of a barium meal in search for a mole.

In saying this, I do not rule out the possibility that some other operation was piggy-backed upon the molehunt. If we review the whole picture, there seems to be a surplus of deception, more complicated wrinkles to the Oswald story than the molehunt by itself would have required. I refer to such odd details as the half-executed renunciation, the leaving of the passport in the U.S. embassy, etc.

Perhaps the most striking of these excess deceptions is the consistent effort, from many agencies, to make Oswald untraceable, or at least unattributable. This might suggest, as I wrote many years ago, that Oswald was being “sheep-dipped,” and provided a legend, for some covert assignment. (As someone who had lived in both America and the Soviet Union, whose citizenship was now being questioned, and who had voiced major criticisms of both countries, he had acquired a “legend” that would make any questionable action virtually unattributable to any single nation.)

A major "surplus of deception" can be discerned in the CIA's machinations relative to Oswald's affairs in Mexico City, with the purpose of maintaining his potential usefulness as a patsy.

These are preliminary thoughts of necessity. The material is too extensive to scope within a few days. There is one question that has a bearing on this, undetermined to this day: was LHO himself actually in Mexico City while someone else was impersonating him? Answer yes and the weight of the argument shifts away from a molehunt. The purpose was to stymie other investigations by creating massive complications. Answer no, maybe the pendulum swings back the other way toward initiating a molehunt.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

There is one question that has a bearing on this, undetermined to this day: was LHO himself actually in Mexico City while someone else was impersonating him? Answer yes and the weight of the argument shifts away from a molehunt. The purpose was to stymie other investigations by creating massive complications. Answer no, maybe the pendulum swings back the other way toward initiating a molehunt.

 

I personally don't think Oswald was ever in Mexico City. But I still don't think the purpose of the disinformation was a molehunt.

For one thing, all the government agencies received the very same disinformation. So had it been leaked from one of them, there would be no telling from which it was leaked. Not a very good barium meal.

 

[Michael Kalin]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I personally don't think Oswald was ever in Mexico City. But I still don't think the purpose of the disinformation was a molehunt.

For one thing, all the government agencies received the very same disinformation. So had it been leaked from one of them, there would be no telling from which it was leaked. Not a very good barium meal.

 

Perhaps following Peter Dale Scott's terminology was a mistake. Bill Simpich's State Secret Chapter 5 uses the term "marked cards" when comparing DIR 74673 with DIR 74830.

Quote

DIR 74673 to State/FBI/Navy (excerpts).

This cable passes on the false "Mystery Man"
description of Oswald, along with orders to
disseminate this description to the local offices
of these agencies in Mexico City.

DIR 74830 to Mexico City Station (excerpts).
This memo passes on the false Robert
Webster-like description of Oswald, along
with orders to disseminate this description to the
Headquarters of the same agencies referenced
in the previous memo.

The hope was that one of the marked cards would pop up in the wrong hands in the midst of this Egerter-created clash between the agencies’ headquarters and the local agencies’ offices. When Egerter was questioned by Congress about these two different descriptions, she said that she couldn’t explain why it happened.

Bill's 3/24 comment refers to "bait" instead of marked cards.

It's preposterous that Oswald may have been impersonated while he was present in Mexico City, but the weirdness of it all is fascinating.

[Sandy Larsen]

47 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Perhaps following Peter Dale Scott's terminology was a mistake. Bill Simpich's State Secret Chapter 5 uses the term "marked cards" when comparing DIR 74673 with DIR 74830.

Bill's 3/24 comment refers to "bait" instead of marked cards.

It's preposterous that Oswald may have been impersonated while he was present in Mexico City, but the weirdness of it all is fascinating.

 

It appears to me that Bill Simpich made an error in his description of the two cables. Anybody, correct me if I am wrong.

I make the correction here:

Quote

DIR 74673 to State/FBI/Navy (excerpts).

This cable passes on the false "Mystery Man"
description of Oswald, along with orders to
disseminate this description to the local offices
of these agencies in Mexico City.

DIR 74830 to Mexico City Station (excerpts).
This memo passes on the false Robert
Webster-like description of Oswald, along
with orders to disseminate this description to the
Headquarters of the same agencies referenced
in the previous memo.

The hope was that one of the marked cards would pop up in the wrong hands in the midst of this Egerter-created clash between the agencies’ headquarters and the local agencies’ offices. When Egerter was questioned by Congress about these two different descriptions, she said that she couldn’t explain why it happened.

 

 

[Michael Kalin]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It appears to me that Bill Simpich made an error in his description of the two cables. Anybody, correct me if I am wrong.

You are right. Explicit dissemination orders are absent from DIR 74673, but paragraph 3 states, "THE INFORMATION IN PARAGRAPH ONE IS BEING DISSEMINATED TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN MEXICO CITY."

This does not clarify the dissemination issue. The preceding text of Chapter 5 undermines the cable's statement [my emphasis]:

Quote

The twin Oct 10 memos were cleverly crafted. One went to the national headquarters of the FBI, State, and Navy, and contained a description of “Lee Henry Oswald” as “6 feet tall, athletic build, age 35”, a deliberate lie. This description was similar to a file card description of Yuri Moskalev, who CIA officers believed was probably the "Mystery Man" in the October 1 photo. The photo was not provided but was available if needed. It also claimed that this information was being shared “with your representatives in Mexico City”. But that was not true, either.

So there may be a missing link in the molehunt argument, which incorporates an "Egerter-created clash between the agencies’ headquarters and the local agencies’ offices."