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

[Matt Cloud]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

No, 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 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.)

 

Fixed it, then.

 

Quote 1: "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.)" [Emphasis added.]

 

Quote 2 (revised): "My theory explaining the multiple impersonations of Oswald leaves no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory is NOT shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)"

[Matt Cloud]

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

I did not "add" the mole-hunt theory.  The origins of the mole-hunt theory belong somewhere in 1958/59 -- just at the time Oswald is defecting -- with allegations made by the Soviet defector Popov that there was a mole in the U-2 program, who provided the Soviets with tech plans for the aircraft, as he is alleged to have told Bagley et al., allegations furthered by the defector Golitsyn, and then challenged, or to some extent refuted by the defector Nosenko.  Linkage between Oswald and possible sacrifice of Powers' U-2 began appearing in the late 1960s.  Then, the mole-hunt theory became most entrenched in the public consciousness after Edward Jay Epstein's publication of Legend and related works in the mid to late 1970s.  At that point, Nosenko was brought in to CIA's higher echelons, with approval of Turner and McMahon, notwithstanding the latter having expressed doubt in 1964 with respect to Nosenko's bona fides.  The mole-hunt theory  revived yet again at around the time of the Yurchenko defection in '85-'86, at which point John McMahon, who had executive responsibilities in the U-2 program back in 1959, resigned from the CIA.  Yurchenko supported Nosenko in dismissing the mole theory and McMahon stated that he would "stake his career on Yurchenko's bona fides."

Edited April 12 by Matt Cloud

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The whole thing makes perfect sense to me without adding any other agency and without adding a mole hunt.

4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I did not "add" the mole-hunt theory.

 

Okay. But I never said you did add it.

 

[Matt Cloud]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay. But I never said you did add it.

 

Here we go.  So, who, according to you, did "add it" -- your words?  

[Sandy Larsen]

38 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

Fixed it, then.

Quote 1: "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.)" [Emphasis added.]

 

Quote 2 (revised): "My theory explaining the multiple impersonations of Oswald leaves no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory is NOT shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)"

 

Neither of those "corrections" accurately convey what I meant. I've revised my original post to make it more clear.

 

[Matt Cloud]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Neither of those "corrections" convey what I meant. I've revised my original post to make it more clear.

 

Would have been better had you not substantively edited posts, the content of which is material to the thread.  Punctuation and spellings are one thing; self-serving revision something else.

 

As an Admin here, wouldn't you agree?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay. But I never said you did add it.

Here we go.  So, who, according to you, did "add it" -- your words?  

 

I never said anybody in particular added the mole hunt. And it doesn't matter to me who added it because I don't believe its addition is necessary or useful.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Neither of those "corrections" convey what I meant. I've revised my original post to make it more clear.

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

Would have been better had you not substantively edited posts, the content of which is material to the thread.  Punctuation and spellings are one thing; self-serving revision something else.

As an Admin here, wouldn't you agree?

 

You are harassing me because I disagreed with you. That is what I see as an Admin .

 

P.S. And I didn't "substantively" edit my post. I made a minor clarification.

 

[Michael Kalin]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

Here's what Scott wrote:

Quote

In the days after the murders in Dallas, the U.S. was flooded with dubious stories, most of them swiftly discredited, linking Oswald to either a Cuban or Soviet conspiracy. Those which most preoccupied the FBI and CIA all came out of Mexico. These stories exhibited certain common characteristics.

 1) They all came either directly from an intelligence source, or from someone in the hands of an intelligence agency. Nearly always, the agency involved was the Mexican DFS or secret police. The DFS, along with the Nicaraguan intelligence service, which was also a source, were under CIA tutelage.
 2) The stories changed over time, to support either a pro-conspiratorial hypothesis (“Phase One”), or a rebuttal of this (“Phase Two”).
 3) The Warren Commission was led to believe that the “Phase-One” stories were without basis. In fact a number of unresolved anomalies suggest that behind them was some deeper truth, still not revealed.
 4) As just noted, the two main sources, Silvia Durán and Gilberto Alvarado, gave varying stories while detained by the DFS. Of the two, Durán was actually tortured, and Alvarado reportedly threatened with torture. Far from regretting this use of torture, the Ambassador, Thomas Mann, the CIA Station Chief, Winston Scott, and the FBI Legal Attache, Clark Anderson, argued strenuously, in the face of Washington’s expressed disapproval, for Durán’s arrest and rearrest by the DFS, and that DFS torture be used again.

 In retrospect, these stories should not have been taken seriously. In fact the CIA was able to rely on them, not as a source of truth, but as a source of coercive influence over the rest of government. It will help us to understand what was going on if we refer to the stories, not as “information” or even as “allegations,” but as managed stories.

 To say this leaves open the question of who were the ultimate managers—the DFS, U.S. officers in Mexico, or higher authorities in Washington. The full history is complex and confused, with many unanswered questions.  But nearly all of these managed stories, along with others outside Mexico to be discussed later, resolve into this simple pattern of a Phase One/Phase Two evolution.

Note "The full history is complex and confused, with many unanswered questions." It would be wise to jettison the blackbox labeled "Mexico City shenanigans," a fatuous attempt to hide the complexity & confusion by stuffing in choice items while classifying the rest as nugatory.

[Sandy Larsen]

59 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

It would be wise to jettison the blackbox labeled "Mexico City shenanigans," a fatuous attempt to hide the complexity & confusion by stuffing in choice items while classifying the rest as nugatory.

 

If I come across new information that I cannot explain with my current theory, or an appropriately adjusted theory, then I will consider doing just that.

In the meantime, I find the phrase "Mexico City shenanigans" to be a useful way of pithily referring to what took place there and what supposedly took place there for the purposes of the plotters. (After all, I am not writing a book or dissertation.)

But you are free to do whatever you want.

 

[Michael Kalin]

Free to do whatever I want? Bless my soul, a gracious straw boss!

What I want is to register a substantive change of opinion. I now believe Oswald & an impostor were both present in Mexico City during the critical time period, and that the presence of both supports the molehunt theory. The latter contradicts my 3/27 opinion. At this point I can't remember the reason why I thought so, but it was a shot in the dark that missed.

The reason for my about face? Mainly the recognition of the compartmentalization factor, with sub-entities operating in ignorance of each other. Also factor in the multiplicity of intelligence agencies with a stake in this game, and it becomes difficult for the agency compartment that thinks it's in charge to determine who's doing what. Hence, the idea of a molehunt gains traction.

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Free to do whatever I want? Bless my soul, a gracious straw boss!

 

Yep, you are free to do whatever you want. Even engage in juvenile sarcasm, if that trips your trigger.

 

[Michael Kalin]

Juvenile sarcasm? Not so -- "HMFIC" would have been juvenile sarcasm.

Regardless, I refuse to be patronized by anyone, and that goes double for someone who conducts himself as if ex cathedra. Not about to hang fire -- putting you on ignore.

 

[Michael Kalin]

7 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Regardless, I refuse to be patronized by anyone, and that goes double for someone who conducts himself as if ex cathedra. Not about to hang fire -- putting you on ignore.

Wowee! Pretty scary --  I'm not allowed to ignore Sandy Larsen! I ask you how things could get much worse?

Edited April 14 by Michael Kalin

[Michael Kalin]

On further reflection there is no reasonable basis for exempting admins from being placed on ignore when they post on matters that are unrelated to site administration. For such postings each should use a member ID, clearly defined & easily recognizable, e.g. Mrs Grundy.