Jump to content

David Atlee Phillips: The Mastermind?


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Phillips was also the controller of Michael Vernon Townley, the man who organized the assassinations of several people for Chile/CIA. This included General Carlos Prats (September 30, 1974) and Orlando Letelier (September 18, 1976).

Is Townley still alive? Does anyone know where he is?

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an unknown picture of Phillips (far right with glasses) at a birthday party for Win Scott's wife Janet (center).

The other man with glasses is Warren Broggle, manager of the hotel Luma, where Oswald and Richard Case Nagell were seen by Robert Clayton Buick.

winscott.JPG

That does not resemble any photo of DAP I have ever seen.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not resemble any photo of DAP I have ever seen.

Jack

Well Jack, then this may be just one more "oddity" for you to put your teeth in. Maybe this picture was retouched or altered, or even faked? :ice

How about mis-identified?

Jack

Phillips...square chin, wrinkled forehead, prominent eyebags, no glasses, facial freckles or blemishes, etc.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although in this case I don't think that is Phillips, the way a photograph is taken and the way it has been handled throughout the years can make someone look very different than they really are. Add scanning and copying images and it makes it more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted as a curiosity.

The image below shows David Atlee Phillips circa 1946 (rear standing). This is a cast photo from the play 'The Man Who Came To Dinner'. Phillips was an accomplished actor as well as a very good writer (acting being a skill he could employ with his work with the CIA).

In 1947, Phillips wrote and also starred in the stage production 'Snow Job'.

FWIW.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Phillips... [...] no glasses, facial freckles or blemishes, etc.

Jack

_____________________

Jack,

You're saying DAP had no facial freckles or blemishes???!!! (Look again.)

--Thomas

_____________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Phillips... [...] no glasses, facial freckles or blemishes, etc.

Jack

_____________________

Jack,

You're saying DAP had no facial freckles or blemishes???!!! (Look again.)

--Thomas

_____________________

Thomas, look at the commas. (words and phrases in a series set off by commas) :lol:

And wish the Frogs success in the MWC tournament!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, ask Dick Russell about the photo. It's from the Michael Scott collection and it appears in th photo section of "The man who knew too much"

Phillips looked different in almost every picture, and had reading glasses, in some of the known pictures he wears them or has 'm in front laying on the table.

AAphillips1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, ask Dick Russell about the photo. It's from the Michael Scott collection and it appears in th photo section of "The man who knew too much"

Phillips looked different in almost every picture, and had reading glasses, in some of the known pictures he wears them or has 'm in front laying on the table.

I think the photo in the bottom right hand corner is of David Phillip's brother, and from the Washigtonian article or Fonzi's book. - BK

AAphillips1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

James DiEugenio, review of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked (March, 2008)

http://www.ctka.net/someone_would.html

I had a similar problem with the following chapter on David Phillips. And it started right on the first page (159). Hancock writes, "Phillips was without a doubt a CIA general." If we consider that word in its normal sense, with normal examples e.g. Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf etc. then I don't understand it. At the time frame of the JFK assassination, Phillips was an operations officer. A man in the field supervising things getting done and done right. Not a guy behind the lines planning and approving the overall campaign. In his fine book A Death in Washington Don Freed quotes CIA Director Bill Colby (p. 81) as calling Phillips a great operations officer. So if we go by Colby's rather authoritative account, Phillips was really a Lt. Colonel at the time -- parallel to someone like Oliver North in the Iran/Contra scandal. Hancock then goes further. He applies this same spurious hierarchical title -- "general" -- to Dave Morales. Yet Morales was Chief of Staff to Ted Shackley at JM/WAVE during this period. I would not even apply the word "general" to Shackley at the time, let alone Morales. Or if I did, it would at most be Brigadier General, not a starred one. It was their superiors at Langley, e.g. James Angleton, who were the generals. People like Phillips and Morales were implementers. (Hancock devotes an entire chapter to Morales. Which is part and parcel of the hubbub that has attended the research community since Gaeton Fonzi introduced him in The Last Investigation. As I noted in my review of the documentary RFK Must Die this has reached the point of actually -- and unsuccessfully -- implicating him in the murder of Robert Kennedy.)

Hancock uses Philips' own autobiography The Night Watch for much of the background material on the man. He then uses one of his timelines to take us up to the famous Bishop/Phillips masquerade episode with Antonio Veciana. But surprisingly, he leaves out some of the most intriguing points about Phillips in Mexico City. Especially his work on the fraudulent tapes sent to Washington to implicate Oswald in the JFK case. For instance, Hancock does not even mention the role of Anne Goodpasture, Phillips' assistant in Mexico City. There is some extraordinary material on her in the HSCA's Lopez Report. Neither does he mention the utterly fascinating evidence that John Armstrong advances in his book Harvey and Lee. Namely that Phillips sent the dubiously transcribed Mexico City tapes of Oswald by pouch to himself at Langley under an assumed name. Why would he do such a thing? Well, maybe so that no officers but he and Goodpasture would have the tapes from their origin in Mexico City to their arrival at CIA HQ. This mini-conspiracy was blown in two ways. First, when FBI officials heard the tapes as part of their Kennedy murder investigation and concurred that they were not of Oswald. Second, when HSCA first counsel Richard Sprague showed the official transcripts of the tapes to the original Mexico City transcriber. The transcriber replied that what was on those transcripts was not what he recalled translating. It seems odd to me that these very important points would be left out of any contemporary discussion of Phillips. Even more so since Hancock goes into the Mexico City episode less than a hundred pages later (pgs 275-282)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James DiEugenio, review of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked (March, 2008)

http://www.ctka.net/someone_would.html

I had a similar problem with the following chapter on David Phillips. And it started right on the first page (159). Hancock writes, "Phillips was without a doubt a CIA general." If we consider that word in its normal sense, with normal examples e.g. Eisenhower, Schwarzkopf etc. then I don't understand it. At the time frame of the JFK assassination, Phillips was an operations officer. A man in the field supervising things getting done and done right. Not a guy behind the lines planning and approving the overall campaign. In his fine book A Death in Washington Don Freed quotes CIA Director Bill Colby (p. 81) as calling Phillips a great operations officer. So if we go by Colby's rather authoritative account, Phillips was really a Lt. Colonel at the time -- parallel to someone like Oliver North in the Iran/Contra scandal. Hancock then goes further. He applies this same spurious hierarchical title -- "general" -- to Dave Morales. Yet Morales was Chief of Staff to Ted Shackley at JM/WAVE during this period. I would not even apply the word "general" to Shackley at the time, let alone Morales. Or if I did, it would at most be Brigadier General, not a starred one. It was their superiors at Langley, e.g. James Angleton, who were the generals. People like Phillips and Morales were implementers. (Hancock devotes an entire chapter to Morales. Which is part and parcel of the hubbub that has attended the research community since Gaeton Fonzi introduced him in The Last Investigation. As I noted in my review of the documentary RFK Must Die this has reached the point of actually -- and unsuccessfully -- implicating him in the murder of Robert Kennedy.)

Hancock uses Philips' own autobiography The Night Watch for much of the background material on the man. He then uses one of his timelines to take us up to the famous Bishop/Phillips masquerade episode with Antonio Veciana. But surprisingly, he leaves out some of the most intriguing points about Phillips in Mexico City. Especially his work on the fraudulent tapes sent to Washington to implicate Oswald in the JFK case. For instance, Hancock does not even mention the role of Anne Goodpasture, Phillips' assistant in Mexico City. There is some extraordinary material on her in the HSCA's Lopez Report. Neither does he mention the utterly fascinating evidence that John Armstrong advances in his book Harvey and Lee. Namely that Phillips sent the dubiously transcribed Mexico City tapes of Oswald by pouch to himself at Langley under an assumed name. Why would he do such a thing? Well, maybe so that no officers but he and Goodpasture would have the tapes from their origin in Mexico City to their arrival at CIA HQ. This mini-conspiracy was blown in two ways. First, when FBI officials heard the tapes as part of their Kennedy murder investigation and concurred that they were not of Oswald. Second, when HSCA first counsel Richard Sprague showed the official transcripts of the tapes to the original Mexico City transcriber. The transcriber replied that what was on those transcripts was not what he recalled translating. It seems odd to me that these very important points would be left out of any contemporary discussion of Phillips. Even more so since Hancock goes into the Mexico City episode less than a hundred pages later (pgs 275-282)

My reference to Phillips and Morales as “generals” was to the ultimate degree of influence and positions of the two individuals. At the time of his early self- retirement, Phillips next promotion in the agency would have to have had Congressional approval, as do generals. However, as of 1963, both individuals were indeed simply in very key positions. As I demonstrate in the book, both were also very independent and would engage in actions during their careers that went far beyond their apparent charters and orders – Phillips was specifically cited in that regard by the Church Committee.) I’ll concede this point though and change my wording on this in the next edition.

Actually it’s Roselli who described himself as a “strategist” and given his business dealings that seems fair. I certainly can visualize that he could have added a good deal of strategy to a criminal conspiracy where the key tactical people were experienced paramilitary. I do not see Roselli as the master conspirator nor the initiator - working from the bottom up with Martino’s information, I can only take it to a certain level and certain people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...