Tim Gratz Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I know there is another thread some place on the MCMM but the document linked below merits review and comment. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...063&relPageId=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Wilkinson Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 MCMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Boucher Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 When analyzing the saga of the so-called "Mystery Man" of Mexico City it is hard to come to any other conclusion than that there were some serious shenanigans going on at HQ to make sure MEXI Station doesn't figure out that this character who they have extensive surveillance of is not Oswald. How else is it possible that Mexico City sends pictures to Dallas on the 22nd of this individual because they STILL think it may be LHO? I mean when you think about this it is ridiculous. Headquarters knows full well the description of the individual that MEXI thinks might be Oswald is not accurate, at all. When a photo is requested from HQ for comparison they refuse to send one of the several they have on file. Instead they ask the Navy for an image of Lee Henry Oswald. It is received November 26th in Mexico City. I find the fairly extensive series of Mystery Man photos remarkable for many reasons. To think they were able to capture so many perfect photos of this person on October 2nd, 4th, and 15th but unable to secure a single snap of Oswald on the 27th or 28th of September truly beggars belief. But I'm starting to think this may actually be the case. And I'm also leaning towards the likeliness that this gentleman truly was, and always will be a mystery. Notebooks full of MM photos: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4172#relPageId=7&tab=page The Mexico City Station looks incompetent in this ordeal. The fact that this guy who was in and out of the Soviet and Cuban Embassies multiple times over a two week span was mistaken for Lee Harvey Oswald right up until the assassination is a stinging indictment of the operation down there. Of course in that day and age they needed cooperation from HQ which they did not receive. Obviously this was not lost on the plotters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Reilley Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, Brendan Boucher said: The Mexico City Station looks incompetent in this ordeal. The fact that this guy who was in and out of the Soviet and Cuban Embassies multiple times over a two week span was mistaken for Lee Harvey Oswald right up until the assassination is a stinging indictment of the operation down there. Of course in that day and age they needed cooperation from HQ which they did not receive. Obviously this was not lost on the plotters. Brendan, Your first sentence in that paragraph says everything. Looks are oftentimes deceiving. Must of been pretty big too, what they were hiding, if they were willing to go down in history looking incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Hey there Brendan... welcome to the Forum. 1. The man Ruby killed was not in Mexico at that time. 2. The image of the MM and its association with Oswald comes from CIA HQ as what many believe to be a "Marked Card". By stating that the man on the "transcripts" who says he is Lee Oswald is Lee HENRY Oswald with all the Harvey characteristics... It's important to remember that the first Cable from CIA MX to CIA HQ uses a photo which Goodpasture changed from an Oct 2 to Oct 1 "taken" date. The WCR MM photo is from the 4th and was used by FBI agent ODUM to show Marge Oswald... (but that's another story) : LADILLINGER is the CIA HQ Soviet desk. This is the 10/8/63 note from MX to HQ - with the only images of a lone American they could find. The episode from Sept 27-Oct 1 has been expertly addressed by Bill Simpich in State Secret. It's free online. "Oswald" had little to do with this person or the events in Mexico. See the doc below which tells us that JC King and Win Scott of the CIA were well aware of who this person is... 45 minutes ago, Brendan Boucher said: The fact that this guy who was in and out of the Soviet and Cuban Embassies multiple times over a two week span was mistaken for Lee Harvey Oswald right up until the assassination is a stinging indictment of the operation down there. Brendan, I think you will be able to come to a deeper understanding of Mexico if you forget that this is about equating THAT MAN with OSWALD... it doesn't. The name "Oswald" was not only a marked card for a potential mole hunt down there, but during that same week our Oswald was in Dallas with Cubans visiting Odio and working for the FBI. Once the CIA suggested that Oswald was in Mexico City, Hoover is put into a corner since he and the FBI cannot now admit that Oswald - the Lone Nut Assassin - was working for the FBI, ever. Finally, I interpret this note from Hoover as confirmation that the CIA created Oswald in Mexico out of thin air... what has never been adequately addressed, Why would Hoover cover for the CIA here if it did not involved exposing themselves over Oswald's FBI work? Hope you enjoy your time here BB... Take care DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Brendan, the first line of your post is exactly the conclusion I came to after reading the Lopez Report for the third time. I first read it after it was declassified in the nineties. I then interviewed Eddie at his home. I then read it again in preparation for the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. I then read it a third time for Reclaiming Parkland. So when I wrote that last book chapter, which was cut out of the hardcover version, I tried to concentrate on the role of Goodpasture in all this. And I tried to leave the reader with the impression that it was very hard to think that what she did was purely incompetence, or came about from being in the dark. For the simple reason that she lied so many times to Eddie and Danny. And she went as far as rearranging the evidence to disguise her true role. (See pages 294-95) Plus she had the first take of the tapes and pics from both embassies. And also, her lies coincided closely with those of Phillips. Which is why Danny and Eddie wrote up bills of indictment for them both. And you are correct, what was so hard about supplying a photo to MC? But maybe more important, as Eddie and Danny point out, why was there no cross checking of the info in the seven weeks between the alleged visit and the assassination? I recently talked to Bob Tanenbaum, and he told me this was a key question he wanted to pose to Phillips if he got him back. Which he did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Baumann Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) "At least one camera, and perhaps two, had been functioning in the observations post on Calle Franchisco Marquez in the days of Oswald's visits. And the CIA's own Stanley Watson and Joe Piccolo, as noted earlier, recalled having seen two photos of Oswald taken there." p. 235, Jefferson Morley, "Our Man in Mexico" "The Warren Commission reported that a 'Lee Harvey Oswald' registered at the Hotel Comercio, spent his leisure hours alone, perhaps went to a movie or a bullfight and had a few cheap meals at a restaurant near the hotel. (The Commission did not include in its report the fact that another resident of the hotel told the FBI that he had seen Oswald with four Cubans, one of whom had come from Florida.)" p. 281, "The Last Investigation", Gaeton Fonzi "In another intriguing revelation, the former Deputy Chief remembers being called into Win Scott's Office one day. With Scott was another station officer. It could have been Phillips, he said, but he isn't positive. There he was shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald. Two or three people were in the photo, the Deputy remembered and the discussion centered on who Oswald was and who the other people were. He didn't remember if the photo was taken in front of the Cuban or the Soviet embassy or not, or if this incident took place before or after the Kennedy assassination. The Deputy did say that the photo was considered sensitive enough for Win Scott to keep it in his private safe." p. 295, "The Last Investigation", Gaeton Fonzi So it seems Oswald did in fact go to Mexico - but in the company of others. Probably the men who accompanied him to Silvia Odio. This of course would've pointed toward conspiracy - so the evidence had to be either hidden or destroyed. Edited June 30, 2017 by Mathias Baumann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said: So it seems Oswald did in fact go to Mexico - but in the company of others. Probably the men who accompanied him to Silvia Odio. This of course would've pointed toward conspiracy - so the evidence had to be either hidden or destroyed. After Hoover and the FBI were "informed" about Oswald in Mexico... Hoover didn't just sit still. The FBI was entrenched in Central and South America since 1940 with the SIS. (edit: didn't want the impression the SIS still existed... it existed officially from 1940-1945 yet I have to believe Hoover retained this vital intel link) Hoover had assets in the Western Hemisphere on par with ONI and MID. So he asks his Mexico City team to find out if Oswald was in Mexico and if so, what did he do? Here are 22 different informants looking for the entire month of November... The "Gobernacion" negative reply is especially strange since ALL the in-Mexico travel evidence comes from the FBI asset at the Gobernacion. This is a composite of 5 reports culminating on Nov 23. The CIA had something to say about Oswald in Mexico City as well.... if you'd like to dig deeper I spent a bit over a year compiling over 1500 docs on Mexico and then tried to refute something that the Lopez report erroneously stated: The focus of my work is proving this statement incorrect and providing the documentary evidence to back it up. The Mexico City Trip Part 1 Part 2 - The Trip Down, Part 1 Part 3 - The Trip Down, Part 2 Part 4 - Leaving Mexico, Part 1 Part 5 - Leaving Mexico, Part 2 Part 6 - Who Knew What and When Edited June 30, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Baumann Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Thank you for the links you've provided, they'll keep me busy for some time I guess... But tell me, what about the photos Win Scott supposedly hid in his safe? Who did they show if not Oswald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 If they showed the historic Oswald, then why did Angleton fly down so quickly and steal them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 It would make very little sense to hide an image of Oswald in Mexico if part of that story involves pinning a conspiracy to kill JFK rap on this Castro Clan. As to what the photos showed... there's nothing beyond talk that they existed at all. Here is the photo recap sheet from 9/27 and 2 of the proofs for the 2 photos highlighted... "10:50 - Man sent to the Consulate" and again an hour later as "Young man sent to the Consulate" Here is the rest of that sheet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Boucher Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) I'm having a hard time placing Win Scott as one of the star conspirators. Which is exactly what he would have to be if at anytime before the assassination he knew the Mystery Man was not Oswald. The cable traffic from Mexico indicates they are absolutely clueless about the machinations unfolding. MEXI 7019 is a shining example. On the night of November 22nd they cable HQ as if they've made a big discovery that the guy they think may be Oswald in the early October photos was captured on October 15th in front the Cuban Embassy as well. They cable some useless info about people flying out of Mexico in November with somewhat similar names to LHO in MEXI 7020. And then to top it off they send a bunch of photos up to Dallas that could really only ever cause problems. You've got to wonder why Eldon Rudd ends up showing one to Marguerite Oswald unless they were indeed thought of as relevant. I just can't conceive of a scenario where they let these images of an individual who is actually known to them (and known not to be Oswald) enter the fray. Therefore, I'm not convinced that Scott's memo to J.C. King is proof positive that they know the true identity of the Mystery Man. On Anne Goodpasture, I'm of the mind that she was taking orders. I found a passage of her testimony to Jeremy Gunn interesting and revealing though. On 6/30/2017 at 3:13 PM, David Josephs said: It would make very little sense to hide an image of Oswald in Mexico if part of that story involves pinning a conspiracy to kill JFK rap on this Castro Clan. Precisely. I've never understood why anybody involved wouldn't have wanted this image out. Surely they could have cropped other individuals out if necessary. To me it's more likely that Oswald was supposed to be photographed but wasn't than it is likely that he actually was photographed when he wasn't supposed to be. And thanks for the welcome DJ! Edited December 1, 2017 by Brendan Boucher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Sure thing Brandon.... You may wish to step back a second though... Even the tapes were not of his voice. Despite the claim they were destroyed... they were heard in Dallas From Nov 25th we learn that Tapes existed, were sent to Dallas, were listened to.... And from Nov 23rd, the CIA finds out what the FBI knows about Mexico and Oswald.Hoover still tells LBJ on the 23rd that there must have been a SECOND MAN down there... rather than the actual conclusion that Oswald was impersonated on the call and no proof exists he was actually there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 41 minutes ago, David Josephs said: It would make very little sense to hide an image of Oswald in Mexico if part of that story involves pinning a conspiracy to kill JFK rap on this Castro Clan. Please David could you help me follow your thinking by describing some possibly common ground; 1. Suspiciously quickly after the assassination claims are made that Oswald was a commie with known associations to Cuba (Russia trip,FPCC New Orleans, and MC visit) 2. The claims can be traced to the DRE, and thus to Phillips and the CIA. 3. You believe that Oswald was never in MC at the relevant time, thus blurring the argument that the MC episode was a sheep dipping exercise by the CIA to prepare Oswald for his Patsy role. It's taking a big risk with the Oswald part of the cover-up if any investigation can quickly refute Oswald was in MC. Wasn't there a risk the FBI might blow the story? You certainly provide a strong argument they had the evidence to do so? 4. The Oswald as Commie story seems to have been superceded/covered up/rejected by the establishment, but its hard to make the case that this was because they realised his links to MC were bogus. Do you subscribe to a possible explanation that the 'Oswald as commie' and perhaps the assassination itself was a rogue/compartmentalised CIA plot? and that the realisation of the consequences of this plot caused the wider CIA/wider establishment to cover up? This, I feel is a good explanation of the failure to provide actual photos of Oswald in MC, since less questions about covert operations are asked if the 'myth' of Oswald in Mexico is maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 What I mean to say is once you separate Oswald from the Mystery Man and see the activity at that station for what it was (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html by Bill Simpich is one take on the activities. You may or may not agree with the conclusions, the evidence and explanations Bill offers are priceless in beginning to understand Mexico City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now