Author Topic: State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of LO  (Read 34647 times)

Alan Dale

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Alan, I'm anxious to pursue this.  My hesitation has been that I haven't studied Bill Simpich's work thoroughly.  However, I'll launch into my hypothesis over the weekend with the caveat that I may step on toes at the very least, or worse, I may step out onto that precarious limb of ridicule.

^ Looking forward to anything you'd be interested in sharing, Leslie. This forum is intended to encourage involvement and interaction. We need the input of those who have studied these complexities.

I have had an advance look at upcoming materials from Bill. The achievements of Professor Scott, Dr. John Newman, Jeff Morley,  Bill Simpich and a very few others on Oswald in Mexico City and elsewhere is an ongoing, dynamic process. It's up to each of us to choose the extent to which we are willing and able to contribute to that process.

I'm certainly in favor of trying.

Thank you for participating.
Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny.

RFK

Kelly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
This is one of the best, most interesting things I`ve read in a long time. I love Simpich`s work. I can`t wait for the next chapters. Nice of him to provide this free of charge.

Phil Dragoo

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 48
Nice, nice, very nice: So many people in the same device
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2013, 06:13:05 am »
This line from Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle becoming the song of that name by Ambrosia describes Bill Simpich's delicious second chapter

W.C. Fields could juggle thirteen cigar boxes at once and in CI the best juggler ascended, it seems

It is impossible to accept that Oswald's marriage and visa-seeking was self-initiated--she at one point confused him with Robert Webster

Grasping the links: Simpich has given us CI for the Complete Idiot--and it is much appreciated

Angleton over CI-SIG chief Birch O'Neal over molehunter Ann Egeter

CIA Soviet Russia Division: Bill Bright with Stephen Roll (SR/CI/RED)

Anita and Will Potocki, associates of Bill Harvey (CI/OG/SS: counterintelligence operations group security staff--just thinking of the line in Enemy of the State where the sigint guy asks the visitor, "Are you guys signals or operations?"  "Operations."  "I can tell by the haircuts.")

Harvey as head of CI before Angleton, Staff D signint from 1959, ZR/RIFLE: executive action

Harvey Task Force W: 200 officers running JMWAVE, 500 CIA officers and 4000 Cuban agents: Paramilitary (PM), Foreign Intelligence (FI), Covert Action (CA)

Los Tres Amigos: Johnny Roselli, Bill Harvey, Rip Robertson

David Morales--Army CI 5 years, CIA "Stanley Zamka", founder of Operation 40: 150 officers, 100 backup, 100 rookies, worked with Angleton

With Phillips in Mexico City, on a badness plateau with Shackley (Harvey acolyte) above Brad Ayers, right hand man Tony Sforza, hitman "Henry Sloman"

Oswald file went to Egeter to Potocki to Bright

Implication FBI agent John Fain may have obtained Oswald's service as informant by threatening prosecution for lying to a federal agent, specifically denying he had ever tried to defect

Working at Jaggers, Chiles, Stovall, Oswald would (posthumously) beg the question, how does a defector gain access to classified footage

So the groundwork is laid for a net of security dereliction leading to a general stonewall by intelligence agencies

Swimming through this sea of various fishes we pick up a low-frequency guiding tone

Angleton, Harvey, Morales will swim their intricate dance and when the swarm disperses the water is red



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbEf5PIehes

Alan Dale

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387

Preface

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Featured_State_Secret_Preface


Chapter 1: The Double Dangle

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter1


Chapter 2: Three Counterintelligence Teams Watched Oswald

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter2


Chapter 3: The Cuban Compound in Mexico City Was Ground Zero

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter3

Please invest the necessary time.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 08:45:17 pm by Alan Dale »
Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny.

RFK

YellowBirch1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Was it not Oswald's own mother who said, " that was not my son" ?

Leslie Sharp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
This is my response to a challenge by a commenter at jfkfacts.org. on the thread relating to William King Harvey titled "Phoney 201 flle ...."

Q. What does Gehlen s operation being "riddled by East German agents" have to do with WK Harvey?
A. Anyone in serious pursuit of the possibility of rogue elements, or simply fallible, well-meaning agents of the CIA is turning over every stone. 

Why would the CIA be throwing money and man hours at Gehlen if he was such a buffoon?  For instance, some of Wisner s ten-slash-two directive "unvouchered funds" ended up underwriting Gehlen's hitherto unfunded operations. Why would Stuart Symington direct Ackerman to work closely with Gehlen just as the Air Force was establishing its own intelligence operation? Why risk that progress by aligning with a fool if you consider Gehlen as such?  Could Robert Webster and LHO have been caught up in an upgraded version of one of those operations?   Why would US private interests (including Clark Clifford, a director of National Bank of Washington at the time, which was the foundation bank for the future BCCI in the US); CD Jackson of the Luce Orgnaization; C. Rodney Smith of American Airlines etc.) choose to help fund RFE - which relied on the "great transmitter," the brainchild of Wisner and Gehlen when the funds were either drying up or being challenged behind the scenes?  Why would the CIA assign as liaison between Gehlen and Dulles/Wisner, a man like James H. Critchfield who would be promoted to CIA station chief in the Near East after Gehlen's Organization was successfully incorporated into NATO; and later serve as liaison between the oil industry and the CIA?  Why waste talent like Critchfield on Gehlen if his operations were meaningless as you suggest?

 

As mentioned on the North Dakota State U site, regarding Critchfield: " .... with  the invasion of southern France by Allied forces, Critchfield was by then in command of a battalion of the 141st regiment of the 36th Infantry Division (Texas National Guard)."  I would contend that during that intense experience, Mr. Critchfield established a rapport with men in and from Texas that extended thru the Cold War and up until his death early this decade.

 

And from that potentially significant connection (particularly as it may relate to Jack Crichton of Empire Trust), I would insist that there is merit in considering rogue elements of the CIA who had semi-private allegiances including with the oil industry and others in the industrial complex, a link between Critchfield (who built an engineering firm under the umbrella of Honeywell (another Lichtenstein protected US  enterprise) and the Gehlen Org, in relation to the assassination.   I am not the first to consider a Gehlen influence; in fact, I'm on the shoulders of giants.  All I'm doing is a bit of a revisit.


« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 01:59:14 am by Alan Dale »

Phil Dragoo

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 48
Coup in Cuba, taps, dupes, doubles, patsies
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2013, 06:44:25 am »
Leslie Howard cited by Mark Lane in Last Word, her suspicious death helped make it personal for him.

Surely these attempts at rapprochement were bugged by CIA; Howard's persistence made her an annoyance, a target.

A line in Chapter 3 pops

“Mr. Castro is a very bold and imaginative person who is capable of doing anything.”

How about smelling CIA in the JFK Assassination in his 12,000 word speech the following day (see attachment)

Regarding jfkfacts, there's a tool hiding behind "photon" who is a low-budget hemorrhoid, so I dismiss the infrafriction in that venue

Gehlen is enormously important.  So important he was given immunity and welcomed into the US intelligence apparatus immediately and unconditionally, fully-funded, complete in his organization, and admitted to by CIA

Here's a review of Critchfield's 2003 work http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11244

Here's the Agency's 2007 FOIA release http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/1705143/CIA%20AND%20THE%20ORIGINS%20OF%20THE%20BND,%201949-56%20%20%20VOL.%201_0001.pdf which although suspicious looking does paste and produce in a browser window if the site software fails to hyperlink

In Simpich in June Angleton is telling Hoover Kostikov is not sabotage and assassination; reversed at assassination time--can't alert Hoover early; save the trip wire.

Just as Allen Dulles in 1930 is poohpoohing the threat of Hitler, would secure loans for Germany, then supposedly help in the Valkyrie plot, but aid in the escape of Hitler, and scoop up Gehlen, Barbie, and others

How can we not see Dave Morales and his Comandos Mambises as a parallel to the team put into Dealey and extracted

If Walkie Talkie Man was part of the '76 Letelier bombing, and Helms used McCord on FPCC and Watergate, and Weitzman saw Barker as a Secret Service Agent, the dual use, or plausible denial is the rule not the exception

Simpich is able to say in a page what Waldron-Hartmann can't get said in a couple of thousand

And for that succinctness we are thankful


TLR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Reading through it, he has a link to what looks like Robert Webster's CIA debriefing report, or something very much like it.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=55065

Webster learned during his stay that "Soviet plastics technologies on a commercial and application basis are about ten years behind those of the US."

Yep, that's pretty much SOP for the government when a re-defector returns home. Grill them for every bit of information you can get. So where's Oswald's report? Has anyone ever asked Marina if she was debriefed? The CIA would definitely be interested in questioning a Soviet citizen.





« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 11:43:20 am by TLR »

Phil Dragoo

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 48
Oswald Debriefed
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2013, 05:03:00 am »
TLR

You might mine this Joan Mellon article for valuable indications Oswald was debriefed

http://www.joanmellen.com/oswald.html


Here is an excerpt

Further corroboration that the CIA Soviet Russia Division, Soviet Realities, SR6, in the person of Eleanor Reed, debriefed false defectors is contained in a document that I have just discovered that that CIA released “as sanitized” in 1998. The document resides in Robert Webster’s file, is dated 17 August 1962, and is telling for several reasons; the cases of Oswald and Webster are so similar that we can await, with reasonable expectation, that a parallel document of Oswald’s debriefing by Reed (with, perhaps, her frequent debriefing partner, Rudy (“Valentino”) Balaban, may well surface. This document demonstrates beyond doubt that Reed (“Anderson”) was an SR6 debriefer. I copy it here in full:


    TO: Eleanor Reed
    FROM: [03] IR/CR
    SUBJECT: Appraisal of Interrogation


    1.   The eagerness of the subject to help and his repeated expressions of regret for having neglected opportunities for more detailed observations left me with mixed reactions. In my opinion this attitude detracted from his otherwise seemingly genuine manner and at least for me it “watered down” his attempt to generate a repentant impression.


    2.  The subject readily answered questions and was extremely friendly during both periods of interrogation. Plottings and data, however, by the subject on a blank town plan left him for homework later proved disoriented. [sic]. The subject discovered his error during our second meeting and volunteered corrections.


    3.   As far as substantive intelligence gained is concerned, the interrogation provided data on a plant previously described as possibly in the electronics business as a probable radar storage and repair area. A hitherto unknown naval installation was also identified and located in an area other than the one previously assumed.

    4.   It can be said that if the subject’s bona fides are definitely established, positive intelligence gathered from him is of real value.
    [03]

    GROUP 1
    Excluded from automatic downgrading and declassification.

Sometimes Soviet Russia Counter Intelligence was called in at the briefings. So the mystery of Oswald in the Soviet Union unravels. The above trajectory offers further evidence that Oswald was a creature of the CIA, worked for the CIA, and, quite understandably, was debriefed by them upon his return.

Additional evidence that CIA debriefed Oswald after his return from the Soviet Union resides in the unredacted version CIA document 435-173A, dated 25 November 1963, by the same Thomas B. Casasin.

This document is familiar because we have long had a redacted version of Casasin’s 25 November 1963 memo to Walter P. Haltigan, whom Casasin subsequently revealed to be one “Jim Flint.” Flint was part of SR9, the operations part of the Soviet Division and was Casasin’s “normal contact” in Paris where Casasin arrived in September 1962.

In this memo, Casasin writes that “Oswald’s unusual behavior in the USSR” made him look “odd,” leading Casasin not to use him in operations in the REDWOOD target area. REDWOOD was an action indicator for the SE Division. (SED was a CIA geographic designator for the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc countries of Eastern Europe). It seems now a case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing, a not infrequent CIA situation.

In that unredacted version of Thomas B. Casasin’s memo to Walter P. Haltigan, Casasin writes: “as chief of the 6 Branch I had discussed – sometime in Summer 1960 (he later corrected that date to “1962”) with the then Chief and Deputy Chief of the 6 Research Section the laying on of interview(s) [with Oswald] through KUJUMP [the operations division] or other suitable channels.” KUJUMP had a contacts division for debriefing persons. KUJUMP was synonymous with 00 (Contacts Division).

Casasin closes his addendum to the memo with this line, indicating that was not aware of Angleton’s program: “It was partly out of curiosity to learn if Oswald’s wife would actually accompany him to our country, partly out of interest in Oswald’s own experiences in the USSR, that we showed operational intelligence interest in the Harvey story.” Casasin was looking for links between Soviet women marrying foreigners and the KGB. Casasin also refers in his 25 November 1963 memo to a program called AEOCEAN 3, then run out of SR10, and referring to Oswald in particular: this was the legal travelers program, i. e. the intelligence use of legal travelers to the Soviet Union. It seems apparent that Casasin, a pseudonym, was not in the loop, and is struggling to make sense of Oswald and his defection.


In his HSCA interview, while speculating, without any real evidence, that Oswald might have been a “lay-low Soviet operative,” Casasin fills in some gaps in our knowledge about what Oswald was doing in the Soviet Union. He reveals that “there were some type of special design plants in Minsk which were of interest to the CIA.” Casasin adds that CIA “had some type of encyclopedic information at the agency on the radio factory in Minsk where Oswald worked.” He is talking about a component of CIA called the “Industrial Registry.” Casasin was instructed by CIA not to reveal to HSCA information about a tourist guide he ran in the Soviet Union under a program called REDSKIN, and who, like Oswald, married a Soviet woman.

TLR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Chapter 4 is up now. This is very well done. I guess I never realized that Operation 40 was a secret cell within the already-secret JM/WAVE, training Cubans to become the future secret police of a post-Castro Cuba. This may very well be where the plot against JFK originated. 

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter4

Alan Dale

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Preface

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Featured_State_Secret_Preface


Chapter 1: The Double Dangle

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter1


Chapter 2: Three Counterintelligence Teams Watched Oswald

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter2


Chapter 3: The Cuban Compound in Mexico City Was Ground Zero

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter3


Chapter 4: Mexico City Intrigue -- The World of Surveillance

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter4


Please invest the necessary time.
Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny.

RFK

echelon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80

Two things stand out from this extract of State Secret.  The first is that Simpich works on the basis that Oswald was in Mexico City after all.  This is something that I have never been able to get my head around.  I accept that he was impersonated there but was he ever physically present?  Where is the evidence to support such a claim?  Hopefully, Bill Simpich can lay out a convincing case one way or the other.


Well, actually, Bill is agnostic on the matter ...


Most people agree that a man calling himself Oswald visited Mexico City for a few days between the 27th of September and the 2nd of October. Most people agree that he went back and forth on the 27th between the Cuban consulate and the Soviet consulate - trying to get a visa to visit both countries and failing at both - with one last stab at the Soviet consulate on the 28th.

At the Cuban consulate, consul Eusebio Azcue insisted that the man he met was not Oswald. The other consul, Alfredo Mirabel, was equally insistent that the man was Oswald. This kind of sharp division makes it hard to determine if Oswald ever came to Mexico City. Jack Whitten, who was the CIA’s original investigator of the assassination, wrote in the days after 11/22 that “no source then at our disposal had ever actually seen Lee Oswald while he was in Mexico". That is remarkable, as the CIA’s sources inside the Cuban compound later told House Select Committee on Assassinations staffer Ed Lopez that the man who visited them was not Oswald. For ease in writing this narrative, I will refer to the man at the center of this Mexico City narrative as Oswald, but I remain an agnostic as to whether he visited the Cuban consulate on the 27th, or even came to Mexico City. I’m convinced that he didn’t come to the Cuban consulate on the 28th.



It's difficult to get one's head around this case given all the imponderables lurking behind every corner.  I have seen no hard evidence from anybody that Oswald himself was in Mexico and so - for the time being - I am taking the position that he wasn't.  As Bill Simpich points out, it probably doesn't matter.

Whether Oswald was physically there or not, he was impersonated there.  This much I can accept.  Of course, it could be coincidence that he was being impersonated - as part of a mole-hunt operation, say - just seven weeks before the assassination, and that this impersonation had nothing to do with the assassination set up.  But I find that very difficult to accept. Therefore, my hypothesis remains that Oswald was not in Mexico but he was impersonated there as part of the Phase 1 plan to blame the assassination on the Cubans (and set off a conflagration, perhaps).

Now, therefore ... surely if we find out who was behind the Mexico City impersonation then we will find out who was behind the assassination.  Simples.

Yes, no?



Kelly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Hi echelon. I find this topic difficult to understand myself. In the mock trial, produced in 1986, I believe, HSCA researcher, Edwin Lopez states that he didn`t believe Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban and Russian consulates. Later in his testimony, Lopez does tell counselor Vincent Bugliosi that he believes Oswald visited Mexico City. John Newman in his book Oswald and the CIA, his wording on whether or not Oswald was in Mexico City visiting the 2 consulates is "apparently he visited". So I`m assuming that the issue is not so very important to the various researchers on this topic. All that matters is that Oswald was impersonated. I`m beginning to think that Oswald wasn`t there. The Warren Commission admits that Oswald was there. Why not cough up a photo? It would be completely in order. This is very complicated indeed.

echelon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80

I've actually read the first three chapters of this book but I need to go back to Bill Simpich's opening lines with a number of questions.

In the following quotes from the Preface, I've reordered Bill's sentences slightly to make my points.

This book is about the counterintelligence activity behind the JFK story and its role in the death of President Kennedy. It examines how the existence of tapes of a man in Mexico City, identifying himself as Oswald, were discovered before the Kennedy assassination and hidden after the assassination. On November 23, 1963, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote President Lyndon Johnson and the Secret Service chief, telling both of them that the caller was not Lee Harvey Oswald. These tapes showed that the supposed “lone gunman” had been impersonated just weeks before the killing of JFK, tying him to Cuban and Soviet employees in a manner that would cause great consternation in the halls of power on November 22.

[...]

Within days of the assassination, the agencies were flooded with phony evidence tying Oswald to a Soviet assassination team and Red Cuban plots. Lyndon Johnson and Robert Kennedy probably knew little about the tapes, but acquiesced to the cover-up rather than run the risk of a war on Cuba which might include the USSR. This story explains why LBJ was so insistent that Chief Justice Earl Warren chair the investigating commission and prevent the possibility of "40 million dead Americans", and why the Warren Commission was denied access to the investigators, witnesses and documents needed to solve the case.


I am familiar with the notion of the Phase 1/Phase 2 conspiracy framework as enunciated originally by, I believe, Peter Dale Scott.  The Phase 2 conspiracy was to all intents and purposes a cover-up involving a stellar cast of characters, most of whom (but not all, I suspect) had nothing to do with the Phase 1 assassination planning and execution.  Accepting that there were two separate conspiracies, I can also accept that one plausible explanation for the Phase 2 cover up was to avoid the possibility of linking Cuba and/or the Soviets to the assassination, which would probably have initiated World War 3 (as above).

The bit I don't get is what follows:

The other aspect of this book is about how the importance of the Mexico City tapes collided with the national security imperative of hiding American abilities in the field of wiretapping. These tapes were created by wiretapping the Soviet consulate. World leaders prize wiretapping because it enables them to find out the true motives of their friends and adversaries. It's no wonder that Edward Snowden was castigated for daring to reveal the nature of these jewels. Back in 1963, wiretapping was the domain of the CIA's Staff D, the super-secret division that did the legwork for much of the signals intelligence or 'sigint' that was provided to the National Security Agency.

[...]

The hiding of the tapes paralyzed any effort to conduct an honest investigation into what happened.


(Emphasis added).

Why would the fact that the Americans were wiretapping both the Cuban and Soviet consulates have needed to be covered up?  From whom?  Surely not from the Cubans nor the Soviets as they were all doing the same to each other.  It was (and remains) de rigeur in the intelligence world, hyper-sensitive reactions to Snowden's revelations notwithstanding.

Who else would have cared about the wiretapping, thus providing an additional impetus to cover up the activities in Mexico City, and as a consequence hobbling the investigation?  Surely not the American public.  Who else mattered in 1963?



TLR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Echelon, the American elite likes to think they're fooling people (specifically the American public and our allies abroad). They worry a lot about keeping up a good appearance. The "secret bombing" of Cambodia, for example. It certainly wasn't a secret to the Cambodians, or the Russians and Chinese.

It was all about keeping the public and Western allies in the dark so they can go on believing in the virginal purity of America as the land of the free and the home of clean underwear and neatly-mowed lawns.