25-06-2015, 08:30 AM
David
Due to very busy work schedule i don't have time to debate on forums but i felt the need to post just this reply regarding Mexico City, Simpich and the Mole hunt.
According to Simpich:
"I offer the hypothesis that David Morales ran a piggy-backed operation on top of an anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee operation run by CIA officer John Tilton and FBI agent Lambert Anderson, outwitted both Angleton and Goodpasture, brought down the President, and got away with it. Whether or not Bill Harvey was part of this operation, his people were all over it and merit further scrutiny...
Others have argued to me that Angleton and covert action chief David Phillips were part of a plan to kill Kennedy, but my present perspective is that both of them like Goodpasture and operations chief Richard Helms, who I believe were in on the molehunt - were entrapped by the impersonation.
Angleton and Phillips drove the cover-up for their own protection. Otherwise, their careers and reputations would have been ruined, to say nothing of the future of the CIA. Phillips told investigator Kevin Walsh shortly before he died that he believed American intelligence officers were involved in the assassination. Angleton's last words were filled with regret and sorrow. "I've made so many mistakes."
I do not agree with his conclusions. I mean David, you so fiercely defend Armstrong with respect to Harvey and Lee, and you do not do the same when it comes with his Mexico explanation? And you prefer Simpich's thesis that exonerates Angleton and Phillips? Really?
When Newman has presented his view about Angleton and now he is going to after Phillips in his new books? And Lopez and Hardway that investigated it the incident in detail, haven spoken in person to all the players and had access to CIA HQ, why should i believe what Simpich says?
I would agree that a mole hunt was going on, but this does not exclude that Angleton was part of the plot.
Angleton said to Trento that E. H Hunt was sent to Dallas the day of the assassination on orders from a highly ranked KGB mole inside the CIA. Later Trento said that he believed that Angleton was really trying to hide his connection to Hunt and that he had probably sent him down there. Angleton never caught a mole, and later a CIA investigation concluded that maybe Angleton was a mole himself. It seems that Angleton was using his mole hunt as a cover to carry out his own agenda.
Imagine a Congressman asking Angleton what was he involvement down in Mexico. Would he have answered "i was planning to assassinate a US President" or "I was doing a mole hunt"?
So why to believe Simpich and his theory that it was Morales the man who outfoxed the rest of the CIA?
Due to very busy work schedule i don't have time to debate on forums but i felt the need to post just this reply regarding Mexico City, Simpich and the Mole hunt.
According to Simpich:
"I offer the hypothesis that David Morales ran a piggy-backed operation on top of an anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee operation run by CIA officer John Tilton and FBI agent Lambert Anderson, outwitted both Angleton and Goodpasture, brought down the President, and got away with it. Whether or not Bill Harvey was part of this operation, his people were all over it and merit further scrutiny...
Others have argued to me that Angleton and covert action chief David Phillips were part of a plan to kill Kennedy, but my present perspective is that both of them like Goodpasture and operations chief Richard Helms, who I believe were in on the molehunt - were entrapped by the impersonation.
Angleton and Phillips drove the cover-up for their own protection. Otherwise, their careers and reputations would have been ruined, to say nothing of the future of the CIA. Phillips told investigator Kevin Walsh shortly before he died that he believed American intelligence officers were involved in the assassination. Angleton's last words were filled with regret and sorrow. "I've made so many mistakes."
I do not agree with his conclusions. I mean David, you so fiercely defend Armstrong with respect to Harvey and Lee, and you do not do the same when it comes with his Mexico explanation? And you prefer Simpich's thesis that exonerates Angleton and Phillips? Really?
When Newman has presented his view about Angleton and now he is going to after Phillips in his new books? And Lopez and Hardway that investigated it the incident in detail, haven spoken in person to all the players and had access to CIA HQ, why should i believe what Simpich says?
I would agree that a mole hunt was going on, but this does not exclude that Angleton was part of the plot.
Angleton said to Trento that E. H Hunt was sent to Dallas the day of the assassination on orders from a highly ranked KGB mole inside the CIA. Later Trento said that he believed that Angleton was really trying to hide his connection to Hunt and that he had probably sent him down there. Angleton never caught a mole, and later a CIA investigation concluded that maybe Angleton was a mole himself. It seems that Angleton was using his mole hunt as a cover to carry out his own agenda.
Imagine a Congressman asking Angleton what was he involvement down in Mexico. Would he have answered "i was planning to assassinate a US President" or "I was doing a mole hunt"?
So why to believe Simpich and his theory that it was Morales the man who outfoxed the rest of the CIA?