Declassified: The CIA "Oswald" and Mexico City

[David Josephs]

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?

Thanks for the thoughtful post Vasilios

And thanks for picking up the nuances between ALL of a theory and aspects of one. I don't prefer Bill's per se, you shouldn't "believe" anything... you should do what you're doing.
I recommend reading the work. It remains, like H&L, a wonderful launching point. What you find and where it leads is up to you. I don't agree with many Mexico explanations because the info I found suggests that no one took this bus trip at all... that these descriptions are composites of people on buses the witnesses experienced. To me, if no one took a bus, it wasn't Lee on these buses...

If I would guess, he was our Alice TX traveler. For those who think that an H.O. Lee took the Mexico trip... why would Mr. LEE be filed in the records (created by the FBI's assets in Mexico after the fact) between "M" and "P" on one form and "M" and Ou" in another ?





I do not speak for Bill as I don't for John. Bill has been helpful, kind and sincere so I think he approaches his analysis with the same virtues...
My focus was the evidence of his being there at all before and after... If the FBI was indeed involved within this hunt, one can see the motivation to protect the CIA's lies about the trip, among other things.

I follow the Evidence offered and attainable... In many areas it supports H&L and I defend it so. Discussions and writings about what happened in Mexico and why will always be shadowed by "best-guess from the evidence" analysis and corroboration to illustrate a point.


I would need to give State Secret another read to be able to discuss that with you and give you a thoughtful answer - life gets in the way as you elude to at the start of your post - but now you have me interested... :-)

VV - a right answer is very difficult to agree upon... at what level of detail is it left to chance versus a plan so that we may be trying to connect dots that were only created at the moment.

Between Bill and JA there is a mountain of evidence. We will be wrong... I will be wrong. He will have been wrong in a few places...

Tell us a different story... that adds up to the whole

DJ