22-11-2013, 02:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 22-11-2013, 02:31 AM by Jim Hargrove.)
Having just finished reading Chapter 5 of this important new work by Mr. Simpich, I'm more and more impressed by it. Fully explaining the existing/remaining docs and eyewitness statements of the "Oswald in Mexico City" episode is important work.
My favorite statements from Chapter 5 are:
Most of these documents had nothing to do with wiretaps and surveillance the only thing sensitive about them was that they would reveal Oswald's biography, which was the actual state secret.
Only one minor complaint. Rather than believing that "Oswald" was a "unwitting co-optee" in the spy game, suggested by numerous cautious researchers, why not just make the most obvious conclusion? CIA accountant James Wilcott testified under oath that he was told checks he wrote were for "Oswald or the Oswald Project." Why not just conclude that "Oswald" was a paid employee of the CIA?
And why not consider the obvious possibility that in New Orleans in 1963, the CIA's Clay Shaw handed the CIA's Harvey Oswald to the FBI's Guy Bannister (formerly head of FBI's Chicago office) so that any future government investigation into "Lee Harvey Oswald" would be hobbled by BOTH the CIA and the FBI, which is EXACTLY what happened! Just asking....
Jim
My favorite statements from Chapter 5 are:
Most of these documents had nothing to do with wiretaps and surveillance the only thing sensitive about them was that they would reveal Oswald's biography, which was the actual state secret.
and
The 201 file was stripped to hide not just Oswald's pro-Cuban background, but almost everything about Oswald's biography. In other words, Oswald would come across to Bustos as pretty much of a "nobody", a schlep of so little consequence that no one knew or cared if he had even returned to the United States after the last date in the file, May 1962.
Only one minor complaint. Rather than believing that "Oswald" was a "unwitting co-optee" in the spy game, suggested by numerous cautious researchers, why not just make the most obvious conclusion? CIA accountant James Wilcott testified under oath that he was told checks he wrote were for "Oswald or the Oswald Project." Why not just conclude that "Oswald" was a paid employee of the CIA?
And why not consider the obvious possibility that in New Orleans in 1963, the CIA's Clay Shaw handed the CIA's Harvey Oswald to the FBI's Guy Bannister (formerly head of FBI's Chicago office) so that any future government investigation into "Lee Harvey Oswald" would be hobbled by BOTH the CIA and the FBI, which is EXACTLY what happened! Just asking....
Jim