This continues Bill's studies of some of the spy games going on in Mexico City,
as you begin to read you also begin to wonder if things were not getting so complex
that different American intelligence participants were beginning to confuse each
other?

....................

As background for the following discussion, a bit of background on the Mexico City 
stations telephone tap operations is in order. Audio intelligence was always a key 
goal for the station and although there were a variety of “targets”, the Russian and 
Cuban embassy/consulates were primary targets.  Initially the main tap program, LIFEAT, 
used a number of “outside” taps, at points adjacent to target locations. Some 23 lines 
were monitored from 7 separate intercept points; individual monitoring, taping and some 
transcription was performed at those sites. 

Circa 1959, a much more sophisticated, centralized tap operation was added (LIENVOY) – some
 30 lines were tapped of centralized telephone switching equipment and eventually one center
 would contain 30 tape recorders, monitors, etc  (more on issues and problems with LIENVOY 
in a follow-up post).  However, the station history is clear that LIENVOY was complemented by 
LIFEAT and both were continued.  Of some importance is that the two tapping efforts, using 
different technology, were conducted separately and with independent personnel – raising an
interesting question of how many taps and tapes really would have been in existence for calls 
to and from the Russian and Soviet embassies in November 1963……

Any strong intelligence tie found between Oswald and the CIA
in Mexico City after the assassination could have resulted in the
dismantling of the CIA and formation of a new agency.  Most
investigators, no matter how stalwart, are uneasy about conducting an
investigation that might seriously injure the investigating agency’s future
and the careers of its employees.

September 28:  A CIA agent's name pops up on the LIENVOY transcript
about the supposed telephone call by Oswald and Duran to the Soviet consulate
 
The surviving transcript of the tape of this day states that
Oswald and Duran called the Soviet consulate and made arrangements for
Oswald to come by -  Later, Sylvia Duran was adamant that she did not see "Oswald"
at the Cuban consulate on that day. The Soviets say that Oswald did not make that
call, nor did he visit after that time.  It appears that the phone call was a hoax.

There is a stunning bit of information on the transcript that has been overlooked. "Duran" makes 
a side-comment in Spanish about how "they installed a telephone for Aparicio and take down the
 number as 14-12-99…”

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1192514

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1141138

.
When CIA HQ asked about the phone number, Mexico City Station Chief Winston Scott said 
"get Dave > (Phillips) to give details", and responded that "141299 is the phone
number for Raul Aparicio Nogales, a cultural attaché of Embassy.  Doubt any connection 
GPFLOOR (Oswald) as Aparicio was on sick leave during significant period."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=33326&relPageId=2

In reality, Aparicio was reported by the CIA to have been at the Cuban consulate for
 more than an hour during the morning of September 26, so he doesn't seem to be sick on that day.  
He left with the consulate with Theresa Proenza, another cultural attaché that he  worked with
 on a regular basis.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=55179&relPageId=9

Raul Aparicio was harder to locate during the month of November.   An initial
Message from JMWAVE to CIA HQ recounts how an agent known as AMKNOB-1 followed JMWAVE directions
 and sent a cable with a follow-up letter to "Raul" on 11/7/63.  He waited for a response for 
fifteen days.  And AMKNOB-1 himself, a State Dept. employee, was being targeted by the Cuban 
intelligence. CIA HQ warned JMWAVE about the Cuban intelligence effort on Nov.21. 
 On November 22, JMWAVE responded with a cable about his being targeted.
 
On November 22, AMKNOB-1 telephoned the Cuban consulate, and reached Sylvia
Duran.  "Sylvia denied knowing Raul Aparacio "  Three days later, AMKNOB-1 finally
received a cable from Apracio, saying that the horrible assassination
redoubled his strength to "fight red crime”?  
 
…….what sort of “red crime” would a cultural attaché at the Cuban consulate be referring to?  And why?

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=54805&relPageId=2
 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=392335,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=53251&relPageId=64.
 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=54805&relPageId=2

A second message on these contact came from JMWAVE a week later, subtly changing the story 
based on "full  info".  "A-1 still waiting on contact with CIS CO (Cuban intelligence service case 
officer)…  
 
“A-1 said when A-1 called (Cuban) embassy not ref
("not ref" means "not the previously referenced message"), sec (secretary)
asked whether A-1 wanted to talk to Raul Aparicio, cultural attache at
embassy. A-1 said no and terminated the connection.  A-1 continues wait
 contact."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3056&relPageId=2

If that seems confusing, we find a handwritten added to the initial message claimed 
that "Raul" is "Raul Pereira".   There is a waiter identified as "Paul Pereira"  at the Cuban
 embassy on November 8.  But then there's also a "Raul Pereira Vasquez" >
 tentatively id'd as AMKNOB-1's case officer.  Is he different from Raul Aparicio?  
 
Are we supposed to believe that Sylvia Duran got two calls...she told one stranger that she
 didn't know Raul Aparicio (a Cuban consulate cultural attaché) and then volunteered to a 
stranger the opportunity to talk to Raul Pereira or Paul Pereira, the waiter?   Do we believe a
 CIA asset was contacting Paul, the Cuban embassy waiter, because he wanted to fight red crime?  

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=376919
 https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=491968
 https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=510336

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=510336.

On December 3, what appears to be a bugging device was placed in the
 Cuban embassy by the CIA.  "Target is office Raul Aparicio.  Cuban
cultural attaché who recently underwent surgery and not yet returned
 work."   So suddenly the CIA is  listening not to Aparicio? But instead are they really 
listening to someone else who is  using his office - possibly his colleague Proenza, who was 
being harassed  by the CIA during this period.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=405245

But it’s clear Aparicio was something more than simply a cultural attache. Aparicio
also served as the "security officer" to  a Cuban intelligence agent AMMUG-1, Vladmir Lahera, 
who defected to the US in April 1964 - one of  the most valuable defectors ever obtained by the 
CIA.  Furthermore, Aparicio was the alias of Daniel Flores, CI/SAS.
 
 Flores helped handle AMMUG-1 affairs after his defection.  Flores 
had only recently joined the Agency, going undercover inside the Cuban embassy as “Raul Aparicio.”

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0405a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0287a.htm

 https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=22340&relPageId=2

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.d's
?mode=searchResult&absPageId=409494>,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=49246&relPageId=5

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=394601

…… See the reference to AMMUG-1 at bottom right of the document.  Also note
 the "source" saw Pereira in Mexico on March 1964; the claim that the source
 left the Cuban intelligence service on the *date* of "April 1961" is
 blurry and thus suspect - compare this blurry "1961" to this better copy
 but now even more suspect.  This is an actual case of document alteration:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=398113

…..Even more importantly, this document strongly suggests that the source was actually AMMUG-1 
and the date 1964 was an alteration of an original date which would have been 1961

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=590380

Here's another AMMUG debriefing document that shows the source actually working with  Cuban 
intelligence up to 1964

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=588560

I can find no more about Pereira but for a LIENVOY taped call from
 "Pereyra" to Sylvia Duran one year later - did he ever really exist?  Or
was his identity attached to Aparicio's in order to blur the entire story?
 
Whoever imitated Sylvia Duran on the Oswald phone call had access to
some highly prized - and compartmentalized - information.  Information that
even CIA station head Win Scott did not share (on the record) with his own Headquarters. Information
 such as the fact that an impersonator, using Aparicio's name during the call, would ensure that 
 the Agency would back off investigating "Aparicio" because it would raise questions which might 
take them in an unknown and possibly uncomfortable direction….
Advertisements

About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s