Lee Oswald with Pamphlets in New Oleans.jpg


Lee Harvey Oswald


Steve Erdmann 

(Copyright 2017, Steve Erdmann – All Rigts Reserved)

<Edited By Robert D. Morningstar>


As a result of his demands by constant FOIA (Freedom of Information requests) and other citizen actions, Peter Dale Scott (long-time author into political controversy) has discovered multiple government documents, some highly redacted and blacked-out, that appear to be raw material and, hopefully, clues to the possibility that the accused assassin in the murder of John F. Kennedy –

Lee Harvey Oswald – was “manipulated” – and in many instances – “invented.”

Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics,

By Peter Dale Scott

Skyhorse Publishing,

307 West 36TH Street, 11TH Floor,

New York 10018, 2013 

158 pages, $14.94 [softcover], $24.43 [hardcover]

“In any case, readers should not expect these essays to lead us to a full understanding of the Kennedy case,” says Scott in the book’s Introduction. “Rather they lead towards key anomalies of resistance, suppression, and above all falsification of major documents. Just as the mapping of geophysical anomalies can aid in the search for petroleum, so, the mapping of these documentary anomalies can aid us, and hopefully the Review Board, in isolating cover-up of America.”

(What also would lend to a better “understanding” in the book would be an improved explanation of the many “inferences” [though often possibly interesting and even logical] that are ‘still’ not clear (due, in part, to Scott’s somewhat stilted rhetoric), and ‘should’ have finally ended-up as hard, cold evidence that would be seen and read as final proof of some of his claims, but this finality doesn’t seem to ultimately take place.)

The early part of the book deals with an alleged Oswald/Kostikov conversation on October 1, 1963 where a mysterious but only ‘inferred’ “Oswald” spoke of having contacted a KGB agent called Valeriy Kostikov.


Scott mentions that several of these “Oswald leaks” were not the real Oswald, but “someone else impersonating him.” This involved several calls, comments, and “gossip” portraying Oswald as the originator. Scott believes that several Oswald “impersonators” laced the scenery with “traces,” “clues,” as part of a “deception program” done through phased or planned “high-level CIA cable traffic.” (p. 4.)

It would seem that Oswald had been “fazed” into several ‘stages’ of “mentions” that were “organized some years earlier in a possibly unrelated operation.” Oswald’s association with a KGB assassin was utilized as to ward off “threatening nuclear war,” and later switched Oswald to a “lone nut” angle or slant. Scott believes that most of these manipulations were the workings of the Counterintelligence Special Investigation Group in the CIA as well as Special Intelligence in the CIA’s station in Mexico City.


Through documents such as the Lopez Report, it would appear that someone (and very poorly executed, at times, in doing such maneuvering) was trying to impersonate Oswald in Mexico. Rumors to further this image had been passed along through Oleg M. Nechiporenko and General Nikolai Leonov, as well as eyewitnesses such as Silvia Duran of the Cuban Embassy. Scott seems to have found multiple discrepancies all through the documents. 

“It is far more likely that these cables were sent as part of a CIA deception operation,” says Scott, “and that this deception operation went back at least three years, to the time of Oswald’s alleged defection to the Soviet Union.”

Scott earmarks various “stages” that barely become visible in the trail of Oswald: Phase one, phase two. He refers to these as “dialectical cover-ups.” Phase One would suggest that Oswald was disguised as part of a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy; and then later, a Phase Two in which Oswald was not a KGB assassin but an alleged “lone killer.” To make matters even more problematic, Scott tells of a rift between the Counter Intelligence (CI) in the CIA and the FBI’s Counter Espionage as to how the “phase” program was to be implemented.

“It appears there may have been a clique within the government who cooperated with outside elements to kill the President,” says Scott, “and that this clique included elements in counterintelligence…in such a way as to activate a ‘phase one/phase two’ dialectical cover-up.”

Further manipulations could possibly include “forces inside the Dense Department poised to use Oswald’s record as a pretext to strike against Cuba.” 


Scott alternates in telling how the “tweaking” of rumors and information between the various Intelligence factions, utilizing files on Oswald, set Oswald up for various “falsifications.”

Scott says: “Why would SR/CI withhold from the FBI the information that Oswald (whom the CIA knew to be the subject of current and exited FBI Intelligence reports) had just met in Mexico City with an ‘identified KGB officer’? The most sinister explanation would be that they only wanted this information to become known after November 22 so that Oswald would be left free until this time and then picked up, to be identified as Kennedy’s assassin.”

Delving into the theory that a “second Oswald” was part of a plot to “implicate Oswald as the patsy in the assassination” (p.33), Scott openly identifies one of the manipulators: David Atlee Phillips, Mexico City Station’s Chief of Covert Action and Cuban Operations. 

“We have however Phillips’ own statements that he was involved in the transmission of both of the key ‘phase one’ allegations promoted in CIA cables,” says Scott, “the Kostikov story of October, and the Alvarado story of November 25.”

Dan Hardway, House Committee researcher, saId: “I’m firmly convinced now that he ran the red-herring, disinformation aspects of the plot.”


Scott references Mark Aaron’s and John Loftus’ remarks about Allen Dulles and Dulles’ comment about the “Agency-within-the-Agency” CIA structure (Unholy Trinity [New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991, p. 260]).

Outlined by Scott are various “initiatives” in their purpose to over-throw Cuba and assassinate Fidel Castro: Operation AMTRUNK (Operation Leonardo), AMLASH, the Attwood initiative, the JM/WAVE station, and the (mobster) Giancana-Roselli-CIA plots against Castro. In this somewhat confused matrix, Scott speculates, other ingredients were also integrated:

“We must look at E. Howard Hunt, a man whose role in the AMLASH story may have played a key role in the Watergate intrigue,” says Scott. “And above all, we must look at a man whose behavior, and whose CIA watchers, were intertwined with the already complex Attwood-AMLASH-Hunt story. This man was Lee Harvey Oswald.”

The middle part of the book concerns the conflicts that undergird the CIA, the Kennedys’ political policies, and Cuba. Scott raises the connection of journalist Jack Anderson’s investigation into the possible plot by Fidel Castro to Assassinate John Kennedy:

“…there was at least one other three-man assassination team that was sent, this time with CIA support, against Castro in 1963,” says Scott. “These three men where Eddie ‘Bayo’ Perez and the other two survivors of the so-called Bayo-Pawley mission, sent in the summer of 1963 by Roselli’s close friend and room-mate John Martino.” (Hincle and Turner, The Fish Red, pp. 171-173, 347-350.)

“Given these signs of a mob influence within the CIA as within the FBI,” says Scott, “it seems at least possible that the mob could have helped CIA authorization for a plot against Castro, which it then exploited to murder the President of the United States.” (p. 69.) 


The book is comprised of multiple topics and problems that Scott discerns as mysteries to be explained; Erdmann leaves various topics best to be explored directly by the readers:

1. Oswald’s associations with both leftwing and rightwing organizations.

2. The political spectrum of “double-speak” which seemed to encompass many individuals, including John Kennedy: “The Kennedy habit of speaking out of both sides of the mouth at once, like the larger Kennedy habit of trying to please both hawks and doves simultaneously…” (p. 57.) 

3. Jack Ruby’s shared affinity to opposing political factions: “The inscrutable mystery of a political polarity, simultaneously liberal and anti-liberal.” (p. 116.) 

4. Oswald or an impersonator’s alleged September, 1963 remark that he was “going to kill Kennedy.” Scott questions: “Was the story of the Oswald assassination remark (whether or not Oswald actually made it) a propaganda operation from the outset? If it were, then we cannot rule out the CIA resources in the two consulates were part of that operation.”

5. The many maneuverings of a “Staff D” at the consulates; much of this is under the sway of the DFS (Direccion Federal de Sequridad), going into the LIBNVOY Project (as well as the Soviet LIFFAT Project, p. 131) and the integration of Richard Cain and his expertise as telephone-tapper. Cain worked alongside of the CIA-Giancana assassination connection in Mexico City in 1962. He was also known to have connections with the Chicago mob and Jack Ruby all the way to the DFS and plot to kill Castro; the Chicago mob was involved in “deep involvement in Mexico’s drug traffic.”

“The Richard Cain-Lennie Patrick-Dave Yaras segment of the Chicago mob had connections to 1963 not only to Ruby but to Sam Giancana, and above all to mob activities in Cuba…but if Cain recrusted and/or trained then we may have isolated the matrix for a sophisticated CIA-Mafia assassination intercept program.” (p. 133.)  

“The DFS, before it was abolished because of its deep involvement in Mexico’s drug traffic, was a key agency in the Mexican Gober Nacion (Ministry of the Interior),” continues Scott. ”It also had close links with the FBI as well as the CIA, being part of a tradition of binational intelligence cooperation dating back to the turn of the century.”

6. The existence of ZR/RIFLE Executive Action assassination teams.

7.  Analysis of the contradictions of critic and debunker Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED.

“…there is the lawyerly approach to tell less, not more, to support the difficulties with the testimony that is preferred and to invent non-existent problems with the testimony of witnesses one wishes to discredit. This is the approach of Posner…” (p. 156.)

8. Scott reaches into Oswald’s career in the U.S.S.R and finds mystery in Oswald’s various aliases such as “Harvey Lee Oswald,” “Harvey Alik,” all the way into the U.S State Department with its 12/11/61 document #NO/4522 reference to “Citizen Lee Harvey Oswald.”  (p, 149.)

9. “…it would appear that the post-assassination hype about conspiracies was piggy-backed upon a pre-assassination operation, and that the successive alterations to (Sylvia) Duran’s statement were made by the CIA and DFS to project this operation.”

(Duran was a former Cuban consulate official who witnessed the impersonation of Oswald.) (p. 129.)


Erdmann now adds some additional facts that may help Scott’s aloof prose:

In a series of communications on December 3-4, 2013, Paul Trejo discussed some of the Winston Scott claims with co-researcher Paul Brancato, but in a much clearer fashion: 

Peter Dale Scott, with his usual brilliance, noted that the more falsehood in the story, the more it pointed to conspiracy.  Simply brilliant.   Let’s see if I can render his argument here: 

“1. If those two reports were true, then the US government had foreknowledge of Oswald’s intent to kill JFK, but simply failed to use those reports.

 “2.  If those reports were somewhat true, that is, Oswald carried a fake CP card and said he would kill JFK just to provoke notoriety, then that suggests the possibility of a conspiracy involving Oswald with other people. 

 “3.  If those reports were mostly false, that is, a fake Oswald carried a CP card and threatened to kill JFK, then we have final proof of a conspiracy to kill JFK and frame Oswald (even if the conspirators were commoners).

 “4. If those reports were totally false, however—simple lies made up by the Government agents involved—this would be strong evidence of a high-level conspiracy to kill JFK and frame Oswald.”     

Paul Brancato examined chapter eight in Scott’s book as to the possibility that the U.S Government demonstrated their complicity when “the government printed so many falsehoods about Lee Harvey Oswald before the JFK assassination, and then it took those words back and denied them during the Warren Commission hearings…For example, there were reports from Mexico City that said Lee Harvey Oswald was a ‘card-carrying member of the Communist Party.’

This turned out to be false, and the Dallas Police as well as the Warren Commission later rejected this.  

“Also, there were reports that said when Oswald was in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City in September, 1963, he threatened to kill JFK for causing Oswald’s delay in getting to Cuba.  Yet the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission would reject those reports, too.”


James DiEugenio outlined that period from Our Man in Mexico (University Press of Kansas, 2008) by Jefferson Morley:

“With this backdrop, Morley outlines the four secret programs through which Oswald had to come into contact with the CIA in 1963. They were codenamed AMSPELL, LIERODE, LIENVOY, and LIEMPTY.  The first two programs were run by (David Atlee) Phillips, the last two by (Winston) Scott.  AMSPELL was the name given inside the CIA to the DRE, LERODE refers to the camera surveillance on the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. LIENVOY refers to the wiretapping of phone lines at the Soviet Embassy, and LIEMPTY to the photo surveillance of that embassy.

“So it would seem obvious that there would be documents about this interaction forwarded to either (George) Joannides or (David Atlee) Phillips. But as Morley noted, there are 17 months of reports–from 12/62 to 4/64–the CIA has yet to declassify on AMSPELL. (Elsewhere on this site, you can read about his struggle with the CIA to get these documents.)” 


Assassination researcher William Kelly commented on November 21, 2010 about a Provocation-Deception from Army Intelligence Reserve in Dallas, 11/22/1963:

“To begin with, we know that in Dallas, on November 22, there were people inside the military who falsified their reporting of the Kennedy assassination to create the false impression (or what I have called the ‘phase-one story’) of an enemy attack…but I did not realize until recently that all of them came from a single Army Intelligence Reserve unit.

“As these deceptions are immediately post-assassination, they do not in isolation establish that the assassination itself was a provocation-deception plot. They do however reveal enough about the anti-Castro mindset of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit in Dallas to confirm that it was remarkably similar to that of the J-5 the preceding May that produced a menu of ‘fabricated provocations’ for the Joint Chiefs.”

Kelly outlined further facts:

The plans of a Phase One implication of Castro on the part of a Dallas-Army Intelligence use of “deceptive falsehoods” leading all the way to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington.

“Researcher Larry Haapanen has discovered the 488th seems to have had its own direct chain of command linking it to Washington. In an esoteric publication entitled The Military Order of World Wars (Turner Publishing Company, 1997, p. 120), he found that (John) Crichton “commanded the 488th MID (Strategic), reporting directly to the Army Chief of Intelligence and the Defense Intelligence Agency.” Haapanen was told by Crichton’s commander in the Texas Army Reserve (1970: Lt. Col. Whitmeyer), that Crichton’s unit did its summer training at the Pentagon.

“It is now clear that Stringfellow’s claims about Oswald as a Communist Party visitor to Cuba, though clearly false, fell well within the guidelines for a provocation-deception as set out in the Northwoods and May 1963 documents. All (of) this Cuban deception planning was in support of JCS OPLANS 312 (Air Attack in Cuba) and 316 (Invasion of Cuba). 

“These were not theoretical exercises, but actively developed operational plans which the JCS were only too eager to execute. As they told Kennedy, ‘We are not only ready to take any action you may order in Cuba, we are also in an excellent condition world-wide to counter any Soviet military response to such action.’” 

In Operation Northwoods: New York, May 1, 2001, David Ruppe wrote:

“In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. 

“Code named Operation Northwoods; the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. 

“The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.”)  

Part II continues!

For more information or to purchase this book from AMAZON.COM simply click on its title. Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics: Revelations from CIA Records on the Assassination

Steve Erdmann

St. Louis, MO

October 7th, 2017


You can contact Steve Erdmann at 

[email protected] or [email protected].

You can friend him at Facebook 

or visit the Dissenter/Disinter Group at!/groups/171577496293504/. 

His Facebook email is


Most recent posts by Steve Erdmann

All posts by Steve Erdmann