Was Oswald a Traitor as Pamela States?

[Canuck]

In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina, Pamela
Brown states that Oswald was a traitor, whether or not he was guilty of
assassinating JFK. If he was a traitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
his return from the Soviet Union? He didn't even have to fulfill his
inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
inactive duty (if that's the correct term). As I recall, his mother had
received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
Peter R. Whitmey

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2012 10:16 PM, Canuck wrote:
> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina, Pamela
> Brown states that Oswald was a traitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> assassinating JFK. If he was a traitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
> his return from the Soviet Union? He didn't even have to fulfill his

I fail to see your point. Not everyone who commits an offense is
prosecuted. And Oswald was tried and punished by reducing his discharge
to less than honorable. No one had enough evidence to prove in a
civilian court where there are rules of evidence that Oswald had
violated any security oath or the National Security Act.

[Raymond]

Oswald: "I Am Not A Communist"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gViQ1jByU0

[John McAdams]

You need to read the HSCA Defector Report.

He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State
Department) as a traitor or security risk. He was viewed as a mixed
up mentally unstable young man.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

And his defection immediately set off alarms in US intelligence and
caused the military to change codes and procedures.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina, Pamela
> Brown states that Oswald was a traitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> assassinating JFK.

That is indeed my opinion. LHO said he was willing to give all his
secrets to the Soviets. The U-2 carrying Francis Gary Powers was shot
down while LHO was in the USSR. Powers believed LHO had something to do
with that.

> If he was a traitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
> his return from the Soviet Union?

That is my question too.

> He didn't even have to fulfill his
> inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
> inactive duty (if that's the correct term).  As I recall, his mother had
> received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
> Peter R. Whitmey

Yes. He was given a handslap, with the downgrade of his discharge. He
objected vehemently to that. He should have been relieved he wasn't
hauled off to a court martial the minute he stepped off the plane in NYC.

[Pamela Brown]

And Powers believed LHO had provided the Soviets with data used to help
shoot his U-2 down.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 5 Jan 2012 13:39:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh

But since he only had "confidential" clearance, not much had to be
changed.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 5 Jan 2012 17:37:55 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 5, 12:39=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/5/2012 11:42 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State

>> > Department) as a traitor or security risk. =A0He was viewed as a mixed

>> > up mentally unstable young man.
>>
>> And his defection immediately set off alarms in US intelligence and
>> caused the military to change codes and procedures.
>
>And Powers believed LHO had provided the Soviets with data used to help
>shoot his U-2 down.
>

And just what evidence of this did Powers have?

[black...@aol.com]

On Jan 5, 5:37 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina, Pamela
> > Brown states that Oswald was a traitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> > assassinating JFK.
>
> That is indeed my opinion.

Interesting, and unexpected. Do you think Oswald was ever a genuine
leftist? Was he ever a US agent?

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 5, 4:46 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2012 13:39:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 1/5/2012 11:42 AM, John McAdams wrote:

> >> On 4 Jan 2012 22:16:42 -0500, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina, Pamela
> >>> Brown states that Oswald was a traitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >>> assassinating JFK.  If he was a traitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
> >>> his return from the Soviet Union?  He didn't even have to fulfill his
> >>> inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
> >>> inactive duty (if that's the correct term).  As I recall, his mother had
> >>> received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
> >>> Peter R. Whitmey
>
> >> You need to read the HSCA Defector Report.
>
> >> He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State
> >> Department) as a traitor or security risk.  He was viewed as a mixed
> >> up mentally unstable young man.
>
> >And his defection immediately set off alarms in US intelligence and
> >caused the military to change codes and procedures.
>
> But since he only had "confidential" clearance, not much had to be
> changed.
>

Why are you comfortable blaming LHO for the assassination but not
comfortable with defining the damage his defection and providing of
information to the Soviets caused?

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 5, 4:47 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2012 17:37:55 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 5, 12:39=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/5/2012 11:42 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >> > He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State
> >> > Department) as a traitor or security risk. =A0He was viewed as a mixed
> >> > up mentally unstable young man.
>
> >> And his defection immediately set off alarms in US intelligence and
> >> caused the military to change codes and procedures.
>
> >And Powers believed LHO had provided the Soviets with data used to help
> >shoot his U-2 down.
>
> And just what evidence of this did Powers have?
>

Um...he was the one shot down. But of course, in your world, that doesn't
count.

[Anthony Marsh]

So according to you call signs, recognition codes, etc. are only
Confidential?

[timstter]

The Soviets said *the birds had already chirped* when it came to
Oswald trying to tell them what he had learned in the USMC.

Well that's what that KGB fellow said in the PBS show from a few years
back.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Canuck]

On Jan 5, 8:42 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Priscilla Johnson wrote a fairly sympathetic portrait of Oswald after
their five-hour meeting at the Metropole Hotel, where they were both
staying. Of course, PJ had been beaten to the punch by a real
reporter, UPI's Aline Mosby (http://www.jfk-info.com/whitmey7.htm).
But when it came to updating her 1959 article for publication in the
Boston Globe (and numerous Hearst papers) on the morning of Nov. 24,
1963, PJ decided to make one alteration in her impression of Lee
Oswald, as I discuss in my three-part series on Priscilla's career
(http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-1.htm):

"The second paragraph by Miss Johnson in her revised version reflects
a completely different impression of Oswald, compared to her original,
non-judgmental version. In fact, the Boston Globe chose to use as
its headline a quotation from this paragraph, unlike the Dallas
Morning News, whose headline simply read: 'Reporter Recalls Moscow
Talk With Oswald'. Miss Johnson describes sitting in her hotel room
with Lee 'all evening and into the early hours of the morning' and he
'talked quietly about his plans to defect to Russia. However, I soon
came to feel that this boy was of the stuff of which fanatics are made.
[note: the stuff of which fanatics are made was printed in darker,
bolder print in the Boston Globe.] Did she really feel that way back
in November, 1959? If she did, it certainly wasn't expressed in
either her report or in a subsequent discussion with the American
Embassy. As pointed out by Robert Sam Anson the word 'fanatics'
conjured up a far more 'sinister figure' than he'd been described
originally. It would appear that an attempt was being made to paint
a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald as a very disturbed young man, capable
of some outrageous political act - like assassinating a president -
consistent with similar portrayals in both TIME and LIFE magazines
prior to and following Oswald's death. The fact that the word
'fanatics' was neither used nor implied in Priscilla's original report
is very troubling, and a total misrepresentation of her impressions of
the young man she had interviewed at that time. It is possible that
when she read over her original article, which referred to a soft-
spoken 'idealistic former Marine who spoke in terms of 'emigrating' as
opposed to defecting, she found it difficult to accept her own
impressions, given the possibility that this same man was a
presidential assassin. Unfortunately, it would appear that Miss
Johnson was unable to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, and
instead chose to join the journalistic lynch mob before Oswald was
even officially charged with the assassination, let alone tried. It
is important to note that her new assessment was made prior to
Oswald's death, with the realization that she very likely would have
been called to testify.'
- Peter R.
Whitmey

[Canuck]

> Whitmey- Hide quoted text -
>

Try the title page of my series on PJM at;
http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-tit.htm.

- prw

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela

> > > Brown states that Oswald was atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of

> > > assassinating JFK.
>
> > That is indeed my opinion.
>
> Interesting, and unexpected.

Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair. LHO said
he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection. In
addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
Atsugi. Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.

>Do you think Oswald was ever a genuine
> leftist?  Was he ever a US agent?

Good questions. The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
access to all the records. It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers. But
then, he quickly grabbed a lovely Russian bride whom he had only known for
a few weeks prior to marrying, and quickly made his move to return to the
US, in order to try to escape to Cuba.

Is this the behavior of a loner trying to create trouble, as Jean Davison
suggests, or of someone being used by others with hidden agendas? There
seems to me to be evidence to support either position. The fact that the
govt did not insist that LHO be protected sufficiently in order for him to
be able to live to stand trial (he was the most hated man in the world
after the assassination) tends to weigh the evidence in favor of the govt
having something to hide that might have come out in a jury trial.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
>>>> Brown states that Oswald was atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
>>>> assassinating JFK.
>>
>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>>
>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>
> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair. LHO said
> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine

No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.

> buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection. In
> addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
> Atsugi. Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
> defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
> suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.
>

Some of it has been released and what has been released reveals a
pattern of covering up what they originally had and destroyed.

>> Do you think Oswald was ever a genuine
>> leftist? Was he ever a US agent?
>
> Good questions. The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
> access to all the records. It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
> citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
> demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers. But

The KGB did not trust him.

> then, he quickly grabbed a lovely Russian bride whom he had only known for
> a few weeks prior to marrying, and quickly made his move to return to the
> US, in order to try to escape to Cuba.
>

He didn't seem in too much of a hurry to go to Cuba.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 6, 8:20 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 6, 1:12 pm,PamelaBrown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:46 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> > > On 5 Jan 2012 13:39:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> > > <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >On 1/5/2012 11:42 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> > > >> On 4 Jan 2012 22:16:42 -0500, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> > > >>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela

> > > >>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> > > >>> assassinating JFK.  If he was atraitor, why was he not prosecuted upon

> > > >>> his return from the Soviet Union?  He didn't even have to fulfill his
> > > >>> inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
> > > >>> inactive duty (if that's the correct term).  As I recall, his mother had
> > > >>> received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
> > > >>> Peter R. Whitmey
>
> > > >> You need to read the HSCA Defector Report.
>
> > > >> He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State

> > > >> Department) as atraitoror security risk.  He was viewed as a mixed

> > > >> up mentally unstable young man.
>
> > > >And his defection immediately set off alarms in US intelligence and
> > > >caused the military to change codes and procedures.
>
> > > But since he only had "confidential" clearance, not much had to be
> > > changed.
>
> > Why are you comfortable blaming LHO for the assassination but not
> > comfortable with defining the damage his defection and providing of
> > information to the Soviets caused?
>

> The Soviets said *the birds had already chirped* when it came toOswaldtrying to tell them what he had learned in the USMC.

>
> Well that's what that KGB fellow said in the PBS show from a few years
> back.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

I know. But there was KGB and inner KGB, so who knows what really
happened?

Nosenko was in the outer KGB and he claimed nobody in KGB was interested
in LHO. He spoke the truth about what he knew about LHO; perhaps he was
deliberately strung along.

But JJAngleton didn't believe him, so had him locked up and tortured for
three years. Angleton knew better, or thought he did. Then Angleton was
booted out and Nosenko was in essense paid for the terrible experience he
endured.

So did CIA untimately validate Nosenko's statements, and was Nosenko able
to tell the full truth?

Who knows.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 6, 8:15 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/5/2012 5:46 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Jan 2012 13:39:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh

> > <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:

>
> >> On 1/5/2012 11:42 AM, John McAdams wrote:

> >>> On 4 Jan 2012 22:16:42 -0500, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>   wrote:
>
> >>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela

> >>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >>>> assassinating JFK.  If he was atraitor, why was he not prosecuted upon

> >>>> his return from the Soviet Union?  He didn't even have to fulfill his
> >>>> inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
> >>>> inactive duty (if that's the correct term).  As I recall, his mother had
> >>>> received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
> >>>> Peter R. Whitmey
>
> >>> You need to read the HSCA Defector Report.
>
> >>> He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State

> >>> Department) as atraitoror security risk.  He was viewed as a mixed

> >>> up mentally unstable young man.
>
> >> And his defection immediately set off alarms in US intelligence and
> >> caused the military to change codes and procedures.
>
> > But since he only had "confidential" clearance, not much had to be
> > changed.
>
> So according to you call signs, recognition codes, etc. are only
> Confidential?
>
>

McAdams seems to be trying to minimize all of this. I wonder why?

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela

> >>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of

> >>>> assassinating JFK.
>
> >>> That is indeed my opinion.
>
> >> Interesting, and unexpected.
>
> > Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair.  LHO said
> > he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>
> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.

Where did you get that wacky idea? They did offer him citizenship and
he didn't follow through.
Codes were changed. Powers was shot down. I think he did give them
info.

>
> > buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection.  In
> > addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
> > Atsugi.  Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
> > defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
> > suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.
>
> Some of it has been released and what has been released reveals a
> pattern of covering up what they originally had and destroyed.

OK.
>
> >> Do you thinkOswaldwas ever a genuine

> >> leftist?  Was he ever a US agent?
>
> > Good questions.  The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
> > access to all the records.  It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
> > citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
> > demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers.  But
>
> The KGB did not trust him.

Why should they? I don't see that as relevant. He was either useful
to them or not whether they trusted him or not.

>
> > then, he quickly grabbed a lovely Russian bride whom he had only known for
> > a few weeks prior to marrying, and quickly made his move to return to the
> > US, in order to try to escape to Cuba.
>
> He didn't seem in too much of a hurry to go to Cuba.

That seems to have been the objective from soon after his return to
the US. Everything seemed to speed up once they got to NOLA.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2012 9:54 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
>>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
>>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>>
>>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>>
>>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>>
>>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair. LHO said
>>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>>
>> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
>> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>
> Where did you get that wacky idea? They did offer him citizenship and
> he didn't follow through.

No, they didn't and he didn't follow through because they refused to
grant him citizenship. His gambit failed.

> Codes were changed. Powers was shot down. I think he did give them
> info.

He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.

>>
>>> buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection. In
>>> addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
>>> Atsugi. Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
>>> defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
>>> suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.
>>
>> Some of it has been released and what has been released reveals a
>> pattern of covering up what they originally had and destroyed.
>
> OK.
>>
>>>> Do you thinkOswaldwas ever a genuine
>>>> leftist? Was he ever a US agent?
>>
>>> Good questions. The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
>>> access to all the records. It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
>>> citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
>>> demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers. But
>>
>> The KGB did not trust him.
>
> Why should they? I don't see that as relevant. He was either useful
> to them or not whether they trusted him or not.

They are professionals and they determined that he was worthless.

>>
>>> then, he quickly grabbed a lovely Russian bride whom he had only known for
>>> a few weeks prior to marrying, and quickly made his move to return to the
>>> US, in order to try to escape to Cuba.
>>
>> He didn't seem in too much of a hurry to go to Cuba.
>
> That seems to have been the objective from soon after his return to
> the US. Everything seemed to speed up once they got to NOLA.

How many months did it take for Oswald to apply for a VISA to Cuba after
he returned to the US? Not in any hurry.

[Anthony Marsh]

So that Oswald can remain an insignificant nobody, not an intelligence
asset.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2012 12:52 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:

I believe the upper echelons fed Nosenko only what they wanted him to know
and then scared him into defecting so that his story would be more
believable. I don't think he was even aware of the fact that he was being
used solely as a messenger boy.

>
> But JJAngleton didn't believe him, so had him locked up and tortured for
> three years. Angleton knew better, or thought he did. Then Angleton was
> booted out and Nosenko was in essense paid for the terrible experience he
> endured.
>
> So did CIA untimately validate Nosenko's statements, and was Nosenko able
> to tell the full truth?
>

Nosenko did not know the full truth. He was groomed and instructed.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 10, 1:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> So thatOswaldcan remain an insignificant nobody, not an intelligence
> asset.

One can be a traitor without being an intelligence asset.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/10/2012 9:54 AM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> >>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>
> >>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>
> >>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>
> >>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair.  LHO said
> >>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>
> >> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
> >> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>
> > Where did you get that wacky idea?  They did offer him citizenship and
> > he didn't follow through.
>
> No, they didn't and he didn't follow through because they refused to
> grant him citizenship. His gambit failed.

I disagree. I think he did give them information. Powers was shot down.
He made another trip to Moscow and says he met Powers. I think overtures
were made at that time and he demurred, preferring not to give up his
American passport.

>
> > Codes were changed.  Powers was shot down.  I think he did give them
> > info.
>
> He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
> stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.

I disagree. I think getting into USSR to give them this info was why he
tried to kill himself. The citizenship was just a cover.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection.  In
> >>> addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
> >>> Atsugi.  Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
> >>> defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
> >>> suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.
>
> >> Some of it has been released and what has been released reveals a
> >> pattern of covering up what they originally had and destroyed.
>
> > OK.
>
> >>>> Do you thinkOswaldwas ever a genuine
> >>>> leftist?  Was he ever a US agent?
>
> >>> Good questions.  The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
> >>> access to all the records.  It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
> >>> citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
> >>> demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers.  But
>
> >> The KGB did not trust him.
>
> > Why should they?  I don't see that as relevant. He was either useful
> > to them or not whether they trusted him or not.
>
> They are professionals and they determined that he was worthless.

Nosenko was used by KGB. We seem to be in agreement that he was set up
with only info they wanted the US to know.

I don't think KGB saw LHO as 'worthless'. I think he was used, at least
once.

>
>
>
> >>> then, he quickly grabbed a lovely Russian bride whom he had only known for
> >>> a few weeks prior to marrying, and quickly made his move to return to the
> >>> US, in order to try to escape to Cuba.
>
> >> He didn't seem in too much of a hurry to go to Cuba.
>
> > That seems to have been the objective from soon after his return to
> > the US.  Everything seemed to speed up once they got to NOLA.
>

> How many months did it take forOswaldto apply for a VISA to Cuba after

> he returned to the US? Not in any hurry.

I wonder if Cuba was the goal all along. So 'hurry' would be relative.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 10, 1:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Agree.

>
>
>
> > But JJAngleton didn't believe him, so had him locked up and tortured for
> > three years.  Angleton knew better, or thought he did. Then Angleton was
> > booted out and Nosenko was in essense paid for the terrible experience he
> > endured.
>
> > So did CIA untimately validate Nosenko's statements, and was Nosenko able
> > to tell the full truth?
>
> Nosenko did not know the full truth. He was groomed and instructed.

Agree. But did CIA realize that when they repaid him?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, of course not. That was too high a level of complexity for them to
comprehend.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2012 6:56 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/10/2012 9:54 AM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
>>>>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
>>>>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>>
>>>>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>>
>>>>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>>
>>>>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair. LHO said
>>>>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>>
>>>> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
>>>> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>>
>>> Where did you get that wacky idea? They did offer him citizenship and
>>> he didn't follow through.
>>
>> No, they didn't and he didn't follow through because they refused to
>> grant him citizenship. His gambit failed.
>
> I disagree. I think he did give them information. Powers was shot down.

The exact way that Powers was shot down could not possibly be based on
anything that Oswald knew so much earlier. It was a very complex technical
problem what did not require any external information. The Russians
already knew everything about the U-2 profile that they needed to shoot it

down.

> He made another trip to Moscow and says he met Powers. I think overtures
> were made at that time and he demurred, preferring not to give up his
> American passport.

The Russians never trusted Oswald enough to offer him citizenship.

>
>>
>>> Codes were changed. Powers was shot down. I think he did give them
>>> info.
>>
>> He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
>> stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.
>
> I disagree. I think getting into USSR to give them this info was why he
> tried to kill himself. The citizenship was just a cover.
>

Oswald did not have any important information to give the Soviets.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection. In
>>>>> addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
>>>>> Atsugi. Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
>>>>> defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
>>>>> suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.
>>
>>>> Some of it has been released and what has been released reveals a
>>>> pattern of covering up what they originally had and destroyed.
>>
>>> OK.
>>
>>>>>> Do you thinkOswaldwas ever a genuine
>>>>>> leftist? Was he ever a US agent?
>>
>>>>> Good questions. The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
>>>>> access to all the records. It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
>>>>> citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
>>>>> demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers. But
>>
>>>> The KGB did not trust him.
>>
>>> Why should they? I don't see that as relevant. He was either useful
>>> to them or not whether they trusted him or not.
>>
>> They are professionals and they determined that he was worthless.
>
> Nosenko was used by KGB. We seem to be in agreement that he was set up
> with only info they wanted the US to know.
>
> I don't think KGB saw LHO as 'worthless'. I think he was used, at least
> once.
>

In what operation? By which department?

[Anthony Marsh]

The WC defenders can't comprehend such a possibility.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 11, 8:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > One can be atraitorwithout being an intelligence asset.

>
> The WC defenders can't comprehend such a possibility.

<sigh>You may be right.

Do you think they could look at the Rosenberg's objectively? They
were certainly traitors but not spies.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 11, 8:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/10/2012 6:56 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2012 9:54 AM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>      wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>      wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> >>>>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >>>>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>
> >>>>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>
> >>>>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>
> >>>>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair.  LHO said
> >>>>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>
> >>>> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
> >>>> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>
> >>> Where did you get that wacky idea?  They did offer him citizenship and
> >>> he didn't follow through.
>
> >> No, they didn't and he didn't follow through because they refused to
> >> grant him citizenship. His gambit failed.
>
> > I disagree.  I think he did give them information.  Powers was shot down.
>
> The exact way that Powers was shot down could not possibly be based on

> anything thatOswaldknew so much earlier. It was a very complex technical

> problem what did not require any external information. The Russians
> already knew everything about the U-2 profile that they needed to shoot it
> down.

I respectfully disagree. I think LHO was a key part of that U-2
shootdown.

>
> > He made another trip to Moscow and says he met Powers.  I think overtures
> > were made at that time and he demurred, preferring not to give up his
> > American passport.
>
> The Russians never trustedOswaldenough to offer him citizenship.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I think he was offered citizenship when
he was brought to Moscow to meet Powers and also when he went to renew his
papers in Minsk. I don't think he wanted that. In fact, it is my
thinking at this time that the U-2 incident was the short-term catalyst
for LHO 'defecting' to USSR; he wanted to return to the US by December of
1960.

>
>
>
> >>> Codes were changed.  Powers was shot down.  I think he did give them
> >>> info.
>
> >> He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
> >> stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.
>
> > I disagree.  I think getting into USSR to give them this info was why he
> > tried to kill himself.  The citizenship was just a cover.
>

> Oswalddid not have any important information to give the Soviets.

Again, I disagree. That is what we are supposed to think; not
necessarily what is the truth.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection.  In
> >>>>> addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
> >>>>> Atsugi.  Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
> >>>>> defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
> >>>>> suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.
>
> >>>> Some of it has been released and what has been released reveals a
> >>>> pattern of covering up what they originally had and destroyed.
>
> >>> OK.
>
> >>>>>> Do you thinkOswaldwas ever a genuine
> >>>>>> leftist?  Was he ever a US agent?
>
> >>>>> Good questions.  The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
> >>>>> access to all the records.  It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
> >>>>> citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
> >>>>> demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers.  But
>
> >>>> The KGB did not trust him.
>
> >>> Why should they?  I don't see that as relevant. He was either useful
> >>> to them or not whether they trusted him or not.
>
> >> They are professionals and they determined that he was worthless.
>
> > Nosenko was used by KGB.  We seem to be in agreement that he was set up
> > with only info they wanted the US to know.
>
> > I don't think KGB saw LHO as 'worthless'.  I think he was used, at least
> > once.
>
> In what operation? By which department?

To provide information used in the U-2 shootdown. He may even have made
contact with them when he was in the Marines. It seems to me, he was a man
on a mission when he 'defected'. Not long after the shootdown, he
couldn't wait to get out of there.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 11, 3:18 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Then what sort of spooks are they? :-0

[Anthony Marsh]

Morons and alcoholics like Angleton. He narrowed his search for the mole
to MEN whose names started with the letter K. And he believed Galytsin.

[black...@aol.com]

On Jan 12, 2:04 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you think they could look at the Rosenberg's objectively?  They
> were certainly traitors but not spies.

How would you define the difference?

The Venona intercepts suggest that Julius was operating a group
feeding info to the Soviets. Which definition would that fit?

[Anthony Marsh]

If Oswald was dispatched to give disinformation to the Soviets he had to
have credible information. He did not. If the only think Angleton wanted
to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells
rung, then Oswald really didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
when he went.

Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
timing of Oswald's defection?

Do you have to add in the timing of Eisenhower's heart attack?

>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Codes were changed. Powers was shot down. I think he did give them
>>>>> info.
>>
>>>> He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
>>>> stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.
>>
>>> I disagree. I think getting into USSR to give them this info was why he
>>> tried to kill himself. The citizenship was just a cover.
>>
>> Oswalddid not have any important information to give the Soviets.
>
> Again, I disagree. That is what we are supposed to think; not
> necessarily what is the truth.
>

Explain exactly what Oswald had and how he got it.
Are you saying it was a natural process or he was specifically fed
information to prepare him for his defector mission?

Add in the KGB agent at the Queen Bee for good measure.

> Pamela Brown
> marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

These rightwing nuts would have sent Oppenheimer and Einstein to the
electric chair.

[Anthony Marsh]

So in your mind if someone is just a friend of a spy that also makes
that person a spy?
Do you know the difference between a witting and an unwitting
collaborator is?

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 12, 4:44 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:

I was not aware of this.

If he was doing this under the direction of KGB, that might suggest
that he was a spy as well as a traitor.
If he had developed all that on his own, in order to attract the
attention of KGB, that might be different.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 12, 4:45 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

How do you think Powers U2 came down? Maybe we need to define our terms.

LHO knew the altitude of the U2, something the Soviets could not figure
out. He had additional information that could fill in the cracks of their
understanding.

The Russians
> >> already knew everything about the U-2 profile that they needed to shoot it
> >> down.
>
> > I respectfully disagree.  I think LHO was a key part of that U-2
> > shootdown.
>
> >>> He made another trip to Moscow and says he met Powers.  I think overtures
> >>> were made at that time and he demurred, preferring not to give up his
> >>> American passport.
>
> >> The Russians never trustedOswaldenough to offer him citizenship.
>
> > Again, I respectfully disagree.  I think he was offered citizenship when
> > he was brought to Moscow to meet Powers and also when he went to renew his
> > papers in Minsk.  I don't think he wanted that.  In fact, it is my
> > thinking at this time that the U-2 incident was the short-term catalyst
> > for LHO 'defecting' to USSR; he wanted to return to the US by December of
> > 1960.
>

> IfOswaldwas dispatched to give disinformation to the Soviets he had to
> have credible information.

He did. He knew the altitude of U2. He may also have known about the
base in Pakistan.

>He did not.

Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.

> If the only think Angleton wanted
> to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells

> rung, thenOswaldreally didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
> when he went.

Maybe. That is another theory. At this point, there are too many
coincidences for me to settle for that.

> Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
> timing ofOswald'sdefection?

If my thinking is correct, that is more than simply an odd coincidence.
Had LHO not been at Atsugi and not brought to meet Powers, I might be
inclined to think that was all it was. There is a possibility that all
was done for appearances, in order to set off alarms and see what
happened.

>
> Do you have to add in the timing of Eisenhower's heart attack?

I don't think LHO caused Ike's heart attack, no. :-)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> Codes were changed.  Powers was shot down.  I think he did give them
> >>>>> info.
>
> >>>> He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
> >>>> stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.
>
> >>> I disagree.  I think getting into USSR to give them this info was why he
> >>> tried to kill himself.  The citizenship was just a cover.
>
> >> Oswalddid not have any important information to give the Soviets.
>
> > Again, I disagree.  That is what we are supposed to think; not
> > necessarily what is the truth.
>

> Explain exactly whatOswaldhad and how he got it.

First, you explain how you think the Powers U2 was brought down. We
need to be on the same page.

> Are you saying it was a natural process or he was specifically fed
> information to prepare him for his defector mission?

It is my thinking that he acquired information basically on his own.

Another odd coincidence I don't choose to discount at this point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >PamelaBrown
> > marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/13/2012 2:36 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Jan 12, 4:44 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 2:04 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think they could look at the Rosenberg's objectively? They
>>> were certainly traitors but not spies.
>>
>> How would you define the difference?
>>
>> The Venona intercepts suggest that Julius was operating a group
>> feeding info to the Soviets. Which definition would that fit?
>
> I was not aware of this.
>

One thing that you have to realize is that the Venona cables almost
never mention an agent by the real name. They are almost always code
names. Then an analyst has to look for clues about habit and whereabouts
to figure out who the person really is. Sometimes by a process of
elimination or association they can narrow it down to a specific person.
That is what they did with the Rosenbergs.
They also manufactured fake documents to frame them because they dare
not reveal the fact that we had broken the Russian codes.

> If he was doing this under the direction of KGB, that might suggest
> that he was a spy as well as a traitor.
> If he had developed all that on his own, in order to attract the
> attention of KGB, that might be different.
>
>

Julius was not the hub. He was just one cog.
Sometimes a spy never actually gathers the information, but is only used
as a conduit or a contact. He's still a spy, but only a soldier and not
the general.

[black...@aol.com]

On Jan 13, 11:13 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

WHO is a friend of WHAT spy? What are you asking?

Yes, Anthony, I know a lot about intelligence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. The Russians had exactly the same radar as we did and they
carefully tracked the U-2 flights and learned the planned flight profiles.
They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet. But that did not matter for
shooting it down. They needed to get their missiles up to 7400 feet to
cover the differences.

>
> The Russians
>>>> already knew everything about the U-2 profile that they needed to shoot it
>>>> down.
>>
>>> I respectfully disagree. I think LHO was a key part of that U-2
>>> shootdown.
>>
>>>>> He made another trip to Moscow and says he met Powers. I think overtures
>>>>> were made at that time and he demurred, preferring not to give up his
>>>>> American passport.
>>
>>>> The Russians never trustedOswaldenough to offer him citizenship.
>>
>>> Again, I respectfully disagree. I think he was offered citizenship when
>>> he was brought to Moscow to meet Powers and also when he went to renew his
>>> papers in Minsk. I don't think he wanted that. In fact, it is my
>>> thinking at this time that the U-2 incident was the short-term catalyst
>>> for LHO 'defecting' to USSR; he wanted to return to the US by December of
>>> 1960.
>>
>> IfOswaldwas dispatched to give disinformation to the Soviets he had to
>> have credible information.
>
> He did. He knew the altitude of U2. He may also have known about the
> base in Pakistan.
>

He did not know the specific altitude at which the U-2 would take
pictures. He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
Russians.

>> He did not.
>
> Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.
>

Not true. We have the CIA history of the U-2 and the debriefing of Powers.
We also have little clues from the Russians who have talked about this.

>> If the only think Angleton wanted
>> to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells
>> rung, thenOswaldreally didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
>> when he went.
>
> Maybe. That is another theory. At this point, there are too many
> coincidences for me to settle for that.
>

There are always coincidences.

>> Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
>> timing ofOswald'sdefection?
>
> If my thinking is correct, that is more than simply an odd coincidence.

So let me get this straight. You really think that the CIA coordinated
Oswald's defection with the shooting down of Powers?

> Had LHO not been at Atsugi and not brought to meet Powers, I might be
> inclined to think that was all it was. There is a possibility that all
> was done for appearances, in order to set off alarms and see what
> happened.
>

It does not depend on Atsugi. Oswald could have been stationed at some
other base which monitored U-2 flights. Even near the testing grounds.

>>
>> Do you have to add in the timing of Eisenhower's heart attack?
>
> I don't think LHO caused Ike's heart attack, no. :-)
>

The background story is that Eisenhower ordered them to stop the flights
because of the dangers and bad publicity, but the CIA went ahead with the
May Day flight in defiance of Eisenhower's wishes.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Codes were changed. Powers was shot down. I think he did give them
>>>>>>> info.
>>
>>>>>> He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
>>>>>> stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.
>>
>>>>> I disagree. I think getting into USSR to give them this info was why he
>>>>> tried to kill himself. The citizenship was just a cover.
>>
>>>> Oswalddid not have any important information to give the Soviets.
>>
>>> Again, I disagree. That is what we are supposed to think; not
>>> necessarily what is the truth.
>>
>> Explain exactly whatOswaldhad and how he got it.
>
> First, you explain how you think the Powers U2 was brought down. We
> need to be on the same page.
>

I am not sure that there is AN official story. The official story I
believe is that the Russians had been caught unprepared by earlier flights
and this time planned better. On a holiday they had all sites under full
alert and ready for the next flight. They made some repairs and
modifications to their surface to air missiles to get to 70,000 feet. Once
they spotted Powers entering Russian airspace they plotted his expected
route and planned their attack to intercept his plane along the way. They
fired a volley of at least 16 surface to air missiles designed to explode
at 70,000 feet. They also had at least 3 MIGs at 60,000 feet under the U-2
tracking its flightpath. One of their missiles exploded at about 70,000
just below and about 500 feet behind the U-2. The shock wave from the
explosion ripped through the tail and the U-2 lost stability and started
to spiral down.

It wasn't just a lucky shot. It was a shotgun approach and they only
needed to wing it to bring it down.

>> Are you saying it was a natural process or he was specifically fed
>> information to prepare him for his defector mission?
>
> It is my thinking that he acquired information basically on his own.

By spying? Then he didn't need any higher security clearance.

[black...@aol.com]

On Jan 13, 3:58 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> The Venona intercepts suggest that Julius was operating a group
> >> feeding info to the Soviets. Which definition would that fit?
>
> > I was not aware of this.
>
> One thing that you have to realize is that the Venona cables almost
> never mention an agent by the real name. They are almost always code
> names. Then an analyst has to look for clues about habit and whereabouts
> to figure out who the person really is. Sometimes by a process of
> elimination or association they can narrow it down to a specific person.
> That is what they did with the Rosenbergs.

Specifically in the Julius Rosenberg case, the clues were unmistakable

> They also manufactured fake documents to frame them because they dare
> not reveal the fact that we had broken the Russian codes.

Which documents were faked? Certainly, the USG hid the Venona info,
but I don't recall any faked documents.

>
> Julius was not the hub. He was just one cog.

Barr, Sarant, Sobell an others all indicated that they worked through
Julius who, in turn, reported to Yakovlev (Yatskov). By my definition,
that made Julius a hub. (Ethel was a communist and was aware of her
husband's activity, but there is really no evidence that she was active in
it.)

> Sometimes a spy never actually gathers the information, but is only used
> as a conduit or a contact. He's still a spy, but only a soldier and not
> the general.

I think the Rosenberg case was overblown, and the dual execution was a
stupid and cruel move. But I also think Julius was coordinating a ring
turning info over to the NKVD.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hmm, that's a tough one. Don't suppose you figured out which man were
were talking about. Was it Oswald or was it Rosenberg??
Well in either case just because he is a friend of a spy does not prove
that he is also a spy.

> Yes, Anthony, I know a lot about intelligence.
>

Do you also know about Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/14/2012 10:06 AM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 13, 3:58 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The Venona intercepts suggest that Julius was operating a group
>>>> feeding info to the Soviets. Which definition would that fit?
>>
>>> I was not aware of this.
>>
>> One thing that you have to realize is that the Venona cables almost
>> never mention an agent by the real name. They are almost always code
>> names. Then an analyst has to look for clues about habit and whereabouts
>> to figure out who the person really is. Sometimes by a process of
>> elimination or association they can narrow it down to a specific person.
>> That is what they did with the Rosenbergs.
>
> Specifically in the Julius Rosenberg case, the clues were unmistakable
>

Yes, but in some cases the clues were intentionally misinterpreted to
frame people.

>> They also manufactured fake documents to frame them because they dare
>> not reveal the fact that we had broken the Russian codes.
>
> Which documents were faked? Certainly, the USG hid the Venona info,
> but I don't recall any faked documents.
>

Nixon's famous microfilm in the pumpkin.
The KGB does not send out documents in plain text.

>>
>> Julius was not the hub. He was just one cog.
>
> Barr, Sarant, Sobell an others all indicated that they worked through
> Julius who, in turn, reported to Yakovlev (Yatskov). By my definition,
> that made Julius a hub. (Ethel was a communist and was aware of her
> husband's activity, but there is really no evidence that she was active in
> it.)
>

No. That makes Julius a contact, a passthrough.

>> Sometimes a spy never actually gathers the information, but is only used
>> as a conduit or a contact. He's still a spy, but only a soldier and not
>> the general.
>
> I think the Rosenberg case was overblown, and the dual execution was a
> stupid and cruel move. But I also think Julius was coordinating a ring
> turning info over to the NKVD.
>
>

It is typical of the rightwing at the time which was sending a message
to all Liberals that they would be next to be killed if they didn't cave
in to the rightwing agenda.

[black...@aol.com]

On Jan 14, 5:48 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/14/2012 10:06 AM, blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 3:58 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
> >>>> The Venona intercepts suggest that Julius was operating a group
> >>>> feeding info to the Soviets. Which definition would that fit?
>
> >>> I was not aware of this.
>
> >> One thing that you have to realize is that the Venona cables almost
> >> never mention an agent by the real name. They are almost always code
> >> names. Then an analyst has to look for clues about habit and whereabouts
> >> to figure out who the person really is. Sometimes by a process of
> >> elimination or association they can narrow it down to a specific person.
> >> That is what they did with the Rosenbergs.
>
> > Specifically in the Julius Rosenberg case, the clues were unmistakable
>
> Yes, but in some cases the clues were intentionally misinterpreted to
> frame people.

You'd have to give specifics. From what I can see, the Hiss and White
identifications were (and still are) iffy, but the Coplon one, for
example, seems solid. And I have to admit that the evidence on Julius (for
running a ring, not "turning over the secret of the A-bomb") seems pretty
solid.

>
> >> They also manufactured fake documents to frame them because they dare
> >> not reveal the fact that we had broken the Russian codes.
>
> > Which documents were faked? Certainly, the USG hid the Venona info,
> > but I don't recall any faked documents.
>
> Nixon's famous microfilm in the pumpkin.
> The KGB does not send out documents in plain text.

That wasn't really microfilm, just 35mm negative strips. Yes, these
were documents Chambers possessed, but wasn't supposed to possess.

> Julius was not the hub. He was just one cog.
>
> > Barr, Sarant, Sobell an others all indicated that they worked through
> > Julius who, in turn, reported to Yakovlev (Yatskov). By my definition,
> > that made Julius a hub. (Ethel was a communist and was aware of her
> > husband's activity, but there is really no evidence that she was active in
> > it.)
>
> No. That makes Julius a contact, a passthrough.

Wow, that's really splitting hairs. He was channeling confidential info to
the NKVD. Why try to minimize what he did?

>
> >> Sometimes a spy never actually gathers the information, but is only used
> >> as a conduit or a contact. He's still a spy, but only a soldier and not
> >> the general.
>
> > I think the Rosenberg case was overblown, and the dual execution was a
> > stupid and cruel move. But I also think Julius was coordinating a ring
> > turning info over to the NKVD.
>
> It is typical of the rightwing at the time which was sending a message
> to all Liberals that they would be next to be killed if they didn't cave
> in to the rightwing agenda.

Anthony, you really need to stop letting your somewhat extreme views cause
you to make overstatements like this. If there was a message, it was that
the penalties for real treason or espionage could be very serious. You
overstated it by broadening it to have "rightwingers" killing "liberals."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/14/2012 11:31 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 5:48 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/14/2012 10:06 AM, blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 3:58 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The Venona intercepts suggest that Julius was operating a group
>>>>>> feeding info to the Soviets. Which definition would that fit?
>>
>>>>> I was not aware of this.
>>
>>>> One thing that you have to realize is that the Venona cables almost
>>>> never mention an agent by the real name. They are almost always code
>>>> names. Then an analyst has to look for clues about habit and whereabouts
>>>> to figure out who the person really is. Sometimes by a process of
>>>> elimination or association they can narrow it down to a specific person.
>>>> That is what they did with the Rosenbergs.
>>
>>> Specifically in the Julius Rosenberg case, the clues were unmistakable
>>
>> Yes, but in some cases the clues were intentionally misinterpreted to
>> frame people.
>
> You'd have to give specifics. From what I can see, the Hiss and White
> identifications were (and still are) iffy, but the Coplon one, for
> example, seems solid. And I have to admit that the evidence on Julius (for
> running a ring, not "turning over the secret of the A-bomb") seems pretty
> solid.
>

Not running. Part of.

>>
>>>> They also manufactured fake documents to frame them because they dare
>>>> not reveal the fact that we had broken the Russian codes.
>>
>>> Which documents were faked? Certainly, the USG hid the Venona info,
>>> but I don't recall any faked documents.
>>
>> Nixon's famous microfilm in the pumpkin.
>> The KGB does not send out documents in plain text.
>
> That wasn't really microfilm, just 35mm negative strips. Yes, these
> were documents Chambers possessed, but wasn't supposed to possess.
>

But at last you realize that it was a charade and why they had to do it.

>> Julius was not the hub. He was just one cog.
>>
>>> Barr, Sarant, Sobell an others all indicated that they worked through
>>> Julius who, in turn, reported to Yakovlev (Yatskov). By my definition,
>>> that made Julius a hub. (Ethel was a communist and was aware of her
>>> husband's activity, but there is really no evidence that she was active in
>>> it.)
>>
>> No. That makes Julius a contact, a passthrough.
>
> Wow, that's really splitting hairs. He was channeling confidential info to
> the NKVD. Why try to minimize what he did?
>

Wow, you don't really understand why it is so important to split hairs
when talking about intelligence matters? You can't figure out the
difference between a CIA officer and a CIA agent? Or an asset or an elite
contact or an informant or a domestic contact or a contract agent or a
front? You don't understand why the CIA has separate categories for
witting collaborator and unwitting collaborator? YOU are right now
channeling confidential info to the CIA merely by writing about this
subject. So by your logic that makes you a CIA agent.

>>
>>>> Sometimes a spy never actually gathers the information, but is only used
>>>> as a conduit or a contact. He's still a spy, but only a soldier and not
>>>> the general.
>>
>>> I think the Rosenberg case was overblown, and the dual execution was a
>>> stupid and cruel move. But I also think Julius was coordinating a ring
>>> turning info over to the NKVD.
>>
>> It is typical of the rightwing at the time which was sending a message
>> to all Liberals that they would be next to be killed if they didn't cave
>> in to the rightwing agenda.
>
> Anthony, you really need to stop letting your somewhat extreme views cause
> you to make overstatements like this. If there was a message, it was that
> the penalties for real treason or espionage could be very serious. You
> overstated it by broadening it to have "rightwingers" killing "liberals."
>

It's not an oversimplification. It was part of the program at the time.
It was a tool used to stamp out Democracy.

[Pamela Brown]

Really? What evidence do you have of this?

> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.

Based on what?

> But that did not matter for
> shooting it down. They needed to get their missiles up to 7400 feet to
> cover the differences.
>

What good would "7400 feet" do?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Russians
> >>>> already knew everything about the U-2 profile that they needed to shoot it
> >>>> down.
>
> >>> I respectfully disagree.  I think LHO was a key part of that U-2
> >>> shootdown.
>
> >>>>> He made another trip to Moscow and says he met Powers.  I think overtures
> >>>>> were made at that time and he demurred, preferring not to give up his
> >>>>> American passport.
>
> >>>> The Russians never trustedOswaldenough to offer him citizenship.
>
> >>> Again, I respectfully disagree.  I think he was offered citizenship when
> >>> he was brought to Moscow to meet Powers and also when he went to renew his
> >>> papers in Minsk.  I don't think he wanted that.  In fact, it is my
> >>> thinking at this time that the U-2 incident was the short-term catalyst
> >>> for LHO 'defecting' to USSR; he wanted to return to the US by December of
> >>> 1960.
>
> >> IfOswaldwas dispatched to give disinformation to the Soviets he had to
> >> have credible information.
>
> > He did.  He knew the altitude of U2.  He may also have known about the
> > base in Pakistan.
>
> He did not know the specific altitude at which the U-2 would take
> pictures.

Really? Based on what?

>He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
> Russians.

What is your evidence for this?

>
> >> He did not.
>
> > Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.
>
> Not true. We have the CIA history of the U-2 and the debriefing of Powers.

And we always believe CIA?

> We also have little clues from the Russians who have talked about this.

What 'little clues' and from whom?

>
> >> If the only think Angleton wanted
> >> to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells
> >> rung, thenOswaldreally didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
> >> when he went.
>
> > Maybe.  That is another theory.  At this point, there are too many
> > coincidences for me to settle for that.
>
> There are always coincidences.

Whenever you try to distract my attention by minimizing something, I
know I am on the right track. :-)

>
> >> Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
> >> timing ofOswald'sdefection?
>
> > If my thinking is correct, that is more than simply an odd coincidence.
>
> So let me get this straight. You really think that the CIA coordinated
> Oswald's defection with the shooting down of Powers?

What are you talking about? Have I said I thought CIA did anything?

I am starting with the hypothesis that LHO acted alone and based on
information he had moved forward to plan a 'defection' into the USSR.

I would hardly expect a rabbit trail from you; that is more a McAdams-
type strategy.

>
> > Had LHO not been at Atsugi and not brought to meet Powers, I might be
> > inclined to think that was all it was.  There is a possibility that all
> > was done for appearances, in order to set off alarms and see what
> > happened.
>
> It does not depend on Atsugi.

LHO was stationed at Atsugi. He saw things. He heard things. He
experienced things.

>Oswald could have been stationed at some
> other base which monitored U-2 flights. Even near the testing grounds.

But he wasn't. He was at Atsugi.

>
>
>
> >> Do you have to add in the timing of Eisenhower's heart attack?
>
> > I don't think LHO caused Ike's heart attack, no. :-)
>
> The background story is that Eisenhower ordered them to stop the flights
> because of the dangers and bad publicity, but the CIA went ahead with the
> May Day flight in defiance of Eisenhower's wishes.

Who knows?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> Codes were changed.  Powers was shot down.  I think he did give them
> >>>>>>> info.
>
> >>>>>> He didn't have anything important to reveal. The Soviets knew all that
> >>>>>> stuff about the U-2 even before the first test flights.
>
> >>>>> I disagree.  I think getting into USSR to give them this info was why he
> >>>>> tried to kill himself.  The citizenship was just a cover.
>
> >>>> Oswalddid not have any important information to give the Soviets.
>
> >>> Again, I disagree.  That is what we are supposed to think; not
> >>> necessarily what is the truth.
>
> >> Explain exactly whatOswaldhad and how he got it.
>
> > First, you explain how you think the Powers U2 was brought down.  We
> > need to be on the same page.
>
> I am not sure that there is AN official story.

Thank you. That is my point.

>The official story I
> believe is that the Russians had been caught unprepared by earlier flights
> and this time planned better. On a holiday they had all sites under full
> alert and ready for the next flight. They made some repairs and
> modifications to their surface to air missiles to get to 70,000 feet. Once
> they spotted Powers entering Russian airspace they plotted his expected
> route and planned their attack to intercept his plane along the way. They
> fired a volley of at least 16 surface to air missiles designed to explode
> at 70,000 feet. They also had at least 3 MIGs at 60,000 feet under the U-2
> tracking its flightpath. One of their missiles exploded at about 70,000
> just below and about 500 feet behind the U-2. The shock wave from the
> explosion ripped through the tail and the U-2 lost stability and started
> to spiral down.

That is one possibility. What is your source?

>
> It wasn't just a lucky shot. It was a shotgun approach and they only
> needed to wing it to bring it down.

Your opinion.

>
> >> Are you saying it was a natural process or he was specifically fed
> >> information to prepare him for his defector mission?
>
> > It is my thinking that he acquired information basically on his own.
>
> By spying?

By 'spying'? In his job he had access to people and information that he
could have believed was valuable.

>
> Then he didn't need any higher security clearance.[...]

What discussion has there been of security clearance at all? You seem to
have some sort of theory that LHO was just a troll used by others, and
that whatever information he had was not relevant. That is not my
position at this time.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Various interviews and debriefings of former KGB agents and articles and
books.

Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
and searches the way China does?

>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>
> Based on what?
>

Reports from their spies.

>> But that did not matter for
>> shooting it down. They needed to get their missiles up to 7400 feet to
>> cover the differences.
>>
>
> What good would "7400 feet" do?
>

74,000 feet.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The Russians
>>>>>> already knew everything about the U-2 profile that they needed to shoot it
>>>>>> down.
>>
>>>>> I respectfully disagree. I think LHO was a key part of that U-2
>>>>> shootdown.
>>
>>>>>>> He made another trip to Moscow and says he met Powers. I think overtures
>>>>>>> were made at that time and he demurred, preferring not to give up his
>>>>>>> American passport.
>>
>>>>>> The Russians never trustedOswaldenough to offer him citizenship.
>>
>>>>> Again, I respectfully disagree. I think he was offered citizenship when
>>>>> he was brought to Moscow to meet Powers and also when he went to renew his
>>>>> papers in Minsk. I don't think he wanted that. In fact, it is my
>>>>> thinking at this time that the U-2 incident was the short-term catalyst
>>>>> for LHO 'defecting' to USSR; he wanted to return to the US by December of
>>>>> 1960.
>>
>>>> IfOswaldwas dispatched to give disinformation to the Soviets he had to
>>>> have credible information.
>>
>>> He did. He knew the altitude of U2. He may also have known about the
>>> base in Pakistan.
>>
>> He did not know the specific altitude at which the U-2 would take
>> pictures.
>
> Really? Based on what?
>

Classified and compartmentalized beyond his level.

>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
>> Russians.
>
> What is your evidence for this?
>

The test flights and the official history.

>>
>>>> He did not.
>>
>>> Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.
>>
>> Not true. We have the CIA history of the U-2 and the debriefing of Powers.
>
> And we always believe CIA?
>

The official documents need to be accurate to allow proper monitoring of
the progress of the program. They were not for public consumption. As
Helms put it a CIA officer is expected to lie to everyone else all the
time, but you don't lie to the Agency.

>> We also have little clues from the Russians who have talked about this.
>
> What 'little clues' and from whom?
>

There have been various TV shows which interviewed Russian sources. And
a few books. Even Bechloss gives some basic facts.
Declassified oral histories.

>>
>>>> If the only think Angleton wanted
>>>> to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells
>>>> rung, thenOswaldreally didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
>>>> when he went.
>>
>>> Maybe. That is another theory. At this point, there are too many
>>> coincidences for me to settle for that.
>>
>> There are always coincidences.
>
> Whenever you try to distract my attention by minimizing something, I
> know I am on the right track. :-)
>

It's a simple fact that not everything is a conspiracy.

>>
>>>> Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
>>>> timing ofOswald'sdefection?
>>
>>> If my thinking is correct, that is more than simply an odd coincidence.
>>
>> So let me get this straight. You really think that the CIA coordinated
>> Oswald's defection with the shooting down of Powers?
>
> What are you talking about? Have I said I thought CIA did anything?
>

Then who would be coordinating the shootdown with Oswald's defection?

> I am starting with the hypothesis that LHO acted alone and based on
> information he had moved forward to plan a 'defection' into the USSR.
>

I don't. I think Angleton sent him as a dry run to see how the KGB would
vet him as part of his plans for the fake defector program.

> I would hardly expect a rabbit trail from you; that is more a McAdams-
> type strategy.
>
>>
>>> Had LHO not been at Atsugi and not brought to meet Powers, I might be
>>> inclined to think that was all it was. There is a possibility that all
>>> was done for appearances, in order to set off alarms and see what
>>> happened.
>>
>> It does not depend on Atsugi.
>
> LHO was stationed at Atsugi. He saw things. He heard things. He
> experienced things.
>

So did many other people. That does not indicate that Oswald knew more
than they did.

>> Oswald could have been stationed at some
>> other base which monitored U-2 flights. Even near the testing grounds.
>
> But he wasn't. He was at Atsugi.
>

Yeah, so were thousands of other people. Few of them had any information
that would be of use to the Russians.
Maybe a code clerk, not a janitor or sentry.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> Do you have to add in the timing of Eisenhower's heart attack?
>>
>>> I don't think LHO caused Ike's heart attack, no. :-)
>>
>> The background story is that Eisenhower ordered them to stop the flights
>> because of the dangers and bad publicity, but the CIA went ahead with the
>> May Day flight in defiance of Eisenhower's wishes.
>
> Who knows?
>

We do.

[Pamela Brown]

You have given no cite, so what you are presenting is your opinion.

>
> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
> and searches the way China does?

What do you mean? I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
Twin Cities.

>
> >> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
> >> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>
> > Based on what?
>
> Reports from their spies.

Which reports from which spies?

At what level do you think would this information be made available?

>
> >> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
> >> Russians.
>
> > What is your evidence for this?
>
> The test flights and the official history.

No cite. Your opinion.

>
>
>
> >>>> He did not.
>
> >>> Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.
>
> >> Not true. We have the CIA history of the U-2 and the debriefing of Powers.
>
> > And we always believe CIA?
>
> The official documents need to be accurate to allow proper monitoring of
> the progress of the program.

Translation: we believe CIA when you tell us to?

>They were not for public consumption. As
> Helms put it a CIA officer is expected to lie to everyone else all the
> time, but you don't lie to the Agency.

You leave a lot of wiggle room.

>
> >> We also have little clues from the Russians who have talked about this.
>
> > What 'little clues' and from whom?
>
> There have been various TV shows which interviewed Russian sources. And
> a few books. Even Bechloss gives some basic facts.
> Declassified oral histories.

Again, vagueness and no cites. Your opinion. You are entitled.
Nothing you have said is persuasive to me.

>
>
>
> >>>> If the only think Angleton wanted
> >>>> to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells
> >>>> rung, thenOswaldreally didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
> >>>> when he went.
>
> >>> Maybe.  That is another theory.  At this point, there are too many
> >>> coincidences for me to settle for that.
>
> >> There are always coincidences.
>
> > Whenever you try to distract my attention by minimizing something, I
> > know I am on the right track. :-)
>
> It's a simple fact that not everything is a conspiracy.

It is a simple fact that one can attempt to shore up a weak theory by
trying to distract others from its flaws. :-0

>
>
>
> >>>> Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
> >>>> timing ofOswald'sdefection?
>
> >>> If my thinking is correct, that is more than simply an odd coincidence.
>
> >> So let me get this straight. You really think that the CIA coordinated
> >> Oswald's defection with the shooting down of Powers?
>
> > What are you talking about?  Have I said I thought CIA did anything?
>
> Then who would be coordinating the shootdown with Oswald's defection?

I have not opened that door. Why do you?

With my hypothesis, the U2 shootdown would be a consequence of LHO's
'defection'.

>
> > I am starting with the hypothesis that LHO acted alone and based on
> > information he had moved forward to plan a 'defection' into the USSR.
>
> I don't. I think Angleton sent him as a dry run to see how the KGB would
> vet him as part of his plans for the fake defector program.

Really? Are you saying you think LHO was aware of what he was being
used for?

I don't see any evidence of this.

At the same time, we do seem to be in agreement that LHO's 'defection'
was not sincere.

>
> >   I would hardly expect a rabbit trail from you; that is more a McAdams-
> > type strategy.
>
> >>> Had LHO not been at Atsugi and not brought to meet Powers, I might be
> >>> inclined to think that was all it was.  There is a possibility that all
> >>> was done for appearances, in order to set off alarms and see what
> >>> happened.
>
> >> It does not depend on Atsugi.
>
> > LHO was stationed at Atsugi.  He saw things.  He heard things.  He
> > experienced things.
>
> So did many other people. That does not indicate that Oswald knew more
> than they did.

I disagree. He was shrewd. He was also arrogant. He may have
believed he knew things that would be valuable, whether they really
were or not.

>
> >> Oswald could have been stationed at some
> >> other base which monitored U-2 flights. Even near the testing grounds.
>
> > But he wasn't.  He was at Atsugi.
>
> Yeah, so were thousands of other people. Few of them had any information
> that would be of use to the Russians.
> Maybe a code clerk, not a janitor or sentry.

How many of them 'defected' and tried to kill themselves when they
were threatened with expulsion?
How many of them were willing to be traitors?

>
>
>
> >>>> Do you have to add in the timing of Eisenhower's heart attack?
>
> >>> I don't think LHO caused Ike's heart attack, no. :-)
>
> >> The background story is that Eisenhower ordered them to stop the flights
> >> because of the dangers and bad publicity, but the CIA went ahead with the
> >> May Day flight in defiance of Eisenhower's wishes.
>
> > Who knows?
>

> We do.[...]

Your opinion.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

I pointed you in the right direction.

>>
>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
>> and searches the way China does?
>
> What do you mean? I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
> Twin Cities.
>
>>
>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>>
>>> Based on what?
>>
>> Reports from their spies.
>
> Which reports from which spies?
>

Several from KGB spies.

Top Secret for programs. The U-2 program was perhaps the most closely
guarded secret at the time.
It's like claiming that Oswald was stationed at Area 51.

>>
>>>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
>>>> Russians.
>>
>>> What is your evidence for this?
>>
>> The test flights and the official history.
>
> No cite. Your opinion.

Unlike you I have actually read the official history. Do your homework
and stop guessing.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> He did not.
>>
>>>>> Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.
>>
>>>> Not true. We have the CIA history of the U-2 and the debriefing of Powers.
>>
>>> And we always believe CIA?
>>
>> The official documents need to be accurate to allow proper monitoring of
>> the progress of the program.
>
> Translation: we believe CIA when you tell us to?
>

Nope. They can't lie to themselves all the time or they'd never get
anything done.

>> They were not for public consumption. As
>> Helms put it a CIA officer is expected to lie to everyone else all the
>> time, but you don't lie to the Agency.
>
> You leave a lot of wiggle room.
>

Nope.

>>
>>>> We also have little clues from the Russians who have talked about this.
>>
>>> What 'little clues' and from whom?
>>
>> There have been various TV shows which interviewed Russian sources. And
>> a few books. Even Bechloss gives some basic facts.
>> Declassified oral histories.
>
> Again, vagueness and no cites. Your opinion. You are entitled.
> Nothing you have said is persuasive to me.
>

Ever hear of Google? You could look up everything I have cited so far.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> If the only think Angleton wanted
>>>>>> to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells
>>>>>> rung, thenOswaldreally didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
>>>>>> when he went.
>>
>>>>> Maybe. That is another theory. At this point, there are too many
>>>>> coincidences for me to settle for that.
>>
>>>> There are always coincidences.
>>
>>> Whenever you try to distract my attention by minimizing something, I
>>> know I am on the right track. :-)
>>
>> It's a simple fact that not everything is a conspiracy.
>
> It is a simple fact that one can attempt to shore up a weak theory by
> trying to distract others from its flaws. :-0
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
>>>>>> timing ofOswald'sdefection?
>>
>>>>> If my thinking is correct, that is more than simply an odd coincidence.
>>
>>>> So let me get this straight. You really think that the CIA coordinated
>>>> Oswald's defection with the shooting down of Powers?
>>
>>> What are you talking about? Have I said I thought CIA did anything?
>>
>> Then who would be coordinating the shootdown with Oswald's defection?
>
> I have not opened that door. Why do you?
>

Because you were being so vague with your theory.

> With my hypothesis, the U2 shootdown would be a consequence of LHO's
> 'defection'.
>

Explain.

>>
>>> I am starting with the hypothesis that LHO acted alone and based on
>>> information he had moved forward to plan a 'defection' into the USSR.
>>
>> I don't. I think Angleton sent him as a dry run to see how the KGB would
>> vet him as part of his plans for the fake defector program.
>
> Really? Are you saying you think LHO was aware of what he was being
> used for?
>
> I don't see any evidence of this.
>
> At the same time, we do seem to be in agreement that LHO's 'defection'
> was not sincere.
>
>>
>>> I would hardly expect a rabbit trail from you; that is more a McAdams-
>>> type strategy.
>>
>>>>> Had LHO not been at Atsugi and not brought to meet Powers, I might be
>>>>> inclined to think that was all it was. There is a possibility that all
>>>>> was done for appearances, in order to set off alarms and see what
>>>>> happened.
>>
>>>> It does not depend on Atsugi.
>>
>>> LHO was stationed at Atsugi. He saw things. He heard things. He
>>> experienced things.
>>
>> So did many other people. That does not indicate that Oswald knew more
>> than they did.
>
> I disagree. He was shrewd. He was also arrogant. He may have
> believed he knew things that would be valuable, whether they really
> were or not.

Self delusion is proof that he really didn't have anything important.
And the professionals in the KGB confirmed that.

>
>>
>>>> Oswald could have been stationed at some
>>>> other base which monitored U-2 flights. Even near the testing grounds.
>>
>>> But he wasn't. He was at Atsugi.
>>
>> Yeah, so were thousands of other people. Few of them had any information
>> that would be of use to the Russians.
>> Maybe a code clerk, not a janitor or sentry.
>
> How many of them 'defected' and tried to kill themselves when they
> were threatened with expulsion?

That is irrelevant to what they could know.

> How many of them were willing to be traitors?
>

Maybe more than we know.
It would only take one or two.

[Pamela Brown]

Excuse me. I thought you were interested in demonstrating your
position.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
> >> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
> >> and searches the way China does?
>
> > What do you mean?  I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
> > Twin Cities.
>
> >>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
> >>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>
> >>> Based on what?
>
> >> Reports from their spies.
>
> > Which reports from which spies?
>
> Several from KGB spies.

Opinion.

It should have been. But was it?

>
>
>
> >>>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
> >>>> Russians.
>
> >>> What is your evidence for this?
>
> >> The test flights and the official history.
>
> > No cite.  Your opinion.
>
> Unlike you I have actually read the official history. Do your homework
> and stop guessing.

You seem to be making the false assumption that I would come to the
same conclusion as you.
I see loopholes in your theory.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> He did not.
>
> >>>>> Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.
>
> >>>> Not true. We have the CIA history of the U-2 and the debriefing of Powers.
>
> >>> And we always believe CIA?
>
> >> The official documents need to be accurate to allow proper monitoring of
> >> the progress of the program.
>
> > Translation:  we believe CIA when you tell us to?
>
> Nope. They can't lie to themselves all the time or they'd never get
> anything done.
>
> >> They were not for public consumption. As
> >> Helms put it a CIA officer is expected to lie to everyone else all the
> >> time, but you don't lie to the Agency.
>
> > You leave a lot of wiggle room.
>
> Nope.

Opinion.

>
>
>
> >>>> We also have little clues from the Russians who have talked about this.
>
> >>> What 'little clues' and from whom?
>
> >> There have been various TV shows which interviewed Russian sources. And
> >> a few books. Even Bechloss gives some basic facts.
> >> Declassified oral histories.
>
> > Again, vagueness and no cites.  Your opinion.  You are entitled.
> > Nothing you have said is persuasive to me.
>
> Ever hear of Google? You could look up everything I have cited so far.

So your opinion is now common knowledge?

I disagree with your position. I don't see that it has value at this
point. It is up to you to persuade me. Or not.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> If the only think Angleton wanted
> >>>>>> to do was test the KGB's methods of vetting defectors to see which bells
> >>>>>> rung, thenOswaldreally didn't have to know anything and it didn't matter
> >>>>>> when he went.
>
> >>>>> Maybe.  That is another theory.  At this point, there are too many
> >>>>> coincidences for me to settle for that.
>
> >>>> There are always coincidences.
>
> >>> Whenever you try to distract my attention by minimizing something, I
> >>> know I am on the right track. :-)
>
> >> It's a simple fact that not everything is a conspiracy.
>
> > It is a simple fact that one can attempt to shore up a weak theory by
> > trying to distract others from its flaws. :-0
>
> >>>>>> Does your theory involve coordinating the downing of Powers with the
> >>>>>> timing ofOswald'sdefection?
>
> >>>>> If my thinking is correct, that is more than simply an odd coincidence.
>
> >>>> So let me get this straight. You really think that the CIA coordinated
> >>>> Oswald's defection with the shooting down of Powers?
>
> >>> What are you talking about?  Have I said I thought CIA did anything?
>
> >> Then who would be coordinating the shootdown with Oswald's defection?
>
> > I have not opened that door.  Why do you?
>
> Because you were being so vague with your theory.
>
> > With my hypothesis, the U2 shootdown would be a consequence of LHO's
> > 'defection'.
>
> Explain.

LHO believed he had information of value to the Soviets. He proclaimed it
in Snyder's office. The only reason to do something dumb like that was to
make sure the Soviets, who were bugging the offices, heard this. He then
gave them information they needed to fill in the cracks or confirmation of
what they already suspected that enabled them to hone in on the Powers
flight.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I am starting with the hypothesis that LHO acted alone and based on
> >>> information he had moved forward to plan a 'defection' into the USSR.
>
> >> I don't. I think Angleton sent him as a dry run to see how the KGB would
> >> vet him as part of his plans for the fake defector program.
>
> > Really?  Are you saying you think LHO was aware of what he was being
> > used for?
>
> > I don't see any evidence of this.
>
> > At the same time, we do seem to be in agreement that LHO's 'defection'
> > was not sincere.
>
> >>>    I would hardly expect a rabbit trail from you; that is more a McAdams-
> >>> type strategy.
>
> >>>>> Had LHO not been at Atsugi and not brought to meet Powers, I might be
> >>>>> inclined to think that was all it was.  There is a possibility that all
> >>>>> was done for appearances, in order to set off alarms and see what
> >>>>> happened.
>
> >>>> It does not depend on Atsugi.
>
> >>> LHO was stationed at Atsugi.  He saw things.  He heard things.  He
> >>> experienced things.
>
> >> So did many other people. That does not indicate that Oswald knew more
> >> than they did.
>
> > I disagree.  He was shrewd.  He was also arrogant.  He may have
> > believed he knew things that would be valuable, whether they really
> > were or not.
>
> Self delusion is proof that he really didn't have anything important.

Not necessarily. I am leaving that door open for now.

> And the professionals in the KGB confirmed that.[...]

Really? The same 'professionals' who ran Nosenko and let him be
jailed and tortured for three years?

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

No, just pointing you in the right direction so that you can learn for
yourself.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
>>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
>>>> and searches the way China does?
>>
>>> What do you mean? I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
>>> Twin Cities.
>>
>>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
>>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>>
>>>>> Based on what?
>>
>>>> Reports from their spies.
>>
>>> Which reports from which spies?
>>
>> Several from KGB spies.
>
> Opinion.
>

No, documented facts.

No, no one should start claiming that Oswald was stationed at Area 51.
Of course the U-2 program was not THE most closely guarded secret at the
time. Three DCIs just said that for dramatic effect.
It was only ONE of the most closely guarded secrets at the time.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
>>>>>> Russians.
>>
>>>>> What is your evidence for this?
>>
>>>> The test flights and the official history.
>>
>>> No cite. Your opinion.
>>
>> Unlike you I have actually read the official history. Do your homework
>> and stop guessing.
>
> You seem to be making the false assumption that I would come to the
> same conclusion as you.
> I see loopholes in your theory.
>

You need to start studying the documents.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> He did not.
>>
>>>>>>> Technically speaking, we seem to be without documentation either way.
>>
>>>>>> Not true. We have the CIA history of the U-2 and the debriefing of Powers.
>>
>>>>> And we always believe CIA?
>>
>>>> The official documents need to be accurate to allow proper monitoring of
>>>> the progress of the program.
>>
>>> Translation: we believe CIA when you tell us to?
>>
>> Nope. They can't lie to themselves all the time or they'd never get
>> anything done.
>>
>>>> They were not for public consumption. As
>>>> Helms put it a CIA officer is expected to lie to everyone else all the
>>>> time, but you don't lie to the Agency.
>>
>>> You leave a lot of wiggle room.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Opinion.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> We also have little clues from the Russians who have talked about this.
>>
>>>>> What 'little clues' and from whom?
>>
>>>> There have been various TV shows which interviewed Russian sources. And
>>>> a few books. Even Bechloss gives some basic facts.
>>>> Declassified oral histories.
>>
>>> Again, vagueness and no cites. Your opinion. You are entitled.
>>> Nothing you have said is persuasive to me.
>>
>> Ever hear of Google? You could look up everything I have cited so far.
>
> So your opinion is now common knowledge?
>

Not everything you find on Google is common knowledge. But you may find
many things that you never knew about.

> I disagree with your position. I don't see that it has value at this
> point. It is up to you to persuade me. Or not.
>

I don't care to persuade you. If you ask a question I try to answer it.
I don't care if you believe me or not.
It may take you 10 years to realize that I am right.

[Pamela Brown]

Implying there is only one path is a WC defender tactic. Not at all your
style. I am taking an hypothesis and following it through. You claim to
have a developed position which you have researched. Are you able to
perceive the difference? As you have a different theory, I am asking you
to support your position, but you choose not to.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
> >>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
> >>>> and searches the way China does?
>
> >>> What do you mean?  I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
> >>> Twin Cities.
>
> >>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
> >>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>
> >>>>> Based on what?
>
> >>>> Reports from their spies.
>
> >>> Which reports from which spies?
>
> >> Several from KGB spies.
>
> > Opinion.
>
> No, documented facts.

Unnamed. Opinion.

I don't see that as relevant to the discussion. LHO was stationed at
Atsugi, the home of the U2.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
> >>>>>> Russians.
>
> >>>>> What is your evidence for this?
>
> >>>> The test flights and the official history.
>
> >>> No cite.  Your opinion.
>
> >> Unlike you I have actually read the official history. Do your homework
> >> and stop guessing.
>
> > You seem to be making the false assumption that I would come to the
> > same conclusion as you.
> > I see loopholes in your theory.
>
> You need to start studying the documents.

I am following my hypothesis.

You may not know how to interpret 'the documents'. If you believe
everything KGB or CIA says you mayl never find the truth.

> It may take you 10 years to realize that I am right.[...]

You have a theory that LHO was used without his knowledge and having no
intelligence information to give the Soviets. But in order to maintain it
you have to make excuses for the fact that LHO was stationed at Atsugi,
home of the U2, said he had secret information to give the Soviets, the U2
was shot down a few months later and LHO was brought to Moscow to see
Powers. Then he told Ella German that if he returned to the US he would be
shot. His Marine discharge was downgraded and all the codes had to be
changed. The Marines seemed to take LHO seriously, even if you do not.

If there is a 'right' answer, it will make all the dominos fall. Your
theory seems to have some blips in it.

If you were right you would be comfortable supporting your position. Your
claim of 'I'm right, you're wrong' without cites merely tends to confirm
that you realize there are flaws in your position that you don't want to
address at this time. I am still developing my theory. If I find out I am
wrong, I will acknowledge that. For now, my theory makes more sense than
yours.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

I am not saying there is only one path. I am saying that there is plenty
of evidence out there if you want to learn more. I am not going to babysit
you and spoonfeed you.

> style. I am taking an hypothesis and following it through. You claim to

No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.

> have a developed position which you have researched. Are you able to
> perceive the difference? As you have a different theory, I am asking you
> to support your position, but you choose not to.
>

I support my positions all the time.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
>>>>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
>>>>>> and searches the way China does?
>>
>>>>> What do you mean? I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
>>>>> Twin Cities.
>>
>>>>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
>>>>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>>
>>>>>>> Based on what?
>>
>>>>>> Reports from their spies.
>>
>>>>> Which reports from which spies?
>>
>>>> Several from KGB spies.
>>
>>> Opinion.
>>
>> No, documented facts.
>
> Unnamed. Opinion.
>

Do your homework.
I named the official CIA history of the U-2. You refuse to read it. Not
my problem.

In case you are not familiar with the rhetorical device I used it is
called Reductio ad Absurdum. Taking the concept to a ridiculous extreme to
show the danger in believing the premise.

Atsugi was not THE HOME of the U-2. It was just one base where it
occassionally operated. It was not even the most important base.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
>>>>>>>> Russians.
>>
>>>>>>> What is your evidence for this?
>>
>>>>>> The test flights and the official history.
>>
>>>>> No cite. Your opinion.
>>
>>>> Unlike you I have actually read the official history. Do your homework
>>>> and stop guessing.
>>
>>> You seem to be making the false assumption that I would come to the
>>> same conclusion as you.
>>> I see loopholes in your theory.
>>
>> You need to start studying the documents.
>
> I am following my hypothesis.
>
> You may not know how to interpret 'the documents'. If you believe
> everything KGB or CIA says you mayl never find the truth.
>

I know better than most how to interpret the documents.
And I also rely on experts who know how to interpret the documents.

No, you have a habit of misrepresenting what I say whenever you lose an
argument. I said that Oswald did not have any IMPORTANT information which
would make the Soviets bite. He obviously had routine secrets necessary to
run the bubble. Call signs, authentication codes, location code names,
flight profiles. Nothing specific to the U-2.

> you have to make excuses for the fact that LHO was stationed at Atsugi,
> home of the U2, said he had secret information to give the Soviets, the U2

Again you exaggerate and state with false premises. Atsugi was not the
HOME of the U-2. It was just one base where it operated.

> was shot down a few months later and LHO was brought to Moscow to see
> Powers. Then he told Ella German that if he returned to the US he would be

I am not saying you are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy, but you would
need to flesh out what you think the link is, the cause and effect.

> shot. His Marine discharge was downgraded and all the codes had to be
> changed. The Marines seemed to take LHO seriously, even if you do not.
>

There is nothing wrong with the Marines thinking that Oswald was a traitor
and a security risk. But they were not in a position to gauge what Oswald
knew about the U-2. None of the changes they made to security procedures
had anything to do with the U-2.

> If there is a 'right' answer, it will make all the dominos fall. Your
> theory seems to have some blips in it.
>
> If you were right you would be comfortable supporting your position. Your
> claim of 'I'm right, you're wrong' without cites merely tends to confirm

I gave you the cites. You refuse to do your homework.

> that you realize there are flaws in your position that you don't want to
> address at this time. I am still developing my theory. If I find out I am
> wrong, I will acknowledge that. For now, my theory makes more sense than
> yours.
>

You are starting with false premises from reading kooky conspiracy books.

> Pamela Brown
> marinaenigma.blogspot.com
>

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 19, 3:59 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/18/2012 2:45 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 8:27 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:

> >> On 1/17/2012 10:46 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 17, 3:17 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>    wrote:

> >>>> On 1/17/2012 2:20 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 16, 9:16 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>      wrote:

> >>>>>> On 1/16/2012 5:32 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 13, 3:35 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>        wrote:

Same thing. Your position amounts to little more than an appeal to
authority.

>
> > style.  I am taking an hypothesis and following it through.  You claim to
>
> No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
> asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.

You are making a false assumption. I have started with an
hypothesis. I am including known events. You don't like that.

>
> > have a developed position which you have researched.

An hypothesis is just that. You might want to try it sometime.

> Are you able to
> > perceive the difference?  As you have a different theory, I am asking you
> > to support your position, but you choose not to.
>
> I support my positions all the time.

Not so. You appeal to yourself as authority and claim that when others
have read all the evidence they will agree with you. That is not support.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
> >>>>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
> >>>>>> and searches the way China does?
>
> >>>>> What do you mean?  I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
> >>>>> Twin Cities.
>
> >>>>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
> >>>>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>
> >>>>>>> Based on what?
>
> >>>>>> Reports from their spies.
>
> >>>>> Which reports from which spies?
>
> >>>> Several from KGB spies.
>
> >>> Opinion.
>
> >> No, documented facts.
>
> > Unnamed.  Opinion.
>
> Do your homework.

You don't know what I am doing.

> I named the official CIA history of the U-2. You refuse to read it.

That is false. You don't have a shred of evidence for that
statement.

Not
> my problem.

Not having a position that is ready-for-primetime while claiming
others must believe it is not my problem.

> >>>> It's like claiming thatOswaldwas stationed at Area 51.

>
> >>> It should have been. But was it?
>

> >> No, no one should start claiming thatOswaldwas stationed at Area 51.

> >> Of course the U-2 program was not THE most closely guarded secret at the
> >> time. Three DCIs just said that for dramatic effect.
> >> It was only ONE of the most closely guarded secrets at the time.
>
> > I don't see that as relevant to the discussion.  LHO was stationed at
> > Atsugi, the home of the U2.
>
> In case you are not familiar with the rhetorical device I used it is
> called Reductio ad Absurdum. Taking the concept to a ridiculous extreme to
> show the danger in believing the premise.

You are not using it in a logical manner. The U2 was sufficiently secret
for the downing of Powers' plane to cause an international incident.

>
> Atsugi was not THE HOME of the U-2. It was just one base where it
> occassionally operated. It was not even the most important base.

Now you are minimizing Atsugi? It was a home of the U2.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
> >>>>>>>> Russians.
>
> >>>>>>> What is your evidence for this?
>
> >>>>>> The test flights and the official history.
>
> >>>>> No cite.  Your opinion.
>
> >>>> Unlike you I have actually read the official history. Do your homework
> >>>> and stop guessing.
>
> >>> You seem to be making the false assumption that I would come to the
> >>> same conclusion as you.
> >>> I see loopholes in your theory.
>
> >> You need to start studying the documents.
>
> > I am following my hypothesis.
>
> > You may not know how to interpret 'the documents'.  If you believe
> > everything KGB or CIA says you mayl never find the truth.
>
> I know better than most how to interpret the documents.

It sounds as though you are swallowing the Soviet documents whole. I hope
that is not the case.

Let's reframe the situation from their viewpoint -- here we have a
'defector' who claims to have secret information and was stationed at a
home of the U2. He is allowed to remain in USSR, and the Soviets are able
to track their first U2 flight in April, 1960. Powers' plane is downed in
May, creating havoc, The Soviets bring this 'defector' to Moscow to see
Powers. All well and good -- the US loses considerable credibility.

Then, lo and behold, this same 'defector' returns to the US, is then
unable to again leave for USSR or Cuba in his own desired timeframe, (and
has been in touch with the Soviet govt all along) and the next thing they
know, is charged with the murder of JFK.

If you were KGB, just how would you spin these events?

> And I also rely on experts who know how to interpret the documents.

Unless you reason things through for yourself, that runs the risk of being
just another appeal to authority.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

So asking you to do your homework is an Appeal to Authority? I am asking
you to look up the facts for yourself, not spoon feeding you.

>>
>>> style. I am taking an hypothesis and following it through. You claim to
>>
>> No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
>> asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.
>
> You are making a false assumption. I have started with an
> hypothesis. I am including known events. You don't like that.

You are basing you ideas solely on cherrypicked conspiracy books.

>
>>
>>> have a developed position which you have researched.
>
> An hypothesis is just that. You might want to try it sometime.
>
>> Are you able to
>>> perceive the difference? As you have a different theory, I am asking you
>>> to support your position, but you choose not to.
>>
>> I support my positions all the time.
>
> Not so. You appeal to yourself as authority and claim that when others
> have read all the evidence they will agree with you. That is not support.
> Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
>

Pointing out evidence is an Appeal to Authority?

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
>>>>>>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
>>>>>>>> and searches the way China does?
>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean? I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
>>>>>>> Twin Cities.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
>>>>>>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Based on what?
>>
>>>>>>>> Reports from their spies.
>>
>>>>>>> Which reports from which spies?
>>
>>>>>> Several from KGB spies.
>>
>>>>> Opinion.
>>
>>>> No, documented facts.
>>
>>> Unnamed. Opinion.
>>
>> Do your homework.
>
> You don't know what I am doing.
>

I know what you haven't done.

>> I named the official CIA history of the U-2. You refuse to read it.
>
> That is false. You don't have a shred of evidence for that
> statement.
>

Your mistakes reveal that you have not read it.

The secrecy about the technical details is not what caused an
international incident. The US had violated Russian airspace many times
before. This time the Soviets could prove it.

>>
>> Atsugi was not THE HOME of the U-2. It was just one base where it
>> occassionally operated. It was not even the most important base.
>
> Now you are minimizing Atsugi? It was a home of the U2.
>

An outright falsehood. Atsugi was not the HOME of the U-2. It was just one
of many bases. You originally said "THE" home of the U-2. Now you changed
it to "A" home of the U-2. So either you don't know the difference between
"the" and "a" or you realized that you overstated the importance.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> He knew they could quickly climb to 7400 feet and do did the
>>>>>>>>>> Russians.
>>
>>>>>>>>> What is your evidence for this?
>>
>>>>>>>> The test flights and the official history.
>>
>>>>>>> No cite. Your opinion.
>>
>>>>>> Unlike you I have actually read the official history. Do your homework
>>>>>> and stop guessing.
>>
>>>>> You seem to be making the false assumption that I would come to the
>>>>> same conclusion as you.
>>>>> I see loopholes in your theory.
>>
>>>> You need to start studying the documents.
>>
>>> I am following my hypothesis.
>>
>>> You may not know how to interpret 'the documents'. If you believe
>>> everything KGB or CIA says you mayl never find the truth.
>>
>> I know better than most how to interpret the documents.
>
> It sounds as though you are swallowing the Soviet documents whole. I hope
> that is not the case.
>

No, crosschecking them with other sources.

> Let's reframe the situation from their viewpoint -- here we have a
> 'defector' who claims to have secret information and was stationed at a
> home of the U2. He is allowed to remain in USSR, and the Soviets are able
> to track their first U2 flight in April, 1960. Powers' plane is downed in

The Soviets were able to track U-2 flights since the very first flight.
Their radar was as good as ours.

> May, creating havoc, The Soviets bring this 'defector' to Moscow to see
> Powers. All well and good -- the US loses considerable credibility.
>

Prove that it was the Soviets who brought Oswald to meet with Powers.
Powers never said anything about meeting with Oswald.

> Then, lo and behold, this same 'defector' returns to the US, is then
> unable to again leave for USSR or Cuba in his own desired timeframe, (and
> has been in touch with the Soviet govt all along) and the next thing they
> know, is charged with the murder of JFK.
>

Where do you get your notion that Oswald was staying in touch with the
Soviet government all along?

> If you were KGB, just how would you spin these events?
>

I don't think the KGB would need to spin fictitious anecdotes.
But they did need to spin the rumors that they have trained Oswald by
prepping Nosenko.

>> And I also rely on experts who know how to interpret the documents.
>
> Unless you reason things through for yourself, that runs the risk of being
> just another appeal to authority.
>

I evaluate the experts.

> Pamela Brown
> marinaenigma.blogspot.com
>
>

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 20, 6:48 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

No. Claiming that you have done yours and others have not or they
would agree with you is.

>I am asking
> you to look up the facts for yourself, not spoon feeding you.

You are making a false assertion. You have no knowledge of what I am
doing, yet you are comfortable taking a condescending tone. This speaks
volumes.

>
>
>
> >>> style.  I am taking an hypothesis and following it through.  You claim to
>
> >> No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
> >> asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.
>
> > You are making a false assumption.  I have started with an
> > hypothesis.  I am including known events.  You don't like that.
>
> You are basing you ideas solely on cherrypicked conspiracy books.

You are making a false assumption. You have no idea what my process is,
and yet you are comfortable making a silly statement like that.

If you were to read what I right before typing, you might come to realize
that my perspective on LHO and Marina is somewhat unique.

Besides, name even one of those 'conspiracy books' that has as its
hypothesis that LHO was a traitor but not a spy.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> have a developed position which you have researched.
>
> > An hypothesis is just that.  You might want to try it sometime.
>
> >>   Are you able to
> >>> perceive the difference?  As you have a different theory, I am asking you
> >>> to support your position, but you choose not to.
>
> >> I support my positions all the time.
>
> > Not so. You appeal to yourself as authority and claim that when others
> > have read all the evidence they will agree with you. That is not support.
> > Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
>
> Pointing out evidence is an Appeal to Authority?

Pointing to yourself is an appeal to authority. It is disappointing
to see you trot out one of the staples of the WC defenders and act as
though you've never heard of it before.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
> >>>>>>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
> >>>>>>>> and searches the way China does?
>
> >>>>>>> What do you mean?  I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
> >>>>>>> Twin Cities.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
> >>>>>>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Based on what?
>
> >>>>>>>> Reports from their spies.
>
> >>>>>>> Which reports from which spies?
>
> >>>>>> Several from KGB spies.
>
> >>>>> Opinion.
>
> >>>> No, documented facts.
>
> >>> Unnamed.  Opinion.
>
> >> Do your homework.
>
> > You don't know what I am doing.
>
> I know what you haven't done.
>
> >> I named the official CIA history of the U-2. You refuse to read it.
>
> > That is false.  You don't have a shred of evidence for that
> > statement.
>
> Your mistakes reveal that you have not read it.

You said I 'refused' to read it. That is false and I deserve an
apology.

I am not making mistakes. I am following an hypothesis.

You claim to have conclusions that you have researched, but they are
not apparently worthy of scrutiny, because all you post is opinion.

They could prove it because they finally had the technical details
they needed.

>
>
>
> >> Atsugi was not THE HOME of the U-2. It was just one base where it
> >> occassionally operated. It was not even the most important base.
>
> > Now you are minimizing Atsugi?  It was a home of the U2.
>
> An outright falsehood. Atsugi was not the HOME of the U-2. It was just one

> of many bases. You originally said "THE" ...

Next will you try to claim there were no U-2's at Atsugi and that LHO
never laid eyes on one?

There seems to be something disquieting to you about this hypothesis.
Thanks for demonstrating that in such a clearcut manner.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Since when is research an Appeal to Authority?
What you are advocating is Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

>> I am asking
>> you to look up the facts for yourself, not spoon feeding you.
>
> You are making a false assertion. You have no knowledge of what I am
> doing, yet you are comfortable taking a condescending tone. This speaks
> volumes.
>

Every time you open your mouth you reveal that you have not researched
any of this. Just reading a conspiracy book is not research.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>> style. I am taking an hypothesis and following it through. You claim to
>>
>>>> No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
>>>> asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.
>>
>>> You are making a false assumption. I have started with an
>>> hypothesis. I am including known events. You don't like that.
>>
>> You are basing you ideas solely on cherrypicked conspiracy books.
>
> You are making a false assumption. You have no idea what my process is,
> and yet you are comfortable making a silly statement like that.
>

You have already demonstratd your process. Start with an assumption and
then refuse to look at facts.

> If you were to read what I right before typing, you might come to realize
> that my perspective on LHO and Marina is somewhat unique.
>

I don't give a fig what you think about Lee and Marina.

> Besides, name even one of those 'conspiracy books' that has as its
> hypothesis that LHO was a traitor but not a spy.
>

I never said anything like that.
You must have read this crap somewhere. You couldn't have thought it up
on your own. So tell us the book and the page.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> have a developed position which you have researched.
>>
>>> An hypothesis is just that. You might want to try it sometime.
>>
>>>> Are you able to
>>>>> perceive the difference? As you have a different theory, I am asking you
>>>>> to support your position, but you choose not to.
>>
>>>> I support my positions all the time.
>>
>>> Not so. You appeal to yourself as authority and claim that when others
>>> have read all the evidence they will agree with you. That is not support.
>>> Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
>>
>> Pointing out evidence is an Appeal to Authority?
>
> Pointing to yourself is an appeal to authority. It is disappointing

Why thank you for admitting that I am the authority. But I never said
anything like that. You seem to think that if you can make enough
personal attacks on me your argument is proven true ipso facto.

> to see you trot out one of the staples of the WC defenders and act as
> though you've never heard of it before.

More false charges. Sometimes the evidence points to the same conclusion
whether examined by a WC defender or a conspiracy believer.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
>>>>>>>>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
>>>>>>>>>> and searches the way China does?
>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean? I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
>>>>>>>>> Twin Cities.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Based on what?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reports from their spies.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Which reports from which spies?
>>
>>>>>>>> Several from KGB spies.
>>
>>>>>>> Opinion.
>>
>>>>>> No, documented facts.
>>
>>>>> Unnamed. Opinion.
>>
>>>> Do your homework.
>>
>>> You don't know what I am doing.
>>
>> I know what you haven't done.
>>
>>>> I named the official CIA history of the U-2. You refuse to read it.
>>
>>> That is false. You don't have a shred of evidence for that
>>> statement.
>>
>> Your mistakes reveal that you have not read it.
>
> You said I 'refused' to read it. That is false and I deserve an
> apology.
>

Not bloody likely. Do your homework.

> I am not making mistakes. I am following an hypothesis.

No, you are not researching it. You are merely assuming it.

They shot down the bloody plane. They held the proof in their hands.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> Atsugi was not THE HOME of the U-2. It was just one base where it
>>>> occassionally operated. It was not even the most important base.
>>
>>> Now you are minimizing Atsugi? It was a home of the U2.
>>
>> An outright falsehood. Atsugi was not the HOME of the U-2. It was just one
>> of many bases. You originally said "THE" ...
>
> Next will you try to claim there were no U-2's at Atsugi and that LHO
> never laid eyes on one?
>

Silly. Did Oswald ever SAY that he saw the U-2 take off or land?

[Pamela Brown]

How to stop research

1 -- Be unable to differentiate an hypothesis from a conclusion.

2 -- Slam the opponents research process while making sure to know nothing
about it.

3 -- Accuse them of plagiarizing their hypothesis. When they attempt to
explain how they developed their hypothesis, say that you don't give a
fig.

4 -- Accuse them of refusing to read research materials.

5 -- Insist on an Appeal to Authority, demanding that they are the only
one with the answer. And make sure to act dumb about what an Appeal to
Authority consists of.

6 -- Appeal to all kinds of other documents and sources, but refuse to
name even one.

9 -- Make repeated appeals to the masses, but insist on not providing even
one cite.

Sound familiar, Anthony?

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Sounds like you are intentionally not listening to what I have said.
We've been through his before.
I named the document and you refused to read it.

> Pamela Brown
> marinaenigma.blogspot.com
>

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 23, 10:49 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/22/2012 4:26 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > How to stop research
>
> > 1 -- Be unable to differentiate an hypothesis from a conclusion.
>
> > 2 -- Slam the opponents research process while making sure to know nothing
> > about it.
>
> > 3 -- Accuse them of plagiarizing their hypothesis. When they attempt to
> > explain how they developed their hypothesis, say that you don't give a
> > fig.
>
> > 4 -- Accuse them of refusing to read research materials.
>
> > 5 -- Insist on an Appeal to Authority, demanding that they are the only
> > one with the answer.  And make sure to act dumb about what an Appeal to
> > Authority consists of.
>
> > 6 -- Appeal to all kinds of other documents and sources, but refuse to
> > name even one.
>
> > 9 -- Make repeated appeals to the masses, but insist on not providing even
> > one cite.
>
> > Sound familiar, Anthony?
>
> Sounds like you are intentionally not listening to what I have said.

Sounds like you refuse to acknowledge what I have said.

> We've been through his before.

No, we have not. Your choosing not to debate in an open forum on this
issue is disappointing.;

> I named the document and you refused to read it.

False. You do not know my research process. I have refused to read
nothing.

You don't like my hypothesis. But you are unable to debate fairly on
it. Not my problem.

You owe me two apologies -- one for making the false claim that I
'refused' to read something.

Secondly, for claiming that my hypothesis is derived from a
'conspiracy book' and then demanding that I cite from it after I
reminded you that there is no such book that carries the hypothesis
that LHO might have been a traitor and not a spy.

Why are you trying to block research on this hypothesis?


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >PamelaBrown
> > marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 21, 9:27 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

If demanding that others agree with you is research, you probably
can't understand the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

> What you are advocating is Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

You are playing tabula rasae.

>
> >> I am asking
> >> you to look up the facts for yourself, not spoon feeding you.
>
> > You are making a false assertion.  You have no knowledge of what I am
> > doing, yet you are comfortable taking a condescending tone.  This speaks
> > volumes.
>
> Every time you open your mouth you reveal that you have not researched
> any of this.

Every time you open your mouth you reveal that you have not bothered to
research what an hypothesis is.

So I will tell you.

An hypothesis is a manner of approaching data in order to sort it out.
It is an idea, a concept, sort of a 'what if'. In this case, there are a
number of curious coincidences, including LHO telling Snyder he was going
to give the Soviets secret info, Powers' U-2 being shot down not long
after, Powers believing that LHO could have something to do with the
shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
be shot.

At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimed traitor.
Surely even you will not disagree with that.

So I could, in order to accommodate what seems to be stonewalling on your
part, revise the hypothesis to something such as this -- Was LHO a
traitor, as he said he was, or were there simply a number of very strange
coincidences that took place when he went to Russia?

> Just reading a conspiracy book is not research.

Talking to someone on the front line who met both Marina and Lee is. All
my thinking about them has changed as a result. You don't like that.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> style.  I am taking an hypothesis and following it through.  You claim to
>
> >>>> No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
> >>>> asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.
>
> >>> You are making a false assumption.  I have started with an
> >>> hypothesis.  I am including known events.  You don't like that.
>
> >> You are basing you ideas solely on cherrypicked conspiracy books.
>
> > You are making a false assumption.  You have no idea what my process is,
> > and yet you are comfortable making a silly statement like that.
>
> You have already demonstratd your process.

No. I presented an hypothesis. In can be amended, updated, or tossed
out.

In this case, based on your responses, I am adding a second hypothesis --
namely, is the KGB and WC position on LHO in regards to his being a
traitor/spy the same, and if so, why? Is it simply a coincidence that
both appear to portray him as too stupid and arrogant to have acquired any
secret information, much less to know how to use it?

>Start with an assumption and
> then refuse to look at facts.
>

You refuse to present any facts. Besides, an hypothesis is a
question, not a conclusion.

> > If you were to read what I right before typing, you might come to realize
> > that my perspective on LHO and Marina is somewhat unique.
>
> I don't give a fig what you think about Lee and Marina.

You are acknowledging that you don't care about research?

>
> > Besides, name even one of those 'conspiracy books' that has as its

> > hypothesis that LHO was atraitorbut not a spy.

>
> I never said anything like that.

Yes you did.

> You must have read this crap somewhere.

You can't point to a single book, yet refuse you made this up?

>You couldn't have thought it up
> on your own.

You sound like a faux prof at Bucknell who claimed "nobody could be that
smart". Do you really want to put yourself into that category?

>So tell us the book and the page.

You made this false claim, not I. Do you realize how inappropriate
your demand is?

Where did the avenger of truth disappear to? One might think there
was a WC defender writing your posts. You are better than this.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> have a developed position which you have researched.
>
> >>> An hypothesis is just that.  You might want to try it sometime.
>
> >>>>    Are you able to
> >>>>> perceive the difference?  As you have a different theory, I am asking you
> >>>>> to support your position, but you choose not to.
>
> >>>> I support my positions all the time.
>
> >>> Not so. You appeal to yourself as authority and claim that when others
> >>> have read all the evidence they will agree with you. That is not support.
> >>> Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
>
> >> Pointing out evidence is an Appeal to Authority?
>
> > Pointing to yourself is an appeal to authority.  It is disappointing
>
> Why thank you for admitting that I am the authority.

None of the demands or chastising you have done in this thread is in
the least persuasive to me that you are an authority on this subject.
In fact, it may be that all of this is just a big bluff.

>But I never said
> anything like that.

Refusing to provide support for your claims and demanding that I agree
with them is an Appeal to Authority. Are you really unable to see
that?

>You seem to think that if you can make enough
> personal attacks on me your argument is proven true ipso facto.

Asking you to debate on a level field is a 'personal attack'? In
which parallel universe would this be?

>
> > to see you trot out one of the staples of the WC defenders and act as
> > though you've never heard of it before.
>
> More false charges.

Fallacy is the framework of the WC defender position. Why don't you
google that so you don't fall into them again then?

> Sometimes the evidence points to the same conclusion
> whether examined by a WC defender or a conspiracy believer.

You have refused to post evidence, so who is to know?

You say LHO *couldn't* have had secret information, but give no cite.
or data to support your claim.

You claim LHO didn't have a high enough clearance to have obtained
secret information. You fall prey to the fallacy of false
alternatives. LHO could have been in the right place at the right
time and have learned valuable information about the U-2.

I ended up spending an hour with the F-22 Raptor in the early 90's while
it was still under development, until a German in the research hanger
realized I was there and kicked me out. I have no security clearance at
all. I could easily have described its design to others. I did not, of
course.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Have you even read the official CIA history on the U-2 program? Kinda
> >>>>>>>>>> hard to do from Australia I guess. Does Australia block some Web sites
> >>>>>>>>>> and searches the way China does?
>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean?  I would love to be in Austrailia, but I am in the
> >>>>>>>>> Twin Cities.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> They did not know the exact desired altitude for taking photographs within
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 20 feet, but they knew it within 2000 feet.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Based on what?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Reports from their spies.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Which reports from which spies?
>
> >>>>>>>> Several from KGB spies.
>
> >>>>>>> Opinion.
>
> >>>>>> No, documented facts.
>
> >>>>> Unnamed.  Opinion.
>
> >>>> Do your homework.
>
> >>> You don't know what I am doing.
>
> >> I know what you haven't done.
>
> >>>> I named the official CIA history of the U-2. You refuse to read it.
>
> >>> That is false.  You don't have a shred of evidence for that
> >>> statement.
>
> >> Your mistakes reveal that you have not read it.
>
> > You said I 'refused' to read it.  That is false and I deserve an
> > apology.
>
> Not bloody likely. Do your homework.

You refuse to apologize for a false statement? I started from asking
questions based on a discussion with someone who met both Marina and Lee.
I am immersing myself in data from all sides. I am using a working
hypothesis in order to give structure to my research. That is what an
historian does.

>
> > I am not making mistakes.  I am following an hypothesis.
>
> No, you are not researching it. You are merely assuming it.

False. I am testing it. Why not research historical process before you
make that mistake again?

Just because you experience one thesis in a history book, for example, it
does not mean that a number of hypotheses have not been tested during the
research and development of the book.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 7, 11:14 am, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 8:42 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Jan 2012 22:16:42 -0500, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> > >Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of

> > >assassinating JFK.  If he was atraitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
> > >his return from the Soviet Union?  He didn't even have to fulfill his
> > >inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
> > >inactive duty (if that's the correct term).  As I recall, his mother had
> > >received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
> > >Peter R. Whitmey
>
> > You need to read the HSCA Defector Report.
>
> > He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State
> > Department) as atraitoror security risk.  He was viewed as a mixed
> > up mentally unstable young man.
>
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Priscilla Johnson wrote a fairly sympathetic portrait ofOswaldafter
> their five-hour meeting at the Metropole  Hotel, where they were both
> staying.   Of course, PJ had been beaten to the punch by a real
> reporter, UPI's Aline Mosby (http://www.jfk-info.com/whitmey7.htm).
> But when it came to updating her 1959 article for publication in the
> Boston Globe (and numerous Hearst papers) on the morning of Nov. 24,
> 1963, PJ decided to make one alteration in her impression of LeeOswald, as I discuss in my three-part series on Priscilla's career
> (http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-1.htm):
>
> "The second paragraph by Miss Johnson in her revised version reflects
> a completely different impression ofOswald, compared to her original,
> non-judgmental  version.  In fact, the Boston Globe chose to use as
> its headline a quotation from this paragraph, unlike the Dallas
> Morning News, whose headline simply read:  'Reporter Recalls Moscow
> Talk WithOswald'.  Miss Johnson describes sitting in her hotel room
> with Lee 'all evening and into the early hours of the morning' and he
> 'talked quietly about his plans to defect to Russia.  However, I soon
> came to feel that this boy was of the stuff of which fanatics are made.
> [note: the stuff of which fanatics are made was printed in darker,
> bolder print in the Boston Globe.]  Did she really feel that way back
> in November, 1959?  If she did, it certainly wasn't expressed in
> either her report or in a subsequent discussion with the American
> Embassy.  As pointed out by Robert Sam Anson the word 'fanatics'
> conjured up a far more 'sinister figure' than he'd been described
> originally.  It would appear that an attempt  was being made to paint
> a picture of Lee HarveyOswaldas a very disturbed young man, capable
> of some outrageous political act - like assassinating a president -
> consistent  with similar portrayals in both TIME and LIFE magazines
> prior to and followingOswald's death. The fact that the word
> 'fanatics' was neither used nor implied in Priscilla's original report
> is very troubling, and a total misrepresentation of her impressions of
> the young man she had interviewed at that time.  It is possible that
> when she read over her original article, which referred to a soft-
> spoken 'idealistic former Marine who spoke in terms of 'emigrating' as
> opposed to defecting, she  found it difficult to accept her own
> impressions, given the possibility that this same man was a
> presidential assassin.  Unfortunately, it would appear that Miss
> Johnson was unable to give  the accused the benefit of  the doubt, and
> instead chose to join the journalistic lynch mob beforeOswaldwas
> even officially charged with the assassination, let alone tried.  It
> is important to note that her new assessment was made prior toOswald'sdeath, with the realization that she very likely would have
> been called to testify.'
>                                                           - Peter R.
> Whitmey

PJ is an interesting witness to LHO on his entry into the USSR.
Apparently, LHO did not say anything to her about his plan to give
secret information to the Soviets?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/24/2012 9:55 AM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:49 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/22/2012 4:26 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> How to stop research
>>
>>> 1 -- Be unable to differentiate an hypothesis from a conclusion.
>>
>>> 2 -- Slam the opponents research process while making sure to know nothing
>>> about it.
>>
>>> 3 -- Accuse them of plagiarizing their hypothesis. When they attempt to
>>> explain how they developed their hypothesis, say that you don't give a
>>> fig.
>>
>>> 4 -- Accuse them of refusing to read research materials.
>>
>>> 5 -- Insist on an Appeal to Authority, demanding that they are the only
>>> one with the answer. And make sure to act dumb about what an Appeal to
>>> Authority consists of.
>>
>>> 6 -- Appeal to all kinds of other documents and sources, but refuse to
>>> name even one.
>>
>>> 9 -- Make repeated appeals to the masses, but insist on not providing even
>>> one cite.
>>
>>> Sound familiar, Anthony?
>>
>> Sounds like you are intentionally not listening to what I have said.
>
> Sounds like you refuse to acknowledge what I have said.
>
>> We've been through his before.
>
> No, we have not. Your choosing not to debate in an open forum on this
> issue is disappointing.;
>

Yes we have. Do you really want to rehash the privacy window for the
newbies?

>> I named the document and you refused to read it.
>
> False. You do not know my research process. I have refused to read
> nothing.
>

I know you didn't read the official CIA history of the U-2 or the oral
histories as I suggested.

> You don't like my hypothesis. But you are unable to debate fairly on
> it. Not my problem.
>

I'm not even sure you have a hypothesis. I think you've just picked up a
couple of bizarre ideas from conspiracy books by kooks like Fetzer.

> You owe me two apologies -- one for making the false claim that I
> 'refused' to read something.
>

Nope. Stop playing the victim and debate honestly.

> Secondly, for claiming that my hypothesis is derived from a
> 'conspiracy book' and then demanding that I cite from it after I
> reminded you that there is no such book that carries the hypothesis
> that LHO might have been a traitor and not a spy.

You couldn't have thought that up all on your own.
Sounds like Epstein.

>
> Why are you trying to block research on this hypothesis?
>

So if someone challenged you that is blocking?
So I was blocking your research on the privacy window? When I was the
guy who found the photo showing it?

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> PamelaBrown
>>> marinaenigma.blogspot.com
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Unrelated. Oswald did not know anything important and the Soviets did
not need any extra information to shoot down the U-2. Just better
preparation and readiness.
You are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.

> shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
> be shot.
>
> At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimed traitor.
> Surely even you will not disagree with that.
>

I can't say yet because that information is still being withheld. I
still suspect that Oswald was sent as a dry run by Angelton and never
gave the Soviets anything.

> So I could, in order to accommodate what seems to be stonewalling on your
> part, revise the hypothesis to something such as this -- Was LHO a
> traitor, as he said he was, or were there simply a number of very strange
> coincidences that took place when he went to Russia?
>

There are always strange coincidences.
Sometimes event A causes ripple effects which produce event B and C, but
event B all by itself did not produce event C.

>> Just reading a conspiracy book is not research.
>
> Talking to someone on the front line who met both Marina and Lee is. All
> my thinking about them has changed as a result. You don't like that.
>

I doubt you did. Definitely not Judyth.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> style. I am taking an hypothesis and following it through. You claim to
>>
>>>>>> No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
>>>>>> asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.
>>
>>>>> You are making a false assumption. I have started with an
>>>>> hypothesis. I am including known events. You don't like that.
>>
>>>> You are basing you ideas solely on cherrypicked conspiracy books.
>>
>>> You are making a false assumption. You have no idea what my process is,
>>> and yet you are comfortable making a silly statement like that.
>>
>> You have already demonstratd your process.
>
> No. I presented an hypothesis. In can be amended, updated, or tossed
> out.
>
> In this case, based on your responses, I am adding a second hypothesis --
> namely, is the KGB and WC position on LHO in regards to his being a
> traitor/spy the same, and if so, why? Is it simply a coincidence that
> both appear to portray him as too stupid and arrogant to have acquired any
> secret information, much less to know how to use it?
>

The KGB feared that Oswald was a spy and kept an eye on him.
The WC did not think that. They considered him a traitor and mentally
unstable.

>> Start with an assumption and
>> then refuse to look at facts.
>>
>
> You refuse to present any facts. Besides, an hypothesis is a
> question, not a conclusion.
>
>>> If you were to read what I right before typing, you might come to realize
>>> that my perspective on LHO and Marina is somewhat unique.
>>
>> I don't give a fig what you think about Lee and Marina.
>
> You are acknowledging that you don't care about research?
>
>>
>>> Besides, name even one of those 'conspiracy books' that has as its
>>> hypothesis that LHO was atraitorbut not a spy.
>>
>> I never said anything like that.
>
> Yes you did.
>
>> You must have read this crap somewhere.
>
> You can't point to a single book, yet refuse you made this up?
>
>> You couldn't have thought it up
>> on your own.
>
> You sound like a faux prof at Bucknell who claimed "nobody could be that
> smart". Do you really want to put yourself into that category?
>
>> So tell us the book and the page.
>
> You made this false claim, not I. Do you realize how inappropriate
> your demand is?
>
> Where did the avenger of truth disappear to? One might think there
> was a WC defender writing your posts. You are better than this.
>

As always the last refuge of a scoundrel is to accuse me of being a WC
defender.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> have a developed position which you have researched.
>>
>>>>> An hypothesis is just that. You might want to try it sometime.
>>
>>>>>> Are you able to
>>>>>>> perceive the difference? As you have a different theory, I am asking you
>>>>>>> to support your position, but you choose not to.
>>
>>>>>> I support my positions all the time.
>>
>>>>> Not so. You appeal to yourself as authority and claim that when others
>>>>> have read all the evidence they will agree with you. That is not support.
>>>>> Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
>>
>>>> Pointing out evidence is an Appeal to Authority?
>>
>>> Pointing to yourself is an appeal to authority. It is disappointing
>>
>> Why thank you for admitting that I am the authority.
>
> None of the demands or chastising you have done in this thread is in
> the least persuasive to me that you are an authority on this subject.
> In fact, it may be that all of this is just a big bluff.
>
>> But I never said
>> anything like that.
>
> Refusing to provide support for your claims and demanding that I agree
> with them is an Appeal to Authority. Are you really unable to see
> that?
>

I gave you the citations. I am not going to read them to you at bedtime.

>> You seem to think that if you can make enough
>> personal attacks on me your argument is proven true ipso facto.
>
> Asking you to debate on a level field is a 'personal attack'? In
> which parallel universe would this be?
>

Calling me a WC defender?

>>
>>> to see you trot out one of the staples of the WC defenders and act as
>>> though you've never heard of it before.
>>
>> More false charges.
>
> Fallacy is the framework of the WC defender position. Why don't you
> google that so you don't fall into them again then?
>

Both sides commit fallacies.

>> Sometimes the evidence points to the same conclusion
>> whether examined by a WC defender or a conspiracy believer.
>
> You have refused to post evidence, so who is to know?
>
> You say LHO *couldn't* have had secret information, but give no cite.
> or data to support your claim.
>

Not what I said. He did not. And he could not have had anything important.

> You claim LHO didn't have a high enough clearance to have obtained
> secret information. You fall prey to the fallacy of false
> alternatives. LHO could have been in the right place at the right
> time and have learned valuable information about the U-2.
>

Like what? Rate of fuel consumption. Focal length of the lens? Film type?

> I ended up spending an hour with the F-22 Raptor in the early 90's while
> it was still under development, until a German in the research hanger
> realized I was there and kicked me out. I have no security clearance at
> all. I could easily have described its design to others. I did not, of
> course.
>

The Russians already had a copy of the original plans.

Not false.

> questions based on a discussion with someone who met both Marina and Lee.
> I am immersing myself in data from all sides. I am using a working
> hypothesis in order to give structure to my research. That is what an
> historian does.
>

Your source knows nothing significant.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 24, 9:38 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

No we have not. We are discussing the possibility of LHO being a traitor.
This is the first discussion we have had on that.

>Do you really want to rehash the privacy window for the
> newbies?

Do you really want to give me credit for insisting that there was a
privacy window in the limo? It was installed at the time of delivery. I
brought forth that information. It was removed three months later. I
also provided that information.

Why don't you try to piggyback on my bringing forth the Ferguson Memo
while we are at it. I am the one NARA sent it to by mistake while it was
still being supressed.

I don't think you want to go down the road of trying to take potshots
at my credentials, do you? We've been through that before and you
always lose.

>
> >> I named the document and you refused to read it.
>
> > False.  You do not know my research process.  I have refused to read
> > nothing.
>
> I know you didn't read the official CIA history of the U-2 or the oral
> histories as I suggested.

And why is that? Because if I had read them I would know that you
misrepresented information from them? Such as claiming that the US and
USSR had exactly the same radar technology? According to the CIA history,
that may have been true after WWII, but not by 1959. Why did you not
disclose that? Why do I have to be the one to do it?

>
> > You don't like my hypothesis.  But you are unable to debate fairly on
> > it.  Not my problem.
>
> I'm not even sure you have a hypothesis. I think you've just picked up a
> couple of bizarre ideas from conspiracy books by kooks like Fetzer.

Surely you jest. You must be completely ignorant of my interactions
with Fetzer or you would not make such a silly statement.

> > You owe me two apologies -- one for making the false claim that I
> > 'refused' to read something.
>
> Nope. Stop playing the victim and debate honestly.

Start acting like a gentleman or I will have no choice but to find
nothing you say credible, as I do with Fetzer.

>
> > Secondly, for claiming that my hypothesis is derived from a
> > 'conspiracy book' and then demanding that I cite from it after I
> > reminded you that there is no such book that carries the hypothesis

> > that LHO might have been atraitorand not a spy.

>
> You couldn't have thought that up all on your own.
> Sounds like Epstein.

Quit goading. You know perfectly well that nobody else has taken this
approach.

Except for LHO, of course, who said he had secret info to give to the
Soviets.

>
>
>
> > Why are you trying to block research on this hypothesis?
>
> So if someone challenged you that is blocking?

Of course not. Challenging by Appeal to Authority, demeaning, dismissing
an hypothesis is blocking. Do you deny doing this? Or is this just a new
form of 'research' -- by fallacy? By the way, have you googled that yet?
Or are you still refusing to do so?

> So I was blocking your research on the privacy window? When I was the
> guy who found the photo showing it?

I would have found that photo when I went to the Henry Ford. It was in
the press packet. Hardly secret. I am the one who brought forth the idea
in the first place. Quit trying to steal my thunder.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 24, 9:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

That you are unable to see that understanding what an hypothesis is is
relevant to this discussion gives clear indication of the ivory tower you
seem to inhabit, where there is no communication, just your making demands
and giving orders. I hope I am mistaken.

>Oswalddid not know anything important and the Soviets did

> not need any extra information to shoot down the U-2. Just better
> preparation and readiness.

That is your opinion. You are entitled. I disagee. I am asking what if?
At least my hypothesis takes into account a series of extremely curious
coincidences.

You claim LHO *couldn't* have had secret information of value to the
Soviets, even though he was a radar operator at Atsugi where U-2s were
tracked and radar information was needed by the Soviets. I believe your
opinion is at least extremely narrow and does not allow for other
possibilities.

> You are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.

An hypothesis is not subject to fallacy. It is a question.

>
> > shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
> > be shot.
>
> > At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimedtraitor.
> > Surely even you will not disagree with that.
>
> I can't say yet because that information is still being withheld.

False. The information about what LHO said to Snyder has been in the
public domain for years.

>I
> still suspect thatOswaldwas sent as a dry run by Angelton and never
> gave the Soviets anything.

LHO was never *sent* anywhere by JJA. Where did you come up with that
wacky idea?

>
> > So I could, in order to accommodate what seems to be stonewalling on your
> > part, revise the hypothesis to something such as this -- Was LHO a
> >traitor, as he said he was, or were there simply a number of very strange
> > coincidences that took place when he went to Russia?
>
> There are always strange coincidences.
> Sometimes event A causes ripple effects which produce event B and C, but
> event B all by itself did not produce event C.

Any hypothesis worth its salt has to take all those coincidences into
account. WC defenders just dismiss all the coincidences and
convenient deaths. That is not persuasive.

>
> >> Just reading a conspiracy book is not research.
>
> > Talking to someone on the front line who met both Marina and Lee is. All
> > my thinking about them has changed as a result.  You don't like that.
>
> I doubt you did.

You would. But you do not know. I have. And I have corroboration
for doing so.

>Definitely not Judyth.

Of course not.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> style.  I am taking an hypothesis and following it through.  You claim to
>
> >>>>>> No, you stated with a supposition by reading some conspiracy books which
> >>>>>> asserted a theory. You have not vetted them.
>
> >>>>> You are making a false assumption.  I have started with an
> >>>>> hypothesis.  I am including known events.  You don't like that.
>
> >>>> You are basing you ideas solely on cherrypicked conspiracy books.
>
> >>> You are making a false assumption.  You have no idea what my process is,
> >>> and yet you are comfortable making a silly statement like that.
>
> >> You have already demonstratd your process.
>
> > No.  I presented an hypothesis.  In can be amended, updated, or tossed
> > out.
>
> > In this case, based on your responses, I am adding a second hypothesis --
> > namely, is the KGB and WC position on LHO in regards to his being a
> >traitor/spy the same, and if so, why?  Is it simply a coincidence that
> > both appear to portray him as too stupid and arrogant to have acquired any
> > secret information, much less to know how to use it?
>

> The KGB feared thatOswaldwas a spy and kept an eye on him.

Why should they? They said they thought he was mentally unstable
because he tried to kill himself. Why would any US intelligence
agency recruit someone like that?

> The WC did not think that. They considered him atraitorand mentally

> unstable.[...]

I disagree. I don't see them complaining that he only got a handslap from
the Marines in the form of a chance to undesirable discharge rather than
being arrested and court martialed the minute he returned to the US.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 5, 8:24 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/4/2012 10:16 PM, Canuck wrote:
>
> > In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> > Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of

> > assassinating JFK.  If he was atraitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
> > his return from the Soviet Union?  He didn't even have to fulfill his
>

> I fail to see your point.

"Fail to" or refuse to?

>Not everyone who commits an offense is
> prosecuted.

That is just an excuse. LHO was a defector; he was an ex-Marine. He may
have been a traitor. How many of those bad guys do you think the govt
wants to let slip through the net?

>AndOswaldwas tried and punished by reducing his discharge
> to less than honorable.

He was not tried in a court martial. Why not, the minute he returned to
the US? Reducing his discharge status was little more than a slap of the
wrist, considering all the damage he had done and the time and effort it
took to restore order.

>No one had enough evidence to prove in a
> civilian court where there are rules of evidence thatOswaldhad
> violated any security oath or the National Security Act.

Huh? Who even attempted that? Nobody seemed to care enough. Why not?
Didn't it matter to somebody in the govt that LHO could have been seen as
an example as to how to get away with defecting a possible treason and
return again to the US to live comfortably without fear of imprisonment?

Well, LHO's life wasn't all that comfortable. In fact, he told Ella

German that if he returned to the US he would be shot.

He was right, of course.

But why was he in effect given a free pass?

Or was he simply expendable?

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 5, 10:42 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On 4 Jan 2012 22:16:42 -0500, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> >Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >assassinating JFK.  If he was atraitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
> >his return from the Soviet Union?  He didn't even have to fulfill his

> >inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
> >inactive duty (if that's the correct term).  As I recall, his mother had
> >received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
> >Peter R. Whitmey
>
> You need to read the HSCA Defector Report.
>
> He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State
> Department) as atraitoror security risk.  He was viewed as a mixed
> up mentally unstable young man.

Your interpretation of that report. Not necessarily correct or
complete.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>

> >>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

>
> >>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> >>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >>>> assassinating JFK.
>

> >>> That is indeed my opinion.
>
> >> Interesting, and unexpected.
>
> > Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair.  LHO said
> > he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>
> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.

False. Why don't you do your homework. Have you refused to read the
HSCA Defector Study?

>
> > buddy confirmed that codes etc were changed after LHO's defection.  In
> > addition, Powers was shot down in a U-2 after LHO had been stationed at
> > Atsugi.  Ironically, since many, if not most, of the documents about LHO's
> > defection are (or were the last time I was at NARA) still being
> > suppressed, there is probably a lot of info we are still missing.
>
> Some of it has been released and what has been released reveals a
> pattern of covering up what they originally had and destroyed.
>
> >> Do you thinkOswaldwas ever a genuine
> >> leftist?  Was he ever a US agent?
>
> > Good questions.  The answers are elusive; in part, because we don't have
> > access to all the records.  It seemed LHO could have had Soviet
> > citizenship (after he tried to kill himself when he was told to leave) but
> > demurred and decided to remain in USSR as a person without papers.  But
>
> The KGB did not trust him.
>
> > then, he quickly grabbed a lovely Russian bride whom he had only known for
> > a few weeks prior to marrying, and quickly made his move to return to the
> > US, in order to try to escape to Cuba.
>
> He didn't seem in too much of a hurry to go to Cuba.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Is this the behavior of a loner trying to create trouble, as Jean Davison
> > suggests, or of someone being used by others with hidden agendas?  There
> > seems to me to be evidence to support either position. The fact that the
> > govt did not insist that LHO be protected sufficiently in order for him to
> > be able to live to stand trial (he was the most hated man in the world
> > after the assassination) tends to weigh the evidence in favor of the govt
> > having something to hide that might have come out in a jury trial.
>
> >PamelaBrown
> > marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2012 10:24 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
>>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
>>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>>
>>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>>
>>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>>
>>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair. LHO said
>>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>>
>> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
>> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>
> False. Why don't you do your homework. Have you refused to read the
> HSCA Defector Study?
>

I have. You are misrepresenting it. Oswald made the offer IF he would be
granted citizenship, which the Soviets never did.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, they did not need that information. They already had their own radar
information, just as good as ours.
They needed details that Oswald could not possibly know.

>> You are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.
>
> An hypothesis is not subject to fallacy. It is a question.

Your argument in support of your hypothesis.

>>
>>> shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
>>> be shot.
>>
>>> At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimedtraitor.
>>> Surely even you will not disagree with that.
>>
>> I can't say yet because that information is still being withheld.
>
> False. The information about what LHO said to Snyder has been in the
> public domain for years.
>

I am talking about much more than that.

>> I
>> still suspect thatOswaldwas sent as a dry run by Angelton and never
>> gave the Soviets anything.
>
> LHO was never *sent* anywhere by JJA. Where did you come up with that
> wacky idea?

Various authors have suggested it.
I suggest you Google Angleton fake defector program.

Even before that they were suspicious of Oswald. I think most of this
was covered on the Frontline show.

>> The WC did not think that. They considered him atraitorand mentally
>> unstable.[...]
>
> I disagree. I don't see them complaining that he only got a handslap from
> the Marines in the form of a chance to undesirable discharge rather than
> being arrested and court martialed the minute he returned to the US.
>

They didn't have enough evidence which they could present in court (even
a military court) to prove that Oswald gave the Soviets anything.


> Pamela Brown
> marinaenigma.blogspot.com
>

[Anthony Marsh]

We have often debated what Oswald could have known and what he actually
told the Soviets.

>
>> Do you really want to rehash the privacy window for the
>> newbies?
>
> Do you really want to give me credit for insisting that there was a
> privacy window in the limo? It was installed at the time of delivery. I
> brought forth that information. It was removed three months later. I
> also provided that information.
>

Tell everyone again about your seeing a reflection of Connally on the
privacy window.

> Why don't you try to piggyback on my bringing forth the Ferguson Memo
> while we are at it. I am the one NARA sent it to by mistake while it was
> still being supressed.
>
> I don't think you want to go down the road of trying to take potshots
> at my credentials, do you? We've been through that before and you
> always lose.
>
>>
>>>> I named the document and you refused to read it.
>>
>>> False. You do not know my research process. I have refused to read
>>> nothing.
>>
>> I know you didn't read the official CIA history of the U-2 or the oral
>> histories as I suggested.
>
> And why is that? Because if I had read them I would know that you
> misrepresented information from them? Such as claiming that the US and
> USSR had exactly the same radar technology? According to the CIA history,
> that may have been true after WWII, but not by 1959. Why did you not
> disclose that? Why do I have to be the one to do it?

The USSR radar in 1959 was just as good as the US radar at Atsugi.

>
>>
>>> You don't like my hypothesis. But you are unable to debate fairly on
>>> it. Not my problem.
>>
>> I'm not even sure you have a hypothesis. I think you've just picked up a
>> couple of bizarre ideas from conspiracy books by kooks like Fetzer.
>
> Surely you jest. You must be completely ignorant of my interactions
> with Fetzer or you would not make such a silly statement.
>

Kooks LIKE Fetzer, his crowd.

>>> You owe me two apologies -- one for making the false claim that I
>>> 'refused' to read something.
>>
>> Nope. Stop playing the victim and debate honestly.
>
> Start acting like a gentleman or I will have no choice but to find
> nothing you say credible, as I do with Fetzer.
>

So you want me to give you a pass?

>>
>>> Secondly, for claiming that my hypothesis is derived from a
>>> 'conspiracy book' and then demanding that I cite from it after I
>>> reminded you that there is no such book that carries the hypothesis
>>> that LHO might have been atraitorand not a spy.
>>
>> You couldn't have thought that up all on your own.
>> Sounds like Epstein.
>
> Quit goading. You know perfectly well that nobody else has taken this
> approach.
>
> Except for LHO, of course, who said he had secret info to give to the
> Soviets.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why are you trying to block research on this hypothesis?
>>
>> So if someone challenged you that is blocking?
>
> Of course not. Challenging by Appeal to Authority, demeaning, dismissing
> an hypothesis is blocking. Do you deny doing this? Or is this just a new
> form of 'research' -- by fallacy? By the way, have you googled that yet?
> Or are you still refusing to do so?
>

You haven't presented any evidence or cite a source. So far all you have
is an idea. Fine, then go out a research it.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 26, 5:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/25/2012 10:24 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> >>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>
> >>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>
> >>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>
> >>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair.  LHO said
> >>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>
> >> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
> >> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>
> > False.  Why don't you do your homework.  Have you refused to read the
> > HSCA Defector Study?
>

> I have. You are misrepresenting it.Oswaldmade the offer IF he would be

> granted citizenship, which the Soviets never did.

Yes they did. Do your homework.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 26, 8:49 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Your opinion. I disagree.

>They already had their own radar
> information, just as good as ours.

Not so. They were making changes to their radar but the US was making
changes to the U-2.

> They needed details thatOswaldcould not possibly know.
>

Your opinion. I think it shuts a door that needs to remain open, at
least for now.

> >> You are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.
>
> > An hypothesis is not subject to fallacy.  It is a question.
>
> Your argument in support of your hypothesis.

One don't 'argue in support' of an hypothesis. One tests an hypothesis.
You can either agree or disagree with it. You disagree. Why not debate on
level ground rather than trying to make this something it is not?

>
>
>
> >>> shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
> >>> be shot.
>
> >>> At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimedtraitor.
> >>> Surely even you will not disagree with that.
>
> >> I can't say yet because that information is still being withheld.
>
> > False.  The information about what LHO said to Snyder has been in the
> > public domain for years.
>
> I am talking about much more than that.

I am not.

>
> >> I
> >> still suspect thatOswaldwas sent as a dry run by Angelton and never
> >> gave the Soviets anything.
>
> > LHO was never *sent* anywhere by JJA.  Where did you come up with that
> > wacky idea?
>
> Various authors have suggested it.

Fetzer?

> I suggest you Google Angleton fake defector program.

It's not my thinking that JJA wasn't observing LHO and other defectors.
That is only logical. With my hypothesis, there is no need for anyone
else to be involved.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/26/2012 10:10 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Jan 26, 5:32 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/25/2012 10:24 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
>>>>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
>>>>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>>
>>>>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>>
>>>>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>>
>>>>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair. LHO said
>>>>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>>
>>>> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
>>>> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>>
>>> False. Why don't you do your homework. Have you refused to read the
>>> HSCA Defector Study?
>>
>> I have. You are misrepresenting it.Oswaldmade the offer IF he would be
>> granted citizenship, which the Soviets never did.
>
> Yes they did. Do your homework.
>

Ridiculous. Show me this certificate of citizenship.

Why do you make up crap like this only after you have lost the argument.
Is that why Oswald tried to commit suicide, because the Soviet Union had
just granted him citizenship?

[Anthony Marsh]

Like what? The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2 before
Oswald defected. The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2
before Powers took off in May 1960.

The only significant change for the Powers flight was the new flightplan
and new sites to be photographed. Maybe Soviet military intelligence could
not predict which sites would be photographed and which flightpath each
mission would take. Fine, but Oswald had no access to that information.
The U-2 always had to keep flying at the same altitudes because the lens
was prefocused for only one specific altitude.

The U-2 B camera has a 36-inch focal length and can resolve features as
small as .75 meters (2.5 feet) from an altitude of 19.5 kilometers (65,000
feet).

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect10/swathcamerafocalandimagesize.jpg

>> They needed details thatOswaldcould not possibly know.
>>
>
> Your opinion. I think it shuts a door that needs to remain open, at
> least for now.
>

Then you need to show how Oswald could know the mission details of the
Powers flight.

>>>> You are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.
>>
>>> An hypothesis is not subject to fallacy. It is a question.
>>
>> Your argument in support of your hypothesis.
>
> One don't 'argue in support' of an hypothesis. One tests an hypothesis.
> You can either agree or disagree with it. You disagree. Why not debate on
> level ground rather than trying to make this something it is not?
>

It can't be a level ground until you get up to speed on the technical
details.
Have you looked at the manuals that Penkovsky snuck out?

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
>>>>> be shot.
>>
>>>>> At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimedtraitor.
>>>>> Surely even you will not disagree with that.
>>
>>>> I can't say yet because that information is still being withheld.
>>
>>> False. The information about what LHO said to Snyder has been in the
>>> public domain for years.
>>
>> I am talking about much more than that.
>
> I am not.
>
>>
>>>> I
>>>> still suspect thatOswaldwas sent as a dry run by Angelton and never
>>>> gave the Soviets anything.
>>
>>> LHO was never *sent* anywhere by JJA. Where did you come up with that
>>> wacky idea?
>>
>> Various authors have suggested it.
>
> Fetzer?
>

Nope.

Joan Mellen.
Weberman.

>> I suggest you Google Angleton fake defector program.
>
> It's not my thinking that JJA wasn't observing LHO and other defectors.
> That is only logical. With my hypothesis, there is no need for anyone
> else to be involved.
>

There is a slight difference between monitoring and sponsoring.

> Pamela Brown
> marinaenigma.blogspot.com
>

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 26, 8:53 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> We have often debated whatOswaldcould have known and what he actually
> told the Soviets.

Nope.

>
>
>
> >> Do you really want to rehash the privacy window for the
> >> newbies?
>
> > Do you really want to give me credit for insisting that there was a
> > privacy window in the limo?  It was installed at the time of delivery.  I
> > brought forth that information.  It was removed three months later.  I
> > also provided that information.
>
> Tell everyone again about your seeing a reflection of Connally on the
> privacy window.

I do. So what? Reflected from the rear view mirror and the side window.
At least I am analyzing what seem to be the oddities of the Altgens 1-6.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why don't you try to piggyback on my bringing forth the Ferguson Memo
> > while we are at it.  I am the one NARA sent it to by mistake while it was
> > still being supressed.
>
> > I don't think you want to go down the road of trying to take potshots
> > at my credentials, do you?  We've been through that before and you
> > always lose.
>
> >>>> I named the document and you refused to read it.
>
> >>> False.  You do not know my research process.  I have refused to read
> >>> nothing.
>
> >> I know you didn't read the official CIA history of the U-2 or the oral
> >> histories as I suggested.
>
> > And why is that?  Because if I had read them I would know that you
> > misrepresented information from them?  Such as claiming that the US and
> > USSR had exactly the same radar technology?  According to the CIA history,
> > that may have been true after WWII, but not by 1959.  Why did you not
> > disclose that?  Why do I have to be the one to do it?
>
> The USSR radar in 1959 was just as good as the US radar at Atsugi.

Your opinion. I disagree. Powers was told that he was safe from
Soviet radar.

>
>
>
> >>> You don't like my hypothesis.  But you are unable to debate fairly on
> >>> it.  Not my problem.
>
> >> I'm not even sure you have a hypothesis. I think you've just picked up a
> >> couple of bizarre ideas from conspiracy books by kooks like Fetzer.
>
> > Surely you jest.  You must be completely ignorant of my interactions
> > with Fetzer or you would not make such a silly statement.
>
> Kooks LIKE Fetzer, his crowd.

If you knew anything about me you would realize I don't hang out with
them. Did you forget the battles I waged against Weldon's nameless
witness?

http://in-broad-daylight.com/fetzerweldonmidp.html

>
> >>> You owe me two apologies -- one for making the false claim that I
> >>> 'refused' to read something.
>
> >> Nope. Stop playing the victim and debate honestly.
>
> > Start acting like a gentleman or I will have no choice but to find
> > nothing you say credible, as I do with Fetzer.
>
> So you want me to give you a pass?

An apology has nothing to do with a 'pass'. You seem to find it
difficult to debate on a level field. I find that disappointing.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Secondly, for claiming that my hypothesis is derived from a
> >>> 'conspiracy book' and then demanding that I cite from it after I
> >>> reminded you that there is no such book that carries the hypothesis
> >>> that LHO might have been atraitorand not a spy.
>
> >> You couldn't have thought that up all on your own.
> >> Sounds like Epstein.
>
> > Quit goading.  You know perfectly well that nobody else has taken this
> > approach.
>
> > Except for LHO, of course, who said he had secret info to give to the
> > Soviets.
>
> >>> Why are you trying to block research on this hypothesis?
>
> >> So if someone challenged you that is blocking?
>
> > Of course not.  Challenging by Appeal to Authority, demeaning, dismissing
> > an hypothesis is blocking.  Do you deny doing this?  Or is this just a new
> > form of 'research' -- by fallacy?  By the way, have you googled that yet?
> > Or are you still refusing to do so?
>
> You haven't presented any evidence or cite a source. So far all you have

> is an idea. Fine, then go out a research it. [...]

You know perfectly well that that is exactly what I am doing.

But you seem to be pushing a theory that doesn't have any documentation to
support it. The concept that JJA was running a 'false defector program'
is bandied about, as though just mentioning it gives credence to its
existence. Mangold doesn't even mention it, nor does Holzman. Joan
Mellon does, but then she tends to make a lot of wild assumptions about
all things Garrison. Holzman, however, does reference the fact that JJA
was very curious about what information LHO might have given the Soviets
about the U-2, "...and was concerned that if the U-2 matter were known,
the US would believe that the KGB had used Oswald to assassinate
Kennedy.", p. 198, "JJA: The CIA, and the Craft of Counteintelligence.

So you are trying to get me to dismiss an hypothesis includes one that JJA
found concerning in order to push an imaginary concept of a "JJA false
defector program"? Really.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 12, 4:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 2:06 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 3:18 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2012 7:00 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 10, 1:05 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 1/10/2012 12:52 AM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 6, 8:20 pm, timstter<timst...@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 6, 1:12 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>      wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 5, 4:46 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 5 Jan 2012 13:39:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>>>>>>> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 1/5/2012 11:42 AM, John McAdams wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>> On 4 Jan 2012 22:16:42 -0500, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>        wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> >>>>>>>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of

> >>>>>>>>>>> assassinating JFK.  If he was atraitor, why was he not prosecuted upon
> >>>>>>>>>>> his return from the Soviet Union?  He didn't even have to fulfill his
> >>>>>>>>>>> inactive duty as a Marine, nor was he charged with failing to report for
> >>>>>>>>>>> inactive duty (if that's the correct term).  As I recall, his mother had
> >>>>>>>>>>> received several letters addressed to her son from the U.S. Marine base. -
> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter R. Whitmey
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You need to read the HSCA Defector Report.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> He was not viewed by U.S. authorities (especially the State
> >>>>>>>>>> Department) as atraitoror security risk.  He was viewed as a mixed
> >>>>>>>>>> up mentally unstable young man.
>

> >>>>>>>>> And his defection immediately set off alarms in US intelligence and
> >>>>>>>>> caused the military to change codes and procedures.
>
> >>>>>>>> But since he only had "confidential" clearance, not much had to be
> >>>>>>>> changed.
>
> >>>>>>> Why are you comfortable blaming LHO for the assassination but not
> >>>>>>> comfortable with defining the damage his defection and providing of
> >>>>>>> information to the Soviets caused?
>
> >>>>>> The Soviets said *the birds had already chirped* when it came toOswaldtrying to tell them what he had learned in the USMC.
>
> >>>>>> Well that's what that KGB fellow said in the PBS show from a few years
> >>>>>> back.
>
> >>>>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>>> Tim Brennan
> >>>>>> Sydney, Australia
> >>>>>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >>>>> I know.  But there was KGB and inner KGB, so who knows what really
> >>>>> happened?
>
> >>>>> Nosenko was in the outer KGB and he claimed nobody in KGB was interested
> >>>>> in LHO.  He spoke the truth about what he knew about LHO; perhaps he was
> >>>>> deliberately strung along.
>
> >>>> I believe the upper echelons fed Nosenko only what they wanted him to know
> >>>> and then scared him into defecting so that his story would be more
> >>>> believable. I don't think he was even aware of the fact that he was being
> >>>> used solely as a messenger boy.
>
> >>> Agree.
>
> >>>>> But JJAngleton didn't believe him, so had him locked up and tortured for
> >>>>> three years.  Angleton knew better, or thought he did. Then Angleton was
> >>>>> booted out and Nosenko was in essense paid for the terrible experience he
> >>>>> endured.
>
> >>>>> So did CIA untimately validate Nosenko's statements, and was Nosenko able
> >>>>> to tell the full truth?
>
> >>>> Nosenko did not know the full truth. He was groomed and instructed.
>
> >>> Agree.  But did CIA realize that when they repaid him?
>
> >> No, of course not. That was too high a level of complexity for them to
> >> comprehend.
>
> > Then what sort of spooks are they? :-0
>
> Morons and alcoholics like Angleton. He narrowed his search for the mole
> to MEN whose names started with the letter K. And he believed Galytsin.

You acknowledge he was a failure at CI and yet try to push a claim
that he was smart enough to carry out a false defector program?

[Anthony Marsh]

You originally said it was reflections on the privacy window, a kind of
miniature Connally.

There are no oddities of Altgens 1-6. Some images are hard to figure out
for someone who does not compare it to other photos and films.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why don't you try to piggyback on my bringing forth the Ferguson Memo
>>> while we are at it. I am the one NARA sent it to by mistake while it was
>>> still being supressed.
>>
>>> I don't think you want to go down the road of trying to take potshots
>>> at my credentials, do you? We've been through that before and you
>>> always lose.
>>
>>>>>> I named the document and you refused to read it.
>>
>>>>> False. You do not know my research process. I have refused to read
>>>>> nothing.
>>
>>>> I know you didn't read the official CIA history of the U-2 or the oral
>>>> histories as I suggested.
>>
>>> And why is that? Because if I had read them I would know that you
>>> misrepresented information from them? Such as claiming that the US and
>>> USSR had exactly the same radar technology? According to the CIA history,
>>> that may have been true after WWII, but not by 1959. Why did you not
>>> disclose that? Why do I have to be the one to do it?
>>
>> The USSR radar in 1959 was just as good as the US radar at Atsugi.
>
> Your opinion. I disagree. Powers was told that he was safe from
> Soviet radar.

Silly. He was told that he was safe from Russian aircraft and missiles.
That was true at the time they told him that. But just because the
Russians could see his every movement does not mean they could shoot him
down. They were ill-prepared for the earlier flights, but spent a lot of
time preparing for the next flight and were extremely well prepared and
very lucky. Powers was flying out of range of the MIGs and missiles. And
he could have gone up to 74,000 feet to escape.

But he did not have time enough to react and take evasive measures.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> You don't like my hypothesis. But you are unable to debate fairly on
>>>>> it. Not my problem.
>>
>>>> I'm not even sure you have a hypothesis. I think you've just picked up a
>>>> couple of bizarre ideas from conspiracy books by kooks like Fetzer.
>>
>>> Surely you jest. You must be completely ignorant of my interactions
>>> with Fetzer or you would not make such a silly statement.
>>
>> Kooks LIKE Fetzer, his crowd.
>
> If you knew anything about me you would realize I don't hang out with
> them. Did you forget the battles I waged against Weldon's nameless
> witness?
>

LIKE.

> http://in-broad-daylight.com/fetzerweldonmidp.html
>
>>
>>>>> You owe me two apologies -- one for making the false claim that I
>>>>> 'refused' to read something.
>>
>>>> Nope. Stop playing the victim and debate honestly.
>>
>>> Start acting like a gentleman or I will have no choice but to find
>>> nothing you say credible, as I do with Fetzer.
>>
>> So you want me to give you a pass?
>
> An apology has nothing to do with a 'pass'. You seem to find it
> difficult to debate on a level field. I find that disappointing.
>

It isn't a level field because you have not done your homework.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Secondly, for claiming that my hypothesis is derived from a
>>>>> 'conspiracy book' and then demanding that I cite from it after I
>>>>> reminded you that there is no such book that carries the hypothesis
>>>>> that LHO might have been atraitorand not a spy.
>>
>>>> You couldn't have thought that up all on your own.
>>>> Sounds like Epstein.
>>
>>> Quit goading. You know perfectly well that nobody else has taken this
>>> approach.
>>
>>> Except for LHO, of course, who said he had secret info to give to the
>>> Soviets.
>>
>>>>> Why are you trying to block research on this hypothesis?
>>
>>>> So if someone challenged you that is blocking?
>>
>>> Of course not. Challenging by Appeal to Authority, demeaning, dismissing
>>> an hypothesis is blocking. Do you deny doing this? Or is this just a new
>>> form of 'research' -- by fallacy? By the way, have you googled that yet?
>>> Or are you still refusing to do so?
>>
>> You haven't presented any evidence or cite a source. So far all you have
>> is an idea. Fine, then go out a research it. [...]
>
> You know perfectly well that that is exactly what I am doing.
>
> But you seem to be pushing a theory that doesn't have any documentation to
> support it. The concept that JJA was running a 'false defector program'

I am pushing a theory for which there should be NO documentation. That
is what Top Secret operations are about.

> is bandied about, as though just mentioning it gives credence to its
> existence. Mangold doesn't even mention it, nor does Holzman. Joan
> Mellon does, but then she tends to make a lot of wild assumptions about
> all things Garrison. Holzman, however, does reference the fact that JJA
> was very curious about what information LHO might have given the Soviets
> about the U-2, "...and was concerned that if the U-2 matter were known,
> the US would believe that the KGB had used Oswald to assassinate
> Kennedy.", p. 198, "JJA: The CIA, and the Craft of Counteintelligence.
>

It all goes back to Nosenko. The Russians sent Nosenko to reassure us that
they had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Angleton falsely
assumed that a dispatched agent lies about everything and therefore the
Russians did send Oswald to kill Kennedy.

For Angleton there were no coincidence or innocent explanations. Meeting
with Kostikov means plotting to assassinate Kennedy. Period.

> So you are trying to get me to dismiss an hypothesis includes one that JJA
> found concerning in order to push an imaginary concept of a "JJA false
> defector program"? Really.
>

No, I don't want YOU to believe the theory I do. That is not my goal.
I want you to believe a more comfortable theory.

> Pamela Brown
> marinaenigma.blogspot.com
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said that he was a failure.
Neither was Hoover. Incompetence is rewarded in the intelligence community.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 31, 4:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Let's add another way to stop research:

10 - When an adversary has revised their position, make sure to ignore
that and only bring up the initial position.

>
> There are no oddities of Altgens 1-6. Some images are hard to figure out
> for someone who does not compare it to other photos and films.

There are a number of oddities to the A1-6. You just don't choose to
look at them.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Why don't you try to piggyback on my bringing forth the Ferguson Memo
> >>> while we are at it.  I am the one NARA sent it to by mistake while it was
> >>> still being supressed.
>
> >>> I don't think you want to go down the road of trying to take potshots
> >>> at my credentials, do you?  We've been through that before and you
> >>> always lose.
>
> >>>>>> I named the document and you refused to read it.
>
> >>>>> False.  You do not know my research process.  I have refused to read
> >>>>> nothing.
>
> >>>> I know you didn't read the official CIA history of the U-2 or the oral
> >>>> histories as I suggested.
>
> >>> And why is that?  Because if I had read them I would know that you
> >>> misrepresented information from them?  Such as claiming that the US and
> >>> USSR had exactly the same radar technology?  According to the CIA history,
> >>> that may have been true after WWII, but not by 1959.  Why did you not
> >>> disclose that?  Why do I have to be the one to do it?
>
> >> The USSR radar in 1959 was just as good as the US radar at Atsugi.
>
> > Your opinion.  I disagree.  Powers was told that he was safe from
> > Soviet radar.
>
> Silly. He was told that he was safe from Russian aircraft and missiles.

OK. You will not deny that he was told the only thing he might have
trouble with was the U-2 itself malfunctioning. He was told he should
not fear being shot down.

> That was true at the time they told him that.

Powers believed this when he began the fateful flight. That is what
he told the Soviets.

> But just because the
> Russians could see his every movement does not mean they could shoot him
> down. They were ill-prepared for the earlier flights, but spent a lot of
> time preparing for the next flight and were extremely well prepared and
> very lucky.

That is a convenient excuse.

Luck had nothing to do with it. They needed specific information and
capabilities. They needed to know the U-2 had a granger that could
scramble radar signals. And they just happened to have with them a
radar operator willing to tell them secret information.

> Powers was flying out of range of the MIGs and missiles. And
> he could have gone up to 74,000 feet to escape.

Next will you claim he wasn't really shot down? Why posit things that
did not happen?

>
> But he did not have time enough to react and take evasive measures.
>

He did the best he could under the circumstances.

> > the US would believe that the KGB had usedOswaldto assassinate

> > Kennedy.", p. 198, "JJA: The CIA, and the Craft of Counteintelligence.
>
> It all goes back to Nosenko. The Russians sent Nosenko to reassure us that
> they had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Angleton falsely
> assumed that a dispatched agent lies about everything and therefore the

> Russians did sendOswaldto kill Kennedy.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 31, 10:11 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

A 'moron' and an alcoholic whom you just claimed idiotically targeted
people whose names start with the letter K is not a failure in your
book? What more harm could one do to CI than that?

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 27, 10:16 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

For one, they added the ability to scramble radar.

> The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2 beforeOswalddefected.

Of course they were making changes all the time.It makes no sense to
think their design and process were stagnated.

>The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2
> before Powers took off in May 1960.

They gave him additional help in evading detection. LHO was a radar
operator. Why not connect the dots?

>
> The only significant change for the Powers flight was the new flightplan
> and new sites to be photographed.

Your opinion. You don't know that.

Maybe Soviet military intelligence could
> not predict which sites would be photographed and which flightpath each
> mission would take.

If they could find the U-2 they would know where it was likely to go.

>Fine, butOswaldhad no access to that information.

It probably hasn't occurred to you, since you seem to be keeping your
blinders firmly in place, that LHO may have had access to radar
information on the tracking of the U-2 while it was giving scrambled
date.

> The U-2 always had to keep flying at the same altitudes because the lens
> was prefocused for only one specific altitude.

Until that flight, the Soviets were not able to attack a U-2 at that

altitude.
>
> The U-2 B camera has a 36-inch focal length and can resolve features as
> small as .75 meters (2.5 feet) from an altitude of 19.5 kilometers (65,000
> feet).
>
> http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect10/swathcamerafocalandimagesize.jpg
>
> >> They needed details thatOswaldcould not possibly know.
>
> > Your opinion.  I think it shuts a door that needs to remain open, at
> > least for now.
>

> Then you need to show howOswaldcould know the mission details of the
> Powers flight.

That is a rabbit trail. He needed to know how to help the Soviets id
the plane when it was giving false radar information, and perhaps how
to make the plane vulnerable so it would sink to an altitude where
they could shoot it down. There may have been other things as well.

>
> >>>> You are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.
>
> >>> An hypothesis is not subject to fallacy.  It is a question.
>
> >> Your argument in support of your hypothesis.
>
> > One don't 'argue in support' of an hypothesis.  One tests an hypothesis.
> > You can either agree or disagree with it.  You disagree. Why not debate on
> > level ground rather than trying to make this something it is not?
>
> It can't be a level ground until you get up to speed on the technical
> details.

You are making up an argument and then knocking it down. That is a
strawman.

> Have you looked at the manuals that Penkovsky snuck out?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
> >>>>> be shot.
>
> >>>>> At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimedtraitor.
> >>>>> Surely even you will not disagree with that.
>
> >>>> I can't say
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

So your claim is that the US started scrambling its radar and the Russians
did not. Explain exactly how scrambling radar would help the Russians
track the U-2 and determine exact altitudes.

>
>> The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2 beforeOswalddefected.
>
> Of course they were making changes all the time.It makes no sense to
> think their design and process were stagnated.
>

Look at the qualifier I used. I said "substanial." They could change the
color of the trailers or the size of the screens. Those are cosmetic
changes not substantial changes.

>> The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2
>> before Powers took off in May 1960.
>
> They gave him additional help in evading detection. LHO was a radar
> operator. Why not connect the dots?

They told him to fly higher if he was detected. He did not. Dulles
thought that he should have.

>>
>> The only significant change for the Powers flight was the new flightplan
>> and new sites to be photographed.
>
> Your opinion. You don't know that.
>

The CIA's official history covers that. The new flightplan was very
ambitious and would spend a lot more time directly over Soviet Airspace.

> Maybe Soviet military intelligence could
>> not predict which sites would be photographed and which flightpath each
>> mission would take.
>
> If they could find the U-2 they would know where it was likely to go.
>

Jeez, pay attention. They followed the U-2 flights and knew where they
went. They did not have any advanced intelligence on exactly where each
flight would go and Oswald could not possibly have known the flightplans.

>> Fine, butOswaldhad no access to that information.
>
> It probably hasn't occurred to you, since you seem to be keeping your
> blinders firmly in place, that LHO may have had access to radar
> information on the tracking of the U-2 while it was giving scrambled
> date.
>

Your sentence makes no sense. Tracking the U-2 involves more than one
radar base. Tracking means observing the whole flight over thousands of
miles, not just watching it take off or come in to land. Oswald could
have easily seen it take off or land. That is not tracking it.

>> The U-2 always had to keep flying at the same altitudes because the lens
>> was prefocused for only one specific altitude.
>
> Until that flight, the Soviets were not able to attack a U-2 at that
> altitude.

Correct. It took a lot of work and some luck to bring down Powers.
Modifications to their rockets. Changes in strategy. Better preparation to
have units ready to fire on it. MIGs stripped of everything to get as high
as possible to fly underneath it and keep it in sight. BTW the Soviets
accidentally shot down one of their own MIGs in the process. Some of these
inside stories came out of the KGB archives after the fall of the Soviet
Union.

>>
>> The U-2 B camera has a 36-inch focal length and can resolve features as
>> small as .75 meters (2.5 feet) from an altitude of 19.5 kilometers (65,000
>> feet).
>>
>> http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect10/swathcamerafocalandimagesize.jpg
>>
>>>> They needed details thatOswaldcould not possibly know.
>>
>>> Your opinion. I think it shuts a door that needs to remain open, at
>>> least for now.
>>
>> Then you need to show howOswaldcould know the mission details of the
>> Powers flight.
>
> That is a rabbit trail. He needed to know how to help the Soviets id
> the plane when it was giving false radar information, and perhaps how
> to make the plane vulnerable so it would sink to an altitude where
> they could shoot it down. There may have been other things as well.

False radar information? It was the only think flying at 70,000 feet.
And MIGs at 58,000 feet could SEE it.
If a missile battery could not aim at Powers they could just aim at the
MIG and set the missiles to explode at 70,000 feet. And fire 15 missiles
at a time. It's called a shotgun approach.

>>
>>>>>> You are committing a Post Hoc Fallacy.
>>
>>>>> An hypothesis is not subject to fallacy. It is a question.
>>
>>>> Your argument in support of your hypothesis.
>>
>>> One don't 'argue in support' of an hypothesis. One tests an hypothesis.
>>> You can either agree or disagree with it. You disagree. Why not debate on
>>> level ground rather than trying to make this something it is not?
>>
>> It can't be a level ground until you get up to speed on the technical
>> details.
>
> You are making up an argument and then knocking it down. That is a
> strawman.
>

What argument is that? The only you articulated?

>> Have you looked at the manuals that Penkovsky snuck out?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> shootdown, LHO telling Ella German that if he returned to the US he would
>>>>>>> be shot.
>>
>>>>>>> At the very least, we can state that LHO was a self-proclaimedtraitor.
>>>>>>> Surely even you will not disagree with that.
>>
>>>>>> I can't say
>>
>> ...
>>

>> read more ?
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Some claim that the mole hunt did more damage to the CIA than any other
KGB programs. Maybe that was their intent.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/2/2012 2:11 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:

Silly, you don't even have the negative. I do. I am the only one who has
made the highest quality scan.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Why don't you try to piggyback on my bringing forth the Ferguson Memo
>>>>> while we are at it. I am the one NARA sent it to by mistake while it was
>>>>> still being supressed.
>>
>>>>> I don't think you want to go down the road of trying to take potshots
>>>>> at my credentials, do you? We've been through that before and you
>>>>> always lose.
>>
>>>>>>>> I named the document and you refused to read it.
>>
>>>>>>> False. You do not know my research process. I have refused to read
>>>>>>> nothing.
>>
>>>>>> I know you didn't read the official CIA history of the U-2 or the oral
>>>>>> histories as I suggested.
>>
>>>>> And why is that? Because if I had read them I would know that you
>>>>> misrepresented information from them? Such as claiming that the US and
>>>>> USSR had exactly the same radar technology? According to the CIA history,
>>>>> that may have been true after WWII, but not by 1959. Why did you not
>>>>> disclose that? Why do I have to be the one to do it?
>>
>>>> The USSR radar in 1959 was just as good as the US radar at Atsugi.
>>
>>> Your opinion. I disagree. Powers was told that he was safe from
>>> Soviet radar.
>>
>> Silly. He was told that he was safe from Russian aircraft and missiles.
>
> OK. You will not deny that he was told the only thing he might have
> trouble with was the U-2 itself malfunctioning. He was told he should
> not fear being shot down.
>

No, he was told that the Russians could not get high enough to shoot him
down, but they would try anyway. And if they locked onto him he should
climb to 70,000 feet. His autopilot was not working.
When attacked he did not climb to get out of harms way.
Some people in the CIA accused him of treason.

Powers was an hour and a half into the flight when he saw the first sign
he?d been spotted: a white streak of contrail below, stretching out
behind an invisibly small, supersonically fast jet fighter, coming
toward him. Within a few minutes he saw it again, this time going in the
same direction, clearly tracking him.
He had little to fear from Soviet fighters, though the new MiG-21 could
in a zoom-climb carry AA-2 ?Atoll? air-to-air missiles to 70,000 feet.
More worrisome was the new SA-2 ?Guideline? surface-to-air missile, with
a ceiling reportedly comparable to the U-2?s. Experts believed all these
weapons? control surfaces too small to permit maneuver in the thin air
at 70,000 feet; coasting along unguided, ballistic flight paths, they
would simply be out-turned by the U-2. They had, however, also installed
a jamming device in the spy planes? tails which would defeat a
radar-guided air-launched missile. Powers continued undisturbed.

In his CIA debriefing Powers said that he followed instructions and
climbed to 70,000 and then maintained that altitude when he crossed the
border into Russia. With a full load of fuel it took him about a half
hour to get to 70,000 feet and then he backed off the power. At the time
of the attack he estimated that he was light enough that he could have
climbed to many 72,000 feet or maybe even 73,000 feet, but during the
attack he never did climb.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/U2-10.pdf

Once past Chelyabinsk he made a 90? port turn?gingerly, as the U-2?s
speed margin was so narrow, and its wingspan so large, that in a turn
its outer wingtip could experience Mach buffeting even as the inner
stalled?and rolled out in position to pass over the city?s southwest
quarter.
MiG-19s were already attempting zoom-climb intercepts. Later it was
thought the plane?s radar jammer, proof against air-launched missiles,
may actually have helped the SAM-guidance radar lock on. No less than 14
SAMs were fired, simultaneously, at the U-2.
Powers had noted an airfield below not marked on his maps. He was set to
pass over it when he felt a thump from behind knocked him back in his
seat. An orange glow filled the cockpit, and Powers blurted, ?My God,
I?ve had it now!?
None of the missiles had hit, but a near-miss had caused the plane?s
right stabilizer to fail. (One SAM did manage to down a MiG-19.) The U-2
started to dive, gently at first. Then its fragile wings snapped off and
it began to tumble wildly. Powers? suit inflated?the cabin had lost air
pressure. The plane was done for.

For 36 years, the official story of the U-2 incident was that the spy
plane had been shot down by one of a salvo of fourteen Soviet SA-2
rockets. This story originated with Oleg Penkovsky a GRU agent who spied
for the CIA. In recent years, however, new information emerged which
differed substantially from the official version.

In 1996, Soviet pilot Captain Igor Mentyukov revealed that, at 65,000
feet (19,812 meters) altitude, under orders to ram the intruder, he had
managed to catch the U-2 in the slipstream of his unarmed Sukhoi Su-9,
causing the U-2 to flip over and break its wings. The salvo of rockets
had indeed scored a hit, downing a pursuing MiG-19, not the U-2.
Mentyukov said that if a rocket had hit the U-2, its pilot would not
have lived.

Though the normal Su-9 service ceiling was 55,000 feet (16,760 meters),
Mentyukov's aircraft had been modified to achieve higher altitudes,
having its weapons removed. With no weapons, the only attack option open
to him was ramming.

In 2000, Sergei Khrushchev wrote about the experience of his father,
Nikita Khrushchev, in the incident. He described how Mentyukov attempted
but missed intercepting the U-2, failing even to gain visual contact.
Major Mikhail Voronov, in control of a battery of anti-aircraft
missiles, fired three SA-2s at the radar contact but only one ignited.
It quickly rose toward the target and exploded in the air behind the U-2
but near enough to violently shake the aircraft, tearing off its long
wings. At a lower altitude, Powers climbed out of the falling fuselage
and parachuted to the ground. Uncertainty about the initial shootdown
success resulted in thirteen further anti-aircraft missiles being fired
by neighboring batteries, but the later rockets only hit a pursuing
MiG-19 piloted by Sr. Lt. Sergei Safronov, mortally wounding him. Sergei
Safronov was posthumously awarded the Order of the Red Banner.

>> That was true at the time they told him that.
>
> Powers believed this when he began the fateful flight. That is what
> he told the Soviets.
>

Yes, and he also lied to the Soviets. He told them his ceiling was
65,000 feet. The actual ceiling was much higher.

>> But just because the
>> Russians could see his every movement does not mean they could shoot him
>> down. They were ill-prepared for the earlier flights, but spent a lot of
>> time preparing for the next flight and were extremely well prepared and
>> very lucky.
>
> That is a convenient excuse.

Commanders are shot for less.

>
> Luck had nothing to do with it. They needed specific information and
> capabilities. They needed to know the U-2 had a granger that could
> scramble radar signals. And they just happened to have with them a
> radar operator willing to tell them secret information.
>

Oswald had no way of knowing what type of radar jamming was installed on
that particular model of the U-2. His information was old.
So now your theory is that Oswald was actually in the Soviet command
center advising them?
How far are you willing to go with this wacky theory?

>
>> Powers was flying out of range of the MIGs and missiles. And
>> he could have gone up to 74,000 feet to escape.
>
> Next will you claim he wasn't really shot down? Why posit things that
> did not happen?

I did not posit things which did not happen. Powers confirmed that the
MIGs were tracking him but could not reach him. The new SA-2 Surface to
Air missiles could.
Powers estimated that he might be able to climb to 73,000 feet by then,
but he never tried.

>>
>> But he did not have time enough to react and take evasive measures.
>>
> He did the best he could under the circumstances.
>

Yes, and I resent some CIA officers and politicians trying to claim that
he was incompetent or a traitor for not blowing up the U-2 and taking
the poison.

[Pamela Brown]

On Feb 2, 8:25 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

You are making my point for me. Of course that is not your intent.
What would your definition of 'failure' be?

[Anthony Marsh]

It was never MY intent to destroy the CIA with a phony mole hunt.
I said MAYBE that was the KGB's intent. But I think their only intent
was to reassure the CIA they they had nothing to do with Oswald or the
JFK assassination.
Failure would be to do nothing.

[Pamela Brown]

On Feb 2, 8:27 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

If you mean the print from NARA made from the negative, of course I
do. You just don't like to ask questions.

He was told he was safe from them. Don't make excuses.

> And if they locked onto him he should
> climb to 70,000 feet. His autopilot was not working.

So?

> When attacked he did not climb to get out of harms way.
> Some people in the CIA accused him of treason.

The CIA documents give pretty clear indication that they had
considered and rejected this possibility.

LHO could have clued them into and/or verified for them the fragility of
the U-2. They may have realized that if they were able to detonate a
rocket in its viscinity, it might cause it to break apart.

>
> Though the normal Su-9 service ceiling was 55,000 feet (16,760 meters),
> Mentyukov's aircraft had been modified to achieve higher altitudes,
> having its weapons removed. With no weapons, the only attack option open
> to him was ramming.
>
> In 2000, Sergei Khrushchev wrote about the experience of his father,
> Nikita Khrushchev, in the incident. He described how Mentyukov attempted
> but missed intercepting the U-2, failing even to gain visual contact.
> Major Mikhail Voronov, in control of a battery of anti-aircraft
> missiles, fired three SA-2s at the radar contact but only one ignited.
> It quickly rose toward the target and exploded in the air behind the U-2
> but near enough to violently shake the aircraft, tearing off its long
> wings. At a lower altitude, Powers climbed out of the falling fuselage
> and parachuted to the ground. Uncertainty about the initial shootdown
> success resulted in thirteen further anti-aircraft missiles being fired
> by neighboring batteries, but the later rockets only hit a pursuing
> MiG-19 piloted by Sr. Lt. Sergei Safronov, mortally wounding him. Sergei
> Safronov was posthumously awarded the Order of the Red Banner.

And your point is...

>
> >> That was true at the time they told him that.
>
> > Powers believed this when he began the fateful flight.  That is what
> > he told the Soviets.
>

> Yes, and he also lied to the Soviets. He told them his ...
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Just what questions do you have about Altgens 1-6 that can't be answered
by looking at the highest quality negative?


http://the-puzzle-palace.com/altgensBIG.jpg


And I said the negative from NARA so that you can make your own blow-ups
and scans.

He was as far as the CIA knew then.

>> And if they locked onto him he should
>> climb to 70,000 feet. His autopilot was not working.
>
> So?
>

He had his hands full just flying the plane and trying not to stall.

Silly. Oswald knew nothing about the design and construction of the U-2.
The plan was not just to explode a rocket NEAR the U-2. They got lucky.
They intended a direct hit to bring it down and diplay the pieces as proof
that the US was flying over Russian airspace. How many times did the US
allow the Russians to fly over US air space?

>>
>> Though the normal Su-9 service ceiling was 55,000 feet (16,760 meters),
>> Mentyukov's aircraft had been modified to achieve higher altitudes,
>> having its weapons removed. With no weapons, the only attack option open
>> to him was ramming.
>>
>> In 2000, Sergei Khrushchev wrote about the experience of his father,
>> Nikita Khrushchev, in the incident. He described how Mentyukov attempted
>> but missed intercepting the U-2, failing even to gain visual contact.
>> Major Mikhail Voronov, in control of a battery of anti-aircraft
>> missiles, fired three SA-2s at the radar contact but only one ignited.
>> It quickly rose toward the target and exploded in the air behind the U-2
>> but near enough to violently shake the aircraft, tearing off its long
>> wings. At a lower altitude, Powers climbed out of the falling fuselage
>> and parachuted to the ground. Uncertainty about the initial shootdown
>> success resulted in thirteen further anti-aircraft missiles being fired
>> by neighboring batteries, but the later rockets only hit a pursuing
>> MiG-19 piloted by Sr. Lt. Sergei Safronov, mortally wounding him. Sergei
>> Safronov was posthumously awarded the Order of the Red Banner.
>
> And your point is...
>

The Russians had to do special things just for this attempt to shoot
down the U-2 which had absolutely nothing to do with any information
that Oswald had.

[Pamela Brown]

On Feb 4, 6:53 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

That's another discussion. Not now.

Why quibble? Safe is safe. The information given to Powers was
false.

>
> >> And if they locked onto him he should
> >> climb to 70,000 feet. His autopilot was not working.
>
> > So?
>
> He had his hands full just flying the plane and trying not to stall.

Per Penkovsky, the Soviets did not shoot down Powers' plane per se. They
did manage to create enough vibration to cause the plane to come apart.
LHO could have had information as to the fragility of the U-2.

> Silly.Oswaldknew nothing about the design ...

LHO did not need to know the 'design'. He could have known it was
fragile.

[Pamela Brown]

On Feb 2, 2:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

I am saying the U-2 radar signals were scrambled. I am not talking
about the Russians.

> Explain exactly how scrambling radar would help the Russians
> track the U-2 and determine exact altitudes.

Scrambling the radar would make the U-2 more impervious to tracking by the
Russians and/or determining exact altitude. It is well known they were
unable to track the U-2 over cities right from the start. This gave
additional protection from Russian radar. If the Russians were given
information by LHO, for example, that scrambling of signals was taking
place, they might have been able to use that.

>
>
>
> >> The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2 beforeOswalddefected.
>
> > Of course they were making changes all the time.It makes no sense to
> > think their design and process were stagnated.
>
> Look at the qualifier I used. I said "substanial." They could change the
> color of the trailers or the size of the screens. Those are cosmetic
> changes not substantial changes.

Translation: you are left with nothing to do but make excuses that
don't even make sense. Every advantage was given to the U-2
program.

>
> >> The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2
> >> before Powers took off in May 1960.
>
> > They gave him additional help in evading detection.  LHO was a radar
> > operator.  Why not connect the dots?
>
> They told him to fly higher if he was detected. He did not. Dulles
> thought that he should have.

It didn't matter because the U-2 came apart because of the vibration
of the missile(s) in its viscinity.

>
>
>
> >> The only significant change for the Powers flight was the new flightplan
> >> and new sites to be photographed.
>
> > Your opinion.  You don't know that.
>
> The CIA's official history covers that. The new flightplan was very

> ambitious and would spend a lot more time directly over Soviet Airspace.[...]

If the Russians couldn't interpret the scrambled signals from the U-2
they couldn't shoot it down no matter where it was.

[Pamela Brown]

On Jan 27, 10:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 1/26/2012 10:10 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 5:32 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 1/25/2012 10:24 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 9, 10:50 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 1/9/2012 5:48 PM,PamelaBrown wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com"<blackbu...@aol.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jan 5, 5:37 pm,PamelaBrown<pamelaj...@gmail.com>      wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 4, 9:16 pm, Canuck<prwhit...@yahoo.com>      wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> In an earlier post related to a May, 2011 interview with Marina,Pamela
> >>>>>>>> Brown states thatOswaldwas atraitor, whether or not he was guilty of
> >>>>>>>> assassinating JFK.
>
> >>>>>>> That is indeed my opinion.
>
> >>>>>> Interesting, and unexpected.
>
> >>>>> Well, looking at the evidence available, this seems only fair.  LHO said
> >>>>> he gave the Soviets information, Snyder corroborates that, and a Marine
>
> >>>> No, he said he OFFERED the Soviets information. He would only give it to
> >>>> them IF they gave him citizenship, which they refused to do.
>
> >>> False.  Why don't you do your homework.  Have you refused to read the
> >>> HSCA Defector Study?
>
> >> I have. You are misrepresenting it.Oswaldmade the offer IF he would be
> >> granted citizenship, which the Soviets never did.
>
> > Yes they did.  Do your homework.
>
> Ridiculous. Show me this certificate of citizenship.

You refuse to read the HSCA defector report and then make false
accusations such as this? What kind of research is that?

LHO was offerred citizenship. He did not accept it. It is your false
assumption that if he were offered citizenship he would accept it. That is
what is ridiculous.

>
> Why do you make up crap like this only after you have lost the argument.

> Is that whyOswaldtried to commit suicide, because the Soviet Union had
> just granted him citizenship?

I didn't say any such thing. Why do you make up crap like this when you
have already lost the argument that LHO was offered citizenship per the
HSCA defector report, but did not follow through?

Please at least do your homework before wasting my time on another round
of silliness.

Pamela Brown
marinaenigma.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

You are postulating things without understanding how the work technically.
The U-2 did not use radar with scrambling. It was equipped with radar
jamming which would confuse the Soviets radar.

The story behind the shootdown of the U-2, and how it played into Oswald's
decision to return to the USA

An NSA agent named Jack Dunlap now enters our story in a most dramatic
fashion. "An extremely sensitive and reliable source" is quoted in an FBI
letterhead memo that "Dunlap gave the Soviets important information
regarding the U-2 flights over the USSR and that Dunlap's information
provided the Soviet Union with the capability of shooting down the Powers
U-2 aircraft...as a result of Dunlap's information, the Soviets were well
aware of when the U-2 planes crossed over the Soviet Union. The Soviets
always had their anti-aircraft guns trained on those planes." This source
was known as TOPHAT. TOPHAT was Lt. General Dmitri Fedorovich Polyakov,
exposed by Aldrich Ames - a real mole inside the CIA - whose motivation
was money and not ideology.

The FBI memo that recounts TOPHAT's story then adds that "Khrushchev held
back from allowing them to shoot down the planes, waiting for an
appropriate political time to do this. Khrushchev eventually "gave the
okay" to shoot down the Powers U-2 aircraft at a time when he thought it
would do the most good for Soviet prestige and at a time when he was being
pressed by China to show their hand." From the wording of the memo, it's
unclear if TOPHAT was the source referring to Khrushchev's actions.

Dunlap succeeded in his mission even though CI chief James Angleton
realized that Dunlap was a mole in 1959, a year before what is known as
the U-2 affair. After Dunlap committed suicide in July 1963, and numerous
classified documents turned up in his possession, his widow admitted to
the FBI on August 20, 1963 that Dunlap told her before his suicide that he
had been selling secrets to the Soviets.

Another piece of the puzzle is that Moscow had just recently obtained the
ability to shoot down the U-2 with the development of the SA-2 Guideline
surface-to-air missiles. By 1960, these missiles were installed around big
cities and sensitive locations. All of the sites on Francis Gary Powers'
flight path were protected by SA-2 missile sites.

When a U-2 flight was conducted on April 9, 1960, the plane's electronic
intelligence (ELINT) collection unit indicated that the Soviets were
tracking them early on. The CIA's Deputy Director of Plans Bissell was
warned that "penetration without detection" was now a problem. When Powers
went on that fateful flight on May 1, 1960, the CIA knew that he was in
danger. There is no record that the CIA warned Eisenhower that the peace
summit might blow up in his face.

DDP Bissell has said that the photographic capabilities of the U-2s
provided "more than ninety percent of all its hard intelligence about the
Soviet Union." during that era. During the early "60s, military
surveillance satellites were in their infancy. Until the first satellite
launch in August, 1960, the U-2 was the only way to obtain overhead photos
of military test sites and similar sensitive installations.

Throughout the 1950s, the U-2 was able to defeat Soviet air defenses for
two reasons: It could fly beyond the range of their missiles to an
altitude of 90,000 feet, and it had ultra-secret radar-jamming equipment.
Kelly Johnson, the legendary research engineer for Lockheed, designed the
U-2 and many key US military planes at the largely autonomous "Lockheed
Advanced Development Projects" (better known as the "Skunk Works") in
Burbank, California, delivering the first U-2 in 1955 to the infamous
top-secret base Area 51. Johnson said that the Soviets were "somehow able
to isolate the (U-2's) radar-jamming signals and use their beams to guide
the anti-aircraft missile...(this meant) either a penetration by Soviet
intelligence of United States radar countermeasures or, by some other
means, the ability to take precise measurements of the U-2's radar
signals."

The U-2 pilot, Francis Gary Powers, wrote in his book Operation Overflight
that he believed Oswald's defection was related to his being shot down:
"Oswald's familiarity with MPS 16 height-finding radar gear and radio
codes...are mentioned in the testimony of John E. Donovan, a former first
lieutenant assigned to the same El Toro radar unit as OSWALD."

Lt. John Emmett Donovan had been Oswald's commanding officer in 1959, and
had discussed more than radar gear and codes: "OSWALD has access to the
location of all bases in the west coast area, all radio frequencies for
all squadrons, all tactical call signs, and the relative strength of all
squadrons, number and type of aircraft in each squadron, who was the
commanding officer, the authentification code of entering and exiting the
ADIZ, which stands for Air Defense Identification Zone. He knew the range
of our radar. He knew the range of our radio. And he knew the range of the
surrounding unit's radio and radar."

Donovan was an FBI agent from 1953-1956, and was a recent graduate from
Georgetown University's Foreign Service school when interviewed by the
Secret Service during December 1963. On the same day as this Secret
Service interview, Donovan was contacted by Evening Star reporter Jeremiah
O'Leary who was "also a Marine reservist". Donovan told the Warren
Commission that the Marines spent thousands of hours changing all the
tactical frequencies and verifying the destruction of codes.

No question that Oswald made the US government's security much more
vulnerable by his threat to talk to the Soviets. But whether or not he did
it, Oswald didn't know anything about how to unjam the U-2's radar-jamming
signals, which was the Soviets' core problem as it made it very difficult
for the Soviets to even find an overflying U-2. Nor was Oswald's knowledge
of the height-finding radar gear all that helpful, if the U-2 could fly
higher than the Soviet air defenses could reach and simultaneously jam
Soviet radar.

What is fascinating is that there is no investigation in the CIA or FBI
files dedicated to whether Oswald was handing U-2 information over to the
Soviets. Nor is there anything in the military files that I am aware of,
other than this complaint by his own lieutenant John Donovan. Incredibly,
the Warren Commission did not ask Donovan or any of Oswald's military
colleagues a single question about the U-2, even though the shootdown
incident happened on the second overflight after Oswald's arrival to the
USSR. Donovan said that "he did not know whether Oswald had actually
turned over secrets to the Russians. But for security's sake it had to be
assumed that he did".

Eight days after Donovan testified to the Warren Commission, Richard Helms
wrote a memo to the Warren Commission entitled, "Oswald's Access to
Information About the U-2", which was classified as "Commission Document
931" and not released for thirty years. Francis Gary Powers discussed it
at length in his book, as he really wanted to know what it said. Powers
died in 1978. When Helms' memo was released in 1993, this was its
conclusion:


"To summarize: There is no evidence or indication that OSWALD had any
association with, or access to, the JTAG (Joint Technical Advisors Group)
operation or its program in Japan. This applies also to information
regarding the U-2 or its mission."

The gap between Helms' version and Donovan's version is vast. Donovan
talks about how his unit provided U-2 support at Cubi Point in the
Philippines, where Oswald once tracked a U-2 flying over China and showed
it to him.

Whether or not Oswald actually provided U-2 secrets to the Soviets, it was
certainly part of the legend created on his behalf. The best tip-off is
right in Oswald's own diary, where he says that Don Alejandro advised him
to go back to the USA on the night of May 1, 1960, the night that the
Soviets shot down Powers' U-2.

>> Explain exactly how scrambling radar would help the Russians
>> track the U-2 and determine exact altitudes.
>
> Scrambling the radar would make the U-2 more impervious to tracking by the
> Russians and/or determining exact altitude. It is well known they were
> unable to track the U-2 over cities right from the start. This gave

It is well known from CIA memos that the Soviets were able to track the
U-2, but did not yet have any weapon which could shoot it down.

> additional protection from Russian radar. If the Russians were given
> information by LHO, for example, that scrambling of signals was taking
> place, they might have been able to use that.
>

The Russians knew that the U-2 had a jamming device and they could see
on their radar that they could not get highly accurate readings when it
was being used. Dunlap told them all about it in 1959.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2 beforeOswalddefected.
>>
>>> Of course they were making changes all the time.It makes no sense to
>>> think their design and process were stagnated.
>>
>> Look at the qualifier I used. I said "substanial." They could change the
>> color of the trailers or the size of the screens. Those are cosmetic
>> changes not substantial changes.
>
> Translation: you are left with nothing to do but make excuses that
> don't even make sense. Every advantage was given to the U-2
> program.

You falsely assume that the Soviets were ill-equipped.

>
>>
>>>> The US did not make any substantial changes to the U-2
>>>> before Powers took off in May 1960.
>>
>>> They gave him additional help in evading detection. LHO was a radar
>>> operator. Why not connect the dots?
>>
>> They told him to fly higher if he was detected. He did not. Dulles
>> thought that he should have.
>
> It didn't matter because the U-2 came apart because of the vibration
> of the missile(s) in its viscinity.
>

The metal in the tail is fragile enough to break from the shock wave of
an explosion.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> The only significant change for the Powers flight was the new flightplan
>>>> and new sites to be photographed.
>>
>>> Your opinion. You don't know that.
>>
>> The CIA's official history covers that. The new flightplan was very
>> ambitious and would spend a lot more time directly over Soviet Airspace.[...]
>
> If the Russians couldn't interpret the scrambled signals from the U-2
> they couldn't shoot it down no matter where it was.
>

Nothing to interpret. They knew the U-2 had radar jamming. They also had
it under visual tracking by MIGs flying underneath. As it turned out they
did not have to be precise when they fired their missiles. At least 16
missiles fired in a shotgun approach and only one has to be close and not
right on the target. It's like winging a quail.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Oswald did not know anything about the construction of the U-2. The
Soviets just got lucky and were better prepared. They might have gotten
even luckier and scored a direct hit, but in the process would have
destroyed all the evidence which they examined.