OSWALD'S SECURITY CLEARANCE
tomnln
ShutterBun
> SECRET OR, ABOVE
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Admittedly new here, but from what I understand, Oswald's clearance
was "Confidential" at its highest. (HSCA)
WBurg...@aol.com
As I have stated before this testimony is absolutely key to
understandung Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
Donovan said that Oswald must have had TOP SECRET clearance in order to
work in the Bubble. Others disagree.
John McAdams
>SECRET OR, ABOVE
>
>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Confidential.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald5.txt
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j leyden
> SECRET OR, ABOVE
>
> SEE>>> �http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
The testimony you cite by Lt. Donovan doesn't state that Oswald had
"secret or above" security clearance. Donovan says Oswald "must have had
secret clearance" because others in the unit did. IOW he's making an
assumption here. Not good enough. But it doesn't really make any
difference because, despite your effort to paint him as the second coming
of "Chesty" Puller, Oswald was a washout as a Marine, just like he was in
civilian life. He never rose above the rank of PFC; he earned two courts
martial, one for shooting himself with a gun he posesssed illegally; he
spent time in the brig; he lied to get an early release from active
service and he ended up with an undesirable discharge. Oh yeah, I would
want to hire this guy.
JGL
Dave Yandell
Er, if you are going by the sworn interview by Warren investigators,
Donovan said this:
"Mr. DONOVAN. He must have had secret clearance to work in the radar
center, because that was a minimum requirement for all of us."
The HSCA investigated and found Donovan's view mistaken. It wasn't
just that "others disagree": Oswald's Marine records show him only at
Confidential and HSCA found several others who worked with him who had
only "Confidential" clearance. So, it's quite clear that Donovan's
sense of what "must have" been the case five years earlier on this
matter was mistaken.
Quoting from the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (Rossley) see the "oswald5.txt
link posted by John McAdams):
"Oswald's Marine Corps records bear no indication that he
ever received any intelligence training or performed any
intelligence assignments during his term of service. As a Marine
serving in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald had a security clearance of
confidential, but never received a higher classification.(180)
In his Warren Commission testimony, John E. Donovan, the
officer who had been in charge of Oswald's crew at the El Toro
Marine base in California, stated that all personnel working in
the radar center were required to have a minimum security
clearance of secret.(181) Thus, the allegation has been made that
the security clearance of confidential in Oswald's records is
inaccurate.
The committee however, reviewed files belonging to four
enlisted men who had worked with Oswald either in Japan or
California and found that each of them had a security clearance
of confidential."
Best,
Dave
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 3, 10:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2009 3:49 PM, ShutterBun wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 1, 10:01 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> SECRET OR, ABOVE
>>
>>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>>
>>> Admittedly new here, but from what I understand, Oswald's clearance
>>> was "Confidential" at its highest. (HSCA)
>>
>> Donovan said that Oswald must have had TOP SECRET clearance in order to
>> work in the Bubble. Others disagree.
>
> Er, if you are going by the sworn interview by Warren investigators,
> Donovan said this:
>
> "Mr. DONOVAN. He must have had secret clearance to work in the radar
> center, because that was a minimum requirement for all of us."
>
> The HSCA investigated and found Donovan's view mistaken. It wasn't
> just that "others disagree": Oswald's Marine records show him only at
> Confidential and HSCA found several others who worked with him who had
> only "Confidential" clearance. So, it's quite clear that Donovan's
> sense of what "must have" been the case five years earlier on this
> matter was mistaken.
>
I think the point is that the official documents are not always accurate
and clear. Sometimes they are deliberately false.
Some researchers think that Oswald was being prepared for a mission and
as part of that preparation his records were being cleaned up to make
him appear as just another ordinary Marine, nothing special, not a
highly trained spy.
> Quoting from the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (Rossley) see the "oswald5.txt
> link posted by John McAdams):
>
> "Oswald's Marine Corps records bear no indication that he
> ever received any intelligence training or performed any
> intelligence assignments during his term of service. As a Marine
> serving in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald had a security clearance of
> confidential, but never received a higher classification.(180)
>
> In his Warren Commission testimony, John E. Donovan, the
> officer who had been in charge of Oswald's crew at the El Toro
> Marine base in California, stated that all personnel working in
> the radar center were required to have a minimum security
> clearance of secret.(181) Thus, the allegation has been made that
> the security clearance of confidential in Oswald's records is
> inaccurate.
>
> The committee however, reviewed files belonging to four
> enlisted men who had worked with Oswald either in Japan or
> California and found that each of them had a security clearance
> of confidential."
>
It does not say that they also did not have any higher clearances.
> Best,
> Dave
>
Anthony Marsh
>
> The testimony you cite by Lt. Donovan doesn't state that Oswald had
> "secret or above" security clearance. Donovan says Oswald "must have had
> secret clearance" because others in the unit did. IOW he's making an
No, Donovan said that Oswald must have had TOP SECRET clearance in order
to work in the Bubble. It's where he was and what he was doing, not what
others were doing. It doesn't take TOP SECRET clearance to guard a hangar.
> assumption here. Not good enough. But it doesn't really make any
> difference because, despite your effort to paint him as the second coming
> of "Chesty" Puller, Oswald was a washout as a Marine, just like he was in
> civilian life. He never rose above the rank of PFC; he earned two courts
> martial, one for shooting himself with a gun he posesssed illegally; he
> spent time in the brig; he lied to get an early release from active
> service and he ended up with an undesirable discharge. Oh yeah, I would
> want to hire this guy.
>
Exactly the type the CIA did hire.
> JGL
>
>
j leyden
> No, Donovan said that Oswald must have had TOP SECRET clearance in order
> to work in the Bubble. It's where he was and what he was doing, not what
> others were doing. It doesn't take TOP SECRET clearance to guard a hangar
Tony, you don't read testimony any better than Tomnln. Here's the
relevant quote from the material Tomnln posted:
"Mr. Ronovan: He must have had secret clearance to work in the radar
center because that was a minimum requirement for all of us." (p.298)
Well, the material posted by John Mac and others here indicate that
Donovan was mistaken. Donovan had secret clearance but others didn't.
And I love your comment that misfits like Oswald were "Exactly the
type the CIA did hire." As I have pointed out before, you have no
experience that justifies you to make that statement. Personally, I
doubt if the CIA would hire a guy who dropped out of high school at
the start of his sophmore year, couldn't write a coherent report due
to his Dyslexia and faulty education and was so dumb and clumsy, he
shot himself with his own gun. ("Keep 'em covered, Lee, and for God's
sake don't shoot yourself." Some agent!)
JGL
> > JGL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 5, 12:39???am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> No, Donovan said that Oswald must have had TOP SECRET clearance in order
>> to work in the Bubble. It's where he was and what he was doing, not what
>> others were doing. It doesn't take TOP SECRET clearance to guard a hangar
>
> Tony, you don't read testimony any better than Tomnln. Here's the
Excuse me? Did I say testimony? No, so stop putting words in my mouth.
> relevant quote from the material Tomnln posted:
>
> "Mr. Ronovan: He must have had secret clearance to work in the radar
> center because that was a minimum requirement for all of us." (p.298)
> Well, the material posted by John Mac and others here indicate that
> Donovan was mistaken. Donovan had secret clearance but others didn't.
>
I don't care if someone like YOU thinks Donovan was wrong. I merely
point out that Donovan is the source of the claim.
> And I love your comment that misfits like Oswald were "Exactly the
> type the CIA did hire." As I have pointed out before, you have no
> experience that justifies you to make that statement. Personally, I
Wrong again. My father was an NSA officer who was the liaison to the CIA,
specifically through John Paisley. So I was around CIA types when I was
kid. And just reading the backgrounds of some of the CIA officers who have
participated in the CIA dirty tricks proves my point. But I did not say
that Oswald was a CIA officer. I did not even say that Oswald was a CIA
agent. I think they would use ANYONE, even people like David Ferrie, or
Manuel Noriega, or Osama bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein.
> doubt if the CIA would hire a guy who dropped out of high school at
> the start of his sophmore year, couldn't write a coherent report due
> to his Dyslexia and faulty education and was so dumb and clumsy, he
> shot himself with his own gun. ("Keep 'em covered, Lee, and for God's
> sake don't shoot yourself." Some agent!)
>
Exactly the kind of person the CIA would use, as Dulles pointed out in
the executive session.
> JGL
>
>
>
>> On 7/3/2009 11:58 PM, j leyden wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 1:01???am, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> ???wrote:
>>>> SECRET OR, ABOVE
>>
>>>> SEE>>> ??????http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>>
>>> The testimony you cite by Lt. Donovan doesn't state that Oswald had
>>> "secret or above" security clearance. ???Donovan says Oswald "must have had
>>> secret clearance" because others in the unit did. ???IOW he's making an
>>
>> No, Donovan said that Oswald must have had TOP SECRET clearance in order
>> to work in the Bubble. It's where he was and what he was doing, not what
>> others were doing. It doesn't take TOP SECRET clearance to guard a hangar.
>>
>>> assumption here. Not good enough. ???But it doesn't really make any
>>> difference because, despite your effort to paint him as the second coming
>>> of "Chesty" Puller, Oswald was a washout as a Marine, just like he was in
>>> civilian life. ???He never rose above the rank of PFC; he earned two courts
>>> martial, one for shooting himself with a gun he posesssed illegally; he
>>> spent time in the brig; he lied to get an early release from active
>>> service and he ended up with an undesirable discharge. ???Oh yeah, I would
j leyden
> Wrong again. My father was an NSA officer who was the liaison to the CIA,
> specifically through John Paisley. So I was around CIA types when I was
> kid. And just reading the backgrounds of some of the CIA officers who have
> participated in the CIA dirty tricks proves my point. But I did not say
> that Oswald was a CIA officer. I did not even say that Oswald was a CIA
> agent
Oh Lord, Tony, you're trying to piggyback on Dear Old Dad again. But your
Dad was NSA, not CIA. Your claim he was "the" liaison to CIA is
unsubstantiated. And you're not doing Dad any favors by linking him to
John Paisley. Some people think he was a double agent.
As for your claim that Donovan said Oswald must have had "Top Secret"
clearance, just where did he say that if not in his WC testimony? You
certainly leave a lot of loose ends, Tony.
JGL
Rudy Lasparri
<681e6ae0-cd55-4c8b...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
j leyden <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote:
I know that it is fun to play guessing games but if Oswald's DD Form 214
was released it will have his exact security clearance listed.
Anthony Marsh
You mean the one the DoD destroyed? Gee, I wonder why they would do
that? And you forget Helms's remark that they would have to create a
false document and insert it into the record. Gee, I wonder why they
would need to do that?
But in fact official records are not accurate.
Let me give you an example from personal experience.
My father was the Section Chief of Research and Development at the
National Security Agency. When we requested via FOIA/Privacy Act all his
records, the NSA said there are no records whatsoever. They consider him
a non-person, ala 1984.
But I have the records.
When Richard Helms ordered all the records of MK/ULTRA destroyed,
several copies kept in other places were overlooked and survived.
When Oliver Stone asked the Congressmen if he had destroyed all the
Iran/Contra documents he was shocked to find out that duplicates had
been routinely saved as backup files offsite.
Prisoners at a federal prison cleaning out old recycled filing cabinets
found tons of SECRET documents which supposedly had been destroyed.
Rudy Lasparri
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
What a fascinating story. DD Form 214 is the discharge record one
receives when one separates from the military. It is the form necessary to
apply for veterans benefits and for proof of service. It is stored at the
records facility in St Louis. It lists the exact dates of service, the
rank attained, security clearance granted, awards warned, type of
discharge granted, etc. It would be the only official record that Oswald
served in the Marines. Now why would it be destroyed? Even if it was, a
replacement could easily be requested.
Back to playing guessing games, I suppose.
j leyden
wrote:
Tony, I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that Donovan said
Oswald must have had "Top Secret" clearance. You're not ducking it, are
you?
JGL
> On 7/6/2009 10:29 PM, Rudy Lasparri wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <681e6ae0-cd55-4c8b-bb29-ff2bcaa29...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > � j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> �wrote:
> found tons of SECRET documents which supposedly had been destroyed.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:dbkt45tqhtbavkop7...@4ax.com...
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
A Marine Officer actually Serving with Oswaldf has More Clout (credibility)
than a group of Politicians ! ! !
tomnln
"j leyden" <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9b97822f-a945-4187...@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
JGL
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Read it & Weep !
tomnln
Then READ>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
"j leyden" <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5beff158-b7cd-4010...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> In article<4a53a6fa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Oh, you mean the facility which had a huge fire which destroyed half the
records?
> rank attained, security clearance granted, awards warned, type of
> discharge granted, etc. It would be the only official record that Oswald
> served in the Marines. Now why would it be destroyed? Even if it was, a
> replacement could easily be requested.
>
Then again, why would anyone want to destroy any records related to Oswald?
j leyden
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>
> Read it & Weep !
Tom, I think this post is kind of your personal Waterloo. It shows
clearly that you can post testimony but you can't understand it or
interpret it. Donovan didn't say Oswald had a secret clearance; he said
he "must have" had it. In short, he was making an assumption, probably
based on his own clearance. Donovan was not Oswald's CO and his comments
indicate that he probably never looked at Oswald's service jacket. For
example, he didn't know the circumstances of Oswald's court martials or
the details of his early out. You need to read Donovan's testimony again
and pay attention this time.
JGL
> "j leyden" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
Rudy Lasparri
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Thank God everything was backed up on microfiche, huh?? Without a DD
Form 214 you cannot prove that Oswald served in the Marines officially
or for how long or the terms of his discharge.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 8, 10:17�pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>>
>
> Tom, I think this post is kind of your personal Waterloo. It shows
> clearly that you can post testimony but you can't understand it or
> interpret it. Donovan didn't say Oswald had a secret clearance; he said
> he "must have" had it. In short, he was making an assumption, probably
> based on his own clearance. Donovan was not Oswald's CO and his comments
> indicate that he probably never looked at Oswald's service jacket. For
> example, he didn't know the circumstances of Oswald's court martials or
> the details of his early out. You need to read Donovan's testimony again
> and pay attention this time.
>
You need to read more than just his testimony. Stop taking the lazy way out.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 7, 4:09�pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Tony, I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that Donovan said
> Oswald must have had "Top Secret" clearance. You're not ducking it, are
> you?
>
Change that to just SECRET.
j leyden
> You need to read more than just his testimony. Stop taking the lazy way out.
>
>You've plulled this stunt on me before, Tony. You make a statement you can't support and then tell me to do the research. You're like Tomnln who tells me to call Ken & Marina when I ask him for details on his alleged interview with Marina. Two of a kind.
JGL
> >> Read it& �Weep !- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jean
> In article <4a53a6f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/6/2009 10:29 PM, Rudy Lasparri wrote:
> > > In article
> > > j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oswald's DD Form 214 is here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0369b.htm
Jean
John McAdams
It's simply a fact, Tom, that the men serving with Oswald had
"confidential" clearance.
Thus Donovan was wrong.
You are very selective in using "officials records." You refuse to
pay any attention to those what contradict your pet theories.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
I quoted his Superior Officer John.
If there's something DIFFERENT.....You just Proved "Reasonable Doubt".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McAdams
No, there is no doubt at all. Oswald's coworkers in the radar bubble
had "confidential" security clearances.
Donovan was wrong.
The fact that you folks keep quoting him shows how supposed "research"
had come to a dead end.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
McAdams wrote;
> No, there is no doubt at all. Oswald's coworkers in the radar bubble
> had "confidential" security clearances.
>
> Donovan was wrong.
>
> The fact that you folks keep quoting him shows how supposed "research"
> had come to a dead end.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Donovan was the man "IN CHARGE" of that Radar Unit kiddo.
He not only knew of the Security Clearance, He knew the IQ Levels.
You SURE Don't think much of our Military do you John !
I'll post the testimony AGAIN for you John.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Maybe you'll get it this time.
ps;
Our debate is STILL "not" on your website.
THIS one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
I "Love it" when you Reject your own testimony !
-------------------------------------------------------------------
j leyden
> I quoted his Superior Officer John.
>
> If there's something DIFFERENT.....You just Proved "Reasonable Doubt".
>
Well, you quoted him incorrectly, Tom. Once again, Donovan didn't say
Oswald had secret clearance, he said he "must have had." Do you recognize
the difference? Moreover, Donovan was not Oswald's CO and his comments on
other aspects of Oswald's career indicate he never reviewed Oswald's
service jacket. And please don't refer me back to your web site. I read
Donovan's comment. You're the one having problems with it.
JGL
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:ekcl551l1irhddimn...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Jul 2009 22:17:19 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>"John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> >>news:dbkt45tqhtbavkop7...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 2 Jul 2009 01:01:52 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>SECRET OR, ABOVE
>
> >>>>SEE>>> �http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>
> >>> Confidential.
>
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald5.txt
>
> >>> .John
> >>> --------------
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >>SEE>>> �http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>
> >>A Marine Officer actually Serving with Oswaldf has More Clout
> >>(credibility)
> >>than a group of Politicians ! ! !
>
> > It's simply a fact, Tom, that the men serving with Oswald had
> > "confidential" clearance.
>
> > Thus Donovan was wrong.
>
> > You are very selective in using "officials records." �You refuse to
> > pay any attention to those what contradict your pet theories.
>
> > .John
> > --------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> I quoted his Superior Officer John.
>
> If there's something DIFFERENT.....You just Proved "Reasonable Doubt".
>
> SEE>>> �http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
John McAdams
>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:e9jn55h40c2vusrde...@4ax.com...
>> On 13 Jul 2009 18:24:23 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I quoted his Superior Officer John.
>>>
>>>
>>>If there's something DIFFERENT.....You just Proved "Reasonable Doubt".
>>>
>>>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>McAdams wrote;
>
>> No, there is no doubt at all. Oswald's coworkers in the radar bubble
>> had "confidential" security clearances.
>>
>> Donovan was wrong.
>>
>> The fact that you folks keep quoting him shows how supposed "research"
>> had come to a dead end.
>>
>
>
>
>Donovan was the man "IN CHARGE" of that Radar Unit kiddo.
>
>He not only knew of the Security Clearance, He knew the IQ Levels.
>
>You SURE Don't think much of our Military do you John !
>
>I'll post the testimony AGAIN for you John.
>
>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>
>Maybe you'll get it this time.
>
What security clearance one has is a factual matter, not a matter of
opinion.
I could find some crackpot "financial expert" who thinks you are a
millionaire.
But if they can't produce a bank balance to support that, can't point
to a deed or brokerage account to support that, nor any other document
to support that, you ain't one.
>ps;
>
>Our debate is STILL "not" on your website.
>
>THIS one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
If you mention that even one more time, I'm going to level with you as
to why not.
>I "Love it" when you Reject your own testimony !
I love it when you reject Official Documents!
The Official Documents say the guys in the radar bubble had
confidential clearance.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
Donovan's testimony is Supported by the testimony of Kerry Thornley.
Volume XI page 84>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
Now, we have testimony of Oswald's "Secret Security Clearance" from his
Commanding Officer
AND a Marine who Served with him
You Really need the 26 Volumes.
And, you wrote below>>> "If you mention that even one more time, I'm
going to level with you as
to why not."
So, Level with us John;
Inquiring minds want to know !
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:5iun55h5guce094gp...@4ax.com...
tomnln
Donovan's testimony is Supported by the testimony of Kerry Thornley.
Volume XI page 84>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
Now, we have testimony of Oswald's "Secret Security Clearance" from his
Commanding Officer
AND a Marine who Served with him
You Really need the 26 Volumes.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EsQ6m.30616$%02....@newsfe15.iad...
tomnln
Volume XI page 84>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
Now, we have testimony of Oswald's "Secret Security Clearance" from his
Commanding Officer AND a Marine who Served with him
You Really need the 26 Volumes.
"j leyden" <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:51bf21a0-c118-41b6...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
THIS one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
And, you wrote below>>>
"If you mention that even one more time, I'm
going to level with you as to why not."
So, Level with us John;
Inquiring minds want to know !
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:v7U6m.8083$Vg7....@newsfe06.iad...
John McAdams
>Our debate is STILL "not" on your website.
>
>THIS one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
>
>And, you wrote below>>>
>
>"If you mention that even one more time, I'm
>going to level with you as to why not."
>
>
>
>So, Level with us John;
>
>Inquiring minds want to know !
>
>
OK.
I'll link to some debate that I engage in when I get an opponent who
doesn't come across as a raving lunatic.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 13 Jul 2009 23:12:25 -0400, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John McAdams"<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>> news:e9jn55h40c2vusrde...@4ax.com...
>>> On 13 Jul 2009 18:24:23 -0400, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I quoted his Superior Officer John.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there's something DIFFERENT.....You just Proved "Reasonable Doubt".
>>>>
>>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> McAdams wrote;
>>
>>> No, there is no doubt at all. Oswald's coworkers in the radar bubble
>>> had "confidential" security clearances.
>>>
>>> Donovan was wrong.
>>>
>>> The fact that you folks keep quoting him shows how supposed "research"
>>> had come to a dead end.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Donovan was the man "IN CHARGE" of that Radar Unit kiddo.
>>
>> He not only knew of the Security Clearance, He knew the IQ Levels.
>>
>> You SURE Don't think much of our Military do you John !
>>
>> I'll post the testimony AGAIN for you John.
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>>
>> Maybe you'll get it this time.
>>
>
> What security clearance one has is a factual matter, not a matter of
> opinion.
>
Government records are not always factual.
> I could find some crackpot "financial expert" who thinks you are a
> millionaire.
>
> But if they can't produce a bank balance to support that, can't point
> to a deed or brokerage account to support that, nor any other document
> to support that, you ain't one.
>
>
Except for his secret Swiss bank account.
Mitch Todd
>
> Donovan's testimony is Supported by the testimony of Kerry Thornley.
>
> Volume XI page 84>>>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
>
> Now, we have testimony of Oswald's "Secret Security Clearance" from his
> Commanding Officer
> AND a Marine who Served with him
>
>
> You Really need the 26 Volumes.
That's an odd thing to say, since Thornley made it clear that his
knowledge of Oswald's security clearance was "just based on upon rumor."
I'm surprised that a vociferous and critical reader of the Holy Volumes
would have missed the rumor bit.
tomnln
Testimony from TWO (2) People who were There, beats "Opinion" of one who
was NOT there !
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a5f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
ShutterBun
"confidential" clearance, as most inquiries into his official records have
indicated, another thought I had was: "If Oswald DID have secret
clearance, so what?" By Donovan's own admission, he simply concluded that
Oswald had "the minimum" clearance level required to work at a radar
station. Ignoring the "secret" designation, then, Donovan is simply
stating that Oswald's security clearance was nothing special, given his
duties.
Conspiracy theorists have long contended that Oswald's security clearance
was unusual, or indicative that he was being fast-tracked for epsionage or
what-have-you, but the very source of the original claim specifically
characterizes Oswald's clearance as being the "minimum requirement."
But as others have stated, Donavan's propter-hoc conclusion about what
Oswald's clearance "must have been" is problematic.
I don't recall whether or not CE-1961 has been mentioned in this thread
yet, but it may prove useful.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1961.pdf
It is a report prepared by the Department of Defense at Rankin's request.
In particular, note this statement: "nor is there evidence that he was
granted access to any infornation of higher than confidential
characerization."
Blakey seems to have had similar misgivings over the controversy cause by
Donovan's statement, as well. Note this letter Blakey wrote to the DOD
requesting their assistance in clearing the matter up:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/jfk/jfk00208.pdf
Mitch Todd
A person who repeats rumors wasn't there, ipso facto. I'm afraid you'll
have to try again.
BTW, a docment trail trumps one who was there and one who wasn't. I think
you need to beef up your hand.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nLT7m.15289$Ta5....@newsfe15.iad...
John McAdams
wrote:
>While I 'm still inclined to conclude that Oswald simply had
>"confidential" clearance, as most inquiries into his official records have
>indicated, another thought I had was: "If Oswald DID have secret
>clearance, so what?" By Donovan's own admission, he simply concluded that
>Oswald had "the minimum" clearance level required to work at a radar
>station. Ignoring the "secret" designation, then, Donovan is simply
>stating that Oswald's security clearance was nothing special, given his
>duties.
>
>Conspiracy theorists have long contended that Oswald's security clearance
>was unusual, or indicative that he was being fast-tracked for epsionage or
>what-have-you, but the very source of the original claim specifically
>characterizes Oswald's clearance as being the "minimum requirement."
>
>
That's a good point. I guess it just *sounds* spooky to say he had a
"secret" clearance.
>But as others have stated, Donavan's propter-hoc conclusion about what
>Oswald's clearance "must have been" is problematic.
>
>I don't recall whether or not CE-1961 has been mentioned in this thread
>yet, but it may prove useful.
>
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1961.pdf
>
>It is a report prepared by the Department of Defense at Rankin's request.
>
>In particular, note this statement: "nor is there evidence that he was
>granted access to any infornation of higher than confidential
>characerization."
>
>Blakey seems to have had similar misgivings over the controversy cause by
>Donovan's statement, as well. Note this letter Blakey wrote to the DOD
>requesting their assistance in clearing the matter up:
>http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/jfk/jfk00208.pdf
This appears to be a request to confirm what the Warren Commission
asserted.
I've posted the link showing that the HSCA determined the clearance of
each of the men working in the "bubble" with Oswald, and each has
Mitch Todd
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2009 21:57:41 -0400, ShutterBun <shutt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>While I 'm still inclined to conclude that Oswald simply had
>>"confidential" clearance, as most inquiries into his official records have
>>indicated, another thought I had was: "If Oswald DID have secret
>>clearance, so what?" By Donovan's own admission, he simply concluded that
>>Oswald had "the minimum" clearance level required to work at a radar
>>station. Ignoring the "secret" designation, then, Donovan is simply
>>stating that Oswald's security clearance was nothing special, given his
>>duties.
>>
>>Conspiracy theorists have long contended that Oswald's security clearance
>>was unusual, or indicative that he was being fast-tracked for epsionage or
>>what-have-you, but the very source of the original claim specifically
>>characterizes Oswald's clearance as being the "minimum requirement."
>
> That's a good point. I guess it just *sounds* spooky to say he had a
> "secret" clearance.
Also, consider that Donovan may have meant "secret" in a generic sense
rather
than referring to a specific level of clearance.
Dave Yandell
> Testimony from TWO (2) People who were There, beats "Opinion" of one who
> was NOT there !
>
Tom Rossley:
The administrative remarks page from Oswald's USMC file, included in the
Warren Report volumes is the OFFICIAL US MARINE CORPS RECORD OF OSWALD'S
CLEARANCE RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS of the Warren Commission and
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY BY A USMC Lieutenant.
It says his ONLY CLEARANCE EVER GRANTED was his May 3, 1957 "CONFIDENTIAL"
clearance signed by USMC Capt. Sternkopf.
If this record weren't complete and accurate WOULD THE MARINES HAVE
SUBMITTED IT TO THE COMMISSION?
Are you calling the USMC liars and criminals?
IF THEY WERE GIVING FALSE OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE
BEEN COURT-MARTIALED? DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN A NATION OF LAWS, TOM ROSSLEY?
WHY DO YOU REJECT THIS OFFICIAL USMC DOCUMENT?
IT'S NOT TOO LATE ROSSLEY TO CORRECT YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0366b.htm
James K. Olmstead
The conflict is not the level of his clearence. It's the
fact that his clearance was revoked during most of his
tour of duty in Japan and he was NOT able to work
his assigned MOS.
The testimony in his SCM's is bogus, since he really never
had any chance to work. One officer testified, yet LHO
never had the opportunity to show his abilities or knowledge.
Add to this fact the consideration NO SCI (required) was
conducted to reinstate his security clearance after the
first SCM.
In addition, required documents such as Oswald's rejection of ART 15 are
NOT part of the offical record.
Also his "Brig Entry" report and entry fingerprint card are missing.
The Navy was required during the time period to retain all SCM records for
5 years. There are at least 12 records/transcripts missing from the file
the Navy was required to provide the WC.
These records that are missing, should have been part of the files
submitted. If some of the records were included there is no reason for a
select few (and critical) records to be missing.
FOIA requests to the Navy on this mater failed to produce the records.
For those that believe Oswald was able to obtain info of interest to "The
Reds" or anyone else are mistaken, he could only have had 12 days of
"contact" with any operational codes or intell of interest. He could only
provide details on "the time the truck picked everyone up to go to work."
I was in contact with one of the driver's that drove the crew from
barracks to "Bubble" and to mess.
If Oswald provided anyone with "Codes" (which were changed) they were
PROVIDED TO HIM TO DO SO.
All testimony to the WC/HSCA about Oswald and his "Radar Bubble" duty are
suspect, especially Donovan's.
All testimony (including endorsements) in both SCM's are suspect.
As a side note....It was legal to possess the handgun during the time
period. The AR that required them to be "registered" did not go into
effect, since it was issued only days before the "incident". It was in the
30 day window of the "effected date"
The Navy will not provide me with details on the effective date of the
General Order not will they provide the actual General Order, ref in the
SCM charges.
jko
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a614129$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a611961$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/donovan___volume_viii.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi1.htm
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:amc2659td79fni4tb...@4ax.com...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/donovan___volume_viii.htm
Supported by the testimony of Thornley>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi1.htm
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a614129$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Top Right corner
24 Oct. 56
Maybe Dave is suggesting Oswald should have STARTED his Marine Corps
Service as a GENERAL ! ! ! !
AGAIN;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/donovan___volume_viii.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi1.htm
Did you know Oswald had the word "MICRO_DOTS" in his notebook?=
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lho.htm
"Dave Yandell" <dyan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e21c7d01-0f58-4062...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 17, 2:21 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Testimony from TWO (2) People who were There, beats "Opinion" of one who
>> was NOT there !
>>
>
> Tom Rossley:
>
> The administrative remarks page from Oswald's USMC file, included in the
> Warren Report volumes is the OFFICIAL US MARINE CORPS RECORD OF OSWALD'S
> CLEARANCE RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS of the Warren Commission and
> CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY BY A USMC Lieutenant.
>
> It says his ONLY CLEARANCE EVER GRANTED was his May 3, 1957 "CONFIDENTIAL"
> clearance signed by USMC Capt. Sternkopf.
>
> If this record weren't complete and accurate WOULD THE MARINES HAVE
> SUBMITTED IT TO THE COMMISSION?
>
> Are you calling the USMC liars and criminals?
>
Yes, and that's not the half of it.
> IF THEY WERE GIVING FALSE OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE
> BEEN COURT-MARTIALED? DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN A NATION OF LAWS, TOM ROSSLEY?
>
USING ALL CAPS IS THE SAME THING AS SHOUTING.
Just because you are shouting does not mean you are right.
Anthony Marsh
> "John McAdams"<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 17 Jul 2009 21:57:41 -0400, ShutterBun<shutt...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While I 'm still inclined to conclude that Oswald simply had
>>> "confidential" clearance, as most inquiries into his official records have
>>> indicated, another thought I had was: "If Oswald DID have secret
>>> clearance, so what?" By Donovan's own admission, he simply concluded that
>>> Oswald had "the minimum" clearance level required to work at a radar
>>> station. Ignoring the "secret" designation, then, Donovan is simply
>>> stating that Oswald's security clearance was nothing special, given his
>>> duties.
>>>
>>> Conspiracy theorists have long contended that Oswald's security clearance
>>> was unusual, or indicative that he was being fast-tracked for epsionage or
>>> what-have-you, but the very source of the original claim specifically
>>> characterizes Oswald's clearance as being the "minimum requirement."
>>
>> That's a good point. I guess it just *sounds* spooky to say he had a
>> "secret" clearance.
>
> Also, consider that Donovan may have meant "secret" in a generic sense
> rather
> than referring to a specific level of clearance.
>
No, he specifically said it must be higher than just Confidential.
Mitch Todd
your arguments any more convincing than before. Thornley just wasn't
'there' by his own admission. It's not that hard to figure out.
You're left with Donovan, who noted that Oswald had the lowest level of
security clearance necessary to be a radar operator (which the docs say
was "classifed," both generally and in Oswald's case).
Pile all that against the documentation unearthed by
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Testimony from TWO (2) People who were There, beats "Opinion" of one who
> was NOT there ! !
>
Anthony Marsh
> While I 'm still inclined to conclude that Oswald simply had
> "confidential" clearance, as most inquiries into his official records have
> indicated, another thought I had was: "If Oswald DID have secret
> clearance, so what?" By Donovan's own admission, he simply concluded that
> Oswald had "the minimum" clearance level required to work at a radar
> station. Ignoring the "secret" designation, then, Donovan is simply
> stating that Oswald's security clearance was nothing special, given his
> duties.
>
I'm with you so far, but the conspiracy ideas go beyond just the radar
bubble.
> Conspiracy theorists have long contended that Oswald's security clearance
> was unusual, or indicative that he was being fast-tracked for epsionage or
> what-have-you, but the very source of the original claim specifically
> characterizes Oswald's clearance as being the "minimum requirement."
>
This comes from the notion that for someone to participate in an
intelligence operation they must have SECRET clearance. That is not
always true. Some people with less than SECRET clearance are used for
one-time operations.
>
> But as others have stated, Donavan's propter-hoc conclusion about what
> Oswald's clearance "must have been" is problematic.
>
It's only Propter Hoc because no one asked Donovan BEFORE the
assassination. It's what he thought at the time.
tomnln
Donovan was Oswald's Superior Officer.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
Thornley Served WITH oswald.
and, you're STUCK with it.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a6257ec$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Dave Yandell
> Column one;
> Top Right corner
> 24 Oct. 56
>
> Maybe Dave is suggesting Oswald should have STARTED his Marine Corps
> Service as a GENERAL ! ! ! !
The OFFICIAL USMC Administrative Remarks Record continues all the way
THROUGH OSWALD'S DISCHARGE AND DEFECTION. Oswald's ONLY SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION WAS CONFIDENTIAL!
WHY WON'T TOM ROSSLEY ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL RECORD?
Why is he accepting Thornley's testimony about "RUMORS" and Donovan's
FAULTY MEMORY of what "MUST HAVE" been over OFFICIAL USMC records OF
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
IF THE RECORD WEREN'T COMPLETE AND CORRECT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
VERIFIED AND SUBMITTED BY THE USMC, would it?
THE MARINE OFFICERS INVOLVED WOULD HAVE BEEN COURT-MARTIALED, wouldn't
they, Tom?????
Don't YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A COUNTRY OF LAWS, Tom???????
The OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS HAVE SPOKEN. All Tom has is "RUMOR" and someone
trying to remember what "MUST HAVE" been.
TOTALLY TRUMPED BY OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, isn't it, Tom?
OTHERWISE, which Marine Corps Officers WERE BROUGHT BEFORE COURTS
MARTIAL FOR SUBMITTING INCOMPLETE OR FALSE RECORDS AS OSWALD'S
COMPLETE FILE???????????????
> AGAIN;
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/donovan___volume_viii.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi1.htm
>
> Did you know Oswald had the word "MICRO_DOTS" in his notebook?=
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lho.htm
>
> "Dave Yandell" <dyand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e21c7d01-0f58-4062...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 2:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Testimony from TWO (2) People who were There, beats "Opinion" of one who
> > was NOT there !
>
> Tom Rossley:
>
> The administrative remarks page from Oswald's USMC file, included in the
> Warren Report volumes is the OFFICIAL US MARINE CORPS RECORD OF OSWALD'S
> CLEARANCE RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS of the Warren Commission and
> CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY BY A USMC Lieutenant.
>
> It says his ONLY CLEARANCE EVER GRANTED was his May 3, 1957 "CONFIDENTIAL"
> clearance signed by USMC Capt. Sternkopf.
>
> If this record weren't complete and accurate WOULD THE MARINES HAVE
> SUBMITTED IT TO THE COMMISSION?
>
> Are you calling the USMC liars and criminals?
>
> IF THEY WERE GIVING FALSE OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE
> BEEN COURT-MARTIALED? DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN A NATION OF LAWS, TOM ROSSLEY?
>
> WHY DO YOU REJECT THIS OFFICIAL USMC DOCUMENT?
>
> IT'S NOT TOO LATE ROSSLEY TO CORRECT YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL
> DOCUMENTS.
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
Dave Yandell
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony,
I know. But one must employ special discourse methods with Mr.
Rossley.
Best as ever,
Dave
Mitch Todd
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a62...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
And you have a specific reference in mind?
tomnln
BEFORE TRAINING in radar opoerations.
"Dave Yandell" <dyan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:622313d2-2048-48ce...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
His background interviews to journalists in Washington.
Mitch Todd
sense. "Kung Fu Fighting" didn't sound any better after then 100th play
than it did after the first, and you aren't going to do any better.
You have yet to explain why Kerry Thornley's testimony on this matter
is important when he plainly says that all he has to offer is "just a
rumor."
For that matter, if Donovan says that Oswald's security clearance was
the same as the other radar operators, then why the big fuss?
Mitch Todd
> On 7/19/2009 10:02 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Which background interviews with which Journalists? I did mention
something about being specific, after all.
tomnln
> I'd say that you are the one who is stuck...in the broken record player
> sense. "Kung Fu Fighting" didn't sound any better after then 100th play
> than it did after the first, and you aren't going to do any better.
>
> You have yet to explain why Kerry Thornley's testimony on this matter
> is important when he plainly says that all he has to offer is "just a
> rumor."
> For that matter, if Donovan says that Oswald's security clearance was
> the same as the other radar operators, then why the big fuss?
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Donovan was Oswald's Superior Officer.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
Thornley Served WITH oswald.
and, you're STUCK with it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Todd
Thornley's WC testimony indictate what you seem to believe. A smart
operator would at least try to discuss it, but I guess you prefer to argue
with the good ol' four legs good, two legs bad method.
tomnln
> As has been pointed out, by me and others, neither Donovan's nor
> Thornley's WC testimony indictate what you seem to believe. A smart
> operator would at least try to discuss it, but I guess you prefer to argue
> with the good ol' four legs good, two legs bad method.
Donovan was THERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Thornley was THERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
You were NOT THERE! ! !
They BOTH gave testimony
You gave NO testimony.
Mitch Todd
Summer, the season of reruns......
It's funny, in more ways than one, that I've already noted what Donovan
and Thornley have testified to, and that neither's testimony bolsters any
assertion that LHO's security clearance was anything special or different
from his fellow Marines.
You responded by escalating to three (count 'em, three!!!) exclamation
points. You're just going to have ot do better.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
tomnln
>
> Summer, the season of reruns......
>
> It's funny, in more ways than one, that I've already noted what Donovan
> and Thornley have testified to, and that neither's testimony bolsters any
> assertion that LHO's security clearance was anything special or different
> from his fellow Marines.
>
> You responded by escalating to three (count 'em, three!!!) exclamation
> points. You're just going to have ot do better.
Mitch Todd wrote;
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As has been pointed out, by me and others, neither Donovan's nor
>>> Thornley's WC testimony indictate what you seem to believe. A smart
>>> operator would at least try to discuss it, but I guess you prefer to
>>> argue with the good ol' four legs good, two legs bad method.
I write;
Testimony of people who were THERE always carry more weight than someone
like you who was NOT there !
Donovan was THERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Thornley was THERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi.htm
You were NOT THERE! ! !
They BOTH gave testimony
You gave NO testimony.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------