Why Didn't Oswald get arrested when he returned from the USSR
Bill
information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
to the USA. & arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
send a red flag to everyone!
Clark
> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> information about U-2 flights
He offered US "radar" information.
>, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ),
I once compared when Oswald defected to when Powers was shot down. Oswald
probably had some clue of the altitude U2's were flying at from Atsugi
based up upon their requests for high altitude weather conditions. But
this would not mean he would know it was a spy plane or that the USSR
would find this information of interest.
But it became a mute point. Had Oswald told the Russians the altitude the
U2 was operating at, this would not have given the Russians time to build,
test, manufacture, and distribute a new SAM between the date Lee arrived
in Moscow and the day Powers was shot down.
The Russians already had this SAM in the pipeline well before Lee's
arrival.
>I
> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> to the USA. & arrest him for spying.
Lee's actions earned him an undesireable discharge by the USMC
Prosecuting Oswald could have been carried out by RFK or the State
Department - or the USN could have ordered Lee called back to Active Duty
and then prosecuted him in military court. Lee's challenging his
discharge served as a invitation/reminder for the USN to do just that.
But no one did anything.
>I read that the Russian were not
> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> send a red flag to everyone!
A private was of pretty low military interest to the USSR. Had Lee been a
colonel they would demonstrated much greater interest. The fact is, the
moment Lee cut his wrist in order to stay to stay, USSR should have
deported him at the nearest border. They did not need a suicidal American
private on their hands.
Instead, the USSR let him in but with the intention of him returning to
the US at a later date while assigning the KGB to monitoring him. It was
approved by the Central Committee, Russia's highest authority.
::Clark::
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
"Clark" <clarkw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48df2fc3-c176-4cab...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets& offer up
> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
The Soviets did not need any more information about the U-2. All they
needed was a better plan of attack and to coordinate their efforts better.
> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> to the USA.& arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
But he was given a less than honorable discharge from the Marines for
offering the Soviets classified information.
claviger
Bill,
Good question. On the other hand LHO might have some useful
information and propaganda value that defectors found the Soviet Union
a big disappointment. Defectors also allowed infiltration
opportunities by the CIA. Many have questioned if LHO was indeed one
of these CIA volunteers, something the KBG was suspicious of. Another
possibility is the CIA could say to LHO we let you back in now you owe
us some favors. Then too it's quite possible the US government and CIA
thought he was a knucklehead and not worth the trouble to prosecute,
especially since he had a young wife and a baby.
cdddraftsman
> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> to the USA. & arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
>
>
Much in the same way we know that 7 out of 10 American's get their
questions posed by reading conspiracy literature , and repeat them
endlessly , until someone gives them the 'Manchurian Candidate' type
answer they wanted in the first place . I suggest if that's what you want
and can't stand the macho amount of research it takes to find the correct
answer as given above by Clark , you visit the Education Forum run by John
Simkin , they'll fashion up a 'interesting story' based upon their
evaluation of what they find in your questions posed ie. : Determination
based upon "demeaner" as Tomnln is quoted as saying when he considered LHO
innocent , in which he also used the scientifically accepted method of
"Body Language" to determine if after LHO was caught he was most surely
not guilty or "nyet" guilty if you prefer .
tl
bigdog
In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
Mitch Todd
news:NQ3Nm.38649$%j4.2...@newsfe18.iad...
Murphy was not operationally involved with the U-2, and would be of
dubious value as a source for U-2 performance. The CIA declassified and
released it's official history of the U-2 program several years ago (it's
been discussed on this board a number of times before) which indicated
that the U-2 was capable of little more than 70,000 feet.
BTW, the Murphy/Klein interview is an HSCA document (created in 1978), not
ARRB.
Bill
Fact, no U-2 shot down before Oswald's defection, One U-2 shot out of the
sky after he defected. Someone should been on him, like white on rice! &
btw didn't the U.S. have to change the codes for the U-2 flights
afterwards? what you said makes alot of sense,that he was just a small
fish,& didn't have any info. that the ussr didn't have anyway, but how do
we know that, for certain?
jas
He wasn't arrested because he wasn't a spy and didn't do anything
criminal.
Simple.
cdddraftsman
> A 30 year Veteran of the CIA Disagrees with you Bill;
>
>
>
Any info. on that missle speed vs how fast you run to avoid your own
evidence and testimony ?
While your running from that that one maybe you can run from this one
too while your're at it ?
You've avoided facing the music on the question of the CONTEXT that
the Warren Report was written in ?
That's five years going on 46 years Kennedy's been dead !
tl
Robert Harris
<0cd7bad1-eaa9-4087...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <beat...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not only was he not arrested, but the State dept loaned him the money to
come home. He was then debriefed by the CIA, as was confirmed by the
people at PBS and by his letter to his mother, stating that he had to
first stop off in Washington DC before coming home.
PBS also discovered that Oswald had nowhere near enough money to pay for
the trip to Russia. He was obviously, funded by the CIA.
You can learn more about Oswald's activities then in a couple of videos at
my website.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Oswald1/Oswald1.mov
and
http://www.jfkhistory.com/oswald2/oswald2.mov
Just be sure you have Quicktime installed. It's a free download at
apple.com/quicktime
Robert Harris
yeuhd
Correct. Even a confession by the defendant cannot be accepted by a court
unless there is convincing evidence that the confessor actually committed
the crime. What evidence would federal prosecutors have that Oswald
actually did what he claimed?
BTW, as it turned out, even the KGB found Oswald's knowledge of radar
operations to be worthless, not rising above textbook level. They thought
he was a plant by U.S. intelligence.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8e79a65-7330-413c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you read the testimony of a 30 year CIA Officer>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm Page 17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b0574ba$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:NQ3Nm.38649$%j4.2...@newsfe18.iad...
>>A 30 year Veteran of the CIA Disagrees with you Bill;
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
Mitch wrote;
> Murphy was not operationally involved with the U-2, and would be of
> dubious value as a source for U-2 performance. The CIA declassified and
> released it's official history of the U-2 program several years ago (it's
> been discussed on this board a number of times before) which indicated
> that the U-2 was capable of little more than 70,000 feet.
>
> BTW, the Murphy/Klein interview is an HSCA document (created in 1978), not
> ARRB.
I wrtite;
As a 30 year veteran I think he had More information than you do.
I provided an official document showing 90,000 feet for the U-2.
I got it from the ARRB;
Why don't you tell me which HSCA Volume/Page it casme from?
If you would like to debate ANYTHING I say, all you need do is....
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Bill" <beat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9503105a-4061-4b56...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 6:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>>> send a red flag to everyone!
>>
>> In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
>> Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
>> Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
>> been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
>> whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
>> would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
>
> Correct. Even a confession by the defendant cannot be accepted by a court
> unless there is convincing evidence that the confessor actually committed
> the crime. What evidence would federal prosecutors have that Oswald
> actually did what he claimed?
>
Oswald did not admit or claim. He challenged the discharge.
> BTW, as it turned out, even the KGB found Oswald's knowledge of radar
> operations to be worthless, not rising above textbook level. They thought
> he was a plant by U.S. intelligence.
>
Not worthless. Not relevant to their problem.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e91fcc78-3451-4627...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not very well read, are you yeuhd ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sgt.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm (Page 17)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Todd
> "Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b0574ba$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:NQ3Nm.38649$%j4.2...@newsfe18.iad...
>>>A 30 year Veteran of the CIA Disagrees with you Bill;
>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mitch wrote;
>
>> Murphy was not operationally involved with the U-2, and would be of
>> dubious value as a source for U-2 performance. The CIA declassified and
>> released it's official history of the U-2 program several years ago (it's
>> been discussed on this board a number of times before) which indicated
>> that the U-2 was capable of little more than 70,000 feet.
>>
>> BTW, the Murphy/Klein interview is an HSCA document (created in 1978),
>> not ARRB.
>
> I wrtite;
>
> As a 30 year veteran I think he had More information than you do.
30 years of experience at what exactly? A a pilot? A mission planner?
Aircraft camera technician? Staff soda jerk? Was he ever directly
associated wth the U-2 program, in a position to know what the airplane
was capable of?
> I provided an official document showing 90,000 feet for the U-2.
The only thing I see on your webiste is a quote from a guy in no
position to know and a reference to the A-12 (which replaced the U-2
and eveloved into the SR-71) misattributed to the U-2.
The CIA's own history of the U-2 program is in PDF format at:
> I got it from the ARRB;
>
> Why don't you tell me which HSCA Volume/Page it casme from?
Here is the original document:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=953&relPageId=5
The ARRB may have included it in their document collection, but it pre-dated
the ARRB by
more than a decade.
Anthony Marsh
>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>> send a red flag to everyone!
>
> He wasn't arrested because he wasn't a spy and didn't do anything
> criminal.
>
You are on the right track, but technically someone does not need to be
a spy to break the law. He offered to provide information, but never
went through with it.
> Simple.
>
yeuhd
> On 11/19/2009 8:46 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 6:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets& offer up
> >>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
> >>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> >>> to the USA.& arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
> >>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> >>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> >>> send a red flag to everyone!
>
> >> In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
> >> Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
> >> Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
> >> been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
> >> whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
> >> would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
>
> > Correct. Even a confession by the defendant cannot be accepted by a court
> > unless there is convincing evidence that the confessor actually committed
> > the crime. What evidence would federal prosecutors have that Oswald
> > actually did what he claimed?
>
> Oswald did not admit or claim. He challenged the discharge.
From a Foreign Service despatch by Edward Freers of the U.S. Embassy
in Moscow, Nov. 12, 1959, two days after Oswald visited and attempted
to renounce his American citizenship:
"Oswald offered the information that he had been a radar operator in
the Marine Corps and that he had voluntarily stated to unnamed Soviet
officials that as a Soviet citizen he would make known to them such
information concerning the Marine Corps and his speciality as he
possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special
interest."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0056b.htm
Anthony Marsh
>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>> send a red flag to everyone!
>
> Fact, no U-2 shot down before Oswald's defection, One U-2 shot out of the
Fact: Post Hoc Fallacy. Event B happens after Event A therefore Event A
caused Event B.
> sky after he defected. Someone should been on him, like white on rice!&
> btw didn't the U.S. have to change the codes for the U-2 flights
No. They changed airspace codes and recognition signs unrelated to the U-2.
> afterwards? what you said makes alot of sense,that he was just a small
> fish,& didn't have any info. that the ussr didn't have anyway, but how do
> we know that, for certain?
>
Because we had our own spies inside the USSR.
Anthony Marsh
>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>> send a red flag to everyone!
>
> In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
Depends on several variables. Some arrests are made without any evidence.
> Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
> Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
Not for the defection. The crime would have been violation of the National
Security Act by providing classified information to an enemy state.
> been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
> whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
> would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
>
Of course there would be evidence. From the room bugs recording Oswald
giving the KGB details about the U-2 or from a double agent who was part
of the debriefing.
yeuhd
> probably had some clue of the altitude U2's were flying at from Atsugi
> based up upon their requests for high altitude weather conditions. But
> this would not mean he would know it was a spy plane or that the USSR
> would find this information of interest.
>
> But it became a mute point.
Moot point.
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Rossley, I actually violated one of my own rules and actually bothered to
look at your website. Thank you for providing the support for what I said,
which is that a person cannot be charged with a crime without evidence and
suspiscions do not constitute evidence. You should go back and reread your
own document and take note of what it says in the middle of page 16.
"Mr. Murphy....Now again, that does not constitute proof, doesn't
constitute any breakthrough. It seemed to me to be strange."
The CIA had every reason to be suspiscious of what Oswald might have told
the Soviets and every reason not to believe that Nosenko was being
completely honest with them, but as Murphy stated, that does not
constitute proof. In the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested on
suspiscion. In the USA, the government is required to prove their case.
When Oswald returned to the United States, the only thing the US
government could have had on him was their suspiscions. They had no cause
to arrest Oswald.
tomnln
I don't see it in the HSCA Volumes ! ! ! (DO YOU?)
How's about>>> If you would like to debate ANYTHING I say, all you need do
is....
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b062e9c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
Yes, but a Military court doesn't need no damn evidence.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
(Page 17)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b061ca8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sgt.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/kerry_thornley___volume_xi1.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
(Page 17)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b061e12$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Official records show us that Oswald DID give the Russians Military
Secrets on the U-2.
Official records show us that six months later the "World" got it's First
insight into the U-2 when Powers was shot down over Russia.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d12023c-c601-4c0c...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 10:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a8e79a65-7330-413c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill <beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> > information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ),
> > I
> > would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he
> > returned
> > to the USA. & arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
> > interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> > all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> > send a red flag to everyone!
>
> In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
> Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
> Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
> been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
> whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
> would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I suggest you read the testimony of a 30 year CIA
> Officer>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm Page 17.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog wrote;
Rossley, I actually violated one of my own rules and actually bothered to
look at your website. Thank you for providing the support for what I said,
which is that a person cannot be charged with a crime without evidence and
suspiscions do not constitute evidence. You should go back and reread your
own document and take note of what it says in the middle of page 16.
"Mr. Murphy....Now again, that does not constitute proof, doesn't
constitute any breakthrough. It seemed to me to be strange."
The CIA had every reason to be suspiscious of what Oswald might have told
the Soviets and every reason not to believe that Nosenko was being
completely honest with them, but as Murphy stated, that does not
constitute proof. In the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested on
suspiscion. In the USA, the government is required to prove their case.
When Oswald returned to the United States, the only thing the US
government could have had on him was their suspiscions. They had no cause
to arrest Oswald.
I write;
During the time frame of 1959 through 1962 (and beyond) we were at the
height of the "Cold War".
Oswald served as a radar operator at 3 top secret bases housing the U-2's.
Oswald knew the "Height/Range/Speed of the U-2.
Oswald promised to give that information to the Russians.
Oswald reportedly "Defected" to Russia in Oct. 1959.
Francis Gary Powers U-2 was "shot down" on May 1, 1960.
bigdog thinks this information would NOT be of interest to the Ruaaians !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
(Page 17)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 10:50 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "bigdog"<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a8e79a65-7330-413c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>>> send a red flag to everyone!
>>
>> In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
>> Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
>> Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
>> been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
>> whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
>> would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I suggest you read the testimony of a 30 year CIA Officer>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm Page 17.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rossley, I actually violated one of my own rules and actually bothered to
> look at your website. Thank you for providing the support for what I said,
> which is that a person cannot be charged with a crime without evidence and
> suspiscions do not constitute evidence. You should go back and reread your
> own document and take note of what it says in the middle of page 16.
>
> "Mr. Murphy....Now again, that does not constitute proof, doesn't
> constitute any breakthrough. It seemed to me to be strange."
>
> The CIA had every reason to be suspiscious of what Oswald might have told
> the Soviets and every reason not to believe that Nosenko was being
> completely honest with them, but as Murphy stated, that does not
> constitute proof. In the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested on
> suspiscion. In the USA, the government is required to prove their case.
Not 100% true all the time.
> When Oswald returned to the United States, the only thing the US
> government could have had on him was their suspiscions. They had no cause
> to arrest Oswald.
>
They downgraded his discharge based only on suspicion.
Anthony Marsh
That was the bait. The Soviets didn't bite.
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0056b.htm
>
tomnln
On Nov 19, 10:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a8e79a65-7330-413c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill <beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> > information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ),
> > I
> > would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he
> > returned
> > to the USA. & arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
> > interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> > all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> > send a red flag to everyone!
>
> In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
> Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
> Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
> been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
> whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
> would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I suggest you read the testimony of a 30 year CIA
> Officer>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm Page 17.
>
bigdog wrote;
Rossley, I actually violated one of my own rules and actually bothered to
look at your website. Thank you for providing the support for what I said,
which is that a person cannot be charged with a crime without evidence and
suspiscions do not constitute evidence. You should go back and reread your
own document and take note of what it says in the middle of page 16.
"Mr. Murphy....Now again, that does not constitute proof, doesn't
constitute any breakthrough. It seemed to me to be strange."
The CIA had every reason to be suspiscious of what Oswald might have told
the Soviets and every reason not to believe that Nosenko was being
completely honest with them, but as Murphy stated, that does not
constitute proof. In the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested on
suspiscion. In the USA, the government is required to prove their case.
When Oswald returned to the United States, the only thing the US
government could have had on him was their suspiscions. They had no cause
to arrest Oswald.
By Golly ! ! !
Looks like Francis Gary Powers's U-2 Pane did NOT go Down in Russia 6
months after Oswald got there ! ! !
Anthony Marsh
> WRONG again Marsh;
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
> (Page 17)
>
You say wrong and then your citation proves me right.
Mitch Todd
> The ARRB "Released" it;
I don't remember it as part of the ARRB's report.
> I don't see it in the HSCA Volumes ! ! ! (DO YOU?)
No, but that doesn't mean that it's not an HSCA dcoument.
> How's about>>> If you would like to debate ANYTHING I say, all you need
> do is....
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
I thought we were already debating right here? Or is this some kind of
double-secret debate?
And to think I even turned you onto a particulary informative
O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T at no extra charge.
Bill
I guess we will never get to the truth of the JFK assassination,
because even if our cia had spies in the USSR, & Our leader is murder
in broad daylight, the cia & the ussr, would make Oswald look like a
disgruntled, useless, lone nut, with no intelligent info. Or were they
going to say," yea, we were following this guy ever since he defected,
we knew he talked and gave secrets to the soviets but we let him back
in the US, to find any spy rings, in New Orleans, or Dallas area."
on another note, i enjoy your post, you get to point with spot on
accuracy, I consider you to be in the class of what i call a " Word
Smith" however I'm not, writing is not what i do, so you might have to
read my post a second time. Sorry, thanks
Bill
bigdog
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d12023c-c601-4c0c...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 10:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a8e79a65-7330-413c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill <beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> > > information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ),
> > > I
> > > would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he
> > > returned
> > > to the USA. & arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
> > > interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> > > all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> > > send a red flag to everyone!
>
> > In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
> > Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
> > Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
> > been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
> > whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
> > would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > I suggest you read the testimony of a 30 year CIA
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rossley, where did you get that idea? Try rereading my posts. Show me
where I said the Russians wouldn't be interested. I didn't say anything
that even remotely suggests that. I simply stated that Oswald could not be
arrested because he was suspected of a crime. What does that have to do
with whether or not the Russians would be interested in anything he could
tell them?
PS. Is Anton Batey still ignoring your requests for a follow up debate?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Downgrading a discharge is not the same as arresting someone and charging
them with a crime. The central question of this thread is why wasn't
Oswald arrested. The answer is very simple. The government had no evidence
he had committed a crime.
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d12023c-c601-4c0c...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 19, 10:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a8e79a65-7330-413c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill <beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> > > information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ),
> > > I
> > > would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he
> > > returned
> > > to the USA. & arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
> > > interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> > > all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> > > send a red flag to everyone!
>
> > In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
> > Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
> > Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
> > been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
> > whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
> > would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > I suggest you read the testimony of a 30 year CIA
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> bigdog wrote;
>
> Rossley, I actually violated one of my own rules and actually bothered to
> look at your website. Thank you for providing the support for what I said,
> which is that a person cannot be charged with a crime without evidence and
> suspiscions do not constitute evidence. You should go back and reread your
> own document and take note of what it says in the middle of page 16.
>
> "Mr. Murphy....Now again, that does not constitute proof, doesn't
> constitute any breakthrough. It seemed to me to be strange."
>
> The CIA had every reason to be suspiscious of what Oswald might have told
> the Soviets and every reason not to believe that Nosenko was being
> completely honest with them, but as Murphy stated, that does not
> constitute proof. In the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested on
> suspiscion. In the USA, the government is required to prove their case.
> When Oswald returned to the United States, the only thing the US
> government could have had on him was their suspiscions. They had no cause
> to arrest Oswald.
>
> By Golly ! ! !
>
> Looks like Francis Gary Powers's U-2 Pane did NOT go Down in Russia 6
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rossley, do you ever bother to read the posts you reply to? You're
bringing up issues that are irrelevant to the question. No wonder Anton
Batey doesn't want to put you back on the air.
tomnln
The Burdon of Proof is on You !
I'm the one who claimed it was from the ARRB.
I "DID" Prove it.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
I didn't think you had the knowledge to debate me Live ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b07...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
The Burdon of Proof is on You !
I'm the one who claimed it was from the ARRB.
I "DID" Prove it.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
I didn't think you had the knowledge to debate me Live ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b07...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
curtjester1
> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> send a red flag to everyone!
Because it would have implicated the CIA in an embarrassing position for
having him sent there in the first place?, and of course if they were
involved in JFK's murder and had controlling interests in its
investigation, it would have to be bypassed?
Oswald and The CIA (Otto Otepka) - Previously posted in 2008
Otto Otepka was head of the State Department's Office of Security (SY) and
responsible for issuing or denying security clearances for State
Department personnel. He took his job very seriously and, in 1958,
received an award for Meritorious Service from Secretary of State, John
Foster Dulles (brother of CIA Director Allen Dulles) for his attention to
detail, loyalty, devotion to duty, and sound judgment.
By October, 1960 eighteen US Citizens had "defected" to the Soviet Union
and came to Otepka's attention at the State Department. He *informally*
asked the CIA and military intelligence to identify which these
"defectors" were double agents working for the US but, after receiving no
response, formally requested the information.
On October 25 Hugh Cumming, of the State Department's Intelligence and
Research Bureau, wrote a letter to CIA Deputy Director of Plans (DDP)
Richard Bissell requesting detailed information on the eighteen
"defectors." Bissell turned the request over to James Angleton's
Counterintelligence (CI) staff and Sheffield Edwards' Office of Security
(OS), *but not to the Soviet Russia (SR) division which had jurisdiction
in dealing with the "defectors," including Oswald. This is confirmation
that Angelton's CI staff was involved with false "defectors," including
Oswald.* Angleton's CI/SIG chief, Birch D. O'Neal, prepared the responses
on behalf of counterintelligence while Robert Bennerman handed the request
to members of his staff in the CIA's Office of Security that included
Bruce Solie, Morse Allen, and Paul Gaynor. Gaynor was head of the
Security Research Staff where *James McCord, of future Watergate fame*,
worked.
Bennerman specifically instructed Marguerite Stevens, in the research
staff (OS), to provide information *only on American "defectors" other
than Lee *Harvey* Oswald* (and six other "defectors"), explaining that
Otepka already had information on these individuals. The Office of
Security then coordinated their response with Angleton's CI staff before
sending it to Richard Bissell (DDP) in late November for his signature.
When Otepka finally received the CIA's response at the State Department,
the 10th name on the list was Lee Harvey Oswald with the notation
"SECRET."
On December 9, 1960, a few days after providing information on "defectors"
to the State Department, Angleton's trusted associate Ann Egerter, of the
Special Investigation Group (SIG), opened a "201" file on Lee *Henry*
Oswald (201-289248). *This file was opened 13 months *after* Oswald
"defected" to the Soviet Union and 6 months *after* the memo was written
about the CIA's interest in the *Harvey* story."*
It appears that if not for Otepka's investigation into American
"defectors", the CIA would never have opened a file on Oswald. *This
indicates that Lee *Harvey* Oswald and his activities were so sensitive
that only Angleton, and perhaps SIG , knew the truth about Oswald which
they held only in memory.* Prior to President Kennedy's assassination, Lee
*Henry* Oswald's "201" file was held within Angleton's Special
Investigations Group (SIG).
NOTE: *During Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union cover sheets of Oswald
documents contained the notation "CI/OPS," which is an abbreviation
"Counterintelligence Operations."
#SIG member Ann Egerter was asked by the HSCA if a CIA asset or agent
would have a "201" file and if it would contain material of an operational
nature. She replied, "I assume that person would have a 201 file but it
would be a restricted 201 file and *it might even be a false 201 file, not
having anything in it. Everything would be held by the case
officer...operational material is not filed in 201 files...It would be
held by the operations officer, case officer."*
#*Angleton's deputy Ray Rocca said, "The key documents in establishing a
fiduciary relationship would not be in the 201. They would be in a
separate file held by the desk and whoever was handling the individual."*
#*Former CIA employedd Phillip Agee said, "The 201 file is divided into
two parts which are stored separately for maximum secutiry. One part
contains true name documents while the other contains operational
information."
#*The obvious question: "Who was Oswald's case officer?"*
Soon after trying to pry information on the eighteen American "defectors"
from the CIA, Otto Otepka's duties began to change and soon his position
as Chief of Security at The State Department appeared to be in jeopardy.
Even though head had received awards for Meritorious Service only two
years earlier. Otepka soon found that his access to sensitive cases was
limited. Stories began to appear in the press that the State Department,
and specically Otepka's Office of Securiy, would soon experience a
"reduction in force." Otepka was soon asked by his superior to transfer
to another division within the State Department and take a different job
but refused.
*NOTE: James Angleton had developed a fearsome reputation within the
agency and was known to expose agents he no longer trusted. CIA career
officer John Whitten (aka John Scelso) told the HSCA, "Several times in my
career I was appointed by Helms or Karamessines to investigate or look
into investigations where Angleton was running....They always told him.
And when they say, now, you go tell Angleton you are going to do this. I
used to go in fingering my insurance policy, notifying my next of kin."*
*It is reasonable to speculate that Otepka's problems originated with
Angleton after he began pressing the CIA for information relating to
"defectors", including Oswald. A phone call from Angleton to CIA Director
Allen Dulles, and a subsequent call from Dulles to his brother, Secretary
of State John Foster Dulles , could easily have set the wheels in motion
to "neutralize" Otepka and stop his investigation at the State Department
(the Eishenhower administration remained in the White House until late
January, 1961).*
Otepka, *for unexplained reasons*, was called before the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee, which was chaired by Senator James Eastland and
Senator Thomas Dodd. He was questioned at length by Jules (Jay) Sourwine,
the subommittee's Chief Counsel, about procedures established by Otepka
for issuing clearances for State Department applicants. Sourwine and
Otepka soon became friends and discussed at length a proposal by the
subcommittee to loosen security clearance procedures for State Department
personnel.
Sourwine soon realized that the loosening of security procedures was not
the only reason the subcommittee was focusing their attention on Otepka.
In an attempt to learn what was really happening at the State Department,
behind the scenes, Sourwine began to informally question Otepka. But
Otepka, following protocol and procedure, told Sourwine that if he wanted
to question him further he would have to question him before the
committee.
When the subcommittee questioned Otepka they asked if had been subjected
to any recent "reprisals" from the State *Department, which he denied, and
defended the department's actions. A short while later* hidden listening
devices were placed in Otepka's office and a former employee of the
National Security Agency (NSA), David Belisle, was assigned to work with
him. Otepka's secretary was replaced by an individual who spied on him,
his house was placed under surveillance, and his trash was inspected
daily.
*QUESTION: Which agency of the US government has the capability and the
political muscle to electronically bug the Office of Security at the State
Department?*
One evening Otepka was working late in his office and went out for dinner.
Upon returing he found David Belisle and an NSA employee in his office,
but when he asked for a reason for their intrusion *neither man gave a
rational explanation for being there.*
Otepka soon found that someone had drilled a hole in his safe and, with a
tiny mirror, had determined the combination and removed the contents.
According to Otepka the only sensitive material in the safe was his
uncompleted study of American "defectors" to the Soviet Union, *which
included Lee *Harvey* Oswald. Fred Traband, who also worked in the Office
of Security ate the State Department, told the Eastman Committee that it
was Otepka's boss, John Francis Reilly, who searched, who searched
Otepka's files and his safe.
*NOTE: Three weeks before the assassination of President Kennedy, Otto
Otepka was ousted from the State Department, but had not yet determined if
Lee *Harvey* Oswald was an agent of the US Government. Following the
assassination OTepka told journalist Sarah McClendon that he knew who had
JFK killed, but declined comment in public.*
pgs. 306-08 Harvey and Lee, How the CIA framed Oswald, J. Armstrong.
* = Italicizing
CJ
jfk...@gmail.com
> On 11/18/2009 4:39 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> > it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets& offer up
> > information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>
> The Soviets did not need any more information about the U-2. All they
> needed was a better plan of attack and to coordinate their efforts better.
>
> > would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>
> But he was given a less than honorable discharge from the Marines for
> offering the Soviets classified information.
[...]
But changing LNO's discharge status was merely a slap on the wrist
compared to what could have, and should have happened.
jfk...@gmail.com
> On Nov 19, 6:18 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> > > information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
> > > would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> > > interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> > > all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> > > send a red flag to everyone!
>
> > Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
> > Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
> > been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
> > whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
> > would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
>
> unless there is convincing evidence that the confessor actually committed
> the crime. What evidence would federal prosecutors have that Oswald
> actually did what he claimed?
>
> operations to be worthless, not rising above textbook level. They thought
> he was a plant by U.S. intelligence.
That may depend on which part of KGB you are referencing; the outer
KGB which claimed LHO was of no consequence or the inner KGB which
kept track of him and used him.
jfk...@gmail.com
> "Bill" <beatle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9503105a-4061-4b56...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 3:39 pm, Bill <beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets & offer up
> > information about U-2 flights, & one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
> > would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> > to the USA. & arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
> > interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> > all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> > send a red flag to everyone!
>
> btw didn't the U.S. have to change the codes for the U-2 flights
> we know that, for certain?
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sgt.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
Even Powers believed LHO had something to do with his U2 being shot
down. At the least, it is a remarkable coincidence that LHO just
happened to be in USSR when this happened.
Anthony Marsh
>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>> send a red flag to everyone!
>
> Because it would have implicated the CIA in an embarrassing position for
> having him sent there in the first place?, and of course if they were
> involved in JFK's murder and had controlling interests in its
> investigation, it would have to be bypassed?
>
Not my theory, but someone has a theory that Oswald was working for the
CIA and his job was to defect to Russia and intentionally leak important
information on the U-2 so that they could shoot it down, to provoke an
incident and heighten Cold War tensions, possibly to derail the treaty
summit.
Anthony Marsh
Of course. But the first point is that someone did something about
Oswald's defection. And evidence is not necessary to convict. Oswald was
not arrested because he did not go through with his offer.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 20, 11:36 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> BOTTOM POST;
>>
>> "bigdog"<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6d12023c-c601-4c0c...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 19, 10:50 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "bigdog"<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:a8e79a65-7330-413c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ),
>>>> I
>>>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he
>>>> returned
Now you are changing your tune. First you said he could not be arrested
because they had no evidence that he had committed a crime, and now you
say that they could not arrest him because they didn't even suspect he
committed a crime. The Marine Corps suspected that he committed a crime
and court martialed him. Police arrest people every day on suspicion. The
DPD arrested Oswald on suspicion.
Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
Not when they already knew it. Oswald had nothing new or unique.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4b061ca8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 11/19/2009 8:30 PM, jas wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 2:39 pm, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets& offer up
>>>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2
>>>> ), I
>>>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he
>>>> returned
>>>> to the USA.& arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
>>>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this,
>>>> after
>>>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>>>> send a red flag to everyone!
>>>
>>> He wasn't arrested because he wasn't a spy and didn't do anything
>>> criminal.
>>>
>>
>> You are on the right track, but technically someone does not need to
>> be a spy to break the law. He offered to provide information, but
>> never went through with it.
>>
>>> Simple.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Official records show us that Oswald DID give the Russians Military
> Secrets on the U-2.
>
Wrong.
Anthony Marsh
> Oswald KNEW the "Height/Speed/Distance" the U-2 was capable of.
>
So what? The Soviets knew that even before the CIA flew over Russia.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b084794$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh wrote;
> Of course. But the first point is that someone did something about
> Oswald's defection. And evidence is not necessary to convict. Oswald was
> not arrested because he did not go through with his offer.
I write;
Marsh thinks the Russians would have repossessed "Boardwalk/Park Place" from
Oswald
if he reneged on his offer to supply them with U-2 Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
(Page 17)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b087a2a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mitch Todd
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> YOU are the one who claimed it was a HSCA document.
> The Burdon of Proof is on You !
>
> I'm the one who claimed it was from the ARRB.
> I "DID" Prove it.
I already posted the link. Here it is again:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=953&relPageId=5
It's the first page of the interview of David P Murphy by Kenneth Klein.
It's dated
Wedensday, August 9, 1978, a little early for the ARRB.
Oh, and "U.S. House of Representatives John F Kennedy Subcommittee of the
Select Committee on Assassinations" is displayed prominently at the top of
the first
page. Perhaps you missed it?
tomnln
PROVE IT !
PROVE IT !
PROVE IT !
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b087f49$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
So, what do you think of Murphy's statement on page 17 that the U-2 came
in at 90,000 Feet?
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b08d7af$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
curtjester1
> On 11/21/2009 2:07 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On 18 Nov, 16:39, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets& offer up
> >> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
> >> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
> >> to the USA.& arrest him for spying. I read that the Russian were not
> >> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
> >> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
> >> send a red flag to everyone!
>
> > Because it would have implicated the CIA in an embarrassing position for
> > having him sent there in the first place?, and of course if they were
> > involved in JFK's murder and had controlling interests in its
> > investigation, it would have to be bypassed?
>
> Not my theory, but someone has a theory that Oswald was working for the
> CIA and his job was to defect to Russia and intentionally leak important
> information on the U-2 so that they could shoot it down, to provoke an
> incident and heighten Cold War tensions, possibly to derail the treaty
> summit.
>
>
I think all theories are worthy to an extent (and this seems like a good
scenario to me), especially if you can't really prove them wrong. It
would be a perfect false flag operation. There would be no Soviet Union
if not for the invention of the Federal Reserve. 'Free money' made wars
become easy and financiable instead of worrying about budgets and trying
to solve through diplomacy. Money was provided to overthrough the Russian
Monarchy and let the Bolsheviks's and the birth of Communism take place
via western monies. False flags and 'the enemy' were constant after that.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 9:51 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Bill"<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9503105a-4061-4b56...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 18, 3:39 pm, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>>> send a red flag to everyone!
>>
>> Fact, no U-2 shot down before Oswald's defection, One U-2 shot out of the
>> sky after he defected. Someone should been on him, like white on rice!&
>> btw didn't the U.S. have to change the codes for the U-2 flights
>> afterwards? what you said makes alot of sense,that he was just a small
>> fish,& didn't have any info. that the ussr didn't have anyway, but how do
>> we know that, for certain?
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sgt.htm
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/lt%20DONOVAN.htm
>
> Even Powers believed LHO had something to do with his U2 being shot
> down. At the least, it is a remarkable coincidence that LHO just
> happened to be in USSR when this happened.
>
Not really.
And Powers was just guessing. He didn't know how much Oswald knew.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 7:46 pm, yeuhd<needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 6:18 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 4:39 pm, Bill<beatle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> information about U-2 flights,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ), I
>>>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when he returned
>>>> interested in Oswald's knowledge of U-2's but how do we know this, after
>>>> all no U-2 were shot down before Oswald's defection, this alone should
>>>> send a red flag to everyone!
>>
>>> In order to be arrested, there has to be evidence you committed a crime.
>>> Just what crime could Oswald have been charged with? Defecting to the
>>> Soviet Union was not a crime. Idiotic, yes. Criminal, no. There might have
>>> been a suspiscion that Oswald gave the Soviets information but I'm sure
>>> whatever he told them didn't get shared with the US government so there
>>> would be no evidence that Oswald had done anything wrong.
>>
>> Correct. Even a confession by the defendant cannot be accepted by a court
>> unless there is convincing evidence that the confessor actually committed
>> the crime. What evidence would federal prosecutors have that Oswald
>> actually did what he claimed?
>>
>> BTW, as it turned out, even the KGB found Oswald's knowledge of radar
>> operations to be worthless, not rising above textbook level. They thought
>> he was a plant by U.S. intelligence.
>
> That may depend on which part of KGB you are referencing; the outer
> KGB which claimed LHO was of no consequence or the inner KGB which
> kept track of him and used him.
>
True slightly. The inner KGB watched Oswald closely, but concluded he
was worthless. They did not use him.
Anthony Marsh
Could have, but not SHOULD have. Just boasting that you are going to rob
a bank is not as serious as actually robbing the bank.
Mitch Todd
>
> So, what do you think of Murphy's statement on page 17 that the U-2 came
> in at 90,000 Feet?
I think that he was either informed by the rumor mill on this particular
subject or he was confusing the capabilities of the A-12 (which could
almost get to 90,000) with the U-2.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/U-2.htm
Don't forget this Golden opportunity>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b09...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> Odds are that a 30 year veteran of the CIA Knows more than you do ! ! !
>
Wrong.
Dolan is wrong all the time as well.
Mitch Todd
> Odds are that a 30 year veteran of the CIA Knows more than you do ! ! !
Tony beat me to the Dolan reference, so I'll leave him to bask in the
glory.
As noted, the CIA compiled an internal history of it's involvement with
the U-2, which indicates the U-2's service ceiling was nowhere near
90,000. You'd think that someone who so enamored of official documentation
would look into it.
Anthony Marsh
> "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote
>
>> Odds are that a 30 year veteran of the CIA Knows more than you do ! ! !
>
> Tony beat me to the Dolan reference, so I'll leave him to bask in the
> glory.
>
> As noted, the CIA compiled an internal history of it's involvement with
> the U-2, which indicates the U-2's service ceiling was nowhere near
> 90,000. You'd think that someone who so enamored of official documentation
> would look into it.
>
>
Sure, nowhere near 90,000 in 1960 which is the only time of importance.
Someone remembering what the flight profiles were years later can
mistakenly telescope that memory into what he thought it was in 1960. But
of course I still like to make fun of Dolan's claim that it couldn't even
get over 70,000 feet. Powers himself testified that he came in at 74,000
feet and dropped to 68,000 feet to start photographing. The correct height
for photographing is governed by the inner workings of that particular
camera for proper focal length. One can fly somewhat higher to escape
trouble. At that time the U-2 pilots could safely look down at Migs trying
their best, but unable to get above 60,000 feet and not being able to
shoot down the intruder. If the actual feet were not important then Powers
would have had no reason to lie to the Soviets about what his actual
altitude was. NB: service ceiling is not the same thing as maximum
ceiling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems to me that after he defected to the soviets& offer up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information about U-2 flights
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He offered US "radar" information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,& one U-2 gets shot down ( Power's U-2 ),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I once compared when Oswald defected to when Powers was shot
>>>>>>>>>>>> down. Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably had some clue of the altitude U2's were flying at from
>>>>>>>>>>>> Atsugi
>>>>>>>>>>>> based up upon their requests for high altitude weather
>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions. But
>>>>>>>>>>>> this would not mean he would know it was a spy plane or that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> USSR
>>>>>>>>>>>> would find this information of interest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it became a mute point. Had Oswald told the Russians the
>>>>>>>>>>>> altitude the
>>>>>>>>>>>> U2 was operating at, this would not have given the Russians time
>>>>>>>>>>>> to build,
>>>>>>>>>>>> test, manufacture, and distribute a new SAM between the date Lee
>>>>>>>>>>>> arrived
>>>>>>>>>>>> in Moscow and the day Powers was shot down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Russians already had this SAM in the pipeline well before
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lee's
>>>>>>>>>>>> arrival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would think someone from the cia would be waiting for Lee when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he returned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the USA.& arrest him for spying.