Oswald in CIA Eyes
jeffersonm
My new book "Our Man in Mexico" offers a new way of looking at the
assassination of President Kennedy. It does this by not trying to offer
another definitive interpretation of the Dallas tragedy but rather to
pursue a more limited goal: to describe what the assassination story
looked like to a high-ranking CIA officer who was close to the events of
1963.
Win Scott, station chief in Mexico City, received surveillance reports on
Oswald six weeks before Kennedy was killed; he queried Washington about
his background; and he filed the initial reports within hours of Kennedy's
murder. He was the leader of the investigation of Oswald's visit to Mexico
City; he met personally with Warren Commission staff. He maintained a file
on Oswald and the assassination for next five years. And he wrote a
chapter about Oswald in his unpublished memoir which the CIA seized upon
his death in 1971.
The book offers number of revelations of interest to the group.
--Lee Harvey Oswald passed through four CIA intelligence collection
operations in the last 100 days of his life. Two of these operations were
run by Win Scott and two were run by his good friend David Phillips. The
story is told for the first time in Chapter 14, "A Blip Named Oswald."
--Evidence is mounting that senior CIA officials were running an
authorized covert operation involving Oswald at the time. A cable dated
October 10, 1963 indicates this operation was a Cuba-related
counterintelligence operation. Win Scott was NOT one of these officers
involved in the operation. He was, as Chapter 15 documents in some detail,
"Out of the Loop."
--Win's assistant Anne Goodpasture said under oath that she gave a tape
recording of Oswald to Win Scott within hours of the assassination,
refuting the CIA's longstanding claim that no tape survived. Goodpasture
repeated the story to me in an interview. The tape was probably destroyed
in 1986.
--Win Scott rejected a key finding of the Warren Commission--that the CIA
had not known of Oswald's contact with the Cuban consulate in Mexico City
until after Kennedy was killed. Win Scott knew this was not true and said
so in his unpublished memoir. Scott was warned to keep his opinions to
himself, a story told in Chapter 18, "An Anonymous Warning."
As I say in the book, these facts do not add up to proof of a JFK
conspiracy.
But they do add up to proof that Win Scott, a deeply conservative man and
a CIA loyalist, did not believe the Warren Commission or the CIA's
official stories about Oswald in Mexico City. He believed the Soviets were
behind Oswald.
You can learn more about the book (and buy a copy) at OurManInMexico.com.
Anthony Marsh
> My new book "Our Man in Mexico" offers a new way of looking at the
> assassination of President Kennedy. It does this by not trying to offer
> another definitive interpretation of the Dallas tragedy but rather to
> pursue a more limited goal: to describe what the assassination story
> looked like to a high-ranking CIA officer who was close to the events of
> 1963.
>
> Win Scott, station chief in Mexico City, received surveillance reports on
> Oswald six weeks before Kennedy was killed; he queried Washington about
> his background; and he filed the initial reports within hours of Kennedy's
> murder. He was the leader of the investigation of Oswald's visit to Mexico
> City; he met personally with Warren Commission staff. He maintained a file
> on Oswald and the assassination for next five years. And he wrote a
> chapter about Oswald in his unpublished memoir which the CIA seized upon
> his death in 1971.
>
> The book offers number of revelations of interest to the group.
>
A few things are missing and I wonder if they are in your book.
> --Lee Harvey Oswald passed through four CIA intelligence collection
> operations in the last 100 days of his life. Two of these operations were
> run by Win Scott and two were run by his good friend David Phillips. The
> story is told for the first time in Chapter 14, "A Blip Named Oswald."
>
The CIA used the Mexican police to put Oswald on physical surveillance
while he was in Mexico, teams of three following him around and reporting
daily.
> --Evidence is mounting that senior CIA officials were running an
> authorized covert operation involving Oswald at the time. A cable dated
> October 10, 1963 indicates this operation was a Cuba-related
> counterintelligence operation. Win Scott was NOT one of these officers
> involved in the operation. He was, as Chapter 15 documents in some detail,
> "Out of the Loop."
>
Evidence is mounting that the MEXI CIA station was running operations
against the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Embassy to try to plant agents,
turn agents and impersonate walk-ins.
> --Win's assistant Anne Goodpasture said under oath that she gave a tape
> recording of Oswald to Win Scott within hours of the assassination,
> refuting the CIA's longstanding claim that no tape survived. Goodpasture
> repeated the story to me in an interview. The tape was probably destroyed
> in 1986.
>
Win Scott knew that the man in the photo was not Oswald and had a theory
about who he was.
John McAdams
>
>My new book "Our Man in Mexico" offers a new way of looking at the
>assassination of President Kennedy. It does this by not trying to offer
>another definitive interpretation of the Dallas tragedy but rather to
>pursue a more limited goal: to describe what the assassination story
>looked like to a high-ranking CIA officer who was close to the events of
>1963.
>
>Win Scott, station chief in Mexico City, received surveillance reports on
>Oswald six weeks before Kennedy was killed;
This was triggered by Oswald visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies,
right?
>he queried Washington about
>his background; and he filed the initial reports within hours of Kennedy's
>murder. He was the leader of the investigation of Oswald's visit to Mexico
>City; he met personally with Warren Commission staff. He maintained a file
>on Oswald and the assassination for next five years. And he wrote a
>chapter about Oswald in his unpublished memoir which the CIA seized upon
>his death in 1971.
>
But which is now, you might add, available.
>The book offers number of revelations of interest to the group.
>
>--Lee Harvey Oswald passed through four CIA intelligence collection
>operations in the last 100 days of his life. Two of these operations were
>run by Win Scott and two were run by his good friend David Phillips. The
>story is told for the first time in Chapter 14, "A Blip Named Oswald."
>
Anything spooky about this?
After all, it *was* the job of the CIA to keep tabs on people who went
to the Cuban and Soviet embassies, right?
>--Evidence is mounting that senior CIA officials were running an
>authorized covert operation involving Oswald at the time. A cable dated
>October 10, 1963 indicates this operation was a Cuba-related
>counterintelligence operation. Win Scott was NOT one of these officers
>involved in the operation. He was, as Chapter 15 documents in some detail,
>"Out of the Loop."
>
And what evidence is there?
>--Win's assistant Anne Goodpasture said under oath that she gave a tape
>recording of Oswald to Win Scott within hours of the assassination,
>refuting the CIA's longstanding claim that no tape survived. Goodpasture
>repeated the story to me in an interview. The tape was probably destroyed
>in 1986.
>
Aren't you playing on language here?
Did the CIA say "no tapes survived," or that "*the tapes* didn't
survive?"
It's long been known that Coleman and Slawson heard at least one tape
from Win Scott.
But saying that "the tapes" were destroyed does not rule out a tape
here or there surviving.
There have to be a few dozen times a day when, in business or
government, "the files" are destroyed, but this or that file has been
checked out, has been misfiled, or some such.
You don't buy that business about "the tapes" being sent to Dallas and
not containing Oswald's voice, do you?
I know that some DC area conspiracist bamboozled a poor AP reporter on
that one!
>--Win Scott rejected a key finding of the Warren Commission--that the CIA
>had not known of Oswald's contact with the Cuban consulate in Mexico City
>until after Kennedy was killed.
I'm not following this?
Are we talking about the Mexico City station, or is the issue where
Langley knew?
>Win Scott knew this was not true and said
>so in his unpublished memoir. Scott was warned to keep his opinions to
>himself, a story told in Chapter 18, "An Anonymous Warning."
>
>As I say in the book, these facts do not add up to proof of a JFK
>conspiracy.
>
How would you deal with the criticism that you book is like Newman's:
lots of spooky music, but no real proof of anything?
Just being provocative here. :-)
>But they do add up to proof that Win Scott, a deeply conservative man and
>a CIA loyalist, did not believe the Warren Commission or the CIA's
>official stories about Oswald in Mexico City. He believed the Soviets were
>behind Oswald.
>
Which proves what? LBJ thought Castro was.
Are those things proof that the CIA killed Kennedy?
>You can learn more about the book (and buy a copy) at OurManInMexico.com.
I'll certainly see that Marquette's library has a copy, and put it on
my list of books that my students can write a report on.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 18 Mar 2008 20:36:40 -0400, jeffersonm <mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My new book "Our Man in Mexico" offers a new way of looking at the
>> assassination of President Kennedy. It does this by not trying to offer
>> another definitive interpretation of the Dallas tragedy but rather to
>> pursue a more limited goal: to describe what the assassination story
>> looked like to a high-ranking CIA officer who was close to the events of
>> 1963.
>>
>> Win Scott, station chief in Mexico City, received surveillance reports on
>> Oswald six weeks before Kennedy was killed;
>
> This was triggered by Oswald visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies,
> right?
>
Yes. Only the surveillance when Oswald was in Mexico City.
>> he queried Washington about
>> his background; and he filed the initial reports within hours of Kennedy's
>> murder. He was the leader of the investigation of Oswald's visit to Mexico
>> City; he met personally with Warren Commission staff. He maintained a file
>> on Oswald and the assassination for next five years. And he wrote a
>> chapter about Oswald in his unpublished memoir which the CIA seized upon
>> his death in 1971.
>>
>
> But which is now, you might add, available.
>
>
>> The book offers number of revelations of interest to the group.
>>
>> --Lee Harvey Oswald passed through four CIA intelligence collection
>> operations in the last 100 days of his life. Two of these operations were
>> run by Win Scott and two were run by his good friend David Phillips. The
>> story is told for the first time in Chapter 14, "A Blip Named Oswald."
>>
>
> Anything spooky about this?
>
> After all, it *was* the job of the CIA to keep tabs on people who went
> to the Cuban and Soviet embassies, right?
>
And it was the obligation of the CIA to communicate to other agencies.
Why didn't they alert the Secret Service? Why didn't they put Oswald's
name on a Watch List?
Peter Fokes
I received my copy today.
I'm almost finished reading "Young Edgar" by Kenneth Ackerman, so I'll
likely get started on Our Man In Mexico this weekend.
I'll keep this exchange between Jeff and John in mind as I read the
book.
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
curtjester1
Win Scott had all this stuff documented, and when he died, Angleton
raided his home and took the confidential stuff. I believe his wife
did copy some of the stuff and held on to it.
The fact is, Oswald was in Mexico on numerous occasions, and in order
to be set-up, had to have many in the CIA pulling the strings like
Phillips. Harvey and Lee documents this by John Armstrong, and the
Mexico City chapter is for reading from online, called 'Pandora's
Box'.
CJ
aeffects
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:29:43 -0500, John McAdams
>
>
>
Jefferson Morley responds.... below
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12288&st=0
Texextra
It appears to me that the United States (or segment(s) thereof) found
something about Oswald very embarrassing. Until we understand more
about what that was, I don't think we can understand the assassination
very well. Such knowledge might or might not implicate an assassin(s).
At the least, it would be helpful to better understand Oswald.
Stug...@aol.com
Jane Roman, confronted with October cables showing that information at CIA
headquarters was not relayed to the Mexico City Station re: Oswald, saying
it was indicative of a keen pre-assassination interest in Oswald that
could be operational. The same person admitting that she was signing off
on cables (as the authenticating officer) that she knew to be untrue.
And yes, John, one can argue that this was a bureaucratic mistake. But it
is only in the bizarro world of this forum that when the very bureaucrat
involved has the option of saying "this was clearly a simple bureaucratic
mistake" OR "I am part of a fraud built around the eventual assassin of
the President", that said bureaucrat would favor the latter option if the
former option is really true.
Also, Jeff interviewed another senior CIA officer about the cables. This
officer speculated about a bureaucratic error but was taken aback at the
number of high level CIA officials being CC'd on someone who supposedly
was a virtual nobody to the agency.
-Stu
John McAdams
>>>And what evidence is there?
>
>Jane Roman, confronted with October cables showing that information at CIA
>headquarters was not relayed to the Mexico City Station re: Oswald, saying
>it was indicative of a keen pre-assassination interest in Oswald that
>could be operational.
Huh? If there was a "keen pre-assassination interest," there should
be a paper trail to support that.
But there isn't.
>The same person admitting that she was signing off
>on cables (as the authenticating officer) that she knew to be untrue.
>And yes, John, one can argue that this was a bureaucratic mistake. But it
>is only in the bizarro world of this forum that when the very bureaucrat
>involved has the option of saying "this was clearly a simple bureaucratic
>mistake" OR "I am part of a fraud built around the eventual assassin of
>the President", that said bureaucrat would favor the latter option if the
>former option is really true.
>
Didn't Roman renounce Morley's statements about this interview?
>Also, Jeff interviewed another senior CIA officer about the cables. This
>officer speculated about a bureaucratic error but was taken aback at the
>number of high level CIA officials being CC'd on someone who supposedly
>was a virtual nobody to the agency.
>
If he was a somebody, where is the paper trail?
Oh, there is a paper trial, but one that would be expected for
somebody who defected to the USSR.
Then later, a more extensive trail that would be appropriate for
somebody who tried to get into Cuba.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jeffersonm
I know of no evidence that Scott used Mexican security to surveill
Oswald.
The CIA was running scores of operations against the Cuban and Soviet
Embassies. There's not doubt about that.
Impersonation operations were among the tactics used.
What Scott thought about the "mystery man" photo is hard to know. We
just don't have enough evidence
jeffersonm
The heart of this book is about what Win Scott thought JFK's
assassination, Oswald and the investigation. I didn't attempt my own
interpretation of the assassination because, like, who cares what I
think. What Win Scott thought is much more important and interesting.
So as for the criticism that my book is "spooky music" that doesn't
"prove anything," I categorically reject it as will any serious
reader. This book proves a great about what Win Scott did and
thought. It proves that the Warren Commission's claim that the CIA did
not know about Oswald's visit to the Cuban consulate was false. It
proves that Win rejected the Warren Commission's conclusion that there
was no conspiracy. It proves that Anne Goodpasture had deep doubts
about the Warren Commission. It proves that three Mexican presidents
were on the CIA payroll. It proves that Win Scott had a heart attack
just a few days after the first disclosure of the October 10, 1963
cable on Oswald. I could go on and on.
The point is that the only test of a book about JFK's assassination is
not whether or not it proves conspiracy. That is a wierdly narrow
criteria.
jeffersonm
Here's Ed Epstein's take on the book from yesterday's Wall Street
Journal
Years later, thanks to congressional investigations, it emerged that
the CIA had not been forthcoming with the Warren Commission about what
it knew of Oswald's Mexican activities. Jefferson Morley's "Our Man in
Mexico" brilliantly explores the mystery of this reticence. Though Mr.
Morley is a dogged investigative reporter, he has not discovered any
jaw-dropping evidence that will change forever the way we think about
the Kennedy assassination, but he uncovers enough new material, and
theorizes with such verve, that "Our Man in Mexico" will go down as
one of the more provocative titles in the ever-growing library of
Kennedy-assassination studies.
Stug...@aol.com
>
> >>>And what evidence is there?
>
> >Jane Roman, confronted with October cables showing that information at CIA
> >headquarters was not relayed to the Mexico City Station re: Oswald, saying
> >it was indicative of a keen pre-assassination interest in Oswald that
> >could be operational.
>
> Huh? If there was a "keen pre-assassination interest," there should
> be a paper trail to support that.
The documents in question are part of the paper trail. As to not
having a document that says something: "Let's see if we can utilize
Person A to kill Castro," I would suspect those documents would be
destroyed or withheld after Person A turns around and kills Kennedy.
You admit that the CIA destroyed other documents. You are well aware
that they are withholding material on the Joannides case. There are
still thousands of documents that are fully or partially withheld,
etc. Perhaps most disturbingly, I recall a claim from Jerry McNally
where he relays a conversation he had with Sam Halperin; Halperin
told Jerry that there was a separate, off-site storage facility for
CIA material that was so mismanaged and byzantine that no one really
knew how to find anything there. Halperin even speculated that
records of an attempted debrief were there.
>
> But there isn't.
>
> >The same person admitting that she was signing off
> >on cables (as the authenticating officer) that she knew to be untrue.
> >And yes, John, one can argue that this was a bureaucratic mistake. But it
> >is only in the bizarro world of this forum that when the very bureaucrat
> >involved has the option of saying "this was clearly a simple bureaucratic
> >mistake" OR "I am part of a fraud built around the eventual assassin of
> >the President", that said bureaucrat would favor the latter option if the
> >former option is really true.
>
> Didn't Roman renounce Morley's statements about this interview?
We have the full transcripts of the interview and she said exactly
what Newman and Morley have her saying. In essence, the latter
letter only addressed the "signing off on something I know to be
untrue statement"-- by claiming that the Special Affairs Staff
extracted Oswald's materials from his file the week he visited Mexico
City; hence when she went back to the file, she claims the
information wasn't there. There are two problems with this
explanation, one small, one big:
(A) She read the files the week before. Now I have a hard time
believing, but am willing to entertain the fact, that she forgot about
them. But I do not know why she wouldn't simply say this when Newman
and Morley were interviewing her.
(B) There is no obvious reason why the SAS, the get Castro squad,
would cordone off Oswald's files for the one week when Oswald is
trying to get to Cuba. This forces the intra-agency fraud by proxy;
the SAS would be effectively stopping anyone at CIA from shining a
spotlight on Oswald to the already-suspicious folks at the MEXI
station. It is worth remembering that Phillips was SAS, and
Joannides was SAS.
>
> >Also, Jeff interviewed another senior CIA officer about the cables. This
> >officer speculated about a bureaucratic error but was taken aback at the
> >number of high level CIA officials being CC'd on someone who supposedly
> >was a virtual nobody to the agency.
>
> If he was a somebody, where is the paper trail?
Again, the docs we have are part of a paper trail. That there isn't
more of a paper trail assumes that the rest of it has been released or
preserved.
>
> Oh, there is a paper trial, but one that would be expected for
> somebody who defected to the USSR.
>
> Then later, a more extensive trail that would be appropriate for
> somebody who tried to get into Cuba.
But the problem is that this very relevant paper trail was cordoned
off by the Special Affairs Staff at the precise time when the Mexico
City Station was trying to learn more about Oswald.
-Stu
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
I didn't say Scott. I said Phillips.
Anthony Marsh
> On 20 Mar 2008 22:40:00 -0400, Stug...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>> And what evidence is there?
>> Jane Roman, confronted with October cables showing that information at CIA
>> headquarters was not relayed to the Mexico City Station re: Oswald, saying
>> it was indicative of a keen pre-assassination interest in Oswald that
>> could be operational.
>
> Huh? If there was a "keen pre-assassination interest," there should
> be a paper trail to support that.
>
> But there isn't.
>
Yes, there is. Oswald's 201 file.
>
>> The same person admitting that she was signing off
>> on cables (as the authenticating officer) that she knew to be untrue.
>> And yes, John, one can argue that this was a bureaucratic mistake. But it
>> is only in the bizarro world of this forum that when the very bureaucrat
>> involved has the option of saying "this was clearly a simple bureaucratic
>> mistake" OR "I am part of a fraud built around the eventual assassin of
>> the President", that said bureaucrat would favor the latter option if the
>> former option is really true.
>>
>
> Didn't Roman renounce Morley's statements about this interview?
>
>
>> Also, Jeff interviewed another senior CIA officer about the cables. This
>> officer speculated about a bureaucratic error but was taken aback at the
>> number of high level CIA officials being CC'd on someone who supposedly
>> was a virtual nobody to the agency.
>>
>
> If he was a somebody, where is the paper trail?
>
His 201 file.
> Oh, there is a paper trial, but one that would be expected for
> somebody who defected to the USSR.
>
> Then later, a more extensive trail that would be appropriate for
> somebody who tried to get into Cuba.
>
And later one appropriate for somebody who met with the head of the KBG's
assassination program.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
isht...@netscape.net
John,
I have trouble velieving Norley. First he set up an interview qith
Jane Roman telling her he would bring a colleague wgo turned out to be
John Newman. Newman did most, if not all, the questioning getting
information for his book OSWALD AND THE CIA. When I spoke with her she
said she felt deceived by Morley. This she indicates in ler letter Ben
Bradlee that is in the archiv files.
Morley also promoted Newman when he was with he Post's outlook section
dvdn though Newman lied.
John McAdams
>On Mar 20, 10:58 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2008 22:40:00 -0400, Stugra...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>And what evidence is there?
>>
>> >Jane Roman, confronted with October cables showing that information at CIA
>> >headquarters was not relayed to the Mexico City Station re: Oswald, saying
>> >it was indicative of a keen pre-assassination interest in Oswald that
>> >could be operational.
>>
>> Huh? If there was a "keen pre-assassination interest," there should
>> be a paper trail to support that.
>
>The documents in question are part of the paper trail. As to not
>having a document that says something: "Let's see if we can utilize
>Person A to kill Castro," I would suspect those documents would be
>destroyed or withheld after Person A turns around and kills Kennedy.
>You admit that the CIA destroyed other documents. You are well aware
>that they are withholding material on the Joannides case. There are
>still thousands of documents that are fully or partially withheld,
>etc. Perhaps most disturbingly, I recall a claim from Jerry McNally
>where he relays a conversation he had with Sam Halperin; Halperin
>told Jerry that there was a separate, off-site storage facility for
>CIA material that was so mismanaged and byzantine that no one really
>knew how to find anything there. Halperin even speculated that
>records of an attempted debrief were there.
>
>
Translation: we have no evidence to support our speculation.
But we'll just *posit* that it was destroyed.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Why don't you go back and read what you wrote.
It's a lot of spooky music.
But none of it proves anything very interesting.
Now I know some people are "interested" in it. But they always are
*because* they think it raises the possibility of a conspiracy.
BTW, did I read that you used a novel as evidence? I know Kaiser did
(that part got edited out of my review of his book), but did you?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Oh, my!
You are not claiming that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, are
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Jefferson,
Say, you contend in your first post above that:
--Evidence is mounting that senior CIA officials were running an
authorized covert operation involving Oswald at the time. A cable
dated
October 10, 1963 indicates this operation was a Cuba-related
counterintelligence operation. Win Scott was NOT one of these
officers
involved in the operation. He was, as Chapter 15 documents in some
detail,
"Out of the Loop."
You're not really claiming that Oswald was working for the CIA are
you? That's what it sounds like here. That Oswald was part of a *Cuba-
related counterintelligence operation* as, what, an operative for the
CIA?
Or were his ham fisted attempts to reach Cuba simply detected during
the course of an already functioning *Cuba-related counterintelligence
operation* the CIA was running?
The reason I ask is that Oswald's dealings with the DRE in New Orleans
are often twisted (by some) to portray Oswald as having some kind of
operative role with the CIA, when the reality is that the DRE hated
Oswald and Oswald hated DRE.
I believe Oswald tried to damage DRE's activities while he was in New
Orleans, Jefferson. Just as Carlos Bringuier and DRE tried to damage
Oswald and the FPCC's activities while Oswald was active there.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
> criteria.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a62d6a8d-7c1c-4f85...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
tims...@gmail.com
Ah, tomnln, there you are.
Now tomnln, you're contending that Oswald worked for the CIA, but
don't you also contend on that same website of yours that Oswald never
visited Mexico City in 1963?
Is it true that the Mexico City page of your website contains the
following, tomnln?:
QUOTE ON:
INTENTIONAL DECEPTION HERE? (below)
The woman who served Oswald in the Cuban Embassy was Sylvia Duran a
Mexican National.
Duran originally said the Oswald arrested for the assassination was
NOT the same Oswald she served Oswald in Mexico City.
Sylvia Duran and her whole family were arrested by the Mexican
Authorities TWICE.
As of 11/25/63 the Dallas FBI already Heard CIA audio tapes. See
Below.
Sylvia Duran then and only then ID'd Oswald as the one she served in
Mexico City.
QUOTE OFF
But tomnln, Mrs Duran's statement in CE 2121 (24H587) dated 23
November, 1963:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...
Contains the following statement by Mrs Duran (24H590):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...
She immediately recognized Oswald, tomnln. Did you see that?
Let's examine that again, shall we tomnln. Duran says, on 23
November,
1963: *...upon seeing his photograph which appears in today's
newspapers, specifically in the newspaper 'El Dia,' she immediately
recognized and identified it as being the same person that she has
been referring to as LEE HARVEY OSWALD.*
How does that gell with what is on your website, tomnln?
And why should we believe what you sat about Oswald and the CIA on the
same website, tomnln?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Mar 23, 1:12 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Oswald was indeed workling for the CIA>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff2e93f9-1b5e-436a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
QUOTE ON:
INTENTIONAL DECEPTION HERE? (below)
QUOTE OFF
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...
Concerned Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Duran said the Oswald she saw was>>>>>
5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds.
Only YOU would accedpt that description as being Oswald.
SEE http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
SEE http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
(Item #4)
ps;
You're STILL Running from these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
Maybe she did see the real Oswald, but others saw and heard an impostor.
Others can have a theory that the CIA used an Oswald double.
jeffersonm
No I don't think Oswald worked for the CIA. The paper trail shows that
his political activities and travels in the last 100 days were closely
monitored by a small group of senior CIA officials in the Special
Affairs Staff and the Counterintelligence Staff. The way information
about Oswald was handled--in a compartmentalized way that left Win
Scott without the latest headquarters information-is consistent with
Oswald being part of an authorized operation held on a need to know
basis. Jane Roman acknowledged signing off on a cable that was not
true. As she said, the information seemed very closely held. Bill Hood
too spoke of the surprising amount of coordination on the October 10,
193 cable. All of that give credence to the hypothesis that Oswald was
part of an authorized operation. One can part of a CIA operation and
not work for the CIA.
jeffersonm
> Oswald was indeed workling for the CIA>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
>
I guess I would put it like this.
One of the most interesting things about the DRE's encounters with
Oswald was not revealed until the Joannides personnel file surfaced in
2001. These encounters resulted in three distinct types of activities
by the DRE: 1) political action (the DRE challenged Oswald on TV
cameras and in the streets); 2)propaganda (Bringuier's press release
and the DRE's open letter to the people of New Orleans), and 3)
intelligence collection (the information about the encounters was
collected in the DRE's military intelligence files in Miami.
What was learned in 2001 was that George Joannides funded the DRE to
do "political action," "propaganda" and "intelligence collection."
As I say on p. 173 of Our Man in Mexico, "when it came to the DRE and
Oswald, the CIA got what it paid for."
Did Joannides or someone else at the CIA intend for the DRE to conduct
political action, propaganda and intelligence collection on Oswald?
You and I can guess at what the answer to that question. John McAdams
can confidently answer the question without evidence.
But we won't know the answer until the CIA releases its files on
Joannides activities in August 1963. Until then, I think it would be
premature to assert that Joannides wasn't running an operation against
Oswald's FPCC chapter. He paid the DRE leaders in Miami to enable
exactly the kinds of activities that the New Orleans chapter
undertook. Was that an accident? Or did he (and his superiors) intend
that? We just don't know.
Texextra
To what conspiracy do you refer? The JFK assassination conspiracy or
the conspiracy to hide the truth about LHO? The two are not
neccessarily the same.
>
> BTW, did I read that you used a novel as evidence? I know Kaiser did
> (that part got edited out of my review of his book), but did you?
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
James K. Olmstead
address (unknown but known to US intel) where individuals associated with
Oswald's Mexico City contacts can be found. Oswald either "walked in on
his own" or was directed to these contacts. The conflict over Ugarte is
the prime operation Oswald can be linked to. The FBI as well as the U.S.
Army and the CIA were all conducting activities linked (but seperate)
during this period associated with these contacts.
jko
"jeffersonm" <mor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84229fef-d157-4a7d...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Fokes
With your comments in mind, it is ironic to hear Oswald tell Stuckey:
"Well, [the CIA's] ... leadership is now defunct. Allen Dulles is now
defunct."
Little did he know ......
I am enjoying your book, Jeff.
Peter Fokes
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Jefferson,
I think it could be argued that Oswald was initiating some of this
action himself, not DRE. DRE appear to be responding to Oswald's
provocations.
For instance, he had already had his FPCC leaflets printed and had
demonstrated in support of Castro BEFORE he ever encountered Bringuier
and DRE.
Re your Point 1) I think DRE challenged Oswald in the streets on
August 9 AFTER Oswald had attempted to infiltrate DRE several days
earlier. This was some time after Oswald had already leafleted on
behalf of the FPCC.
The August 9 incident was only ever caught on private film and the
footage only surfaced after 22 November 1963.
It is only on August 12 that Oswald gets his first TV coverage, in a
situation largely provoked by Oswald, and it is Oswald who ends up
with the better press coverage. He is still provoking DRE on August
12, at the New Orleans Court House.
Re your point 2) DRE is again responding to Oswald, not initiating the
action. Oswald has been on TV, radio and in the newspaper regarding
his FPCC activities. Bringuier is only able to issue a typewritten
press release on Oswald the same evening that Oswald gets both radio
and TV coverage on WDSU. Oswald is certainly given a platform to
explain the aims of his FPCC chapter. Obviously Bringuier scores some
points in that night's radio debate, but Oswald gets the resulting TV
coverage.
I think Bringuier is a brave guy who tried to warn everybody about
what a dangerous guy Oswald was, but no one is listening at this
point. No one prints his press release. If Joannides was supervising
this stuff, if the CIA was funding it, wouldn't they have got obvious
errors like *Press Relief* (as the document is actually entitled)
fixed before it was released?
It simply points to Bringuier, largely on his own, with limited
resources, doing his best to warn people about what a dangerous guy
Oswald was. And he was right!
Oswald, if we are to believe the evidence pertaining to the Walker
shooting, was an attempted murderer on the run before he even reached
New Orleans. I'm sure you would agree that the evidence points to that
inevitable conclusion. Bringuier could not have known this at the
time.
Re your Point 3) I don't quite understand this, but if you're
referring to what DRE in Miami printed on the evening of the
assassination, I think it shows, once again, that Carlos Bringuier was
trying to warn everybody about Oswald as early as August 1963; but
even those in charge of Bringuier's organisation ignored him until
AFTER Oswald shot Kennedy.
> What was learned in 2001 was that George Joannides funded the DRE to
> do "political action," "propaganda" and "intelligence collection."
>
Which would be reasonable, given Castro's disposition to the US in
1962/63. There is nothing particularly sinister about that.
> As I say on p. 173 of Our Man in Mexico, "when it came to the DRE and
> Oswald, the CIA got what it paid for."
>
That is one interpretation. I don't think Bringuier got very much
funding and Oswald himself seems to be the driving force behind many
of the New Orleans events, not DRE or the CIA. Oswald wanted to get to
Cuba, hence his New Orleans activities.
> Did Joannides or someone else at the CIA intend for the DRE to conduct
> political action, propaganda and intelligence collection on Oswald?
>
I think, on balance, that would be fairly unlikely. He was too small a
fish. When Bringuier told DRE Miami it doesn't look like anyone
listened until it was too late.
Once again, Bringuier is the voice in the wilderness on this issue,
trying to warn everybody about Oswald. His subsequent treatment by
conspiracy theorists is quite shameful, in my view. The guy is really
the hero of the piece. People should acknowledge that, not demonise
the guy.
> You and I can guess at what the answer to that question. John McAdams
> can confidently answer the question without evidence.
>
That is possibly true, though McAdams, I'm sure, would apply solid
reasoning in reaching his conclusion. In my view he reaches an
informed conclusion.
> But we won't know the answer until the CIA releases its files on
> Joannides activities in August 1963. Until then, I think it would be
> premature to assert that Joannides wasn't running an operation against
> Oswald's FPCC chapter. He paid the DRE leaders in Miami to enable
> exactly the kinds of activities that the New Orleans chapter
> undertook. Was that an accident? Or did he (and his superiors) intend
> that? We just don't know.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It will be interesting to see what you turn up on Joannides. I wish
you well with it and hope to read the files one day, too. I note that
John McAdams has supported you in this endeavour in the past. Probably
still does, I don't know.
My own opinion is that, when the files ARE eventually released, they
will show no concerted CIA DRE funded activity focussed exclusively on
Oswald. He was simply too small a fry, in my view. And a Marxist to
boot. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. Time will tell.
Stug...@aol.com
Could you please point me to the *paper trail* showing that JFK & RFK
ordered the Castro assassination plots? This needs to be official
documentation in CIA files, not testimony or interviews implying such.
-Stu
On Mar 21, 10:38 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
jeffersonm
>
> > - Show quoted text -
I'm talking about what happened in the summer of 1963 between Oswald
and the DRE Cubans in New Orleans, specifically the question of what
certain CIA offiicals knew about those actions.
If there was a JFK assassination conspiracy underway at that point, I
have no conclusive evidence of the participation of any individual.
It's true there was a "conspiracy" to hide the truth about Oswald,
even in the summer of 1963, though I don't like the term in this
context. "Conspiracy" implies lawbreaking. But the secrecy around
Oswald was lawful. It was dictated by the CIA's policy of concealing
its sources and methods.
This veil of secrecy that descends on Oswald is one of the most
interesting things about him. It was what kept Win Scott "out of the
loop" about the latest headquarters information on Oswald in October
1963.
And it is especially interesting that this veil of secrecy continues
45 years later as the CIA seeks to hide what Joannides knew about the
events of August and November 1963.
jeffersonm
John:
You make it sound like I've added some historionics to an otherwise
clearcut story. I'm just following the same path that Bobby Kennedy,
Jackie Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Fidel Castro followed. Dallas
doesn't make sense except as a political event. People of your
persuasion say, Dallas only makes sense as the act of madman and
therefore didn't have deep political causes. OK. That's fine. That's a
defensible position. But your posture that only crazy people could
disagree with you is contrived. Bobby, Jackie, LBJ and Fidel weren't
fools. To the contrary they were people who understood the working of
American power. If you hear spooky music in my story telling, it is
because the events I've uncovered ARE ominous. Win Scott and Ann
Goodpasture understood full well the import of their Oswald file
review: The Warren Commission had botched the story of Oswald in
Mexico. That's not my theory (or music). That was the conclusion of
two ultra-loyal CIA insiders who were there. You hear that as
'spooky,' well, I don't blame you.
jeffersonm
No, we don't have enough evidence to decide the impostor debate. Its
possible he was impersonated. It's possible he was not.
Anthony Marsh
> John,
>
> Could you please point me to the *paper trail* showing that JFK & RFK
> ordered the Castro assassination plots? This needs to be official
> documentation in CIA files, not testimony or interviews implying such.
>
No such paper trail exists, but as an example, for many years Richard
Helms said that HE was the only person who authorized the assassination
plots and that even the Director of Central Intelligence did not know
about them. That is partially true when talking only about the plots when
Kennedy was President. But recently a document was found which indicates
that Allen Dulles approved the assassination plans when Eisenhower was
President. So Helms may have thought that DCI approval carried over unless
ordered otherwise.
Anthony Marsh
I've heard that it was Joannides who paid a newspaper to put in the
story about Oswald being a DGI agent after the assassination.
Texextra
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm talking about what happened in the summer of 1963 between Oswald
> and the DRE Cubans in New Orleans, specifically the question of what
> certain CIA offiicals knew about those actions.
>
> If there was a JFK assassination conspiracy underway at that point, I
> have no conclusive evidence of the participation of any individual.
>
> It's true there was a "conspiracy" to hide the truth about Oswald,
> even in the summer of 1963, though I don't like the term in this
> context. "Conspiracy" implies lawbreaking. But the secrecy around
> Oswald was lawful. It was dictated by the CIA's policy of concealing
> its sources and methods.
I'm not an expert on law and the Constitution, so I will concede that
"conspiracy" may or may not be an appropriate word in this context.
Certainly, though, there was a concerted effort to conceal facts about
LHO.
In the early 1960's, the CIA had the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City bugged
throughout except for one room where secret meetings were held. I would
guess that the same was probably true of the Cuban Embassy. So, I think
the CIA was well aware of persons coming and going in the embassies.
>
> This veil of secrecy that descends on Oswald is one of the most
> interesting things about him. It was what kept Win Scott "out of the
> loop" about the latest headquarters information on Oswald in October
> 1963.
>
> And it is especially interesting that this veil of secrecy continues
> 45 years later as the CIA seeks to hide what Joannides knew about the
> events of August and November 1963.- Hide quoted text -
Peter Fokes
The Warren Commission, as you know, did not receive full cooperation
from the CIA. So in "botching" the story of Oswald in Mexico they were
'helped along' by the CIA.
As Ford said in an interview shortly before his death: the action of
the CIA in deliberately concealing evidence from the WC was
"unconscionable."
Working my way through the book very carefully. I see you skim over
Stuckey's first interview with Oswald. Plenty of gems there.
Halpern certainly a dissembler or as you write "more smoke than
substance."
PF
>
>
>
>
tims...@gmail.com
It would be interesting if Jefferson were to respond to what Ed Dolan
has had to say here.
Mr Dolan has a CIA background, or some past connection with the
agency, as I understand it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
> dvdn though Newman lied.- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Marsh,
Well, I guess people could say that about the CIA, Tony.
But it would be an exceedingly stupid thing to say, wouldn't it?
No agency was going to waste time impersonating a little shoestring
operator like Oswald, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Mar 24, 5:45 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Marsh,
>
> Well, I guess people could say that about the CIA, Tony.
>
Say what about the CIA? We have no idea what you are talking about when
you top post.
> But it would be an exceedingly stupid thing to say, wouldn't it?
>
Sure, if you made it up out of whole cloth.
> No agency was going to waste time impersonating a little shoestring
> operator like Oswald, LOL!
>
Agencies impersonate people all the time. One purpose is to ride the
coattails for a walk-in.
74030...@compuserve.com
> TOP POST
>
> It would be interesting if Jefferson were to respond to what Ed Dolan
> has had to say here.
>
> Mr Dolan has a CIA background, or some past connection with the
> agency, as I understand it.
Oswald never worked for CIA. His courts martial would have been cause
to deny him a clearance,
s/f Dolan
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
<74030...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:b6936728-aab7-4263...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Oswald could have been used for an operation without being a CIA
officer. Some conspiracy believers make the mistake of thinking that
Oswald was a CIA officer. That is wrong. But he could have been used in
a CIA operation without having Top Secret clearance.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ed,
That's interesting to know. Of course, the idea that Oswald worked for
the CIA, whether proposed by Jefferson Morley, Tony Marsh or tomnln,
is absurd on its face, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:060a8f72-6c3d-4ac1...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi Ed,
That's interesting to know. Of course, the idea that Oswald worked for
the CIA, whether proposed by Jefferson Morley, Tony Marsh or tomnln,
is absurd on its face, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Apparently Timmy hasn't read the testimony of James Wilcott>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
Anthony Marsh
>
> <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:060a8f72-6c3d-4ac1...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> That's interesting to know. Of course, the idea that Oswald worked for
> the CIA, whether proposed by Jefferson Morley, Tony Marsh or tomnln,
> is absurd on its face, LOL!
>
I can't speak for Jeff or others, but that is not what I said. I said
that Oswald was not a CIA officer. I said that the CIA could have used
him in an operation. My father was not a CIA officer. He was an NSA
officer, but the CIA used him in operations.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Marsh,
Well, since I was responding to your bare two lines it shouldn't have
been TOO difficult for you to work out what I was responding to, Tony,
to whit:
Maybe she did see the real Oswald, but others saw and heard an
impostor.
Others can have a theory that the CIA used an Oswald double.
If someone has a theory that the CIA used an Oswald double then that
is an exceedingly stupid thing to say, in my book.
The CIA weren't even onto Oswald until well after he'd left Mexico.
Even then they got his name wrong and called him Lee Henry Oswald.
The CIA appears to have taken a very perfunctory interest in the
rather small fry Oswald. No one was wasting their time impersonating
the crackpot, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> been TOO difficult for you to work out what I was responding to, Tony,
> to whit:
>
We can't even tell what is my original message and what are your
comments. Learn to post correctly or don't complain about being
misunderstood.
> Maybe she did see the real Oswald, but others saw and heard an
> impostor.
> Others can have a theory that the CIA used an Oswald double.
>
> If someone has a theory that the CIA used an Oswald double then that
> is an exceedingly stupid thing to say, in my book.
>
No, intelligence agencies often impersonate people.
> The CIA weren't even onto Oswald until well after he'd left Mexico.
>
David Atlee Phillips described how Oswald was under constant surveillance
and tailed in Mexico. CIA cables from those days when Oswald was in Mexico
discuss this fellow "Lee Oswald."
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/CI74673A.GIF
> Even then they got his name wrong and called him Lee Henry Oswald.
>
No, someone else made that mistake. I won't say who did, but it was a
clerical error back at Langley.
> The CIA appears to have taken a very perfunctory interest in the
> rather small fry Oswald. No one was wasting their time impersonating
> the crackpot, LOL!
>
The CIA was quite interested in an American talking to the KGB's head of
assassinations.
billc...@live.com
> Stugra...@aol.com wrote:
> > John,
>
> > Could you please point me to the *paper trail* showing that JFK & RFK
> > ordered the Castro assassination plots? This needs to be official
> > documentation in CIA files, not testimony or interviews implying such.
>
> No such paper trail exists,
Perhaps it doesn't exist because a paper trail would make plausible
denial rather difficult. Now wouldn't it.
The history channel says Bobby ran the show.
Bill Clarke
tomnln
<billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:c8a61c49-acb9-459e...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The Church Committee volumes say Differently.
tims...@gmail.com
You both say (let's not bother with what tomnln thinks, shall we? :-)
he could be part of a CIA operation. That's just playing with
language, in my view. An avowed Marxist like Oswald was NEVER going to
willingly be *part of a CIA operation* because he hated the CIA and
all it stood for.
And the CIA would never use such a nasty little left winger because
they hated him and his ilk.
It's just a lot of *spooky music*, as has been noted here by McAdams.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Apr 10, 1:28 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> tomnln wrote:
>
> > <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> s/f Dolan- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Bobby ran Operation Mongoose, not the assassination plots. Those began
under Eisenhower.
> Bill Clarke
>
billc...@live.com
But unfortunately didn't end with Eisenhower.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> TOP POST
>
> You both say (let's not bother with what tomnln thinks, shall we? :-)
> he could be part of a CIA operation. That's just playing with
> language, in my view. An avowed Marxist like Oswald was NEVER going to
> willingly be *part of a CIA operation* because he hated the CIA and
> all it stood for.
>
True. I never said willingly. On the CIA's profile sheet it lists several
options to check off to describe the relationship of the person of
interest to the CIA. One category is "unwitting collaborator." Someone is
used in a CIA operation without knowing it.
> And the CIA would never use such a nasty little left winger because
> they hated him and his ilk.
>
They would use him if they wanted to make it appear that they could not
possibly have anything to do with him.
tims...@gmail.com
On Apr 9, 6:47 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Could have isn't the same as was, Tony. This guy was a publicly
proclaimed Marxist and a card carrying member of the Fair Play for
Cuba Committee.
I don't think he was out to do the CIA any favours. In fact, he mocked
them on public radio.
If he crossed the transom of any CIA operation, it was only as the
very type of person they were trying to combat.
With good reason, as it turned out...
Anthony Marsh
> BOTTOM POST
>
> On Apr 9, 6:47 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 74030.3...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 4:27 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> TOP POST
>>>> It would be interesting if Jefferson were to respond to what Ed Dolan
>>>> has had to say here.
>>>> Mr Dolan has a CIA background, or some past connection with the
>>>> agency, as I understand it.
>>> Oswald never worked for CIA. His courts martial would have been cause
>>> to deny him a clearance,
>>> s/f Dolan
>> Oswald could have been used for an operation without being a CIA
>> officer. Some conspiracy believers make the mistake of thinking that
>> Oswald was a CIA officer. That is wrong. But he could have been used in
>> a CIA operation without having Top Secret clearance.
>
> Could have isn't the same as was, Tony. This guy was a publicly
> proclaimed Marxist and a card carrying member of the Fair Play for
> Cuba Committee.
>
If you can follow what I said, I said that I do not think he was a CIA
officer. My point remains that he could have been used in a CIA operation.
If you look back at examples of CIA agents we used for penetrating Russia,
they were publicly proclaimed Marxist and card carrying members of the
Communist Party. THAT's why there were able to penetrate.
> I don't think he was out to do the CIA any favours. In fact, he mocked
> them on public radio.
>
And I didn't say anything about Oswald wanting to work for the CIA.
You don't understand how intelligence operations work.
> If he crossed the transom of any CIA operation, it was only as the
> very type of person they were trying to combat.
>
> With good reason, as it turned out...
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup Commentator*
>
Does Australia even have its own intelligence service? What would they do,
spy on themselves? Follow sheep around?
Texextra
> BOTTOM POST
>
> On Apr 9, 6:47 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 74030.3...@compuserve.com wrote:
> > > On Mar 30, 4:27 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> TOP POST
>
> > >> It would be interesting if Jefferson were to respond to what Ed Dolan
> > >> has had to say here.
>
> > >> Mr Dolan has a CIA background, or some past connection with the
> > >> agency, as I understand it.
>
> > > Oswald never worked for CIA. His courts martial would have been cause
> > > to deny him a clearance,
>
> > > s/f Dolan
>
> > Oswald could have been used for an operation without being a CIA
> > officer. Some conspiracy believers make the mistake of thinking that
> > Oswald was a CIA officer. That is wrong. But he could have been used in
> > a CIA operation without having Top Secret clearance.
>
> Could have isn't the same as was, Tony. This guy was a publicly
> proclaimed Marxist and a card carrying member of the Fair Play for
> Cuba Committee.
If LHO was so loyal to those groups, why did he so frequently act in ways
not in their best interests? He couldn't have better painted himself as an
infiltrator. He portrayed a great recruiter and didn't recruit anyone.
The FPCC was skeptical of LHO. BTW, Truman Capote was among the members of
the FPCC.
>
> I don't think he was out to do the CIA any favours. In fact, he mocked
> them on public radio.
>
> If he crossed the transom of any CIA operation, it was only as the
> very type of person they were trying to combat.
>
> With good reason, as it turned out...
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Well, I think you'll have to specific here. Oswald being something of a
liability and inadvertently damaging a cause he was interested in is not
the same as Oswald deliberately setting out to harm a particular cause.
What of his behaviour are you referring to?
If the FPCC was so skeptical of Oswald, why didn't they cancel his
membership?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Well, Helms specifically denied to the Warren Commission that they ever
used Oswald or had any relationship with him.
You're simply dealing in speculation, that Oswald *might* have had a
connection to the CIA. You have no evidence.
Dolan, who does have some CIA experience, says Oswald's Courts Martial
would have precluded him from being selected to work for them.
The fact that he could barely string a legible sentence together and told
everyone in sight he was a Marxist probably wouldn't have helped his
claims much either, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
On Apr 11, 1:41 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38ff4683-a3c9-4210...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Well, Helms specifically denied to the Warren Commission that they ever
used Oswald or had any relationship with him.
*****************
Helms was also convicted of Perjury on another issue.
*****************
You're simply dealing in speculation, that Oswald *might* have had a
connection to the CIA. You have no evidence.
************
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
************
Dolan, who does have some CIA experience, says Oswald's Courts Martial
would have precluded him from being selected to work for them.
************
Ever hear of the CIA "Hiring" the Mafia?
************
The fact that he could barely string a legible sentence together and told
everyone in sight he was a Marxist probably wouldn't have helped his
claims much either, LOL!
************
Oswald had working knowledge of FIVE (5) different languages.
English, Ruassian, Spanish German & Japanese. (How many do you know?)
************
You ain't doing too good Timmy.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texextra
> liability and inadvertently damaging a cause he was interested in is not
> the same as Oswald deliberately setting out to harm a particular cause.
> What of his behaviour are you referring to?
I didn't say LHO set out to deliberately harm a particular cause. I said
he didn't always act in their best interests. He was asked to tone down
his acitivities and he didn't. In the early 1960's, New Orleans was a
kooky place. If he couldn't find a single person to recruit, I think we
have to at least consider the possibility that he didn't have much
motivation to actually recruit.
>
> If the FPCC was so skeptical of Oswald, why didn't they cancel his
> membership?
Just off of the top of my head, I think I recall that they refused to
recognize his chapter. I'd say that indicates some skepticism. There's a
lot of possibilities of why they didn't cancel his membership. Maybe back
in the days of no computers they weren't tracking him very closely. Maybe
they wanted to see whether he was an infiltrator. I'm not aware of
anything that indicates why they didn't cancel his membership.
tims...@gmail.com
On Apr 19, 2:19 pm, Texextra <texex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:07 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Well, I think you'll have to specific here. Oswald being something of a
> > liability and inadvertently damaging a cause he was interested in is not
> > the same as Oswald deliberately setting out to harm a particular cause.
> > What of his behaviour are you referring to?
>
> I didn't say LHO set out to deliberately harm a particular cause. I said
> he didn't always act in their best interests. He was asked to tone down
> his acitivities and he didn't. In the early 1960's, New Orleans was a
> kooky place. If he couldn't find a single person to recruit, I think we
> have to at least consider the possibility that he didn't have much
> motivation to actually recruit.
>
I don't know if that is a very good conclusion. He showed plenty of
enthusiasm until he was exposed as a returned defector to the Soviet
Union. After that he had to admit, on air, that he was a Marxist, which
blew away the cover of impartiality that he was trying to create for
himself.
>
>
> > If the FPCC was so skeptical of Oswald, why didn't they cancel his
> > membership?
>
> Just off of the top of my head, I think I recall that they refused to
> recognize his chapter. I'd say that indicates some skepticism. There's a
> lot of possibilities of why they didn't cancel his membership. Maybe back
> in the days of no computers they weren't tracking him very closely. Maybe
> they wanted to see whether he was an infiltrator. I'm not aware of
> anything that indicates why they didn't cancel his membership.
>
If he'd recruited members I'm sure they would have liked him fine and
recognized his chapter. After he was destroyed on air by INCA he gave up
his FPCC efforts. If he'd persisted longer he may have recruited some
members, but he lost heart and decided to go to Cuba instead.
alo...@maine.rr.com
gentleman and former Navy man who lives in Minnesota who, many years
ago, told me that Oswald approached him at Balboa Naval Base, told
him this, and tried to recruit him - this guy has hidden scared for
years, I spoke to him in the middle 1990s; he has never tried to go
public with this or make any money off of the assassination (unlike,
say, Bugliosi) - I've been trying to track him down again lately, and
not having a lot of luck - but he was credible and had no reason to
make this up -
-Allen Lowe
Texextra
I don't see any reason to tie LHO ending his FPCC "efforts" to the
radio incident. Chances are there were plenty of people who were
completely unaware of the radio program, so that shouldn't have
hampered his opportunities for recruiting.
It is possible that he ended his FPCC "efforts" because his mission
was complete.
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
tomnln
<alo...@maine.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ae452495-ee58-4018...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
INVITATION
I have a Live Audio Chat Room.
Download & use for FREE
Once logged on, select
1 Social Issues & Politics
2 Government & Politics
3 Scroll down to room called
Who Killed Kennedy.
We start every night between 8:00 p m - 9:00 p m e.s.t.
I offer a Forum to WCR supporters to convince us that Oswald was a Lone
Assassin.
Paltalk allows us to transfer files to one another instantly.
Any Exhibit of evidence, any specific testimony from:
Warren Report's 26 Volumes
Church Committee 14 Volumes
HSCA's 12 Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.