Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Paul Trejo]

Correct. That's why I used the word "start." Do you think we should start with a presumption of innocence for, say, Banister?

Good question, Stephen.

For example, we can reserve judgment on General Edward Lansdale (despite the suspicions of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, and despite the photographs of his back with the famous three tramps at Dealey Plaza), and suggest, e.g. that Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza that day in order to *investigate* rumors of a JFK assassination.

For example, we can reserve judgment on David Atlee Phillips (despite suspicions raised by Antonio Veciana among others), and suggest, e.g. that Phillips luncheon with Lee Harvey Oswald and the leader of Alpha 66 in Dallas in September 1963, was really in the context of a common cause -- the assassination of Fidel Castro.

Therefore -- we can plausibly reserve judgment on Guy Banister (despite suspicions raised by NOLA DA Jim Garrison) and suggest that same scenario as for Phillips -- namely, that Guy Banister was also "grooming" (not Framing) Lee Harvey Oswald for a possible role in a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro.

That would also explain his association with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Tom Beckham with Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler and various leaders of paramilitary Cuban Exile groups in New Orleans from April 1963 until September 1963.

In other words -- David Atlee Phillips said in his 1988 bio-fiction, The AMLASH Legacy, that he was trying to groom Oswald to kill Fidel Castro, but "somehow" Oswald was diverted into a super-secret plot to kill JFK.

If we let that stand for Phillips, then we should consider the possibility of the same for Guy Banister. Maybe Jim Garrison was still a long way off -- and Lee Harvey Oswald's spring/summer in New Orleans with Guy Banister & Company was "innocent" in the sense that they were "only " plotting to murder Fidel Castro -- and not JFK at all.

Yet again -- let's be willing to ask the questions that Jim Garrison (as prosecuting attorney) would want to have asked Guy Banister in 1967, e.g.

(1) Why didn't Banister volunteer what he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA to the Warren Commission or the FBI?

(2) Were Banister's public politics (e.g. his rightist political platform of racial segregation) strong enough to supply a motive for JFK's assassination?

(3) What was the purpose of the Fake FPCC in NOLA, led by Lee Harvey Oswald?

(4) Why was the address to the building of his offices in NOLA stamped on Lee Harvey Oswald's FPCC Flyers?

Much more work is needed on the question of Guy Banister, IMHO. Even Jim Garrison failed to go far enough on this topic.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Stephen Roy]

All I'm trying to say is this: Many of us think that some of the evidence against Oswald is questionable, and it's right that we don't blindly accept it, that we question the source. By the same token, we should not blindly accept but should question the sources of evidence against other people. Some of the New Orleans cast are worthy of our interest, but I keep seeing evidence cited which is questionable.

[Paul Trejo]

All I'm trying to say is this: Many of us think that some of the evidence against Oswald is questionable, and it's right that we don't blindly accept it, that we question the source. By the same token, we should not blindly accept but should question the sources of evidence against other people. Some of the New Orleans cast are worthy of our interest, but I keep seeing evidence cited which is questionable.

Your point is well-taken, Stephen. Nor is the New Orleans cast alone in this 'whipping-boy' climate -- but the CIA is also vilified by many with flimsy "evidence," or I could say, innuendo. (And the same with e.g. LBJ.)

Your opinion matters to me regarding the New Orleans period, since you put so much time into it, Stephen. I want to ask you, then, for your opinion about the building address stamped on Lee Harvey Oswald's FPCC flyers -- as well as about the statement by Banister's secretary that she saw Oswald in Banister's offices more than once.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Stephen Roy]

I don't know. He appears to have stamped it. If he knew that Banister was in that building and sent potential FPCC recruits there (whether Oswald was a counteragent or a real leftist), it seems like a really moronic move. The FBI paper trail and other research makes me think that it never occurred to the FBI that Banister might have been involved with him.

Delphine Points Roberts Strobel SHOULD have been an excellent source. She certainly knew Banister but, like I said earlier, she said nothing in 1963 (while Banister was alive), in 1964 during the WC investigation, she gave a dramatically different account to Garrison's investigation, her first HSCA interview was very reserved, but suddenly in 1978, she tells the story we all know. The HSCA didn't think much of her credibility but Anthony Summers did and does. I don't accept the notion of people who just brush that away with "She was scared at first". You would think that she would know this was important info, if not in 1964, at least by Garrison's investigation.

[Paul Trejo]

I don't know. He appears to have stamped it. If he knew that Banister was in that building and sent potential FPCC recruits there (whether Oswald was a counteragent or a real leftist), it seems like a really moronic move. The FBI paper trail and other research makes me think that it never occurred to the FBI that Banister might have been involved with him.

Delphine Points Roberts Strobel SHOULD have been an excellent source. She certainly knew Banister but, like I said earlier, she said nothing in 1963 (while Banister was alive), in 1964 during the WC investigation, she gave a dramatically different account to Garrison's investigation, her first HSCA interview was very reserved, but suddenly in 1978, she tells the story we all know. The HSCA didn't think much of her credibility but Anthony Summers did and does. I don't accept the notion of people who just brush that away with "She was scared at first". You would think that she would know this was important info, if not in 1964, at least by Garrison's investigation.

OK, Stephen, fair enough.

It seems to me that OSWALD was ambivalent about his role as a phony FPCC Communist, because in his TV interview he made it very clear that he considered himself a "Marxist" but NOT a "Communist." If that is ambivalence (lack of commitment) to his pretense to be an FPCC "Communist", then stamping the address of Guy Banister's building on his FPCC flyers would seem to be a "calling card" or "signature" scenario, in which OSWALD cryptically disavowed his "Communist" antics.

As for Delphine Roberts, it seems to me that her behavior is explained by her loyalty to Guy BANISTER, who was also her lover for a time. She was evidently motivated by strong right-wing feelings in 1963-1964, as well, and was among those who cheered when JFK was gunned down. However, by 1978, the futility of the right-wing cause of 1963 was laid bare for all to see -- Cuba was still Communist, Fidel Castro was still alive and kicking, and Vietnam had come and gone.

So had Watergate. President Jimmy Carter oversaw a different world, and the HSCA re-opened the JFK murder case. Delphine's change of heart after all that time seems reasonable to me.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

My understanding is that the FPCC was not a communist organization.

[Larry Hancock]

Jon, for practical purposes it was classified as a subversive organization by the FBI and its known officers were supposed to go on the security index. Certainly Oswald's correspondence

and claim to head a chapter was known to the Bureau based on their inside informant who was opening mail and providing copies of their communications and mailing list.

The FPCC was also on a watch list for military intelligence and the several of the regional MIG's were active in monitoring travel in and out of the country by known members of the FPCC.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Larry Hancock,

Thanks. I'm aware of the information you present.

No doubt the FPCC was being monitored by the FBI. And from what you write, MI.

That does not mean FPCC was a communist organization.

[Larry Hancock]

No, I don't think that it was nor that its members considered themselves to be......nor was Oswald generally....other than the manner in which in presented himself in to CPUSA.....which were of course in direct conflict

with what he had written in his "manuscript" after his return from Russia.

[Paul Trejo]

No, I don't think that it was nor that its members considered themselves to be......nor was Oswald generally....other than the manner in which in presented himself in to CPUSA.....which were of course in direct conflict with what he had written in his "manuscript" after his return from Russia.

IMHO, the opinion of Harry Dean would be useful here. Whatever one might think about his claims to have heard WALKER in September 1963 mention OSWALD in the context of a possible assassination attempt on JFK, it seems to me that the Senate and HUAC record that asks about Harry Dean in connection with the Chicago FPCC, is fairly well accepted.

Harry Dean also claims that he contacted the FBI about the FPCC in the early 1960's -- not as a regular informant, but as a concerned citizen -- warning them of the Communist rhetoric among the FPCC members he encountered in Chicago and surrounding States.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

No, I don't think that it was nor that its members considered themselves to be......nor was Oswald generally....other than the manner in which in presented himself in to CPUSA.....which were of course in direct conflict

with what he had written in his "manuscript" after his return from Russia.

IMHO, the opinion of Harry Dean would be useful here. Whatever one might think about his claims to have heard WALKER in September 1963 mention OSWALD in the context of a possible assassination attempt on JFK, it seems to me that the Senate and HUAC record that asks about Harry Dean in connection with the Chicago FPCC, is fairly well accepted.

Harry Dean also claims that he contacted the FBI about the FPCC in the early 1960's -- not as a regular informant, but as a concerned citizen -- warning them of the Communist rhetoric among the FPCC members he encountered in Chicago and surrounding States.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Was the FPCC subsidized by the Cuban government?

If so, was the Cuban government "Communistic,", "Socialistic," "Marxist," a collection of Odd Duck Leftists, or what?

Does a Communistic organization have to preach Worldwide Communist Revolution, or can it concentrate on supporting the Communistic revolution that has taken place in one country?

--Tommy

Edited February 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Was the FPCC subsidized by the Cuban government?

If so, was the Cuban government "Communistic,", "Socialistic," "Marxist," a collection of Odd Duck Leftists, or what?

Does a Communistic organization have to preach Worldwide Communist Revolution, or can it concentrate on supporting the Communistic revolution that has taken place in one country?

--Tommy

Tommy, according to Harry Dean, he was made an honorary member of Cuba's "26th of July Movement" in 1959 for his fund-raising efforts in Chicago on behalf of Fidel Castro's revolution. Harry Dean accepted this honor proudly.

The original "26th of July Movement" did not talk about Communism, Socialism or Capitalism. Their party line was all about stopping the brutal dictatorship of Batista -- and the suffering of the people under Batista -- and extoling the heroism of resistance fighters against Batista specifically.

This is what made Harry Dean (and Gerry Patrick Hemming, and Frank Sturgis, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, David Ferrie, and many others) proud to support Fidel Castro IN THE EARLY DAYS OF 1959.

Then, as a valued member of the "26th of July Movement," Harry Dean says that around April of 1960, he was informed by Castro's Government that all "26th of July Movement" members were now ordered to transfer their membership to the FPCC.

In other words, Castro's Government REPLACED the "26th of July Movement" with the FPCC, all of a sudden, without warning. This is what Harry Dean experienced first-hand.

It was too sudden for some. Harry's associate in Chicago, Juan Orta, quit in disgust and retired. Harry decided to stick around to see what would happen next.

What Harry saw was displeasing to him. At these FPCC meetings, speaker after speaker would stand up to denounce capitalism, praise Karl Marx, and call for continued revolution against capitalism.

So, Harry Dean volunteered this information to the FBI. According to Harry, the FBI informally advised Harry to keep bringing them information about the FPCC -- for months -- which he did. (Harry was not paid for this, nor was he ever a regular Informant for the FBI. It was always on a volunteer basis.)

But the nuances -- how far left -- were unimportant to Harry and to many people. The FPCC preached Marxism which meant the violent overthrow of Capitalism. This was upsetting to people like Harry, and also to Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, David Ferrie and many others, who quit Fidel Castro and joined the Cuban Exiles who pushed back.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Jon is technically correct, whatever the innuendos were. FPCC was not a communist organization. That is why there were covert efforts to smear them with a communist brush - hence Oswald's attempt to create a NO branch and then use his bonafides in MC. It seems too much of a coincidence that Oswald's NO games occurred at the exact time that CIA and FBI were running operations to smear FPCC. It seems highly likely to me that Phillips was involved in this effort. It was common practice to link progressive organizations to known communists in order to discredit them in the public's eye.

[Paul Trejo]

Jon is technically correct, whatever the innuendos were. FPCC was not a communist organization. That is why there were covert efforts to smear them with a communist brush - hence Oswald's attempt to create a NO branch and then use his bonafides in MC. It seems too much of a coincidence that Oswald's NO games occurred at the exact time that CIA and FBI were running operations to smear FPCC. It seems highly likely to me that Phillips was involved in this effort. It was common practice to link progressive organizations to known communists in order to discredit them in the public's eye.

Well, Paul B., I think we can agree this far -- that Oswald's (and Banister's) Fake FPCC in NOLA was concurrent with similar efforts by the CIA and FBI to ruin the FPCC.

This means to me that David Atlee Phillip's 1988 alibi (The Amlash Legacy) is plausible -- that he was seen with Oswald in the summer of 1963 in the context of killing Fidel Castro. It also suggests to me that Guy Banister & Co. might have the same alibi. What complicates the situation is the Mexico City episode.

Even if one believes that the FPCC was "innocent" of supporting Communism in 1963, one must explain why FPCC Officers had the reputation of being allowed "instant" passage into Castro's Cuba in 1962-1963 -- without delays.

It certainly seems that Banister (and Phillips) and Oswald were trying to trick their way into Cuba by relying on the FPCC reputation. Oswald seems to have spent all of the summer of 1963 (especially August) forging bona-fides to make himself look specifically like an "Officer" of the FPCC, and he took these bona-fides with him to Mexico City (as shown by The Lopez Report).

Now -- David Atlee Phillips has an explanation for that, too -- it was all part of an attempt to kill Fidel Castro. That actually sounds plausible to me. So, let's give Guy Banister the same pass. It's all a right-wing plot to kill Castro.

Now we must explain the Bill Simpich scenario -- the CIA discovers an IMPERSONATION of Oswald in Mexico City -- a pretense which attempts to link the name of Oswald with the name of KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov.

Now the CIA is involved. Can we also give CIA Agent David Morales the same free pass? Perhaps David Morales was also trying to fool the Cubans and Russians into buying the Oswald Fake FPCC.

So -- at the most generous to these players -- at the end of the Mexico City episode, we find Lee Harvey Oswald completely defeated -- and the New Orleans façade of a Fake FPCC completely defeated by Mexico City Cuban Consulate. Lee Harvey Oswald was not on the official FPCC guest list, so there was no way Oswald was getting "instant" passage into Cuba.

However -- at this point we now have one Lee Harvey Oswald who is entirely FRAMED as a radical supporter of the FPCC. If somebody were to think to make this guy a Communist PATSY in Dallas -- it would be fantastic luck for them.

Was it all just a coincidence that Oswald ended up as the PATSY, then? Why did Gerry Patrick Hemming tell A.J. Weberman that he personally called Oswald in Dallas (from Florida) to promise him double the price of his MC rifle if he would only bring it to the TSBD building on the morning of 11/22/1963?

Who knew that Oswald had a rifle? When did the PATSY status of Oswald really begin? In NOLA, as Jim Garrison believed, or as late as September?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Jon is technically correct, whatever the innuendos were. FPCC was not a communist organization. That is why there were covert efforts to smear them with a communist brush - hence Oswald's attempt to create a NO branch and then use his bonafides in MC. It seems too much of a coincidence that Oswald's NO games occurred at the exact time that CIA and FBI were running operations to smear FPCC. It seems highly likely to me that Phillips was involved in this effort. It was common practice to link progressive organizations to known communists in order to discredit them in the public's eye.

Well, Paul B., I think we can agree this far -- that Oswald's (and Banister's) Fake FPCC in NOLA was concurrent with similar efforts by the CIA and FBI to ruin the FPCC.

This means to me that David Atlee Phillip's 1988 alibi (The Amlash Legacy) is plausible -- that he was seen with Oswald in the summer of 1963 in the context of killing Fidel Castro. It also suggests to me that Guy Banister & Co. might have the same alibi. What complicates the situation is the Mexico City episode.

Even if one believes that the FPCC was "innocent" of supporting Communism in 1963, one must explain why FPCC Officers had the reputation of being allowed "instant" passage into Castro's Cuba in 1962-1963 -- without delays.

It certainly seems that Banister (and Phillips) and Oswald were trying to trick their way into Cuba by relying on the FPCC reputation. Oswald seems to have spent all of the summer of 1963 (especially August) forging bona-fides to make himself look specifically like an "Officer" of the FPCC, and he took these bona-fides with him to Mexico City (as shown by The Lopez Report).

Now -- David Atlee Phillips has an explanation for that, too -- it was all part of an attempt to kill Fidel Castro. That actually sounds plausible to me. So, let's give Guy Banister the same pass. It's all a right-wing plot to kill Castro.

Now we must explain the Bill Simpich scenario -- the CIA discovers an IMPERSONATION of Oswald in Mexico City -- a pretense which attempts to link the name of Oswald with the name of KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov.

Now the CIA is involved. Can we also give CIA Agent David Morales the same free pass? Perhaps David Morales was also trying to fool the Cubans and Russians into buying the Oswald Fake FPCC.

So -- at the most generous to these players -- at the end of the Mexico City episode, we find Lee Harvey Oswald completely defeated -- and the New Orleans façade of a Fake FPCC completely defeated by Mexico City Cuban Consulate. Lee Harvey Oswald was not on the official FPCC guest list, so there was no way Oswald was getting "instant" passage into Cuba.

However -- at this point we now have one Lee Harvey Oswald who is entirely FRAMED as a radical supporter of the FPCC. If somebody were to think to make this guy a Communist PATSY in Dallas -- it would be fantastic luck for them.

Was it all just a coincidence that Oswald ended up as the PATSY, then? Why did Gerry Patrick Hemming tell A.J. Weberman that he personally called Oswald in Dallas (from Florida) to promise him double the price of his MC rifle if he would only bring it to the TSBD building on the morning of 11/22/1963?

Who knew that Oswald had a rifle? When did the PATSY status of Oswald really begin? In NOLA, as Jim Garrison believed, or as late as September?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I think that most Americans (and particularly southerners) in the early 1960's would have had a hard time differentiating between a so-called "progressive" commie-Castro-supporting organization like the FPCC and a full-on card-carrying Communist organization.

So, what does it matter? Not only would self-avowed "Marxist" Oswald have been looked upon by most Americans as being "a commie," but the FPCC would have been viewed as a "Commie organization" by the vast majority of southerners, except, perhaps, by Russian history professors at Duke or Rice, etc.

--Tommy

I think that Oswald's FPCC activities were part of a planned operation in which his role was designed to give the FPCC "a bad name" by "Marxist" / Commie Oswald's associating with it.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves