Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Paul Brancato]

I was confusing the 112th with the 488th.

[David Andrews]

Jon, you may like to look at this Joan Mellen article below

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Otepka_RFK_Sheridan_Oswald

and also at this similar article on the CTKA site

http://www.ctka.net/pr397-otepka.html

[Paul Brancato]

David - what is your take on the Otepka piece?

[David Andrews]

Let me get back to you in this space over the weekend.

[William Kelly]

We may soon be able to prove that Oswald's defection was an intelligence operation - as I have appealed to the Sec of the Air Force my FOIA requests for the passenger manifests for the MATs flights out of McGuire AFB for Oct 1959, when a USMC in uniform allegedly flew to Europe on a special mission.

You can read the HSCA story of Mrs. Louise Steenbarger and her son David and a uniformed USMC named Lee Oswald - from New Orleans, father named Robert E. Oswald, stationed in Japan, got in trouble over a women, mother a problem - sounds like our boy doesn't it?

While the AF is looking for the passenger manifests I have tried to locate Mrs. Steenbarger and her son David and they both appear to be still living, her near her original home and him in Dayton, Ohio - teaching math at community college. But the phone numbers I got for them don't work.

If anyone out there has the time and inclination to locate these people I'd like to talk to them.

Send me details PM or email if you locate them or find an obit.

BK

Edited December 19, 2014 by William Kelly

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

From what I've read it appears Otto Otepka, a straight shooter, was stepping on a lot of important toes.

I can imagine if the CIA was trying to keep tabs on "Oswald" in the USSR, the CIA wouldn't want any other agency (e.g., State Department) messing up its plans.

That the CIA kept tabs on Oswald in the USSR does not, would not, mean Oswald was working for the CIA. Moreover, the fact Angleton's part of the CIA, counter-intelligence, was monitoring Oswald weighs against Oswald's being a CIA agent. The C.I. function is not to run agents but rather to uncover agents working for someone else. This may not seem like an important distinction but it is. It is at the heart of the different dimensions to an intelligence service.

[Larry Hancock]

Jon, that's a very important point and one we generally don't take into account....CI watches and CI tracks.....it doesn't run agents.

[David Josephs]

So boys, who within CI watches and tracks ?

Not more agents?

Are you comfortable with the thought that Jesus Angleton did not run agents?

Oswald could not have been assigned to watch or track potential problems to the DDP based on other infultrations of Cubans in the CIA planning process?

Would we say that Clay Shaw worked for the CIA... or just provided information as necessary and was not an agent.

These are legit questions as I am sure you have much more knowledge about "spies" and spying than I.

A person who calls the police once to report a crime is not an "informant"

A man who writes a detailed description of Russian life and examines each of the following topics might very well be considered a spy...

If your point is that Angleton or CI did not run him... I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

Yet that does not remove Oswald from the ranks of "one who spies" simply because he did not have a CIA (or FBI) business card.

Are we really trying to assert that Oswald and the FPCC was not part of an intelligence operation and that Oswald was not a player in that game

or that this was not a report for intelligence purposes?

Edited December 19, 2014 by David Josephs

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

Rather than addressing your questions I want to tell you {a} how to become an agent for some intelligence service, and {b} come to the attention of a counter-intelligence operation. This works every time.

First, pass a background check. This will be carried out without your knowledge by C.I. operatives.

Second, get a security clearance based on the results of your background check.

Third, get a job in which your security clearance gives you access to secret and valuable information.

Fourth, develop some problems. Financial, romantic, substance, etc.

Fifth, wait and see. Someone friendly and low-key will make your acquaintance in a perfectly natural way.

Sixth, meet with this kind, helpful, supportive person several times more.

Seventh, accept something from this kind, helpful, supportive person. Something you desperately want and need.

Eighth, next time be prepared to furnish to the kind, helpful, friendly person something he or she wants that only you can provide.

Postscript: Congratulations. You have been recruited as an agent. But beware. C.I. is likely watching you.

[David Andrews]

Jon Tidd,

What Otepka's belief in Oswald's importance to DC bureaucracy emphasizes is Oswald's singularity among the C. I. files' subjects. There is also more connectivity to intel in the two articles than you are considering. I admit that much of it is presented as opinion or innuendo - but this by some involved persons.

You may like to read Dick Russell's The Man who Knew Too Much for Army Intel op Richard Case Nagell's portrayal of Oswald's intel activities in Japan. The rubric "CIA agent" may be a bit narrow for LHO.

Oswald was a sublimely connected 24-year old man. The previous title contender in his age class was Alexander the Great - but Alex came from money. Speaking of money, why are the tax documents for Oswald and the Paines still classified?

Edited December 20, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Jon - in a previous post you say that if the CIA was trying to keep tabs on Oswald it would not want any other agency like the state dept messing up its plans. I'd like to point out what appears to be a logical fallacy. 'Keeping tabs' isnt the same as 'plans'. If all the CIA was doing was watching Oswald they wouldn't be so concerned about Otepka or anyone else like wise watching Oswald. This implies that they had 'plans'.

On another post you point out that CIA has two functions that don't overlap - gathering intelligence and running operations. Larry agrees and says we often confuse the two and forget the distinction. Angleton as head of CI did not run operations other than gathering intelligence. Am I understanding this correctly?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul,

[1] By "messing up its plans" I meant the CIA as it watched Oswald would have wanted to observe his behavior without the behavior being affected in any way by a friendly agency, such as State.

[2] Any intelligence organization has two basic operational functions: [a] collection, and counter-intelligence. By "operational" I mean having trained operatives "in the field" as opposed to "at home base."

Collection operatives seek to gain information using agents who have access to the information. None of this activity is recognized for what it is except by a trained observer. Collection agents tend to play an offensive role.

Counter-intelligence operatives are trained observers. Their role tends to be defensive (uncovering and frustrating opposition collective efforts).

Sometimes collection and counter-intelligence overlap. For example, when C.I. uncovers an opposition collection activity and seeks to "turn" or "double" an opposition agent. Or seeks to feed an opposition agent apparently valuable but bad information.

For the most part, however, collection and C.I. are separate functions Collection and C.I. require different but overlapping training. Collection operatives routinely work under fairly deep cover. C.I. operatives may or may not work under cover.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Jon G. Tidd

[Paul Brancato]

Jon - by that logic it would seem that you are suggesting that CIA would go to extraordinary lengths to keep the prying eyes of State off of a man they suspected of being a Soviet recruit - Oswald. I don't buy it. There has to be more to the relationship with Oswald than simply observing.

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I think this is simply more complex. CI would have its own interest in Oswald, its very possible an operational element of the Agency - perhaps anti-Castro operations under SAS or even one of the field offices might have their own agenda with him. Beyond that, the FBI subversive desk might well have a more operational use for him, while the FBI field offices would be monitoring him as a potential security risk. On top of that CIA domestic branch would have its own interest in him. While some of these groups might share certain information at certain points, others would hold everything compartmentalized. I've personally seen instances where different CIA groups knowingly and with full authorization witheld information even from internal investigations and claimed every right to do so based on their own security criteria.

Jon may have a different view but my point would be that once again its wrong to talk or think about either the CIA or the intelligence community in general in broad terms.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Perhaps LHO was in Russia to spread misinformation.....He did not know enough to hurt the USA, but enough to lead Russia down a false path or 2. LHO did spend time on a US base in Japan that some link to the U2 program...