Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Stephen Roy]

Once again: The evidence allows speculation that Oswald might have had US intelligence connections. It does not rise to the level of certainty.

If you aren't certain Oswald was a covert operative just knowing his basic background - then you are only fooling yourself.

If it looks like a duck, walks like one, quacks like one - it's a duck.

Oswald was trained by the Civil Air Patrol and USMC, and such specialties as radar, electronics, communications and the Russian language, he used PO boxes, kept an apartment away from his family, used codes, ciphers, intelligence trade craft and counter - surveillance techniques that he utilized in the aftermath of the assassination.

He had intelligence associations with numerous others - deMornschildt-Paines-Phillips - all with intelligence agency connections - a domestic intelligence network that is only now being exposed - and one that is still functioning today.

Oswald was also associated with a number of other covet ops - including his defection, the Houma Arms bunker raid, the Walker shooting, the FPCC, the DRE in New Orleans and the Mexico City operation, each of which tells us something about him - he was not crazy or deranged and as all of the CI investigations have concluded - was not capable of committing the assassination alone, was not a shooter and as the evidence indicates - was probably framed as the patsy as he claimed to be.

Now I don't believe he was set up by Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and the New Orleans Yahoos who did the Houma Bunker raid - the Dealey Plaza Operation was a real slick job set up as a Northwinds type operation to blame Castro, a disinformation op only JFK's enemies in Washington and the Pentagon were capable of pulling off.

If you believe Oswald the psycho motivated lone nut assassin you can go home - or content yourself with your beliefs, but if you recognize Oswald for what he is - a Covert Operational Personality profile - and that the assassination was a covert intel op by a domestic intel network then you can participate in the Counter-Intelligence investigation that must be conducted to expose and counter that network.

This must be done for reasons of national security, the same reason the government is using to deny us the records they continue to with hold to protect that network.

BK

Once again: The evidence allows speculation that Oswald might have had US intelligence connections. It does not rise to the level of certainty.

If you aren't certain Oswald was a covert operative just knowing just his basic background - then you are only fooling yourself.

If it looks like one, walks like one, quacks like one - it's a duck.

Oswald was trained by the Civil Air Patrol and USMC, and such specialties as radar, electronics, communications and the Russian language, he used PO boxes, kept an apartment away from his family, used codes, ciphers, intelligence trade craft and counter - surveillance techniques that he utilized in the aftermath of the asElmer Jenkins, had organized the assassination. He also

named Rafael (Chi Chi) Quintero as one of the gunman. Up until that time

Jenkins name hadsassination. He had intelligence associations with numerous others - deMornschildt-Paines-Phillips - all with intelligence agency connections - a domestic intelligence network that is only now being exposed - and one that is still functioning today.

Oswald was also associated with a number of other covet ops - including his defection, the Houma Arms bunker raid, the Walker shooting, the FPCC, the DRE in New Orleans and the Mexico City operation, each of which tells us something about him - he was not crazy or deranged and as all of the CI investigations have concluded - was not capable of committing the assassination alone, was not a shooter and as the evidence indicates - was probably framed as the patsy as he claimed to be.

Now I don't believe he was set up by Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and the New Orleans Yahoos who did the Houma Bunker raid - the Dealey Plaza Operation was a real slick job set up as a Northwinds type operation to blame Castro, a disinformation op only JFK's enemies in Washington and the Pentagon were capable of pulling off.

If you believe Oswald the psycho motivated lone nut assassin you can go home - or content yourself with your beliefs, but if you recognize Oswald for what he is - a Covert Operational Personality profile - and that the assassination was a covert intel op by a domestic intel network then you can participate in the Counter-Intelligence investigation that must be conducted to expose and counter that network.

This must be done for reasons of national security, the same reason the government is using to deny us the records they continue to with hold to protect that network.

BK

Bill:

Holiday greetings. You are one of the people whose work in and devotion to this case I profoundly respect. My difference of opinion is really only one of degree.

David Wise - a savvy guy on intelligence and hardly a conspiracist - wrote in the Intelligence Establishment that the JFK case contains an undercurrent of intelligence, and he's right. If one looks at the empirical evidence (and presuming that it's all genuine), Oswald claimed to be a leftist from about age 15 until the day of his death, and empirical evidence carries a certain weight. He said these things himself. You're right about some of the clues that suggest that we can mirror-read some of them and infer that, at some point, or right from the beginning, he may have been playing the role of a leftist. As a specialist on New Orleans, I am not at all convinced that he had the associations that others insist that he had, but I do find some other things (deMohrenschildt) raise questions in my mind, too. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if evidence someday emerged to show that he was a US agent of some kind. So it's just a matter of degree: Empirical evidence vs. inferential evidence. You think it rises to the level of strong likelihood, I think it is one of several possibilities.

I don't accept the notion that all we need to do is to raise questions. I think we need to present a plausible counter-theory, timeline, etc., and subject it to the same scrutiny we apply to the WC scenario.

I find it hard to believe that he was an agent from age 15, so he would have had to "turn" in some way at a later point, and I don't know many leftists who could switch allegiance like that. I find it hard to believe that, if he had been set-up, he didn't hint at the truth while in captivity. Surely you see how a sincere and knowledgeable person might have such reservations. There is no monolithic consensus to the broader research community. Good people sometimes see things a bit differently.

[Stephen Roy]

Oswald was also associated with a number of other covet ops - including his defection, the Houma Arms bunker raid, the Walker shooting, the FPCC, the DRE in New Orleans and the Mexico City operation, each of which tells us something about him - he was not crazy or deranged and as all of the CI investigations have concluded - was not capable of committing the assassination alone, was not a shooter and as the evidence indicates - was probably framed as the patsy as he claimed to be.

BK

BTW: How was Oswald associated with the Houma raid??

[Larry Hancock]

Just to be clear, in one of these posts I mentioned the PP directorate....to be more accurate that was actually a personnel reference and should have been stated as "PP staff". The PP job classifications worked under the Directorate of Operations. which reported to the Executive Director / CIA, to the Deputy and then finally the Director. Of course actual field activities were conducted regionally under direction of the senior officers such as JC King in Western Hemisphere and then under the actual stations such as the country stations, special stations such as JM/WAVE or special projects such as PBSUCCESS, JMARC, Mongose, SAS or AMWORLD.

[Don Jeffries]

I've never bought into the notion that critics of the official story have to present a counter scenario of their own. Since virtually all real investigation into this case has been done by lay citizens, without the backing of any media organ, without subpoena power, and without much background in journalism or law enforcement, I think it's unfair to expect them to do more than speculate. Beyond proving that the official narrative is untenable, of course.

In a criminal trial, there is a presumption of innocence. It's incumbent upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No defendant has to show how the particular crime he's being charged with was committed, or who it was committed by. Oswald has been proven, beyond any doubt, innocent in the court of public opinion, and within the research community.

We may never be able to prove, with certainty, exactly who was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But at this point, only someone unfamiliar with the evidence could reasonably believe it was Lee Harvey Oswald. I think that's what should be stressed; the official explanation is impossible. Put the apologists for the myth on the defensive. Don't be trapped into having to explain exactly what happened. Make them defend their house of cards.

Sorry to stray a bit from the topic of this thread, but I did want to address the point about critics presenting a counter-narrative. One thing that independent citizen researchers have proven, I think beyond any reasonable doubt, is that Oswald was much more than what he has been portrayed as by the court historians, and almost certainly was working in some capacity for American intelligence.

[Stephen Roy]

I've never bought into the notion that critics of the official story have to present a counter scenario of their own. Since virtually all real investigation into this case has been done by lay citizens, without the backing of any media organ, without subpoena power, and without much background in journalism or law enforcement, I think it's unfair to expect them to do more than speculate.

But what if the counter-scenario makes no sense? What if it is open to challenge and has problems equal to the WC scenario? You're not suggesting that we accept any explanation for Oswald and the assassination as long as it's not the WC version, are you?

If the traditional version of Oswald, backed by lots of paper (his own writings) in many cases, can be challenged, so too must any counter-version. It would be foolish to replace one nonsense scenario with another nonsense scenario. Is it really too much to ask, in a matter of this gravity, for a scenario that makes sense?

[Stephen Roy]

BTW, Don, in your phraseology, there are some put-downs of people who feel differently than you. Not a good idea.

[Don Jeffries]

Stephen,

I agree that counter-scenarios should be questioned. But the best critics- Harold Weisberg especially comes to mind- concentrated their efforts on the defects in the official case. They presented no "theory," despite the mainstream media's persistent efforts to lump all critics into the "conspiracy theorist" category. In my own book, I present no "theory."

I don't think it's a "put-down" to state that those who have studied this case simply have to come to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the assassin of JFK, if they are being intellectually honest. Lone Nutters have a right to their opinion, but I don't have to respect it or give it the slightest bit of credence. If the official record proves one thing (albeit inadvertently), it's that the assassin couldn't have been Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Paul Brancato]

I agree with Don that we don't have to present a counter theory and then be able to defend it with the same scrutiny we have applied over the decades to the WC case against Oswald. I also don't see where Don's subtle language regarding lone nutters crossed the line.

[Don Jeffries]

I asked Jim D. about the 1957 memo involving Ruth Paine, and am waiting for his response. In the meantime, another researcher forwarded me this link from a previous discussion here that touched upon this subject:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6696&p=61670

[David Josephs]

There are, among people of good faith in this field, at least two orientations toward evidence. To generalize, one is quicker to see patterns and draw conclusions, while the other is reluctant to do so unless the evidence rises to a certain level. I guess I'm of the latter type: Very cautious and reluctant to take it beyond what the evidence reasonably allows. I believe, in fact, that the principal reason that mainstream media often fails to take us seriously is that dichotomy.

This is why I occasionally challenge widely-held beliefs. Things which were once suspected by the research community are slowly morphing into firmly enforced beliefs. It was once suspected that Oswald may have had some connection to US intelligence, but it is now regarded by some as a near-certainty.

Hi Roy...

What do we do as we discover over and over that it is the Evidence which is the Conspiracy... Expecting to have authenticated evidence which proves Oswald was connected to intel... when one need only look at his involvement with Bannister

An anti=Castro, anti-communist "group" dedicated to infultration and disruption in Cuba and within sympathetic groups in the US.

Whether Oswald was handing out FPCC flyers to gather names in an ANTI campaign, or was truthfully supporting FPCC and Castro is to me fairly substantial evidence that Oswald and Intel were connected.

We find each and every person in NOLA that summer was connected - can we cautiously conclude that Oswald's involvment with the charade of the FPCC, the charade of his arrest and fight, the hiring of Steele Jr to hand out flyers, etc, etc,etc...

When it smells like it, looks like it and tastes like it... we could not take steps forward unless the assumption that it IS it is investigated.

I would ask this of you Roy... what if anything has risen to a level of certainty in this case beyond the realization that Oswald did not shoot JFK and the majority of evidence offered to prove guilt is inauthentic and proveably so?

Thanks Roy, always a pleasure reading your posts.

DJ

[Stephen Roy]

I don't think it's a "put-down" to state that those who have studied this case simply have to come to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the assassin of JFK, if they are being intellectually honest.

I won't belabor it, but isn't the corollary that: a person who might have questions about Oswald's innocence is intellectually dishonest? Or "unfamiliar with the evidence"? Or that they are to be disrespected?

I guess I disagree with you about some things Don. Have a nice Christmas.

[Stephen Roy]

There are, among people of good faith in this field, at least two orientations toward evidence. To generalize, one is quicker to see patterns and draw conclusions, while the other is reluctant to do so unless the evidence rises to a certain level. I guess I'm of the latter type: Very cautious and reluctant to take it beyond what the evidence reasonably allows. I believe, in fact, that the principal reason that mainstream media often fails to take us seriously is that dichotomy.

This is why I occasionally challenge widely-held beliefs. Things which were once suspected by the research community are slowly morphing into firmly enforced beliefs. It was once suspected that Oswald may have had some connection to US intelligence, but it is now regarded by some as a near-certainty.

Hi Roy...

What do we do as we discover over and over that it is the Evidence which is the Conspiracy... Expecting to have authenticated evidence which proves Oswald was connected to intel... when one need only look at his involvement with Bannister

An anti=Castro, anti-communist "group" dedicated to infultration and disruption in Cuba and within sympathetic groups in the US.

Whether Oswald was handing out FPCC flyers to gather names in an ANTI campaign, or was truthfully supporting FPCC and Castro is to me fairly substantial evidence that Oswald and Intel were connected.

We find each and every person in NOLA that summer was connected - can we cautiously conclude that Oswald's involvment with the charade of the FPCC, the charade of his arrest and fight, the hiring of Steele Jr to hand out flyers, etc, etc,etc...

When it smells like it, looks like it and tastes like it... we could not take steps forward unless the assumption that it IS it is investigated.

I would ask this of you Roy... what if anything has risen to a level of certainty in this case beyond the realization that Oswald did not shoot JFK and the majority of evidence offered to prove guilt is inauthentic and proveably so?

Thanks Roy, always a pleasure reading your posts.

DJ

David:

Thanks for a polite exchange. My first name is Steve, BTW.

I wasn't asking for authenticated evidence. I essentially asking proponents of the US intel theory when Oswald became associated with US intel. In intellectual terms, it has to make more sense than the theory it replaces.

I wouldn't be so sure that Oswald was working with Banister. Just my opinion, but based on lots of research.

I understand how you think the evidence against Oswald as a shooter is weak. Do you think he was completely uninvolved, and why?

[Stephen Roy]

I agree with Don that we don't have to present a counter theory and then be able to defend it with the same scrutiny we have applied over the decades to the WC case against Oswald. I also don't see where Don's subtle language regarding lone nutters crossed the line.

Paul, I'm not an LN demanding a theory. I'm trying to make sense of when he would have become a US agent. Surely not at 15?? I guess I'm asking to be convinced.

I do disagree with you about the language. Completely antithetical to serious research and discussion. None of us carry the flame of pure truth in our hip pocket.

[David Josephs]

Just off the top of my head, Nagell worked for a time in a Army field intelligence while stationed in Korea but when he was stationed in Japan he was assigned to a military intelligence detachment, which would have been a sub organization of one of the Army occupation groups. I've got a lot of his documents from Japan and so does Dick Russell, it probably indicates which specific unit it would have been. Those detachments did a lot of counter intelligence among other duties.

The document you posted looks like a spin off of the Oswald visit info the CIA communicated after Mexico City; as to the Wilcott thing, that another one of those teasers that might mean something if we just has a little more detail. I'm pretty sure Oswald got some spending money for his bar "dangles" (nice work if you can get it) in Japan, who knows if that came from the ONI and then they decided to apply for some CIA funds, etc. Its possible Wilcott could have seen that, especially as it seems that the Navy did a pretty good job of sanitizing the full record pertaining to Oswald, especially in regard to his Japanese tour.

Hopefully Larry will come back to follow this up...

I found another document which basically orders (suggests) that the Mexican authorities arrest Duran which has a reference to P-8593 (Oswald)

Do you attach any significance to this?

Thanks Larry, or anyone who can shed light for that matter

DJ

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jon - perhaps you missed my short response to something you posted about Oswald being controlled by someome unknown. With your experience do you think it possible that Angleton in the first place kept close track of Oswald, and in the second could have launched a search for someone who hijacked his operative in MC while knowing the answer beforehand, in order to distance himself from this new phase of Oswald's life that ended at Dealey Plaza?

Paul,

Angleton's job was counter-intelligence. His basic role was to uncover agents and their handlers. That's one of the major tasks of counter-intelligence officers. I don't believe Angleton pulled Oswald's strings. It's apparent to me however that Angleton regarded Oswald as being possibly someone's agent. Angleton as a CI officer naturally would want to follow Oswald's actions; would try to learn whether Oswald was being manipulated. To an outsider, Angleton might appear to be controlling Oswald when in fact Angleton was trying to ascertain whether Oswald was someone else's agent.

Would it fall within Angleton's purview to investigate whether someone had surreptitiously hijacked Oswald? Sure.

FWIW, I don't believe there's anything in the historical record indicating Angleton had a hand in killing JFK.