Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Jon G. Tidd]

I'm not certain "Oswald" ever used an alias in an attempt to conceal his identity. In New Orleans Oswald used the name Hidell as the name of the fictitious president or secretary, whatever, of the FPCC. In doing so, Oswald created a fiction but not for the purpose of concealing his identity. The fiction was pointless except that it was used in the alleged order of the Mannlicher-Carcano.

The fact "Oswald" allegedly carried an ID card bearing the name Hidell when he was arrested is interesting but does not represent his actual (as opposed to purported) use of the name Hidell as an alias.

If "Oswald" was acting as an agent for some intelligence service it's quite possible he had been instructed to identify himself as Hidell when asked his name by a stranger. As a counter sign. I don't see any other rational explanation for his association with the name Hidell.

[Don Jeffries]

Another clear indication that Oswald was working in some kind of intelligence capacity is the fake Select Service card found on him. It was in the name of Hidell, of course, but had a photograph of Oswald. The problem there is that real Select Service cards didn't have photographs. Thus, it would have been useless as a form of identification.

It could have been useful, however, in setting up a patsy.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Don Jeffries

[Jon G. Tidd]

Don,

How certain is it the fake SS card was found on Oswald? Do believe without any doubt he was carrying that card?

I can say from experience that when an intelligence service creates a false identity it furnishes the individual involved with credentials that cannot be detected as fake. That is, the credentials themselves appear under the closest examination to be genuine. The SS card Oswald allegedly carried at the time of his arrest would not have been furnished to him by an intelligence service for the purpose of creating a fake identity. Maybe for some other purpose but not that one.

I agree with you that the card could have been furnished to Oswald as a unique way for Oswald to identify himself to strangers --i.e., covert handlers who needed to debrief or instruct him. But debrief him or instruct him as to what? This is where I cannot see Oswald acting as the agent of some intelligence service, because I do not know what use he would have been. He could have been an informer who liked playing intrigue, but this would not make him a recruited agent (agents are all recruited).

I tend to disagree that the card was used to set him up as a patsy unless there is clear proof (alleged proof if one wishes) that Oswald created the card. Any facts indicating the card was created by a third party would demand, scream for, explanation.

[Don Jeffries]

However we look at it, no rational person would have created that Select Service card, if the purpose was merely to use it as a means for a second identity.

I agree with you, Jon, that it is far from certain that the card was really found on Oswald, and it's very unlikely that he would have created it himself. He could have been ordered to, of course, as part of whatever assignment he was on, and those who were directing him may have relied upon his naivety.

The whole Hidell "alias" is part of the Oswald puzzle. I have never accepted the premise that Oswald just adopted this second identity, for whatever reason. For all we know, he was telling the authorities that he'd never heard of that name, or seen that bogus Select Service card, during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Take-Home Counter-Intelligence Test

If "Oswald" was acting as agent of some intelligence service:

1) What was the mission the intelligence service gave him? Full credit for addressing any one period in "Oswald's" life.

2) Who recruited Oswald to be an agent? Where and When?

3) How was Oswald rewarded for the work he did as an agent?

Answers should be supported with facts.

[Thomas Graves]

Take-Home Counter-Intelligence Test

If "Oswald" was acting as agent of some intelligence service:

1) What was the mission the intelligence service gave him? Full credit for addressing any one period in "Oswald's" life.

2) Who recruited Oswald to be an agent? Where and When?

3) How was Oswald rewarded for the work he did as an agent?

Answers should be supported with facts.

Do you believe Oswald was debriefed by the CIA when he returned from Russia in 1962?

Do you think Oswald might have been a false defector sent to Russia by the CIA or the ONI?

Do you think Oswald might have been sent to Russia to monitor another probable false defector, Robert Webster, and / or confuse the Russians about Webster (whom Oswald resembled)?

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

--Tommy

Edited December 29, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Atta and "Oswald" shared one thing in common: they were incompetent to commit the crimes they are alleged to have committed.

Oswald was a mediocre shot with a superior rifle, the M-1. His alleged murder weapon had a worn and rusted barrel, a nearly inoperable bolt, and a mis-aligned scope. A huge step down from a USMC M-1. Atta couldn't fly a big Boeing jet.

"Atta couldn't fly a big Boeing jet."

I guess you're right.

I heard that he wasn't piloting it when it took off.

And that he was kinda weak on his landings, too.

So who "flew" it, Harvey or Lee?

Or did The New World Order get some suicidal Boeing pilot to volunteer for the job?

--Tommy

Edited December 29, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Thomas Graves,

As to your questions in post #126:

1. I don't know what to believe. If Oswald had time-sensitive information CIA wanted, sure, they would have de-briefed him upon his return. But he doesn't appear to have had access to any such information.

2. I could believe CIA or ONI sent Oswald to the USSR as a false defector if I could see a purpose that he served over there for the CIA or ONI. I don't perceive any such purpose.

3. No. Because the KGB wouldn't have confused the two. Oswald and Webster may have looked alike, but the USSR kept them in separate places, so the chance that the KGB would confuse one for the other is negligible IMO.

As to your post #127:

From what I've read I've come to the conclusion none of the alleged hijackers had the skills to fly a Boeing 757 or 767. I'm open-minded as to 9-11 events but am skeptical of the official story. From what I understand, Atta would have had to have far greater skills to fly a big Boeing jet into WTC-1 than Oswald would have had to have to kill JFK with the rusty and decrepit Mannlicher-Carcano.

[Tom Hume]

Jon, you said:

“2. I could believe CIA or ONI sent Oswald to the USSR as a false defector if I could see a purpose that he served over there for the CIA or ONI. I don't perceive any such purpose.”

Perhaps it served the purpose of establishing Oswald’s bona fides as a Commie lone-nut malcontent.

Tom

[David Andrews]

Jon: Many potential answers to your quiz questions were discovered by Dick Russell in interviewing and researching Richard Case Nagell, for the eventual book publication The Man Who Knew Too Much. You may want to consult the second edition.

In Dave Reitzes' paraphrase, Nagell met Oswald while Nagell was "reportedly working for the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), 441st Counter Inteligence Corps Group, at Field Operations Intelligence's Far East Headquarters at Tokyo."

Part of the reason I keep steering you toward Nagell and Russell is that I would be interested in your opinions on the veracity and accuracy of Nagell's assertions and intimations about intelligence services (including the FOI), and about Oswald. Nagell is a source who has to be reviewed in considering the assassination.

I do not know the ultimate reasons for Oswald's defection, how long it was prepared for, nor its sponsorship. I also do not know if there were lookalike Oswald doubles, American or Soviet. I strongly believe, however, that Oswald's defection was key to his US mission, which as he understood it was to offer himself as a dangle to groups and individuals both left and right, to whom either his supposed or actual allegiances while a defector would be attractive.

Edited December 29, 2014 by David Andrews

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

Thanks for steering me toward "The Man Who Knew Too Much". I have the book and plan to read it in 2015.

My take on Nagell is that he became delusional. I can't venture a guess as to why or when. But his behavior in the west-Texas bank and in later years suggest to me an individual who is operating in a reality he has made up. Such an individual may be convincing, may use facts in constructing the fantasy that is his world, may appear lucid, may be articulate and intelligent.

Was Nagell employed by the U.S. Army as a counter-intelligence operative? I don't know. I do know that he would not have operated as a case officer (one who debriefs, possibly recruits, possibly trains information-gathering agents) unless at the time he was a member of the U.S. Army. He might have served as an agent for some intelligence service whether he was in the army or not.

The story that he was instructed by a KGB handler to stop Oswald is too hard for me to believe. If he was truly playing the role of agent for a KGB handler, he never would have revealed this except as part of some plea deal in a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, in my estimation, the KGB would have had no use for Nagell. The KGB, like any intelligence service, wanted valuable and secret information, the kind of information provided to the KGB by Aldrich Ames and John Walker.

If the KGB had known of some plot to kill JFK (which I don't believe) and wanted to foil the plot, there were many ways it could have done so discretely and effectively. It could have sent an emissary to Bobby Kennedy, for example, or even to J. Edgar Hoover or John McCone. Neither Hoover nor McCone could have ignored the emissary's information. The idea the KGB recruited Nagell to foil the plot just doesn't hold up, IMO.

[Larry Hancock]

Jon, I would suggest to you that Nagell and his contacts with intelligence agencies are a very complex subject. Once you get past Dick's book (and he covers Nagell in both his original and with more detailed document info in his newer book on the assassination) I suggest you obtain my CD "Keys to the Conspiracy" from Lancer. It has a host of actual Nagell documents plus an analysis of his behavior and revelations at various points, which is very situational. Certainly Nagell was an Army CIC officer, there is no doubt of that. He was also in contact with CIA officers on the west coast following his discharge, that is verifiable and there is a fairly circumstantial case to be made that he was used in a "non-standard" off the books role by one CIA officer who was assigned to both Japan and later to Mexico City, and ultimately to the JMWAVE project and finally AMWORLD.

Bottom line, without a huge amount of study its virtually impossible to thoroughly assess Nagell or his story, regardless of what you might find online about him.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tom Hume @ post #129:

As I consider the possibility some intelligence service dispatched Oswald to the USSR to establish his bona fides as a commie, lone- nut malcontent, I ask: for what purpose?

If the answer is to set him up as patsy for the JFK assassination I have to reject the answer. Oswald "defected" in 1959. JFK was elected president, in a close election, in November 1960.

Furthermore, the assumed purpose was not fulfilled. Oswald denied being a communist.

On the other hand, I do believe Oswald was picked as a patsy specifically because of his odd-duck behavior, including his "defection." I also believe that his odd-duck behavior would have caught the eye of more than one intelligence service,

[Jon G. Tidd]

Larry Hancock @ post #132:

You write Nagell was a CIC officer. That would have been while he was active duty in the army.

I have no difficulty believing this is a possibility. I can say, though, I am still bound by a secrecy oath I took as an army officer in the M.I. Branch. I am prohibited today from revealing agent-handling techniques, agent names (if I remembered them), and so on. Nagell, as I understand, spilled some of the beans. As a CIC officer he would have been obligated not to do that.

You write and suggest Nagell worked for the CIA after he left active duty in the army. Perhaps he did. But he would have been obligated to keep this work to himself and his CIA handler. Nagell teased Dick Russell with apparent bits of information. Neither case officers nor agents do that. Analysts do it. But not case officers and agents. Case officers and their agents keep what they do to themselves.

[David Andrews]

Russell provides detail on Nagell's intel involvements as a stateside civilian, involvements with other agencies dovetailing out of his associations in FOI Far East. Evaluation of that detail would be useful.

If I'm reading Larry Hancock right, I think he would be most attentive to your opinion on the Nagell documents available on his CD. If I'm not mistaken, some of these appear online as appendices to Larry's Someone Would Have Talked page.

If Nagell became delusional, he did so at a most convenient time - just over two months prior to the assassination that he predicted. The version of the Oswald identity card he carried when arrested bears consideration. His ending up in the same prison cell block as falsely disgraced Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden is circumstantially suggestive.

Rather than delusional, Nagell seems an unhappy, cynical jokester who grew increasingly and expressively disillusioned with intelligence work. He strikes me as not only the man who knew too much, but as the man with nothing left to lose - not ideals nor allegiances. His combat experiences may have been the origin of his cynicism, but its hothouse was the world of intel agencies. I believe the things that he was deeply unhappy about were not exclusively personal.

Fellows like that are both saved and damned by their willingness to throw everything away through their words and gestures. But Nagell apparently kept enough information on file to negotiate a pension out of the government, and to stay alive until the first edition of the Russell book attracted too much attention. As I've said on other threads, you can tell a lot from observing the times when a participant is well treated or mistreated, and from observing the time a participant dies. At the least, these periods in Nagell's life tend to establish him as a participant, and a witness.

Edited December 30, 2014 by David Andrews