Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Jim Hargrove

TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

Recommended Posts

To Tracy Parnell….

Oh, Pul-lease!  Even Blakey finally admitted that the CIA lied to him and misled his investigation.

The RX-ZIM cryptonym for the CIA’s Oswald Project is from an HSCA document currently at the National Archives.  Do you expect the CIA cryptonym for the “Oswald Project” would be written on billboards?

When the HSCA employee wrote, “THIS IS A TOTALLY IMPROPER AND WHOLLY INADEQUATE INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURE,” it was as reference to HSCA’s Goldsmith calling someone at the CIA to warn them about the people Wilcott named, POSSIBLY SO THEY COULD BE SILENCED, IF NECESSARY!

IF YOU HAVE PROOF THE HSCA REALLY INTERVIEWED 18 EMPLOYEES FROM THE CIA’S TOKYO STATION ABOUT  WILCOTT’S ACCUSATIONS, POST IT RIGHT HERE!  OTHERWISE, I’M ASSUMING THEY WERE JUST BLOWING SMOKE... AGAIN.

NO DOUBT YOU’LL POST MUCH MORE ABOUT YOUR NEW DISCOVERY THAT WILCOTT IS/WAS A LUNATIC.  LURKERS….

CLICK HERE TO READ WILCOTT’S LONG SUPPRESSED TESTIMONY.  DOES HE SOUND LIKE A LUNATIC TO YOU?
 

CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS OF WHISTLE BLOWERS IS THE OLDEST TRICK IN THE BOOK, AND THE BOOK NEVER SEEMS TO CHANGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll have my updated article available shortly and members here can decide for themselves. My original opinion of Wilcott was that he was a harmless, well meaning person who was just wrong. Now I realize he was a dangerous extremist. As I said, if it is a documented fact that the cryptonym is for the "Oswald project" why do the leading sources of information (MFF, Newman) not mention it? Are they in on the plot too? As I mentioned, these are just notes and nothing more, similar to me writing anything I want on a piece of paper and saying it is a fact.

PS-I must be getting somewhere, I have warranted an ALL CAPS response.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 people:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104122&search="wilcott"#relPageId=17&tab=page

Here is the list of 20 employees minus redactions (all of these I believe Wilcott mentioned) originally planned for interview, apparently 2 did not participate for whatever reason:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9174&search="george_breen"#relPageId=2&tab=page

As you know I'm sure, the interviews themselves are not available. I wish they were as I am sure it would bolster my case. My article should be up tomorrow and I have gone from a list of sources to full endnotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody with a lick of common sense would know that the CIA wouldn't allow any of employees to corroborate Wilcott.

Jim, any ideas on what "approx." means in "Cryptonym for Oswald Project approx. RX-ZIM. Probably "approximately," but what is meant by a name being approximate? Maybe Wilcott recalled RX-ZIM but wasn't sure he got all the letters right??

 

Wilcott_0003a.gif

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Maybe Wilcott recalled RX-ZIM but wasn't sure he got all the letters right??

Then why, when asked under other what the cryptonym was, did he say he didn't know or couldn't remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anybody with a lick of common sense would know that the CIA wouldn't allow any of employees to corroborate Wilcott.

I guess you are saying I don't have any common sense which I don't appreciate and see as unnecessary. As for the CIA, how would they know anyone wouldn't corroborate Wilcott? He testified without any problem, what was going to stop any number of employees from doing so? What's a job compared to exposing the greatest plot of all time?

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Interesting possibility. I could never make sense of what Ruby was doing.

Not to drag us off topic, but - leaving Gerry Ford's and Bill Decker's motives aside - I'm not sure Earl Warren understood Ruby's struggle to drop false (or real) hints in the least.  Reading the WR testimony, my feeling is that Warren was observing a presidential mandate to not make a federal case of the criminal case, and so Ruby was foredoomed to stay in the Dallas pokey.  Ruby made his confusing play and failed to sway Warren from his inexorable mission.  It would have taken a giant revelation to budge Warren, and Ruby couldn't make it.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anybody with a lick of common sense would know that the CIA wouldn't allow any of employees to corroborate Wilcott.

I guess you are saying I don't have any common sense which I don't appreciate and see as unnecessary.


I didn't have any particular person in mind when I said that. But really, Tracy, if you're going to hang out at a CT website, you really should expect to see comments like that. Even LNers here say similar things about we CTers.

And, BTW, I stand by what I said. Except that I would change "would" to "should." And I would qualify it to include only informed people who have given it some thought.

"Any informed person with a lick of common sense, having given it some thought, should know that the CIA wouldn't allow any of its employees to corroborate Wilcott."
 

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As for the CIA, how would they know anyone wouldn't corroborate Wilcott?


How? They instruct them not to corroborate Wilcott. Or, more simply, they'd remind them of their vows of silence, punishable by imprisonment.
 

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He testified without any problem, what was going to stop any number of employees from doing so? What's a job compared to exposing the greatest plot of all time?


Wilcott was either a very brave man or very naive one. Judging by some of his writings I read, I think it's the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I didn't have any particular person in mind when I said that. But really, Tracy, if you're going to hang out at a CT website, you really should expect to see comments like that. Even LNers here say similar things about we CTers.

And, BTW, I stand by what I said. Except that I would change "would" to "should." And I would qualify it to include only informed people who have given it some thought.

"Any informed person with a lick of common sense, having given it some thought, should know that the CIA wouldn't allow any of its employees to corroborate Wilcott."
 


How? They instruct them not to corroborate Wilcott. Or, more simply, they'd remind them of their vows of silence, punishable by imprisonment.
 


Wilcott was either a very brave man or very naive one. Judging by some of his writings I read, I think it's the former.

Sandy,

Just like the NSA wouldn't let anyone steal bundles of secrets from their job at a NSA sub-contractor, and then move to Russia?

Do-Do Does Happen, you know.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

18 people:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104122&search="wilcott"#relPageId=17&tab=page

Here is the list of 20 employees minus redactions (all of these I believe Wilcott mentioned) originally planned for interview, apparently 2 did not participate for whatever reason:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9174&search="george_breen"#relPageId=2&tab=page

As you know I'm sure, the interviews themselves are not available. I wish they were as I am sure it would bolster my case. My article should be up tomorrow and I have gone from a list of sources to full endnotes.

Why are you wasting our time with these irrelevant links?  Is this a P.S.44/Beauregard kind of tap dance?

You know perfectly well there is no real evidence that the HSCA interviewed any of the CIA Tokyo station personnel mentioned by Wilcott.

Why don’t you get on to telling us that Wilcott was actually a blood-sucking vampire who murdered scores of orphans and tortured ponies and unicorns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday with a 12:51 PM (EF time) edit to his 9:47 AM post, W. Tracy Parnell wrote (emphasis added) :  “I have uncovered even more information on Wilcott (the guy was a lunatic) so I will be doing another update.”

And here comes his so-called proof that Wilcott was a lunatic:

U.S. Army veteran James Wilcott repeatedly “complained of a backache,” once got drunk and arrested for getting info a fight with a “guy with a long criminal record,” was “very naive,” and sometimes did “inappropriate laughing,” and, even worse, would sometimes “grin at odd times and chuckle at others.”  Man, I’m chuckling now.  Again according to Parnell, Wilcott was advised not to associate with leftists (no doubt after learning “Lee Harvey Oswald” was a CIA agent) and that his CIA buddy said he “aspires to be an intellectual,” and “reads considerably.”  Devastating!!!

Devastatingly funny!

As always, I guess the tactic Parnell uses is to write some bs and post a link to it, pretending that it debunks someone's testimony, knowing that few people will bother to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out a few parts like where Wilcott co-founded a magazine that outed CIA personal placing them in imminent danger. I never could understand that mindset-you hate the CIA because you think they are abusing human rights and assassinating people and so on. So what does he do? Outs CIA people and risks their lives. Makes sense. He also went to Cuba at Castro's invitation and testified before a "youth tribunal" embellishing his LHO story with details that he would not repeat under oath before the HSCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James and Elsie Wilcott didn't become associated with Covert Action magazine until 1978, 15 years after Agent Oswald allegedly killed JFK.  And don't you even read your own sources?

In fact, of course, the law had its desired chilling effect on the major media as well. Very few people knew of, much less accepted, Floyd Abrams’s assurances that the law would only be used against Covert Action, and in the ensuing twenty-five years or so, virtually no undercover CIA officers have been named in the media. Except, of course, for Valerie Plame, and no matter what the law says, the government was not about to prosecute the vice-president.

Do you think that learning you, working as a CIA accountant, had personally paid the CIA operative who allegedly killed the President of the United States might make you a little angry at your former employer?  How does this make him, in your words, a lunatic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×