Denis Pointing

Should do Duncan...bet they dont!

If the BY photos were faked and latter planted as the photographic 'experts' claim then how is it possible that Oswald's own mother not only saw one of the set but actually helped destroy it on the very same day Kennedy was assassinated? This is the testimony from Marguerite Oswald, clearly stating that she not only saw one of the photos but also helped Marina in its destruction. It forms part of an article by the highly respected researcher Ian Griggs, hardly someone who could be accused of being a LN'er. Here's just a short piece:"Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, mother of Lee Harvey Oswald, testified before the Warren Commission at Washington D.C. on Monday 10th, Tuesday 11th and Wednesday 12th February 1964. "Now, gentlemen, this is some important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian. 'Mamma', she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, 'Mamma, I show you.' She opened the closet, and in the closet was a load of books and papers. And she came out with a picture - a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, 'To my daughter June'"The rest can be read here scroll down to the heading "Was there a fifth backyard photograph" http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html

YOU ARE A BULLY, AND I WILL PERSIST REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT OFFENDS YOUR "SUPERIOR" INTELLIGENCE

and no need to point out the cap lock to me either!

Good for you Brian, I think you already realise from previous posts that I personally dont go along with your theory. But I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you presenting it. Brian, as long as its withing the forum rules, I would encourage you to post what you want, when you want. Denis.

As normal, this is completely untrue. There is a banned word that describes what Maggie has uttered; it gives a false impression of my communication with her and misleads people.

In AUG 08 I had e-mail contact with her - at Maggie's request - to help her upload some images. I also discussed her avatar and the Forum requirement for it to be changed. This has been previous discussed on the Forum and the e-mails shown.

In MAR 09 - after I was IP banned IIRC - I sent an email to her again regarding the avatars. IIRC, it was on the DPF that Jan and Maggie gave a false account of why they were not posting there and the requirement for avatars. The worst thing in the e-mail I said was:

"Nice try at making me look like the bad guy, but dimwits like you seem to forget some things:"

In MAY 09, I taunted Maggie about the IP ban and how ineffective it was. I said, in part:

I see you are online at the DPF. Ooops - was that me? Or was it a minion? Perhaps you'd best ban everyone from your site. I (or my minions) could be anyone or anywhere. Perhaps I'm one of your members. Who knows? I just find it so laughable that you claim the moral high ground and have the hypocrisy to IP ban someone who isn't even a member there!

So, come on Maggie: show us the "nasty" e-mails. I give you full permission to show any and all e-mails or PMs from me to you... or any other member of the DPF. Please do not show my e-mail address.

I always keep copies of my e-mails, and so can reproduce all the e-mails I have sent to you. Let me remind you of the dates:

12 AUG 08 (x 2)

14 AUG 08

21 AUG 08

22 AUG 08

23 AUG 08

02 MAR 09

14 MAY 09

Shall we see who is being accurate?

Evan, I really wouldn't worry about it mate (not that I think you particularly are) any sensible member reading these crazy accusations would immediately realize that If you had in fact sent Mad Maggie "nasty" emails she would have posted them a long time ago with the utmost glee and satisfaction. These slurs on your character will reflect for more on Mad Maggie than they ever will on yours.

All the best.

Deleted

Deleted

lol C,mon now Bill, sarcasm really doesn't become you. Bury the hatchet, yeah?....and I dont mean bury it in me!!!

Hi Denis,

Good on you, but Oswald was half your age and accomplished as much.

So you insist that Oswald didn't have a steady job, although he declined to take one at the airport for more money, and that he lived in a small room by himself, that he was a no-good loser.

People who portray Oswald that way invariably also claim he killed Kennedy, but rather than being the world-class assassin they make him out to be, still say he failed at everything in life, except being the assassin. That annoys me, but doesn't make me angry enough to go out an shoot the president, and I don't think it made Oswald angry enough to shot the president because his wife wasn't going to move back in with him - could they all fit in that little room?

You seem to be making the position, whether it is one you really believe or you are just making the argument, I don't know, that Oswald didn't like his life, and because his wife left him the night before, went out and shot the President in response to her leaving him.

Is there another historical example of an assassin or spree shooter committing his deed because his wife left him? I would think a sane or crazy person would have killed the wife rather than the President, if she's the one who made him angry, or drove him crazy?

Of course you are making the huge assumption that Oswald was the lone Sixth Floor sniper, and successfully accomplished the deed by himself, when the evidence suggests that he was on the first or second floor at the time of the shooting and someone else was in the window.

If Oswald did kill the President because his wife left him the night before, he certainly would have been crazy, though no one (Other than Volkmar Schmidt) recognized any psychotic attributes before hand.

Of course attempting to attribute a motive to kill the President to a designated patsy is a parlor game.

Oswald may have left his wedding ring, and money with Marina, but I think he was wearing his USMC ring, and I believe that the USMC background of the Patsy is more significant to understanding what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And there's little to be learned from what happened there is the assassin - whoever it was, was motivated by his wife's rejection rather than the policies and actions of the victim.

If the assassination was the result of a spur of the moment decision within 24 hours of the crime, then it was an unplanned, act of a lone madman, then the suspect and the evidence would support that, but it doesn't.

When asked about Oswald's motives, the first chief counsel to the HSCA, Richard Sprague, the son of two psychiatrists, was quoted as saying "I'm not going to determine if Oswald was nursed at his mother's breast. My approach to motive is more direct."

The problem is, for there not to have been a conspiracy or coup, Oswald has to be the assassin, and he must have been crazy.

He may or may not have been crazy, but he was most certainly a Marine.

Bill Kelly

Hi Jack, is this the same Tom Wilson who came up with the 'sewer theory'?

Tom Wilson believed [and believed he could prove in court] that one shot did come from the sewer below the GK, but he was NOT the first person to suggest that. Not by a long shot.

O.K. Peter, thanks for answering, may I ask what you think of that particular theory?

Okay Denis,

Let's take it a step further, and assume for one moment, that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and by himself, placed himself in a position to kill the President of the United States, and does it.

But instead of recognizing his genius, figuring out exactly how and why he did it, how a Lone Wolf assassin succeeded where so many others failed, and attesting to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the best assassin in history, who put it all together and did it, instead he's a measealy, failed, wife beating, deadbeat loser, when in fact if he did what he is accused of having done, he succeeded in being a worthless pawn that takes out a KING.

The very idea that he is a Patsy, rather than the assassin, goes against the very grain of those who try to attribute a motive to Oswald - the Sixth Floor Sniper - as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work.

The bottom line is, if Ozzie the Rabbit wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and I don't believe he was, then he wasn't such a great assassin after all, and he suddenly fits into your perception of him as the disenfranchised loser.

But he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids and over a hundred dollars in cash on him.

Oswald was the Patsy, meant to leave a false trail to protect those really responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And HE tells us that if it wasn't just him the Lone Nut, and actually was a conspiracy, it wasn't just a bunch of Mafia Syndicate Cubans or New Orleans Yahoos like Bannister and Ferrie, it was a full fledged coup d'etat, and the place to take a closer look is the USMC.

And his assertion that Truman wanted to disband the USMC is an urban legend that has some interesting strains of truth to it.

BK

Bill,

Anyone reading that political essay by Oswald or listening to him being interviewed on radio couldn't help but be impressed by Oswald's extremely high intellect. I stand by that.

But the second part of my post was meant to read firmly 'tongue in cheek'. To be honest I found it amusing that by posting that essay you were, albeit inadvertently, seemingly backing up the old LN claim that Oswald was a frustrated genius with a grudge against society. Forget that, I apologise, it really wasn't very nice to 'yank your chain'. But I'm going to play devil's advocate and pick up on a few of your points. I dont necessarily believe some of these answers but I think they are worth considering.

"as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?"

In exchange for 'fame' Oswald was in effect committing suicide, if he had actully got out of the TSBD alive he would have been executed. And like many suicides, after its too late, the instinct for survival kicks in and they change their minds. Could that have happened to Oswald and explain his fleeing the scene and subsequent denial?

"Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ"

I dont believe you really take those ridiculous IQ tests that seriously Bill. Some people's brains just dont work that way, other people just dont test well. There's many highly intelligent people, professional people, who would score bad in an IQ test.

"You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work."

But not unachievable.

" he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids"

Are you kidding!! Oswald didn't have a "good steady job" it was a temporary job working for minimum wage. And Oswald's wife had just told him the night before the assassination that she wouldn't get back with him. Oswald was about to lose his "wife, (and) two beautiful kids". Could that have been the reason Oswald decided to go down in a blaze of glory?

Like I said Bill, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I still think they are all valid points.

Well, Besides talking out of the side of your mouth, playing the devil's advocate and pulling my chain, you still want to talk about this seriously?

You want to make the case for Oswald having an argument with his wife and respond by killing the President? That's assuming that he was actually in the window at 12:30 and pulled the trigger. I think you are fishing for a false motive for the Patsy.

You say: ......different upbringing plus a bit of luck and he might have really amounted to something.

He was only 24. How old are you? Have you been a Marine, been to Russia? Been to any foreign country? Mexico City? Do you speak any other languages?

I think he was something. His motive wasn't to make money, he did have a steady job and could get another, had an apartment, wife, two beautiful kids and over $100 in his pocket.

Those who claim Oswald was the 6th floor sniper certainly do have a hard time attributing a believable motive to him.

He doesn't sound the kind of man who would be easily fooled or made a 'patsy' out of , does he? What he does sound like is a man who would have been totally frustrated with a society which didn't recognise his genius and made him carry out menial work, hmm interesting, where have I read that before?

Show me where he claims to be a genius? That's a thought that is in Denis' mind, not Oswald's, and it betrays your own double entendres.

This is the basic question, and there's no need to play the devil's advocate or play games - JFK was either killed by a deranged lone-nut in a spur of the moment rage, or he was killed as a result of a well planned and executed conspiracy or coup.

And as to your question as to whether or not it is important that Oswald's IQ was tested, I think if you find out who had a complete record of these tests given to Oswald, including Herzog's MMPI, then you'll have a pretty good idea as to who had the capability of framing him, however smart or stupid he really was.

BK

Bill, please dont start misquoting me. I did NOT say Oswald had "an argument with his wife" I said his wife refused to get back with him, that's a lot more serious than an argument, she was in effect ending their marriage. At least that's how Oswald interpreted it, that morning he left his wedding ring in a cup.

"He was only 24. How old are you? Have you been a Marine, been to Russia? Been to any foreign country? Mexico City? Do you speak any other languages?

These are strange questions!! What relevance they have escapes me. But O.K. I'll answer: I'm a very young 55. I'm British, so no I never was in the USMC, does the Queens infantry count? Yes, Ive been to Russia twice. Yes, I'm lucky enough to have traveled very extensively thank you. No, never been to Mexico city. Yes, as well as English I speak Australian, American, New Zealand. etc LOL

Bill, for the last time, Oswald DID NOT have a steady job...it was a TEMPORARY job. And there's a picture below of Oswald's 'apartment' WOW!

I'm afraid you'll have to explain the remark "betrays your own double entendres" as I understand it a double entendre is one phrase with two meanings, the latter usually being risque, so I cant really grasp your meaning. But to be honest I cant really grasp the meaning of your entire post. You seem to have writen it in a great deal of anger. Perhaps we should precede when your'v cooled down a bit.

Hi Jack, is this the same Tom Wilson who came up with the 'sewer theory'?

The two people with 100% visibility of the UM signal were Greer and Kellermann, either of whom could then remotely activate a weapon concealed within the Presidents side door.

Brian, good to see your still convinced in your theory, I can respect that. But can you answer something for me? Why didn't Mrs Kennedy or the Connolly's see the guns/blast coming from the interior of the doors? How could the assassins be sure they wouldn't?

I check the box too but if I come back to forum I have to log in again as well. Perhaps Andy is out to get me too!

It is a conspiracy to get you both to remember your passwords.

Ah yes, and of course Len (special agent) Colby 'just happens' to be 'involved' yet again. VERY suspicious!!! I for one dont belive in coincidences. C'mon Len, own up...what are you doing to poor old Jack?

With Witt's testimony easily blown out of the water, surely believing Umberella Man might have been part of a conspiracy is as valid as believing he isn't. There's no 'facts or reason' either way...just a man standing within a few feet of a doomed President jigging an umbrella about above his head.

Mark, there are "facts or reason either way" I gave some in my post which you dont seem to have read properly, I shall repeat them. " A member of an assassins team would never act so conspicuously, why would he have to? A simple raising of the arm, waving a hat or lifting a placard welcoming the president would have done the job just as well and gone completely unnoticed." Can you or anybody else counter that argument with a sensible argument? I'm really not interested in peoples belief or gut feelings. Thank you.

I have no real problem with accepting Witt may not be the original UM. I just see no reason to believe there was anything sinister in that. Some people will confess to anything...even murder, to get publicity. I also dont accept there was anything sinister in the original UM actions on the day of the assassination for the same reasons I posted earlier i.e. A member of an assassins team would never act so conspicuously, why would he have to? A simple raising of the arm, waving a hat or lifting a placard welcoming the president would have done the job just as well and gone completely unnoticed. Can anyone explain that away? Because all I'm reading so far are post's from members saying they believe UM was part of the conspiracy. That's all very interesting and they are certainly entitled but without facts or reason to back it up its meaningless.

Hi Denis and and yes, I am suggesting that one or other of Greer or Kellerman might have secretly activated a weapon concealed in the side door to the Presidents right hand side. I believe that its possible to have done this using the mirrors as an aiming device.(quote)

Interesting hypothesis Brian, Ian Fleming would have been proud of that one. Good luck. Denis.

Amazing how the researchers make little progress...and I begin to think there are those on these forums who's job it is to make sure this is so. The Umbrella Man was part of the assassination and was definitely not Witt. He was a patsy post facto for the real Umbrella Man. Yes, watch the actions of the UM and DCM after the shooting...it they weren't part and parcel, neither was anyone.

"and I begin to think there are those on these forums who's job it is to make sure this is so."

Yet more thinly veiled accusations Peter? Whose the dis-info agent meant to be this time, me? LOL I would have hoped you might of stopped all that nonsense by now, what with you being a highly respected moderator and all.

Okay Denis,

Let's take it a step further, and assume for one moment, that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, and by himself, placed himself in a position to kill the President of the United States, and does it.

But instead of recognizing his genius, figuring out exactly how and why he did it, how a Lone Wolf assassin succeeded where so many others failed, and attesting to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the best assassin in history, who put it all together and did it, instead he's a measealy, failed, wife beating, deadbeat loser, when in fact if he did what he is accused of having done, he succeeded in being a worthless pawn that takes out a KING.

The very idea that he is a Patsy, rather than the assassin, goes against the very grain of those who try to attribute a motive to Oswald - the Sixth Floor Sniper - as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?

Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ, and he wasn't frustrated that nobody recognized his genius because he never claimed to be a genius, and I don't think he felt disenfranchised at all.

You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work.

The bottom line is, if Ozzie the Rabbit wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, and I don't believe he was, then he wasn't such a great assassin after all, and he suddenly fits into your perception of him as the disenfranchised loser.

But he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids and over a hundred dollars in cash on him.

Oswald was the Patsy, meant to leave a false trail to protect those really responsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza.

And HE tells us that if it wasn't just him the Lone Nut, and actually was a conspiracy, it wasn't just a bunch of Mafia Syndicate Cubans or New Orleans Yahoos like Bannister and Ferrie, it was a full fledged coup d'etat, and the place to take a closer look is the USMC.

And his assertion that Truman wanted to disband the USMC is an urban legend that has some interesting strains of truth to it.

BK

Bill,

"as why would a man seeking fame and to change history deny the deed?"

In exchange for 'fame' Oswald was in effect committing suicide, if he had actully got out of the TSBD alive he would have been executed. And like many suicides, after its too late, the instinct for survival kicks in and they change their minds. Could that have happened to Oswald and explain his fleeing the scene and subsequent denial?

"Oswald wasn't very intelligent, normal 117 IQ"

I dont believe you really take those ridiculous IQ tests that seriously Bill. Some people's brains just dont work that way, other people just dont test well. There's many highly intelligent people, professional people, who would score bad in an IQ test.

"You can judge Oswald any way you want, but if you have him killing JFK, wounding Connally, escaping from the scene, and killing Tippit, then that's pretty good for a day's work."

But not unachievable.

" he wasn't a loser, as he had a good, steady job, a wife, two beautiful kids"

Are you kidding!! Oswald didn't have a "good steady job" it was a temporary job working for minimum wage. And Oswald's wife had just told him the night before the assassination that she wouldn't get back with him. Oswald was about to lose his "wife, (and) two beautiful kids". Could that have been the reason Oswald decided to go down in a blaze of glory?

Like I said Bill, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I still think they are all valid points.

Sorry using this thread to expound my theory, but this is my first post and I have to start somewhere!

For me, the Umbrella man is / might be signalling to someone inside the limo; either Kellermann or Greer, both of whom have the President fixed in their rear view mirrors and either of whom may be waiting for the signal to fire a weapon concealed within the car itself. (see photos of limo parked at Parkland and reflection from Greer’s rear view mirror showing Presidents seating position. Also, Kellerman`s fixation throughout the shooting with his side door, rear view mirror)

The depth of the throat wound (no exit wound), the discovery of a missile (not a bullet) during the autopsy described by the two FBI witnesses O`Neill and Siebert, lead me to the conclusion that a low velocity missile, low powered weapon was used to incapacitiate or freeze the President from close range, (maybe a device similar to that described by Douglas Bazata, which he says he used in a failed assassination attempt on Patton in `46)

I can’t believe that the UM could possibly fire a dart or anything else with any accuracy, considering his stance and posture and his distance from the limo. And, from the available photos of the shooting, taken from various perspectives, there appears to be no other person within range poised to shoot a weapon, at the time the first wounding occurs.

Looking at photos of the car taken in the Whitehouse garage later that night, there is a picture showing the side panelling drape or covering embossed with the Presidential crest, hanging open on the Presidents side door. This is where I believe the weapon could have been hidden.

From the pictures of the interior of the car and the configuration of the Connelly jump seats, it is possible to reconstruct the sequence in which the photos were taken. The sequence shows that at some stage before the car had been cleaned and evidence destroyed, the side panelling or drapes where opened, indicating to me that something was being sought and possibly removed from the interior of the door. Confirmation that someone had at least looked there is seen from the later photos in the sequence showing that the panelling/drape has been replaced in its original position.

Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere, but I haven’t been able to find it.

Welcome to the forum Brian, can I just get this straight, or you seriously suggesting Kellermann or Greer shot the President? If you are then may I remind you they were being filmed or photographed by several people and were within a couple of feet of Mrs Kennedy and the Connolly's. I'm kinda thinking someone may have noticed. Apologises if I misunderstood your post. Denis.

Hi Dennis,

Yes I'm one of those who still believes " UM " was part of the assassination .

Its not what he said he did but more what he did after the shots were fired.

While others were hitting the deck and running for cover " UM " calmly sat down on the curb and speaks with the "DC " man before walking out of history , exit stage right. Then coming forward 15 years later. If he had raised a cigar in the air as a signal there could be found an incidence in history to match his action.

He had no reason to fear the flying bullets-he knew where they were coming from!

And i am not convinced the real " UM " was the one that showed up at the hearings.

IMHO

jim

Hi Jim, UM "calmly sat down on the curb" or sat down in a state of shock? I guess we'll never really know will we? And IMO if UM was part of the plot he would never have sat down to have a chat, he would have got away from the scene as quickly and discreetly as possible. One question Jim, do you not think a signaler would have found a more discreet way to signal? Waving an umbrella around in the air has always seemed a little too flamboyant to me, for some one who wouldn't want to draw attention to themselves.

Denis.

1. JFK - Hugh Grant;

I hope they don't use blanks.

Well, according to many JFK and Hugh Grant do have ..uh..much in common.

It's being produced by Tom Hanks.

And I believe Tom Hanks also stars in it.

I believe there's many on this forum who still actually believe 'umbrella man' was a part of the conspiracy. Incredible!!

During the summer of 1963, when he was living in New Orleans, his cousins the Murrets asked Oswald to give a talk about his visit to Russia to Catholic seminary students.

In some notes he wrote prior to this talk, Oswald speculated on the possibility of a military coup taking place in the USA. His other points are also well-taken.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=465

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...lho_speech.html

Comission Exhibit 102

Editor's note: Lee Oswald was an amazingly bad speller, and in transcribing this document from its original handwritten form, the Warren Commission reflected this. In presenting CE 102 in html format, Fair Play has remained as true as possible to the material published by the WC; however, certain limitations were inevitable.

Notes for a Speech, by Lee Harvey Oswald

WC vol. 16, pp. 441-2

(Spelling Errors Intact)

1. Americans are apt to scoff at the idea, that a military coup in the US., as so often happens in Latin american countries, could ever replace our government. but that is an idea that has grounds for consideration. Which military organization has the potenitialities of executing such action? Is it the army? with its many constripes, its unwieldy size its scores of bases scattered across the world? The case of Gen. Walker shows that the army, at least, is not fertail enough ground for a far right regime to go a very long way. for the same reasons of size and desposition the Navy and air force is also to be more or less disregarded. Which service than, can qwalify to launch a coup in the USA? Small size, a permenent hard core of officerss and few baseis is necscary. Only one outfit fits that description and the U.S.M.C. is a right wing infiltrated organization of dire potential consequence's to the freedoms of the U.S. I agree with former President Truman when he said that "The Marine Corps should be abolished."

2. My second reason is that undemocratic, country wide insitution know as segregation. It, is, I think the action of the active segregationist minority adn the great body of indiffent people in the South who do the United States more harm in the eyes of the worlds people, than the whol world communist movement. as I look at this audience there is a sea of white facts before me where are the negro's amongst you (are they hiding under the table) surly if we are for democracy, let our fellow negro citizen's into this hall. Make no mistake, segregationist tendencies can be unlearned I was born in New Orleans, and I know.

In russia I saw on several occiasions that in international meeting the greatest glory in the sport field was brought to us by negros. Though they take the gold medals from their Russian competitors those negros know that when they return to their own homeland they will have to face blind hatred and discrimonation. The Soviet Union is made up of scores of naturiclists asians and Eurpr-asian's armenian and Jews whites and dark skinned people's yet they can teach us a lesson in brotherhood among people's with different customs and origins.

3. A symbol of the american way, our liberal concesin is the existance in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficeanly controlled by special government agencies. The commuhnist party U.S.A. bears little resemblance to their Russian conterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their right to speak, we maintain a tremonusu sign of our strenght and liberalism harasment of their party newspaper, their leaders, and advocates, is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speach and press. Their views no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. after all communist U.S.A. have existed for 40 years and they are still a pitiful group of radical.

4. Now-a-days -- most of us read enough about certain right wing groups to know how to recognize them and guard against their corresive effects. a would like to say a word about them, although their is possibley few other american born person's in the U.S. who know as many personal reasons to know and therefore hate and mistrust communism. I would never become a psuso-professional anit-communist such as herbert Philbriks or Macarthy. I would never jump on any of the many right wing bandwagon's. because our two contries have too much too offer each other to be tearing at each other's trouths in an endless cold war. Both are conoutries have major short comings and advantages. but only in ours is the voice of dissent allowed opportunity of expression, in returning ________ to ________ the U.S., I hope I have awoken a few who were sleeping, and others who are indifferent.

I have done alot of critizing of our system I hope you will take it in the spirit it was given. in going to Russian I followed the old priciple "Thou shall seek the truth and the truth shall make you free. In returning to the U.S. I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils.

Yes Bill, Oswald must have been an extremely intelligent guy to have wrote that, his grasp of politics and foresight was outstanding, who knows, differant upbringing plus a bit of luck and he might have really amounted to something. He doesn't sound the kind of man who would be easily fooled or made a 'patsy' out of , does he? What he does sound like is a man who would have been totally frustrated with a society which didn't recognise his genius and made him carry out menial work, hmm interesting, where have I read that before?

You should know John, as an historian, that no matter how ridiculous an accusation or innuendo may seem at the time it's often latter proven to be true. Is it, in your opinion John, totally impossible Wilson just may have actually been a KGB agent? This is not a rhetorical question, I would really appreciate the perspective of a left wing historian. Thank you.

Of course the KGB recruited agents from the UK. It has been the strategy for those on the right to try and smear those on the left as being Soviet agents. In fact, the KGB did not work in this way. What we know about the Philby group is that they were recruited as agents by MI5 because they were right-wing activists. Philby and Burgess, for example, were both active in Neo-Nazi groups in the early 1930s. They were recruited by Maxwell Knight, who had been a founder member of the British fascists. MI5 and MI6 were established to stop socialism spreading to Britain.

Wilson was smeared as a KGB agent because he had been elected to form a Labour government in 1964. The far-right is not very keen on democracy when the people elect a left-wing government. The very first Labour prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald was smeared as a Soviet agent via the forged Zinoviev Letter. This cost him the 1924 General Election.

Attempts by Winston Churchill to portray Clement Attlee as a communist in 1945 failed, and even though he was on the right of the party, he provided us with the best period of British government in the 20th century.

Wilson was only the third elected Labour prime minister. It therefore fitted the historical pattern to smear him as a Soviet spy. It was even worse than this. MI5 attempted to organize a coup against him. If we ever really elected a left-wing government, there is no doubt in my mind that the ruling elite would attempt to organize a military coup.

Denis, do you think Philby was a real spy, or like Oswald, was he only playing games in his own mind?

Then there's the case of Teddy Kennedy. Was he a KGB spy, a Congressional asset to the Soviets, or did he just write them a letter for a friend?

Senator Kennedy cooperated with KGB:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2325107/posts

Hi Bill, there's really no doubt Philby was a soviet agent...the guy defected to Russia to avoid capture. But thanks for that link on Teddy, I'd never realised that he'd ever been smeared that way. I presume you do believe it to be just a smear?

John, thanks for answering, so Wilson wasn't the first labour Prime minister to be accused. That's fascinating, and something I'd not realised.

I remember back in the 70's when I was 16/17 working in the offices (as a builder) of a communist publishing company, I believe they published the Daily Worker and the Morning Star, not too sure, their offices were situated at The Pavement, Clapham Common, above a butchers shop of all places. Anyway, every telephone had a 'sticker' on it saying "Remember this phone is bugged. Beware!!" At that young age I thought the warnings were preposterous....the very thought of our security bugging citizen's phones, who weren't breaking any laws, seemed laughable. Oh, it would be nice to be that innocent and naive again. LOL