Thomas Graves

Jon, Johnny Brewer, the manager of a shoe store next to the Texas Theater, claimed that he saw Oswald hiding from passing police cars in the outside "foyer" of the shoe store, and that he then saw Oswald enter the theater without buying a ticket. Then either Brewer or the ticket-taker, Julia Postal, (I can't remember which right now) called the police and Brewer pointed Oswald out to the police inside the theater. That's the official story. (Remember that the police claimed to have found Oswald's wallet, allegedly containing both Oswald's ID and that of "A. J. Hidell", conveniently left behind by Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder. That didn't have anything to do with their zeroing-in on Oswald at the theater, but it did help tie Oswald to the Mannlicher-Carcano which was allegedly found on the sixth floor of Oswald's workplace.) The point I was trying to make in my earlier posts is that Sawyer's mis-identification of Oswald over the radio had very little, if anything, to do with his (possibly) being stopped by Tippit, and nothing to do with his arrest in the theater, but the mis-identification should be considered a valuable lead by assassination researchers because that incorrect description of Oswald probably came from one or another Intelligence document on Oswald in which his identity had intentionally mixed up with that of another false defector, Robert E. Webster. We know that Ann Egerter of CIA's CI/SIG and John Fain of the Dallas FBI wrote documents like that on Oswald. Bill Simpich believes Egerter and Fain collaborated on a "mole hunt" with these documents, and that Bill Bright of CIA's SR/6 was probably "in on the mole hunt", too, because he went to great lengths to have Fain's bogus information on Oswald incorporated into the CIA's Records Integration File. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter6 Ironically, Bright, who had monitored Oswald for SR/6 while Oswald was in Russia, spoke Spanish and was working as an "independent agent" for the CIA in Mexico City when Oswald was allegedly there. Bright was probably sent there to try to recruit the Russian propagandist, Bakulin, to help recruit the Cuban Consul, Azque, and to double-check the accuracy of the Spanish-language transcripts the corrupt DFS monitors were providing for the CIA phone-tapping program there. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter3 --Tommy Bumped for Jon G. Tidd. --Tommy

Thanks, Paul. I wish I could. I don't think which mole the "Oswald marked cards" were used against is integral to JFK assassination research, but knowing which departments of which Intelligence agencies the "Oswald marked cards" went to might be of some use to us in finding out who the perhaps-intentionally nondescript man was who told Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination that the white male assassin looked like he was 30 years old, 5' 10" tall, and 165 pounds. I think it's possible that a lot of incorrect information was intentionally put into Oswald's Intelligence files to make him essentially untraceable in some future operation. In other words, Oswald's being described as 5' 10", 165 lbs, etc. in Fain and Egerter's documents might have been part of an elaborate "sheep dipping" process. I also suspect that the "Oswald marked cards" that Egerter and Fain collaborated on after Oswsald "defected" to Russia might have had something to do with trying to flush out what was perceived by Angleton at the time to have been "Popov's mole." (In retrospect it seems that Popov's arrest was due to careless trade craft rather than a Soviet spy in U.S. intelligence, but Angleton either didn't know that or chose not to believe it.) They also could have been used to see what the Soviet response would be to the attempt to flush out "Popov's mole." Then there was that drunken Russian colonel, too, whom Popov himself claimed to hear say, before Oswald arrived in Moscow, that the Russian military already knew all about the U-2. Maybe Oswald was sent to Russia as a "dangle" to see if the KGB was interested in an "unstable" former Marine who claimed to have information on radar and other devices used to monitor the U-2., and help to flush out any "moles" in the process. Maybe Oswald's job was to help determine how "stable" a false defector with radar and U-2 information had to appear to be to the KGB in order for them to accept whatever he had to say. One would think that if the KGB was desperately trying to get information on U.S. radar, height-finding devices, etc, they would have accepted even an "unstable" defector like Oswald. I'm guessing that there might also have been some real concern at the time as to whether or not Robert Webster was a true defector to Russia. He was, after all, a former Navy man who was working in the security-sensitive plastics industry and who had recently renounced his citizenship in Russia whereas Oswald later only stated his intention to do so I think Ergeter's and Fain's mixing of the identities of "defectors" Webster and Oswald could have served the purpose of a "marked card" which might help the U.S. find Popov's mole, to uncover the mole or intelligence leak the drunken Russian colonel had alluded to Popov himself, to determine whether or not Webster was a true defector (or perhaps a false defector gone "rogue"), and / or cause confusion and its attendant debate for the KGB. FWIW, Ann Egerter was also said to have been keeping an eye on SR/6's Bill Bright (pseudonym: Orville Horsefall) at the time. In closing, I highly suggest reading Bill Simpich's State Secret , P.D. Scott's Oswald and the Search for Popov's Mole, and John Newman's Oswald and the CIA over again, and again, and again. I am. --Tommy

Jon, Johnny Brewer, the manager of a shoe store next to the Texas Theater, claimed that he saw Oswald hiding from passing police cars in the outside "foyer" of the shoe store, and that he then saw Oswald enter the theater without buying a ticket. Then either Brewer or the ticket-taker, Julia Postal, (I can't remember which right now) called the police and Brewer pointed Oswald out to the police inside the theater. That's the official story. (Remember that the police claimed to have found Oswald's wallet, allegedly containing both Oswald's ID and that of "A. J. Hidell", conveniently left behind by Oswald at the scene of the Tippit murder. That didn't have anything to do with their zeroing-in on Oswald at the theater, but it did help tie Oswald to the Mannlicher-Carcano which was allegedly found on the sixth floor of Oswald's workplace.) The point I was trying to make in my earlier posts is that Sawyer's mis-identification of Oswald over the radio had very little, if anything, to do with his (possibly) being stopped by Tippit, and nothing to do with his arrest in the theater, but the mis-identification should be considered a valuable lead by assassination researchers because that incorrect description of Oswald probably came from one or another Intelligence document on Oswald in which his identity had intentionally mixed up with that of another false defector, Robert E. Webster. We know that Ann Egerter of CIA's CI/SIG and John Fain of the Dallas FBI wrote documents like that on Oswald. Bill Simpich believes Egerter and Fain collaborated on a "mole hunt" with these documents, and that Bill Bright of CIA's SR/6 was probably "in on the mole hunt", too, because he went to great lengths to have Fain's bogus information on Oswald incorporated into the CIA's Records Integration File. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter6 Ironically, Bright, who had monitored Oswald for SR/6 while Oswald was in Russia, spoke Spanish and was working as an "independent agent" for the CIA in Mexico City when Oswald was allegedly there. Bright was probably sent there to try to recruit the Russian propagandist, Bakulin, to help recruit the Cuban Consul, Azque, and to double-check the accuracy of the Spanish-language transcripts the corrupt DFS monitors were providing for the CIA phone-tapping program there. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter3 --Tommy

Jon, Not really. Maybe the " white male and 5'10" " parts, but not the "165 lbs. and thirty years old" parts. LOL It's amazing they caught Oswald with Sawyer's description. They must have already known who they were looking for. Officer Tippit presumably received Sawyer's description on his radio. Then he supposedly stopped and questioned twenty-four year old, 5'9", 131 lb. Oswald who was supposedly walking fast in Oak Cliff. Then Oswald supposedly killed Tippit and left his wallet with both Oswald and Hidell id's at the scene. Then shoe store manager Johnny Brewer supposedly saw Oswald acting suspiciously and darting into the theater without a ticket... If Tippit really did stop Oswald, then it seems as though he already knew who he was looking for and disregarded the Webster-like biometrics broadcast by Sawyer. But many researchers think that Tippit was not shot by Oswald. As researchers and students of the assassination, we are actually fortunate that Sawyer broadcast those particular biometrics because we now know that those same inaccurate numbers appeared much earlier in several Intelligence documents on Oswald. --Tommy

Paul, I'm certainly no expert on this and I hope that Larry Hancock or Bill Simpich will jump in here if I'm way off base, but it's my impression that several mole-hunting "marked cards" (bits of intentional misinformation) were introduced into CIA cables and other documents on Oswald when he "defected" to Russia. 20 year-old Oswald and 30 year-old Robert Webster were both "defectors" in Russia at the same time and resembled each other facially. In many of the documents, if not all, Oswald seems to have been given Webster's biometrics-- 5'10", 165 lbs. I think the significance of the fact that Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer unwittingly broadcast Webster's height and weight (and age), plus the fact that it would have been impossible for anyone to accurately judge, from street level, the height and weight of a man standing (or kneeling) at a sixth floor window, suggests that Sawyer had been given incorrect information about Oswald from someone who had access to a "marked card" intelligence document about Oswald which had, unknown to the "witness", inaccurate biometric information on Oswald. I think that this incorrect, originally CIA or FBI, information might have been passed on to the DPD by someone in Army Intelligence at a base in Texas, or might have been given to it by the FBI. I think that whoever passed it on did not realize that it was not an accurate description of Oswald. (It's interesting to note that Sawyer's mystery "witness", whom Police Inspector Sawyer couldn't remember well enough to describe -- not even his clothing -- evidently didn't tell Sawyer where he had seen the assassin, so the "witness" couldn't have been Howard Brennan because Brennan said he saw the assassin at the sixth floor window.) https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter6 I think it's fascinating that way back in May of 1960, FBI agent John Fain wrote that Oswald's own mother had described Oswald as being 5' 10", 165 lbs, with blue eyes. A perfect description of Robert Webster. I think Fain was lying. I think he incorporated the CIA's description Webster-like description of Oswald into his report and ascribed it to Marguerite Oswald instead of the CIA. Or maybe it was the other way around, and the CIA incorporated Fain's information in it own "marked card" documents. https://www.maryferr...90&relPageId=12 Tracing the source of Sawyer's bad information could turn out for us not to be a "mole hunt", but an "assassination facilitator hunt". --Tommy

Good question, Robert. But I think the important point I'm trying to make is that an unidentified "witness" allegedly told Sawyer that the assassin was 5'10" and 165 lbs, and that that description just happened to match perfectly the "biometrics" of Robert Webster when he and the 5'9", 140 lb. Oswald were both in Russia. Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time? Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45. Mr. BELIN. What did you say then? Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester." Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?" Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle." Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description?" Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that." Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no further information at this time." Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast? Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sawyer_j.htm --Tommy

Or it was used and fired the bullet that ended up injuring James Tague. --Tommy Now For A Devil's Advocate (Rhetorical) Question: Wouldn't it have been possible for the assassin to have (intentionally or unintentionally) bumped the scope on something while hiding the MC, thereby throwing it out of alignment after he had killed JFK?

For one: Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer. --Tommy

Yes, I for one. The photos were taken several year apart. One photo is in color, the other is in black and white. I the color one he a smiling juvenile, in the black and white one he is a serious-looking adult. In the color one, he has his head tilted back, in the black and white one he doesn't. In the color snapshot he has lots of spectral highlights on his face and "red eye", in the black and white one his face has no spectral highlights and eyes are normal. In the color one he's standing in front of a dark background, in the black and white one he's standing in front of a light background. Etc, etc. Same ears. same nose, same eyebrows, same small mouth. Same guy. --Tommy PS I'm sure it's already been noted that FBI agent John Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald on April 23, 1960 , (which was incorporated in his May 12, 1960, report) and claimed in the report that Marguerite had described Oswald as being (a Robert Webster-like) " 5'10", 165 pounds, light brown / wavy hair, blue eyes." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=12 In reality, Oswald was only 5'9" and weighed about 140 lbs (131 lbs at his autopsy), had hazel-gray eyes, and his hair was medium brown and straight. Marguerite said after the assassination that Oswald had never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life. What's interesting is that an unidentified "witness" allegedly told Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination that the assassin he'd supposedly seen, from street level, in the sixth-floor window was 5'10", 165 pounds. Hmmm. Just like Robert Webster. (To the great credit of the "witness", at least he didn't say that the assassin was 5' 10 1/4" and 166 pounds and had wavy hair and blue eyes. LOL) The question is, who fed 5/12/60 FBI agent Fain (and 11/22/63 Dallas Police Inspector J.H. Sawyer) with Robert Webster's physical description in lieu of Oswald's? --Tommy PS Yes I know Bill Simpich talks all about Oswald and Webster in his great "State Secret - Chapter I: The Double Dangle" https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter1 edited and bumped PS a note for Professor Trejo: A Marxist, although he or she may believe in the philosophical / economic / social theory of "dialectical materialism," is not necessarily "materialistic" (as in wanting a flat screen in every room, a couple of yachts and a new Rolls Royce every year). D'oh.

Yes, I for one. The photos were taken several year apart. One photo is in color, the other is in black and white. I the color one he a smiling juvenile, in the black and white one he is a serious-looking adult. In the color one, he has his head tilted back, in the black and white one he doesn't. In the color snapshot he has lots of spectral highlights on his face and "red eye", in the black and white one his face has no spectral highlights and eyes are normal. In the color one he's standing in front of a dark background, in the black and white one he's standing in front of a light background. Etc, etc. Same ears. same nose, same eyebrows, same small mouth. Same guy. --Tommy PS I'm sure it's already been noted that FBI agent John Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald on May 12, 1960, (seven and one-half months after Oswald had "defected") and claimed that Marguerite described Oswald as being (a Robert Webster-like) " 5'10", 165 pounds, blue eyes." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=12 In reality, Oswald was 5' 9.5" and weighed only about 135 lbs (131 lbs at autopsy), and had hazel-gray eyes. Marguerite said after the assassination that her son, Lee Harvey Oswald had never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life. What's interesting is that an unidentified "witness" allegedly told Dallas Police Inspector Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination that the assassin he'd supposedly seen, from street level, in the sixth-floor window was 5'10", 165 pounds. Just like Robert Webster. (To the great credit of the "witness", at least he didn't say that the assassin was 5' 9 1/2" and 166 pounds and had blue eyes. LOL) The question is: Who fed FBI agent Fain (and Sawyer's 11/22/63 "witness") with Webster's physical description in lieu of Oswald's? James Jesus Angleton? David Sanchez Morales? David Atlee Phillips? The exceptionally mysterious CIA officer, William Kent? ? --Tommy

Well, Tommy, I've read that P.D. Scott article Oswald, Marine Corps Intelligence, and the Assault on the State Department: and again I find no hard evidence, but mainly innuendo in that writing. Here's my take on it -- Lee Oswald went to the USSR on behalf of the ONI (or other Intelligence Agency, but let's say ONI for now). So, it makes sense to me that if the ONI were pleased with Oswald's handling of his sworn duties, there is no way they would have allowed the Marines to reduce his discharge status. I sincerely doubt that Oswald's MOTHER had anything at all to do with the Marine's decision. Not at all. The Marines didn't know what Oswald was doing in the USSR, but they trusted the ONI and related Agencies implicitly. Now, at the end of his tour, the ONI gave the Marines a mixed opinion of Oswald's performance of his duties in the USSR. IMHO, Oswald wasn't supposed to get married, or if he did, he wasn't supposed to rush back to the USA on his own accord. There was still work for him to do in the USSR (as a dangle, presumably). Oswald quit early. That was his fault, I gather. Now, that's no crime -- and it's not treason or anything like that. But it didn't make the ONI happy, and when the Marines asked the ONI how their Marine discharged his duties with them, the ONI shook their heads and said something like, "Well, it could have been better." Based on that, the Marines changed Oswald's status. That's the most likely scenario, IMHO, because the notion that the Marines would take their clues from somebody's mother is basically nonsense, IMHO. As for the sentences you highlighted in my post, Tommy: (1) You must have forgotten about the Soviet Division CIA officer Thomas B. Casasin who wrote on 11-25-63 that he had considered "laying on of interviews" with Oswald upon his return from the Soviet Union. So, that would have been sometime in 1962. (2) I think the ONI/CIA wanted Oswald to stay longer in Russia because the CIA was trying to get MORE dangles into the USSR at the time -- so how could they afford to LOSE one? (3) Why do I think Oswald wanted to be a "full-fledged Intelligence Officer?" FOR THE MONEY, CLEARLY. Howard Hunt drove a very nice car -- Oswald couldn't afford a car (even after he learned to drive). CIA Officers made GOOD MONEY. There was Oswald in Dallas, watching people close to his own age making great money as ENGINEERS for Oil Companies and Bell Helicopter -- and there he was, scrimping for CHUMP CHANGE when he had a wife, a baby and another baby on the way. It was embarrassing. (4) Do I think most CIA Agents and contract Agents were "flunkies" and "street people"? No, not generally -- however, during the Cuba Crisis, when the CIA was desperate to kill Fidel Castro, then yes. In 1961-1963 the CIA would scrape the bottom of the barrel for anything, even inside the Mafia, for heaven's sake, or people like David Ferrie, Thomas Beckham, Johnny Roselli and other felons. It's the period of time I'm speaking of -- the specific history of 1961-1963, which is very different from 1971-1973, from 1981-1983, 1991-1993, what to speak of the 21st century. I hope that's clear. As should be clear from the foregoing, I'd rely more on common sense than on Ivory Tower "deep structures." Oswald's mother -- nonsense! Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, I don't understand why you are fixated on the idea that Oswald wanted to be a "full-fledged intelligence officer" rather than "just" an agent. How does that help your overall theory? --Tommy

Well, Tommy, thanks for contributing this piece by Peter Dale Scott that speaks about Oswald and the alleged Russian connection. Paul B. asked me to look at it, and I did, and I'm not moved by the arguments therein. Like most folks here, I've examined the Oswald literature for many years -- yet I, for one, can't bring myself to believe that Oswald was a full-fledged Intelligence Officer. Lee Harvey Oswald was a wannabe. He really, really WANTED to be a full-fledged Intelligence Officer. That appears to have been his life's dream. Oswald made himself available to the Intelligence community at every opportunity, evidently -- and sometimes far too much -- like letting people get ahold of his birth certificate, and so on. Oswald wanted it too much -- and that's probably the main reason he was never hired by any Intelligence Agency. Yes -- there is plenty of evidence that Oswald was trying to break into the Intelligence business. No -- there isn't nearly enough evidence that he actually made the grade. Yes, the CIA even thought of interviewing him at one time. No, they never hired him. Lee Harvey Oswald lived in dire poverty -- and that was hardly a "front." The main problem with Oswald was that he was head-strong (like most men in their early 20's) and did things his own way. I suspect that Oswald left Russia before he was advised to do so -- he had a new wife and started a family, and he never gave up his American Citizenship, and he wanted to COME HOME. He did. Yet after he did, his Marine Discharge status was reduced. That's hardly the result of following ORDERS. There is some evidence that Oswald didn't like being controlled so much -- he wanted more freedom. But that's too expensive for an Intelligence Officer. Oswald was ambitious -- maybe too ambitious. The evidence shows that Oswald lived as just one more part-time "flunky" of the CIA and other Intelligence Agencies -- not unlike Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, David Ferrie and many other street people who have at some point confessed to participation in the JFK murder. Harder evidence is what I seek -- but from Peter Dale Scott I generally find innuendo and rumors and connections as loose as so-called "deep structures". No -- I want harder evidence. I might add here, Tommy, that I still appreciate your excellent riddle -- if Oswald was an Intelligence Agent, then how did he become a PATSY? Regards, --Paul Trejo [emphasis added by T. Graves] Paul, Unfortunately you've quoted here a recent post of mine that I later told Larry Hancock I had posed in error. P.D. Scott didn't say that Marine Corps G-2 and the ONI had collaborated on Oswald's "hardship discharge" ahead of time, but that they collaborated on his final "undesirable discharge" ahead of time. I got them mixed up. But I still do highly suggest reading the P.D. Scott article Oswald, Marine Corps Intelligence, and the Assault on the State Department : http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Scott%20Peter%20Dale/Item%2002.pdf [Edit: Actually the first "discharge" was called a "dependency release," not a "hardship discharge." See http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=327226 ] Interestingly, the Marine Corps based its decision for the latter, (the undesireable discharge ) on bad information that Marguerite Oswald had given to FBI agent John Fain -- that, based on her interpretation of a newspaper article, Lee had renounced his citizenship (when in fact he hadn't). Then later she screwed things even more when she told Lee, who was still in Russia, that the Marine Corps had given him a "dishonorable" discharge rather than the less severe "undesirable" one they had given him! Now-- I don't know what you mean by the sentences in your post that I've highlighted in green. Please elaborate. I.e., When was the CIA thinking about hiring Oswald?, Who might have advised Oswald to stay longer in Russia?, and What makes you think Oswald wanted to be a "full-fledged Intelligence Officer" rather than a "flunky", "street person", "run-of-the mill" contract agent? (His childhood hero, Herbert Philbrick, wasn't a FBI officer, but more like an FBI informant when he was "leading three lives".) The title of this thread is "Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?", not "Was Oswald a Full-Fledged Intelligence Officer". Do you think that most CIA agents and contract agents are "flunkies" and "street people"? I'm not asking you about officers here, but agents. Or are they "flunkies" and "street people" only in comparison to officers? For your information, Oswald was given the above-mentioned undesirable discharge while he was still in Russia, apparently because Marine G-2 and the ONI believed Marguerite Oswald's faulty interpretation of a newspaper article more than they believed the determinations of the (allegedly "commie ridden") State Department. Which in my mind leaves open the possibility that Oswald was sent to Russia as an intelligence agent, and that the Marine Corps gave him an undesirable discharge (which was not as bad as a dishonorable one) only because it mistakenly believed that Oswald had not followed the plan, but had "gone rogue" by actually renouncing his citizenship. But he hadn't. I'm going to finish this long post with an interesting passage from P.D. Scott's article: "It is possible, however, that the Marine Intelligence interest in Oswald dates back to before his alleged 'defection' to the Soviet Union. It has not been explained why Oswald's officer [1st Lieut. Ayers] signed an affidavit in support of Oswald's passport application on September 4, 1959, or why his passport application (to visit Russia!) should refer to a Defense Card which in theory was only issued one week later.(33) MCAS El Toro approved Oswald's [dependency] release from active duty in September, on the ground that his mother in Fort Worth needed his support (WR 688-89; 19 WH 665). Yet the records suggest that the Marines knew very well that Oswald would soon leave the U.S., even while it pretended to think that he was going to work in Fort Worth.(34)" --Tommy PS In his analysis of the issues surrounding Oswald's "Department of Defense I.D. Card" and his passport, AARB researcher Doug Horne comes to the conclusion that there was nothing necessarily sinister about the interplay of the timing involved, but does point out the interesting coincidence that the Marine Corps officer who was "in the middle of it all," 1st Lieut. Alexander C. (or G.?) Ayers, received a short-lived (two-and-one-half month) and ostensibly unnecessary security clearance of "secret" on September 11, 1959, the same day that Oswald was (honorably) discharged from active duty and placed in the Marine Corps Reserve. Horne also points out that the affidavit attached to Oswald's passport application, which affidavit verified that Oswald was being released from active duty, was not actually signed by 1st Lieut. Ayers (whose name was typed in the signature area), but by Oswald's friend, 1st Sgt. Zack Stout, whose signature appears above Ayers' typed name. Horne theorizes that Oswald had Stout sign it because he didn't want Ayers to know he was applying for a passport and planning to travel abroad in the near future, since Lieut. Ayers already knew about his "dependency release" and alleged intention to go help his mother in Fort Worth. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/Doc-0031.txt edited and bumped

Well, Tommy, thanks for contributing this piece by Peter Dale Scott that speaks about Oswald and the alleged Russian connection. Paul B. asked me to look at it, and I did, and I'm not moved by the arguments therein. Like most folks here, I've examined the Oswald literature for many years -- yet I, for one, can't bring myself to believe that Oswald was a full-fledged Intelligence Officer. Lee Harvey Oswald was a wannabe. He really, really WANTED to be a full-fledged Intelligence Officer. That appears to have been his life's dream. Oswald made himself available to the Intelligence community at every opportunity, evidently -- and sometimes far too much -- like letting people get ahold of his birth certificate, and so on. Oswald wanted it too much -- and that's probably the main reason he was never hired by any Intelligence Agency. Yes -- there is plenty of evidence that Oswald was trying to break into the Intelligence business. No -- there isn't nearly enough evidence that he actually made the grade. Yes, the CIA even thought of interviewing him at one time. No, they never hired him. Lee Harvey Oswald lived in dire poverty -- and that was hardly a "front." The main problem with Oswald was that he was head-strong (like most men in their early 20's) and did things his own way. I suspect that Oswald left Russia before he was advised to do so -- he had a new wife and started a family, and he never gave up his American Citizenship, and he wanted to COME HOME. He did. Yet after he did, his Marine Discharge status was reduced. That's hardly the result of following ORDERS. There is some evidence that Oswald didn't like being controlled so much -- he wanted more freedom. But that's too expensive for an Intelligence Officer. Oswald was ambitious -- maybe too ambitious. The evidence shows that Oswald lived as just one more part-time "flunky" of the CIA and other Intelligence Agencies -- not unlike Gerry Patrick Hemming, Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, David Ferrie and many other street people who have at some point confessed to participation in the JFK murder. Harder evidence is what I seek -- but from Peter Dale Scott I generally find innuendo and rumors and connections as loose as so-called "deep structures". No -- I want harder evidence. I might add here, Tommy, that I still appreciate your excellent riddle -- if Oswald was an Intelligence Agent, then how did he become a PATSY? Regards, --Paul Trejo [emphasis added by T. Graves] Paul, Unfortunately you've quoted here a recent post of mine that I later told Larry Hancock I had posed in error. P.D. Scott didn't say that Marine Corps G-2 and the ONI had collaborated on Oswald's "hardship discharge" ahead of time, but that they collaborated on his final "undesirable discharge" ahead of time. I got them mixed up. But I still do highly suggest reading the P.D. Scott article Oswald, Marine Corps Intelligence, and the Assault on the State Department : http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Scott%20Peter%20Dale/Item%2002.pdf [Edit: Actually the first "discharge" was called a "dependency release," not a "hardship discharge." See http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=327226 ] Interestingly, the Marine Corps based its decision for the latter, (the undesireable discharge ) on bad information that Marguerite Oswald had given to FBI agent John Fain -- that, based on her interpretation of a newspaper article, Lee had renounced his citizenship (when in fact he hadn't). Then later she screwed things even more when she told Lee, who was still in Russia, that the Marine Corps had given him a "dishonorable" discharge rather than the less severe "undesirable" one they had given him! PS The title of this thread is "Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?", not "Was Oswald a Full-Fledged Intelligence Officer". Do you think that most CIA agents and contract agents are "flunkies" and "street people"? I'm not asking you about officers here, but agents. Or are they "flunkies" and "street people" only in comparison to officers? I don't know what you mean by the sentences in your post that I've highlighted in green. Please elaborate. I.e., When was the CIA thinking about hiring Oswald?, Who might have advised Oswald to stay longer in Russia?, and What makes you think Oswald wanted to be a "full-fledged Intelligence Officer" rather than a "flunky", "street person", run-of-the mill Intelligence Agent? His childhood hero, Herbert Philbrick, wasn't a FBI officer, but more like an FBI informant when he was "leading three lives". Last but not least. For your information, Oswald was given a "reduced" undesirable discharge while he was still in Russia. Apparently the only reason the Marine Corps "reduced" it from a potential honorable one was because Marine G-2 and the ONI believed Marguerite Oswald's faulty interpretation of a newspaper article more than they believed the determinations of the (allegedly "commie ridden") State Department. Which in my mind leaves open the possibility that Oswald was sent to Russia as an intelligence agent, and that Marine Corps gave him an undesirable discharge (which was not as bad as a dishonorable one) because it mistakenly believed Oswald had not followed the plan, but had "gone rogue" by actually renouncing his citizenship. But he hadn't. I'm going to finish this long post with an interesting passage from P.D. Scott's article: "It is possible, however, that the Marine Intelligence interest in Oswald dates back to before his alleged 'defection' to the Soviet Union. It has not been explained why Oswald's officer signed an affidavit in support of Oswald's passport application on September 4, 1959, or why his passport application (to visit Russia!) should refer to a Defense Card which in theory was only issued one week later.(33) MCAS El Toro approved Oswald's [dependency] release from active duty in September, on the ground that his mother in Fort Worth needed his support (WR 688-89; 19 WH 665). Yet the records suggest that the Marines knew very well that Oswald would soon leave the U.S., even while it pretended to think that he was going to work in Fort Worth.(34)" --Tommy

Robert, He was given a "hardship discharge" from active duty because of his mother's injury, and placed in the Marine Corps reserves. He was still in the Marine Corps reserves when he showed up a month-and-a-half later at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, tried to renounce his citizenship, and told the consul that he was planning to commit espionage. Some time later, the Marine Corps gave him an "undesirable discharge" from the Marine Corps reserves. The reason they gave for doing that was that (they thought, mistakenly, that) he had renounced his citizenship. So you're partly right-- the designation "hardship discharge" [edit: "dependency leave"] was obviously not based on his "defection" because his "defection" hadn't even happened yet. But his final "undesirable discharge", which came a lot later, was based on his "defection" in the sense that the Marine Corps claimed, albeit erroneously, that its reason for giving it to him was that he had "renounced his citizenship" in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. What's fascinating is that the Marine Corps (and ONI) refused to believe what the State Department kept telling them-- that Oswald hadn't renounced his citizenship. Instead they chose to believe the conclusion that Marguerite Oswald had arrived at when she misinterpreted a rather ambiguously-written newspaper article. --Tommy

Jon, I guess what you're saying is that Oswald's offering (or maybe just threatening?) to commit military espionage, but not actually being "taken up" on it by the Russians, was not in itself a case Oswald's dishonoring the Marine Corps Oath. But it's a moot point in a way because the Marine Corps decided to discharge Oswald not because of the espionage threat, but because they thought, incorrectly, that he had renounced his citizenship. (The "funny" thing is that they thought he had renounced his citizenship only because Marguerite Oswald told FBI agent Fain that she had read a newspaper article which led her to believe that.) It's also interesting that the Marine Corps decided to give Oswald a "undesirable" discharge rather than a more severe "dishonorable" discharge. --Tommy

Robert, Regarding #1, The WC took testimony from Lieut. John E. Donovan, Oswald's superior officer in 1959 at MCAS El Toro (actually at a base called LTA Santa Ana, about 5 miles from MCAS El Toro). When asked what kind of security clearance Oswald had, he said that he must have had at least a "secret" clearance because that was the minimum required of everyone who worked in the radar center. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=36&relPageId=306 Donovan himself had had a "secret" clearance at LTA Santa Ana in 1959, but the HSCA later found that four of Oswald's co-workers in Japan and California, including Nelson Delgado, had only "confidential" clearances. See footnote #182. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69700 The problem is I don't know if the HSCA only looked at the records of those four guys, or if they looked at more than that and found that some of Oswald's co-workers had higher clearances than "confidential". Personally, it's hard for me to accept the fact that at least some of the marines working with radar and the U-2 had only "confidential" clearances, but maybe that was the case and Lieut. Donovan didn't realize it. --Tommy

Of course they did, Larry. My god, didn't you see The Bourne Identity ? (Just kidding. That scene was filmed in Prague, by the way, as was the scene where he's sleeping on a park bench in the snow. The water visible in the background is the Vlatava River, not the Zurichsee. I know that bench in the park called "Kampa" well, having sat on it (in the summertime) with my first Czech girlfriend about eight years before they made the movie. Ironically, the Czech Police asked me for my papers while I was sitting there. Must have heard me speaking English or terrible, hardly recognizable Czech...) But seriously, as Newman or Simpich point out, "Defecting is not illegal, but committing espionage is." Or words to that effect. I would think that the U.S. consul could have the marine guards arrest (or "detain"), inside the Embassy or Consulate, any American citizen whom the consul had good reason to suspect was going to commit espionage against the U.S. You know, before that person could walk out the door and get away. If Oswald was a real defector (or even if he was a false defector), fear of being arrested for threatening espionage against the U.S. might have been the main reason he didn't return to the Embassy to fill out the Renunciation of Citizenship forms. --Tommy

OK, Larry. I guess former Army Intelligence analyst Newman was wrong, and Oswald was, as Jon Tidd says, just an Odd Duck who attracted the attention of U.S. Intelligence. But just it just amazes me how this "Odd Duck" had been an aviation electronics operator in the Marine Corps and had been stationed at a place that the U-2 operated out of, and was able to get into Russia on a moment's notice and had enough money to stay at one of the most expensive hotels in Helsinki for a few days and buy a couple hundred dollars worth of Intourist Coupons or travel vouchers to Russia or whatever they were called, to boot, and that he just happened to show up in Moscow a few hours after Colonel Popov was arrested (and about the time that look-alike Robert Webster resurfaced), etc. I guess as far as any potential interest the KGB might have been reasonably expected to have in Oswald, he might just as well have been a defecting Marine Corps Reserves dishwasher, especially in regard to whether or not he could help the CIA (maybe with just an itsy-bitsy bit of help from the ONI false defector program?) to determine whether or not what the drunken Russian general allegedly told Popov was true -- that the Russians already knew absolutely everything there was to possibly know about the U-2. Well, if you are correct that the KGB wasn't interested in the slightest in Oswald's knowledge of the U-2 (and the devices used to monitor and protect it), then maybe Angleton was right, and there was a mole. And maybe the confirmation of that fact (due to the lack of interest in Oswald displayed by the KGB) made it worthwhile, in retrospect, for the CIA or the ONI or whomever to have sent Oswald to Russia in the first place. Respectfully yours, --Tommy

Oh no. Not again. In the month of NOVEMBER the sun is NOT "pretty much" overhead. It is relatively LOW on the horizon when compared to the SUMMER when it is "pretty much" overhead. Look at the SHADOWS in the Altgens photo below. Where is the LIGHT SOURCE (aka: the Sun)? Where is the glare on the windshield? I agree, Greg. The sun is fairly low in the southern part of the sky even in mid-day in late November in Dallas. The amazing thing is that it's like that every year. I think it has something to do with the fact that Dallas is significantly north of the equator, that the earth is tilted 23.5 degrees on its axis, that the earth's axis is, in the short term, always "pointed" at the sun in the same way, and that the earth's yearly journey around the sun is in the form of an ellipse rather than a circle. So the sun was relatively low in the southern part of the sky in Dallas when JFK was assassinated, and that's why so many people on the TSBD steps and near the TSBD were shielding their eyes at 12:30 as they were watching what was "going down" to the south west of them, down on Elm Street. --Tommy

Too many categories IMHO. You'll be creating a lot more work and stress for yourself and other moderators because you'll have to decide which category to put each and every post in, and the contributors might individually or collectively disagree with you about where you put things. Maybe three or four categories would be better for everybody concerned? IMHO the best kind of learning is done in a kind of a limited (and controlled) "interdisciplinary" setting. I do agree that the "deep politics" one should be a separate category from all of the other ones because otherwise you'll end up with JFK assassination CTers (like myself) arguing with others not only about the JFK assassination, but "9/11", the "fighting going on in the Ukraine," "the death of Marilyn Monroe," "the assassination of RFK" (which I believe was a conspiracy), "the Trilateral Commission" "UFO's", "the Illuminati", "the Bilderbast Group" (spelling?), "the Federal Reserve", "Bohemian Grove", "the Mafia", etc,... Oh! -- did I mention UFOs? -- and how they all, you know, TIE IN WITH the JFK Assassination. And, of course, the most important question of all: "What sort of green cheese is the moon is made of, anyway?" --Tommy PS May I suggest that you have a special "Harvey and Lee" one? (Or is it "Lee and Harvey"? Dang-- I never can keep them suckers straight.)

Thanks for the feedback, Larry. I don't have any answers. I'm just throwing stuff out there for other researchers' and students' consideration and feedback. Along that line, it's interesting to note that on page 43, Newman says that "In [Gary Francis] Powers view, Oswald's work with the new MPS-16 height-finding radar looms large." Newman wrote on page 46: " Whether or not the CIA investigated the damage that Oswald had done to the U-2 program, the point is that the Agency could presume that the KGB would be interested in Oswald's U-2 knowledge, Clearly, Oswald thought he had something of 'special interest.' According to information from the Soviets [written about by Norman Mailer in Oswald's Ghost ], Oswald said he was 'prepared to something of interest. He knew about airplanes; he mentioned something about devices.' " [emphasis added] According to Oswald's former commanding officer at El Toro (Donovan), not only had Oswald been schooled on the new MPS-16 height-finding device, but he had also been schooled on a device which protected radar installations from homing missiles, the TPX-1. (see page 44) --Tommy edited and bumped I did a little more re-reading of those pages in Oswald and the CIA and was able to find the two "devices" Oswald was familiar with from his Marine Corps active duty days, the MPS-16 and the TPX-1. See the edited post. But I think the most important point Newman is making in this chapter of the book is that when Oswald defected, "the CIA could presume that the Soviets would be interested in his U-2 knowledge." In the context of what kind of "U-2 knowledge" the Soviets could be reasonably expected by the CIA to be interested in in late 1959, I think it's reasonable to include Oswald's knowledge of these two radar-related and (especially in the case of the MPS-16) U2 - related "devices". I think it's also important to remember that Oswald had personally monitored, on radar, the flying of a U-2 over China, which apparently was a big surprise to his immediate Marine Corps superiors and co-workers at the time...

Thanks for the feedback, Larry. I don't have any answers. I'm just throwing stuff out there for other researchers' and students' consideration and feedback. Along that line, it's interesting to note that on page 43, Newman says that "In [Gary Francis] Powers view, Oswald's work with the new MPS-16 height-finding radar looms large." Newman wrote on page 46: " Whether or not the CIA investigated the damage that Oswald had done to the U-2 program, the point is that the Agency could presume that the KGB would be interested in Oswald's U-2 knowledge, Clearly, Oswald thought he had something of 'special interest.' According to information from the Soviets [written about by Norman Mailer in Oswald's Ghost ], Oswald said he was 'prepared to something something of interest. He knew about airplanes; he mentioned something about devices.' " [emphasis added] According to Oswald's former commanding officer at El Toro (Donovan), not only had Oswald been schooled on the new MPS-16 height-finding device, but he had also been schooled on a device which protected radar installations from homing missiles, the TPX-1. (see page 44) --Tommy

Larry, This is what Newman says about the "black hole" cable from Moscow's U.S. Embassy naval attache in Oswald and the CIA, starting on page 14: "[u.S. Consul Richard] Snyder was not the only person in Moscow sending cables to Washington about Oswald's espionage intentions. While Oswald sat in his hotel room writing his letter of protest to the embassy, the naval attache [aka "Navy Liaison"] in the embassy was also writing a confidential cable [sent Nov. 2], in this case to the chief of Naval Operations in the Pentagon. The determination that this ex-marine was no simple defector but in truth a self-declared saboteur arrived at the Navy Department the next morning, November 3, 1963. Like Snyder's October 31 cable, the naval attache's cable was very short. It invited attention to the embassy's reporting on the defections of Oswald and another ex-Navy man [Robert Edward Webster], and added only one thing: that Oswald had offered to furnish the Soviets with information on U.S. radar. (69) Whatever Oswald's thinking might or might not have been, there is little question about the thinking in Washington, D.C. It did not take long for the naval attache's cable to set off alarm bells at Navy Department. There the cable was routed by a person in the Navy Department named Hamner and checked by "RE/Hediger." (70) The meaning of the letters "RE" is not clear, but it is interesting - as we will discuss in a later chapter - that they also belong to a person connected to a very sensitive CIA monitoring operation. [Newman is referring to CI/Project/RE and HT/LINGUAL, the CIA's illegal mail-opening program; Oswald was placed on it's "watch list" consisting of only 300 people on 11/09/59]. Just twenty-seven hours after being notified that an ex-marine had stated his intent to give up radar secrets, Navy Headquarters replied to Moscow. (71) The final sentence of the navy cable underlines the importance that Washington attached to the news of Oswald's defection. The cable requested updates of developments on Oswald because of "CONTINUING INTEREST OF HQ, MARINE CORPS, AND US INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES." Centered underneath the bottom of these words were two more: "INTELLIGENCE MATTER." From the FWIW department, according to the Mary Ferrell Foundation: "On Nov 3, 1959, he [Hediger] checked Naval Message from Moscow: RE/Hediger. On 4 Nov 1959, he checked Naval Message from CNO to ALUSNA Moscow: M/Hediger. On Nov 13, 1959, he checked Naval Message from Moscow: MSG/Hediger. (In Who's Who in CIA, there is a Jean Jacques Hediger, DOB: 3/11/34, Navy Lieutenant from 1956-1959. Later served in State Department in Mexico." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/marysdb/showRec.do?mode=searchResult&id=4698 A Spanish-language Mexican document I found on the internet says that a "Jean Jacques Heidger" became vice consul at the US Embassy in Mexico City in November, 1966. See the very bottom of page 1: http://dof.gob.mx/index.php?year=1966&month=11&day=26&print=true?print=true --Tommy

Larry, Didn't the Naval Attache at the US Embassy in Moscow send a cable right away to the chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon, notifying it that Oswald had threatened to commit espionage? That would have been all ONI / CIA needed to initiate their investigations of Oswald's background and those of his Marine colleagues at El Toro. (Going from memory here. Always a dangerous thing.) What's interesting to me is that ONI kept bugging State not on the espionage issue (like I said, Navy already knew), but on the "did he or did he not renounce his citizenship" issue. The fact that Oswald was neither arrested on the spot in the U.S Embassy in Moscow for telling consul Richard Snyder that he had he had offered to commit espionage for the Russians once he became a Soviet citizen, nor arrested for the felony of espionage upon his return to the U.S., suggests to me that Oswald's threat was known by the U.S. Consul Richard Snyder to be a false threat, made for eavesdropping electronic ears of the KGB. --Tommy edited and bumped

Larry, I think the important thing is that at least some of the girls who worked at the Queen Bee were suspected of being KGB agents. Oswald might have been sent there as a "dangle", to either "turn" one of those suspected KGB agents, or more likely, to pretend to be "turned" by her so that she could be fed some bad military information. --Tommy