Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Oswald Practice Tradecraft?


Recommended Posts

Ray, how do we explain Oswald's whole career, from the Marine Corps through his death, except as that of a spook?

Saying bad things about Lee Oswald --including that he was a spook -- is one American pastime in which I refuse to participate. I simply do not know of any credible evidence that he ever spied for anyone.

When he was in Russia the KGB checked him out pretty carefully, even to the point of monitoring his pillow talk with Marina, and found nothing. If he became a spy on his return to the US, I can't imagine who or what he was spying on.

I'll say this, however: If he WAS a spy, he was a damn good one. Unlike professionals like Howard Hunt, Oz left no evidence of his spy-work that I can find.

But maybe you can prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are you really citing John "Harvey and Lee"/Two Oswalds Armstrong as a reliable source. Please link your CTKA essays referencing Newman's and Melanson's work on the subject. Simultaneously affirming that a) LHO was a CIA asset and B) had nothing to do with the assassination was [did you mean MAKES?] little sense.

Len: I know your post is directed to Jim, but please allow me to interject. As I understand it, Jim Di Eugenio is not asserting that Lee Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand Jim to be a Garrison acolyte, and it is no secret that Garrison formally accused Oz of the felony crime of conspiracy to murder JFK.

I am the one claiming that

A/ Oz was not an agent or spy for anyone,

& B/ That Oz had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.

Thanks for clearing that up, if that is indeed his position.

Saying 1] a)he was intel, b)he was involved

or

2] a) he wasn't intel, B) he wasn't involved

or

3] a) he wasn't intel, B) he was involved

make sense but the fourth permutation doesn't.

And yes I meant "makes" in my previous post, I had originally written "was nonsense"

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above discussion is unbelievable in this day and age. And it shows how Mr. Carroll has not gotten over his old tricks.

Its actually a surprising exchange since other people who should know better are actually entertaining this absurdity.

The idea that somehow Oswald was not some kind of espionage agent is today, beyond the pale to contemplate. That is with the work of John Newman, John Armstrong and Philip Melanson, to me there should be no argument.

And for Carroll to seriously use the work of two thoroughly compromised and discredited authors in the field--Mailer and Liebeler--well this shows us that he is still in league with those who were best pals with the likes of Mark Zaid back in the nineties.

If Oswald was not an espionage agent, then please explain to me why Otto Otepka was put through the ordeal he was when he tried to find out if he was a genuine or fake defector? Why was his office bugged, his trash gone through,his car followed, speeches made against him in Congress? All this over a guy who had been a fine employee for years. He is then removed from his job THREE WEEKS before the assassination! Coincidence? Phooey.

If Oswald was not an espionage agent, then why was he trying to call (former?) military intelligence officer John Hurt from the Dallas jail on Saturday night? Maybe because the giant Nags Head navy base was nearby? The place that according to VIctor Marchetti housed the fake Navy defector program? Why was this call not allowed to go through? Why was it then covered up? Try and find it mentioned in the Warren Commission. I have an idea as to why. It has to do with what happened the next morning--Ruby's murder of Oswald. As Marchetti said, that call sealed the intelligence operative's fate.

If Oswald was not an intelligence operative, how the heck do you explain the stuff he was up to in New Orleans? Was it just a coincidence that at the time he is making the FPCC look foolish by leafleting on main streets in New Orleans at rush hour, that both the FBI and CIA have such a program in operation? And that Davdid Phillips is one of the managers of it? And that the group he would end up in violent street conflict with--the DRE--was beign run by Phillips? (According to Howard Hunt at least.)

What is the payoff of the New Orleans charade? The Butler interview. Where Oswald slipped up and admitted he was sponsored by the State Department in Russia.

And the End Game of all this FPCC playing around is Mexico CIty. Where Oswald's image and voice will be manipulated by Anne Goodpasture into makign it seem as if he is in cahoots with Valery Kostikov, KGB assassination agent. And I supposed that its another coincidence that the lying Goodasture was Phillips' right arm in Mexico City.

Mr Carroll must really miss his cohort Dennis Ford these days. In this preposterous discussion of Oswald's identity and role in the plot, he sounds more and more like the guy the late Gene Case threw out of his house with the words: "I don't know what your goal is, but it sure is not ours."

Operation educate Mr Carroll B) B) B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Secret Agent is yet another, different and very specificly defined animal. And unlike the Lone-Nut or the spy, that Oswald was acting as a covert agent of someone else is supported by some credible evidence, including the fact that, if you believe Adele Edisen (and I do), a military Colonel in Washington DC knew where Oswald was going to live in New Orleans and the phone number there a week before Oswald himself knew.

If you believe that, Bill, then you would believe ANYTHING.

I heard Adele tell her story at Lancer back in 99, and did not believe a word. During the Q&A I asked her if she had ever been subjected to any form of hypnotherapy, and she admitted that she had been. I think her story is the product of those sessions.

BUt I would like to meet the guy who can predict the future, so he can tell me the winner of the next Kentucky Derby, before the names of the horses are even known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, how do we explain Oswald's whole career, from the Marine Corps through his death, except as that of a spook?

Saying bad things about Lee Oswald --including that he was a spook -- is one American pastime in which I refuse to participate. I simply do not know of any credible evidence that he ever spied for anyone.

When he was in Russia the KGB checked him out pretty carefully, even to the point of monitoring his pillow talk with Marina, and found nothing. If he became a spy on his return to the US, I can't imagine who or what he was spying on.

I'll say this, however: If he WAS a spy, he was a damn good one. Unlike professionals like Howard Hunt, Oz left no evidence of his spy-work that I can find.

But maybe you can prove me wrong.

Thank you Ray,

I too believe that if Oswald did indeed kill JFK, he was a really good assassin.

But since all those who believe he killed JFK also portray him as a no-good, wife beating loser and loner, he probably didn't kill anyone.

And alas, I know he didn't, and therefore was a better Patsy.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say he was an evil spook?

No David, you did not state explicitly that he was an evil spook. But if he was doing spy-work up to the time of his death, as you asserted above, and that work was somehow legitimate, then his failure to say so to the police, FBI & Secret Service while he was being interrogated seems inexplicable.

If you believe he was a spy, can you please tell us on whose behalf he was working, what his mission was, and the EVIDENCE that led you to this belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No David, you did not state explicitly that he was an evil spook. But if he was doing spy-work up to the time of his death, as you asserted above, and that work was somehow legitimate, then his failure to say so to the police, FBI & Secret Service while he was being interrogated seems inexplicable.

If you believe he was a spy, can you please tell us on whose behalf he was working, what his mission was, and the EVIDENCE that led you to this belief?

I suspect that Oz, from the time he returned from Russia, was used as an FBI informant and a CIA operative, playing a "Lefty Lee" character, a sort of passive-aggressive agent provocateur. I suspect that this character was intended to make him look like a commie and lone nut (with help from the DeMorenschildts and Paines), and he really didn't realize how thoroughly he was being double-sheep dipped.

I suspect that he was given an "observe and report" infiltration role at TSBD, by an intel group he believed was pro-Kennedy, but which actually set him up as the playground patsy. Perhaps Oz was led to believe that JFK security and abort teams would stop the assassins.

I suspect that soon after the killing, Oz may have figured that the lone Soviet defector and professed Marxist at the TSBD was an obvious fall guy, and may have tried to seek a rendezvous for escaping Dallas (and hooking up with pilot Dave Ferrie?) at the Texas Theater.

One of my nagging interests is in what cop cars were doing honking and otherwise prowling for Oswald after the assassination. I'm trying to develop a theory of the purposes of all of Oswald's activities and involvements after leaving TSBD, including any involvement, or not, in the Tippit crime scene.

So, Ray - why is Oswald not a spook, and innocent as well? You can work from informed "suspicion," as I have.

Oz filmed in captivity seems a lot more fatalistic about his arrest than a man with no foreknowledge of the assassination would be.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the review of Newman's book:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/newman.html

Thank you for the link, and an interesting review. Maybe you should read it yourself, because on this thread you asserted that:

Apparently, you don't read any of the reviews at CTKA.In my discussion of the reissue of Newman's "Oswald and the CIA" I relate that John told me that he believes that Angleton was running Oswald as an off the books agent.

Yet in reading your actual review we find that Newman told you something entirely different. The review itself says

[Newman] replied that one possibility was Oswald was being run as an off the books agent by Angleton.

To say that something is "one possibility" is quite a ways short of a "belief", is it not?

And here's another misrepresentation of Newman's beliefs. In your review you state:

Newman believes that Banister was using Oswald to smoke out leftwing students and liberal professors at Tulane,

Yet the book itself is quite different. On page 309 Newman writes:

It is POSSIBLE that Bannister was using Oswald to smoke out pro-Castro students...

So either a possibility equals a belief (which it does not), or you Mr. Di Eugenio have a tendency to misrepresent Newmans beliefs in an attempt to bolster your own theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that Oz, from the time he returned from Russia, was used as an FBI informant....

I suspect that this character was intended to make him look like a commie and lone nut..

I suspect that he was given an "observe and report" infiltration role at TSBD...

Perhaps Oz was led to believe that JFK security and abort teams would stop the assassins.

may have tried to seek a rendezvous for escaping Dallas....

So, Ray - why is Oswald not a spook...?

SUspicions, maybes and perhapses do not make a case that Oz was a spook. My response? NO CASE TO ANSWER.

I'm trying to develop a theory of the purposes of all of Oswald's activities and involvements after leaving TSBD, including any involvement, or not, in the Tippit crime scene.

Then you will be interested in this thread, which contains an in-depth discussion of that very subject.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12509&st=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per Colby, any dilettante like himself who can ignore the prodigious amount of research Armstrong did for his book by disagreeing with one of his theses is untrustworthy and irresponsible.

The notion that there were 2 Oswalds wasn’t just “one of his theses” it THE thesis, the central theory around which the book was written, thus everything in it presumably serves to fulfill that purpose. It’s sort of like someone defending a citation of Erich von Däniken concerning Mayan archeology and classifying extraterrestrial contact as “one of his theses”. But you chose to misrepresent this to suit your purposes. For a book to be of value readers have to be able to trust that the author is honestly and objectively presenting the evidence. If the author presents a reasonable theory, has good track record, works for a reputable publisher (who fact check), has pre-existing expertise/experience in the subject or has a background in the field (history, journalism etc) the odds that this trust is well placed are heightened, Armstrong if I’m not mistaken had none.

But what role do you think LHO played in the assassination. As I indicated earlier believing he was CIA but not involved is unreasonable but saying he was an agent and was involved makes sense.

Can you spell out the top 3 – 5 reasons you think LHO was CIA? I read the 1st part of your review of the Newman book and skimmed the rest, based on that and your reply to Ray your case seems to be based on Newman reporting that certain documents were only sent/issued/filed later than expected or in some cases not issued at all. What I didn’t see was a comparison to other defectors of the era to see if and when such documents were issued or sent or how he ruled out the possibility they might have gone missing over 30 years after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a real piece of work Mr. Carroll.

THank you Mr. Di Eugenio, & very kind of you to say so.

Please answer the above six questions for me OK?

John Newman has answered these questions to my satisfaction. I think his book represents a major breakthrough in the case

Earn some respect for once.

Now that is NOT so kind.

In his introduction Newman writes:

The thesis of this work holds that the CIA had a keen operational interest in Oswald from the day he defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 until the day he was murdered in the basement of the Dallas city jail. From this thesis flow two conclusions: first, that the Agency used sensitive sources and methods to acquire intelligence on Oswald. Secondly, whether witting or not, Oswald became involved in Cia operations.

For the next 600 pages Dr. Newman supports his thesis with evidence from the newly released files.

p. 430 we can finally say with some authority that the CIA was spawning a web of deception around

Oswald weeks before the president's murder.

429 Of the many riddles we have attempted to solve in this book, the Dealey Plaza puzzle is not among them.

So far I am with him.

Here's where I take MAJOR ISSUE:

Page 430 Oswald turned up with a rifle on the president's motorcade route.

THe Warren Commission couldn't prove that, the HSCA couldn't prove that, and even your hero Garrison tried and failed to prove that. THis anti-Oswald bias undermines Newman's otherwise outstanding work.

THis anti-Oswald bias shows up again in the 2008 Epilogue. For 600 pages of the original book, Newman acknowledges that he could find no proof that Lee Oswald knew anything about the CIA's monitoring of his life, but in the new Epilog, out of nowhere, he claims that Oswald had a "handler" who was guiding his steps. He admits he doesn't know who this handler was.

So Newman adds major new knowledge about the assassination, but he is still bogged down in the old faith-based anti-Oswald bias, which continues to bedivil this case.

Finally, I would like to contact Dr. Newman, and if you could send me a PM with his contact information I would be most obliged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per Oswald being a CIA agent...The work in this field is now so enormous that it has built a small library on its own.

Reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke about the restaurant where the food is lousy, but at least they serve up LARGE PORTIONS.

And just for starters, Carroll did not answer my first six questions.

I didn't have to, since John Newman has already answered them, and you have read his book.

As per Mr. Carroll, he uses the Newman quote on page 430 about the rifle without using quotation marks. Why? Because its not a quote. He left out the most important aspect. John ends it with a question mark. Hmm. Not very scholarly.

Take another look and you will see that I DID use quotation marks, merely abbreviating the quote. Since you insist, here is the FULL quotation:

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WHEN [note "WHEN", not "IF"] OSWALD TURNED UP WITH A RIFLE ON THE PRESIDENT'S MOTORCADE ROUTE, THE CIA FOUND ITSELF LIVING IN AN UNTHINKABLE NIGHTMARE OF IT'S OWN MAKING?"

THere is only one possible interpretation of Newman's meaning, and no one who reads Newman's book will be fooled by your pretending otherwise.

As Newman points out, right around the time Oswald was leaving for Mexico the CIA was discussiing with the FBI an operation it had to discredit the FPCC in a foreign country. (Newman, p. 427)

Newman also points out that there was nothing new about this, since both the FBI & CIA had been doing it for a very long time.

How did you both miss that?

Can't speak for Mr. Colby, but your claim that I missed it is just plain false.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know you should put a brand name on your special: Wind and Hooey by our chef, Raymond Carroll.

Just one example, show me the quotation marks below:

Can you read this Jim, or should I draw you a PICTURE?

Page 430 ...Oswald turned up with a rifle on the president's motorcade route....
Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...