Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Moderators:

It makes no sense to suspend Greg Parker from this thread (even for a few days) without also suspending David Josephs, because it takes two to tango.

Their several months long trading of insults in this thread is less than instructive about facts, and says more about the literary talents of these combatants.

For those of us who are interested in the issues and the facts, it is exhausting to read through months of insult-trading.

Moderators, please don't suspend Greg Parker from this thread again without also suspending David Josephs, for one may justly argue that Greg Parker is also engaged in self-defense in all these witty (and time-wasting) exchanges.

I don't have a solution -- I agree with Greg Parker that the Harvey & Lee theory is constructed on a foundation of sand, but that is precisely what is at issue here. How can we plead with the combatants to strictly stick to the facts and only the facts in question?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

If the H&L people had to stick to facts, this would be a very short discussion Paul as you know. When they are asked to provide answers, they just engage with the same old thing-generalities. The theory reminds me of a movie where something happens that is never explained-you are just supposed to accept it for the purpose of the story. That is ok with a movie but it doesn't work imo in this case.

[Steven Gaal]

Moderators:

It makes no sense to suspend Greg Parker from this thread (even for a few days) without also suspending David Josephs, because it takes two to tango.

Their several months long trading of insults in this thread is less than instructive about facts, and says more about the literary talents of these combatants.

For those of us who are interested in the issues and the facts, it is exhausting to read through months of insult-trading.

Moderators, please don't suspend Greg Parker from this thread again without also suspending David Josephs, for one may justly argue that Greg Parker is also engaged in self-defense in all these witty (and time-wasting) exchanges.

I don't have a solution -- I agree with Greg Parker that the Harvey & Lee theory is constructed on a foundation of sand, but that is precisely what is at issue here. How can we plead with the combatants to strictly stick to the facts and only the facts in question?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

If the H&L people had to stick to facts, this would be a very short discussion Paul as you know. When they are asked to provide answers, they just engage with the same old thing-generalities. The theory reminds me of a movie where something happens that is never explained-you are just supposed to accept it for the purpose of the story. That is ok with a movie but it doesn't work imo in this case.

Golly Mr. Parker never responds to my "CATHY" photo question. That question is not a "old thing-generalities". gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Steve Gaal wrote:

Author Jim Marrs mentions in his book, Crossfire, that Specter threatened witness Jean Hill with institutionalization if she did not recant her story of,’witnessing a rifleman firing from the Grassy Knoll and immediately being grabbed by two men who claimed to be Secret Service agents,’ and ‘between four and six shots.’ Ms. Hill recalled in 1986 that Specter’s exact words were, ‘Look, we can make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald(Oswald’s mom) and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don’t cooperate with us.’

And what is the evidence for this? I am guessing this came from directly Jean and there is no other basis for it. Pardon me if I don't consider her a very reliable source.

McAdams/ Parnell agree Jean Hill not credible. Yet one could say Specter not credible.,gaal

=========================================================================

"After those interviews with Arlen Specter, my belief in that government would never be the same."

— Investigative journalist Gaeton Fonzi, writing about his 1966 interviews with former Warren Commission staff lawyer Arlen Specter.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/quote/gaeton-fonzi-my-belief-in-that-government-would-never-be-the-same/

=============================

FROM DPF

===

Bernice Moore

how, Arlen Specter, disproved his own..CE 903 photo taken by his FBI,

photographer during their re-creation in the garage....May 1964.......and Trashed his own SBT.....

.....with the follow up photo..

Below you will see CE 903, taken within the garage....Arlen Specter standing......facing ..holding the rod..

supposedly through the trajectory of the wounds in the President and Gov Connally...giving the appearance

that all lined up.....including in particular the neck wound..

Then below another photo taken at that time.....

though it was not numbered of course , as they hid it..tsk tsk....:bootyshake::

Notice the rod he holds and the mark of the wound chalked on the President sit-ins coat.

Where he does not place it, and where it aligns .....and does not in particular........

The second unnumbered photo was discovered years later by one John Hunt....... <IMG border=0 alt=grin>

and was taken from the back view.....which destroys his own the SBT...

of course they had to hide it.....

You will note that the CE 903 was taken from the front..and the hidden photo from the back

BTW.....

Anyone who wants to check for themselves, CE 903 and also on, the photo that is not listed nor

shown within the W/C feel free to have a look.....

CE 903 Warren Commission http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/wc/contents_wh18.htm

For any interested...

The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter

By Gaeton Fonzi

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

===============

LANCER SBT

Single Bullet Theory Creation

http://www.jfklancer.com/SBT.html

[Steven Gaal]

anti H & L people don't respond. ,gaal

######################################################

Guest Post: The Curious Case of the American Bakeries Pay Voucher

=

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SYq5Du2CcygJ:gaylenixjackson.com/jfk-assassination/guest-post-the-curious-case-of-the-american-bakeries-pay-voucher/+&cd=58&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

=====================

Conclusion

Lee Rankin, general counsel of the Warren Commission, made some interesting connections when questioning Marguerite Oswald during her testimony. He was in the process of asking her of any names she may recognize as Oswald’s personal friends, one of the names he mentioned was James Arthur Jackson. What followed is nothing less than astonishing. Her response is "No, you know, a few of those names sound to me like they might be on the back of both these pictures. I am not sure." Mr. Rankin continues by saying, "They are supposed to be associated or friends of people that Mr. Ruby knew and associated with closely." If this is, in fact, true and the commission knew about it, it would appear that Mr. Jackson gave false information when he claimed he had no knowledge of either Jack Ruby or Lee Harvey Oswald in his witnessed statement to authorities. Under normal circumstances, this could be considered obstruction of justice. Perhaps, this was a misstatement on Rankin’s part, but it clearly demonstrates that Rankin was fully aware of the paystub. If his statement was accurate, this would add a much deeper (and potentially sinister) dimension to the case of this paystub.

What is clear, however, is that the complete contents of the paystub have been hidden away from public view. In an interview with researcher Ed LeDoux, Jackson claimed that when he was questioned about the paystub by the FBI, he was not shown the document. Internal memos suggest that even the Warren Commission was not shown the stub. If there was, indeed, an innocent explanation as to how Oswald got Jackson’s pay document and if the stub did have Jackson’s proper information on it, why the secrecy? Other items found on Oswald at the time of his arrest have been made public, including his wallet, ID cards, bus transfer, and bullets. So, why was this paystub, which could have provided evidence that Oswald was potentially stealing other people’s pay cheques (adding credibility to the argument that he was, indeed, a criminal), scrubbed from the public record? What is also clear is that when one compares the officially recorded dates of Jackson’s earnings to the actual date the cheque was cashed, the FBI (or American Bakeries, the source of Jackson’s employment information) was, evidently, forced to fabricate a backstory for this cheque to fit someone’s new version of "the facts." What researchers are left with, then, in regards to the pay stub, is secrecy and dishonesty. The fact that the records for temporary employees of 1960 (the year of the cheque) were completely ignored, was an oversight that was both incompetent and inexcusable. The fact that crucial dates were made confusing or seemingly changed (the date of the discovery of the stub, the dates of the pay periods) should have caused honest investigators to ask some serious questions. If the investigation into the President’s assassination had been open, transparent, and just, such apparent actions should not have occurred. Is it possible that the pay stub contains information that links directly to Oswald? If so, what information was being obstructed? The possibility, however seemingly remote, exists that this cheque stub may have shown that Oswald was not in the Soviet Union, or that there was some sort of Oswald imposter actively in the United States. In short, that would have poked an enormous hole in the official story of Oswald’s activities and the investigation would have taken on a whole new angle, an angle that would have been very troublesome to Warren Commission investigators. However, until this information is rediscovered, the mystery of the pay stub will remain just that: a mystery; one of many mysteries surrounding the tragic death of John F. Kennedy

[Greg Parker]

anti H & L people don't respond.

Gaal, is that an allegation or a request?

The seminal work on the pay stub was done by Ed LeDoux who actually interviewed Jackson (which is cited in this posted)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17593&page=5

[Greg Parker]

The possibility, however seemingly remote, exists that this cheque stub may have shown that Oswald was not in the Soviet Union, or that there was some sort of Oswald imposter actively in the United States.

This REMOTE possibility is what got you to post this in a Lee Oswald and imaginary friend thread?

IMO, the thing with the checks is just clerical error. It's a red herring. A dead end.

The payslip was simply planted to link Oswald to the Neely St address. Planted or fake pocket litter is an old intelligence ploy to help cement weak stories or linkages.

[Greg Parker]

Golly Mr. Parker never responds to my "CATHY" photo question. That question is not a "old thing-generalities". gaal

Gee whillickers... as usual, I have no idea what you're blathering about.

[Jim Hargrove]

...In October 1977 Carl Bernstein, in an article for Rolling Stone magazine, wrote about the relationship between the CIA and major media organizations. Bernstein discovered long-standing cooperation between the Agency and the three major television networks (especially CBS), Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and United Press International. Following President Kennedy's assassination the CIA sent a dispatch to their stations with instructions on how to handle and employ CIA media assets to support the conclusions of the Warren Commission:

* Discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

* To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets ..…

* In private or media discussion not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider .....

b. Critics usually overvalue items and ignore others .....

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States .....

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride ..... ^VICTORS-11

This CIA dispatch helps to explain why those who support the government's position on President Kennedy's assassination receive full and widespread coverage, while assassination critics receive little, if any, coverage from the mainstream media and are often ridiculed.

--From Harvey and Lee, pp. 979-980

However, Jim, the CIA was not keen to promote the Lone Shooter scenario until forced into the position by J. Edgar Hoover with the force of LBJ behind him.

Until that point, the record shows, the CIA was keen to perceive Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist asset. So, the current Lone Shooter position of the CIA was not originally their position -- but was forced upon them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Perhaps so, Paul, but anything we might loosely call “the CIA's position” on whether Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or a Lone Nut surely paled in comparison to these not so lofty goals:

1. To hide the existence of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called the Agency's “Oswald Project,” and to avoid a more rigorous investigation by denying “Oswald” was employed by ANY branch of the U.S. government.

2. To hide the fact that, despite all those “pulse” cameras and back-up cameras in front of the Soviet and Cuban offices in Mexico City, the Agency couldn't produce a single photograph (or, for that matter, an audio recording) of “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Mexico City.

3. To hide the fact that some Agency personnel and assets were clearly trying to use the assassination and the accused assassin to provoke an invasion of Cuba.

I seriously doubt LBJ or JEH needed to force Agency personnel to consider seriously the points above. Support for the LBJ/FBI/Warren Commission “Lone Nut” conclusion solved a great many problems for the Agency.

[Paul Trejo]

...Paul...anything we might loosely call “the CIA's position” on whether Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or a Lone Nut surely paled in comparison to these not so lofty goals:

1. To hide the existence of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called the Agency's “Oswald Project,” and to avoid a more rigorous investigation by denying “Oswald” was employed by ANY branch of the U.S. government.

2. To hide the fact that, despite all those “pulse” cameras and back-up cameras in front of the Soviet and Cuban offices in Mexico City, the Agency couldn't produce a single photograph (or, for that matter, an audio recording) of “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Mexico City.

3. To hide the fact that some Agency personnel and assets were clearly trying to use the assassination and the accused assassin to provoke an invasion of Cuba.

I seriously doubt LBJ or JEH needed to force Agency personnel to consider seriously the points above. Support for the LBJ/FBI/Warren Commission “Lone Nut” conclusion solved a great many problems for the Agency.

Well, Jim, I'll respond by the numbers:

(1) There was nothing to hide -- CIA accountant James Wilcott only reported rumors he heard from people whose names he couldn't remember. The rumor about the “Oswald Project” was likely a joke, teasing Wilcott for his obsession with JFK CT's. Wilcott was a CIA Accountant, who had no knowledge of any Oswald account, or any Oswald checks. He heard rumors from teasers. Nothing to hide, clearly.

(2) As Bill Simpich clearly explains in his free, scholarly eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), the CIA high-command in Mexico City was obliged to start a Mole-Hunt to discover who inside the CIA (or other Intelligence Agency) was bold enough to IMPERSONATE Lee Harvey Oswald over the most wire-tapped phone on the Continent. Because all photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald were securely sequestered due to the Mole Hunt, they will not be available until Thu26oct2017. The Mole Hunt was unsuccessful -- so the CIA directives remained in place. There was nothing sinister about securing Oswald's photographs in an official capacity.

(3) The CIA does not typically expose its internal affairs to the outside world. There was a Mole in the CIA that led a plot to IMPERSONATE Lee Harvey Oswald, tyring to link his name to KGB Agent Valery Kostikov on Tue01oct1963. Subsequent events proved that this CIA Mole was involved with the JFK murder and the set-up of Lee Harvey Oswald as the Patsy. Yes, the goal of that plot was to provoke an invasion of Cuba. Yet: (3.1) it was a Mole who did that; and (3.2) that Mole was never identified despite great effort; and (3.3) the investigation of the JFK murder was given to the FBI/WC and not to the CIA. The CIA could not report that which they did not know. The Mole got away.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

...Paul...anything we might loosely call “the CIA's position” on whether Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or a Lone Nut surely paled in comparison to these not so lofty goals:

1. To hide the existence of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called the Agency's “Oswald Project,” and to avoid a more rigorous investigation by denying “Oswald” was employed by ANY branch of the U.S. government.

2. To hide the fact that, despite all those “pulse” cameras and back-up cameras in front of the Soviet and Cuban offices in Mexico City, the Agency couldn't produce a single photograph (or, for that matter, an audio recording) of “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Mexico City.

3. To hide the fact that some Agency personnel and assets were clearly trying to use the assassination and the accused assassin to provoke an invasion of Cuba.

I seriously doubt LBJ or JEH needed to force Agency personnel to consider seriously the points above. Support for the LBJ/FBI/Warren Commission “Lone Nut” conclusion solved a great many problems for the Agency.

Well, Jim, I'll respond by the numbers:

(1) There was nothing to hide -- CIA accountant James Wilcott only reported rumors he heard from people whose names he couldn't remember. The rumor about the “Oswald Project” was likely a joke, teasing Wilcott for his obsession with JFK CT's. Wilcott was a CIA Accountant, who had no knowledge of any Oswald account, or any Oswald checks. He heard rumors from teasers. Nothing to hide, clearly.

(2) As Bill Simpich clearly explains in his free, scholarly eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014), the CIA high-command in Mexico City was obliged to start a Mole-Hunt to discover who inside the CIA (or other Intelligence Agency) was bold enough to IMPERSONATE Lee Harvey Oswald over the most wire-tapped phone on the Continent. Because all photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald were securely sequestered due to the Mole Hunt, they will not be available until Thu26oct2017. The Mole Hunt was unsuccessful -- so the CIA directives remained in place. There was nothing sinister about securing Oswald's photographs in an official capacity.

(3) The CIA does not typically expose its internal affairs to the outside world. There was a Mole in the CIA that led a plot to IMPERSONATE Lee Harvey Oswald, tyring to link his name to KGB Agent Valery Kostikov on Tue01oct1963. Subsequent events proved that this CIA Mole was involved with the JFK murder and the set-up of Lee Harvey Oswald as the Patsy. Yes, the goal of that plot was to provoke an invasion of Cuba. Yet: (3.1) it was a Mole who did that; and (3.2) that Mole was never identified despite great effort; and (3.3) the investigation of the JFK murder was given to the FBI/WC and not to the CIA. The CIA could not report that which they did not know. The Mole got away.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

.

.

In this connection, I would mention two startling disclosures made by Hardway and Lopez. First, that they had prepared indictments of both Phillips and Goodpasture because of their repeated perjuries under oath to the HSCA. In the studies which follow, Jim spells out these lies, albeit he did not know at the time that Dan and Ed wanted the two CIA officers indicted. Second, that the CIA deliberately kept Dan and Ed away from Mexico City student leader Oscar Contreras. Contreras, like several others, was another witness who asserted that the man he met and who said he was Oswald was not the Oswald who was shot in Dallas. Would it not be rather logical to deduce from these two items of information that Phillips and Goodpasture knew Oswald did not visit either the Cuban or Soviet embassy, that they knew this before the assassination, and that they did what they could to ensure this was not revealed prior to November 22, 1963?

– Albert L. Rossi

Will no one else on this forum accuse the CIA of crimes against JFK? Am I alone here with David Josephs and Steven Gaal?

[Paul Trejo]

In this connection, I would mention two startling disclosures made by Hardway and Lopez. First, that they had prepared indictments of both Phillips and Goodpasture because of their repeated perjuries under oath to the HSCA. In the studies which follow, Jim spells out these lies, albeit he did not know at the time that Dan and Ed wanted the two CIA officers indicted. Second, that the CIA deliberately kept Dan and Ed away from Mexico City student leader Oscar Contreras. Contreras, like several others, was another witness who asserted that the man he met and who said he was Oswald was not the Oswald who was shot in Dallas. Would it not be rather logical to deduce from these two items of information that Phillips and Goodpasture knew Oswald did not visit either the Cuban or Soviet embassy, that they knew this before the assassination, and that they did what they could to ensure this was not revealed prior to November 22, 1963?

– Albert L. Rossi

Will no one else on this forum accuse the CIA of crimes against JFK? Am I alone here with David Josephs and Steven Gaal?

Well, Jim, I'm certainly willing to suspect the CIA of planning the murder of JFK -- if you can provide evidence.

What? No evidence? Only suspicion, rumor and innuendo?

I admit right away that CIA Officers David Morales and Howard Hunt participated in the plot to murder JFK. The evidence is clear -- they confessed.

However, that's all we have -- and those two were not part of the CIA high-command.

Neither were their various stooges who weren't CIA Officers -- but are held to be so through innuendo -- I speak of Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, John Maritno, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Thomas Beckham, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, and so on ad infinitum.

The CIA high-command started a Mole-Hunt to find the IMPERSONATORS of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Mexico City Cuban Consulate over the wire-tapped telephone to the USSR Embassy, asking for KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. This was shown in recently released CIA documents by Bill Simpich last year in his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

Nobody who neglects the Simpich Mole Hunt really belongs in the current debate on the JFK murder. Bill Simpich is the new paradigm.

So, yes, there is evidence of CIA Rogue involvement, but not CIA high-command involvement -- and there is strong evidence of CIA high-command ignorance about the JFK Kill-Team's plot.

Finally, Jim, your citation of Albert Rossi there was weak because it tries to turn a Hardway/Lopez report into mere innuendo and more rumor.

(1) The CIA is sworn to secrecy, even if this means perjury to the HSCA -- this was admitted by CIA Director Helms. So, David Atlee Phillips and his secretary Anne Goodpasture were obeying orders to withhold the trivial data they had. These were the so-called "lies" that Hardway/Lopez identified.

(2) The CIA knew that Oscar Contreras was only trying to distance himself from any heat that might attach to his brief visit with Oswald. Contreras knew very well that Cuban Consulate staff had Lee Harvey Oswald's own mug photographs in their hands with Oswald's signature -- and even if he looked more 'blonde' than most of their clientele -- they saw the man and his photo in their office.

Those two items do not lead me to deduce that Phillips and Goodpasture knew about a "double-Oswald" plot, nor anything like it; nor anything about any JFK murder plot. Bill Simpich is clear -- there was a CIA Mole Hunt. Phillips and Goodpasture were part of the Mole Hunt because they were blind-sighted by this Mole and his IMPERSONATION plot.

Albert Rossi clearly jumps to conclusions that "they knew this [double-Oswald invention] before the assassination." It's mere speculation.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

State Secrets is a very scholarly book, but I reject Mr. Simpich's conclusions about a simple molehunt for a number of reasons, perhaps the most important of which is illustated by the following excerpt from the conclusion of his book:

I think this is what happened, or something close to it – while the Angleton-Egerter-Scott-Phillips-Goodpasture crowd was conducting molehunts around a confused adventurer like Oswald, the friends of the Morales-Roselli-Martino axis at SAS and JMWAVE used trusted sources within the AMOT shadow intelligence network to hijack Angleton’s Oswald legend and commit the ultimate act of extortion.

What has been obvious for half a century is that "Oswald" was hardly a "confused adventurer." He was a spy, following orders. You, Paul, have made the argument that Oswald, like Robert Webster, spied for ONI. I think it is far more likely he worked for CIA, as numerous insiders have claimed. This simple fact throws the whole molehunt argument into profound disarray.

[Paul Trejo]

State Secrets is a very scholarly book, but I reject Mr. Simpich's conclusions about a simple molehunt for a number of reasons, perhaps the most important of which is illustated by the following excerpt from the conclusion of his book:

I think this is what happened, or something close to it – while the Angleton-Egerter-Scott-Phillips-Goodpasture crowd was conducting molehunts around a confused adventurer like Oswald, the friends of the Morales-Roselli-Martino axis at SAS and JMWAVE used trusted sources within the AMOT shadow intelligence network to hijack Angleton’s Oswald legend and commit the ultimate act of extortion.

What has been obvious for half a century is that "Oswald" was hardly a "confused adventurer." He was a spy, following orders. You, Paul, have made the argument that Oswald, like Robert Webster, spied for ONI. I think it is far more likely he worked for CIA, as numerous insiders have claimed. This simple fact throws the whole molehunt argument into profound disarray.

Well, Jim, you apparently rushed to the end of the book without retaining its context.

What Bill Simpich "thinks" happened is that the Mole IMPERSONATED Lee Harvey Oswald in order to blackmail the CIA somehow. Simpich openly invited alternative explanations for the Mole Hunt.

Simpich does not "think" the Mole Hunt occurred, but spent hundreds of pages perusing recently released CIA documents to clearly demonstrate that a Mole Hunt happened starting in early October 1963, searching for the IMPERSONATOR of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

SImpich proved that a Mole Hunt happened. Simpich thinks it happened in order blackmail the CIA.

There is no proof or even solid evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was much more than a CIA wannabe, trying as hard as he could to be accepted into the CIA, and never making the grade.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

Paul,

Somewhere in State Secret, Mr. Simpich makes a statement close to the following: “The real state secret of the Kennedy assassination was the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald.” I agree wholeheartedly, though no doubt we would disagree on the details.

But to refer to Oswald as “a confused adventurer” in the paragraph I excerpted above is missing the proverbial 300 pound gorilla sitting next to us while making note of all the insects in the room. The classic biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” even as portrayed in the WC Report, clearly describes a spy, despite all the denials we would expect a sponsoring state to make.

From the Atsugi radar bubble monitoring top-secret U2 flights, to the Moscow Saturday charade at the U.S. Embassy, to Minsk, to home again on a U.S. loan, without any prosecution whatsoever, the whole story looks, sounds and smells exactly like what it was: a Cold War spy operation. The fact that in 1963 the State Department once again approved “Oswald's” travels to Communist nations is further proof that he was hardly a “confused adventurer.”

I'm going to post a short excerpt from Harvey and Lee on more time. The last time I posed this, you argued that Webster and Oswald spied for ONI rather than CIA. Have you changed your mind?

NOTE: In a 1997 interview Robert Webster told JFK researcher and author Dick

Russell that he met Marina Prusakova in Moscow in the summer of 1959 and spoke with

her in English. Webster said that Marina spoke English well, but with a heavy accent.

A year after Webster was sent to Leningrad by the Soviet Government, 400 miles from

Moscow, he met Marina again shortly after he applied for an exit visa so that he could

return to the US. ^{[interview of Robert Webster by Dick Russell at Cape Cod, MA. 1997}]

Marina's friend in Dallas, Katya Ford, said that when she asked Marina why Oswald

went to Russia, Marina told her that he worked for the Rand Corporation and helped

set up the American exhibit at the World Trade Exposition in Moscow^{.[WC Document 5,}

^{p. 259; FBI interview of Katherine Ford by SA James P. Hosty, 11/24/63]} Marina had momentarily

confused Harvey Oswald with Robert Webster, the 1st US "defector," whom

she met in Moscow (1959) and again in Leningrad (1960).

It is not a coincidence that both Webster and Oswald "defected" a few months apart in

1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of

possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both

returned to the United States in the Spring of 1962. These US "defectors," acting in perfect

harmony, were both working for the CIA.

--From Harvey and Lee, p. 799

.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Somewhere in State Secret, Mr. Simpich makes a statement close to the following: “The real state secret of the Kennedy assassination was the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald.” I agree wholeheartedly, though no doubt we would disagree on the details.

But to refer to Oswald as “a confused adventurer” in the paragraph I excerpted above is missing the proverbial 300 pound gorilla sitting next to us while making note of all the insects in the room. The classic biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” even as portrayed in the WC Report, clearly describes a spy, despite all the denials we would expect a sponsoring state to make.

From the Atsugi radar bubble monitoring top-secret U2 flights, to the Moscow Saturday charade at the U.S. Embassy, to Minsk, to home again on a U.S. loan, without any prosecution whatsoever, the whole story looks, sounds and smells exactly like what it was: a Cold War spy operation. The fact that in 1963 the State Department once again approved “Oswald's” travels to Communist nations is further proof that he was hardly a “confused adventurer.”

I'm going to post a short excerpt from Harvey and Lee on more time. The last time I posed this, you argued that Webster and Oswald spied for ONI rather than CIA. Have you changed your mind?

NOTE: In a 1997 interview Robert Webster told JFK researcher and author Dick

Russell that he met Marina Prusakova in Moscow in the summer of 1959 and spoke with

her in English. Webster said that Marina spoke English well, but with a heavy accent.

A year after Webster was sent to Leningrad by the Soviet Government, 400 miles from

Moscow, he met Marina again shortly after he applied for an exit visa so that he could

return to the US. ^{[interview of Robert Webster by Dick Russell at Cape Cod, MA. 1997}]

Marina's friend in Dallas, Katya Ford, said that when she asked Marina why Oswald

went to Russia, Marina told her that he worked for the Rand Corporation and helped

set up the American exhibit at the World Trade Exposition in Moscow^{.[WC Document 5,}

^{p. 259; FBI interview of Katherine Ford by SA James P. Hosty, 11/24/63]} Marina had momentarily

confused Harvey Oswald with Robert Webster, the 1st US "defector," whom

she met in Moscow (1959) and again in Leningrad (1960).

It is not a coincidence that both Webster and Oswald "defected" a few months apart in

1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of

possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both

returned to the United States in the Spring of 1962. These US "defectors," acting in perfect

harmony, were both working for the CIA.

--From Harvey and Lee, p. 799

You're right, Jim, that Bill Simpich doesn't regard the biography of Lee Harvey Oswald as given in the double-Oswald theory of "Harvey and Lee."

By all means, let's talk about the 300-pound gorilla in the room. The WC Report, far from portraying LHO as a spy, more convincingly portrays LHO as spy-wannabe. All the proximity to Intelligence Agencies that we agree appears in the life of LHO can all be explained by his youthful enthusiasm to join and be a part of the US Intelligence Community.

Atsugi is one case in point. Oswald was what, 18 years old when he arrived there? And then there was the ONI spy caper in the USSR. Oswald was what, over 19 years old when he entered, and barely 21 years old when he left? Any ONI training he got would have been before he went to the USSR. Therefore, Jim, common sense should regard that as a training program -- and not as a full-fledged full-time employment.

Furthermore, LHO married and then "quit" the USSR in a hurry. Shortly after that, the Marines downgraded his discharge status to "Undesirable." It is plausible that LHO quit the ONI project before he was supposed to, and thus his status was downgraded. This meant he wouldn't get the full-time job.

When LHO arrives back in Texas, we don't see him working for the CIA -- instead, we see him flitting from job to job -- very unhappy to be a welder or even a Xerox boy at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall. Instead, we find him creating a fake ID for Alek Hidel at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, as well as photographs of Edwin Walker's house -- and probably also the famous Backyard Photograph Fakes. No wonder LHO got fired from Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall.

This is not the biography of a CIA Agent. It's the biography of a CIA wannabe.

Sure the Cold War was raging, but not just anybody was invited to the Inner Circle. This is what George De Mohrenshildt said about Oswald to the Warren Commission: " I never would believe that any government would be stupid enough to trust Lee with anything important."

So, building Lee Harvey Oswald up to make him look like a CIA spy is simply unsupported by the facts. In 1963 the State Department statements about Lee Harvey Oswald were themselves confused. The CIA admitted it considered "laying on of interviews" with regard to Oswald in 1962, but it never went beyond that stage. Of course, by April 1963, LHO allegedly tried to kill Edwin Walker -- so the CIA would most likely scratch LHO off their list at that time (i.e. Dick Russel's TMWKTM, says Mrs. Voshinin told the FBI about LHO and Walker on Easter Sunday, so it was official by then).

So, Jim, I still maintain that LHO, like Webster, spied for the ONI in the USSR, but as a training program. Their spy work was explained by former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti -- it was a "dangle" operation. It would take several ONI operatives acting over several years to create the spreadsheet they wanted -- and the ONI operatives themselves would not even have the Big Picture. That was only for ONI headquarters.

Once again -- as for Webster saying that he spoke to Marina in English at the time is very skinny data. She said, "Hello, how are you?" She said, "Would you like some vodka?" He never says what English words she spoke. A fiction writer would have hear speaking KGB spy plans and operations, clearly, but Webster himself gave no details.

I myself know how to say, "Hello," and "Goodbye" and "How are you" in Russian. Big deal. John Armstrong adds too much fiction to his account of it.

One gets a notion, though, that the KGB would send several of its "American defectors" to Minsk, and there they would attend various parties, and Marina, like many other young girls in the Communist Party, would attend these functions. So, she met both Webster and LHO there. I see no big deal at all.

However, John Armstrong wishes to link the return of LHO and Webster together -- the Spring of 1962 -- and he uses the term, "perfect harmony." Yet that is his fictional account. We have no idea whether their return was coordinated -- and it seems more likely that the return of LHO from the USSR was a major bother for the ONI, who would have advised the Marines to downgrade LHO's discharge status.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2015 by Paul Trejo