Paul Trejo Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Stephen Roy, In your view, is there anything odd, anything out of character, with Oswald's NOLA leafletting in the summer of 1963? ...The whole thing is hard to explain. Under the mirror-reading scenario, the 'Oswald was actually an agent' scenario, the leafletting makes absolutely no sense to me. But under the prima facie scenario, the 'Oswald was what he said he was' scenario, it makes no sense either. He clearly seems to have been going for publicity. It seems to me that Jim Garrison explained this better than anybody else so far. By recognizing that Guy BANISTER's address was stamped on Lee OSWALD's handbills for the FPCC, we have OSWALD working for BANISTER. Since BANISTER wasn't a CIA officer, and had resigned from the FBI to start a private practice, we should probably conclude that OSWALD was working for Banister, and getting spending cash from Clay Shaw. (OSWALD was fired from the O'Reily Coffee Company after only a few weeks.) BANISTER was obsessed with the FPCC, so that connection appears solid. Since Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen have both deduced that Guy BANISTER's staff continually boasted about being in the CIA (David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin) when actually they were far from it -- we may suspect that they had once been street-level CIA flunkies in the fight against Fidel Castro (e.g. like Gerry Hemming, Frank Sturgis and others). Thus, it is possible, even probable, that OSWALD was led to believe that Guy BANISTER was working on behalf of the CIA, and was promised a job with the CIA (his dearest dream) if only he would cooperate with Guy BANISTER. Otherwise, we have to guess why OSWALD was working for BANISTER. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Banister's address was not stamped on Oswald's materials. It was the same building but a different address. Paul, I absolutely do not concur with the way you leap from one presumption to another. "It seems to me...explained this better...we should probably conclude...connection appears solid...have both deduced...we may suspect...thus it is possible, even probable...we have to guess..." Are you listening to yourself? Paul, you don't know me from a hole in the wall, and based on some earlier encounters, you have no respect for the many years I've spent on the New Orleans case: You have decided on a theory, and you are bending the evidence of some things that MIGHT have happened and elevated it to fact. You will argue 'idea equality' with me, but you should dial back your certainty a few notches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 Stephen Roy, I don't believe Oswald's leafletting was, for him, odd or out of character. Oswald did odd things, things that attracted attention. Including the attention of professional spotters and assessors. Perhaps his fatal flaw was not that he did anything to aid in the killing of JFK but that his odd behavior allowed him to be set up as a lone-nut assassin. I've come to believe he was a lone nut, a guy who couldn't hold a job or deal with his marriage, but not a killer. As for his seeking attention, I believe you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I meant more "odd" than out of character. A certain pointlessness. Interesting to have your perspective. As a "patsy" (I hate that word), do you see him as a manipulated genuine leftist or a manipulated agent-playing-leftist?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 Stephen, I believe Oswald was unusual. Call it odd. I believe he was someone who was willing to be influenced. I also believe he believed in both the Russian and the Cuban revolutions. But that he was painfully ignorant of both revolutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Stephen, I believe Oswald was unusual. Call it odd. I believe he was someone who was willing to be influenced. I also believe he believed in both the Russian and the Cuban revolutions. But that he was painfully ignorant of both revolutions. So if he believed in them, he was genuinely left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Stephen, From your post #366, I detect you believe in black and white. Either or. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) ...I don't believe Veciana. He says Maurice Bishop was his case officer. He says he went to meet Bishop in a public venue in Dallas. I don't believe any of this. Veciana's statements do not match up with real-world intelligence operations. Well, Jon, although I'm accustomed to suspecting David Atlee Phillips (Maurice Bishop) of complicity in the JFK murder, Larry Hancock asks me to suspend judgment on that, so I will. Based on this reservation, I do believe Antonio Veciana, the leader of Alpha 66. We know that Alpha 66 was funded by the CIA, because Alpha 66 was fanatical about killing Fidel Castro and taking Cuba back. Therefore, SOMEBODY had to be Veciana's CIA case officer, and Phillips (Maurice Bishop) is a likely choice in that context. Also -- remember what Veciana claims, and keep it in context, please. Veciana didn't say that he was meeting Phillips and OSWALD in the context of a JFK murder -- but simply meeting Phillips in the context of business-as-usual -- which in this case would have been supporting the AMWORLD/AMTRUNK/AMLASH package of CIA plots to kill Fidel Castro. Nor was there any suggestion that anything sensitive was mentioned at that meeting. It was evidently a 'business lunch' in which OSWALD was merely present at this status meeting. Veciana merely says he saw OSWALD in the company of Phillips -- that's it -- that's all. It might be sloppy, or it might not. It was only later JFK Researchers who *presumed* that it was a meeting about the JFK murder. There is no evidence of that at all. On the contrary, in his bio-fiction, "The AMLASH Legacy," Phillips confesses that he had hoped OSWALD could be used to kill Fidel Castro -- that was his involvement, he says, until "somebody" stole OSWALD for the JFK murder. This is where Jim Garrison's work comes in handy. We can name that "somebody" today, namely, the group of Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Tom Beckham, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier. Regards, --Paul Trejo [emphasis added by T. Graves] "Based on this reservation," or in spite of it? --Tommy For what it's worth, Veciana claimed that during one of his five "sit downs" with Maurice Bishop, he sneaked a look at Bishop's Belgian passport when Bishop went to the restroom and carelessly left his briefcase open. Veciana said the name on the passport was "Frigault." http://www.jfk-online.com/daphscavec.html I believe that the HSCA looked into "Frigault (FNU)," but I don't know what they found out, if anything. Edited February 24, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) On the subject of the Oswald double, it is indeed confounding and confusing, as it would be designed to be but honestly tell me....honestly, 6 years apart, does anyone honestly believe these two are one and the same person??: [...] 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 only 5'9" and weighed about 140 lbs (131 lbs at his autopsy), and had hazel-gray eyes. 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 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 the 11/22/63 "witness") with Webster's physical description in lieu of Oswald's? --Tommy Thanks again Tommy for the response. I suppose they could definitely be the same but the amateur artist in me gives an astounding "no" off the bat lol...I mean they look like two different inidividuals. Tilsted back head doesn't produce too much a difference in appearance of the same person does it? (at least significantly) I don't mean to forcefully push the dual Oswald theory here (there seems, on the surface good evidence or arguments for that, despite counterclaims to such a theory) but perhaps in 6 years one's appearance could change depending on the age prior to the 6 years. The Fain question is a very good one and also, does anyone have any idea who that CIA recruiting officer was who probably recruited Oswald in the 50s? (I had notes written about this from Jim D's Destiny Betrayed 2md Ed but have since lost them...) he would be a key individual as far as Oswald's intelligence history is concerned as well. Edited February 24, 2015 by B. A. Copeland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Banister's address was not stamped on Oswald's materials. It was the same building but a different address.... Paul...based on some earlier encounters, you have no respect for the many years I've spent on the New Orleans case: You have decided on a theory, and you are bending the evidence of some things that MIGHT have happened and elevated it to fact. You will argue 'idea equality' with me, but you should dial back your certainty a few notches. Well, Roy, I can admit an error if and when I'm wrong -- but somebody has to show me the logic. I'm open to good arguments. Where can I read about your "many years" that you've spent on the New Orleans episode? Do you have a book or a web site, or perhaps a blog? As for the address stamped on OSWALD's FPCC handbills, it was the side entrance to the same inside offices in the same building BANISTER was using, according to Oliver Stone. This is somehow innocent sounding? Not to me. Banister was surrounded by Cuban Exile radicals and their supporters. They filled his building. How can it be innocent for OSWALD to have an office in the same building? However, Stephen, if you have years of work covering the ground that Jim Garrison covered, I'm willing to read it. Just point me in the direction. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited February 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Stephen, From your post #366, I detect you believe in black and white. Either or. If I'm missing a nuance, please let me know. The left vs. right thing has been an open question for along time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 On the subject of the Oswald double, it is indeed confounding and confusing, as it would be designed to be but honestly tell me....honestly, 6 years apart, does anyone honestly believe these two are one and the same person??: [...] Yes, I for one. The photos were taken several year apart. One photo is in color, the other is in black and white. In 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 only 5'9" and weighed about 140 lbs (131 lbs at his autopsy), and had hazel-gray eyes. 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 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 the 11/22/63 "witness") with Webster's physical description in lieu of Oswald's? --Tommy Thanks again Tommy for the response. I suppose they could definitely be the same but the amateur artist in me gives an astounding "no" off the bat lol...I mean they look like two different inidividuals. Tilsted back head doesn't produce too much a difference in appearance of the same person does it? (at least significantly) I don't mean to forcefully push the dual Oswald theory here (there seems, on the surface good evidence or arguments for that, despite counterclaims to such a theory) but perhaps in 6 years one's appearance could change depending on the age prior to the 6 years. The Fain question is a very good one and also, does anyone have any idea who that CIA recruiting officer was who probably recruited Oswald in the 50s? (I had notes written about this from Jim D's Destiny Betrayed 2md Ed but have since lost them...) he would be a key individual as far as Oswald's intelligence history is concerned as well. Thanks, B.A. . Not sure who you're talking about. My guess is that if Oswald was recruited into the CIA in the 1950's, it might have been done by David Ferrie, or maybe someone in Japan. Maybe Oswald was "encouraged" to do some stuff due to the fact that he was kinda implicated in the mysterious death of private Schrand... --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 As for the address stampted on OSWALD's FPCC handbills, it was the corner entrance to the same inside offices in the same building, according to Oliver Stone. This is somehow innocent sounding? Not to me. Banister was surrounded by Cuban Exile radicals and their supporters. They filled his building. How can it be innocent for OSWALD to have an office in the same building? Stone was wrong. Each entrance led to different offices. Banister's office was not surrounded by anti-Castro people in 1963, when Oswald was in town. Banister was active in anti-Castro matters in 1960-61. It is amazing how the erroneous info about this has been repeated from book to book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) ...I believe Oswald was unusual. Call it odd. I believe he was someone who was willing to be influenced. I also believe he believed in both the Russian and the Cuban revolutions. But that he was painfully ignorant of both revolutions. Well, Jon, I think we see OSWALD somewhat similarly. OSWALD was ultimately right-wing, but he didn't respect his comrades on the right very much. This annoyed them a lot. This friction was part of what led to OSWALD's betrayal. It seems to me that OSWALD was impressed by Karl Marx, and although he stopped short of calling himself a Communist (August 1963 in NOLA) he did not waver in calling himself a Marxist/Leninist. This suggests OSWALD was an atheist -- and proud of it -- on moral grounds. It was all about taking care of the poor, oppressed Working Class -- yet it seems OSWALD did not see himself as part of the Working Class, either, since he failed to hold down a steady job. He didn't like the 8-5 schedule -- obviously since he held four jobs in the last 12 months of his life, with lots of weeks of unemployment in the meantime. OSWALD was far from settled down -- he wanted more out of life. If only he could be hired by the CIA (or the FBI) as a full-time, salaried officer -- his life would finally be satisfactory, and he could then "settle down" with his wife and children. It seems that OSWALD spent more time pretending to be a Director of that Fake FPCC in NOLA than in any paying job he held in 1962-1963. OSWALD put his heart and soul into it -- and somebody was giving him pin money. Working for Guy Banister (as it appears to me) OSWALD used Marxism as a way to distance himself from his peers (the barely-employed Marines and mercenaries in NOLA) and also from the left-wing. It was interesting that in his TV interview OSWALD called Communism a "Red Herring" and smirked. This suggests to me a right-wing, perhaps JBS orientation, which regarded Communism as a secret plot of rich men in New York City. It seems to me -- partly from his writings -- that OSWALD had his own, unique (and amateur) interpretation of Karl Marx, which made him very proud of himself. It enabled him (IMHO) to be a better "double agent." Based on this "double agent" role he was playing in NOLA (IMHO), OSWALD thought of himself (and behaved) as somebody who was uniquely qualified to be a full-time, salaried CIA officer. Here (IMHO) was OSWALD's motivation for his NOLA activities, his Mexico City activities, and his Dallas activities. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited February 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Banister's address was not stamped on Oswald's materials. It was the same building but a different address.... Paul...based on some earlier encounters, you have no respect for the many years I've spent on the New Orleans case: You have decided on a theory, and you are bending the evidence of some things that MIGHT have happened and elevated it to fact. You will argue 'idea equality' with me, but you should dial back your certainty a few notches. Well, Roy, I can admit an error if and when I'm wrong -- but somebody has to show me the logic. I'm open to good arguments. Where can I read about your "many years" that you've spent on the New Orleans case? Do you have a book or a web site, or perhaps a blog? As for the address stampted on OSWALD's FPCC handbills, it was the corner entrance to the same inside offices in the same building, according to Oliver Stone. This is somehow innocent sounding? Not to me. Banister was surrounded by Cuban Exile radicals and their supporters. They filled his building. How can it be innocent for OSWALD to have an office in the same building? However, Stephen, if you have years of work covering the ground that Jim Garrison covered, I'm willing to read it. Just point me in the direction. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Oliver Stone fictionalized a lot of stuff in his film JFK. For example, in the film he had the David Ferrie character voluntarily confess, to Garrison, to having participated in the plot, but David Ferrie in real life never did that. Also, the young gay dude at the southern prison work camp who said he'd had a sexual relationship with Clay Shaw was a compilation of real-life characters. And if memory serves, Mr "X" was actually a combination of different people. (Somebody please correct me on that if I'm wrong.) So it doesn't surprise me that Stone used "artistic license" to claim that the building's offices were equally accessible by both the "544 Camp Street" and the "531 Lafayette Street" entrances, when in reality they were not. --Tommy . Edited February 24, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now