Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Thomas Graves]

Don Jeffries,

Given your comment, the question becomes, what is the identity of "someone or something powerful"?

It's postulated by JFK assassination writers and students that Oswald was being manipulated by the CIA or the FBI or ONI. For sure, the "someone or something powerful" manipulating Oswald would be deep in the shadows, hidden from view.

The job of counter-intelligence is to uncover such manipulation and trace it to its source. I think that's what Angleton and his group were doing -- trying to figure out whether Oswald was being manipulated and if so, by whom.

The fact it's so easy to point one's finger at the CIA, FBI, and ONI tells me they were not Oswald's manipulators.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Interesting post, Mr. Tidd.

Do you think Angleton was interested in finding out who had been manipulating Oswald in a classical CIA vs. KGB counter-intelligence or espionage sort of way, or who was manipulating Oswald into becoming the perfect patsy for the assassination, or both?

Regarding the former, let's not forget Angleton's search for "Popov's Mole" which began at the same time that Oswald arrived in Moscow, or the fact that Oswald, while still in Russia, was given Robert Webster's biometrics by Dallas FBI agent John Fain (in apparent collusion with CI/SIG's Ann Ergerter and SR/CE's Bill Bright -- who soon had them incorporated into some of Oswald's CIA files).

As regard's the manipulating of Oswald or Oswald's files into his becoming the perfect patsy, let's not forget the telephonic impersonation (by an apparent SAS or Staff D insider) and the physical impersonation by a "blond Oswald" in Mexico City.

Which gives me an idea: Why didn't the blond "Oswald" in Mexico City dye his hair brown to look more like Oswald? The fact that he didn't suggests that the plotters or his handlers either didn't know what Oswald looked like or thought that Oswald was blond, like the 5'10", 166 lb. Robert Webster, or didn't care and chose to impersonate Oswald in a manner consistent with what was already in his Intelligence files.

It looks like the plotters still thought that (5'9", 131 lb.) Oswald was a Webster-like 5'10" and 165 lbs. on 11/22/63 because that was the assassin's description as broadcast over police radio, fifteen minutes after the assassination, by Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer.

--Tommy

Question: Why do you say that it's "easy to point fingers at the CIA, FBI, and ONI" in this case?

Edited February 4, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

...As regards the manipulating of Oswald or Oswald's files into his becoming the perfect patsy, let's not forget the telephonic impersonation (by an apparent SAS or Staff D insider) and the physical impersonation by a "blond Oswald" in Mexico City.

Which gives me an idea: Why didn't the blond "Oswald" in Mexico City dye his hair brown to look more like Oswald? The fact that he didn't suggests that the plotters or his handlers either didn't know what Oswald looked like or thought that Oswald was blond...or didn't care and chose to impersonate Oswald in a manner consistent with what was already in his Intelligence files...

--Tommy

Tommy, I believe that Bill Simpich's book, "State Secret" (2014) answers the questions about the large blonde Russian guy whose photograph appears in Lee Oswald's CIA 401 file. According to Bill Simpich...

He wasn't impersonating Lee Oswald -- the CIA high-command chose to start a "mole-hunt" to find out which "mole" had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald, ostensibly to link his name with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

The CIA high-command deliberately altered Lee Oswald's 401 file in many ways, including (1) replacing the photo with a stranger; (2) changing Oswald's middle name to "Henry," (3) slightly changing the names of his parents; (4) slightly changing some date information.

Sadly, when the JFK assassination occurred, and the Warren Commission demanded the CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA handed over the tampered-with files. That's all that anybody knew at the lower levels of the CIA.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Thomas Graves,

You write:

"Question: Why do you say that it's "easy to point fingers at the CIA, FBI, and ONI" in this case?"

It's easy because documents show the CIA, FBI, and ONI were attuned to Oswald. I believe they were attuned for different reasons but basically because he was an odd duck.

[Thomas Graves]

...As regards the manipulating of Oswald or Oswald's files into his becoming the perfect patsy, let's not forget the telephonic impersonation (by an apparent SAS or Staff D insider) and the physical impersonation by a "blond Oswald" in Mexico City.

Which gives me an idea: Why didn't the blond "Oswald" in Mexico City dye his hair brown to look more like Oswald? The fact that he didn't suggests that the plotters or his handlers either didn't know what Oswald looked like or thought that Oswald was blond...or didn't care and chose to impersonate Oswald in a manner consistent with what was already in his Intelligence files...

--Tommy

Tommy, I believe that Bill Simpich's book, "State Secret" (2014) answers the questions about the large blonde Russian guy whose photograph appears in Lee Oswald's CIA 401 file. According to Bill Simpich...

He wasn't impersonating Lee Oswald -- the CIA high-command chose to start a "mole-hunt" to find out which "mole" had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald, ostensibly to link his name with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

The CIA high-command deliberately altered Lee Oswald's 401 file in many ways, including (1) replacing the photo with a stranger; (2) changing Oswald's middle name to "Henry," (3) slightly changing the names of his parents; (4) slightly changing some date information.

Sadly, when the JFK assassination occurred, and the Warren Commission demanded the CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA handed over the tampered-with files. That's all that anybody knew at the lower levels of the CIA.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

We're talking about two different people.

You're talking about the guy Bill Simpich identified as Yuri Moskalev, a Russian scientist / KGB agent who just happened to be photographed outside the Cuban Consulate on October 2, 1963 but whom Goodpasture lied about date-wise because she desperately needed (for the LIENVOY-penetrator mole hunt -- and wanted to keep the Oswald-Webster three-year-old "marked card" alive in the process), a photograph of an American-looking male, any thirty-ish, white, American-looking male, entering the Cuban Consulate on or around October 1, and since this guy looked a Robert-Webster thirty-ish and was wearing American-style clothing and was approximately the same size as Robert Webster, Goodpasture lied in her cable to CIA HQS when she said that this man (Moskalev) was photographed on October 1 instead of October 2. Goodpasture said October 1 because that was the day that an "Oswald" impostor was on record, literally and figuratively, as having made a phone call, from the Cuban Consulate to the Russian Embassy, in which he mentioned having met previously with Russian vice consul Valery Kostikov, whom some in the CIA believed was in charge of KGB assassinations and sabotage in the Western Hemisphere.

The "blond Oswald" I'm talking about is not Moskalev, who was first photographed on October 2 (and who wasn't particularly blond, anyway), but the mysterious "dark blond Oswald" whom Cuban consul Eusebio Azcue remembered coming to the Cuban Consulate on September 27, trying to get a visa to Cuba, and with whom Azcue got into an argument. The description of the "Oswald" he encountered conflicts significantly with that provided by Silvia Duran. According to Azcue, the "Oswald" he encountered had "blond, dark blond hair," was "over thirty," "very thin, very thin faced," and was wearing not a sweater vest but a "suit or coat" that was "blue, with some reddish" and which had "a pattern of crossed lines." When asked if the "Oswald" he had encountered was the same Oswald that was shot by Jack Ruby, Azcue said "No" because the Oswald that Ruby shot was "considerably younger and had a fuller face" than the "Oswald" he'd dealt with in the Cuban Consulate on September 27, 1963.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscaascu.htm

Two things that have always troubled me about Silvia Duran's testimony is her saying that Oswald was short, about 5' 5", and that he was dressed "cheaply." The real Oswald was about four inches taller than her and was wearing a nice vest sweater and tie in the passport photos he had just had taken of him about an hour earlier! Scroll down on this link to see his Cuban Visa application photograph:

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/MoreMexicoMysteries/MoreMexicoMysteries_1.htm

Would Eusebio Azcue or Silvia Duran lie about what "Oswald" looked like? Did Duran and Azcue deal with different Oswald impostors? Is Duran lying or is Azcue lying, or are they both lying?

I'm starting to think that the real Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, and that something really, really, really "fishy" was going on down there. LOL

I hope this helps you understand what I was talking about in the earlier post.

--Tommy

FWIW, here's a photo of the blond-haired Robert E. Webster in Russia. No, I'm not saying that Robert Webster was in Mexico City. I'm saying that the "blond, dark blond" M.C. Oswald impersonator that Azcue encountered in the Cuban Consulate on September 27, 1963, may have "inherited" (i.e. chosen for) his blond hair through the CIA's Oswald-Webster "marked card" process.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Good final question Thomas. I am working through Scott's article for which you provided a link, Oswald and the search for Popov's mole. Is that the right title? Would you. Mind posting another link here on this thread? I'd do it if I knew how. Should be required reading for anyone pondering Oswald's possible intelligence ties.

[Thomas Graves]

Good final question Thomas. I am working through Scott's article for which you provided a link, Oswald and the search for Popov's mole. Is that the right title? Would you. Mind posting another link here on this thread? I'd do it if I knew how. Should be required reading for anyone pondering Oswald's possible intelligence ties.

Paul,

It's called Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. The easiest way to find it is to go to Simpich's State Secret, Chapter 1: The Double Dangle which you can find a link to near the bottom of the Mary Ferrell Foundation home page.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Click on that link and then scroll down in The Double Dangle until you, see, right before the "Notes" begin, a small reproduction of a page from P.D. Scott's article, Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole from the publication The Fourth Decade. Click on that small page reproduction or on the highlighted word "snapshot" in Simpich's text to the right, and wall-law, you've got it.

Of course if everything else fails, you can always click on this link: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=519798

--Tommy

Edited February 4, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

...As regards the manipulating of Oswald or Oswald's files into his becoming the perfect patsy, let's not forget the telephonic impersonation (by an apparent SAS or Staff D insider) and the physical impersonation by a "blond Oswald" in Mexico City.

Which gives me an idea: Why didn't the blond "Oswald" in Mexico City dye his hair brown to look more like Oswald? The fact that he didn't suggests that the plotters or his handlers either didn't know what Oswald looked like or thought that Oswald was blond...or didn't care and chose to impersonate Oswald in a manner consistent with what was already in his Intelligence files...

--Tommy

Tommy, I believe that Bill Simpich's book, "State Secret" (2014) answers the questions about the large blonde Russian guy whose photograph appears in Lee Oswald's CIA 401 file. According to Bill Simpich...

He wasn't impersonating Lee Oswald -- the CIA high-command chose to start a "mole-hunt" to find out which "mole" had impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald, ostensibly to link his name with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

The CIA high-command deliberately altered Lee Oswald's 401 file in many ways, including (1) replacing the photo with a stranger; (2) changing Oswald's middle name to "Henry," (3) slightly changing the names of his parents; (4) slightly changing some date information.

Sadly, when the JFK assassination occurred, and the Warren Commission demanded the CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA handed over the tampered-with files. That's all that anybody knew at the lower levels of the CIA.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

We're talking about two different people.

You're talking about the guy Bill Simpich identified as Yuri Moskalev, a Russian scientist / GRU or KGB agent who just happened to be photographed outside the Mexico City Russian Embassy on October 2, 1963 but whom Goodpasture lied about date-wise because she desperately needed (for the LIENVOY-penetrator mole hunt -- and wanted to keep the three-year-old Oswald-Webster "marked card" alive in the process), a photograph of an American-looking male, any thirty-ish, white, American-looking male, entering the Russian Embassy on or around October 1, and since this guy (Moskalev?) looked a Robert-Webster thirty-ish and was wearing American-style clothing and was approximately the same size as Robert Webster, Goodpasture lied in her cable to CIA HQS when she said that this guy (Moskalev?) was photographed on October 1 instead of October 2. Goodpasture said October 1 because that was the day that an "Oswald" impostor was on record, literally and figuratively, as having made a phone call, from the to the Russian Embassy, in which he mentioned having met previously with Russian vice consul Valery Kostikov, whom some in the CIA believed was in charge of KGB assassinations and sabotage in the Western Hemisphere. Here's the guy you're talking about:

And here's a troubling Russ Holmes HSCA CIA document from 1977 which speculates that the Mexico City Mystery Man might have been Moskalev:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10413/104-10413-10055/html/104-10413-10055_0002a.htm

A handwritten note on this 1971 document says Moskalev was in the U.S. in October, 1963.

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=6532&relPageId=2

The "blond Oswald" I'm talking about is not this Moskalev-looking dude. I'm talking about the mysterious "blond, dark blond Oswald" whom Cuban consul Eusebio Azcue remembered coming to the Cuban Consulate on September 27, trying to get a visa to Cuba, and with whom Azcue got into an argument. The description of the "Oswald" he encountered conflicts significantly with that provided by Sylvia Duran. According to Azcue, the "Oswald" he encountered had "blond, dark blond hair," was "over thirty," "very thin, very thin faced," and was wearing not a sweater vest but a "suit or coat" that was "blue, with some reddish" and which had "a pattern of crossed lines." When asked if the "Oswald" he had encountered was the same Oswald that was shot by Jack Ruby, Azcue said "No" because the Oswald that Ruby shot was "considerably younger and had a fuller face" than the "Oswald" he'd dealt with in the Cuban Consulate on September 27, 1963.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscaascu.htm

Two things that have always troubled me about Sylvia Duran's testimony is that she claimed Oswald was short, about 5' 5", and that he was dressed "cheaply." The real Oswald was about four inches taller than her and was wearing a nice vest sweater and tie in the passport photos he had just had taken of him about an hour earlier! Scroll down on this link to see his Cuban Visa application photograph:

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/MoreMexicoMysteries/MoreMexicoMysteries_1.htm

Would Eusebio Azcue or Sylvia Duran lie about what "Oswald" looked like? Did Duran and Azcue deal with different Oswald impostors? Is Duran lying or is Azcue lying, or are they both lying?

I'm starting to think that the real Oswald didn't even go to Mexico City, and that something really, really "fishy" was going on down there. LOL

I hope this helps you understand what I was talking about in the earlier post.

--Tommy

FWIW, here's a photo of the blond-haired Robert E. Webster in Russia. No, I'm not saying that Robert Webster was in Mexico City. I'm saying that the "blond, dark blond" M.C. Oswald impersonator that Azcue encountered may have "inherited" Webster's hair color through the CIA's Oswald-Webster "marked card" process. Sorry the photo is so large.

Edited and bumped.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

"Two things that have always troubled me about Sylvia Duran's testimony is that she claimed Oswald was short, about 5' 5", and that he was dressed "cheaply." The real Oswald was about four inches taller than her and was wearing a nice vest sweater and tie in the passport photos he had just had taken of him about an hour earlier! Scroll down on this link to see his Cuban Visa application photograph:

http://history-matte...Mysteries_1.htm"

Tommy, unless I am mistaken, there was an intense search to locate where that photo was taken - with no luck at all. Now it makes sense that Oswald might have dressed well for the visit, but Duran would have handled his application with the photo so either her memory is very poor or there is a big disconnect. Again, given that clothes are always an important part of a description I'm curious as to why nobody ever seems to have shown that passport photo to Duran or Azcue or anyone else and asked for a verification. Why rely on physical descriptions alone when you have a photo of the guy they supposedly saw ...and in multiple visits. For that matter, did anyone ever show the photo to the Russians for a verification?

[Paul Trejo]

Thomas Graves,

You write:

"Question: Why do you say that it's "easy to point fingers at the CIA, FBI, and ONI" in this case?"

It's easy because documents show the CIA, FBI, and ONI were attuned to Oswald. I believe they were attuned for different reasons but basically because he was an odd duck.

Well, Jon, if we're willing to give any weight to CIA officer David Atlee Phillips' bio-novel, "The AMLASH Legacy," we might see why the CIA had an interest in Lee Harvey Oswald -- namely -- to kill Fidel Castro.

Phillips, through his characters, "admits" that he was trying to use Lee Harvey Oswald in a CIA plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. To that end, Phillips participated in making false FPCC credentials in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. Phillips also claimed that he was part of the plan for Oswald to go to Mexico City to apply for a Visa using those false credentials.

Now that the Lopez Report is out, and we can see with our own eyes the very credentials that Lee Harvey Oswald presented to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City that day, we have more reason to believe that David Atlee Phillips may be confessing the truth.

Preparing Oswald to kill Fidel Castro blew up in Phillips face when somebody "stole" Oswald to be their patsy to kill JFK. In his bio-novel, DAP does not know who "stole" Oswald from him -- yet the work of Jim Garrison (and Joan Mellen) strongly suggests that Guy Banister and his confederates were the guilty parties.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul,

If one wishes to understand Marina's husband, one should question Marina.

Marina is an unreliable witness. So is David Atlee Phillips. But Marina had the closest look at her husband.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

If one wishes to understand Marina's husband, one should question Marina.

Marina is an unreliable witness. So is David Atlee Phillips. But Marina had the closest look at her husband.

Well, Jon, researchers are divided on the question of Marina Oswald's credibility. Some accept her at her sworn testimony -- while many do not.

I find Marina's sworn testimony believable.

It is the opposite of what she told the FBI before she was under oath, and was in a panic.

I don't think that people are automatically "unreliable" witnesses just because they panic while not-under-oath. It's only human to panic in the event of a Presidential assassination where a family member is one of the accused.

Yet if we only concentrate on Marina's sworn testimony (under oath) then I think we find no contradictions. On the contrary -- Marina has stuck to that testimony faithfully for more than a half-century.

The one place where Marina was called back -- again and again -- had to do with Ex-General Edwin Walker, and why her story differed from George De Mohrenschildt's version of the events of 13 April 1963.

In that case, it is George and Jeanne who change their story -- and they cannot agree among themselves. Their guilt in the shooting at Edwin Walker leaks through their testimony, IMHO.

But even beyond that -- the critical question, IMHO, is this: HOW OFTEN DID LEE OSWALD LIE TO MARINA? IMHO, Lee lied frequently to Marina -- which means that even when she tells the truth (about what she heard from Lee) she could be spreading lies that Lee Oswald himself told.

For example, did Lee Harvey Oswald do everything alone? No? But he told Marina that he did. Did Lee Harvey Oswald take the bus everywhere? No? But he told Marina that he did. This is part of the balancing act we must perform with Marina's testimony.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

If one wishes to understand Marina's husband, one should question Marina.

Marina is an unreliable witness. So is David Atlee Phillips. But Marina had the closest look at her husband.

Jon, have you taken the time to review Marina Oswald's testimony in the Warren Commission volumes? If not, I encourage you to read it. If so, I'd like to know your opinion about it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

I have read most or all of Marina's W.C. testimony. The most telling part is when she asks for affirmation that she's telling the W.C. what it wanted to hear from her.

Here was a woman schooled in Soviet inquiries, commissions, and the like. She knew the Warren Commissioners had an agenda and wanted to make sure she was playing to it. For her and her children's sakes.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

I have read most or all of Marina's W.C. testimony. The most telling part is when she asks for affirmation that she's telling the W.C. what it wanted to hear from her.

Here was a woman schooled in Soviet inquiries, commissions, and the like. She knew the Warren Commissioners had an agenda and wanted to make sure she was playing to it. For her and her children's sakes.

Fair enough, Jon. Yet what episode in particular prompted you to write: "Marina is an unreliable witness." ?

No doubt she didn't want to move back to the USSR. Yet for that reason alone she would have taken a deep breath and just told the truth, from A to Z, exactly as she knew it.

Why would you think differently?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul,

I don't think Marina is or was a bad person. It appears to me based on what I've read, however, that Marina dissembled about her understanding of the English language. Moreover she was inconsistent on a number of points, including whether her husband traveled to Mexico in September 1963. Early on she appeared quite willing to implicate her husband in JFK's murder. In recent years she's expressed a belief in Oswald's innocence.

It's clear she didn't like the FBI because of the way the FBI treated her. The SS told her not to trust Ruth Paine. I believe she was unsure whom to trust and resorted to the sort of survival skills she would have learned growing up as she did in the USSR. Meaning she knew the way to deal with authorities was to give them what they wanted.