Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Paul Trejo]

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

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.

Fair enough Jon -- but now I can't tell if you believe Marina or not.

If you disbelieve PART of Marina's story, would you kindly spell out exactly what PART you find "unreliable?"appeared quite willing to implicate her husband in JFK's murder. In recent years she's expressed a belief in Oswald's innocence.

In my view, once Marina received many thousands of dollars from the American public as she prepared for her Warren Commission testimony, she came to realize that she was not the enemy, she was not hated, she was not in real danger herself (as she might have been in the USSR) and that it would be better for her all the way around to finally TELL THE TRUTH UNDER OATH.

The main problem I have with Marina's testimony, is that LEE HARVEY OSWALD LIED TO HER REGULARLY. So, even when she told the truth, it would often fail to match the facts. The attempted murder of Edwin Walker is a case in point. Oswald told her he buried the rifle -- that he worked alone -- that he took the bus -- that he never needed a car -- all lies.

By the way, she NEVER changed her sworn testimony to the Warren Commission -- she always told them that she was mostly ignorant and could only give her opinion based on the EVIDENCE SHE WAS SHOWN. (Her later opinion was simply due to more EVIDENCE she saw, e.g. from Jim Garrison.)

For example -- she insisted that she only took ONE photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald in their Backyard in late March, 1963. She distinctly remembered taking ONE and only ONE photograph. But when the FBI plainly showed her TWO different poses by Oswald -- she was confused. HOW could there be two? I only took ONE! But "I must have taken the other by accident" she finally concluded, after much FBI badgering.

Well, there were two different poses there in front of her eyes. What could she say? She knew she took ONE. What would Marina have said if somebody later showed her the Rickey White photograph (133-C) that shows a THIRD pose?

So, this suggests to me that Marina would change her story based only on the basis of EVIDENCE she was shown -- but we know from other incidents that the Warren Commission would manipulate and control the EVIDENCE that they would let people see (e.g. the medical and ballistics evidence) so they could maintain their charade of a Lone Shooter.

Well -- I'm getting carried away again, but Jon, I do want to ask you:

If you disbelieve PART of Marina's story, would you kindly spell out exactly what PART you find "unreliable?"

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul.

Some of the parts of Marina's story I don't believe:

1) Marina took the backyard photos, three poses from exactly the same position with the Imperial Reflex camera.

2) Oswald shot at General Walker, once and missed, and then buried his rifle in the ground.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul.

Some of the parts of Marina's story I don't believe:

1) Marina took the backyard photos, three poses from exactly the same position with the Imperial Reflex camera.

2) Oswald shot at General Walker, once and missed, and then buried his rifle in the ground.

Well, Jon, if that's all that you disbelieve, then I can agree with you 100%.

At the same time, remember that Marina could hardly believe that she could get two photos from only one click. She scratched her head about that during the whole testimony.

(1) The TRUTH again is that Lee Harvey Oswald lied to her. Marina took only ONE photo -- she told the truth. There were THREE poses, but these were FAKES, as many photographic experts have demonstrated over the decades. The only way to make those FAKES was with very sophisticated photo equipment -- and Lee Harvey Oswald worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall during that same period -- so he had access to such equipment. Oswald LIED to Marina in this sense -- he never told her he was going to make THREE FAKES of his photo, using the body of Roscoe White as his double.

(2) As for burying his rifle after the Walker shooting, again, OSWALD LIED. Oswald went to that shooting in a car, with at least one other accomplice. That accomplice kept Oswald's rifle for a day or so. Oswald never buried it. Also, Oswald lied to Marina when he said he never needed a car, or that he always walked and took the bus, or that he always worked alone. Marina was only relaying what she heard -- WHICH WAS LIES.

But that doesn't mean that Marina lied -- it means that Lee Harvey Oswald lied -- and Marina took the blame.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

CE1792 is a report about an interview with Marina at the end of November 1963

She is asked about Mexico.. negative.

She is asked about his cameras: The BYPs are found only a few days before while she is at the Paines. This was one of the first interviews and reports on what Marina had to say before she was extensively coached.

A grain of sand must be included here since this is a summary recap of the interview and not a transcript... Between the 22nd and this report the tide of Marina's POV turns. From 11/22 until Oswald's death, no protection.

From the moment of his death the SS/FBI/etc make sure to sequester Marina and little by little over time her story becomes increasingly incriminating against her husband.

Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures?
A. He just told me which button to push and I did.
Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture?
A. Yes.

Except this box Camera is held by the chest and you look down into it and see the image upside down... for someone who NEVER worked a camera, one would think that would be remembered since it is very hard to focus and remain still when the image is inverted... Marina's testimony is almost as bad as the stand-in mother... (and the in and out of Mexico evidence)

Edited February 11, 2015 by David Josephs

[Ray Mitcham]

Paul, whilst believing that the back yard photos are indeed fakes, I wonder why you think Oswald would concoct three fakes using Roscoe White as a body double.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Paul Trejo]

CE1792 is a report about an interview with Marina at the end of November 1963

She is asked about Mexico.. negative.

She is asked about his cameras: The BYPs are found only a few days before while she is at the Paines. This was one of the first interviews and reports on what Marina had to say before she was extensively coached.

A grain of sand must be included here since this is a summary recap of the interview and not a transcript... Between the 22nd and this report the tide of Marina's POV turns. From 11/22 until Oswald's death, no protection.

From the moment of his death the SS/FBI/etc make sure to sequester Marina and little by little over time her story becomes increasingly incriminating against her husband.

Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures?

A. He just told me which button to push and I did.

Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture?

A. Yes.

Except this box Camera is held by the chest and you look down into it and see the image upside down... for someone who NEVER worked a camera, one would think that would be remembered since it is very hard to focus and remain still when the image is inverted... Marina's testimony is almost as bad as the stand-in mother... (and the in and out of Mexico evidence)

Well, David, I believe that Marina's error there, about the "viewer" and the "looking down" part, can be explained well enough by ESL, that is, English was her Second Language. The question posed by the FBI was ambiguous to somebody with ESL; that is, "hold it up to your eye" is plain to you and me, but not necessarily to an ESL speaker -- "hold up" might simply mean "hold it" so that your eye can see the image.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, whilst believing that the back yard photos are indeed fakes, I wonder why you think Oswald would concoct three fakes using Roscoe White as a body double.

Well, Ray, I believe I'm in a minority on this Forum when I say that Lee Harvey Oswald -- innocent of killing JFK -- was nevertheless guilty of shooting at Ex-General Edwin Walker at 9pm on 10 April 1963.

In my opinion, Oswald went to the home of Walker that night in a car driven by one other person (and there might have been another person in another car). Perhaps that other person was Roscoe White.

In my opinion, Oswald was convinced by Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt (and possibly Michael Paine) to hate and despise Ex-General Edwin Walker. They might not have told Oswald to kill Walker, but they made their hatred of Walker very, very plain to Oswald with HOURS of intensive psychological processes (according to Schmidt and De Mohrenschildt).

Volkmar Schmidt told Oswald that Walker was a right-wing nut like Hitler, and if somebody had killed Hitler before World War II, the whole world could have been spared its greatest tragedies.

They conditioned Oswald to hate Walker. Oswald was a man of action, and he wanted to be admired and respected -- so he took it upon himself to assassinate Edwin Walker (a notorious racist, leader of the riots at Ole Miss on 30 Sep 1962, but was acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury on 30 January 1963). Oswald wanted to show his bravery to his new, young and wealthy liberal friends in Dallas.

But Oswald didn't act alone -- although he told Marina that he did. Instead, Oswald worked with Roscoe White on at least part of his plan. (Roscoe White had been one of Oswald's Marine buddies at Atsugi.)

Oswald's plan included many photographs of Walker's house (casing the joint) as well as "memorabilia" of the historical event -- the famous Backyard Photograph that Marina took -- with Oswald dressed all in black (which clothing was not among his possessions after he died).

Yet photographic experts like Jack White (no relation) say that the chin, the lumpy right-wrist, the thick neck and the one-legged stance of all three Backyard Photographs belong to Roscoe White -- who was roughly the same size as Oswald.

The ample evidence of Fakery in the three Backyard Photographs is the subject of another thread. But by identifying the body-double of Oswald in all three photographs, Jack White adds another clue to the JFK mystery.

You then ask, Ray, WHY was this done, in my opinion. Two words: Plausible Denial.

Oswald would use these faked photographs to BOAST about his deeds, underground, to his closest friends. Those friends included Roscoe White (who had 133-C in his possession, which is a 3rd pose that the Warren Commission never saw). Also, George De Mohrenschildt got another pose -- this one was signed by Lee, with Marina's remark, "Hunter of Fascists, ha-ha," on the back.

Another pose was sent to the "Militant" newspaper in New York (which they lied about to the FBI, yet decades later admitted that they had in their files).

Why make FAKES of photographs that one is sending around to friends and newspapers?

Lee Harvey Oswald was an amateur intelligence wannabe. Oswald knew about Plausible Deniability. He knew that one day he might be shown one or more of these photographs by the Police -- and he had long rehearsed what he would tell them -- "That's my face stuck onto somebody else's body! Those photos are fake! I know photography and one day I'll prove to you that they're fakes!"

That is exactly what Oswald told the DPD on 11/22/1963. Plausible Deniability.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 12, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

You write:

"Oswald was a man of action, and he wanted to be admired and respected...."

You also write:

"Lee Harvey Oswald was an amateur intelligence wannabe."

I agree he "was a man of action". He not only read and thought about political and economic issues, but also he acted upon his beliefs. He was an unusual guy.

I can agree that "he wanted to be admired and respected". Exhibit A IMO is how he stood up to the DPD.

I don't know about, "Lee Harvey Oswald was an amateur intelligence wannabe." At the time, there were men's magazines that had stories and lurid pictures of American males involved in dangerous and romantic activities. I've got a bunch of those mags from the late 1950s and early 1960s. Maybe Oswald did buy into the fantasy of a soldier of fortune.

The thing is, he didn't play soldier of fortune with Marina. Unless one picks up on Marina's statement about Oswald's game-playing.

You've convinced me to an extent. Not as to the General Walker shooting, however.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Paul Trejo]

...I don't know about, "Lee Harvey Oswald was an amateur intelligence wannabe." ...Maybe Oswald did buy into the fantasy of a soldier of fortune.

The thing is, he didn't play soldier of fortune with Marina. Unless one picks up on Marina's statement about Oswald's game-playing.

You've convinced me to an extent. Not as to the General Walker shooting, however.

Well, Jon, I think the evidence is substantial that Lee Harvey Oswald was connected -- as an amateur wannabe -- to the CIA, the FBI the ONI and perhaps other US intelligence agencies. There are copious files on Oswald by these groups, and they are classified Top Secret to this very day.

We can only hope that President GHW Bush's "JFK Information Act" of 1992 will finally Declassify all those documents on 26 October 2017, and let us finally solve the JFK murder once and for all.

The CIA at one point considered interviewing Oswald for a position. Oswald liked working with codes and puzzles -- and there is at least one thread in this Forum on that topic (e.g. the Undeliverable Package), and in his diary Oswald mentions "microdots" -- a rare spy technique in 1963. Oswald had a spy camera in his possession at the end. So, I think the evidence is ample.

If so, then I think we can make out Oswald's motive for getting himself FRAMED, that is, for cooperating with the people who ultimately transformed him into a Patsy -- namely -- Lee Oswald believed their LIES when they told Lee that they worked for the CIA and they wanted Lee to perform a "mission" for them as a sort of a "test" of his loyalty.

As for the Edwin Walker shooting -- I believe the solution to the JFK murder depends on unraveling it. IMHO, the reason that all these JFK researchers, working for 50 years, could not solve the JFK murder is because they neglected to follow the trail that leads to Ex-General Edwin Walker, and his central role in the murder.

Not that Edwin Walker needed much more motivation to assassinate JFK -- but Walker's belief that Lee Harvey Oswald had been personally sent by JFK and RFK to murder Walker on 10 April 1963 was the straw that broke that camel's back.

That's why Lee Harvey Oswald -- and nobody else -- was the preferred Patsy. The clue to the JFK murder is right there.

Otherwise, Jon, JFK researchers must make this mish-mash theory that the CIA and FBI got Ex-General Edwin Walker, George De Mohrenschildt, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald to all cooperate on something!

That is, although George, Michael and Ruth (along with Volkmar Schmidt) hated Edwin Walker with a purple passion -- that they would for some reason join hands in order to make Lee Harvey Oswald look like a "Lone Nut." It's the weakest part of JFK theories in the past 50 years, IMHO.

As if the Walker shooting proved anything at all! It doesn't! Just because Lee Oswald tried to kill Walker -- that is absolutely no proof that Lee Oswald killed JFK.

The trouble may be that we don't have even one eye-witness to Oswald killing JFK -- and we can't stand the idea that we let the real killers get away. So we just keep heaping "rationalizations" onto Oswald to force him to take the blame for killing JFK. We all KNOW Oswald is innocent of killing JFK, deep down in our hearts.

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JD Tippit. Oswald didn't shoot JFK. But Oswald did try to kill Edwin Walker -- and he missed.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

One way to think about the assassination is to regard it as a "legalized homicide". That's not a term of law. The term of law would be "justified homicide". Why "justified"? Because the U.S. and Texas justice systems blessed the killing by not pursuing the perps.

The question arises, why did the entire U.S. justice system simply shrug?

One conventional answer of conspiracy theorists is that the perps felt justified in killing JFK and controlled the government. This is the CIA-did-it model. Another conventional answer is that the chief perp, LBJ, was self-interested and too powerful to challenge.

These answers do not explain why the cover-up continues today. They're good for 1963 and 1964. But they don't hold up over time.

Another answer, presented by Paul Trejo, is that right-wing fanatics led by Gen. Edwin Walker, killed JFK. Apologies Paul for not laying out your entire theory as I understand it. This answer is consistent with the known facts but certainly does not explain the continuing cover-up.

JFK was killed for a reason some individuals want today to conceal.

The reason is vibrant and living. It's in our faces today.

Was it to boost the profits of defense contractors (surely a euphemism)? Maybe.

Was it to overthrow Castro? That's a joke.

Was it to benefit some group or some other country? Maybe.

The important thing IMO is to ask the right question as to why JFK was killed.

Oswald had no reason, no ability, to kill JFK even as JFK rode in an open limo down Elm Street.

The other right question IMO is to ask who set up Oswald and why?

[Paul Brancato]

Jon - I welcome your attempts to answer your very valid questions. Who set up Oswald, and why? Why is the coverup ongoing?

[Thomas Graves]

Jon - I welcome your attempts to answer your very valid questions. Who set up Oswald, and why? Why is the coverup ongoing?

I'm not sure what Jon G. Tidd thinks about anything (except that Oswald was an "Odd Duck"), but I guess the rest of us are we're all pretty much agreed that Oswald was set up to be the JFK assassination "patsy."

Questions:

Was Oswald directed / encouraged by ex-FBI agent Banister, etc, to start a New Orleans FPCC chapter as part of the set up?

In Mexico City did Oswald really go to the Cubans and Russians on September 27, 1963, and then back to the Russians (with his revolver) the next day, ostensibly trying to get a Cuban visa? If so, was he directed to do so as part of the set up?

Was Ruth Paine's helping Oswald get work at the TSBD part of the set up?

What did Oswald think he was doing at the TSBD on November 22, 1963? Is Larry Hancock right when he says Oswald was planning on walking out the back door at noontime and going to the Texas Theater to meet someone whom he thought was pro-Castro?

etc, etc

Something that's been bugging me:

With whom was "Silvia Duran" speaking Spanish regarding the home phone number of "(Raul) Aparicio" -- in reality CIA agent Daniel Flores masquerading as a Cuban Cultural Attache -- while "Lee Oswald" was standing next to her, waiting to speak on the phone with someone in the Russian Embassy on Saturday, September 28, when the Cuban Consulate was supposed to be closed? Why would the impostors embellish the scenario by interjecting Aparicio's name and phone number like that? To let the CIA know that the "Aparicio" operation was blown? To make the Oswald impersonation somehow seem more "realistic" in spite of the fact that it happened on a day when the Cuban Consulate was supposed to be closed? Why were there three people in the Cuban Consulate when it was supposed to be closed? Was Silvia having another orgy? Or were there only two -- "Duran" and a native Spanish-speaking "Oswald"? Were the Russians with whom "Duran" and "Oswald" spoke over the phone on that Saturday impostors, too? What was was going on? Were the Cubans or Russians running their own "mole hunt?" Was the CIA trying to fool itself? Was that part of the set up?

Etc, etc, etc.

--Tommy

"Well, Tommy...

Point 1.0.....

Point 1.1.....

Point 1.11..."

ad nauseum

Edited February 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

One way to think about the assassination is to regard it as a "legalized homicide". That's not a term of law. The term of law would be "justified homicide". Why "justified"? Because the U.S. and Texas justice systems blessed the killing by not pursuing the perps.

The question arises, why did the entire U.S. justice system simply shrug?

One conventional answer of conspiracy theorists is that the perps felt justified in killing JFK and controlled the government. This is the CIA-did-it model. Another conventional answer is that the chief perp, LBJ, was self-interested and too powerful to challenge.

These answers do not explain why the cover-up continues today. They're good for 1963 and 1964. But they don't hold up over time.

Another answer, presented by Paul Trejo, is that right-wing fanatics led by Gen. Edwin Walker, killed JFK. Apologies Paul for not laying out your entire theory as I understand it. This answer is consistent with the known facts but certainly does not explain the continuing cover-up.

JFK was killed for a reason some individuals want today to conceal.

The reason is vibrant and living. It's in our faces today.

Was it to boost the profits of defense contractors (surely a euphemism)? Maybe.

Was it to overthrow Castro? That's a joke.

Was it to benefit some group or some other country? Maybe.

The important thing IMO is to ask the right question as to why JFK was killed.

Oswald had no reason, no ability, to kill JFK even as JFK rode in an open limo down Elm Street.

The other right question IMO is to ask who set up Oswald and why?

Jon, let me try to answer your questions by the numbers:

1. It is certainly frustrating for us today, who reject the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK murder, because, as Jim Garrison, said it really looks like the US Government is just letting the JFK killers get away scot free.

1.1. However, we cannot be sure that the killers got away, that is, prospered by it. IMHO, they were all punished -- but not punished publicly in a court of Law. They were punished privately by the FBI and CIA.

2. In your frustration, Jon, you accuse the U.S. Justice System of "simply shrugging". Yet if the criminals were punished secretly, then I think your frustrations might be partially addressed.

3. As you know, I reject the CIA-did-it model, which is one of the most cynical models out there. Jim Garrison, after years of fighting a losing battle, ultimately fell back into that sad cynicism.

3.1. Certainly the conspirators felt justified in killing JFK, because, IMHO, it was politically motivated.

3.2. Yet in no way did the conspirators control the US Government. If they did, they would have invaded Cuba, too.

3.3. The same applies with the more recent, and even more cynical, LBJ-did-it model. Philip Nelson's 650 page book on that model said in effect: "the reason that LBJ knew nothing about the JFK assassination is proof that he was the Mastermind." It's so illogical, but it passes for CT out there.

3.4. LBJ hired others to do it, they claim, to keep him out of the loop -- therefore, LBJ's utter ignorance about it is his idea of proof that LBJ did it. It's ridiculous -- but this nonsense sells books out there. Sorry, but I'm disappointed that some JFK researchers still spread that weak sort of logic.

4. You're right, also, Jon, to notice that the CIA and LBJ-did-it theories cannot explain why the Coverup persists a half-century later.

5. Since you raise my theory about the Dallas right-wing killing JFK, I'd like to explain further how my theory offers the most consistent explanation for a Coverup that lasts for 50 years.

5.1. As I see it, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles all decided that the Truth about the JFK murder was too much for Americans to handle -- that is -- there would be riots in the streets and maybe a Civil War. So, they decided to Lie to the American people in the interest of National Security.

5.2. That part is not my theory -- that is a historical fact. Before the Warren Commission had deposed its first witness, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was asked this question -- since Commission proceedings would be held behind closed doors, in secret, will the full results ever be presented to the public. Earl Warren flabbergasted the US Press with his reply: "Yes, there will come a time. But it might not be in your lifetime...there may be some things that would involve [National] Security..."

5.3. Once a Supreme Court Justice mandate is made, it tends to stick in the US bureaucracy. The first question is, why did Warren refuse to release the full record in the first place -- and the second question is: why 75 years?

5.4. He gave us the answer (and so did Hoover) namely, National Security. But why 75 years -- a full lifetime?

5.5. The very cynical JFK researchers will jump to the conclusion that the US Government must be protecting the killers, and so they are actually accessories.

5.6. But there is another explanation. What was the National Security issue? It was, IMHO, that we had a Cold War with the Communists at that time -- which lasted until 1990 (when the USSR fell).

5.7. Now, in 1964, there was no way to tell that the USSR would fall in 1990. But the Cold War was the National Security issue, because riots in USA streets would only help the COMMUNISTS at that point.

5.8. Also, a Civil War (left vs. right) in the USA, in the middle of a Cold War could have easily led to World War 3. So, without knowing when the Cold War would be over, Earl Warren (and J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ and Dulles) agreed that a full lifetime should be enough time for the American People to cool down.

5.9. When President GHW Bush in October 1992 signed the JFK Records Act, to release all JFK murder documents by October 2017 (25 years after the signing), President Bush knew he was taking 22 years away from the original 75 year secrecy announced by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and the rest.

6. So, Jon, I don't think that JFK was killed for a reason that anybody in the US Government wants to conceal -- except that we want to obey the Laws, and the New Law (JFK Records Act) says that the full truth will be revealed in October of 2017. So, we want to reveal it -- as soon as the Law allows us to do so.

6.1. I think the JBS will not like the truth when it comes out.

6.2. I think the family of Ex-General Edwin Walker are already prepared for the news in 2017, because they donated Walker's personal papers to UT Austin in 2002, and they probably knew what was contained in those personal papers.

6.3. I don't think the children of the Dallas Police who were (probably) involved in the JFK murder will mind very much -- for several reasons. First, some (like Ricky White) already believe in their father's role in the JFK murder. Others will soon find that they can make a lot of money by sharing their family stories with the Mass Media.

7. You say that the Coverup is "in our faces today," Jon, but that's because the US Government, being so big, operates largely on inertia. In about two more years, the Truth will set us all free from the nightmare of JFK conspiracy theories -- I hope.

8. I sincerely doubt that JFK was murdered to benefit Defense Contractors. That is the POLITICAL theory of those who wish to believe that JFK was committed to peace in Vietnam -- even though he had military advisors there.

8.1. Actually, JFK made OPPOSITE statements about Vietnam to the US Media -- like any politician. It is POLITICAL to guess what side JFK was on, because JFK was really on both sides.

9. You say, Jon, that a JFK murder plot to "overthrow Castro" is "a joke." Why? Do you mean that it's funny that Fidel Castro is still living today, and Cuba is still Communist today, 50 years after the JFK murder?

9.1. It may be ironic -- but it's no joke, IMHO.

9.2. As you know, it's my theory that JFK was murdered precisely to invade Cuba and thus "overthrow Castro." This was deadly serious business for the JBS and the radical right in the USA in 1963. There was no joke about it.

10. You ask, Jon, if it was to "benefit some group or some other country." Yet LBJ told Senator Russell, "we know Khrushchev didn't have a damn thing to do with it."

10.1. The Warren Commission would never have backed away from a legitimate fight with the USSR. If the USSR killed JFK to start a war, the USA would have fought them in 1963 -- I feel completely certain of that.

10.2. But the Warren Commission already knew who killed JFK -- it was the Dallas right-wing.

10.3. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was driving the lead limo in the JFK motorcade, and slowed the motorcade down right at the Grassy Knoll's picket fence, behind which was a parking lot for Dallas County employees, such as Roger Craig of the Dallas Sheriff's Department and many others. IT WAS WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE DALLAS POLICE STATION.

10.4. LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles would not let the conspirators get their way. It was too late to save JFK, but they would rob the conspirators of their main objective -- to blame the COMMUNISTS for the JFK murder, through Lee Harvey Oswald, an FPCC officer -- so that the USA would take Cuba.

10.5. The FBI and CIA knew very well that Lee Harvey Oswald was no COMMUNIST. That is what we will learn in October 2017, I feel very certain.

11. You rightly say, Jon, that "the important thing is to ask the right question as to why JFK was killed."

11.1. IMHO, JFK was killed because the US right-wing thought he was a Communist.

11.2. The US right-wing thought that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist, too, and when JFK took King's side in his Presidential speech of 11 June 1963, this was too much for the US right-wing to tolerate. (That very midnight, the right-wing would assassinate Medford Evers in Mississippi.)

11.3. It was hoped that Communism (and the Civil Rights Movement) would never recover from the death of JFK. That was a foolish hope -- but still, that's how foolish the US right-wing can be.

12. We agree, Jon, that Oswald had no motive to kill JFK -- and he explicitly denied doing so.

12.1. However, Oswald had let himself be FRAMED by people who had access to his rifle -- and to film footage of Oswald in New Orleans, boasting about being an FPCC (Communist) Officer.

13. You rightly say, Jon, that we must ask "who set up Oswald and why."

13.1. The best answer, IMHO, is the US right-wing -- because we have tons of evidence about this from the Jim Garrison Investigation.

13.2. Jim Garrison uncovered Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Beckham, working with Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler and other Cuban Exiles seeking revenge against Castro (and JFK) for the Bay of Pigs.

13.3. So, we have all that material evidence to tell us who set up Oswald. This was the US right-wing.

13.4. The reason why should be clear from their "modus operandi," namely, painting Oswald (falsely) as a COMMUNIST.

13.5. Their motive was to blame the COMMUNISTS for the JFK murder, and try to control the USA in that manner.

14. Finally, Jon, if you think I've made some error in calculation in my theory, would you kindly try to point that out to me?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Jon - feel free to engage with Trejo in detail, but please try to answer my simpler questions first, since I am trying to find out what you believe, rather than arguing my point of view.

Trejo - we do know how JFK felt about Vietnam, and we do know that his policy was reversed the day before he was shot. We do know what his relationship with the Joint Chiefs was like, and we do know how he felt about Alan Dulles and his minions,and about LBJ.

We also know that the right wing is in control here, now. The electorate rails against this of course, even going so far as to elect Obama twice. But the right has control of the courts, and of the Congressional districting, and of the 'free' press.

I doubt that anyone here agrees with you that 2017 will see the release of documents by the U.S. government that will finally put this national nightmare to rest.

We at least agree on one thing - JFK was killed by a right wing conspiracy.

[David Andrews]

One book that has not been mentioned in this discussion is John Newman's Oswald and the CIA. It has been hard to find, but is now out in a revised paperback edition, and the esteemed older edition is still in libraries. Not to wax conspiratorial, but the quick disappearance of the hardcover edition - authored by a former Army major and intelligence officer turned History professor - has been attributed to official discomfort over its revelations.

I read the book about six years ago, and my recollection is that Newman does not take a stand on Oswald as an intel agent. But his research into Oswald's defection files and Angleton's connection to Oswald in the US may lead to further investigation of Oswald as agent. Here's DiEugenio's take:

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

Edited February 16, 2015 by David Andrews