Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Thomas Graves]

Paul Trejo,

You write:

"How could the JFK Kill Team insist that that OSWALD had Communist accomplices, and the JFK Cover-up Team insist that OSWALD had "no accomplices that are still at large?"

Paul, in what way, in your opinion, did "the JFK Kill Team insist that Oswald had Communist accomplices"? Second question: Is it the case, in your opinion, that the assertion, by whomever, Oswald had Communist accomplices arose strictly post-assassination?

Your statement, which I've quoted, is centrally important in my opinion.

Jon,

Don't you see?

1 ) Oswald was an avowed Marxist / Communist.

2 ) There were millions of 'em around the world in 1963.

3 ) Therefore it could be said that Oswald had millions of accomplices!

LOL

--Tommy

Edited February 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

You write:

"How could the JFK Kill Team insist that that OSWALD had Communist accomplices, and the JFK Cover-up Team insist that OSWALD had "no accomplices that are still at large?"

Paul, in what way, in your opinion, did "the JFK Kill Team insist that Oswald had Communist accomplices"? Second question: Is it the case, in your opinion, that the assertion, by whomever, Oswald had Communist accomplices arose strictly post-assassination?

Your statement, which I've quoted, is centrally important in my opinion.

Thank you, Jon, for recognizing the significance of my question -- not just to you, but to the JFK Research Community.

For fifty years -- down to this very day -- most JFK Researchers proceed as if the JFK Kill Team and the JFK Cover-up Team must have been led by one and the same group of conspirators.

Perhaps only Larry Hancock and myself have questioned this notion in public (see his, Someone Would Have Talked, 2010).

Here are my responses to your two questions, Jon:

(1.0) The JFK Kill Team claimed, claimed and claimed that OSWALD had Communist accomplices by setting him up as a leader -- a Director of the FPCC, the Fair Play For Cuba Committee in New Orleans.

(1.1) The FPCC was started by supporters of Fidel CASTRO in New York City, and quickly attracted American Communists and other left-wing activists. They raised lots of money for Fidel Castro in 1959-1963.

(1.2) Harry Dean knows the FPCC well, having been a Secretary of the Chicago branch of the FPCC, as a reward for his fund-raising activities with the 26th of July Movement. (This is a matter of record.)

(1.3) As Jim Garrison showed, the FPCC branch in New Orleans was FAKE. It had only one member, namely, Alek Hidell -- the alias for Lee Harvey OSWALD the so-called Director.

(1.4) To make his show believable, OSWALD had contacted the FPCC in New York and asked to start a branch in New Orleans -- their reply was, "No."

(1.5) OSWALD and his pals in New Orleans opened the FPCC "branch" anyway, and this organization of one member went about getting publicity in newspapers, film, jail records, radio and television. The address stampted on OSWALD's FPCC handbills was that of Guy Banister -- a right-wing activist.

(1.6) OSWALD had associated mainly with right-wingers in 1963, and there was ample record of this. Ed Butler, Carlos Bringiuer, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Frank Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Tom Beckham, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming -- all of this was documented by NOLA DA Jim Garrison in his case against Clay Shaw.

(1.7) The FPCC connection was the main link of OSWALD to active Communists. OSWALD put on this great show as a Communist activist supporting the FPCC, one of Fidel CASTRO's favorite US organizations -- as the FBI and CIA knew very well.

(1.8) So that, Jon, is how the right-wing claimed, claimed and claimed that Lee Harvey OSWALD had Communist accomplices.

(2.0) I do not accept any claim by anybody that OSWALD was linked in the media with Communists strictly post-assassination.

(2.1) Jim Garrison showed ample evidence that OSWALD was personally hanging out with right-wing guys, but putting on a show of being a left-wing activist in the FPCC.

(2.2) This activity started around May, 1963 and lasted until October, 1963. All this is pre-assassination.

(2.3) This activity plainly links OSWALD with the Communists -- although not with any specific invididual Communists -- only with letterhead, handbills, and big talk about a NOLA "branch" of the FPCC -- which was a Big Lie.

(2.4) So, Jon, for a six month period before the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey OSWALD was an object of hatred and contention by many people in New Orleans -- and perhaps Dallas.

(2.5) OSWALD was seen as a Communist by some, a double-agent by others, and as a right-wing guy incognito by yet others.

(2.6) In no case did the perception of a "Communist OSWALD" begin only after JFK was murdered. The whole point of the FRAMING was to make it look real.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I pointed out before that Oswald's faked pro-Castro credentials have not stood the test of time, as they were obviously paper thin. In my mind that lends support to the idea that operations involving LHO were never meant to stand up to close scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny you get when a president is murdered. More likely their sole purpose was to discredit FPCC by painting that organization with a communist brush, not to set Oswald up as a communist patsy. We know that US intelligence were mounting such operations against FPCC, both FBI and CIA, at the very time that LHO began his New Orleans sojourn. To me it makes logical sense that Oswald was part of those operations, as were Banister and his boys, and Ed Butler, and probably Bringuier.

When was it decided, by whomever, that Dallas would be the place? After all, we do know that plans were afoot in Chicago and Miami that were thwarted, and that didn't involve LHO. Its even possible that Oswald was the reason for the failure of the Chicago plot, as we know that it was someone named 'Lee' that blew the cover. It appears that their were other patsies set up in both places. Very complicated plan for a bunch of Birchers.

A far simpler explanation in my view is that the plotters had no specific aims in regards to Cuba, but simply wanted to get JFK out of their way. They didn't want WW 3. They wanted power. The guys who planned it also controlled the coverup.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Brancato,

You write:

"A far simpler explanation in my view is that the plotters had no specific aims in regards to Cuba, but simply wanted to get JFK out of their way. They didn't want WW 3. They wanted power. The guys who planned it also controlled the coverup."

I agree except that I believe the cover-up took on its own life after Oswald was arrested.

Immediately after Oswald's arrest, the FBI launched the cover-up; because, I believe, J.Edgar Hoover perceived correctly he had been snookered.

[Mark Knight]

I'm not buying Mr. Trejo's "civil war" premise.

Civil war failed to break out because Americans generally don't commit to civil war EXCEPT along certain geographic lines. North/south...east/west...that sort of thing.

Even during the racial battles of the '60's, and even today, there are geographic boundaries...Watts...Ferguson....

Americans do geographic battles, with "territories" for each side in the conflict. Even in today's politicized atmosphere, folks like Rush Limbaugh will tell you it's the liberal northeast, and California, that are the areas that are the "problems."

So I have trouble fathoming how the rest of the nation vs. the Birchers and Minutemen would have become a full-blown civil war. In numbers alone, the rest of the nation could--and would--have crushed them like cockroaches beneath a wing-tipped brogue. Had Hoover [or the Warren Commission] found evidence that this crime could have been pinned on the JBS, they would have been summarily rounded up, not unlike the Japanese-Americans who ended up in internment camps under the very same Earl Warren.

So how can your fantasy scenario play out in that light?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - I pointed out before that Oswald's faked pro-Castro credentials have not stood the test of time, as they were obviously paper thin. In my mind that lends support to the idea that operations involving LHO were never meant to stand up to close scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny you get when a president is murdered. More likely their sole purpose was to discredit FPCC by painting that organization with a communist brush, not to set Oswald up as a communist patsy. We know that US intelligence were mounting such operations against FPCC, both FBI and CIA, at the very time that LHO began his New Orleans sojourn. To me it makes logical sense that Oswald was part of those operations, as were Banister and his boys, and Ed Butler, and probably Bringuier.

When was it decided, by whomever, that Dallas would be the place? After all, we do know that plans were afoot in Chicagoand Miami that were thwarted, and that didn't involve LHO. Its even possible that Oswald was the reason for the failure of the Chicago plot, as we know that it was someone named 'Lee' that blew the cover. It appears that their were other patsies set up in both places. Very complicated plan for a bunch of Birchers.

A far simpler explanation in my view is that the plotters had no specific aims in regards to Cuba, but simply wanted to get JFK out of their way. They didn't want WW 3. They wanted power. The guys who planned it also controlled the coverup.

Well, Paul B., you propose an alternative, so I'll explore it.

(1) You say, "Oswald's faked pro-Castro credentials have not stood the test of time, as they were obviously paper thin." Actually, they still stand in some quarters. Walter Cronkite bought them, and tried to sell them to the American people. Even today, we are still shown OSWALD passing out leaflets in NOLA, as proof of his FPCC affiliation.

(1.1) In fact, Oswald's faked pro-Castro credentials were only rejected by the JFK Research Community. Jim Garrison was the first to debunk them, at great personal cost. A half-century later we stand on his shoulders, but in fact even to this day we still hear defenses of the "Lone Nut" theory.

(1.2) So, Paul B., your claim that the Fake nature of the FPCC credentials of OSWALD was "obvious" is an over-statement. Some people still accept them as genuine.

(1.3) The Lopez Report finally proves that OSWALD's motive in his Fake FPCC antics in NOLA was ultimately to bring all these Fake credentials to Mexico City, to trick his way into Cuba.

(1.4) Yet even this is not accepted 100% by all readers. Some readers have still not read the Lopez Report in full. So, things are not so obvious, after all.

(2.0) IMHO, the Fake nature of OSWALD's Communist (FPCC) affiliations were only supposed to last long enough to whip up the emotions of the USA so that we would invade Cuba. After killing Fidel Castro, it would not matter to the conspirators if the data about OSWALD turned out to be false. It was intended for a short-term gamble.

(3.0) I disagree, Paul B., with your claim that the sole purpose of OSWALD's Fake FPCC was "painting that organization with a communist brush."

(3.1) First, and most important, the FBI and CIA already knew that the FPCC was communist. This came out in Senate Hearings for HUAC in which the name of Harry Dean was invoked as a Secretary of the FPCC in Chicago in 1960. People pled the fifth enough times -- it was clear to everyone that the FPCC was Communist -- it didn't need a "paint" job.

(3.2) If OSWALD was chosen to "paint" the FPCC with a communist brush, he was poorly selected, because on TV he said, "Yes, I'm a Marxist, but that doesn't mean, however, that I'm a Communist."

(3.3) So, OSWALD publicly denied that he was a Communist -- so how could his fake FPCC credentials in any way "paint" the FPCC as Communist?

(3.4) If the FBI and CIA wanted to make the FPCC look bad -- it makes little sense that they would hire a nobody to do nothing but hand out leaflets on the streets of NOLA.

(4.0) Yes, OSWALD was clearly part of the US Government attack on the FPCC, yet simply handing out leaflets in NOLA was not much of an attack.

(5.0) The real attack would come later - when the FPCC was used to gain access to Fidel Castro himself -- and killing him.

(5.1) IMHO, with the information currently in hand, I believe that David Atlee Phillips was hoping that OSWALD would be able to trick his way into Cuba, to help AM/LASH kill Fidel Castro. This was his role, IMHO, as reported by Antonio Veciana of Alpha 66.

(6.0) IMHO, Paul B., Dallas was decided fairly late in the game. Other conspirators considered Florida, Chicago and Washington DC.

(6.1) As for the Washington DC plot, we have evidence from Larry Hancock that two conspirators considered using OSWALD there, and tried to talk OSWALD into it. OSWALD gave them little attention; he was busy.

(6.2) The Dallas trip was announced to the public in September 1963. This was the same month that OSWALD went to Mexico City. So, the plotters had to complete their plans quickly -- to solidify them in Dallas. IMHO, that's when the secret Bircher meetings on this topic began.

(6.3) By the way, Harry Dean says that Edwin WALKER announced plans for the Dallas assassination -- including the use of OSWALD as a patsy -- in the middle of September, 1963, to a Bircher meeting in Southern California.

(7.0) Finally, Paul B., you doubt the conspirators were Birchers, but IMHO the profile fits perfectly. A fanatic who truly believed JFK was a Communist was best capable of this deed.

(7.1) Add to this the leadership of Edwin WALKER, a former US General, and the circle is complete.

(7.2) We do agree on one thing, Paul B., namely, that the JFK Kill Team wanted POWER. Yet with this power they would have FIRST attacked Cuba. If the USSR threatened nuclear reprisals, that did not frighten the JFK Kill Team. It was all about POWER in the Cold War, and the enemy was clearly the Communist Bloc.

(8.0) The people who planned the JFK murder were foiled in their version of the Cover-up. In their version of the Cover-up, OSWALD would have been perceived as a Communist agitator, working for Fidel and the USSR.

(8.1) The JFK Killers worked since April to make the Communist connection with OSWALD as solid as possible. They were FOILED by Hoover, LBJ, the Warren Commission and their "Lone Nut" theory.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I'm not buying Mr. Trejo's "civil war" premise.

Civil war failed to break out because Americans generally don't commit to civil war EXCEPT along certain geographic lines. North/south...east/west...that sort of thing.

Even during the racial battles of the '60's, and even today, there are geographic boundaries...Watts...Ferguson....

Americans do geographic battles, with "territories" for each side in the conflict. Even in today's politicized atmosphere, folks like Rush Limbaugh will tell you it's the liberal northeast, and California, that are the areas that are the "problems."

So I have trouble fathoming how the rest of the nation vs. the Birchers and Minutemen would have become a full-blown civil war. In numbers alone, the rest of the nation could--and would--have crushed them like cockroaches beneath a wing-tipped brogue. Had Hoover [or the Warren Commission] found evidence that this crime could have been pinned on the JBS, they would have been summarily rounded up, not unlike the Japanese-Americans who ended up in internment camps under the very same Earl Warren.

So how can your fantasy scenario play out in that light?

Well, Mark, your objection is worthy of a response. You rightly note that Civil War would be expected in the USA along geographic lines.

Yet Ex-General Edwin WALKER was a Southerner, and his politics were Southern politics. He spoke regularly to White Citizens Councils in the South. He was pals with Guy Banister, another racist who ran for public office in the South, hoping to reverse the Brown Decision of mandatory racial integration of US Public Schools.

JFK was killed in the South. If he had driven in an open limo in Mississippi, I expect that JFK would have been killed there, too. Same with Alabama. Same with Florida in 1963.

As for California, the North is liberal, but the South is mixed -- there are liberal pockets and some strongly conservative pockets in Los Angeles County. Harry Dean can attest to that.

Now, Mark, your issue is about what you call "a full-blown civil war."

I admit that my notion of preventing Civil War in the USA might be overstated, if we compare it with Abraham Lincoln's Civil War, which lasted for years.

Maybe.

Actually, I envisioned a mini-Civil War that would have broken out in 1963. It would have been largely a North-South issue -- since JFK was killed in the South, and the racist element of the Birchers (which they denied even existed, but the evidence is plentiful for it) resided largely in the South.

In the South, the Birchers intepreted the JBS slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren!" as a national call for a reversal of Warren's Brown Decision.

You speak of the numbers, Mark, but too hastily, IMHO. The FBI admitted that it did not have enough men to go after the Minutemen hand-to-hand. In order to conquer the Minutemen, the FBI needed *time* to infiltrate them, and pick them off on technicalities, one by one.

Certainly the US Army could have easily mopped the floor with the Minutemen -- however, the Global Climate was very different in 1963 than today.

For one thing, there was a Cold War going on. That was the main issue in 1963, and IMHO the Cold War is the very reason that Earl Warren chose to lock up the Truth about the JFK Murder for 75 years. There was no telling how long the Cold War would last.

So, Mark, it might seem better for me to say "riots in the streets" rather than a "Civil War", but consider the problem of the Cold War.

Because if the USSR then tried to insert itself into these US riots, then the right-wing would have attracted even more support -- not only from the South, but now from the North itself.

It would have *ceased* to be a geographic conflict, and would have become vastly more complicated in the USA -- it would have become an Ideological battle, and that could conceivably have turned into a full-blown Civil War, and even WW3.

So, Mark, I don't call it a "fantasy," although my Civil War theory might be slightly overstated. Yet given the conditions of the Cold War in 1963, if I use the phrase, "riots in the streets,"I might be understating the danger. We forget too quickly how dangerous the Cold War really was.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

I believe everything verifiable about Marina's husband ("Oswald") is accurate as to his views and wishes. For example, the "defection" to the USSR and the leafletting in NOLA. I believe those were genuine. Individuals generally do what they want to do.

To me, Oswald was like a hummingbird. He was attracted to nectar, to sugar-water.

He was self-educated. Meaning he alone decided what was important. Anyone who was sophisticated in human behavior could have manipulated him.

One makes a mistake, IMO, by viewing Oswald otherwise. He was, after all, just another human being.

[Paul Trejo]

I believe everything verifiable about Marina's husband ("Oswald") is accurate as to his views and wishes. For example, the "defection" to the USSR and the leafletting in NOLA. I believe those were genuine. Individuals generally do what they want to do.

To me, Oswald was like a hummingbird. He was attracted to nectar, to sugar-water.

He was self-educated. Meaning he alone decided what was important. Anyone who was sophisticated in human behavior could have manipulated him.

One makes a mistake, IMO, by viewing Oswald otherwise. He was, after all, just another human being.

Well, Jon, I think you're being too abstract about this. We have some material facts that require explanation.

In the case of OSWALD in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, we have a large body of work by Jim Garrison and his team.

They failed to convict Clay Shaw -- but they didn't fail to unveil the truth about Lee Harvey OSWALD.

On the FPCC handbills handed out by OSWALD, Jon, Jim Garrison noticed the address of Guy Banister -- one of the most notorious right-wingers in Louisiana. Guy was politically active. Guy was a right-wing fanatic -- he was former FBI and his passion was fighting Communism in the Carribean -- and especially in Cuba.

Guy Banister surrounded himself with a large team of Cuban Exiles from various organizations, some of which had CIA funding, and others had funding from wealthy Cubans (and wealthy Americans) who wanted to take Cuba back from Fidel Castro.

This was Guy's dream. Guy Banister was also active politically against the FPCC. It was a personal challenge, practically.

So, Jim Garrison was stunned to find out that the FPCC handbills being handed out by Lee Harvey OSWALD were stamped with the address of Guy Banister. This was what started the wheels turning for Jim Garrison.

What about you -- Jon? How do you explain the presence of the address of a radical rightist, inside the handbills handed out by this "supposed" leftist agitator for the FPCC and Fidel Castro?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

I believe everything verifiable about Marina's husband ("Oswald") is accurate as to his views and wishes. For example, the "defection" to the USSR and the leafletting in NOLA. I believe those were genuine. Individuals generally do what they want to do.

To me, Oswald was like a hummingbird. He was attracted to nectar, to sugar-water.

He was self-educated. Meaning he alone decided what was important. Anyone who was sophisticated in human behavior could have manipulated him.

One makes a mistake, IMO, by viewing Oswald otherwise. He was, after all, just another human being.

Well, Jon, I think you're being too abstract about this. We have some material facts that require explanation.

In the case of OSWALD in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, we have a large body of work by Jim Garrison and his team.

They failed to convict Clay Shaw -- but they didn't fail to unveil the truth about Lee Harvey OSWALD.

On the FPCC handbills handed out by OSWALD, Jon, Jim Garrison noticed the address of Guy Banister -- one of the most notorious right-wingers in Louisiana. Guy was politically active. Guy was a right-wing fanatic -- he was former FBI and his passion was fighting Communism in the Carribean -- and especially in Cuba.

Guy Banister surrounded himself with a large team of Cuban Exiles from various organizations, some of which had CIA funding, and others had funding from wealthy Cubans (and wealthy Americans) who wanted to take Cuba back from Fidel Castro.

This was Guy's dream. Guy Banister was also active politically against the FPCC. It was a personal challenge, practically.

So, Jim Garrison was stunned to find out that the FPCC handbills being handed out by Lee Harvey OSWALD were stamped with the address of Guy Banister. This was what started the wheels turning for Jim Garrison.

What about you -- Jon? How do you explain the presence of the address of a radical rightist, inside the handbills handed out by this "supposed" leftist agitator for the FPCC and Fidel Castro?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

A good post, finally, although not entirely accurate of course. But then again we've come to expect that, haven't we?

The two addresses "544 Camp Street" and "531 Lafayette Street" were for the same building, but they were for it's two separate parts with their two separate entrances which were in no way interconnected, unless, of course, one were to crawl out through one window and reenter the building through another window.

It was perhaps very clever of Banister to put his Guy Banister Associates detective firm in a building like that (in the 531 Lafayette Street part of it) so that any operatives who might work for him out of that building could have a different address (544 Camp Street) from his detective firm's. Instead of crawling through windows to confer with each other, they could just have an occasional "sit down" and a cup of coffee downstairs at Mancuso's joint.

Regardless, I think Oswald put the 544 Camp Street address on some of the flyers as a form of "insurance" because he suspected Banister was setting him up for something.

It is interesting that the building's janitor, James Arthus, who lived in the 544 Camp Street part of the building, actually told investigators he had discouraged an unknown man from renting an office at 544 Camp Street. It's interesting because Oswald himself sent a letter to FPCC headquarters just eight days before he was arrested for disturbing the peace in New Orleans, and in the letter he said that he had rented a small office at some unspecified place in New Orleans but that he had been told (by James Arthus?) to leave after three days because the office "was going to be remodeled." I wonder if anyone ever checked to find out whether or not any offices in the 544 Camp Street part of the building had been remodeled (maybe just painted?) during the summer of 1963. It's equally interesting that Oswald look-alike and former Marine Corps buddy Kerry Thornley was a member (until April, 1963) of a labor union which had it's office at 544 Camp Street, and that the Revolutionary Council had at one time had it's New Orleans office at 544 Camp Street. (Was Oswald trying to aggravate or brand as a "Cuban spy" somebody in the CRC by putting its old Camp Street address on the pamphlets?) Finally, I suppose it's interesting that the above-mentioned janitor, James Arthus, died in 1967. Hmmm, I wonder how old he was and what the official cause of death was. Yeah, I know. I'm probably just being overly suspicious...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/544camp.txt

--Tommy

PS It's also my understanding that "544 Camp Street" was not found stamped on any of the flyers per se, but rather on one or two of Corliss Lamont's pamphlets "The Crimes Against Cuba." The fascinating thing is that the copies of "The Crimes Against Cuba" being handed out by Oswald had apparently come from the CIA's first-edition batch order.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Let's get real about Oswald.

Paul Trejo is right, Marina's husband was a man of action. How many young military vets "defect" to the Soviet Union in 1959. That was remarkable. Yet although Oswald was a man of action, he was not a soldier of fortune like Gerry Hemming. Oswald settled down with a wife and family.

As a young man, he was blessed with energy, energy to leaflet on the streets of New Orleans. And filled with fire, which is seen in his NOLA radio debate broadcast. He was filled with fire but disciplined.

Clearly, he did not have powerful friends who could help him achieve stability with a satisfying job. He appears always to have been on the edge as far as his job went.

Marina said she thought he played games. I interpret this to mean he was somewhat detached from reality.

Oswald is a blank slate on which any picture can be painted. He was a commie. He was anti-communist. He worked for the CIA. He worked for the FBI.

Ultimately, Oswald did nothing of note. He was charged with JFK's murder, but that was not of his own doing. He was simply someone whom it was easy to charge.

IMO, figuring out why Oswald was set up is the same as figuring out who killed JFK. Clue: Neither the CIA nor the FBI would set up their own agent.

[Thomas Graves]

Let's get real about Oswald.

Paul Trejo is right, Marina's husband was a man of action. How many young military vets "defect" to the Soviet Union in 1959. That was remarkable. Yet although Oswald was a man of action, he was not a soldier of fortune like Gerry Hemming. Oswald settled down with a wife and family.

As a young man, he was blessed with energy, energy to leaflet on the streets of New Orleans. And filled with fire, which is seen in his NOLA radio debate broadcast. He was filled with fire but disciplined.

Clearly, he did not have powerful friends who could help him achieve stability with a satisfying job. He appears always to have been on the edge as far as his job went.

Marina said she thought he played games. I interpret this to mean he was somewhat detached from reality.

Oswald is a blank slate on which any picture can be painted. He was a commie. He was anti-communist. He worked for the CIA. He worked for the FBI.

Ultimately, Oswald did nothing of note. He was charged with JFK's murder, but that was not of his own doing. He was simply someone whom it was easy to charge.

IMO, figuring out why Oswald was set up is the same as figuring out who killed JFK. Clue: Neither the CIA nor the FBI would set up their own agent.

Yes, but was he a materialistic "man of action?"

And which "Oswald" are you talking about, anyway? Lee, Harvey, or Henry?

LOL

Would the FBI or CIA have any qualms about "setting somebody up" whom they or someone else had led to believe was one of their agents or informants, but wasn't?

Do you see Oswald as being a rather gullible "man of action?"

--Tommy

Edited February 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

TOMMY,

If you are a case officer, a person who runs agents, you know who your agents are, generally speaking.

You do not betray them.

Why do I write "generally speaking"? Because a case officer sometimes works with one agent who works with sub-agents.

[Thomas Graves]

TOMMY,

If you are a case officer, a person who runs agents, you know who your agents are, generally speaking.

You do not betray them.

Why do I write "generally speaking"? Because a case officer sometimes works with one agent who works with sub-agents.

JON,

I'll make this as simple as possible:

Is it possible that Oswald was manipulated by somebody, who was not currently in the CIA or FBI or INS or Customs, to think that he (Oswald) was working for the CIA or FBI or INS or Customs from at least New Orleans on?

And now for a completely separate question, JON:

Would the CIA or FBI or INS, or Customs "set up" one of their own agents whom they strongly suspected to be a double agent and who already had a Commie / Marxist "legend"?

(I'm just asking, JON.

No, I don't have any hard "evidence".)

--Tommy

Edited February 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Stephen Roy]

PS It's also my understanding that "544 Camp Street" was not found stamped on any of the flyers per se, but rather on one or two of Corliss Lamont's pamphlets "The Crimes Against Cuba." The fascinating thing is that the copies of "The Crimes Against Cuba" being handed out by Oswald had apparently come from the CIA's first-edition batch order.

You're usually pretty accurate and sensible, TG, but: Gus Russo prints one of Oswald's flyers with the 544 address on it, and indicates that it came from the widow of NOPD officer Francis Martello.

The CIA-source thing is a misreading of evidence. There is a solid paper trail. Oswald wrote to the FPCC and requested those specific Lamont pamphlets, and the FPCC noted on that letter that they had been sent. The idea that the FPCC would wait until ALL copies of the first (and various) printings were gone before ordering reprints is silly. If anyone had copies of the various printings on hand, it was the FPCC. And the idea that the CIA would supply an undercover agent from an order openly made by the CIA's reading room is equally silly.