Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Thomas Graves]

I believe Oswald's 1963 NOLA period needs to be considered in terms of his whole life.

If one believes "Oswald" is John Armstrong's Harvey, as I do, one is considering an unusual guy. A guy who did things that are hard to understand, because it's hard to grasp why he did them. It's easy to create a false portrait of such an individual.

Here's a guy, if one believes John Armstrong, who had no father and was raised by a "fake" mother. He spends time in NYC and North Dakota. His birth parents were Hungarian immigrants who spoke Russian. Wow.

He joins the Marines. The Marines tear you down and then build you back up into a Marine. That's a big life event.

He "defects" to Russia, marries Marina, returns to the U.S. Is met and introduced by educated, sophisticated individuals.

The cast of characters here is large. But there is no plot, no story.

Oswald (Harvey) can't hold his job at Reilly Coffee Company. He apparently hangs around with Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister, and David Ferrie (maybe others, such as Mary Bancroft) and then checks out of NOLA and allegedly heads to Mexico City. And then heads to Dallas.

Whoa! Where's the plot line here?

You're a creative person. Your job is to create stories for a client. The client is an intelligence service, domestic or foreign. Your job is to create a story, a believable story, about Harvey. Not Harvey's true life story. But a story that can be sold to a gullible public.

Your job is great. It's to create fiction from reality.

So, Jon, how physically similar did Harvey and Lee (and don't forget the CIA's Lee Henry Oswald -- just kidding -- probably just a "typo" or an intentional "marked card" ) look when they were, say, eighteen or twenty-three years old?

Just barely enough "alike" to be able to fool a lot of people?

How plausible is that?

Anticipated Answer:

"It's very plausible, Tommy, because it worked, didn't it?"

"Anyway, Tommy, look at all of these photos of "Oswald" that were taken at different ages, from different angles, in different lighting conditions, with different backgrounds, with different cameras, with different film and lenses, etc. See how different he looks in them? Well, that proves it, see Tommy?

--Tommy

bumped

Edited March 1, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

I believe Oswald's 1963 NOLA period needs to be considered in terms of his whole life.

...He joins the Marines...He "defects" to Russia, marries Marina, returns to the U.S. Is met and introduced by educated, sophisticated individuals.

The cast of characters here is large. But there is no plot, no story.

Oswald...can't hold his job at Reilly Coffee Company. He apparently hangs around with Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister, and David Ferrie...and then checks out of NOLA and allegedly heads to Mexico City. And then heads to Dallas.

Whoa! Where's the plot line here? ...Your job is great. It's to create fiction from reality...

Well, Jon, there's no need to create fiction here -- the plot line is given in the Cold War dynamics of 1963, with Cuba and Fidel Castro in the dead center.

The Mexico City episode (September 1963) and The Lopez Report clearly show a Fake Resume for a Fake Director of a Fake FPCC.

That isn't fiction. It's reality. The problem is to understand all this within the context of the JFK murder.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

My point, not well made, is that the facts about Oswald were turned into fiction about him by the Warren Commission and its defenders. Oswald was turned into a poorly adjusted loner. Turning Oswald into a poorly adjusted loner was someone's job, IMO. It was a job calling for creativity and skill, skill at shading, ignoring, inventing facts about the true Oswald.

Peace be with you.

[Steven Gaal]

Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent? ANSWER YES

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Adele Edisen: A 4-hour interview . . .

in JFK Assassination Debate
Started by Guest_James H. Fetzer_*, 16 Feb 2011

1

2

3

Last Post by Guest_Tom Scully_* , 26 Jul 2011

　

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Dr. Jose Rivera

in JFK Assassination Debate
Started by John Simkin, 21 May 2005

1

2

3

9 →

Last Post by Guest_Tom Scully_* , 20 Jul 2012

[Jon G. Tidd]

Stephen Gaal,

Many JFK researchers, perhaps most or all, believe Oswald was an intelligence agent.

I don't believe many, if any, JFK researchers know what an intelligence agent is. Know the different kinds of intelligence agents. Know what intelligence agents do. Know how they are handled in terms of what's called the "intelligence cycle". Know how intelligence is produced and what intelligence is. Know how an intelligence service is basically organized. Know anything about the training of an intelligence officer. And so on. That's why I wrote this diary, to attempt to shine some light on these subjects.

If you believe as you assert that Oswald was an intelligence agent, what clear indications are there, in your thinking, that he was an intelligence agent?

[Thomas Graves]

Paul Trejo,

My point, not well made, is that the facts about Oswald were turned into fiction about him by the Warren Commission and its defenders. Oswald was turned into a poorly adjusted loner. Turning Oswald into a poorly adjusted loner was someone's job, IMO. It was a job calling for creativity and skill, skill at shading, ignoring, inventing facts about the true Oswald.

Peace be with you.

Jon,

Sounds like a job for David Atlee Phillips and / or E. Howard Hunt, two master propagandists.

A prolific poster on this forum also comes to mind...

--Tommy

Edited March 2, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

As you know, a fairly coherent story of Oswald's (Harvey's) life began to be presented by the MSM by the evening of November 22, 1963. The question arises: Was this story ready to go, and was it planted with major U.S. news outlets that were prepped and willing to accept the story?

I believe the answer to both parts of the question is yes.

Does this mean the major U.S. news outlets were parties to the assassination? No. Does it mean whoever planted the story of Oswald's life had foreknowledge of the assassination? Yes.

Does it mean whoever planted the story killed or helped kill JFK? No.

Does it suggest that whoever planted the story was in league with who killed JFK? Yes.

[Stephen Roy]

My point, not well made, is that the facts about Oswald were turned into fiction about him by the Warren Commission and its defenders. Oswald was turned into a poorly adjusted loner. Turning Oswald into a poorly adjusted loner was someone's job, IMO. It was a job calling for creativity and skill, skill at shading, ignoring, inventing facts about the true Oswald.

Interesting. Can you give us your description of the true Oswald?

[Stephen Roy]

Many JFK researchers, perhaps most or all, believe Oswald was an intelligence agent.

Your estimate of the proportions may be off a bit. A lot of researchers who have drilled down deep into Oswald think it is possible that he was an intelligence agent.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

My point, not well made, is that the facts about Oswald were turned into fiction about him by the Warren Commission and its defenders. Oswald was turned into a poorly adjusted loner. Turning Oswald into a poorly adjusted loner was someone's job, IMO. It was a job calling for creativity and skill, skill at shading, ignoring, inventing facts about the true Oswald.

Peace be with you.

Not to distract from Stephen Roy's apt question to you about the "True Oswald," Jon, I have some remarks of my own.

I think you speed past important points too quickly, for example, this notion of "turning Oswald into a poorly adjusted loner."

As Jim Garrison showed fairly well, the effort of the JFK Conspirators with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald was to turn him into a Fidel-loving FPCC Communist.

Now, to millions of Americans, that was "poorly adjusted" all by itself. To be a Communist, for perhaps most Americans, was to be a "nut case."

Yet it was NOT the intent of the Framers of Oswald to make him look like a "Lone Nut," but rather, to make him look like a "Communist nut." There's a major difference.

The Framers of Oswald started (IMHO) in April 1963, and didn't stop until September 1963. That's the better part of six months. That must have cost them a lot of money, since lots of people were involved (including Banister's crew, for example, but also Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler).

Yet the entire effort of that entire period for them was dedicated to Framing Oswald as a "Communist". Certainly not a Loner. That was the key.

Now, after JFK was murdered, and the blame was put on Lee Harvey Oswald, the right-wing killers of JFK all shouted in chorus -- LOOK! HE'S A COMMUNIST!

The killers of JFK were hoping that the USA would rise up in rage and attack Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. That was the ENTIRE PURPOSE of Oswald's New Orleans period in 1963, IMHO.

But J. Edgar Hoover saw that. Hoover immediately saw what was happening. So did LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren. Without much effort at all, Hoover simply turned the tables slightly to say, "No, not a Communist Nut, but a LONE NUT" killed JFK.

There's a world of difference there. Months of effort went into creating the "Communist nut" scenario. It took J. Edgar Hoover only 2.5 hours to come up with the "Lone Nut" scenario.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 12, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Steven Gaal]

Jon G. Tidd

Jon G. Tidd

Advanced Member

• 
• Members
• 
• 359 posts

• Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 11:02 PM

Stephen Gaal,

Many JFK researchers, perhaps most or all, believe Oswald was an intelligence agent.

I don't believe many, if any, JFK researchers know what an intelligence agent is. Know the different kinds of intelligence agents. Know what intelligence agents do. Know how they are handled in terms of what's called the "intelligence cycle". Know how intelligence is produced and what intelligence is. Know how an intelligence service is basically organized. Know anything about the training of an intelligence officer. And so on. That's why I wrote this diary, to attempt to shine some light on these subjects.

If you believe as you assert that Oswald was an intelligence agent, what clear indications are there, in your thinking, that he was an intelligence agent?

+++++++++++++

HERE ARE JUST 5

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Oswald’s "Historic Diary"

The conventional wisdom

The Warren Report reconstructed Oswald’s defection and his thoughts & activities during his time in the Soviet Union by utilizing Oswald’s "Historic Diary," which purportedly was Oswald’s contemporaneous documentation of events

The Evidence

Upon careful evaluation, Oswald’s "diary" reflects information that could only have become known after the supposed time of the entries. Expert handwriting analysis establishes that the "diary" was not an accumulation of random entries each entry having been made on the date indicated contemporaneous with the events being recorded.

Query:

The determination that Oswald’s "diary", upon which so much reliance has been placed in the reconstructing the defection, is not a diary at all, and is in fact a phony. calls into question the entire Warren Report reconstruction of Oswald’s life in Russia.

As well it gives rise to the following disturbing questions: when was the "diary" written?

- whose purposes did this phony diary serve?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oswald was never known to have any solid finances. So when his service pal Nelson Delgado was asked, he replied that he had no idea how Oswald could afford to travel across Europe. Delgado said this cost anywhere from eight hundred to a thousand dollars. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 137) Which a study of his bank records reveals he did not have. But in addition to this, Davison could have told us about the hotels he stayed in while in Helsinki. British investigator Ian Griggs actually stayed in them. The first was the Hotel Torni. Griggs described this as no less than a five star hotel. The rough equivalent of the Savoy in London or the Four Seasons in San Francisco. How and why would someone as low status as Oswald choose to stay at such a place? Someone must have alerted him to this dilemma because he soon checked out. He went to the Klaus Kurki Hotel. Griggs described this as maybe a notch below the Torni. A four and a half star hotel. Since, as I said, Davison never went anywhere for a field investigation, she cannot inform us of this dichotomy. And therefore, the reader cannot ask the obvious questions: Where did Oswald get the money to stay in the kinds of hotels that Nelson Rockefeller and Jean Sibelius booked? (ibid, p. 138) And second, why would the usually frugal Oswald become a spendthrift in Finland?

But beyond that, outside the pages of Oswald's Game, with normal rationality, the question also arises: Why did Oswald even go to Helsinki? Davison says that he placed an educational facility destination adjacent to Helsinki on his passport application. Which does not really explain it, since Oswald wrote several places on the application. Some of which he never went to. It appears he went there because that particular Russian Embassy had close ties to Intourist, the Russian state-owned travel bureau. Oswald applied for a visa to Intourist on October 13th. He got it the next day. (ibid, p. 138) Again, this is notable for the saga of Oswald. Because the Helsinki embassy was the only one in Europe which granted these visas that fast. The US Embassy there had direct ties to their Soviet counterparts and sent people who needed expedited visas to them. Did Oswald know this? Is this why he went there? If so, who told him about it? Since Davison deals with the matter of Helsinki in about two sentences, those questions also do not arise in Oswald's Game. (See Davison, pgs. 81, 84)

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

This brings us to the matter of how Oswald began his journey to Helsinki. Once he was fluent in Russian, as proven through his conversation with Quinn, Oswald did something unusual. He applied for a hardship discharge. Again, Delgado could not understand it. For these were notoriously hard to get and took a long time to process. (Second Edition, Destiny Betrayed, p. 136)

Now, let us make the mystery about this transparent, which Davison really does not do. Oswald's actual application was submitted on August 17th. At this point, his service contract had less than four months to run. The HSCA discovered that these proceedings took as many as six months to finalize. (ibid) Therefore, under normal circumstances, Oswald would have been better off just waiting out his service contract rather than gambling with the complex process of discharge. Why do I say that? Because, usually there were thorough investigations made at both ends to make sure the application was not a bogus attempt to get out early. And if there had been normal inquiries done, Oswald's filing would have been exposed as ersatz and he would have been busted.

But he wasn't. One reason he was not was this: instead of taking six months, or even three, his application was approved in just ten days! The way Davison deals with this is rich. She says that Oswald's application "was approved fairly quickly." (Davison, p. 82) Well, that's one way of putting it. But by not telling us about the actual time lapse, she avoids the question of what kind of inquiry could the Navy have made in just ten days. Because the main reason the application was granted was the excuse that Marguerite had a candy box at work fall on her nose. She needed to get a doctor's affidavit to collect on workmen's compensation since the company she worked for did not think the injury was that serious.

One of the doctors that Marguerite visited to collect information for her workman's compensation claim was Dr. Milton Goldberg. He called the FBI on the day of the assassination and said he could not go along with her claims for injuries and referred her to other doctors. But he also told the FBI that on one of her early visits she told him her son wanted to defect to Russia. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 136) Now, her first visit to Goldberg was on January 9, 1959. Which was a full nine months before Oswald was discharged. It was six months before he reported to the Red Cross to begin the process of the dependency discharge. Of which there was no dependency. The Navy could have discovered this just by interviewing Robert Oswald, who was living in Fort Worth at the time. There is no evidence that he was helping his mother at the time. And, of course, when Oswald did get out, he spent all of three days in Texas. Clearly, something was going on behind the scenes with this hardship discharge. But you would never get any suggestion of impropriety from Oswald's Game.

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

They would have told her that Ferrie had a tremendous influence over these youths. And he also seemed to have clearance from above to do things with them that required special permission. Like camping out with them at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, and having military planes fly them back form drill competitions. He also convinced a number of them to join the Marines. (Author's interview with Delsa in New Orleans in 1994; Destiny Betrayed, p. 84) I could go on and on in this regard, but suffice it to say, many writers have deduced that David Ferrie was a powerful influence on Oswald's life. If he was not, then why was Ferrie so obsessed with hiding his relationship with Oswald in the CAP in the days following the assassination? (Destiny Betrayed, pgs 176-77)

=======

Social Security Number that is incorrect for time and place at age 15 half.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Jon G. Tidd]

Stephen Roy,

If "Oswald" was John Armstrong's "Harvey", I believe the only reasonably complete and accurate picture of him that could be produced today would have to come from Marina.

I don't pretend to have anywhere near a true picture of this individual, so much of what is supposedly known about him being in dispute.

I'm pretty sure a misleading picture of him was created after the assassination.

As I listen to him speak on the NOLA radio station tapes, I get the image of a careful and precise thinker. Is this image accurate? Does it correspond to the true Oswald? Either way, it's not a complete picture of the man.

Marina said he beat her and that he shot at General Walker. If these statements are true, they suggest Oswald was given to behaving emotionally and irrationally, an image seemingly at odds with that of a careful and precise thinker.

I tend not to believe what Marina told the Warren Commission about her husband. And believe she was pressured, probably by the FBI, to tell lies about her husband. Others, such as Priscilla Macmillan Johnson, likely added to the coercion of Marina IMO.

[Stephen Roy]

OK, I see where you're coming from. I think people are more nuanced, more a mix of different qualities. I think a person can make more than one impression to different people (and sometimes the same people), but I respect your opinion.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Steven Gaal,

Assuming all that you write is accurate, and I've no reason to believe otherwise, the only thing that catches my eye as a former army counter-intelligence officer is the possibility that Oswald had unexplained income, income from a hidden source.

Unexplained income suggests an individual is being paid covertly to do work the payer wants done.

Assuming the existence of such a covert payer, I have to ask, what was the work the payer wanted Oswald to do? In the usual intelligence operation, the work is obtaining information the payer wants and cannot obtain or cannot obtain without unacceptable risk otherwise. I've never judged that Oswald had access to any such information.

Some have argued that Oswald was employed as a "dangle". Dangle is a term I never encountered as an army intelligence officer. I suppose it is used to mean "bait" or "lure". Perhaps Oswald was used this way. If he was, he appears not to have attracted any fish worth attracting. He was interviewed by the KGB in the USSR. KGB decided it had no interest in Oswald, as I understand, and that was that. In NOLA, Oswald certainly did behave as a lightning rod. But from what I've read, I don't glean that he encountered any individuals who would have been unknown to folks like Guy Bannister. Meaning I don't see any value he served as "bait" or "lure" in NOLA.

I agree there are certain things about Oswald which, if true, cry out for explanation. I believe John Armstrong has highlighted some if not most or all of these things. Certainly it appears the FBI took steps immediately post-assassination to foreclose a detailed inquiry into Oswald's life story, by seizing his school records. This suggest elements of the U.S. Government wanted strongly to conceal certain facts about Oswald. The question is, why?

The answer that Oswald was an intelligence agent of some sort for some intelligence service might suffice. But it's not really an answer. And it also might be an incorrect answer.

[Paul Trejo]

Stephen Roy,

If "Oswald" was John Armstrong's "Harvey", I believe the only reasonably complete and accurate picture of him that could be produced today would have to come from Marina.

I don't pretend to have anywhere near a true picture of this individual, so much of what is supposedly known about him being in dispute.

I'm pretty sure a misleading picture of him was created after the assassination.

As I listen to him speak on the NOLA radio station tapes, I get the image of a careful and precise thinker. Is this image accurate? Does it correspond to the true Oswald? Either way, it's not a complete picture of the man.

Marina said he beat her and that he shot at General Walker. If these statements are true, they suggest Oswald was given to behaving emotionally and irrationally, an image seemingly at odds with that of a careful and precise thinker.

I tend not to believe what Marina told the Warren Commission about her husband. And believe she was pressured, probably by the FBI, to tell lies about her husband. Others, such as Priscilla Macmillan Johnson, likely added to the coercion of Marina IMO.

Well, Jon, my response to your post is going to be mixed. I agree sometimes, and disagree sometimes.

I tend to agree, for example, with your statement that "the only reasonably complete and accurate picture of him that could be produced today would have to come from Marina."

Now, the Warren Commission spent a fortune getting Marina's story from her. I realize many JFK "researchers" disbelieve everything the Warren Commission ever printed (simply because its conclusions were warped towards the Lone Nut scenario), but I say that the Warren Commission TESTIMONY remains one of our most valuable historical resources.

I accept what Marina said under oath -- and this gives us our best portrait of Lee Harvey OSWALD that we will ever have.

By contrast, the book, Marina and Lee (1977) by Priscilla McMillan Johnson, is really only a re-hash of the Warren Commission volumes, with nothing new.

Again -- we must also recognize that Lee Harvey OSWALD lied to Marina continually. We have much evidence of this. For example, when he lost a job at this or that location, he wouldn't tell Marina, but would get up early, leave as if for work, and come home for dinner -- just as though nothing happened.

I think very little about OSWALD is in dispute, except the "LONE NUT" Myth which was created by J. Edgar Hoover for purposes of National Security. The "Lone Nut" Myth is itself really only one interpretation of the same data we find in the pages of the Warren Commission -- but other interpretations are possible.

When we hear OSWALD speak on the NOLA radio station tapes, we get an impressive portrait of a precise person. It is my belief that OSWALD was only repeating material from the FPCC materials he'd received from the post office. That's why it sounded so slick.

Also, OSWALD clearly wanted to distinguish Marxism from Communism (an American quirk) so his specific rationale for that is probably original with him. During the Cold War, it was common for left-leaning Americans to say, "I'd call myself a Socialist, but not a Communist." Thus OSWALD cited Great Britain as a "Marxist" but not a "Communist" economy; which is hardly accurate.

Also, please take care with the issue of Lee beating Marina. A careful study of the Warren Commission materials reveals that OSWALD never beat Marina in the USSR, nor in New Orleans. It was only in Ft. Worth and Dallas that he beat her, and when pressed about it, Marina said the issue was about marital fidelity.

We remember, for example, the testimony of George De Mohrenschildt and George Bouhe. Bouhe (George's friend) became enamoured with Marina, and bought her dozens of dresses (according to Jeanne De Mohrenschildt) and offered to pay for dental work for her. This enraged Lee Harvey OSWALD. It was during this period *alone* that he beat her.

Otherwise, to the best of our knowledge, Lee didn't beat Marina.

Also, Marina didn't simply say that Lee OSWALD took a shot at Walker -- Marina said that OSWALD *told* her that he took a shot at Walker. As usual, Marina believed everything OSWALD told her. He also told her that he was alone, that he was on foot (and bus) and that he buried his rifle. All those details seem to me to be lies -- not Marina's lies, but OSWALD's lies.

The key to the WALKER shooting is that OSWALD wasn't alone -- either in the planning or the execution of it. In the planning we have (unwilling) conspirators like George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, Ruth Paine and sundry liberal yuppie engineers in Dallas. In the execution, we have at least one other person -- in a car -- possibly with another rifle.

So, I don't see a "Lone Nut," I see an activist of sorts -- with shabby leadership.

The gap between what I see and what you see, Jon, can probably be explained by the fact that I accept Marina's sworn testimony, and you don't. Yet I request that you offer some *solid* reasons for disbelieving Marina -- and not just hunches or feelings.

Finaly, Priscilla Macmillan Johnson didn't work with Marina until years later. I think your chronology may be mistaken.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 12, 2015 by Paul Trejo