Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul,

What do you make of a report I've read but cannot cite, maybe you know of it, that Marina spoke English (how well I don't know) to Robert Webster or someone else in Russia?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

What do you make of a report I've read but cannot cite, maybe you know of it, that Marina spoke English (how well I don't know) to Robert Webster or someone else in Russia?

Well, Jon, I read something on this once -- and it was an amateur job.

Some amateurs hear an ESL speaker using ordinary conversation, like "Hi, how are you?" and "Would you like a drink?" and that is enough for them -- they conclude right away that the person speaks English "just fine."

It is one thing to know some polite small-talk phrases here and there. Many of us know a tiny bit of small-talk in a foreign language.

With all the negative emotion hurled upon Marina Oswald -- as far as I can tell, a perfectly innocent person -- I'm not surprised that some non-expert somewhere would throw this accusation into the mix.

But the evidence was skinny -- the reporter merely said that in Russia at a party or bar, Marina said "some words" in English. Based on that, the reporter concluded that Marina was fluent in English.

Firstly, however, an amateur is unqualified to make that judgment. No details were given for experts to consider. Did Marina recite a political or philosophical opinion in English? No. She only said a few polite things -- and we don't even know how many mistakes she might have made in it, because the reporter gave us so few details.

When we go through the WC testimony of Marina Oswald, we are struck by the authenticity of her ESL problem. We also see how much progress she made from November 1963 through September 1964 -- Marina was very intelligent and learned a lot of English during her Warren Commission period -- many months of it.

But at the start of the procedure, her English was classically challenged. One cannot fake such a lack of skill -- it shows too quickly.

Unless one believes (without any evidence whatsoever) that Marina was really a highly trained KGB Agent (and some have proposed this) then it is futile to imagine that she was such a good actress that she could fake poor English skills (and a steady improvement) in the face of FBI, Secret Service, CIA and countless WC attorneys and staff hammering at her for months.

That's my view on it. Marina is believable 100%, IMHO, and I've seen nothing anywhere that convinces me otherwise. But please, feel free to keep raising the issues. MARINA OSWALD (as you said far above) IS THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

This is the case even regardless of the fact that OSWALD regularly lied to Marina.

But first, one must decide whether to believe Marina or not. Until one makes that decision, no progress can be made. I urge you to doubt the doubters, and give her testimony a chance, Jon, so that you can see how the truth all fits together. At least give her a chance.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

Marina comes to the U.S. It is a paradise relative to the place she's left. She has one daughter from Russia and gives birth to a second daughter in the U.S. She is intelligent, perhaps perceptive. She is married to an American who is unusual.

Her husband is killed, having been accused of a crime.

What does she want, being a mother with two young children?

I estimate she wants to continue living in the U.S.

Is she not pliable?

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Trejo, I'm going to side with you on this one thing.

I think that, IF Lee Oswald told Marina that the rifle "had to go underground," then Marina, as an ESL speaker, made the connection in her mind perhaps that "underground" = "buried." It IS logical.

I can't say for sure that those were the words said, or if that's essentially the gist of what happened. But it is at least PLAUSIBLE.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Mark,

Do you believe Marina's husband spoke to Marina in English. Or in Russian.

[Mark Knight]

I think he used both. And I think she understood quite a bit of English, though perhaps her grasp of idioms may have been slightly lacking.

I believe that the tale that Oswald spoke ONLY Russian to Marina was simply a story, meant to make this small man seem to be an ogre to most Americans.

Of course, I think Oswald may have feigned ignorance of Russian while in the USSR...and that Marina may have feigned ignorance of English here in the US. And I think both did this so they could gather information while seeming to be clueless.

[Paul Trejo]

Mr. Trejo, I'm going to side with you on this one thing.

I think that, IF Lee Oswald told Marina that the rifle "had to go underground," then Marina, as an ESL speaker, made the connection in her mind perhaps that "underground" = "buried." It IS logical.

I can't say for sure that those were the words said, or if that's essentially the gist of what happened. But it is at least PLAUSIBLE.

Well actually, Mark, you're not agreeing with me. Marina probably knew the meaning of common English words, like "buried." Besides, Marina told the WC that Lee spoke to her almost exclusively in Russian. So -- you're not considering the full context of the WALKER shooting. Let's review the Warren Commission testimonies.

It will be difficult for the modern reader to imagine the mind of any Western woman in 1963 -- much less a Russian émigré to Texas. Women in the West were trained to be subordinate to men -- this was true in the South, in the West, in the North, and most places in the East. Women (like today) made less money for the same work -- but most women never even dreamed of having the same work as a man. (It wasn't as bad as in other parts of the world, but it was still pretty bad, even in the USA, and especially among the middle-class and working-class in the USA.)

Women were subordinate -- her roles were ascribed: wife, housekeeper, mother, grandmother. It would have been strange for any woman in 1963 to know about guns and rifles -- how to clean them, how to operate them. It wasn't rare for women in 1963 to be handed a camera and have to say -- I never used this before -- what button should I push?

Today in the USA it's unimaginable -- but in 1963 there really were such people.

OK, now, according to Marina Oswald, her husband Lee does exactly what he pleases around *his* house. He controls all the money in the house. She does not complain -- according to her he always has money for necessities. He carries cash with him at all times. She may or may not get pin money on any given week of the year. Lee comes and goes as he pleases. Lee discourages her from learning English -- she is easier to control that way. Lee has a jealous streak (e.g. the clash with George Bouhe).

Marina claims that she noticed Lee making a scrap book of photographs and diagrams. He shows her -- these are photographs of Ex-General Edwin WALKER's house.

Marina was at that party with Michael and Ruth Paine, with George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, with Volkmar Schmidt and all these sundry, liberal, yuppie Dallas engineers, perhaps February, 1963, in which Volkmar made a public spectacle of 'transferring OSWALD's ill feelings over the Bay of Pigs over to ill-feelings about WALKER.' (Schmidt admitted this on film, and also to our own Bill Kelly.)

The spectacle was in English, but we might logically presume that Lee told Marina all about it that night. We can be certain, for example, that Marina heard many details, because the words she gave to the WC about WALKER, namely, "if somebody had killed Hitler in time it would have saved the world a lot of bloodshed," were precisely the same words that Volkmar Schmidt admitted, on film, that he conveyed to OSWALD at that party.

So, long before 10 April 1963, Marina Oswald was well aware that Lee OSWALD had become obsessed with Ex-General WALKER. This was the same period in which Marina took only one photograph of Lee dressed in black and holding his weapons. It was silly to her -- but she was a woman and he was a man -- the man with the grocery money -- the man with a weird sense of humor -- the man who demanded his one picture.

So, to some degree, Marina Oswald was really an "accomplice" in the shooting at Ex-General Edwin Walker at 10 April 1963 -- because a courageous and independent woman in 1963 would have quickly told the Police that something was strange about all these WALKER photographs in her house.

But she didn't. As she told the WC, she truly believed it was accepted and common USA law that a wife should not (and perhaps could not) testify against her own husband. This is why she kept to herself in April of 1963, before the WALKER shooting.

Look at how many other people were associated (by this party) to the shooting at Ex-General WALKER: Mike and Ruth Paine; George and Jeanne DM; Volkmar Schmidt; countless other yuppies at that party. The MOOD of that party inspired a wild card like Lee OSWALD to try to impress his new friends. Actually, they were shocked, and they avoided OSWALD like the plague after that (all except Ruth Paine, the Quaker lady who felt sorry for the babies).

OK, getting to the end -- my point is this -- on the night of the WALKER shooting, Lee OSWALD stayed out unusually late that night, and worried Marina. Lee finally came home around midnight; looking a little bit panicked. She demanded to know the score. Lee told her he had just come from shooting at General WALKER.

Marina was stunned. It's one thing to make photographs and whatever -- but to really try to kill somebody -- that's just outrageous. They argued about it. Marina wasn't going to turn Lee into the police (as she should have, to avoid being an accomplice). So, Marina asked questions to ensure that Lee had covered his tracks.

Who was with you? "Nobody; I always do everything by myself."

How did you get there? "I always go everywhere on foot or by bus."

Where's your rifle? "I buried it."

Why did you try to kill General Walker? "Because, if somebody had killed Hitler in time, millions would have been spared."

Marina had never seen Lee Harvey OSWALD like this in her life. She didn't know what to expect next -- police at the door at any minute, probably.

Luckily for Marina, exactly seven days later, OSWALD chose to move to New Orleans. Marina was very relieved to get Lee out of Dallas at that precise moment in time.

So, you see, Mark -- I don't think Marina misunderstood some noun or verb. Also, Marina said that Lee spoke to her almost exclusively in Russian. Marina said that Lee discouraged her from learning English. No -- rather, Marina asked Lee where his rifle was, and he LIED to her, and told her he buried it.

What did Marina know? That Lee DIDN'T bury it? How much did she care, since she reports being in a panic. She was grateful to get him out of town in only seven days.

No -- Marina based her entire behavior on the premise of her belief that USA law discourages (or prohibits) wives from testifying against their husbands. I think that in 1963 most Western women would have behaved EXACTLY as Marina did; she protected her husband as far as possible.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Paul, you forget one thing:I was around in 1963.

I know what husbands and wives did in 1963, because I grew up in a 2-parent home. My dad worked and handled the money, and my mom stayed at home and raised the kids. The husband was the boss of his own home. How DARE you talk to me as if I had no idea of the very life I lived!

Now...do you know the Russian word for "buried"? Do you know the Russian word for "underground"? Are the two terms interchangeable in Russian as they are in English [except in an idomatic sense]?

Unless you can answer those questions, you're doing what we called "talking through your hat" back in 1963.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, you forget one thing:I was around in 1963.

I know what husbands and wives did in 1963, because I grew up in a 2-parent home. My dad worked and handled the money, and my mom stayed at home and raised the kids. The husband was the boss of his own home. How DARE you talk to me as if I had no idea of the very life I lived!

Now...do you know the Russian word for "buried"? Do you know the Russian word for "underground"? Are the two terms interchangeable in Russian as they are in English [except in an idomatic sense]?

Unless you can answer those questions, you're doing what we called "talking through your hat" back in 1963.

Mark, your writing style is way too hostile for me. Now, does the fact that you're an Administrator really mean that I must read all your posts and answer them?

Is this sort of Administration or Moderation that we can begin to expect on the FORUM -- partisan bullying?

Shouldn't a Moderator be less partisan?

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Paul, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the Administrator thing; that's YOU who keeps throwing that out. And I don't understand why you think I'm "bullying" you. I haven't put your posts on moderation. I haven't suspended any posting privileges for you. I haven't asked you to do anything except show some facts...which you seem reluctant to do. In fact, you have challenged me to disprove your unproven assertions. Not sure if you understand how this life works, but if YOU can't prove something happened, it's NOT up to me to "disprove" what is already unproven.

Substance, man. That's what Sean Murphy gave us on the Prayer man thread. That's what Bill Kelly gives us on EVERY thread. Cliff Varnell pushes his theory about the possible use of an "ice weapon"...but at least he has proof that there was one being developed in 1963. I'm not "bullying" you, and I'm not holding you to a different standard than I hold anyone else. And Lord knows I haven't threatened to use my "administrator" or "moderator" mystical, magical "powers" on you for any reasons.

It sounds to me as if you have some sort of persecution complex, although I'm not a professional qualified to make a legal diagnosis. Just bring us the facts; that's all I'm asking. If there are no facts, then don't crowd your factless theory onto every cotton-pickin' thread on the forum. Outsiders are already ridiculing the EF as the "Edwin Walker Forum," and doing so with great derision, because the Walker-did-it theory you've injected as "psuedo-fact" on a multitude of threads. I'm just challenging you to meet conventional standards of proof.

You claim Walker was at the top of some pyramid over Guy Banister, but you can't even prove that they were connected, except in a "six degrees" manner. This forum deserves better than that.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the Administrator thing; that's YOU who keeps throwing that out. And I don't understand why you think I'm "bullying" you. I haven't put your posts on moderation. I haven't suspended any posting privileges for you. I haven't asked you to do anything except show some facts...which you seem reluctant to do. In fact, you have challenged me to disprove your unproven assertions. Not sure if you understand how this life works, but if YOU can't prove something happened, it's NOT up to me to "disprove" what is already unproven.

Substance, man. That's what Sean Murphy gave us on the Prayer man thread. That's what Bill Kelly gives us on EVERY thread. Cliff Varnell pushes his theory about the possible use of an "ice weapon"...but at least he has proof that there was one being developed in 1963. I'm not "bullying" you, and I'm not holding you to a different standard than I hold anyone else. And Lord knows I haven't threatened to use my "administrator" or "moderator" mystical, magical "powers" on you for any reasons.

It sounds to me as if you have some sort of persecution complex, although I'm not a professional qualified to make a legal diagnosis. Just bring us the facts; that's all I'm asking. If there are no facts, then don't crowd your factless theory onto every cotton-pickin' thread on the forum. Outsiders are already ridiculing the EF as the "Edwin Walker Forum," and doing so with great derision, because the Walker-did-it theory you've injected as "psuedo-fact" on a multitude of threads. I'm just challenging you to meet conventional standards of proof.

You claim Walker was at the top of some pyramid over Guy Banister, but you can't even prove that they were connected, except in a "six degrees" manner. This forum deserves better than that.

Yet, Mark, you insinuate that you DO have the power to censor my posts if you wanted to. Everybody sees that.

It's certainly not my fault if some people get the false notion that EF stands for "Edwin Walker Forum."

There are PLENTY of threads on the EF that propose wild theories -- the Bush-did-it theories, or the LBJ-did-it theories, and so on. I don't see you demanding FACTS from them, or saying that the EF deserves better.

You're a Moderator. You're breathing down my neck. It's unwanted. Your questions are no more pressing than the questions of ordinary members.

You are using your role as Moderator to put undue pressure on my position -- demanding that I answer your questions -- but you don't treat others the same way.

I want another Moderator's opinion, please.

With utmost sincerity,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Do you believe Marina's husband spoke to Marina in English. Or in Russian.

So, getting this thread back on track: Marina reported to the WC that Lee Harvey OSWALD spoke to her almost exclusively in Russian.

That should answer your question, Jon. Do you agree?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Your questions are no more pressing than the questions of ordinary members.

Funny you should say that. That's exactly what the situation is. I have never said or implied otherwise.

I have never, ever publicly or privately threatened to delete any of your posts, or to mete out any "discipline" your way, have I? A simple YES or NO answer will be sufficient.

Mr. Trejo, you have constructed within your own mind a bogeyman, and you believe that, because I question your lack of facts, I'm "out to get you." The truth is, if you were as adamant about gathering facts as you are about deciding you're being "persecuted" because you don't have them, you'd have either already found the facts or discovered that they are nonexistent. If you're merely "intimidated" because you think I'm some big, bad axe-swinging "executioner" of innocent posts, then you have absolutely NO IDEA who I really am or how I operate.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff Varnell pushes his theory about the possible use of an "ice weapon"...but at least he has proof that there was one being developed in 1963.

Don't wanna nit-pick but that's not *my* theory.

That's what the autopsists speculated, with the body in front of them.

[Mark Knight]

Sorry, Cliff. Didn't want to mis-characterize the theory. I just remember that you're one of its most vocal proponents. And I have no problem with the way you cite the available facts.

Now, let's return this thread to the topic.