Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

[Paul Trejo]

BUMP

Edited April 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

David - I know a lot of the back story. What I should have wondered aloud is whether the back story we know is the entire one? Was it just DeM calling on then CIA director Bush to help an old friend? Or does it imply that DeM had something on Bush that he thought he could use as leverage? Or perhaps something else?

[Paul Trejo]

No -- even if the FPCC was ultimately the creation of the CIA, the fact is that people on the street did not know that.

People on the street would know that the FPCC was Communist propaganda, as Carlos Bringuier warned.

Also, regarding the fact that Oswald himself claimed on TV that he was only a "Marxist" and not a "Communist" -- this was a weak argument -- everybody knew then (as they know today) that Karl Marx was the author of the "Communist Manifesto."

So, Marxism is Communism, plain and simple. Only a fool would claim otherwise -- and yes, there was much that was foolish about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Finally, it's unfortunate that Jim Douglass in his book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," would plainly see the problem of the irreconcilable differences between a Communist Oswald and a Lone-nut Oswald -- and just gloss over it with haste.

It's an important point that cannot be dismissed with a few sentences. It makes no sense to spend six months of time and labor to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a "Communist" using newspaper, radio and TV, in order to fan the flames of Anticommunism in the USA, and then kill JFK and blame Oswald -- and finally stand by quietly as the FBI insisted that Oswald was a "Lone Nut" with "no accomplices who are still at large."

These are radically OPPOSITE interpretations of Oswald. The "Communist Oswald" was a justification for the invasion of Cuba. The "Lone Nut Oswald" was a justification for no action whatsoever. It foiled the JFK Kill-Team plans for the invasion of Cuba.

(If we want to quickly identify the actual JFK Killers, we need only to ask who continued to loudly support the notion of a Communist Oswald. Ex-General Walker stands front and center. Also Guy Banister, David Morales, Frank Sturgis, John Martino, Carlos Bringuier, Billy James Hargis, the JBS and others.)

I think Jim Douglass has overlooked an important, even crucial fact of the JFK murder.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Greg - the link to your website thread has some interesting back story on the FPCC founding. It sure does look like it was, as you say, a creation of CIA, a honey pot.

Paul - I suppose when you open your last post 'No' you mean you disagree with what Brian put forth, and with Douglass.

You have been forcefully arguing your latest theory about the absolute line between kill team and coverup team for a few months now, though older posts of yours are not so hung up on this distinction. I suspect you will lighten up eventually. In order for Brian to be correct the planners would have to be also in control of the mechanisms of government after the fact. I realize its hard for you to imagine such calumny from people like LBJ or JEH or George McBundy or Dulles. I also realize that for your theory to be correct, those that were setting up Oswald as a Communist for whatever purposes they had in mind pre-assassination also had a hand in the assassination itself - Banister and his NO crew, Walker and his Dallas boys. In order to incorporate Bill Simpich's excellent work you had to make a leap and include Morales in this bunch, rather than view Morales involvement with impersonating Oswald in MC as evidence of complicity of some CIA/Military 'rogue' coup. In this latter scenario we don't know how high up the chain of command this would go. But we do know for a CERTAIN FACT that Morales was a respected operations officer in the CIA chain of command, while we know nothing of Morales connections with your group of CIA wannabees.

So, to cut to the chase, Brian's unified field explanation of the conundrum you are harping on is more logical than yours. The quickness with which this strategic decision was made at the top of the US government to cast the 'assassin' as a 'lone nut', suggests that plan was already in place before the fact, and that therefore the planners of the assassination were also the coverup team.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Paul Brancato

[Brian Schmidt]

Paul Brancato - Very well said.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - I suppose when you open your last post 'No' you mean you disagree with what Brian put forth, and with Douglass.

You have been forcefully arguing your latest theory about the absolute line between kill team and coverup team for a few months now, though older posts of yours are not so hung up on this distinction. I suspect you will lighten up eventually.

In order for Brian to be correct the planners would have to be also in control of the mechanisms of government after the fact.

I realize its hard for you to imagine such calumny from people like LBJ or JEH or George McBundy or Dulles. I also realize that for your theory to be correct, those that were setting up Oswald as a Communist for whatever purposes they had in mind pre-assassination also had a hand in the assassination itself - Banister and his NO crew, Walker and his Dallas boys.

In order to incorporate Bill Simpich's excellent work you had to make a leap and include Morales in this bunch, rather than view Morales involvement with impersonating Oswald in MC as evidence of complicity of some CIA/Military 'rogue' coup. In this latter scenario we don't know how high up the chain of command this would go. But we do know for a CERTAIN FACT that Morales was a respected operations officer in the CIA chain of command, while we know nothing of Morales connections with your group of CIA wannabees.

So, to cut to the chase, Brian's unified field explanation of the conundrum you are harping on is more logical than yours. The quickness with which this strategic decision was made at the top of the US government to cast the 'assassin' as a 'lone nut', suggests that plan was already in place before the fact, and that therefore the planners of the assassination were also the coverup team.

Well, Paul B., thanks again for your opinion. Yet again you rely only on the standard literature of JFK Research, none of which has solved the JFK murder case.

There is no "unified field theory" in Brian's narrative -- only his faithful acceptance of Jim Douglass, who makes many serious errors in his famous book, "JFK and the Unspeakable" (2008).

I can respond to Brian best by responding to Jim Douglass.

All Douglass did was add a few more FOIA documents to Jim Garrison's old 1968 theory -- and I'm not impressed. The CIA killed JFK, says Douglass -- just like Jim Garrison said. JFK was a converted hawk who became a dove and should be sainted -- just like Jim Garrison said.

If OSWALD was connected to the US Intelligence Community at all, then, says Douglass, we should logically conclude that OSWALD was manipulated by them to kill JFK -- just like Jim Garrison said, with just as little solid evidence.

OSWALD's working with Guy Banister in NOLA and all his pro-Castro and anti-Castro antics in NOLA are hard evidence that the CIA was controlling OSWALD -- just like Jim Garrison said, jumping to conclusions as usual.

Also, nothing exposes Douglass' bias more than his hatchet job on Michael and Ruth Paine; e.g. some of their relatives were in the CIA -- so naturally that proves that Michael and Ruth were also part of the CIA plot to kill JFK and blame OSWALD. What nonsense.

The myth that Ruth Paine got OSWALD his job at the TSBD was repeated uncritically by Jim Douglass. This isn't scholarship, it's Jim Garrison's exclamations in a new monkey suit.

The list of all the Dealey Plaza people who turned up dead is "clear" to Douglass as being a CIA plot, and nothing else. This is bias, pure and simple.

Douglass has "faith" that the CIA killed JFK, and he argues emotionally for his case -- without enough facts. Like Peter Dale Scott he heaps rumor on innuendo and makes wild leaps of logic to connect dots having no real connection. Douglass concludes:

“The extent to which our national security state was systematically marshaled for the assassination of JFK remains incomprehensible to us. When we live in a system, we absorb and think in a system. We lack the independence needed to judge the system around us. Yet the evidence we have seen points toward our national security state, the systemic bubble in which we all live, as the source of JFK’s murder and immediate cover-up.” (JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass)

I repeat: the basic flaw in Jim Douglass' theory, like that of Peter Dale Scott, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and the bulk of JFK Researchers, is that they fail to distinguish between the KILL-TEAM's COMMUNIST OSWALD, and the COVERUP-TEAM's LONE-NUT OSWALD.

The failure to deal with this distinction (which was unknown for a half-century until first dimly hinted by Larry Hancock, but brought out in full relief on this FORUM by me) will always have the result of jumbling two separate conspiracies into one.

There were two conspiracies -- the plot to Kill JFK and the plot to Cover it up. The leaders of these two plots hated each other. It's finally time to admit the implications of this fact.

Jim Douglass had no clue about this key fact. Neither did Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg or Jim Garrison.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edited>

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Brian Schmidt]

Paul T - First of all, I don't "faithfully accept" Jim Douglass. I was simply demonstrating that the kill team and cover-up team with seemingly different motivations could in fact be the same driving force. I pointed out in the first paragraph of my post that this was Jim Douglass' assertion. The next two paragraphs are my own speculation and have nothing to do with Jim Douglass.

How are you so sure that the kill team were the ones actively making Oswald look like a communist for the purposes of pinning the blame on Castro in the first place? Couldn't the conspirators have intercepted Oswald closer to the assassination from a separate project? While I tend to agree with you that the conspirators were indeed the ones giving Oswald a communist identity, this is an assumption that isn't so different from ones you just criticized.

Finally, can you lay out the basic premise of how the "cover-up team" would immediately know the motives of the "kill team" and decide to publicly announce that Oswald was a lone-nut if they didn't know there was an assassination plot in the works and some of these same peoples weren't the principals in that plot as well?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

It's clear to me that there was a carefully organized, efficient operation to kill JFK and a somewhat disorganized and inefficient operation to cover up the facts of the assassination. It's also clear to me there was a "kill team". I do not believe there was a cover-up team. There are too many disparate parts to the cover up for there to have been a cover-up "team".

I believe post-assassination there were two camps regarding Oswald. One as you say trying ineffectively to paint Oswald as a commie fanatic. The other, the prevailing camp, painting him as a lone nut. I believe you have uncovered a nugget of truth in this regard, a nugget that's always been in plain sight but not readily distinguishable amid all the clutter.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

It's clear to me that there was a carefully organized, efficient operation to kill JFK and a somewhat disorganized and inefficient operation to cover up the facts of the assassination. It's also clear to me there was a "kill team". I do not believe there was a cover-up team. There are too many disparate parts to the cover up for there to have been a cover-up "team".

I believe post-assassination there were two camps regarding Oswald. One as you say trying ineffectively to paint Oswald as a commie fanatic. The other, the prevailing camp, painting him as a lone nut. I believe you have uncovered a nugget of truth in this regard, a nugget that's always been in plain sight but not readily distinguishable amid all the clutter.

Thanks, Jon, for your acknowledgement of the finer points of my argument.

As for the Coverup Team, which is palbable, IMHO, it is sharply different from the JFK Kill-Team on many points.

(1) The JFK Kill-Team was organized and focused in April 1963, after OSWALD's (alleged) attempt to kill Ex-General Walker.

(2) The JFK Coverup-Team was organized and focused between 2pm and 3pm CST on 22 November 1963 in an urgent and emergency response to the murder of JFK.

The JFK murder was done after long-term planning, and was very successful.

The JFK Coverup was done on spur-of-the-moment planning, and showed its cracks by the end of 1964, and resulted in the JFK Research movement, featuring Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones Jr., Edward Epstein, Joachim Joesten, Bertrand Russell and others.

The JFK Coverup-Team was composed of J. Edgar Hoover (who came up with the Lone Nut theory of OSWALD), who told McGeorge Bundy, who told LBJ, who told Earl Warren, Allen Dulles, Richard Russell and so on.

When we think of the Coverup Team we should simply think of the FBI and the Warren Commission -- there we have it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

[Trejo:] "I hope my question is finally clear. I'll repeat it: How could the KILL-TEAM, which promoted a COMMUNIST OSWALD, possibly be the same as the COVERUP-TEAM, which promoted a LONE-NUT OSWALD?"

I think these two could be reconciled.

Perhaps the conspirators had used Oswald look-alikes in the months prior to the assassination to try to tie him back to Cuba, but it ended up being overdone -- too many Oswalds were used wherein it would become obvious he was in two places at the same time. Once they knew this would not stand up to scrutiny, they had to go with the lone-nut scenario. This is the thesis of Jim Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable.

I've always wondered, too, if LBJ, knowing of the intense anti-Kennedy group in the CIA and Cuban exile community, took advantage of it for his own purposes. People like Robertson and Morales were already in place and willing to pretty much do anything for their cause. Perhaps he made a call to someone like Tracy Barnes and set the plan in motion. Once the assassination occurred, he was worried that the Oswald as Cuban agent angle was too sloppy and a domestic conspiracy might be more easily exposed, and maybe he would be implicated. It was safer for him to go with the lone-nut approach.

Now, one might argue that the lone-nut approach happened too quickly after the assassination for this scenario. But maybe Johnson knew all along that he and his inner circle would immediately convince the public that Oswald was a lone-nut. He threw some red meat to the clique in the CIA and Cuban exile community by saying they could pin the assassination on the Cubans, knowing that they were ideologues, but also knowing this was too risky and he wouldn't go along with it. After all, he didn't really care about Cuba, he just wanted to be become president. Or maybe it was the other way - the conspirators agreed with LBJ to kill Kennedy but they never told him they were planting evidence linking it back to Castro. This would explain the CIA budget funding articles saying that Oswald acted on Castro's behest in the days after the assassination while Johnson was so worried about squelching talk of a foreign conspiracy.

OK, Brian, you admit that it was the opinion Jim Douglass that "the kill team and cover-up team with seemingly different motivations could in fact be the same driving force." Yet I also would add Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Joachim Joesten, Bertrand Russell, Jim Garrison, Jim Marrs and so on to the long list of those who presumed that.

It's almost a dogma for JFK Research. It's quite rare for anybody to question this approach. So-called "authorities" in JFK Research simply presume this in their articles.

OK, so now let's focus on your own position aside from that.

(1) You wrote: "...If LBJ, knowing of the intense anti-Kennedy group in the CIA and Cuban exile community, took advantage of it for his own purposes...Once the assassination occurred, he was worried that the Oswald as Cuban agent angle was too sloppy...It was safer for him to go with the lone-nut approach."

IMHO, Brian, this simply tries to blame LBJ for the JFK murder. Your opinion says, in effect, that if LBJ was the leader of the Kill-Team, then he could just change his mind at the last minute regarding OSWALD, and nobody could argue with him. But that opinion relies on a tremendous amount of assumptions and presumptions that you don't cite.

Your view, Brian, has LBJ tracking OSWALD personally throughout 1963 -- which is a flight of fantasy, IMHO. Your view has LBJ manipulating the "Hate-JFK" crowd in order to become President, and so your sources would be writers like Roger Stone, Barr McClellan, Phil Nelson, Joe Farrell, and so on, who are IMHO the shallowest of the current profit-mongers in so-called JFK Research.

(2) You ask, "How are you so sure that the kill team were the ones actively making Oswald look like a communist for the purposes of pinning the blame on Castro in the first place? Couldn't the conspirators have intercepted Oswald closer to the assassination from a separate project?"

I've dealt with this briefly before, but it's a good question. Because David Atlee Phillips might be innocent of the JFK murder, and he averred that he was really only trying to kill Fidel Castro -- he opens up an alibi for all of the NOLA people whom Jim Garrison (and Oliver Stone) tried to blame -- from Guy Banister on down.

It's plausible that OSWALD was selected as the Patsy for the JFK murder at the last minute -- since he was tracked not only by the US Government, but also by right-wing fanatics.

It's possible, too, that Dealey Plaza was selected at the last minute as a plausible killing field -- and that it was only dumb luck that put OSWALD in Dealey Plaza at that time. It is possible, and I don't deny it. Guy Banister and Company might only be guilty of trying to kill Fidel Castro.

In that case, only the Dallas Conspirators were truly part of the Kill-Team, and I must set free all of the NOLA players. It's a real possibility that only occurred to me this year -- but it's intriguing and I want to give this concept fuller exploration.

(3) You ask, "...Can you lay out the basic premise of how the 'cover-up team' would immediately know the motives of the 'kill team' and decide to publicly announce that Oswald was a lone-nut ...if... some of these same peoples weren't the principals in that plot as well?"

This is also a good question, Brian. Here's my answer: the Coverup Team begins with J. Edgar Hoover. He is the one who came up with the Lone Shooter theory before 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, according to history professor David Wrone (1999).

Before I heard Wrone I also asked -- how could Hoover move so quickly against OSWALD unless he was also on the JFK Kill-Team? So I looked further, and I now conclude that J. Edgar Hoover was tracking Ex-General Edwin Walker for almost the entire year of 1963, because of the national crisis that Walker had caused near the end of 1962.

Hoover was also watching Oswald in NOLA, and he knew that Oswald was a dupe of the extreme right-wing. So, I conclude, based on Occam's Razor, that Hoover's privileged position of oversight as FBI Director let him realize exactly what was happening when OSWALD was arrested and blamed for the JFK murder.

Hoover saw immediately that this was a right-wing plot, and that the only way to fight it was to remove the Patsy from the extreme right-wing in such a way that OSWALD could not be used for propaganda purposes.

So, before 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, J. Edgar Hoover had a flash of insight -- OSWALD had to be transformed into a "Lone Nut." (Each and every bit of FBI evidence tampering in the JFK murder follows from this point.)

In my theory, J. Edgar Hoover by that decision prevented riots in the streets at a minimum, as well as preventing the US invasion of Cuba, and perhaps he even prevented a US Civil War which would have led to World War III. I expect to take some flack for my defense of Hoover -- since I also claim that Hoover was the brains behind the JFK Coverup.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edited>

Edited April 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Wow Paul T - pretty painful reading your posts. I'm sure Brian can defend himself, but just in case he has figured out its a waste of time, he did not say that LBJ was the ringleader. No use rearguing your point Paul T, because you put so many words and thoughts into his mouth already its laughable.

As for your response to my earlier post, its equally hard to watch you drag the name of so many good researchers through the mud and then proclaim yourself to be their superior in your much finer analysis of the assassination.

James Douglass made an important contribution to our understanding of the true nature of JFK's desire for peace. He wasn't the first one, but he did it best. I doubt that RFK Jr. would be recommending JFK and the Unspeakable for any other reason. But I guess you know more than that esteemed member of the Kennedy clan.

Regards

[Jon G. Tidd]

The question is, was Oswald an intelligence agent?

Put another way, are there indications Oswald was serving some hidden master? Assassination researchers assemble in some instances great amounts of material, much of it written, in an attempt to argue that Oswald worked for [fill in the blank_______ ]. At the end of the day, there are no indications that Oswald consciously carried out the wishes of some hidden third party.

If one spends one's time believing Oswald was an intelligence agent, one is driven to try to understand who was Oswald's master and what was Oswald's purpose. Even if Oswald was serving some master, so what? What does some undisclosed relationship have to do with the JFK assassination?

I know. Oswald was targeted to penetrate the conspiracy to kill JFK and wound up like Warren Beatty in "Parallax View". That's fiction. Oswald had disdain for the U.S. Government. He said something unpleasant to James Hosty for Hosty's contacting Marina. Oswald was his own person. Problem is, no one (moi, Norman Mailer, etc.) has a good handle on who Oswald was. That's a central flaw of the research committee. I hope Greg Parker fills in the blanks, so that I can grasp Oswald for the individual he was, not as the cut-out presented to history.

Studying Oswald is a distraction. Figuring out why he was framed, how he was framed, and who framed him puts one on the path that leads to the killers.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I attempted to capture LHO as depicted by others in my book -

http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-his-words-ebook/dp/B00PG7W2QC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416340667&sr=1-1

It's a fairly complete portrait of what he said, as testified by those who knew him.

I thought it might be helpful to have, in one place, the totality of who he was according to that record.

Pit that against various theories and you can begin to see where the "legend" snaps into place in lieu of truth.

[Paul Trejo]

I attempted to capture LHO as depicted by others in my book -

http://www.amazon.com/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-his-words-ebook/dp/B00PG7W2QC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416340667&sr=1-1

It's a fairly complete portrait of what he said, as testified by those who knew him.

I thought it might be helpful to have, in one place, the totality of who he was according to that record.

Pit that against various theories and you can begin to see where the "legend" snaps into place in lieu of truth.

Well, Mark, I think you've made a significant contribution to JFK Research by making the lifetime words of Lee Harvey Oswald available in a simple and chronological format.

I found your Kindle book on amazon.com, and purchased a copy.

Thanks again,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

The question is, was Oswald an intelligence agent?

Put another way, are there indications Oswald was serving some hidden master? Assassination researchers assemble in some instances great amounts of material, much of it written, in an attempt to argue that Oswald worked for [fill in the blank_______ ]. At the end of the day, there are no indications that Oswald consciously carried out the wishes of some hidden third party.

If one spends one's time believing Oswald was an intelligence agent, one is driven to try to understand who was Oswald's master and what was Oswald's purpose. Even if Oswald was serving some master, so what? What does some undisclosed relationship have to do with the JFK assassination?

I know. Oswald was targeted to penetrate the conspiracy to kill JFK and wound up like Warren Beatty in "Parallax View". That's fiction. Oswald had disdain for the U.S. Government. He said something unpleasant to James Hosty for Hosty's contacting Marina. Oswald was his own person. Problem is, no one (moi, Norman Mailer, etc.) has a good handle on who Oswald was. That's a central flaw of the research committee. I hope Greg Parker fills in the blanks, so that I can grasp Oswald for the individual he was, not as the cut-out presented to history.

Studying Oswald is a distraction. Figuring out why he was framed, how he was framed, and who framed him puts one on the path that leads to the killers.

Well, Jon, your question is obviously intriguing to many. Yet there are nuances that I think your wording of your question may miss.

I think there are clear indications that "Oswald was serving some hidden master," however, I seriously doubt that this "master" was an Intelligence Agency. The nuance is that the "master" was probably pretending to be an Intelligence Agency, and probably convinced OSWALD thoroughly of this lie.

Aside from that, I fully agree with you that "At the end of the day, there are no indications that Oswald consciously carried out the wishes of some hidden third party," if (and only if) by third-party you mean an Intelligence Agency.

Nor do I believe that OSWALD's relationship with his "master" was "undisclosed," because, despite all his faults, NOLA DA Jim Garrison was able to clarify the movements of OSWALD in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. The task was easy because OSWALD used newspapers, radio and TV to tell the world what he was doing. Further, the people with whom he physically moved in New Orleans were far from CIA, but almost all claimed to be in the CIA.

I speak of the people that Jim Garrison named -- David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Clay Shaw, Thomas Beckham. One may add to this some Cuban associates of Guy Banister who were connected to the CIA as "assets," namely, Carlos Bringuier (DRE) and Ed Butler (INCA).

With assets like these, OSWALD was evidently fooled into believing he was working directly with the CIA, and was earning points to be offered a permanent job in the CIA.

What was their purpose? It is patently obvious from the newspaper, radio and TV programs -- it was to portray OSWALD as a Fake Director of a Fake FPCC. That fact is further explained by OSWALD's behavior in Mexico City (according to the Lopez Report), namely, he took these newspaper clippings, and articles about his radio and TV appearance, with him to Mexico City in a Fake Resume of himself as a Fake Director of a Fake FPCC.

In other words, OSWALD had attempted to enter Cuba -- very quickly -- through the Mexico City Cuban Consulate, using his phony resume which he constructed with the help of Guy Banister and Company. OSWALD was unaware, IMHO, that Guy Banister and Company were Fake CIA men.

So, in my view, Jon, the purpose of the "master" was not undisclosed, but out there for the whole world to see in 1963 (and today in the Lopez Report).

Now for the deeper question -- what does all this have to do with the murder of JFK? Jim Garrison thought it was the center of the plot to kill JFK. I think Jim Garrison was mistaken.

There are two possibilities that I can see: (1) Guy Banister and Company were working closely with the JFK Kill-Team in Dallas, and had been doing so since April 1963, after OSWALD tried to kill Ex-General Walker; and (2) Guy Banister and Compnay were strictly trying to kill Fidel Castro, and played no direct role with the JFK Kill-Team in Dallas, rather, even Guy Banister and DAP were "punked" by the Dallas Kill-Team.

So, it is entirely possible, Jon, that the NOLA "masters" of OSWALD had nothing at all to do with the JFK assassination. Yet it remains equally possible, based on current data, that the NOLA "master" of OSWALD worked closely with the Dallas JFK Kill-Team since April. Both scenarios are plausible at this point.

I also find it unlikely that OSWALD was working for the FBI or CIA to infiltrate Guy Banister's operation -- although that's not impossible.

Also, Jon, you presume that OSWALD disdained the US Government -- but I will maintain that OSWALD was only critical of it -- like many of us are.

You presume that OSWALD's unpleasant words to FBI Agent James Hosty form the final word on the topic. I consider that James Hosty thought of OSWALD as "manageable" after interviewing OSWALD in Fort Worth, and learning that OSWALD was willing to cooperate with the FBI for a small stipend every month (which he would receive from Western Union).

OSWALD would communicate with the FBI through his mail boxes. He was regarded as a low-level informant, probably.

I fully doubt that OSWALD was his own person -- although I do agree that OSWALD had a bad attitude, was unduly critical, was headstrong (as most 23 year old men are) and dreamed of being independent. His problem was money, especially now that he had dependents. OSWALD wasn't rich enough to be his own person. He hadn't even solved the problem of a regular income, yet.

I disagree with your conclusion that "Oswald is a distraction." OSWALD remains the key to the JFK murder precisely because he was selected by the JFK killers to be their PATSY. The framing of OSWALD is impossible without grasping OSWALD's true personality. For that we should consider his own words (as Mark Valenti presents them) as well as the words of Marina Oswald (as presented by the Warren Commission).

A major flaw in JFK Research is the unfair dismissal of Marina Oswald's sworn testimony. The solution to the JFK murder is present in her testimony. By understanding Oswald's weaknesses and strengths, and by tracing all of his behavior in 1963, we observe traits that the JFK Killers perceived as PATSY material.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo