Jump to content
The Education Forum

Yes, Oswald was an Intelligence agent


Recommended Posts

Tommy….
Why would the USG have allowed “Lee Harvey Oswald” to “defect” to the Soviet Union with all his knowledge of the U-2, etc?
The Russkies might have pulled out his toenails and crushed his scrotum in a vice. Can YOU resist that kind of questioning??
HINT: Was the LHO in Japan the same LHO as was in the Philippines? I know you’re a Greg Parker surrogate here. Why not just open up and talk?

Dear Jim,

Did my pointing out to you that Oswald was debriefed by someone who was (ostensibly) in the CIA's Domestic Contacts Division automatically lead you believe that I do not think Oswald was being used somehow by The Agency? One would think that fact would tend to support your allegation that Oswald was a spy. Of sorts.

Do you ever read my posts on threads other than yours?

Didn't think so.

As regards Greg Parker, what I like the most about Greg is that he, like I, intuits that "Harvey and Lee" is a steaming load of odiferous hokum. I also appreciate his realizing that William Shelley and Billy Lovelady were photographically "captured" walking down Elm Street Extension about 20 seconds after the assassination. Oh, and by the way, he and seem to agree that "Prayer Man" was ... Lee Harvey Oswald.

If you want me to give you my Grand Theory Of The Assassination, sorry to disappoint you, Jim, but I ain't got one ... yet.

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, Tommy, how do you explain why the murderer of J.D. Tippit just happened to look like the guy killed by Jack Ruby according to so many witnesses? Just another odiferous coincidence, eh?

"According to so many witnesses."

But not all of them, right Jim? I guess those others were just hallucinating, huh.

-- Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Megathanks to Chris Newton for finding the Richard Mosk interview indicating that, when he worked as a Warren Commission attorney, he searched “Oswald’s” documents for microdots, an obvious indication that he suspected “Oswald” worked as an intelligence agent. Here’s what Mosk said near the top of page 31 of the PDF file Chris pointed to.

I also worked with the cryptologists in connection with seeing if any documents had microdots in them.

Q: What does that mean?

A: I guess there’s a way of communicating through using microdots. So we wanted to see if any

of Oswald’s materials had them. I prepared some of the attorneys for witnesses. So it was a full

range. I roamed through all areas. My office mate was John Hart Ely. He died not too long ago,

but he has written some important books.

Mosk said his office mate at the WC was John Hart Ely. Among other things, Ely was tasked with researching the early life of “Lee Harvey Oswald” and his mother. After reading Ely’s report, WC attorney Albert Jenner wrote to General Counsel J. Lee Rankin and said that details in Ely’s report “will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission.”

Ely.gif

Pretty spooky guy, this “Lee Harvey Oswald!”

Wow!

Ely found and wrote things that would require "material alteration and, in some instances, omission." And that was before Oswald entered the military, so it cannot be said to be military secrets.

But I want to clarify one thing, James. You or anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but Richard Mosk in the interview made it clear IIRC that he didn't think there was anything conspiratorial going on. Or that Oswald was an agent. I'm not sure now, but I think he accepted the WCR wholeheartedly. It wasn't he who wanted to look for microdots. Apparently it was the Commission who did. (Or at least that's the impression he wanted to make.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

The fact that the CIA is sworn to secrecy regarding their International missions is merely exploited by the CIA-did-it CTers. [sandy's emphasis.]

B.S. Paul. There is plenty of evidence for Oswald being an agent. The only time we cite the obvious -- that the CIA keeps secrets -- is to counter people like you who exploit this very same issue when arguing their non-CIA theories. It is you who does the exploiting, not us. Though possibly unwittingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no "coup-d-etat". That's drama-queen nonsense.

There absolutely was a coup d'etat, and it's easy to prove so using only common sense and the fact that the U.S. government covered up and made everything top secret classified.

The only potential assassination suspects the U.S. government would have done that for would be:

The CIA.

The U.S. Military.

Lyndon Johnson.

And had any of these three participated in the assassination, it would be classified a coup.

The U.S. government would not have covered up a General Walker backed assassination. So therefore it did not happen.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because somebody knows about microdots does not make them an Intelligence Agent -- CIA or otherwise.

On the contrary -- a CIA wannabe would also try to learn as much as he could about microdots.

It is a historical fact that Lee Harvey Oswald knew a CIA Agent by the name of Richard Case Nagell while he was in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.

Nagell was a genuine CIA Agent. Nagell said that he warned LHO that if LHO was successful in gaining entrance into Cuba through Mexico City, that Nagell would have to shoot LHO dead.

This was because Nagell was also an authentic double-agent, who was pretending to the USSR to be on their side. Since the USSR knew that LHO would only have murderous intentions toward Fidel Castro in Cuba, they would order Nagell to kill LHO dead if LHO was successful in getting passage into Cuba from Mexico City. (This is all presented by Dick Russell in his famous book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993)).

Nagell, for his part, would have to kill LHO just in order to keep the USSR in the dark about his true identity. Otherwise, it would have become clear to the USSR that Nagell was a double-agent. Luckily for Nagell -- and for LHO -- LHO failed to get an entry visa into Cuba from Mexico City there in September 1963.

My point is that Nagell and LHO had some communication in New Orleans. This doesn't prove that LHO was a CIA Agent -- far from it. It more likely shows that LHO believed that he was getting closer to his dream job of being a CIA Agent. By learning Russian and infiltrating the FPCC, it is plausible that LHO dreamed of being a double-agent one day -- just like Richard Case Nagell.

It is also plausible that LHO and Nagell would have spoken here and there about 'microdots.' LHO was a photography buff, after all.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Why did the CIA ignore the warnings of their own man -- Richard Case Nagell -- when he informed them of the plot to kill the President of the United States? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Of course if the CIA was involved in the assassination, it all makes sense.

Bump for Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I take it that you believe Richard Case Nagell's story. So let me ask you a couple things.

1. If the CIA wouldn't make a patsy of one of their own -- as you've stated -- then why was Nagell worried that the CIA might make him one?

2. If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a CIA agent, then how did Nagell's thought of potentially being made a patsy himself originate? Surely he wasn't afraid that General Walker and his stooges might be out to trick him too?

Sandy,

I believe the story of Richard Case Nagell as far as it may be intelligible -- but he was deliberately mysterious -- always. It's more accurate to say that I accept Dick Russell's 1993 portrayal of Richard Case Nagell.

As for your questions:

(1) Richard Case Nagell was more than a little bit paranoid. He was a double-agent, and he didn't trust anybody, and he didn't know whom to trust -- eventually. At the last minute, he faked a bank robbery to get himself arrested. That's not the sign of a normal person. Nagell was at least a little bit crazy. But again, he was a double-agent. Who can live that crazy life-style?

(2) Richard Case Nagell was surely afraid of General Walker and his stooges. They were far more powerful than we, a half-century later, have yet imagined.

The exposure that Richard Case Nagell had was that he was a double-agent in the CIA. There were even CIA agents who weren't sure what side of the fence that Nagell was on. So, if General Walker and his stooges went after Nagell, they could dig up had plenty of solid evidence that Nagell was a Communist, and so, again, they could argue that the Communists killed JFK. That was their main goal.

There were Cuban mercenaries in New Orleans, Miami and Dallas who doubtless had seen Nagell in all the wrong places. Nagell, simply because he had been pretending to be a Communist, was afraid of the Radical Right in Dallas. He was right to be afraid.

LHO was not as smart as Nagell, because LHO failed to realize that by pretending to be a Communist, he had exposed himself to forces that even the CIA and FBI couldn't control -- the Radical Right in Dallas. Nagell realized this.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Okay, so from my question #1 above and your answer, I see you admit that Richard Case Nagell was worried that he might have been made a patsy in the JFK assassination. Worried enough to have himself incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit.

Unfortunately you don't say whether he was worried it was the CIA who might make him a patsy, or General Walker's guys.

Well, it couldn't have been Walker's guys that Nagell was worried about. Because it was Nagell who was telling Oswald to not get involved. So clearly Nagell knew not to get involved himself.

Therefore you must be admitting that Nagell was indeed afraid that the CIA might make him a patsy. Doesn't that mean that Nagell thought the CIA was behind the assassination?

You didn't really answer my question #2. Here is is again, if you wouldn't mind answering it:

"If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a CIA agent, then how did Nagell's thought of potentially being made a patsy himself originate?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Megathanks to Chris Newton for finding the Richard Mosk interview indicating that, when he worked as a Warren Commission attorney, he searched “Oswald’s” documents for microdots, an obvious indication that he suspected “Oswald” worked as an intelligence agent. Here’s what Mosk said near the top of page 31 of the PDF file Chris pointed to.

I also worked with the cryptologists in connection with seeing if any documents had microdots in them.

Q: What does that mean?

A: I guess there’s a way of communicating through using microdots. So we wanted to see if any

of Oswald’s materials had them. I prepared some of the attorneys for witnesses. So it was a full

range. I roamed through all areas. My office mate was John Hart Ely. He died not too long ago,

but he has written some important books.

Mosk said his office mate at the WC was John Hart Ely. Among other things, Ely was tasked with researching the early life of “Lee Harvey Oswald” and his mother. After reading Ely’s report, WC attorney Albert Jenner wrote to General Counsel J. Lee Rankin and said that details in Ely’s report “will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission.”

Ely.gif

Pretty spooky guy, this “Lee Harvey Oswald!”

Wow!

Ely found and wrote things that would require "material alteration and, in some instances, omission." And that was before Oswald entered the military, so it cannot be said to be military secrets.

But I want to clarify one thing, James. You or anybody correct me if I'm wrong, but Richard Mosk in the interview made it clear IIRC that he didn't think there was anything conspiratorial going on. Or that Oswald was an agent. I'm not sure now, but I think he accepted the WCR wholeheartedly. It wasn't he who wanted to look for microdots. Apparently it was the Commission who did. (Or at least that's the impression he wanted to make.)

Chris pointed out that a fellow named Gary Murr actually spotted the microdots reference in the Mosk interview. Thanks, Gary!

There are hundreds of pages of material generated by John Hart Ely for the WC in the John Armstrong collection at Baylor University. One of the most thorough Ely files is here:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/13961/rec/49

(For anyone interested in going through this material, the best way is to click the “Download” button near the upper right and read it locally.)

Yes, Mosk pretty much backed the WC conclusions in his interview, but as you know, that feeling was hardly universal among WC members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I encourage everyone to read all the executive session transcripts.

I'd like to point out that this Executive Session transcript that Jim posted is specifically about Lee Harvey Oswald's status and whether the Commission could prove that he was (NOT) an agent:

ALLEN DULLES: There is a terribly hard thing to disprove, you
know. How do you disprove a fellow was not your agent: How do
you disprove it?
CONG. HALE BOGGS (Dem. La): You could disprove it, couldn't you?
DULLES: No ...
BOGGS: ...Did you have agents about whom you had no record
whatsoever?
DULLES: The record might not be on paper. But on paper would
have hieroglyphics that only two people knew what they meant, and
nobody outside of the agency would know and you could say this
meant the agent and somebody else could say this meant another
agent...
BOGGS: ...Let's say [u-2 pilot Francis Gary] Powers did not have
a signed contract, but he was recruited by someone in CIA. The
man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?
DULLES, Yes, but he wouldn't. tell.
CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN: Wouldn't tell it under oath?
DULLES: I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no..
WARREN: Why?
DULLES: He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to
his own government, but wouldn't tell it any other way.
COMMISSIONER JOHN McCLOY: Wouldn't he tell it to his own chief?
DULLES: He might or might nut. If he was a bad one, then he
wouldn't.
prefer_to_withhold.jpg
...Duh.
and a semi-related FYI...
subversives.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy, after nearly a quarter century study, I completely agree.

A coup d'état is translated as a blow or strike against the state. In its loose translation, it is referred to as an overthrow of the government, or a putsch.

It is accompanied by a switch in power and usually a change in policy. Most of the time it is performed by higher ups in that government, be they in the military, the intelligence agencies, or other department heads. Sometimes its a combination of all three.

To my knowledge, the first person in the JFK field to use that term in public was Jim Garrison, in late 1967. He was criticized by Josiah Thompson for that usage of the term. Tink then went on to say, there was little evidence at that time for a shift in power to accompany the assassination. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 381)

Thompson's comment betrays a real lack of understanding of who Kennedy was, what his foreign policy was, and how vociferous the opposition to his reforms were inside the government. In addition to the common references of the reversal of Kennedy's withdrawal plan in Vietnam, and the freeze out of the detente with Cuba and the USSR, you also had the following:

1. The reversal of JFK's backing of the independence of Congo against Belgian, French and British imperialism. Carried out under their strong man Mobutu.

2. The beginning of the plotting to overthrow Sukarno in Indonesia, which resulted in probably the biggest bloodbath of any CIA coup in history, and the coming to power of the dictator Suharto.

3. The reversal of Kennedy's support for the restoration of Juan Bosch in Dominican Republic; in fact the White House actually sent in an invasion force to make sure he did not return to power.

4. Kennedy's plan to keep Laos neutralized was pretty much gone, and the bombing of the country was almost indiscriminate, and Air America was transporting heroin back to the USA.

5. In the Middle East, both LBJ and RMN reversed JFK's fairness policy by allowing Israel to have atomic weapons, and tilting so far towards the Israelis that Nasser broke relations with the USA.

All of the above, and more, is encapsulated in the message RFK and Jackie sent to the Russians after Kennedy's death. Namely that any attempt at a Kennedy/ Khruschev detente, the winding down of the Cold War, would have to be placed on hold until RFK ran for office and then the presidency.

If the above does not constitute a coup d'etat, I don't know what does. It also shows how far ahead Garrison was in his thinking on this than were his ostensible critics inside the research community like Tink, Hoch, Scott and Summers.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris:

What do those notes mean at the bottom of the page by CIA historical review? "We objected to the rewrite of this document in the past"

Does that mean it was actually rewritten already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris:

What do those notes mean at the bottom of the page by CIA historical review? "We objected to the rewrite of this document in the past"

Does that mean it was actually rewritten already?

Jim,

That particular Executive Session Transcript was withheld until '92 and the notes, (of Charles Briggs), were written in '75.

I take the statement as meaning it was suggested that the document be rewritten so that it could be released. I hadn't noticed the wording until you mentioned it. I would also think they seemed to have no objection to the actual part that's being changed but their actual objection is Dulles' statement and the damage that does. I'd like to know what was being rewritten.

P.S. You can just re-write a transcript? LOL I was asked once, by counsel, to insert a "No" at the end of an unanswered question by way of editing audio in a video deposition that was to be shown at an arbitration. The transcript text had no answer recorded so I refused. Just saying it's not unheard of.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim - couldn't agree more that it was a coup d'etat, and really great to have all those pertinent details outlined by you.

That's what I called my trading cards, for what they are worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...