Yes, Oswald was an Intelligence agent

[Jim Hargrove]

Below is page 19 from Gerald Ford’s Portrait of the Assassin. This is one of the pages CIA reviewers were complaining about as described in Charles Briggs’ handwritten note Chris posted above. The bottom half of the page is the most relevant here.

[Harry J.Dean]

THE COUP D'ETAT

The 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS lays out the

entire coup d'etat with names and purpose.

It and other information in the hand of presidential

candidate Donald Trump is the cause of dread by his

extensive opposition and exposure of their treasonous

schemes.

[Thomas Graves]

THE COUP D'ETAT

The 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS lays out the

entire coup d'etat with names and purpose.

It and other information in the hand of presidential

candidate Donald Trump is the cause of dread by his

extensive opposition and exposure of their treasonous

schemes.

Harry,

Trump knows who killed JFK???

(lol)

-- Tommy

[Chris Newton]

Trump knows who killed JFK???

He was probably the guy wearing overalls that Files threw his gun to behind the fence.

No, I will not link the youtube evidence... but you can google "donald trump megan mullally"

[Harry J.Dean]

The 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS lays out the

entire coup d'etat with names and purpose.

[Jim Hargrove]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that some people on this forum would suggest that U.S. government officials might alter historic documents or modify sworn testimony.

It's not like there was a system in place to do this sort of thing.

Hope all you people are ashamed of yourselves!!

Edited October 29, 2016 by Jim Hargrove

[Chris Newton]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that some people on this forum would suggest that U.S. government officials might alter historic documents or modify sworn testimony.

It's perfectly normal to ask the deponent whether they want an opportunity to "read" a copy of the transcript so that they may make corrections.

The corrections are then added to the back of the transcript as an addendum. The transcriptionist, who is also an officer of the court and a notary, signs and stamps the last page of the transcript.

Many of the unsigned transcripts we find should be viewed with skepticism.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Chris Newton

[Jim Hargrove]

Chris,

Have you ever encountered a legal transcript that was “corrected” the way Cadigan’s testimony was, with no hint of the editing process that led to the final version?

Most of the FBI reports in the Kennedy assassination collection are unsigned (but have the agent’s named typed in at the end). Do you know if that was/is standard procedure for FBI reports?

[Jim Hargrove]

"Oswald,” the DRE and CIA’s Joannides

One of the best pieces of evidence that “LHO” was a CIA operative is offered by the Agency itself.

Many people with even a passing interest in the Kennedy assassination know that “Oswald” had what appeared to some as a “staged” altercation in New Orleans with Carlos Bringuier, a Cuban exile and an official of the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), an anti-Castro organization. Oswald, as we all know, was passing out pro-Castro literature when he was encountered by Bringuier.

What many people don’t realize is that Oswald had earlier dropped by the DRE office in New Orleans and had offered to help them with their anti-Castro activities, probably as an effort to infiltrate the organization. At the time, DRE was being funded to the tune of $25,000/month (one knowledgeable researcher claims it was more like $50,000/month) by the Central Intelligence Agency.

By the time the HSCA was organizing, the mystery of why a supposed pro-Castro leftist would have offered to help (or spy on) the anti-Castro DRE just a few months before he allegedly assassinated JFK was a subject that should have been carefully investigated. But as soon as CIA officials realized the HSCA would be demanding information, they brought one of their agents out of retirement to act as a liaison to the House committee.

This CIA agent’s name was George Joannides, and his appointment was one of the most treacherous moves the Agency made in it’s efforts to hide Oswald’s connections to the CIA. The true nature of that treachery was not made apparent for years.

Not until the 1990s, if my memory serves, was it discovered that Joannides was not just ANY retired CIA agent. In the early 1960s, in fact, he was the CIA’s man in charge of monitoring AND FUNDING the DRE! His later job, of course, was to lie to the HSCA, to lie about Oswald’s relations with the DRE, and to lie about his own relationship with the DRE.

Discovery of this treachery eventually caused former HSCA general counsel G. Robert Blakey to make the following statement: “The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation.”

Other than to protect it’s relationship with Oswald, why would the CIA have done that, and why would it have specifically picked Joannides as its liaison to the HSCA, and why would it have hidden the fact that Joannides funded the DRE? The DRE disbanded soon after the Kennedy assassination.

[Thomas Graves]

Chris,

Have you ever encountered a legal transcript that was “corrected” the way Cadigan’s testimony was, with no hint of the editing process that led to the final version?

Most of the FBI reports in the Kennedy assassination collection are unsigned (but have the agent’s named typed in at the end). Do you know if that was/is standard procedure for FBI reports?

Dear Jim and Chris,

As I tried to point out to Robert Prudhomme in a Gloria Jean Calvery-related thread about a year ago, we should consider the possibility that the internet-viewable FBI reports (the Dallas "Archives" ones, at least) were just separately typed-up, same-day copies of the originals (typed up after the person who had been interviewed or who had given the report had signed the original, and then gone home).

Sorry to be so mundane.

-- Tommy

Edited October 30, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Newton]

Chris,

Have you ever encountered a legal transcript that was “corrected” the way Cadigan’s testimony was, with no hint of the editing process that led to the final version?

Most of the FBI reports in the Kennedy assassination collection are unsigned (but have the agent’s named typed in at the end). Do you know if that was/is standard procedure for FBI reports?

This is certainly a mundane subject, so I apologize ahead of time and If any attorneys want to chime in, I welcome that participation.

The markups on the transcript you posted are only common when it's being "corrected" by the deponent or when a lawyer is designating what will be "played back" or "read" in a courtroom. In most of the transcripts that we see there is no opposing counsel, so there are no objections for a judge to rule on - I've never seen objections entirely edited out of a transcript though - so that can't be the explanation for it.

When a deponent states they want to "read" at the end of the deposition, a readable copy is delivered to them, (or their lawyer), a few days later. This copy will not be certified or finalized because, obviously, they are waiting on the deponents possible corrections.

Legal transcripts normally have line numbers on the left margin (1-25), when I find transcripts without these markers I'm suspicious of the transcripts origin. (It would be very easy to remove a few lines if there were no line numbers). Whether numbers appear or not is sometimes a function of that court - some jurisdictions may not require them at all. Big blank sections in the page are also clues to missing testimony.

An unsigned transcript could be a version that was not finalized by the court reporter (or transcriptionist). It can take days, today, to get a finalized transcript but a rough copy can be generated in real-time. In 1963, it would probably take weeks to get a finalized transcript copy of a deponents testimony.

The edited transcript you posted shows signs of highlighting and marker comments (common lawyer markups) and if I were a lawyer I'd consider it highly suspicious. Corrections are normally one word or two or spelling errors. Deleting 10 lines would be a huge deal.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Chris Newton

[James DiEugenio]

In a related issue but a different case, the transcript of James Earl Ray's plea bargain hearing was significantly altered from what he actually said in court.

So, yes, these things do happen.

[Paul Trejo]

U-2, Brute?

Strikes me as downright silly to find nothing wrong with a radar technician operating near U-2 spy flights defecting to Russia, telling the U.S. embassy in Moscow he would tell the Russians everything he knows, and not being charged with treason on his return to the U.S. This was the height of the Cold War! Francis Gary Powers, who was shot down in a U-2 over Russia while Oswald was there, thought our boy was responsible.

Lt. John Donovan said Oswald knew all kinds of things, including squadron radio frequencies, range of units’ radio and radar, and much more. Powers said Oswald had access to all the equipment, knew the altitudes the planes could reach, flight durations, and the directions the flight went.

Of course, high-level U.S. officials didn’t seem to be worried about any of this when Oswald “defected.” I wonder why.

When Oswald returned, we’re supposed to believe the CIA had no contact with him whatsoever. Like, they wouldn’t even be interested in what kinds of questions the Russkies asked him when he was in Moscow. Seriously?

Oh, come on.

Nothing was wrong with a radar technician operating near U-2 spy flights defecting to Russia, telling the US embassy in Moscow he would tell the Russians everything he knows, and not being charged with treason on his return to the US, simply because the US Office of Naval Intelligence was in charge of the whole operation.

We know it was the peak of the Cold War. As for Francis Gary Powers, he wasn't high enough in the Government to know who was who or what was what. He was a pilot. He was also a blabbermouth. To use Powers as your authority is to jump at shadows.

Of course LHO knew his job at Atsugi Airforce Base. It would be silly if he held that position without knowing his job. Again -- Gary Powers, the pilot -- is not a legitimate source of US Intelligence.

The reason that high-level U.S. officials weren’t worried about LHO defecting was that the USA was in control of the situation from the start. Former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti said that LHO was an ONI "dangle" among dozens of other "dangles" in the USSR.

But you know this, Jim.

When LHO returned to the USA, he was now the FBI's problem. The CIA handles international Intelligence, while the FBI handles national Intelligence.

The FBI interviewed LHO, twice, and found him to be clean. So did the State Department.

LHO was clean -- because he was never a real defector -- he never relinquished his USA passport. He never became a USSR citizen.

LHO was a "dangle," but his real problem was that he was a show-off. He wasn't supposed to return home to the USA with a Russian bride in a snow-storm of publicity. This made many US officials privately upset.

It also upset one former US General, namely, Edwin Walker in Dallas.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Jim,

The fact that the CIA is sworn to secrecy regarding their International missions is merely exploited by the CIA-did-it CTers.

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.

Sandy,

There is far more evidence that LHO was a CIA wannabe. This CT solves the JFK murder. The CIA-did-it CT has had 50 years to make its case -- and has failed.

The CIA-did-it CT exclaims that there was a coup d'etat with the JFK murder. That's drama-queen nonsense.

Once we admit that the JFK murder was a civilian, Dallas plot, we can finally solve this half-century murder mystery.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

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.

Sandy,

Your litany there proved nothing at all. You've simply shown your bias.

The US government did cover-up a General Walker plot to kill JFK -- because the Radical Right in 1963 was even stronger than they are today -- riots would have erupted. Plus there was a Cold War afoot, and the USSR would have exploited the situation.

Like LBJ, Earl Warren, Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover said -- the "Lone Nut" fiction was USA dogma for reasons of National Security.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo