Jump to content
The Education Forum

Marina Oswald Porter On National Enquirer Cover This Week.


Joe Bauer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Remedial reading comprehension lesson number 48:  Assuming the NE article reflects anything Marina actually said, she did NOT suggest that the predicament she was in was that of being a double or triple agent.  She clearly stated that she believes Lee was caught up in "a multi-agency cover-up ordered by the CIA and other federal agencies," whatever sense that may make to you.  She believes that her own phones were tapped "and she was being watched by various spooks - who she even believed could murder her!"  She then states that Lee was perhaps in the same kind of predicament, possibly a double or triple agent who didn't know who he was really serving.  However you care to parse these disjointed statements, you cannot legitimately turn it into an admission by Marina that she was a double or triple agent or that she has knowledge that Lee was.

If this silliness isn't nipped in the bud, I guarantee you that the next edition of 15 conspiracy tomes will have statements to the effect that "In a recent interview with a team of crack legal experts, Marina at last admitted that she and Lee were both double and possibly triple agents."  John Armstrong will even cite the NE article in a footnote.  Which reminds me, last week I stumbled on a beat-up, $2.95 old copy of THE OSWALD FILE (1977), which actually made way more sense than HARVEY AND LEE and much other conspiracy theorizing.  On top of which, the author had the rare courage to admit before his death that the subsequent exhumation of Oswald and the release of documents showing the actual relationship between JFK and Khrushchev had made clear that his thesis was nonsense.

As for the couple's abject poverty - well, yes, that is a bit of a problem for virtually every conspiracy theory.  Our International Man of Mystery keeps his baby in an open suitcase (I recalled it being an open dresser drawer, but whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

56 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

As for the couple's abject poverty - well, yes, that is a bit of a problem for virtually every conspiracy theory.  Our International Man of Mystery keeps his baby in an open suitcase (I recalled it being an open dresser drawer, but whatever).

That is my point Lance.

Their poverty and dependency on others for the mere basics makes them less likely to be agents in my mind. Marina anyway.

Lee did seem to be working for someone nefarious in his activities in N.O. besides his job at Reilly's Coffee.

Portly shrimp gumbo lovin' N.O. attorney Dean Andrews stated he left his office and went down to confront Oswald when he heard Oswald was distributing leaflets on the street as Oswald still owed Andrews for legal work.

When Andrews reached Oswald he asked him what he was doing and Oswald supposedly responded to Andrews..."it's a job."

Guy Banister, FBI, Clay "Bertrand" Shaw? Take your pick.

As far as the UFO/ET presence subject, I have learned to keep an open mind regards at least half of all the strange subjects and events I read or hear about no matter how unusual they seem to so-called average persons.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

That is my point Lance.

Their poverty and dependency on others for the mere basics makes them less likely to be agents in my mind. Marina anyway.

Lee did seem to be working for someone nefarious in his activities in N.O. besides his job at Reilly's Coffee.

Portly shrimp gumbo lovin' N.O. attorney Dean Andrews stated he left his office and went down to confront Oswald when he heard Oswald was distributing leaflets on the street as Oswald still owed Andrew's for legal work.

Andrews ask Oswald what was he doing and Oswald supposedly responded to Andrews..."it's a job."

Guy Banister, FBI, Clay "Bertrand" Shaw? Take your pick.

As far as the UFO/ET presence subject, I have learned to keep an open mind regards at least half of all the strange subjects and events I read or hear about no matter how unusual they seem to so-called average persons.

Yes, I know it was your point (to your credit).  Poverty-stricken Marina and Lee are entirely consistent with who I think they actually were.  I also think that Oswald's activities in New Orleans were entirely consistent with who he actually was and were part of his efforts to establish his pro-Castro credentials.  For whatever any report from Dean Andrews may be worth, "It's a job" sounds like precisely the sort of laconic answer the enigmatic Oswald might have given - even if the truth were "Well, you see, Dean, I'm attempting to establish my credentials as a pro-Castro zealot, agitator and infiltrator in furtherance of my objective to eventually relocate to Cuba and become a hero of the revolution."  Could any of your other possibilities be correct?  Sure - I just have seen no compelling evidence that they are (and I see no need to go there when the events are entirely consistent with who I believe Oswald actually was).  I have grave doubts about any conspiracy theory that has LHO being anything other than a sincere Marxist (as he understood Marxism) and pro-Castro sympathizer with illusions of fulfilling his role as a Great Man In History in Cuba.

I deleted my snarky response to Douglas Caddy and am deleting myself for the foreseeable future because I find that butting my head against the brick wall of forums such as this (but certainly not only this one) begins to turn me into someone I'd prefer not to be.  As an "experiencer" of sorts myself, I certainly keep an open mind regarding the UFO phenomenon.  The notion that JFK was killed because he knew too much about the Alien Presence, however, is way beyond my boggle threshold.  I can certainly understand why Marina would love it, however, since you'd have an impossible time tying LHO into any knowing involvement THAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Marina to me is that, as far as I know, she has never taken back one thing she said to the WC, the HSCA or PJM. She has indeed stated that she now believes in conspiracy etc. But she has never stated that "they" forced her to lie under oath about anything or that she did that. So to me, that makes her speculations no more interesting than any unfounded CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every once in awhile I make a mistake and come here on the wrong browser.  Which means I have to read the drivel by the Arizona lawyer.  Oh my aching back.

Where does this guy get this rubbish?  Is he still reading the Warren Report and taking that junk seriously?

How many witnesses do you need to place Oswald at Banister's office?  I mean if the 544 Camp Street address on his flyers is not enough for you, then how about Dan Campbell, Allen Campbell, Delphine Roberts, Mary Brengel and two INS agents who were tracking down Ferrie.  And that is not all.  I made a point of listing them all in Destiny Betrayed. 

Why was Banister so upset when the FBI had those flyers with his address on them?

Why did Banister pistol whip Martin when he suspected he was trying to pilfer the Oswald file and made insinuations about Banister being involved with Kennedy's murder in Dallas.  My God, that is right in the HSCA Volumes, No. 10 page 130.

As per Bertrand calling Andrews, there were three witnesses who certified that call, including a PI who Andrews called and told him about going to Dallas for this guy.

And as per Shaw being Bertrand, there is simply no doubt about this today.  There are more than ten witnesses who certify that fact.

When you then add in what Malcolm Blunt got  from Angleton's pal Bagley about the tracking of Oswald's CIA file being prearranged so that very few people would know about, and no 201 file would be opened on it until much later, I mean, please give us all a break.  Lee Harvey Oswald was an intel agent from the word go.  And to deny that says much more about the Arizona lawyer than it does the facts, which he does not bother with very much.

As per Marina, Richard Russell had nothing but scorn and suspicion for her.  And contrary to what Parnell says, Marina is ashamed of her WC testimony today.  Geez there was a movie made about that subject.  What nonsense.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

D.A. That's an incredibly intriguing quote from Marina. Any original source I can be directed to regarding this?

 

Joe - the National Enquirer pages are available through the link in Bart Kamp's post above in this thread.  Save the pages to your desktop and view them larger in your picture viewer.

NB that Enquirer quotation style is notoriously loose and suspect.  I quoted with caveats.  Who knows what she really said?  By the time that the Enquirer spews something out, it's as veracious as a porn star's cognomen.

Hoo Noes?!

 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The meeting with Marina Oswald, arranged by Dick Russell, occurred in November 1993.  The NE article is referring to an article republished in Russell's "On The Trail of the JFK Assassins". 

Yes, I see that now.  So it's old news trotted out for the gala 55th anniversary.  Quotations from the Russell chapter were probably made under Fair Use, so nobody was interviewed or paid for this.

The Enquirer pastiche reads:

"She also believed she was caught up in the conspiracy, her phones were tapped and she was being watched by various spooks - who she even believed could murder her!

" 'Maybe Lee was in the same kind of predicament - a double or triple agent - and he did not know who he was really serving,' said the Russian-born mother of three."

Because of Enquirer style and ethics, we have no idea whose situation 'the same kind of predicament' refers to - anyone interested would have to read Russell to find out.  The second Enquirer paragraph quoted barely seems to connect to the first.

Hoo Noes?!

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Remedial reading comprehension lesson number 48:  Assuming the NE article reflects anything Marina actually said, she did NOT suggest that the predicament she was in was that of being a double or triple agent.  She clearly stated that she believes Lee was caught up in "a multi-agency cover-up ordered by the CIA and other federal agencies," whatever sense that may make to you.  She believes that her own phones were tapped "and she was being watched by various spooks - who she even believed could murder her!"  She then states that Lee was perhaps in the same kind of predicament, possibly a double or triple agent who didn't know who he was really serving.  However you care to parse these disjointed statements, you cannot legitimately turn it into an admission by Marina that she was a double or triple agent or that she has knowledge that Lee was.

If this silliness isn't nipped in the bud, I guarantee you that the next edition of 15 conspiracy tomes will have statements to the effect that "In a recent interview with a team of crack legal experts, Marina at last admitted that she and Lee were both double and possibly triple agents." 

See my post just above for the context of Marina's statement within the Enquirer article.

The textual juxtaposition of being spied upon by "various spooks" (Enquirer-speak,  not a Marina quote) with Lee maybe being in the same predicament (Marina paraphrase) leaves open whether only Lee, or Lee and Marina each, was "a double or triple agent" (Marina quote) because they were spied upon (Enquirer-speak).

Is disinformation the intent of the quotation style in the Enquirer article?  Remedial Reading help is not required here, just honest journalism.

If someone has the Dick Russell book, it would be helpful to post the Marina quotation in full and original context.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And contrary to what Parnell says, Marina is ashamed of her WC testimony today.  Geez there was a movie made about that subject.  What nonsense.

But has she ever stated that she lied in her testimony or McMillan's book as opposed to just being "ashamed"? In every interview I ever read she stated that she believes in a conspiracy but her testimony and the book were truthful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Every once in awhile I make a mistake and come here on the wrong browser.  Which means I have to read the drivel by the Arizona lawyer.  Oh my aching back.

Where does this guy get this rubbish?  Is he still reading the Warren Report and taking that junk seriously? 

How many witnesses do you need to place Oswald at Banister's office?  I mean if the 544 Camp Street address on his flyers is not enough for you, then how about Dan Campbell, Allen Campbell, Delphine Roberts, Mary Brengel and two INS agents who were tracking down Ferrie.  And that is not all.  I made a point of listing them all in Destiny Betrayed. 

Ah, I see.  A "wrong browser" lead you to this thread and my posts.  Uh-huh.  How does that work?  Still using the old Payette's Posts edition of Google Chrome?  And this browser forces you to read my drivel, does it?  That must be the Gotta Read Payette's Posts edition of Chrome, which I understood was pulled from the market shortly after it was issued.  You have a rarity there, hang on to it.

Your need to respond vehemently and with ad hominem attacks to everyone who dares to disagree with you, even an unworthy former Arizona lawyer, is really quite comical.  I don't believe I've ever met anyone who takes himself so seriously and simply exudes self-importance, and I mean that sincerely.

How many witnesses do I need to place Oswald at Bannister's office?  More than are, or better than there are, I guess.  Even if I thought that were true, I wouldn't find this inconsistent in the slightest with what I believe were Oswald's efforts to establish himself as a bona fide infiltrator of the anti-Castro community.  The notion that Oswald's views were consistent with Bannister's right-wing lunacy is frankly a disservice to Oswald and simply doesn't square with reality.

Just trying to think logically and critically, it seems to me that placing the 544 Camp Street address on the flyers is probably precisely what Oswald would not have done if his associations with Bannister had been as you believe they were.  The fact is, as you surely know, that this was not Bannister's address and his office could not be accessed from this entrance - but still, why raise this red flag when he could have chosen any address in New Orleans to show the national FPCC that he had rented an office?  The address did have past associations with Carlos Bringuier and the Cuban Revolutionary Council.  If the address had any meaning at all, I tend to believe it was part and parcel of Oswald's effort to provoke a confrontation with Bringuier in furtherance of his objective to establish his credentials as a pro-Castro agitator for the benefit of his intended audience at the FPCC and in Cuba.

Just trying to think logically and critically, would it not have been rather stupid and counterproductive to have allowed Oswald to be seen by multiple witnesses in association with Bannister if the plan were to use him as a patsy and shift the blame for the assassination to the pro-Castro community?  When the plan actually was hatched, do you suppose one of the guiding geniuses might have said "Gee, do you think this guy is going to be a plausible patsy?  Aren't there like 493 people who can connect him to Bannister and Ferrie?"  Again we seem to have the odd phenomenon of the conspirators being diabolical geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7-9 and inept bumbling fools at steps 2-4-6-8-10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2018 at 11:55 AM, Douglas Caddy said:

I had two telephone conversations with Marina this year. The first call was arranged by a mutual friend who has known her for many years. The second time was when she called me after seeing me being interviewed on the History Channel's Ancient Aliens. Our agreement is that I will never disclose the substance of our conversations. So the only thing that I can disclose at this time is that mentally she still possesses a keen mind and is quite interested in past and current public events.

Doug, 

Isn't it a rare occurrence that Marina Porter allows herself to interact with outsiders like this, especially in her older age days?

Lucky you.

Oh the questions I would like to ask her.

Wish you could disclose the substance of your conversations with her.

We all understand confidence loyalty pledges however.

Your stated appreciation for Marina's still "keen mind" suggests to me she had some very interesting views, feelings and other things to share and that were rational in their content.

So curious to know if she said anything to you that would startle the members here or any other serious researchers.

Where I was raised is just a mile from the "Defense Language Institute" in Monterey Ca.  I grew up with "many" children of foreign language instructors employed there in my school classes from the 1950's and elementary school, all the way to 1969 and our small town high school which was "less" than a mile from the DLI. Often a third of our class were children of these instructors.

My best friend to this day is the son of one of these foreign language instructors. Almost all of the instructors were native born and raised in the countries of their language origin. I knew several kids whose parents were Russian born. I met ( very casually ) some of their parents.

My Aunt here in Monterey had more than one Russian instructor families as next door neighbors since the 1950's. I had a few brief encounters with them as well.

Even my wife and I had a Russian native born family ( married mother our age and her mother ) living next to us in the 1980's and the younger mother's son played with our two similar age children often right in their home. I got to know the grandmother well enough that to this day if we bump on the street we know each other and she always asks about my children and I her grandchild.

San Francisco has a large and long time established Russian community.  I remember once having to see a UCSF medical school connected specialist doctor in the City 11 years ago and it struck me as lightly humorous that every medical staff employee in that office ( a busy one with many and all female ) was Russian accented!

Guess that doctor liked to hire Russians. 

My point is that there are a significant number of native born Russians here in this part of Northern California. I have personally met, known and interacted with a few which is more than the average American.

For what my non-academic, limited exposure opinions are worth, I found these adult native born Russians to be so similar in ways to the White Russians in Dallas in the early sixties we have all read about.

They mostly stayed close to their own cultural / language kind socially.

They were very proud of their Russian heritage and culture to a point that it seemed to me they actually quite often looked down on our own.

They seemed mistrustful of outsiders more than other first generation foreign country immigrant families as did the families from China I knew. Looking back it actually seemed like it was a subtle but noticeable paranoia.

They were "very" money and status conscious. 

Education of their children was paramount. They seemed very controlling of who their children associated with. Again, they wanted to know what the parents of their children's friends did for a living. Being my wife was a college grad editor allowed my children the privilege of playing with our Russian neighbor's child.

All of these Russians were very intelligent, very sharp and keenly aware about the real world around them. To me, again, sometimes in a way that seemed born out of an instinctual and protective mistrust more than other cultures.

I share these memories and thoughts about the real Russian people I have interacted with just to reflect on them relative to Marina Porter and what she may or may not be like in her real soul, character and life.

Marina in this whole historic story has always been a fascinating character to me personally including all her suspected faults and misdeeds.

Her first nationally broadcast interview on TV, where she sat on a couch and stammered through her limited English answers and self-consciously kept herself from smiling due to a missing tooth, was very impressionable to me as a 12 year old.

I was instantly hugely smitten with her natural and still innocent looking physical beauty, her thoughtful and intelligent with glowing iris eyes ( you could even notice them on black and white TV! ) and at the same time caringly empathetic to her traumatized vulnerability.

So easy to understand why Oswald fell instantly head over heels for her.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe: My friend who has known Marina for years and who arranged the initial call between her and me earlier this year telephoned me today. He called on a totally unrelated matter that we are working on and I took the opportunity to call his attention to the current National Enquirer story.

I am bound by my promise to Marina not discuss the substance of our two conversations.  However, there may come a time when, while I cannot discuss the substance of our conversations, I may be able to disclose an action she took in recent years that astounded me and would cause the same reaction in you if it became known. Such disclosure may come about through the natural course of events. It could happen in the near future or maybe years away. I have no control over this.

 

 

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...