Jump to content
The Education Forum

"Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA?" Where is it?


Recommended Posts

On 12/18/2022 at 8:57 PM, Matt Allison said:

That seems to have quickly silenced Lance lol

I love a quality burn like this. Kudos, Robin. 10 outta 10 :)

Bye

Edited by Lance Payette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

59 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

This is becoming slightly bizarre.

Jim insisted Edwin Lopez - "Eddy" to those in the know - was shocked and dismayed to discover "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" was not included when the Mexico City Report was released.

Jim was saying this in 1996. Yet I linked to a 1996 article by Eddy himself in the AARC Quarterly that was entirely different in tone and content. He was pleased by the rfelease of the report notwitstanding the redactions and twice warned researchers there was no smoking gun.

I've been unable to find anything where, in subsequent years, Eddy expressed concern because "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" had not surfaced. Concerns about lots of other things, yes, but not this.

Fred Litwin has linked to 1979 internal CIA correspondence referring to a conversation with Blakey in which Blakey referenced a draft of "Was Oswald An Agent (of CIA)?" The correspondence says the report concludes Oswald was not an agent. Blakey thought the report "could be sanitized more easily for release."

Fred also linked to a 1979 letter from the CIA to Blakey with extensive comments under the heading ""Oswald, Was He or Was He Not, a CIA Agent?" The letters states, "It is understood this [the report on whether Oswald was an agent] is intended for unclassified publication ..."

Fred has also linked to an actual report on the possibility of Oswald being a CIA agent that corresponds to the comments in the 1979 letter from the CIA to Blakey.

Jim nlow says his good buddies Danny and Eddy say they didn't write the report Fred has produced.

OK, fine.

What did Danny and Eddy write?

Is Eddy adamant that there is some bombshell document called "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" that should be in the CIA files and should have been released?

Does Eddy have an explanation as to why other HSCA staff would have produced a different report under essentially the same title at the same time?

Does Eddy have an explanation for his 1996 article in the AARC Quarterly and why it is so startlingly different from what he supposedly told Jim the same year?

Does Eddy have an explanation for his apparent silence about "Was Oswld An Agent of the CIA?" since 1996?

Does Eddy have a reasction to the discssion I found which suggested "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" never got past the work=product stage and may been properly dsetroyed?

Or is this simply one more instance of Jim being caught with his pants down?

This is why this forum is so tedious. Authoritative-sounding blather is the order of the day, but anyone who actually follows througvh - which no one but the Lone Nutters ever does - it all goes poof. When are you folks going to wake up?

Where's the beef?

 

Lance, is this the Ed Lopez article you were referring to in the AARC Quarterly? 

Page 6 of PDF

Item 01.pdf (hood.edu)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to understanding this is simple.

It was not attached to the Lopez Report as one would expect from the footnote and also Ed's reaction.

But there is a further crucial element and one can see it from what Dan and Ed told me.

They were not included in on this.  As Dan said, he thinks it was done after he left.

That is really important and that importance is easy to understand.  And its also easy to see how Freddie boy missed it.

Another key is Goldsmith.  Which again, is beyond Fred's comprehension.

There is much more to say about this, and I might do an article about it later.

Meantime I would like to see what Joe thinks about it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2022 at 5:02 PM, James DiEugenio said:

The key to understanding this is simple.

It was not attached to the Lopez Report as one would expect from the footnote and also Ed's reaction.

But there is a further crucial element and one can see it from what Dan and Ed told me.

They were not included in on this.  As Dan said, he thinks it was done after he left.

That is really important and that importance is easy to understand.  And its also easy to see how Freddie boy missed it.

Another key is Goldsmith.  Which again, is beyond Fred's comprehension.

There is much more to say about this, and I might do an article about it later.

Meantime I would like to see what Joe thinks about it.

 

 

Bye

Edited by Lance Payette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

This is becoming slightly bizarre.

Jim insisted Edwin Lopez - "Eddy" to those in the know - was shocked and dismayed to discover "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" was not included when the Mexico City Report was released.

Jim was saying this in 1996. Yet I linked to a 1996 article by Eddy himself in the AARC Quarterly that was entirely different in tone and content. He was pleased by the rfelease of the report notwitstanding the redactions and twice warned researchers there was no smoking gun.

I've been unable to find anything where, in subsequent years, Eddy expressed concern because "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" had not surfaced. Concerns about lots of other things, yes, but not this.

Fred Litwin has linked to 1979 internal CIA correspondence referring to a conversation with Blakey in which Blakey referenced a draft of "Was Oswald An Agent (of CIA)?" The correspondence says the report concludes Oswald was not an agent. Blakey thought the report "could be sanitized more easily for release."

Fred also linked to a 1979 letter from the CIA to Blakey with extensive comments under the heading ""Oswald, Was He or Was He Not, a CIA Agent?" The letters states, "It is understood this [the report on whether Oswald was an agent] is intended for unclassified publication ..."

Fred has also linked to an actual report on the possibility of Oswald being a CIA agent that corresponds to the comments in the 1979 letter from the CIA to Blakey.

Jim nlow says his good buddies Danny and Eddy say they didn't write the report Fred has produced.

OK, fine.

What did Danny and Eddy write?

Is Eddy adamant that there is some bombshell document called "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" that should be in the CIA files and should have been released?

Does Eddy have an explanation as to why other HSCA staff would have produced a different report under essentially the same title at the same time?

Does Eddy have an explanation for his 1996 article in the AARC Quarterly and why it is so startlingly different from what he supposedly told Jim the same year?

Does Eddy have an explanation for his apparent silence about "Was Oswld An Agent of the CIA?" since 1996?

Does Eddy have a reasction to the discssion I found which suggested "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" never got past the work=product stage and may been properly dsetroyed?

Or is this simply one more instance of Jim being caught with his pants down?

This is why this forum is so tedious. Authoritative-sounding blather is the order of the day, but anyone who actually follows througvh - which no one but the Lone Nutters ever does - it all goes poof. When are you folks going to wake up?

Where's the beef?

 

 

Lance: This is why this forum is so tedious. Authoritative-sounding blather is the order of the day, but anyone who actually follows througvh - which no one but the Lone Nutters ever does - it all goes poof. When are you folks going to wake up?

My response: If I am reading this correctly you are incredibly ill-informed. 90% of what we--collectively, CTs and LNs--have learned outside the WC and HSCA reports--we have learned through the hard work of CTs, not LNs, and not the mainstream media. Harold Weisberg obtained the release of more records than all the mainstream media put together. In fact, those LNs or lone-nut pushing institutions in a position to share valuable evidence or interviews, such as Gus Russo, Vincent Bugliosi, John Lattimer, Larry Sturdivan, NBC News, CBS News, and Howard Willens, have routinely failed to do so. 

In this case, we have an appendix that was supposed to be attached to a report, but was not. Instead, another report, apparently written by someone other than the original authors, is available. Now, could Lopez and Hardway be incorrect? Could this other report in fact be their report? Sure, could be... But none of those doing a victory dance on the LN side have been able to present any reason to believe Lopez and Hardway are incorrect about this. Blakey--their boss on the committee-has repeatedly claimed he was misled by the CIA. Could the CIA have misled him into changing Lopez and Hardway's report? Sure. I overheard Blakey talking to Lopez at the 2014 Bethesda conference, and Blakey sounded almost apologetic--he had come there to publicly accuse the CIA of lying to him and the committee. 

So... let's take a step back. Jim says an appendix is missing. It appears that one is. But even if it isn't and Lopez and Hardway are incorrect, it does little to change the fact numerous transcripts and testimony are missing. And yet, apparently, this doesn't bother the good folks on the LN side one bit. This seems to me short-sighted. Instead, of working towards a better understanding of what happened on 11-22-63, they seem content to play "gotcha!" with Jim D. 

IMO, we--collectively, CTs and LNs--can do better. 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Rather pointedly avoiding my rather pointed questions, but I'll assume discerning readers can draw their own conclusions.

Lance

I am a discerning reader, and I am unconvinced (and unimpressed) of your arguments. You add nothing of substance, and simply throw insults and childish retorts.  What part of the story about what was withheld and left out (by the HSCA) - as far as the Lopez and Hardaway investigation - do you not understand?  I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but what exactly are your credentials?  What do you bring to the table in this discussion?   If you can't be civil, or offer anything constructive, what is your intent here?

Gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am going to be writing about this.

Because if this report is as bad as I think it is, then someone pulled a fast one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Gene,

Lance's intent here is to make fun of conspiracy theorists. Period.

Oh... and maybe this time to show off his new look.

 

But isn’t he a conspiracy theorist for believing in ufos and little green men running around hunting cows and making interesting designs in wheat fields?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Lance: This is why this forum is so tedious. Authoritative-sounding blather is the order of the day, but anyone who actually follows througvh - which no one but the Lone Nutters ever does - it all goes poof. When are you folks going to wake up?

My response: If I am reading this correctly you are incredibly ill-informed. 90% of what we--collectively, CTs and LNs--have learned outside the WC and HSCA reports--we have learned through the hard work of CTs, not LNs, and not the mainstream media. Harold Weisberg obtained the release of more records than all the mainstream media put together. In fact, those LNs or lone-nut pushing institutions in a position to share valuable evidence or interviews, such as Gus Russo, Vincent Bugliosi, John Lattimer, Larry Sturdivan, NBC News, CBS News, and Howard Willens, have routinely failed to do so. 

In this case, we have an appendix that was supposed to be attached to a report, but was not. Instead, another report, apparently written by someone other than the original authors, is available. Now, could Lopez and Hardway be incorrect? Could this other report in fact be their report? Sure, could be... But none of those doing a victory dance on the LN side have been able to present any reason to believe Lopez and Hardway are incorrect about this. Blakey--their boss on the committee-has repeatedly claimed he was misled by the CIA. Could the CIA have misled him into changing Lopez and Hardway's report? Sure. I overheard Blakey talking to Lopez at the 2014 Bethesda conference, and Blakey sounded almost apologetic--he had come there to publicly accuse the CIA of lying to him and the committee. 

So... let's take a step back. Jim says an appendix is missing. It appears that one is. But even if it isn't and Lopez and Hardway are incorrect, it does little to change the fact numerous transcripts and testimony are missing. And yet, apparently, this doesn't bother the good folks on the LN side one bit. This seems to me short-sighted. Instead, of working towards a better understanding of what happened on 11-22-63, they seem content to play "gotcha!" with Jim D. 

IMO, we--collectively, CTs and LNs--can do better. 

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Lance: This is why this forum is so tedious. Authoritative-sounding blather is the order of the day, but anyone who actually follows througvh - which no one but the Lone Nutters ever does - it all goes poof. When are you folks going to wake up?

My response: If I am reading this correctly you are incredibly ill-informed. 90% of what we--collectively, CTs and LNs--have learned outside the WC and HSCA reports--we have learned through the hard work of CTs, not LNs, and not the mainstream media. Harold Weisberg obtained the release of more records than all the mainstream media put together. In fact, those LNs or lone-nut pushing institutions in a position to share valuable evidence or interviews, such as Gus Russo, Vincent Bugliosi, John Lattimer, Larry Sturdivan, NBC News, CBS News, and Howard Willens, have routinely failed to do so. 

In this case, we have an appendix that was supposed to be attached to a report, but was not. Instead, another report, apparently written by someone other than the original authors, is available. Now, could Lopez and Hardway be incorrect? Could this other report in fact be their report? Sure, could be... But none of those doing a victory dance on the LN side have been able to present any reason to believe Lopez and Hardway are incorrect about this. Blakey--their boss on the committee-has repeatedly claimed he was misled by the CIA. Could the CIA have misled him into changing Lopez and Hardway's report? Sure. I overheard Blakey talking to Lopez at the 2014 Bethesda conference, and Blakey sounded almost apologetic--he had come there to publicly accuse the CIA of lying to him and the committee. 

So... let's take a step back. Jim says an appendix is missing. It appears that one is. But even if it isn't and Lopez and Hardway are incorrect, it does little to change the fact numerous transcripts and testimony are missing. And yet, apparently, this doesn't bother the good folks on the LN side one bit. This seems to me short-sighted. Instead, of working towards a better understanding of what happened on 11-22-63, they seem content to play "gotcha!" with Jim D. 

IMO, we--collectively, CTs and LNs--can do better. 

This statement should be permanently attached on the front door of the EF-forum JFKA Debate

Thank you Pat

 

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...