From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist, e.g. Johnny Quest
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:27:49 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
# > John Locke writes:

# >We can now move on to the reductio ad absurdum that because it cannot
# >be proved absolutely that there has never been a "spy" under the age of
# >20, the Oswald must have been a spy. It's true that he led an unusual
# >life, but ...  it's not necessary to make the leap that he was a spy. 
# 
# Agreed --  he lead an unusual life; its not necessary to make the leap that
# he was a spy.  In fact, I don't suggest that we do, and I didn't in the
# article.
# 
# What I suggest is that we evaluate the proposition "Oswald was a spy", 
# based on its merits, on relevant fact, namely his actual history -- 
# actions and associations -- rather then on personal speculation about 
# his psychological profile or guesses as to what we can imagine about
# government agencies, or based on what we "think" makes sense.  All 
# of these latter things are essentially irrelevant to the suchness or 
# non-suchness of Oswald's spyhood, though perhaps we should keep them 
# in mind when evaluating the interpretation of REAL facts about his life.

The reason we have delved into speculation on his psychological profile,
possible motivations, etc., is because there's a dearth of real evidence
establishing that he was a spy or in the employ of intelligence agencies.
The real facts of his life show him to be the "lone nut" of lore. The
proposition that what he appeared to be is just some elaborate cover for
what he really was is interesting, but it hasn't been proved. That
interpretation is all based on speculation, in fact.

# >He mainifests the characteristics of an uneducated, then self-educated 
# >person: his mind is a random patchwork of knowledge. He could convince 
# >himself, because of his reading of idealistic Marxist books, that the 
# >Soviet Union was a paradise.  
# 
# A good example of irrelevant speculation based on what YOU think rather
# than what is so about Oswald.  A fact might be: X testified that Oswald 
# read a Marxist book; Y said that Oswald waxed longingly when referring to 
# his beloved Mother Russia, but those facts aren't presented in your claim, 
# and so we don't know if there are really any underlying facts to the 
# conclusion.

Although we know what Oswald did, we do not know what he wanted to
accomplish, particularly by killing the president. We are therefore forced
to speculate on that crucially important second question of motivation. It
is far from irrelevant. The problem is that on the surface his rationales
are illogical. We are tempted to say, no one could be that unrealistic to
think that defecting to the USSR would be a good idea; that killing the
president would somehow result in a benefit. The kidnapper of the Lindbergh
baby, for instance, is either to fathom: the family has money, the kidnapper
holds the baby for ransom. It's a perfect pairing of action and motivation.
Oswald provides no such luxury, so conspiracy theorists have stepped in to
fill in a logical motivation where perhaps there is none. Since I see no
logical motivations for Oswald's grandiose actions, I have to wonder what
his illogical motivations may have been. I'm forced into this because of
a lack of evidence showing him to be more than what he appears.

# Besides, whose mind isn't a "random patchwork of knowledge?"

Let me put it another way. His grandiose illusions betray the haphazard
state of his self-education. He could imagine defecting to the USSR or
killing the president, but he could not see how unrealistic those goals
were to advancing his status in the world, or whatever his goals were.

# Here is an example of what I consider "strong" evidence:

Why did you put "strong" in quotes? That suggests irony.

# 	There was joy in the CIA's Tokyo station.  "It was a scene of
# 	great excitement, confusion, and wild talk.  The conservatives
# 	were obviously elated and there was talk of an invasion of
# 	Cuba," said Jim Wilcott, the Tokyo [CIA] station financial officer 
# 	in 1963.  According to Wilcott, CIA hardliners "hated Jack 
# 	Kennedy" because they felt he betrayed the agency over the Bay 
# 	of Pigs.  Agents were breaking out bottles and having drinks to 
# 	Oswald.  Tongues became loose, and there was a great deal of 
# 	talk that Oswald worked for the agency.  This is what Wilcott 
# 	says he learned:
# 
# 	   Oswald was originally under control of the Tokyo station's
# 	   Soviet Russia Branch.  He was trained at Atsugi Naval Air
# 	   Station, the secret base for Tokyo CIA special operations.
# 	   [Oswald's standard biography has him stationed with a Marine
# 	   Corps unit at Atsugi from 1956 to 1958.]  When Oswald
# 	   returned from the USSR in June of 1962, he was brought back
# 	   to Japan for debriefing.  They were having some kind of
# 	   difficulty with Oswald.  The Soviets were on to him right
# 	   from the start.  That apparently made him very angry and he
# 	   became difficult to handle.
# 
# 	Wilcott told the authors that at first he found it difficult to
# 	accept that the man who was said to have shot the president
# 	worked for the CIA.  "Then I heard about more and more employees
# 	who had been working on the Oswald project in the late 1950s.
# 	Part of Wilcott's job was to hand out cash for covert CIA
# 	operations.  "When I expressed disbelief, they told me 'Well
# 	Jim, so and so drew an advance from you for Oswald' or 'You gave
# 	out money for the Oswald project under such and such a crypto.'"[1]
#
# I would say that this testimony, if true, points pretty strongly to
# Oswald's having a "special relationship" to the CIA.  What would you
# say?

The "if true" part is the kicker. All the above comes through a single
witness, Mr. Wilcott. What incentive do we have to believe his story?
Is it corroborated? At least one contention is false, that Oswald was
"brought back to Japan for debriefing" in 1962. When exactly did this
happen? Oswald's time after he returned from Russia has been generally
blocked out, so this contention must be contrasted with evidence that
would place him elsewhere at the same time.

# >The overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was a Marxist. 
# Make your case, John, we're all listening.  

All the obvious stuff: read Marxist literature, taught himself Russian,
defected to the USSR, promoted Castro, etc. That's overwhelming to me.
If you can demonstrate his real beliefs, if they are not Marxist, I'd
be interested in seeing the argument.

# >Oswald was friendless. The acquaintances he had after returning from the USSR
# >were people--George de M., for instance--who were interested in Marina's
# >welfare. There was no network of consorts, right or left.
# 
# Ouch.  You picked the wrong example.  It is probably true that most of
# LHO's many righty cohorts didn't have deep, overwhelming feelings of warmth 
# and affection for him, but who am I to say.

He had no "righty cohorts." (Note that "cohort" implies more than mere
acquaintance. He knew rightists, like De Morenschildt, but they didn't
agree with his politics.)

# The point is not that they loved him, but that they associated with him.

Tolerated him would be more accurate, for Marina's sake.

# He wasn't a "loner" like the
# Warren Commission said.  There can't be much testimony about someone who 
# no-one associates with.  There's tons of testimony about Oswald.  He's
# no Squeaky Fromm -- he gets around.

I don't think by "loner" the WC meant that he was anonymous. They meant
that he was close-lipped, had few friends, and generally kept to himself.
This is not consistently true. He seemed to have periods of sociability
during the Marines and for periods in Minsk, but generally he ended up
withdrawing into himself.

# About De Morenschildt -- I'm soon to post an article which talks about him
# in more detail.  About Oswald, De Morenschildt says, "He was a charming
# guy," or delightful or something like that.  It seems to be that De
# Morenschildt actually did like Oswald personally.  So did his wife.

De Morenschildt may have made some charitable comments about him, but
he and Oswald were never close.

John
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk