From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:20:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <5923@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>
>> I believe that we can now conclude that there was at lease one teenage spy
>> and dispose of Robert's silly syllogism "no spy is a teenager", which has 
>> gotten much undeserved mileage.
>
>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.

No one is suggesting this. Other evidence -- the lack of scrutiny given
to Oswald on return, his mysterious appearance in Finland with no commercial
routes to Finland on that day, his office in the same building as Bannister,
his  


 It's true that he led an unusual
>life, but since he seems especially unsuited and unqualified for espionage
>work, it's not necessary to make the leap that he was a spy. 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.
>
>> My opinion as of this time, based on information some of which has floated
>> previously on the network, is that Oswald was politically, a rightist, who
>> had a "special relationship" with both the CIA and FBI, and during that
>> relationship developed a "cover" which was that of a political leftist.
>
>You can believe this, but you can't prove it. The overwhelming evidence is
>that Oswald was a Marxist. The reason for having a cover is to appear--
>plausibly--to be something else. An American who defects to the Soviet
>Union is very implausible indeed. It does not make a good cover because it
>draws so much attention to its strangeness.
>
>> This scenario is very firmly established in evidence, so much so that we
>> now routinely take it for granted, not remembering the days when Oswald was
>> still seen as the Warren Commission painted him -- a kind of left-leaning, 
>> Squeaky Fromm-Commie-wannabee, and a loner. For a lefty loner, Oswald 
>> sure had an extensive network of righty consorts.
>
>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.
>
>> Garrison got it right -- Lee Oswald, boy spy, easily explains a whole bunch
>> of data that the WC was struggling to explain, and, because of this,
>> Occam likes it a lot.
>
>Occam nicked himself shaving. The "boy spy" only explains Garrison's web
>of half-truths; it does not explain much of what really happened.
>
>> (P.S. -- Don't forget.  Now that Boris has opened up the Commie files, we'll
>>  get to see what THEY thought of Oswald.  Stay tuned.)
>
>This was covered on Nightline some months back. They did not say much more
>than Nosenko said after he defected in 1964.
>
>John