HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:45:54 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug12.035305.29332@u.washington.edu> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
|In article <169ri1INNohg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU| david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
||
||
||Just in case anyone still had doubts, the report typed up that had Clay
||Shaw's alias as Clay Bertrand is now published in a book by Jim DeGincini, or
||something like that. It's called Destiny Betrayed.
|
|No one has ever questioned whether "Clay Bertrand" was listed as an alias
|on Shaw's booking report. The question was, did Shaw actually give it, or
|did the officer just type it in from his own knowledge?

Are you kidding? Why would would you doubt a routine questioning by a police
officer over a suspect brought in for questioning? Since when does this happen?
That is fantastic. Does that mean that anything anyone says to a police officer
can later be taken back by saying that that officer simply made a mistake? Get
real, I suppose is the apt phrase.

|I believe some other technical argument prevented Garrison from using the
|typed report as evidence.

This is true. But it was BS.

||Jim also found that orders for Oswald's 544 Camp street pamphlets by the CIA
||from the publishers of those pamplets.
|
|Hey, wait a second! This sentence makes no sense!
|Are you saying someone found a CIA order for the same pamphlets from the
|national Fair Play for Cuba Committee? If so, is this tied in any other way
|than being the same pamphlet to Oswald's order?
|If so, this is big news, but give us details!

It is a simple story, and you can read Jim Dieugenio's book for the details.
Basically, the CIA orderd the Fair Play for Cuba Committee pamplets that Oswald
and Bannister had. Recpiets were found by someone who claimed to work for 
a "Basic Pampleting" company.

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me? (was: Clay Shaw is Clay Bertrand, Oswald *was* a Teen Agent
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:44:01 GMT

In <ba4m1l.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <169ri1INNohg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
>>
>>Just in case anyone still had doubts, the report typed up that had Clay
>>Shaw's alias as Clay Bertrand is now published in a book by Jim DeGincini, or
>>something like that. It's called Destiny Betrayed.
>>
>>Jim also found that orders for Oswald's 544 Camp street pamphlets by the CIA
>>from the publishers of those pamplets. Note also that a stack was found in
>>Bannister's office by Garrison. This proves that Oswald was working for the
>>CIA.
>>

>Oswald was only 20 when he went to the USSR, supposedly as a "CIA
>operative." That means that his alleged training must have taken
>place while he was literally a teenager.

>Does anybody have the slightest REAL evidence that the CIA or other
>U.S. agencies have ever recruited and trained "teen agents," and sent
>them off on life-or-death games of spy and counterspy? In reality,
>the CIA and other intelligence agencies recruit agents who have solid
>college backgrounds, and show unusual maturity, cleverness, etc.
>A screw-up like Oswald, school dropout and failed Marine, who did
>minimum-wage work WHEN he worked, would be the last guy on earth
>the CIA would recruit.

In Summers' Conspiracy you'll find a refernce to a CIA program to send
fake defectors to the USSR. I believe among them were some youngsters.
BTW, from the same source you can learn that Oswald was several years
ahead of his age at school. Oswald's strange behaviour starts probably
*after* he had been recruited and not before. This was a perfect cover
for a planted defector and infiltrant in leftish groups.

About his wages: there are several things that indicate that Oswald
spend more than his official earnings. His debt to the state department
was paid too soon. Don't forget that the only tax form he ever filled out 
(I believe in 1962) is still classified (see Summers).

>Unless anyone can show some SOLID evidence that the CIA has actually
>recruited Teen Agents (and messed-up ones, at that), and sent them
>into enemy territory on high-risk missions, this notion of "Teen
>Agents" is one of the silliest parts of the Conspiracy yarns.

Trying to kill Fidel Castro with a poisened diving suit is not silly?

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: I AINT GONNA WORK ON MAGGIES DRAWERS NO MORE
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:53:21 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <92229.052718U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes:

|One improbable factor in an event does not make the
|interpretation of that event invalid.  It is when you pile one
|improbable factor after another, as I judge this situation, that
|you begin to stretch the acceptability of this interpretation
|beyond what can be judged acceptable.

Here here!
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3027 alt.conspiracy:10066 alt.activism:14967 alt.society.civil-liberty:5571 alt.individualism:5262 alt.censorship:6987 talk.politics.misc:40261 misc.headlines:5672 soc.culture.usa:6626
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: <None>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
 <1992Aug17.143844.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 15:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.143844.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.ed
.au writes:
>Aploogies to whoever posted the following
>
>>>>...and 1 former Marine, fresh from the Atsugi Air Base, where U2's fl
w
>>>>out of -- Lee Harvey Oswald.  
>>>>                                  [from Conspiracy by Anthony Summers

Didn't that hurt??
>
>
>
>
>
>Big Al.

Who, by the way, *aint* me.

Big Al.  (No, I'm not paranoid, am I?)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: Robert.Daniels@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Daniels)
Subject: Re: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent, Can You See Me?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:45:28 GMT

In article <ba4m1l.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>A screw-up like Oswald, school dropout and failed Marine
   ^^^^^^^^                     ^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^

Occam's Razor, that the logically simplest set of relationships among the
known facts is the most probable, depends upon having (a) a
sufficiently complete subset of (b) the undisputed facts.  It seems
undisputed that Oswald [putting aside the Oswald/Hidell two-person
switch theories] attended public school, and dropepd out.  That of course
was not the end of his formal training or instruction.  It also seems
proven that he was a US Marine.  

The other attributes ascribed to LHO in the line above, however, are not
facts but matters of interpretation, and here Occam's Razor is more of a
hinderance than a help.  I think we would all be willing to agree that
anyone who gets himself into a situation in which he is accused of two
murders and is then murdered in a police station while handcuffed
to a detective has, in some sense, "screwed up."  But just what was he
about, beyond maintaining bodily functions -- what set of purposes did he
screw up? 

Similarly, in what sense did he fail as a Marine?  Do we know the complete
record here?  Marrs, for example, documents that the case of gonorrhea
Oswald contracted while in the Marines was considered by the Navy doctor
as contracted "in the line of duty, not due to own misconduct."  

If Occam's Razor is interpreted to mean that human behavior should only be
understood in terms of the observable surface "facts" than I think we are
likely to go seriously astray -- and in this case the "facts" that have
come to the surface (e.g. those relating to Oswald's departure from the
Marines, the initial terms of discharge, and their subsequent change) do
not fit any simple, straightforward, or logically elegant explanation. 

A little more skepticism please.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:26:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.151657.629@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>
>>      As far as Agee is concerned you still have to answer questions like:
>>
>> a.      Why did Agee fail to report a number of trips to Cuba?
>>
>>      As this was revealed in a public domain document and he
>>      didn't sue for defamation or libel I conclude that the
>>      report is true.
>>
>> b.      Where DOES he get his money from?
>>
>>      This is the big question and has shut him up on several
>>      occasions.
>>
>>
>>      Alec Chambers.
>
>       Agee's character I could not begin to attest to one way or
>the other;i.e., is he disreputable or a victim of the 'big smear'.

	These are not questions of character.  These are facts that
	Agee and his acolytes seem averse to bringing out into
	public view.



>       What he has to say, however, is right in line with Marchetti
>and McGehee.  Let's face it.  Any former agent who goes public
>with an insider's viewpoint of intelligence activities knows the
>price of poker ...and it appears to have been a hefty price.  McGehee
>particularly impresses me as a real patriot who just never could
>sell his conscience.

	McGehee's story is not unique to him or to the CIA.  I haven't
	finished the book yet but I suspect that he is raising the same
	points that a number of disaffected agents and defectors have
	raised.  These are points that need to be addressed.

	Alec Chambers.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:47:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.143844.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>
>Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
>(or was that Eisenhower)?. 

Eisenhower, mainly. The U2 was an espionage plane flown by the military,
though, not by the CIA. I don't think they were used much during Kennedy's
term, since Powers was shot down in '59.

>Isn't it possible that LHO was involved in action/information which could
>compromise these flights, and hence the President, during his time in Russia? 

That's been suggested, but I don't see how it makes a great deal of sense.
Who is supposedly trying to compromise Eisenhower? The CIA? I don't get it.
It also seems like too difficult of a mission for a 20-year-old spy.
>
>Alternatelty perhaps he was to watch for the methods the Russians used to down
>Garry Powers and others, or perhaps help pilots who had ejected?
>
Oswald defected shortly before Powers was shot down, and I for one am not
about to be convinced that the whole thing was staged. :)

I don't think a 20-year-old kid in Minsk under constant KGB surveillance
would be much use to a downed U2 pilot.

>Big Al.

Oswald did announce in the U.S. embassy, where he could be sure his words
were being sent back to Washington and in fact were, that he had offered
to give technical information to the Soviets. The only really valuable info
Oswald had was what he knew about U2s from his work at Atsugi.
I haven't seen anything yet to either confirm or solidly refute the
possibility that information given by Oswald helped the Soviets down Powers.
But everything I've seen from the Russians -- including recent work by
independent Russian newspapers and magazines -- has the KGB extremely wary of
Oswald. Izvestia recently carried a report, summarized from some magazine over
there, that said the KGB kept Oswald under close surveillance the entire time
he was in Minsk (a fact never admitted during the Soviet era, including to the
late '80s Nightline investigation). If Oswald had supplied good info, good
enough to pull off what was for them a major victory in the techno-Cold war,
I doubt they would have treated him so distrustfully.

On the other hand, if Oswald had supplied them with bad info, when they
were already in the possession of good enough info to shoot down Powers, then
the Soviets would likely have done much more nasty things to him than
just keep him under surveillance.

My guess is that if Oswald did tell them anything, he told them something
they already knew, and that our side already knew they knew. Perhaps his
mission was to feel them out for how much they knew based on what kinds of
questions they asked a marine from a radar base.

I've always wondered if perhaps Oswald didn't seriously botch his assignment,
and from there on out deal mainly with people on the fringes of the agencies
(de Mohrenschildt, Bannister, Ferrie, perhaps Shaw) rather than the agencies
themselves.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.120533.627@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.142710.18984@cas.org>, jac54@cas.org () writes:
>> In article <1992Aug17.093243.603@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>       Books by Agee (an ex-CIA agent who now lives in Germany and
>>>can't even get a US passport anymore after CIA persecution)
>>
>>      Before using Phillip Agee as a source, you might want to
>>      ask him about his disciplinary record in the CIA and
>>      where he his money comes from.
>>
>>      Alec Chambers
>
>       I would hardly expect a glowing report from the CIA on any
>whistle-blowers.  What about Marchetti and McGehee?


	I have no opinion on Marchetti and McGehee because I am not
	familiar with their corpus.  What I have seen of Marchetti's
	work seems to be sound.

	As far as Agee is concerned you still have to answer questions like:

a.      Why did Agee fail to report a number of trips to Cuba?

	As this was revealed in a public domain document and he
	didn't sue for defamation or libel I conclude that the
	report is true.

b.      Where DOES he get his money from?

	This is the big question and has shut him up on several
	occasions.


	Alec Chambers.
From: Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Mark Prado)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: National Archives - news
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:48:00 -0500

 MP> > Well, the powerful congressional staff member who has taken
 MP> > a great interest in the reorganization that did me in (and
 MP> > is on the warpath about cronyism, nepotism, and general
 MP> > incompetence here) is the very same one who is PO'd at the
 MP> > agency's position on release of JFK files.

 MP> Which congressman or group does he work for?

There's a lot of interest at the moment.

The recent reorganization, JFK files issue, fees for copies of
records, arbitrary changes in procedures for letting researchers
copy motion pictures and audio and video tapes, and general
management issues are being reviewed by the Government
Operations subcommittee chaired by Robert Wise of WV.  His chief
counsel, Bob Gellman, is asking lots of questions and has
drafted a bill Wise introduced with several provisions aimed at
sending a message of displeasure to the management of the
archives.

The counterpart subcommittee in the Senate, chaired by Herb Kohl
of WI, with Steve Katz as chief counsel, is looking at other
management issues, including contracting and personnel problems.
They are working closely with the Office of Special Counsel
which is investigating a number of alledged improper personnel
actions and seems to have the director of personnel as the
primary target.

The Senate Select Intelligence Committee is looking at how
POW-MIA records have been handled, and may be asking about JFK
stuff too, but they are being more secretive about what they're
up to.

The Archives Inspector General's office has some related
investigations going on--the IG himself is the target of two:
one relating to contracting in his former position, and one
related to an EEO lawsuit against him and the agency by a former
subordinate (in charge of contracting).

One investigator remarked that it was amazing how many major
investigations were going on in such a little agency.

Until the recent reorganization, the leaders among the troops
and in outside constituencies were more or less generally
supportive of the management, even if angered about one issue or
another (For example, most historical groups were made about the
archives position supporting the White House in the "Profs"
case).  The tide seems to have turned in the last few weeks, and
little is said supportive of the management and some of the
mid-level managers and outside groups seem to be discussing
whether it might be time for a change.  Even the staff in charge
of defending the agency on the Hill is finding it hard to do so.

Under the current law, the agency head is not supposed to change
if there is a change in administration--there is a provision for
some insulation from partisan politics.  The bill Gellman
drafted and Wise introduced would repeal that provision and
limit his term.  A year ago, most constituent groups would have
violently opposed such a bill.  Right now, they are remaining
silent-- neither in favor nor opposed.

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3040 alt.conspiracy:10103
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: <None>...U2 Flights
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:07:55 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>> 
>> Isn't there a connection between the U2 flights, the CIA and Kennedy.
>> (or was that Eisenhower)?. 
>> 
>U2 flights were controlled by the CIA.  

	I'd have to go look this up for certain, but I *believe* that
any and all actual overflights of the USSR had to be DIRECTLY
approved by the President.  In May of 1960, that was Ike - the election
was held that fall if memory serves correctly.  So all of this U2 stuff
was mostly under the Eisenhower White House.

	Now Kennedy DID approve using the U2's over Cuba during and preceeding
the "missile crisis".  Also after the fact to verify the removal of
said equipment.

	The downing of Powers' U2 pretty much ended overflights of the
USSR by that particular aircraft......and led to the use of the
Blackbirds as a more defensible aerial recon platform.  The CIA had
their A12 Blackbirds for a few years - it is not openly known if *they*
ever overflew the USSR.  They apparently DID overfly the People's
Republic of China.  Their use in Operation Black Shield over
North Vietnam is also now publically documented, or I should say the
fact that it was done.  Details are still sketchy.

	The CIA did not keep their A12 Blackbirds for long, either.  By
mid to late 1968 the mission was being done by the Air Force and
their SR71's - the A12's met an early retirement.....

Duane
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:2992 alt.conspiracy:10001 sci.skeptic:14349
From: billm@thor.fsrg.bear.com (Bill Moss)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fletcher Prouty's New Zealand Story (JFK)
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:55:47 GMT
Organization: Bear Stearns & Company, New York, NY

In article <1992Aug12.010738.24134@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>The quality of the photo looked better than what I get with my modern FAX
>machine.
>
>

Many people on the net are making a big deal about the fact that this photo
seems too clear to have been received in New Zealand via wire.

Maybe it wasn't.   But this proves nothing.

Oswald shows up in wire service story.  Newspaper looks up in files for
picture of Oswald.  They find an old picture.  They print it.

Remember, Oswald had had newspaper coverage before, when he defected, and
when he returned to the U.S.


Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3019 alt.conspiracy:10054 sci.skeptic:14458