From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
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
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:17:28 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <18AUG199218525027@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
||mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
||||This is obviously ideal from the CIA's point of view. They get a young
||||recruit, do a few odd and ends, nothing to dangerous, and then can have some
||||deap cover. I don't see anything absurd about this at all. It is not as
||||though the CIA went actively looking, but if someone like Oswald joins the
||||Civil Air Patrol at an early age, they might want to keep him for some purpose.
|
|||	I should let this statement stand on its own as an example of
|||	conspiracy-think. But I'm not, of course.
|
||There is nothing conspiratorial about it. How do you think the CIA recruits
||people for deep cover anyway? It has already been shown that they in fact do
||look at young people Oswald's age.
|
|	It has? where has this been shown, since I haven't seen it.
|	

well, Here is Paul's article, carefull, I didn't bother double quoting it:

In article <92228.024434U54778@uicvm.uic.edu|, U54778@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
|| 
|| [stuff deleted.....addresses Mitchell's points against LHO as teen spy ]
|| 
|| You keep holding up either the highly educated spy who sits in an office
|| and is an expert at deciphering some bit of data or the spy who goes
|| under cover (and a bit Bondish at that) in some hostile country.
|| You are ignoring all that we have learned about some of the seemy
|| characters like Sturgis who I would not be able to place in either of those
|| categories.

Funny you should mention Sturgis, Alan.  Here's an excerpt from the taped
interview of Sturgis by Michael Canfield.  It was made after the Rockefeller
Commission deduced that Sturgis didn't "work for" the CIA, by failing to find 
any Agency documents that indicated that he did.

The excerpt is taken from "Coup D'Etat in America" by Canfield and Webberman.

STURGIS: -- and a number of other people and so forth.  Okay, well, I
think I told you earlier that I don't know if I'm a CIA agent or was a
CIA agent or not
because the top brass in CIA first denies me then they acknowledge me, then 
they deny me, so I don't know what the hell I am, but all I know is I've
been involved in a lot of activities for the United States government, from
the very beginning -- from the time that I joined the United States Marine
Corps when I first turned seventeen years old up until the present day, and
I have three honorable discharges from the service.  I served in Europe, United
States, Latin America, and I served in Asia.  Now as far as domestic 
intelligence.....


(Later in the interview, Sturgis admits to having been approached to perform a 
"domestic" assassination, and states that he would do it, but would first
want to meet the controlling case officer face-to-face to make sure who
it was and verify that the case officer could authorize the mission.)

Hopefully, Sturgis' testimony reinforces two notions: 1.) some teens are
spies, 
and 2.) its not easy to 'prove' one's relationship to the CIA.

Finally, though I don't think is necessary to explain or understand LHO's 
mission in Russia, and I do believe the testimony associating him with 
government operations is overwhelming enough to allow one to reasonably
speculate that LHO was an operative of the Feds, if not an outright agent
of the CIA, I will pass along speculation by "James Hepburn" author of
"Farewell America", who suggests that LHO's stay in Russia lasted long enough
(30 months) to be considered 'long-term' and that consistent with long
term work he may have done nothing at all for several years.  Hepburn also 
suggests that things may have changed and he was recalled stateside.

Paul Collacchi

And here is another article by someone who I did not get the name of. This is
not double quoted as well. Next time, please keep up with the net.

just to set the record in a realistic mode.  I know for a fact that during
the late 40's early 50's the CIA did use teens. My father-in-law according to
his DD214 was a member of the OSS (CIA) he was born in 28 and in 1945
was recruited by the OSS making him 17. and continued in this field of
employment
until 1968.  Also my father was 17 when he enlisted in 1942. Also my x-husband
was a corspman in the Navy in 69 making him only 18.  I don't understand what
the problem is.  Do you think that the other countries we wager war on have
age limits.  I see old news footage where we fought the germans where they 
had solders and salors as young as 14.  Lets be realistic.  

I also have a marine corp recruiter friend who has confirmed that in time of
war it did not matter your age, however today yes you do have to have a college
education.

Besides Audy Murphy was only 15 when he enlisted (lying about his age).



||I see. It's just a coincidence that Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP?
|
|	Since Oswald attended only two or three meetings before
|	losing interest and dropping out, I seriously doubt that
|	there is anything more than a casual connection. 

You can doubt all you want. I don't know why you don't the doubt the obvious
things like Oswald was *not* connected to intelligence.

||It is just a coincidence that Oswald goes to the Atsui Air Force base in Japan,
||or comes back and does work that needs a secret clearance,
|
|	What work that needed a secret clearence? 

"-Stiles" or whatever the name of the photographic work he did, as well as his
work in California. See Summers' Conspiracy, or Mealanson's book.
|
||or gets venereal disease in "the line of duty"?
|
|	Or he just got VD and convinced the doctor/corpsman to add
|	"in the line of	duty" so Oswald would stay out of trouble?

Just another in one of your casual connections? Why would a doctor put such a
thing down if it was lie?

||You must have read the connections, the ease at which he passed between
||countries,
|
|	How hard would it have to be? 

Can you say Cold War?

||his confession that he was going to spill secrets to the Soviets, etc
|
|	Now this is a new one. Who did he say this to, and when?
|

It is not new at all. It is in Conspiracy, Garrison's book, Marrs' book. Maybe
you should spend less time reading exotic articles on ballistics and more
on the case.

|..What do you make of this?
|
|	Certainly not moutains out of molehills.
|

Just a thousand casual connections that the WR did not want us to know about?

||||After all, the Soviets say they knew Oswald was an agent anyway, and they
||||didn't kill him or put his life in danger.
|
|||	The Soviets claim only that they suspected that he was a spy
|||	not that they "knew" in the way of being able to prove it.
|
||Is there a point to this mindless distinction? Maybee they could prove it.
|
|	Well, you started out by saying that the Soviets knew Oswald
|	was a spy. I saw the Nightline episode and the associated
|	newspaper, etc articles, and they only claimed that the 
|	Soviets suspected that LHO was a spy. Since the Soviets
|	have released their files on Oswald, I'm sure we'd know
|	by now if they could prove it. The Soviets would have suspected
|	Oswald whether he was a spy or not.

Let us say they thought Oswald was a spy with a certain probability, and yet
they did not kill, torture or wound him.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"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) 
From: Steve.Rose@f601.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Steve Rose)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP