From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:09:18 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

> 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. 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.

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

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

	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 overwhelming evidence is that Oswald was a Marxist. 
>

Make your case, John, we're all listening.  

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

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.

Paul Collacchi


[1] From "The Fish is Red" by Hinkle and Turner.  Wilcott's testimony is
from his interview with the authors.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic