From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: OCCAM doesn't like it. (Was: Teen Agent, Can you Hear Me? Teen Agent)
Keywords: teen agents exist!  Oswald and Sue's father in-law
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:51:13 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Aug13.164827.28437@aisg.com>, sue@airball.East.Sun.COM
(Sue Haley {AISG/Admin NC}) writes:

> 
> 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

Thank you, Sue.

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.

Recall that one can 'prove' that no spy is a teenager only by 
creating an exhaustive list of spies along with their ages, each of
which must be more than 19.  Clearly His Doubtfulness hasn't done that, 
nor is he capable of doing it, nor is it likely that anyone will do 
it.  Just last night, I was re-reading a rather humorous portion 
of "Plausible Denial" in which Hunt's lawyers deliberately attempt to 
use techniques employed unwittingly by our very own Questionus Minimus 
as he attempts to rebut Oswald's teenage spydom using anything and 
everything except specific facts from Oswald's life.

Robert is entitled to assert that "to the best of his knowledge" no spy
is a teenager, he is completely within reason to have an opinion that
Oswald was not a spy, and I am entitled to be skeptical of the reach of
conclusions based so much upon so little.

Neither Robert's personal experience, nor his imagination constitute a
valid and exhaustive sample of human possibility.  Simply because he 
doesn't know any teenage spies doesn't 'prove' that there aren't any; 
simply because he can't imagine why the government might employ teenagers 
doesn't prove that they didn't; and because he can't fathom what the 
young Oswald's mission in Russia might have been doesn't 'prove' that 
there wasn't one.

Part of the humor in Lane's book derives from the fact that a government
witness, 'known' to have been employed for many years by the CIA, under
deposition, was unable to 'prove' that he was a CIA employee.  This man
had been called by Hunt's lawyers to help establish that Marita Lorenz
didn't have a relationship with the agency.  His testimony was little 
more than a personal description -- "To the best of his knowledge, Lorenz 
was not an agent."  In other words, he didn't know.  Lane quickly exposed
the sleight of hand.

Q: Can you say that Marita Lorenz was not an employee of the CIA?
A: No.

Lane's a smart enough guy.  He was just having fun with the shroud of 
secrecy surrounding intelligence activity.  The CIA doesn't admit 
much, even its successes, even its known operatives.  Recall that 
the Warren Commission also grappled with this issue when confronted 
with DA Wade's allegation that Oswald was an FBI informant.
Horrified, the Commission learned that it would neither be able to 
prove nor disprove the allegation, and thanks to the candor of ex-CIA 
director Dulles, the WC learned that no official of that agency, including
Hoover who they were counting on, could necessarily be believed 
to testify correctly about it.  It was just as possible that the official 
would deceive as clarify.  Why?  Because his subordinates might have 
lied to him.  Or, he might lie to protect them, or the agency, 
or "national security."  Ironically, Dulles himself concealed much from 
the Warren Commission.  Richard Helms, a key player in the JFK case, 
was later convicted for lying to a Senate committee, and Clare George 
is getting his ass harpooned even as we speak for the exact same thing.  
Old habits die hard.

It seems that this spy stuff is tricky business -- not straighforward;  
not obvious. Things just aren't as they appear.  Occam doesn't like it.

What I'm saying is that the statement "X is a spy" is very difficult 
to 'prove' in the normal sense, particularly when practiced within a 
context of "plausible deniability", a context in which the respective 
agency is able to disavow its knowledge of the operative, just like 
on television.  Investigators are generally forced to target a moving set 
of assertions, descending in weakness, some of which are more easily 
proved than others.

1. X is a spy.
2. X is an "employee" of the CIA (or FBI or whatever)
3. X was an "(contract) agent" of the the CIA
4. X performed activities on behalf of the CIA
5. X performed activities on behalf of someone for whom 1. - 4. is true
6. X was known to have associated with others who have engaged in 1. - 4.
above.

Sometimes 3. - 5. are stated as X had a "special relationship" with the
CIA.  Sometimes 4. & 5. are used to establish 3., which if it occurs over 
an extended period of time is used to indicate 2 or 1.  

Questions more easily answered are, "Do you think that Oswald was engaged
in activities on behalf of a government agency?", "Do you think that there
is a pattern of such behaviour?", and "Which agencies for which countries?".

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.
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's cover was seized upon by the WC, and was never "penetrated" by them 
despite many obvious, near-comical attempts by someone to draw attention 
to Oswald during the time immediately preceding the assassination.  
Eventually, the cover was blown sky high by, among others, Jim Garrison 
and his investigation, something for which Garrison is rarely given proper 
credit.  

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.

Paul Collacchi

(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.)




Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3065 alt.conspiracy:10174