From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
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
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:07:00 GMT

(David Wright) writes...
>In article <28AUG199215373670@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|(David Wright) writes...
>||mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:


>||||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:

>|[...]

>||Funny you should mention Sturgis, Alan.  Here's an excerpt from the taped
>||interview of Sturgis by Michael Canfield.  

>||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, 

>|	Actually, its a leap to use this as evidence that Sturgis was
>|	a CIA agent in the Marines. 

>It does not seem to be a leap at all. Sturgis  is talking about weather he is a
>CIA agent, and says that he has been involved in a lot of activities from his
>age of 17 untill the present, where he does engage in intelligence activities,
>call it CIA or not. He does not say that he did normal marine work when he
>joined and is now doing intelligence work. He makes no distinction. He implies
>a general pattern of behavior that is consistent from the time he joined the
>marines till the present. That is the point he is making.

	Oh, but it is *quite* a leap.

	All Sturgis says is that he worked for the government, an
	organization that contains not only the CIA, but also the
	Marines, and myriad other organization. Sturgis statement
	could possibly mean that his time in the CIA was concurrent
	with his time in the Marines, but it could also mean that
	he was in the Marines, then with the CIA (if not other
	agencies). Most people, when they use such "umbrella"
	terms, tend to refer sequential involvement with the
	activities, rather than concurrent involvement.
	Why doesn't Sturgis say "I was with the CIA from the	
	time..." instead of using the blanket term "government?"

	
>||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.

>|	But what did daddy do for the OSS? was he a field operative or
>|	a desk jockey?

>What did daddy do for the OSS? Are you being insultive on purpose, or is it
>something you cannot avoid when being proved wrong?

	What the hell is "insultive?" 

	Actually, I was asking a germane question. The point of
	debate was whether the intelligence community would
	use a teenager as a spy, given a choice. It is *not*
	"what is the youngest age the CIA [for instance] will
	hire someone?" If poster X's father was a desk jockey,
	then the post is beside the point.


>||||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 doubt the obvious
>||things like Oswald was *not* connected to intelligence.

>|	Maybe it's because the case for Oswald being a secret agent
>|	is a tempest in a teacup. 

>None the less the evidence is overwelming that he had intelligence
>connections.

	Overwhelming, my ass. It's speculation built on little information,
	dubious assumptions, half assed innuendo, and misconstruance.  



>||||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.

>|	Oswald's clearence in the Marines was "confidential," the lowest
>|	of clearences. Further, although the graphics company that Oswald worked
>|	for did classified work, it did many other, not-at-all secret
>|	things. So far as I have seen, there is no evidence that Oswald
>|	worked in the secret end of the business. 


>Please read Summers' conspiracy, then. In any event, Oswald leaves a trail of
>these secret clearence jobs from the time he comes back from Atsui till the
>photographer's job.

	Well, I've read it, and Summer's just doesn't make a compelling
	case, to say the least.
	
	Oh, and you might like to read about Summers' 1989 interview	
	with McClelland.



>||||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?

>|	Just to be a nice guy? Also, folks with military experience
>|	tell me that VD cases are handled by corpsmen suprisingly often.
>|	Oswald could have convinced/paid the person making the report
>|	to put the "in the line of duty."

>|	One  possibility that is not considered is that Oswald was 
>|	infected while donating blood. That would be considered
>|	"in the line of duty."

>That was not consisderd since you cannot get vd while donating blood. 

	Actually, it's possible. Disposable syringes, etc, weren't as
	common in the 1950's as they are today. If the guy before
	you had VD, gave blood, and the attendant didn't properly
	sterilize the nbeedle that goes into your arm, you could be
	easily infected. Military hospitals aren't known for having
	the most competent personel.

	I keep on hearing this refrain of "Oswald's record says he
	got VD 'in the line of duty'...who gets VD in the line of
	duty?" What I don't hear is a mad rush to find out who
	would get VD in the line of duty, or how anomalous LHO's
	case would have been.
	


>||||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?

>|	Which countries are we talking about here?  The US couldn't
>|	help Oswald get into the Soviet Union, and I have yet to
>|	see it shown that Oswald got into the US abnormally easily.

>The US let Oswald into the Soviet Union, and paid for his way back, and yet
>the CIA apparently did not even meet with him. 

	Two questions:

	How could the US have kept Oswald from entering the Soviet
	Union? 

	and:

	How anomolous was Oswald's re-entry into the US?



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

>|	Much, much fewer than a thousand, and even those are tenuous
>|	at best.

>I see. Just a coincidence then.

	Or wishful thinking.


>|||	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.

>|	I'm sticking to what the Soviets said and not what "we" say.

>If the Soviets suspected Oswald was a spy, and did nothing about it, then that
>proves how supposedly dangerous a spy mission would be.

	Who said the Russians did *nothing* about Oswald?

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\