index

Wilkins / Olmstead Newsgroup Discussion 2

next

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 17:08:26 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Paul: here is a outline (longer then what you might want) of the
> relationship
> > between Clark and myself on Oswald.
> >
> > I will give you my side or view......Clark can provide his or his overall
> opinion.
> >
> >
> > In a sense Clark and I have "done battle" against each of our opinions in
> a very
> > open way.....on the newsgroup. Agreeing to disagree on anything just to
> keep
> > the avenue of discussion open. We have very rarely exchanged email on the
> > topic being discussed or other aspects of the case.
>
> James and I usually start an exchange on a point of agreement and then end
> it on a point of disagreement. We almost always agree on "effect and intent"
> behind actions relating to LHO but, eventually, not the why motivating the
> action in the first place. JKO operates from a wider information base than I
> do.
>

I found it necessary to do so......for the extension of original work in other projects
to show how each interact. Remeber the JFK case is not the only interest I have
in developing filmscripts.

> Neither one of us has any problem being proven wrong by the other. That is
> actually helpful. It allows us to narrow down the possibilities even
> further - And there are not many left. So few, that JKO and I differ only
> over the details. But there are a lot of details.

The process of narrowing things down is vital.

>
>

> >
> > I'm putting out on the table some of the primary findings of my research,
> >some of which I have made seperate posts on in the past. Clark is
>>expressing either his support, his questions on my work or his version of
>>his take on things. In some cases his version of what I think or the direction
>>in which my work goes.
>
> I try and identify those moments.
>
> > But Clark does not have all the material that I have to support my
> considerations.
>
> And I try and identify that also.
>
>
We both find this benifical in expressing views.


> >
> > That's the "background" on the exchanges and my basic opinion. I do not
> > feel that Lee's defection was on "his own".
>
> My finding also - And by independent means.
>

Clark has indicated in the past, material that he has been able to learn of
that has helped him in reach his opinion. Basically we disagree on his
"task"

> >I do not believe his military service
> > was as presented.
>
> The first inkling that something is wrong is when DOD withheld Lee's
> military files from the WC - And then where Lee's records were actually at.
> But I did not know what clues to look for.

The records were easy for me to examine, having spent so much military
service time dealing with records, proceedures etc.

>
> This problem arose again for me with the Private Schrand (sp?) case. Then
> with his two courtmartials - particularly the "Derringer".
> I had a suspicion I couldn't prove.

I've mentioned in various threads some of these aspects in the past.

>
> >I can support my research from a point around July 1955
> > to July 25th, 1963, dealing with Lee's military service and defection. Up
> to
> > July 25th, 1963 I strongly believe Lee is working with the USG at first,
> in a minor
> > role associated with intelligence gathering against "subversives".
>
> Lee could be engaged in such activity in New York.
> I found the clues but not the answers.

I looked a little deeper, however I have alot of NYC research that needs
to be done. I call that the "DORIS PROJECT". I know alot of material
is on record......it's location.....etc.....just getting to NYC to verify and
expand on things have been on the back burner. I used to have to work,
now I'm doing many research projects from the back burners forward.

>
> > After July
> > 1963, the ball game changes.....
>
> I find Lee suspects July 25, 1963 is coming - And the idea for the "new ball
> game" occurs to him in June, 1963 (I believe June 14 if bad memory serves).
> After July 25, 1963, the wheels of June turn in motion beginning in late
> August, creating the "September conspiracy".

Lee's action from the day he returns from the USSR need to be presented.

>
>
> >but that leads into my script "The September
> > Conspiracy". The early part of his "enlistment" put him in position to be
> > selected for the 1959 "defection".
>
> Yes. Something needs to cause Lee to stand out for consideration from all
> the Marines, Air Force, and Army personell.

Here I think the CAP comes into play.

> There was no sign posted on Lee's barrack's bulletin board requesting
> volunteers for a "mission" inside the USSR. While he may have volunteered
> for the mission, he can't volunteer for a mission he doesn't know about. It
> hasn't been posted.
>

Seveal "recruiting missions" for duty in SEA were such "postings".....however
that's a seperate consideration, that deals with what projects Lee could have
been associated with while in Japan.

> This means Lee is somehow already in a "pool" of candidates, and someone
> involved with Nixon's "sharing of ideas" with Kruschev is going through the
> files of the available "pool" and stopped on Oswald's.

Any number of actions including the two SCM's are such valid considerations.
For example the "interviews" upon entering the "Brig" and exiting the "Brig"
are documents destroyed. This is a prime location for the selection of individuals
wishing to make "changes" in their lives.

>
> This suggests that we try and identify what "pool" of files Lee's name was
> in. It was JKO that made this identification - not me.

I have several "pools" to look in......because I've looked for them.

>
> My assumption was that Lee's incoming mail and request to take a Ruussian
> language course brought him to the attention of "higher ups".
>
> >

This is another prime consideration, but one I feel is associated with the
first stages of his enlistment.....and the orginal goals, dealing with his
military service.

> >
> > Key documents and records connected to Lee's military service, 5
> intelligence
> > reports and two Courts-Martial records, were "destroyed", my FOIA
> requests
> > to the USN/USMC verify that fact.
>
> Can you tell us about the five intelligence reports?

I have in the past.

1. Entry level investigation for his clearance to attend school.
2. Investigation in relationship to his first SCM
3. Investigation in relationship to his second SCM
4. Investigation into death of Scharnd
5. ONI/FBI shared investigation after defection.

>

> > My basic view is that if Lee was acting alone.....as a true "Marxist
> Marine" then
> > he would have been arrested once he walked into the U.S. Embassy, and
> > the "defection" started.
>
> Or arrested when he returned - As happened with Bruce Frederick Davis.
> Our boy is a prime candidate for "hard labor".

Ln's can't accept the letter of the law in this area. They can't have this
on the table.


>
> > The grounds for doing so and the laws in support
> > were there......but Lee was allowed to walked out of a "closed" embassy.
> > (it was only open half a day on Sat).
> >
>
> Nor were any instructions send by the Navy to the USEMB Naval attache' in
> Moscow to arrest Oswald if he should return. Considering the Navy had been
> informed of Lee's intent to deliver knowledge on US radar, this was an
> extremely simple order to give.

The efforts by ONI and the AUSNA are of great concern, in this area, details
were tightly controled I will make a seperate thread on this based on the documents.

>
> So "stupidity" has set in on the side of the USG. We have a traitor in our
> midst threatening to reveal US secrets. We don't know what he may have
> learned to turn over. Snyder does not order his arrest. No orders to Snyder
> are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald. No orders to the US Naval
> attache' are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald.
>
> Oswald is treated as if he never said anything about providing the USSR with
> US radar information at all.
>
> Since Lee would be returning, this required Lee to be of "low level" rank
> and, therefore, of "no importance". If he was "of importance" then those out
> of the loop will press for his prosecution. Further, if "of importance", he
> might actually relay info "of importance".
>
> So a private is sent.
> But so was Bruce Frederick Davis - And he didn't get ignored.

Rank has little to do with this......anybody in the right "position" could be used.
I've had alot of power as a PFC in VN. Almost total freedom, for two years,
to do my job as I saw fit.

>
> > Now to this actual thread........on the "early out". To obtain a 90 day
> early out,
> > the law and the military require "verification" of the grounds for
> seperation.
> > That "evidence" is evaluated and the discharge is granted or denied. In
> this
> > case Lee acts early to start the process.....too early in my opinion and
> in
> > two seperate directions, Dependency and Hardship.....which can be
> combined.
> > The "evidence" of either should have been in place (in the hands of the
> board)
> > prior to the "First Endorsement" of the discharge. This was not the case.
> > The board is proceeding without the required documentation. Some of which
> > comes in well after the long process of "Endorsement" is underway. Some
> > never reaches.....ie verification by the Red Cross, the hands of the
> endorsers.
> >
>
> Bottom line, the USMC simply approved Lee's request without having the
> supporting documents in the possession - and with the effect that Lee was
> exited from the USMC at the earliest possible legal date.

Going over my documents......and what I feel should be released, there are
considerations I did not mention earlier. The 17 August request was offically
approved by the CG, 3dMAW on 31 Aug 1959. Well before all the evidence
was available for reaching any approval of discharge. Two weeks, without
evidence in support for dependency or hardship. Well before all the 6 endorsements
were finished within the chain.

>
>
> > There are alot of little details, that support the above, when combined
> show
> > that Lee could not have seperated "early" on his own, through normal
> channels.
> > He had to be "assisted" in seperating "early".
>
> Someone should have asked, "Where's the paperwork supporting this request?"

Improper lines of questioning were followed.......it's that simple. Most of
these conflicts would have surfaced early and without difficulty if the proper
cosiderations of investigation were made and followed through.

>
> > This supports that Lee is not
> > as he is presented......ie the "Marxist Marine" and his trip to the USSR
> is
> > supported by the USG.
>
> Agreed. The USG sponsored his trip to the USSR, Marxist or not.

I doubt Lee was Marxist......or even leaning to the left, more in the center
with a right cold war lean.


>
> At the same year the National Security Training Corps was formed, the
> National Security Council (NSC 5412/1 and NSC 5412/2) created the Special
> Group Committee composed of the NSC, the CIA, State, and the President - in
> order for them to all regularly meet and address joint issues.

Actually the NSTC has earlier considerations. However major changes were
made in the Reserve Forces Act of 1955.

>
> If one looks at the names "National Security Council" and "National Security
> Training Corps", we wonder if there isn't a link between the Council and the
> Corps?
>

We knew from 50-54 that greater flexibility were needed concerning intell
and military service...hence the RFA of 55.

> In 1961, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Special Group could become the
> "Special Group Augmented" or SGA by adding RFK to the room. Both the
> "Special Group" and SGA have been connected to "assassination planning" -
> usually involving Castro. The addition of RFK was to include him to protect
> the
> President from the Special Group getting caught at these things. Therefore,
> by January, 1962, he was also on the Special Group's Counter Insurgency
> Subcommittee, composed of General Taylor [Chairman], the Attorney General,
> Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Deputy Secretary of
> Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of Central Intelligence,
> Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
> Administrator, Agency for International Development. This allowed Taylor to
> bypass the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, and work directly
> with their deputies to carry out counter insurgency programs approved by the
> Special Group. RFK was present to police the programs to make sure any
> possible failures did not trace back to JFK. The nature of this Group's work
> was such that neither the Secreatary of State nor the Secretary of Defense
> wished to be involved or connected either.
>
> By April, 1962 there is no record of any more Special Group meetings - only
> Special Group Augmented, meaning RFK had become permanently attached to all
> Special Group meetings. Thus, RFK was on hand to police any "anti-Castro
> plots" devised by the SGA and, further, he sat on the Counter Insurgency
> Subcommittee which would have carried them out (This Group was involved with
> illegal activities - but not assassination - Or else John McCone would not
> have been a member).
>
>
> Lee returned to the US in 1962 with RFK policing JFK's
> "assassination/counter insurgency" programs with the idea that JFK not get
> caught by any exposure of these Group's illegal activities. What RFK needed
> was "plausible denial".
>

RFK is a major consideration from 1954 on. Including his "Russian Journey
in 1955.


>
> > The USMCR
> > was used, to "train Lee" and take advantage of various actions that are a
> > known part of his "service".
>
> Lee's enlistment papers show him enlisting in the USMCR and not the USMC
> (James discovered this - not me). This is a major "tilt" in the enlistment
> process.
>

Several legal considerations dealing with the enlistment of minors (under 18).

> The USMCR is the Reserves.
> Lee must either be "recalled to Active Duty" to serve at Atsugi or he is
> performing "Reserve training."

His entire military assignement was "training".....however not as a radar
operator......in my opinion Lee spent less then 30 days actually working
his radar MOS during the entire period.


>
> Lee is "Active" - either "Active Reserve" or "Active Duty". According to his
> enlistment papers, he is "Active Reserve."

Active Duty is active service regardless of reserve status....it's just "Active Duty"
weither its for a weekend, two weeks or period of extended training....it's
Active Duty.

>
>
> On leaving the USMC and satisfying USMCR time, he should be released as
> "Inactive" - which he was on September 12.

No, the Reserve service was a longer committment.

>
> But on September 11, he was released as "Active" - meaning control over the
> individual has not been lost.
>
His PAPERWORK WENT TO THE ACTIVE SIDE.......in the in processing of
his service record.

> I "think" that JKO believes that Lt. Ayers corrected the "mistake" of
> 9/11/59 on 9/12/59. If so, I disagree.
>

I think you are abid off on the aspects of status, service committments, and
witholding of information to Oswald. On Ayers, his actions I think have you
abit confussed. The paperwork should have gone to the "inactive" section
for inprocessing but went to the "active" section that handled incoming records.

Ayers turns the "dependency" into the "dependency discharge, by reason of
hardship on the part of his mother". The early out would not be granted just
on "dependency". Neither the dependency or hardship have been established.
I think the confussion came into play by moving on too fast towards allowing
him to return. Not all the details had been presented.

> >
> > I wanted this thread to focus only on the aspects of the seperation.
> Clark wants
> > to expand it into areas of "the defection"........but I feel that confuses
> some,
> > as you indicate by this request.
>
> I also want to stay on the aspects of separation. I simply brought up how
> his separation effected his "defection". Was he "Active" or "Inactive" in
> the USSR? According to Lee, he's "Active". According to the USMC, he's
> "InActive".
>

It is a AD mission, while he is on a Reserve assignment, Lee is not going
to tell anybody his true "status".....especially PJM. Nobody is going to
hide Oswald's true status from Oswald. He knows....he accepted the
assignment and all the "effects" it would have on his life and how people
would view his actions.


>
> >
> > To address some of the considerations mentioned by Clark. There has to be
> > a "project" that fits into the ongoing "history" of the time. It has to
> be associated
> > with the Navy, requires information to be passed off to the Soviets and of
> prime
> > consideration, it has to fit Oswald and his known actions. It is the
> reason for the
> > "early out". There are about 15 such projects, relating to National
> Security
> > intelligence operations going on in 1959. In my opinion Project TP is the
> best
> > one to consider and I use that as the foundation of Lee's "defection".
>
> Gee! And I only found one.
>

TP had more factors in relationship to known history etc etc.

> >
> > The problem is that "ALL OF" the offical reports and investigations of
> Lee's
> > defection are not "included" in the WCR and Exhibits.
>
> Particularly his military records.
>
Many were destroyed or never turned over.


> > The prime example of
> > this is the investigation to "prosecute" Lee for various violations of the
> law,
> > known to have occurred. This would be what I call the "AG's report" by
> direction
> > of RFK.
>
> And undoubtedly performed by Nicholas Katzenbach if I am allowed to make an
> "educated guess".

If not directly under his guidence or control.
>
>
> > There were a dozen other intelligence agencies looking into this
> > "defection".....those reports are also "incomplete"......the prime example
> is
> > the conflicts surrounding the CIA's handling of the case, which is why so
> many
> > believe Lee was working for the CIA from 1959 on. They are wrong in
> belief
> > that Lee was in the CIA.
>
> Agreed also.
> Technically, Lee comes under DOD, but, more realistically, he comes under
> another "group" altogether.

Various agencies are used in various operations.....which makes full knowledge
difficult, I settle on the EOP, created by J.P. Kennedy during FDR's presidency.
Look at the two "Hoover Commissions" (President Hoover). Based on his network
established in the Court of St. James..........he used Joe jr, JFK and Kit as his
prime agents for projects "undercover". They were the only ones he could trust.
FDR used Joe jr.....far more then Papa Joe did.....this pissed off Papa Joe. Ian
Flemming was the MI operative to keep track of these three "kids". Nixon later
had his own EPO "Plumbers".....consider the EOP the "Beast". Read Lasky
"It didn't start with Watergate" for a general view of "The Beast".

>
>
> >
> > All of my research can be supported, either by the law or known cases
> against
> > "subversives" "spies" and "defectors". There is alot of details that have
> to be
> > considered from approximately Feb-59 to Feb 1960, just concerning the
> > seperation of Oswald from the USMC......which have never surfaced in the
> > past. These actions......having NOTHING to do with the assassination,
> except
> > as "background" that puts him on the path to Dallas.
>
> And I don't want to skip it.
>
> >
> > Now, for the kicker.......I can use the material, to show that Lee was
> part of
> > the outline above.....or I can show Lee acting on his own, using the same
> > material. But it requires a "higher" opinion of Lee than most will ever
> accept.
>
> Lee would pretty much have to be a god to perform this alone.

As I said, you would have to have a much higher opinion of Lee.

>
> >
> > I have no problem with my research being "countered" with facts and legal
> > considerations, I do all my research equally to show "both sides".
> >
> > I hope this helps.......and if you want me to show you where the material
> > supports Lee is acting on his own, I can point you in those directions.
> > I lean towards Lee working in association, because my opinion of Lee is
> > not as high (although higher then most) as required......I still believe
> Lee
> > needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.
>
> I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed my
> arguments on this.
>

The CPUSA plays a major role.........it can't be eliminated.

> >
> > I no longer care if "Thpa2d" is ever produced.....so I might as well share
> > these opinions with those interested.
>
> Yes. Although maybe we can make Jeff Morely famous?

I'm not sure.......he's active in his own areas.

jko

[..]

From: johncwatters@aol.com (john watters)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 17:08:39 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com>...
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >......I still believe Lee needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.
>
> I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed my
> arguments on this.
>
I have ? Remind me (it's been a long time)

John.




> > I no longer care if "Thpa2d" is ever produced.....so I might as well share
> > these opinions with those interested.
>
> Yes. Although maybe we can make Jeff Morely famous?
>
>
> ::Clark::
>
[..]

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 18:21:03 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n9mboimdliba0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:416feb7d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Clark:
> >
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10mtuj3bssbir8a@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> >
> > > > > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be
> "the
> > > > > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched for
> who
> > > > > Oswald was?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law. The
> point
> > > > being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from the
> USMC.
> > >
> > > Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers and he
> > > would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I suppose
> > > if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.
> >
> > Nobody there knew Lee for "2 years",
>
> Then Ayer's gave a false statement in order to get Lee his passport.

Correct.

>
>
> >however a statement from the USMC
> > would satisfy the requirement of the law. A no fee passport, arranged for
> by
> > the USMC would give indication of knowledge,
>
> of where he was headed?

Yes, however, the passport obtained also supplied the same info. It's was to
keep things just outside of military exposure as records were being processed.

>
> BTW, speaking of where he was headed on his passport, do you consider that
> Lee's early preparation could have also included Cuba as a destination? If
> so, does this get included in your Cuban trip plans?
>

Cuba is the first country listed:

Cuba
Dominican Republic
England
France
Switzerland
Germany
Finland
Russia

I considered Lee going to Cuba if the Soviets moved in quickly in 1959/60 after
Lee went to ASC.







> >
> > There is a great deal of legal actions going on concerning "Passports" and
> > "Communists"......there is a long legal history to this point and after.
> BUT Lee
> > is not following the law here, there are some things you are overlooking.
> >
>
> OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University was not
> in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then, second, what
> are the things I am overlooking?

First Lee does not want anyone to consider that he's a "Reservist" in any manner.
Second PLU is secondary to Turku Univesity (Finland) and ACS both listed
in connection to his passport. Lee makes the PLU request....not sure if all
the paperwork follows proceedure, without hopes of the Soviets allowing him
to attend. I don't think the KGB wanted him three. Lee is not in Europe to
study and obtain any formal education. He is not in the USSR to expand his
understanding and to become a better "Marxist".

Lee follows the restriction because he is not left wing.


> > >
> > > Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay "legal"
> > > all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.
> > >
> >
> > NO, Lee has to be fully aware from day one of all the considerations. If
> not
> > it supports that Lee was being "screwed" from the begining......
>
> Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?

NO it's all part of the cover continued to be built. He is only screwed if he
is "outside" of the game being played around him.

> Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?

The actions by the USN/USMC are consistance with creating the cover
and continuing to build it up.


>
> >that works
> > as grounds for Lee to want to kill JFK, by his own action, for his own
> reasons,
> > while taking out the former Sec of the Navy, JC......because he can't kill
> his
> > fathers lawyer, also the former Sec of Navy.
>
> Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
> He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25, 1963.

He could if he was acting on a rampage or totally on his own. But I don't
think so. If Korth was killed LHO would be a automatic prime suspect.

>
> > This is why WC supporters
> > should be concerned about all these elements of consideration. All of
> > these actions bring Lee down the path to Dallas, either in envolvement
> > or being the actual assassin working on his own.
>
> No takers yet.
>

This is material outside of their box.

>
> >
> > The DOD had a habit of screwing military personnel considered as a threat
> > or connected to communism (over 700 such cases) Lee COULD HAVE BEEN
> > ONE BEING SCREWED. That consideration can not be pushed aside for
> > any reason. Except for the simple fact, that Lee was not able to
> accomplish
> > this defection or the required "paperwork" on his own, it remains a
> consideration.
> > However, there is far greater support that Lee was acting during the
> defection
> > period in co-operation with the desires of the USG.......not being
> screwed.
> >
>
>
> I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
> And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent him -
> Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.
>

chances are Hoover was outside the loop and trying to catch up between
59-64.

> But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no longer
> under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?
>

The whole "seperation" is a sham. Lee would KNOW THAT.


> >
> > Lee's actions would not be "totally" suspect if his mother was a
> dependent, it
> > is if he is discharged because of a "hardship dependency" and Lee needs to
> > take care of his mother, beyond sending her money or taking care of her
> bills.
>
> Who is to suspect?
>

ANYONE WHO TAKES ANY INTEREST......to quote the investigation report
summary of evidence by Rankin which is slanted towards Lee acting on
his own and not with assistance from Soviets.......but ignores assistance
from USG:

" Under the circumstances, he undoubtedly obtained the discharge fraudulenty"

This supports my position 100%....to continue:

" If the Russians were in fact coaching him at this time, it would seem unlikely
that they would have advised him to obtain a discharge under these circumstances,"

This does not exclude recieving assistance from the USG. This consideration is
totally ignored, making the investigation as well as the report bias......

"merely in order to gain three months time which, after all, was not particulary
valuable to anyone."

This is false since not everyone is considered in the consideration of where
the value is. Skipping over to end with the following to the question on who:

"but was morally offensive and potentially very unpopular in that he deserted
his own mother when she was sick, unemployed and poverty-stricken"

If anyone considered Lee actions as a result of the PJM interview, with all
the facts.......the above is how they would view Oswald. LN's don't even
want you to consider the above.

> And, whoever this person(s) who suspects is, won't he conclude the same
> thing under either discharge? That Lee abandoned his needy mother for the
> USSR?
>

But Mother Russia would not want him......as shown by Rankin....he would have
no value to the Soviets.

>
> > Lee knows she does not need his support or really does not care about his
> mother
> > Everybody knows there is no "hardship".....
>
> If everyone knows this and the USMC doesn't want to appear suspicious, why
> not give him a dependency discharge?

Either discharge makes the USMC look good.....releasing Lee to take care of his
mother........but, they did not have the "evidence"......so it's suspect, if one looks
close.
>
>
>
> >all those that provided "support" by
> > affidavit or letters, would never learn of all the details.......and if
> they read the
> > newspaper about the "defection" or learned of it......it would seem odd,
> strange
> > and then forgotton.....THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, became known by the greed
> > of his mother. YOU CAN'T forget about her actions after the "defection".
>
> No. You can't.
> She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
> Big mistake.

Yes, as well as others.....some of which remained silent.


>
> I'm not saying the USG wanted to screw Oswald - only that it maintained
> plausible denial that Lee was under US control while in the USSR by
> recording a "hardship" discharge.

The whole point.....as far as the public was concerned he was recently
discharged. That's all that would be presented.

>
> It was Lee's mother that got him screwed by Hoover with the USMC.

The USMC was covered.....they had PD. The public never considered
the EOP as "The Beast" until after Watergate.


> > > I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
> > > discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If Lee
> > > ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
> > > discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11, 1959.
> > >
> >
> > You have Lee thinking things that mean nothing if he is "Active" on a new
> > assignment.
>
> I have him thinking about Patrice Lumumba University as if he is "Active".
> You have him avoiding the Kollective's political brainwashing sessions as if
> he is "Active"
> Do these things mean nothing if he is "Active"?

He is just maintaining his actions within the law......tricky situation staying in
the USSR. It would be ok......(without the actions of the assassination to
consider, say it never happened) for people or groups to "think" he got
training in the USSR......or was a "student" of Marxism while there.......but
he never actually did those things "expected" or just accepted.
>
>
> > If he was acting on his own, outside of the system all this
> > thinking is immaterial and not needed to consider.
> >
>
> Does not a "hardship" discharge support an LN argument that he was "acting
> on his own, outside of the system"?
>

Not as they show Lee.......it requires a much more detailed profile. One they
can't support.



> > > See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have hidden
> > > from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
> > > discharge.
> >
> > There is no need to hide anything from Lee......
>
> If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
> Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?

See above........

>
> Because, if the USMC doesn't want Lee telling others he has a "hardship"
> discharge, the simplest way to accomplish this would be to tell Lee he has a
> "dependency" discharge - As the records show he was shown on 9/11/59. He
> will now tell Priscilla Johnson he has a "dependency" discharge - which he
> did.

Consider how hard it is to create a "discharge" of a invididual not in the USMC.
The time spent in association with the USMC is only a cover.......for purposes
of training and select objectives requiring him to be "in service" as part of that
training. NOBODY wants "hardship" to be part of the equation.....but it is. Which
is why he would not tell her everything or even the truth.

>
> Lee will also believe he is "Active" and apply to Patrice Lumumba
> University - just as he applied to ASC. He will also avoid politcal meetings
> in the USSR.
>

He does not have to believe he is active USMCR.....he's not....he's a member
of the NSTC which used the USMCR, on assignment.....he is ACTIVE as a
NSTC member......no longer in training but "in the field". The use of the USMCR
by the NSTC was a project that the USMC did not like....but other branches were
being used in the same manner.

>
> >if you feel Lee is acting on his
> > own, you have to take a new approach to all the considerations mentioned.
> You
> > can't combine them.......they have to be considered seperate.
>
> I have Lee believing he is "Active" and, there not acting on his own, but
> subject to USG control.
>
> For lurkers, on September 11, 1959, Lee was given an "Active" discharge,
> meaning he was subject to recall to active duty. This places restrictions on
> his living overseas. It required he go overseas for "educational purposes"
> for him to legally obtain a passport. For this reason he applied to attend
> Switzerland's Albert Schweitzer College which accepted him. This got Lee to
> Europe and then to Russia. But, once in Russia, without attending school, he
> was guilty of violating the law against "Active" Reservists living overseas
> (where they are beyond recall during times of national emergency). To
> correct that, in applying for Soviet citizenship, Lee identified to
> Priscilla Johnson that the Russians were to help him attend a "Soviet
> education institute". This would make Lee's stay in the USSR legal (For
> CTer's, Lee needed to make this request only if he was planning on coming
> back.). He also told Priscilla he was an "Active" Reservist. Once he got
> inside the USSR he applied to Patrice Lumumba University and was "very
> disappointed" when he was turned down. Why? Because he was now in violation
> of laws applicable to "Active" Reservists requiring he be living in the USSR
> for educational purposes (Which he could legally do) and not for employment
> purposes.
> Did he know this?
> He sure did. He even wrote it down. His answers to the following written
> questions can be found in Warren Commission Exhibit 100 Volume 16 Pg
> 436-439:
>
> Question 3: "Did you break law by residing in or taking work in the USSR?"
>
> Answer: I did in that.
>
> Lee admitted above that he broke the law, as an "Active" Reservist, by
> residing in the USSR and taking work there.
>
> He even added to his knowledge of the law:
>
> Question 4. "Isn't all work in the USSR considered State work?"
>
> Answer: Yes of course and in that respect I also broke US Law in accepting
> work under a foreign state.
>
> Lee is referring to Title 37, section 908, which makes it illegal for
> members of a reserve component of the armed forces to take foreign civil
> employment. Since the USSR was a communist state, all employment there could
> be considered "civil".
>
> So we see two things. First, we see that Lee left a "door open" for himself
> to return to the US with a plan to legally stay in the USSR by attending
> school there. Second, we see he is familar with the laws pertaining to
> "Active" Reservists and that he had violated them.
>
> The problem though is that Lee was not "Active". The day after he left the
> USMC, on Sept 12, 1959, Lt. Ayers changed his discharge to "Inactive". He
> was no longer subject to recall to active duty. The above passport laws no
> longer applied to Oswald.
>
> IMO, based upon Lee's actions concerning the "Active Reserve" laws, Lee was
> unaware that, the day after he exited the USMC, his discharge status had
> been changed by Ayers to "Inactive".
>
> Lee was worried about nothing.

Lee was not worried.....you have him being worried. He follows the legal considerations
because he "supports them" as part of his being a member of the NSTC. It's always
better to obey the law, then to violate it, while under cover.

>
> Why then did Lt. Ayers change his discharge status from "Active" to
> "Inactive" without telling Lee?

You continue to have Lee ignorant of what does not matter.....it's paperwork
that was done. It does not matter if Lee is "Active" or "Inactive" on paper
.......neither are the truth. At this point his service obligation is met......under
the RFA of 1955.....he is now a trained field operative.

>
> Because if Lee ever revealed to the Russians that he was working for the
> USMC under threat of recall to Active Duty and Summary Court Martial if he
> didn't obey USMC orders, the USMC could plausibly deny the charge by
> producing Lee's discharge records showing he was "Inactive" and, thus, could
> not be recalled to Active Duty for Summary Court Martial and that,
> therefore, Lee was lying.

He can still be "courts-martialed"......if he was acting alone....but if he was
on detail....none of this actually matters.

>
> Things are actually more complex than this. There are still ways for Lee to
> be prosecuted. But Lee only needs to know one to be made to obey "orders"
> and the evidence above shows that he did know one - if not two (Title 37,
> section 908).

Lee is not prosecuted because it is known, by the powers to be that he is
acting "By direction". Lee would only be prosecuted if acting on his own.

>
> Finally, Lee knew he had violated US law and was subject to prosecution. Yet
> he returned anyway and yet was not prosecuted. IMO, he returned, knowing he
> broke the law for the same reason he was not prosecuted. He had obeyed
> orders.

You have a twisted way of getting to this point.....he obeyed orders. The papertrail
means nothing if he is acting on orders....."By direction".

>
> >
> > >
> > > He will not learn his actual status from the Naval District holding his
> > > file. That District will treat him as an "Active Reservist" or "Ready
> > > Reserve".
> > >
> > > Lee will never be the wiser.
> > >
> >
> > Only if he is being "screwed". They could legally show him AWOL, or as a
> deserter
> > obtainiing a fraudulant seperation.
>
> I mentioned above that there are other ways to prosecute Oswald. But is our
> 8th grade drop out an attorney?
> On his list of questions he wrote and answered for himself of his legal
> crimes, he never mentioned being guilty of the above. One could argue that
> he doesn't mention them because he doesn't know they were illegal.
>
> However, IMO, Lee is not concerned with how the USMC "could legally show him
> AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a fraudulant seperation" because it's not
> the USMC that he's worried about be being prosecuted by.
>
> It's the AG's Office.

THE AG WILL NEVER PROSECUTE HIM.

>
> The AG's Office can prosecute him for violating Federal passport laws
> regarding "Active" Reservists. However, the AG's Office cannot prosecute him
> even if it "could legally show him AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a
> fraudulant seperation." Heck! They can't even nail him for offering the
> Soviets radar secrets. Those are not Federal offenses. Those are military
> offenses. Different courts.
>
> Lee's exiting of the USMC reveals aid by the USMC (via Lt. Ayers) and USMC
> knowledge that Lee has applied for a passport to leave the country, using as
> a passport witness the very people he has told he's not going to leave the
> country, but care for his mother instead. At the time that Lt. Ayers
> appeared as Lee's passport witness, Ayers knew Lee's discharge reasons were
> fraudulent. So the USMC is in on it - And Ayers had to lie and say he knew
> Lee for two years in order to be in on it. So he's a participant to two
> frauds.
> No. Lee is not worried about the USMC prosecuting him. Such a prosecution
> would reveal Lt. Ayer's knowledge and participation.
> As far as Lee is concerned, his prosecution problems aren't with the USMC
> when he returns (And we know he's planning to return.). It's with the AG's
> Office. He knows he's violated Federal passport laws (Although he tried not
> to). Its why he demanded a guarantee of no prosecution to return.

LEE WOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED FOR PROSECUTION. The supporting
consideration is that he was NOT PROSECUTED when he should have been,
if acting on his own. By acting "By direction" which Lee was fully aware of, he
would have nothing to worry about while he was in the USSR as long as his
actions were within the boundries expected.....which they were.

>
> But, in his original plan, this wouldn't happen. He attends school in the
> USSR. He doesn't get a job. Now, when he returns, there's no prosecution by
> either the AG's Office or the USMC. He's within the Federal law with the AG
> and it was the USMC that helped him get to the USSR in the first place, so
> they're not going to prosecute him for going (And they didn't).

His actions as presented in the offical version are criminal in reality which
can not be shown......he is acting under orders.


>
> As far as the USMC is concerned, Lee's separation was not fraudulent. Lt.
> Ayers was in on it. They understood, aided, and abbeted.
>
> >

They had to be involved.

> > > > >
> > > > > JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files are
> being
> > > > > handled in accordance with that belief.
> > > >
> > > > No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact.
> > >
> > > His application to Patrice Lumumba University is 100% consistent with
> > > "Active". And he has to know/believe it to have applied.
> >
> > Lee needs to continue the "cover" of educationial desires
>
> For the AG's Office - Yes.
> For anyone else? No.

Wrong....the cover needs to be maintained and expanded. You can't
leave "gaps" in development of background cover.

>
> >.....but he is no student.
>
> In enrollment only.
> He's not there to learn about "philosophy".

Or to expand any understanding of Marxism.


> > >
> >
> > I started this to show the conflicts of the discharge.....the return is
> just as
> > complex.
> >
>
> Yes. It's really hard not to show how the "return" doesn't fit in with the
> "discharge". I just did it above.

But not needed at this time.



> > >
> > > Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply pointing out that no matter
> > > how one slices the pie here, LHO believes he is "Active" while in the
> > > USSR. He is either on "Active Duty" or "Active Reserves" (And the latter
> > > can still place him in "Active Duty" by "Presidential detail").
> > >
> > > Believing himself to be "Active" - no matter how you slice it - requires
> > > Lee apply for attendance at AS College and, again, at Patrice Lumumba
> > > University in Moscow. You also have him avoiding the "brainwashing
> > > sessions" - which he would have to do if Lee was "Active", correct?
> >
> > No, Lee has no interest in learning and his role does not require him to
> be
> > but it is "better" if he does nothing.....which he did. The Soviets,
> followed
> > through because of the possibility of "exposure" to other students of Lee
> > actual "beliefs" and political background. The failure to allow Lee to go
> > to school illustrates additional restricted co-operation by the Soviets.
> >
>
> Yes. Something went wrong. The Sovierts should have granted his request to
> attend school or it "messes" with Lee's return.
> Any ideas on why they did this?
>

Lee was never intending to attend school........it all part of the cover, and the
rejection falls in line.


> > The above is a key consideration.........it also covers individuals in the
> NSTC,
> > National Security Training Corp of which I believe Lee is actual connected
> to.
>
> Yes. Your belief on that is quite facinating and not impossible. Is there
> any additional info you would like to share on that?
>
> > See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign government
> > treason and aiding the enemy.
> >
>
> Different thread?

yes

>
> Yes. We're just touching the tip of the iceberg.
> We could bore everyone here to death with the evidence support the sham to
> the point that they would prefer to read Dave Reitzes on Judyth.

It's difficult to present regardless.....to many directions not need directly.


> > > Plausible deniability. Even Lee doesn't know he's expendable.
> >
> > Lee knows he is expendable.....it's part of the risk accepted, before
> enlistment.
> >
>
> Okay. I even made a case for Lee being "expendable" to our own AG's Office.
> So, obviously, you're right.

most operative have a degree of expendability....it's not out of line to consider.

>

> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....
> > >
> > > Lee did not miss this.
> >
> > He can't which is why he is fully aware of his "status".
> >
>
> "Active"
>

Not in the sense you consider "Active" consider him a operative that
is "Active"......

> > >
> > > >however you did not miss
> > > > the "PD".
> > >
> > > Lee did.
> > >
> >
> > NO.....PD is a key factor....it works several ways.
> >
>
> Now you know I have ask now how "it works several ways"?
>

Everybody can deny everything.......




> >
> > JFK WAS ELECTED, Lee operation could be "canceled" at this time. JFK
> > would take office in January, Nixon was out the door. All intelligence
> operations
> > now have "new directions" if JFK wanted to change things. The
> Presidentail
> > Detail, has a new President.
>
>
> Point conceded.

This actually did not take place during the first stages of 59-60.....but it
relates to the return......which is another reason I didn't want to get there
yet.....I really should not have mentioned the election yet.


> >
> > Your overlooking several key facts......Look at the period and
> correspondence
> > by Lee during Jan/Feb......with the consideration that the operationial
> plug would
> > be pulled.
>
> I'll do this.
> Offhand, I can't recall any such correspondence. Isn't this when he left
> Moscow and "disappeared"?

It relates to JFK being elected.....I should not have put this in...you sort
of got me ahead of myself.....too much going on.

>

> >
> > The detail was allowed to continue, but with some changes. The agreement
> between
> > Ike and Niki, was different then the one between JFK and Niki. I made a
> post several
> > years ago about the 185 to 8 motive. This would also allow Lee to have
> motive to
> > remove JFK......this was about 2 years ago.
> >
>
> Google time...

If you find it....remember I consider it a prime motive for Lee to kill JFK.


> > > > He was "Active".
> > >
> > > I agree with this with the caveat that the USMC took action to hide that
> > > he was "Active" via altering his discharge status without Oswald's
> > > knowledge.
> > >
> >
> > WITH OSWALD'S KNOWLEDGE
> >
>
> I still don't understand why you think that.
>

Because he has to know.....you don't look at things as I do. Perhaps
you will have a better idea reading some of the above.

jko

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 19 Oct 2004 22:26:11 -0400



"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10n8c7rdlr7f034@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > >

> >
> > To make things work......without question.....it's always best to use
> > routine proceedures without imput from higher up. That's why I think you
> > have the wrong Poindexter in mind.
> >
>
> I did have the wrong "Poindexter". However, I can't see how "routine
> procedures without input" can be used to explain Lee's discharge. A review
> board without input from higher up should note their information is
> incomplete and agree to convene again when it is. Somebody had to notice the
> "Pic" letter.

It could be noticed......but lower ranking individuals would not care. If higher
up were known to be involved and that the case was of "interest" it would have
been "remembered" and handled "properly".....if higher ups said forget about
the proper proceedures it would draw attention not desired.

>
> If "input from above" is not required, that's the same as saying that all
> hardship and dependency discharges are automatically approved on
> questionable or incomplete paperwork as SOP unless contrary input is
> received from above.

No they would be handled normally.....it's when influence by higher ranking
individuals stick their noses into things that things become noticed and
difficult to follow through on......towards the goal.



> >
> > It's actually too much to go into....but that's the date his downgraded
> > discharge became final
>
> Yes, By ruling. My goof. I thought you were referring to a standard Reserve
> expiration date.
>
> For lurkers, the USMC incorrectly downgraded Lee's discharge which he
> protested upon his return to the US. A review board heard his case and gave
> its ruling on July 25,1963 confirming the undesireable discharge.
>
> Lee was given an undesireable discharge for alledgedly revoking his American
> citzenship. Since Lee still had his American citizenship, obviously, the
> USMC had changed his discharge on false grounds. Technically, this is an
> open and shut case. Lee need only show he was an American citizen to prove
> the downgrade was wrong.
>
> I have not studied this but it would be interesting to see how the Review
> Board justified its decision. Let's get back to this sometime.
>

It basically added to his cover and background......but the Review board
never tried to justify it's error.....even Rankin thought this out of place.

>
> ......and the point that Lee could now be acting on
> > his own, in the direction of killing JFK, outside of anything that he
> > might have been connected to in the past. Perhaps in another thread, once
> > this one is done.

Even if he had been acting on his own from day one.....it would play into
motive and intent to kill JFK.......since they never used this consideration
against Oswald, it seems they wanted to avoid it.

>
> For lurkers, the LNers can argue that Oswald, being denied an honorary
> discharge, went gunning for JFK. I am prepared to argue against that.
>

Someday I'll take the LN position and we can go for it.

> >
> > First consideration is that it is not for Snyder.....I don't believe that
> > it was for Snyder. It's not that I lack "suspicion towards Snyder", I do,
> > just don't think he is fully responsible or part of the "plan".
> >
>
> W/o Snyder - how do you get Lee back from the USSR?

Anybody in his shoes could do it......it would be controled from
stateside.


> > >
> > > Lead and I shall follow.
> >
> > The discharge early out is just about over or it can be ended.
> >
>
> I'll post Greg's ASC work.
> Anything you want to add to the discharge discussion?

Let this end here.....and I'll address other questions in the other responses
til they end down.

>
> If not, shall we progress through September-October, 1959?
> We can start another thread.
>
> Or shall we go back in time and discuss his USMC admission/recruitment?
>
> Or Schrand? Or his SCM's?
>
> Your call. I'm sketchy on both.
>

I posted a thread concerning the assignment in Minsk....for next leg of the
discussion. That continues after Nov/Dec......allowing to go back if needed
to Sept/Oct.



> >
> > >



> > Jeff, if you are reading or trying to follow this....consider Cuba......as
> > a first priority to me.
>
> Beautiful city.
> Try and hit the "dry season". When it rains, it pours.
> Also, if you get the chance, tour Santiago. As a military historian you
> might find it interesting. For the wife, who's probably not interested in
> things military, take her to see the Bellamar Sea Caves.
> Oh! And let the Cubans know, in advance, what information you'd like to see.
> Don't book w/o an answer.
>

I have a contact that would assist.....the wife would be at my side.....she
does alot of the photography, planning and speaks Spanish....but it would
be limited to what we need to get done in the time allowed. Havana would
be our base.....although I would love to dive the BOP's.

jko
>
> ::Clark::
>
> >
> > jko
>
>
>

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 00:32:32 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"john watters" <johncwatters@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a8198ff5.0410191147.a7cd941@posting.google.com...
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > >......I still believe Lee needed assistance......which either came from
the USG or the CPUSA.
> >
> > I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed
my
> > arguments on this.
> >
> I have ? Remind me (it's been a long time)

All of Lee's actions are aimed to "smear" the CPUSA.
Too many diapers passed under your nose?

[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 03:52:27 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:41756e90@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > This means Lee is somehow already in a "pool" of candidates, and someone
> > involved with Nixon's "sharing of ideas" with Kruschev is going through
the
> > files of the available "pool" and stopped on Oswald's.
>
> Any number of actions including the two SCM's are such valid
considerations.
> For example the "interviews" upon entering the "Brig" and exiting the
"Brig"
> are documents destroyed. This is a prime location for the selection of
individuals
> wishing to make "changes" in their lives.
>

That would have been of high interest to the "selection" process. I admit I
had not thought of that.

> >
> > This suggests that we try and identify what "pool" of files Lee's name
was
> > in. It was JKO that made this identification - not me.
>
> I have several "pools" to look in......because I've looked for them.
>
> >
> > My assumption was that Lee's incoming mail and request to take a Russian
> > language course brought him to the attention of "higher ups".
> >
> > >
>
> This is another prime consideration, but one I feel is associated with the
> first stages of his enlistment.....and the orginal goals, dealing with his
> military service.

Yes. The enlistment papers support your premise. However, his mother made no
comment about this. If you're right (I have to admit I've been following
your lead on this area but found it promising), can you explain her silence?
She is the "first hand" witness to this but, according to her, it never
happened.

>
> > >
> > > Key documents and records connected to Lee's military service, 5
> > intelligence
> > > reports and two Courts-Martial records, were "destroyed", my FOIA
> > requests
> > > to the USN/USMC verify that fact.
> >
> > Can you tell us about the five intelligence reports?
>
> I have in the past.
>
> 1. Entry level investigation for his clearance to attend school.

For Lee's "security clearance"?
No reason to remove a "positive" report.
But a report with "conficts" would have to disappear

> 2. Investigation in relationship to his first SCM
> 3. Investigation in relationship to his second SCM
> 4. Investigation into death of Scharnd

I suspect all three of the above were destroyed at the same time - And by
the same person.

#4 I suspect is related to Lee's performance of duty outside of USMC.

What are your thoughts on the first two? Spending time in the brig is hardly
voluntary and evidence suggests Lee's guilt.

I don't know if the USMC's filing system is the same as the CIA's and State
Passport Office, but if it is, all three investigations could be legitimate
and by the "book" but still have to destroyed/withheld. This is because of
"master file" indexes which, at CIA and Passport Office both, requires files
be "signed out".
If the USMC uses this same system, a record would exist of who requested to
see the files and when. We would know, for example, who the mysterious
"person" was who selected Lee for the USSR. He would have checked out, and
signed for, all three files.
That master file index would have to be fed to the paper shredder.
This is also consistent with the destruction of his background security
clearance file.

The next file disappearance does not fit with this explanation.

> 5. ONI/FBI shared investigation after defection.

Hoover has his butt hanging out on this one. He started it. He pushed for
the "change of discharge" to "undesireable". He pulled strings to make it
happen. This would have been the record of said "strings".

If he could push for the USMC to change Lee's discharge status based on
false information and then have that illegal act upheld by the USMC under
appeal, he also had the power to keep this file from seeing the light of
day.

>
> >
>
> > > My basic view is that if Lee was acting alone.....as a true "Marxist
> > Marine" then
> > > he would have been arrested once he walked into the U.S. Embassy, and
> > > the "defection" started.
> >
> > Or arrested when he returned - As happened with Bruce Frederick Davis.
> > Our boy is a prime candidate for "hard labor".
>
> Ln's can't accept the letter of the law in this area. They can't have
this
> on the table.
>

And they will keep it off the table.
We'll never hear this issue raised by them.
Even though we put it out here in plain sight.

>
> >
> > > The grounds for doing so and the laws in support
> > > were there......but Lee was allowed to walked out of a "closed"
embassy.
> > > (it was only open half a day on Sat).
> > >
> >
> > Nor were any instructions sent by the Navy to the USEMB Naval attache'
in
> > Moscow to arrest Oswald if he should return. Considering the Navy had
been
> > informed of Lee's intent to deliver knowledge on US radar, this was an
> > extremely simple order to give.
>
> The efforts by ONI and the AUSNA are of great concern, in this area,
details
> were tightly controled I will make a seperate thread on this based on the
documents.
>

It will be a one sided presentation although I look forward to reading it. I
have nothing to offer. The Navy did nothing. That is al I needed to know.
That is the record and is sufficient by itself to have whoever at Navy who
received notice of Lee's intent to be drawn and quartered.

This is like a police station having a bank alarm go off and not answering
the call.
Ever.


> >
> > So "stupidity" has set in on the side of the USG. We have a traitor in
our
> > midst threatening to reveal US secrets. We don't know what he may have
> > learned to turn over. Snyder does not order his arrest. No orders to
Snyder
> > are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald. No orders to the US Naval
> > attache' are sent instructing him to arrest Oswald.
> >
> > Oswald is treated as if he never said anything about providing the USSR
with
> > US radar information at all.
> >
> > Since Lee would be returning, this required Lee to be of "low level"
rank
> > and, therefore, of "no importance". If he was "of importance" then those
out
> > of the loop will press for his prosecution. Further, if "of importance",
he
> > might actually relay info "of importance".
> >
> > So a private is sent.
> > But so was Bruce Frederick Davis - And he didn't get ignored.
>
> Rank has little to do with this......anybody in the right "position" could
be used.
> I've had alot of power as a PFC in VN. Almost total freedom, for two
years,
> to do my job as I saw fit.
>

I mean that rank implies importance. If Lee wasn't a private but instead a
four star general, his actions cannot go ignored when he returns. Further,
we wouldn't want a "four star general" in Russian hands.

> >
> > > Now to this actual thread........on the "early out". To obtain a 90
day
> > early out,
> > > the law and the military require "verification" of the grounds for
> > seperation.
> > > That "evidence" is evaluated and the discharge is granted or denied.
In
> > this
> > > case Lee acts early to start the process.....too early in my opinion
and
> > in
> > > two seperate directions, Dependency and Hardship.....which can be
> > combined.
> > > The "evidence" of either should have been in place (in the hands of
the
> > board)
> > > prior to the "First Endorsement" of the discharge. This was not the
case.
> > > The board is proceeding without the required documentation. Some of
which
> > > comes in well after the long process of "Endorsement" is underway.
Some
> > > never reaches.....ie verification by the Red Cross, the hands of the
> > endorsers.
> > >
> >
> > Bottom line, the USMC simply approved Lee's request without having the
> > supporting documents in the possession - and with the effect that Lee
was
> > exited from the USMC at the earliest possible legal date.
>
> Going over my documents......and what I feel should be released, there are
> considerations I did not mention earlier. The 17 August request was
offically
> approved by the CG, 3dMAW on 31 Aug 1959.

Forgive my ignorance. My military service is limited to Avalon-Hill.
Commanding General, 3rd Marine Air Wing?

> Well before all the evidence
> was available for reaching any approval of discharge. Two weeks, without
> evidence in support for dependency or hardship. Well before all the 6
endorsements
> were finished within the chain.
>

Doesn't "CG" encourage others to follow the same recommendation?
Who, of lesser rank, would go against this?

I know if I were a captain and saw this in the file, I'm stamping Lee
"approved" also.

> >
> >
> > > There are alot of little details, that support the above, when
combined
> > show
> > > that Lee could not have seperated "early" on his own, through normal
> > channels.
> > > He had to be "assisted" in seperating "early".
> >
> > Someone should have asked, "Where's the paperwork supporting this
request?"
>
> Improper lines of questioning were followed.......it's that simple. Most
of
> these conflicts would have surfaced early and without difficulty if the
proper
> cosiderations of investigation were made and followed through.
>

No time.
Lee is needed by a higher authority.

> >
> > > This supports that Lee is not
> > > as he is presented......ie the "Marxist Marine" and his trip to the
USSR
> > is
> > > supported by the USG.
> >
> > Agreed. The USG sponsored his trip to the USSR, Marxist or not.
>
> I doubt Lee was Marxist......or even leaning to the left, more in the
center
> with a right cold war lean.
>

We would both agree he is ANTI-COMMUNIST would we not?


>
> >
> > At the same year the National Security Training Corps was formed, the
> > National Security Council (NSC 5412/1 and NSC 5412/2) created the
Special
> > Group Committee composed of the NSC, the CIA, State, and the President -
in
> > order for them to all regularly meet and address joint issues.
>
> Actually the NSTC has earlier considerations. However major changes were
> made in the Reserve Forces Act of 1955.
>

It was expanded beyond "truck drivers"?

> >
> > If one looks at the names "National Security Council" and "National
Security
> > Training Corps", we wonder if there isn't a link between the Council and
the
> > Corps?
> >
>
> We knew from 50-54 that greater flexibility were needed concerning intell
> and military service...hence the RFA of 55.
>

For lurkers, JKO is referring to the Korean War.


> > In 1961, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Special Group could become
the
> > "Special Group Augmented" or SGA by adding RFK to the room. Both the
> > "Special Group" and SGA have been connected to "assassination
planning" -
> > usually involving Castro. The addition of RFK was to include him to
protect
> > the
> > President from the Special Group getting caught at these things.
Therefore,
> > by January, 1962, he was also on the Special Group's Counter Insurgency
> > Subcommittee, composed of General Taylor [Chairman], the Attorney
General,
> > Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Deputy Secretary
of
> > Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of Central Intelligence,
> > Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and
> > Administrator, Agency for International Development. This allowed Taylor
to
> > bypass the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, and work
directly
> > with their deputies to carry out counter insurgency programs approved by
the
> > Special Group. RFK was present to police the programs to make sure any
> > possible failures did not trace back to JFK. The nature of this Group's
work
> > was such that neither the Secreatary of State nor the Secretary of
Defense
> > wished to be involved or connected either.
> >
> > By April, 1962 there is no record of any more Special Group meetings -
only
> > Special Group Augmented, meaning RFK had become permanently attached to
all
> > Special Group meetings. Thus, RFK was on hand to police any "anti-Castro
> > plots" devised by the SGA and, further, he sat on the Counter Insurgency
> > Subcommittee which would have carried them out (This Group was involved
with
> > illegal activities - but not assassination - Or else John McCone would
not
> > have been a member).
> >
> >
> > Lee returned to the US in 1962 with RFK policing JFK's
> > "assassination/counter insurgency" programs with the idea that JFK not
get
> > caught by any exposure of these Group's illegal activities. What RFK
needed
> > was "plausible denial".
> >
>
> RFK is a major consideration from 1954 on. Including his "Russian Journey
> in 1955.

I have him involved from April, 1962 and was not concerned about "earlier".
Tell us about RFK in 1955?

>
>
> >
> > > The USMCR
> > > was used, to "train Lee" and take advantage of various actions that
are a
> > > known part of his "service".
> >
> > Lee's enlistment papers show him enlisting in the USMCR and not the USMC
> > (James discovered this - not me). This is a major "tilt" in the
enlistment
> > process.
> >
>
> Several legal considerations dealing with the enlistment of minors (under
18).
>
> > The USMCR is the Reserves.
> > Lee must either be "recalled to Active Duty" to serve at Atsugi or he is
> > performing "Reserve training."
>
> His entire military assignement was "training".....however not as a radar
> operator......in my opinion Lee spent less then 30 days actually working
> his radar MOS during the entire period.
>

I have heard no mention of such a thing by those who served with him - but
then I don't recall them being asked this question either.

>
> >
> > Lee is "Active" - either "Active Reserve" or "Active Duty". According to
his
> > enlistment papers, he is "Active Reserve."
>
> Active Duty is active service regardless of reserve status....it's just
"Active Duty"
> weither its for a weekend, two weeks or period of extended
training....it's
> Active Duty.
>

For lurkers, anytime an Active Reservist shows up for "duty" (i.e. on
command), even reserve duty or training, that is Active Duty. Correct?


> >
> >
> > On leaving the USMC and satisfying USMCR time, he should be released as
> > "Inactive" - which he was on September 12.
>
> No, the Reserve service was a longer committment.

OK. Decided I'd better look this up since Lee recruitment shows USMCR. I
find he would have to be classed as:

USMCR (K): A designation given to those non-prior service personnel enlisted
in the Marine Corps Reserve.

Looking this up produced major confusion. It sounds like it's intended for
medical personnel. I found no term of enlistment.


>
> >
> > But on September 11, he was released as "Active" - meaning control over
the
> > individual has not been lost.
> >
> His PAPERWORK WENT TO THE ACTIVE SIDE.......in the in processing of
> his service record.

His paperwork was filed as per his September 11 discharge.

>
> > I "think" that JKO believes that Lt. Ayers corrected the "mistake" of
> > 9/11/59 on 9/12/59. If so, I disagree.
> >
>
> I think you are abid off on the aspects of status, service committments,
and
> witholding of information to Oswald. On Ayers, his actions I think have
you
> abit confussed. The paperwork should have gone to the "inactive" section
> for inprocessing but went to the "active" section that handled incoming
records.


Ahh! Yes. I "R" a bit confused. Since Lee wasn't drafted, after three years
active duty, he would receive a discharge into the "Inactive Reserves" for a
period of another three years.

Do I have it right?

Sending Lee's papers to "Active" suggests Lee's initial USMCR tour of duty
obligation was not yet up.
Unfortunately, I don't know the number of years one signs up for when one
enlists directly into the USMCR. If I had to guess, I would guess 6. If so,
that would place Lee in the "Active Reserves" until December, 1962 which, as
I recall, corresponds to the expiration date of his DD1173 Card., also
issued by Ayers
So I'm now either totally screwed up or I've just made a case for Lee's
recruiting papers to be accurate and that he actually did join the USMCR and
not the USMC and Ayers knows it, and processed him accordingly.

>
> Ayers turns the "dependency" into the "dependency discharge, by reason of
> hardship on the part of his mother". The early out would not be granted
just
> on "dependency". Neither the dependency or hardship have been established.
> I think the confussion came into play by moving on too fast towards
allowing
> him to return. Not all the details had been presented.
>
> > >
> > > I wanted this thread to focus only on the aspects of the seperation.
> > Clark wants
> > > to expand it into areas of "the defection"........but I feel that
confuses
> > some,
> > > as you indicate by this request.
> >
> > I also want to stay on the aspects of separation. I simply brought up
how
> > his separation effected his "defection". Was he "Active" or "Inactive"
in
> > the USSR? According to Lee, he's "Active". According to the USMC, he's
> > "InActive".
> >
>
> It is a AD mission, while he is on a Reserve assignment, Lee is not going
> to tell anybody his true "status".....especially PJM. Nobody is going to
> hide Oswald's true status from Oswald. He knows

How do you know he knows?
He wasn't there on Sept 12, 1959 when Ayers made the change.

>....he accepted the
> assignment and all the "effects" it would have on his life and how people
> would view his actions.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > To address some of the considerations mentioned by Clark. There has
to be
> > > a "project" that fits into the ongoing "history" of the time. It has
to
> > be associated
> > > with the Navy, requires information to be passed off to the Soviets
and of
> > prime
> > > consideration, it has to fit Oswald and his known actions. It is the
> > reason for the
> > > "early out". There are about 15 such projects, relating to National
> > Security
> > > intelligence operations going on in 1959. In my opinion Project TP is
the
> > best
> > > one to consider and I use that as the foundation of Lee's "defection".
> >
> > Gee! And I only found one.
> >
>
> TP had more factors in relationship to known history etc etc.
>
> > >
> > > The problem is that "ALL OF" the offical reports and investigations of
> > Lee's
> > > defection are not "included" in the WCR and Exhibits.
> >
> > Particularly his military records.
> >
> Many were destroyed or never turned over.
>
>
> > > The prime example of
> > > this is the investigation to "prosecute" Lee for various violations of
the
> > law,
> > > known to have occurred. This would be what I call the "AG's report"
by
> > direction
> > > of RFK.
> >
> > And undoubtedly performed by Nicholas Katzenbach if I am allowed to make
an
> > "educated guess".
>
> If not directly under his guidence or control.

Katzenbach's actions on 11/22/63 indicate he had access to Lee's AG file.


> >
> >
> > > There were a dozen other intelligence agencies looking into this
> > > "defection".....those reports are also "incomplete"......the prime
example
> > is
> > > the conflicts surrounding the CIA's handling of the case, which is why
so
> > many
> > > believe Lee was working for the CIA from 1959 on. They are wrong in
> > belief
> > > that Lee was in the CIA.
> >
> > Agreed also.
> > Technically, Lee comes under DOD, but, more realistically, he comes
under
> > another "group" altogether.
>
> Various agencies are used in various operations.....which makes full
knowledge
> difficult, I settle on the EOP, created by J.P. Kennedy during FDR's
presidency.
> Look at the two "Hoover Commissions" (President Hoover). Based on his
network
> established in the Court of St. James..........he used Joe jr, JFK and Kit
as his
> prime agents for projects "undercover". They were the only ones he could
trust.
> FDR used Joe jr.....far more then Papa Joe did.....this pissed off Papa
Joe. Ian
> Flemming was the MI operative to keep track of these three "kids". Nixon
later
> had his own EPO "Plumbers".....consider the EOP the "Beast". Read Lasky
> "It didn't start with Watergate" for a general view of "The Beast".
>

I believe I have the book...

> >
> >
> > >
> > > All of my research can be supported, either by the law or known cases
> > against
> > > "subversives" "spies" and "defectors". There is alot of details that
have
> > to be
> > > considered from approximately Feb-59 to Feb 1960, just concerning the
> > > seperation of Oswald from the USMC......which have never surfaced in
the
> > > past. These actions......having NOTHING to do with the assassination,
> > except
> > > as "background" that puts him on the path to Dallas.
> >
> > And I don't want to skip it.
> >
> > >
> > > Now, for the kicker.......I can use the material, to show that Lee was
> > part of
> > > the outline above.....or I can show Lee acting on his own, using the
same
> > > material. But it requires a "higher" opinion of Lee than most will
ever
> > accept.
> >
> > Lee would pretty much have to be a god to perform this alone.
>
> As I said, you would have to have a much higher opinion of Lee.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I have no problem with my research being "countered" with facts and
legal
> > > considerations, I do all my research equally to show "both sides".
> > >
> > > I hope this helps.......and if you want me to show you where the
material
> > > supports Lee is acting on his own, I can point you in those
directions.
> > > I lean towards Lee working in association, because my opinion of Lee
is
> > > not as high (although higher then most) as required......I still
believe
> > Lee
> > > needed assistance......which either came from the USG or the CPUSA.
> >
> > I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed
my
> > arguments on this.
> >
>
> The CPUSA plays a major role.........it can't be eliminated.
>

You're basing this in part on Gus Hall's route to Mexico, right?
If so, I think on this issue I hold the upper hand.

But we're not there yet. Lee's enlistment is still the issue.


::Clark::
[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 03:54:03 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:4175a27e@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n8c7rdlr7f034@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > > >
>
> > >
> > > To make things work......without question.....it's always best to use
> > > routine proceedures without imput from higher up. That's why I think
you
> > > have the wrong Poindexter in mind.
> > >
> >
> > I did have the wrong "Poindexter". However, I can't see how "routine
> > procedures without input" can be used to explain Lee's discharge. A
review
> > board without input from higher up should note their information is
> > incomplete and agree to convene again when it is. Somebody had to notice
the
> > "Pic" letter.
>
> It could be noticed......but lower ranking individuals would not care.

But one did. He did not accept Lee's paperwork and requested new paperwork.
Also, the Pic letter was sent to USAF.

The lower ranks have requested what they either don't want or don't need
because they then never used it.
Are you suggesting this is SOP for the lower ranks?

> If higher
> up were known to be involved and that the case was of "interest" it would
have
> been "remembered" and handled "properly".....if higher ups said forget
about
> the proper proceedures it would draw attention not desired.
>

But proper procedure was followed "after the fact".
Lee has already been for discharge before requested papers arrive.
If proper procedure was followed the Review Board would not have acted
without the requested paperwork.
Either that, or the Review Board overruled the other officer's request and
decided Lee's original paperwork was sufficient.

> >
> > If "input from above" is not required, that's the same as saying that
all
> > hardship and dependency discharges are automatically approved on
> > questionable or incomplete paperwork as SOP unless contrary input is
> > received from above.
>
> No they would be handled normally.....it's when influence by higher
ranking
> individuals stick their noses into things that things become noticed and
> difficult to follow through on......towards the goal.
>

How could "no input" from above explain Lt. Ayers actions on 9/12/59?

[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 09:03:06 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:417591fb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10n9mboimdliba0@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:416feb7d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > Clark:
> > >
> > > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:10mtuj3bssbir8a@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > > > On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be
> > "the
> > > > > > > wittness" for Lee's passport,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does this mean he went down to the Passport Office and vouched
for
> > who
> > > > > > Oswald was?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No...I believe a "statement" was prepared that covered the law.
The
> > point
> > > > > being Lee could not obtain his passport without assistance from
the
> > USMC.
> > > >
> > > > Ayers had not known Lee for the required two years, had he? Ayers
and he
> > > > would have had to have the same duty tours for that to happen. I
suppose
> > > > if Ayers was his unit's commanding officer, that could happen.
> > >
> > > Nobody there knew Lee for "2 years",
> >
> > Then Ayer's gave a false statement in order to get Lee his passport.
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> >
> > >however a statement from the USMC
> > > would satisfy the requirement of the law. A no fee passport, arranged
for
> > by
> > > the USMC would give indication of knowledge,
> >
> > of where he was headed?
>
> Yes, however, the passport obtained also supplied the same info. It's was
to
> keep things just outside of military exposure as records were being
processed.
>

Ayers saw the destinations listed on Lee's passport?

> >
> > BTW, speaking of where he was headed on his passport, do you consider
that
> > Lee's early preparation could have also included Cuba as a destination?
If
> > so, does this get included in your Cuban trip plans?
> >
>
> Cuba is the first country listed:
>
> Cuba
> Dominican Republic
> England
> France
> Switzerland
> Germany
> Finland
> Russia
>
> I considered Lee going to Cuba if the Soviets moved in quickly in 1959/60
after
> Lee went to ASC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > There is a great deal of legal actions going on concerning "Passports"
and
> > > "Communists"......there is a long legal history to this point and
after.
> > BUT Lee
> > > is not following the law here, there are some things you are
overlooking.
> > >
> >
> > OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University was
not
> > in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then, second,
what
> > are the things I am overlooking?
>
> First Lee does not want anyone to consider that he's a "Reservist" in any
manner.

His app to ASC and Torku is consistent with his being a Reservist. He
certainly didn't hide it from the US passport office.

> Second PLU is secondary to Turku Univesity (Finland) and ACS both listed
> in connection to his passport.

But it is made for the same reasons.

> Lee makes the PLU request....not sure if all
> the paperwork follows proceedure, without hopes of the Soviets allowing
him
> to attend.

How do we know he was "without hopes"?
He told Priscilla Johnson he wanted to attend a Soviet institute. And didn't
Marina say he was disappointed when turned down?

> I don't think the KGB wanted him three. Lee is not in Europe to
> study and obtain any formal education. He is not in the USSR to expand
his
> understanding and to become a better "Marxist".
>
> Lee follows the restriction because he is not left wing.
>

He's not a communist.
He can still be LW.

>
> > > >
> > > > Ayers did this to Lee without his knowing. Lee's actions to stay
"legal"
> > > > all indicate an "Active" or "Ready" status on his part.
> > > >
> > >
> > > NO, Lee has to be fully aware from day one of all the considerations.
If
> > not
> > > it supports that Lee was being "screwed" from the begining......
> >
> > Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?
>
> NO it's all part of the cover continued to be built. He is only screwed
if he
> is "outside" of the game being played around him.

But Lee was ASSISTED in his appeal unless he used his godlike LN power to
write his appeal before he returned from the USSR.

And if it was all part of the cover being built then he simply wouldn't have
appealed the decision. The cover is in place. Why appeal it? And why appeal
it with a winning case? But he did - And with assistance. He made the
Review Board look like horses asses.

The evidence is that the USEB didn't just hand Lee his passport. They handed
him a book on US military legal codes as well.

Our boy went over hoping/expecting to come back with a "clean slate". State
will not prosecute because he was attending school and so he applies to
school. The Navy won't prosecute him because of Lt. Ayers and because he was
not placed under arrest at the USEMB. They sent him. He knows they want him
back. He retains his citizenship. He retains his passport. He retains his
honorable discharge. The "tourist" comes home as planned. Then he finds out
the USMC has illegally changed his discharge. How in the frick and frack did
that happen?!! Nobody told him that would happen! So he irately appeals.

Who in the USEMB would he have taken his beef to? The US Naval attache'? Who
would have a copy of US military legal codes to give him? The US Naval
Attache'? Who isn't on the WC's witness stand? The US Naval Attache'?

Lee was expecting that to be cleared up when he returned, just as he was
expecting the USG to pay his way home and allow Marina and daughter to
accompany him.

Lee is completely unaware of any "cover" being prepared for him. If he was
he would have skipped the appeal and not bothered demanding a guarantee of
no prosecution. After all, if they're going to create a "cover" for him, it
won't be of much use if he spends the next ten years behind bars.

Indeed! It's probably because his discharge status has been changed that has
caused Lee to demand a guarantee of "no prosecution" as a condition of
returning. If that's happened - what else has happened that's waiting for
him?


>
> > Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?
>
> The actions by the USN/USMC are consistance with creating the cover
> and continuing to build it up.

Then no one should have handed Lee a book of US legal codes in Moscow.
And while I realize I am writing in favor of your July 25,1963 theory, Lee's
change of discharge status never would have happened if not for his mother.
So, unless she's a party to it, his change of status was not part of
creating a cover. It can't be.

Of course, the July 25,1963 ruling COULD BE.


> >
> > >that works
> > > as grounds for Lee to want to kill JFK, by his own action, for his own
> > reasons,
> > > while taking out the former Sec of the Navy, JC......because he can't
kill
> > his
> > > fathers lawyer, also the former Sec of Navy.
> >
> > Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
> > He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25, 1963.
>
> He could if he was acting on a rampage or totally on his own. But I don't
> think so. If Korth was killed LHO would be a automatic prime suspect.
>

No more than he was an automatic prime suspect in the Walker shooting. Korth
was having his own problems after July 25, 1963. If Korth was murdered after
July 25, 1963, the automatic prime suspect would be LBJ.


> >
> > > This is why WC supporters
> > > should be concerned about all these elements of consideration. All of
> > > these actions bring Lee down the path to Dallas, either in envolvement
> > > or being the actual assassin working on his own.
> >
> > No takers yet.
> >
>
> This is material outside of their box.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The DOD had a habit of screwing military personnel considered as a
threat
> > > or connected to communism (over 700 such cases) Lee COULD HAVE BEEN
> > > ONE BEING SCREWED. That consideration can not be pushed aside for
> > > any reason. Except for the simple fact, that Lee was not able to
> > accomplish
> > > this defection or the required "paperwork" on his own, it remains a
> > consideration.
> > > However, there is far greater support that Lee was acting during the
> > defection
> > > period in co-operation with the desires of the USG.......not being
> > screwed.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
> > And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent
him -
> > Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.
> >
>
> chances are Hoover was outside the loop and trying to catch up between
> 59-64.

I would say he was definitely out of the loop.
But he wormed his way in.
He made Oswald, the "LW Marxist with the undesireable discharge" possible.

>
> > But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no longer
> > under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?
> >
>
> The whole "seperation" is a sham. Lee would KNOW THAT.
>

Why would he know that? If he joined the USMCR in 1956 for a "6" year term
of duty (A guess on my part but supported by the 3+3 years of service for
volunteers and by his DD1173 card), he knows he's in in the USMCR until
December, 1962.

>
> > >
> > > Lee's actions would not be "totally" suspect if his mother was a
> > dependent, it
> > > is if he is discharged because of a "hardship dependency" and Lee
needs to
> > > take care of his mother, beyond sending her money or taking care of
her
> > bills.
> >
> > Who is to suspect?
> >
>
> ANYONE WHO TAKES ANY INTEREST......to quote the investigation report
> summary of evidence by Rankin which is slanted towards Lee acting on
> his own and not with assistance from Soviets.......but ignores assistance
> from USG:
>
> " Under the circumstances, he undoubtedly obtained the discharge
fraudulenty"
>
> This supports my position 100%

It also supports mine 100%. He also obtained a "dependency" discharge
fraudulently.



>....to continue:
>
> " If the Russians were in fact coaching him at this time, it would seem
unlikely
> that they would have advised him to obtain a discharge under these
circumstances,"
>
> This does not exclude recieving assistance from the USG. This
consideration is
> totally ignored, making the investigation as well as the report bias......
>
> "merely in order to gain three months time which, after all, was not
particulary
> valuable to anyone."
>
> This is false since not everyone is considered in the consideration of
where
> the value is. Skipping over to end with the following to the question on
who:
>
> "but was morally offensive and potentially very unpopular in that he
deserted
> his own mother when she was sick, unemployed and poverty-stricken"
>
> If anyone considered Lee actions as a result of the PJM interview, with
all
> the facts.......the above is how they would view Oswald. LN's don't even
> want you to consider the above.

He would still be viewed the same with a "dependency" discharge - an
individual who fraudulently took advantage of his sick, unemployed, poverty
stricken mother to seek an early discharge to help her when, in fact, it was
to go to the USSR and abandon her.


>
> > And, whoever this person(s) who suspects is, won't he conclude the same
> > thing under either discharge? That Lee abandoned his needy mother for
the
> > USSR?
> >
>
> But Mother Russia would not want him......as shown by Rankin....he would
have
> no value to the Soviets.
>

Rankin showed that the Russians were not coaching Oswald in June, 1959. He
didn't show that the Russians wouldn't take him in October, 1959 if they
knew he had a "hardship" discharge instead of a 'dependency" discharge.


> >
> > > Lee knows she does not need his support or really does not care about
his
> > mother
> > > Everybody knows there is no "hardship".....
> >
> > If everyone knows this and the USMC doesn't want to appear suspicious,
why
> > not give him a dependency discharge?
>
> Either discharge makes the USMC look good.....releasing Lee to take care
of his
> mother........but, they did not have the "evidence"......so it's suspect,
if one looks
> close.

It becomes even more "suspect" when Ayers records it two different ways in
24 hours. There's something else you're not telling me. You want him to know
he has a "hardship" discharge. Why?


> >
> >
> >
> > >all those that provided "support" by
> > > affidavit or letters, would never learn of all the details.......and
if
> > they read the
> > > newspaper about the "defection" or learned of it......it would seem
odd,
> > strange
> > > and then forgotton.....THE PROBLEM HOWEVER, became known by the greed
> > > of his mother. YOU CAN'T forget about her actions after the
"defection".
> >
> > No. You can't.
> > She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
> > Big mistake.
>
> Yes, as well as others.....some of which remained silent.
>

Anyone you can name?

>
> >
> > I'm not saying the USG wanted to screw Oswald - only that it maintained
> > plausible denial that Lee was under US control while in the USSR by
> > recording a "hardship" discharge.
>
> The whole point.....as far as the public was concerned he was recently
> discharged. That's all that would be presented.
>

Public concern is only a concern if Lee stands before the Soviet cameras and
pulls a Francis Gary Powers and admits he's an "Active" military agent for
the US.


> >
> > It was Lee's mother that got him screwed by Hoover with the USMC.
>
> The USMC was covered.....they had PD. The public never considered
> the EOP as "The Beast" until after Watergate.
>

The "hardship" discharge is PD for the USMC. They can deny he's an "Active"
military agent and produce the discharge records showing him "Inactive" and
that Lee is lying.

>
> > > > I think it was done to keep Oswald believing he has a dependency
> > > > discharge, and SUBJECT TO RECALL versus a "hardship discharge". If
Lee
> > > > ever checks, he'll find his files are being handled as "dependency
> > > > discharge" - just as Lt. Ayers led him to believe on September 11,
1959.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have Lee thinking things that mean nothing if he is "Active" on a
new
> > > assignment.
> >
> > I have him thinking about Patrice Lumumba University as if he is
"Active".
> > You have him avoiding the Kollective's political brainwashing sessions
as if
> > he is "Active"
> > Do these things mean nothing if he is "Active"?
>
> He is just maintaining his actions within the law......tricky situation
staying in
> the USSR.

And then come back.

We do agree that he was maintaining his actions within the (passport) law
for reservists?

> It would be ok......(without the actions of the assassination to
> consider, say it never happened) for people or groups to "think" he got
> training in the USSR......or was a "student" of Marxism while
there.......but
> he never actually did those things "expected" or just accepted.

But he tried.

> >
> >
> > > If he was acting on his own, outside of the system all this
> > > thinking is immaterial and not needed to consider.
> > >
> >
> > Does not a "hardship" discharge support an LN argument that he was
"acting
> > on his own, outside of the system"?
> >
>
> Not as they show Lee.......it requires a much more detailed profile. One
they
> can't support.
>

Do the passport laws prohibiting overseas employment also apply to Inactive
reservists?

>
>
> > > > See my comment above. The "mistakes" from Lee's perspective have
hidden
> > > > from him that he has a "hardship" discharge versus a "dependency"
> > > > discharge.
> > >
> > > There is no need to hide anything from Lee......
> >
> > If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
> > Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?
>
> See above........
>

I looked above and can't find a difference between Lee telling her one or
the other.


> >
> > Because, if the USMC doesn't want Lee telling others he has a "hardship"
> > discharge, the simplest way to accomplish this would be to tell Lee he
has a
> > "dependency" discharge - As the records show he was shown on 9/11/59. He
> > will now tell Priscilla Johnson he has a "dependency" discharge - which
he
> > did.
>
> Consider how hard it is to create a "discharge" of a invididual not in the
USMC.
> The time spent in association with the USMC is only a cover.......for
purposes
> of training and select objectives requiring him to be "in service" as part
of that
> training. NOBODY wants "hardship" to be part of the equation.....but it
is. Which
> is why he would not tell her everything or even the truth.

We are coming closer together. If Lee is USMCR - and is obligated to 6 years
duty (a guess my part) then the USMC must discharge him back into the USMCR
to finish his remaining 3 years of "Active" USMCR duty. So Lee's discharge
files go to the USMCR Active Reserve. If not, if Lee had received a USMC
discharge, after three years of "active" duty, he would be discharged as
Inactive - which would be incorrect.

Lee now applies for his passport as an Active USMCR Reservist with three
years remaining. With this attached to his passport he seeks to attend a
Soviet institution.

Now where am I wrong?

Because, if I'm not wrong, you need to explain why Ayers changed his
discharge to Inactive on 9/12/59?

Because now it's wrong.




>
> >
> > Lee will also believe he is "Active" and apply to Patrice Lumumba
> > University - just as he applied to ASC. He will also avoid politcal
meetings
> > in the USSR.
> >
>
> He does not have to believe he is active USMCR.....he's not.

He's not if one who signs up for he USMCR is only obligated for three years.
Are they?

I'm betting a USMCR enlistee has the same total duty obligation as a
volunteer (3 years active, 3 years inactive = 6 years) or a draftee (2 years
active, 2 years active reserve, 2 years inactive reserve = 6 years) or 6
years. I'm betting this is right. I just don't know if the 6 years is 6
years of Active Reserve or three years Active Reserve plus 3 years Inactive
Reserve.

Do you know?

>...he's a member
> of the NSTC

He can be a member of both the NSTC and the USMCR. We know he signed up for
the latter, probably in order to receive training for the former.

>which used the USMCR, on assignment.....he is ACTIVE as a
> NSTC member

That depends. How long is one Active in the NSTC if training in the USMC
counts towards his NSTC duty time?

>......no longer in training but "in the field". The use of the USMCR
> by the NSTC was a project that the USMC did not like....but other branches
were
> being used in the same manner.
>
> >
> > >if you feel Lee is acting on his
> > > own, you have to take a new approach to all the considerations
mentioned.
> > You
> > > can't combine them.......they have to be considered seperate.
> >
> > I have Lee believing he is "Active" and, therefore not acting on his
own, but
> > subject to USG control.
> >
> > For lurkers, on September 11, 1959, Lee was given an "Active" discharge,
> > meaning he was subject to recall to active duty. This places
restrictions on
> > his living overseas. It required he go overseas for "educational
purposes"
> > for him to legally obtain a passport. For this reason he applied to
attend
> > Switzerland's Albert Schweitzer College which accepted him. This got
Lee to
> > Europe and then to Russia. But, once in Russia, without attending
school, he
> > was guilty of violating the law against "Active" Reservists living
overseas
> > (where they are beyond recall during times of national emergency). To
> > correct that, in applying for Soviet citizenship, Lee identified to
> > Priscilla Johnson that the Russians were to help him attend a "Soviet
> > education institute". This would make Lee's stay in the USSR legal (For
> > CTer's, Lee needed to make this request only if he was planning on
coming
> > back.). He also told Priscilla he was an "Active" Reservist. Once he got
> > inside the USSR he applied to Patrice Lumumba University and was "very
> > disappointed" when he was turned down. Why? Because he was now in
violation
> > of laws applicable to "Active" Reservists requiring he be living in the
USSR
> > for educational purposes (Which he could legally do) and not for
employment
> > purposes.
> > Did he know this?
> > He sure did. He even wrote it down. His answers to the following written
> > questions can be found in Warren Commission Exhibit 100 Volume 16 Pg
> > 436-439:
> >
> > Question 3: "Did you break law by residing in or taking work in the
USSR?"
> >
> > Answer: I did in that.
> >
> > Lee admitted above that he broke the law, as an "Active" Reservist, by
> > residing in the USSR and taking work there.
> >
> > He even added to his knowledge of the law:
> >
> > Question 4. "Isn't all work in the USSR considered State work?"
> >
> > Answer: Yes of course and in that respect I also broke US Law in
accepting
> > work under a foreign state.
> >
> > Lee is referring to Title 37, section 908, which makes it illegal for
> > members of a reserve component of the armed forces to take foreign civil
> > employment. Since the USSR was a communist state, all employment there
could
> > be considered "civil".
> >
> > So we see two things. First, we see that Lee left a "door open" for
himself
> > to return to the US with a plan to legally stay in the USSR by attending
> > school there. Second, we see he is familar with the laws pertaining to
> > "Active" Reservists and that he had violated them.
> >
> > The problem though is that Lee was not "Active". The day after he left
the
> > USMC, on Sept 12, 1959, Lt. Ayers changed his discharge to "Inactive".
He
> > was no longer subject to recall to active duty. The above passport laws
no
> > longer applied to Oswald.
> >
> > IMO, based upon Lee's actions concerning the "Active Reserve" laws, Lee
was
> > unaware that, the day after he exited the USMC, his discharge status had
> > been changed by Ayers to "Inactive".
> >
> > Lee was worried about nothing.
>
> Lee was not worried.....you have him being worried.

Trying to go to a Soviet school is him being worried.

> He follows the legal considerations
> because he "supports them" as part of his being a member of the NSTC.
It's always
> better to obey the law, then to violate it, while under cover.

If he's stlll "Active" in the NSTC.

>
> >
> > Why then did Lt. Ayers change his discharge status from "Active" to
> > "Inactive" without telling Lee?
>
> You continue to have Lee ignorant of what does not matter.....it's
paperwork
> that was done. It does not matter if Lee is "Active" or "Inactive" on
paper
> .......neither are the truth. At this point his service obligation is
met......under
> the RFA of 1955.....he is now a trained field operative.
>

But only if active NSTC enlistment exceeds 3 years. His USMCR training time
will count towards hs NSTC enlistment time. If they both run three years,
the only alternative is for him to re-enlist in the NSTC or he will go
Inactive in the NSTC.

> >
> > Because if Lee ever revealed to the Russians that he was working for the
> > USMC under threat of recall to Active Duty and Summary Court Martial if
he
> > didn't obey USMC orders, the USMC could plausibly deny the charge by
> > producing Lee's discharge records showing he was "Inactive" and, thus,
could
> > not be recalled to Active Duty for Summary Court Martial and that,
> > therefore, Lee was lying.
>
> He can still be "courts-martialed"......if he was acting alone....

In which case, he should have been.
But he wasn't.

>but if he was
> on detail....none of this actually matters.

And he won't be courtmartialed.
And he wasn't.


For lurkers, James and I may disgree over the REASONS for why Lee was what
he was, but we don't disagree on what Lee was - An American citizen
believing himself to be on ACTIVE DUTY inside the USSR, assisted by USMC Lt.
Ayers, and planning his return, having gotten there by joint US/Soviet help.

And, as can be seen, we used separate evidence to arrive at this same
conclusion.

>
> >
> > Things are actually more complex than this. There are still ways for Lee
to
> > be prosecuted. But Lee only needs to know one to be made to obey
"orders"
> > and the evidence above shows that he did know one - if not two (Title
37,
> > section 908).
>
> Lee is not prosecuted because it is known, by the powers to be that he is
> acting "By direction". Lee would only be prosecuted if acting on his own.
>
> >
> > Finally, Lee knew he had violated US law and was subject to prosecution.
Yet
> > he returned anyway and yet was not prosecuted. IMO, he returned, knowing
he
> > broke the law for the same reason he was not prosecuted. He had obeyed
> > orders.
>
> You have a twisted way of getting to this point.....he obeyed orders. The
papertrail
> means nothing if he is acting on orders....."By direction".
>

As I mentioned before, JKO and I may have taken different busses, but we got
off at the same bus stop - and more than once.


> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He will not learn his actual status from the Naval District holding
his
> > > > file. That District will treat him as an "Active Reservist" or
"Ready
> > > > Reserve".
> > > >
> > > > Lee will never be the wiser.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only if he is being "screwed". They could legally show him AWOL, or
as a
> > deserter
> > > obtainiing a fraudulant seperation.
> >
> > I mentioned above that there are other ways to prosecute Oswald. But is
our
> > 8th grade drop out an attorney?
> > On his list of questions he wrote and answered for himself of his legal
> > crimes, he never mentioned being guilty of the above. One could argue
that
> > he doesn't mention them because he doesn't know they were illegal.
> >
> > However, IMO, Lee is not concerned with how the USMC "could legally show
him
> > AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a fraudulant seperation" because it's
not
> > the USMC that he's worried about be being prosecuted by.
> >
> > It's the AG's Office.
>
> THE AG WILL NEVER PROSECUTE HIM.
>

YES. AGREED 100%.
BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT. If he knew that, he wouldn't have bothered to
apply at Patrice Lumumba University and he wouldn't have prepared the
following answers to questions he might be asked upon his return:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/questionnaire.htm

Lee does not know the AG won't prosecute him. That would require he knew how
far up the chain of command went. Lee would be kept on "need to know" only.
He doesn't need to know the AG Office is "in on it".
And no one would tell him that it was.

As far as we know, Lee thinks only the NSTC knows about him - And Lt. Ayers.

> >
> > The AG's Office can prosecute him for violating Federal passport laws
> > regarding "Active" Reservists. However, the AG's Office cannot prosecute
him
> > even if it "could legally show him AWOL, or as a deserter obtaining a
> > fraudulant seperation." Heck! They can't even nail him for offering the
> > Soviets radar secrets. Those are not Federal offenses. Those are
military
> > offenses. Different courts.
> >
> > Lee's exiting of the USMC reveals aid by the USMC (via Lt. Ayers) and
USMC
> > knowledge that Lee has applied for a passport to leave the country,
using as
> > a passport witness the very people he has told he's not going to leave
the
> > country, but care for his mother instead. At the time that Lt. Ayers
> > appeared as Lee's passport witness, Ayers knew Lee's discharge reasons
were
> > fraudulent. So the USMC is in on it - And Ayers had to lie and say he
knew
> > Lee for two years in order to be in on it. So he's a participant to two
> > frauds.
> > No. Lee is not worried about the USMC prosecuting him. Such a
prosecution
> > would reveal Lt. Ayer's knowledge and participation.
> > As far as Lee is concerned, his prosecution problems aren't with the
USMC
> > when he returns (And we know he's planning to return.). It's with the
AG's
> > Office. He knows he's violated Federal passport laws (Although he tried
not
> > to). Its why he demanded a guarantee of no prosecution to return.
>
> LEE WOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED FOR PROSECUTION. The supporting
> consideration is that he was NOT PROSECUTED when he should have been,
> if acting on his own.

And we can use Bruce Frederick Davidson as the example of what happens when
you do exactly what Lee did on your own.
He was prosecuted by the Army and sentenced to ten years hard labor.

For lurkers, James and I both agree that Lee would never have been
prosecuted upon his return to the US.


> By acting "By direction" which Lee was fully aware of, he
> would have nothing to worry about while he was in the USSR as long as his
> actions were within the boundries expected.....which they were.

Later, I will argue that Lee was not always within the boundaries expected
and agreed to. But - Yes - Lee is where he is, and doing what he is doing,
by direction.


>
> >
> > But, in his original plan, this wouldn't happen. He attends school in
the
> > USSR. He doesn't get a job. Now, when he returns, there's no prosecution
by
> > either the AG's Office or the USMC. He's within the Federal law with the
AG
> > and it was the USMC that helped him get to the USSR in the first place,
so
> > they're not going to prosecute him for going (And they didn't).
>
> His actions as presented in the offical version are criminal in reality
which
> can not be shown......he is acting under orders.
>

He is acting under orders.

>
> >
> > As far as the USMC is concerned, Lee's separation was not fraudulent.
Lt.
> > Ayers was in on it. They understood, aided, and abbeted.
> >
> > >
>
> They had to be involved.
>

For LNers to claim Lee is not in the USSR by order and with USG collussion
is to argue that Lee, with his 118 point IQ had the power to manipulate the
will of both Russians and Americans by sheer mental power, making him the
equivelent of a Marvel Comic Super Hero or, in this case, "Super Villain".


> > > > > >
> > > > > > JKO - Lee believes he is in the "Active Reserve" and his files
are
> > being
> > > > > > handled in accordance with that belief.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I believe Lee is on Active Duty and is well aware of that fact.
> > > >
> > > > His application to Patrice Lumumba University is 100% consistent
with
> > > > "Active". And he has to know/believe it to have applied.
> > >
> > > Lee needs to continue the "cover" of educationial desires
> >
> > For the AG's Office - Yes.
> > For anyone else? No.
>
> Wrong....the cover needs to be maintained and expanded. You can't
> leave "gaps" in development of background cover.
>

There is no need to expand the cover upon Lee's return unless one expands
Lee's operations.
Which is when July 25,1963 happens.


> >
> > >.....but he is no student.
> >
> > In enrollment only.
> > He's not there to learn about "philosophy".
>
> Or to expand any understanding of Marxism.

Which he seems to have stopped reading at age 16.

> > > >
> > >
> > > I started this to show the conflicts of the discharge.....the return
is
> > just as
> > > complex.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. It's really hard not to show how the "return" doesn't fit in with
the
> > "discharge". I just did it above.
>
> But not needed at this time.
>

Nice job of avoiding what I didn't.

>
>
> > > >
> > > > Again, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply pointing out that no
matter
> > > > how one slices the pie here, LHO believes he is "Active" while in
the
> > > > USSR. He is either on "Active Duty" or "Active Reserves" (And the
latter
> > > > can still place him in "Active Duty" by "Presidential detail").
> > > >
> > > > Believing himself to be "Active" - no matter how you slice it -
requires
> > > > Lee apply for attendance at AS College and, again, at Patrice
Lumumba
> > > > University in Moscow. You also have him avoiding the "brainwashing
> > > > sessions" - which he would have to do if Lee was "Active", correct?
> > >
> > > No, Lee has no interest in learning and his role does not require him
to
> > be
> > > but it is "better" if he does nothing.....which he did. The Soviets,
> > followed
> > > through because of the possibility of "exposure" to other students of
Lee
> > > actual "beliefs" and political background. The failure to allow Lee
to go
> > > to school illustrates additional restricted co-operation by the
Soviets.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Something went wrong. The Sovierts should have granted his request
to
> > attend school or it "messes" with Lee's return.
> > Any ideas on why they did this?
> >
>
> Lee was never intending to attend school.......

Not at ASC or in Finland...

>it all part of the cover, and the
> rejection falls in line.
>

I'm not surprised the Russians rejected him for schooling - But Lee did ask,
as the law required in order for him to stay legal.

>
> > > The above is a key consideration.........it also covers individuals in
the
> > NSTC,
> > > National Security Training Corp of which I believe Lee is actual
connected
> > to.
> >
> > Yes. Your belief on that is quite facinating and not impossible. Is
there
> > any additional info you would like to share on that?
> >
> > > See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign government
> > > treason and aiding the enemy.
> > >
> >
> > Different thread?
>
> yes

The Drummond case?

>
> >
> > Yes. We're just touching the tip of the iceberg.
> > We could bore everyone here to death with the evidence support the sham
to
> > the point that they would prefer to read Dave Reitzes on Judyth.
>
> It's difficult to present regardless.....to many directions not need
directly.
>
>
> > > > Plausible deniability. Even Lee doesn't know he's expendable.
> > >
> > > Lee knows he is expendable.....it's part of the risk accepted, before
> > enlistment.
> > >
> >
> > Okay. I even made a case for Lee being "expendable" to our own AG's
Office.
> > So, obviously, you're right.
>
> most operative have a degree of expendability....it's not out of line to
consider.
>
> >
>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You missed "to a new assignment in the USMCR".....
> > > >
> > > > Lee did not miss this.
> > >
> > > He can't which is why he is fully aware of his "status".
> > >
> >
> > "Active"
> >
>
> Not in the sense you consider "Active" consider him a operative that
> is "Active"......
>

The net effect of "under orders" is the same.

> > > >
> > > > >however you did not miss
> > > > > the "PD".
> > > >
> > > > Lee did.
> > > >
> > >
> > > NO.....PD is a key factor....it works several ways.
> > >
> >
> > Now you know I have ask now how "it works several ways"?
> >
>
> Everybody can deny everything.......
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > JFK WAS ELECTED, Lee operation could be "canceled" at this time. JFK
> > > would take office in January, Nixon was out the door. All
intelligence
> > operations
> > > now have "new directions" if JFK wanted to change things. The
> > Presidentail
> > > Detail, has a new President.
> >
> >
> > Point conceded.
>
> This actually did not take place during the first stages of 59-60.....but
it
> relates to the return......which is another reason I didn't want to get
there
> yet.....I really should not have mentioned the election yet.
>

I mentioned the change in Presidents upon his return in another post.

>
> > >
> > > Your overlooking several key facts......Look at the period and
> > correspondence
> > > by Lee during Jan/Feb......with the consideration that the
operationial
> > plug would
> > > be pulled.
> >
> > I'll do this.
> > Offhand, I can't recall any such correspondence. Isn't this when he left
> > Moscow and "disappeared"?
>
> It relates to JFK being elected.....I should not have put this in...you
sort
> of got me ahead of myself.....too much going on.
>

Glad to see it happens to you too.


> >
>
> > >
> > > The detail was allowed to continue, but with some changes. The
agreement
> > between
> > > Ike and Niki, was different then the one between JFK and Niki. I made
a
> > post several
> > > years ago about the 185 to 8 motive. This would also allow Lee to
have
> > motive to
> > > remove JFK......this was about 2 years ago.
> > >
> >
> > Google time...
>
> If you find it....remember I consider it a prime motive for Lee to kill
JFK.
>
>
> > > > > He was "Active".
> > > >
> > > > I agree with this with the caveat that the USMC took action to hide
that
> > > > he was "Active" via altering his discharge status without Oswald's
> > > > knowledge.
> > > >
> > >
> > > WITH OSWALD'S KNOWLEDGE
> > >
> >
> > I still don't understand why you think that.
> >
>
> Because he has to know.....you don't look at things as I do. Perhaps
> you will have a better idea reading some of the above.
>
> jko
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Peter Fokes <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Approved: Peter Fokes
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:34:50 -0400


On 16 Oct 2004 12:48:05 -0400, "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>
>"Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
>news:41705bfb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
>> arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
>> about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to give
>> the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
>> bystanders get a foothold?
>>
>> Sincere request.
>>
>> paul seaton
>>
>
>
>Yours is a marvelous request. JKO and I tend to communicate on another level
>from what is normally posted here. That doesn't mean we actually, truly,
>"communicate". I operate from what James calls, "inside the box". That is to
>say that I don't sway very far from the LNer's on Oswald. Thus, every time I
>state an opinion on the evidence, JKO encourages me to think beyond that
>opinion. He does that because he has gone "further back" in time than my
>research. When I first started my research I didn't see any reason to go
>back to when Lee was living in New York or what "Poppa" Joe Kennedy was
>doing with Britain. After all, none of these activities could have anything
>to do with 11/22/63. It seemed a waste of time to include them.
>Instead, I started with Lee's "defection" to the USSR on the assumption that
>this is the earliest possible applicable information of any merit (I wasa
>wrong.).
>It doesn't require a great deal of investigation to come to understand that
>Lee was assisted in both reaching, and returning from, the USSR - And that
>he received assistance from both sides. JKO and I will eventually get to
>that.
>I did initially not have an answer as to why Lee had received assistance
>from BOTH SIDES. I simply had the evidence that it occurred. James, via his
>own independent research, has tried to address WHY both sides would assist
>Lee. Hence, he has raised Project TP. Actually, it appears we approached the
>problem from the same angle, looking for a mutual US/Soviet information
>exchange. We knew this is what we we're looking for (or, at least, I did)
>from Nixon's "kitchen debate" with Kruschev. While the debate, itself, is of
>no historical significance, the intentions of each party were publicly
>expressed, most significantly by Kruschev who was very pointed, and "between
>the lines" by Nixon (Krushev even made fun of Nixon's political answers as
>being those of an "attorney"). It was clear that Nixon was interested in a
>"sharing of ideas" and it was equally clear, by the examples Nixon used,
>that he was proposing a sharing of technology. This took place in July,
>1959. Thus, we both were on the hunt for a US technolgy transfer to the USSR
>that coincided with Lee's "defection". I was unaware of Project TP but was
>aware of a space technology transfer that took place in December, 1959 - the
>very time Lee was in Moscowe requesting Soviet citizenship. Hence, I
>"assumed" this was the "sharing of ideas" Nixon alluded to. However, JKO's
>Project TP fits better as far as Lee is concerned because Project TP
>involved radar, a subject Lee could contribute too. Whereas space technology
>doesn't fit Oswald. My ASSUMPTION at the time was that Lee was a "tack on"
>to the information exchange. That is to say that the US added the Soviets
>admitting Oswald to the USSR as part of the "space technology" exchange.
>IMO, the CIA was seeking "economic" information on the USSR which U-2's were
>not providing, specifically the costs of goods and services and the
>organization of production (The "Kollective"). Lee was to provide this
>information. He was a "spy" but not in the ordinary sense. He was not
>collecting secrets as much as he was collecting prices and production.
>The evidence is quite clear that the Soviets understood Lee's mission and
>did their best to subvert it by presenting a "false economy" to Oswald. They
>put him up in his own river view apartment and they overpaid him for his
>work. They KNEW he was going "back" and they sought to control the
>information he took back with him by overstating their economy.


But Lee was well aware that his own situation in the USSR was
"different" than the typical Russian citizen. He talked to other
employees and was aware his "pay" was higher than other workers. You
are suggesting that Oswald was a bit of a "dummy" and not able to
figure out that he was being treated "differently". Indeed, in his
letters, he often notes that life is not easy for the regular Russian
worker. Marina was attracted to Lee, the American, as much for his
access to a larger apartment and other advantages as she was to his
personality.

Then again, you are laying out the strategy of the Russians. From
their point of view, maybe they thought they could deceive Lee about
the state of their economy, but somehow I doubt they were so naive.



> When Lee
>went back, it was their intention that he carry an exaggerated report of the
>Soviet economy with him.
>You can read Lee's report on the Soviet economy and production on John's
>site as "The Kollective".
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm

Your case is stronger if you are suggesting that the "facts and
figures" were overstated. Of course, such exaggerated figures are a
different kettle of fish than Oswald's day-to-day experiences in Minsk
where he was treated in a "special" manner.

>The significance to JKO's and my exchange isn't to address what happened on
>11/22/63 as much as it is to state that the presented history of Oswald is
>incorrect. Had Oswald actually been what the Posnerites claim he was, he
>would have been in prison on 11/22/63 breaking rocks with a lead ball
>chained to his leg. You simply can't get around this.
>
>Compare the history of defector Bruce Frederick Davis to Oswald's:
>
>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/defector.htm#DAVIS
>
>Like Lee, Davis was US military who never renounced his US citizenship and,
>like Lee, he was critical of US foreign policy. Like Lee, he also requested
>the return of his American passport. And, like Lee, after requesting the
>return of his passport, he met a Rusian girlfriend. Finally, like Lee, he
>made an unauthorized visit to the USEMB to return to the US.
>
>What was waiting for him when he got home?
>
>A 10 year prison sentence at hard labor.
>
>Yet whern Lee returned to the US, nothing happened. Where was his 10 year
>sentence?
>
>It fell through the cracks.
>
>There is probably no person in the history of America with more government
>filing "mistakes" than Oswald. They range from his military files to his
>passport files. But, if one looks closely, the "mistakes" are not mistakes
>at all. They serve a single purpose - to keep Lee from breaking rocks with a
>lead ball chained to his leg like Bruce Frederick Davis.
>This "favoritism" has lead to all kinds of wild CT theories - from where
>he's an FBI informant to a CIA agent. But, in reality, he never worked for
>either of those two agencies (Although they were very much aware of him.).
>JKO and I have both figured out who Lee was working for in 1963 (Argueably,
>from JKO's perspective, the same people he was working for in 1956.).
>
>If you have questions, ASK.
>
>This opportunity is not likely to come along again.

Good summary, Clark. Although I'm not sure when the "opportunity" to
ask will be lost in the future!


>::Clark::


PF
>
>

From: "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 12:50:39 -0400



"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:bgrcn05c18u8hlplgq8l123kt2th3gnspn@4ax.com...
> On 15 Oct 2004 22:28:10 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
> <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Guys,
> >
> >I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> >arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> >about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to
give
> >the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> >bystanders get a foothold?
> >
> >Sincere request.
> >
> >paul seaton
>
> Paul,
> JKO's scenario involves the exchange of information between the
> Soviet Union and The U.S. about a system to "reduce" the possibility
> of nuclear war.

Yup, I got that.


Clark and JKO suggest that Oswald's information may
> have been in the form of "technical knowledge" of this system.
> If this scenario is correct, it seems to undermine your theory that
> Oswald thought he could provoke a "nuclear war" by killing JFK.

Making nuclear war less likely ( by removing the constraint on the USSR that
they either strike first or not at all) doesn't seem to me to preclude LHO's
hope that the US / USSR could be brought to the brink of 'MAD' over JFK's
assassination.
If that's not good enough, I'm sure Clark will be happy to argue the point
with you. :-)
( BTW, I obviously don't think LHO was hoping for *actual* nuclear war -
just that some kind of ..er..Oswaldian 'rapprochement'..would be the only
alternative, and thus would be the only option short of armaggedon. Great
to get to use the the words 'rapprochement' & 'armaggedon' in one short post
btw :-) Wanted to get 'Hegelian' in there too, but couldn't seem to do it)



> Oswald
> must have known -- to some degree -- that a system was in place to
> "safeguard" against such a nuclear exchange.

Assuming something like the Wilkins/Olmstead theory is true, is LHO even
neccessarily aware of what his 'role' really is ?
Where's the need for him to know ? (Straight question. Don't know the
answer )

paul s

[..]

From: Peter Fokes <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Approved: Peter Fokes
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:17:34 -0400
Message-ID: <e8adn05tjc6fb8kjp9nvgo5puei29spbei@4ax.com>


On 20 Oct 2004 12:50:39 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
<paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:bgrcn05c18u8hlplgq8l123kt2th3gnspn@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Oct 2004 22:28:10 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
>> <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Guys,
>> >
>> >I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
>> >arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
>> >about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to
>give
>> >the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
>> >bystanders get a foothold?
>> >
>> >Sincere request.
>> >
>> >paul seaton
>>
>> Paul,
>> JKO's scenario involves the exchange of information between the
>> Soviet Union and The U.S. about a system to "reduce" the possibility
>> of nuclear war.
>
>Yup, I got that.
>
>
>Clark and JKO suggest that Oswald's information may
>> have been in the form of "technical knowledge" of this system.
>> If this scenario is correct, it seems to undermine your theory that
>> Oswald thought he could provoke a "nuclear war" by killing JFK.
>
>Making nuclear war less likely ( by removing the constraint on the USSR that
>they either strike first or not at all) doesn't seem to me to preclude LHO's
>hope that the US / USSR could be brought to the brink of 'MAD' over JFK's
>assassination.

One call from a member of the SGA to LBJ would end that possibility.
But Lee might not have known exactly who had access to his file.


>If that's not good enough, I'm sure Clark will be happy to argue the point
>with you. :-)

>( BTW, I obviously don't think LHO was hoping for *actual* nuclear war -
>just that some kind of ..er..Oswaldian 'rapprochement'..would be the only
>alternative, and thus would be the only option short of armaggedon.

Then he was crazy.

> Great
>to get to use the the words 'rapprochement' & 'armaggedon' in one short post
>btw :-) Wanted to get 'Hegelian' in there too, but couldn't seem to do it)

>> Oswald
>> must have known -- to some degree -- that a system was in place to
>> "safeguard" against such a nuclear exchange.

>Assuming something like the Wilkins/Olmstead theory is true, is LHO even
>neccessarily aware of what his 'role' really is ?

Perhaps not I suppose, but JKO and Clark speculate at one point about
the possibility LHO himself provided actual training for this
equipment.

>Where's the need for him to know ? (Straight question. Don't know the
>answer )

See above.

[..]

>>
>
>

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 14:19:04 -0400


Pete:

"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:bgrcn05c18u8hlplgq8l123kt2th3gnspn@4ax.com...
> On 15 Oct 2004 22:28:10 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
> <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Guys,
> >
> >I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> >arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> >about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to give
> >the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> >bystanders get a foothold?
> >
> >Sincere request.
> >
> >paul seaton
>
> Paul,
> JKO's scenario involves the exchange of information between the
> Soviet Union and The U.S. about a system to "reduce" the possibility
> of nuclear war. Clark and JKO suggest that Oswald's information may
> have been in the form of "technical knowledge" of this system.
> If this scenario is correct, it seems to undermine your theory that
> Oswald thought he could provoke a "nuclear war" by killing JFK. Oswald
> must have known -- to some degree -- that a system was in place to
> "safeguard" against such a nuclear exchange.
>
> PF

You hit the nail on the head. This is the turning point. Lee had a minor
role in creating the "insurance" that the "First Strike" was a idle threat.
Ike warned of the MIC as he left office, JFK knew of this threat of the
MIC, since 1939 based on his book "Why England Slept". IMHO I
suspect JFK's book, was read by Ike and Ike agreed how things can
get out of hand "after the war".

Now here is the turning point. Ike arranged for over 180 "devices" to
be built and installed around the world, that would "monitor" launches.
The Soviets objected to these divices having to be "inspected" periodically
by the other side. Ike agreed to allow the program to continue without
physical inspection.....it would be mechanical...or electronic. JFK wanted
inspectors with free access and to get his desires he reduced the number
of devices installed to 8. This was a huge cutback to the program.

Now Lee is involved in another program or project after his return. We
went through the CMC in 62. Now there are two ways to look at things:

1. Lee feels that JFK was in total control, and Lee's role in the early project
helped get us there. He approves of JFK and would have no desire
to kill him. However the other program or project gets him deep in the
center of the assassination, but Lee is not the shooter. The USG can't
disclose Lee real history and his death allows for many of the facts to
be presented......but not all......hence all of the various CT's.

2. Lee after his return, is pissed, he feels JFK almost destroyed half
the world......he continues to get upset, it effects his life, the anger
builds up and he kills JFK. All the factors of consideration are in place
including Motive and Intent.....however the USG still can't release all
the facts.......Lee is killed and again all of the various CT's surface.

No motive and intent were presented and I've always had a problem that
these two consideration of murder were never covered and established.
To me there will never be closure on the assassination as long as motive
and intent remain a mystery.

The above two paths are both "equal" in consideration, dealing with the
same facts and known history. Both can be supported, my goal has
always been to show "both sides" along "The Path to Dallas".

I use one shooter, from the rear, from the 6th floor firing 3 shots, as
originally presented before the SBT as the basis of the assassination,
in both views. If one of those elements is changed with fact or direct
evidence I would consider it, but I have seen no such direct evidence
in my studies based on any published conspiracy theory. It does not
mean that evidence will never be established......it's just that it has
not been shown yet.

I know without doubt that all the considerations were not presented for
reasons of National Security, based on Rankin's summary of the
evidence concerning "involvement".

jko

The fraudulant seperation is one such element of consideration supported
by Rankin's summary. I just expand on it.


[..]

> >
> >
>

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald


Clark:

"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10nc2t17mjec18e@corp.supernews.com...

> >
> > Any number of actions including the two SCM's are such valid
> considerations.
> > For example the "interviews" upon entering the "Brig" and exiting the
> "Brig"
> > are documents destroyed. This is a prime location for the selection of
> individuals
> > wishing to make "changes" in their lives.
> >
>
> That would have been of high interest to the "selection" process. I admit I
> had not thought of that.
>

There are alot of considerations relating to the "Brig". Lee was sentenced
to 20 days Hard Labor, that sentence was "suspended" during the 1st SCM.
He was sentenced to "28 days" after the second and went right to the brig.
The problem is he was charged with 45 days "Lost Time".....not "28". Now
here is "one of" the problems. Without the Brig Entry and Exit report, we
can't know if Lee actual went to a "jail" in the normal consideration of prison
and for how long....28 or 45 days. Under regulations, a "brig" can be established
anywhere and anyplace. The hard labor can be "By direction".....so did Lee
actually go to "jail" without collecting $200, actually $50.00? Or did he go
on a "mission"......say to Freedom Land.....a top secret Radar Island in SEA.
BTW Freedom Land, exsisted and is part of Lee's unit's history.

Each element of known history has to be considered against presented history.
The law allows one a "proccedure" to follow. The Brig entry report is "required".

If these records are not available I have free access to expand arguements that
can't be challanged. As it stands my FOIA request shows, my position can't be
challanged. The records were destroyed.....15 years after the fact (1973). Due
to Lee's involvement in the assassination, I consider this criminal or in line with
my basic outline.

> > >
> > > This suggests that we try and identify what "pool" of files Lee's name
> was
> > > in. It was JKO that made this identification - not me.
> >
> > I have several "pools" to look in......because I've looked for them.
> >

See above....I expanded some..........


> > >
> > > My assumption was that Lee's incoming mail and request to take a Russian
> > > language course brought him to the attention of "higher ups".
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > This is another prime consideration, but one I feel is associated with the
> > first stages of his enlistment.....and the orginal goals, dealing with his
> > military service.
>
> Yes. The enlistment papers support your premise. However, his mother made no
> comment about this. If you're right (I have to admit I've been following
> your lead on this area but found it promising), can you explain her silence?
> She is the "first hand" witness to this but, according to her, it never
> happened.

Basically, $5,000 fine, 3 years in prison.......for all providing "false statements"
aiding in the enlistment and seperation.......both of which could be charged
against her and all those people who assisted. How would she be able to
fight it? I don't think she was "threatened" but I'm sure the charges were
made known to her.....it was in my opinion enough to make her bitter and to
keep her out of any further involvement. But then her role of being used was
done.....and those interested accept her as being abit off.....her actions after
the assassination are in line with her being bitter and a bit off. Which is why
Lane, in my opinion was not allowed deeper involvement......too dangerous.


> > >
> > > Can you tell us about the five intelligence reports?
> >
> > I have in the past.
> >
> > 1. Entry level investigation for his clearance to attend school.
>
> For Lee's "security clearance"?
> No reason to remove a "positive" report.
> But a report with "conficts" would have to disappear

They are good for 5 years, but in each additional investigation required
after each SCM would include the previous. When one is charged under
the UMCJ with a security clearance, that clearance is suspended and a
new investigation is required to re-instate that clearance. All three would
also be included in the "defection investigation".....expanding the 5 year
period to 1964. Involvement in the assassination investigation would make
all part of a criminal history file.....not to be destroyed......but they were.

>
> > 2. Investigation in relationship to his first SCM
> > 3. Investigation in relationship to his second SCM
> > 4. Investigation into death of Scharnd
>
> I suspect all three of the above were destroyed at the same time - And by
> the same person.

All were destroyed or witheld (Schrarnd)......as to "who" destroyed them,
I don't believe they were destroyed in fact. I was going to fight the FOIA
request data......but can't afford the legal costs. I had hopes that my
presentation in Pittsburgh would have provided the needed exposure,
but the delay in release has caused me a major set back. I'm still open
to it.....which is why I'm going to school to study forensics and law.

>
> #4 I suspect is related to Lee's performance of duty outside of USMC.
>
> What are your thoughts on the first two? Spending time in the brig is hardly
> voluntary and evidence suggests Lee's guilt.

See above......far more to consider.......I've mentioned them in the past.

>
> I don't know if the USMC's filing system is the same as the CIA's and State
> Passport Office, but if it is, all three investigations could be legitimate
> and by the "book" but still have to destroyed/withheld. This is because of
> "master file" indexes which, at CIA and Passport Office both, requires files
> be "signed out".

The criminal history records of the USN are covered by regulations......which
I've mentioned in posts dealing with my FOIA request. No need to go there
now at this time. The records are not "available".


> If the USMC uses this same system, a record would exist of who requested to
> see the files and when. We would know, for example, who the mysterious
> "person" was who selected Lee for the USSR. He would have checked out, and
> signed for, all three files.
> That master file index would have to be fed to the paper shredder.
> This is also consistent with the destruction of his background security
> clearance file.

To me the cover of destruction, starts in 1970, when thousands of such
files (semi truck loads) were ordered destroyed. It is a consideration that
this "destruction order" was a "result" of Lee's involvement......but that's
a "fictional" accounting of mine......part of a TV series I developed.

>
> The next file disappearance does not fit with this explanation.
>
> > 5. ONI/FBI shared investigation after defection.
>
> Hoover has his butt hanging out on this one. He started it. He pushed for
> the "change of discharge" to "undesireable". He pulled strings to make it
> happen. This would have been the record of said "strings".

Under the law the FBI was protected in witholding this investigation....so
would be the ONI. The report in question was I think done on 3 July of 61.
It involves the 8th Naval District in New Orleans ONI/Dallas FBI office. The
report relates to number 92/922E Serial 01372. I've never been able
to find it.....although I have the cover letter.

>
> If he could push for the USMC to change Lee's discharge status based on
> false information and then have that illegal act upheld by the USMC under
> appeal, he also had the power to keep this file from seeing the light of
> day.
>

If you mean Hoover, I don't think he is involved.....in making changes, but
without doubt in witholding some of this material after the assassination.


> > >
> > > Or arrested when he returned - As happened with Bruce Frederick Davis.
> > > Our boy is a prime candidate for "hard labor".
> >
> > Ln's can't accept the letter of the law in this area. They can't have
> this
> > on the table.
> >
>
> And they will keep it off the table.
> We'll never hear this issue raised by them.
> Even though we put it out here in plain sight.

For the most part all the counter arguments, have been destroyed. They
can't prove their case. I can however show mine. They need the Congressional
investigation as much as I do. However, I will never get CT support or LN
support for this investigation.


> >
> > The efforts by ONI and the AUSNA are of great concern, in this area,
> details
> > were tightly controled I will make a seperate thread on this based on the
> documents.
> >
>
> It will be a one sided presentation although I look forward to reading it. I
> have nothing to offer. The Navy did nothing. That is al I needed to know.
> That is the record and is sufficient by itself to have whoever at Navy who
> received notice of Lee's intent to be drawn and quartered.

That's one of the problems.....no names are given directly in most of the
documents, and it's difficult to pull assignment records. They can be
found.....just very time consuming.

>
> This is like a police station having a bank alarm go off and not answering
> the call.
> Ever.
>

Yes......and hard to accept based on known history.

> > >
> > > So a private is sent.
> > > But so was Bruce Frederick Davis - And he didn't get ignored.
> >
> > Rank has little to do with this......anybody in the right "position" could
> be used.
> > I've had alot of power as a PFC in VN. Almost total freedom, for two
> years,
> > to do my job as I saw fit.
> >
>
> I mean that rank implies importance. If Lee wasn't a private but instead a
> four star general, his actions cannot go ignored when he returns. Further,
> we wouldn't want a "four star general" in Russian hands.

Keeping things on the surface should be low level......although I actually
suspect Lee was not a PFC...but at least a E-5/GS-7 for pay purposes.
But that's immaterial really.

> >
> > Going over my documents......and what I feel should be released, there are
> > considerations I did not mention earlier. The 17 August request was
> offically
> > approved by the CG, 3dMAW on 31 Aug 1959.
>
> Forgive my ignorance. My military service is limited to Avalon-Hill.
> Commanding General, 3rd Marine Air Wing?
>

Yes, the base commander.

> > Well before all the evidence
> > was available for reaching any approval of discharge. Two weeks, without
> > evidence in support for dependency or hardship. Well before all the 6
> endorsements
> > were finished within the chain.
> >
>
> Doesn't "CG" encourage others to follow the same recommendation?
> Who, of lesser rank, would go against this?

Nobody would go against prior approval of the CG. I know this seems to
counter to my "low rank" comments....but I don't have the actual notice
of approval by the CG......just notice of his approval on 31 August, 1959.
If I had that supporting document I would have to make adaptions to my
position......but without it I have to go with the basic considerations. I don't
like to use things I can't back up with documents. This is one of the areas
LN would/should/could be concern with in the process of investigation.


>
> I know if I were a captain and saw this in the file, I'm stamping Lee
> "approved" also.
>

Rubber stamped.........without notice.....without question......without concern.

>
> > >
> > > Someone should have asked, "Where's the paperwork supporting this
> request?"
> >
> > Improper lines of questioning were followed.......it's that simple. Most
> of
> > these conflicts would have surfaced early and without difficulty if the
> proper
> > cosiderations of investigation were made and followed through.
> >
>
> No time.
> Lee is needed by a higher authority.

Basically.......things have to be settled at least by September 18, for a
departure of 20 Sept. There is a week to play with. I better add the
following consideration.

Looking at the presented record......Lee is going to get a job, (Import/Export)
to get good money to take care of his mother. Lee's family in New Orleans,
is connected to "shipping"........John Pic senior and Uncle Dutz. To me
this period is needed to land Lee a "opportunity" that he has to act on "right
now" in order to get it. This "job opportunity" to work the Marion Lykes on
one of it's "return trips" or to learn as he travels on it's trip over. It's perfect
cover......and works both ways.....acting alone and acting "By direction".
It also covers how Lee would return.....without having the "funds"....although
he only need $200 for a return ticket......which he did have prior to and
just after crossing into the USSR.


> > I doubt Lee was Marxist......or even leaning to the left, more in the
> center
> > with a right cold war lean.
> >
>
> We would both agree he is ANTI-COMMUNIST would we not?

Yes without going into detail or past exchanges we've had.


> > >
> > > At the same year the National Security Training Corps was formed, the
> > > National Security Council (NSC 5412/1 and NSC 5412/2) created the
> Special
> > > Group Committee composed of the NSC, the CIA, State, and the President -
> in
> > > order for them to all regularly meet and address joint issues.
> >
> > Actually the NSTC has earlier considerations. However major changes were
> > made in the Reserve Forces Act of 1955.
> >
>
> It was expanded beyond "truck drivers"?

oh yea.......I consider LBJ's return to Congress during WWII as a prime example
because of his "value" in Congress vs his value as a officer in service.


> >
> > We knew from 50-54 that greater flexibility were needed concerning intell
> > and military service...hence the RFA of 55.
> >
>
> For lurkers, JKO is referring to the Korean War.

Yes, in several ways.....based on the number of POW defectors, plans
had to be in place to remove this threat of future "defectors". This is
where I believe Lee comes into play dealing with his "fraudulant enlistment"
and the presented history of his service.....ie a "Marxist Marine".


> > >
> > >
> > > Lee returned to the US in 1962 with RFK policing JFK's
> > > "assassination/counter insurgency" programs with the idea that JFK not
> get
> > > caught by any exposure of these Group's illegal activities. What RFK
> needed
> > > was "plausible denial".
> > >
> >
> > RFK is a major consideration from 1954 on. Including his "Russian Journey
> > in 1955.
>
> I have him involved from April, 1962 and was not concerned about "earlier".
> Tell us about RFK in 1955?
>

I've mentioned it in the past.......but look up "Russian Journey" by William
O. Douglas (Supreme Court) RFK went on this trip, was pissed that he was
forced to go. I always considered RFK hate Repulicans as much as Reds.
Papa Joe forced RFK to go. I think RFK thought this would help Nixon
more the Jack....in the 1956 election considerations.


> > Several legal considerations dealing with the enlistment of minors (under
> 18).
> >
> > > The USMCR is the Reserves.
> > > Lee must either be "recalled to Active Duty" to serve at Atsugi or he is
> > > performing "Reserve training."
> >
> > His entire military assignement was "training".....however not as a radar
> > operator......in my opinion Lee spent less then 30 days actually working
> > his radar MOS during the entire period.
> >
>
> I have heard no mention of such a thing by those who served with him - but
> then I don't recall them being asked this question either.

I've shown that due to the SCM Lee was prevented from working because
his clearance was revoked. One officer caused me a great deal of concern
in one of the SCM documents......he could not have worked with Lee long
enough if he actually did to give such a "good report". Many of the versions
of the "offical story" show some of those marines, not up to speed on why
Lee was treated special.....they indicate the reason being because he lost
his clearance in a fight with a NCO......without knowing all the details.


> >
> > Active Duty is active service regardless of reserve status....it's just
> "Active Duty"
> > weither its for a weekend, two weeks or period of extended
> training....it's
> > Active Duty.
> >
>
> For lurkers, anytime an Active Reservist shows up for "duty" (i.e. on
> command), even reserve duty or training, that is Active Duty. Correct?

yes, and counts as "points" in the reserve retirement system.

> > >
> > > On leaving the USMC and satisfying USMCR time, he should be released as
> > > "Inactive" - which he was on September 12.
> >
> > No, the Reserve service was a longer committment.
>
> OK. Decided I'd better look this up since Lee recruitment shows USMCR. I
> find he would have to be classed as:
>
> USMCR (K): A designation given to those non-prior service personnel enlisted
> in the Marine Corps Reserve.
>
> Looking this up produced major confusion. It sounds like it's intended for
> medical personnel. I found no term of enlistment.
>

"Six or more years of satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve qualifies
a man, on discharge from the Reserve, for Class IV-A (draft classification)
as having completed service under the Universal Military Trainiing and Service
Act". In effect between March 23, 1959 and July 1, 1963.

The standby system......"Deferments and exemptions also provided for extreme
hardship to dependents". Which means he would not be "recalled".

The "critical skills" or NSTC consideration. "After selection, the registrant
enlists in one of the Armed Service reserves for 3 to 6 months of training
duty. Thereafter for the balance of the ****8 year enlistment******he is
normally excused from reserve training so long as he remains in the
critical occupation".

The USMC was the last branch to accept individuals in this reserve
system.

Lee's discharge would put him in the Class III-A status.....low on the recall
list.....as long as the hardship dependency exsisted.


>
> >
> > >
> > > But on September 11, he was released as "Active" - meaning control over
> the
> > > individual has not been lost.
> > >
> > His PAPERWORK WENT TO THE ACTIVE SIDE.......in the in processing of
> > his service record.
>
> His paperwork was filed as per his September 11 discharge.

But went to the wrong Naval District and to the wrong section. It's buried.

>
> >
> > > I "think" that JKO believes that Lt. Ayers corrected the "mistake" of
> > > 9/11/59 on 9/12/59. If so, I disagree.
> > >
> >
> > I think you are abid off on the aspects of status, service committments,
> and
> > witholding of information to Oswald. On Ayers, his actions I think have
> you
> > abit confussed. The paperwork should have gone to the "inactive" section
> > for inprocessing but went to the "active" section that handled incoming
> records.
>
>
> Ahh! Yes. I "R" a bit confused. Since Lee wasn't drafted, after three years
> active duty, he would receive a discharge into the "Inactive Reserves" for a
> period of another three years.
>
> Do I have it right?

Yes......that the basic consideration......but Lee records show "conflict". His
paper work show USMCR instead of USMC in the very first required doc.
His association/commitment can be as long as 8 years. His actual "service"
can be as short as 3 to 6 months.....depending on the training he would
get. They like to keep it under 180......so Vet benifits are less.

>
> Sending Lee's papers to "Active" suggests Lee's initial USMCR tour of duty
> obligation was not yet up.
> Unfortunately, I don't know the number of years one signs up for when one
> enlists directly into the USMCR. If I had to guess, I would guess 6. If so,
> that would place Lee in the "Active Reserves" until December, 1962 which, as
> I recall, corresponds to the expiration date of his DD1173 Card., also
> issued by Ayers
> So I'm now either totally screwed up or I've just made a case for Lee's
> recruiting papers to be accurate and that he actually did join the USMCR and
> not the USMC and Ayers knows it, and processed him accordingly.

All the conflicts of the enlistment have to be worked out before all the
conflict considerations can be eliminated........but you have reached
the point......that Lee military service record has alternate considerations.



> > >
> >
> > It is a AD mission, while he is on a Reserve assignment, Lee is not going
> > to tell anybody his true "status".....especially PJM. Nobody is going to
> > hide Oswald's true status from Oswald. He knows
>
> How do you know he knows?
> He wasn't there on Sept 12, 1959 when Ayers made the change.

He would know when the details are worked out well in advance. Which
can be as far back as his duty in Japan.


> > >
> > > And undoubtedly performed by Nicholas Katzenbach if I am allowed to make
> an
> > > "educated guess".
> >
> > If not directly under his guidence or control.
>
> Katzenbach's actions on 11/22/63 indicate he had access to Lee's AG file.
>

Yes, without doubt that file as well as additional insight provided by RFK.


Nixon
> later
> > had his own EPO "Plumbers".....consider the EOP the "Beast". Read Lasky
> > "It didn't start with Watergate" for a general view of "The Beast".
> >
>
> I believe I have the book...
>

It's interesting to read.


> > >
> >
> > The CPUSA plays a major role.........it can't be eliminated.
> >
>
> You're basing this in part on Gus Hall's route to Mexico, right?
> If so, I think on this issue I hold the upper hand.

Not the only consideration......but one......it is the CPUSA that is
doing much of the "subversion" of the American youth....of
great concern dealing with enlistments and military service.

Look at the AG's list.......subversive organizations......over 150
now consider Lee's application or presented desire to join
the SWP just before his enlistment. Lee was too young
to join that organization.

jko

From: johncwatters@aol.com (john watters)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 17:22:55 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<10nbq18sru0o02e@corp.supernews.com>...
> "john watters" <johncwatters@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:a8198ff5.0410191147.a7cd941@posting.google.com...
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:<10n88oijl1986c9@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:41714036@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > >......I still believe Lee needed assistance......which either came from
> the USG or the CPUSA.
> > >
> > > I can eliminate CPUSA as we go along. John Watters has already followed
> my
> > > arguments on this.
> > >
> > I have ? Remind me (it's been a long time)
>
> All of Lee's actions are aimed to "smear" the CPUSA.
> Too many diapers passed under your nose?
>
Ha ha. Sorry, I had misread what you said. Yes, we both agree that LHO
was smearing the CPUSA. We differ as to why.

FWIW, and this is more for the benefit of Paul Seaton than yourself,if
I have ever said that LHO was RW this was lazy shorthand for not
believing his LW stance as his actions showed an anti-LW agenda. I
agree with JKO's description of LHO having a "right cold war lean".

John.
[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 17:23:12 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:68tcn09o8rqf027pcj7vea2oiqtcrrhv69@4ax.com...
> On 16 Oct 2004 12:48:05 -0400, "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
> >news:41705bfb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> >> arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> >> about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to
give
> >> the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> >> bystanders get a foothold?
> >>
> >> Sincere request.
> >>
> >> paul seaton
> >>
> >
> >
> >Yours is a marvelous request. JKO and I tend to communicate on another
level
> >from what is normally posted here. That doesn't mean we actually, truly,
> >"communicate". I operate from what James calls, "inside the box". That is
to
> >say that I don't sway very far from the LNer's on Oswald. Thus, every
time I
> >state an opinion on the evidence, JKO encourages me to think beyond that
> >opinion. He does that because he has gone "further back" in time than my
> >research. When I first started my research I didn't see any reason to go
> >back to when Lee was living in New York or what "Poppa" Joe Kennedy was
> >doing with Britain. After all, none of these activities could have
anything
> >to do with 11/22/63. It seemed a waste of time to include them.
> >Instead, I started with Lee's "defection" to the USSR on the assumption
that
> >this is the earliest possible applicable information of any merit (I wasa
> >wrong.).
> >It doesn't require a great deal of investigation to come to understand
that
> >Lee was assisted in both reaching, and returning from, the USSR - And
that
> >he received assistance from both sides. JKO and I will eventually get to
> >that.
> >I did initially not have an answer as to why Lee had received assistance
> >from BOTH SIDES. I simply had the evidence that it occurred. James, via
his
> >own independent research, has tried to address WHY both sides would
assist
> >Lee. Hence, he has raised Project TP. Actually, it appears we approached
the
> >problem from the same angle, looking for a mutual US/Soviet information
> >exchange. We knew this is what we we're looking for (or, at least, I did)
> >from Nixon's "kitchen debate" with Kruschev. While the debate, itself, is
of
> >no historical significance, the intentions of each party were publicly
> >expressed, most significantly by Kruschev who was very pointed, and
"between
> >the lines" by Nixon (Krushev even made fun of Nixon's political answers
as
> >being those of an "attorney"). It was clear that Nixon was interested in
a
> >"sharing of ideas" and it was equally clear, by the examples Nixon used,
> >that he was proposing a sharing of technology. This took place in July,
> >1959. Thus, we both were on the hunt for a US technolgy transfer to the
USSR
> >that coincided with Lee's "defection". I was unaware of Project TP but
was
> >aware of a space technology transfer that took place in December, 1959 -
the
> >very time Lee was in Moscowe requesting Soviet citizenship. Hence, I
> >"assumed" this was the "sharing of ideas" Nixon alluded to. However,
JKO's
> >Project TP fits better as far as Lee is concerned because Project TP
> >involved radar, a subject Lee could contribute too. Whereas space
technology
> >doesn't fit Oswald. My ASSUMPTION at the time was that Lee was a "tack
on"
> >to the information exchange. That is to say that the US added the Soviets
> >admitting Oswald to the USSR as part of the "space technology" exchange.
> >IMO, the CIA was seeking "economic" information on the USSR which U-2's
were
> >not providing, specifically the costs of goods and services and the
> >organization of production (The "Kollective"). Lee was to provide this
> >information. He was a "spy" but not in the ordinary sense. He was not
> >collecting secrets as much as he was collecting prices and production.
> >The evidence is quite clear that the Soviets understood Lee's mission and
> >did their best to subvert it by presenting a "false economy" to Oswald.
They
> >put him up in his own river view apartment and they overpaid him for his
> >work. They KNEW he was going "back" and they sought to control the
> >information he took back with him by overstating their economy.
>
>
> But Lee was well aware that his own situation in the USSR was
> "different" than the typical Russian citizen. He talked to other
> employees and was aware his "pay" was higher than other workers. You
> are suggesting that Oswald was a bit of a "dummy" and not able to
> figure out that he was being treated "differently".

I didn't suggest he was a "bit of a 'dummy' " at all. Merely that the
Soviets understood his mission and tried to influence him into giving an
overstated view of their economy.

But he does rely on Krushev on occassion for production figures, such as
housing construction.

> Indeed, in his
> letters, he often notes that life is not easy for the regular Russian
> worker.

He also performed personal interviews with workers.

> Marina was attracted to Lee, the American, as much for his
> access to a larger apartment and other advantages as she was to his
> personality.

She described the delicious pastries and teas Lee had access to. Lee
describes his access to the ballet. Our boy had it good in the USSR for
someone on a "temporary" visa.
Why do you suppose that was?


>
> Then again, you are laying out the strategy of the Russians. From
> their point of view, maybe they thought they could deceive Lee about
> the state of their economy, but somehow I doubt they were so naive.
>

They had to try and they had some success. Lee repeats Krushev's national
production claims. But, for the most part, Lee successfully pulled off the
appearance of a "hillbilly". He successfully collected accurate info on
Minsk locally, got interviews from people who weren't supposed to give them,
and got it back out of the USSR without their knowing.
Obviously, Oswald was no dummy.


>
>
> > When Lee
> >went back, it was their intention that he carry an exaggerated report of
the
> >Soviet economy with him.
> >You can read Lee's report on the Soviet economy and production on John's
> >site as "The Kollective".
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thecollective.htm
>
> Your case is stronger if you are suggesting that the "facts and
> figures" were overstated. Of course, such exaggerated figures are a
> different kettle of fish than Oswald's day-to-day experiences in Minsk
> where he was treated in a "special" manner.
>

Where Lee depends upon Kruschev for production figures we can bet the
figures are overstated. Yet nowhere does Lee ever suspect those figures to
be falsified. He seems to take Kruschev on his word.
Lee does much better on his own.

You can tell the Russians tried to influence Lee's report and why. We know
why because he has a "temporary" visa. It would be one thing to heap this
lifestyle on Lee as reward for defecting - but he hasn't defected. They know
it. They're the ones who turned down his Soviet citizenship request. They're
the one's who gave Lee a temporary one year visa. The moment they don't
renew it, Lee is going home. By not granting Lee Soviet citizenship, they
have set the stage for Lee to return.
Haing set the stage for Leeto return to the US, they then set the stage for
him to return with an overinflated view of the Soviet lifestyle by
overpaying him. Otherwise, why overpay him?



> >The significance to JKO's and my exchange isn't to address what happened
on
> >11/22/63 as much as it is to state that the presented history of Oswald
is
> >incorrect. Had Oswald actually been what the Posnerites claim he was, he
> >would have been in prison on 11/22/63 breaking rocks with a lead ball
> >chained to his leg. You simply can't get around this.
> >
> >Compare the history of defector Bruce Frederick Davis to Oswald's:
> >
> >http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/defector.htm#DAVIS
> >
> >Like Lee, Davis was US military who never renounced his US citizenship
and,
> >like Lee, he was critical of US foreign policy. Like Lee, he also
requested
> >the return of his American passport. And, like Lee, after requesting the
> >return of his passport, he met a Rusian girlfriend. Finally, like Lee, he
> >made an unauthorized visit to the USEMB to return to the US.
> >
> >What was waiting for him when he got home?
> >
> >A 10 year prison sentence at hard labor.
> >
> >Yet whern Lee returned to the US, nothing happened. Where was his 10 year
> >sentence?
> >
> >It fell through the cracks.
> >
> >There is probably no person in the history of America with more
government
> >filing "mistakes" than Oswald. They range from his military files to his
> >passport files. But, if one looks closely, the "mistakes" are not
mistakes
> >at all. They serve a single purpose - to keep Lee from breaking rocks
with a
> >lead ball chained to his leg like Bruce Frederick Davis.
> >This "favoritism" has lead to all kinds of wild CT theories - from where
> >he's an FBI informant to a CIA agent. But, in reality, he never worked
for
> >either of those two agencies (Although they were very much aware of
him.).
> >JKO and I have both figured out who Lee was working for in 1963
(Argueably,
> >from JKO's perspective, the same people he was working for in 1956.).
> >
> >If you have questions, ASK.
> >
> >This opportunity is not likely to come along again.
>
> Good summary, Clark. Although I'm not sure when the "opportunity" to
> ask will be lost in the future!

JKO and I are not going to be around forever. I have "moved on" to other
things and my memory just can't hold all this stuff. Slowly, things are
being either "mis-remembered" or forgotten. JKO has other interests as well
and the keyboard is becoming more physically challenging for his fingers.
The bottom line is we are not as young as we used to be.

It's because of that, that we are probably speaking out now. Otherwise, I
don't we'd be speaking up. James would be asking $ 3 million for his
research and I'd still be waiting for Ted Kennedy to die - which is
beginning to look likeitwillneverhappen.

Under those conditions, the public would never learn what happened.

Another possibility that could interfere with your ability to ask questions
in the future is if James and I get in an argument (And we will - And are).
These argument could get heated. It's not that we are opposed to be proven
wrong. That's fine or even better. Each time one of us convinces the other
of his view, progress is made because "one more possible door is shut". It's
when neither of us can convince the other that he's wrong that a problem
arises. We have a stalemate. We have two different doors of which neither
can be closed. Each door leads to different doors. We both know that. The
directions can be vastly different. When we recognize the other is no longer
on the same page as ourselves, what do we have left to talk about? It could
stop the exchange.


::Clark::



>
>
> >::Clark::
>
>
> PF
> >
> >
>

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 17:25:22 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:bgrcn05c18u8hlplgq8l123kt2th3gnspn@4ax.com...
> On 15 Oct 2004 22:28:10 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
> <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Guys,
> >
> >I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> >arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> >about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to
give
> >the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> >bystanders get a foothold?
> >
> >Sincere request.
> >
> >paul seaton
>
> Paul,
> JKO's scenario involves the exchange of information between the
> Soviet Union and The U.S. about a system to "reduce" the possibility
> of nuclear war. Clark and JKO suggest that Oswald's information may
> have been in the form of "technical knowledge" of this system.

I don't think either JKO or I believe Lee had "technical knowledge" of the
system although he may have had "operational" knowledge (And that is purely
speculation). JKO has mentioned Lee as a "courier" who made a "delivery". I
have Oswald simply as being part of the Nixon/Kruschev agreement of "free
exchange of ideas". Lee does not have to have TP knowledge in order to be
selected as an observor.


> If this scenario is correct, it seems to undermine your theory that
> Oswald thought he could provoke a "nuclear war" by killing JFK. Oswald
> must have known -- to some degree -- that a system was in place to
> "safeguard" against such a nuclear exchange.

In my research he does not need to know TP even exists. He simply needs to
know that the USG was loking for a "low level" volunteer to travel to the
USSR and "see what life is like."

Lee's background suggests that he wouldn't mind seeing what life is like in
the USSR. As a private and an 8th grade dropout, he doesn't represent a
prize winning economist either - Which is what the Russians would want to
avoid. So he becomes acceptable to both sides. He's willing to go, has no
family attachments, is genuinely interested in an alternative political
system, but also lacks the education to appraise the Soviet economy. He's a
harmless "hillbilly".

In the "spy" business, agents are seldom told more than they need to know.
For example, Lee would not know that his trip had been arranged by both
Nixon and Kruschev since for Lee to reveal this under interrogation would
not go well for either Nixon or Kruschev, whose critics would then point out
that they were collaborating with the enemy. And, in my scenario, if Lee
doesn't know about the Nixon/Kruschev deal, then he doesn't know about
Project TP either.

Keep in mind that it doesn't have to be "Project TP" that is being shared.
There were other information exchanges. James and I simply agree that this
is the one that best fits.


::Clark::

>
> PF
>
> >
> >"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> >news:41700c65@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> >news:10mu1bna19lj279@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > > snip
> >>
> >>
> >> > > I think you are putting too much into the status.......in the wrong
> >> > ways....but
> >> > > I know you are just trying to figure it out. There are four ways
that
> >all
> >> > of this
> >> > > has to be considered.
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Seperated on his own
> >> > > 2. Seperated as "Inactive" due to hardship
> >> > > 3. Seperated as a member of the Ready Reserve
> >> > > 4. Still on Active Duty
> >> > >
> >> > > Still on AD covers all known actions.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Certainly by Lee.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, Lee knows his status, but few others would..........if everything
was
> >just
> >> rubberstamped, passed along the routine trail......but things are just
not
> >right
> >> if one looks deep enough.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think that might have drawn Poindexter's ire...
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Wrong Poindexter in my opinion. J. W. Poindexter was only the
first
> >> > endorsement,
> >> > > not the last.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I show him as a Lt. Colonel in 1951.
> >> > Not a big enough fish at that time.
> >> > What was his rank in 1959?
> >> >
> >>
> >> No idea, no rank or position appear on his endoresement or any other
> >document
> >> I have....but then I know I don't have them all.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > This is money that the Red Cresent gave Lee while he was in Minsk,
not
> >the
> >> > > money for the trip. Offical confirmation of dependency or hardship
> >has to
> >> > come
> >> > > from the Red Cross......there is no Red Cross confirmation in the
> >> > papertrail.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > WOW!
> >> > How did you even THINK to make that connection?
> >>
> >> It's common knowledge in the military system. The Red Cross was used
as
> >cover
> >> since, we fought the Soviets in WWI when the RC was just forming it's
deep
> >connection
> >> with the military. We attactually did fight one battle by mistake with
> >Soviet forces on
> >> Soviet soil..........these RC guys over there might have caused that
> >battle.......I wrote
> >> about this many years ago. The same consideration in WWII, JFK's
sister
> >worked for
> >> the Red Cross in England, with the guy who would later replace Papa
Joe,
> >in the Court
> >> of St. James, he also later headed the forrunning OSS operations that
> >became the
> >> base of the CIA.
> >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > It's hard to say it was to save time......but the two papertrails
are
> >> > there and they
> >> > > conflict.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > You're right. Maybe it wasn't to save time.
> >> > Maybe it was to create dual paper trails.
> >> > One for Oswald.
> >> > And one for the USMC.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The truth about the two seperate paper trails and the confirmation of
both
> >being
> >> part of this "project" were/are presented as being "destroyed". That
is
> >not what
> >> I believe.
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Lt. Ayers......in my opinion is the man in the middle, insuring all
> >the
> >> > paperwork
> >> > > is done and hidden if needed. Somebody has to direct the paper.
Even
> >he
> >> > does
> >> > > not have to know why.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Which brings me back to J.W. Poindexter's rank. A Lt. Colonel in 1951
> >> > could be out of the colonel business by 1959.
> >>
> >> A buck private could have handled this........rank is not the issue or
> >concern.
> >> It's actually better to have lower ranking individuals handling this.
> >Easier for PD.
> >>
> >>
> >> > > > > It is (dependency) not established prior to the first 5 of the
> >> > > > "endoresements" of
> >> > > > > discharge, that require legal dependency......but the allotment
> >is.
> >> > > > However, if Lee
> >> > > > > is discharged.......there is no allotment.......or is there?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Through 9/11/59.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > It was not approved until 30 September.....Lee was "out".
> >> >
> >> > Which brings you to the Red Cross?
> >>
> >> Yes, there is one letter by Dr. Howard, dated Sept 3rd, that is
DIRECTED
> >TO
> >> THE RED CROSS. I also believe Lee was pissed at his mother for doing
> >things
> >> without going through the RC.......I believe there are letters on
> >this....but I don't
> >> have them handy right now.....Lee's pay records would have been closed
out
> >on
> >> 11 Sept. 1959. That would mean that the approval would have been
closed
> >out
> >> at the same time as not being needed.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If so, brilliant thinking.
> >> >
> >>
> >> One has to first understand the basics.....which have never been
presented
> >properly.
> >> I first questioned the absences of the confirmation required by the Red
> >Cross within
> >> the offical records. It was at first a seperate consideration only in
the
> >fact that not
> >> all the "required" documents were in the files presented......but
nobody
> >would even
> >> look, without considerinig all the factors of known history, on going
at
> >the time. It
> >> was later that I associated that amount of money that Lee was given in
the
> >USSR.
> >> It was when I was working on the money coming from Texas, while Lee was
> >employed
> >> in New Orleans, that things came together in considering the Red
Cresent
> >funds.
> >>
> >>
> >> > > > And more information is about to come Oswald's way regarding "US
> >> > > > citizenship".
> >> > >
> >> > > in another thread.....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Okay - but it pertains directly to September-December 1959.
> >> >
> >> > >
> >>
> >> Yes, but it means moving on from the discharge.........
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Lee was not qualified to be part of the primary considerations of
the
> >> > exchange
> >> > > but was on a very low level.....as a "operator".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Of the system being turned over?
> >>
> >> Yes, the system.........or it's adaption.......I believe that they
needed
> >somebody
> >> that would be able to work the system from both sides......which maybe
the
> >> reason Lee was later asked to stay and things had to be worked out for
him
> >> to stay and work where the Soviet versions would be made....in Minsk.
> >It's
> >> also my opinion that Lee was actually useless in this.....but that's
> >another issue
> >> on his training.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > > The person crossing the border had to be one that the KGB would
> >approve
> >> > of.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Agreed. But I don't think KGB approval of Oswald was in place in
> >September
> >> > - which may explain the "slow boat".
> >>
> >> They are in my opinion the ones that insisted that the individual be a
> >"nobody"
> >> in the first place. So they would not have to spend a great deal of
time
> >or effort
> >> in "watching him" which is exactly what happened. Low ranking KGB
> >operatives
> >> and very low priority concerning his activities. My account has to
take
> >everything
> >> into consideration in support of the desires of both the USSR and the
USA.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > However, Richard Snyder noted Lee's Soviet visa had expired 5 days
> >earlier
> >> > when Lee showed up at the US Embassy - And noted it was unusual for
Lee
> >> > not to have already been carted across the border.
> >>
> >> Lee was in the country illegally, at that time by all the information
> >available to Synder.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > > > > Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of
Oct
> >31.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'll drag mine out and post them.
> >> > > > They were not officially to Snyder, athough he probably read
them.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Oct 31 letter is the first........Snyder gives the message with
> >"the
> >> > wrong address",
> >> > > which confirms Lee is who he is and all is well. The address in
the
> >> > letter is not
> >> > > Lee's last known address....it is the address he lived at when he
join
> >the
> >> > USMCR.
> >> >
> >> > Here is Lee getting a "message out" to the USG from his hotel in
Moscow
> >on
> >> > November 12-13, 1959.
> >>
> >> That's after the offical October 31 cable sent immediately after Lee
left
> >Synder.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your letters to be addressed later............
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > OK. But I promised I'd share that Oswald sent messages - one of which
> >went
> >> > to Snyder - that are not in the official record. So I included one
> >above.
> >> >
> >>
> >> they are important but too much outside of the "early out" that still
has
> >to be
> >> ended.
> >>
> >>
> >> > How do we rule that out that he 1) Didn't go see the base legal
attorney
> >> > for his help 2) Didn't research the codes himself?
> >>
> >> We can't rule these considerations out.......they follow the
> >>
> >> 1. Seperation on his own
> >>
> >>
> >> > Not that I'm arguing. My proof that Lee couldn't act alone is while
he's
> >> > in the USSR - not in his method of obtaining his discharge.
> >>
> >> You need the discharge, the entry, the stay and the return as well to
put
> >everything
> >> in proper perspective.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Again, let's assume Morely is reading this (I sent him an e mail on
this
> >> > but he's slow on opening and reading them.).
> >> >
> >>
> >> He has CIA material coming in Dec......so chances are he has a full
plate.
> >>
> >> jko
> >> >
> >> > ::Clark::
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 17:27:46 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:e8adn05tjc6fb8kjp9nvgo5puei29spbei@4ax.com...
> On 20 Oct 2004 12:50:39 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
> <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
> >news:bgrcn05c18u8hlplgq8l123kt2th3gnspn@4ax.com...
> >> On 15 Oct 2004 22:28:10 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
> >> <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Guys,
> >> >
> >> >I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> >> >arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they
talking
> >> >about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to
> >give
> >> >the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> >> >bystanders get a foothold?
> >> >
> >> >Sincere request.
> >> >
> >> >paul seaton
> >>
> >> Paul,
> >> JKO's scenario involves the exchange of information between the
> >> Soviet Union and The U.S. about a system to "reduce" the possibility
> >> of nuclear war.
> >
> >Yup, I got that.
> >
> >
> >Clark and JKO suggest that Oswald's information may
> >> have been in the form of "technical knowledge" of this system.
> >> If this scenario is correct, it seems to undermine your theory that
> >> Oswald thought he could provoke a "nuclear war" by killing JFK.
> >
> >Making nuclear war less likely ( by removing the constraint on the USSR
that
> >they either strike first or not at all) doesn't seem to me to preclude
LHO's
> >hope that the US / USSR could be brought to the brink of 'MAD' over JFK's
> >assassination.
>
> One call from a member of the SGA to LBJ would end that possibility.
> But Lee might not have known exactly who had access to his file.

That would require that the SGA actually know Lee by name. In all
probability his name was never revealed by anything other than by a code
name such as AM/Lash or WI/Rogue. This is SOP with agents to prevent their
identities from being revealed. Often, the person using the code name
doesn't even know the agent's true name.


>
>
> >If that's not good enough, I'm sure Clark will be happy to argue the
point
> >with you. :-)
>
> >( BTW, I obviously don't think LHO was hoping for *actual* nuclear war -
> >just that some kind of ..er..Oswaldian 'rapprochement'..would be the only
> >alternative, and thus would be the only option short of armaggedon.
>
> Then he was crazy.

Which is one way of explaining 11/22/63.

>
> > Great
> >to get to use the the words 'rapprochement' & 'armaggedon' in one short
post
> >btw :-) Wanted to get 'Hegelian' in there too, but couldn't seem to do
it)
>
> >> Oswald
> >> must have known -- to some degree -- that a system was in place to
> >> "safeguard" against such a nuclear exchange.
>
> >Assuming something like the Wilkins/Olmstead theory is true, is LHO even
> >neccessarily aware of what his 'role' really is ?
>
> Perhaps not I suppose, but JKO and Clark speculate at one point about
> the possibility LHO himself provided actual training for this
> equipment.

Lee's radar experience was with the M16 unit, if memory serves, which is the
wrong radar. My speculation was that Lee might have been taught to run TP's
radar or the Russians might have thought that he had been.
But I have no evidence to support either.


>
> >Where's the need for him to know ? (Straight question. Don't know the
> >answer )

Yes. "Need to know" is a critical point of consideration. There is no reason
to tell an 8th grade dropout why we need economic information on the USSR -
only that we need it and how to get it. Anything after that is superflous
(and amounts to an admission of what we "don't know") and could jeopardize
the operation should Lee turn out to be disloyal.


::Clark::


>

[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 17:28:02 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Nicely followed and put together. But I don't have"much" evidence to support
my end of the speculation. I did find mention of a 31 page report on Lee
with 30 pages deleted that "might" cover this area.



"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:t82dn0l0jiimah4k09d0ced9dvugfu24qu@4ax.com...
> Clark wrote:
>
> >> > > Allow me to conclude you're suggesting somethng like that the
"delivery"
> >> > > Oswald made was not of a material item, but of knowledge - such as
> >> > > operational knowledge.
>
> JKO replied:
>
> >> > Not totally.......it can only be assumed that Lee "studied" the TM's
on
> >> > the various items of equipment.....or that he had exposure to the
system
> >> > while on duty in Calif or Atsugi.....I believe he might have been
exposed
> >> > to Project TP in the development stages......that required radar
> >> > operators......but I believe his knowledge is very limited.
>
> Clark:
>
> >> But TP operational knowledge would have been a nice "carrot" to go with
TP
> >> technical knowledge. The Russians would think twice about kicking him
out
> >> if they believed he had "operational knowledge". They might even send
him
> >> to where the TP radars were being built in order to demonstrate
training
> >> and operation of the completed system.
>
> Sounds like something they might film for future use too.
> That would indeed be a nice carrot.
>
> >By nature of his prior service, he would have enough "background" to be
of
> >use, however I doubt he had the technical skills. I beleive it was to
> >"later" illustrate the co-operation, if they wanted to do this. The U.S.
> >agreed in the hopes they would learn inside information......as you
> >mention later.
>
>
> >> > The Russians expect to debrief him of that knowledge
> >> > > and then send him back. But they soon find the debriefing is much
more
> >> > > complex than they expected.
>
> >> > They might have some changes......that would require them to know if
the
> >> > US operator might have problems......Lee could fll in on the spot.
>
>
> PF
>
>
>

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 23:03:49 -0400


Clark:


> >
> > It could be noticed......but lower ranking individuals would not care.
>
> But one did. He did not accept Lee's paperwork and requested new paperwork.
> Also, the Pic letter was sent to USAF.

You have to remember two paper trails....one required the USG to give
additional money to Oswald...but that would only go into effect if Lee
was staying in and not geting discharged.

>
> The lower ranks have requested what they either don't want or don't need
> because they then never used it.
> Are you suggesting this is SOP for the lower ranks?
>
> > If higher
> > up were known to be involved and that the case was of "interest" it would
> have
> > been "remembered" and handled "properly".....if higher ups said forget
> about
> > the proper proceedures it would draw attention not desired.
> >
>
> But proper procedure was followed "after the fact".
> Lee has already been for discharge before requested papers arrive.
> If proper procedure was followed the Review Board would not have acted
> without the requested paperwork.
> Either that, or the Review Board overruled the other officer's request and
> decided Lee's original paperwork was sufficient.

Two seperate papertrails.....both related.....but both seperate. As a
matter of record....the discharge is approved without proper paperwork in
place or examined. No dependency hardship is established prior to
seperation.

This is the main point that can't be countered.

>
> > >
> > > If "input from above" is not required, that's the same as saying that
> all
> > > hardship and dependency discharges are automatically approved on
> > > questionable or incomplete paperwork as SOP unless contrary input is
> > > received from above.
> >
> > No they would be handled normally.....it's when influence by higher
> ranking
> > individuals stick their noses into things that things become noticed and
> > difficult to follow through on......towards the goal.
> >
>
> How could "no input" from above explain Lt. Ayers actions on 9/12/59?
>

It really can't be expland either way....that's a key issue. We just don't
have all the documents available.....nor is the entire project examined.
There are enough to show the conflict....but not enough to resolve the
issues.

jko

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 23:06:48 -0400


Clark:


> > > of where he was headed?
> >
> > Yes, however, the passport obtained also supplied the same info. It's was
> to
> > keep things just outside of military exposure as records were being
> processed.
> >
>
> Ayers saw the destinations listed on Lee's passport?

Yes, in my opinion he was aware of travel plans being considered. If
he knew "exactly" where Lee was going.....is a questionable consideration.




> > >
> > > OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University was
> not
> > > in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then, second,
> what
> > > are the things I am overlooking?
> >
> > First Lee does not want anyone to consider that he's a "Reservist" in any
> manner.
>
> His app to ASC and Torku is consistent with his being a Reservist. He
> certainly didn't hide it from the US passport office.

yes, it is consistent with the legal requirements.

>
> > Second PLU is secondary to Turku Univesity (Finland) and ACS both listed
> > in connection to his passport.
>
> But it is made for the same reasons.
>

Yes, actual attendence is the issue, since he never attended any of
the schools it's hard to say these were primary goals. They can be
used to show Lee's disappointment with the USSR.....more cover.



> > Lee makes the PLU request....not sure if all
> > the paperwork follows proceedure, without hopes of the Soviets allowing
> him
> > to attend.
>
> How do we know he was "without hopes"?
> He told Priscilla Johnson he wanted to attend a Soviet institute. And didn't
> Marina say he was disappointed when turned down?

Where is all this paperwork.......do we know all this to be true, or are
we guessing about what "Lee" wrote in his diary. He's a
liar.....remember.

>
> > I don't think the KGB wanted him three. Lee is not in Europe to
> > study and obtain any formal education. He is not in the USSR to expand
> his
> > understanding and to become a better "Marxist".
> >
> > Lee follows the restriction because he is not left wing.
> >
>
> He's not a communist.
> He can still be LW.
>

True....those wishing to end the "cold war" have to be able to accept
the results of that end.


> > >
> > > Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?
> >
> > NO it's all part of the cover continued to be built. He is only screwed
> if he
> > is "outside" of the game being played around him.
>
> But Lee was ASSISTED in his appeal unless he used his godlike LN power to
> write his appeal before he returned from the USSR.

More paperwork that Lee acted on the day after he returned.....but never
followed through with. Getting that first "form" needed the day after his
return expands the considerations of beiing assisted.......but the lack of
proper follow through is in my opinion part of the "new persona" being
created.

>
> And if it was all part of the cover being built then he simply wouldn't have
> appealed the decision. The cover is in place. Why appeal it? And why appeal
> it with a winning case? But he did - And with assistance. He made the
> Review Board look like horses asses.
>

Appeal, itself provides opportunties dealing with this "new persona" that
have to be considered for this period of his life. But this is all
"after" the seperation/defection/return.


> The evidence is that the USEB didn't just hand Lee his passport. They handed
> him a book on US military legal codes as well.

Far more complex.....but that's the basic.......

>
> Our boy went over hoping/expecting to come back with a "clean slate". State
> will not prosecute because he was attending school and so he applies to
> school. The Navy won't prosecute him because of Lt. Ayers and because he was
> not placed under arrest at the USEMB. They sent him. He knows they want him
> back. He retains his citizenship. He retains his passport. He retains his
> honorable discharge. The "tourist" comes home as planned. Then he finds out
> the USMC has illegally changed his discharge. How in the frick and frack did
> that happen?!! Nobody told him that would happen! So he irately appeals.

No......but this is all out of the seperation stage.

>
> Who in the USEMB would he have taken his beef to? The US Naval attache'? Who
> would have a copy of US military legal codes to give him? The US Naval
> Attache'? Who isn't on the WC's witness stand? The US Naval Attache'?

All considerations......later.

>
> Lee was expecting that to be cleared up when he returned, just as he was
> expecting the USG to pay his way home and allow Marina and daughter to
> accompany him.

All considerations....later.

>
> Lee is completely unaware of any "cover" being prepared for him. If he was
> he would have skipped the appeal and not bothered demanding a guarantee of
> no prosecution. After all, if they're going to create a "cover" for him, it
> won't be of much use if he spends the next ten years behind bars.

No.....Lee would not have any problem knowing what was going on. NOT
appealing would blow the cover being prepared.


>
> Indeed! It's probably because his discharge status has been changed that has
> caused Lee to demand a guarantee of "no prosecution" as a condition of
> returning. If that's happened - what else has happened that's waiting for
> him?

Nothing for Lee to worry about.......your hung up on the discharge status,
forgetting it's all part of the "plan". You are again combining elements
of Lee acting alone and Lee acting in a "planned" effort.


> >
> > > Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?
> >
> > The actions by the USN/USMC are consistance with creating the cover
> > and continuing to build it up.
>
> Then no one should have handed Lee a book of US legal codes in Moscow.
> And while I realize I am writing in favor of your July 25,1963 theory, Lee's
> change of discharge status never would have happened if not for his mother.
> So, unless she's a party to it, his change of status was not part of
> creating a cover. It can't be.

NOBODY handed Lee a legal guide....Lee's mother is only a "means" to start
the paperwork.....that's her total involvement. Look at the low level of
"press" on his return.....nobody would care.....or even be aware of
various things that come into play...except/because of the involvement in
the assassination.

>
> Of course, the July 25,1963 ruling COULD BE.
>

> > >
> > > Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
> > > He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25, 1963.
> >
> > He could if he was acting on a rampage or totally on his own. But I don't
> > think so. If Korth was killed LHO would be a automatic prime suspect.
> >

>
> No more than he was an automatic prime suspect in the Walker shooting. Korth
> was having his own problems after July 25, 1963. If Korth was murdered after
> July 25, 1963, the automatic prime suspect would be LBJ.
>

Killing Korth would open up a whole new ballgame.....being involved with
Korth in any manner is not in any plan or relationship to any of Lee's
actions. If he was killed a suspect list would be created.....Lee's name
as a returned "Red defector" would be one of the first on the list.


> > >
> > > I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
> > > And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent
> him -
> > > Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.
> > >
> >
> > chances are Hoover was outside the loop and trying to catch up between
> > 59-64.
>
> I would say he was definitely out of the loop.
> But he wormed his way in.
> He made Oswald, the "LW Marxist with the undesireable discharge" possible.

He pushed that view after the assassination.

>
> >
> > > But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no longer
> > > under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?
> > >
> >
> > The whole "seperation" is a sham. Lee would KNOW THAT.
> >
>
> Why would he know that? If he joined the USMCR in 1956 for a "6" year term
> of duty (A guess on my part but supported by the 3+3 years of service for
> volunteers and by his DD1173 card), he knows he's in in the USMCR until
> December, 1962.
>

His service is covered....after 6 months.....180 days.....and it's "8
years". So in 1957 his service obligation has been satitisfied. If not
for his involvement in the events of November.....up to 1964.....after 64
another "ballgame".



> > > Who is to suspect?
> > >
> >
> > ANYONE WHO TAKES ANY INTEREST......to quote the investigation report
> > summary of evidence by Rankin which is slanted towards Lee acting on
> > his own and not with assistance from Soviets.......but ignores assistance
> > from USG:
> >
> > " Under the circumstances, he undoubtedly obtained the discharge
> fraudulenty"
> >
> > This supports my position 100%
>
> It also supports mine 100%. He also obtained a "dependency" discharge
> fraudulently.
>

So the basic considerations of this whole discussion are even supported by
the WC investigation........gee......how hard is it now for LN'ers to
contest this discussion.

> > If anyone considered Lee actions as a result of the PJM interview, with
> all
> > the facts.......the above is how they would view Oswald. LN's don't even
> > want you to consider the above.
>
> He would still be viewed the same with a "dependency" discharge - an
> individual who fraudulently took advantage of his sick, unemployed, poverty
> stricken mother to seek an early discharge to help her when, in fact, it was
> to go to the USSR and abandon her.

Yes, all part of the cover.

> >
> > But Mother Russia would not want him......as shown by Rankin....he would
> have
> > no value to the Soviets.
> >
>
> Rankin showed that the Russians were not coaching Oswald in June, 1959. He
> didn't show that the Russians wouldn't take him in October, 1959 if they
> knew he had a "hardship" discharge instead of a 'dependency" discharge.

They would take him because of what he was doing.....bringing the material
across. If he was acting on his own....and they knew they would not
accept him. They could "learn" very easy.......if he was acting alone.
The KGB is not stupid.

>

> >
> > Either discharge makes the USMC look good.....releasing Lee to take care
> of his
> > mother........but, they did not have the "evidence"......so it's suspect,
> if one looks
> > close.
>
> It becomes even more "suspect" when Ayers records it two different ways in
> 24 hours. There's something else you're not telling me. You want him to know
> he has a "hardship" discharge. Why?
>

Because there is no reason to withold it.....and it's all a sham.



> > >
> > > No. You can't.
> > > She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
> > > Big mistake.
> >
> > Yes, as well as others.....some of which remained silent.
> >
>
> Anyone you can name?

Yes, one, the same guy who stuck his nose into the Petrulli defection,
Walters of Pa. He was very vocal in the press. Not a peep about Oswald.


> > The whole point.....as far as the public was concerned he was recently
> > discharged. That's all that would be presented.
> >
>
> Public concern is only a concern if Lee stands before the Soviet cameras and
> pulls a Francis Gary Powers and admits he's an "Active" military agent for
> the US.
>

Which he would never do.......even once arrested for murder of JFK.
There was however a "fear" that he would.....enter Ruby and "Cuban
Shadows". That fear was generated once he was arrested and made his "only
defense" statements. Details between the USG and Oswald were made only
minutes before Lee was killed.....



> >
> > He is just maintaining his actions within the law......tricky situation
> staying in
> > the USSR.
>
> And then come back.
>
> We do agree that he was maintaining his actions within the (passport) law
> for reservists?
>

yes, it is a consideration of the law that has to be considered.


> > It would be ok......(without the actions of the assassination to
> > consider, say it never happened) for people or groups to "think" he got
> > training in the USSR......or was a "student" of Marxism while
> there.......but
> > he never actually did those things "expected" or just accepted.
>
> But he tried.
>

And all the proof is where? In Oswald's dirary?


> >
> > Not as they show Lee.......it requires a much more detailed profile. One
> they
> > can't support.
> >
>
> Do the passport laws prohibiting overseas employment also apply to Inactive
> reservists?
>

Not that I know of.



> > > > There is no need to hide anything from Lee......
> > >
> > > If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
> > > Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?
> >
> > See above........
> >
>
> I looked above and can't find a difference between Lee telling her one or
> the other.
>

The less said the better..........you never give reporters areas to
consider or look into.....unless you want to.

>
> We are coming closer together. If Lee is USMCR - and is obligated to 6 years
> duty (a guess my part) then the USMC must discharge him back into the USMCR
> to finish his remaining 3 years of "Active" USMCR duty. So Lee's discharge
> files go to the USMCR Active Reserve. If not, if Lee had received a USMC
> discharge, after three years of "active" duty, he would be discharged as
> Inactive - which would be incorrect.
>
> Lee now applies for his passport as an Active USMCR Reservist with three
> years remaining. With this attached to his passport he seeks to attend a
> Soviet institution.
>
> Now where am I wrong?
>

First, he is in a 8 year commitment requiring only 6 months of service.


> Because, if I'm not wrong, you need to explain why Ayers changed his
> discharge to Inactive on 9/12/59?
>
> Because now it's wrong.

It's all a sham.


> >
> > He does not have to believe he is active USMCR.....he's not.
>
> He's not if one who signs up for he USMCR is only obligated for three years.
> Are they?

consider some of the above.......

>
> I'm betting a USMCR enlistee has the same total duty obligation as a
> volunteer (3 years active, 3 years inactive = 6 years) or a draftee (2 years
> active, 2 years active reserve, 2 years inactive reserve = 6 years) or 6
> years. I'm betting this is right. I just don't know if the 6 years is 6
> years of Active Reserve or three years Active Reserve plus 3 years Inactive
> Reserve.
>
> Do you know?

see the added material to consider above.

>
> >...he's a member
> > of the NSTC
>
> He can be a member of both the NSTC and the USMCR. We know he signed up for
> the latter, probably in order to receive training for the former.

Membership in the USMCR is required......for 6 months.......

>
> >which used the USMCR, on assignment.....he is ACTIVE as a
> > NSTC member
>
> That depends. How long is one Active in the NSTC if training in the USMC
> counts towards his NSTC duty time?

basically 8 years......unless no longer "needed"......say after 25 July,
1963.



> > >
> > > Lee was worried about nothing.
> >
> > Lee was not worried.....you have him being worried.
>
> Trying to go to a Soviet school is him being worried.

Not really but you can have him worried if you want.

>
> > He follows the legal considerations
> > because he "supports them" as part of his being a member of the NSTC.
> It's always
> > better to obey the law, then to violate it, while under cover.
>
> If he's stlll "Active" in the NSTC.

Since he is still active in questionable activities....I consider him
still working under NSTC.....for the EOP until 1964....however November 63
comes into play.


> > You continue to have Lee ignorant of what does not matter.....it's
> paperwork
> > that was done. It does not matter if Lee is "Active" or "Inactive" on
> paper
> > .......neither are the truth. At this point his service obligation is
> met......under
> > the RFA of 1955.....he is now a trained field operative.
> >
>
> But only if active NSTC enlistment exceeds 3 years. His USMCR training time
> will count towards hs NSTC enlistment time. If they both run three years,
> the only alternative is for him to re-enlist in the NSTC or he will go
> Inactive in the NSTC.
>

See the above considerations added.


> >
> > He can still be "courts-martialed"......if he was acting alone....
>
> In which case, he should have been.
> But he wasn't.

Yes, the point that establishes the need to understand why.

>
> >but if he was
> > on detail....none of this actually matters.
>
> And he won't be courtmartialed.
> And he wasn't.

Exactly.

>
>
> For lurkers, James and I may disgree over the REASONS for why Lee was what
> he was, but we don't disagree on what Lee was - An American citizen
> believing himself to be on ACTIVE DUTY inside the USSR, assisted by USMC Lt.
> Ayers, and planning his return, having gotten there by joint US/Soviet help.
>
> And, as can be seen, we used separate evidence to arrive at this same
> conclusion.
>

basically yes....you still have him "believing" things that don't matter,
since they have allready been "covered"....except for his involvement in
the assassination.....which was not anything expected.


> >
> > You have a twisted way of getting to this point.....he obeyed orders. The
> papertrail
> > means nothing if he is acting on orders....."By direction".
> >
>
> As I mentioned before, JKO and I may have taken different busses, but we got
> off at the same bus stop - and more than once.
>

Yes although I believe I have more material support on my bus and I'm
driving.




> >
> > THE AG WILL NEVER PROSECUTE HIM.
> >
>
> YES. AGREED 100%.
> BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT. If he knew that, he wouldn't have bothered to
> apply at Patrice Lumumba University and he wouldn't have prepared the
> following answers to questions he might be asked upon his return:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/questionnaire.htm
>

In your view he "DOESN'T KNOW" in my view he does.

> Lee does not know the AG won't prosecute him. That would require he knew how
> far up the chain of command went. Lee would be kept on "need to know" only.
> He doesn't need to know the AG Office is "in on it".
> And no one would tell him that it was.

He can be in the dark about many things....but in areas that he is
directly involved in he has to know all the details, so he can "respond"
properly.

>
> As far as we know, Lee thinks only the NSTC knows about him - And Lt. Ayers.
>
> > >

your opinion......not mine.


> > LEE WOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED FOR PROSECUTION. The supporting
> > consideration is that he was NOT PROSECUTED when he should have been,
> > if acting on his own.
>
> And we can use Bruce Frederick Davidson as the example of what happens when
> you do exactly what Lee did on your own.
> He was prosecuted by the Army and sentenced to ten years hard labor.
>
> For lurkers, James and I both agree that Lee would never have been
> prosecuted upon his return to the US.
>
>

yes, but if acting on his own....he should have been.


> > By acting "By direction" which Lee was fully aware of, he
> > would have nothing to worry about while he was in the USSR as long as his
> > actions were within the boundries expected.....which they were.
>
> Later, I will argue that Lee was not always within the boundaries expected
> and agreed to. But - Yes - Lee is where he is, and doing what he is doing,
> by direction.
>

I don't know if I'm looking towards any "arguement" about boundaries.


> > His actions as presented in the offical version are criminal in reality
> which
> > can not be shown......he is acting under orders.
> >
>
> He is acting under orders.

yes...at least up to 25 July 1963. I have to give strong consideration
that he is acting on his own after that date.

>
> >
> > >
> > > As far as the USMC is concerned, Lee's separation was not fraudulent.
> Lt.
> > > Ayers was in on it. They understood, aided, and abbeted.
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > They had to be involved.
> >
>
> For LNers to claim Lee is not in the USSR by order and with USG collussion
> is to argue that Lee, with his 118 point IQ had the power to manipulate the
> will of both Russians and Americans by sheer mental power, making him the
> equivelent of a Marvel Comic Super Hero or, in this case, "Super Villain".
>

The higher opinion of Lee........can't be supported fully.


> > >
> > > For the AG's Office - Yes.
> > > For anyone else? No.
> >
> > Wrong....the cover needs to be maintained and expanded. You can't
> > leave "gaps" in development of background cover.
> >
>
> There is no need to expand the cover upon Lee's return unless one expands
> Lee's operations.
> Which is when July 25,1963 happens.

Return to the U.S. puts Lee into a "new ballgame".....one that needs his
cover established.

>
>
> > >
> > > >.....but he is no student.
> > >
> > > In enrollment only.
> > > He's not there to learn about "philosophy".
> >
> > Or to expand any understanding of Marxism.
>
> Which he seems to have stopped reading at age 16.

yep....lower level understanding of the "Threat" of Communism.


> > > Yes. It's really hard not to show how the "return" doesn't fit in with
> the
> > > "discharge". I just did it above.
> >
> > But not needed at this time.
> >
>
> Nice job of avoiding what I didn't.

I suppose some found it interesting but confusing.

> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. Something went wrong. The Sovierts should have granted his request
> to
> > > attend school or it "messes" with Lee's return.
> > > Any ideas on why they did this?
> > >
> >
> > Lee was never intending to attend school.......
>
> Not at ASC or in Finland...

maybe ASC.......but not Finland.

>
> >it all part of the cover, and the
> > rejection falls in line.
> >
>
> I'm not surprised the Russians rejected him for schooling - But Lee did ask,
> as the law required in order for him to stay legal.
>

I'm not surprised.


> > > > See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign government
> > > > treason and aiding the enemy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Different thread?
> >
> > yes
>
> The Drummond case?

That's one


> >
> > Not in the sense you consider "Active" consider him a operative that
> > is "Active"......
> >
>
> The net effect of "under orders" is the same.

yes


> > yet.....I really should not have mentioned the election yet.
> >
>
> I mentioned the change in Presidents upon his return in another post.

It's a major consideration.....and a close election.


> > >
> > > I'll do this.
> > > Offhand, I can't recall any such correspondence. Isn't this when he left
> > > Moscow and "disappeared"?
> >
> > It relates to JFK being elected.....I should not have put this in...you
> sort
> > of got me ahead of myself.....too much going on.
> >
>
> Glad to see it happens to you too.

Oh yea.........so much to consider......over 4,000 pages, 27 scripts

jko

From: "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 20 Oct 2004 23:07:56 -0400




Guys,

I'm replying to James this time so's not to give the impression of bias.
-)

Firstly, given some of Clark's comments about this being 'now or never',
I've been trying to think of some way of preserving this discussion here,
since either I'm going crazy or it's (bare minimum) a darn sight more
interesting than anything else I've seen here for a while. What I can do,
if all participants are agreeable, is to take this thread and basically
paste it into some free space on my web site - I have plenty of room.
This would at least preserve it in a form easier to locate than a google
ng search. ( Sadly I have so little time I can spare just now that all I
can promise is that the raw posts would be there, as they stand.)

Anything in particular anyone didn';t want thus immortalised could of
course be cut.

All in favour raise your hand ...

paul; s

From: Peter Fokes <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Approved: Peter Fokes
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:47:08 -0400
Message-ID: <5kefn0p5s361tm5smu63m7rcihpu8s67dc@4ax.com>


On 20 Oct 2004 14:19:04 -0400, "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
wrote:

>Pete:
>
>"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:bgrcn05c18u8hlplgq8l123kt2th3gnspn@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Oct 2004 22:28:10 -0400, "Paul Seaton"
>> <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Guys,
>> >
>> >I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
>> >arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
>> >about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to give
>> >the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
>> >bystanders get a foothold?
>> >
>> >Sincere request.
>> >
>> >paul seaton
>>
>> Paul,
>> JKO's scenario involves the exchange of information between the
>> Soviet Union and The U.S. about a system to "reduce" the possibility
>> of nuclear war. Clark and JKO suggest that Oswald's information may
>> have been in the form of "technical knowledge" of this system.
>> If this scenario is correct, it seems to undermine your theory that
>> Oswald thought he could provoke a "nuclear war" by killing JFK. Oswald
>> must have known -- to some degree -- that a system was in place to
>> "safeguard" against such a nuclear exchange.
>>
>> PF
>
>You hit the nail on the head. This is the turning point. Lee had a minor
>role in creating the "insurance" that the "First Strike" was a idle threat.
>Ike warned of the MIC as he left office, JFK knew of this threat of the
>MIC, since 1939 based on his book "Why England Slept". IMHO I
>suspect JFK's book, was read by Ike and Ike agreed how things can
>get out of hand "after the war".
>
>Now here is the turning point. Ike arranged for over 180 "devices" to
>be built and installed around the world, that would "monitor" launches.
>The Soviets objected to these divices having to be "inspected" periodically
>by the other side. Ike agreed to allow the program to continue without
>physical inspection.....it would be mechanical...or electronic. JFK wanted
>inspectors with free access and to get his desires he reduced the number
>of devices installed to 8. This was a huge cutback to the program.

I was left scratching my head when you first mentioned the 180+ to 8.
With this further explanation, things are coming into focus.

>Now Lee is involved in another program or project after his return. We
>went through the CMC in 62. Now there are two ways to look at things:

>1. Lee feels that JFK was in total control, and Lee's role in the early project
>helped get us there. He approves of JFK and would have no desire
>to kill him. However the other program or project gets him deep in the
>center of the assassination, but Lee is not the shooter. The USG can't
>disclose Lee real history and his death allows for many of the facts to
>be presented......but not all......hence all of the various CT's.

>2. Lee after his return, is pissed, he feels JFK almost destroyed half
>the world......he continues to get upset, it effects his life, the anger
>builds up and he kills JFK. All the factors of consideration are in place
>including Motive and Intent.....however the USG still can't release all
>the facts.......Lee is killed and again all of the various CT's surface.

>No motive and intent were presented and I've always had a problem that
>these two consideration of murder were never covered and established.
>To me there will never be closure on the assassination as long as motive
>and intent remain a mystery.

>The above two paths are both "equal" in consideration, dealing with the
>same facts and known history. Both can be supported, my goal has
>always been to show "both sides" along "The Path to Dallas".

>I use one shooter, from the rear, from the 6th floor firing 3 shots, as
>originally presented before the SBT as the basis of the assassination,
>in both views. If one of those elements is changed with fact or direct
>evidence I would consider it, but I have seen no such direct evidence
>in my studies based on any published conspiracy theory. It does not
>mean that evidence will never be established......it's just that it has
>not been shown yet.

>I know without doubt that all the considerations were not presented for
>reasons of National Security, based on Rankin's summary of the
>evidence concerning "involvement".

I was watching a movie on DVD the other day that offered the viewer
the opportunity to watch an "alternative ending". Sounds like your
"Path to Dallas" would have been an ideal screenplay for such a dual
ending.

I am thoroughly enjoying dialogue you are having with Clark ,,, and
learning new information too. Quite a pleasant change from that
"other" topic that has been dominating the newsgroup. I look forward
to reading more. The most enjoyable aspect is "co-operation" despite
"disagreement" over some points. I realize you do not agree with Clark
or Paul regarding "MAD" (as per prior threads on the issue) but I
don't want to veer the discussion of course.

Thanks for the concise summary.




>jko

PF

[..]

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 21 Oct 2004 09:59:45 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


I find it complimentary that you find it worth preserving while so many
others find it worth ignoring.


That is the problem with genuine research. If it doesn't fit the reader's
bias, be it CT or LN, it is rejected.

No reason need be given.

But James and I are not done.
The massacre of LN/CT theories will continue for as long as we agree to it -
And we have NEVER collaborrated on anythng before. This is not a set-up. If
you think about it, we've only really covered THREE MONTHS, from
June-September, 1959. That's three months out of how many?

A lot of theories are about to bite the dust - For both sides.



"Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:4176ecea@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I'm replying to James this time so's not to give the impression of bias.
> -)
>
> Firstly, given some of Clark's comments about this being 'now or never',
> I've been trying to think of some way of preserving this discussion here,
> since either I'm going crazy or it's (bare minimum) a darn sight more
> interesting than anything else I've seen here for a while. What I can do,
> if all participants are agreeable, is to take this thread and basically
> paste it into some free space on my web site - I have plenty of room.
> This would at least preserve it in a form easier to locate than a google
> ng search. ( Sadly I have so little time I can spare just now that all I
> can promise is that the raw posts would be there, as they stand.)
>
> Anything in particular anyone didn';t want thus immortalised could of
> course be cut.
>
> All in favour raise your hand ...
>
> paul; s
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: jerry98@my-deja.com (GMcNally)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 21 Oct 2004 10:05:40 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message news:<41705bfb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> Guys,
>
> I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to give
> the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> bystanders get a foothold?

You may call it "so rich ... [etc]; I call it pure fantasy. It's one
member of bizarro world talking to another.

The "theories" presented are - I can't think of a better phrase -
"pure fantasy".

Oswald didn't work for the US Gov and went to the Soviet Union based
on his own
misguided pursuit of a way to relieve his extreme dissatisfaction with
the several societies he lived in. As Marina replied when asked if he
was happier in the US or in the USSR: US, no; USSR, no; on the moon
maybe.

And Oswald got the normal loan to get home. It was in nobody's
interest to do anything but what they did.

The idea that he could be jailed for what he did is ludicrous. The
only persons who faced legal peril were active duty military members
who had deserted.

>From the point of view of the international burocracies of the time,
Oswald was insignificant (with the exception of his potential for
suicide in Moscow)and at most a nuisance.

The HSCA did a good study of the 70 some misguided people who
"defected" to the Soviet Union. Like Oswald they were quickly
disilusioned and returned.

To put it mildly, people on welfare in the US lived better than the
citizens of Minsk. There was economic deprivation and constant
political control: forced enthusiastic participation in meetings
extolling the Commy Gov. Forced "volunteer" work on the weekends.

People who managed to get out of the USSR stayed out; people who went
there seeking "something" found it lacking and left quickly. Most of
them were of questionable stability.

Like Oswald.

Jerry

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 21 Oct 2004 12:40:54 -0400

Paul: My hand is raised.....if you want
to take the time. Although I'm far more
active at this time on other projects, I
will be "around" just not worried about
protecting scripts or TV series created
on the assassination.

Once you have the page created let me
know and I will post documents in support.

jko
"Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:4176ecea@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I'm replying to James this time so's not to give the impression of bias.
> -)
>
> Firstly, given some of Clark's comments about this being 'now or never',
> I've been trying to think of some way of preserving this discussion here,
> since either I'm going crazy or it's (bare minimum) a darn sight more
> interesting than anything else I've seen here for a while. What I can do,
> if all participants are agreeable, is to take this thread and basically
> paste it into some free space on my web site - I have plenty of room.
> This would at least preserve it in a form easier to locate than a google
> ng search. ( Sadly I have so little time I can spare just now that all I
> can promise is that the raw posts would be there, as they stand.)
>
> Anything in particular anyone didn';t want thus immortalised could of
> course be cut.
>
> All in favour raise your hand ...
>
> paul; s
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 21 Oct 2004 21:30:38 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:4176e8db@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark:
>
>
> > > > of where he was headed?
> > >
> > > Yes, however, the passport obtained also supplied the same info. It's
was
> > to
> > > keep things just outside of military exposure as records were being
> > processed.
> > >
> >
> > Ayers saw the destinations listed on Lee's passport?
>
> Yes, in my opinion he was aware of travel plans being considered. If
> he knew "exactly" where Lee was going.....is a questionable consideration.
>

Yes - he saw it or - Yes - in your opinion he saw it? Because in both our
opinions he saw it. But for lurkers, we need need to separate fact from
opinion.

>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > OK. First explain that his application to Patrice Lumumba University
was
> > not
> > > > in following with the law on "Active Reservists" overseas then,
second,
> > what
> > > > are the things I am overlooking?
> > >
> > > First Lee does not want anyone to consider that he's a "Reservist" in
any
> > manner.
> >
> > His app to ASC and Torku is consistent with his being a Reservist. He
> > certainly didn't hide it from the US passport office.
>
> yes, it is consistent with the legal requirements.
>

OK. That was my point from the beginning.


> >
> > > Second PLU is secondary to Turku Univesity (Finland) and ACS both
listed
> > > in connection to his passport.
> >
> > But it is made for the same reasons.
> >
>
> Yes, actual attendence is the issue, since he never attended any of
> the schools it's hard to say these were primary goals.

You and I both know that attending a Soviet educational institution is not
a "primary goal". Return to the US is the "primary goal" and, therefore,
obeying US law becomes a requirement in order to meet that "primary goal".
If Lee could have taken a class in "underwater basket weaving", he'd have
signed up. It's a necessary step to a "hassle free" return to the US.

> They can be
> used to show Lee's disappointment with the USSR.....more cover.
>

OK. We're now moving past September, 1959. You're of the opinion that Lee
is establishing more cover while in the USSR? Why? He's already there. His
return is already guaranteed, prosecution free, by both the AG and the
USMC. So cover for what? You can't say there are already plans in place
for future missions. The USG doesn't even know where Lee is or when he'll
return in order to plan for them. I find that Lee is enjoying himself in
the USSR. Being set up as an economic information pigeon has its rewards.
As he himself stated:

Question: "Why did you remain in the USSR for so long if you only wanted
a look?"

Answer: I resided in the USSR from Oct 16, 1959 to Spring of 1961, a
period of 2 ½ years. I did so because I was living quite comfortably. I
had plenty of money, an apartment, rent-free, lots of girls, etc. Why
should I leave all that?

I see nothing in that reply about establishing more cover. In fact, I
would say his response to learning that his USMC discharge status had been
changed to "undesireable" was the exact opposite of someone who wanted to
establish "more cover".


>
>
> > > Lee makes the PLU request....not sure if all
> > > the paperwork follows proceedure, without hopes of the Soviets
allowing
> > him
> > > to attend.
> >
> > How do we know he was "without hopes"?
> > He told Priscilla Johnson he wanted to attend a Soviet institute. And
didn't
> > Marina say he was disappointed when turned down?
>
> Where is all this paperwork.......do we know all this to be true, or are
> we guessing about what "Lee" wrote in his diary. He's a
> liar.....remember.
>

He's a liar with a purpose. The "diary" isn't a diary at all. It's an
alibi. If it was a "diary" and, had Lee died in his "suicide" attempt, it
would be a "diary" one day long. It has been determined it was written
"after the fact" and Marina testified he wrote it after BOTH of them had
received permission to leave the USSR.

The "diary" isn't for Lee. It's for us. It's crappola.

But Marina testified as to his disappointment to be turned down to PLU. We
don't have to rely on his diary for this fact. According to her, he
applied, was turned down, and was disappointed.

> >
> > > I don't think the KGB wanted him there. Lee is not in Europe to
> > > study and obtain any formal education. He is not in the USSR to
expand
> > his
> > > understanding and to become a better "Marxist".
> > >
> > > Lee follows the restriction because he is not left wing.
> > >
> >
> > He's not a communist.
> > He can still be LW.
> >
>
> True....those wishing to end the "cold war" have to be able to accept
> the results of that end.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't he screwed on July 25, 1963?
> > >
> > > NO it's all part of the cover continued to be built. He is only
screwed
> > if he
> > > is "outside" of the game being played around him.
> >
> > But Lee was ASSISTED in his appeal unless he used his godlike LN power
to
> > write his appeal before he returned from the USSR.
>
> More paperwork that Lee acted on the day after he returned.....but never
> followed through with. Getting that first "form" needed the day after his
> return expands the considerations of being assisted.......

The audience needs you to expand on that last sentence.

>but the lack of
> proper follow through is in my opinion part of the "new persona" being
> created.

I agree except that I believe Lee wrote the apeal in legitimate outrage.
He was then afterwards convinced to accept the "new persona".

His appeal is too intelligently written to be "cover". Something this well
written could cause him to actually win his appeal, which is contrary to
creating "more cover". If the change of disharge status was more cover, he
shouldn't have appealed it at all. By appealing it, he made the Review
Boiard that rejected it look like a bunch of gorillas.

How would you have voted on his appeal?

This wasn't a jury. It was a firing squad.

But I see you answer this below...

>
> >
> > And if it was all part of the cover being built then he simply wouldn't have
> > appealed the decision. The cover is in place. Why appeal it? And why appeal
> > it with a winning case? But he did - And with assistance. He made the
> > Review Board look like horses asses.
> >
>
> Appeal, itself provides opportunties dealing with this "new persona" that
> have to be considered for this period of his life. But this is all
> "after" the seperation/defection/return.
>

But it was never in the original plan for this to happen. Lee's mother
caused it to happen. W/O her interference, to Hoover's delight, Lee would
hasve returned with an honorable discharge. Since it took place AFTER he
entered the USSR, it wasn't done to develop cover for the Soviets but,
instead "cover" for his return - And he does not need negative "cover" to
return. And he can't already have a new mission yet. He hasn't finished
the old one and he hasn't even been found yet.

>
> > The evidence is that the USEMB didn't just hand Lee his passport. They
handed
> > him a book on US military legal codes as well.
>
> Far more complex.....but that's the basic.......
>

It's virtually impossible to avoid.
He can't write his appeal w/o this happening.

> >
> > Our boy went over hoping/expecting to come back with a "clean slate".
State
> > will not prosecute because he was attending school and so he applies to
> > school. The Navy won't prosecute him because of Lt. Ayers and because he
was
> > not placed under arrest at the USEMB. They sent him. He knows they want
him
> > back. He retains his citizenship. He retains his passport. He retains
his
> > honorable discharge. The "tourist" comes home as planned. Then he finds
out
> > the USMC has illegally changed his discharge. How in the frick and frack
did
> > that happen?!! Nobody told him that would happen! So he irately appeals.
>
> No......but this is all out of the seperation stage.

You need to say more than just "no" in order to make your point. You
forget that you have already admitted that Hoover, who was out of the
loop, used Mrs. Oswald to get "into the loop". The means he used was Lee's
change of "discharge status." Hoover is not in the "milittary chain on
command", be it Presidential or otherwise. He stuck his nose in where it
didn't belong. He did it on purpose - And Lee's discharge was changed as a
result. You've been down this road too. W/O Hoover, Lee returns with an
honorable discharge. When he applied to return and found it was changed,
he was furious. From this moment on, Lee would hate the FBI.

You, of course, probably consider that "more cover". Which is fine but, if
so, you need to make a case beyond "no".

>
> >
> > Who in the USEMB would he have taken his beef to? The US Naval attache'?
Who
> > would have a copy of US military legal codes to give him? The US Naval
> > Attache'? Who isn't on the WC's witness stand? The US Naval Attache'?
>
> All considerations......later.
>

Trahnslation: considerations=problems

> >
> > Lee was expecting that to be cleared up when he returned, just as he was
> > expecting the USG to pay his way home and allow Marina and daughter to
> > accompany him.
>
> All considerations....later.
>

OK. I can wait.

> >
> > Lee is completely unaware of any "cover" being prepared for him. If he
was
> > he would have skipped the appeal and not bothered demanding a guarantee
of
> > no prosecution. After all, if they're going to create a "cover" for him,
it
> > won't be of much use if he spends the next ten years behind bars.
>
> No.....Lee would not have any problem knowing what was going on. NOT
> appealing would blow the cover being prepared.
>

Please explain.

>
> >
> > Indeed! It's probably because his discharge status has been changed that
has
> > caused Lee to demand a guarantee of "no prosecution" as a condition of
> > returning. If that's happened - what else has happened that's waiting
for
> > him?
>
> Nothing for Lee to worry about.......your hung up on the discharge status,
> forgetting it's all part of the "plan".

Demanding "a guarantee of no prosecution" is all part of the plan??? Who
is the planned for audience?

I think you credit too much to "all of the plan". You forget Murphey's
Law. Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.

I find that the things that weren't supposed to go wrong (his change pf
discharge status) went wrong. If it was "part of the plan" it would have
taken place during 1959 while awaiting the Supreme Soviet's decision on hs
citizenship request. Taking place after he has already entered the USSR is
a little late for establishing "more cover."


> You are again combining elements
> of Lee acting alone and Lee acting in a "planned" effort.
>

In any one single issue, they are difficult to separate. If it was easy to
do so, there would be no LNer's. They are not stupid people.


>
> > >
> > > > Did that process of screwing Lee not take place in his absense?
> > >
> > > The actions by the USN/USMC are consistance with creating the cover
> > > and continuing to build it up.
> >
> > Then no one should have handed Lee a book of US legal codes in Moscow.
> > And while I realize I am writing in favor of your July 25,1963 theory, Lee's
> > change of discharge status never would have happened if not for his mother.
> > So, unless she's a party to it, his change of status was not part of
> > creating a cover. It can't be.
>
> NOBODY handed Lee a legal guide

Then how did he get the legal codes?

>....Lee's mother is only a "means" to start
> the paperwork.....that's her total involvement.

Yes.
Hoover used her for that purpose.
I expect her to be "unwitting".

> Look at the low level of
> "press" on his return.....

Very low...

>nobody would care.....

It was less than that.
Even Lee was expecting some response.
Yet it was next to zero.
This is, itself, unusual.

>or even be aware of
> various things that come into play...except/because of the involvement in
> the assassination.




>
> >
> > Of course, the July 25,1963 ruling COULD BE.
> >
>
> > > >
> > > > Why can't he kill Fred Korth?
> > > > He lived in Fort Worth - And was the Sec of the Navy on July 25,
1963.
> > >
> > > He could if he was acting on a rampage or totally on his own. But I
don't
> > > think so. If Korth was killed LHO would be a automatic prime suspect.
> > >
>
> >
> > No more than he was an automatic prime suspect in the Walker shooting.
Korth
> > was having his own problems after July 25, 1963. If Korth was murdered
after
> > July 25, 1963, the automatic prime suspect would be LBJ.
> >
>
> Killing Korth would open up a whole new ballgame.....being involved with
> Korth in any manner is not in any plan or relationship to any of Lee's
> actions. If he was killed a suspect list would be created.....Lee's name
> as a returned "Red defector" would be one of the first on the list.
>

I doubt it. By that reasoning, Lee should have been on the top of the list
for the Walker shooting. Lee would not be the only ex-Marine with a beef
against the USMC plus every sailor in the Navy with a beef would be a
suspect too - as well anyone involved with TFX.

>
> > > >
> > > > I agree that he was acting as instructed when he entered the USSR.
> > > > And I agree that there was no plan to screw Oswald by those who sent
> > him -
> > > > Although J. Edgar Hoover proved less caring.
> > > >
> > >
> > > chances are Hoover was outside the loop and trying to catch up between
> > > 59-64.
> >
> > I would say he was definitely out of the loop.
> > But he wormed his way in.
> > He made Oswald, the "LW Marxist with the undesireable discharge"
possible.
>
> He pushed that view after the assassination.
>

I think he pushed the USMC for the discharge change.

> >
> > >
> > > > But if Lee is told he has a "hardship" discharge - then he is no
longer
> > > > under USG control. Why would the USG want him to know that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The whole "seperation" is a sham. Lee would KNOW THAT.
> > >
> >
> > Why would he know that? If he joined the USMCR in 1956 for a "6" year
term
> > of duty (A guess on my part but supported by the 3+3 years of service
for
> > volunteers and by his DD1173 card), he knows he's in in the USMCR until
> > December, 1962.
> >
>
> His service is covered....after 6 months.....180 days.....and it's "8
> years".

If "8 years" why does his DD1173 Card expire after 3+3?

>So in 1957 his service obligation has been satitisfied.

For USMCR - in theory - but not on paper.
And, if "8" years he still has NSTC until 1964.

> If not
> for his involvement in the events of November.....up to 1964.....after 64
> another "ballgame".

End of NSTC duty?

>
>
>
> > > > Who is to suspect?
> > > >
> > >
> > > ANYONE WHO TAKES ANY INTEREST......to quote the investigation report
> > > summary of evidence by Rankin which is slanted towards Lee acting on
> > > his own and not with assistance from Soviets.......but ignores
assistance
> > > from USG:
> > >
> > > " Under the circumstances, he undoubtedly obtained the discharge
> > fraudulenty"
> > >
> > > This supports my position 100%
> >
> > It also supports mine 100%. He also obtained a "dependency" discharge
> > fraudulently.
> >
>
> So the basic considerations of this whole discussion are even supported by
> the WC investigation........gee......how hard is it now for LN'ers to
> contest this discussion.

They seem to have disappeared.
You and I will probably have to make their arguments for them in their
absense.

>
> > > If anyone considered Lee actions as a result of the PJM interview,
with
> > all
> > > the facts.......the above is how they would view Oswald. LN's don't
even
> > > want you to consider the above.
> >
> > He would still be viewed the same with a "dependency" discharge - an
> > individual who fraudulently took advantage of his sick, unemployed,
poverty
> > stricken mother to seek an early discharge to help her when, in fact, it
was
> > to go to the USSR and abandon her.
>
> Yes, all part of the cover.
>

Isn't someone going to an awfull lot of work to create "cover" for a mere
delivery courier? Ike, Nixon, or RFK could have handed it to his cousin or
some other friend and said, "Here! Take this to Moscow. When someone
knocks on your hotel door - give it to 'em."



> > >
> > > But Mother Russia would not want him......as shown by Rankin....he
would
> > have
> > > no value to the Soviets.
> > >
> >
> > Rankin showed that the Russians were not coaching Oswald in June, 1959.
He
> > didn't show that the Russians wouldn't take him in October, 1959 if they
> > knew he had a "hardship" discharge instead of a 'dependency" discharge.
>
> They would take him because of what he was doing.....bringing the material
> across. If he was acting on his own....and they knew they would not
> accept him. They could "learn" very easy.......if he was acting alone.
> The KGB is not stupid.

If he is "bringing material" then the type of discharge given Lee is
immaterial to the KGB.


>
> >
>
> > >
> > > Either discharge makes the USMC look good.....releasing Lee to take
care
> > of his
> > > mother........but, they did not have the "evidence"......so it's
suspect,
> > if one looks
> > > close.
> >
> > It becomes even more "suspect" when Ayers records it two different ways
in
> > 24 hours. There's something else you're not telling me. You want him to
know
> > he has a "hardship" discharge. Why?
> >
>
> Because there is no reason to withold it.....and it's all a sham.
>

Do you see any action by Lee indicating he knows he has a "hardship"
discharge?

>
>
> > > >
> > > > No. You can't.
> > > > She's the one who brought Hoover and John Tower in.
> > > > Big mistake.
> > >
> > > Yes, as well as others.....some of which remained silent.
> > >
> >
> > Anyone you can name?
>
> Yes, one, the same guy who stuck his nose into the Petrulli defection,
> Walters of Pa. He was very vocal in the press. Not a peep about Oswald.
>

Don't know him...

>
> > > The whole point.....as far as the public was concerned he was recently
> > > discharged. That's all that would be presented.
> > >
> >
> > Public concern is only a concern if Lee stands before the Soviet cameras
and
> > pulls a Francis Gary Powers and admits he's an "Active" military agent
for
> > the US.
> >
>
> Which he would never do

One would think he'd never marry a Russian woman either...
I would say Lee is capable of doing the unexpected - such as 11/22/63.


>.......even once arrested for murder of JFK.
> There was however a "fear" that he would.....enter Ruby and "Cuban
> Shadows". That fear was generated once he was arrested and made his "only
> defense" statements. Details between the USG and Oswald were made only
> minutes before Lee was killed.....

Not sure what "details" you refer to, but suspect they involve Holmes.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > He is just maintaining his actions within the law......tricky
situation
> > staying in
> > > the USSR.
> >
> > And then come back.
> >
> > We do agree that he was maintaining his actions within the (passport)
law
> > for reservists?
> >
>
> yes, it is a consideration of the law that has to be considered.
>

Especially if planning to return.
It appears the WR supports us over the LNer's once again.

>
> > > It would be ok......(without the actions of the assassination to
> > > consider, say it never happened) for people or groups to "think" he
got
> > > training in the USSR......or was a "student" of Marxism while
> > there.......but
> > > he never actually did those things "expected" or just accepted.
> >
> > But he tried.
> >
>
> And all the proof is where? In Oswald's dirary?

No. The diary is proof Lee lied.
I am referring to Marina's statement that he wanted to attend PLU.
He did not get training in the USSR or education in Marxism.

>
>
> > >
> > > Not as they show Lee.......it requires a much more detailed profile.
One
> > they
> > > can't support.
> > >
> >
> > Do the passport laws prohibiting overseas employment also apply to
Inactive
> > reservists?
> >
>
> Not that I know of.

Not that I know of either. If so, the LNer's have a problem. Lee's
discharge shows "Inactive" but his passport and actions support "Active".

They have made an idiot out of Oswald.

>
>
>
> > > > > There is no need to hide anything from Lee......
> > > >
> > > > If Lee knows he has a "hardship" discharge, why did he tell
> > > > Priscilla Johnson he had a "dependency" discharge?
> > >
> > > See above........
> > >
> >
> > I looked above and can't find a difference between Lee telling her one
or
> > the other.
> >
>
> The less said the better..........you never give reporters areas to
> consider or look into.....unless you want to.
>
> >
> > We are coming closer together. If Lee is USMCR - and is obligated to 6
years
> > duty (a guess my part) then the USMC must discharge him back into the
USMCR
> > to finish his remaining 3 years of "Active" USMCR duty. So Lee's
discharge
> > files go to the USMCR Active Reserve. If not, if Lee had received a USMC
> > discharge, after three years of "active" duty, he would be discharged as
> > Inactive - which would be incorrect.
> >
> > Lee now applies for his passport as an Active USMCR Reservist with three
> > years remaining. With this attached to his passport he seeks to attend a
> > Soviet institution.
> >
> > Now where am I wrong?
> >
>
> First, he is in a 8 year commitment requiring only 6 months of service.

Yes. According to a best guess estimate that he's in the NSTC. But our
actual evidence shows he's also enlisted in the USMCR. So he has 6 years
of obligation there ending Dec 1962, the same date his DD1173 Card
expires. Lee has "duty obligation" to the USMCR and, in theory, to the
NSTC, both being served simultaneously, the one expiring in 1962 and the
other in 1964 (assuming he joined the NSTC in 1956).

For lurkers, either way, Lee was not ever a member of the USMC. He is
there for "training" purposes only. This would create problems with his
"pay records" I imagine. Have you found such problems?


>
>
> > Because, if I'm not wrong, you need to explain why Ayers changed his
> > discharge to Inactive on 9/12/59?
> >
> > Because now it's wrong.
>
> It's all a sham.
>

I agree it's a sham but it appears to be an unnecessary one.
Overkill.

>
> > >
> > > He does not have to believe he is active USMCR.....he's not.
> >
> > He's not if one who signs up for the USMCR is only obligated for three
years.
> > Are they?
>
> consider some of the above.......
>
> >
> > I'm betting a USMCR enlistee has the same total duty obligation as a
> > volunteer (3 years active, 3 years inactive = 6 years) or a draftee (2
years
> > active, 2 years active reserve, 2 years inactive reserve = 6 years) or 6
> > years. I'm betting this is right. I just don't know if the 6 years is 6
> > years of Active Reserve or three years Active Reserve plus 3 years
Inactive
> > Reserve.
> >
> > Do you know?
>
> see the added material to consider above.
>
> >
> > >...he's a member
> > > of the NSTC
> >
> > He can be a member of both the NSTC and the USMCR. We know he signed up
for
> > the latter, probably in order to receive training for the former.
>
> Membership in the USMCR is required......for 6 months.......
>
> >
> > >which used the USMCR, on assignment.....he is ACTIVE as a
> > > NSTC member
> >
> > That depends. How long is one Active in the NSTC if training in the USMC
> > counts towards his NSTC duty time?
>
> basically 8 years......unless no longer "needed"......say after 25 July,
> 1963.
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Lee was worried about nothing.
> > >
> > > Lee was not worried.....you have him being worried.
> >
> > Trying to go to a Soviet school is him being worried.
>
> Not really but you can have him worried if you want.
>
> >
> > > He follows the legal considerations
> > > because he "supports them" as part of his being a member of the NSTC.

> > It's always
> > > better to obey the law, then to violate it, while under cover.
> >
> > If he's stlll "Active" in the NSTC.
>
> Since he is still active in questionable activities....I consider him
> still working under NSTC.....for the EOP until 1964....however November 63
> comes into play.
>

By your "8" years figure, Lee would probably still be active in the NSTC in
November 1963, even if he had joined in 1955.


>
> > > You continue to have Lee ignorant of what does not matter.....it's
> > paperwork
> > > that was done. It does not matter if Lee is "Active" or "Inactive" on
> > paper
> > > .......neither are the truth. At this point his service obligation is
> > met......under
> > > the RFA of 1955.....he is now a trained field operative.
> > >
> >
> > But only if active NSTC enlistment exceeds 3 years. His USMCR training
time
> > will count towards his NSTC enlistment time. If they both run three
years,
> > the only alternative is for him to re-enlist in the NSTC or he will go
> > Inactive in the NSTC.
> >
>
> See the above considerations added.
>

Yes. 8 years.

>
> > >
> > > He can still be "courts-martialed"......if he was acting alone....
> >
> > In which case, he should have been.
> > But he wasn't.
>
> Yes, the point that establishes the need to understand why.
>

Which we can explain and the LNer's can't.

> >
> > >but if he was
> > > on detail....none of this actually matters.
> >
> > And he won't be courtmartialed.
> > And he wasn't.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >
> >
> > For lurkers, James and I may disgree over the REASONS for why Lee was
what
> > he was, but we don't disagree on what Lee was - An American citizen
> > believing himself to be on ACTIVE DUTY inside the USSR, assisted by USMC
Lt.
> > Ayers, and planning his return, having gotten there by joint US/Soviet
help.
> >
> > And, as can be seen, we used separate evidence to arrive at this same
> > conclusion.
> >
>
> basically yes....you still have him "believing" things that don't matter,
> since they have allready been "covered"....except for his involvement in
> the assassination.....which was not anything expected.
>

Correct. Involvement in Nov 1963 is outside "duty".

>
> > >
> > > You have a twisted way of getting to this point.....he obeyed orders.
The
> > papertrail
> > > means nothing if he is acting on orders....."By direction".
> > >
> >
> > As I mentioned before, JKO and I may have taken different busses, but we
got
> > off at the same bus stop - and more than once.
> >
>
> Yes although I believe I have more material support on my bus and I'm
> driving.

On the NSTC info you are driving. But on whether Lee knows he has a
"hardship" discharge or not, you're in the back of the bus, same as me.


>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > THE AG WILL NEVER PROSECUTE HIM.
> > >
> >
> > YES. AGREED 100%.
> > BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT. If he knew that, he wouldn't have bothered to
> > apply at Patrice Lumumba University and he wouldn't have prepared the
> > following answers to questions he might be asked upon his return:
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/questionnaire.htm
> >
>
> In your view he "DOESN'T KNOW" in my view he does.

But we are unable to prove this one way or the other, correct?


>
> > Lee does not know the AG won't prosecute him. That would require he knew
how
> > far up the chain of command went. Lee would be kept on "need to know"
only.
> > He doesn't need to know the AG Office is "in on it".
> > And no one would tell him that it was.
>
> He can be in the dark about many things....but in areas that he is
> directly involved in he has to know all the details, so he can "respond"
> properly.

Or improperly if the USMC has a backup "escape plan" to screw him.

But maybe we can agree on this? Due to Lee's "Active" NSTC duty status,
Lee must aply to ASC/PLU, etc. But Lee's "Inactive" USMC discharge
contradicts this. In order to resolve this contradiction, Ayers sends
Lee's files to "Active reserve", which is shared with Lee. Lee is now
"Active Reserve" and, therefore, has "cover" for why his passport actions
are "Active". A check with USMCR will show his files misfiled on "Active"
status, thereby explaining his passport activities while concealing the
real reason for the passport activity is his "Active Duty" status with
NSTC?

>
> >
> > As far as we know, Lee thinks only the NSTC knows about him - And Lt.
Ayers.
> >
> > > >
>
> your opinion......not mine.
>

Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

>
> > > LEE WOULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED FOR PROSECUTION. The supporting
> > > consideration is that he was NOT PROSECUTED when he should have been,
> > > if acting on his own.
> >
> > And we can use Bruce Frederick Davidson as the example of what happens
when
> > you do exactly what Lee did on your own.
> > He was prosecuted by the Army and sentenced to ten years hard labor.
> >
> > For lurkers, James and I both agree that Lee would never have been
> > prosecuted upon his return to the US.
> >
> >
>
> yes, but if acting on his own....he should have been.
>

He should have been treated as Bruce Frederick Davis was.
The LNer's need to explain why he wasn't if he is acting alone?

>
> > > By acting "By direction" which Lee was fully aware of, he
> > > would have nothing to worry about while he was in the USSR as long as
his
> > > actions were within the boundries expected.....which they were.
> >
> > Later, I will argue that Lee was not always within the boundaries
expected
> > and agreed to. But - Yes - Lee is where he is, and doing what he is
doing,
> > by direction.
> >
>
> I don't know if I'm looking towards any "arguement" about boundaries.
>

LOL!
A box with no sides!


>
> > > His actions as presented in the offical version are criminal in
reality
> > which
> > > can not be shown......he is acting under orders.
> > >
> >
> > He is acting under orders.
>
> yes...at least up to 25 July 1963. I have to give strong consideration
> that he is acting on his own after that date.

Not in August - the debate...
Not in September - the visa and his leaving MC.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As far as the USMC is concerned, Lee's separation was not
fraudulent.
> > Lt.
> > > > Ayers was in on it. They understood, aided, and abbeted.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > They had to be involved.
> > >
> >
> > For LNers to claim Lee is not in the USSR by order and with USG
collussion
> > is to argue that Lee, with his 118 point IQ had the power to manipulate
the
> > will of both Russians and Americans by sheer mental power, making him
the
> > equivelent of a Marvel Comic Super Hero or, in this case, "Super
Villain".
> >
>
> The higher opinion of Lee........can't be supported fully.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > For the AG's Office - Yes.
> > > > For anyone else? No.
> > >
> > > Wrong....the cover needs to be maintained and expanded. You can't
> > > leave "gaps" in development of background cover.
> > >
> >
> > There is no need to expand the cover upon Lee's return unless one
expands
> > Lee's operations.
> > Which is when July 25,1963 happens.
>
> Return to the U.S. puts Lee into a "new ballgame".....one that needs his
> cover established.
>

yes. return to the US is "new ball game". The new ball game appears to
have started in either August or September, 1962 by my estimate. Yours?

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >.....but he is no student.
> > > >
> > > > In enrollment only.
> > > > He's not there to learn about "philosophy".
> > >
> > > Or to expand any understanding of Marxism.
> >
> > Which he seems to have stopped reading at age 16.
>
> yep....lower level understanding of the "Threat" of Communism.
>
>
> > > > Yes. It's really hard not to show how the "return" doesn't fit in
with
> > the
> > > > "discharge". I just did it above.
> > >
> > > But not needed at this time.
> > >
> >
> > Nice job of avoiding what I didn't.
>
> I suppose some found it interesting but confusing.


Speaking of which, I'm getting confused on this thread. It's too long and
with too many point interuptions to follow. After you answer this, unless
you have questions of me, let's start a new post.

>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Something went wrong. The Sovierts should have granted his
request
> > to
> > > > attend school or it "messes" with Lee's return.
> > > > Any ideas on why they did this?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Lee was never intending to attend school.......
> >
> > Not at ASC or in Finland...
>
> maybe ASC.......but not Finland.

He studied no German in order to attend ASC - unless classes were in
English and, judging by app, he seems to think knowing German is an aid to
admittance (suggesting classes were taught in German in his opinion.).

I doubt that he had enough money to attend a full "spring" semester in
1960.

>
> >
> > >it all part of the cover, and the
> > > rejection falls in line.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not surprised the Russians rejected him for schooling - But Lee did
ask,
> > as the law required in order for him to stay legal.
> >
>
> I'm not surprised.
>
>
> > > > > See, the post made dealing with correspondence to a foreign
government
> > > > > treason and aiding the enemy.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Different thread?
> > >
> > > yes
> >
> > The Drummond case?
>
> That's one
>
>
> > >
> > > Not in the sense you consider "Active" consider him a operative that
> > > is "Active"......
> > >
> >
> > The net effect of "under orders" is the same.
>
> yes
>
>
> > > yet.....I really should not have mentioned the election yet.
> > >
> >
> > I mentioned the change in Presidents upon his return in another post.
>
> It's a major consideration.....and a close election.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > I'll do this.
> > > > Offhand, I can't recall any such correspondence. Isn't this when he
left
> > > > Moscow and "disappeared"?
> > >
> > > It relates to JFK being elected.....I should not have put this
in...you
> > sort
> > > of got me ahead of myself.....too much going on.
> > >
> >
> > Glad to see it happens to you too.
>
> Oh yea.........so much to consider......over 4,000 pages, 27 scripts

One script, 700 pages - almost 4,000 in notes though.


::Clark::

From: brzno461@netzero.net (Roy Bierma)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 21 Oct 2004 21:30:53 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message news:<4177b395@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> Paul: My hand is raised.....if you want
> to take the time. Although I'm far more
> active at this time on other projects, I
> will be "around" just not worried about
> protecting scripts or TV series created
> on the assassination.
>
> Once you have the page created let me
> know and I will post documents in support.
>
> jko
> "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
> news:4176ecea@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I'm replying to James this time so's not to give the impression of bias.
> > -)
> >
> > Firstly, given some of Clark's comments about this being 'now or never',
> > I've been trying to think of some way of preserving this discussion here,
> > since either I'm going crazy or it's (bare minimum) a darn sight more
> > interesting than anything else I've seen here for a while. What I can do,
> > if all participants are agreeable, is to take this thread and basically
> > paste it into some free space on my web site - I have plenty of room.
> > This would at least preserve it in a form easier to locate than a google
> > ng search. ( Sadly I have so little time I can spare just now that all I
> > can promise is that the raw posts would be there, as they stand.)
> >
> > Anything in particular anyone didn';t want thus immortalised could of
> > course be cut.
> >
> > All in favour raise your hand ...
> >
> > paul; s
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Paul, I'm sure you can see my hand raised here in the ether. This is a
fascinating exchange between James and Clark.

From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 21 Oct 2004 21:43:40 -0400


GMcNally: The "pure fantasy" is on the part of those that ignore the law,
and refuse to take the "summary of evidence" of the WC (Rankin) and look
and examine the "other side".

My position is supported by the documents and the law, with known history
surrounding the actions associated with Oswald.

Post a document concernings Lee's seperation.......any document in support
of your position vs mine. As you do so.....consider Rankin supports my
position 100%. I quoted him.

jko

"GMcNally" <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.0410210520.1c567ee9@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:<41705bfb@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > Guys,
> >
> > I tremble to raise my voice here, but this stuff is so rich, baroque,
> > arcane & yet strangely fascinating in a 'what the hell are they talking
> > about?' kind of way.. Could one of you please take a minute or two to give
> > the 'For Dummies' version of these posts ? Just to help the innocent
> > bystanders get a foothold?
>
> You may call it "so rich ... [etc]; I call it pure fantasy. It's one
> member of bizarro world talking to another.
>
> The "theories" presented are - I can't think of a better phrase -
> "pure fantasy".
>
> Oswald didn't work for the US Gov and went to the Soviet Union based
> on his own
> misguided pursuit of a way to relieve his extreme dissatisfaction with
> the several societies he lived in. As Marina replied when asked if he
> was happier in the US or in the USSR: US, no; USSR, no; on the moon
> maybe.
>
> And Oswald got the normal loan to get home. It was in nobody's
> interest to do anything but what they did.
>
> The idea that he could be jailed for what he did is ludicrous. The
> only persons who faced legal peril were active duty military members
> who had deserted.
>
> >From the point of view of the international burocracies of the time,
> Oswald was insignificant (with the exception of his potential for
> suicide in Moscow)and at most a nuisance.
>
> The HSCA did a good study of the 70 some misguided people who
> "defected" to the Soviet Union. Like Oswald they were quickly
> disilusioned and returned.
>
> To put it mildly, people on welfare in the US lived better than the
> citizens of Minsk. There was economic deprivation and constant
> political control: forced enthusiastic participation in meetings
> extolling the Commy Gov. Forced "volunteer" work on the weekends.
>
> People who managed to get out of the USSR stayed out; people who went
> there seeking "something" found it lacking and left quickly. Most of
> them were of questionable stability.
>
> Like Oswald.
>
> Jerry
>

next

looking for books?

index