29-06-2015, 06:00 PM
A friend just proffered another technical problem with the marked cards thesis in MC:
In order for that scenario to play out, you need the following sequence:
1. an anti-FPCC counterintel operation.
2. an instrusion on that operation (i.e., the Morales set-up).
3. a molehunt initiated to find out who intruded on that operation.
The argument of: why didn't they lay a clearer trail of breadcrumbs for Oswald's entry
into Mexico if the operation were to incriminate him from the start, poses a question
one perhaps needs to think about. But it doesn't really argue in favor of point (1)
until you can prove that Oswald did go there by some other means AND was present
at the consulates. The former may be true, but the latter almost certainly is not.
Therefore, the marked cards MC scenario then becomes subject to a repeated question: why, if they used Oswald in an
anti-FPCC campaign in NO, could they not continue to use him here?
Is there a credible reason which is not suspicious? I don't think there is.
In order for that scenario to play out, you need the following sequence:
1. an anti-FPCC counterintel operation.
2. an instrusion on that operation (i.e., the Morales set-up).
3. a molehunt initiated to find out who intruded on that operation.
The argument of: why didn't they lay a clearer trail of breadcrumbs for Oswald's entry
into Mexico if the operation were to incriminate him from the start, poses a question
one perhaps needs to think about. But it doesn't really argue in favor of point (1)
until you can prove that Oswald did go there by some other means AND was present
at the consulates. The former may be true, but the latter almost certainly is not.
Therefore, the marked cards MC scenario then becomes subject to a repeated question: why, if they used Oswald in an
anti-FPCC campaign in NO, could they not continue to use him here?
Is there a credible reason which is not suspicious? I don't think there is.