31-07-2014, 02:43 AM
I personally lean towards the idea that Oswald was being used as a "dangle" for counterintelligence purposes. The "Oswald Project" may have been well funded, but Oswald himself didn't seem to be possessed of the funds that one might expect from a government backed spy. (But perhaps he did, and that might explain the source of some of the "sympathy donations" that made Marina wealthy after his death.) It does appear that he had no problem reporting to the FBI (in New Orleans) about his activities. He appears to pretty much be a one man show there.
If Oswald was a "dangle," then some of the obstacles he otherwise would have faced might have been removed from his path, without a request from him, in order to make him look more important, to whomever the "dangle" might have been targeted. The existence of a "dangle" program might itself raise national security issues preventing full disclosure. I have read what Tannenbaum said, but to him that information would be third- or fourth-hand, and hard to swallow on his ten-year-delayed bald assertion alone. Marguerite, at least, would have agreed with Tannenbaum. In 2017 perhaps we'll hear more.
Another possibility is that the national security issues involved were basically how bad our counter-intelligence agencies were actually at finding bad guys, and how the fact of at least 3 separate secretive agencies, each equipped with secrets and confidential assets, was actually interfering with the process of defending our country. If you believe in the official narrative of 9/11, you have to admit that not much had changed in 40 years.
Another possibility is that the cloak of "national security" is just too convenient to pass up in a pinch. It certainly seems to be bandied about a lot lately.
If Oswald was a "dangle," then some of the obstacles he otherwise would have faced might have been removed from his path, without a request from him, in order to make him look more important, to whomever the "dangle" might have been targeted. The existence of a "dangle" program might itself raise national security issues preventing full disclosure. I have read what Tannenbaum said, but to him that information would be third- or fourth-hand, and hard to swallow on his ten-year-delayed bald assertion alone. Marguerite, at least, would have agreed with Tannenbaum. In 2017 perhaps we'll hear more.
Another possibility is that the national security issues involved were basically how bad our counter-intelligence agencies were actually at finding bad guys, and how the fact of at least 3 separate secretive agencies, each equipped with secrets and confidential assets, was actually interfering with the process of defending our country. If you believe in the official narrative of 9/11, you have to admit that not much had changed in 40 years.
Another possibility is that the cloak of "national security" is just too convenient to pass up in a pinch. It certainly seems to be bandied about a lot lately.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."