14-03-2010, 09:09 PM
Jack has repeatedly told me that Armstrong is "not a researcher". He has amassed documents and allows them to "speak for themselves". But if Armstrong is not a researcher, then he may very well have misunderstood or misinterpreted what he accumulated in the way of this massive repository of "documents". Jack has told that there are documents that show Oswald at one location at one time and also at another location at another time, which is certainly impossible for physical, unique, human beings. But DOCUMENTS can show the same person at two different locations at the same time. On a new thread at the Simkin forum, Bill Simpich, for example, is doing a great job of unearthing important evidence about the manner in which the agency creates false identities using variations on names, including this:
With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency
The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.
The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".
There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.
Just a few of many examples:
1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."
2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.
3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.
4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.
5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.
In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.
Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.
Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:
"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."
Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".
This is very interesting stuff. It seems to me to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible? Indeed, it has also given me the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest. From what you say, I have to infer that he did not. As Simpich remarks, with or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency. This casts the significance of Armstrong's research into doubt. I have ordered HARVEY & LEE, by the way, but, as you observe, I am going to be inundated with a massive documentary record. But documents--especially faking them for the purpose of creating alibis for their agents--is a speciality of the CIA. I hope you understand the difference between DOCUMENTS CLAIMING TWO PERSONS WERE AT DIFFERENT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME and TWO PERSONS BEING AT DIFFERENT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME.
I have previously posted four commentaries from a psy ops experts about this case. Before Jack went back to John Armstrong to discuss this, he displayed a more open mind that Judyth might be being harassed and stalked because of knowledge derived from her cancer research and work on bio-weapons, as the posts from my psy ops expert suggest. I think he is right, but I also believe her personal story humanizes the alleged assassin, who has been demonized for decades by the government and the mass media. A guy who had relationships, a sense of humor, who socialized and shared his life with someone else is a real human being--an implausible candidate for "lone, demented gunman". Her story makes it clear that he was working undercover for the government, knew he was being impersonated, and was attempting to save the president's life, not take it. For all of her imperfections, I believe in her and regard her story as extremely important and worth bringing to the public, even at the cost of antagonizing some very old friends. I cannot understand for the life of me when I have explained this point to Jack several times on two different fora, where he continues to imply that he doesn't see the point. I would like to think I should not have to explain it for a third time--yet that is what I am doing here.
With or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency
The names of both Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife Marina Prusakova were repeatedly misspelled as "Lee Henry Oswald" and "Marina Pusakova" in CIA messages during the time that Oswald was reported to have visited the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City. It wasn't just a typographical error. This error and others like it had been made repeatedly by the same person.
The CIA's Ann Egerter (also known as Egeter) told Congressional investigators that she worked at the office that spied on their own spies, known as the Counter-Intelligence/Special Investigations Group, or CI/SIG. Egerter assisted in the preparation of two separate CIA messages on 10/10/63, both referring to him as Lee Henry Oswald. One message inaccurately referred to Oswald as "approximately 35 years old, with an athletic build" and the other message more accurately described him as "born 18 Oct 1939, five foot ten inches, light brown wavy hair". In fact, Oswald's central CIA file was wrongly entitled by Egerter as "Lee Henry Oswald" several years earlier when he had defected from the Marines to the Soviet Union. By the time of the weekend of the assassination, even Walter Cronkite was calling him "Lee Henry Oswald".
There was another common practice among the agencies to invert Oswald's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald". Like most people, Lee Oswald never used his middle name except for official purposes. This practice of transposing his names emanated from CIA and military sources, and the FBI eventually picked up on it as well.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) knew about this practice and looked for Oswald files under these various names during their investigation of this case during the 70s.
Just a few of many examples:
1. A remarkable 1972 handwritten memo entitled "Harvey Lee Oswald" states: "Today the DC/CI (Deputy Chief, Counter-intelligence) advised me that the Director had relayed via the DDP (Deputy Director of Plans) the injunction that the Agency was not, under any circumstances, to make inquiries or ask questions of any source or defector about Oswald."
2. Thomas Casasin, chief of CIA's Soviet Russia Division 6, wrote that at one point he had "operational interest in the Harvey story" that involved the theme of defection.
3. The Warren Commission documented someone named "Harvey Oswald" appeared at the Selective Service office in Austin to complain about his military discharge at the same time that another Oswald was heading to Mexico City.
4. Lt. Harvey Oswald was reported to be seen in a well-known bar in Havana with leading FPCC leader Robert Taber right after the Bay of Pigs invasion.
5. "Harvey Lee Oswald" has a list of approximately a hundred documents attributed to him. Many of them have been destroyed or cannot be found, including an entire FBI file under that name.
In the intelligence practice of having two or more files on a subject, the regular name is used for material that is meant for the public domain, while the transposed or misspelled name is for covert information. In that manner, an agency can tell the "truth" about the contents of their overt file, and hide its covert information in the covert file with the transposed or misspelled name.
Author and professor Peter Dale Scott cites many of the errors discussed above (and more) in his groundbreaking essay Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole. Most of these errors were committed by highly educated agents like Egerter, whose careers depend on getting names right and accurately spelling the names of relevant parties.
Scott suggests that these errors are wholly deliberate, and that this pattern is one of the essential methods used by the CIA in a "molehunt" looking for Soviet spies that might be trying to penetrate the CIA itself. If a spy without proper clearances to the document were to repeat the misspelled name to another party, this "marked card" would point to the errant spy. Scott has written:
"In the game of molehunting, of course, the distinction between targeter and targeted is not a secure one. The situation is something like the parlor game of Murder, in which the culprit is"likely to be one of the investigators."
Egerter's boss James Angleton was the head of CIA counterintelligence. Angleton used CI/SIG in a ruthless manner, destroying the lives of innocent officers and anyone else who stood in the way of his hunt for Soviet agents supposedly penetrating the CIA. By the time Angleton was fired in the midst of the Watergate era, he was accused of being a Soviet mole himself. By 1980, Congress was forced to pass a bill to compensate the unfairly accused officers in what became known as the "Mole Relief Act".
This is very interesting stuff. It seems to me to raise the possibility that Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" thesis may have been constructed by selecting from evidence that he (Armstrong) himself may not have completely understood. Is something like that possible? Indeed, it has also given me the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest. From what you say, I have to infer that he did not. As Simpich remarks, with or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency. This casts the significance of Armstrong's research into doubt. I have ordered HARVEY & LEE, by the way, but, as you observe, I am going to be inundated with a massive documentary record. But documents--especially faking them for the purpose of creating alibis for their agents--is a speciality of the CIA. I hope you understand the difference between DOCUMENTS CLAIMING TWO PERSONS WERE AT DIFFERENT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME and TWO PERSONS BEING AT DIFFERENT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME.
I have previously posted four commentaries from a psy ops experts about this case. Before Jack went back to John Armstrong to discuss this, he displayed a more open mind that Judyth might be being harassed and stalked because of knowledge derived from her cancer research and work on bio-weapons, as the posts from my psy ops expert suggest. I think he is right, but I also believe her personal story humanizes the alleged assassin, who has been demonized for decades by the government and the mass media. A guy who had relationships, a sense of humor, who socialized and shared his life with someone else is a real human being--an implausible candidate for "lone, demented gunman". Her story makes it clear that he was working undercover for the government, knew he was being impersonated, and was attempting to save the president's life, not take it. For all of her imperfections, I believe in her and regard her story as extremely important and worth bringing to the public, even at the cost of antagonizing some very old friends. I cannot understand for the life of me when I have explained this point to Jack several times on two different fora, where he continues to imply that he doesn't see the point. I would like to think I should not have to explain it for a third time--yet that is what I am doing here.