index


page 1 page 2 page 3

Wilkins / Olmstead Newsgroup Discussion 3

start


From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 22 Oct 2004 00:13:32 -0400


Clark:

"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10ngg04p87tk42e@corp.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.
>

Based on the fact the destinations were in the paperwork and Lt. Ayers
was associated with that passport application.....I accept he saw it. I was
not standing over his shoulder......nor was I a fly on the wall at all times
when paperwork was passed between the two. You are in fact asking
for a "eyewittness".....not research concerning the paperwork. It's like
asking for me to show Lee winking as he pulls the trigger.........I can
only supply the "known" documents....and evaluate them.

> > >
> > > 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.

You are still hung up on some issue that would prevent Lee from returning
when all the considerations would be immaterial, if he had a free pass home
before he even left or was asked to stay. That free pass would have to be
part of any deal for the first as well for any chance that required him to stay
beyond 10 days.

>
> > 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".
>

If you consider a *8 year* committment, you have to consider that one
assignment in a 8 year period would be a very long one........but we know
Lee did not "start out" going to the USSR.....he went to Japan.....and
that "cover" put him in position for the next.......the USSR assignment
would be one that would continue to need the advantage of continued
cover. The discharge downgrade.....allowed Lee to become "hostile"
and it would be easier to fit into a "subversive" group also "hostile".
Having to battle the USG makes Lee the "underdog" with a "struggle".
It also means that if he is ever seen with somebody "suspect" he can
say its that "fuckin discharge shit again".......and he's covered. It's
perfect......it gives him the opportunity to walk right into ONI/USG
offices in N.O. and actually "report" without blowing his cover.


> >
> > 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.
>

WHERE IS THIS PAPERWORK??????? You avoided the question to
present another arguement that still requires the supporting paperwork.

> > >
> > > 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.

It's a fact....Lee submitted a form, connected to his discharge downgrade
appeal the day after (Friday) he was home. That form can only come
from a USN office that has it......yet there is no location he can get it.
It was received either Mon or Tues the next week. He had to be assisted
to obtain that for only one reason.....it expands his cover....but it also
is my opening that this is all one more aspect of continued cover. A
legal aide....3 year law student......could have handled the downgrade
and resolved the issue in several hours.......with or without that form.

>
> >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".

That's were you are wrong......why be outraged if you knew what was
being done? It's part of establishing cover......or he would have really
acted on it......but USED IT as part of his cover in New Orleans.

>
> 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.

The proceedures followed.......failing to notify Lee properly is the first key.
I've posted on this in the past.

>
> How would you have voted on his appeal?

Based on how it handled from the begining.. ..Iwouldre-instateLee'sHonorable.
>
> This wasn't a jury. It was a firing squad.

That shot blanks from the begining .....bybothsides.

>
> 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.
>

A downgrade......would be a primary consideration that CAN'T BE OVERLOOKED
to maintain PD. Where is your evidence that this is all because of Hoover?

> >
> > > 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.

Yes he can.........pull out your "spy manual" and consider the various
basic ways of communication.


>
> > >
> > > 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.

Where have I said Hoover used Mrs. Oswald? Where have I shown that
Hoover is a direct influence on anything associated with the project connected
directly to Oswald?

Hoover's a subject "out of the loop".

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

Clark.....I'm trying my best to keep this dealing with his early out.....not his
return or everything related.....which is why I said:

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

IT'S OUT OF THE SEPERATION STAGE........I'm making a case dealing
with the early out...as evidence of a "fraudulant seperation" but you have
me including considerations that need to be addressed as brief as possible,
which is why again I replied:

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

I can't jam everything into responses and try and maintain the topic.

> >
> > >
> > > 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

Yes......later.......there about 40 documents to cover.......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.
> >
>
> OK. I can wait.
>

GREAT.............

> > >
> > > 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.

A downgrade would be the very first consideration expected. Appealing would
be sure to follow.......not doing so....removes PD for both.

>
> >
> > >
> > > 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?

Any two-bit member of Congress who raises the "demand".......that would be
expected dealing with any defector......anyone agreeing to become a "defector"
would want a get out of jail card tucked away. I know I would. It would have
to have a way to "cover" the failure to prosecute......going through the motions
(firing blanks) takes care of that problem.

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

Yes, it has to be kept simple.....and the best way is to follow "normal actions",
but not getting anywhere.....or taking a hell of a long time.

>
> 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."

It keeps it "ONGOING"...........he will return one day.......it has to go on as
if it was a "punishment consideration"......"investigation" so it can go nowhere
and be used as needed when needed.........you can't go back and create
this papertrail....you have to start when it is expected to happen.

>
>
> > 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.

When they prefer to ignore the law......they are 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?

Which ones exactly? If you want this to completely ignore the early out
to focus on the return start the thread presenting your position dealing
with the importance of these codes you are worried about. There are
hundreds of ways that Lee could obtain the material needed.....even
without the internet.

>
> >....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".

Again you keep pulling in Hoover......why?

>
> > 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.

Lee was expecting response.....and prepared for it....in several directions
but again this is all outside of the main topic of the early out.



> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
>

But the list would seperate all those others.....Lee had a father that was
assisted by Korth in a divorce case......a narrow 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.
> >
>
> I think he pushed the USMC for the discharge change.
>

YOUR proof for this?


> > > 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?

The issue of the DD1173 means little except to Prouty supporters and
those that don't consider all the facts.

>
> >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 later......if he had lived.

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

Perhaps.....who knows what could happen had Lee lived or went to trial
or was never "caught".


> > >
> > > 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."

Cover requires an awfull lot of work to create.....that's why it requires
to follow the proper proceedures......when proper proceedures are
not followed.....bingo....your cover is blown and things start to show
for those that look deep enough....which I did.


> > >
> > > 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.

Yes, it immaterial.....part of the cover....part of the false defection etc etc.
But the lower ranking KGB have to be told something....but not all and not
all the truth.



> > >
> > > 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?

He was involved in creating the fucking papertrail.....come on Clark.
That papertrail is false.....the actions that follow are false...his defection
is false......he knows what is seen is false.......unless he is some idiot.

>
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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...
>

Silent.......but a threat.....which is why cover needed to be "continued".

> >
> > > > 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.

Yes, marriage......has many considerations.......and yes he is without doubt
capable of firing the shots......but each was handled......

>
>
> >.......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.
>

No....SS.........Lee agreed to remain silent.....til the stories could be worked
out.






>
> >
> > > > 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.

Again.....where is the "proof".....Marina?


> > >
> > > 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?
>
Yes.....some of which were mentioned in this thread.



> > >
> > > 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.

Yes


>
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.

yes



> >
> > 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".

Not really in how I can present things......but this is about 1959...not
November 63.

>

> > > 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 "discharge" does not matter.....dependency or hardship.....both would
be a "sham". I'm still sitting in the driver's seat.


> >
> > 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?

Prove that he "DOESN'T KNOW".....with supporting evidence.


> > 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.

Why? The evidence supports my position......show how they planned
to screw him while performing his duties.

>
> 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?
>

Your trying very hard in areas not needed. ASC was part of the known
cover estblished back in March....THAT'S ENOUGH......now show how
PLU is so important....and show the paperwork to support your position.

> >
> > >
> > > 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?

Have you been reading this thread?......The EOP would know about Lee
and various invididuals in a dozen other agencies would "know about"
Lee.


> > > 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?

They can't


> > >
> > > 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.

But you have October and November to consider......


> > 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?

That first weekend back home......."the form".




> > >
> > > 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.

The topic was the early out.....and I wanted to focus on that....you drove
your own bus.....asking question or making points.....that were to be
addressed later.

I have a importment conf on Terrorism to attend this weekend so I will
be too busy to start any new thread......feel free to do so.


> > > > 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.

I doubt that he would stay more then a few weeks......if he went.


> > >
> > > 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.


Background is needed......hope your filmscript is not based on my position.
If so.....I can't continue any further discussion with you. I might be posting
info I protected in the past....but it's
still my property.

jko

>
>
> ::Clark::
>
>
>




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 22 Oct 2004 00:13:43 -0400


Pete: see below.

"Peter Fokes" <justplainfokesCT@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:5kefn0p5s361tm5smu63m7rcihpu8s67dc@4ax.com...
> On 20 Oct 2004 14:19:04 -0400, "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
> wrote:
[.]


>
> 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.

It's one that I considered.......in fact a producer I know gave me a book
dealing with about 20 alternate stories concerning alternate events
all based on JFK.......aliens....Elvis....rock stars.....fun reading.

>
> 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.

MAD is however a prime consideration.......I strongly believe Ike and Niki
both knew it was a possibility that required them to prevent it....regardless
of the political differnces.

>
> Thanks for the concise summary.

no problem......I'm just glad it's being read......I don't care if you or anyone
agrees with it or not.....it does require one to think.

jko
>
>
>
>
> >jko
>
> PF
[..]




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 22 Oct 2004 17:42:10 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:417888b3@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark:
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10ngg04p87tk42e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > One script, 700 pages - almost 4,000 in notes though.
>
>
> Background is needed......hope your filmscript is not based on my
position.

Not possible.
I wrote it 7 years ago. Hardbound.
Not possible to change a single word.
I'd have to start all over.

Besides! I can't base anything I do on your position when I don't know what
your position is. Nobody here does.

> If so.....I can't continue any further discussion with you. I might be
posting
> info I protected in the past....but it's
> still my property.

I have no book deals and am contemplating none.
If I did I would not have invited Jeff Morely.

I have ended my research and gone on to other things. I just stop by once in
awhile here to see what you've posted. I have some gaps in my work I was
hoping you'd fill. I'm weak on Dodd and Morris in New York. Basically, I
know Lee is in the intelligence loop but I don't how he got in or what
qualified him for admittance.

My actions here today are prompted by the fact that it is very hard to get
this information out (as I'm sure you'e discovered) and time is running out.
You and I won't live forever.

Sure! It would have been nice to get $ 3 million for it. But I don't see
that happening. Do you? Look at how few people are reading this. I think the
market is gone.

And when we die, this story dies with us. The public will never know what we
discovered.

So what do we do? Let our relatives cart our files off to the trash when
we're gone? If so, we engaged in valuable historic research which becomes
wasted by our own selfish greed (Not that I wasn't all for that once. It
would be nice to get paid for the thousands of hours I put into this. I part
with that thought with great reluctance.).

Whether this continues or not is your call.


::Clark::

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



From: "Paul Seaton" <paulREMOVEseaton@breathemail.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 22 Oct 2004 23:16:40 -0400



Jerry,

Welcome to the thread. I hope you will stick around to add some sceptical
counter-perspective on this, for the benefit of us ignoramus's. Personally
, I'm just an interested bystander, believing it's at least *possible*
that there was more to LHO's soviet sojourn than meets the eye. Doesn't
neccesarily mean he was not alone, 22/11/63, & it beats the hell of those
wondrously irritating Judyth threads, n'est ce pas ?


paul seaton




"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
>




From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 27 Oct 2004 13:27:23 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10moqvjd2o4pbe5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:416b562d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10mm2kh6dfn699b@corp.supernews.com...


A question on the following exchange:

>
> So Lee had these items but failed to provide them to Poindexter?
>
> Lee had obtained these for showing to some person related to his
> discharge. But, evidently, that person wasn't Poindexter.
>
> It would appear he intended it for the officer who sent his mother the
> letter of August 24 in order to meet and bypass his expected interference.
>
> He still interferred. This interference was solved by calling for a review
> board which acted without the requested information. Thus, the officer of
> August 24 was bypassed.
>
> Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of Aug
> 24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).
>
> > The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959.

What form is this?


::Clark::




From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 27 Oct 2004 16:01:24 -0400


Clark: The server is not accepting images from my end.

I will post the "form".....when the server starts accepting my images.
It accepts posts in response but not with images attached.

I think there might be a typo here I believe the form is the 17 Aug...
one not one on the 7th. I'm not sure exactly where I mentioned
7 Aug and not the 17th or if the 17th is the proper form in context
with the question being asked to address.

jko

"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10nuopsood79u39@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:10moqvjd2o4pbe5@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > news:416b562d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > >
> > > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:10mm2kh6dfn699b@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> A question on the following exchange:
>
> >
> > So Lee had these items but failed to provide them to Poindexter?
> >
> > Lee had obtained these for showing to some person related to his
> > discharge. But, evidently, that person wasn't Poindexter.
> >
> > It would appear he intended it for the officer who sent his mother the
> > letter of August 24 in order to meet and bypass his expected interference.
> >
> > He still interferred. This interference was solved by calling for a review
> > board which acted without the requested information. Thus, the officer of
> > August 24 was bypassed.
> >
> > Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of Aug
> > 24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).
> >
> > > The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959.
>
> What form is this?
>
>
> ::Clark::
>
>
>







From: jerry98@my-deja.com (GMcNally)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 28 Oct 2004 13:19:05 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message news:<41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of 17 August 1959",
> made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".
>
> The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald except in general terms, the
> request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a "dependent", since her July request for
> dependency. The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
> Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency considering that the funds she will
> recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently alleviate this situation".

JKO,

> The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from Oswald, while he is in
> service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from Oswald, nor does he have a job
> waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is still in service. If Oswald
> continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her listed expenses.

This is not "ironic"; you are missing the point by a country mile.

You are assuming that Oswald was concerned about his mother; he was
not; he was playing his own game.

The fact that for the next 3 months -- and he got out 3 mos early --
she could have got $91.30/mo that Oswald could have sent her had he
stayed in -- did not figure into Oswald's calculations.

Oswald's actions were not motivated by a desire to help his mother!

> Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement. Some of the data supplied to
> Poindexter is false. First consideration:
>
> "a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"
>
> The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically listed in his service
> record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military obligation is over. It is
> based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this enlistment date later).
>
> The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23 October, 1959, only 65
> days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less then 45 days of
> service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the application......outside of
> the 90 day window.
>
> The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D allotment" of $40
> of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was money send by
> Oswald out of his pay.

So, JKO, you have 'problems' with what happened and believe things
should have happened differently.

That's your 'evidence': your own gut feeling that something is wrong.

>From that sense you leap to the conclusion that the Navy participated
in a conspiracy to let Oswald leave some 3 mos early in order to be
part of some Gov
project to effect a technology transfer to the USSR.

Man, I've got to tell you: that's a real stretch. Leap of faith does
not begin to de scribehowyoudrawconclusions.

> Moving on........
>
> The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26 August, 1959 both being approved.
>
> The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict of the record. It shows Oswald's
> ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty". Which is one day prior to the
> 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for release according to
> regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
>
> All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key documents of the supporting evidence to
> show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after September when the discharge
> was given.
>
> More to follow

And you have a problem with this? You believe this indicates that
there was a conspiracy afoot to separate Oswald 3 months early?

You're finding of 'conflict' in the record is based on a very
questionable assumption: that orgs like the Marines always function
perfectly.

You should consider that a) officers have discretion, b) sometimes
errors are made - inadvertant ones. These are not Einsteins in the
office, JKO; nor is the issue of Oswald staying an extra 3 months or
remaining something of importance.

They were fallible human beings performing a routine function that was
essentially of little interest to them -- whether he stayed the extra
3 mos or if he left early to care for his mother.

Ozzie knew the system and he knew how to game the system. He wanted
out and he devised a way to get out. It worked.

Now if Einstein were in charge of Ozzie's unit and extreme attention
to detail were focussed on every aspect of his request and every
action was taken in strict accordance with regs and accepted practice
then MAYBE the request would have been handled differently and the
documentary evidence would be other than it is.

But, it was a strictly routine request, attracting no great attention
and the wheels of the burocracy just rolled along in a ho-hum routine.
And if the handling of the request of the documentation of it are less
then perfect -- well that's par for the course. What else would you
expect?

Jerry

>
> jko




From: jerry98@my-deja.com (GMcNally)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 28 Oct 2004 20:12:49 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com


"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<10mkcarlucpqpf3@corp.supernews.com>...
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
[..]




Clark,

> Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> following September.

So, we are to conclude that some hidden hand was at work synchronizing
these events?

> This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington, the
> first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a threat
> and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and declared
> his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to negotiate
> the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some 60
> Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested in
> promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They used
> television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a radio
> factory).
>
> Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of ideas
> (concerning, as we shallsee, space programs). Krushev agreed to a reciprocal
> visit to the US.

What the US was interested in was Ike's Open Skies proposal. Or as
Gorby much later said: trust but verify.

> Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in opposite
> directions to each other's country's.
>
> In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> 'cooperation'.
>
> In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> USSR.

And some hidden hand is synchronizing all these events; some power
with an infinite capacity to control events?

You've given us a chronology, but, no cause-and-effect evidence; no
evidence that there was a 'hidden hand' at work, carrying out some
grand plan.

Embedded in your text are many assumptions about history which if made
plain would be immediately seen as highly questionable.

I ask with Clara: where's the beef?

Jerry



From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 28 Oct 2004 20:15:33 -0400


Jerry: What you fail to accept or consider is that everyone knows Lee had
no intent to take care of his mother, and his actions support that. This
is one of the prime reasons that the discharge is fraudulant.

If Lee was just some "yoyo" that managed to get out early and beat the
system......who cares......but Lee used this fraud to "defect". This makes
every aspects of his prior actions suspect. That's only one
consideration, that could have also been "beat"......but his role in the
assassination makes it one that when "ignored" causes problems in
understanding the proper considerations relating to the assassination and
the life of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now to counter my position you have to show the documentation from
offical's sources that remove all considerations under the law on
prosecution of Oswald that support your position.

Your problem is that you can't........you can only do the "Huff & Puff"
response dance attacking me just like the others who don't like what I'm
showing.

The AG report on the defection concerns is missing from the records.
FACT

USMC criminal case files are destroyed, when they should have been include
"in total" to the WC.....but were selectively released and detail
investigation into this area avoided. FACT

Intelligence investigations concerning the defection, his military service
and defection are also in conflict by being missing for the most critical
areas. FACT

Key areas of concern are not presented to the public. FACT

When you respond with FACT supported by offical records, then your points
will be addressed.

You must have some offical foundation for your opinion. I have shown the
concerns based on the offical record foundation, and there is more to
show.

Any number of posters here can attack me......but none can contest the
offical record of conflicts.

jko


[..]


From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald's Passport Application/Question
Date: 30 Oct 2004 01:04:09 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com



"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsarlitto@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4182a66c@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> I spotted this in one of Clark Wilkins posts....
>
> """....You have to deal with Lt. Ayer's providing Lee with a "Hardship"
> discharge the day after he acted as a witness for Lee's passport application
> to Cuba and Russia.
>
> Lt. Ayers KNOWS Lee is leaving the country and therefore that his dependency
> discharge application is fraudulent..."""
>
> In regards to the former claim...Where on the Passport Application does it
> provide destination data?


Here is CE 1114, the actual passport applicaton:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0054a.htm


>
>
> In regards to the latter claim...How does knowledge of leaving the country
> support a claim that a discharge application is fraudulant?
>

If you tell me you are requesting an early discharge from the USMC in
order to take care of your dependent mother and, when I grant your
request, you then also ask me to act as a witness for your passport
application to travel abroad, that contradicts the reason you gave me for
requesting an early discharge. I must consider your request for an early
discharge to take care of your mother to be fraudulent and that the real
reason for your early discharge request is to travel abroad.


Of other interest, the second page of his application lists his countries
to visit:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0054b.htm

They are, in order:

Cuba
Dominican Republic
England
France
Switzerland
Germany
Finland
Russia

Lee left New Orleans for France, traveled to England, and flew to Finland
where he entered the USSR. The countries listed may be in random order or
they may represent the expected order of travel. For example, the last two
countries listed, Finland and Russia are in the order visited but England
and France are in reverse order. Still, if you were to leave New Orleans
by ship and you had the above listed countries as your objective to visit,
the first country you would visit would be Cuba followed by the Dominican
Republic. That is the proper order to visit them while on a trip to
Europe. Also, if you were in Switzerland and wanted to reach Finland, the
shortest route to do so would be through Germany.

Supporting that the list is in the order of planned visiting, Lee listed
the first school he planned to attend as being in Switzerland, followed by
a university in Finland. That order of attendance is in the same order as
the countries listed.

The argument against this is that France and England are out of order. He
actually arrived in France before England. Still, if one were to plan the
shortest possible trip to Russia via Cuba, all the countries listed are in
their proper order.

Somehow, when put into action, France and England got "out of order".
While this may seem a small point, the fact is that there is no reason for
England to be on the list of countries at all. Switzerland is on the
French border. If you arrive in France there is no reason to travel to
England in order to reach your school in Switzerland. England is in the
exact opposite direction. England should NOT be on the list at all. Having
Lee decide against going to Switzerland does not solve the problem of why
England is on the list. Arriving in France, the shortest distance to
Finland does not include England. It either includes Germany or a direct
flight to Finland. So, again, England should not be on the list. No matter
how Oswald plans his trip to the USSR or the ASC in Switzerland, England
should not be on the list.

Yet it's not only there, but he actually passed through it. The ONE
country he doesn't have to pass through in order to attend school and
reach the USSR, is the ONE country he does pass through even when he makes
an apparent change in his travel plans. It is unnecessary to either his
planned route or his actual route.

So why is Lee passing through England? One might suspect that Lee had a
travel agency book the cheapest, quickest route and this agency somehow
found that the quickest/cheapest way to get to Helsinki, Finland from
France was via England. The problem with this conclusion is that Oswald
hired Travel Consultants, Inc. to plan his trip on September 17, 1963 or
13 days after listing England on his passport as a destination. Therefore,
adding England to the trip was a specific part of the plan and was not a
travel agency addition to save costs/time.

Whatever the reason, he listed England again on his June 24, 1963 passport
application which listed his planned travel as:

England
France
Germany
Holland
USSR
Finland
Italy
Poland

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0264a.htm

This is CE 2075 which lists the information on Lee's passport application.

The countries listed in common with his 1959 passport are England, France,
Germany, USSR, Finland. Again, if this is for a planned return to the
USSR via Finland, the shortest distance is France through/over Germany to
Finland. Once again, England is an unnecessary, out of the way, stop. It
should not be on the list.

Again, we are left with the question of why England is listed. When Lee
arrived in England he told customs authorities there he planned to spend
one week in England but, in fact, left the same day for Finland. However,
there was NO DIRECT flight from London Helsinki that day. Nonethless, Lee
arrived in Helsinki that night. Lee could have caught a London flight to
either Copenhagen or Stockholm (and probably did) and, from there, caught
a flight to Helsinki. While a practical explanation, it doesn't explain
why Lee didn't just take a flight from France to Copenhagen or Stockholm
in order to catch that same flight to Helsinki? Or simply fly straight
from France to Finland?

Lee's statement to British customs that he was going to spend "a week" in
England suggests this was his actual plan. Since he performed no
sightseeing in England and it was on his schedule for reasons unrelated to
travel booking to Finland, one must consider that Lee intended to meet
someone in England with the expectation of spending up to a week there.
But the person he met there hurried him on instead to Finland, putting him
on a flight for either Stockholm or Copenhagen that same day. If this is
not what happened, one must wonder Lee listed England on his passport on
September 4, 1959? On that date, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OBTAINING A CONNECTING FLIGHT TO FINLAND VIA STOCKHOLM OR COPENHAGEN. So
he arrived for another reason and the person he met told him he was
"behind schedule", things "had changed", and that there was "no time to
waste". This contact then promptly put him aboard a connecting flight to
Helsinki. This "contact" (Whose initials would be "I. F.") might even have
flown with him. The passenger list for either of these two flights in 1959
would have still been available in 1964. Yet the CIA failed to produce
either list - an indication that Lee was either NOT ABOARD either flight,
or they failed to find the flight whose passenger list included Oswald or,
if they did, the list contained an "unacceptable name" not to be given the
Warren Commission. However, my point is not to convince the reader that
Jerry McNally or John McAdams or DReitzes was sitting next to Oswald on
his flight from London to Helsinki. These types of speculations have a
history of going nowhere. My point is that Lee twice listed England on his
passport applications in connection with reaching the USSR, a stopover
that was not made for geographic or economic reasons. This leaves a
political reason, since Lee's "defection" to the USSR was clearly
political.

I'm going to now allow James Olmstead, with whom I have never discussed
the above, to step in and offer his own opinions on the politicial reasons
for Lee's arriving in England. I expect we'll be treated to a little
"Pappa Joe" history involving JFK. If not, I can add a little Lord
Stephenson and Ian Flemming to create a suitable "James Bond" atmosphere.



::Clark::


From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Oswald's Passport Application/Question
Date: 30 Oct 2004 00:24:48 -0400
[..]




"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsarlitto@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:4182a66c@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> I spotted this in one of Clark Wilkins posts....
>
> """....You have to deal with Lt. Ayer's providing Lee with a "Hardship"
> discharge the day after he acted as a witness for Lee's passport application
> to Cuba and Russia.
>
> Lt. Ayers KNOWS Lee is leaving the country and therefore that his dependency
> discharge application is fraudulent..."""
>
> In regards to the former claim...Where on the Passport Application does it
> provide destination data?
>
>
> In regards to the latter claim...How does knowledge of leaving the country
> support a claim that a discharge application is fraudulant?
>
>
> Glenn
>
>

Glenn: to address your questions let me provide you with facts from
1959 in obtaining a passport. I will cut short the typing and be brief.

1. Person must appear in person before authorized agent.
2. Have birth certificate.....Lee did not have his birth certificate so he
had to get the USMC to vouch for him.
3. The wittness has to know the individual for 2 years, there was nobody
other then the USMC that could act in Lee's behalf. Lee provided a letter
by Lt. Ayers, which in fact would be a legal affidavit.
4. According to offical documents that discuss Lee's obtaining his
passport, the list of countries to visit were "on his
application".....which Lt. Ayers would have to read in order to sign
it.....unless you are a officer such as Tom and sign things without
reading them.

The above is the basic answer to your question. I do not have a 1959
passport application to tell you where the countries to be visited are to
be listed. But the records state that these countries were on his
application, I listed those countries in the thread, they include Cuba and
the USSR.

I have seven travel guides published in this time frame that all suggest
that the visa applications to enter the USSR be completed and filled out
at least 6 months before one wishes to travel to that country. A seperate
entry visa, approved by the Soviets is also required. The CIA/USDS all
claimed that it was impossible to obtain any Soviet entry visa in less
then 3 days.......Lee got his in two, applying for it in Helsinki, not the
U.S. six months ago.

These are all facts of the record.....not speculation on my part. These
facts pertain directly to the known actions of Oswald. What they don't
show for consideration, is what I present, based on the same records and
the same actions. All my goal is to show the conflict, and I do so step
by step, inch by inch, along "The Path to Dallas".

You see I do what Stone failed to do........but could have done. I do not
have to create sinister considerations, they are right there in the
record. For example Lee could have applied for a "no fee" passport
directly through the military, waited until his ETS and speperated. If he
had done that, it would be clear he was acting on his own. But the simple
path was not chosen so it is clear one must consider that the actions were
being directed by outside influence.

You and others can ignore the considerations I present, but that does not
make them go away.

jko



looking for books?

index