google: oswald radar operator
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8038
Sep 28 2006, 07:10 AM
John Simkin
Super Member
Group: admin
Posts: 14220
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7
According to the CIA’s Clandestine Services Handbook, a 201 file was opened on “subjects of extensive reporting and CI (counterintelligence) investigation, prospective agents and sources, and members of groups and organizations of continuing interest.”
When interviewed by the HSCA Richard Helms admitted that anyone who defected to the Soviet Union had a 201 file opened on them. At the request of the HSCA the CIA carried out a search for Oswald’s 201 file. Its discovery raised some serious questions.
Oswald’s 201 file had been created in December 1960 by Ann Egerter. She controlled that file for the next three years. In other words, nothing could go in or out of this file without her permission.
When the HSCA asked Ann Egerter for an interview she refused. When Dan Hardaway of the HSCA threatened to subpoena her, she changed her mind. However, the verbatim record of her testimony is still classified.
There are many unanswered questions about Oswald’s 201 file. The first concerns the date it was opened. Why did it take over a year for the CIA to open his file? He defected in October 1959. Egerter was unable to answer this question. She said she created the file when she saw Oswald’s name on a list of defectors to the Soviet Union in December 1960. Richard Helms was also unable to answer this question. He told the HSCA: “I can’t imagine why it would have taken an entire year. I am amazed.”
The 201 opening form filled out by Egerter is also very strange. It includes the terms “defected to the USSR” and “radar operator” but does not include Oswald’s threat to pass official secrets corning his work to the Soviets.
Helms could however explain why the documents inside the file were missing. He argued that “none of these documents were classified higher than confidential” and that “because document dissemination records of a relatively low national security interest are retained for only a 5-year period, they were no longer in existence for the years 1959 to 63.” We now know that all these documents were destroyed. Some of them have emerged since the passing of the JFK Act. This includes three documents dated before the 201 file was opened in December 1960. This includes a cable from Richard Snyder on 31st October, 1959, informing the CIA that Oswald was threatening to reveal radar secrets. However, this did not trigger a 201 file.
How can these events be explained? The obvious answer is that a 201 file was not created because the CIA knew Oswald was not really a defector.
....
(end of a following post by same poster)
I assume the original file was destroyed. After all, the CIA was hardly likely to tell the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a CIA contract agent since 1959. In the same way that the FBI was unlikely to admit that Oswald had been working undercover for the bureau in New Orleans in 1963.
This explains why the conspirators set up Oswald as a patsy. They knew that as a result of this, both the CIA and the FBI would take part in the cover up.
i don't buy the LHO-as-CIA-contractor theory, unless he didn't know he was a contractor.
on the other hand, once LHO was back in the US, there wouldn't be much to gain by arresting him, and potentially lots to gain by letting him run around and observing him.
also, the climate may have been different, pre- and post-assassination. maybe McCarthy only went after bigwigs, show business people, etc.
also, maybe there was just a disconnect. no one to connect the dots and take the step of saying "he turned over secrets, he's back in the USA, arrest him".
looking at the people who have been arrested for turning over sccrets, maybe most of them were later (longer portion of the cold war, different climate post-assassination) and actual evidence was available of what they turned over, rather than just a statement that they were going to tell the USSR something.
would LHO be convictable just on his bare statement?