Naturally, after defecting and then repatriating, Oswald would be a person of interest to both the FBI and the CIA. There is nothing that indicates he was anything more than that prior to becoming an assassin. What was there about Oswald that would have made him stand out from other persons of interest the FBI and CIA were keeping a watch on.

I find it hard to do anything on a cell phone except what it's supposed to do which is to make and receive telephone calls. I don't understand the fascination with smart phones. I find mine to be a source of aggravation. I was perfectly happy with my flip phone. The only reason I changed is because Spectrum became available and I could save money by bundling, TV, internet, and mobile. I use the mobile mainly for phone calls. About the only other reason for having it is to receive verification codes when I want to access a secure website. Pretty much everything else I do, posting here, checking emails, buying on Amazon, etc. I find much easier and less aggravating doing it on my laptop. I might go back to a flip phone when my Spectrum contract expires.

This strikes me as playing dumb about Oswald's Agent Provocateur status which explains all of your pretend conflicts the best of any explanation...

Care to expand in detail on what you believe was going on?

Orest Pena stated that he saw Oswald in the company of Debrueys, Smith and Roche from INS, and other government officers as they all walked from Pedro the Greeks restaurant to the customs house building.

See page 17 of this pdf for Penas testimony on this:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32246611.pdf

Pena has Oswald in the company of quite a gang.

And that's a bit of a problem.

Here's why...

On June 26, 1963, the FBI's Newark, New Jersey field office sent a memorandum to the New Orleans office. Newark had intercepted mailing list updates showing that Oswald had rented P.O. Box 30061 in New Orleans and was actively subscribing to communist literature and corresponding with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) national office in New York. Because de Brueys was the main internal security/subversive agent in the New Orleans FBI office tracking pro-Castro activities, the lead was routed directly to him. In early July 1963, de Brueys conducted background checks on Oswald, verified the rental of P.O. Box 30061, and cross-checked local property and telephone listings.

On aug 9th Oswald got into a public fight with Bringuier showing himself to be a volatile character unsuitable as an FBI informant material.

Therefore if Debrueys was to consider Oswald as a PSI (potential security informant), Debrueys only had been June 26th and August 9th to do so.

Therefore it would have had to have been between these dates that Pena saw Oswald in the company of Debrueys.

Which is fine.

The problem however is that if Debrueys was only considering Oswald as an informant in this timeframe, he would not have got to know Oswald well enough to feel secure to introduce Oswald to INS officers not to mention the other federal officers Pena said he saw Oswald in the company of with Debrueys coming from the greek restaurant.

The problem therefore for the credibility of what Pena claimed he saw is that Pena has Oswald in the company of way too many federal officers for someone that was only being considered as a PSI by Debrueys at this stage. If Oswald turned out to be unsuitable as an informant, Debrueys would look like a fool to his INS colleagues.

Therefore to save Penas credibility and save the theory that Oswald was an FBI PSI, one would need to explain what conceivable reason Debrueys would have had to introduce his new friend Oswald, someone who he had no idea was even suitable as an FBI informant, to other federal officers so early on.

Can anyone give an explanation as to why Debrueys would have done this?

It is not unreasonable to dismiss the 75% (if that is the actual number) when they are demonstrably wrong. Many of that 75% thought the last two shots came right on top of each other which is not possible with a bolt action rifle and all the physical evidence indicates all three shots were fired by Oswald's bolt action rifle. Large numbers of people can be fooled by the same phenomenon. We can only speculate why a large number of people got the spacing wrong because we don't know what they actually heard. I suspect many of those people heard two sounds from the final shot, which is a recognized phenomenon. There were many earwitnesses who did not seem no recognize the sound of the first shot. If those same people heard a double sound from the final shot, they could easily be fooled into believing the last two shots were close together. JBC's visible reaction at Z164, the simultaneous raising of the arms of JFK and JBC at Z226, and the obvious head explosion at Z313 give us a good idea as to the spacing of the shots. What we don't know is how quickly JBC reacted to the first shot by looking over his right shoulder. Dale Myers has hypothesized a shot as late as Z160. My own belief is the first shot was fired at Z147-148 followed by a noticeable camera jiggle at Z155. Tom Graves believes it was fired about a half second before Zapruder resumed filming. Without definitive proof, there is no way to say who is right, but under two of those scenarios, the first two shots would have been closer together while under the Graves scenario, they would have been almost evenly spaced, with the last two shots coming only marginally closer together than the first two.

The physical evidence indicates all three shots were fired by Oswald's bolt action rifle.

What physical evidence? Prove there were three shots

 Many of that 75% thought the last two shots came right on top of each other which is not possible with a bolt action rifle and all the physical evidence indicates all three shots were fired by Oswald's bolt action rifle. Large numbers of people can be fooled by the same phenomenon. We can only speculate why a large number of people got the spacing wrong because we don't know what they actually heard. I suspect many of those people heard two sounds from the final shot
[/u][/size]

Stumbling around you the way you do, you probably don't even realize your right. You are stating the three shot witnesses, 75% of them, were really two shot witnesses who mistook the double sounds from a single shot, the last shot, as two shots, making a total of three shots. Finally, even you realize how ridiculous the early missed shot is.