You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #169: Here's some new info and analysis from a well informed researcher. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #166
169. Here's some new info and analysis from a well informed researcher.
(thanks, 2004V, for the missing word)

This is from a copy of an email written yesterday, forwarded by a friend. The research community became aware of this document about a week ago, and there have been many discussions on it.

The author of this is apparently researcher Larry H_____ (note: Dick Russell is author of The Man Who Knew Too Much) (Also note: RIF = JFK Assassination Records Collection Reader identification Number). I have blanked the last names of parties not essential to the document's recent provenance:


The earliest original source for the document was "reportedly" an FBI agent in Tennessee who gave a copy to James Moore. This is courtesy of an inquiry by Gary Beulle who did talk with Moore e.g. "I obtained a scanned copy of the document from Jim Moore. He says he got it from a Tennessee FBI man and does not vouch for its authenticity..."

Moore and his copy of the document was the first apparent source and it was Moore who is cited by Dick Russell, although Dick does state that the document is on record in the National Archives....this may be a mistake and hopefully we will hear from Dick himself on it eventually. When exactly this first appearance occurred is not yet document but it was certainly prior to 1992 when TMWKTM was published.

Apparently the document has been posted on the internet within the past two years by Gary Buell without much dialog.

Which brings us to September 2004. Ed T____ received the document from Bill C_____, a long time acquaintance, with a request that it be circulated for comment. He was given only one page initially. Ed was given to understand that the document was in the archives. He send the document to S_____ and when we received it there appears a RIF number associated with it. To this point it is unclear exactly when or where that number came from.....certainly the first thing I did was a NARA search to confirm it was real and in the archives, which of course the number is, but not for this document....sigh.

Stu W___ did a variety of more complex searches on various names and the CO document number which validated that at least the document related to the right Agency and that it was consistent with other Treasury Department documents pertaining to the JFK investigation. Given a RIF number and this corroboration it seemed like a serious find even given some issues with the contents.

While we were doing that various individuals began nay saying it based on content, form, logic and PhotoShop analysis - representing that it was a clear cut and paste job (which by the way is denied by others; the issue of the Confidential stamp also seems to be cleared up by Moore's comment about putting it on himself?).

"By the way, I asked Moore about the Confidential stamp. He says it was not on the original document. He added it, as he said he did to other material in his office at the tabloid, I suppose to say hands-off to his office mates."

As to a second source, James R_____ states he got the document several years ago from a private source making no claims for it but Jamie's impression given his knowledge of the source was that it may well have been created as Agency disinformation at some point and never actually used for that intended purpose. James claims not to have posted it this last week until their was active discussion about it and also states that his version does not have the yellow highlights. Bill Miller claims he took his three page copy from James posting. I claim simply to be clueless.

At this point I have questions in to C_____ inquiring as to why he has stated to various people that he believed it was a document on file at NARA and on where the RIF number originated. I have similar questions to Dick Russell.

I agree with your analysis that the document could very well exist in the records; I also feel that it could either be a) real , b) real with intentional defects to make it deniable and c) a very well prepared disinformation piece with intentional defects which could have been used to divert or obfuscate an earlier investigation. For all I know it could have been based on an actual document destroyed long ago. However based on it's content and on it's CO number, I don't think it's something that could have been done off the cuff without a heck of a lot of background knowledge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC