Paul Trejo Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Yes, the CIA this week declassified 11 million pages of US Government documents from the JFK and LBJ periods -- but nothing about the JFK assassination. The implication is that we must patiently wait until Thursday 26 October 2017 for the ARRB to finally release all its documents. In the meantime, Douglas P. Horne, a supervisor for the ARRB, has declassified several documents demonstrating that the Bethesda autopsy of JFK was riddled with Cover-up behavior. Basically, Horne thoroughly vindicates the book, Best Evidence (1981) written by David Lifton, who is a member of this Forum. Commander Humes lied through his teeth -- this will be one of the official conclusions of the ARRB in 2017. Regards --Paul Trejo Paul----try keeping up... The recent release of President's Daily Briefings include CIA info relating to Oswald and JFK's assassination. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/16/cia-confirmed-oswald-contacted-cubans-soviets-befo/ The headline in your cited "article" reads: CIA confirmed Oswald contacted Cubans, Soviets before assassination, memo shows ACTUALLY -- that BOGUS "release" of documents has already been well-debunked by the "Lopez Report" declassified a decade ago. That article doesn't announce NEW data about the JFK murder -- it's OLD data. Even the Warren Commission knew -- 51 years ago -- that Oswald went to Mexico City and contacted both the Cuban and Soviet Embassies for Visas to their countries -- AND TOTALLY FAILED because his credentials were BOGUS. Furthermore, as David Simpich showed last year, there was also a Mole Impersonator of Oswald trying to link Oswald's name with KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov. But your cited "article" says nothing about that. Like I said -- there is NOTHING that was declassified in the 11 MILLION pages of CIA documents this week that will add new data about the JFK murder. Like I said -- the ARRB continues to hold as Top Secret the key documents about the JFK Murder. At least Douglas P. Horne admitted that the Bethesda autopsy was a deliberate falsehood and Cover-up (cf. Inside the ARRB, 2009) Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited September 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 That's the problem, It was so long ago I can't remember where I saw it... may have been in the J. Evetts Haley collection, in a Christmas card that Surrey sent ( they were close for years). If it was I don't have it as they wouldn't let us copy the cards for fear of potential damage.. That is just a guess, I really can't recall, though I have a clear picture of him in my mind... Sorry Bill Maybe Gayle Nix-Jackson can help us out here, if she's reading this thread. Gayle is exploring the Dallas population for clues into their local participation in the JFK murder. I wonder if she can obtain some family photographs of Robert Allen Surrey. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 In any case, at the 1:50 mark we do indeed see General Walker -- but his driver's face is obscured by the rear-view mirror. We can't see the driver at all. If that driver is Robert Allen Surrey, then we are not one step closer to seeing Surrey's face. There is a much better view before we actually see Walker. When the car is pulling up to the traffic cop there is a good view of the driver. Also, I notice a press photographer on the sidewalk who seems to prepare to snap a photo which, in theory could have included Walker and the driver. At least Douglas P. Horne admitted that the Bethesda autopsy was a deliberate falsehood and Cover-up (cf. Inside the ARRB, 2009) Just quibbling but it would be more accurate to say he "exposed" the falsehood. The media's abject silence about the revelations is a dark omen for what we might expect in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) In any case, at the 1:50 mark we do indeed see General Walker -- but his driver's face is obscured by the rear-view mirror. We can't see the driver at all. If that driver is Robert Allen Surrey, then we are not one step closer to seeing Surrey's face. There is a much better view before we actually see Walker. When the car is pulling up to the traffic cop there is a good view of the driver. Also, I notice a press photographer on the sidewalk who seems to prepare to snap a photo which, in theory could have included Walker and the driver. At least Douglas P. Horne admitted that the Bethesda autopsy was a deliberate falsehood and Cover-up (cf. Inside the ARRB, 2009) Just quibbling but it would be more accurate to say he "exposed" the falsehood. The media's abject silence about the revelations is a dark omen for what we might expect in the future. Excellent, Chris. If one starts at 1:44 on that film, one can see a portion of the driver's profile. Bill tells us this is Robert Allen Surrey for sure. Yet a shadow obscures his eyes and nose in this film. I get a vague impression of a man in his thirties perhaps -- somewhat tall and muscular, with a full head of dark hair, and perhaps a square jaw. I can't tell from the partial profile, however, if all this is accurate. As for the Douglas P. Horne volumes -- we seem to agree that Horne didn't really reveal anything new, because David Lifton did all the heavy lifting back in 1981. However, the fact that Horne was honest enough to vindicate David Lifton is encouraging to me. I also agree with you that the abject silence about Horne's work in the mass media -- and their willingness to baby-spoon-feed the US public about the JFK murder, remains discouraging. Yet perhaps as we get closer and closer to Thursday 26 October 2017 the pace will pick up. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited September 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Yes, the CIA this week declassified 11 million pages of US Government documents from the JFK and LBJ periods -- but nothing about the JFK assassination. The implication is that we must patiently wait until Thursday 26 October 2017 for the ARRB to finally release all its documents. In the meantime, Douglas P. Horne, a supervisor for the ARRB, has declassified several documents demonstrating that the Bethesda autopsy of JFK was riddled with Cover-up behavior. Basically, Horne thoroughly vindicates the book, Best Evidence (1981) written by David Lifton, who is a member of this Forum. Commander Humes lied through his teeth -- this will be one of the official conclusions of the ARRB in 2017. Regards --Paul Trejo Paul----try keeping up... The recent release of President's Daily Briefings include CIA info relating to Oswald and JFK's assassination. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/16/cia-confirmed-oswald-contacted-cubans-soviets-befo/ The headline in your cited "article" reads: CIA confirmed Oswald contacted Cubans, Soviets before assassination, memo shows ACTUALLY -- that BOGUS "release" of documents has already been well-debunked by the "Lopez Report" declassified a decade ago. That article doesn't announce NEW data about the JFK murder -- it's OLD data. Even the Warren Commission knew -- 51 years ago -- that Oswald went to Mexico City and contacted both the Cuban and Soviet Embassies for Visas to their countries -- AND TOTALLY FAILED because his credentials were BOGUS. Furthermore, as David Simpich showed last year, there was also a Mole Impersonator of Oswald trying to link Oswald's name with KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov. But your cited "article" says nothing about that. Like I said -- there is NOTHING that was declassified in the 11 MILLION pages of CIA documents this week that will add new data about the JFK murder. Like I said -- the ARRB continues to hold as Top Secret the key documents about the JFK Murder. At least Douglas P. Horne admitted that the Bethesda autopsy was a deliberate falsehood and Cover-up (cf. Inside the ARRB, 2009) Regards, --Paul Trejo Good to know that even though the 2500+ pages of PDF's were only released recently, you have had time to go through every one. Also good to know that you have advance knowledge about all the CIA material being withheld -- so you can definitively declare that everything yet to be released is classified as "Top Secret". Edited September 18, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Good to know that even though the 2500+ pages of PDF's were only released recently, you have had time to go through every one. Also good to know that you have advance knowledge about all the CIA material being withheld -- so you can definitively declare that everything yet to be released is classified as "Top Secret". Well, clearly one only needs to look at the Index to know the themes there. Here is the official CIA listing of themes: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2015-press-releases-statements/cia-to-release-declassified-pdb-articles.html We can clearly see here that the CIA is only declassifying the "President's Daily Brief Articles" from the JFK and LBJ administrations. The purpose of this release at the University of Texas at Austin is to enable scholars to carefully analyze the decision-making process at the Executive level of US Government. There is no connection of any kind of this release with the ARRB Top Secret documents. Those are held separately and very closely. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited September 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) Good to know that even though the 2500+ pages of PDF's were only released recently, you have had time to go through every one. Also good to know that you have advance knowledge about all the CIA material being withheld -- so you can definitively declare that everything yet to be released is classified as "Top Secret". Well, clearly one only needs to look at the Index to know the themes there. Here is the official CIA listing of themes: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2015-press-releases-statements/cia-to-release-declassified-pdb-articles.html We can clearly see here that the CIA is only declassifying the "President's Daily Brief Articles" from the JFK and LBJ administrations. The purpose of this release at the University of Texas at Austin is to enable scholars to carefully analyze the decision-making process at the Executive level of US Government. There is no connection of any kind of this release with the ARRB Top Secret documents. Those are held separately and very closely. Regards, --Paul Trejo The PDF's cover the period from 1961-1969....so I guess you want us to believe that the CIA did not bother to inform LBJ about anything connected to the murder of JFK? Unless you have seen every one of the CIA documents withheld by ARRB you could not possibly know how many are classified or which classification they were given. Furthermore, as we have discussed previously (but you continually ignore), there are multiple Executive Orders plus the JFK Records Act that pertain to automatic DE-classification of documents which began decades ago. Most of the CIA documents pertain to intelligence obtained from foreign governments or from our own assets (agents, electronic surveillance, mail covers, trash covers, physical surveillance, etc.). A lot of the decades-old speculation concerning what CIA documents will show will probably be confirmed when the documents are released but it is also very probable that the amount of "Top Secret" documents will be minimal -- and, more importantly, what was originally classified (in the 1960's) as "Top Secret" will not seem particularly noteworthy in 2017. [Example: a document originally created in the 1950's or 1960's which refers to U.S. support of assassinations or U.S. efforts to overthrow regimes we did not like (like Castro) -- will not be "new" information even though it was originally "classified" as "Top Secret" Furthermore, document specialists (both within and out of government) have pointed out for many years that our government routinely OVER-classifies material in wholesale fashion. For example, when I submitted my first FOIA request to the FBI re: the JBS -- the reason why it took so many YEARS for the FBI to process the entire FBI file on the JBS (12,000 pages) was because so many documents within that file were originally classified "Confidential" or "Secret" -- and some of them originated with military intelligence or the intelligence units of other agencies (such as State Department) but after the mandatory de-classification review was completed, almost nothing continued to be classified and withheld. I would have to go back and check my notes, but I think it would be accurate to report that of those 12,000 pages -- only about 20-30 pages were withheld due to continued classification. [I just thought about one example: A copy of serial #1543 of FBI HQ file 61-3499 is in the JBS HQ file. It is a 9/21/78 memo from E.C. Peterson to W.C. Cregar which is a review of a 6/78 American Opinion article by Alan Stang re KGB influence in the U.S. entitled “The KGB: A Serpent in the House.” The article makes a lot of accusations and the FBI review memo discusses each one at length. In particular, the FBI falsifies many assertions made by Stang and the JBS in their article. The entire serial was originally classified "Top Secret".] In short (and in summary), I know YOU think that there will be a vast trove of "Top Secret" information released from CIA files in 2017 but the probability is that there will be a few pages with truly significant new insights but most of what is de-classified will not significantly add to our knowledge. Edited September 18, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 I have to say, I don't share any optimism about any major exposures that will be earth shattering about the case, from any so called " new releases". I'm cynical at best! Sorry, just going by experience! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I have to say, I don't share any optimism about any major exposures that will be earth shattering about the case, from any so called " new releases". I'm cynical at best! Sorry, just going by experience! Bill Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Given the topic of this thread and how far it rambles, and the fact that Paul must have his copy of the new book now - Paul, how about some discussion of what you are reading in the book? You could do it here or even in the book forum. I'd be interested in some dialog from those actually involved with or reading the book itself. I don't have the time for it at the moment but seeing some discussion of what's new or what new dots have been connected would be real interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Given the topic of this thread and how far it rambles, and the fact that Paul must have his copy of the new book now - Paul, how about some discussion of what you are reading in the book? You could do it here or even in the book forum. I'd be interested in some dialog from those actually involved with or reading the book itself. I don't have the time for it at the moment but seeing some discussion of what's new or what new dots have been connected would be real interest. Thanks, Larry, for the invitation. I'm partial to online slow-readings of important books like this one. (For example, on the Hegel List at Yahoo!, since June, I've been engaged in an online slow-read of Hegel's 1831 Proofs of the Existence of God, and I think it's clearly worthwhile.) If asked, I'd propose that we begin with chapter one, namely, "LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND GUY BANISTER". What's the consensus here? Are people interested in reviewing Jeff Caufield's new book chapter by chapter? Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited September 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) EDWIN WALKER'S MILITARY SERVICE RECORDS The National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis recently answered my inquiry concerning the military records of Walker. For interested parties, I summarize below what is available as described in the NPRC reply letter: "In 2004, NARA and the Dept of Defense entered into an agreement that provided for accessioning into National Archives, the Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF's) of individuals in whom there is significant historical interest, 10 years after their death; the OMPF is now considered an 'archival' record. That is, the OMPF has been transferred by the originating military service department to the legal custody of the National Archives and Records Administration." "The OMPF is now a public record. You may gain access to this record and its contents by purchasing a photocopy of the file. The NARA staff does not respond to requests for archival records by furnishing selected documents or extracts of information...." "If you are interested in viewing available archival records in person, please contact the Archival Research Room at 314-801-0850 or stlarr.archives@nara.gov. An appointment to view the records must be made prior to your visit..." OR For anybody who wants to purchase the entire OMPF -- it is 2434 pages -- and NARA charges $1,947.20 (80 cents per page). Postscript: Walker's service number is: 018552 http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/archival-programs/ Edited September 19, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Personally I would never be able to deal with as deep a book as this sounds to be with electronic reading, I would need to be highlighting, marking notes etc and I can never find my way back and fourth in electronic copies fast enough to satisfy myself. But that's just me. Anyway, chapter by chapter would be fine...I'd just suggest that it is done within the book forum where it seems to fit best. Then again others may want it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 For anybody who wants to purchase the entire OMPF -- it is 2434 pages -- and NARA charges $1,947.20 (80 cents per page). That price is highway robbery. I've got over 10 years experience in Litigation Support and I'd never get even the deepest pocketed lawyers to cough up $2k for 2434 photocopies. Go green and give us the PDF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 Paul, Not sure what you mean by "online reading". "General Walker" does not come in e-book format...? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now