Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Josephs

SUBJECT NAMES AND RELATED 201 FILE #'S

Recommended Posts

Uhh...big deal? MLK, LHO, Ruby...the usual cast of characters.  Some have a 201 #...some don't. This appeared to be released back in 2005. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Uhh...big deal? MLK, LHO, Ruby...the usual cast of characters.  Some have a 201 #...some don't. This appeared to be released back in 2005. So what?

Michael,

I think Josephs is just trying to ingratiate himself with DiEugenio's personal cheerleader.

(lol)

 

--  Tommy  :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Michael,

I think Josephs is just trying to ingratiate himself with DiEugenio's personal cheerleader.

(lol)

He and Davidson have completely ignored not once but twice my rebuttal on the ridiculous Z film alteration that they keep alive, pocket calculators at the ready. The thread is called Shooter Location.

What's amazing to me is there's a TV show on YTV called Forensic Files.  Real police investigators and policemen are interviewed and I'm amazed at the words they use "it doesn't make sense" and "it's not plausible" when they were working a case.  Yet, it's just shocking to me how people on this board think everything happened in this case - the Z film was altered...and therefore, the Nix film too. And this was and that was. Then of course the ridiculousness of Hardly Lee and the body alteration by Lifton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, forgive my ineptness regarding research technique.  For example on the first page line 19 lists Aracha -Smith, Sergio.  In parentheses is hand written "many".  Many what?  Files, notations, what?  There is a file #, is there access to the file?  Under "Other" it mentions "loose documents", what does that mean ?  A DCD case # is listed.  What is the DCD,  is there a case file or notes that are accessible somewhere?  I've been curious about Sergio for years.  Alpha 66, New Orleans.  Was he not seen at the Harlendale house in Dallas?  Did he not avoid extradition during the Garrison - Shaw/Bertrand case by none other than Texas Governor John Connally's refusal to agree to such?  Jim can probably answer the last part best.  I know I could find the answer in Destiny Betrayed if I would look.  Sorry, like tommy mentioned a few weeks back that We so stoopid.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=zz+top+i'm+so+stupid&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=ae55c4799a06487ebe2af4e37c2ff2dc&sp=-1&pq=undefined&sc=0-17&qs=n&sk=&cvid=ae55c4799a06487ebe2af4e37c2ff2dc 

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ron... 

With all the discussion about 201 files and my stumbling across this doc... I thought I'd post it and see if it helps anyone...

I am not too well versed with 201 files...  I know though we have resources in Simpich, Jim D, John Newman and others who may be able to answer those questions...

PAZ seemed to be interested so I posted it... plus it gives the real names of so many informants...

========================

Sadly there remains those who think every utterance is for their ears, for their benefit....
and it must their solemn duty to keep posting non-sequitur and/or non-sense at every opportunity.

:pop

 

As more and more of the members realize how much better the place is when ignoring these never ending uninformed utterings, maybe those too thick to realize it's them ...  will go play their childish games in a different sandbox.

   :idea        :up

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David

"I'm not too well versed with 201 files .."

Then shouldn't you include IMHO.

The CIA are master liars and deceivers. That's what they do for a living. They are experts at it.

I wouldn't believe anything from the CIA in voice or print. Just like the Warren Commission.

They have a knack for changing history. They say a 201 file is a personality file (hahahahahah). They say they have 201 NUMBERS on Meyer Lansky and many others. Maybe 201 numbers but not 201 files. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Then shouldn't you include IMHO.

I POSTED A DOCUMENT WITH NAMES AND 201 FILE #'S...  OF COURSE THE CIA LIES... BUT WITHIN THOSE LIES ARE FOUND THE GEMS AS IT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON IN THAT REALM.

THE STANDARD VERMIN CRAWLS INTO THE DAYLIGHT TO MAKE SOME OFFHAND NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT A PURELY INFORMATIONAL POST (DIRECTED MOSTLY AT PAZ)

THERE IS NO "OPINION" HERE TO BE HUMBLE ABOUT...  DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE DOC IN QUESTION?

AND GEORGE - THE ACCURACY OF THE 201 #'S IS EASILY CHECKED...  PROVE TO ME THAT THIS DOC IS FULL OF FALSE INFO - PLEASE...
JUST POINT OUT ONE OF THE NAMES WHERE THE 201# IS INCORRECT... SIMPLE.

:up

FOR PETE'S SAKE... IF SHARING SOMETHING INTERESTING IS GOING TO BE MET WITH THIS KIND OF POSTER FOOLISHNESS,

WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER?...   :mellow:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

PAZ seemed to be interested so I posted it... plus it gives the real names of so many informants...

Sure. Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep breathing Joseph. We appreciate your work and your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David

This is valuable information. 

These 201 numbers refer to files stored using a CIA numbering, filing system. They are not 201 personnel files.Given that Oswald is listed opposite a 201 number does not mean that he worked for the CIA. If a 201 personnel file was prepared for Oswald and it is located or found then that would be positive proof that he worked for the agency.

Five individuals are listed to have their personnel files included under their 201 number or no 201 number. These individuals definitely work/worked for the CIA since only the CIA could have prepared their personnel file, not a third party.

The CIA plants false information in their files to throw researchers off. However I don't believe the information provided is false information.   

BTW according to the list there are 117 vols of info/documents/files on Oswald. That is the largest volume of info listed. I'm like you not an expert on 201 numbers but 117 volumes seems like a lot of information. The list was compiled in Jan 1, 1964. That's about 38/40 days after the assassination of the president.The CIA continues to say that they knew nothing of Oswald before the assassination. That they had no relationship with him before the assassination. They would have us believe that they collected 117 vols of info on Oswald in 38 days. Maybe they have an explanation but that's hard to swallow.

Edited by George Sawtelle
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

They are not 201 personnel files

George...  do tell please...did anyone mention "personnel" files before you in this thread?  Nope... so why create a Straw man?

This is for what the 201 files were used and how they were kept separate...  The CIA planted evidence includes things like "Oswald went to Mexico - we have tapes, photos and transcripts"

The Military provided cover backstops for projects so a cursory look provides a plausible story...

and Yes George, I thought it was a valuable research tool so I threw it up here...  Stay tuned, I only have 29,987 unopened of the 31,317 rows of dos in my index...  granted many are duplicates...  but many are brand new and support much of what I've written about Mexico....

5a21ba01f3d25_PhilipAgeeon201files.thumb.jpg.664a837b5e297a6f1633121dc8bc3913.jpg

 

15 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

The CIA plants false information in their files to throw researchers off. However I don't believe the information provided is false information.

:huh:

Pretty sure these are real 201 #'s matched to real people...  In fact, if you look again, at the top of page 1 it talks about  an Index compiled by Sylvia Meager...

The header page says it's from the CIA yet it surely does not look like an official CIA document...  I think it was simply a research tool... like a timeline, which gets updated as needed and comes from extensive CIA research...

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Deep breathing Joseph. We appreciate your work and your posts.

Sorry Paul... the caps were left on as I use them to write in the notes column of the new docs release index...  I forget it looks like yelling...

I do what I do for those like you and the others who have an interest... 

The "Graves/Walton dumb-down the rest of us" project that seems in process just gets to me from time to time...

Any of this sound familiar?

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.  :sun

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.  5a9821aba6e80_Whinychild-tiny.jpg.b706b96754b3e3091be955d3d340c91a.jpg 

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David

Nice to know about 201 numbered files but more important is what's in these files. Any idea how to access the info in the files.

What about 117 vols of info on Oswald. Does that make sense? Would like to take a peek at some of those volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×