JFK Research in 2005

[James Richards]

I'd like to share two other thoughts in response to Tim's original questions.

First, I think that in approaching individuals who have never gone on

the record or those who did at a point in time when the official story was

the only way to go without putting your reputation or career at risk, it would

be very desirable to create a "briefing book".  This book would essentially

be a list of FBI agents,  Medical Personnel,  Secret Service agents and other

investigators or witnesses who eventually decided to either express their

doubts in the official investigation,  to share the fact that they had either been

ordered to ignore or manage information or to actually discuss instances

in which information had been witheld or destroyed.

After starting with Hosty, Siebert, Oneil,  Burkley and others I think this could

be a very valuable project to create a resource to help people know they would

not be "going it alone" and also as a background document for legal staff

working on grand jury or court of inquiry filings.  In line with that I would say

such a briefing document should be shared with all the living Oswald family.

I'd also like to note that the key element in really getting either started is to offer concrete testimony or evidence which was not reviewed as part of any initial investigation.  That was the approach that was used successfully in the Henry

Marshall situation as related to Billy Sol Estes.

Second,  a research group could join Bill Kelley's grand jury effort by working on a specific background document listing instances where evidence was suppressed, managed or simply not presented.....and which would counter the evidentiary conclusions presented to the WC by the FBI and DPD.  We have all seen lots of posts and lots of instances of this but it needs to be collected and vetted to put it into shape in order to support any potential legal opportunities.  Its great

to make lists of names that we would like to see talk but personally I doubt that

very many in the "suspect" or "guilty knowledge" category are going to fess up at this point in time.  On the other hand a couple of well documented briefing books as outlined above could go a long way to documenting the case for a cover-up  (which is really the strongest case we have now in my opinion).

-- Happy New Year everyone

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good stuff, Larry.

I agree that this would be a solid course of action. The 'briefing book' is a great idea.

James

[Tim Gratz]

Great thread Tim; as per some of my thoughts for very specific research that still needs to be done, here goes:

Areas for research…

John Martino’s telephone records for October and November of 1963 – unfortunately BellSouth tells us no records of that age still exist. Question

is, is that really true?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

From my experience in the 1980s when I would subpoena telephone records, I believe that is probably correct.

Perhaps Dawn can confirm this from her experience as well.

[Tim Gratz]

Great thread Tim; as per some of my thoughts for very specific research that still needs to be done, here goes:

Locating the Roselli FBI and organized crime surveillance files for the last six months of 1963.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

First, Larry, I had the idea from thinking about the section in your book where you discuss research and investigation still needed!

With respect to Rosselli, I understand an investigative reporter had seen FBI reports of two meetings between Rosselli and Ruby in late summer or early fall of 1963. Has this been confirmed as true? Does anyone have copies of the FBI reports?

[Richard J. Smith]

"It seems that you and I are about the only ones who recognize how important Duran may be. I honestly believe that he may eventually speak regarding the assassination."

James,

I recall reading an interview(or article) about Duran, and I got the distinct impression he knew plenty, and felt somewhat remorseful. I agree he is probably the only person alive who was involved on the periphery and will eventually speak. Duran's explanation of the feeling of the exile groups at the time, and the meaning of "dialogueros" was bonechilling, and was the final straw that convinced me of exile involvement.

What may help loosen Duran's lips is that he is now considered a "dialogado" after his 2001 visit to Havana during the 40th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs. Duran is very active in overturning the US embargo of Cuba. Contrary to what some others may think, I believe Duran was an observer in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. He was an active member of Brigade 2506 and a past president of its veterans association.

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/Cuba/photoe...onference7.html

RJS

[Dawn Meredith]

"There are researchers persuring the Grand Jury issue tho. Will find out who. As it's slipped my mind."

Bill Kelly in New Jersey. He was to give an update on his progress at NID but couldn't make it.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

__________________________

Richard,

I assume Bill Kelly is an attorney?

How can he convenve a Grand Jury from New Jersey?

Or is it that he is working with attorneys to attempt this?

Thanks and Happy New Year.

Dawn

ps There are other efforts re GJ also, may or may not be affiliated with Bill Kelly's

[Larry Hancock]

Tim, a reporter was contacted by an individual who claimed to have been an FBI agent assigned to the Roselli murder investigation in Miami. This individual described the memos to the reporter - whose name is in my book but which I don't recall at the moment. The individual allowed the reporter to tape the call, no name is given as far as the Agent goes and as far as I can tell no copies were offered (they may not have even existed any longer at the time the call was made?). The last I know of this the authors of Roselli's biography contacted the reporter and even listened to the tape but that's as far as it goes. Anyone really interested in digging into that could consult the HSCA segragated files which do contain requests from local law enforcement and FBI to the CIA for names and other information as the investigation progressed. The memos may even contain names of the investigators - there are a lot of files on this as the CIA was trying to figure out how not to cooperate while not looking distainful of legal process (hardly ever works for them but they try). From their perspective murder just doesn't rank up their with national security on sources and methods.

Interestingly enough the times given by the individual for the meeting do correspond to one of those small windows where Ruby was traveling and in which his actual location is not solid for a few days at a time.

-- Larry

Great thread Tim; as per some of my thoughts for very specific research that still needs to be done, here goes:

Locating the Roselli FBI and organized crime surveillance files for the last six months of 1963.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

First, Larry, I had the idea from thinking about the section in your book where you discuss research and investigation still needed!

With respect to Rosselli, I understand an investigative reporter had seen FBI reports of two meetings between Rosselli and Ruby in late summer or early fall of 1963. Has this been confirmed as true? Does anyone have copies of the FBI reports?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Larry Hancock]

Dawn, I'm going to jump in with a couple of answers just because I've

talked to Bill about this several times over the past year. Bill is not

a lawyer, he is a writer. He missed the Dallas conferences because he

was covering a trial that went longer than antcipated.

Bill is closely associated with COPA which operates from Washington D.C.

and has support from several volunteer legal personnel. COPA has been in

court numerous times in DC over freedom of information issues. The

Grand Jury effort is one of assembling information and developing legal

strategies that would be "portable" and could be taken into different venues.

There is nothing that ties it to Washington D.C.

There has been discussion by other individuals of doing something similar

but Bill's effort is the most well developed that I am aware of - although I really

don't know where it stands right now as Bill was not there to update us.

Hope that helps just a little.... Larry

"There are researchers persuring the Grand Jury issue tho. Will find out who. As it's slipped my mind."

Bill Kelly in New Jersey. He was to give an update on his progress at NID but couldn't make it.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

__________________________

Richard,

I assume Bill Kelly is an attorney?

How can he convenve a Grand Jury from New Jersey?

Or is it that he is working with attorneys to attempt this?

Thanks and Happy New Year.

Dawn

ps There are other efforts re GJ also, may or may not be affiliated with Bill Kelly's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dawn Meredith]

Dawn,  I'm going to jump in with a couple of answers just because I've

talked to Bill about this several times over the past year.  Bill is not

a lawyer, he is a writer.  He missed the Dallas conferences because he

was covering a trial that went longer than antcipated.

Bill is closely associated with COPA which operates from Washington D.C.

and has support from several volunteer legal personnel.  COPA has been in

court numerous times in DC over freedom of information issues.  The

Grand Jury effort is one of assembling information and developing legal

strategies that would be "portable" and could be taken into different venues.

There is nothing that ties it to Washington D.C.

There has been discussion by other individuals of doing something similar

but Bill's effort is the most well developed that I am aware of - although I really

don't know where it stands right now as Bill was not there to update us.

Hope that helps just a little....  Larry

___________________________

Thanks Larry, it was the atty's who are COPA affiliated  to whom I was referring.

I am also COPA affiliated, tho have not been able to attend conference last few years.

Dawn

"There are researchers persuring the Grand Jury issue tho. Will find out who. As it's slipped my mind."

Bill Kelly in New Jersey. He was to give an update on his progress at NID but couldn't make it.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

__________________________

Richard,

I assume Bill Kelly is an attorney?

How can he convenve a Grand Jury from New Jersey?

Or is it that he is working with attorneys to attempt this?

Thanks and Happy New Year.

Dawn

ps There are other efforts re GJ also, may or may not be affiliated with Bill Kelly's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[James Richards]

I recall reading an interview(or article) about Duran, and I got the distinct impression he knew plenty, and felt somewhat remorseful. I agree he is probably the only person alive who was involved on the periphery and will eventually speak. Duran's explanation of the feeling of the exile groups at the time, and the meaning of "dialogueros" was bonechilling, and was the final straw that convinced me of exile involvement.

What may help loosen Duran's lips is that he is now considered a "dialogado" after his 2001 visit to Havana during the 40th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs. Duran is very active in overturning the US embargo of Cuba. Contrary to what some others may think, I believe Duran was an observer in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. He was an active member of Brigade 2506 and a past president of its veterans association. (Richard J. Smith)

Right on, Richard.

I believe Duran ended up in Dealey Plaza via his connections to Bernardo De Torres (who he was closely associated with). Duran's mid 1963 associations with William Seymour and Dennis Harber is also an area I would like to find out more about.

Cheers,

James

[Ron Ecker]

Happy New Year to all.

I would love to see interviews of J.W. Foster and J.C. White, the two DPD officers who were stationed over Elm on the triple overpass, Foster on the east side and White on the west side. (As of 1998, Foster resided in Cedar Hill, Texas.)

White is the lone individual who testified that a long noisy freight train was moving on the overpass at the time of the assassination, blocking his view of the event and the sound of the shots.

Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's car come into sight?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir; first time I saw it it has passed, passed under the triple underpass.

Mr. BALL. You were too far away to see it, were you?

Mr. WHITE. There was a freight train traveling. There was a train passing between the location I was standing and the area from which the procession was traveling, and--a big long freight train, and I did not see it.

Mr. BALL. You didn't see the procession?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

- - - - - -

Mr. BALL. Did you hear any shots?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Didn't?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. First time you saw the President's car it was going underneath?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

----------

Mr. BALL. All right, now, you heard no sound of no rifle fire or anything?

Mr. WHITE. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. Freight train was going through at the time?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Making noise?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; noisy train.

Foster did not mention such a train in his testimony, and Ball never asked him about a train. But here’s what Foster told Larry Sneed (in Sneed’s book “No More Silence”) over 30 years later:

“Just prior to the shots, a three engine locomotive went by, so there wasn’t a lot that you could see or hear from up there even though the locomotive had already passed and just the boxcars were going by at the time the motorcade passed through.” Yet he tells Sneed “I heard three distinct, evenly spaced shots . . . they all sounded about the same, and they came from back toward Elm and Houston Streets. None of them came from the grassy knoll.”

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Tim, a reporter was contacted by an individual who claimed to have been an

FBI agent assigned to the Roselli murder investigation in Miami. This individual

described the memos to the reporter - whose name is in my book but which I

don't recall at the moment. The individual allowed the reporter to tape the call,

no name is given as far as the Agent goes and as far as I can tell no copies

were offered (they may not have even existed any longer at the time the call

was made?). The last I know of this the authors of Roselli's biography contacted

the reporter and even listened to the tape but that's as far as it goes. Anyone

really interested in digging into that could consult the HSCA segragated files which do contain requests from local law enforcement and FBI to the CIA for names and other information as the investigation progressed. The memos may even contain names of the investigators - there are a lot of files on this as the CIA was trying to figure out how not to cooperate while not looking distainful of legal process (hardly ever works for them but they try). From their perspective murder just doesn't rank up their with national security on sources and methods.

Interestingly enough the times given by the individual for the meeting do correspond to one of those small windows where Ruby was traveling and in which his actual location is not solid for a few days at a time.

-- Larry

Great thread Tim; as per some of my thoughts for very specific research that still needs to be done, here goes:

Locating the Roselli FBI and organized crime surveillance files for the last six months of 1963.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thanks for the response. I understand that Rosselli was under constant FBI surveillance but he was able to dodge the surveillance for a short period of time including the week of the assassination.

As you know, Rosselli's biography states that he had secreted Judith Campbell in a room or suite at the Beverly Crest Hotel shortly before the assassination and he met her there on Nov 25 or Nov 26. This could also indicate foreknowledge of the assassination on his part.

But I believe (from memory) his biography states where he was when he heard of the assassination and it was not in Dallas.

I certainly agree a review of all LE files on Rosselli in the summer/fall of 1963 ought to be done.

Unfortunately, it appears that after the assassination LE did not even go so far as to "round up the usual suspects" to check for alibis, etc.

Edited January 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Al Carrier]

In the fourteen-plus years that I have been seriously researching the JFK Assassination, I have noted that many researchers are motivated in their direction by who had the strongest motive to assassinate JFK. The problem with this is, determining the strongest motive is speculation and is influenced by whoever the researcher has either consciously or subconsciously focused on, or who is in their field of expertise. As one who has studied this period a great deal, finding those who did not have a motive to eliminate JFK from the White House in short order would be easier to list than those who did.

- The CIA had obvious issues with him through NSAM 54-56 and his reluctance to act as they wanted on the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. And they also factor into Kennedy’ determination to get out of Vietnam.

- The military had their agenda against him for his reluctance to pursue a head-on attack against Castro’s Cuba, pulling out of Vietnam and his planned military expenditure cuts in defense spending (along with his political agenda for awarding of military armament contracts).

- The Mafia had their own issues with JFK for his failure to follow through with the removal of Castro and with Bobby’s attack on them after they aided in getting JFK into office. The decreasing support of the SE Asia conflict would also cut into their profits, as well as their European Allies in the form of the Corsican Mafia.

- The anti-Castro Cubans felt abandoned by the JFK administration and their was an obvious hatred toward him within the community for his failure to support their actions in the Bay of Pigs Invasion (which they blamed on JFK which I believe was not correct), and what we now find was an in-the-works détente with Castro, instead of continuing support of an overthrow of Castro’s regime.

- The FBI had their own motive which would come down from their director J. Edgar Hoover who had a personal hatred for the Kennedy Brothers and their Ivy League Administration.

- The right wing extremists including groups such as The Minutemen and the likes where we could throw General Walker in, obviously had issues with the Kennedy Administration. Bringing Oswald into this equation would be quite a feat.

- Communists Governments such as the Soviet Union and Cuba would also have to be considered, but only for a short time, as Kennedy was quickly becoming more their ally than their enemy. Why they would choose this time to remove someone who was beginning to come around to what they wanted is beyond me.

One can research files until the cows come home and speculate links to the assassination and it will get us nowhere, as the true links will not be found in the files. We can link CIA to Mafia to Anti-Castro Cuban Elements to FBI aftermath Investigative cover-ups and make a pretty good story, but it would still be speculation.

The ultimate error in using motive as a means for an investigative angle is that in most cases and especially this one, there is not a shortage for motives in many directions. It is important to realize who had a motive, but not to allow it to influence the direction of the investigation. Instead, an investigator should look at the events leading to the act and determine who was capable of staging the crime.

In the JFK Assassination, most were, but where we again get confused is by trying to combine a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to cover up the crime. If the two were of the same origin, then so many individuals and agencies would have had to been involved, that there is no way it could have been kept secret to this day.

If we look at the events leading up to the assassination on the Presidential itinerary, we find a cancelled trip to Chicago on November 2nd and then an altered travel plan in Miami on November 18th. In both of these cases, the Secret Service was tipped off to plans to assassinate the President and took them so seriously that instead of simply sending in the authorities to stop the attempt, they chose to take away the opportunity. In these two cases, intelligence worked for them. In Dallas it did not.

If you look at Lawson’s testimony before the Warren Commission, you find that he had ample notification of the trip to Dallas that he was going to be the advance agent in charge. Lawson went to the Protective Research Section at the Secret Service before leaving D.C. and found nothing in the files of concerns for the Dallas region. He then became vague in matters of intel gathered by the local office of the Secret Service and the local LE agencies intel units.

I have yet to find any line of questioning of any Secret Service Agent that brought up the issues of Chicago and Miami to link them to what happened in Dallas to make an issue that their should have been a concern for the pattern that was developing. The question was never asked, so it was never addressed.

So what does all of this mean? The Secret Service develops a Watch List for regions across the country on known threats to the President, VP or whatever other dignitaries that they are assigned to protect. They share the watch list of the particular region they are visiting with the local LE to assure that any possible person who would threaten the dignitary is under surveillance at the time of the visit. Today with the technology and communication capabilities that we have that are far better than in ’63, I can understand why fewer concerns get through without detection. But even in ’63, if there was any intel available of a threat in Dallas, it would have reached Lawson through either the local office or the local LE agencies intel units. It appears that the threat was not known.

It is apparent IMO that whoever was taken into custody in Chicago and questioned, besides the ex-Marine with the M1, and the lack of follow-up interrogation with Milteer in Miami immediately, that the FBI was not close to understanding who was behind these plots. But because of how quickly they acted on covering up the true assassination sequence in Dallas, they were well aware that the plots were linked. Now add to this the success of the Dallas assassination plot, the ability of the shooters to get out undetected and the fact that we are still trying to make sense of it some forty-plus years later, we have to understand that there were very few individuals involved in the hands-on planning and operation of the assassination, and that those who did know anything ceased to exist shortly after the act was completed.

So where do we go from here? I am open to suggestion…

Al

[Tim Gratz]

In the fourteen-plus years that I have been seriously researching the JFK Assassination, I have noted that many researchers are motivated in their direction by who had the strongest motive to assassinate JFK. The problem with this is, determining the strongest motive is speculation and is influenced by whoever the researcher has either consciously or subconsciously focused on, or who is in their field of expertise. As one who has studied this period a great deal, finding those who did not have a motive to eliminate JFK from the White House in short order would be easier to list than those who did.

- The CIA had obvious issues with him through NSAM 54-56 and his reluctance to act as they wanted on the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. And they also factor into Kennedy’ determination to get out of Vietnam.

- The military had their agenda against him for his reluctance to pursue a head-on attack against Castro’s Cuba, pulling out of Vietnam and his planned military expenditure cuts in defense spending (along with his political agenda for awarding of military armament contracts).

- The Mafia had their own issues with JFK for his failure to follow through with the removal of Castro and with Bobby’s attack on them after they aided in getting JFK into office. The decreasing support of the SE Asia conflict would also cut into their profits, as well as their European Allies in the form of the Corsican Mafia.

- The anti-Castro Cubans felt abandoned by the JFK administration and their was an obvious hatred toward him within the community for his failure to support their actions in the Bay of Pigs Invasion (which they blamed on JFK which I believe was not correct), and what we now find was an in-the-works détente with Castro, instead of continuing support of an overthrow of Castro’s regime.

- The FBI had their own motive which would come down from their director J. Edgar Hoover who had a personal hatred for the Kennedy Brothers and their Ivy League Administration.

- The right wing extremists including groups such as The Minutemen and the likes where we could throw General Walker in, obviously had issues with the Kennedy Administration. Bringing Oswald into this equation would be quite a feat.

- Communists Governments such as the Soviet Union and Cuba would also have to be considered, but only for a short time, as Kennedy was quickly becoming more their ally than their enemy. Why they would choose this time to remove someone who was beginning to come around to what they wanted is beyond me.

One can research files until the cows come home and speculate links to the assassination and it will get us nowhere, as the true links will not be found in the files. We can link CIA to Mafia to Anti-Castro Cuban Elements to FBI aftermath Investigative cover-ups and make a pretty good story, but it would still be speculation.

The ultimate error in using motive as a means for an investigative angle is that in most cases and especially this one, there is not a shortage for motives in many directions. It is important to realize who had a motive, but not to allow it to influence the direction of the investigation. Instead, an investigator should look at the events leading to the act and determine who was capable of staging the crime.

In the JFK Assassination, most were, but where we again get confused is by trying to combine a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to cover up the crime. If the two were of the same origin, then so many individuals and agencies would have had to been involved, that there is no way it could have been kept secret to this day.

If we look at the events leading up to the assassination on the Presidential itinerary, we find a cancelled trip to Chicago on November 2nd and then an altered travel plan in Miami on November 18th. In both of these cases, the Secret Service was tipped off to plans to assassinate the President and took them so seriously that instead of simply sending in the authorities to stop the attempt, they chose to take away the opportunity. In these two cases, intelligence worked for them. In Dallas it did not.

If you look at Lawson’s testimony before the Warren Commission, you find that he had ample notification of the trip to Dallas that he was going to be the advance agent in charge. Lawson went to the Protective Research Section at the Secret Service before leaving D.C. and found nothing in the files of concerns for the Dallas region. He then became vague in matters of intel gathered by the local office of the Secret Service and the local LE agencies intel units.

I have yet to find any line of questioning of any Secret Service Agent that brought up the issues of Chicago and Miami to link them to what happened in Dallas to make an issue that their should have been a concern for the pattern that was developing. The question was never asked, so it was never addressed.

So what does all of this mean? The Secret Service develops a Watch List for regions across the country on known threats to the President, VP or whatever other dignitaries that they are assigned to protect. They share the watch list of the particular region they are visiting with the local LE to assure that any possible person who would threaten the dignitary is under surveillance at the time of the visit. Today with the technology and communication capabilities that we have that are far better than in ’63, I can understand why fewer concerns get through without detection. But even in ’63, if there was any intel available of a threat in Dallas, it would have reached Lawson through either the local office or the local LE agencies intel units. It appears that the threat was not known.

It is apparent IMO that whoever was taken into custody in Chicago and questioned, besides the ex-Marine with the M1, and the lack of follow-up interrogation with Milteer in Miami immediately, that the FBI was not close to understanding who was behind these plots. But because of how quickly they acted on covering up the true assassination sequence in Dallas, they were well aware that the plots were linked. Now add to this the success of the Dallas assassination plot, the ability of the shooters to get out undetected and the fact that we are still trying to make sense of it some forty-plus years later, we have to understand that there were very few individuals involved in the hands-on planning and operation of the assassination, and that those who did know anything ceased to exist shortly after the act was completed.

So where do we go from here? I am open to suggestion…

Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al, I think this post is very perceptive and thought-provoking. Thanks!

[Jim Root]

Tim

I will continue to research Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker and all aspects of his life. To me he is a Forrest Gump type of character. To often at the center of 20th Century History......To often to be just coincidence.

Jim Root

[Tim Gratz]

that through the efforts of the research community, 2005 will show significant progress toward a resolution of the Crime of the (20th) Century.

In that regard, perhaps we could post our thoughts on research avenues that still need exploring. 

Yes, noble idea!....but quite a lot of work....not impossible however.

When I once-upon-a-time had been given a large amount of money to research the JFK assassination I had the idea to fund a JFK Assassination Encyclopedia. Since there are so many 'players' , witnesses, researchers and opinions of researchers etc., I envisioned having all the good researechers do their best on a particular topic and alternate opinions also entered. Referencing all is most important so other researchers can retrace or fill in or enhance research to date on particular topic and cross-referenced [easy with hyperlinks]. A database type website [or part of this one dedicated to such a huge assembly of information] would be needed and someone to monitor/edit it and decide what gets in and what not. If persons chose topics and tried to distill the research [with all its branches - advances and retreats / information and disinformation / consent and disent], reference it highly, this could be a great research and learning tool. It is a daunting task, but one perhaps worthe the effort. It would take years to complete and would need the input of many excellent researchers who do not show up on this site. I would propose that debate over included items be held here and NOT within the growing database. As many photos and videos and inclusion of documents be made in it. It would be massive and important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent idea! Wow!

We should start on putting it together. Perhaps we should start with an index

(e.g. Angleton (A) to Zapruder (Z) then people could be assigned to write articles about the people, events, etc.

One problem, of course, is the difference of opinion within the research community re the people involved. For instance, some people claim Angleton masterminded the assassination whereas I consider him a patriot and I believe the destruction of the counterintelligence and human intelligence areas after Angleton was "booted out" of the CIA directly contributed to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11. There's obviously a way around the issue of differing opinions: simply include the differing opinions.

It would certainly be a massive job, but can we begin? Shouldn't the encyclopedia be "on-line"?