Wim Dankbaar Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 (edited) it proves the LIE and the COVER-UP, still perpetrated today. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/OswaldFBI.bmp Wim NARA Document header: AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : TRS RECORD NUMBER : 121-10002-10136 RECORDS SERIES : HEADQUARTERS FILE DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : TREASURY FROM : EDELMAN TO : JOHANNA SMITH TITLE : JFK ASSASSINATION FILE CO-2-34, 030 DATE : 03/10/1978 PAGES : 2 DOCUMENT TYPE : MEMORANDUM SUBJECTS : COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO HSCA CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL CURRENT STATUS : OPEN DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 10/26/1992 OPENING CRITERIA : IMMEDIATELY Audit history for this Record Identification Form Edited September 11, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert E. Cox Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 If this document is real...it proves the LIE and the COVER-UP, still perpetrated today-- Wim Wim: Yep. IF it's real, it says the CIA, under cover of Office of Naval Intelligence, trained Ozzie as a spy, and infers they inserted him into Soviet Union. (Along with other goodies about covered-up files). It also says the Secret Service knew all about it, and also the FBI. IF it's real, it blows the lid off of everything. IF it's real. Does anybody know where it came from, who found it, when they found it? How is it that it is appearing now, and not long ago? There's a Treasury Dept. RIF number AGENCY : TRS; RECORD NUMBER : 121-10002-10136, but I can't seem to find a viewable electronic version in an online database. What more do we know about source of this document? And how was the trip to Spain? Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 12, 2004 Author Share Posted September 12, 2004 (edited) Bob, The trip to Spain was great, thanks. If this document is real, it is the most significant document ever to emerge since JFK was killed. In fact it should be ALL OVER THE NEWS from today onwards. It's very fresh, so I do not know a lot. It was emailed to me yesterday by Ed Sherry of the South Florida Research Group (includes Gaeton Fonzi and Gordon Winslow a.o.) I fired a lot of questions back to him, and he said he has no more info than what he sent me. The Document is in the National Archives, it seems to be real. If it is, every serious researcher will understand the significance and its widespread consequences. Wim ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Sherry To: Wim Dankbaar Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 11:02 PM Subject: Re: oswald doc? You got what I got. es ----- Original Message ----- From: Wim Dankbaar To: Ed Sherry Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 3:10 PM Subject: Re: oswald doc? Is this document REAL? What is its provenance? Is it officially in NARA? When was it declassified? Wim ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Sherry To: Tree Frog Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 6:44 PM Subject: Fw: oswald doc? New document for SFRG members and JFK specialists. Frog Edited September 12, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Does it make sense that McCone would put this information in writing to Rowley at the SS or anyone else? Does it make sense that he would tell Rowley let's not give this to the Warren Commision, unless they make a "specific request," and then here it is, Oswald worked for the CIA? Does it make sense that McCone and Rowley, with this official government memo in both of their files and who knows where else, would turn around and commit blatant perjury before the commission? Would direct questions under oath about Oswald working for any agency not fall under the category of a "specific request" for info, upon which McCone said in writing let's tell them what they want to know? It is worth looking at the testimony of both men, while considering how lame-brained it would be for either of them to put info such as this in writing. It is also worth noting in Rowley's testimony that the SS didn't do any investigation of Oswald or anyone else after the FBI was given jurisdiction over the investigation, which was almost immediately. Why would Rowley then ask for this info on Oswald from the CIA, and why would the CIA provide it? I don't believe for a minute that this document is genuine. Mr. RANKIN. Are you familiar with the records and how they are kept by the Central Intelligence Agency as to whether a man is acting as an informer, agent, employee, or in any other capacity for that Agency? Mr. McCONE. Yes; I am generally familiar with the procedures and the records that are maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Quite naturally, I am not familiar with all of the records because they are very extensive. Mr. RANKIN. Have you determined whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspect in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy, had any connection with the Central Intelligence Agency, informer or indirectly as an employee, or any other capacity? Mr. McCONE. Yes; I have determined to my satisfaction that he had no such connection, and I would like to read for the record---- Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us briefly the extent of your inquiry? Mr. McCONE. In a form of affidavit, I have gone into the matter in considerable detail personally, in my inquiry with the appropriate people within the Agency, examined all records in our files relating to Lee Harvey Oswald. We had knowledge of him, of course, because of his having gone to the Soviet Union, as he did, putting him in a situation where his name would appear in our name file. However, my examination has resulted in the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an agent, employee, or informant of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Agency never contacted him, interviewed him, talked with him, or received or solicited any reports or information from him, or communicated with him directly or in any other manner. The Agency never furnished him with any funds or money or compensated him directly or indirectly in any fashion, and Lee Harvey Oswald was never associated or connected directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with the Agency. When I use the term "Agency," I mean the Central Intelligence Agency, of course. Representative FORD. Does that include whether or not he was in the United States, in the Soviet Union, or anyplace? Mr. McCONE. Anyplace; the United States, Soviet Union, or anyplace. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, is that the affidavit you are going to supply the Commission in connection with our request for it? Mr. McCONE. Yes; this is the substance of the affidavit which I will supply to you. Mr. RANKIN. In connection with the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, have you personally participated in working with regard to that, in supervision of that investigation? Mr. ROWLEY. In the early stages when we assigned our men to inquire into the background of Oswald and all. But then eventually, when the President authorized the FBI to conduct the investigation, we pulled out and only continued and finished up those reports that we initiated. Mr. RANKIN. And since that time. after the FBI was given the authority to proceed with the investigation, you have cooperated with the Commission the staff, your staff, in helping with various items of information from time time. Is that right? Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you have any information of a credible nature that would suggest to you that Oswald was or could have been an agent or informal of any Federal agency? Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information of that kind; no, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 I sadly agree with Ron that the document is probably not real. If but it were! Aside from the confirmation of Oswald's ONI training and agent status in Russia, I found the reference to him serving under "SAIC Bannister" to be remarkable. I know that Bannister was SAIC in Chicago before he totally went off the alcoholic deep-end. But I have never seen any evidence that he had any governmentally sanctioned status in New Orleans. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 (edited) I agree that this document is probably bull, but the mystery doesn't stop there. For this document is scary in that it is very well done bull--painting a believable scenario where the intelligence community could admit a connection with Oswald while denying a role in the assassination. Who created this? Where did it come from? Is it going to magically appear in a new book by some charlatan? A CBS news special? Is it just a prank by some researcher? The first page in particular looks authentic. I"ll reserve my final judgement untill Wim and Bill Miller can get with their sources and figure out where this came from. It didn't just appear in an e-mail one day. Edited September 13, 2004 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert E. Cox Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 I agree that is probably bull, but the mystery doesn't stop there. ...Who created this? Where did it come from? ... Pat: Obviously the first questions out of the box. Timing also is a question -- why now? I'd think there should be a line of researchers waiting at the front door of the National Archives in College Park, Md. at 8:30 tomorrow morning. First thing, of course, is to confirm that this document is part of the record. If it is there, then we've got something to talk about, I guess. If it isn't, then we've got another hoaxter among us... bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Does it make sense that McCone would put this information in writing to Rowley at the SS or anyone else? Does it make sense that he would tell Rowley let's not give this to the Warren Commision, unless they make a "specific request," and then here it is, Oswald worked for the CIA? Does it make sense that McCone and Rowley, with this official government memo in both of their files and who knows where else, would turn around and commit blatant perjury before the commission? Would direct questions under oath about Oswald working for any agency not fall under the category of a "specific request" for info, upon which McCone said in writing let's tell them what they want to know? Ron, you're probably right about that perjury stuff. Although I'm guessing national security overrules perjury. Also under the protection of national security it may well be that the doings and statements by individuals such as McCone may be out of the reach of the law. Furthermore, this document received major amazement by many of the forum members under the thread "alias" on this forum. Most of us found it unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Powell Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Certainly the contents seem too good to be true. However, at a more mundane level, the first thing that struck me was the style of the document. The writer has used a fully blocked style, ie, no indentation on the first line of typing and - though I may be wrong - this style was not adopted in the US until the mid/late seventies. I had a look on the CIA FOIA site and pulled out some random documents from around March '64 and found the style of typing was still using first line indent, but maybe someone on the board has more knowledge of the styles used by the CIA and could shed light on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Here's a memo I came across. This is related to the issue at hand. James J. Angleton memo advising CIA Director McCone and FBI Director Hoover on their answers before questioning by the Warren Commission. REVIEWED BY [next word indistinct, but looks like "HSCA"] TASK FORCE ON: [indistinct] __ RELEASE IN FULL __ RELEASE IN PART __ TOTAL DENIAL ["RELEASE IN FULL" was checked off -- but notice the third alternative! ] May 13, 1964 To: Mr. A.H. Belmont From: Mr. W.C. Sullivan Subject: JAMES ANGLETON CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) James Angleton just called me to advise that Mr. McCone, Director of CIA, will testify before the Commission tomorrow. Angleton said it occurred to him that it would be well for both McCone and Mr. Hoover to be aware that the Commission might ask the same questions wondering whether they would get different replies from the heads of the two agencies. Angleton wanted us to know some of the things which he believes McCone will be asked and the replies which will be given. One question will be "Was Lee Harvey Oswald ever an agent of CIA?" The answer will be no. A second question will be "Does CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate President Kennedy?" The answer to this question will also be no. The third question will be "What suggestions does CIA have to offer for safe-guarding the life of the President of the United States?" Angleton didn't have the complete answer to this worked out but because of the nature of the question, it wouldn't conflict with what the Bureau has already suggested. A fourth question will be "Does CIA believe the Soviet documents on Oswald submitted to the Warren Commmission accurately reflect the Soviet relations with Oswald?" Angleton said their answer cannot be either a flat yes or no because they do not have the knowledge to so state. He said he believes McCone's answer will be to the effect that CIA is aware that Soviet Russia does have a directorate charged with the responsibility for carrying out assassinations and, therefore, these documents in question would not normally reflect accurately relations with such a person as Oswald. However, on the other hand, CIA has no evidence that Oswald was under the instructions of this directorate charged with assassinations. Angleton said if anything further developed today which would be helpful to us, he would call. RECOMMENDATION: For the information of the Director Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Buell Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Wim, I posted the following at alt.assassination.jfk on July 20, 2002: Dick Russell, on p. 675 of his book The Man Who Knew Too Much quotes from a memo dated March 3, 1964 from CIA Director McCone to Secret Service Chief James Rowley. He says this document is "on record in the National Archives". He quotes that Oswald might have been "chemically or electronically 'controlled'...a sleeper agent. Subject spent 11 days hospitalized for a 'minor ailment' which should have required no more than three days hospitalization at best." He footnotes this with #11. Footnote #11 in the back of the book seems unrelated. This is apparently an error in the book. Footnote #10 however references an article published in the tabloid Modern People "Oswald Was Brainwashed" by James L. Moore. This article, which Dick was kind enough to send me, is apparently the actual source for the McCone-Rowley memo, which must now be considered to be questionable, lacking any independent evidence for the existence of the memo beyond a tabloid article. The Modern People article contains further quotes from this alleged memo, of a sensational nature. I quote: "Oswald... was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence, for Soviet assignments. In 197, subject (Oswald) was active in aerial reconnaissance of mainland China and maintained a security clearance up to the 'confidential' level. "While in the Soviet Union, he was on special assignment in the area of Minsk.It would not be advantageous at this time divulge the specifics of that assignment. Speculation within this agency--and this is only speculation at this point--is that Oswald became unstable following surgery April 1, 1961, in the Minsk Hospital." This is followed by the "sleeper agent" passage that Russell quotes. I have been unable to find any reference to this memo that does not track back either to Dick Russell or Modern People. James L. Moore has made other claims that --while they could be true--cannot be verified. He claimed possession of a secret 350 page report on RHIC-EDOM. He has also claimed to be the real author of the Skeleton Key to the Gemstone Files, generally believed to be authored by Stephanie Caruana. Subsequently, 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. I emailed copies of this document to Debra Conway and Dick Russell, both of whom are skeptical, as I am. 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. Oddly, when I first posted this on the JFKrsearch forum some two years ago it did not cause nearly the stir it seems to be causing now, although you did email me for more information. I would like to see JFK ASSASSINATION FILE CO-2-34, 030 which I was unaware of to see what relationship, if any, it might have to the McCone-Rowley memo. it proves the LIE and the COVER-UP, still perpetrated today.http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/OswaldFBI.bmp Wim NARA Document header: AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : TRS RECORD NUMBER : 121-10002-10136 RECORDS SERIES : HEADQUARTERS FILE DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : TREASURY FROM : EDELMAN TO : JOHANNA SMITH TITLE : JFK ASSASSINATION FILE CO-2-34, 030 DATE : 03/10/1978 PAGES : 2 DOCUMENT TYPE : MEMORANDUM SUBJECTS : COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO HSCA CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL CURRENT STATUS : OPEN DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 10/26/1992 OPENING CRITERIA : IMMEDIATELY Audit history for this Record Identification Form <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 14, 2004 Author Share Posted September 14, 2004 Gary, Interesting that you were the first to post this. Upon looking closer the document has all the looks of a hoax. I understand that researchers are going to NARA and see what document is really behind this RIF number. I doubt very strongly now it will be this doc. However, checking it is the most sensible thing to do. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Gary,Interesting that you were the first to post this. Upon looking closer the document has all the looks of a hoax. I understand that researchers are going to NARA and see what document is really behind this RIF number. I doubt very strongly now it will be this doc. However, checking it is the most sensible thing to do. Wim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wim, If I do get a chance to go down this weekend to NARA I will look at it and everything that surrounds it. Now, depending on the wheather conditions where the hurricane will be at and how bad it is rated at the time it gets to our area. So, if not this weekend the next. Don't know why I just don't have an urgent feeling behind it. When Judyth asked me I couldn't go because of a full time job. To scheduled that day to go. Wish I could have. What I do feel is so urgent is all of the pink slips that are under Lee H. Oswald (and there are so many of them) I know for a fact Because I HAD EACH AND EVERYONE OF THEM PULLED. Those are the ones that show that papers are missing and they are a high level. WE DON'T HAVE SO MANY FACTS because of those missing papers. THIS I FEEL IS MORE THE URGANCY. This I would run for. There is some packets in the boxes that say 67 pages missing, some only 2 pages missing, some 10 pages missing. I started to write things down and to keep a note as to why they are still missing on Oswald. Some resons not all but some are because of National Security Reasons. No one can get them. Where are they? Felt to be most of them in the FBI building. I really don't wish to russle with the FBI now. FOIA somehow I don't think that will do it, because to many I am sure already have done that. When Pres. Clinton in 1997 ordered the release of all JFK materials to be sent to the NARA I was told from NARA employee they should have been released. Anyone of us and as a Team could go the full nine miles are start shouting to the FOIA section down into the NARA building itself is where it is at. But somehow I still don't think it will do a bit of good. When Judyth returns in a few days I will ask her just what in the world did Lee H. Oswald do that was so dangerous that to this day it still has to be covered up? Bet, she can't name one thing. The one part I already saw papers on it, to known of a fact. Things he brought to the border of Mexico and it is rather dangerous so if they can let that fact out why can't they release the others that are listed to be Nat. Sec. Reasons? I still into awe over the 82nd airborne division of the year of 1959 in Laos that is missing all military records. So is NARA over that one too. I don't think they even knew this prior I don't think anyone ever asked before. So, not just is James Files records missing so it is witht the whole group. Not done on that search as of yet. But, not to look there for that year and for that part of the group to be listed together. There is nothing there. I am frustrated with Missing Documents. HAVE THEM WE HAVE THE CASE. On a private note. I have talked to Mr. Marsh today. About many things. One is Lancer going down after Vernon and my debate and showing Files restrictive documents, also about what Vernon was apting to pay me for getting them which lead me to tell what I wanted from Bob. Files step brothers phone number. From NARA records in Files case, which it is a Case, I had Dick Clark's business phone number. I did make the call. The information I have sent to you so far, just isn't enough. I have reasons to believe now this is DEEPER FAR DEEPER. Those facts I did submit to Mr. Marsh, my attorney for his knowledge over this. He will back me on what I am about to do, this week. When I do call back, I am going to be very open this time to Dick Clarks staff. I am disappointed on the fact so far as to what was told to me that once Dick Clark drops a case he never talks about it again. This time when I do call them, it won't be just a few words it is be more indepth. If they refuse then it goes my attorney and Dick Clarks attorney debate or battle for the information. This information can I HOPE lead to evidence that will bring it all out. Keep an eye on Bob Vernon. He doesn't want the truth out and he never did. I know if Bob sees this it will be all hell to pay. But I am now going to be tough on him again as he was to me. I do not support him on his choice that he made to call James Files a hoax when he knows that he is not. I do not support any of the information down in NARA as to the decisions on what they viewed because the real parts of evidence is missing. It does exist and will continue to exist in spite of some who wish to destroy it. I have reason to believe that Bob Vernon is trying to do that now. If not I hope he will address this open to all of us, at this time. I have no objections if anyone wishes to make sure Bob Vernon does see this. I am confronting him, openly and publically. I emailed to him and have not received an answer. Thanks, Nancy J. Eldreth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 Ron, you're probably right about that perjury stuff. Although I'm guessing national security overrules perjury. Also under the protection of national security it may well be that the doings and statements by individuals such as McCone may be out of the reach of the law. I have to agree with you, Antti. Was it not Dulles who said that members of the CIA would lie under oath if necessary? I recall a denial that Clay Shaw had any CIA ties and I believe it was later found that he seemingly purjured himself on that point, if not others. When does an alleged loner/nobody as Lee was said to be have his income tax records locked away. When does someone claim to have committed high treason against his country in the height of the Cold War no less and then be able to come back to that country without so much as a slap on the wrist .... when you are working for your government - that's when! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 has anyone checked this document out at nara? John 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