David Josephs

I think the point here Denis is that Day holds up a rifle in the Alyea film... and your assumption this is CE139 - when Boone would be referring to the rifle he writes about in his affidavit. Not that there were 2 rifles, but that the 7.65 Mauser he saw was the only rifle filmed/photographed up there. That CE139 is supposedly provably a 6.5 cal so when they "show" it to Boone and describe it as a 6.5 cal Carcano he gave a politically correct answer. "It looks like the same rifle. I HAVE NO WAY OF BEING POSITIVE". Of course you do Boone. Ask him "is this the same caliber rifle as what you identified in your affidavit?" Image on the left is during the Alyea film when Day hold up the rifle to show there is no clip jammed in there - next to it on the left is a closeup of the rifle Day leaves the TSBD carrying showing no caliber stamp, and on the right the only image of a rifle's caliber in the whole of the available evidence. .

Thanks Gil, I never could understand why he and Weitzman would write and sign affidavits attesting to the specific characteristics of the rifle, when they didn't have to: if they wrote: "similar to a Mauser bolt action with a scope" they're in the clear. The exactness/similarity of the way they wrote their statements seems odd as well. Boone knows who was with him... Officer Whitman? Every rabbit hole is just so deep...

Getting back to which Mail this man read... One of the more surprising things I discovered looking thru the evidence was the complete lack of mail TO LEE from his mother or Robert while he was in the Marines despite testimony stating he and Marge wrote quite often. I've tried a few different sources for Efron but have yet to find out from which time period they are referring. Anyone know? Between 1956 and 1959 when Marge claims he and her were frequently, we do not have a single letter either TO or FROM Lee Oswald to his mother or anyone else. From WCR evidence index of Letters from Lee https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=604 is a letter from Sept 1959 which MO refers to in her testimony where Lee talks about booking passage on a ship to Europe. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=234576#relPageId=160&search=reuben_efron This description of Oswald comes up a lot as well... Below this memo from EFRON is Oswald's discharge... He's from NEW ORLEANS, AND HE WAS NEVER HIGHER THAN A PRIVATE. ROBERT, on the other hand, was a Sergeant from Fort Worth... fwiw. One would think the CIA would know2 whose mail they were opening Below is the Senate investigation cover page for a look into FBI/CIA Domestic Spying... DJ 41 letters in the WCR index of evidence are FROM LEE to either Robert or his Mother, with his mother claiming to have written to him quite often. These are the letters TO LEE found in the WCR. Letter from "Brick" to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated August 22, 1962. Letter from Patrice Lmnumba University to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated May 3, 1961. Letter from Prof. Hans Casparis, Albert Schweitzer College, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated March 22, 1960, with envelope. Copy of letter from E. Weibel, Albert Schweitzer College, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated March 28, 1959. Letter from B. Weibel, Albert Schweitzer College, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated July 10, 1959. Letter from Joseish B. Norbury, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated December 14, 1961. Letter from the American Embassy In Moscow to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated November 8, 1959. Letter from the American Embassy in Moscow to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated February 28, 1961. Copy of a letter from Pioneer Publishers to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated September 29, 1962; a receipt dated August 31, 1962; an order blank from Lee Harvey Oswald to Pioneer Publishers for a copy of "The Teachings of Leon Trotsky"; an envelope post- marked January 21, 1963, from Lee Harvey Oswald to the Pioneer Publishers. Copy of a letter from Mrs. V. Halstead, Pioneer Publishers, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated April 26, 1963. Letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to the Socialist Workers Party, dated August 12, 1962; newspaper ad coupon from Lee Harvey Oswald to the Socialist Workers Party; copy of letter from Sherry Finer, Socialist Workers Party, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated August 23, 1962. Letter from Farrell Dobbs to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated November 5, 1962. Letter from Bob Chester to Lee Harvey Oswald dated December 9, 1962. Letter from Joseph Task, Socialist Workers Party, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated March 27, 1963. Letter from Arnold S. Johnson to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated July 31,1963 Letter from Arnold S. Johnson to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated September 19, 1963. Letter from V. T. Lee, national director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated May 29, 1963. Letter from V. T. Lee, national director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated May 22, 1963. Copy of a letter from James J. Tormey to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated December 13, 1962. Letter from Louis Weinstock, general manager of the Worker, to Lee Harvey Oswald, dated December19, 1961 Copy of a letter dated March 24, 1961, from Richard E. Snyder, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk. Copy of a letter dated July 24, 1961, from John A. MeVickar, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk. Copy of a letter dated November 13, 1961, from Joseph B. Norbury, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk. Copy of a letter dated January 5, 1962, from Samuel G. Wise, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk. Copy of a letter dated January 15, 1962, from Samuel G. Wise, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk. Letter dated February 28, 1961, from Richard E. Snyder, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk, with envelope. Letter dated March 24, 1961, from Richard E. Snyder, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk, with envelope. Copy of a letter dated January 11, 1963, from R. C. Reeley, Office of Finance, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Dallas, Tex. Letter dated January 15, 1962, from Samuel G. Wise, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk, with envelope. Letter dated February 28, 1962, from J. W. Holland, District Director, San Antonio Office, Immigration and Naturalization 55-57 Service, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk, enclosing "Instructions to the Applicant," with envelope (FBI item 246). Letter dated January 5, 1962, from Samuel G. Wise, American Embassy, Moscow, to Lee Harvey Oswald, Minsk, enclosing document entitled "Evidence Which Can Be Presented To Meet the Public Charge Provision of the Law," with envelope. Letter to Commission dated May 13, 1964, from Peter Megargee Brown, enclosing photostatic copies of all materials relating to Lee Harvey Oswald in possession or control of the Community Service Society or its counsel (CD 930). Letters dated August 22 and July 6, 1963, from Eugene John Murret to Lee Harvey Oswald. Letter dated February 23, 1962, from John Connally to Lee Harvey Oswald, notifying him his letter of January 30 has been referred to Navy Department (CD 1114, 11-30). Letter from National Security Agency dated June 16, 1964, to Commission, concerning cryptologists' report on materials relating to Lee Harvey Oswald (CD 1120). "So if Hoover already had Oswald's letter the day after the assassination, then there was no need for Ruth to deliver her handwritten copy to the FBI the same day except of course, to protect the FBI's highly secret mail interception operation, Ruth may have simply been a concerned citizen doing her duty, unaware of the FBI's mail operation…" SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS BOOK III FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES UNITED STATES SENATE APRIL 23 (under authority of the order of April 14), 1976 DOMESTIC CIA AND FBI MAIL OPENING PROGRAMS PART II: CIA DOMESTIC MAIL OPENING I. INTRODUCTION AND MAJOR FACTS The CIA conducted four mail opening programs within the United States, the longest of which lasted for twenty years. These programs resulted in the opening and photographing of nearly a quarter of a million items of correspondence, the vast majority of which were to or from American residents. While the programs were ostensibly conducted for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, one former high-ranking CIA official characterized the Agency's use of this technique as a "shotgun" approach to intelligence collection; 2 neither Congressmen, journalists, nor businessmen were immune from mail interception. With cooperation from the FBI, domestic "dissidents" were directly targeted in one of the programs. The major facts regarding CIA domestic mail opening may be summarized as follows: a. The CIA conducted four mail opening programs in four cities within the United States for varying lengths of time between 1953 and 1973: New York (1953-1973) ; San Francisco (four separate occasions, each of one to three weeks duration, between 1969 and 1971) ; New Orleans (three weeks in 1957) ; and Hawaii (late 1954 -- late 1955). The mail of twelve individuals in the United States, some of whom were American citizens unconnected with the Agency, was also opened by the CIA in regard to particular cases. b. The stated purpose of all of the mail opening programs was to obtain useful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information. At least one of the programs produced no such information, however, and the continuing value of the major program in New York was discounted by many Agency officials. c. Despite the stated purpose of the programs, numerous domestic dissidents, including peace and civil rights activists, were specifically targeted for mail opening. d. The random selection of mail for opening, by CIA employees untrained in foreign intelligence objectives and without substantial guidance from their superiors, also resulted in the interception of communications to or from high-ranking United States government officials, as well as journalists, authors, educators, and businessmen. e. All of the mail opening programs were initiated without the prior approval of any government official outside of the Agency. f. Only five Cabinet level officials, and possibly one President, were briefed in varying degrees of detail about the New York program during the twenty years it continued, and there is no conclusive evidence that any of these officials ever authorized -- or knew of -- the mail opening aspect of the project. The evidence suggests that in the cases of some of these officials, their professed lack of knowledge about mail opening was due to a stated desire to remain ignorant of the details of the program. g. No high-ranking government official was ever briefed about three of the four mail opening programs. h. Postal officials whose cooperation was necessary to effect the programs were purposefully misled as to the purpose of the projects, the question of custody of the letters, and the fact of mail opening itself. i. One President of the United States, whether through design or negligence, was given false and misleading information about the existence of CIA mail opening programs. In 1970, the Director of Central Intelligence signed a document for submission to the President which stated that all mail opening programs by federal agencies had been discontinued. This Director knew that at that time the most extensive CIA mail opening program continued to operate in New York. j. Within the Agency itself, two former Directors of Central Intelligence did not authorize and apparently did not even know about any of the mail opening programs that were conducted during their tenure. Another former Director was unaware of at least one mail opening project during his term. k. Some senior Agency officials whose approvals were sought in connection to one mail opening program were apparently deceived as to its true nature by middle-level officers. The senior officials were requested to authorize a mail cover operation only, but mail opening was both contemplated at the time of the requests and did in fact occur. l. None of the programs was ever subjected to formal internal evaluation. Such review as did occur concluded that the largest of the programs were poorly administered and without substantial benefit to the CIA. These conclusions were ignored and the project continued. m. Because of the extreme sensitivity of the projects and the internal pattern of compartmentation, many of those CIA components which could have derived the greatest foreign intelligence value from the product were not even aware of the mail opening programs. n. Most of the major participants in the mail opening programs believed that the Agency's activities in this area were unlawful. No definitive legal opinion was ever sought from the CIA's General Counsel, and the evidence suggests that knowledge of the programs was purposefully withheld from him for security reasons. o. The general reaction among Agency officials to the perceived illegality of mail opening was to fabricate "cover stories'' for public consumption and to agree on a public denial of CIA domestic mail opening activity in the event such activity were exposed. p. During periods of active Congressional investigation into invasions of privacy by federal agencies, and when persons knowledgeable of CIA mail openings were in a position to be called to testify before Congress, security precautions for mail opening programs were tightened to reduce the risk of exposure. q. In part because of his "secrecy agreement" with the Agency, a former CIA employee who was in a position at the Postal Service to force the termination of a mail opening program was inhibited from doing so for several years. His loyalty to the CIA, even after he left its service, prevented him from informing the Postmaster General of its existence. r. The largest of the mail opening projects was not terminated until 1973, when, in the charged political climate of the times, it was considered too great a "political risk" to continue. It was not terminated because it was perceived to be illegal per se.

@James DiEugenio @Micah Mileto I've always been a bit confused by this as they also claimed these people met in the building behind 1026 Beckley. And from the images at the bottom of this post, the address seems to be in somewhat of a conflict. I do have a couple images from one of these meetings, with a suggestion of someone who may be Oswald, 2nd image... It resembles how Oswald stood in a number of other images. Hope this is helpful Can you help us understand this? 3114 Harlendale... and the image below that shows no 3128 on that street. Was there a building behind 3126 that was removed?

We all have limits Ben. When an individual member has so lost sight of the topic and conversation we all are left wondering how someone with that level of intelligence is doing what they're doing - in obvious parrot-style. 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. Reread the thread. Read what Leslie wrote, and read what GD does, post after post, and then tell me what he and you are doing does not resemble this: 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Leslie offered the names of the people who performed the analysis. She explains the situation, repeatedly, but you and GD seem to be on some crusade to create proof of something which has already been dated correctly... Only thing left is for knowledgable people to analyze and discuss the book written and the context of the notes. BTW, GD can also try and acquire the report himself... the information has been offered. REPEATEDLY. He chose to die on this hill. Why does your buddy not like to address any single question put to him but is more than willing to ask the same question 50 times in the same thread and get indignant? You don't call him out for anything - even though the answers stares him in the face? He seems to like to copy>paste other's posts and then use boiler plate tactics to dig in, like a tick, in some attempt to invoke authority. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. Start at page 1 and reread the thread Ben. It is so sad that with the wealth of knowledge the members here have that GD didn't have the sense or the consideration to back away from his losing battle and let people discuss the notes and their meaning without his constant whining about things he can't see or understand. When a voice of reason arrives and states his case eloquently, And here is where GD launches into tactics... by telling us, incorrectly, what another poster is saying/meaning which creates a new FALSE NARRATIVE of the situation. The simple logic of his argument is so poor as to be comical... but ahead he pushes keeping people from having a productive discussion. And you cheer. Be specific Ben... it's important. Which JFKA "docs/artifacts" immediately come to mind ? Furthermore, the fact you conclude they are "monkeyed" with means what to you? There is nothing to be learned from the who, what, where and why of the fraud? OCHOA added incriminating notes to the FM logs in Mexico before sending them to the FBI - "to help out" he said. Before I mentioned him OCHOA was a ghost not mentioned in any MX discussion. OCHOA provided the fraudulent tourist visa cards. The forged Hotel Registry. And from this you conclude there is nothing to learn? Judy Baker... authentic? How would you know one way or the other Ben? I know cause I proved it with items no one considered before and which Fetzer took as "authentic" when it was an obvious and blatant l-i-e. But it reveals so much about the situation. Separate from the physical characteristics, how would YOU like to know this is authentic? IOW what does the authentic "seal of approval" look like to you - accepting the physical elements have been proven? The HSCA handwriting expert's reports - do you take that as authentic and valid - what about truthful? why or why not? Do I ask too many question and have too many expectations that you will address these items, probably. But as long as you maybe think about some of these example, go look at some of these example, maybe you'd have a better appreciation for what AUTHENTIC means in this case. One of only a few cases in history where non-governmentally affiliated witness testimony is more important than the steaming pile of horse manure the government investigations calls authentic physical evidence. And it seem everyone but GD is aware of this distinction, while you defend him.... Sorry if my approach bothers you when my patience finally wears thin due to someone's inability to accept the reality of a situation while making it his mission to illustrate how much of an expert he is and keep people from having serious discourse on an important subject. Acerbic: "sharp and forthright". I'll take that as a compliment The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein

No one here can understand why GD avoids answering any question about authenticity covering the entire JFKA body of evidence and decided to die on this hill. Nice back-handed insult Ben. So you're saying a large group of people familiar with the documents could probably work together to uncover if there are any CONTEXTUAL problems with the notes, since we already have verification the physical properties are authentic. I wonder where we can find a group of people like that? Right @Greg Doudna ? It would have been nice if our own government did a real investigation... But wait! The entire thing was a cover-up to implicate a "Patsy". We've all talked about an invisible entity which operates to maintain balance in the world for the "owners" - here we have a potential glimpse into such an entity and instead of doing a little research, doing a little work, we get a handful of whiners who don't seem to actually understand authenticity in the first place. When - in your mind then - did "authentic" ever equate to "true" ? Do you not see the problem with Authenticity specific to this case. Veciana was part of the entire process... Veciana was trying to shift the blame from Military Intel to the CIA - on purpose (which was the case in many, many areas of the case... @Steve Thomas work on the Lt. Colonels is masterful - and the docs in CONTEXT help to verify. How does that relate to LaFitte beyond your personal speculations? So we are back to whether Lafitte and the players in the notes and the events in the notes can be CONTEXTUALLY VERIFIED, regardless of the authenticity. The autopsy photos we see may be authentic... but they're a lie. Where anyone gets the idea I have not repeatedly said we, as a group, need to verify the context... for as I've seen first hand in the evidence, authenticity is virtually impossible for third party work until you find areas which conflict with the know history, or elements within their stories are provably false. Q for you Ben... you think Judy Baker is "authentic"?

Take your football and go home little boy

I know exactly what you're doing Greg. It's shameful, self-centered and childish. And you still have not answered a single one of my questions... In psychology that's deflection In reality it just means you're full of ##-it

@Greg Doudna 4 times in the same post Greg. And explained to you in previous posts repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly... Gets annoying, doesn't it? It's a good thing I'm aware of the means available for forum-sliding and disruption huh? Are you doing this by accident or is this something you've practiced? thing is you're an intelligent guy... you seem to know exactly what you're doing Recognize any of these? 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 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. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 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. 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. 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. So who you gonna contact first Greg? Aginsky or Thorne?

Wow, appears you've really lost your perspective on this thread Greg. Who exactly are you trying to impress? Please point to anywhere I said or implied any of this by asking you about your obvious inconsistencies related to JFK evidence authentication. Do you always answer questions with more questions? State your position on these topics... then you can ask your strangely made up questions based on your fertile imagination which you seem to use to fill in the blanks for your incredibly poor comprehension of what people write. The Zfilm's lack of authenticity doesn't seem to get the same level of passion. You satisfied with the film's authenticity at this point, or not? Why? Where was your indignation over authenticity when 10,000 new documents hit the public stage? Where is your indignation over authenticity related to all the other physical items of evidence? Given we've already authenticated the physical aspects of the book, (yes, we all know you completely missed that presentation and continue to do so) What aspect of the context would prove to you it was inauthentic? Given the same assumption, what would prove it authentic? - to you of course Have you been able to refute anything in those notes yet on a factual basis? Have you even tried? Your whining, post after post, is incredibly tiresome and awfully revealing of your inability to understand what you're told and move on. The patience Leslie has offered you with reply after reply is WAY more than anyone else would do for you here. If it turns out to not be authentic, so be it. You repeating your position ad nauseam changes nothing here, you get that right? Better hi-res scans will not change anything either, you get that right? Is it you simply can't let it go? You've appointed yourself "Authenticity Cop"? But only for this item of evidence... The job of the JFK community in this instance is CONTEXTUAL VERIFICATION. How about, Stop inventing people's positions and then try to hold their feet to the fire for some kind of answer to the made up position YOU invented. Akin to "do you still beat your wife". Having to take the time to unravel your terrible assumptions only wastes resources better served elsewhere. Do you make it a practice to whine like this in the rest of your life. or do you save it only for us here?

I ask you the same question... where is all this indignation for the 2017-2023 documents released? Where is the cry for authentication of the most important evidence in the case? The hypocrisy of these requests is mind-bogging, as if a high res images will allow you to better understand the context. How about giving us an example of how authenticity would be dis-proven from a better version of these notes. How would you know if Angleton knew LaFitte or vice versa - as just one example. In reverse, what what convince you it was authentic simply because the notes were larger and clearer? What say you...? @Greg Doudna ? @Benjamin Cole

I'm curious Greg, Do you approach all the JFK evidence like this? How much authentication of documentation have you partaken in over your years involved? Simply because something is "authentic" does not mean it is factual - FBI reports about Oswald on a bus to Mexico, or that he bought a rifle.... are all "authentic" but complete cr-ap. It does not bother you the Zfilm has never been "authenticated" with Zavada's sleight of hand revealed for what it was? Why do we not hear you screaming about what is accepted as THE definitive representation of the government's position about the assassination? Why again is it when the CIA releases documents they are used to prove points but never considered "inauthentic" until much later, when CONTEXTUAL VERIFICATION is finally done? The Hunt letter comes to mind, or the Nov 8th typewriter letter... The physical characteristics have been found authentic for 1963. Easily faked though, right? So far, have you been able to refute anything contextually within the notes? Your "If..then" offering is kind of weak as well. A willful forger is so confident their work will not be found out, they are usually willingly handing over materials for examination... part of the forger's jollies. (if you can speculate, so can I) So far, the reasons you've offered for the forgery have not panned out for you, the idea it's a fraud is easily dismissed... deeming something "authentic" does not establish factual integrity. So how about trying the "factual integrity" course for a little while and move on already. How much whining about the same exact thing can one man do?

@Paul Rigby Thank you very much Paul.

Yeah, another trite comeback you're so fond of offering. Ben.. it appears to me you're not even in the same book, let alone on the same page. That's what we're doing here Ben. Tell us Ben. And how was it uncovered?

Thanks Ben. Contextual verification. I'm aware that documents are created for dis-information all the time. Just like blimps are made to appear like aircraft that aren't there on radar screens. In regular docs of the case, in many cases you find references to the doc in other documents as well as pre/post action reports related to what was said in the doc. In this case, all we really have is information in the form of the notes on certain days. Contextual verification. If you don't know the stories, the docs and the obscure - as well as read the book - how can you hope to know what it being "authenticated" means? Easy, research. Have you been thru all 30,000 docs released since 2017? Many, many have no date, no related info... nothing. You have the internet, access to MFF and all the new records... you combing thru to share found nuggets of potential wisdom or you just waiting for others to do the work and tell you what's what. How would you know THEY are authentic? would you even care?

Ben, we have an independent panel of experts right here. If we can't offer a coherent reason for it to be a fraud in the first place, there's a problem, no? So let's ask you... did they try and authenticate this note written by Hoover basically proving he was aware the CIA transcripts of calls were only so much CIA "double dealing". and hmmm, FRENCH espionage activities in the USA? Why aren't you screaming about any of the thousands of notes, and documents which supposedly prove one thing or another. What about the docs below - real or frauds? when I introduced them into the narrative after digging and finding them in the new release, I didn't hear any huge backlash or call for authentication as I was proving yet another false narrative. You really need to know better than this Ben. Asking what you are 60 times in the same thread is a bit cumbersome, no? All you want is something maybe not possible or even done with 99% of the evidence. I mean what comes to your mind as JFK evidence of a revelation which needed authentication? Sibert/O'Neil report? How about the freaking Zapruder film? do you realize that hasn't even been authenticated? So no Ben, you can't just feign innocence and claim all you want is a 100% guarantee. Read the book, pick a team and get into the game... or just wait patiently while some of us interested in actually testing the merits of the notes, do our work. We promise to let you know how it turns out

Yes, Elsworth was onto John Masen - who he said resembled Oswald. Masen bought and sold 6.5 cal ammo fitting the Carcano

No doubt! How in the world can anyone talk with any authority or believability without first reading the work being discussed? @Benjamin Cole You must have read up on CASTER before you started talking about him, writing about him, No? Don't you think it a bit ingenuous? I deal with the same thing about Harvey and Lee all the time. Read the flipping book before you comment. I read it, reviewed every footnote's source and talked to the author about the book for 2 years. Which is why at this point all I can say is to begin comparing what the Lafitte notes say, with what we currently know about the assassination - and read the book. Ben, you know I know my docs. The notes talk about Oswald in Mexico with Thomas Eli Davis Jr at a hotel 20 miles south of the Cuban/Russian compound. I proved the evidence about Oswald in Mexico - at those compounds or at that hotel - is bogus. He wasn't at those locations. But he could have been in and out of Mexico in the week when literally no one has any idea where he is... Sept 27th thru Oct 3rd. So I was right, and it does not conflict with what the notes say. I'm also very interested in the rifle as I've written and spoken extensively on the topic. I've yet to read in COUP where the rifle comes from, or who may have put it in the TSBD. "yes I ok I DPD" The first people in the TSBD are Elsworth and the rest of his ATF group... then it's Gerald Hill of the DPD, Mooney, Boone and Weitzman are all sheriffs. If someone from the DPD planted it, when and who? btw - this is from the Italian manifest of Feldsott's purchase. That's supposed to be C 2766. It's not. Point is, how can you effectively discuss the details of a complicated book, without actually reading the book?

FWIW... Cravath, Swaine and Moore was also where Roswell Gilpatrick was a partner - who was Asst Sec of Defense under McNamara. On August 24, 1963, Gilpatric, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense during McNamara’s absence, signed off on a cable which encouraged Diem’s removal. On November 1, Diem and his brother were murdered as a result of a coup, which left the South Vietnamese government even more insecure. In November 1962, the Pentagon announced that General Dynamics had won the contract for the new tactical fighter experimental (TFX) plane, despite the military’s preference for the designs submitted by Boeing. Senator Henry Jackson (D-WA), unhappy that Seattle-based Boeing failed to win the contract, persuaded Permanent Investigations Subcommittee Chairman John McClellan (D-AR) to probe the award. When the subcommittee discovered the fact that General Dynamics had been a client of Gilpatric’s law firm, it summoned the Deputy Secretary to Capitol Hill to explain the possible conflict of interest. Secretary McNamara vociferously defended his Deputy and issued a statement expressing full confidence in Gilpatric and affirming his “integrity and devotion to public service.” The Justice Department investigation subsequently exonerated Gilpatric of any “legal or ethical conflict of interest” since he had left the law firm partnership to join the Defense Department, had only received payment for services rendered before he resigned, and had never held any General Dynamics stock. On November 21, 1963, the subcommittee rendered a 5-4 vote of confidence in the Deputy. This is pathetic. Don't mention the almost 3 months the man has been without protection... and what if requests really only take 14 days? Next they'll say he's actually a transgendered Ethel reincarnated. Only in America

Well then all my fault for reading your question as offered, and not seeing the above question being asked in what you posted. My apology for jumping to conclusion (been that kind of day Ben, truly sorry, I shouldn't be posting when I feel like this) FWIW I am not convinced it says DUUM. The third letter looks like it could be a "w", and the first letter looks a bit like a "P" than the other "D"'s on the page... but what do I know at this point. I'm still trying to figure it out. Nor do I see any connection to Caster's rifles. Maybe Leslie can explain what she meant. Question I have is who put the rifle on the 6th floor, and when. Yates' story?

Oh FFS. I gave you direct links... read his testimony, read the few pages of docs... how in the world can you come here and not even do the minimum amount of prep?

Then add in the story of Ralph Yates, also from Nov 20th if memory serves, and also relates to someone appearing to bring a rifle (in a paper bag )into the TSBD. Someone hitchhiking, claiming to be Oswald and asking about Ruby and shooting the President from a window. I don't expect everyone to know everything... with the world literally at our fingertips, there is no excuse for not getting a bit prepared for the conversation you wish to be having here, or to find out who we are talking about and in what context. Sorry to be coming down on you specifically - but you do this a lot Ben. You have a singular approach, with a "let's agree to disagree" fallback position yet you seem unwilling to familiarize yourself with the material before you stick to your guns with a conclusion based more on feelings and opinions rather than history and context.

Really Ben? You honestly cannot Google "WARREN CASTER" and look the darn thing up yourself? Take you 5 minutes and then you do some reading. You can probably search right here on the site and get your answers. Why is it so hard for members to simply look it up for themselves instead of hoping someone spoon feeds it to them so they can then argue about it as if they knew what they were saying to begin with. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Caster.pdf https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/dallas-texas-witnesses/704948 https://gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/rst-fbi-112463.pdf https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57694#relPageId=57&search="warren_caster" Sorry - forgot the spoon

duum (Sundanese) Verb duum to divide to split

Leslie... Can you look again and see maybe it actually says DruM, as in where the rifle would be hidden until needed to be planted? Oil "DRUMS" were used as garbage cans among other things. Nothing for D.U.U.M. comes to mind. But we're at the right place to elicit some help...