Stephen Roy

I've seen the T symbols many times in FBI documents, and specific numbers usually correlate with the administrative sheet, which gives the actual source in most instances. So there may be no fixed T-2.

I'm looking around (but haven't found it) for that specific case. I seem to remember that the FBI had opened the FPCC's mail in NYC, and copied the info from Oswald's letter but obscured both the fact that is was a highly-secret mail cover and the fact that it was NYC, not Dallas. (One could make a case that, if Oswald himself was the source, via letter, it WAS a Dallas informant!).

There are even a few hints: The info says that LHO was in touch with FPCC in NYC (ie, a letter) and the wording is very close to Oswald's letter where he says something like "I stood for the first time with a placare around my neck..." (I seem to recall him misspelling placard.)

Others: Am I wrong here? Is my memory failing me?

Here's an FBI doc mentioning LHO's letter:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=84204&relPageId=21&search=placare

Here's the letter itself:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=VT_Lee#relPageId=531&tab=page

I'm not sure why, but I seem to recall that this info came from an FBI mail cover of the FPCC in New York City, that T-2 simply obscured the fact that it was a mail opening program. But perhaps I misremember.

Stephen Roy,

I don't purport to know who were the trigger pullers. Nor do I purport to know who gave orders to, or paid, the trigger pullers.

I don't care who killed JFK. I want to know why he was killed. Was he killed because of Cuba? Israel? Russia? Viet Nam?

Tell me, Stephen, who killed JFK. If you say it was Oswald, fine. I just want your thinking.

I DO care who. You can't know why unless you know who.

Your logic is just all wrong, Jon. Without knowing who did it, you run a HUGE chance of falsely accusing someone who might have had a motive, but had nothing to do with it. There are reasons why the process of justice proceeds in a linear fashion.

I've read a lot of your stuff. Sometimes you just seem to want to take shortcuts to the nefarious forces you think were behind it. But what if you're wrong, and those shortcuts target the wrong people?

Purely in the abstract and unrelated to any particular matter:

If a person believed by most responsible researchers to be fabricating an untrue story were to organize a conference, perhaps through a publisher, for the sole purpose of inviting some well-known names to give the fabricator some degree of rub-off credibility, how should serious researchers and the leaders of our community regard this?

I've got a baaaad feeling about this, Abbott...

If one is seriously looking at the question of why Kennedy was killed, it is an absolute prerequisite to know to a reasonable certainty who fired the shots. It doesn't matter who had the ability to order the kill; it only matters who was actually connected to the shooting. Likewise, it doesn't matter who had the ability to manage a coverup; it only matters if the coverup was directly connected to the shooting. Ability does not equate to a guilty connection. There is only ONE way to know why, and that is to know who. To start with a list of those who might potentially have ordered or covered-up and then try to tie them to the shooting is to look at the whole process backwards.

To quote a former EdForum member, "Egad!!"

Just for the record, the book gets nearly everything about Ferrie wrong.

Nope. You're looking at it backwards.

Don't you have to know who in order to know why?

Very interesting, to hear it in his own voice, stream of consciousness.

First name is Steve, by the way..!

I don't have the book at work with me, and it is massive and will take some time to absorb, but my impression is that Dr. C doesn't think much of the putative CIA links, that it was basically a radical right job with a few government folks covering up for various reasons. That's my quick take, but Bill may correct me if I'm wrong.

Tell us how tall that boy is please. You know how tall Ferrie was?

Just FYI: Ferrie was recorded on police records as 5'11" or 71". Weight: 190-195lb. (In 1961, I might add.)

Hmmm...

As soon as I saw it available on Amazon (about 2 weeks ago) and noticed that there were 4 in stock, I "one-clicked" it, and it was in my mailbox two days later (really weighing down the mailbox, too - a heavy book)!

If anybody wants me to check anything, just ask.

Thanks, Stephen, for your offer. Would you briefly summarize Dr. Caufield's characterization of the relationships between General Walker and the members of Interpen -- especially Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall?

Many thanks,

--Paul Trejo

The index lists Hemming on only 4 pages, and it mostly concerns a Jan 1963 meeting between Walker and Hemming and Hall, where Walker expressed interest in Cuban issues. There's more on Hall, which I'll check (if you don't get your copy in the meantime!)

Paul, Who did you order it through?

Bill

I ordered it through amazon.com on August 19th. And I got free shipping.

--Paul

Hmmm...

As soon as I saw it available on Amazon (about 2 weeks ago) and noticed that there were 4 in stock, I "one-clicked" it, and it was in my mailbox two days later (really weighing down the mailbox, too - a heavy book)!

If anybody wants me to check anything, just ask.

Interesting stuff Larry! Good to hear from you Stephen!

Bill

Back atcha! I got the book, finished a "scan-read," and now I'm re-reading it in detail. An unexpected direction, lots of surprises, lots to ponder and maybe re-think.

All historical evidence is not created equal; Some is good, some is not. A seasoned researcher can read an account like Morrow's and reasonably place it in context: Not necessarily a definitive thumbs up/down, but at least a caution that a particular account seems wildly anomalous to the existing body of evidence. In other words, an instinct that the account might be wrong or, at least, in need of corroboration.

Looking at Morrow's books in context, I agree with Dr. Jeff and Bill that it is very unlikely that he ever met Ferrie, and with Larry that the bulk of his story is pure exaggeration. You can feel free to disagree, but I would not recommend using Morrow's info without specific corroboration.

Just this one LNer, and no other person in the assassination community? Now I understand.

that brings to my mind the next question. what do I want out of this, finally? vindication? for the bad guys to suffer (many are already dead)? for this "other" form of government to fall...?

to regain the america we once had...?

am i effin' crazy?

Uh, yup, I'd say you're crazy...

There was never "the america we once had"... never existed Glenn. The evils we all accept today were much better hidden - but they were still there and running things...

So I'm not sure to what you refer.

When the decision was made to sacrifice people and planet for profit... or people and planet for control... I fail to see the ability to stop that slide.

My other project has to do with the history of nation owning and how the intelligence services arose from the wealthy private sector...

What I'm saying is that even in Plato's days, the rich were controlling the strings.

Property rights and sovereignty related to the Tragedy of the Commons remains, imo, the root of humanity's problems.

There are always people who feel that if they do not exploit the Commons, they in turn we be exploited.

Kant wrote about it in "Perpetual Peace"

I think what we do here is to increase the awareness base. And turn the tide a millimeter at a time.

That 911 can happen and be so in your face about the lies just shows we've made no progress since 1964... in fact the progress is in the wrong direction, now they don't even bother hiding much...

The reply is "so what, deal with it"...

And we do.

Now I understand.

Caufield and O'Neil are both excellent researchers. I look forward to seeing what they've found!

Yes, I absolutely invoke the appeal to authority. A person who knows more about something...knows more about it. An expert knows more than an amateur. A doctor is usually more skilled than a first-year-med student. Someone who has plowed though NARA, the ARRB releases and other materials is probably wiser and more nuanced than one who has read a few books and occasionally visits MFF.

Forgive me for invoking you here, Larry, but that's one of the reasons why newbies should slow down a bit and respect the prowess of people (like Larry) who have immersed themselves in the large proportion of documents that are NOT online. A person who has put in the time and sees the big picture is probably going to be a bit wiser and more nuanced than a newbie.

The AARC/MFF stuff represents only a portion of what is at NARA. A lot of the files released under the ARRB are not on the MFF site. Users should be aware that MFF is by no means the entire universe of JFK documents.

What is the AARC? Is it the same as the ARRB?

No. Assassination Archives and Records Center. Their holdings came from many different sources.

Bud Fensterwald was a major player, and other researchers act as advisors. Jim Lesar is now the major figure at AARC.

BTW: My usual complaint: If we are now going to obsess about the motives of other researchers, that's tinfoil hat stuff. Count me out.