Joseph Backes

There is no "Lipscomb book." But, take Emerald Robinson's word for it, she's such a reliable source, that it's a forthcoming book. Robinson, and as far as I can see only Robinson, has written four substack articles on this Libscomb Korth book. thing. It's Korth's book. No, not book, it's Jerry Korth's Kindle book like thing. It has the Oswald letter, E Howard Hunt's "Death Bed Confession," and Korth thinks... Non-Spoiler...James Files did it, along with Col. Mustard who showed up at the wrong knoll only to drop a lead pipe on his own foot. What, did he forget the McCone - Rowley document? Nothing from Judy Baker? Well, as it's not published yet there's still time to insert those gems into a repackaged Korth product. Joe

Is Jim okay? I don't think he is. Is just anything okay if it kinda, sorta, seems to promote "our side" in this? I say no. If you don't know who Emerald Robinson is I'll tell you. She's a putz. She's a hard Right-wing whacko. How hard Right-wing? She's so Right-wing NEWSMAX fired her. See - https://deadline.com/2021/11/newsmax-emerald-robinson-white-house-1234868176/ She's got an article "New Evidence: Lee HARVEY OSWALD was trained by the CIA." Except there isn't any new evidence. Remember when Jim used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I miss that guy. I hope he comes back soon. There is no new evidence here. None. This is just a jumbled rehash of old evidence trying to sell Jerry Korth's KINDLE book. Well, no, not really a book. Something pretending to be a book. It's got the "Dear Mr. Hunt," letter. Is that real? Nope. But, Jerry thinks it is because to him the Mr. Hunt isn't the oilman H. L. Hunt, no, it's E. Howard Hunt. So, now, ta-da, the letter once considered a KGB forgery is now real. Add in the LHO attempt to call Mr. John Hurt. New? Nope. Oh but there's a new source with new info on the Mr. John Hurt story. Really? Does Robinson name the source? Nope. Is there one? If you want to believe there's one, well then you go right ahead. It's as real as the Biden bribery audiotapes. Or "The Twitter Files." Oh, I know, it's "The Pillow Guy," isn't it? Joe

In this letter to POTUS the CIA gives the wrong citation for the JFK Act. It's Public Law 102-526, not 525. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022docs/CIA_2022-8-11_153622_D-CIA_Letter_12.15.2021.pdf Joe

People need to spend some time here - https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/agency-doc-2022 And look at this - CIA Document Index Why are there over 11,000 docs here? Are these docs the CIA wants to control or reclassify? Why are 7,885 already released in full? These are not exclusively CIA documents. Joe

Jim, After a quick look nearly all are open in full, no redactions. I only saw some redactions in these: 104-10104-10145 No 104-10131-10026 No - Para 5 whited out 104-10131-10036 No - Para 5 whited out 104-10173-10036 No 104-10210-10034 No, 260 page doc on Nosenko. A lot still redacted. Joe

104-10104-10145 is part of a psychological exam of Daniel Ellsberg.

There's a lot to unpack here. First, Carmine Savastano does give the RIF # for the document, RIF #144-10001-10263 for the 15 June 1978 Memo, while Jefferson Morley cannot be bothered to do so. Always cite the RIF# Jeff! I am becoming more and more convinced the Morley is not a great writer. He inserts the topic of Operation Northwoods for no apparent reason into the topic of the destruction of records by the DIA. Savatano doesn't mention it, Jeff, because it wasn't a DIA plan and it had nothing to do with the main thrust of the article. Second, in reading the document, 144-10001-10263, the name Denk lept out at me. There was a young woman, Laura Denk, who worked for the ARRB and I wonder if there is a relation? She eventually rose to become the Executive Director of the ARRB. Third, you really should read Carmine Savastano's article first. He's not a great writer either. The idea of limiting oneself to one idea per sentence seems to be out of fashion with some writers. They somehow feel the need to put in more than one. Why I don't know. And when they do they often leave out words that would improve the narrative flow. Vince Palamara will interrupt himself with 15 brackets, 38 subbrackets, 811 endnotes, 2,308 footnotes, 597,842,003 endnotes, and 3.14 to the infinite power of parentheses before he finishes the first sentence he started with. Wow, is this a mess: "Even in modern times the illegal possession, loss, or destruction of government files has appeared in recent news and has been a consistent means of depriving the public access to documents that may incriminate or embarrass leading bureaucrats. Over the last five decades hundreds of thousands pages of documents have been released concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, nevertheless thousands of documents were by intent or ignorance destroyed or lost. Whether you consider the dozens of files lost within Lee Harvey Oswald’s 201 file or those destroyed by at least one medical expert that conducted the autopsy, some officials have desired that feasibly important files never reach public eyes. Upon this lack of knowledge some reasonable ideas turn and the illegal destruction or loss of files leaves but two unsavory possible reasons reasons, malfeasance or ignorance. The destruction of documents by officials has rendered public claims that were scoffed at or diminished by those who support the official version of events greater credibility. Yet, more recent less redacted files support the contention that the amount of documents destroyed has been largely underestimated despite the claims of several government leaders." Guys, please proofread. You spend years doing the reading and research spend one hour proofreading. In my opinion, references to the former guy's illegal possession of classified government records distracts and dilutes the topic of destruction of records relating to the assassination of JFK. So, don't bring it up. Stay focused on JFK, please. Thanks to the JFK Act and the Assassination Records Review Board ( ARRB ) millions of pages of once classified documents were declassified and released to the American public beginning in the 1990's. The ARRB went out of business in 1998 but left instructions for the National Archives that all classified records and all redactions in released records were to be removed and everything was to be open in full on October 26, 2017. Well, it didn't turn out that way. There's still a fight to get records fully released. One such record, 144-10001-10263, released in 2022 tells an interesting story. In the 1970's there was a congressional investigation into the assassinations of JFK and MLK known as the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the HSCA. Their chief counsel Robert Blakey asked the National Security Agency for records. It's clear the NSA didn't want to give any. At first a Judy Miller says a review of records three months before the assassination would mean reviewing thousands of records and that would take approximately 150 manhours to do. Well in comes Mr. Roger Denk to say the DIA destroyed all of its files which might relate to the assassination. Now I think that was clearly a lie. Mr. Denk or others would have had to have done some kind of search under some unspecified parameters to even find records relating in some fashion to the JFK assassination in the DIA's possession and destroy them, and their microfilmed copies, as well as references to what you want to destroy in surviving records. That effort and there's no actual proof that happened, and thus no actual proof any documents really were destroyed, would surely take more than 150 manhours which is 20 work days to complete. Much easier to say, ( without proof ) "We destroyed everything you're asking for. Goodbye." What we do learn is that Blakey really wanted a check of every Cuban intercept from 1959 to 1964 as well as a general characterization of the chatter itself. So, according to T12 who maintain the microfilm that would be about 200,000 reports to look through. And you'd have to double that as you're doing a translation from Spanish to English. You'd need someone fluent in both just to QC they got the translation right. And they would have to have clearances as they would be made aware of the sources and methods used to acquire the intercepts. And then they'd have to read them all. And unless that reviewer was HSCA staffer Ed Lopez or Dan Hardway chances are that relevant info would still not be caught. So, what did the ARRB ask the DIA to do? Well, I can tell you the ARRB did get some DIA records. They are RIF numbers that start with 144. I should explain what a RIF number is. A Record Identification Form ( RIF ) is a 13 digit code. It is a form attached to every document in the JFK Records Collection. It helps you to find a specific document. It is broken down into three sections, three numbers, then five numbers, then the second set of five numbers. The first three numbers is a code for the agency of origin, who created the document. The first set of five numbers is the subject. The last set of five numbers tells how many records on that subject that agency has. Now, and this is important, NARA once had an online database of RIF numbers. It was taken offline while I was using it. It was replaced with a large Excel database broken down into 6 sections on May 17, 2021. On April 29th, 2021 I appeared on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio program talking about RIFs and gave out a copy of my Excel database ( as it existed then ) on how many RIFs there should be. Then almost in response NARA released on May 17, 2021 their Excel database. I also gave a presentation to the British research group, Dealey Plaza U.K., ( DPUK ) on how many RIF numbers there are supposed to be on Saturday, Sept 26,2020. So, it went offline I think before I went on Len's show, either that or before the DPUK talk. NARA claims its database contains all the RIF numbers in the collection. Well, that's a lie, and I can prove it. For the last couple of years, I have been working on creating a database trying to figure out how many RIF numbers there are or should be in the JFK Records Collection based on the RIF listings created by the ARRB. I went and got them all. Many were published in The Federal Register. The ARRB had a sunset provision in the legislation that created it so it was going to go out of business in 1998. So, in April of 1998 they were allowed to summarize what they were releasing instead of listing each individual RIF number. However, they did create these lists. They only exist in the ARRB's files in NARA. Additionally, there have been six releases in 2017, one in 2018, one in 2021, one in 2022, and three so far this year. So, my column A has the RIF numbers and column B onwards has all of the ARRB notices and NARA releases. So, when you do all of that work you know what should be there. And now we return to RIF numbers starting with 144. There are no RIF numbers starting with 144 in NARA's May 17, 2021 Excel database. They go from 137 to 155. They skip right over them. There are in actuality 378 documents starting with RIF 144-10001, 144-10001-10000 to 144-10001-10378. Only 253 of them are online at MFF. If in actuality there are any 144 RIFs where the first set of five numbers is 10002 or higher and how many documents per subject therein is unknown. There may exist there may not exist. I don't know. RIFs that start with 145 are missing too. They are National Security Council / Dept. of Defense records. There are 274 of those. 145-10001-10000 to 145-10001-10274. There are documents that start with 154 that are missing. These are Secret Service documents. All documents that start 154-10001 are missing. How many of them are unknown, I only have evidence of RIFs starting with 154-10002, and there are 430 of them. 154-10002-10430 shows up in the Feb 21, 1997 ARRB notice in The Federal Register. There are 154-10003 as well and should be at least 44, maybe 65 of those. These are not the only RIFs missing from the May 17, 2021 Excel database. Now when I say missing I mean only from NARA's May 17,2021 Excel database. They exist. Some are online at MFF. They exist if you go to Archives II in person to look for them. But, if the listing of everything that the May 17, 2021 Excel database claims to be is woefully, ridiculously incomplete you would have no idea to even look for them because you would have no idea they exist. Maybe I should start a substack account. Joe

So, what exactly is the legal breakthrough?

I just found out about this. There's a lawsuit over the copyrighted material on this site that could result in the site being taken down which would be a disaster. See -

Thanks again, Joe.

So, I am not the first to discover who AMMUG-1 is and that's okay. But, I went to the MFF Mary Ferrell database site. It had this - https://www.maryferrell.org/php/marysdb.php?id=348&search=AMMUG-1 Which did not give a name. This is the first place I went to and it should have the name. Then my search referenced Bill Simpich’s book "State Secrets," Chapter 3 – But, this does not name who AMMUG-1 is either. I thought that very odd. Later in the day I went to the Cryptonym page which does name him Okay, this does name him - https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?id=AMMUG-1 And this names him - https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php?bigram=AM So, I would like to propose that the Mary Ferrell database site have the crypt and then the name. And then cross reference the Cryptonym page because it's easy to do like I did, go to one and not the other. Then you think, do they not have this? So, now I'll check both sites. Thank you, Joe

JFK Staffer Shares Administration Stories POSTED 1.11.2016 BY Luke Crafton Hear more from the Spokane guest who brought her fascinating collection of mementos from her years serving as a press aide to President John F. Kennedy, and see a slideshow of draft speeches and other documents she kept from her time in the White House. In 1958 Sue Mortensen was a bright young lady fresh out of college when she landed a job working for Sen. John F. Kennedy’s nascent presidential campaign. This experience catapulted her a few short years later into the Kennedy White House, serving as a staff assistant under the president’s press secretary, Pierre Salinger. She worked closely and intensely with Kennedy during his brief time in office, helping with the drafting and revision of numerous speeches — a process that in that pre-laptop era still produced mountains of paper. And she was part of the president’s entourage on the fateful campaign trip to Dallas in late November 1963. Sue brought a personal archive of her mementos from the time she spent serving the president to the Spokane ROADSHOW in June 2015, sharing it and her fascinating story with appraiser Martin Gammon, who appraised the collection for between $60,000 and $80,000. This slideshow gives an up-close view of some of Sue’s most interesting keepsakes from her time in the West Wing, including a photograph with the president in a ceremony aboard the U.S.S. Oriskany; a copy of the presidential schedule for November 22, 1963; and a number of typescript works-in-progress that offer vivid and intriguing glimpses of JFK's thinking during the intense and continual process of drafting presidential speeches — as well as of his awful handwriting. In the accompanying video Sue also tells us more about her personal recollections of JFK, and her own poignant experience of one of the most shocking tragedies in American political history.

Pete, Invest in a good VPN service that can mask your country of origin, then, viola, you can see stuff. Joe

I don't know if I'm the first to discover this but AMMUG-1 is Vladimir Rodriguiz. I'm surprised this is not on MFF. I emailed Rex today with this. See RIF#104-10161-10263. Also RIF#180-10143-10400. Joe

Thanks Joe. Very interesting.

Thanks for the correction.

David, Thank you very much. And Col. Julian P. Wilcox was in the Marines from 1905 to 1935. He then retired as a Lt. Colonel and advanced to Colonel in retirement. He was recalled to active duty in WWII and retired again sometime in 1942. He was the CO of the USS New York and the squadron intelligence officer. He was there for the surrender of the German Imperial Navy at Scapa Flow in 1918. The Germans deliberately sank some of their ships there rather than properly surrender them. So, these were really interesting men who lived interesting lives. What a crime to history all this needless secrecy is. Joe

Okay, so I ran across RIF#104-10161-10465. The latest version of this intrigues me. This doc is from 26 Sept 1955. Brig. Gen. Carson A Roberts ( of the Marine Corps ) asks the CIA for permission to be in contact with 4 of their employees. These guys were all in TSS/WAD and they want to talk about Marine equipment. 1.) Preston L Sutphen - Pres of the Electric Boat Co, later a division of General Dynamics. During WWII general manager of Elco Works which made PT boats. Died May 8, 1974. Was Chief of the CIA's Commercial Division. 2.) Karl Goldsmith Hensel - A Navy Rear Admiral. 3.) Jullian Wilcox - ? 4.) Leo B Blocker - ? And I cannot find any info on Wilcox or Blocker. They are most likely dead by now. If they were 18 in 1955 they'd be 86 years old now. If anyone can find any info I want to know where you got it from. So, cite a RIF#, book title, author, and page, newspaper date and page, etc. Please Do Not Use any AI source. The first two were serious, high level guys. The next two guys zip, nothing on 'em. They were hiding these names for more than 68 years. Thanks, Joe

Michael Is the Ralph Cinque of this forum. A totally ignorant child. The whole basis of NSAM 263 was the McNamara-Taylor report. ( See - RIF #202-10002-10067) JFK sent McNamara and Taylor to Vietnam in late Sept '63 as political cover for the decision he had already made before he sent them to withdraw. Do you think McNamara was ignorant of what JFK's intention of sending him to Vietnam was? Mikey might want to read this article by James K Galbraith - https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/ McNamara admitting it. The proof: 1.) McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library. McNamara favored "withdrawal without victory." And that context is in 1963! So, there is no conditionality about it, no it depends nonsense. JFK's secret order at the Top Secret level was clear. He was withdrawing. 2.) McNamara at the LBJ Library May 1, 1995. On his book tour, McNama referenced the October 1963 meetings on withdrawal and that they existed on tape, though he did not know he was being secretly recorded at the time. However, only McNamara and his co-author could listen to them in 1995. Audio of the Oct 2 and Oct 5th meeting were declassified in July 1997 by the ARRB. See - 45:20 mark here - 3.) The May 1962 conference, see - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v02/pg_379 ( this is a scan of the actual FRUS volume. Document 187 is on the bottom.) In "JFK & Vietnam," p. 254 1992 edition, after the room was cleared of most people McNamara wanted MACV to train and turn over responsibility for fighting the war over to the South Vietnamese people and reduce the size of our military command to the astonishment of Gen. Harkins. And McNamara wants to see that plan by the next conference. This is also in Allen, The Indocina war, p. 192. And supported by Newman's interview with Allen. 4.) October 4th, 1963 Memorandum. - See 202-10002-10093. 5.) McNamara's book, "In Retrospect," p. 76 - "After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting." Michael denies the existence of this passage and what it clearly means. As stated in Galbraith's article - "A careful review of the October 2 meeting makes clear that McNamara’s account is essentially accurate and even to some degree understated. One can hear McNamara—the voice is unmistakable—arguing for a firm timetable to withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam, whether the war can be won in 1964, which he doubts, or not." So, the idea of the withdrawal being conditional is a lie. Even with South Vietnam losing the war JFK's order was clear, withdraw. There were no ifs, ands, or buts about it. More info - http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/vietnam/KennedyOnlineMaterial(guide).doc Again, Galbraith writes in The Nation. JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation. I am joining Jim in now ignoring this child. JFK WAS WITHDRAWING.

The documentary evidence is overwhelming now. It's ridiculous to contest it. The Dean Rusk lie has been shown to be a lie once NSAM 263 was declassified. That doesn't matter to people like Michael. He'll stull use Dean Rusk. The true historical record has been kept from the world by the misuse of the classification system. John M Newman has gotten more declassified on the Vietnam War than anyone, and I mean, anyone, including Daniel Elsberg. The lie had decades to take root and grow. It's not surprising that lazy, idiotic academicians ignorant of recent declassifications regurgitate the lie. The lie is not going to shrivel up and die instantly. But it will die. This argument is over. The deniers lost. The JFK was never going to withdraw fools have lost. We have the documentation now. It's over. The deliberate editing of the JFK interview, to use only a portion of it with Cronkite without taking into account how much was changing in South Vietnam especially after that interview aired is beyond stupid. Diem was still alive when that interview took place. JFK was consistent at the Top Secret level, he was withdrawing. Those records exist and we can see them now. The problem is yes, JFK said differently in public. Why? Because he wanted to do it after he got re-elected. That's why he was killed before he could be. I don't care what Ed Moise has to say about anything. McNamara has admitted it. Game over.

Michael, You're in a cult. Right-wingers always pull Dean Rusk out of their collective rear ends to buttress the lie that JFK was never going to withdraw from Vietnam. Look at NSAM 263. Look closely at it. Look at the list of people its addressed to. Who is the first person it's sent to? Ahead of the Sec of Defense and everybody else? Why look, it's the little round headed kid, Dean Rusk. And to his dying day Rusk always exclaimed, "No, JFK never told me nuthin about getting out of Vietnam." L-I-A-R!

It's going to be very bad, and very stupid. The idea that the mob did it is the stupidest theory.

Someone ( sorry forgot who and what thread or posting ) recently had a post about DAP arriving in MC and they were working with a doc with either a redaction or smudged text, or maybe both. I ran across a doc with the same text that's very clear and easy to read. I don't think the person posting remembered Eastern Airlines. See - 104-10100-10134. Joe

Read John's book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole." Angleton was never in charge of the molehunt. Solie was. Solie got them to think the mole was in the CIA's Soviet Russia Division (SRD ). Solie convinced Angleton that the mole was in SRD for 9 years. Everything Angleton did in his molehunt was directed by Solie and whatever Angleton did in that regard he had to report to Bruce Solie. Angleton trusted Solie. Angleton's CI staff and Solie's OS staff were in close contact. Again, people are looking at the headlines and not reading the story, or in this case book. There are a hell of a lot more people in CIA than Dulles, Helms and Angelton. There's people like Sheffield Edwards, and Robert Bannermam, and Paul Gaynor, and many others play important roles in the story. John's book should be in everyone's library and is worth your time to read. Joe

See RIF #104-10169-10123. His name is in the From section on a small transmittal slip. His name is what they were hiding for a long time. The first two letters of his last name are very hard to make out. Rednar? Fednar? Bednar? Aha! I think I've got it now. Joseph B Bednar. This document from 1971 has his name - RIF#104-10119-10174. And signature RIF#104-10176-10004 on p. 171 of 241 pages his name appears with his signature. He had something to do with The SIGNA Society which is a group of retired CIA Security careerists. He is mentioned in this CIA document from the CIA's CREST site. Also here from CREST where he appears to have been a polygraph examiner. There's very little online about this guy. Joe