Richard Booth

Speaking of selling documents: I spoke to Sherman Skolnik on the phone in the mid 90s (I was a teenager at the time) and he offered to send me some documents on Abraham Bolden for $10. I didn't bite. In my research on Oklahoma City I spent a couple years collating news reports on the case: Every news report on the OKC bombing of any value published between April 19th, 1995 and the present. This took many hours using several services, some paid, some not, to get all the clippings. I took my clippings, and all of the court transcripts, FBI document, and ATF documents I had amassed over several years and I donated all of them to a website which put them all online for everyone. Though I spent many hundreds of hours gathering materials and even spent my own money to get what I needed, in the end, I wanted other students of the case to be able to access my research materials and that's why I donated them online. I never considered selling my documents. On the other hand, if I had spent 7 hours a day in NARA and spent hundreds of dollars on making copies, for several years, I can see a situation whereby selling a collection of the best things you got would be okay. Anna Marie spent hundreds of hours of her life doing this and selling collections for a small fee could have allowed her to recoup some of the money she spent making copies. Seems reasonable to me. Ultimately if someone wants to sell documents that's their choice. I wouldn't do it, but that's just me and I'm not going to tell someone else what to do.

This is interesting.

I watched an episode or two of it on YouTube and was left with this distinct impression: "This show is absolutely stupid. Lee Harvey Oswald would have hated this and would have thought it was propaganda." LHO was not a dumb man and he would have seen it for what it was, in my opinion. I believe that this is probably an apocryphal story perpetuated by Robert Oswald because it makes it sound like Oswald lived in a fantasy world and that he himself thought he was living multiple lives and roles and "toying with people" like Robert said in the atrocious PBS Frontline special that relied mostly on biased sources and left out things that should never have been left out.

I read an article about her in The Fourth Decade published in 1994. The amount of dedication, time, and effort she put in at the Archives is worthy of massive respect. She and Malcolm Blunt would both be fascinating to listen to, to hear stories about their efforts in the archives. My understanding of the documents that were sold in these "collections" is they were things she found in her many hours going through documents at NARA. It is people like her, and Malcolm Blunt, who I think have some wonderful stories to tell, but I'm weird like that. I would read a book if it were just about a person's lifelong journey in the archives and what they found. It's one reason I loved Barry Ernest's book so much: it had so many details about his journey (not in archives, but in research) and that was a pleasant surprise. To me, AMKW is a hero.

It's definitely not Oswald given the receeding hairline and the suit he's wearing. I wouldn't mistake that guy for Oswald on the basis of the suit jacket alone and the age of the man based on the hairline. I think to the contrary this is a man that no rational person would look at and say "it's an Oswald double" - that is absurd to me.

I don't think any of this is germane to the subject. I posted looking for a photo that was part of a collection so I went to the source: the collection I don't care if someone wants to sell documents. I personally wouldn't do it, and I'm not looking to buy documents either. The point was to say that these were indeed once sold as a collection and the photo I was looking for was in this collection.

It looks to me like a man wearing a suit who does not look like Oswald, it's just a guy in a suit in the background who looks no different than any other guy in a suit. It was represented on BOR as an Oswald double and if it were the man supposedly seen by Roger Craig I would expect a man in a white t-shirt, not a main wearing a suit coat with a receeding hairline who does not appear, to me, to look anything like LHO.

I would not describe this as a person who looks like Oswald, I would say this is obviously a male who has dark hair and a receeding hairline whose features are indistinguishable from millions of other men with this clarity. I absolutely would not describe this as "an Oswald double running down the embankment." Sorry to bother you guys, this definitely was misrepresented on BOR. What was described was a person who could be identified who was running down the embankment, with the implication that it looked exactly like Oswald and could be construed to be a man heading towards a Nash rambler. Insofar as Jim said that the photo confirmed Roger Craig's account -- which this does not do.

This absolutely nothing like what Jim described on BOR. If this is the photo in question, I feel Jim misrepresented it on the show.

Thanks Larry. This is indeed the photo I am interested in. I wouldn't go out of your way to call anyone. If you have that photo I am interested in seeing it. However, it sounds to me like the photo we're talking about is not as it was described on BOR.

Found a very good thread here. Tony Krome makes some absolutely fantastic observations in this thread.

CE-145 These appear to be the same shoes in the photograph. This strongly suggests it is Oswald in the picture. If someone were standing there in his place, what are the odds they would wear the same pair of shoes? The other scenarios that come about to allow for that start to become hard to believe: someone, somehow, found out what kind of shoes Oswald had and they wore the same type of shoes for the photo? That is unlikely to me. The other possibility that someone would suggest is that Roscoe White's shoes (or whomever they belonged to) were inserted into evidence and passed off as Oswald's shoes. No matter how you slice it occam's razor suggests these are Oswald's shoes. However, I have some suspicions about some pieces of evidence. How that Imperial Reflex camera got into inventory is very suspicious for example. So are Oswald's tax returns for a couple of years: Armstrong's work on the tax returns is very strong. I understand there is considerable debate over that. The brightness and contrast have been adjusted in order to see the top of the front part of the shoes better. Original:

David, Interested in looking at those threads. What do you mean when you say "Forum back pages" -- is it on this same forum "JFK Assassination Debate" and just near the far end b/c it's an older post? I agree that the photo on LIFE magazine looks particularly bad. When I look at that magazine cover today, it looks like a fake picture. Of course, the magazine cover also differs greatly from CE-133A -- far more detail, better contrast and grey color detail, you can see the scope on the rifle clearly for example. What Rob mentioned about the shoes is an interesting question: I have not examined all of the WC volumes to see if they had introduced as evidence Oswald's shoes and whether or not these wingtips were among Oswald's possessions. Would be interesting to know that bit but I don't have the 26 volumes to be able to check that.

Back in the 1990s I recall seeing on JFK Lancer a product listed as "Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko Collection" (or something similar) and this consisted of documents. JFK Lancer doesn't have this any longer. On Black Op Radio episode #826, Jim DiEugenio mentions that this collection was also offered for sale in the pages of PROBE magazine. I'm interested in this collection of documents and wonder if anyone out there knows where I might be able to find this today, or if anyone has a copy of this collection. Here is a copy of one of the products that was on JFK Lancer in 1999 which may or may not be what I am looking for. Specifically what I am interested in is a photograph that Jim talked about on Black Op Radio #821. This was said to be a photograph taken by someone in Dealey Plaza which was found located in a declassified file or at the National Archives, and this photograph is supposed to show a man running down the embankment (from Gnoll Area) Jim said on BOR that this was a photograph of a man who looked identical to Lee Harvey Oswald, and is supposed to be a photo of him running down the embankment. The suggestion that Jim made on BOR was that this is a photo of the same man that Roger Craig said he saw run down the embankment and get into a Nash Rambler station wagon and that Anna Marie had found it. I find the idea that a photograph was in a classified file, or otherwise was found in the archives, to be curious and interesting given most documents aren't photos and if a photo was in a file there might be a good reason for it to be there. Of course it is also interesting because it is supposed to depict Oswald which would of course be of interest to most of us.

Thanks for sharing this. Much of what you said here rings true--yes, covers are retouched and that's common. My ex-wife is a graphic designer and though processes in the 2000s were different than in 1963 of course there are some common factors and retouching was something she always did: It was making things "ready for print." Most interesting to me about LIFE and their cover is the level of detail present on the cover, yet the supposed source was a tiny photograph: no negative found. I think that Armstrong's suggestion that LIFE was given or otherwise obtained and kept that negative is probably correct given just how detailed and good that cover looks, and if the source was really a tiny photograph I would expect the level of detail on the LIFE cover to not be there no matter how much retouching was done. Has Wagenvoord said anything about the negative of that photo, or whether or not he knows or even suspects LIFE had a negative of it? Re: his phone being tapped I believe it probably is accurate that his phone was tapped if he was in any way connected to LIFE's handling of the JFK materials, to me that goes without saying. He's talking on the phone about giving a copy of the Z-Film to someone? Then his home is burglarized and it disappears? Ain't no coincidence. That is what our dear friend Penn Jones would sarcastically say "well, maybe it's just happenstance" -- referring to the WC's euphemism for something that is obviously conspiratorial that is written off as coincidence. By the way, I have listened to Quick Hits and your other Drop D production podcast with you and Doug. I enjoy both a great deal. Excellent stuff. I also listen to Black Op Radio and love that show. There are people who appear on both shows whose research positions are disputed by one another, and I try to avoid the internecine warfare that is common among these disagreeing groups because I like to focus on the positive and look at the good work that is being done rather than waste time on arguing things or establishing my interests in this subject as some kind of ideology. Some do that, and it's unfortunate because it creates divisions.

He isn't -- he simply touts a story which, if you examine the evidence presented for that story in "The Third Terrorist" you will find it is bogus. First you have to figure out the real names of the witnesses presented in the book, which you can do if you know this case. However, I don't want to derail the thread, so back to Unacknowledged: Dr. Greer did not "debrief" James Woolsey. He had a dinner with him, which he paid for, and he talked about UFOs at the dinner. Note how that becomes some kind of shadowy "debriefing" in Dr. Greer's account.

I read the book. Major problems in that book. The author takes all the eyewitnesses, and gives them fake names. However, you can figure out who each one is by context (what their job was, where they were, what they saw, etc) I then compared what the author has the witnesses saying to the witnesses' grand jury testimony and the author has made things up. For example, she has mechanic Mike Moroz saying that the man in the truck was Iraqi Hussaini al-Hussaini. However, in Mike Moroz' grand jury testimony he explicitly DENIES that the man was Iraqi and says he was NOT Hussaini al-Hussaini. I noted the author did this with about a half dozen witnesses: put words in their mouth. And this explains why she renamed everyone with phony names in the book, because she's making things up they never said. I have written a book about Oklahoma City (not published yet) and amassed thousands of FBI documents, ATF documents, trial records, and other documents on that case and I am convinced that the entire middle eastern angle is totally bogus for some of the reasons mentioned here. I am convinced there was another suspect, another man in the Ryder truck with McVeigh, but there is no evidence he was an Iraqi. I believe he was probably a white supremacist, like McVeigh, and might have been an informant which would explain why the FBI is so uneasy about admitting he exists. I do debunk the middle eastern nonsense in the book, and I present all of the eyewitnesses who saw the second man, and I use their real names and I put in the book exactly what they actually said: which was there was another man sitting in that truck. None of them identified that man as middle eastern in their initial FBI 302 reports or in their grand jury testimony. The book you mention was the product of a neoconservative TV journalist (Jayna Davis) whose work was largely reinforced and touted by a group of neocons including James Woolsey. When I read the book I found error, after error, after error. When I saw she had invented words for people I knew immediately it was bogus.

Unacknowledged. Let's look at the person responsible for it. Dr. Greer. Dr. Greer believes that you (yes, YOU dear reader) can "vector in" UFOs using flashlights and he'll show ya how to do it for just $1,000 at one of his CE-5 retreats. This alone speaks to his credibility. He also has a funny habit, which I have seen in others: It's this espionage fetish style of self-aggrandizement and I will explain that: Dr. Greer will tell you and anyone else who will listen how he has "briefed sitting CIA directors" or alternately he might say "debrief." Either way, that's some serious xxxx, huh? Giving a briefing to a CIA director? Well let's look at what he is actually talking about: Dr. Greer once paid for a dinner where he got to meet James Woolsey, who was indeed a CIA director (and, I might add, he was an outsider like Stansfield Turner was and largely viewed as a neoconservative rather than an intelligence professional, but that's neither here nor there). During this dinner, Dr. Greer prattled on about UFOs. That, my friends, is Dr. Greer's "debriefing" I suppose if I had worked with Lee Harvey Oswald at the book depository and I spent my lunch break annoying him with talk of UFOs, I could say I once "briefed Lee Harvey Oswald on UFOs" but that would not be the truth now would it? Suppose that this sitting CIA director, Mr. Woolsey, had actually decided to call a civilian doctor to Langley to give him a briefing on the subject: wouldn't that set off some alarm bells? Why is the highest ranking person in intelligence getting briefings from amateurs? And what about Woolsey, is he credible? Well, Mr. Woolsey alleges that Timothy McVeigh had a secret Iraqi accomplice in the bombing of the Murrah building. You see, John Doe #2 was actually an agent of Saddam Hussein! According to Mr. Woolsey and a group of neoconservatives who managed to sell him the cock-and-bull story. He believed it. (I've looked deeply into this subject and I can assure you that no Iraqi participated in the OKC bombing). Did Mr. Woolsey also believe in the nonsense given to him from Dr. Greer during the debriefing dinner he had with Dr. Greer? I think that Unacknowledged is a very flawed and poorly edited (it's quick-cut, shots all over the place, overly dramatic) film produced by a crackpot who claims he briefs CIA directors. The most interesting thing in the film is the interview with Richard C. Doty who worked for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Mr. Doty is an intelligence professional who spent most of his career disinforming people and carrying out counter-espionage. Doty is interesting, but not exactly for the reasons you might think. He made his bones selling bogus documents and hoaxes to the UFO community. So listening and watching him is an insight into that whole world. I recommend reading the book "Mirage Men" (and the documentary by the same name) for a good summary of Mr. Doty's UFO disinformation antics. Other details on Mr. Doty that are interesting: he also had a relationship with the CIA. He served at a site called Lima Site 20-A in Cambodia during Vietnam. This was a joint CIA-Air Force black site. Doty is also a member of the organization Association of Former Intelligence Officers, founded by David Atlee Phillips. Doty claims he knew Richard Helms personally and they were good friends. Helms also once said "Believe anything about UFOs that Richard Doty says." I think this should give us all good insight into this subject: it's a wilderness of mirrors built by the CIA and steeped in hoaxes, disinformation games, and spooks. Another great place to read about all this would be a fantastic piece on UFOs by Seamus Coogan over at kennedysandking -- Coogan outlines the many hoaxes/disinformation games I refer to here. --Richard

WC exhibits 150 through 164 are Lee Harvey Oswald's clothing. Looking at these exhibits, I don't see the clothing that appears in the backyard photos. I suppose Oswald could have destroyed those clothes. On the other hand, if the photos are fake and it's Oswald's head pasted on someone else's body, in such a case the clothing being worn in the pictures is not Oswald's clothing. When I look at the backyard photos, they look fake to me. Of course this is merely a subjective observation, and I'm mostly talking about the LIFE magazine cover: the head looks too large, not proportionally correct. I was surprised that the HSCA panel concluded that the backyard photos were real. We have Marina Oswald testifying that she took the photographs. However there seem to be major problems with her testimony at both WC and HSCA and she did not appear to know how to operate the Imperial Reflex camera. That camera was unusual in that you hold it down below your face, and turn your head down and look into/at a viewfinder. The chain of evidence on that camera is also unusual. I believe that I read the camera was not included with evidence initially recovered from Oswald's home or Ruth Paine's home, but was actually given to the authorities by Robert Oswald. Why did he have the camera, and why didn't Marina understand how to use the camera if she supposedly took the photos? What is your best argument for why these photos are fake? If they are real, why do you suppose Oswald posed for these photographs? What do you think about the fact that an additional backyard photo was located in 1976, sourced from DPD officer Roscoe White's ex-wife? What about the unusual fact that the HSCA obtained an additional enlarged backyard photo sourced from George DeMohrenschildt's possessions in 1977? What do you think about the fact that DPD police officer Richard Stovall provided the HSCA with a previously never seen version of the backyard photo? Isn't it strange that so many versions of this photo appeared and came from places other than where Oswald lived? There is a great deal of information about these photos on John Armstrong's website here: http://www.harveyandlee.net/Ryder/Ryder.html One interesting detail from Armstrong's page here is where he says that Captain Fritz asked Oswald about these photographs and wrote about them in a report before they had been retrieved from Paine's home. JA's article here says that the photos were obtained by DPD on 11/23, several hours after obtaining their search warrant, but only after they had been mentioned by Fritz in a report. Doesn't that indicate the photos were planted and "found" at Paine's home?

You appear to not be able to see certain types of violent radicals and point to only one type. You have a blind spot. I see as equally disturbing the kind of violence and nonsensical views that are advocated by people who are on both the left and the right. I am not politically biased, you clearly are. You're also unhinged, the first encounter I had with you, you told me to suck your dick and were paranoid I was talking about you. So your credibility is zero.

That is an absurd view, to claim that left wing violence doesn't exist. Both are equally divisive threats. You appear to be a partisan ideologue.

This essay is especially timely right now. The Promotion of Domestic Discord Original Copy published in Computers and Automation, Volume 21, No.1, January 1972, pp. 37-39, 47. https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/PromotionOfDomesticDiscord.html All domestic movements become infiltrated and then usurped by provocateurs. What is now called Antifa is a good example. During the Bush administration, these people regularly made appearances at things like economic summits where they would dress in all-black and foment violence in the streets. They were provocateurs, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are people now within BLM and Antifa who are there for the explicit purpose of sowing chaos, violence and division. I have a friend who worked very hard to raise awareness for the murders of Tamir Rice and other young innocent victims of police violence and when I spoke to him yesterday he told me that the movement has been "hijacked" - he says these new people running the show are not focused on police violence and are instead focused on creating dissent and violence between people. Vince Salandria noted this phenomenon in 1972 and there are parallels between the social movements then, and the ones we see today. Not only are there some shared ideological similarities, but undoubtedly the movements then and now share the presence of bad actors.

Dan Moldea figured it out, then at the last minute switched his position and became the killer's agent of sorts, negotiating $10,000 payoffs from anyone who wants an interview, communicating with the guy who was hiding in the Philippines, and defending him in the press. It's pretty obvious what happened there with Moldea and Cesar.

Similar to the Salandria position: a deal of sorts. I can see that. Note that most people in positions of power here since 2001 have not ever questioned Vladimir Putin's government. Not Bush, not Obama (see the hot mic exchange between Obama and Medvedev), and certainly not Trump. He plays along, and in return we don't question them on their clandestine operations. Vladimir Putin build his rise to power on bombing Russian apartment buildings and blaming that on Chechan terrorists. Then he poisoned and killed the chief whistleblower in that case, and it seems only the Brits were willing to call him out on that. Still, we are mostly hands off on that regime and their operations. Probably because in return, the Russians are largely hands-off in calling the U.S. out on our activities. An understanding of sorts.

Right -- must have been typing too quickly to notice the error. It seems that the Soviets must have decided that he was tainted or somehow not adequate. It is rather mystifying. There is another thing I think about: the 1983 Soviet war scare, where the Soviets thought that the United States was preparing for a nuclear first-strike on the USSR. All the people from the U.S. who talk about this always express the idea "I don't see how they could have thought we would do that" However, I see how they would have thought we would do that: our country blew our own President's head off in broad daylight in 1963. To them, we were a ruthless and cold-blooded national security state with a dumb populace who would believe any of their propaganda. If we're a nation-state who will execute our own leader in front of everyone then why wouldn't we also be capable of a nuclear first strike? Besides, look what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I can see how the Soviets thought we were going to do that, regardless of how paranoid and suspicious Vladimir Kryuchkov and Andropov were, their suspicions were probably based in part on knowing what we did to JFK, RFK, and MLK. Seeing how violent we were and how placated and propagandized our populace was, it wasn't beyond reason to suspect we might try it.