Scott Kaiser

I have not seen any evidence that Oswald was on the payroll of the FBI or he wouldn't be working at that coffee shop where JVB says they worked together as lovers, ahem.... nor do I believe the coffee shop was Oswald's cover. I do not I see anywhere on that document that indicates Debrueys was Oswald's FBI handler. I believe someone is making this a bit more then what is seen on the surface. Then we are told that his CIA handlers are David Ferre and Clay Shaw. I don't believe they were his handlers either. I do believe that they were communicating with Oswald for intelligence information, and Oswald's views about communism. If the reader remembers, at that time communism was the new war that ended up in America's homes across the country not to mention Russia's outlook on living as they perceived communism as Socialist power as their country should be ruled and governed by dictators. This is what lead Fidel Castro to move ever so quickly deceiving everyone. The communist war I'm speaking of is the Vietnam war Eisenhower jumped into. It's not too farfetched to believe that Oswald was just Oswald, not involved working for the FBI or CIA. He was, however, and outcast, used as pasty for the sole purpose of the planned assassination.

I personally know other's who "represented" themselves as FBI, CIA, U.S. Customs, a Hialeah Police Officer and a Lieutenant, an Officer in the United States Army, and, although it's easy to believe he was none of these things. I also believe that to be true with Oswald.

Scott,

Your post is in response to what?

--Tommy, the Serious

50 Reasons for 50 years Episode 4

Scott,

If I offended you in some way, I apologize. You asked for opinions and I gave mine. On the other hand, since I really don't have an interest in this particular aspect of the case, I was simply trying to be helpful. That'll teach me.

Greg, I'm not coming down on you as an individual. I don't know you, and as far as I'm concerned, you could be the coolest dude I probably could have ever hanged out with, shoot the crap with, and drink a few beers. It's like I tell Roger Stone and many others, when we're not talking JFK we are best buds sipping on a Martini, but as soon as we start talking JFK we're no longer friends, and I get that. It's no offense to you personally, so please don't take it that way.

I'm not looking for opinions, because like my father would say, everyone has one of those too. What I'm looking for is truth, facts, and how one has arrived at these facts. I am more than willing to accept this document may be fake, but I also keep an open mind about it simply due to the word "Sensitive". I've never seen it anywhere other than my father's document.

No hard feelings eh?

I also think it's very important to confront these issues, so, I'll keep pushing this thread up to the top until these issues can somehow either be resolved, or determine why everyone makes an ass\u\me.?

Okay, this may not be a real document, as a friend said, they could be out to discredit me. I am not by no means putting my faith into something I don't know nothing about, however, I still plan on getting one last opinion, and hopefully Mr Robert Dwyer will give me an explanation. In the meantime I also wanted to share this, I'm hoping this isn't fake too.

Hey Scott,

I don't believe this one is authentic either. However, it seems to mimic an NSA type of communication, rather than a CIA or FBI memo. Notice the redaction is "whited out" as opposed to "blacked out" which is typically NSA's "style." The "graininess" also bears an NSA similarity as does the "SECRET" stamp, which almost appears like an NSA style "stencil" commonly used by that agency.

However, if it really was an NSA document, in addition to the SECRET classification it would have typically had "NOFORN" (an acronym for No Foreign Dissemination) stamped at the top and/or bottom, unless the alleged statement by Castro was made on public radio or television then that would not have been the case.

Lastly, why is it a miniature document? I have seen and handled thousands of NSA documents. The SECRET stamp at the top seems in a normal position, but since when did NSA or other agencies begin using 1/2 sheets of paper for their communications? The SECRET stamp at the bottom of the page does not seem right. There isn't enough "blank page" between the bottom of the paragraph and the alleged bottom of the document.

Of course, I might be wrong, but that is my opinion.

I don't believe this one is authentic either.

The Castro doc., I found this document at the Mary Ferrell site, and yes, it is real. I'm shocked at how you would know how Castro speaks, this is an interpretation of what he's saying. Certainly, AJ Weberman says there is no such thing as "Sensitive" stamp, the only other reason I took the doc is because the only other doc I've ever seen the word "Sensitive" on is my father's document, but I'm sure everyone is too quick to say it's fake too right? If there is one thing I've learned on this thread, I have learned there is something terribly wrong with the research community. As my father would say, some of you don't know the difference between a hole in the ground and your what? No doubt, you'll say this document is fake too.

Imagine that, the president's assassin traveling back to the USSR? Just one problem, even Castro knew Oswald was NOT in Mexico...

Okay, this may not be a real document, as a friend said, they could be out to discredit me. I am not by no means putting my faith into something I don't know nothing about, however, I still plan on getting one last opinion, and hopefully Mr Robert Dwyer will give me an explanation. In the meantime I also wanted to share this, I'm hoping this isn't fake too.

I just remembered, some years ago, I spoke to SA Robert Dwyer FBI, I'm going to see if I can't get a hold of him tomorrow, and see if he will confirm the doc.

No offense, Scott, but even if we assume that the document is authentic (and that the CIA erroneously thought Banister was still an FBI Special Agent 9 years after he retired), etc., what makes the information in it particularly valuable? The redaction is so heavy that we can conclude very little even if it were legit.

It seems odd that the CIA would be in receipt of G2 from a former FBI agent before the FBI was. We know Banister continued to supply the Bureau with Intel through contacts, but I am not aware that he was an informant for the CIA as this memo suggests. If anything you'd think he would have passed Intel to the Bureau and then they in turn would have sent it to the CIA as appropriate. However, in this case, the CIA has the Intel from Banister first and is passing it to the Bureau and that seems backwards.

None taken Greg, however, I think if folks dug a little deeper as I have, and actually talk to someone who is ex FBI or CIA they are still known as SA or whatever their title was, perhaps, it was recognition. I'm looking for the answer just as much as you are. Do you have Liddy's number? He changed it on account of me threatening to go public with my information.

And, if this is a genuine document, I would be the happiest guy in the world exposing hours, months, years of constant hard work, I never stop, never waiver, and still I keep going.

It's on "borrowed" time, let's just say...

I'm sorry, but I didn't read the rest of your statement, and to answer your question we were going through lots of doc, I asked for water, when he went to the kitchen to get me a glass, I slipped it into my folder. Did he expect me to do that? I don't think so.

How I arrived at my conclusion:

I copied the image to Gimp and looked at it closely. Sensitive is clearly hand drawn. It's all over the place and the shade and texture of black you get from texta on paper.

Individual letters on these document look like from a low res copy of an imperfect document. At this res the edges of all letters are too sharp and the letters whicle in the right font are too 'wobbly,' yet all black. Except it look like someone has used a times new romean for a T. . There are a couple of lines that are wrongly spaced. The censored areas are not right. Looks like the texta or whatever was used to make them bled in an unusual way around the too wobbly edges.

Here's my problem, everyone is too quick to dismiss and judge, it's no wonder pertinent information is not scrutinize by professionals, but everything seems to be under attack by woodshop for dummies, no offense to anyone, but hey, let's face it. I took a big ass risk to take this document, and this is what I get when I didn't need to post this, and continue to hang onto for myself?

Scott,

If it makes you feel any better, I think that it could be genuine.

You gotta realize that a lot us "researchers" consider ourselves to be the Second Coming of Sherlock Holmes, and we just love to find things wrong or "suspicious" about things. but in reality most of us get results that are much more like those of Inspector Clouseau.

Even if that document turns out to be phony, it asks a lot of interesting new questions.

Like why did your friend have it. Where did he get it or who gave it to him, etc. Did he leave it out, hoping you would "borrow" it, just to test your loyalty, or perhaps to feed you some "disinfo," etc? If the latter, why would he want to lead you in that particular direction?

--Tommy

Hi Tommy, I don't think I'm getting my point across, or I'm not saying what I want to say, and I wish that someone who is familiar with docs would weigh in. I don't want a pat on the back, or anyone saying attaboy, or someone who is too quick to dismiss and judge it, or any fancy talk, please. I'm a no nonsense kind of guy. I'm not looking for information from someone who thinks they know what truth is or because they think they know what they're talking about. Assuming, or saying I think it's not real or I think it is real proves absolutely nothing to me.

The truth would suffice. My last request to everyone, hope I'm making my point.

Scott

How I arrived at my conclusion:

I copied the image to Gimp and looked at it closely. Sensitive is clearly hand drawn. It's all over the place and the shade and texture of black you get from texta on paper.

Individual letters on these document look like from a low res copy of an imperfect document. At this res the edges of all letters are too sharp and the letters whicle in the right font are too 'wobbly,' yet all black. Except it look like someone has used a times new romean for a T. . There are a couple of lines that are wrongly spaced. The censored areas are not right. Looks like the texta or whatever was used to make them bled in an unusual way around the too wobbly edges.

Here's my problem, everyone is too quick to dismiss and judge, it's no wonder pertinent information is not scrutinize by professionals, but everything seems to be under attack by woodshop for dummies, no offense to anyone, but hey, let's face it. I took a big ass risk to take this document, and this is what I get when I didn't need to post this, and continue to hang onto for myself?

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=51440#relPageId=3&tab=page

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49311#relPageId=2&tab=page

^Edited.

Folks, I'm not trying to be mean, so please, don't take it the wrong way. I am looking for an honest response and how you arrived at the conclusion. Please, let's hold off until we have a definitive answer. If everyone starts to post their opinions then we will not fulfill the objective here

Also, McCord was never a Deputy Director.

. Thank you.

Brian, you may not have known this, but he was then became Director of Security.

Folks, I'm not trying to be mean, so please, don't take it the wrong way. I am looking for an honest response and how you arrived at the conclusion. Please, let's hold off until we have a definitive answer. If everyone starts to post their opinions then we will not fulfill the objective here. Thank you.

When I was in the army (1970-73), there were three basic levels of document classification: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.

The classification preceded the text of the document, not the letterhead of the sender.

All three classifications involved "sensitive" information. "Sensitive" was not a classification; not a rubber stamp. It was at best an informal description.

I don't know about CIA protocols in the 1960s.

Right off the bat, I guess this document is false, like Oswald's selective service card. But that's a guess.

Forgive for being so blunt, but I can not hang my hat off what anyone assumes to be real or fake, I need a definite answer. This doc does not look as though it went though scrutiny for declassification process which only makes me think this document was either leaked, stolen or removed before classification.

I told folks I was hanging onto information no one has heard of.

I "borrowed" this document from someone in Miami.

Scott

Jim - great review. I am slowly reading the book, patiently not skipping ahead to DeGaulle etc., so it's nice to get a good hint of what is to come. I agree with you that it is strange that no one comments here on the section on DeGaulle, especially considering the stuff most of us already know about the presence of a French assassin in Dallas (Mertz/Soutre) or on Dinkins (do I recall his name right?) who picked up info on the assassination of JFK while monitoring OAS communications. I guess I never realized fully how deep the rift was between JFK and Dulles.

I suspect that some readers here think that Dulles was right about the dangers of Communism, and JFK wrong in his efforts to arrive at peaceful coexistence with the Soviets and in his support for third world nationalist leaders like Lumumba. We will never know what kind of world we would be living in today if Dulles and company had not 'won' the debate.

strange that no one comments here on the section on DeGaulle

I've learned that some folks are blind.

"Its kind of old hat."

Like an old hat, chair or shoe, if it fits.

I am kind of surprised that no one has mentioned what I consider to be really important information, some of it original, in the book that I specifically detailed in the review.

Let me name just a few:

[...]

5. That Bill Harvey was on a plane to Dallas in November from Italy. Which means that the following people were in Dallas either on the day of the assassination or in the weeks leading up to it: Allen Dulles

Allen Dulles

David Phillips

Howard Hunt

Bill Harvey.

Hmm. Maybe they were all Cowboys fans? I doubt it.

[...]

[...]

Because we all know they planned the JFK assassination, so they must have all been together in Dallas when Harvey flew in from Italy?

[...]

sorry, I don't read it quite that way, because Harvey flew in from Italy...

What did those heavyweights find so interesting in Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination?

What did they find? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What did they have? Front row seats.

Where is the logic in Jim DiEugenio's statement?:

"[...] Bill Harvey was on a plane to Dallas in November from Italy. Which means that the following people were in Dallas either on the day of the assassination or in the weeks leading up to it: Allen Dulles

Allen Dulles

David Phillips

Howard Hunt

Bill Harvey."

I'm not saying that it didn't happen. It very well may have. I just don't understand how DiEugenio could automatically arrive at this conclusion.

It seems that Jimbo doesn't know how to use the words }possibly." or "probably" or the phrase "may have."

--Tommy

Well, FWIW.... I have no doubt Hunt was there.

I am kind of surprised that no one has mentioned what I consider to be really important information, some of it original, in the book that I specifically detailed in the review.

Let me name just a few:

[...]

5. That Bill Harvey was on a plane to Dallas in November from Italy. Which means that the following people were in Dallas either on the day of the assassination or in the weeks leading up to it: Allen Dulles

Allen Dulles

David Phillips

Howard Hunt

Bill Harvey.

Hmm. Maybe they were all Cowboys fans? I doubt it.

[...]

[...]

Because we all know they planned the JFK assassination, so they must have all been together in Dallas when Harvey flew in from Italy?

[...]

sorry, I don't read it quite that way, because Harvey flew in from Italy...

What did those heavyweights find so interesting in Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination?

What did they find? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What did they have? Front row seats.