Michael Clark

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10111-10008.pdf LCHARVEST I am not seeing a connection to the MFF definition for this crypt.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10107-10130.pdf DRJIBE/1 Not in MFF also, mention is made that no copies can be made of RYBAT-slugged documents, at least by the writer.

Anyone know what this is about, ts significance, or final disposition? Pete Bagely is asked to defend a Colonel who is being dismissed for representing himself as a CIA officer. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10107-10034.pdf

An interesting one regarding Clay Shaw https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10106-10768.pdf

Some CIA documents regarding Garrison investigation ----------------------- Hugh Aynesworth informs Brown (& Root) of implications https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10104-10372.pdf Similar https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10104-10373.pdf ---------------------- https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10104-10311.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10100-10425.pdf DESIGNET. Not in MFF

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10100-10397.pdf LIBELT/1 Not in MFF. LIBELT/1 , an agent assumed terminated when he left Mexico for USA.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10073-10279.pdf MHPASHA. Not in MFF

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10066-10233.pdf WKSCARLET/3 WKTANGO/1 Not in MFF

LNLUTE Not in MFF LNCUFF Not in MFF https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10105-10223.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10121-10087.pdf

When I first started reading the newly released documents I came upon a number of very interesting documents on Ruth Paine. After more research I realized how rare those documents were, in the Collection of recent releases, but I could not find them again I though it would a good idea to open a thread so anyone who comes across a Ruth Paine document can share it here.

It is worth noting that we can, as I do, regard ourselves as conspiracy theorists insofar that we have, at times, theories on the how, why and who aspects of the JFKA. I do not consider it a theory that JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy.

Thanks Ron, From the page that you shared we have this: " Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. I have to disagree. A theory is a theory whether or not it is well supported, and it does not have to have any regard to the natural world. Also theories can can be based on untested or untestable hypotheses. I have always liked this passage from Stephen Hawkinngs' "A Briefer History of Time" " Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory. At least that is what is supposed to happen, but you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation.

Hi Sandy, I had to give this a re-read. When I first read your quote I read it as a "so the story goes" kind of statement. I felt that she was just not heading in that direction for this paper, and she did not have to. On a re-read, and given your statement, I have to agree. Her judgement should not be trusted. I was definitely reading this with an eye towards looking for an alternative The the WW3 virus. I think Angleton's "dimming of the lights" observations are important, most importantly because it speaks to the high level interest and awareness of LHO. I do think that Newman's speculation that JJA had to be the one to do this because he is the only one that could have; because he had the "diabolical" genius to do so; begs for a rigorous vetting. One problem with the theory is that WW3 did not happen; and, in my thinking, a nuclear confrontation with Russia would not have happened over Cuba. Furthermore, a Castro-Communist conspiracy, without an American involved, would have more assuredly prompted a Cuban invasion. The setting-up of LHO as the lone gunman is the very thing that kept an invasion from happening. For those reasons I think that Newman's WW3 conclusion, derived from his very astute and valuable observations and questions about what JJA was up to in the period in question, is just incorrect. So I guess I was reading Best's article looking for support of my hunch that the WW3 virus theory is incorrect, and I think she offered some valuable points to that end. Furthermore, I don't see many (none?) members a researchers posting support for, or incorporating the WW3 virus theory into any other findings. I am pretty sure that I posted a thread when I first joined, asking what people thought of this theory, and I got no replies. Indeed I only received a few questions as to what I was talking about. It seemed to not be on anyone's radar. What is on everyone's radar, however, is that JJA was the diabolical mastermind behind the assassination. I tentatively assume that this is in large part due to John Newman. If it is not correct, if it is not true, then we have a real impedement to reaching our whodunnit answers. Reearchers have great deal of power, sometimes. Newman definitely does, and Emma Best points this out in her article. It is important to be careful about what we accept as truth. I am certainly more credulous than your average CT'er. So I'll repeat once more that Newman's findings and observations are invaluable. I think that his admittedly speculative conclusion is incorrect and is perhaps doing quite a bit of damage; at least as far as this theory has any traction, I don't see it being very popular or important accept for the position it plays in the damning of JJA.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10172-10218.pdf POGIANT Not in MFF. Re: AELADLE (Golitsyn)

QJWIN Expenses are, in the future, to be addressed to the CIA Chief of Foreign Intelligence Division. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10185-10428.pdf

I missed a couple from this doc: LNLUTE. Not in MFF AMQUAKE/1 Not in MFF

Let's see if we can get Greg Burnham to weigh in on this. It seems that Jim and Greg have different takes on this. I have been following Greg's line on this, as I understand it. Jim's take is sparse on detail, here anyway.

FBI monitoring LHO in NOLA https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32261286.pdf

More on Yaras https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32260976.pdf

I don't think Resident Trump believes his own BS. I am not giving him credit for being enlightened in any way and certainly not for. having an understanding of enlightened self-interest. He is simply aware that he can be the benefactor of of certain lines of disinformation, and a he has a gift for creating such garbage on the spot. Calling his Chinese-climat-hoax a "theory" is giving him too much credit. He is simply a calculating advantage seeker who is in tune with the garbage that has been sewn into the Howard Stern youth and the the Rush Limbaugh elderly. Truth matters nothing to him. Likewise, I am sure that Trump knows full well that the government line on the JFKA is bunk, and he will use that to his advantage one way or another. We can take advantage of that, if we were not so blinded by our contempt for him. His base has no interest in maintaining the myth of the JFKA. Resident Trump would let the cat out of the bag if he perceived a wide ranging receivership. I think that wa all know that most Americans know that we have been lied to. That is a majority of people that would give thanks if he were able to end the lies. Unfortunately, the contempt for him is so great that even if he were to offer exactly what we wanted, we are so blinded by our hate that we would reject it simply because it came from him. I am fascinated by the power of language. I believe that radical paradigm-shifts can be made if we were open to it. I think that John Newman's owning of the term CT needs more people to join him in accepting, owning and, indeed, loving the term. Black people have learned to do this with the word "n". It is only a partial transformation, however, because only they can use it. It seems like a hollow victory, to me, but they accept it. I think it can be brought to fulfillment, with great speed, if we willing to do something about it. For example, let's say that we petitioned, successfully, the Department of Agriculture, or whichever department controls the satandards of weights and measures, to change the name of a " gallon" to a "n". How long will it take for the sting and dark magic of that word to just disappear? I think it could happen quite quickly. It would be kind of amusing. It would also be quite enlightening to experience such a radical language transformation. So, I think, in a similar sense, we can, and perhaps should, like John Newman, take the sting out of that word by owning it and using it. I don't insist on this. I will follow the flow if the consensus is not to use it; but I think we probably should.

I don’t really care for it, but I am trying to own it. When I first watched a couple of John Newman videos I found at least one where he introduced him self as such, saying “Hi. I’m John Newman; and I’m a Conspiracy Theorist”. Since then, I have tried to own it.

Yup, I forgot about that intro at the beginning. Yet our theories stand or fall on their merits, and the article wasn't, as a whole, an attack on conspiracy theorists and researchers. I am also not saying that she discredited Newman's theory. I wail say that it didn't strike me as a poor hack-job though. I am still interested in commentary on the nuts and bolts of the article.

David Von Pein, is Bud your pseudonym for “Bud”? Is Francois Bud?