Can anyone tell me if this doc is real or fake?

[Scott Kaiser]

I "borrowed" this document from someone in Miami.

Scott

[Scott Kaiser]

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

Edited December 20, 2015 by Scott Kaiser

[Jon G. Tidd]

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.

[Scott Kaiser]

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.

[John Dolva]

Looks real bogus to me. Sensitive is hand drawn, line spacing uneven, individual letters too clean on too clean background.

[Brian Schmidt]

Also, McCord was never a Deputy Director.

[Scott Kaiser]

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.

[Scott Kaiser]

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.

[Scott Kaiser]

^Edited.

[John Dolva]

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.

[Scott Kaiser]

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

[Scott Kaiser]

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

[Scott Kaiser]

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?

[Greg Burnham]

FWIW: There's no probative value to the document irrespective of its authenticity, as it lacks substance.

However, I am also quite certain that it is a fake. In addition to the suspect items already mentioned, Guy Banister would not have been referred to as a SA [special Agent] in 1963. He had not been a SA for the FBI since 1954 when he retired. Therefore he would not have been misidentified as an FBI Special Agent in a CIA memo to the Bureau.

Also note that USGOV documents typically use the day/month/year format exclusively. So 6 August is consistent, but August 9 is not. That both are used within the same document and side by side in the same sentence is also suspect.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Thomas Graves]

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

Edited December 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves