Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 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 Edited December 21, 2015 by Scott Kaiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) It's on "borrowed" time, let's just say... Edited December 21, 2015 by Scott Kaiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Imagine that, the president's assassin traveling back to the USSR? Just one problem, even Castro knew Oswald was NOT in Mexico... Edited December 21, 2015 by Scott Kaiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 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. Scott, Just one quick observation. The text of the document consists of an alleged quote of Fidel Castro, but the high level of the English grammar, syntax, and vocabulary in it would appear to be much better than Castro would have been able to speak it. The proper usage of the pronoun "whom," for example. Jus' sayin'... --Tommy Edited December 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited December 21, 2015 by Scott Kaiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 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.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) 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? Edited December 21, 2015 by Scott Kaiser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now