1964 Memorandum from John McCone, Director, CIA re: Oswald

[Douglas Caddy]

41 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

But according to Larry Hancock even the title of this thread is incorrect and totally misleading.

It is not about Facebook but whether the document is a fake.

Really? Larry thinks my title of this thread is incorrect and totally misleading. My title is "1964 Memorandum from John McCone, Director, CIA Re: Oswald."

Here is the first sentence of the CIA Director's Memorandum: "In response to the request from your office on 24 February 1964 re: Lee Oswald's activities and assignments on behalf of this agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there follows a narrative summary of the internal subversive activities of the subject Oswald."

How is my title of this thread incorrect and totally misleading? You can confer with Larry in drafting your reply.

[Larry Hancock]

Douglas, I have no way to retrieve the contacts we had with NARA almost two decades ago,  we all thought the issue had been dealt with at the time - as  you can see in the article Cory posted.

Joe Backus may be able to add some corroboration - as I recall he was independently  involved at the time as well.

I'm afraid I have to leave it at that, its certainly not something I'm going to invest any more time in at this late date and as I've observed, people who want to believe it will, regardless.  Very much  like the Majestic 12 documents in another venue.

 

[Larry Hancock]

OK, so I could not help myself...the following provides some excellent backstory on issues with the memo and those who were involved with evaluating it...as well as its origins as best that could be determined and even my own comments back in 2004...longer than I had even thought.

http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com/2005/09/

 

 

[Gerry Down]

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'm afraid I need to remember to keep my remarks in context as respect to time....I've been on the forum here since its inception and before that was active on the CompuServe JFK forum beginning around 1993.  That's probably way to much history and makes my use of "before" a conditional statement, relevant to way too many years....

Happy 30th anniversary of posting on JFK assassination forums! 😀

FWIW, the alledged McCone document was reprinted in full in Grodens 2013 book "JFK Absolute Proof" on pages 5 to 7. The same passages of the document highlighted in yellow in the opening post of this thread are also highlighted in yellow in Grodens book which makes it possible the document in the opening post of this thread was sourced (ie scanned) directly from Grodens book.

[Gerry Down]

From Grodens book:

 

[Joseph Backes]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

OK, so I could not help myself...the following provides some excellent backstory on issues with the memo and those who were involved with evaluating it...as well as its origins as best that could be determined and even my own comments back in 2004...longer than I had even thought.

http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com/2005/09/

 

 

Thanks Larry for posting the site with my comments on this.  

I drove down to Archives II from Albany as soon as I heard of this doc.  A RIF # given to me for it did not match it at all.  NARA tried to find it in the Collection and they are of the opinion it is a fake.  The Classified stamp was put upon it by Dick Russell and not by anyone in the intel community.  That stamp is the biggest red flag.  I ran into Malcolm Blunt when I got to Arcchives II and I showed him my copy of it.  We both knew the stamp was definitely questionable and not anything like it on any doc we've ever seen.

It's provenance cannot be ascertained.

Robert Gordon unfortunately clings to it thinking it's real.  

I don't think it is real.  But It has not been 100% proven to be a fake as fas as I know.

Joe

Edited August 21, 2023 by Joseph Backes

[Douglas Caddy]

37 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

From Grodens book:

 

So, the question is whether Groden himself highlighted the paragraphs in yellow or whether he copied the document from a prior source where it was already highlighted in yellow. 

[Gerry Down]

6 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

So, the question is whether Groden himself highlighted the paragraphs in yellow or whether he copied the document from a prior source where it was already highlighted in yellow. 

Well whoever highlighted it, it wasn't John McCone 😀

[Douglas Caddy]

Just now, Gerry Down said:

Well whoever highlighted it, it wasn't John McCone 😀

Agreed. 

[Douglas Caddy]

I am sending this thread to Mark Mueller, the Austin attorney who posted it on Facebook yesterday, for his analysis and commentary.  Mark is a well-known lawyer who has a well-earned reputation of only dealing with facts. He constantly surprises me with information on a variety of important topics that provides a look behind the curtain as to what the particular controversial matter is really about.

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I remember a number of discussions of this memo over the years. I remember a few of us going through it in detail on at least one occasion and deciding that it just plain stinks, i.e. it presents info in a way that just isn't credible. As I recall this came out around the same time as the Operation Zipper docs. 

Well, hell, just think of all the new documents on the way, many if not most created by artificial intelligence. Yippee!!! "Hey, Siri, create a document in the fashion of CIA documents from 1964, and have it say Lyndon Johnson ordered JFK's assassination. No, disregard. Hey, Siri, search the internet for an actual document discussing an operation approved during JFK's era that ends on an incomplete page, and then add a paragraph written in the same font in the blank space reading as follows: "Note: The actions described above have been approved by Vice-President Johnson, and will only become operational should he become President by November 24, 1963." 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Douglas Caddy]

I found the Memorandum persuasive in filling out who Oswald really was. It strengthened my belief that he was a patsy in the assassination of JFK and had been moved around for years like a piece on a chess board by the CIA. He may have had slight inklings of what the CIA was doing to him but not enough to back out of what the agency had planned for him on 11/22. After Kennedy's murder, he quickly put all the dots together and got the whole picture. Too late. He was marked for assassination, too.

As I have written in my forthcoming book, In the First Hour of Watergate, the CIA moved me around in the three months before June 17, 1972, without my knowing it. I had the feeling that I was being moved around like a piece on a chess board, but it was not until later that I realized that the CIA was doing it. The CIA routinely uses persons without their knowing it as part of a master plan the CIA has for a specific operation. 

Because of what happened to me in Watergate, I can identify with Oswald in what happened to him in the JFK assassination.

[Pat Speer]

Certain phrases stand out..."under wraps" "minor assignments" and so on, that sound like something a CT would say, but not like something the head of the CIA would say. 

But even beyond that, the whole idea of the document defies common sense. Would MCCone have been told the whole story? And would he have taken notes on what he'd been told or read? To the extent he could recount it in a memo to Rowley? That's highly doubtful, IMO. IF Rowley had in fact expressed an interest in Oswald, and had asked McCone to tell him the truth, it seems highly likely McCone would have sent someone--probably Helms--to meet with Rowley and bring him into the loop. Putting this stuff down in a memo, and then sending this memo to another agency, just doesn't pass the smell test, IMO. As I recall, the bigwigs did not do their own typing. Well, this means that, if the memo is real, McCone brought a typist--a secretary--into the loop. Well, why? When he could have just called up Rowley and told him this stuff over the phone, or in person, or have someone else already in the loop tell him in person. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

The biggest flaw in this entire discussion put forward by Douglas, is that it was forward by Douglas and that he did so only a few hours ago after seeing something on Facebook.

If there was any merit to any of Douglas' speculative claims it would be wall-to-wall coverage on TV news channels around the world and demands would be ringing out loud and clear from DC for an emergency hearing into this matter.

But this document did not first appear hours ago, it appeared years ago. It was debunked back then when someone noticed that the numerals on the document had been lifted from a genuine document unrelated to this forgery.

Larry Hancock put this issue back in the rubbish bin where it belongs.

It is time for Douglas to say "Oops!"

[Gerry Down]

14 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

I found the Memorandum persuasive in filling out who Oswald really was. It strengthened my belief that he was a patsy in the assassination of JFK and had been moved around for years like a piece on a chess board by the CIA. He may have had slight inklings of what the CIA was doing to him but not enough to back out of what the agency had planned for him on 11/22. After Kennedy's murder, he quickly put all the dots together and got the whole picture. Too late. He was marked for assassination, too.

As I have written in my forthcoming book, In the First Hour of Watergate, the CIA moved me around in the three months before June 17, 1972, without my knowing it. I had the feeling that I was being moved around like a piece on a chess board, but it was not until later that I realized that the CIA was doing it. The CIA routinely uses persons without their knowing it as part of a master plan the CIA has for a specific operation. 

Because of what happened to me in Watergate, I can identify with Oswald in what happened to him in the JFK assassination.

Sounds like an interesting book you have in the works. Hopefully you will start a thread on it when it gets released and give us a run down of your story.