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

[Mervyn Hagger]

17 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I didn't think Amazon did book contracts. I thought they were just a publish-on-demand service?

Well, I guess your convoluted thoughts are incorrect.

[Douglas Caddy]

13 hours ago, Joseph Backes said:

It's murky. Someone gave it to him.  I think when it was given to Dick Russell was some years before the publication of "The Man Who Knew Too Mush." Well, many people think LHO worked for the CIA or ONI or both when he was in Japan, and people have thought the "defection," to Russia was bogus the second they heard it.  The document seems to support EVERYTHING people think is the real truth of LHO.  So, naturally rational people are skeptical of the doc.  

It should not be used as if it's real until its provenance can be truly ascertained.  And that may never happen. 

Joe

How do you not use the Memorandum "until its provenance can be truly ascertained. And that may never happen" when it appears in Dick Russell's book published years ago? 

[Joseph Backes]

You inform yourself that there is an issue with whether or not the document is real, Douglas.  That's the whole point. People who are ignorant that there is an issue keep finding it and posting it online thinking they are friggin' Sherlock Holmes and are entitled to a parade when they do.  

NARA sent people to try and find it in their collections. They couldn't. They think it's a fake.  

That it was given to Dick Russell and he put it in his book means nothing.  

So, I would advise not using it to base any conclusions on.  

Unfortunately, Robert Groden who thinks it was found once at NARA ( no proof of that ) and now it cannot be means there's something wrong with NARA and not the document. And printed it in his book because he wants it to be true.  

Joe

[Mervyn Hagger]

6 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

How do you not use the Memorandum "until its provenance can be truly ascertained. And that may never happen" when it appears in Dick Russell's book published years ago? 

Just because a myth appeared in a book years ago, does not turn it into a fact. There are many examples of this kind reporting and they even make it on to Wikipedia. When someone comes along and removes it from Wikipedia, a died in the wool true believer comes along and restores it. The ideas of David Von Pein are a classic example. He will not even consider the idea that the two main Kennedy brothers were frauds (which they were.) There is an old saying: "convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still." That's why so many cults and offshoot varieties of religions exist today. You can't destroy a religion and the Kennedy Myth has all the markings of a true religion, but then so do all of the believers who think that there was some massive conspiracy to murder Kennedy. There was a man with a very person grudge who had a lot of money and a lot of power, and there were a lot of people who never told the truth for a variety of reasons, and they included the Kennedy brothers.

[Douglas Caddy]

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Just because a myth appeared in a book years ago, does not turn it into a fact. There are many examples of this kind reporting and they even make it on to Wikipedia. When someone comes along and removes it from Wikipedia, a died in the wool true believer comes along and restores it. The ideas of David Von Pein are a classic example. He will not even consider the idea that the two main Kennedy brothers were frauds (which they were.) There is an old saying: "convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still." That's why so many cults and offshoot varieties of religions exist today. You can't destroy a religion and the Kennedy Myth has all the markings of a true religion, but then so do all of the believers who think that there was some massive conspiracy to murder Kennedy. There was a man with a very person grudge who had a lot of money and a lot of power, and there were a lot of people who never told the truth for a variety of reasons, and they included the Kennedy brothers.

A rational person would say it is permissible to use the Memorandum until it is proven to be fake. To date it has not been proven fake despite the allegations from some persons that it is fake. 

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

Just now, Douglas Caddy said:

A rational person would say it is permissible to use the Memorandum until it is proven to be fake. To date it has not been proven fake despite the allegations from some persons that it is fake. 

 

That is not how courts of law admit evidence, nor is it how classical paintings are accepted as genuine, nor how science accepts claimed discoveries as genuine. According to your suggested way of thinking ,if I wish to claim that Joe Biden is God Almighty, then why should anyone dispute my claim, even if Joe Biden says that he is not God Almighty?

According to Larry Hancock, the document is a fake because it has a fake reference number and because no reputable source has certified that it is genuine. Furthermore, if it was genuine, not only David Von Pein would run from here as fast as he could, but every news agency and news channel would be discussing the document twenty-four hours a day and Congress would be involved in a Special Session trying to determine what both the domestic and international ramifications of this knowledge are. The stock market would immediately crash and a lot of vaunted people would be contemplating whether life was worth living.

[Larry Hancock]

If a document cannot be shown as to its source, its provenance and has internal inconsistencies and issues (as in this case with the numbering system) as well as being challenged by experts (as with this document by NARA) I surely hope that it is received skeptically in a legal venue.  I can guarantee it would be in terms of its historical validity.  If nothing else it should never be presented without the issues being clearly spelled out.

 

 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

49 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

If a document cannot be shown as to its source, its provenance and has internal inconsistencies and issues (as in this case with the numbering system) as well as being challenged by experts (as with this document by NARA) I surely hope that it is received skeptically in a legal venue.  I can guarantee it would be in terms of its historical validity.  If nothing else it should never be presented without the issues being clearly spelled out.

 

 

 

Dick Russell's book was first published in 1993. It appears no one, including forum members who question the Memorandum's authenticity, ever put the question to Dick as to the basis of his decision to display the Memorandum in his book. Thus, it appears that the source of the Memorandum's provenance is his book until shown otherwise.

If experts at NARA challenged the authenticity of the Memorandum as is recounted above, then production here in the forum of credible evidence that they did so would be of tremendous help in resolving the issue of it being a fake.

 

[Larry Hancock]

I suspect Joe will have a response to that Douglas, all I'm going to do is shake my head at the idea of literally accepting and presenting something as true because it cannot be proved to be untrue - and I have already emailed Dick for his comments on source and provenance, no reply yet but that is not unusual given our past exchanges of messages. 

I will also stand by my point that anyone putting forth the document should feel compelled to spell out the issues and challenges so that readers are aware of them.

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

That is not how courts of law admit evidence, nor is it how classical paintings are accepted as genuine, nor how science accepts claimed discoveries as genuine. According to your suggested way of thinking ,if I wish to claim that Joe Biden is God Almighty, then why should anyone dispute my claim, even if Joe Biden says that he is not God Almighty?

According to Larry Hancock, the document is a fake because it has a fake reference number and because no reputable source has certified that it is genuine. Furthermore, if it was genuine, not only David Von Pein would run from here as fast as he could, but every news agency and news channel would be discussing the document twenty-four hours a day and Congress would be involved in a Special Session trying to determine what both the domestic and international ramifications of this knowledge are. The stock market would immediately crash and a lot of vaunted people would be contemplating whether life was worth living.

Evidence is challenged; courts of law call in experts; experts often disagree; ultimately the jury and or judge decide. 

I think that's the argument set forth by Douglas?

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Evidence is challenged; courts of law call in experts; experts often disagree; ultimately the jury and or judge decide. 

I think that's the argument set forth by Douglas?

No, what Douglas is advancing and Larry is disagreeing with (and I agree with Larry), is that evidence that is not kosher is just accepted as the basis for further discussion. No court, no scientist and no auctioneer of fine art would every go along with that idea.

Two issues seem to have become entangled: one is a fake document promoted by Douglas, and two is the lack of proof to show that LHO was a lone gunman who killed JFK. It does not matter if the fake document supports the second issue, the document is still fake but it clouds the real issue which is the second proposition concerning LHO.

[Leslie Sharp]

6 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

No, what Douglas is advancing and Larry is disagreeing with (and I agree with Larry), is that evidence that is not kosher is just accepted as the basis for further discussion. No court, no scientist and no auctioneer of fine art would every go along with that idea.

Two issues seem to have become entangled: one is a fake document promoted by Douglas, and two is the lack of proof to show that LHO was a lone gunman who killed JFK. It does not matter if the fake document supports the second issue, the document is still fake but it clouds the real issue which is the second proposition concerning LHO.

And, as I understand it, Douglas is questioning the authority that insists the document is fake?

I find myself somewhere in the middle: if there are no inconsistencies in the content of the document — not the presentation of that content, but the information itself — should it be discarded? And why is NARA invoked as arbiter in this instance?  I look forward to Dick's clarification.

[Mervyn Hagger]

14 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

And, as I understand it, Douglas is questioning the authority that insists the document is fake?

I find myself somewhere in the middle: if there are no inconsistencies in the content of the document — not the presentation of that content, but the information itself — should it be discarded? And why is NARA invoked as arbiter in this instance?  I look forward to Dick's clarification.

Listen to Larry. Look at the actual document. Note the fake number.

[Leslie Sharp]

6 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Listen to Larry. Look at the actual document. Note the fake number.

I'm waiting to hear from Dick on the question.

I do find the content to be "too pat" to be written or dictated by a director of the CIA; but then McCone was an enigma. Perhaps he realized he was going to be hung out to dry before he could resume his highly lucrative business career?

If you've seen his correspondence with Ike Eisenhower in early December which makes absolutely no mention of the assassination in Dallas just days earlier, you know that McCone AND Ike were playing cards close to the chest.

[Douglas Caddy]

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I suspect Joe will have a response to that Douglas, all I'm going to do is shake my head at the idea of literally accepting and presenting something as true because it cannot be proved to be untrue - and I have already emailed Dick for his comments on source and provenance, no reply yet but that is not unusual given our past exchanges of messages. 

I will also stand by my point that anyone putting forth the document should feel compelled to spell out the issues and challenges so that readers are aware of them.

I shake my head that certain forum members confidently assert that the Memorandum is fake but when asked to produce credible evidence that supports that assertion they cannot to do so.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Douglas Caddy