Operation Mockingbird

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

The article appeared in Penthouse in August 1977. Maybe a member in America can buy a copy and post the article on the Forum.

Just the article, though. No photos necessary!

[John Simkin]

Daniel Brandt of Namebase has kindly sent me Joe Trento's article:

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

As they title suggests, Eddowes argues that JFK was killed by the KGB. I wonder why the CIA and the right-wing extremists were pushing this theory?

But John knows that Joseph Trento, far from a "right-wing extremist", and who, as pointed out above, published an early and seminal article about CIA influence on the media, also believes that the a group within the Politboro (not the KGB itself) orchestrated the assassination.

John has admitted that Trento is an astute investigative reporter. He just thinks that that wily James Angleton was somehow able to dupe him about Soviet involvement in the assassination.

Trento spent hundreds of hours with Angleton and other CIA officers and had unparalled access to documents. He was also able to observe the demeanor of those people who he interviewed.

John, of course, has never interviewed a single CIA officer in his entire lifetime.

Trento has "been there, done that". Not so John Simkin.

The above article is another confirmation of Trento's investigative astuteness and the fact that he has no political agenda, either left or right.

Trento is right. Simkin is wrong in his arm-chair analysis from thousands of miles away. It is that simple.

[Pat Speer]

John wrote:

As they title suggests, Eddowes argues that JFK was killed by the KGB. I wonder why the CIA and the right-wing extremists were pushing this theory?

But John knows that Joseph Trento, far from a "right-wing extremist", and who, as pointed out above, published an early and seminal article about CIA influence on the media, also believes that the a group within the Politboro (not the KGB itself) orchestrated the assassination.

John has admitted that Trento is an astute investigative reporter. He just thinks that that wily James Angleton was somehow able to dupe him about Soviet involvement in the assassination.

Trento spent hundreds of hours with Angleton and other CIA officers and had unparalled access to documents. He was also able to observe the demeanor of those people who he interviewed.

John, of course, has never interviewed a single CIA officer in his entire lifetime.

Trento has "been there, done that". Not so John Simkin.

The above article is another confirmation of Trento's investigative astuteness and the fact that he has no political agenda, either left or right.

Trento is right. Simkin is wrong in his arm-chair analysis from thousands of miles away. It is that simple.

Oh come on, Tim. You know that writers often develop a sympathy for their sources and lose their objectivity. Angleton probably believed his theory. Trento may have been seduced by this belief. You were a lawyer. I'm sure far more lawyers believe their clients are innocent than are actually innocent.

Edited October 28, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

John has admitted that Trento is an astute investigative reporter. He just thinks that that wily James Angleton was somehow able to dupe him about Soviet involvement in the assassination.

Trento spent hundreds of hours with Angleton and other CIA officers and had unparalled access to documents. He was also able to observe the demeanor of those people who he interviewed.

John, of course, has never interviewed a single CIA officer in his entire lifetime.

Trento has "been there, done that". Not so John Simkin.

The above article is another confirmation of Trento's investigative astuteness and the fact that he has no political agenda, either left or right.

Trento is right. Simkin is wrong in his arm-chair analysis from thousands of miles away. It is that simple.

How do you know who I have or have not interviewed? I would have thought it would be clear from my postings that I have some very interesting contacts in intelligence agencies throughout the world.

I see you have not commented on this thread on the CIA document about how Angleton fooled Trento and Epstein (How do you think I got hold of this document?)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5194

Reporters who investigate the CIA fall into several categories. There are those like Edward Epstein, Gerald Posner, Hal Hendrix and Gus Russo who knowingly go along with CIA disinformation in order to further their careers in journalism. There are some like Joe Trento who make genuine mistakes in their interpretation of the evidence. There are others like Bill Kelly, Robin Ramsay and Bill Turner who have consistently got it right.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I would like to see the Cram monograph. I am still trying to get time to investigate Cram. I have been a bit pre-occupied with recovery from Wilma (my house was flooded; a terible mess!).

Since you have seen the monograph, why don't you articulate just how Angleton fooled Trento?

Also, without branding you a xxxx, it is interesting that you will not disclose who your supposed intelligence contacts are. For all we know they are operatives from Communist intelligence agencies. Trento names his sources. You won't. Most curious.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Okay, John, let's cut to the chase:

Do you condemn Soviet disinformation planted in the media?

Is Soviet disinformation worthy of study?

Do you only condemn the CIA and not the KGB?

Would you admit that the KGB regularly employed disinformation in the media and that should be condemned?

If so, why have you failed to point out any of this to your members?

Do you have an agenda which is solely to condemn pro-American (in fact pro-Western) organizations?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John wrote:

How do you know who I have or have not interviewed? I would have thought it would be clear from my postings that I have some very interesting contacts in intelligence agencies throughout the world.

I see you have not commented on this thread on the CIA document about how Angleton fooled Trento and Epstein (How do you think I got hold of this document?)

Now to any fair reader John is implying he has secret intelligence contacts who were able to get him a copy of the Cram monograph. ("How do you think I got hold of this document?" asks John.)

Well I quickly started to research it. The Cram monograph was published in "Studies in Intelligence", the official organ of the CIA. I believe it is available on-line. Time permitting I will try to get a copy myself.

My question to you John is: were you really trying to imply that you only had the Cram monograph because you had a secret intelligence source who provided it to you?

Is this yet another example that people have to be very careful about taking at face value the statements you post? For you surely were citing your access to the Cram document to prove you had some "inside source"!!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I have now VERIFIED that the Cram monograph is available on the Internet.

Is that your secret source, John?

Edited October 28, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Okay, John, let's cut to the chase:

Do you condemn Soviet disinformation planted in the media?

Yes.

Is Soviet disinformation worthy of study?

Yes, but CIA disinformation is more interesting and relevant to understanding the assassination of JFK.

Do you only condemn the CIA and not the KGB?

Anyone who has read the content of my website knows that I am no fan of the KGB.

Would you admit that the KGB regularly employed disinformation in the media and that should be condemned? If so, why have you failed to point out any of this to your members?

I am not aware of KGB disinformation agents in the US media. Maybe you should name them. As you say, my members need to know who they are. I know that the CIA and right-wing fanatics in the 1960s accused early opponents of the Warren Report were KGB agents. Thomas Buchanan, Joachim Joesten, Mark Lane, Donald Freed, Jim Garrison, etc. Are these the people you believe were really KGB agents?

Do you have an agenda which is solely to condemn pro-American (in fact pro-Western) organizations?

My primary interest is in investigating the way that Western intelligiance agencies undermined democractically elected left of centre governments during the 20th century. The assassination of JFK is only a part of this study.

[John Simkin]

The Cram monograph was published in "Studies in Intelligence", the official organ of the CIA. I believe it is available on-line. Time permitting I will try to get a copy myself.

Moles and Molehunters was a CIA internal document that was produced in October, 1993. The Studies in Intelligence was not the official organ of the CIA. You are obviously getting confused with The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). This was established as an in-house think tank in 1975. The CSI was responsible for inservice training and commissioned Moles and Molehunters. The document was declassified on 11th October, 2003, as part of the JFK Act. The document was written by Cleveland C. Cram, Chief of Station in Europe and the Western Hemisphere. He retired in 1992.

The purpose of Cram’s investigation was to discover the sources for 18 books published about the covert activities of the American, British and Canadian intelligence agencies between 1977 and 1992.

Cram pointed out that the first book that caused alarm was Edward Epstein’s book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. It became clear that Epstein had a source from within the CIA. However, he had used this information to write lies about what the CIA had been up to. Cram concluded that Epstein was part of a disinformation campaign. The question was – who was he working for?

Cram discovered that Epstein’s main informant was James Jesus Angleton. Cram established that Epstein was a willing participant of a disinformation campaign being organized by Angleton (two other former CIA agents, Bagley and Miler were also part of this campaign). They were also helped in this by a MI5 agent named Peter Wright. Angleton and Wright both believed that the KGB had reached the upper echelons of both the American and British agencies.

Another source was Clare Petty, who worked for Angleton. The CIA discovered this and he received a warning and came close to being fired. Interestingly, Petty later speculated that Angleton was a KGB agent. This was based on the harm that Angleton’s beliefs had on both the American and British intelligence agencies. Along with Peter Wright, Angleton had argued that top MI5 officials such as Guy Liddell, Victor Rothschild, Roger Hollis and Graham Mitchell, were KGB spies. Ironically, he had never suspected Kim Philby as a spy, in fact they were close friends. The theory goes that it was Philby via Angleton, who seriously damaged MI5 by planting information suggesting that it had been completely infiltrated by the KGB.

There were other authors who were willing to make use of information supplied by Angleton. This includes Widows by Joe Trento and William Corson. Cram rather harshly that this book was not “reputable by even the generally low standards of most counter-intelligence writing”.

Cram points out that some of these journalists had found CIA and FBI insiders to tell the truth about covert activities that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. This included David Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors (1980), David Wise’s Molehunt (1987), Ron Kessler’s Spy v Spy (1988), John Ranelagh’s The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (1988) and Tom Mangold’s Cold Warrior (1991). These authors also interviewed Angleton. However, they also interviewed other CIA officers and discovered he was lying to them.

The document was produced for CIA officers. He even includes a list of books they should and should not read in order to discover what the CIA was up to in the 1960s and 1970s. The books that he tells these officers not to read include the books by Joe Trento and Edward Epstein. Also on this list is Thomas Powers’ The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms (1979). He points out that much of what Powers writes about the CIA is inaccurate.

Cram especially likes Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors. Martin portrays Angleton as “self-centred, ambitious, and paranoid”. Cram points out that Epstein wrote a review of the book in the New York Times that was full of “vituperative comments, loose charges, and what some might consider character assassination” (page 30). Cram believes that Epstein wrote the review on behalf of Angleton.

The major villain in this report is Edward Epstein. Cram, writing about his book, Deception: The Invisible War: “Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest” (page 60).

Cram also likes Tom Mangold’s book on Angleton (Mangold is a much respected investigative journalists in the UK). “It is an honest and accurate book. Mangold’s conclusion is inescapable: something was seriously wrong with CIA counterintelligence under Angleton. Some trait in the man’s character, at once attractive and repulsive – his intellectual arrogance perhaps – apparently led him to make serious misjudgements”. (page 66)

[John Dolva]

The Cram monograph was published in "Studies in Intelligence", the official organ of the CIA. I believe it is available on-line. Time permitting I will try to get a copy myself.

Moles and Molehunters was a CIA internal document that was produced in October, 1993. The Studies in Intelligence was not the official organ of the CIA. You are obviously getting confused with The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). This was established as an in-house think tank in 1975. The CSI was responsible for inservice training and commissioned Moles and Molehunters. The document was declassified on 11th October, 2003, as part of the JFK Act. The document was written by Cleveland C. Cram, Chief of Station in Europe and the Western Hemisphere. He retired in 1992.

The purpose of Cram’s investigation was to discover the sources for 18 books published about the covert activities of the American, British and Canadian intelligence agencies between 1977 and 1992.

Cram pointed out that the first book that caused alarm was Edward Epstein’s book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. It became clear that Epstein had a source from within the CIA. However, he had used this information to write lies about what the CIA had been up to. Cram concluded that Epstein was part of a disinformation campaign. The question was – who was he working for?

Cram discovered that Epstein’s main informant was James Jesus Angleton. Cram established that Epstein was a willing participant of a disinformation campaign being organized by Angleton (two other former CIA agents, Bagley and Miler were also part of this campaign). They were also helped in this by a MI5 agent named Peter Wright. Angleton and Wright both believed that the KGB had reached the upper echelons of both the American and British agencies.

Another source was Clare Petty, who worked for Angleton. The CIA discovered this and he received a warning and came close to being fired. Interestingly, Petty later speculated that Angleton was a KGB agent. This was based on the harm that Angleton’s beliefs had on both the American and British intelligence agencies. Along with Peter Wright, Angleton had argued that top MI5 officials such as Guy Liddell, Victor Rothschild, Roger Hollis and Graham Mitchell, were KGB spies. Ironically, he had never suspected Kim Philby as a spy, in fact they were close friends. The theory goes that it was Philby via Angleton, who seriously damaged MI5 by planting information suggesting that it had been completely infiltrated by the KGB.

There were other authors who were willing to make use of information supplied by Angleton. This includes Widows by Joe Trento and William Corson. Cram rather harshly that this book was not “reputable by even the generally low standards of most counter-intelligence writing”.

Cram points out that some of these journalists had found CIA and FBI insiders to tell the truth about covert activities that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. This included David Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors (1980), David Wise’s Molehunt (1987), Ron Kessler’s Spy v Spy (1988), John Ranelagh’s The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (1988) and Tom Mangold’s Cold Warrior (1991). These authors also interviewed Angleton. However, they also interviewed other CIA officers and discovered he was lying to them.

The document was produced for CIA officers. He even includes a list of books they should and should not read in order to discover what the CIA was up to in the 1960s and 1970s. The books that he tells these officers not to read include the books by Joe Trento and Edward Epstein. Also on this list is Thomas Powers’ The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms (1979). He points out that much of what Powers writes about the CIA is inaccurate.

Cram especially likes Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors. Martin portrays Angleton as “self-centred, ambitious, and paranoid”. Cram points out that Epstein wrote a review of the book in the New York Times that was full of “vituperative comments, loose charges, and what some might consider character assassination” (page 30). Cram believes that Epstein wrote the review on behalf of Angleton.

The major villain in this report is Edward Epstein. Cram, writing about his book, Deception: The Invisible War: “Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest” (page 60).

Cram also likes Tom Mangold’s book on Angleton (Mangold is a much respected investigative journalists in the UK). “It is an honest and accurate book. Mangold’s conclusion is inescapable: something was seriously wrong with CIA counterintelligence under Angleton. Some trait in the man’s character, at once attractive and repulsive – his intellectual arrogance perhaps – apparently led him to make serious misjudgements”. (page 66)

Important information I think. Shortly a movie will appear that may muddy the water. We'll see.

The fact that Angleton was into deception si of course no surprise. When was he being deceptive? Did he have moments of truthtelling?

"Pesci Returns for De Niro's "Shepherd"

Ed Havens over at Filmjerk.com has a scoop that should please fans of the once-prolific and now-retired Joe Pesci: The actor will return to the screen for a "small yet pivotal" role in Robert De Niro's "The Good Shepherd."

"From a screenplay by "Forrest Gump" screenwriter Eric Roth, "The Good Shepherd" tells the mostly true story of James Wilson (a character reported to be based on legendary CIA spymaster James Jesus Angleton, and played in the film by Matt Damon), one of the founding members of the Central Intelligence Agency. Beginning as an scholar at Yale, the film follows Wilson as he is recruited to join the secret Skull and Bones fraternity, a brotherhood and breeding ground for future world leaders, where his acute mind, spotless reputation and sincere belief in the American way of life render him a prime candidate for a career in intelligence."

In addition to old pals De Niro and Pesci, the ensemble cast includes William Hurt, Timothy Hutton, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, Keir Dullea, Michael Gambon, Gabriel Macht, and John Turturro"

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote (replying to my post):

Moles and Molehunters was a CIA internal document that was produced in October, 1993. The Studies in Intelligence was not the official organ of the CIA. You are obviously getting confused with The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). This was established as an in-house think tank in 1975.

John, you are wrong in your facts (as usual!).

"Studies in Intelligence" is the journal of the Center for the Study of Intelligence.

Look at this:

Paul M. Johnson

Director

Center for the Study of Intelligence

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D. C. 20505

The CSI is an official think-tank for the CIA and "Studies in Intelligence" is its "organ". It even bears the CIA seal.

Someday your members will start to understand how often you get your facts wrong. Another more minor example but still an error: you say "God and Man at Yale" was published by Henry Regency. The name is Henry Regnery. A friend of mine at the University of Wisconsin married one of Regnery's grandsons (although I did not know him well). Your posts are so riddled with errors I could spend hours a day trying to correct them. I shall attempt to point out as many as I can. A typographical error is one thing; I obviously makwe them myself (the "make" in this case was just an illustration). But to get an important name wrong is more than a typographical error. It shows at least inattention to detail.

I think members ought to realize that I usually have my facts straight. If I say that a CIA report said, for instance, that Gilberto Lopez was in Texas on November 22, 1963, Robert Charles-Dunne can attempt to disparage the CIA report but I do not believe he could dispute my factual posting. Again, I believe the facts I post are usually correct while yours are really riddled with errors, some more important than others, but all indicating a sloppiness at a minimum.

I wanted the below to be a separate post since it deals with a different issue:

John wrote:

The document was produced for CIA officers. He even includes a list of books they should and should not read in order to discover what the CIA was up to in the 1960s and 1970s. The books that he tells these officers not to read include the books by Joe Trento and Edward Epstein. Also on this list is Thomas Powers’ The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms (1979). He points out that much of what Powers writes about the CIA is inaccurate.

Cram and the CIA did not like Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA" because it is very critical of CIA operations.

Interesting that Cram was producing a list of "blacklisted" authors. I bet the CIA would have loved to have a book-burning of Epstein's books and Trento's.

You may disagree with Trento's scenario of the Kennedy assassination but in my opinion every member of this Forum should read "The Secret History of the CIA".

Edited October 29, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

John wrote (replying to my post):

Moles and Molehunters was a CIA internal document that was produced in October, 1993. The Studies in Intelligence was not the official organ of the CIA. You are obviously getting confused with The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). This was established as an in-house think tank in 1975.

John, you are wrong in your facts (as usual!).

"Studies in Intelligence" is the journal of the Center for the Study of Intelligence.

Look at this:

Paul M. Johnson

Director

Center for the Study of Intelligence

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D. C. 20505

The CSI is an official think-tank for the CIA and "Studies in Intelligence" is its "organ". It even bears the CIA seal.

Someday your members will start to understand how often you get your facts wrong. Another more minor example but still an error: you say "God and Man at Yale" was published by Henry Regency. The name is Henry Regnery. A friend of mine at the University of Wisconsin married one of Regnery's grandsons (although I did not know him well). Your posts are so riddled with errors I could spend hours a day trying to correct them. I shall attempt to point out as many as I can. A typographical error is one thing; I obviously makwe them myself (the "make" in this case was just an illustration). But to get an important name wrong is more than a typographical error. It shows at least inattention to detail.

I think members ought to realize that I usually have my facts straight. If I say that a CIA report said, for instance, that Gilberto Lopez was in Texas on November 22, 1963, Robert Charles-Dunne can attempt to disparage the CIA report but I do not believe he could dispute my factual posting. Again, I believe the facts I post are usually correct while yours are really riddled with errors, some more important than others, but all indicating a sloppiness at a minimum.

I wanted the below to be a separate post since it deals with a different issue:

John wrote:

The document was produced for CIA officers. He even includes a list of books they should and should not read in order to discover what the CIA was up to in the 1960s and 1970s. The books that he tells these officers not to read include the books by Joe Trento and Edward Epstein. Also on this list is Thomas Powers’ The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms (1979). He points out that much of what Powers writes about the CIA is inaccurate.

Cram and the CIA did not like Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA" because it is very critical of CIA operations.

Interesting that Cram was producing a list of "blacklisted" authors. I bet the CIA would have loved to have a book-burning of Epstein's books and Trento's.

You may disagree with Trento's scenario of the Kennedy assassination but in my opinion every member of this Forum should read "The Secret History of the CIA".

Here is the exact passage that appears in the Foreword of this document: “The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI) was established by the CIA in February 1975 as an in-house think tank. The Center’s objectives are to contribute to a broader understanding of the art of intelligence and to assist in defining and analyzing major issues facing the profession.”

The CSI might well be the name of a CIA journal but this is not what this document is. It is a classified document that was produced for senior CIA officers. It even includes Cleveland C. Cram’s home telephone number: 202 966-6548.

Cram’s attacks on Epstein or Trento has nothing to do with the fact they had been critical of the CIA. So had David Martin and Tom Mangold but he is full of praise for their work. His main concern was over the leaked information that had reached these journalists.

If this document is online, put the URL on this thread and then members can read it for themselves. Read it yourself and maybe you will understand it. Then again, maybe you won’t.

[Pat Speer]

What I think needs to be pointed out here is that Angleton was forced out of the CIA and is officially an embarrassing chapter in its history. The vast majority of books by former CIA officers paint him as a paranoid weirdo who did more harm than good. Shackley's is the latest book to say so. The writers who used him as a source were giving a disgraced man the opportunity to redeem himself, so of course he told them what he wanted them to believe. That so many of them came to believe it is not all that surprising. It should be understood by all who read this thread, however, that any book presenting Angleton's views is by nature not pro-CIA, as he resented the CIA for forcing him out, and apparently came to believe he'd been done in by high-placed moles (which is in itself weird because moles live underground.)

Edited October 29, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

May need to post more tomorrow but a quick question:

Is the David Martin who is now an intelligence analyst for CBS news (and was on C-Span today) the same David Martin who wrote "Wilderness of Mirrors"? I would assume so but wonder whether anyone knows for sure.

[John Simkin]

I suppose most members have now read Joe Trento’s article, “The Spies Who Came in From the Newsroom” that appeared in Penthouse in August 1977. The article only concentrates on the Copley News Service. Carl Bernstein’s article that appeared in Rolling Stone in October, 1977 is far more important as it names several journalists and news organizations involved in Operation Mockingbird.

Daniel Brandt has also alerted me to a series of articles written by John M. Crewdson for the New York Times in December 1977 (25th, 26th, 27th). Crewdson goes into great detail and is largely based on interviews with journalists who did or did not, accept the bribes offered by the CIA.

One of those named is William Buckley. Crewdson claims that Buckley was a CIA agent for several years (Buckley claims he worked for them for less than a year). Crewdson also looks at Buckley’s relationship with the publisher Charles Scribner. Does anyone know any more about this?

Crewdson points out that John McCone, Cord Meyer, Richard Helms and William Colby all refused to discuss the CIA’s relationship with the media. Tom Braden was the only CIA officer willing to be named in these articles as a source. Crewdson’s article on the 26th December includes an interesting interview with an unnamed member of the CIA. He points out that the CIA tended to target disillusioned journalists who had a record of being “anti-establishment”.

The CIA mainly worked through well-respected newspapers and journals. In some cases these journals were not financially viable. Therefore, they arranged for these journals to receive funding via a CIA-front (the CIA officer called it a “bogus corporation”). On other occasions this money was given to a wealthy individual who passed it onto the journal. According to the books, the money appeared to be coming from an individual but was in fact coming from the CIA. This is what I think happened to the National Review.

The CIA officer claims that this money “bought a measure of editorial control, often complete control”. Some of these stories were “purposely misleading or downright false”. Although these stories originally appeared in low circulation newspapers and journals, they eventually got picked up by the main news organizations.

I suspect these articles in the New York Times and the ones by Trento (Penthouse) and Bernstein (Rolling Stone) were based on leaks from the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations. I have a copy of this report but it avoids naming names of journalists and media organizations. Three members of the committee, Walter Mondale (Minnesota), Philip Hart (Michigan) and Gary Hart (Colorado), provided an appendix (563-566) where they were highly critical of the activities of the CIA. Frank Church (Idaho), the chairman of the committee, also wrote an appendix (561-62) that also condemned CIA covert activities. This suggests that three Republican members (John Tower, Barry Goldwater and Howard Baker) were unwilling to sign this part of the report (they also wrote an appendix in defence of the CIA). I would not be surprised if it wasn’t Gary Hart who leaked this information.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

If this document is online, put the URL on this thread and then members can read it for themselves. Read it yourself and maybe you will understand it. Then again, maybe you won’t.

What John means, of course, is that maybe I will not agree with it. John apparently believes it is "cute" to insult me. His insults don't bother me, and only lowers my opinion of his professionalism (but I suspect he doesn't care what I think of him). But I suspect others here find his antics are becoming increasingly puerile.

Of course, when I found the Cram article on the Internet last night, I read it. But here is the cite so others can read it:

http://www.cia.gov/csi/kent_csi/Default.htm

Instructions: You need to go into the Electronic Index, then go to "C" and go down a rather long list to find Cram. The monograph is in PDF format.