FBI CENTRAL RECORDS SYSTEM CLASSIFICATIONS

[William Plumlee]

deleted

Edited November 3, 2006 by William Plumlee

[William Plumlee]

[quote

Edited December 29, 2007 by William Plumlee

[John Dolva]

Looking at documents as images:

The lower part where there are a lot of little squiggles, dots and signatures. Apart from a few differences they are almost exactly the same, indicating the base paper are photocopies onto which the text is typed and then various differences are introduced and similarities masked with ink (which are in themselves rather different from the usual redactions in that one can almost see the text behind)

IMO not only fakes, but poor ones at that.

checking by placing one on top of the other indicates they are photocopies of one image.

(image)

example:: lower part doc1 -transparent- over doc2, and a smaller section with the differences as color blue. See how the signatures are exactly the same, similarly a large part of the redaction has exactly the same border. One has simply a little bit extra added to it.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Great work, John.

[William Plumlee]

[quote

Edited December 29, 2007 by William Plumlee

[Wim Dankbaar]

No suprise that Mark Valenti calls this "great work" . Tosh had already pointed this out. And I and others knew long ago that some of the stamps and paragraphs are exactly the same on both documents. In fact I have a third document with exactly the same stamps on the bottom.

What does this prove? It only proves that someone has made copies of these documents with additional copies of stamps on it. Most likely the same administrative amateur that authored the documents and made the mistake of placing Bonao in Paraguay, instead of the Dominican Republic.

Now, tell me folks! Do you you really believe that Files or any hoax would be so stupid to do that? Or do you think it's more likely it was done by a nitwit within the ATF that sent the docs to Files on his request, to make the docs look more genuine. It's the information in there that counts. Nobody is going to tell me that that information is not genuine.

Here' s what Files says himself about these docs:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/jimmyd.wmv

Wim

[Guest Mark Valenti]

No suprise that Mark Valenti calls this "great work" .

And really great work would be you sharing citations for your claim that Dallas cops believed the tramps were with the ATF.

[Dave Weaver]

Looking at documents as images:

The lower part where there are a lot of little squiggles, dots and signatures. Apart from a few differences they are almost exactly the same, indicating the base paper are photocopies onto which the text is typed and then various differences are introduced and similarities masked with ink (which are in themselves rather different from the usual redactions in that one can almost see the text behind)

IMO not only fakes, but poor ones at that.

checking by placing one on top of the other indicates they are photocopies of one image.

(image)

example:: lower part doc1 -transparent- over doc2, and a smaller section with the differences as color blue. See how the signatures are exactly the same, similarly a large part of the redaction has exactly the same border. One has simply a little bit extra added to it.

Another document IMO I think should be looked at closley:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/armyserial.JPG

I do not see the above as an "official valid document". IMO this document has also been tampered with by parties unknown. It appears, the letterhead and body that this information has been written on indicates it is from an "Escort and dating Service" which was in bussiness in the year 1995 as per partial address and location found as part of letterhead.

The Army information and address of that of the reviewer, seems to have been copied onto this page and then the information written in body of document. Testing appears to show the signed signature has been transposed onto this letter stock as seen by "microscopic grain layer behind the ink of the signature". The hidden paper stock is the same stock as that found on the "Airborn text" as address of signer of questionable document.

(FBI Lab report dated June 5, 1997 referenced file number #213-xxxx-19) FAG- Fraud Against the Government; reference; FBI Central Records System; DoJ. Classifications., No charges were filed by the FBI as this was consider a private matter and was not an altered Federal document, therefore no action was instigated.

Document Two: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/armyhistory.JPG

This document also appears to be nothing more than statements made by the researcher to appear like an official document; like it came from an official source. There are no references as to verifie the information contained in this document. All we have is the statements with no hard copy back up or documentation to confirm the document..

I also have to question the motive behind these documents and their value as to the research into the JFK assassination.

Tosh, these documents are of course not official ones, they are a summary made eventualy the former presenter himself.

I do not think those documents were intented as a forgery, but more as a summary of what Grady's finding

and Files known (realy ?) military past at that time was.

Wim, did you think the Grady document in that form is the original ?

I have to look if I saved the two (or more) original documents, but I think you also have them in the papers you got from Vernon.

Maybe you mailed them to me some months ago even, or last year, I can't remember 100%.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Dave Weaver

[William Plumlee]

[quote

Edited December 29, 2007 by William Plumlee

[Dave Weaver]

Looking at documents as images:

The lower part where there are a lot of little squiggles, dots and signatures. Apart from a few differences they are almost exactly the same, indicating the base paper are photocopies onto which the text is typed and then various differences are introduced and similarities masked with ink (which are in themselves rather different from the usual redactions in that one can almost see the text behind)

IMO not only fakes, but poor ones at that.

checking by placing one on top of the other indicates they are photocopies of one image.

(image)

example:: lower part doc1 -transparent- over doc2, and a smaller section with the differences as color blue. See how the signatures are exactly the same, similarly a large part of the redaction has exactly the same border. One has simply a little bit extra added to it.

Another document IMO I think should be looked at closley:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/armyserial.JPG

I do not see the above as an "official valid document". IMO this document has also been tampered with by parties unknown. It appears, the letterhead and body that this information has been written on indicates it is from an "Escort and dating Service" which was in bussiness in the year 1995 as per partial address and location found as part of letterhead.

The Army information and address of that of the reviewer, seems to have been copied onto this page and then the information written in body of document. Testing appears to show the signed signature has been transposed onto this letter stock as seen by "microscopic grain layer behind the ink of the signature". The hidden paper stock is the same stock as that found on the "Airborn text" as address of signer of questionable document.

(FBI Lab report dated June 5, 1997 referenced file number #213-xxxx-19) FAG- Fraud Against the Government; reference; FBI Central Records System; DoJ. Classifications., No charges were filed by the FBI as this was consider a private matter and was not an altered Federal document, therefore no action was instigated.

Document Two: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/armyhistory.JPG

This document also appears to be nothing more than statements made by the researcher to appear like an official document; like it came from an official source. There are no references as to verifie the information contained in this document. All we have is the statements with no hard copy back up or documentation to confirm the document..

I also have to question the motive behind these documents and their value as to the research into the JFK assassination.

Tosh, these documents are of course not official ones, they are a summary made eventualy the former presenter himself.

I do not think those documents were intented as a forgery, but more as a summary of what Grady's finding

and Files known (realy ?) military past at that time was.

Wim, did you think the Grady document in that form is the original ?

I have to look if I saved the two (or more) original documents, but I think you also have them in the papers you got from Vernon.

Maybe you mailed them to me some months ago even, or last year, I can't remember 100%.

I think Wim is an honorable man. I do think he got caught up in a "Con" perhaps I should have made this more clear to him earlier.

The reason I question the Grady letter? I do not think the body of information found in the letter is from Grady or written by Grady. I think parts of a letter from Grady has been transposed onto the body of another letter or letterhead to appear the letter that supports Files military claims is real. If you look closley the width of the stationary is wider than the standard 8x11. A researcher I know, who recently passed away, has the FBI documentation into the FBI's FAG investigation of 1996, I think it was. Source two tried to sell the story to a person in California and that person turned it over to the DoJ which assigned it to the FBI for investigation. The California buyer withdrew fron the deal. Most all the early information given to the third source came from the second source after he obtained most of the early story from the first source.

I question the "contamination of evidence" from the second source in order to intice the third source to buy his product; which he did.

If you notice in the upper part of the letterhead, from Grady, it has a partial horizonal line and too it overlaps into the body of the other leterhead. This indicates to me it was "pasted or taped". IMO this letter was written by Grady, in reply to a question from the researcher. (1st or 2nd source) Then persons unknown transposed the two to confirm the military ID number as being confirmed as as member of; not only the army, but an 82nd Airborn member as well as 101st. I have yet to see an airborn member taking basic jump school at two places the 82nd airborn and the 101st. (Brag and Benning) and that person cannot be found on the rolls at either place.

I was told years ago (by the second source) when I questioned this, that Gardy had had confirmed in writing and told this verbal to the second source and I could call Grady if I wanted. I was given the number but it was a disconnect. However, none of that is important now. I feel the documentation that source three obtained from source one and two, should be confirmed and not be presented as facts or considered factual because someone who wanted to sell a product said its true.

Tosh, what I was trying to say is, that I have seen the two or three orignial letters who were

copied into the one we are talking about.

That was done pre- Wim, and I too do not think Wim does forgeries.

Sadly Wim has switched back to unfriendly mode toward me, you know yourself how he is.

So, I don't know if I have saved the originals on one of my harddrives, but I sure have seen

them, because I noticed the same as you did, when I first saw the document we are talking about.

Have to go and look for it.

If you notice in the other thread about Files serial number, Wim still claims that the Grady number

is the number you came up with the CPL. and I with a James E. Files.

I think that is wrong.

THe CPL. you found not with that number, but with the first one that was given to you from Vernon or West.

Please can you clarify that again, it gets boring to see Wim jumping on the wrong waggon.

Thank you.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Dave Weaver

[William Plumlee]

[quote

Edited December 29, 2007 by William Plumlee

[John Dolva]

Wim, before cutting and pasting the text to my post, I had that the person who faked the documents was either lazy or stupid, I also thought of adding contemptuous of the research community. It seemed a bit 'rude' so I excised it. I agree with you : 'a nitwit'. Either that or 'they' had a few too many.

It's a worry that such documents are promoted as 'proof' for anything. In this case it only further casts doubt on File's story, which to my mind reads as just that anyway, a story. I'm open to be shown otherwise. These documents don't.

The origin of the story may not simply be JE Files. The James A. Files I posted some on in the other thread was one of the major segregationists of the time. If that is the same family, it could provide a clue to 'why'. Just another major distraction.

I'm inclined to regard the assassins as a bunch of 'nitwits' whose only cleverness lies in obfuscation. With the right filter they may very well stand out like sore thumb. It could just be a matter of choice on the part of researchers.

_________________

With regards to this thread. William has provided useful information. My contibution is as someone interested in imagery, and how software (in this instance, layering, transparencies, difference analysis) etc is a useful tool as well.

William perhaps a business card, not letterhead? The top edge ("a partial horizonal line") covering some lettering, the left edge coinciding with the edge of a cut/paste.

(image)

[Shanet Clark]

Tosh

Good Work.

The BV material is false.

Shanet

>>>...>>>...>>>...

[Wim Dankbaar]

Uwe said:

Wim, did you think the Grady document in that form is the original ?

I can't determine if that's the original letter or a copy. But I am sure Grady wrote the letter and nothing was added or deleted as some suggest here. I am sure because I have other letters of Grady to Files.

Tosh said:

I think Wim is an honorable man. I do think he got caught up in a "Con" perhaps I should have made this more clear to him earlier.

I say: You're full of it, Tosh. If you think I am an honorable man, then why did you say I am a "con in it for the $$$$'?

And why did you not say Files is a con in the Marrs interview, when you also had all the information you claim to have now?