In alpha order but not necessarily alpha male order, Alan Ford, Brian Doyle, Robert Groden - TIME TO GET EXCITED!

Thu 21 Dec 2023, 2:55 pm

First topic message reminder :

The long story short:

A previously unknown / unmentioned employee of the TSBD saw Oswald getting changed after the assassination!

It is true! I read it document!

Okay okay. So further investigation uncovered that she actually worked in the Dal Tex building, not the TSDB as claimed for the informant and that she denied ever saying anything about seeing anyone get changed, insisting it was a rumor someone started.

But let's not let any of the minutia get in the way of good conspiracy fodder!

Goddamit Alan. You need this for your Oswald got changed into his militant-protester-garb theory. Groden - you love imaginary employees of the building. Here, I am handing Ms. X to you on platter! And old mate Brian... he can turn anything into anything - a true alchemist!
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95643#relPageId=230

Personally, I'd be happy to go with her seeing someone change in the Dal Tex, since usually such rumors are usually based on some bit of actual fact.

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 11:42 pm

Ed.Ledoux wrote:No worries,, I had a feeling the goal.posts would shift.
and what number should be on it for the CIA or SS to reference?
Do you have another CIA McCone to Rowley memo from say ...24 February 1964... or in early 1964 to show its inconsistent?

If we are to be exact about why its fake we cant just willy nilly facts,. a higher standard exists than gut reactions and one document examined experts telling you its fake for all the wrong reasons.
Then you or whomever repeats this and they dont sound very convincing when questioned as to why.
Even Jose agrees with that.
But exactly whos copy is THIS memo, SS or CIA

There is certainly a validation of how some researchers carefully review the evidence in a balanced manner as opposed to jumping at sketchy evidence at best and drawing conclusions.,

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.
That does not mean researching with eyes shut to this memos existence(not provenance).

As a note think of those Hoover memos that self incriminate, or sound whacky and therefore must be a hoax!... except they aint.
Doesnt make this real.
Honestly your reply though sounds like cia never lies or plays tricks. Why is it incriminating anymore than anything else the spooks have been caught at.
Such a weighted average no wonder you give ghost agencies a passing grade.
First tell me something about the memo that certainly cant be argued against.
What is fake though exactly?
Number doesnt make the case though. Might be odd irregular or completely appropriate you can't show me. It is on every other secret service document for the JFK case as it's their file number. If you're gonna send a memo you'd want it to go into a certain section, So anything coming across the desk w/that #, boom goes to the director.
I'm sure you're familiar with eyes only memos.
Are those self incriminating?

People going to scifs everyday and are shown documents, read documents or love to see documents. And then they leave the scif for the library or wherever they're at. And then they go do whatever they want. But the library or the scif forever will disavow what they say. Because that's what it's all about. It's about keeping the documents secret. Maybe you can share some information about stuff that you learn. But you can't really share the document can you.
So of course, somebody maybe faked it from a real document, of course, or else it was faked from real to make a real event and document discredited at the drop of a hat
Well till a Dick Russell revival discovers the unstamped version at Nara in the bottom of file box marked in government stencils: CIA - SHHH, SECRETS

Im thinking the only gun that was s m o k e d was adler's

well i'm gonna get out with everything's possible till it isnt

Ed,
This is all totally fair. I completely agree with you about carefully researching evidence before making some kind of declaration as to a document's authenticity. In that sense I was mistaken when I so confidently declared the document a hoax. I strongly believe the document is a hoax. I was bringing it up in the context of Groden, who I believe is no longer to be trusted on certain matters. I would certainly not write a book and use the memo as justification of anything, which I think you would agree with, until I was quite sure that I could prove it's authenticity beyond a reasonable doubt. But, in any case you are correct, nothing I have shown is definitive proof one way or another. I was mistaken about the Secret Service number, you are correct: it looks retyped, not photoshopped. I still think the number is a good reason to harbor doubts, as is my point about the document being so obviously revelatory. You are right in that we do have some documents where key individuals are relatively "out in the open" with certain information, such as Hoover as you say above. But to this level? I'm not so sure. "Oswald subject was trained by this agency, under the cover of ONI". Really? It doesn't pass my smell test (reminds me a lot of a certain monsieur Lafitte). Also, I will push back on your claim that "the document seems to support everything people think is the real truth of LHO". It claims for example that Oswald trained at Camp Peary between Sept and Oct 1958, which I don't believe to be possible.

In any case, I accept your criticism of moving the goalposts. None of this is definitive one way or another. Were I to approach this from a research perspective, I wouldn't be so confident about declaring the document a hoax, I would have applied a much higher standard to judge it by, which you have obviously already done. So I do agree with you.

But I still think the document is complete BS, and so does Jose

Cheers,
Miles

Sat 30 Dec 2023, 6:58 am

Yes fake as three dollar bill.
Its fun watching though.

How its examined and proven to be fake is the whole show.
So far its been a lot of fake debunking.
Backes did serious leg work to prove it one way or another, and his efforts come the closest to providing that proof.
Crap is crap, both fake crap and the crap trying to pass itself off as de-crap.
I call em as I see em.
And Garrick is covered in it.

Sat 30 Dec 2023, 12:19 pm

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Yes fake as three dollar bill.
Its fun watching though.

How its examined and proven to be fake is the whole show.
So far its been a lot of fake debunking.
Backes did serious leg work to prove it one way or another, and his efforts come the closest to providing that proof.
Crap is crap, both fake crap and the crap trying to pass itself off as de-crap.
I call em as I see em.
And Garrick is covered in it.

Absolutely, crap is crap.

But for me, it comes down to the old adages of "consider the source" and "if it waddles like a duck..."

Now if the original is suddenly found in the archives, it's game back on - despite having the same reservations as others - that this is not the type of material that is ever going to be committed to paper - and especially not to another agency.

In alpha order but not necessarily alpha male order, Alan Ford, Brian Doyle, Robert Groden - TIME TO GET EXCITED!

In alpha order but not necessarily alpha male order, Alan Ford, Brian Doyle, Robert Groden - TIME TO GET EXCITED!

Re: In alpha order but not necessarily alpha male order, Alan Ford, Brian Doyle, Robert Groden - TIME TO GET EXCITED!

Re: In alpha order but not necessarily alpha male order, Alan Ford, Brian Doyle, Robert Groden - TIME TO GET EXCITED!

Re: In alpha order but not necessarily alpha male order, Alan Ford, Brian Doyle, Robert Groden - TIME TO GET EXCITED!

Re: In alpha order but not necessarily alpha male order, Alan Ford, Brian Doyle, Robert Groden - TIME TO GET EXCITED!