Search found 1 match for 19036

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

Can someone be right for the wrong reasons.
Best to be correct.

Here is Backes Sep-18-04

#19036, "Beware of LHO document of unknown origin

"Over the weekend of September 11th-12th a document, purportedly from John McCone, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to James J. Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service giving remarkable information on Lee Harvey Oswald's background was widely circulated. DO NOT ASSUME THIS DOCUMENT IS REAL. It's authenticity is an open question. DO NOT CONTACT ARCHIVES II ASKING FOR IT. THEY ARE OF THE OPINION IT DOES NOT EXIST IN ARCHIVES II. IT MAY BE A HOAX. ...

The LHO document, might be fake, might not be a fake. It's provenance is certainly in question.I got this over that weekend, as a one page scan. Then I got the 3 pager version. I went to Archives II on Monday September 13th and discovered the RIF# given, 121-10002-10136, did not match this document. The RIF# given was most likely associated with this document through a simple search of the JFK database by inputting the number "CO-2-34, 030" seen on page one which will give you 3 hits. You think great! The 3rd one looks like it should match.But, no. It's not.I thought I was given a document with a RIF#. If this was correct I had to see the original in Archives II. The RIF# given did not match the document. That is all I was able to discover. No one should go off and denounce it as fake based solely on that, or being even more lazy cry it's fake based solely on looking at it.BTW, I was the only one inquiring about it on Monday. There were only 3 people looking at JFK records that day. Malcolm Blunt, myself, and Patricia Lambert. I was the only one looking for this particular document that day. The document raises several interesting questions. I want to focus on a question that has nothing to do with the content of the document."

Likewise a failed debunking by an amateur researcher does not help.
If that debunkings claims do not hold up to examination.
Backes comes closest to actually debunking it.