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

Began reading, started off titillating, the maid watching someone undressing, then the name ... Gloria Pigg.

Hopefully it gets better.

Are you referring to Groden's fake Mrs Reid?

Don't forget Groden's fake autopsy photo that he passed off as legitimate in his most recent book ...

He may started out with good intentions but turned rogue along the way. Very sad.

Groden called the McCabe-Rowley document in his last book the "smoking gun" document. It has been proven a forgery for some time now. Sadly he has fallen a long ways and essentially become a fraud.

Can you post the doc CastroSimp?

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Can you post the doc CastroSimp?

You mean the McCone-Rowley document? Sure. It is a hoax document that purports to tell Oswald's CIA connection. (I called it McCabe above mistakenly for some reason). Here is the doc: https://rense.com/general62/oswald.htm

Here is a decent article debunking it:https://steemit.com/news/@garrickalder/garrick-alder-mccone-rowley-fake-memo-lee-harvey-oswald-published-02-july-2018

Oh right McCone.

Backes on the doc:

Given a RIF number and this corroboration it seemed like a serious find even given some issues with the contents. While we were doing that various individuals began nay saying it based on content, form, logic and PhotoShop analysis - representing that it was a clear cut and paste job (which by the way is denied by others; the issue of the Confidential stamp also seems to be cleared up by Moore's comment about putting it on himself?). "By the way, I asked Moore about the Confidential stamp. He says it was not on the original document. He added it, as he said he did to other material in his office at the tabloid, I suppose to say hands-off to his office mates." As to a second source, James Richards states he got the document several years ago from a private source making no claims for it but Jamie's impression given his knowledge of the source was that it may well have been created as Agency disinformation at some point and never actually used for that intended purpose. James claims not to have posted it this last week until their was active discussion about it and also states that his version does not have the yellow highlights. Bill Miller claims he took his three page copy from James posting. I claim simply to be clueless. At this point I have questions in to Cheslock inquiring as to why he has stated to various people that he believed it was a document on file at NARA and on where the RIF number originated. I have similar questions to Dick Russell. I agree with your analysis that the document could very well exist in the records; I also feel that it could either be a) real , b) real with intentional defects to make it deniable and c) a very well prepared disinformation piece with intentional defects which could have been used to divert or obfuscate an earlier investigation. For all I know it could have been based on an actual document destroyed long ago. However based on it's content and on it's CO number, I don't think it's something that could have been done off the cuff without a heck of a lot of background knowledge. -- LarrySo, the bottom line is do not go off and use this document until it’s origin can be established. There are lots of idiots in the research community who will do so anyway. This will only cause needless confusion. Archives II will not look for this document anymore, so don’t ask them to. If by some miracle someone eventually discovers it in Archives II, or elsewhere, then and only then should it be used, and then mainly for further study into it's validity.

previously went through can't be found now.Oh, I nearly forgot, on this 3 page scan, on the last page, there appears to be a ghost image of a separate document that kind of burned through in the photocopying if you look carefully. I did find a document that matches that. This is a SS kind of record keeping document, that material was sent out. I found documents like this for SS correspondence to the HSCA. So, this might give credibility to the doc. It certainly could be part of whatever is stapled to the doc, notice the staples in the upper left on page one. If a fake, it's a nice touch. If this is a fake, it's a pretty darn good one. So, I cannot address whether the document is real or not. I await info from Larry Hancock. Here's Larry's info: "The Endless Document"Well maybe the sourceless document would be more like it although it is beginning to feel endless.. Joe, this is the best that I have been able to piece together so far after an ongoing dialog with Ed Tatro, his source (Bill Cheslock), Bill's source (Bill Miller), Bill's source (James Richards according to Bill but not according to James), Jame's source, the document's original source, Dick Russell's source....ad naseum. I have not had direct dialog with Cheslock or Dick Russell although I have a message into Dick as well as his second edition editor. The earliest original source for the document was "reportedly" an FBI agent in Tennessee who gave a copy to James Moore. This is courtesy of an inquiry by Gary Buell who did talk with Moore e.g. "I obtained a scanned copy of the document from Jim Moore. He says he got it from a Tennessee FBI man and does not vouch for its authenticity..." Moore and his copy of the document were the first apparent source and it was Moore who is cited by Dick Russell, although Dick does state that the document is on record in the National Archives....this may be a mistake and hopefully we will hear from Dick himself on it eventually. When exactly this first appearance occurred is not yet documented but it was certainly prior to 1992 when TMWKTM was published. Apparently, the document has been posted on the internet within the past two years by Gary Buell without much dialogue. Which brings us to September 2004. Ed Tatro received the document from Bill Cheslock, a long time acquaintance, with a request that it be circulated for comment. He was given only one page initially. Ed was given to understand that the document was in the archives. He send the document to Sherry and when we received it there appears a RIF number associated with it. To this point it is unclear exactly when or where that number came from.....certainly the first thing I did was a NARA search to confirm it was real and in the archives, which of course the number is, but not for this document....sigh. Stu Wexler did a variety of more complex searches on various names and the CO document number which validated that at least the document related to the right Agency and that it was consistent with other Treasury Department documents pertaining to the JFK investigation

information from where it came from it's a near hopeless task of finding it. Without checking anything in the database, or other guide material, but just off the top of my head I can think of several places it could be: 1.) in CIA files, and that breaks down into many categories 2.) Secret Service files, which doesn't breakdown into as many as it should 3.) An employee of the CIA's files 4.) An employee of the SS files 5.) NARA files 6.) Rowley files, or Rowley correspondence files 7.) McCone's files, or correspondence files 8.) HSCA files, which breakdowns into many categories 9.) the staff papers of employee X, of the HSCA Then there's the enormous problem of "interfiling" What is "interfiling"? Well, documents are released and declassified, and just added to boxes, boxes that you might have already copied the entire contents of, or gone through, and now there's new stuff there. And you'll never know. Fun, huh? It's also possible documents are being removed from boxes for various reasons, none of them in my mind legal or appropriate. Keep in mind Bush is reclassifying things, not JFK specifically, but lots of other things open to the public. (See Federation of American Scientists web site http://www.fas.org/ for details.) Malcolm Blunt has told me documents that were in boxes he previously went through can't be found now.

https://steemit.com/news/@garrickalder/garrick-alder-mccone-rowley-fake-memo-lee-harvey-oswald-published-02-july-2018

Adler is wholly wrong in his analysis.
In other werds its shit.
This doesnt make the memo real, just shows you cant take for granted its been debunked.
Its going to take more than saying the font is wrong and then its been degraded.
The D in DATE has distinct font that I have not yet matched to any computer Typewriter Font of that era, that needs fleshed out.
What exact proofs are shown that the doc has been generated in photoshop.
Seems the memo came to be in several places from several individuals, and not found on the internet per se.
I dont know Garrick Alder from Adam so no idea if he can add or tie his shoes.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Adler is wholly wrong in his analysis.
In other werds its shit.
This doesnt make the memo real, just shows you cant take for granted its been debunked.
Its going to take more than saying the font is wrong and then its been degraded.
The D in DATE has distinct font that I have not yet matched to any computer Typewriter Font of that era, that needs fleshed out.
What exact proofs are shown that the doc has been generated in photoshop.
Seems the memo came to be in several places from several individuals, and not found on the internet per se.
I dont know Garrick Alder from Adam so no idea if he can add or tie his shoes.

The categorization number in the top righthand corner is directly lifted from this doc: https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9e/Pict_essay_WroneBug_SorrelsMemo.jpg
In other words, the forger didn't even seek out an obscure document to copy from to attempt to make this look legit, they were lazy and used a Secret Service doc about Earlene Roberts. It's a hoax. I have no idea who Alder is but I don't really care about the typewriter font and etc., I think the reference number being a photoshop, regardless of how it was done, is clear as day.

Castro,
All the secret service docs for the case had that case file number.
It wasnt lifted, as in photoshopped onto the doc, either. If it was photoshopped, why not photoshop the word DATE too rather than use a typewriter font to 'match' real typewritten memo?
Hmm
Its baloney.
Backes clears that up.

There is a RIF number and its not the CO234030 # but it goes to a different doc.

So as said the debunking is debunked.
Which doesn't make the document real, it just doesn't make the debunking real.

Here I'll show you.

Compare the two, and see they are typed on different typewriters.


So not photoshopped by lifting from the Beckley doc.

That doc was typed on an IBM Selectric as the numerals go below the line.
The Rowley memo was likely typed on a Remington as all numerals are on the line.

IBM type font;

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.

greg_parker wrote:Gregory Douglas has been identified as holocaust revisionist Peter Stahl. Stahl  is  believed to have forged wartime Nazi documents and disseminated them to historians, according to some.

Here is but one of many examples - this from 1996

From: H-GERMAN EDITOR 

I should like to make subscribers aware of my experience with Peter Stahl
aka Gregory Douglas aka Yetta Schwarz, and doubtless others.

Several years ago he sent me a copy of a map which he said he had found in
a German officer's map case which he had purchased. 

[...]

I urgently caution all subscribers to be aware of Peter Stahl. He is
smart, in a cunning, sly sort of way, and, doubtless, knows better than
again to use his name as such--if Peter Stahl is, indeed, is true name.
Therefore, I advise that, if an H German subscriber is solicited
concerning an article or book which seems to be incredible, Peter Stahl is
probably at the root of it, so caveat emptor!

The memo is as real as the Lafitte daybook.

True.
Some things no one is buying.

Ed.Ledoux wrote:Here I'll show you.

Compare the two, and see they are typed on different typewriters.


So not photoshopped by lifting from the Beckley doc.

That doc was typed on an IBM Selectric as the numerals go below the line.
The Rowley memo was likely typed on a Remington as all numerals are on the line.

IBM type font;

Ed,

All of this fair enough, I appreciate it all, and am impressed by your typewriter analysis. But why would a CIA doc have a Secret Service folder number in the first place? Anyway for me the content of the doc is ludicrous. Not only what they actually say about Oswald, but the fact that it exists. Why on earth would anyone self-incriminate like that? Real research almost never relies on these kinds of Hollywood "smoking guns". For me it reeks of hoax. No way Jose.

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