Deep Politics Forum
Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] (/thread-15731.html)



Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] - Peter Lemkin - 03-02-2018

While this was given to me by someone who should be beyond reproach, I now am inclined to believe this is not real and one needs to be careful...

Quote:
Letterhead: United States Government Memorandum [Transcription]
Dated: March 3, 1964 Ref #: CO-2-34, 030
TO: Mr. James J. Rowley,Chief, U.S. Secret Service
FROM: Mr. John McCone,Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Subject: Central Intelligence Report on the assassination of John Kennedy.

In response to the request made by your office on 24 February 1964 re: Lee Oswald's activities and assignments on behalf of this agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, there follows a narrative summary of the internal subversive activities of the Oswald subject.


I recommend that unless the Commission makes a specific request for specific information contained herein, that this information not be volunteered. This agency has reason to assume that some junior Commission staff members may be potential sources of leaks to the news media or to other agencies; due to the highly sensitive nature of the enclosed material, it would certainly be in the national interest to withhold it at this time -- unless there is, of course, a specific request made.


It is my understanding that Mr. Hoover has certain sensitive information within his agency, which has be transferred to his own personal files for safekeeping; he concurs that no material should be voluntarily given to the Commission which might affect the status of field operatives or their safety. He is particularly concerned about the De Bruey memorandum, which Central Intelligence has obtained and which, I understand, you have obtained. It is imperative that this information, at least for the time, remain under wraps.


Oswald subject was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence, for Soviet assignments. During preliminary training, in 1957, subject was active in aerial reconnaissance of mainland China and maintained a security clearance up to the "confidential" level. His military records during this period are open to your agency and I have directed they be forwarded to the Commission.


Subject received additional indoctrination at our own Camp Peary site from September 8 to October 17, 1958, and participated in a few relatively minor assignments until arrangements were made for his entry into the Soviet Union in September 1959. While in the Soviet Union, he was on special assignment in the area of Minsk. It would not be advantageous at this time to divulge the specifics of that assignment; however, if you wish this information, it can be made available for your personal inspection within the confines of our own offices, or I can send it by courier on the condition that it not leave the custody of the courier. I am concerned that if this information were in any way disclosed to the wrong persons, it would lead the media to erroneously claim this agency, and perhaps others, were directly involved in the Dallas action. While the persons involved were in the employ of this agency, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it is virtually impossible for this or any agency to maintain full, 24-hours-a-day responsibility over its operatives.


At the time of the Dallas action, the Oswald subject was only seldom in our employ; after the Soviet assignment, we found him to be unreliable and emotionally unstable. He was of little use to us after his marriage and De Bruey, from what I understand, concurred in this. He was provided with a few unimportant infiltration assignments and proved of little or no value. It is possible that Oswald, given his instability, might have been involved in some operation involving Hoffa, as noted in SAIC Bertram's report to your agency dated 1/3/64. Mr. Hoover advises that his agency is trying to determine whether Hoffa might have been involved laterally or vertically with the Dallas assassination I have advised that I would be interested in seeing the results of that investigation.


Mr. Hoover advises that the facts given in SAIC Bertran's [ed. note: "Bertram" in first usage, Bertran" here] 1/3/64 report are basically correct. His agency has advised Deputy Sweatt against any further unauthorized statements to the news media which might adversely affect the investigation. Mr. Hoover advises he has no knowledge of how Deputy Sweatt obtained his information, as there is no record of the agency distributing any such information to Sweatt or any other member of Dallas Sheriff's office. It is regrettable that this information has come to the attention of the news media, but I am sure Mr. Hoover will be able to clarify the situation.


Speculation within this agency -- and this is only speculation at this point -- is that Oswald subject became unstable following surgery April 1, 1961, in the Minsk Hospital. He may have been chemically or electronically "controlled"... a sleeper agent. Subject spent eleven days hospitalized for a "minor ailment" which should have required no more than three days hospitalization at the most. Six days after his release, he met Marina Prusakova. This agency is particularly interested in her intelligence background and I have requested a report on same from our Soviet Embassy contact.


After his return to the U.S., Oswald worked in New Orleans through the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean and Friends of Democratic Cuba; his case officer was SAIC Guy Bannister from the Chicago F131 office. He was transferred from his assignments there after he was arrested and fined stemming from an incident of his distribution of pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. While our files here show no further assignments or contact, I am requesting an (xx) check on the subject from our New Orleans and Ft. Worth offices.


Please direct any further communication on this matter to my personal attention so that your requests may be expedited, or feel free to call me anytime. My office is always available to you.
/s/ John McCone



Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] - Phil Dagosto - 03-02-2018

Quote:While the persons involved were in the employ of this agency, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it is virtually impossible for this or any agency to maintain full, 24-hours-a-day responsibility over its operatives.

Am I reading this correctly? McCone and the Agency knew who was involved and that they were employed by the CIA or the FBI?


Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] - Phil Dagosto - 03-02-2018

Quote:the 's' I believe is a Freudian slip

Well, then so is the "were" (should be "was" if he was referring to a single person). OK, we can't rule out poor grammar or failure to proofread but its still intriguing.


Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] - Jim DiEugenio - 04-02-2018

This was exposed as being a forgery a long time ago.

In fact, there is a web site about it.


Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] - Peter Lemkin - 04-02-2018

Hmmm.....quite sorry about that folks. I believe in fact it is a fake. Here is the better analysis I've seen on it in a short look [which I should have done before posting] http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/mccone.html
While I'm red in the face, the person who gave it to me should really have known better and if I were to mention their name it would really be embarrassing to them. I'll confront them privately. They were involved in one of the major official investigations of the case as a researcher...and thus should know better.
It is true that names were almost always in caps and the classification is too low. While I didn't put up the 'document' itself, I have it and the names [such as OSWALD] are not in caps and the classification is much too low. I looked at some real NARA and CIA portal documents between these two men, and they are different enough to convince me this is likely a forgery.


Document - Oswald Was CIA+ - [likely forgery] - Alan Ford - 05-02-2018

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:This was exposed as being a forgery a long time ago.

In fact, there is a web site about it.

Good thing @ exposed before it grows legs that lead away from Truth. Appreciate the timely clarification, Mr. DiEugenio, and I admire Mr. Lemkin for alerting those reading along to be cautiously wary as well while waden in. You guys are akin to illuminating lamppost. Thanks!