McCone-Rowley Document
Gary Buell
Dick Russell, on p. 675 of his book The Man Who Knew Too Much quotes
from a memo dated March 3, 1964 from CIA Director McCone to Secret
Service Chief James Rowley. He says this document is "on record in the
National Archives". He quotes that Oswald might have been "chemically
or electronically 'controlled'...a sleeper agent. Subject spent 11
days hospitalized for a 'minor ailment' which should have required no
more than three days hospitalization at best." He footnotes this with
#11. Footnote #11 in the back of the book seems unrelated. This is
apparently an error in the book. Footnote #10 however references an
article published in the tabloid Modern People "Oswald Was
Brainwashed" by James L. Moore. This article, which Dick was kind
enough to send me, is apparently the actual source for the
McCone-Rowley memo, which must now be considered to be questionable,
lacking any independent evidence for the existence of the memo beyond
a tabloid article. The Modern People article contains further quotes
from this alleged memo, of a sensational nature. I quote:
"Oswald... was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of
Naval Intelligence, for Soviet assignments. In 197, subject (Oswald)
was active in aerial reconnaissance of mainland China and maintained a
security clearance up to the 'confidential' level.
"While in the Soviet Union, he was on special assignment in the area
of Minsk.It would not be advantageous at this time divulge the
specifics of that assignment. Speculation within this agency--and this
is only speculation at this point--is that Oswald became unstable
following surgery April 1, 1961, in the Minsk Hospital."
This is followed by the "sleeper agent" passage that Russell quotes.
I have been unable to find any reference to this memo that does not
track back either to Dick Russell or Modern People. James L. Moore has
made other claims that --while they could be true--cannot be verified.
He claimed possession of a secret 350 page report on RHIC-EDOM. He has
also claimed to be the real author of the Skeleton Key to the Gemstone
Files, generally believed to be authored by Stephanie Caruana.
Subsequently, 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. I emailed copies of this document to Debra
Conway and Dick Russell, both of whom are skeptical, as I am.
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.
Oddly, when I first posted this on the JFKrsearch forum some two years
ago it did not cause nearly the stir it seems to be causing now,
although you did email me for more information.
I would like to see JFK ASSASSINATION FILE CO-2-34, 030 which I was
unaware of to see what relationship, if any, it might have to the
McCone-Rowley memo.
John McAdams
Interesting, Gary.
It reinforces my belief that Russell, although a dilligent researcher,
radically lacks critical faculties.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Gary,
I appreciate your posting this information as it adds to our understanding
of this document. It is my belief that the more definition there is the
more the documented can be oriented and its actual relevance, if any,
determined.
There are some conflicts in these statements that may or may not have
significance, yet they deserve to be addressed.
First, I found it puzzling too that the footnote in TMWK2M did not really
define this document or reference it. That may have been an accident of
editing or proofing, but it does nothing to add credence to the document.
Second, the fact that Russell states that it was 'on record at NARA'
implies that it was/is his belief that this was an actual NARA document.
One would think he would have insisted on ordering a copy for himself.
The fact that the document you produced does have a NARA RIF cover sheet
is interesting in that it would appear that it was, in fact, a NARA doc
sent out by mistake with the wrong RIF. (Theoretically, we'll know that
when we get our doc requests back from NARA, but if this concept were the
case, they would certainly have 'corrected' their error by now).
Third, the SS file no CO-2-34, 030 appears on many of the documents in
CD-80, the SS Report, as well as on the Taylor-Geiglein memo (at
www.jfk100x.com, also Anthony posted links to his website). That is a
general file no for the assassination. Why the receiving agency would put
a file no on it, but not the originating one, is certainly open to
question too. There is at least one other SS file no's used on other
documents related to the assassination, 1-22-614.0, shown, for ex. on
18E766, CE 1024, as well as CO-2-34040, p. 795, CE 1024.
Pamela :-)
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A
Study in Scarlet, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887 For more information on the
JFK Assassination Presidential Limousine SS-100-X visit www.jfk100x.com.
Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and requests, please join
jfk100x on Yahoogroups.com. For information about my life away from
research, visit www.themagicflute.org
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
You are being misleading, Pamela ... that the SS put their case/file
number on it upon receipt is nothing more than your speculation ...
and a laughable one at that. If they wanted to put their case/file
number on incomings they could easily have a stamper form for writing
the number on and noting the date rec'd. To assert that they put it in
a typewriter and added the number is ridiculous in my and other people
here's opinions. Above, you stated it as if it were fact. Where's the
proper research protocol in that?
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
You are headed in the right direction, but still guessing. You'd have to
show actual examples of them stamping on the case/file number. I assume
you can't. And also the placement is not where such an incoming stamp
would be. It is where the typical SS identifier is always placed. The
mere fact that there is a SS identifier on the document is spurious and
suggests that the document is a fake created from some standard base
document.
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but WHERE on the page does it appear? That is the important
factor. Please scan those in and upload them so that others can see
WHERE the identifier appears.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
In fact, choosing to ridicule a reasonable question is what is
misleading Barb, yet you are comfortable doing that, aren't you?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Anthony,
I stated in another post that they all appear on the upper right side,
basically as they do on the Taylor-Geiglein report at www.jfk100x.com; the
known SS docs show the notation higher than the question document is.
Still, the use of that reference no and the location are not completely
out of the ballpark IMO.
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Asking a question is not unreasonable; taking rank speculation and
then asserting it as fact is indeed unreasonable. And such a
speculation is unreasonable and lame on its face in the first place,
imo. Yet you are comfortable doing that, aren't you?
Barb :-)
TEmptyPockets
>From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>Date: 9/17/2004 5:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <414b7c2d...@129.250.170.82>
Yes, but look at all the ideas it must have given Ian Fleming!
Tom P