McCone-Rowley memo

[burgundy]

I know Tony March has stated his opinions on why he thinks the article
discussed is a fake, but I wonder if other people could react to the
following blog. This memo is featured in Robert Groden's new book.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Judgment-of-History-O-by-Richard-Girard-Assassination_Caesar_Conspiracy_History-131230-544.html

I'm pretty sold on points No. 4 and No. 5

[burgundy]

So we are all in agreement this is real. Let's start the legal process.

Burgundy

[black...@aol.com]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 9:16:43 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
> So we are all in agreement this is real. Let's start the legal process.
>
>
>
> Burgundy

No, there is universal agreement that this memo cannot be and is not
genuine.

[Marcus Hanson]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:16:43 AM UTC+10, burgundy wrote:

> So we are all in agreement this is real. Let's start the legal process.

> Burgundy

It's be quite something if it WAS real , wouldn't it ?

[Marcus Hanson]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:16:43 AM UTC+10, burgundy wrote:

> So we are all in agreement this is real. Let's start the legal process.

> Burgundy

Well Walt , it would be quite something if it WAS real , wouldn't it ? I
don't think it is.

To what "legal process" do you allude? I would not be influenced by what
people here DO NOT say : I ain't no attorney , but I do know that there is
a legal principle stating that "silence is not acceptance".

[Anthony Marsh]

In particular I was annoyed because the fake had altered a document
which I had found and uploaded to my Web site to make up the fake text.

[burgundy]

Well, if it is a forgery, it begs the question who forged it? And why? If
you read any of the articled I linked, it seems the major problem is that
the "CO" heading on the document file number means it was created by the
Secret Service, or if a forgery, someone put that number on it knowing it
would cause problems. If McCone really wrote it to cover his ass from
Angleton, and then snuck it into the archives, who found it? And when? And
how? The author contends the document has been printed off microfilm. How
did it get wherever it was found?

Since I became aware of this memo and Groden displayed it so prominently
in his book, I am amazed researchers have not tracked down the history of
this so-called forgery.

And yes what if it is real -- it sounds like the scenario a majority of
people feel actually happened. Why is this being swept under the rug so
casually and indifferently? Where's a scholarly treatment on the
McCone-Rowley memo?

Burgundy

[John McAdams]

Why do you think it would ever deserve a "scholarly treatment."

It has gotten considerable scrutiny.

http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com/

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

The memo is a fake. Read the past messages about it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/16/2014 5:44 PM, burgundy wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:44:31 AM UTC-5, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>> On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:16:43 AM UTC+10, burgundy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So we are all in agreement this is real. Let's start the legal process.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Burgundy
>>
>>
>>
>> Well Walt , it would be quite something if it WAS real , wouldn't it ? I
>>
>> don't think it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> To what "legal process" do you allude? I would not be influenced by what
>>
>> people here DO NOT say : I ain't no attorney , but I do know that there is
>>
>> a legal principle stating that "silence is not acceptance".
>
> Well, if it is a forgery, it begs the question who forged it? And why? If

A JFK researcher. Who was trying to link Oswald to the CIA.

> you read any of the articled I linked, it seems the major problem is that
> the "CO" heading on the document file number means it was created by the
> Secret Service, or if a forgery, someone put that number on it knowing it
> would cause problems. If McCone really wrote it to cover his ass from

WHo says McCone wrote it? Who said it was found in the National Arhives?

> Angleton, and then snuck it into the archives, who found it? And when? And
> how? The author contends the document has been printed off microfilm. How
> did it get wherever it was found?
>

The author? Which author? Some kook?

> Since I became aware of this memo and Groden displayed it so prominently
> in his book, I am amazed researchers have not tracked down the history of
> this so-called forgery.
>

Yes, we did. So what?

> And yes what if it is real -- it sounds like the scenario a majority of
> people feel actually happened. Why is this being swept under the rug so
> casually and indifferently? Where's a scholarly treatment on the
> McCone-Rowley memo?
>

Many people WANT a memo like that to be true.
Just like the Nixon/Ruby memo which we know is a fake and we can trace
it back to one person.

> Burgundy
>

[burgundy]

Read this:

This returns us to the McCone-Rowley Memorandum which I of wrote in Part
One of this article.

Let me quickly list the reasons I think it is probably authentic:

Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) John McCone was not an intelligence
professional; in fact he was a Republican businessman from California who
had been brought in by JFK to act as a figurehead after the Bay of Pigs
disaster. (JFK's brother Bobby did most of the actual oversight.) He knew
that while President Kennedy had removed many of the snakes in the CIA
upper ranks--including Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and Air Force Lt.
General Charles Cabell--arguably the most dangerous viper of all,
paranoid-reactionary James Jesus Angleton, still headed the
counterintelligence Directorate at the CIA..

When, after Secret Service Chief Rowley made a request for information
concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship to the CIA, and the files came
to McCone's desk, showing that Oswald had been trained by the CIA through
the Office of Naval Intelligence; McCone did what every businessman--but
few intelligence officers--would do in that situation: he wrote a memo to
Rowley, giving a very broad overview of what the Oswald file said.

McCone did this for three reasons: first, it showed that he was one of the
"good guys;" a patriot who wanted what was best for his country; second,
it provided cover for him against James Jesus Angleton, who would have
gladly thrown McCone under the bus if the CIA had in any way been
implicated in President Kennedy's murder; third, this is what you did to
CYA against a powerful subordinate who was also a potential rival in the
business world.

I believe original document for this particular copy of the memo came from
either McCone's or Rowley's private personal files. Because of the record
number "CO-2-34,030," which appears to be a National Archives record
number for a number of other Secret Service documents, I believe it
probably came from Rowley's personal file. (See the Memorandum signed for
by Johanna Smith of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA),
dated March 10, 1978, in Part One of this article.) I also believe that
the personal file was probably hand-delivered by Rowley himself to the
National Archives, and a time limit was placed on their release, which
explains the "Confidential" secrecy stamp placed on the document. The
document was then microfilmed at the National Archives, and forgotten.

I believe that years later, some clerk happened to come across this
document in the National Archives, and made a print from the microfilm of
the McCone-Rowley Memorandum, using a machine similar to the Kodak 870,
which uses rolls of photo-sensitive paper, rather than plain 8-1/2"x11"
plain white copy paper. I am certain of this because as a former microfilm
retriever for the Colorado State Division of Motor Vehicles, I have noted
that the vertical compression (third line second paragraph) and stretching
(fifth line, second paragraph) of some of the lines of text in the
document which is common with this type of machine. This, together with
the slightly darker shading around the edges, tells that this document is
from a microfilm retrieved using a machine with photo-sensitive paper.
Barring examination of the original copy of the document in question, and
knowing how difficult it would be to forge this document (microfilm,
National Archives inter-agency memorandum stamp from the time period, and
valid National Archives/Secret Service record number, e.g., CO-2-34,030) I
believe that this is a real document, not a fake, recovered by a patriot
working in the National Archives.

[Anthony Marsh]

Rowley did not. It is a fake. And he would not make such a request in
plain Language. There would be code names used. But the author of the
fake didn't know the right code names to use.

> McCone did this for three reasons: first, it showed that he was one of the
> "good guys;" a patriot who wanted what was best for his country; second,
> it provided cover for him against James Jesus Angleton, who would have
> gladly thrown McCone under the bus if the CIA had in any way been
> implicated in President Kennedy's murder; third, this is what you did to
> CYA against a powerful subordinate who was also a potential rival in the
> business world.
>
> I believe original document for this particular copy of the memo came from
> either McCone's or Rowley's private personal files. Because of the record
> number "CO-2-34,030," which appears to be a National Archives record
> number for a number of other Secret Service documents, I believe it

You don't know what the Hell you are talking about. That number is from
the report that the SS submitted. It was on the original documents that
week, not add later by the National Archives. You haven't done any
homework at all. You have only guessed your way through this. You have
never looked at any original document in your whole life.

> probably came from Rowley's personal file. (See the Memorandum signed for
> by Johanna Smith of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA),

Rowely's personal file does not need report numbering like that.

> dated March 10, 1978, in Part One of this article.) I also believe that
> the personal file was probably hand-delivered by Rowley himself to the
> National Archives, and a time limit was placed on their release, which
> explains the "Confidential" secrecy stamp placed on the document. The
> document was then microfilmed at the National Archives, and forgotten.
>

The Confidential stamp is a fake.

> I believe that years later, some clerk happened to come across this
> document in the National Archives, and made a print from the microfilm of
> the McCone-Rowley Memorandum, using a machine similar to the Kodak 870,
> which uses rolls of photo-sensitive paper, rather than plain 8-1/2"x11"
> plain white copy paper. I am certain of this because as a former microfilm
> retriever for the Colorado State Division of Motor Vehicles, I have noted
> that the vertical compression (third line second paragraph) and stretching
> (fifth line, second paragraph) of some of the lines of text in the
> document which is common with this type of machine. This, together with
> the slightly darker shading around the edges, tells that this document is
> from a microfilm retrieved using a machine with photo-sensitive paper.

Something like that. At one point many of the documents were released in a
batch and placed on MICROFICHE by Carrolton Press. Some of the documents I
printed out were generated in that process you mention at the Boston
Public Library. Indeed most researchers had never seen them before.

> Barring examination of the original copy of the document in question, and
> knowing how difficult it would be to forge this document (microfilm,
> National Archives inter-agency memorandum stamp from the time period, and
> valid National Archives/Secret Service record number, e.g., CO-2-34,030) I
> believe that this is a real document, not a fake, recovered by a patriot
> working in the National Archives.
>

Not hard to fake at all. Just download the files from my Web site and
remove the text and then type up your own text. That is why it annoyed
me so much.
I noticed that you have never bothered to download the rest of the
original SS report from my Web site.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:44:56 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:44:31 AM UTC-5, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:16:43 AM UTC+10, burgundy wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > So we are all in agreement this is real. Let's start the legal process.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Burgundy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Well Walt , it would be quite something if it WAS real , wouldn't it ? I
>
> >
>
> > don't think it is.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > To what "legal process" do you allude? I would not be influenced by what
>
> >
>
> > people here DO NOT say : I ain't no attorney , but I do know that there is
>
> >
>
> > a legal principle stating that "silence is not acceptance".
>
>
>
> Well, if it is a forgery, it begs the question who forged it? And why?

You are unaware that their are hobbyist desperate for anything they
think they can use as support for their silly ideas?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:41:15 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:44:56 PM UTC-4, burgundy wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:44:31 AM UTC-5, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, June 16, 2014 11:16:43 AM UTC+10, burgundy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > So we are all in agreement this is real. Let's start the legal process.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Burgundy
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Well Walt , it would be quite something if it WAS real , wouldn't it ? I
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > don't think it is.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > To what "legal process" do you allude? I would not be influenced by what
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > people here DO NOT say : I ain't no attorney , but I do know that there is
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > a legal principle stating that "silence is not acceptance".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Well, if it is a forgery, it begs the question who forged it? And why?
>
>
>
> You are unaware that their are hobbyist desperate for anything they
>
> think they can use as support for their silly ideas?

"their are", really? Sorry Sandy, I know these thing must make you
cringe.

[Ace Kefford]

Anybody who would ask the question, who forged it and why, has obviously
had no exposure to the real world and the psychology of people. It takes
all kinds.

[burgundy]

Ace, old buddy, I did ask the question. And I have had exposure to the
real world. And the psychology of people. But Ace, my friend, as I read
the background info supplied by Professor McAdams and the always cordial
and refreshingly pleasant Anthony Marsh, and recalling when I ask who
forged it, or where it came from, there was no definite conclusion. Then I
offered another point of view from a different researcher and posted that.
It appears very few of these learned people analyzed it all, when you
think of it, does speak to the "psychology of people."

So Ace, maybe you could read this and tell me what's up?

Warmest Personal Regards,

Burgundy.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Judgment-of-History-O-by-Richard-Girard-Assassination_Caesar_Conspiracy_History-131230-544.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Sometimes we know WHERE it came from, but can not PROVE who forged it.
Like the Dear Mr. Hunt letter, which the HSCA PROVED was a forgery. It
came from Penn Jones, but someone claimed to have leaked it to him. Some
think it was actually forged by the KGB to link Oswald to the CIA. Others
think it was forged by the fired disgruntle H.L. Hunt aide to link Oswald
to Big Oil.

Sometimes you get hints about who forged it by the way it was forged. You
get used to seeing the same patterns from a well-known Jewish forger of
antiquities. Some famous Vermeer forger has a habit if feathering. I
believe Trowbridge Ford and David Truby forged the fake Nixon/Ruby memo.
Our table all laughed out loud when Dick Gregory went around showing it at
one conference.

[Marcus Hanson]

"and the always cordial and refreshingly pleasant Anthony Marsh"

I wondered how that comment slipped past the mods. Turns it you're on safe
ground though-the NG charter does indeed allow sarcasm !

[David Von Pein]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_XISFkBdMmg/Uu6XWmRKe-I/AAAAAAAAxxw/X0XG8LAuRIs/s1600-h/RH-Excerpt-Regarding-Fake-Document-Dated-March-3-1964.png

[Bud]

But living in the real world and being familiar with human psychology
and knowing that there are people who really, really wish to believe these
fanciful tales should tell you all you need to know.

> Then I
>
> offered another point of view from a different researcher and posted that.
>
> It appears very few of these learned people analyzed it all,

It appears you didn`t read any of the rebuttals.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

In which place does the hard copy reside of said 'memo'? Or did it
mysteriously 'disappear'? You guys are being taken for a ride, Clyde.
How can you let this happen to you? Must we list the litany of lies once
again of this and many other 'documents'? JFK Dreamin'/on such a summer's
day. Sigh.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/20/2014 2:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_XISFkBdMmg/Uu6XWmRKe-I/AAAAAAAAxxw/X0XG8LAuRIs/s1600-h/RH-Excerpt-Regarding-Fake-Document-Dated-March-3-1964.png
>


Close, but a little weak.

Bugliosi is correct that the CONFIDENTIAL stamp is amateurish. I have
pointed that out before. But he knows nothing about the CIA and can not
guarantee that such a document should be classified Secret or Top Secret
It is not written is such a style or containing classified codewords which
would justify classifying it Secret or Top Secret. That is one of the
first things I pointed out which indicated that is was not an official
report and not genuine. It's written more informally like a letter between
friends, not an interagency memo.

Bugliosi's attack also contains a logic error. In his zeal to defend the
CIA he argues that because Oswald was not a CIA officer therefore the CIA
did not order him to kill JFK. This overlooks the fact that various CIA
officers and agents have committed crimes on their own without CIA orders
or approval and sometimes without CIA knowledge. And of course the CIA
could have assassinated JFK and just used their knowledge of Oswald from
their files to frame him as the patsy.

BTW, you should also have posted a link to the referred article in Deep
Politics Quarterly, but you never post links to conspiracy Web sites and
certainly don't want to give ANY credit to people you consider kooks.

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/mccone.html

And naturally you won't post any OFFICIAL documents on this matter
because they can only be found on conspiracy Web sites:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/March%203,%201964%20McCone-Rowley.pdf

For more background see the only blog devoted to just this issue:

http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com/

There is a big hint in there which points to the UFO crowd as the forgers.

[Anthony Marsh]

On another forum when I try to insult someone the SOFTWARE changes the
word to "lovely person."
Here, the software intercepts normal words and rejects the entire
message because the filtering list is British.

[Peter Whitmey]

For what it's worth, I discuss the memo in my article "Creating A Patsy"
at:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/creatingapatsy.htm.

I also have expanded the first section dealing with Oswald's letter to
Connally and the post-assassination coverage of it by AP and UPI. I have
also suggested a reason why Oswald might have turned against JFK in the
summer of 1963 related to his attempt to have his undesirable discharge
returned to honorable (which he spelled the British/Cdn. way in his letter
several times ("honourable")). - prwhitmey

[jcma...@gmail.com]

I just got duped by this on Twitter. Unfortunate that these hoaxes are
around. I will stick with this group and likely read rather than comment
as I’m far from qualified, but wanted to extend a sincere thanks
to all who devote considerable time and effort to this research and share
it in this group.

Cheers- JC

[Anthony Marsh]

That is one of the reasons why an open newsroup is important. So that
you can see all sides and get advice from real researchers.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

One of the staffers of the Warren Commission once said about a conspiracy
promoter (Mark Lane) that "he talks for 15 minutes and it takes you two
hours to correct all of his errors."

This is the advantage that the conspiracy people have: they throw out a
lot of allegations and claims and it takes you a lot of time correcting
the errors. As we know, it's almost impossible - certainly difficult - to
disprove something. As in, "Oswald worked for the FBI". Try disproving
that in today's world of Twitter and other social media.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/30/2017 9:34 AM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 10:18:42 PM UTC-4, jcma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I just got duped by this on Twitter. Unfortunate that these hoaxes are
>> around. I will stick with this group and likely read rather than comment

>> as I???m far from qualified, but wanted to extend a sincere thanks

>> to all who devote considerable time and effort to this research and share
>> it in this group.
>>
>> Cheers- JC
>
> One of the staffers of the Warren Commission once said about a conspiracy
> promoter (Mark Lane) that "he talks for 15 minutes and it takes you two
> hours to correct all of his errors."
>
> This is the advantage that the conspiracy people have: they throw out a
> lot of allegations and claims and it takes you a lot of time correcting
> the errors. As we know, it's almost impossible - certainly difficult - to
> disprove something. As in, "Oswald worked for the FBI". Try disproving
> that in today's world of Twitter and other social media.
>

Well, in fact we did and I was one of the conspiracy believers who
pointed out why the hoax was created.

The easiest way to win any argument is to just call your opponent a
liar. If I say that the Sun rises in the East our resident Russian Troll
jumps in to say FAKE NEWS.

The fact remains that I am the only one who has the documents copies
from the National Archives.

[mainframetech]

Why not take the time to try and correct my posts? I usually put in
cites and links so that you can find the wording and context. Simple to
correct errors...if you can find any.

Here's a sample for you to try out your skills on. This is an
interview of Paul O'Connor, Technologist, a member of the autopsy team:

"O'Connor: We started out wit a rigid probe and found that it only went in
so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

The book is online. And since the bullet never left the body of JFK,
then the 'single bullet' theory is dead.

Here's further information from an interview with the other
Technologist, James Jenkins:

"Jenkins: Humes probed it, to begin with, with his little finger. Humes
has huge hands. Humes is a big man. And then they used a probe. I could
see his finger and I could see the probes behind the pleural area in the
back and it never did break into the pleural cavity. And the wound
actually went down and stopped. Law: In essence, from what you saw, the
wound did not go upwards toward the throat? You feel that it went down?
Jenkins: It seemed to have gone down and then stopped. It didn't break
into the pleural cavity."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 74
Same address as above.

So we have corroborating statements from both Technologists.

Have fun tracking that down.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

The fact remains that you gots nuffin even REMOTELY resembling
conspiracy, Anthony Anthony.

[bigdog]

Bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions.

> Here's further information from an interview with the other
> Technologist, James Jenkins:
>
> "Jenkins: Humes probed it, to begin with, with his little finger. Humes
> has huge hands. Humes is a big man. And then they used a probe. I could
> see his finger and I could see the probes behind the pleural area in the
> back and it never did break into the pleural cavity. And the wound
> actually went down and stopped. Law: In essence, from what you saw, the
> wound did not go upwards toward the throat? You feel that it went down?
> Jenkins: It seemed to have gone down and then stopped. It didn't break
> into the pleural cavity."
>

Of course it didn't. The bullet track didn't go through the pleural
cavity. It went above the pleural cavity through the strap muscles. Since
Jenkins was not a qualified medical examiner, he was unable to sort all of
this out. But you've never been interested in what qualified people have
to say about anything,

> From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, page 74
> Same address as above.
>
> So we have corroborating statements from both Technologists.
>

Neither of which was qualified to make these judgements.

[Anthony Marsh]

For now I have all I need, the shot from the grassy knoll.
Unless you can think of a way for someone to fire from the TSBD and the
grassy knoll at the same time.

>