(November 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm)I and I Wrote:(November 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove with this. Even if this is real, how much of it did you read?
It says that he was indeed an operative for the CIA. It also says, for the majority of the document, how unstable Oswald was and how little the government wanted to do with him. If anything, this helps prove how much of a nutcase he was, and how he probably did, in fact, act alone.
But here's something interesting: an excerpt from the exact website you're trying to use to help your points: "When I looked at it I knew instantly that it was a fake. How? It is not written in the proper format using the proper CIA style. One tip off is the marking "CO-2-34,030." That is actually from a Secret Service report. How would I know? Because I had obtained and used on my Web site some of the pages from that SS report, so the notation jumped out as a fabrication. What someone did was take a page from the SS report, maybe even downloaded it from my Web page, removed the original text and wrote their own. Also the wording is not how the CIA would word a document of that type at that time. They would not refer to Hoover by name or agencies by common names. Instead you would see code words like ODACID. You need to look at hundreds of thousands of genuine CIA documents as I have to develop a mental database of what genuine CIA documents look like. I have no doubt that the hoaxer really thought that something like that was said. I don't think the intent was like the other hoaxes to discredit all JFK assassination research. I think someone just assumed that he knew enough to create a realistic fake to incriminate the CIA."
Conspiracy theorists tend to ignore the details.
Tell us more about these details, how many CIA documents have you seen to make you think it's a fake?
Re-read what I wrote. That paragraph is from the website you told us to look at, the website that has a copy of that document. And the owner of the site thought it notable enough to post. Does that not say something to you?
Also, why didn't you address the other things I wrote?
ronedee Wrote:Science doesn't have a good explaination for water
![[Image: YAAgdMk.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FYAAgdMk.gif)