The McCone-Rowley Document

Jim Moore on McCone-Rowley

This is an email from Jim Moore to JFK assassination researcher Peter Whitmey.

From: Jim Moore

Subject: Re: McCone-Rowley memo

Dear Peter:
Thanks for your letter - and for the work you continue to do re: the Kennedy case. Thanks also for your concern about my health. I'm doing fairly well but working in a hi-tech sweat shop just to pay the bills ... and that is rougher on me than anything I've ever seen. I'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome as they keep jacking our quotas up.

Anyway, to clarify, I did not quote the McCone-Rowley memo in Modern People; I quoted an internal CIA report instead. (see "Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart) I think that is just an honest misunderstanding in the JFK research community. When I sent the memo to Gary Buell, I told him I had grave doubts about the FORM of the information moreso than the content, since I have been able to verify much of the content independently. My doubt centered over the fact that the third page containing the signature was so generic that it could have come from any memo or communication and there was nothing in its content to link it to the first two pages. I had (and have) no knowledge or expertise about the S.S. File # you mention. I wouldn't know an accurate one from a pig turd.

As you may know, it is a common approach in the intelligence community to leak accurate information in a manner in which it can later be discredited to (a) protect exposure of the source or (b) cover someone's ass. The CBS-Dan Rather- GW Bush memos are excellent examples. Even the secretary admitted that yes, she did type very similar memos (apparently containing the same information), but that these specific memos were NOT the ones she typed. Get my drift? They could be retyped (on a different typewriter or on different colored paper, for instance) and one or two typos or obvious red herrings could be included, added or substituted. The controversy then centers on the discrepancies while the CONTENT is ignored.

For example, someone told me there is no independent evidence that Oswald was ever involved in intelligence work. I believe The Rolling Stone many years ago had a major article about Oswald's involvement in the U-2 program at a Japanese US air base (where he was supposedly also used as an LSD guinea pig for mind control purposes). I was first alerted to Oswald's intelligence activities by going through a list of confiscated items found in the Warren Report (this was maybe 30-35 years ago). Certain items such as a Minox(?) subminiature camera - very expensive at the time - raised red flags, as did his knowledge of microdot technology.

Anyway, I did not use the McCone-Rowley memo as a source precisely because I was suspicious of the format of it, not because of the information within it. Also, I never had an actual copy of the internal CIA document Walter Bowart (and many others since) referred to. I was allowed to read it in the presence of the source, make a few notes, then return it to the source, who was present at all times to make sure I did not make nay copies of it. Much of it contained historic references to "behavior modification" programs in general, as well as a number of obscure and uninteresting memos. Maybe a dozen pages of it actually referenced Oswald.

Also, I did not publicize it because I did not want to become a target (in case the information was true), nor did I want to subject myself to the abuse and insults and innuendos that so frequently pop up on Internet debates on the subject.

posted by gary @ 1:05 PM