My post on JFKLancer Forum
Sat Sep-25-04 11:46 PMby gary buell
Jim Moore has never claimed that the document is genuine. The first I heard of this document was in an email from him September 10, 2001:
"I do (or should) have one document I've never released because I'mstill concerned over its authenticity, but it is a three-page letter in which Helms, I think it is, acknowledges Oswald worked for the CIA and was in Russia for that purpose, not as a defector. It discusses how this information should be withheld from the Warren Commission - what can be said and what should not be said. I don't fully trust it because of the way the letter is constructed, with the signature on the third page in such a way that the first two pages could be fakes while the last page is genuine."
His memory was obviously faulty in thinking it was Helms rather than McCone.As I have said before Moore claims to have received the document from an FBI agent in Tennessee. I must say though that the possibility that Moore is the hoaxer cannot be excluded. He has claimed for years to be the author of the Skeleton Key, although the evidence is fairly conclusive that Stephanie Caruana is. He also claimed possession of a 350 page report on RHIC-EDOM.
Also from Jim Moore from a webpage he was preparing. More can be found at www.geocities.com/omegareport. Not sure if this page is there in working order:
What is the Oswald-FBI-CIA Connection?
WHO'S WHO IN THE GEMSTONE FILES©2002 by Jim Moore. All rights reserved.
There has long been speculation that Lee Harvey Oswald was associated with the Carlos Marcello crime family in New Orleans, that he was an FBI informant, that he was a CIA operative. Is there any truth to any of this? Any evidence?
Dec. 16, 1963 - Alonzo W. Hudkins, a reporter for the Houston Post, called the Huston Secret Service office and told them he thought Jack Ruby's roommate, George Senator, may have had a connection to Oswald's murder, though he didn't elaborate except to say Ruby had a brother and a nephew who worked for Jimmy Hoffa in Detroit.
Dec. 17, 1963 - Hudkins told the Secret Service he had just returned from a weekend in Dallas, where he had met with Chief Deputy Criminal Division Allen Sweat of the Sheriff's office. Sweatt had told him that Oswald was an FBI informant, paid $200 a month and assigned a code "S172" in connection with the FBI's subversive organizations investigations.Hudkins added that it was odd that attorney Melvin L. Belli, the San Francisco lawyer representing Ruby, was listed on the same letterhead as an attorney Abt, the first lawyer Oswald went to for representation.The revelation apparently sent shock waves through both the Secret Service and the FBI. James J. Rowley, Secret Service Chief, apparently contacted both J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Director John McCone about the information. Hoover issued a flat denial, but if the document shown here is to be believed, McCone contradicted that denial in a roundabout way, and further admitted that Oswald had been working for the CIA.Personally, I have reasons to doubt the authenticity of the form of the following information, even though I have been assured that facts contained therein are correct. For one, the most glaring suspicion is that McCone's signature appears on the third page, with just a very brief paragraph that could have been lifted from any letter on virtually any subject and spliced onto the other two pages. Second, the wide margins used are somewhat odd for standard government communications. Third, the letter is typed on a generic "United States Government Memorandum" without any marks identifying it as of CIA origin, whereas other documents in my possession show the CIA letterhead centered at the top.
Never-Before-Seen Bombshell Document: Is It Real?
Is it a forgery? A hoax? Or was it deliberately done in this manner, as my source informed me, so the CIA could convincingly disavow itself from the document? I simply don't know. I have had this document since the mid-1960s (1967 or 1968) and have never released it until now, because of my inability to confirm its contents or its authenticity. Now, though, other documents have come forth and other researchers have obtained more information through the Freedom of Information Act than I could possibly go over. I leave it up to you, and history, to decide - and perhaps fill in some of the missing gaps.