Last updated 17 June 2002
Gregory Douglas has sent a message on authenticating the origin of the Crowley files.
The comments below are about the Crowley files: http://cryptome.org/cia-2619.htm
See Daniel Brandt's lengthier evaluation of the Crowley list: http://cryptome.org/cia-namebase.htm
Identities by permission.
Comments welcomed; send to: firstname.lastname@example.org
From: NameBase@cs.com Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:13:14 EST Subject: Re: Crowley list and NameBase To: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > Thanks very much for sending your informative list. We will indeed post > it and link it to Crowley's. > > Did it occur to you that the Crowley list was lifted from NameBase and > falsely attributed to Crowley? It's quite likely that many of the addresses are from the 1996 Membership Directory of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. I have this list in NameBase (the names, not the addresses -- the addresses are available to registered users in the course of using our photocopy or fax service). The 1996 version is the lastest that was published, as far as I know. David Whipple, then AFIO executive director, asked me by letter on March 3, 1997 to delete the AFIO names from NameBase. I declined then, and they're all still in NameBase. The reason I say this, is that there were a handful of people I've met or talked to on the Crowley list. In each case, it would not surprise me if they were legitimately listed -- i.e., were a CIA source -- based on my knowledge of their activities. I lived in the Washington DC area from 1982-1993, where one inevitably ends up meeting people that one wonders about, if you spend most of your time developing something like NameBase. But in each case, it turns out that these individuals were also in the 1996 AFIO list, as well as on Crowley's list. A study of the names on Crowley's list that are NOT in the AFIO directory might be worthwhile. I have not studied the list with this in mind. If there is sustained interest in the authenticity of this list, I'll be happy to winnow out the names that are NOT listed in AFIO. (It is better that I do it, as someone trying to spider every link on NameBase would soon get cut off, due to search overload on our server.) So your question is unanswered. It could be that Crowley used the AFIO directory to jog his memory and collect current addresses. A related question is whether Cryptome is being set up for some adverse publicity. That's why I'm glad that most of the names are in NameBase. If someone is in AFIO, and failed to ask AFIO to keep their name unlisted, then they can't very well go screaming to the New York Times that John Young is recklessly blowing their cover. AFIO names have been in NameBase since 1985. In AFIO's "Periscope" newsletter of Winter, 1988, they even gave me a plug and noted that my database includes "the membership rosters of AFIO." -- Daniel Brandt, PIR president
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 01:56:51 -0500 Subject: Your "CIA list" From: "James S. Henry" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sorry - this is hardly a stellar piece of investigative journalism. in principle this could have been a lot more interesting, but on closer inspection, I've got more than a few doubts about the integrity of the "Crowley list." First, it's hardly a "worldwide" list -- there are scarcely a handful of foreign sources/addresses. Second, the list actually contains the names of quite a few notorious ex-Agency employees -- like Ted Shackeley, E. Howard Hunt, R. Helms, William Colby, Claire George (from Nic. contra days), and even George H.W. Bush, as well as other well-known fellow travelers -- Max Hugel, Ray cline, F. Reese Brown (who edits a journal for ex-spooks), Maurice Bishop, and Major Gen. John Singlaub. So what do you mean that the list is just confined to unpaid "Agency sources?" [Note: document statement is by source of file, not Cryptome.] Third, precisely what are we to make of the journalists on the list (Lewis Lapham -- The Atlantic; Ted Koppel; Robert Novak; Robert G. Kaiser and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post; de Olmo and D. McManus of the LA Times)? Are they here because (a) they were unusually "friendly" to the Agency, as in providing easy conduits for stories that CIA wanted out; (b) were actually on the take? (c) were just typically more interested than other journalists in nat-sec related issues, or what? Are we to infer from this SHORT list that these were the ONLY journalists who were user-friendly to the Agency in recent years? That's unlikely to be true... Fourth, at least at first glance, I could only find a handful of bankers (Bacot, Chiro, Funabashi) on the list -- and a handful of academics (Campbell/Stamford; Curtis/Columbia; Naftali/Yale; Sheldon/VMI). It's hard to believe that this is representative. Please clarify -- what does this list amount to, really? James S. Henry Free lance journalist (TNR, The Nation, etc.) -- certainly no Agency connections that I'm aware of, tho I did once attend a Halloween party dressed as a "spook." Jhenry@shg.com
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:02:06 EST senor young- the list you have published regarding mr crowley's alleged list of sea eye ehh 'contacts' is interesting to say the least... the questions mr henry raises are certainly valid, but there are several others which come to mind: 1. while eye hate to doubt the motives of a person who *appears* to be doing a good and moral deed in tearing the black curtain which obscures 'our' (sic) sekret gummint agencies, the possiblility -if not probability in the larger scheme of things- that mr crowley is engaging in some disinfo tactics of some sort is not to be discarded... 2. mr henry's objection that the list is definitely not comprehensive is certainly so, but that could only be an indication of the exposure/records mr crowley had access to or people he interacted with; that it is certainly not comprehensive and complete is not to discredit what *is* there... 3. as a 'buff' of the jay eff kay assassination (although my interest lies more in the context of how it happened, the players involved, and the circumstantial evidence), eye was most intrigued by the teasers in the last paragraph regarding potentially explosive dox regarding that (as well as mk ultra, phoenix, etc)... for me -and many others- those dox could be more useful and revealing than the list proffered (which could *possibly* be gleaned from other extant dox, 'humint' sources, and such); again, that does not set aside the potential for disinfo, but even disinfo can be revealing (if just by professor scotts use of a 'negative template' to determine what the sea eye ehh, etc *don't* want you to look at)... it is not clear if there is an intention of releasing those dox as well, or if the journalist involved is using those for his/her own writing purposes, or what... please let us know (if you do) whether there is an anticipated release of the dox (either by themselves, or in the context of a book/article); and if not, why not... thanks again for your very valuable site, even if eye don't (which eye don't) understand many of the computer/crypto/security issues which are exposed on your site; eye appreciate that it is there and opens a small window into the black world which underlies 'our' (sic) gummint and who has their hands on the levers of society... ann archy eof
Cryptome note: Other documents cited in the file introduction may be provided.
From: "Aaron Johnson" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Crowley list Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:43:02 -0000 Interesting comments here. Someone is upset because their online service has many of the same names as this list, plus the free home addresses which they charge for. If these names appeared in the AFIO list and there are additional names herein not on this AFIO list (including a significant number of media types known to be strong CIA supporters), what precludes them from being CIA sources (as opposed to field agents, typists, janitors and so on)? I would assume from the nature of this list that a number of people will be told by the Company (CIA) to attack it and discourage curious viewers or downloaders. This sort of behavior is typical of the CIA. They have proven time after time that they are incapable of doing their own dirty work but rely on a long list (like this one) of willing and eager toadies to make their points. The CIA is the one that invented the phrase "plausible deniability" by hiding in the shadows and using willing tools to act as their defenders. One remembers how they got their inhouse journalists at ABC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and, of course, the Washington Post, to attack San Jose Mercury investigative reporter Webb when he (quite correctly) accused the Company of running drugs into the ghettos to get money for financing the Contras and their own expensive life styles. Webb got fired for telling the truth and his detractors got....? An envelope with money? A signed picture of John Deutsch before he was sacked for breaches of security? Bismarck said "Many enemies, Much honor" and it is always the kicked dog that yelps.
From: Joe Trento <Trento@publicedcenter.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Crowley List Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:40:55 -0500 Since I obtained ALL of Bob Crowley and Bill Corson's files prior to their deaths I find this information very interesting. My production company owns all of the material and several books are being prepared based on the real material. Joseph J. Trento
From: "Aaron Johnson" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Crowley list Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:05:16 -0000 Dear Sir: You are entirely welcome. I was interested to note some of the comments at the head of the list. One person, who apparently makes a living selling biographical information, seems to be upset because he thinks Mr. Crowley stole his list at some point. Last night, I check the Crowley list against his and find that there are many names on the former that are not in his data bank. If, as he says, Crowley used a membership list of retired intelligence officers from 1996, and this gentleman has used the same list for his data banks, why are there so many gaps in his list? It seems obvious to me that the Crowley list is genuine because all of the names so far identified are, or were, members of the intelligence community and, accordinig to the biographical data supplied by the other gentleman, senior members of the CIA? All of the other identified names also come from the intelligence community. I agree that this list is far from exhaustive but it is indicated that the persons in the Crowley list are sources or resources for the CIA. A source or resource is not a clerk-typist or an agent in the field but instead, is an individual who is specificially not such a person. A resource is traditionally someone OUTSIDE the bureaucracy who is known to be friendly towards an agency (at the very least)and can be counted on to be supportive of that agencies programs or agendas. I note with amusement that a reporter from Boston was upset to find his name on the list, claiming that he was not involved with the intelligence community. If this is the case, why is his name on the list of former intelligence agents? Did it get there in error? Or does he realize, as must all the other media people on the Crowley list, that if it became common knowledge that they were connected with the CIA their objectivity and credibility would suffer a terrible blow. Do keep up the good work and do not be mislead by the whiners. As the significance of this list becomes more widely known, you will hear an ever-increasing chorus of such wailings. A. Johnson (permission to quote)
From: Joe Trento <Trento@publicedcenter.org> To: 'John Young' <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Crowley List Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:16:33 -0500 Sure. Bob resigned from the Board of AFIO after the book we did with the Corson's (Widows) was published in 1989. Prior to his illness I did hundreds of hours of interviews with him for a series of books that are in the works. The first, "The Secret History of The CIA" will be published next year by Prima. His writing partner and fellow spook William Corson died in July of this year and my company also controls all his files and rights. A series of books and films based on Corson's life are also in the works. Anyone who claims to have access to either mans files has lots of explaining to do. Best, Joe Trento
8 December 2000 Hello, My name is ----------. I work as an investigative reporter on the Swedish business internetmagazine I have just been reading the Crowley files on the homepage cryptome.org/cia-2619.htm#K. Since a swedish name appear on the list, Ramfors Bo, I find this very interesting, since Bo was the CEO of the biggest commercial bank in Sweden in the beginning of the 1990:s. I have a couple of questions about the list, and would very much like to get in contact with the journalist that got the personal files from Crowley before his death, and now have published them on the net. I hope that you can help me come in contact with this reporter as soon as possible, since this is an extremely intersteing story here in Sweden! best regards
December 8, 2000 The CIA list - such things makes me nervous (where did it come from? Who had a hand in it?) - but while downloading it I noticed two very striking names: Mary Ferrell, a big figure in the Kennedy assassination world; and Rodney Stich, the author of Defrauding America and other works. December 8, 2000Well my expertise - compared to, say Dan Brandt - on American issues is limited. However, Mary Ferrell is a big figure - a bloody landmark - in the JFK assassination world. Do a quick search on Google and you will see how big a figure. And Rodney Stich is one of the current heroes of the alternative history of America with a whole slew of self-published books making extravagant allegations about the CIA - drug-running etc etc. Their presence on the list raises a number of possibilities: (a) they are not what they appeared to be; (b) the list is mischief with people on it whom somebody wants to damage by association; (c) life is more complicated than the world suggested by (a) and (b) and it is possible to be a 'CIA source' and be Rodney Stich (or Mary Ferrell). And I think Ferrell is dead, incidentally. It would indeed be interesting if (c) turned out to be true....
Cryptome note: Several persons on the list are deceased.
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: The rest of the papers Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 06:56:25 -0600 Where can we access the other papers, you mentioned the signed JFK report, Condor, Applepie. Could you please post them, they would be so valuable to researchers? Thanks Please feel free to list this as a response but PLEASE omit my name/email.
Crytpome note: the other papers may become available on Cryptome or elsewhere, but we don't know when.
From: NameBase@cs.comDate: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:09:03 EST Subject: Re: AFIO 1996 list from NameBase To: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > Are you suggesting that the URL for your AFIO list be made > public? Yes. > Got any idea where the addresses came from? Or were they on > the AFIO list and you excised them? All AFIO directories come with name and address (no phone). I always keyed in the names only, and kept the whole thing on file for reference to the address when and if needed. NameBase was not designed to accommodate anything beyond name, country plus time frame, source, date, and page numbers. There's an annotation for each source, but it's only a general comment on the entire source, not on each name within that source. Anyone who suggests that I use the names so that I can make money off of the addresses isn't worthy of a reply (such a suggestion was made in one of the comments you posted). PIR is a recognized nonprofit public charity, and all the money I've ever made from providing photocopies of AFIO pages might keep me in M & Ms for a month, but that's about all. The point is that NameBase users know that an address is available when they see a citation under a name for an AFIO membership directory. This means that they can contact the person to see if he or she is available to answer questions or grant an interview, or help locate someone else. That's just about the extent of it, and the reason why I continued to input AFIO names. NameBase was well underway years before I got my hands on a copy of the 1983 AFIO directory in the summer of 1985. Also, NameBase was never intended to focus narrowly or exclusively on intelligence issues, and the AFIO directories were always just one source among many. I would also suggest that the informal "networking thing" (I'm talking pre-Internet here) is the reason why AFIO exists. It's something to do after you retire. For journalists, it's an extra calling card that may come in handy on occasion. For pro-CIA cowboys, it's a PR platform. These are not people who spend their time conspiring into the night. It's quite harmless (except, perhaps, for the pro-CIA PR). I know at least a dozen people in the AFIO directory who are pleasant and very helpful, even when they know that I've been a die-hard anti-CIA activist for 33 years. The one-dimensionality and inexperience of some shoot-from-the-hip Internet surfers worries me more these days than all the names that are listed in the 1996 AFIO directory. I am acting only to preserve Cryptome, because I admire what you are doing. It's absolutely vital to keep Cryptome going. I fully realize that you don't have the resources to validate everything that goes through your modem, but that only means that the rest of us must pick up the slack. Otherwise, the long knives will make mincemeat out of you, sooner or later. Keep up the good work. Glad I can help out now and again. -- Daniel [ okay to post this email ]
From: "Walter Storch" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: The Crowley List and Other Papers Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 17:53:58 -0000 Gentlemen: I have been looking with very great interest at the Crowley list and read the introduction with amusement. I knew the late Robert Crowley for several years before his death and worked with him on a project concerning the use by the CIA of top level Nazi intelligence officials in the late 1940s. Bob was assisting a historian in the preparation of several works on this subject and in fact wrote a forward to one of the books. As this is also my field of interest, I must say that I found Bob to be a fascinating source of information. When Mr. J. Trento writes that he has all of the Crowley material which he claims he obtained before Crowley's death, he is quite in serious error. In his declining years, Bob suffered from short term memory problems and I know for a fact that he gave extensive material on the Nazis ("Operation Applepie" and "Operation Pajamas") to the writer on this subject plus a great deal of other material. Also, Bob gave a large amount of material to the late British historian, John Costello. I most certainly do recognize the list as printed. It exists on computer printout paper in folded form and with alternating green lines. This was downloaded by Bob from his data base on CIA sources and mailed, along with a number of other historically interesting papers, to a historian. The list was compiled originally from three various lists. One was a listing of semi-retired CIA people (one never fully retires from the CIA but remains a "consultant", mostly to prevent any unwanted publishing), as well as non-CIA personnel who regularaly assisted the Agency in matters of public relations. There was also a complete list of ALL CIA personel as of 1995. A number of friends of mine are on this list and I can assure your readers that they are indeed "helpful sources" as well as agents who have retired but maintain the consultant status. This explains why a significant number appear also in lists of retired personnel. To return to my original comment: Robert Crowley certainly gave away, loaned or otherwise sent out, a considerable and historically priceless trove of papers to others besides Mr. Trento. I am sure that Mr. Trento may well believe that Robert gave him "everything" but in his last years, even before he had his operation, Bob simply did not recall on Wednesday what he had done, or said, on Tuesday. The public should be grateful for this chronic and progressing problem because now all of us can see what before only a handful of close-mouthed people ever had access to. Knowing what Bob disposed of to at least one writer and observing much of this material listed in your forward, I am waiting with great excitement to see things on this site that no American publisher would ever dare publish. Walter Storch
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:50:10 EST Subject: Statistics and omissions? To: email@example.com Sir: Be assured that no "secret person" I ever met told me a secret, probably having to do with how one gets access to same. Offhand, I am struck by the relative paucity of the surname "Jones," as opposed to "Smith." Would this actually be different in Agency sources/whatever than the general population? Are there other such anomolies? My guess for free--worth every penny--is that your 1996 list has seen additions from other sources for reasons unknown to me. X-9
From: "Kenneth Spender" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Nazis in America Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:11:07 -0000 Gentlemen: I have been looking at this interesting website and read the comments about the Crowley files. Let me say this to Mr. Storch. As an American and as a Jew, I find the accusation that the CIA or any other American organization used Gestapo or other SS individuals after the war to be one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard. America, under Franklin Roosevelt, fought Adolph Hitler and his butchers to the death and to wipe out forever the fascists who perpetrated so much evil. Now, Mr. Storch, you want us to believe that the United States of America actually used the Gestapo murderers of the Third Reich and apparently paid and protected them while they were actually working in America? Quite frankly, I cannot, and do not, want to believe this outrage and I would really appreciate it if you could do me the courtesy of being factual. Can you sustain these charges? Will you present some proof of this? I really do not believe you can but if you can, please tell all of us in open forum what kind of proof you have. Thank you Kenneth Spender
From: "G Douglas" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: The Crowley List Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:55:20 -0000 Gentlemen: I have been looking at the various comments concerning the Crowley list, so-called, that your website has posted. In my opinion, your correspondent Mr. Brandt has a good point in that Crowly undoubtably had access to various lists during his long and distinguished career in the CIA. However, that having been said, I too have copies of some of these membership lists (which are not secret in any way and I have mine on loan from a member of the retired intelligence officer's association) I have checked this 1996 list against the posted Crowley list (copy of the list, also full of typos is available if anyone wants it) and I find that in one sense, Mr. Brandt is correct. A large number of the same names (but not always the same addresses) are found on both. So far Mr. Brandt has made a point. But by researching further, using this same borrowed list, I find hundreds and hundreds of ENTIRELY NEW NAMES that are NOT on the retired list. I have seen the original Crowley list. It is printed out on computer paper and NOT set out like the beforementioned borrowed list. Crowley kept a large data base of information and without a doubt, kept ALL CIA sources, former members and so on in this data base. The purpose in his preparing this list and making several copies of it in 1996 is well known to me and several other writers. It is the long-established pratice of the CIA to investigate ANY book published either in the US or abroad as to the sources used (active CIA personnel who would be severely punished if they supplied embarassing information to authors) documents cited and most especially, documents cited that might be in the hands of an unfriendly author. Their practice, therefore, is to have their friendly sources (either retired CIA personnel now in the public arena or members of the media or academia who are considered loyalist CIA supporters...often for money or support in their own writings)contact the author. The clearly patterened purpose of these calls is to ascertain the above information. For example, a reporter for the Washington Post, long known to be a strong supporter of the CIA, will call up the author of a controversial book. The caller will identify himself as a reporter for a major national newspaper and state that he has heard that this new book is a stunning work that should have much wider attention. To get this attention, the CIA source will say, it is necessary for a specialist he knows to look at the documents produced in support of the book or to ascertain the names and positions of important sources the author used. There are two purposes for this contact. The first one is to find out if the author is stupid enough to blab confidential information to the caller and the second, is to hope that someone from the Government can look at any files containing material detrimental to the CIA. Should this author, often an unexperienced one, succumb to this nonsense, an eager visiting expert will view the papers, take notes and immediately inform his superiors that in his professional opinion, these documents are covered by National Security (an idiot terminology for something that might embarass some governmental agency if published) Armed with this professional opinion, the agency involved will go into Federal court and obtain what is called a repleven order. This means that Federal agents, acting on this order, will enter the premesis of the author and sieze anything in sight, probably also including computers, VCRs, watches, cameras or any other ancillary things that might catch their fancy or fit into Christmas gift plans. Your correspondant speaks from personal knowledge. Having published seven books dealing, in the main, with the CIAs use of top Nazi Gestapo, SD, Abwehr and other personnel in the postwar years, all of the fumbling and very obvious approches indicated above have been made to me and my publishers over the past seven years. My copy of the Crowley data was used repeatedly to look up names of callers bent on kindergarten style mischief and this list proved to be invaluable to me in winnowing out the wheat of legitimate scholars from the chaff of government stool pigeons. Mr. Brandt is no doubt right in stating that wives often joined these organizations of retired people just to get in on conventions and so on but I firmly believe, in fact I know, that merely because someone is retired from CIA or other intelligence agencies is no proof whatsoever that they are no longer capable of officially directed mischief. A publisher of a Washington newspaper pointed out to me recently and very clearly something everyone seems to have missed. It is illegal and strictly forbidden for the CIA to operate WITHIN THE UNITED STAES! Therefore, if the CIA wants to snoop on American citizens, they have to go through persons not directly connected CURRENTLY with their agency. The CIA is the foremost advocate of the term "plausible deniabilty." They use this disclaimer often when one of their paid hacks publishes an article in a friendly newspaper or scripts a line or two on a national television program. One can sum up this matter by noting that nearly ALL of those in the Crowley list appear in published, authentic lists of KNOWN intelligence agents, retired or otherwise (and there are, of my knowledge, at least a number of currently serving persons on the Crowley list...but not the Brandt list). Now if the Crowley list contained names culled at random from phone books or put together from newpaper clippings, that would be one matter but repeatedly, the names in his list check out from sources other than retired lists and it should be noted that while the retired lists are very well represented in the Crowley list, there are a large number of names of others who are NOT in the public list of retired personnel but ARE in the Crowley data base. The answer to this comment by Mr. Brandt is that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity and the simplest answer to a complex problem is always the right one. I would venture to guess that if the reader were to begin a careful check on the names of those NOT listed in Brandt, et al, they would be as shocked as I have been. The realization that much of our opinions derived from the media are based far more often than not on deliberatedly slanted propaganda is hardly a pleasant one. We cannot now trust any agency of the government and if we cannot trust an allegedly free press, then who are we to trust? And where can we obtain truthful and accurate information on which to base our judgements if no official outlet can be trusted? Obviously, from the Internet which cannot be controlled by what C. Wright Mills called the Power Elite. Thank you for your time, Gregory Douglas
Cryptome note: Gregory Douglas is the person who provided the Crowley file. He is the author of several books, and there is information about his writings on the Web -- try google.com
From: "Walter Storch" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Response to kenneth spender Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:55:54 -0000 Dear Mr. Spender: This is in response to your recent questioning of American use of Nazis, specifically former members of the Gestapo and the SD, in their intelligence communities, post World War II. You have asked me to prove my statement that this did, in fact, occur. I can well understand, and sympathize, with your sense of betrayal and certainly its attendant denial but the simple truth is that my statement was entirely correct. Permit me to recommend several published works on this subject. "Blowback" by Christopher Simpson, Widenfeld & Nicholson 1988 "Gestapo Chief" vols 1 through 4 by Gregory Douglas, Bender, 1996-99 Specific, detailed use of many of these people can also be found in the U.S. National Archives in Washington. The most detailed list can be found under the heading of: P&O File 311.5 TS (Sections I,II,III), 1948 located in 1946-48 top secret decimal file, Records of Army General Staff, RG 319 The Simpson book, now out of print and very unpopular with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, can be found in many libraries. The Douglas books are in print here and in Europe and the US versions can be obtained from any large bookstore or through Amazon.com The Douglas books are filled with copies of classified documents dealing with this subject but more in specific, the hiring by the CIA of one SS General Heinrich Mueller, once chief of the German Gestapo. Also, the Douglas books have printed dossiers on many top Gestapo and SD officials who worked for the CIA-controlled Gehlen organization since its inception in 1948. Mr. Douglas also has a data base of all Gehlen people from the 1948 date through the present and will shortly be publishing it. I believe he has had a message printed here so perhaps you will now have his email address and can deal directly with him. If you do not, it is firstname.lastname@example.org As I said above, I can certainly relate to your unhappiness in this matter but I do suggest that you explore the matter further and then form a more realistic opinion. Sincerely, Walter Storch
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:34:54 -0800 From: Address deleted by request Subject: Re: Crowley list To: email@example.com Hello, While I'm honored that someone might list me as being a "CIA source" I'm afraid that my exposure to that agency has been only slightly more than an average person's. The two times I've met CIA employees have been a presentation by one of their staff and having once met the CIA representative to the Headquarters, U.S. Atlantic Command. My background was in USAF Intelligence as a member of the Air Force Reserves. As far as being an "agent of influence" I suppose that any technical support engineer could be considered that... Many of the AFIO members are from the military services (as a quick scan will verify) and have not been employed by the CIA in any manner (paid or unpaid.) By the way, the data your listing does appear to be from the 1996 membership listing. The data is much too old for that. Ronald Skoog
From: Address omitted Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:10:48 EST Subject: Crowley List To: Jya@pipeline.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Trent@publiccedcenter.org Gentleman, The only CIA operative I know is on the list and his address is correct. I called and sent him a copy of what is currently making it's rounds on the Internet. If the public knew what he does; Reagan and Bush would have never been reelected and would be sitting in jail along with the Bush Boys, Clinton, and a few others. "The election" was a play for the American people to think that their vote counted! Glad it is finally over -- Gore to concede tonight on Prime Time LOL May Truth Overcome Tyranny Greg
From: "Jeremy Compton" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Evaluation of the Crowley list Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:58:29 +1300 I have been looking into this one, an according to a person l know on the list, it is old information, this list seems rather suspect, apart from downright questionable as to the motive of this being put up. I've only put this on the list because, I now regard this list as being very suspect. http://cryptome.org/cia-namebase.htm [File above posted to the list, except for hyperlinked names; omitted here.] Posted to the list by Jeremy Compton
Identity omitted, pending permission
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:11:36 -0800 To: email@example.com Subject: comment on the Crowley files I don't know what you guys are, but I would not call you journalists, not by any stretch of the imagination. Did you bother to try and contact anyone on the list? If you had contacted me, I would have told you that, yes, I had served but in the Army, as a clerk in military intelligence units in Vietnam and Germany between 1967 and 1971. NCOs are officers too. Yes, I am a member of AFIO and yes, that is our directory...our for members only, not for commercial use directory, that you've published. Since I make my living as a freelance journalist this listing of me as a CIA source is likely to affect me in a very negative way, especially if I work overseas. Since you also published my address you've made me a target for serious mischief. For the record, I have never worked for the CIA. I have never even applied for a position with the CIA. Given your pose as journalists, you should be aware that there are at least 16 other organizations in the US intelligence community and most of those who labor in the field never get anywhere near the popular conception of "CIA agent". Most of the work is either clerical or technical in nature. Did you call anyone at AFIO? The organization exists to educate the public and there are some famous members, some of whom did serve in the CIA. George Bush and Bobby Ray Inman come to mind. I am referring this matter to my lawyer, by the way. I am hoping that others on this list will do likewise. You've screwed up bigtime here and exposed a lot of innocent people to potential harm. May a mantle of deepest shame descend upon your shoulders. Sincerely,
Cryptome response to letter above:
14 December 2000 Dear We appreciate receiving your response and respect your views. The list was provided by Gregory Douglas, who claims to be a reputable journalist and historian, with several books published. Mr. Douglas is the one who characterized the persons lists as "CIA sources." Mr. Douglas may be reached by e-mail at <firstname.lastname@example.org>. And by telephone at: (US) 630-820-0389 We would like to publish your letter if you will give persmission. We are not journalists, but do provide a public forum for those, and others, who need one. Best regards, John Young Cryptome.org
And the writer's followup:
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:12:37 -0800 From: E-mail address omitted To: John Young <email@example.com> Subject: Re: comment on the Crowley files Dear Mr. Young: What planet are you from? If you publish you are, by definition, engaged in journalism and are a journalist. I called Mr. Douglas, who told me that he, as a journalist, had not tried to contact anyone on the list because Mr. Crowley had told him that anyone doing so could be presumed to be working for the CIA and trying to get information from him. A nice piece of circular logic. Moreover Mr. Douglas has given copies of this list to a number of foreign and domestic organizations, including US News and World Report. As for publishing any of this, not until I talk to my lawyer and probably not then since you will have to remedy this situation. [Name omitted]
Cryptome: See Daniel Brandt's response to the three messages just above, and a 1997 exchange of letters between AFIO and Mr. Brandt on his Namebase offering of an AFIO membership list:
From: "Istvan Kovacs" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Intelligence List Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:35:55 -0000 I have looked at your Website with the Crowley list. It is, I think, very interesting. More interesting to me are your comments from watchers. We have someone, several really, who say that this comes from some list for former members (and for sure some present ones) of the intelligence. This man identifies many of those people as being CIA. But because they are on some list HE has put up, he is unhappy. Then, we have other unhappy people too. But also some that are pleased. I notice, though, at least one man, and others, who refuse to let you use their names. For sure if you put up the name of the man who gave you the list, why can others write but not tell us who they are? Do they really exist? Or are they just cowards who hide behind this excuse for not allowing others to talk with them. One of the "hidden (non-existant?) ones now says he will sue everyone! Typical American nonsense! Sue for what? Why? This unknown hider says that he was, for sure in intelligence, but not CIA. The list is not of CIA agents but SOURCES. A source can be my garbage collector and at least I know his name. This same "mystery man" says his reputation is ruined. What foolishness....what reputation? His name has been published years before and is now on the Internet and has been. To me, this creature must have done something bad and is afraid someone will find out where he lives! What? A "clerk" in an office somewhere? What does he have to be afraid of? Perhaps this man was TOLD to write threats to you and then hide his face. This is even more suspicious to me than anything else. I know about the CIA from the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. These "great heros and saviors of American liberty" pushed the Hungarians into a revolt against the Soviet Army, promising to give us "all the weapons" we needed. We made a revolt and then...no weapons! Thousands died at the hands of the Soviets and where was the Liberty loving CIA? Hiding in Washington while their Hungarian friends died. I do not wish to hear whining little "anonymous" people make noise. A real man, who has something to say, is not afraid to put his name to his thoughts. If he does not have "the courage of his convictions", then he does not trust his thoughts or has something very bad to hide and why should we trust someone who very well might not exist? There should be enough of the secret police and secret informers. Believe me, we had enough of these in Europe and I know what I am looking at when I hear "hidden, secret" reports from hidden and secret people. Either put this complainer's name and address up where we can all see him or take him off your site. Steve
Cryptome note, 15 December 2000: Gregory Douglas reported today that he has had a discussion with the FBI about the Crowley file: The FBI said it had looked at the file but did not know what to make of it, only that the list includes names of a number of people well-known to be associated with the CIA. Mr. Douglas described how he obtained the list from Robert Crowley, and offered to show the original hardcopy of the list to the FBI in Washington DC today, an offer the FBI accepted. The FBI asked how the list came to be published on the Internet and Mr. Douglas described that.
Provided by Anonymous:
"Note by ACTION REPORT: "Gregory Douglas" is the pseudonym of "Peter Stahl," alias "Burch," a convicted counterfeiter living in the United States under various names assigned to him by a witness protection programme. We have seen his police record, and we are not impressed by his clumsy forgeries of wartime documents."
-- David Irving, Book Review -- "Gregory Douglas": GESTAPO CHIEF. The 1948 interrogation of Heinrich Müller, December 1, 1997 (David Irving is a "Holocaust Denier;" Action Report is his Web site.)
From: "Drew Hendricks" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: the infamous list - Maurice Bishop Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 17:53:03 -0600 I saw an interesting name pop up in Mr Douglas' list of 2,619 CIA Sources. Maurice Bishop was the name used by a CIA agent in Cuba and Florida between 1960 and 1971, according to Gaeton Fonzi (THE LAST INVESTIGATION, Thunder's Mouth Press 1993, 94 Paperback ISBN: 1560250798; currently out of print but available in many libraries.) Bishop was the control agent for many of the Cuban exile groups who were being trained to take Cuba back from Castro. Antonio Veciana, the leader of Cuban exile group Alpha-66, said that he met with the man he knew as BISHOP for almost ten years. In 1978, author Fonzi was an investigator with the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and he brought Antonio Veciana's allegations to the Committee. The HSCA asked the CIA for an index check for that name, and recieved a negative response: (Quoted from http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt) "The following is from Volume 10 of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATION: THE SEARCH FOR BISHOP (168) One of the factors utilized in the committee's efforts to locate Maurice Bishop was the description of him provided by Veciana. When he first met him in 1960, Veciana said, Bishop was about 45 years old, about 6 feet, 2 inches tall, weighed over 200 pounds, and was athletically built. He had gray-blue eyes, light brown hair, and a light complexion.(151) (...) (183) (David Atlee) Phillips was shown the sketch of Maurice Bishop but could not identify it as anyone he knew. He said, however, "It looks like me." (206) (184) In sworn testimony before the committee in executive session on April 26, 1978, Antonio Veciana said that David Atlee Phillips is not the person he knew as Maurice Bishop.(207) He said, however, that there was a "physical similarity."(208) (185) On March 2, 1978, the committee requested the CIA to check all its files and index references pertaining to Maurice Bishop.(209) On March 31, 1978, the CIA informed the committee that its Office of the Inspector General, its Office of the General Counsel, its Office of Personnel, and the Deputy Directorate of Operations had no record of a Maurice Bishop.(210) (186) On August 10, 1978, B. H., a former covert operative of the CIA, was interviewed by the committee in a special closed session. (211) B. H. was a CIA agent from 1952 to 1970.(212) Between 1960 and 1964 he was assigned to Cuban operations.(213) As such, he testified, he was involved in "day-to-day" operations with David Atlee Phillips. He characterized Phillips as "an excellent intelligence officer" and "a personal friend."(214) (187) When asked if he knew an individual named Maurice Bishop, B. H. said: "Again, Mr. Bishop was in the organization but I had no personal day-to-day open relationship with him. Phillips, yes; Bishop, no. I knew them both."(215) (end quote) So there seems to have been a Maurice Bishop, whose existence was still a closely held secret in 1978, who does not show up in previous lists of publicized CIA agents, until now. And oddly, Daniel Brandt's index of persons covered by Gaeton Fonzi's book THE LAST INVESTIGATION does not list Maurice Bishop, despite his prominence in that work. So Brandt missed the fact that the Douglas list of 2,619 DID contain a person not on his AFIO list but present in Namebase's sources. (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.pir.org/cgi-bin/nbonlin4.cgi%3 FUJ+the+last+investigation+Fonzi&hl=en ) for google-cached example index from www.pir.org leaving out Bishop's name from the index. (http://cuban-exile.com/doc019a.htm ) for example manuscript of Fonzi's work in this area, including heavy emphasis on finding the true identity of "Maurice Bishop." My research into the list's information has shown: 102 Bear Gulch Rd., Woodside, CA 94062 (Bishop's listed address) Does not exist according to county property tax rolls. http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/taxcollector/online/index.htm (The street exists, but its house numbers do not start at 100) It would be in Voting Precinct 1624 if it did exist. It would also be in San Bruno, Ca (NOT WOODSIDE...) http://www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us/ceo.shtml (www.four11.com) A man is listed as Maurice Bishop at 408-744-0307 in Sunnyvale CA (Short distance from Woodside) zip 94086. No address is listed. I do not have the requisite equipment to call. (Lacking the nerve, not the phone...) (http://anybirthday.com/search.htm) Birthdays Possible for a man described as "about age 45 in 1960": Last First Date Zip MAURICE - BISHOP 10-APR-24 12182 MAURICE P BISHOP 15-MAR-14 38574 MAURICE L BISHOP 23-NOV-21 33937 MAURICE - BISHOP 03-NOV-14 45432 All of these birthdays checked against San Mateo County Voter Registration Database, no positive results. (http://www.care.co.sanmateo.ca.us/regconf/index.html) Well, that is it - Inconclusive, but the list is mostly _not_ corroborated by this example. The list looks to my eyes like a mix of expendable identities seeded with tantalizing pseudo-clues to real assets already exposed elsewhere. The really interesting footnote to all of this is Brant's behaviour afterward...and his indexing "glitch" detailed above... (Publishable with or without attribution) Drew Hendricks Washington, 2000
To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: John Young <email@example.com Subject: Inquiry on Gregory Douglas Date: 18 December 2000 Dear Mr. David Irving, We have had discussions with Mr. Gregory Douglas, who may also be known as Peter Stahl, about publishing on the Internet material he has offered. I have read your Action Report concerning Mr. Douglas's alleged activities as a counterfeiter and forger, as well as his being in a witness protection program. We would be most grateful if you could provide us with documentary substantiation of these allegations. We shall be pleased to pay for costs of providing this information. Very best regards, John Young Cryptome 251 West 89th Street New York, NY 10024 Tel: (US) 212-873-8700 Fax: (US) 212-787-6102 ___________________ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:11:53 +0000 From: David Irving <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: John Young <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Inquiry on Gregory Douglas I have been plagued by Douglas for over 20 years. His criminal record is established, he boasted of it to me. He tried to foist a fake German (Himmler) document on to me in 1975. His "Mueller" material is from the same source (his own brain). He foisted a fake Odilo Globocnig document on to British writer Gitta Sereny -- contact her at: Mrs Gitta Sereny 5 Pembroke Studios, Pembroke Gardens, London W8 6HX He bought a wartime German typewriter from antiquariat Brandenburg Historica I have seen the receipt); why would he need that item, one wonders. They have an extensive dossier on him. Try contacting their Diana Schreiber at [17 June 2002 Brandenburg Historica contact info removed by request:] ----- 7 June 2002 Since you posted Irving's inaccurate email on the net my firm has come under constant assault via hacking, email and abusive faxes. I have people sending me "kiddy porn" for gods sake - what am I supposed to think? We are a legitimate business and this is nothing more than criminal harassment and defamation. I think all this litigation has made Irving unstable - I have NO idea why he posted our firm name and my personal information in his email to you. We have no connection to the intelligence community or any political organization. I ask you again to remove my company and personal information from your web site. Sincerely, Diane Schreiber ----- David Irving (now in Key West, USA) Focal Point Publications 81 Duke Street London W1M 5DJ phone (011 44) 20 7491 3498 fax (011 44) 20 7409 7048 email: firstname.lastname@example.org
From: "G Douglas" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: the Crowley Li8st Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 05:53:25 -0000 Dear Mr. Young: Following my conversation with you today, I have given considerable consideration to your ideas and suggestions. To recapitulate the theme of your remarks, you feel that both you and your viewers would like to know more about the origins of the Crowley list. In light of your concerns and in furtherance of your basic idea of better disclosures in this matter, I agree with you that ALL of the Crowley papers should be displayed on the Internet so that the interested, the curious and especially the doubters can see the wider picture. As many of these papers have Robert Crowley's name on them, might not the disclosure of his entire file weigh in on the overall authenticity of the list now in question? I agree entirely with you that such an action would certainly tend to dispel any strong, or even lingering, doubts as to the origins of the data base printout now on your website. A number of other viewers have emailed me concerning this subject and all of them, without exception, have been urging me to undertake, or have others undertake, just such a step. After all, as you so clearly said, it is necessary to put all the cards on the table and I must say that in retrospect, I am entirely in agreement with you. Since I have no knowledge of the Internet, websites or other such technical concepts, this is a matter for professionals such as yourself to tend to in their own way and time and to this end, I am certain that the end result will more than answer your concerns and the concerns of some of your viewers. As I am no longer in possession of these papers, I will put you in direct touch with the persons who now have them and will advise them of your wishes insofar as the wider dissemination of these hallmark historical documents is concerned. I thank you for your repeated and most considerate offer of technical assistance in realizing this monumental project. You, of course, deserve the fullest credit for presenting this concept to me in such a clear, reasonable and timely way and I am certainly a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. I would hope, therefore, that in the very near future, all of your criteria may be met and again, please accept my sincere thanks for your timely and pragmatic solution to a complex problem. Most sincerely, Greg Douglas
"Kobernicki, Lesek" is on the Crowley list.
From: "Leszek Kobiernicki" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: " Gregory Douglas " Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:45:54 -0000 MI6 here identified my Stahl ( AKA GD ) as a faker extraordinaire. Somehow he seems to have set America by the ears. Why so ? Does no-one hear us any more ? Regards, Friends.
From: EditInk500@aol.com Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:51:48 EST Subject: Re: AFIO To: email@example.com Well, Mr. Young, If your going to use my name, please spell it right on all the lists, please. It is Wilson, Diana V. (Ph.D), not Wilson, Diann V. Actually, I am getting a big kick out of the ruckus this is all making. Actually, it just adds to my credibility in the type of work that I do. I have two companies Wilson Logic (jury consulting), and EARP (Executive Analysis Research and Protection). I noticed that my brother as well, Harry G Wilson was in the 1991 list, and in 1996 list, but later when I looked for the 1996 list again, he wasn't there. So the question might be: Do people have the right to insist that you remove them from the list? Thank you for your comments, DVWilson Ph.D.
From: "Leszek Kobiernicki" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "John Young" <email@example.com> Subject: MI5's allegation that Cryptome listed me as a CIA asset Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:09:47 -0000 Dear Coleague This British SIO was concerned to hear I had been named in Robert Crowley's so-called Testament listing CIA agents & assets. May I state on record that I am neither one of theirs nor do I intend to become such. It so happens from time to time that British and American interests converge. If so, good; if not, too bad. I do not work for USG, nor have I ever done so. I have kept my loyalties where they should be - to the land of my birth. People with any other interests at heart cannot be trusted. LK.
From: "Leszek Kobiernicki" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "John Young" <email@example.com> Subject: Status LK Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:10:40 -0000 Dear John Young I have been poring over your site, CRYPTOME, and am singularly impressed, each time. However, I do note, that a DERA rep. visting, seemed still to be under the impression that I was a CIA source. Sorry, but this is NOT so. In the course of my work, I have advized governments ( including USG ), on the inescapable consequences of certain policies. However, this Cassandra role is part of another brief altogether - NOT a CIA operational one. Please if possible, make this known among the quarters detailed to take an interest in these things. I have nothing against CIA, but not being a national of, nor a resident of the US, I have no overriding first loyalty towards them. Rather, my loyalty is with London. The misinformation posted by Peter Stahl aka " Gregory Douglas " has caused an awful lot of confusion in people's minds. Especially at MI5, and though it makes me laugh, it is too annoying to be tarred with whatever brush that peculiar character chooses to pick up at any time. He is a waste of space, pure and simple, in my view. Sincerely, Leszek Kobiernicki
From: JimLeusner@aol.com Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 00:36:15 EDT Subject: greg.....i'm not a CIA source! To: firstname.lastname@example.org greg, was doing a monthly check of my byline and just stumbled across the Crowley files page you posted on the internet. i was STUNNED to see my name listed as a CIA SOURCE! that is absolutely NOT true. i'm a reporter for the orlando sentinel, where i've worked for 22-plus years. my name (and that address listed for me) are on that list because i'm a member of the association of former intelligence officers. although i have never worked for the government, i was allowed to join -- as have other reporters -- because i have covered federal law enforcement cases including espionage, terrorism and the drug war. in fact, i have identified people charged in crimes with links to american intelligence agencies. i would appreciate if you set the record straight. in fact, i may have been investigated by the government for stories i've done on martin marietta corp. (in 1990) and a subsequent explosion at their orlando missile plant a few years later involving a satellite program that had been killed by congress. please put the appropriate disclaimer on that page. otherwise, it is false, unfair and irresponsible to include me in any category that you currently list. thank you. jim leusner reporter the orlando sentinel 633 n. orange ave. orlando, fl 32801 phone: 407-420-5411 email: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JLeusner@OrlandoSentinel.com To: email@example.com Subject: crowley list Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 11:41:13 -0400 i'm the reporter who sent you a note about my name appearing on the CROWLEY FILES list of CIA SOURCES. i'd appreciate if you could look into the matter. i've never been a spook or a source and i'd like to correct the record on that libelous list that could cause great harm to my good name as a reporter. i'm surprised ted koppel, walter pincus, howard kurtz, tim weiner and other journalists whose names are on the list haven't raised questions about this. yes, i'm a reporter who has written about law enforcement and intelligence topics over the past 25 years and been in my share of scrapes with the government. because of my interest in intelligence and terrorism, i joined the association of former intelligence officers as a journalistic member. but no one has controlled how i report and write my stories, contrary to the crowley file introduction about how sources can be used to control, influence or manipulate various situations. that is simply misleading and a lie. i'm no snitch, no government operative, never have been and never will be. and i would appreciate if you could set the record straight. thank you. jim leusner
To: JLeusner@OrlandoSentinel.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: crowley list Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 Jim, Sorry for this late response. I'll immediately correct the record by posting your notes, as we have done with a others who objected or were gratified to being on the Crowley list. We have a separate file on reader comments: http://cryptome.org/cia-2619-rc.htm Your notes have been put there. Gregory Douglas has since set-up his own Web site which also has a copy of the CIA sources file. You may want to contact him about the correction, or take up the matter with him. His Web site: http://www.crow96.20m.com The Sentinel is a great paper, glad to see you doing exemplary work there. Regards, John
From: JLeusner@OrlandoSentinel.com To: email@example.com Subject: RE: crowley list Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:22:30 -0400 john, you've got a great, helpful site for journalists. and thanks for the response. but i don't know if just posting my comments is a complete remedy. it still allows for FALSE, libelous info to be posted about my good name. and that crazy list can get me killed if i go overseas and do reporting or teaching! i would request my name either be pulled off the list -- or if you guys want to keep it posted, change the preface on the list to say these are AFIO members, journalists, whatever and not CIA SOURCES. i'm amazed there hasn't been more of a controversy with media folks over this. thanks again. jim leusner
Mr. Leusner's message just above has been added to the Crowley List file.
To: JLeusner@OrlandoSentinel.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: crowley list Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 Jim, I appreciate your concern for your reputation and physical safey, and that's not meant to be a cliche. Here's the rub: The Crowley list, a/k/a the AFIO list, is available from several sources, so I'm told, thus your name is out there in a variety of places. One is the Name Base site run by Daniel Brandt. Brandt and AFIO were in a dispute about his publishing the list (without addresses) long before Douglas sent it to us, and, though threatened by AFIO, Brandt did not remove the list from his site. See correspondence on this: http://cryptome.org/cia-afio-names.htm I do not know if your name is in the Name Base version, but it may be there and/or in other AFIO lists floating around. Name Base has a look-up feature, so if your name is there it will pop up as well as the sources. One of the reason we publish names is to alert those who are on them that the information is public, as with the Crowley list. We do not get privileged or secret information, or at least not often, as reputable reporters such as you do. Most of what we get is already out there, although it may be available only in closed circles, those circles, being the journalists, intelligence agencies, their contractors, their suppliers and their ex-members -- and some of these folks are not always respectful of the names they distribute, as with AFIO. Your name has been out in public probably from the first year you joined AFIO and I wonder if AFIO told you about it. We've had angry mail from several AFIO members who claim outrage not at being on the list but at the list being made public, as if nobody had told them of the information being out there. That is AFIO's doing, we are just publicizing AFIO's negligence -- not that that seems to bother AFIO very much, for we have had no complaint from AFIO, not a single request to remove the list or denial of its accuracy. I suspect AFIO appreciates the list being published as a recruiting measure -- as do several persons named. In any event, I will publish all your notes, but will not remove your name from the list for I do not believe your association with AFIO places you in danger solely because of the list we have published. It is your reporting which places you in danger, and perhaps associating with AFIO members who use you for camouflage, and I congratulate you for that courage. Regards, John