Searcher08 wrote:I dont understand what you mean about Promis being a "wild goose chase". To me , that is like saying 9-11 is a wild goose chase.
Well, for many people 9/11
is a wild goose chase.

That doesn't mean there is nothing there, but whether any of us putting together 3rd hand "clues" can get to the bottom of it is (to me) an open question.
There is a trail of corruption around this a mile wide that intersects with BCCI , Iran/Contra etc
Maybe so. But saying so doesn't address the question of whether all the things attributed to Promis are even remotely likely. We have Promis credited with helping Osama Bin Laden avoid capture. We have it credited (by Flocco and Ruppert) with assisting the insider trading deals prior to 9/11. And on and on. (see The Octopus by Kenn Thomas and Jim Keith, pp 158-159)
Sorry if I am am coming across as a bit snarky, but I started this thread to support someone here who is investigating her father's death as part of a multiple homicide related to Inslaw / Promis, so it's pretty hardball...
And I'm not meaning to rain on anybody's parade. It just gives me pause to read that it was LaRouche aide Jeffrey Steinberg who put Danny Casalero in touch with Michael Riconosciuto. (The Octopus, pg 10)
And unless that letter from Reynolds to William Wald posted above was received via a FOIA request, I'd consider it highly likely to be someone's forgery. I cannot imagine someone at the DoJ committing that to paper. It is just too perfect a smoking gun. Same with Reagan writing about the October Surprise in a letter to someone. I'm just arguing for the usefulness of some common sense in weighing the likelihood of some of this "evidence"...