Owen Parsons

The fact that the footnotes go one page off half-way through the book is the fault of the publisher and a red herring. The bottom line here is that the notes do correspond to actual passages in the text. A metaphor for the Angel Murgado story, wherein the involvement of Bobby's associates with Oswald supposedly silenced him. Besides that, you are being dishonest here when you say it is only qualified as a "metaphor" in the notes. This qualifier is included in the main body of the text in addition to many other qualifiers. You really aren't able to get off this one, are you? Mellen is explicit in what she thinks of this story and how she uses it. It isn't presented as factual in the main body of the text, and you know this. For my own part, I'm pretty certain I've never accused you of this (though I have implied this of Gratz). If I have anywhere, I apologize in advance.

I find it fascinating that the only person to connect Weyl with the "Ware Group" is Weyl himself. Not even Whitaker Chambers mentioned him. Ditto with Lee Pressman (who also refuted Chamber's allegation that Hiss belonged to this group). The key word here is "evidence," isn't it? There is indeed a good deal of evidence of *American* involvement (you mention the fact that these people are Americans, as if it is somehow more okay to accuse non-Americans of the crime, i.e. Castro).

Read the chapter "The September Bug" for the story McCord won't tell you about this.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays etc. I am I the only one here who watches Fox News and their "War on Christmas" segments just for the sheer amusement of it?

Oh, come on. This is the same garbage that gets thrown at JFK assassination researchers and witnesses. Whenever some one disagrees with you, they are out for money. I think this is a bit *inappropriate* since you haven't ever met or talked with Hougan and have only "skimmed" through his book. You are not in a position to pass judgements on his character. Why don't you try seriously reading and engaging with his book and leave out the character assassination? In addition, I find your attitude a bit condescending, like I wouldn't understand that people can have ulterior motives. Yes, I know all about Fensterwald and McCord. Hougan's book goes over it (he actually defends Fensterwald from allegations that he was CIA, something McCord perpetuated). I suggest you seriously read Hougan's book before talking about its "credibility" and "operative thesis." In addition, Helms is pretty much a peripheral character in the book. It is the Office of Security that gets most of the credit, if I recall (its been over a month since I finished reading the book and returned it to the library). Please read Hougan's book before building this strawman. Hougan's book does not hold that the ensuing scandal was a CIA "op." He thinks Nixon's bad press was fully deserved. He does not impute ulterior motives to either Woodward or Bernstein. The CIA was involved only to the extent of dissuading speculation about their own involvement. Bob Bennet did drive Woodward off the path of the CIA, as shown in CIA memos reprinted in full in one of Hougan's appendices. Also, Hougan cites numerous investigations by both the FBI and the phone company (one of which was immediately after the break-in), which demonstrate pretty conclusively that the phones of R. Spencer Oliver and Larry O'Brien were never tapped in the first place. Secret Agenda depicts McCord acting much more autonomously and in his own self interest than you seem to think it does. Anyway, I'm going to stop here because I don't have the book with me. I can only really rebut what you think the book is about from memory. Its a better position than your own, but I'm not comfortable with it.

At the trial (which seems to square better with Oswald's phraseology), of course. If anything, he would get a better sense of Power's character there than from T.V. spots. Now we are into the realm of defending Professor Mellen's claim that Oswald appeared at Powers' trial on the basis that sitting in the back of a courtroom would have provided "a better sense of Powers' character there than from T.V. spots." Let's get back to Professor Mellen's source, which, to reiterate, was not Weberman. Anyone taking up the mantle of dogmatically defending every aspect of the book should be able to demonstrate the source of such a bold historical claim without resorting to unattributed sources. Let Professor Mellen explain the bases for asserting that Banister was shot to death, Oswald attended Powers' trial and Harvey testified to specific White House approval of a Johnny Roselli assassination plot. T.C. I don't know if Professor Mellen bases her statement about Oswald being at Powers' trial on Weberman or not. I just brought it up to demonstrate that there is some reason for concluding that he was, since you didn't understand "why or how" she could come to that conclusion. As for the debate about what would provide a better sense of Powers' character, you're the one who started down that path. I think a plain sense reading of the passage from Oswald's letter indicates he saw Powers' in person. Oswald may be making it up, but I don't think he is referring to what he saw on T.V. I think Mellen's sources re: Banister and Harvey should be pretty apparent from her footnotes.

If he had just seen him on T.V., it would seem more natural for Oswald to simply say so and leave out extraneous details like where Powers was when he saw him. A commonsensical explanation of Oswald's assertion of seeing Powers in Moscow would indeed be that he saw him on television. Where else would Oswald have seen enough to conclude that Powers "seemed to be a nice, bright, American-type fellow?" T.C. At the trial (which seems to square better with Oswald's phraseology), of course. If anything, he would get a better sense of Powers' character there than from T.V. spots.

If he had just seen him on T.V., it would seem more natural for Oswald to simply say so and leave out extraneous details like where Powers was when he saw him.

Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much. Owen, you're a bright person. You should read McCord's book A Piece of Tape before you get sucked into the "CIA set up poor Dicky" vortex. McCord acknowledges that he resented Nixon's trying to make the CIA take the fall. He knew that Hunt was working on behalf of the White House, and not the CIA. He let the White House try to bribe him...let them hang themselves...before he sprung the trap and told Sirica what was going on. McCord's role in history is incredibly diminished when people ascribe his actions to Helms. He deserves credit for being the whistle-blower that he was. IMO, and evidently Baldwin's, he was nobody's puppet. From the excerpts Hougan quotes, A Piece of Tape appears to be a somewhat bizarre little book. IMO, Secret Agenda pretty convincingly shows all the falsehoods in the stories of both McCord and Hunt. Hunt's protestations of "retirement" from the CIA are very convincingly debunked. I don't think I'll be capable of taking McCord's writings on his supposed motivation seriously after reading Hougan's carefully documented and argued book. If McCord's role in history is diminished, then it is deservedly so. Secret Agenda doesn't absolve Nixon from blame at all. Nixon gets full credit for the cover-up (which is all he is credited with in the standard story). Hougan accepts Nixon's guilt as established and refers readers to Lukas' Nightmare for the details of the cover-up. He thinks the Watergate break-ins themselves have been overlooked, and sets about remedying the situation. I had originally thought that looking for "another curtain" was silly, but eventually decided to read Secret Agenda and was very impressed by it. Its a surprisingly cautious and careful book; it doesn't even propose a Deep Throat candidate. I get the impression that you haven't read the book, just the summaries.

Whether you have heard it rumored or not is pretty irrelevant, as Mellen cites her sources (who would be in a position to know). If you choose to disbelieve them that is your prerogative, but it has no bearing on Mellen's use of citations. I don't know how you can call this a "wild claim." Mellen cites and quotes from the appropriate source (which is not the one Gratz was claiming Mellen used). From Weberman's site: On February 15, 1962, OSWALD wrote this to Robert Edward Oswald: "I heard over the Voice of America that they released Francis Gary Powers the U-2 spy plane fellow. that's big news where you are, I suppose. He seemed to be a nice, bright, American-type fellow, when I saw him in Moscow." The CIA commented: "The only period during which it would have been reasonably possible for OSWALD to have seen Francis Gary Powers in Moscow in person was between August 17, 1960 and August 19, 1960, when Francis Gary Powers was in Moscow, undergoing trial. There are no other indications that OSWALD was in Moscow after January 1960, so OSWALD'S statements remain unclarified." Its not totally definitive, but its very far from being baseless.

Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much.

That was one of the things that immediately jumped out at me while skimming through Ultimate Sacrifice at Barnes & Noble and turned me off to the book. Anyway, I'm glad to see you've finally arrived. A couple of questions: 1. Do you have any more insights or information on Fred Crisman and his activities? 2. You state that Garrison would later come across information that would indicate that Oswald did indeed possess Ferrie's library card, but that it had been destroyed. Could you fill in the details? Thanks for an excellent book!

Loyalty to a friend? Self-preservation (I am not speaking of legal complications here)? I think there are some concerns that may override monetary gain. Beaubouef said that Ferrie told him to lie about the guns. Ferrie also told his godson, Morris Brownlee, that this attempt to lie about the guns was to keep the D.A. from getting anything on him. Coffee says the trip was planned two days in advance, that they left at 7 pm, and that it was Ferrie's idea. Beaubouef says it was planned in detail a week in advance, that the trio left at 4 pm, and that he came up with idea. These two stories are not all that reconciliable. I am perfectly aware of this, of course. Ferrie apparently had a change of alibi plans. I wonder why, however, Ferrie felt the need (after learning that he was being investigated) to drop his buddies off in New Orleans and then flee to Hammond in the first place. Are these the actions of an innocent man? What did Ferrie have to fear? I think if any account of this alleged discussion is to be authoritative, it ought to be the one Ferrie gave to the FBI within days of the incident. And, as I noted before, Ferrie would later drop this aspect of his story totally. This is not exactly accurate. Rolland doesn't base his conclusions on Ferrie's skating activities on what he saw, but rather on the fact that Ferrie did not buy a ticket for that purpose, a thing Rolland would be in a position to know. I don't know what you're point is about Rolland not watching Ferrie at all times. When Rolland was watching Ferrie, he was far more often than not on the phone. I agree with you here. I think Garner was probably mistaken about the date. The biggest problem with this account is that it has Ferrie first learning of the library card from the FBI. I think this is unlikely, as G. Wray Gill knew of this allegation and left a message to that effect at Ferrie's residence. Gill had been conversing with Ferrie over the phone prior to Ferrie's return to New Orleans and his FBI interview. Besides that, it still doesnt explain why Ferrie would get worked up over Oswald being in possession of his library card, even after the FBI had dropped the matter.

Gee, I dunno Gerry. You seem to know everything about everyone else, why stop with Helms?

The entire series is here.

I don't think speaking out in support of conspiracies should negatively impact a witnesses' credibility. It is only when they start alleging too much personal knowledge in support of their beliefs that I think eyebrows should be raised. Wheaton only has important personal knowledge about one event, he theorizes about the rest.

I have some new info about that, which involves some pre-assassination interest in a rink and a different man. I spoke with both the boys who made the trip, and they insist that Ferrie did discuss operating a rink with somebody at Winterland, but they think it may have been the manager on duty before Rolland arrived. They insist that all three men skated initially but Ferrie gave up because he was "hopeless", ate a sandwich and made a few calls. Rolland did arrive late. They deny that he tried to draw attention to himself. It is enlightening, talking to the actual people involved. I don't have the tapes handy, but they say things like: "I was THERE. It was a damn trip. Dave did nothing suspicious, I would have noticed if he did. People have elevated a simple trip with some legal business and a joyride to something sinister." I am NOT saying this is the final word on it! People have warned me that "Ferrie's friends are all a bunch of lairs", but you don't get that impression talking to them. I'm just going to tell "both" sides of it in the book. I think there is some reason to doubt the veracity of Ferrie's friends, seeing as how they initially couldn't keep their stories straight as to who proposed the trip and when, whether there were weapons in the car or not, and its exact purpose. I certainly think their accounts should be presented though. As for Mr. Rolland, he may have arrived late, but Ferrie apparently didn't mention anything about opening an ice rink in his call to him a week prior. And if Ferrie was genuinely interested in purchasing a skating rink, I find it odd that he would say nothing of this during the five times he came up to Mr. Rolland to mention his name and make his presence known (which I think qualifies as "draw[ing] attention to himself" and comes from a source who was certainly "involved" and seems to have no ulterior motives, unlike Ferrie's friends). Ferrie's friends are either very much mistaken or just plain untruthful if they insist that Rolland was probably not the one Ferrie allegedly talked to about his rink purchasing plans. Ferrie, in his FBI interview of the 25th, very close to the incident, states that it was Rolland that he had a lengthy conversation with about the "cost of installation and operation of the rink" (which is not born out by Rolland himself). Apparently Ferrie realized this story wouldn't be corroborated by Rolland and later dropped the rink purchasing aspect of his tale, stating that he "just had the urge to go ice skating" in his 1967 NODA interview. Also, Rolland may not have have been monitoring Ferrie's activities at all times, but he did testify that Ferrie "did not buy a ticket of admission for skating purposes," which would appear to rule out skating activity. I'd like to hear this "sketchy account" re: the library card.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination.Probably because if Oswald ever had Ferrie's card in the first place (which I am not sure of), Ferrie would have forgotten about it. It is a pretty minor detail, you must admit. Jack Martin had to start circulating this story before Ferrie grew so concerned. It wasn't just something that came to his mind after he heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president. I don't for a moment admit that the library card and the activities of David Ferrie to recover it are a "minor detail." The use of a public telephone at an ice skating rink is to be deemed significant but visits to people like Oswald's landlady to recover the library card aren't? So what is Owen saying? Jack Martin created Ferrie's library card anxiety? That there was an assassination planned out involving both Ferrie and Oswald, but something Martin did suddenly raised concern? Despite all the planning, Ferrie forgot about the card until just after the shooting, and then suddenly realized the significance? Or is Owen trying to claim that Ferrie didn't know of Oswald's involvement until after he "heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president?" It doesn't make sense. T.C. The library card itself would be a minor detail, Ferrie's activities to recover it aren't. The library card wouldn't be significant to Ferrie (if it ever existed) during the time leading up to the assassination because it is a small item that wasn't involved in the assassination planning (and would have to have been loaned to Oswald while he was in the CAP, during the 1950's, since Ferrie had a more recent card on hand). Its a detail that anyone could easily forget. Ferrie's getting so worked up about it (after Martin started spreading the library card story; this wasn't something that just occured to Ferrie) is what I find strange. And the use of the public telephone and his odd behavior around Rolland take on more significance because they run counter to Ferrie's own story of his activities in the ice rink. Also, I am not saying that Ferrie didn't know of Oswald's involvement until after he heard of the assassination; I am simply setting up the scenario for Ferrie's innocence, which I think should be fairly obvious. You are only making this difficult for yourself.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination. T.C. Probably because if Oswald ever had Ferrie's card in the first place (which I am not sure of), Ferrie would have forgotten about it. It is a pretty minor detail, you must admit. Jack Martin had to start circulating this story before Ferrie grew so concerned. It wasn't just something that came to his mind after he heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president. More to the point, one wonders why Ferrie would become so worried about something that only links him to Oswald and not an assassination plot. This takes a great deal of paranoia.

You go on and on about how wrong Garrison was without adressing his evidence (except to say that Garrison's case against Shaw boils down to Perry Russo, which is wrong). And why is the number of times Shaw is mentioned in Ultimate Sacrifice of any significance? Also, Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink? I doubt this, as Rowland Rolland, the president of the rink, only recalled Ferrie approaching him and mentioning his name a few times, in addition to the incessant phone activity (which I'm sure you are aware of). I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

I second this. Don't waste your time on her. She is an automaton that posts the same things over and over and is totally incapable of changing her opinion one iota. I spent about 2000-3000 words in a single post rebutting her over a month ago to no avail.

Tim apparently has difficulty seeing that Russo's book is a "black book," complete with a cooked Agency-backed thesis.

You haven't read the book, have you? Otherwise you wouldn't post something so blatantly untrue. Mellen never says Garrison hated Turner. Mellen has her own criticisms of Turner's investigative work in one particular area. But she says that Garrison trusted Turner. What you have posted is a complete fabrication. Even if Garrison did hate Turner (which he didn't), this wouldn't change the fact that Turner endorses the case against Shaw.

Bill Turner also endorses the "non-existent" case against Clay Shaw, last I checked.

I was seeing so much red after reading that post that I missed Tim's explanation. Whoops. I know Tim believes that Oswald was an intelligence asset (thus cutting himself off from most of the CIA's cooked evidence of Commie links to the assassination). This takes some intellectual courage and I commend him for it. I don't buy his protestations that his assassination views aren't linked to his political ideology, though. I don't think its a coincidence that a card-carrying Buckleyite would just happen to come to the conclusion that Castro engineered the assassination.