Michael Hogan

According to Newsday

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/26/140956.shtml

Ex-FBI Chief: Watergate Docs Outed JFK

Speaking out for the first time since the Watergate scandal ended his career, former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray revealed Sunday that documents the White House ordered to him to hide implicated President John F. Kennedy in political and sexual misconduct.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," the 88-year-old Gray described a June 28, 1972 White House meeting with Nixon counsel John Dean, where Dean handed him a mysterious envelope.

"Dean told me that this envelope contained papers that were removed from [Watergate co-conspirator] E. Howard Hunt's safe, [saying], 'They have nothing to do with the Watergate investigation - but they must not see the light of day.'"

"The first set of papers in there were false top secret cables that indicating that the Kennedy administration had much to do with the assassination of the Vietnamese president," Gray explained, indicating they were counterfeit.

But a second set of files pulled from Hunt's safe, he suggested, were authentic.

"The second set of papers in there were letters purportedly written by Sen. Kennedy [before he became president] involving some of his peccadilloes."

"I looked at those papers [for the first time five months later] as I burned them," he told "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos.

Gray said he believes that the Nixon White House wanted him to get rid of the documents as part of elaborate plan to make it look like he destroyed key evidence related to Watergate - thereby turning him into a fall guy.

After Gray admitted to destroying Hunt's files during confirmation hearings in 1973, Nixon withdrew his nomination to be FBI Director.

In the above referenced ABC interview, Gray also said that:

"I was presented an envelope; I think it was about 8½ by 11," Gray said. "Dean told me that this envelope contained papers that were removed from Howard Hunt's safe, they had nothing to do with the Watergate investigation, but they must not see the light of day."

Gray said he didn't look at the papers at the time, instead putting them in a locked, "heavily secured" FBI storage unit. (emphasis mine}

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/st...3440&page=3

"I was not really interested in what was involved there," Gray said. "They told me it didn't involve Watergate."

That was weeks after you demonstrated an inability to keep your word. I could try and go back and find your words. Seems like you were calling for Slattery's banishment. Did that happen? Of course not. Did you fail to live up to your promise in an unsuccessful attempt to pressure John? Of course.

You can rationalize all of your behaviors in the weakest and most misleading ways. The only person you convince is yourself.

Bottom line, you made a threat. It didn't work. You caved in. Here you still are.

And I see you still lack enough class to address your assertion of Mr. Baldwin "lacking an ounce of self-respect." Like I said, not even enough class to apologize. And not even the slightest attempt to stay on topic.

Too bad.

J. Raymond Carroll wrote today:

Three hours later he follows up with:

Carroll didn't even have the class to address his assertion and implication that, by Carroll's own words, Baldwin must not have an ounce of self-respect. I notice that no apology to Mr. Baldwin was offered.

The above is all too typical of Carroll's actions on this Forum. I remember when he threatened to leave if John Simkin did not discipline Brendan Slattery. When John said he would not, Carroll lamely joked his way back.

Most all of Carroll's posts are becoming somewhat of a joke.

Hi Dawn,

Like you, I didn't want to post on the other thread. I'm sure you are familiar with Mr. Oglesby's speech to the Massachussetts Libertarian Party in 1991. (See below). It's entitled Secret State. At any rate, here's my post.

The Yankee and Cowboy War - Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate by Carl Oglesby

Sheed, Andrews And McMeel, Inc., Kansas City, 1976. HARDCOVER. Book Condition: G. Dust Jacket Condition: VERY GOOD. Not Illustrated (illustrator). 8vo. 1st edition 1976. An ex-library copy with the usual markings - the boards are somewhat shelf worn at the bottom edges. Else a Good or better copy in a VG dust jacket. Uncommon in any format. FIRST EDITION. 355pp.

The above sells for $172.50 at ABE books. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResu...oy+war&x=44

The paperback and second edition versions are hard to come by, but available. The 1977 Berkeley Pub Group edition is also available.

The Yankee and Cowboy War is a classic. Carl Oglesby's words are as important today as they were in 1976.

Here is an interesting article about Mr. Oglesby that appeared in Life Magazine in 1968.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/o...ant_voices.html

Here is an Address by Carl Oglesby to the Massachusetts Libertarian Party on the 200th Birthday of the Bill of Rights,

December 19, 1991 entitled Secret State.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/o...cret_State.html

Mr. Oglesby's 1991 words remain haunting, particularly in the post 9/11 political world we live in today.

Robert,

I think I can safely speak for the vast majority, if not all the people that read the posts on this Forum that you would never be mistaken for someone else.

Your posts are inimitable in both style and substance. I invariably find myself agreeing with your logic and admiring the way you express your ideas.

Mike Hogan

J Raymond Carroll writes:

"At the risk of being accused of trying to post something actually relevant to the topic of this thread, let me say that I do not support the removal of Mr. Gray from this forum, but I believe he should be severly reprimanded by the moderator for persistently accusing Mr. Douglas Caddy of being a xxxx."

Although he repeatedly quotes Ashton Gray, in none of those quotes does Gray accuse Caddy of being a xxxx. It is Carroll that makes unfounded and undocumented attacks. Carroll indulges in his penchant for giving unsolicited and advice to others:

"I would also advise him to stop insulting the intelligence of members of this forum by asking asinine questions of Mr. Caddy."

Carroll evidently sees himself as somehow speaking for other members of this Forum. He even claims to "suspect" why Caddy is no longer answering questions, like he had some special insight into Mr. Caddy's thought processes. Why not let Mr. Caddy speak for himself, which he has proven quite capable of doing in the past.

Carroll also shows no hesitation in giving his advice to Forum moderators. He feels they should "severely" reprimand Ashton Gray.

Somehow, I think the moderator(s) of this Forum aren't seeking, nor do they need the advice of Carroll concerning what actions (if any) they should take on anything.

I leave the reader with just a few of Carroll's quotes just in the last month. Mr. Carroll's words speak volumes about his qualifications to judge others. The following are direct quotes from J. Raymond Carroll in no particular order.

June 10, 2006

"There have been many fakes, delusions and hoaxes in this case, but I have never seen a more obvious fake than Judith Baker."

June 8, 2006

"There is one very obvious reason why Judith Baker's claims are bullxxxx. Lee Oswald had better taste in women."

May 30, 2006

"You must be proud of your bravery, Mr. Parsons. It must take some kind of courage to make scurrilous accusations like these against a poor defenseless woman who has been so cruelly abused by your oh-so powerful government for the past 40-odd years. Take a bow, why don't you."

May 29, 2006

"I am sad to say that Mellen's book is scandalous and a disgrace to the research community, IMHO."

"I am not certain that you are yet capable of knowing what a fact is, even when it stares you in the face."

May 29, 2006

"Joan Mellen's book, assuming it belongs in a bookstore, belongs in the pornography department, IMHO."

June 4, 2006

"Because NOBODY buries their children in miserable boxes like that, and only a complete idiot would think that it is even remotely possible."

"But what troubles me is the brutality inherent in Mr. Hogan's attacks upon an innocent person who was victimised first by the assassins who killed JFK and her husband, then by the enormously callous forces of the Federal Government , and now, it seems, even some researchers on this forum can't wait to throw stones at her."

"Mr. Hogan, do you really think that throwing stones at a helpless and innocent woman will make you some kind of hero? Would you like to add some insults to her children also, assuming you think they would not be sufficiently insulted if they had the misfortune to read the remarks you have already posted on this forum?"

"Mr. Hogan, if you have nothing to contribute beyond regurgitating what others had written 40 years ago, then you really don't have a helluva whole lot to contribute to this inquiry, now do you?"

Carroll felt comfortable in posting crap like the above with absolutely no documentation to back up any of his claims. He was never able to show that I 'brutally attacked" Marina Oswald, simply because I did nothing of the sort.

Rather than take affront at Carroll's BS...I was then, and I am now more than willing to let his own words speak to Carroll's credibility on this Forum.

Here is one more quote from Carroll taken today from a related thread:

"I suggest that he (Ashton Gray) be reminded that libelous statements or innuendos against fellow-members do not belong on this forum."

I'll leave it to the Forum members as to whether or not J. Raymond Carroll is in any position to give advice to anyone when it comes to how to conduct themselves on this Forum.

Mike Hogan

I use the free edition of AVG, http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1

When I attempted to log on the Forum, it instantly located and quarantined the viruses.

My system suffered no ill effects. I have used AVG for two years and found it extremely effective against all sorts of viruses.

Ashton,

Putting aside the Forum controversy that seems to be swirling around your posts, you are an outstanding writer and a dogged researcher.

As far as your approach in questioning Messrs Baldwin and Caddy, I'll definitely stay out of that discussion for the time being.

Have you ever considered self-publishing a small run book on Watergate? I'll buy two or three copies.

Thanks for making me revisit the Watergate mystery. Time does tend to blur perceptions.

Take care,

Mike Hogan

PS) I have carefully read the links you have provided.

SA James Bookhout was an FBI Agent. Here is a portion of his testimony to the Warren Commission:

Mr. STERN - Were you on duty on November 22?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - Actually, I was on leave on that particular date. However, I had been requested to come to the office to handle some expedited dictation in a particular case. Having completed that, I left the office and proceeded to the Mercantile National Bank, where I transacted some personal business. Upon leaving the bank, it was momentarily expected that the President's motorcade would pass that area. I stood there for a few minutes, and as the motorcade passed I was actually unable to personally observe the President, due to the crowd on the sidewalk. While waiting for the crowd to thin, in order to cross the street, several separate sirens on the police squad cars were heard proceeding in the direction of the county courthouse. While crossing the street, some citizen with a transistor radio stated that it had just been announced that shots had been fired at the President's motorcade.

I immediately proceeded toward the office and observed two agents coming from the direction of the office, who advised that the office was trying to contact me and I was to proceed to the homicide and robbery bureau of the Dallas Police Department.

I immediately proceeded to the homicide and robbery bureau and contacted my office and was advised that I was to maintain liaison with the homicide and robbery bureau.

Mr Gray,

Of course you know what you're doing, but I hate to see a good thread denigrated and words wasted on someone who wouldn't know a cowboy hat if it bit him in the ass.

Respectfully, why bother responding to someone that can't even spell the name of his own source (It's Wikipedia) and then proceeds to quote the origin of "principle of charity"

Then in the very next paragraph offers the totally contradictory statement that:

So who formulated the principle of charity? Was it Wilson? Or Christ? Forgetting that Confucius spoke of charity 500 years before the birth of Christ.

And this same person solemnly refers to Jesus as Jesus H. Christ. His source Wikipedia says this:

To tell you the truth, I don't believe he even understands the distinction.

Again respectfully Mr. Gray, don't you have better things to do with your time?

Mike Hogan

Cliff,

By no means did I intend to slight anything you have written. I hope it didn't appear that way.

Without a doubt, Specter performed an incredible disservice to America. His duplicity during the investigation, and stubbornly clinging to his falsehoods for more than four decades is inexcusable.

Mike Hogan

Len,

You wrote:

(*The rift between the CIA and the Pentagon concerning WMDs in Iraq as reported by PBS Frontline's documentary The Dark Side.)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not aware of anyone espousing such a theory with even a small degree of credibility. I would have to believe that such a ridiculous theory would be beyond any additional casting of doubt.

Have you had an opportunity to see The Dark Side?

Mike Hogan

In his indispensable book Breach of Trust, Gerald McKnight writes:

1) A copy of Specter's memo can be found in HSCA, Vol. 11, 92-93

2) Specter to Humes, 12/11/1967, 4 series, box 50, NARA

Gerald McKnight devotes much more to this aspect of the investigation. His analysis of the "Single Bullet" fabrication is complete, documented, and devastating.

In my opinion, Breach of Trust is an instant classic and an invaluable resource. Based upon what I have read I would have to say Pat Speer's analysis of the record is accurate and well reasoned.

Robert,

Thanks for the link...some interesting stuff in there. So much to read; so little time.

I found the interview with James E. Webb, administrator of NASA 1961-1968, to be very interesting.

Webb describes how the Air Force was angry with President Kennedy for giving NASA the mission to the moon:

On March 31, 1968 Lyndon Johnson gave his historic "I shall not seek, nor will I accept" speech to the American public. James E. Webb was one of the select few that knew much earlier:

Evan,

You asked: "Why didn't they fake WMDs? After the initial military action, it would have been a simple matter to "plant" evidence of WMD construction at locations."

I've often wondered the same thing. I think that watching the PBS documentary The Dark Side referenced in my previous post may offer clues. There was (and is) a large rift between the CIA and the Pentagon. Planting WMDs by the Pentagon would be entirely too risky if there were even the smallest chance they would ever be exposed. And if the CIA had knowledge of such a planting of evidence, it would give them enormous leverage over the Pentagon in the constant struggle for power in Washington.

All the above is of course extremely speculative on my part. I also have little undertanding of political intrigue. I urge you to watch the PBS documentary. I have no way of knowing how much is true, and how much is disinformation, but it is fascinating to see what some of the CIA people say about Rumsfeld and Cheney. It is also compelling to watch the news clips of Bush, Cheney and other members of the administration during the times leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

If anyone has seen The Dark Side, I would be interested in their comments.

Your post was thoughtful Evan, and your questions are logical ones to ask.

Mike Hogan

Referring to a memo that described a meeting between Blair and Bush in January of 2003, Stephen

Turner wrote: "As I said in my first post, never mind the B/S about missiles, and false planes, here's your conspiracy."

This week Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a documentary entitled The Dark Side. Here is how they describe it:

The program can be viewed in its entirety at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

Here in the States we call it "must see TV."

I believe that one reason why there was so little Forum response to the memo on the Blair-Bush meeting is that Americans now know that by the time of that meeting Bush's war cabinet had long since made the commitment to invade Iraq.

Len Colby replied to me:

There was no response from me to his lengthy post. Then in his very next post he says to Ron Ecker:

(See answer below)

It seems like Len Colby had difficulty in keeping his word for more than a few hours. Oh yes, I count on him to say he was not replying to me, but to Ron Ecker.

Nevertheless it seems like he wasn't really done with the matter, after all. It seems like he was the one that felt compelled to "continue barking."

If one is going to cite one paragraph from a 50 paragraph article it is easy enough to cut and paste the paragraph in its entirety, and follow it with a link to the article from whence the paragraph came for the reader that is interested.

And Len, if you are reading this....I asked a simple question twice to you:

Len Colby's answer? It was that Ron Ecker does it too:

and:

Instead of addressing a direct question about his research, Len Colby's tactic is "the other fellow did it too."

And Len Colby apparently feels that in my critique of his methods, I am somehow obliged to read Ron Ecker's post and criticize him.

I find it much more compelling to critique hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and extreme selective reasoning.

I can't help it that Len Colby makes himself such an easy target.

I was going to let this matter drop and let Len Colby have the last word. But the incessant noise of his barking woke me up.

John,

He may be referring to the Marina Oswald Porter interview with Oprah Winfrey that originally aired in 1996.

http://www.jfkresearch.com/marina/marina.htm

Mike

The Sixth Floor Museum's website has a Guest Book/Memory Book that has over twenty thousand entries.

Some of those people have been to the museum, many haven't.

http://www.jfk.org/Guest_Memory_Book/Guest...y_Book_View.asp

The entries range from silly to quite moving. So many expressed their love and admiration for President Kennedy. I was stuck by the fact that almost everyone that was old enough to remember that day were children or young adults when it happened.

Many people share their memory of where they were and what they were doing that tragic day. I got the often unspoken impression that not very many thought Oswald acted alone; his name is hardly ever mentioned. Although few people show any evidence of seriously studying conspiracy claims.

There were many more positive impressions of the museum than negative.

Kennedy was respected not only by many citizens of the United States, but also in Canada, Europe, and Latin America.

In the endless discussions about conspiracy, it does seem easy to sometimes fail to vividly remember the horror of that day. These entries by common people reinforce that a great President was murdered in unspeakably brutal fashion, and that our nation and the world did indeed suffer a monumental loss.

In closing, here is what a couple of servicemen said about that day:

and:

Len,

Its this simple. You are the one that admonished Ron Ecker about providing links to his sources and you are the one that makes a claim and fails to provide a working link. It would have just taken a few seconds on your part to make sure the link you provided worked. But you didn't.

Instead of providing a direct link to your source, you post a link to a webpage that contains a non-working link to what you are trying to document. Even if the reader were able to find that link he or she would have to read through some fifty paragraphs of an article to find the paragraph that refers to your claim. For the reader that is willing to go through that tedious process, the documentation leaves a lot to be desired anyway.

Once again, you tell Ron:

Why is it not your responsibilty to at the very least provide a link that works? Laziness? Sloppiness? Or both?

Let me repeat Len. Why is it not your responsibility to see that the links you provide are working?

And yes Len, I saw the link to the Post-Gazette by Ernie Hoffman. Maybe it is you that is being intentionally deceptive or just chronically imperceptive. The fact that the author doesn't provide a complete transcript of the conversation between Felt and Shaw does nothing to support your claim that:

There is nothing in that article about any denial and you know it.

And anyway, my point was that the author suggests using Google to check his claims, exactly as Ron Ecker did. You can't even acknowledge that, in your desperation to prove me wrong.

These were your parting shots:

and:

I did make sure I had my facts straight, and my original post in this thread speaks for itself. And as long as you employ the methodology of posting links that don't work, or are not germane to your claims, or do not accurately support your claims, I'm going to continue to criticize your methods. Especially when you are so hypocritical in your advice to others. We can let the readers decide for themselves. I'm fine with that.

And Len, read my post again. I was speaking to readers of the thread. I was not "lecturing you." I was not even talking to you. Criticizing? Yes. Ridiculing your research? Maybe. But lecturing? Not really. Try and get it right, Len.