Choose Search Type

Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Shirley Temple is Prayer Man According to Duncan McRae
Today at 1:44 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» ROKC Lampoon
Yesterday at 11:30 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» FBI agent Robert P. Gemberling
Yesterday at 12:51 am by Hasan Yusuf

» JFK Conference
Mon 24 Oct 2016, 10:48 pm by barto

» How did a Monty Python sketch get into the archives?
Sun 23 Oct 2016, 12:06 pm by steely dan

» William Shelley- Betrayal and Perjury
Sat 22 Oct 2016, 12:27 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Amon G. Carter and son
Sat 22 Oct 2016, 12:57 am by Greg Martin

» Was truly the source of the police description?
Fri 21 Oct 2016, 8:21 pm by barto

»  Did Oswald deny living at 1026 N Beckley?
Fri 21 Oct 2016, 2:43 pm by Hasan Yusuf

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


free forum

Disagreeing With Georgie

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Disagreeing With Georgie

Post by Lee Harvey Coogan on Wed 18 Aug 2010, 1:18 am

A reply to George Bailey.

Before we begin I would like to point out that Baileys full article can be seen here. I would also like to apologise for any grammatical mistakes herein (thanks Larry and JP, this is not your fault).

While I am perfectly happy for people to see Georges critique of my work. He was obviously concerned of people seeing mine as he has taken down his links to the Jones articles in question. Now that we have overcome some differences it would be cool if he did. But it's his choice not to.

On his blog site he has also included an email I sent him in which I accused him of having no balls and being a coward. I retract the 'no balls' and 'coward' comment. George has balls and he keeps them in a jar by his bed. Which he dons when he takes on a CTKA researcher. Because; lets be frank-you have to have a pretty big pair to do it in the manner he has done. The problem with large testicles however is that they tend to make one immobile in the face of a few certain facts (as we shall see). I also have to have a laugh and agree with him calling me 'unhinged'. The hours spent on examining the madness of Hankey and Jones on top of the furore my studies on them triggered have certainly taken their toll on many aspects of my sanity (as they would anyones).

My article can be seen here. Please note that at the same time as I have been writing this article I had been working on the Jones piece in question. The final version can be seen here.

[b]Here is Jim DiEugenios review of Doug Hornes parts IV and V of his book 'Inside the ARRB'. Of importance here is his demolition of Barr McLellan (amonst other nonsense)which makes a nice companion piece to my examination of Alex Jones and this post. In particularly Jim D's take on Georges post.

George's, comments are in standard font. Mine are emboldened.
Bailey continues on from his previous section.....................................................But whats of interest here is that George added something to his new version which rather weakly seeks to counter the allegations I have made in this piece.

(It seems this article has incited the ire of certain critics out there. Please note that I made very effort to research this article in a truthful and honest manner as I do all of my work here. Please read this piece carefully and you’ll see I am no liar and I am no “conflicted fan” of Alex Jones. Seamus Coogan is apparently very thin-skinned and can’t handle criticism. He can dish it out but he can’t take it, so he resorts to slander and personal attacks.)

Now George obviously had a look at this piece and changed some stuff around because he'd changed his introduction.

For those coming from Seamus Coogan's article calling me a liar, please keep in mind that he wanted me to change my criticisms against him which I refused. So, he posted a slanderous and nasty personal attack on me to get even. Mr. Coogan is apparently very thin-skinned individual who can’t handle criticism.

I don't mind genuine criticism, comment and disagreement. But Bailey cannot see that much of what he is saying is unfounded. For the newb to all of this here's some advice. Lone nutters will deny any and all evidence. On the conspiracy side there are people who accept any and all evidence.

These people in my book are just as bad.

While George (who has some good posts I might add) is clearly not quite as bad as this. He's made a stirling effort at being so, which is a shame. An interesting tactic employed by conspiracists against their own is an inversed 'Posnerian' or 'Bugliosian' strategy. Where as these two have written books based on slandering and mocking people. Many people in the conspiracy fold accuse those who disagree with their pet angle of 'character assassination' or 'creating disunity' often this is only based on one or a few words a comment and or a sentence. This is irrespective of whether or not it is backed up by evidence. This is most often employed by people whose opinion of themselves is far greater than the sum of their research capabilities. Trust me. It hurts when you get hammered for factually challenged stuff you got wrong. However, I don't blame the person who pointed it out to me I go ahead and correct the mistake. Most often with an admission.

George doesn't stoop as low, but he came a little too close for my liking.

I have encountered this type of attack frequently in my travels, it's a curious type of attack. It seeks to mislead and make the author the subject matter, not the evidence they have disputed. I'm no saint. Like many others at times I have been a little caustic or harsh. This is why I welcome a good old fashioned word limited and moderated debate with anyone who feels I may have transgressed in making a false or erroneous claim. At Kathy Becketts suggestion I also openly invited George to partake in one with me as can be seen below (I thought I had done so formally on the forum at the time Kathy posted, apparently I had not).

It's dissapointing George never accepted, but in saying that we have both agreed that some kind of joint project discussing the pros and cons of the issue may be a more positive forward in the future.

[b]As for Georges second attempt. What he sadly isnt telling you is that I pointed out a number of errors which I said I would comment on via a blog if he didn't revamp his stuff. I never said he was 'not allowed to criticise me at all'. If someone has come from the Lancer link they can also see I openly stated I would adjust this post if George did his. George is very stubborn however and its a quality in us both which I'm sure is worthy of both admiration and annoyance to anyone whose encountered us lol.

[b]A fascinating aspect of my work on Jones is that many people like GB while disliking Jones 'schtick'. Are afraid to admit that in many cases their views are often similar too his. George cannot see the contradiction. Nor does he acknowledge that Jones main means of assault in the Kennedy case is Barr McClellans book. How could anybody not 'conflicted' about Jones write the following?

Mostly, Jones sticks to his New World Order conspiracy broadcasting which seems to be his forte. I just cannot suss out if he’s the real deal or not.

We'll go into this quote and a lot more stuff later. I am not so much angry with George (I used to find his blog quite a good read) until this.........

Frankly, I am surprised at the reluctance of people in the research community to look deeper into the LBJ angle, considering Johnson’s hatred of the Kennedy brothers and how immoral he was as a person. He’s a natural fit for a conspiracy but few seem to want to go there.

I sincerely hope that after people see my reply it’ll serve as a fair warning why many aspects of the ‘Johnson did it angle’ as advocated by GB are no go areas for myself and numerous others. George seemed greatly confused. In the beginning and at the end of Baileys account he seems to have taken on a moderate approach to Johnson and McClellan. Yet, after openly admitting the faults in McClellans work he then proceeded to criticise me for not using McClellan or acknowledging him. Exclamation Question confused

One of the only reasons I can think of for this is that he knew that he had no leg to stand on using Jones as an example. Hence, he settles for McClellan as his weapon of choice. This is akin to the foreman replacing bananas as substitutes for hammers on a building site. Whats more its a shame. As I said Bailey has some okay stuff on his site. Some points he initially made also helped myself re-edit and explain some things in my original piece a little clearer than before.

Some researchers have a disdain for the subject in general.

Not ‘some’ I'd wager 'most' respected researchers do not advocate Johnson ‘head honcho’ theorems. This is because the evidence is extremely scant and contested (Before going off on his voyage. he should have stopped and seen that nearly all the researchers he has on his blog don't buy the Johnson angle least of all Barr McClellans). Those few respected researchers that do see Johnsons involvement tend to offer a more moderate appraisal and have genuinely given the research community valuable information in other areas. Walt Brown, Doug Weldon and Larry Hancock are prime examples.

A recent article by Seamus Coogan at entitled, Alex Jones on the Kennedy Murder: A Painful Case, is a case in point.

Indeed it is for Mr Bailey.

It is a disjointed account dismissing any involvement of Johnson in the crime. I deeply respect the research posted at but this piece by Seamus Coogan is a mess. Usually the writing and research are top-notch and fair minded. Not so here.

Right, well first off. Baileys piece has since been edited. This piece now reads.

Usually the research is top-notch and fair minded. Well, fair-minded is tossed here as the writer uses lame mocking as wit, and features cheap insults against people that have nothing to do with the JFK research such as Michelle Malkin (quasi-fascist) and Henry Makow (sexist).

The term 'Fair minded' is also bit of a misnomer. Firstly there are better alternative news sources than Alex Jones out there. For two, there is nothing fair minded in Baileys approach as the reader shall see. For three, it took me a number of years to formulate my opinions on Johnson (I once believed their was a good chance) and I took in many of the angles Bailey later accuses me of ignoring.

This article is poorly organized, has sloppy editing if any,

One of the few things I feel George had a valid point about was its unedited state. The first two parts of Jones were something of a rush job for Jim Di. Who then did an excellent job of cobbling together what was effectively two different drafts with a third which was still to come. Our problems were compounded by the webmaster for CTKA having to leave after years of great service. What happened was that my piece unfortunately got stuck in an awkward semi draft, with no headings, buttons and bells. This has since been rectified.

However, Bailey is not immune from mistakes himself. At the time he made the above statement he had a number of mistakes on his webpage. No doubt in my piece here there are likely some doozies (I'll look over and go doh!!). I mean isnt there the famous quote "Let he who Is without sin cast the first stone?"

In Baileys Post from 22/8/2010 'BOOK REVIEW: The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Accent to Power, Means of Assent, and The Master of the Senate by Robert A. Caro'

He titles Robert Caro's books on Johnson 'Accent to Power'. I didnt know power had an 'accent' Is it Dutch by any chance? It's actually 'Ascent to Power' and its the second book in the series. 'Means of Assent' is another case in point note how he spells it with an 'Ass' and this is actually the first book. But theres further trouble looming he spells 'disdain' as 'distain' prior to his attack on the CTKA piece. Later on in another article he continually calls Fletcher Prouty 'Proudy' 3 times. Meanwhile, Baileys own piece is very disorganised and confused in his assessments of Johnson and McClellan far more so than anything I had written. In his latest addition he refuses to be 'intimated' by me and 'where they don’t have abide by our libel laws.' George, has obviously read this reply to change some of his comments but obviously not closely enough to correct to his spelling errors. Either that or George has not changed his mistakes simply because I have pointed them out to him. I'd also be very concerned when someone like myself points these things out. My spellings 'ok' but my grammars a bit off (as the discerning will note).

parades lame mocking as wit, and features cheap insults against people that have nothing to do with JFK research such as Michelle Malkin (quasi-fascist) and Henry Makow (sexist).

Sadly for George, the piece wasn’t so badly written that it was undecipherable. In fact Larry Hancock, (whom Bailey uses later on) clearly understood the thrust of what had been written and gave a rather nice review of my article in its early warts and all form. I would like to also point out that Hancock is a little more open than I to some aspects of Johnson being an accessory (as the link below shows).

But quite clearly, Larry could also see that it is a piece about the damage Jones has done to the research community and as a forewarning about a potential Alex Jones documentary on JFK. Not to mention the people who are likely to be involved in it. Barr McClellan is clearly a facet. But not the grand sum of my assessment either.

Now, it’s odd that George mentions ‘Malkin’ and ‘Makow’ have nothing to do with JFK research. I ask anybody who has actually read my piece the following questions 1) Did, I ever make them a major focus of my study? 2) Did I ever say they had anything to do with JFK? No. Yet, the depressing aspect of all this is that Bailey fully knew what he was doing, because he refers back to the Malkin incident a little later on in what could best be described as possibly dishonest and definitely hypocritical in manner.

Returning to the goals of the project, the very nature of the piece on Jones meant that aspects of him self had to become bigger than Kennedy. In this case one needed to provide a background for Jones from which to help those unfamiliar with him and his antics. His altercation with Malkin is simply part of what makes up that background. Bailey, a writer himself should know this.

As for the descriptive terms, I have used referring to Malkin its curious that Bailey takes umbrage at myself for describing her as a ‘quasi fascist’ yet overlooked my calling her an ‘Asian Ann Coulter’. He also gets upset when I describe Makow as ‘sexist’. Now, is this because Bailey is a fan of Malkin and Makow? Well, judging by his endorsement of the extremely right wing Rollye James (a sometime guest on the Alex Jones show) that’s the a rational explanation. Yet, George strikes me as being a hell of lot more intelligent than Makow, Jones or James on issues of conspiracy. So Lets take a look at how Georgie boy "parades lame mocking as wit, and features cheap insults" himself in an older post on the same page.

"You want a conspiracy? Put the alpha ape from Texas and the cross dressing bull dog behind closed doors and see what they cook up. Those two old boys could have paved a section of the highway to Hell and probably did."

'Let he who is without sin' indeed. Malkin is quite provably a facist. Makow is provably sexist. Its a matter of debate wether Johnson was an 'ape' and Hoover was a 'cross dressing Bull dog' however.

It’s also odd that Makow, is singled out because surely if Bailey was angered or concerned with my accusations against him how come he turns a blind eye to my criticism of Aaron Russo and his call about Feminism being funded by the Rockefellers to destabilise family life? This was a far more intensive critique than what Makow had received and furthermore, Makow, and Russo (like Malkin) are included because this helps us flesh out Jones character in the early part of the essay. This is a point Bailey suspiciously refuses to accept.

Even the title is misleading as Coogan nitpicks on far more than Jones’ JFK assassination reporting, but on many other unrelated events and issues Jones is involved with.

Well if balling me out for calling someone ‘sexist’ isn’t nitpicking, its certainly double standards on Georges part. As I have implied three times already. It’s called 'setting the scene' and giving an overview. The other ‘unrelated events’ include Jones and the closest members of his cabal making one hash job after another, with regards to the Kennedy assassination and other events which they seek to tie into the nebulous NWO (Diana Spencers death for example).

It all amounts to a hatchet job on somebody Coogan obviously doesn’t like very much. He calls Jones among other things, a self-aggrandizing egomaniac. Oh my!

Oh my! Indeed. Again, as with Malkin and the Austin gun rally incident (which oddly Bailey makes no mention of at all) and Makow. I clearly show examples of Alex Jones being such a person. If George wants to see a vicious hatchet job on Jones he should go and look at the horrific stuff people say about his wife’s Jewish ancestry, or that he is a KGB or Mossad agent. He also might wanna look at how people have scoped out a new house he has bought (thats his business and a rather dangerous invasion of his privacy) now that’s a true ‘Hatchet job’.

My main concern anybody reading my work can see. Is how he (Jones) presents himself and represents his facts in relation to the truth. I dislike him because of that. Nothing more. Bailey in his zeal to say I have a personal vendetta against Jones forgets that it is not me that’s taken a hatchet to him. Jones has taken a hatchet to the truth and thus himself. When we boil it down. Bailey is in effect blaming me for calling out a below average conspiracy pundit (Jones is not a researcher by any stretch) on his mistakes much like Mike Dell did with Jim DiEugenio and myself when debating the merits of John Hankey.

I actually think he (Jones) is getting of lightly compared to what he pulls on other people. If you want to see Jones do a hatchet job, I advise listening to his infamous interview with Peter Joseph the director of Zeitgeist (I have my own problems with Zeitgeist before anyone asks. But Jones ego induced outbursts against it tend to make me look at it a little more favourably than anything he has ever done).

Then go to almost any non Prison Planet forum in which it’s discussed and see how many fans he lost on account of what amounted to petty jealousy (masked behind Christian indignation at its content). It’s an appalling display, and if that isn’t enough of an example of ego driven madness (on top of what I pointed out with clear coherent references in the essay) I can only guess what is.

Coogan points out that he makes money off his conspiracy mongering and is probably a millionaire. Horrors!

This is almost a fair call. If one looks at the work I clearly say (in which ever version one shall see) 'bloggers' rather than myself. I think he is wealthy. A lot of other people who have researched Jones finances have put him in the millions (hence why I had the old link there which has since been changed for a better one in the new edition). Bailey, I'll have you know updated his site to mock me for using 'bloggers'. Sheesh, like I say thats some 'balls'.

However, its true it was yet another piece we didn't have a chance to sort out properly at the time. Clearly, full credit deserves to go to people who do well in this game like Jim Douglas, Ventura and Mark Lane for instance. However, if you make millions by giving factually challenged information like some demagogue ‘conspiravangelist’ I have concerns. I also do with Hunt (whom is not on the rich list). People have to be exceptionally careful retaining integrity (truth) when money is called into the conspiracy equation. Its extremely easy to start selling bunk once you are a name, unfortunately the majority of people in this game who become wealthy like David Icke and his buddy Jones were both ‘bunk’ to begin with.

The silliest thing about this is that it’s remarkably clear, once again, that George has taken something which doesn’t even amount to a quote and then makes out as if it’s of huge significance when it isn’t even close. As I have said (to the point of ridiculousness) throughout this reply, this is part of an introduction. Do I also need to point out as well, that a number of people new to the Kennedy case and or Jones will hopefully find the introduction useful. In fact a number of people have emailed Jim and I saying so. If I was making up lies about Jones or anyone else then Bailey would have a case. Sadly, for George it’s all backed up.

By going off into irrelevant tangents like the above.

Right, this is the fourth time that I will point out to the reader that the 'irrelevant tangents' were all in the introduction. So let’s see what happens when George goes down some authentic ‘irrelevant tangents’ shall we? It's not pretty. They are all his own.

Coogan dodges all that LBJ was doing before, during, and after the assassination. Lyndon Johnson was not an innocent caught up in one big national nightmare with the rest of us.

Well I wasn’t born at the time. Nor am I from the United States. George your out of luck there. Now, the stuff I ‘dodged’ isn’t even worth discussing, hence I didn’t put it in my Jones work. But as Bailey has brought up some points, lets examine why I ignored them shall we? That is on top of the other stuff he has (for all intents and purposes) lied about.

Now, first off when did I ever say Lyndon Johnson was an ‘innocent’? Least of all insinuate that? Johnson was no saint, so what? It just so happens, that I do not believe (as do many others) that Johnson, was involved or the ring leader of a plot (at least in anyway before hand). Because, what Bailey clearly doesn’t want to do is engage with the following rather important details in my work.

But the hypocrisy and contradiction surrounding Brown continues unabated. Jones' top researcher Paul Watson makes a big deal about Johnson's highly improbable statement to Brown, "Those SOB's Will Never Embarrass Me Again". What Watson doesn't tell anybody is that Johnson had also told Brown that oilmen and the CIA had killed Kennedy. The evidence clearly shows that Johnson had grave doubts about the assassination, and was unconvinced, as was Hoover, with the evidence days after the assassination. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 283) And at one point, according to Fletcher Prouty, he even asked J Edgar Hoover if any shots had been fired at him. (

In 1967 Johnson remarked to aide Marvin Watson that the "CIA had something to do with this plot." (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 414.) Leo Janos' Atlantic Monthly article "The Last Days of The President: LBJ in Retirement", which was printed in July of 1973 two years after Johnson's death, provides us with perhaps the starkest appraisal of Johnson's mindset in later life:

"During coffee, the talk turned to President Kennedy, and Johnson expressed his belief that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy". A little later Johnson said "I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger." Johnson said that when he had taken office he found that "we had been operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean." (Atlantic Monthly, July 1973)
Recently released documents citing Godfrey McHugh's observations of Johnson's paranoid behavior on Air Force One have cast further doubt on the Johnson did it angle. Yet in an odd piece of face-saving for the dwindling Johnson lobby, Paul Joseph Watson, one of the brains behind Prison Planet's internet information apparatus, believes Johnson on Air Force One to be play acting to draw suspicion from himself. In doing so Watson ignored all of Johnson's previous comments. He utilized Saint John Hunt and Madeleine Brown (arguably two of the least inspiring witnesses the research community has come across) to prove his case that Johnson was likely hamming it up. (See his article at Propaganda Matrix, 11/4/2009)

Had Watson bothered to read David Talbot's Brothers, he would have seen that Johnson panicked at Parkland and told Mac Kilduff that he wanted the announcement of JFK's death to be delayed till he was safely on the plane, stating his belief in a potential 'world wide conspiracy'. Johnson's performance at Parkland Hospital and on Air Force One were certainly not mugging. (Talbot, pgs 282-285).

Now I haven't even included the well documented account of Johnson admitting to Richard Russell that he believed there was a conspiracy

If George truly thinks that the likes of Caro (whom he admits doesnt go into the assassination) and Barr McClellan are counterweights to this mass of accumulated evidence. He probably thinks he could take down an F16 by shooting at it with a popgun.

It was Johnson that violated Texas State law by commandeering Kennedy’s body.

It was the Secret Service that actually commandeered Kennedy’s body. The three main instigators were Jacky Kennedy, Burke, Powers, McHugh and Ken O’Donnell who feared the madhouse that Parkland was becoming. That’s in William Manchester ‘The Death of a President’ from pages 415-434. It’s ironic that Bailey later quotes from Crenshaw’s book concerning the phone call, he may have received from Johnson (this matter is discussed soon enough) However he, neglects to mention medical intern Evelea Glanges who saw Johnson leave the hospital ducking down in his vehicle on the way to Love Field (Crenshaw, Conspiracy of Silence, p. 107).

and sending it off to Bethesda for one of the most bungled autopsy’s ever done.

Bailey clearly got this line from ‘Conspiracies R Us’. Because its certainly, not from sources like Will Manchester. Kennedy’s physician Admiral Burkley wanted the autopsy done in Bethesda. Ted Clifton had wanted it done at Walter Reed. Johnson, had no say at all over where the autopsy was being held (Manchester, p 177 ). Dave Talbot then goes onto say that at Bethesda Bobby Kennedy, became the most important figure. However, he did not run the autopsy as has been irresponsibly pushed by others (Brothers p. 14-17) Nor, did Johnson from afar as much as Bailey would like him to. It was clearly all military and Weisberg (whom Bailey is purportedly a fan of) explains as much in his book Never Again on pages 472-474.

He swiftly sent off the limousine for refurbishing, destroying material evidence in the case.

Um, phew, this is rather off of the deep end. The Secret Service (with no orders from Johnson at all) began cleaning the car outside the Hospital in broad daylight, destroying the evidence from the get go. This is while LBJ was actually in Parkland. Vince Palamara, despite his flirtation with VB has some really, really, good stuff on this.

As for Johnson ‘swiftly’ destroying the evidence he only did this after the Secret Service and FBI swept the car for any remaining bullet fragments. What Bailey implies here is that these guys needed Johnson to provide some kind of motivation. Well, let’s just ignore the fact that the Secret Service and the FBI were not huge fans of Kennedy anyway. Furthermore the car was in the White House garage for a number of days. Or hasn’t George read Pamela McElwain Brownes studies?

The bottom line is that the idea of Johnson ordering its refurbishment was not a ‘swift’ process and he didn’t order it cleaned up till after the aforementioned preliminaries by the SS and the FBI. But this is the same guff as Johnson ordering Connelly’s suit washed and so fourth. This was also all controlled by the Secret Service (Jim DiEugenio Email: 12/07/2010). Does Bailey think he is better than Jim DiEugenio? Lets hope he doesnt.

But moving right along lets see what else I ignored.

He had an aide pressure Assistant D. A. William Alexander into rewriting charges so Oswald would not be charged with conspiracy.

This is an utterly amazing, gravity defying leap of logic. Bailey seems to think that Will Alexander, an assistant D.A had a higher level of power than attributed to his junior status. If his influence was so great how come Craig Zirbel, an author with just as dubious angles as McClellan didn’t even mention him once?

Larry Hancock points out that this 'aide' was likely Cliff Carter. And if Alexander recieved any information he did not recieve it all on his own. Below is an excerpt from Chapter 19 of his book 'Someone Would Have Talked' on Larrys website

During the evening of November 22, however, there are several people on record who received calls from President Johnson's assistant Cliff Carter. On the morning of November 23, the Dallas Morning News carried a story quoting Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade that preliminary reports indicated more than one person might have been involved. Regardless of what Wade had thought and told the reporters, the final charges filed against Oswald reflected the calls from Washington D.C. the previous evening. Henry Wade described three calls from Cliff Carter on Friday night. Carter said that “ any word of a conspiracy – some plot by foreign nations – to kill President Kennedy would shake our nation to its foundation. President Johnson was worried about some conspiracy on the part of the Russians… it would hurt foreign relations if I alleged a conspiracy – whether I could prove it or not… I was to charge Oswald with plain murder .” In addition to Wade, Police Chief Curry and Texas State Attorney General Carr also received similar calls from Cliff Carter, instructing them to avoid any charges or remarks indicating conspiracy.

Henry Wade was the DA. And he didn’t need any pressure from Carter to acknowledge Oswald as the Assassin. Now, Johnson and Hoover were concerned about the mockery of justice taking place at city hall and the errant posturing of the DPD. This was explained in great detail by Harold Weisberg (is his link to Weisberg’s papers on his site just for show) In fact it was Hoover, who took the lead as far as the DPD were concerned. But, hell that’s no big deal even the Johnson appointed Warren Commission condemned the shenanigans going on there (Weisberg, Whitewash p. 181-186).

He personally issued gag orders on all autopsy personnel who were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements?

Hopefully like me, the reader may find it hard to take Bailey seriously. Where are the clear references to these counter questions he keeps chucking out there?

In my piece, (indeed in this very reply to Bailey) the reader will find that on numerous points there are often accompanying references or a direct source they can go too and verify the information. Bailey doesn’t see a need to do this. Instead, he just has a bunch of unreferenced books and links dumped at the bottom of the page. In this way he can crib from works (we’ll hit on that one pretty soon) and in doing so avoid quoting anything good from a source he dislikes and then lie (that damn word again) about the context of what the original author has said.

Okay, enough of the moralising, lets get back to the ‘gag order’ which is another leap in the dark (by Bailey). The death of a member of the public not to mention an official invariably comes with some form of none disclosure. What’s so sinister?

Though Bailey doesn’t mention him, if we examine what Hoover did with Hosty and other agents he clearly did his own gagging. He didn’t need Johnsons say so (Official and Confidential. P 400-401). But this is just a pinprick of how far off course Bailey has gone. So let’s now look at the medical aspects of this fictional ‘gag’.

In a surprisingly good introduction from the generally woeful John Davies in the Jens Hansen and Gary Myers produced book ‘JFK Conspiracy of Silence’ about Charles Crenshaw, the only doctor at Parkland that day to speak out about the lies in the official version. Davis states that the silence at Parkland was genuinely in house, with no outside involvement. All medical professionals are ethically bound by confidentiality clauses this is to do with protecting the privacy of the person or family involved. (Davis; Foreward p.XV-XVI) In the Kennedy case, where the potential for scandal across the board was rampant, the different institutions shut up shop to cover their bureaucracies behinds, and the employees in turn shut up to keep their jobs (Jim DiEugenio; Black Op Radio Debate, 2009)

Baring this in mind, did Johnson really need to put pressure on the military (who actually ran this ‘bungled’ autopsy) to shut up shop? Because, clearly Bailey must have evidence that they loved Kennedy so much Johnson had to silence them? This runs counter to what Harold Weisberg thought (Weisberg; Never Again p. 473-474)

What Bailey has also overlooked is that the ‘purported’ gagging order (even if by some ridiculously small margin it did come from LBJ) was pretty ineffective and actually very stupid. In Part 1 of his ‘Inside the ARRB’ review Jim DiEugenio, makes a strong case that it was in fact Specter, who effectively gagged and coached the Doctors at Bethesda, Johnson was nowhere to be seen.

The doctors all eventually testified to the Commission, and have all given varying testimonies over the years. In fact Mr Bailey, these guys haven’t stopped talking since 1964. In 68 in the Clark Panel it became ludicrous. As Jim DiEugenio utilising Pat Speers observations establishes (this is seen in its proper context in the link above).

“Because as Pat Speer has pointed out on his web site, the first real milestone in the medical evidence did not come from the HSCA or Best Evidence. The first real giveaway movement was from the proponents of the official story itself. In 1968, Attorney General Ramsey Clark tasked Dr. Russell Fisher with reviewing the work of the autopsy surgeons: Humes, Thornton Boswell, and Pierre Finck. Fisher and Clark did three things that do not happen in normal medical practice. They moved the head wound up 4 inches, they noted particles in the neck, and they saw something that the pathologists had not seen: a 6.5 mm fragment in the cowlick area at the rear of the skull.”

I would like Bailey to tell me where ex president Johnson’s gag order was when Pierre Finck, testified for the defence at Jim Garrison’s trial, dropped the ball and gave the game away? I wonder what Mr Bailey makes of the fact that those ‘gagged’ Bethesda doctors numerous fumbles over the years have been extremely beneficial for those of us studying the case as they have made some horrendous mistakes?

He quickly set out to quash any investigations, which under Texas State law, was mandatory in a homicide, by establishing the Warren Commission.

This is another utterly false claim. Bailey while listing the excellently written ‘The Assassinations’ has clearly never read any of Donald Gibsons important tract in it which blows this myth to smithereens? Anybody who purports to be a real fan of CTKA should know that Johnson wanted the investigation to be based in Texas and reluctantly formed the Warren Commission under pressure from the likes of well known Eastern Establishment figure Eugene Rostow and Joe Alsop.

And Bailey probably still wonders aloud why I ignore such things?

Johnson Personally contacted Dr. Charles Crenshaw during the treatment of Oswald at Parkland Hospital, reminding him the FBI agent present was there to take a death bed confession, if any.

This is a contentious issue. Crenshaw spoke to someone he thought may have been the President or an advisor. Most people in Kennedy circles know that there is a lot of back and forth on this issue (which is a good reason to tread carefully with it. Which Bailey doesn’t) Thus, while, I tend to think Crenshaw isn’t lying about his account, I have to say ‘so what’ if it was perchance Johnson or his admin on the other end of the line? If I had become President via bullets, I’d be rather keen on finding out what was going on my self, innocent or guilty. But if guilty the last thing I’d do is link myself to my ‘patsy’ on his deathbed for whatever reason. Johnson, may well have been a man of questionable mental health but if he was the much vaunted criminal mastermind that Bailey paints him out to be then how could he be so stupid?

Winding this up, Bailey ignores the fact that John Davis gives myriad reasons for the Johnson call and his summation that Johnson, was likely not involved, rather he was guilty of aiding the cover up after the fact will likely come as a shock (Davis; Foreward, JFK Conspiracy of Silence). Now Bailey, could well say, that this in Davis interests as Davis follows the defunct mafia beat himself. I would agree if this was Davis’s book. However, the clincher here is that Crenshaw, Hansen and Shaw themselves obviously agreed with many of Davis sentiments. Hence, why would they allow him to do the foreward?

During the Clay Shaw trial Johnson granted immunity to FBI agent Regis Kennedy so he didn’t have to give testimony in regards to his connections to Lee Oswald.

This is a complete and utter fiction. At least if Bailey is saying he never went to the Garrison trial? Which I don't think he is. But its hard to tell because this is not the topic of conversation Alcock had with Regis. It was about Oswald's connections to Shaws alias 'Bertrand' which our friend Reg was tasked with uncovering for the FBI, soon after Bertrands fatal call to Dean Andrews.

Bailey clearly has Kennedy confused with someone like Warren de Brueys (Garrison pg 182; On The Trail of the Assassins)

I Hasten to add that this Hankeyian scale screw up, opens up even more troubles for Bailey.

Johnson effectively resigned his office in March of 1968. By August Richard Nixon, was in the White House. Garrisons, trial took place in 1969. Thus it was actually John Mitchell, who gave Kennedy immunity from asking any questions outside of his work on Shaw (which the prosecution readily agreed to). At least this is Jim DiEugenio’s impression

Bailey, quoted this from Larry Hancock. I spoke to Larry about this who expanded upon the views expressed in his book (Someone Would Have Talked). Hancock believes that Kennedy was given immunity during the ‘investigation’ (not trial) which formally took place between, the periods of 1966-1968 (this by discounting early 1969 when the formal trial took place). Now, while I tend to agree with Jim's analysis a little more than Larrys at this stage. From either perspective Bailey is still incorrect.

Furthermore, anybody who has read JG’s book ‘On The Trail of the Assassins’ (as Bailey claims he has) Jim DiEugenio’s ‘Destiny Betrayed’ and Bill Davy’s ‘Let Justice Be Done’ can tell that it was Nixon, and Mitchell, not Johnson who was at the helm of the power structure during the trial and Mitchell gave immunity to almost anyone Garrison wanted to put in the dock. Regis Kennedy (that old chestnut) unless I am gravely mistaken doesn’t even rate a mention in Garrisons book.

George, why should Regis Kennedy be so special? Isn’t it more important that JG case got overrun by the FBI and the CIA? If Regis Kennedy is important, then why not give mention to the failure of say Gordon Novel who creates quite a stir in Garrisons work and subsequent Playboy interviews? Well, Novel can’t be tied to Johnson (not even in the dubious way Kennedy is) that’s why he is conveniently ignored.

But let’s return, to the myth of the all seeing all powerful and all mighty Johnson. Bailey insinuates that Johnson held sway over any and all unsuccessful extraditions to JG office. But as Garrison explains state governors were for the most part to blame.

PLAYBOY: Novel subsequently fled New Orleans and took refuge in Ohio. Why were you unable to obtain his extradition?

GARRISON: The reason we were unable to obtain Novel's extradition from Ohio --- the reason we are unable to extradite anyone connected with this case --- is that there are powerful forces in Washington who find it imperative to conceal from the American public the truth about the assassination. And as a result, terrific pressure has been brought to bear on the governors of the states involved to prevent them from signing the extradition papers and returning the defendants to stand trial. I'm sorry to say that in every case, these Jell-o-spined governors have caved in and "played the game" Washington's way.

To give them the benefit of the doubt, I suppose it's also possible that they just didn't want to aid and abet an investigation that every official effort, overt and covert, has been made to discredit as irresponsible and unfounded. Whatever his motivation, Governor Rhodes of Ohio, to name one, has said that he would allow me to extradite Novel to stand trial on charges arising from the CIA-inspired burglary of the ammunitions bunker in Houma, Louisiana --- but that I would not be allowed under the stipulations of the extradition agreement to question him about the assassination! In other words, it's OK for me to send a man to jail on a burglary rap, but I mustn't upset him by inquiring if he killed the President. I'm all in favour of protecting a defendant's civil rights, but this is straight out of Alice in Wonderland."


But you won’t see any of the above points in Coogan’s article.

That’s one of the few correct calls Bailey has made through the piece.

He’s too busy venturing off into trivial territory such as E. Howard Hunt’s son, St. John, who has a wife that stars in adult videos. As if we all needed to know this.

It’s not a good look when someone’s obviously trying to mislead. Because, as I have said before when people eventually go and look at my my work (part 2 in this instance) for themselves, they’ll see how out of context Bailey has taken me. Hunt and his wife featured for about 50 words in something approaching a little over 4000.

As for Hunt, this part of my essay actually bothered my self and Jim putting it in. But, as I have no control over the final editing process (that’s Jim’s final call, however I back what ever he uses and I never feel misrepresented in any way) we agreed some changes were necessary. Sadly, we couldnt access the work to change it around.
On my behalf, I personally didn’t think the reasons for using Saint John and his wife were explained well enough and that is a mistake I freely admit to making. I also felt uncomfortable with the term 'pimping' as she clearly enjoys what she's doing thats also been changed.

The angle with the Hunt’s is that Jones is actually very anti pornography. The insinuation that CTKA and I scoured the world for dirt on Hunt. Is as I have explained in the re-edit is just not true. Hunt is a very open book, in many ways he has to be as he makes a living out of his experiences. How it all happened was that once word of my impending essay came out on Black Op Radio Jim and I were inundated with emails from people about Hunts X rated site.

But the next series of attacks really take the cake.

To pile on even more, doubt is cast on the Mac Wallace print found on a box in the sixth floor of the TSBD and identified by fingerprint expert A. Nathan Darby as a 14-point match.

I really don’t know what George is piling on here. As the reader can clearly see the interesting work of Darby had been mentioned by my self earlier but Bailey omitted it from the statement and then uses this omission to round on myself. This is untenable. But by this late stage I shouldn’t really be surprised. But I am George is waaaayyy better than this.

But when sent to the Justice Department they did not agree, much to Darby’s chagrin.

I need to remind Mr Bailey, that it’s not my fault the Justice Department didn’t find it plausible. When was the last time they went and found anything of merit in this case real or imagined?

Coogan claims there is dissension of the brethren and drags in the lone doubter, Glen Sample.

There is a slight problem with Georges ‘lone doubter’ call. Mark Collom, whom Sample co-wrote the book his ‘last century designed website’ promotes (and to which Bailey has linked to his site) ‘The Men on the Sixth Floor’. Now if we add this odd claim on top of comments from the Ed Forum, I have to declare 'George quit smoking that stuff'.

On top of being completely wrong about Sample. There are numerous good measured points made on the forum, which Bailey has obviously never considered. Obviously, the idea of their being planted (if indeed, it is truthful) is an angle worth pursuing.

Moving along.

On the very same forum Walt Brown, while clearly believing the evidence himself, also mentioned a number of the problems with the print samples. It’s these issues that have created some doubts. Brown, unlike Bailey admits that that he would have liked to have seen more of them.

From his crude, last century designed web site, alleges to have used his own experts and they couldn’t match the print to Wallace.

Now, how is making a nasty comment about someone’s website design helpful? Yet, you may recall Bailey is angered about comments i.e calling Henry Makow a ‘sexist’, a statement in which A) I provided an example of, and B) (most importantly) a context for it. What has the design over Samples website got to do with the price of fish? How does that contribute to Bailey’s argument? Well, I have an idea and it’s as crazy as Baileys.

Just because Sample, has an independent group try and verify the print Bailey then say’s ‘alleges’ as if Sample had made it up. Now, using an outdated website as some kind of hard evidence of dishonesty in the matter has to be one of the weirdest things I have ever come across. Because outside of making a silly personal dig at Sample, this is the only justification I can think for Bailey mentioning it.

Thus once again let’s see what I really wrote, shall we? Bailey might want to check the name John Kelin and the link I got from-his own site. Not Glen Samples. The link clearly describes Samples use of unnamed forensics specialists in California, involved in law enforcement circa 1998. (I must add that it’s completely understandable for people involved in such an area to want to keep their identities undetermined-however it does undermine the findings over time).

“One of its main selling points was the disputed Mac Wallace fingerprint supposedly found in the TSBD (Texas School Book Depository). However John Kelin found that different groups of Johnson did it advocates at the time disagreed on its validity.

I sincerely hope this clears up any misunderstandings Bailey may have left the reader with.

But that is contradicted by the following statement: “Even though Mark and I were unsuccessful (through our fingerprint investigators) in finding a match, we still feel that there is a distinct possibility that Darby's work is correct.”

Now precisely, what have I contradicted myself on? My single point on the McClellan issue was that the identifications of the prints were contentious. I see nothing contradictory here and the discerning reader might note that I clearly state ‘at the time’. What I do see from Bailey once again is some rather gross contradictions on his behalf. The ‘lonely’ Sample suddenly gains a friend ‘Mark’ and the ‘alleged’ become ‘fingerprint investigators’.

But it gets even worse. George (you’d think once was enough) again chooses to omit a crucial part of a sentence.

“Even though Mark and I were unsuccessful (through our fingerprint investigators) in finding a match, we still feel that there is a distinct possibility that Darby's work is correct. Having discussed the issues with Mr. Darby as well as with Barr McClellan, we are now revisiting the print issue."

George, allow me to put a direct link (which in all fairness you should have done with any point you have made) to the full web page and the quote.

They revisited the issue in 2003. It is now 2010, doesn’t that tell Bailey anything? Have there been any new revelations on the issue since? The general consensus on the issue in the present is (as I have said earlier) the prints if real may have been planted. Alex Constantine (one of the more responsible members of the extreme conspiracy community) also noted Samples changing postions over time. But he also noted that Nigel Turners 'The Guilty Men' mentions that McClellan was Johnsons lawyer and that there is clearly no evidence for this. The discredited Guilty Men is used by Bailey as a reference. While Constantine is linked on another page.

Coogan never notes this admission and instead gives the reader the impression there are loose ends hanging.

I would hope that anybody, who has come across my article before or after reading Bailey’s would think that it’s the other way around. There are plenty of 'loose ends' hanging. Bailey’s failed discrediting of my work is nothing new to me. But on Georges part I am a little surprised as he's better than this. Indeed I expected it to come from cranks of the libertarian right as they try and exert control over Kennedy assassination thought. George, has some leanings that way possibly. But I never took him for failing to see that the 'Lib-Rights' goals have been achieved by leaching off of the legacy of leftist activists and personalities. Now, I am in no way at all a prominent leftist personality. However they do say imitation is the highest form of flattery and as you will see I am very flattered.

There is a video clip of him and his loud posse following Michele Malkin down the street because she made some remarks about him. It is disturbing to watch. Toward the end of the clip he launches into an angry tirade where he looks like he’s about to become unhinged.

Malkin to my knowledge had never said anything about Jones prior to the event. The clip Bailey is referring to is actually described in my essay, with instructions for people to Google it. Now, while there is a chance Bailey may have seen the clip previously, judging by his negative comments on my use of Malkin in the work and how he then does a stupendous about turn on her inclusion in his own piece. It’s pretty clear that Bailey, not wanting to concede any ground or acknowledge I was right about Jones behaviour may well have taken a cue from my work. I have no evidence but it looks pretty obvious from where I am standing. Regardless of what did occur. Bailey has made a rather insane attempt to distance myself from my own essay. No matter how one looks at it.

I do agree that Alex Jones has made numerous errors in his JFK reportage–and unfortunately doesn’t seem to learn from his mistakes.

After all of this, who does Bailey agree with? It’s clearly not me is it? Or is it? I don’t know. Because well before implying my work is a silly collection of insults with no validity, butchering my words and its purpose out of context, then doing a reverse back flip summersault about the Malkin clip. I'd take this as a rather back handed compliment regardless. Bailey seems to have cribbed from my work on Madeleine Brown prior to his bringing up Alex Jones. How do I know this? Well, none of his other sources he lists bar mine mention her in the same light. Bailey writes.

“From all of this, one must conclude the legendary meeting never happened. Even Madeline Brown’s account of meeting Johnson at a celebration party in 1948 for winning (stealing) the senate seat from Coke Stephenson has many factual conflicts. Basically, she is the sole source for the Murchison gathering. However, Brown’s story appeals to that sense of how we feel a conspiracy might operate–men plotting behind closed doors–the old smoke filled room. But it’s all off as it would require a lot of old guys flying 3-4 hours to meet past 1 AM in the morning, to do what? Finalize the plot the night before the assassination takes place?”

Let’s contrast this with what mine actually said (note the final paragraph).

"Brown's most way out claim is that she was present at a secret party in Texas where Richard Nixon, John McLoy, J Edgar Hoover, LBJ, , and oil baron Clint Murchison Sr.-- or his son Junior, depending on whose concocted story you read--and other luminaries planned Kennedy's assassination on the 21st of November 1963. (

Firstly, Johnson himself was seen by a few thousand people and filmed that night in the company of President Kennedy at the Houston Coliseum. Johnson didn't arrive in Fort Worth until 11.05 pm on the night of the 21st of November, and it is roundly reported that he wound up his day in the same hotel at a very late hour with his advisors. (William Manchester, Death of a President, pgs. 135, 138).

The same goes for Dick Nixon who was in town that night with Joan Crawford. This was widely reported in the Dallas press and was still being reported until fairly late that evening. (The Dallas Morning News, Friday, November 22, 1963, Section 1-19) Kai Bird's autobiography describes John McCloy hearing the news of the assassination while having breakfast with former President Eisenhower. (The Chairman, p. 544) As for Hoover. according to Anthony Summers, it is highly likely (to the point of absolute certainty) that J. Edgar Hoover, like McCloy, was nowhere near Texas at the time. For instance, the next day he was calling Bobby Kennedy from his Washington office at around 1:34 P.M EST with news of the shooting. (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 394). In fact, in none of the standard biographies of Hoover-Powers, Theoharis, Gentry, or Summers-does anyone note him being in Texas that evening.

A Dallas to Washington round trip is around 3-4 hours each way. Why would two very powerful and highly visible 68 year olds fly to Dallas Texas to meet with Johnson at some ungodly hour, well after 11:00 P.M CST, compromising themselves in the process, and then fly back from Dallas, arriving home anywhere between 3:00-5:00 AM the following morning? Why do all that when a sinister meeting in Washington could have easily been arranged prior to events. And anyway, as Jim DiEugenio has said, the idea of organizing the plot just a night before is silly (Black Op Radio: Show 476).”

Of importance here, is that it was not myself that first came across Baileys article but a friend who then told me he'd pretty much used the above piece. Thus it’s not just my observation here. But a reference would have been cool.

He (Jones) shows a general weakness in JFK research, especially in not separating the wheat from the chaff. He faults in bringing on the wrong people with the wrong ideas.

Did somebody say Barr McClellan? Bailey seems to have missed a rather large tract in my work where I explain how Jones advocates for him as well. McClellan is certainly the 'chaff'.

Mostly, Jones sticks to his New World Order conspiracy broadcasting which seems to be his forte. I just cannot suss out if he’s the real deal or not.

Bailey, clearly wouldn’t be so conflicted about Jones if he did not admire aspects of his work. For myself, anybody who says stuff like ‘Johnson had hit teams lined up with bazookas on the motorcade route’ deserves scrutiny.

Incidentally, Coogan calls Barr McClellan’s Blood, Money, and Power the worst book written on the JFK assassination in 15 years. Excuse me? Nothing comes close to Gerald Posner’s Case Closed as the worst book published during this time frame. Sleep

This is another misquotation from Bailey. Below is what I had really written. Note the emphasis on ‘one’.

"But then, in the same article, Law even tops that. He says that the MSM ignored the Hunt confession just like they ignored the Barr McClellan revelations in his 2003 book Blood, Money and Power. Which, by the way, if you disregard the work of Nathan Darby, in the appendix, is one of the worst books written about the JFK case in the last 15 years. And considering the fact that the works of Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann were published in that time span, that is saying something."

Now as if misquoting myself for the umpteenth time, wasn’t bad enough. Case Closed was published in 1993, Bailey fails to tell the reader that it is now 2010. George is out by some two years. Yes, McClellan’s book is as bad as much of LN lore in many respects and how anybody can use it to defend Jones and then take on CTKA like George has in this case is a shame.

But it gets even better. Whats funny is that George (one of the most stubborn SOB's I've ever come across) still clings to Posner, while never conceeding he was wrong. In fact its as if he himself is telling us the facts.

Incidentally, Coogan calls Barr McClellan’s Blood, Money, and Power the worst book written on the JFK assassination in 15 years. Excuse me? Nothing comes close to Gerald Posner’s Case Closed as one of the worst books on the JFK assassination though it is outside of this time period.

This only leaves him with him with the matter of some blogs to correct. In his piece 'Heroes and Villains' another prominent researcher emailed me of Georges error and said.

"Bailey says that Corso, working for Russell, postulated a conspiracy with the CIA and anti Castro Cubans headed by LBJ. This did not sound right to me since I read about Corso in Russell's book. I looked it up and I was correct. Bailey fabricated the part about LBJ. Corso did not mention him to Russell."

Thus I leave with this clever excerpt from Joan Mellen.

"If you listen to the Johnson Presidential tapes which have been made available on the Internet by the Miller Center for Public Affairs, what you discover is a paradox: Johnson, who had lusted for power for decades, and had gained office by fair means and foul, now in his role as “Mr. President,” discovers that he has very little control over his presidency. Johnson hopes that his years in the White House will be defined by his poverty programs and by his civil rights legislation. To enact that legislation, Johnson utilizes the techniques he developed when he was, as his biographer Robert Caro put it, “Master of the Senate.”

Yet, as time passes, Johnson discovers that it is Vietnam that will determine how history judges him, a war in which he has no interest whatsoever, a war that he is obliged to pursue. In all those tapes, there is never any question about that; Johnson never considers deviating from the plan. The “New York Times” may demur, but both Johnson and Richard Nixon, who followed him, never lost sight of the fact that John F. Kennedy had been shot down by forces within the government. The Johnson tapes reveal an increasingly saddened, powerless figure, trapped in having been offered his heart's desire."

Before I'll leave this conversation I would like to reiterate a point. George Bailey does have some good stuff on his blog. Don't discard all of it on account of one little tiff we have had. We all do things in haste, in particularly if aggrieved. I think George jumped the gun a little and hasn't thought things through.

Lee Harvey Coogan

Posts : 23
Join date : 2009-08-22
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum