Evidence implicates Jack Anderson in Watergate

Newly examined evidence compiled from FBI files, witness statements, Woodward and Bernstein’s notes, statements from Deep Throat, along with Congressional testimony and the files of Senate investigators, all implicate journalist Jack Anderson as having helped set up Watergate. The question of a Watergate setup and a double agent, which had been a mostly dormant issue, was renewed when Peter Osborne, a colleague working on a follow-up to Danny Casolaro’s research, provided a copy of an FBI memo which had been mentioned in the Bureau’s partial release on Danny Casolaro. According to the memo, Casolaro contacted the FBI with copies of two letters that had been written to the DNC warning them of “Watergate break-in type activity.” The Bureau essentially shrugged this, noting that Casolaro’s theory was that the Watergate was a setup to embarrass the White House, and that Casolaro suspected Watergate burglar and former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt. With this, a can of worms was reopened.

The letters to the DNC and to Jack Anderson, warning about the Watergate are an important but highly under-investigated and under-reported aspect of the Watergate affair. The letters were known to Congressional investigators who attempted to follow up on the matter. Much of the testimony, taken in Executive Sessions, remains unavailable and this aspect of the affair was essentially excluded from the final Watergate report and Congressional publications. Minority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee Fred Thompson explained their investigation, “Our exploration had covered many months and many witnesses… We looked into an aspect of Watergate that had not been explored before or since. [We] all came to one conclusion: several people, including some at the Democratic headquarters, had advance knowledge of the Watergate break-in. An obvious effort had been made to conceal facts…. But did we have proof – proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The answer, reluctantly, was no. Additionally, for our suspicions to amount to anything conclusive we would have to tie this advance knowledge to McCord, or someone else on the inside of the Watergate team, or at least to the plainclothesmen on duty the night of the break-in. We had no such link.”

The missing link, as explained by Fred Thompson, was a way “to tie this advance knowledge to McCord, or someone else on the inside of the Watergate team, or at least to the plainclothesmen on duty the night of the break-in.” Mr. Thompson lamented that they had no such link, but evidence not available to them at the time seems to provide that link in the form of Jack Anderson. That link first suggested itself in the notes of Woodward and Bernstein of the October 9, 1972 meeting with Deep Throat/X/Mark Felt. [While evidence strongly suggests Deep Throat was a composite rather than simply Mark Felt, for the moment we will take Woodward and Bernstein’s word for the fact that this meeting was with him.] deep-throat-meeting-notes-october-9-1972

The notes explicitly accuse the Hunt operation, which included CIA employee Bernard Barker and former CIA asset Frank Sturgis, of leaking information to the press, including Jack Anderson. While Howard Hunt may not have set up Watergate to embarrass the White House, it seems that someone or some group did – and one of the most likely candidates was Jack Anderson. To understand the role that he played, it’s necessary to go back and look at Anderson’s friendship with Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis and the letters warning Jack Anderson and the DNC of Watergate type break-in activity.

Jack Anderson, by his own admission, was friends with Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker. In the early 1970s, he described meeting with them in Miami and discussing their recent reconnection with their CIA handler “Eduardo,” who was in reality E. Howard Hunt. Anderson’s connection to Sturgis and Barker would become a subtle and overlooked, albeit recurring, element throughout the Watergate affair along with Anderson sharing an employer with James McCord. It would also become a damning source of information for Anderson when the letters warning about the Watergate break-in were sent.

Although Danny Casolaro had copies of only the two letters sent to the DNC, there were in fact four letters, with the other two being sent to Jack Anderson. The letters sent on March 23, 1972 and April 28, 1972 were both sent to the DNC, and specifically to Larry O’Brien who’s phone was to be bugged. A third letter was sent to Jack Anderson April 15, 1972 and a fourth letter sent at an unknown date. Anderson was sent two letters because he “lost” the first one, and ultimately managed to “lose” the second one as well. His account of the affair is also completely at odds with the documented facts. According to Anderson’s book, he only received one letter which he dismissed. He then falsely attributes the source of the information to an “ad man” in the November Group, who had heard it from Watergate burglar James McCord and then reported it William Haddad who wrote to Jack Anderson. Anderson’s description of this critical series of events matches the Bureau’s description of his version of events relating to another aspect of his involvement with Watergate, specifically that it was “replete with half-truths, innuendo and insinuation … categorically without basis in fact.”

Unlike many half-truths in Watergate, there is no way to assume that Jack Anderson repeated rumors, made a casual mistake, got confused or simply forgot. His version of events is alarmingly contrary to what has been established by every other witness. According to Anderson, James McCord was called down to the November Group (the advertising arm of the Nixon campaign) to check the phones. This much is true – McCord had been to the November Group at least twice before and again on June 16, 1972 – mere hours before the Watergate break-in. mccord-november-group

This, combined with the fact that G. Gordon Liddy was one of the three founding directors for the group, provides an interesting nexus and provokes some intriguing questions – but none of it supports Jack Anderson’s version of events that McCord told them that they were bugging the Watergate, information which then leaked to William Haddad. More significantly, Jack Anderson’s version of events are contradicted by every other witness on the matter.

The Source

There is no question as to who was the source for William Haddad, the man who wrote to Larry O’Brien at the DNC and to Jack Anderson. Haddad’s source was known to Jack Anderson at the time, and was been publicly identified before Jack Anderson published his book, was one Arthur James (A.J.) Woolston-Smith. A.J. Woolston-Smith was an expatriate New Zealander who had worked in the United States as a private investigator for some time, including for Robert A. Maheu Associates during the 1960s. He reportedly worked with CIA, and his office in New York was regularly used to help resettle Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs. Around December, 1971 he began to tell William Haddad that the November Group was “up to no good.” (A statement that would be echoed, according to Len Colodny’s Silent Coup, by Deep Throat.) On March 23rd, Haddad wrote the first letter to Larry O’Brien, warning of “sophisticated surveillance techniques” that were being employed against the Democrats.

The next week, O’Brien had John Stewart look into the matter and speak with Haddad. Haddad and Woolston-Smith reportedly stayed in touch with the Democrats, and Haddad followed up again with another letter on April 28 (thirteen days after he contacted Jack Anderson.

I talked to Woolston-Smith. Yes, he does have good information; and, yes, he did want to cover expenses for producing it in an acceptable way. He explains that he wasn’t looking for payment for his services, but to cover what looked like necessary expenses to tie down his theory with factual presentations (like checks, etc.).

Instead of pursuing this with money, I decided to see what a good investigative reporting operation could do with it now. So I went ahead along those lines. If they draw a blank, I’ll be back to you on how to proceed, and I’ll keep you informed.

My own journalistic judgment is that the story is true and explosive. It would be nice for a third party to uncover it, but if they fail due to the type of inside work required, I would move back to Woolston-Smith.

The information provided by Woolston-Smith was consistently up-to-date and almost entirely accurate, often seeming to come mere days after the Watergate burglars themselves became aware of the next stage of their activities, and at times while those activities were still being planned and the reasons behind those activities were the same false explanations given to Frank Sturgis, Bernard Barker and others working under E. Howard Hunt were given – namely that they were looking for proof that the Democrats were being funded by Cuba. While Woolston-Smith’s source remains unknown, most agree that he was the sole source for information about the planned break-in, including that it would involve G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord. According to Woolston-Smith, however, there was another source for one piece of information – the information about the anti-Castro Cubans’ planned involvement in the Watergate burglary came from Jack Anderson. This also contradicts the implausible statement from Anderson that he was unable to uncover anything despite being given detailed information and being friends with those involved.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Like Jack Anderson, Larry O’Brien would lie about the event years later, as he had under questioning, omitting many details and lying about others.

obrien-oral

Many have wondered if there was a Democratic trap set for the Watergate burglars, although that theory has often been dismissed. Until now, many have pointed to Jim Hougan’s Secret Agenda, rightly considered one of the authoritative texts on Watergate, and his rejection of the theory that the Democrats set a trap. Earlier today (December 7, 2016) Mr. Hougan confirmed to me that his understanding of the Watergate affair has evolved since he first wrote the book, and that he no longer sees objections to the theory that the Democrats set a trap for the Watergate burglars.

Understanding that trap, and Jack Anderson’s role in it, requires more information. Among these are several significant points:

  1. Jack Anderson met with Frank Sturgis and the other Watergate burglars hours before the burglary.
  2. Jack Anderson tried to bail Frank Sturgis out of jail after his arrest.
  3. Jack Anderson’s articles used information that could only have come from material stolen by the Watergate burglars.
  4. Multiple witnesses implicate Jack Anderson as playing a role in planning other Watergate activities.

Anderson’s not-chance encounter

Jack Anderson’s account of his meeting Frank Sturgis and the others hours at the same time McCord was at the November Group, hours before the fateful Watergate break-in, is alarmingly contradicted by every other source of information. According to Jack Anderson, he was on his way to a speaking engagement with the Cleveland Press. The Cleveland Press denied this, saying they had never had him as a speaker and had no record of him giving any speeches or making any appearances in Cleveland at that time.

Like Jack Anderson’s, Larry O’Brien’s statements on the matter are so at odds with the record recounted by others that they are impossible to accept. John Stewart met with Haddad and others, including Ben Winter a disinterested party who merely sat in on the meeting. When he testified, Ben Winter made it clear that the information seemed quite firm and that John Stewart seemed to be taking it seriously. Winter’s version of events seems to corroborate Haddad’s and Woolston-Smith’s, while further discrediting Jack Anderson.

Jack Anderson used stolen Watergate materials

Jack Anderson’s presumption of innocence is further tarnished by additional guilty knowledge that he displayed. In late June, 1972 Democratic officials identified information in one of Jack Anderson’s column that, according to Bob Woodward, could only have come from one of the files in Democratic Headquarters – a file which was stolen. Anderson denied this and said it was merely being made to discredit him. Anderson’s claim to not use, or need, “stolen” information is also contradicted by his own record which included lying, cheating, stealing, and bribing. In his own words, Jack Anderson acknowledged that deceit was simply part of what he does.

Deceit is a constant companion in the quest for secret information about high officials, whether that questing is done by intelligence operatives to inform governments or by newspapermen to inform the public.

If Anderson was receiving these materials from Howard Hunt via Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker, then he would undoubtedly have fully understood the implications of Haddad’s letter talking about the plan to break-in to the DNC.

Witnesses implicate Anderson in Watergate

If Jack Anderson and Larry O’Brien hadn’t repeatedly lied about the forewarning of Watergate and the circumstances around it, it would be easier to accept their denials of setting a trap. Unfortunately for Jack Anderson, several witnesses accuse him of doing just that. Independently, the two accounts would be easy to dismiss. Together, they present a strong argument compared to Jack Anderson’s provable lies, his use of material stolen from the Watergate and the FBI’s own dismissal of Anderson’s statements as completely untrue.

One statement came from Ed Kaiser. The FBI was quick to dismiss his statement due to his troubled past, although it would be corroborated by another individual. According to Kaiser, he had spent a considerable amount of time with Frank Sturgis in 1972 due to their longstanding friendship. It was during this time that Sturgis asked him if he would be interested in helping instigate a riot at the Republican National Convention as part of a plan to make anti-war protestors look bad. fbi-kaiser-1

Ultimately, Kaiser decided not to cooperate with the FBI (who did not appear to take him seriously) and he reached out to the Watergate Committee, while identifying one of the backers of the operation as Frank Sturgis’ friend, Jack Anderson.

fbi-kaiser-2

Senate investigators met with Kaiser over the Watergate affair, and received a more detailed version of the information he had provided to the FBI.

senate-kaiser

senate-kaiser-2

This claim would be too incredible to consider if not for the corroboration from another private investigator who had worked with Howard Hunt and who was also friends with Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker. According to an FBI memo, Vincent J. Hannard, identified by Counterspy as a CIA operative, reporting having been contacted by both Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker over instigating a riot at the Republican National Convention with the intention of undermining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

fbi-hannard-1

 

The FBI file tried to discredit Hannard by claiming that he was unable to differentiate between truth and lies, but also noted that he was an informant for both local and federal law enforcement and was a key witness in several cases.

fbi-hannard-2

While it might be easy to discount Hannard’s statement, despite the FBI considering him to be reliable enough to act as an informant and a key witness, his statements should be considered in light of the FBI’s determination that Jack Anderson was lying about the matter.

Anderson’s other Watergate trap

Several months later, Jack Anderson sprung one of the traps he had allegedly helped set with the Watergate burglars by “supporting” their efforts to undermine the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) through a riot at the Republican National Convention. Anderson printed a column in which he tied the affair to the Watergate burglars, and in which he accused the entire affair of being a setup to entrap the VVAW. The FBI responded by pointing to “obvious contradictions” in Jack Anderson’s account, and accusing it of being full of “half-truths, innuendo and insinuation … categorically without basis in fact.”
fbi-anderson-1fbi-anderson-2

Means, motive and opportunity

When it comes to setting a trap at the Watergate, Jack Anderson had the means, motive and opportunity to do so. Afterward, he consistently told lies (both big and small) to investigators, Congress and the public about what happened. Multiple witnesses have tied him to the affair in several ways, all consistent with the techniques he’s known to have employed over the years. Democrats and Republicans alike have pointed the finger at him, Deep Throat tied him to the Watergate leaks and it seems undeniable that if there was a Democratic setup for the Watergate burglars, he either helped create it or knew about it and exploited it.

At this point, Jack Anderson’s involvement in creating Watergate is a matter of degree – not a question of if.

Advertisements

174 comments

  1. A very interesting article here. Is it possible, then, that Anderson was a partial or more substantial participant in the Watergate story? Yes, it is possible. I am not sure we know who he would be helping out? Himself first, as a much vaunted and feared journalist. Secondly, the Democratic party. If he bought into the idea that helping set the trap would have the story blow up in Nixon’s face then I can see motive. Was the CIA involved? McCord, Hunt and Helms went to their graves hotly denying this. However, consider this new info:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/30/watergate-cia-withheld-data-on-double-agent.html

    This surfaced around end of August this year and the story is written by James Rosen, a noted author. (I have yet to read his book on Mitchell). Anyway, there is another angle to draw the CIA deeper into this story that you did not report on. I draw your attention to Fred Emery’s wonderful Watergate book. My copy is paperback, Pimlico edition, 1995. On page 36 in a footnote at the bottom of the page, Emery describes how ……”Jonathan Aitken reveals that British Foreign Secretary (and former prime minister) Alec Douglas-Home discovered it [referring now to Nixon’s bugging devices in the Oval Office]. According to Aitken, Home was expounding the detail of some British position on Middle East policy in the Oval Office when he noted that neither Nixon nor, more important, Henry Kissinger was taking any notes. Home discreetly asked the British ambassador, Lord Cromer, whether Nixon had the Oval Office taped. Cromer asked the embassy man from MI6 to check with his CIA contacts, who “owned up….and kept wanting to know how we’d found out.” Since the CIA at the time was not supposed to be in on Nixon’s secret, it is possible the British tipped them off.”

    I consider this story to be very important and greatly under appreciated. If Helms KNEW that Nixon had the system in place, what did he do to monitor that fact? Authors have pointed out that the actual tapes of the recordings sometimes were taken home by those who had authorization to know of them and to handle them. They would be played at parties and people would laugh and have fun. Who is to say that the CIA did not also listen in and spy on their president? If this is possible and I say that it is, did the CIA have a notion that Nixon was hankering like a madman to get dirt on O’Brian? I say that it was very possible. Helms denied this but he, like Hunt, lied all the time to protect the Agency. His words have no credibility in my eyes.

    Then there is the possibility that James J. Angleton also had his ears open to this. He knew of the Huston plan and was operating from full throttle paranoia all the time. Did he worry that Nixon was going to do something that might stray into his turf?

    So many questions still need answering. Did someone tip off the DNC and more particularly O’Brian? Possibly. The manner in which the Watergate second successful entry (the one they got caught on) was handled, the long list of amateurish actions, the way in which McCord seemed to get simple wire taping bugs improperly placed, etc., these raise so many questions and so few answers.

    Who set up who? Who knew?

    I have created a page on Facebook called “Investigating the Watergate incident”. It is a public forum and I invite you to join and keep me company as I search through books and other sources.

    Like

    • Fred,

      You raise a few good points, and I appreciate you being patient in my getting back to you. The Rosen article is one that I have some trouble with because, while the Inspector General (draft) report was newly released, the information he was talking about wasn’t new. Martinez’s status new information, and if Rosen had bothered to 30 minutes of research he would’ve known this. I spent a little bit of time exploring and explaining the history of the theory and Jefferson Morley did a great job summarizing some of the new information about Angleton’s role, which I believe will be further explored in his forthcoming book about Angleton.

      I should also point out here that Sturgis’ CIA connection, though long denied by the Agency, is confirmed by government documents and statements from CIA Directors.

      One of the problems with sorting out Watergate, which I think was probably much a confluence of events in a perfect storm, was that everyone was spying on everyone – including the example you mentioned. In addition to that, you have Haig’s spying, FBI spying, the Moorer-Radford affair, etc. That’s just the stuff that’s too well documented to doubt – there are also lots of allegations of other instances, which are likely true to varying degrees. (I have to hold off judgment until I can see documents or documented (ideally recorded) testimony, just because there are so many rumors.)

      That Anderson and O’Brien knew is pretty undeniable, I think, given the facts. Even if they had some initial doubt, they knew there were break-in attempts and that things were going wonky after the initial Watergate activity but before the fateful break-in. Then again, there are statements from Deep Throat saying that Hunt’s operation leaked to Anderson and Casolaro suspected that Hunt or his team engineered the failure. This wasn’t a flight of fancy for Casolaro either, it was a theory he spent a fair bit of time on and he apparently developed a phone relationship with Howard Hunt at one point. I’m still trying to dig up his old articles on this, but most of his surviving notes don’t deal with Watergate in specifics. Tantalizing leads, however.

      Who set up who? Who knew?

      That is definitely the biggest question. All I can really say with any certainty is that Jack Anderson knew about it, lied about it, and lied about the circumstances of his meetings with the Watergate burglars. In addition to that there are two witnesses, admittedly not entirely reliable, that also implicate him. Their statements very closely corroborate each other, and predate Anderson’s own incoherent/inaccurate statements on the matter which makes me give more credibility to those statements than I might otherwise. Scott Kaiser thinks there’s more to it than that, but again – I need to see a full range of documentary evidence before I can accept such claims as meaningful. The latter element is key, there were so many rumors and semi-real plots going around at the time that while many were there, they were like fog – insubstantial and ultimately obscuring.

      Like

      • Michael,
        so I’m reading this wonderful book and I come across this Jack Anderson reference and I’m thinking, wait! This can’t be true. Here is what I read.

        June 22, 1972: The President and Haldeman, 9:40-11:25 am. Executive Office Building. Extracted….
        Haldeman (H): “Yes. We’ve got another thing going which has taken hold a little bit, which is we’ve started moving on the Hill, letting it come out from there, which is that this whole thing [referring to Watergate break in], that Jack Anderson did it. That’s what the Hill guys think, that this is—and we’re trying to move that around now. We started a rumour yesterday morning and it’s starting to come back already.”
        President Nixon (PN): “What”?
        H: “That jack Anderson has put all of this together, he was bugging the Democratic offices.”
        PN: “Oh, yes.”
        H: “Because these Cubans are tied to him. These are agents he’s used, and now he’s trying to do a diversionary cover-up of this other thing, and all this other stuff. The great thing about this is it is so totally fucked up [sic] and so badly done that nobody believes….”
        PN: “That we could have done it…”
        H: “That’s right…”
        PN: “Well, it sounds like a comic opera, really.”

        This just blew my mind. Nixon is more concerned in other quotes about any of this shit being tied to Colson. He wants like nothing more that no one at any time can link Watergate to Colson because he fears that it will then point directly back to him. Nixon tells others that Colson has been doing all kinds of things and he doesn’t want any of it made public. Which means: dirty tricks. Colton says just about as much to Liddy .

        Source: “Abuse of power” by Stanley Kutler. Hard copy, page 64.

        What do you make of this?

        Regards,

        Fred

        Like

  2. I’m not really sure how else I can say the things I say, and make them sound any clearer. This is what folks need to understand about Watergate, and hopefully it will start to sink in. Watergate was NEVER, EVER about setting up Nixon to have him removed from office, and I can’t say that anymore clearer, Watergate was about getting the funds needed to “recapture” Cuba.

    See how easy that was? Now, when Nixon stopped paying out their demands, [then] they set him up.

    As for Jackson Anderson, he knew about Watergate before it ever happened, Jack and Frank would meet at the DuPont Hotel in Miami where Jack would pay Frank for information regarding Watergate, this had nothing to do with Berstein or Woodward, in-fact, Jack was looking to improve his ratings through Frank and that is exactly what happened after Watergate broke, Watergate made Jack.

    A week before the June 17, 1972 arrests, there was also the “Sunward Plan” that my father and Frank Sturgis was trying to make successful for “additional funds,” again, to recapture Cuba. Hope I was able to help spread the truth about Watergate. Now you know!

    Like

    • I’m familiar with the Sunward Plan, but the coincidental date isn’t enough to convince me, unfortunately. There are so many rumors about these sort of things, Scott, and so many coincidences, that it’s necessary for me to treat them all skeptically. Even many of the rumors and plots that were going around weren’t false – but they were largely insubstantial or at least remain unsubstantiated. One example would be the plot(s) to kill and/or kidnap Richard Helms and/or VP Agnew.

      Howard Hunt absolutely told his people, the Cubans and their Cuban-hearted brothers, that there was a Cuba connection. One of the explanations put forward was that they were looking for proof that would link the Democrats to Cuba/Castro, and that success would help green light an assassination on Castro. Ultimately, little documented evidence has come forward to back this theory. It may be out there, but until I’m able to examine it with sufficient context, I have to treat it as skeptically as all the other rumors at the time.

      Like

      • please don’t tell me you are familiar with the Sunward plan when that plot was never exposed until I exposed it just like Juan Manuel Fangio, not a single soul in the world knew who kidnapped him but I do, and yeah it’s documented.

        Like

      • Don’t act like you were the first to discover it or document it. Here’s just one reference from your father’s FBI file – the version you didn’t upload, and a version which was available long before you started writing your book.

        Like

      • It clearly describes the Sunward plan, even though it leaves out the name of the ship – the Sunward. That was the example that took me 15 seconds to find, beyond that and the document posted below (declassified in 1985), I’m not going to waste any more time than that proving that, while you have contributed some to our understanding of the plan, you were not the first to expose its existence.

        Like

    • I’m sorry you have no understanding, or that you haven’t even talked to Eugenio Martinez. I don’t make wild accusations, like, the security guard at the Watergate Hotel told Jim Hogan that he was the sixth burglar. you’re not going to get all the documents you want to appease your belief you have to understand the rest of my father’s material could not be released due to it being a national threat to security.

      Like

      • Scott,

        Interesting that you mention Eugenio Martinez, since you once promised to help make him available to others, then couldn’t/wouldn’t, then said you would make a recording of his statement available. To my knowledge, you haven’t finished doing that either. It looks like you uploaded “Part 1” about two years ago, but never followed up with Part 2.

        I didn’t say you make wild accusations, just that they require corroboration which you have thus far failed to provide. You haven’t, for instance, made a full copy of the documents you do have available. I’m quite familiar with the redactions and problems with FOIA and declassification efforts, which is one reason I would be happy to help you. However, whenever someone offers to help you or to examine the materials you use to make your claims, you refuse or provide only a few pages of previously released FBI files and perhaps a few pages from your father’s address book, which is interesting but not at all conclusive – certainly no more conclusive than my address book, which includes a wide variety of people.

        Like

      • please don’t tell me you are familiar with the Sunward plan when that plot was never exposed until I exposed it just like Juan Manuel Fangio, not a single soul in the world knew who kidnapped him but I do, and yeah it’s documented. where do you think AJ got that material from??? And if your quote AJ boy do you have problems. Please stop trying to act as if you know so much more than I this information you have came from me now you can put the rest of it up

        Like

      • Please stop trying to act like you’re the first one to document the June 5, 1972 hijacking plan – because you weren’t. =)

        Unlike your pitiful collection of pages, that full page and the full document is available in my collection. The fact that you’re trying to act like you know everything but refuse to provide any proof, while having plagiarized from Wikipedia, is pathetic. I may or may not write about your father, but I will not take your word for it. Unless you’re willing to produce a more complete set of documentation to back up your claims, or at least stop pretending that you exposed something which was known decades ago (you have provided a little more information about it, yes, but you did not discover or expose it). That, combined with the original draft of your first book having been plagiarized from Wikipedia, is not a good look for you. Nor is your cherry picking information about your father.

        Like

  3. One last thing you need to understand, and that is. The reason my father did NOT cooperate with the FBI is because he did NOT trust the FBI.

    After all, my father had stolen the only known photos of those involved in Kennedy’s assassination, why do you think my father reached out to Liebengood instead of the FBI? Boy, am I glad that finally some real work is getting done, the truth is getting out, and soon Watergate and Kennedy’s assassination will get fully exposed.

    Thank you to whoever owns this site, now… The truth is exposed!

    Like

      • You don’t understand, my father did cooperate with Liebengood, after all it was my father who reached out to him.

        The photos my father had, had absolutely nothing to do with Watergate, but the photos did have everything to do with Kennedy’s assassination and I’m telling you that.

        Like

      • Without documentation, it’s just one more story with elements that have been at different times confirmed and denied by the same people, with elements of it going back to St. George. Unfortunately, many of his claims also go uncorroborated. Documentation and independent corroboration is everything, Scott – I’m sure you can understand that. While you have uploaded a few statements from different people, they are not, by themselves, fully reliable – especially when those people have avoided situations where they would be open to “cross examination” (I’m using the term colloquially) or to people for independent confirmation.

        Like

  4. Another thing, you have to understand what it is my father is saying here, when my father asked Frank if the plot was “Politically Motivated” that had NOTHING to do with starting a riot or trying to disrupt the VVAW. What my father was asking is are we going to assassinate Nixon. You have to understand, Nixon was going to give a speech there, and the plan was to assassinate Nixon, they were going to set up my father.

    President Kennedy’s assassination was also Politically Motivated. My father backed out because Orlando Bosch was already released. You need the whole story to understand these documents.

    Like

    • Scott,

      Unfortunately I’ve heard some of these rumors before, but never seen the documentation to back them up. Especially with “when X said Y, what they meant was Z” – I have to treat the words as plainly put until I have something that firmly tells me something else was meant. Even with the various plots and threats against Nixon, even if they overlapped, your father described the encounter more or less the same way multiple times. I’d be happy to look at your book and any documents as well. When I was first shown a draft of your book several years ago, it was largely copy and pasted from Wikipedia. That and the little documentary evidence that’s come forward so far has me remaining skeptical about your interpretation/presentation of things. If you’d be willing to send me a review copy of your book, I’ll be happy to take a look at the finished copy (after I finish reading and reviewing Douglas Valentine’s new book, followed by Hacking The Atom) along with any documentation that’s not on your website.

      Actually, as far as documentation goes I’d also be very happy to help you get more of it online. I’ve uploaded millions of documents to the Internet Archive, which created the National Security Internet Archive collection for me. The documents would be freely hosted and available to anyone, as well as put into multiple formats – including text searchable ones. This would make it easy for everyone to verify the story about your father, and even make it easier to find the documents through Google.

      Like

  5. Ha! No way, there’s information not even you know about, I even had ro peovide “some” proof and correct Jim D. at the DPF.

    Ive learned my lesson, I don’t give anything away anymore. I can just say I know things you don’t.

    Like

    • And I know things you don’t, Scott. I also have more documents than you’ve ever seen. Unlike you, I do give them away. Public documents belong to the public, and if you want to improve the public’s understanding of something then you have to present the public with evidence. Otherwise, you’re just one more person telling stories… which were originally based of Wikipedia articles that you copy and pasted.

      Like

      • Please get off Wikipedia I can’t help the fact I know so much more than you things you don’t you wish you did. and no I don’t have to give my father’s information away I did that out of my own kind heart used steel material and publish it as if it was yours I’m not planning on giving you any more documents you’ll have to wait until my second book comes out.

        Like

      • I’m not the one who stole material from Wikipedia, Scott – you are. Perhaps you removed some of it before the book was published, but I’d be willing to bet that if I got my hands on a copy of the published version (I’m not willing to spend money on it, based on the plagiarism in the early version and your refusal to present documentary evidence) that I’d be able to find more than a few passages that were straight out of Wikipedia articles – without crediting them as you would be legally required to do.

        The fact that you’re refusing to make public documents available to the public in favor of trying to sell another book does nothing to convince me that your claims should be accepted because you “know things” – as if you’re the only one who “knows things.” The credible people that “know things” come up with evidence to document it, and untainted corroboration from sources that haven’t told different stories about the same exact thing.

        Like

  6. Ha! No way, there’s information not even you know about, I even had ro provide “some” proof and correct Jim D. at the DPF.

    Ive learned my lesson, I don’t give anything away anymore. I can just say I know things you don’t.

    Like

    • BTW, citing Jim D. isn’t going to convince me of anything. Documents will. Witness statements will – ideally witnesses willing to answer questions. People that say “buy my book and take my word for it” won’t convince me of anything. Evidence will.

      Like

  7. Perpahs, its the reason you wrote up this material on Anderson as if you discovered it, no need in reminding you where it really came from.

    Like

    • Ah, yes – from the files uploaded by AJ Weberman. Oh, what – you thought you discovered them? Your website even includes one of the hand scrawled FOIA requests that Weberman sent in. Other than that, your site presents a very incomplete collection of the documents. Based on a quick scan of those documents, none of them seem to include the mention that your father was kicked out of the US Military, impersonated an officer, stole from the government and was considered by the government and many of his peers to be a liar with conviction but no leadership skills and no real credibility. The only reason I considered the claims he made here at all was because they were corroborated by someone else in government documents, also released by Weberman (not you), and because Anderson was proven to being in this specific case.

      The only reason I didn’t upload the more complete version of your father’s FBI file to my collection is because a friend did it before I got a chance. The cover page properly identifies its provenance as having come through Weberman – again, NOT YOU. You, my friend, have only peddled incomplete versions of documents that belong to the public, conveniently excluding all of the parts that would cast doubt on the story you’re trying to sell.

      I, on the other hand, make the information freely available, don’t sell access to the articles, and quite deliberately included mentions of both Kaiser and Hannard having issues that helped enable the FBI to dismiss their claims. The article was already quite lengthy, so I didn’t dive too much into your father’s history of criminal activities and well-documented lies about government service and connections.

      Like

    • From the FBI, through the Freedom of Information Act. Don’t act like you filed the requests when the request was written and signed by AJ Weberman and the files were released to AJ Weberman, per the FBI’s letter.

      Boy, do you have problems with honesty or just reality?

      Like

  8. Loser! With a captial L stealing others work and trying to make it yours without asking, at least I ask. You quote my work and act like you dont know what’s going on funny guy!!!

    Like

    • I quote public documents, Scott – documents that don’t belong to you and aren’t work your, and the FBI documents weren’t even released to you – they were released to AJ Weberman, and credit is given in that file. If I had quoted anything written by you, I assure you I would have credited you – something I doubt you ever intended to do when you stole material from Wikipedia for the first drafts of your book. Again, I’d be happy to check a published copy to see how much stolen material wound up in there, material which actually has a copyright (unlike the public domain documents I cite and that you try to claim ownership of), but I refuse to spend money on it given your history of plagiarism and your attempt to steal credit for AJ Weberman’s FOIAs now.

      You’re right – I don’t ask before I post public domain documents, produced by the government, which belong to the public. I have neither the legal nor the moral obligation to do so. My only moral obligation is to make the information freely available in as complete a form as possible.

      None of what I have quoted is “your work,” Scott – plain and simple. I’ve uploaded public domain documents which you did not produce and which do not belong to you. I’m sorry you object so strongly to me uploading documents that show your fathers criminal history and history of lying, including lying about being in the military in order to steal from the government long after he was kicked out.

      Like

  9. You say you were familiar with the SUNWARD PLAN. But, the document you posted makes no mention of the plots name, so, how would you know. Not until you took the Liebengood document I either gave to AJ or you published reading my material, then you post that document acting as if you were familiar with the plan. You lied didn’t you? And, you say you only believe what you read? Well, read this, you wish you knew what I know. And, please get off Wikipedia after all I had to prove that no one in this world new who kidnapped Juan Manual Fangio. But I do, lol…

    Like

    • Scott, I acknowledged that you contributed some to our understanding of the plan. Specifically, you may have given us the name of the ship. Thanks for that, but it’s hardly the crucial element. The fact is, the basics of the plot were known and declassified back in 1985 and I was familiar with the plan – just not the name. Did you have difficulty reading what I actually wrote, specifically the part that said “you have provided a little more information about it, yes, but you did not discover or expose it”?

      In other words, I was familiar with the plan from documents declassified in 1985 (if not earlier, those are just the ones that took barely any looking). Your giving the name of the ship adds some information, as I acknowledged, but you did not discover or expose the plot as you claim.

      I’m sorry you have a problem with me citing your theft of material from Wikipedia (which isn’t even a secondary source, it’s a tertiary one with copyright restrictions that apply) – though I find that ironic given your complaints over me posting government documents that literally belong to the public and have no copyright restriction.

      Like

  10. Shall I call him recored him for you? That cover letter a partial request he received after i gave him everything he just Incorporated all his work get it now?

    Like

    • Feel free, and have him explain how the page that was released to him is identified by the cover letter as having been released to him. Whether or not you gave him additional material, that release was received by Weberman from the FBI – NOT from you.

      If Weberman is willing to contradict his own paper trail on how he got that document, then I’d be amazed at his willingness to damage his already somewhat fragile credibility by lying on tape about how he got a document – when the paper trail is right there for anyone to examine and verify that he would be lying, if he would indeed say that.

      Like

    • Yes, Scott, I’m the stupid one for plagiarizing my book, lying about what information was already out there, lying about where the information came from, trying to claim ownership of public documents, and insulting people for making as much information as possible freely available while cherry picking information.

      Oh wait, that was all you.

      Like

    • Keep going, man, the more you talk the more I can prove you’re lying and taking things out of context while getting mad at people that publish the government documents that belong to the public so they’re more available than Scribd or a few pages you cherry picked out of the file to make him look good.

      Like

  11. Thank God someone who’s willing to prove im lying, someone finally willing to challenge my material you may start at anytime you like and I shall counter.

    Like

    • Well, I did by pointing out you plagiarized large amounts of material when drafting your book and by pointing out that you weren’t the one to expose Sunward, just (perhaps) the name. I also proved that you lied about giving the files to AJ Weberman since the FBI letter clearly identifies them as having from from them through FOIA – not through you. The pitiful selection of cherry picked pages you put up on your website even includes on showing that AJ Weberman wrote the FOIA request to the FBI in his own hand and signed with his name – not one that includes Kaiser!

      You say you’ll counter by getting AJ Weberman to say on tape that he got the files from you and not from the FBI, contradicting his own documents in the process, but I have yet to see you do so. You’ve also refused to make your documentary evidence available and have objected to me doing so.

      Like

  12. Quote by Micheal Best, – “I am familiar with the “Sunward Plan” No, you weren’t you heard, read or knew something about a hijack on the high seas, and therefore you read about the plot, but you didn’t know who was involved or what the ship called despite you said you were familiar with the “Sunward Plan.” You knew nothing about that ship, that document is so vague that for all you know some anti-Castro Cubans were plotting to hijack some ship.

    For all you know that’s what Ramon Orosco and my father did when they were in the same group together, and William Pawley paid for it, you don’t know anything, you’d like to [think] you do, and therefore you criticize others while stealing their information, in my hometown we call that a hypocrite. I’m still waiting on you to prove I’m a liar or challenge my material, you said you would, guess I was getting excited over nothing!

    Can you please use something else other then Wikipedia? PLEASE! Or, you can simply concede and just admit, you don’t want to challenge truth!

    Like

    • “Can you please use something else other than Wikipedia?” says the first who plagiarized from Wikipedia, to the person who uploaded and cites complete sets of government docs.

      As far as me not knowing any of the details… wrong. Many details were declassified back in 1985, like I said.

      “The head of the alleged group known as the Black Legion planning to hijack a cruise ship for Ed Keizer [sic]. … Keizer was assisted by an individual known as Frank Figueres… The source noted that when he met with Keizer and Figueres and two Cubans, one by name of Alfredo… At this time they discussed a plot to hijack a cruise ship for ransom and it was decided that Keizer and Figueres would remain behind to negotiate the ransom while the other individuals, including the source, would perform the alleged hijacking.”

      So yeah, I didn’t know who was involved, aside from several of the names, the date, the type of ship, etc. And again, that was just one document that I found in about 30 seconds. So I was familiar with the plot, like I said, even if you did (possibly) help reveal new details like the name of the ship.

      Can you simply concede that you’re cherry picking documents, refusing to make the full evidence available, plagiarized Wikipedia and weren’t the first to expose the existence of the plot, nor the first to expose several of its details, nor the one who obtained the Edwin Kaiser file that, as both my copy and your website documented, was requested not by you but by AJ Weberman?

      I’m not the one making extraordinary claims, refusing to present a full array of evidence, telling people to “take my word for it and buy my book” while saying things that are varying simply not true or outright lies (e.g. Weberman got the doc, not you). You are, and I wouldn’t have cited your plagiarism of Wikipedia if you hadn’t come to my site, picked a fight with me and begun saying things that aren’t clearly documented by the evidence, failing to produce evidence promised (Part 2 of the Eugenio Martinez recording, this recording where Weberman will allegedly say you provided the document to him despite the clear paper trail from both him and FBI saying otherwise, etc.) – but you did, so I’ll keep pointing out your lies and exaggerations as long as you keep trying to pick a fight with me and pretend you’re the grand revealer of all, when some of this was already known and you’re making claims that you refuse to support with documents or a complete selection of documentary evidence. Meanwhile, you pick a fight with me for “stealing [your] work” by posting documents that literally belong to the public and, as I’ve said, the paper trail demonstrates you weren’t even the one to retrieve them.

      Like

      • One more piece of information I’m surprised to learn I didn’t know, especially since it’s spelled out so clearly in the document shown below. /sarcasm

        This document, BTW, was declassified in 1983 so I’d love to hear how you were the one who discovered it and had it declassified and released it as part of the HSCA investigations.

        Like

      • AGAIN! No where on that document states the ships name “SUNWARD” But! Nevertheless, you were familiar with it right? BS!

        Like

      • I was familiar with the plan, like I said, more than enough to recognize it when I saw the name which I already acknowledged you may have been the first to reveal, but which is also not a crucial detail by any stretch of the imagination.

        Revealing the name isn’t the same as revealing the plot, which was declassified decades ago.

        Like

      • Can you please point out where you see the words, “Sunward” yet, despite never seeing those words anywhere, ever, you noticed them on the Liebengood document, yeah, the one I discovered. And, if you believe everything you read and not listen to those who are actually trying to help you, you’ll never learn a thing, by the way whoever wrote this document up misspelled my father’s name, they couldn’t even spell something so simple as [KAISER] and how does anyone go from Frank Figueres and not know it’s Forini? See what I mean?

        By the way, did you know why my father was called the “Black Legion”? You don’t want to know, also, do you know why my father had to sell that car? Not because we needed to pay for the house, this document is really screwed up. why do you think I never used it? My father had to get rid of the car because Elias De La Torriente went to the FBI and told them my father’s group was financing their operations with drug money.

        This was the reason Torriente got assassinated, by the Black Legion, please, get your stories straight!

        Like

      • Scott, as I repeatedly acknowledged the name may be new and came through you. As for how I recognized it – quite simply, the date of the event and the fact that your father was involved was more than enough to narrow it down. I highly doubted there would be two June 5, 1972 plots involving your father hijacking a cruise ship that would be unrelated. Is that difficult for you to understand, as difficult as it’s been for you to read what I actually wrote, like the part where I acknowledged you contributed some to our understanding of it, but did not expose it? Because that’s what I said, and it’s what the record reflect.

        I’d love to get my stories straight, Scott – would you release any documents to back this up? I’m waiting, just like I’ve been waiting for your previous promises to release evidence, interviews, and now a recording from AJ Weberman wherein he’ll apparently contradict his own paper trail.

        Amazing that you claim to be an expert on these things, on Frank Sturgis and Watergate and Cuban/anti-Castro matters… yet you didn’t even notice that it almost certainly isn’t talking about him! Frank Sturgis was born in 1924, making him 48 in 1972 – about four years older than the estimate. The estimate given is also for someone one inch shorter than Frank Sturgis, and apparently 40 pounds heavier. See the FBI snippet shown below:

        Also, the FBI made plenty of typographical errors and misspelled plenty of names – I won’t argue that, but that’s hardly counter proof to the rest of the document, which clearly documents the basics of the plan. Again, this was one that only took me a little bit to dig up, but you keep moving the goal post every time I prove you wrong or provide evidence that the information was already out there, even if you did fill in the name of the ship (the least important part). Then again, your own poor research skills are demonstrated by the fact that you think identifying the event by type, by player and by date isn’t enough for me to recognize Sunward in a document you uploaded even if I hadn’t seen the name before, and that it would be impossible for me to recognize despite having published and read more documents than you have on the subject.

        Again, provide some actual evidence – not “Well, Figueres is really Sturgis despite not matching the description, and when these people said X, then meant something else, and I discovered this information even though it was released decades ago, and I gave this information to AJ Weberman despite both his and my websites showing others.” If you provide the actual documentation, without cherry picking it, I might take you seriously. Until then, you’re a lying plagiarist who refuses to provide sufficient documentary evidence for the only original claims you’re making.

        Like

      • And did you understand that it’s reportedly the case (as opposed to with Martinez and Sturgis, both of which are documented by multiple CIA papers and statements from CIA Directors) and that neither of them allegedly working for CIA proves that Figueres is Frank Sturgis? Figueres is just as likely to be Frank Castro or Pepe Figueres, or even Figueres’ son, or anyone at all because it’s entirely possible that neither “Frank” nor “Figueres” were his real name, just like it’s entirely possible that “Alfredo” wasn’t his real name.

        I’m not surprised that you seem to think that two people allegedly working for CIA somehow proves that the second one is Frank Sturgis, despite the fact that none of the elements of the physical description given (age, height and weight) seem to match Sturgis. I might have been, but your theory (presented without evidence, of course) that “when they talked about rioting and undermining Vietnam Veterans Against The War, that was really code for assassinating Nixon” was when you revealed yourself to be basically unreliable regardless of any parts that you might have correct. Without presenting actual evidence, you are no more credible than anyone else – especially when you make claims that are contradicted by the very little and heavily cherrypicked evidence you do present (such as that you gave the file to AJ Weberman) and other unsubstantiated claims such as Frank Figueres being Frank Sturgis, despite not matching the description of Frank Sturgis beyond sharing a first name.

        Like

      • Not so long as you refuse to provide any substantial evidence to your wilder or more significant claims. So far, you’ve released two documents that show the name of the ship that was to be hijacked. Congratulations. Now put up or shut up and produce the rest of the evidence? (Wikipedia citations are not accepted… I know how you love to plagiarize Wikipedia articles.)

        Like

      • Mr. Best says – “Scott, as I repeatedly acknowledged the name may be new and came through you. As for how I recognized it – quite simply.”

        But, that NOT what you said, you said “I’m familiar with the Sunward Plan” I could have the court reporter read back what you said, you said you were familiar with Sunward, I said are you sure, you kept going on about some ship and the plan to hijack that ship that you didn’t know what ship anyone was talking about, that is, until you posted the Liebengood document I discovered, right Mr. Best?

        You also say, “Amazing that you claim to be an expert on these things, on Frank Sturgis and Watergate and Cuban/anti-Castro matters…”

        Don’t hate the player, hate the game, I can’t help it that Vince P. is an expert on SS and I happened to be the leading expert on Cuban matters, after all, I did grow up knowing Frank as “uncle Frank” as well as knowing many of the men my father brought over to our house, I’d say, yea, I am an expert.

        Like

      • As I said, Scott

        Your giving the name of the ship adds some information, as I acknowledged, but you did not discover or expose the plot as you claim.

        Or as I said before that

        you have provided a little more information about it, yes, but you did not discover or expose it

        Or as I later quoted myself

        Did you have difficulty reading what I actually wrote, specifically the part that said “you have provided a little more information about it, yes, but you did not discover or expose it”?

        So I guess you did have difficulty reading it…

        I was familiar with the plot and several details long before you came along.

        you didn’t know what ship anyone was talking about, that is, until you posted the Liebengood document I discovered, right Mr. Best?

        I knew that it was a cruise ship, I knew several of the players involved, I knew the dates, etc… in other words, I knew about the plot which is what I said. The plot was known, even if the name wasn’t. More than enough details were known for me to recognize the plot when I saw it in the Senate documents (which are, again, public documents that don’t belong to you anymore than they belong to anyone else).

        Don’t hate the player, hate the game, I can’t help it that Vince P. is an expert on SS and I happened to be the leading expert on Cuban matters, after all, I did grow up knowing Frank as “uncle Frank” as well as knowing many of the men my father brought over to our house, I’d say, yea, I am an expert.

        Such an expert that you didn’t recognize the description doesn’t seem to match the description of Frank Sturgis?

        Like

  13. The plot was exposed, I exposed the ships name, no names were exposed other than Frank and my father, my father being the [leader] and head of the operation. I exposed everyone in my second book as to who was involved, now, do we have this cleared up? Yes… I filled in the blanks, and of course, you may use my Liebengood document, after all, I did announce to everyone at the DPF I plan on fully exposing Watergate and Kennedy’s assassination. I will fill in the blanks, got it now?

    Like

    • Just those two names and Glenford Trapp, who was the informant. I guess you missed that part, where I named him and posted the source document from the FBI.

      You’ll “fill in the blanks” how generous of you, Scott – and all without producing substantial documentary evidence, the complete copies of interviews as promised (still waiting for Part 2 of Martinez) or the recording you promised from AJ Weberman where he contradicts himself and your website!

      While you fully expose it, I’ll be here publishing documents and documenting my findings in ways that are verifiable to everyone including by making FBI files on Watergate figures readily available and forcing FBI to search for more documents than they wanted to hand over. I’ll be doing it while making both the government documents and my analysis freely available, unlike you, and without plagiarizing entire Wikipedia articles for 90% of a book and passing it off as “a well researched draft.”

      But yeah, have fun trying to get people to “take your word for it because you know things” and that they should buy your book and not want documentary evidence because you “know things.” Fact checking is for chumps, accuracy about when information was released? That’s for chumps, too. Claiming to have been the person to receive FOIA documents when someone else got them? That’s for winners. “Losers” are the ones who provide documentary evidence and don’t plagiarize Wikipedia… Got it.

      Like

      • The ONLY claim I admit here is exposing the name, “Sunward” (YOU) refuse to acknowledge that you were NOT familiar with the Sunward, but, you were familiar with some plot to hijack some ship, you’ve just now learned which ship, can you admit that?

        Like

      • Scott, you said, and I quote…

        don’t tell me you are familiar with the Sunward plan when that plot was never exposed until I exposed it

        You actually seem to have said in two different comments. Here are the raw emails for the notifications about those comments. =)

        Return-Path:
        Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42])
        by sloti21d1t09 (Cyrus fastmail-fmjessie42865-14317-git-fastmail-14317) with LMTPA;
        Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:42:57 -0500
        X-Cyrus-Session-Id: sloti21d1t09-2136071-1481294577-2-5777266757381832901
        X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.4
        X-Spam-known-sender: no
        X-Spam-score: 0.2
        X-Spam-hits: BAYES_00 -1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO 2.095,
        HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS 0.001, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM 0.001,
        ME_NOAUTH 0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.001, LANGUAGES en, BAYES_USED global,
        SA_VERSION 3.4.0
        X-Spam-source: IP=’198.54.115.92′, Host=’s211.web-hosting.com’, Country=’US’,
        FromHeader=’com’, MailFrom=’com’
        X-Spam-charsets: plain=’UTF-8′
        X-Resolved-to: themikebest@fastmail.com
        X-Delivered-to: themikebest@fastmail.com
        X-Mail-from: glomrfnc@server211.web-hosting.com
        Received: from mx4 ([10.202.2.203])
        by compute2.internal (LMTPProxy); Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:42:57 -0500
        Received: from mx4.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by mailmx.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EC2C86DF
        for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:42:57 -0500 (EST)
        Received: from mx4.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by mx4.messagingengine.com (Authentication Milter) with ESMTP
        id D2FD74721A6;
        Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:42:57 -0500
        Authentication-Results: mx4.messagingengine.com;
        dkim=none (no signatures found);
        dmarc=none (p=none) header.from=glomardisclosure.com;
        spf=none smtp.mailfrom=glomrfnc@server211.web-hosting.com smtp.helo=s211.web-hosting.com
        Received-SPF: none
        (server211.web-hosting.com: No applicable sender policy available)
        receiver=mx4.messagingengine.com;
        identity=mailfrom;
        envelope-from=”glomrfnc@server211.web-hosting.com”;
        helo=s211.web-hosting.com;
        client-ip=198.54.115.92
        Received: from s211.web-hosting.com (s211.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.92])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by mx4.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS
        for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:42:57 -0500 (EST)
        Received: from glomrfnc by server211.web-hosting.com with local (Exim 4.86_1)
        (envelope-from )
        id 1cFMNz-0039iQ-80
        for themikebest@fastmail.com; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:42:55 -0500
        To: themikebest@fastmail.com
        Subject: [Glomar Disclosure] Comment: “Evidence implicates Jack Anderson in Watergate”
        X-PHP-Script: glomardisclosure.com/wp-comments-post.php for 24.243.56.140
        X-PHP-Filename: /home/glomrfnc/public_html/wp-comments-post.php REMOTE_ADDR: 24.243.56.140
        Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:42:55 +0000
        From: Scott Kaiser
        Reply-To: “”scott-kaiser@hotmail.com””
        Message-ID:
        X-Mailer: PHPMailer 5.2.14 (https://github.com/PHPMailer/PHPMailer)
        MIME-Version: 1.0
        Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
        Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
        Sender:
        X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
        X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname – server211.web-hosting.com
        X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain – fastmail.com
        X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID – [1140 32007] / [47 12]
        X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain – server211.web-hosting.com
        X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server211.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: glomrfnc/from_h
        X-Authenticated-Sender: server211.web-hosting.com: wordpress@glomardisclosure.com
        X-Source:
        X-Source-Args: /usr/sbin/proxyexec -q -d -s /var/lib/proxyexec/cagefs.sock/socket /bin/cagefs.server
        X-Source-Dir: glomardisclosure.com:/public_html
        X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched

        New comment on your post “Evidence implicates Jack Anderson in Watergate”
        Author: Scott Kaiser (IP: 24.243.56.140, cpe-24-243-56-140.satx.res.rr.com)
        Email: scott-kaiser@hotmail.com
        URL:
        Comment:
        please don’t tell me you are familiar with the Sunward plan when that plot was never exposed until I exposed it just like Juan Manuel Fangio, not a single soul in the world knew who kidnapped him but I do, and yeah it’s documented.

        You can see all comments on this post here:
        https://GlomarDisclosure.com/2016/12/07/evidence-implicates-jack-anderson-watergate/#comments

        Permalink: https://GlomarDisclosure.com/2016/12/07/evidence-implicates-jack-anderson-watergate/#comment-116
        Trash it: https://GlomarDisclosure.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=trash&c=116#wpbody-content
        Spam it: https://GlomarDisclosure.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=spam&c=116#wpbody-content

        Return-Path:
        Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42])
        by sloti21d1t09 (Cyrus fastmail-fmjessie42865-14317-git-fastmail-14317) with LMTPA;
        Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:52:26 -0500
        X-Cyrus-Session-Id: sloti21d1t09-2136071-1481295146-2-11438428543402186929
        X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.4
        X-Spam-known-sender: no
        X-Spam-score: 0.2
        X-Spam-hits: BAYES_00 -1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO 2.095,
        HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS 0.001, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM 0.001,
        ME_NOAUTH 0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.001, LANGUAGES en, BAYES_USED global,
        SA_VERSION 3.4.0
        X-Spam-source: IP=’198.54.115.92′, Host=’s211.web-hosting.com’, Country=’US’,
        FromHeader=’com’, MailFrom=’com’
        X-Spam-charsets: plain=’UTF-8′
        X-Resolved-to: themikebest@fastmail.com
        X-Delivered-to: themikebest@fastmail.com
        X-Mail-from: glomrfnc@server211.web-hosting.com
        Received: from mx1 ([10.202.2.200])
        by compute2.internal (LMTPProxy); Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:52:26 -0500
        Received: from mx1.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by mailmx.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A032C737
        for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:52:26 -0500 (EST)
        Received: from mx1.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by mx1.messagingengine.com (Authentication Milter) with ESMTP
        id 8131C806C84;
        Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:52:26 -0500
        Authentication-Results: mx1.messagingengine.com;
        dkim=none (no signatures found);
        dmarc=none (p=none) header.from=glomardisclosure.com;
        spf=none smtp.mailfrom=glomrfnc@server211.web-hosting.com smtp.helo=s211.web-hosting.com
        Received-SPF: none
        (server211.web-hosting.com: No applicable sender policy available)
        receiver=mx1.messagingengine.com;
        identity=mailfrom;
        envelope-from=”glomrfnc@server211.web-hosting.com”;
        helo=s211.web-hosting.com;
        client-ip=198.54.115.92
        Received: from s211.web-hosting.com (s211.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.92])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by mx1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS
        for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:52:26 -0500 (EST)
        Received: from glomrfnc by server211.web-hosting.com with local (Exim 4.86_1)
        (envelope-from )
        id 1cFMXA-003GXj-He
        for themikebest@fastmail.com; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:52:24 -0500
        To: themikebest@fastmail.com
        Subject: [Glomar Disclosure] Comment: “Evidence implicates Jack Anderson in Watergate”
        X-PHP-Script: glomardisclosure.com/wp-comments-post.php for 24.243.56.140
        X-PHP-Filename: /home/glomrfnc/public_html/wp-comments-post.php REMOTE_ADDR: 24.243.56.140
        Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:52:24 +0000
        From: Scott Kaiser
        Reply-To: “”scott-kaiser@hotmail.com””
        Message-ID:
        X-Mailer: PHPMailer 5.2.14 (https://github.com/PHPMailer/PHPMailer)
        MIME-Version: 1.0
        Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
        Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
        Sender:
        X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
        X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname – server211.web-hosting.com
        X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain – fastmail.com
        X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID – [1140 32007] / [47 12]
        X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain – server211.web-hosting.com
        X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server211.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: glomrfnc/from_h
        X-Authenticated-Sender: server211.web-hosting.com: wordpress@glomardisclosure.com
        X-Source:
        X-Source-Args: /usr/sbin/proxyexec -q -d -s /var/lib/proxyexec/cagefs.sock/socket /bin/cagefs.server
        X-Source-Dir: glomardisclosure.com:/public_html
        X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched

        New comment on your post “Evidence implicates Jack Anderson in Watergate”
        Author: Scott Kaiser (IP: 24.243.56.140, cpe-24-243-56-140.satx.res.rr.com)
        Email: scott-kaiser@hotmail.com
        URL:
        Comment:
        please don’t tell me you are familiar with the Sunward plan when that plot was never exposed until I exposed it just like Juan Manuel Fangio, not a single soul in the world knew who kidnapped him but I do, and yeah it’s documented. where do you think AJ got that material from??? And if your quote AJ boy do you have problems. Please stop trying to act as if you know so much more than I this information you have came from me now you can put the rest of it up

        You can see all comments on this post here:
        https://GlomarDisclosure.com/2016/12/07/evidence-implicates-jack-anderson-watergate/#comments

        Permalink: https://GlomarDisclosure.com/2016/12/07/evidence-implicates-jack-anderson-watergate/#comment-118
        Trash it: https://GlomarDisclosure.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=trash&c=118#wpbody-content
        Spam it: https://GlomarDisclosure.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=spam&c=118#wpbody-content

        Refusing to admit you said something, when it’s on record several times, is not a good color on you Scott. It’s just one more example of you lying (at least by omission), cherry picking information and moving the goal post. You even managed to do all three at once!

        Like

  14. Again, I said “SUNWARD PLAN” YOU were NOT familiar with that plan, do you live a life of lies or what? I bet you don’t even know anything about Ferro Cemento 119 or the dozen of Fidel Castro’s fishing boats that were sunk by individuals I know. And, you’re going to say you know more than I do? I don’t think so.

    Like

    • I was familiar with the plan, Scott, as I demonstrated through several documents. The name is, as I’ve said repeatedly, irrelevant. What you said, however, was that the plot was never exposed until you exposed it – and that simply isn’t true.

      I haven’t lied once, but you have. You’ve also contradicted yourself, backed out of a promise to produce evidence (still waiting for the full Martinez interview(s) and that Weberman statement that contradicts his documents and your website) and plagiarized from Wikipedia when drafting your first book.

      I know things, Scott, and I’ve read more documents than you. I’m also publishing them and providing all the evidence I get. That’s something you refuse to do, instead cherry picking documents while lying about where they came from (“I gave it to AJ Weberman, ignore the FBI statement otherwise and the document on my website showing he requested it!”).

      I’m not the one saying “trust me and buy my book” – you are. You’re also the one who keeps lying. I’m sure you know some things I don’t, but you can’t or won’t document them which makes your knowledge worthless considering how many times you’ve lied, obfuscated or just made things up in this comment thread alone.

      Like

      • If I told you I found something in a brown bag, you would dub it the “Crap Plan” of course you heard of everything.

        Like

      • I wouldn’t dub it anything – unlike you I don’t make things up (“It was Sturgis, even if the description doesn’t match!”). I did, however, produce evidence that the plot was known decades ago – the plot that you claimed to have been the one to expose. You said, and I quote, “that plot was never exposed until I exposed it.” Yet it was exposed, and I did know about the basics of it because I’d seen documents on it, several of which I fished out and posted for you.

        Yet you seem to have a hard time with such evidence, or even keeping track of what you actually said. I guess it’s easier to say something when you can copy and paste a Wikipedia article and call it a draft of a book, huh?

        Like

      • I didn’t falsely claim to have exposed the plot, Scott – you did. I only said that I was familiar with it, and produced documents declassified decades ago and available to anyone to prove it. You, on the other hand, keep promising evidence and then not providing it. Can I get that recording of AJ Weberman contradicting his own papers and your website now? Pretty please?

        Like

    • The rest of what you posted, all I’m reading is blah, blah blah.

      Yeah, who can be bothered to actually read something or look at evidence? That sounds like almost as much work as actually documenting your claims, and maybe even more work than just making things up like “that’s Frank Sturgis, ignore the description not matching him, I’m an expert” or claiming that things exposed decades ago were never known before?

      Like

  15. Michael Best December 9, 2016 Reply

    “I’m familiar with the Sunward Plan, but the coincidental date isn’t enough to convince me, unfortunately. There are so many rumors about these sort of things, Scott, and so many coincidences, that it’s necessary for me to treat them all skeptically.”

    You swing back and fourth you’re worst then a woman not talking her PMS medication.

    Like

    • Ah, misogyny. The refuge of the irrational and the rapists. I’ll assume you’re the former and not the latter.

      I was referring to your alleged connection between the plan to hijack the ship and Watergate. A coincidence in dates isn’t enough to convince me. However, it was more than enough to convince me that the plans were the same when I saw the same name, date and activity all in one place. Let me quote what I said, since you seem to have had such trouble reading it the first time.

      the date of the event and the fact that your father was involved was more than enough to narrow it down. I highly doubted there would be two June 5, 1972 plots involving your father hijacking a cruise ship that would be unrelated. Is that difficult for you to understand, as difficult as it’s been for you to read what I actually wrote, like the part where I acknowledged you contributed some to our understanding of it, but did not expose it?

      I guess it would be easier if I had said that the dates alone convinced me the plots were the same, wouldn’t it? But it didn’t.

      Like

      • Wait, that’s not what you said, you said you only read documents and believe witnesses testimonies, those who are willing to be interviewed, now you’re saying you can only ass/u/me the former and not the later? Question, what are you doing assuming if you are skeptical, you better pop another pill.

        Like

      • And based off of the documents and witness testimonies, the events were identical. Same people, same event, same time.

        What you have proposed, on the other hand, was that the hijacking plan was directly and inherently related to Watergate. You haven’t provided any documents to that effect and have provided only partial statements from people like Martinez (still waiting on Part 2…).

        Like

  16. Wait a minute, you really don’t know do you? Well, let me help fill in those blanks for you, in-case you don’t know everything, the Sunward Plan was just apart of the Watergate operation, how else were they going to get the money they needed to re-capture Cuba? See, you really don’t know more than me.

    Like

    • I document and prove more than you. You make claims without evidence, and often claims that contradict the evidence like Figueres being Frank Sturgis despite not matching Sturgis’ recorded height, weight or age. You also then refuse to admit you’ve said things, even though they’re recorded and on the very page you refuse to admit saying them on.

      You’re the one who says recapturing Cuba was part of Watergate – not me. And you haven’t proven that point. There are rumors spread by Hunt through Barker et al that Watergate would prove Democratic ties to Cuba/Castro and that would have greenlit an assassination on Castro – but the evidence that I’ve seen also points to Hunt having lied. You make allegations, but fail to produce documentation or evidence and can’t seem to keep track of what you actually said, all while promising to produce a recorded statement from AJ Weberman that will contradict both his papers and your website, and that that will somehow bolster both your and his credibility. (Can I get that recording now? No? You really don’t produce what you say you will do you? Wow!)

      Like

  17. That’s what the sixth burglar’s operation was, and who was head of the operation, after all, the sixth burglar only went on the first break-in, this was away for him to get OUT of Watergate. You really don’t know do you? Wow!

    Like

    • Why would anyone pay you when plagiarize from Wikipedia, cherry pick evidence, lie about exposing things documented decades before and claim to have provided materials that AJ Weberman requested through FOIA (as documented by his copy of the file, the FBI release letter, and the letter written by Weberman that you posted to your website)?

      Like

      • Again, they are documents I gave AJ, he just Incorporated them all into the file he already had under the same FOIA request, I don’t understand why that’s so hard for you to understand?

        You keep bringing up the Wikipedia, that part had everything to do with Juan Manuel Fangio and his kidnapping which was later made into a movie and his car that sold for over 30 million dollars, the same NASCAR advertises in their commercials when there’s a race going on.

        So what, I exposed who kidnapped him. You’re just mad because you do ‘t know what I know, and I can understand that, knowledge is powerful. =)

        Like

      • Nah, it’s that you make up facts and draw conclusions not supported by the evidence and fail to provide the evidence that you claim to have and keep promising to provide.

        Also, according to the release letter that page was in the section released to Weberman. So based on that, I doubt it was you. 284 pages were released to Weberman, that document was page 200. There’s also the fact that the exemption pages that surround it seem contemporary with the ones from when Weberman requested the document back in the 1970s, not when you got involved.

        Glad you’re admitting you plagiarized Wikipedia. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

        Like

      • Nah, it’s just that you read the facts by the supported documents, but you don’t understand what the information in the documents are communicating, that’s where I come in, and fill in the blanks for you, or words, like… Sunward, LMAO!

        Like

      • And people should take your word for it, even when you contradict the records and known facts, and yourself, and refuse to acknowledge what you say, and won’t provide any evidence… but they should pay you for the privilege of taking your word for it anyway, because you “know things” and you swear you only that one section about Juan Manuel Fangio.

        Like

      • I don’t swear, unless you hear me say FU. Other then that, I know I used Wikipedia for Fangio. Whoever said I have to prove anything to you or anyone else? Want my information, I already made myself very clear at what I’m going to do, want it? Buy my book… 😉

        Like

      • Good to know you won’t even swear that’s the only part you plagiarized. Other than that, knowing you plagiarized it doesn’t make it legal. Did you cite that entire passage in the published version? I suspect not.

        As for anyone buying your book… I’m sure there are people that’ll take your word for it. For me, you’ve lied enough and admitted to enough plagiarism that I’m done with your insane, misogynistic ass.

        Like

      • The world waits with bated breath. In the meantime, do you think you can get any professional reviewers to tackle your first book? The closest I’ve seen was a mention in the Daily Mail.

        Do you think New York Times will be charitable if they described the section(s) you took off Wikipedia?

        Like

      • Actually, what you’re referring to is more syntax than grammar, but aside from that you’re only half right. Both waits and awaits work in that instance, because both work in the third person present. Try double checking that someone else’s use doesn’t work before you incorrectly criticize, you semi-literate plagiarist.

        Like

      • You may know things I don’t, but you can’t prove them. As for what I know, there’s plenty I haven’t gotten to write yet – but unlike you, I won’t plagiarize from Wikipedia and I provide the documentation to back up my conclusions and let other people critically examine them. You freak out when people call you on your shit and point out the fact that things were exposed decades before you came along, then basically deny saying it despite your statement being public.

        Your schoolyard taunting is the height of maturity, and will surely win you credibility when combined with your admitted plagiarism and documented lies.

        Like

    • Because you’re too insane to realize when you’re lying, or that you admitted to plagiarism, or that the records contradict what you’re saying, etc.

      Or did you mean why didn’t you mention that you don’t lose? Your grammar was ambiguous, but if that was what you meant, then I’d have to answer by saying it’s because it’s not true. Then again, that hasn’t stopped you from saying other things that aren’t true…

      Like

      • Blah, blah, blah… I still… don’t lose! Mr. I’m familiar with the Sunward Plan, LMAO! At least everything I’ve ever said can be corroborated, understand?

        Like

      • Except it hasn’t, and can’t be because you’ve lied about bits. Unlike you, however, I document everything and put all the documents online. Understand?

        As for being familiar with it, I proved that I was with decades old documents. Meanwhile you claimed to have exposed it, despite it having been exposed decades ago. I guess your false claim to exposing the plot isn’t part of everything [you]’ve ever said” that “can be corroborated”, huh? LMAO.

        Like

      • All you proved was that something was decades old in that document, you didn’t know what did you Mr. I’m familiar with the Sunward Plan BS!

        Like

      • I never claimed to know everything, Scott – but you falsely claimed to have exposed the plan when the plan was known decades ago, along with several people who were involved, including your father. You couldn’t even get the scoop on your own father’s involvement, Mr. “that plot was never exposed until I exposed it” BS!

        Like

      • As I said, I first exposed the Sunward plan plot with the name of the ship and everyone involved. Like I said, don’t hate the player, hate the game. First expose by Scott Kaiser…

        Like

      • Names of several involved were already known. The name of the ship is of minimal importance, and what you actually said was “that plot was never exposed until I exposed it.” Is it hard for you to keep track of your own words, Scott, or is the fact that you never lose because you’re a pathological liar? I don’t know if you are, but you seem so unaware of what you’ve actually said and so disconnected from the reality of the documents that I have to wonder.

        Like

      • Aw, are you trying your Best, no pun intended to turn things around? Sounds familiar? LMAO!

        Yes, although that plot was exposed decades ago, no one has ever heard of my father except for AJ, and when AJ didn’t have this information, I gave it to him, all you did was find it somewhere else, so… In a sense, I am the first person to have exposed this information other then it being released under FOIA rules, how about that Mr. I’m familiar?

        Like

      • No one cared about it before, Scott, and unless you can corroborate some of your claims (especially the ones where you say things “riot against RNC to undermine Vietnam Veterans Against the War was code for assassinate Nixon”), no one will care about it. Failing to produce any real evidence, and plagiarizing others, you have demonstrated yourself to be an idiot or a liar.

        No one has ever heard of your father except for AJ… sorry to tell you, Scott, but I had read about him in the documents and that was how I knew enough to dig around when you first showed up on the scene. Then I got hold of a draft of your book, which you’ve now confirmed was plagiarized from Wikipedia and you don’t even consider it to be yours, despite taking pitiful royalty checks for it and putting your name on it. Thank you for admitting that you plagiarized it, BTW.

        As for being familiar… I was, just like I said and as shown by the docs I posted images of here…as opposed to your false claim to have exposed it.

        Like

      • “No one has ever heard of your father except for AJ… sorry to tell you, Scott, but I had read about him in the documents and that was how I knew enough to dig around when you first showed up on the scene.”

        See what I mean? I’m talking about before anyone has even heard of me AJ knew my father. No wounder you have difficulties understanding things!

        Like

      • Says the lying plagiarist who literally just makes shit up and then denies saying it.

        AJ knew your father, but I’d read about your father before I heard of you. Read what I said again and you’ll see I already knew about your father. How? Well, he was named in some of the docs processed and released by HSCA – not just Weberman’s docs.

        Maybe you wouldn’t have difficulty understanding things if you stopped plagiarizing and saying “blah blah blah” long enough to critically read something.

        Like

  18. And, why do you suppose only Aj heard of my father and no one else? Perhaps, it’s because my father saved AJ’s ass at Flamingo Park?

    Like

      • Get him to say it on tape while he says that the documents he received from FBI actually came from you, despite them being released back when he requested them in the 1970s and not more recently?

        Like

      • Would that be because it would make you a poor researcher? I’d say so with your lack of understanding, perhaps, you should smoke a blunt, may help you?

        Like

      • Nice retort, Scott. You really put me in my place with your total lack of promised corroboration for “everything [you]’ve ever said.”

        I’d say your failure to produce documents, misreading documents, unfamiliarity with many documents and your claiming that “document saying X really means Y” without any proof… THAT makes you a poor researcher… but a decent con artist.

        Like

      • And I’m suppose to believe that when you’re posting my father’s information? May I make a suggestion? I suggest you stop while you think you’re ahead, this way you’ll stop making a fool out of yourself.

        Like

      • I’m posting government documents that literally belong to the public, Scott. You, on the other hand, admitted to plagiarizing Wikipedia for your book.

        I suggest you stop while you think you’re ahead, this way you’ll stop making a fool out of yourself. Then again, you “never lose,” right?

        Like

      • I admit to plagiarizing Wikipedia for Juan Manuel Fangio, after all if his car went for 30 million knowing who kidnapped him is priceless.

        Like

      • As for posting the documents… I post as many as I can get my hands on. That’s why my collection of FBI files now covers over 1,500 different subjects and I’ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of pages of CIA documents and literally millions of State Department documents.

        What, did you think your father was special because his name appears in my collection, which is almost certainly the most complete publicly available collection of government documents?

        Like

      • I archive every government document I can, Scott. I care about the documents even when I don’t care about the subjects, because sometimes they do say something relevant – in this case, the statement about Anderson that’s corroborated by others and by the circumstances, in addition to Anderson’s own demonstrable lies. That doesn’t mean I take your uncorroborated claims about your father seriously or care about them, especially when you lie and admit to plagiarism while promising to corroborate things and then never do.

        I’m more than happy to help document some of your lies and your admission to plagiarism, though, since you came to my website and started posting a bunch of nonsense and things that are demonstrably not true. Well, that and such gems as “But… I still know more than you doo-doo! Na na na na boo boo!”

        That last part, Scott? That’s what makes you seem like a real researcher, and a good one at that. /sarcasm

        Like

  19. “I’m more than happy to help document some of your lies and your admission to plagiarism”

    I’m still waiting, I already told you why I plagiarized Wikipedia, like it’s a bad thing, allow me to say it a bit slower for you to understand…

    In Wikipedia AND everywhere else that spoke about the kidnapping of Juan Manuel Fangio including the movie his kidnappers were never, ever identified, but! Everyone knew Fidel Castro gave the order, I plagiarized Wikipedia to simply “prove” I’m the only one in this world who knows who kidnapped Juan, and like I said, if his car went for 30 million, knowing who kidnapped him is PRICELESS!

    Like

    • I’m still waiting, I already told you why I plagiarized Wikipedia, like it’s a bad thing

      It is a bad thing, Scott – it’s illegal. Do you not understand that, or copyright law, or the fact that (as I mentioned and I believe even linked to) Wikipedia requires proper licensing? Your own admission to plagiarizing it confirms that you didn’t proper cite or license it, as is legally required, and that you copy and pasted a tertiary source into a book that you passed off as your own research.

      I saw the early draft, Scott, that wasn’t the only section that was copy and pasted right out of Wikipedia – it was one of them, though. I suspect we’d able to easily spot which sections you took from Wikipedia because they’d have fewer misspellings and typos than any sections that you actually wrote yourself. Then again, you don’t even consider it your book… you just want people to buy it and pay you for it and take your word for it, all while not presenting any evidence and literally making things.

      Like

      • Are you sure you want me to ping Kris about this, Scott? If you really want me to point out to TrineDay that you have admitted to plagiarizing parts of your book, I’d be willing to, but I don’t think that’s what you really want.

        Like

  20. Mow, because I know this information, imagine what I know about Watergate and Kennedy’s assassination? Wouldn’t you like to know what I know?

    Like

    • Nah, your repeated lies and your admission to plagiarism has me pretty disinterested in anything you have to say. Feel free to use any of the documents I upload, however – they belong to the public, after all. If you can cite or back up your claims, or feel like actually producing that corroboration for “everything [you]’ve ever said”, including the parts you now admit aren’t true (such as the fact that the plot and your father’s involvement was known thirty years ago and not exposed by you as you claimed), then I’ll pay some real attention.

      Like

      • Never been to your site for documents, don’t think I ever will, have no interest in the stuff you put up, I believe I have already proven that just with the document you posted on this thread, which I already knew about, but because it was so screwed up, I never used it.

        So, why don’t you just keep believing in whatever it is, and I’ll do my thing, because, if you ask me. I don’t give a shit what you believe, it’s what I believe that counts. I’m done for the day, I have better things to do!

        Like

      • I didn’t come to you, Scott, you came to me and started posting things on my site.

        Regardless, I’m amazed that you would turn away literally millions of government documents, though. That doesn’t do anything to improve how you’re perceived by me or how I think others will perceive you. I mean, not only producing evidence but declining to use one of the largest resources (and it’s even 100% free!) of existing evidence?

        I believe I have already proven that

        No, Scott… you haven’t proven a thing, and you refuse to provide real proof. I’m still waiting on Part 2 for the Martinez video and that recorded statement from Weberman you promised.

        Like

      • One last thing, you didn’t come to me, but you used my father’s information public documents, (my documents) and my father’s name, yeah, I think I have every right to help you in your train of thought, because, you can read the documents, but unless you understand what the hell they’re talking about, you’ll never know, and you needed someone to fill in those blanks, last time I try to be nice and help you. You just lost that one buddy!

        Like

      • Public documents, not yours.

        And yeah, you have the right to post here like anyone else. I haven’t stopped you and didn’t say you didn’t have the right to post here. I am more than happy to host your admission of plagiarism.

        You just lost that one buddy!

        I don’t think I did, Scott – I don’t want your help, I want proof. I want evidence. Without it, I don’t give two fxcks what you have to say beyond your admission to plagiarism.

        And you didn’t exactly “try to be nice.” You came here making false statements, accusations and went on to insult me, say misogynistic things and at one point actually retorted with, and I quote, “But… I still know more than you doo-doo! Na na na na boo boo!” How is that being nice?

        Like I do with everyone else, I asked for evidence – the very kindness I provide to everyone when I provide the information for free. You lied, asked to be paid for your “research” before insulting me and ultimately admitting to plagiarism and then disowning the very book you were asking people to buy.

        Like

      • Mike, I really don’t have time for you, you snooze, you lose, ever hear that saying? I admitted to copying Wikipedia to PROVE something, something you still refuse to understand, and just as Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs, I too have said what I had to say, something you can’t do, that’s what separates the men from the boys. You can’t even admit that you were never, ever familiar with the Sunward Plan until you read the Liebengood document, son, you can say, twist words around and try to make yourself look good, but… You won’t, and any smart thinking person reading this would know what I’m talking about, obviously you don’t.

        Good day sir!

        P.S. You want proof, you want to be in the know, then get my second book when it becomes available, judging by your post, I’ve already published enough.

        Like

      • You keep saying you’re done, yet you keep coming back.

        As for being familiar with the plan, I produced the documents, Scott – the same ones that prove you didn’t expose it, regardless of what you said.

        As for your second book – what will it prove? What, Scott? How will the book be evidence? Unless it includes actual copies of the documents (real ones, not that fake ass looking shit you’ve apparently been peddling online) or verifiable transcripts of things, it won’t prove jack shit anymore than your bullshit claims here have.

        As for “proving” something with your admission, you proved you’re a weak-ass researcher who plagiarizes from Wikipedia, a tertiary source that isn’t reliable or complete by itself.

        And yes, you have published enough. Go back to your quiet hole in San Antonio, stop bothering people with your bullshit and your plagiarism. If you do publish, publish proof and try not to plagiarize again. That’s really not alright.

        Like

      • Not mad, more amused at how you keep exposing yourself as a liar and plagiarist then coming back for more. You’re the one who got mad, I think, what with your “Na na na na boo boo!” (I still can barely believe you actually wrote that.)

        Also, it’s “bye” – you semi-literate plagiarist.

        Like

      • I think you meant “That’s an acronym for Laughing My Ass Off! Bye now! LOL…”

        …You semi-literate plagiarist, LOL.

        Keep coming back for more. I understand you’ve been banned from the Education Forum, so this might be all you have left. Or you could run to the Deep Politics Forum and whine there, link them to these comments. I’m sure they’ll love the fact that you plagiarized from Wikipedia, contradict yourself constantly, resort to misogyny in place of a rational argument, and apparently can’t read, write or spell properly all while taking credit for exposing a plot that was exposed thirty years ago, and demanding that people take your word for it and pay you money because you know things, damnit! The fact that you can’t keep your story straight, don’t recognize that the description didn’t even match Frank Sturgis, etc. all that’ll probably go over with them real well, too. I mean, those are just cherries on the misogynistic, plagiarizing, lying POS sundae that is Scott Kaiser.

        Bye now, you semi-literate plagiarist. =)

        Like

      • Mike, I really don’t have time for you, you snooze, you lose, ever hear that saying? I admitted to copying Wikipedia to PROVE something, something you still refuse to understand, and just as Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs, I too have said what I had to say, something you can’t do, that’s what separates the men from the boys. You can’t even admit that you were never, ever familiar with the Sunward Plan until you read the Liebengood document, son, you can say, twist words around and try to make yourself look good, but… You won’t, and any smart thinking person reading this would know what I’m talking about, obviously you don’t.

        LMAO!

        Like

      • The name of the ship was new, the plot wasn’t. You claimed to have exposed the plot, you didn’t. I never claimed to know everything about it – just that I was familiar with it, and I was. I knew the date, the people that were involved, and the basics of the plan. You can’t even seem to understand that, and seem to think that I twist your words by quoting them.

        What you proved by admitting you copied Wikipedia is something you refuse to understand, but you will as time goes on.

        Did I forget to mention that Kris Millegan and I are Facebook friends? Well, we are and I messaged him about this when you insisted. (I even included some quotes, some links, your IP address, etc.) I doubt he’ll be quite as eager to publish your next book, and no other publisher is likely to want to publish your uncorroborated mess of a set of claims once they find out that you admitted to plagiarizing from Wikipedia… an incredibly lame place to plagiarize, and one that isn’t even a primary or secondary source. It’s still copyright infringement, though – and I don’t think any publishers are going to want to risk that on your next book.

        ¡Adios, muchacho!

        Like

      • Mike, the fist sign in becoming a man is to admit when you’re wrong, again, you nor ANYONE including AJ, and I mean NO ONE was familiar with that plot even though it was released 30 years ago, why? Because, it wasn’t until I exposed these documents, the plot the ships name, published these documents and gave them to AJ is when anyone heard about the plot for the first time, now… Shall we really continue this little charade of yours or will you just admit I’m right, and you’re wrong!

        You are right about one thing, some folks in the FBI, CIA and U.S. Justice Department knew about the plot, but, not a single researcher knew about it until I exposed the plot, so, I am right, thank you for clearing this up! Oh, and by the way!

        LMAO!!!!

        Like

      • I’m afraid you’re wrong, Scott – I read about the plot in the documents I cited and which were published through Mary Ferrell Foundation and available in the National Archives for anyone to read, including myself, years before you came around. If you think my research didn’t include the Howard Hunt FBI files released by the HSCA, then you might be as dumb as you are illiterate and plagiaristic.

        I will concede here, however, that I misread the declassification date. It seems it was 1995 not 1985, so only twenty years before you came onto the scene instead of thirty. See? I admit when I’m wrong.

        Like

  21. Just to re-hash where I’m right, and you’re wrong. I, Scott Kaiser, am the very FIRST (1st) person to have ever expose the Sunward Planned plot, a plot (YOU) Micheal Best was never, ever familiar with, that is, until you read the Howard Liebengood document(s) for the first time. The end!

    Like

    • Except for the documents that I already had and had read, and which clearly describe the plot including the dates, the basic target type and who was involved. Documents that were released decades ago, and which I read before you showed up on the scene and long before I saw the Liebengood letters.

      I love how you keep saying you’re done and then come back to say more bullshit. I didn’t even call you out on any of it this time, you just couldn’t resist coming back on your own.

      Like

      • You just don’t get it do you? And, here I am trying to help you, while all this time, all you’re succeeding on doing is digging yourself into a deeper hole, and soon no one is going to believe you?

        Do you honestly believe you’re going to get this generation, plus the baby boomers to believe what you’re spewing out of your mouth, in this case, your brain?

        Are you saying out of every single researcher in this world, and there are lots of them that you’re the only one who know about these documents before I even came on the scene? Are you sure about that, or, would you rather think it though? I’ll give you some time, but, if you continue this bullshit mark my words, I will bury you on your own forum and it won’t be a pretty sight. Now, I’m trying very hard to be nice, honest and respectable, take my advice STOP!

        Like

      • I’m sure others saw it and, like me, just didn’t care. But honestly, I don’t care if no one else saw them or remembered them – I did, and they were available when I said they did. I didn’t make a special note of it, but I recognized the plot when I saw the FBI file and later when I saw the Senate letters.

        As for belief – I’m the one who documents everything. You’re the one who cherry picks information, lies and plagiarizes.

        Like

  22. I warned you didn’t I? Now, because you won’t stop, because you won’t admit you’re wrong, and because you’re full of shit, those documents you posted on your sight are date stamped, please, last chance… STOP!

    I came unto the scene 8 years ago, and you’re saying you saw these documents before that? You really are full of it aren’t you?

    Like

    • These documents that were declassified over 20 years ago? Let’s see, 20-8=12… published and available online and locally… yeah. I’m the one who’s full of shit, not the person who can’t document shit and lies about exposing things that were reviewed and declassified decades ago.

      The date stamps are there, yes, for when they were uploaded here as images. They were also in the National Archives, on Mary Ferrell, on my hard drive, etc. The date stamps on the documents themselves also make it clear when they were declassified – more than eight years ago!

      Like

      • Hey Scott, I just heard from TrineDay that your book was removed from their catalogue and declared out of print. Good luck with your next book, and with finding a publisher that will publish an admitted plagiarist.

        Like

      • Hey Micheal, for someone who says they don’t care about my father’s material sure has away of communicating with me all day about it. My friend sitting right next to asked that he see my shoe, I asked why, he said I had it so far up your ass he wanted to make sure I wasn’t stepping in shit too.

        Your review, does absolutely nothing but may be tickle the fancy of a few folks who already don’t like me, and those include the DPF forum. But, ask me if I care? I’ve already proven you a liar, bullshitter, and beats around the bush, when things don’t go your way, you try to find ways to tare someone up with more lies. Plagiarism was NOT the intent to take Wikipedia’s work and passing it off as my own when I also cited Wikipedia as the source, read the book a little more closer dumb-ass. The work I copied from Wikipedia was to PROVE who kidnapped Fangio, see, you lose again, and anyone who posts your material without first looking into your accusations would be considered a dumb ass too!

        Like

      • I admitted not reading the published copy, Scott, only the early draft. You, however, admitted to plagiarizing the book and when I brought up citing the passages you failed to say that you had.

        That said, based on the early draft, I know that you plagiarized more than just that one section. I wonder, if I went through the book, how many more I’d find made it into the final version? I guess I’ll never be able to find out, with the book being listed as withdrawn by the publisher.

        As for spending time on it – you keep coming to me and commenting on my site. I haven’t come to you. I’m happy to document your constant inconsistencies and lies, though. =)

        Like

  23. Another f***ing blow to the research community, don’t blame me. I really tried helping you in the beginning, you just thought going head to head with me I’d break, you messing with the wrong person. I also warned you, I don’t lose, why do you think that?

    Like

  24. Now, I will tell you for the last time, I don’t give a shit about my first book, it’s NOT mine! However, my second book which will be coming out next year, yeah, that’s the book you’ll want to read, and read it very, very carefully. Because, I will fully expose Watergate and Kennedy’s assassination, did you understand that? Did you hear that? I said, I WILL FULLY EXPOSE WATERGATE AND KENNEDY’S ASSASSINATION!

    Like

  25. Mike: I wish that you had a general Watergate venue that we can post notes to.

    Anyway, I have something to share that I just read and that just amazes me; hope that you will also sit up and be a bit jolted. I’m reading, at long last, John Dean’s “Blind Ambition”; my edition is 1977, printed in the UK. So, on page 145 of the paperback, there is this sentence: “I’m going to call Dwayne Andreas for Maury [Stans], Mitchell told me [John Dean]. Then there is a foot note which startled me. It says, speaking about who Andreas was….”A Minneapolis businessman who made large contributions to Hubert Humphrey’s past campaigns and a $25,000 contribution to the 1972 Nixon campaign. The Nixon contribution had passed through the bank account of Watergate conspirator Bernard Barker.”

    I’ll let that sink in for a minute.
    I had not previously heard of this. Second, in a partially tangential way, it draws Nixon to Barker or vice versa. Third, it opens or suggest a bunch of questions, the most important one was, why, of all people did Andreas have need to use Barker in a money transaction that was very questionable, possibly breaking campaign financing rules at that time? Who approached Barker and asked him to cooperate with this? Did Barker know Nixon directly? It just leads to many very attractive and possibly unexplored avenues.

    If you know of any other author (other than Dean) who ties Barker to Nixon, please advise. This is knew to me and if this is true, should be given a much deeper look over.

    Like

    • The Washington Post makes a similar reference.

      After his release, investigators learned that Mr. Barker had deposited more than $100,000 in his Miami bank account from Nixon fundraisers. He spent 33 days in a Florida jail for misusing his notary public’s seal in cashing one of the checks.

      Some of this would probably be explored in the Congressional reports on Watergate. I expect that’d be a good place to start.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s