Michael Hogan
-
Posts
2,913 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Hogan
-
-
It is very important to get JFK assassination news into the Daily Mail online. Globally it is the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times' site, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.
Of course, one of the reasons that it is read by so many people is that it includes so many political conspiracy stories. It is one of the ways that the internet has undermined Operation Mockingbird.
An interesting adjunct to these articles is the Comments section. By and large, the readers' comments seem discouraging. Like many online papers, the Daily Mail enforces a time limit for new comments.
It's possible the inheritors of Operation Mockingbird are still on top of the game.
-
A more complete version of Nathaniel's post: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/turner-christian.html
A few brief comments by Turner, responding to John Simkin: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6491
And again, Turner's new book: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1616147571
-
The Cuban Connection: Nixon, Castro, and the Mob
by William Turner
Book Description
Release Date: May 14, 2013
A former FBI agent and investigative journalist examines the fateful meeting between Castro and Nixon and the murky connections that existed between official Washington, the CIA, and organized crime in Cuba. His vivid narrative provides insider information that many in power never wanted the public to know. In April 1959, Fidel Castro toured the United States at the invitation of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Though he was wary, Castro entertained some hope of establishing an approchement with Washington. But after being snubbed by President Eisenhower and receiving a less-than-cordial reception from Vice President Richard Nixon, Castro got the strong impression that US intentions toward his new Cuban government were hostile. Based on firsthand interviews with many of the key players involved in Cuban-American relations of that era, plus thorough background research, Turner raises a host of disturbing questions. Before the ouster of the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista by Castro, why did Vice President Nixon often socialize at Havana casinos with his Cuban friend Bebe Rebozo? How was the rabid anti-Communism of the Eisenhower administration, especially its instant dislike of Castro, connected to its cozy relationship with the former mob-controlled dictatorship? How did all of this set the stage for the Bay of Pigs fiasco and, ultimately, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the JFK assassination?
-
-
Paul Trejo's observations about racism in America are largely superficial and sophomoric and have next to nothing to do with President Kennedy's murder.
Paul has consistently failed to produce convincing evidence for his claims.
-
JFK was killed because White racists resented JFK's support for MLK and for Earl Warren's Brown ruling to racially integrate US public schools and Universities.
Once this fact is made plain and explicit, we can kick-to-the-curb all the many theories about the CIA or the FBI or the Pentagon or the Military-Industrial-Complex being behind the assassination of JFK.
Guy Banister and Edwin Walker sat in the center of the White racist movements in New Orleans and Dallas. We should keep digging the ground around these two key figures.
Paul Trejo sees "White racists" everywhere. Even on this Forum:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=274567
-
Jim Root and Paul Trejo have established disparate reputations on this Forum for the quality of their research and their resulting conclusions.
The reasons are obvious.
-
But more pointedly, the position at which you rest is to identify the killers of JFK as "the system." In other words, an abstraction; like saying, "the CIA did it," or "the Mafia did it," without getting down to the ground-crew. My task, from the start, has been to identify the specific ground-crew.
The evidence mounts that White racism was the villain that assassinated JFK.
-
White racists today do not like to hear that Edwin Walker was so close to the JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963, although the evidence is piling up.
White racists don't want to hear that historians are now smelling their foul odor close to the JFK assassination. (That's possibly one reason that some people here are attacking my posts.)
I think that Edwin Walker research will show that White racism was the ultimate cause of the JFK assassination. Furthermore, I suspect that some White racists are running scared today.
The foul odor is Paul Trejo's insinuation that some of his Forum critics are motivated to do so because they are "White racists."
Trejo's imaginings are groundless, like so much of the other stuff he advances. Where is the evidence for his ugly claim?
What Paul Trejo calls attacks are, in most cases, just members calling him out for his unsupported and illogical claims, theories and conclusions.
Paul wants to blame everyone else and everything else for the overwhelming rejection of his methods.
He would do better to look inward. although most of his posts make it appear that he is incapable of doing so.
-
ANYWAY, let's move away from all those time-wasting personal attacks, and get back to the exciting topic of Jim Root's thread -- the role of resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker in the assassination of JFK.
Allow me to recap.
Paul;'s recap is the same time wasting material that he has posted over and over on countless threads. It's a collection of factoids about Walker's career.
The conclusions are Paul's speculations. He fails to show that Walker had any connection at all to any plot to murder President Kennedy.
Allow me to recap:
Please think through your ideas before you post. This will reduce the amount of aggression that is directed towards you.
Although John's advice was made to another Forum member, it is quite applicable here.
Unable to rebut the torrents of justified criticism, Paul has been reduced to labeling everything a personal attack on him.
His recent exchange with Mark Knight is a perfect example.
-
After reading my post, Paul went back and hastily edited his. He added a second line.
Congratulations, Mark, you now qualify as the third person on this Forum for whom I've set my software options to "Ignore."
You truly disappointed me, though. I once thought you were a fair-minded debater.
-
Congratulations, Mark, you now qualify as the third person on this Forum for whom I've set my software options to "Ignore."
Mark, you make fair points, and they're well-taken. Also, you debate in a professional manner, and I appreciate that. Your civil manners show that you're not in any negative alliance around here. I welcome your criticism.
-
If you'd like to convince me of something, Tom, then you're well-advised to do so using well-formed arguments. Intimidation, insults, emotional outbursts and bossiness don't have much of an effect on me, as you may have seen.
Reason, reason and only reason can convince me to change my mind. It's not that hard -- if somebody really tries.
The posts of countless Forum members, and Paul's responses to those posts, tell an entirely different story.
-
John Simkin understood the dynamics of this Forum early on.
Please think through your ideas before you post. This will reduce the amount of aggression that is directed towards you.
-
What you wrote above had nothing to do with what I wrote.
-
I couldn't disagree more with Pat and Mike.
About what?
Mandel allowed that some of the conspiracy theorists' claims claims might be true. Apparently he did not reject all of them out of hand.
I began to brood over my dad's demise -- something I hadn't done for years -- and I got angry, flipping between trying to "correct" some of the claims on conspiracy websites and worrying that what they said might, in fact, be true.
After months of this, I couldn't take it anymore. There was too much frustration and pain. The only person who might be able to answer these questions was gone.
-
Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.
ROFLMAO! If I still had stitches I'm sure they would have popped open when I read that one! Eloquently irreverent, as usual...
Hi Greg,
Just the other day I wondered how you were doing. Much better I trust..
Just like with RC-D, I always enjoy reading your posts.
-
I didn't read the article as an attack, FWIW. It was more like a call for peace. Peter Mandel was disturbed to find that his long-dead father has been implicated in some conspiracy theories. He apparently thinks (or wants to believe) these theories are groundless. But he didn't insinuate or claim that everyone holding these theories is mentally ill, etc, or should be shunned, a la some of the rave reviews of Bugliosi's book. He just said we should all move on.
Mandel allowed that some of the conspiracy theorists' claims claims might be true. Apparently he did not reject all of them out of hand.
I began to brood over my dad's demise -- something I hadn't done for years -- and I got angry, flipping between trying to "correct" some of the claims on conspiracy websites and worrying that what they said might, in fact, be true.
After months of this, I couldn't take it anymore. There was too much frustration and pain. The only person who might be able to answer these questions was gone.
-
I'm certainly not the only person on this Forum who has defended Marina Oswald's credibility, but lately there aren't many who have been willing to step up for her -- at least not in these threads. And it's not because of me or my methods, I'm convinced, rather, it's because of the rude manners of my opponents.
Decent people don't like brawls.(Anyway, I was the target of last week's brawl, so I felt morally obligated to defend myself -- and I'm not complaining. I gave better than I got.)
How many Forum members have questioned Paul's methods? Too many to count.
Yet, despite detailed explanations offered by so many of these members, Paul simply chalks it up to rude manners.
His implied message is members that would otherwise support him are intimidated from doing so.
Paul claims that his unnamed opponents lack decency.
Paul seems to think he has a moral obligation to defend himself against all of these indecent people and he seems quite proud of himself.
But a case could be made that Paul Trejo certainly incited and helped escalate the "brawl."
And an even better case could be made that he got his intellectual butt kicked.
-
This goes to what I've been saying for a long time: These names that we throw around are or were real people, with real families, and some among us are too reckless with charges.
Stephen, your point is well taken. Do you think Doug Horne crossed a line?
In his article, Mandel seemed resigned to the fact that private lives have become public. His larger point seems to be that we should stop studying the JFK murder.
Since my dad was a small part of a piece of history, a chronicler of it, you can make a case that speculating about his motives and about his death is fair game. In a day and age when personal facts pop up at a click, we're all in the public domain. But on this anniversary, there is one thing I want to ask: When will Americans, we of middle age, especially, move on? Yes, we still feel the sting of that day, but shouldn't there be some sort of mental statute of limitations on traumas like these? In the absence of new witnesses or of other fresh and vital information, might it make sense to stop our chattering and to open files on the other parts of our lives?
The effect of all the conspiracy talk on his family seemed to be minimal for almost fifty years. It was only when Mandel Googled his father's name did he discover his father's connection to assassination lore.
But it wasn't until his name popped up in a Google search that an eerie, even ugly side of his JFK report became clear. My dad had, after all these years -- and without my family realizing it -- become a celebrity in the superheated world of conspiracy websites. He'd turned into nuclear fuel for a whole range of assumptions and arguments, a touchstone for angry postings and rapid-fire computer chat.
What's absent from Mandel's article is the specific reason(s) his father's name became part of JFK assassination lore.
-
Doug Horne's take (courtesy Bill Kelly): http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14986&p=176126
-
Alex Ferguson, who recently retired as manager of Manchester United, has admitted that he is extremely interested in the assassination of JFK. Gordon Brown, the former British prime minister, is also a student of the case. Over the years he has communicated with Ferguson on the assassination. According to Ferguson: "Gordon sent me 35 CDs on it, which was brilliant of him."
Ferguson, a staunch socialist, was an active trade unionist at the time of the assassination: ""As a young man, Kennedy was my era. At the time, I was very much involved in the trade unions and I was very ideological, so Kennedy presented a new vision of politics. He had his critics and I have read some fantastic books on it, but in his time as President, I don't think anyone had to deal with so many issues and he dealt with the lot in this three years in office. I have a copy of JFK's autopsy report. I got a letter from the lad who runs the JFK assassination committee and he sent me the report. I also have a brand new copy of the Warren Report signed by the former president, Gerald Ford, which is the only one he signed, so it's one of a kind."
The only one he signed? One of a kind? I'm not so sure.
http://www.abebooks.com/REPORT-WARREN-COMMISSION-ASSASSINATION-PRESDENT-KENNEDY/9906635606/bd
-
From variety.com
Cate Blanchett will star in helmer-scribe David Mamet’s “Blackbird,” a present-day Hitchcockian nailbiter turning on a secret explanation for the 1963 assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy.
Blanchett plays Janet, who travels to Los Angeles for the funeral of her grandfather, a Hollywood visual effects artist who moonlighted for U.S. special ops agencies. Her grandfather’s well-kept secrets become a threat to her, forcing Janet to discover the truth about a man who dedicated his life to making illusion reality.
http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/cake-blanchett-david-mamet-blackbird-1200481649/
-
Paul, I haven't joined any team, I'm not the member of any gang, and I'm not anyone's follower. All terms you have used to label me.
I was critical of you long before this recent firestorm that you have brought on yourself.
It was on the Terry, Mississippi thread, where I discovered that you were not really interested in sound arguments.
I never claimed I criticized you only once. Robert Charles-Dunne was right about your reading skills.
Michael, nobody cares about your personal issues. This is a thread about Edwin Walker. Do you have anything at all to say about the role of Edwin Walker in the assassination of JFK? If so, please make that contribution. Please. Pretty please.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=273762
William W. Turner
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I've had enough.