Michael Hogan
-
Posts
2,913 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Hogan
-
-
Below are a few excerpts from Eric Norden's remarkable January 1964 article for The Minority of One.
Norden's article is certainly worth reading in full.
"If the death of the President was a well-organized conspiracy to change the military and political direction of the United States, dark days are ahead for our country..... if the President was indeed struck down to frustrate his aim of a limited détente in the Cold War and to plunge East-West relations into a new maelstrom of suspicion and fear, his death may be the prelude to far more terrifying events.
"As Chief Executive of the United States Kennedy represented a set of ideas, values and policies which were as much a target of the assassin's bullet as his person. To understand the implications of his death for the nation and the world, we must first consider who would wish to destroy these policies, and why.The motivations of Kennedy's assassin can lead us to the assassin himself."
"If indeed the act was a conspiracy, what forces in America are likely to have been behind it? Three main groups felt themselves, rightly or wrongly, sufficiently threatened by Kennedy and his policies to resort to the ultimate treachery: the ultra-right, the racists, and the die-hard militarists, within and without the Pentagon. These three groupings are not entirely separate; they are often interlocked, and all were united in bitter opposition to Kennedy and his policies."
"The blackest aspect of the whole fantastic Oswald case is the behavior of the Dallas police force. Police authorities pulled out every stop in their campaign to convince the world that Oswald was the assassin, engaging in a campaign of official smear, innuendo and vilification almost without parallel in Western juridical history. Though the evidence against Oswald was almost entirely circumstantial, Dallas police did not hesitate from the day of his capture to present his guilt as conclusive and irrefutable."
"The American press has, of course, been cautious about postulating the existence of a political conspiracy which killed the President and then eliminated his alleged assassin. Such a conspiracy, to be successful, would have to enjoy support and protection from powerful forces both within and without the government, a thought entertained with comfort by few Americans."
"The identification of Oswald, a man of hazy allegiances and ambiguous background, as pro-Communist was no accident: it was intended to launch a new wave of anti-Communist hysteria, plunge the Cold War into a new freeze and, in the process, divert attention from the perpetrators and planners of the President's murder."
"If the facts of the President's murder and its aftermath are ever fully revealed, it will not be as a result of the plethora of official government investigations now taking place. While the special Presidential commission established by President Johnson to investigate events in Dallas is headed by a great jurist and a firm supporter of human rights, Chief Justice Earl Warren, his influence alone will not be enough to dispel the smoke-screen of contradictions, lies and distortions laid over the assassination by powerful forces in the government and press."
One month after President Kennedy's murder, Eric Norden was understanding and writing about the forces that were
the basis for Jim Douglass and Doug Horne's books five decades later. The above remarks were excerpted from his
January 1964 article The Death of a President, which appeared in The Minority of One.
Norden's article is a remarkably prescient summation of why President Kennedy died and the coverup that began
in full force before he was buried.
As well-written and researched as JFK and the Unspeakable and Inside the ARRB are, Douglass and Horne's
conclusions are not dissimilar to what Norden ascertained so very long ago.
http://karws.gso.uri...ent-Norden.html
(Norden would later interview Jim Garrison for Playboy magazine.)
-
The mark of a good interviewer is to let the subject talk. And talk some more. .And more. The problem with this piece, it seems to me, is that it is 95% Vince Salandria expounding his views (to Arlen Specter, and, via this piece, to us) but only 5% Arlen Specter.
I know what Vincent Salandria thinks--he is one of the earliest people I ever read on the JFK assassination. But I sure would like to have had a better picture, a far clearer picture, of what Specter thinks.
But this reads like "What I told Arlen Specter at Lunch One Day". I'd have much preferred a better balance--a much better balance--of what Specter said at that lunch (if he said much of anything) than what is written here....
I agree.
Salandria's notes do not indicate even the slightest amount of curiosity as to why Specter would invite him to lunch.
It was Specter that called Salandria. Surely he must have offered some sort of a reason for the invitation and if not,
I can't imagine Salandria not asking him when they met for oysters.
Salandria encountered Specter at a Philadelphia Bar Association meeting on October 22, 1964. A few days later
Salandria published his now famous dissenting view of the Warren Report's ballistic findings in Philadelphia's
daily law journal, The Legal Intelligencer.
Anyone that has studied this case carefully knows of Salandria and his views. They haven't changed much over the years.
I found Mr. Salandria's notes on the meeting to be incomplete, frustrating and, ultimately, extremely unsatisfying.
What prompted Arlen Specter to call him half a century after the Warren Report?
Disclosure: I have always regarded Vince Salandria's views on conspiracy and President Kennedy's murder with a large measure of respect.
-
Rose Cheramie.......b....
Bernice, that is a cropped version of the same photo that appeared in the Avoyelles Today article. The one in the article is much clearer.
-
-
Blakey's remark about the legal justification for the FBI involvement is rather interesting (destruction of government property). Actually in a weekend call to Johnson's aide, Wakter Jenkins, Hoover told Jenkins that the Bureau had found a legal basis for the FBI taking over the investigation. He cited Section 241 (which relates to conspiracy). specifically to two or more persons who conspire to oppress, threaten or intimidate - and conviction carries a maximum sentence of ten years. Not murder of course but a bit stronger than property damage.
Of course that was early days, on Saturday morning, Wonder why Hoover had to give up on that legal angle - perhaps someone thought it best not to proceed down that line of justification...
Larry
Thanks for this, Larry!
I've long felt that Hoover was a reluctant lone nutter and not at all the driving force behind the Oswald Alone Theory as he is so often described. I think Hoover was trying to keep the door open for the "conspiracy scenario" all along, which was why he didn't endorse the SBT, perhaps.
In a Sunday afternoon phone call Hoover told Jenkins "he dispatched to Dallas one of his top assistants to in the hope that he might stop the Chief of Police (Curry) and his staff from doing so much damned talking on televison."
Hoover pointed out that the Dallas police had no evidence that would convict Oswald of killing President Kennedy except for a few "tentative" identifications of him "as the man who shot the policeman and boarded a bus to go home after the President was killed."
Hoover made it clear that the FBI developed all the evidence that would have convicted Oswald, had he lived. Hoover was concerned that Fritz was "giving too much information to the press" and wanted him to "shut up." Hoover was certain that Oswald's civil rights had been violated.
Hoover had relayed to the Dallas Police Department death threats on Oswald made to the FBI. He accused Curry's department of not giving Oswald "adequate protection." The fact that Oswald was killed was "inexcusable."
Hoover was clearly concerned that there would be a Presidential Commission and made it clear that he was dead set against it. His grounds seemed to be that there were "several aspects" to the case "that would complicate our foreign relations."
In any event, Hoover told Jenkins that he (along with Katzenbach) "wanted something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
https://www.maryferr...4&relPageId=475
Actually it appears to me that when Hoover mentioned conspiracy he was in fact referring to one by the Dallas police to deprive the now dead Oswald of his rights.
-
Obviously I knew Greg was in the process of adding his colored fonts and that it was a matter of time before he edited his post. I was poking fun at him.
Len and Greg couldn't figure that out.
Um. Not true. Or did you miss this? The sleaze is all his because he would have seen I was working on the post at the time he made his reply. I had no idea what he'd said until I'd finished my post. But congratulations for fooling Len. You must be very proud - another major milestone for you.
I've bolded the part above that Len and Greg couldn't figure out.
Greg Parker can continue to misrepresent what was said in threads long ago. I can't stop him.
He can continue to call members liars and cowards and use profanities in his posts without any moderator intervention
and complain about how he is treated. I can't stop him and what's more, I don't care.
The reason I've ignored him for so long is not because I couldn't counter his arguments. That is not hard to do. It just became too
tedious and unproductive to have any dialogue with him.
Doug Weldon's words remain the best description of what Greg Parker is all about.
-
....The late Doug Weldon was a fine researcher and by all accounts a good and honorable man. He measured his words and almost never spoke poorly of anyone.
In the thread referenced by Greg, this is what he had to say:
Greg:
I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.
Doug Weldon
I'm more than content to be aligned with the thoughts of members like Doug Weldon and Don Jeffries when it comes to Greg Parker.
Greg can have Scully and Colby. He's welcome to them.
I've ignored Colby for years. I learned to do the same thing with Scully too.
Mr. Hogan, the fact is, I did not post your name, yet you show the temerity and disrespect to post about me in the way you did. My comments were directed to Don Jeffries because I agreed with Greg that Don's theme is off putting.
The fact is that Mr Scully responded directly to a post I made. If he wanted to direct his comments to Don Jeffries, he could have responded directly to Don's post:
http://educationforu...=75#entry261909
Why did Mr Scully make the assumption that Don was posting as a moderator and not as a member?
-
Obviously I knew Greg was in the process of adding his colored fonts and that it was a matter of time before he edited his post. I was poking fun at him.
Len and Greg couldn't figure that out.
Greg Parker wanted this confrontation. He couldn't stand that I was repeatedly ignoring his taunts on all the other threads so he figured he would go ahead and jump in and call me a coward on this one.
Before this thread I hadn't responded to anything he's written in well over a year, When people show they can't stick to the truth, it becomes a waste of time dealing with them at any length.
------------------------------------
Doug Weldon chimed in 12/02/10In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.My best,Doug Weldon-----------------------------------------------
The late Doug Weldon was a fine researcher and by all accounts a good and honorable man. He measured his words and almost never spoke poorly of anyone.
In the thread referenced by Greg, this is what he had to say:
Greg:
I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.
Doug Weldon
I'm more than content to be aligned with the thoughts of members like Doug Weldon and Don Jeffries when it comes to Greg Parker.
Greg can have Scully and Colby. He's welcome to them.
I've ignored Colby for years. I learned to do the same thing with Scully too.
-
For once, it looks like Don left Greg Parker speechless.
Huhhh? He replied.
Check the edit times Len.
-
Greg,
The reason my posts often sound like lectures is because so many good researchers here simply refuse to express themselves appropriately. Most of us are middle-aged here; do you normally act so beligerant in your personal conversations with others? I can understand the impulsive nature of youth, the tendency to curse, etc. I don't get people in their 40s and 50s acting the way so many posters here do.
I've said it far too many times on this forum, but the way you say something does affect how it's perceived by others. You can have the greatest information in the world, the most earth shattering revelations imaginable, but if you accompany them with juvenile insults and profanity, there are still a lot of people who will disregard the brillance of your argument. I don't think your arguments against Armstrong's work are brilliant, but you have made some good points, imho.
You clearly hold a grudge- why are you still castigating the late Jack White over the allged hijacking of your threads? Yes, Jack could too easily dismiss those who opposed him. He was often too quick to judge. He wasn't perfect, but trashing his memory only serves to make you look petty. He was not only a true believer in Armstrong's theory; I think they were personal friends. He probably had a lot invested in Armstrong's research. He was a bold and radical man, and I'm sure I'm not the only one offended that you would still be debating someone who no longer can defend himself. Why can't you understand that peope can honestly oppose your views and theories, without being "cowards" or "hypocrites?"
You appear now to be engaged in a personal, rather petty feud with Michael Hogan. I only know Michael from his posts on this forum. While you may have astutely identified his unattractive characteristics, from what I can determine he is one of the most reasonable posters here. Of course, it helps that I usually agree with what he says, but even if I didn't, I couldn't help but be favorably impressed by how he says it.
For once, it looks like Don left Greg Parker speechless.
-
Greg,
Why are you so combative? Michael Hogan is one of the few people on this forum who is consistently civil in his posts. I find him to be lucid and well spoken. Okay, we understand you think those who subscribe to Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory are "cultists." We get that- you've made it abundantly clear. You do a thorough job of delineating why you feel the way you do. But you cross a line, which you seem to habitually cross, when you cavalierly call Michael "a hypocrite and a coward."
Jack White was a true believer in Armstrong's theory, but there are many of us, and Michael may be in that group, who respect the tireless research he produced, without necessarily swallowing the entire "Harvey and Lee" scenario. In your world, does disagreement equal cowardice?
Armstrong's "conspiracy theory" certainly has more validity than the official story of the JFK assassination. That doesn't mean it's completely right, but it does have the right to exist, doesn't it? Your passion in countering Armstrong's work reminds me of Josiah Thompson't fervor in opposing film alterationists.
I'm sure Len does, but do you see "danger" in "conspiracy theories?"
Thanks for your support Don. I appreciate it.
Take away the insults, the untruths and half-truths from Greg Parker's response to you and there wouldn't be much of that colored font left.
Greg has puked all over himself.
Metaphorically speaking of course.
-
Hope you haven't been holding your breath, Len.
Not only is he a hypocrite who only ever criticizes those with whom he disagrees - despite having knowledge of the same or worse coming from those with whom he agrees... he is also a coward who hides behind "metaphors" in his libelous insults as a means of circumventing "the rules".
And as a fully paid up member of the "Harvey & Lee" cult, he is among thelast here who should talk about anyone else's ability to reason.
Hogan is an interesting case, he alters keen insights with inane comments and I agree that he displays a double standard, he puts some people on his $#!tlist and is hypercritcal of them but ignores similar or worse misdeeds and errors by those he favors. I also doubt I'll get a reasonable (if any) reply.
Hypercritical? I haven't said anything to Len Colby in years. I don't have a list. Who does Len think is on it? He doesn't say.
Although obviously prompted by what Dawn wrote about Len Colby, Evan's post was a generalized and overreaching statement that went beyond Len and Dawn.
I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views..... (bold added)
.....The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position.
It was those blanket (and false) statements that I took exception with when I posted my metaphor. Despite the fact I haven't said anything to him in years, Len chose to believe my statement was directed to him specifically.
It's hard to address vague charges like the ones Len makes above because there are no specifics. Even if there were, I probably wouldn't bother.
As far as Greg Parker, some time ago he started taunting me because I wouldn't join a contentious exchange he was having with David Josephs in a Harvey & Lee thread Greg started. I never posted a word in it. When I refused to respond to his taunts he started following me around to other threads, ramping up his taunting. Because I continued to ignore him, Greg then initiated his nasty name-calling. I suppose that fits his own definition of courage. I've continued to ignore the crap he writes about me.
It's been more than a year since I've said anything at all to Greg. If and when I respond, it will be a time and thread where I choose. Greg's not going to choose it for me.
He did, however, illustrate my metaphor perfectly.
-
-
Anna K Nelson's obituary in the Washington Post:
-
Get out your dictionary and look up the word metaphorical.
-
At risk of being accused of thread necromancy, I always try to engage posters who disagree with my views. I have sometimes seen the excuse that someone is not who they claim to be, etc... who cares? If your position is solid then you don't give hoot who argues because you know you can counter their arguement.
The excuse that "I won't argue..." seem to me like an admission that you cannot defend your position.
If you ran into a foul-mouthed, belligerent, ignorant drunk at your local bar or pub and after a few minutes it became clear that any efforts on your part to reason with him or debate with him were fruitless and would only serve to induce him to become nastier and nastier.....and it was also apparent that the drunk actually enjoyed seeing you get irritated at his behavior....... at what point would you dispense with the conversation, walk away, and let him puke all over himself?
Just a rhetorical, metaphorical question.
-
I read somewhere that O'Reilly was talking about his book on his show, and asking his viewers to give the book positive reviews on Amazon. That would explain all the newbies posting five star reviews.
This is unofficial of course, but I did a review count by date.
October 13th/7
October 14th/7
October 15th/13
October 16th/6
October 17th/119
October 18th/49 (so far)
-
The number of people who are possessed of the facts are vastly dwarfed by the people who do not, and with the media ready and able to reinforce false perceptions, we realize we're definitely living in a Matrix.
Speaking of the Matrix.....
-
Something odd is going on with the Amazon reviews. Look at all the brief five-star reviews dated October 17.
I don't know, it just seems strange.
-
Francis Adams, according to Specter, was an extremely wealthy high-priced New York attorney who wanted to sign off on the FBI report, and had no interest in getting his hands dirty. He didn't have the time to devote to the case that eager-beaver suck-up Specter did. According to Specter, Adams, after a short absence, showed up on the day Specter was to interview the autopsy doctors, and was humiliated when Chief Justice Warren confused him for one of the doctors. So humiliated that he never showed up again...
Warren refused to replace him, however, and made establishing the basic facts of the shooting Specter's responsibility. This dumping of this responsibility into the relatively inexperienced Specter's lap so enraged the Warren Commission's chief defender, David Belin, that he actually complained about it in his books. He said he found Warren's letting politics interfere with the investigation "chilling."
There's a problem with this scenario, however. The doctors testified in mid-March, 1964.
Now look here
http://jfkassassinat...mony/obrien.htm
What do you see? Francis Adams taking the testimony of Lawrence O'Brien on May 26, 1964...
Yep, Adams did not disappear. He simply stepped aside and let Specter make, and put his name on, the commission's conclusions regarding the medical evidence and shooting scenario.
In short, I suspect Adams stepped aside because he was uncomfortable second-guessing the FBI and SS, and had no interest in pushing the single-bullet theory on the commission.
According to The Encyclopedia of American Law Enforcement by Michael Newton, "Adams disbelieved the magic bullet theory that described one rifle slug apparently defying all known laws of physics, and he left Specter to write the chapter alone. Enduring controversy surrounds the Warren Report, but it left Adams unscathed."
http://books.google....mission&f=false
According to the HSCA, Adams worked a total of sixteen eight-hour days. Lee Rankin told the HSCA "that there is one member that you can see did not attend hardly at all, and I certainly should have gotten rid of him really***That was Francis Adams and he really didn't contribute anything."
http://www.maryferre...83&relPageId=24
Years earlier Rankin told Edward Epstein that he "had seriously considered asking for Adams' formal resignation, but as such an action might be misinterpreted as a sign of dissension among the staff, he decided to 'leave Adams' name on the report." (Inquest), p 74)
From Bill Kelly's blog:
You probably never heard of Francis William Holbrook Adams, but he was a New York City Police Commissioner (54-55) who was appointed Senior Counsel to the Warren Commission and given responsibility for developing the basic facts of the case.
Adams was a no-nonsense guy, and when he realized there wouldn't be any real investigation, he didn't bother to do anything, though his name is still on the Report. By backing out however, Adams gave the Junior counsel on the commission to step up and make a name for himself.
Here's a book review that I wrote when the book came out in 2000. - BK
Excerpt:
Specter notes that he was the junior attorney handling that area, while the senior lawyer was Francis W. H. Abrams, a former New York City
police commissioner (1954-1955), who was quoted in the New York Post as calling the Kennedy assassination, “just another first-degree murder case.”
According to Specter, “Adams thought the commission should conduct an incisive, piercing investigation, wrap up the matter, and file its report.”
“Of course,” as Specter said Abrams usually began a sentence, when Abrams realized that no such incisive, piercing, first-degree homicide investigation
would take place, he left most of the work up to the junior attorney, who wrote in this book that, “The commission had hired a team of lawyers from around the country, accomplished but with limited courtroom and investigative experience.
http://jfkcountercou...en-specter.html
In an interview with Edward Epstein "Adams said that although he had a different concept of the investigation -- he thought the the FBI Summary and Supplemental Reports should have been verified immediately, so that the basic facts of the assassination could have been made public immediately -- the reason he left the Commission was that his law firm needed his services." (Inquest, p 74)
In their books, Fonzi and McKnight seemed to accept this explanation.
While writing Inquest, Ed Epstein kept a diary. He wrote this about Adams in 1965:
The area of resolving the central facts of the shooting, "Panel 1," was assigned to Francis Adams, a former New York City Police Commissioner, in early January. Adams had the impression it was only a two-month part-time job, and, when the investigation was delayed, he returned to his own law practice. Meanwhile, in January, Specter, who had known Willens from the Law Review at Yale, had been assigned as a junior lawyer to help Adams. Since Adams failed to show up for the investigation he was supposedly in charge, Specter took over (though the Commissioners themselves did not realize that Adams had de facto retired.). He had virtually the entire burden of establishing the sequence of which shots hit which person in the assassination.
Epstein asked Specter one question about Adams:
Q. Why did Adams quit?
A. He had other business. He was very convivial.
http://www.edwardjay...ary/specter.htm
What's ironic is that during December 16, 1963 Executive Session, while discussing hiring Adams, Senator Russell called for "a man that would take this FBI report and this CIA report and go through it and analyze every contradiction and every soft spot in it, just as if he were prosecuting them....."
It doesn't seem as if Russell got his wish.
-
From Bill Kelly's blog: http://jfkcountercou...lly-on-jfk.html
-
More on the Maxwell Taylor memo from The National Security Archive:
http://www.gwu.edu/~...AEBB/NSAEBB397/
Edited to add:
There are a lot of other fascinating documents in today's release, including quite a few memos from DIA Director Joseph Carroll.
Check out this memo from Curtis LeMay to Taylor. LeMay was ready to rock 'n roll.
-
A long article on William Morgan from The New Yorker magazine:
THE YANKEE COMANDANTE
A story of love, revolution, and betrayal.
by David Grann
May 28, 2002
http://www.newyorker...28fa_fact_grann
(Thanks to Michael Colin for this)
-
From The New York Times
by Scott Shane
October 15, 2012
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — In a previously undisclosed memo to President John F Kennedy, in the closing days of the Cuban missile crisis, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of staff said his forces were prepared to use nuclear weapons in an American invasion of the island if the Cubans used nuclear arms to resist.
The top secret memo from the chairman, General Maxwell D. Taylor, dated Nov. 2, 1962, underscored the continuing danger of a nuclear conflict between the
superpowers even after the Soviet Union removed nuclear missiles from the island on Nov. 1.
Full story: http://www.nytimes.c...-cuba.html?_r=0
Vincent Salandria: "Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012"
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Just a patsy?
Arlen Specter was a criminal -- an accessory after the fact to the murder of President Kennedy.
That is the historical truth.