Michael Hogan

Len Colby advises Ron Ecker:

In the second post of this thread Len Colby makes the claim:

Here is Mr. Colby's cited source: http://911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

It takes just a minute or two to see that there is no documentation there to support Mr. Colby's claim. There is only the assertion of the website author who proceeds to back his claim with a dead link: http://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002...ver_story.shtml

Len Colby also also advises Ron Ecker:

Yet ironically in the above link to 911 myths that Mr. Colby is so fond of citing, the author says:

Seems like Len Colby should be lecturing the author of the website he loves to cite rather than Ron Ecker who offered essentially the same thing:

In his book Harvey and Lee, John Armstrong writes:

August (1959) Lee Oswald in Coral Gables, Florida

Mrs. Gladys Davis put on a considerable amount of weight after giving birth in April, 1959. She was still having trouble getting into her old clothes in August when a friend of her husband's, a Cuban known as "Mexicano," visited her home at 700 Saldona Street in Coral Gables, Florida, "Mexicano," whose real name was Francisco Rodriguez Tamayo, was a Cuban exile who was residing at 2484 NW 29th Street in Miami. He was well known to the anti-Castro Cubans and identified by Cuban refugee Rene Carballo as the head of one of the training camps at Lake Ponchartrain, LA. Mrs. Davis said her husband, Martinez Malo often brought numerous Cubans to their residence. On one occasion, when "Mexicano" came to her home looking for her husband, he was accompanied by Lee Oswald. (National Archives, HSCA 180-10047-10009, FBI Case Files, FBI interview of Gladys Davis, SAC Miami, 11/2/64 and National Archives, Classified Subject File 129-11, FBI interview of Rene Carballo at New Orleans, 5/12/67)

This was the first sighting of Lee Oswald in Florida in the company of anti-Castro Cubans. We shall soon see that Lee Oswald was in Florida, New Orleans, Dallas, and several other locations from the summer of 1959 thru June 1962, while Harvey was either in the Marine Corps or the USSR.

Spring (1961) - Lee Oswald in Key West, Florida

Sherriff Thompson, of Monroe County (Key West), Florida, recalled that "Lee Harvey Oswald" fueled up his boat in Key West shortly after the Bay of Pigs. Oswald didn't have the funds to pay for fuel and telephoned someone in Dallas, Texas. Within two hours a man named "Ruben" arrived and paid for the fuel. (Report of John A. Marshall, Secret Service 2/5/64)

William Huffman was the attendant on duty when Lee Oswald, accompanied by 4 or 5 Cubans, docked at the Sands Marine Fueling Station at Stock Island, Key West, Florida in a 43-foot Chris Craft diesel boat. Huffman recalled that Oswald did not have enough money to pay for the fuel and soon a man named "Ruben" came to the dock. Huffman said that although Ruben paid cash for the fuel, he (Huffman) asked Oswald to sign the fuel delivery ticket. Huffman explained to the FBI, "I told him I wanted his autograph in case he should become famous at some later date." Huffman was a former FBI informant whose identification code was "MM 892-C." He reported Oswald's visit to the supervisor of the FBI's Miami office, Homer A. Newman, on November 25, 1963. (WC Document 953; FBI interview of William Huffman by James J. O'Connor 5/5/64 and FBI Administrative file MM 105-8342)

Amy Goodman interviews Alfred McCoy about his latest book.

Professor McCoy Exposes the History of CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/17/1522228

Len Colby wrote:

Len, the above is precisely why I have such little respect for your methodology of posting links and your resulting conclusions. I also have little respect your labelling me as an "inside jobber," whatever the hell that means. I have NEVER made any claims about remote control, the towers being intentionally demolished, the administration's pre-knowledge, Willie Brown's warning, or the Pentagon. I HAVE made claims about the uncertainty of events, due to the poor and improper investigation of the 9/11 Commission. (See below). Tell me Len, what are my theories on remote control that you are alluding to? Or are you talking about a different Mike?

I've posted links as best as I could find to my comments regarding 9/11. Any emphases in bold are mine.

I didn't think you made a convincing claim for your claims on a stand-down, and the flying abilities of the the alleged highjackers and I said so. I posted information that conflicted with your conclusions.

Quote me Len if you want to. All I ask is you quote me fairly, and not out of context. Show me where I made any claims that would qualify me as an "inside jobber." You'll note that I have made no responses to you or anyone else on the subject of 9/11 in several weeks. It was you that brought my name up, using the tactic of assigning a label to me, and then challenging me to defend theories that I never espoused.

As best as I can tell, my first post on 9/11 was May 9 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0entry62460

My main point was in my conclusion:

As I recall, my first post that mentioned your name was this on May 15:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6669

I never claimed 9/11 was any kind of conspiracy. I only claimed the government's investigation was lacking. I did offer criticisms of your postings, specifically your links:

My next post was on May 22: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=5728&st=0

It is true I criticized your use of sources:

Other than posting a paragraph from a prominent author on 9/11 about the slowness of goverment response, I made no conspiracy claims.

Your response was to accuse me of starting a "xxxx fight' and "mud-slinging."

My last post to you was on May 24: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=63385

Len, I just went back and read all my posts. The thrust of all of them was that I was critical of your methodology in terms of supporting the categorical statements you were making. My main criticism of the US Government was their investigation, particularly concerning the background and flying abilities of a few of the alleged highjackers.

What is it about my posts that define me as an "inside jobber?"

Peace

Mike

Good post Steve

Hi John,

Maybe you should consider taking a day trip to Langley. When you get to the security gate, tell them you want to take the escorted tour to all the safe houses in the area. If they seem reluctant, just tell them you're writing a book on CIA complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy, and that you're only doing some research.

Just kidding.

As we discussed before, one way to get an idea of a book's fair value and its scarcity is to go to ABEbooks.com and do a search. They only had one copy of Marchetti's book which indicates it is relatively hard to find. They had a bunch of new copies of The CIA and Congress starting at $30 plus shipping.

Are you going to meet Cynthia McKinney? How's the food? Did the District of Columbia meet your expectations? How's your accommodations?

Regards,

Mike

PS> I just saw the other thread....I'll look for your accounts there!

Microsoft finds 60% infection rate in PCs (USA Today)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computer...htm?POE=TECISVA

In that link furnished by Marcel D. and Bernice M. to Commission Exhibit 1024, typed on the day of Kennedy's murder, Emory Roberts says:

Based on what they said years later, it's odd that Powers and O'Donnell didn't scream to Roberts or someone, "They came from over there!"

Mike Tribe wrote:

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) wrote:

Andy Walker wrote:

Gilbert Chesterton (1874-1936) wrote:

John Simkin wrote:

Antoinette Deshoulieres (1638-1694) wrote:

John,

Glad you made it. It seems you are exactly where you should be at this point in time. I hope you will have the time to give frequent updates of your coming experiences. Even if it has not to do with President Kennedy, I'm sure many, many members would enjoy your accounts of your summer in DC. At least, as much as you felt comfortable sharing. Sort of a journal, if you will.

At any rate, I hope you have a fantastic summer. It goes without saying that you will learn many things.

The smart ones only get smarter.....

Best wishes

Mike

Jack,

I'm sure you realize that very few, if any members respect the type of attacks generated from someone who is not able to recognize something as simple as who owns a website or how much a video sells for.

The integrity of someone that makes scurrilous attacks against a woman he has never met, and whose book he has never read, then goes back and edits his post later because the references he made bordered on libel speaks for itself. Anyone who has followed these threads knows that this self appointed "defender" of Marina Oswald has made hypocrisy a staple in his posts. Despite member after member telling him that no one is attacking Marina Oswald, he cavalierly persists in making unfounded and ridiculous charges, and readily engages in the same behavior that he mistakenly ascribes to others.

He was the one who introduced the thread on Marina Oswald, when several others already already existed. His motives for doing so are obvious.

With each succeeding post, he outed himself as to how woefully uninformed he was about the history of the assassination President Kennedy.

Although the vast majority of Forum members rightfully resist comment, or could care less.....those that read these threads know the score.

Mike Hogan

In Harvey & Lee, John Armstrong writes:

Following the murder of her husband Marina was taken by the Secret Service to the Inn of the Six Flags in Arlington, Texas. The manager of the Inn, James Herbert Martin, became friendly with Marina and invited her to move into his home (with his wife and children) on November 29. A week later Marina authorized Martin to handle her personal and business affairs and in February, 1964 he accompanied Marina to Washington, DC. Marina told the FBI that she had a brief sexual encounter with Martin, but the affair soon ended. When Martin told the Commission about his affair with Marina, Chief Justice Earl Warren ordered that portion of his testimony be stricken from the record. (italics Armstrong's)

While Marina was in Washington, DC, an unknown entity named Onajet Productions rented a small office in the Samuel Goldwyn Studios in Hollywood, CA on February 8. The company, also known as Tex-Italia Films and Cinema International Productions, was headed by Charles Lasater, George V. Douglas, and Wesley B. Blankenship, but never made a single film.

On February 10, Marina moved out of Martin's house and into Robert Oswald's house in Denton, Texas. The following day she moved to the Declan Ford residence at 14057 Brookcrest in Dallas and signed a contract with Tex-Italia films. The unknown company agreed to pay Marina $75,000 for worldwide movie and TV rights, $7500 for each film appearance, and $1500 for each personal appearance. Within a few months Marina had received $132, 350 from the unkown company, and her willingness to provide testimony to the Warren Commission that implicated her dead husband in the assassination became obvious....

....Shortly after signing the contract with Marina, Tex-Italia films was asked to leave Samuel Goldwyn Studios for failure to pay rent on their small office. On April 24, 1964 SA Leslie Warren completed an investigation into Tex-Italia films and wrote, "Indices of the Los Angeles office reflect no other pertinent information that could be indentified with the names Charles Lasater, George V. Douglas, or Wesley B. Blankenship. In otherwords, these men were probably not using their real names and monies paid to Marina by the unknown Tex-India films company came from unknown sources. (Italics Armstrong's)

On June 5, 1964 Hoover wrote a letter to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission and advised:

"For your information, this Bureau is conducting no investigation regarding the commercial ventures or contract negotiations of Marina Oswald in connection with our investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Marina soon became the star witness for the Warren Commission, who used her questionable and contradictory testimony to convict her husband in the eyes of the public. It was Marina who allegedly took, and sold the questionable "backyard photos." It was Marina that claimed that Oswald target practiced with a rifle, knew about the Walker shooting, knew about his visit to Mexico City, and knew that he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage. (Italics Armstrong's)

When Marina testified before the Warren Commission her convoluted testimony was reviewed by staff attorneys and compared with the numerous statements she gave to the Secret Service and FBI agents. Commission staff member Fredda Scobey wrote a memo to Commission member Senator Russell and said, "Marina directly lied on at least two occasions," and advised that she be cross examined.

Scobey wanted to discuss the subject of Marina's lying before the full Commission, but Chief Justice Earl Warren refused and told counsel J. Lee Rankin not to press the issue. Scobey then prepared a 7-page report and wrote, "Marina's testimony is so full of confusion that without the catalytic element of cross-examination it reads like a nightmare. By her own admission, Marina is a xxxx, and it is her voice that tells us how intensely she disliked the FBI and how she lied to that agency almost uniformly."

In his book Harvey & Lee, John Armstrong discusses Marina Oswald's confusing and contradictory statements about Mexico. The following passages are excerpted (pps 699-702) directly from Armstrong's account:

Following the assassination, Marina resided briefly at the Inn of Six Flags in Arlington, Texas, where she was interviewed by the Secret Service. When asked if Lee came back with her (from New Orleans), Marina said, "No, he did not come back with me. He remained in New Orleans for another two weeks in hopes that he would find another job, and then he came to Dallas." (WC Document 344)

On November 29, 1963, Marina told FBI agents (Heitman & Boguslav) that Oswald was going to find work and if he could not find work, he would return to Dallas. During the same interview, Marina said she did not know anything about any trip that Oswald may have made to Mexico City. Marina volunteered that to her knowledge Oswald had never been to Mexico. When asked by the agents why she said that, Marina told the agents that she figured they were interested in that because it was on TV. (WC Document 1781)

On December 5, 1963 Marina said that Oswald never mentioned that he was making plans to go to Cuba, nor did he mention that he made application for a visa to go to Cuba. When Marina left New Orleans with Ruth Paine in September, Oswald said nothing about going to Mexico or Cuba. (WC Exhibit 1401)

On December 10, Marina was interviewed by SS agent Leon Gopadze who wrote, "Concerning Lee Oswald's being in Mexico City and his visits to the Cuban and Russian Embassies, Marina Oswald stated that she had no prior knowledge of Oswald going to Mexico City. (SS report of Leon Gopadze, 12/10/63)

On December 11, 1963 Marina Oswald was again interviewed by the Secret Service, and advised that she had no prior knowledge of Oswald going to Mexico City.

On January 16, 1964, Marina said that Oswald did not tell her where he purchased a silver bracelet, which he gave her as a gift, and that she definitely did not know he had been to Mexico prior to his return to Dallas. (WC Exhibit 1820)

On January 17, 1964, Marina said that Oswald had not told her anything whatsoever about his intentions to go to Mexico. She said that he had not told her upon his return to Dallas in early October 1963, that he had been to Mexico. (WC Exhibit 1821)

On February 3, 1964, Marina was interviewed by the Warren Commission and her story changed completely. She told the Warren Commission that Oswald was very interested in going to Cuba. She said, "He was even interested in the airplane scheduling, with the idea of kidnapping a plan. But I talked him out of it." During her testimony the following discussion occurred:

Mr. Rankin: "Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico City?"

Marina: "Yes."

Mr. Rankin: "When did he first discuss that?"

Marina: "I think it was in August."

Mr. Rankin: "Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?"

Marina: "From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba - perhaps through the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get to Cuba."

Mr. Rankin noticed that Marina's testimony contradicted a portion of the letter that Oswald allegedly wrote to the Soviet Embassy in Washington.

Mr. Rankin: "You noticed where he said in this letter, 'I had not planned to contact the Soviet Embassy,' did you not?"

Marina: "Why hadn't he planned that?"

Mr. Rankin: "That is what I am trying to find out from you. Did he ever tell you that he didn't plan to visit the Soviet Embassy?"

Marina: "This (Oswald's alleged letter to the Soviet Embassy) is not the truth. He did want to contact the Embassy."

Mr. Rankin: "And he told you befiore he went to Mexico that he planned to visit the Soviet Embassy, did he?"

Marina: "Yes." (WC testimony of Marina Oswald, 1 H 23)

As can be seen Marina's ever-changing stories about Oswald in Mexico read like a nightmare. It was from these, and many other contradictory statements, that caused several Warren Commission staff members to say that she was just a xxxx. (Armstrong)

Garrison Investigation

In 1967 Marina Oswald Porter was questioned about Mexico City by the New Orleans Grand Jury in connection with the Garrison investigation into President Kennedy's assassination.

Question: "How soon before you left New Orleans did Lee tell you he was going to Mexico City?"

Marina: "How soon? He told me before I left New Orleans he was going to Mexico, he was talking about going to Mexico City before I went from New Orleans to Irving."

Question: "How long before you went from New Orleans to Irving?"

Marina: "One month, I don't remember."

HSCA testimony

In 1978 Marina was questioned by the HSCA and asked why her story about Oswald's visit to Mexico City had changed:

HSCA: "Why did you not give the FBI this information when they interviewed you back on November 29, 1963, approximately a week after the assassination?"

Marina: "At that time I did not really have the country to go to....I thought if I tell them that I knew about Mexico. I would be responsible just as well for what he did."

HSCA: "As late as January 22, 1964 you were still denying that you knew Lee was going to Mexico when you lived in New Orleans, but about 10 days after that you testified before the Warren Commission that you did know of the trip."

Marina: "I tried to protect myself, sir."

HSCA: "Were you pressured to change your testimony between those dates? That is just a 10 day period there. Did the FBI or the Secret Service or anyone suggest to you to change your testimony there?"

Marina (unbelievably): Well, I don't remember....I did not want to talk about the FBI, but do believe that one of the FBI agents, he brought something that looks like it came from Mexico and, little by little, in the questioning, I had to confess that I did know."

HSCA: "When did you first learn of his planned trip to Mexico City? When did you first know about that?"

Marina: "Shortly before I left for Dallas with Ruth Paine....He told me about his plans to go to Mexico City and to visit the Cuban Embassy over there."

(Recall that Michael Paine was asked by Wesley Liebler if he knew of Oswald's trip to Mexico City. Paine replied, "There was no conversation among anyone at that time about Oswald having been to Mexico...No, it was a complete surprise to Ruth and myself." (2 H 405)

Kennedy, like most pols, was an affection hog. He also had a streak of fatalism. His fave poem was "I Have a Rendezvous with Death."

Actually, President Kennedy's favorite poem was reported to be Ulysses by Alfred Tennyson.

In 2003, John E. Nolan Jr. gave an interview to DCBar. In the interview Nolan touched on his efforts with James Donovan in securing the release of captured Brigade 2506 members. Although the account is brief, it is very interesting.

Nolan mentioned that it was James Donovan who arranged for the spy swap of Rudolf Abel for Gary Powers, and that is why Robert Kennedy selected Donovan to negotiate with Castro.

One interesting excerpt from the interview:

I was called because I knew both Bob Kennedy and Jim Donovan. It was not easy for them to get along with each other, and as long as I was involved, it was not necessary for them to deal directly with each other. Donovan had told Kennedy he had an outline of a deal with Castro releasing the 1,100 men of the brigade for $62 million in pharmaceuticals and baby food, but he needed help organizing the logistics. Bob Kennedy asked me, “Can you go up to New York and see what he’s got so we can tell whether this is real?” The next day I went to New York.

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources...e_law/nolan.cfm

You and Brendan Slattery have more in common than you think

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.

Andy Walker wrote:

The projection of all evil into a defined group, race or class has spewed up a series of revolting and repressive ideologies and regimes throughout the 20th century and will not (sic) doubt continue to do so in this century.

Attempts by Mr. Walker to project all "CTs" into a defined group, race, or class as he repeatedly does, makes him guilty of the same mindset that he decries.

Chuck,

With due respect, it seems you have not have had the opportunity to read In The Eye of History by William Matson Law. If you had read Sibert's account in full you would know he lays waste to Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, and the single bullet theory.

I actually had the opportunity in 1999 to meet James Sibert and speak to him one on one. He patiently, and I feel frankly answered my questions. He made no secret of his contempt for the official autopsy findings and I came away convinced he is an honest man.

Please don't be so quick to jump to conclusions without reading Sibert's interview in its entirety.

And if I am mistaken, and you have already done so....please accept my apology.

Mike Hogan

Jack,

In that link you provided, the author Douglas Linder states:

William Tidwell's Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln shows that large numbers of Confederate troops had massed in March of 1865 in the northern neck of Virginia along what must have been a planned route to take Lincoln to Richmond.

Tidwell's landmark book was a collaborative effort with James Hall and David Gaddy and employs painstaking scholarship in detailing the involvement of the Confederate Secret Service and Jefferson Davis. The original plan was not to kill Lincoln, but capture him and take him to Richmond. Of course, the plan took a tragic turn that resulted in Lincoln's death.

Published in 1988, Tidwell's book has stood the test of time and remains widely recognized as the most scholarly modern account of the Confederate plot. (Codename: Come Retribution).

An examination of the sources in the footnotes and attributions in the acknowledgements section confirm this. A majority of documents used in the book came from the National Archives, the U.S. War Department, and the U.S. Navy Department. The authors also relied heavily on individual State Historical Archives.

Spycraft and intelligence operations in the Civil War were far more prevalent and much more sophisticated than commonly believed and in many ways, remarkably similar to methods used by the FBI and CIA a century later.

Being a student of history Jack, I am sure you know all of the above.

Mike Hogan

PS) In my opinion, for the most part, the reviews on Amazon are accurate

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087805348...glance&n=283155

Doug Horne wrote:

The wording of that receipt-a receipt for "a missile"-has never made sense to many people, because officially, per the existing autopsy report and the Sibert-O'Neill report, only two tiny fragments (1 x 3 mm, and 2 x 7 mm) were removed from the body at the autopsy. The receipt does not say " 2 tiny fragments," or " 2 fragments of such and such dimension" it says "a missile," implying an intact bullet. I conclude that if the mention of a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" in the FBI HQ memo is not an error based on bad information, then it is likely that the receipt to Captain Stover dated November 22, 1963 for a "missile" may be for the bullet lodged behind the President's ear. The ARRB did not get satisfactory answers from Sibert or O'Neill at their depositions about either document.

In William Matson Law's book In the Eye of History, published in 2005, the author met with and interviewed James Sibert at Sibert's office in Southwest Florida. At that time Sibert was 83 years old, but still very sharp in his recollection of events. During this interview he tells Law:

We signed a receipt. And here's another thing that in books were "missiles"--if you remember that word was used--but this receipt was made by the navy and we received it from them. A navy corpsman typed it up and we signed it, but if I had typed up a receipt and composed it I would have just said metal fragments because there was no single bullet that we ever saw there that night at Bethesda.

RFK Jr. replies to Manjoo....and Manjoo answers back.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/...6/rfk_responds/

Robert,

Unfortunately, during the middle of this thread I posted some things and replied to some things that were decidedly off topic. I hope I've learned my lesson. But as I stated in the beginning, the only way to really discuss Armstrong's assertions about a Ruby-Oswald connection is go to the source documents that he cites in his book.

As you know, Armstrong even went to the thoughtful effort to provide a CD-Rom containing source photographs with Harvey & Lee. When this thread began, I searched for my copy of it in vain.

Having recently been outed as a member of the "John Armstrong" cult, I might as well confess that I am also the proud recent graduate of the Andy Walker Internet Crash Course in Basic Historical Skills for Gullible Conspiracists and 14 Year Olds. I'm not going to hold my breath for Mr. Walker to send me a diploma.

Having said that, I really wonder how many members of this Forum that post on a regular basis have actually purchased and read Armstrong's book. My guess is not too many.

In fact, about a month ago I asked that question in another Armstrong related thread. No one responded.

Thanks for starting the thread in the first place, Robert.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go and light some candles and stare at Jack White's poster of The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mike Hogan

J. Raymond Carroll has re-introduced a subject that was discussed extensively several days ago in two separate threads.

In those, Mr. Carroll wrote:

If Robert's post (Robert Howard did not even mention Marina Oswald) gives an accurate picture, it seems that (John) Armstrong has joined the chorus of those who cast aspersions on Marina Oswald Porter, one of the victims of the horrible events of November 22nd, 1963. I had the privilege of meeting Marina, a very lovely and charming human being. Of course Marina is a woman, with all the obstinacy and contrariness that comes with the territory, but for any man to suggest that there is something sinister about Marina -- it makes me wish that duelling was still legal.

Mr. Carroll engaged in several criticisms of John Armstrong's research, even though he readily admitted that after attending a conference he "formed serious doubts that Armstrong's work would shed any light upon the assassination of JFK. Consequently, I have not followed the development of Armstrong's theory with any great enthusiasm, and I have not (yet) read his book."

And although he thanked Shanet Clark for posting a link to a website that dealt with Armstrong's theories, it is evident that Mr. Carroll did not give those theories even a cursory reading. At the bottom of the home page was an invitation to begin the GRAND TOUR of evidence. On the very first page of evidence was this a picture and discussion of Oswald's missing tooth. http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Tooth/Tooth.htm

Just a few days later, Mr. Carroll asked for someone to post a picture of Oswald's missing tooth, making it clear that he did not make even a token effort to look at the evidence for Armstrong's claims about two Oswalds. Yet this did not dissuade him from doubting that Armstrong's work "would shed any light upon the assassination of JFK." Anyone that has actually taken the time to study Armstrong's research knows differently.

It was this type of intellectual curiosity that allowed Mr. Carroll to vigorously debate Armstrong's documented citations that Oswald and Ruby were seen together prior to the assassination. When it was pointed out, that if only one of the sightings were true, it could be important, Mr. Carroll ignored the point entirely ("".....That would make an awful lot of people who supposedly saw these two men together before the assassination -- too many to be believable, IMHO.")

He then went on to great lengths to give us his views on the unreliablility of eyewitness testimony when it comes to strangers. Another equally unconvincing reason that Mr. Carroll gave for the impossibility of Ruby and Oswald being seen together is that any such meetings would have been clandestine therefore....well...never mind. Lost on Mr. Carroll was the fact that many of the witnesses knew Jack Ruby. Mr. Carroll had such strong opinions about research he had not even bothered to read. I was beginning to see a pattern.

I suppose all this disparagement of Armstrong's research was simply to invalidate any claims that Armstrong made about Marina Oswald.

Getting back to Marina, Mr. Carroll wrote the following about me:

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

And:

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

When I pointed out to Mr. Carroll that I did not attack Marina Oswald, but had confined myself to posting what Weisberg, Meagher, and Epstein wrote about Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission forty years ago, Mr. Carroll responded:

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

In his relentless efforts to criticize Jim Garrison, this does not stop Mr. Carroll from stating: "Other assassination researchers were able to see through Garrison's self-delusion. Sylvia Meagher sounded the first warnings, while Harold Weisberg and David Lifton soon repented their initial involvement in Garrison's enterprise."

I know hypocrisy and double standards when I see it.

Speaking of hypocrisy and double standards, when Bruce Cormier said that he "voted for every Kennedy he could, every chance he got," Mr. Carroll made the snide remark that, " Since it is a secret ballot, no one can ever refute (or confirm) this particular claim." As if Mr. Cormier would lie about something like that. Later Mr. Carroll remarked: "You have betrayed yourself, Mr. Cormier, and in the process you have made explicit your contempt for this forum."

As he insinuated Mr. Cormier may be lying about whom he voted for, why should we believe Mr. Carroll when he claims:

When I posted that I had met Marina and that I consider her a friend, some forum members jumped to the conclusion that my views were colored by these feelings of friendship. If they had only asked me, I would have told them that these views were formed before I ever met Marina.

Well, I'm willing to give Mr. Carroll the benefit of the doubt and take his word for it. Unlike he was willing to do for Mr. Cormier on such a simple matter.

Mr. Carroll's willingness (eagerness?) to bring up the subject of Marina Oswald's veracity in her testimony to the Warren Commission again seems to be at odds with his declarations of how much he hates to see "an innocent person attacked." If that was the case, why didn't he leave the subject to rest? Most of us don't doubt that Marina Oswald has a "beautiful Russian soul." Many of us do see her as a sympathetic figure, a victim of history, a person that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I saw Marina Oswald on the Oprah Winfrey show, and found her to be strong and likeable. I felt sorry for what she has had to endure. I understood that in 1963, she was up against dark and powerful forces, forces that manipulated her for their own purposes.

Unfortunately, Mr. Carroll is unable to distinguish that people that point out (rightly) that her Warren Commission testimony is full of contradictions and impossibilities are not "attacking a defenseless widow" as much as they are trying to better understand a mystery that has perplexed us for four decades.

Mike Hogan

It doesn't take a college degree in thermodynamics to realize the frying pan is hot.

mike tribe's response to Owen Parson's original post was thoughtful and devoid of personal insults. His questioning of Mr. Parson's sources seemed to be legitimate, and designed to evoke further discussion on the topic.

Mr. Parson, fresh out of high school, has demonstrated a keen interest in a variety of historical topics and a fine grasp of the English language. Mr. Parson has shown restraint in not lowering himself to personal invectives, even though he has been the subject of same from those many years his senior. Young men and women like him, and their ideas should be welcomed into a Forum like this.

Instead Andy Walker makes the following statement:

This tendency favoured by conspiracists on this forum to believe anything which contradicts an official or accepted/established position without question is actually not being very analytical or intelligent at all.

It doesn't take a historian to recognize a cheap shot. In one sentence, it seems he is accusing Owen Parson of not being very analytical or intelligent at all. Simply put, that is an absurd and unsubstantiated conclusion. And furthermore, Mr. Walker's propensity to paint all or most "conspiracists" (he does not bother defining the term) with such a broad brush is both disingenuous and just plain wrong to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Later, having been exempted by Ron Ecker's response, Mr. Walker nevertheless apparently felt it necessary to respond by likening Mr. Ecker to "rather like an excited little teenager with his first copy of National Enquirer." The superfluous use of the word "little" was apparently included to make his charge as demeaning as possible.

Mr. Walker evidently regards himself as an historian. He should be aware that many historians employ selective sourcings which tend to support their views. Like it or not, that is the way things work. His statement that Owen Parson had "had no comprehension of the significance of the provenance of his sources" is again undocumented, unsubstantiated, and unprovable.

I do not know Mr. Walker, and have nothing personal against him. But he does strike me as a typical know-it-all, replete with a with a tendency to use personal insults in the place of the "basic historical skills" that he professes to hold in such high regard.

In the wilderness of mirrors that is conspiracy history, things are not always so cut and dried. There is a place for speculation and opinion. Even in the academic world of science, where hypotheses are eventually subjected to rigorous scrutiny, many important discoveries had their genesis in a yet unproven idea, borne of speculation and intuition.

In societies where much of what occurs is kept secret and hidden, the employment of "basic historical skills" (however Mr. Walker chooses to define that term) has its strengths....as well as its weaknesses.