Michael Hogan

If I were holed up in a bunker, surrounded by enemy fire, and only the written word would save my life..... I would want Robert Charles-Dunne there. Mike Hogan

John Simkin wrote: There has never been an example of a high profile politician in the US being assassinated by the Mafia. This is a shrewd assessment of the political situation they found themselves in. All-out war on the Mafia would have followed if they had really been responsible for the assassination of JFK. The one question that the “Mafia did it” group did it cannot explain is the cover-up. How did the Mafia manage that? Excellent post on the Files story, John. I would be interested in your thoughts on the following: 1) From Davis, Blakey, Scheim to Waldron and Hartmann, why do you think the "Mafia did it" theory has had such staying power? 2) Do you think certain elements within Organized Crime had foreknowledge? 3) Generally speaking, do you think Jack Ruby's ties to the Mafia have been overstated or understated? 4) Could elements within the Mafia have been set up to take the fall, if the Warren Commission had not been able to convince the American public that Oswald was a lone assassin? 5) Beyond the Castro assassination attempts, and drug and weapons running, do you feel there was a further relationship between the Mafia and the CIA? 6) Do you think the Mafia was in a position to blackmail the CIA, FBI, and/or US Government? 7) Many researchers have speculated that the actual assassination and the coverup were two separate events. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks, John. Mike Hogan

(By Kyle Pope. Kyle Pope, a former writer and editor for the Wall Street Journal, writes about business and the media. June 4, 2006 ) Goldman Sachs rules the world. With Paulson's appointment as Treasury secretary, the firm is supreme in matters political and economic. What is it about Goldman Sachs? President Bush's nomination last week of Henry M. Paulson Jr., Goldman Sachs' chairman and chief executive, to replace John W. Snow at the Treasury Department has refocused attention on what has become, quite simply, the most influential company on the planet. Sachs alums now run the White House bureaucracy (in new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten), , the state of New Jersey (Gov. Jon Corzine) and the New York Stock Exchange (Chief Executive John Thain). Not since John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil — and maybe not even then — has one firm exerted such muscle over national economic and fiscal policy. Full op ed piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

David Heagney wrote: It seems Kennedy has written his article in the tradition of many CTs: Cherry-picking and deliberate misinterpretation of the data to fit a pre-determined conclusion. That is the first time I have heard President Bush and his war cabinet referred to as "CTs."

Ron Ecker wrote: Oswald's former 8th grade homeroom teacher Myra DaRouse told John Armstrong that the boy in the 9th grade photo was not the small, scrawny Harvey Oswald. She also knew for a fact that Harvey did not have a missing tooth, as the boy in the photo appeared to have. Here is an account that appears in John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee (pps 83-85) After attending Beauregard Junior High as a part-time student in the fall of 1953, Lee Harvey Oswald began attending full time and was assigned to Myra DaRouse's homeroom in the school cafeteria in the basement. I first learned about Myra DaRouse after reading a very short FBI report of an interview with her on April 2, 1964. In 1995 I contacted Myra at her home in New Orleans and asked her if she remembered being interviewed by an FBI agent. Myra said that she clearly remembered the interview, which took place on Monday, November 25, following the assassination. Myra said that when the FBI agent arrived he presented his identification, then asked her to lock the door to her small office, which she did. The agent then interviewed Myra for over two hours about her former homeroom student, Lee Harvey Oswald. At the end of the interview Myra asked the agent if he thought they would ever know who killed President Kennedy. The agent replied, "Not in our lifetime." Myra cannot remember the name of the FBI agent who interviewed her, but it was likely either SA James Royce or SA John M. McCarthy, who interviewed most of the Beauregard faculty. Whoever interviewed Myra would have written and forwarded their report to FBI headquarters in Washington. Unfortunately, the FBI report of Myra's 2-hour interview on November 25 disappeared. The only known FBI report of an interview with Myra DaRouse is a half-page report, dated April 2, 1964, by SA Donald C. Steinmeyer. The report stated that Myra was interviewed at 3116 Prytania, Apt 29, and not behind a locked door in her office at the basement of Beauregard. When I told Myra about the half-page report she laughed and said, "I was never interviewed in my apartment. I talked to that FBI man in my office for two hours about Oswald, and everything I said about Oswald was good. The things in this report are not what I told that agent." I ended my conversation with Myra by asking if I could interview her in New Orleans, and she agreed. My interview with Myra When I met Myra at her home in 1995 she was 73 years old, in near perfect health, and looked remarkablly similar to photos taken of her at Beauregard 40 years earlier that I found in school archives. When Myra began talking about "Lee Harvey Oswald" I was surprised by both her description and the name she used to refer to Oswald. Myra spoke continuously about her relationship with Harvey Oswald for about ten minutes, always calling him Harvey....Harvey....Harvey. Finally I interrupted and asked, "Myra, why do you always call him "Harvey,' you never call him 'Lee,' only 'Harvey.' Myra explained, "Well, the first day he came into my homeroom he handed me his file. When I read that his name was Lee Harvey Oswald, I said to him, 'How do you want to be called,' and he told me to call him Harvey, so I always called him Harvey...I knew him only as Harvey." Note: This was the second time that Lee Harvey Oswald had referred to himself as "Harvey" (The first time was six months earlier in Stanley, North Dakota.) Myra described Oswald as, "A little fellow, scrawny, skinny, and quiet." At this point I wanted to remember how "little" Oswald was and asked Myra how tall she was in 1954. Myra said that she was 5-foot-4 when she met Harvey..... When I asked Myra how tall Harvey was, she put her hand in the middle of her chest and said, "He came to about here (indicating the middle of her chest).....he was about 4-foot-6, maybe 4-foot-8." When I told Myra that New York school health records had recorded Oswald's height at 5-foot-4 only 3 months earlier (September 1953), she said, "Then those records are wrong....5-foot-4 would have been as tall as me and I know for certain that Harvey was no taller than the middle of my chest." In early 1954, when Myra met Harvey Oswald, he appears to have been at least 9 inches shorter than Lee Oswald, who was measured at 5-foot-4 only three months earlier in New York. (September, 1953), Photographs of Oswald I asked Myra if she would like to see my collection of Oswald photographs and she said, "I certainly would." As she studied the photographs Myra began to stare at the "classroom photograph," published on page 72 of Life Magazine on February 21, 1964. Myra instantly recognized the teacher standing in the back of the classroom as Helen DuFour. She also recognized many of the students in the classroom and called them out by name, "The girl at the blackboard is Myralynn Smith, the blond girl with the glasses in the upper left is Anola Springer, the girl on the right side of the picture, with the ponytail tied with a scarf, is Judith Dobbins, the girl with the leg brace is Lynn Reidlinger." Myra studied the "classroom" photograph for five minutes without saying a word, while I visited with her husband. Finally I turned my attention to Myra, who was resting her chin on her right hand, and still staring at the photo. Myra pointed to the photo with her left index finger, raised her eyes toward me and said quietly, "That's not Harvey. That's not the boy from my homeroom." I said, "Are you sure." Myra replied, "Yes, I'm positive. Look at the boy sitting at this desk - he is not scrawny and small like Harvey - he is a large, husky boy. He is strong and healthy.....look at the size of his neck! He looks like a football player and Harvey was a little, scrawny fellow." It was obvious the student identified in the classroom photo as Lee Harvey Oswald was not the boy from Myra's homeroom. Myra said that during the first half of 1954 she saw Harvey nearly every morning before school, waiting on the front steps for school to open. She saw him in her homeroom class, she saw him in the school hallways walking to and from classes, and after school she saw him riding his bicycle with Ed Voebel. On rainy days she saw him reading in the school library. I asked Myra if she ever heard Harvey talk about communism, as he had on one previous occasion in North Dakota, and she said, "No, he never did." (There is much more about Myra DaRouse and Harvey Oswald in Armstrong's book)

Can anyone post this photo, or point us to a link? http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Tooth/Tooth.htm

A new article in Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/104...ection_stolen/1

Last night Stansfield Turner appeared on C-Span and answered questions from phone in callers. The show in its entirety can be viewed here: http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?Res...=26&image1.y=10

Through John Simkin, Gary Mack wrote: This museum does history, not theories, not personal spin, not opinion. And I do know both the difference and the subject very well. As evidenced in other threads, some people apparently can't read. Mike Hogan

John, I agree with you, the collection of articles shared by Mr. Caddy have been outstanding. You're probably already aware of the following. In his blog, Edward Jay Epstein posts this: (Audiotape, February 27, 2000) MR. WOODWARD: You remembered the Nixon period a little bit. MR. MARK FELT: Vaguely but I still don't have any specific recollections from it. MR. WOODWARD: Remember back in those years when we met and chatted? And any... MR. FELT: Well, I think I remembered the area and a time, but I don't remember specifically anything. (End audiotape) Here was the perfect candidate for Deep Throat Ed Epstein has a very well designed website. There is a lot there about Garrison, Nosenko, De Mohrendschildt, the CIA, the Warren Commission, etc. In addition, interesting essays on 9/11, Hollywood, Deep Throat, Watergate, and more. One interesting feature of Epstein's website is that he is willing to answer questions (Ask Ed Anything), according to some reasonable ground rules. http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/index.htm

Getting you so pissed off that you made less and less sense each post was too easy. All I had to do was post facts.

Mr. Carroll wrote: But what troubles me is the brutality inherent in Mr. Hogan's attacks upon an innocent person. 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.....? Mr. Carroll professes to be an attorney, yet cites not one example of the above charges. My comments about Marina Oswald were confined to what others had written 40 years ago. Once again, his posts are marked by lack of substance, and in this case, intellectual dishonesty. I'll leave it to other Forum members to "evaluate my mental processes," as Mr. Carroll claims to be able to do. Whatever Mr. Carroll thinks of them is of little consequence to me. Mike Hogan

In a Warren Commission memorandum, Norman Redlich wrote: Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world. (Emphasis mine) Mr. Carroll responded: "Nice of Mr. Hogan to quote from the gospel according to Norman Redlich, but I submit that it would be closer to the truth to say that the FBI, the Secret Service and the Commission lied repeatedly to Marina Oswald on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world." In Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher wrote: As already mentioned, it (The Warren Commission) relied on Marina Oswald and Helen Markham, both of whom became flagrantly ensnarled in self-contradiction, if not outright falsification. Meagher's book is rife with documented contradictions and impossibilities in Marina Oswald's testimony. From Edward Jay Epstein's Inquest: The Commission hearings began on February 3 with the testimony of Marina Oswald. For the first four days of the Commission's hearings J. Lee Rankin respectfully and patiently questioned Mrs. Oswald about all aspects of Oswald's life. Her answers did not completely satisfy the staff. At the next staff meeting, on about February 6, some of the lawyers requested that Marina Oswald be questioned further. Rankin, however, announced that the Commission had decided they believed her and that there would be no further questioning of her. The announcement precipitated a heated argument in which one prominent lawyer threatened to resign unless Mrs Oswald was cross-examined. Rankin reportedly "lost control" of the meeting, and there were few formal staff meetings held after this one. and: On September 4 the galley proofs of the final draft were circulated among the Commission and staff for final comments. Two days later Wesley Liebler submitted a twenty-six page memorandum attacking the key chapter involving the identity of the assassin. The chapter had to be revised. On September 7 Commissioners Russell, Cooper, and Boggs went to Dallas to re-exmine Marina Oswald. Under Senator Russell's rigorous questioning, she changed major aspects of her story and altered her previous testimony. (Emphasis mine) More rewriting was necessitated. And Harold Weisberg in Selections from Whitewash wrote: Like the devil with the Scriptures, Marina can be quoted from some official source on almost any side of any question, with almost any interpretation of any meaning of events, those occurrences she was in and not aware of, did not observe or participate in, did and did not see, understood and did not understand. This presented a considerable problem to the Commission's staff. How could they use what Marina said if she said almost everything and everything about every topic? The solution was of admirable simplicity. In that September hearing Marina said that previously she had been lying. (Emphasis mine) Then she had not been under oath, but now she was sworn. The mature and sophisticated members of the Commission swallowed this whole. Mr. Carroll impugns Redlich's motives, when it was Redlich that selected the most damaging (and false) parts of Marina Oswald's testimony to try and prove Oswald was a lone assassin. Mr. Carroll has demonstrated a distinct unfamiliarity with the facts of Mrs. Oswald's testimony, yet he is so quick to accuse people (in another thread) like John Simkin and Owen Parson who obviously know more about the Kennedy assassination then he does. Both Owen and John don't need me to defend them, the posts speak for themselves. In that thread, Mr. Carroll, after a "quick reading" of A Farewell to Justice, disparages the credentials of Dick Russell, Cyril Wecht, Jim Hougan, and Gaeton Fonzi by the simple dismissive that they are supporters of Garrison. In his efforts to cling to the statement that he wishes he could duel any man (maybe those Mr. Carroll deems to be a "cute little number" get a free pass) that "suggests there is something sinister about Marina," Mr. Carroll stubbornly avoids the written record of her testimony. I suppose Mr. Carroll will also find a way to disparage the conclusions of Meagher, Epstein, and Weisberg and their characterizations of the conflicting nature of Marina Oswald's testimony. They certainly won't be around for him to duel. In these and other threads I continuously see Mr. Carroll employ sarcasm, make empty assertions, castigate others, avoid issues, and generally bring no evidence to the table. Mr. Carroll's attempt to pull rank (as he put it) on Owen and refer to his first law degree in 1971 as means for proving his points means nothing. Showing maturity beyond his years, Owen refused to even respond to such a sophomoric attempt. It's clear to me who knows more about the facts of this case and it isn't Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll deems himself an authority and the final word on so much that he knows so little about. If Mr. Carroll chooses to reply to this, I expect yet another post that selectively avoids the issues raised. Of course I realized from the beginning that is probably what would happen. I should have known better than to get engaged in a debate. Mike Hogan

Scott Edwards perceptively posted: Ah, What if RMN had full knowledge of what took place on November 22, 1963 and also knew that LBJ was pulling the strings and somewhere down the line told LBJ that if he (Nixon) did not get into office soon that he would blow the whistle on the whole shebang, and so LBJ picked up his dogs and went back to the lone star state! Just some food for thought. It may well have been someone else other than Nixon that actually gave Lyndon Johnson the word. Plausible deniability and all.... Mike Hogan

Mr. Carroll gallantly wrote: If Robert's post gives an accurate picture, it seems that 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. (Emphasis mine) Mr. Carroll also wrote: People are more likely to be conscientious when they are under penalty of perjury. Every witness before the Warren Commission was under penalty of perjury....... (emphasis mine) In a Warren Commission memorandum, Norman Redlich wrote: Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world. (Emphasis mine) This first two quotes above are from the person that told John Simkin (in another thread): You guys should do some research instead of watching movies. And from the person that told Owen Parson: I am not certain that you are yet capable of knowing what a fact is, even when it stares you in the face. And also to Owen: But speaking of outward appearances, you must admit that Lynn (Foster) appears to be quite a cute little number.

Mr. Carroll wrote: I give zero credence to the witnesses who subsequently claimed to have seen Lee Oswald with Jack Ruby. If you want to believe them, be my guest. That's very gracious of you, sarcasm notwithstanding. Nowhere in any of my posts did I indicate I believed anyone's account. In fact I wrote: "As for myself, I just don't know if Oswald and Ruby ever met each other. I admit that there is a good chance that they didn't. However, in my own mind, I believe the possibility exists." Mr. Carroll also wrote: But please tell me how many of them has ever testified to this identification under penalty of perjury? Is this your litmus test of veracity? The people that testified to the Warren Commission were not subject to the penalty of perjury. Nor were the people who gave statements to the FBI. Do you summarily dismiss everyone's account using the same criteria? You choose to believe Helen Markham. Please tell me if she ever testified in a court of law. Allow me to reciprocate. If you see no reason to doubt Helen Markham's overall account of the Tippit shooting, if you believe no other witness contradicted her basic story, and that she was corroborated by other witnesses....Please, be MY guest.

In discussing the claims by various witnesses cited in John Armstrong's book that placed Ruby and Oswald together, Mr. Carroll says: My problem is this: Assuming it were true that Ruby and Lee Oswald actually did meet, any such meetings would surely have been clandestine. One thing I am certain of is that the assassination of JFK was a very professional undertaking and, as such, there would surely have been no witnesses to such clandestine meetings. Eyewitness identifications usually sound convincing, but they are very often completely mistaken. I read this to mean that people that claimed to see Ruby and Oswald together must be completely mistaken, for they were claiming to see something that a professional operation would never allow to happen because all such meetings would have been clandestine in nature. It is worth mentioning that many of these witnesses knew Jack Ruby quite well. In a later post, Mr. Carroll adds: I would draw a distinction between "eyewitness identifications of total strangers" and eyewitness testimony in general. For example, despite what some people have written, I see no reason to doubt Helen Markham's overall account of the Tippit shooting, which she witnessed with her own eyes. No other witness contradicts her basic story and she was corroborated by other witnesses and by circumstantial evidence. I have no trouble believing that JD Tippit was shot to death in front of Helen Markham's eyes. I don't think many people doubt that Tippit was shot to death in front of Markham's eyes. As to the probative value of her accounts, that is another question. Much like Howard Brennan was the Warren Commission's star witness in Dealey Plaza, Helen Markham was their star witness at the Tippit shooting. Recognizing that her accounts were full of inconsistencies, they issued this disclaimer: Addressing itself solely to the probative value of Mrs. Markham's contemporaneous description of the gunman and her positive identification of Oswald at a police lineup, the Commission considers her testimony reliable. However, even in the absence of Mrs. Markham's testimony, there is ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit. (R167-8) Dale Myers, who concluded that Oswald did shoot Officer Tippit, wrote: Captain Fritz considered the waitress (Markham) a a trustworthy witness..... Critic's have challenged Fritz's assessment, calling Helen Markham the least reliable of all the witnesses to the Tippit shooting. An analysis of the record finds considerable evidence to support the charge.... Myers added: There is no question that Markham's statements are laced with inaccurate and inconsistent details....Consequently. Markham's statements should be considered in light of other evidence rather than take them at face value. In her book Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher put it a little more bluntly: But as her testimony reveals, she (Markham) is not a person in whom reasonable men would place implicit trust--for she appears to be given to extreme confusion or even, at times, estrangement from reality. And: As for Mrs. Markham, she varied wildly in her accounts of the shooting of Tippit, gave false testimony about a telephone conversation with Mark Lane, and identified Oswald, whom she had never seen before, while under sedation for hysteria. All of the above bold emphases are mine Getting back to Mr. Carroll's post, it seems he is saying that Markham's observations about the Tippit shooting are reliable, and the problems arose when she was asked to identify Oswald, a man that was a complete stranger to her. Mr. Carroll says he has no reason to doubt her overall account, and that no other witness contradicts her basic story. The Warren Commission (as cited above) seems to take the opposite view. They lend credence to Markham's description of the gunman, and her positive identification of Oswald, but distance themselves from all the rest of her conflicting and changing testimony. And a full reading of Dale Myers and Sylvia Meagher makes it clear that they feel Markham's observations about the Tippit shooting are not reliable, that there are plenty of reasons to doubt her overall account, and many other witnesses contradict her basic story. In an earlier post, Mr. Carroll said, "Armstrong's long list of people who can connect Ruby and Oswald does not impress me, for one, any more than the Warren Commission's list of Tippit witnesses persuades me that Lee Oswald was at the Tippit murder scene." Mr. Carroll can correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be at odds with his earlier statement: "I see no reason to doubt Helen Markham's overall account of the Tippit shooting, which she witnessed with her own eyes. No other witness contradicts her basic story and she was corroborated by other witnesses and by circumstantial evidence....." Mike Hogan

"May I also suggest that every effort be made to determine why Oswald was headed in the general direction of Ruby's house at the time he was intercepted by officer Tippit." --- Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr in a private advisory to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission, May 26, 1964 Jesse Curry, the former Dallas police chief, leans back in an easy chair in his living room long after the Kennedy assassination and discusses the route of Oswald's getaway attempt that Friday afternoon in Oak Cliff. "I can't in my mind make myself firmly believe that he might not have been trying to get to Ruby's apartment," Curry muses. "You know he was in close proximity to it, and I know he didn't leave his house with the idea of going to the Texas Theatre. There again, after he shot Tippit I think in his fright he just thought the movie house was the place to hide." Curry says he hasn't tried to figure out what Oswald might have done at Ruby's apartment had Oswald reached it, "because I never really seriously admitted there was a conspiracy. But there's been coincidental things that have happened here to lead one to believe that there could have been a conspiracy after all.....There might have been a connection between the two that we never established. And if there was it was more than a local thing, I believe. I think if there was collusion between those two, it involved probably an international conspiracy." Curry says he thinks Castro may have been involved. Curry says the whole story was not learned. The above comes from Seth Kantor's book Who was Jack Ruby. Kantor says that he originally believed Oswald was headed towards Ruby's apartment, but later Kantor changed his mind, choosing to believe the "Belin Theory" that Oswald was headed toward a bus stop with his still unused transfer in his pocket, in order to catch a city bus to the Greyhound station. Kantor does not say how far he thinks Oswald could have gotten on the thirteen dollars he had in his pocket, although Belin claimed it was just enough money to pay for a bus trip to Monterrey, Mexico. I wonder what Oswald would have done for money once he reached Monterrey. Kantor goes on to say: "There is no evidence that Ruby and Oswald even knew each other, despite claims by several people over the years that the two had been seen together." Kantor discusses the story of Bill DeMar (aka William D. Crowe Jr.) who, within a couple of hours after Ruby shot Oswald, began telling reporters he had seen Oswald in the audience of the Carousel during the week before the shooting. As soon as DeMar's claims became public, they were immediately refuted by another Carousel master of ceremonies, William Weston, who according to an FBI report told them DeMar made the claim because of his desire for publicity. Thirteen years later Weston recanted and told the New York Daily News that he had seen Oswald "at least twice" in the Carousel. Kantor chooses not to believe him, because Weston did not admit to that during his FBI interrogation. He does not accept Weston's reasoning that Weston was afraid for his personal safety, because at the time Weston talked to the FBI on November 24th, 1963, there had yet to be "mysterious deaths" in the case. Kantor concludes: "And in the end there is no reason--not a shred of proof--to think that Oswald and Ruby even knew each other." Of course Kantor wrote these words in 1976. He only had access to what was published by the Warren Commission and daily newspapers. He did not know of the additional sightings of Oswald and Ruby that remained secret from the public. John Armstrong had access to these released records and used them in his book. J Raymond Carroll may well be right that Oswald and Ruby did not know each other. I certainly don't claim to know. Mr. Carroll said, ".....That would make an awful lot of people who supposedly saw these two men together before the assassination -- too many to be believable, IMHO." I don't understand how the magnitude of the number of such claims can be used to invalidate all of them. To me, each claim must be considered on its individual merit, or lack thereof. Mr. Carroll also said: "My problem is this: Assuming it were true that Ruby and Lee Oswald actually did meet, any such meetings would surely have been clandestine. One thing I am certain of is that the assassination of JFK was a very professional undertaking and, as such, there would surely have been no witnesses to such clandestine meetings. Eyewitness identifications usually sound convincing, but they are very often completely mistaken." I am, of course, indulging in considerable speculation (Which, sadly is what I have been doing for more than forty years) that Ruby and/or Oswald may have had no idea before the fact that they were pawns in the Kennedy assassination. Who can say with certainty what they knew or didn't know? Maybe the powers that controlled Ruby threatened to link him with Oswald, and thus the murder of a President, if he didn't shoot Oswald on Sunday morning. Maybe if the public didn't buy the Lone Assassin scenario, Ruby (who some claimed they saw in Dealey Plaza) might have been a potential fallback accomplice. And yes Mr. Carroll, I agree with you that eyewitness identifications are very often completely mistaken. Does this necessarily mean that they are all mistaken? If we summarily discount eyewitness accounts based on that criteria alone, we wouldn't be left with very much to study about this case, in my opinion. One last point that probably goes without saying. The years and climate immediately following President Kennedy's death were perhaps much different than is generally understood today. It is difficult to conceive how Kennedy's closest friends, who were riding in the fatal motorcade with him, could change their stories for the FBI as to the source of the shots. It's hard to say how many people either altered what they really knew, or didn't come forward at all during the Federal Government's "investigation." Let me end by saying I respect Mr. Carroll's opinions and he may well be right. As for myself, I just don't know if Oswald and Ruby ever met each other. I admit that there is a good chance that they didn't. However, in my own mind, I believe the possibility exists. And I still think John Armstrong did a helluva job in his research. Mike Hogan

Had he chosen to do so, Lee Oswald could have easily purchased a rifle and handgun that could never have been traced to him. I've always wondered why, if he were planning to shoot the President, he wouldn't have done that. Mike Hogan

Robert As an excercise, I took the list of people who place Oswald and Ruby together and looked them up using the index provided in Harvey & Lee. After reading Armstrong's account, I checked his footnotes. Although this is relatively easy to do, it is time consuming. His primary sources include Warren Commission hearings, FBI reports, and the like. The next step would be going to the source documents and it is there that one would seem to reach the end of the "blind alley," as Mr. Carroll put it. The accounts I read were varied, but fairly detailed. So many people from different backgrounds and circumstances did place Oswald and Ruby together; it only takes one of them to be right. One thing is certain, the Warren Commission could not afford to seriously investigate any of these claims and they didn't. As with every single piece of evidence that pointed to a possible conspiracy, they either buried it in the Volumes, weakly denied it, or effectively ignored it altogether. Unfortunately, I do believe that the lack of a proper investigation by the Warren Commission (along with the general apathy of the media and American public) has "made the prospect of 'total resolution and closure' regarding November 63 in Dallas problematic, if not impossible." Hopefully, the person that wrote that and I are both mistaken. I wish I could share the conviction that 43 years after President Kennedy's murder, a proper criminal investigation would bear fruit. Too much time has passed, too many witnesses are dead, and the same forces that have obscured the truth for over four decades still exist. I do admire the efforts of those researchers and authors that are still working hard, advancing our understanding of such an important event. In my opinion there will never be justice for President Kennedy's killers. It's far too late for that. Mike

Hello Robert I wanted to get a copy of The Maury Island UFO; The Crisman Conspiracy by Ken Thomas and the only copy I could find was at that Amazon link you posted. The book must be extremely rare to fetch $100. All my other used book sources did not have it. The above book was published by Illuminet Press and the late Ron Bonds. The first book ever published by Illuminet Press was The Idle Warriors by Kerry Thornley. Bonds died of food poisoning after dining at a Mexican restaurant with his wife. The background of Bonds' career and the details of his odd death can be read here: http://burningtaper.blogspot.com/2006/04/b...-1952-2001.html Ken Thomas, of course is the founder of Steamshovel Press. Before he finished The Maury Island UFO, he gave this interesting interview which touches on Garrison and Crisman. http://www.excludedmiddle.com/kenntint.htm Here is some more info on Crisman from Ken Thomas: http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/artic.../pg2/index.html Of course Jim Marrs wrote about the Maury Island incident and Crisman in his book Alien Agenda. And I believe Paris Flammonde is about have his new book published. I'd be willing to bet that he discusses Fred Crisman. Recently, while flipping channels during the timeout of an NBA playoff game, I came across an interesting theory that the CIA had a definite hand in sparking the UFO sightings craze in the mid 1950's in order to provide a cover in case anyone caught a glimpse of the then ultra-secret U-2. With the death of Stalin, US Intelligence suddenly realized how little information they had on the Soviet Union's new regime, hence the desperate need to keep the U-2 secret at all costs. Mike Hogan

Although I have only been a member of this Forum for a short time, I quickly gained the utmost respect for John Simkin. Due in large part to his efforts, many prominent authors and researchers have offered their views on American and world history, the role of journalists and historians, conspiracies and covert operations, and much more. John has invited many of them here, and asked important and interesting questions. Administrating this Forum has to be relatively time-consuming, and yet John has also offered his own research, always well thought out and documented. Without his energy and efforts, this Forum would not be what it is, if it would even exist at all. I've heard some disparaging comments about internet forums and their value. While some of those generalizations probably have merit, I think that John has helped make this Forum unique, and an exception. There is a lot of knowledge to be found here. So John, I just want to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your contributions. I'm sure they do not go unappreciated by many of us who frequent this website. Mike Hogan

Another casualty from the Coke-Pepsi wars..... http://www.extremefunnyhumor.com/picture.php?id=265

Hello Randy... Hardback copies of Farewell America were notorious for binding problems. I'm certain that was the problem with the library copy. There's a lot of info on the internet; I believe William Turner wrote a chapter about Farewell America in his book Rearview Mirror. Hardback copies have been available for many years from The Last Hurrah Bookstore, ABE Books, and occasionally eBay. I'm certain there is good information lurking somewhere in this Forum's archives. What did you think of Farewell America after reading it? Mike Hogan

Jack White explained, John is now building luxury homes in Hawaii. He is not interested in further JFK research, having done his part. He thinks internet discussions are a waste of time. His work speaks for itself, and does not need defending. Twelve years of research was enough. He knows the Oswalds inside and out, and has shared it with everyone. It cost him about $100,000 to self publish his book. He has now returned to making money instead of spending it. Personally, I think John Armstrong performed an incredible service to the research community with his book. Funny thing is I bought 4 extra copies and sent them to my long time friends that know of my interest in the events surrounding the murder of John Kennedy. None of them could get past the first few chapters; they got bogged down by the sheer volume of Armstrong's research. I suppose I can understand. When I read Harvey & Lee, I had a difficult time putting it down. To me each page was riveting, even his treatment of things I was already familiar with. As Jack pointed out, Armstrong wrote Harvey & Lee with great personal sacrifice. His work does speak for itself. I think John Armstrong did a helluva job. Mike Hogan