Michael Hogan

Michael, it's well known that you've joined the BLOCK TREJO team on the Forum, so why not admit it?

As for your past posts -- do us all a favor and summarize them for us, won't you?

And nobody believes you've criticized me personally only once.

Paul, I haven't joined any team, I'm not the member of any gang, and I'm not anyone's follower. All terms you have used to label me.

I was critical of you long before this recent firestorm that you have brought on yourself.

It was on the Terry, Mississippi thread, where I discovered that you were not really interested in sound arguments.

I never claimed I criticized you only once. Robert Charles-Dunne was right about your reading skills.

From digitaljournal.com

Press Release

Dennis Ford's Timely New Novel Satirizes Conspiracy Theorists

May 15, 2013

2013 marks the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, and the past half-century has been filled with various conspiracy theories trying to prove that the government was responsible for his death. In his timely new novel, “Things Don’t Add Up: A Novel of Kennedy Assassination Research” (published by iUniverse), author Dennis Ford takes a spoofing, satirical look at the outlandish world of conspiracy theorists

“Conspiracy theories, like the multitude concerning President Kennedy’s assassination, are on the surface laughable and lamentable,” Ford remarks. “There is a deeper and dangerous element to these theories. They are poisonous to the thought process and to personal relationships. Well-meaning people can unintentionally drown in the malodorous slurry of paranoia.”

“Things Don’t Add Up” deftly combines two stories. In Dallas, a group of conspiracy enthusiasts has gathered at a hotel convention to debate the different theories they’ve concocted to explain the Kennedy assassination. In New York, brokerage clerk Peter Hokes has become obsessed with discovering the truth behind the assassination, and it consumes him, costing him the love of his life.

While the book is largely filled with sharp comedic wit, the story takes a tragic turn as it shows the poisonous effects of paranoid thinking through Peter’s experience.

“I want readers to appreciate that the conspiracy theories that savage our nation are for the most part ludicrous and malicious conjectures,” Ford writes. “It is a shame that these gems of incoherence have become household concepts.”

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1246915

Dennis Ford has been around for awhile.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_thinking/Ford--Pathology.html

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm

From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/us/billie-sol-estes-texas-con-man-dies-at-88.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The results of the poll are now public information: http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%20April%202013%20Topline%20Posted%20FINAL_JFK.pdf

Forum member Steve Rosen collaborated on the Rose Cherami chapter and Steve Duffy collaborated on the Adele Edisen chapter.

Readers will notice a substantial number of EF members mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

Hank Albarelli thanks Steven Rosen for especially insightful feedback and information and describes Steven Duffy as a rock among a sea of pebbles.

I always knew those guys were good.

I read the last chapter first, which is a lengthy study of the Viola June Cobb story.

Albarelli is planning a second volume.

I look forward to reading A Secret Order and I think most EF members would probably enjoy it.

Michael, Jim addressed your concerns pretty much as I would have. While there is no one group representing JFK assassination researchers, we've often been referred to as a community. A fractured, dysfunctional community, but a community nonetheless.

I think a statement like that would be valuable for anyone who gets a chance to address the public, via radio, television, or large circulation newspapers and magazines. I think the point that should be hammered home relentlessly, is "The assassination was never honestly investigated, and the official explanation is impossible." Don't be baited into providing a "theory," just explain that it isn't up to any researcher to prove what happened. It's enough to declare that the government's version of events couldn't have happened.

This is crucial now, because of the 50th anniversary, as Jim notes. We aren't going to really win with the mainstream media, as they are partisan advocates for the government's narrative, but we can at least try and be more effective in the limited opportunities presented to us.

That's why I was hoping to get people like David Lifton and Josiah Thompson to agree with this statement. They are the ones more likely than the rest of us to get a public forum on the 50th anniversary. I think they would be much more persuasive, and could disarm the msm "journalists" by initially making this kind of strong declaration.

Don, if I ask you a year from now since the fiftieth has come and gone, what has changed?

1) What do you expect to be able to say?

2) What would you like to be able to say?

JFK slaying spawned conspiracy industry

by Allen G Breed

Associated Press

May 11, 2013

http://www.telegram.com/article/20130511/NEWS/130519952/1116

Don, let me preface my remarks by saying that I think your statement of unity reflects your good spirit and represents an admirable attempt. You know I respect your views and intentions,

However, when it comes to President Kennedy's murder, I have a lot of contrarian and cynic in me I guess.

Whom do you mean by we? Members of this Forum? I don't believe at this point in time, any group will ever become a viable, powerful force to be reckoned with. Too much time has passed for that.

Yes, I could live with that statement as well. However, I really thought my original statement was about as pared down as could be, while still coming as off a strong declaration of collective belief.

The important thing, imho, is for us to reach a consensus.

Again, I just don't see how reaching a consensus will ever be possible. And even if it could be achieved, why would it be important?

I gave up hope long time ago that justice, or even historical truth, would ever be achieved. For me, I think it ended with what has been called The Last Investigation.

http://www.zapruderandstolley.com/

From the Johns Hopkins News Network

Peabody alum, grad student create opera about JFK assassination aftermath

Figaro Project's production of 'Camelot Requiem' debuts this weekend

Brent McCabe

May 9, 2013

Excerpt:

Camelot's two acts take place in waiting rooms, one at Parkland Memorial Hospital where Kennedy was taken following the shooting, and one at the Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland where the autopsy was performed 10 hours later. "I've always been really fascinated with what happens behind the scenes of the Kennedy assassination," Vincent says. "So much of history focuses on the grassy knoll and Jack Ruby and all that, but what always piqued my interest was this idea that you had JFK's personal staff, the family, and the Johnsons, and they were essentially stuck in these waiting rooms for 10 hours, waiting for the autopsy to be done. And we don't really know what happened behind those close doors. All we know is that when they emerged they were all collected and the country kept on going."

http://hub.jhu.edu/2013/05/09/vincent-figaro-camelot

For those that are interested, Amazon is now shipping: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936296551/ref=oh_details_o03_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I tend to believe the Altoona Mirror (and a few others) were in error: http://surveys.ap.org/

Odd, to say the least.

From The Altoona Mirror

Poll: Belief in JFK conspiracy slipping slightly

May 9, 2013

Associated Press

Excerpt:

(AP) — A clear majority of Americans still suspect there was a conspiracy behind President John F. Kennedy's assassination, but the percentage who believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is at its highest level since the mid-1960s, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

....According to the AP-GfK survey, conducted in mid-April, 59 percent of Americans think multiple people were involved in a conspiracy to kill the president, while 24 percent think Oswald acted alone, and 16 percent are unsure. A 2003 Gallup poll found that 75 percent of Americans felt there was a conspiracy.

The Oswald-acted-alone results, meanwhile, are the highest since the period three years after the assassination, when 36 percent said one man was responsible for Kennedy's death.

Full story: http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/314664/Poll--Belief-in-JFK-conspiracy-slipping-slightly-.html?isap=1&nav=759

Also here: http://www.reviewonline.com/page/content.detail/id/314664/Poll--Belief-in-JFK-conspiracy-slipping-slightly-.html?isap=1&nav=5040

Oddly enough, as of this morning I could find nothing about it here: http://ap-gfkpoll.com/poll-archives

Maybe someone else can.

Do you ever have anything positive to say, Michael, or will it be all negative forevermore?

It's up to you Paul.

As long as you choose to continue to misrepresent what I wrote and subsequently decline to own what you wrote, you can expect a negative reaction from me.

Yet we have no confirmation of Hemming's story -- and he was capable of making up stories, too

Lee wasn't innocent.

Lee Harvey Oswald probably shot nobody on 11/22/1963 -- but he knew who did -- and he was also dumb enough to bring his rifle to work that day, when asked to do so by Gerry Patrick Hemming (courtesy A.J. Weberman).

I am among the minority who demand to see hard proof before I come to a conclusion.

Once again, Lee, you seek to find irony or contradiction by snipping portions of my posts.

Yet you've really only shown so far that you're uncomfortable with nuances. It's possible for Harry Dean to be right sometimes, and mistaken at other times. It's possible for Gerry Patrick Hemming to make sense sometimes, and relapse into nonsense at other times.

Further, you continue to fail to distinguish between a conclusion and a theory.

Discernment is necessary in complex intellectual research. People who are uncomfortable with nuances are poorly suited to master the discrernment required.

Paul Trejo is really not in a good position to lecture Lee Farley about terms such as nuances, discernment, complex intellectual research. conclusions and theories.

Lee finds contradictions in Paul's claims because they are there and they are abundant.

Lee Farley is far from alone in his assessments of Paul's "conclusions and theories."

The majority of responses to Paul's arguments have been negative . Criticisms have come from many members with diverse backgrounds and approaches.

To be on the same side of an argument as Lee Farley, Robert Charles-Dunne and Martin Hay is a pretty safe bet.

Further, I never claimed that you, personally, claimed that the the CIA did it. You misread me.

Your bias against me just wastes a lot of time, Michael.

,

You wrote:

"Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches...."

(Bold added)

Further, I never talk about "hard proof". Again, you misread me.

You wrote:

"Terri, although perhaps most JFK readers believe the CIA was involved -- I am among the minority who demand to see hard proof before I come to a conclusion."

(Bold added)

Further, I never implied that you were dishonest. You misread me.

You wrote:

"Just because you prefer to ignore the sworn testimony of George de Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald and Loran Hall, does not make their testimony any less valid.

It is part of the body of truth upon which honest researchers will build."

(Bold added)

........and so just because Harry Dean and Gerry Patrick Hemming were not called upon to offer their sworn testimony to the WC, that does not mean that their eye-witness accounts are off the table. When those accounts match the accounts of the sworn testimony we possess, then they can be proposed as confirmative evidence.

Where are the sworn accounts that match the eyewitness claims of Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming that you are referring to?

Michael, I never said that Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming supplied sworn accounts. You misread me.

Paul, it is you that need to read more carefully. Would you like me to spell it out for you?

I have no personal bias against you. It is your methodology that i find reprehensible.

From stillwatergazette.com

In the interest of history

by Avery Cropp

May 3, 2013

Tunheim reviews JFK death at Law Day event: http://stillwatergazette.com/2013/05/03/in-the-interest-of-history/

Paul, your conclusions have been based in large part on the story of Harry Dean and very selected statements from the likes of George de Mohrenschildt, Gerry Hemming, Marina Oswald, Ron Lewis, Loran Hall, Larry Howard etc. Is that what you mean by hard proof?

Where is the hard proof to back your claims about Walker and Banister's roles in framing Oswald?

How many JFK readers, whatever that term means, claim that John McCone ordered President Kennedy's murder? Can you name a few?

Do you consider suspects like Angleton, Dulles, Helms and Phillips to be "some low-level CIA piece-workers?"

Do you think the Ku Klux Klan had "official involvement" in the murder of President Kennedy?

Michael, you ask what I mean by hard proof. It comes from valid material evidence, traditionally defined as empirical evidence and sworn testimony.

Just because you prefer to ignore the sworn testimony of George de Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald and Loran Hall, does not make their testimony any less valid. It is part of the body of truth upon which honest researchers will build -- unless you happen to have proof that it is incorrect -- which you don't; otherwise you'd produce that proof, which you don't.

The Warren Commission preferred to evade questioning of some witnesses -- many of whom heard one or more shots from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza -- and so just because Harry Dean and Gerry Patrick Hemming were not called upon to offer their sworn testimony to the WC, that does not mean that their eye-witness accounts are off the table. When those accounts match the accounts of the sworn testimony we possess, then they can be proposed as confirmative evidence.

So, that answers your question, Michael, regarding what I mean by hard proof.

The question is aptly returned to you, Michael -- what do you mean by hard proof? Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches. Also, the word "theory" does not seem to occur to you as your group plies its hunches.

Where are the sworn accounts that match the eyewitness claims of Harry Dean and Gerry Hemming that you are referring to?

What is the basis of your claim that I prefer to ignore their testimony?

Your implication that you are an honest researcher and I and other members of this Forum are not is offensive. Don't get me wrong, coming from you I don't care.

Just don't complain about not getting the respect you think you deserve.

Paul, your explanation of what you consider to be hard proof is exactly what I expected. It's illustrative of why your posts are getting the responses they deserve.

And finally, your last paragraph is a perfect example (and you've provided many) why it is fruitless to debate you at length. Simply put, you continually put forth statements

that have no basis in fact. Me and my kind? Guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it?

Paul, I've been a member of this Forum for seven years. Show me where I've ever claimed or guessed that CIA did it.

You won't be able to do it.

One of the earmarks of a story or account that has been concocted, invented, imagined, or whatever one wants to call it is a steadily changing narrative.

Often the changes are subtle, necessitated by the audience's observations of inconsistencies, impossibilities and improbabilities that occur while the tale

is being woven and rewoven. A story that evolves, embellished by its originator as time goes by, is highly suspect.

Another telltale sign is a story that lacks detail, where detail would ordinarily be present.

Of course the surest sign of a tall tale is a story that is simply preposterous on the face of it and flies in the face of all that is known and all that is logical.

Some stories have all three properties.