Michael Hogan

Martin Shackleford wrote: As usual, the conference (and past conferences) is available on videotape from COPA, either by individual sessions, or as a package, for those unable to attend, or simply seeking a better record than their notes. Booklets of abstracts from this and past conferences are also available, and give a good overview of content. (For those who missed the Fredonia conference in July, a full set of papers from that conference are available from the Fourth Decade). http://spot.acorn.ne...e/copa96_2.html

The Jesse Ventura/Marina Oswald segment begins about the 24-minute mark. She does not go on camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0th2_j0rM

From the Roper Center: The Mystery of the Kennedy Assassination: What the American Public Believes By Sheldon Appleton http://www.ropercent...an/96/96013.pdf

Lee, a couple of those Mary Ferrell links don't seem to work. Thanks for all the hard work you do and share.

Why?

I'm doing my best to heed Robert's advice.....

Yikes! Unless Max has something new (and much better) than his "traffic light" crap, I have a feeling the Missouri State University crowd is going to be mighty disappointed. JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/JFK: The Lost Bullet "Max Holland's '11 seconds' and 'Traffic Light' theories could possibly be accurate. Nobody can know with 100% certainty, of course." (DVP)

The Presidency: Assassination of President Kennedy SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI September 21, 2012 In the years since President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, numerous theories have surfaced about who shot the president and why. In this program, authors David Wrone, Gerald McKnight, David Kaiser and Max Holland dispute each others findings about what really happened in Dallas in 1963. http://www.c-span.or...dy/10737435460/

Greg, I hope you consider posting more often. The Forum hasn't been the same without you.

I'm glad to see you posting again, Greg. Welcome back.

I have great respect for age and accomplishment. However having a septuagenerian* or octogenarian as the "face of JFK research" may not be the best way to reach a younger generation that wasn't around in 1963. Although it is an excellent EF topic that has generated some good discussion, I find the concept of a spokesperson to be impractical and unattainable on most levels, certainly a national one. A couple of years ago, John Simkin started a thread called Why we will never find out the truth about the death of JFK. I was pessimistic then about what 2013 would bring and I have seen nothing to change my mind. I do realize that a lot of people would not agree with what I wrote. http://educationforu...=30#entry187262 Today, I might change a couple of words that I wrote, but the meaning would remain essentially the same. *Absolutely no age-based disrespect to anyone's knowledge and understanding of President Kennedy's murder.

(Continued from previous post) Of course the fault does not rest with me, Paul. I am not the one making claims about de Mohrenschildt and about what he meant. You have used out of context snippets of what de Mohrenschildt said or wrote in the belief that they would support your speculative theories. George de Mohrenschildt's manuscript clearly indicates that he respected Oswald, yet there is no mention of this by you. You refrain from commenting on his reasonable reasons (and apology) for telling Jenner what he did. And you ignore all the good things he wrote about Oswald in his manuscript. You did not hesitate in using de Mohrenschildt to refute the notion that that Oswald was an FBI informant (as Harry Dean clearly claimed on national television. And Dean did not state it as an opinion, he stated it as if it were a fact.) Paul, I have read your posts on this thread very carefully. I see clearly that you carefully select de Mohrenschildt's quotes when it suits your arguments and that you dismiss them when they don't.

Paul, I made no claims about what you said. Now you are modifying and explaining what you wrote. It was clear enough the first time: "I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital." Michael, I think you misunderstood my point -- when I doubt that Oswald didn't have the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital, that should not equate to the charge that "Oswald was stupid." Paul, for the second and hopefully last time, I made no claims about your point. I simply posted what you wrote. And then I posted what George de Mohrenschildt wrote about the exact same thing. Ergo, I wish you would refrain from claiming I misunderstood your point. And despite your efforts to modify it, your original statement remains.. No Paul. The express point you said you were making with the excerpts of de Mohrenschildt's WC testimony that you posted was this (bold added): If you realize George de Mohrenschildt contradicted himself, it did not stop you from using quotes from him in an attempt to buttress your speculative theories. I'll give some more examples in my next post. (Due to the restrictions on number of quotes allowed per post.)

Paul, I made no claims about what you said. Now you are modifying and explaining what you wrote. It was clear enough the first time: "I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital." From his manuscript: ....It should be useful, as I had known him well, better than anybody else, according to the Warren Report, better than his mother and wife, according to the lengths of our depositions . How the oppressive-weight influenced my testimony can be seen so clearly by me now, looking at it after several years, as if it were somebody else's deposition, deprived of a warm feeling for Lee, full of my own stupid jokes, which make me sad now. I was not expressing myself really, I didn't defend Lee vigorously and passionately enough, which I am sure he would have done if he had to defend me in a similar situation. I was cleverly led by the Warren Committee counsel, Albert Jenner, into saying some things I had not really wanted to say, to admit certain defaults in Lee, which I wasn't sure were his, in other words I consider myself a coward and a slob who did not stand up to defend proudly a dead friend, whatever odds were against him. That big, clever boy, the trial lawyer handled me like a baby: first he bullied me, then he led me to tell him carefully all about my life by saying :"don't conceal anything, we know more about yourself than you do." Notice the change of tone from the exchanges you posted. No Paul. To be fair you should really look at both sides. You present just one side for no other reason than you think it will support your grand theory. I'm not the one making the claims about Oswald and de Mohrenschildt. You are.

From the publisher's website: Rendezvous with Death: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy presents the facts surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and a detailed explanation of the shooting as it occurred according to the factual evidence. A considerable amount of false trails and leads exist in the evidence, turning the case into a quagmire of contradictory and unreliable assertions. The major task undertaken was to sort out, as much as possible, fact from fiction, and determine truth from rumor and speculation. Numerous sources and materials were researched to provide the reader with a thorough and well-documented review of the facts presented in the JFK assassination literature. Still, the conclusions presented are my own and are not intended to be presumptuous in claiming a definitive or conclusive solution to the case. Therefore, the purpose of this book is not to convince the reader that I have finally found the answers for most of the puzzling and perplexing questions surrounding this highly controversial case. Rather, my intention was twofold: (1) to provide the reader with a comprehensive study that presented as many facts as possible regarding the JFK assassination gleaned from a wide variety of sources, and (2) devise a plausible explanation of the assassination based upon that factual information. My conclusions are based primarily on a close examination of the Zapruder film with documentation provided by numerous sources. Although the Zapruder film shows evidence of splicing, it still remains as one of the most significant pieces of JFK assassination evidence. It is hoped that this study will move us closer to the truth. Press release: http://www.prweb.com...web10402160.htm

.......the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so. (From what is known as the Liebeler Memorandum)

From de Mohrenschildt's manuscript: Instead of playing basketball or baseball, like any other red-blooded American youth, he read voraciously. Among the books he read was Marx's "The Capital" which made a deep impression on him. Ironically, he said, he borrowed this book from the Loyola University library . "What did you like in it?" I remember asking him. "It made clear to me the intolerable fact of the exploitation of the poor by the rich ." .....I read similar opinions recently in several liberal books and Lee was way ahead in thought of all of them . .....Lee read Russian classics and discussed some at length with me, especially I remember "The Idiot" by Dostoievski, a psychoanalytical study. He understood the pre-revolutionary life in Russia, which I did not know but heard about from my parents . Russian classics belong exclusively to the pre-revolutionary or early revolutionary days and modern Russians are fascinated by those days of extravagant aristocracy, tzarist power and abuses of it.

This was the official press release dated November 26, 2012: http://www.attpac.or...se_11_26_12.pdf Media contact: Chris Heinbaugh External Affairs Director AT&T Performing Arts Center 214.978.2877 Chris.Heinbaugh@attpac.org

Marrs' interviewer is an author in his own right: http://educationforu...=15#entry227799

That article on John Armstrong appeared in their November 1998 issue, five years before Armstrong published his book. http://www.texasmont...e/november-1998 Here is what one of their writers wrote about Jim Garrison in that issue: Notwithstanding Kevin Costner’s noble portrayal of him in JFK, Garrison—the chief proponent of this theory—was a lying, attention-grabbing megalomaniac with McCarthyite tendencies who had been dismissed from the National Guard for mental problems. He tried to prove his theory by taking businessman Clay Shaw to court in 1969 for conspiring to kill the president. The resulting trial was nothing less than a circus. Garrison sought to prove his case with an array of peculiar characters, including a man in a toga identifying himself as Julius Caesar, a heroin addict, and a New York accountant who said he often fingerprinted his daughter to make sure she was not an impostor. The prosecution mischaracterized evidence and bribed, intimidated, and even had witnesses hypnotized. He ultimately said that there were sixteen assassins at Dealey Plaza, including the three tramps and a man who popped out of a sewer. Though he presented plenty of intriguing suspicions, he had few facts, and it took the jury only 45 minutes to find Shaw innocent of all charges. The New York Times later called Garrison’s crusade against Shaw “one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of American jurisprudence.” Notoriously bad seems like an understatement

Bad headline: http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1238994

Sometimes the answer is so simple. I think you've hit the nail on the head, Tom. Could we not begin a campaign/petition to get Warner Brothers to theatrically rerelease JFK for the anniversary? I'd be surprised if they've not already considered it. Maybe Jim DiEugenio could get in touch with Oliver and propose theidea of a new introduction and epilogue for the movie? Something that links the events of 1963 to the incremental decline of America over the last five decades and quickly details some of the answers the ARRB has given to us? Back in 1991 and through JFK's video release virtually every friend/student I knew at home and whilst at university had seen the film and I distinctly remember many conversations I had with people about it. I believe the buzz that was created when it was first released could be created again especially if RFK Jr. becomes more vocal about his, and his father's, views and he begins to promote certain books that will get the public asking the right questions. I think Tom usually hits the nail on the head. Although he is not a frequent EF poster, his comments are always thoughtful.

I spent an hour in the bookstore reading O'Reilly's book the day it came out. In a Forum post, I listed some of the things he wrote that were obviously false. His de Mohrenschildt story was one of those things. To Bill Kelly: Yes and yes.

From jfkfacts.org Investigator's tape exposes Bill O'Reilly's JFK fib by Jefferson Morley January 31, 2013 Excerpt: In his best-selling book Killing Kennedy, Bill O’Reilly tells a brief tale of an intrepid reporter — himself — chasing the historical truth of JFK’s assassination in south Florida. But the story itself is a fiction, as O’Reilly reveals here in his own voice. In the annals of the JFK assassination story, rife with CIA and FBI malfeasance, O’Reilly’s fanciful anecdote might seem trivial. It is not the saddest feature of a book that manages to ignore all of the high-quality JFK assassination scholarship of the last two decades..... Full story: http://jfkfacts.org/...-fib/#more-2557

A time line constructed with the goal of stimulating interest in the JFK assassination need not include everything but the kitchen sink. In some respects a basic and simpler approach might be more effective than a time line that attempts to explain every facet of the case. Chapter 3 in Tom Miller's underrated The Assassination Please Please Almanac (Henry Regnery 1977) is titled What Happened? It is perhaps the best chapter in the book, a chronological listing of events leading up to President Kennedy's murder and the aftermath. Even though the format makes it easy to read and follow, the time line takes up more than 100 pages of Miller's book. The Assassination Please Almanac does not really try to tie everything together; Miller allows the book to stimulate curiosity about conspiracy and for the most part documents it well, giving the reader a really good education in sources for further study. Miller shows you can present controversial information in an uncontroversial manner. It's not a perfect book, but it was a very good one for its time. I think anyone planning a comprehensive time line would do well to look at Miller's, not just for the content, but also for the format.