Michael Hogan

An interesting and important timeline is the one PDS constructed and published in he appendix to this article.

Chronology of events and records leading to Oswald’s Discharge.

Can anyone tell me what journal/magazine this is? (dated July 10, 1996)

jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Scott Peter Dale/Item 02.pdf

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

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.

Maybe Mr. Hogan should have also posted this:

"Like Mr. Holland, I too believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President John Kennedy, but "JFK: The Lost Bullet" doesn't really bring anything new or extraordinary to the table that wasn't already known prior to 2011. Nor does this program really do very much to reinforce the idea that Oswald was the lone killer of America's 35th President. And some portions of "The Lost Bullet" seem to me to be just downright deceptive." -- DVP

Why?

Glass houses remember, Michael

http://educationforu...105#entry266588

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

You are two good men. Please, please, please consider that any man can argue endlessly, but the bigger man walks away.

When asked if there was new information on the topic, Giglio mentioned Holland’s 2011 documentary and said, “Please attend the session and you’ll find out.”

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/

Michael,

Your disguised and uncalled "gotchas" are the only reason I'm here. When you get it wrong, as you did with me, and as you have here, I'll be back to let you know.

Your oft-repeated refrain that "Of course the fault does not rest with me, I am not the one making claims about XYZ" is cowardly bullxxxx which you use as a loophole. When you quote someone followed by another quote which does (or just seems to) contraindicate the first quote, you are implicitly making a claim about that first statement.

You better start covering up better than that, Emperor. You're living in a glass house.

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

Michael,

I see you are up to your favourite game again.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Michael Hogan, Nov 22, 2010: But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not... [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Nov 23, 2010: Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that Marina Oswald said those exact words. [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Dec 13, 2010 after another poster verified that Armstrong did make the quote in question, did you apologise for your statements above which accuse me of making false claims? No. You came up with this lie instead: I was always willing to be convinced.

I promise you this quote is going to come to bite you on the arse, as well:

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. [emphasis mine]

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.

.....In January of 1964, Eric Norden wrote that President Kennedy was killed by a war state apparatus and that his death likely would never

be adequately investigated. Unfortunately, he was right. It was a military style operation, carefully crafted on a need to know basis.

I don't believe the year 2013 will result in anything different. Kennedy's death will be commemorated, discussed, debated,

and ultimately resigned to a false, incomplete and disputed historical record.

The people behind the murder of President Kennedy remain unknown, although there are many on this Forum that have

their own particular answer or answers. I've never believed for a moment that government records would reveal what

really happened in Dallas that day.

The conspirators are dead and the study of President Kennedy's murder has been relegated to more of a hobby than

any opportunity to obtain justice or truth.

*Absolutely no age-based disrespect to anyone's knowledge and understanding of President Kennedy's murder.

(Continued from previous post)

The fault does not rest with you or with me, IMHO, but with George De Mohrenschildt himself -- the opportunist, the xxxx, who withheld vital information from the US Government under oath -- and who preferred to end his own life than to face that oath again.

One need only read George De Mohrenschildt's farewell address, his booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy! to clearly make out the depth of his deception -- not only of the public, but also of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he pretended to befriend to so many, but whose actions proved his disdain.

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.

It's important to re-read George DM's, I'm a Patsy, I'm a Patsy (1977) to know his views on Oswald. Also, review George DM's s testimony to the WC on Oswald. He didn't respect Oswald -- but George DM did say he preferred Oswald's conversation to the conversation of his own children.

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.)

On the contrary, I'm convinced that my theory about Oswald is correct, and there are others on my side -- Gerry Patrick Hemming thought of Lee Harvey Oswald as a bumbler. George De Mohrenshildt -- perhaps the closest companion to Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962-1963, regarded Oswald as unworthy of trust. It is a matter of opinion, of course, but my research about the personality (and the psychology) of Lee Harvey Oswald resonates more closely with Hemming and De Mohrenschildt.

(13) We have no evidence that Oswald was on assignment (by the FBI or CIA) to spy on Guy Banister and David Ferrie. On the contary, George De Mohrenschildt stated very clearly to the Warren Commission that "there was no government agent so stupid as to trust Lee Harvey Oswald with anything important."

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.

Michael, I never said Oswald was stupid -- I just don't find evidence from his writing that Oswald was truly well-read.

Just because George De Mohrenschildt said Lee read Das Kapital, that's no proof. The proof would show in Oswald's writings, and when I personally read those writings, I find them to be superficial.

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..

Finally, I realize that George De Mohrenschildt contradicted himself about Lee Harvey Oswald. That was one of my key points. That was the point that I clearly made with my quotations from him that flatly contradicted the quotations you cited.

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):

But more to the point, even George De Mohrenschildt would express disappointment in Oswald. Here are some sentences from George De Mohrenschildt's own responses to the Warren Commission (i.e. his testimony to attorney Jenner on 23 April 1964). Notice the change of tone from the words that you cited from him:

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.)

Michael, I never said Oswald was stupid -- I just don't find evidence from his writing that Oswald was truly well-read.

Just because George De Mohrenschildt said Lee read Das Kapital, that's no proof. The proof would show in Oswald's writings, and when I personally read those writings, I find them to be superficial.

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."

But more to the point, even George De Mohrenschildt thought little of Oswald. Here are some sentences from George De Mohrenschildt's own responses to the Warren Commission (i.e. his testimony to attorney Jenner on 23 April 1964). Notice the change of tone from the words that you cited from him:

(Testimony omitted)

------------- End Excerpt from Warren Commission 23 April 1964 -----------------------

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.

So, to be fair to my point, Michael, we should really look at both sides of George De Mohrenschildt's opinions about Oswald's intelligence.

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

......Warren did so in spades. To the point that Liebeler told Odio that heck, even if we find evidence of a conspiracy--which she certainly was--Warren told us to shove it under the rug.

And did they ever.

.......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)

.......It isn't difficult to fake a reading of Das Kapital -- Marxist vocabulary was bandied about on newspapers found on many streetcorners in the 1960's. I don't think Oswald had the brains to finish the first chapter of Das Kapital. I also doubt that Oswald finished Mein Kampf, or any serious book of any length. His library card records show that he liked 007 novels.

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

.....And I should say, there are signs the propaganda war is beginning sooner than we thought. For example, Texas Monthly, just sent out a compendium of all their stories on the JFK case throughout the last generation to their subscribers. And this is barely February. They did a hatchet job on Armstrong a few years back and are notoriously bad on the case.

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

"Gee that's funny. This NBC /US NEWS TEXT does not seem to mention RFK' Jr.s direct rebuttal to Charlie Rose, when be brought up the CIA after Rose pushed the Mafia bullxxxx. What a shock.

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

Getting back to the main crux of the thread, how is this for a recommendation:

Simply ask people to re-watch the movie JFK!

I decided to watch this again with a couple of my kids (the "director's cut", ooh) and am amazed how well this film holds up. Back then, before the ARRB, this movie was able to put a fine point on at least 100 interesting facts about the case. Back then, I was a newbie and admired the movie for its dramatic elements (e.g., the DC exposition) and Stone's technical prowess. Over the years, I came to realize that the story was more compelling than I first thought and I would argue that most of us no longer consider it relevant. Even if we liked it, we feel that it's no longer current. However, looking back, I can see that this movie has all of the elements that we need going forward.

• A well-made, richly produced movie that dramatizes most of the important elements of the case
  
• An awesome cast (especially the likable Kevin Costner as the hero and the frenetic Joe Pesci as Ferrie)
  
• A plot that stitches everything together into a workable, believable narrative
  
• The places where Stone takes dramatic license are exactly the places where he should take dramatic license (e.g., Willie O'Keefe). Plus, he uses a fairly consistent practice of portraying the authenticity of elements proportionally; in other words, impressions are illustrated through innuendo and hearsay and facts are spoken of plainly and repeatedly.
  

Of course, some people will argue that the movie is over-long at 3:09, but I have a hard time believing that someone is going to do a lot better within that timeframe.

I have not yet addressed the goal of 50th anniversary actions, but how about we encourage our friends, families, and local schools to simply show this film again? It might inspire ARRB round two.

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.

Good stuff.

God, O'Reilly's book is so bad.

When I reviewed it I thought that part was so off the wall, I shouldn't mention it.

But this shows once more that O'Reilly is worse than a distorter. He is a xxxx.

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.

O'Reilly writes that he was knocking on de Mohrenschildt's door when he heard the shotgun blast.

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.