Michael Hogan

From an earlier Forum thread on Penn Jones Jr. http://educationforu...t=15#entry38012 http://educationforu...=15#entry179048

I've never seen them available online. The Poage Library has some copies of his newsletter The Continuing Inquiry. http://digitalcollec...ection/po-jones Only some of the volumes are available at Amazon. The cheapest copy is going for £714.00 I like ABE Books: http://www.abebooks....orgive my grief

I've never seen them available online. The Poage Library has some copies of his newsletter The Continuing Inquiry. http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/search/collection/po-jones/collection/po-jones

One of the many odd items found in Oswald's belongings was CE 813, a forged international certificate of vaccination using the name Hideel (as administrator of the vaccine) and made with the help of Oswald's rubber stamp kit. http://www.aarclibra...WH17_CE_813.pdf Edited to add: http://whqlibdoc.who...allpox_WP_6.pdf (See page 4) As this December 2, 1963 FBI memo shows, the FBI was already effecting damage control. They were aware of the vaccination card and were investigating it. Assistant Director Bill Sullivan was after the New Orleans Office to prove that Oswald was a "non-entity." He stated that if it necessitated more investigation to prove that OSWALD was, in fact, "a complete sipher," this should be done immediately. There was a marked sense of urgency to his directives. http://jfk.hood.edu/...ans/Item 19.pdf Bill Kelly started a thread on the forged vaccination card: http://educationforu...showtopic=15826

What I spotted was anger, hypocrisy and a lack of self-control. I'm sure it did not escape readers that Raymond Carroll chose not to comment on the testimony of Marina Oswald re the rubber stamp kit.

Sure doesn't. http://blogs.indiewi...rkland-20121219

If you posted the link previously, I missed it. Thanks for posting it again. That transcript is one of my favorite reads of the year. Harold Weisberg had some classic retorts; his one-liners were great. What a brilliant evidentiary mind that man had. Lane, Jones and Sauvage were no slouches, either. That certainly was an impressive, heavyweight lineup of panelists. It quickly became clear that Bishop and Cohen had only a cursory understanding of the Warren Commission evidence, at best. Near the end of the show, Bishop asked: "Was there a conspiracy?" The panelists' answers begin here: http://www.maryferre...61&relPageId=80 Cohen's response was lame, of course; not much different than the Warren Commission apologists today.

A fine example of inductive reasoning, the likes of which have earned Raymond Carroll his reputation here. In the event Mr. Carroll has never read Marina Oswald's WC testimony, here's a portion of it: Mr. Thorne: Exhibit 115 is a box containing a stamping kit. Mrs. Oswald: That is Lee's. When he was busy with his Cuba, he used it. Mr. Rankin: You mean when he was working on the Fair Play for Cuba, he used this? Mrs. Oswald: Yes. Mr. Rankin: I offer in evidence Exhibit 115. The Chairman: It may be admitted. (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 115, and received in evidence.) Mr. Rankin: How did he use that kit in Exhibit 115 in connection with his Fair Play for Cuba campaign? Mrs. Oswald: He had leaflets for which he assembled letters and printed his address. Mr. Rankin: And he used this kit largely to stamp the address on the letters? Mrs. Oswald: Not letters, but leaflets. Mr. Rankin: He stamped the address on the leaflets? Mrs. Oswald: Handbills, rather. Yes.

Remember Lee, Mr. Carroll once told David Von Pein that he was "closer to the truth than most of the (EF) members."

Although Fred Cook did not mention Cohen by name in his book, he did recount the following story. Cohen's statement to Vince Salandria became the title of Cook's chapter on the Kennedy assassination. The author of the back-stabbing exercise that so infuriated me had announced that he was going to withdraw from the ivy halls, become a full-time free-lance writer, and produce a book that would silence all critics and vindicate the Warren Commission. In my reply, I pointed out that I knew how extremely difficult it was to make a living by free-lance writing. I didn't believe it could be done by someone who hadn't established a broad reputation in the field, and I was convinced that the man who had done a job on me must be privately financed by some government agency like the CIA. There was never a rebuttal to this accusation. A couple of reactions came from other sources: from Tom Caton, who had been a professor at Monmouth College, in West Long Branch, New Jersey, and Vince Salandria. Their feeling was that, once the report was exposed and the assassination issue raised, agencies were going to have to take out after somebody. They had both met the back-stabbing author of the Nation article and asked him why he had gone out of his way to take such vicious potshots at me. He told them that he had done it "for that very reason" -- because he wanted to discredit me in my own forum. Sometime later, in that summer of 1966, I got a late-night phone call from Vince Salandria. He was in Boston, where he had just had a debate with my Nation back-stabber. Salandria was excited. "Fred, I told him that you had accused him of being a CIA front -- and he did not deny it. He did not deny it!" After the debate, Salandria said, he and his opponent had a long, private bull-session. "He's a very disturbed person," Salandria told me, "and I wound up feeling sorry for him. He has a lot of conflicts within himself, and he finally admitted that he knows we are right, but he said: 'The truth is too terrible. The American people would never be able to stand it.' In the end, however, he said he was not going to write the book." And he never did.

Someone going by the name Lester Hajek wrote an essay for the Agency entitled Target: CIA (Features of the recent Soviet psywar drive against U.S. intelligence) The classified document was released by the Agency in September, 1995. The author described Cook and The Nation as "deliberate components of the Soviet psywar campaign." Excerpts: The six publications include, in addition to three "white" propaganda productions issued in East Berlin and Moscow, three from ostensibly non-Communist sources-one by British member of parliament Bob Edwards and Kenneth Dunne, A Study of a Master Spy (Allen Dulles), one published in New York, Robert E. Light and Carl B. Marzani's Cuba vs. the CIA, and Fred J. Cook's The CIA, published as a special issue of The Nation. What distinguishes these latter three from the recent welter of more or less honest and spontaneous scapegoating of the CIA and marks them as deliberate components of the Soviet psywar campaign is the similarity of their arguments to those of the Bloc books and in particular their coordination in building up a distorted structure upon certain document fragments that could have been furnished, directly or indirectly, only by the Soviets. Later he calls Cook a Soviet bogey-man: The last two quotations from Cook lead us into the first of some other thematic characteristics with which the Soviet psywar artists clothe their bogey-man. There are four of them: CIA interferes with and even creates State Department and U.S. foreign policy. It tries unilaterally and secretly to overthrow legal governments. CIA is perfidious and unprincipled. It spies on America's friends as well as its foes. CIA dominates and manipulates supposedly independent organizations, governmental as well as private. It misuses emigne groups and turns them into spy nests. Despite the fact that it costs the U.S. taxpayer fantastic sums, CIA is incompetent. We shall look at each of these in turn.... https://www.cia.gov/...i1a04p_0001.htm

Hi Paul, Two different men for sure: http://www.maryferre...05&relPageId=33

http://www.history-m...WH16_CE_115.pdf

When a man publicly proclaims he is going to produce something and fails to do so, it is not an ad hominem to call attention to it.

Not true.

The proper or right time has come and gone. As Jim DiEugenio predicted and Lee Farley has noted, Raymond Carroll has failed to produce the audio that he trumpeted. Since Carroll made that claim, Mark Lane has authored two books, his last word on the JFK assassination and his life story. Apparently Carroll spent the corresponding (and ensuing) time pondering the pile of clutter in his garage. Considering the vituperative nature of the remarks Carroll made about Mark Lane, his failure to produce renders his otherwise vile charges laughable. I would be surprised if anyone here really expected Raymond Carroll to produce an audio of Mark Lane running away with his tail between his legs. Carroll's attempt to hide behind the skirt of semantics in explaining his failure won't wash. Here's a more complete description of the phrase in due course from the same source Carroll used: http://idioms.thefre...m/in due course

Jerry Rose earned his reputation as an outstanding researcher and his Third and Fourth Decade Journals have proven invaluable over the years. In the above referenced article, Dr Rose concluded: No, I don't believe Oswald was agent #179 of the FBI as reported by the Dallas cowboys. But he was almost surely an undercover agent, as those upon whom he was informing were in an excellent position to know. Earlier in that article Rose noted: A clerk in the FBI office, William Walter, claimed to have seen a file in that office identifying Oswald as an undercover agent. Here is Walter's sworn HSCA testimony: http://www.maryferre...331&relPageId=4

He certainly did. A chapter from the book appeared in Jerry Rose's The Third Decade. It's compelling reading. The Truth Is Too Terrible by Fred J Cook: http://www.maryferre...726&relPageId=3

It is not an ad hominem to expect a man to keep his word. Mr. Farley prefers the ad hominem to reasoned discussion of the case, and he now sounds like a busted gramophone THe reason you do not recall the event is because you were not present during my encounter with Mark Lane I do have an audio of the event, which is stored among a pile of clutter in my garage. I will post it here in due course, when I straighten out the clutter and figure out how to post an audiotape. But for now lets just accept that you ask everyone to accept your bona fides, while you ask everyone to treat me as a xxxx! Bold added.

Jim, a lot more of this in the mix as you go forward (and a lot less of Cinque) would be most helpful. Vincent Salandria is another one who emphasizes how important the back wound is on JFK. Really, the importance is that the government, the FBI, the Warren Commission all knew where this wound was - 5 3/4" inches down from the collar - and how that made the Magic Bullet Theory - aka single bullet theory - absolutely impossible. The reason the government did this - create this ridiculous fantasy/theory - was that they wanted to minimize the number of shots. The reason they wanted to minimize the number of shots was because they wanted to minimize the number of shooters to exactly one shooter and to feed that fantasy to the public.... Vince Salandria is much more than just "another one who emphasizes" the importance of the back wound. No EF member has demonstrated this more than Cliff. He has referenced and advocated Salandria's early writings on the jacket hole dozens of times. I've been reading Cliff's Salandria citations for five years. Cliff has always referred to this as the "prima facie" evidence of conspiracy. Robert Morrow's number one evidence of conspiracy? Madeleine Brown's account of her alleged meeting with Lyndon Johnson at the Driskill Hotel and the remarks Brown alleged he made to her.

Jefferson Morley's friend (and boss) David Talbot wrote this in 2007: The Education Forum, a sprawling complex of chat rooms covering a broad spectrum of history subjects, was created by an enterprising British scholar named John Simkin. Its many discussion threads on the Kennedy presidency and its violent end are provocative and refreshingly free of the obsessive nuttiness and flame-throwing that characterize many online Kennedy circles. Simkin’s forum has attracted respected JFK researchers like Anthony Summers and Larry Hancock, as well as dozens of serious amateur historians well worth talking with, and even the occasional aging source with some firsthand information about the case. The Mary Ferrell Foundation and Education Forum sites are both shining examples of communal learning and research — exactly what the Internet was intended to do, in all its democratic glory. http://www.salon.com...24/jfkwebsites/

Another account comes from Ross A Fisher and was published in the book To Oppose Any Foe. From a review by Ilya Shapiro for The Washington Times: Moreover, Mr. Fisher contends, an anti-Diem cabal led by Averell Harriman, the under secretary of state for political affairs (number three at Foggy Bottom), effectively managed to green-light a coup when more senior officials (including Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, CIA head John McCone, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Maxwell Taylor) were unavailable to give President Kennedy their (tempering) advice, and just when a more foresighted ambassador, Frederick Nolting, had been replaced by old Kennedy rival Henry Cabot Lodge. This was the same Harriman who, while now thinking himself quite realistic in evaluating internal Vietnamese affairs, had earlier shown his profound naivete in trumpeting a “fingertips feeling” that the Soviets would police the Ho Chi Minh trail to prevent Viet Cong infiltration from Laos. Lyndon Johnson removed both Harriman and his protege Roger Hilsman shortly after taking office, but the damage had been done. As Mr. Fisher convincingly argues, the “skillful bureaucratic maneuvering [of the Diem antagonists] thwarted the wishes of their superiors” and led to “the gravest error that the Kennedy Administration made in its policy toward Vietnam.” http://www.washingto...6536r/?page=all http://www.cap-press.com/pdf/1550.pdf

From dissidentvoice.org: Killing JFK, Again by Edward Curtin / December 3rd, 2012 http://dissidentvoic...ling-jfk-again/

Just a patsy? Arlen Specter was a criminal -- an accessory after the fact to the murder of President Kennedy. That is the historical truth. Mike, after giving this some thought it appears to me that Specter took the fall for the creation of the Single Bullet Theory. He is generally credited as its author. But the SBT was made inevitable the night of the autopsy when FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of blood-soluble weapons technology ("bullet that dissolves after contact") and was told of the existence of the Magic Bullet. It was determined the night of the autopsy that Q1 (if I recall the initial FBI designation correctly), a/k/a CE399 would account for all the damage that the other two shots couldn't explain. The 3-shot scenario was baked into the official story from the get-go, and then Arlen was hired to give it specifics and do the heavy duty lying, standing there with a pointer inches above the wound location during the recreation. He looked like an idiot. A couple of years later Gaeton Fonzi made him look like an idiot again over the clothing evidence. That Arlen Specter would reach out to Vincent Salandria and ask him if he thought the Warren Commission was a set-up seems to me like a tacit admission he suspected, at that point in his life, he was set up. Yes, Specter played a knowing, key part in a criminal enterprise; maybe Oswald was a criminal as well, but he is primarily regarded as a patsy. In 1999 Salandria wrote this to a friend: You then go on: "Why did Specter concoct the single bullet theory? To ingratiate himself and prove his mettle as a team player. He knew the outcome the big boys wanted." You say that Specter "did not know then or know now who was really behind the assassination." And this Yale graduate and prosecutor continues even today to be questioned and ridiculed for his single bullet fantasy, but courageously and criminally continues to shoulder the blame for covering up for persons unknown to him and for a team which he cannot identify, never feeling free to express even a slight doubt about the truthfulness of his patent and criminal lies uttered in their interest? From Michael D Morrissey's book, Correspondence with Vincent Salandria, page 216