Jump to content
The Education Forum

A conversation with Michael Hogan

Recommended Posts

Hi Michael,

This is to continue our discussion on the Bugliosi/Von Pein/CTKA thread.

Now, back to more significant and relevant issues...

The SBF trajectory is demonstrably impossible.

I find it curious why anyone would argue against the SBF on any other grounds.

Because there are other significant evidentiary grounds. It is important to evaluate all relevant evidence in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Michael, I'm curious as to what you regard as "significant evidentiary grounds," other

than the throat entrance wound and the low back wound.

Is CE-399 relevant to the Single Bullet Fallacy? Yes, but I'll argue that it is not significant.

And the NAA is a total waste of time, or so I'll argue going forward.

So other than the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound...what do you deem "significant"

in regards to the debunking of the SBF?


I'll catch up with you on another thread. To me, this one is more about Vince Bugliosi, David Von Pein, and Jim DiEugenio (CTKA) and their arguments about what the record does and doesn't show.

I will say this: In my opinion you repeatedly act as if you are the only one to have figured out this case on three levels: operationally, forensically, and politically.

That would be a serious mis-impression on my part, Michael. I do think the historical record

is fairly clear on all three levels, but I'm not the one who figured this out.

Vincent Salandria figured it out decades ago.

You make extraordinary claims, yet you select your evidence as carefully as David Von Pein selects his.

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between what can be established as a fact and

what is an arguable likelihood.

I would sincerely like your assessment of what "extraodinary claims" I have made in regards

to matters of fact, as opposed to extraordinary claims I make as to what is arguable.

I once spent the better part of the day reading all the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill and the prosectors,

as you are fond of calling them, when you were trying to make your point about soluble bullets. It was easy to

see how you ignored all that they said that did not support your claim.

Since the only reference to blood soluble rounds appears in S & O's HSCA depositions it should

almost go without saying that most of what the FBI men say doesn't support that conclusion.

But the fact remains that that was what they swore to under oath. The reason Sibert called

the FBI lab was to inquire about a type of bullet which "dissolved after contact."

That is not an "extraordinary" claim of mine, Michael.

Please don't introduce that here on this thread.


Cliff, as I have told you in the past, I like you and respect your right to your own conclusions.

Nevertheless, I don't have a desire to explain myself to you or debate you, especially on this thread.

It would just go on forever and everywhere until I got tired and gave up, not unlike your arguments

with Lamson.

We've had amicable discussions before, and I don't see why that should change. I am sincerely

interested in, and have utmost respect for, what you have to say on these issues.

If you want to look only at the trajectories and consider everything else moot about the

single bullet fabrication, that's your call. I don't see many people sharing your position

on that.

There are a handful of people who acknowledge the prima facie case for conspiracy.

Here is a quote from a private e-mail sent to me by Jim Marrs and posted with his permission:

Once you clearly see the bullet hole in JFK's jacket between the shoulder blades, it

reveals the critical lie at the heart of the Warren Commission smokescreen, namely that

he was shot in the back, not the neck. And don't be misled by the claim that his jacket

was somehow bunched up because hole is the same on his bloody shirt and your shirt doesn't

bunch up. Everything from here on is meaningless controversy. The fact is that the

single bullet theory doesn't work and therefore the single assassin theory doesn't work and

therefore there has been a big cover up by the government....period.

I would include in the category of "meaningless controversy" such subjects as CE-399, the NAA,

the acoustics evidence, and the head wound evidence.

Michael, you have quoted Vincent Salandria yourself cautioning against micro-analyzing

the evidence.

I am not alone in my position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...