Deep Politics Forum

Don Jeffries Wrote:The problem with determining who is too "far out" or who might be a "disinfo" agent is that, depending upon who's setting the boundaries, a lot of us who are JFK assassination researchers could easily be placed in either category.

Like most everyone who has read his posts, it's simple for me to conclude that Robert Morrow is too obsessed with sex. It obviously detracts from any information he includes in his posts, and when he refrains from throwing in sexual references, his reputation has become such that many will still place little credence in anything he says.

The most eye-opening thing for me has been, in communicating with so many of you via forums and emails, to recognize how bombastic and difficult personalities seem to naturally gravitate to this subject. I include most of the "name" critics whom I've come to "know" in a cyber sense in this category. I think these personality conflicts, battles between huge egos, is what causes most of the fierce debates on internet forums. I have maintained to anyone who will listen that it is also what fuels interest in these forums. If you want to see what a strictly moderated, no "nonsense" forum is like, go to Lancer. It was very good at one time, but now it's become pretty boring, imho.

It takes a powerful personality to put yourself out there, where untold numbers of people will read your thoughts, and know that others, just as confident as you are, are waiting to tear them apart and tell you how wrong you are. It takes a lot of self-confidence to post regularly on these subjects. I'm confident, and I think it's obvious that most of you are, too. That makes for sometimes nasty arguments, but again, it's stimulating debate and even good theater.

I have found virtually no other JFK assassination researcher on the internet that I agree with all the time (but Jack White comes close). That being said, I believe in everyone's right to be heard, and will defend that right even when I disagree with them. That's hardly original, but I think Voltaire and Patrick Henry had it right.

As for JFK, Jr., I've been doing my own research for a potential non-fiction book I'm putting together (on a variety of subjects). I have become completely convinced that his plane was sabotaged, and he was killed. Maybe that's why I defend Hankey, because I think on that subject, he gets it right.

Don
I will look very forward to your book.

As for Seamus' post all I can say is wow. You do not have a true opinion yet you felt strongly enough to write a very critical reivew of Hankey.
You're definately an odd one. As for me writing a book on JFK Jr. I have all I can do to keep up with my busy law practice, and reading tons of news, forums, etc.

Dawn

Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus and all,

Perhaps it is just me...but, Seamus: I have a difficult time of it--deciphering your rhetoric--and figuring out your meaning. Not always, but often. It appears to very possibly be a simple cultural difference in the use of various nuances of language. I have often taken your meaning much stronger than it later appeared you intended. A New Zealander might have immediately understood, but I did not. That door seems to have swung both ways, as well. This is not meant as a criticism or as a means to gloss over perhaps significant differences. It is suggested merely as a possibility.

Don Jefferies is obviously a person with a giant heart.I have great respect for people like him,but hell man,big hearts get smashed in this political cyber war!Tom Skully took a big chance and actually tried to clean up the scuz over at your forum.Where were you and the other mods Don?Nobody came to give Tom any backing what-so-ever.Now,it looks like he is giving up.Well,just let the scuz flow and remember to take a shower everyday.Everything is good..............:mexican:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

If you did not write the Hankey review for CTKA I totally apolpgise. I should have gone back and looked first. I was typing from memory as I read the critical review a long time ago. Very sorry that I confused that review with another you did at CTKA.

Dawn

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

If you did not write the Hankey review for CTKA I totally apolpgise. I should have gone back and looked first. I was typing from memory as I read the critical review a long time ago. Very sorry that I confused that review with another you did at CTKA.

Dawn

Seamus Are you on drugs man? I just went to CTKA and via search engine saw an article BY YOU called "The Dark Legacy of John Hankey".
Back to work for me.

Dawn

Greg Burnham Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus and all,

Perhaps it is just me...but, Seamus: I have a difficult time of it--deciphering your rhetoric--and figuring out your meaning. Not always, but often. It appears to very possibly be a simple cultural difference in the use of various nuances of language. I have often taken your meaning much stronger than it later appeared you intended. A New Zealander might have immediately understood, but I did not. That door seems to have swung both ways, as well. This is not meant as a criticism or as a means to gloss over perhaps significant differences. It is suggested merely as a possibility.

Greg: It's not just you. He tells me "simple english" but....what can I say? mileymad:

Dawn

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus and all,

Perhaps it is just me...but, Seamus: I have a difficult time of it--deciphering your rhetoric--and figuring out your meaning. Not always, but often. It appears to very possibly be a simple cultural difference in the use of various nuances of language. I have often taken your meaning much stronger than it later appeared you intended. A New Zealander might have immediately understood, but I did not. That door seems to have swung both ways, as well. This is not meant as a criticism or as a means to gloss over perhaps significant differences. It is suggested merely as a possibility.

Greg: It's not just you. He tells me "simple english" but....what can I say? mileymad:

Dawn

What scared me more was my spelling, syntax and grammar lol. But no Dawn I am not flip flopping nor have I ever on this issue. Yes I wrote the review and I worked on another with Frank Casano. I have never ever denied writing and participating with those articles in anyway shape or form. But I really don't know where this JFK Jr stuff came from. I really would like to know when or were my essay critcising John Hankey is about JFK Jr...you seem to know? I really want to see it. I also want to know what the hell I have to do with John Hankey and JFK Jr? Maybe Im just curious lol. But yeah whats the deal mate? I am totally miffed about it all.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Greg Burnham Wrote:

Seamus Coogan Wrote:Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus and all,

Perhaps it is just me...but, Seamus: I have a difficult time of it--deciphering your rhetoric--and figuring out your meaning. Not always, but often. It appears to very possibly be a simple cultural difference in the use of various nuances of language. I have often taken your meaning much stronger than it later appeared you intended. A New Zealander might have immediately understood, but I did not. That door seems to have swung both ways, as well. This is not meant as a criticism or as a means to gloss over perhaps significant differences. It is suggested merely as a possibility.

Greg: It's not just you. He tells me "simple english" but....what can I say? mileymad:

Dawn

What scared me more was my spelling, syntax and grammar lol. But no Dawn I am not flip flopping nor have I ever on this issue. Yes I wrote the review and I worked on another with Frank Casano. I have never ever denied writing and participating with those articles in anyway shape or form. But I really don't know where this JFK Jr stuff came from. I really would like to know when or were my essay critcising John Hankey is about JFK Jr...you seem to know? I really want to see it. I also want to know what the hell I have to do with John Hankey and JFK Jr? Maybe Im just curious lol. But yeah whats the deal mate? I am totally miffed about it all.

Wow.

I never thought I would say this, but: Where is Jim DiEugenio when you need him? Perhaps he can translate all this Kiwi stuff for us...

Greg writes

Wow.

I never thought I would say this, but: Where is Jim DiEugenio when you need him? Perhaps he can translate all this Kiwi stuff for us...

I'm trying to figure out what planet you Yanks are on myself lol. Dawn conveniantly forgets that she originally wrote this on the Education Forum Greg. This started all the JFK Jr BS. Indeed the comments below will help you follow what's being discussed. As you will see I am not the locus of the ensuing insanity.

I too think Janey was most brave to take on the obvious murder of JFK Jr. Did he make errors? Absolutely. And he needed to be taken to taks for that. I am troubled that so little work has even been done on this case. There is a lot of evidence of murder and coverup. If Mr. Coogan is so quick to condem Janey why does he not write an article or better yet a book on this case. Something.

I then commented with good humour about Dawn's comment WITH REGARDS to JFK Jr in the first post.

Though before we go on I must admit I had a good giggle with Dawns comments about Jayne (Its Hankey matey) and his RFK Jr Documentary, I have to say Dawn, Lisa Pease as you know has written some superb stuff concerning the crash. It's actually her not myself who should go and publish something. Why pick on me lol?

Dawn then asked me about mine and Jim's take on JFK Jr.

Finally, puttitng aside all the faults in Hankey's work, and indeed there are many, I will ask the question of you that I asked Jim D twice, (at Ed Forum) with no response: Do you (and Jim, if you know?) believe John Jr. was murdered or died due to his own negligence and/or accident?

I then gave mine and Jim's appraisal on the topic.

Dawn why should Jim, I or anybody have to have an opinion on JFK Jr's death? Why should I have to write anything about it lol. If you asked us kindly to do a piece countering Hankey or doing a straight article I'm sure Jim would consider it. But well, the job ultimately would get chucked around CTKA and eventually Muggins me would get the job. I'm pretty thorough in what I do and whether anyone agrees with me or not, it does take a hell of a lot out of you. Hence, I am inclined to be a tad lazy when it comes to JFK Jr. Thus I would get as much as I could from Lisa and expand on her writings. I would also examine the sources she finds credible. I'd then cap it off having a snoop around the forums and see who says what.

As I have already said in my first post, Lisa believes there are some very suspicious circumstances in it. As a result I concur with the problems. Now to my knowledge, Jim feels pretty much the same way as I do and would reference Lisa. I honestly don't think he's ignoring your questions in this regard.

But the most bizarre thing about all of this is that after my polite response, all of a sudden Dawn now changes tack. We swing from JFK Jr and CTKA to Dawn criticising me quite obviously about my JFK II essay. Yet oddly never mentioning it.

As for Seamus' post all I can say is wow. You do not have a true opinion yet you felt strongly enough to write a very critical reivew of Hankey. You're definately an odd one. As for me writing a book on JFK Jr. I have all I can do to keep up with my busy law practice, and reading tons of news, forums, etc.

In my next post I repeatedly said the following comment.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr.

Which is one 100% true I have passed brief comment on Hankeys JFK Jr before. I think ages ago on Murder Solved in a couple of posts. Yet then Dawn makes two bizarre replies and seems to be making out as if I am in some form of denial of ever writing my piece on JFK II or criticising Hankey. I have never ever denied writing anything about George Bush Sr and Hankey's appalling take on the JFK assassination. A frustrating but kind of fun back and forth between us now changes tone from fun to nasty.

If you did not write the Hankey review for CTKA I totally apolpgise. I should have gone back and looked first. I was typing from memory as I read the critical review a long time ago. Very sorry that I confused that review with another you did at CTKA.

And then this very, very weird one.

Seamus Are you on drugs man? I just went to CTKA and via search engine saw an article BY YOU called "The Dark Legacy of John Hankey".
Back to work for me.

In case Dawn if you hadn't noticed 'Dark Legacy' is actually the name of Hankey's rebranded JFK II documentary. All I can blame for this strangeness folks is that Dawn quite clearly thinks this is the title for a JFK Jr/Hankey essay. Yet take heed at the very beginning Dawn is asking me to write a piece on JFK Jr, she clearly knew then that I had not written anything on him. Why the silly word games?

Oh yes and I am the one on drugs nort:apparently lol?

Throughout this conversation anyone reading this thread will see that Dawn has continually been making reference to JFK Jr. I have also been continually replying in the context of John Hankey's JFK Jr documentary. Anyone will see that Dawn seems to insinuate a number of things. One of these seems to be that I have denied criticising John Hankey. Further what on Earth has my JFK II stuff got to do with Hankey's JFK Jr? I don't know about members of the forum but I'd sure as hell like to know how you figured that one out.

Now that I have assembled these quotes I invite any of you to go back over this thread and have a read.

With all due respect Dawn, I feel that you have grossly and purposefully misquoted myself continually. This is to effectively bully and bait me so I can get put in the bear pit or worse. You well know dissing mods here is baaaaaaaad for anyones health. In particularly challenging you. Being co-owner Dawn you have a clear advantage. This is not a challenge to you nor am I disrepecting you in anywhere near the way I feel you have disrespected myself and Jim Di. Which incidentally you have.

But Dawn for the life of me I cannot honestly see any real sense in your numerous positions you have taken. Nor can Jim Di either.

Your stance is madness pure and simple. It is your mental gymnastics which I feel have convoluted this discussion. Let's face it you have insulted my name before on this forum, you and Greg now mock my nationality (though I think GB does so with far less venom) further you allege if only jokingly that I am on drugs. I really do despair of the misrepresentations of myself my comments and my work in your posts. Not to mention the underlying racism I feel is floating around.