Cahalan and the sorrow of Morrow. Quality Versus Quantity?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Too funny, make Bob the moderator. What a mess that place is, however there are many really good JFK posters
who I wish would come over here.

Thanks Jan, I get it, the public and private post.

Still waiting to see if Seamus replies to my question. If no one is forthcoming from either
I shall have my answer.

Back to legal matters....I need another vacation, this time at home

Dawn

Dawn, Seamus never wrote about Hankey and JFK Jr. I mean I never asked him to. He never offerd to. At CTKA, or as Fetzer says, CITKA, we generally stick to the four assassinations of the sixties. Maybe the JFK Jr. thing was sabotaged, maybe not. I simply do not have the time or inclination to research that case in any serious way. I think I can be forgiven for that. Four is enough. At least I think so.

But how should that impact on Seamus' work on Hankey's bombastic and very poorly thought out and docmented film on Bush, called JFK 2. I don' t understand the logic of this. If say I like Tony Summers' book on JFK, yet I don't like his book on say 9-11 or Marilyn Monroe, why is one opinion and analysis reliant on the other?

Seamus did a very nice and thorough job on Hankey's very bad film. His work on that should stand by itself. Independent of whatever Hankey did on Kennedy Jr. Independent of whatever anyone thinks of him personally. And let me add this: I edited that long essay. And it was even longer than what we published. I must have cut out at least ten pages. Not because it was not good, but because it was simply too long. That is how many errors Hankey made.

But beyond all the many errors this guy made, he also went clearly beyond the pale when he made up stuff, literally. And then wanted us to accept it as fact. There is simply no excuse for that in this field. Yet, Hankey did it twice. First, by stuffing words in Colby's mouth which he did not say. And second, by creating a scene at the end in which Bush takes a flechette gun into Hoover's office and threatens to kill him. This kind of stuff is simply goofy. And to think that no one called this guy out before on this stuff? This is why CTKA is valuable. Since we review almost everything. Its not easy doing this stuff. I know Seamus spent a lot of time writing that long essay. And I spent hours going through it. But its necessary, since Hankey's film is really not the way anyone should go in this field. There is simply too much good stuff out there now.

Now, let me add. Does this mean that Bush was not involved with the CIA in 1963? Maybe even the Bay of Pigs? No it does not. I think he was involved with both. But has Hankey demonstrated with any degree of real evidence that Bush was involved with the Kennedy assassination? No. None that I can see. I mean if you cannot even understand that Zapata was the peninsula next to Playa Giron, or that Hunt was not working for Nixon in 1963, or that Hoover was not at all a hero in the JFK case, but a real villian, then I mean what is your work worth?

Seamus' essay was so trenchant and so damaging to Hankey that he has now taken to saying that 1.) He really did not name all that many errors, and 2.) It was a set up job in the sense it was a hatchet job.

These two assertions are complete baloney.

If you count all the errors of fact and attribution Hankey makes, it is well over sixty instances. Which is incredible for an 87 minute film. He never even looked up really easy stuff, like the actual name of the Church Committee.

Seamus and I had no strong feelings about Hankey one way of the other. One night, Seamus watched his movie online and started e mailing me questions about it. After about four of these I said, what are you talking about? He said, its in Hankey's film, JFK 2. I said, are you serious? He said yeah look at it yourself.

So I did. Seamus was right. Hankey made so many fundamental errors it was embarassing. And many of them were just lazy. All he had to do was go to a local library to clear them up. He didn't. And then he blames Seamus and me for pointing them out.

I think Seamus' essay is one of the best things we have published. It was a very in depth and thorough job that few people would take the time to do. And there is much valuable info in it.

Do I wish we did not have to print it? Yep. I wish all work in this field was like JFK and the Unspeakable. Which was a real pleasure to write. Unfortunately that is not the case. Not even close. And to me what Seamus did with Hankey, and also the Majestic Papers hoax, is as necessary as what I did with Bugliosi and Gary Mack.

Having said all that, does this mean that Bush was not involved with the assassination. Nope. It just means that Hankey has not proven it at all. And the most ludicrous scene in the film is when he shows Bush being electrocuted because of the evidence in his film. I mean, whew.

So Seamus did us all a good deed by exposing the pretension and bombast that the film really was. I wish someone had done it earlier. But it shows how threadbare our peer approval process is in this field. Seamus filled that vacuum in this case.

[Phil Dragoo]

Seamus Coogan wrote a 21,507-word essay on John Hankey's 90-minute JFK II http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html

He did not write anything on JFKjr death.

If there's something sinister in that, it escapes me.

[Magda Hassan]

Seamus Coogan wrote a 21,507-word essay on John Hankey's 90-minute JFK II http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html

He did not write anything on JFKjr death.

If there's something sinister in that, it escapes me.

What he said ^

[Vasilios Vazakas]

With all due respect Dawn but Seamus never wrote anything on JFK jr. and i find all these exchange of words unecessary and damaging.

[Seamus Coogan]

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:

Don dislikes my work on John Hankey and Alex Jones. Thus I didn't anticipate you two would get along lol. But yeah it's a shame Dawn diverted the conversation with that bizarre John Hankey JFK Jr stuff lol. Because Don and Dawn come from the "we can all hold hands with everyone camp". In which people like John Hankey and Phil Nelson are on an equal par with say Jan or CD effectively. Now I think it's great that people like Don are around he's a compassionate guy. Dawn and Don also diverted the attention from it being a CTKA slagging match which was really good form.

But research for me has never been about compassion. Its been about being meticulous and trying to minimise mistakes. I'm not here for a popularity contest either. If people like me and my research cool. If they like John Hankey well that's not my fault either lol. I feel while people like Don are in sizeable numbers over at the Ed Forum. Not so much here and at Lancer.

I am firmly not a part of the love everyone group lol. Is it quality or quantity gentlemen? Thats of course the real question. Do we congratulate the lies of Hankey and the big show time of Alex Jones for getting it out there. Or do we try and make the best case for conspiracy we can? I prefer the latter option. Obviously as do you Keith. I don't think it's particularly brave or courageous to make mistakes and extremely bad ones consistently. But thats just me some people like sub standard research. Further that's their problem not ours Keith lol.

[Jan Klimkowski]

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.

Speaking personally, as an observer of this spat, my sense is that there has been some misunderstanding about whether Seamus was writing about Hankey and JFK II, or Hankey and JFK Jr.

Jim DiEugenio makes a thoughtful and impassioned case for the quality of analysis of Seamus' article on Hankey and JFK II.

Seamus adds that he has hardly written a word about Hankey and JFK Jr, although the quote I've excerpted above - where I've highlighted what is presumably a typo - does show why the confusion may have continued longer than necessary.

If Seamus has not written about Hankey and JKF Jr, then there's nothing to discuss there.

However, the bigger issue is the tendency to dismiss an entire area of legitimate deep political research because a particular individual has made poorly evidenced claims.

This is one of the reasons why I was deeply unimpressed with the quality of analysis in Seamus' pieces about Diana and her death, which set up an entirely false dichotomy between Martin Gregory (Good) and Mohammed Al Fayed (Nutter).

Al Fayed's deep pockets and connections meant he was played in the aftermath of the Diana death. The case that Diana's death may not have been a paparazzi-caused-road-accident, as per the official story, is not reliant on Fayed or on gullible folk feeding on her celebrity status.

Claims which are not supported by evidence, which misrepresent evidence, or which overinterpret evidence should be exposed.

However, the core hypothesis may still be worth investigating if evidence is rigorously and fairly analysed.

So, as a random example, the case for George Bush Sr's possible involvement in the JFK assassination is not dependent on the photo supposedly showing him at the scene, or whether he chuckled when discussing the Warren Commission a couple of decades later.

[Seamus Coogan]

You and CD may have jumped the gun on this trust me. However I don't blame you for your apprehension. As I said, I think CD was right I may have over indulged at the beginning. Rest assured mate Gregory gets his in and around Part VII. I have also written of the false dichotomy. This is in Part 5.

In the last four installments, my articles have criticised Muhammed Al Fayed. I also said in Part II that one cannot blame Gregory for focusing on him.

Nonetheless, Gregory for all his salient points concerning the man is guilty of not examining Al Fayed nor the Diana controversy in a broader focus. When I discussed David Icke, I also discussed how conspiracy arguments are framed within the parameters of a dominant paradigm. That being, sceptics like Michael Barkun and Daniel Pipes target conspirahypocrites like Icke and Alex Jones to prove their thesis, which are based on extreme conspirahypocrite cases.


Martyn Gregory, a man I believe who is much smarter than both Barkun and Pipes combined, has done much the same thing by ignoring alternative views from more legitimate sources and real researchers.One of his central targets has been Al Fayed's claims of an imminent marriage and pregnancy to Spencer. If Gregory really wanted to take Al Fayed to task, why has he not discussed the little known fact that Al Fayed's spin-doctoring in the media prior to the events on August 31st 1997 could well have provided potential plotters with an itch to scratch?


Why didn't Gregory criticise Al Fayed for making up stories about Spencer's pregnancy and conjuring up a convenient false sponsor, like the Royal Family for the crime? Regardless of what was floating around in Diana Spencer's head about the Royals, and despite the hype that Al Fayed has since stoked, if there was a conspiracy, there may well have been dark clouds gathering around Spencer and Al Fayed from another quarter.

Namely, those in the conservative elite circles of Britain, with contacts in intelligence and munitions who had far more reach and organisational nous than the much vaunted Royal family would ever have.

Gregory is really no friend of mine as you will see from Part VII. Maybe I am guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water. But if someone makes up the same amount of lies that Hankey did, how could you want to believe them a second time. Call me old fashioned (and I think you have before lol) but I do operate in a pretty ruthless manner. I have never actually panned the whole Diana conspiracy crowd. I have only really done so in terms of Al Fayed's stuff. I have continually sought to distinguish you guys from the dross. In that dept.

[Charles Drago]

However, the bigger issue is the tendency to dismiss an entire area of legitimate deep political research because a particular individual has made poorly evidenced claims.

[Emphasis added by Drago.]

This is one of the reasons why I was deeply unimpressed with the quality of analysis in Seamus' pieces about Diana and her death, which set up an entirely false dichotomy between Martin Gregory (Good) and Mohammed Al Fayed (Nutter).

Al Fayed's deep pockets and connections meant he was played in the aftermath of the Diana death. The case that Diana's death may not have been a paparazzi-caused-road-accident, as per the official story, is not reliant on Fayed or on gullible folk feeding on her celebrity status.

Claims which are not supported by evidence, which misrepresent evidence, or which overinterpret evidence should be exposed.

However, the core hypothesis may still be worth investigating if evidence is rigorously and fairly analysed.

PRECISELY the critical distinction.

Seamus, mate, you need to take a step back and a deep breath, and then think about the logic of Jan's commentary and the manner in which you ignore it at the peril of our shared work.

[Seamus Coogan]

However, the bigger issue is the tendency to dismiss an entire area of legitimate deep political research because a particular individual has made poorly evidenced claims.

[Emphasis added by Drago.]

This is one of the reasons why I was deeply unimpressed with the quality of analysis in Seamus' pieces about Diana and her death, which set up an entirely false dichotomy between Martin Gregory (Good) and Mohammed Al Fayed (Nutter).

Al Fayed's deep pockets and connections meant he was played in the aftermath of the Diana death. The case that Diana's death may not have been a paparazzi-caused-road-accident, as per the official story, is not reliant on Fayed or on gullible folk feeding on her celebrity status.

Claims which are not supported by evidence, which misrepresent evidence, or which overinterpret evidence should be exposed.

However, the core hypothesis may still be worth investigating if evidence is rigorously and fairly analysed.

PRECISELY the critical distinction.

Seamus, mate, you need to take a step back and a deep breath, and then think about the logic of Jan's commentary and the manner in which you ignore it at the peril of our shared work.

I don't ignore it as you will see. Trust me CD. For example just because I don't like Hankey doesn't mean I don't believe there was a conspiracy. Just because I don't like Al Fayed doesn't mean I don't like your guys take on stuff. Just because I find Peter Dale Scott a bit much at times it doesn't mean I don't admire GME or the DPF. I really do start serving at Gregory and the bollocks paradigm he has created. Not to mention his rather obvious ties to MI6. His comments about them never having killed anyone as you know are utterly full of shite. I couldn't believe it when I heard such a lame load of bollocks. Further the idea that Monckton was not informing on Spencer is back to her pals is utter bollocks. In saying all that I admit I have made some mistakes in the piece that I am shaking my head about in many cases. I was wondering if this correspondance and our others could be put in a genuine Diana thread. In my final piece I'd love to put a link to all of the discussions we have had here on the topic.

[Seamus Coogan]

Bullshit alert: http://www.rense.com/[/url][url=http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm]general78/reas.htm It's not that I don't have questions about JFK Jr's death. I do. But this is the kind of ridiculous, one-person-said without any documentary evidence whatsoever crap that exhibits the worst of the worst re conspiracy theory. Anyone can make this stuff up, and plenty of idiots will fall for it. I'm not sure whether Hankey is inventing this or falling for it - but either way, it's useless crap that does not raise to even a minor level of credibility. Move along. Don't waste your time.

The Reason JFK Jr Was Murdered

www.rense.com

Lisa just pasted this comment on her FB page concerning Hankeys JFK Jr stuff.