JFK Jr

[Seamus Coogan]

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.

[Greg Burnham]

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...

[Seamus Coogan]

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.

[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]

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.