Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer?

[Seamus Coogan]

Cheers Vas,Dawn,Peter,Charles and thus far Jan. My reply is in bold. One will note that throughout his monologue not once did JF confront the issues and questions
I outlined. Instead he skirted around a whole heap of issues with even more lies and distortions. The central premise of my criticisms of Fetzers use of my material still
remain.

Hey Y'all.

Well at the very least Mr Fetzer has finally fronted up. What I really wanted from JF was a discussion regarding why he took my comments grossly out of context? What I got...Well, I'll let you the reader try and figure that one out. I think I have been very rash, I have thrust Mr Fetzer into the middle of something. The problem is he just loves being the centre of attention.

If anyone wants to know why I prefer to no longer deal with this Seamus Coogan, I would liken reading what he writes--and I cannot bring myself to call it "research"--to the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's hand in a garbage disposal. Several students of the case who are more competent than Seamus Coogan have written to me about him. The first observes,

He's not a very coherent writer, but he disputes what you and Hankey say about Bush's and Nixon's whereabouts. But, what you say, many say. Then, he argues about the number of shots, but he also admits that he's not sure how many there were. Then, he wants to argue about whether the Zapruder film was altered, but he also says he never said it was authentic. But then the weirdest thing of all is that he admits that there was some "hanky panky with the head the brain" yet he wants to dispute your claim that the body was diverted and altered before the Bethesda autopsy. But, multiple witnesses reported that at the official autopsy, the body was removed from a simple, grey, military-style casket and not the ornate brown casket from which it left Dallas. That proves, by itself, diversion and tampering. Bottom line: in finding fault with you, he found very little fault with you, and he was mostly on the defense.

Lol. I'm very confused by this reverse psychology stuff. I clearly stated in my reply to you JF that..........

A) We both have differing positions on numerous issues.

B) Your critique of myself was a silly attempt to draw me into a needless and mindless debate on those issues nothing more.

C) My issue with you, was how badly you had taken myself out of context. In fact 'out of context' is what your 'imaginary friend' has done. If you read what the piece actually said. I said that not even you believed the body was taken off the plane in Washington. So I don't know what your pal is saying here. Nor yourself once again.

This has caused him to "wonder how many avowed CTs are really just disinformationists. And I'm not saying he is; I think he's just an egotistical hothead and fool. He just wants to be in the limelight. But, there may be some outright fakes," and he mentions one, whom I think is not actually a fake but simply a very dim bulb. The second writes,

Hmmmmmmmmm ego yes, one needs to a little bit of one in this game. I mean look at your's. Hothead, yeah I think everybody has seen me get riled. Yet, most people know that I am also humble enough to apologise or acknowledge my faults. It's very seldom that I feel justified being an asshole. However, up against you and your friends its a very, very guilty temptation, which alas I feel I have failed to contain.

As for the old Fetzer attention seeking. I think the pot isn't just calling the kettle black here JF. In fact it just slipped the 'N' word.

Was glad to hear your interview on Black Op radio the other week. Always enlightening. I was further pleased to hear that the works of John Hankey have been posted on your "Veterans Today" site.

While I too have noticed some factual errors in John's work I still believe that he is an effective and sincere provider of good research and captivating videos. Like yourself John was one of my early and most impressive purveyors of assassination science reporting.

John Hankey believes a Manchurian Candidate flight instructor, killed JFK JR. He also believed J Edgar Hoover was threatened by George Bush in his office with a dart gun. He recently stated that Fletcher Prouty was in Australia when he recieved the Christchurch Star. This is the sort of stuff even you Mr Fetzer (once again) would not support. Mind you I don't rightly know anymore. I mean your hanging out with John Hankey is considered by many to be the height of desperation. I'm sure Jim Di when he comes into town will note a whole series of mistakes you have made in the past. That will be fun. At the moment I'm too knackered to cast my mind back that far.

As you said (in the Black Op show) John was really cut apart by CTKA's Seamus Coogan. I felt that the tone and spirit of Coogan's remarks were unfortunate and way over the top. Some were important observations of course, but the pure vitriol was unnecessary. That and the nitpicking of minor details. Coogan failed to note the importance of Hankey's work in that he seems to have reached a broad audience. Also that most of John's work is true. . . .

Oh this is funny 'John was cut apart by CTKA's Seamus Coogan'. I've noted that when people can't cope with a good honest kicking (which I am brutally proud of giving the man). They then say it was 'nit picking' and 'mean spirited'. If it was merely 'nit picking' and 'mean spirited', why has Hankey changed his story about three or four times? Coincidentally, every time he flip flops it's after we have hit him up. When I say 'we' it's been three of us actually. Jim, Frank and myself. It's not just my personal crusade. So lemme tell you what's really mean spirited. Charging people to purchase his crud. Now thanks to the viral nature of his product, Hankey has reached a broad audience. That should be a grave concern, not celebrated. Now, JF is again trying to imply jealousy from Jim and I. This is ludicrous. We have great respect for well known individuals who have gained high profiles like Zack Sklar, Oliver Stone, Jim Douglas, Tony Summers, Fletcher Prouty, Dick Russell, John Newman, Dave Talbot, Rob Groden, Jim Hougan, Harold Weisberg, Jim Garrison, George Michael Evica and others that have produced good material. Many of them have had higher profiles and more respect than JF. Further that none of these individuals would want a bar of you Mr Fetzer.

Hankey is simply not in the same league.

Once I read that Hankey felt that DiEugenio was a "tool" like Gary Mack and Vince Bugliosi are. . . . At the time I first heard those words though I chalked it up to some kind of personal feud (between Hankey and DiEugenio). Perhaps some well earned animosity that Hankey had towards DiEugenio due to the hostile critiques his CTKA had published. Would seem likely and only natural that Hankey wouldn't have a high opinion of DiEugenio.

Nope the reality is this Jim. Hankey's heart was broken when we shattered his dreams. By all accounts he really thought CTKA and Jim DiEugenio would buy into his stuff. Hankey's reaction was thus similar to some deluded ingrate on X-Factor, being told they had failed the audition but then having a temper tantrum. Hankey, had years to ask Jim advice before he did his piece, yet, bizarrely some people criticised Jim for not seeking Hankey out and giving him a guiding hand. WTF LOL Thats insane shit man. Why would Jim Di know about a small time guy like Hankey anyhow, unless Hankey contacted him first? There's no excuse for Hankeys material. In life you either have it, or you don't. Hankey simply didn't and continues to prove he does not.

However at this time I'm sort of on the fence about DiEugenio. On one hand he is capable of exhaustive and detailed research such as you yourself are well known for. But I can not say with certainty that DiEugenio is not a tool for the opposition. That someone may have "got to him". At any rate his nitpicking and overly zealous critiques seem counter-productive. . . . Thus I seek your feedback when you have a chance.Lol as if I am Jim's corrupting seed. Well, actually there is a little bit of truth to that. You can blame Lisa Pease also. I simply began by noticing there was a lot of bullshit that Lisa and Jim just didn't have time to look at. The problem was that all bar one forum which loved Hankey and Jones, their was a mentality that 'everybody knows Alex Jones is full of shit'. Further that John Hankeys a weirdo so lets not bother. Well, a lot of people outside our sphere didn't know how bad these chumps were. Nor did a lot of people on the inner realize how bad you had become (for what its worth). Hankey went to COPA and got on BOR (trust me he likely never will again). I probably wouldn't have done anything, had he not said that 'Prescott Bush ran the CIA and Dulles was his puppet'. Thus, I was concerned that the research community had not done enough too challenge the crank outside element's lurking around. Anyhow, as said if I did anything for Jim. It was possibly awaken him to the scale of disinfo and garbage, that had surrounded JFK researchers in cyber space. I think that it was around this time I kept on tripping over Fetzers silly angles on subjects which intersected with Fetzer's machinations. So I guess in a way I am to blame for pushing Jim into open conflict with you. He has never looked better than taking you down.

Indeed the 9/11 community in many ways a far less tolerant of crud than the JFK scene sadly appears.

Neither of these men is a personal friend. They appear to me to be balanced and objective, where my concerns about Seamus Coogan are well-illustrated by the poorly researched and seriously flawed attack he launches here, where I shall offer links to evidence that demonstrates his incompetence for those more serious than he.

Right JF the links are explaining what about what PRECISELY? I can understand your delusional links pertaining to your trying too say you are a respected member of the 9/11 community. But other than that fallacy, body and Zap film alteration are not the topics here. I also knew you would try and do this Mr Fetzer. Shame on you, for the umpteenth time for not being able to fess up about misconstruing my statements.

I simply just want to know why you did what you did. Period.

It pains me profoundly to grasp the depths to which The Deep Politics Forum has sunk. The motives that led to its founding--of civil discourse, fair play, and reasoned exchange--have long since been abandoned, since I had the temerity to suggest that the evidence implicates Lyndon as the pivotal player in the assassination. Pity!

Look JF it was you during our last exchange some months ago that you abused me Mr Fetzer. Then you bravely went running for the moderators when I came back at you, with barely an ounce of the vitriol you had for myself. I have no doubt you will cry foul again and do the same thing. I feel a bad Marlon Brando impersonation coming on here 'Be a man'.

MY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS DIATRIBE APPEAR BELOW IN CAPS.

As of today the 26th of December 2011. I have still recieved no reply to my critique from Mr Fetzer concerning the comments he made about my study of John Hankey's deplorable JFK II/Dark Legacy. Below, is a detailed list of what I believe are distortions Mr Fetzer has made about the points I made about Hankey. It is these distortions, rather than a banal time wasting argument about say body alteration, that I would like to discuss with the Professor. I'm sure you the reader would like to know why JF has done what he has done. Thus I ask the mods, should Mr Fetzer show up. That they hold him to task for keeping too the topics I have outlined in this reply. For the record, this has been slightly edited from my original posting that I made close to two months ago. The irony of ironies is that this was on the GWB thread JF started himself. Out of respect for Mr Fetzer, I'd appreiciate no replies here until after he shows up. In the meanwhile, I'll let his silence on the issue paint a canvas. It's a decidedly ugly picture.

Who do you think your kidding Mr Fetzer?
(Sung to the theme of the BBC classic 'Dad's Army')

The big problem with Jim Fetzer's piece, (besides his rather illogical criticisms) is that people unfamiliar with the JFK assassination don't realise that Fetzer is the resident 'heretic' of the research community. Not only that, he has also been ousted from the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have to say to the neutrals viewing this thread, that his outlandish views in no way speak for the share majority of people in both camps.

COOGAN INCOMPETENCE IS OBVIOUS FROM THE BEGINNING. HOW CAN I HAVE BEEN "OUSTED" FROM THE TRUTH MOVEMENT WHEN I, ALONG WITH DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, AM AMONG ITS MOST ACTIVE MEMBERS? I HAVE PUBLISHED MORE ARTICLES AND GIVEN MORE INTERVIEWS THAN ANYONE OTHER THAN HE, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF RICHARD GAGE, WHO IS SOME KIND OF DYNAMO. I GIVE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF INTERVIEWS ABOUT 9/11 AND JFK, SOMETIMES SEVERAL THE SAME DAY. THOSE WHO WANT TO REVIEW SOME OF MY MORE RECENT ONES SHOULD SEARCH "VETERANS TODAY, JIM FETZER".

So big deal? Your travels have not aided you in anyway I can discern. Bar magnifying an already out of control ego, that dwarfs mine and Jim Di's. It seems to me that you believe you are the voice of the 9/11 movement. Thus I have to ask 'active' amongst whom? Nearly all of the main 9/11 blogs and forums not to mention it's most noted figures like Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, Tony Lawson, Steven Jones (which reminds me he held the only vote that's ever been held about your abilities and where you got unceremoniously dumped) do not consider you or Judyth wood members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I could easily get written statements from all of these people, confirming that opinion.

Let's look at some random forums anyhow. Your very popular.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php.../node/4449

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change...topic=5206

There's tons more out there Jim. Please go and find a pro JFK forum outside your own that would speak about Jim DiEugenio, myself or Lisa Pease as often and as negatively. I think that while trying to make out that myself, Jim and others are jealous of your standing. You miss the point. I think you are in fact jealous of the respect afforded to numerous researchers like Jim and Lisa, which you invariably do not get. The reason why Jim is because you write stuff like this below.

IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT I DO NOT SUFFER FOOLS GLADLY, WHERE MY BACKGROUND AS A PROFESSIONAL SCHOLAR WITH HONORS AND AWARDS FOR MY RESEARCH LEADS ME TO APPROACH 9/11 AND JFK IN A MORE SYSTEMATIC AND METHODICAL FASHION.

What on Earth is Methodic about not being able to answer my questions and concerns adequately?

MEDICINE, BALLISTICS, PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM WERE AREAS IN WHICH I SOUGHT OUT COLLABORATORS WHO ARE DOMAIN EXPERTS, INCLUDING DAVID MANTIK, BOB LIVINGSTON, JACK WHITE, CHUCK CRENSHAW, JOHN COSTELLA AND DAVID HEALY. IF THE BOOKS I'VE EDITED HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE, IT HAS BEEN LARGELY BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS.
THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OF 9/11 RESEARCH AND MY ROLE THEREIN MIGHT TAKE A LOOK AT THESE:

"Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinformation-op.html

"The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/...im-fetzer/

WHICH VIEWS ARE "OUTLANDISH" OF COURSE TENDS TO DEPEND ON HOW MUCH YOU KNOW AND UNDERSTAND ABOUT AN AREA OF RESEARCH, ESPECIALLY THOSE AS COMPLEX AS 9/11 AND JFK. THE ISSUES ON WHICH I HAVE STOOD APART FROM OTHERS IN THE 9/11 MOVEMENT ARE ONES ON WHICH I APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RIGHT, AS THESE EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE:

You appear to be right I wonder whom is judging this stuff you? Or the other no plane brigade? Funny I much prefered talking to Jack about the no plane angle than yourself. It had something to do with Jack, not trying to say he was the way the truth and the light. Which was very appealing. Indeed, I like peoples idea's if they're a bit out of the ordinary, its how they go about it. Your word truly is the wrath of God. Or someone who thinks he is.

"Is '9/11 Truth' based upon a false theory?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/17/is-911-truth-based-upon-a-false-theory/

"The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/28/...-hearings/

ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WOULD SEE THROUGH COOGAN'S CARICATURE OF MY PLACE IN THE 9/11 COMMUNITY. THERE HAVE TO BE GOOD REASONS WHY THE BBC FOCUSED BOTH OF ITS DOCUMENTARIES ON 9/11 --WHICH, OF COURSE, LIKE GOOGAN'S ARTICLES, ARE DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED HIT PIECES--ON ME, DYLAN AVERY AND ALEX JONES. THE FIRST TIME THEY INTERVIEWED ME FOR EIGHT (8) HOURS, THE SECOND FOR FOUR (4) MORE. BUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN "ON THE INSIDE" I EXPOSED SOME OF THE TECHNIQUES THEY LIKE TO USE TO MANIPULATE THEIR AUDIENCE:

"The BBC's instrument of 9/11 misinformation"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/03/...formation/

Its a shame they targetted Avery. I really quite like him, but the reason why they put him with you and Jones was obviously to discredit him. You Mr Fetzer were one of the two straw candidates. In fact I strongly think that's why they get you to do so many media appearances. It may not have occured to you that there are numerous more informed and better speakers on the 9/11 topic than yourself. In this forum alone there's a number of them. Further Jim you are becoming a caricature of Jones in many ways.

This of course doesn't sit well with the good professor. Mr Fetzer has a Caesar complex of massive proportions.

Thus it is to Jim DiEugenio's, Lisa Pease and CTKA's utmost relief, that Fetzer never joined the organisation. Jim and Lisa had no idea of the mans proclivity for attention seeking stunts. Nor did individuals like John Judge and Debra Conway. This is very significant. Judge and Conway run the two largest JFK conference organisations and it's well known neither group see's eye to eye.

Yet both have banned JF from speaking at their conferences. Now here is the funny part, Mr Fetzer wrote to a one Bill Miller on the Education Forum in June of this year.

"Why are you fixated on Lancer and COPA? If I wanted to speak there, I am sure it could be arranged. Since I haven't had the inclination, the question has not arisen."

This is pretty delusional. Fetzer has not spoken at either a COPA or Lancer event in over ten years. It is not a matter of inclination. It's a matter of being struck off the guest list.

THIS GUY IS INFATUATED WITH CTKA, NO DOUBT, BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER APPEARED ON A LARGER STAGE.

Lol!!! He finally got something right. I am infatuated with CTKA because it represents in mine and many peoples eyes (that is the non Fetzerian majority) the pinnacle of current on going research into the Kennedy assassination. I am also very proud of my contacts at Lancer and COPA. I am very proud of the individuals I work with and for. It's a real thrill to work with the best. Just to be considered a peer of the people that run this excellent site for example is a great feeling. It's also wonderful to check out the up and coming talent these orgs have coming through the ranks. I've seen some people coming in and I am really excited. It's not about mutual back slaps and feel good either. Sheesh, I've had some rough times and made some bad calls. But it's about the learning environment. In this regard I couldn't have it better. I want the field of rational peer reviewed research to be on the 'larger stage'. Don't take it personally but chances are we won't be inviting you okay.

The only real way to do that is to build bridges with other groups. Saying we are friends with you will make people run a mile. Sorry, but true. We want too see people try and do the best research they can in their respective fields. There is a very real and growing backlash against people like yourself and other conspiracy demagogues. I put you in the same illustrious category as Alex Jones, David Icke, Bob Hoagland, Bill Cooper and Richard Dolan. As I have said before there really is a new crop of researchers coming through the pipes that see you in this light. Now that's pretty sad.

See Jim, unlike yourself. I don't think in anyway that it's all about me. Look at it this way. If I was in it for the ratings, I'd follow your flight path in fact you'd be my hero lol.

I WAS FLOWN TO ATHENS TO APPEAR ON A 3.5 HOUR TELEVISION PROGRAM ON 9/11, WHERE I WAS THE ONLY GUEST, WHICH WAS BROADCAST WORLDWIDE BY SATELLITE; I WAS THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER AT AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM HELD AT THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA; ORGANIZED AND SPOKE AT A SYMPOSIUM "DEBUNKING THE 'WAR ON TERROR'" IN LONDON; I HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED BY RENOWN INTERNATIONAL FIGURES; I HAVE APPEARED ON "COAST TO COAST AM" 5 TIMES AND, MORE RECENTLY, I HAVE BEEN FEATURED SEVERAL TIMES ON THE IRANIAN INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION NETWORK, PRESSTV:

"Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"
http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621

"Howard Hughes interviews Jim Fetzer"
http://theunexplained.tv/paranormal-podc...11-special

PressTV - "After 10 years, US blames Iran for 9/11"
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/217477.html

PressTV - "US schemes plots to justify wars"
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/204319.html

"COAST TO COAST" HAS AN AUDIENCE OF BETWEEN 10 AND 20,000,000. HOWARD HUGHES HAS AN AUDIENCE OF 6,000,000. PRESSTV IS BROADCAST WORLDWIDE. SEAMUS IS GOING TO HAVE TO EXCUSE ME IF I CAN'T GET EXCITED ABOUT CITA OR LANCER. I HAVE CHAIRED OR CO-CHAIRED FOUR NATIONAL CONFERENCES ON JFK ALONE (AT MINNEAPOLIS IN 1999; LANCER IN 2000; LANCER IN 2001; AND DULUTH IN 2003). I HAVE GIVEN RECENT LECTURES ON JFK AND 9/11 IN PORTLAND, OR; SEATTLE, WA; THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH; AND THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON (JFK, 9/11, AND SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE).

If it was anybody else I'd say that's pretty darn excellent. But seeing as it is yourself and nobody would be arrogant or self absorbed enough to post this kind of thing. I have to say I wonder how many organisations regretted having you there? Hold on, Wow lol I won't even mention how he just spelt CTKA 'CITA'. I suppose I am just nit picking lol. Lancer and COPA couldn't care less if you were heard by one or a million. Your still not invited back.

What a Load of CITKA

Mr Fetzer has cleaned up his original piece from Veterans Today which contains a major error.

Unfortunately for Mr Fetzer's cover up, he failed to realise that a number of people copied his original article as can be seen below.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2011/11...nation-of-jfk/

I find it bizarre that JF spelt CTKA 'CITKA' continually in his article. It appears that Mr Fetzer cannot even spell the initials of the organisation he is trying to attack. This sort of faux pas is deeply embarrassing.

Mr Fetzer also assumes much about CTKA in his critique. Possibly, I am too blame here. I have been rather 'clipped' in some observations in the past concerning aspects of Mr Fetzer's passions before. I personally find the work of Jack White, Dave Mantik, Paul Costella and Doug Horne concerning the Z film really interesting. Do I buy their ideas? Well nope! I'm much too conservative lol. But it's certainly not something I would totally mock. I also agree with JF the throat wound stuff is fascinating. But as his misquotations of myself will show, he quite clearly proves he never reads the articles on the CTKA site in full.

Thus the problems I really have with Fetzer here aren't really his opinions. We all know he and I will disagree on about 80-90 percent of the issues. As said it is contextual.

THIS IS A NICE EXAMPLE OF WHAT SEAMUS COOGAN THINKS IS IMPORTANT. A TRIVIAL MISTAKE, WHICH REFLECTS MY LACK OF CONCERN WITH CTKA! WHO WOULD MAKE SO MUCH OUT OF SO LITTLE? SMALL MINDS ARE AFFECTED BY TINY ERRORS.

No Jim you made the mistake all through your piece. Once for sure but right throughout? Its like me calling you Jim Fizzer.

Jim Fetzer: Photo Analyist

I have no real opinion on the Lansdale 3 tramps photo. I am prepared too go with it myself with some trepidation lol. What it means in the scheme of things I don't know. The Bush identity on the other hand and Bush meeting Lansdale in the open at Dealey Plaza is something JF and I will clearly disagree on. I think it insane, as quite clearly most forum members will. As for Hankey's new revelations. Well he's clearly refined what he has said over time. This is in direct contradiction to his claims that CTKA's research proved he got nothing wrong. Yet Hankey's argument is essentially old hat stuff. I see no real need to go over it. Bar one thing, at the very least Hankey unlike JF shows more caution than himself on the issue of Bush being in Dealey Plaza.

WELL, WHO REALLY CARES WHAT SEAMUS COOGAN THINKS? I DEAL WITH LOGIC AND EVIDENCE. THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE STUNNING EVIDENCE THAT BUSH WAS THERE, LANSDALE WAS THERE, AND THAT LANSDALE WAS ASSOCIATING WITH BUSH. I AM COMING TO APPRECIATE THE ROLE OF CTKA AND ITS ATTACK DOGS IN DIVERTING, DEFECTING, AND DEFEATING EVIDENCE THAT IMPLICATES LYNDON, BUSH, OR NIXON IN THE ASSASSINATION--AND I FIND SOME OF THAT ON THE DPF AS WELL, ALAS.

You obviously care enough Mr Fetzer to not only comment on BOR, but you cared enough to grossly misquote myself (which is why we are here in case you forgot) time and time again and you have only turned up here after being goaded on the Ed Forum. Well at least we're giving the punters a good show. If by way you mean 'attack dogs' do you mean Charles Drago and Jan K as well. Whats disrespectful to these guys and others, is that they don't need CTKA to know your angle is a dud. In fact I would worry if someone needed us to defuse you. The LBJ, Nixon and Bush angles are minority report stuff.

Jim and Dirty Dick

This is a little appetizer. It appears my take on Nixon in Hankeys film clearly upset JF enough for him to badly misquote myself. He writes.

"There are other blunders in Coogan's critique, including his taking at face value Richard Nixons contentions that he only learned of the assassination when he arrived in New Yorkof which he gave several versions, one of which was that "Nixon says he heard a screaming woman, stopped the cab, and wound down the window". But if the window was up, how could Nixon have heard the woman scream? And surely screaming is not so uncommon in New York that it would have attracted the attention of this very self-centered and devious man. Like Bush and LBJ Nixon was also complicit in the assassination of JFK."

What's peculiar, is that Dr Fetzer seems to be using my own wording and my own arguments against Hankey here.

"Now Mr Nixon may well have made some diverse calls about when or where he heard word of Kennedy's death that day. Two of his stories involve a taxi cab. One in an August 1964, Readers Digest article in which Nixon says he remembers hearing word of the assassination while stepping out of the airport and into a waiting cab. The other was from Esquire magazine circa November 1973, in which Nixon says he heard a screaming woman, stopped the cab, and wound down the window. So what is he really guilty of? Well he seems to have embellished his story, and made it slightly more dramatic with the retelling. But that's really the sum of it. Furthermore the stark reality is that Nixon was in the air at the time of the shooting. He heard the word either on the plane or as he got off it. He sat down, and was photographed. Thus Nixon was not on the ground in Dallas, as is implied by Hankey, who throughout JFK 2 depicts Nixon with that ridiculous rifle in hand."

I think that any right minded person reading this, would note I have not taken Nixon at face value.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF COOGAN'S PREOCCUPATION WITH TRIVIALITIES. NIXON WAS AT THE MURCHISON MEETING THE NIGHT BEFORE. WHEN HE WAS STILL A CONGRESSMAN, ONE OF HIS INVESTIGATORS WAS A FELLOW NAMED "JACK RUBENSTEIN". IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BRING HIM INTO THE PLOT, SINCE HE WAS LIKELY TO ASSUME THE PRESIDENCY AT SOME NEAR POINT IN TIME (GIVEN THAT JFK HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT). I FIND NO GOOD REASON TO TAKE COOGAN SERIOUSLY ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

Jim are you for real? The Brown story has been ousted a very long time ago. The Rubenstein-Nixon memo is widely regarded as a fake by most people on the Ed Forum, Lancer, DPF, Bob Hastings site, Greg Parkers and BOR. Further it was you yourself getting into trivialities by bringing up my take on Nixon in the first place. Why did you do it? That's the key question Jim? What were you trying to prove by trying too make it look like I was taken in by Nixon? What on earth did Madeliene Browns party have to do with anything. Oh and I am the trivial one.... ah yeah that's right.



So let us now take a look now at my big three mistakes.

1) To Doubt Hankeys Editing Skill is to Doubt Conspiracy

Apparently, I am wrong here. I know not for? Well in all honesty I do know (as you can see from the title) but I cannot bare to think why Mr Fetzer has gone so far. Nor once again do I suspect, that any reasonable person who actually read mine Jims and Frank's articles/letters on Hankey. JF quotes my following statement from The Dark Legacy of John Hankey to somehow stop my-self from skipping on an issue I never avoided in the first place.

"8:43" Hankey tries to sell the idea that, in all, there were 6 wounds in Kennedy and Connally. Yet you may recall that at the time of 14:23 Hankey had already utilised the iconic courtroom clip from "JFK" in which Garrison (Kevin Costner) utilises Alven Oser (Gary Grubbs) and Numa Bertel (Wayne Knight) to demonstrate the trajectory of the 7 wounds in both Kennedy and Connally. Hankey somehow missed the fact that, most of the time, entrance wounds leave exits.

JF then goes on to quote the number of wounds from a number of his publications. The problem here is resoundingly clear. Fetzer has only read the first paragraph. Three others follow it. None of which, are in contention with multiple shooters or multiple directions. A scenario of which, Fetzer wants the world to believe I do.

For Coogan to imply that Hankey is wrong strikes me as a rather important blunder. These shots were fired from in front, from the side, and from behind.

By only using (get this folks) the first paragraph of four, JF takes it all grossly out of context. The 'blunder' is sadly his. What these other paragraphs discuss are the following.

A) Hankey by using Stones courtroom scene, then making up another number of shots clearly used contradictory information in his documentary. Would Fetzer himself make such a basic error?

B) Hankey, unbeknown to Fetzer has long glorified the likes of Tom Wicker, a person whom Fetzer no doubt also dislikes. Wickers report helped form one of the cornerstones of the Warren Commissions conclusions concerning Connally's shot.

C) Further, in the cramped confines of the car, there may well have been a double up with the bullets. Fetzer in his treatise writes as if he agrees with me on either the 6th or 7th shot.

JF is clearly implying that by my questioning Hankey's faulty production methods in his cheap horror of a film, that I somehow renounce my belief in Kennedy being assailed by multiple shooters.

HANKEY IS NOT FLAWLESS, BUT COOGAN IS HOPELESS. MY WORK ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN IN COLLABORATION WITH THE BEST QUALIFIED EXPERTS TO EVER ADDRESS IT. SEAMUS SEEMS TO THINK I MAKE THIS STUFF UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH, BUT THAT IS HIS PRACTICE, NOT MINE. TOM WICKER WAS A GREAT JOURNALIST, BUT THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS NOT FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATIONS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY REPORTING WHAT WE KNOW NOW ABOUT JFK AND ABOUT 9/11.

By stating that Hankey is not 'flawless' but somehow I am 'hopeless' get's us no closer to truth Mr Fetzer. Nor is not giving any reason why you decided not to mention all those paragraphs which gave the background to the paragraph that you for want of a better word 'raped'.

Where in that passage do I state that 'I think you made anything up out of cloth?' Sorry pal, but as Arsenio Hall said in 'Amazon Women on the Moon' "The bitch don't live here man". So I have no clue what you are on about. Read Carl Ogelsbys take on Wicker meeting Tony Summers and then view Wickers treatise on JFK the film. Not very promising stuff I must say. Further to this Jim, you once again I remind you Jim that you were clearly implying by my criticising Hankeys production, that I didn't believe in multiple shooters. You have not addressed that point.

2) Coogan Assumes the Zapruder Film is Authentic

What the Professor scolds me for this time is my believing the Zapruder film is authentic. This is beside the fact that I never made a single comment about its authenticity (or not) in my piece on Hankey. At the time, Hankey made JFK II and Dark Legacy, it appears that he totally believed it to be authentic. Hence singling me out is being slightly over selective. Fetzer, as before never bothers to mention too his readers that he himself altered the purpose of the below quote from paragraph 5 of Conspirator Connally: Caught In a Slump.

The cruel irony to all this, is that this was actually part of a subsection of my essay that I utilized in the context of Hankey himself altering footage changing Connallys comments to fit his own agenda.

You may be asking: "So what if Connally had used the incorrect term, and anyhow Hankey did eventually admit Kennedy slumped." Well actually it's quite an issue. Because Hankey uses the slump to launch into a diatribe about Connally seeing Kennedy 'choking on a bullet and being shot in the head' when there is no evidence for this on the Zapruder film. As adjudged by the Z film, everybody in the world except Hankey can clearly determine that Connally only gives Kennedy a brief glance. And he is clearly turning back around at the time of the fatal headshot.

This is the following paragraph.

According to, Connally was placed in the limousine by the conspirators so he could lie about the direction of the shots and what went on in the car. Between 27:15 and 28:52 Hankey utilizes two of Connally's most known press conferences after the assassination: the aforementioned one on the 27th of November 1963 at Parkland Hospital, and the one he gave in 1964 after his testimony to the Warren Commission. This is to show that Connally had changed his story to fit the official version.

We don't know why Connally never mentioned seeing Kennedy forward in his second press conference. But Connally was adamant that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit Kennedy in the throat. This is made clear in both interviews. This testimony created all kinds of problems for the Commission. whom recall had earlier berated Peter Jennings for editing out bits of information contrary to his own angled story, now fades out Connally's statements made at the Washington press conference and also Connally's earlier interview at Parkland when he admitted yelling "My god! They're gonna kill us all" and mentions Jackie crying "They've murdered my husband they've murdered my husband." (Ibid, Argonsky)

Fetzer in his zeal to prove myself a rabid anti alterationist, clouded the real issue' that being Hankey, was...........

A) Lying about Connally actually seeing Kennedy choking.

B) The real question surrounding any form of alteration is Hankey's alone to answer.

C) As said before, why did Hankey feel the need to alter Connally's testimony? Why would JF want to associate with someone as dishonest as that?

Mind you he still believes he will get invited back to Lancer and he hangs out with Nico Haupt. If I was John Hankey I would get the hell out of dodge.

"HE STILL BELIEVES HE WILL BE INVITED BACK TO LANCER AND HE HANGS OUT WITH NICO HAUPT"? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS GUY? NICO IS A VERY ODD FELLOW, WHO HAD SOME INSIGHTS ABOUT 9/11 EARLY ON. WHY THIS FEEBLE ATTEMPT AT GUILT BY ASSOCIATION?

Because Jim everybody else on the planet could see Haupt was/is a lunatic not worth wasting time on. Like they could also see with Greg Douglas and a host of others you have loved whom I shan't bother naming. Haupts name is mud in 9/11 circles, in fact he's probably even more unpopular than yourself. Further that Jim he's not an old time accquaintance from long ago, there's a conversation between yourself and Nicco from 2010 on YouTube (http://blip.tv/ewing2001/02-26-2010-live...pt-3293267). You are what you eat so they say.

I ORGANIZED AND MODERATED THE ZAPRUDER FILM SYMPOSIUM AT LANCER IN 1996, INTERVIEWED MADELEINE DUNCAN BROWN IN 1998, ORGANIZED AND MODERATED THE CHAUCEY MARVIN HOLT SYMPOSIUM IN 1999. I CO-CHAIRED LANCER IN 2000 AND AGAIN IN 2001. I'VE BEEN THERE, DONE THAT! WHY ALL THIS CHILDISH RUBBISH?

What you did at Lancer has nothing to do with the fact that you will not be asked back there. Nor will they have you back at COPA. That's the reality. And please don't lie about it Jim like you did on the Ed Forum.

WE KNOW THE FILM IS A FAKE AND I COULD CARE LESS WHAT SEAMUS COOGAN THINKS. JOHN HANKEY, NO DOUBT, MAKES HIS SHARE OF MISTAKES, BUT COMPARED WITH THIS GUY, HE IS A PULITZER PRIZE WINNER. A NICE DEMONSTRATION OF THE POWER OF THE PROOF THAT THE FILM WE HAVE IS NOT THE ORIGINAL TAKEN AT THE PLAZA:

"JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/...uder-film/

Once again. If you don't care what I think. Then why are you evading the three main points I made about Hankey's dishonest appropriation of Connally in the Zap film, not to mention Hankey's alteration of Connally's testimony. These are not mistakes but deliberate deceptions on Hankeys part. Also note I don't see you attacking Hankey for thinking the film the real McCoy.

3) The Coffin Caper.

Fetzers final point is perhaps his most interesting and he covers a lot of ground. Ground of which I am not totally averse to by any stretch. There was some hanky panky with the head and the brain. Not only that, as said like Mr Fetzer I also find the throat wound debate fascinating. The big problem is that as I said earlier, JF and I will never see eye to eye on the body alteration in the airplane idea. There's little sense in us boring the readers or the members of this forum with that debate.

The problem I have with Mr Fetzer is again contextual. I wonder what version of JFK II he has seen. He writes

That, however, does not inhibit Coogan from taking Hankey to task over the prospect that JFK's body was secretly removed from Air Force One while the official, ceremonial bronze casket was being off-loaded under the glare of the bright lights of the national new media. He is thus moved to make observations such as the following:

Fetzer goes on to quote myself from the following statement.

"I have to wonder how many people have ever watched the arrival of Kennedy's coffin? It's virtually impossible for anything to have gone on. Now while the runway suddenly goes black and there is mention of a power cut as the plane comes in, the plane is still very much in motion when the lights are restored making it pretty hard to disembark a ton worth of casket. What most authorities believe today is that there was post-autopsy fakery in the x-rays, and perhaps the photos. And clearly, some of the photos are missing. (See for example, Gary Aguilar's excellent essay in Murder In Dealey Plaza, pgs. 175-218)"

As said Mr Aguilar would strongly disagree with Mr Fetzer. But that's not the point here either. What is of concern to myself is that the comment I made below was preceeded by (and get this) some 9 paragraphs. Also what Mr Fetzer doesn't get, is had he seen JFK II Hankey clearly discusses the body being stolen while Bobby Kennedy and Jackie looked on at Washington. This is a scenario that even Mr Fetzer would disagree with. Thus like you all I have to wonder what all the fuss is about, further that if indeed JF has actually bothered to watch Hankey's travesty.

"But Hankey seems to back Kennedy's body being secretly smuggled off of Air Force One for some posthumous surgery (a central tenet of body alteration scripture). But the long suppressed testimony of Richard Lipsey suggested that a decoy plan involving two ambulances was used to throw the media off of the scent. (Deborah Conway: Transcription of HSCA Interview with Richard Lipsey 1-18-78) The full transcript itself makes for some interesting reading."

In hindsight maybe I should have made my opinions a little more pointed. Giving a full and clear description of what Hankey had said.

Mr Fetzer likely won't tell you the reader, that I also give a brief rationale behind the Decoy amublances to and from Bethesda. Something I think is quite fascinating. Air Force One transcripts mention bringing a crane to the opposite side from where Jackie Kennedy and entourage disembarked. Now, decoys are understandable considering the incredible press generated by the public nature of the crime. As for the cranes, well as we know the Air Force One transcripts and recordings are notoriously incomplete and as one can clearly see from the grim footage of Air Force One's arrival in Washington it appears that only one crane was used.

So while I find Mr Fetzers critiques understandable, considering his positons on various issues. I am still scratching my head on precisely why he needed to bring me into all this and also why he felt a need to take my comments out of context. In so doing covering up for the errors Hankey made, not only that the lies he blatantly spun. As of yet Mr Fetzer has not shown up to discuss these points I have made. Sadly, I do not expect him to explain why he for all purposes lied about the contents of my original article. It's very hard to front up with anything less than an explanation or an apology. However, unlike myself when I make mistakes, apologies of any sort are very much beneath our dear Mr Fetzer.

THERE IS A LOT OF INDEFENSIBLE RUBBISH HERE, WHERE COOGAN APPEARS TO BE TAKEN IN BY AN OBVIOUS COVER STORY. I CAN'T ABIDE AMATEURS POSING AS EXPERTS, OF WHICH HE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE. LIFTON GOT IT RIGHT. THE WOUNDS WERE ALTERED (IN PARTICULAR, HUMES TOOK A SAW TO THE CRANIUM TO ENLARGEN THE HEAD WOUND AND THE THROAT WOUND WAS BUTCHERED TO MAKE IT RESEMBLE SOMETHING MORE LIKE A WOUND OF EXIT). THESE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN THE BOOKS I HAVE PUBLISHED ON JFK, WHERE DOUG HORNE'S INSIDE THE ARRB (2009) PROVIDES POWERFUL CONFIRMATION.

Mr Fetzer finds the following statement which is rather mindful and respectfull of our differences to be deeply offensive.

"So while I find Mr Fetzers critiques understandable, considering his positons on various issues. I am still scratching my head on precisely why he needed to bring me into all this and also why he felt a need to take my comments out of context."

THE AMBULANCE/CASKET STORY IS QUITE EXTRAORDINARY, WHERE HORNE HAS NAILED IT DOWN. AS WITH REGARD TO THE REST OF WHAT SAYS, COOGAN IS INFATUATED WITH TRIVIALITES AND HAS NO CAPACITY FOR COMPETENT RESEARCH. THAT HE AND DIEUGENIO AND PEASE SEEM TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE REFLECTS THE DISMAL STATE OF THE CTKA COMMUNITY. I WOULD NOT BE BOTHERING WITH HIM AT ALL EXCEPT THAT THOSE WHO KNOW NO BETTER MIGHT OTHERWISE BE TAKEN IN.

It's nice to know we feel the same way about each other. You still have not acknowledged once any issue pertaining to the context in any way.

FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO VIEW MY MOST RECENT JFK LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MAIDSON, SEE

"What happend to JFK--and why it matters today"
http://noliesradio.org/archives/40500

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I thought I said at the beginning that the above argument has been hashed and rehashed. JFhas often admitted in this reply that Hankey is certainly not right. But he has then attacked myself Immediately after. If Hankey is so wrong why did Mr Fetzer team up with him? It seems that it is simply because CTKA do not like his research. Thus I predict Mr Fetzer will involve himself with the bogus JFK/MJ-12 Documents. In fact Hankey is the Anti CTKA or maybe we are the Anti Fetzer? No it's the way it roles I Imagine Jim Fetzer will start endorsing the MJ-12 documents as possibly real, in particularly the first batch. Who knows he may well just go for the fake MJ-12 Monroe document. He is after all hanging out regularly with John Lear who believes Eisenhower actually met Nordic Aryan Aliens. Joe Farrell, Hoagland and a ton of others will be willing allies to have themselves legitimised by Fetzers stamp. I honestly cannot see him resisting the temptation to have his ego stroked by these guys.o

Lol well I wish Mr Fetzer all the luck in the world pulling together some of the worst researchers in the JFK and Alien zone to take on CTKA. Because, well in doing so he is not just taking on CTKA. Without being overly melodramatic, he is effectively assaulting a great intersection where many JFK groups and researchers not only that rational conspiracy researchers of many different shades have increasingly begun to converge with common interests. CTKA doesn't pretend to speak for everyone. But as said it's a common link many share.

In saying all that Jim, Lisa and all CTKA contributors would love to work with JF, in unraveling who that foolish fellow called Ron was on the Ventura show. We don't think it was Mr Fetzer, in fact we want to prove too Duncan McRae and his lot that it was not the good professor. I think thats a really good initiative that could really clear the air between us all. Yet Mr Fetzer's not wanting to clear his name increases suspicion it was him or he was involved.