09-01-2012, 05:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2012, 07:07 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
Jim,
This is a more professional response on this thread, which I greatly appreciate. I have
have sent it to John for comments. Apparently, you are aware of earlier responses on
JFKmurdersolved, so it might have been a good idea to have posted that along with it.
But I have asked John if he has already replied and suggested he check out this thread.
What I find especially obnoxious about Seamus Coogan is that he dismisses point after
point with a wave of the hand and no proof at all. In relation to Madeleine, he claims
her story has been debunked, but that is complete and total rubbish. I had more than
100 conversation with Madeline. She was completely credible and well corroborated.
Her books about the assassination (DALLAS DID IT! and TEXAS IN THE MORNING)
are supported by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, Barr McClelland, BLOOD, MONEY
& POWER, E. Howard Hunt's "Final Confession", Phil Nelson's LBJ: MASTERMIND OF
JFK'S ASSASSINATION, and other sources, including Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men".
It seems to me--from taking a look at your list--that you are taking for granted that
you are right and others who disagree with you are wrong. Seamus is an appallingly
bad representative of CTKA, in my opinion, and tarnishes whatever good you may be
doing. I won't go through your list just now, but that seems to be the bottom line.
Some of this is a matter of sources and of interpretations, but some of this is not.
It especially bothers me that you seem to be making claims for which you offer no
support, some about the medical evidence, the ballistics and the photographic and
film evidence. Take these claims for which--like the others--you offer no support:
6. There were not 6, but 7 wounds in JBC and JFK
JFK was hit four times: in the back from behind; in the throat from in front; and
in the head twice, once from behind and once from in front. If you count exits as
well as entries, then he had five wounds, where speaking in terms of "hits" would
be more precise, since there was also an exit wound at the back of JFK's head.
John Connally had an entry wound in his back, an exit wound in his chest, and
wounds in his right wrist and left thigh. So there were actually five in JFK and
four more in Connally, which means that this claim of yours is provably false.
11. David Lifton's theory of body hijacking is not proven and accepted.
Well, it certainly is by every serious student of the case I know--and has been
thoroughly substantiated by Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). Jerrol
Custer, whom I knew, for example, reported having been surprised to see
Jackie and the official entourage at the front of the hospital when he was on
his way taking X-rays to be developed, because the body was already in the
morgue and the autopsy was underway. I find it difficult to believe that, at
this stage of research on the assassination, you would not understand that.
Many of the questions you raise as objections to Hankey's work are not as
serious as the two for which I have just faulted you. There are more, of
course, but I find it very disappointing that you do not know the medical,
ballistic, and photographic and film evidence better, because you pose as
an expert on the assassination, but some of your work is incompetent. I
find Coogan's savage and venomous attacks to be a complete disgrace,
but for you to fault Hankey when much of your own work cannot pass
scrutiny is a bad omen, both relative to you and to CTKA as an entity.
You should not be hypercritical when your work is also flawed. None of
us has everything completely right, but your attack dog is doing not just
me but the research community as serious disservice. Why you think you
are the arbiter of truth regarding the assassination of JFK is beyond me.
I think it would be a good idea to rein in your attack dog and do more to
provide serious and sympathetic criticism when you think someone has
it wrong. Your response is overwhelmingly more professionan than the
largely ad hominem attack on me that initiated this thread. John is not
without his flaws, but that, no doubt, may also be said of you and me.
Jim
This is a more professional response on this thread, which I greatly appreciate. I have
have sent it to John for comments. Apparently, you are aware of earlier responses on
JFKmurdersolved, so it might have been a good idea to have posted that along with it.
But I have asked John if he has already replied and suggested he check out this thread.
What I find especially obnoxious about Seamus Coogan is that he dismisses point after
point with a wave of the hand and no proof at all. In relation to Madeleine, he claims
her story has been debunked, but that is complete and total rubbish. I had more than
100 conversation with Madeline. She was completely credible and well corroborated.
Her books about the assassination (DALLAS DID IT! and TEXAS IN THE MORNING)
are supported by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, Barr McClelland, BLOOD, MONEY
& POWER, E. Howard Hunt's "Final Confession", Phil Nelson's LBJ: MASTERMIND OF
JFK'S ASSASSINATION, and other sources, including Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men".
It seems to me--from taking a look at your list--that you are taking for granted that
you are right and others who disagree with you are wrong. Seamus is an appallingly
bad representative of CTKA, in my opinion, and tarnishes whatever good you may be
doing. I won't go through your list just now, but that seems to be the bottom line.
Some of this is a matter of sources and of interpretations, but some of this is not.
It especially bothers me that you seem to be making claims for which you offer no
support, some about the medical evidence, the ballistics and the photographic and
film evidence. Take these claims for which--like the others--you offer no support:
6. There were not 6, but 7 wounds in JBC and JFK
JFK was hit four times: in the back from behind; in the throat from in front; and
in the head twice, once from behind and once from in front. If you count exits as
well as entries, then he had five wounds, where speaking in terms of "hits" would
be more precise, since there was also an exit wound at the back of JFK's head.
John Connally had an entry wound in his back, an exit wound in his chest, and
wounds in his right wrist and left thigh. So there were actually five in JFK and
four more in Connally, which means that this claim of yours is provably false.
11. David Lifton's theory of body hijacking is not proven and accepted.
Well, it certainly is by every serious student of the case I know--and has been
thoroughly substantiated by Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). Jerrol
Custer, whom I knew, for example, reported having been surprised to see
Jackie and the official entourage at the front of the hospital when he was on
his way taking X-rays to be developed, because the body was already in the
morgue and the autopsy was underway. I find it difficult to believe that, at
this stage of research on the assassination, you would not understand that.
Many of the questions you raise as objections to Hankey's work are not as
serious as the two for which I have just faulted you. There are more, of
course, but I find it very disappointing that you do not know the medical,
ballistic, and photographic and film evidence better, because you pose as
an expert on the assassination, but some of your work is incompetent. I
find Coogan's savage and venomous attacks to be a complete disgrace,
but for you to fault Hankey when much of your own work cannot pass
scrutiny is a bad omen, both relative to you and to CTKA as an entity.
You should not be hypercritical when your work is also flawed. None of
us has everything completely right, but your attack dog is doing not just
me but the research community as serious disservice. Why you think you
are the arbiter of truth regarding the assassination of JFK is beyond me.
I think it would be a good idea to rein in your attack dog and do more to
provide serious and sympathetic criticism when you think someone has
it wrong. Your response is overwhelmingly more professionan than the
largely ad hominem attack on me that initiated this thread. John is not
without his flaws, but that, no doubt, may also be said of you and me.
Jim
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Hoover wrote: "Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy" , Fetzer feels that somehow not credible. Well the problem here is that it is NOT Hoover saying this, it is the State Department, which makes perfect sense. Since Kennedy had banned all raids against Cuba from US territory in the wake of the Missile Crisis and his "no invasion pledge" to the Russians. (BTW, the memo does not say that the Cubans "loved" Kennedy. It says they are "stunned" , and that his death is a "great loss" to Latin America. If you know anything about Kennedy's policies there, this makes sense coming from State Dept.)
I edited Seamus' review of Hankey. So if the article is suspect, then I am suspect. The original piece was much longer but I thought it was overkill. So I cut it down by about 20 pages.
Now, let us go through some of the errors in the video and in his writings:
1. Prescott Bush was not really the creator of the CIA. There is no evidence of that.
2. Arbenz and Mossadegh were not killed in CIA coups.
3. The memo does not say that Bush went to CIA HQ to be briefed or that he was a "supervisor" of Cuban exiles.
4. The book "Brothers" does not foster a CIA, Cuban exiles-Mafia plot against Kennedy.
5. Hankey did not find the memo by Hoover concerning Bush.
6. There were not 6, but 7 wounds in JBC and JFK
7. Do you think there were 13 bullets used in the assassination?
8. Ms. Glanges was not a doctor at the time of the murder.
9, Both Secret Service agents were not turned around at the time Kennedy was killed.
10. JBC did not see JFK choking on a bullet and being shot in the head.
11. David Lifton's theory of body hijacking is not proven and accepted.
12. The conspirators did not know they had to alter the body that the time they arrested Oswald.
13. Helms did not write the Hunt memorandum.
14. Where is the evidence that Hunt was actually a CIA hit man? Or shot at Kennedy?
15. What is the evidence that Phillips was Oswald's "recruitment officer"?
16. The Bay of Pigs code name was not due to Bush's oil company.
17. Nixon did not bring Hunt into the WHite House.
18. Hunt was not really working for Nixon in 1972.
19. What is the evidence that Hunt was working for Nixon back in 1963?
20. What is the evidence that Nixon was involved in the plot to kill JFK?
21. The Ruby-Nixon document was not "recently " discovered, and is very likely a forgery
22. What is the proof that LBJ knew Nixon was involved in the JFK murder?
23. What is the evidence that JBC lured JFK to Texas and was one of the plotters?
24. The US did not enter WW 2 in 1942, but in 1941.
25. Hoover did not discover the German ties of Union Bank, and nothing was done to Prescott Bush as a result..
26. Hunt was not found guilty of murder in the Liberty Lobby trial.
27. Prescott Bush was not the main benefactor of DIck Nixon as he rose to power.
28. It was not Allen Dulles' ties to Nazi bankers that made him CIA DIrector
29, Dulles was not the first CIA DIrector
30. Prescott Bush was not equal in the intelligence community with Dulles, and he was not the puppet master for Dulles at CIA.
I am about halfway through the video. And the second half of the video is even worse than the first. Which means this list could easily be doubled in length. Can you show me where Seamus was wrong in these criticisms? IF he was wrong, I would have double checked the source. By the way, when I placed this list at JFK Murder Solved, Wim D locked the thread. But he then let Hankey have the last word.
I as a person, and CTKA as an entity cannot support such work.
Len Osanic and myself are trying to forge a real alternative media at BOR and CTKA. One that you can trust as being factually based and not based on someone's view of what they would LIKE to think. To me, this is as bad as what the MSM does. Its not what CTKA is about, and its not what BOR should be about. For it fosters another type of false history.
BTW, I am not ipso facto against someone showing Bush was involved in the JFK case. I am just saying that neither Hankey nor Baker has done it.