09-01-2012, 02:55 PM
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.
I do not disagree with any of those statements, except possibly 23, and that is just speculation on my part. I tried to find Hankey's video on JFK jr yesterday and could only find a piece on you tube. That piece dealt with many of the above statements, and I agree there is no evidence. The flight instructor issue is interesting if the valve was truned in a suicide mode, but he offers no proof that there was such a flight instructor except to say that John always flew with one. On other JFK Jr sites I have seen statements that say there was an explosion in the sky right where John's plane would have been. So yes I agree that Hankey makes mistakes that overall nearly destroy the value of his work. But I still think Baker did a good job on his Bush evidence. And the book overall. One of your concerns was that he did not go into certain areas, that you felt to be very relevent. One can always find this kind of fault with any book. My main complaint is that you, Seamus and others seem to be trying to ignore the role of the Bush family in these matters. I knew almost zero about Bush when Ford made him head of the CIA but that alone greatly aroused my suspicion given Ford's role in covering up the assassination of JFK. I will at some point re-read Baker's book together with your review.
Dawn