Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer?

[Seamus Coogan]

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.

Realising he is in some very deep trouble with the forum.

Mr Fetzer now plays coy to Jim Di. Why? Because he really doesn't understand the context
of the Hankey case. Nor how much more work on George Bush's role (or lack of it) we have done at CTKA. Thus rather than go over the arguments by us in our articles. Instead, he runs back and ask's Hankey. How bizarre is all of this? What researcher brings up a discredited argument from a discredited person, against the very people that discredited both a long time before? I've heard of 'The Walking Dead' but this is getting hilarious.

John Hankey has never actually touched on Jims allegations, let alone mine. When he has, he has invariably played the old chestnut that he has gotten some stuff wrong, but his chief thesis is intact. Well Mr Hankey has changed his tack (and his story around) numerous times. Fetzer should also know, that had he really read my reply to his Veterans Today article. There are actually about Four different articles about Hankey at CTKA. Further Hankey's reply to Jim DiEugenio omitted a number of facts and edited out whole tracts of his reply on his silly hidden web page. Which he never will admit doing.

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".

I think being called obnoxious by JF, is grossly hypocritical. I will also add that I have utilised my evidence against Fetzer's claims numerous times in numerous essays and in numerous posts. If he cannot read what is the point? Because regardless of it all Mr Fetzer, is not going to change his mind. But for the giddy delight of cutting and pasting for his Royal Highness, I'll lay it on him. This is from the CTKA Alex Jones piece in 2010.

Almost on top of Jones "blue blood" call, he then promotes Madeleine Brown. Brown may have met Democratic congressman Lyndon Johnson at a party in 1948 in Austin, and may have been one of his many female friends. It's ironic that Johnson purportedly bestowed the name Pussy Galore on her because Miss Galore, like Brown, is a fiction. (Bennett Woods, LBJ Architect of American Ambition, pg, 247). Brown's most way-out claim is that she was present at a secret party in Texas where Richard Nixon, John McLoy, J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, and oil baron Clint Murchison, Sr.or his son Junior, depending on whose concocted story you readand other luminaries planned Kennedy's assassination on the evening of the 21st of November, 1963.
Firstly, Johnson himself was seen by a few thousand people and filmed that night in the company of President Kennedy at the Houston Coliseum. Johnson didn't arrive in Fort Worth until 11.05 pm on the night of the 21st of November, and it is roundly reported that he wound up his day in the same hotel at a very late hour with his advisors. (William Manchester, Death of a President, pgs. 135, 138).

The same goes for Dick Nixon, who was in town that night with Joan Crawford. This was widely reported in the Dallas press and was still being reported until fairly late that evening. (The Dallas Morning News, Friday, November 22, 1963, Section 1-19) Kai Bird's autobiography describes John McCloy hearing the news of the assassination while having breakfast with former President Eisenhower. (The Chairman, p. 544) As for Hoover, according to Anthony Summers, it is highly likely (to the point of absolute certainty) that J. Edgar Hoover, like McCloy, was nowhere near Texas at the time. For instance, the next day he was calling Bobby Kennedy from his Washington office at around 1:34 P.M EST with news of the shooting. (Summers, Official and Confidential, p. 394). In fact, in none of the standard biographies of HooverPowers, Theoharis, Gentry, or Summersdoes anyone note him being in Texas that evening.

A Dallas-to-Washington round trip is around 3-4 hours each way. Why would two very powerful and highly visible 68-year-olds fly to Dallas, Texas to meet with Johnson at some ungodly hour, well after 11:00 P.M CST, compromising themselves in the process, and then fly back from Dallas, arriving home anywhere between 3:00-5:00 AM the following morning? Why do all that when a sinister meeting in Washington could have easily been arranged prior to events. And anyway, as Jim DiEugenio has said, the idea of organizing the plot just a night before is silly (Please see: Jim DiEugenio; Black Op Radio, Show #476, May 28, 2010.)

Now how about the ludicrious 'Connally was involved in the JFK shoot'. Which funnily enough in Hankey's latest incarnations in writing and in interviews. (after backing Connally to the hilt) he seems to have dropped lol. So much for CTKA's observations not making him change anything. You see, Hankey avoided LBJ which was a wise move but then pulled in Governor Connally. In so doing Hankey spliced footage and blatantly altered testimony. I believe Mr Fetzer calls this a simple mistake. It's a calculated deception! Anyhow, let's look at the problems with involving Connally in on the scene. This is from the very film JFK II which Jim Fetzer seems to defend. Yet obviously he has not yet seen.

Hankey tells us that it was Connally "Who held Kennedy's hand and pretended nothing was going on as he led him into the killing zone." The inference here is that Kennedy was lured to Dallas by Connally and the conspirators. But that's not true. Kennedy's trip to Dallas was discussed with Johnson and Connally in June and formal planning began in September of 1963. It happened for a variety of reasons. Two of them were to raise funds for the upcoming election in 1964, and to heal the rift between between Connally and Yarbrough (WCR pg. 27)


It's a little known fact that Connally, who encouraged Jackie to come along, was not keen on the idea of the president coming to Dallas. Why? Because Kennedy divided Connally's centrist conservative constituency which represented the accumulated wealth of Texas. Thus rather than enthusiastically organise rallies and functions, Connally dithered and seems to have done all he could to get the trip over and done with as quickly as possible. (Jim Reston, The Lone Star: The Life of John Connally pgs. 240-260) Connally opposed a parade route. The parade route was specifically organised by Secret Service men Winston Lawson and Forrest Sorrels, who overrode the Dallas authorities they were supposed to plan it with. Connally loudly voiced security concerns about the final venue's size, referring to the Trade Mart's balcony and 53 entrances. He was also uninformed of the actual parade route (WCR pgs 27-30; Vince Palamara: Survivors Guilt pgs 2-9)


Is Hankey implying what I think he's implying here? That Connally was willing to place himself and his wife in harm's way and almost have himself killed, just so he could lie about the direction of the shots? When in fact there was confusd testimony about this anyway? Why risk one's life over something like that?

Jim Di has an even more improved version of this in his Part V of Doug Horne. In which he also adds Connally's 11/24/67 interview in which he discussed being concerned with the arrangements of JFK's visit.

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/horn_jd_pt4-5.html.

I could have had a hundred conversations with Pol Pot. That wouldn't give him any more credibility than if we'd had 300. Not for the last time, I don't understand your logic here. In my article on John Hankey with Frank Cassano (one you have no idea existed). Your pal John Hankey called Maddie Brown a hooker. You may wanna ask John Hankey about that. With respect to Bernice Moore and Dawn, after looking around, I do find Brown a little more of a sympathetic figure than the others. I do believe she had a fling with LBJ. I obviously don't buy the Murchison party. At the very least the poor woman had an excuse for getting done for insurance fraud. Help, if I was in her situation I'd have peddled my ass down Elm Street. Brown also made the classic comment often forgotten by the LBJ mastermind crowd, that Johnson told her oil men and the CIA did Kennedy. Not to mention that Vasilios has recently itemised a whole swath of Johnsons comments about a conspiracy.

Anyhow, the other guys below who all advocated for Browns story were all pretty wealthy and had no excuses for any criminal activity whatsoever. It is highly interesting the amount of dubious people hanging around the 'Johnson did it' scene who were all caught trying to make a quick buck?

Billy Sol Estes: Convicted Felon twice jailed for dishonesty offences. Known Fraud.
For Fetzer he has unquestionable moral fibre and is a totally credible guy.

Barr McClellan: Convicted forger. Had plans for the Kennedy hit made in his office. McClellan's claims
led Nigel Turner to successfully be sued for defamation. Walt Brown disowned the book
after initially being supportive. The referencing was next to non existant like another of your heroes Zirbel.

Zirbell also get's dealt a blow in Jims review of Horne and he also gets dealt another in my review of Joe Farrell. A bloke you oh so enthusiastically recommended to us all. Why? Simply because it said 'LBJ did it' simple as that. I could carve the face of LBJ on a potatoe and I have the sinking feeling that you would ask for his autograph. Here's the evidence for that Jim. http://www.ctka.net/2011/failings_farrell.html

There's also evidence of your exultant championing of Farrell's book you never read. Then realising it was turd you suddenly said it was disinformation distracting the world from Phil Nelson.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=17378 and here at DPF https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...-Interests

E Howard Hunt: Convicted burglar and wire tapper Whom Even John Hankey once said "If E Howard Hunt said LBJ did it. It's a good enough reason to believe he didn't." Hunt to my knowledge never, ever endorsed Miss Brown. So why
you include him here is odd. Not to mention dishonest.

Phil Nelson: The only non felon of the lot. Mr Fetzer believes him to be as good as Jim Douglas and that his book is the natural forerunner for Douglas. Dreams are so very very free apparently. Funny thing is he admitted to me Gerald Ven and Al Doyle on Lancer that he wasn't as good as Douglas, Lisa Pease or Jim DiEugenio.

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.

I find this ironic once again. Jim and I are more than prepared to be proven wrong. Note, that when we are-if there's HTML time we change our comments and or acknowledge the blooper on a forum in full public view. It is you Professor that cannot handle someone disagreeing with you. Further, unlike other mortals you have no humility if you are wrong. Further that, I am wondering when you are going to start appealing to the mods on here too have me kicked off like you did last time. That was hilarious.

Anyhow Jim it only get's complex when people use lies or half baked information. Of course you have never done that!

Or have you? Here's a sampling big guy.

Advocating for Ed Lansdale to be Pentagon in your review of James Bamfords dubious book (Lansdale was actually CIA in case you didn't know Jim).
http://www.ctka.net/2010/OpNorthwoods.html

How about Greg Douglas you were a huge fan of his. Fortean Times and Robin Ramsay had a giggle at your expense. http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/...cator.html

Didn't you mention to Jim and I about the fake Ruby-Nixon document in your reply to me? Well this was in that Hankey piece of mine. You see all the evidence or documentation you demand is actually in works you have criticised but doh! You have never read. Like my critique of Hankey you blatantly misquoted myself in.

45:23 Hankey seeks to further cement Nixon's role in the assassination by enlisting the aid of a dubious document that links Jack Ruby to Nixon in 1947 as part of Nixon's House Un-American Activities Committee purge. One problem is that Nixon was a freshman in the role as junior counsel in 1947. He would make his spurs prosecuting Alger Hiss the next year, which led to his vice presidential nomination in 1952 (Richard M Fried: Nightmare in Red. The McCarthy Era, pgs 17-22). The Ruby document has come to be treated with suspicion by practically all but the most questionable researchers today. For instance, it refers to "Jack Rubenstein" living in Chicago in November of 1947, when he had moved to Dallas by that time. Second, Rubenstein had changed his name to Ruby the year before. (Seth Kantor, The Ruby Cover-Up, pgs 203, 208) Also, the document carries a zip code when they did not exist at the time. (Some, have tried to explain the zip code problem as the document being a composite, since the letterhead is from the FBI but the information seems to originate with the HUAC. This ignores the fact that the FBI worked with the HUAC hand-in-glove; to the point of lending the committee assistants and even staffers. Whoever forged the document understood that. Curt Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets, p.354) Finally, Hankey says that this document which allegedly has Ruby working for Nixon in the forties, was "recently discovered". In fact, it surfaced decades ago.

Heres an independant analysis here by Gary Buell.

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2006/1...ument.html


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.

The issue of the bullets is an interesting debate I'll side with Jim Di here nothing personal of course.
But the issue is this. Why Mr Fetzer, did you imply that I believed there were no shooters from multiple angles?
When all I questioned was Hankey's poor production skills concerning this issue. That was my chief concern.
At this point in time I don't give a sod about the amount of bullets. So I also scold Jim Di on this lol

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.

Ahhhhhh hold on there Mr Fetzer. There are a ton of people who disagree with you. In fact
you are in a sizeable minority on the issue. Forgive me for being with the majority on
this but due to my innate conservatism and my dislike of chasing red herrings, I'll stay put.
To say you have the definitive word when the entire autopsy is a mess. Not even
your opponents like Wecht, Weisberg, Feinman and Aguilar claim they know all that happened.
What makes you so bold and what makes you so much better?

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.

I find this really interesting. The ad Hominem attack came from Mr Fetzer
amidst the lies and distortions he made about my comments. Thus I like the little bit of
false modesty chucked in at the end there. A kind of 'we can work together sort of thing'.
'without Seamus' hahahahahaha very nice. Well sorry, Jim Di agrees with me that
If we can work together the first stop is to find the real identity of Ron that would be a start.
But don't expect Jim Di the owner to be too be pleased about you talking smack about his own logic, reasoning not to
mention his dog, who you baited and got your armed ripped off.