Why no reply on George Bush Mr Fetzer?

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Hi Seamus

The question was "Do you believe that LBJ was the man who ultimately decided authorized and ordered the execution of President kennedy?"

[Seamus Coogan]

Hi Seamus

The question was "Do you believe that LBJ was the man who ultimately decided authorized and ordered the execution of President kennedy?"

Well if he turns up here I'll let you ask him lol.

[Seamus Coogan]

I came across this comment from JF over at the Ed Forum.

"A common technique in disinformation is for one op to post an article or other false claim and
for another to "discover it" and reinforce it by citing it. John McAdams, for example, has been
touting Tink's book as the most important of all the conspiracy books. That is ridiculous on its
face, since the analysis of three shooters and four shots that he presents in SIX SECONDS
(1967) was superseded by Richard Sprague's more painstaking analysis in COMPUTERS AND
AUTOMATION (May 1970). But it makes excellent sense if the point is to puff him up so that his
denunciation of conspiracy in the death of JFK can be touted as a "major event", when it is
anything but. Even then, I doubt that I am aware of any less valuable contributors to JFK
than Seamus Coogan and Jim Phelps. Time spent on either of them, in my view, is wasted.
But I certainly find it interesting that Phelps is touting Coogan. It does fit a particular pattern.
Coogan, by the way, is not even talking about this presentation but attacking John Hankey, who
has more to contribute than either of them. The moderators seem to be handling him appropriately."

Now I really don't know about you guys, but what is Mr Fetzer talking about?

Jim Phelps is not everyones cup of tea and to his credit he knows it. I'll also add he drives me bonkers at times. But despite that he is actually a pretty decent (if driven) bloke and when he relaxes on stuff he can be pretty helpful. Phelps, saw my piece here asking for a reply. Now despite my writing some rather rough stuff about him in the past. He was man enough to put it behind him and stuck it up on the Ed Forum under Fetzer's latest post (note that I also posted on Fetzers thread here and he did not reply). Thus I was quite humbled by this gesture from Jim. So cheers, I don't know if I am in thrall enough to stop CD giving him a tickling here or indeed anyone else lol.

But it's good to get a lesson every now and again, that it's the ideas and not the person you should attack or dislike. Ultimately Jim was the bigger person than myself.

But it's what JF say's here which is very misleading. I am not really 'attacking' anyone, least of all Hankey whom I give about a paragraph or two too. Fetzer is now hiding behind the issue of Hankey. Its as if he never involved himself in it. As said in an earlier post. As much as I differ from Mr Fetzer, I don't think of him as being a dishonest person. At least I don't want too think it. But after these comments I really do have some serious questions.

To reiterate. My concerns are simply about Mr Fetzer's misleading and confusing comments he made about myself and CTKA. An organisation he called CITKA in his original article. I would like those concerns I posted addressed. It is really that simple. Note his comment about the Moderators handling him appropriately. Ahhhh, come again Jim? Indeed the mods here have done brilliantly by letting me post. I am sure that were my tone and manner inappropriate, that I would be pinged. As it stands-I know a few people very interested in seeing if JF will reply. If someone here felt slighted or wanted an explanation or a clarification on a point I have made I would give it, even if it mean't I had to clarify a point in a debate or indeed admit I was wrong or apologise.

Is it to much too want the same thing?

[James H. Fetzer]

All,

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.

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,

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.

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. . . .

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.

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.

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.

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!

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".

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. 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:

"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/

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. 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 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? 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/

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. 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.

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

[Dawn Meredith]

I have long been troubled by the attacks on authors who trash the amazing amount of research that connects Bush to both the assassination of JFK and the CIA decades before Warren Commissoner Gerry Ford appointed him head of the Company. I personally know people who refuse to read Russ Baker's fine book based totally on Jim D's review. I have addressed this with Jim and still do not understand his attack. Same with John Hankey. I have not seen JFK 11 and it's literally been years since I saw the first video but I recall that there was much to recommend it. Sure there were flaws, some huge ones, like the sugestion that W had JFK Jr. killed based on where he was or was not that day. Or that it was a father son killing. (ie Poppy killed JFK and W killed JFK jr- that is shoddy journalism.)

I do not believe Jim D. or Coogan to be disinformationists, nor do I believe JF to be such. Honest disagreements can and do exist. And huge egos. To the utter detriment of our cause.

Dawn

[Peter Lemkin]

Amen, as in 'talk it lady!'

[Jan Klimkowski]

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!

Complete nonsense.

Jim - you have launched numerous vitriolic attacks on members - some as part of a crude bunfight, eg with Seamus, and some purely because members dared to provide evidence countering yours.

The default position of the mods here at DPF has been to assume that almost any thread in which you are involved will get nasty and personal, and out of ennui we let you get on with it....

[Charles Drago]

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!

Complete nonsense.

Jim - you have launched numerous vitriolic attacks on members - some as part of a crude bunfight, eg with Seamus, and some purely because members dared to provide evidence countering yours.

The default position of the mods here at DPF has been to assume that almost any thread in which you are involved will get nasty and personal, and out of ennui we let you get on with it....

"Temerity," Jim?

No.

Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence AND who lays claim to the title deep political scientist who goes on to argue that LBJ was the "mastermind" or "pivotal player" of/in that crime opens him/herself to ridicule and other forms of disrespect.

"Nonsense," Jan?

Yes.

We are at war with JFK's killers. And when Jim Fetzer or anyone else appears on these pages and, wittingly or otherwise, endeavors to protect the assassinations's true Sponsors by attempting to promote false Sponsor status for LBJ and/or others, they will be dealt with appropriately -- that is, severely.

"Ennui," Jan?

I suppose ... Anything good to eat around here?

[Jan Klimkowski]

"Ennui," Jan?

I suppose ... Anything good to eat around here?

With the sheer quantity of snake oil being aggressively peddled in these parts, it's hardly surprizing that some acts as a soporific.....

[Seamus Coogan]

I have long been troubled by the attacks on authors who trash the amazing amount of research that connects Bush to both the assassination of JFK and the CIA decades before Warren Commissoner Gerry Ford appointed him head of the Company. I personally know people who refuse to read Russ Baker's fine book based totally on Jim D's review. I have addressed this with Jim and still do not understand his attack. Same with John Hankey. I have not seen JFK 11 and it's literally been years since I saw the first video but I recall that there was much to recommend it. Sure there were flaws, some huge ones, like the sugestion that W had JFK Jr. killed based on where he was or was not that day. Or that it was a father son killing. (ie Poppy killed JFK and W killed JFK jr- that is shoddy journalism.)<br>
<br>
I do not believe Jim D. or Coogan to be disinformationists, nor do I believe JF to be such. Honest disagreements can and do exist. And huge egos. To the utter detriment of our cause.<br>
<br>
Dawn

<br>
<br>
Lol I have to disagree Dawn. The research on GWB has been very indepth at CTKA. Before I did Hankey mate, I really thought that GWB had a chance of being involved. Seriously, I only got into it too disprove the bogus idea of Hankeys that Prescott Bush was running the CIA. I effectively did that but as I got into it I realised how far gone even the Bush JR being involved was. As far as collossal ego's. Well that's unfair. I for a fact can admit fault, I can also admit I have been foolish or egotistical. Indeed I can also admit I get stuff wrong. So can Jim Di. Now, I do not think Mr Fetzer has any self reflection. So yeah, I truly think that Jim and I are no where near the Professors levels and it's a shame you view us like that. <br>
<br>
Nonetheless please take a look at the Bush stuff again when you get some time. Their really is a difference between reading theJFK material and going through the nuts and bolts taking notes as you well know being a lawyer. But yeah it's only way to really resolve and see where the issues are. <br>
<br>
But cheers for the comments. Your keeping us all honest as per usual. <br>
<br>
As for that lad Lemkin, he'll keep lol. I'm dying for a beer at the moment I wonder what he drinks?