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.

[Jim DiEugenio]

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.

[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

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.

[Dawn Meredith]

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

[Dawn Meredith]

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

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 too met Madeleine and found her to be both a delight and credible. However she was also likely adding to her tale. I forget the circumstances surrounding the son she had allegedly with LBJ, just that he died young. I recall that she blamed him, but could be misremembering. I was in the very center of the entire Mac Wallace matter, friends with Barr, Jay, Nathan and Richard but....do I believe Wallace shot JFK? I am afraid there are too many holes in the story told by Barr vs. Sample. I do believe Nathan Darby's match. He showed me many times and I never really "got" it until a small birthday party I had here for him in 03. He, Richard Bartholomew and I sat on my living room couch and he patiently showed us all the matches. Additionally his home was enterred and his Wallace file was stolen, only that file from under his bed, a burglar alarm bypassed. He lived with his son and family a block away from me. That was the only time I saw him afraid. Who would take this evidence and why? (However this does not prove Wallace shot JFK).

I wish everyone would stop with the LBJ mastermind stuff. It is just not the case. A vice president does not have that level of power. I believe completely that LJB wanted Kennedy dead and was involved, but mastermind? Jim that is what gets CD and others going. No-one one here is suggesting that LBJ was not involved. As to body alteration, I read Lifton's book when it first came out and was very persuaded, then the segment from TMWKK- The Smoking Guns- seems to augment that evidence. However it is just as likely that the autopsy photos were tampered with. But truly does it matter? Can we ever know all the details? Doesn't it get very wearing, as Vince Salandria pointed out so long ago? The powers that can take out a president on a lovely Friday afternoon almost fifty years ago and keep it covered up extend to reaches far beyond the Vice Presidency. No matter how many Wallace killed for LBJ, and I do believe there were many, I do believe Billie Sol, it stopped way short of LBJ masterminding the murder of JFK. Can't we all just move on and try to unite behind a common goal for the 50th anniversary? That extremely powerful forces assassinated JFK and these same forces control the media and make it complicit in the coverup. Surely you do not believe a dead LBJ controls the media.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

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".

Let me try to be charitable: The above is the product of a naif.

To rely upon the criminal and professional prevaricator Estes, the unsubstantiated and apparently disturbed McClelland, and the master propagandist, professional intelligence officer, serial liar and JFK assassination accessory Hunt for corroboration of any postulate up to and including "the eastern horizon lightens at dawn because the sun rises in the east" is to surrender all claims to possession of rational thought processes.

And Turner's "The Guilty Men" does not "support" Brown's story; rather, it REPORTS BROWN'S STORY. Thus Jim resorts to the sort of sophomoric circular argument that he would laugh out of his Logic 101 course.

Are you fooling yourself, Jim? Or are you trying to fool us?

And if the latter ... then why?

As for Nelson: As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this forum and elsewhere, he is nothing more than the latest in a line of cheapjack touts who, wittingly or otherwise, serve to preserve the JFK cover-up and protect the assassination's true Sponsors by nominating a false Sponsor -- in this case, LBJ.

So here's an idea for the prolific Professor Fetzer: Why don't you ask every contributor to Assassination Science, Murder in Dealey Plaza, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax to address these simple questions:


"In your informed opinion, was Lyndon Baines Johnson the prime mover and architect of the conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?"

"Did LBJ possess the power and authority to order the JFK assassination and to have his order implemented by powerful assets within U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies and other areas of the national/international power structure?"

"Was LBJ capable of crafting the JFK assassination conspiracy in all its complexity -- including the cover-up?"

"Do you agree with Phillip Nelson's assessment of LBJ as the 'mastermind' of the JFK assassination?"

"Do you accept the so-called 'confession' of E. Howard Hunt as a completely truthful statement made without hidden agendas to deceive and disinform?"



Don't screw around with the wording of the questions, Jim.

Don't be selective; ask each and every one of your contributors, Jim.

Don't back down from publishing their responses in full, Jim.

I am in the process of asking my partners at DPF if they will agree to publish responses in unedited form on these cyber-pages. We operate as a democracy, so the majority decision will rule. I'll keep everyone posted.

Many of your contributors may find themselves in the terribly uncomfortable position of having to disagree, publicly and most significantly, with a cherished colleague. They may be deeply troubled by the knowledge that their public confirmation of said disagreement likely would raise serious questions about their colleague's critical thinking skills -- for starters.

But I'm certain that they realize that what's at stake here far transcends preservation of the reputation of one philosopher.

So what will it be?

Are you game?

[James H. Fetzer]

Here's one of Seamus's major complaints: that I am not "popular" in the Truth movement, that I have undermined JFK research by promoting Zapruder film fakery, and that I have also become convinced that video fakery was involved in New York. The problem is that I have done research on these issues and Seamus Coogan, Lisa Pease, and Jim DiEugenio have not. On Zapruder film fakery, for example, I have done extensive research on this subject since 1996, when I organized the first symposium on the film at Lancer. I also organized the Zapruder Film Conference in Duluth in 2003. I published THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) and have published many articles about it, including these:

"New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

"Mary in the Street - Revisited"
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

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

Plus John Costella has a nice tutorial into to Z-film fakery:

"THE JFK ASSASSINATION FILM HOAX: AN INTRODUCTION"
http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

and there is a 66-part series about the Duluth conference I organized under
the title, "Zapruder Fakery", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY

On the issue of video fakery/planes/no planes, those who want to understand the issues must consider:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime
of 9/11" http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-i...1-366.html

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

"Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/11/inside-job-more-proof-of-911-duplicity/

"9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about 'Absurdities'"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/03/911-an-open-letter-to-anthony-lawson-about-absurdities/

Killtown on Shanksville,
http://www.nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim fetzer real deal-killtown 2010 Oct.mp3

And Pilots for 9/11 Truth has now discovered that Flights 93 (Shanksville) and 175 (South Tower) were i the air on 9/11, but that Flight 93 was in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Champaign, Illinois, at the time of its alleged crash in Shanksville; while Flight 175 was in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, at the time of its alleged crash into the South Tower. See http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ Since the same planes cannot be in two places at the same time, perhaps my critics want to consider how they are going to cope with this new evidence, which provides important proof supporting video fakery and the fabrication of evidence on 9/11. I don't care about popularity, which is not the measure of truth.

Why people like Seamus Coogan, Lisa Pease, or Jim DiEugeio would think they would know as much on subjects such as these as a professional scholar who has published more than 150 articles and 29 books is beyond me. I am thorough and painstaking in my research, where I interviewed 15 students of 9/11 who had studied video fakery/planes/no planes more extensively than had I before I became convinced that it had to have happened on 9/11. If anyone wants to study my work on Zapruder film fakery or videl fakery / planes / no planes, that's fine, but they need to know what they are talking about. To cite blogs and web sites as though those participating were competent, as Seamus Coogan does in this instance, is ridiculous beyond belief. It is shallow, ignorant and disgraceful, which is why I really cannot abide people like him.

SEAMUS COOGAN WROTE:

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'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 the only vote that's ever been held about your abilities and where you got unceremoniously voted out) do not consider you or Judyth wood members of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

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

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

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=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.

[Seamus Coogan]

Well fine but if people don't like you Jim, chances are they aren't going to like your arguments. I've had that before. Indeed I am guilty myself. But of course in your world you are the messiah. Who on earth starts rabbiting on about their University credentials when your behaviour and your reasoning. Not to mention your gullibilty for any new fad coming out of Langley makes people wonder if they are handing out Degrees in Cap 'n' Crunch boxes.

Further, weren't you trying to tell myself and the forum how much more 'exposure you had' and how insignificant CTKA was compared to the platforms you were on? Doesn't that neccessitate that you are more popular and weren't you trying lamely to brag about it?

A lot of other people have also studied what you have and come to different conclusions. Your viewpoint is not the only one on issues of fakery and so on. I tend to go with voices different to yours so do Jim and Lisa.

The points and arguments you make are nothing but a facade for misquoting and taking myself way out of context. Further as for Zap film alteration I might be wrong but I believe I never said that comment. In fact it was someone on one of the forums in the links I sent you. Depending on my mood I might agree or disagree with the sentiment. Irregardless by your peddling all manner of LBJ and false sponsors and John Hankey I agree with the sentiments expressed.

[Albert Doyle]

For those of us with limited brain circuitry, could the 9-11 information be kept to the 9-11 forum for both brevity and sanity's sake?

[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.