JFK Jr

[Seamus Coogan]

Dawn mate, Jan's right there's a lot more going on. Which Jan will explain to you. In the mean time heres a link http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...94391.html

There is also a thread here where Jan, CD and I have had some interesting exchanges on the matter. What annoys me is that I forget to book mark it lol.

This is where I hate posting digitally. The tone can be seriously misread. I am a little annoyed for sure lol. But please the following comments are not done in the tone of a man wanting to saw Dawns knee caps off. They are by a fellow coming down with the flu.

Dawn why should Jim, I or anybody have to have an opinion on JFK Jr's death? Why should I have to write anything about it lol. If you asked us kindly to do a piece countering Hankey or doing a straight article I'm sure Jim would consider it. But well, the job ultimately would get chucked around CTKA and eventually Muggins me would get the job. I'm pretty thorough in what I do and whether anyone agrees with me or not, it does take a hell of a lot out of you. Hence, I am inclined to be a tad lazy when it comes to JFK Jr. Thus I would get as much as I could from Lisa and expand on her writings. I would also examine the sources she finds credible. I'd then cap it off having a snoop around the forums and see who says what.

As I have already said in my first post, Lisa believes there are some very suspicious circumstances in it. As a result I concur with the problems. Now to my knowledge, Jim feels pretty much the same way as I do and would reference Lisa. I honestly don't think he's ignoring your questions in this regard. But taking time to reply to questions like yours actually requires more time. Being a lawyer, you well know the more ambiguous one is on any matter like this the longer the explanation lol. Jim's main pre-occupation was sticking up for me one minute and discussing Ross bloody Perot soon after lol. I do think it's a good question you could email him and then have him talk on BOR in his Q & A.

But I suspect his opinion won't be to far away from mine.

I hope this was helpful. But Dawn you would be more than welcome to write a piece on JFK Jr for Jim, if you ever had the time.

[Don Jeffries]

The problem with determining who is too "far out" or who might be a "disinfo" agent is that, depending upon who's setting the boundaries, a lot of us who are JFK assassination researchers could easily be placed in either category.

Like most everyone who has read his posts, it's simple for me to conclude that Robert Morrow is too obsessed with sex. It obviously detracts from any information he includes in his posts, and when he refrains from throwing in sexual references, his reputation has become such that many will still place little credence in anything he says.

The most eye-opening thing for me has been, in communicating with so many of you via forums and emails, to recognize how bombastic and difficult personalities seem to naturally gravitate to this subject. I include most of the "name" critics whom I've come to "know" in a cyber sense in this category. I think these personality conflicts, battles between huge egos, is what causes most of the fierce debates on internet forums. I have maintained to anyone who will listen that it is also what fuels interest in these forums. If you want to see what a strictly moderated, no "nonsense" forum is like, go to Lancer. It was very good at one time, but now it's become pretty boring, imho.

It takes a powerful personality to put yourself out there, where untold numbers of people will read your thoughts, and know that others, just as confident as you are, are waiting to tear them apart and tell you how wrong you are. It takes a lot of self-confidence to post regularly on these subjects. I'm confident, and I think it's obvious that most of you are, too. That makes for sometimes nasty arguments, but again, it's stimulating debate and even good theater.

I have found virtually no other JFK assassination researcher on the internet that I agree with all the time (but Jack White comes close). That being said, I believe in everyone's right to be heard, and will defend that right even when I disagree with them. That's hardly original, but I think Voltaire and Patrick Henry had it right.

As for JFK, Jr., I've been doing my own research for a potential non-fiction book I'm putting together (on a variety of subjects). I have become completely convinced that his plane was sabotaged, and he was killed. Maybe that's why I defend Hankey, because I think on that subject, he gets it right.

[Albert Doyle]

(At this stage there should really be no doubt in anyone's mind who has seriously studied the evidence that JFK Jr's Piper Saratoga did not crash as the result of pilot error nor due to innocuous mechanical failure.)

I'm not sure it was ever declared to be a mechanical failure. I think they claimed a graveyard spiral after JFK jr lost the horizon in twilight and pushed the yoke in the wrong direction causing an unrecoverable spin.

[Phil Dragoo]

Regarding Team Colby: see also McDill AFB request for software to create plausible artificial online personae.

Merely eccentric or disruptive by design: was that not the mission assigned one Lee Harvey Oswald in re Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

John F. Kennedy, Jr. Plane crash. 1999. It is perfect. Prove it is not.

Then prove Ron Brown and The Holey Skull.

Putin's opponent Lebed.

Dag Hammarskjold.

Dorothy Hunt.

Hale Boggs.

TWA 800.

Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or this helpful CIA cartoon.

Moral equivalence allowing the predictable monomania of the agenda-driven sex-obsessed or the Ministry of Truth's Terminator v.2.0 is the frog relaxing in the bath.

[Dawn Meredith]

The problem with determining who is too "far out" or who might be a "disinfo" agent is that, depending upon who's setting the boundaries, a lot of us who are JFK assassination researchers could easily be placed in either category.

Like most everyone who has read his posts, it's simple for me to conclude that Robert Morrow is too obsessed with sex. It obviously detracts from any information he includes in his posts, and when he refrains from throwing in sexual references, his reputation has become such that many will still place little credence in anything he says.

The most eye-opening thing for me has been, in communicating with so many of you via forums and emails, to recognize how bombastic and difficult personalities seem to naturally gravitate to this subject. I include most of the "name" critics whom I've come to "know" in a cyber sense in this category. I think these personality conflicts, battles between huge egos, is what causes most of the fierce debates on internet forums. I have maintained to anyone who will listen that it is also what fuels interest in these forums. If you want to see what a strictly moderated, no "nonsense" forum is like, go to Lancer. It was very good at one time, but now it's become pretty boring, imho.

It takes a powerful personality to put yourself out there, where untold numbers of people will read your thoughts, and know that others, just as confident as you are, are waiting to tear them apart and tell you how wrong you are. It takes a lot of self-confidence to post regularly on these subjects. I'm confident, and I think it's obvious that most of you are, too. That makes for sometimes nasty arguments, but again, it's stimulating debate and even good theater.

I have found virtually no other JFK assassination researcher on the internet that I agree with all the time (but Jack White comes close). That being said, I believe in everyone's right to be heard, and will defend that right even when I disagree with them. That's hardly original, but I think Voltaire and Patrick Henry had it right.

As for JFK, Jr., I've been doing my own research for a potential non-fiction book I'm putting together (on a variety of subjects). I have become completely convinced that his plane was sabotaged, and he was killed. Maybe that's why I defend Hankey, because I think on that subject, he gets it right.

Don
I will look very forward to your book.

As for Seamus' post all I can say is wow. You do not have a true opinion yet you felt strongly enough to write a very critical reivew of Hankey.
You're definately an odd one. As for me writing a book on JFK Jr. I have all I can do to keep up with my busy law practice, and reading tons of news, forums, etc.

Dawn

[Seamus Coogan]

Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

[Greg Burnham]

Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus and all,

Perhaps it is just me...but, Seamus: I have a difficult time of it--deciphering your rhetoric--and figuring out your meaning. Not always, but often. It appears to very possibly be a simple cultural difference in the use of various nuances of language. I have often taken your meaning much stronger than it later appeared you intended. A New Zealander might have immediately understood, but I did not. That door seems to have swung both ways, as well. This is not meant as a criticism or as a means to gloss over perhaps significant differences. It is suggested merely as a possibility.

[Dawn Meredith]

Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

If you did not write the Hankey review for CTKA I totally apolpgise. I should have gone back and looked first. I was typing from memory as I read the critical review a long time ago. Very sorry that I confused that review with another you did at CTKA.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

If you did not write the Hankey review for CTKA I totally apolpgise. I should have gone back and looked first. I was typing from memory as I read the critical review a long time ago. Very sorry that I confused that review with another you did at CTKA.

Dawn

Seamus Are you on drugs man? I just went to CTKA and via search engine saw an article BY YOU called "The Dark Legacy of John Hankey".
Back to work for me.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Don really interesting post. I do think Jan summed it up really well. I liked the theatre line and yeah lol. I do think Jacks work on Roscoe White was pretty damn good actually. The 9/11 stuff hmmmmm I am a bit weary of. In saying that JW is a far more pleasent individual than JF. He also gave a fantastic account of himself in the JVB debate some time ago.

As for your take on Hankey. Well this is where it all gets a little confusing for me.

I have no firm opinion on what my Dawn friend?

I may have passed brief comment on Hankey in regards to JFK Jr. But I have never, ever written a critical piece about the JFK Jr plane crash nor about John Hankeys take on it. You may call me unfair but after seeing John Hankey's crap in JFK II, I can be forgiven for being a little judgmental. Further Dawn I know you read very little of my work because you don't like it. Fair enough.

But now you have no problem commenting on essay's I have never written.

And you think I'm the crazy one here ROFL.

Let's be very clear about this.

Dawn for umpteenth time I have discussed the case with Lisa. LISA PEASE okay. More than enough to know that the Manchurian candidate flight instructor angle as advocated by Hankey is utter bollocks. Anybody can safely say that whether they are into the case or not. Sorry, its that type of bullshit. Now what part of me saying I enjoy Lisa's take didn't you get the first time? My communication skills surely aren't that horrific lol.
Just in case they are let me spell it out to you again in summary.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr. If I was commenting on Hankey I was doing so from Lisa Peases stand point. going to go with anyone on JFK Jr it would be your pal and mine Lisa Pease. She is not a lying lunatic like John Hankey. Okay very simple English Dawn. Conversation over and out as far as I am concerned its driving me bloody spare lol.

Seamus and all,

Perhaps it is just me...but, Seamus: I have a difficult time of it--deciphering your rhetoric--and figuring out your meaning. Not always, but often. It appears to very possibly be a simple cultural difference in the use of various nuances of language. I have often taken your meaning much stronger than it later appeared you intended. A New Zealander might have immediately understood, but I did not. That door seems to have swung both ways, as well. This is not meant as a criticism or as a means to gloss over perhaps significant differences. It is suggested merely as a possibility.

Greg: It's not just you. He tells me "simple english" but....what can I say? mileymad:

Dawn