PDA

View Full Version : JFK Jr



Seamus Coogan
03-27-2012, 09:26 PM
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/commentators/martyn-gregory-alfayed-cant-rewrite-the-death-of-diana-394391.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
03-28-2012, 12:54 PM
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
03-28-2012, 06:47 PM
(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
03-28-2012, 08:45 PM
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
03-28-2012, 10:05 PM
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
03-29-2012, 02:17 AM
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
03-29-2012, 03:21 AM
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
03-29-2012, 04:15 PM
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
03-29-2012, 04:25 PM
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
03-29-2012, 04:30 PM
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? :smileymad:

Dawn

Seamus Coogan
03-29-2012, 07:45 PM
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? :smileymad:

Dawn

What scared me more was my spelling, syntax and grammar lol. But no Dawn I am not flip flopping nor have I ever on this issue. Yes I wrote the review and I worked on another with Frank Casano. I have never ever denied writing and participating with those articles in anyway shape or form. But I really don't know where this JFK Jr stuff came from. I really would like to know when or were my essay critcising John Hankey is about JFK Jr...you seem to know? I really want to see it. I also want to know what the hell I have to do with John Hankey and JFK Jr? Maybe Im just curious lol. But yeah whats the deal mate? I am totally miffed about it all.

Greg Burnham
03-29-2012, 08:57 PM
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? :smileymad:

Dawn

What scared me more was my spelling, syntax and grammar lol. But no Dawn I am not flip flopping nor have I ever on this issue. Yes I wrote the review and I worked on another with Frank Casano. I have never ever denied writing and participating with those articles in anyway shape or form. But I really don't know where this JFK Jr stuff came from. I really would like to know when or were my essay critcising John Hankey is about JFK Jr...you seem to know? I really want to see it. I also want to know what the hell I have to do with John Hankey and JFK Jr? Maybe Im just curious lol. But yeah whats the deal mate? I am totally miffed about it all.

Wow.

I never thought I would say this, but: Where is Jim DiEugenio when you need him? Perhaps he can translate all this Kiwi stuff for us...

Seamus Coogan
03-30-2012, 03:07 AM
Greg writes

Wow.

I never thought I would say this, but: Where is Jim DiEugenio when you need him? Perhaps he can translate all this Kiwi stuff for us...

I'm trying to figure out what planet you Yanks are on myself lol. Dawn conveniantly forgets that she originally wrote this on the Education Forum Greg. This started all the JFK Jr BS. Indeed the comments below will help you follow what's being discussed. As you will see I am not the locus of the ensuing insanity.

I too think Janey was most brave to take on the obvious murder of JFK Jr. Did he make errors? Absolutely. And he needed to be taken to taks for that. I am troubled that so little work has even been done on this case. There is a lot of evidence of murder and coverup. If Mr. Coogan is so quick to condem Janey why does he not write an article or better yet a book on this case. Something.

I then commented with good humour about Dawn's comment WITH REGARDS to JFK Jr in the first post.

Though before we go on I must admit I had a good giggle with Dawns comments about Jayne (Its Hankey matey) and his RFK Jr Documentary, I have to say Dawn, Lisa Pease as you know has written some superb stuff concerning the crash. It's actually her not myself who should go and publish something. Why pick on me lol?

Dawn then asked me about mine and Jim's take on JFK Jr.

Finally, puttitng aside all the faults in Hankey's work, and indeed there are many, I will ask the question of you that I asked Jim D twice, (at Ed Forum) with no response: Do you (and Jim, if you know?) believe John Jr. was murdered or died due to his own negligence and/or accident?

I then gave mine and Jim's appraisal on the topic.

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 the most bizarre thing about all of this is that after my polite response, all of a sudden Dawn now changes tack. We swing from JFK Jr and CTKA to Dawn criticising me quite obviously about my JFK II essay. Yet oddly never mentioning it.

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.

In my next post I repeatedly said the following comment.

I have commented yet have never written a piece critical on Hankeys JFK Jr.

Which is one 100% true I have passed brief comment on Hankeys JFK Jr before. I think ages ago on Murder Solved in a couple of posts. Yet then Dawn makes two bizarre replies and seems to be making out as if I am in some form of denial of ever writing my piece on JFK II or criticising Hankey. I have never ever denied writing anything about George Bush Sr and Hankey's appalling take on the JFK assassination. A frustrating but kind of fun back and forth between us now changes tone from fun to nasty.

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.

And then this very, very weird one.

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.

In case Dawn if you hadn't noticed 'Dark Legacy' is actually the name of Hankey's rebranded JFK II documentary. All I can blame for this strangeness folks is that Dawn quite clearly thinks this is the title for a JFK Jr/Hankey essay. Yet take heed at the very beginning Dawn is asking me to write a piece on JFK Jr, she clearly knew then that I had not written anything on him. Why the silly word games?

Oh yes and I am the one on drugs :snort:apparently lol? :dance:

Throughout this conversation anyone reading this thread will see that Dawn has continually been making reference to JFK Jr. I have also been continually replying in the context of John Hankey's JFK Jr documentary. Anyone will see that Dawn seems to insinuate a number of things. One of these seems to be that I have denied criticising John Hankey. Further what on Earth has my JFK II stuff got to do with Hankey's JFK Jr? I don't know about members of the forum but I'd sure as hell like to know how you figured that one out.

Now that I have assembled these quotes I invite any of you to go back over this thread and have a read.

With all due respect Dawn, I feel that you have grossly and purposefully misquoted myself continually. This is to effectively bully and bait me so I can get put in the bear pit or worse. You well know dissing mods here is baaaaaaaad for anyones health. In particularly challenging you. Being co-owner Dawn you have a clear advantage. This is not a challenge to you nor am I disrepecting you in anywhere near the way I feel you have disrespected myself and Jim Di. Which incidentally you have.

But Dawn for the life of me I cannot honestly see any real sense in your numerous positions you have taken. Nor can Jim Di either.

Your stance is madness pure and simple. It is your mental gymnastics which I feel have convoluted this discussion. Let's face it you have insulted my name before on this forum, you and Greg now mock my nationality (though I think GB does so with far less venom) further you allege if only jokingly that I am on drugs. I really do despair of the misrepresentations of myself my comments and my work in your posts. Not to mention the underlying racism I feel is floating around.

Jim DiEugenio
03-30-2012, 04:43 AM
Too funny, make Bob the moderator. What a mess that place is, however there are many really good JFK posters
who I wish would come over here.

Thanks Jan, I get it, the public and private post.

Still waiting to see if Seamus replies to my question. If no one is forthcoming from either
I shall have my answer.

Back to legal matters....I need another vacation, this time at home :)

Dawn

Dawn, Seamus never wrote about Hankey and JFK Jr. I mean I never asked him to. He never offerd to. At CTKA, or as Fetzer says, CITKA, we generally stick to the four assassinations of the sixties. Maybe the JFK Jr. thing was sabotaged, maybe not. I simply do not have the time or inclination to research that case in any serious way. I think I can be forgiven for that. Four is enough. At least I think so.

But how should that impact on Seamus' work on Hankey's bombastic and very poorly thought out and docmented film on Bush, called JFK 2. I don' t understand the logic of this. If say I like Tony Summers' book on JFK, yet I don't like his book on say 9-11 or Marilyn Monroe, why is one opinion and analysis reliant on the other?

Seamus did a very nice and thorough job on Hankey's very bad film. His work on that should stand by itself. Independent of whatever Hankey did on Kennedy Jr. Independent of whatever anyone thinks of him personally. And let me add this: I edited that long essay. And it was even longer than what we published. I must have cut out at least ten pages. Not because it was not good, but because it was simply too long. That is how many errors Hankey made.

But beyond all the many errors this guy made, he also went clearly beyond the pale when he made up stuff, literally. And then wanted us to accept it as fact. There is simply no excuse for that in this field. Yet, Hankey did it twice. First, by stuffing words in Colby's mouth which he did not say. And second, by creating a scene at the end in which Bush takes a flechette gun into Hoover's office and threatens to kill him. This kind of stuff is simply goofy. And to think that no one called this guy out before on this stuff? This is why CTKA is valuable. Since we review almost everything. Its not easy doing this stuff. I know Seamus spent a lot of time writing that long essay. And I spent hours going through it. But its necessary, since Hankey's film is really not the way anyone should go in this field. There is simply too much good stuff out there now.

Now, let me add. Does this mean that Bush was not involved with the CIA in 1963? Maybe even the Bay of Pigs? No it does not. I think he was involved with both. But has Hankey demonstrated with any degree of real evidence that Bush was involved with the Kennedy assassination? No. None that I can see. I mean if you cannot even understand that Zapata was the peninsula next to Playa Giron, or that Hunt was not working for Nixon in 1963, or that Hoover was not at all a hero in the JFK case, but a real villian, then I mean what is your work worth?

Seamus' essay was so trenchant and so damaging to Hankey that he has now taken to saying that 1.) He really did not name all that many errors, and 2.) It was a set up job in the sense it was a hatchet job.

These two assertions are complete baloney.

If you count all the errors of fact and attribution Hankey makes, it is well over sixty instances. Which is incredible for an 87 minute film. He never even looked up really easy stuff, like the actual name of the Church Committee.

Seamus and I had no strong feelings about Hankey one way of the other. One night, Seamus watched his movie online and started e mailing me questions about it. After about four of these I said, what are you talking about? He said, its in Hankey's film, JFK 2. I said, are you serious? He said yeah look at it yourself.

So I did. Seamus was right. Hankey made so many fundamental errors it was embarassing. And many of them were just lazy. All he had to do was go to a local library to clear them up. He didn't. And then he blames Seamus and me for pointing them out.

I think Seamus' essay is one of the best things we have published. It was a very in depth and thorough job that few people would take the time to do. And there is much valuable info in it.

Do I wish we did not have to print it? Yep. I wish all work in this field was like JFK and the Unspeakable. Which was a real pleasure to write. Unfortunately that is not the case. Not even close. And to me what Seamus did with Hankey, and also the Majestic Papers hoax, is as necessary as what I did with Bugliosi and Gary Mack.

Having said all that, does this mean that Bush was not involved with the assassination. Nope. It just means that Hankey has not proven it at all. And the most ludicrous scene in the film is when he shows Bush being electrocuted because of the evidence in his film. I mean, whew.

So Seamus did us all a good deed by exposing the pretension and bombast that the film really was. I wish someone had done it earlier. But it shows how threadbare our peer approval process is in this field. Seamus filled that vacuum in this case.

Phil Dragoo
03-30-2012, 08:51 AM
Seamus Coogan wrote a 21,507-word essay on John Hankey's 90-minute JFK II http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html

He did not write anything on JFKjr death.

If there's something sinister in that, it escapes me.

Magda Hassan
03-30-2012, 10:57 AM
Seamus Coogan wrote a 21,507-word essay on John Hankey's 90-minute JFK II http://www.ctka.net/2010/hanky.html

He did not write anything on JFKjr death.

If there's something sinister in that, it escapes me.
What he said ^

Vasilios Vazakas
03-30-2012, 11:21 AM
With all due respect Dawn but Seamus never wrote anything on JFK jr. and i find all these exchange of words unecessary and damaging.

Seamus Coogan
03-30-2012, 12:02 PM
Don Jefferies is obviously a person with a giant heart.I have great respect for people like him,but hell man,big hearts get smashed in this political cyber war!Tom Skully took a big chance and actually tried to clean up the scuz over at your forum.Where were you and the other mods Don?Nobody came to give Tom any backing what-so-ever.Now,it looks like he is giving up.Well,just let the scuz flow and remember to take a shower everyday.Everything is good..............:mexican:

Don dislikes my work on John Hankey and Alex Jones. Thus I didn't anticipate you two would get along lol. But yeah it's a shame Dawn diverted the conversation with that bizarre John Hankey JFK Jr stuff lol. Because Don and Dawn come from the "we can all hold hands with everyone camp". In which people like John Hankey and Phil Nelson are on an equal par with say Jan or CD effectively. Now I think it's great that people like Don are around he's a compassionate guy. Dawn and Don also diverted the attention from it being a CTKA slagging match which was really good form.

But research for me has never been about compassion. Its been about being meticulous and trying to minimise mistakes. I'm not here for a popularity contest either. If people like me and my research cool. If they like John Hankey well that's not my fault either lol. I feel while people like Don are in sizeable numbers over at the Ed Forum. Not so much here and at Lancer.

I am firmly not a part of the love everyone group lol. Is it quality or quantity gentlemen? Thats of course the real question. Do we congratulate the lies of Hankey and the big show time of Alex Jones for getting it out there. Or do we try and make the best case for conspiracy we can? I prefer the latter option. Obviously as do you Keith. I don't think it's particularly brave or courageous to make mistakes and extremely bad ones consistently. But thats just me some people like sub standard research. Further that's their problem not ours Keith lol.

Jan Klimkowski
03-30-2012, 04:14 PM
Throughout this conversation anyone reading this thread will see that Dawn has continually been making reference to JFK Jr. I have also been continually replying in the context of John Hankey's JFK Jr documentary. Anyone will see that Dawn seems to insinuate a number of things. One of these seems to be that I have denied criticising John Hankey. Further what on Earth has my JFK II stuff got to do with Hankey's JFK Jr? I don't know about members of the forum but I'd sure as hell like to know how you figured that one out.



Speaking personally, as an observer of this spat, my sense is that there has been some misunderstanding about whether Seamus was writing about Hankey and JFK II, or Hankey and JFK Jr.

Jim DiEugenio makes a thoughtful and impassioned case for the quality of analysis of Seamus' article on Hankey and JFK II.

Seamus adds that he has hardly written a word about Hankey and JFK Jr, although the quote I've excerpted above - where I've highlighted what is presumably a typo - does show why the confusion may have continued longer than necessary.

If Seamus has not written about Hankey and JKF Jr, then there's nothing to discuss there.

However, the bigger issue is the tendency to dismiss an entire area of legitimate deep political research because a particular individual has made poorly evidenced claims.

This is one of the reasons why I was deeply unimpressed with the quality of analysis in Seamus' pieces about Diana and her death, which set up an entirely false dichotomy between Martin Gregory (Good) and Mohammed Al Fayed (Nutter).

Al Fayed's deep pockets and connections meant he was played in the aftermath of the Diana death. The case that Diana's death may not have been a paparazzi-caused-road-accident, as per the official story, is not reliant on Fayed or on gullible folk feeding on her celebrity status.

Claims which are not supported by evidence, which misrepresent evidence, or which overinterpret evidence should be exposed.

However, the core hypothesis may still be worth investigating if evidence is rigorously and fairly analysed.

So, as a random example, the case for George Bush Sr's possible involvement in the JFK assassination is not dependent on the photo supposedly showing him at the scene, or whether he chuckled when discussing the Warren Commission a couple of decades later.

Seamus Coogan
03-31-2012, 04:12 PM
Bullshit alert: http://www.rense.com/ (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)[/URL][URL="http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm"]general78/reas.htm (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm) It's not that I don't have questions about JFK Jr's death. I do. But this is the kind of ridiculous, one-person-said without any documentary evidence whatsoever crap that exhibits the worst of the worst re conspiracy theory. Anyone can make this stuff up, and plenty of idiots will fall for it. I'm not sure whether Hankey is inventing this or falling for it - but either way, it's useless crap that does not raise to even a minor level of credibility. Move along. Don't waste your time.
The Reason JFK Jr Was Murdered (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)

www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com/)

Lisa just pasted this comment on her FB page concerning Hankeys JFK Jr stuff.

Greg Burnham
04-01-2012, 05:59 AM
Bullshit alert: http://www.rense.com/ (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)general78/reas.htm (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm) It's not that I don't have questions about JFK Jr's death. I do. But this is the kind of ridiculous, one-person-said without any documentary evidence whatsoever crap that exhibits the worst of the worst re conspiracy theory. Anyone can make this stuff up, and plenty of idiots will fall for it. I'm not sure whether Hankey is inventing this or falling for it - but either way, it's useless crap that does not raise to even a minor level of credibility. Move along. Don't waste your time.


The Reason JFK Jr Was Murdered (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)

www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com/)

Lisa just pasted this comment on her FB page concerning Hankeys JFK Jr stuff.

Seamus,

Suffice to say: You have a lot of research to do before I will take you seriously on this issue. I am CERTAIN that I have done more primary research on this subject than...errr--anyone I know of besides Sherman Skolnick with whom I collaborated, Scott Myers with whom I collaborated separately, and John DiNardo...

Sometimes the appearance of impropriety is just that--ONLY an appearance.

Seamus Coogan
04-01-2012, 08:56 AM
Bullshit alert: http://www.rense.com/ (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)general78/reas.htm (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm) It's not that I don't have questions about JFK Jr's death. I do. But this is the kind of ridiculous, one-person-said without any documentary evidence whatsoever crap that exhibits the worst of the worst re conspiracy theory. Anyone can make this stuff up, and plenty of idiots will fall for it. I'm not sure whether Hankey is inventing this or falling for it - but either way, it's useless crap that does not raise to even a minor level of credibility. Move along. Don't waste your time.


The Reason JFK Jr Was Murdered (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)

www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com/)

Lisa just pasted this comment on her FB page concerning Hankeys JFK Jr stuff.

Seamus,

Suffice to say: You have a lot of research to do before I will take you seriously on this issue. I am CERTAIN that I have done more primary research on this subject than...errr--anyone I know of besides Sherman Skolnick with whom I collaborated, Scott Myers with whom I collaborated separately, and John DiNardo...

Sometimes the appearance of impropriety is just that--ONLY an appearance.

So what is Greg trying to say here? I really like GB. But sometimes as is the case here folks my frustration boils over and I think I have a fairly decent excuse to get a little bit ratty. Though I don't actually think GB was really meaning to tick me off or offend me throughout this thread. However folks it is what he has invariably done.

So here goes.

Greg is effectively saying that I am hiding behind some 'impropriety' on behalf of individuals like himself and Dawn. Why? It seems to Greg that its some ruse to get myself out of some sticky research corners concerning JFK Jr.

Am I reading that assertion correctly Greg?

This thread was not intended as an IQ test for forum members. Help, if it was some people have failed rather dismally. This is a bit of a shame, I find Greg to be a very intelligent individual...at least most of the time.

If one peruses this thread folks, it's pretty obvious that Greg failed to understand a number of simple explanations I gave repeatedly. He then blamed it all on my being from NZ. Yes sadly he reduced himself to making what I felt to be petty racist slurs. However, a number of people including the mods here have been able to translate what I have been trying to say. Namely 'I have not done any research on JFK Jr at CTKA in no way shape or form'.

What part of other people getting my point you did not Greg?

Further that, what research on JFK Jr do I have to do before you trust me on the issue? I trust Lisa Pease. Take it out on her. Unless you read carefully GB, that comment was actually taken from Lisa's FB page.

What Greg doesn't get is this. JFK Jr, bar the odd comment, is not an issue I have given much thought about. I am very comfortable in saying so. Greg is trying to imply somehow that 'I am' or 'I should be'. However, I have been trying to tell Greg (on a number of occasions throughout this thread as you have seen) that I have always found Lisa Pease's writings on the JFK Jr topic rather intriguing. Considering Hankey's track record on GWB I prefer her take on the topic rather than his. Is that so damn hard for you to figure out Greg? Is it so hard for you to comprehend, that people with minimal interest can believe in something fishy going in the JFK Jr arena without endorsing John Hankeys version of events? Or is that concept just to abstract for you?

Well Greg if that was to left field for you, you then the next part will totally blow your mind.

Lisa also believes some spooky stuff went down. Yes, Greg she does! Isn't that exciting?

For all Gregs research on the topic he has obviously never read Lisa's take on it. Instead he seems to think I was using her opinion on Hankey too simply flay JFK Jr conspiracy believers. And Greg accuses me of making knee jerk reactions? What part of hypocrisy don't you get Greg?

One day Greg (when I have time or the inclination) I would very much like to read what you have on the JFK Jr case. Indeed all you needed to say was "Hey Seamus check out my stuff on JFK Jr or if you have any questions ask me?" You know, it's a pretty nice way of getting people interested in what you have to say. As it is Greg I am just going to have too 'trust' that your writings display more intelligence than anything you have posted here during the last few days.

Maybe an idea would be to post your JFK Jr stuff on another thread (omitting any reference to myself)?

Do you get me or is this idea all just a little to much for you?

In case you don't get my request to post JFK Jr stuff on another thread I also have some other requests.

Greg could you please tell me what the working title of this very thread is? Greg can you understand this question?

Greg please tell me and the other posters here where I put JFK Jr in that thread bar denying any involvement in the study of JFK Jr? Once again can you understand this question?

Greg for the final time it was DAWN who bought up this JFK Jr stuff. Can you understand this simple little point Greg?

Greg please tell me about quality versus quantity in the JFK debate...That was the key topic in my opening post on this thread. Did you read that post? You clearly failed to see that I actually congratulated yourself, Don and Dawn for not letting Morrow and Cahalan's bollocks on the Ed Forum turn it into a pathetic tirade against CTKA.

Greg can you understand my grave concerns about your levels of comprehension? Can you understand why myself and some others would have these concerns?

Can you grasp for one small second why I am a tad frustrated with your comments?

Don Jeffries
04-01-2012, 01:51 PM
The Hankey video on JFK, Jr. is a great piece of research (and entertaining, besides) imho. What does Lisa find uncredible about it? He goes over thoroughly all the points that make people doubt the official story. The 9:39 call, the fuel safety valve being left in the "off" position, the original reports there was a flight instructor on board, the belated account from a flight instructor that JFK, Jr. to him "he wanted to fly alone," contradicting his earlier testimony, and many other things.

The film does share a major drawback with Hankey's JFK II video- an unconvincing attempt to force Bush into the role of major conspirator in JFK, Jr.'s death. But Hankey's obession with Bush doesn't detract from the solid information for conspiracy he does present in the film.

Albert Doyle
04-01-2012, 02:29 PM
You would think there would be more information on this suicide flight instructor than guesses.

Don Jeffries
04-01-2012, 03:04 PM
Albert,

There were several early reports that a flight instructor was on the plane. More significantly, Carole Radziwill, who was married to JFK, Jr.'s first cousin and best friend, allegedly said there was a flight instructor on board when she made one of the first calls to the FAA, who were curiously unresponsive. I am trying to contact her to verify this, but so far without success.

Keith,

I think there has been way too much infighting among members of the research community for decades. It's only become worse with the internet, for the reasons I delineated earlier (huge egos, difficult personalities, etc.) There are few of us who follow this case who don't offend someone else who does.

People should just ignore those comments they find offensive.

Dawn Meredith
04-01-2012, 03:13 PM
Bullshit alert: http://www.rense.com/ (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)general78/reas.htm (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm) It's not that I don't have questions about JFK Jr's death. I do. But this is the kind of ridiculous, one-person-said without any documentary evidence whatsoever crap that exhibits the worst of the worst re conspiracy theory. Anyone can make this stuff up, and plenty of idiots will fall for it. I'm not sure whether Hankey is inventing this or falling for it - but either way, it's useless crap that does not raise to even a minor level of credibility. Move along. Don't waste your time.


The Reason JFK Jr Was Murdered (http://www.rense.com/general78/reas.htm)

www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com/)

Lisa just pasted this comment on her FB page concerning Hankeys JFK Jr stuff.

Seamus,

Suffice to say: You have a lot of research to do before I will take you seriously on this issue. I am CERTAIN that I have done more primary research on this subject than...errr--anyone I know of besides Sherman Skolnick with whom I collaborated, Scott Myers with whom I collaborated separately, and John DiNardo...

Sometimes the appearance of impropriety is just that--ONLY an appearance.


This is getting all too weird. If anyone says anything about about the work done on this case our boy Seamus goes all wacky. (See the next post now he's attacking Greg). I respect Lisa and Jim's work enormously but to see that there was a murder here takes less than a day on the net. I look forward to a book, with sources. Sherman was the king of airplane crash investigations so he got on this immediately.

Seamus doth protest too much. Of course there is also made up stuff on the web on this case, like the True Ott emails which is clearly a false trail because no one puts this stuff on letterhead. Is Ott lying? He sounds credible but the file he allegedly had was contrived.

I look most forward to the work of Greg and Don J. Two terrific reaearchers who in my opinion will do justice to the murder of JFK jr.

I am not going to post further on this matter becasue Seamus is correct I do want the CT more united, less divisive, alas...This is also war
and the community is filed with many who are not what they pretend to be. Onward.

Dawn

Charles Drago
04-01-2012, 03:24 PM
DISCIPLINE!

Lack of investigative discipline ravages our work -- over and over again.

First determine the "how" of JFK JR's death.

Until you have done so, do NOT speculate as to the "who" and "why" of the event. At least not publicly.

For if the "how" is established beyond reasonable doubt, only then are you empowered to begin a classic process of elimination to narrow the field of suspects.

"Who" among likely suspects could NOT have done it as it was done?

Have we learned nothing from our countless failures?

Seamus Coogan
04-01-2012, 05:29 PM
Dawn it puzzles me how you cannot see how frustrating the previous exchanges were for myself.
They started off in good humor but got progressively nastier. The nastiness and the inaccuracies had nothing to do with me.

However, I guess thats as good as an apology I am going to get lol. I guess Jim and Lisa should also be grateful.

But once again what part of that last post of mine did you not get?

Dawn, you have now gone from (A) Saying I should write a book about JFK Jr to put my money were my mouth is (B) Then accusing me of lying about not writing anything on CTKA concerning JFK/Hankey. Then to (C) Accusing me of denying that I wrote JFK II. Which you then (D) Used to justify your criticism of me for Hankeys JFK Jr piece. If that's not all bizarre enough, you are now rather clearly saying IMO that I am rallying against anyone who has ever had a differing opinion on JFK Jr!!! Nope that is totally untrue. I would like to read the work of Greg B and the others you mention. Lisa is not the last word, but she's the only one I have really had the chance to read on the topic. I also know she dislikes Hankeys take. I posted her comments as evidence of this. Very simple stuff okay.

I would just like the JFK Jr stuff to be removed to another thread. Further, I don't want any mention of my name to do with the subject to be in it. Considering how hard it is to dissuade people from their obsession with myself and JFK Jr, I really would dig it if the mods could help me out here. The inability of some people to argue the merits of quantity versus quality in this debate in a dedicated thread are rather concerning.

Greg Burnham
04-01-2012, 08:53 PM
Seamus,

I don't have anything for you to read. I worked behind the scenes with Skolnick and with Myers. I conducted a tremendous amount of research into the matter, but others compiled my work with theirs into various essays. I am more than willing to discontinue associating your name with JFK Jr. research.

BTW: I think you misunderstood my comment about impropriety. I was referring to your perception that Hankey's article had the appearance of impropriety, not you.

Magda Hassan
04-02-2012, 12:44 AM
Seamus said:


I would just like the JFK Jr stuff to be removed to another thread. Further, I don't want any mention of my name to do with the subject to be in it. Considering how hard it is to dissuade people from their obsession with myself and JFK Jr, I really would dig it if the mods could help me out here. The inability of some people to argue the merits of quantity versus quality in this debate in a dedicated thread are rather concerning.

I'm trying to clean up the thread as requested by Seamus. Would you Seamus and any other interested participants please check and review that I have the right JFK jr posts here then I will delete from the other original thread.

Magda Hassan
04-02-2012, 12:46 AM
And I'll delete these admin posts as well.

Greg Burnham
04-02-2012, 04:49 AM
Thanks for all your effort on this, Magda. Please don't forget to delete this post, as well...and this one...and this one...and this one... ==== :lol: Couldn't resist!

Seamus Coogan
04-02-2012, 05:39 AM
Thanks for all your effort on this, Magda. Please don't forget to delete this post, as well...and this one...and this one...and this one... ==== :lol: Couldn't resist!

Cool Magda thanks a bunch. I do look forward to seeing the debates and research going on in this thread.

Adele Edisen
04-02-2012, 07:48 AM
Years ago on the Rich DellaRosa forum we had discussions about the death of John Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn, and his sister-in-law, Lauren Bessette. About that time John Hankey had introduced his DVDs on the assassination of JFK and one on the death of his son, John, Jr. Along with John, Jr., his wife Carolyn, his sister-in-law Lauren Bessette, and possibly a flight instructor who was thought to have been aboard the Piper Saratoga plane with them perished in an unusual airplane crash in to the sea near Martha's Vinyard where they were to land and drop off Lauren Bessette so she could meet her good friend, Carole Radziwill. They then would proceed to Hyannis Port to spend the weekend at family wedding festivities.

From my readings of books written by John's friends, associates, colleagues, and cousin's wife, Carole Radziwill, I find it entirely possible that John did have a flight instructor with him. He was not quite totally familiar with his newly acquired plane, a Piper Saratoga, so he would very frequently fly with an instructor. Also, he was logging in more instrument-time flying for which he needed to be under the supervision of a flight instructor. Another problem was that he was still using crutches and limping due to an earlier ankle injury. In order to maneuver a plane on the ground, he needed full use of the foot pedals to do this, and probably would have asked his flight instructor to perform this task.

Richard Blow, an editor of his GEORGE Magazine spoke with him on that Friday afternoon before he left for the airport in New Jersey where his plane was stored. John told him that he would have a flight instructor flying with him. Carole Radziwill, who was waiting at Martha's Vinyard Airport the arrival of Lauren Bessette, became greatly concerned when the plane was delayed. She called a flight instructor with whom she was familiar from previous flights to tell his wife of the delay, and was surprised when he answered the phone. Obviously, another instructor had been chosen in New Jersey. She describes her experiences that night in her book, WHAT REMAINS: A Memoir of Fate, Friendship and Love.

John Hankey states that the the body of a flight instructor was not found. We know from the National Transportation Safety Board's Report that the seat in which the flight instructor would have been occupying next to John's pilot seat was missing from the debris found of the wreckage at the bottom of the sea, 150 feet below. The other three occupants' bodies were found strapped in their seats, all of which were bolted to the floor of the cabin. John's flight log which would record details of the flight from take-off to destination would also list passengers and any other personnel, was kept in an aqua colored flight bag. Some luggage and the flight bag washed up on shore, but the flight bag did not contain the Flight Log Book.

John Hankey proposed that the flight istructor was suicidal, or rather had been programmed to be suicidal by the murderers. This was based on the crash of an Egyptian military plane, flying from the US to Egypt in which a deranged pilot had overpowered the pilots in the cabin of the plane and made the plane plunge into the sea. Hankey proposed that the body of the flight instructor had to be removed from John's plane so that it would appear that the only pilot on board was John and the crash could be described as due to pilot error. The perpretrators had plenty of time to accomplish this, as the wreckage was not found for a few days.

However, other investigators have suggestd that some kind of explosive device was placed on the plane before take-off at the New Jersey airport.

Eye-witnesses on the beach overlooking the crash site saw flashes of light in the dark sky about the time of John's plane approach to the Martha's Vinyard Airport. According to the National Transportation Safety Board's Report, the distribution of debris from the plane's crash was very widespread and I would attribute that to an explosion in the air. Rich DellaRosa told me that he thought it had been done with a "pressure bomb". Sherman Skolnick, Scott Meyers, and John DiNaerdo investigators mentioned by Greg Burnham on this topic have concluded similarly.

It is both curious and suspicious that John's plane went down around 9:30 PM, Friday, July 16, 1999. Yet it took all of Saturday, Sunday, Monday until Tuesay when the wreckage was found. According to John Hankey, the Pentagon was brought in to do the searchng and it seems that they were flying in a wide elliptical pattern of about two hundred miles in width along the coast from Martha's Vinyard toward New York. The site of the crash was about seven miles east of Martha's Vinyard and the exact latitude and longitude coordinates of the plane just before it crashed had been radioed by John Kennedy to the Martha's Vinyard Airport Tower as was required of planes preparing to land as they drop in altitude to the required 2500 feet before beginning their final descent. There was no haze in the vicinity as reported by other pilots coming to land around that same time, and the airport lights were visible from the air. Since the Airport Tower's radar followed the descent of the plane, the wreckage should have been very easy to locate.

Adele

Dawn Meredith
04-02-2012, 12:00 PM
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? :smileymad:

Dawn

What scared me more was my spelling, syntax and grammar lol. But no Dawn I am not flip flopping nor have I ever on this issue. Yes I wrote the review and I worked on another with Frank Casano. I have never ever denied writing and participating with those articles in anyway shape or form. But I really don't know where this JFK Jr stuff came from. I really would like to know when or were my essay critcising John Hankey is about JFK Jr...you seem to know? I really want to see it. I also want to know what the hell I have to do with John Hankey and JFK Jr? Maybe Im just curious lol. But yeah whats the deal mate? I am totally miffed about it all.

Seamus: For me the confusion came up and was cleared up yesterday. Hankey did TWO videos. Apparently the critique you did was only on one of them. I read your review some time back. I have seen both videos but not for a long time. I see now that the second one is on JFK Jr. I will have no further comment until I have:
1. watched both videos again and 2. read your review again.

In the meantime I look forward to the work mentioned by Greg and Don.

Dawn

Dawn Meredith
04-02-2012, 12:11 PM
Years ago on the Rich DellaRosa forum we had discussions about the death of John Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn, and his sister-in-law, Lauren Bessette. About that time John Hankey had introduced his DVDs on the assassination of JFK and one on the death of his son, John, Jr. Along with John, Jr., his wife Carolyn, his sister-in-law Lauren Bessette, and possibly a flight instructor who was thought to have been aboard the Piper Saratoga plane with them perished in an unusual airplane crash in to the sea near Martha's Vinyard where they were to land and drop off Lauren Bessette so she could meet her good friend, Carole Radziwill. They then would proceed to Hannisport to spend the weekend at family wedding festivities.

From my readings of books written by John's friends, associates, colleagues, and cousin's wife, Carole Radziwill, I find it entirely possible that John did have a flight instructor with him. He was not quite totally familiar with his newly acquired plane, a Piper Saratoga, so he would very frequently fly with an instructor. Also, he was logging in more instrument-time flying for which he needed to be under the supervision of a flight instructor. Another problem was that he was still using crutches and limping due to an earlier ankle injury. In order to maneuver a plane on the ground, he needed full use of the foot pedals to do this, and probably would have asked his flight instructor to perform this task.

Richard Blow, an editor of his GEORGE Magazine spoke with him on that Friday afternoon before he left for the airport inNew Jersey where his plane was stored. John told him that he would have a flight instructor flying with him. Carole Radziwill, who was waiting at Martha's Vinyard Airport the arrival of Lauren Bessette, became greatly concerned when the plane was delayed. She called a flight instructor with whom she was familiar from previous flights to tell his wife of the delay, and was surprised when he answered the phone. Obviously, another instructor had been chosen in New Jersey. She describes her experiences that night in her book, WHAT REMAINS: A Memoir of Fate, Friendship and Love.

John Hankey states that the the body of a flight instructor was not found. We know from the National Transportation Safety Board's Report that the seat in which the flight instructor would have been occupying next to John's pilot seat was missing from the debris found of the wreckage at the bottom of the sea, 150 feet below. The other three occupants' bodies were found strapped in their seats, all of which were bolted to the floor of the cabin. John's flight log which would record details of the flight from take-off to destination would also list passengers and any other personnel, was kept in an aqua colored flight bag. Some luggage and the flight bag washed up on shore, but the flight bag did not contain the Flight Log Book.

John Hankey proposed that the flight istructor was suicidal, or rather had been programmed to be suicidal by the murderers. This was based on the crash of an Egyptian military plane, flying from the US to Egypt in which a derangexd pilot had overpowered the pilots in the cabin of the plane and made the plane plunge into the sea. Hankey proposed that the body of the flight instructor had to be removed from John's plane so that it would appear that the only pilot on board was John and the crash could be described as due to pilot error. The perpretrators had plenty of time to accomplish this, as the wreckage was not found for a few days.

However, other investigators have suggestd that some kind of explosive device was placed on the plane before take-off at the New Jersey airport.

Eye-witnesses on the beach overlooking the crash site saw flashes of light in the dark sky about the time of John's plane approach to the Martha';s Vinyard Airport. According to the National Transpiortation Safety Board's Report, the distribution of debris from the plane's crash was very widespread and I would attribute that to an explosion in the air. Rich DellaRosa told me that he thought it had been done with a "pressure bomb". Sherman Skolnick, Scott Meyers, and John DiNaerdo investigators mentioned by Greg Burnham on this topic have concluded similarly.

It is both curious and suspicious that John's plane went down around 9:30 PM, Friday, July 16, 1999. Yet it took all of Saturday, Sunday, Monday until Tuesay when the wreckage was found. According to John Hankey, the Pentagon was brought in to do the searchng and it seems that they were flying in a wide elliptical pattern of about two hundred miles in width along the coast from Martha's Vinyard toward New York. The site of the crash was about seven miles east of Martha's Vinyard and the exact latitude and longitude coordinates of the plane just before it crashed had been radioed by John Kennedy to the Marthas Vinyard Airport Tower as was required of planes preparing to land as they drop in altitude to the required 2500 feet before beginning their final descent. There was no haze in the vicinity as reported by other pilots coming to land around that same time, and the airport lights were visible from the air. Since the Airport Tower's radar followed the descent of the plane, the wreckage should have been very easy to locate.

Adele

Many thanks Adele for summerizing some of the major evidence in this case.
Dawn

Seamus Coogan
04-02-2012, 12:38 PM
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? :smileymad:

Dawn

What scared me more was my spelling, syntax and grammar lol. But no Dawn I am not flip flopping nor have I ever on this issue. Yes I wrote the review and I worked on another with Frank Casano. I have never ever denied writing and participating with those articles in anyway shape or form. But I really don't know where this JFK Jr stuff came from. I really would like to know when or were my essay critcising John Hankey is about JFK Jr...you seem to know? I really want to see it. I also want to know what the hell I have to do with John Hankey and JFK Jr? Maybe Im just curious lol. But yeah whats the deal mate? I am totally miffed about it all.

Seamus: For me the confusion came up and was cleared up yesterday. Hankey did TWO videos. Apparently the critique you did was only on one of them. I read your review some time back. I have seen both videos but not for a long time. I see now that the second one is on JFK Jr. I will have no further comment until I have:
1. watched both videos again and 2. read your review again.

In the meantime I look forward to the work mentioned by Greg and Don.

Dawn

No problems Dawn.

Charles Drago
04-02-2012, 12:41 PM
Do you recall that a distress beacon of the sort expected to be aboard JFK Jr's aircraft was picked up in the middle of Long Island Sound -- a significant distance from where the plane ultimately would be located -- within a suitable post-disappearance time frame to prompt the launch of search efforts in the area?

An operation, perhaps, to misdirect rescuers in the event that one or more members of Kennedy's party had survived the crash?

Survival time in those waters was relatively brief, after all.

And by the time searchers arrived at the mysterious beacon's location ...

No beacon to be found.

Ever.

Peter Lemkin
04-02-2012, 03:22 PM
Do you recall that a distress beacon of the sort expected to be aboard JFK Jr's aircraft was picked up in the middle of Long Island Sound -- a significant distance from where the plane ultimately would be located -- within a suitable post-disappearance time frame to prompt the launch of search efforts in the area?

An operation, perhaps, to misdirect rescuers in the event that one or more members of Kennedy's party had survived the crash?

Survival time in those waters was relatively brief, after all.

And by the time searchers arrived at the mysterious beacon's location ...

No beacon to be found.

Ever.

Hmmm.....this is new to me, and VERY interesting and SIGNIFICANT, IMO!

Charles Drago
04-02-2012, 04:42 PM
I vividly recall seeing a map displayed by one of the 24-hour news stations. There was a flashing icon representing the distress beacon. It was located west of center in Long Island Sound. Rescue flotillas were on the way.

Next thing reported: No wreckage. No beacon. No nothin'.

Control and delay of rescue efforts as elements of an assassination operation ... hmmm ... If JFK Jr. had been targeted for assassination via, oh, let's say a staged auto "accident" which for a number of logistical reasons had to take place at a location just four miles away from a major hospital, and if JFK Jr. had survived the crash, might that four-mile journey have been controlled to take at least, oh, let's say seventy minutes?

Where do I get these ideas?

Jan Klimkowski
04-02-2012, 04:53 PM
Where do I get these ideas?

I was told by a doctor known as "the father of CPR" that a certain soul would not necessarily have crossed the bridge to the other side if doctors had rushed the injured body to hospital rather than treating it at the roadside.

Charles Drago
04-02-2012, 07:06 PM
A spirited defense of the indefensible.

And just out of curiosity ... Are you serious?

Jan Klimkowski
04-02-2012, 07:18 PM
Yes.

Charles Drago
04-02-2012, 08:26 PM
P.S.?

Jan Klimkowski
04-02-2012, 09:07 PM
P.S.?

How prescient of you..........

Phil Dragoo
04-02-2012, 09:34 PM
Coastguards said they picked up a signal from an emergency beacon in the sea off the eastern tip of Long Island at 0215 local time, along Mr Kennedy's presumed flight path.


The beacon emits an audio signal which can mean the plane has crashed. It can also be set off manually as a distress signal.


Rescue crews were dispatched immediately, but no subsequent signal was heard.


A spokeswoman for plane's manufacturers said there could have been "an initial signal on impact", but added that the beacon "won't transmit a signal underwater".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/397049.stm

Ron Brown flew into a mountain due to a stolen beacon. The commander of the base from which the beacon was stolen committed suicide. The surviving stewardess died in the ambulance. Dick Gregory was demanding an investigation into the hole in Ron Brown's head.

It seems the hole extended to the missing seat and flight instructor and distress beacon on JFK Jr.'s plane.

The navy did all it could; just as in the autopsy of the publisher's father.

Who also won't be transmitting underwater.

Charles Drago
04-03-2012, 12:05 AM
P.S.?

How prescient of you..........

Given the sacred/mythic aspects of the location and other elements of the case, I'm intrigued.

Care to say more?

Never mind. Just read your privately placed material.

Dawn Meredith
07-17-2012, 02:31 PM
I vividly recall seeing a map displayed by one of the 24-hour news stations. There was a flashing icon representing the distress beacon. It was located west of center in Long Island Sound. Rescue flotillas were on the way.

Next thing reported: No wreckage. No beacon. No nothin'.

Control and delay of rescue efforts as elements of an assassination operation ... hmmm ... If JFK Jr. had been targeted for assassination via, oh, let's say a staged auto "accident" which for a number of logistical reasons had to take place at a location just four miles away from a major hospital, and if JFK Jr. had survived the crash, might that four-mile journey have been controlled to take at least, oh, let's say seventy minutes?

Where do I get these ideas?

It was thirteen years ago yesterday. I tried to find the Hankey video but all that is now free is a five minute trailer on his site. Has anyone actually seen the NTSB report showing that there was a missing seat, which would strongly indicate a missing flight instructor? Just the fact that the wreckage was not found until the Tuesday after the Friday night crash smells to high heaven.

Dawn

Greg Burnham
07-17-2012, 03:47 PM
It was thirteen years ago yesterday. I tried to find the Hankey video but all that is now free is a five minute trailer on his site. Has anyone actually seen the NTSB report showing that there was a missing seat, which would strongly indicate a missing flight instructor? Just the fact that the wreckage was not found until the Tuesday after the Friday night crash smells to high heaven.

Dawn

http://www.ntsb.gov/search/search.aspx?TextRestriction=NYC99MA178&x=43&y=7

Adele Edisen
07-18-2012, 06:13 AM
It was thirteen years ago yesterday. I tried to find the Hankey video but all that is now free is a five minute trailer on his site. Has anyone actually seen the NTSB report showing that there was a missing seat, which would strongly indicate a missing flight instructor? Just the fact that the wreckage was not found until the Tuesday after the Friday night crash smells to high heaven.

Dawn

http://www.ntsb.gov/search/search.aspx?TextRestriction=NYC99MA178&x=43&y=7

Dawn,

I purchased a copy of the National Transportation Safety Board's Report of their investigation. It is stored away right now, but I recall a photo of the plane's parts which had been retrieved showing the remains of the cabin and the five remaining seats still bolted to the floor. The missing seat would have been next to the pilot's seat, but it was not there. The four passenger seats were all intact. The plane was designed to carry six people. The cabin itself was in separate parts.

In one newspaper or magazine report I can recall, it was stated that an airplane seat had washed up on shore, but no one verified whether it was from John Jr's plane.

John Hankey in his DVD on John, Jr., gives the name of a missing flight instructor of the airport where John stored his plane. If anyone has a copy of the DVD, could you provide the name Hankey gave? I lent mine out and never received it back.

From my reading of the various books by John's friends and associates, it appears that John was to meet with them on the occasion of the family wedding weeked and discuss with them his ideas about running for politixcal office. The Senate seat in New York, originally held by Senator Monihan, was a possibility (later filled by Hillary R. Clinton) as a stepping stone to the Presidency of the United States.

Since John did not accept the Warren (McCloy-Dulles) Commission conclusion the Lee Harvey Oswald killed his father, he, as his uncle, Robert Kennedy, before him, would have sought out the true murderers had he become President.

Adele

Dawn Meredith
07-18-2012, 12:56 PM
Thanks Adele. I found the Hankey video yesterday too and wached it. It is one theory of the crash. I recall also reading, several years ago now, that more than one person saw what appeared to be an explosion in the sky where he would have been, just over the Vineyard. So that is yet another explantion. In the Hankey video a name is just shown for an instant: Josh. I did not get the last name of the purported flight instructer.
I will try to go back when I am here for sometime and find it, then google it. If there was a missing FI you'd think someone would know, unless the family is afraid. Hankey was told that he always flies with a flight instructor and that he had told people he planned to do so this time. The Hankey vidoeo has a lot of useful information in it but he fucks up by saying W killed JFK. There is zero proof of that.

The Bush stuff detracts greatly from the rest of the film.
Dawn

Adele Edisen
07-18-2012, 04:27 PM
Thanks Adele. I found the Hankey video yesterday too and wached it. It is one theory of the crash. I recall also reading, several years ago now, that more than one person saw what appeared to be an explosion in the sky where he would have been, just over the Vineyard. So that is yet another explantion. In the Hankey video a name is just shown for an instant: Josh. I did not get the last name of the purported flight instructer.
I will try to go back when I am here for sometime and find it, then google it. If there was a missing FI you'd think someone would know, unless the family is afraid. Hankey was told that he always flies with a flight instructor and that he had told people he planned to do so this time. The Hankey vidoeo has a lot of useful information in it but he fucks up by saying W killed JFK. There is zero proof of that.

The Bush stuff detracts greatly from the rest of the film.
Dawn

I can't remember the name now, but I did do a search hoping to find the family members and did find someone in California with the same last name (it was very unusual). I told Hankey about it but he was reluctant to investigate further. But it was important that he found out that a flight instructor was missing at that airport in New Jersey.

I'll look for that video and see if I can make out the name.

Hankey's hypothesis of the programmed suicidal flight instructor was a bit of a stretch, but it is still within the realm of possibility with hypnotic suggestion, etc. However, a simpler explanation would appear to be that the searchers removed his body so that John Jr. could be cited with a pilotting error if his body were to be found without an instructor with him. That may also explain why the seat for the flight instructor had to be removed so that it would appear that it was dislodged by the impact.

I think all this was done to protect the guilty of the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy because John Jr. would have found them.

Adele

Adele Edisen
07-18-2012, 07:22 PM
Dawn,

I just watched the JFK Jr video on You Tube - all 11 parts. I found the name of the missing flight instructor that is given. It is Josh Kallenburg, a name I considered rare because when I did a search for it, I found only one such entity at that time.

I might be mistaken, but the You Tube version seemed to have some more details than I remember from my disc version. But then again, that was a long time ago.

I had a new thought about the fuel line switch being in the OFF position. That is what led Hankey to consider a programmed suicidal flight instructor taking over the controls of the plane and plunging it into the sea, but suppose the plane had exploded from a bomb while still in the air then all the parts would have scattered and fallen into the sea, explaining the wide displacement of the different parts of the plane. When the flight instructor's body and chair were removed, the fuel line switch could have been set to OFF to make it look like a pilot's useless motion to try control the plane. Even though Hankey stated there was no evidence of an explosion found by the National Transportation Safety Board, it would seem that no evidence of an explosion would have to be claimed if the blame was to be placed on John's pilot error.

This is another lesson on how information can be obliteratd, modified, denied so that the public is not given the truth. And like the botched Zapruder film and the JFK autopsy, this shows the botched search and investigation to deny the truth, because the truth has to be hidden by the powerful guilty ones for their awful purposes.

Adele

Adele Edisen
07-19-2012, 01:26 PM
Dawn,

Thanks to you, I located the name of the missing flight instructor which Hankey cited. I also have been rethinking about what I had said about the fuel gauge being in the OFF position.
It occurred to me that I recalled from a long time ago on the JFKresearch forum that someone had thought the pressure bomb had been placed in the rear compartment of the plane where the baggage would be stored. This could have broken off the rear part of the plane causing the remaining front part of the plane to tip forward from its horizontal position in the air (due to the weight of the engine, four passengers, and wings) and fall to the sea nose first. Perhaps to slow down the rate of descent, the pilot, John or Flight Instructor, reached for the fuel gauge to cut off fuel to the motor and thereby try to soften the impact as much as possible (?) This could explain why the fuel gauge was in the OFF position.

I remember reading that the propellers of the plane had been bent in such a way that they may have been rotating when the impact occurred. They could still have been rotating more slowly if the motor had stopped because of inertia. After all, there were only a very few seconds between the bomb's explosion and the impact from the descent.

Just some more thoughts.

Adele

Dawn Meredith
07-19-2012, 01:49 PM
Dawn,

I just watched the JFK Jr video on You Tube - all 11 parts. I found the name of the missing flight instructor that is given. It is Josh Kallenburg, a name I considered rare because when I did a search for it, I found only one such entity at that time.

I might be mistaken, but the You Tube version seemed to have some more details than I remember from my disc version. But then again, that was a long time ago.

I had a new thought about the fuel line switch being in the OFF position. That is what led Hankey to consider a programmed suicidal flight instructor taking over the controls of the plane and plunging it into the sea, but suppose the plane had exploded from a bomb while still in the air then all the parts would have scattered and fallen into the sea, explaining the wide displacement of the different parts of the plane. When the flight instructor's body and chair were removed, the fuel line switch could have been set to OFF to make it look like a pilot's useless motion to try control the plane. Even though Hankey stated there was no evidence of an explosion found by the National Transportation Safety Board, it would seem that no evidence of an explosion would have to be claimed if the blame was to be placed on John's pilot error.

This is another lesson on how information can be obliteratd, modified, denied so that the public is not given the truth. And like the botched Zapruder film and the JFK autopsy, this shows the botched search and investigation to deny the truth, because the truth has to be hidden by the powerful guilty ones for their awful purposes.

Adele

Well if there was a flight instructor it cannot have been Josh Kallenburg as there are you tube videos of him as late as 2011 online.

I would not trust the NTSB on any crash. Think back to Dorothy Hunt's murder 12/8/72 on United Airlines, along with CBS's Michelle Clark. (And many others) That was a total coverup.

That is another nail for Hankey to have named a person easily found to be alive as the FI on the doomed JFK Jr. plane. He also gets the cousin Carole Radizwill's name totally wrong, calling her "Ratawell"

Dawn