Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

[katisha]

Welcome to the forum, Michael Dell.I haven't read Seamus' article yet, and when I do I probably won't have much to say as I haven't seen the video it's all about. I have seen a lot of Seamus' work though, both here and in other places, and I think he's a great researcher. He does have a very enthusiastic style, because he's passionate about this subject, but there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure John Hankey's perfectly capable of replying to Seamus' review himself.As for 'respect' and 'decorum', that's a bit rich coming from someone who joined this forum solely in order to slag off one of the members - and, as evidenced by your statement that you've never heard of him, without even bothering to look at any of his other work. Bit of a dog act, wasn't it?

[Dealey Joe]

Well said my dear I was thinking the same thing but just didn't put it into words.Did you get a new computer??

[ThomZajac]

I'm with Michael on this one. Why the lack of civility?Disagreement is fine. But personal attacks make us all look ridiculous. In the very recent past, Bruce, Wim, and Seamus have intentionally insulted those with whom they disagreed. Some may call that passion, but it's clearly misplaced ego and lack of manners.I would like to think we can be better than this.Thom

[SeamusCoogan]

Its good to see we are making headway. And thanks to Joe and Katisha. However Michael. I only wish, this was an even playing field. Trust me people have tried to be nice and civil in this and theres nothing nice and civil about whom we are up against. Not at all. While I appreciate your passion for the subject matter and your willingness to hold fellow researchers to high standards, I, personally, think we'd all be better served with a bit more decorum. Someone else could just as easily shred your review for strawmen arguments and logical fallacies, casting you in the same questionable light. But what's the point? It doesn't get us closer to truth.Take for instance the fact that researchers for years, prior to the internet had been slandered and slandered badly. Every dirty underhand trick in the book has been thrown at them. One of the big ones has been the planting of researchers in the community to pose as real researchers. Gary Mack is a fascinating case and I refer you to seek out an article Jim Di Eugenios article dealing with him and his friends. Look out, they're cunning guys. Also theres been some really interesting individuals who have cropped up like Lamar Waldron, Barr McClellan and Craig Zirbel who have jumped up beaten their chest and then been found out for rather lame ducks or the frauds they were. Now thats not just me saying these words Mike its a whole bunch of people. Lamar Waldron, oh god. You see all of these guys advocated conspiracy the problem being is that none of the accumulated evidence has pointed in that direction. For too long people with dodgey premises were running around in the years after JFK. What this did, was give the Lone Nut guys heaps of ammunition to pull on us, All of a sudden I'm branded with believing for example Madeline Browns story about a party at Clint Murchisons pad. Now, thats not true only a minority of researchers by that angle, suddenly I am a fan of Dave Lifton. Well, no. You see, whats happened is every mistake is lumped into a melting pot. Hankey mark my words will be used in the same way. Posners done it, Bugiosi has done it McAdams has done it phew the whole shabang.I quoted a great piece from Bob on this very topic, in an early part of this thread. And our take is that there are actually very few genuine lone nut advocates out there. They aren't a group like here they are paid hacks, and their are many insinuations they are government hacks at that. This is the most saddening aspect of this case for me is that a genuine lone nut supporter no matter where they go is dumped on for being a stooge, through their cynical actions in the past they themselves have effectively killed the freedom of speech and thought. Now, i have never made any sort of claim that I am infallible far from it. However, I have the advantage of having my stuff (depending whom I am with) being peer reviewed by the likes of Jim Di, Lisa Pease, Greg Parker, and Larry Hancock. Man, if people like these guys who have differing opinions on issues don't buy it. I sure as hell don't wanna fly it. So before anything I do comes to light its usually taken a very long and tested process. I make the odd boob here on the forum lol, but when it comes down to the finished product, I do my best to minimise that chance. If you really honestly believe that someone arguing Hankeys point of view could demolish my argument then please be my guest. And no im not going to accept the idea of a few mistakes and overall thesis correct, or a what the hell I got that wrong but what the hey I was right wasn't I. I demand a back up and an answer for every single mistake I believe he has made and every comment he has made about the memorandum that grew legs and walked, everything. If Kennedy assassination research is a "nasty" business, as you say it is, then it's that way because we choose to make it so. It's a choice. And I guess I'm asking you and everyone else to choose wisely.The CTKA line is pretty hard, I make no bones about that. Now I do not represent Jim or CTKA i have to be careful here. But I do admire the style. Its tough gritty and theres strictly no bullshit. Yeah for sure Jim and Lisa have been accused of causing disharmony. Usually by people whose ideas they have not bought into or after a review. Man if you don't like my style like I said you will struggle with CTKA stuff, you wont be the first or the last person whose been taken aback by what they have posted. Furthermore, I have stated those things and look if Hankey is not a fraud, he is an opportunist, if he is not dishonest he is naive and living in fantasy land in many ways. Now should Hankey redo and recall all of his editions of JFK II dotted all over the show and patch up his mistakes then I would gladly review my position I have taken on him. I'm a man of my word on that until then, I suggest Mike and I'm sure everyone here will agree you seriously start examining the different forums, the different reviews on CTKA and so on. So chief I suggest you pick up JFK and the Unspeakable, The Assassinations (Bob will say Doug Horne....damn you Bob you never let me have my cake and eat it) and start having a good look. This is the last I think I'll say. On the issue. But I have enjoyed the to and fro.ThomZajac wrote:I'm with Michael on this one. Why the lack of civility?Disagreement is fine. But personal attacks make us all look ridiculous.In the very recent past, Bruce, Wim, and Seamus have intentionally insulted those with whom they disagreed. Some may call that passion, but it's clearly misplaced ego and lack of manners.Thom you criticised my spelling in an argument implying a lack of education on my behalf. Cmon, Thom. if thats not misplaced ego or lack of manners I dunno what is. To get biblical "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Sheesh Ive even seen Ken Murray (that gave me a shock) and Bob (I could see it coming slow build lethal) wanna kill someone recently (that lady who posted defending Perry), so cmo'n. This is a forum we all have a melt down some more than others granted. But man we're cool. Generally thanks to the awesome moderation by the people here everything gets resolved fairly smartly and I think whats great is that peace gets made fairly quickly here also. Hell some other forums are pretty intense. Hey you may not agree with everything Jim says Thom, but he is right this is an excellent forum. Furthermore I'm more than willing to take mick out myself for being offhand. Wim and Bruce, I dunno.I would like to think we can be better than this.Oh Your such a stick in the mud. But I agree malice can carry over. Will I revisit what I have said about Hankey one day. I'd love too if its good for sureThom

[Bob]

Michael Dell wrote:Seamus, While I appreciate your passion for the subject matter and your willingness to hold fellow researchers to high standards, I, personally, think we'd all be better served with a bit more decorum. Someone else could just as easily shred your review for strawmen arguments and logical fallacies, casting you in the same questionable light. But what's the point? It doesn't get us closer to truth. You've called John Hankey a con man and insulted his character more than once in this thread and in your review. I'd be interested to know if you've ever spoken to Mr. Hankey. Did you even bother to email him and voice your concerns before penning the article? How much do you even know about the man? I'm just saying it would be nice if we worked together in pursuit of truth. I mean, I don't understand why it's so hard to simply state, "I don't agree with that, and here's why..." without the insults and personal attacks. And I believe that same courtesy should be extended to the Gary Macks of the world. Calling him an idiot doesn't make us any smarter. After all, you take Mr. Hankey to task for being "sensationalistic," but couldn't the same charge be levied against the tone of your review? If Kennedy assassination research is a "nasty" business, as you say it is, then it's that way because we choose to make it so. It's a choice. And I guess I'm asking you and everyone else to choose wisely.I'm sorry if you perceive my criticism as disrespectful or argumentative. That isn't my intention. But clearly, if you're saying you've received nothing but applause for the piece, then you must at least be willing to acknowledge a differing viewpoint. It will only serve to strengthen your future work. Of course, if I find the tone of your review distasteful, it's only because I recognize the same weaknesses in myself. If the parts I found to be arrogant, sarcastic, and belittling didn't already exist within me, I wouldn't be so quick to recognize them in others. Anyway, thank you for joining the thread and responding to my posts. I appreciate your time, and I wish you well. After all, we're brothers in hockey. And, yes, I am the very same hockey writer you mentioned. I've been writing about the NHL for a good 16 years and had one of the first NHL sites on the internet, predating NHL.com and all other major news outlets. I've taken a break from the hockey writing this season to focus on writing mystery novels, which is why I'm also drawn to conspiracy research. As for the Oilers, the biggest mistake they've made recently was believing their 2006 squad was good simply because they fluked their way to Game Seven of the Finals. Having Chris Pronger quit on them certainly didn't help, either. But it wasn't Pronger's fault that they signed Shawn Horcoff to such a ridiculous contract. I'm afraid it may be a while before the Oil are competitive again. And, Bob, you must be loving Steve Stamkos, no? It's nice to see the kid having such a swell season after all the garbage he took last year. And I'm from Pittsburgh, so I am of course familiar with Badger Bob Johnson. It truly is a great day for hockey. And your boy Ruslan Fedotenko played a big role in my Penguins winning the Cup last season...Michael, I appreciate where you are coming from, especially being a moderator in a forum where emotions can run PRETTY, PRETTY GOOD. The only thing I disagree with you about is your position on Gary Mack. I have debated Dunkel...er...Mack online. So has Wim. Mack didn't have the balls to debate Jim DiEugenio on Black Op Radio when given the chance. But he always shows up on Discovery in their safe and jaded environment with their productions about the JFK assassination as he tells out and out lies, without allowing a response from anyone from the CT side. I'm sorry, but Gary Mack is a sell out and a bullshitter extraodinaire and he proves it every time he is on TV. Finally, getting back to hockey, please see this story that I did about the comparison between your Penguins and the Lightning...Deja Vu I'm sure I'm not the only person in the Tampa Bay area that saw the ironic circumstances about how the Pittsburgh Penguins won the 2009 Stanley Cup, very similar to how the Lightning won the Cup in 2004. Let's look at the similarities. The Penguins like the Lightning, won the series in 7 games, but first after falling behind by a 3-2 margin after 5 games in the series. The Conn Smythe winner this year was not the superstar of the team just like with the Lightning in 2004. Vincent Lecavalier had a very nice Stanley Cup post-season in 2004, but his performance was overshadowed by the performance of the second best player on the Bolts, Brad Richards, who won the Conn Smythe trophy. Same thing this year. Sidney Crosby had a very nice Stanley Cup run scoring 31 points in the playoffs, but he too was overshadowed by the second best player on his team...Evgeni Malkin, who had 36 points in the playoffs. Plus you have the comparisons with goalie's Marc-Andre Fleury of Pittsburgh and Nicolai Khabibulin. Both obviously won 16 games in helping their teams win the Cup. Fleury was 16-8 in his Stanley Cup run, while Khabibulin was 16-7. Fleury had a 2.61 goals against average in his 24 games, which is outstanding while Khabibulin was even better with 5 shutouts in his playoff run with the Bolts in 2004 and was a well deserved candidate for the Conn Smythe trophy. But the thing that really brought back memories to me about the 2004 Stanley Cup finals, was the way game 7 played out that year and this year. In 2004, I called Steve Duemig at WDAE before game 7 on my way to the game. For some reason I said that Rusian Fedetenko would have a big game for the Bolts. Fedetenko did, as he scored the Bolts only two goals in a 2-1 victory over the Calgary Flames to win the Cup. This year, it was Maxime Talbot who played the role of Fedetenko, as he scored the only two goals in a 2-1 victory over the Detroit Red Wings to win the Cup this year. Oh, by the way, Fedetenko was also on this year's Penguin team, as he scored 14 points in the playoffs and got to kiss Sir Stanley again after the victory Friday night. I was in my living room Friday night watching game 7, but it brought back memories to June 7th, 2004 when I was at the St. Pete Times Forum watching the Bolts win their Cup.

[Michael Dell]

katisha wrote:As for 'respect' and 'decorum', that's a bit rich coming from someone who joined this forum solely in order to slag off one of the members - and, as evidenced by your statement that you've never heard of him, without even bothering to look at any of his other work. Bit of a dog act, wasn't it? Katisha, thanks for the welcome. First, I didn't join the forum to "slag off" one of the members. I joined to express my opinion on a matter being discussed. When Mr. Coogan said he had never seen or heard me, I merely replied then we're even. He could have just as easily researched me, which he did later. And which I have done regarding him since. I had, however, read his review before posting, which is more than you've done.As for Mr. Hankey defending himself, yes, he is perfectly capable of doing so on his own, but first he actually needs to know the review was written, which he didn't until I asked him what his response to it was.

[SeamusCoogan]

Michael Dell wrote:katisha wrote:As for 'respect' and 'decorum', that's a bit rich coming from someone who joined this forum solely in order to slag off one of the members - and, as evidenced by your statement that you've never heard of him, without even bothering to look at any of his other work. Bit of a dog act, wasn't it? Katisha, thanks for the welcome. First, I didn't join the forum to "slag off" one of the members. I joined to express my opinion on a matter being discussed. When Mr. Coogan said he had never seen or heard me, I merely replied then we're even. He could have just as easily researched me, which he did later. And which I have done regarding him since. I had, however, read his review before posting, which is more than you've done.As for Mr. Hankey defending himself, yes, he is perfectly capable of doing so on his own, but first he actually needs to know the review was written, which he didn't until I asked him what his response to it was.Mike, I think with a quip like that to Katisha whose a well dug person here and your take on Gary Mack, I would seriously stick to talking Hockey as it seems Bob politely tried to get you to do. JFK forums are a culture all of their own, there are people who communicate daily, and exchange ideas. Have a flair up and settle. Its not helped by not being schooled up on the JFK stuff. Now what Katisha said about me isn't about ego, its just due to a few things I've had my name floating around and if you were really up with the current state of play and were a researcher you would have heard of me rather easily. Thats what Katisha was saying.Furthermore, were I a hockey fanatic like you not just an outta touch fan like myself I wouldn't crash a party on your forum just to leap in cos you dissed my fave player or team, because I would have the respect for your analysis. And sports writers phew, you know about ruthless reviews so man. Pardon me but you did join this forum to slag me off lol. You havent stopped with just finding out who I am. I'm sorry, Thus that comment has me deeply suspicious of your motivations, In fact this whole few have. If you persist I will have to call you a plant. Im sorry.

[Michael Dell]

SeamusCoogan wrote:Michael Dell wrote:katisha wrote:You havent stopped with just finding out who I am. I'm sorry, Thus that comment has me deeply suspicious of your motivations, In fact this whole few have. If you persist I will have to call you a plant. Im sorry.Wow. Yes, I'm a plant because I don't agree with you. That's it. You found me out. It's not because your review was flawed. Nope. Not in the least. With all due respect, I wasn't commenting on your past work. I was commenting on one specific review which I found to be unfair and the tone of which was unwarranted. By your rationale I should forgive Bugliosi for Reclaimng History simply because he questioned the stolen election of 2000. And here we encounter yet another problem with the community. The minute someone disagrees with someone, they must be a plant or disinfo agent. If this is how you react to criticism then I guess it's easy to see why it's taken 50 years to make what little progress we have. All I said in regards to Gary Mack is that he deserves the same civility any human deserves. I know he's a fraud. His work disgusts me. But does that give me the right to insult him or take cheap shots at him? I'd much rather point out his factual errors and the reasons why he's a fraud. I would simply like to see us all rise above such petty name-calling nonsense. For instance, why wouldn't you and your group of peers reach out to Mr. Hankey and express your concerns before writing such an attack? Why wouldn't you extend an invitation to him to join your group? He obviously shares your passion for the subject matter. Why not reach out and ask him to explain why he believes the things he does? If he's wrong, you could help him understand why. And God forbid you actually learn something in the exchange. And, yes, I joined the forum specifically to express my opinion of your review. I didn't start the thread. The topic was being discussed and other viewpoints requested. I offered mine. And now that I'm here, I intend to play a more active role in the forum. I hope to learn from you, Katisha, and everyone here. Better yet, I hope to serve the pursuit of truth. I willingly offer my help in any way I can. That includes writing, assisting with research, or merely spreading the word of your discoveries and achievements. But if you expect me to agree with everything you say simply because you slap your name on it, well, I can't promise that.

[Michael Dell]

kenmurray wrote:Michael, since your from Pittsburgh, I hope your a Steelers fan as well. Ken, Actually, I was a big Steelers fan in my younger days, but I kind of soured on the team during the Bill Cowher years. I never liked Cowher. And watching him spin the Carolina Hurricane siren during the Wales Conference Finals last year only confirmed my suspicions. I do, however, like Mike Tomlin, so it's nice to see him having success. And, of course, it's always nice to see the local team do well. But I'm not a huge Steelers fan or anything. I hope that doesn't get me labeled as a plant. It's kind of weird, but during the late 90s and early 2000s, the city was pretty divided between Steelers fans and Penguin fans. Naturally, my allegiances were always to 66 and the Pens...

[katisha]

Dealey Joe wrote:Well said my dear I was thinking the same thing but just didn't put it into words.Did you get a new computer??No new computer yet, Joe; still struggling and cursin' along with the surly old bag - which is why I can't watch the DVD - Madam Mac just hates video links I have read Seamus' article now though, and I stick by what I said: Seamus is a fine researcher; if his examples from the film are correct (and I'm quite sure they are because what the hell would be the point of making them up?) he's blown this bloke's pathetic attempts at "argument"s out of the water.