Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

[katisha]

Yeah, what they all ^^^ said, Seamus. All the best with your work, and stay in touch if you have time.You know where I am if you need a bossy old bat to pick on your spelling and redistribute your apostrophes

[John Hankey]

John Hankey responds to Seamus Coogan’s attacks-Summary: There are three main elements to the case against Bush. The first is Hoover’s memo, naming Bush as a CIA officer, and implying that Bush supervised what Nixon called “misguided anti-Castro Cubans”. Buried in 22,000 mainly useless words, Coogan concedes the major point that GHWBush is the person referred to in this memo. The second major element against Bush is the evidence that these “misguided anti-Castro Cubans” were in Dealey Plaza and shot Kennedy. Coogan pretends that I am alone in my position that this Bush-supervised group was directly involved. But that is precisely the principal thesis of Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial (the content of which is outrageously misrepresented Coogan); and Gaeton Fonzi, cited by Coogan, has said that this is the most important area for further investigation into the murder. Finally, I maintain that Bush’s phone call to the FBI the day of the assassination shows, at a minimum, that he was in the Dallas area, on duty for the CIA that day, involved in the assassination, and probably in Dallas. Coogan does not even take this subject up, conceding the point with his silence. But if he has nothing of importance to contest, what is his agenda? His dark purpose is to defend the most demonstrably evil family on the planet. -A few opening remarks: -Seamus Coogan's attacks on my work are not entirely without merit. His article is, in fact, a monumental piece of fact-checking. I wish that I had had the resources to have hired him as a fact checker. I'm somewhat embarrassed and humiliated to see the myriad minor points that he is able to score against me. But I don't believe there is any substance to any of the minor errors that he discovers. And there is so much blatant dishonesty in matters tiny and momentous, that I don't think there can be any room for doubt about the darkness of his motives: i.e. the defense of the Bushes, the most demonstrably evil group of individuals alive today.-It's a worthless distraction, but I do need to clarify the issue of what I claim regarding my own accomplishments, since it is Coogan‘s favorite misdirection, to which he reverts relentlessly. I'm a 3rd rate researcher. I never discovered anything. I rely entirely on the fine work of others. If I've ever said otherwise I apologize. But I never made any of the claims for which Coogan constantly attacks me. I teach in Los Angeles's inner city, to some of the least privileged kids in the country. I'm proud of that work. My students, on a regular basis, demonstrate brilliance and courage* etc. that is heartening and inspiring. -Self-aggrandizement isn't my thing. I didn't choose to get involved in publishing my views on the assassination. I was pushed into it by my observation / belief that JFK Jr. was murdered by the same forces that murdered his father. And that Jr.'s murder was, like his father's, the opening shot in a blood bath. I think I was right. I think JFK Jr.’s murder is linked to Paul Wellstone's, and was genuinely prelude to the 9-11 attacks. I felt that I had to act, to produce something massively accessible, that would inform the world of the dark vision that I saw. After 9-11, I thought that publishing the substantial evidence of GHW Bush's involvement in the Kennedy assassination would help give people the cognitive resilience to consider the possibility that the Bushes were involved in planning and executing 9-11.** -I didn't uncover any of the critical evidence I use in my arguments. I wasn't the first to link GHW Bush to the Kennedy assassination. Mark Lane was. I didn't raise this stuff about how Bush named his WWII planes after his wife, and a boat at the Bay of Pigs invasion was likewise re-named "The Barbara"; Fletcher Prouty did; and Lane cited him. I didn't set out to implicate E. Howard Hunt in the assassination. Lane did. At the conclusion of Plausible Denial, Lane publishes the Hoover memo, which names Bush as a CIA officer, which thereby associates Bush with the assassination through the title of the memo ("Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy"), and which also powerfully suggests that Bush was somehow involved with what Hoover calls the CIA's "misguided anti-Castro Cubans." This at the tail end of a book in which Lane endeavors to show that these misguided anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination. I don't mean to criticize Mark Lane for not connecting the dots for you, and saying outright "Bush Killed JFK!". Good grief! the guy's got enough heat on him already. And I don't want to suggest that I am somehow special for speaking out about the obvious; or, least of all, that I am a spokesman for Mark Lane. The point is, I'm not the originator of any of these ideas. And anyone as brilliant about his facts as Seamus is, knows it. But he attacks me, and pretends that Mark Lane and Fletcher Prouty have nothing to do with any of this. I don't blame him for not wanting to take on Mark Lane. But this pretense is not merely cowardly. It is fundamentally, and darkly, dishonest. -I'm not going to take up the million small and often silly objections raised by Coogan. But why all this sand in the air? Why all the misdirection and distraction? Why doesn't he focus on the big stuff, the central issues? I've been asking myself that since the 3rd paragraph, and I now have an answer. It is misdirection of two sorts: the first is to create the illusion that finding a small error is a rebuttal to the central theme. But none of the unfortunate errors (I apologize for making them, but I have limited resources and time) challenges in any way the central theme. A second aim of this misdirection is to confound you with the impression of overabundance: he’s covered so much, he must have covered everything, right?… so that you would never think to look for what he doesn't talk about. For example, he goes into minute and meaningless detail about the date Mossadeq was murdered. This helps to mask the fact that when he attacks David Lifton’s research regarding the JFK’s body being stolen in transit to the autopsy, Coogan attacks in only the most general terms. He doesn't dare mention any of the evidence presented in support of Lifton's conclusions, because it's irrefutable. I could write this rebuttal in 5 words and say, "look at what he skips," and rest my case. He brings up my attack on Peter Jennings. And then drops it, sidestepping the central issue, which is “why would Jennings risk his reputation by telling such obvious lies; and in service of whom?” Another example is that Coogan goes on and on about Nixon and Connally. But he doesn't mention the fact that Nixon was in Dallas the day of the assassination; that he lied about it to the FBI; that he can’t give a straight account of how he found out that Kennedy had been murdered. And Coogan doesn't bring up the Haldeman quote, that Nixon told the FBI not to investigate Hunt because it would uncover the "whole Bay of Pigs / Kennedy assassination thing". This is not a minor point. Nixon was forced to resign for telling this to the FBI. It was the sole charge against him. Why does Coogan skip all this? And harp instead on all this other crap? Because that point links Nixon to Hunt and to the assassination in ways that Coogan can't weasel around. -He goes on and on about my mischaracterization of Oswald's role with the FBI. And, other than attacking me for bringing it up, he leaves out any discussion the phone call, made by the Texas attorney general, to the Warren Commission, on their first day, to tell them that Oswald was working for the FBI. ""I don’t' think Oswald's role as an informant is actually that dramatic" says Seamus. The problem, Seamus, in showing off your truly impressive command of the evidence, is that you can't, then, pretend to be unaware of fundamentally important evidence. And when you do pretend, your real motive, to deceive, in defense of the Bushes, at any cost, becomes grossly clear. The new Dallas DA, about a year ago, opened the safe in his office and pulled out a box of evidence in the JFK assassination. Among the contents was a sworn and signed affidavit, filed by a local attorney, that he had seen Ruby and Oswald together and heard them talking of killing the President. What do you want for evidence that Oswald had infiltrated the killers on behalf of the FBI? The affidavit was marked as "People's Evidence"; not a minor point. It had been judged as valid and prepared to be introduced into evidence at trial by the District Attorney's office. Marita Lorenz says Oswald was in the motel room in Dallas when Hunt came in and began passing out maps and money, corroborating that Oswald had infiltrated the killers. Coogan tells you that Gaeton Fonzi doubts Lorenz's story (what aspect of the story Coogan doesn’t say). But Coogan doesn't remind you that Mark Lane believed it and published it. Or that this DA document corroborates it. "I don’t believe Oswald's role as an informant is actually that dramatic". Oswald is obviously a paid FBI informant; who had infiltrated the killers. And the killers set him up for the murder, and then killed him. But for Coogan, that’s not drama? Who is he trying to kid? I have no idea how many readers are taken in by this sort of poisonous crap. You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. But what is Coogan’s motive in this sort of lie? What is his purpose? I've used the word dark before. I'll use it again. -The final point I’ll make about the topic of Coogan’s omissions is his inexplicable failure to take up Bush’s phone call, to the FBI, 7 minutes after the President’s death was first broadcast over the radio. In this phone call, Bush tells the FBI, to paraphrase, “Hello, I’m George Bush, I’m in Tyler Texas (in case anyone tells you they saw me in Dallas) and I want to tell you that James Parrot is a potential suspect.” It’s taken me years to fully appreciate the significance of this phone call (Coogan calls this sort of time-consuming re-evaluation a “rehash”. You decide). I originally cited this memo and simply called it “weird”. To recognize it’s importance, it has to be put into the proper context. In my latest “rehash“, Dark Legacy, I frame this memo in the context of two other high-ranking, honest, officers in the intelligence community: William Colby and Fletcher Prouty. Colby was in the CIA, but he was an honest practitioner, who felt that the CIA was, and should be, subject to civilian authority. There is nothing to suggest that Colby was in anyway connected to the events in Dallas. He was left out of this operation. Prouty is a hero, who worked at the highest levels of the Pentagon to assist the CIA in its lawful operations. And Prouty was sent to the South Pole on the day of the assassination. It was necessary to keep both these honest men out of the way so that the killers could get on with their business. But this FBI memo not only shows that Bush, by his own word, was in the Dallas area at the moment of the assassination, but he was, it may be inferred, on active duty that day, in his official capacity as a CIA officer, acting to assist in the murder, at the very least by misleading the FBI, by offering them this phony misdirection. Further, though Bush called the FBI to alert them to the threat posed by James Parrot, he had earlier dispatched his assistant, Kearney Reynolds, to visit Parrot at the exact moment of the assassination, to discuss painting signs for the Republican Party. Bush failed to mention to the FBI that he employed Parrot. Bush’s alibi, that he was in Tyler, is not credible. He claims that he was speaking to a Kiwanis club luncheon; that his speech was interrupted by the news of Kennedy’s death; and his “witnesses” say that he then announced to the audience that he was not going to continue his speech, and sat down. But his phone call to the FBI was made seven minutes after the first news report. Someone, who was not listening to his speech, would have had to hear the news; then decide that this was relevant to the assembled Kiwanis; then find his way to the room where Bush was speaking; evaluate and decide to interrupt his speech to give him the news; Bush then had to relay the news to the audience with appropriate remarks; he had to sit down; and then at some point leap up, run to a phone, find the number for the FBI, make the call, get directed by the switchboard to an agent who could take his report, and ALL WITHIN SEVEN MINUTES. It’s possible, I suppose. But it’s not credible. The timing of the phone call proves that the speech story is false. The fact that Parrot was a well-known non-threatening employee of Bush’s, shows the stated intent of the phone call is false. The false content of the phone call’s content, that Parrot should be considered some sort of threat, suggests that the phone call was made in order to establish some sort of record that Bush was in Tyler, Texas, not Dallas. So that information, that Bush was in Tyler, is also probably false. Barbara Bush was lunching that day with the wife of Al Ulmer, a foreign-based CIA coup expert, suggesting that their husbands, George and Al, were likewise together. All of the above suggests that Bush was not only on duty for the CIA, but that he was consorting with known assassination-organizers; and that he was not in Tyler at all, but in Dallas. Bush was demonstrably in Dallas the night before. He was demonstrably in Dallas the night of; and this fake alibi suggests that he was in Dallas the day of the assassination. All of this fine detail is from Russ Baker’s book excellent book, Family of Secrets. Baker is a brilliant researcher. I’m just a semi-literate idiot. But I can read. And so can Coogan. It is not plausible that Coogan has never read Baker’s book; but he doesn’t mention the book, or the evidence that Baker has uncovered; and neither is the book mentioned at Pease’s and Eugenio’s cite CTKA.net. -This phone call by Bush, the day of the assassination, is a key, final puzzle piece, hanging the murder of JFK around Bush’s neck. Case closed, so to speak. How is it conceivable that Coogan could miss his obligation to take up this point? It seem more and more clear that Coogan included 22,000 words of crap in order to hide such omissions. -I don't know, or much care who Seamus Coogan is. These are the links to an article and youtube video about him. http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standar ... res/308704 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVkV3Ul7BeY The article links him to Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio. I wrote to Jim DiEugenio and asked him to give me equal time. He said no. Fine. He has chosen to associate himself intimately with this mess. I'm sorry to see him compromise himself in this way. -There are only two central points at issue in my proposition that Bush Killed JFK. 1) Does the Hoover memo refer to Bush? And 2) were the "misguided anti-Castro Cubans" of the memo involved in the assassination? -Buried under the mountains of crap that he presents, Coogan concedes the first point: "Zapata Offshore had oil rigs positioned 30 miles north of Cuba near Cay Sal, which was "an island the CIA used as a service station for covert operations." (William Turner and Warren Hinckle, Deadly Secrets, p. xxix) And again, in all likliehood (sic), it was the relationship between Bush and those Cubans that Hoover was referring to in the memo that McBride publicized." OK? So then why all this crap? if you're going to concede the major point? Why all the attack upon my character? Why all the misdirection and distraction? I said before to focus on what Coogan doesn't say. He doesn't mention my allegation that Bush was in the CIA when he ran for Senate and lost the first time. And when he ran for Senate and lost the second time. And when Nixon brought him into the White House. And when Reagan was forced to take him on as Vice-President. And he ruled, on behalf of the CIA, while Reagan napped, for 8 years. The Bushes have held power in the White House for 20 out of the last 30 years. Junior was a coke-addled alcoholic draft-dodging tongue-tied bumbler. Why did the power elite choose him? What was his indispensable qualification? Before he was made vice-president, GHWBush had never won an election that wasn't a set-up. He was the CIA's candidate the entire time. But why him? What did he do to earn this devotion? And for what dark purpose are DiEugenio and Coogan defending him? -The other major point is whether the "misguided anti-Castro Cubans" of the Hoover memo were involved in the assassination. This is a major portion of my video, for obvious reasons. Seamus writes, "The jury decided that Hunt was not defamed by the writings about the famous "Hunt memorandum". That is all." So we are confronted, again, with what Seamus leaves out. Mark Lane did not devote himself to defending Spotlight magazine in the Hunt trial because of any love he had for Spotlight. He did it to hang the murder of JFK around Hunt's neck. And he made sure to follow the jury outside, after their verdict, so that he could listen to what they told the press about their decision. Lane says the forewoman of the jury said that they found that the evidence presented showed that Hunt was guilty. Seamus undoubtedly knows all this. So why does he leave it out? What is his agenda? If it's the pursuit of truth, why does he misrepresent the facts in this fashion about such a critical point? You, the reader, need to answer that. It’s critical. DiEugenio and Pease are big and trusted names who have lined up on Coogan’s side. They have tied their credibility to Coogan’s. And they are, I think, caught in a horrible lie in defense of the Bushes. (one of several, actually) And again, Why? My answer is that the truth is not their agenda. If their agenda is not the pursuit of the truth, why do DiEugenio and Pease deserve people’s trust? What IS their agenda? Seamus attacks the credibility of Marita Lorenz. She was just one part of the evidence presented in the trial to indicate Hunt's guilt. Why focus on her? And he leaves out Mark Lane completely. Lane presented Lorenz to me and the world. So why not attack him? Seriously. I'm a stupid dupe of that evil Mark Lane. Clearly. But Lane is far too well respected, by far too many people, for far too many good reasons, for the likes of Seamus to attack him. People would side with Lane in a heartbeat, not to mention that Lane would respond. Oops. Better not go there. Pick on that dumbass Hankey instead. Seamus quotes Gaeton Fonzi, as saying that he doubts Marita Lorenz. But he fails to quote Fonzi on the issue of the involvement of the CIA's Cubans in the assassination, which is the only real point, not Marita Lorenz. Fonzi has said he regards the involvement of the CIA's Cubans as the most important area for further investigation. That’s polite language for saying that the evidence we have shows they were involved in the assassination.-There are all sorts of smaller points that are subject to fair interpretation. But when you have nailed down a major piece of the puzzle, this lends enormous credibility to interpretations of the meaning of smaller pieces when that interpretation fits with the pieces we have nailed down. Bush was working for the CIA, working with the Bay of Pigs invaders, associating with Hunt, Sturgis, and the rest. There can be no question about these points. So when Hunt comes into the White House, where for some reason the US ambassador to the UN, GHWBush, has an office (all other UN ambassadors have had, duh, their office in NYC, next to the UN headquarters), it takes on a special resonance, because it fits with the established fact that Bush previously worked with Hunt. When Haldeman says that no one could figure out how Hunt got the job, again, resonance. Nixon in Dallas: resonance. When Nixon "flabbergasts" observers by choosing Connally, again, resonance. When Connally calls to tell Nixon he must find a job for Bush, well you get the picture. The Hoover memo offers a solid foothold to which we can attach many other puzzle pieces.-There’s many other points to be made. Prescott is CEO of a bank that doesn’t just get investigated, it gets seized as a Nazi asset. Where is the stretch in saying Prescott worked for the Nazis? By the way, Fletcher Prouty brings up the evidence for suggesting that the American Nazis poisoned FDR while he was in Moscow at the end of WWII. Stalin asked Eleanor Roosevelt to exhume the body to check for arsenic. And who was the US ambassador to Moscow at the time? Averrill Harriman, Prescott’s closest friend and associate. -To my mind, that’s enough. That’s the end. But I’ve written the following, and if you’re inclined, read along. I wrote it because I thought it was interesting. But it’s not central to the question of whether Busk killed JFK.-A few points on Oswald "Hankey has rehashed his product a number of times". I worked hard, and nearly constantly (just ask my wife) to improve the video; all with the intention of making the material more accessible to a wider audience; trying to eliminate diversions and distractions, to better-illuminate central points that people seemed to be missing; to make changes whenever anyone pointed out a factual error; and to include new evidence and reasoning that contributed important understanding. Seamus calling this work a rehash is not a small point. The original DVD had material regarding the evidence that Oswald was working for the FBI at the time of the assassination. I didn't know what to do with this evidence at the time I made the DVD. It seemed important, but if it couldn't be connected to demonstrating Bush's guilt, what was the point? I moved it out of the main film and into a "special feature" called Deep History. After 5 years, I finally figured it out. I figured out a number of things actually. One thing I figured out is that I'm retarded. I mean that in a good way. As a teacher, I have noticed that some of my "special" kids are not incapable. In fact, I find that they are often extremely capable, able to consider complex ideas and issues, and to discuss them verbally and in writing, in ways that often surpass the demonstrated abilities of their non-"special" fellow students. They are capable of brilliance. They are just a little slow. I see my self in them. I'm slow, but I'm persistent; and sometimes capable of seeing things that others, quicker of wit than I, may have rushed past. For example, it has been known for some time that Waggoner Carr, the Texas attorney general, called the Warren Commission, during their first meeting, to tell them that Oswald was an FBI agent, that his employee number was s-179, and that he was receiving $200 a month. OK. So what? It's an extraordinary story, no? It is hard to imagine how Carr could have had such confidence in the truth of this story that he felt compelled to breach the chain of command and the standards of normal procedure in this way. No? He MUST have been absolutely certain of the truth of his story. How could he be so certain? Twenty years after I first heard this story, the answer seems obvious to me. Look at the information he provided. Oswald's employee number, and the amount of his pay. Now if someone calls the FBI tomorrow and tells them my employee number and the amount of my paycheck, how could they possibly have obtained that information? Well, perhaps they were able to access the inner workings of my employer, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and extract this information. I can tell you that this is no small task. It is such a vast, distracted, and incompetent bureaucracy that it is a challenge to find out what time school gets out, much less protected information on such a miniscule detail as I am. But if you find my check stub lying around, these two pieces of information, employee number and payment amount, are the most obvious at hand. It seems further obvious, then, that Oswald must have had a paycheck stub on his person at the time of his arrest. Carr must have laid his own eyes on it, or spoke with individuals he trusted absolutely who had laid their eyes on it. And it seems obvious that Oswald; who was running in dangerous circles on behalf of the FBI, and knew it; but without a badge or other ID; carried this paycheck stub on his person the day of the assassination as a "get out of jail free" ticket. I don't go into all this in any of my videos. And I suppose "rehash" is not a wholly inaccurate description of what I'm doing with this stuff. But in using "rehash" Seamus means to be pejorative. It's meant to demean. But we're just getting started. So Oswald probably had an FBI pay warrant on his person at the time of his arrest. That is by far the most plausible explanation of the facts as we know them. -But there's more. Oswald was seen at Lake Pontchatrain in the days before the FBI raided it. And then he was issued this check. No one has ever asked the question, "How did the FBI locate this beyond-top-secret camp?" I did. And it only took me 20 years. So I don't consider myself a genius. I consider myself retarded. But tortoise and the hare: I got there, while everyone else was looking at something else. We're reading tea leaves here. That's all we've got. But scientists do this all the time, looking at fossils and data from outer space. It is more than plausible that Oswald was the source for the FBI's information leading to the raid on the Pontchartrain camp. And that Hoover rewarded him with a $200 bonus. -This is, by the way, totally standard operating procedure for Hoover. When the FBI wanted to murder the Black Panther leader Fred Hampton, in his bed while he slept, they were provided a detailed map of Hampton's apartment, including not only the location of his bedroom, but the location of his bed, and Hampton's location in the bed; so that the FBI was able to murder Hampton in his bed without striking his pregnant wife who was sleeping next to him. The information came from their most confidential and important undercover agent in the field, who was the head of security for the Panthers in Chicago. Afterwards, the agent was rewarded with a special pay warrant for $300. -OK. It appears, then, that Oswald was rewarded for helping the FBI locate the CIA's training camp at Lake Pontchartrain, with a check for $200. And he kept the paystub as insurance against the day that his undercover work for the FBI should land him in hot water, for perhaps killing the President, when he had infiltrated the CIA killers on behalf of the FBI. Just by the way, I suspect that Maurice Bishop (David Atlee Philips) recruited Oswald to go to Dallas to infiltrate "a loose-cannon group of operatives who were planning to kill the president." Hoover told Oswald to take the job. The rest is history. That's my guess. Seamus casts vacuous aspersions on my remarks linking Oswald to Pontchartrain. He says he suspects that Oswald played some minor role. He ignores the fine work by Jim Garrison linking Oswald to Guy Bannister, who ran the camps, and to David Ferrie, who frequented them. Seamus ignores background that I provided, regarding the missile crisis, to show that shutting down these camps was the highest priority of the FBI and the Kennedy White House. The world had been brought to the brink of nuclear annihilation by these camps, whose existence persuaded Castro he needed missiles; and Oswald found them. He had infiltrated the killers. But Seamus wants to quibble about how important an agent he was. -But so what? How is this central to the case against Bush? It's a question that, for 7 years or so, I answered by saying, "it isn't ". And then, retard that I am, I finally saw the light. If Oswald were Hoover's man in Dallas, that meant Hoover knew lots of details about the assassination before it happened. He would have had Ruby's phone tapped, beyond a reasonable doubt. That should have given him Hunt's name as a leader. And that may have given him Bush. Perhaps not. But it tends to explain the telex that was sent from Hoover to every FBI office warning of the coming assassination attempt in Dallas on the 22nd. Clearly, Hoover knew. And this insight gives essential background to understanding the memo that Hoover wrote 5 days after the assassination. This memo is the center piece of the case against Bush. The title of this memo is "Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy". In the memo Hoover describes a State Department request that the FBI investigate the activities of "misguided anti-Castro Cubans", and it then names "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" as one of two individuals sent by the CIA to FBI Headquarters to receive the FBI's report on these Cubans. The question of what Hoover knew, and whether he knew that "misguided anti-Castro Cubans" had in fact been shooting at Kennedy in Dallas, is huge in evaluating this memo. Oswald's FBI background, then, suggests that Hoover knew that he was naming Bush as a high ranking supervisor of the killers, and intended to do so in writing the memo. -In my latest "rehash", I also point to research by David Talbot, who wrote that Haynes Johnson wrote that he was witness to Robert Kennedy telling one of the CIA's misguided Cubans, "Your guys did it." My point if that if RFK knew, there's no special reason to think the information was not more widely known, including by Hoover. RFK's remark, then, underscores the likelihood that Hoover knew the misguided Cubans were involved in the assassination when he linked them in his memo to GHW Bush. -If I'm the first person to put these things together, to connect these dots in this way, I don't mean to exalt myself for having done so. My students outsmart me several times a day. But I don't appreciate being demeaned in this fashion, by the likes of Seamus, when I've worked hard to make, I think, some important contributions to the pursuit of the truth. -Gary Webb, Alex Jones, Lisa Pease and Seamus Coogan It is a marvel that Coogan should have attracted the attention of Lisa Pease and DiEugenio. I mean, why? What does he bring to the table, besides his animus? But where the hell does this animus spring from? What have I ever done to him that he should demonstrate such prejudice against me? It's a fair, and perhaps important question. -Coogan's long attack on me is filled with references to Alex Jones. I'm tarred with all the sins and faults that Alex has because he has posted my video. This is guilt by association, and hardly the "high standards of scholarship" Seamus implies are characteristic of his work. I endorse the call for high standards, but we're off to a terrible start if my greatest crime is that Jones posted my work. -I've never been on Alex Jones's radio show, though I would jump at the chance to address his audience. In fact, I have lobbied, every way I know how, to get on the Alex Jones show. Alex has let my contacts know, in no uncertain terms, that he won't have me on. OK. His prerogative certainly. -So I've never met Alex. I have seen things that he was put out that I think are terrible. Seamus might want to cite one. One would be nice, it would be professional, and suggest a high-standards sort of approach. But I'll offer an example: I think Alex's position on global warming is terrible. But much of what he has said about 9-11, on the rare occasion when he has gotten 35 seconds on the mainstream media, has been admirable, if not brilliant. He's a blowhard and a self promoter. OK. It sort of goes with the job, no? I don't like it. I find it distasteful. So what? -BUT in 2004, Alex stood up for Gary Webb; and I suppose that links us. Gary Webb had won a Pulitzer Prize for his series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News exposing the links between the epidemic of crack in the inner cities of the US, and the Central Intelligence Agency. The case can be made that all of the crack came through the CIA and their agent, Danilo Blandon, who was no-doubt supplied by Oliver North, working out of the office of then-VicePresident George Herbert Walker Bush. In 2004, Webb shot himself in the head. Twice. With a police special 38. That second shot bothered me. The police didn't examine the crime scene. That bothered me. There was no autopsy. The coroner ruled it a suicide without an autopsy. This sole fact is incriminating in itself. A gunshot expert told me that the concussion from a blank cartridge, fired from a .38 to your head, will kill you. It's like a terribly powerful blow to the head with a hammer. The bullet is superfluous. Well, it would be superfluous. Until the coroner rules that you shot yourself twice without examining your wounds. You see, veins and arteries, that are inflated by the blood pressure of a live person, have a very distinctive appearance when they are ripped apart by a bullet. And the deflated veins and arteries of a dead person also have a very distinctive appearance when they are ripped apart by a bullet. The living and the dead do not appear the same. It is not hard for a trained professional to tell the difference. It would not be difficult, therefore, to determine whether Gary was alive when the second shot was fired into his head. This was explained to me by Dr. Cyril Wecht. Wecht is a name of some considerable repute. He was the head of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; he testified before the House Select Committee in 1978, and helped them reach the conclusion that Kennedy's assassination was a conspiracy. -I hired an investigator. I contracted verbally with Cyril Wecht to do the autopsy. I was able to reach Gary's ex-wife, who agreed to the autopsy. Unfortunately, I also contacted Mike Ruppert, whom I practically worshipped at the time, and asked him to lead this effort. I was under the false impression, because Ruppert had said it, that he was a former detective; and would be expert in this sort of thing. Ruppert went ballistic, called me all sorts of names, and persuaded the family to cremate the body. I assume he also persuaded Lisa Pease (DiEugenio and Coogan’s closest associate) to call me, screaming, about how much the family hated me and what a turd I was (or am). I don't know how she came to make this phone call to me. But it doesn’t matter. She’s a big girl. No one tells her what to do. Do they? Ruppert attacked me and Alex Jones together in this instance. Jones had also declared that the finding of "suicide" in the case of Gary Webb was a cover-up for murder. So though we have only ever spoken for a few seconds, and though I don't believe Alex has ever said a kind word about me, I do have a soft spot in my heart for him, for taking Gary's side. In fact, I am proud to be linked with Alex as the two people who were attacked for calling for an autopsy for Gary Webb. -And so what? None of this is relevant to the discussion of the evidence that Bush killed JFK. Seamus brought Alex up. It was nearly the first topic he took up. But where does Seamus get this huge animus towards me? He doesn't seriously contest my major points. But even if he did, why with so many insults and challenge to my character? What could possibly be the source of Seamus's animus towards me? Seriously, you got me. Perhaps it’s because I’ve attacked persons, the Bushes, who are so near and dear to him that Seamus cannot bear to hear them defamed without losing his emotional balance. Are there really such people? And what could possibly be the source of Pease's animus towards me? Does Pease hate me because of my extremely reasonable suggestion that Gary Webb deserved to have his death seriously investigated? How does that make any sense? From what possible point of view does that make me the enemy? It's a reasonable question. I think their behavior in the death of Gary Webb suggest that Mike Ruppert and Lisa Pease are implicated in the cover-up of Gary Webb's murder. Now Mr. DiEugenio. You have thrown in with Pease and Coogan. That's your choice. I hate it when one honest person points a finger at another and says, “You disagree with me! You must be an operative!” And anyone who wants to can say, “Oh, Gary was depressed. He shot himself.” Ok. Twice? Well, I’m sweating with effort to say it, but, OK. But what about those who say “let’s attack the people who say this guy should have an autopsy”? At the very least, such people should not be trusted.-Regarding Lyndon Johnson and John Connally - little-known, perhaps important -Is Coogan trying to exonerate Connally? I can't tell. Rather than paying any attention to this rose food, I'll share with you something I regard as being of real interest, regarding the Johnson White House tapes. There is a conversation between Johnson and Connally. Connally wants Johnson to know that Oswald was an agent of Castro. This is the killers line (I don't mean the shooters. I mean the guys at the top, the military industrial complex, the Rockefellers Harrimans etc.): they set Oswald up to appear to be a Cuban agent in order to hand Johnson a justification for invading Cuba. I think it likely that Johnson explained all of this, and I mean all, to Earl Warren when he told him that Warren was going to head the investigation, even against his will. Johnson's secretary says Warren left in tears. In the tapes, Johnson responds to Connally by telling him to forget it; that people had pressed him, Johnson, hard and heavy immediately after the assassination to follow this line and invade Cuba; that the FBI had already investigated all this evidence supposedly depicting Oswald as an operative of Castro, and found it all to be nothing; and that he, Johnson, was having none of it; and that Connally should forget about it. Now, I'll invoke my tea leaf analogy again here to say, this is a helluva a set of tea leaves. It underscores the extent to which Connally was an operative of the killers. Right? These guys went to great lengths to create this false flag background for Oswald, having him pose as a Marxist, found a one-man chapter of a genuine leftwing organization, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; having him appear on the radio representing this fraud; having him get arrested, be photographed passing out flyers, etc. etc. And here comes Connally bringing up the rear, of this parade, pressing Johnson to act on this information. Well, I don't expect Seamus to draw the obvious conclusions about Connally's role in all this, but you're different, I suspect. But now, what does this say about Johnson? It implies strongly that Johnson was not in on the assassination. It demonstrates vividly that he was not part of the killers' plan to murder Kennedy as part of a false flag operation. If Johnson had participated in the assassination in any way, shape or form, the killers could blackmail him with this, no? To force him to go along. Furthermore, Johnson was widely known to have a very close relationship with Hoover. They dined together regularly at Hoover's house. It is far more than possible that Hoover told Johnson all that he knew about the events in Dallas. Now, Johnson passed the voting rights act. And he passed Medicare. He passed Medicare at a time when the "Oh my God! Not socialized medicine, you commie sonovabitch!!" hysteria was much louder than it is today, when no public option of any sort is viable. Medicare was public option, period. How was Johnson able to pass it? It has been suggested to me that he held their role in the assassination over the heads of the Republican leaders. Makes sense. Fits the puzzle. -Prescott Bush - it's not a major point Seamus invents the notion that I said Prescott supervised the coups against Arbenz, LuMumba and Mossadeq. And then attempts to refute it. But setting Seamus aside as a silly distraction from important points, let's take up the notion of Prescott. It's not an essential point. It doesn't much matter, as far as I can see, whether Prescott was in charge, or simply good friends with Dulles, Harriman, Davison, William Casey. My point was that he was a part of this community. It's not an essential point, but it is an interesting one. So let's take it up for a moment. In the course of my "rehashing" (one might even call it "research and development", if one had common decency) I came upon a book by Joseph Trento. Trento is of considerable note. He gets a whole chapter in Mark Lane's Plausible Denial. He is a New Jersey reporter, and to a large extent, a mouthpiece for the CIA. That is, he supports the CIA and their goals and work. And has extensive contacts and friends inside the agency. But what does that mean, to "support the CIA"? It means whatever it means to Joseph Trento. Trento does not think the CIA was involved in Kennedy's murder. Which is interesting and worth noting; because the reason he appears in Plausible Denial is because he was the only reporter on the planet, outside Vincent Marchetti at Spotlight Magazine, who had the guts to print the memo from Angleton to Helms that said that Hunt was in Dallas and involved in the assassination (I apologize for not going in to all the details of Hunt v Spotlight). In fact, in the trial, he revealed that he had actually seen the memo, and found it entirely credible. So, apparently, he believes that the CIA had no official role in the assassination, and he doesn't feel that he is compromising the agency to reveal that a rogue agent, named Hunt, was involved. Anyway, lets pause a moment to reflect. It was, I am sure, policy for Dulles to intentionally remain ignorant of dangerous details of what the CIA was doing. This was likely the case with every CIA director. Certainly, John McCone, JFK's choice to replace Dulles, was unaware of most of what the agency was up to. So some CIA directors are kept in the dark at their own direction; and some are kept in the dark despite their best efforts to find out what is going on at an agency that serves the interests of the Rockefellers first and foremost. Now, presumably Dulles, a thorough Rockefeller insider, would have been involved in all matters. So I would have presumed. But Trento tells the following story which has considerable implications for answering the question: where did Prescott fit in? Trento says that the CIA had planned to poison Chou En Lai, in the years when he was a high ranking player in the Chinese Communist party, but not yet the premiere. The poison was in the food, and on the plate, when word came down to abort. Trento offers no insight into why the murder was called off; the on-scene operatives were forced to compromise themselves in order to remove the plate, and were wounded in a shoot-out that took place as a result of their attempts to abort the mission. And, says Trento, Prescott Bush was sent to investigate. And, says Trento, Dulles asked for an update, and was told that he didn't have sufficient clearance. My points are two-fold: 1) the fact that Dulles was director, and therefore in the public spotlight, suggests that he would have been a figurehead so that things could go on behind the scenes, directed by truly powerful parties unknown; and 2) this story of Trento's suggest that Prescott was the power behind the scenes. I learned of this story well after JFK II had been redone several times; but in time to include it in the latest edition, Dark Legacy, if I had thought it to be critical to the point. I don't think it is critical. Seamus cites Trento, but misses this. Somehow. Oh, right. Seamus sees no evil when it comes to the Bushes. -Musings on Fletcher Prouty's story regarding the name changes - not at all central But I'm not done "rehashing" this topic. It has always struck me as extraordinary that Prouty would pick out and connect the information he presents. How would anyone manage to notice the names of Bush's WWII planes? Why would you attribute any importance to the information, so as to remember it? And how in the name of Coogan would you manage to associate that information with the fact that one of the ships at the Bay of Pigs was renamed "The Barbara"? It's like picking flypoo out of pepper. But it's a fair, reasonable, and I think intelligent question. How could this association of such arcane and disparate facts have occurred to Prouty. I won't take credit for answering the question. A contact, who worked for the Army in an ancillary role in the army's support of the CIA at the Bay of Pigs, told me that Bush cut a broad figure in the Bay of Pigs operation. He was not low profile. Lots of people knew him. And Prouty knew him. In fact, Prouty worked with him intimately. Bush told Prouty to have the ship renamed The Barbara; and apparently Bush told him why, in honor of his wife, for whom he had already named two other air ships. Now. Prouty was involved in secret work. His contact with Bush was secret. He could not reveal it; and he could be arrested, or worse, if he did (in fact Trento says a contact told him the same story of Bush at the Bay of Pigs, and promptly killed himself). But the fact that Bush had renamed his planes after his wife was not a secret. Bush wrote about it. And the fact that the ship at the Bay of Pigs had been renamed The Barbara was also not a secret. Neither were known by anyone, but they weren't secrets. Prouty could talk about that. It was all that he was allowed to talk about; so that's what he talked about. Or at least that's my analysis. It makes sense to me. It answers those questions. I think it's interesting. It's well seasoned. And it is so much more valuable than anything that Coogan has to observe on any topic. -FOOTNOTES*I wanted to include one footnote. My students and I were discussing Malcolm X and the Kennedy assassination; and the brilliance and accuracy of his remark about "the chickens coming home to roost"; and the motives of Elijah Mohammed in silencing Malcolm. And Anna raised her hand and said "It's like the Aztecs." I asked her to explain. She said that the Aztecs would assemble their enemies in front of the great pyramids, and invite them to watch as they ripped the still-beating heart from the bodies of Aztec children. The point is not that the Aztecs didn't love their children, but that they were willing to make this sacrifice in order to persuade their enemies that they were insanely bloodthirsty and cruel, and not the sort you should challenge, or refuse a reasonable offer. Anna says that Elijah Mohammed recognized that if the White people were launching a campaign in which they were killing their own, including their own White president, Black people had best keep the lowest possible profile, or they should expect to suffer a similar or worse fate. I have always felt that Elijah Mohammed's change in attitude at this juncture needed explaining. He had always given Malcolm free reign to insult the White power establishment in any way, shape or form that Malcolm could imagine, the more bold and insulting the better. I think this explanation is right on the money. Elijah Mohammed was obviously an outstanding tactician and analyst, and this interpretation is consistent with that view. -**Now, having said that, I need to take up Coogan’s second most-favored misdirection: how long I’ve been at it. I could write several pages on my experiences, since the age of 7, of JFK. I campaigned, at 7 years old, arguing with adults, wearing a huge button. My whole family was aroused about the Democratic convention. Close friends, union leaders, attended, shook hands with Kennedy. Blah blah. blah. When I was 20, my best friend showed me a bootleg copy of the Zapruder film. I was deeply marked. I’d always been a serious and hard-working history student. And, persuaded that I knew nothing but the lies taught to me, I carried my happy butt down to the LA Central Library; and came home with Rush to Judgement and Heritage of Stone. And I can’t remember what else. I then went back to my old high school and put on a presentation of what I had learned. I then went to UC Santa Cruz and did the same. I put on a presentation for my fellow employees at the Legal Aid Foundation where I was doing my Alternative Service for refusing the draft. I was then invited to put on a demonstration at a “neighborhood center” in Watts. I had done 3 hours at UCSC; and 5 hours at Loyola H.S. But about 20 minutes into my presentation in Watts, an old Black woman interrupted me and said, “We know they killed him. We want to know why” Damn. “I don’t know” I told her. “What do you think?” I was totally unprepared. Which led me to Peter Dale Scott’s article at the end of the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers, and his book. And I’ve been into the deeper political questions regarding his murder ever since. Perhaps if Coogan spent more time speaking with and listening to old Black women, he’d be more sophisticated in his views. Just kidding, Seamus. I think you’re hopeless.-I’m 57. That’s 37 years I’ve been at the question of who and why. I apologize for rounding 37 years up to 40 in the obscure reference that Coogan was able to find. But that’s typical of the “truth” in any of Coogan’s attacks on me and my arguments against the Bushes: utterly worthless and irrelevant, even if true. But in fact, I’ve been a fan and defender of John Kennedy for 49 years at least.

[Dealey Joe]

Mr. HankeyThanks so much for your post.I do not have the mental fortitude now days to fully understand exactly what Seamus or you are actually getting at.One thing I have noticed about researchers that most seem to wait for someone to say something so they can all jump on it and rip it to pieces.Just look at Judyth Vary Baker, James Files and some others.To me that puts you in GOOD COMPANY.Keep up the good work. No one is counting.we here value everyones opinion.except maybe mine

[Michael Dell]

John, thank you very much for posting your response To Mr. Coogan. I hope everyone who was quick to applaud Mr. Coogan's piece will take the time to read and appreciate your response. Here's hoping it gets as much attention as the initial attack. While I believe my feelings on this matter are well established, I must reiterate my main issue with Mr. Coogan's piece was the disrespectful, arrogant tone. He clearly knew nothing about Mr. Hankey, never even attempted to contact him and question his sources, nor did he have the courtesy to even alert him of the "review." It was a hit piece from start to finish, and it betrayed an agenda from the opening line to the closing period. Yet not only did it get published on CTKA, it was held up for praise by certain individuals who should clearly know better. That's what disturbs me most. Again, we're all on the same team here. Or at least we're supposed to be. If you disagree with someone, there's no need to belittle them and their views. You're allowed to simply say, "I don't believe that, and here's why..." Our goal should be truth, not ego. Cooperation, not rivalry. If Kennedy research is a "nasty business," as Mr. Coogan as stated earlier in the thread, it's that way because we choose to make it so. Then the question becomes why are certain individuals making those choices? Namaste.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

John Hankey wrote: But if he has nothing of importance to contest, what is his agenda? His dark purpose is to defend the most demonstrably evil family on the planet. -A few opening remarks: -Seamus Coogan's attacks on my work are not entirely without merit. His article is, in fact, a monumental piece of fact-checking. I wish that I had had the resources to have hired him as a fact checker. I'm somewhat embarrassed and humiliated to see the myriad minor points that he is able to score against me. But I don't believe there is any substance to any of the minor errors that he discovers. And there is so much blatant dishonesty in matters tiny and momentous, that I don't think there can be any room for doubt about the darkness of his motives: i.e. the defense of the Bushes, the most demonstrably evil group of individuals alive today. As much as Seamus Coogan has been nice to me, I have to agree with John Hankey in that I could not see where Seamus was going with his critique of John.I'll give Seamus the benefit of the doubt in giving much importance to fact checking, but when those facts don't challenge the central theme at all, what is the point? What is the agenda? Why didn't Seamus Coogan challenge John Hankey's themes or conclusions on their merits?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

SeamusCoogan wrote:Well the Hankey piece going up as it did caught me unawares. It was a strange couple of days. I regret not being able to talk with you all a little more about why I did or said certain things or any questions you lot may have had. But I thank you all for your support. Ken yeah we should start that discussion on Northwoods but I'm just gonna be to busy this year. To really indulge. Hankey of course does deserve his say and I am sure he will reply. Sadly, my work load is just too high so I might pop in and take a peak sometime and comment on other things but my reply to Mr Hankey will likely be very long in coming. Fear not it will arrive.Thus I'm gonna be more than cool with taking a back seat and enjoying the fantastic moderation of the forum (thats all of you other guys Bob gets to much credit lol), the ideas and those little nuggets you guys come out with. Thus I look forward too to what our sleuths are gonna cook up this year. Trust me guys the smells from the kitchen are mighty tempting. Furthermore, I'm always there to lend a hand or be grumpy about some idea so you know where I'll be. I was tempted to get off of the entire forum indeed all of the ones I post on. Sheesh, but no way I couldn't do that here. So best of luck for the year. If anybody new here wants to contact me for anything outside of solved for anything urgent Bob, Ken, Joe, Phil, Pasquale, Kat and Thom (I think you do mate) have my details. I'm never to busy to lend a hand and I'll also be in touch with Ken, and Bob on CTKA related stuff and with Katisha, Dragoo and Joe on other projects on a fairly regular basis. So I'm around.So, let me get this right. Seamus Coogan lays a rotten egg here about John Hankey and then goes into some sort of retirement from the forum to take a "back seat?" What gives? Did he lay the rotten egg and feels that his work is done here?Why didn't Seamus Coogan address John Hankey's conclusions and themes on their merits? John Hankey himself said in his response here that he should have gotten a better fact checker, but that NONE of Seamus Coogan's supposed corrections address ANY of John Hankey's conclusions.I think you guys know where I'm going with this because we've seen this sort of nonsense before. Attacking someone's arguments or conclusions WITHOUT actually addressing the issues is nonsense. It has the APPEARANCE of challenging someone's argument or conclusion, but it's actually a lot of dust and non-sense. I would have expected better from Seamus Coogan. I very much am waiting for Seamus Coogan's response to John Hankey's response. Am I missing something here, or did Seamus Coogan just put out a disinformation piece to fool people? I'm being totally serious here.

[Michael Dell]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:SeamusCoogan wrote:I very much am waiting for Seamus Coogan's response to John Hankey's response. Am I missing something here, or did Seamus Coogan just put out a disinformation piece to fool people? I'm being totally serious here.Exactly. I agree with everything you said, sir. So that begs the question why was the "review" written? Or, more importantly, why was it published and praised by CTKA? Clearly, it didn't go through the vaunted "peer review" process Mr. Coogan spoke of earlier in the thread. And if it did, that process needs to be overhauled. Immediately. Also, why won't CTKA run Mr. Hankey's response? The whole situation stinks. And I, personally, feel it casts a shadow on everyone at CTKA, their work, and their motives.

[ThomZajac]

Agreed.

[bob franklin]

Hi, John, great to see you posting here. Stick around, eh? I purchased your dvd & found it most informative.I personally have a prob with the bush crime family getting a walk from anyone on the provable things they've done. this bothers me perhaps even more than the overall tone of that ctka piece. It really leads me to wonder about motives and allegiances. The Gary Webb thing is also troubling. Mike Ruppert Is guilty of no less than obstruction, but the body's gone, so we'll never officially know. Not so sure about Lisa, except for having major bad taste in friends, as Mike sounds for all the world like a spook. Her phone call was clearly in the poorest of form. Makes me wonder "what else".I saw a poster's signature either here or another forum that read "the best way to strengthen a lie is to mix in a little truth" We should all be careful with whom we ally ourselves and whom we trust. The White hats worn by some of our most highly thought of brethren might just be reversible. Remember Gary Mack...

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Michael Dell wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:SeamusCoogan wrote:I very much am waiting for Seamus Coogan's response to John Hankey's response. Am I missing something here, or did Seamus Coogan just put out a disinformation piece to fool people? I'm being totally serious here.Exactly. I agree with everything you said, sir. So that begs the question why was the "review" written? Or, more importantly, why was it published and praised by CTKA? Clearly, it didn't go through the vaunted "peer review" process Mr. Coogan spoke of earlier in the thread. And if it did, that process needs to be overhauled. Immediately. Also, why won't CTKA run Mr. Hankey's response? The whole situation stinks. And I, personally, feel it casts a shadow on everyone at CTKA, their work, and their motives. Bob, Thom, and Michael:Exactly!!!I think that even if Seamus Coogan had actually addressed any of John Hankey's conclusions, why wouldn't CTKA run Hankey's response? Gentlemen,THIS IS IMPORTANT! Why would an entity or people NOT allow John Hankey to post his response? It's UNFAIR and it smells rotten. I don't care WHO they are. Remember this. Truth movements and circles are BROUGHT DOWN FROM WITHIN! They join the ranks as moles, overly ingratiate or kiss butt to established people there, then gradually try and steer us off course. So, in my opinion, CTKA is suspect as well as Seamus Coogan. Again, I'm being totally serious.