Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

[Dealey Joe]

A couple of points here.Don't get me wrong but CTKA is not a forum and looks to me like they do not offer rebutals to anyone.If you censor everything that goes on the site then what do you have.I do not know Jim D. I take you alls word about him.neither do I know Mr. Hankey. I know Mr. Coogan from this forum and he is a bit of a hot head but very well informedand has put in his apprentiship agree with him or not.He has a harsh attitude to everything.Maybe he has personal feeling about Mr. HankeyTo be honest I started reading Seamus's critique of Mr. Hankeys JFKII but found it too lengthy and to me uninteresting so I wonder how many actually read the thing.I also skimmed thru Mr. Hankey's post on this forum, also a bit lengthy for me.i am sure Mr. Hankey can take the heat, if not then he needs to get out of the kitchen.I think what we have here is a case of test by fire and whatever can withstand can be considered pure.

[Bob]

I have to disagree with Pasquale and Michael about any assertions that CTKA has a motive in all this. Just check out the site...http://www.ctka.net/It's definitely one of the best JFK assassination sites out there, plus has other fascinating material as well, including the RFK assassination.I'm sure that Gary Mack, Dave Perry, Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi don't care for the site at all.Now in terms of Seamus' story and the response by John to it, I don't know what Jim DiEugenio and John have discussed, nor do I know what has gone on behind the scenes.Bottom line, there is a lot of infighting going on with the CT team. Some of it has gotten pretty personal as well. Not just between Seamus and John either.The lone nut club is like the Republican party. They stick to lies and disinformation like nobody's business. Bottom line, they stick together, no matter how ridiculous it makes them look.The CT team is different. We debate. We argue. Sometimes it gets nasty. But at least we are searching for the truth, and we don't have our heads in the sand.I wish it was different. But it is what it it is. We debate about various subject matters like who the shooters were, who the conspirators were, was the Zapruder film altered, the Secret Service role in the assassination, the complexity of Lee Harvey Oswald, etc.Sometimes it gets heated. Sometimes the emotions take over. Been there...done that. I just wish that our discourse would be more respectful.Doug Horne's new book has proven to me a number of things, that not long ago I didn't believe. Horne, to me at least, has proven that the Zapruder film was indeed altered. Horne has also proven the complicity of Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman of the Secret Service in the assassination.Horne also proves that David Lifton's work was essentially correct. The major difference being that Lifton believed that JFK's wounds were altered before Bethesda, while Horne PROVES that JFK's wounds were altered AT Bethesda.Still, there will be people that will dispute Horne's work. And not just those on the lone nut side either. There will also be researchers on the CT side that will disagree with some of Horne's points. Again...debate is good. But we all will look much better if the discussion is made in a respectful manner.

[kenmurray]

I agree with Bob. I don't believe CTKA has a motive in this. I have heard several times on BOR that Jim DiEugenio has a loathsome opinion on the Bushes, especially Junior on how he stole both 2000 and 2004 elections Sure it's a heated debate. But both sides can be respectful in this.

[Michael Dell]

Bob wrote:I have to disagree with Pasquale and Michael about any assertions that CTKA has a motive in all this. Just check out the site...Yes, there's no denying that CTKA would seem to be a tremendous resource, but I, personally, will never look at it the same way after this. How can it be trusted?I had always respected Jim DiEugenio's work, and I always cited his thorough rebuttal of Bugliosi's book whenever the topic came up, but now I'm not so sure. What really outraged me was his appearance on Black Op Radio when he not only praised the Coogan review but also literally laughed at John Hankey. How is that acceptable?And whether you agree with Coogan or not, I'm sorry, but the review itself was not well written. And I'm speaking just from a scholarly point of view. Between the strawmen arguments, the logical fallacies, the ad hominem attacks, and loaded language, the review should have never been published by a serious investigative body. It clearly didn't go through a legitimate peer review process. And if it did, the process is lacking. So that leaves me with two possibilities...1. CTKA has no legitimate standards and is susceptible to producing, accepting, and publishing inferior material. And that's fine. No one's perfect. But it does affect how I view the overall site. I will no longer trust them, nor will I direct others to their material without some sort of caveat. 2. CTKA intentionally published the article to misdirect and misinform its audience. That's it. Those are the only two possibilities. Either CTKA is incompetent or it's intentionally misleading. Either way, it's trouble. But at least if it's the first option, it can be fixed. And the best way to fix it would be to run John Hankey's response to Seamus Coogan's review. I realize CTKA says it has a policy that it doesn't run rebuttals, but that's nonsense. You know a better policy? Not running disinformation hit pieces. CTKA owes Mr. Hankey a response. Not giving him the opportunity once again demonstrates an agenda. Clearly their goal isn't truth. It's picking and choosing the voices they like best. Now ask yourself, why does CTKA prefer Coogan's voice over John Hankey's? It clearly isn't due to the quality of the material. So why? That answer tells me all I need to know about CTKA. And if I needed any more information about them, Mr. Coogan provided it with his behavior towards me after I first voiced my concerns. For CTKA to not give Mr. Hankey a chance to defend himself against Coogan's attacks is the height of hypocrisy. Mr. DiEugenio seems to spend much of his time hounding the Gary Macks of the world and complaining that the mainstream media never gives voice to the conspiracy crowd, yet here he is silencing a member of that very same crowd. And go back and reread Coogan's review. He mocks John Hankey for agreeing with David Lifton and body alteration theories. And this is right when Doug Horne is proving body alterations took place. So once again, why is CTKA endorsing such an opinion? Again, they're either intentionally muddying the waters or they're in desperate need of editors. Take your pick.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Michael Dell wrote:CTKA owes Mr. Hankey a response. Not giving him the opportunity once again demonstrates an agenda. Clearly their goal isn't truth. It's picking and choosing the voices they like best. Now ask yourself, why does CTKA prefer Coogan's voice over John Hankey's? It clearly isn't due to the quality of the material. So why? That answer tells me all I need to know about CTKA. And if I needed any more information about them, Mr. Coogan provided it with his behavior towards me after I first voiced my concerns. For CTKA to not give Mr. Hankey a chance to defend himself against Coogan's attacks is the height of hypocrisy. Mr. DiEugenio seems to spend much of his time hounding the Gary Macks of the world and complaining that the mainstream media never gives voice to the conspiracy crowd, yet here he is silencing a member of that very same crowd. Again, they're either intentionally muddying the waters or they're in desperate need of editors. Take your pick.Exactly, Michael.Why won't CTKA post Hankey's response? It's really that simple.Like I said before, truth movements (like the JFK assassination forums and the 9/11 forums) are brought down FROM WITHIN.I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. You all have seen information that I've presented regarding Israeli involvement in 9/11. The information and evidence is credible and warrants looking into. Many large 9/11 "Truthers" organizations won't even discuss the information even if it's just to refute it. Why? Are they affraid of being wrongfully labeled anti-semitic, or are they simply being controlled from within and misled.Here's something to consider regarding official stories and the controlled opposition to the official stories. On one end you have the official story regarding JFK or 9/11. On the other side you have the antithesis which in most cases is the controlled opposition. With regard to JFK, these would be people who claim to be open minded CTers and are even "respectable" JFK researchers, but who, for exampmle, also viciously attack the James Files information even to the point of putting out disinformation. There are many examples here of that nonsense. The same is true regarding 9/11. There are many 9/11 supposed "truthers" who won't entertain ANY discussion regarding Israeli involvement despite the mountain of evidence supporting such discussion. Then there's being right in the middle of it and seeing what is going on. It's where most of us, or at least some of us, here are. Think about it. It's kind of the reason why even forums like this one and others are often visited and joined by people who put themselves out there as honest researchers but who muddy the waters. It's because they're part of the machine, whether knowingly or not, to disinform as well. In joining this forum and discovering the Files information, I became a little astounded at how many "reputable" or "respected" JFK researchers and research forums poo-pooed the Files information, even to the point of putting out disinformation about the weapon that Files said he used, etc. You KNOW something is wrong when "they" have to LIE in order to try and discredit the Files information. Regarding CTKA, this situation sort of begs the question. Why won't they allow Hankey to defend himself? Why? Is Hankey that laughable to them? If Hankey is THAT laughable, why is the link to his documentary, JFK II, still listed on the left of this page? (For those of you who haven't seen the link, it's sisxteenth from the top under "CONTENTS," and the link says "Film JFK II.") So, the link to Hankey's documentary is still here on this site, and somebody comes in and trashes hankey with tangent arguments, and then CTKA won't post Hankey's response? Think about it.

[Bob]

Originally I was not going to reply to John Hankey’s response about Seamus Coogan’s incisive and well-researched critique of JFK 2. But since both he and his henchman Michael Dell could not confine themselves to the facts of that critique, but have now launched a smear of the personal motives and trustworthiness of myself, Lisa Pease, Seamus and the site in general, I feel it necessary to do so.Why? Because on Black Op Radio, I have taken the time to praise this forum and to single out certain people on it. I have not done that with Spartacus, JFK Lancer, or DPF. Since I went out on a limb, I don’t want it sawed off below me by people like Hankey and Dell.I had no idea that Seamus was going to submit that essay on that subject until it was almost completely written. But some hints conveyed to me in advance were questions like the following: 1.) “Jim, didn’t Kennedy know the Bay of Pigs was going to be launched in advance?” 2.) “Did Delphine Roberts know Oswald was at the Lake Ponchatrain training camp?” 3.) “Who hired Hunt at the White House?” and 4.) “Have you ever heard anything about Prescott Bush actually running the CIA while Dulles was DCI?” My answers in order were: Yes, No, Colson, and No. When I asked Seamus what he was working on, he said it was a review of Hankey’s documentary. Hankey’s answer to those questions were No, Yes, Nixon and Yes. I said, “Are you serious?” He said, “Yes, I am. Its that bad.”I had seen Hankey’s video many years ago. I dismissed it as rather amateurish in technique, sophomoric in content, and specious in its scholarship. In the last it owed much to Paul Kangas, a man who I once lectured at a seminar with in San Francisco. And who Gary Aguilar warned me in advance about. He told me, “He’s our weak link.” In fact, Hankey’s penchant for accenting the dubious role of Nixon in the JFK case, and the false idea that Kennedy didn’t know about the Bay of Pigs invasion are borrowed from Kangas. Hankey does much borrowing, and all of it is indiscriminate. In fact the only things that may be actually Hankey’s are the things he makes up. Which I will discuss later. Let’s take Hankey’s opening paragraph as an example of his slick rhetorical technique. He says Seamus “concedes” the Hoover memo was about George Bush. This is ridiculous, as he does no such thing. Everyone realized this was so after the Joseph McBride articles appeared in the Nation, way back in 1988. And I find it odd that Hankey has so much trouble giving McBride credit for first publicizing the memo and then writing two good essays about Bush and the CIA. Why is it so hard for him to write McBride’s name, and date and source the articles properly? He actually tries to attribute them to Mark Lane, when Lane actually properly sources them to McBride as appendixes in Plausible Denial.He then states 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…and Gaeton Fonzi….” This is pure balderdash. The Cubans Bush was allegedly associated with in the memo are never named in the memo. So what is the evidence that they are the same as those in Lorenz’s group? He produces none. And to conflate Fonzi with Lane on this issue is fundamentally dishonest. As Seamus pointed out, Fonzi in his fine book The Last Investigation, showed why Lorenz was not to be trusted on this point. He came to the conclusion she was trying to sell a screenplay. He explains why in detail on pages 83-107. Fonzi’s book came out in 1993, two years after Lane’s. Lane may have been unaware of this evidence against her. But Hankey should not have been. And used her tall tale anyway. After all, he needed some Cubans, any Cubans.The third point Hankey pulls out of a hat. He talks about a call to the FBI by Bush that is related to the James Parrot matter. He then says that Seamus concedes the point with his silence. John: Take a look at your film JFK 2 again. The Parrot matter is not in it. That is why Seamus is silent about it. You didn’t mention it there.As in his film, Hankey is very good at avoiding the central point: his film is full of factual errors, distortions, and illogic. To the point where he actually creates things that did not happen. In other words, as Seamus wrote, it is solipsistic, not realistic. How does he explain all these large and pitiful mistakes? In two ways.He needed a fact checker and could not hire one. And second, the errors he made are not of substance, they are minor.Concerning the first: Used books are not expensive, and neither is the Internet. I went through Seamus’ article with a fine tooth comb. The vast majority of his sources I found in my personal library or on the web. Somehow we are to believe that Hankey could not find out through any low cost source that there was no such thing as the “Senate Select Committee on Assassinations”? How about calling someone on the phone and asking them. He didn’t know that Delphine Roberts never claimed to see Oswald at that Cuban exile training camp? How about going to the library and checking out Tony Summers’ book Conspiracy. He really thought that the only source Hoover had about the CIA training camps in New Orleans was Oswald? How about calling up former FBI agent Warren DeBrueys and asking him if the Bureau knew about CIA covert ops and were warned to steer clear of them. None of these are expensive or time consuming. They consist of picking up a phone or driving to the local library. Hankey chose not to do them. He then complains about someone pointing out his myriad errors and blames it on lack of funds. When Seamus is a struggling graduate student.From here, without any foundation, he then begins his smear of Seamus. He attributes the fact that Seamus found his video chockfull of major errors—like one every two minutes—to the fact that he must have a dark and hidden motive. He is –get this—protecting the Bushes!! No John, nobody with any knowledge of modern history will do that. And if they did so I would not print the article. Seamus was very clear about that issue at the end. And he named just one of their crimes, the election heist of 2000. Your film detracts attention from their true crimes, in trying to impaste upon them one for which there is no credible evidence. As he said, what McBride wrote about proves that Bush lied when he said upon becoming CIA Director that he had no previous relationship with the Agency. And that is all the memo proves. It was you who went way beyond the actual words in the memo. Hankey then tries to say that he never tried to take credit for something he did not discover. Take a look at the subhead in the essay, which says, “Did you really do all that John?” These are quotes that have Hankey’s name attached to them. So he cannot deny he wrote them. He says it was he who proved that Bush was the man Hoover referred to in the memo. Nope. It was McBride who did so. He then wrote that he pointed out that the memo names Bush as a supervisor of the anti-Castro groups. It does not. He then says that that David Talbot’s Brothers further corroborates the material in his film about CIA trained Cubans and the Mafia. Yet Hankey is not even mentioned in the Talbot book. And try and find either Lorenz or Bush Sr. in that book. Seamus was correct on this score.He then tries to say that Mark Lane was the first to implicate George Bush Sr. in the JFK case. All that Lane did was reprint the McBride articles in his book. Period. He does not work them into the text. All he says is that Bush’s activities in the sixties are worthy of note. (p. 329) It was Hankey who took Lane’s sentence, and the memo, and accused the Bush family of being the prime movers behind the JFK assassination. He then tries to say that Fletcher Prouty was also a purveyor of this theory. All Prouty did was insinuate that Bush was involved in the Bay of Pigs operation. He probably was, but—as Seamus showed-- Prouty was wrong about the name associations he used i.e. the ships and the name Zapata. So Lane made an error with Lorenz, Prouty did with the names. We all do. But instead of investigating those faulty points, Hankey built a false edifice from those errors. Which is one reason his film cannot be taken seriously. He then says he won’t take up the many small and silly objections Seamus makes, since he terms them misdirection and distraction. Really? Making up a scene in which Bill Colby is talking about Hunt and Bush being in Dallas and part of the hit team on Kennedy—when in fact there is no evidence for him either saying this or thinking it? That is not small and silly; it’s a huge and serious falsification. So is making up another scene where Bush Sr. walks into Hoover’s office with a couple of thugs and threatens him with a poison dart gun unless he writes the memo about him. (Did Michael Dell miss that?) That is the climax to the whole video. And Hankey has not one iota of evidence that it ever happened. It is a huge and misleading invention on his part. And Seamus was right to call him on it. In fact, when I read the essay I could not believe what I was reading. So I watched the video all the way through. Seamus was right about that scene, and the rest of it.. And it was one of the things that convinced me to print the essay. Work this bad—like say Waldron’s Ultimate Sacrifice-- should not go unchallenged. And this is a main function of CTKA. To show why certain conspiracy oriented material should not be trusted. Because it makes us look stupid and silly. Can you imagine what say, Sixty Minutes, could do with JFK 2?Which brings us to Michael Dell. Who mysteriously showed up on the forum right after Seamus’ essay was published. And he started defending Hankey and attacking Seamus and CTKA. Why? Probably because he has had Hankey on his show more than once. And actually accepted these wild scenarios as credible. Dell did not ask Hankey: “John, what is your proof for Bush threatening Hoover with a poison dart gun after the JFK murder?” Or: “John, when did Colby ever say that Hunt and Bush were in Dallas and part of the hit team?” Or: “Why would Kennedy let the CIA launch the Bay of Pigs invasion without his approval?” Seamus did ask the questions that Dell did not. And for this, Dell attacks Seamus for doing what he should have done. Which leads into the whole thing about questioning me, Lisa and CTKA. Hankey hints at this but Dell takes it the length of the field. I love this one: “CTKA has no legitimate standards and is susceptible to producing..inferior material..I will no longer trust them….” etc. etc. Mr. Dell, if you could not ask Hankey about his source for the Bush pointing a gun at Hoover scene, its you with no standards. Unlike forums, our articles are peer reviewed. By people like Gary Aguilar, Mili Cranor, Dave Mantik etc. You probably have not heard of them, since they are good researchers. We are the only such peer-reviewed site out there. Which is why we have a lot of stature and respect. We get many submissions. And we turn down many of them, since they are rejected in the vetting process. Hankey’s video would have been returned to him politely with a short critique pointing out a sampling of his major errors. And I wager he would have ignored the points and facts so elucidated.And no we do not run rebuttals. Why? Because we negatively review too many articles, books, TV shows and DVD’s. I don’t want to spend anymore of my time—or my readers’-- getting into point-counterpoint arguments with the likes of Lamar Waldron and David Kaiser. Or John Hankey. And Hankey’s reply here proves my stance correct.Finally, let me add one last point. Dell tries to save the day by saying that Seamus is wrong about Hankey because Horne proved Lifton’s thesis in Inside the ARRB. I wonder if Dell actually read the whole series, or if, like many others in the research community, he is relying on what someone wrote as a post on a forum. I also wonder how much time Dell has spent studying the medical evidence in this case. Finally, I wonder if he has consulted with experts in that field, like Mili Cranor or Aguilar about Lifton’s theory. I doubt if any of the above are true. He just wants to smear Seamus. There will be a multi-part review upcoming on CTKA about Inside the ARRB. Yet we demand, unlike other sites, that the reviewer read the entire work, and show mastery of the material. Its very much up in the air if Horne did what Dell said he did. But, as I said, that doesn’t matter to Dell.But it does matter to me.JIM DIEUGENIO

[Michael Dell]

Mr. DiEugenio,Thank you very much for taking the time to enter the discussion. However, I will take issue with your referring to me as a "henchman." I've gone over this before, but the reason I "mysteriously" joined the message board was because I felt a wrong was committed, and I didn't see anyone standing up for Mr. Hankey's work. I didn't start the topic. I joined it to voice my opinion. Nor did I "smear" Mr. Coogan. Again, I invite anyone to go back and reread the thread. My posts were nothing but respectful to Mr. Coogan. Yet he greeted my concerns with insults, personal attacks, and paranoia. You're right. I had interviewed John Hankey. And I found him to be a fine fellow. He has been nothing but kind and respectful in our dealings. He's a high school teacher in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. He's a good man trying to do what's right at a great sacrifice. He deserves more respect than Mr. Coogan or CTKA afforded him.If there are mistakes in Mr. Hankey's work, it's right and necessary to point them out. I want to learn what those mistakes are so I don't repeat them. Yet it's impossible to learn anything of substance when Mr. Coogan pens a review full of ad hom attacks, sarcastic comments, and condescension. Such a review would have been fine if it was on a personal blog. But I would like to think a serious investigative body like CTKA would have higher standards. That's my opinion. You're free to disagree with it. And, as you and Mr. Coogan have already displayed, you're also free to insult me for it. But it doesn't make that opinion less valid. And, as you can clearly see if you've been reading the thread, I'm not alone. You're also correct in assuming I'm not a serious JFK researcher. Because I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be. I actually have a life outside of this. I'm a student and a writer, both journalism and fiction. My interests are numerous and varied, from sports to Russian literature to consciousness studies to meditation and physics. I'm also fairly well read on countless conspiracy topics. However, I'm by no means an expert on JFK. That's why I need to depend on, and am grateful for, the works of men like yourself, Mr. Coogan, and Mr. Hankey. That's also why I need to know whom I can trust. In the past, I've trusted you and CTKA. I trust Black Op Radio. I trust Jim Marrs. So when I hear those people talking about Doug Horne and his work, I know I can put my faith in it. Again, I'm not a professional JFK researcher, I don't have the time to read every book that comes out on the subject. That's why trust is so important. And that's why your jab at me for probably not having read Horne's entire work is so preposterous. Exactly what were you trying to accomplish with that remark? So you're saying I shouldn't believe Doug Horne? You're saying body alterations never took place? Because you realize that's what Mr. Coogan said in his review of Mr. Hankey's work, right? Yet you jump on me for believing Doug Horne without reading his entire work when my belief is based on listening to experts like yourself support Doug Horne. So once more, are you saying I shouldn't trust you, Black Op, Jim Marrs, etc? And let me single out this line from that same paragraph..."Yet we demand, unlike other sites, that the reviewer read the entire work, and show mastery of the material."[/i}Really? Like the way Mr. Coogan reviewed the latest edition of Mr. Hankey's film? Oh, wait. He didn't. And he stated as much early in his review, rendering the rest of it completely meaningless. But I guess that must have slipped through the ol' peer review process too. And your harping on the bit in Mr. Hankey's film where he shows George Bush threatening Hoover with a poison dart gun is yet another strawman in your ever growing field of scarecrows. Mr. Hankey never says that's what happened. He's saying that's what COULD have happened. It's only his theory. And anyone watching the movie understands that. Trying to pretend otherwise is silly. But getting back on topic, I want to still be able to trust you and CTKA. That's why I need you to help me and others like me. Instead of meeting our concerns with insults and pride, how about some professionalism and understanding? We're on the same team here. Which once again brings me back to my original post on the subject. And I will ask the same questions of you that I asked of Mr. Coogan. 1. If your goal is truth, why wouldn't you and your group of peers reach out to Mr. Hankey and express your concerns before writing such a review? 2. Why didn't you ask Mr. Hankey to explain why he believes the things he does? If he's wrong, you could help him understand why. It's a teaching opportunity. 3. Why didn't you present Mr. Hankey with a copy of the review to get his response before publication?4. Why didn't you even have the courtesy to inform Mr. Hankey the review was published? Again, if your goal is truth, shouldn't you be working with people like John Hankey? He's one of the good guys. If you think his research is flawed or he's going down the wrong path, extend a helping hand, not a closed fist. Nothing you have said has changed my opinion of Mr. Coogan's review. The quality of that piece remains the same and can be judged on its own merits. I still believe it to be an agenda-filled hit piece. The tone of the article and the language used makes it impossible for me to see it differently. My stating that opinion is in no way "smearing" Mr. Coogan. Besides, I believe Mr. Coogan has done a good enough job of that on his own with his behavior towards me. Finally, I will gladly extend an olive branch. Our shared goal is finding truth, no? I want to work with people like you to achieve that goal. I'd like to bring the community together, not fracture it. So I would be honored if you could come on the little podcast I do and hash things out. We can even try and get Mr. Hankey to come on too, and we can bury the hatchet once and for all and put all this ugliness behind us. I realize you're no doubt a busy fella, but we can work around your schedule and record something at your convenience. The invitation is there if you're willing to accept it. Namaste.

[Bob]

This thread is why this forum is the best JFK assassination forum on the Net. Lots of great arguments and discussion here. I appreciated Jim D responding like he did. The same goes with John Hankey. I'm sure more will be said later as well. Most of you know this, as Jim has mentioned this on BOR (Black Op Radio), plus I've mentioned it here as well, but I will hopefully have an article that will be on CTKA soon. Jim has mentioned this forum on BOR as well, giving us some kudos for our work. As most of you also know, Seamus and I have had some pretty vigorous debates about the Bu$hes role in the JFK assassination and other events, like 9/11. Like I've said before...debate is good. That is what this thread is all about. Now, in terms of the article by Seamus, as I've said before, he did uncover some mistakes and some invalid assumptions that John had in JFK II. The story was long and well researched. Was Seamus a bit overzealous and harsh in his review of John's film? Perhaps. To be fair to John, he has upgraded JFK II to a newer version called Dark Legacy, which I have only seen parts of. I think we all should view that film before we make any final conclusions. That being said, I do think John's overall premise was correct in JFK II. Could it have been produced more effectively? No doubt. But that is why John has upgraded the film to it's latest version. Now I do disagree with Seamus about the way he ended the article. This is what I said earlier in this thread...Finally in his essay, Seamus sees no connection between the JFK assassination and 9/11. Seamus is also from New Zealand and not from the United States, so understand his perspective. But in my opinion, he is wrong. The biggest evidence of that CLEAR connection is Operation Northwoods...http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... s.htmlTake a good look at the plan. A REAL good look. This was a plan that ALL the joint chiefs wanted to take place. It was also endorsed by Allen Dulles and the Bu$h boys as well. This plan was given to JFK in March of 1962. JFK refused to implement this horrific idea. But an incompetent dolt that stole an election in 2000 named Dumbya Bu$h didn't refuse. Operation Northwoods was almost a blueprint for the events that happened on 9/11/2001. Instead of Cuba in 1962, it was Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001. It is now 2010, and we are still there. The CIA is happy. The war profiteers are happy. The military industrial complex is happy. Meanwhile, the MSM still sleeps, just like they have since the JFK assassination. Now that is my belief. Do I have any concrete proof? No. But there are a lot of pieces of the puzzle that fit.Now in terms of Michael Dell, Michael did have John on his radio show. I think that is the biggest reason he defended the review by Seamus. Also, I have listened to a number of shows that Michael has done, and although the format of his show isn't strictly politics, it is clear that Michael is on the CT team.I was recently on one of his shows as well, and although we talked briefly about the JFK assassination, most of the show was about hockey and football. We talked about the magic bullet theory and how ridiculous it is, plus what Gerald Ford on the Warren Commission did to raise the wound on JFK's back to make it fit the silly theory.We also talked about the head wound the doctors saw at Parkland immediately after the assassination. It was clear to them that the large hole in the back of JFK's head was an exit wound.We talked a bit about Operation Northwoods and the Cuban Missile Crisis and also the great new books by Jim Douglass and Doug Horne.No mention of Seamus' article. No mention of John Hankey.Bottom line, we all need to take a deep breath and remember we are all on the same team. Like I said earlier, the lone nut team never debates the disinformation they put out there. Why? Their heads are in the sand, they drink the kool aid and they are bought off.We on the CT team however, are always searching for the truth. We have disagreements at times. We have theories that are laughed at...at first. But we keep digging. Folks like Mark Lane, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Jack White, Jim DiEugenio, Lisa Pease, Wim Dankbaar, Jim Fetzer, Tom Rossley, John Judge, Dick Russell, David Lifton, Michael Calder and company lead the way.The new books by Douglass and Horne have gotten us closer to the real truth about 11/22/1963 then we have ever been before.We have a political voice as well in Jesse Ventura.Gil Jesus has done a fantastic job on You Tube and I've seen others there who also have put out excellent work.The JFK assassination forums have done great work as well, especially ours. All of you should take bows.We try to educate and learn. We also debate. That is what a forum does. All sides need to be heard. That is what this thread has done.Just choose your words carefully and be respectful.WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM. And we are going to WIN!

[Dealey Joe]

Mr. DellWhy not have John Hankee and Seamus Coogan on your show?makes more sense to me.

[Michael Dell]

Dealey Joe wrote:Mr. DellWhy not have John Hankee and Seamus Coogan on your show?makes more sense to me.Well, from my past experiences with Mr. Coogan, I'm not sure he'd be open to such an invitation. But I have no animosity towards Mr. Coogan. And if he'd be willing, I'd be happy to have him on the show...