Category: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

with Frank Cassano

As readers will recall, Seamus Coogan did a long analytical piece on Hankey’s documentary, JFK II. That negative critique stung Hankey and his followers – yes, he does have some, though not quite as many after as before. Hankey posted a reply at the web site: JFK Murder Solved, and then Jim DiEugenio replied and there was then a rebuttal round.

On that forum, Hankey admitted that he was embarrassed by the sheer number of errors – over 20 – that he had made in an 85 minute film, that was supposed to be “a documentary.” He then said that he could not hire a fact-checker. Yet, as Jim pointed out: What had prevented him from going to the library and picking up say, three books on the JFK case? This would have saved him the subsequent embarrassment. He then tried to save the day by saying that the accumulation of mistakes exposed by Seamus did not touch on his major thesis. Anyone who reads Seamus’ essay will understand that this is a dubious and face-saving assertion.

At first, Hankey apparently did not understand the hit his credibility had sustained; though later he did, since he now has shifted tactics. He now says that he only made – please sit down before you read this – all of one error! This is simply a deception on his part. As anyone can comprehend by reading Coogan’s essay. The litany of errors he made is staggering. And understand, that essay was cut down by about 20 pages on the grounds of overkill. The total amount of pratfalls was more like 50. A fact Hankey cannot admit to today.

His other new tactic is to actually accuse Jim DiEugenio – again, sit down before you read this – of being a CIA operative. This is simply nutty. No one writing today has accused the CIA more often and more strongly of being behind the JFK murder. Can Hankey really be ignorant of this? If so, it indicates why his work is so full of errors. But because CTKA published Seamus’ essay, this is what Hankey is reduced to. Even though it was Coogan – not DiEugenio – who wrote the original piece.

Hankey’s new tactics were revealed on an Internet radio show called The Corbett Report. After his appearance, several readers let us know about what he had said. Frank Cassano (and others) wrote the host a letter and Jim DiEugenio left a call. On January 2^nd of the new year, Mr. Corbett then granted Jim and Seamus an opportunity to respond. (Click here to download an mp3 file of Jim’s and Seamus’ appearance on The Corbett Report.)

John Hankey’s statement below, made in an interview with podcast host James Corbett, shows the limited scope of his logic, and is a fine way to begin this brief examination of Hankey’s latest faux pas on the show of December 4^th, 2010. For those of you new to this debate, I refer you to my review of Hankey’s appalling documentary, JFK II and Jim DiEugenio’s reviews of Dark Legacy and Hankeyan clone Russ Baker’s Family of Secrets.

The Hankeyan Strategy:  “Everything I get – all the major points – are from Plausible Denial.”

Mark Lane’s book Plausible Denial was published in 1991. Since that time there have been many published JFK books and much updated research. Lane’s book is an important contribution that did much to sharpen the point that E. Howard Hunt did not have an alibi for where he was on 11/22/63. Which leads to the question: Why did he need one? When combined with the fact that his friend and colleague, David Phillips, admitted to his brother that he was in Dallas that day – well, that is quite interesting. When you add in a third point, that it was James Angleton that proffered the memo saying that Hunt did need such an alibi – well, that is even more than interesting. It’s compelling. Hankey, however, completely leaves out the latter two facts. He then tries to connect Hunt, not to Phillips or Angleton, but to Richard Nixon and George Bush. Even though Hunt did not work for Nixon until ten years after the assassination. And there is no proof that Bush and Hunt worked with each other at all. It is only a Hankeyan presumption.

Now, although Nixon figures prominently in the Hankey film as part of the JFK plot, contrary to what Hankey says above, he is not part of the plot – in any way – in Lane’s book. (Hankey seems to have borrowed his material on Nixon from Paul Kangas, a notoriously unreliable and sensationalistic researcher.) But Hankey tried to save the day by telling Corbett that Lane’s book also implicates George Bush in the JFK case – a distortion that Corbett seemed to accept.

The problem is that Lane does not mention George Bush in the main text of the book. And that is where he actually discusses his investigation of the JFK case. He only mentions him in the Epilogue. And he references here the famous Joseph McBride articles in The Nation. McBride, of course, talked about the J. Edgar Hoover memo which showed Bush’s ties to the Central Intelligence Agency. (And those of you familiar with my earlier treatment of Hankey will know he mangled that memo beyond all normal usage.) What Hankey did with Corbett was to extract one sentence from this Epilogue to provide as evidence that Lane and he are actually “soul brothers.” In this Epilogue, Lane was trying to jab up present interest in the JFK case. So he asked if there was any person on the scene today with a relation to the “Kennedy drama.” (Lane, p. 329) He then discusses Bush and the McBride articles. And he adds that Bush knew George DeMohrenschildt and Bush may have been involved in the Bay of Pigs. (Ibid, pgs. 332-33) And that is it. So for Hankey to state that somehow Lane’s book presaged his interest in, and use of, Nixon and Bush in the JFK assassination is simply not accurate.

Hankey has adopted an interesting strategy of naming respected sources such as Fletcher Prouty and Lane and then claiming that people like Jim DiEugenio and myself are unwilling to criticize them, choosing instead to pick on him – which is stretching things. Since in my original article, I did jab at Lane for using Marita Lorenz at face value. Hankey also tries to insinuate that we are antagonistic towards them, another patently false allusion since CTKA respects the work of both authors as seen in numerous articles. Finally, his last recourse is exceptionally creative: He seeks to combine these factors and then literally blame it all on Lane and Prouty:

In retrospect, we really shouldn’t have edited out some points in the original Hankey piece. But due to the originals mammoth 52 pages, some things went to the cutting room floor. One of the things deleted was another thing Hankey has failed to give serious thought to: If Prouty’s assertions about the Bush connection in the naming of the Bay of Pigs vessels as the Barbara and Houston are correct, Prouty never made a big song and dance about it. Nor did Prouty elevate Bush into the realms of the planners for the Kennedy assassination. But Hankey has. Prouty showed common sense with his allegations and didn’t go off on tangents. It is people like Hankey who inadvertently damage reputations like Prouty’s by taking Prouty’s positions to extremes that were never intended.

Finally, there is this: Prouty and Lane have brought to the table much of benefit to all serious researchers. Lane has written three valuable books on the case: Rush to Judgment, A Citizen’s Dissent, and Plausible Denial. Prouty has written a classic book on the CIA – The Secret Team – and a good book on Kennedy’s assassination and his intent to withdraw from Vietnam – JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. There is much, much more to both men than simply Hunt, Nixon being depicted with a rifle in hand, George Bush being named in a Hoover memo, allegations that Bush named some boats used in the Bay of Pigs, and the Christchurch Star. Hankey, who has brought next to nothing to the table, grossly misrepresented or overstated what they and other authors have said or written. This is a far more serious offense than any small differences of opinion with them over the naming of two ships used in the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Another bizarre and immature Hankey strategy is to admit fault in his data collection, but then to say DiEugenio and I are either nit-picking over minor details that don’t threaten his main thesis, or to greatly minimize the number of errors he made in JFK II. These two issues intersect each other: because if you make literally dozens of errors, as Hankey did in JFK II, who can trust what you say at all? One thing that Hankey is aware of, and hoodwinks his few supporters into ignoring, is that every “minor” detail we pick up on, no matter how divergent (and he gets pretty diverse in his multiplicity of errors), is a building block to the foundation of his overall conclusion. And that he himself has included it, not us. When we include other pieces of information it is to show what Hankey has missed.

Let us give the reader an idea of how Hankey has tried to counter the exposé of his error-filled film. When my long review first appeared, a discussion of it surfaced at the web site: JFK Murder Solved. An indiscriminating radio host named Michael Dell tried to minimize the myriad errors Hankey had made. (Dell had hosted Hankey, and obviously was stung by the fact that somehow he had not caught any of his litany of errors.) Hankey joined the discussion and admitted that he should have done a better job in his fact-checking. But somehow he did not have the budget for a researcher. Jim DiEugenio chimed in and added words to the effect: Well, can’t you drive to the nearest public library and pick up a few books to prevent you from taking so many pratfalls?

On the Corbett show, Hankey has now organized a different defense against his failure to fact-check. He now tries to insinuate that the only mistake he made was that he said the CIA had killed Mossadgeh in the Iran coup of 1953. Let us call this for what it is: A deliberate lie to save face in public. That may be strong, but it is wholly justified. Why? Because just in that particular section of the early edit of JFK II, it was pointed out that he made another error: He implied that Jacobo Arbenz had died in the CIA coup the following year. Again, this was false. He did not die until 1971. Further, he also tried to imply that Prescott Bush was the guiding hand behind those two coups, plus the murder of Patrice Lumumba in 1961 – which, for anyone who knows anything about the CIA, is patently false. Clearly, the Dulles brothers guided the first two operations, and Allen himself supervised the last.

To show just how dishonest Hankey was on the Corbett show in this regard, let us go back to the thread on JFK Murder Solved. In the exchange with Hankey and Dell, Jim DiEugenio examined only the first 45 minutes of the film. From my review, he extracted nearly 20 factual errors! Or almost one per minute. And, as Jim further noted, the second half of the film is even more error-strewn than the first half, e.g., Hankey puts words in Bill Colby’s mouth that he never told the Church Committee. So for Hankey to say in public that he made only one error is simply knowingly deceitful.

Another ploy that Hankey and some of his followers (like Michael Green) have developed is to call my essay “a hit piece.” This is ridiculous. In its traditional usage, that term means that a journalist or reporter is called in by his superiors and told words to the effect: Go out and wreck this story, or impugn this guy’s character – or both. In the traditional media, this often occurred. For example, the Los Angeles Times appointed a task force to go after the late Gary Webb and his generally accurate story about cocaine smuggling into Los Angeles by the Contras. Further back, in 1967, Walter Sheridan and NBC deliberately set out to wreck Jim Garrison’s case against Clay Shaw. (Click here for the details.) No such thing happened here. After watching Hankey’s film, I was appalled by the many factual errors in it. I relayed some of them to Jim DiEugenio, not telling him they were a part of Hankey’s film. After about four of these, Jim asked me “Where are you getting these whoppers from?” I told him. I then suggested I do an essay on the film. So the process was just the opposite of what is considered a “hit piece.” Hankey’s film was so just so poor that it inspired a writer to correct the record. I was commissioned to do so by no one. I just wanted to set the record straight, and I wanted to raise the bar for the research community to shoot for. The surprise is that it took so long for anyone to do that – which tells you something about the quality control in the field.

Another Hankey tactic is to portray critical comments as down-playing certain individuals’ roles or credentials, like say Oswald’s intelligence connections. I hate to tell him, but it isn’t a big deal anymore that Oswald was a low-level CIA operative and FBI informant. It’s no big deal Bush was associated with the CIA before he admitted he was; and therefore that the Hoover memorandum is not such a big deal either. Why? Because better researchers than Hankey have pored over this stuff for years and have drawn much the same conclusions. Conclusions utterly divergent from Hankey’s fantasies, e.g., fantasies like George Bush and two Cubans storming into Hoover’s office and threatening him with a flechette gun (a truly nutty proposition which Hankey prudently cut from the final edit of his film).

10:44: “No members of the Kennedy’s family ever alleged there was an assassination plot.”

Untrue, Kerry McCarthy spoke out about it at JFK Lancer in 1997.

This is shaping up to be a vintage performance from Hankey here and this is an utterly hilarious statement. In my review of Hankey, there’s a statement by The King of Comedy in which he attested to a fan that David Talbot’s book Brothers backed his findings in the case.

If you thought the above comments were a little exaggerated, then check this one out. It comes from an email exchange between Hankey and an online fan:

Does he really think that his video JFK II was the first to expose the CIA-Mafia plots and their possible coordination with Cuban exiles? Did Hankey ever hear of Anthony Summers’ valuable book, originally titled Conspiracy? It was first published many, many years – even decades – before JFK II began to circulate. Further, how was David Talbot’s Brothers inspired by Hankey’s research? You will not see Hankey’s name in Talbot’s index. But you will see Summers’ name. (p. 476) But even that gives Hankey too much credit. For the Talbot book does not really outline any such conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.

There’s further evidence that Hankey has never even read Brothers. The entire book is based on the evidence from RFK’s closest confidants that he believed there was a high level conspiracy to kill his brother.

16:57: Dulles, the Chief Sponsor of the Kennedy Hit

The above section concerning Prescott’s dominion over Dulles (a key theme running throughout Hankey’s work) is very interesting stuff because Hankey soon back-flips and admits (extremely begrudgingly by the sound of his tone) that Dulles had been the king-pin of the JFK coup. This may be due to the drubbing given him by myself, Jim DiEugenio, and likely numerous others after his comments on Black Op Radio in 2009 that Dulles was Bush’s puppet.

19:44: “I’ve been attacked recently by some very, very reputable people.”

Apparently this is “rather chilling” because Hankey’s “evidence” is apparently “clear and overwhelming” – according to himself and “lots and lots of people who agree with me that if somebody’s challenging that, it throws into question their credibility.” This is astounding in its delusionary rationalization. The idea that Jim DiEugenio’s reputation in the research community, or at large, or CTKA’s credentials, or my own are in some way going to suffer when our work is compared to Hankey’s – well, what can one say to such nonsense?

21:33: James Jesus Angleton Memorandum about Hunt

Hankey gets something correct again. James Angleton did supply the Hunt memorandum about Howard Hunt needing an alibi for Dallas. But what he won’t like is that this is a correction that came from my piece. Re: 40:13 into his film:

Of course Hankey has no idea that this memorandum (purportedly dated back to 1966) was leaked out during the closing phases of HSCA; nor that by 1978 Helms and Angleton were not formally employed by the agency. I should also add that in the same sentence I mentioned above, I also recall that I have never heard Hunt admit that he was an assassin. Hankey makes this vacant claim at a later stage of his “documentary.”

23:34: Mark Lane writes, “All of the participants are dead except George Bush.”

As mentioned above, this is not accurate. When Plausible Denial was published in 1991, two figures considered prominently involved in the assassination were alive: E. Howard Hunt and Richard Helms. Lane says so in the book on page 235, a few sentences before he even mentions George Bush. He never named Bush as a participant in the plot. But in the “Kennedy drama,” which is not the same thing. Hunt’s trial occurred in 1987 (a year Hankey, the Mark Lane devotee, could not even name at one point). At the time of writing this book, Lane believed Bush was somewhere around the scene and he believes Bush named the boats (as we have said, fine, he has every reason to think so). But that is about it. And the idea that Bush was a businessman asset used in the Bay of Pigs invasion is something that is defensible and logical. Like Prouty, Lane didn’t offer much more than that. They both had bigger fish to fry. But Hankey wrote this in his bizarre and needlessly convoluted argument on JFK Murder Solved. It concerns the much vaunted CIA memo (which is discussed in-depth in my actual review):

I don’t know if John ever read the same book everyone else did, but as I said earlier, George Bush is not mentioned in Lane’s book as part of the conspiracy. He never forges any relationships in Plausible Denial between Bush, Marita Lorenz, Gerry Hemmings, Hunt, and Frank Sturgis. He actually corrected himself because of Jim DiEugenio, who posted this reply about Hankey’s above spiel:

25:03: Unintelligible Ramble

Okay he’s getting into his famous memo here but he’s misappropriated something. In fact, he’s babbling on about an imminent invasion of Cuba and that somehow Hoover knew all about it and that Fabian Escalante was a Cuban Intelligence Officer, etc., etc. Oh boy, where does it end? I ask anyone: Does the Hoover document he’s discussing mention an invasion anywhere? (Click here to read it yourself.) It mentions the possibility of an “unauthorized raid” by some misguided anti-Castro Cubans. But next up and true to form, he’s discussing an imminent invasion of Cuba after the Kennedy assassination as discussed by Fabian Escalante – or did he? It’s all very unclear. Escalante and Cuban intelligence thought there was definitely the potential for it. The CIA had been pumping a story that Castro’s agents did it and that Oswald was an operative. But in an odd twist, Hankey, who had said earlier that the Mafia was not involved, yet mentions that Escalante has the invasion backed by “the Mob and United Fruit.”

The invasion that Hankey discusses is not a central tenant of Escalante’s 2006 book, JFK: The Cuba Files, in any way, shape, or form. Escalante’s chief concern, indeed, the theme of his book, were the leads Cuban intelligence had developed in the case. The judgement by most researchers is that, though interesting in some regards, he was fairly off in terms of who organized it all. But Hankey picks up tidbits wherever he can.

27:42: Jim Di-you-hay-neo

John Hankey pronounces the surname of Jim DiEugenio (pronounced dee-you-jee-neo) in what seems like Spanish vowels. He obviously thinks Jim is Hispanic. The problem is, that with so many things, he is wrong. He overlooked that the DiEugenio surname is of Italian origin and is taken to mean “Son of Eugenio.”

Nor can he even say the name of DiEugenio’s book correctly. It’s real title is The Assassinations. He calls it The Assassins. He gives no indications that this is his second book, his first being Destiny Betrayed. Judging by his mispronunciation of DiEugenio’s last name, Hankey also has no idea that Jim DiEugenio was a consultant to Stone on the DVD re-release of JFK and featured in a segment on new evidence declassified by the ARRB. Or that he has appeared as a guest in several documentaries on this case. Or that he has done literally scores of radio shows.

28:00: DiEugenio, “The Operator,” and Mr. Bush Goes to Washington… Again

At 28:00 minutes we are greeted with this slanderous tirade from Citizen Hankey about Jim DiEugenio:

Now this is what we have come to expect from Hankey. Hankey say’s nothing negative about DiEugenio, except that he is “an operative.” In other words, that he is a CIA plant within the research community. And his evidence for this cheap smear? Well, it is that “he’s certainly attacking the conclusions that I’ve drawn in a wildly unprofessional and unintelligent fashion.” This is the sum of the evidence against DiEugenio. He disagreed with both the factual data in his film and the overall conclusion. Did Hankey ever read DiEugenio’s review of Ultimate Sacrifice? Say this for Lamar Waldron and Tom Hartmann: They never reduced themselves to slander to counteract a negative review. Further, is there anyone on the current scene who has accused the CIA more strongly and more often of being involved in the JFK murder than Jim DiEugenio? Finally, why is Hankey going after DiEugenio in the first place? He did not write that review of his film. I did.

Within seconds, Hankey then confuses himself by saying that Hoover is supervising the Cubans. Luckily for Hankey, Corbett corrects him once again (not for the last time). Hankey gets back on track, but then he goes back to the idea of this memo advocating an invasion of Cuba (which it does not do). And then get this one. Really lean back and concentrate. For we are now in for another Hankeyan leap of logic. Even though the Hoover memo does not mention any kind of USA sponsored invasion, Hankey then says does notand that Hoover is writing the memo because Bush is the guy in charge of the possible invasion! It then gets worse: Hoover’s report constitutes a warning to Bush saying, in effect, “You’re busted,” and to shut it down. Why else, according to Hankey, would the FBI contact him? At this point it is a good idea to provide another link to the document. Please read it closely. Now compare what it says to what Hankey is aggrandizing it into for his own solipsistic purposes.

Is there anything in the memo that mentions any kind of invasion? Or hints that it is CIA or state sponsored? What it actually says is that the FBI has heard that the State Department is worried that, in the wake of Kennedy’s murder, “some misguided anti-Castro group… might undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba… .” In fact, the memo goes on to say that the FBI sources in Miami say they “knew of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.” So what is Hankey talking about? This seems to be nothing but pure and irresponsible hyperbole.

Hankey clearly doesn’t understand how intelligence works. For if the memo really said what he is inflating it to say, some FBI heavy-hitter like William Sullivan or Cartha DeLoach would be sent out to talk with some CIA representative, say someone like Richard Helms or Tracy Barnes or Desmond Fitzgerald (all of them way above and beyond George Bush). And this discussion would be off the record. It would not be written up at all. As Warren DeBrueys told Jim DiEugenio in his home in Metarie, whenever the FBI stumbled across a CIA operation, they did not interfere with it. If the situation was volatile enough, the report from such a meeting would likely wind up in Hoover’s personal files and not routed through the system, as this was. Larry Hancock explained as much in my review. If Bush is so important and if this was word of an “invasion,” then why did it get written up in the first place?

Hankey then makes another enormous leap and mentions the utterly fictional meeting between Hoover and Bush at the FBI. This is precisely the angle he got attacked on by myself and which he erased out of Dark Legacy (before our first review appeared). But he brings it back up again. This encounter never ever happened. With regards to this, in his outing on JFK Murder Solved, he accused me of illicitly procuring a copy of JFK II, in which the demonstrably fraudulent meeting between Bush and Hoover is depicted. The joke here is that Hankey has numerous versions depicting this ridiculous scene all over the internet, and has done so for a rather long time.

31:28: Mallon and Bush Send for Dulles

What is it with official documents that John Hankey doesn’t get? Because the lies and distortions of the historical record just keep on a rolling in. In JFK II and Dark Legacy, Hankey unearths a letter from Neil Mallon to Allen Dulles. In the draft version of my review I had paid some attention to this. As I said earlier, it was one of the things that didn’t make it in. In the Mallon memo, which is by itself an interesting little document (if one can squint they can see it), Mallon is thankful that a friend, “Tiny,” (it’s what it looks like to me), has “convinced” Dulles to come to the Carlton (presumably the Ritz Carlton in Georgetown, Washington) at 7:00 pm to celebrate the Anniversary. (Not sure precisely what they were celebrating, but Hankey, in his zeal to prove a point, doesn’t recognize that the date appears to be mid-April, near enough to the date of the Bay of Pigs invasion. Needless to say, I regret bringing this up because Hankey will now change his tack and make numerous other claims.) This location was chosen by Mallon (who is going to stay at the DuPont Plaza) because it was the most convenient place for Dulles to go to. He also says he has someone else is coming, whose name is indiscernible, and he has also invited Prescott Bush. Mallon wants Dulles to “listen in” on their “Pilot Project in the Carribean.”

Hankey describes this memo as Bush and Mallon “sending” for Dulles, as if he is a notch above the hotel concierge in status. In JFK II, moments before we view the Mellon/Dresser Industries document, Hankey had shown a memo in which Bush had sent a letter to C. D. Jackson recommending his pal Mallon for a position, and he mentions that he had been recruiting people for Allen Dulles and the CIA. Allen Dulles is regarded as the father of the agency by any and all researchers (bar John Hankey). Thus most reasonable people would assume that Mallon was, for all intents and purposes, Dulles’ follower.

Most people would also clearly see that Mallon had pestered Dulles to come along. Of all the people attending, the location was named as being the most convenient for Dulles. As for Bush sending for Dulles, this is ludicrous. He’s been invited and seems to have had no problem wanting to be in Dulles’ presence. There’s nothing indicating Bush sent for him or demanded his presence in any way. If he had planned it with Mallon, which is a distinct possibility, they focused all attention on Dulles. Dulles was the man they needed, not the other way around. It’s as clear as daylight. Another thing that is pretty clear is the date of the document, which Hankey ignores while claiming to Corbett that the Pilot Project in the Carribean is “George Bush and the Bay of Pigs.” The problem here is that the document looks like it is dated in April of 1963. The Bay of Pigs occurred in 1961 – two years earlier.

36:40: Prouty Picked up a Newspaper in Australia

Part way through this ramble, Hankey says Fletcher Prouty was involved in NSAM 273, the order to withdraw 1000 troops from Vietnam by Christmas 1963. In fact, it was NSAM 263 which contained this order – and all troops by the end of 1965. NSAM 273 was the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s reversal of NSAM 263, which ultimately resulted in the deployment of 185,000 troops into Vietnam by the end of 1965.

Now Prouty figures fairly prominently in Oliver Stone’s film JFK. Who can forget the scene where Mr. X encounters Jim Garrison in Washington and tells him about picking up a newspaper and instantly thinking there was a cover story put out about Oswald? As it turns out, Hankey can. He forgot what country Fletcher Prouty was in, and the famous name of the newspaper he picked up. Corbett had to correct him again. Prouty was not in Hankey’s Australia, but in New Zealand and the paper was the Christchurch Star. But Hankey isn’t done. He then calls Prouty a CIA operative. This is JFK 101 level stuff and Hankey is flunking. In the film, Mr. X explicitly denies this. Everybody knows that Colonel Prouty was a high-level liaison between the Pentagon and the CIA. If Hankey were as big an advocate of Prouty as he says he is, he would know that Prouty never worked for the Agency.

John, let’s stop here and take a quick breather. Are these horrific mistakes irrelevancies to you? Are these minor matters, or mistakes that do not interfere with your overall analysis that the Bush family orchestrated the assassination? If so John, let’s take you – no, let’s walk you – back to the start. The irrelevancies we discuss are the irrelevancies you bring up. Not us. Understand this. We simply clean up your errors – big and small. What has Fletcher Prouty in New Zealand got to do with anything regarding your grand scheme? Did George Bush send him there John? Well you seem to think so. Why on earth would you say stuff along the lines of: “It’s clear they moved Prouty out of the country to move Bush into Dallas to supervise his troops.” And later on when discussing Bush’s phone call to the FBI in Tyler, Texas, why would you joke that he should have placed the call from New Zealand?

Fletcher Prouty never actually said New Zealand got the story ahead of the rest of the planet. After spending five years examining the Star (unlike your 5 minutes), I agree with Prouty that there was a probable cover story. This went out around the world. None of the potential conduits of this information have any bearing on the Bush family. It has more to do with individuals like Joe Goulden, Hal Hendrix, and David Atlee Phillips. Persons you think are not relevant. While you are at it, please tell us that Prescott Bush invented Operation Mockingbird, which was a major part of the plot that day.

39:10: George Bush’s Impossible Phone Call in Tyler, Texas

Hankey’s mysterious conflict with documentation again rears its ugly head. But before we tap this rich vein of Hankeyism, let us note that he says that Bush cannot remember where he was that day. This is a myth. Paul Kangas is the spiritual father to Hankey, which, considering his grip on facts, makes perfect sense. He seems to have come up with the idea of “Bush, The Amnesiac.” In this excerpt from a draft for another project, Kangas provided no sources for the following 1991 diatribe in his piece The Kennedy Assassination: The Nixon Bush Connection:

Only Hankey could be influenced by someone who calls the most famous home movie ever, the “Zagruder film,” and then calls George’s dad “Preston.” And to make it a trifecta, Kangas says “Preston” (he, of course, should have said “Prescott”) ran his son’s non-existent campaign for the Senate in 1962. That Hankey and Russ Baker have both fallen for this line says much about their “rigorous research standards.” (And yes, Jesse Ventura was criticized by me as well for this.) Hankey then tries to say here that Bush was not really in Tyler, Texas at the time! How? He says there was only seven minutes for him to make a call to the FBI about Thomas Parrot. As if seven minutes were not enough time to call the FBI. Yet, the FBI document says that Bush called at 1:45. George Bush actually had something like 15 minutes to make the phone call. It is there in black and white in the document he so astoundingly says gave Bush 7 minutes to make the call. Hankey’s excuse – and he always has one – will be something like the call would have taken time to get through and so on. I’m sorry, but it’s all there and it looks like an extremely simple operation to any rational person looking at the document in question. (Click here for a view.)

56:07: Madeleine Brown, The Prostitute

Hankey’s right to be skeptical of Madeleine Brown. However, he’s not prepared to go all the way. He seems to believe that the mystical Murchison assassination-eve party occurred. It’s not clear to me if he does or not. But he goes all the way and smears the dead woman by calling her a prostitute. I have seen no evidence which suggests she was a prostitute. Yet based on the fact that she attended some upper-echelon Dallas parties, the woman is called a prostitute: “Why do you think they keep inviting her?” Hankey asks. In the midst of Brown’s purported whoring, Hankey, in his excitement, forgets the name of the prominent Wall Street figure on the Warren Commission who was supposed to be there also. John J. McCloy was the name you were after John. Gad, you “expert” you.

1:13:41: Hankey, The Eternal Victim

James Corbett clearly wanted Hankey on his show to discuss Dark Legacy. But what it turned into was a rambling diatribe against CTKA. The debate on Murder Solved is an interesting case in point. In the final stages of his interview, Corbett asks Hankey if he has formulated a response to “Delhayneos” CTKA “hit piece” on him. (Even though I – not Jim – wrote it.) Hankey’s reply, as per usual, was all over the place and yet deeply revealing:

Now, let us do our usual Hankeyan breakdown. First of all, Hankey has raised the issue on his web site. We have seen it. But what he does is quite slick. In order to preserve his fig leaf that he really didn’t make that many errors in the film, he eliminates any reference to Jim’s second post there. Why? Because Jim listed the 20 errors he made in the first half of the film. Secondly, as Jim later explained when he was allowed to reply on Corbett’s show, CTKA has a general rule that we don’t allow authors to counter the reviews we place, for the simple reason that we negatively review so many books, essays, and DVD’s that it would take up much too much time. (There has only been one exception to this rule, a reply to my discussion of Alex Jones.)

But let’s continue Hankey’s “comeback special” tirade, where he is a bit more candid:

Yes, John. That’s why you’re saying you’re hiding it when it’s a public forum. That totally makes sense. But in the next sentence you completely give the game away:

As we have explained, my piece was not a “hit piece.” It was a painstaking correction of a litany of literally scores of errors. If Hankey would have done his homework, he would not have been embarrassed, as he himself admitted at JFK Murder Solved. Incredibly, he never even turned the film over to a fact-checker who was more well-versed in the JFK case than he was – which is just irresponsible.

Hankey’s JFK II is not a little video by any account. In fact, by all accounts it has gone viral and brought Hankey quite a lot of attention. Thus, when Hankey plays victim, he’s either deluded or making a fantastic marketing pitch.

1:16:15: J in Latin is I-I

He then uses an example of CTKA’s correcting his use of the boat named Barbara in the Bay of Pigs. The boat we explained was the Barbara J, not simply, the Barbara. Now Hankey ignored the middle initial because it damaged his point. (Which he’ll blame now on Prouty and then us for going against Prouty-foul betrayers; we are as you will see in the grand finale). Barbara Bush was George Bush’s wife, but Barbara has no middle name. So perhaps he was wrong to insinuate the ship was named after her? He now tries to reclaim ground by making the bizarre claim that the “J in Latin is I-I.”

Hankey’s excuse for all of this:

Now, Hankey spent a good deal of time in his film discussing Bush’s association with Skull and Bones. In the CTKA review, he was roundly shredded because of his inaccuracies. Hankey, “the S&B expert,” should have known that Bush’s name was “Magog.” As for the conversion of ‘J’ into Roman numerals, it is a half truth. Is he really trying somehow to equate Roman numerals with the letter value of ‘J’ ? If he took a quick look on Google, it would have shown him that there was little numerical usage in replacing ‘J’ with an ‘I’ or ‘i’, and it definitely didn’t equal two of them.

Hankey reaches a new all-time low with regard to misappropriating Fletcher Prouty – who never ever said anything of the “codified” sort in his discussions about the Bay of Pigs.

In a field abounding with some truly bad research and researchers, John Hankey scoops the pool. To even call Hankey a researcher is to shame what the term means. Real researchers, when they are criticized, do not have to hide behind the skirts of their elders and betters, and then scream they are being singled out and victimized. They defend their work on its own terms.

Hankey cannot. So he hides.

“The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”

Hankey/DiEugenio Debate Murder Solved

DiEugenio’s Review Update of “Dark Legacy”

Coogan Reply to Fetzer at Deep Politics Forum

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 1

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 2

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 3

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 4

As Seamus Coogan noted in his deconstruction of John Hankey’s deleterious and delirious quasi-documentary JFK 2, Hankey has since gotten some advice and pro bono work from Hollywood. This resulted in a more professional version of the film. The title of the redo is Dark Legacy.

This time around, at least the presentation is smoother and slicker. Some of the music has been improved. There are more modern graphics and effects, like fades and dissolves. The overall effect is to make the film easier on the eyes. And a little easier on the ear. (At times, Hankey still puts in his old acoustical folk song.)

And someone prevailed upon Hankey to remove three of the worst howlers in the film. First, the immortally camp scenario of George Bush going into J. Edgar Hoover’s office with two Cuban thugs and threatening him with a flechette gun is gone. Second, the phony dialogue put in the mouth of Bill Colby about knowing George Bush and Howard Hunt were involved in the assassination in Dallas is also gone. Another egregious error about Kennedy letting the Russians search for Cuban training camps in the USA after the Missile Crisis is removed.

Hankey has also added a new opening that focuses on the attributes of Kennedy’s presidency. He notes here the Steel Crisis, his civil rights program, his disarmament pledge, among others.

But, still, even after the technical improvements and the surgery on some of the worst segments of the first version(s), it’s surprising how many errors were left intact. In other words, after all those years it was out, Seamus Coogan was the only person who took the time and effort to go after the film with a fine toothcomb. Which, of course, speaks well for CTKA, and poorly for the rest of the research community. Are we the only people doing fact checking? It appears that way. Which, of course, doesn’t say much for the so-called JFK research community.

One would think the man would look up the proper spellings of names if one was going to depict those names on the screen. Hankey doesn’t, therefore names like Robert Blakey, and George Burkley and Aubrey Rike are spelled wrong. One would also think that the cutting of the film would match up correctly. Well, the two HSCA acoustic experts, Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy never testified before the Church Committee. And related to this, he depicts Dallas DA Henry Wade as Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr.

Hankey still includes the whole incredible 13 shot fusillade scenario. Unlike what Hankey intones as narrator, Richard Helms never testified at the trial of Howard Hunt and he never admitted that Marita Lorentz was a spy. (See Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, pgs. 214-225)

With his usual penchant for overstatement, Hankey says that the above trial depicted in the Lane book showed that Hunt was guilty of killing president Kennedy. As Coogan showed, it did not. And Richard Nixon never said to Bob Haldeman that the whole “Bay of Pigs thing” message he sent to Helms meant the Kennedy assassination. This was a deduction later made by Haldeman. Guy Banister’s secretary Delphine Roberts never testified to the Warren Commission. And she never told anyone she saw Oswald at the training camp at Lake Pontchartrain. Strangely, Hankey adds in this version that parking lot manager Adrian Alba was Oswald’s closest associate in New Orleans. Yet, reportedly, all he did was read some magazines in his office.

I could go on and on. But the point is that although three of the worst faux pas are gone, the great majority of the errors Coogan enumerated are still there. And let me add that concerning his case against George Bush, Hankey now adds the Parrott memorandum. I discussed this at length in my Russ Baker review. Bush at first denied and then could not recall his call about James Parrott to the FBI. My question: If you were an ambitious and successful Texas politician, would you want to admit you had some rightwing nut in your campaign headquarters a few months before JFK was killed? And that this man had threatened Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs? And unlike what Hankey insinuates, Bush was not in Dallas at the time of the shooting; he was in Tyler, Texas campaigning in front of a Kiwanis Club gathering.

All in all, although the new version is a slight improvement, this is still an inferior film that does not do our cause any good.

“The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”

Hankey/DiEugenio Debate Murder Solved

“Onwards and Downwards with John Hankey”

Coogan Reply to Fetzer at Deep Politics Forum

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 1

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 2

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 3

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 4

A response from Jim DiEugenio

posted by Bob (Fox) on Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:40 pm

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

Re: A response from Jim DiEugenio

by Michael Dell on Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:32 pm

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…

[i]”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.

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by Bob (Fox) on Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:43 pm

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 … woods.html

Take 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!

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by Dealey Joe on Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:01 pm

Mr. Dell

Why not have John Hankee and Seamus Coogan on your show?

makes more sense to me.

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by Michael Dell on Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:33 pm

Dealey Joe wrote: “Mr. Dell – Why 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…

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by Michael Dell on Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:34 pm

Bob wrote: “Just choose your words carefully and be respectful. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.”

Well said, sir. And that’s the point I’ve been trying to make from the start…

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by ThomZajac on Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:04 pm

From my perspective, this mostly boils down to a matter of delivery.

Certainly there will never be complete agreement regarding every key point.

The real issue becomes how we choose to discuss and disagree and make our points.

As Bob has said many times, we can be passionate without being disrespectful.

Coogan’s hit piece on Hankey was disrespectful- and there was no need for it to be. I’ve been publishing a newspaper for 25 years and I couldn’t imagine writing a critical story about someone or some business without contacting them for comment before publishing. Hankey is accessible. For Coogan to write such a mean-spirited piece without the professional courtesy of contacting him so that he might address some of the criticisms is simply unforgivable. Add to that the policy of not allowing equal time or even a rebuttal, and you’ve got the lowest kind of ‘journalism’ that there could ever possibly be- no matter how valid the article’s points.

I’d like to think that we demand more of ourselves than that.

Let’s follow the fine examples set by Bob, and Michael Dell.

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by Michael Dell on Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:33 pm

ThomZajac wrote: “I’d like to think that we demand more of ourselves than that.  Let’s follow the fine examples set by Bob, and Michael Dell.”

Thank you, sir.

And Thom brings up an important point. Perhaps it’s merely a question of background and perspective. Thom has a journalism background. Bob is a journalist. I’m a sportswriter and a fiction writer. We’re seeing the review from that perspective. Mr. Coogan and Mr. DiEugenio are no doubt ace researchers, but perhaps they don’t understand or appreciate concerns expressed about the delivery of the facts they present.

I’m guessing Mr. Coogan and Mr. DiEugenio are rather focused in their pursuits, and maybe they don’t pay as much attention to the use of words and language as they should. By the same token, perhaps Mr. Hankey doesn’t know as much about their respective strengths in researching and sourcing.

But to bury Mr. Hankey for his flaws and then take no responsibility for your own is, in my opinion, reckless. And it doesn’t advance our shared cause.

Which brings me back to my original point. I simply don’t understand why CTKA wouldn’t reach out to Mr. Hankey and work together. It would seem to be a natural pairing. Mr. Coogan and Mr. DiEugenio have the expert knowledge of obscure source material and researching skills. Mr. Hankey knows how to present things in an easily accessible, entertaining way. Why not work together and help each other out?

And I’m sorry, but the decisions to not reach out to Mr. Hankey, to not contact him about the review, and to not even alert him the review was published, to me, all betray an agenda. Like Thom said, that’s not how journalism works. And if you conduct yourself in such a way, you must be willing to accept criticism for it.

I just hope everyone, myself included, can learn from this entire exchange. And remember, we’re in this together. Be the change you want to see in the world. If you want people to treat you and your colleagues with more respect, extend that same respect to others, even those who disagree with you.

Namaste.

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by Bob (Fox) on Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:29 am

This will be the final post on this thread. It’s the last reply from Jim D. After this…I am done with this subject. We have had our chances to voice our opinions in this thread. They are here for all to see. I would like to say more as well…trust me…but decorum prevents me from doing so. It’s time to move on. Jimmy Files would appreciate this…this isn’t Joliet…but we now have a lockdown here at our forum…

Mr. Dell, I really do not see how anyone can take seriously your resistance to being called a henchman for John Hankey in this affair. Especially when you state that “a wrong was committed” against him. In my view, after editing Seamus’ long essay, and checking his sources thoroughly, the wrong was by Mr. Hankey and the victim was the historical record. Which is clearly something you did not check before you had him on your show. But, now you attack Seamus because he did check the record. Hmm.

And what is the reason you are so outraged against Seamus and CTKA? Because you met Mr. Hankey and “I found him to be a fine fellow. He has been nothing but kind and respectful in our dealings…He’s a good man trying to do what’s right at great sacrifice. He deserves more respect than Mr. Coogan or CTKA afforded him”

Mr. Dell, what is deserving of respect is not a man’s charm, or niceness, or his job. What deserves respect in CTKA’s eyes is the quality of a man’s work. That is, the thoroughness of his scholarship, the rigor of his logic, the quality of his perceptions, the number of important interviews he does, and the important documents he uncovers. In that regard, Hankey’s film is so mistake riddled, so illogical, so full of deductive errors of reasoning, that what is shocking is that no one had skewered it sooner. Certainly, you were not going to. Hankey is just too nice.

How do you deal with the sorry string of errors in JFK 2? With this: “If there are mistakes in Mr. Hankey’s work, its right and necessary to point them out.” So you want to have it both ways. You say “If there are…” Which in light of Seamus’ essay is a ridiculous statement. There are literally dozens of errors of every kind in the pseudo documentary. So many that it is actually shocking. Just consider:

1. Mossadegh and Arbenz were not killed in CIA overthrows.
2. Ganges was not a doctor in 1963
3. Who believes that 13 bullets were fired in Dealey Plaza, and what is the evidence for that ballistically or acoustically?
4. Roy Kellerman was not looking in the back seat at the time of the shooting.
5. What is the evidence for Connally seeing Kennedy choking on a bullet and being shot in the head?<
6. It is not true that there was no evidence against Oswald by the evening of the murder.
7. The mystery of who shot JFK is not “easier to answer than you think”.
8. The CIA memo about supplying an alibi for Hunt on 11/22/63 was not written by Helms.
9. Operation Zapata was not named after Bush’s oil company.
10. There is no evidence that either the ships Barbara or the Houston were named by Bush Sr.
11. Nixon did not bring Hunt into the White House.
12. There is no credible evidence that Nixon was in on the JFK plot, so why picture him with a rifle pointed at Kennedy in the limo?
13. The Rubenstein document is very likely a forgery. And it was not “recently discovered”.
14. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that LBJ blackmailed Nixon about his role in the JFK case on a phone call.
15. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that Nixon hired Connally because they worked on the JFK hit together.
16. Hoover was not a crack investigator or heroic anti-Fascist. Just look at what he did in the Palmer Raids. Or the McCarthy years.<
17. Hunt was not found guilty of murder at the Liberty Lobby trial.
18. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that Prescott Bush picked Nixon out of crowd and decided to be the prime backer of his early political career.
19. There is no evidence, let alone proof, of any sinister connection between Nixon and Hunt in 1963 on the JFK plot
20. There is no evidence, let alone proof, that Prescott Bush was the real power behind DCI Allen Dulles at CIA.

Let me digress on this last point. Because it reveals Hankey’s methods in the use of evidence. As Seamus showed in his essay, there is no mention of this Bush for Dulles substitution in either of the two standard reference books on the CIA. So what does Hankey now do? He says that Prescott Bush was on a committee of inquiry in the Chou En Lai assassination affair. Dulles asked him for the status of the inquiry and Prescott declined to tell him. Therefore Prescott was really the power behind Dulles at CIA. Which is a totally illogical deduction. Every so often there is an internal inquiry at CIA. During the Dulles years there were, for example, the Bruce-Lovett report and the Lyman Kirkpatrick report on the Bay of Pigs. If Dulles has asked David Bruce, Robert Lovett or Kirkpatrick to divulge anything from their reports before it was done, and they had refused, would that mean that these three men were really in charge at CIA and not Allen Dulles? Of course not. The very question seems ridiculous. But these are the illogical lengths that Hankey will go to in twisting evidence to buttress his baseless theory.

Now I stopped at 20 serious errors. Yet I only got halfway through the show. I would have gotten to about forty in an 88 minute presentation. And I should note, I edited Seamus’ essay down from 54 pages to 34 pages. Simply because I thought it was overkill. So unedited, it would have come to at lest 50 errors. Which is simply unacceptable and intolerable for an 88 minute documentary. And that is the key word. This is supposed to be a documentary. Which is what makes the error rate shocking. So for Dell to use the phrase, “If there are mistakes in Mr. Hankey’s work”, this is simply an attempt to whitewash the truth. There are so many errors that they should offend any serious person’s sensibilities. Yet they are not offensive at all to Mr. Dell. After all Hankey is a “fine fellow” who has been “kind and respectful in or dealings”. And that excuses an academic debacle like JFK 2.

I don’t know what he means about Horne’s work. CTKA has not published any part of the upcoming five-part review of Inside the ARRB. And I have said very little about it on Black Op Radio. To read a book(s) that long takes weeks, maybe a month. And then to compose one’s thoughts and write it out, that takes almost as long. But having read much of it, and having followed the controversy about Lifton’s book for many years, it’s not correct to say that somehow Horne’s book “proves” Best Evidence. Only someone with sub standard scholarly standards would say so. And only someone who has not consulted with the best medical people in the field. And, although I like him and Crossfire is a good overview book, Marrs is not a medical authority. (Ever hear of “The Signal and the Noise”?)

I love how you tried to score us on not reviewing Dark Legacy with JFK 2. Seamus explained this upfront. If you read his essay—which you are trying to ignore the contents of, he said many, many more people have seen JFK 2 than Dark Legacy. Because it has been around much longer and since it is online. So I told Seamus that I would buy Dark Legacy later and review it with Baker’s Family of Secrets. Since the whole Parrot episode that Hankey uses there is dealt with at length in the Baker book. So CTKA will have reviewed the whole Bush trio at length and in depth. Who else has done so? (By the way, you broke your own rule here. You did not ask me beforehand if I planned on reviewing Dark Legacy before you attacked me. Strange double standard you have.)

This last point relates to you rather odd view of critical procedure. You take me to task for not consulting with Hankey or “reaching out ‘ to him before publishing Seamus’ article. Or giving him a copy of the review beforehand. I don’t know where you learned this strange procedure. There have been about 13 reviews published of my two JFK books. In not one instance has anyone ever consulted with me beforehand, reached out to me, or even sent me a review. Never. This is why publishers have clipping services.

I love the point you make about the Bush threatening Hoover scene with a poison dart gun being excusable since it only “could happen”. Mr. Dell, almost anything “could happen”. I mean Roscoe White could have been firing at Kennedy from the roof of the TSBD with a uranium bullet in a sabot. He could have then jumped down into a rubber blanket held by three accomplices on the Dallas police force in civilian clothes. That “could have happened”. Do you think it did happen? Would you like to see it in a documentary on the JFK case? It is the job of the documentary filmmaker to show us what DID happen, or if not, the closest approximation of what happened with the best and most reliable evidence available. What evidence is there for this preposterous product of a fevered imagination? Is it in any book on Hoover? Are there witnesses who saw it? Are there witnesses who heard about it? Was it in Hoover’s appointments book to meet with George Bush after the assassination? Did his longtime secretary Helen Gandy ever tell anyone about it? Did Tolson? Did DeLoach? So why use such a wild and fantastic scene at all? Especially in a documentary film? And why would you defend it, and then say that its CTKA that has no standards? Wow.

Finally, I will pass on the podcast. I don’t think we are “on the same team here.” Not by a longshot. Just wait until you see my review of Dark Legacy.

Over and out. No more posts by me on Mr. Dell or Hankey.

JAMES DIEUGENIO

Re: Seamus Coogan on John Hankey

by John Hankey on Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:55 pm

There isn’t now, nor has there ever been any issue raised by DiEugenio or Coogan that is worth discussing except one:

Does the evidence support the finding that George HW Bush was involved in the assassination. All else is obfuscation.

DiEugenio and Coogan concede that the Bush of the memo is our very own George HW. McBride (all praise and glory to him; blessed be his name) located another George Bush at CIA and got a statement from him that he wasn’t the Bush of the memo. That, says, DiEugenio, settles the question and “proves” it was our George. Fine and dandy. I felt it wasn’t sufficient, and tried to gather the circumstantial evidence to prove the point more definitively. But fine. It was him.

DiEugenio and Coogan (henceforth D&C) say that’s all it means. It doesn’t connect Bush to the assassination or to the “misguided anti-Castro Cubans”. So let me ask you, Jim, or Seamus, and any one else, to take up these following points, which are relevant to the issue; and to skip the bullshit:

1) The title of the memo in question is, “Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy”. The title is NOT “Misguided anti-Castro Cubans”; or “Response to State Dept. Inquiry”; or any of dozens of other possible titles. Hoover thought it was relevant to the assassination, obviously. D&C don’t think so; they don’t want you to think so; and they attack me for drawing what seems to me a starkly obvious conclusion: that a memo, titled “Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy”, that named Bush as a member of the CIA, ties him to the assassination. I mean, are these not ludicrous points for me to have to make? Why the Bleep do you, D&C, think Mark Lane saw fit to include the memo in his book??? Why The Bleep did he feel it was relevant to a book about Hunt, Lorenz, and the assassination??? I may have holes in my socks. My underwear may need changing. I haven’t vacuumed my carpet in a couple of weeks. Attack me for that. But good grief!! For me to suggest that this memo links Bush to the assassination is not something that deserves to be attacked with the air of disregard both of you have brought to this debate. I think the entire discussion group should be offended. And say so. For an important number of researchers, the minute Hunt told the Washington Post “I’m a CIA assassin,” their immediate reaction was “OMG. He killed JFK!” I was a teenager when I attended a speech by Donald Freed entitled, “From Dallas to Watergate.” He connected Hunt to the misguided anti-Castro Cubans and then to the assassination; and he did it without the benefit of the Hoover Bush memo.

2) The Hoover Bush memo says that the FBI requested that the CIA send representatives to receive this report. If the report had been presented telephonically, Hoover’s memo would have said so. Bush received the report in person. No reasonable doubt. The report was given by a man in the FBI’s upper echelon. I presume, therefore, that it was given at FBI headquarters in Washington. That would be standard. If it was given somewhere else, I think we might assume that Hoover would have mentioned it. But it’s not an important point. The critical point is that if the FBI calls you up and says they want to give you a report, you don’t send the teenager who walks your dog. Jim is a school teacher. If the FBI calls the principal and says that they have a report that the English teachers are using bootleg copies of some textbook, and they want the principal to send someone to receive their report of the results of their investigation, who is the principal going to send? The janitor? A PE teacher? Or the English Department chair? Duh! Again, it is an obvious point. Not quite so obvious as the first. But it is an extremely reasonable extrapolation to say that the memo powerfully suggests that Bush was supervising these Cubans. So why the attack upon me for doing so?

3) “So!” say D&C, “what is the evidence that they are the same as those in Lorenz’s group? He produces none.” (That is an exact quote, by the way) Well, if I had provided no other evidence than the implications of the memo itself, I think the points 1&2 above are sufficiently powerful so as to suggest that the allegation of Bush’s connection to the assassins is worth considering. Don Freed figured that if you were in the CIA in ‘63, you were suspect. D&C characterize the following as “none”.

a) Bush and Hunt came to the White House within a few months of each other, to work for Nixon. Bush insisted on a White House office, very unusual for a UN ambassador. Again, regardless of D&C’s objections and obfuscations, Haldeman says that no one could figure out how Hunt got an office in the White House. OK. They both worked in the White House at the same time. DiEugenio would not dispute that Watergate was a CIA operation. He probably would dispute that Bush was a high ranking CIA officer at this time. But it’s obvious that he was. I’m sure DiEugenio would say, that doesn’t connect him to Hunt! He would have you believe that Bush had nothing to do with Watergate. Or if he did, that doesn’t connect him to Hunt. Or if it did, that doesn’t connect him to Hunt in Dallas in 1963. We’ll get to that in a minute. D&C both continue to ignore Haldeman’s statement that when Nixon told the FBI not to investigate Hunt, because “you’ll uncover the whole Bay of Pigs thing”, that Nixon was talking about the Kennedy assassination. Come on Jim. Take this up. It links Nixon to the assassination. It shows that he knew Hunt was involved! But DiEugenio tries desperately to make the point that Colson, not Nixon, hired Hunt. The implication is that Nixon knew nothing about Hunt, because Colson hired him. Well who the Bleep told Nixon that Hunt was connected to the Kennedy assassination? Jim? Can you help us out? Do you want to suggest that Colson told him? Based upon what? Colson had no connection to CIA operations. But, as I point out in the movie, Bush was involved in the same operation, the Bay of Pigs, at the same time, in the same location, that Hunt was. DiEugenio, on Black Op radio 463, raises the strawman, that I said Nixon hired Hunt; and that means, according to DiEugenio, that I say that Hunt was serving Nixon’s interest. Of course I never said any such thing. If I were asked, I’d say that Hunt was working for Bush during Watergate, as he was at the Bay of Pigs, and in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Well, there can scarcely be any doubt whatsoever about two of those. In the context of the Hoover memo, its title, and its naming of Bush, there can scarcely be any doubt about any of them. How can anyone honestly characterize this as “no evidence”. They can’t. DiEugenio is not who he pretends to be; he is not who I, until a little over a week ago, I thought he was. At very least, he’s vastly dishonest in the defense of Bush.

b) I linked Connally to the assassination. Well, you buy that or you don’t. The day of the assassination, Connally said he saw the president slump before he was shot. That was a lie. The film shows he did not see Kennedy before he was shot. He said it, I supposed, to counter the numerous witnesses who said JFK was thrown violently backwards by a bullet from the knoll. And then months later, on cue, Connally changed his story to accord with the single bullet theory. In addition, Connally says the recognized the first shot as an assassin’s rifle shot; but the Zapruder film shows him sitting there calmly, holding his Stetson. You make of that what you will. D&C thinks it means nothing. I think it links Connally to the assassination. And Haldeman says Connally said, “You can’t bring me to the White House until you find something for Bush.” Ok. Pretty weak. I’ve actually cut it out of the latest version. But it’s not nothing. It’s clutching at straws. And it’s a straw. But it’s not nothing. It’s worthy of discussion. It reveals an otherwise invisible, that is secret, connection between Bush and (to me) a clear assassination participant.

c) Bush’s co-founder in Zapata Oil, Bill Liedtke, provided the hush money that was paid to Hunt. It’s another connection between Hunt and Bush. No doubt. Well, no doubt in anyone’s mind but D&C. They can’t even see it. To them, it’s not weak evidence. To them, it doesn’t exist.

d) When CIA agent Felix Rodriguez went to Ramon Rodriguez, the cocaine money launderer, to ask for money, he said, “Bush sent me.” Ramon had written the checks for Hunt, with the money from Liedtke. Felix didn’t know Ramon. But obviously Bush did. How? I suggest that Bush knew Ramon because he was in charge of getting the hush money for Hunt from Liedtke, and to Hunt through Ramon Rodriguez. If it weren’t for all the other stuff, this would be pretty slim. Taken altogether, I think this wraps up Bush pretty tightly with Hunt, before, during, and after Dallas ‘63. The Kennedy assassination is the most tightly held CIA operation in all of history. Given that, we should expect to find nothing. In that context, this is a load of evidence. But forget all that.

e) The FBI memo, recording Bush’s phone call the day of the assassination, claiming he was in Tyler Texas, but explaining that he would be in Dallas that night. Russ Baker in Family of Secrets, reveals that the Dallas Morning News carried an ad saying Bush was speaking in Dallas the night before. DiEugenio called this truly wonderful book “vaporous”, whatever that means. But it’s not a nice word. I raised this book and the evidence in it in my first response. And what is DiEugenio’s response? Read for yourself:

“He (Hankey) 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.”

No Jim? I suppose. I needed Wim Daankbar to hook me up with this FBI memo (thanks Wim!). And in every rehash, of the four or five I’ve done the last six years, it’s been there. But, OK, Seamus didn’t see it. He’s off the hook on that one. But you’re not. Where’s your response to this memo, putting Bush in Dallas, on duty, the day of the assassination??? Your response is to call this powerful list of connections between Bush and Hunt “none”. What are we to make of this? What are we to think about a person capable of such lies, and in such a dubious cause.

I have, until this episode, been a huge fan of Jim’s. When it comes to dismantling the Warren report and it’s defenders, he is incomparable. No? Or that was my opinion. What the hell happened? Why is he defending Bush in this insanely dishonest fashion? Mike Ruppert was my hero before he persuaded me he was an evil prick. DiEugenio actually makes a favorable mention of Ruppert on Black Op radio 463. I thought I was going to be physically ill when I heard this. So on Black Op he promotes Ruppert. But in his rebuttal in this forum, he doesn’t make any mention of Ruppert, or my charges against him and Lisa Pease for their role in denying Gary Webb an autopsy. How about that, Jim? Care to weigh in on a Bush critic who shoots himself in the head twice, with a .38, and doesn‘t get an autopsy? No. You’re right to shut the bleep up on that score.

In his rebuttal on this forum DiEugenio makes this stunning remark: “So Lane made an error with Lorenz.” This remark is stunning on a number of counts.

1) It is stunning, for a person of Diegueno’s (now-apparently ill-deserved) status to be so evasive and deceptive. The issue is not really Lorenz credibility. It is Mark Lane’s. It is Lane who says Hunt is guilty; and Lane cites Lorenz, as part of a vast array of evidence in support of that finding. I said this in my original remarks, that it is Lane who said Hunt was guilty. DiEugenio misdirects your attention away from the primary “Lane says Hunt is guilty” thesis towards the “Lane believes Lorenz” thesis. Lorenz is a distraction. And DiEugenio, for good reason, avoids confrontingm Lane’s central thesis in order to harp on a single piece of evidence for that thesis: Lorenz.

2) DiEugenio gives us “So Lane made an error with Lorenz;” and what does he offer in support? Zip. We are to discard Lane in favor of DiEugenio based upon what? DiEugenio’s incomparable credibility? Not anymore, I hope. Destroying DiEugenio’s credibility is my central goal at the moment. Have I accomplished it yet?

3) DiEugenio was on Black Op radio to promote Coogan’s attack on me on Feb. 28 (463), But a week later, Lane was on, minutes before DiEugenio came on (this is 464). They shared the same show (though not simultaneously). During his portion of the show, Lane pointed out that Lorenz had cited Sturgis and Hemmings as being in the cars that drove to Dallas for the assassination. And Lane, on the show, says that both Sturgis and Hemmings have corroborated that story, saying that they were there and involved in the assassination. So Jim, Mark Lane has the statements of two of the killers to back up his belief in Lorenz’s story. And you have what?

Finally, during his time on Black Op Radio #463, Jim also attacks somebody’s website for not allowing rebuttals. He laughs about it. It’s ridiculous to him. And then he writes in his rebuttal to me “And no we do not run rebuttals.” Well, I won’t dispute the wisdom of that policy when applied to Warren Commission defenders. However, I’m not a Warren Commission defender. But I’m interested in much more than attacking the Warren Commission. I’m interested in getting beyond the obvious point that Oswald didn‘t act alone, getting at who was behind the killing, and going after them. How can you possibly fail to distinguish between the two? I think that is an essential question for us, your former fans, in trying to divine your motives. Everything you have said on the subject of Bush’s guilt is fundamentally dishonest, in that even when you are right on some minor point, you utterly misrepresent the significance as being somehow fundamental. The good thing is we have learned something important about who you really are. The terrible thing is that you have been a spokesman for the assassination community on important other matters, and you have utterly undermined our faith in your honesty.

******************

That’s a rousing close; and I hate to bring this up, instead of ending there. But in divining who Jim DiEugenio is, and what is going on, I think it’s worth noting: The person representing themselves as Seamus has gotten his hands on a disk that doesn’t contain the Hoover memo, and does contain all this other stuff about Oswald and ice darts and whatnot. That’s interesting. There probably never were more than a dozen such disks on the planet. Maybe fewer. I sent one to Kris Millegan; who offered some suggestions for corrections, which I incorporated; and he referred me to Wim; and I sent him one. And he made some additional suggestions, including getting rid of the Bush-with-the-ice-dart story; and incorporating the Ruby Nixon memo, and the Bush FBI memo from the day of the assassination. And I immediately incorporated those changes, before offering the disk to the public at large, ever. So I would guess that absolutely no one who actually dragged themselves all the way through to the end of Seamus’s hatchet job recognized what he was talking about. Now I know Seamus didn’t get this early early version from Wim. Or from Kris. He’s in bleeding New Zealand for Krike’s sake; or so the story goes. But I smell a big fat rat. And I call on Seamus to explain himself. Where’d you get it Seamus? From the FBI? It reminds me of Bush’s phone call the day of the assassination. I love it when smart asses screw themselves up, being so damn clever. By the way, I’d be happy to sell a copy of the latest version. Wait! He knows the latest version exists. He knows it’s “slick”. So why the hell is he using a six-year old version? To what purpose? And where’d he get it?

***************************************

Anyone who cares to can take up for themselves the myriad irrelevant details that DiEugenio raises in objecting to my work, and decide for themselves if they have any merit. But he raises four as being major, and they’re easily dispensed with, so let me take them up, after pointing out that they indict him more than me, for suggesting that they in any way relate to the case against Bush.

He says 1.) “Jim, didn’t Kennedy know the Bay of Pigs was going to be launched in advance?” This is an utterly irrelevant distraction from the question at hand; but it is a vitally important point, I think, in terms of understanding History, and current affairs. And for that reason, it seems appropriate to me that DiEugenio should rail about it, from the wrong side. That is, I see him as a key disinformer, so if he portrays this as key, it might be – just not in the way he suggests.

I understand that the vast majority of expert opinion is that Kennedy approved the invasion and then refused to provide air cover. This includes experts like Fletcher Prouty, who had a very inside view from which to judge. But I don’t find the story that Kennedy approved the invasion plausible on a number of scores. But my opinion is beside the point, in the face of cold hard evidence:

Days after the assassination, Kennedy called Maxwell Taylor out of retirement and assigned him and Bobby to conduct an investigation into what happened at the Bay of Pigs. They conducted a series of depositions with leading players, including frontline CIA officers on board the Houston and the Barbara J, and Cubans, and cabinet officers. The transcripts of these depositions was published under the title Operation Zapata, about 20 years ago. I think I encountered a reference to it in Fabian Escalante’s book, or in ZR Rifles. In any case, I found the actual US Gov. publication in the local library. The transcripts reveal that when the CIA proposed the invasion, Kennedy turned it down flat. He said he didn’t want any “D-day sort of invasion” (his exact words), but that if the agency wanted to sneak some guerillas into the mountains at night, that would be acceptable. One of the cabinet officials tried to claim that the large invasion had been approved at one particular meeting, and Bobby interrupted him to let him know that he (Bobby) was there and there was no such discussion. One of the CIA officers in command of one of the ships explained that he had been instructed to tell the Cubans, after they were all loaded up and on their way, that the invasion had been called off; and to make sure that they mutinied and went ahead with it anyway. There is real drama in all this. Dulles is sitting there. His underling is ordered, by Maxwell Taylor, the highest rank in the military, to rat Dulles out. The underling looks at Dulles, then at Taylor, and then tells this detailed story of how Dulles planned to get around Kennedy’s rejection of the invasion by pretending to call it off at the last minute, and then blaming it on a Cuban “mutiny”. The officer explained how he had been instructed not to wear side arms, and to be sure to encourage the Cubans to mutiny. But, he said, the Cubans weren’t having any part of a mutiny, and he had to explain the entire scenario to them and assure them that it wasn’t really a mutiny, that they had the complete backing of the US, and that had to proceed. Which they reluctantly did, now unnerved by this attempted charade.

You could argue that this document is somehow dishonest. But I don’t find this plausible on a number of counts. First, why would create this false document, and then tell absolutely no one. I have never encountered anyone who has heard of it. Second, I find the story more than plausible. The Pentagon had approved the CIA’s plan, stupid as it was. But none of the generals got fired. If Dulles, Bissell, and Cabell got fired, it could not have been for offering a bad opinion, could it? You see, if the President agreed to the invasion, it was his opinion too. That’s just not how things work. You don’t fire knowledgeable people because you and your advisors all decided to take their advice. But if Dulles etc. went ahead with an invasion plan that Kennedy had explicitly rejected, that’s quite another matter, isn’t it? The notion that Kennedy would approve the invasion in the first place is also implausible. Kennedy believed in the right of people to choose their own form of government, and he was sympathetic with Castro’s populism. Bobby, in particular, would have been hugely sympathetic to what Castro did to the Mafia. This first is a critical point. Kennedy was not willing to fight a popular movement in Vietnam, even if it was communist; because it was popular. Kennedy was genuinely pro-democracy. He was also against murdering foreign leaders, whether it was Diem or Castro or Khruchev. And finally, Kennedy objected to the notion that the giant power of the US should be brought to bear upon this tiny little island. He said so, in so many words.

This is not a small deal. It is thoroughly revealing about the extent to which we watch a shadow show, and the extent to which 99.99999999999% of the population may be left in the dark about really large and critical issues (like whether Kennedy approved the initial invasion or not). I think it relates to a number of issues. Clinton says he knew nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. Romeo Dillaire and many others attacked Clinton bitterly for his failure to take low-cost zero-threat actions to scare the killers (like jamming their radio station, threatening the leaders by name over their own radio, and buzzing the treetops of the capital with jets). Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, a Kissinger protégé, apparently didn’t tell Clinton, though Lake had complete information on events in the first minutes that they began. I believe the Fort Hood shooting was an op. But I think the evidence shows powerfully that Obama wasn‘t involved in it. Obama has been attacked by the PNAC crowd for refusing to call this Islamic Terrorism; and he ordered the FBI to investigate itself about how they could have failed to open a file on the shooter, Malik Hasan. And the day Obama received their report, he took one sniff and called William Webster out of retirement (see Maxwell Taylor above) to conduct a new investigation, and ordered everyone involved to stop leaking the manufactured background of Hasan-as-Islamic-terrorist. I think this shows that Obama, like JFK at the Bay of Pigs, was not in on the plot.

DiEugenio’s ignorance on this point would be excusable if I hadn’t shown the title of the book, Operation Zapata, and the actual pages with the quotes, in my video. As I’ve said, I held him in the highest regard, but he’s just half-assed on this point.

(There is a point I have to make parenthetically. JFKMURDERSOLVED fans will appreciate it. James Files describes how Nicoletti told him that the CIA had called off the assassination at the last minute, but that he and Nicoletti decided to mutiny and go ahead with it anyway. Ring a bell? This is totally Dulles’ modus operandi.)

More from Jim

2.) “Did Delphine Roberts know Oswald was at the Lake Ponchatrain training camp?” I said she knew and that she said so. I spent 20 minutes online and can’t find the source for Delphine Roberts saying this. I spent another 20 going through my books. Garrison didn’t say it, Lane didn’t say it, Marrs didn’t say it. I didn’t just make it up. Perhaps Sutton or Hinkle. But it’s the most very minor point. Peter Dale Scott says Oswald was there at the camps. (www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr10.html – Deep Politics – 251) Scott may have gotten the information from Robert Tanenbaum, the original Deputy Chief of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, who resigned saying the HSCA wasn’t interested in the truth. He says he saw a film of Pontchartrain showing Bannister and Oswald. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr10.html Explain to us, Jim: If Oswald was there, if such rock solid sources say he was, why are you even raising this point, much less making a huge issue out of it? (D&C: “I said, ‘Are you serious?’ He said, ‘Yes, I am. Its that bad.’) That’s pretty bad. I said the secretary said. Maybe she did. Maybe she didn’t. Maybe she lied. Maybe she didn’t. But Tanenbaum is vastly more credible, and says he saw incontrovertible evidence. I should have used Tanenbaum instead of Robets. OK. Score a big point for D&C for misdirection.

More from Jim

3.) “Who hired Hunt at the White House?” I said Nixon. DiEugenio says Colson. Colson worked for Nixon. There can be no dispute about that. Did Colson hire Hunt on behalf of Nixon? Of course. So were dealing with misdirection here, as usual. And now check this from Haldeman’s The Ends of Power:

p. 12 Erlichman to Haldeman the morning after the break-in “He (Colson) doesn’t know anything (sic) about Watergate, and he hasn’t seen Hunt in months.”

Colson to Haldeman: “he (Hunt) was off my payroll. You gotta believe me, Bob. It wasn’t me. Tell the President that. …Hunt left my office months ago, like I said.” So to say that Colson hired Hunt, as DiEugenio does, is useless. In what sense did Colson hire him, if he didn’t pay him? and Hunt didn’t work for him? And more to the point, MUCH MORE to the point, who was Hunt working for? Who was he answering to? Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that Hunt was answering to the CIA? And what CIA officer was closest to him, with a White House office? Bush. No possible question. Now D&C want to insist that somehow this doesn’t constitute a connection between Hunt and Bush. And in order to distract you from this obvious connection, they raise silliness like “Nixon didn’t hire Hunt. Colson did.” Which is not only silly; and not only a dark misinformative piece of misdirection; but it’s essentially wrong.

and finally from Jim 4.) “Have you ever heard anything about Prescott Bush actually running the CIA while Dulles was DCI?” And if Prescott ran the CIA from the shadows, you’d expect to have heard of it? I answered this in my first rebuttal, to Coogan. Briefly, then, Joseph Trento tells how, when Dulles inquired about Prescott’s activities investigating an assassination attempt by the agency against Chou En Lai, Dulles was told he didn’t have sufficient security clearance. But how is this an important question? First of all, I never said Prescott was Dulles’ boss, though I suggested that it was possible. So saying I did is more misdirection and straw man-obfuscation. But if I had said it, so what? It’s not essential. There’s evidence to support it. But the real question is, which of these men, Dulles or Prescott, is highest rank in the Rockefellers’ army? Because that’s all the CIA is or ever was, the publicly funded, officially sanctioned, covert army of the Rockefellers. So does Dulles or Prescott Bush rank higher? Answer that and you will have answered the question, “who was the boss of whom?” But who the hell cares?

I thought I’d include that, reviewing Haldeman’s book, I encountered an incident where Connally calls Nixon and says “burn the tapes.” Bush Jr. did burn the Nixon tapes, in case you missed it. When experts suggested new technology might be able to recover the erased segments, little George ordered the 18 minute segment removed and destroyed. Go ahead, Jim. Explain how that one doesn’t connect George Sr. to Hunt or to the “whole Bay of Pigs thing.”

“The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”

DiEugenio’s Review Update of “Dark Legacy”

“Onwards and Downwards with John Hankey”

Coogan Reply to Fetzer at Deep Politics Forum

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 1

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 2

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 3

Master Class with John Hankey, Part 4