• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Lee Cahalan

Members
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lee Cahalan

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. I'm not sure which is the more obvious sign of subterfuge. Jim's denial of Bush complicity in JFK murder or your insistence that the Zapruder film wasn't altered. Any second grader can see the missing frames. No Olympic athlete could move so quickly as limo driver William Greer. Or make Mary Moorman appear as tall as me (6' 6") To the gallery: See the obvious disinformation? Kinda obvious isn't it? Strange how covert elements would support (unmentioned Education Forum members lol) plants for 20 years only to break their cover due to the work of Fetzer, Baker and Hankey. Thus we can put Parker in the same category as Gary Mack. This forum here thus worthless.
  2. Even if it is easily provable that a particular member is a tool? For sure name calling must be removed (of which I did NOT engage in) but we simply must take those folk to task who are so obviously blowing smoke the other way. Examples: 1) DiEugenio does not contest the authenticity the FBI memo, signed by Hoover, 5 days after the assassination, entitled "Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," signed by Hoover, that names Bush as a CIA officer; Bush is associated by this memo with the assassination; 2) DiEugenio can't contest Russ Baker's discovery that that Dallas Morning News advertized Bush as a speaker in Dallas the night before, speaking to a meeting of independent oil operators. Roger Craig, Jim Garrison's favorite Dallas deputy, wrote that the most important arrest that day was that of an "independent oil operator from Houston," Bush's official CIA cover. This individual was arrested as a shooter, running out the Dal Tex building. DiEugenio says all of this means nothing, shows nothing, we should all look very hard at something else. But worse still DiEugenio is a BUSH APOLOGIST!!! Oh sure he'll occasionally pay lip service against Bush. As the typical Liberal gatekeeper will do. Like the obfuscation where he claimed that the association of Bush with Iran/Contra is "more provable" than Bush in Dallas 11/22/63. but again this is just so much Liberal gate keeping. Like Ed Schultz was caught doing the other day: He, like Schultz talks a great Liberal game but ALWAYS drops the ball on the 1 yard line. And just look at how DiEugenio DEFENDS Bush! Claims on Black Op Radio that Bush really was in Tyler, TX 11/22/63. Even though it is easily provable that the Parrot memo (the alibi Bush attempts to make proving him somewhere else than Dallas where he really was) makes the speech at the Rotary Club impossible. Bush gets on the phone to call FBI within 8 minutes after Cronkite announces the President is dead? I don't think so. Then DiEugenio waits until the lone "witness" Aubrey Irby of the Tyler Rotary Club is dead before propping up this false myth. You can call this what you want but the only reasonable conclusion is that DiEugenio is another Gary Mack. And he's knows this. Again: the truth HURTS but if Tom Scully denies this then what does this say about your forum? "Nothing to see here folks, move along"...
  3. I resurrected this dated thread in order to illustrate a major point: The assassination research community is filled to the gills with tools of the monsters who killed JFK, caused 9/11 and started/profited from all the wars in between and beyond. In fact merely by witnessing Greg Parker's name as the originator of this topic think that we could probably fairly add him to the list of those engaged in subterfuge. Such as Gary Mack, Gerald Posner, Seamus himself and the guy who keeps that attack dog poorly leashed, Jim DiEugenio. Doubt this? Then just ask yourself this question: Would you want someone like Coogan representing your organization? His sophomoric attitude, poorly decided opinions and pettiness? I don't think so. What we have to understand is that "gatekeeper's" have long been present to keep the general masses looking the wrong direction. In the media you have two general varieties: 1. The obvious scamsters like Fox News. 2. The less obvious like Ed Schultz, Amy Goodman and Dan Rather. And everyone else in between. Like CBS, CNN, ABC A/P, UPI etc. So it shouldn't surprise any of us that the assassination research community (which exists almost entirely on the internet) is besieged with tools like CTKA and it's minions. Look for this! After a while it becomes so freaking obvious you wonder why you were originally fooled. Whereas Gary Mack is the wholesale tool, deflecting ideas and questions from the less experienced observer, Jim DiEugenio and his CTKA are the retail specialist. Or the primary element used INSIDE the assassination research community to attempt to deflect or destroy those who come close to doing anything of value. CTKA designed entirely to get the researchers to look elsewhere. We saw this with the FBI infiltration of the Panthers and historically too many places to mention. Lee Oswald himself had been "sheep dipped" to appear a Communist well before he was framed and killed. DiEugenio, like Oswald is well versed in ideas he probably doesn't really believe in. So at first you think he's an amazing researcher. However upon closer inspection he is, like the bribed or intimidated basketball star is shaving points off the scoreboard. Throwing the game to the opponent in other words. This easily observable even before we read Seamus Coogan's embarrassing and ridiculous critiques of Jim Fetzer and John Hankey. Those who are two EFFECTIVE representatives of the research community. Men who have opened minds and doors for perhaps a million new interested members of the JFK research community. No honest person, upon serious review could say that about CTKA. An organization which has done precisely nothing except criticize others. As Pete Seeger said: "it is easier to be critical than correct" Or from the late Edward Abbey who said, related to revolutionary groups like the Wobblies (and loosely quoted):"These revolutionary groups will exist up until the point where they become effective". At which point they become infiltrated by the tools of AUTHORITY. Again like the Panthers, Jim Garrison and many others who found themselves essentially sleeping with the enemy.: The only question I have left about Jim D and his CTKA is if he originally set out to be a good researcher and like Gary Mack merely became unfortunately compromised. Either due to his selling out to the dark forces or being intimidated by them. But its a trivial concern really. The result is the same whether he was forced into it or cheerfully sold out as he got on the gravy train. And its a damn shame but no less true.
  4. I'm not convinced that DI Eugenio is all that much different than Gary Mack. Remember at one time even Gary was considered a respected researcher but who was then corrupted by money. Then perhaps he felt the hammer coming down from the dark forces who felt Gary's research into the JFK assassination threatened them. Or both. Either way Mack surely is a total sellout. As I see it the main difference between Mack and DiEugenio is the audience: Mack deals mostly with the rather uninformed general public. DiEugenio plays to the more sophisticated assassination research community. Both of them spend the majority of their time criticizing those who state opinions or have conspiracy theories. In fact if you read their e-mails its almost as if they come from the same author. Then we read from DiEugenio's hench/hatchet man "Seamus Coogan" (if indeed he is a real human at all anyway) and read nothing but 100% negativity. A writer almost completely absorbed with the destruction of the research community altogether. When someone gets closer to the truth about say JFK or 9/11 he can expect to be pummeled with criticism. Usually (as in the case of Mack, DiEugenio or Coogan) criticism of the unconstructive kind. Now Coogan (who acts under DiEugenios orders) has decided even to make Jim Fetzer his whipping boy. Its my feeling that Fetzer is wise to him and knows that Coogan is just another tool but declines to state the obvious for professional reasons. Fetzer being too polite. At least in this case. Those sincere people within assassination research community should be compared to that fictional character played by Jim Carrey in the movie "The Truman Show"; All his friends are really just actors playing a con job on him. The more he seeks to find the truth, or to even leave his bubble community the more resistance he gets from those around him. Each still pretending to be his friend and look at for his interests. Di Eugenio and his minions at CTKA seem to me to be exactly those same type of apparent con artists. The closer you get to the truth? The more they ostracize you. Gary Mack and Jim DiEugenio: Two peas from the same pod.
  5. Thanks Len. I'd been worried that my reference to Chris Mathews as an "unprincipled xxxxx" was a violation of some forum rule. Besides I don't truly hate Mathews. He'd probably make a good neighbor. Yet my words had me concerned I was being too harsh on him. But after reading your personal attack I feel confident that the moderators may just let me get away with dissing Mathews as a xxxxx. After all when a person such as yourself dispenses continual literary diarrhea? I needn't fear serious forum censorship of my own opinions. So maybe I should give DiEugenio a second chance: If he refuses to answer Colby's worthless posts? He and I share at least some common ground... Regardless of the remark mentioning “I did not mention the assassination itself because Chris did not.” the DiEugenio response is seriously remiss. He might as well have reviewed the Bush administration and left out the two wars and failed economy. Chris Mathews' at least tacit support of the Warren commission being the rhinoceros in the room that no one wants to talk about. The lack of holding Mathews accountable for his weakness on JFK murder is a (typical) huge dysfunction of DiEugenio's efforts. The reason I say that he simply must be a tool. No other logical conclusion can be made save and except perhaps that of a massive ego. To get his voice on the radio or critiques published. In fact DiEugenio is bothered by Hankey because, unlike himself, John is actually doing something to network and help the cause. As a matter of fact I would even almost condone Alex Jones over Jim DiEugenio. No one should say that CTKA is actually doing something positive. Not on balance that is. They with their endless regurgitation of trivial and useless "facts". Pete Seeger is known for saying: "it is easier to be critical than correct". In fact all that DiEgenio is is a critic. If he quit assassination research tomorrow the community would not be diminished in the slightest. What has he ever done besides criticizing? Nothing I say. In the meantime? Welcome to "ignore" Len...
  6. After twice reading Jim DiEugenio's critique of Chris Mathews lousy book "Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero" I got to state that I'm not surprised that Jim missed the mark. Its ANOTHER typical case of DiEugenio or CTKA for that matter getting consumed with detail and totally ignoring the big picture. You can read DiEugenio's review here: http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/03/why-mr-hardball-found-jfk-elusive/ For starters I don't disagree with the points posed in DiEugenio's critique. Mathews is a mainstream fair weather phony Liberal who will always find a way to twist his core values (if he even has any that is) in order to keep his job in the political news field. Has disappointed me for at least twenty years. His latest slightly more Progressive incarnation on MSNBC being the result of him competing with the great work his fellow associate Rachel Maddow does. While Maddow won't bite a chain saw (like touching 9/11 truth or JFK assassination conspiracy) she's otherwise tough as nails. A good influence not only on Chris Mathews but the mainstream media in general. Thank God for Rachel Maddow! However my problem with DiEugenio's review is simple. He misses the main problem with Chris Mathews (other than Chris being the will of the wisp, phony and unprincipled xxxxx that he is): At no point in the book review does DiEugenio mention that as of this date Chris Mathews has never, not even once mentioned CONSPIRACY in the death of JFK. OK I'm not surprised at Mathews' refusal to smell the coffee on JFK. However the general assassination research community should be UP IN ARMS that Mathews never references the obvious CIA complicity in the assassination of the president. A man who has always worshiped Kennedy and knows or pretends to know much about the great man JFK. DiEugenio should have been ALL OVER MATHEWS for this continuing oversight. Instead though he drones on and on about the comparative trivial. . . . This is what has always disappointed me about DiEugenio and CTKA: Inability to ask the right questions and/or put together a cohesive PLAN to educate the masses on the shadow governing bodies that warp and mutilate democracy here in the USA. Jim Fetzer in his review of Seamus Coogan's butcherery of John Hankey recently said: "In CTKA’s critique, “The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”, however, Seamus Coogan commits so many serious blunders in his discussion of the assassination that anyone less familiar with the eddies and currents of JFK research might suspect it was a work of disinformation". (from: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-george-h-w-bush-involved-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/) Actually Professor Fetzer I do highly suspect that CTKA is a continuing work of disinformation. Watch them: they always fumble the ball on the one yard line. Predictable. THAT kind of play can not be a mistake. Not when it happens nearly weekly. CTKA is to the community what Gary Mack and Gerald Posner are to the less educated masses: Tools. There can be no mistake of this. Bad planning so consistently can be no accident! CTKA AND DiEugenio are to my mind are like the fisherman who lay nets for guppies and yet throws the Marlins back into the sea. They SEEM to play a good game until you realize that they are determined to drop the ball short of a touchdown. And they do this every time.
  7. Multiple unanswered posts often a sign of denial. Twisting words and repeating dogma unsubstantiated by fact or reality. Its an addiction for them. Whenever one sees these multiple unanswered posts by the truth deniers he should remember these words of the late author Edward Abbey; “When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense” We see this (above) in the supporters of the official story of Wellstone's plane crash. That and JFK assassination and 9/11 attacks. All the travesties of secret operations that is. It is as if these mega, multiple post addicts believe that one can change data by endlessly repeating falsehoods. If Gary Mack could just host ANOTHER JFK documentary he could prove CE399 really took out six inches of Gov. Connally's rib and stayed in pristine condition. If Len Colby could just find one trivial, minor element wrong with Jim Fetzer's argument he feels he can nullify all substantive research contrary to his skewered world view. We see this kind of "debate" in Conservative forums everywhere. When reality doesn't meet their world view? They post endlessly...
  8. Len you are so obviously out of bullets that you ought to feel flattered when someone of Jim's stature even acknowledges your posts. Hint: he's just toying with you for amusement. I think that even Gary Mack writes better B/S than that stuff Len. Here's what these tools do: scan through the myriad of elements in a 9/11 argument and find one "T" that wasn't crossed. "See? They don't cross their T's! Just look at them! Conclusively proving that 9/11 researchers are all crazy" What you need to do Len is to find a forum composed of gullible people. A place that might just give you the benefit of a doubt. Like Gary Mack does at his farce of a Dallas museum. <Deleted by Moderator> Lee, please do not accuse someone of being paid to make an opinion, to post here, etc, unless you have concrete evidence. of it. Thank you. When one decides to sell his soul out? At least get some real money for it...
  9. I sincerely mean it. Almost wanted to post a poll on the subject. Am going to guess that this forum will largely have a negative opinion of him. Not trying to influence your comments but will give my own. Starting from worst to best. Negatives: 1. Seems entirely too promotional. 2. Too anti Liberal and too much behind Ron Paul. Paul a man who while having some good points would make a terrible president. 3. I hate Jones' bullhorn. Kind of an embarrassment... 4. "Sky is falling" type of rhetoric. Jones seems to be using fear to appeal to that crazy rocking chair redneck already overly afraid of the United nations. Positives: 1. He has aired Dylan Avery. 2. Given a voice to other 9/11 truths. 3. Interviewed DC madam Deborah Palfrey. here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8828926431584684364 Also brought Barry Jennings death to light. But on balance? It's hard for me to state either a thumbs up or down on Alex Jones. On one hand no one has come anywhere near close to developing the international market he has created. No one so well known (as Jones) for assassination and behind the scenes government black operations research. Then on the other he often appears to be a joke. I almost cringe when i see someone respectable like Russ Baker or Jim Fetzer appear on his programs. My vote? on a scale of 1 - 10 about a 6. Barely a slightly positive on balance. But what can we expect for a man actually born in the same hospital where JFK, Lee Oswald AND Jack Ruby died? Literally born into conspiracy science research...
  10. A perfect prescription for dealing with pre collapse Soviet dissidents. "Comrade Ivan you don't seem to feel feeling so well. Why don't we give you a new setting where you can relax until you feel better? Somewhere in SIBERIA comrade" add laughter by Boris Badanov here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3QXBHYRhpw Gil, I've been having trouble accessing your material on youtube. For some time now. Do you have a home page these days? Also you seem to sound like a Bostonian type. Perhaps we may have crossed paths in my early years. I once lived in Tewksbury.
  11. Interesting responses all of them. Not what i expected at all. I had come back here today fully prepared to watch Jim D and others try and "cut me a new one". Telling myself "just read, digest and respond later". Figuring I would just let the dogs sleep and not respond with excessive argumentation. Or at all.Instead what I see if not agreement on most issues is much common ground. The opinions presented being that the Coogan/CTKA diatribes were if anything were off base and way out of the mainstream of JFK research thought.Good!John Hankey makes a tremendous amount of simple mistakes in his presentation. That is just not excusable. US Senate candidate GHW Bush was not arrested or detained on site at Dealey Plaza. Good God, that is awful. Having said that, I think Hankey is bullseye on the participation of George Herbert Walker Bush in the JFK assassination.Russ Baker and Wim Dankbaar are much more reliable sources on GHW Bush than Hankey is. So read those fellows in depth.You also need to get up to speed on the Lyndon Johnson aspect of the JFK assassination.http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/2011/12/lbj-cia-assassination-of-jfk-updated.htmlRuss Baker drew a lot of his material from ace JFK researcher Bruce Campbell Adamson. Here is his excellent web site: http://ciajfk.com/jfkbooks.htmlAdamson was the one who discovered De Mohrenschildt, CIA asset, friend of GHW Bush and Oswald's closest friend in Dallas.As for Mr. DiEugenio, he is very useful on New Orleans, Jim Garrison, the media cover up of the JFK assassination and the reality that JFK's foreign policy was far more dovish and Third World friendly than has been told in MSM or academia. You need to read DiEugenio on that. What first annoyed me about CTKA was its emphasis on the petty, trivial and a downright anal retentive attitude about researchers who fail to dot a few i's and cross some t's. The group missing the entire BIG PICTURE. A mistake that in this field with well known government tools and subterfuge simply must make me suspicious. I'm at the point now where I don't even criticize Alex Jones so much. He did after all publish Dylan Avery. Besides about half the time I pooh pooh something Jones may say I see it eventually play out as fairly close to the truth later on down the line. He and John Hankey have brought a HELL of LOT of new folks into the field of assassination research. Ditto Jim Fetzer whose is very accurate and well researched. CTKA to my knowledge has not brought much to the table besides criticism. In the words of Pete Seeger, another famous dissident: "It is easier to be critical than correct" In watching and listening to John Hankey I infer a strong devotion and courage. And after all the work he single handed put into his films I find it sad to see him be the target of those less creative types who, like I said don't really bring much to the table at all. Hankeys' worst mistake probably is the suggestion that Bush brought a flechette gun into J. Edgar's FBI office headquarters. Never-the-less I believe that the Hoover/Bush memo does show a hidden message. That in all likelihood it has a hidden meaning. It does suggest coercion and intimidation. And while I once disagreed with the theory that Bush was detained outside the Dal Tex building I now find it entirely plausible. Especially in light of the exposure of Bush's false alibi of being in attendance at the Tyler, TX Rotary Club. Time and time again we see Bush digging a bigger and bigger hole for himself on JFK. If he merely stated that he remembered SOMETHING about the day in question. Had come up with a better piece of B/S than "I don't remember". Then his denial of knowledge of the Parrot and Hoover memos. Or his disaster of a speech at Gerry Ford's funeral. His words essentially being an extension of the Bush middle finger to the whole world. And yet CTKA ignores all of this. A forest with no trees they would have us believe. Thus my conclusion is that they are disinformation specialists. Better tools than Gary Mack, Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner perhaps but clearly full of bull crap. The only question I have remaining is whether they have been coerced through threats of violence or (presumably like Gary Mack) are sold out, greedy well paid lackeys. Either way CTKA has, to my mind lost all dignity. It is just with the possible theory of coercion I can feel some sympathy for them.
  12. Interesting responses all of them. Not what i expected at all. I had come back here today fully prepared to watch Jim D and others try and "cut me a new one". Telling myself "just read, digest and respond later". Figuring I would just let the dogs sleep and not respond with excessive argumentation. Or at all. Instead what I see if not agreement on most issues is much common ground. The opinions presented being that the Coogan/CTKA diatribes were if anything were off base and way out of the mainstream of JFK research thought. Good!
  13. Kind of a rant. Sorry, not a lot of documentation. If like myself you've looked into the JFK murder of 11/22/63 you may feel disappointed that so little progress has been made in getting the mainstream media to pick up the ball and start some serious reporting. In fact just the reverse has occurred. Hardly a week goes by that some disinformation hit piece plays out on cable television. A Tee Vee show which in addition to supporting the "Lone assassin" BIG LIE has the audacity to exclaim that the murder of JFK is some kind of mystery. Usually a pseudo "documentary" with Gary Mack's well soiled name attached to it, Why? In the digital age what is preventing MSNBC, CNN or the BBC etc from taking a stab at this? In fact not even the TYT's own Cenk Uygur will even hint about going that direction. I mean most all of us here (whose names don't end in "Mack", "Bugliosi" or "Posner" that is...) know the truth. Or much of it that is. The first answer is that the editors and journalists have been threatened and compromised. I can buy that. FEAR the reason Chris Mathews, a supposed "expert' on the Kennedy administration and family won't touch the idea of a "conspiracy theory" with a ten foot pole. It would however be overly simplistic to blame media timidity entirely. They can take some of the blame but perhaps only up to about half of it. The rest must come from inside the JFK research community itself. Lack of cohesion, petty disputes and even pure subversion and intimidation occur here whether you want to believe it or not. So what do we do when and while examining our references within the community of JFK and assassination science research? Here's a hint: Don't just look at obvious stooges like Vince Bugliosi or Gary Mack. These tools work mostly at the wholesale sales level. To keep the newbies to JFK murder from taking a further, closer inspection in the first place. "Nothing to see here folks types". Instead make an examination of some of the apparently "well respected analysts". Watch carefully at what these kind say and do. Not so much the veracity of their statements but determine the DIRECTION they and their kind actually go. In short are these big shots helpful or unhelpful in the BIG PICTURE? Analogy: A truly great athlete can play a marvelous game and yet still shave a few points off the final score. Allowing his mobbed up gambling associates to beat the point spread. Done cleverly no one watching the game would be wise to the scam. And when we look carefully for this kind of gaming in JFK research community one name (there are probably others too) always turns up. Usually at the top of the page. That name is spelled "CTKA". "Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination" actually has the audacity to expect us to think that George H. W. Bush is not involved significantly with the murder of JFK. All despite 1. Bush's lack of memory regarding 11/22/63. WE born after 1958) ALL REMEMBER WHAT WE ATE FOR LUNCH THAT DAY! 2. Bush's failure of recollection when fingering James Parrot as a possible killer 75 MINUTES AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK!!! To believe that Bush couldn't remember the murder being only slightly more believable that forgetting his call to FBI. Either memory lapse is absolutely impossible. Doubt this? Ask yourself how many times have you called the FBI and forgotten the matter... See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bushwarning1-531x640.jpg 3. Bush's first attempt at making a jive ass alibi by saying he was in Tyler, TX at the Rotary Club meeting when receiving the news of Kennedy's death. In fact he might have even pulled off that cheap lie too except.. Except that his statements are too obtuse. He couldn't have made the statements he claims because at the alleged 1:30 speech he cancelled due to "respect for the murdered president" (loose quote) simply doesn't fit. Couldn't have happened. 4. The TWO PICTURES of Bush which show up in Dallas at the time of the murder. One directly outside the Texas School Book Depository" Here's one: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bushtsbd.jpg 5. Bush's foolish decision to take up talk of the Kennedy assassination during a speech at President Gerald Ford's funeral. Almost breaks out in a belly laugh after mentioned the term "deluded gunman" at:20 seconds here: What's so funny about the murder of a president George? 6. Other You can find George H. W. Bush at the heart of the murder of JFK in many more ways. Leaving a trail a mile wide but only five ft. long. From George Demorenshildt to E. Howard Hunt You hardly have to scratch the surface. Bush turns up around the corner time and time again. Like the fictional character Forrest Gump he's EVERYWHERE. Oh and what does CTKA say of all of this? Their very own Seamus Coogan (whoever he is) being the hired gun/hit man designed to take out John Hankeys' very moving and good research from "JFK II to his site "Thedarklegacy.com. You know you're getting close to the truth when someone attacks you as viciously as Coogan does. "The empire strikes back". In short CTKA has done little to push the research community in the direction of mainstream success. Yet whenever someone tries bravely to actually DO SOMETHING helpful (as John Hankey does so well)? They are condemned. OK to be fair there actually is a tiny bit of merit to Coogan's statements but the great majority of them are petty. Example: He takes Hankey to task for saying that Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh wasn't murdered as Hankey mistakenly says. In fact Mossadegh was only put under house arrest during the CIA coup in the early 1950's. So what? BIG Freaking deal! Well shucks that's just too bad. If you continue to closely examine Coogan he trumps up the minor minor research mistakes in his vitriolic hit piece. Making them stand out like Hankey accused Bush of killing the Pope. The best rebuttal to Coogan's asinine savagery is at Jim Fetzer's fine report here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-george-h-w-bush-involved-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/ My only complaint about Fetzer's support for Hankey and his subsequent accusation of CTKA is that he stops short of declaring CTKA and it's minions as tools Fetzer's words: "In CTKA’s critique, “The Dark Legacy of John Hankey”, however, Seamus Coogan commits so many serious blunders in his discussion of the assassination that anyone less familiar with the eddies and currents of JFK research might suspect it was a work of disinformation" Well uh no Jim. CTKA IS a major source of disinformation. Prof. Fetzer continues "But I do believe that the role of George Herbert Walker Bush in the assassination of JFK is a subject that deserves a great deal more attention than it has received in the past and which, I must infer, it most certainly is not going to receive from Jim DiEugenio and Seamus Coogan. And this, in turn, makes me think that, when CTKA was being formed, my decision not to join was wiser than I could have known at the time". You got that right Jim. Perhaps Prof. Fetzer stops short of declaring CTKA to be the tools that they really are for professional reasons. I respect his decision to do this. Always best to avoid making a "circular firing squad as CTKA seems to prefer to do. Let us make no mistake here whom we're speaking of here. CTKA IS JIM DIEUGENIO! In addition to his "work" in assassination research he has up until recently effectively held the very fine JFK community activist and internet "Black Op" radio show host Len Osanic as a virtual hostage to his Bush link to JFK murder denying propaganda. In fact when you write Len Osanic? Jim DiEugenio may be the person who answers your e-mail. He apparently has a veritable choke hold on Len Osanic. Speaking which here is what you can do to help. My words worthless without your action: WRITE LEN OSANIC!!! Here: osanic@prouty.org First of all thank Len for his tireless work and especially for him having Jim Fetzer on his show earlier this year when he defended John Hankey. Next encourage Mr. Osanic to distance himself from CTKA, it's various minions and especially Jim DiEugenio. With friends like CTKA? The JFK research community doesn't need enemies. When it comes to Bush apologists CTKA leads the field of JFK assassination researchers. It is people like them that do the greater damage. More so even than Gary Mack's travesty known as "The Sixth Floor Museum". Don't be fooled.
  14. I have recently wondered why Zapruder or his secretary (whomever held the camera) didn't jump or otherwise react to the rifle shots going off. Self preservation has to be the ordinary instinct in that circumstance. A normal reaction ought to be for him to jump to high heaven as soon as a set of high powered rifles were shot off. Granted a Manlicher Carcano isn't a "high powered rifle" but I'm sure most here would agree that some set of powerful weapons were employed to kill the President. Very loud reports as anyone who has gone hunting with rifles knows. Unless the person filming the death scene was expecting a volley of shots to be fired AND knew in advance that these projectiles weren't coming his way. I'm told somewhere that Zapruder or his wife was associated with George De Mohrenshildt (aka "Baron) through various Russian connections in Dallas. So since "The Baron" was CIA we might possibly conclude that Zapruder was also CIA. or at the very least helping them. That was the job he did anyway. Sure seems that he capitulated to CIA 100%. Zapruder never disputed the doctored film from what he saw. From what I've seen/heard anyway.
  15. Am looking for an effective way to condense and utilize the best research on various conspiracies in order to reach the general public. Only about a week ago I was seriously considering making a display table (regarding JFK and other theories) at some busy intersection of my city. To distribute pamphlets and ideas. Now I'm not so sure if I should proceed. Or even if it is such a good idea to begin with. It was after watching a group of Lyndon Larouche type campaigners in my neighborhood that made me reconsider the idea. Too easy to look like an idiot that way. Perhaps some of our crowd has already developed a set of materials and game plan for bring JFK, 911 or related theories to the public. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on getting these matters out effectively. Thanks in advance!