Seamus Coogan: Conspiracist Splitter or Anti-Virus Protection?

[Greg Parker]

edit

Edited October 25, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

In the relatively short period I have known Seamus, it has become obvious he has a kangaroo loose in the top paddock when it comes to the purveyors of what he considers the more extreme theories. My own way of dealing with those blokes (for it is, in the main, an all male club) has been to ignore them on the basis that anyone sucked in by such malarkey was hardly worth trying to reach out to.

Seamus meanwhile has taken it upon himself to put every putrid boil on the arse end of this loose virtual community to the scalpel.

Seamus is, apparently, something of a hot-head at times. That, and his critiques of uber-conspiracism smoked out at least one person at the Murder Solved forum who was more than keen to label him a bad example to the rest of the community.

I can’t say I agree with everything Seamus does and says – for example, I think in this piece he was a bit harsh on our own John Geraghty; a person who has been a Godsend to the resource-strapped COPA. I also would wish to point out that the subject of the piece once gave a talk at a COPA conference (which Seamus does indeed mention), but as has been said a number of times by COPA board members, it is impossible to properly vet all who enter the COPA tent.

However, he is slowly winning me over on the need to rid the community of the absurd, and certainly, no one should deny his enthusiasm for the tasks he sets himself. In his own way, Seamus could yet be a valuable asset in the struggle to give closure to this case.

With that…it’s now Mr Hankey’s turn to bend over. Doc Coogan has his instruments ready.

The Dark Legacy of John Hankey

Seamus has asked me to post the following in response to the concerns I raised:

A piece like this is often taken in many different ways. Indeed it's tone has proved controversial. Thus Greg you've bought to my attention that there is probably an addendum or two I would have liked to have made too the piece. One of them is that I would like to say that the/this piece is not an attack on the fine work by COPA nor John Geraghtys amazing endeavors of late. I agree with Greg whole heartedly that every group, every conference and every researcher has had a Jim Garrison moment (I am no exception) when someone sneaks through the gap.

I hope the COPA stalwarts reading this piece John Judge, Bill Kelly and John G (who was the inspiration behind my doing the transcripts of the Jim Di and McAdams debate via one of his posts on the ED forum) can see this. I only used Hankeys address at COPA to quote him and nothing more. If Hankey spoke at a Black Op Radio conference (in the plans) I would have quoted it as coming from there or Lancer (I quoted Hankeys interview from BOR by the way). I'm sorry if this has caused any offense to these individuals or COPA whose work I greatly admire, but I know in my heart that it was never the intention of the piece. In a piece like this sadly because of the interpersonal relationships which were source material people do get caught up.

The intention of the piece was to show how much of a responsibility we have as researchers too try and do our very best for those uninformed about the assassination (Hankeys target audience) and the responsibility we have to try and stay away from baseless assumptions/accusations, and to be accurate with the facts. Of which Hankeys work practically denuded itself of.

My warm regards to all concerned and I sincerely hope this has cleared up anything lost in translation.

[Pat Speer]

In the relatively short period I have known Seamus, it has become obvious he has a kangaroo loose in the top paddock when it comes to the purveyors of what he considers the more extreme theories. My own way of dealing with those blokes (for it is, in the main, an all male club) has been to ignore them on the basis that anyone sucked in by such malarkey was hardly worth trying to reach out to.

Seamus meanwhile has taken it upon himself to put every putrid boil on the arse end of this loose virtual community to the scalpel.

Seamus is, apparently, something of a hot-head at times. That, and his critiques of uber-conspiracism smoked out at least one person at the Murder Solved forum who was more than keen to label him a bad example to the rest of the community.

I can’t say I agree with everything Seamus does and says – for example, I think in this piece he was a bit harsh on our own John Geraghty; a person who has been a Godsend to the resource-strapped COPA. I also would wish to point out that the subject of the piece once gave a talk at a COPA conference (which Seamus does indeed mention), but as has been said a number of times by COPA board members, it is impossible to properly vet all who enter the COPA tent.

However, he is slowly winning me over on the need to rid the community of the absurd, and certainly, no one should deny his enthusiasm for the tasks he sets himself. In his own way, Seamus could yet be a valuable asset in the struggle to give closure to this case.

With that…it’s now Mr Hankey’s turn to bend over. Doc Coogan has his instruments ready.

The Dark Legacy of John Hankey

I saw JFK2 approximately 4 years ago, and was appalled by its nonsense. Seamus has taken the time to discuss and expose its basic silliness, and to show why the preponderance of this kind of crud in the conspiracy research community helps prevent us from being taken seriously. He has done us all a service. Should some newbie start to blather about Bush being the ringleader, etc, we can just send him a link to Seamus' review.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Lee Cahalan]

In the relatively short period I have known Seamus, it has become obvious he has a kangaroo loose in the top paddock when it comes to the purveyors of what he considers the more extreme theories. My own way of dealing with those blokes (for it is, in the main, an all male club) has been to ignore them on the basis that anyone sucked in by such malarkey was hardly worth trying to reach out to.

Seamus meanwhile has taken it upon himself to put every putrid boil on the arse end of this loose virtual community to the scalpel.

Seamus is, apparently, something of a hot-head at times. That, and his critiques of uber-conspiracism smoked out at least one person at the Murder Solved forum who was more than keen to label him a bad example to the rest of the community.

I can't say I agree with everything Seamus does and says – for example, I think in this piece he was a bit harsh on our own John Geraghty; a person who has been a Godsend to the resource-strapped COPA. I also would wish to point out that the subject of the piece once gave a talk at a COPA conference (which Seamus does indeed mention), but as has been said a number of times by COPA board members, it is impossible to properly vet all who enter the COPA tent.

However, he is slowly winning me over on the need to rid the community of the absurd, and certainly, no one should deny his enthusiasm for the tasks he sets himself. In his own way, Seamus could yet be a valuable asset in the struggle to give closure to this case.

With that…it's now Mr Hankey's turn to bend over. Doc Coogan has his instruments ready.

The Dark Legacy of John Hankey

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.

[Greg Parker]

Well, you got one thing partially right, Lee "These revolutionary groups will exist up until the point where they become effective". At which point they become infiltrated by the tools of AUTHORITY. "

Sometimes there's just no need for infiltration. Sometimes the groups themselves have been set up by the tools of authority.

"it is easier to be critical than correct":? Certainly Hankey, Fetzer et al are living proof of how hard it is to be correct. 100+ pages and Fetzer is still batting zero.

The list of your errors here however, is also long and egregious.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Guest Tom Scully]

Lee Cahalan, your post was disapproved and is no longer visible. If you have a disagreement with an opinion of another member or an objection to something they have said, written, or done, respectfully ask them why they are of that opinion or deed, and or post an argument of your own. Do not question the motives of another member, do not attack or insult another member.

[Lee Cahalan]

Lee Cahalan, your post was disapproved and is no longer visible. If you have a disagreement with an opinion of another member or an objection to something they have said, written, or done, respectfully ask them why they are of that opinion or deed, and or post an argument of your own. Do not question the motives of another member, do not attack or insult another member.

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"...

Edited June 5, 2012 by Lee Cahalan

[Greg Parker]

Lee Cahalan, your post was disapproved and is no longer visible. If you have a disagreement with an opinion of another member or an objection to something they have said, written, or done, respectfully ask them why they are of that opinion or deed, and or post an argument of your own. Do not question the motives of another member, do not attack or insult another member.

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"...

Lee, fwiw, I made no complaint about your post. One of the things that irks me is that people can lie about you here and not be "free speeched" but as soon as you call them a xxxx - you are subject to the "free speech" treatment. And I am speaking here from personal experience - ironically through someone falsely and repeatedly accusing me of holding the same views (which the accuser considered extreme) as a poster at my site.

For the record, I get along okay with both Jim and Russ while having some disagreements occasionally with one or the other.

I stand by the claim however that people like Jones, Fetzer, Icke and Hankey cannot be taken seriously by anyone with any synapses still firing. That they have any support whatsoever is a sad indictment on the state of society.

As for any of your statements about me, I'm happy to let them stand. They have about as much validity as Fetzer's current batch of "proofs" of film alteration. Both are good for a laugh, but not much else.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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.

A likelier alternative is that Roger Craig was referring to the arrest of Eugene Hale Brading, aka Jim Braden.

Although he was from Los Angeles, and conducted business in New Orleans, he was arrested leaving the Dal-Tex building in Dealey Plaza, and four days later was in Houston, Texas. His purported profession was independent oil man, and his alleged purpose for being in Dallas, he told police, was to meet with Lamar Hunt, which he had done the day prior to Kennedy’s murder.

One needn’t be a "Bush apologist" to note the greater likelihood that Brading/ Braden was the man referenced by Roger Craig.

You contentions about Greg and Jim couldn’t be more wrong-headed, by the way.

[Lee Cahalan]

As for any of your statements about me, I'm happy to let them stand. They have about as much validity as Fetzer's current batch of "proofs" of film alteration. Both are good for a laugh, but not much else.

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.

[Greg Parker]

As for any of your statements about me, I'm happy to let them stand. They have about as much validity as Fetzer's current batch of "proofs" of film alteration. Both are good for a laugh, but not much else.

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?

As I said, I'm happy to let this stuff stand, Lee. It's distinguishable from the lies I alluded to from another poster in that I give the benefit of the doubt that these are your honestly held beliefs. The other poster knew full well what he was saying was untrue.

To the larger point: this has been part of Fetzer's problem - at least lately - an inability to properly understand what is in front of him. Where did I mention anything about the z-film? I specifically pointed to his current batch of "proofs" of film alteration. I think most here not blindsided by their own preconceptions, would understand that this was a reference to the Lovelady nonsense. I have rarely, if ever, been involved in Zfilm discussion. Some disinformationist on Zfilm that makes me, eh?

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.

Fetzer would be proud of the logic shown by you here.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Don Jeffries]

Lee,

You are way off base here. Jim DiEugenio has produced some invaluable research over the years. To lump him in together with Gary Mack is ridiculous. Greg Parker and I have clashed at times, but I always read his posts and don't believe he's any kind of "disinfo" agent.

Seamus Coogan, like too many in the research community, has an abrasive online personality. I've certainly had my disagreements with him, but again you are irresponsible to just cavalierly label him some kind "disinfo" agent. I think John Hankey has done great research on the JFK, Jr. death, but his Bush II video was full of inaccuracies. But I don't think he's "disinfo" either.

We are all too quick to label those we disagree with as being some kind of undercover operatives. Maybe, like Jim D, I'm "covering up" for Bush, too, but I think the most powerful forces in our society came together to assassinate JFK. In 1963, George H.W. Bush was hardly that powerful.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Lee Cahalan, you posted the same rule breaking garbage again, and your post disappeared again. This will not be tolerated:

.....What is frightening about DiEugenio is how the works of Baker, Fetzer and Hankey have made him ....

What part of my last warning to you did you not understand? Moderate yourself, familiarize yourself with the posting rules, or we will moderate you. Do some research and learn how to to present your opinion, instead of acting like you have been and attacking other members in such a personal and belligerent manner!

Before you launch into another rant, why not do some research and find out about my posting history, for instance. You cannot defend Hankey, so drop him. I agree with you on many details, but you are coming on here like a train wreck.:

Despite De Mohrenschildt's WC testimony referring to George Kitchel and Jim Savage, a google search of tis combination - George Kitchel "Jim Savage" served up just 29 results.:

http://www.google.co...lient=firefox-a

To his credit, Bill Kelly blogged about those names, but his piece is not included in the 29 search results. Maybe it is because he did not compare to the spelling of Kitchel as the WC testimony documented it, with the spelling of it in his piece.:

(quote]http://jfkcountercou...-plaque-au.html

John Judge at JFK Memorial Plaque at American University June 10

From a talk by John Judge

Dec 19, 2009 – One son George Kitchell became an executive at Kerr-McGee, along with a man named Jim Savage. They became extremely close to George...[/quote)

Kitchel is the correct spelling.:

http://adkins9.net/i...&ged=Adkins.GED

(Oct. 11, 2002 -Houston)‎ George B. Kitchel, a pioneer in offshore oil and gas drilling, died Tuesday. He was 93....

Jim Di Eugenio's piece makes no mention of George Kitchel.:

http://www.ctka.net/...ly_secrets.html

Family of Secrets, by Russ Baker

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

This book has a rather deceptive title. In two ways....

....Bush wrote the Baron a brief letter back saying he sympathized with his situation. But although there was media attention to his case, he could not find any official interest right then. He then said he wished he could do more, and then signed off. Considering the fact that Epstein and Oltmans were likely working off the books for Angleton, his observation about "official interest" was probably correct. Thus ended the Bush/Baron relationship. Almost like he knows he has very little here, Baker tags on some meandering scuttlebutt about a man named Jim Savage who delivered the Baron's car to him in Palm Beach on his return from Amsterdam. Its another of his Scrabble type name association games: Kerr-McGee, the FBI, Sun Oil, even the Pew family. (pgs. 275-277)

The above two sections are pretty much the sum total of Baker's work on Bush Sr. and the JFK murder. If anyone can find anything of significance here, something that somehow changes how we look at the case, please let me know. In all honesty, I can't....

Russ Baker had made the obvious point that two high powered big oil exec's seemed to have nothing better to do than link up, at least twice, to receive the De Mohrenschildts on first, their return from their Latin American "walking trip", and second, on their return by boat from Haiti to NOLA.

One of the two execs happened to be the brother of Bush's 22 November, FBI alibi recorder, Graham W. Kitchel, and the other, Savage, happened to catch the assignment, just before the 1977 De M. "suicide" to arrange the transport of De Mohrenschildt's car.

But I guess, Epstein's opinion still holds sway that nothing, no matter how many ways the links between the future U.S. president and Oswald's best friend, De Mohrenschildt converged, is suspicious.:

http://www.pbs.org/w.../jfkpanel2.html

Conspiracy - Hollywood & History - The Debate Over Jfk ... - PBS

Nov 20, 2003 – EPSTEIN: You know it's not suspicious-- It's not suspicious that Bush knew De Mohrenschildt, because De Mohrenschildt was in the oil ...

I'll end with, Bill keep up the good work and be a bit more careful with the spell checking, Jim.... huh?????????

And, as B. Franklin once said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"

.................

Canfield's Harper & Row published Ted Sorensen. Sorensen admitted to an affair with CIA affiliated Gloria Steinem. The obituary of the maid of honor in Clover Dulles's wedding, her cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas (sister of the man who reported Priscilla Johnson's father missing) includes a description of the closeness between Eleanor and Gloria. (Steinem)