Dean Hagerman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Don't be fooled. Dont worry your post will not fool us We all know Jimmy D is a tireless reseacher who wants the truth Reading your rambling post made my head hurt, how can I get that 3 minutes of my life back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie Vegas Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Don't be fooled. Dont worry your post will not fool us We all know Jimmy D is a tireless reseacher who wants the truth Reading your rambling post made my head hurt, how can I get that 3 minutes of my life back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 John Hankey's research into the death of JFK, Jr. has been invaluable. The video he produced about JFK, Jr.'s death was full of important information which destroys the official version of events. I think he concentrated too much on Bush, and certainly all his claims regarding the Bushes can't be proven, but that doesn't detract from his JFK, Jr. research. I wouldn't smear CTKA like that- Jim DiEugenio has done great work, and I think they're just as interested in the truth as we are. However, I think the charge that some critics now get too anal retentive in regards to minor mistakes is on target. I don't know why we expect independent citizens, without any of the resources "official" investigators work with, to be perfect all the time. As for Alex Jones, I'm a huge fan of his. I think his heart is in the right place, and he's fighting the good fight, against very powerful enemies. Sure, he makes mistakes, and is way over the top sometimess, but I'll put his accuracy record, on his worst day, up against any nightly mainstream television newscast you choose to compare it with. The most "irresponsible" CTer imaginable is closer to the truth than any source defending the "official" lie. All CTers should be able to find common ground in their shared belief in conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 John Hankey's research into the death of JFK, Jr. has been invaluable. The video he produced about JFK, Jr.'s death was full of important information which destroys the official version of events. I think he concentrated too much on Bush, and certainly all his claims regarding the Bushes can't be proven, but that doesn't detract from his JFK, Jr. research. I wouldn't smear CTKA like that- Jim DiEugenio has done great work, and I think they're just as interested in the truth as we are. However, I think the charge that some critics now get too anal retentive in regards to minor mistakes is on target. I don't know why we expect independent citizens, without any of the resources "official" investigators work with, to be perfect all the time. As for Alex Jones, I'm a huge fan of his. I think his heart is in the right place, and he's fighting the good fight, against very powerful enemies. Sure, he makes mistakes, and is way over the top sometimess, but I'll put his accuracy record, on his worst day, up against any nightly mainstream television newscast you choose to compare it with. The most "irresponsible" CTer imaginable is closer to the truth than any source defending the "official" lie. All CTers should be able to find common ground in their shared belief in conspiracy. The voice of reason. Amen, Don! The CT is its own worst enemy for all the petty infighting. No wonder after nealry 50 years we are where we are: so divisive. Jim is a friend of mine and I find his work extremely valuable, however I too have major problems with what (almost) appears to be his dismissiveness of the Crime family Bush. Does he believe, for example that Poppy had no CIA ties before Warren Commissioner and fraudster Ford appointed him head of the CIA? Robert asks some great questions too. I have told him that I feel his review of Family of Secrets is so unfair, imho. However, his information on so many areas of this case is beyond invaluable. I too think Janey was most brave to take on the obvious murder of JFK Jr. Did he make errors? Absolutely. And he needed to be taken to taks for that. I am troubled that so little work has even been done on this case. There is a lot of evidence of murder and coverup. If Mr. Coogan is so quick to condem Janey why does he not write an article or better yet a book on this case. Something. Ditto with Jones, and Jesse Ventura. Jesse does not get it all correct but who else on tv is even talking about this? It appears being critical is sometimes easier than giving credit where it is due. My wish for the 50th is of course that the truth come out, but also that we all come together in spite of our petty differences and ego- driven theories and agree on the basics: that LHO was set up, JFK was murdered by forces so powerful that it is doubtful we will ever know their names, as it does not matter who did it, what matters is that the government and media have engaged in lies and cover-ups for forty nine years. As for Matthews, I do not for a second believe it is "fear". It is a combination of purposeful ignorance and Operation Mockingbird. Now O'Reilly and his book will be interesting given his KNOWLEDGE. But it will be all lies. Gotta keep that big Op. Mock paycheck coming in. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 John Hankey's research into the death of JFK, Jr. has been invaluable. The video he produced about JFK, Jr.'s death was full of important information which destroys the official version of events. I think he concentrated too much on Bush, and certainly all his claims regarding the Bushes can't be proven, but that doesn't detract from his JFK, Jr. research. Hankey’s videos about the JFK Jr.’s crash are reminiscent of Fetzer’s writings about the Wellstone crash, convincing unless you check the facts yourself. John-John was a relatively novice pilot who flew into a situation above his skill set and he was NOT a threat to anyone. The topic has been extensively discussed on other threads here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8306 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15400 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14595 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I do not think JFK, Jr. was murdered by anyone. I do think that George Herbert Walker Bush was involved in the JFK assassination. Here is one data point that supports that: From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]: “The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?" I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 So do you really think Stich is credible? Why didn’t the guy make copies of the supposed tapes. My didn’t McDonald do anything with them? Very convenient to claim to have given them to someone long since dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Yep, I'm sure if I had tapes of that discussion with those individuals that I would "not" make copies of them and deliver then to a host of locations (starting with my local FBI office) but extending to a variety of media as well as my lawyer....to make sure I lived for the next 24 hours. I would give my master tape to one Congressman so only he and I knew about it (and I would not ask him for a receipt or letter acknowledging that he had them). And then I would be able to breath easy. Of course if I decided to write about it in a book I'd assume I would need to legally inform the FBI and Justice since I would be a personal witness after the fact to a conspiracy. We won't even go into the polygraph stage but such knowledge would impose a legal and moral obligation to pursue it beyond just content in a book. And Hoovers phone was tapped, would be interesting to know where the tap was placed and a few other little details. No doubt Hoover never worried about the security of telephone lines at FBI HQ. -- Sorry Robert, but I've got to go with Len, sometimes this stuff has to be sanity tested before its promoted. So do you really think Stich is credible? Why didn’t the guy make copies of the supposed tapes. My didn’t McDonald do anything with them? Very convenient to claim to have given them to someone long since dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) So do you really think Stich is credible? Why didn’t the guy make copies of the supposed tapes. My didn’t McDonald do anything with them? Very convenient to claim to have given them to someone long since dead. Those are good points. Rodney Stich, however, is extremely credible. Stich was an FAA whistleblower. Stich, in his 90's now, has become a clearinghouse for whisteblowers in intelligence, FBI, CIA, DEA. They go to him when the operation goes bad and "they" become the target. Here is Rodney Stich's classic "Defrauding America:" http://www.amazon.com/Defrauding-America-Encyclopedia-Operations-Agencies/dp/0932438091/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332559138&sr=1-2 That does not mean everything these folk say to Stich is the truth. But I guarantee you there are a lot of golden nuggets in there that are just too radioactively true to make it into the mainstream media. As for Trenton Parker, a Pegasus counterintellingence agent - I think he is telling the truth. Someone like Larry McDonald, who hated the Rockefellers, would be a natural to give those tapes to. Lyndon Johnson, GHW Bush, and Allen Dulles were both very tight with the Rockefellers, especially Nelson in the case of LBJ and Allen Dulles. I really think Nelson Rockefeller was involved in the JFK assassination, not just Texas oil men H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, who I think it is a lead pipe cinch they were involved. And of course, Hoover, being so close to LBJ. He knew it was coming and knew what to do: cover it up! There are some folks in JFK research who just don't have *any clue* how plugged in Lyndon Johnson was to CIA/military. LBJ was one of a handful of senators/congressmen in the early 1950's that was nourishing the CIA and supervising congressional oversight of it. I don't mean thirty people - I mean about 5: Sen. Russell of GA. Sen. Leverett Saltonstall of MA, LBJ of Texas, perhaps a few others. LBJ's mentor was Richard Russell, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. LBJ was also on a key subcommitte of Appropriations that dealt specifically with military funding and "black money" for CIA/intelligence. That is the money being put into operations/programs that only a few in Congress know what it is. Lyndon Johnson was very, very deep CIA and had close ties with Dulles brothers and the core of CIA and military. Lyndon Johnson in the 1950's for a long time controlled the pursestrings on CIA/military. And the Vietnam War was like a gold rush for that group and outside military contractors. Don't let me forget the space program, the mother of all military pork barrel and LBJ's advocacy for that. Back to Trenton Parker: he could be right. But it does sound fishy that these tapes were lost forever with McDonald; surely someone would have made copies. But Trenton Parker sure does have a solid roll call or the perpetrators of the JFK assassination. GHW Bush was the guy who said he forgot where he was on 11/22/63; somewhere down in Texas he guessed years later. God yes, he is a perp! George Herbert Walker Bush was one of the CIA guys making it happen for LBJ and the oil men (of which he was one). A few years after Trenton Parker, came along Chip Tatum, yet another CIA Pegasus counterintelligence agent who had a credible story of assassinations (apparently his forte) and CIA drug smuggling. Here is Chip Tatum's story: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/TATUM/tatum.html Edited March 24, 2012 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I would like to go one the record about Seamus Coogan: he is one of the most ignorant jackasses in all of in JFK research. The man is basically clueless and a jerk on top of that. I have NO respect for him personally or "professionally" (if his junk can be referred to as that). I think the John Hankey, Alex Jones, Barr McClellan, have a more better and far more sophisticated understanding to the JFK assassination than Seamus Coogan. That is not to say I agree with all of what those folks say. I do think that John Hankey made a lot of mistakes in his Bush presentations, but he gets the big picture right and that carries a lot more weight with me. George Herbert Walker Bush was one of the key plotters in the JFK assassination ... or at the very least he knows exactly who did it. Anything coming out of Seamus Coogan is highly suspect; and he is a jackass to the google power as well. Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 ....After analysis, what evidence have these two men produced to advance their case? Bush smiling during a speech about Ford is not evidence. The Parrot story is not evidence, since it can be shown that Baker cooked the facts. Knowing the Baron is not evidence since the Baron knew Bush's buddy Mr. Hooker and had been in the oil business with him. Trento is not evidence since that guy is still selling Angleton's version of Oswald killing JFK for the KGB, a fact Baker does not tell his readers. If you think this stuff will break us through on the MSM, you are deluded. It will get us thrashed. I am all for new evidence when it is actually new, and sound. I am not for a flavor of the month deliberate twist so I can be in with the likes of an irresponsible money grubbing demagogue like Alex Jones. Maybe that is what you are about--obviously its what Morrow is about. For me, this is just multipyling what went wrong with America in 1963. It fits people's wish fulfillment to place their own political and pyschic imprint over what should be treated as a murder case. Unearthing it allows the political angles to emerge from the elements of the plot. Not impasted from without by one's own agenda. Like a guy smiling in talking about the joke the Warren Commission was. This all says more about you than it does this case. You do yourself a disservice, Jim, because much of what you've said seems well argued, but then you go and spoil it with your absolutist, dismissive stance toward some sources. Torbitt contains some unique details, but you are not willing to concede even that, so out goes the baby with the bathwater; all or nothing. You're simplistic dismissal of evidence implicating Bush is boiled down to. "alright, he was acquainted with the baron, so what?" I'm not going to again go through the list of Bush related "coincidences" you didn't mention or debunk, because you have demonstrated that you actually are not as you described.: "I am all for new evidence when it is actually new, and sound." Your annoyance at Russ Baker (you were unable to use his first name) seems as much about your own inability to address some of his gems as it is about Baker's shortcomings. Instead of giving a scholarly, or any kind of thoughtful response to one of several of Baker's observations; what were the relationships and roles of William B. Macomber, Jr., Thomas J. Devine, and Macomber's brother, John, with the Bush family and with each other, and, for example, with the CIA? Isn't it just a bit curious that William Macomber was both the best man of Bush's sister and of Devine, and that Macomber was asking Otepka about Oswald and the rest of the tiny number of defectors in late 1960, and that Devine himself was exposed as emerging from more than a decade long officially described divorce from CIA, to meeting with "the baron" and Clemard Charles in May, 1963, and reporting on the meeting to the CIA over a "secure line" under cover of a cryptonym? There is so much more, and if you were true to your self description, you might show curiousity concerning Hooker's daughter's marriage to Ames Braga, her second marriage to John Macomber's protege, Michael Ainslie, Byfield's sister-in-law's marriage to Braga's father's first cousin, Byfield's OSS relationship with William Macomber and William Casey, Byfield's realtionship with William HG Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald's usher, OW Hammonds being an oil depletion allowance expert and the accountant of Arabian Shield Corp. and partner of Jack Crichton, Fitzgerald's son marrying Robert G. Stone, Jr.'s daughter and Tom Devine being a director of Stone's Stonetex Corp., Stone using the Harvard endowment to fund Quasha's bailout of GW Bush, Stone's brother, David being the trustee of the CIA "student" funds run by Paul F. Hellmuth, Hellmuth being Dr. Tom Dooley's lawyer and pimp, and exposed as setting up at least two CIA proprietary Corps., and Robert G. Stone's reward, as Baker pointed out, a seat on RS Reynolds's private board, along with Jonathan Bush. I pointed out that Reynold's father was given an engagement dinner by Frank Vanderlip, Jr., and that Vanderlip, Jr. happened to be Bill Quasha's daughter, Jill's godfather. Macomber, Jr. was retired from State/CIA after collaborating on Nixon whitehouse smear of Ellsberg and on Hunt's faked cable, re: Diem assassination, and put into the presidency of the Met. Museum or art, home of a board of directors intertwined (Houghton and Plimpton) in the identical CIA front financing in which Paul Hellmuth and David Stone had been implicated. Jim, you show almost total incuriousity to new research, Baker's, mine, and almost all others. By the way, Robert G. Stone's brother-in-law was "Mr. Bell Helicopter", Godfrey A. Rockefeller, and Byfield had so many relations to persons of interest in this research, even putting aside that his mother leased Glen Ora to JFK and his widow married Robert S. McNamara right at the time when McNamara was getting publicly weepy and quite loud, that your miniaturized dismissal of the Bush evidence tends to make you appear, by your own way of thinking, as someone who might not have the agenda you exhibit on the surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 FWIW, Robert, I support Seamus. Not that he gets everything correct, or that he needs to, but that SOMEONE has to argue against the nonsense spewed by some of the more high-profile CTs. Because 1) it IS nonsense, and 2) it makes the rest of us look loopy. There are legitimate, non-loopy, non-gossip-fueled, reasons to suspect Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. There are legitimate, non-loopy, non gossip-fueled reasons to suspect Oswald was set-up. But those reasons will never become common knowledge as long as those with a megaphone tack their hatred/distrust of the Castro, Kennedy, Hunt, Rockefeller or Bush families onto the work of others, and broadcast that they've figured it all out. The attention span of the public, and MSM for that matter, is only so long, and that time is swallowed up, by and large, by those touting nonsense. I mean, really, Rockefeller? Why? When one studies history it becomes fairly obvious that the children of rich and powerful men rarely have their father's (or, in this case, grandfather's) drive. They usually coast a little. Nelson's life was not a focused drive for power, a la Johnson's and Nixon's, but a dance with fame and power by a man who never had to work for it. I mean, just when the Presidency seemed within his grasp, he fell in love, and THREW WHATEVER CHANCE he had at being president down the tubes in the pursuit of Happy-ness. Would Johnson have done that? Would Nixon? Of course not, they were too focused. So, in short, if you're gonna say Rockefeller, you might as well say Harriman. You know, Harriman. The guy who loaned Jackie his house and was so desirous of Kennedy's resurrection he helped dig up Clinton. Now, that said, I agree with you on one point--the LBJ was behind it all theory is NOT nonsense, and does not deserve to be lumped in with some of the other theories with so little going for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Pat, it is a status quo so damned polluted, who can say, with any degree of confidence, that they reliably know what they are talking about? I know more now than I did last year, or three years ago. I also know enough to avoid senselessly and repeatedly criticize a reporter author who has worked for 20 years to consistently expose the validity of suspicions towards the Bush dominance of the U.S. presidency and the vice-presidency. The Real History of Covenant House - NY Transfer News www.blythe.org/.../The_Real_History_of_Covenant_House:_Group... (34) Members of the board of directors in 1987 were: Robert C. Macauley, chairman, .... Grace is head of the Knights of Malta in the United States, and is on the board of .... Russ Baker, "A Thousand Points of Blight," Village Voice, Jan 8, 1991. Despite putting almost as much effort into maintaining secrecy and questionable motives and conduct as they did into occupying the white house in the top or second position from 1981 to 1993, and again from 2001 to 2009, Jim DiEugenio remains in attack mode against one of the strongest efforts to expose these miscreants, their connections, and their agenda. Why is SMOM at the center of it? William HG Fitzgerald died at age 96 in 2006 as the most influential SMOM official in the U.S. He "co-owned" ACUS with John D. Macomber. Michael Ainslie's former sister-in-law just happened to come from obscurity to head Pearson PLCas well as a directorship on ACUS. It is almost as if any controversy becomes unimportant or is minimized if people are attracted to it who tend to parrot poorly supported but sensational information related to it. The landscape seems big enough to avoid letting the uninformed and misguided trigger hand wringing and attacks against serious, consistent veterans, doesn't it? I know now that this means something more than what was printed, but what, right down to altering this spooks name as much as they thought they could get away with.: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1986-08-08/news/0240270052_1_paul-f-hale-managing-partnerFormer managing partner of Hale... August 8, 1986. PAUL F. HELLMUTH, 68, former managing partner of Hale & Dorr, a Boston law firm, died Sunday. LIFE/ . Lawyer for President James Draper St. Clair; Willing to... New York Times - Jan 5, 1974 Late this afternoon, Paul S. Helmuth managing partner of the firm issued the following statement: " We are greatly honored that our partner, James D. St. Clair,.. Boston Foundations' Records Show Pattern Boston Globe - Feb 17, 1967 ... have been used by the CIA Although the State Department has admitted CIA funds ... identify Atty Paul Hellmuth senior partner of the law firm of Hale and Dorr 60 State st as trustee of the' Independence and Brown foundations David Stone .. Stonetex Oil Corp. Company Profile - Located in Dallas, TX ... www.corporationwiki.com › Texas › Dallas Oct 27, 2011 – Stonetex Oil Corp. has a location in Dallas, TX. Active officers include Thomas J Devine, David S Crockett, Jacob F Brown, David B Stone Dr. America: The Lives of Thomas A. Dooley, 1927-1961 - Google Books Result James T. Fisher - 1997 - Biography & Autobiography - 336 pages Hellmuths connections to the CIA most likely played a role in his ardent ... few indications we have that Dooley himself knew that Hellmuth was no ordinary friend of ... As with so many issues at Notre Dame, as in Tom Dooley's life, indiscernible http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/article/17th-january-2003/12/rave-concern-over-us-carers 17th January 2003 rave concern over US carers OES AmeriCare? I ask because President George W. Bush was meant to visit four African countries this past week, induding South Africa, but suddenly his diary became chocked-up with far more pressing matters than our distant, poor continent. This is not to say the Bushes, as a clan, are not keen on helping out. In fact, their favourite aid organisation is called, grandiloquently, AmeriCares. Barbara Bush, the current American President's mother, was the charity's "ambassador-atlarge", while his brother Prescott is on the board. Critics say the charity works closely with the CIA. AmeriCares founder Robert Macauley, a multi-millionaire businessman, was at kindergarten and Yale with former President George Bush senior (a past head of the CIA), who remains, with his wife Barbara, the most prominent cheerleader for AmeriCares. The charity describes itself as "the humanitarian arm of corporate America"..... ...."The AmeriCares website shows that its shipments seem to find their way to wherever the CIA is most active," writes United States journalist Sara Flounders, while the New York weekly The Village Voice, after an investigation, concluded: "AmeriCares resembles a private foreignpolicy operation of the US Government." In South America, the charity has frequently been linked to Right-wing military forces. In Guatemala, from 198284, AmeriCares sent $3.4 million in medical aid, most of which was distributed by the armed forces for its "model village" resettlement programme, aimed at "pacifying" Guatemalans displaced during counter-insurgency operations. It was accused of delivering supplies to contra terrorists based in Honduras, and the charity's tax returns revealed a cash donation to the brother of contra leader Adolfo Calera. IN NICARAGUA, the Sandinista Government accused AmeriCares of being a CIA front. In 1980, after elections which ousted the Sandanistas, aid from the charity was stepped-up and Marvin Bush, brother of the current US President, accompanied the second AmeriCares shipment. AmeriCares has also been accused in the past of targeting "humanitarian supplies" to reactionary groups in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.... http://mediafilter.org/caq/BushFamilyPreys.html Covert Action Quaterly The Family That Preys Together From Issue No. 41, Summer, 1992 by Jack Colhoun GEORGE JR.'S BCCI CONNECTION ....Prescott's covert associations continued while his younger brother was vice president. He appears to have aided the Reagan administration's clandestine support of the Nicaraguan Contras. In the 1980s, he served on the advisory board of Americares, the U.S.-based relief organization with ties to prominent right-wing Republicans and the intelligence community. Bush's other son, Marvin, also helped the family's pet charity and accompanied a flight of medical supplies to Nicaragua three days after Chamorro's inauguration. An undisclosed amount of the $680,000 in Americares aid to Honduras was delivered to Nicaraguan Miskito Indian guerrillas. Based in Honduras, they were aligned with the CIA-funded Contras, according to Roberto Ale- jos, a Guatemalan sugar and coffee grower who coordinated the Americares project in Honduras. In 1960, Alejos had permitted the CIA to use his plantations to train right-wing Cubans in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. In 1985 and 1986, after Congress cut off U.S. aid to the Contras, Americares donated more than $100,000 worth of newsprint to the pro-Contra newspaper La Prensa in Managua. Americares supplied $291,383 in food and medicine and $5,750 in cash to Mario Calero, New Orleans-based quartermaster and arms purchaser for the Contras, and brother of Contra leader Adolfo Calero. In this same period, groups associated with Lt. Col. Oliver North's off-the-shelf Contra arms network provided covert support for La Prensa. Jeb: Liaison to Anti-Castro Right George Herbert Walker Bush's second eldest son, John Ellis or Jeb, was also linked to clandestine schemes in support of the Contras. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Jim D., You know how much I respect your work. However, I think you have to be a little less critical of other researchers who are, in the final analysis, right about the big picture- i.e., they recognize there WAS a conspiracy. There are very few critics, past or present, who meet my ideal on this issue. Harold Weisberg is one of my all time heroes, but he leaked an advance copy of Stone's "JFK" script to a guy like George Lardner, whom he knew would trash it. Sylvia Meagher's book was the best, but the part where she speculated was not. She was also apparently a witch. Think there might have been fodder there to criticize her? Mark Lane is another hero of mine, but he's been involved in some questionable stuff- Jim Jones' attorney? And "Cover Up" by Gary Shaw and Larry Harris is still one of my very favorite assassination books. But, like Meagher, the authors kind of embarrassed themselves with their chapter on "who did it?" We've seen on this forum how authors we've all read and admired can have difficult personalities, and be unreasonable if not immature. In my view, that doesn't detract from their work, any more than Weisberg's betrayal of Stone (and CTers in general) ruins all the incredible work he did for so many years. None of us are perfect, and this subject especially seems to draw egotistical, disagreeable personalities. That's the primary reason the research commnity has always been in some sort of disarray. John Hankey's work on JFK, Jr. has been top notch. That's really my primary interest there; his JFK work breaks no new ground, but his video is entertaining and I'm sure it's drawn newbies to the subject who are now CTers. Just because his Bush thesis is kind of ridiculous doesn't change the fact that everyone who watches it will be told the official story is bogus. And remember, we don't reject Sylvia Meagher or Gary Shaw because their own speculation was pretty ridiculous, too. I don't want to attack anyone personally, but from what I've read by Seamus Coogan on other forums, his personality is more distasteful than anyone I can remember encountering on this forum. Maybe he's a really nice guy, but he seems almost to be bullying with his online style. I'm not sure what it is about him that you find so credible, when you seem to be so picky about the flaws of researchers like Hankey. Alex Jones is the greatest force all CTers have working for them today, except perhaps for Jesse Ventura. He's not perfect, but pick any one of his broadcasts you choose, and it will invariably be more accurate than anything you get on any mainstream media story on these verboten subjects. I don't believe Alex Jones is that wealthy at all, but regardless, he is hardly in the same category as any high profile journalist in terms of financial worth. He constantly fights for the little guy, and I admire that. We have plenty of "professional," truly well paid journalists that will find the flaws in any conspiracy "theorist's" arguments. We need to stop eating our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I would like to go one the record about Seamus Coogan: he is one of the most ignorant jackasses in all of in JFK research. The man is basically clueless and a jerk on top of that. I have NO respect for him personally or "professionally" (if his junk can be referred to as that). I think the John Hankey, Alex Jones, Barr McClellan, have a more better and far more sophisticated understanding to the JFK assassination than Seamus Coogan. That is not to say I agree with all of what those folks say. I do think that John Hankey made a lot of mistakes in his Bush presentations, but he gets the big picture right and that carries a lot more weight with me. George Herbert Walker Bush was one of the key plotters in the JFK assassination ... or at the very least he knows exactly who did it. Anything coming out of Seamus Coogan is highly suspect; and he is a jackass to the google power as well. Robert Morrow Ooooooh, the irony!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now