Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Fresh Look at the Christchurch Star:


Recommended Posts

Parts one, two and three of five by Seamus Coogan

http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/coogan.html

With thanks to Seamus for allowing me to publish it. It is an extremely well researched series, with those interviewed including reporters and researchers who have investigated the story previously along with experts in 1960s print technology. He has also included much background on how stories were collated, sources used etc.

The results? Prouty's critics were right (despite using incorrect times), but about the wrong thing. The real issue was back in the US...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Parts one, two and three of five by Seamus Coogan

http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/coogan.html

With thanks to Seamus for allowing me to publish it. It is an extremely well researched series, with those interviewed including reporters and researchers who have investigated the story previously along with experts in 1960s print technology. He has also included much background on how stories were collated, sources used etc.

The results? Prouty's critics were right (despite using incorrect times), but about the wrong thing. The real issue was back in the US...

Your conclusion is odd. Coogan emailed me some information, and that was not his conclusion.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Parts one, two and three of five by Seamus Coogan

http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/coogan.html

With thanks to Seamus for allowing me to publish it. It is an extremely well researched series, with those interviewed including reporters and researchers who have investigated the story previously along with experts in 1960s print technology. He has also included much background on how stories were collated, sources used etc.

The results? Prouty's critics were right (despite using incorrect times), but about the wrong thing. The real issue was back in the US...

Your conclusion is odd. Coogan emailed me some information, and that was not his conclusion.

Jack

Jack,

last I looked, I wasn't listed as the author (though I find myself in agreement with that person), so unless you're arguing that what I said about it being well researched, is incorrect, maybe you should restate that part about "my" conclusion? According to the essay, you were sent a second draft. Key word: draft. The conclusions given in any case, only relate to the parts so far published. There are two parts to come. I trust you'll find them more to your liking :cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
Parts one, two and three of five by Seamus Coogan

http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/coogan.html

With thanks to Seamus for allowing me to publish it. It is an extremely well researched series, with those interviewed including reporters and researchers who have investigated the story previously along with experts in 1960s print technology. He has also included much background on how stories were collated, sources used etc.

The results? Prouty's critics were right (despite using incorrect times), but about the wrong thing. The real issue was back in the US...

Your conclusion is odd. Coogan emailed me some information, and that was not his conclusion.

Jack

Jack,

last I looked, I wasn't listed as the author (though I find myself in agreement with that person), so unless you're arguing that what I said about it being well researched, is incorrect, maybe you should restate that part about "my" conclusion? According to the essay, you were sent a second draft. Key word: draft. The conclusions given in any case, only relate to the parts so far published. There are two parts to come. I trust you'll find them more to your liking :cheers

The draft you posted is basically the same draft he sent me...except he failed to correct the name of the Fort Worth

newspaper as I suggested.

The critics of Prouty DISTORT his story by focusing on the Christchurch TIMELINE and making a big to-do about it.

I talked to Prouty many times about his story. Focusing on the timeline is irrelevant. Focusing on Christchurch is

irrelevant.

Fletch's point was the Christchurch Star AND EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD had the LHO story and photo in a

manner that was TOO MUCH TOO SOON. That is the point of the Prouty story! Nothing special about Christchurch...

that is just where he was when he first saw THE WORLDWIDE STORY...too much information, packaged complete

with photo, within a couple of hours of the shooting. THE LHO PRESS KIT WAS PREPARED IN ADVANCE AND

RELEASED AS SOON AS JFK WAS DEAD. That is Prouty's story. Seamus agrees with me. Anyone focusing on

other things is missing the point.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Parts one, two and three of five by Seamus Coogan

http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/coogan.html

With thanks to Seamus for allowing me to publish it. It is an extremely well researched series, with those interviewed including reporters and researchers who have investigated the story previously along with experts in 1960s print technology. He has also included much background on how stories were collated, sources used etc.

The results? Prouty's critics were right (despite using incorrect times), but about the wrong thing. The real issue was back in the US...

Your conclusion is odd. Coogan emailed me some information, and that was not his conclusion.

Jack

Jack,

last I looked, I wasn't listed as the author (though I find myself in agreement with that person), so unless you're arguing that what I said about it being well researched, is incorrect, maybe you should restate that part about "my" conclusion? According to the essay, you were sent a second draft. Key word: draft. The conclusions given in any case, only relate to the parts so far published. There are two parts to come. I trust you'll find them more to your liking :cheers

The draft you posted is basically the same draft he sent me...except he failed to correct the name of the Fort Worth

newspaper as I suggested.

The critics of Prouty DISTORT his story by focusing on the Christchurch TIMELINE and making a big to-do about it.

I talked to Prouty many times about his story. Focusing on the timeline is irrelevant. Focusing on Christchurch is

irrelevant.

Fletch's point was the Christchurch Star AND EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD had the LHO story and photo in a

manner that was TOO MUCH TOO SOON. That is the point of the Prouty story! Nothing special about Christchurch...

that is just where he was when he first saw THE WORLDWIDE STORY...too much information, packaged complete

with photo, within a couple of hours of the shooting. THE LHO PRESS KIT WAS PREPARED IN ADVANCE AND

RELEASED AS SOON AS JFK WAS DEAD. That is Prouty's story. Seamus agrees with me. Anyone focusing on

other things is missing the point.

Jack

(sigh)Thus my final comment in the first post... "the real story was back in the US..." The first 3 parts were mainly about correcting the mess created by the critics and getting a few hard facts on the table was the best way to do that. You're still jumping the gun. Get back behind the stalls and wait for the final two furlongs...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Seamus already sent me all of this. I read it and replied to him.

Jack

Greg, I am interested if you could please post the rest for all to similarly review....

jdg

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Seamus already sent me all of this. I read it and replied to him.

Jack

Greg, I am interested if you could please post the rest for all to similarly review....

jdg

Joel,

eventually it will all be available, but for now, Seamus has requested I take it down for further editing.

greg

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites
... for now, Seamus has requested I take it down for further editing.

I realize that I'm just an American who doesn't always "get" the colloquialisms, but some minor edits jumped out at me, such as the fact that one does not "bare" something in mind, he "bears" it in mind (the past tense is "borne in mind," not "bared in mind"), and two things being the same thing are not one "in" the same, but one "and" the same. There are also several instances of things that are actually one word (in America, anyway) that Seamus breaks into two (e.g., "landline" rather than "land line") and possible mis-spellings (something solid may well have come "fourth" from the 3rd Floor Homicide Office? Did he mean "have come forth," or did he mean that three other things came before it?).

I'm unclear on why "further confusion may have been caused due to Daylight Savings Time in New Zealand." I appreciate the history lesson of when it was adopted (in 1974 in NZ, and 1966 in Dallas), but DST has never been in effect in the US during November; with NZ being in the southern hemisphere, is DST is in effect there during the same months it is in the US, or six months opposite? Does it really matter if neither location used DST at the time?

I'd rather think that any confusion might lie in the "zig-zag" nature of the Date Line and observed time zones in the Oceanic region, as shown in this US Navy map, which shows NZ in the "L" zone between meridians, but observing the "M" zone's time. According to this map and chart, Dallas is in the "S" zone which is GMT (UCT) -6, while "M" is GMT +12 with some of the more easterly island groups being +13 and +14, even on the other side of the Date Line. (e.g., French Polynesia used the "M†" time zone GMT +14, which is two hours later than NZ. It is east of American Samoa, which is on the "X" time zone GMT -11 and a day ahead of the latter! At midnight GMT on January 1, it is 2:00 p.m. in FP on January 1, but 1:00 p.m. on December 31 in AS to the west!)

These are just some thoughts. It also seemed as if some things were left hanging (just a feeling; I'd have to go back and re-read to see if I still agree with myself!), and I never could quite tell whether extolling or belittling Perry's "Mr. X" article or what, and sometimes seemed to vacillate between the two.

Otherwise, a good work. It does seem as if the difference during CST and NZST is indeed 18 hours, but with DST it sure does get confusing (there are only 17 hours difference between US Central Daylight Time and New Zealand Standard(?) Time at this precise moment).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat that Christchurch has NO special significance.

I repeat that timelines have NO special significance.

Prouty is widely misquoted and misunderstood.

As someone who spoke to him personally, I can say that

his point was TOO MUCH INFORMATION TOO QUICKLY.

As a former CIA officer, he recoginized that the information

had to have been PREPARED IN ADVANCE to link LHO

to the crime.

It could have been ANYWHERE that he read the story, but

he just HAPPENED to be in Christchurch. With LHO still being

interrogated in Dallas, newspapers ALL OVER THE WORLD

had immediately at hand bio and photo of LHO.

Christchurch is a bogus issue. A pre-prepared press kit is

the point, as Fletch concluded.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
... for now, Seamus has requested I take it down for further editing.

I realize that I'm just an American who doesn't always "get" the colloquialisms, but some minor edits jumped out at me, such as the fact that one does not "bare" something in mind, he "bears" it in mind (the past tense is "borne in mind," not "bared in mind"), and two things being the same thing are not one "in" the same, but one "and" the same. There are also several instances of things that are actually one word (in America, anyway) that Seamus breaks into two (e.g., "landline" rather than "land line") and possible mis-spellings (something solid may well have come "fourth" from the 3rd Floor Homicide Office? Did he mean "have come forth," or did he mean that three other things came before it?).

Duke,

the editing issues were my fault for not doing a thorough enough job of it. I have apologised to Seamus for that, though I think he understands that at least in the formatting side of it, there were some not so minor problems to try and get around. Basically, I was too eager to get it out there.

I'm unclear on why "further confusion may have been caused due to Daylight Savings Time in New Zealand." I appreciate the history lesson of when it was adopted (in 1974 in NZ, and 1966 in Dallas), but DST has never been in effect in the US during November; with NZ being in the southern hemisphere, is DST is in effect there during the same months it is in the US, or six months opposite? Does it really matter if neither location used DST at the time?

The confusion is due to lack of knowledge re time zones, seasons and when/if daylight saving applies.

I'd rather think that any confusion might lie in the "zig-zag" nature of the Date Line and observed time zones in the Oceanic region, as shown in this US Navy map, which shows NZ in the "L" zone between meridians, but observing the "M" zone's time. According to this map and chart, Dallas is in the "S" zone which is GMT (UCT) -6, while "M" is GMT +12 with some of the more easterly island groups being +13 and +14, even on the other side of the Date Line. (e.g., French Polynesia used the "M†" time zone GMT +14, which is two hours later than NZ. It is east of American Samoa, which is on the "X" time zone GMT -11 and a day ahead of the latter! At midnight GMT on January 1, it is 2:00 p.m. in FP on January 1, but 1:00 p.m. on December 31 in AS to the west!)

These are just some thoughts. It also seemed as if some things were left hanging (just a feeling; I'd have to go back and re-read to see if I still agree with myself!), and I never could quite tell whether extolling or belittling Perry's "Mr. X" article or what, and sometimes seemed to vacillate between the two.

Yes. I agree that could be how it looks. This is because Seamus accepted the article as entirely accurate when he first looked into the Star debacle. That shifted over time to a belief that it contains a mix of accurate and inaccurate information, the bastard child of which resembles a red herring. Nevertheless, Seamus wants to acknowledge the help given by Perry at the time. You have to understand the Kiwi nature. They are unremittingly polite (I blame the Polynesian influence!).

Otherwise, a good work. It does seem as if the difference during CST and NZST is indeed 18 hours, but with DST it sure does get confusing (there are only 17 hours difference between US Central Daylight Time and New Zealand Standard(?) Time at this precise moment).

I'm sure Seamus will genuinely appreciate those words.

I repeat that Christchurch has NO special significance.

I repeat that timelines have NO special significance.

Prouty is widely misquoted and misunderstood.

And I repeat Jack, that what was posted sets out to demonstrate those positions, and to set the record straight. You may be able to get away with labelling something as misinformation without having to demonstrate why it is, but the rest of us mere mortals have to play by the rule book and back up our assertions with facts....

As someone who spoke to him personally, I can say that

his point was TOO MUCH INFORMATION TOO QUICKLY.

As a former CIA officer, he recoginized that the information

had to have been PREPARED IN ADVANCE to link LHO

to the crime.

I repeat Jack, that this side of the argument is coming in later instalments. But you should know that already, having received a draft copy, so why you're acting that what was posted is all there is, I don't know...

It could have been ANYWHERE that he read the story, but

he just HAPPENED to be in Christchurch. With LHO still being

interrogated in Dallas, newspapers ALL OVER THE WORLD

had immediately at hand bio and photo of LHO.

Christchurch is a bogus issue. A pre-prepared press kit is

the point, as Fletch concluded.

Which is what is at the heart of Seamus' work. I hope you will eventually get around to accepting that.

As for the Star being a bogus issue... an understandable comment. But the fact is, it is an issue. Why? Because it's a strawman built for the knocking down - a diversion. Google "christchurch star" and see what you get, and tell me that does not need exposing for what it is. This part of the work in fact, may well be the most important, as it nails down some insidious behind-the scenes influence.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted for Seamus:

"I would like to thank you all for your interest and critiques at this point. I would also like to thank Greg for being my mouth piece on here. Greg is very busy at the moment, thus I have sent this to Jack to post here because of his concerns. There are 5 parts to this essay. I have put the first and second parts together (as you have already seen) in one block. Parts 3-4 in another. Part 5 is a stand alone that has the examples mentioned in the text. The next block 3-4 is not completed as of yet. This details Dave Perry's article critiquing Prouty and other issues. The Christchurch Star is a little thing that has become a huge red herring as Greg has said. But theres also some stuff underneath the surface that many of us have missed. I look forward to showing you all after my studies are completed.

One final note. Though I may not agree with Jack on everything. I have been saddened by peoples rather sarcastic and mocking comments to him on different subjects on here when a polite "I dont agree" would be called for. If it were not for Jack researchers like John Armstrong and others would not have had a foot hold on some seriously weird stuff. Nor would This forum have been enlightened with Jim Di Eugenio's latest escapades and nor would I be writing a piece as extensive as I outlined. Jack, was one of the people who inspired me years ago to become a researcher when I saw TMWKK, and he has bought many into the fold. I think Jack should be shown a little more respect."

Yours Seamus Coogan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 years later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...