Loading...
Print this page
Tuesday, 29 April 2014 15:34

Master Class with John Hankey, III: The Podcast

Written by

On Jim Fetzer's podcast and Hankey's deleted postings.


This session of Fetzer’s podcast begins with Fetzer and King discussing how CTKA didn’t show up for the debate. They have their reality we have our own. Regardless of their claims that we backed off, one can see here in Part II I would be more than happy to oblige them should JH be willing to participate with the aforementioned questions.

11 Min: Outtake of “The Jim Garrison Tapes”

Gary King adds a segment from John Barbour’s “The Garrison Tapes” production. It discusses the Bay of Pigs invasion and uses Garrison, Prouty, and David Phillips. The segment has nothing whatsoever to do with GHWB but it serves to make out as if Hankey will somehow defend and champion Garrison and Fletcher Prouty’s cause. The problem is we do not have any real problems with either. Once again, people familiar with CTKA and our material will see through this diversion.

14 Min: “And he’s Away.”

Important Note: Hankey says he will go through the evidence point by point. Yet he does not run through a list of the topics discussed or give the reader a general time - frame. This is standard for a presentation because that is what Hankey’s rambling approach is. To call this farcical approach a debate of any weight is a grievance against standard debate procedure.

Straight out of the blocks Hankey begins discussing the trials and tribulations Gary had getting us on. Without including the CIA agent baiting mentioned before. Wow, I thought this was about GHWB? Anyhow, salivating with sarcasm he thanks Jim Di and his friends (namely Frank Cassano and I) for attacking him, because, we have forced him to look at his positions. Cassano is involved because Hankey accused Jim of being a CIA agent on the aforementioned James Corbett show. Cassano and I called in to complain. But Hankey now says that after his re-evaluation, he now realizes his position was actually much stronger than he realized. (Yes, and I am the reincarnation of Mao Zedong).

He now uses his old “Jim amasses a ton of irrelevant information to discredit me and never confronts the main stuff” routine. Which is a new take on his “my evidence was incorrect but my conclusions were correct” bull. This is interesting on two counts. First, Jim did not write the article he is contesting. I did. Jim only edited that article and most of what he did was edit for length. The actual substance is about 90% my own. Second, as noted, he has now changed his defense. On the "Murder Solved Forum", he admitted to almost all of the mistakes I pointed out in my piece. And he was even repetant about most of them. But his defense there was he was still correct on his main thesis about Bush. Which obviously sidesteps the issue of: how can a guy who makes so many errors about so many topics be correct about a major thesis? When in fact, the standard of this kind of thesis is: Extraordinary claims demand extraordianry evidence.

15 Min: How Many Years have you Been Researching John?

“I’ve been researching the assassination in a pretty serious fashion for about forty years.”

This is a vast improvement from JH claiming he had been a researcher for 50 years four years before the 50th anniversary.

“It took me nearly 40 years to find these memos; and nearly another ten to figure out what they mean. Believe me, I'm not bragging. But I am advocating patience”

JH will try denying this by saying we made it up (have a look at the 56:57 passage for a stellar example). Sadly for JH its right here 40 + 10 = 50. (http://911blogger.com/node/19864)

As I explained in my first essay, Hankey says he got involved in about 1999 after JFK Jr’s plane crash. IMDB say JFK II came out in 2003 (I said 2004 originally). Hankey’s movie is officially 12 years old and John has been perfecting his stand-up routine for 15. He had only spent some 2-3 years looking at the case before he decided come through the curtain and be a big star. That is a rather substantial difference of 25 years in terms of his 40 years of research.

Hell, at least he has dropped his banal story about holding talks at different campuses concerning the JFK case. Judging by what he is spouting now, those discussions would have been awful (if they ever happened).

15 - 16 Min: Memo Madness

On top of all we have written about his insane memo fetish and the denouncement of JH’s interpretation by Joseph McBride the man who found the documents. I really do not need to go on. Except to say Bush was not the head of the CIA in 1972. His tenure was from January 1976 to 1977.

Wait… did he just say the memo states that George Bush is the supervisor of the killers again? Damn, I was hoping he would announce that he was bullied and had an unhappy childhood. That might explain his over engaged fantasy world and his distortion of the JFK case.

18 Min: No Thanks to CTKA

Hankey mentions the famous memo Angleton let Trento have a peak at which placed Hunt in Dealey Plaza that day. However, he won’t say anything about us correcting him on the issue. He originally said Helms wrote the memo, not Angleton. Remember, this is from "Plausible Denial", a book he supposedly pores over, and then recently called "Rush to Judgement". Indeed, JH as one will see, has apparently co-opted a lot of CTKA material with which he used to lecture us about.

19 Min: The Bush Dulles Meeting

Hankey has a particular obsession for a dinner Prescott Bush had with Allen Dulles. I discussed this meeting in my last Hankey article. JH had told radio host James Corbett that the “Pilot Project” was about “George Bush and the Bay of Pigs.” However, he is now saying the project refers to George Bush setting up his oil company. Both are hilariously off the ball. The document is dated April 1963. That’s two years after the Bay of Pigs, and to cap it off Bush Jr had set up his oil business in 1953-54.

It is no big deal Prescott Bush was friendly with Dulles. A whole heap of wealthy elitiest were friends with Allen. For he was one of the them; hence, why be does JH get so excited over the association with Prescott? Was Prescott as close to Dulles as Helms, Phillips, Hunt, Edwards, Truscott, Bissell, Cabell, Angleton or CD Jackson. That is an extremely closed group of pals. I would like to know how Bush interacted with this group?

As I said, if Hankey is going to try and use bluestering langauge he can at least get his facts right and keep his story straight. He can also get real about the relationships Dulles had with his intelligence cronies. As one will note throughout the guy can do none of this.

20 Min: Hunt and Bush

JH says the Bay of Pigs was where Bush met E Howard Hunt. He has said this for a long time. If perchance, Bush was involved in some of the smaller aspects of anti-Castro operations the two could have met. We have never said it was impossible; nevertheless, when one has an editor (which Hankey does not) we cut little pieces that didn’t ram home the point in “The Dark Legacy of John Hankey.” I wrote…

“The viewer may have noted that in skipping over the nefarious American activities in Latin America at the time. Hankey has presented absolutely no evidence of Hunt and Bush working together on anything other than the Bay of Pigs, and even that is an unproven and indirect relationship.”

I should have kept the line “the two could have met” and then added “but even that is an unproven and indirect relationship” in my first Hankey piece. It is hardly an admission and it changes nothing. The problem we have is that Hunt was a big player, an out and out intelligence hard core operative. Bush maybe was essentially a CIA business liaison with political ambitions. The CIA, like any intel agency, uses compatmentalization and delegates agents and contractors based on their abilities. You don’t just become a covert operator, you get chosen.

In the past Hankey has tried to intimate Bush would have been higher up the chain for the Bay of Pigs than Hunt. He seems to have dropped this angle (for the time being at least) preferring to now say Bush was in charge of Dallas (check out the inanity some 24:00 minutes in). He has even gone so far to say Bush was a shooter!

Of course, listening to JH we had nothing to do with his modifying this aspect of the story. Nor did my first article have anything to do with his abandoning the notion Bush and Hunt used Hunt's oil platform at Cal Say as the staging point for the Bay of Pigs. Now he has something else to learn from us. JH ludicrously believes the CIA launched the Bay of Pigs with only two boats “Houston” and “Barbara.” In fact, there were four others.

Atlántico, Rio Escondido, Caribe, and Braggart.

Furthermore, one does not need to misquote Mark Lane concerning what Fletcher Prouty said about the Bush/BOP connection to prove Hunt and Bush could have known each other.

Hunt potentially bumping into Bush is no big deal.

21 Min: The old “Why aren’t you Attacking Lane/Prouty it’s his/their fault” Line

Hankey pulls this old chestnut out again. Our reasoning, as I have said before, is very simple. I ask the reader to look at Mark Lane’s history and record compared to JH’s. Lane has bought some good work to the table, as has Fletcher Prouty. Hankey on the other hand provides accidental comedy. We have criticized Lane before. Indeed, we did in the very first Hankey review and we were slightly disappointed with his last book. But further, neither Lane nor Poruty have ever taken the Bush/Hoover memo nearly as far as Hankey has. That is, to have made a whole film about it. If they would have, and it was anything like Hankey’s, we would have criticized them also.

What is hilarious is not once has he turned on Jim and I saying “Why don’t you attack Paul Kangas, Jim Fetzer, Russ Baker, or Murder Solved. I got my stuff from those sources.”

Thus, if Hankey were ever to debate (and trust me I am very game). We want his beloved fall back line “Why don’t CTKA attack blah, blah” to be one of the questions.

24 Min: Bush out of the BOP in Charge of Dallas

We know there is a decent chance Howard Hunt, and David Phillips were in or near Dealey Plaza that day. Hunt’s appearance came via the Angleton memo, and his ninety percent dubious testimonies in his book and to his son. David Phillips came thanks to his brother. One has to ask why this bunch of pipe swinging intelligence professionals would hand the Dallas project over to an office junior like George. Because that’s what JH is saying around about now.

The Parrot Memo (http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/bushwarning.jpg) becomes a particular sticking point for JH here. Why isn’t there any FBI documentation of Hunt, and Phillips calling in for their alibis or calling up people to name as false suspects? Indeed, why didn’t they run advertisements they were in town giving speeches against fighting Communism? The whole scenario is juvenile and schoolyard. Bush, the supposed team leader in Dallas, has to call in with a fake report to create an alibi for killing the headmaster to his mother. That is what the whole thing plays out like.

I would imagine the assassins of Kennedy being somewhat less accountable to the FBI than dear George appears to be. Hankey’s angle that Jim DiEugenio has kept quiet on Bush’s phone call is a boldfaced lie. Jim discussed and destroyed the Parrot Memo silliness and the idea of Bush leading a squad in his review of Russ Baker's book.

25 Min: Hankey’s Ever Changing Landscape and Bush a Shooter

JH now discusses the Craig/Vaughn account he gave in his VT article concerning Bogus George arrest outside the Dal Tex building. He says he has known about the account for a long, long time. If so, he never used it until he got desperate for options. Adding new information is perfectly okay in a presentation like this but there are parameters. If JH had a shred of honesty, he would say to his listeners…

“Jim and Seamus did not raise these points in their articles and interviews at the time but I would like to add...”

He never does this and he brings up the Parrot memo. I never discussed the above Parrot phone call in my review because Hankey did not bring it up in the version of his documentary I watched.

Anyhow, JH has added the Bush TSBD angle to his repertoire. Again, this was not in his catalogue of marital aids at the time I was first encountering him. CTKA reacted to JH, as we would to any bad JFK product. He got a bad review befitting the horror he created. He then got snarky (ridiculously so as you can see). Had he bought this dubious material up back then he would have received the same treatment he is getting now. So his attempts at intimating that somehow we missed something, for reasons stated above, fall flat.

Anyhow, let us cap off a stunning barrage of fibs concerning CTKA, Bush’s arrest and his Parrott phone call. Hankey, almost beside himself with self-righteousness, now announces something absolutely shocking in its arrogance:

“Bush was caught with a frigging gun in his hand.”

Maybe this is just a figure of speech. I hope it is. For the man cannot be serious. Vaughn never said that to Craig. Indeed, we need a brief summary of Hankeyian events from 24-25 minutes to refocus, as there is so much wonderful, factual, and logical information to absorb.

  • Bush the leader of the hit squad is arrested with a gun outside the Dal Tex building. So was he shooting at JFK with a pistol?
  • Obtaining a quick release from the police GHWB then poses in a suit and tie outside the TSBD for a picture.
  • Then he leaps in a car and goes to the Blackstone Hotel in Tyler Texas where places a telephone call to the FBI concerning dissident James Parrott precisely ten minutes later.

I am not saying all of this is impossible, noooo I would never say that. It is just incredibly improbable. I mean, take the third point. Tyler, Texas is something like 97 miles from Dallas. The driving time is about 90 minutes. Yet, this is John Hankey and therefore in his alternative universe, anything really is possible. As long as it makes George Bush a part of the JFK assassination.

29 Min: Hunt a Sniper in China and Morales ran JM WAVE

As one can see from the above rubric, this is turning into a vintage performance from the old master. Not even Saint John Hunt (his son) mentioned E. Howard training as a sniper in China and that guy can talk a lot of gunk. Sure Hunt was a killer, all active CIA black op types are. Nevertheless, if Hankey understood operations, he would know that to be a presidential level sniper Hunt would have had to be training every day for hours on end. Nothing in Hunt’s life and his activities in covert planning indicate the required marksmanship dedication.

It appears judging by some of Hankey’s later comments concerning Bush being a , well any idiot can become an assassin. As for the ludicrous idea of Morales running JM WAVE, well that is to be expected of JH’s quest for accuracy and evidence. Unbeleivable carelessness. Ted Shackley ran JM WAVE.

30 Min: Beatles Songs – Interval

Thank you Jim Fetzer, your research is appalling but I have never appreciated the Beatles more.

The first quarter is over, and it has been a torrid battle. Not between Jim and John. Hell, the chief hasn’t even made his appearance. It seems that Hankey has done a stellar job of beating himself up. If this train wreck does this to himself, one has to wonder what on Earth will happen when he battles samples of Jim?

36 Min: Jim Finally Gets a Bite

Prior to Jim’s debut JH insinuated that Jim is hard to follow because he goes off on tangents and jumps around topics. Hankey really needs to make like Michael Jackson and talk to the “Man in the mirror.” He also needs to “Beat it” because a number of the samples he has chosen are deliberately cut to make Jim come across as a blithering madman. Sadly, for JH there is only one blithering idiot and he is not moon walking out of this one.

Anyhow, Jim discusses the problem of people over identifying suspects in the pictures and films of Dealey that day. When he mentions names, he is paying no particular attention to any one suspect. Nor is he actually saying none of them are there. It is a position bar one or two slight differences I share with Jim. Namely if we put everybody’s suspects into the mix, we have a grossly inefficient and rather silly conspiracy. Incidentally, the kind JH’s Godfather, JIm Fetzer, adores.

37 Min: Hankey, Fletcher Prouty’s Brave Champion

Hankey replies and states categorically that all the subjects Jim names are in there. However, it soon gets crazier. He discusses Ed Lansdale’s possible sighting as if he has been a long-time advocate. However, as with the Bush outside the TSBD his new Lansdale angle occurred well after my first and second articles, not to mention Jim’s BOR interview.

As said in Part I, I am open to the Lansdale picture but I refuse go to the bank on any photo ID. JH now launches a grossly hypocritical diatribe about CTKA’s insensitivity towards all things Prouty. If CTKA is so insulting to the Colonel, I have to ask why Len has Jim on Black Ops Radio every other week. Surely Hankey knows Len’s background with Prouty? I mean Len had the charity to have Hankey on his show once. An interesting aside is a claim by Fetzer that Jim is running BOR. The result being Hankey and himself have been turfed. If Jim ran BOR, he certainly would not have Fetzer’s pal Mark DeValk on. Plain and simple, Len also got a lot of complaints about JH and Fetzer. Hence, it was a no brainer not to have them back. Further, Fetzer has begun to attack len in print. Why should Len genuflect to someone who is trashing him? Finally, Fetzer, with his participation in the zany OIP, his obsession with Zapruder film alteration, and his attacks on Tink Thompson, and his belief in the likes of Judith Baker and now Hankey and also Peter Janney, with all this, Fetzer has now occupied the very far out reaches of the JFK community. Black Op Radio is not about those Outer Limits. Its about what is provable in this case by the standard of civil law. That is, would a jury vote 9-3 in favor of the critical case in front of them. That later work of Fetzer, and now that of Hankey, does not qualify as such.

40 Min: Sanctimonious + Insanity = Hypocrisy

Hold the phone Martha! JH’s let loose another ripper. He’s scolding Jim for dismissing people without looking at the evidence adding, “Jim never does that.” My God, JH is pulling out all the hypocritical stops he can. The sound bites he has selected of course do not let Jim build any argument or evidence. JH also all forgets about the screeds of writing we have at CTKA dissecting his stuff, and on top of that, Jims Black Op Radio interview, and our stint on the Corbett Report. Jim by the way has written and edited four books. He has also written and edited hundreds of articles. If JH really wants proof there is a website called CTKA, the one you the reader are visiting right now, then he also needs to read this article an dmaybe, just maybe, learn something about journalistic standeards and th rules of logic and evidence.

42-43 Min: Nixon Hired Hunt and other Fantasies

What is interesting is that JH has dropped his inane Connally - Nixon angle. The one he assiduously pushed in his first documentary. Indeed, he was still pushing the Connally angle when Jim encountered Hankey over at Murder Solved.

The Nixon angle is in my first article on JH. He completely ignores the points and evidence in that section, or does he? Hankey now says he agrees that Hunt set up Nixon, as if he has known that all along. If he did, surely a man of his integrity would have included this point in his documentaries. However, Hankey is not knowledgeable or honest. He only learned this from the original CTKA article I wrote and Jim’s interview. Hence, all JH can do now is scream something along the lines that “Nixon knew he was employing Hunt, because he hired him” Which is an illogical sentence to begin with.

I wrote,

For instance, Hankey states that Nixon brought Howard Hunt into the White House. Not accurate. As Jim Hougan points out in his brilliant and revolutionary Secret Agenda, prior to being hired by Charles Colson – not Nixon – Hunt worked at a CIA front called the Mullen Company. This was ostensibly an advertising and public relations firm. It was closely aligned with Howard Hughes. It was presided over at the time by CIA asset Robert Bennett. It was Bennett who mentioned Hunt's name to Colson; Hunt then offered his services to him; and then Colson hired Hunt. (Hougan p. 33) It was an act that Colson came to regret. Why? Because Hunt appears to have been a CIA infiltrator in the White House who, along with James McCord, deliberately sabotaged the Plumbers at Watergate and helped collapse Nixon's presidency. (ibid, pgs. 270-75)”

It is clear Nixon learned of Hunt while he was at the Mullen Company, and then in the White House. And it is clear he did use him from time to time. And Nixon did mention Hunt on the White House tapes before the was hired. But there is still no proof or real evidence that Nixon hired Hunt. If I was Nixon and I was unsuspecting of his true motives too ultimately screw me I would have not done so as well. Hunt was a pro. Nevertheless, if Hankey was not such a knee jerk reactionary his comment concerning why Nixon would have a suspect in the Kennedy assassination hanging around the White House would actually merit discussion. Because it seems clear to some, like Hougan, that the CIA was infiltrating Nixon’s White House, the Plumbers, and CREEP. And as Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease have argued, one can make a credible thesis that many of the players invovled in murdering Kennedy, were also involved with removing Nixon.

Indeed, Jim Hougan and Jim DiEugenio have discussed Watergate on Black Ops Radio. So too has Hankey’s new archenemy in his pantheon of victimisation Lisa Pease (check out Hankeys grand finale at 1H: 52).

During JH sermon, about Nixon it is obvious he is once again trying to position CTKA to points of view we have either never held or have actually discussed before. Hence, we have another thing JH can add to his future arguments. Nixon apparently met Hunt during his trip to Latin America in 1958.

44-45 Min: I Only Made Two Mistakes and CTKA Endorses Barr McClellan!

JH is angry because Jim and I took the mickey out of him for his unfunny picture of Nixon holding a gun in Dealey Plaza. He begrudgingly admits this was a mistake and he should not have done it. Later he admits he made a mistake with the Nixon – Ruby memo (see below at 51-52 minutes). Declaring he only made these two mistakes. However, he will not tell you he has dropped his classic Prescott Bush funded Nixon into the White House gag. Not to mention a misdated photo he has of them shaking hands with Nazi armbands. Indeed, I spent over some 1000+ words explaining JH’s Nixon follies. He also won’t tell the reader that on his website he has a version of his debate with Jim in which he omits Jim’s post outlining some 20 errors he noted in the first half of JH’s JFK II. I mentioned this in my follow up article some years ago.

He then asks what Nixon was doing in Dallas if not to kill JFK. Well Johnny Boy, Nixon was in Dallas for a Pepsi Cola Bottlers Convention. There was very little hoopla at all. He was not there merely to give speeches and bump Kennedy off as Hankey implied. Nixon’s comment about Johnson and his removal off the JFK ticket was essentially in passing to the press. Nixon could have made his statements anywhere; nevertheless, I personally think Nixon was not there by accident or by his design either. Hence, his presence that day provided another additional layer of mystery. Essentially, he was a red herring.

CTKA Endorses the Johnson Hypothesis

I thought this deserved a title. Simply because it is so ludicrous one must take note. Neither Jim nor I have ever fully advocated for the Kennedy ticket dumping Johnson in 1964. That is really up in the air as the sources for his scandals at the time have been poor and compromised. We have no doubt Johnson was dodgy to a degree. However, what Texas politician of the era, bar the odd Ralph Yarbrough, was not? As much of a liability as he was, LBJ was essential for Kennedy’s success in the South. Jim and I have written about this ad nauseam. Hankey, for the umpteenth time, appears to be lifting information off us and trying to lecture Jim about issues long known to CTKA.

It is a shame he is so dodgy because he makes the point about Barr McClellan’s ties to GWB, a point of view people have. This is actually a clever use of the information I got from Alex Constantine’s site. I mentioned it in my article on Alex Jones. However, this was after apparently reading my article on Alex Jones (Hankey is not a good enough researcher to find this sort of good information himself). He then seemingly babbles on about Jim and I endorsing Barr McClellan. We have never endorsed McClellan. Nor any of the recent LBJ did it cul de sacs. Indeed, we have numerous articles discussing why we do not.

Therefore, why is Jim Fetzer the kingpin of all the worst LBJ did it dross, endorsing Hankeys stance? He clearly hates us enough to have Hankey dump on his argument. Clever guy that Jim Fetzer. A man who has clearly lost his was from his former academic standards. Now, apparently, the end justifies the means.

51-52 Min: Why Doesn’t Jim Attack Prouty

It’s time for the old “Why do they always pick on me” routine. Hankey says he got the bogus Nixon – Ruby memo from Prouty. So why aren’t we attacking Prouty? Well, it is for the same reason we don’t go for Lane. Prouty has enriched the case, not detracted from it. The man could make one or two mistakes; he earned that right. Hankey has not earned that privilege and he likely never will. Furthermore, JH is responsible for the information he chooses to use. His deferment of responsibility is very immature and unprecedented in the field. One is not supposed to pass on questionable material, no matter who the source is. A true critical thinker cross checks materials that seem to good to be true.

56:57 Min: Hankey’s Implausible Denial (You Have to Read This Folks)

Now, until here, there have been some jaw dropping and hilarious moments. Nevertheless, this is the highlight of the entire charade. Hankey now plays an important segment of Jim’s BOR interview. This discusses Hankey’s ineptitude concerning Allen Dulles and his deep background in the spy trade.

“I am not sure what it is that he’s (Jim) trying to say here, I mean besides that I’m incredibly ignorant, and that is his main point which is always his main point, always.”

JH is correct about something: he is “incredibly ignorant.” He then rambles on about Dulles getting the CIA job, only because of his Nazi ties. This belittles the sound research many others have done concerning Dulles’ post WWII background. JH says these facts are niggling little annoyances that do not apparently amount to much. Nevertheless, JH’s actions at the 57 minute, mark indicate he took these niggling facts rather seriously.

Hankey plays an excerpt from Jim’s interview in which Jim quotes Hankey from my piece.

"Prescott Bush is the guy who during WWI was with Army Intelligence. Dulles was not with army intelligence during WWI and it's a little bit surprising that he would be put in charge of the CIA instead of Prescott, given that they are more or less parallel in their power up until that time."

Hankey abruptly states …

“He’s making that quote up! But never mind let’s move on.”

I quoted Hankey directly from Black Op Radio on show 424, May 2009. The show is in Len’s archives. Why on Earth did he choose that particular statement and then act as he did? Was it to try to wound Jim’s credibility, or to save his own? Either way, he not only shoved a foot in his mouth, but he shoved the other in there also. And why did Fetzer accept this at face value?

58:30 Min: If the Head of the CIA is a Front why the Boner about GHWB

JH is angling for his old Prescott Bush was the power behind the throne line. To be honest he has not bought PB up yet; however, he starts pondering aloud inane stuff like “The head of the CIA is a front”, he is not naming names but he is clearly saying this about Dulles as he has used this line many times before in relation to Prescott, and he discusses him at 1H:02.

If the head of the CIA is a puppet then why does he make such a huge deal about GHWB and his one-year gig as DCI? Furthermore, Prescott Bush must have been tripping on acid to let his son, whom never trained as a sniper take a shot at President Kennedy, as Hankey now insinuates. Indeed, if you hark back to 24-45, minute mark GHWB’s shooting at Kennedy was not the only dumb thing George did that day. He says his hypothesis “is a can of worms.” I can think of a few things to call it and it is not worms; thus, I can only wonder what Russ Baker is thinking. Baker tried vainly to bring credibility to the Bush did it hypothesis. I wonder how he feels to have his efforts smeared by JH.

1H: 02 Min: Hankey and Zhou En-Lai

This is very long so I have made it into a separate article, which can be found here [need link here]. Thank the lord for the Beatle interlude once again.

1H: 30 Min: Hoover Beatles.

The next 12 minutes or so is a bizarre ode to J Edgar Hoover. Hankey has long believed the CIA pressured Hoover concerning the Kennedy assassination. CTKA has known and understood all of the angles JH discusses, but more besides. JH has never read Anthony Summers work (and that’s just an entree). Thus, he fails to understand what 99 percent of researchers believe that Hoover did not need much cajoling to participate in the cover up. He also tries to swing it that CTKA endorsed the idea of Hoover as a main plotter. That might be good enough for Peter Dale Scott, Phil Nelson, or Jim Fetzer; but that type of analysis is not good enough for CTKA.

1H:42 Min: “This Guy is so Full of Shit”

So says the master of the art form after a snippet in which Jim disagrees with JH delusions about the memo. Hankey retorts “If Bush was contacted it was because he was in charge of the anti-Castro Cubans.” Remember what McBride said to me at the end of Part I folks. I don’t need to remind you all that we have written.

1H:44 Min: David Morales JM Wave Boss Again

Morales was good pals with his boss Ted Shackley. Hankey’s pals at Murder Solved must be blue in the face explaining this sort of stuff to him. They have a write up about him here.

1H:48 Min: “All This Shit About Dulles”

“Jim has gone on with all of this shit about whether Dulles really had any intelligence background or not I mean what has that got to do with anything? And when do we get to the real substance of the movie the mountain of evidence I am putting together”

There are a lot of fools out there dribbling all manner of gibberish. Nevertheless, even individuals as inept as Fetzer do not find Dulles’ extensive intelligence background irrelevant. It was not Dulles’ ties to the Nazis that got him the DIrectorship. It was his long experince as an intel officer in World War I and II, the plan he submitted to Walter B. Smith to reorganize the CIA after World War 2 (which prompted Smith to make him Deputy DCI), and finally Smith falling ill and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, convincing Eisenhower to make Dulles the new Director. All of this material is in the record on the several books about the Dulles brothers. But not only has Hankey not read them. He actually seems to think its not even important for him to do so! And its arrogance and presumptuousness like this that allowed him to make over 40 errors of fact in the first version of his film. As for JH’s mountain of evidence he is putting together: he has to be kidding. He has not structured even a hillock.

1H:49 Min: “What the Fuck”

Hankey declares “What the fuck?” after a brief snippet of Jim explaining that Bush’s links to the agency and Cubans were hardly unique amongst the blue blood set. Jim names Clare Booth Luce and Bill Pawley as examples. This leaves an exasperated JH bellowing…“ But these guys didn’t get mentioned in this memo.” He forgets the fact George Bush does not have his name redacted. This indicates to anyone with half a brain he was hardly a CIA higher up. Since Hoover was very sensitive to such matters. Even if he was, it is hardly sensitive information if Captain William Edwards of the DIA was running the Cubans? Was Agent F.T Forsyth? They are mentioned as well. Also, if Hankey saying that there were no communications at all with the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, about any Cuban renegade attack on Castro to any backers of any Cuban cadres in the wake of JFK’s death?

If Bush was head of the CIA in 1976, why didn’t he destroy this memo? Surely, someone of his all seeing, all evil pedigree would eradicate all vestiges of his earlier wrongdoings running the Anti-Castro Cuban programme. Hell the guy couldn’t even get rid of his banal correspondence with George DeMohrenschildt. I have to say it is rather odd Hankey has not bought that old chestnut up yet. Is it because CTKA crushed that dream before he could grab it?

1H:52 Minutes: Hankey’s Last Stand

JH has been building for this for close to two hours, or has it been his entire life?

What follows is a ramble that will echo through eternity. Its power is such that it conjures up an image of an illusionist actually believing he is the Human Torch, and then setting himself alight, and leaping off the TSBD to fly away. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No folks it is just JH crashing and burning. Again.

Anyhow, for your enjoyment, here are the highlights of what he screamed on the way down…

Fuck you Jim DeYouhayneo! For Making me Think.

“Fuck you Jim Deyouhayneo! He is not honest, he, he is not… an honest researcher and you shouldn’t pay any attention to anything that he says except that he may occasionally raise a point that is in fact worth investigating.

And in fact makes us think about something harder than perhaps we have in the first place.”

Hankey is essentially saying, “Fuck you Jim for making me think.” It is certainly an odd way of showing one’s appreciation. But shouldn’t John have done some thinking before he put together his film. And again, the article was not Jim’s. It was mine. Jim was just reading it.

Hoover: the Subtle Hero of the Bush Memo

“But Hoover wrote one memo and the memo that he wrote named George Bush and frankly I just love that he managed to write it in such a way he made it so innocent that it survived.”

Wow, so is he actually saying that the document reads as it looks. If so, that is a complete somersault. He is now saying Hoover carefully coded the message so it could slip through Bush’s fingers. It’s a message only JH can see.

Mark Lane Never Heard of GHWB

“Mark Lane said he saw this memo when it was first discovered and he didn’t make anything of it because he had never heard of George Bush before. It didn’t draw Mark Lane’s attention in the least… but that’s why it survived.”

Okay, Mark Lane is a prominent political and civil rights activist and lawyer. JFK is only one of his many interests. He has had more scrapes with the CIA than JH has had hot dinners. Yet Hankey is trying to say in the period 1985-1988 a time when knowledge of the document was growing, Lane had never heard of the ex-head of the CIA or George Bush, Reagan’s second, and Presidential candidate. With that logic, JH probably thinks Mondale won. He now returns to Hoover’s cunning ploy…

Jim is "Full of Shit," but Hoover is “Frigging Brilliant

“Now if Hoover was in on the assassination why did he write this memo and well… Jim is just so full of shit. I can’t believe it. He does draw our attention into that question I think, at least he drew my attention to that question. That I haven’t thought about in a long time. Why did Hoover write this memo? You know that when Hoover died his files were immediately seized and destroyed. If he had put it in his files it wouldn’t have survived but he made it sound innocent and he sent it out again to all these people. I think the guys frigging brilliant.”

I couldn’t be bothered telling the reader that earlier he had congratulated Hoover’s investigative ability. Something considered a joke in the modern era to all but JH. Nonetheless, we can see he is very keen on Hoover’s subtle abilities that once again all but JH the mystic can see or translate. But beyond that, consider this a bi tmore deeply. Is Hankey really saying what he seems to be saying? That Hoover wanted to expose the actual plotters of JFK’s death? Again, this is what happens when writers leap into the sea of the JFK case without doing their homework. Or even going to the corner library to pick up a book or two.

Nothing could be furhter from the truth in this case. From the first day, Hoover was hard at work molding the cover up from the ground up. He never let up the pressure on framing Oswald. Not from the beginning until the end. At the end, he was trying to disguise what the Sylvia Odio story really meant. To go through every instance in which he did this would take a small book. In fact, many people think that the exposure of the FBI cover up in this case was the beginning of the end of Hoover’s impenetrable image as a crime stopper. (Of which, most would say he never really was. Except maybe Johnny Boy.) But now, all of that work by say Tony Summers and Curt Gentry will have to reevaluated. Because John Hankey says the FBI memo has a much deeper meaning than anyone has ever given it. Even Joe McBride. Hoover was talking in codes I guess. Codes that only Hankey could decipher. And maybe Fetzer.

John Hankey the Measure of Rationality

Then comes something that really had to be heard to be believed. Consider the following:

“Generally speaking I try to avoid saying things that I think that are so out there that they will reflect badly on everything else that I say.”

Can Hankey really have this little self-knowledge? I hate to say it John but that horse has already bolted. And it left you on the ground. Indeed anybody who has read Parts I & II of this article, and three others at CTKA would see the bizarreness of the above statement. It was nice to know that before JH made this hilarious comment, you agreed with Jim that your theory of Bush threatening Hoover in his office with a dart gun was irresponsible and stupid.

The Ridiculous CTKA Conspiracy

But he is not done. Hankey’s final tirade accuses CTKA of launching a conspiracy against him. He bizarrely claims that different versions of his videos were not available at the time I wrote my first article. As you will see I am in awe of JH saying this stuff. It is a sociopathic, face saving and utterly dishonest argument. As one will see, JH himself was the very person who sent out his documentary and created different versions of it.

The Ring Master Lisa Pease Part 1

Why Hankey gets angry about anyone distributing his videos is curious. Is he secretly ashamed? He alleges Lisa Pease disseminated the video. This begs the question: why would Lisa want to promote anything of his. She, like any CTKA contributor, thinks Hankey’s work sucks. Was she distributing the video to discredit JH?

Now again, please sit down before you read this wild conspiracy theory. It makes Lamar Waldron look like an amateur.

For Hankey now claims Lisa then sent the video to Jim, and during his interview with Len, Lisa was handing him notes.( Lisa and Jim were in different parts of LA that night.) Yet, despite Jim’s reviewing his lame "Dark Legacy", he then claims Jim has never seen his movie "JFK II"? What on earth is he trying to suggest here? If Jim actually sat down and watched the film, he would agree with JH? Wow, that is incredible logic considering Jim has seen both “JFK II” and “Dark Legacy.” Jim edited my articles and rechecked my facts. Threefore, it is impossible for him not to have watched JFK II. And he did at at my instigation, not Lisa’s. Hankey is not just delusional about whe he is, he is now creating wild paranoid plots to distract from the shoddiness of his own work.

"For the record, and to repeat what jim has said on the air, this is how I came to write my first essay on Hankey's film. One night I began to send Jim a series of questions based upon my viewing of Hankey's documentary. Even though I was not as well versed in Kennedy matters back then, I sensed some of the facts in the film were either wrong or hyperbolic. So I sent a series of questions about these disputed matters to Jim so he could settle the matters. After about four of my queries I saw that indeed, my doubt was well founded since Jim, in each instance, stated that the info I was sending to him was wrong. Finally, in exasperation, he said, "Where are you getting this malarkey?"

I told him: "Its from Hankey's film."

Jim then watched the film, and we decided that someone had to critique this since it would mislead to many people. This is one of the functions of CTKA. To expose flatulence and pretension on both sides: the Krazy Kid Oswald types, and those who advocate ill founded conspiracies.

He Doesn’t Mention Prison Planet

There were five people in total he sent the movie to Lisa Pease, his brother, Kris Millegan, and Wim Dankbaar. He plays dumb and say’s “I think I mentioned them all.” The fifth was Alex Jones and Prison Planet. If not JH is probably wondering how their logo got on the front of his production.

Lisa Pease Ring Master Part II (This is Even More Nutty).

He now says I, the writer of the article that drove him mad, I am just a straw man in all of this. Apparently there is no way I could have seen it without Lisa sending it to me. In other words, I was part of Lisa’s conspiracy.

According to the Wayback Machine, the version of JH’s JFK II that I used to review "JFK II" and linked to Google Video, has now disappeared rather suspiciously. One can see it had been posted to Google Video in at least 2006. (See the screen shot below)

Table 2: Hankey’s Deleted Video Posted on 2006

seamus 02

On the Education Forum there is a post dating from August 2006 from a guy called Wade Rhodes discussing the very "JFK II" video. Rhodes, by the way, had used the same link I had. It is also important to note what Rhodes asks concerning Alex Jones and the Prison Planet disclaimer on Hankey’s earlier versions.

Table 3: JFK II-2007 on Google Video

seamus 03

Anyhow, just do a Google video search for “JFK II: The Bush Connection.” The earliest YouTube entry now appears to be Jan 9, 2007. Note underneath there are different versions by different people. Furthermore, there is one from Mar 12, 2009.

All of the above dates I have discussed, 2006, 2007, and March 2009 are way, way, way before I began my first Hankey take down, which CTKA published in early 2010. I had worked on JH for 3-4 months prior, in 2009. I have no idea how it got viral in the period 2003-2006. Jones’ operation was still growing. One presumes it was posted to a forum or linked to his webpage at some point. Some crazed people obviously liked it and bingo.

Two major problems

  1. JH has accused us at one time or another of circulating unreleased editions that we somehow apprehended. As seen, JH has had "JFK" out and about for some time. Who created all the different versions that were available before September-October 2009 when I began? Were JH’s fans so concerned about JH’s content they made their own subtractions, or were they concerned about time? I don’t know. But the idea of Lisa Pease, cutting up JH’s video’s to make a better presentation or decrease its length is absurd (see the different lengths below)
  2. Problem one, assumes JH was not also promoting JFK II prior to my starting to write my first CTKA essay in September-October. Noooo JH never promoted JFK II at all according to the great man. It was us, Lisa Pease or CTKA.

Table 4: Different Lengths of "JFK" all Publically Available

seamus 04

Well it turns out John Hankey was promoting JFK II. On Black Op Radio twice circa 2005, 2006, and also 2009. It was the latter recording on BOR (show # 424 that eventually helped spur me into what I am still doing now: correcting the ersatz record of JH.

Conclusion on JH's JFK II Videos

People reply to criticism in different ways. Some take it upon themselves to improve. Some take it personally and resent the message. Hankey is in the latter group. For he now maligns Lisa Pease to cover his own behind. He has been less than candid about who distributed the videos since this information seems to be in plain sight. He seems to have edited the videos himself on the advice of others. John Hankey was also promoting his film two years before he released it. I am sure he made noises elsewhere, but I cannot be bothered tracking them down. Nothing should surprise me about John Hankey anymore – but this "CTKA conspiracy angle" is bizarre behavior even for him.

Here Endeth the Lesson

Well thankfully, it is over. Fetzer as deluded as ever, and without a trace of sarcasm, now announces, “Hankey prevailed in this exchange.” The reality is one can clearly see JH was defeated by mere voice samples. In his battle with an inanimate adversary, one can see he manufactured events, and corrupted CTKA’s own research for his own means. He then exaggerated, abused, smeared and manufactured again.

I wish this was all over and initially it was fun. But it is extremely tedious and I feel sorry for Hankey.

I will catch you up when I discuss JH and Zhou En – Lai.


Part 1

Part 2

Part 4


"The Dark Legacy of John Hankey"

"Onwards and Downwards with John Hankey"

Hankey/DiEugenio Debate Murder Solved

DiEugenio's Review Update of "Dark Legacy"

Coogan Reply to Fetzer at Deep Politics Forum

Last modified on Saturday, 05 November 2016 14:44
Seamus Coogan

Seamus Coogan is one of a number of JFK assassination researchers hailing from New Zealand and Australia.  He has devoted considerable effort to ferreting out and exposing unfounded and sensationalistic or far-fetched conspiratorial hypotheses.  His most notable contributions include those on John Hankey's JFK II, on Alex Jones, and on the Majestic Papers.  He  has also reviewed numerous books for this site.

Related items