This isn't the first time Hankey has put forth the film, and other reviewers declare "not so fast" to the notions he puts forth. For example, Seamus Coogan who writes for the CTKA, a group devoted to the study of the Kennedy assassination, maintains Hankey makes exorbitant claims about himself and his research and also distorts many facts. He writes this:
Where, when, and how did he "hang Kennedy's murder around Bush's neck"? Is JFK 2 evidence of this? Not on your life. The evidence would suggest that Hankey first got into his research around 1999, with the death of John Kennedy Jr. After that, around 2004, his video was cobbled together. Hankey seems to have had a mere 5-6 years of investigation under his belt before the film. But that's no excuse for 1.) The errors that riddle his work and 2.) His penchant for taking credit for things he did not achieve. 3.) His need to distort things both large and small.Coogan's review is very detailed, and he quotes the assessments of other critics as he examines Hankey's film, which just yesterday has been touted again. His summary conclusion declares firmly that viewers need to look with a jaundiced eye upon many of Hankey's notions since they take away from serious investigations and mislead the public. He ends by saying, "There is nothing wrong with writing revisionist history. But if you choose to do so, you must be held to high standards of scholarship. "