http://tomflocco.com/Docs/63/BushJfkBookDepo.htm
You may want to bookmark this for future reference.
Jack
Full Version: Click on this
All the pictures of Bush you can post will not make that guy look like Bush. Not to mention that it was physically impossible for Bush to be there when the picture was taken.
It wouldn't surprise me if Bush was involved in the assassination. But one way to discredit the notion would be to push this photo.
It wouldn't surprise me if Bush was involved in the assassination. But one way to discredit the notion would be to push this photo.
I am not allowed to edit my postings, so am posting a second message.
I accidentally failed to post the MAIN PAGE URL.
You need to click on...
http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
Sorry.
Jack
I accidentally failed to post the MAIN PAGE URL.
You need to click on...
http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
Sorry.
Jack
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Oct 17 2007, 03:51 AM) 
All the pictures of Bush you can post will not make that guy look like Bush. Not to mention that it was physically impossible for Bush to be there when the picture was taken.
It wouldn't surprise me if Bush was involved in the assassination. But one way to discredit the notion would be to push this photo.
It wouldn't surprise me if Bush was involved in the assassination. But one way to discredit the notion would be to push this photo.
Why was it physically impossible? He was registered at the hotel in
the Southland Center, and according to wife Barbara's book they
flew out of Love Field that morning to speak at a Rotary Club in
nearby East Texas.
Jack
He may have been in Dallas that morning, but he was speaking in Tyler, Texas, when the assassination occurred. He and Barbara then flew to Dallas, where as I recall he was registered at the Sheraton. I don't believe he could have flown from Tyler to Love Field, then have gone from Love Field to Dealey Plaza in time to be in that photograph at the TSBD, and even if it were physically possible, for what purpose would Bush go join the crowd at Dealey Plaza? To find out if anyone there had seen Mr. Parrot?
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Oct 17 2007, 04:21 AM)
He may have been in Dallas that morning, but he was speaking in Tyler, Texas, when the assassination occurred. He and Barbara then flew to Dallas, where as I recall he was registered at the Sheraton. I don't believe he could have flown from Tyler to Love Field, then have gone from Love Field to Dealey Plaza in time to be in that photograph at the TSBD, and even if it were physically possible, for what purpose would Bush go join the crowd at Dealey Plaza? To find out if anyone there had seen Mr. Parrot?
...and so you believe that George and Barbara are of unquestionable veracity?
And that records exist of his Rotary Club speech? And that the flight from
Tyler to Dallas is lengthy, and that Love Field is a great distance from downtown?
And you know the exact time the photo was taken in front of the TSBD?
What if the photo was taken about 2 p.m.?
Tell me why a politician in Dallas would miss a chance to be seen with the
president, even if a different party....oh, that's right, Nixon was also in town
that morning, and also left from Love Field. JFK, Nixon, and GHWB all at
Love Field within minutes of each other. Coincidence?
Jack
Yes.
Sorry but I have interviewed the Rotary chairman and others at the brunch that day and Bush was speaking when he was interrupted by the news of the shooting and did not finish as it would in his words "be in bad taste to continue a political speech." He then left and got Barbara who was at a beauty parlor across the street and then went to the airport.....so NO it is not Bush.
see my interviews on the Lancer site.
Ed
see my interviews on the Lancer site.
Ed
Ed's research proved Ron's point. Great work!
But I'd swear one of those guys standing on the corner could be the double of Rauol Castro if he shaved and donned a suit!
But I'd swear one of those guys standing on the corner could be the double of Rauol Castro if he shaved and donned a suit!
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Oct 17 2007, 11:39 AM)
Ed's research proved Ron's point. Great work!
But I'd swear one of those guys standing on the corner could be the double of Rauol Castro if he shaved and donned a suit!
But I'd swear one of those guys standing on the corner could be the double of Rauol Castro if he shaved and donned a suit!
Thats the second Cuban you claim to have been captured on film in DP then Tim.
Received from Gary Mack:
"Not only is your Bush information correct, there's more to it! The photo in question was taken prior to 1:18pm, for also in the picture is DPD Officer Nick McDonald. McDonald testified that he was in the Plaza when he heard on the police radio that an officer had been shot. He immediately left to go the scene. As is well documented, 1:18 is the time of T.F. Bowley's police radio report of the Tippit shooting. No one could have traveled from Tyler, Texas, which is more than 100 miles away, to downtown Dallas in 48 minutes. In fact, according to Barbara Bush's book, their Love Field arrival was delayed until Air Force One and Two took off. That means she and George landed around 3pm."
"Not only is your Bush information correct, there's more to it! The photo in question was taken prior to 1:18pm, for also in the picture is DPD Officer Nick McDonald. McDonald testified that he was in the Plaza when he heard on the police radio that an officer had been shot. He immediately left to go the scene. As is well documented, 1:18 is the time of T.F. Bowley's police radio report of the Tippit shooting. No one could have traveled from Tyler, Texas, which is more than 100 miles away, to downtown Dallas in 48 minutes. In fact, according to Barbara Bush's book, their Love Field arrival was delayed until Air Force One and Two took off. That means she and George landed around 3pm."
Does anyone know the lowdown on Parrott? As I recall, there was a Parrott family in the oil industry. I wonder if there was something personal between the Bushes and Parrotts, which might explain Bush's mischievous phone call. (No one likes to have the FBI descending upon them.)
Double post.
That mention of the Sheraton reminds me that papers, one of which had the phone number of the Sheraton, were found
under the frig. in the apartment after Ruby had his things moved out.
Of course there is no way to prove that Ruby ever called Bush at the Sheraton.
As for the phone call which he should have made before the assassination?
Isn't it obvious that Bush made that phone call to establish his alibi?
One way to double check his whereabouts would be to determine the time his friend's jet landed at Love Field.
I mean check official records...police generally don't rely upon the word of a person who may be a suspect.
under the frig. in the apartment after Ruby had his things moved out.
Of course there is no way to prove that Ruby ever called Bush at the Sheraton.
As for the phone call which he should have made before the assassination?
Isn't it obvious that Bush made that phone call to establish his alibi?
One way to double check his whereabouts would be to determine the time his friend's jet landed at Love Field.
I mean check official records...police generally don't rely upon the word of a person who may be a suspect.
Chuck wrote:
Isn't it obvious that Bush made that phone call to establish his alibi?
There are probably more ridiculous statements per day posted on this Forum than anywhere else on the internet.
What, GHWB needed an alibi to establish he did not make the final head shot from behind the grassy knoll?
Obviously GHWB had nothing to do with it. But whoever the "big fish" was, you really think he was in DP? It's to laugh!
Isn't it obvious that Bush made that phone call to establish his alibi?
There are probably more ridiculous statements per day posted on this Forum than anywhere else on the internet.
What, GHWB needed an alibi to establish he did not make the final head shot from behind the grassy knoll?
Obviously GHWB had nothing to do with it. But whoever the "big fish" was, you really think he was in DP? It's to laugh!
I used to think that Bush may have made the call to establish a record of where he was at the time of the assassination. But then it dawned on me that his public speaking engagement was all the record he needed. He must have made the call for some other reason. And, Tim, before you say it again, it wasn't out of a legitimate concern to help "catch the killers." We're talking about a spook who would become head of one of America's two most important crime families of the last decade or so of the 20th century and so far all of the 21st.
QUOTE (Chuck Robbins @ Oct 17 2007, 08:39 PM)
That mention of the Sheraton reminds me that papers, one of which had the phone number of the Sheraton, were found
under the frig. in the apartment after Ruby had his things moved out.
Of course there is no way to prove that Ruby ever called Bush at the Sheraton.
As for the phone call which he should have made before the assassination?
Isn't it obvious that Bush made that phone call to establish his alibi?
One way to double check his whereabouts would be to determine the time his friend's jet landed at Love Field.
I mean check official records...police generally don't rely upon the word of a person who may be a suspect.
under the frig. in the apartment after Ruby had his things moved out.
Of course there is no way to prove that Ruby ever called Bush at the Sheraton.
As for the phone call which he should have made before the assassination?
Isn't it obvious that Bush made that phone call to establish his alibi?
One way to double check his whereabouts would be to determine the time his friend's jet landed at Love Field.
I mean check official records...police generally don't rely upon the word of a person who may be a suspect.
I agree, Chuck.
Despite protestations to the contrary, I believe that the photo
from the Curry book LIKELY DOES SHOW BUSH. I think the
speaking engagement was to establish an alibi for the noon
hour. Having people say things is easily arranged. Time frames
are not known for sure. Never explained is why he and Barb
were in Dallas that morning, skipped town during the parade,
and returned afterward. WHY WERE THEY IN DALLAS AT THE
SAME TIME AS NIXON? Did they meet each other there for
some purpose? If the photo was as late as two p.m., that
leave an hour and a half to return from Tyler by air and get
downtown. I believe Nixon and Bush were among the group
behind the assassination, and both were in Dallas on assn
business.
The original negative of the photo may hold the answer,
since it could be enlarged sufficiently to make sure.
Jack
Peter wrote:
It is rather interesting [and chilling!] that the next list of Presidents all had some part in the events or cover-up of Dallas!
Total garbage! (And I can sell you a gun used . . . no, never mind!
It is rather interesting [and chilling!] that the next list of Presidents all had some part in the events or cover-up of Dallas!
Total garbage! (And I can sell you a gun used . . . no, never mind!
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Oct 18 2007, 08:08 AM)
Peter wrote:
It is rather interesting [and chilling!] that the next list of Presidents all had some part in the events or cover-up of Dallas!
Total garbage! (And I can sell you a gun used . . . no, never mind!
It is rather interesting [and chilling!] that the next list of Presidents all had some part in the events or cover-up of Dallas!
Total garbage! (And I can sell you a gun used . . . no, never mind!
You conveniently failed to remark upon the possibility of there being a record available to establish whether or not Bush
got to Dallas at the time his wife gave in her book.
Let's not ask Bush what time he got to town because he can't recall whether he was in Dallas at all that day.
Now that is one heck of a memory lapse, wouldn't you say?
Funny, but you are the only person who made mention of Bush behind a fence with a gun.....now...
that is garbage!
It would be a refreshing change to see you actually ADD something to a topic rather than just giving one of
your standard derogatory responses, which, by the way, seem to be designed to divert/pervert said topic.
One man's garbage is another man's treasure.
The man with a sense of smell is the one who winds up with the treasure.
To the man without...everything is garbage.
Chuck, without a scintilla of evidence that Bush was involved in the assassination (perhaps to further the career of his good friend Lyndon Baines?)-- when Bush got to Dallas is of no relevance whatsoever. None!
Nor of course is there any evidence whatsoever linking Nixon, Ford, Carter or Reagan to the assassination. There is: none, nada, zip evidence!
Now I myself feel that LHO's public stance as a leftist may have only been his "legend" but at least the conventional wisdom is that a Marxist shot the President. I could easily convince the average American that many of the people involved in this Forum are far to the left in politics and they are in a desperate attempt to pin the assassination on a right-winger, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I can understand that. Immediately after the assassination, I was concerned that some right-wing nutcase had shot the President. Similarly, left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.
Nor of course is there any evidence whatsoever linking Nixon, Ford, Carter or Reagan to the assassination. There is: none, nada, zip evidence!
Now I myself feel that LHO's public stance as a leftist may have only been his "legend" but at least the conventional wisdom is that a Marxist shot the President. I could easily convince the average American that many of the people involved in this Forum are far to the left in politics and they are in a desperate attempt to pin the assassination on a right-winger, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I can understand that. Immediately after the assassination, I was concerned that some right-wing nutcase had shot the President. Similarly, left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Oct 18 2007, 10:06 AM)
left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.
I was a left-wing college student in 1963, and accepted without question the story that a left-winger shot JFK for about 20 years. So somehow I find your argument to be utterly baseless.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Oct 18 2007, 11:06 AM)
Chuck, without a scintilla of evidence that Bush was involved in the assassination (perhaps to further the career of his good friend Lyndon Baines?)-- when Bush got to Dallas is of no relevance whatsoever. None!
Nor of course is there any evidence whatsoever linking Nixon, Ford, Carter or Reagan to the assassination. There is: none, nada, zip evidence!
Now I myself feel that LHO's public stance as a leftist may have only been his "legend" but at least the conventional wisdom is that a Marxist shot the President. I could easily convince the average American that many of the people involved in this Forum are far to the left in politics and they are in a desperate attempt to pin the assassination on a right-winger, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I can understand that. Immediately after the assassination, I was concerned that some right-wing nutcase had shot the President. Similarly, left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.
Nor of course is there any evidence whatsoever linking Nixon, Ford, Carter or Reagan to the assassination. There is: none, nada, zip evidence!
Now I myself feel that LHO's public stance as a leftist may have only been his "legend" but at least the conventional wisdom is that a Marxist shot the President. I could easily convince the average American that many of the people involved in this Forum are far to the left in politics and they are in a desperate attempt to pin the assassination on a right-winger, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I can understand that. Immediately after the assassination, I was concerned that some right-wing nutcase had shot the President. Similarly, left-wingers do not want to even concede the possibility that a person who shares their viewpoints have pulled the trigger.
Tim....searching for evidence which might prove the Bushes lied about their whereabouts is not irrelevant or
unreasonable.
Would finding that evidence change your point of view? I doubt it.
I will not bite at your bait to switch the topic to anyone other than Mr. Bush. Nice try.
Manipulation 101 starts a new class this semester. You might want to brush up.
FWIW, I am totally willing to accept that GHWB was in the CIA in 1963, and was somehow involved in the assassination, whether through the CIA, Johnson, or DeMohrenschildt. Wouldn't surprise me at all. What would surprise me is that he was in Dealey Plaza. I mean, why would he be? Even as CIA Director he was not an operations guy. He was what by all reports he's always been, a loyal, friendly rich guy introducing one rich guy to another, smoothing things over and patting harder-working guys on the back. Sure, he'd been a pilot in WW2, but that didn't end so well, and the man hasn't got his hands dirty since.
BTW, the clean cut guy in the photo could have been one of 100,000 clean cut Texans in 1963.
BTW, the clean cut guy in the photo could have been one of 100,000 clean cut Texans in 1963.
To Ron: There is no question that most of the early attacks on the WC came from left-wingers. And just look at the political composition of the members of this Forum.
Now no one, I think, can know for sure who did it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that certain members of the CIA did it, although there is IMO no evidence whatsoever for that proposition. But my point is not so much re the merits of the case as the motivation of many of the conspiracy theorists. I still see that here. There is no question that a lot of opinions posted here denigrate US political traditions and institutions.
Now no one, I think, can know for sure who did it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that certain members of the CIA did it, although there is IMO no evidence whatsoever for that proposition. But my point is not so much re the merits of the case as the motivation of many of the conspiracy theorists. I still see that here. There is no question that a lot of opinions posted here denigrate US political traditions and institutions.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Oct 19 2007, 04:36 AM)
To Ron: There is no question that most of the early attacks on the WC came from left-wingers. And just look at the political composition of the members of this Forum.
Now no one, I think, can know for sure who did it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that certain members of the CIA did it, although there is IMO no evidence whatsoever for that proposition. But my point is not so much re the merits of the case as the motivation of many of the conspiracy theorists. I still see that here. There is no question that a lot of opinions posted here denigrate US political traditions and institutions.
Now no one, I think, can know for sure who did it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that certain members of the CIA did it, although there is IMO no evidence whatsoever for that proposition. But my point is not so much re the merits of the case as the motivation of many of the conspiracy theorists. I still see that here. There is no question that a lot of opinions posted here denigrate US political traditions and institutions.
When those political traditions and institutions are suppressing the truth...continuing to support them is tantamount to treason.
You manage to write alot without really saying anything.
Denial, denial, denial, is the other side of the coin which is lies, lies, lies, both of which are the cornerstones of propaganda.
And all of this has what to do with determining whether or not it was Bush standing on the steps in the photo?
Chuck wrote:
And all of this has what to do with determining whether or not it was Bush standing on the steps in the photo?
The idea that that was GWHB has been demolished by Ed. It is no longer worthy of a single thought or sentence. It is as foolish to keep thinking about that as it is to continue to defend the SBT (not that you or I do that of course).
By the way, be careful of who you accuse of "treason". You will look like those idiots in Dallas who sponsored the ad accusing JFK of treasson.
And all of this has what to do with determining whether or not it was Bush standing on the steps in the photo?
The idea that that was GWHB has been demolished by Ed. It is no longer worthy of a single thought or sentence. It is as foolish to keep thinking about that as it is to continue to defend the SBT (not that you or I do that of course).
By the way, be careful of who you accuse of "treason". You will look like those idiots in Dallas who sponsored the ad accusing JFK of treasson.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.