Jump to content
The Education Forum
W. Niederhut

Was Dubya in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Denis Morissette said:

I doubt we will ever know for sure. I’ll ask Bush when I have dinner with him.

    Well, I doubt that his memory concerning his whereabouts on 11/22/63 has improved in his senescence.  In fact, even in his younger years, he didn't recall meeting with J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63, did he? 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 12:21 AM, Ron Bulman said:

Was this picture of GHWB available anywhere in print in the days before the internet?  Before photoshop came about?  No one recognized him before the 88 or 92 presidential runs or the MSM just kept it repressed?  

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear here.  I was referring to the picture of "Bush" in Dealy Plaza, not the Kiwanis picture, though thanks for the background info on it.  Just curious when the DP picture first surfaced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 10:57 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Denis,

       The reason that I asked about the source of your bizarre collage photo (above) is that it looks like something that was poorly photo-shopped to create a false impression that the young man in the original Dal-Tex photo was NOT George W. Bush.

       My interest is in an honest, open inquiry, based on valid evidence.

       I have no interest in bad information.  Lord knows, there is far too much of that in the modern world.

     

The footage of Dubya was taken from film that was thrown out at a network.  I believe it was Cooper.  He grabbed all the film and pieced them together.  It's possible that someone saw this boy, Dubya, and they blackened out his chin.  Dubya had a stronger chin.  This could be done at the time.  And I'm guessing that the CIA looked at every bit of that film.

Kathy C

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

        One thing that I have learned this week is that a lot of people, (including Jefferson Morley on a 2013 JFK Facts thread I reviewed) seem very uncomfortable about the subject of George H.W. Bush's possible involvement in the plot to assassinate JFK.

       Not saying that I know what happened, by any stretch, (!) but the research community seems somewhat polarized about this awkward subject.

       That same awkwardness seems to surround the subject of the Bush family's close relationship with John Hinckley's family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

        One thing that I have learned this week is that a lot of people, (including Jefferson Morley on a 2013 JFK Facts thread I reviewed) seem very uncomfortable about the subject of George H.W. Bush's possible involvement in the plot to assassinate JFK.

       Not saying that I know what happened, by any stretch, (!) but the research community seems somewhat polarized about this awkward subject.

       That same awkwardness seems to surround the subject of the Bush family's close relationship with John Hinckley's family.

This is true. I dared to mention it a couple years ago on ROKC and got my head bitten off. It's verboten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 11:06 PM, Denis Morissette said:

Jim Braden was brought to the Sheriff's Office and he would have told the police the following as per the link below: "Brading told the police he was in Dallas on oil business". 

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm

I read that Braden was questioned in the Dal-Tex building as to what he was doing there.  He said he was trying to find a phone to call his mother to tell her that Kennedy was shot before she heard it on the TV.

Kathy C

Edited by Kathleen Collins
Forgot to sign my name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As I said above, GW was there! 1) Figure it out, chronologically it fits like a glove! That's what he was getting into at the time.  2) It is by far the best reason yet for why he would be there!

I can lead you guys to water, but I can't guarantee you'll drink!

 

Thanks for sharing, Mr. Gallaway.

We have been doubly blessed by the keen intellect and obvious wit of both of your informative posts on this thread.

And, after all, what subject could, conceivably, be more hilarious than the possible presence of two future Republican presidents at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? 😬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, W.  I think you written some thoughtful posts.

One thing that I have learned this week is that a lot of people, (including Jefferson Morley on a 2013 JFK Facts thread I reviewed) seem very uncomfortable about the subject of George H.W. Bush's possible involvement in the plot to assassinate JFK.       Not saying that I know what happened, by any stretch, (!) but the research community seems somewhat polarized about this awkward subject.

You might read what I said earlier about George Herbert Walker Bush.

I think you're misreading this. There are a lot of people here that suspect some possible involvement with GWHB. There's no taboo discomfort or "awkwardness" in discussion about this, and has been discussed many times. There are just some people who might disagree with you. If you feel awkward at their disagreement, that's on you.

And, after all, what subject could, conceivably, be more hilarious than the possible presence of two future Republican presidents at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? 😬         

But this wasn't the title of your topic, (dubya) nor what I responded to. But I did try to assist with you with close up comparative pictures of Bush 41, (GWHB) and the man allegedly to be Bush at Dealey Plaza, which I, at least thought on close scrutiny isn't, but I can repost if you like.  I find much less evidence with his son. But if you think the 17 year old son is a person of interest, have at it, we'll see where it goes.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nation ran my two revelatory 1988 articles

on Poppy Bush's early CIA connections but then refused to run my well-documented article

on his involvement with James Parrott and his far-right extremist allies in Houston and Dallas. All that was in the run-up

to the election. Victor Navasky did not give me any

reason for not running the third article other than to

tell me to avoid writing about the JFK assassination

because it is a "quagmire." The Nation has a long

and sorry history of covering up on that subject; my Bush

articles were anomalies. In my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE,

which has 35 pages on Bush, I go into what I learned

about him and Parrott and about The Nation itself.

Edited by Joseph McBride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

The Nation ran my two revelatory 1988 articles

on Poppy Bush's early CIA connections but then refused to run my well-documented article

on his involvement with James Parrott and his far-right extremist allies in Houston and Dallas. All that was in the run-up

to the election. Victor Navasky did not give me any

reason for not running the third article other than to

tell me to avoid writing about the JFK assassination

because it is a "quagmire." The Nation has a long

and sorry history of covering up on that subject; my Bush

articles were anomalies. In my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE,

which has 35 pages on Bush, I go into what I learned

about him and Parrott and about The Nation itself.

 

Thanks for sharing.  I intend to read your book.

U.S. media censorship of Bush family history is a curious subject.

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

Thanks for sharing.  I intend to read your book.

U.S. media censorship of Bush family history is a curious subject.

It is astounding, though indicative of the depth of our state of denial,

that the family that had the most impact on American

politics in the last decades (other than perhaps the Kennedys)

still has received so little serious historical research and scholarship.

Most of the books about the Bushes are puff pieces and/or coverup jobs. If you go back beyond Prescott Bush to the banking and other

financier ancestors, it's a family that's been entwined in our history

for more than a hundred years. And "Bar" was even a descendant

of President Franklin Pierce.

Edited by Joseph McBride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I first saw the distant image in the photo of the alleged Bush at Dealey Plaza, I thought there was a good likeness to what I had imagined Bush would look like as a 39 year old man.
 
Later on I read a piece I suppose from a "body language expert" (which has since ballooned into a full time lucrative  occupation!) noting  the similarities in the way both men stood with their hands in their pocket in a sort of cocked position. Man, I was pretty impressed at the time!  Now look at these comparative photos.

 

 

1. GHWB has a prominent chin.This man has no chin. Bush nose more pointed. Brow line of man swooping down, Bush's arching up.

2. Bush was 39 at this time, this man looks to be in his late 20's early 30's. Bush would dress in  more expensive suits. I scoured over a lot of Bush photos over his life. I didn't see one photo of Bush in a checkered jacket. This man appears to be somewhat anguished.

3.In Bush's picture here, he's  actually shaking hands with President Eisenhower, I would estimate around 1958, look at what happened to Bush's hairline in the next 5 years.

But even stronger evidence is in this earlier photo.

 

GW was born in 1946, would you estimate he is what? 8,  in this picture? That would be 1954?-, look at Daddy's hairline. In the next 8-9 years how did he reshape and turn around  the receding hairline?

                                                                                                       ************

When looking for an old photo of GW cheer leading I came upon another celebrity cheerleader photo that I was impressed with and posted and hinted her initials.                                       

James PM'd me and told me he pulled the cheerleader photo I posted. He seemed to think that I dredged up an old photo of another forum member. I told him I would never do that. Anyway, the athletic cheerleader photo was of MSM, Katie Couric.

 

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your physical comparison points here Kirk and I can't disagree too much.

But there are still enough similarities to at least pause and study them.

And Bush's ridiculous comment about not knowing where he was when he heard of JFK's shooting created just enough suspicion in curious people's minds ( as it should ) to not dismiss any Bush 11/22/1963 location theory out of hand. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree Joe, that it's hard to establish 100% certainty with photos like these, but I do think 98 and 99. 

The pattern of evidence against Bush is so spotted ( you notice I didn't say spotty) over a wide range of connections, people, and incidents. They're somewhat well contained, but pretty oily spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...