B. A. Copeland

Be careful where you tread Miss. B. I smell something fishy whenever there is "tabloid" news in the media before our eyes.

Very interesting topic. I was wondering when anyone would catch onto Obama's possible CIA ties. I would lean towards the view that he indeed either an asset/operative. a creation of the financial elite for the most part. It seems to me that if it is indeed true, he disgusts me, unworthy of the presidency and simply put into to place to "calm the peasants". I offer a couple of reference links in defense of such a view. 1) http://www.colony14.net/ 2) http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5353 3) http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm (more on ops of the CIA/G8/G20, etc, this is an article I think many should read and/or consider strongly in today's world)

I cannot believe it is actually a big deal to have a proper examination of the body of JFK, to develop xrays, forensic evidence that is unquestionable in its authenticity, etc etc etc etc. I think when it comes to the Exhu. of JFK's body in todays world, most people would understand clearly why it should be done. The moment he was killed nothing went "right" or proper. It was not designed to be as such. I don't know how much of a chance we'd have today with an examination of his body being "proper" but it is well worth it. With today's technology we could have some very, very good documentation/ photos, xrays, etc for record keeping and clarification.

For God's sake, let the man rest in peace. I just love tired old comments such as this....it truly shows a lacking of some sort as to the utmost importance of an event such as the exhumation of JFK. He has never "rested in peace" and he will not, nor his brother, until justice has been served. Justice has not been served. Surely the CIA will be watching severely the exhumation IF it is allowed to take place anyway (maybe after GHWB's death lol...)

Jim, I wonder what Dulles meant to infer in his private joke, considering his presence in Dallas was public knowledge in Texas at the time he was there? I means that those "conspiracy theorists" would have rightly connected some dots lol....

I do not believe Oswald even fired a weapon on 11/22/63 lol, that personally, is not difficult to see or believe.

I don't think it is inconceivable for more than 3 shots to have been fired. I frankly find 3 to be quite low for the terrible events of that day, given bullet marks, the injuries and witness testimony. It definitely seems like more than 3 or even 4. I also read in quite a few sources that silencers/suppressors may have been used which could lend some weight to more than 3 shots being fired, although not necessarily prove it. I personally would not dismiss someone simply because they make a claim of more than 3 shots. Numbering shots and not providing some kind of evidence would be odd. I wouldn't dare make a conclusive claim as to the exact number of shots fired without powerful evidence. However, when I LOOSELY look at the scenario (and please, feel free to correct me, as always) it seems to me that we have at least: 2x Shots on Connally (perhaps 3x?) 3x Shots on Kennedy (perhaps 4x if you count the "2 shot back to back" succession on the fatal head wound) 1x Shots on Windshield (possible extra 1x shot for the 'dent' in Windshield) 1x Shot on Curb (Tague) *1x Shot on Grass (could be related to any of the above shots?) *1x Shot on Highway Sign *(haven't studied this, but ran across it a few times in my life) So unless I am severely lacking in any research (which, I admit, could very well be the case lol, as there are much more qualified individuals here than myself to cross check me) saying more than even 5 shots would not permit me to call someone crazy or out of their minds lol.

Well I suppose when I say "Bush's Private Intel. Network" I do not mean to imply he is head of it all, again, Bush is a stooge, but I do mean to imply the man could be considerably called "Mr. CIA" lol. I believe he was most likely instrumental in such a move should it had ever occurred. Also, Casey was (if anything) a partner with Prescott Bush (National Strategy Information Center), possibly even a servant so to speak. I would also assume that Casey was chosen to head the CIA by the very eastern establishment that the Bush Family serves. You must also remember (connecting to one of Coogans statements) that Prescott actually tapped Lovett for membership in Skull & Bones, and Lovett would go on to help create the CIA. Those are very interesting points (the Nixon quotes, which i don't think even Baker had in his book, buts its been a while) Mr. Morrow, why can GHWB not remember a thing about the day in question lol? He offered a no comment on the Hoover memo, he is then nervous and apparently scared of transcripts regarding the "bay of pigs thing", MAJOR players in Irangate can be linked back to the bay of pigs/JFK hit. My gosh, the dots are there and are just about connected. Let us also not forget that Hunt worked at Union Bank. There is no doubt that he knew Prescott, none at all.

That is the problem isn't it lol? Everyone concentrates on the 70's afterwards. We're not here to discuss whether or not he was involved with Iran-gate or anything from the 70's onward. We're here to talk about the possibility of his involvement with the JFK Hit. I don't mean to seem sarcastic but it is to emphasize why we're speaking on GHWB pre 70's. I believe one would have every sane reason to believe the affirmative. Based on Bushes' connections, personal history, as well as his unbelievably quick rise to power after the murder. Many do not realize how powerful a stooge Bush is and I consider it odd when people attempt to steer many from that direction. I believe or am the opinion that he was instrumental when Carter was ousting older CIA operatives during the Turner 'cleanup'. I believe it was about then that Bush's private intelligence network was firmly established and has existed ever since. If you want real news on Bush and his exploits lol, click on the link of my signature, take a break for news...

A smear is a deliberate distortion of what someone says or writes. Everything that Seamus used was sourced properly to the video.ANd it was usually tieme coded so you can cross check it. I don't know what the reference to critiquing Hankey before he got to say means. Hankey's video had been out since about 2004-05. Coogan's essay appeared this year. FIve years is a long time to talk before anyone critiques you. It is unfortunate that no one did what Seamus did before. The fact thatno one did tells us a lot about quality control in the so-called JFK research community. As for not caring about Bush's alleged role, well there's Baker. He's about as silly as Hankey, except in book form. Perhaps smear was a bad choice of words, the critique seems to me to have a rather harsh implication that Hankey is some foolish person out to distort or mislead others. In all honesty, I am not trying solely to protect the guy but figured he was simply an amateur historian who was/is on fire for learning american politics or I should say, the dark side of it and of course, will run into error. IF that is the case, I find it difficult to believe. I do respect you as a researcher Jim but I would have to lean further towards the view that GHWB was significantly involved in the JFK hit and I do appreciate your input. Len I think you seem to miss or overlook the "obvious" points occasionally. So yes, Hitler, Stalin, Allies, enemies...alright? My point is, the GHWB was cut on some alternative news websites and secondly, if Osama and Bush go back that far then it has sinister implications within the 9/11 context and the subject of nation destabilization. That was a very minor mistake on making Edwards a Director and was irrelevant to my point. I believe your point is not so concrete when you say: That is not necessarily true simply because I can use that same logic to say that perhaps because he is high level he could be possibly protected from scrutiny, that could well explain why no one knows much about him, no one knows as far as I am aware. Somewhat in the same way generally no one can name 1-3 of the JFK assassins or gunmen. I am not saying there is concrete, hardcore evidence that Bush was a supervisor. What I AM saying is that if anyone believed such a view based on his personal life and family's connections, it would not be implausible. Well said, B.A. As you say, some things seem implausible simply because they are not known or secret or as yet undiscovered. I like you analogy of Bush participation to naming the JFK gunmen. We cannot name them because they are unknown. Bush's participation in the CIA or the JFK murder is also unknown, so we cannot say just how he was involved. Jack I appreciate it Mr. White.

A smear is a deliberate distortion of what someone says or writes. Everything that Seamus used was sourced properly to the video.ANd it was usually tieme coded so you can cross check it. I don't know what the reference to critiquing Hankey before he got to say means. Hankey's video had been out since about 2004-05. Coogan's essay appeared this year. FIve years is a long time to talk before anyone critiques you. It is unfortunate that no one did what Seamus did before. The fact thatno one did tells us a lot about quality control in the so-called JFK research community. As for not caring about Bush's alleged role, well there's Baker. He's about as silly as Hankey, except in book form. Perhaps smear was a bad choice of words, the critique seems to me to have a rather harsh implication that Hankey is some foolish person out to distort or mislead others. In all honesty, I am not trying solely to protect the guy but figured he was simply an amateur historian who was/is on fire for learning american politics or I should say, the dark side of it and of course, will run into error. IF that is the case, I find it difficult to believe. I do respect you as a researcher Jim but I would have to lean further towards the view that GHWB was significantly involved in the JFK hit and I do appreciate your input. Len I think you seem to miss or overlook the "obvious" points occasionally. So yes, Hitler, Stalin, Allies, enemies...alright? My point is, the GHWB was cut on some alternative news websites and secondly, if Osama and Bush go back that far then it has sinister implications within the 9/11 context and the subject of nation destabilization. That was a very minor mistake on making Edwards a Director and was irrelevant to my point. I believe your point is not so concrete when you say: That is not necessarily true simply because I can use that same logic to say that perhaps because he is high level he could be possibly protected from scrutiny, that could well explain why no one knows much about him, no one knows as far as I am aware. Somewhat in the same way generally no one can name 1-3 of the JFK assassins or gunmen. I am not saying there is concrete, hardcore evidence that Bush was a supervisor. What I AM saying is that if anyone believed such a view based on his personal life and family's connections, it would not be implausible.

Thanks Mr White. I find it truly unfortunate that Coogan is allowed to smear Hankey before many would get to listen to what Hankey has to say. Hankey is NOT the "end all, be all" on the Hoover Memo or JFK Assassination, but he seems to be a "bothersome mosquito" on the question of GHWB's role, since sadly, not many seem to care about that, at least in recent years. Sure, Hankey's videos may have errors here or there, but I got the point clearly of his nicely done video (at least for an amateur researcher or historian, as he has called himself). Hankey basically raises some very, very good questions and does well at connecting some dots. In the JFK Jr. Video he did the very same and while I wouldn't say it is a perfect documentary, it is excellent in giving us a picture or at least a glimpse of an event that is clearly not fully understood. There are many questions and sinister possibilities regarding the JFK Jr crash and I have not seem satisfactory answers or to them or observations of them. Ultimately, if I were a student of history, specifically the JFK 1 & 2 deaths, is it foolish to have Hankey's videos as reference material? Is there ANYTHING of value in his videos that could place me on the "avenue of truth" so to speak? Why absolutely. Wait a minute lol...you mean to tell me that a memo comes out titled "the assassination of president john f kennedy" a day or so after the event, it mentions cuban exiles, it mentions anit-castro cubans reaction to Kennedy's death and it mentions a DIA director and CIA supervisor and it isn't in any way possibly related to the JFK hit? I am honestly not sure about that. No sarcasm intended, but I simply would make an attempt as even an honest investigator to try and connect some dots. Who was the GB in the memo? If it was GHWB, do we have sufficient reason to believe that? Yes we do. Also, yes. phoning in an odd call (given the context of GHWB's personal history and acquaintances) after the fact. Given the context with his CIA surroundings, it is simply quite significant that he would do that, plus the fact that he can never remember what he was up top that day when we have it documented. We do not need Colby to mentioned GHWB was involved in Irangate. We would have had tons of evidence of that even if Colby never existed. Allow me to clarify what I meant by "major player" By that I mean, taken into context (context is a definite key) that I believe he was groomed by the ruling establishment. We do know that the atom bomb was discussed at the grove, Bush is an attendee at the grove. For how long has he been? I don't know. Was he there when the bomb was being discussed? I do not know (too young). Did he have anything to do with the a-bomb? I do not know. Perhaps his father did as part of the banking establishment. (Remember the bit about Union bank being seized as being Nazi asset) I also would not rule out the possibility of the Bushes being in on the Holocaust via Prescott and his connections to the banking establishment that backed Hitler (another one, groomed by the ruling class) and allowed the German military to even have its 'fun' by supplying fuel and rubber among other things. As far as the cold war. are you kidding me? The cold war was a controlled effort (I believe) to destabilize Europe after the "winners" destroyed most of it in WW2. A sort of "Psyop" if you will. No doubt Prescott may have been involved to some degree. He may not have been advising Truman but he sure as hell was in Eisenhower's political life. Who steps in to "end" the cold war later on? Why none other than Poppy Bush lol....he was exactly where his handlers wanted him to be. We also have to wonder why the hell Khomeni was in Paris before he went to Iran lol...as they say "all according to plan" Bush has done a "damned excellent job" at keeping the ruling class on time and on target.

Do you have a citation for this claim? "possible fact" is an oxymoron I'm not sure how it could be an oxymoron. A "fact" is something which known to be true, if something is "possible" it might be true. Just about anything is true, the term you should have used is "possibility". Not it's not an either or as Jim pointed out he almost certainlly was involved in things like Iran-Contra etc but the evidence for him being involved in a lot of the other things he is accused of is quite slim I do have a citation w/video actually. Go to the following messageboard and listen: The video link isn't working. So we have some guy claiming Benazir widower saying she suspected that Bush was using OBL to destabalize her government. The claim makes like sense he was not a major player in 1989. I don't think you understand my valid and logical syllogism: Either GHWB was involved in the above mentioned events to a significant degree or he was not. As a human being who does not know with a high degree of certainty. Being human and counting on the building of evidence is the key to what I am saying. My god, you cannot see the significance of the statement concerning Bush and Bin Laden? Let me clarify it: Bush and OBL go way back and yet, to the point of being involved with the destabilization of another govt. and yet he's the one who "plans" the 9/11 attacks lol? Right. I hope you did not mean Bush was not a major player in '89, are you kidding me? He has been a major player since his skull and bones days, and especially since his major participation in the murder of JFK. With all due respect I do not believe you generally connect some major dots.

Do you have a citation for this claim? "possible fact" is an oxymoron I'm not sure how it could be an oxymoron. From my fallible observation, it is definitely a possible fact that I simply cannot see clearly. Its a matter of perspective. Even if it was an oxymoron, could you not understand what I was saying? Either there is more than meets the eye concerning GHWB and his involvement with so many significant atrocities throughout the past 5 decades or so, or there is not. I lean towards the possibility that he may indeed have. Given that I do not have all the conclusive information to behold a concrete conclusion, it is either a or b. From my view and lack of knowledge it is either a or b as possible facts, not both. I do have a citation w/video actually. Go to the following messageboard and listen: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3737&start=45 If you'll notice, many of the fake alternative news sites (or at least a couple) completely 'slashes' the 9/11 bit/implication from the video.....interesting.

Wow lol, CTKA sure as hell does not seem to like Hankey or Baker eh? Or perhaps anyone who seems to believe Bush is much more than we believe he is/was. If you honestly believe that Bush is not one of the "godfathers" of the private intelligence network scene, then you are sorely mistaken. It also seems to me that Coogan as well as your critiques seem to have quite a few problems, or at least in assumption. If I were to take a simple look at the matter Jim, please tell me for the love of God why the CIA would name their own bldg. after a man who, simply served 1 precious little year with them in 76...? Why? Wouldn't common sense tell us, ESPECIALLY those of us who have some decent knowledge of "the things in the dark" in american politics, that perhaps Bush has had such gifts given to him because of "outstanding service" if anything at all? There is nothing truly "outstanding" with him being the Director in 76, so what else could it be? Bush is MUCH more than what you believe he is and frankly, I'd like to ask you, what do YOU think of GHWB as far as his CIA history, as well as his possible JFK assassination involvement? If ANYTHING, the Hoover Memo does connect SOME dots. If it was not the GB it names in the memo, then which GB was it? Is it crazy..or crackpot-ish to believe that it could very and quite possibly refer to a man who has literally....literally been surrounded by the CIA (in a sense) since he was quite young...? I don't care what anyone knows, the Parrot phone call was, at best VERY weird...it is simply strange. I suppose you would believe Benazir Bhutto was a crackpot for assuming that GHWB and Bin Laden were working together to overthrow her country too eh...? Hankey and Baker, at best, are simply trying, to the best of their ability it would seem, to tell the public that there is much more to GHWB than meets the eye. The Hoover Memo, as mentioned by Hankey, should be studied much more in detail. Hankey has mentioned this and has basically built his case on that fact. If Hoover was not eastern establishment, and therefore not truly "in the fold" as the power players themselves are, could it be possible that the memo was a way of naming a couple of names? It is an interesting theory and doesn't seem to be "out of this world" as you and Coogan would have people believe. In any event, let us be certain: GHWB is NOT an innocent player in the history of american politics and I personally believe and definitely lean more towards the possible fact that he was deeply involved with the JFK hit, 9/11, the cause of the vietnam war, and watergate among other things (Irangate? Most of the same players from the JFK hit, so GHWB is all over that as well). If it can be believed that he was connected to the cubans/CIA in the JFK hit, then watergate is a non-issue. He and his family always has been, and probably always will be, serviants to the banking establishment and if you want to argue that point, I am more than willing. The same players (watergate and JFK) (virtually) were involved in both events to a great degree.

Why would they want to dispose of those materials? I've often tried to wonder about that....

Hey there Gene, actually I've finished reading Russ Baker's book about the Bush Family and in the book he speaks about Dulles' visit/s to LBJ (or their friendship, rather) and even has an image of the two together at LBJ's Ranch.

I remember in Hankey's Video he made the comment that "certainly Dulles is the one who ties all of these people together" To me? It is an honest no-brainer that Dulles was involved in the hit and to a very large degree to possibly one of the main planners no doubt. I cannot say I've dug up tons of research or evidence but when you look at the high level players, it is not far fetched to go with such a view. Hell I bet if anyone created a JFK Assassination chart with Dulles in the middle, you could connect every player to him somehow.

Likewise Mr. Simkin. Thanks Mr Kelly for even starting a topic such as this.

There seems to be evidence that strongly suggests Sirhan was hypnotized. It cannot be thrown out of court. If he was hypno. then by whom and why?, when even? Sirhan was practically dragged around to certain spots during the days and weeks leading up to the assassination, and a smoking gun of that fact is that someone registered their name at a shooting range for Sirhan. Even these few facts should prompt any honest investigator to consider a possibly sinister conclusion, especially given the context of his brother's murder, not to mention the plethora of incidents of the night in question. (Enyart phots, Special Unit Senator's CIA connection, etc). It seems to me that we when one even glances over such evidence, he/she would be within the realms of reason to conclude that a conspiracy more likely took place than not.

It doesnt make it seem like anything occurred "on its own" when he felt strongly that he was lead, when the evidence and/or testimony from witnesses mention other conspirators and when Sirhan felt that he was drugged. The stack of evidence in Sirhan's favor only begins to stack, did you also know that someone else signed some papers for Sirhan at a shooting range some days before the RFK hit? Sirhan never had a motive. Grant Cooper (I believe and according to the late Larry Teeter) created the fairytale we all know about Israel and fighter planes. One cannot possibly, in this world or the next, consider Sirhan as guilty when honestly looking at the evidence. The RFK assassination was a plot hatched by the very same complex intelligence services apparatus that murdered his brother (and King for that matter). This is not far fetched and only then when we realize that can we move further into "truthland".

I am not a researcher of american political history nor am I any kind of expert but Russ your book is pretty incredible and fortified with valuable information. My ONLY gripe (thus far) is that you seem to have overlooked just how well E. Howard Hunt may have known the Bushes, going as far back as working for Averell Harriman and thus, would most likely have known Prescott Bush. However, that point aside, great, great read, well for a mostly uninformed reader anyway lol.

Hello Mr Plumlee. I was wondering, did you know, or ever come across a CIA operative named Dois Gene "Chip" Tatum during the 80's?

I think, when one looks at this from a certain angle (conspiratorial, should evidence lend its weight) then one finds it very extraordinary that Paulson would be (or could be, I should say) involved with Watergate, alongside possible other conspirators (Bush Sr, Dean, etc) and yet....and yet, he is brought in at a most CRUCIAL time in 2008 to carry along this bailout for Wall St. One simply concludes that Paulson is/was working for very powerful interests then, and of course, all the way up until his 2008 "actions" if you will. One then obtains a good sense of how powerful forces in american politics works over the decades, by having specially placed and trusted individuals to do what they are supposed to and ultimately, Paulson's case seems worthy of inquiry.

Indeed David lol. I'm just so shocked many fall for it being Sturgis. I figured it was obvious that it is not Sturgis.