Wim Dankbaar Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 When information is ORALLY furnished to you, does that mean that the person who give you this information, is physically within talking distance from you? Or can this also mean information by telephone? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 It can mean either one. Orally means spoken, but perhaps a better word with respect to a phone conversation would be verbally, as in a verbal contract, which can be done over the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Ditolla Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I would tend to agree with Ron, Wim - Does this help? "VERBALLY" would pertain to ANYTHING heard by a person, spoken by another person to them, whether IN PERSON or over the telephone. ...while "ORALLY" would refer to the manner of the communication OF the subject... ((I'm not an English Major, and SOME would consider me "functionally illiterate" -since the English language contains tens of hundreds of thousands of words [perhaps running to the millions] and OF which I DO know ONLY around 20% (=250,000) of these words. It's a gift...!)) Still, there remain subtle - extremely subtle - BUT IMPORTANT nuances between the the grammatic/al and correct usage of words - those which may SEEM to mean the same thing - yet are very different. And wherever possible, I personally prefer to LOOK someone in the eyes when speaking to them, since I'm am better able to gauge whether or not they might be using "weasel words" (WW's) - in other words, "tap-dancing" around a subject and not really communicating with one - politicians use these "WW"s all the time and one learns to "listen between the lines..." more to hear what they're NOT saying than what they ARE saying... Jules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Ditolla Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I would tend to agree with Ron, Wim - Does this help? "VERBALLY" would pertain to ANYTHING heard by a person, spoken by another person to them, whether IN PERSON or over the telephone. ...while "ORALLY" would refer to the manner of the communication OF the subject... ((I'm not an English Major, and SOME would consider me "functionally illiterate" -since the English language contains tens of hundreds of thousands of words [perhaps running to the millions] and OF which I DO know ONLY around 20% (=250,000) of these words. It's a gift...!)) Still, there remain subtle - extremely subtle - BUT IMPORTANT nuances between the the grammatic/al and correct usage of words - those which may SEEM to mean the same thing - yet are very different. And wherever possible, I personally prefer to LOOK someone in the eyes when speaking to them, since I'm am better able to gauge whether or not they might be using "weasel words" (WW's) - in other words, "tap-dancing" around a subject and not really communicating with one - politicians use these "WW"s all the time and one learns to "listen between the lines..." more to hear what they're NOT saying than what they ARE saying... Jules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 I am just trying to determine whether Hoover was face to face with George Bush on 23 nobember 1963, when the information was "orally furnished" to them. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 wim, i believe you are on the right track with george bush snr, have a read of a book called 'the bush dynasty,the most powerful and dangerous family in america' , it has excellent information on bush snrs father and his business connections, it does much to clarify their link with the military industrial complex. an excellent read john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted August 30, 2004 Author Share Posted August 30, 2004 Well John, talking about excellent reads or views, you should email me your address and I will send you a 90 minutes DVD, titled "The Bush Connection", "A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy". Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 (edited) Wim, The information was orally furnished to Bush and Edwards "by V.T. Forsyth" of the FBI. My impression from the memo is that Hoover wasn't present. And I would imagine in this case orally means by phone, since Bush was to return home to Houston from Dallas that day, whereas Edwards of the DIA I assume would be elsewhere. That's assuming it's the George Bush of Texas referred to. I'm inclined to believe it was the other George Bush, in which case he and Edwards were probably both in DC and could have met personally with Forsyth. Edited August 31, 2004 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 "That's assuming it's the George Bush of Texas referred to. I'm inclined to believe it was the other George Bush, in which case he and Edwards were probably both in DC and could have met personally with Forsyth." You believ that despite the other Bush's formal denials under oath and his low level position for only 6 months in the CIA? Wim On the day of the Kennedy assassination, FBI records show George Bush as reporting a right-wing member of the Houston Young Republicans for making threatening comments about President Kennedy. According to FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, On November 22, 1963 Mr. GEORGE H.W. BUSH, 5525 Briar, Houston, Texas, telephonically advised that he wanted to relate some hearsay that he had heard in recent weeks, date and source unknown. He advised that one JAMES PARROTT had been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston. PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in politics in the Houston area. According to related FBI documentation, "a check with Secret Service at Houston, Texas revealed that agency had a report that PARROTT stated in 1961 he would kill President Kennedy if he got near him." Here Bush is described as "a reputable businessman." FBI agents were sent to interrogate Parrott's mother, and later James Milton Parrott himself. Parrott had been discharged from the US Air Force for psychiatric reasons in 1959. Parrott had an alibi for the time of the Dallas shootings; he had been in the company of another Republican activist. According to press accounts, Parrott was a member of the right-wing faction of the Houston GOP which was oriented towards the John Birch Society and which opposed Bush's chairmanship. 19 According to the San Francisco Examiner, Bush's press office in August, 1988 first said that Bush had not made any such call, and challenged the authenticity of the FBI documents. Several days later Bush's spokesman said that the candidate "does not recall" placing the call. One day later after he reported Parrott to the FBI, Bush received a highly sensitive, high-level briefing from the Bureau: Date: November 29, 1963 To: Director Bureau of Intelligence and Research Department of State From: John Edgar Hoover, Director Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY NOVEMBER 22, 1963 Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963 advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in US policy, which is not true. Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the US but to all Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba. An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that those individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination. The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W.T. Forsyth of this Bureau. William T. Forsyth, since deceased, was an official of the FBI's Washington headquarters; during the time he was attached to the Bureau's subversive control section, he ran the investigation of Rev. Martin Luther King. Was he also a part of the FBI's harassment of Dr. King? The efforts of journalists to locate Captain Edwards have not been successful. This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride's source observed: "I know [bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA." 20 When pressed for confirmation or denial, Bush's spokesman Stephen Hart commented: "Must be another George Bush." Within a short time the CIA itself would peddle the same damage control line. On July 19, 1988 in the wake of wide public attention to the report published in The Nation, CIA spokeswoman Sharron Basso departed from the normal CIA policy of refusing to confirm or deny reports that any person is or was a CIA employee. CIA spokeswoman Basso told the Associated press that the CIA believed that "the record should be clarified." She said that the FBI document "apparently" referred to a George William Bush who had worked in 1963 on the night shift at CIA headquarters, and that "would have been the appropriate place to have received such an FBI report." According to her account, the George William Bush in question had left the CIA to join the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1964. For the CIA to volunteer the name of one of its former employees to the press was a shocking violation of traditional methods, which are supposedly designed to keep such names a closely guarded secret. This revelation may have constituted a violation of federal law. But no exertions were too great when it came to damage control for George Bush. George William Bush had indeed worked for the CIA, the DIA, and the Alexandria, Virginia Department of Public Welfare before joining the Social Security Administration, in whose Arlington, Virginia office he was employed as a claims representative in 1988. George William Bush told The Nation that while at the CIA he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" who worked with documents and photos and never received interagency briefings. He had never met Forsyth of the FBI or Captain Edwards of the DIA. "So it wasn't me," said George William Bush. 21 Later, George William Bush formalized his denial in a sworn statement to a federal court in Washington, DC. The affidavit acknowledges that while working at CIA headquarters between September 1963 and February 1964, George William Bush was the junior person on a three to four man watch shift which was on duty when Kennedy was shot. But, as George William Bush goes on to say, I have carefully reviewed the FBI memorandum to the Director, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State dated November 29, 1963 which mentions a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency....I do not recognize the contents of the memorandum as information furnished to me orally or otherwise during the time I was at the CIA. In fact, during my time at the CIA. I did not receive any oral communications from any government agency of any nature whatsoever. I did not receive any information relating to the Kennedy assassination during my time at the CIA from the FBI. Based on the above, it is my conclusion that I am not the Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency referred to in the memorandum. 22 So we are left with the strong suspicion that the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" referred to by the FBI is our own George Herbert Walker Bush, who, in addition to his possible contact with Lee Harvey Oswald's controller, may thus also join the ranks of the Kennedy assassination cover-up. It makes perfect sense for George Bush to be called in on a matter involving the Cuban community in Miami, since that is a place where George has traditionally had a constituency. George inherited it from his father, Prescott Bush of Jupiter Island, and later passed it on to his own son, Jeb. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the Table of Contents Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES 1- Joseph McBride, "'George Bush,' CIA Operative," The Nation, July 16, 1988. 2- Georgie Anne Geyer, Guerilla Prince (Boston: Little, Brown, 1991). 3- Felix Rogriquez, Shadow Warrior (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1989). 4- On Pluto, see the East German study by Guenter Schumacher, Operation Pluto (Berlin, Deutscher Militaerverlag, 1964). 5- E. Howard Hunt, Give Us This Day (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1973), p. 214. 6- Secret Agenda. 7- For Operation Zapata, see Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-63 (New York: Edward Burlingame Books, 1991), p. 89. 8- For the names of the ships at the Bay of Pigs, see Quintin Pino Machado, La Batalla de Giron (La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 1983), pp. 79-80. This source quotes one ship as the Barbara J." See also Schumacher, Operation Pluto, pp. 98-99. See also Peter Wyden, Bay of Pigs, The Untold Story (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1979), which also has the Barbara J. According to Quintin Pino macahdo, the Houston had been given the new name of Aguja (Swordfish) and the Barbara that of Barracuda for the purposes of this operation. 9- Howard Hunt, Give Us This Day, pp. 13-14. 10- Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy (New York: Bantam, 1966), p. 329. 11- Sorenson, Kennedy, p. 723. 12- Arthur M. Schlesinger, A Thousand Days (Boston, 1965), p. 339. 13- See Warren Hinckle and William W. Turner, The Fish is Red (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 112 ff. 14- Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States (Washington: US Goverment Printing Office, 1975), pp. 251-267. 15- Jim Marrs, "Widow disputes suicide," Fort Worth Evening Star-Telegram, May 11, 1978 16- A photocopy of George de Mohrenschildt's personal address book is preserved at the Assassination Archives and Research Center, Washington, DC. The Bush entry is also cited in Mark Lane, Plausible Denial (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991), p. 332. 17- For de Mohrenschildt, see Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, Edward Jay Epstein, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (London: Hutchinson, 1978); C. Robert Blakey and Richard N. Billings, The Plot to Kill the President (New York: Times Books, 1981); and Robert Sam Anson, "They've Killed The President!" (New York: Bantam, 1975). 18- Report of the Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (New York: Bantam, 1964), p. 262. 19- Miguel Acoca, "FBI: 'Bush' called about JFK killing," San Francisco Examiner, August 25, 1988. 20- Joseph McBride, "'George Bush,' CIA Operative," The Nation, July 16/23, 1988, p. 42 21- Joseph McBride, "Where Was George?", The Nation, August 13/20, 1988, p. 117. 22- United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action 88-2600 GHR, Archives and Research Center v. Central Intelligence Agency, Affidavit of George William Bush, September 21, 1988. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 "That's assuming it's the George Bush of Texas referred to. I'm inclined to believe it was the other George Bush, in which case he and Edwards were probably both in DC and could have met personally with Forsyth."You believ that despite the other Bush's formal denials under oath and his low level position for only 6 months in the CIA? Both George Bushes have denied being George Bush, so it's a matter of which one is lying. George H.W. Bush is a known xxxx, but that doesn't mean he's lying in this case. The trouble with a xxxx is that you can't believe he says. The other George Bush worked the night shift at CIA and thus could have received the Forsyth briefing despite his "low level position." As to why he would deny it, his specialty was maps and coastlines, so it's conceivable that there was a plan to invade Cuba soon after the assassination, a plan in which he was involved, and which got shelved like the whole blame-Castro plan as a result of the Oswald screw-up. So naturally he wouldn't want to go into that. But who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Logic and evidence command that this Bush is indeed George H.W. Bush. There are other sources showing and saying that Bush was high up in the CIA from at least the early sixties. In addition, his contacts and associates at that time are overwhelming circumstancial evidence to that too. Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles were friends on a firstname basis and there is much more to tell on his connections. A guy that works only 6 months for the CIA in a low rank, is not going to be briefed along with the FBI director, exactly as he says in a sworn affidavit. Bush was never questioned under oath. You may keep believing that George William Bush was lying and shrug it off with "who knows?", but I think you will have a hard sell to the rest of the world. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 One thing I have trouble with, if George H.W. Bush was CIA in 1963 (which I have no reason to doubt), is that he was working undercover, his oil company being a front, and he was running for Congress the following year. I question whether Hoover would knowingly identify a CIA undercover agent by name in a memo, even to another (rival) intelligence agency. It's possible, but seems inappropriate to this outsider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted August 31, 2004 Author Share Posted August 31, 2004 Well, I believe the document was declassified by accident. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eugene B. Connolly Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 (edited) English 'orally' from late Latin 'oralis' from Latin 'or-' the stem of 'os' (mouth). Source also of English 'orifice','oscillate' and 'usher'. Encarta World English Dictionary. Orally therefore means that which is emitted by means of the 'mouth' - into a microphone,telephone, megaphone, tin cans with strings or into the ether. EBC "Confucius say he who talk through hat must have eyes in back of head." Edited November 18, 2004 by Eugene B. Connolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judyth Baker Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 English 'orally' from late Latin 'oralis' from Latin 'or-' the stem of 'os' (mouth). Source also of English 'orifice','oscillate' and 'usher'. Encarta World English Dictionary. Orally therefore means that which is emitted by means of the 'mouth' - into a microphone,telephone, megaphone, tin cans with strings or into the ether. EBC Yes, this is correct. An oral transmission is through the medium of the mouth emitting sound via air or another substance that can be received by ear, such as an amplifying wire, microphone, telephone, but the recipient must be alive-- an ear present-- for oral communication between two persons...I'm a PhD (ABD) in English with a number of grad hours in linguistics.... glad to see this final definition emerge... didn't read this before now, or would have responded before now....==j== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now