Was Lansdale in Dealey Plaza?

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Rob Clark said:

Amateurs would say at a glance, this is a perfect match. But if we are being honest here, the hairline is different. As we get older hairlines recede...not procede. The noses are way different...Bush's honker is way more pointy and prominent...the chins don't match unless the picture is fuzzed out.  The proof lies in the William Allen photo series this "Bush" image was extracted from. His set of photos depicts the scene around the TSBD after the assassination. 

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=37&pos=41

This is the original image the figure is pulled from, and searching his entire set H.H. Davis is the match for who this figure is.

 

Look at the two profile photos again, Rob.  We don't need someone else's opinion to accurately assess the visual data here-- just eyes and a visual cortex.

When you account for the slightly differing camera angles, background shadows, and lighting, the man standing at the TSBD is, obviously, the spitting image of GHWB.

Interestingly, there are social psychology experiments demonstrating that many people will fail to accurately perceive things if an "authority figure" tells them that they are looking at something other than what they are actually seeing.

Weak-minded people tend to doubt their own perceptions in those circumstances, while trusting what authority figures and "experts" tell them.

[Ron Bulman]

Just a thought, a question,  What other business man would have been walking past the tramps when they were walked out of the railroad yard about a half hour after the assassination?  Who was hanging around by then, not identified as witnesses?  The men in the pictures in question have never been identified otherwise by anyone else, even suggested so to my knowledge. 

Pretty good pictures of (?) someone who does look like GHWB though I have reservations about his presence being there much less hanging around afterwards..  And, the same with "Lansdale" from the back.  To wink at the hobo's Hunt and Harrelson that everything's ok?

Who else has ever identified them otherwise?  While I still question their ID in the first place.

Too bad we don't have their testimony.  As only they could say, whatever they did, I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes.  

Full screen of course. A true classic hair performance as well.

 

 

[Steve Roe]

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Look at the two profile photos again, Rob.  We don't need someone else's opinion to accurately assess the visual data here-- just eyes and a visual cortex.

When you account for the slightly differing camera angles, background shadows, and lighting, the man standing at the TSBD is, obviously, the spitting image of GHWB.

Interestingly, there are social psychology experiments demonstrating that many people will fail to accurately perceive things if an "authority figure" tells them that they are looking at something other than what they are actually seeing.

Weak-minded people tend to doubt their own perceptions in those circumstances, while trusting what authority figures and "experts" tell them.

That is not GHWB. Period! This is old debunked nonsense. Bush said he was in Tyler and there's proof that he was. If you want to believe it was, then fine. Weak-minded people, huh? 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

That is not GHWB. Period! This is old debunked nonsense. Bush said he was in Tyler and there's proof that he was. If you want to believe it was, then fine. Weak-minded people, huh? 

I don't have an issue with being wrong and it not being Lansdale or GHW Bush, just send over the empirical evidence in both cases and we can assess it under the same scrutiny that we do for everything else on this forum. Don't send over some of Bush's wife's account or some shills say so as gospel. The one thing we know about the JFK assassination is that there has been lies to the public, deception and cover up, some of that has seemed surprisingly improbable on face value and later as been proven to be true. This said it doesn't make everything a conspiracy but, there are plenty of smart people here who still have the ability to think critically, a skill in short supply in 2020. 


 

[Andrew Prutsok]

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

That is not GHWB. Period! This is old debunked nonsense. Bush said he was in Tyler and there's proof that he was. If you want to believe it was, then fine. Weak-minded people, huh? 

And he has the receipts, by calling the FBI and suggestng a mentally challenged Houston Republican Party yard boy was involved in the assassination and his wife writing a letter home to nobody from the beauty parlor.

[Norman T. Field]

Many years ago on this forum, I read a post suggesting that GHWB's presence in Tyler did not preclude his presence in Dallas later in the day owing to the fact that GHWB was an accomplished pilot who could have flown himself to Dallas in plenty of time for the 'big event'.

IMHO, the pictures purportedly of both GHWB and GWB being present in Dallas are genuine. 

[Steve Roe]

Why post evidence? Seems you guys got it all figured out that GHWB was there. Nothing is going to change your mind anyway. 

[W. Niederhut]

12 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Why post evidence? Seems you guys got it all figured out that GHWB was there. Nothing is going to change your mind anyway. 

The evidence, and the arguments rebutting your claims have already been posted.

I'm not going to re-post the same points for people who didn't read, or understand, them the first and second time around.

6 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

That is not GHWB. Period! This is old debunked nonsense. Bush said he was in Tyler and there's proof that he was. If you want to believe it was, then fine. Weak-minded people, huh? 

Go back and re-read the analysis of your above claims that have been posted here and on the recent Fletcher Prouty thread.

It's rude to simply ignore the photographic evidence and detailed analyses that have already been spelled out here.

[Steve Roe]

26 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

The evidence, and the arguments rebutting your claims have already been posted.

I'm not going to re-post the same points for people who didn't read, or understand, them the first and second time around.

Go back and re-read the analysis of your above claims that have been posted here and on the recent Fletcher Prouty thread.

It's rude to simply ignore the photographic evidence and detailed analyses that have already been spelled out here.

I saw the "arguments" and photos. Seen them a hundred times before. That's not GHWB. It is only "your interpretation" and others that it is GHWB, based on a couple of photos. One of them doesn't even look like him. I haven't ignored it, and it's not him. Period. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

I saw the "arguments" and photos. Seen them a hundred times before. That's not GHWB. It is only "your interpretation" and others that it is GHWB, based on a couple of photos. One of them doesn't even look like him. I haven't ignored it, and it's not him. Period. 

 

Well, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

I'm not going to re-post my debunking of the alleged "debunking" here again.  We already debated this at length with Cory Santos-- i.e., "So-and-so said it's not a photo of GHWB, therefore it has been debunked, etc."

Those are arguments "from authority," not from astute observation of the empirical evidence.

And you have offered no explanation for the 11/22/63 GHWB "alibi" phone call about James Parrott or the bogus Barbara Bush letter to her young children in Houston.  Why would she have written a lengthy, detailed letter about flying to Tyler and back to Dallas to young Jeb, Neil, et.al., on the same day she allegedly returned home to Houston from Dallas with Poppy?

As for the profile photo outside of the TSBD, if you don't think it's "Mr. George Bush of the CIA," my advice is to get your eyes checked. 

It's the spitting image of GHWB-- including facial features, hair, left ear, height, weight, habitus, and postural stoop.  Period.

[Cory Santos]

The above “analysis” is why the media, academia, etc.  frown on conspiracy theories.   Reread the analysis.  Basically, if you do not agree with a Harvard trained expert you 1-are weak minded 2- need your eyes checked, etc.  I could share more examples but why?   When someone resorts to name calling to win what should be a professional discussion, well it is not so professional.  Many people here have stated it is not him but apparently are mocked both physically and cognitively.  Well, sometimes the loudest person in the room is the most incorrect because factually that person lacks any basis.  I cannot believe it but I wish Lance was here to have fun.   Nevertheless, I would think that you would know it is ok to disagree with someone without needing to use psychobabble to analyze someone you have never examined.  So, please provide proof he was in front of the TSBD that day.  That fuzzy photo is merely your opinion.  Give us a witness as you want for Tyler.  Or keep the charade going if it makes you feel dandy.  Cheers.  

 

[Paul Brancato]

19 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

The above “analysis” is why the media, academia, etc.  frown on conspiracy theories.   Reread the analysis.  Basically, if you do not agree with a Harvard trained expert you 1-are weak minded 2- need your eyes checked, etc.  I could share more examples but why?   When someone resorts to name calling to win what should be a professional discussion, well it is not so professional.  Many people here have stated it is not him but apparently are mocked both physically and cognitively.  Well, sometimes the loudest person in the room is the most incorrect because factually that person lacks any basis.  I cannot believe it but I wish Lance was here to have fun.   Nevertheless, I would think that you would know it is ok to disagree with someone without needing to use psychobabble to analyze someone you have never examined.  So, please provide proof he was in front of the TSBD that day.  That fuzzy photo is merely your opinion.  Give us a witness as you want for Tyler.  Or keep the charade going if it makes you feel dandy.  Cheers.  

 

That helps make a point I’ve made here. Even if one or both were there, what does that prove? Meanwhile people argue about pics that cannot prove their presences no matter what. There are plenty of other things to examine regarding the Bush family and their possible connection, but we will not do so while we argue this. 

[Cory Santos]

55 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

That helps make a point I’ve made here. Even if one or both were there, what does that prove? Meanwhile people argue about pics that cannot prove their presences no matter what. There are plenty of other things to examine regarding the Bush family and their possible connection, but we will not do so while we argue this. 

Thank you Paul.  

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

The above “analysis” is why the media, academia, etc.  frown on conspiracy theories.   Reread the analysis.  Basically, if you do not agree with a Harvard trained expert you 1-are weak minded 2- need your eyes checked, etc.  I could share more examples but why?   When someone resorts to name calling to win what should be a professional discussion, well it is not so professional.  Many people here have stated it is not him but apparently are mocked both physically and cognitively.  Well, sometimes the loudest person in the room is the most incorrect because factually that person lacks any basis.  I cannot believe it but I wish Lance was here to have fun.   Nevertheless, I would think that you would know it is ok to disagree with someone without needing to use psychobabble to analyze someone you have never examined.  So, please provide proof he was in front of the TSBD that day.  That fuzzy photo is merely your opinion.  Give us a witness as you want for Tyler.  Or keep the charade going if it makes you feel dandy.  Cheers.  

 

Total bunk, Santos.  Reminiscent of Lance Payette's nonsense.

You're not debating this issue honestly or accurately here (or on the Fletcher Prouty thread.)

1)  It's not "name calling" for me to point out that people should look carefully at the data rather than allowing themselves to be influenced by claims of "debunking" by various authority figures.  This is especially true in the case of the JFK assassination, where there has been no dearth of disinformation by various "authority figures" in the media and on-line during the past 57 years.

2)  As I pointed out, social psychology experiments have shown that many people do tend to doubt their own perceptions when told by authority figures that what they are seeing is not what it appears to be.  I'm simply saying, "Forget the alleged 'debunking,' and look at the data."  Conversely, you're saying, "The data is not really evidence.  It's subjective.  Read what So-and-so says about it."

3)  The fact is that you, yourself, are the one engaging in "name calling" here by accusing me of "name calling" for pointing out the common psychological phenomenon of mistrusting our own perceptions.  It's not "psychobabble"-- it's real.    And it's "name calling" for you to dismiss a reference to a psychological phenomenon as "psychobabble."  

4)  You never responded to my specific rebuttals of your arguments and references claiming that GHWB's presence in Dealey Plaza had been "debunked," and that the TSBD photo "is not evidence."  Instead, you disappeared from the threads, only to return with more of your usual bogus, ad hominem arguments.

      

[Cory Santos]

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Total bunk, Santos.  Reminiscent of Lance Payette's nonsense.

You're not debating this issue honestly or accurately here (or on the Fletcher Prouty thread.)

1)  It's not "name calling" for me to point out that people should look carefully at the data rather than allowing themselves to be influenced by claims of "debunking" by various authority figures.  This is especially true in the case of the JFK assassination, where there has been no dearth of disinformation by various "authority figures" in the media and on-line during the past 57 years.

2)  As I pointed out, social psychology experiments have shown that many people do tend to doubt their own perceptions when told by authority figures that what they are seeing is not what it appears to be.  I'm simply saying, "Forget the alleged 'debunking,' and look at the data."  Conversely, you're saying, "The data is not really evidence.  It's subjective.  Read what So-and-so says about it."

3)  The fact is that you, yourself, are the one engaging in "name calling" here by accusing me of "name calling" for pointing out the common psychological phenomenon of mistrusting our own perceptions.  It's not "psychobabble"-- it's real.    And it's "name calling" for you to dismiss a reference to a psychological phenomenon as "psychobabble."  

4)  You never responded to my specific rebuttals of your arguments and references claiming that GHWB's presence in Dealey Plaza had been "debunked," and that the TSBD photo "is not evidence."  Instead, you disappeared from the threads, only to return with more of your usual bogus, ad hominem arguments.

      

Your arguments are not scientific merely because you proclaim them to be.  I have tried to discuss the issue with you but you resort, time and time again, to your “analysis” on anyone that disagrees with you.   When you have proof Waldo was there feel free to answer my questions posed to you.  Until then I yawn, regret my wasted time having to type these responses, and move to more intelligent pursuits.