Was Lansdale in Dealey Plaza?

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours 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. 

Paul,

    Yes and no.  We already know that GHWB was an under cover CIA agent/asset in 1963 who was important enough to represent the CIA in a personal briefing on the FBI's investigation of the JFK assassination by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63.  And we know that he was in Dallas on 11/22/63.

    Does it matter whether he was standing in Dealey Plaza when JFK was murdered?  

    It, certainly, doesn't look good for the CIA, or for GHWB's reputation as an American statesman.  I can't imagine that GHWB or the Company would want people to know if he was standing by the TSBD when JFK was murdered!  

    And we have clear evidence that he and Barbara put some effort into establishing alibis abut their whereabouts on 11/22/63-- specifically, the FBI phone call about Parrott and the weird Barbara Bush letter to her young children.

    I disagree with your argument that photos cannot prove that GHWB (and Dubya) were in Dealey Plaza.

    The Dealey Plaza photos, in general, are critical pieces of data about the assassination.

    

[Steve Roe]

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

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.
 

Cory, I agree. I do have evidence of GHWB in Tyler at the Kiwanis luncheon (held every Friday) in the Blackstone Hotel (downtown Tyler). Mr. Niederhut has made up his mind, or convinced himself it was GHWB standing in front of the TSBD. There are obvious doubts to this, of course. GHWB declared his candidacy for Texas Republican Senate back in September 1963. Tyler was just one of his campaign stops at luncheons, civic groups, etc. He had stayed in Dallas at the Sheraton, giving a speech at the API the night before. He then travelled onto Tyler, about 100 miles away to attend the Kiwanis Club meeting. The photo of the "Bush look-alike" standing in front of the TSBD was taken by Willie Allen, who worked for the Dallas Times Herald. The photo was taken sometime before 1:15, as you can see DPD patrolman Maurice "Nick" McDonald standing there as well. The front entrance was sealed off of course, but somehow according to Mr. Niederhut, George Bush managed to get past the cops and stand there. Really? And for what reason? I could go on, but as you say, it's not worth the time and effort to argue the ridiculous. I do have a photo of Bush, in Tyler, speaking at the Kiwanis club. I obtained it from the Bush Presidential Library in College Station. I will not share it here. 

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Cory, I agree. I do have evidence of GHWB in Tyler at the Kiwanis luncheon (held every Friday) in the Blackstone Hotel (downtown Tyler). Mr. Niederhut has made up his mind, or convinced himself it was GHWB standing in front of the TSBD. There are obvious doubts to this, of course. GHWB declared his candidacy for Texas Republican Senate back in September 1963. Tyler was just one of his campaign stops at luncheons, civic groups, etc. He had stayed in Dallas at the Sheraton, giving a speech at the API the night before. He then travelled onto Tyler, about 100 miles away to attend the Kiwanis Club meeting. The photo of the "Bush look-alike" standing in front of the TSBD was taken by Willie Allen, who worked for the Dallas Times Herald. The photo was taken sometime before 1:15, as you can see DPD patrolman Maurice "Nick" McDonald standing there as well. The front entrance was sealed off of course, but somehow according to Mr. Niederhut, George Bush managed to get past the cops and stand there. Really? And for what reason? I could go on, but as you say, it's not worth the time and effort to argue the ridiculous. I do have a photo of Bush, in Tyler, speaking at the Kiwanis club. I obtained it from the Bush Presidential Library in College Station. I will not share it here. 

I think you touched on one aspect these guys just continue to gloss over, hundreds of witnesses would have seen Bush in Dealey Plaza and would be able to attest to his identity, yet not a single witness has come forward (I guess they were got to). In this and the other purported Bush photo, he is clearly standing around and seemingly engaging with others. Not just those who appear to be officers or detectives, but witnesses and "looky-loos" as well.

The reason no one has come forward and stated that "yes that is Bush in the photo because they saw him there," is that it wasn't Bush. That doesn't matter though to these guys, the grainy photo looks something like him. So even though he is verfied at another location, and not a single person who engaged with "Bush" has verified his identity...the grainy photo just proves it's him.

Don't get me wrong, I follow the general logic and subscribe to the idea that Bush has been involved with the CIA since pre-BoP. That doesn't mean this is him though and mentioning this so called "fact", or the Hoover "Bush" memo doesn't strengthen the argument but shows how many straws you all are willing to grasp at in a feeble attempt to make your point.

[Ty Carpenter]

Looking at the side by side photo of a known GHWB and the Dealey Plaza pic it is obvious to me that the DP guy has much softer features than GHWB. More specifically the nose and chin are not as pointy or abrupt as known GHWB photos.

[W. Niederhut]

17 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said:

Looking at the side by side photo of a known GHWB and the Dealey Plaza pic it is obvious to me that the DP guy has much softer features than GHWB. More specifically the nose and chin are not as pointy or abrupt as known GHWB photos.

The chin contour is distorted by a background shadow, as I said (?) two weeks ago.

And the angle of the tilted head is slightly different in the two photos (from '62 and Dealey Plaza.)  

In any case, this is my last post on the subject of the two photos of GHWB and George W. Bush in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and the ancillary evidence of GHWB's dubious alibis -- i.e., the FBI phone call about James Parrott and Barbara Bush's awkwardly contrived letter.  I've said what I had to say too many times.

Kirk Gallaway was correct last week.  This debate about the photos of Bush and Lansdale has been unnecessarily drawn out by a continuous series of redundant claims that completely ignored the posted rebuttals.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a subset of members on this forum who seem to be more focused on disrupting honest debates about JFKA evidence, and engaging in repeated ad hominem slurs, than discerning the truth?

As an example, why have Rob Clark, Cory Santos, Steve Roe, and others persistently refused to comment on Russ Baker's damning analysis of the dubious GHWB alibis, while insisting that the TSBD photo has been "debunked?"

We could call it Lance Payette-ism.

 

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

I think you touched on one aspect these guys just continue to gloss over, hundreds of witnesses would have seen Bush in Dealey Plaza and would be able to attest to his identity, yet not a single witness has come forward (I guess they were got to). In this and the other purported Bush photo, he is clearly standing around and seemingly engaging with others. Not just those who appear to be officers or detectives, but witnesses and "looky-loos" as well.

The reason no one has come forward and stated that "yes that is Bush in the photo because they saw him there," is that it wasn't Bush. That doesn't matter though to these guys, the grainy photo looks something like him. So even though he is verfied at another location, and not a single person who engaged with "Bush" has verified his identity...the grainy photo just proves it's him.

Don't get me wrong, I follow the general logic and subscribe to the idea that Bush has been involved with the CIA since pre-BoP. That doesn't mean this is him though and mentioning this so called "fact", or the Hoover "Bush" memo doesn't strengthen the argument but shows how many straws you all are willing to grasp at in a feeble attempt to make your point.

It doesn't prove it is he in the photo but it certainly proves him to be a serial xxxx and spook who denied up until the time he took charge of the CIA that he was every involved with it. The Hoover "Bush" memo proves that. 

 

In 57 years nobody has come forward to claim they saw Lee Oswald firing shots from the 6th floor window either. So obviously he did not.

[Andrew Prutsok]

50 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

The chin contour is distorted by a background shadow, as I said (?) two weeks ago.

And the angle of the tilted head is slightly different in the two photos (from '62 and Dealey Plaza.)  

In any case, this is my last post on the subject of the two photos of GHWB and George W. Bush in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and the ancillary evidence of GHWB's dubious alibis -- i.e., the FBI phone call about James Parrott and Barbara Bush's awkwardly contrived letter.  I've said what I had to say too many times.

Kirk Gallaway was correct last week.  This debate about the photos of Bush and Lansdale has been unnecessarily drawn out by a continuous series of redundant claims that completely ignored the posted rebuttals.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a subset of members on this forum who seem to be more focused on disrupting honest debates about JFKA evidence, and engaging in repeated ad hominem slurs, than discerning the truth?

As an example, why have Rob Clark, Cory Santos, Steve Roe, and others persistently refused to comment on Russ Baker's damning analysis of the dubious GHWB alibis, while insisting that the TSBD photo has been "debunked?"

We could call it Lance Payette-ism.

 

 

I once referenced Baker's claims about GHWB on Greg Parker's Reopen the Kennedy Case site and was attacked like I had worn a mask and a Black Lives Matter shirt to a Trump rally. Have never been back there. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Andrew Prutsok

[W. Niederhut]

33 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

I once referenced Baker's claims about GHWB on Greg Parker's Reopen the Kennedy Case site and was attacked like I had worn a mask and a Black Lives Matter shirt to a Trump rally. Have never been back there. 

Indeed.  Some people are, obviously, quite invested in denying GHWB's history with the Company.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I follow the general logic and subscribe to the idea that Bush has been involved with the CIA since pre-BoP. 

If it is true that GHWB was in the CIA even before the BOP and this fact has been purposely blocked from disclosure despite much public inquiry doesn't this prove or at least suggest that there is much more to GHWB that our entire society has been kept ignorant of?

The true secret life of GHWB?

And because this man held some of the most powerful positions of leadership in our society for decades (including the presidency itself!) and exerted so much influence over major policies and events during this time, who wouldn't see the importance of wanting to know the "full truth" about this man and what he was all about?

As I mentioned earler, GHWB was perfect recruit material into the intel world. His being born of wealthy and high political position family, Yale grad, war service and hero status, ambitious political and business drive, etc.

Whether GHWB was in Dealey Plaza that day or not, his odd calling into the FBI with a suspect report, the Hoover memo to a George Bush of the CIA ( come on, we know this was him ) and so many other incidents of intrigue during the sixties and throughout his entire career tell us the man and his life were immersed in secrecy.

And because GHWB was in the highest political rungs of American power for so long and whose actions seriously effected all of our daily lives during that time, anyone wanting to know the truth about anything beyond their own small bubble of individual existence is forced to consider and perhaps acknowledge this secret life of GHWB and how and why it matters to know this truth.

I always wondered whether GHWB knew the truth about the JFK event, guessing he did.

And when Oswald acquaintance George De Mohrenschildt writes a personal letter of deep stress and concern regards his very life to Bush while Bush was head of the CIA and actually gets a "Dear George" personal response back, this opens up just another realm of intrigue regarding Bush and someone directly involved with the alleged killer of JFK. 

The whole Bush family thing is a weird and heavy hodge podge of secrets.

Interesting quirky side story about "Poppy" Bush. Came across a video on YouTube where a person helping set up an interview of him and working with another set up person who had pinned a small mic on Bush which wasn't supposed to be turned on until the interview began. However, it accidently was. The mic man overheard Poppy asking a person close by about "little green men" ( Ebens ) and saying he ( Bush ) had seen one and that it was real.

???

 

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

The chin contour is distorted by a background shadow, as I said (?) two weeks ago.

And the angle of the tilted head is slightly different in the two photos (from '62 and Dealey Plaza.)  

In any case, this is my last post on the subject of the two photos of GHWB and George W. Bush in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and the ancillary evidence of GHWB's dubious alibis -- i.e., the FBI phone call about James Parrott and Barbara Bush's awkwardly contrived letter.  I've said what I had to say too many times.

Kirk Gallaway was correct last week.  This debate about the photos of Bush and Lansdale has been unnecessarily drawn out by a continuous series of redundant claims that completely ignored the posted rebuttals.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a subset of members on this forum who seem to be more focused on disrupting honest debates about JFKA evidence, and engaging in repeated ad hominem slurs, than discerning the truth?

As an example, why have Rob Clark, Cory Santos, Steve Roe, and others persistently refused to comment on Russ Baker's damning analysis of the dubious GHWB alibis, while insisting that the TSBD photo has been "debunked?"

We could call it Lance Payette-ism.

 

 

Pride isn't it? It won't let them admit being wrong or even conceding those opposing their views could be right. Perhaps some hadn't read Russ Baker's book, perhaps some have perceptions of GHWB as a hero or good American and there is some misplaced loyalty. We could easily make cheap comments, disparaging remarks, but, then the discussion ceases completely. The purpose of the forum is to discuss things and perhaps make some progress. Human beings are very flawed. 

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

The chin contour is distorted by a background shadow, as I said (?) two weeks ago.

And the angle of the tilted head is slightly different in the two photos (from '62 and Dealey Plaza.)  

In any case, this is my last post on the subject of the two photos of GHWB and George W. Bush in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and the ancillary evidence of GHWB's dubious alibis -- i.e., the FBI phone call about James Parrott and Barbara Bush's awkwardly contrived letter.  I've said what I had to say too many times.

Kirk Gallaway was correct last week.  This debate about the photos of Bush and Lansdale has been unnecessarily drawn out by a continuous series of redundant claims that completely ignored the posted rebuttals.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a subset of members on this forum who seem to be more focused on disrupting honest debates about JFKA evidence, and engaging in repeated ad hominem slurs, than discerning the truth?

As an example, why have Rob Clark, Cory Santos, Steve Roe, and others persistently refused to comment on Russ Baker's damning analysis of the dubious GHWB alibis, while insisting that the TSBD photo has been "debunked?"

We could call it Lance Payette-ism.

The irony of whining about ad hominem attacks while basically attacking others isn't missed on me.

That aside, you seem to suffer from an association fallacy. "Bush (allegedly) lied about his whereabouts on 11/22/63, therefore this grainy picture of a guy with a marginal resemblence is absolutely Bush." Bush's alibi can be bogus, and that can not be him in the photo. The two items are not mutually exclusive. You seem to draw correlations and associations that don't actually exist except in your mind.

You also seem to forget that at least a few of the names you have mentioned do infact think Bush's alibi deserves scrutiny and have hardly "refused to comment" on the topic.

1 hour ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

It doesn't prove it is he in the photo but it certainly proves him to be a serial xxxx and spook who denied up until the time he took charge of the CIA that he was every involved with it. The Hoover "Bush" memo proves that. 

 

In 57 years nobody has come forward to claim they saw Lee Oswald firing shots from the 6th floor window either. So obviously he did not.

It actually doesn't though. Considering the Hoover "Bush" memo hasn't actually been "proven" to be directed to this Bush. Again, don't get me wrong...I do believe it is likely this Bush who the memo is referring to, but again it has not been proven.

The difference between your Oswald comparison is that a person who can be atleast marginally identified as Oswald was not photographed in the window multiple times standing next to multiple people. Your comparison isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and "c'mon man really, that's the best you got?"

I'm not aware of any photo which shows any one in the window, much less one with features that in any way resemble Oswald. I'm not aware of any photo which shows anyone standing around with a person who resembles Oswald. So again, your comparison, while a good shot a "haha Mark I zinged you," sems to have missed the mark.

This "Bush" person on the other hand is photographed multiple times standing next to multiple people, where are they at now? Where are the "I saw Bush in DP" stories?

Probably right next to the "I saw Roselli take a shot from the storm drain" stories.

38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Indeed.  Some people are, obviously, quite invested in denying GHWB's history with the Company.

I haven't seen anyone "deny GHWB's history with the Company." I have seen people deny this grainy photo is him, I didn't realize that by doing one you were doing the other. If you deny the photo, you deny association to the CIA, check.

40 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

If it is true that GHWB was in the CIA even before the BOP and this fact has been purposely blocked from disclosure despite much public inquiry doesn't this prove or at least suggest that there is much more to GHWB that our entire society has been kept ignorant of?

The true secret life of GHWB?

And because this man held some of the most powerful positions of leadership in our society for decades (including the presidency itself!) and exerted so much influence over major policies and events during this time, who wouldn't see the importance of wanting to know the "full truth" about this man and what he was all about?

As I mentioned earler, GHWB was perfect recruit material into the intel world. His being born of wealthy and high political position family, Yale grad, war service and hero status, ambitious political and business drive, etc.

Whether GHWB was in Dealey Plaza that day or not, his odd calling into the FBI with a suspect report, the Hoover memo to a George Bush of the CIA ( come on, we know this was him ) and so many other incidents of intrigue during the sixties and throughout his entire career tell us the man and his life were immersed in secrecy.

And because GHWB was in the highest political rungs of American power for so long and whose actions seriously effected all of our daily lives during that time, anyone wanting to know the truth about anything beyond their own small bubble of individual existence is forced to consider and perhaps acknowledge this secret life of GHWB and how and why it matters to know this truth.

I always wondered whether GHWB knew the truth about the JFK event, guessing he did.

And when Oswald acquaintance George De Mohrenschildt writes a personal letter of deep stress and concern regards his very life to Bush while Bush was head of the CIA and actually gets a "Dear George" personal response back, this opens up just another realm of intrigue regarding Bush and someone directly involved with the alleged killer of JFK. 

The whole Bush family thing is a weird and heavy hodge podge of secrets.

Interesting quirky side story about "Poppy" Bush. Came across a video on YouTube where a person helping set up an interview of him and working with another set up person who had pinned a small mic on Bush which wasn't supposed to be turned on until the interview began. However, it accidently was. The mic man overheard Poppy asking a person close by about "little green men" ( Ebens ) and saying he ( Bush ) had seen one and that it was real.

???

Joe, we probably agree on most basic aspects. I do agree that the Bush family is a "weird and heavy hodge podge of secrets." I though am not sold on "involvement" in the JFKA but I can believe he soon knew who was responsible, as I believe most did most in that circle. I don't for one second believe he was in DP on 11/22 nor is he the person photographed.

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

The irony of whining about ad hominem attacks while basically attacking others isn't missed on me.

That aside, you seem to suffer from an association fallacy. "Bush (allegedly) lied about his whereabouts on 11/22/63, therefore this grainy picture of a guy with a marginal resemblence is absolutely Bush." Bush's alibi can be bogus, and that can not be him in the photo. The two items are not mutually exclusive. You seem to draw correlations and associations that don't actually exist except in your mind.

You also seem to forget that at least a few of the names you have mentioned do infact think Bush's alibi deserves scrutiny and have hardly "refused to comment" on the topic.

It actually doesn't though. Considering the Hoover "Bush" memo hasn't actually been "proven" to be directed to this Bush. Again, don't get me wrong...I do believe it is likely this Bush who the memo is referring to, but again it has not been proven.

Mark,

      You're dead wrong on multiple counts here.  Where to begin?

1)  No irony.  Unlike Cory Santos' recurrent, deflective ad hominem slurs about me on this thread, (and on the recent Fletcher Prouty thread) the alleged "ad hominem" comment that you and Cory are attributing to me was actually a general comment about some social psychology research data.  It wasn't "ad hominem at all, but was rather a general statement about the tendency of many people to doubt their own perceptions when told to do so by "authority" figures. My comment was also directly relevant to the debate about the GHWB photo as evidence, and whether it had been "debunked" by So-and-so, etc.  You're 0-1.

2)  No association fallacy.  If you read what I actually wrote, I merely pointed out that there is an array of evidence that raises serious questions about GHWB's whereabouts on 11/22/63 (per the Russ Baker references that I posted.)  In light of that evidence, the possibility that GHWB was the man standing next to the TSBD has not been "debunked."  I never claimed that the associated evidence proves that the photo is GHWB.  You're 0-2.

3)  In these debates, if I'm not mistaken, Cory Santos, Rob Clark, Steve Roe, et.al., have consistently avoided commenting on the evidence raising questions about GHWB's whereabouts on 11/22/63.  And, yes, the evidence seems quite definitive that the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" briefed by Hoover on 11/29/63 was, in fact, George Herbert Walker Bush.  It, certainly, wasn't the accountant, George William Bush.  You're 0-3.

      Good effort, but you struck out.

[Robert Burrows]

This video doesn't prove or disprove Bush's presence in Dealey Plaza, but it does prove what a horrible human being GHWB was. The grin on Bush's face when he says "deluded gunman" is truly nauseating. His defense of the Warren Commission and of Commission member Gerald Ford, a self admitted xxxx in regard to the location of the back wound is risible . 

[Steve Roe]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The chin contour is distorted by a background shadow, as I said (?) two weeks ago.

And the angle of the tilted head is slightly different in the two photos (from '62 and Dealey Plaza.)  

In any case, this is my last post on the subject of the two photos of GHWB and George W. Bush in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, and the ancillary evidence of GHWB's dubious alibis -- i.e., the FBI phone call about James Parrott and Barbara Bush's awkwardly contrived letter.  I've said what I had to say too many times.

Kirk Gallaway was correct last week.  This debate about the photos of Bush and Lansdale has been unnecessarily drawn out by a continuous series of redundant claims that completely ignored the posted rebuttals.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a subset of members on this forum who seem to be more focused on disrupting honest debates about JFKA evidence, and engaging in repeated ad hominem slurs, than discerning the truth?

As an example, why have Rob Clark, Cory Santos, Steve Roe, and others persistently refused to comment on Russ Baker's damning analysis of the dubious GHWB alibis, while insisting that the TSBD photo has been "debunked?"

We could call it Lance Payette-ism.

Just wanted to capture this absurd comment for the record. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Steve Roe