David Morales

[Larry Hancock]

Paul I'm really not going to return to this because it gets into the fact that the message was a routine communication from the FBI  to the CIA, basically a notification from the FBI to the CIA liaison desk.  To do a decent job I would have to go back into the whole matter and I don't try to do that sort of thing strictly from memory any longer. I suspect you can find it all with some searching, or at least my cut on it at least.  Russ Baker and I have been through this same thing several times as well...without either convincing the other as I recall.

As to the letter from DeM, he had a habit of writing high level people including President's about his thoughts and ideas, for example he had written to JFK previously.  He had also written to Johnson about setting up meetings with his business partner, something discuss here ages ago. In the end Burris attended that meeting for Johnson.

As I stated, there is no doubt the CIA had an association with Bush, they wanted use of his oil operations for a cover and in tern made business introductions for him and no doubt provided commercial exploitation information. That's documented and was far from unique in Agency operations.  No mystery at all about that sort of relationship,  That would be a much higher level association with more senior people at Agency HQ.  They were always looking for cooperative business partners both for intel collection and for covers in covert operations. and in return most businessmen and professionals felt it their duty to assist. 

 

[David Andrews]

To play devil's advocate - DeMohrenschildt was for a time an associate of Jacqueline Bouvier's family, and knew the First Lady as a child, which weakens the "habit of writing high level people" quirk angle a bit.

[Larry Hancock]

So how was he related to LBJ David...grin...

[Joe Bauer]

Bush did write back to George DeM with a salutation greeting of "Dear George."

How many people in this country get a "direct, first name personal greeting response" back from the head of such a powerful agency after writing them one-on-one and desperately asking for their assistance?

That to me is indicative of a closer and more personal relationship between Bush and DeM than that suggested of a wanna-be who simply wrote letters to many high officials.

George DeM was clearly a social/business climber who never quite made it. But I still feel that he had closer ties to Bush than down players portray. If anything...socially.

They didn't live very far apart and hung out with the same Texas oil business groups and circles.

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Larry Hancock]

I have no doubt they had mutual friends and associates in Texas,  George was very much a social climber and very practically too as many of his business dealings worked through social introductions.

My only point in all this was that not everything is necessarily mysterious, suspicious or related to the attack in Dallas.  Much of business, corporate and political life is built around mutual interests that might be called conspiratorial in a sense...its the way the world works.

My view is that the real challenge for all of us interested in the assassination is parsing out everything that does not relate directly to the shooting in Dallas and the associated framing of a patsy connected to ....fill in the blank. I've come to have a real respect for "focus".

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

To call DeMohremschildt a simple social climber is to dismiss everything he did in regards to Oswald. I don't buy it. A lot of effort by others, and by DeM, has gone into making him appear to be an enigma at best. 

[Larry Hancock]

Did I say I dismissed him Paul? If you study his extended business background you find he picked up many of his consulting and petroleum related jobs via his social network.  That's not social climbing, that's business.  As to his relationship with Oswald, it started with a CIA domestic ops officer asking George to watch for a returning couple who would be contacting the White Russian community, to gather information on him and report on his and his wife's activities.  He was obviously known and had been of help to CIA domestic ops prior to that. I cover that in some detail in SWHT and I don't think that's minimizing things at all - I've also posted and previously discussed that George Bush was a high level CIA business asset and I've written about DeMorenschieldt being recruited to report on Oswald by the CIA.

I don't think that is mysterious or that he is an enigma, DeM's intelligence contacts were extensive and I wrote about those as well...others have done far more, tracking such contacts back both pre and post WWII.  Not sure what you want but I'm picking no arguments here...enough said from me. 

[Paul Brancato]

Larry - I didn't mean to dismiss you're statement the way I did. My apologies.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Paul, I think I was reacting to the fact that a number of researchers dug into DeMohrenschildt well before I showed up on the scene and built a very strong case for his long time connections with various intelligence organizations, as part of his own political interests -  but also as part of his own business networking. He was a consummate "networker".  I recall a Lancer conference at least a dozen years ago when a researcher (first name Carol, but I can't remember the full name at this point) presented for well over two hours, going into exhaustive detail on his life history and those connections. These days her work does not even get discussed and I don't thing she published it; a very hard thing to do back then.  I can also recall getting a copy of DeMohrenschildt's own manuscript about Oswald where he clearly regrets his role in befriending Lee and Marina and not defending Lee before the investigations...its is striking and shows how complex a character he was and how conflicted he had become over Oswald.

He is obviously a crucial part of the Oswald story and to me clearly shows that Oswald was "on the radar" for the CIA following his return from Russia - and suggests a set of domestic CIA documents and very possibly CIA/FBI correspondence that was suppressed. I expounded on that element to SWHT 2010 because I thought it was so revealing. 

At the moment I'm working with others on another aspect of the Oswald story in Dallas which once indicates a series of FBI reports that went missing and to me explains the remark from Hosty to the Secret Service agent about Oswald meeting with subversives.  It may well have nothing to do with the attack in Dallas itself but it surely would reflect how entangled Oswald was with a variety of CIA and FBI counter intelligence and subversive unit activities and further illustrate how far Oswald was from being a loner, much less a lone nut. 

 

[David Andrews]

19 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

So how was he related to LBJ David...grin...

Perhaps he did him a favor once.

[B. A. Copeland]

On 7/10/2017 at 1:20 PM, Larry Hancock said:

I have no doubt they had mutual friends and associates in Texas,  George was very much a social climber and very practically too as many of his business dealings worked through social introductions.

My only point in all this was that not everything is necessarily mysterious, suspicious or related to the attack in Dallas.  Much of business, corporate and political life is built around mutual interests that might be called conspiratorial in a sense...its the way the world works.

My view is that the real challenge for all of us interested in the assassination is parsing out everything that does not relate directly to the shooting in Dallas and the associated framing of a patsy connected to ....fill in the blank. I've come to have a real respect for "focus".

 

 

 

Hey there Larry. You know, I tend to lean exactly in your scholarly direction concerning GHWB and honestly, I remember reading through Baker's take on him in his book Family of Secrets and, as I ended with my reading, I could not honestly understand what Baker was trying to state or prove. My issue is the very odd and weird association with James Parrott. I mean perhaps there is more to be clarified concerning that story (and Baker seems to have documented it well but again, perhaps there is more to be discovered) but I cannot get over just how strange that entire scenario is. My observation of that scenario or even leads to my questioning GHWB's odd attitude concerning the fateful day in Dallas and how he has never gone on the record as to what he was doing that day. Perhaps he honestly doesn't remember but....well that is difficult to believe given his stance or responses to questions regarding the subject matter. What do you make of the Parrott event? What do you (or anyone else) make of GHWB's apparent responses to questions regarding his whereabouts or actions on 11/22/63? Ultimately one is probably forced to speculate and I'd rather stay away from that kind of terra firma if you will but I do entertain the thinking on the matter here and there. I've been listening to various audios of yours and Bill Simpich and I must say, dynamite and fulfilling learning. Thanks for all you do.

Edited November 13, 2017 by B. A. Copeland

[Larry Hancock]

Hi B.A., of course this is off the top of my head (memory disclaimer enabled) but its safe to say at that point in time Bush was moving aggressively into Texas politics and developed a reputation for taking no prisoners.  My guess is that he simply decided to make trouble for someone in his local party politics who was causing him grief - probably without thinking too much about it at the time. Not to be rude but the Bush family did not run to deep thinking..  He may not have realized it would accomplish much more than harassment, and for that matter it really didn't.  My thinking is twofold a) Bush had no experience which would have led to any sort of direct involvement in the attack or need to be in Dallas as part of it,  b} he was identifiable and nobody in their right mind would put him on the scene of the attack and c) he has been proven to be a CIA commercial/business asset, yet another reason to have him far away if he was in any way complicit.  All I can say is after having spent a great deal of time examining exactly how CIA officers actually went about organizing and directing real assassinations, nothing about having Bush involved makes any sense to me and no tactical person would in any way be taking orders from him.

[B. A. Copeland]

On 10/26/2017 at 4:41 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Hi B.A., of course this is off the top of my head (memory disclaimer enabled) but its safe to say at that point in time Bush was moving aggressively into Texas politics and developed a reputation for taking no prisoners.  My guess is that he simply decided to make trouble for someone in his local party politics who was causing him grief - probably without thinking too much about it at the time. Not to be rude but the Bush family did not run to deep thinking..  He may not have realized it would accomplish much more than harassment, and for that matter it really didn't.  My thinking is twofold a) Bush had no experience which would have led to any sort of direct involvement in the attack or need to be in Dallas as part of it,  b} he was identifiable and nobody in their right mind would put him on the scene of the attack and c) he has been proven to be a CIA commercial/business asset, yet another reason to have him far away if he was in any way complicit.  All I can say is after having spent a great deal of time examining exactly how CIA officers actually went about organizing and directing real assassinations, nothing about having Bush involved makes any sense to me and no tactical person would in any way be taking orders from him.

Thank you kindly for your fascinating and insightful response Larry!

[Ron Bulman]

7 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Thank you kindly for your fascinating and insightful response Larry!

Ya mean the picture of Bush in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63 was photo shopped?  I've thought so for a while.  But why did he and Nixon spend the night before there?  Such a coincidence with Dulles and GHWB's daddy Prescott in the big picture.  Just food for thought.  I mean daddy financed Nixon too.  And George was a financier of operation 40.  Strange coincidences.  But no proof of course.  Loose lips sink ships.  Angleton "was too smart to write anything down"

Edited November 14, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Paul Brancato]

Isn't it possible that George Bush was DUBRINY 2? His long time friend Thomas Devine was 1. Two is still a secret. Why?