Jump to content
The Education Forum

"Bush killed Kennedy"


Wim Dankbaar
 Share

Recommended Posts

All,

I am increasingly amazed that this angle has been so underemphasized in the research community. Why is that? Is it fear to speak out? Or is it simply that the evidence on the Bush connection is unknown? Or is there another reason I overlook?

From the preponderance of circumstancial evidence, I am confident to state that George HW Bush was a major force in the plot to kill JFK and the subsequent disinfo campaign and cover up. That doesn't mean it can be proven beyond doubt, but it certainly has convinced me of his guilt by association.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From the preponderance of circumstancial evidence, I am confident to state that George HW Bush was a major force in the plot to kill JFK and the subsequent disinfo campaign and cover up. That doesn't mean it can be proven beyond doubt, but it certainly has convinced me of his guilt by association.

I would not like you to be on my jury. How can you logically use "circumstancial evidence" to confidently "state that George HW Bush was a major force in the plot to kill JFK and the subsequent disinfo campaign and cover up"? You then go on to say that "it certainly has convinced me of his guilt by association". What court of law finds such evidence acceptable? In fact, it is a term used to reject a case against an individual.

I am increasingly amazed that this angle has been so underemphasized in the research community.  Why is that? Is it fear to speak out? Or is it simply that the evidence on the Bush connection is unknown? Or is there another reason I overlook?

You have answered your own question? The research community has ignored this theory because there is no hard evidence to suggest it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Let us not nitpick about how I formulated things. I am the first one to admit that I could have phrased it better.

Contrary to what you suggest, there is a flood of evidence to come to the firm conclusion that Bush HAD TO be privy to the plot. He is connected to almost every player, up to Oswald best friend in Dallas, George Demohrenschildt, about which relation he LIED. Up to this day, he is intimate with people some of whom were on Dealey Plaza and protecting them, getting them off the hook all the time, like Luis Posada Carrilles, Felix Rodriguez, Orlando Bosch, Guillermo Novo and other cubans who were members of Operation 40 and/or participated in the Bay of Pigs, which Bush financed, according to several credible sources. It can be shown convincingly that Bush lied and surpressed information about his CIA past and his whereabouts on 11/22/1963.

Bush WAS CIA well before 11/22/1963. He LIES about it. In addition he was in the middle of the Texan oil magnates, like H.L. Hunt, John Mecom, Clint Murchison, Jack Crighton, Jean deMenil (of Schlumberger and Permindex). He and his father were on a first name basis with the Dulles brothers, Ted Shackley (chief of JM/Wave) Nixon and many more players who are the usual suspects in the Kennedy assassination and Watergate. Nixon was his father's man, who had just lost to Kennedy.

Moreover he commanded the CIA at a time that Congress was probing into these matters again. Thereafter, he is at the helm of other blackops, like the October surprise and Iran-Contra, in which many of the exact same players participate again, as Barry Seal, Rodriguez, Rafael Quintero and Posada Carrilles.

You could actually say he has grown into an arrogance of power. It doesn't even matter anymore that it's obvious. After all he is protected by the mainstream media, who refuse to educate the public on his misdeeds, not to speak about the proven NAZI connection of his father and his Harriman buddies.

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“There’s three things to remember: claim everything, explain nothing, deny everything,” recalled Prescott Bush as to how politics was explained to him by Clare Booth Luce, congresswoman and wife of fellow Bonesman and magazine magnate, Henry Luce.

---------------------

Clare Booth Luce was a radical anti Castro supporter and a friend of David Atlee Phillips. Henry Luce's Time Life bought the Zapruder film to keep it away from the public for over a decade. Needless to say, without this surpression of probably the most convincing evidence for a frontal shot, the Warren Commission could never have sold its conclusion to the american public.

Wim

BTW: I have no doubt that Prescott and George knew Phillips well, but I have no evidence to support that, other than sharing friends.

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Let us not nitpick about how I formulated things. I am the first one to admit that I could have phrased it better.

Contrary to what you suggest, there is a flood of evidence to come to the firm conclusion that Bush HAD TO be privy to the plot. He is connected to almost every player, up to Oswald best friend in Dallas, George Demohrenschildt, about which relation he LIED. Up to this day, he is intimate with people some of whom were on Dealey Plaza and protecting them, getting them off the hook all the time, like Luis Posada Carrilles, Felix Rodriguez,  Orlando Bosch, Guillermo Novo and other cubans who were members of Operation 40 and/or participated in the Bay of Pigs, which Bush financed, according to several credible sources. It can be shown convincingly that Bush lied and surpressed information about his CIA past and his whereabouts on 11/22/1963.

Bush WAS CIA well before 11/22/1963. He LIES about it. In addition he was in the middle of the Texan oil magnates, like H.L. Hunt, John Mecom, Clint Murchison, Jack Crighton, Jean deMenil (of Schlumberger and Permindex). He and his father were on a first name basis with the Dulles brothers, Ted Shackley (chief of JM/Wave) Nixon and many more players  who are the usual suspects in the Kennedy assassination and Watergate. Nixon was his father's man, who had just lost to Kennedy.

Moreover he commanded the CIA at a time that Congress was probing into these matters again.  Thereafter, he is at the helm of other blackops, like the October surprise and Iran-Contra, in which many of the exact same players participate again, as Barry Seal, Rodriguez, Rafael Quintero and Posada Carrilles.

You could actually say he has grown into an arrogance of power. It doesn't even matter anymore that it's obvious. After all he is protected by the mainstream media, who refuse to educate the public on his misdeeds, not to speak about the proven NAZI connection of his father and his Harriman buddies.

Wim

Wim...for once I am in complete agreement with what you say.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim

Many years ago I developed a hypothesis that Edwin Walker met Lee Harvey Oswald in October of 1959.

At the end of nearly a decade of research I now believe that if they met it may have been on October 9th 1959. All of my evidence is circumstantial. I still can only speculate on what, exactly, happened on Nov. 22 but have developed many very different ideas based upon three primary people, Edwin Walker, Maxwell Taylor and John J. McCloy and there relationship to one another. I have found nothing that has led me to believe that my original hypothesis was false.

We will never get anywhere without following our instincts. At the same time we can never close our minds to other possibilites.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim... for once I am in complete agreement with what you say.

Is this view based on the evidence or is it just a deep prejudice against Bush?

Contrary to what you suggest, there is a flood of evidence to come to the firm conclusion that Bush HAD TO be privy to the plot. He is connected to almost every player, up to Oswald best friend in Dallas, George Demohrenschildt, about which relation he LIED. Up to this day, he is intimate with people some of whom were on Dealey Plaza and protecting them, getting them off the hook all the time, like Luis Posada Carrilles, Felix Rodriguez,  Orlando Bosch, Guillermo Novo and other cubans who were members of Operation 40 and/or participated in the Bay of Pigs, which Bush financed, according to several credible sources. It can be shown convincingly that Bush lied and surpressed information about his CIA past and his whereabouts on 11/22/1963.

It is important as serious researchers into the JFK assassination we must maintain high standards. This includes treating the evidence in the same way as academic historians or lawyers in a court of law. Therefore it is irresponsible to use the “guilt by association” approach. If we take this approach we deserve to be condemned by people like John McAdams and Dave Perry for sloppy research.

You also have to be very careful about the way you use “confessions”. Any detective working on a high-profile murder case will tell you one of the major problems they have is the amount of time-wasting caused by people wanting to confess to the crime. There are a lot of sick individuals out there who want to be in the limelight, even if it means confessing to some horrible murder.

You say that Bush is associated with Luis Posada Carrilles, Felix Rodriguez, Orlando Bosch and Guillermo Novo. Maybe so. But that only helps your case if you can show that these four people were involved in the assassination of JFK. Where is your evidence for that? Once you have done that, you need to show how the link between Bush and these men is related to the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim thinks EVERYBODY killed John Kennedy. Just Kidding, Wim, but you do have a scattershot approach...George Bush was certainly CIA long before Gerald Ford made him DCI, and when he ran the United States United Nations Mission in New York he was heavily involved in wiretapping, same in China as Charge D'affaire. The case linking Bush to Dallas is actually very weak, but a bit suggestive. I don't have the citation in front of me, but there was a memo to J.Edgar Hoover dated 11/23/63 that stated that a CIA employee named George Bush had called FBI to give information about the JFK killing, and the federales bent over backwards to claim that it was another George Bush! They pinned the FBI memo on a George Bush who did coastline surveys, and when reporters got ahold of that George Bush, he had no idea what they were talking about. That is fact. Not much evidence for a capital murder conviction, but something...some of you will know the facts about this rumor, was the Bay of Pigs invasion code-named Operation Zapata? Was a support ship named the Barbara? Because those two items are tied to the rumor/theory that George Bush Sr. was part of the invasion of Cuba, hence, CIA...whatever the facts, certainly GHW Bush was put in place at Langley to clean up the mess Colby had made, and he shut down the leaks.

One more thing about George Senior, he was Chairman of the Republican National Committee during Watergate. Where do you think the 1970's illegal campaign contributions went? Bush emerged in 1979 to challenge Reagan and Carter with a flush bankroll, which I think he rolled over from the Nixon/Mitchell/Hunt days....

Shanet

((great photo Jack, that does look like the preppy president))

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush had been questioned by the FBI. What is amazing is that he not only answered their questions but also got away with that part of it because of them not being able to find the files.

So, it was dropped.

What I would love to know is why would the FBI know to question former Pres. Bush on his involvement in the first place?

Nothing to my knowledge was ever stated why they would go to Bush.

Then I question why would the FBI accept him for his position in the FBI later on. He denied any part of being in the FBI and then much later admits he headed the FBI for one full year.

Too short a term to be in that position. Yet, he was still involved with the FBI for some time later on.

During his run for office why wasn't this ever named so more people in America would know this information? Again, to the best of my knowledge it never was named.

Also I question why when Pres. Reagon got shot was Bush involved in that for the need to be in power fast for some reason? Yes, I know he wasn't directly involved but indirectly involved.

It amazes me on all of this how a person in question gets so high into power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great photo Jack, that does look like the preppy president.

Could anyone explain to me why people involved in planning the assassination of JFK should need to be in Dallas on the day it happened? This seems very strange behaviour. I would have thought that if these people can be proved to have been in Dallas on the day of the assassination, it is evidence that they were not involved in the conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim... for once I am in complete agreement with what you say.

Is this view based on the evidence or is it just a deep prejudice against Bush?

Contrary to what you suggest, there is a flood of evidence to come to the firm conclusion that Bush HAD TO be privy to the plot. He is connected to almost every player, up to Oswald best friend in Dallas, George Demohrenschildt, about which relation he LIED. Up to this day, he is intimate with people some of whom were on Dealey Plaza and protecting them, getting them off the hook all the time, like Luis Posada Carrilles, Felix Rodriguez,  Orlando Bosch, Guillermo Novo and other cubans who were members of Operation 40 and/or participated in the Bay of Pigs, which Bush financed, according to several credible sources. It can be shown convincingly that Bush lied and surpressed information about his CIA past and his whereabouts on 11/22/1963.

It is important as serious researchers into the JFK assassination we must maintain high standards. This includes treating the evidence in the same way as academic historians or lawyers in a court of law. Therefore it is irresponsible to use the “guilt by association” approach. If we take this approach we deserve to be condemned by people like John McAdams and Dave Perry for sloppy research.

You also have to be very careful about the way you use “confessions”. Any detective working on a high-profile murder case will tell you one of the major problems they have is the amount of time-wasting caused by people wanting to confess to the crime. There are a lot of sick individuals out there who want to be in the limelight, even if it means confessing to some horrible murder.

You say that Bush is associated with Luis Posada Carrilles, Felix Rodriguez, Orlando Bosch and Guillermo Novo. Maybe so. But that only helps your case if you can show that these four people were involved in the assassination of JFK. Where is your evidence for that? Once you have done that, you need to show how the link between Bush and these men is related to the assassination.

Excellent points made! You are correct, in your first post here, about "guilt by association." Obviously if (IF?) there was a conspiracy the members needed to know (be associated with) each other (although all conspirators need not know all the others) but the mere fact of an association with a member of the conspiracy is not evidence of participation in the conspiracy. Assuming arguendo that LHO was part of a conspiracy (and I am not convinced he was) this does not mean that everyone who knew Oswald was part of the conspiracy. As you probably know, Professor Michael Kurtz witnessed LHO and Guy Banister together, but he does not believe Banister was part of the conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent points made!  You are correct, in your first post here, about "guilt by association."  Obviously if (IF?) there was a conspiracy the members needed to know (be associated with) each other (although all conspirators need not know all the others) but the mere fact of an association with a member of the conspiracy is not evidence of participation in the conspiracy.  Assuming arguendo that LHO was part of a conspiracy (and I am not convinced he was) this does not mean that everyone who knew Oswald was part of the conspiracy.  As you probably know, Professor Michael Kurtz witnessed LHO and Guy Banister together, but he does not believe Banister was part of the conspiracy.

Michael Kurtz is a respected historian and knows how to deal with the evidence. His book on the assassination of JFK: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian's Perspective (1982), is one of the best I have read on the subject (just outside my top ten).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkurtz.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eugene B. Connolly

What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald did actually attempt to kill Walker? The 'fact' that Oswald had shot at Walker came out after he was arrested for his alleged involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy. Did Oswald in fact shoot at Walker? Is there any concrete irrefutable evidence which connects Oswald with the attempt on Walker's life? Also if George Bush Snr was involved with the assassination did he ever discuss it with George Jnr? If he did can we now confidently include Baby Bush among the conspirators?

EBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friend Shanet wrote:

The case linking Bush to Dallas is actually very weak, but a bit suggestive. I don't have the citation in front of me, but there was a memo to J.Edgar Hoover dated 11/23/63 that stated that a CIA employee named George Bush had called FBI to give information about the JFK killing, and the federales bent over backwards to claim that it was another George Bush!

Wim says:

You are slightly confusing two documents . The document of Bush calling the FBI is at the bottom of this page:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

So the case linking Bush to Dallas on the 11/22/1963 is "actually very weak"? It is as weak as Bush's own admission in writing that he would be there the remainder of the day. I know the call was purportedly made from Tyler, Texas, but since when should I believe George Bush? After all, he has no recollection of the call, he has said once that he does not remember where he was and on another occasion that he was in Houston. Now, I am pretty sure Shanet didn't know about the above, otherwise he would not have said "actually very weak", but that's what a good forum is for.

The Hoover Memo mentioning "George Bush of the Cental Intelligence Agency" is here:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bush3.htm

To John Simkin I would say: that 's a good start to connect Bush to the CIA ... AND the anti-Castro Cubans. But there is more ..... much more.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could anyone explain to me why people involved in planning the assassination of JFK should need to be in Dallas on the day it happened? This seems very strange behaviour. I would have thought that if these people can be proved to have been in Dallas on the day of the assassination, it is evidence that they were not involved in the conspiracy. (John Simkin)

To be close at the fire, surpress and handle evidence, control the aftermath, make sure everything is going right, and if not, take corrective action. This was not yet the age of Internet and mobile phones. Frankly, I believe that if the planners would NOT have been there, a lot more would have gone wrong.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...