Jump to content
The Education Forum

List Of Nefarious Characters Possibly Present In Dallas on 11,22,1963


Joe Bauer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 5/22/2019 at 7:55 PM, David Andrews said:

Here's a transcript of the Bill Lord letter:

https://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/12/bill-lords-letter-to-president-jimmy-carter-re-jfk-assassination-and-lee-harvey-oswald-lho-plus-geor.html

We all pretty much accept the numbered points that Bill Lord makes, but it's difficult to see how he arrived at these, or could testify to CIA non-investigation of Oswald, just because he was briefly Oswald's bunkie on shipboard -- unless Oz told him something about the false defector program and the WC didn't pursue it.  I think the arrogant Iranian house buyers were unconnected to the other attention Lord was getting.  

David,

To me, the significance of the Bill Lord letter to President Carter is the undeniable fact that Lord was told that if he didn't accede to an interview, then further pressure would come from "Mr. George Bush, Jr." (GWB)

pageTWO.jpg

Also, the fact that Lord was told that there was an ongoing "very costly project which allows them to locate, interview, monitor and influence every single person who ever knew Lee Oswald -- and this just in advance of the new governmental investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations."

GWB was only 31 years old in February of 1977 when Lord wrote to Carter. GHWB had been out of office as the CIA director for exactly thirteen days. 

I think the only possible conclusion here is that GWB was a part of that "very costly project" to influence (what the hell does that mean?) guys like Billy Lord.

I also suspect this was a part of the effort to separate the witnesses who knew Lee Oswald from those (such as Lord) who met "Oswald."

pageONE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I take all your points. 

And what happens when intelligence agencies try to subvert possible testimony by persons only very marginally involved, plus unprofessionally spill the names of collaborators like "George Bush, Jr." (son of the recently removed DCI whose agency was about to get a shake-up by his successor)?  They create a small class of terrified people who can expose their tactics. 

It's significant that this "research" push happened during HSCA and (for Lord) at the beginning of the hated Stansfield Turner mandate at CIA.  Like in the movies, interested parties got sloppy and excessive in pursuing the loosest of loose ends.

I'm not downplaying the importance of Lord's letter.  I just think he became paranoid and xenophobic over an intrusion by some boorish, perhaps nouveau-riche, house-hunters, and spoiled his argument a bit.  But he did have an argument, and was as rattled as George DeMohrenschildt was in his own letter to Poppy just months before. 

It's an interesting, mirror-game tactic: Lord was besieged by shady private "researchers," just as G. DeM. felt hounded by HSCA investigators.  Cages were being rattled because the Agency felt rattled -- so certain people were deluged with attention that made them want to crawl under a rock.

Can somebody please put up the complete image of the second page of Lord's typed letter?  I can't find it, only the transcript.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 4/11/2019 at 1:36 PM, Robert Harper said:

For years I read books about the JFK case and never thought of Bush. I read Joseph McBride's article in the Nation magazine about the  Hoover memo to "George Bush of the CIA" but there wasn't enough to convince the public that there was anything there. I recall during that election, thinking of visiting Monticello and Jefferson's grave. His headstone  didn't list any government office held (governor, VP and Pres) but memorialized his writing of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the founding of the University of Virginia. George Bush on the other hand was all government in my mind--usually appointed: UN delegate/envoy to China/ CIA director/Chair of Republican Party. Think he was a one term Congressman and lost two races for the Senate. I kept thinking then, who the heck is this guy? I hadn't heard of Prescott Bush either. 

My awakening came reading Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets." I was in LA at the time and the LA Times dismissed it as I recall, as another one of 'those" books, but I read it and my eyes opened. The Iran-Contra nexus was through him; he pardoned those involved; he obviously lied about his CIA involvement,he made that weird call to the FBI hours after the killing that begs to be read as a CYA memo. His actions with the drugs cartel in South America and Panama has been pretty well established and his relationship with Barry Seal and Clinton in Mena also is. The letter the elder Bush - Prescott - wrote to the widow of  Allen Dulles on his death in 1969 makes me recoil with disgust every time I encounter it. It's one thing to spell "brought" as "brot" but quite another to mourn the death of  a 76 year old man by saying in a note of a few sentences - that he "never forgave" the Kennedy brothers--each shot in the head in mid life, one only a year before - for poor Allen's failure at the Bay of Pigs.(fwiw,  I think if all 3 generations of the Bush politicians were placed in a room and given  4 hours, they couldn't between them write a coherent couple of pages free of the echoes of others). Authors since Baker like  Wayne Madsen, Webster Tarpley, and Bruce Campbell Adamson have all added considerable knowledge to Bush 41 and his ties to Jack Crighton and George DeMohrenschildt are numerous and overlap in Dallas.Nefarious might be a kind way to describe that clan.

BUMPING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2019 at 6:55 PM, David Andrews said:

Here's a transcript of the Bill Lord letter:

https://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/12/bill-lords-letter-to-president-jimmy-carter-re-jfk-assassination-and-lee-harvey-oswald-lho-plus-geor.html

We all pretty much accept the numbered points that Bill Lord makes, but it's difficult to see how he arrived at these, or could testify to CIA non-investigation of Oswald, just because he was briefly Oswald's bunkie on shipboard -- unless Oz told him something about the false defector program and the WC didn't pursue it.  I think the arrogant Iranian house buyers were unconnected to the other attention Lord was getting.  

Following the item you posted was another article which contained the following. It appears to do an excellent job of pulling the rug out from under McAdams. But the the thought occurs that if this kind of logical analysis was the standard for JFKA research and investigation, it would be harder for the lone nut people to continue their charade, in the form of attacks on the effort to bring the truth to light.

Begin excerpt:

Although Professor John McAdams wrote The JFK Assassination Logic (Potomac Books, 2011), the book is far away from its declared purpose of "how to think about claims of conspiracy." The underlying intention is to reject all claims of conspiracy and to confirm the Warren Commission (WC) Report on a lone gunman who shot a magic bullet. Thus, Professor McAdams devised his logic on the basis of the classic Only Game in Town (OGT) fallacy.

Even if it weren't available, a better account than the WC report, nobody is obliged to accept it in default, because there is always an alternative to the OGT fallacy: to find a more plausible explanation. All the JFK assassination researchers face the same logical problem of finding evidence that strongly discriminates between the two competing hypotheses:

        : The deed of a lone gunman

        : The result of a conspiracy

All of them are forced to infer to the best explanation through good arguments, id est: those containing true premises related in the right way to the conclusion. For this kind of reasoning, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce coined the term " abduction ," but it rather suggests kidnapping nowadays. We can use instead "inference to the best explanation" for what Pierce meant, and he actually meant that an observation O strongly favors one hypothesis (let's say ) over another ( ) if the following conditions are satisfied at once:

        If were true, is to be expected (unsurprising)

        If were true, would have been unexpected (surprising)

The No Surprise / Surprise Principle rules the inference to the best explanation and it applies not only to the whole set of facts regarding the JFK assassination, but also for every single fact in dispute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at coverage of the JFK assassination my newspaper provided and came across something I hadn't heard before. In an Associated Press story on Saturday, Nov. 23, Jesse Curry, of course, says the police never had Oswald listed on their supicious list.

"We have another man working in that same building who has been listed in our subversive files since 1955," Curry said. Police were seeking the man for questioning.

Any idea who that might have been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Darrell Curtis said:

Following the item you posted was another article which contained the following. It appears to do an excellent job of pulling the rug out from under McAdams. But the the thought occurs that if this kind of logical analysis was the standard for JFKA research and investigation, it would be harder for the lone nut people to continue their charade, in the form of attacks on the effort to bring the truth to light.

Begin excerpt:

Although Professor John McAdams wrote The JFK Assassination Logic (Potomac Books, 2011), the book is far away from its declared purpose of "how to think about claims of conspiracy." The underlying intention is to reject all claims of conspiracy and to confirm the Warren Commission (WC) Report on a lone gunman who shot a magic bullet. Thus, Professor McAdams devised his logic on the basis of the classic Only Game in Town (OGT) fallacy.

Even if it weren't available, a better account than the WC report, nobody is obliged to accept it in default, because there is always an alternative to the OGT fallacy: to find a more plausible explanation. All the JFK assassination researchers face the same logical problem of finding evidence that strongly discriminates between the two competing hypotheses:

        : The deed of a lone gunman

        : The result of a conspiracy

All of them are forced to infer to the best explanation through good arguments, id est: those containing true premises related in the right way to the conclusion. For this kind of reasoning, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce coined the term " abduction ," but it rather suggests kidnapping nowadays. We can use instead "inference to the best explanation" for what Pierce meant, and he actually meant that an observation O strongly favors one hypothesis (let's say ) over another ( ) if the following conditions are satisfied at once:

        If were true, is to be expected (unsurprising)

        If were true, would have been unexpected (surprising)

The No Surprise / Surprise Principle rules the inference to the best explanation and it applies not only to the whole set of facts regarding the JFK assassination, but also for every single fact in dispute.

Thanks, Darrell.  The logic testifies to the importance of many anomalies on assassination day, that weekend, and during the cover-up, which would be unexpected if there had been only a lone gunman.  We could make a long list, perhaps starting with J. D. Tippit's movements before his shooting.  Others might argue that the list starts before the first shot in Dealey.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Thanks, Darrell.  The logic testifies to the importance of many anomalies on assassination day, that weekend, and during the cover-up, which would unexpected if there had been only a lone gunman.  We could make a long list, perhaps starting with J. D. Tippit's movements before his shooting.  Others might argue that the list starts before the first shot in Dealey.

Well said David.  I think the list starts well before the first shot in Dealy.  jmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

I was looking at coverage of the JFK assassination my newspaper provided and came across something I hadn't heard before. In an Associated Press story on Saturday, Nov. 23, Jesse Curry, of course, says the police never had Oswald listed on their supicious list.

"We have another man working in that same building who has been listed in our subversive files since 1955," Curry said. Police were seeking the man for questioning.

Any idea who that might have been?

Andrew - sorry if I can’t remember the man’s name, but he was a ‘subversive’, and possibly working as an infiltrator rather than a real ‘lefty’. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 10:54 AM, Paul Jolliffe said:

Joseph,

I believe this is the photo to which you are referring, correct?

Yes, the man kneeling/sitting below the railing on the balcony does appear suspicious. I never noticed him before . . .

president_reagan_waves_to_crowd_immediat

Trying to make out the so-called crouching man on the balcony.

Are you sure that is a person actually on the balcony versus someone sitting on a chair behind the unopened glass doors?

One can see that the balcony railing only extends maybe 36 inches from the glass doors and even less that in height.

Pretty tight quarters for a typical 6 ft. tall man to get below without getting on his knees?

Still think the earlier picture of the young man walking away from the TXSBD on 11,22,1963

is a ringer for G.W. Bush who was 17 at the time and which seems to be the age of this preppy white socks wearing young man.

And I too would like to see something in writing about G.W'S whereabouts that day.

And it would seem that he would be in Texas near his parents during the Thanksgiving holiday time period. And his parents did stay in the Dallas Sheraton hotel the night before.

Maybe Bush Jr. wanted to get his own up close and personal view of JFK and Jackie and perhaps asked his parents if could accompany them to Dallas to do so?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

I was looking at coverage of the JFK assassination my newspaper provided and came across something I hadn't heard before. In an Associated Press story on Saturday, Nov. 23, Jesse Curry, of course, says the police never had Oswald listed on their supicious list.

"We have another man working in that same building who has been listed in our subversive files since 1955," Curry said. Police were seeking the man for questioning.

Any idea who that might have been?

Is it Joe Molina?  He was a member of something called the GI Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Thanks, Darrell.  The logic testifies to the importance of many anomalies on assassination day, that weekend, and during the cover-up, which would be unexpected if there had been only a lone gunman.  We could make a long list, perhaps starting with J. D. Tippit's movements before his shooting.  Others might argue that the list starts before the first shot in Dealey.

Right. If only that standard could be applied more consistently to the subject. I'm guilty of that failing myself, but it is something to strive for. There's such a strong tendency to jump to conclusions, see connections and patterns where there's really only mere causality at work, pariedola, with regards to the JFK assassination. 

If the information I've heard is correct, apparently McAdams doesn't do so well in a public debate forum when confronted with verifiable facts presented with solid logic.

Yes, I'd say the list ought to begin at least shortly before the first shot. Maybe beginning with the seizure experienced by James Belknap, shortly before JFK's arrival in the plaza (assuming there is anything to truly suspicious or sinister there). I'd love to see such a list. I don't feel even remotely qualified to assemble one myself, due lack of in depth knowledge, at least. The benefit of such a list would seem to be potentially almost incalculable. 

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...