Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Kirk,

      I'm trying to find that old thread but, for some reason, it doesn't show up under a title search for "George Bush" or even, "Bush."   What does show up are an array of old Education Forum threads about George Bush, the CIA, and people looking for the photos.

      The only putative photos of GHWB and Dubya that I have ever posted are the three (above) on this thread.  I think these are, in fact, photos of young GHWB and Dubya.

      I have a brief, true story for you and Cory about my attitude toward empirical evidence.

      It's entitled, "Call 'Em the Way You See 'Em."

      I did a one month clerkship in Cardiology at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital during my fourth year in med school, in about 1982.

      I was evaluating and preparing a case that I was assigned to present to the Grand Poo Bah one afternoon on rounds -- the well known Chief of Cardiology.   

       I presented the case to the team's intern beforehand, noting that I observed left atrial enlargement on the patient's chest X-ray, and atrial fibrillation on the EKG-- no p waves.

        The intern said, "No.  That doesn't look like atrial enlargement, or atrial fibrillation."

         So, not trusting my judgment, I altered my presentation of the case to the Grand Poo Bah.

          But he studied the chest X-ray and said, "This is obvious left atrial enlargement."

          Then he studied the EKG and said, "This is obvious atrial fibrillation."

          I didn't say a word, because I didn't want to embarrass the intern, who had turned rather pale.

          So, I ended up looking like an idiot, but I learned a very important lesson that day about evaluating evidence -- "Call 'em the way you see 'em," regardless of what others say.

Is this the thread you were looking for W?

Was Dubya in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is more.  Sorry, you have not proven Pres.  Bush was there.  Perhaps try looking for Pres. Reagan or Pat Buchanan.  Perhaps Hannity since apparently Republicans all gathered that day to be photographed as part of the grand conspiracy lol  

 

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Here is more.  Sorry, you have not proven Pres.  Bush was there.  Perhaps try looking for Pres. Reagan or Pat Buchanan.  Perhaps Hannity since apparently Republicans all gathered that day to be photographed as part of the grand conspiracy lol  

 

Jefferson Morley's comments about the GHWB photo in Dealey Plaza don't prove a thing, in my opinion.

I'm calling this empirical data as I see it.

I think it's a photo of GHWB.  Look at the slouch, height, habitus, hairline, facial features, and left ear.  It's Poppy Bush.

What looks like a differing chin contour is a shadow behind the Dealey Plaza figure.

Poppy was there pictured in front of the Texas School Book Depository, but  to reported by his own testimony, The Dynamic duo of Hoover-T… | Books, My  books, History

He was a known CIA man whose father (an Allen Dulles crony) hated JFK, who was briefed by Hoover on the assassination "investigation" on 11/29/63, and who gave conflicting accounts of his whereabouts when JFK was murdered.

As for the claim that it's a photo of Detective Gus Rose, I noticed that that alibi was debunked here in 2013 by a forum member who said that "Gus Rose never went to Dealey Plaza" on 11/22/63.

Todd W. Vaughan

Gus Rose never went to Dealey Plaza that day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most convincing aspects of GHWB having cia affiliations prior to 11/22/63 for me is his reputed role in as a solicitor of funds for Operation Forty.   I.E. the Bay of Pig's preparations.  And the whole Zapata name thing.  His oil company name, the name of the BOP operation, an off shore oil well used as a base of operations.   The ships, the Barbara...more. 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Kirk,

      I'm trying to find that old thread but, for some reason, it doesn't show up under a title search for "George Bush" or even, "Bush."   What does show up are an array of old Education Forum threads about George Bush, the CIA, and people looking for the photos.

      The only putative photos of GHWB and Dubya that I have ever posted are the three (above) on this thread.  I think these are, in fact, photos of young GHWB and Dubya.

      I have a brief, true story for you and Cory about my attitude toward empirical evidence.

      It's entitled, "Call 'Em the Way You See 'Em."

      I did a one month clerkship in Cardiology at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital during my fourth year in med school, in about 1982.

      I was evaluating and preparing a case that I was assigned to present to the Grand Poo Bah one afternoon on rounds -- the well known Chief of Cardiology.   

       I presented the case to the team's intern beforehand, noting that I observed left atrial enlargement on the patient's chest X-ray, and atrial fibrillation on the EKG-- no p waves.

        The intern said, "No.  That doesn't look like atrial enlargement, or atrial fibrillation."

         So, not trusting my judgment, I altered my presentation of the case to the Grand Poo Bah.

          But he studied the chest X-ray and said, "This is obvious left atrial enlargement."

          Then he studied the EKG and said, "This is obvious atrial fibrillation."

          I didn't say a word, because I didn't want to embarrass the intern, who had turned rather pale.

          So, I ended up looking like an idiot, but I learned a very important lesson that day about evaluating evidence -- "Call 'em the way you see 'em," regardless of what others say.

So true. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Alan Dale, the figure in the photos has been identified as HH (Snookie) Davis, Office of the District Attorney, Henry Wade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

According to Alan Dale, the figure in the photos has been identified as HH (Snookie) Davis, Office of the District Attorney, Henry Wade. 

Another Cory Santos-type argument "from authority"-- i.e., "So-and-so said that the man in the photo isn't Poppy Bush, therefore he isn't Poppy Bush."

(Formally similar to the claim that the 11/29/63 Hoover memo about, "Mr. George Bush of the CIA," was a reference to someone other than Poppy Bush.)

My response.  Look carefully at the actual empirical evidence-- the photo.  It's Poppy Bush.

Interesting that some people are so, obviously, invested in convincing others that "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" wasn't in Dealey Plaza.  I notice that this phenomenon of Bush Denialism is also evident in many of the older Forum threads about GHWB and the CIA.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

But Chris while the memo is very interesting, it is not conclusive proof.   There is still the other side stating it was not him.  So, unless other evidence comes out confirming it either way one will not know for sure.   So yes, as you put it, I agree with you that one can look at it as a gray area until more evidence shows up. 

Yes Cory, but, then you can apply that to almost anything in the JFK assassination case. On that basis I should accept LHO is the sole assassin and a communist to boot, right? Of course the Bush family refute it and there is a while stack of information around the Tyler Texas alibi thing. I woudn't be writing off that as non-sense, just because the accused or security apparatus is saying it is so. I understand your natural proclivity to default to acceptable legal criteria but, that system has already failed JFK and proved itself flawed or corrupt, right? So we are right to look elsewhere and explore it further and to not assume that the state is supplying a truthful narrative. I am also not saying speculation or circumstantial evidence is true or concrete. We just can't write it off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

That's it, Ron.  Thanks.

Interesting thread, with a some informative posts by Joseph McBride, and a of series of glib posts by Denis Morrisette denying GHWB's possible involvement in the JFK assassination op on 11/22/63.

Unfortunately, I did not succeed in pasting the actual photo of Dubya Bush in Dealey Plaza at the top of that thread, and there was, consequently, some confusion by various posters about the subject of that thread.

Here's the photo of Dubya that I tried to link on the original thread.

See the source image

Taking a page from psychoanalysis, it would be useful, in my opinion, to "explore the resistance" to discussing GHWB's history with the CIA, and his presence in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Here's a matching 1962 profile photo of GHWB that I had not seen before.

GHWB is, obviously, the man in the Dealey Plaza photo.  Kirk's observation about the chin is off, because of the background shadow on the wall.

See the source image

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

That's it, Ron.  Thanks.

Interesting thread, with a some informative posts by Joseph McBride, and a of series of glib posts by Denis Morrisette denying GHWB's possible involvement in the JFK assassination op on 11/22/63.

Unfortunately, I did not succeed in pasting the actual photo of Dubya Bush in Dealey Plaza at the top of that thread, and there was, consequently, some confusion by various posters about the subject of that thread.

Here's the photo of Dubya that I tried to link on the original thread.

See the source image

Taking a page from psychoanalysis, it would be useful, in my opinion, to "explore the resistance" to discussing GHWB's history with the CIA, and his presence in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Here's a matching 1962 profile photo of GHWB that I had not seen before.

GHWB is, obviously, the man in the Dealey Plaza photo.  Kirk's observation about the chin is off, because of the background shadow on the wall.

See the source image

Seems pretty clear. Is there an original of the left photo in a better resolution that I can play with the shadows on?
Thats degrading the right hand image slightly for comparison below. 

GHWB.jpg.efd2c91b7d8ba536a779dad24558bcb1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

One of the most convincing aspects of GHWB having cia affiliations prior to 11/22/63 for me is his reputed role in as a solicitor of funds for Operation Forty.   I.E. the Bay of Pig's preparations.  And the whole Zapata name thing.  His oil company name, the name of the BOP operation, an off shore oil well used as a base of operations.   The ships, the Barbara...more. 

The thing about the photo of Bush at Dealey Plaza it that it becomes the main focus of anyone thinking Bush might have been involved. It’s a distraction. It doesn’t matter if the pic is of him or someone else, unless there is other evidence of his involvement. 
Ron - the allegation that you posted is only that. I’ve never found corroboration. Yet I find it interesting indeed. But if that allegation, made by the Castroite Cuban Fabian Escalante, became a similar focus like the photo, we would have the same problem because it is not provable. Many of you know of my focus on Jack Crichton, Bush’s partner in crime in Escalante’s allegation. A similar problem arises with Crichton, which is the difficulty in proving the existence of his 488th Military Intelligence Detachment, something he repeated often, carried by news articles about him. 
of all the evidence against Bush, I think Hoover’s memo to George Bush of the CIA, discovered by Joseph McBride, is the most incriminating. No one seems to wonder why Hoover would write such a memo. Perhaps someone can answer this question: are there other instances of Hoover identifying the recipient of a memo as a CIA agent? If not, which is what I suspect, then why did he do so in this case? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't prove anything, but I find it interesting.  If you look at the assassination recreation in JFK, Oliver Stone puts the kid in the Ripley school jacket (the purported young GWB) up near Umbrella Man, where he wasn't in real life.  So something may have influenced that "subliminal message" placement, though of course the veracity can't be counted on.  And it was, after all, 1990/1991.

See c. 1:15 in this clip:

 

 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The thing about the photo of Bush at Dealey Plaza it that it becomes the main focus of anyone thinking Bush might have been involved. It’s a distraction. It doesn’t matter if the pic is of him or someone else, unless there is other evidence of his involvement. 

Paul,

      As I mentioned above, on this thread, I view the photos of Ed Lansdale and GHWB in Dealey Plaza as two small pieces of the larger jig-saw puzzle of JFK assassination evidence.  But they do, certainly, constitute important empirical evidence.

     Do they fit into the puzzle-- i.e., can they be integrated into a more comprehensive picture of the plot to kill JFK?  Apparently.

     As you point out, Joseph McBride's discovery of the Hoover-Bush memo of 11/29/63 is critical when it comes to placing GHWB in the CIA matrix.  We also know that GHWB's father, Prescott, hated JFK, and once remarked that he "would never forgive" JFK for firing his friend Allen Dulles.

     Additional factoids.  GHWB (and Barbara) gave conflicting, anomalous accounts of where they were, and when, on 11/22/63.  We know GHWB was in Dallas that morning.  And we know that GHWB made a strange phone call to the FBI shortly after the murder, which has the hallmarks of establishing an alibi.

     We also know that Lansdale was Allen Dulles's favorite CIA black ops expert.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...