FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
2nd Shooting Team ID'd in Dealey Plaza?

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:39 pm    Post subject: 2nd Shooting Team ID'd in Dealey Plaza? Reply with quote


Translated from French, a bit clumsily:
The 501 Elm Street - Dal-Tex Building

Located at the corner of Elm and Houston Street, the Dal-Tex Building has for years been suspected of being one of the places "likely" where a team of shooters would fired on the motorcade. In teams of shooters, means at least three people, a sniper, a spotter and a lookout. Recently the Forum of Private Dellarosa Rich, JFK Research , two independent researchers have posted their review of the respective team's Dal-Tex Building . For the sake of making the results of their work accessible to as many people I decided, in consultation with these researchers and friends, to open the Mag with the publication of their work. No value judgments on my part, just pleased to publish their illustrations, I am sure, will not fail to intrigue more than one person among you. On one side we have Duncan MacRae (Great Britain) and the other Christian Toussay (France .) Both are feats in the field of digital image processing. Their work is exclusively based on the famous photo # 5 James Altgens have been the subject of this article in The Little Gazette. In addition to their work, " Dunc " and " Chris " give us their views and / or motivations for the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. ... Good read

Duncan MacRae wrote:
I was born in February 1955 in Glasgow (Scotland), I was eight years old when the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. My interest in this sinister event dates back to the day of the assassination. I remember like it was yesterday, we were returning from a visit to friends of my parents, I learned the news via TV news. I can not explain why but since that day I am haunted by the assassination of JFK. At the end of my studies I was totally taken up with a successful career as a professional musician, until 1993 when my interest the assassination resurfaced. I devoted all my free time reading everything that had been published on the attack in Dallas, I was particularly stunned by the differences and / or discrepancies in witness testimony. In 2001 I made ​​the purchase of a computer and threw myself into the study and analysis of film Abraham Zapruder, Orville Nix, Marie Muchmore, etc ... I found it fascinating to be able to compare witness statements with the films and photos of the assassination. Since then, I regularly presents the results of my work on the Forum JFKResearch when I receive support and encouragement from members. I was often attacked - sometimes turned away - on other forums where I also had, from time to time, the result of my research. I am convinced that these attacks come from people I would describe as disinformation agents. Recently I was able to identify two members of the team housed in the Dal-Tex Building. I thank Marcel Dehaeseleer put at the disposal of French-speaking audience the results of my research.

The digitally-enhanced close-up photo of the window is quite interesting.

Christian Toussay wrote:
In terms of "theories" I remain very cautious and therefore open to new information. This can not be locked in a school of thought, which is unfortunately the problem of many "researchers" whose sole objective is to validate any cost, their small personal theory ... and requires, by definition, to re-evaluate regularly and systematically the whole file. It is true that it is more comfortable to be walled in certainties ... That being said, I still some certainties in this folder: - This is a conspiracy. - The Media and American institutions - as appropriate, consciously or unconsciously - involved in concealing the truth. - This plot is rooted primarily in opposition to the foreign policy of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - especially on the Cuban question - but more generally for its attitude to " threat " Soviet. - The plot would have been possible without the complicity and / or tacit approval of the military hierarchy (JCS) and the highest authorities of the intelligence services. - The Document " Operation Northwoods " is a piece critical of the puzzle that explains the motives and plans of action to manipulate public opinion for a war against Cuba. Y figure prominently, a series of violent actions against U.S. interests, including against senior state officials ... - Those (many, alas ...) who have not understood anything in Dallas can not understand much about either the events of September 11. In this sense, even 40 years after the fact, the attack is as relevant as Dallas. After listing the above facts, here's my theory. Once the decision to eliminate JFK required a plan - not only works (to kill JFK) but also - to guarantee that the truth may never be discovered. Kill JFK was not the most difficult, incidentally this is the question of modus operandi chosen to Dallas, was there any more simple? As against the second part of the plan is much more complex, how? Here, I think, what happened after the decision to eliminate JFK was stopped. A group of exiled anti-castrites - whose hatred vis--vis JFK is known - was handled by his / her contacts within the U.S. intelligence. The fact that this group is funded and / or reinforced by the Mafia - and the latter involved in attempts against Castro organized by the CIA - is most attractive to sponsors. The lure: Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself is mission or mission preparation on behalf of the CIA. The plan suggested that Cuban exiles is to blame for the assassination of JFK to LHO, who (officially) has the perfect profile of the pro-Communist Cuba. The goal: to compel the U.S. to avenge their president by invading the island. It will probably assurances that Cuban exiles, within the Administration, there are many who think that "JFK HAS to go" and that their business will be helped and supported. What I do not know the members of this commando (which will fire from the TSBD) is that the case of a Coup d'Etat, the limited partners can not take the risk to entrust their fate to a group of men, certainly determined, but the concrete results - against the life of Castro, for example - are ineffective at best. As OHL, in fact, anti-Castro commando used unknowingly, the "second cover" in case something goes wrong. That in 1963, would be able to make a difference, if arrested, between a Cuban anti-Castro and an alleged double agent for Castro ... Two commandos killers, from the Military Intelligence, wearing uniforms and carrying the certifications, will be positioned at the rear (Dal-Tex) and front (Knoll) of the firing zone. Their mission is to ensure the success of the operation, regardless of the effectiveness of the Cuban team. This scenario is the only one, for now, allow me to reconcile seemingly contradictory aspects of the attack and the Cover-up that followed. I am particularly bothers with the choice of the weapon from Oswald, with its many limitations in terms of power and speed. Why "with" Oswald of such a weapon? Was it a way to force the team to the TSBD discharge only limited number of moves? More generally I believe the JFK assassination is part of a much broader, for the way in which decides and implements foreign policy (which also can be seen as an extension of economic policy ...) of the United States. The assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK (main opponent to the Vietnam War at the time of his assassination) are linked, as are related failure of the Vienna Conference (after the fall, the first of its kind, a plane U -2) the Gulf of Tonkin incident that lead to the escalation in Vietnam, or September 11, which will lead where you know ... I started a few years ago, an essay entitled "Secret History United States 50 years. " I was interested in including the many "historical accidents" that seem to regularly mark america. It is time for me to furnish me ...

Very interesting website.

One point of observation now becomes critical - the topography of the stretch of road in Dealey. The angle from this window is just barely sufficient for a shot that misses the 2nd car's windshield. But if the road pitches down at less of an angle (or flattens) a few dozen yards from there, you have a clearer shot at JFK.

There is also a discussion about the "independent oil exec" that was arrested coming out of this very building, who was almost immediately released, to jeers from the crowd outside the Dallas Police station that saw him taken in. It could have been Poppy Bush, acting as lookout for this team.

John Hankey takes up the story:

It Never Ends - MORE Startling Evidence of Bush in Dallas
by John Hankey -TheDarkLegacy.com

I don't think we are much encouraged to see History as science. Quite the opposite, actually. And of course, that's all politics. The winners write history, and the truth be damned. Even science can have trouble trying to act like science when political issues are involved, as we see with evolution, tobacco-and-cancer, and global warming. But I think History does have a lot in common with physical science. For example, I can remember when "Continental Drift", the idea that Africa and America were once stuck together, was very much considered "just a theory"; ridiculed by some, and regarded with amusement by many, and promulgated as likely by a tiny minority. But as time goes by, the evidence accumulates; and the meaning of old evidence begins to settle in; and ideas that were once considered outrageous gradually get worn in and start to be regarded as obvious common sense. Part of this process is the continual accumulation of new evidence. New pieces are added to the puzzle and the picture becomes more clear. And sometimes the hidden meaning of old evidence, that has been lying around for years, suddenly jumps out. Evidence of the fossils and minerals that can be found on the east coast of Africa, and on the west coast of Brazil, may have been lying around for years, before someone decided to look and see if they matched, and found that they did; and proved conclusively that west Africa and Brazil were once attached.

With regard to George HW Bush and the murder of John Kennedy, Joseph McBride found this memo in 1988.

FBI director J. Edgar Hoover wrote this memo 5 days after the assassination, naming George Bush as a CIA officer.
When it was first released in 1978, George Bush was an obscure bureaucrat, a virtual unknown. So when the best researchers on the planet saw this memo in 1978, they didn't pay much attention to it. When Bush became vice president two years later, no one was able to connect his now well-known name to this obscure memo. But when Joseph McBride was messing around in 1988, Bush was running for president; and and when McBride saw the memo, he jumped up and shouted "Hey, this memo is about Bush! It says he was in the CIA, way back in 1963!"
And for the longest time, the focus was on this simple isolated fact: that Hoover said Bush was in the CIA in '63. Bush said the memo must be referring to another "George Bush," because he wasn't in the CIA at that time. But over the years, people were able to assemble the facts from Bush's personal life, showing his deep involvement with the CIA at that time, and with the CIA's anti-Castro Cubans (in the memo, Hoover calls them misguided anti-Castro Cubans). And over time, it has become undeniable; that Hoover was referring, in his memo, to none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. And for a while, that was it. End of story.
But the title of this Hoover memo is, "Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy". Isn't that important? Well, you'd think so. But for the longest time, no one made much out it. Besides, Hoover scarcely mentions the assassination in the memo, instead focusing on these "misguided anti-Castro Cubans." The body of the memo does not appear, at first, to be in any way related to the title of the memo the assassination of President John F Kennedy. But then Mark Lane, in his book Rush to Judgment, did the fabulous work of demonstrating, and in fact persuading a jury, that E. Howard Hunt, a major lieutenant in the CIA's "misguided anti-Castro Cuban" program, was in Dallas and involved in the assassination. With this background, with this framework to guide the researcher, it was then possible to assemble the considerable evidence linking Bush to Hunt. People might have taken some notice before that Bush made the unusual request, as Nixon's ambassador to the UN, to be given an office in the White House. They may have noticed that Hunt, although he was not being paid by anyone in the White House, or answering to anyone that we know of in the White House, also had a White House office. But with the Hoover memo in hand, establishing Bush as a supervisor of the CIA's "misguided anti-Castro Cuban" operation, it was now possible to connect Bush to Hunt at the Bay of Pigs. With this memo in hand, it was possible to connect Bush and Hunt as two CIA operatives with offices inside the White House. With this memo in hand, it was possible to answer who it was that Hunt answered to inside the White House; and how he got the office in the first place. And with all that, it was possible to connect Bush to Hunt, and therefore to Dallas, to Hunt in Dallas, and to the "misguided anti-Castro Cuban" assassins of John Kennedy. Which is what Hoover did for us when he wrote the title of the memo. Little by little, the pieces start to fall into place. And pieces that in isolation meant nothing, become key parts of a whole picture.
But even so, this is not a rock-solid connection: Hunt was directly involved in the murder of JFK. And Bush supervised Hunt. But Bush probably supervised a lot of CIA people, not all of whom were directly involved in the assassination. A high-ranking officer may be connected to all of the acts of all of his troops, by reason of his being their commander. But it's not a direct connection. It doesn't establish that the officer knew about, or approved of, or was involved in, all the actions of those troops.

Enter FBI memo # 2:

It will come up again in a minute, so please read the first line carefully. Bush identifies himself to the FBI as an oil man from Houston.
This memo establishes that sort of direct connection between Bush and Hunt, in Dallas, on the day of the assassination. This memo records Bush's phone call to the FBI, precisely an hour and fifteen minutes after the assassination. When I first encountered this memo, and when I first put it into my movie, JFK II, I simply called it "weird". I saw it only in isolation, a weird, isolated connection between Bush and the assassination. It took me years to see it in context. That is, to see that this phone call demonstrates, clearly, that George Bush, was on duty that day. He was staying at the Dallas Sheraton because his duty assignment was in the Dallas. His phone call to the FBI cannot have been random. This James Parrott worked for Bush as a sign-painter; he was not an assassin; this phone call is not what it purports to be; Bush was fulfilling some official function in making this call. So the phone call has to be seen as part of his CIA assignment; which was clearly connected to the assassination. This memo then establishes that Bush was in Dallas, and on duty; and that his duty assignment was connected to the assassination. And if his men were in Dallas shooting the President, as they were, he was certainly on duty supervising them. If he were not supposed to be supervising them, his bosses would have assigned him to be at his home office in Houston, Texas; or on his oil rigs in the Caribbean.
But, even in context, this memo and the phone call it describes is still weird, no? I mean, how could Bush have been so stupid as to make this insanely incriminating phone call? Without this FBI memo, recording this phone call, we don't know, or even have a good clue as to where Bush was, or what he was doing the day of the assassination. Do we? Bush has, until recently, simply said that the did not remember what he was doing the day of the assassination. But with this memo, Bush tells us where he was and what he was doing -- he hands us his head on a silver platter. What could possibly have motivated him to make such a stupid error as making this phone call to the FBI? It's a valid question. It's not an essential question. We can still value this memo, and extract a great deal of important content from it without answering the question of why, but the question remains.
And we can make a stab at answering it. Russ Baker in his fine book, Family of Secrets suggests that Bush was attempting to establish an alibi. Now, by making this phone call, he, in fact, establishes that he was in the Dallas area, and that he was on duty, related to the assassination. So if he's trying to establish an alibi to cover-up where he actually was and what he was actually doing, that "actually" stuff must be some pretty bad stuff, some pretty incriminating stuff, if it's worse than what he gives us with this alibi*.
And what could be worse than what he gives us? Well, obviously, he must have actually been in Dallas. In fact, I think, this situation suggests he must have actually been in Dealey Plaza. I mean seriously. Think about it. He's so panicked about the truth coming out, that he puts his head in a noose and hands it to us. It makes me think he must have been in Dealey Plaza, he must have been in the company of the shooters, and he must have felt that there would be evidence to prove that.
We're just speculating at the moment. We'll get to the evidence in a moment. But you get the point. If a guilty party believes there is evidence connecting them to a crime, they may develop an explanation, or an alibi, that seems like a good idea at the time; but that in fact constitutes a very damaging admission. Anyway, stew on that while you consider this photo:
You see this tall thin man in a suit, with a receding hair line. Many people claim this is Bush, standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository. And it might be. It might be a lot of people. And perhaps, when he called the FBI and incriminated himself, Bush was concerned that he might show up in a better picture than this, where he was positively recognizable, looking towards the camera.
Personally, I don't think this photo looks much like Bush; and in fact, I didn't think he'd be stupid enough to just be hanging around the murder scene. I thought he was sufficiently high ranking that he'd leave such on-scene stuff to his underlings. Right? At least in my mind, if you're an officer like Bush, you're the coach. You plan, you train and prepare your people, and then you stand back and watch it happen. Or so I thought. Fletcher Prouty was certain that he saw pictures of Ed Lansdale, a military operative of the highest rank, signaling to the "tramps" arrested behind the grassy knoll to "be cool," that everything was alright. Hunt was a CIA officer, and his son says he is one of the tramps in these photos, who were arrested behind the grassy knoll. So, some of the highest ranking members of the killers' operation were apparently there, on the front line, to make sure that when things went wrong, as they inevitably do, these high ranking officers could be there to fix whatever the problem was. So, given that high- and low- ranking CIA officers were present, this photo of this thin man in a suit might, indeed, be Bush. It's possible.
And now, look at this picture of the Dal-Tex building. The Dal-Tex building is across the street from the Book Depository, and many leading researchers into the assassination, including Jim Garrison, say there was certainly a team of shooters in this building:

And as you can see, some imaginative individual has added some color to indicate three men in this window. Very creative, very imaginative; and at least plausible. Still, it takes way too much imagination and effort, to see Bush's face.
But now observe this link: http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html . Actually, You don't have to stop and read it, because I'll quote the relevant part. It's a statement from Roger Craig, winner of the deputy of the year award for Dallas in 1960, and one of the most honest men working that day in Dallas. He's an amazing and heroic fellow, worthy of all the time you could take looking into his background and character. And here, in the following passage, he is describing a conversation he had with Jim Garrison, and he says,
"Jim also asked me about the arrests made in Dealey Plaza that day. I told him I knew of twelve arrests, one in particular made by R. E. Vaughn of the Dallas Police Department. The man Vaughn arrested was coming from the Dal-Tex Building across from the Texas School Book Depository. The only thing which Vaughn knew about him was that he was an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas. The prisoner was taken from Vaughn by Dallas Police detectives and that was the last that he saw or heard of the suspect." (emphasis added)
Holy Moe Lee! Please notice that, in speaking to Jim Garrison, Craig says "in particular". Apparently he and Vaughn thought this was the most significant arrest made that day; pretty amazing given that E.Howard Hunt was arrested in the rail yard behind the grassy knoll. And the only thing Craig knew about this particular arrestee was that he had exactly the same singular CIA-cover, "an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas", that George Bush was used that day in his contact with the FBI.
Now. There are a very limited number of possible explanations for who this "independent oil operator" was. Let's look at them.
It is conceivable that the CIA had two men in Dallas that day, supervising the shooters, who both had the designated cover of being an "independent oil operator from Houston." Bush was one, as the evidence above clearly shows; and perhaps there was another who was with the shooters in the Dal-Tex building, supervising them directly. But unless the CIA overlords were trying to set Bush up, they would not have told anyone else to use Bush's CIA cover to identify themselves to the police. If another man was involved in the crime, and was arrested for it, and he told the cops he was an "independent oil operator from Houston," this would tend to throw suspicion in Bush's direction. Bush's association with the CIA's Cubans was already widely known. Fletcher Prouty knew and wrote of it. Fabian Escalante, the head of Cuban counter intelligence, knew and has written about it. James Files, who claims very credibly, to have been a driver for the Mafia shooters in Dallas, has spoken on-camera about it. And FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, knew about it and wrote about it in his memo. So Bush was already a suspect. The CIA planners, then, would not have told anyone else, "in case you get arrested, tell the cops you're an independent oil man from Houston". Right? This would not have happened.
Another unlikely possibility is that this " independent oil operator from Houston" was just some innocent oil operator, who somehow managed to attract suspicion, and was arrested. Do you think it's possible that another oil man from Houston just happened to be in that corner of Dealy Plaza? I hope you think it's possible. Because, as unlikely as it seems, if you think it was possible, then certainly Bush would have been reasonable in thinking that, as he was being arrested, there were other independent oil operators in the crowd who witnessed his arrest. You see, Bush spoke to a group of oil men in Dallas the night before the assassination*2. If it were possible that some of them were in Dealy Plaza, he would need to be terrified of the possibility that some of them may actually have seen the arrest, and would have been able to identify him as the object of that arrest, the most important arrestee that day, who later disappeared.
No wonder, then, that Bush freaked out, and made this stupid incriminating phone call to the FBI. Even if it showed that he was not in Houston, or in the Caribbean, but in Dallas, at least it suggested that he was not in police custody in Dealy Plaza, for the murder of the President.
But now stop and think a minute: why was he arrested? What was he doing that drew this cop's attention at all? What could he possibly have been doing to make this cop think that he needed to arrest Bush? Perhaps walking out of a building without attracting attention is harder than it sounds; and it reasonable to suppose that the crowd outside the Dal-Tex building had heard the shots, had heard that the President had been wounded, and they were carefully scrutinizing anyone who came out of the building. But this story shows clearly that Bush was not the sort of cold-blooded killer who could take part in the murder of a man, and then act and look like nothing was going on as he tried to leave the scene of the crime. And it turns out that this character trait, of being unable to hide feelings that need to be kept secret, is a trait that Bush not only suffered from as a young man, but that continues to suffer from this trait as an old man. As you can see in this link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwt_xKs2hFE , at Gerry Ford's funeral, Bush suddenly breaks into a wide grin while speaking of the Kennedy assassination. This is not a Mona Lisa smile. This is face-wreching spazm of glee. In a minute we'll take up the question of why Bush woud grin at his recollection of watching John Kennedy's brains splatter; the point for us now is that he apparently had a similarly inappropriate, show-stopping expression on his face as he attempted to exit the Dal-Tex building; he had the look of a murderer in his eye, so clearly that it could not be missed; as this funereal-grin could not be missed. And the guilt plastered all over Bush's face drew people's attention. And this cop, Vaughn, arrested him.
Now remember, Roger Craig tells this story in the context of his discussions with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison about the suspects who were arrested that day, and evaporated without leaving a mugshot, interview, fingerprint, or name. Garrison spoke not only to Roger Craig, but he do-doubt spoke to Vaughn. And Garrison adds the following:
At least one man arrested immediately after the shooting had come running out of the Dal-Tex Building and offered no explanation for his presence there. Local authorities hardly could avoid arresting him because of the clamor of the onlookers. He was taken to the Sheriff's office, where he was held for questioning. However, the Sheriff's office made no record of the questions asked this suspect, if any were asked; nor did it have a record of his name. Later two uniformed police officers escorted him out of the building to the jeers of the waiting crowd. They put him in a police car, and he was driven away. Apparently this was his farewell to Dallas, for he simply disappeared forever.
On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 238

This vision of the panicked Bush being arrested, no-doubt terrified as he was taken to the police station, and possibly even booked (though the record of any such booking has been destroyed) provides a context that explains a number of Bush's otherwise-mysterious actions. Certainly Bush was freaked out and panic-stricken! An angry crowd clamored for his arrest, and jeered his release.
Being a newbie in these dark affairs, Bush didn't have confidence in the ability of the old devils at CIA to make water run uphill, to make time run backwards, to silence the witnesses, to destroy the records, and make it all go away. And so he panicked; he acted on his own, stupidly; he called the FBI, thinking that he was "cleverly" providing evidence that it wasn't him who was arrested in front of the Dal-Tex building that day. In his panic-stricken state, this seemed like a good idea. He was unable to see that he was actually creating a permanent absolutely-positive record of his involvement.
We can now also explain the grin. He grins ridiculously at Gerry Ford's funeral, at the mention of John Kennedy's murder, not because he is such a ghoul that he thinks splaterring the contents of Kenney's head all over Jackie Kennedy was funny; but because he recalls the comedy of errors that produced his own ridiculous panic, arrest, and the rest.
Garrison wrote his paragraph about Bush's arrest in 1988. Deputy Craig's article was written in 1971 and posted in 1992. But the significance of these paragraphs was discovered last week. There hardly was an internet in 1992 when Craig's article was posted. And for 19 years, no one noticed that this phrase, "independent oil man from Houston", is a very unique description of Bush. No one noticed until last month, when one of the moderators of JFKMurderSolved showed it to me. And I wrote about it to some friends, and one of them suggested I read what Jim Garrison had to say.
So the pieces continue to fall into place. Little by little, the picture is filled in, the questions get answered. And the conclusions become more incontrovertible. This is just the sort thing that happened with the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory; and the the theory of continental drift. And someday they may start to teach history, as a science, based on evidence, in the universities. Really! It could happen! At which point, Bush's involvement in JFK's murder will be taught, like evolution, as the only plausible explanation of the available reliable evidence.
final note:
Until recently, Bush had nothing more to say about his whereabouts the day of the assassination than that he doesn't remember where he was. That in itself is extraordinarily incriminating. Everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were on 9-11, and on the day Kennedy was murdered. But, saying that he doesn't remember, however improbable, is at least consistent with Bush's autobiography, which mentions nothing. Lately, however, perhaps at least partly in response to my work, Bush and Co. have concocted a story that he was speaking in Tyler, Texas to the Rotary Club. The vice-president of the Rotary Club, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush was speaking when the bellhop came over and told him, that Kennedy was dead*1. Mr. Irby passed the information on to Mr. Wendell Cherry, who passed it on to Bush; who stopped his speech. Irby says that Bush explained that he thought a political speech, under the circumstances, was inappropriate; and then he sat down. As a would-be alibi proving Bush's innocence, there are at least three huge problems with this story.
The first is that it is inconceivable that Bush would not have remembered such an event; or that he would have left it out of his autobiography, since it shows what a fine and respectful fellow he is. If he didn't remember it sooner, or include it in his autobiography, it's clearly because it never happened.
The second huge problem is that the witness who tells this story, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush excused himself and sat down. It doesn't say that he rushed out of the room in a frantic search for a phone. The problem is that Walter Cronkite's announcement to the world that Kennedy was dead came at 1:38 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76gl3NZAdxo). Certainly, no one was listening to Walter Cronkite in the same room in which Bush was speaking. Therefore we can be sure that this bellhop, who told Irby that Kennedy was dead, was in another room. The bellhop had to make the decision that he had heard enough of the news to leave off listening to the news. This is no small point. Texas governor Connally was severely wounded. Lyndon Johnson was reportedly wounded. There was much other news to be confirmed. At some point, then, the bellhop decided to stop listening and go make an announcement. There's no reason to think Irby would be the first person he would tell. But at some point he went to the room where Bush was speaking and informed Mr. Irby that the president was dead. This walk to find Irby took time, of course. Mr. Irby had to receive the information, and then he had to decide to inform Mr. Wendell Cherry, the president of the Kiwanis. Mr. Cherry had to decide that he should interrupt Bush's speech; Mr. Cherry had to then walk over to Bush and tell him the news. Bush had to decide what to say, and he had to say it. And, according to the only witness, Mr. Irby, Bush "then sat down". Somehow, when he was finished sitting, without attracting Mr. Irby's attention, Bush had to seek and find a phone. This would have been a hotel phone, so he would likely have had to go through the hotel switchboard to get an outside line. Do you supposed the switchboard was busy after the announcement of the President's death? It's a good guess. Bush then had to call information and get the number of the FBI. After getting through to information, and getting the number, he then had to call the FBI; and penetrate their switchboard, which was, no doubt, very busy; and he had to locate an agent, on what must have been the busiest day in the history of the Dallas bureau. How many minutes do you suppose that would take? Twenty seems a fair guess, though it seems implausible that a civilian could even get through, given all the official police business going on at the time. We know that the Dallas FBI was all over the murder scene, confiscating camera film and intimidating witnesses; so it's hard to imagine how Bush was able to reach an agent at all. Given the "sitting" that Mr. Irby observed Bush doing, for all this to have transpired in 45 minutes would be tidy work. But Bush had to do all of this, as the memo states, by 1:45, seven minutes after the news of Kennedy's death first went out; which is blatantly impossible.
The third problem is this question of why Bush would feel that it was necessary to concoct such a story? E. Howard Hunt, it should be mentioned, has a similar history of concocting demonstrably false alibis, five of them, to explain his whereabouts on Nov. 22, '63. He was similarly sloppy, five times. So it is hardly surprising that the Bush crowd failed to inform Irby that he should say that he saw Bush run out of the room in search of a phone. Bush's phone call to the FBI regarding James Parrott disproves the story that Bush was giving a speech in Tyler, Texas. That phone call to the FBI was also meant as a phony alibi, but is instead terribly incriminating; as is the fact that Bush would concoct this lie about his giving a speech in Tyler in the first place. Like every single move he makes, or breath he takes, it only makes him look more guilty.

There are some people who manage to point to this and say "ahah! That's why Bush was in Dallas! Not to kill the President, but to speak to the other oilmen!" But as the Hoover memo shows, being an oilman was just a cover for Bush's real occupation as a CIA supervisor of trained killers. He needed an excuse for being in Dallas. This speaking engagement provided him with one.


"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Big Boss

Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 829
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Rump, I'll have to carefully devour this. I do have that article from Hankey but I actually wanted to dig more into the "Poppy arrested" angle as Baker doesn't even mention this in his book on the Bushes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1477
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ruby did not shoot Oswald; if he was shot at all?

"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2463

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So whatever "Jack Ruby" told Dorothy Kilgallen - when she had the private interview with him in 1965 - is what later cost her her life?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.