Of course that is "scientific". Science is based upon observation, measurement, and experiment. Comparisons of persons and photos are invariably based upon comparisons of the properties of those persons and of those shown in the photographs. That man has the same general properties as Bush. That is apparent from observing their features and estimating their heights, weights, and build, which seem to be the same. But of course the agency specializes in creating phony documents and photos. So it would not be surprising if "blow ups" might be altered to change the party's appearance ever so slightly. And why in the world, if it were not George H.W. Bush, would Lansdale be standing by, waiting to speak with him? That's highly improbable. Does anyone have an alternative hypothesis about this guy who looks-like-GHWB? Who else could it possibly be? He seems to fit both the appearance and the context.
[/URL]if you check this link by Bernice Moore, you'll find two photos.
the left one will convince you that this man is not GHWB. And to conclude that he is GHWB
because "He has similar height, weight, build, clothing, stance, inclination of head, facial appearance, hairline, and manner" based on a photo, With all due respect, it is not very scientific.
You are wrong on both counts. And what would Landsdale be doing other than waiting to speak with George H.W. Bush?
I expect rubbish from people like Seamus Coogan, but not from you. I hope you will give this further thought, my friend.
And precisely what do you "suspect" me of doing? Working to defeat research on the assassination of JFK? Are you mad?
Jim
Charles Drago Wrote:Given the fact that we have not been able to use the conspiracy truth to batter down the walls protecting the assassination's sponsors means that we must continue to persuade generation after generation of the basic fact of life we recognize.
Jim Fetzer's endorsements of the propositions that LBJ is the assassination's "mastermind" and that G.H.W. Bush is captured in crime scene photos do inestimable harm to our greater causes -- establishing the basic truth, communicating it to the people, and using it to inspire the people to overthrow the rule of the assassination's Sponsors.
I find the coordinated timings of the Fetzer-led resurgences of the Bush-was-there and LBJ-as-mastermind hypotheses to be both suspect and damaging.
Damaging, that is, to our efforts to establish truth and bring about justice as a consequence.
PEACE comrades! I'm virtual friend of you both, and respect you both for your work, generally. Lets not have a flaming war just because there is some real or perceived disagreement. Agree to disagree on some points; on most about this matter the two of you, IMHO, agree. [That the entire 'official version' is false, knowingly false, invented and perpetuated via cover-up and propaganda, false information, doctored and disappeared evidence, witnesses and documents, etc.] The list of other specifics that you two agree upon is longer than on those that you might not see exactly eye-to-eye.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
I don't know why you would make such an assumption. When I first encountered the photo in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE, it leaped out at me. Most of us have seen this guy on many, many occasions. I am sure I am not alone in my belief that this is GHWB. But I am also interested in why you think "most everyone will agree" with you rather than with me? Do you deny that he looks like GHWB? that the size and shape of the head are similar? that the hairline seems to match? that he is of similar height, weight and build? that his mannerisms--the tilt of his head, his hands in his pockets, the mode of attire--are all exactly what we have seen so many time before with GHWB? I would like to know why you disagree with me. Tell me more.
Keith Millea Wrote:Thanks for posting that link Vasilios.I think most everyone will agree that this is not GHWB,on the far left of picture.:wavey:
Seamus Coogan tells us he is "laughing his ass off". Well, that's quite a response when this article had the purpose of exposing the vast ignorance of Seamus Coogan when he attacked Hankey's work, which I substantiate by three major lines of criticism, and to explain why, in addition to the evidence that Hankey supplies, his doubts about the identity of the person photographed at that place and time appear to me to be unwarranted. I have explained now several times why I believe this is indeed GHWB. What I have not heard is exactly why any of you, including Charles Drago, do not believe that it actually is GHWB. I have been search for what I thought I had read about Charles addressing a "fake chin", where purported differences in chins would be an interesting issue to address. Here's a photo of GHWB where his chin does not appear very conspicuous:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3340[/ATTACH]
I agree with Vasilious, by the way, when he says, "It is dangerous to try to solve the Kennedy assassination by studying photos and films when they could have been manipulated by C.D. Jackson and the CIA for PSYOPS purposes." We know now that even the Altgens has been altered to conceal Oswald's presence at the time. Filling in between the lower lip and the chin to minimize it, on the one hand, or exaggeraging the chin by taking out a little at that same location can be done relatively effortlessly. But those more general features I have described and no so easily subject to alteration. Here's another where it seems slightly more pronounced, where I take it Charles is weighting "chin differences" very heavily:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3341[/ATTACH]
So if this is the issue, let's talk about it more. There was a lot of photo fakery in Dealey Plaza. Maybe some is going on here. I am not saying that Seamus Coogan got everything wrong or that John Hankey got everything right. But I do believe that the role of George Herbert Walker Bush in the assassination of JFK is a subject that deserves a great deal more attention than it has received in the past and which, I must infer, it most certainly is not going to receive from Jim DiEugenio and Seamus Coogan. And those same words are precisely what I say in this article.
Seamus Coogan Wrote:
Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:I believe that Bernice Moore-if i am not mistaken-has posted an enlarged version of the photo
that clearly and beyond a shadow of doubt proves that the man standing in front of the TSBD was not George Bush. Not the slightest similarity.
I can't believe this lol. Oh man oh man. I can't believe how out of context JF has taken my review on Hankey. Further that. A bunch of us were making jokes these two would team up. Jim Fetzer and the orphan of Paul Kangas. Lord have mercy on us my Greek friend.
Professor Fetzer, we agree to disagree.trying to find out the guilty parties by looking at photos is a waste of time, energy and brains. with regards to LBJ the mastermind and the GHWB issue i am afraid i'll stand by Charles Drago and CTKA.
Thank you, Vasilious. I respect your right to disagree. That's not surprising. What has astonished me is that others have the intention of imposing their position upon me, regardless of the evidence. That is a form of intellectual authoritarianism that I would have thought would be completely unacceptable on a forum of this kind. But its leading practitioner is very prominent here and indulges himself in hyperbole, ridicule, sarcasm and spite in lieu of logic, evidence, argument and documentation. Simply review his posts. His "scorched earth" policy, alas, falls in the tradition of Adolf Hitler and Attila the Hun!
Vasilios Vazakas Wrote:Professor Fetzer, we agree to disagree.trying to find out the guilty parties by looking at photos is a waste of time, energy and brains. with regards to LBJ the mastermind and the GHWB issue i am afraid i'll stand by Charles Drago and CTKA.
The original was published in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE. A blow-up has been offered that does not look right to me. The detail and clarity of a photo tend to be reduced, often dramatically, when a blow up of a small image occurs, but that does not appear to be the case in this instance. I am therefore skeptical that the "blow up" is not in fact a fabricated image. I only wish that Jack were around to address this question. It doesn't look right.
Ed Jewett Wrote:What is the provenance of the photos in question? Where did they come from? Where were they originally published? Who took them?
Quote:I don't know why you would make such an assumption. When I first encountered the photo in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE, it leaped out at me. Most of us have seen this guy on many, many occasions. I am sure I am not alone in my belief that this is GHWB. But I am also interested in why you think "most everyone will agree" with you rather than with me? Do you deny that he looks like GHWB? that the size and shape of the head are similar? that the hairline seems to match? that he is of similar height, weight and build? that his mannerisms--the tilt of his head, his hands in his pockets, the mode of attire--are all exactly what we have seen so many time before with GHWB? I would like to know why you disagree with me. Tell me more.
James:
Yes,I do see a similarity,but only that,a similarity.My eyes clearly see a person other than GHWB.Does not the enlarged picture clarify this point?It simply is just not the man.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.â€
Buckminster Fuller
