23-12-2009, 03:49 PM
Jim
A few posts back you referred to a picture taken of Bush 41 in Dallas 11/22/63. While I completely believe Bush was involved in the assassination of JFK it cannot be maintained that this IS him in that photo. A strong resemblance yes. I have seen this pic several times but it taken from too far away to conclude anything, imo.
I just looked in Family of Secrets to see if Russ Baker utilized this picture, as Baker's work furthers the evidence of Bush involvement in the assassination, including much evidence that Bush was actually in Dallas 11/21 and 22, then later lied about it. However he does make the mistake of printing that picture together with a definitive finding. In fact such would be potentilally libelous, to put the former CIA director and president literally at the scene.
I find merit to your view- and Jack's- that conspirators would be present at the scene and found Prouty's identification of Lansdale very convincing.
That said, I think we all need to be careful with regard to the photographic evicence. Or hearsay evidence such as what Morales' friend Bob Dorf told Fonzi -(The Last Investigation p390): "Well we took care of that son of a bitch didn't we?" Morales likely did say that to Dorf, but we have no way of knowing exactly to whom "we" refers, or the extent of Morales' literal involvement.
Dawn
A few posts back you referred to a picture taken of Bush 41 in Dallas 11/22/63. While I completely believe Bush was involved in the assassination of JFK it cannot be maintained that this IS him in that photo. A strong resemblance yes. I have seen this pic several times but it taken from too far away to conclude anything, imo.
I just looked in Family of Secrets to see if Russ Baker utilized this picture, as Baker's work furthers the evidence of Bush involvement in the assassination, including much evidence that Bush was actually in Dallas 11/21 and 22, then later lied about it. However he does make the mistake of printing that picture together with a definitive finding. In fact such would be potentilally libelous, to put the former CIA director and president literally at the scene.
I find merit to your view- and Jack's- that conspirators would be present at the scene and found Prouty's identification of Lansdale very convincing.
That said, I think we all need to be careful with regard to the photographic evicence. Or hearsay evidence such as what Morales' friend Bob Dorf told Fonzi -(The Last Investigation p390): "Well we took care of that son of a bitch didn't we?" Morales likely did say that to Dorf, but we have no way of knowing exactly to whom "we" refers, or the extent of Morales' literal involvement.
Dawn