Bush and the JFK Hit parts 1 and 2

[Tracy Riddle]

I was the one being sarcastic, Vasilios.

Bush's ties to George de Mohrenschildt are enough to keep him on the "maybe" list.

[R.K. Locke]

Bush's close connection to Jack Crichton (along with his other, more significant establishment connections) mean he was almost certainly "in the loop", even if he wasn't directly involved. On the basis of the evidence currently available there is no obvious place for him the Sponsor-Facilitator-Mechanic model, but that doesn't mean that further investigation of his involvement is not required. Quite the contrary.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

You could argue that he can fit in the Evica-Drago model as a False Sponsor.

[R.K. Locke]

You could argue that he can fit in the Evica-Drago model as a False Sponsor.

I'm not sure that there has ever been enough of a "Bush did it" tope floating around for him to be classed as a False Sponsor in his own right, but your point is taken. I would tend to think of him more as a "cheerleader". One of the more amusing posts I remember reading on this forum was Jim Fetzer suggesting that Bush was photographed in Dealey Plaza because he was waiting to convene with Ed Lansdale to discuss the success of the plot. A highly plausible scenario, I'm sure you'll agree.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

How can i forget? Even CD was forced to say "This is a joke, right?" Unfortunately it was not. Dr. Fetzer really believed it.

[Dawn Meredith]

Zapata, Houston and Barbara OH MY! Zapata, Houston and Barbara OH MY!

The latest from Russ Baker:

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/09/25/part-2-viva-zapata-3/

Here's part one:

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/09/16/part-1-...ce-agency/

Obviously neither of you have read mine and Jims work or Tarpleys book. Hence, I have no need to even bother... if you want to go down the Fetzer/Hankey/line in which all manner of bull is acceptable then by all means. Did Bush, Johnson or Hoover know something was in the breeze against JFK, neither obviously knew when or where something would happen - there is no evidence. As for the links between Zapata, Houston, and Barbara... heck who knows. ::evilpenguin::

There are legitimate reasons on either side. Right or wrong it's important not to go overboard.

I tend to think "So what" if the above links are kosher. None of the reports, nor any of the early and best CIA biographers, investigators and historians gave any mention of George Bush and his involvement. Hence, his naming of a boat may have been an irrelevant action. Fletcher Prouty nor Mark Lane who commented the Houston, Zapata, and Barbara links. Made much of a song and dance about Bush and his role.

Indeed Prouty, a dude who was around the CIA a lot didn't mention Bush much at all. Nor did he ever put Bush as a key planner for the Bay of Pigs. Nor did he involve him in the Kennedy assassination.

It's been established that their is an area called Zapata in Cuba where they were going to land (not necessarily Bush's oil company). As for Houston Holy crap, how many Oil companies are in Houston? The Barbara was definitely interesting. But it was the Barbara J. This was plane old Barb! She doesn't have a middle name. You can read all of this in mine, Jim's, and Tarpleys stuff.

Seamus, I read your articles and I still think there is a lot of room for Bush to be involved. I started researching this particular aspect after the 2000 election and even more so after 9/11 - I think Russ is more right than wrong about Bush.

Just my opinion, but don't assume that someone hasn't read something just because they don't agree with your findings.

::

[Nick Rose]

Sorry guys the Bush family had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. Full stop capital letter,

Sorry.
But have you read Family of Secrets ?
It is pretty damning.
Did you know Bush WAS IN DALLAS on the night of 11\21\63
AND THIS IS PROVEN?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5650[/ATTACH]

FULL STOP!

He also was stupid enough to call the FBI and rat out one of his colleagues as an alleged assassin (a guy who he gave a job on his campaign some 20 years later, huh, what?) ... this is one of the dumber instances of an attempt at "Plausible Deniability" in history.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5651[/ATTACH]

By the way, compare the bottom paragrahp of the above document, which is a gross lie, with the top image from the newspaper.
BUSH HAD ALREADY BEEN AT THE DALLAS SHERATON ON THE NIGHT OF 11\21\63.

But this rat-out to the FBI claims, roughly an hour after the assassination on 11\22\63 that "he was proceeding TO DALLAS" and "would remain IN THE SHERATON-DALLAS and return to his residence on 11\23\63".

BUSH HAD **ALREADY** BEEN AT THE SHERATON-DALLAS -- AGAIN, READ THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. IT STATES SO, BLUNTLY.

Finally.
What about this little video here?


That is one hell of a bullshit crooked grin coming out of that assholes mouth at the exact moment he mentions a "deluded gunman".

Russ Baker's book is a phenomenal read,
and I am rather surprised he is still walking this earth.

[T Harry Evans]

http://911review.org/companies/Bush_link...urton.html

PERMINDEX is the key.

[Lauren Johnson]

http://911review.org/companies/Bush_link...urton.html

PERMINDEX is the key.

EDIT: Oops, left out the links.

From DPF: Permindex

More on Permindex. Search the essay for "Permindex."

[O. Austrud]

I have edited the free version of this book, and making it more readable. Am I allowed to send it out? It is free from Kobo. But I don't know the legal implications.
Available in both kindel and epub format. Just tell me what to do.