Photo of Poppy Bu$h in front of the TSBD

[Dealey Joe]

well Mike I will agree it is easier to go with the lone nut club as it takes no more contemplation on the matter.it is much easier on the brain and body.I don't know about 9/11, if it wasn't an inside job then it shows a terrible security flaw.MLK ? don't know, don't careJFK jr. same answer.however a few years ago I had a lengthy conversation with an old and interesting man who lived in Roswell and worked for the military there. Alto he could not reveal top secret information he informed me that there was definatly a crash there in 1947.if area 51 contains the remains of tthat crash or not I do not know.Neither would he admit it was alien but hinted at it being a gov. project. he said they were doing unbelievable things at that time at White Sands.As for Big Foot. i have told very few what I witnessed in 1971 in the Great Smokey Mountain Nationl Park.About 10am my family and I were driving south on hiway 441 from Gatlinberg toward Cherokea large thing crossed the road in front of me. it stood like a human, looked to be Male, crossed the road in 5 or 6 strides and dissapearedf into the brush. I would guess it as 7 ft+ tall, lean, very upright and covered with hair and definatly not a bear.So I must believe in Bigfoot.Ventura is what he is. a showman, but exposing a few things to som who don't have a clue.

[Bob]

mike martinez wrote:Bob wrote:Forgive me for being frank Mike...but just what the hell is your agenda in being part of this forum? Before this thread, I've seen you contradict yourself in your first few posts. Not a good sign. Actually a red flag. Now this. It's been said that I have allowed some disinformation types to remove focus for what is really relevant in our discussions. To me, you are doing that in this thread. Bring something to the table Mike. What do you REALLY think happened in Dealey Plaza that day? Why was Poppy Bu$h not involved, even with all of the evidence that says otherwise?As I think I have said in earlier posts, I don't claim to know what happened in Dealy plaza. My dad first got me intrested in the assassination when I was about 12 yrs old. Over the last 30 years I've read countless books, seen numerous documentaries and have read tons on the subject on the internet. My opinion has changed over the years from 100% conspiracy theorist to leaning more the other way as the years have gone on.There are tons of questions: secret service standing down, cracks in the windshield, Tauge getting hit, Roger Craigs testimony who i sincerely take for his word. Reports of fake secret service agents on the ground. Reports of a Mauser being found on the six floor, witnesses seeing two men on the sixth floor, etc........I personally don't believe the story's of Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver or Judyth Baker, I think they were/are nuts looking for their fifteen minutes of fame. I don't believe there was anything sinister about the three tramps, badgeman and black dog man are virtually impossible, etc.................I look at the assassination not thru the eyes of people are emotionally involved with "camelot" and think he was this larger than life figure. I look at the assassination purely as a whodunnit, plain and simple.I don't know what happened and guess what, nobody else here does either. If we did it wouldn't hold such fasination almost fifty years later. There wouldn't be two official gov't explanations and people wouldn't disagree as to what happened. It would laid out for the world to see.The JFK assassination fasinates me. However, apparently to visit and post on this site you must submit or be ridiculed and made to feel unwelcome. What I absolutely don't believe:inside job on 9/11MLK conspiracyJFK jr conspiracyarea 51bigfootI also gave up on Ventura's show after two weeks because it was absolutely ridiculous.I appreciate your response Mike. Once again though I'm a bit confused. You say you trust Roger Craig. I mentioned this earlier in this thread...Here is the something that I just found out, thanks to Joe. Joe got his hands on a short story by Roger Craig, the Dallas County Sheriff, called When They Kill A President. It is a VERY interesting story, that adds a lot of interesting information to the assassination, but it also shows how bad it was for Craig and his family because he told the truth.The story was written in 1971, 4 years before Craig died in 1975, due to "suicide" , after a couple of attempts on his life. Craig died just like Roselli and Nicoletti did...BEFORE the HSCA had it's hearings investigating who killed JFK. Also, right around this time, President Gerald Ford made Poppy Bu$h the head of the CIA. Bu$h told Congress that he was NEVER in the CIA prior to this appointment. Back to Craig's story now. In one part of the story, Craig mentions that he was talking to Jim Garrison about who was arrested in Dealey Plaza right after the assassination. Craig said there were 12 arrests to his knowledge.One in particular was one made by R.E. Vaughn of the Dallas Police Department. The man Vaughn arrested was coming from the Dal-Tex Building across the street from the TSBD. The only thing Vaughn knew about the guy he arrested was that the man was an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas. The suspect was taken from Vaughn by Dallas Police detectives and that was the last he saw or heard of the suspect.Incidentally, there are NO records of ANY arrest, either by the Dallas Police Department or the Sheriff's office made in Dealey Plaza that day. By the way, the Warren Commission blamed the same officer (R.E. Vaughn) that made that arrest as being the guy who allowed Jack Ruby entrance into the basement garage of the city jail. Vaughn denied that charge and passed his polygraph as well. But the authorities wanted to damage his reputation. Why?Maybe because he arrested Poppy Bu$h coming out of the Dal-Tex Building. We know Poppy was using his job at Zapata as a front for his CIA activity. Zapata was based in Houston. We know that Poppy was a recruiter for Operation 40, which was part of his duties at the CIA. There were many members of Operation 40 present in Dealey Plaza that day. Poppy himself was registered at the Sheraton-Dallas hotel on both 11/21 and 11/22. In fact, the paper announced he would be there. The Dallas Morning News had a small story on 11/20/1963 announcing that George Bush, the President of Zapata Off-Shore Oil Co., would be speaking to the American Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors on Thursday night November 21st at 6:30, at the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel.The FBI mentions Poppy in two seperate memos about the assassination, including one from J. Edgar Hoover himself.Again remember this. Johnny Roselli was killed in 1976 before he was to appear before the HSCA on the murder of JFK. Guess who was the CIA director then and who had refused any CIA cooperation with the HSCA? Poppy Bu$h. Then how about this? On March 29th, 1977, Charles Nicoletti was murdered in Chicago. He had been shot three times in the back of the head. George De Mohrenschildt died the same day. Mohrenshildt was also a very close acquaintance of Poppy and was also very close to Lee Harvey Oswald. Both men were due to appear before the HSCA where they were to be asked about their involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Do you think Poppy wanted any of those men to testify? Hell no. Especially if Poppy was with Nicoletti and Roselli on 11/22/1963. Guess who else was killed before he could also testify? Roger Craig.

[John Hankey]

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. And even science can have trouble trying to act like science when political issues are involved, as we see with evolution, tobaacco-and-cancer, and global waming. But I think History does have a lot in common with physical science, as I'll explain. I can remember when the Big Bang was very much considered a theory; and the notion that the continents were once all stuck together was at first 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 that evidence begins to settle in; and ideas that were once considered outrageous gradully 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 clear. And part of what happens is that other evidence, old evidence that may have been around for a while, but that was never much noticed, can suddenly take on huge significance when it is seen, for the first time, as fitting into the bigger picture. Over time, isolated pieces of evidence, which by themselves seemed, at most, curious and puzzling, can suddenly be seen as a key piece when we finally recognize where they fit into the puzzle. Well, let me try to show you what I'm talking about. Hoover writes a memo, naming George Bush as a CIA officer.When it is first released, George Bush is some obscure bureaucrat, a virtual unknown. And no one pays any attention. Then he becomes vice president. And then President. And then someone notices. "Hey, Hoover said Bush was in the CIA in 1963"And for the longest time, the focus is on this simple isolated fact. Bush says it wasn't him. He wasn't in the CIA. But over time, people are able to assemble the facts from his personal life, showing his deep involvement with the CIA and the CIA's anti-Castro Cubans. And eventually it becomes undeniable; that Hoover was referring, in his memo, to none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. And for a while, that's it. End of story.But the title of this Hoover memo was, "Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy". Isn't that important? Well, you'd think so. But for the longest time, people didn't seem to notice. Besides, Hoover scarcely mentions the assassination in the memo, instead focusing on what Hoover calls "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. But then Mark Lane does this fabulous work demonstrating, and in fact persuading a jury, that E. Howard Hunt, a major lieutenant in the CIA's anti-Castro Cuban program, was in Dallas and involved in the assassination. With this background, with this framework to guide the researcher, it is 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 CIA officer, we can now connect Bush to Hunt at the Bay of Pigs; we can now connect Bush to Hunt, both with offices inside the White House; we can answer, then, 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 we can now connect Bush to Hunt, through the Hoover memo written 5 days after the assassination, to Dallas, to Hunt in Dallas, and to the assassins of John Kennedy. Little by little,the pieces start to fall into place. And pieces that in isolation meant nothing, now become key.But even so, this seems a somewhat vague connection. Hunt killed JFK. Bush supervised Hunt; but Bush probably supervised a lot of CIA people, not all of whom were 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 that doesn't mean that the officer knows about,or approved of, or was involved in all the actions of those troops.To establish that sort of direct connection between Bush and Hunt, we need the FBI memo, recording Bush's phone call to the FBI, an hour after the asassination. 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 it as demonstrating, clearly, that this CIA officer was on duty that day, that he was in the Dallas area, supervising his men, involved in the assassination. But it's still weird, no? I mean, how could he have been so stupid as to make this 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? And he tells us, hands it to us 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. 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? Well, oviously, he must have been in Dallas. In fact, I think, this situation suggests he must have been in Dealey Plaza. I mean seriously. Think about it. 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. Or worse. Well, 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 constitute very damaging admissions. Anyway, stew on that while you consider the photo labeled Exhibit One, on the website next to this audio file. You have to hit the pause button here, open another window, and look at the photo. You'll see a 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 Bush was concerned that he might show up in a picture where he was actually looking towards the camera. I already thought Bush was involved in the assassination when I first saw this photo; but I didn't think it looked much like him; 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? You plan, you train 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, signalling to the "tramps" arrested behind the grassy knoll to be cool, that everything was alright. So, some of the highest ranking members of the killers' operation were there, to make sure that when things inevitably go wrong, they could be there to fix them. So, given that, this photo of this thin man in a suit might be Bush. And now, hit pause again here, if you will, and look at Exhibit Two. This is a picture of the Dal-Tex building. It is across the street from the Book Depository, and many leading researchers into the assassination 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. Now, this reminds me of the picture that circulated after 9-11 showing the face of Bin Laden in the giant cloud of smoke coming from the burning building. Very creative, very imaginative, and very stupid. Except that while the Bin Laden picture was just silly, this one is at least plausible. But still. It takes way too much imagination, even if you can see Bush's face. But now observe this, attached as Exhibit Three. Actually, You don't have to stop and read it, because I'll read it to you. It's a statement from Roger Craig, winner of the deputy of the year award for Dallas in 1960, and one of the few 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 this passage I'm about to read, he is describing a converstion 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."Holy crap! Bush was arrested coming out of the Dal-Tex building! No wonder he freaked out. But now stop and think a minute: why was he arrested? What was he doing that not only drew this cop's attention, but made this cop think that he needed to arrest Bush? I guess he was not the sort of cold-blooded killer who could take part in the murder of a man, and then act like nothing was going on. At Gerry Ford's funeral Bush nearly laughs out loud while speaking of the Kennedy assassination, so as an old man Bush doesn't have a lot of skill at hiding his feelings; and on the day of the assassination, apparently, he didn't have any skill at this either,and he had the look of a murderer in his eye. And cops are trained to spot that. They can smell guilt. And this cop, Vaughn, spotted it on Bush and arrested him. And being a newbie, Bush didn't have confidence that his patrons, his bosses, could protect him, destroy the records, make it all go away, make water run uphill if need be. And so he acted on his own, stupidly, and created this record with the FBI of his involvement, thinking that he was cleverly proving that that wasn't him who was arrested in Dallas that day. This statement of Roger Craig's has been around for quite a while. It was first posted on the internet in 1992. Damn! It must have been one of the first things ever posted, way back in the day. But as near as I can tell, no one noticed this "independent oil man from Houston", as being a very unique description of Bush, until last month.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; 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!

[ThomZajac]

Thanks John, all that seems very plausible, to me at least.But here's a question: Are we cure Vaughn was not talking about Eugene Brading (Braden): we know for sure he was arrested after exiting the Dal-Tex Building, right? I'm not saying this is what happened, just asking the question if it's possible.Also, wasn't the reported time of the call 12:37 or something like that- just a very few minutes after the assassination? Wouldn't that have made it impossible for Bush to have made the all AFTER he was arrested? Or is it possible that I'm wrong about the time of the call? Or perhaps the time of the call was purposely in error?

[mike martinez]

ThomZajac wrote:Thanks John, all that seems very plausible, to me at least.But here's a question: Are we cure Vaughn was not talking about Eugene Brading (Braden): we know for sure he was arrested after exiting the Dal-Tex Building, right? I'm not saying this is what happened, just asking the question if it's possible.Also, wasn't the reported time of the call 12:37 or something like that- just a very few minutes after the assassination? Wouldn't that have made it impossible for Bush to have made the all AFTER he was arrested? Or is it possible that I'm wrong about the time of the call? Or perhaps the time of the call was purposely in error?great catch as far as the time of the call. The memo on page one of this thread has the call made from Tyler, Tx at approx. 1:45pmThe assassination was at approx. 12:30. Taking a look at the photo it is reasonable to assume the photo was taken a several minutes after the assassination. For arguements sake let say the photo in question was taken at 1:00pm.So sometime after the assassination GHWB is arrested coming out of the Dal-Tex bldg. He is questioned then let go. Then he walks to and stands in front of the TSBD at least long enough to have a photo taken of him.Then he says to himself "crap, I need an alabi" so he gets in a car and drives to the airport. I'm sure there was absolutely no chaos at the airport since the president of the United States had just been assassinated. I'm sure they were just letting people fly in and out of Dallas with absolutely no questions asked. He boards a plane, flys to Tyler. Then makes a call to give himself an alabi.Yea, sure.

[ThomZajac]

Mike, I don't think Bush actually went to Tyler to make the call:rather I think he just stated in was in Tyler. I don't know if the FBI was able to check on this or not, but that would be interesting to know.I hadn't realized the phone call was that late: I had thought it was a few minutes- not over an hour. If the call was placed at 1:45, that would have allowed plenty of time for Bush to be arrested and then quickly released (as he no-doubt would have been).As far as the likelihood of it being Bush standing in front of the Book Depository, it seems to me that this could have happened 2pm or so. Is there anything in the photo which indicates it was taken earlier?(Note that I have not used any snide comments or demeaned you in any way. Also please note, that the same cannot be said for your earlier posting).

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:Mike, I don't think Bush actually went to Tyler to make the call:rather I think he just stated in was in Tyler. I don't know if the FBI was able to check on this or not, but that would be interesting to know.I hadn't realized the phone call was that late: I had thought it was a few minutes- not over an hour. If the call was placed at 1:45, that would have allowed plenty of time for Bush to be arrested and then quickly released (as he no-doubt would have been).As far as the likelihood of it being Bush standing in front of the Book Depository, it seems to me that this could have happened 2pm or so. Is there anything in the photo which indicates it was taken earlier?(Note that I have not used any snide comments or demeaned you in any way. Also please note, that the same cannot be said for your earlier posting).Thom, in terms of the report that Poppy called into the FBI, it happened at 1:45. Plenty of time to make the call after the assassination happened at 12:30 and also after the arrest, that probably happened between 12:30 and 1:00. In terms of Braden, I think he was there and was also questioned. But Poppy was so freaked out after being caught red handed, that he used his CIA cover (oil operator out of Houston) to give the arresting officer (Vaughn) an excuse as to why he was there. Then after that situation, Poppy stupidly made his bogus FBI call to try and give himself an alibi. There were four steps to his stupidity here. 1) Poppy was registered at the Sheraton-Dallas on both 11/21 and 11/22.2) Poppy said he called from Tyler, Texas3) Poppy called an FBI friend (Kitchel).4) Poppy used a friend (Parrott) to say he was the one who threatened JFK.Here is the FBI memo about Poppy's bogus call...Here is part of what Wim says in his section of Poppy on this site...But who says the Bush telephone call really came from Tyler, Texas? To his own admission, this document places Bush IN Dallas for the remainder of the day and night of November 22, 1963. He is implicating a political activist (James Parrott) in the process. Why did Bush want to keep his telephone call confidential? And why does he not remember it? Why did he give his warning AFTER the assassination, if he thought Parrott was a serious threat for Kennedy in Houston? Kennedy had just visited Houston the day before ! And why are the sources of this hearsay information unknown? Who told him this, if anyone? Or is this just a document to furnish Bush with an alibi and plausible denial? Thirty years later the same James Parrott that Bush was accusing is working on Bush's presidential campaign against Bill Clinton."Figure that one out; if someone had tried to finger me for killing President Kennedy, that person would have been my worst enemy. See volume one and ten for damning evidence. The FBI agent that took Bush's call was Graham Kitchel, whose brother George Kitchel knew both de Mohrenschildt (Oswald's best friend in Dallas) and Bush. (NOTE: Graham was a favourite of FBI Director, J. E. Hoover who was briefing Bush of the CIA on November 23, 1963). On October 13, 1999, Adamson called Kenneth B. Jackson the FBI agent who investigated Parrott and received Bush's complaint. Mr. Jackson, refused to return Adamson's phone call. why? "Source: Bruce Adamson http://www.ciajfk.com/home4.html Bottom line, Poppy didn't need that ridiculous alibi unless he was part of something really sinister, plus was "busted" after the fact. Nobody has ever accused anyone in the Bu$h family of being intelligent. Okay...maybe Jeb. Finally, Mike...there wasn't caller ID back in 1963. Just because Poppy said he called from Tyler, doesn't mean he was actually there. AGAIN...he was registered at the Sheraton-Dallas on BOTH 11/21 and 11/22. Also, the Bu$h family has many components of their modus operandi, one of which is that they are serial liars. It goes back to Prescott, who claimed he won medals for heroism in WWI. That turned out to be bogus and a lie, as the local newspaper that printed Prescott's "heroism" story, had to later retract the story with an apology from the Bu$h family. Plus we have the whopper that Poppy told about his "heroism" in WWII, when he bailed out of his plane, leaving two crew members to die as the plane crashed. Here is the story...The only person who has ever claimed to have seen Bush’s plane get hit, and to have seen it hit the water, is Chester Mierzejewksi, who was the rear turret gunner in the aircraft flown by Squadron Commander Douglas Melvin. During 1987-88, Mierzejewksi became increasingly indignant as he watched Bush repeat his canonical account of how he was shot down. Shortly before the Republican National Convention in 1988, Mierzekewski, by then a 68 year old retired aircraft foreman living in Cheshire, Connecticut, decided to tell his story to Allan Wolper and Al Ellenberg of the New York Post, which printed it as a copyrighted article.“That guy is not telling the truth,” Mierzejewski said of Bush.As the rear-looking turret gunner on Commander Melvin’s plane, Mierzejewski had the most advantageous position for observing the events in question here. Since Melvin’s plane flew directly ahead of Bush’s, he had a direct and unobstructed view of what was happening aft of his own plane. When the New York Post reporters asked former Lt. Legare Hole, the executive officer of Bush’s squadron, about who might have best observed the last minutes of the Barbara II, Hole replied: “The turret gunner in Melvin’s plane would have had a good view. If the plane was on fire, there is a very good chance he would be able to see that. The pilot can’t see everything that the gunner can, and he’d miss an awful lot, ” Hole told the New York Post.Gunner Lawrence Mueller of Milwaukee, another former member of Bush’s squadron who flew on the Chichi Jima mission, when asked who would have had the best view, replied: “The turret gunner of Melvin’s plane.” Mierzejewksi for his part said that his plane was flying about 100 feet ahead of Bush’s plane during the incident – so close that he could see into Bush’s cockpit.Mierzejewki, who is also a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, told the New York Post that he saw “a puff of smoke” come out of Bush’s plane and quickly dissipate. He asserted that after that there was no more smoke visible, that Bush’s “plane was never on fire” and that “no smoke came out of his cockpit when he opened his canopy to bail out.” Mierzejewski stated that only one man ever got out of the Barbara II, and that was Bush himself. “I was hoping I would see some other parachutes. I never did. I saw the plane go down. I knew the guys were still in it. It was a helpless feeling.”Mierzejewski has long been troubled by the notion that Bush’s decision to parachute from his damaged aircraft might have cost the lives of Radioman second class John Delaney, a close friend of Mierzejewksy, as well as gunner Lt. Junior Grade William White. ‘I think [Bush] could have saved those lives, if they were alive. I don’t know that they were, but at least they had a chance if he had attempted a water landing,’” Mierzejewski told the New York Post.Prescott and Poppy Bu$h were NOT heroes. They were actually the exact opposite. Nor was Dumbya, although he tries to look like one with his tough guy demeanor. As the Vietnam war was in full rage, Poppy was able to use his connections to get Dumbya a position in the Texas Air National Guard, where Dumbya could fly over the coast of Texas, but stay far away from the coast of Nam. But even that wasn't good enough for Dumbya. He went AWOL for over a year, and then when he returned to his unit, Dumbya refused to take a medical exam which got him suspended. I wonder why Dumbya refused the exam??? Can you say COCAINE boys and girls?Back to the lies. Poppy has lied on MANY more occasions. Remember this one..."Read my lips...no new taxes". Poppy lied to Congress about being in the CIA. Poppy lied about his involvement in Iran/Contra. How about this quote, when Poppy stated to Sarah McClendon the Grandam of the Washington White House Press Corps when she asked Bu$h what will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran-Contra? "If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched."The list could go on and on. Then you can look at the mountain of lies told by Dumbya during his Presidency. Why did we attack Iraq Dumbya? Here are some of his answers that were ALL lies...WMDs...no?, okay try this one...Saddam was connected to al qaeda...no?, how about this one...Saddam was connected to 9/11...no?, well let's go with this then...to create a democracy in Iraq. Dumbya and his minions also gave us tons of more lies (like denying torture) in the 8 year period of pure hell that he gave us during his administration. Once a liar...always a liar.

[ThomZajac]

Excellent, Bob, many thanks.

[Michael Dell]

Bob, excellent post. I'm always fascinated when supposed researchers continue to defend the Bush family. An objective eye finds nothing to defend. Again, this isn't political. Don't fall prey to the Democrat-Republican nonsense. Evil is evil. Follow the Bush bloodline. Study Prescott's dealings during WWII. Read up on the company they've kept over the years. The Kennedy assassination is but one tree in a forest of deceit. Step back and see the whole picture. It all becomes quite clear. And regarding John's earlier post (which was also excellent) about science and theories and whatnot, new ideas don't gain ground because old scientists change their mind. New theories are only accepted once old scientists die. That's how long and slow change is. And it seems to me the new generation of Kennedy researchers, who weren't around for the first wave of propaganda, have no difficulty seeing the blood on Bush's hands...

[John Hankey]

To Thom:the FBI memo says the phone call was at 1:45. The news that the President had been declared dead was first announced on radio at 1:30. Bush claims he was speaking at Tyler that day, and the witnesses he provides say that he interrupted his speech to announce the President's death; and sat down. The news of the President's death was first announced at 1:30. Someone not listening to Bush's speech had to hear this news. They had to finish listening, that is, decide they had heard enough; they had to decide to tell Bush; find Bush; wait to interrupt; tell him; he had to make his announcement. At some undisclosed opportunity he had to leap up, run to a phone, get the phone # to the FBI, get the operator to connect him to an agent; and make his report. All this had to happen inside 15 minutes. Unless Bush is lying. There is less than zero reason to think that the call was made from Tyler; and very little reason to think he was speaking, as claimed.Is it possible that Brading was arrested coming out of the Dal Tex building? Or in the lobby? Sure. I'm not sure what cover Brading was using; but it seems highly coincidental if he was using exactly the same cover as Bush, claiming to be an "independent oil operator from Houston". Why not claim to be a Texaco oil saleman from Dallas? Or a plumber from Chicago? Remember when Bush said that he wasn't the "Mr. George Bush" of the Hoover memo? He would certainly claim that he wasn't the "independent oil operator from Houston." But what are the odds? So all praise an glory to the Dallas police. They got Hunt; the got Bush; they got Brading. And who else?