Didn’t do It: George H.W. Bush

It is true that former president George H.W. Bush was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. It is true that Bush became director of the CIA in 1976. And it is true that, as vice president in the 1980s,  Bush was up to his eyebrows in the nexus of criminal activities known as the Iran-contra scandal.

But,rest assured, G H.W. Bush did not supervise gunmen in Dealey Plaza as

John Hankey’s popular anti-Romney video claims. (Hankey’s got a lot of viewers, 117K but a lot of thumbs downs too (79). (He’s got some imaginative 9/11 theories which I will discuss later.)

When it comes to JFK, Hankey has crafted a fine Hollywood scenario–the American Vice President is actually as secret assassin. This is spine tingling stuff for people who think Mission Impossible depicts the CIA accurately. It is emotionally satisfying because it links a modern liberal villain (the Bush family) with an ancient crime (JFK’s murder.)

Unfortunately, Hankey’s scenario is not based much knowledge about how CIA personnel actually carried out political assassinations in the 1960s.  They didn’t rely on the up and coming oil man from Houston for gunplay. G. H.W. Bush is nowhere near expert enough in firearms to be entrusted with such a task. The elder Bush did other service to the agency.

G.H.W. Bush was in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963: UNPROVEN

G.H.W. Bush directed the assassins of JFK on November 22, 1963: NOT CREDIBLE.

For more on the many problems with the “Bush did it” theory, see Jim DiEugenio’s review of Russ Bakers’ Family of Secrets.

Common Question: What was the Iran-contra scandal? The highly reliable non-profit National Security Archive has the background story here.

Fun fact: When Bush became director of the CIA in 1976 the very first thing he asked for was the agency’s JFK files.  He too wanted to know who killed 35th president.

120 comments

  1. Russ Baker says:

    My book has no connection with any video or any other reporting or theories that may exist, and to lump it in with any other is to do readers a major disservice by drawing connections and inferences where none should be drawn.

    Second of all, to try and diminish my work by posting a link to a singularly awful and inadequate “review” that ignores the substance of the material, a “review” that has been almost unanimously rejected by other researchers, is another disservice. The book speaks for itself–five copious chapters of documented evidence on the JFK/Bush matter, more than a thousand footnotes, broad acclaim, bestseller status.

    To try and distract people from a TON of documented, footnoted evidence on HW Bush’s covert work in Dallas with CIA circa 11/22 by falsely suggesting that I–or anyone–is stupid enough to believe that Bush would be an actual triggerman, well, that’s just beyond the pale. I see you want the comments to be “civil”– but there’s nothing civil about such tactics. They reek of a most uncivil agenda.

    For a website that seeks to cast itself as a thoughtful place, as the ultimate arbiter of JFK assassination material, you’re off to a very, very bad start.

  2. I do think GHW Bush was involved in the JFK assassination for many reasons. #1 reason is he says he does not remember where he was on 11/22/63 – “somewhere down in Texas” Bush once said. I take that as an admission of participation in the JFK assassination.

    I suggest googling “Did the Bushes help to kill JFK?” – http://jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm

    GHW Bush has extremely close ties to anti-Castro Cuban radicals such as Felix Rodriguez. GHW Bush commuted the sentence of terrorist Orlando Bosch, another suspect in the JFK assassination.

    Bush is mentioned in the McBride memo. Fletcher Prouty recalls delivering 3 ships to a Mr. George Bush of Houston for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Bush was deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs – and you will be hearing more about that in the upcoming years.

    CIA-military rage over Cuba policy was a major factor in the JFK assassination.

    There are many other points to make about GHW Bush, but I will stop at that.

    • D. Olmens says:

      “I do think GHW Bush was involved in the JFK assassination for many reasons. #1 reason is he says he does not remember where he was on 11/22/63 – “somewhere down in Texas” Bush once said. I take that as an admission of participation in the JFK assassination.”

      That’s it? I really struggle to understand how this could be considered sufficient grounds to make claims about GHW’s involvement. Extremely unpersuasive.

      • JLB says:

        How can GHW Bush be the only person in America who can’t remember exactly where he was and what he was doing upon hearing the news of the President being shot? Especially after admitting that he was “somewhere in Texas” at the time??

        • D. Olmens says:

          The “only” person in America? Don’t you think that’s over-stating it just a bit? What do you base that claim on?

          Can you provide a quote and citation for Bush having said these words? Additionally, can you provide any evidence that would clarify Bush’s exact whereabouts that day?

          Robert Morrow’s claim is deeply odd. What kind of logic is? Someone claims they can’t recollect something and that this equates to an “admission of participation”? This approach is illogical and irrational. I suspect that if Bush were to specify his exact location Morrow would claim he’s not telling the truth and that would also an admission of involvement. This is nonsense. Spurious claims the one Morrow makes here have no place in any serious discussion of the assassination.

          • leslie sharp says:

            D. Olmens, I agree to the extent that Bush’s memory is irrelevant to the issue at hand. What is relevant is where he was that day and with whom he was traveling. The memory issue is odd and may well be apocryphal or the lapse may have occurred during that dinner with the Chinese … who knows? As it suggests, and I emphasize “suggests” a certain casual and dismissive response to a question serious in the minds of many … where were you when …., I think he should have been called to task. And having said all of that, it is very odd, imv, that Barbara determined to set the record straight in the 1990′s. Why bother? The other slack I am cutting George H.W. Bush (can’t believe I am) is why didn’t he meddle in the files of the assassination while serving as Director? Or did he? Why wait to ask for the files a decade or so later? (or am I messing up the timeline?)

          • D. Olmens says:

            Leslie, Is the memory issue apocryphal? I wonder about that. I see a lot of discussion here but not much in the way of direct quotes one way or the other. I grant you it seems a little unusual. However, as with other aspects of the case, I think a high degree of caution should be exercised before attributing ulterior motives when there may be other explanations. One way of looking at it, as you say, might be to perceive a certain carelesness or flippancy. However, there may be a reluctance on Bush’s part to answer more definitively for a number of reasons. One of which could be not wanting to be seen responding to speculation, or on the other hand feeding speculation. If I was Bush I wouldn’t want to engage with or give any publicity to claims such as those made by Morrow. Having said all that it doesn’t seem like a particularly hard question to answer. The question is whether people such as Morrow would accept any answer provided, or whether that in turn might lead to more speculation. Seems like a bit of a no-win situation.

          • Dagann says:

            I believe he presented his opinion of Bush’s failure to recall his location of the day in question “IS” one of many considerations that led to his conclusions.
            I too find it suspicious. I also feel no need to trash John Hankey’s work. I wouldn’t necessarily agree that Bush was a “trigger man,” But i think Bush was in on it and much of Hankey’s work in “Dark legacy” is worthy to contemplate.
            I also think his work on Romney, although at first glance appears sketchy, may hold some reverence to the Mormon as well. His refusal to show his Federal Income taxes speak volumes whereas many supporters often dismiss it especially if they’ve had bad experiences with the IRS. To me, he has something to hide and he’s aware top notch investigative journalist will connect the dots and discover really embarrassing evidence that he doesn’t want to come to light.
            I’ve heard over the years that they (Mormons)are sought for recruitment in Govt. agencies for they rarely question the motives and tactics of their superiors. Just sayin…

        • leslie sharp says:

          D. Olmens, Barbara Bush’s letter fairly well established where her husband was on 11.22.63.

          But as to your query, would anyone convinced that Bush feigned his memory loss about 11.22 then be willing to accept his personal testimony establishing his whereabouts? Are you suggesting that some people want to frame George H. W.Bush?

          That seems to me to be a win-win situation.

      • JLB says:

        My mother was 5 years old when she saw it on media and she will NEVER forget exactly what she did that day, never, ever.

        • D. Olmens says:

          Thanks for sharing that anecdote, but this is completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about the capacity of people with no connection whatsoever to the case to recall where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news. We’re specifically discussing George Bush Snr. Please try and keep your responses on topic.

          • Jonathan says:

            D. Olmens,

            You appear to be a defender of GHW Bush.

            You know this:

            Bush was CEO of Zapata Oil.

            Bush was head of the CIA.

            Bush was in the White House during Watergate and Iran-Contra.

            Bush said he must have gone to the bath room when Iran-Contra was discussed.

            Bush oversaw drug operations in the U.S. during a period when drug importations to the the U.S. increased.

            D. Olmens, tell us this:

            Did GHW Bush participate in the Franklin Bank Scandal? You know the one. Tell us about it. All about it. Please.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jonathan, you are indeed bold and brave by broaching this topic. I venture to guess there are few, if any that will step up and air this issue. Even Russ Baker avoided the story, and perhaps there was a reason … perhaps the Omaha scandal was fabricated or perhaps it is simply too difficult to document. I drove there on two separate occasions to research the facts. I remain convinced that there’s something there.

          • D. Olmens says:

            “You appear to be a defender of GHW Bush.”

            Nope. Wrong again Jonathan. Please re-read my comments.

            “D. Olmens, tell us this:

            Did GHW Bush participate in the Franklin Bank Scandal? You know the one. Tell us about it. All about it. Please.”

            And the connection between that and the JFK assassination is what exactly?

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to D. Olmens re GHWB and Franklin Bank scandal:

            If as some have alleged GHWB was a participant in the events collectively called the Franklin Bank scandal, his character and believability are impeached.

            If his believability is impeached (I believe it is, based just on the known record), why should anyone give credence to his statements that he never worked for the CIA prior to becoming its director?

    • John McAdams says:

      Bush is mentioned in the McBride memo. Fletcher Prouty recalls delivering 3 ships to a Mr. George Bush of Houston for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Bush was deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs – and you will be hearing more about that in the upcoming years.

      Another factoid.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm#ism5

      You really should not be citing Prouty as any kind of reliable source:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I forget. Please re-define a factoid and where you found the term.

      • JBirks says:

        Prouty is emblematic of the JFK Assassination Industry, former nobodies who rose to prominence by making largely unsubstantiated claims and baseless inferences. The existence of this industry is one reason there will never be a consensus regarding this tragedy.

        If someone were to produce DEFINITIVE evidence that there was no conspiracy, and everyone from Stone to Posner agreed that it was in fact “case closed,” Industry members would simply say, “you see, even THEY are in on it!” They have too much invested to acknowledge and accept the facts of the case.

        • leslie sharp says:

          JBirks, maybe you too could offer your summation in 1,000 words or less describing what unfolded on 112263? Rather than debunking the messengers, why don’t you address the discrepancies and contradictions in the official version without referring to experts, and record your version of what you think happened in Dallas. Rather than serving as a mouthpiece for anyone, be they advocates that Oswald was a lone assassin or those that insist there was a conspiracy, offer your own argument based on your unique research. I challenge you to not serve as a mouthpiece for anyone, otherwise that is all you are … a mouthpiece. As an astute observer/commenter on this site said to me last year … “use your mind.”

  3. RIGG KENNEDY says:

    I am astounded that George Herbert Walker Bush would actually admit/say/declare that he did not know where he was on November 22, 1963!!! It is no secret on Capitol Hill that GHW Bush ran the Reagan White House when it became clear that there were some symptoms of Alzheimer’s Disease were already manifest. GHW Bush would have been thrown to the wolves if there was any mental or amnesiac problems with his mind and sense of time and space.

    His answer to “WHERE WERE YOU ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?” ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF ASTONISHING POSSIBILITY: EVERY SENTIENT HUMAN BEING IN THE USA KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE WHEN THEY FIRST HEARD THE TRAGIC NEWS.

    GHW BUSH CASTS HIMSELF IN A VERY UNCHARACTERISTIC, OUT-OF-CHARACTER, STATE OF BEING, ESPECIALLY FOR ONE WHO HAS HIS NAME ON THE “GEORGE H. W. BUSH INTELLIGENCE BUILDING” IN WASHINGTON,DC.

    I AM LEFT WITH THE PERPETUAL STINGING QUESTION: “WHO’S HE KIDDING AND WHY????”

    THERE WAS A STORY FIRST IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (3-20-99) AND THE LOS ANGELES TIMES (3-20-99…PAGE 15, LEFT COLUMN) ABOUT HIS 20 MINUTE SPEECH FOR $14.4 MILLION TO GLOBAL CROSSING, LTD. THAT WENT BELLY-UP AND ALL INVESTORS AND 401 K HOLDERS WENT BROKE EXCEPT THE MAN WHO FORGOT WHERE HE WAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

    WHEN I REQUESTED A COPY OF THE STORY, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES SAID THE STORY “LOOKS LIKE IT WAS PULLED FROM THEIR MORGUE OF OLD COPIES OF STORIES!!!” IN A RECENT ABC INTERVIEW WITH SON GEORGE W. BUSH THE EX-PRESIDENT SUGGESTED BY SLIP[ OF TONGUE THAT IT “LOOKED LIKE ANOTHER CONSPIRACY” AND W WAS UNABLE TO CLIMB OUT OF HIS STATEMENT NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIED.

    Father and son seem to have great lapses of serious memory malfunction. I still don’t get it but I continue looking, researching , cross referencing until I get answers that seem not to come from my respected government sources as hoped for.
    I doubt this will be allowed to publish because of the uncertainty it promulgates!

  4. FreeSociety says:

    There is no question that George H,W. Bush was involved with the Kennedy Assassination. First of all, J.E. Hoover created a paper trail with a memorandum entitled: “Assassination of President John Kennedy” in which George H.W. Bush is called out as a CIA operative connected with the CIA’s “misguided anti-Castro Cubans”. Hoover was no friend of Kennedy, but he was also no friend of Nazis either. Hoover also busted the father Prescott Bush for his role in Union Bank (that had provided funding to Hitler) under the Trading with Enemies Act. Bush’s connections with anti-Castro “Bay of Pigs” operatives run deep, and several of these individuals were involved in the both Watergate, and the Iran-Contra scandals. As CIA Director, Bush played a key role in thwarting and covering-up the House Select Committee Investigation by denying access to files. Finally, photographs show Bush in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting, and yet Bush publicly has stated he doesn’t know where he was. This is a powerful CIA ring-leader, who was so powerful that Ronald Reagan was forced to pick him as VP against, and whose bumbling, inarticulate son was elevated to the position of President of the United States. There is no question Bush was involved with these (“Bay of Pigs”) individuals and the CIA, and was deeply involved. He’s one of them!

    • John McAdams says:

      Hoover was no friend of Kennedy, but he was also no friend of Nazis either. Hoover also busted the father Prescott Bush for his role in Union Bank (that had provided funding to Hitler) under the Trading with Enemies Act.

      That Bush somehow was sympathetic to the Nazis, or was “trading with the enemy” is yet another factoid.

      http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/cyber-safety/c/internet-rumors/prescott-bushs-alleged-nazi.html#.U0HZa6KwWSo

      • Eric Saunders says:

        It would seem that this commenter is out of his depth:

        “The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

        His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

        The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator’s action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

        • Brian H says:

          Again John McAdams to the rescue! You can always tell when someone uncovers the Truth because that’s when Mr McAdams shows up and posts a link to a low level uninformed debunking site set up by yet another govt sponsored apologist who posts outright “FACTIODS” that Mr McAdams can refer to and say see here’s a link so that makes what I say true.
          Sorry John but the info about the Bush.s is all there in its shameful glory!
          And don’t bother mentioning the Kennedy award for G.W. they gave him the award for comprising with the Dems to raise taxes only to get voted out of office lol!!!!
          Read my lips they know what you did George!

        • John McAdams says:

          The article is unclear as to whether there were any real business dealings after WWII started.

          Remember, if there were some assets sitting around, they would sit there until the U.S. government seized them.

          The Bush bankers could not take them, and they could not be sent back to Germany.

          Then there is the fact that the German industrialist whom they represented had a falling out with Hitler, and was in no way a supporter at any point after the war in Europe began.

          I’ll go with the Anti-Defamation League. I trust them to condemn anybody who is really cooperating with the Nazis.

      • Heather says:

        While I agree with your point about Bush I have to question your usage of the word “factoid”

        There are two distinct meanings of the word and they are actually contrary to each other.

        As per the Merriam Webster dictionary.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid

        Here is another article regarding this.
        http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/jan/17/mind-your-language-factoids

        I am sure you are referring to the first definition popularized by Norman Mailer but be careful as you could also be understood to be admitting that the above fact is true.

        I am sure you mean to use the word in a derogatory since but that derogatory meaning is losing momentum and you are going to be understood by a younger generation as admitting many “assassination factoids” as true.

        • Brian H says:

          Heather thank you for the clarification lol I use the term “Factiod” simply because that’s the word our resident apologist uses any time someone posts something legit.
          You are correct in assuming I used it in a derogatory sense but was I simply making a point.

  5. Jack Shultz says:

    I am a 66 year old Canadian. I was 16 on when President Kennedy was murdered. Although my memory isn’t so great these days, I still remember clearly exactly where I was and what I was doing and how I learned that President Kennedy had been assassinated.

    If I remember that day so clearly, a non-American who was far more removed from this tragic event than Mr. Bush was to this matter, and so I find it less than credible that Mr. Bush could not remember where he was on that day.

    I had heard that there was evidence that he was in Dallas on that day, though I don’t know how credible that evidence is or what it consists of, but I have never heard anything from anyone at any time that George HW Bush was actually in Dealy Plaza, much less that a photograph exists that clearly places him there on that day.

    If true, this should be a major story!

    • D. Olmens says:

      “I am a 66 year old Canadian. I was 16 on when President Kennedy was murdered. Although my memory isn’t so great these days, I still remember clearly exactly where I was and what I was doing and how I learned that President Kennedy had been assassinated.”

      Irrelevant.

      “If I remember that day so clearly, a non-American who was far more removed from this tragic event than Mr. Bush was to this matter, and so I find it less than credible that Mr. Bush could not remember where he was on that day.”

      Why? Might it be because you suspect his involvement and thus are inclined to interpret his claim in a sinister light?

      “I had heard that there was evidence…”

      Could you point me in the direction of that evidence? “I had heard” doesn’t really sound too persuasive.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I’m Canadian too lol.

        The common question is who are the only three people who didn’t remember where they were on November 22, 1963?

        Richard M. Nixon (although he later corrected himself).

        E. Howard Hunt (his explanation didn’t hold water in court).

        George H.W. Bush*

        *I remember a movie about Aliens with Chad Everett playing a military brass character. He told someone who asked if he was lying or had to lie – “we don’t lie – we deny”. I chuckled at this but thought it had real life application.

        Papa Bush may have denied where he was to thwart further questions which might have linked him to his patriotic duty (I don’t mean that sarcastically folks) back during the Cold War, wherein he may have been a CIA operative under contract. The later-discovered FBI memos or reports raises some questions.

        Nixon or Bush’s denials don’t necessarily mean that they were involved in the assassination of the President Kennedy, of course.

        But I wonder if they had some kind of knowledge after-the-fact.

        God knows.

        • John McAdams says:

          The common question is who are the only three people who didn’t remember where they were on November 22, 1963?

          Richard M. Nixon (although he later corrected himself).

          No, he gave a mostly consistent account of his riding back from the airport in Queens in a taxi when somebody on the street came up and told him and the driver.

          There are two versions: in one a man tells them, and in the other a woman.

          That has to be sinister!

          E. Howard Hunt (his explanation didn’t hold water in court).

          You are taking the word of Mark Lane on that. You should not.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

          Plenty of evidence puts Hunt in DC.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt_sturgis.htm

          But don’t expect Mark Lane to tell you that.

          George H.W. Bush*

          Yet another factoid.

          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v5M6NvpAmk4/Umg7QKYxFaI/AAAAAAAAwG0/22JF5BgX8aE/s3000-h/November-22-1963-Book-Back-Cover.jpg

          • Paul says:

            My only problem with Mark Lane is his strong statement that Lee Harvey Oswald was the man Roger Craig saw running into that Rambler for a getaway. It COULD have been LHO, it also could have been one of the assassins.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I’ve heard or read two different stories (he wasn’t consistent).

            .John, the jury didn’t believe Hunt’s story or his alibi.

            I recall after the movie JFK, a reporter asked Bush Sr. where he was and he said he didn’t recall. He either forgot what he said in that letter that you linked, or maybe he didn’t want to answer the reporter’s question).

            But isn’t the real issue that George Bush denied that he was the Bush alluded to in those FBI memos?

            Perhaps, if one is a CIA asset working in secrecy, you must deny?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            What’s sinister about Nixon is the gap and that ‘Cuba thing’ he alluded to. What were his burglars really looking for? Perhaps knowledge about certain things after the fact that might have slipped out of his mouth? Maybe it’s all about negative perception, and that can ruin a campaign, even if there’s no wrong doing?

          • John McAdams says:

            .John, the jury didn’t believe Hunt’s story or his alibi.

            You only have Mark Lane’s word on that.

            I got several independent sources, and they show that the jury didn’t pay much attention to the conspiracy stuff. The issue was libel.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

            He either forgot what he said in that letter that you linked, or maybe he didn’t want to answer the reporter’s question).

            Or you saw some bogus report, or misremember what you saw.

            But isn’t the real issue that George Bush denied that he was the Bush alluded to in those FBI memos?

            But it wasn’t George H.W. Bush. Context made it clear it was a CIA employee. Not a contact or asset, but an employee.

  6. Jea Davis says:

    The first time I ever heard of a Bush/JFK connection was in response to a rather feisty message board debate at go.com during the 2000 election campaigns. Someone was posting a lot of old Prescott Bush info, and that got me researching Thyssen and Krupps, etc. In the course of this research, I found a link to an FBI FOIA document on a Lyndon LaRouche webpage that listed a George Bush of Zapata Oil telephoning the FBI ON THE AFTERNOON OF Nov. 22, 1963 to inform FBI of someone he suspected might be involved in the JFK assassination (James Parrot). I don’t know what other George Bush of Zapata Oil that could have been.

    SO, George Bush, who actually calls the FBI on the day of the shooting to report a SUSPECT, has no recollection of where he WAS? Incredible.

    At the time, I did not know GHWB was claiming he could not recall where he was, but I was intrigued that this enterprising little wildcatter who starts his own oil company, has some rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, dutifully calls FBI with a tip when tragedy strikes his country, grows up to one day head the CIA and then become President of the United States! Admittedly, I wasn’t connecting the dots too well, but I don’t generally think on the dark side.

    Fast forward to 9/11/2001 – another day that rocked my world (as did 11/22/63). I couldn’t understand how, with all our sophisticated intelligence, we could have possibly missed that one, so I began contributing to Paul Thompson’s Terror Timeline (since has been published into a book). The book does not claim to “solve” anything, but it contains so pretty damning information.

    Summer of last year, I picked up “Double Cross” by Sam & Chuck Giancana (copyright 1992) in a thrift store. I bought it because it is written by relatives of a mobster who wrote very poignantly on the page before the author’s note, “Until 1969, our family was held captive by the legacy of Chicago Mob boss Sam Giancana. At the time, we mistakenly thought that by changing our last name, we could escape the very real stigma attached to being related to a notorious ‘gansgter’”. I was intrigued and felt empathy for them by their paragraph, so I decided to read their biography of their brother and uncle. It is chilling, to say the least. But their story makes a lot more sense than the idiotic lone nut commie gunman firing three shots with a cheap rifle . . .

    More importantly, there were two names that came up that I knew I had seen before – Frank Fiorini (aka Frank Sturgis) and Robert Mayhue. I knew it had something to do with Watergate. I still had a collection of Watergate books on my bookshelf, so I started rifling through the indexes to find these guys. How is it these same people keep popping up? They’re all over Bay of Pigs, JFK, Watergate – what gives??? Then I remembered the FBI memo re: Mr. George Bush of Zapata Oil . . . no flippin’ way! But how does an oil guy become a Senator become Director of CIA, without ever having been a spook? No flippin’ way!

    WAY!!! Bay of Pigs – Zapata – oil rigs – plots to kill Castro . . . he didn’t just “walk into” the job of Director of CIA, he had been an asset for years. Good Lord, what have we done? What have we done? We can’t give Caroline her father back, but we owe it to our children and all future children to change the way we do things. This sort of manipulative intrigue is unacceptable and barbaric. People deserve to hear the truth, not in screaming, paranoid terms, but poignant, factual terms, so they might join together to prevent this madness from continuing.

  7. Karl Golovin says:

    “Fun fact: When Bush became director of the CIA in 1976 the very first thing he asked for was the agency’s JFK files. He too wanted to know who killed 35th president.”

    Is there documentation of which specific files were brought to him for examination?

  8. TLR says:

    I don’t know whether GHWB was involved in the JFK assassination, but it is significant that George de Mohrenschildt turned to him for help when Bush was CIA Director.

    • D. Olmens says:

      Why?

      In making this claim you fail to acknowledge the actual content of de Mohrenschildt’s letter, which includes the following:

      “My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by the situation.”

      Suspicions of vigilantes, phone taps, being followed. Rampant paranoia.

      “Could you do something to remove the net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you any more.”

      Bush has confirmed they were acquainted. de Mohrenschildt thinks he’s being followed, bugged, and so on, thus he writes to someone he has met previously who he thinks can fix the problem, the CIA Director.

      If the letter had some substantive content other than paranoid ramblings it might be significant in the manner you claim. As it stands, the letter is illustrative of de Mohrenschildt’s state of mind at the time, but little else. Two months later de Mohrenschildt’s wife committed him to a mental institution.

      • leslie sharp says:

        D. Olmens, surely you’te not arguing that a man’s sanity should be determined by his wife having had him committed? Mrs. deM was not the paragon of stability, and it may well be that she was “saving her own skin” as it were. I find deM as one of the more tragic figures, albeit complicit, in this drama. There are some additional characters floating around the scene in Florida including a young woman by the name of “Loomis,” not to mention the Tilton (Pierson) family of New England. These were not simply folk. And if deM was suicidal, why had he made plans to travel that Spring to Santa Fe, NM to visit his old friend Sam Ballen, to whom he had introduced Lee Harvey Oswald as a potential employee. And sometime in 1964, Priscilla McMillan brought Marina Oswald to New Mexico for a month long sabbatical from the events of November, 1963, staying with her relatives the Davenports, close friends of the Ballens. I do not believe that George deMohrenschildt killed himself.

      • TLR says:

        Paranoid ramblings? With the HSCA hearings going on, and increasing attention focused on GdM, he had every reason to feel paranoid.

        • leslie sharp says:

          The question of “who” killed deM is a non-starter; deM’s death was immediately reported as a suicide so authorities had no reason to go in search of his murderer(s). Sounds like a familiar pattern, doesn’t it.

          The answer to “why can only be found by searching deM’s past thoroughly, and it is a somewhat naive question to ask unless of course it is intended to ridicule or diminish the suspicions surrounding his death. deM knew where the skeletons were buried, in so many different areas since WWII; as far as dot-connecting goes, he would have been a master at the art and would be able to fill in a number of missing links.

        • John McAdams says:

          He may well have feared that all the tall tales he had been telling would come back to bite him.

          The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office thoroughly investigated the death.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

          • leslie sharp says:

            ” thoroughly investigated the death.”

            Date 03-30-77

            49. Time 1300 hours

            50. Medical History
            of Deceased Victim had history of mental
            depression. On 11-09-76, his wife
            had him committed to a mental
            institution and listed four previous
            suicide attempts in a notarized
            affidavit.

            As of the evening of 3-31-77, the undersigned investigator has not additional information in regards to this case, other than that received through the reporting process of other detectives assigned various parts of the investigation. This report will be added as a supplemental to the existing reports.

            THIS CASE IS EXCEPTIONALLY CLEARED.

            This report transcribed from tape: On 4 April, 1977 by Linda E.
            Albritton.
            Reporting Deputy(writer): Det. Thomas Neighbors/lea
            Deputy No. 5104
            Case Number: 77-11753
            Date: 3-29-77

          • John McAdams says:

            I hope you are not trying to imply that what you posted is all of the report.

            It’s all here:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

          • leslie sharp says:

            What I am implying is that the multi-paged report appears to encompass the record of an investigation that lasted all of six days unless I am misreading: THIS CASE IS EXCEPTIONALLY CLEARED ….This report transcribed from tape: On 4 April, 1977

          • D. Olmens says:

            Here’s a more representative excerpt:

            “This writers investigation has failed to produce any evidence which would tend to indicate that the victim met his death by any means other than by his own hand. All of the facts indicate that he was a disturbed man, who, at the time of his death, was suffering from the same overwhelming mental pressures which must have surely prompted his four prior suicide attempts, in Texas, in 1976. This death investigation is, therefore, declared to be a suicide and is hereby EXCEPTIONALLY CLEARED.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

            Leslie Sharp: “What I am implying is that the multi-paged report appears to encompass the record of an investigation that lasted all of six days unless I am misreading: THIS CASE IS EXCEPTIONALLY CLEARED ….This report transcribed from tape: On 4 April, 1977″

            Sorry, I’m not sure I understand your point Leslie. Are you familiar with the meaning of the terminology “exceptionally cleared” in this context?

            I also don’t follow why the duration of the investigation is a concern. Sure, if they’d spent a day on it that might give the appearance of being a bit hasty. But the timeline doesn’t seem unreasonable when you read the report.

            Note also the mention of “…his four prior suicide attempts, in Texas, in 1976.”

          • leslie sharp says:

            D. Olmens, yes I am familiar with the term as it is applied in this report.

            I think if you are looking for evidence of a suicide then four or five days are sufficient. If you are suspicious of foul play, I think that investigation requires a bit more time and digging.

            an example: (this is a poor horse I am currently beating, but it seems to continue to be lost in the shuffle.) On December 16, 1963, the Warren Commission convened, apparently to discuss procedures and ‘get acquainted.’ Allen Dulles chose to pass around a ‘small book’ on ’7 attempts against the President,” and said something to the effect that all but one fit the lone assassin profile. (see a Dec. 16, 2013 thread on this site for more detail.) This meeting took place just 24 days after the assassination and 22 days after Ruby’s murder of Oswald in the presence of a phalanx of law enforcement officers. Do you think that Allen Dulles allowed sufficient time for a thorough investigation to ensue, or did he at that very moment shift the train into full throttle to indict Oswald posthumously. He was a master of counter-intelligence, Don’t you think he knew what he was doing?

            Returning to Mr. deMohrenschildt, did authorities look at his medical record (a metaphor for Dulles’ little book on assassination) head in that direction and solve the case in less than a week?

  9. Anonymous says:

    I would argue that, when Bush became C.I.A. director and asked the the agencies JFK files, he did so because he was now in a position to thwart any Congressional (or otherwise) inquiries, based on his knowledge of the case (meaning he did know who killed JFK, and why).

    That scenario, although speculative like Jeff’s, makes much more sense.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      The scenario is further supported by his Operation 40 procurement/recruiting activities in 1960/61(?). Along with Daddy and his affiliation with the Dulles brothers.

  10. Thomas says:

    I read Russ Baker’s book and was amazed at the connections he found between George Bush and the JFK assassination. They are not easily dismissed and although a direct connection cannot be proven there is ample reason to keep an open mind.

  11. Brian H says:

    He not only thwarted the investigation he brought in George Joaniddes and the two of them brought the investigation to a screeching halt!!!
    Oh and TLR funny thing is DeMorenchildt received a card from Gaeton Fonzi asking to speak with him and guess what happend he shot himself with a Shotgun! Instead of one of the five pistols he had locked up he chose a shotgun??? I don’t believe it either……

    • D. Olmens says:

      “Oh and TLR funny thing is DeMorenchildt received a card from Gaeton Fonzi asking to speak with him and guess what happend he shot himself with a Shotgun! Instead of one of the five pistols he had locked up he chose a shotgun??? I don’t believe it either……”

      Who knows? Perhaps because he thought it would be more effective? Are you suggesting someone on the verge of suicide will always act calmly and logically?

      “a funny thing”, “guess what happened”… Why cloak your claims in this kind of language? If you think there is more to it than mere coincidence, why not just say so?

      Putting aside any questions of mental stability, stress, paranoia, and so on as potential contributing factors, if de Mohrenschildt was indeed murdered, the question becomes: Who killed him and why? Do you have a reasonable explanation?

      • Jonathan says:

        D. Olmens,

        Brian H. makes a point about the pistols. I’m not a specialist in suicidal behavior. Are you? I’m guessing not. So I suggest we not guess as to George’s state of mind on the fateful day.

        My take away is that the shotgun blast is a powerful statement to third parties. Much more powerful than a discrete pistol shot into the mouth. Both do the job. One is bloodier and more dramatic.

        My guess: a depressed, disoriented person looking to kill himself isn’t looking to make a statement; just is looking to end his life. George D. took a far different exit. I’d pass over him, and I’m a JFK student, if he’d put a pistol in his mouth.

        • D. Olmens says:

          Why is de M.’s state of mind not worth considering? That is surely a factor anyone investigating his death would attempt to discern when trying to evaluate whether it was murder or suicide?

          Fact: de M. had a recent history of mental illness, to be more precise: depression. He was hospitalised for treatment.

          That seems a point worth considering. Before jumping straight to the most sinister explanation it’s useful to consider other explanations and see if they can be conclusively ruled out first.

          This doesn’t really sound like any kind of statement. Compare and contrast with the murder of Sam Giancana for example.

          “One is bloodier and more dramatic.”

          One of them also offers virtual certainty.

          • leslie sharp says:

            D. Olmens, again I’m surprised that you would revert to “de M. had a recent history of mental illness, to be more precise: depression. He was hospitalised for treatment.”

            Can you or anyone provide the medical records to substantiate these claims. Being hospitalized is not a diagnosis. I’ve read the same story, but will you cite the precise circumstances, the admission records, the psychiatrist’s signatures?

            The standard of ‘evidence’ must apply across the board.

            I can name three women married to oil executives who may well have had information relating to the assassination and were committed to psychiatric hospitals in the period leading to and immediately after 11.22.63, two of whom were married to board members of said psychiatric hospitals.

          • D. Olmens says:

            “Can you or anyone provide the medical records to substantiate these claims. Being hospitalized is not a diagnosis. I’ve read the same story, but will you cite the precise circumstances, the admission records, the psychiatrist’s signatures?”

            That’s not an unreasonable request. I’ve done some digging around, but to date haven’t come up with anything that provides further illumination. I will continue to look for more information. I’ve read reports that de M. underwent electro-shock therapy, but the details are of a similarly general nature.

            I think it’s also worth keeping in mind the four previous suicide attempts mentioned in the police investigation into his suicide. Taken together, these details, whilst needing further elaboration, do not paint a rosy picture of de M.’s state of mind.

            “I can name three women married to oil executives who may well have had information relating to the assassination and were committed to psychiatric hospitals in the period leading to and immediately after 11.22.63, two of whom were married to board members of said psychiatric hospitals.”

            That’s an intriguing claim. Now I’m curious. Just to be clear, do you mean that two of the oil executives were also board members of the psych hospitals? I have three questions. Firstly, without asking you to name names, when you say these women “may well” have had information, what does that mean? Secondly, how did they obtain this information? Thirdly, and pethaps most importantly, are you suggesting that the possession of that information was the reason for their admission to these hospitals?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Thanks D. Olmens, and I appreciate your looking for that information. I understand how the history of deMohrenschildt’s previous attempts could persuade you to think he finally succeeded. I on the other hand (and I suspect you are anticipating this response) would argue it may well have established the modus operandi for his murder. I’m struck by the rapid, thorough investigation into the possibility of foul play. Six days if I’m reading the report correctly.

            1) I contend that the assassination was in the wind 2) One of the women was in the Southeast, the other in the South/Midwest, married to oil men. That is all I will say specifically. 3) yes

          • D. Olmens says:

            It’s a fair point. If these records can be obtained they may prove to be extremely helpful in providing additional insights into de M.’s health and state of mind at the time.

            If it could be shown that the rapidity and length of the investigation were unusual or anomalous amongst similar probes carried out by the same department during that period, then that would raise some questions, I agree. However, six days doesn’t seem an unreasonable duration for the investigation when I read the report.

            Thanks for answering my questions regarding the women. I’m intrigued and would be curious to know more, but at the same time I understand your reluctance to comment further. This is not really the place for such a discussion. Interesting.

          • leslie sharp says:

            D. Olmens, I regret having brought up the subject except that it seems pertinent to my contention that the assassination was “in the wind,” and a number of people may have been silenced, some in criminal ways.

  12. Larry Schnapf says:

    there seems to be more animus than evidence here about GHWB and JFK assassination. People should exercise discretion when accusing someone of murder–much less involvement in an assassination of a president. This is the same man who refused to go to Baghad in 1991. He is not a murderer. Shame on you who accuse anyone of such a deed on such paltry “evidence”.

    • Brian H says:

      Larry the evidence and the facts are all there I voted for Mr Bush and W. and am a long time moderate republican. I can tell you what I’ve learned over the last year or so about the Bush family is pretty scary. You sir need to do some research and you will see what I did then we can have an honest discussion.

      • Photon says:

        Such as?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Read Russ Baker’s Family of Secrets.

          You can also watch JFK II (perhaps a little too conspiratorial even for me, but it does point out conflicting information using documents and known or plausible connections).

          Maybe these will shed some light on you Photon (pun intended ha ha – have a nice day).

    • Paul says:

      Larry, when GHWB eulogized President Ford during Ford’s funeral service, he made a quick reference to the JFK Assassination and SMILED as he did so. Something isn’t right about that. You have one former President smiling in reference to the assassination of another former President, at the funeral service for yet ANOTHER former President. Not good.

    • Jonathan says:

      Larry Schnapf,

      The trail of the Bush patriarchs is a history of 20th Century U.S. history.

      GHW Bush has a trail. Let’s begin with Zapata Oil. Leap forward to the Nixon White House. To the CIA Director. To Vice President. To President, one-term.

      History says GHW Bush was a great guy. Just had memory lapses.

      Research says something else. He lied about being a CIA officer in 1963. He was at the bathroom during the discussion of Iran-Contra. As president, he thwarted the ARRB.

      I’ll cut it off here.

      • John McAdams says:

        He lied about being a CIA officer in 1963.

        Evidence?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          .John, that memo by Hoover to the CIA’s Deputy-Director about a George Bush of the CIA (who called to praise anti-Castro Cubans living in Miami and deflect suspicion) sure sounds like evidence to me.

          • John McAdams says:

            The ARRB tried to find “George Bush of the CIA,” and could not.

            The context makes it clear that this “George Bush” would be a desk officer. George H.W. Bush clearly wasn’t a desk officer.

            In theory, he might have been a contact, or an asset, or such. But he wasn’t an employee of the CIA.

            He was in the oil business.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McAdams, and you consider the oil business and the intelligence agency of the US to be mutually exclusive? Ask historians who have written about James Hardesty Critchfield if the CIA worked in close concert with the oil industry?

            Isn’t it time that history reveals precisely the symbiotic relationship between the Central Intelligence Agency and private and semi-private concerns. Who do we actually think that intelligence is serving? Freedom? Or capitalism and expansionism.

          • John McAdams says:

            John McAdams, and you consider the oil business and the intelligence agency of the US to be mutually exclusive?

            Being in the oil business and being a desk officer, an employee of the CIA, are mutually exclusive.

            Remember, during the Cole War, all kinds of people cooperated with the CIA in all kinds of ways, but this “George Bush of the CIA” was an actual CIA employee, not an asset or informant.

            I would like to see some evidence of George H.W. Bush having had any connection with the CIA in 1963. You folks haven’t provided any.

        • Paul says:

          John, with due respect, I’ve seen two comments of yours where you make your point, with no evidence to back it up. For instance, anyone can simply ssy LHO shot JFK, and leave it at that, as you did. You forgot to tell us what makes you think that. And now you ask for evidence from someone????

          • John McAdams says:

            I don’t get the point of your comment. Are you saying that I somehow have to prove that Bush was not a CIA official in 1963?

            That’s not how it works. You need to produce evidence.

        • Jonathan says:

          Give me a trial court with GHW Bush as a defendant charged with, say, perjury and I and a bunch of others will do what’s needed to come up with what will be admissible as evidence against Bush on the issue of whether he was working for the CIA in 1963.

          No problem. I’d lay the facts of Zapata Oil in front of the jury. Also the memo to which Gerry Simeone refers. I’d show the jury how GHW Bush became CIA Director allegedly without any prior intelligence training and show how unusual that was (that’s called circumstantial evidence). Again, no problem.

    • Paul says:

      the problem is….just how “paltry” IS the evidence?

  13. Brian H says:

    Russ Bakers book is a great read!

  14. leslie sharp says:

    I think that Russ Baker made an enormous contribution with his book by breaking through the fear of confronting a particular political dynasty in the country while they still have the capacity to yield power. Where I fault his book, and I have shared this with him, is that it stops far short of the full story because the “Bush” family is but one thread in the intricate tapestry they were woven into over generations; theirs as a collective is a unique scene but the larger, the whole tapestry originates with British colonialism serving imperialism and enslavement – a force that an intrepid Irishman, John Kennedy was confronting on a global scale. Many of those collectives have yet to be named in one complete, contemporary and intellectually accessible volume to inform the public writ large. I respect that Baker asserts there is just so much you can put between two covers … tell that to Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, co-creators of the seminal work, “Thy Will Be Done.” However in fairness to Russ, I think times have changed, publishers are less brave; evidently even Colby and Dennett faced some extremely destructive forces. Their courage continues to astound me.

    My hope is that a group of researchers and journalists can muster the funds and the resources to pursue the topic and further elaborate on how it relates to 11.22.63.

  15. Thomas says:

    I’m not one to jump to conclusions about photos “resembling” someone as in the 3 tramps photos but I’d like to know for the record has the man that looks like a younger George Bush in Dealey Plaza been identified?

    • Photon says:

      Yes. It is D. B. Cooper.

      • Thomas says:

        Can you tell me more? Who is D.B. Cooper and how is it known that it is him in the photo?

          • leslie sharp says:

            D. Olmens, I’m disappointed that you would endorse and or resort to such shenanigans. Where is your critical analysis of the man in the photo, taken outside the TSBD who resembles George H. W. Bush? If you had been in Dallas that day, I venture to guess that this man would have seemed out of place to you … more East Coast in dress and demeanor … in short, where was his “cowboy hat,” metaphorically speaking?

          • D. Olmens says:

            Sorry, should have appended a :) in the interests of clarity.

            I was simply replying to Thomas, who upon reading the Wiki page would realise Photon was joking.

          • leslie sharp says:

            D. Olmens, well then, I suppose you are forgiven.

            Who would have ever have anticipated that in their lifetime they would be forced to revert to these idiotic symbols as a form of communication?

            what happened to “ha ha ha?”

        • Jonathan says:

          Photon’s pulling your leg. D.B. Cooper is the nom de guerre of a guy who hi-jacked a Boeing 727 in the Northwest U.S in the U.S. in the early 1970s and escaped by parachuting from the plane with a bunch of ransom money.

          D.B. Cooper sightings are second probably only to Elvis sightings.

          • Thomas says:

            A joke every now and then isn’t a bad thing although some are more amusing than others. Back to the topic it sounds like the man has never been identified.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Thomas, I agree .. we sometimes forget humor, a trait Kennedy epitomized. However, Photon was mocking you/us; I doubt seriously that there was any humor intended. Back to the man outside the TSBD … I would be interested to hear from people that lived in Dallas in 1963 … does anyone recognize this man, does he appear to be local? Personally I think there is something strange about his stance given that the president had just been shot.

          • Thomas says:

            After the discussion being sidetracked it looks like the conclusion is the man who bears a resemblance to a young George Bush has never been identified and therefore the issue remains open.

  16. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I still view the photo I’ve seen on the internet of Bush in Dealy Plaza with skepticism. In this day of photoshop? To my knowledge it turned up from a supposed reliable -but- undocumented source.
    Then again. He did speak at a oil related function the night before and spent the night in Dallas. He did have cia connections through his role in operation 40 and his father’s relationship with the dulles brothers. He apparently had some use of east coast establishment Ulmer’s plane on 1/22.
    This and more make me wonder. JFK was shot at 12:30. Red Bird Airport is 10 minutes away. Walter Cronkite announced the Presidents death on TV at 1:38(?). Bush’s campaign speech opening remarks were interrupted by this news in Tyler. He called the FBI at 1:45. To establish his presence there at the time? (implicating Parrot is a crock). It’s 98 miles from Dallas to Tyler by car. Could a WWII fighter pilot make it in time as the crow flies?

    • leslie sharp says:

      Ronnie Wayne, “He apparently had some use of east coast establishment Ulmer’s plane on 1/22.”

      I thought that Bush was in Joe Zeppa’s plane on the 22nd? Ulmer was in Tyler where Zeppa lived (Ulmer’s relatives lived there as well, but I’ve not read that Al Ulmer had a plane at his disposal let alone offering it to George Bush? I’m not sure I would call Ulmer “east coast establishment” unless I’ve missed something in his biography? I would very much like to pursue that if you have any sources to recommend. I thought that he was born in Jacksonville, FL?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Thank you for catching my mistake Leslie. It was Zepp”O”‘s plane according to Baker in Family of Secrets.
        Barbara misspelled it in her account as well.
        Maybe a mistake too. Since her account of the day is somewhat questionable.
        Zeppa was originally from the east coast establishment.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Ronnie, I would be interested to know more about the Zeppa, east coast establishment claim. He was an emigrant from Russia.
          http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/dod02

          I too have wondered about Barbara’s ‘letter’ published decades after the assassination, and why the misspelling? They appear to have been good friend’s. I only stumbled on to the name at the state library/who’s who books, looking for Zeppo, found Zeppa and put two and two together. It has been a strange trail since that day because I had been researching Lone Star Steel for a year or so, knew the players, and from there that portion of the story began to unfold. Military contracts, interconnected bankers and oil men related to other military contractors in the lead up to the Vietnam war.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Leslie, if I recall right this was from Reclaiming Parkland. I don’t have it at hand at the moment but will tomorrow and will check. What I recall is as an immigrant he went to work for an establishment family, eventually on Wall Street, rose to mid level prominence, then went or was sent to Texas to help gain control of oil interests and established an oil relate business.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Thanks Ronnie, and the operative word is “sent,’ an astute observation. I contend that George HW was also “sent” to the state in order to assist with the movement to turn Texas red.

            I assign East Coast establishment to those born into generations of ‘blue bloods,’ however I can see how Zeppa might be considered part of the establishment given their adoption of him most likely based on his intellect? Or might it have involved his Russian background. I’ll not go further with that pure speculation except to say that Fred Koch who settled in Texas was from Russia.

            Re. an appearance that Zeppa might have been adopted by the power brokers in the oil industry, he works with Clint Murchison and Jack Crichton in 1954 in Franco’s Spain, and he sits on the board of “Petroleum Resources” which appears to me to be some kind of quango housed at 630 Fifth Ave., Rockefeller Center where Allen Dulles took up residences when he was fired by Kennedy as DCI.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Leslie, with the knowledge you have demonstrated I wonder if your not teasing me. The info is from Family of Secrets. Starting on page 57, ” Joe Zeppa was an Italian immigrant”…founded Delta Drilling…world’s largest contract oil drillers…emigrated…age of twelve… New York…older brother…wife..maid…Mrs. George Church, Mr, Church…Wall Street law firm….Rockefeller…stock boy… accountant… announced republican…baptized…Calvary Baptist…a favorite of the Rockefeller’s…Zeppa owned and lived in the Blackstone Hotel, the site of Bush Kiwanis speech.”

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            The thsa article you linked also says he immigrated from Italy. three of his original partners were Russian Jews. The Church’s had no children and unofficially adopted him. Mr. Church got him the job in the stockroom where he worked, for the Rockefellers.
            I can’t follow Mr. Bakers sourcing in Family of secrets. This info is from the chapter “Where Was Poppy”. The source/end notes are numbered there but there are no corresponding numbers in the text. Some are easy to identify by the context but I couldn’t figure out which one or more may relate to Mr. Zeppa. Maybe you could contact him through his website or if he sees or hears of this he might respond.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Ronnie, not at all and I didn’t intend to leave that impression. To be clear, (with one exception relating to Delta Drilling and the Murchison operation in Franco’s Spain) my research does not come from Russ Baker’s book although after his came out, I compared it with what I had found. I believe (perhaps because of space) he left out a number of aspects of Zeppa’s career that I know to be highly relevant. I also respect that anything that did not focus on the Bush family would have been ancillary to Baker’s mission for the book, and yet I contend it is Zeppa and Ulmer who should be under very close scrutiny.

            I think we’re dealing in semantics re. “East Coast Establishment.” Zeppa’s relationship to same was via adoption and not generations of ‘blue blood.’ but I can see how the Church’s and the Rockefeller connections would lead one to call him establishment because in essence he benefited from their support, without a doubt. I apologize because it’s a frivolous distraction. All of this explains the presence at 630 Fifth Ave. of an ‘independent’ oil guy from sleepy little East Texas.

            You bring up another interesting issue … I’ve come across at least a half dozen independent oil guys who clearly have deep roots with Standard (and Gulf). I’m not familiar with the practical workings of the industry, but I suspect the independents were somewhat like remoras. Thanks Ronnie.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Ronnie, you are so right, Zeppa was Italian heritage. I’m working from memory here, so I need to be more cautious.

            I don’t know very much about current publishing standards and procedures, but I agree, footnoting can either be on the nose, or it can be very sloppy. Whether or not the author is responsible, I have no idea. I did notice several instances where page numbers didn’t align with information in the index of FOS which as you say can be very frustrating. And I’m guessing more so for the author than anyone else. If I put thousands and thousands of hours into the project, I would want an editor / publisher to bring their skills to the party.

            I’ll let you contact Russ directly if you want to. I think his site offers a confidential email and/or direct through to him. He’s fully aware of my issues relating to FOS.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Ronnie, I too attempted to calculate the timing … he leaves Tyler, flies to Ft. Worth with Zeppa, Zeppa sends his plane with the Bush’s still on board back to Love Field in time to connect with a commercial flight to Houston. However, they have to circle Love Field because AF Two is preparing to take off. I’ve talked to small aircraft pilots who say it could be done, but what about the time it took for Bush to collect Barbara at the hair dressers, get to the Tyler airport, land in Ft. Worth long enough to leave Zeppa off, then taxi, take off and make it to Dallas by 3:32 (I think that’s the time that AF Two took off. I may be mistaken in some of this detail. It is still an interesting aspect of Barbara’s claim.)

    • Jonathan says:

      Ronnie and leslie,

      I believe the question of whether GHW Bush was in Dallas on 11-22-63 is a distraction. It doesn’t matter to history IMO.

      Whether Bush was a CIA agent when working for Zapata Oil is a major question. I think he was, based on the total record.

      I also think, based on his established record, he’s a proven liar.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I’m tired and have a busy day at work tomorrow. But, while a distraction from the many other aspects of the assassination it is important to history as GHWB did come to us as POTUS through the CIA. He spent the night in Dallas 11/21/63, he was in Tyler about 1:40ish on 11/22. In between is a mystery. He had established CIA connections at the time (operation 40, the Hoover briefing memo, etc,). IF he was in Dealy Plaza at 12:30 I don’t believe it was as a shooter, operations director or coordinator. But as a forward observer for say Angleton or Dulles that would be important to history. Speculation? Yes, but not without basis.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Ronnie, two interesting aspects. Forward observer could explain the demeanor of the man in the photo in front of the TSBD. (he looks far to confident and casual to have just witnessed what others did). I have no fixed opinion of that person being George HW, but it is interesting that the man so closely resembles him.

          The other aspect: here we are, 50 years later speculating about a Bush involvement. Might this be a distraction, and not in the sense that Jonathan has posed, but in a planned sense. I argue that the Bush family are front line actors and willing or at least groomed from an early age to be positioned on the stage at any cost to their own personhood, knowing they are so valuable for that exact purpose that they will be provided plausible deniability in every situation they find themselves.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jonathan, my argument is not about whether Bush was or was not in Dallas … the question is, with whom was he traveling on 11.22.63. Baker’s analysis focused on the “Bush ” Dynasty; my research had revealed far deeper and far more shadowy characters than Sam Bush c. early 1900′s.

        You recently brought up the history of the Franklin scandal and someone challenged ‘how does that relate to the assassination.’ I think anyone that has studied that sordid story knows that politics and blackmail were involved. The Bushes are symbols of American propriety and have served as the face of the conservative right in our country for decades. George HW was sent to Dallas under the umbrella of Dresser Industries to participate in the conversion of Texas to a Republican Red State.

        How better to keep him under control at the height of his political career than entrap him in a highly distasteful drama. I concluded long ago that the Moonie cult was somehow behind the compromise of George HW Bush – a fool with an incredibly sad history that made him fodder for those in the shadows; I also traveled to Omaha, twice to pursue this story; for some reason I was protected from meeting face to face with deCamp.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Ronnie, I don’t recall where I read something about the issue of Bush’s whereabouts on November 22nd, 1963, but is it possible that he was in CYA mode to isolate himself from any others that he thought might have been engaged in the assassination? IOW, even if he was a patriotic CIA operative, he did nothing wrong but wanted to prevent being ‘guilty-by-association’?

      Ergo the establishment of any alibi, or denial later in years of even being associated with the CIA in an unofficial capacity?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Just my opinion but yes it looks like an alibi. He called an FBI agent he was acquainted with knowing a record of the call would be made if memory serves me correct. The investigation of Parrot turned up absolutely nothing indicating any statement of hatred of JFK or plans to kill him. In addition just about everybody in Texas knew JFK had been in Houston the day before.

      • John McAdams says:

        So if somebody has an alibi, that’s suspicious.

        But the vast majority of all the people in Texas had alibis. The were with somebody somewhere.

  17. Paul says:

    there was a comment about JFK in effect saying “come and get me” to anyone wanting to shoot him. This I believe had to do with the fact he was riding in an open car. I’ve read that the “bubbletop”(which would have been used in the event of rain, of course)wasn’t bulletproof, and also that its physical appearance would have made it difficult to target JFK in an assassination attempt. So it’s a “neither here nor there” kind of thing, with regard to the limousine.

  18. Kennedy63 says:

    Apparently, George DeMohrenschildt was knowledgeable about many things, both CIA and Oswald. To befriend someone as skillfully as G. DeM did Oswald, while feeding info back to CIA given in confidence, is telling. When Oswald allegedly shot at Gen. Walker, G deM, fearing CIA blow-back against his foreign business dealings, took up residence in the islands. Nice cover, if you can get it. Oswald was nothing more to G deM. than a means to an end – more business through CIA contacts. Perhaps Marina’s close proximity to Oswald worked more favorably for G deM.,than did his alleged ‘friendship’ with LHO. After all, was not G deM. of Russian nobility and shared a national bond with another native Russian, Marina? It is amazing that, in the last year of his life, LHO was constantly surrounded by CIA assets and hounded by the FBI. If one needed a motive to shoot the head of a government that is hostile to you, would that be reason enough?

  19. My review of the k book was hardly inadequate. I went through every major point he made about the Texas National Guard, Watergate and the JFK case. Plus many more. The first part about the Guard, I praised. It was good. I did not accept the next two since they simply did not have the amount of objective evidence as the first. And I was specific as to why not.

    My review has been universally rejected by the research community? The review was also accepted at Bob Parry’s site, Consortium News, one of the very best alternative journals we have.

    Jeff could have also linked to Seamus Coogan’s fabulous review of John Hankey’s video. Or my follow up to it.

    Bush may or may not have been involved in the JFK murder. What my argument was and is, the evidence adduced by Hankey and Baker is simply not profuse enough or solid enough to establish that as a fact. Except for researchers like Jim Fetzer.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Mr. D, Jim if I may as I respect your work. I’m not sure who or what post yours was directed at. I found your review informative and quite to the point. Enough so it PO’d the author. The book certainly did not address the family secrets in full (I.E. Prescott, Jeb’s involvement in the Savings and Loan fiasco in Colorado in particular). But for a neophyte reader, not a researcher, like me, it was quite revealing. I wish he would expand it into another volume or two. Especially in light of the looming possibility of another Bush or two’s run for POTUS.
      As for the research community’s opinion I can’t say, but it’s a tragedy this is not MSM news.
      FREETHEFILES.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Ronnie, I’m not stalking you, but it was Neil – namesake of Dresser Industries Prez W. Neil Mallon, founder of the Dallas World Affairs Council – not Jeb in the Silverado S&L scandal. It’s good we’re keeping one another on our toes.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Actually thanks. There’s so much info out there on these topics it’s difficult to keep it all straight without re-checking before I post many times. I’d rather be corrected than mistaken.

  20. mike s. says:

    Per the Kitchel (FBI)memo: “BUSH stated that he proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63″ The key word here is “remain”. GHWB spent Thursday night in Dallas and claimed to be calling 75 minutes after the assassination from Tyler, Texas which is 98 miles from Dealey Plaza. So according to Bush, he stayed the night before and the night after the assassination in a hotel 1 mile from the shooting, but was a hundred miles away “during” the shooting. The call to the FBI sure sounds more like an attempted alibi than a helpful tip.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more