PDA

View Full Version : Bush Senior at Gerald Ford's Funeral, laughing at the JFK murder



Praxis
4th July 2013, 17:18
I had never seen this video before and given what I believe about the JFK murder it is very interesting

ft3eGWZd7LE

ghostrider
4th July 2013, 17:29
the CIA and the secret service killed kennedy, the driver of the car reaching in his jacket with his left hand , right hand on the wheel , delivered the head shot, and it's on film ...

sirdipswitch
4th July 2013, 19:10
the CIA and the secret service killed kennedy, the driver of the car reaching in his jacket with his left hand , right hand on the wheel , delivered the head shot, and it's on film ...

I was in the Army when this happened. We were in our barracks, cleaning equipment, after a parade, and in my room, (I was barracks sargent and had my own room, with our only TV) and everyone crowded in to watch. I ran to the orderly room, and told the Officer of the day, to call our Company commander, a Captain, who came running through the front door in just 5 minutes, wondering what the fuss was about. I told him about the clip we had been watching and he deeded to see something we found. It came on and I pointed to the driver, and said watch him. Both of their faces turned white. They hadn't spotted it yet. The Captain asked who knew about it. I told him everyone. He had us call formation, and when the entire company was in the street, he said: "I am giving you a direct order, NOT to talk about this film clip, outside of this company. Trust me, as a Captain, I know things that you don't. That's why I'm captain and you're not. IF, you wish to remain among the living, you will not speak of this. If you wish no harm to come to your families, you will not speak of this. I promis you this, I will investigate this and keep you informed." He turned and walked away, and we never saw him again. And no-one had a clue, as to what happened to him. He still had 2 months to go as our comopany commander. WE, quit talkin about it.

Kryztian
4th July 2013, 19:18
Just reading Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets" about the Bush Family. The first 100 pages are about Bush 41 and the JFK Assassination. Long story short, he went to great lengths to look as though (1) He wasn't in Dallas on the morning of or the night before the assassination (2) He didn't have a strong relationship with George de Mohrenshildt, Oswald's handler and (3) He wasn't connected to the CIA. Baker does a great job of showing how Bush 41 tries to put this information out there and how it never quite works.

sigma6
5th July 2013, 02:20
To think he and his cronies destroyed the shining future of millions of Americans, to satisfy their own materialistic greed... and that uncontrollable smile at the mention of a "deluded gunman" shows just how "cracked" he really is... downright creepy

write4change
5th July 2013, 08:00
I still can not get over the fact that Texans voted for both Bush's considering them Texans when anyone who knows anything about the family knows they are old New England establishment who only visited Texas to exploit its oil and stupid public who would pay millions for a stadium for a private company that only Bush 43 made a profit on. And that is just for starters.

I believe as director of the CIA and long term involvement with it, Bush 41 was up to eyeballs in the JFK assassination. the fact they were able to get away with this has always shown me the shadow government. At that time I was 18 and a NRA rifle sharpshooter and no bullet survives what that one did in almost pristine condition. I have always known that was a lie but I have never been truly clear about the exact lies for the exact reasons. But I have always believed that that was the coup that destroyed this country as a representative democracy.

Observer1964
5th July 2013, 09:46
the CIA and the secret service killed kennedy, the driver of the car reaching in his jacket with his left hand , right hand on the wheel , delivered the head shot, and it's on film ...

I was in the Army when this happened. We were in our barracks, cleaning equipment, after a parade, and in my room, (I was barracks sargent and had my own room, with our only TV) and everyone crowded in to watch. I ran to the orderly room, and told the Officer of the day, to call our Company commander, a Captain, who came running through the front door in just 5 minutes, wondering what the fuss was about. I told him about the clip we had been watching and he deeded to see something we found. It came on and I pointed to the driver, and said watch him. Both of their faces turned white. They hadn't spotted it yet. The Captain asked who knew about it. I told him everyone. He had us call formation, and when the entire company was in the street, he said: "I am giving you a direct order, NOT to talk about this film clip, outside of this company. Trust me, as a Captain, I know things that you don't. That's why I'm captain and you're not. IF, you wish to remain among the living, you will not speak of this. If you wish no harm to come to your families, you will not speak of this. I promis you this, I will investigate this and keep you informed." He turned and walked away, and we never saw him again. And no-one had a clue, as to what happened to him. He still had 2 months to go as our comopany commander. WE, quit talkin about it.

I know this part from Zapruder film, but although for a long time i also believed to see just that, I later saw a clearer version in wich u can see that it is not a gun in the left hand of the driver but the brilcream hairglow of the guy next to him.

The Zapruder film was not released right away but kept 'safe' and only after a few weeks released to the public, and at first only as a set of frames printed in a magazine, with much frames removed. The version shown as the full version is by no means the full version or at least not what Zapruder shot in an uneditted way.

With modern methods much of the manipulation can be made clear .

Also withness reports are different from what you see in the Zapruderfilm.
anyway, here a little clip of a guy analysing the Zapruderfilm. To much is clearly altered.

m1AoR7Pnf0c

Snoweagle
5th July 2013, 11:02
The original video had a link at the end sourcing further details with the background to the potential "organisers" through official documents. Watch the system wash the evidence. Almost theatrical for the benefit of the public, not dissimilar to all other government investigations.

Pass this on:
rSil5TWj9ns

EYES WIDE OPEN
5th July 2013, 11:21
Just reading Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets" about the Bush Family. The first 100 pages are about Bush 41 and the JFK Assassination. Long story short, he went to great lengths to look as though (1) He wasn't in Dallas on the morning of or the night before the assassination (2) He didn't have a strong relationship with George de Mohrenshildt, Oswald's handler and (3) He wasn't connected to the CIA. Baker does a great job of showing how Bush 41 tries to put this information out there and how it never quite works.

One of the best books I have ever read.

Prodigal Son
5th July 2013, 11:52
Just reading Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets" about the Bush Family. The first 100 pages are about Bush 41 and the JFK Assassination. Long story short, he went to great lengths to look as though (1) He wasn't in Dallas on the morning of or the night before the assassination (2) He didn't have a strong relationship with George de Mohrenshildt, Oswald's handler and (3) He wasn't connected to the CIA. Baker does a great job of showing how Bush 41 tries to put this information out there and how it never quite works.

One of the best books I have ever read.

You might enjoy this one too, and its also a film you can youtube:

Dark Legacy

http://www.amazon.com/movies-tv/dp/B002Q79WMM

From the comments section:


Given the strategic and operational requirements of the JFK conspiracy - someone very high up operating at the behest of the "powers that be" who could also see that the hit was carried out properly and could then keep the lid on the cover-up for nearly half a century -- this film uses hard documentary evidence to build up point-by-point, a convincing circumstantial case that George Herbert Walker Bush was most probably not only involved in the JFK assassination but also was the most likely quarterback of the entire conspiracy.

The lynch pen of the narrative is a memo sent to J. Edgar Hoover less than two hours after the assassination, from one "George Bush of the CIA." The memo contained information on a person that the Bush in question claims to have overheard regarding a "James Parrot" threatening to kill JFK when he came to Huston. When questioned about this memo, GHW Bush denied that he had written it or that he had even been in the CIA in 1963. He suggested instead that the memo must have been written by another George Bush of the CIA. Mark Lane followed up this suggestion and did indeed discover another George Bush in the CIA, but he was a lowly GS-5 accountant in Langley, who laughed at the suggestion that he might have written such a memo in 1963 when he was only eight years old.

From this slender thread, which to any thinking person, clearly seemed like targeted CIA disinformation, the film goes on to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt both that the memo was likely sent by GWH Bush and that Bush was not only in the CIA in 1963, but was most probably also the key player in the JFK assassination.

This documentary goes on to show (with tons of hard evidence) an unbroken link between Bush and all of the key players both, "the powers that be" above him and the "operational mechanics," below him, who were indeed suspected to have been involved in the assassination. Moreover, it suggest that for many reasons GHW Bush most likely was the operational manager of "Operation 40," Alpha 66, Operation Mongoose, and all of the other anti-Castro groups operating in Florida, Louisiana and the Caribbean in the aftermath of the ill-fated invasion at the Bay of Pigs when the harassment of Castro's Cuba had reached such a fever pitch that JFK through the FBI had ordered them shut down to avoid another nuclear showdown with the Russians and to thus avert a nuclear war.

Given that GHW Bush, E. Howard Hunt and Richard Nixon were the only three people in the known universe who did not know where they were on 11/22/63, these authors document beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only were they all in Dallas on that day, but that they also had long-term close connections throughout their careers that linked them in various ways in a number of evil projects that culminated in the JFK assassination. Most notably, they attended along with a host of other key players (among them, John J. McCloy, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, the Cabell brothers, and key Generals over Military intel) a party at Clint Murchison's house on the eve of the assassination.

The most explosive evidence against Bush however, appears in the way of a management flow chart that shows Bush sitting at dead center -- connected at no less than two degrees of separation from all of the key players implicated in the JFK assassination. It is simply a stunning presentation of known and verifiable facts. Ten stars

Lifebringer
5th July 2013, 21:28
Papa Bush was in charge of the CIA and worked close with Hoover and after Marilyn threatened to talk about " the Moon People" they killed her and Kennedy. But Papa was picked up under an alias, and is on film by a reporter, and the reporter's dead, and Bush went on to be President, declaring a New World Order in 1991 when he had the State of the Union address with the congress and Senate.

Ohhh...there's plenty of evidence linking the little snake, but will the prosecution the world over, start hitting these shores?
I have it on good authority, that the time is now, and stick close to RT news, because they aren't pulling any punches.

Bill Ryan
6th July 2013, 21:19
the CIA and the secret service killed kennedy, the driver of the car reaching in his jacket with his left hand , right hand on the wheel , delivered the head shot, and it's on film ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMBjkA79eKo

At frames 308-314 in this restored version of the Zapruder film, presented by Jim Fetzer in 2003, one can clearly see the limo driver drawing his gun and blowing JFK's brains out. It's very hard to draw any other conclusions from what is before your eyes.

You may have to play it several times (step it forward frame by frame using the right arrow of your keyboard). The screenshots below show the sequence.

Once you know what you're looking for as the video plays, it becomes obvious.

(Acknowledgments to Paul for bringing this video to my attention.)

http://projectavalon.net/JFK_Zapruder_film_frame_302.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/JFK_Zapruder_film_frame_304.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/JFK_Zapruder_film_frame_308.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/JFK_Zapruder_film_frame_312.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/JFK_Zapruder_film_frame_313.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/JFK_Zapruder_film_frame_320.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/JFK_Zapruder_film_frames_302-320_closeup_sequence.jpg

Ba-ba-Ra
6th July 2013, 21:45
the CIA and the secret service killed kennedy, the driver of the car reaching in his jacket with his left hand , right hand on the wheel , delivered the head shot, and it's on film ...


I saw the film sometime in the mid 90's. The thing that made me feel it was accurate was: For the first time, Jackie Kennedy's actions made sense. Woman don't try to crawl out of moving vehicles over the trunk - especially woman like Mrs. Kennedy who was in a skirt at the time. The average woman would duck down on the floor to avoid danger. Now I understood why she did what she did. The danger was coming from within the vehicle.

Paul
6th July 2013, 22:36
At frames 308-314 in this restored version of the Zapruder film, presented by Jim Fetzer in 2003, one can clearly see the limo driver drawing his gun and blowing JFK's brains out. It's very hard to draw any other conclusions from what is before your eyes.
The following Youtube playlist JFK Zapruder Hoax - John Costella - May 2003 (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYSwdbCzg9l3umuLcLnftnzy0G4OSZtEB) (22 videos; 3 hours, 13 minutes) has another presentation from the same 2003 conference that Fetzer presented the above at.

In this presentation, Costella demonstrates, with a fine mix of Aussie humor, careful research, an eye for visual detail, and an excellent understanding of the mathematics and geometry of 3D image processing, that the current "restored" Zapruder films we have are an elaborate reconstruction.

What lies behind that reconstruction I can only speculate. It seems that they rebuilt the film, layer by layer, with fore ground objects such as a light pole and freeway sign in separate layers from the limo and security, and the people and background buildings and lawns in yet more layers. They were hiding some things or people or events apparently. For one thing, it seems quite likely that the limo came to a complete halt, which is not apparent in the versions of the film made available to us.

So the presence of those frames with the driver shooting JFK may or may not be reliable. The frames are there; they do show that as you see; but I don't know if that's what happened, or that's what they want some of us (in the tin foil hat crowd) to think happened.

Star Mariner
8th July 2013, 14:18
I promised that I wouldn't go back to the JFK incident, as it seems to be far too incendiary on here, with still so many divided opinions, which I just do not understand. In my mind the whole thing was done and dusted years ago.

This is the score with regards to the driver of the Limo, who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Here we see frame 312, one frame before the kill-shot is depicted, which I have enhanced and blown up a little. Please, now, once and for all see that the supposed 'silver' gun is just the shine on the hair of the secret service guy riding up front. In fact, as the driver is turning in his seat to look at the President, you can clearly see his left hand (in this frame and others), and it is not holding a gun.


21976

Star Mariner
8th July 2013, 14:47
In fact, I'll go a step further, here is a GiF of these frames I made a while back just to get a better feel for the sequence of events.

*** Warning of graphic violence, sequence shows head shot ***


http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Gwyndor/random/jfk_01_zps75fbaed9.gif (http://s186.photobucket.com/user/Gwyndor/media/random/jfk_01_zps75fbaed9.gif.html)

Conclusion:

Driver was not the shooter. Poor, multi-generation copies of the footage served to blur and obscure key detail, over which some have jumped to erroneous conclusions. This footage is taken from the digitally remastered copy of the Zapruder film, and portrays much more clearly what really took place in regards to the driver. Note the drivers empty left hand, and note the shiny scalp of the passenger, previously mistaken for aforementioned gun. Driver is innocent.

Limor Wolf
8th July 2013, 15:43
There is a certain parallelism between the Kennedy assassination and the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin 32 years later to the month. By careful examination of evidence, the journalist Bary Chamish claims that Rabin was shot from zero shooting range, and absolutely not by the the assasin Yigal Amir from the so called far away distance which he stand. It is possible that he was actually shot by his driver or by his 'body guard'. It still remain to see Shimon Peres smiling like Bush did. All stays in the family

DNA
8th July 2013, 17:51
the CIA and the secret service killed kennedy, the driver of the car reaching in his jacket with his left hand , right hand on the wheel , delivered the head shot, and it's on film ...

I was in the Army when this happened. We were in our barracks, cleaning equipment, after a parade, and in my room, (I was barracks sargent and had my own room, with our only TV) and everyone crowded in to watch. I ran to the orderly room, and told the Officer of the day, to call our Company commander, a Captain, who came running through the front door in just 5 minutes, wondering what the fuss was about. I told him about the clip we had been watching and he deeded to see something we found. It came on and I pointed to the driver, and said watch him. Both of their faces turned white. They hadn't spotted it yet. The Captain asked who knew about it. I told him everyone. He had us call formation, and when the entire company was in the street, he said: "I am giving you a direct order, NOT to talk about this film clip, outside of this company. Trust me, as a Captain, I know things that you don't. That's why I'm captain and you're not. IF, you wish to remain among the living, you will not speak of this. If you wish no harm to come to your families, you will not speak of this. I promis you this, I will investigate this and keep you informed." He turned and walked away, and we never saw him again. And no-one had a clue, as to what happened to him. He still had 2 months to go as our comopany commander. WE, quit talkin about it.

I know this part from Zapruder film, but although for a long time i also believed to see just that, I later saw a clearer version in wich u can see that it is not a gun in the left hand of the driver but the brilcream hairglow of the guy next to him.

The Zapruder film was not released right away but kept 'safe' and only after a few weeks released to the public, and at first only as a set of frames printed in a magazine, with much frames removed. The version shown as the full version is by no means the full version or at least not what Zapruder shot in an uneditted way.

With modern methods much of the manipulation can be made clear .

Also withness reports are different from what you see in the Zapruderfilm.
anyway, here a little clip of a guy analysing the Zapruderfilm. To much is clearly altered.

m1AoR7Pnf0c

Observer and Sirdipswitch, thank you for this one two punch. These two pieces of information are quite spectacular.

DNA
8th July 2013, 18:43
I don't think this piece of film can be said to definitively prove anything really, except that it was doctored. The testimony of Sirdipswitch and other folks who actually saw the original non-doctored film holds quite a bit of sway in my opinion though.

It think it may help if folks watch the Jay Wiedner documentary on Stanley Kubrick faking the moon landing to understand how they were pretty good at this kind of stuff even back then.

This isn't the actual documentary, the actual documentary costs like $2.99 on youtube to watch, it's freaking awesome though and highly recomended.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_00nQHdOHuw

araucaria
9th July 2013, 12:04
I'm sticking to the theory of three professional hitmen from the Marseilles underworld using triangulation, one on the Grassy Knoll where multiple witnesses saw him and one felt a bullet whistle past his ear. This is the standard failsafe method, and I doubt whether anything less sure would have been attempted. The bodyguards stepped away from the car because the target needed to be visible by others than the driver.

Observer1964
9th July 2013, 13:41
Conclusion:

Driver was not the shooter. Poor, multi-generation copies of the footage served to blur and obscure key detail, over which some have jumped to erroneous conclusions. This footage is taken from the digitally remastered copy of the Zapruder film, and portrays much more clearly what really took place in regards to the driver. Note the drivers empty left hand, and note the shiny scalp of the passenger, previously mistaken for aforementioned gun. Driver is innocent.

I don't agree that he is innocent, witness testemonies of saying he stopped the car completely in what we can call the kill-zone halfway down the side of the pyramid in the street-layout. He was in on the plot that I am certain off, but he did not deliver the fatal shot.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/changed.gif

Other curious thing is that on much of the route there is a crowd along the way except for Elmstreet

KiwiElf
18th July 2013, 22:46
Bill Cooper also stated in Behold a Pale Horse, that the "real" Zapbruder footage showing the driver, William Greer, firing the fatal headshot was "hidden from public view"... and that subsequent copies in the public domain have been altered. If this is true, then the versions we're seeing aren't completely the "real thing" (or whole), enhanced or otherwise. ;)

sigma6
22nd July 2013, 16:58
In fact, I'll go a step further, here is a GiF of these frames I made a while back just to get a better feel for the sequence of events.

*** Warning of graphic violence, sequence shows head shot ***


http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x120/Gwyndor/random/jfk_01_zps75fbaed9.gif (http://s186.photobucket.com/user/Gwyndor/media/random/jfk_01_zps75fbaed9.gif.html)

Conclusion:

Driver was not the shooter. Poor, multi-generation copies of the footage served to blur and obscure key detail, over which some have jumped to erroneous conclusions. This footage is taken from the digitally remastered copy of the Zapruder film, and portrays much more clearly what really took place in regards to the driver. Note the drivers empty left hand, and note the shiny scalp of the passenger, previously mistaken for aforementioned gun. Driver is innocent.

I am a believer that the Zapruder film was a sophisticated editing and reconstruction. I think that angle was a pure anomaly they didn't even see (since they already knew what the real story was and wouldn't be even looking at it that way...)

This is actually a classic example of a true "ambiguous image" literally. It is literally one of those images that gives you two clear images depending on what your "perception" is geared toward, like the famous moving ballerina silhouette, that appears to rotate clockwise OR counterclockwise, depending on YOUR perception. It appears to look like a shooter because the light reflection of the driver side door lines up perfectly, with the light reflection of the head at the perfect time. And if someone presented it as such. You would clearly see it. But upon further analysis, you might consider that the light reflection of what looks to be an arm is always there as the light reflection of the door (BEFORE you see it as an arm!)

The trick to seeing ambiguous images is to train your mind to see BOTH. When you can flip back and forth and see both clearly you have developed your ability to see an image with two different sets of context. This shows how your own projection/interpretation/assumption IS part of the picture. What you are thinking in your mind is truly part of the picture! Ambiguous images are one thing, but moving ambiguous images are rarer.

I haven't combed through all the posts, but I think someone included the Zapruder analysis. And it was quite convincing to me. In particular was the "missing" PARALLAX view of the pole. That is a 100% physical impossibility and opened up the rest of his interpretations, including the disproportionate size of the background figures, the incongruency between their clarity and the shadows, the "cut" at the road sign, where they must have separated the background above the outline of the limousine. etc... Really a masterful job of photo editing for the early 60's.

But that parallax view... tsk tsk...