John Hankeys JFKII 'The Bush Connection'

[john geraghty]

I watched Johns film again just a few minutes ago and made a few notes regarding it. I have a few problems with the content.
Please let it be known that this is saying nothing about John Hankey as a person, as I am sure to put the time and effort into his films he is both very passionate and dedicated about the topics that he covers. I have a few problems with Johns documentary, not with John himself,I just want to make that clear.

*The documentary qualifies Prescott Bush as a Nazi due to his involvement with Nazi bankers. I must say that there is a considerable difference between nazis and those that supported them for financial gain. I'm sure that should there have been potential earnings Prescott Bush would have done business with the Soviets, that however does not make him a communist.

*When discussing Bush's entrance into Nixons whitehuse he is described as 'trailing e howard Hunt behind him'. What proof is there that Bush requested that Hunt be hired by the White House. Bush was the ambassador to the United Nations, not exactly in the same line of work Hunt was doing for Nixon. Quite a minor position was it not for someone portrayed as a high level conspirator. If he was involved and he was to be rewarded, would he not have been given a better and more prominent position than this?

*The documentary states that Bush was 'supervising anti-castro cubans' . I can find no source that says that Bush was on the ground working with Cubans or synchronising their activities.

*I find it diificult to accept that just because Bush or his father knew some unsavoury characters that he held any sway over them or that they would be willing to do favours for him. example. the documentary states that Bush knew Averell harriman and harriman knew Richard Bissell, therefore insinuating a direct link between Bush and the man responsible for some of the hiring for the Bay of pigs.

*With regard to skull and bones I personally think that this is more of a fraternity and a social club rather than the cult that it is depicted as. I think you will most likely find that these people got just as drunk as any other college student and were not involved in satanic rituals etc. However I have no proof for this so it may well just be a difference of opinion

*I agree that Bush was likely in the CIA in 63 and earlier, this does not however make him in the loop with regard to the assassination, I very much doubt it if it was a very well known operation among all CIA men, I would assume (if it was a CIA oeration) that it would be on a need to know basis among some of the 'old boys' network and the operatives on the ground. Bush fitted neither category.

*This is a quot from Ron Ecker on the education forum responding t John Simkins post of a paul Kangas article
QUOTE(John Simkin @ Apr 15 2006, 10:03 AM) Recently I interviewed former CIA liaison officer L. Fletcher Prouty. He is a consultant for the excellent new movie on how the CIA killed JFK, being made by Oliver Stone. He told me that one of the projects he did for the CIA was in 1961 to deliver US Navy ships from a Navy ship yard to the CIA agents in Guatemala planning the invasion of Cuba. He said he delivered three ships to a CIA agent named George Bush, who had the 3 ships painted to look like they were civilian ships. That CIA agent then named the 3 ships after: his wife, his home town and his oil company. He named the ships: Barbara, Houston & Zapata. Any book on the history of the Bay of Pigs will prove the names of those 3 ships.As this passage shows, Kangas has to be read with care, as he was careless with his facts. The last quoted sentence is flat wrong, yet he states it for emphasis. And what is his source? Fletcher Prouty. Mark Lane also quotes Prouty on the same subject in his book Plausible Denial, indeed Lane uses what Prouty told him to end his book on a dramatic note. Good drama perhaps, but misinformation as history.Prouty told Lane that he secured two "ships," the Barbara and the Houston, for the invasion. But Prouty told Kangas that he secured three ships, the Barbara, Houston, and Zapata. Which was it? It doesn't matter, as in either case it appears to be another Prouty tall tale. According to the CIA's Grayston Lynch, who took part in the invasion, "the CIA procured six cargo ships from the Cuban-owned Garcia Line," these being the Carbie, Atlantico, Houston, Rio Escondido, and Lake Charles (Decision for Disaster, p. 33). (Prouty told Lane that he procured the Barbara and Houston from the Navy.) There is no indication that the Houston or any other of these six ships was previously named something else. There was no ship named Barbara involved before or after. There was no ship named Zapata involved before or after. The invasion convoy included two LCIs (Landing Craft Infantry), one named the Blagar, of which Lynch was the case officer, and one named the Barbara J, of which Rip Robertson was the case officer. There is no J associated in any way with the name of George Bush's wife.

*The fact that the operation was known as Zapata doesn't provdie much proof. Tosh Plumlees nickname among some Cubans was also 'Zapata'. Another coincidence I would think. Zapata means shoe by the way.

*The Documentary states that Bush supervised Howard Hunt in his activities with the anti-castro cubans. I can find no evidence for this. There is however information that Bush was called in by Nixon to help finance operation 40, but ther is no mention of him having anything to do with the operational side of things. That being left to Tracy Barnes, David Atlee Philips, Jack Esterline and Frank Bender, who attended a meeting on operation 40 in Barnes' office on the 18th of january 1960.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... =964&st=15

*To my knowledge there has never been a statement by anybody that Bush knew Hunt or was in the same room as him at any time.

*George Bush did not have the power to shut down the HSCA, he could stonewall them, but could not stp them from taking testimony or shut them down.

*The validity of the document naming Bush as being in the CIA is debated here,
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... =964&st=15

*It was Ruth Paine and not De Mohrenschildt that helped Oswald to get the job at the book depository as was stated in thedocumentary.

*The documentary states matter of factly that George H.W. Bush was involved in the 'planning, execution and cover-up', though there is no firm evidence for this.

* The documentary ties together the unexplained odd behaviour of George Bush in denying a memo referred to him, also Richard Nixon and Howard Hunts inability to recall where they were at the time of the assassination. This supposedly ties these men together, I think not. I fail to see how this is convincing or in any way adds to the argument that these men acted in tandem in the process of covering up their involvement of the murder of JFK. In other words, this is anything but conclusive evidence that they were involved.

*The documentary also states that the 'probability that he was involved is beyond a reasonable doubt'. How is that? He knew people that knew Hunt, he worked in different sectors for the same administration. His company shared a name with the bay pigs operation, the ships used had nothing to do with him, as previously shown. He was in the CIA, but we don’t know how well placed he was. Ican accept the information provided as circumstantial evidence that Bush may have been involved, but it is anything but 'probable'.

*The documentary also uses the term 'direct eyewitness, smoking gun evidence’ . What eyewitness places him in the company of an assassin, in Dealey Plaza or states that they heard him plotting the assassination or cover-up. Nobody has outed Bush as a member of the planners of the JFK assassination. The document is hardly a smoking gun, given its wording 'the substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to/by ( I can't read it) George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency' .This in no way implicates george Bush, all this says is that he was aware of the information contained in this memo. In other words, he knew that there were reports that some anti-castro cubans might seek to launch a raid upon Cuba as they thought that there might be a change in policy towards Cuba. Here is the document referred to. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush3.htm

*Another unfounded statement made in the documentary.‘If they presented the evidence to an unbiased jury in texas they would certainly give him the death penalty’ Hardly, they would know a few of the names in his address book, nothing more.

*The documentary alleges that the CIA had Hoover by the balls and forced him to comply with the story that Oswald was a lone assassin. I find this quite unbelieveable, if anything Hoover had some members of the CIA by the balls, himself being the most informed man in the country. He didn't have such a long reign at the top because he made mistakes and let people get the upper hand over him.

*The reasoning given for Hoover writing this memo about Bush was so that there would be a written record of Bushs involvement in the assassination. If the memo was intended to do just that I feel that it would fail to do so, it is vaguely worded, not implying that Bush was in Dallas or knew anything of the plot, only that he was aware of the situation in florida among Cuban exiles and their response to the assassination. I think that Bush's power, influence and role with the anti-castro cubans is overplayed considerably.

*Towards the end of the dvd a theory is explained, I call it a theory as that is all it can be called. This theory alleges that Bush participated in the JFK assassination on behalf of those that sanctioned and planned it, in doing so Bush would gain their trust, as they would then have dirt on him and they knew he could be relied upon. It is theorised that his role would allow him to be allowed into the inner sanctum of the power structure and he would then be both trusted and feared. There is no factual basis to this, there isn't even any circumstantial evidence to support this theory.

I feel that in using terms such as .‘If they presented the evidence to an unbiased jury in texas they would certainly give him the death penalty’, 'direct eyewitness, smoking gun evidence’ and 'probability that he was involved is beyond a reasonable doubt' the documentary fails to present the necessary facts to back up these claims, such a court case as mentioned would not get to trial. Although the documentary provides some evidence that Bush was working for the CIA at least in 1963 it provides no evidence that he was involved in the assassinayion of JFK.

Some of you will disagree with me on this one. I must say that my mind is yet to be made up on this, but with the information currently available I fail to see anything compelling about the speculation surrounding George H.W. Bush's involvement.

All the best,
John

[Jim Thompson]

John Geraghty said:
Some of you will disagree with me on this one. I must say that my mind is yet to be made up on this, but with the information currently available I fail to see anything compelling about the speculation surrounding George H.W. Bush's involvement.

Better check out:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB29/02-01.htm

Notice the Barbara J?

A clincher! GHWB is a deer in front of the headlights.

Jim

[john geraghty]

I fail to see what bearing the J has as I can find no source that says Barbaras middle name starts with a J. Her maiden name is Pierce. A google of 'Barbara J Bush' yields no results, so it is obviously not her middle name.
I have emailed the Bush library asking what her middle name is.
One person wrote in a forum that they recall her stating that she had no middle name.

Can someone provide an explanation for the J?
Maye I'm missing something, possibly a nickname.

John

[john geraghty]

I got this email from the Bush library.

Dear Mr. Geraghty,Thank you for contacting the National Archives at the George Bush PresidentialLibrary in College Station, Texas. Former First Lady Barbara Bush does not havea middle name. Their granddaughter's (G.W.'s daughter Barbara's) middle name isPierce. Hopefully this helps.

John

[Jim Thompson]

john geraghty wrote:I got this email from the Bush library.Dear Mr. Geraghty,Thank you for contacting the National Archives at the George Bush PresidentialLibrary in College Station, Texas. Former First Lady Barbara Bush does not havea middle name. Their granddaughter's (G.W.'s daughter Barbara's) middle name isPierce. Hopefully this helps.John

Suppose the ship had been named Barbara P instead of Barbara J. (P for Pierce.) Well, then someone might say: Naaugh, the P could stand for anything, for PUTSCH or PINKO, for example.

Prouty says he dealt with GHWB at the time of the BoPs & that GHWB was CIA.

Jim

[john geraghty]

Suppose the ship had been named Barbara P instead of Barbara J. (P for Pierce.) Well, then someone might say: Naaugh, the P could stand for anything, for PUTSCH or PINKO, for example.

But it didn't say P, it said J. J has no relevance to barbara Bush at all as far as i can see.
I do believe that Bush was CIA in 63, but that does not mean that he put the BOP together or named the boats. Also it does not mean he was involved directly in the JFK assassination, we have no proof of this.

I hope John hankey will address this post in time, or anybody else that believes Bush was involved in the JFK assassination and can prove it beyond doubt.

All the best,
John Geraghty

[Bob]

George W. Bu$h's daughters are named Barbara and Jenna. Hmmm.

[john geraghty]

Not alive at the time of the bay of pigs, no relation to the naming of the boats.
There seems to be a lot of guesswork to tie the names of the boats to George Bush.
Jenna is named after her maternal grandmother, therfore the name Jenna does not originate from the Bush side of the family.


John

[Bob]

John, no disrespect, but you are quite zealous in your attempt to clear George H.W. Bu$h from any participation in the JFK assassination. I can appreciate the devil's advocate position, but I find it ironic that at the same time you are trying to place doubt on Poppy's participation in the JFK assassination, the current Bu$h in the White House is trying to get papers from the late investigative reporter Jack Anderson that supposedly tie Poppy Bu$h to the JFK murder. Also, have you done an in depth study of the Bu$h family? Start with Samuel Bu$h. There is a CLEAR modus operandi that the Bu$h family follows...war profiteering and treason. Would you call selling arms to the Germans in WWI while the U.S. was engaged in the conflict treasonous? Samuel Bu$h did just that. How about Prescott Bu$h being charged with trading with the enemy in 1942? To understand the apple, you have to know the tree in which it fell from.

[john geraghty]

Bob,
No disrespect taken, your a nice guy and this is a friendly chat.

I wouldn't say that I'm zealous in attempting to clear Bush, rather I am just skeptical about the information brought forward attempting to link Bush to the assassination.

I couldn't agree more that the Bush family were and are crooks.

Nobody has really addressed the points that I have made in my first post on this thread, perhaps because of its length, but if people do think Bush was a part of 22//11/63, then I think that it is only fair that they present some facts, not speculation.

With regard to the Anderson papers, that too is speculation and unless we can view those papers we won't know what is contained within them.

Up until a week or so ago I never really looked into the Bush connection too much, apart from reading a few threads and viewing John Hankeys film, but I must say that I find it quite unconvincing.

There has never really been any real debate about the possibility of Bush's involvement. People have stated that Bush was involved in a matter of fact way, without anything solid to back it up. I believe that Bush was CIA in 63, I think that this is the only information we get from the Hoover document. Nobody involved with the Bay of Pigs has ever said that Bush had something to do with the organisation of that operation, nor was he involved in any of the planning meetings, nor has anyone said that he named the boats.

I believe that the assassination of John F Kennedy was as a result of a conspiracy, but so far I have seen no firm information that suggest George Bush was a participant in that conspiracy.

I feel we need to properly investigate information before we point the finger at anyone. There are a lot of myths surrounding the assassination and I just don't want one more added to the list.

If you were to argue with a lone nutter that George Bush was involved in the assassination they would be able to rip this THEORY to shreds as there is nothing solid to suggest his involvement. On the other hand if you were merely to say that George Bush was a CIA operative in 63, then the argument would swing in your favour.

I do hope John Hankey will address this thread when he has the time.

All the best Bob and everyone,
John