I know this thread is not directly related to the JFK assassination. However, it does give one deep insights in how the media covered the assassination (Operation Mockingbird/Nightingale). I would be very interested in Tim Gratz's views on the subject as well.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4297
Full Version: George Bush and the CIA
One is tempted to say, and not before time. I suspect Bush will wrap himself in the pious cloak of the unsophisticated, Christian soldier, once again, perhaps even seeking his "Higher power" for moral guidance, and in so doing display all the latent tendancies of the reformed substance abuser, substituting one crutch for another. He will, I suspect though, soon enough find out that even snake oil has a shelf life. And as John said Presidents make enemies of their own intellegence communitys at their peril.
I found this pretty interesting about George H.W Bush
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...31&q=alex+jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...31&q=alex+jones
I totally agree that it was Rove. And Cheney. These are cold men and vicious. They don't take to criticism and pay back is swift and furious. I am interested to learn that more indictments may be in the works. (Otherwise why convene a new Grand Jury?). If this goes to the top, as it should, Fitzgerald should get a metal for integrity, and bravery. (imho)
Dawn
Dawn
For months now the mainstream media has had a feeding frenzy over the Plame affair. It's gotten almost as much coverage as Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson. While in one sense this has obviously been a negative for the Bush regime, there is also a method to this madness. The Plame affair has served as a good smokescreen to keep a far more serious issue out of the headlines, and that is the Able Danger scandal, the revelation that a Pentagon unit identified 9/11 hijack leader Mohamed Atta as a terrorist in the U.S. long before 9/11 and did not share this information with the FBI.
Able Danger (and the military's blatant persecution of whistleblower Col. Anthony Shaffer) continues to be minimized by the media, which prefers to make a mountain out of a molehill, relatively speaking, with the Plame affair. This is very reminiscent of how the Lewinsky sex scandal saturated the airwaves during the Clinton regime, totally drawing attention away from the serious crimes of Slick Willie that truly warranted impeachment and removal from office.
I suspect that the Bush regime wants to keep Able Danger minimized, and the media will oblige, because it does not want Congressional or other investigators looking too deeply into why the Pentagon unit was blocked by "Pentagon lawyers" from passing the info on Atta to the FBI. The real reason may have had nothing to do with lawyers or the so-called "wall" erected between foreign and domestic intelligence by Jamie Gorelick or any other useless bureaucrat. I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded.
For the Bush regime (and the Clinton regime before it), keeping something like that under wraps is well worth the heat being taken over Valerie Plame.
Able Danger (and the military's blatant persecution of whistleblower Col. Anthony Shaffer) continues to be minimized by the media, which prefers to make a mountain out of a molehill, relatively speaking, with the Plame affair. This is very reminiscent of how the Lewinsky sex scandal saturated the airwaves during the Clinton regime, totally drawing attention away from the serious crimes of Slick Willie that truly warranted impeachment and removal from office.
I suspect that the Bush regime wants to keep Able Danger minimized, and the media will oblige, because it does not want Congressional or other investigators looking too deeply into why the Pentagon unit was blocked by "Pentagon lawyers" from passing the info on Atta to the FBI. The real reason may have had nothing to do with lawyers or the so-called "wall" erected between foreign and domestic intelligence by Jamie Gorelick or any other useless bureaucrat. I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded.
For the Bush regime (and the Clinton regime before it), keeping something like that under wraps is well worth the heat being taken over Valerie Plame.
[quote name='Ron Ecker' date='Nov 20 2005, 03:35 PM' post='45848']
For months now the mainstream media has had a feeding frenzy over the Plame affair. It's gotten almost as much coverage as Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson. While in one sense this has obviously been a negative for the Bush regime, there is also a method to this madness. The Plame affair has served as a good smokescreen to keep a far more serious issue out of the headlines, and that is the Able Danger scandal, the revelation that a Pentagon unit identified 9/11 hijack leader Mohamed Atta as a terrorist in the U.S. long before 9/11 and did not share this information with the FBI.
Able Danger (and the military's blatant persecution of whistleblower Col. Anthony Shaffer) continues to be minimized by the media, which prefers to make a mountain out of a molehill, relatively speaking, with the Plame affair. This is very reminiscent of how the Lewinsky sex scandal saturated the airwaves during the Clinton regime, totally drawing attention away from the serious crimes of Slick Willie that truly warranted impeachment and removal from office.
I suspect that the Bush regime wants to keep Able Danger minimized, and the media will oblige, because it does not want Congressional or other investigators looking too deeply into why the Pentagon unit was blocked by "Pentagon lawyers" from passing the info on Atta to the FBI. The real reason may have had nothing to do with lawyers or the so-called "wall" erected between foreign and domestic intelligence by Jamie Gorelick or any other useless bureaucrat. I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded.
For the Bush regime (and the Clinton regime before it), keeping something like that under wraps is well worth the heat being taken over Valerie Plame.
[/quote]
Ron:
I TOTALLY agree with you here. This is a much bigger story and the media is shamefully avoiding it.
Maybe, just maybe, someone wanted 9-11 to be successful. I am not saying this is what I believe, but there are certainly a lot of anomalies. I still don't buy the notion that the buildings came down from the "hot oil". Sure looks like implosion to me. But I have not really studied this case. Just a bit online and I don't believe it was not a plane that flew into the Pentagon. If not, where did the 757-200 go??? And all the people on it? I don't think Barbara Olsen is in France.
Dawn
For months now the mainstream media has had a feeding frenzy over the Plame affair. It's gotten almost as much coverage as Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson. While in one sense this has obviously been a negative for the Bush regime, there is also a method to this madness. The Plame affair has served as a good smokescreen to keep a far more serious issue out of the headlines, and that is the Able Danger scandal, the revelation that a Pentagon unit identified 9/11 hijack leader Mohamed Atta as a terrorist in the U.S. long before 9/11 and did not share this information with the FBI.
Able Danger (and the military's blatant persecution of whistleblower Col. Anthony Shaffer) continues to be minimized by the media, which prefers to make a mountain out of a molehill, relatively speaking, with the Plame affair. This is very reminiscent of how the Lewinsky sex scandal saturated the airwaves during the Clinton regime, totally drawing attention away from the serious crimes of Slick Willie that truly warranted impeachment and removal from office.
I suspect that the Bush regime wants to keep Able Danger minimized, and the media will oblige, because it does not want Congressional or other investigators looking too deeply into why the Pentagon unit was blocked by "Pentagon lawyers" from passing the info on Atta to the FBI. The real reason may have had nothing to do with lawyers or the so-called "wall" erected between foreign and domestic intelligence by Jamie Gorelick or any other useless bureaucrat. I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded.
For the Bush regime (and the Clinton regime before it), keeping something like that under wraps is well worth the heat being taken over Valerie Plame.
[/quote]
Ron:
I TOTALLY agree with you here. This is a much bigger story and the media is shamefully avoiding it.
Maybe, just maybe, someone wanted 9-11 to be successful. I am not saying this is what I believe, but there are certainly a lot of anomalies. I still don't buy the notion that the buildings came down from the "hot oil". Sure looks like implosion to me. But I have not really studied this case. Just a bit online and I don't believe it was not a plane that flew into the Pentagon. If not, where did the 757-200 go??? And all the people on it? I don't think Barbara Olsen is in France.
Dawn
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Nov 20 2005, 02:35 PM) 
For months now the mainstream media has had a feeding frenzy over the Plame affair. It's gotten almost as much coverage as Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson. While in one sense this has obviously been a negative for the Bush regime, there is also a method to this madness. The Plame affair has served as a good smokescreen to keep a far more serious issue out of the headlines, and that is the Able Danger scandal, the revelation that a Pentagon unit identified 9/11 hijack leader Mohamed Atta as a terrorist in the U.S. long before 9/11 and did not share this information with the FBI.
Able Danger (and the military's blatant persecution of whistleblower Col. Anthony Shaffer) continues to be minimized by the media, which prefers to make a mountain out of a molehill, relatively speaking, with the Plame affair. This is very reminiscent of how the Lewinsky sex scandal saturated the airwaves during the Clinton regime, totally drawing attention away from the serious crimes of Slick Willie that truly warranted impeachment and removal from office.
I suspect that the Bush regime wants to keep Able Danger minimized, and the media will oblige, because it does not want Congressional or other investigators looking too deeply into why the Pentagon unit was blocked by "Pentagon lawyers" from passing the info on Atta to the FBI. The real reason may have had nothing to do with lawyers or the so-called "wall" erected between foreign and domestic intelligence by Jamie Gorelick or any other useless bureaucrat. I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded.
For the Bush regime (and the Clinton regime before it), keeping something like that under wraps is well worth the heat being taken over Valerie Plame.
Able Danger (and the military's blatant persecution of whistleblower Col. Anthony Shaffer) continues to be minimized by the media, which prefers to make a mountain out of a molehill, relatively speaking, with the Plame affair. This is very reminiscent of how the Lewinsky sex scandal saturated the airwaves during the Clinton regime, totally drawing attention away from the serious crimes of Slick Willie that truly warranted impeachment and removal from office.
I suspect that the Bush regime wants to keep Able Danger minimized, and the media will oblige, because it does not want Congressional or other investigators looking too deeply into why the Pentagon unit was blocked by "Pentagon lawyers" from passing the info on Atta to the FBI. The real reason may have had nothing to do with lawyers or the so-called "wall" erected between foreign and domestic intelligence by Jamie Gorelick or any other useless bureaucrat. I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded.
For the Bush regime (and the Clinton regime before it), keeping something like that under wraps is well worth the heat being taken over Valerie Plame.
******************************************************************
"I strongly suspect that the info was not passed along because there were folks in the Pentagon, perhaps even sitting in the DOD secretary's office, who knew that Atta had a specific mission to fulfill and must not be impeded."
Exactly. And, let's not forget the Wall Street Connection and those who stood to profit from the "inside track" they had on the event, weeks before it happened.
And, stepping back five years to how conveniently the O.J. trial totally overshadowed the events surrounding the investigation of the Murrah Building incident. Which, BTW bore the markings of another example of controlled demolition.
Deleted by myself. A waste of bytes on inconsequential B.S.
T.M.
T.M.
To Whom It May Concern:
There is a Bush/JFK Assassination connection!
Why is Simkin defending Bush? There is not a word said about de Mohrenschildt and Bush's long friendship which began in 1942. Bush Sr. wrote me a letter in 1993 admitting such and I have posted it, FOR FREE!
No discussion of Bush's role in the Bay of Pigs Thing.
No mention of the Bush phone call to the FBI office in Houston on James Parrott? I prove that he made the call. FBI agent knew Bush's voice when he took call in.
Why is Bush Sr. suing the Governor of Texas in the Houston District Court? The one who rode shotgun with JFK.
Why did Prescott Bush's banking firm give de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit in May of 1963?
Bruce C. Adamson --
One thing is certain the FBI added the paragraph so Simkin suggests .
****************************************
Jun 20 2004, 07:14 AM
Post #20
Super Member
Group: Admin
Posts: 5367
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7
I also find this document difficult to believe. I suspect that the
last paragraph has been added to a genuine document. Larry has made
some good points about why it is unlikely to be genuine. It seems to
me a very crude attempt to implicate George Bush. What is very
strange is the document suggests that Bush had close contacts with
pro-Castro forces. I wonder how he managed that? Bush's political
opinions on the subject were well known in 1963. I would have thought
he would have found it impossible to have got close to this group.
Even if he did, what does it prove in itself?
--------------------
John Simkin
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365
General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
****************************************
FOUND THIS ONE TOO-- HONEST I DID NOT PAY HIM FOR THIS?
POINT: WHY DIDN"T SIMKIN REMOVE THIS PROMO?
Jun 18 2004, 08:47 PM
Post #11
There is a Bush/JFK Assassination connection!
Why is Simkin defending Bush? There is not a word said about de Mohrenschildt and Bush's long friendship which began in 1942. Bush Sr. wrote me a letter in 1993 admitting such and I have posted it, FOR FREE!
No discussion of Bush's role in the Bay of Pigs Thing.
No mention of the Bush phone call to the FBI office in Houston on James Parrott? I prove that he made the call. FBI agent knew Bush's voice when he took call in.
Why is Bush Sr. suing the Governor of Texas in the Houston District Court? The one who rode shotgun with JFK.
Why did Prescott Bush's banking firm give de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit in May of 1963?
Bruce C. Adamson --
One thing is certain the FBI added the paragraph so Simkin suggests .
****************************************
Jun 20 2004, 07:14 AM
Post #20
Super Member
Group: Admin
Posts: 5367
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7
I also find this document difficult to believe. I suspect that the
last paragraph has been added to a genuine document. Larry has made
some good points about why it is unlikely to be genuine. It seems to
me a very crude attempt to implicate George Bush. What is very
strange is the document suggests that Bush had close contacts with
pro-Castro forces. I wonder how he managed that? Bush's political
opinions on the subject were well known in 1963. I would have thought
he would have found it impossible to have got close to this group.
Even if he did, what does it prove in itself?
--------------------
John Simkin
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365
General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
****************************************
FOUND THIS ONE TOO-- HONEST I DID NOT PAY HIM FOR THIS?
POINT: WHY DIDN"T SIMKIN REMOVE THIS PROMO?
Jun 18 2004, 08:47 PM
Post #11
QUOTE (Bruce Campbell Adams @ Nov 20 2005, 09:58 PM)
To Whom It May Concern:
There is a Bush/JFK Assassination connection!
Why is Simkin defending Bush? There is not a word said about de Mohrenschildt and Bush's long friendship which began in 1942. Bush Sr. wrote me a letter in 1993 admitting such and I have posted it, FOR FREE!
No discussion of Bush's role in the Bay of Pigs Thing.
No mention of the Bush phone call to the FBI office in Houston on James Parrott? I prove that he made the call. FBI agent knew Bush's voice when he took call in.
Why is Bush Sr. suing the Governor of Texas in the Houston District Court? The one who rode shotgun with JFK.
Why did Prescott Bush's banking firm give de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit in May of 1963?
Bruce C. Adamson --
One thing is certain the FBI added the paragraph so Simkin suggests .
****************************************
Jun 20 2004, 07:14 AM
Post #20
Super Member
Group: Admin
Posts: 5367
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7
I also find this document difficult to believe. I suspect that the
last paragraph has been added to a genuine document. Larry has made
some good points about why it is unlikely to be genuine. It seems to
me a very crude attempt to implicate George Bush. What is very
strange is the document suggests that Bush had close contacts with
pro-Castro forces. I wonder how he managed that? Bush's political
opinions on the subject were well known in 1963. I would have thought
he would have found it impossible to have got close to this group.
Even if he did, what does it prove in itself?
--------------------
John Simkin
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365
General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
****************************************
FOUND THIS ONE TOO-- HONEST I DID NOT PAY HIM FOR THIS?
POINT: WHY DIDN"T SIMKIN REMOVE THIS PROMO?
Jun 18 2004, 08:47 PM
Post #11
There is a Bush/JFK Assassination connection!
Why is Simkin defending Bush? There is not a word said about de Mohrenschildt and Bush's long friendship which began in 1942. Bush Sr. wrote me a letter in 1993 admitting such and I have posted it, FOR FREE!
No discussion of Bush's role in the Bay of Pigs Thing.
No mention of the Bush phone call to the FBI office in Houston on James Parrott? I prove that he made the call. FBI agent knew Bush's voice when he took call in.
Why is Bush Sr. suing the Governor of Texas in the Houston District Court? The one who rode shotgun with JFK.
Why did Prescott Bush's banking firm give de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit in May of 1963?
Bruce C. Adamson --
One thing is certain the FBI added the paragraph so Simkin suggests .
****************************************
Jun 20 2004, 07:14 AM
Post #20
Super Member
Group: Admin
Posts: 5367
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7
I also find this document difficult to believe. I suspect that the
last paragraph has been added to a genuine document. Larry has made
some good points about why it is unlikely to be genuine. It seems to
me a very crude attempt to implicate George Bush. What is very
strange is the document suggests that Bush had close contacts with
pro-Castro forces. I wonder how he managed that? Bush's political
opinions on the subject were well known in 1963. I would have thought
he would have found it impossible to have got close to this group.
Even if he did, what does it prove in itself?
--------------------
John Simkin
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365
General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
****************************************
FOUND THIS ONE TOO-- HONEST I DID NOT PAY HIM FOR THIS?
POINT: WHY DIDN"T SIMKIN REMOVE THIS PROMO?
Jun 18 2004, 08:47 PM
Post #11
----------------------------------------
BRUCE OLD BEAN:
NOT that I give a rat's "patooty" about "Poppy's", or for that matter: Even "Shrub's" alleged Nexi to the JFK business -- but iam might be one of those included in your "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" !!
Last year when I threatened to sue "Ancestry.com" for ripping me off for some buck$ under a phony CD contract ["bait & switch deal"] -- their Mormon shyster in Provo, Utah threw me an "Olive Branch"!!
THAT: I could forthwith use their services to search out the "Roots" of any group of folks whom I might have a continuing interest in.
Hey Bruce -- I chose you as # 1 [numero uno] -- knowing that you are heavily into checking out the "hung horse thieves" and "Queens" in your family tree.
And what did they send back ??!!
"....We have certifiably traced Mr. Bruce back to the Garden of Eden, which is currently occupied by Bush controlled Marines of your old Marine Corps outfit [Hotel Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment (H/2/4)]
Moreover, all evidence points to the fact that: One of Mr. Bruce's earliest ancestors was a fellow named "Scooter" Adamson -- and we was an adviser to a wannabe "Warlord" called "Snake" -- who at one time was involved in an extortion scheme against a recently co-habitating couple by the names of "Adam" (LNU) and "Eve" (LNU)!! HOWEVER: From there we lose track of his progeny,that is; until he departed an Alpine region with some dude known as "Hannibal the Cannibal" ??!!
----------------
JUST KIDDING BRUCE !! [And as far as any evidence, there is none that proves any cannibalism !!]
Check this out and see if you can find a "Bush" hiding somewhere in the "Woodpile" !!
CHAIRS,
GPH
____________________________
----------------
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/SRILA...1-06/0991415599
HomeSearchesFamily TreesMailing ListsMessage BoardsWeb SitesPasswordsHelp
Discover interesting facts about your family:
First Name: Last Name:
SRILANKA-L Archives
Archiver > SRILANKA > 2001-06 > 0991415599
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gordon Allison gordona@alphalink.com.au
Subject: Re: Roll call
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 03:13:37 +1000
References: 008101c0ea53$0006ba80$173bb818@computer
Hi Arnold
I don't know whether you have already looked at the 1881 census of the British Isles yet, but I found your family of Hemmings listed on it (see below). Obviously a quite well to do family of some means. Henry is
undoubtedly the eldest son as his mother Harriet was 21 when she had him in 1857. You're even lucky enough to have the elderly mother in law in the house on the night on the census - Harriet Oldridge, widow, age 79. If you checked the indexes to English civil registration you will most probably find a marriage for John J Hemming to Harriet Oldridge? in the preceding year or two. More census and certificates should get you back another 2 generations without much trouble.
You don't say in your message whether you are only interested in coming down to the present to find relatives in Ceylon. Why do you need to find the birth/baptism of Gerald Hemming when you already have the relevant information? Are you looking for confirmation that Gerald was in fact born in Ceylon while his parents were out there. My feeling is that even if the father Henry did spend time on the island he most probably eventually retired back to England and whether or not any of the children stayed on is open to question. Some of the daughters may have if there were any and if they married into the local high society.
Do you have the marriage certificate for Henry J.R. Hemming to Ellen C. Gallagher? Were they married in England or Ceylon?
Another resource to check out which is probably impossible from the US, are the English civil registration indexes to overseas births. Henry as a solicitor would be mindful about getting the births of any of his
children registered back in England for legal purposes. Also if you don't already know, the Mormons have filmed every surviving birth, marriage and death certificate issued on the island. Not just the indexes but the actual certificate registers and all these films can be got into whichever is your nearest LDS FHC. A trip to Salt Lake City would allow you to view them all in the one place. The registers from memory, go from the start of civil registration on the island in 1867 to 1930 and even later. Finding the right film among the 100's of films may also prove to be a difficult task.
Best regards for the moment.
Gordon
Melbourne, Australia
arnold roepken wrote:
Hi Listers:
I'm trying to find the birth/ baptism records of one Gerald Patrick Hemming, b 31 May 1902 in Columbo, Ceylon - Parents:
Henry Joseph Randolph Hemming, Solicitor age 45
Ellen Cecilia Gallagher, wife age 26
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Any other Hemming(s) born there around that time would be helpful
also. TIA and EA
Arnold W. Roepken in Garden City, NY
Genealogy means "Never say die".
==============================
Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist2.asp
Search over 2500 databases with one easy query!
Dwelling: Exeter House
Census Place: Cheltenham, Gloucester, England
Source: FHL Film 1341619 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 2569 Folio 51
Page 16
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
John J. HEMMING M 56 M Leonard Stanley, Gloucester, England
Rel: Head
Occ: Solicitor
Harriet HEMMING M 45 F Cheltm
Rel: Wife
Occ: Lady
Harriet OLDRIDGE W 79 F Kings Stanley, Gloucester, England
Rel: Mother In Law
Occ: No Occupation
Henry J.R. HEMMING U 24 M Leonard Stanley, Gloucester, England
Rel: Son
Occ: Solicitors Clerk
Richard T. HEMMING U 21 M Leonard Stanley, Gloucester, England
Rel: Son
Occ: None
John S. HEMMING U 19 M Leonard Stanley, Gloucester, England
Rel: Son
Occ: Medical Student
Ruth A.M. HEMMING U 13 F Cheltm
Rel: Daur
Occ: Sch
Bessie F. HEMMING 9 F Cheltm
Rel: Daur
Occ: Sch
Alfred E. HEMMING 5 M Cheltm
Rel: Son
Catherine G. WATT 23 F Kings Stanley, Gloucester, England
Rel: Niece
Occ: No Occupation
Annie H. WALTERS U 30 F Stockport, Cheshire, England
Rel: Boarder
Occ: No Occupation
Thomas HODGKINS U 18 M California
Rel: Boarder
Occ: Brewer
Sarah EDWARDS U 19 F Cheltm
Rel: Ser
Occ: Dom Ser
Emily MOLE U 26 F Cheltm
Rel: Ser
Occ: Dom Ser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread:
Re: Roll call by Gordon Allison < gordona@alphalink.com.au>
Re: Roll call by arnold roepken < aroepken@optonline.net>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community. Learn more.
About Us | Contact Us | Acceptable Use Policy | PRIVACY STATEMENT | Copyright
Copyright © 1998-2005, MyFamily.com Inc. and its subsidiaries.
____________________________________________
QUOTE (Michael Crane @ Nov 20 2005, 09:50 AM)
I found this pretty interesting about George H.W Bush
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...31&q=alex+jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...31&q=alex+jones
*********************************************************
Thank you for posting that, Michael. Although I agree with the Bush Connections and their far-reaching implications via Prescott, I tend to believe that Nixon was a "patsy" of sorts himself, due to his Quaker origins, and his automatic non-inclusion into the American Aristocratic blue-bloodlines of the Eastern Establishment's Rockefellers, Morgans, Mellons, and DuPonts houses of finance and industry.
QUOTE (Bruce Campbell Adams @ Nov 20 2005, 09:58 PM)
To Whom It May Concern:
There is a Bush/JFK Assassination connection!
Why is Simkin defending Bush? There is not a word said about de Mohrenschildt and Bush's long friendship which began in 1942. Bush Sr. wrote me a letter in 1993 admitting such and I have posted it, FOR FREE!
No discussion of Bush's role in the Bay of Pigs Thing.
No mention of the Bush phone call to the FBI office in Houston on James Parrott? I prove that he made the call. FBI agent knew Bush's voice when he took call in.
Why is Bush Sr. suing the Governor of Texas in the Houston District Court? The one who rode shotgun with JFK.
Why did Prescott Bush's banking firm give de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit in May of 1963?
Bruce C. Adamson --
One thing is certain the FBI added the paragraph so Simkin suggests .
****************************************
Jun 20 2004, 07:14 AM
Post #20
Super Member
Group: Admin
Posts: 5367
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7
I also find this document difficult to believe. I suspect that the
last paragraph has been added to a genuine document. Larry has made
some good points about why it is unlikely to be genuine. It seems to
me a very crude attempt to implicate George Bush. What is very
strange is the document suggests that Bush had close contacts with
pro-Castro forces. I wonder how he managed that? Bush's political
opinions on the subject were well known in 1963. I would have thought
he would have found it impossible to have got close to this group.
Even if he did, what does it prove in itself?
--------------------
John Simkin
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365
General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
****************************************
FOUND THIS ONE TOO-- HONEST I DID NOT PAY HIM FOR THIS?POINT: WHY DIDN"T SIMKIN REMOVE THIS PROMO?
Jun 18 2004, 08:47 PM
Post #11
There is a Bush/JFK Assassination connection!
Why is Simkin defending Bush? There is not a word said about de Mohrenschildt and Bush's long friendship which began in 1942. Bush Sr. wrote me a letter in 1993 admitting such and I have posted it, FOR FREE!
No discussion of Bush's role in the Bay of Pigs Thing.
No mention of the Bush phone call to the FBI office in Houston on James Parrott? I prove that he made the call. FBI agent knew Bush's voice when he took call in.
Why is Bush Sr. suing the Governor of Texas in the Houston District Court? The one who rode shotgun with JFK.
Why did Prescott Bush's banking firm give de Mohrenschildt a $300,000 line of credit in May of 1963?
Bruce C. Adamson --
One thing is certain the FBI added the paragraph so Simkin suggests .
****************************************
Jun 20 2004, 07:14 AM
Post #20
Super Member
Group: Admin
Posts: 5367
Joined: 16-December 03
From: Worthing, Sussex
Member No.: 7
I also find this document difficult to believe. I suspect that the
last paragraph has been added to a genuine document. Larry has made
some good points about why it is unlikely to be genuine. It seems to
me a very crude attempt to implicate George Bush. What is very
strange is the document suggests that Bush had close contacts with
pro-Castro forces. I wonder how he managed that? Bush's political
opinions on the subject were well known in 1963. I would have thought
he would have found it impossible to have got close to this group.
Even if he did, what does it prove in itself?
--------------------
John Simkin
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365
General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm
Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm
****************************************
FOUND THIS ONE TOO-- HONEST I DID NOT PAY HIM FOR THIS?POINT: WHY DIDN"T SIMKIN REMOVE THIS PROMO?
Jun 18 2004, 08:47 PM
Post #11
Bruce:
Greatly appreciate your imput here!!!
John is in Dallas right now, when he comes back he wil hopefully respond to your important posts.
I am also on Wim Dankbarr's forum and the MAIN reason for this is because he connects these dots.
I am not into his Files- did- it theory...and that's another story -(and he will likely email me on this....) I simply give credit where credit is due and Wim is on the Bush -crime- family connection, big time.
For people who don't think that Jfk was murdered by a coup d edat, and that all our history since then is totally connected to this, they are missing the big picture.
I would not be on this forum, talking with- (hopefully)- like minded folks who connect the dots otherwise.
Dawn
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.