New collage of George HW Bush; it's him

[Ralph Cinque]

View it and weep. It can't not be him.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

[Robin Unger]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 12:44:54 PM UTC+9:30, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

It's so obvious to anyone but Cinque and the O.I.C, that it is NOT
H.W.Bush.

view it and weep

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/TSBD~0.jpg

[Robin Unger]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 12:44:54 PM UTC+9:30, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

This is the garbage posted on the O.I.C Facebook page.


Quote:

This collage really does serve as a litmus test: If you can't admit that
that is George HW Bush on both sides of the collage, you are a liar; you
are a Kennedy-killer; and you a pawn of the fascist state and doing its
bidding.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 5:14:54 AM UTC+2, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

Oh, Ralph, I am weeping. Weeping tears of joy watching you go mad,
unchecked by your OIC 'Senior Members', who, through their silence, all
obviously agree with your conclusions. It speaks volumes that they allow
you to continue this way. Soon some of those photos of OIC 'Senior
Members' will not be there. Who will be the first to go? Let's get the
oddsmakers to crunch some numbers here. James Henry is at 40-1. Even
odds on Dr. Janney. Sorry, Peter. Get the heck off there and start the
redemption process.

Please. This is madness.

[Marcus Hanson]

Or is it this guy ?

http://www.jerrypippin.com/JFKnovel.jpg

Hard to tell , with all them tears in my eyes.
Still , a "Novel" suggestion.

[David Von Pein]

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

New collage of George HW Bush; it's him. View it and weep. It can't not be
him.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right, Ralph. And we're supposed to believe that George HW Bush was
involved in some way in JFK's murder (as you undoubtedly believe, or else
you wouldn't have started this discussion in the first place), and then
Bush just decided to hang around the entrance of the Book Depository for a
while so that he could be photographed by the many cameramen who flooded
the area immediately after the assassination....an assassination that BUSH
HIMSELF WAS A PART OF.

Brilliant guy, that Mr. Bush.

This is similar in nature to the theory that has a sniper just hanging
around the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor for five or ten minutes after
the shooting in order to make sure he too had a good chance of being seen
and/or photographed by the various witnesses on the street below.

Why don't conspiracy theorists ever bother to ask themselves "WHY WOULD A
PLOTTER DO THAT?" when evaluating things like this?

Did you ever even ask yourself that question, Ralph Cinque? Why would a
plotter named George H.W. Bush want to hang around the Depository for
several minutes after JFK was shot?

Any idea, Ralph?

Moreover, WHY would George HW Bush even be in Dealey Plaza AT ALL on
November 22, 1963?

You surely don't think that Bush HIMSELF was firing a gun at President
Kennedy that day, do you Ralph? Therefore, what possible pressing and
urgent NEED would there have been for Bush to have been anywhere near
Dealey Plaza on November 22nd--even if he HAD been part of some conspiracy
plot to kill the President?

Any idea, Ralph?

(Just make something up out of thin air, Ralph. We're all accustomed to
that type of approach from conspiracy theorists anyway.)

[claviger]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 10:14:54 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

It's not him. The guy on the right has a rounder face with a weaker chin.

[Ralph Cinque]

OK, have it your way, Robin. We'l go with your image.


http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6871/6c7n.jpg

It's still the same guy.

[Ralph Cinque]

Speaking of the OIC Truth Conference on 11/22/63, John Hankey is going to
give a talk on George HW Bush's role in the assassination. And Phillip F.
Nelson shall give one on the role of LBJ.

[Ralph Cinque]

You are making a totally straw argument, DVP. George HW Bush was involved
on the operational side. No, I don't claim he brandished a weapon that
day. They got professional assassins for that. But George HW was one of
the organizers, one of the arrangers. And remember, he wasn't a household
name in 1963. Until he ran for President in 1980, most Americans never
heard of him and didn't know him from Adam. So, maybe he wasn't concerned
about it at the time. I'm not a psychologist, and I can't tell you why he
was foolish enough to let his picture be taken. But, I am an anatomist,
and I'm telling that these are images of the same man.


http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6871/6c7n.jpg

[Ralph Cinque]

Read John Hankey. He'll tell you about George HW's role in the
assassination:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-george-h-w-bush-involved-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/4/2013 10:57 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> RALPH CINQUE SAID:
>
> New collage of George HW Bush; it's him. View it and weep. It can't not be
> him.
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yeah, right, Ralph. And we're supposed to believe that George HW Bush was
> involved in some way in JFK's murder (as you undoubtedly believe, or else
> you wouldn't have started this discussion in the first place), and then
> Bush just decided to hang around the entrance of the Book Depository for a
> while so that he could be photographed by the many cameramen who flooded
> the area immediately after the assassination....an assassination that BUSH
> HIMSELF WAS A PART OF.
>
> Brilliant guy, that Mr. Bush.
>
> This is similar in nature to the theory that has a sniper just hanging
> around the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor for five or ten minutes after
> the shooting in order to make sure he too had a good chance of being seen
> and/or photographed by the various witnesses on the street below.
>

Or similar to the theory that the TSBD sniper had to stick the whole
rifle out the window to make the shots.

> Why don't conspiracy theorists ever bother to ask themselves "WHY WOULD A
> PLOTTER DO THAT?" when evaluating things like this?
>

You never do. You never ask why professional assassins would use a
defective mail order WWII surplus rifle when they could have planted a
special $5,00 CIA assassination rifle on Oswald.

> Did you ever even ask yourself that question, Ralph Cinque? Why would a
> plotter named George H.W. Bush want to hang around the Depository for
> several minutes after JFK was shot?
>

Who said he was a shooter? Why did anyone hand around the Depository for

several minutes after JFK was shot?

> Any idea, Ralph?
>
> Moreover, WHY would George HW Bush even be in Dealey Plaza AT ALL on
> November 22, 1963?
>

Silly, there was no law against him being there. He could be there on
business.

> You surely don't think that Bush HIMSELF was firing a gun at President
> Kennedy that day, do you Ralph? Therefore, what possible pressing and

Kinda hard for him to fire shots from the sidewalk. I've never heard
that theory from anyone. Only you can make up ridiculous straw man
arguments. Most people would have more self respect than to go that far.

> urgent NEED would there have been for Bush to have been anywhere near
> Dealey Plaza on November 22nd--even if he HAD been part of some conspiracy
> plot to kill the President?
>

Why was Eugene Hale Brading in Dealey Plaza? Does his mere presence mean
he must be a shooter?

> Any idea, Ralph?
>
> (Just make something up out of thin air, Ralph. We're all accustomed to
> that type of approach from conspiracy theorists anyway.)
>

Like your claiming that the only reason for Bush being there was to be a
shooter.

[John Fiorentino]

I feel sorry for you Cinque! I really do.

John F.


"Ralph Cinque" <buda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1086355f-312b-4ddc...@googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-would-they-do-this.html

[David Von Pein]

Please note in Marsh's last post how he completely misses the points I was
making and totally misrepresents the crux and meaning of every single
thing I said, as he attempts to actually make my wholly logical argument
about George HW Bush seem silly and not even worth considering. Talk about
misdirection. Tony Marsh is pathetic.

Example -- in the quote below (which is aimed at me, of all people, for
some silly reason), Marsh actually makes it sound like **I** believe that
"professional assassins" used Oswald's Carcano to kill Kennedy. I don't
think Marsh even knows who he's talking to half the time:

"You never ask why professional assassins would use a defective mail

order WWII surplus rifle when they could have planted a special $5,00[0]

CIA assassination rifle on Oswald."

The above quote is one that Marsh should be aiming at the silly
Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy believers. Instead, he chose to aim it at
me. Hilarious.

Footnote---

Re: the assassin's choice of rifles, I wrote this in October 2008:

"Oswald (the lone killer, who probably didn't plan to shoot the
President more than two or three days ahead of time--if that long) pretty
much had no choice -- he used the only gun that was available to him...his
own Carcano rifle. But in a pre-arranged scenario, there is simply no way
that Oswald would be willing to use his own rifle, IMO, given the obvious
choices that would undoubtedly have been afforded him via such a
multi-person plan. .... Were these Cubans [or other conspirators] so
incredibly cheap that they couldn't afford a better rifle for their killer
to use on the President of the United States? Plus: In such a scenario,
why would anyone involved in a plot with Oswald even WANT him to use such
a cheap and old weapon for such a big "hit" like this one?" -- DVP;
10/28/2008

http://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/yRd7McbXfqI/JmQI-A4jtQAJ

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 4 July 2013 13:14:54 UTC+10, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

No one in their right mind would be making a SLAM DUNK identification on a
photo THAT blurry, Ralph.

You're off on yet ANOTHER silly tangent, Ralph.

Where will it all end?

Sorrowing Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:14:54 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/kevin-spacey/kevin-spacey-20060720-146227.jpg

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:14:54 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

Clearer photo of the the guy who doesn`t even slightly resemble Bush...

http://www.toward-the-light.net/Bush_compare.jpg

[Bud]

Nothing destroys your credibility faster than sharing a byline with
Fetzer.

[bpete1969]

Is that a licensed anatomist?

[Herbert Blenner]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:14:54 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> View it and weep. It can't not be him. http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

Are you doubly positive? I ask because by have used a double negative.

Herbert

[Ralph Cinque]

On both sides, the man is left-handed. You can tell because his left
shoulder is dominant, higher. He was an active man, a sportsman. He swung
a baseball bat, a tennis racket, and golf club, all from the left side.
The imbalance is greater when he's older because of the reinforcement of
doing it over a longer period of time. Approximately 1 out of 6 people are
left-handed.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4737/rpk5.jpg

[Jason Burke]

On 7/4/2013 11:36 AM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You are making a totally straw argument, DVP. George HW Bush was involved
> on the operational side. No, I don't claim he brandished a weapon that
> day. They got professional assassins for that. But George HW was one of
> the organizers, one of the arrangers. And remember, he wasn't a household
> name in 1963. Until he ran for President in 1980, most Americans never
> heard of him and didn't know him from Adam. So, maybe he wasn't concerned
> about it at the time. I'm not a psychologist,

Seems like you ain't a "Doctor" either, Raplh.

[BT George]

Worse David. He made the exact OPPOSITE argument to me in my "...Now
About that Patsy Rifle Thread". See the link:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/AT9-2HP9gO4/sM_31sMXZZsJ

It's just like I told him elsewhere, he may say one this 6,034 times, but
he's probably said the opposite an equal number of times. That's
convenient if you like to argue, just to argue, and if you like to claim
your are misquoted no matter what baloney you are barking out (this time)
around!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/5/2013 12:12 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> On both sides, the man is left-handed. You can tell because his left
> shoulder is dominant, higher. He was an active man, a sportsman. He swung
> a baseball bat, a tennis racket, and golf club, all from the left side.
> The imbalance is greater when he's older because of the reinforcement of
> doing it over a longer period of time. Approximately 1 out of 6 people are
> left-handed.
>

Maybe in your country. Not so much for the US.

Most resources cite that between ten and eleven percent of Americans are
left-handed (9.7% of boys and 12.5% of girls), but the range of
estimates is as low as 7% and as high as 13%.

There will also be disputes as to what constitutes a lefty. For example,
you might golf and eat right handed but write and bat left handed. In
one study you might be called a lefty because that's your writing hand,
but in another, ambidextrous (uses both hands equally well).

The percentage seems to decrease with age as lefties born before 1960
were more likely made into righties than they would be today.

If you had to cite a single statistic to cover all of this, ten percent
would be very close.

http://snipurl.com/1u6h6

Publication Date: 1996-00-00
Pages: 6
Pub Types: Opinion Papers; Historical Materials
Abstract: The history of left-handedness can provide teachers and
parents a better understanding of left-handed children and give those
children more pride in their difference. No child should be made to feel
that he or she is abnormal because of using the left hand, although some
specific instruction for these students is necessary in handwriting.
Many books contain fascinating stories, facts, and figures about the
quirks of being a "lefty," but once there were many biases against
left-handers. In recent years such extreme bias has disappeared, in part
because research has shown that most people have some degree of left
preference. About 10% of Americans are left-handed (9.7% of boys and
12.5% of girls). Many famous left-handed people include American
President Bill Clinton, Ringo Starr, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo,
and Babe Ruth. (Contains 12 references.) (CR)

> http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4737/rpk5.jpg
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. I am not making the argument. I am making fun of the argument.
It's called Ridicule.

[Bud]

On Friday, July 5, 2013 12:12:25 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> On both sides, the man is left-handed. You can tell because his left
>
> shoulder is dominant, higher.

What silliness. If I find a photo of Kennedy with his left shoulder higher than his right does that establish him as being a lefty?

> He was an active man, a sportsman. He swung
>
> a baseball bat, a tennis racket, and golf club, all from the left side.

You might be able to support this if he didn`t have a jacket on. The fact is you fancy yourself as being some sort of Sherlock Holmes, able to discern clues that go unnoticed by ordinary men. Better for the ego than sad figure who sees support for his chosen ideas in everything he looks at.

[Ralph Cinque]

That makes left-handedness even more scarce, which makes the case stronger.

Let's be clear: the correlations between the two are uncanny, and it appears in every respect to be George HW, young and older.

I fully understand why lone-nutters will categorically deny it because, ultimately, that is their only recourse. But, what reason does a CT have to do so, especially knowing that George HW said he couldn't remember where he was. Couldn't remember? I was in junior high school, and I remember it like it yesterday.

What I expect from every CT is at the very least: there's a strong chance it MIGHT be him. If they can't grant that much, then they're not really a CT.

[Ralph Cinque]

Here, we're going from young to younger with George HW, and it's another
good match. And take special notice of the ears. I'll blow it up for you
so that you can see it better. Despite the sparsity of the older Bush's
ear, what you're seeing conforms very well to that of the younger Bush.
There is certainly no deal-breaker there, and ears are as distinctive as
fingerprints.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/1200/jq7v.jpg

[markusp]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 10:14:54 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:

> View it and weep. It can't not be him.
>
>
>
> http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3452/bycu.jpg

I think it's DPD Detective Gus Rose. I'd bet on it.
~Mark

[Ralph Cinque]

No, you are mistaken; it is George HW Bush.

[bpete1969]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:40:16 AM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> No, you are mistaken; it is George HW Bush.

No...you're mistaken. It wasn't.

Doorman wasn't Oswald.

Shelley wasn't obfuscated man.

Frazier wasn't the lady in the black dress behind the black woman.

You have no evidence to back up anything you claim.

None....

[Ralph Cinque]

Black dress? Yes, the lady you are referring to wore a black dress, but
not the person in the Wiegman film. Just take a look:

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1792/t91z.jpg

See what I mean? Now admit you were wrong.