Talk:Apaches accuse Prescott Bush of robbing Geronimo's grave

Something Even Far More Disturbing

What apparently isn't legitimately disputable is that the Brotherhood of Death (a.k.a. the Order of Skull & Bones) was in possession of actual human skulls (and still would be in said possession, assuming the group hasn't already disposed of them).

The authenticity of the Skull & Bones documents given to Ned Anderson are not apparently legitimately disputable, given Jonathan Bush (brother of former President George Bush, Sr.) and other Bonesmen's negotiations with Apache leaders in the attempt to resolve the Geronimo skull issue, wherein Jonathan Bush and accompanying Bonesmen presented a human skull to the Apache leaders as being the skull which Bonesmen referred to as "Geronimo," and given Bonesman Attorney Endicott Davison's attempt to get back the stolen Skull & Bones documents.

It may well be that Prescott Bush and his would-be grave-robbing Bonesmen crew made up the story about the skull referred to by Bonesmen as "Geronimo" as having come from Geronimo's grave, in order to score more bragging rights among fellow Bonesmen. Prescott Bush, et al., could have simply robbed the grave of a non-famous person, or obtained some non-famous person's skull via some other means, and simply told their fellow Bonesmen that they stole the skull from Geronimo's grave.

But what's even far more disturbing about this whole matter is that the human skull presented to the Apache leaders by Jonathan Bush and accompanying Bonesmen was that of a child of approximately ten years of age. Ten-year-old children's skulls just don't materialize on people's bookshelves. As well, ten-year-old children have names. What is this child's name, and how did this child's skull come to be a macabre plaything possessed by the Order of Skull & Bones?

This makes at least two human skulls possessed by the Order of Skull & Bones: that of an apparent adult's skull which Bonesmen internally referred to as "Geronimo," of which the stolen Skull & Bones documents and photograph of the "Geronimo" skull pertain to, and that of this child's skull, of which was not previously known about outside of Skull & Bones and of which does not match the photograph of the "Geronimo" skull held by Skull & Bones.

Given the ruling establishment's obsession with dark, occultic human sacrifice rituals (I here refer to the occultic rituals performed at Bohemian Grove and also at Skull & Bones of apparently mock [let's hope] human sacrifices--regarding said rituals performed at Bohemian Grove every year, including hidden video caught of one such event, see the documentary Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove by journalist Alex Jones, and regarding said rituals performed by Skull & Bones members at their Yale "Tomb," see the April 23, 2001 ABC News television report on the hidden video caught of a Skull and Bones ritual; also note that there is a great deal of cross-membership between Bohemian Grove and the Order of Skull & Bones, which includes the Bush Bonesmen), and the testimony of victim Paul Bonacci of being forced to participate in the making of child snuff-films at Bohemian Grove (for which, in part, U.S. Senior District Judge Warren K. Urbom awarded Paul Bonacci $1 million), this raises the question of whether this child whom the skull comes from is the victim of an actual human sacrifice performed by Skull & Bones members.

Even if these human skulls simply came from robbing the graves of non-famous people, numerous laws would thereby be broken in obtaining and in possessing these skulls. If average Joe you or me did these things then I'm sure U.S. law enforcement would not be so forgiving of us.--209.208.77.232 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The Skull and Crossbones "club" is not a Prescott Bush group; it predates his alleged involvement, and may have included a very wide range of participants making the current title, "Native americans accuse Prescott Bush group of grave robbing", both POV and misleading.

The single article used as a source for this article appears to be reporting from a POV, and may not be entirely trustworthy as a source for this particular story. For example, it reports Prescott Bush was one of the group of 6 US Army soldiers who dug up the skull, but reports that a petition claims the skull was dug up by members of the Skull and Crossbones society. At best this is speculative, as there is very little evidence - and what exists is disputed. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Re; #1 objection. I see what you mean about the title; how should the title be changed?

Actually I now see you are mistaken in assuming the title is referring to the S&B group when actually it is referring to the graverobbing group. Neutralizer 23:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Re; #2 objection. Your tag came so quickly the other 2 supporting articles had not been added yet. Please allow a bit of time for introduction of articles before tagging them, if you will, please. Neutralizer 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Re; #3 your assertion about "no evidence". I must wonder if you ahve read the 3 sources? Please do so and reevaluate your no evidence assertion which seems to me to be POV at best. Neutralizer 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest "Native Americans petition U.S. Congress to investigate Yale's 'Skull and Crossbones'" or similar, because that's a news event.

As for the supporting articles... the last one I saw was rather elderly, and didn't support the news event reporting. I will check the third. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Amgine, Are you saying we are in the business of determining fault and guilt by being "evidence" submitters? I think the "news" here is the petition and it may be valid or not; but we are not a court I don't think. Neutralizer 23:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I'm saying the news event is the petition. That there is dispute over whether or not the bones are Geronimo's is central to this story, as is the fact there has been a request for repatriation of the remains from the fort by the tribe. What is less than central to the story is who may or may not have been involved in an alleged grave robbery since it is not the news event being reported on. Making it central suggests bias and POV to me. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally, something I've actually researched a bit... There doesn't appear to be ANY evidence the skull that they have in the The Tomb could actually be Geronimo's... The written "confession" by the bonesmen which is the basis for the assertion that they robbed his grave pefectly inaccurately describes the tomb of Geronimo. However, there is still a news story here -- that a group is actively petitioning Congress for an investigation -- perhaps Congress will can do something sensible. This could all be easily solved if the someone actually petitioned the BIA to exhume the body to verify that the bones are intact. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Especially if they reasonably granted the repatriation request from his descendents. </rant>. Yes, a good news story buried in this, and would like to see it developed. Title needs changing, and balance (like perhaps mentioning what that Straight Dope editorial had to say about the inaccuracies and unlikelihood.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

ok; but I don't think we should be trying to decide ourselves the merits of the petition nor how the issue should be resolved. We are just reporters here, I think. Also, Amgine; why didn't you just change the title to what you feel is not pov? I will try now; hopefully with some success. Neutralizer 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As we all know, news is often only newsworthy because the people involved are famous or connected to someone famous as when Lindberg's baby was kidnapped. It is ludicrous to try to bury the reason this item is news. If it was a gang of bikers accused of robbing a grave it would not be requiring a petition to congress. The fact Prescott Bush is accused of being the ringleader is most important to the story and should be in the title; imo. Neutralizer 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have addressed the NPOV concerns which I still have trouble understanding. If the tagger is still concerned, please edit the article or be more specific as to what you are talking about without drifting off into a discussion about the merits of the petition to congress. Neutralizer 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you did a good enought job. I changed the order of two paragraphs to try to bring out the history of the actual interaction between the Apaches and S&B, i.e. the offer to return it, as this is perhaps the major NPOVing point. Nyarlathotep 16:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

tag removal?

any actionable objections? I will wait an hour and then remove; can always be put back if justified but please do some editing work to get it where it is publishable in the taggers' eyes. Neutralizer 14:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

title

The title needs to include what country this president bush is from, thanks. --MateoP 23:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't about President Bush... --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I see, it should then be more specific about which Native Americans this is. This would be akin to saying "Jews accuse Iran of....." when the article is about the state of Israel. There are thousands of Native American groups in the western hemisphere, and obviously they are not all accusing "Prescott Bush" of something. --MateoP 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mateo, I agree with your observation. I have changed the title to show it is the Apache tribe that is pushing the matter. Neutralizer 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem, Mateo, is that other tribes have jumped on the issue like the Sioux. Neutralizer 14:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)