DEBUNKING CONSPIRACY MYTHS -- Gerald Ford's "Move"

[David Von Pein]

Gerald Ford (1978) ------> https://app.box.com/s/jdihp42tp51stkwn60z7hr5dl29hsx80

-------

Edited May 1, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Brian Schmidt]

Good one, lol.

We all know what Ford has said publicly.

Now to the content of my question--do you think Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was lying about what Ford told him?

[David Von Pein]

Good one, lol.

We all know what Ford has said publicly.

Now to the content of my question--do you think Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was lying about what Ford told him?

Yes.

Plus, given what CTers think of Mr. Ford and the perpetual decades-long "cover-up" that Ford was supposedly a part of -- just THINK for two seconds about how utterly stupid it would have been for Ford to utter such a comment to ANYONE. Does it make ANY sense from that POV of the CTers who think it was Ford's job to keep quiet and "cover up" the truth about JFK's death?

It's laughable.

And it's even more laughable from my "LN" POV and what I've heard Ford say in public many times since 1964.

So, yes, it's a lie. (Either that or somebody has severely misquoted Mr. Ford.)

Edited May 1, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Brian Schmidt]

CTers range from thinking Ford's role was nefarious to thinking he was easily manipulated or perhaps even patriotic by keeping American institutions stable and the public safe from worry.

I've said this before on another thread, but suppose the Warren Commission really did find out there was a plot but really couldn't figure out who was behind it. Would they be able to tell the American public there was a conspiracy but, gee, we don't know who it was or who they plan to kill next. Or worse, suppose they found out years later that some lower level players in a powerful institution like the CIA were acting on their own, or some powerful millionaires had it done? Would you tell the public? I probably wouldn't. It would compromise the whole US political system.

In this sense, protecting the public from knowing too much might even be considered noble in people like Ford's mind. Might he tell another president what really went on? Perhaps, knowing that this conversation among equals would be kept in confidence.

With this scenario in mind, it doesn't seem so far-fetched after all.

[David Von Pein]

Brian,

You and I have just proved that there's a "Scenario For Every Occasion" (and for everyone with a computer and a mouse).

[Jon G. Tidd]

Brian,

You offer that the Warren Commission members and staff believed they were acting correctly and morally in keeping the truth from the American people.

Richard Russell didn't believe this. Apparently, in the end, neither did Hale Boggs nor John Sherman Cooper.

My take is that Warren and Ford were team players, meaning they understood the team they were on and were loyal to it. My take further is that Dulles regarded his team as the CIA, and McCloy sided with his friend Dulles. Hardly a unified Commission in terms of loyalty and perspective.

But on balance, I agree with you that the four majority Commissioners didn't regard what they did and aimed to do as incorrect or morally repugnant. They rationalized what they did.

And that would be fine if the JFK assassination were a mere historical blip. But it's not.

IMO, the task at hand is not to vilify the Warren Commission but rather to press the U.S. Government to release the millions of pages of documents relating to persons possibly connected to the assassination, pages that are currently suppressed.

Footnote: If there is moral culpability in this matter, it rests chiefly with the autopsy physicians, who lacked the courage, not the ability, to describe clearly and cleanly with no doubt the nature of the damage inflicted on JFK's body.

The mere fact DVP argues about the location of the back wound (he may or may not be correct) demonstrates how badly, deliberately badly, the autopsists, who were military officers, served the American people. They served those of higher military rank.