Jump to content
The Education Forum

Posthumous book claims Pres. Ford knew of CIA


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posthumous book claims Ford knew of CIA coverup in Kennedy assassination

1. 11/21/2007 @ 8:59 am

Filed by David Edwards and Nick Juliano

www.rawstory.com

Did the CIA orchestrate a cover-up in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?

http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=8340

According to the publisher of a new book, who appeared on Fox News Wednesday morning, the last living words of former President Gerald Ford fingered the CIA in the orchestration a cover-up of Kennedy's assassination.

Ford, who died late last year, was the longest surviving member of the Warren Commission, which investigated Kennedy's assassination. The new book, "A Presidential Legacy and the Warren Commission," was written by Ford before his death, its publisher claims.

"This book, actually authored by Gerald Ford, finally proves once and for all that the CIA, our government, did destroy documents and cover-up many facts that day in Dallas," publisher Tim Miller told Fox & Friends Wednesday morning.

Kennedy was killed as his motorcade rolled through downtown Dallas Nov. 22, 1963. Officially seen as the work of a single shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, the Kennedy assassination has sparked myriad conspiracy theories placing responsibility for the assassination on a variety of suspects, including the CIA, the Mafia or Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Although Miller was given little time to go into detail about the book on Wednesday morning's show, a press release gives more detail on the book, being published by Flat Signed publishers.

In the book, Ford argues that the CIA destroyed information about the assassination, but he "contends with interesting specificity that Oswald was the only shooter," Miller says.

"There was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy," says Tim Miller, CEO of FlatSigned.com, in the release. "There is no doubt that President Gerald Ford knew more about the JFK death. There is no doubt President Clinton knows more. Has he or any other US President since November 22, 1963 ever swore under oath that they know no more?"

This video is from Fox's Fox & Friend's, broadcast on November 21.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We ought not have two threads running about the same story, as interesting as it is.

I have no idea who first posted the story but someone in authority ought to merge the threads.

I agree and apologize. However, before I posted the above story, I carefully checked the Forum and there was no other posting that covered the same item. I am at a loss to explain how the double posting came about unless there was some sort of procedural computer glitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford -- the Warren Commission's favorite bastard/traitor -- is handed a Profile in Courage Award by the only surviving child of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in recognition of Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon.

With the exception of the murder of JFK, has any act of state had a more negative impact on our world than Ford's pardon of a villain of Reaganesque proportions?

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would not Nixon have been pardoned no matter who was president? The CIA wanting Nixon out of office was one thing, but having him put on trial, possibly bringing out all sorts of unsavory business such as "the Bay of Pigs thing," was something else entirely. I imagine that the powers that be wanted Nixon, once he was out office, as far away from any courthouse as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, Ron.

But in Ford, the S.O.B.'s had a surer thing.

Remember the line from Oliver Stone's Nixon, when John Dean asks the simple but ultimate question, "Why?".

Nixon responds, "It's the lie, John."

The "lie" is the ultimate secret, the only means of control over the masses, which must be protected at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the same guy who published a new edition of the Warren Report with a new introduciton by Ford, who showed up here a year ago promoting the book?

BK

Yes. I was very unimpressed with his answers to my questions. He also pointed out that Ford was a committed believer in the lone-gunman theory. Ford believed the CIA cover-up was not directly related to the assassination of JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford would then be the second Warren Commissioner to suggest that Oswald may have had some connection to the CIA that needed to be covered up, The first, it seems, was John J. McCloy during an intgerview with Edward Jay Epstein on June 7, 1965:

"I still believe it is possible some document will turn up showing Oswald may have been an agent. Not necessarily a conspiracy but an agent gone haywire."

McCloy leaves Oswald as the lone shooter with no conspiracy, CIA perhaps withholding documents. Seems Ford feels the same way. Seems their stories are very similiar!

3 points covered up by the Commission seem, in my opinion, to support this:

1) No passenger lists for Oswald's travel from London to Helsinki

2) No exhibit number given to the 3rd Hosty note that stated where Oswald was working before the parade route was decided

3) No information about Oswald's attempt to contact "John Hurt" while in custody after the assassination.

If both McCloy and Ford provided us with the same clue the other half of their cryptic message is that Oswald was the shooter. I do believe that a conspiracy did exist with Oswald as a shooter. I know that is not a popular view on this forum but I will suggest again that the greatest disinformation campaign that may have been done was to convice the American public that Oswald was not the shooter.

If my research is correct it may have been General Walker that was on an airplane with Oswald before Oswald arrived in Helsinki. Oswald did somehow have the information needed to show up at the only embassy in the world that could issue a visa into the Soviet Union within 24 hours, Oswald showed up with the necessary Intourist Vouchers that Ambassador Hickerson had told the State Department would be needed only the day before Oswald would arrive in Helsinki. Within two weeks of Oswald's arrivial we find that John Jay McCloy is expressing his concern that the Paris Summit will place the United States Arms negotiators in a bad position. That summit would never occur after Francis Gary Powers is shot down only days before it is scheduled to begin. Was Oswald's travel to Russia a controlled event?

The Belinn note suggests that the CIA could have predicted Oswald's assassination of JFk if they had known that Oswald had shot at Walker. If oswald had been duped into providing information to the Soviets about the U-2 and his travel to the Soviet Union had been orchestrated by a chance meeting with Walker as Oswald traveled in Europe, Oswald, who had returned to Dallas, would have a motive to attempt to murder Walker that only those that would have known that Walker had been given the assignment to help Oswald enter the Soviet Union. It is a fact that the FBI/CIA monitoring of Oswald only begins after the Walker assassiantion attempt.

An attempt on Walker's life is, to me, plausible based upon Oswald's own words. Oswald believed that Walker was the head of a large organization that wished to create friction between the Soviet Union and the US. Did he have first had knowledge of this? If Walker had provided information to Oswald it makes sense. The failure of the Paris Summit was very much on Oswald's mind in the days leading up to the assassination of JFK. His speech at Spring Hill College provides clear evidence of this. Was Oswald bitter of the role he had played in the events that led to the dowing of the U-2 on May 1, 1959? Before returning to the US Oswald did want assurances that he would not be charged with any crimes.

The last building to be passed upon the parade route was the TSBD Building. But we do not know who read the Hosty note that provided information to US Intelligence agencies stating that Oswald worked in that last building. Why is that note still missing to this day. I must admit that I would love to know exactly who had access to that information!

As I have shown the name of John Hurt is of importance to US Intelligence activities of the 1940's, 50's and 60's. John B. Hurt's work for the NSA is still classified to this day and of the 20,000 or so employees of the NSA in 1964 the NSA selected two men, Frank Rowlett and Merideth Gardner that were both closely associated with John Bartrum Hurt to assess Oswald's personal possessions for intelligence material. Coincidence?

I can put together a consistant story that would be supported by both the words of Ford and McCloy, who suggest that the CIA withheld information about Oswald and or, that Oswald had in fact been used (perhaps without his knowledge "Orchid Man") by US Intelligence to assure the failure of the Paris Summit in May of 1959.

The story goes on to support the suggestion that McCloy, who was bitter with Kennedy in June of 1963 over his change of position in arms negotiations with the Soviets, would be one of only perhaps two men who would know that Oswald would have been the man who shot at Walker and that Oswald, if he had the chance would, as the Belin note suggests, shot at the President. Only the men who understood and had access to the whole file on Oswald would know why he could be expected to shoot the President if only Oswald could be given the opportunity.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford would then be the second Warren Commissioner to suggest that Oswald may have had some connection to the CIA that needed to be covered up, The first, it seems, was John J. McCloy during an intgerview with Edward Jay Epstein on June 7, 1965:

"I still believe it is possible some document will turn up showing Oswald may have been an agent. Not necessarily a conspiracy but an agent gone haywire."

McCloy leaves Oswald as the lone shooter with no conspiracy, CIA perhaps withholding documents. Seems Ford feels the same way. Seems their stories are very similiar!

3 points covered up by the Commission seem, in my opinion, to support this:

1) No passenger lists for Oswald's travel from London to Helsinki

2) No exhibit number given to the 3rd Hosty note that stated where Oswald was working before the parade route was decided

3) No information about Oswald's attempt to contact "John Hurt" while in custody after the assassination.

If both McCloy and Ford provided us with the same clue the other half of their cryptic message is that Oswald was the shooter. I do believe that a conspiracy did exist with Oswald as a shooter. I know that is not a popular view on this forum but I will suggest again that the greatest disinformation campaign that may have been done was to convice the American public that Oswald was not the shooter.

If my research is correct it may have been General Walker that was on an airplane with Oswald before Oswald arrived in Helsinki. Oswald did somehow have the information needed to show up at the only embassy in the world that could issue a visa into the Soviet Union within 24 hours, Oswald showed up with the necessary Intourist Vouchers that Ambassador Hickerson had told the State Department would be needed only the day before Oswald would arrive in Helsinki. Within two weeks of Oswald's arrivial we find that John Jay McCloy is expressing his concern that the Paris Summit will place the United States Arms negotiators in a bad position. That summit would never occur after Francis Gary Powers is shot down only days before it is scheduled to begin. Was Oswald's travel to Russia a controlled event?

The Belinn note suggests that the CIA could have predicted Oswald's assassination of JFk if they had known that Oswald had shot at Walker. If oswald had been duped into providing information to the Soviets about the U-2 and his travel to the Soviet Union had been orchestrated by a chance meeting with Walker as Oswald traveled in Europe, Oswald, who had returned to Dallas, would have a motive to attempt to murder Walker that only those that would have known that Walker had been given the assignment to help Oswald enter the Soviet Union. It is a fact that the FBI/CIA monitoring of Oswald only begins after the Walker assassiantion attempt.

An attempt on Walker's life is, to me, plausible based upon Oswald's own words. Oswald believed that Walker was the head of a large organization that wished to create friction between the Soviet Union and the US. Did he have first had knowledge of this? If Walker had provided information to Oswald it makes sense. The failure of the Paris Summit was very much on Oswald's mind in the days leading up to the assassination of JFK. His speech at Spring Hill College provides clear evidence of this. Was Oswald bitter of the role he had played in the events that led to the dowing of the U-2 on May 1, 1959? Before returning to the US Oswald did want assurances that he would not be charged with any crimes.

The last building to be passed upon the parade route was the TSBD Building. But we do not know who read the Hosty note that provided information to US Intelligence agencies stating that Oswald worked in that last building. Why is that note still missing to this day. I must admit that I would love to know exactly who had access to that information!

As I have shown the name of John Hurt is of importance to US Intelligence activities of the 1940's, 50's and 60's. John B. Hurt's work for the NSA is still classified to this day and of the 20,000 or so employees of the NSA in 1964 the NSA selected two men, Frank Rowlett and Merideth Gardner that were both closely associated with John Bartrum Hurt to assess Oswald's personal possessions for intelligence material. Coincidence?

I can put together a consistant story that would be supported by both the words of Ford and McCloy, who suggest that the CIA withheld information about Oswald and or, that Oswald had in fact been used (perhaps without his knowledge "Orchid Man") by US Intelligence to assure the failure of the Paris Summit in May of 1959.

The story goes on to support the suggestion that McCloy, who was bitter with Kennedy in June of 1963 over his change of position in arms negotiations with the Soviets, would be one of only perhaps two men who would know that Oswald would have been the man who shot at Walker and that Oswald, if he had the chance would, as the Belin note suggests, shot at the President. Only the men who understood and had access to the whole file on Oswald would know why he could be expected to shoot the President if only Oswald could be given the opportunity.

Jim Root

Thanks to all for these posts. I cant help but go back to when it was first known what Mr. Ford was doing behind everyones back. Here is a man who was selected to become part of an "unempeachable" group of select, impartial men who would get to the "bottom" of what truly happened from Nov. 22nd 63' onward, and before. How could a man of his stature, turn around and pass on sworn testimony to others who had no business of knowing what was transpiring behind closed doors? Can we say two-faced xxxx? How about traitor? Or even multiple organizational political conspirator? In my opinion, all these terms seem to fit this so called highly regarded elected political leader of our times. Did these goings on help push him up the political ladder later on in his carreer? It surely didnt hurt his career, knowing that he could be trusted by other like minded corrupt political allies later on in his career after reaching the position of Presidency. Not to mention how he even got into that position! Just look at his ties, and the pardon of RMN. We could continue with another post just on that subject alone. When you look at the farce of the WC, it is a shame that there were not more men, in my opinion, like Rep. Hale Boggs, and Sen. Richard Russell, who finally, after most of the facts were in, realized what a joke the Commission was, and actually spoke out concerning their suspicions. When requesting their views be noted, they were left out suspiciously, to say the least. No matter what commissions are formed {911?} and others, are only as good as the people choosing the respected members. Do you think they are just chosen at random? Or are they chosen to be closely tied to be what the outcome is to be desired? I would say the later. People who will stoop at nothing to make sure the outcome is what is desired from the very beginning. This continuing program of having commissions to solve all problems when serious problems arise is nothing more than a glorified WC, only in modern times. Needless to say, there will always be a Gerald Ford in place, along with all of the other "Holy Unimpeachables, to do the dirty work that was done in 63' Just my opinion. FWIW -MS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...