Gerald Ford and the Cover-Up

[John Simkin]

In 1980, Ronald Reagan gave serious consideration to Ford as a potential vice-presidential running mate. Negotiations between the Reagan and Ford camps took place at the Republican National Convention in Detroit. According to an article by Richard V. Allen (New York Times Magazine, July 30, 2000). Ford conditioned his acceptance on Reagan's agreement to an unprecedented "co-presidency", giving Ford the power to control key executive branch appointments (such as Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State and Alan Greenspan as Treasury Secretary). After rejecting these terms, Reagan offered the vice-presidential nomination to George H. W. Bush.

You can read the full article here:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3492521.html

[John Simkin]

I thought it might be worthwhile adding some information about Gerald Ford that will not appear in his wikipedia biography. For a start, they have not got his name right. His name at birth was Leslie King. His parents divorced when he was an infant and his mother remarried a paint salesman in Michigan. Leslie's name was then changed to that of his stepfather, Gerald Rudolph Ford. He did not find out about this until he was 17. His real father was fairly wealthy and he became very bitter that he had been brought up in poverty.

Ford was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946. He was re-elected to the next eleven Congresses. He soon developed a reputation as a right-wing politician. As Harold Jackson pointed out: "He built up an impressive record of flat-earth conservatism. He voted against federal aid for education and housing, repeatedly resisted increases in the minimum wage, tried to block the introduction of medical care for the elderly, and consistently fought any measures to combat pollution. At the same time he supported virtually all increases in defence spending."

In the 1964 presidential election. Lyndon B. Johnson, who had been a popular leader during his year in office, easily defeated Barry Goldwater by 42,328,350 votes to 26,640,178. Johnson gained 61 per cent of the popular vote, giving him the largest majority ever achieved by an American president. Another consequence of the election was that the House of Representatives had the largest Democratic majority since 1936. Gerald Ford was elected as minority leader by the slim margin of 73 to 67.

During the Tet Offensive Ford called on Johnson to "Americanise the war". At that time, the US already had 500,000 troops fighting in the country. Johnson later described Ford as "so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time."

However, by 1968, the popularity of the Democratic Party was in decline and Richard Nixon was elected as president. Ford worked closely with Nixon's new administration. In 1970 two of Nixon's conservative nominees to the Supreme Court (Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell) failed their Senate confirmation hearings.

This was mainly because Haynsworth and Carswell were seen as hostile to the 1960s civil rights legislation. For example, in 1948, Carswell had voiced support for racial segregation while running for a seat in the Georgia state legislature. (An interesting footnote is that in 1976, Carswell was arrested and convicted of battery for advances he made to an undercover police officer in a Florida men's room. It is claimed that Carswell was the first homosexual to be nominated to the Supreme Court.)

Ford joined forces with Nixon and Attorney General John N. Mitchell in order to gain revenge for the rejection of Haynsworth and Carswell. It was decided to force liberal justice, William O. Douglas, to resign. Stories were spread that Douglas was in the pay of the Parvin Foundation. In April 1970 Ford moved to impeach Douglas, the first major modern era attempt to impeach a Supreme Court Justice. Ford gained very little support for his actions and the hearings were brought to a close and no public vote on the matter was taken.

[John Simkin]

Interesting extract from the obituary in today's Guardian:

There has been endless speculation whether this pardon was part of a deal to persuade Nixon to abandon his rearguard fight against impeachment. Certainly there were well-attested, if tangential, discussions on the subject between Vice-President Ford and the White House chief of staff, Alexander Haig. But the consensus is that, even as his tenure crumbled, Nixon remained confident that his longstanding influence over Ford would stop him facing trial.

Ford had, in fact, not been Nixon's first choice as vice-president when Spiro Agnew was forced out of office in 1973 for corruption. The president wanted one of his closest political allies, former governor of Texas John Connolly, to take over, but he was warned of insuperable opposition in Congress where, under the unusual terms of the recently adopted 25th amendment, any nominee required confirmation by a majority in both houses.

So, after a review of a wide variety of candidates ranging from Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York on the Republican left to Senator Barry Goldwater on the party's right, Nixon settled for the minority leader in the House of Representatives.

He did so to ensure an easy confirmation - which he got. But, according to the former White House chief of staff HR Haldeman, Nixon also calculated that a House familiar with Ford's inadequacies would never risk presidential impeachment, since that would put Ford into the Oval Office. Henry Kissinger acknowledged in his memoirs that he made a similar judgment at the time.

Nixon and Ford had been politically associated since both were young congressmen in 1948. Alexander Butterfield - Haldeman's White House deputy who revealed to a startled Senate committee Nixon's habit of taping his conversations reminisced in 1983 that the president had always had the minority leader totally under his thumb. "He was a tool of the Nixon administration, like a puppy dog. They used him when they had to - wind him up and he'd go 'arf 'arf."

[Ron Ecker]

Johnson later described Ford as "so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time."

I believe it was also Johnson who said that Ford had "played too much football without a helmet."

Ford testified before the HSCA, and I recall that during a break, when he apparently assumed the mike was off, he asked his attorney or whoever was beside him if he was doing okay or had said anything that he shouldn't have. Does anyone remember the exact words? And is there any extant tape or film of this?

While I somehow remember this episode, I don't remember actually seeing any of the hearings on TV, and don't know the extent to which the HSCA hearings were televised.

[Jack White]

Johnson later described Ford as "so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time."

I believe it was also Johnson who said that Ford had "played too much football without a helmet."

Ford testified before the HSCA, and I recall that during a break, when he apparently assumed the mike was off, he asked his attorney or whoever was beside him if he was doing okay or had said anything that he shouldn't have. Does anyone remember the exact words? And is there any extant tape or film of this?

While I somehow remember this episode, I don't remember actually seeing any of the hearings on TV, and don't know the extent to which the HSCA hearings were televised.

Ron...Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio was broadcasting (telecasting?) the

HSCA hearings, and reporting this incident. Ford was testifying about the CIA etc.

and sitting beside him was his attorney and WC lawyer David Belin. There was a

brief recess, and Ford leaned over toward Belin and said (assuming the microphones

were off)..."I HAVEN'T COMPROMISED ANYTHING, HAVE I?" According to Gary Mack

the Washington NPR headquarters still has the tape of Ford's comment and Totenberg's

comment about his remark. I wish someone would mention this during the upcoming

funeral week. The obits I scanned did not even mention his WC "service" or his

book PORTRAIT OF THE ASSASSIN, which used secret documents for personal gain.

Jack

PS...according to Gary Mack, the entire hearings were televised only in D.C.,

although the first week and the final acoustics sessions were televised nationally.

My understanding is that the TV audio featuring Totenberg was aired nationally

on NPR. I have audiotapes of the entire hearings, and videotapes of the first

week plus the acoustics sessions.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Jack White

[Jean Davison]

I have also included this passage to the Wikipedia entry. Again, I wonder how long it will stay there:

In his later years new documents emerged that suggested that Ford had played a vital role in the cover-up of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The original first draft of the Warren Commission Report stated that a bullet had entered Kennedy's "back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." Ford realized that this provided a serious problem for the single bullet theory. As Michael L. Kurtz has pointed out (The JFK Assassination Debates, 2006, page 85): "If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back."

In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory.

A few quick points, if I may.

Since the bullet exited below JFK's Adam's apple, not above it, it appears that Mr. Kurtz "raised the wound." I don't think he did so deliberately.

The first draft location, in the "back ... slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine," is where, exactly? Isn't the body area "above the shoulder" commonly referred to as the NECK? In other words, isn't the original sentence ambiguous?

By the time Ford made his revision, the SBT was already a fait accompli and needed no "help" from him. Besides, there was no reason to move the wound up. No LN theorist and no trajectory study that I'm aware of has ever placed this entry wound anywhere except in the upper back. The WR places the entry wound where the autopsy report does, approximately 5.5 inches below the mastoid process (which on any normal person would be in the upper back, not in the nape of the neck):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0056b.htm

Ford didn't move the wound, and couldn't. It's where it has always been, where the autopsy photo shows it, in the upper back.

Jean Davison

[Ron Ecker]

No LN theorist and no trajectory study that I'm aware of has ever placed this entry wound anywhere except in the upper back.

Arlen Spector, father of the single-bullet theory, has stated on national TV as late as 2004 that JFK was shot "in the back of the neck."

[Jean Davison]

No LN theorist and no trajectory study that I'm aware of has ever placed this entry wound anywhere except in the upper back.

Arlen Spector, father of the single-bullet theory, has stated on national TV as late as 2004 that JFK was shot "in the back of the neck."

Okay, could you quote that in context, please?

Here is a photo of Specter that the WC used to illustrate the SBT. It's CE 903, taken after a surveyor had measured the approximate trajectory from the SN window to the limo. Notice that above Specter's hand there's a string on the wall running parallel to the rod he's holding. That string represents the surveyor's trajectory. As you can see, the rod "enters" the stand-in's upper back and "exits" at the knot of the tie, which is where the bullet exited JFK's body. Notice that if the rod were raised so that the bullet "entered" the back of the neck, it would come out too high, above the tie knot. A neck entry would also be out of sync with the trajectory shown by the string on the wall.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

The title of this exhibit is "Photograph taken at garage, following reenactment of assassinatlon on May 24, 1964, depicting probable angle of declination of bullet which passed through President Kennedy and Governor Connally."

IOW, no back of neck entry.

Jean

[Ron Ecker]

No LN theorist and no trajectory study that I'm aware of has ever placed this entry wound anywhere except in the upper back.

Arlen Spector, father of the single-bullet theory, has stated on national TV as late as 2004 that JFK was shot "in the back of the neck."

Okay, could you quote that in context, please?

I was off by a year, working from memory. This latest TV pronouncement that I'm aware was 2003:

"SPECTER: The bullet entered between two large strap muscles at the back of the president's neck, hit nothing solid, went through the pleural cavity, nicked his tie coming out."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/22/asb.00.html

[Jean Davison]

No LN theorist and no trajectory study that I'm aware of has ever placed this entry wound anywhere except in the upper back.

Arlen Spector, father of the single-bullet theory, has stated on national TV as late as 2004 that JFK was shot "in the back of the neck."

Okay, could you quote that in context, please?

I was off by a year, working from memory. This latest TV pronouncement that I'm aware was 2003:

"SPECTER: The bullet entered between two large strap muscles at the back of the president's neck, hit nothing solid, went through the pleural cavity, nicked his tie coming out."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/22/asb.00.html

Ron,

Thanks, and yes, Specter did say that, but please take a look at CE 903 again and note that, if the bullet literally entered the nape of the neck, the SBT trajectory not only isn't helped, it's destroyed. Drawing a line from the nape through the tie knot sends the bullet headed for JFK's knees, not Connally's back.

Or take the Croft photo. How could a bullet entering the back of the neck and exiting below the Adam's apple end up hitting Connally where it did?

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/2...hsca_ex_135.jpg

My point is that the SBT doesn't require raising the back wound. The HSCA, e.g., endorsed the SBT and placed the entry wound in the upper back:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0037a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0037b.htm

If someone can show me how raising the wound helps the SBT trajectory, I'm willing to listen, but IMO, Ford had no motive to move the wound as part of a "cover-up."

Jean

[Donald Diabo]

"How could a bullet entering the back of the neck and exiting below the Adam's apple end up hitting Connally where it did? "

it could! if fired from a lower trajectory than which the WC claims. certainly, not from the 6th floor, TSBD.

however, i endorse nothing nor claim any proof.

ford's reassessment of the wound causes the theory to point directly to the said snipers lair. if the former wound placement were allowed to stand in the record, it would only serve to foment

more question by the citizen. imo.

back in the 63, what person questioned anything the government said. writers,communists, entertainers, youth,dreamers ?

Edited December 30, 2006 by Donald Diabo

[Lee Forman]

"How could a bullet entering the back of the neck and exiting below the Adam's apple end up hitting Connally where it did? "

it could! if fired from a lower trajectory. certainly, not from the 6th floor, TSBD.

however, i endorse nothing nor claim any proof.

ford's reassessment of the wound causes the theory to point directly to the said snipers lair. if the former wound placement were allowed to stand in the record, it would only serve to foment

more question by the citizen. imo.

back in the 63, what person questioned anything the government said. writers,communists, entertainers, youth,dreamers ?

You're on the hook buddy.

Do everyone a favor. In Canada - right? What's Robert Emmett Johnson doing there in the 60s and who are his connections? Who could Christian David have been referring to as 'people' that would have had the necessary connections to get into the US via Canada? Where are the other pictures allegedly taken by Norman Similas today and how can we get them? Why won't Louis Mortimer Bloomfield's wife allow the release of his files - and what can be done to help get them released? Why would an Oswald imposter be looking to penetrate a students organization in Canada and what's his real identity? Who is Lambert? What can you tell us about Kraus? Are there any records of a flight made by Ferrie in Winnipeg?

Surprise us in 2007. Happy New Year.

- lee

[Thomas H. Purvis]

No LN theorist and no trajectory study that I'm aware of has ever placed this entry wound anywhere except in the upper back.

Arlen Spector, father of the single-bullet theory, has stated on national TV as late as 2004 that JFK was shot "in the back of the neck."

Okay, could you quote that in context, please?

I was off by a year, working from memory. This latest TV pronouncement that I'm aware was 2003:

"SPECTER: The bullet entered between two large strap muscles at the back of the president's neck, hit nothing solid, went through the pleural cavity, nicked his tie coming out."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/22/asb.00.html

Ron,

Thanks, and yes, Specter did say that, but please take a look at CE 903 again and note that, if the bullet literally entered the nape of the neck, the SBT trajectory not only isn't helped, it's destroyed. Drawing a line from the nape through the tie knot sends the bullet headed for JFK's knees, not Connally's back.

Or take the Croft photo. How could a bullet entering the back of the neck and exiting below the Adam's apple end up hitting Connally where it did?

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/2...hsca_ex_135.jpg

My point is that the SBT doesn't require raising the back wound. The HSCA, e.g., endorsed the SBT and placed the entry wound in the upper back:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0037a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0037b.htm

If someone can show me how raising the wound helps the SBT trajectory, I'm willing to listen, but IMO, Ford had no motive to move the wound as part of a "cover-up."

Jean

One last time before I put all of my "marbles" away and look for some other game to play.

[Donald Diabo]

dear,lee. if you cannot find that sorf of info, what makes you believe that i could?

i'll give it a shot (maybe three) but dont hold your breath.

as to the post, the man did say he was open to discussion.

oh, and happy new years and all the best, to you and yours.

a great big CHEERS to everyone.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Donald Diabo

[Donald Diabo]

so, tom. which trajectory are you supporting? i did not read all of your posts so kindly, please clarify and do not take offense.

p.s. stay in the game. i've still a few marbles myself.

cheers.