Gerald Ford's Memo to the Warren Commission and other JFK questions

I have 4 questions:

1. In another forum, you indicated that Gerald Ford wrote a memo to the Warren Commission instructing them to change JFK being shot "in the back" to him being shot "in the neck". I find this very interesting and I've looked for the actual memo, but was unable to find it. (plenty of links to the Hoover-Ford memo however)

Do you have any links to the memo, or perhaps a copy of the memo?

Here's the post where you mentioned the memo:

All new information made public since 1989 has only tended to support the conclusions in Crossfire. The ‘Smoking Gun’ is the Gerald Ford memo to the authors of the Warren Commission report ordering them to change the wording from “Kennedy was shot in the back” to “Kennedy was shot through the neck”. This small but critical change of wording has allowed them to argue that cockamamie single bullet theory which, of course, is the sole basis for the single assassin theory.

educationforum.ipbhost.com...

2. I once made a wildly popular thread about other films, besides the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination. Is there anything we should be looking for in the Maria Muchmore, Orville Nix or Bronson films? Anything of note?

3. Have you ever looked into the Gary Wean version of the JFK assassination? (Michael Piper of the infamous Spotlight magazine covered the Wean angle in his book, Final Judgment)

4. It appears there were a number of operations being conducted in Dallas on that faithful day. (shades of 9/11) These other operations would have confused intelligence officers and the secret service.

Do you know of any operations in Dallas that might have served to divert attention?


[edit on 26/4/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

I've found this relevant section online from Gary Wean's book, A Fish in the Courthouse.

Also, it does seem that Gary has since went off the anti-Semitic deep end. Here's his website. I do hope that readers will not be too harsh and actually look into his version of the events surrounding the assassination. (The anti-Semite brush can sometimes be quite wide)


[edit on 27/4/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

I hope you don't mind me replying, obviously your questions are to Jim Marrs but hopefully that doesn't bar discussion in the meantime. Imagine me with a beard if it helps.

I was reading through a transcript the other day, that Mae Brussell compiled of everything that Oswald said from the moment he was arrested at the movie theatre until he was shot by Ruby. There is nothing there that really jumps out, but when I read through Wean's explanation, as provided by 'John' it didn't really gel.

I can accept that Oswald was a 'patsy' and Oswald at one point defintely refers to himself as one. I just I don't buy the story that Oswald was 'in on' a fake assassination attempt. In fact I don't buy the fake assassination attempt at all, doesn't it seem a little 'cheesy' to you? It is all so innocently quaint.

Oswald has always appeared to me to be intelligent. If he had been involved in a 'fake' attempt that had somehow ended in a real death, I do think we would see more in the transcript that he was shocked. He seems unconcerned at times, impatient at others, but not surprised and never frightened. Wouldn't you expect, even a trained soldier to be a little frightened by the thought he may have 'accidently' shot the president of the US. Wouldn't he be grilling his captors for information, trying to ascertain what had happened???? As an ex-soldier he would realise that his mission had gone horribly wrong. And yet not a flutter. So while I can believe he may have fired at least one of the shots that hit JFK, I also believe it if that is the case he had intended to hit JFK.

It may be possible that it was planned to be a fake, but whoever was in the middle decided that it shouldn't be a fake after all and told the gunman, Oswald or whoever else may have been in the depository, to aim at the president. Which could mean that that person was working for other interests altogether - a double agent, there has never been any shortage of those.

I also note that Wean makes little or no reference to the Paine's and De Mohrenschildt who had significant influence at that time in Oswald's life. The first tip off pointing at Oswald for the shooting came from Michael Paine's place of work, Bell Aerospace, where he worked under Walter Dornberger.

Personally I have never come across a satisfactory answer as to why I self-confessed marxist like Oswald would consort with someone like de Mohrenschildt.

What I do like about Wean's version though, is the implication that the assassination attempt would have instilled a fear of communism into JFK. JFK was obviously more concerned about the seeming incompetence of his own countrymen than the threat of communism. I have an inclining in fact that JFKs assassination was more about the 'Ich bin Berliner' speech than the Bay of Pigs or anything else for that matter.

So while I think that Wean's account may be genuine, in that he was in fact given this information by the source he identifies and that it may have been a real plan in some minds within the US SIS, I don't think that Oswald (or whoever fired the shots from the depositoy) was informed of that plan. Does that make sense?

Incidently, I did watch the films you posted on your wildly popular thread. I didn't see anything noteworthy though, I couldn't see into the windows. The film of the secret service men pulling out that you also link to though was mind blowing, talk about an image expressing a thousand words (I have no sound on my pc so if there was commentary it passed me by). Do you know who it was that ordered that the Secret Service escort stand down?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
There is nothing there that really jumps out, but when I read through Wean's explanation, as provided by 'John' it didn't really gel.

Just for your information, 'John' was later identified as Senator John Tower in Wean's second edition. Tower had died in a plane accident (CIA style) allowing Wean to publish John's name.

I just I don't buy the story that Oswald was 'in on' a fake assassination attempt.

This is why I'm interested to know which operations if any Mr. Marrs knows about. Some operations on 9/11 were pretty similar to what was actually happening. (even more so in the London Bombing)

Remember that the Northwoods document were written around that time. So to me, a fake assassination with Castro blamed for the act is not so far fetched.

Also, Wade Frazier mentions that a nitrate test was taken on Oswald cheek, and was negative, meaning he hadn't fired a weapon on that day. (did Mae mention this?) So, I personally doubt that Oswald was even in the snippers' nest.

Personally I have never come across a satisfactory answer as to why I self-confessed marxist like Oswald would consort with someone like de Mohrenschildt.

This could have been part of establishing his communist credentials. (Just like his suppose visit at the Mexican Russian embassy.)

Incidently, I did watch the films you posted on your wildly popular thread. I didn't see anything noteworthy though, I couldn't see into the windows.

lol, I call it a "wildly popular thread" sarcastically. (no one replied )

I wasn't able to see anything of note either, hence my reason for asking Mr. Marrs if we are missing something.

Do you know who it was that ordered that the Secret Service escort stand down?

Good point KT, i believe we should ask Mr. Marrs if he knows anything about it. So here's a fifth question for Mr. Marrs:

Mr. Marrs, in this video:



We clearly see the Secret Service being pulled...

5. Do you have any idea who ordered the SS escort to stand down?


[edit on 28/4/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Remember that the Northwoods document were written around that time. So to me, a fake assassination with Castro blamed for the act is not so far fetched.

I have had a read through of another thread on the Northwoods document and I see what you mean, however I still don't like the fake assassination scenario put forward by Wean. Obviously the US wanted to attack Cuba (again) which is what Northwoods is about, but why when they had a real assassination instead of a fake one didn't they grasp the mettle??? Intended or not, surely these men weren't so 'fearful' that they didn't see a gift horse when it was presented. If they were so intent on invading Cuba why not attack Cuba - no one was coming forward to say 'I shot Kennedy and it had nothing to do with Cuba' - so why not act?

In my view either the 'fake' assassination story is just that, a story, or they had already decided to use more covert means or the situation that they wished to deal with in Cuba required more covert means. According to Peter Wright in Spy Catcher the CIA had requested the assistance of the SAS in Cuba and were looking for untracable personnel who were willing and able to fight their way out if uncovered. I just don't see how the 'fake' assassination scenario would move anything along...I'm open to suggestion though.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Also, Wade Frazier mentions that a nitrate test was taken on Oswald cheek, and was negative, meaning he hadn't fired a weapon on that day. (did Mae mention this?) So, I personally doubt that Oswald was even in the snippers' nest.

I read an article about this recently, I've tried to find it but can't I'm afraid, I'll keep looking... To summarise though, Oswald was tested for gun powder residue, on both his hands and his cheeks. The cheeks tested negative, his hands positive - which indicated that he had fired a gun in the last 24 hours, that it was not on his cheeks would suggest that any gun that he did fire was not a rifle which requires close proximity of the face etc. HOWEVER, the test used was a Parafin test, I'm no expert, but according to the information I have read it is far from conclusive. In controlled tests, those who have never fired a gun have come up positive and those who have negative. I don't think that it is considered by professionals in the field as conclusive - but I don't know. The article I read outlined the way the test results have been interpreted by various authors and the spectrum varies from some saying that the results mean Oswald definately could NOT have fired the rifle, to he COULD have. None of it helps, so IMO it is best ignored as it is too open to interpretation. Just my opinion though.

(edit to add: I've found the article mcadams.posc.mu.edu...)

In the spirit of the thread can I add my own question for Mr Marrs, (and I will be so bold as to continue the numbering system)

6. Given his NWO credentials (Skull and Bones, CFR, 303 Committee and Ford Foundation), what, if any, role do you see JFK's National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy playing in the assassination and subsequent 'cover-up'/'white wash'?

Thanks




[edit on 28-4-2008 by KilgoreTrout]

Howdy ConspiracyNut23,

The memo in which Gerald Ford got the authors of the Warren Commission Report to change their wording was obtained by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s. I have not seen the original memo, which I suppose still is in the ARRB file or more likely in the National Archives. I relied on media stories, two of which are an article by George Lardner Jr. in The Washington Post of July 3, 1997 and an Associated Press story that same day in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. These stories appeared in 1997 but the ARRB obtained it much earlier. I have copies of the news articles but, unfortunately, I don’t know how to get them into this posting. Ford responded to media queries concerning this memo by saying he was only trying to clarify the location of JFK’s back wound.

I still say forget all the pronouncements concerning this wound (both pro and con) and simply look at the official autopsy report which clearly states the back wound was at the level of the third thoracic vertebrae which is below the shoulder blades.
There are plenty of interesting things to see in the Muchmore, Nix and Bronson films but nothing that probably would sway anyone committed to a version of the assassination. The Nix film is interesting because one can clearly see the brake lights on JFK’s limousine come on about the first shot and remain on until after the fatal head shot. Also there are those who claim to see flashes of light (gunshots?) on the Grassy Knoll at the time of the shooting. But since there has been no in-depth and honest investigation, these issues are just grist for the conspiracy mill.

As to the Gary Wean story, I have no idea if all he claims is true or not. But it certainly fits with much of the information I have developed over the years. Both plane crashes that killed Audie Murphy and Sen. John Tower are highly suspicious. I was friends with Tower and knew that he was working on a book to expose things when he died. His book manuscript was never found. Overall, Wean’s story seem largely on track.

I tend to agree that several intel operations were being conducted at the time of the JFK assassination. It seems like Dealey Plaza was crawling with operatives of the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA, the military, the Soviet KGB and the Israeli Mossad. I think everyone wanted to see how this operation came off. It was sloppy and mistakes were made. While I am not totally convinced that Oswald thought he was involved in some fake assassination attempt – a pretty bizarre scenario – I do think he knew something was in the air and had been told some cover story. Attorney Carroll Jarnagin told me how he overheard Ruby and Oswald talking in Ruby’s Carousel Club on Oct. 4, 1963. He said Ruby was trying to convince Lee to become involved in a plot to shoot Texas Gov. John Connally but Lee was rightly suspicious of this plan.

Here is some evidence that makes me think Oswald never fired a shot that day – (1) Voice Stress Analysis showed he was telling the truth when he said, “I didn’t shoot anybody. I’m just a patsy!” (2) the paraffin test on Oswald showed nitrates on both hands but no gunpowder and no powder or nitrates on his face. If he had fired that loose-bolted Mannlicher Carcano, his face would have been peppered with both powder and nitrates, especially since the only way anyone could have fired that surplus rifle in six seconds was to never take it down from the face. (3) Oswald correctly identified two book depository employees as eating lunch about the time of the assassination in the building’s downstairs lunchroom, exactly where Oswald’s jacket and order clipboard were later found. How could he know these men were there unless he himself was there to see them and how did his jacket and clipboard get there unless he brought them there?

Aubrey Rike, the ambulance driver who was on hand at Parkland Hospital and ended up driving JFK’s body back to Love Field told me that minutes before the assassination, he had answered an emergency call to a location by the book depository building. He picked up a man apparently suffering an epileptic seizure and rushed him to Parkland, which is why he and his ambulance were there when JFK was brought in. He said the man he picked up refused treatment and left the hospital. Several people in Dealey Plaza later told me about the commotion caused by the arrival of the ambulance and the flashing red lights. Interestingly enough, Rike said there had been four or so hoax calls to that same location in the two week preceding the assassination. He speculated that someone was timing the arrival of an ambulance and that the ambulance might have provided a diversion to distract anyone from seeing assassins move into position.

Jim Marrs

ADDENDUM to ConspiracyNut23,

As to who ordered the Secret Service to "stand down" on Nov. 22, 1963, here what I know for certain --- it was not Lee Harvey Oswald!

Jim Marrs

Howdy KilgoreTrout,

Here’s what could explain Oswald’s seeming nonchalance when arrested by the Dallas Police.

As a paid government intelligence agent, he assumed he would be given protection by his employers. He also felt no guilt because, based on the best hard evidence, he had not shot anyone. When arrested, he continually pled for legal assistance, even trying to contact an attorney who was known for defending government whistleblowers.

Since there reportedly were no notes taken or recordings of Oswald’s statements while in custody we may never know, but I suspect a conversation along these lines took place between Oswald and Dallas Police Capt. Will Fritz:

FRITZ: Did you shoot the President?
LEE: No, sir, I didn’t shoot anybody.
FRITZ: We have your picture here with the murder weapons.
LEE: That’s my face but not my body. It is a superimposition, a faked photo. Just wait until I can talk to the FBI. They’ll set you straight.
FRITZ: We have talked to the FBI. They say this is a genuine photo and you are guilty.
LEE: Oh &#i#@!

Jim Marrs

Thank you Mr Marrs

I am not very up on these things, I'm English so often struggle to understand the US way of doing things, but perhaps you can help me.
I realise you do not know who ordered the stand down of the Secret Service escort, but who would have the authority to do that? I believe that it was Kennedy himself who requested the 'glass bubble' to be removed (correct me if I am wrong)...but who in their right mind would under those circumstances let the escort go too.

From the clip that ConspiracyNut23 posted, it is obvious that the men themselves were not happy with this situation which indicates to me that whoever it was had absolute authority to make those men stand down without argument. Would McGeorge Bundy as National Security Advisor have had that kind of authority or am I looking too far up the chain?

Originally posted by Jim Marrs
Interestingly enough, Rike said there had been four or so hoax calls to that same location in the two week preceding the assassination. He speculated that someone was timing the arrival of an ambulance and that the ambulance might have provided a diversion to distract anyone from seeing assassins move into position.

This is highly interesting, thank you for sharing it with us, sometimes its these little things that add dimension.

Originally posted by Jim Marrs
As a paid government intelligence agent, he assumed he would be given protection by his employers. He also felt no guilt because, based on the best hard evidence, he had not shot anyone. When arrested, he continually pled for legal assistance, even trying to contact an attorney who was known for defending government whistleblowers.

Wasn't the lawyer in question not really active on that scene anymore though, I was reading the transcript of everything that Oswald is said to have said from his arrest to his death on the Mae Brussell site (I've linked to it in my first post), and it seems to me, more along the lines that he is trying to send a message to someone. This may sound strange, but it is almost as though he was told to use that name and something would 'happen', he repeats it almost like a mantra, over and over...as though he is expecting some sort of response. Perhaps that response was Ruby???? Also, he constantly complains about not being given legal representation, but only requests this particular lawyer - who is not local and he has no prior contact with...I find something very odd about this, but I'm not sure why. Do you know whether he was offered a court appointed counsel at anytime?

Originally posted by Jim Marrs
Since there reportedly were no notes taken or recordings of Oswald’s statements while in custody we may never know

I am sure that I have seen a typed statement, I remember because I felt that it wouldn't stand up in court (not that that was in the end necessary) because the interviewing officer presumed guilt. I'll have a look and see if I can dig it up.

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
The Secial agent who orders the stand down is EMERY ROBERTS..i wrote a thread on it months ago titled "with friends like this.."

Originally posted by andy1972
The Secial agent who orders the stand down is EMERY ROBERTS..i wrote a thread on it months ago titled "with friends like this.."

I searched under Emory Roberts and came up with this article which is very interesting and supports that it was SA Roberts who ordered the stand down. It is also looks as though there is some willingness by all the SAs concerned to conceal the chain of events that led up to it and from it.

The article claims that Roberts was never called to testify or a formal statement and that several of the Special Agents on duty that day have contradicted various statements that they made.

It is clear from the clip that ConspiracyNut23 posted that the SAs are 'unhappy' with the request to stand down, their body language speaks volumes. I would therefore happily agree that Roberts conveyed the order to stand down, but I don't think that Roberts could possibly have got them to stand down without the order coming from a higher authority.

Added to this is the 'story' (?) that it was Kennedy who ordered the stand down as well as the removal of the glass bubble;

Cover-up number three: The April 22, 1964 reports from Agents Behn, Boring, Ready, Hill, and Emory Roberts, alleging, after-the-fact, that President Kennedy had ordered agents off the rear of the limousine on November 18, 1963 in Tampa, and in other cities.23 It has to be stated again, and with some new corroboration to boot: JFK never ordered the agents to do anything, let alone telling the men to get off the rear of the limousine (or to take off the bubbletop, reduce the number of motorcycles, etc.). Agents Behn and Boring totally refuted their own (alleged) reports in conversations with me, while agents Kinney, Youngblood, Bouck, Noris, Bolden, Lilly, Martineau, plus two recently-interviewed agents, Don Lawton and Art Godfrey, confirmed the fact that JFK never ordered the agents

While it is possible that the SAs invented the story to conceal their own error of judgement, it is also possible that they were told to use that cover-up. Kennedy obviously was in no position to refute it.

The article is worth reading, but I think question five remains unanswered, though perhaps we can rephrase it;

Who ordered Special Agent Roberts to get the Kennedy escort to stand down? It was in my opinion someone of enough influence to ensure that Roberts was never questioned or brought before any of the enquiries. Surely if he had on his own volition ordered the stand down he would have been thrown to the dogs, but seemingly not...

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23


This is the first time I saw that video. Thanks for posting it as it answers and then raises more questions. I want to see what the lone gunman theorists have to say about that one.