Octafish to attend JFK assassination conference. Do you think JFK still matters?
Recently I asked Skinner if I could use GD for some cyberbegging in order to attend the upcoming “Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.” The three-day conference is next week at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh.
Skinner said it would be OK to ask. For his support, I will always be grateful. The reason why I asked: DU is a Truth Machine.
"The heart grows stronger by facing the evils of the world." -- Ludwig van Beethoven
President Kennedy on November 1, 1963, Washington, DC.
Since there are so many millions of interesting discussions, I wouldn’t blame you if you never saw me write that DU is a Truth Machine before. What I mean by that is DU connects people in a way that Corporate McPravda never can – directly with each other and to what they need to know like nothing else before or since. People from all over the world come to learn and to share what they know and believe -- particularly where it pertains to democracy.
Reading up on all the DUers who need help to survive and stay afloat, though, kept me from asking for help. Then, today, DUer Snooper2 wanted to know if I’d asked DU and wondered how much support I had gotten from my “fan base.”
As some of you know, I have little tolerance for those who make light of the assassination of President Kennedy. The reason is the assassination marked the moment 50 years ago the War Party took charge of the nation – where “Money trumps peace” and the "Have-Mores get More" mentality of the fascist greedheads hold so much power that they can lie America into wars for profit with impunity.
Now I don’t mind Snooper 2 and his questions. I do mind the tone that some have expressed toward my interest in the assassination of President Kennedy over the years. Many consider the matter something of no import. I completely disagree.
The conference will include presentations from many of the people I most respect on the tragedy, a historic turning point in our nation’s history. A short list of who’ll be there, with links referring to an occasion I referenced them on DU:
Mark Lane
Joan Mellen
James DiEugenio
Bill Kelly
Jefferson Morley
Russ Baker
David Talbot
Oliver Stone
Robert McClelland, MD
Cyril Wecht, MD, JD
There are others who will speak and discuss the assassination, its aftermath, the continuing media cover-up of the case, and what we as DUers and We the People can do to create a more democratic future.
While I can’t promise to interview anyone specifically at the conference, I do promise to report to DU what they say at the symposium. I also promise to report what I learn while there.
Now my questions:
Who agrees with me - Who thinks the assassination of President Kennedy still matters?
Who disagrees?
Why do you hold the position you do?
I really would like to know.
Thanks for reading. Please let me know your thoughts. And while I'm not going to ask for cash, I would like to get your support through kicks and rec's and all the rest that is DU. Thank you, my Friends!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Baker's "Family of Secrets" discussed these memos (which many first learned about on DU). Talbot, I read, is working on Allen Dulles' connections to the assassination:
Poppy Bush warned FBI -- AFTER -- JFK assassinated.
In the hour of the death of President John F. Kennedy, Texas oilman George Herbert Walker Bush named a suspect to the FBI in a "confidential" phone call. He then added he was heading for Dallas. Skeptics need not take my word for it, that's what Poppy told the FBI:
Here's a transcript of the text:
TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63
FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL
SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY
At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.
BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.
BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.
BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.
# # #
Gee. Why was Poppy Bush in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?
Could it be, he was on official business? I suspect he was on Secret Government business. After all, his eldest son bragged during his Texas Air National Guard and Harvard grad school days that his daddy was CIA.
Here's an FBI document from the same week of the assassination in which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." Some strange coincidence there, wot?
Here's a transcript of the above:
Date: November 29, 1963
To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.
Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.
An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.
The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.
# # #
Now I don't know if Poppy was only there to watch what happened or just happened to be there. I do know Poppy Bush has never explained these memos. He's never even admitted where he was the day JFK was killed.
Seeing how he would go on to become President, as would his dim son, I believe it's vitally important that we learn the Truth.
Why? The United States and the world haven't been the same since November 22, 1963. And not a single major player in the nation's mass media have stepped up and demanded a real investigation. So, it's up to us, We the People.
More than anything, what I want from the Obama Department of Justice is to see those responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought to Justice.
Going by the newspapers, radio and television stations though, you’d think no one else gave a damn, let alone remembers the assassination of the 35th President of the United States.
There was nothing about the assassination in Dallas in my local newspaper. I checked the TV and listened to the radio. Nothing.
Thank heavens for DU and Google News, which returned 7,111 articles today under “JFK.”
Here’s the thing: President Kennedy who worked every day in office to keep the world at peace. He worked to make this a better nation for all Americans. He saw a better future and did all he could to bring it to reality. And he stood up to those he knew opposed him when he thought he was right.
Contrast the history since President Kennedy’s passing: It’s been a pretty much steady drumbeat for war from Vietnam to Iraq.
To those who tell me to, “Move on, it was just the brutal work of a lone nut,” I say, “That is exactly what J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles wanted us to believe.”
To those who say, “We’ll never know,” I say, “It is no pipe dream. There are veterans of World War I still among us. Therefore, we must try to find them. There is no statute of limitations on murder or treason.”
To those who want to shut down discussion on the subject – and to forget the memory of a great President – I say: “Go to Hell.”
Still got a fragment of it on DU2 Journal:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/529
Thanks for grokking the situation, Scuba. Blaming the no-good, commie misfit for Dallas laid a trail to Havana and Moscow that also bought time for those responsible to go free and transform the greatest democracy on earth into a divided nation led by warmonger banksters for their benefit and largely populated with a nouveau-penured middle class. It's no wonder they don't want anyone to remember JFK or his times.
supply. Any attempts and efforts toward truth is worth it indeed.
Here's a fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission: Two of its members were directly responsible for enabling the rise of post-war fascism in the United States. Allen Dulles, as a top official of the OSS and CIA, incorporated NAZI war criminals into the CIA from its founding and contrary to the expressed orders of President Truman. John McCloy, as High Commissioner for Germany, allowed Klaus Barbie and who-knows-who-else to escape justice and find their ways to the Americas. Of course, both men were also barons of Wall Street and Beltway Insiders, at the heart of the military industrial complex. Look around and We the People all can see what that means for the United States today.
WHAT JANE ROMAN SAID
A Retired CIA Officer Speaks Candidly About Lee Harvey Oswald
By Jefferson Morley
EXCERPT...
Dick Helms’ Man in Miami
Still more vindication came in November 1998. Without fanfare, the CIA declassified the personnel file of a previously unknown operations officer on the Special Affairs Staff named George Joannides. Jane Roman had said that in late 1963 certain people in the CIA’s anti-Castro operation were showing “a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.” Skeptics of my story could rightly ask, “Like who?”
The new records suggested George Joannides was one such SAS operative. The reason for his interest? The bulk of the available evidence indicates that Joannides in late 1963 was running a psychological warfare operation designed to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the Castro government without disclosing the CIA’s hand.
George E. Joannides (pronounced “Joe-uh-NEE-deez”) is a new and important character in the Kennedy assassination story. The son of a well-known Greek-American newspaper columnist in New York City, he went to law school and joined the CIA in 1951. Joannides, fluent in Greek and French, was sent to the Athens station. By 1963, he was 40 years old, a rising protégé of Tom Karamessines. He was highly regarded for his skills in political action, propaganda and psychological warfare operations. A dapper, witty man, Joannides presented himself publicly as a Defense Department lawyer. In fact, in 1963 he was Dick Helms’ man in Miami.
His personnel file showed that he served in 1963 as the chief of the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA’s station in Miami. He had a staff of 24 and a budget of $1.5 million. He also was in charge of handling the anti-Castro student group that Oswald had tried to infiltrate in August 1963. They called themselves the Cuban Student Directorate and it was Joannides’s job to guide and monitor them. Under a CIA program code named AMSPELL, he was giving $25,000 a month to Luis Fernandez Rocha and Juan Salvat, the Directorate’s leaders in Miami. That funding supported the Directorate’s chapters in New Orleans and other cities.
Fernandez Rocha and Salvat, who still live in Miami, confirm the story. Fenandez Rocha is a doctor. Salvat owns a publishing house. Both recall a close but stormy relationship with George Joannides whom they knew only as “Howard.” The records of the Directorate, now in the University of Miami archives, support their memories. The group’s archives show that “Howard” worked closely with the Directorate on a wide variety of issues. He bought them an air conditioner and reviewed their military plans. He was aware of their efforts to buy guns. He briefed them on how to answer questions from the press and paid for their travels. Joannides was certainly responsible for knowing if a Castro supporter was trying to infiltrate their ranks.
Then came November 22, 1963. On a political trip to Dallas, Kennedy died in a hail of gunfire. Ninety minutes later, a suspect, Lee Oswald, was arrested. Not long after that Joannides received a call from the Cuban students saying they knew all about the accused assassin. He told them not to go public until he could check with Washington. They went public anyway. As the American nation reeled from the shock of Kennedy’s violent death, Salvat and Fernandez Rocha and other Cuban students embarked on a wide-ranging and effective media blitz to link Fidel Castro to Kennedy’s death.
CONTINUED...
http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_6.htm
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertkenn135396.html
Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total; of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.
Robert Kennedy
Keep up the good fight, Octafish.
What Can We Do About JFK's Murder?
It's time to demand accountability from the officials who failed to protect the president -- and then spent decades covering up their mistakes.
by Jefferson Morley
The Atlantic, Nov. 21, 2012
As November 22 comes around again, the memory of John F. Kennedy's assassination seems to be fading in America's collective consciousness, save among aging Baby Boomers like myself. Few people younger than me (I'm 54) have any memory of the day it actually happened. 9/11 has replaced 11/22 as the date stamp of catastrophic angst.
Yet that doesn't mean people have stopped looking for answers. The buzz surrounding the release of Jackie Kennedy's private conversations and Tom Hanks' upcoming Dallas movie shows that the public is still seeking new theories and clues. Two years ago on this site, I tried to answer the question "What Do We Really Know About JFK?" With the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination approaching next year, the time for conspiracy theories has passed and the time for accountability is coming. Now is the time to ask, "What can we do about JFK's assassination?"
For one thing, we can use the Internet. The World Wide Web has birthed many conspiracy theories (most of them easily debunked), but it has also made the historical record of JFK's murder available to millions of people outside of Washington and the federal government for the first time. I have to believe this diffusion of historical knowledge will slowly clarify the JFK story for everybody.
CONTINUED w links...
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/what-can-we-do-about-jfks-murder/265520/
PS: Thanks for grokking, my Friend. I appreciate the heads-up, too. While they've gotten more sophisticated, they still follow the dictum when identifying an opponent: "No man; no problem."
Totalitarianism Is Ignorance
STRANGER. (...) the law does not perfectly comprehend what is noblest and most just for all and therefore cannot enforce what is best. The differences of men and actions, and the endless irregular movements of human things, do not admit of -any universal and simple rule. And no art whatsoever can lay down a rule which will last for all time.
YSOC. Of course not.
STRANGER. But the law is always striving to make one; - like an obstinate and ignorant tyrant, who will not allow anything to be done contrary to his appointment, or any question to be asked - not even in sudden changes of circumstances, when something happens to be better than what he commanded for some one.
YSOC Certainly; the law treats us all precisely in the manner which you describe.
STRANGER. A perfectly simple principle can never be applied to a state of things which is the reverse of simple.
YSOC. True.
(...)
STRANGER. And when an individual ruler governs neither by law nor by custom, but following in the steps of the true man of science pretends that he can only act for the best by violating the laws, while in reality appetite and ignorance are the motives of the imitation, may not such an one be called a tyrant?
YSOC. Certainly.
SOURCE:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/herman/herman2.html
BTW: I believe YSOC refers to Young Socrates.
Videotape shot at Love Field on November 22, 1963 clearly shows Secret Service Agent Donald Lawton holding up his arms thrice in the classic "What the heck?" gesture. The video also shows SS agent Emory P. Roberts standing up in the follow-up car to order Lawton* off the presidential limousine's back bumper, leaving the president unprotected from behind. President Kennedy was murdered a few minutes later.
Video: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/171830/secret_service_jfk /
From Vince Palamara:
An important discovery was made by this correspondent during review of video of the Dallas trip shot by the ABC television affiliate in that city. During the start of the fatal motorcade at Love Field, Secret Service agent Don Lawton begins to jog alongside the presidential limousine. He is immediately called back by his shift leader and commander of the follow-up car detail, Emory P. Roberts.
Lawton's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language: He throws up his arms several times before, during and after the follow-up car passes him. He was not being allowed to do his job -- and it was not JFK who was ordering the stand-down.
Despite the discovery by this correspondent of three reports to the contrary (two by Roberts) written on November 22, 1963, this newly discovered photographic evidence confirms that frustrated and vocal-in-his-objections Rybka did not enter the follow-up car and was left behind at the airport.
Afterward, in William Manchester's book, Death of a President, we see the "official story" of what happened:
"Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa on November 18 (1963), just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark." (1988 Harper & Row/Perennial Library edition, pp. 37-38)
For the record: PRESIDENT KENNEDY NEVER SAID THAT.
SOURCE:
Agents Go On Record Yet, someone in a position of authority was interested in creating that impression.
* Previously, the man in the photo was incorrectly identified as Secret Service agent Henry J. Rybka. According to records, he also was ordered to stay off the car and remain at Love Field. Much "chatter" arose over the misidentification. Of course, were it not for someone preserving the videotape, few would ever know anything about this important evidence for conspiracy.
Oswald 'had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets'
By Tim Shipman in Washington
The Telegraph, 01 Jul 2007
Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone in assassinating President John F Kennedy, according to a new study by Italian weapons experts of the type of rifle Oswald used in the shootings.
In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.
The findings will fuel continuing theories that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy to murder the 35th American president on 22 November 1963.
The official Warren Commission inquiry into the shooting concluded the following year that Oswald was a lone gunman who fired three shots with a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds.
But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds - suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day.
CONTINUED...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556184/Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html
Here's a picture that does include the bullet thay is reputed to have caused seven wounds in two men, including breaking bones - on the left. The others have been deformed merely by cotton wadding, water, and a sheep rib.
More on the rifle and ballistic evidence:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/
-- a withering invalidation of any point the "old" might make. 
Tell me, being so proudly "not that old", how would you know that this "golden age"
did NOT exist? You invoke a nice cliché, but you need to know that clichés,
while easy, are not always true.
Sorry, but as others (including many economists) will tell you) it did exist -- I'm sixty three
years old and honestly wouldn't trade my coming of age in that time were it would to
make me a present day twenty or thirty something.
*It is interesting that you refer to the era as a "Golden Age", as that's how many
economists now refer to it: America's Golden Age -- When everyone did well.
It's not that complicated.
Why do you think the US is a foreign country to you now? Do you not know how to twerk? Where 14 year olds making out in the woods in 1961? You didn't have a role model like the greatness that is Anastacia?
I'm sorry I guess
The rest of your post is unintelligible in terms of intent, so forgive me if I decline to take orders.
You seem to be agreeing with me, but in a hostile manner designed to obscure the fact, for whatever reason.
Get back to me when you're ready to actually communicate. 
The expression on Moonwatcher, a 4 million year old Australopithecus who starred in 2001, just about says it all for me.
When President Kennedy set the nation on a course to go to the moon, he made clear to history that the free world would be first to accomplish what had for millenia, if not eons, been considered the impossible. For that's what the moon shot was, accomplishing what had been thought fantasy -- lunacy -- for as long as human beings had the imagination to wonder.
The idea that we could go to the moon also meant that we could do anything we wanted to on earth. Provided we approach the problems with a can-do attitude, financial resources and national commitment, we could tackle and beat homelessness, joblessness, poverty, ignorance, preventable disease and most anything else. Most important, we could also tackle the ages old question of war and peace.
And peace in our time is the most important thing to remember President Kennedy for. When Congress, his Cabinet and the Pentagon were screaming for war with the Soviets over the missiles in Cuba, Kennedy kept the peace.
Otherwise, had the U.S. attacked the missile bases, things would have immediately escalated to nuclear conflagration with the Soviet Union left a pile of glowing rubble and the United States from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York and down to Miami likewise.
Does anyone really think Junior Bush or Poppy Bush, Ronnie Reagan or Tricky Nixon were president in 1962, they would have held back? Gen President Eisenhower himself said that if there were only two Americans left and one Soviet, "We won!"
No, it is bigger than the Apollo Program. The greatest thing President Kennedy did was to keep the the peace during his time as President. How many since can make the same claim? In fact, it seems like the United States has not accomplished much in the last 50 years, since the space program. And wars for profit continue all around us, while the rich keep getting richer.
Thank you for grokking, stranger81.
WHY would they do this? Why not put one single shooter in a good spot and simply have him assassinate the president?
This issue is to the JFK assassination what "controlled demolition" is to 9/11. It's highly technical, unnecessary for a working theory, and distracts from other evidence (to continue the analogy, like the mysterious put options that came from "institutional investors above suspicion."
I can see no motivation for the perps to have set up a second shooter. Why, to keep him quiet? Jack Ruby took care of that anyway.
For some reason, President Kennedy's motorcade turned from Main Street on to Elm Street, a turn of around 120-degrees that made the President's car slow down and giving his assassins an ideal position for ambush. It also changed the course of the motorcade to pass directly in front of Lee Harvey Oswald's last place of employment, the Texas School Book Depository.
This has a major parallel in history that seldom, if ever, gets mentioned: the assassination by ambush in 1942 of the Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich, the Butcher of Prague and a principal architect of The Holocaust.
A 120-degree turn in the road slowed down Heydrich's car, giving his assassins an ideal position for ambush.
Similar circumstances benefited the assassins of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in 1914:
Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, 1914
EXCERPT...
The cars sped to the Town Hall and the rest of the conspirators did not interfere with them. After the reception in the Town Hall General Potiorek, the Austrian Commander, pleaded with Francis Ferdinand to leave the city, as it was seething with rebellion. The Archduke was persuaded to drive the shortest way out of the city and to go quickly.
The road to the maneuvers was shaped like the letter V, making a sharp turn at the bridge over the River Nilgacka [Miljacka]. Francis Ferdinand's car could go fast enough until it reached this spot but here it was forced to slow down for the turn. Here Princip had taken his stand.
As the car came abreast he stepped forward from the curb, drew his automatic pistol from his coat and fired two shots. The first struck the wife of the Archduke, the Archduchess Sofia, in the abdomen. She was an expectant mother. She died instantly.
The second bullet struck the Archduke close to the heart.
He uttered only one word, 'Sofia' -- a call to his stricken wife. Then his head fell back and he collapsed. He died almost instantly.
CONTINUED...
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duke.htm
Oliver Stone raised this aspect in his film, "JFK" when Jim Garrison, portrayed by Kevin Kostner, says, "This was a military-style ambush from start to finish... a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings."
It takes a platoon leader to see these things. A hairpin turn is an ideal spot for an ambush. The tactic works for removing a royal, a tyrant or a president.
Another parallel: The victims in the three cases rode in open cars in hostile country.
Almost forgot to mention: Thanks to DU, this remarkable parallels between the assassination of President Kennedy and those of Archduke Ferdinand and the NAZI Heydrich have almost been lost to history. I learned about this in researching a reply to a post on DU a year or so ago.
PS: Thank you for the heads-up on the "missed" shot, CliffordDU. Thanks also for grokking what's still at stake, even though almost 50 years ahve passed.
The good gnostic at DailyKos asks a great question that gets to the heart of the problem that faces We the People:
What did Gerald Ford mean when he told J Edgar Hoover that the Warren Commission members who disagreed with the lone gunman conclusion were "no problem"?
Gerald Ford: Warren Commission skeptics "no problem"
by a gnostic
Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM PDT
The Washington Post reports that, per newly declassified documents, Gerald Ford was secretly forwarding information to the FBI about the Warren Commission inquiry into John F. Kennedy's assassination and that Ford, then a congressman, told the FBI that skeptical members of the Warren Commission posed "no problem" to ____ (fill in the blank), that three members "failed to understand" the bullet trajectory, and that two members were skeptical that the shots came from the Texas Book Repository.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/08/08/564843/-Gerald-Ford-Warren-Commission-skeptics-no-problem
a gnostic's diary :: ::
Ford Told FBI of Skeptics on Warren Commission
A December 1963 memo recounts that Ford, then a Republican congressman from Michigan, told FBI Assistant Director Cartha D. "Deke" DeLoach that two members of the seven-person commission remained unconvinced that Kennedy had been shot from the sixth-floor window of the Texas Book Depository. In addition, three commission members "failed to understand" the trajectory of the slugs, Ford said.
Ford told DeLoach that commission discussions would continue and reassured him that those minority points of view on the commission "of course would represent no problem," one internal FBI memo shows. The memo does not name the members involved and does not elaborate on what Ford meant by "no problem."
Here's the original story from the AP:
Ford told FBI about panel’s doubts on JFK murder
Former President Ford confided to FBI about panel's doubts over JFK assassination
MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
AP News
Aug 09, 2008 09:19 EST
Former President Ford secretly advised the FBI that two of his fellow members on the Warren Commission doubted the FBI's conclusion that John F. Kennedy was shot from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, according to newly released records from Ford's FBI files.
SNIP...
A newly released memorandum provides more details about Ford's role as the FBI's informant. DeLoach wrote on Dec. 17, 1963, to outline what Ford told him in the congressman's office about the commission meeting the day before.
"Two members of the commission brought up the fact that they still were not convinced that the President had been shot from the sixth floor window of the Texas Book Depository," DeLoach wrote. "These members failed to understand the trajectory of the slugs that killed the President. He stated he felt this point would be discussed further but, of course, would represent no problem."
There was no explanation of what Ford meant by "no problem."
Warren Commission records released in 1997 revealed that in the final report Ford changed the staff's original description of one of Kennedy's wounds. Ford said then he only made the description more precise. Skeptics said Ford's wording falsely made the wound seem higher on the body to make the panel's conclusion that one bullet hit both Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally more plausible.
CONTINUED...
Source: AP News
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=288461
This is thanks to DUer Debra Conway and her colleagues at JFK Lancer:
Gerald Ford's Terrible Fiction
Moving the Back Wound and the Single Bullet Theory
Read Gerald Ford's correction to the Warren Commission Report Draft:
page 1 page 2
The initial draft of the report stated:
"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."
Ford wanted it to read:
"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."
Autopsy Face Sheet
Drawing showing area of back wound
JFK assassination eye-witnesses, including the observations of at least one Secret Service man in Dealey Plaza and several FBI agents present at the Bethesda autopsy, placed the president's back wound exactly where the mute testimony of the president's jacket and shirt showed where the wound was: six inches below the collar line.
CONTINUED w DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE, LINKS...
http://jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
Look where the bullet hole in the president's jacket is:
No wonder Ford had to lie to sell the magic bullet theory.
in insidious ways. 
... not to dismiss others with VERY good info - but you 'get it' and are able to make the info meaningful and accessible.
Jim Garrison on Fascism
Jim Garrison, Playboy Interview
Playboy, October, 1967
EXCERPT...
"What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in (the assassination of President Kennedy), is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one of the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.
In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same.
I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
CONTINUED...
http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison4.html
When JFK was president, he thought anything was possible: Going to the moon. Living in harmony and equality. Peace.
The two big conferences in Dallas may shed the national spotlight on what the assassination has meant for democracy in the United States: The rich get richer off permawar for profit. That doesn't mean Corporate McPravda, mouthpieces of the national security state, will say anything about it -- just that people who grok will spread the word.
Mass Media ignoring 'RFK Believed in Conspiracy' shows corrupt nature of America's Press
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his sister Rory Kennedy told Charlie Rose that their father, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, believed there was a conspiracy behind the death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. For the first time in almost 50 years, members of the slain president's family were on the record about their father's thoughts about the assassination.
The story made news, as it were, for a day or two -- it was on page 8 here in Detroit (try finding it using The Free Press or Detroit News web site search engines) -- and apart from several threads on DU, that's about it as coverage goes. The Charlie Rose interview was part of a program put together by the media and good people in Dallas to celebrate JFK's life.
What bothers me about the media coverage is the constant attack, not on the government's lousy investigation of the assassination and its attendant cover-up, but, rather, the attack on anyone who brings up the subject of conspiracy in the death of the president, even when it's children of attorney general who also was the brother of the slain president.
Check out this condescending piece of opinion from the Dallas Observer:
Not Even Charlie Rose Could Rein in RFK Jr. in Dallas Last Night. Also: Conspiracy Theories!
By Betsy Lewis Sat., Jan. 12 2013 at 11:01 AM
It got weird when he went into a historical lecture about his father's investigation into the JFK assassination. He was speaking about it as if he had been part of it, then cited a book called The Unspeakable by Jim Douglas (sic - actually "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass) as being the best book on the subject, then kept referencing things from the book. He was losing the audience, so he burst out, "My father believed that the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship," to the delighted applause of the mostly Baby Boomer audience.
Whenever Charlie Rose would ask about the family, RFK Jr. would evade the question until he heard either delighted Boomer applause or delighted Boomer laughter. One of his responses to a family question was an unrelated story about World War II. A lady behind me who must have recently Netflixed The Iron Lady kept saying, "Here here!" for the benefit of us unfortunate people around her.
Some of the strangest RFK Jr. outbursts with the biggest applause were:
"We're becoming a national security state!" (applause, "Here here!"
"Corporations want profits!" (applause, "Here here!"
"Corporations are great things, but we'd be nuts to let them run our government!" (applause, "Here here!"
"Nationalism in Africa! The end of colonialism!"
At this point, I don't think anyone knew what the hell he was talking about. It was something about the Kennedy family airlifting President Obama's father out of Kenya to begin a new life in America.
RFK Jr.: "Yes."
CONTINUED...
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/mixmaster/2013/01/charlie_rose_live_the_kennedy.php
Me, I don't believe any of that stuff was "out there." Why writer Betsy Lewis chooses to believe what the media tell her is true I'll guess lies in allegiance to a pay check.
Likewise for the lack of coverage given the story in the national media, where the same few corporations that swore up and down there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, both in 1990 and 2002, now want no part of "conspiracy talk" during the 50th anniversary observance. So far, as far as I'm aware, the Charlie Rose program has not aired.
What's more telling is what didn't get noted in the nation's corrupt mass media at all: The fact that Attorney General and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy also was assassinated. Some think that was a coincidence, because the mass media told them so. One thing's for certain, the questions still surrounding the deaths of two liberal icons doesn't get discussed at all today in our supposedly "free press."
Original Thread from Feb. 22, 2013: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022416498
The situation is established for all that happens in Acts II and III.
A more recent example of a Liberal Democrat who opposed genocide in the name of capitalism. David Bonior of Michigan, once the Party's Whip, was redistricted out of his seat. Other liberal, progressive and humanitarian Democrats who opposed Reagan-Bush war in Central Ameria were targeted by the Right in the press and at the ballot box.
CIA Out of Control
Russ Baker
Village Voice, Sept. 10, 1991
EXCERPT...
Dellums press secretary Max Miller says the representative from
Berkeley, together with majority whip David Bonior--another
outspoken liberal--made an agreement with Speaker Thomas Foley to
maintain a low profile in return for gaining seats on the committee.
After one full round of legislation and briefings, Miller says,
Dellums will be heard from. "They wanted to find out as much as
they could before speaking out." Meanwhile, the energetic Oliver
North, in his role as president of something called the Freedom
Alliance, has launched a campaign to collect a million Dump Dellums
signatures. He calls Dellums "a pro-Marxist, antidefense radical,"
who would be a threat on the "supersensitive" committee. Putting
Dellums on the panel, North says, was an "extremely reckless and
very dangerous appointment."
And those who make trouble get trouble. Reports and rumors that
the apparatus pokes into the personal lives of members of Congress
underlines the danger of investigating national security agencies.
"There's a little bit of fear that if you do go after the
intelligence community, your career is threatened," says McGehee,
author of "Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA." Even the
complacent Senate intelligence committee chair David Boren has
reason to worry. According to the "Voice"'s Doug Ireland (see Press
Clips, May 28), Boren faced a vicious primary battle in his first
senatorial campaign, during which his opponents accused him of being
a homosexual. At a press conference, Boren swore on a white Bible
that he was not. "It would therefore be utterly churlish," Ireland
wrote, "to speculate on whether or not the Company has a file on the
state of its tamed watchdog's libido." Since then, Boren has called
Robert Gates "one of the most candid people we've ever dealt with."
Leading congressional critics of the CIA have been defeated,
despite their long, distinguished careers in Washington and
Congress's nearly foolproof 98 per cent reelection rate. Both Otis
Pike and Frank Church were defeated soon after chairing their
precedent-setting '70s hearings. Pike's report had been so
incendiary that Congress voted not to release it before the White
House had a chance to censor the document. (It was ultimately
leaked to and published by the "Voice."
Pike's committee staff
director had been warned by the CIA special counsel, "Pike will pay
for this, you wait and see--we'll destroy him for this," according
to "The New York Times." Also defeated were outspoken senators Dick
Clark, Birch Bayh, and Harold Hughes. Foreign money--possibly South
African--is believed to have financed the defeat of Clark, a vocal
critic of the CIA and U.S. ties with South Africa.
Challenging the CIA also means trying to rein in dictatorial
tendencies that naturally accrue to the occupant of the Oval Office.
"Every president of the United States, no matter what he says before
he becomes president, about how he's going to clean things up," says
Marchetti, "once he gets in there and finds out that's *his* agency,
that's *his* intelligence community, hey, all bets are off."
One man who told the truth blew his chance to become CIA
director, thanks to "reformer" Jimmy Carter. Hank Knoche, acting
director following Bush's retirement, had been called down to a
Senate committee. "The chairman was complaining that `we just don't
know what's really going on,'" says Marchetti, who was privy to the
details of the incident. "They asked [Knoche] about covert action
operations: `Do we know all the stuff that's going on? Could you
tell us more about them?'" Asked to reveal the 10 largest ongoing
operations, Knoche offered to name a few of the lesser ones, despite
urgings from his aide that he keep his mouth shut. President Carter
reportedly heard about it, and was none too happy. Instead of
Knoche, the odds-on favorite for the slot, he named intelligence
novice and old Naval Academy chum Admiral Stansfield Turner. "Hank
learned his lesson that day," says Marchetti.
CONTINUED...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.conspiracy/G8CP9pwqjvU
What a coincidence, who gets "targeted."
PS: Thank you for your kind words, catnhatnh! Thanks also for grokking what it's all about.
PPS: Once enough people "get" what they can do about it, We the People can make the kind of Act III that President Kennedy worked for every day he was in office: Peace. Justice. Equality. Prosperity. Democracy. For ALL.
So glad you are able to attend! JFK, Bobby, MLK and even George Wallace of that time and what happened are our History that has never been rectified for TRUTH. The dark deeds of that time lead in some respects to what we are dealing with these days.
Goodspeed to ya!
Pointing out that the HSCA report is not the trump card people think it is is a service I provide. Just like I pointed out to a Facebook acquaintance that the obvious forgery of a Columbia ID card for Barack Obama is obvious. But still people post that forgery like it meant anything. But all you can do is all you can do.
I don't worry about what people think. Thanks for your concern on the subject. Oh, not concern. Whatever.
Conspiracy thinking is a very common corruption of rational thought. The JFK assassination is a very potent transmitter of the stinking thinking. And no doubt you and others will keep spreading it in some misguided attempt to inform us all. And truth be told, it is a sign you sincerely believe this. So I don't fault you for the effort. But this I guarantee: your fellow liberals and progressives like me will be here to counter you and stand against this mind rot. Us ignoring the issue is also not going to happen.
And there is nothing you can do or say to change this.
Maybe we just don't need to discuss it with you.
I know you will be doing a good job with follow-up to us and anything you may learn. I am looking forward to that. Did I tell you I went to Dallas for the first time last year? I went to the place and was enraged all over again. 
...
Senator Joe Biden used the quotation in the 2008 vice-presidential debate against Sarah Palin when he was accused of focusing too much on the past.[2] The phrase is also commonly used by the military when discussing the similarities between war throughout history.[3][4]
Historical meaning
Although the phrase is now commonly used to mean what's stated above, as the phrase was originally used in The Tempest, Act 2, Scene I, it means that all that has happened before that time, the "past," has led Antonio and Sebastian to this opportunity to do what they are about to do, commit murder. In the context of the preceding and next lines, "
And by that destiny) to perform an act, Whereof what's past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge" Antonio is in essence rationalizing to Sebastian, and the audience, that he and Sebastian are fated to act by all that has led up to that moment, the past has set the stage for their next act, as a prologue does in a play. Therefore, this phrase might be better used in situations where people are attempting to rationalize wicked acts based on the past. It can also be taken to mean that everything up until now has merely set the stage for Antonio and Sebastian to make their own destinies; in this context it does not indicate that their future acts are fated, but rather that everything up to that point was merely like a prologue, not the important story.
...
"What is past is prologue", inscribed on Future (1935, Robert Aitken) located on the northeast corner of the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.
and yes, it would make a very interesting conspiracy theory. 
I'll look forward to reading your reports!
I look forward to your reportage on the conference.
I took a political science class a few years ago - I was the only person in the entire class who knew what the significance of 11/22/63 was.
Whether people like it or not, JFK's assassination & the many questions about it are a part of our history. When I see emotionally charged people giving you a hard time, I have to wonder where that emotion is coming from.
I'm looking forward to reading about your experience at the conference, Octafish.
from Colbert! (last night's show rebroadcast)
Zapruder was an immigrant from Ukraine.
Ukraine was part of the USSR at the time. Oswald spent time in the USSR.
Zapruder had the best camera equipment available to amateurs at the time.
And he just happened to have it running at that precise moment. While the three TV networks did not. 
I really don't know what to make of this.
This weekend, The New York Times revealed how the Koch Brothers and [font color=red]Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese[/font] engineered this here shutdown we’re dealing with right now, and how they’d been planning it ever since Obama was reelected. I wasn’t especially shocked by it, myself. Hell, half of the Tea Party people in the House actually campaigned on it. Which is why I have been annoyed as hell with the whole “Oh, well, it’s really both parties at fault here!” line of reasoning that some people have been trying to take...
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/207311/the-5-creepiest-things-about-how-the-koch-brothers-engineered-the-shutdown/
This current mess is just one reason it Still Matters .. because the powers that were directly implicated in or at the least 'benefited' from the removal of JFK were fascists like the Koch Bros.
Also in the case of Ed Meese we have somebody directly involved in the JFK coverup who is Still wreaking havoc with our Country...
Today, there can be no "buts" about it. Shaw was not just "linked" to the CIA, he worked for them. We have this not just from the declassified files, but from FBI agent Regis Kennedy, who said, in referring to Shaw's association with Permindex, that Shaw was a CIA agent who had worked for the Agency in Italy. (Let Justice Be Done, by William Davy, p. 100)
To further downplay the importance of what Garrison uncovered, Talbot quotes former RFK aide, Ed Guthman. Guthman was working as an editor for the Los Angeles Times in early 1967. He tells Talbot that he sent his ace reporters to New Orleans and they discovered that Garrison had no evidence for his charges. Guthman calls them "great reporters". If Talbot would have dug a little deeper he would have found out a couple of interesting things these "great reporters" had done.
One of the "great" reporters was Jack Nelson. Nelson's source for Garrison not having any evidence was former FBI agent and Hoover informer Aaron Kohn. Kohn was, among other things, an unofficial assistant to Shaw's defense team. Another of Guthman's "great" reporters was Jerry Cohen. Cohen cooperated with FBI informant Larry Schiller in keeping Garrison from extraditing Loran Hall. This cooperation extended up to flying with Hall to Sacramento to speak to [font color=red]Edwin Meese[/font]. Further, Cohen kept up a correspondence with Shaw's lawyers and even Shaw himself. This is great reporting? ...
http://www.ctka.net/brothers.html
Of course Edwin Meese, with the blessing of his boss (Gov Ronald Reagan), would go on to deny Garrison's extradition request. This is just one small example of how Jim Garrison's case was undermined but it demonstrates how far back deep-state players like Ed Meese go.
Keep up the great work Octafish.
You're doing the memories of Gaeton Fonzi and Roger Feinman proud. 
Another excellent piece that draws a straight line from the forces that removed JFK to the fascist thugs hijacking the US government still...
Who exactly was this man, Robert Welch, who in 1958 founded a group in honor of John Birch? Besides being the man who gave us Sugar Daddies, Sugar Babies, Milk Duds and Junior Mints, he also gave us the father of the Koch Brothers, chief funders of the Tea Party movement today. Jane Mayer wrote in her 2010 article in The New Yorker, "Covert Operations: The Billionaire Koch Brothers' War Against Obama":
A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”
Did the Tea Party Spring from John Birch's Ashes? ...
Labels: Allen Dulles, Fort Worth Set, John Birch Society, opium, Paul Helliwell, propaganda, Tea Party
http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2013/10/sugar-daddy-of-john-birch-society.html
This is a once in a lifetime experience. I can't wait until you can get back and report to us about what you learned.
Have a pleasant and safe voyage.
k&r
Author, Lisa Pease on her facebook page confirmed yesterday that "the conference will be available soon, and "at cost," i.e., as cheaply as possible, to help get the word out."