Historian Walt Brown summed it all up very well, describing how the cover-up would not have even been possible without the participation of Johnson and Hoover:
Johnson’s “actions were a virtual guarantee that the truth would be buried and” furthermore, “the assassination would not have been carried out if those behind it did not have the full acquiescence of the incoming President and the FBI Director. They controlled everything once the shots ended. They controlled everything but they did nothing.324
That says it all. Their response to what we would call seeking justice was the same as what a poker player says to a losing hand: Read ’em and weep.
Hoover’s FBI agents started badgering witnesses and controlling evidence shortly after the gun smoke lifted at Dealey Plaza. It’s not only downright disturbing and frightening what they did to witnesses, it’s totally outrageous. There are numerous substantiated cases of the FBI badgering witnesses to change their testimony and also of changing their testimony when it conflicted with the official government version.325 Witnesses were shocked to see some of the things that the FBI had changed in their official statements and vehemently denied ever saying them!326
That’s what actually happened. And it wasn’t just once or twice, because “numerous witnesses subsequently insisted that federal agents, or the Dallas police, or both, altered or even fabricated their statements.”327
Isn’t that great? They interview a witness, they don’t like something the witness said, so what do they do? They just change it to fit with the way they prefer. To me, that’s very serious; that’s obstruction of justice, plain and simple.
Would you like a good example? A man named Warren Reynolds was a very clear case of that.
Mr. Reynolds was a solid, upstanding citizen who just happened to get a good close look at the man who shot Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit, forty minutes after the President was shot.
He owned a car dealership and witnessed the shooting of Officer J. D. Tippit, and even gave chase to the man who escaped. However, he stated that the man was not Oswald, and he refused to be browbeaten into changing his testimony that it may have been a man looking like Oswald. Reynolds was shot in the head with a rifle on January 23, 1964, but, miraculously, he survived. Blatant intimidation continued and his ten-year-old daughter was almost kidnapped, but the abduction attempt failed; he received threats on his life and other intimidations, such as trespassers nosing around outside his home at night. Finally, Reynolds had become a nervous wreck and told the FBI he had changed his mind and would identify Oswald as the shooter. After reversing his testimony, his harassment suddenly halted—but surely, that’s just one more incredible coincidence.328
There are many other witnesses who experienced obvious intimidation.329 We call ourselves a Democracy; a Republic that stands for something; where truth and integrity are values to uphold. So what the hell was that? Let me answer that for you. It was obstruction of justice. But when it’s the Feds themselves doing the obstructing, then what happens? Then everybody just walks away and says hey, that’s the way it is—Hasta la vista, Baby!
Hoover also obviously knew about Oswald’s various roles with U.S. intelligence agencies. And that’s not a theory or some conjecture on my part—the guy’s on record as knowing about that.
Was there more than one Lee Harvey Oswald? Hoover obviously thought so. The following is the verbatim content of an FBI memorandum from Director J. Edgar Hoover, dated June 3, 1960; over three years prior to the assassination:
Date: June 3, 1960
To: Office of Security Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: LEE HARVEY OSWALD-INTERNAL SECURITY
Message Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald’s birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning the subject will be appreciated. 330
Author Dick Russell established a lot of that linkage between Oswald, Ruby and U.S. intelligence agencies in his book, On the Trail of the JFK Assassins. For example, here’s what Richard Schweiker, a United States Senator, exploded about when he dug around and found out how all the “alphabet” intelligence agencies had been scurrying around to cover up their obvious associations with Oswald and Ruby:
Then there was Jack Ruby. “Why did the FBI withhold for twelve years that he’d informed for them on nine occasions?” Schweiker asks. “This wasn’t national security information, so why were they so sensitive? Also I’m certain there were extenuating circumstances in his activities running guns to Cuba. We were really running a secret war against Cuba, and we know the CIA was heavily involved. Ruby had to have been at least working for someone who was working for the CIA.”331
So all these guys—the Warren Commission, the FBI, other government agencies, the authorities in Texas—they knew that Oswald had intelligence connections. They even knew his damn informant number at the FBI:
The Warren Commission knew, from Texas’ Attorney General Waggoner Carr and District Attorney Henry Wade, that Oswald apparently had FBI informant No. 179 and was making a couple hundred dollars a month in wages from the Bureau!332
Wade’s source said that Oswald had a CIA employment number as well.
When Oswald was living in Russia, a March 2, 1961, memo from the U.S. Passport Office to the State Department Security Office ‘requested that the recipients advise if the FBI is receiving info about Harvey on a continuing basis.’333
That’s big stuff. Oswald was an FBI informant. Ruby was an FBI informant and working with the CIA. You can see that there was a lot to cover up after the assassination.
A CI (Confidential Informant) for the FBI who was also a veteran U.S. military intelligence operative—who was a real-life real cloak-and-dagger double agent against the Soviets—actually informed the Bureau by registered mail about Oswald’s specific involvement in a plot to kill the President. It’s detailed specifically in the book, The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Russell. That gives you an idea of how much people trusted the FBI; he sent it to them registered mail so that he could have proof of it later! The guy was no dummy, that’s for sure.
Oswald was brought into the conspiracy in July of 1963, deceived into thinking he was working for Castro. Soviet intelligence ordered Nagell either to convince Oswald he was being set up to take the rap—or kill him in Mexico City before the assassination could transpire. While both U.S. and Soviet intelligence agencies were aware of the conspiracy, it was the KGB—not the CIA or FBI—that attempted to prevent it. The Soviets, who had reached a growing accommodation with Kennedy after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, were also afraid that the assassination would falsely be blamed upon them or the Cubans.334
How did the FBI respond to that? They said they’re still looking for that letter! But hey, no problem; I guess they get a lot of mail.
Hoover knew all about Oswald’s intelligence intrigues in Mexico City and we know that from the transcripts of Hoover’s phone calls to President Johnson:
As recounted in these pages, FBI Director Hoover believed an Oswald impostor had been at work in Mexico City. There is no other way to construe Hoover’s briefing of President Johnson, the day after the assassination, when Hoover said:
“We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance . . . it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy.”335
So Hoover is telling the President of the United States that Oswald was even being impersonated by other intelligence agents? That has obvious implications in the field of intelligence; that means somebody’s running an operation and Oswald is somehow involved.
But Hoover didn’t know anything about Oswald, right? These guys are unbelievable; and I mean that literally and figuratively!
Still think Hoover didn’t know anything? Well, in a way, that’s sort of right. Hoover apparently didn’t think there was, in r
eality, much evidence against Oswald; certainly not enough to convict him in a court of law. The following is a direct extract from a telephone conversation between Hoover and President Johnson, held on November 23, 1963 at 10:01 a.m., in which Hoover informs the new president about the alarming lack of substantive evidence against Oswald. That was the day after the assassination. Look at what he says about the case against Oswald:
HOOVER: The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. . . . The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction . . . this man Oswald has still denied everything. He doesn’t know anything about anything . . .336
U.S. Congressman Hale Boggs was the House Majority Leader and also a member of the Warren Commission. Take a good look at what he really thought:
A former aide to the late House Majority Leader has recently recalled, ‘Hale always returned to one thing:
Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission—on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.’337
And the beat goes on and on:
Speaking of the FBI, its deeply sinister strongman J. Edgar Hoover might have “lied his eyes out” to the Warren Commission, as panel member Hale Boggs, the Louisiana congressman, memorably told an aide, pressuring and maneuvering the commission to reach a lone-assassin verdict. But again, in private, Hoover told another story. The summer after the assassination, Hoover was relaxing at the Del Charro resort in California, which was owned by his friend, right-wing Texas oil tycoon Clint Murchison. Another Texas oil crony of Hoover’s, Billy Byars Sr.—the only man Hoover had called on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, besides Robert Kennedy and the head of the Secret Service—also was there. At one point, according to Anthony Summers, the invaluable prober of the dark side of American power, Byars’ teenage son, Billy Jr., got up his nerve to ask Hoover the question, “Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald did it?” According to Byars, Hoover “stopped and looked at me for quite a long time. Then he said, ‘If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our whole political system could be disrupted.’”338
So there you have it. They might as well have just said:
“We’d like to order one extra-large cover-up with everything. And can we have that to-go, please?”
324 Walt Brown, Ph.D., “Actions Speak Much Louder than Words—what, exactly, did Johnson and Hoover do?,” JFK Deep Politics Quarterly, Vol. 17, #4, July, 2012 (emphasis in original).
325 Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed JFK.
326 Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (Random House: 1988); Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed JFK.
327 Michael T. Griffith, “Where Was Oswald From 11:50 to 12:35 P.M. on the Day of the Assassination?,” 1998: michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/where.htm
328Belzer & Wayne, Hit List, 318.
329 Gary Richard Schoener, “A Legacy of Fear,” Fair Play Magazine, #34, May—June 2000: acorn.net/jfkplace/09/Kelin34/fear.html ; Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed JFK; Bill Sloan & Jean Hill, JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness (Pelican: 2008).
330 Ben A. Franklin, “1960 FBI Memo Warned Of Oswald Impostor,” February 23, 1975, The New York Times: jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Russia%20Imposter/Item%2015.pdf
331 Dick Russell, On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (Skyhorse Publishing: 2008), 44—45.
332 Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much, 20.
333 Jesse Ventura & Dick Russell, American Conspiracies (Skyhorse Publishing: 2011), 33.
334 Ibid, 212.
335 Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy?, 386.
336 “White House Transcripts of President Lyndon B. Johnson,” November 23, 1963, excerpt at: spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm
337 Bernard Fensterwald & Michael Ewing, Assassination of JFK: Coincidence or Conspiracy? (Kensington Pub Corp: 1977), excerpt at: spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKboggs.htm
338 David Talbot, “The mother of all cover-ups: Forty years after the Warren Report, the official verdict on the Kennedy assassination, we now know the country’s high and mighty were secretly among its biggest critics,” September 15, 2004: salon.com/2004/09/15/warren/
33
The X-rays Showed That the Bullet Particles Were From Exploding Ammunition
It was originally researcher Harold Weisberg who proved something very important: The actual X-rays showed the bullet particles fragmented extensively in the President’s head, which means the Mannlicher-Carcano couldn’t have fired the bullet, as a Mannlicher only shoots a full metal jacketed bullet. All military weapons by NATO and the Geneva Convention—like the Mannlicher—are not allowed to shoot fragmented bullets from them. So the bullet out of the weapon would have to be a full metal jacket bullet, which does not break into pieces. So with Kennedy’s actual X-rays showing particles of bullets, that tells you that the bullet was not from that gun!
The conclusion to reach from that is very simple: The bullet that hit President Kennedy in the head could not have come from the crime scene rifle that they said they linked to Oswald.
Other scientific studies substantiate the fragmentation. First of all, listen to the exact words of one of JFK’s morticians, Tom Robinson, when testifying to Congress about that fatal bullet:
[Robinson said] that ‘It exited in many pieces,’ and then explained, ‘They were literally picked out, little pieces of this bullet from all over his head.’ In further support, moreover, we can go back to the statements of autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins and recall that in the exact spot where he claimed the doctors discovered a gray discoloration of the skull, Dr. Davis saw metallic fragments, which he assumed were in the scalp. A gray discoloration of the skull of course suggests the presence of lead. Lead is of course a metal. Two plus two equals four.
When one realizes that the largest fragments of an exploding bullet travel the furthest, and that the two largest fragments discussed at the autopsy were on the opposite ends of Kennedy’s skull and equidistant from our proposed entrance, and adds this to the fact that, defying expectation, there were no small fragments surrounding the supposed in-shoot in the cowlick, then one should rightly conclude that the lateral x-ray demonstrates convincingly that a bullet broke up near the site of the supposed out-shoot, above the right ear.339
Fragmenting bullets that explode on impact—also known as “frangible” bullets or “hot loads”—are not consistent with the rifle alleged to be used in the assassination. “Oswald’s rifle”—as the authorities liked to call it—was not of the type that handled frangible ammo.
But numerous bullet fragments were found inside the President’s limo; some that were standard ammo, others that were apparently from frangible bullets.
Another factor—the measure of velocity of the shots—also shows that they are two different weapons.
Professor Jim Fetzer proved all of this in a scientific study of the weapons and the ammo. Here were his findings:
•The weapon that Oswald is alleged to have used could not have fired the bullets that killed JFK: the carbine was not a high-velocity weapon.
•Everyone, including [Gerald] Posner, agrees that the muzzle velocity of the Mannlicher-Carcano was 2,000 fps (feet per second). The death certificates, autopsy report, and Warren Commission declared he was killed by the impact of high-velocity bullets. High velocity would be 2,600 fps and up.
•The shot striking the right forehead was from a frangible or ‘exploding’ bullet, as evidenced by the extensive shockwaves of damage through the brain; Oswald’s bullets were standard copper-jacketed military ammunition which could not have inflicted frangible damage.340
So “Oswald’s rifle” could not have inflicted the specific type of damage present in the President’s wounds, and “Oswald’s bullets” could not have caused that specific type of damage or have left the type of bullet fragmentation that was found in that car.
<
br /> 339 Patrick J. Speer, A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination (PatSpeer.com: 2007): patspeer.com/chapter18%3Ax-rayspecs
340 Belzer & Wayne, Hit List, 109, citing James H. Fetzer Ph.D., Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn’t Know Then (Open Court: 2000); James H. Fetzer Ph.D., “JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t,” June 17, 2010, retrieved 10 May 2013: lewrockwell.com/spl2/jfk-rfk-plots.html
34
The Official Autopsy Photos and X-Rays Were Altered
This one comes as a shocker to most people, but keep this point in mind as you read about the photos and X-rays: the evidence proves it, and I’m going to show you how.
There are many contradictions in the publicly available autopsy images. Some of the photographs which were finally released to the public are inconsistent with the X-rays, and neither the photos nor the X-rays agree with what eyewitnesses [who were doctors and law enforcement professionals] described in Dallas or Bethesda. Some of the X-rays and photos have been identified as forgeries by experts.341
As I established in the very first entry of this book, literally dozens of highly credible eyewitnesses to President Kennedy’s wounds clearly document a massive wound at the right rear portion of his head that could only have been from the exit of a bullet.
Here are some of their comments and please excuse the fact that some of them are gory and graphic. Pretend you’re on a jury and you have to weigh the grisly evidence:
• SECRET SERVICE SPECIAL AGENT CLINT HILL: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
They Killed Our President Page 17
