Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gerald Ford's Admission Of Truth


Recommended Posts

Six months after Warren’s cover-up team completed its task, Gerald Ford made it very clear that President Johnson had no aversion to engaging in a “cover up of wrongdoing.” (New York Times, 3-26-65, page 21)

In a speech to the National Press Club on March 25, 1965, “Representative Gerald R. Ford said today that Republicans should be given control of two Congressional investigating committees to guard against ‘any cover up of wrongdoing’ by the Democratic Administration.”

Ford stated, “The committees on government operations of the House and Senate, which have broad investigating authority, should be under the control of the minority party.”

Citing that there was a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in Congress, Ford also said, “It smacks of legalized collusion when we find the suspect and the District Attorney are blood relatives.”

For ten months, Ford was on Warren’s Commission, which had broad investigating authority and it essentially investigated a “government operation,” but Earl Warren and his team were, indeed, blood relatives of the suspect. They claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin because both President Johnson and “the suspect” wanted them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that this was the same Gerald Ford who eventually admitted to having moved a wound from the President's back to the neck so to support the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). I should also mention that Arlen Specter was a Republican, as well. FBI Agent Francis O'Neil said that Specter called him and wanted he and Sibert to change and falsify their report in order to support the SBT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that this was the same Gerald Ford who eventually admitted to having moved a wound from the President's back to the neck so to support the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). I should also mention that Arlen Specter was a Republican, as well. FBI Agent Francis O'Neil said that Specter called him and wanted he and Sibert to change and falsify their report in order to support the SBT.

I don't even think Specter believes in the Single Bullet Theory anymore.

"When you talk about US Air, you're between a rock and a hard place. I wish there was some magic bullet which we could come up with," said U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. "But I think we have to leave it to the key people on all sides to figure it out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Warren Commission stated, “It is not necessary to any essential findings of the commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally.”

[New York Times, 11-21-66, page 18]

Specter never did believe the single bullet theory. He was an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia before the Warren Commission employed him on their staff. He was told to make a diagram showing a bullet entering the President's back and emerging in front.

The Warren Commission consisted of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a former CIA Director, 4 members of Congress, and a former Assistant Secretary Of War.

As a man who had been nothing more than an Assistant District Attorney, he could hardly do otherwise.

But two of those Members of Congress had a problem with the single bullet theory.

In November 1966, a New York Times article cited that Senator Richard Russell acknowledged that there was “dissent” on the Warren Commission pertaining to “original wording” in the Warren Commission report “that said categorically that there had been no conspiracy involved.” Senator Russell said that Chief Justice Earl Warren “finally took that part and rewrote it himself. . . . Warren was determined he was going to have a unanimous report.”

Senator Russell “agreed with Governor Connally in rejecting the theory of a single bullet wounding both the Governor and the President.”

[New York Times, 11-22-66, page 22]

Regardless of his own “lingering dissatisfaction,” Senator Russell said that “any group of honorable men, given the same evidence, would have come to the same conclusion as the Warren Commission.”

The Zapruder film brought some admission of truth from Congressman Hale Boggs in 1966. This admission was actually an admission that there had been a conspiracy, but in keeping with their cover-up assignment, Boggs glossed over his admission of truth.

The New York Times reported in November 1966, that Hale Boggs “said yesterday that he did not like to say that he or anyone else ‘dissented’ on the single bullet theory but, ‘I have admitted,’ he said, that a film of the assassination has raised a question.” (Obviously a question he wouldn’t address publicly.)

[New York Times, 11-28-66, page 29]

The New York Times also reported, “Even if Governor Connally was correct in thinking he was struck by a separate bullet, Mr. Boggs said, ‘I think it is still very established that all the bullets came from the rear which is a significant point.’”

(Twenty-six days after Kennedy was assassinated, the American public and the American press had no problem accepting an article detailintg the “as yet unofficial report of pathologists” on December 18, 1963. It began with “President Kennedy was shot twice, both times from behind,” but this article also said that a bullet fragment coursed downward through his head and caused the wound in his throat, and that a bullet was found deep in his shoulder, and that Connally was struck by a bullet other than the two that allegedly struck the President.)

The only way that the Warren Commission could claim that Oswald was the assassin and explain Connally’s wounds and the wound in the front of President Kennedy’s throat was to come up with the new story that President Kennedy was shot in the back of his neck and that the bullet emerged in front and struck Governor Connally.

Edited by Anthony Frank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...