Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cover-Up of the Medical Evidence


Recommended Posts

I explained that Michael Baden, M.D., had recently observed that, if the "magic bullet" theory is false, then there must have been at least six shots from at least three directions

Hi James,

This sentence just JUMPED out at me!! Do you mean to say that Baden is now open to changing his views????

During HSCA I was in Boston and the hearings were not televised and badly covered, but I remember one story in the Boston Globe that so angered me. Very little was printed about Dr Wecht's testimony, but a lot of Baden's was there and in regards to the magic bullet not only did he say it HAD done what it could not have done, he held it up to the Committee members and pointed out -fraudlently- "how flattened it is". I was hoping mad and wrote a letter to the editor (not printed ) as well as to several memeber of HSCA. I have believed Baden to be a lying SOB, on par with darlin arlin, ever since. So if he has suddenly seen the light I would love to know about this.

Doug: Thanks so much for your report. And thanks to all of you. I agree that with you "newcomers " on board, progress IS being made. That we HAVE people now like Doug Horne and Gary Aguilar, just to name two, adds greatly to the credibility of the research community.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Per your request, enclosed are the two FBI documents that I had intended to distribute as "extra material" at the May 15, 2006 press conference in Washington, D.C. I ended up not doing so, since (1) no one asked for them; and (2) because I felt the evidence discussed in my prepared statement was more important, or rather, more "conclusive" than the material in these two documents, which you will see is less "robust," and more "speculative" in nature. Nevertheless they are quite interesting.

2. The one-page FBI HQ document dated November 22, 1963 is a potential "smoking gun" document which may indicate another major aspect of the medical coverup in the assassination. In the first paragraph, it mentions a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" which the FBI was planning on obtaining. You will note that this was written while the autopsy was ongoing; many persons that night have reported that Federal agents were on the telephone in the morgue all night long. There is no mention of any such bullet in the (existing) autopsy report, or for that matter, in the FBI Sibert-O'Neill report about what its own 2 agents witnessed at the autopsy. However, there was a typed "receipt of a missile" [sic] signed by Sibert and O'Neill on November 22, 1963 and given to Captain Stover, in acknowledgment for a missile removed by Commander Humes at the autopsy. The wording of that receipt-a receipt for "a missile"-has never made sense to many people, because officially, per the existing autopsy report and the Sibert-O'Neill report, only two tiny fragments (1 x 3 mm, and 2 x 7 mm) were removed from the body at the autopsy. The receipt does not say " 2 tiny fragments," or " 2 fragments of such and such dimension" it says "a missile," implying an intact bullet. I conclude that i f the mention of a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" in the FBI HQ memo is not an error based on bad information, then it is likely that the receipt to Captain Stover dated November 22, 1963 for a "missile" may be for the bullet lodged behind the President's ear. The ARRB did not get satisfactory answers from Sibert or O'Neill at their depositions about either document.

3. The second document is more complicated, and more nuanced. It is a formerly Top Secret report distributed to the very highest echelons of the FBI leadership on December 1, 1966. While on the staff of the ARRB, the then-head of the FBI Records Team (Phil Golrick) told me that this document was also sent directly to President Lyndon Johnson by J. Edgar Hoover on that date, and this is perhaps its true significance. You will note that there is both a redacted version, indicating what the FBI still wanted to withhold in 1996, and the completely open version that the Review Board forced the FBI to release.

The document is a history of the innermost private thinking of the KGB-not ' propaganda-both immediately after the assassination, and later in September of 1965. It was explained to me by Phil Golrick that the language used in the memo indicates the information was obtained by electronic surveillance, not human intelligence, and therefore should be considered a very reliable record of what the KGB was saying behind its own closed doors in New York City. Right after the assassination, per page one, the KGB blamed the assassination on an "ultraright conspiracy," but by September of 1965, per page 3, the KGB privately told its staff in NYC that President Lyndon B. Johnson was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

4. That's the major buzz now in many quarters of the United States, the "dirty story" that the major broadcast media will simply not cover, even to this day, because of self-censorship. The document did receive brief mention on the AP wire in 1996 when we at the ARRB released it at our public hearing in Los Angeles, but no one in the broadcast media followed up on it. To me the document has the smell of blackmail all over it. Hoover's power derived from the secrets he was aware of that were NOT leaked, but which he held over people's heads, by letting them know he "had their secret in his files and would safeguard it." So, here he was in December of 1966 telling LBJ that "the KGB says YOU did it. " The timing seems strange.. .the FBI knew about this in September of 1965, but did not inform LBJ until fourteen-and-one-half months later. I suspect that Hoover felt threatened at this time, and possibly feared for his job, and was using this knowledge, which he had been sitting on for over a year, as leverage-as an insurance policy against getting fired.

5. We have to be careful here; the document tells us what the KGB believed, but it does not explain what evidence the KGB held that caused it to reach this conclusion. When we read this today, in 2006, we do not know why the KGB believed LBJ had murdered JFK. We need to have another American historian like Timothy Naftali visit Russia and obtain access to the former KGB files on the Kennedy assassination from 1964 and 1965 that would throw light on why the KGB came to this conclusion. Until we know how and why the KGB reached its determination, this document will remain yet one more tantalizing clue that will be argued about forever by researchers.

1. Per your request, enclosed are the two FBI documents that I had intended to distribute as "extra material" at the May 15, 2006 press conference in Washington, D.C. I ended up not doing so, since (1) no one asked for them; and (2) because I felt the evidence discussed in my prepared statement was more important, or rather, more "conclusive" than the material in these two documents, which you will see is less "robust," and more "speculative" in nature. Nevertheless they are quite interesting.

2. The one-page FBI HQ document dated November 22, 1963 is a potential "smoking gun" document which may indicate another major aspect of the medical coverup in the assassination. In the first paragraph, it mentions a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" which the FBI was planning on obtaining. You will note that this was written while the autopsy was ongoing; many persons that night have reported that Federal agents were on the telephone in the morgue all night long. There is no mention of any such bullet in the (existing) autopsy report, or for that matter, in the FBI Sibert-O'Neill report about what its own 2 agents witnessed at the autopsy. However, there was a typed "receipt of a missile" [sic] signed by Sibert and O'Neill on November 22, 1963 and given to Captain Stover, in acknowledgment for a missile removed by Commander Humes at the autopsy. The wording of that receipt-a receipt for "a missile"-has never made sense to many people, because officially, per the existing autopsy report and the Sibert-O'Neill report, only two tiny fragments (1 x 3 mm, and 2 x 7 mm) were removed from the body at the autopsy. The receipt does not say " 2 tiny fragments," or " 2 fragments of such and such dimension" it says "a missile," implying an intact bullet. I conclude that i f the mention of a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" in the FBI HQ memo is not an error based on bad information, then it is likely that the receipt to Captain Stover dated November 22, 1963 for a "missile" may be for the bullet lodged behind the President's ear. The ARRB did not get satisfactory answers from Sibert or O'Neill at their depositions about either document.

3. The second document is more complicated, and more nuanced. It is a formerly Top Secret report distributed to the very highest echelons of the FBI leadership on December 1, 1966. While on the staff of the ARRB, the then-head of the FBI Records Team (Phil Golrick) told me that this document was also sent directly to President Lyndon Johnson by J. Edgar Hoover on that date, and this is perhaps its true significance. You will note that there is both a redacted version, indicating what the FBI still wanted to withhold in 1996, and the completely open version that the Review Board forced the FBI to release.

The document is a history of the innermost private thinking of the KGB-not ' propaganda-both immediately after the assassination, and later in September of 1965. It was explained to me by Phil Golrick that the language used in the memo indicates the information was obtained by electronic surveillance, not human intelligence, and therefore should be considered a very reliable record of what the KGB was saying behind its own closed doors in New York City. Right after the assassination, per page one, the KGB blamed the assassination on an "ultraright conspiracy," but by September of 1965, per page 3, the KGB privately told its staff in NYC that President Lyndon B. Johnson was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

4. That's the major buzz now in many quarters of the United States, the "dirty story" that the major broadcast media will simply not cover, even to this day, because of self-censorship. The document did receive brief mention on the AP wire in 1996 when we at the ARRB released it at our public hearing in Los Angeles, but no one in the broadcast media followed up on it. To me the document has the smell of blackmail all over it. Hoover's power derived from the secrets he was aware of that were NOT leaked, but which he held over people's heads, by letting them know he "had their secret in his files and would safeguard it." So, here he was in December of 1966 telling LBJ that "the KGB says YOU did it. " The timing seems strange.. .the FBI knew about this in September of 1965, but did not inform LBJ until fourteen-and-one-half months later. I suspect that Hoover felt threatened at this time, and possibly feared for his job, and was using this knowledge, which he had been sitting on for over a year, as leverage-as an insurance policy against getting fired.

5. We have to be careful here; the document tells us what the KGB believed, but it does not explain what evidence the KGB held that caused it to reach this conclusion. When we read this today, in 2006, we do not know why the KGB believed LBJ had murdered JFK. We need to have another American historian like Timothy Naftali visit Russia and obtain access to the former KGB files on the Kennedy assassination from 1964 and 1965 that would throw light on why the KGB came to this conclusion. Until we know how and why the KGB reached its determination, this document will remain yet one more tantalizing clue that will be argued about forever by researchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The second document is more complicated, and more nuanced. It is a formerly Top Secret report distributed to the very highest echelons of the FBI leadership on December 1, 1966. While on the staff of the ARRB, the then-head of the FBI Records Team (Phil Golrick) told me that this document was also sent directly to President Lyndon Johnson by J. Edgar Hoover on that date, and this is perhaps its true significance. You will note that there is both a redacted version, indicating what the FBI still wanted to withhold in 1996, and the completely open version that the Review Board forced the FBI to release.

The document is a history of the innermost private thinking of the KGB-not ' propaganda-both immediately after the assassination, and later in September of 1965. It was explained to me by Phil Golrick that the language used in the memo indicates the information was obtained by electronic surveillance, not human intelligence, and therefore should be considered a very reliable record of what the KGB was saying behind its own closed doors in New York City. Right after the assassination, per page one, the KGB blamed the assassination on an "ultraright conspiracy," but by September of 1965, per page 3, the KGB privately told its staff in NYC that President Lyndon B. Johnson was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Just a note on the paragraphs that the FBI did not want anyone to see in 1996:

Page 2: Paragraphs 2,3 and 4.

Page 3: Paragraphs 1 and 2.

post-7-1149587194_thumb.jpg

post-7-1149587243_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that this is the most important thread that has been created since the formation of the Forum. Please make sure you read these documents and Doug Horne's commentary.

It is very interesting that the KGB seemed to be concerned about the relationship between RFK, Ted and Pres. Johnson.

It seemed to be, in my opinion, worded in a manner which implied the Kennedy Bros. were in harm's way.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are important and permanent milestones in the long, somber march toward the truth since 1963, and I just want to add one more small voice of thanks to Doug Horne for his courage and his perseverance in getting these documents into the light of day by any means, and to John Simkin for providing a means. They will stand in the sunlight as one of those important and permanent milestones marking the way for others who follow.

The casual, supercilious indifference of the so-called "media" will be their epitaph, and is deserving of nothing more than casual, supercilious indifference.

Well done, Doug.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug Horne wrote:

The wording of that receipt-a receipt for "a missile"-has never made sense to many people, because officially, per the existing autopsy report and the Sibert-O'Neill report, only two tiny fragments (1 x 3 mm, and 2 x 7 mm) were removed from the body at the autopsy. The receipt does not say " 2 tiny fragments," or " 2 fragments of such and such dimension" it says "a missile," implying an intact bullet. I conclude that if the mention of a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" in the FBI HQ memo is not an error based on bad information, then it is likely that the receipt to Captain Stover dated November 22, 1963 for a "missile" may be for the bullet lodged behind the President's ear. The ARRB did not get satisfactory answers from Sibert or O'Neill at their depositions about either document.

In William Matson Law's book In the Eye of History, published in 2005, the author met with and interviewed James Sibert at Sibert's office in Southwest Florida. At that time Sibert was 83 years old, but still very sharp in his recollection of events. During this interview he tells Law:

We signed a receipt. And here's another thing that in books were "missiles"--if you remember that word was used--but this receipt was made by the navy and we received it from them. A navy corpsman typed it up and we signed it, but if I had typed up a receipt and composed it I would have just said metal fragments because there was no single bullet that we ever saw there that night at Bethesda.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug Horne wrote:

The wording of that receipt-a receipt for "a missile"-has never made sense to many people, because officially, per the existing autopsy report and the Sibert-O'Neill report, only two tiny fragments (1 x 3 mm, and 2 x 7 mm) were removed from the body at the autopsy. The receipt does not say " 2 tiny fragments," or " 2 fragments of such and such dimension" it says "a missile," implying an intact bullet. I conclude that if the mention of a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" in the FBI HQ memo is not an error based on bad information, then it is likely that the receipt to Captain Stover dated November 22, 1963 for a "missile" may be for the bullet lodged behind the President's ear. The ARRB did not get satisfactory answers from Sibert or O'Neill at their depositions about either document.

In William Matson Law's book In the Eye of History, published in 2005, the author met with and interviewed James Sibert at Sibert's office in Southwest Florida. At that time Sibert was 83 years old, but still very sharp in his recollection of events. During this interview he tells Law:

We signed a receipt. And here's another thing that in books were "missiles"--if you remember that word was used--but this receipt was made by the navy and we received it from them. A navy corpsman typed it up and we signed it, but if I had typed up a receipt and composed it I would have just said metal fragments because there was no single bullet that we ever saw there that night at Bethesda.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; This was the autopsy of the President of the United States.

To believe that FBI agents would allow themselves to sign that document if it did not specifically state what item(s) had been transferred is absurd.

Sure, they can lay the blame on an unidentified clerk, as if that really proves that no "missile" had been recovered that night.

How about holding these men to the professional level of competence one expects from the FBI and accept the receipt at it's face value?

Or is that just wishful thinking?

How many times will people accept lame excuses instead of the facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck,

With due respect, it seems you have not have had the opportunity to read In The Eye of History by William Matson Law. If you had read Sibert's account in full you would know he lays waste to Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, and the single bullet theory.

I actually had the opportunity in 1999 to meet James Sibert and speak to him one on one. He patiently, and I feel frankly answered my questions. He made no secret of his contempt for the official autopsy findings and I came away convinced he is an honest man.

Please don't be so quick to jump to conclusions without reading Sibert's interview in its entirety.

And if I am mistaken, and you have already done so....please accept my apology.

Mike Hogan

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things caught my eye: "You will note that this was written while the autopsy was ongoing; many persons that night have reported that Federal agents were on the telephone in the morgue all night long." I'm sure that was the case. As I say in the book, some in the autopsy room were on the phone with RFK, who was on an upper floor, relaying instructions to Burkley in the autopsy room. I've spoken to one of the intermediaries that was used that night. And, his good friends Powers and O'Donnell were up there with RFK, so he knew by then there were shots from the front. So, the autopsy--and whatever coverup happened there and immediately after--was due to RFK, not someone like LBJ.

The "LBJ" did it documument should be viewed from the perspective of the Cold War. First, they say that it was elements of the extreme right, and that one of the goals was an invasion of Cuba. Given the involvement of people like Guy Baniser and the knowledge of people like Milteer, it's clear some far-right extremists were involved. And, much evidence was planted pointing to Castro, hoping to prod along the invasion that Banister, Ferrie, and those controlling the conspiracy like Rosselli, Marcello, and Trafficante knew had already been planned by JFK and RFK.

Later in the same document, however, they say the KBG thinks LBJ was behind it. But few in America at the time would have said that LBJ was part of the extreme right. Recall that he soundly defeated a candidate of the extreme right in 1964. However, I'm sure in Moscow, all powerful US politicians looked the same. But that would have a big impact on how the KGB would have interpreted any "evidence" they might have had. Which, considering how much has been--and continues to be--withheld from Congress and the American public, couldn't have been very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering if the Soviet Union source for these documents was Col. Ilya Semyonovich Pavlotsky of the KGB. Immediately after the assassination, he headed an investigation from inside Russia and quickly came to the conclusion that Oswald was not responsible for killing JFK.

As to the Boris Ivanov called meeting in New York City, The KGB Chief of Foreign Counter Intelligence, Oleg Kalugen confirmed this indeed happened.

James

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

×
×
  • Create New...