Speaker 1: Ready, get ready.
Speaker 2: For May twenty one of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, This
Speaker 3: Theocelli effect. You listening and thank you for it. Anyway, boy,
Speaker 3: the month of May has gone by quickly. I mean,
Speaker 3: it just seems like yesterday was May Day. Anyway, I
Speaker 3: have Larry Hancock with me Larry dash Hancock dot com.
Speaker 3: Of course, he's going to be authoring an upcoming article.
Speaker 3: I just had one minor thing that I wanted him
Speaker 3: to maybe, you know, touch up on, and we'll get
Speaker 3: that probably next week. So you will see an article
Speaker 3: on the Weekly Reader at Ochelli dot com. But also
Speaker 3: you can check out Larry's blog at Larrydshancock dot com.
Speaker 3: Oh and a highly recommended set of books out there,
Speaker 3: including the most recent one, which is The Oswald Puzzle.
Speaker 3: But we'll be telling talking more about that as we
Speaker 3: get closer to Lancer time, I'm sure. And oh, by
Speaker 3: the way, spoiler alert, we will be talking UAPs sometime
Speaker 3: in the next couple of weeks. But today, Larry, first
Speaker 3: of all, I know it's not gonna be UAP discussion tonight.
Speaker 3: We're going to discuss other things that might be otherwise unidentified,
Speaker 3: but they're not a real phenomena anyway.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Was that a bad joke? Probably? Larry,
Speaker 2: How are you doing tonight?
Speaker 4: I'm doing good. Check as you say.
Speaker 5: It just seems like the month just started. I think definitely,
Speaker 5: time is ahead of me. I just can't keep up
Speaker 5: with it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so three weeks into the month already, I mean,
Speaker 3: doesn't that I don't know.
Speaker 2: It just doesn't feel right right. It's like, where did
Speaker 2: the time go?
Speaker 6: You know?
Speaker 3: They say that as we get older that happens, but man,
Speaker 3: sometimes months just vanish on me.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 5: What I can't really understand is time is supposed to
Speaker 5: slow down as you go faster, so I generally think
Speaker 5: I'm going slower and that's not happening.
Speaker 4: It's something's out of saint.
Speaker 5: But otherwise otherwise I'm fine. It just does never seems
Speaker 5: to be enough time.
Speaker 2: Who knows time dilation?
Speaker 3: Maybe again, we'll have to talk about that when we
Speaker 3: get to some UAP stuff. But this week there were
Speaker 3: some well new hearings right on the JFK declassifications, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Were they new hearings on declassifications? Well, in part, Doug
Speaker 3: Horn was there, Dan Hardaway was there. I was a
Speaker 3: little surprised to see Doug Horn there. Actually, of course
Speaker 3: he made his you know, very standard remarks about the
Speaker 3: things that he would even if he wanted to talk
Speaker 3: about World War two, he would mention exactly what he
Speaker 3: mentioned during his JFK comments before Congress, So very much
Speaker 3: in character there.
Speaker 2: Judge Tunheim there, and as a.
Speaker 3: Matter of fact, I want to play a little audio
Speaker 3: because maybe you want to talk about the doctor a bit.
Speaker 3: Yet again, one of the medical wits this is in part,
Speaker 3: you know, always going to be dissected and vivisected in
Speaker 3: one way or another when a living witness comes forward
Speaker 3: in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 2: Oh and Abraham Bolden was.
Speaker 3: There as well, although there were audio difficulties during his testimony,
Speaker 3: but I think some of that stuff got on the
Speaker 3: record anyway. And there were also other remarks that weren't
Speaker 3: broadcast or even read out that were put into the
Speaker 3: Congressional record. So that took place only what two days ago, now, right,
Speaker 3: Larry Gosh, I.
Speaker 5: Was yeah, two days like yesterday, you know, yes, it's
Speaker 5: this is is still real news. People are still listening to,
Speaker 5: you know, copies of recordings of the thing. It's still
Speaker 5: a lively discussion. I think for one intent, the second
Speaker 5: hearing was much different than the first, when in some
Speaker 5: ways this, the hearing that we just had, is probab
Speaker 5: probably more on target for what this this committee hearing
Speaker 5: is all about. One of the things this kind of
Speaker 5: like we always do in setting the context.
Speaker 4: You know, Representative Lena really has two charters. Uh.
Speaker 5: One of her charters is under the President's Transparency Initiative,
Speaker 5: which is to force it out documents and materials and
Speaker 5: get them on the record that haven't been available to
Speaker 5: the public. You know, that's one agenda, and then the
Speaker 5: first the first hearing dealt with that to a large extent.
Speaker 5: But her committee, really, if you look at the title
Speaker 5: of her or hearing or hearing here is is an
Speaker 5: oversight a government oversight committee.
Speaker 4: It's kind of like, did the government do its job correctly?
Speaker 4: You know, did it screw up whatever? You know, really
Speaker 4: two different things.
Speaker 5: And that's why I think there are two hearings and
Speaker 5: two sets of witnesses, and we can't confuse them, or
Speaker 5: we shouldn't confuse them, because it creates the it creates
Speaker 5: a misunderstanding for what's really going on in the hearing
Speaker 5: with these two different missions that she's both carrying out
Speaker 5: in a way.
Speaker 3: And the thing is, you know, we were dealing with
Speaker 3: a very say, disruptive pattern break in kind of administration
Speaker 3: for the most part, and a lot of executive orders
Speaker 3: flying around. But in truth, the fact that the Oversight
Speaker 3: Committee is dealing with this right now is probably proper
Speaker 3: should have been done earlier, frankly, because look, you're talking
Speaker 3: about okay, documentation collected starting in nineteen.
Speaker 2: Sixty three, that's the earliest that could have started.
Speaker 3: Then you have other investigations that took place in the sixties,
Speaker 3: the seventies, even possibly the eighties, but maybe that's a
Speaker 3: point of contention. You have the assassination records of view
Speaker 3: Board and Executive Branch Office an executive branch not office
Speaker 3: agency created in order to what gather up documentation from
Speaker 3: all the other agencies and make it public, and then
Speaker 3: a twenty five year delay on that, and then more delays.
Speaker 3: So it is time for Oversight to get involved and say, hey,
Speaker 3: did we follow the law, did we do what we
Speaker 3: were supposed to? Is this the job well done or not?
Speaker 3: And how are you going to examine that? Unless you're
Speaker 3: semi familiar with the material. For the most part, both
Speaker 3: of these hearings reveal many committee members not familiar with
Speaker 3: the material, really making political points, etc. But this time
Speaker 3: when you have a really interesting mix bag here again
Speaker 3: everyone from Abraham Bolden to Judge Tunheim in a very
Speaker 3: interesting mix and yet again another guy there to complain
Speaker 3: about the bad release of Social Security numbers and stuff, which,
Speaker 3: by the way, I'm fed up with. I don't know
Speaker 3: why that's got to be a concession to somebody who
Speaker 3: wants to complain about.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration's behavior here.
Speaker 3: But realistically, come on already, all right, that is such
Speaker 3: a minor issue when it comes to all this mess
Speaker 3: that they created for themselves in my opinion. Anyway, enough
Speaker 3: of my opinions, let's listen to mister Garcia, you know,
Speaker 3: kind of like finish the questioning with Judge Tunheim and
Speaker 3: then begin the questioning with the doctor witness, yet another
Speaker 3: doctor of sorts. Various residents, student, doctors, nurses over the
Speaker 3: years from Parkland Hospital have said many things. Curious choice
Speaker 3: for this guy to be on the committee. Maybe I'll
Speaker 3: ask you about that after we get a few words
Speaker 3: from him. But first let's listen to Tunheim and Representative
Speaker 3: Garcia go back and forth here for just a moment
Speaker 3: before we get to the doctor's statement.
Speaker 7: Similar to what I to I asked, miss Co, do
Speaker 7: you think that this release of the records that just
Speaker 7: happened has added any substantial new information to what we
Speaker 7: already know?
Speaker 8: You know, I think any release of records gives you more,
Speaker 8: more color, more pieces of the puzzle. So does and
Speaker 8: I think this has been very interesting. I haven't a
Speaker 8: chance to look through a lot of the materials, but
Speaker 8: a lot of the materials that have reactions in were
Speaker 8: materials we never saw, so they weren't shown to us before.
Speaker 8: So I think that is significant that there are documents
Speaker 8: being released there. I don't see any answers, any new
Speaker 8: answers to any of the old questions here, but it's
Speaker 8: filling out the record more. And I'd like to see
Speaker 8: a time when everything has been released unredacted. It's sixty
Speaker 8: some years since the assassination. It's the assassination was closer
Speaker 8: to World War One than we are to the assassination.
Speaker 8: Let's release the materials. And that's my plea here is
Speaker 8: just get everything out. Let people decide what they want.
Speaker 3: Well think, so now really quickly, Larry, I interrupt this
Speaker 3: because Tuneim has just given us context, a advocate point
Speaker 3: of view about transparency, and rather concisely, and just a
Speaker 3: few moments there, pivoting away from the question a little bit.
Speaker 2: But I was pretty satisfied with that.
Speaker 3: Conclusion to two Nime's testimony, like, yeah, that's about where
Speaker 3: I'm at with it.
Speaker 2: And indeed, let's put that context there.
Speaker 3: We're now closer to uh, you know, it was closer
Speaker 3: to World War One when this happened than we are
Speaker 3: to the assassination today.
Speaker 2: Interesting, I think, but you know, anyway.
Speaker 3: Back back to it, we'll hear the progression into the
Speaker 3: doctor's comments, and then i'd like to get your thoughts
Speaker 3: on all this.
Speaker 2: With a heel back.
Speaker 5: Thinking, Rep Garcia, the chair would now like to recognize,
Speaker 5: mister Birchett, that's misty.
Speaker 9: Chair, Doctor Curtis.
Speaker 10: What happened when the Warren Commission called you to testify
Speaker 10: about what you knew about the JFK ones, Doctor Curtis, Yes, sir,
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, I've got hearing aids.
Speaker 9: Just don't worry about it, brother. What happened when the
Speaker 9: Warren commissioned.
Speaker 10: Called you to testify about what you knew about JFK's ones.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's Representative Burchett. By the way, b U R
Speaker 2: C H E T T.
Speaker 3: I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, which is also curious
Speaker 3: because he's got supprud or frames behind him up on
Speaker 3: some interesting display boards. But anyway, let's hear the doctors
Speaker 3: at least opening that's the first question they asked him.
Speaker 1: Apparently, Well, the one commission that hasn't called me to
Speaker 1: testify at all, not at all. Okay, the uh I
Speaker 1: didn't use up all my time, and I like to
Speaker 1: make some additional comments regarding sir.
Speaker 2: You have the time that you need, so please proceed.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because his opening statement, he apparently didn't get everything
Speaker 3: out he wanted to get out there. So this is
Speaker 3: where the commentary begins. But first off, he's got a
Speaker 3: correct the same guy who seems to have an interest.
Speaker 3: But what did you say before the ward commission? I
Speaker 3: wasn't actually called before the ward commission. A little reminiscent,
Speaker 3: but not quite as bad as you wrote a book,
Speaker 3: mister Stone, and she had the wrong mister Stone.
Speaker 1: But that was the previous hearing anyway, Well, let me
Speaker 1: know when I can do it.
Speaker 5: Well, now, sir, I believe mister Burchette has a line
Speaker 5: of questions for you, so you're free to talk to
Speaker 5: mister Burchett.
Speaker 10: Yes, sir, can you explain what condition when President Kennedy
Speaker 10: arrived in the emergency room?
Speaker 9: What was his condition at that point?
Speaker 1: He had already died?
Speaker 10: Okay, how many wounds did you observe on President Kennedy?
Speaker 1: How many wounds? President Kennedy had a wound to of course,
Speaker 1: the big wound to his head, right, but he also
Speaker 1: had a wound to his throat. And I've got a
Speaker 1: little diagram here I can point out out how that
Speaker 1: worked if you'd let me to.
Speaker 10: And that wouldn't have been a single bullet wound though,
Speaker 10: right they talk about this magical bullet that traveled.
Speaker 9: That would have been more than one bullet.
Speaker 1: You think that magic bullet was not It didn't strike
Speaker 1: the president at all.
Speaker 9: Okay, that was a clean bullet.
Speaker 10: I saw the picture given, Do what what.
Speaker 2: Play?
Speaker 9: Show the diagram?
Speaker 1: Okay, the bullets that were fired. The blue bullet is
Speaker 1: the bar. It was the bullet that arrived first, and
Speaker 1: you can see it started from probably from the railroad
Speaker 1: trestle which is to the southwest, and came up and
Speaker 1: first struck President Kennedy before he got out from under
Speaker 1: the tree. That prevented the window shooter from shooting then.
Speaker 1: And we know that because the Zapruder film showed the
Speaker 1: President Kennedy holding his throat real distress when the separator
Speaker 1: film started.
Speaker 3: Okay, the reason why I'm playing all this And by
Speaker 3: the way, now he's got an aerial shot of Dally
Speaker 3: Plaza behind him with colored diagrams about trajectories of bullets
Speaker 3: and all these things. This kind of gets into some
Speaker 3: of the messiness that went on during this hearing, and
Speaker 3: the messiness of both hearings actually, where it seems like
Speaker 3: things were well planned out, but they weren't. You know,
Speaker 3: like people were asking questions of the wrong people. They
Speaker 3: had the wrong context for stuff. They're asking this guy,
Speaker 3: what did you tell the Warren Commission? He wasn't called
Speaker 3: before the Warren Commission. All you'd have to do is
Speaker 3: go to the you know, go to a website somewhere
Speaker 3: and you could find was he even a witness before
Speaker 3: the Warren Commission? This guy anyway, I'm just saying Larry,
Speaker 3: I think it's emblematic of what went on during a
Speaker 3: lot of the hearings. If you add in the political
Speaker 3: grandstand from one side or the other. Well, I want
Speaker 3: to make the Trump administration look bad. Well, I want
Speaker 3: to make the Democrats look stupid here, And you put
Speaker 3: that aside, and you put it the chaos aside. What
Speaker 3: do we actually boil this all down to, Larry in
Speaker 3: your mind as far as you would represent it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think the focus what you obviously have is
Speaker 5: a lack of focus and and and that it makes
Speaker 5: sense in some extense because you have, you know, you
Speaker 5: have different members with different views, with different political agendas,
Speaker 5: with obviously radically different knowledge of this incident and event.
Speaker 4: You know, and it's it turns into a free for all.
Speaker 5: And that's it is neither an investigation, right, because you
Speaker 5: don't have people that as you would in a jury.
Speaker 4: Process, much less.
Speaker 5: A criminal investigation, who've prepped themselves, who you know the
Speaker 5: background in detail. Look at ton time as much as
Speaker 5: I like Tonne in you know, he's talking about well
Speaker 5: we didn't see this or that.
Speaker 4: Well he hasn't looked at.
Speaker 5: It since the ARRB releases, and we know the majority
Speaker 5: of what we see today they didn't see and that
Speaker 5: is a problem, But it doesn't mean that we haven't
Speaker 5: seen it for twenty years now. So when you make
Speaker 5: a comment like I think it should finally all be
Speaker 5: released because I'm seeing new stuff, that just means you
Speaker 5: didn't see it decades ago.
Speaker 4: It's almost irrelevant.
Speaker 2: Well, and you're so curious.
Speaker 3: Thing that people need to keep in mind as they
Speaker 3: look at this and if they're coming into this even
Speaker 3: you know, with a let's just say they have a
Speaker 3: passionate interest, but they don't have you know, the years
Speaker 3: and years and years of reading through this stuff. You know,
Speaker 3: they've read a couple of books, they understand the case basics,
Speaker 3: all of that. Look, there is a lot to this
Speaker 3: that I don't even blame the Congress people or other
Speaker 3: people with lives outside of you know, the thousand of
Speaker 3: us that are complete lunatics that know this stuff like
Speaker 3: this right in and out.
Speaker 2: And I do.
Speaker 3: Think there's literally like a thousand people on the planet
Speaker 3: that really know the material. Seriously, I think that's an
Speaker 3: honest number. The people in Congress are not among them.
Speaker 3: The people in the media are not among them. The
Speaker 3: people so you know, here we go. You have people
Speaker 3: that are not well informed on the minutia the details.
Speaker 3: Like I said, they would have no idea whether this
Speaker 3: guy was before the Warrant Commission.
Speaker 2: They mix up the House Select Committee. They think the
Speaker 2: ARRB was an investigation.
Speaker 3: And meanwhile, they haven't even been through our one oh
Speaker 3: one class on this right where we.
Speaker 2: Went through the investigations.
Speaker 3: They haven't even been that far into it to even
Speaker 3: begin to identify what box to put these things in.
Speaker 3: Even when they do see brand new document or they
Speaker 3: see slightly less redacted documentation or oh, we never saw
Speaker 3: that page of this before. They don't know what we
Speaker 3: saw before, So how are they going to even know
Speaker 3: what's new or what you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 5: So we can't have unreasonable expectations here, exactly right, And
Speaker 5: I think a lot of people that are panning it
Speaker 5: are do have I see post all the time that
Speaker 5: you know, they're not investigating this. They're not investigating that.
Speaker 5: It's not an investigation. If you had two simple questions
Speaker 5: to ask you guys, okay, congress person that you can't
Speaker 5: ask anything other than this question.
Speaker 4: One, are there documents.
Speaker 5: Or records relating to the assassination that you're aware of
Speaker 5: that should be released that haven't been released, or should
Speaker 5: be collected.
Speaker 4: That haven't been collected. That's all we want to know.
Speaker 4: Just we'll cut this Short's that's what we're there for.
Speaker 5: One set of questions, and that would have been the
Speaker 5: first here, second set of questions, you know, second set
Speaker 5: of questions, and the second witness is like the doctor.
Speaker 5: The bad news here is they're treating the doctor and
Speaker 5: the doctor has kind of moved himself into mode which
Speaker 5: we've seen before when witnesses start becoming involved in solving
Speaker 5: the assassination, things go bad.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: He's an extremely critical witness. He's been on record with
Speaker 5: his own personal observations from what went on in that
Speaker 5: trauma room. That's what he should be talking about. He
Speaker 5: shouldn't be talking about trajectories. He's talking about womans. What
Speaker 5: did you see as a witness. But that's where you know,
Speaker 5: we've run into that people with witnesses before that decide
Speaker 5: their investigators.
Speaker 3: Well, and here's the issue with it, right, is that
Speaker 3: someone who is knowledgeable. This is where I truly wish
Speaker 3: and I'm not trying to put anybody down here, but
Speaker 3: I really wish that among those of us that do
Speaker 3: have enough knowledge to direct somebody like Birchant, that somebody
Speaker 3: would give him some notes that say, look, stick to
Speaker 3: this guy's observations, because that's what's important here. That's where
Speaker 3: the information that he actually has in his brain is
Speaker 3: relevant and important.
Speaker 2: Here, tell me what. And he's kind of started that way.
Speaker 2: You know, after he.
Speaker 3: Got over the whole Warren commission, what did you tell them?
Speaker 3: Once he got past that, he said, well, what condition
Speaker 3: was he in? Tell us about that?
Speaker 5: And you know, the sad part of it, check is
Speaker 5: he is a smoking witness.
Speaker 4: I will say this right out loud.
Speaker 5: If he had been, he will correctly And he's been
Speaker 5: interviewed before, and it's on record before. He did an
Speaker 5: interview with a newspaper before. He literally, if you believe
Speaker 5: that man, the ruling Commission is a fraud, He literally
Speaker 5: describes what went on in the trauma room. He literally
Speaker 5: describes what Kip Clark did, what he showed the doctors,
Speaker 5: what all their doctors agreed to as to the major
Speaker 5: damage to the president's head to a frontal entry, and
Speaker 5: they all were aware of that. And then you go
Speaker 5: on to any true oversight committee where said, well, why
Speaker 5: was why doesn't that information treated? Why did the government
Speaker 5: mess it up? And that leads you into all the
Speaker 5: dialogue which.
Speaker 4: He would which he would relate to.
Speaker 5: And which would the other doctors relate to about the
Speaker 5: Secret Service and warring commissioned people coming down and suppressing
Speaker 5: that information.
Speaker 4: That's the topic for this oversight hearing.
Speaker 5: That's this is like if they had just gone that direction,
Speaker 5: the rest of it is meaningless. Just that doctor alone
Speaker 5: pursuing that line of inquiry could shift this whole narrative.
Speaker 2: Right, I'll give you.
Speaker 3: I'll give you a simple thing, and I want you
Speaker 3: to think about this real quick, because you have talked
Speaker 3: to a few I know you have at least encountered
Speaker 3: one or two of the doctors from Parkland and talk
Speaker 3: to you personally, So I have to McClelland is the
Speaker 3: one that I got to the most.
Speaker 2: But anyway, here's a weird thing about that.
Speaker 3: And I've always been curious about this as to whether
Speaker 3: it was encouraged by the government or if it was
Speaker 3: like sort of a silent thing, or if they agreed
Speaker 3: to it. But here's the weird thing that this guy
Speaker 3: does that others don't. I asked, and I could get
Speaker 3: them to say something. If I'm not going to take notes,
Speaker 3: if I'm not going to record it, I could get
Speaker 3: them to say, you know, basically, he was dead.
Speaker 2: When he got there.
Speaker 3: Okay, like there was no point in the life saving
Speaker 3: stuff that went on.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't say that on the record anywhere.
Speaker 3: Okay for me, this guy's always said that, and that's
Speaker 3: the beginning of where his testimony is different. Okay, there
Speaker 3: more to it than that, but that's just one of
Speaker 3: the minor things. And I've always wondered if that was
Speaker 3: pressured by the government to don't say that, or if
Speaker 3: that was again one of those like agreements between the doctors,
Speaker 3: like we shouldn't say that part because you know, then
Speaker 3: we might get blamed somehow or something.
Speaker 5: My guess, I guess on that as you've got to
Speaker 5: look at what his role was. He is not a
Speaker 5: medical doctor treating the president.
Speaker 4: He has no medical liability. The other doctors do.
Speaker 5: The other doctors in a position of even though we
Speaker 5: think he's dead, if we don't treat him, you know,
Speaker 5: their arguments that we didn't do all we you know, professionally,
Speaker 5: all we could have done, we.
Speaker 4: Didn't, right, we didn't honor, our oath. You know, we're
Speaker 4: not going.
Speaker 5: To say that now, that's we're going to say what
Speaker 5: we tried to do it in a way, it's cover,
Speaker 5: but it is. It's a professional obligation. He does not
Speaker 5: have that obligation. He was there as a resident. He's
Speaker 5: not treating the doctor, which makes him the perfect witness.
Speaker 5: He's actually a better witness because he has no skin
Speaker 5: in the game from a medical treatment standpoint.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 3: I'm glad you said it, because that's what I was
Speaker 3: trying to get at. I was trying to set it
Speaker 3: up for you to get there. So uncle, you go
Speaker 3: out there, well done.
Speaker 5: Yes, as you can see him at the point these
Speaker 5: days where I pull very few punches.
Speaker 4: I may be wrong, but I still don't pull any punches.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 2: Look, but that's what needed to be done.
Speaker 3: Here is if you're gonna go for this sort of
Speaker 3: a demonstration, you know you've got like an hour or
Speaker 3: two of TV time, okay, And in order to make
Speaker 3: an effective this is for exposition, Okay.
Speaker 2: So I get it.
Speaker 3: They want them to be able to use their charts.
Speaker 3: They're letting them, they're giving them leeway to say what
Speaker 3: they want. But you see a difference here again, where
Speaker 3: you have a witness that's now giving you his solutions
Speaker 3: based on the information he has versus what should be
Speaker 3: just the raw testimony. If you're involved in testifying in
Speaker 3: a case, a criminal case, and you start telling them
Speaker 3: about what you think happened, they tell you to stop
Speaker 3: that right away.
Speaker 2: Now, No, noet.
Speaker 3: You tell us what you saw, what you did, and
Speaker 3: that's what you can tell us. You can't tell us
Speaker 3: what was in anybody else's mind, what happened outside of
Speaker 3: your blind of sight.
Speaker 2: You can't tell us that stuff.
Speaker 3: That is hearsay, that is your supposition, That is one
Speaker 3: hundred different things other than what you can testify to.
Speaker 4: But I would say to support your point on it's sad.
Speaker 5: But if the person running the hearing really had the
Speaker 5: background or the staff work, as soon as that doctor
Speaker 5: testified that, all the doctors in the room that observe this,
Speaker 5: you know, then the chair would have read into the
Speaker 5: record statements from McClelland and other doctors as to where
Speaker 5: as to the extent to which they had been rest
Speaker 5: and their testimony had been suppressed.
Speaker 4: They don't have. They've already said that, They've said that
Speaker 4: for years we've known it for years. It should have
Speaker 4: been entered.
Speaker 5: Into the record all in one spot, and unfortunately that
Speaker 5: didn't happen.
Speaker 2: See, but there you go.
Speaker 3: But there is a difference between being able to collate
Speaker 3: this stuff together based on a level of knowledge of
Speaker 3: the material, and then there's what's happened here. So and
Speaker 3: on the one I'm not trying to be hypercritical here
Speaker 3: and saying that these people did a bad job. I'm
Speaker 3: simply saying that you're only going to get what you're
Speaker 3: going to get out of this, you know, I'm trying
Speaker 3: to be realistic. So that's what I'm trying to explain here.
Speaker 3: I hope I'm getting that point across. I don't know
Speaker 3: if I am. But meanwhile, I want to hear the
Speaker 3: rest of your impressions and your thoughts on this, because
Speaker 3: it's very important that this went on.
Speaker 2: I think it's good that it happened.
Speaker 3: But the expectations that a lot of people had, I
Speaker 3: think we're I don't know, out of whack with the
Speaker 3: real reality of what it is we have here before us.
Speaker 5: Everybody so desperately wants another investigation. We have learned so
Speaker 5: much in the last few decades, the last couple of
Speaker 5: decades in particular. You know, you'll hear people like, you know,
Speaker 5: like Tunheim and those folks say, if we had only
Speaker 5: known then what we know now, you know, and they're
Speaker 5: sincere that. Everybody, including them, was like, if only we
Speaker 5: could take this and do another real criminal investigation, we
Speaker 5: might resolve all this.
Speaker 4: Everybody wants that, But that's not what these hearings are.
Speaker 4: These hearings are.
Speaker 5: You know, in this case, Luna is operating under two charters.
Speaker 5: One political charter is the president said, we're going to
Speaker 5: prove to everybody that we're transparent. I've got to introduce
Speaker 5: a little political humor here. We're going to be transparent
Speaker 5: releasing all those records. But when the public wants to
Speaker 5: see the records from Dodgers' activities, we're going to have
Speaker 5: justice go to court.
Speaker 4: And I do against tet just can't stand it.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 5: Okay, But that's a that's a charter, and that's and
Speaker 5: actually some of that is going on. It's important to note,
Speaker 5: as had been noted, that Louaz has asked people, She's
Speaker 5: asked NBC for films.
Speaker 4: They came back to her and gave her the wrong film.
Speaker 2: Okay, for the record.
Speaker 3: According to her, they gave her twenty hours of footage,
Speaker 3: but not the Wegman film, just saying just saying go ahead.
Speaker 5: They've asked, She's asked for the join EDI's CIA, for
Speaker 5: the joint ed stuff, and they're going, well, we can't
Speaker 5: give it to you right now, and we may not
Speaker 5: be able to find it. But and and by the way,
Speaker 5: then then you've got to say to yourself, you've been
Speaker 5: in court for years and years defending it.
Speaker 4: Did you not even.
Speaker 5: Locate it for the previous court hearing so that you
Speaker 5: had something to show the judge. And by the way,
Speaker 5: if you showed something to the judge, have you lost
Speaker 5: it since you were in those court areas? You know?
Speaker 4: And there's stone walling here.
Speaker 5: So there's some good stuff from that regard happening. She's
Speaker 5: doing things, but you have to kind of what we're
Speaker 5: talking about here. You know, it's limited. She has a
Speaker 5: very limited amount of time. She's her time's almost up already.
Speaker 5: So the one thing that I'm kind of upset about
Speaker 5: with this, the second hearing in particular, is that it
Speaker 5: didn't get the what it's supposed to be about. It
Speaker 5: didn't get the sins of the Warrant Commission on the
Speaker 5: record if you really wanted to put something on the
Speaker 5: record for where the government failed, where the Johnson administration failed,
Speaker 5: you know, and by the way, the Democrats on the
Speaker 5: committee would have to stand up and say, yeah, we understand,
Speaker 5: it's okay if we find problems with the prior Democratic administration,
Speaker 5: we're not okay, We're we're good with that. But it
Speaker 5: really hasn't done that, and I wish it had done
Speaker 5: a better job of that. And if they had just
Speaker 5: pursued that one light of inquiry about suppression of the
Speaker 5: Parkland doctors or some of the stuff that Doug Horren
Speaker 5: brought up, which is certainly, you know, if they won't
Speaker 5: follow that one light, but they've spread it so widely
Speaker 5: that it just didn't get on the record. And it's
Speaker 5: not that it's not in books and it's not been
Speaker 5: discussed before, but that doesn't mean it didn't put it
Speaker 5: in the congressional record.
Speaker 3: Well, not only that, but even at a time when
Speaker 3: the investigation was in the hands of Congress, okay, during
Speaker 3: the House Select Committee on Assassinations, they had a medical
Speaker 3: panel there that did not exactly operate, you know, openly
Speaker 3: investigating things when they.
Speaker 2: Were empowered to do so.
Speaker 3: So you could again bring up the sins of the
Speaker 3: entirety of the government here and say, look, nobody has
Speaker 3: done this properly yet, and here's alan why. And these
Speaker 3: witnesses could have prove if I had context for that,
Speaker 3: from Tunheim to this doctor perfectly right, I mean, for
Speaker 3: adding about Bolden and all the mess that went on
Speaker 3: with him. Even if you just put that aside and
Speaker 3: he wasn't there, you still have this and Hardaway is there.
Speaker 2: He's an example of.
Speaker 3: What went on during because he's part of the investigation
Speaker 3: in Congress in the seventies. I mean, unless I'm missing something,
Speaker 3: the very best outcome that one could hope for out
Speaker 3: of all of this is a recommendation when the committee
Speaker 3: closes up shop that there should be a new investigation,
Speaker 3: there should be new searches for documentation, and there should
Speaker 3: be well guess what a bit of something to bring
Speaker 3: about enforcement. Because here's the problem, right, the ARB closes
Speaker 3: up business. You know, even after they extended their life
Speaker 3: for what was it an extra one or two years?
Speaker 2: I forget was it one or two years? Extra two?
Speaker 4: I think too?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, either way, one or the other. They actually
Speaker 3: extended the life even though it was only supposed to
Speaker 3: go just so long signed in the law by George hw. Bush,
Speaker 3: brought into reality by Bill Clinton, the ARB did its
Speaker 3: work and then.
Speaker 2: Closed up shop. There is no enforcement arm for the
Speaker 2: law after that. So it yeah, I could perfectly.
Speaker 5: Right if they had used Tonnheim as a segue on
Speaker 5: that part, just like using the doctor as a segue.
Speaker 4: If they has.
Speaker 5: Used Tonnheim's statement as a segue to enter into the
Speaker 5: record the statements by Blakey and by other people that
Speaker 5: have been on these committees that said the government withheld
Speaker 5: information intentionally obfuscated our investigations. If that had been entered
Speaker 5: into the congressional record, that serves as ammunition for.
Speaker 4: Getting justice to do another investigation. Maybe just as not.
Speaker 4: I don't hew you do it.
Speaker 5: But this should have this whole thing should have been
Speaker 5: laying the foundation to make the argument that the government
Speaker 5: did not properly investigate the Kennedy assassination over and over again,
Speaker 5: and so maybe you should try to do it right finally.
Speaker 3: Well, and there you go, And that could be, you know,
Speaker 3: a sort of adjunct creation of an ar RB two
Speaker 3: which you know, could get back into it, and if
Speaker 3: it had some level of enforcement.
Speaker 2: They could go after some of these things.
Speaker 3: That people drag their feet on all the way through
Speaker 3: the existence of the of the review board and everything else.
Speaker 2: But that is not what has occurred yet.
Speaker 3: And like I said, at the end of it, perhaps
Speaker 3: Luna could have a you know, a list of recommendations
Speaker 3: as the chair of that committee, right which say, you
Speaker 3: know what, we recommend this and this and this happened,
Speaker 3: and in the past there have been recommendations that a
Speaker 3: further investigation of certain things occur, mostly ignored. But even so,
Speaker 3: that's probably the best outcome we could even see out
Speaker 3: of all this, right at this point.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we have a precedent. The King assassination. The Justice
Speaker 5: Department was basically forced by the civil trial to reopen
Speaker 5: its investigation. Now, I personally I think they screwed that up,
Speaker 5: but they were forced by events. They were forced by
Speaker 5: the civil trial, which brought out so many issues with
Speaker 5: the original criminal trial that somebody had to step up
Speaker 5: and address it.
Speaker 4: And Justice did at least do that.
Speaker 5: Okay, stepped in and said, all right, it looks like
Speaker 5: justice was not done.
Speaker 4: We'll tackle it. Justice could do that.
Speaker 5: Same thing right now, based on Luna's hearings, they don't
Speaker 5: need Congress, and I'm not even saying that they but
Speaker 5: they could do it. Today we see another investigation opened
Speaker 5: on the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Speaker 4: Now this is like the fourth investigation.
Speaker 5: It's not that government agencies can't do those things rightly
Speaker 5: or wrongly on their own. And that's you know, under
Speaker 5: this administration, we might have hoped for that.
Speaker 4: With Luna's work.
Speaker 5: If she has made a case that the government did
Speaker 5: not honor its commitments to its citizenry, then the administration
Speaker 5: the Justice could.
Speaker 4: Do something, and she may.
Speaker 5: I don't know whether they gave her such broad marching orders.
Speaker 4: I don't know that.
Speaker 5: They're really up to that, but we do have a
Speaker 5: precedent in her UAP hearings or UFO hearings. She did
Speaker 5: actually stimulate the government to create an agency. Right from
Speaker 5: a Department of Defense standpoint, you legislation has been passed
Speaker 5: and new groups have been set up to collect data.
Speaker 5: You know, her work has triggered government action before and
Speaker 5: maybe it can again. I'm just a concern that it
Speaker 5: you know that the way this ended up as being
Speaker 5: kind of all over the place, didn't. She didn't end
Speaker 5: up with as strong an argument as she did in
Speaker 5: the UAP arena.
Speaker 2: And she didn't capture the same headlines.
Speaker 3: Now, wrongly or rightly, you must admit that the guy
Speaker 3: who went up there and basically said, you know, we
Speaker 3: have captured alien technology and all that, as much as
Speaker 3: people might say, oh, well, that was just ridiculous. You
Speaker 3: know what, though, it stimulated the public to have a
Speaker 3: minor outcry about this and say, look, if this kind.
Speaker 2: Of crap's going on, don't you need to look at it,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 5: I mean, you're right, Chuck. But in one way, we
Speaker 5: have an even stronger case here. Yeah, what if the
Speaker 5: headline has been witnesses. Witnesses testify that the federal go
Speaker 5: force the doctors that Parkland hospital to lie. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 5: that's an actually much stronger argument than the quote unquote whistleblowers,
Speaker 5: because that is on the record with names and statements
Speaker 5: and testimony. We haven't we haven't seen the whistleblower stuff officially.
Speaker 5: Yet we've seen strong cases that that people were forced
Speaker 5: to lie about Parkland and Bethesda, right.
Speaker 2: Right, So there you have it.
Speaker 3: I mean, uh, and this is like I said, it's
Speaker 3: not just an academic exercise either, because we are in
Speaker 3: a political climate where I think of enough noise is
Speaker 3: made the current administration and various people that are in positions.
Speaker 2: Of power will respond to that, okay, they will respond
Speaker 2: to it wrongly, rightly, okay, and if.
Speaker 3: They think they can score political I'm just being blunt
Speaker 3: about this, and I'm being objective here.
Speaker 2: This is not even a judgment.
Speaker 3: This is about if you can make enough noise and
Speaker 3: convince let's just say cash Pttel, the head of the FBI,
Speaker 3: right to if you can encourage him, that he could
Speaker 3: score political points here on behalf of the Trump administration
Speaker 3: by reopening an investigation.
Speaker 2: I think he'd sign on to it.
Speaker 5: You're right, Looking at some of the charges they're already bringing,
Speaker 5: you know, it's not too much of a stretch, right.
Speaker 4: Quite Frankly, they seem to be willing to.
Speaker 5: Entire investigate almost anything, everybody over anything.
Speaker 4: You know. I'm not saying I'm even in favor of that.
Speaker 4: That's just a reality check.
Speaker 5: There doates some things that you want far less evidence
Speaker 5: than we have here.
Speaker 3: Right, But listen, that most an objective statement. That was
Speaker 3: not a judgmental statement. I'm not saying that it's right
Speaker 3: or wrong or anything. I'm just saying that it appears
Speaker 3: to me is okay, this could be done. That's all
Speaker 3: I wanted to get across. Anyway, Larry, I really find
Speaker 3: this discussion interesting, and I'm glad I'm having it with
Speaker 3: you because I actually had somebody else volunteer to do
Speaker 3: this with me, and I said, now I've got Larry already,
Speaker 3: so i know where this is going to go, and
Speaker 3: I'm glad to do this with you.
Speaker 2: And I don't know what else should we or could
Speaker 2: we take from all of this.
Speaker 3: And then I'll let you go for the night because
Speaker 3: I know you got other things to do, and hey,
Speaker 3: I'll probably do a second part to the show anyway.
Speaker 3: So but by all means, I want to give you
Speaker 3: a chance to say whatever else it is we missed
Speaker 3: so far during this discussion. But I think we hit
Speaker 3: most of the key points that we had in mind
Speaker 3: before we went to air.
Speaker 2: So go ahead.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think what at look at it is overall,
Speaker 5: as much whining as I'm doing and as much criticism
Speaker 5: as say do it.
Speaker 4: I think it's positive to the extent that it's it's we.
Speaker 5: Knew all this stuff right, right, as you said, there
Speaker 5: are a thousand people, hundreds of people in all all
Speaker 5: this stuff. The general public does not know all this stuff.
Speaker 5: And the fact that it did manage to service surface
Speaker 5: some important points like important records have been withheld and
Speaker 5: and and things.
Speaker 4: Are still being withheld.
Speaker 5: Uh, you know, even after you know there's there's something
Speaker 5: left to do.
Speaker 4: It surfaced that it with this, this hearing today clearly
Speaker 4: surfaced the fact that.
Speaker 5: You know, there was information available to the War and
Speaker 5: Commission that it chose not to use. And the current
Speaker 5: public it's refreshed. This it's kind of like a reset,
Speaker 5: a historical reset, if you will. And I think that's
Speaker 5: it's good because it, you know, this had all gone.
Speaker 4: Stale as it were.
Speaker 5: Uh, even the fact, the amazing, amazing fact is it's
Speaker 5: gone stale after two two decades.
Speaker 4: Of learning more than we ever knew.
Speaker 5: Like, if anything, it should be much more real and
Speaker 5: much more significant now than it was forty years ago
Speaker 5: because we know so much more. But that didn't happen,
Speaker 5: you know, it just the new stuff just laid there,
Speaker 5: got buried. Books were written, were read by a few
Speaker 5: hundred people, a few thousand people.
Speaker 4: But historically it went stale, which is.
Speaker 5: Said, now it's back, it's surfaced, it's refreshing, and something
Speaker 5: could happen to take it further. So overall, I am
Speaker 5: a fan of hearings. I just wish that they were
Speaker 5: conducted in a more focused, organized, structured manner and they
Speaker 5: weren't so politicized.
Speaker 4: But I think the hearing probably.
Speaker 5: Did as much as you could expect it to do
Speaker 5: with such a sensitive subject.
Speaker 4: It's kind of like the UFO UAP hearings they do.
Speaker 4: They're a communications vehicle and that's worked.
Speaker 5: And if you think about it, we did see signs
Speaker 5: of denial in the committee, like people stepping up and saying, oh.
Speaker 4: This is all silly.
Speaker 5: I don't want to hear all that. But we're used
Speaker 5: to that, right, I mean, we've heard that for decades,
Speaker 5: so we can just kind of ignore that.
Speaker 4: We know that happens. You need to look at the
Speaker 4: other side, which is much more positive.
Speaker 3: No, definitely, and that's the thing. This is a positive role.
Speaker 3: But for the people that are disappointed, I think you're
Speaker 3: a little too disappointed. You know, we were only going
Speaker 3: to get so much out of this to begin with,
Speaker 3: so I think people need to keep that in mind.
Speaker 2: As well.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not like you were looking at we
Speaker 3: have a potential new investigation here.
Speaker 2: No, we didn't. We never did. It was a matter
Speaker 2: of maybe we can get the stuff we should have
Speaker 2: gotten twenty seventeen.
Speaker 3: Okay maybe, And then a few new things came out
Speaker 3: and a few unexpected pieces actually landed, and possibilities to
Speaker 3: continue happened.
Speaker 2: So there's still work to be done. And I think
Speaker 2: that's the best way to kind of frame the whole thing,
Speaker 2: don't you.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, I think we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Speaker 5: There wouldn't have been anything new injured into the congressional record.
Speaker 5: You know, it's it's kind of amazing that it's even
Speaker 5: occurring now in twenty twenty five, you know, other than
Speaker 5: the last few people that knew anything about this just
Speaker 5: die off in the next two years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 3: And that's the other thing too, is that we got
Speaker 3: to keep in mind everything is on a clock at
Speaker 3: this point, and you know, not too much longer. Look,
Speaker 3: we're now down to the young residence here because all
Speaker 3: of the older experienced doctors that were President Barkland or gone.
Speaker 2: And etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 3: So you know, here we are who's left from the
Speaker 3: original Congressional investigation in the seventies, who's left from the
Speaker 3: Warren Commission?
Speaker 2: You know here we are nobody from the Warren Commission anyway.
Speaker 2: But you know, what are you going to do? I mean,
Speaker 2: Arlen Spector was one of the last surviving members I think,
Speaker 2: wasn't he.
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's pretty rough.
Speaker 5: So we got something, and you know, we had nothing before,
Speaker 5: we have something now, So it's kind of be a
Speaker 5: net gain. As I say, The biggest thing I'm taking
Speaker 5: out of it, quite honestly, is what he didn't get
Speaker 5: to say, the remarks he didn't get to make from
Speaker 5: the resident who is the area is a witness. But
Speaker 5: he's made those statements before. It's on record. He said
Speaker 5: things in newspaper interviews, and he's he's delineated a story
Speaker 5: that's very consistent with McClellan and other people that we've
Speaker 5: heard from that in regard to the pressure that was
Speaker 5: put on from the Secret Service and from you know,
Speaker 5: from Washington about you guys just need to shut up.
Speaker 5: We've written this report on what happened, and it's really
Speaker 5: good for your career if you just nod your.
Speaker 4: Head that's a very important story.
Speaker 5: That's the sort of story that should go in textbooks,
Speaker 5: you know, about how you deal with suppression of history.
Speaker 4: And that's when this occurs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that's from the beginning on the scene immediately
Speaker 3: with the Secret Service, right, you know, everything from what
Speaker 3: about the fact that we should have basically done the
Speaker 3: autopsy right then and there to you know, to note
Speaker 3: the Secret Services removing the body first of all, and
Speaker 3: then on and on into the Warren Commission the next year.
Speaker 2: I mean, it just continues. So there you go.
Speaker 3: Anyway, you can continue to follow this and a few
Speaker 3: other things. And I have a funny feeling next time
Speaker 3: you and I get together, we're going to be talking
Speaker 3: about a totally different subject. But who knows, Representative Lea's
Speaker 3: name might come up in that one too, But anyway,
Speaker 3: we'll get to that when we get to it. Larry,
Speaker 3: I want to thank you for doing this, and again,
Speaker 3: you guys go to Larry Dashancock dot com. Follow Larry's
Speaker 3: blog for sure, and every one of the books, one
Speaker 3: of the books.
Speaker 2: That you see there at Larry's website.
Speaker 3: I recommend there's a word press link which will also
Speaker 3: be in the show notes and I'll probably put The
Speaker 3: Oswald Puzzle Amazon Lincoln there as well. I highly recommend
Speaker 3: that book. It is not just another book on Lee
Speaker 3: Harvey Oswald. It is not just another book on the
Speaker 3: Kennedy assassination. I value it as a reference. So I
Speaker 3: just want you guys to know that that's a very
Speaker 3: rare thing for me to call somebody's work a reference.
Speaker 3: But it is a solid piece of work. It's very different.
Speaker 3: And also your co author on that one, David boy
Speaker 3: b O Y L A N. I always pronounce his
Speaker 3: name like three different ways. But good guy, And hopefully
Speaker 3: we'll be hearing from both of you at Lancer, although
Speaker 3: we might hear from you remotely and David in person. Again,
Speaker 3: I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 4: Sounds good. I enjoyed the conversation.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: Anyway, guys, stick around. I'm gonna get to some other
Speaker 3: stuff on the other side of a break. But again,
Speaker 3: thanks to Larry Hancock, and thank you guys for listening.
Speaker 2: I'm merely o'celly. All of you are.
Speaker 11: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 11: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 11: the context of the Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 11: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 11: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 11: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 11: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 11: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 11: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 11: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to Cuba,
Speaker 11: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 11: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 11: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 11: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 11: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 11: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 11: up against. For more information the War State dot com.
Speaker 4: This is James Corbet at corner Report dot com.
Speaker 8: And you're listening to the Olly Affected Olly dot com.
Speaker 2: Such Face Life, Spin.
Speaker 6: Through Conday.
Speaker 9: Here all, Oh.
Speaker 5: Hell.
Speaker 9: A fall a.
Speaker 2: Break infro.
Speaker 6: In Denial. Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larryhncock.
Speaker 6: Secret Wars became a staple of US covert operations and
Speaker 6: are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the
Speaker 6: cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes
Speaker 6: things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has
Speaker 6: ever written about before. It shows why it really failed
Speaker 6: and why the United States did.
Speaker 3: Not learn from it. It also shows why other countries
Speaker 3: today are doing secret operations with more success. This is
Speaker 3: the book that puts what some want to deny into
Speaker 3: the light. In Denial secret wars with air strikes and
Speaker 3: tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to larryhyphen Hancock dot com.
Speaker 3: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 3: com in digital or physical forms.