Speaker 1: It looks like it's the seventh day of August twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar,
Speaker 1: This the Ocelli effect. And you, if you're hearing us live,
Speaker 1: are hearing us a little late going to the stream
Speaker 1: on a Wednesday, wodn's day, middle.
Speaker 2: Of the week. That's what it is. So what it is,
Speaker 2: what it was, and what it's gonna be.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you strange days ahead, and we're gonna probably
Speaker 1: have to do either an extended show on Friday for
Speaker 1: the call in, or I don't know, maybe I'll have
Speaker 1: to do a separate show. There wasn't really enough news
Speaker 1: today or yesterday in my mind to report to you.
Speaker 1: I mean, what do you want to hear about? You
Speaker 1: want to hear about Kamala Harris's campaign?
Speaker 2: Do you guys want to hear about that? I don't
Speaker 2: think you do, you know.
Speaker 1: I look, I'm not on Trump's side, I'm not on
Speaker 1: her side, but it is a little more entertaining.
Speaker 2: Now anyhow, what are we talking about tonight? Not this?
Speaker 1: So everybody calm down, don't get ready to snap webb
Speaker 1: your radios, because you know the next thing is I'm
Speaker 1: going to be either too right wing or too left
Speaker 1: wing for you, because I'm neither, so good luck with
Speaker 1: all that. But anyway, No, we're going to go to
Speaker 1: one of my favorite topics and the upcoming conference in November.
Speaker 1: November in Dallas, the JFK Lancer Conference will be held
Speaker 1: on the twenty second to the twenty fourth, That is
Speaker 1: that Friday, the twenty second. It actually coincides comes together synchronicitatively.
Speaker 1: Is that a word synchronizatively? Anyway, with synchronicity, it comes
Speaker 1: together with the exact date, which means we're going to play,
Speaker 1: you know, during that conference some of the news events
Speaker 1: that were announced to the world as they were announced
Speaker 1: at the time, they were announced locally, and that's the
Speaker 1: breakout room, which I think I'm going to be running
Speaker 1: a lot of. But I'm also going to be the
Speaker 1: MC at that conference. Anyhow, a lot of presenters more
Speaker 1: to be announced very un Larry Hancock plans to work
Speaker 1: on it remotely. We'll be hearing from Larry again next week,
Speaker 1: but we're gonna hear from a lot of upcoming presenters,
Speaker 1: and tonight is guess what one of those people.
Speaker 2: And I'm really happy because nobody else has.
Speaker 1: Had this guy as a guest before, because I'm willing
Speaker 1: to bet that ninety nine out of one hundred of
Speaker 1: you JFK guys who are into the case at any
Speaker 1: level have never heard of him.
Speaker 2: Want to know why because I hadn't.
Speaker 1: Okay, And look, it's not I'm not trying to offend you, man,
Speaker 1: but the thing is, I can't keep track of everybody.
Speaker 1: And you don't have a website, you don't have a book.
Speaker 1: You know, you're not trying to sell something, but you're
Speaker 1: going to do a presentation and your focus is nice.
Speaker 1: I'm going to spoil the focus for everybody, real fast
Speaker 1: medical evidence photographs.
Speaker 2: I love this anyway.
Speaker 1: His name is will o'haleran, and I want you to
Speaker 1: remember that name because, first of all, is a younger guy,
Speaker 1: which means, you know, or I shuffle loose this mortal coil,
Speaker 1: which could be anytime. You know, he might actually still
Speaker 1: be at it for a while, and I don't know,
Speaker 1: taking a quick glance at some of what he's working on,
Speaker 1: kind of happy that he's going to be now he
Speaker 1: might actually have something to expand upon.
Speaker 2: Even though I would.
Speaker 1: Argue that even in the nineteen eighties we had a
Speaker 1: fairly good handle on some of what it is that
Speaker 1: he presents. However, he wasn't alive then. The internet was
Speaker 1: not a thing. Then there was a lot less released
Speaker 1: officially and even unofficially back then, and even in the
Speaker 1: days when I worked with, you know, some people that
Speaker 1: were rather strange characters in the JFK research community, and
Speaker 1: there were new revelations seeming to get splashed across the
Speaker 1: planet here and there. It was nothing like it is today.
Speaker 1: So Will has an interesting spot here because he might
Speaker 1: be primed to actually accomplish more and clarify at least
Speaker 1: part of the record from what I can tell, but
Speaker 1: who knows.
Speaker 2: Maybe it goes a lot further. And by the way,
Speaker 2: a lot.
Speaker 1: Of people started with one small area, as did I.
Speaker 1: You know, My whole thing was like, what can I
Speaker 1: do with this Oswald character to you know, prove or
Speaker 1: disprove what happened here? And can I make a reasonable argument?
Speaker 1: And I don't mean argument as in conflict. I mean
Speaker 1: it in its very very scholastic educated sense. How can
Speaker 1: I make an argument? How can I construct a narrative
Speaker 1: to either support the Oswald guilt or nullify it entirely?
Speaker 1: That's how I started out on the case and ever
Speaker 1: since then well self educated on medical evidence. I wound
Speaker 1: up observing autopsies. I wound up, you know, going through
Speaker 1: medical evidence on one hundred other things. X rays had
Speaker 1: to talk to X ray technicians, had to learn almost
Speaker 1: how to read some of this stuff. Myself, the blind
Speaker 1: guy reading all that, plus the hundreds.
Speaker 2: Of books, plus the textbooks. Yeah, all that.
Speaker 1: Anyway, enough out of me, will holleran, this is a
Speaker 1: name I think you're going to hear again and again,
Speaker 1: and you're definitely going to hear it at the conference
Speaker 1: in November. I don't know what days presenting it, but
Speaker 1: I'll probably be announcing him and it'll be a lot
Speaker 1: shorter than what I just did here when I.
Speaker 2: Do, so.
Speaker 1: Will first off, how you doing tonight.
Speaker 3: I'm doing good, Chuck. Thank you very much for having
Speaker 3: me on. It was a big surprise to me when
Speaker 3: I got the invite because, as you kind of alluded to,
Speaker 3: I have not made any public appearances talking about this.
Speaker 3: I've been mostly on Facebook and YouTube with my research.
Speaker 3: So this is new right.
Speaker 1: Kind of a strange area too, because you're not an
Speaker 1: older guy, which is weird for you to be on
Speaker 1: Facebook anyway, you know, So I know, but a lot
Speaker 1: of the people that are interested in this are still
Speaker 1: on Facebook, which is why I exist there. Oh god,
Speaker 1: but I do hate Facebook. The thing is, it's weird.
Speaker 1: How old are you, first of all? And can you
Speaker 1: tell us how it is that you even got interested
Speaker 1: in the case, because once you tell people your age,
Speaker 1: you know you're closer to one of my kids ages
Speaker 1: than mine.
Speaker 2: So you know, help me out.
Speaker 1: Here, you know, tell everybody how old you are, and
Speaker 1: tell us how it is that you got interested in
Speaker 1: the JFK subject to begin with.
Speaker 3: Sure, So I'm twenty six and a half. I've been
Speaker 3: studying the case since the fiftieth anniversary, almost immediately after
Speaker 3: was when I started looking into it. And I started
Speaker 3: partly because John Tannedy has always been a hero of mine.
Speaker 3: I've always admired him, and in fact, several years prior,
Speaker 3: i've studied him and his life and presidency, but I
Speaker 3: never really took an interest in his death until the
Speaker 3: fiftieth anniversary. Prior to then, I just accepted the official story.
Speaker 3: I didn't really know much about it.
Speaker 2: Well do you think it was the media blitz at
Speaker 2: that time?
Speaker 1: Because I can tell you the same story almost being
Speaker 1: a teenager, and it was the twenty fifth anniversary for
Speaker 1: me in nineteen eighty eight, right where I was in
Speaker 1: high school, going, you know, this is interesting.
Speaker 2: The guy is interesting because to me.
Speaker 1: Kennedy was like a rational liberal, which is what I
Speaker 1: thought of a mass or a middle of the road
Speaker 1: kind of liberal. So he wasn't an extreme liberal, but
Speaker 1: he was also a cold warrior. He was a mixed bag,
Speaker 1: and I thought he was actually a better choice than
Speaker 1: what I was seeing politically in the nineteen eighties. So,
Speaker 1: you know, as a teenager, and then the twenty fifth anniversary,
Speaker 1: all those programs came out, and you know, it was
Speaker 1: on radio, it was on television, it was all over
Speaker 1: and I went, hmm, this is very interesting to me.
Speaker 1: And that's how I actually got dragged into it right
Speaker 1: then in eighty So twenty five years later with the
Speaker 1: fiftieth anniversary blitz in twenty thirteen, mind you guys, that's
Speaker 1: what dragged.
Speaker 2: You in then. Huh yes, okay, well so.
Speaker 1: Now now that you you get dragged in because you
Speaker 1: see what documentaries, news reports. I mean, there was a
Speaker 1: lot going on back then. The demonstration in Dealey Plaza
Speaker 1: what was going on in Dallas.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 3: I remember vividly what got me into it, and that
Speaker 3: was I sat down with my mom to watch this
Speaker 3: documentary called JFK The Smoking Gun, which, shirt you students
Speaker 3: of the case we are listening, you'll know, talks about
Speaker 3: the theory that a secret Service agent accidentally fired the headshot,
Speaker 3: and it really gave me this sort of light bulb
Speaker 3: kind of moment because, as I said before then, I
Speaker 3: had never heard any alternative explanation. You know, I was
Speaker 3: a strong believer in the you know, Oswaldback's the looney
Speaker 3: because I had no reason to believe otherwise. But so
Speaker 3: immediately after seeing that documentary, I said to myself, wait,
Speaker 3: there are actually people out there who don't believe it,
Speaker 3: who don't believe that I was that's alone. Maybe I
Speaker 3: should look into this myself to see if that's true
Speaker 3: or not. And I went in with a completely open
Speaker 3: mind and just gradually looked at and looked through as
Speaker 3: much information as I could get my hands on and
Speaker 3: went from there.
Speaker 1: Okay, so this is really weird, because see I started
Speaker 1: out working on this stuff and actually digging into it
Speaker 1: for real, because honestly, I said to myself I want
Speaker 1: to put the conspiracy theories to rest.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The one you're talking about didn't emerge until a little
Speaker 1: after I got into the case, because it really started
Speaker 1: it germinated from this book called Mortal Error, which later
Speaker 1: on there was a lawsuit because Hickey went and sued
Speaker 1: the author. And there was a guy named Donahue for
Speaker 1: years that went around one who was a ballistics guy,
Speaker 1: who was explaining, you know, the different ways that this happened.
Speaker 2: And it was a wild theory.
Speaker 1: Actually, it was sort of a revolutionary thing that the
Speaker 1: Secret Service agent accidentally shot him in the back of
Speaker 1: the head with an ar you know, from a car
Speaker 1: further back in the motorcade.
Speaker 2: That was the idea.
Speaker 1: Now, now look, I'll tell you this, I don't believe
Speaker 1: in that theory. I didn't accept it to begin with.
Speaker 1: But long before the Smoking Gun, I had read that book.
Speaker 1: I had listened to Donahue. Donahue was on radio, Donahue
Speaker 1: was on TV. He was writing in newspapers. I think
Speaker 1: the Baltimore Sun is a lot of places where his
Speaker 1: articles came out. And I was acquiring newspapers from across
Speaker 1: the country because I was in New York and New
Speaker 1: Jersey at the time, and we could do that again
Speaker 1: no internet. But still it's fascinating because this came back,
Speaker 1: this theory after it sort of had been debunked. It
Speaker 1: comes back around and you're dealing with the second wave
Speaker 1: of the theory around the fiftieth anniversary, which was a
Speaker 1: strange time period for me. I had kind of stepped
Speaker 1: away around the fiftieth anniversary because.
Speaker 2: I saw a lot of hoopla.
Speaker 1: I saw that they were going to block us in
Speaker 1: Dealey Plaza as far as going there to do the
Speaker 1: Moment of Silence. It looked like there was a struggle there.
Speaker 1: They kept arresting Robert Grodin. It was a mess, And
Speaker 1: I just said, you know what, maybe I've had it
Speaker 1: with this because we're not making the progress we need
Speaker 1: to make. We need to wait for twenty seventeen because
Speaker 1: I was waiting for that since the nineties. You know,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, we're going to get our stuff to come out,
Speaker 1: because that's when this stuff has to come out. See
Speaker 1: how I could really read the future so well, you
Speaker 1: know it's got to come out in twenty seventeen. Thank you,
Speaker 1: mister Trump, and thank you mister Biden. That's why you're
Speaker 1: being sued by the Mary Farrell Foundation as we speak.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Will, this is an interesting time period, so
Speaker 1: that is what engaged you. But what did you learn
Speaker 1: about that? To begin with?
Speaker 3: Well, after I watched that documentary, I really, to be
Speaker 3: honest with you, I started by reading the Warren Commission Report,
Speaker 3: because actually my mom bought me a copy from her
Speaker 3: garage sale and I got halfway into it and then
Speaker 3: stopped because I had heard that, you know, so many
Speaker 3: people had said, you know, this gets the story wrong,
Speaker 3: and there's you know, a lot of misinformation in it.
Speaker 3: So I said, well, maybe I should look at other sources.
Speaker 3: So I looked for and read several other books, I
Speaker 3: watched several documentaries, and then really just looked at any
Speaker 3: and all information I can get my hands on. And
Speaker 3: within a year or two after starting with after I
Speaker 3: started looking into it, I just started to notice this
Speaker 3: pattern of just contradictions and inconsistencies and the evidence against
Speaker 3: Oswald that it really made me doubt it and morally
Speaker 3: and psychologically, I guess you could say.
Speaker 1: So what you found is that in the official record,
Speaker 1: what you found is sorry, in the official record. And
Speaker 1: then also the dissense that people had publicly published. You
Speaker 1: found that the guarantee was that you couldn't make a
Speaker 1: solid case against Oswald. The government didn't make a solid
Speaker 1: case against Oswald because upon any sort of real examination,
Speaker 1: it falls apart. You probably had just the Warren Report.
Speaker 1: You didn't have the twenty six volumes, so you weren't
Speaker 1: looking at the evidence and the hearings, right. But maybe
Speaker 1: you got to hold the pieces of those along the
Speaker 1: way and said, wait a minute.
Speaker 2: There's something wrong with this. There's something wrong with that.
Speaker 1: How come it says that this is concluded in the
Speaker 1: Warren Commission? And meanwhile, when I read what these people
Speaker 1: actually said, that's not what they said, you know, And
Speaker 1: it's a weird thing. And your mom might have picked
Speaker 1: up an official one from the government printing office, or
Speaker 1: what's more likely, which is strange, is that you might
Speaker 1: have gotten one that was printed by the New York
Speaker 1: Times or Double Day or something like that. And you're
Speaker 1: looking at this thing going, you know, I'm just strained
Speaker 1: to read this. And what I have is the government
Speaker 1: telling me that, despite whatever evidence they collected or didn't collect,
Speaker 1: this is the conclusion. So something is wrong here, Okay,
Speaker 1: but you're still dealing with the smoking gun, probably in
Speaker 1: the back of your head.
Speaker 2: Can I prove that? Can I disprove that? Okay?
Speaker 1: If I can't prove the case against Oswald, what can
Speaker 1: we conclude? Because I think almost nobody, although today there
Speaker 1: are contradictions to this, unbelievably, almost anybody would conclude that
Speaker 1: ultimately Kennedy died, Connolly was wounded, okay, and James tag
Speaker 1: was struck by something. But you know, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, every argument comes after that, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: I know there's people out there that say his you know,
Speaker 1: his body was switched and he actually came back as
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter and everything else. Uh, you know, we are
Speaker 1: in the age of you know, disinformation squared, so you know,
Speaker 1: it is what it is. But most rational people would
Speaker 1: conclude Kennedy died, Connolly was wounded pretty badly, and so
Speaker 1: somebody shot at the Motorcade for sure, at least one somebody,
Speaker 1: if not two, if not three. And in some people's cases,
Speaker 1: you know, there's twenty shooters.
Speaker 2: Everywhere, you know, and all of this.
Speaker 1: But no matter what, you can easily conclude that somebody
Speaker 1: shot at the Motorcade Kennedy died, Connolly was wounded, and
Speaker 1: this did change things in America one way or another.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: So you're now with that, and where do you go?
Speaker 1: Do you try to find a path to some sort
Speaker 1: of way, like what evidence makes the best sense? Do
Speaker 1: you go with the David Lifton thing, which again is produced,
Speaker 1: you know what fifteen years before you were the first
Speaker 1: copy of Best Evidence came out. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: do you go with that? Okay, what's the best evidence?
Speaker 2: Let's say? Is that where you went next?
Speaker 3: I eventually did read Best Evans I think around what
Speaker 3: was it twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen, But for the first
Speaker 3: few years my focus wasn't necessarily on the medical evens.
Speaker 3: That wasn't until twenty seventeen, shortly before the files were
Speaker 3: supposed to be declassified. But prior to that, I was
Speaker 3: just looking at the case just in a very general sense.
Speaker 3: After looking through the one report, I read Headshop by
Speaker 3: Paul Chambers, They Killed Our President by Jesse Ventura, Richard
Speaker 3: Belzer's hit List, and several other books, and then I
Speaker 3: eventually found the JFK. Lancer's site and Mary Ferrell and
Speaker 3: come through their collection if documents and just as I said,
Speaker 3: the more I learned, the more I became disturbed and
Speaker 3: convinced that the official story was wrong.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you're aware of the expansive universe of evidence
Speaker 1: that is available, which is kind of amazing because you know,
Speaker 1: if you look at this abruder film, it's less than
Speaker 1: thirty seconds of film, and the majority of what people
Speaker 1: study occurs in that thirty seconds, absolutely, you know. So,
Speaker 1: and then there's the universe of things after that.
Speaker 2: Right, what happened to the body? How was the body handled? Right?
Speaker 1: Exactly? How was Oswald arrested? You know, what did he
Speaker 1: say when he was in custody? How did he die?
Speaker 1: Jack Ruby shoots him? Gut shot? Weird gut shot? Would
Speaker 1: you have actually died had not an idiot been pumping
Speaker 1: up and down on him with a you know, with
Speaker 1: a torso wound, et cetera. You got to go through
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and what did the Parkland doctors say,
Speaker 1: And what did the doctors who actually performed the terrible
Speaker 1: autopsy that you know, Michael Bodden and even the late
Speaker 1: Sarah Weck could agree was a terrible autopsy? You know,
Speaker 1: the official record, what does this reveal? Okay, but how
Speaker 1: do you eventually get to focusing on the medical evidence
Speaker 1: you cut to the chase force.
Speaker 3: Sure, so I had become the first suspicious of it
Speaker 3: after reading the first few chapters of Jesse Ventura's book,
Speaker 3: which focused on what the doctors from Parkland Hospital said,
Speaker 3: and then I discovered best evidence and looked through that,
Speaker 3: and it was specifically the head wound that interested me
Speaker 3: the most because it seemed so important and the most
Speaker 3: arguably the most controversial aspect because of the direction of
Speaker 3: the shot that caused it. To me, it seemed like
Speaker 3: that was the whole central point. And so after reading
Speaker 3: those books, I went and found the testimonies of the
Speaker 3: Parkland doctors from the Warman Commission volumes I've read that.
Speaker 3: I learned their names, and then I searched further and
Speaker 3: tried to read and listen or watch to every single
Speaker 3: testimony or interview that they ever gave, and then eventually
Speaker 3: found that the people at the autopsy said almost the
Speaker 3: same thing that they did. After watching the you know,
Speaker 3: the nice Needy eight Carol and show Jfkun Salt Murder,
Speaker 3: that was my introduction to that.
Speaker 1: Okay, so all right, so now you've seen the videos,
Speaker 1: had you gotten to the HSCA yet and the interview
Speaker 1: of the doctor's there by the medical panel and all
Speaker 1: that and that strangeness yet or did that come later?
Speaker 3: Yes, that was around twenty twenty one when I read
Speaker 3: High Trees, and chapter two of High Treason focuses a
Speaker 3: lot on as well as the Parking doctors' reactions to
Speaker 3: the autopsy photographs, which is to him as the focus
Speaker 3: of my presentation. So that also really disturbed me and
Speaker 3: got me interested in the autopsy photographs themselves. I'd seen
Speaker 3: them prior to that, specifically the James Fox photographs, but
Speaker 3: then I had started going through and trying to find
Speaker 3: every version of the photographs that were publicly available, because
Speaker 3: I don't know if many researchers know, there's several different
Speaker 3: versions as far as clarity, and some are cropped, some
Speaker 3: are uncropped, and then some are better quality than others.
Speaker 3: So that's what led me to the autopsy photographs, and
Speaker 3: ever since twenty seventeen, I've been focusing on the medical
Speaker 3: levens in the head boond. I know a lot of
Speaker 3: writers have already talked about it at nauseum, but my
Speaker 3: focus was not just that, but also comparing the descriptions
Speaker 3: of the wounds to the autopsy photographs, comparing and contrasting them.
Speaker 3: And it wasn't until I've read High Treason that I
Speaker 3: became interested in finding what the Parkland doctors originally said
Speaker 3: about the autopsy photographs, specifically those at the back of
Speaker 3: Kennedy's head. Because if for those of you who have
Speaker 3: read High Treason, we'll know in chapter two, Groden and
Speaker 3: Harry Livingstone discuss interviews that they had done with the
Speaker 3: Parkland doctors when they showed them the photographs of the
Speaker 3: back that I had for the first time. And apparently
Speaker 3: those conversations were taped, so I went about trying to
Speaker 3: find those tapes. So we'll talk about that later.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, we'll get into that in a minute. I mean,
Speaker 1: but there is an evolution here, because Groden has a
Speaker 1: version of these autopsy photos, yes, and the Fox version
Speaker 1: that it took me twenty years to get, by the way,
Speaker 1: I didn't get mine until like two thousand and eight.
Speaker 2: My good copy.
Speaker 1: And mine I got from that negative that was produced
Speaker 1: from the original Fox photos where somebody created a negative afterwards,
Speaker 1: because initially he just had photos and they were bought
Speaker 1: by a researcher and then a contact negative was created,
Speaker 1: and that to me is the best set and has
Speaker 1: been very difficult to get hold of, and it has
Speaker 1: just devolved in quality over the years. The stuff you
Speaker 1: can find on the internet is representative of the photographs,
Speaker 1: but there is all types of variations. Like you said,
Speaker 1: it's cropped differently, there's different saturations of color of the
Speaker 1: black and whites, there's different I mean, it is a
Speaker 1: real crazy universe now of variations on these photos.
Speaker 2: So it's hard to do.
Speaker 1: Some of the best stuff that I ever saw was actually,
Speaker 1: I think on day at Lifton's video for Best Evidence,
Speaker 1: when when he first put that out, and like I said,
Speaker 1: that was put out in like the eighties, And again
Speaker 1: it took me till two thousand and eight to get
Speaker 1: my own actual copy of these things where I could
Speaker 1: look at it and I could say, you know what,
Speaker 1: I can actually see the grout in the in the tiles,
Speaker 1: you know, on the wall. It was pretty amazing to
Speaker 1: me that they were of that high quality because I
Speaker 1: was so accustomed to, you know what, The Inquirer printed,
Speaker 1: the weird photographs they printed of other people's books, even
Speaker 1: in high Treason, which was a good book, you know,
Speaker 1: it didn't give you the best representation of it. Now
Speaker 1: Groden put out his books and his stuff, and he's
Speaker 1: put out collections of photos and those are very interesting.
Speaker 2: But I still would stand.
Speaker 1: By the fact that you need your own copy of
Speaker 1: the Fox photos if you're going to actually examine them,
Speaker 1: because and they need to be from that original source
Speaker 1: at least, you know, a generation or two away from them,
Speaker 1: because you go further and further and they decline in
Speaker 1: their quality, they decline in the information that you can
Speaker 1: glean from them, and a lot of people don't understand that. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, again, they are representative of some very big,
Speaker 1: key things in almost any quality right, But it's difficult
Speaker 1: to explain to somebody how the high quality pictures the
Speaker 1: originals or close to the Originals are I mean so
Speaker 1: remarkably different and have so much more information in them
Speaker 1: that I think people fail to understand, like why is
Speaker 1: that important? I can see he's got a hole in
Speaker 1: his head or redoesn't or you know, and it's like, no,
Speaker 1: there's a lot going on in these photos that you
Speaker 1: have to see for yourself. What would you say to that?
Speaker 1: One and two, I'm curious if you ever read William
Speaker 1: Laws book in the Eye of History.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would agree that I myself had a hard
Speaker 3: time finding good quality copies of the progress. I've never
Speaker 3: been able to obtain a physical set of prints. But
Speaker 3: over the last year I've been looking everywhere I can
Speaker 3: think of to find high quality digital versions and some
Speaker 3: of the clearest ones I could find were on the
Speaker 3: JFK Lancer site and through Robert Grogin's books. Obviously they're
Speaker 3: not you know, large format, you know, as high quality
Speaker 3: as possible, but they were the closest I could find.
Speaker 3: And actually, yes, I did just find a couple in
Speaker 3: the Eye of History too.
Speaker 1: Actually, okay, now when you when you and I meet
Speaker 1: in Dallas, well we'll talk about where you can obtain
Speaker 1: a good a good set of those, because I'm chasing
Speaker 1: them now myself again because I had a well, you know,
Speaker 1: I went through a divorce and stuff, so I lost
Speaker 1: my materials. Uh, you know, because my things had to
Speaker 1: be destroyed and discarded. It's not even like she got
Speaker 1: money out of it. She should have, but she didn't. Anyway, Look,
Speaker 1: it's a yeah, we'll talk about that in Dallas, because
Speaker 1: I think you need your own set.
Speaker 2: But anyway, what is the key thing here?
Speaker 1: People are who are listening to us are going, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is great and all, and this is an interesting history.
Speaker 2: But I mean, without completely.
Speaker 1: Spoiling what it is you're going to present in Dallas,
Speaker 1: could you give us an idea of I don't know,
Speaker 1: some of the minor things that you discovered, some of
Speaker 1: the things that you verified about what other people had
Speaker 1: said in the past or disproved.
Speaker 2: One way or another.
Speaker 1: I mean, can you give us just an idea about
Speaker 1: a couple of things from the photographic evidence from the
Speaker 1: interviews that you were able to discover working with the
Speaker 1: materials that you have been able to get.
Speaker 4: A hold of.
Speaker 3: Sure so well, like I said, I am. I had
Speaker 3: seen the autopsy of photographs in the first year or
Speaker 3: two after I started looking into the case, and since
Speaker 3: then I've found better quality copies, but like you, I
Speaker 3: haven't been able to get of actual physical set, just
Speaker 3: all on the computer. And i've back in twenty twenty one. Actually,
Speaker 3: I started making a list of details within the photographs
Speaker 3: that I had noticed, some of which, as far as
Speaker 3: I know, not many other researchers had noticed before. And
Speaker 3: I helped to maybe turn that into a book eventually.
Speaker 3: And then as for the interviews, which will be the
Speaker 3: focus of my answer presentation, they're discussed in chapter two
Speaker 3: of High Treason, and Harry Livingstone mentioned that they were taped,
Speaker 3: and basically in round twenty twenty two, I contacted the
Speaker 3: GfK Library, which is where the tapes are today, and
Speaker 3: asked the Audio Visual Archives, you know, is this true?
Speaker 3: Are these interviews on audiotape? And if so, could I
Speaker 3: purchased them? And she was kind enough to spend a
Speaker 3: month digitizing all of them, which they had never been
Speaker 3: digitized before, and she emailed all of them to me.
Speaker 3: But there's one that she is currently digitizing for me now.
Speaker 3: But let's just say that a lot of the information
Speaker 3: that's on those tapes is exactly as is written in
Speaker 3: High Treason, and it strongly contradicts what the media has said.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, look that is interesting. There's more than one
Speaker 1: place to get a hold of stuff that Livingstone worked on,
Speaker 1: because I'm pretty sure there's a collection of his stuff
Speaker 1: at one of the colleges. I got to look up
Speaker 1: which college is at where I'm not sure if it
Speaker 1: contains any.
Speaker 2: Of this audio stuff.
Speaker 1: But Harry did record a lot. And I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying everything was extremely usedfu well that Harry did,
Speaker 1: because it did have its variations, let's say, depending on
Speaker 1: what time period you were talking about, and depending on
Speaker 1: what his problem was with everybody else at the time.
Speaker 1: And he was an interesting character, I'll tell you that.
Speaker 1: But but he did discover and revealed to along with
Speaker 1: Grodin a lot of things to the public that were
Speaker 1: previously unseen, that were previously unknown, you know. And again,
Speaker 1: of course, William loss collection is unbeatable when it comes
Speaker 1: to interviews of people that were president, different medical procedures
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. But in context, these were not
Speaker 1: sworn interviews. Even his you know, his blu ray the gathering.
Speaker 1: Have you seen that, by the way, the blu ray
Speaker 1: of the doctors that he got together.
Speaker 3: Yes, actually, I'm Facebook friends with William. He sent me
Speaker 3: that blu ray I think a year or two ago.
Speaker 1: It's very informative, extremely yes, it is, and you know,
Speaker 1: shout out, shout out to you, William. Of course I
Speaker 1: always recommend William laws. It always in my top five
Speaker 1: of recommendations if you want to get serious about the case.
Speaker 2: But high treason the first.
Speaker 1: One anyway, is definitely informative as well in different printings,
Speaker 1: and sometimes they had illustrations and sometimes they didn't. Uh,
Speaker 1: but you know, a fully illustrated copy of High Trees
Speaker 1: and is worth the price of admission as well.
Speaker 2: Anyways, So what is it?
Speaker 1: You know, can you give us a specific not like
Speaker 1: the biggest thing, but I mean, what were you able
Speaker 1: to put together from the interviews and the materials that
Speaker 1: you think is very different from what the majority of
Speaker 1: someone who was serious about the case one way or another,
Speaker 1: whether they're lone nut people or even the more. I
Speaker 1: used to call us conspiracy advocates, but I don't know
Speaker 1: what to call it anymore because it's such a wide
Speaker 1: variety of you know, everything from from the serious, scholarly
Speaker 1: and you know, wishing to accomplish something segments of the
Speaker 1: group to the crazy. In my mind, I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna be blunt here, and it does span the
Speaker 1: entire spectrum. You know, what do you think is the
Speaker 1: most interesting, informative new piece of information that either contradicts
Speaker 1: or supports something from either the official story or the
Speaker 1: conspiracy advocate corner of the you know, of the people
Speaker 1: that are interested in this that you've discovered, just give
Speaker 1: us one.
Speaker 3: Well, without spoiling the presentation, all I can say is that,
Speaker 3: just in general, the majority of the doctors and nurses
Speaker 3: that were interviewed on these tapes said what many assassination
Speaker 3: and critics are, what any conspiracy advocates have set for years,
Speaker 3: and that is that they saw different wounds than what
Speaker 3: is in the autopsy photographs, and majority of them disagreed
Speaker 3: with the photographer, specifically that of the back of Kennedy's head,
Speaker 3: which is the only one that they were shown on
Speaker 3: these tapes. But the majority of them did have the
Speaker 3: same response, and contrary to popular belief, a few did
Speaker 3: disagree with it the first time they were shown it,
Speaker 3: and then in later years changed their minds. I won't
Speaker 3: say who, but much of what is on these tapes
Speaker 3: contradicts what For example, the nineteen eighty eight NOVA special
Speaker 3: who shot President Kenny contradicts what was said in that,
Speaker 3: but supports what was written in High Trees and then elsewhere. See.
Speaker 1: Now that's interesting because the nineteen eighty eight Nova special,
Speaker 1: even up until recent years, has been referenced by a
Speaker 1: lot lot of people because look, it was twenty five
Speaker 1: years after it's a lot sooner than you know. Now
Speaker 1: a lot of these guys are gone. And even they
Speaker 1: did a recent thing on Paramount on the streaming service about.
Speaker 2: What did the doctors see?
Speaker 1: And it's interesting because they make the same point that
Speaker 1: the eighty eight Nova special does, like there's something.
Speaker 2: A little bit off here.
Speaker 1: But it's kind of funny because on that eighty eight special,
Speaker 1: they go in they look at the pictures which are
Speaker 1: only actually available the full collection, as far as we know,
Speaker 1: are only available under this deed of gift by the
Speaker 1: Kennedy family at the National Archives, and you have to
Speaker 1: have special permission from the Kennedy family lawyers to go
Speaker 1: view this, and they got it for the Dallas doctors
Speaker 1: to go and examine and look at the photographs, and
Speaker 1: they seem to all contend that these were accurate. Now,
Speaker 1: the funny thing is they are representative of what we
Speaker 1: know that has been publicly released, like the Fox photographs.
Speaker 1: They are not in conflict with the Fox photographs. So
Speaker 1: what they're saying is basically what you see in.
Speaker 2: The Fox photographs.
Speaker 1: There's more to it in the National Archives collection, but
Speaker 1: it's still consistent with it, which means that guess what.
Speaker 1: There isn't this massive blowout in the back of the head.
Speaker 1: There isn't you know these other things that you know,
Speaker 1: they showed us the you know, the infamous drawing of
Speaker 1: for many years, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: It almost seems like.
Speaker 1: They were supporting the official story by stating, look, I'm
Speaker 1: looking at the photographs. Yes, this is the thing that
Speaker 1: we saw at Parkland. And yet that's not the whole story.
Speaker 1: Even though that was memorialized. Those were the real people.
Speaker 1: Nobody prodded them to say it as far as I
Speaker 1: know on the Nova special, But maybe that's not the
Speaker 1: whole story. And also they were interviewed previous to this
Speaker 1: and on the official record, et cetera, even though I
Speaker 1: think the Warrant Commission didn't didn't a full interview of them.
Speaker 1: They went to Parkland for a day. I forget what
Speaker 1: they did, but I mean it was really a quick
Speaker 1: sort of Okay.
Speaker 2: Well they got it wrong, never mind.
Speaker 1: And I think the House Select Committee pretty much did
Speaker 1: the same thing, where it was like, well let's look
Speaker 1: at this. Well they're wrong too, never mind, Michael Biden said.
Speaker 3: So they interviewed it. Actually less doctors than the Warren
Speaker 3: Commission did only three of them to my knowledge, doctor Kerko,
Speaker 3: doctor Perry, and doctor Jenkins, whereas the Warren Commission taught
Speaker 3: to several others.
Speaker 1: That's correct and so but there's but that's the thing.
Speaker 1: There's always more to the story. But ultimately there might
Speaker 1: be a way to make this all make sense.
Speaker 2: Do you agree with that or not?
Speaker 3: I do agree, And all I can say is, well, Angel,
Speaker 3: I know people will make the argument that, oh, when
Speaker 3: it comes to eyewitnesses, regardless of whatever crime it is
Speaker 3: that they witness, you know, eyewitness testimony is now it
Speaker 3: was reliable because the human memory can be faulty, you know,
Speaker 3: And in some instances that's true. But one thing I've
Speaker 3: noticed is that in this case, in particular, the eye
Speaker 3: witness testimony is overwhelmingly consistent. For most areas, and for
Speaker 3: most I guess you could say groups of witnesses, whether
Speaker 3: that be the bias standers in Delia Plaza, the doctors
Speaker 3: of Parkland, or the attends that the autopsy, an overwhelming
Speaker 3: majority of them are consistent. And all I can say
Speaker 3: is that you have to rely on their earliest accounts,
Speaker 3: most of them from the day of the assassination, because
Speaker 3: to me, those are the most credible. And what they
Speaker 3: say on these tapes, which were actually recorded several years
Speaker 3: before the Nova special, it's pretty damning.
Speaker 2: Well, but there you have it.
Speaker 1: Look, the human memory is constantly subject to revision. It's
Speaker 1: constantly so to addition by new information. It just happens.
Speaker 1: It's not an intentional thing. It's not that, you know,
Speaker 1: the human memory is completely unreliable. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: at all. But if you take a look at the
Speaker 1: case of like say a Gerald Custer, over the years,
Speaker 1: you can see his testimony evolve and drastically based on
Speaker 1: the influence of the people that are constantly interviewing this guy.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but you can track it over the years
Speaker 1: if you'll want to. Maybe maybe you could do a
Speaker 1: chapter on that in your book. But it is really interesting,
Speaker 1: and I don't fault the guy. I don't think he
Speaker 1: was trying to lie. I don't think he was trying
Speaker 1: to create anything except that he was trying to answer
Speaker 1: the questions and to satisfy somebody.
Speaker 2: And this is what happens, by the way, during interviews.
Speaker 1: If you study you know when people are interviewed, whether
Speaker 1: it's about you know, a grocery store robbery, or it's
Speaker 1: about this case, it doesn't matter. A lot of people
Speaker 1: will orient themselves to try and satisfy the interviewer, and Custer,
Speaker 1: i think, continued to do that over the years, and
Speaker 1: therefore his story wildly changed and he was a legitimate
Speaker 1: witness to certain events. He was one of the people
Speaker 1: running back and forth developing X rays, you know, on
Speaker 1: the night of the autopsy. But his story kept changing,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't his fault. So you got to look
Speaker 1: at as early as accounts in order to get this
Speaker 1: stuff that was less contaminated. That's the prime example I
Speaker 1: like to use. Can you think of another that would
Speaker 1: be a good example of somebody's story change that people
Speaker 1: know about.
Speaker 3: Or well for the Parkland witnesses, the most obvious to
Speaker 3: me is doctor Marian Jenkins, who is the chief of antisthesiology.
Speaker 3: He helped operate the anesthesia machine on Kennedy, and his
Speaker 3: story drastically changed over the years, especially in the mid
Speaker 3: to late eighties and early nineties, and for students of
Speaker 3: the medical elevens, you'll know what he originally reported the
Speaker 3: day of the assassination, and we told the Warren Commission
Speaker 3: and how Select Committee is pretty strong indication of conspiracy.
Speaker 3: But even though Jenkins himself was a strong supporter of
Speaker 3: the Oswall. Back to the loan.
Speaker 1: Story, right now, here's the thing about these doctors too
Speaker 1: that I think people forget. Initially, their whole story had
Speaker 1: to be we tried to save him, and we did
Speaker 1: our best and we couldn't And that was the story
Speaker 1: they needed to tell.
Speaker 2: That was upfront in their narrative.
Speaker 1: Okay, because everybody would have asked, did you do everything
Speaker 1: you could in order to save the president or you know,
Speaker 1: because otherwise there would have been a problem here like
Speaker 1: what are you a Republican? Therefore you didn't want to
Speaker 1: save the Democratic president? You know, people are like this,
Speaker 1: they think this way, and they would have said stuff
Speaker 1: like that to them. So initially, these guys have to
Speaker 1: be defensive in the story they're telling. In my mind,
Speaker 1: now maybe I'm wrong about this on some levels, but
Speaker 1: I guarantee you this applies to some of these Parkling witnesses.
Speaker 1: Whether it's a nurse or it's a doctor, or it's
Speaker 1: you know, anybody who was there. They would have to say, look,
Speaker 1: we did everything we could to save the man, even
Speaker 1: though by the time they got him in there, I mean,
Speaker 1: it was probably obvious there was no way of pulling
Speaker 1: him back from the brink, even though they told stories
Speaker 1: that he was still breathing. Blood transfusions were being you
Speaker 1: know given, you know, and there was all this you know,
Speaker 1: maybe he'll be okay kind of stuff that was going
Speaker 1: out to the public and all of that. They had
Speaker 1: to make every effort, even if they thought it was
Speaker 1: hopeless in real time, and they had to present that
Speaker 1: story to the world. Now, after the smoke clears and
Speaker 1: nobody's going to blame the doctors for losing the president,
Speaker 1: right then, you get a slightly different story. So by
Speaker 1: the time they're speaking to the Warrant Commissioned several months later,
Speaker 1: you're going to get a slightly different story. They're no
Speaker 1: longer trying to defend themselves as we did our best,
Speaker 1: and I think this is a logical way to look
Speaker 1: at this, right but they're still being confronted by government agencies.
Speaker 1: Maybe they're still being questioned, they're still having reporters come
Speaker 1: to them, you know, as because it's still breaking news
Speaker 1: to the world. The Warrant Commission came, what did they
Speaker 1: ask you did anybody want to you know, did anybody
Speaker 1: ask if there was something you could have done? Maybe
Speaker 1: the same questions could have came up that came up
Speaker 1: the day after that came up when they had to
Speaker 1: give that press conference. And I'm sure you've also gone
Speaker 1: over the audio and video of the press conferences from Parkland,
Speaker 1: you know, from that weekend as well, right, and you know,
Speaker 1: and then of course if you go through the full collection,
Speaker 1: then you have to go through the part where they
Speaker 1: come out and tell you that Oswald died there, you know,
Speaker 1: and again they have to come out and say, look,
Speaker 1: we did our best, but the guy expired.
Speaker 2: I mean, he died on the operating table. What are
Speaker 2: we going to do?
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, all of this is going on, So there's multiple
Speaker 1: levels of don't blame for losing these people. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's government by gunplay, and then vengeance by gunplay,
Speaker 1: whatever motive you want to put on Jack Ruby, but
Speaker 1: you can't.
Speaker 2: Blame us, you know.
Speaker 1: So they had to be oriented toward that at first,
Speaker 1: I think, but as it relaxed a little and as
Speaker 1: people really wanted, look, I just want the truth. Let's
Speaker 1: explore this. What happened? Can you tell me about this?
Speaker 1: Can you tell me about that? And they had to
Speaker 1: tell the story about what was missus Kennedy doing at
Speaker 1: the time. Well, she's sitting in the chair looking pathetic,
Speaker 1: she's got blood flowing all down her dress, you know
Speaker 1: all these things. You know, she hands a piece of
Speaker 1: the president's head to the one of the doctors, etc. Okay,
Speaker 1: all of these stories, what part do we tell to
Speaker 1: the world?
Speaker 2: What part do we not tell to the world.
Speaker 1: At a certain point, they had to relax, right and say,
Speaker 1: you know what I want to tell you exactly everything.
Speaker 1: Maybe a couple of them even published books later on,
Speaker 1: like Crenshaw did. Right, Okay, and there is another time period.
Speaker 1: So this happened in stages, you would say, right, So
Speaker 1: which stage do you think is the most revealing in
Speaker 1: this It's not the immediate aftermath, because, like I said,
Speaker 1: in the immediate aftermath, they'd be trying to defend themselves,
Speaker 1: I think. But when do you think they start to
Speaker 1: relax and say, look, I got to spill all of
Speaker 1: this out or I mean, and obviously it happened at
Speaker 1: different time. Everybody's an individual, so they go through their
Speaker 1: process themselves, even if they have an agreement between them.
Speaker 1: They're all going to separate at some point. So when
Speaker 1: do you think they got to be the most revelatory
Speaker 1: about this.
Speaker 3: I would say as early as their testimonies to the
Speaker 3: Warren Commission a few months later, because a lot of
Speaker 3: what they told the Warren Commission supports what they had
Speaker 3: written in their reports the day of the assassination, but
Speaker 3: it contradicts what they said in later years after some
Speaker 3: of them unfortunately changed their minds after liked, after being
Speaker 3: influenced by authors and investigators. And you know, the sad
Speaker 3: thing is is that you could tell, you know, just
Speaker 3: from reading their testimonies that they were confident in what
Speaker 3: they said, but I think didn't say as much as
Speaker 3: they wanted to for fear of losing credibility or you know,
Speaker 3: damaging the Parkland's reputation, I guess you could say. And
Speaker 3: that was doctor Crenshaw's reason for not speaking out for
Speaker 3: several years.
Speaker 1: Right, and then he finally did when when he published
Speaker 1: Trauma I think it was called Trauma Room one.
Speaker 2: It was a small.
Speaker 3: Book, Conspiracy of Silence that was the first edition.
Speaker 1: Yes, Conspiracy of Silence was the first, and then was
Speaker 1: it Trauma Room one?
Speaker 3: After that, yes, Trauma Room one, and then the third
Speaker 3: edition was called JFK has been Shot right right, okay?
Speaker 1: Yeah, And again all of these books were not exactly
Speaker 1: the thickest. They weren't these massive volumes either that we've
Speaker 1: become accustomed to over the years. But they had interesting
Speaker 1: information in them. And that's the funny thing about this
Speaker 1: is that through the years in the literature there is
Speaker 1: the eyewitness section of the library, okay, and the medical
Speaker 1: evidence and the medical eyewitnesses. Again, you have a wide range,
Speaker 1: and you have varying reasons, Like you just brought up,
Speaker 1: you know, Parkland's reputation. That was something you know, would
Speaker 1: it hurt their medical practice if they either supported conspiracy
Speaker 1: or were against the idea of conspiracy, depending on what
Speaker 1: was seemingly more popular at the time. And for the
Speaker 1: most part, it seemed like you were better off not
Speaker 1: saying anything that was in favor of something other than
Speaker 1: the official explanation. Professionally, it was just bad for you.
Speaker 1: So there is another motivation in place. So that means
Speaker 1: at any time when they're making these statements, they're clearly
Speaker 1: not as worried about their profession being affected, which seems
Speaker 1: to make it more honest. And that's an interesting argument about.
Speaker 2: This, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Exactly? And the thing is to put yourself in their shoes.
Speaker 3: You have to think, you know, this is such an
Speaker 3: important event, you know, do I want to I had,
Speaker 3: you know, no reason, I didn't, you know, have to
Speaker 3: be there. I was just doing my job. But do I,
Speaker 3: you know, want to tell the truth or just succumb
Speaker 3: to pressure and just to save my own career. And
Speaker 3: I think they were as honest as they would allow
Speaker 3: themselves to be, but probably they revealed more. Most likely.
Speaker 2: Great, so we're.
Speaker 1: Gonna we're gonna get a real handle on this from
Speaker 1: you at Lance or you're gonna you're gonna show us
Speaker 1: how this works, and you're gonna explain about the testimony
Speaker 1: and insert these things and you know, actually create a
Speaker 1: narrative for us so we can understand what it was
Speaker 1: they were revealing about their first hand accounts of the
Speaker 1: body of fresh instantly, you know, as some people say,
Speaker 1: he was still breathing, like I said, when he got there.
Speaker 2: I kind of doubt that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, even if then moving him around
Speaker 1: expelled some air. I seem to feel like if he
Speaker 1: was wounded, that badly. He was gone. There was no
Speaker 1: way he was going to respond. There was no I
Speaker 1: don't even think you know, it was over.
Speaker 3: Yeah, some of them have said since that. Of course,
Speaker 3: the headn't was so so severe that even with today's
Speaker 3: mind technology, there was absolutely no way he'd be able
Speaker 3: to survive. But the neck wound probably.
Speaker 2: Right, and that's interesting.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, given that it was nineteen sixty three, given
Speaker 1: that they had the car ride there, given that they
Speaker 1: had the tools to work with that they had, there
Speaker 1: was no way in hell he was coming back from that.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was no way they were gonna save him.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: You know, we see miraculous stuff. There was that guy
Speaker 1: that was famous for many years had a railroad spike
Speaker 1: in his head and everything else.
Speaker 2: I know, but you know, there's just some things you
Speaker 2: can't come back from. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I think this is an interesting topic. I'm anxious to
Speaker 1: see what it is you've come up with. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be definitely watching your presentation. I'm gonna probably introduce you
Speaker 1: at the conference, but definitely going to be watching your presentation.
Speaker 2: Gonna be anxious to see where it goes.
Speaker 1: This is one of my special areas of interest, And
Speaker 1: I also love the fact that he kind of came
Speaker 1: into the case almost like on a similar timeline to mine,
Speaker 1: just at quarter of a century later. But it's okay,
Speaker 1: believe me, you've probably done better work than I have.
Speaker 1: I'll grant that to just about anybody. Why not, And
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes from here.
Speaker 1: Do you think you're going to continue on this path
Speaker 1: or you think you have other things in mind you
Speaker 1: want to study on the case, or do you think
Speaker 1: you've already found your area of interest and the thing
Speaker 1: that's going to further our base of knowledge and give
Speaker 1: us a real shot at presenting to the public finally,
Speaker 1: once and for all, something close to incontrovertible regarding the
Speaker 1: actual narrative. Look, this is the way it went down,
Speaker 1: because no matter how many different theories we have, we
Speaker 1: have to admit that at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: there's only one set of events that actually occurred, and
Speaker 1: we can argue about them forever, but eventually we're going
Speaker 1: to have to settle on some things that are just
Speaker 1: you know, Look, this is the way this was. And
Speaker 1: like I said, I don't think hardly anybody who is
Speaker 1: remotely rational you know, like I said, outside of the
Speaker 1: people with the body switching, and you know, somebody put
Speaker 1: a corpse in the trunk and there was a trap door,
Speaker 1: and god knows what else all right, outside of those people,
Speaker 1: you know, the one thing that we know is that
Speaker 1: the thirty fifth president was killed in a public way
Speaker 1: on the streets of Dallas, right there in Dealey Plaza.
Speaker 1: It was the original, if you will, nightmare on Elm Street.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: This changed the country, shocked the world, and there is
Speaker 1: only one true solution to this, and I don't think
Speaker 1: the government gave it to us. And I'm sorry to
Speaker 1: say that after all the investigations, after all of the digging,
Speaker 1: after all of the revelation, we still have not come
Speaker 1: up with a satisfactory narrative here.
Speaker 2: And I'm I would love.
Speaker 1: To see it before I again shuffle loose this mortal coil.
Speaker 1: Don't know if we'll get there, but who knows. Maybe
Speaker 1: with work from people like you and a couple other
Speaker 1: You know, you're not gonna be the youngest person I
Speaker 1: ever introduced at a conference, by the way, because we
Speaker 1: had a fourteen year old presenter last year.
Speaker 3: Him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Alex, Alex is great and he's done this show
Speaker 1: a couple of times, and I love Alex out out
Speaker 1: to you man, and you know, but so you're not
Speaker 1: the youngest, but I'm so glad to see that it's
Speaker 1: not just you know, like I for a little while there,
Speaker 1: I was getting to be the young person and I'm going,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, you know, I'm getting to my fifties. Now, guys,
Speaker 1: this is not young. So we need younger people to
Speaker 1: be interested. And I think you guys are missing out
Speaker 1: out of grab hold of them. You don't understand how
Speaker 1: it is they're going to get this information. Matter of fact,
Speaker 1: I might discuss that with you at the conference more
Speaker 1: than anything anyhow, So tell people where they can see
Speaker 1: if any of your work is available. You mentioned Facebook,
Speaker 1: so you know, tell them where to find your Facebook
Speaker 1: page or and also I know you have some stuff
Speaker 1: that I think up on YouTube as well, so could
Speaker 1: you tell them where to find that stuff?
Speaker 3: Sure? I have both the YouTube channel and a Facebook
Speaker 3: group called JFK Just the Facts. A lot of it
Speaker 3: is dedicated to some things that are already known, and
Speaker 3: then some of it is my own personal research. The
Speaker 3: tapes that I'll be including in my presentation are on
Speaker 3: my YouTube channel, not all of them, but most of them,
Speaker 3: and also a lot of it is mainly focused on
Speaker 3: my research. So if you go to YouTube or Facebook
Speaker 3: and look up JFK Just the Facts, that's me and
Speaker 3: prim much everything that I've written or searched is on there.
Speaker 3: I plan to do several more videos before the conference
Speaker 3: and before the next anniversary. I've also done a couple
Speaker 3: collaborative videos with researcher Matt Doufitt. As far as I know,
Speaker 3: he hasn't published those on his YouTube channel yet, but
Speaker 3: eventually I think he will. And we've talked back and
Speaker 3: forth about our work, and so yeah, if you want
Speaker 3: to get to know more about me and my interests,
Speaker 3: you can go there.
Speaker 2: Excellent.
Speaker 1: Okay, so just the Facts on Facebook JFK Just the Facts,
Speaker 1: And again your name is Will O'Halloran, and you'll be
Speaker 1: hearing more from him, I'm sure, because you're not stopping
Speaker 1: anytime soon on this, right, I mean, you're not going
Speaker 1: to just go go and to l answer and be like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm done. I have a feeling you're going to continue
Speaker 1: on with this research as long as there is something
Speaker 1: else to discover that you can see.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, I don't plan on stopping anytime soon, at
Speaker 3: least until the sixty fifth anniversary. By then I hope
Speaker 3: to get all my findings into a book Foreman, maybe
Speaker 3: published by them.
Speaker 1: There you go, so I look forward to that as well.
Speaker 1: Do you have a working title for that yet or
Speaker 1: are you going to just stick with the just the
Speaker 1: facts moniker or what?
Speaker 3: I do not have a title as of yet.
Speaker 1: Ah, all right, well you know what, you never know
Speaker 1: how that goes?
Speaker 2: Uh and uh.
Speaker 1: Look, I wish you luck and I can't wait to
Speaker 1: see what your presentations like.
Speaker 2: And I'll include the links with the show.
Speaker 4: You like history, real history that you were never taught
Speaker 4: in schools. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation
Speaker 4: Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new
Speaker 4: documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events
Speaker 4: that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear
Speaker 4: Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five
Speaker 4: through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon
Speaker 4: dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 2: Could you express my caller school?
Speaker 1: Was there anyone else who happens to get on the
Speaker 1: area of jelly dot Com do not necessarily replied reviews
Speaker 1: of Kelly dot Com or Chubo Chilly, and we are
Speaker 1: not responsible for anty stupidity which might ensue.
Speaker 3: Thank you they dot Com Radio Network.
Speaker 5: Go ahead call it about the DAFA assassination.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, what do you want to know?
Speaker 1: Bakers wild claim Oswall girlfriends, he knew Ruby and Barry
Speaker 1: fancy weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 2: But okay, I'm Bilby.
Speaker 5: And trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 2: Come on now, has a.
Speaker 6: Real effort on the DFA assassination.
Speaker 1: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 1: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 1: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 1: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 1: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith
Speaker 1: Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself,
Speaker 1: signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
Speaker 1: kias jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book
Speaker 1: and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith
Speaker 1: very Baker in her own.
Speaker 2: Words thank you for all the great information.
Speaker 6: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 6: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 6: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 6: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 6: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 6: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 6: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 6: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 6: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 6: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 6: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 6: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 6: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 6: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 6: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 6: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 6: up against. For more information, The Warstate, dot Com.
Speaker 2: Nuclear Holocaust, You know what uranium.
Speaker 4: Is right, Revelation to Conversation Chili dot com.
Speaker 5: In denial, Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 5: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 5: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 5: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 7: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 7: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 7: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 7: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 7: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 7: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 7: In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock.
Speaker 7: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com.
Speaker 7: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 7: com in Digital or Physical Forces