COPA Coast to Coast

[Myra Bronstein]

John Judge has been at Dealey Plaza every November 22nd for as long as I can remember.

Randy Benson is a documentary film maker from North Carolina whose film The Searchers will be shown in Dallas tonight.

Here's a snippit from it, which shows Judge on the Grassy Knoll giving a short speech before holding a moment of silence a few years ago.

...

I love what he says: "Take back your history."

[Myra Bronstein]

Transcript of Bill Kelly's segment.

Coast to Coast AM radio show. November 23^rd, 2007, 3 am – EST. WOND 1400

George Noorey: William Kelly, journalist by trade, from Browns Mills, New Jersey, has done extensive research into the assassination of President Kennedy since 1970s. His articles have appeared over the years in both print and online forums and newspapers and magazines. An expert on Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cuban connections to the case, and a co-founder (with John Judge) of the Committee for an Open Archives (COA). Also co-author of the Committee for an Open Archives magazine, he is currently campaigning for Congressional Oversight Committee to hold a legally mandated review of the JFK Assassination Records Act. He also supports the creation of a grand jury to reopen the investigation to reopen what he calls the unsolved homicide of President Kennedy. Bill Kelly. Hey Bill, how are you?

...

Great job Bill!

I esp like this observation:

"...The coup that took place really happened in 1960 at the Democratic National Convention when they put LBJ on the ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. That allowed the coup to take place."

[William Kelly]

Great job Bill, as usual. If an audio is available could you post a link, please.

The retention of focus on (y)our objectives certainly, in reading, was impressive.

Hi Gary,

John Judge implied in an email that a streaming audio will be available through the Coast to Coast AM internet archive, though I don't know how that works.

I taped it pretty clear through my phone, but only got snippits of other parts of the show via my internet, so I only have my part of the show. I'll see if John Geherity, our man in Dublin, can link to what's out there, if anything.

I did find a link that tells us more about John Ziegler, the guy who cut us off at the pass and bushwacked Cyril in the first round:

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=144

I'm sure we haven't heard the last from him.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

I recommend people read Ziegler's editorial.

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=144

I think he probably has many facts correct, e.g.

1. The first shot entered JFK's back but only shallowly.

2. CE399 was the bullet that hit JFK in the back but it did not hit Connally.

3. Connally was hit by a shot that did not hit JFK.

4. There was no wound in JFK's neck caused by either an entering or exiting bulllet.

Of course, I do not think he has it right that 1. Oswald shot JFK; and 2. There was no conspiracy.

But I think his "take" on the bullet sequence merits serious consideration.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

I recommend people read Ziegler's editorial.

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=144

I think he probably has many facts correct, e.g.

1. The first shot entered JFK's back but only shallowly.

2. CE399 was the bullet that hit JFK in the back but it did not hit Connally.

3. Connally was hit by a shot that did not hit JFK.

4. There was no wound in JFK's neck caused by either an entering or exiting bulllet.

Of course, I do not think he has it right that 1. Oswald shot JFK; and 2. There was no conspiracy.

But I think his "take" on the bullet sequence merits serious consideration.

But how did he snake his way on to a program that was suppose to be Wecht-Brown-Kelly-Aguilar-Judge?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

"Snake his way"? Do you by chance mean "sneak his way?"

No idea about that, Bill. My only point is that I think he has some things right about the ballistics.

Query whether under his scenario there was sufficient time elapsed for a single shooter to fire the first shot and hit JFK in the back and the second shot and hit Governor Connally?

I am fairly convinced that CE399 was the bullet that hit JFK in the back and MIGHT even have been recovered from JFK's stretcher.

I would like to hear his colloquy with Dr. Wecht.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

"Snake his way"? Do you by chance mean "sneak his way?"

No idea about that, Bill. My only point is that I think he has some things right about the ballistics.

Query whether under his scenario there was sufficient time elapsed for a single shooter to fire the first shot and hit JFK in the back and the second shot and hit Governor Connally?

I am fairly convinced that CE399 was the bullet that hit JFK in the back and MIGHT even have been recovered from JFK's stretcher.

I would like to hear his colloquy with Dr. Wecht.

No, I meant Snake as he snaked his way into the program, and didn't sneak in.

I have partial tape of Wecht & the Snake, who by the end of the program comes around to agreeing with Wecht.

BK

[Douglas Caddy]

Great job Bill, as usual. If an audio is available could you post a link, please.

The retention of focus on (y)our objectives certainly, in reading, was impressive.

Hi Gary,

John Judge implied in an email that a streaming audio will be available through the Coast to Coast AM internet archive, though I don't know how that works.

I taped it pretty clear through my phone, but only got snippits of other parts of the show via my internet, so I only have my part of the show. I'll see if John Geherity, our man in Dublin, can link to what's out there, if anything.

I did find a link that tells us more about John Ziegler, the guy who cut us off at the pass and bushwacked Cyril in the first round:

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=144

I'm sure we haven't heard the last from him.

BK

Please see my above posting of Nov. 23 that contains the link to the coasttocoastam website to replay the program.

[William Kelly]

Transcript of Dr. Cyrill Wecht Segment Coast to Coast AM radio – Thursday-Friday, November 22-23^rd – 2007

With George Noorey.

Cyril Wecht – In response to an assertion that there was a "massive conspiracy" behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

Wecht: I don't think that's the case. I have no knowledge who the specific individuals were involved; as to the political philosophies or ideologies of the people who felt that it was necessary for John Kennedy to be removed from office. But I would be willing to bet that if God were to come back and give us the answer that there weren't six people, there could have been three or four, who ploted this, who made the decision to undertake this. Now then other people were assigned tasks to perform and certainly some people at some point in time, came to understand what it was that they had done and what they were involved in, but I do not believe it was a massive conspiracy in the sense that large numbers of people made this decision and undertook this coup d'etat.

John Zigler: Dr. Wecht, John Zigler, I have a question for you.

Wecht: Yes.

Zigler: You're the absolute best in the world when it comes to picking apart the single-bullet-theory, we both agree that's bunk. For people who don't remember that's the theory that the second shot fired by Oswald went through his back, his throat and then went through every portion of John Connally's body and then came out prestine. My question for you is, if the single-bullet theory is not correct, and I believe it's not and you believe it's not, why does that in your mind, somehow prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin? Because I don't think it proves that, why do you think it does?

Wecht: Well, I was quite fascinated, Mr. Zigler, by your comments, because here-to-fore, to my knowledge and to subsequent guests into the morning hours here on this show, to get into some of the details, but I have never heard before, anybody from any of the earliest defenders of the government and official protectors of the Warren Report since 1964, to the present time, and that goes through all the way through some people who have been extremely outspoken, some very articulate, some who have written very serious books, like Gerald Posner, and more recently Vincent Bugliosi, whose numbers have doubled Posners, 1600 pages, I've never heard anybody dispute the facts as were originally worked out at the temporal sequence that was ascertained by virtue of many things, some of which have been…..

Zigler: Well let me throw my theory out at you and this is by the way is a theory I came up with some years ago, and Mark Furman of OJ Simpson infamy, wrote a book last year that dovetails almost exactly with this theory. Here's what I believe happened. I believe the first shot ended up being what we now think of as the "magic bullet." It was lodged in Kennedy's back, fell out in the stretcher – that no one knows whether it was Connally's or Kennedy's, it only went in a couple of inches. And that was the entire first shot. The second shot was the shot that hit Connally, did all that damage and never touched John F. Kennedy, and a third shot blew off Kennedy's head. There was plenty of time, probably about seven seconds, for those three shots to be fired. There was no missed first shot, the evidence of that to me is meager at best and one of the greatest red herrings of all time is that people actually think Kennedy grabs his throat early on in the Zapruder sequence, he does no such thing. He has his fists clenched, they never come close to his throat. And through one of the most amazing coincidences of all time, and it is a coincidence, he happened to have a small hole in his throat that was used as a trechiatromity at Parkland Hospital, therefore rendering it of no evidentiary value, but a hole that was far too small to be an exit wound, did not line up with the hole in the back, could not have been as you've said many times been an exit wound for the single bullet or the pristine bullet, what is wrong with that particular theory? Where's the hole there, Dr. Wecht?

Wecht: Well, ha, ha, ha, what's wrong with it is the hole, to play on your words. What's wrong with it Mr. Zigler, is not a matter of what you think or I think, the fact of the matter is, there were some eighteen physicians there at Parkland Memorial Hosptial, including of course the key surgeons, and there has never been, to my knowledge, quite sounded by what you are saying.

Zigler: That's not true.

Wecht: There has never been any question about there having been a perforating wound in the anterior, neck line area at the level of the tie.

Zigler: Right. You are right. But what that was, was a bone fragment from the shot to the head. There was no metal traces in the tie, no metal traces in the shirt, the reality is the hole was way too small to be an exit wound. You know that, that's why it was used as a trechiatromity.

Wecht: No, I must disagree. The head would would not have led to a fragment. The anatomy is such that the head wound, producing as much damage as it did, would not have produced a piece of bone functioning as a spin off missile, so to speak. Also, the wound, in addition to its anatomic location and the physical inability of a piece of bone to make its way down…..

Zigler: Dr. Wecht, do acknowledge that Kennedy never grabbed his throat?

Wecht: Well, I can only go by the Zapruder film, I……I…..

Zigler: He never comes close to grabbing his throat.

Wecht: ….I would not argue with you that he doesn't actually touch his throat, I can't see that, but I would disagree when you say that he never came close. I don't have it in front of me, of course, but my recollection…….

Zigler: Take another close look at it Dr. Wecht, not even close.

Wecht: …..the hands come up close. Going back to the hole, you have what has been described by trauma surgeons at Parkland ER as a circular, semetrical wound, and that too belies the theory of a fragment, there is no reason why it would be so circular and semeterical. Regarding to the size, you are right overall Mr. Zigler, when you think of exit wounds being generally larger, but believe me, it is not at all rare, or even infrequent, for a variety of reasons, for an exit wound to be no larger than an entrance wound. As a matter of fact, if you talk to any experience forensic pathologist, you pick the person, who doesn't know crock about JFK, just ask this question: Have you had some cases sir, in which you had difficulty where the shots been fired from some distance, so you do not have tattoing or stippling, and therefore no powder burns, have you had some difficulty sometimes, upon first visualization of the body, in differenciating between entrance and exit wounds? For one reason, in this particular case, it was partially shored up so to speak, by Kennedy's colar. A shored up exit wound can visually mimic an entrance wound.

Zigler: Dr. Wecht, there's a question I've got to ask you. And that is, with the prestine bullet, would you have done a better job of mocking anybody in the history of all these theories, to your knowledge has there ever been extensive DNA testing on that bullet, because it is my strong belief we will find no DNA of John Connally on that bullet. Has that ever been done, and if not, why not?

Wecht: That's a good question. To my knowledge, DNA testing has never been done. We have suggested this many, many times, including some people who are kind of neutral on the issue, like my dear friend and highly respected colleague Dr. Henry Lee. We've talked about this a thousand times, and its quite appropriate for you to ask this question, and to join the ranks of those of us who have urged forever and ever for it to be done.

Zigler: Why don't they do it, sir?

Wecht: For the listeners, they should know that DNA testing can be done on objects decades, sometimes even centuries, so…..

Zigler: Why don't they do it?

Wecht: Well, here, you and I join ranks in questioning why the government back then did things which were so incorrect, and why they refuse to do things now. Here we get into admittedly non-forensic scientific theory. I believe, simply put, this case is still too hot to handle for the United States government.

Zigler: You are absolutely correct, so.

Wecht: I used to say, when I was younger, and maybe more opptomistic, really, I mean when I was 35-40, I would say, we'll see, we'll come to know the truth. I say now, with great unhappiness, great sadness, that it's going to be long after I'm gone. I think it's going to take another generation or two even for a complete revisiting. All the progenery, all first and second generation of the people involved will have had to have left this earth before the people in government will feel that nobody's toes will be tread upon, nobody's reputations will be……

Zigler: You are absolutely right. John Zigler.com editorials has all the answers you need. The answer there, how Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

Noorey: You're not going to change your mind, are you?

Zigler: Dr. Wecht is great, but I'm right on this.

Noorey: Allright, we'll be back in a moment, we have more guests tonight.

xxxxxxxxxx

Wecht segment on Coast to Coast - Nov. 22-23-2008

I could go on. I think I might have Walt Brown, Bob Groden, Gary Aguliar and Judge segements as well. If you must hear the original archived broadcast you can subscribe to the Coast to Coast AM web site for $7 a month and download everything, certainly worthwhile if you are really into this.

I'll transcribe and post what I have of the others if people are going to read it, otherwise I've got better things to do.

But it was an interesting show, even though we were hijacked early on by the Alien Autopsy guy and Zigler really bushwacked Cyril, though I think he handled it all admirably.

Does anybody know anything about the DNA evidence?

BK

Edited December 4, 2007 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

Walt Brown, Coast to Coast AM radio show, November 22-23^rd, 2007. 3 AM EST.

George Noorey: Walt, thanks for joining us on this Thanksgiving evening. What got you interested in this incredible story?

WB: Well, let's back up a little bit. I was described as being a former FBI agent, I was DEA, not the FBI

GN: Ah.

WB: They eventually got sucked into the FBI. And the chronology I'm working on hit page 4, 400 today.

GN: It was over a thousand last year.

WB: It was over a thousand this time a year and a half ago. What got me involved? I was playing football in front of my house when Oswald was killed and the whole family was kind of gathered together because of the tragedy. My father was forty days older than John Kennedy and the feeling was, Horray!, they killed the little red rat, kind of. And now I said that's all fine and good but now we'll never really know. And my father just kept probing me, what is it that they're going to…., and I kept finding answers for him. I guess I never stopped looking for a new twist. And with this chronology, there' almost 40,000 paragraphs in it; when you line up that many ducks, you know what's wrong with the pond, so to speak.

GN: When Oswald was shot by Ruby in front of a national television audience, did you say…..this is not suppose to happen…..this is just too easy…

WB: Absolutly, and I was the only one saying it, everybody else was celebrating. I thought I must be a lone case because the adults think otherwise.

GN: Nobody thought beyond the obvious, how did he get in there? It was amazing.

WB: What really happened was, if you go back and study media accounts, they had convicted Oswald by dinner time on Friday, there was no,….I mean he couldn't have gotten a fair trial with the penguins in Antartica. Based on what the media said, and in a lot of cases, it was totally, factually, wrong. It didn't matter, get it on the air. And it's not the way the media is suppose to work. There's got to be standards for journalism.

GN: I'll always remember, Walt, that clip of Oswald, where he said, "I'm a patsy." I'll always remember that.

WB: What happened? Nobody asked, "Patsy for whom?" The obvious question. They asked him a question about the station wagon, because one of the Oswalds that shows up in the chronology went and got a bus and a cab and went back to the boarding house neighborhood. Another ran down the hill, got into a Rambler station wagon and drove away. A sheriff's deputy that saw this Ramber event went to the Dallas police headquarters and said I got a description of this fellow. And they said, you know, stick your head around the corner, that's him. Later on, they said to him, what about the station wagon, and he said that belongs to Mrs. Paine, where his wife was living. And it wasn't a Rambler, he was referencing a 55 Chevy wagon. And he said that belongs to her and she has nothing to do with this. But nobody said, what is this? This she has nothing to do with. They just didn't ask the right questions.

GN: All your research Walt, what road did it take you down?

WB: Ultimately it took me down the road, actually two roads, one there are tiny little questions that if we can answers to them they would just answer doors so wide, and secondly the idea is that it couldn't have happened without at least the knowledge and complicit acceptance, and this is not to say that nine different groups did it, but it could not have happened without the CIA knowing in advance.

GN: As they did about 9/11.

WB: Absolutly. Absolutly. And when push came to shove, the CIA fell on their swords for 9/11. It was either they take the blame or the president ….takes the blame and you know, the CIA got a bigger budget, but George Tennent fell on the sword, he committed suicide politically, to take the heat. The CIA knew in advance, Hover and the FBI knew in advance, and Hover absolutely wanted to keep his job, which he would have with LBJ. And I think Johnson had to know in advance.

GN: We ran a clip of E. Howard Hunt, the deathbed confession of a Watergate Burgler, that was recorded by his son St. John, and Hunt basically implicates LBJ. Did any of your research lead down that road.

WB: Absolutly. A very good friend of mine, a man who passed away a few years ago, who needs more credit than you can imagine, Jay Harrison, he called me just about ten or eleven years ago, because I had indexed what I had done. He called me and introduces himself and I quick grabbed my index off the shelf as he is telling me who he is. And I look up Jay Harrison and appeared in Volume 12, page 356 of the Warren volumes. So I just say didn't you show up somewhere in Volume 12 in the middle of 300 somewhere in John Steel's testimony, and he had no way of knowing how I knew, but he just said, Boy, you're good. But what you find is what he discovered, he had a conviction that someone named Malcolm Wallace was very much involved in all of this. In 1984 Billy Sol Estes was granted immunity from prosecution, and he would tell everything he knew with respect to his connections to LBJ and whatnot. And he said I got immunity, okay, here's the deal. Myself, Johnson, Cliff Carter and Malcolm Wallace killed 17 people.

GN: Seventeen people? Over their political career?

WB: Including George Parr, the guy who made Johnson a senator with the Box 13 scandle, including Billy Sole's accountant and his secretary, who knew more than they should have known about his flim flam, ah, and including John Kennedy. He was one of the seventeen. Ah, and some interesting flashbacks with some of that stuff, but Jay Harrison went to the Texas Department of Vital Records, because Malcolm Wallace was allegedly killed in a one-car crash in Texas, and there's a lot of one-car crashes in Texas when you get related to this stuff, on Januar 7, 1971, and it takes 25 years to be allowed to get records. So on January 7^th, 1996, actually it was the 6th, a Friday, Jay Harrison was on the line and said I want the guy's records. And they said well it's not 25 years until tomorrow, but we're closed tomorrow so you can have them today. And he got everything under the sun, including his fingerprint card from when he was arrested for murder in 1951. Before…..he served two days for the murder, he was convicted, found guilty, convicted but the jury was a hung jury and the one juror who would not vote for any penalty became a federal postmaster by a Lyndon Johnson appointement.

GN: Isn't that interesting.

WB: So he gets the fingerprint card, and there was one latent fingerprint that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository that could never be identified.

GN: Don't tell me.

WB: Yea, they printed all the police officers that were there, they fingerprinted all 73 employees of the book depository even though some of the women were never on the sixth floor, they fingerprinted them anyway.

GN: And it wasn't Oswald's right?

WB: No, there are no fingerprints of Oswald's on any fixed item. But there was one latent print, and they took this latent print to a certified latent print examiner, retired. And he studied it and said that this fingerprint is that fingerprint. He had no idea whatsoever who he was looking at. Just this is that.

GN: It's the same person.

WB: He said it was a 12 point match, which is pretty good in court. But one match wasn't enough so they went to a second certified print examiner and he said the same thing. He said, yea, exactly, just what this other fellow….And then they said its Malcolm Wallace. And all of a sudden the fellow and his wife got squeamish, and said let me think about it and he back away from it.

GN: He changed his mind?

WB: Yea. And the next day he returned the check for $500 and I got a letter from the guy saying you know I took another look at that thing and I don't really, I just don't see it anymore. I also have the signed affidavit that he did agree.

GN: Why do we get so many different theories of what we all believe….I mean LBJ, the Cubans, the mob, you have all these different theories and groups that wanted to kill Kennedy.

WB: The shortest difference between two points is something that you know…. Part of what you and I are talking about is entertainment, like it or not….There's scholarship and research, and I try to do an enjoyable show when I talk in front of groups. But I don't go there to be entertaining, I go there to be scholarly.

GN: But it's also trying to get back our country though.

WB: Absolutly. I heard in a commercial before you came on that we've got to name names, and point fingers and all that…a lot of it…..you say to yourself, who would kill the President in broad day light in a major American city and get away with it. You can get away with anything. You can invent a war, well they did that. You can cover up 3,000 dead people that I can see from my house, 9/11.

GN: Was it Jack Lemon who played in that JFK movie.

WB: Jack Martin.

GN: Didn't somebody say, we can get anybody we want, or something like that…..?

WB: Yea, he told Jim Garrison, you're so nieve, we can put you away tomorrow. And I happen to think, because that's a common question, I think we're past that point. I don't think, there was not a program on television, and I'm going to use the word yesterday, because its already three AM here, there were no shows yesterday commemorating the anniversary. It's ancient history. It's like you and I talking about….

GN: But I can't forget it though. I can't.

WB: I can't, and every day, I had four months off this summer from my college teaching, I was ten miles…….[End of tape – missing some time ]

WB: ….You know the military wanted a war in Vietnam, the Federal Reserve didn't like the idea that Kennedy was going back to American money and not Federal Reserve money. The CIA didn't like the idea they were going to be splintered into the winds, and you know Bobby Kennedy was going to take over the CIA the day after J. Edgar Hover was forced out of the FBI. The Cubans were going no where. They weren't going back home. Deals had been made during the missile crisis, we won't evade, and don't you do anything stupid, and when John Kennedy was killed, an…… journalist was sitting with Castro, a representative, and Castro was saying Oh, my God this is horrible. Because we were about to shake hands again, and now its forty four years later and its uglier than it was then.

GN: Kennedy wanted Castro to stay.

WB: Absolutely. Absolutely. He made some noise, look, if they're going to come after me, We'll going to come after them, but that was a bluff. He needed Kennedy. He certainly didn't need Lyndon Johnson. You have a whole number of groups that, again as stated in Stone's movie, they're surrounding him, big oil, because of the oil depletion dis-allowance.

GN: They all want him.

WB: The American people loved him, but the power brokers didn't. When the people like you, that's why they passed the 22^nd amendment.

GN: They knew he was going to get reelected.

WB: Absolutely. Not only that, it was the beginning of a dynasty. Bobby, Teddy, this is like, whoa, we passed the 22^nd amendment to keep this from ever happening.

GN: Well it's happening now.

WB: We didn't include brothers, and siblings. And then to me what ultimately happened, was, here's the deal. Where's the pressure point? The pressure point was Lyndon Johnson. Because Billy Sol Estes had been convicted in state court and sentenced to eight years, been convicted in federal court and he was tied like a knot to Lyndon Johnson. Bobby Baker was on the cover of Life Magazine on November 8^th, 1963, two weeks before, on scandals. The guy resigned a senate job that was paying $19,000 a year and his declared net worth was one million, three thousand and five hundred and eighty seven dollars. And I don't know anybody except than older, well to do, retired people, whose net worth was fifty times their salary.

GN: And at the time nobody was going to go after a newly sworn in president.

WB: Not even so much that, but the power of the presidency gave him the ability to bury Billy Sol Estes.

GN: Did he bury all that stuff once he went in?

WB: Sure, it all just disappeared. The TFX contracts that were bogus, which tie directly to the Texas School Book Depository. It all went up in smoke. Because you get a period of mourning, November 22^nd, until late August, in Atlantic City, Bobby Kennedy stands on stage and gets a 27 minute non-stop standing ovation. And in between the country is trying to pull itself together from what happened, and meanwhile, backstage, the Warren Commission wrote a tremendous piece of fiction. It just all got sidetracked.

GN: Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was involved, at all?

WB: Yes. But, the thing that I was going to talk about was, when you line up 40,000 ducks in a paragraph each, you discover there is two of them.

GN: Two Oswalds?

WB: Yea. You know I don't ever mean to come on your show and sound like a crackpot, but you got one guy that is absolutely in this place at one time, and you have another guy that is miles away, making himself obvious. I'm a marine, I'll shot the president in a second, bla, bla, bla, and when we come right down to it, if you have any doubt, if anybody calls into your show, tomorrow night, and says, hey, two Oswalds, challenge that guy to learn Russian by himself. Because Lee Harvey Oswald was not the most intelligent guy to come down the road. When you read his written work, it's almost unreadable because it's spelling is so bad.

GN: Almost like a grade school kid who is flunking out.

WB: You take somebody like that and you tell me that they are self-taught in Russian? Because I challenged Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote the latest lone-assassin book, I said, I'll take a year and learn Russian and I'll meet you next July….and we'll have a chat. And if you can't be there you better come out and say that somebody taught someone that they called Lee Oswald, Russian.

GN: So when they arrested Lee Harvey Oswald…..

WB: They arrested Marina's husband.

GN: He was a patsy, that guy.

WB: :Yes.

GN: Now let me ask one quick question before we have to go. Is it true that newspaper in Europe printed up the assassination before it happened, is that true?

WB: What was done, was that there was material was put out, following what happened, but the details that were included were premature.

GN: That's Walt Brown. That's one of his theories. We'll have more in a moment.

XXXX

Edited December 4, 2007 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

Robert Groden – Coast to Coast Radio AM – November 22-23^rd, 2007. 4 AM EST.

………..Program in Progress…….

George Noorey: What we don't know yet Robert, and maybe some do, if someone hired the mob to kill Kennedy.

Robert Groden: Well, there you go, what you are saying is extremely enlightened, because there is a very high probability that the mob could have pulled this off by themselves, but they Never could have run the investigation, or blocking the investigation, and covered this up for now 44 years.

GN: You are absolutely right. If they had done this on their own, there would have been an investigation, there would have been convictions, somebody in government would have gone after them. It's almost as if they were protected.

RG: There you go.

GN: It's scary.

RG: It's scary, and revealing too, given so much of what we have learned about the government and all that's of the government, through various investigations that relate to this particular act and others, we know that it is not beyond the realm of possibility by a long shot.

GN: I'm beginning to learn as I get older, we're a free society as long as we pay our taxes, we don't ruffle feathers, and we just keep going on our way with our little blinders on our eyes, in a direction, and don't deviate from that. If so many Americans realize that they don't have the opportunity to vote for the person they really want because whoever gets in, the two major candidates were already put there. So those bets are already hedged. I'm beginning to wonder, as we get older, if this wonderful country of ours, this tremendous country of ours, that I spent nine years in the Navy for, and raised my children for, and has been very good to me, it's just so disappointing to believe that there's people in this country who just want to take advantage of everything. And I'm beginning to believe that.

RG: Well, without getting into personal political views of my own, one way or another, having just seen two elections where the man who won the popular vote is not in the White House, that's not the way it's suppose to be. Whatever happened to one man, one vote?

GN: …Where we're headed is a direction that is dangerous and I think it all started around 1963.

RG: That's absolutely correct. Without that none of this would have happened. The Vietnam War would not have happened. President Kennedy would have ended it before we lost 50,000 American lives.

GN: Somewhere along the line a group of people got together and concocked and made a decision that we are not going to lose control over what we want to do with this country. We're going to control the Military-Industrial-Complex, we're going to control the price of oil, we're going to control the money system, and nobody, not any president, not any elected official, and they decided to take matters into their own hands.

RG: That's certainly what happened here, and people who asked who killed President Kennedy, the answer is to look at what you just stated and ask yourself who profited?

GN: Absolutly, every time something happens, I say who benefits? Who were the winners when Kennedy got killed, the Federal Reserve? LBJ? Who were the winners?

RG: Both of them certainly, the Central Intelligence Agency, the military, big business, there were so many winners that we end up with an entire menu to chose from. The question for a long time has not been was there a conspiracy to kill the President? There was more than one, certainly. The question is who succeeded, and that's the one we are still waiting for the answer to.

GN: With the special interest groups, this President must have been one of the most hated ever.

RG: If you judge a man by the character of his enemies, we are looking at a really great man, and very terrible, powerful and rich enemies.

GN: Do you think, had he been alive for reelection that he would have won overwhelmingly?

RG: I think he would have. I certainly think he would have. There are factions within the country who would have voted against him and considering how powerful his enemies were, one of whom was certainly Jimmy Hoffa. We certainly have to wonder where the union vote would have gone? And that certainly is somewhat controlled.

GN: This is ironic, you have to add Jimmy Hoffa to the mix of those people who may have known something, and he is gone too. I was one of the last reporters to interview Hoffa, Robert, back in 1975 in Detroit. I was walking him to his car, sometime before he disappeared from .....Red Fox restaurant, he wanted back in, he wanted back into the union presidency, and even though he was corrupt and cut deals with the mob and lent them pension money so they could build their casinos, and all the other things he did, for some reason he had seen the light and decided he was going straight this time, and they didn't like that.

RG: Well, history does show that sort of thing did happen, but he did hate the Kennedys and the Kennedys certainly hated him, but he wasn't alone. Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Johnny Rosselli, there's a whole cadre of people involved in that area of society who hated him because he was trying to cap what they were doing, trying to stop it, including his brother Bobby Kennedy. People ask also through the years, they ask why didn't Bobby do something, did he believe the Warren Report? No he did not believe the Warren Report. Not by a long shot. But he couldn't do anything because he wasn't getting support from Lyndon Johnson. And just a few months after the assassination, without the Warren Report being out yet, Bobby resigned from being Attorney General, so he really had no power to do anything about this. But as President he would have done two things. He would have reopened the case and war against the mob on the one hand, and on the other hand he would have investigated his brother's murder. And that's something that this power group could not ever allow. So he had to be eliminated as well.

GN: Why didn't he simply go along with the program?

RG: Who, President Kennedy?

GN: Yes.

RG: Because he realized it was wrong. He was President of the people, by the people and for the people. He saw what was wrong and tried to correct it. You mentioned several things before, including that the Federal Reserve system is basically holding us up and stealing our money out of our pockets year after year. He wanted to prevent that. He wanted to get off the Federal Reserve system and get back on the gold system, and this is one of the things he was doing that frightened some very powerful and rich people.

GN: And they weren't going to allow it to happen.

RG: No.

GN: You know the film version, I remember as a kid, I was 13 years old, but I remember the Life Magazine photos, and they immediately came out with a theory that he was shot form the back and had this reflex action, and I remember saying to myself, even the force of the bullet, the push of the bullet would push him forward. And they came up with all these theories as to why you snap back when you are hit in the back of the head. You know, I still don't believe that.

RG: There's no reason in the world why you should because it didn't happen. What they are talking about, and for those of you who are listening, this is important, they say that the reason why the President was thrown to the rear was a neuro-musculiar reaction. What they are refereeing to is cerebrid rigidity – the technical term for it, a classic, unmistakeable stiffing of the body. For anyone who has ever studied the Zapruder film, that's not only missing, it's not present at all. What happens is, as the President is struck, there's a rag doll effect, his head is pushed backwards, and his upper torso and his arms all follow behind that. And this is what we are seeing. We're not seeing cerebrid rigidity at all. And then they talk about something, Thornburns's? reaction, where his hands come up to his throat in a defending motion. Thornburn's? is a legitimate thing that happens but it only happens post mortum, and when the President is first struck, he is still alive. It has nothing to do with Thornburn's? at all. What it is he is snapping off on the bullet, which came from the front, and he's in a protective motion. Also another thing too, which the Warren Commission certainly didn't pay any attention too, at the time he was hit in the back, the bullet they say went through his body, which it never did. It took too long to hit Governor Connally. His hands were in the way of where the bullet would be going. The bullet would have gone through his wrists or arms or something, which it didn't.

GN: You are absolutely right about that. Is there any more evidence out there that we don't know about?

RG: Yes, there's a lot out there. I have a new book coming out in well I'm hoping this spring. It was suppose to come out two and a half years ago, but the designer disappeared and I have not heard from him in a very, very long time and I'm considerably worried. He's not at work and not at home, and I have had to start over from scratch.

GN: That's bizarre.

RG: Hopefully it will be out soon, and there will be a whole bunch of brand new evidence, and hopefully people will be able to see for themselves that there's a great deal more here than the government has ever admitted. The book will be called Absolute Proof. It will be available on my web site and at Dealey Plaza, but not at bookstores at first.

GN: Well, we'll get you back on when it's done, okay. Robert Groden. Next up, Gary Aguilar, MD, an expert on the medical evidence.

XXXXx

Edited December 4, 2007 by William Kelly

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments in burgundy.

I recommend people read Ziegler's editorial.

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=144

I think he probably has many facts correct, e.g.

1. The first shot entered JFK's back but only shallowly.

The Zap film shows JFK first reacting to a shot to the throat

from the front circa Z190. A 6.5mm FMJ round fired from a medium

powered rifle will not enter shallowly.

2. CE399 was the bullet that hit JFK in the back but it did not hit Connally.

There is no evidence CE399 hit anyone.

3. Connally was hit by a shot that did not hit JFK.

Bingo! 1 out of 4 ain't bad for a utility infielder.

4. There was no wound in JFK's neck caused by either an entering or exiting bulllet.

So around Z200 JFK started to act as if he was coughng

up a bullet ...Why, exactly, Tim? Care to explain JFK's actions in the limo

if he wasn't reacting to a shot to the throat? No...I didn't think you would.

Of course, I do not think he has it right that 1. Oswald shot JFK; and 2. There was no conspiracy.

Ziegler pulls a Hoover and pretends the Tague wounding didn't happen.

But I think his "take" on the bullet sequence merits serious consideration.

Of course you do.

[William Kelly]

This guy John Zigler's a Tim Gratz kind of guy.

One of two people not invited to be on the program - the other one was the producer of the Alien Autopsy Real or Fake on Fox and a new book on James Files, both flakes that co-producer John Judge tried to keep off the program, or do one of their own.

Zigler knows George Noorey as a fellow radio talk show host and he butted his way onto the program to ask Cyril Wect a question, and ended up dominating that whole segment of the program.

His questions are worth considering however - Why couldn't have LHO shot JFK in the back, Connally and then Kennedy in the head, and still be a lone-nut assassin? (Without considering the missed JTague shot), and

Why hasn't the pristene bullet been checked for DNA?

And why isn't DNA tests done today?

BK

[Michael Hogan]

Bill, thank you very much for providing those transcripts.

[William Kelly]

Bill, thank you very much for providing those transcripts.

Hi Michael,

My pleasure. I didn't think I got them all on tape, but I got a lot more than I thought.

I didn't think anybody was paying attention and gave up, but then Gary Aguilar checked in and so I did his segment too. I guess all I have left is John Judge. Do I have to?

BK