COPA Coast to Coast

[William Kelly]

Dr. Gary Aguilar, MD. Coast to Coast AM Radio – Nov. 22-23, 2007. 4 AM EST.

With George Noorey.

George Noorey: Dr. Gary Aguilar. He practices in San Francisco, California, a clinical professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on all medical aspects of the JFK case, and he has testified before the Assassination Records Review Board concerning the medical records. His analysis of the autopsy evidence is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Gary, how are you?

Dr. Gary Aguilar: Thank you very much for having me on. I am very impressed with your knowledge George, you've done an incredible job here and I want to thank you for having me on. One small addendum, my biggest review that was published in medical literature, was a long piece published in a somewhat obscure journal called Neurosurgery. I also published a review recently, a 9700 word review of Vincent Bugliosi's book in an obscure journal called The Federal Lawyer….. I'm one of the few physicians outside the government who is still allowed to see the still restricted autopsy photographs of Jack Kennedy and the X-rays and photographs. So I've had an interest since I was a young man, and both you and I are about the same vintage, so this is something that has continued to bother me.

GN: We'd like to…..but I think it is important for people to understand what may have happened on that horrible day. When you look at those autopsy reports and photos, what exactly do you see here?

GA: People who are interested in this subject will have no difficulty finding the images on line, and in fact they are the real images. I got both my copies before I was given permission to go back there, and compare it with the originals. They are not the high quality as the originals, of course, but they are the real deal. The key part of it here is that John Kennedy died principally from a gun shot wound to the head. The question about whether that shot came from behind or the front or both directions, and I tend toward the view that he was probably shot in two directions in the head and that explains the injuries perhaps as well or better than anything else. But there has been a mishandling of the medical evidence literally from the day of the assassination. From the day of the assassination, the doctors at Parkland hospital described wound that were then redescribed, and the autopsy pathologists were forced to write what I think is a somewhat fraudulent, perhaps criminally fraudulent autopsy report. Since that time the autopsy pathologists have lied under oath about the autopsy photographs, and in other ways have been intimidated. Autopsy photographs are missing….. and we have very good reason to suspect, because all the principles involved, all three pathologists, witnesses…., autopsy photographer, and even people who developed the images afterwards, have said they saw images that are no longer in the extant file. So this has been something where Kennedy's head was quite clearly been blown apart. And there are peculiarities that are very obscure to go into in any detail with an audience, with a general audience that isn't medically trained, other than to say that there are features that are completely inexplicable. The principle one perhaps, anyone who gets on line and sees the autopsy X-rays, particularly the front to back X-ray, so called AP X ray, a big piece of metal in what looks to be Kennedy's right eye socket. Well that piece of metal is supposed to be embedded on the outside, the back side of his skull. It's a 6.5 mm fragment, which is the diameter of the bullet that was supposed to have hit him from Oswald's rifle, and you can ask as many forensic pathologists you want in the world and you will never have one who will be able to explain to you how the central diameter of a bullet, the nose of which is in front of Kennedy, the tail of which is supposed to be in front of Kennedy if Oswald did it, and somehow a section, a central diameter of the bullet ends up…. on the outside of the skull. Good luck with that one. That's one of the many mysteries we have to deal with here.

But more importantly, what we see going along, especially in the mainstream media, is a willingness to withhold the truth from the public. Anthony Lewis, on the day the Warren Report was released, wrote in the New York Times, that the Warren Commission had released all the information that it had gathered, whether the information agreed with their conclusions or not. But it didn't. They didn't release a lot of it. The JFK Review Board found that material was still being withheld in 1993 when they started to go about their work. So the government and the mainstream media have never told us the truth about that…Now there have been a few cracks….Journalist Jefferson Morley, who got interested in the subject, and he actually published a letter in the New York Times, that is worth reviewing for your audience. I won't read it in detail, but he signed the letter with one time BBC correspondent Anthony Summers, Norman Mailer, David Talbot,….and listed the number of people who have either privately or publicly suspected there was a conspiracy, and among them – President Johnson, Richard Nixon, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, emphatically him by the way, Jackie Kennedy, William Attwood, J. Edger Hover, Richard Russell, who was a Warren Commission member, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart, and on and on and on…many other people. This is not some crackpot nonsense. We now have Vincent Bugliosi out here, and again, what you see in Vincent Bugliosi, with the mainstream media, is they assign people who known nothing about the case. ….Vincent Bugliosi's own book provides… – he's good at indexing who's who in the Kennedy case as anything you'll find. And anybody's who has written knowledgably about the subject – their name will be in there. If you read …. the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, on the subject of Kennedy, they won't be. My name's there. All the people you have on your panel aren't there. Well my review is now on the Federal Lawyer, it'll be on the web in the next 24 to 48 hours. It's 9700 words and it gives multiple examples of his mishandling of evidence. But you won't hear that from the mainstream media, that continues to tow the official line, as it has on so many other lies, whether it's the Iraq war, casualty figures in Vietnam, progress in the war, they never really told the truth about a lot of things that go on.

GN: Did they really have to get rid of Kennedy in order to continue their…..

GA: Oh, I think so. While we are getting away from the medical evidence, my expertise, but I think this is a most important question, George. And you need to understand my view is that John Kennedy got radicalized by the Bay of Pigs invasion, when he was promised that America's hand would not have to show in this, it was such a great idea,…..he was the youngest President in history, all these guys said it was such a great idea, so he went ahead with it. And then when things went badly on the beach and they said we have to have some ships offshore, we'd like to send in some troops, and Kennedy said no, we're not going to do that. He put his foot down. Well in that moment I think he got radicalized, he had realized....and by the way, there…I wish I could give you a few more,…but off the top of my head I'll just tell you, and if you ever want….it back I'll let you know. The CIA knew the date of the invasion had been blown, the CIA had found out that the Russians knew the day we were coming, which means the Cubans knew. The whole plot had been revealed and exposed, and of course it failed.

GN: Oh, my God. It's important they didn't stop it.

GA: No, they just expected that Kennedy would roll, as all Presidents would in a situation like that, and do what the military wanted and send in an invasionary force, so Kennedy infuriated them by not doing what they wanted at the Bay of Pigs. Then there was Operation Northwoods, which you may have spoken about, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned to commit acts of terrorism against innocent Americans as a pretext for war against Cuba in 1962. Kennedy wouldn't let them do that. Anyone can get that information by Googling Operation Northwoods. You can see the Joint Chiefs of Staff signatures on the page. So he infuriated them with the Bay of Pigs, and again with Operation Northwoods, in 1962 he was pushing for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was ultimately and eventually signed, and they were furious about that. They wanted to send troops into Laos and he wouldn't let them do that. Then during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if you read a book The Kennedy Case, Harvard University Press, it's about the Special Operations Group meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis in those 13 days, the editors of the book say there were many times, in listening to the tapes, the only person in the room determined not to go to war was Jack Kennedy. He was surrounded by advisors that were all advocating war. He stood against his own advisors, which Presidents just don't have the courage to do anymore, and haven't since. And finally on the question of Vietnam and JFK, people said Oliver Stone was a complete crackpot for suggesting that Jack Kennedy would not have prosecuted that war, but its now turned out from classified documents, and you don't even have to take it from conspiracy theorists anymore, a bunch of historians who agree that that's true were skeptical of that theory before the declassified documents came out. Howard Jones, who published a book the Death of a Generation, 2003, Oxford University Press, a very prestigious publishing house. In his introduction on page 8, ….when I first read this business that Kennedy wouldn't prosecute the war I thought it was nuts. And he essentially wrote the book to say that if there was one officer in this country that was determined not to go to war in Vietnam it was Jack Kennedy. So look at what happened. If you look at it in perspective, did they have to get rid of Jack Kennedy?

GN: Oh, yes.

GA: I mean they wouldn't let them have the Bay of Pigs, wouldn't let them have Operation Northwoods, wouldn't let them have a Cuban Missile Crisis attack on Cuba, he pushed for a nuclear test ban treaty….

GN: The federal reserve, we have to bring that up…..

GA: The Federal Reserve, that's another one, one that knows much less about, than these others, but it's another example of that. No, I think he had to be removed. And at that moment, people began learning that they serve, for the lack of a better word, Eisenhower's Military-Industrial complex.

GN: He had to have known Gary, besides the story we just had that he was warned about Chicago and didn't go there, he had to have known they were all out to get him.

GA: In fact, if you read David Talbot's new book Brothers, which is a suburb book, beautifully written by the way, he's just a great writer. It annoys me that he's such a great writer because I wish I could write as well. But he lays out the fact that both Bobby and Jack, but particularly Jack, you need to call it a premonition, but he understood, and he even advocated his associates see this film Seven Days In May where there's a plot against the President by the military.

GN: He was intuitive.

GA: You don't have to be a genius to stand in a room with the most powerful people in the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis and you're standing alone against them, to realize that you're not making powerful friends by doing that. And here's the irony of the thing. I'd like to say I'm delighted to be able to say this on coast to coast radio because its well known and published in all sorts of university books, but you talk to…one in a hundred people know its true. If Kennedy had done what the military wanted during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was to bomb the missile sites that were still under construction and to invade the island, what we didn't know then that we now know, the Cubans had nukes on the beaches, tactical nuclear missiles that had a range of about 200 miles, or so,….

GN: Armed and ready to go.

GA: Armed and ready to go. If we had sent in a flotilla to take over the island, the Russians had….idiotically, given the Cubans independent authorization to fire in the event of an attack. They would have nuked our ships; the Americans would have seen the Russians hand in this and no doubt had retaliated with a nuclear strike on Russia…..

GN: Florida and part of the south would have been gone.

GA: Part of the south might very well have been gone. They would have taken out Russia and Russia would have said that this nuclear exchange business is a game that two can play, and we wouldn't be having this conversation today. It would be an entirely different world if Kennedy had not been President of the United States. Now mind you, I grew up in Los Angeles, my dad worked at Lockheed, my parents ran John Birch Society chapters when I was growing up. I was a Young American for Freedom member, a Young Republican, I campaigned…….

GN: I haven't heard the John Birch Society mentioned in a hundred years.

GA: It's still around. My mother still likes it. It's unbelievable.

GN: Now they're called right wingers, right?

GA: It's insane. Now when I reflect back on it, the thing that opened my eyes was reading the Pentagon Papers, and Dan Ellsberg is a hero. I wish there were a few more like him in the world. But also you have to realize that, I thought the guys you could trust were not those long haired, commie pinkos, you know that were protesting when I was in college. The people you could trust were those guys with the clear eyes, short hair and uniforms and the ROTC….they were the people you could trust. Then I read the Pentagon Papers and learned that protested, the commie pinko, dope smokers, and….the guys who you should not. The individual soldiers were heroes. In this movie Lions for Lams, they quote Churchill I think, they say that lions go into battle for the lams…. in the field, and as we see in Iraq today, they are the real heroes and they are going into battle on behalf of men who are lams, who really don't represent the personal the sort of courage and personal dedication….I don't blame the individual solders or the guys behind the ROTC tables, but the seat of the military, the manipulation of the government towards military ends is a national tragedy here.

GN: And you know what's happening now as you see world events and that is they are all ganging up to destroy whatever we thought was our form of democracy and freedom, by chopping up the dollar, by doing what they are doing, and you can see it unfold now, it's almost as if the plan was concocted forty four years ago.

GA: It's absolutely frightening. It's been as you say, marching in an unavoidable march down this terrible path we are on. We used to have the strongest currency in the world, now we're the laughing stock of the world. We used to be the world's banker, and now we're the world's biggest debtor.

GN: It's like it all happened at once. It's been ongoing but the publicity of it and the effect is like the bottom fell out. You know what it's like? You're a doctor, you'll understand this. A guy goes along for his whole life, feeling good, having a good time, exercising, and wakes up one morning and has a heart attack. It's all over for him. It's all over, and he says to himself, how the heck did this happen? It was building up. And that is what is happening to us.

GA: We've been missing the signs here. I haven't been missing them. In fact, studying the Kennedy case is one thing which has been very helpful for me to immediately start recognizing when I'm getting disinformation from the government in the mainstream media. I was howling about, because I was reading the international press on line, I was howling about the huge exaggerations about the imminence of this great threat we face from Iraq, when Judith Miller's stories were gracing the front pages of the New York Times telling us we had to go to war to fend off this terrible human threat, and I felt, wait a minute. I've already been through one war like this where we had an imminent threat in the Gulf of Tonkin that never really existed. Even many of my medical colleagues, many of whom tend to be quite conservative, as you probably know, said Oh, no, no, you can trust them this time, and they're telling the truth this time. Now they're all shame faced and embarrassed, but in the meantime….You can find this easily by Googling the words: rich-poor-gap-widens. The United States used to be a country where you could start off poor and rise to prosperity easier than anyplace else in the world. Well guess what folks? According to the Wall Street Journal, which is where you will find that article, the United States…is now tied for dead last in your chances to rise to prosperity from poverty. This isn't some commie leftist nut cases saying this….this is the World Street Journal saying this. We've lost a huge thing. And I'm a guy who grew up in a family of twelve, conservative, Republican parents, but poor as church mice, with brothers and sisters frequently out of work, with waves of hiring and firings depending on the defense budget.

GN: Do you know why they can't tell us what happened back there in 1963. They can't tell us because they haven't stopped yet. If it was a one time event, and he got assassinated and they know who did it, they would have said this. They can't say it because it's still going on.

GA: There continues to be a terrible deception going on. And the mainstream media has now been so organized with so few outlets in the country that they can keep on message, and keep manipulating the public and manipulating and manufacturing consent….

GN: I just don't think they understand here…I know a lot of people in the media and most of them aren't told what to do by other groups or agencies. They are just so involved in this competition to get the Anna Nicole story on the air that they just don't….

GA: ….You want to go with the sensational thing, which is how Rupert Murdoch took the venerable London Times and made it, tabloid zed it.

GN: You got one guy out there – Lou Dobbs with CNN, who sticks his neck out. Other than that there's not much out there.

GA: Well, there's a guy, I'm trying to think of his name, because I watch almost no TV, commentator on MSNBC,….

GN: That's Keith Olbermann…

GA: I've seen a couple of things he's done and thought it was spectacular. And Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Frank Rich of the New York Times,….

GN: But how many people read that? It's become a television world and a radio world to some extent. Gary, we've go to run, but thank you for getting us to look at the web site and some of those photos, I just did.

GA: I recommend that people who read Vincent Bugliosi's book go to a web site called www.reclaiminghistory.org, not com., .org, where there's essays I've written and other critics have written that will lay out the facts because Bugliosi can't be trusted.

GN: Okay, we've got to run; we've got one more guest to go.

xxxxxxx

Edited December 4, 2007 by William Kelly

[Dawn Meredith]

Bill, many thanks. And to Gary as well for a great interview on coasttocoast. This broadcast every year is, by far, the most important media offering that exists. Now transcripts can be emailed to the many who choose sleep during these enlightening

hours.

Dawn

[Michael Hogan]

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?

I believe many members would appreciate it if you did. And given your long association with Mr. Judge, it seems appropriate, if not mandatory.

I have this visual of you at the keyboard, reaching for the rewind button on your tape recorder....

[William Kelly]

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?

I believe many members would appreciate it if you did. And given your long association with Mr. Judge, it seems appropriate, if not mandatory.

I have this visual of you at the keyboard, reaching for the rewind button on your tape recorder....

Well, if I don't accidently erase a large segment of anything important, I'm not elligible for the Rosemary Woods Award, right?

And from what I understand, if you want to hear it instead of reading it, the internet streaming audio is available to anyone who pays $7 for a month's Coast to Coast shows, and can download the entire program.

BK

Edited December 5, 2007 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

John Judge segment – Coast to Coast AM Radio – 4:30 – 5 AM, EST, with George Noorey.

Announcer: From the City of Angles, Premier Radio Network presents Coast to Coast AM with George Noorey.

George Noorey: We're going to have John Judge join us. He's a researcher investigating political assassinations since the 1960s. I'm also going to take the fast fact? poll now too. Those who are at their computer, here's the question: Do you believe the lone gunman theory, or a conspiracy? All you have to do is put down lone gunman or conspiracy, and we'll tabulate it and by the time we are off the air we'll have the percent. I think I know what it's going to be.

GN: John Judge, who lives in Washington D.C. He has been investigating the assassinations of JFK, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King and others since the late '60s. He worked closely with the early critics of the Warren Commission – Penn Jones and Mae Brussell. He is the co-founder of the Committee for an Open Archives (COA), co-founder and executive director of the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA), and he holds annual regional anniversary meetings in Dallas, Memphis and Los Angeles for COPA, presenting the best researchers and new evidence in these murders. From 2005-6, he was the senior staff assistant for Rep. Cynthia McKinney and helped draft the Martin Luther King Assassination Records Act, calling for the release of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents on King's assassination. And John, thank you by the way, for assisting producer Lisa Lyons in putting all this together.

John Judge: I'm glad to do it. I wanted to get some of the best researchers on your show.

GN: Start working on the next year's show, will ya?

JJ: Will do.

GN: Tell us a little bit about your work.

JJ: Well, I am independent researcher and investigator. I grew up in Washington D.C., a Pentagon family. My neighbors were CIA, NSA, DIA, the alphabet soup, and I realized early on that there were two governments operating. I like to read and research, and in the late sixties I read one of the critic's books and I went through the 26 volumes of evidence of the Warren Commission, and realized that even their own evidence doesn't prove their conclusions. I worked with some of the early researchers, and I started investigating political assassinations in the late '60s. I helped formed the Committee for an Open Archives (COA) to get the files loose in the 1990s, because that's where we thought we had to go. Most of the records had been released and we wanted to get the rest out. And we were able to get the JFK Assassinations Records Act passed, and the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) was formed in 1994 basically, to join the efforts of the best researchers from around the country to get their information out, and also to oversee the release of what's now 6.5 million pages on the JFK assassination. It's one of the largest releases of classified records in history. The only thing that's topped it recently is the Nazi war records act. These are both based on having an independent panel do the review for the release, and it's the only thing that has worked. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), even with the recent improvements, is like patching a bucket that you are using to try to drain a lake that's fed by a spring. And every year 15.5 million records, which means more than pages, maybe averaging ten pages each, are being classified, while you're at the other end trying to get six to ten million pages out from 25-30 years ago.

GN: So true. This of course, is our final segment with our JFK special, so we're going to open up the phone lines with you John, so people can chat with you about this incredible story. I think if there was one thing that tonight's program clearly shows is that beyond the facts of the conspiracy, and we're going to have the results of a poll we're doing here, but I've always believed there was more than one lone gunman, but what it really shows is that we, as Americans who love this country, need to understand, it's almost like Alice through the looking glass, it's not what we think we see. And I want people to understand that, that when things happen, the first thing we should always do is ask why is it going on? Is it truly for the national defense of this country? Is it truly for our protection? And I think if you look at a lot of the things that have happened since the Kennedy assassination, and on going, hardly any of this is for us. And that's frightening, John.

JJ: I think that the problem is the national security state and all of a sudden, our history became a stolen commodity, and when you don't own your own history you are a conquered people. We have an archive near my house in Sutland, Maryland, outside DC. It's just a military classified records center since World War II, the national records center. It has underground buildings, each one is an acre in size, and there's 27 acres, each filled with classified documents. At least the Warren Commission released 26 volumes. The 9/11 Commission released not a page of evidence to prove their report, and that's locked up until 2009. Even things that weren't classified are locked up.

So it has left us where Martin Scholz, one of the critics has said early on, we're allowed to believe anything in this country, but to know nothing. And that's really been our efforts with COPA, and my efforts and my life, to get the truth out. It's not that I'm tied to what the truth is, but without knowing our history, without knowing things in a more concrete way, we are paralyzed and unable to act politically.

GN: Okay, let's go to some phone calls. We'll the results of our fast blast poll in about ten or fifteen minutes before we wrap things up. Wildcard line, you're on the air with us, hi there.

Call In: Hey, what's going on guys, how ya' doin'?

GN: Okay, where you calling from?

Call In: Bellgrave, Montana, and it's getting cold.

GN: It's getting there. Go ahead.

Call In: A few months ago you had a gentleman on talking about a man who had made a documentary,…and after he died, his children brought it to life, about the Rosslyn? remember?

GN: Yes, that was Lieutenant Walter Haut. And that was his affidavit. Yes.

Call In: Okay. The question is, it is possible that he may have mentioned something about the Kennedy assassination, or, is it possible that the actual person that killed Kennedy, or people who killed Kennedy, wouldn't they be doing the same thing, take his idea, and write it down, and after they pass away, somebody will stumble across it and bring some of these things to light.

JJ: Some evidence has come out from people at the time of their death, or things they kept in closets for years, films, photographs, that have to be evaluated in terms of the overall record, and matched against other things, like this (James) Files case you were talking about before. There's credible elements and then there's things hard to check. It's also the case, that it's easy enough for someone to paint themselves into the Kennedy assassination at this point, if they want to, because researchers have revealed enough documentation that they can be canaries singing a song. But if somebody says to me, "I killed Kennedy," I say arrest them because there's no statute of limitations on murder. You charge them with the crime.

GN: I wonder John, when the very first event may have taken place, when that one person said to someone, JFK needs to be….

JJ: There's an actual quote in the movie "Thirteen Days," about the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Curtis LeMay storms out of a meeting when Kennedy refuses to allow them to go into nuclear war with the Soviet Union, he says, "We've got to get rid of those SOBs," and he was not alone in that sentiment.

GN: Didn't Johnson call his wife, maybe before or shortly after the assassination and said, "We don't have to worry about them anymore," or something like that?

JJ: Johnson clearly knew it was coming, in my view, and alerted the Dallas Businessmen's Association about it in February,…..and understood the importance of it. He was put into office financially by a guy named George Brown, who headed a company you may have heard of called Brown & Root that made $4.5 billion off the Vietnam War construction and then became Kellog, Brown & Root, and then went under Halliburton and has made…..

GN: That's Hailburton?

JJ: Yes, Hailburton and subsidiary Kellog, Brown & Root, although they've broken off rescently, these are war profiteers. I know Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam because my mother's job at the Pentagon was to project the draft call five years in advance. And I asked her after she retired, when did they tell you they were going to esculate in Vietnam, because she had to be one of the first to know. She said that in April of 1963, on orders of Kennedy, for the first time in her career she changed her projections for a full withdraw by the end of 1964. And I asked her when did they start esculating again? She said late November. I said the last week? Because something happens on the 22^nd, as we all know. She said on the Monday following the assassination. I said was this just more advisors? She said she couldn't believe the figures and took them back for the first time, to the plans division at the Joint Chiefs level and she said, "these can't be right." And they said those are the figures, and you'll use them. This is November 25, 1963.

GN: John, I never heard that story before. That's unbelievable.

JJ: And they told her they were going into a war that would last ten years and end with 57,000 America dead.

GN: They knew. They knew exactly.

JJ: Yes. So they had their reasons. He said he would scatter the CIA to the four winds. My mother said the phone lines went down in the Pentagon, the secure federal phones of all agencies, right at the moment he was shot. They were dead for two hours. I also talked to a Strategic Air Command bomber pilot who were in the air at that hour who told me they went to their code books, the criptic books they use if they go into a war, when they didn't know who killed the President, and they had no code book aboard. When they landed they asked the other pilots and they didn't have code books either.

GN: They were all taken out.

JJ: Yes. I think actually, the assassination of Kennedy was the implementation of Operation Northwoods, which he blocked. It was the traumatic incident that allowed them to invade Cuba. I've talked to SEALS who were offshore ready to kill Castro that day. I've talked to troops that were being loaded onto transport planes at American bases to invade Cuba on November 22.

GN: Well, what happened? How come we didn't go in?

JJ: Oswald survived. They meant to kill him at the Texas Theater, but he put his hand down and breached the gun, and instead of a dead red that they had doubled two weeks before in Mexico City, trying to link it to Castro. They had a talking head, who they couldn't afford to have talk in public. They claim to have taken no notes, and they didn't record him, they said they didn't have tape recorders back then. I said, did you have pencils? That's the crime of the century if you don't take police notes during interrogation….

GN: What do you mean Oswald survived? They got him right after that.

JJ: He survived that day.

GN: But the fact that he lasted a day or two, so what?

JJ: Well, they kept him under wraps, none of what he said was made public, and then before he went to trial Ruby came in and shot him, but what I'm saying is, he could have blown the cover on the whole operation because he had warned the FBI that Kennedy was going to shot in Dallas.

GN: Oswald?

JJ: Oswald was not a shooter. He didn't shoot a gun.

GN: But he was there, he was part of it.

JJ: He was in the Texas Book Depository, but he was exactly what he said he was, a patsy.

GN: But he knew about it.

JJ: Well he was a Naval Intelligence operative, he worked with the FBI as an informant and he was infiltrating the groups that were on a mechanical level being used to carry out the assassination. He knew it was coming but…… his survival wasn't part of the plan.

GN: He had no idea that he was fingered and that he was going to be the one.

JJ: I think he got it at the Texas Theater after he was told to go there and they showed up. And the guy in the front row, according to Brenner, the shoe-store owner, stood up and said the guy you want is sitting in the back row and pointed to him. What was he doing? Crunching his popcorn too loud? They came in – 26 guys to arrest a guy for not buying a theater ticket.

GN: He probably said Oh, my God, what is happening here?

JJ: There was a cop who pulled a gun on him on the second floor drinking a coke right after the assassination, who had no reason to pull a gun on him. He was going after a shooter on the fifth floor, and he stopped on the second floor and pulls out a gun on Oswald and Trully, the building manager says well, he's okay, he works here. And the cops keep going. But I think several of those cops knew who they had to arrest that day.

Call In: (John? who claims to have served in the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in New Orleans with Oswald and David Ferrie). Mr. David Ferrie took a hiatus, I don't remember the exact time, but it would be curious to follow his footsteps when Commander Navier (?) filled in for him. Ferrie did take a hiatus during my time in there, both sides of 1960. It'd be interesting what made it so important for him to take a hiatus and then come back to the Command of the ….Squadron.

GN: And where did he go during this hiatus.

Call In: And what did he do and with who? And of course I think Oswald might have been hypmotized to go to the movie theater because David was also a hypmotist, he had hypmotized me as well. And there was a connection with Jack Ruby with…..

GN: Isn't it interesting John, and John, two Johns, that nearly everything associated with the assassination, witnesses, suspects, a city associated with the assassination – New Orleans, they've all been wiped out.

Call In: Yea, that was the center. I call it the Eye of the Hurricane, when I write my book it will be the Eye of the Hurricane, 'cause if you have a compass,….. the – will hit Dallas roughly and Miami roughly, with a pointed metal point centered on New Orleans….that was the source of everything.

GN: Okay, John Judge, can we handle the truth?

JJ: I think we have to if we want to live in a democracy. We can't live on lies and deception in a democracy. If it's going to be a democracy it has to be an informed democracy.

GN: Do we live in a democracy right now?

JJ: I think very little of one…..

GN: We're holding on by a thread.

JJ: Yes. But I think that there's a democratic tradition here, and there's more of us than we think. We have to push for it, it's not going to be handed to us, but we have the right to be heard. We were out on the Grassy Knoll today doing a moment of silence, like we've done since the Sixties, commorating the assassination and talking about the fact that democracy was killed as well. Hope was killed, change, because Kennedy was responding to many popular movements – the arms race, the war in Vietnam, he was pushing racial intretgation too fast for the southern rim, the oil tax…..We're having some of our recent meetings here right off Dealey Plaza ever year. And we have the best new research and presenting that. And next year is the 45^th anniversary of the JFK assassination, it's also the 40^th anniversary of when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed, so we're having three regional meetings in Memphis in April, LA in June and Dallas in November.

GN: And I don't believe that James Earl Ray worked alone either.

JJ: Ray was not in the room, Ray was not a shooter, and the shot that killed King did not come from the rooming house.

GN: And how many people remember how he recanted his admission, and said I didn't do it after he did.

JJ: Well, his admission was more of a guilty plea that he was told by Foreman he had to make because Foreman came to him at the last minute and said he had to…..

GN: His attorney. And by the way, 80% of those who responded to our poll believe in the conspiracy angle, not the lone gunman. 80%.

JJ: I think it's important to point out that conspiracy and theory didn't use to be the same word.

GN: No, that's true.

JJ: And conspiracy just means that two or more people are involved in an illegal activity.

GN: That's right.

JJ: And so, if you have two gunman shooting from two different directions, unless you want to believe the Washington Post, that they could have been just random gunman who showed up at the same time and that Oswald didn't know the other guy, didn't know who the other guy was….

GN: Two guys wanted to assassinate the President at the same time. What are the odds?

JJ: I guess it was the opening of Presidential season in Dallas that day. If you have two gunman, you have a conspiracy. Where it goes, I think you trace it back through Oswald and the events of the day. But the idea that anything that talks about a legal conspiracy in a murder, a political assassination, it doesn't become a theory because of that. And I think we toss the word around a lot, talk about people with different theories, but we're solid researchers, we look at the evidence in the case, sometimes of course, you have an hypothesis, and people reach conclusions, but a well researched conclusion is not per say a theory. It may be a rewriting of history. We don't call everyone who talks about coincidences a theorist. So why is someone who proves a conspiracy a theorist?

GN: So true. John, we're out of time. What's your web site?

JJ: Politicalassassinations.com – assassinations plural – politicalassassinations.com is the web site for the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA), which has information on the regional meeting we're having in Dallas this weekend and about our coming events. I want to thank you very much for making us part of the show.

GN: Thank you John, for all the work you did, we appreciate the legwork you did helping Lisa in getting these guests together.

JJ: It was an opportunity to let you hear from some of the people doing real research on the assassination.

GN: Okay, we'll talk to you again next year. John Judge. Unless there's news that breaks in between.

END OF PROGRAM.

Edited December 5, 2007 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

Bill, many thanks. And to Gary as well for a great interview on coasttocoast. This broadcast every year is, by far, the most important media offering that exists. Now transcripts can be emailed to the many who choose sleep during these enlightening

hours.

Dawn

Hi Dawn, I'm glad you and Michael responded because I wasn't sure if anybody was getting anything out of all this.

Gary is good, isn't he? I wish he'd stick around the forum for awhile.

BK

[William Kelly]

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/

Has anybody seen this yet?

Does Walt cite sources for each entry?

Does he include Mary Ferrel's chronology?

I think researchers should get paid for all the work they do on this, but I don't know if charging $120 a pop for a CDROM is the way to do it.

BK

IT'S HERE: A WORK OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS FROM WALT BROWN

Master Analytic Chronology:

The Death of President John F. Kennedy

November 22, 1963

(AKA "The Project")

2½ years in the making -- 5,800 pages -- 50,000 paragraphs -- 2.2 million words

now available on CD-ROM to JFK/DPQ subscribersOrder here or via a PDF file here or a Word file here.

This Chronology reports data from a handful of historical events prior, even, to the birth of John Kennedy. And Dealey Plaza makes little sense absent an understanding of the issues of Kennedy's rise through the legislative branch, and those events must certainly be complemented with a healthy dose of information on his presidency. From there, the reader will have something more than an à la carte menu, which will include complete reporting on, and analyses of, the major necessities:

The presidency of John F. Kennedy. <LI>The assassination. <LI>The Warren Commission and its "verdict." <LI>The FBI as a concomitant of the Warren Commission. <LI>Growth of doubts as "we the people" discovered more wisdom than the experts who had investigated in the first place. <LI>Arrest and trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans. <LI>The House Select Committee on Assassinations, and its "verdict." <LI>Continued growth of doubt in America. <LI>Oliver Stone's JFK and its impact. <LI>The publishing explosion that followed hard upon the public’s doubt and the media's defense of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. <LI>The "two Oswald" scenario, as reported in various sources, but most heavily and best stated by John Armstrong. <LI>The work of the Assassination Records Review Board, chiefly in terms of the critical medical testimony. <LI>And finally, "passages." Just as the thousands of characters had to be born at some point, it was decreed that they would leave the scene at some point, and no understanding of our narrative is complete without a clear perspective of just who was available -- and who was not -- to provide data at a given time. ---Walt Brown