Summary
âž¡ The text discusses the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald, who was officially found guilty of assassinating President Kennedy, was actually set up to take the blame. The authors argue that there is strong evidence of a conspiracy involving intelligence communities, suggesting that Oswald was manipulated into appearing guilty. They also suggest that Oswald’s actions were part of a larger strategy to justify an invasion of Cuba. The authors question why certain records related to Oswald are still being withheld, suggesting that this could be an attempt to cover up similar strategies being used today.
âž¡ The text discusses a conspiracy theory about the assassination of President Kennedy. It suggests that the parade route was changed at the last minute, placing Kennedy in a vulnerable position. The text also questions the official autopsy report, suggesting that experienced doctors saw a different wound than what was reported. Lastly, it implies that many insiders didn’t believe the official findings about the assassination.
âž¡ Richard Schweiker, a former American senator, had significant insights into the JFK assassination, suggesting intelligence involvement and criticizing the Warren Commission’s findings. He was chosen by Ronald Reagan as a running mate in an unsuccessful presidential bid. The text also discusses the questionable practices and results of JFK’s autopsy, suggesting manipulation to fit a predetermined narrative. The discussion concludes with the mention of a withheld interview with Jackie Kennedy that could potentially shed more light on the assassination.
âž¡ In the years following JFK’s assassination, many records were collected and reviewed by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Despite a law stating all records should be released by 2017, many are still withheld. Researchers have found that some records ordered for release in the early 2000s are still not public. This discovery has sparked interest and speculation about the reasons behind the continued secrecy.
âž¡ The text discusses the importance of presidential protection, referencing past incidents with Trump and JFK. It promotes a website and Facebook page related to JFK’s case, hinting at future discussions once Trump is in office. The speaker mentions potential contacts that could influence the situation and emphasizes the need for justice. The text also highlights a book called “JFK Choke Holds” and appreciates the authors for their legal expertise and contribution to history.
Transcript
So, anyway, I’m glad to be doing this show because we want to stick it to the man. And we’ve got two researchers here who’ve written a book. And here, let me give you the bona fides here real quick as I pull this up. And ladies and gentlemen, I gotta tell you, you know, the Kennedy assassination is a hot button with me. And it’s a hot button because I want to keep Donald Trump alive. And the more we keep the public sensitized to what happened, the more likely we can give these other people hesitation to act. And that is one of my main motivations for really looking forward to this show.
And here we go. Okay, links, and we’ll give them here now and at the end. Website www.jfkchokew holds.com and I’m giving you to you this way because depending on your venue, you won’t see any visual. So that’s why I’m doing this now. Okay? If you’re on Twitter @JFK choke holds. Okay. And no, no disrespect to Elon. I meant to say X. Facebook, obviously. The facebook.com JFKchokeholds so we’ve got three references here. We’ll hit them again at the end. Guys, obviously, I’m. I’m a big proponent of this. As you know, I was good friends with the late Jim Mars, and I.
I got. I got to really pick his brain. He really educated me. And then I went off and did some of my own research and. And I have to tell you, folks, if we don’t keep this alive, we may not keep a future president alive. Gentlemen, welcome to the show. We have Andrew Eiler and Paul Blow. Both collaborated on this book, JFK Chokeholds. Gentlemen, let’s. Paul, let’s start with you. Give a little bit about your background and. And same thing, Andrew. And then your motivation for writing the book. Well, happy New Year to you, Dave. Thank you so much for being on your Show.
So, yeah, I’m from Quebec City. I have an MBA that I got from McGill. I got really interested in the JFK assassination because of Jim Mars. That first book I read was Crossfire by Jim Mars, and I found it amazing. Then, of course, my interest was rekindled with movie jfk, Oliver Stone, and that set off a whole ton of research on my part that eventually led to me writing articles with one of the top specialists in the field, a guy called Jim Dushino, who happens to be Oliver Stone advisor. Yeah. And because of that, I got into the most recent documentary made by Oliver Stone about the assassination.
And later on. Well, about a few years ago, I met up with four co authors, including Jim dijinho and three attorneys, including Andrew. And we wrote this, I think, this wonderful book, a collaboration among two researchers and three attorneys who are very aware of the case called the JFK assassination Children Goals. So that, in gist, is who I am with respect to the JFK assassination. Yeah, I’ve interviewed Jim D. Three times. Oh, good. Great interview. Great guy. Greatly knowledgeable guy. And thank God for Oliver Stone. Seriously, thank God for him because he’s a man that doesn’t have to come to the people’s level to educate us.
He could have stayed on the elite perch, made tens of millions of dollars more than he’s making because he’s been ostracized for his work. He came to Quebec City for a week on my invitation to promote the documentary, and you wouldn’t believe the amount of people who showed up to listen to him. We packed a venue of 600 people. But anyway, we have so much to discuss. Yeah, we want to get on with it, but first I got to hear from Andrew. Andrew, give us a little bit about background. Sure. Thanks so much, Dave. I’m a Canadian lawyer out of Ontario, and I’ve been obviously interested in the JFK case, but my main focus has been the legal aspects of the JFK Records Collection act of 1992 and what’s happening currently with the JFK records.
I was initially part of a team of lawyers that sued President Biden and the National Archives for the release of the records that have been withheld for now, some of them over 60 years. I’m not part of that group anymore, but one of the other co authors, Mark Adamcik and myself, were instrumental in getting that lawsuit off the ground. And I followed up with some substantial research that maybe we’ll get into about the current state of the JFK records. Well, yeah, I want to get into that. Gentlemen, I’m going to leave it to you where to start, because you know how multiple dimensions are evident in this case, you could start almost anywhere and do several shows.
So I’m going to give you the choice. Dave. What, what, what areas are you most interested in? I, I just. In our brief conversation before the show, you seem to have a pretty serious base of knowledge yourself. I mean, we can cover any of the 10 choke holds, and Paul’s like a subject matter expert in each of those areas. So we’re happy to go where you are, Paul. Maybe I’ll throw it over to you. Well, why don’t we discuss what chokeholds is all about and then that can open the doors, you know, on anything, anywhere we want to go with this.
Look briefly about. It was the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. And at that time, I think I conducted the first study about how American history textbooks relate the assassination. And it was, to say the least. I went over 20 of the most popular history books and I questioned the authors and they all answered because in a nutshell, the, the parrot, the Warren Commission version of immense. They say a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, killed Kennedy and he was eliminated by another loan not two days later called Jack Ruby. And the story. And then when I asked them what their sources were, well, it was always the Warren Commission.
They were unaware that there were five subsequent government investigations. They knew nothing about the House Select Committee on Assassinations. They knew nothing about the Church Committee. So fast forward 10 years later, chokeholds is a bit of a, a setting of what the official record should be. And what we did is we focused on issues that are indisputable. That’s why we call them chokeholds. In other ways, we looked at 10 arguments that if you look at each one singularly, you would have to conclude that there was a conspiracy. And the, the beauty of the attorneys in this, in this endeavor was that they said, hey, guys, bring it to us in a way that we would like to bring it to a jury.
In other words, take a chokehold, unpack it, okay? And we’ll, we’ll look at. So you have to have the right sources, you have to have the right analysis and the right arguments, and we do that for all 10 chokos. And in other words, let me just give you one. If you conclude like we did, that Jack Ruby was on a mission to remove the number one witness, Oswald, then you have nothing else but the conclusion of a conspiracy. And we have 10 of those, you know, 10 of those question I have A question on that point.
Did you guys ever connect Oswald and Ruby together in the Carousel Club that Ruby owned? Well, put it this way, there’s a lot of evidence that that did that, that points in that direction. Some witnesses that. That claim that a guy called Larry Crawford who worked for Ruby pointed in that direction. But to us, it didn’t reach. That did not reach the level of clear and convincing evidence, which was the legal standard that the three attorneys and Andrew can talk to you about that wanted us to reach. On every chokehold. We have things that are way more compelling and slam dunk proof that you simply can’t dispute that would be disputable.
Okay, I think he probably was there. There’s testimony to that. But, you know, you can get someone on the other side who could make a case that he wasn’t Jim. And I, Dave, if I could just jump in and follow up on that. And Paul’s done a great job setting out the premise of the book in the introduction. What we did, and it goes to what Paul was just talking about. In our research, we found that neither the Warren Commission nor the House Select Committee on Assassinations had in its processes any established standard of proof. And for us, that was a little bit surprising even for Jim Diaginio, who’s been at this for decades.
The thought that neither of the major official investigations held itself to a standard of proof and yet for history have found Lee Harvey Oswald guilty of assassinating President Kennedy. And what we did is we tried to establish in arguing for Oswald’s case, basically that neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA came even close to establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was guilty. And when it comes to the issue of whether there was a conspiracy, we thought what we would attempt to do in the 10 chapters is show that there really is clear and convincing evidence of conspiracy, whether it’s conspiracy to cover up or conspiracy to expose in the lead up to the assassination, that there were a lot of inexplicable coincidences with connections to the intelligence communities and other elements that just can’t be explained with the lone nut assassin theory.
So structuring the book that way was very, very important. Yeah. I appreciate your attention to diligence. Is it your overall position, generally speaking, that Oswald was crafted to be the patsy from the beginning? Yes, definitely. And I think we have a chapter called Oswald’s Intelligence Connections. So for your audience, two years before the assassination, Oswald was in Russia, likely as a false defector. Okay. And part of a. A program called Redskin. This was a way that Americans would send, often Marines, okay, into Russia and use them for intelligence purposes. The people who would go were no James Bond characters.
They were often called useful idiots. So what, what happened? If you look at the summer of 1963, Oswald, you know, he’s back in the U.S. he does something that on paper is so ridiculous. He opens a chapter for the Fair Plea for Cuba Committee in, of all places, New Orleans. Now, that would be like saying, hey, I’m going to open a fair play for Al Qaeda right after 9, 11 in New York. It didn’t, you know, it was absolutely insane. But that was to create a Persona, a Persona of him being alone, not pro Castro, pro Communist.
And then if you look at other shenanigans that went on in Mexico City and everything was done to make him look like he was in league with Cuban agents and Castro himself. So he became the perfect patsy. Because after the assassination, the intelligence communities would have had a paper trail saying, hey, you know what? This guy was pushed into what he was doing by Castro himself and his. His agents. We have the excuse to invade the island. We have the excuse to take out Castro. So that was the whole stratagem in place. And we have a number of chapters that touch on that point.
Because, you know, Dave, if you look at prior plots to kill Kennedy, you’ll see a whole bunch of incidents and Personas and subjects that were being tied to these prior plots that also had Fair Play for Cuba Committee links. So they too were being, you know, point pointed in a direction in these contingency plans to make them look as if they were, you know, on Castro side. So that was the whole strategy. So you’re absolutely right. I think that that’s why he. How he was being set up to be patsy. Now, in his head, he may have been thinking, hey, you know what? I’m doing our country a service by exposing Communists, you know, because of my activities.
So he thought he was on probably some sort of other mission, but that was turned against him. I don’t know if that’s clear, but that’s in answer to your question. Yes, he was. And, Dave, if I could again jump in. What both Paul and I are finding in the records that remain withheld by the government is that all of the records that we’ve seen over the last few weeks and deep research, they all revolve around Oswald and primarily Mexico City. But there’s still about almost 6,000 records being withheld, and a large majority of them are directly about Oswald and his.
His movements and the various US and foreign Intelligence services tracking of Oswald. Two points. I want to make one just for my audience. The alleged assassin of Donald Trump at Butler was not the assassin. I don’t know how they got in there, what his purpose was. You look at his background, kid couldn’t even make the JV rifle team in high school. And I’m not going to go into detail here, but I’m telling people this is why we do this shows. This is why I keep covering jfk because they keep using the same strategies over and over and over.
By the way, that wasn’t the number one plot we’ve uncovered. Doug Hagman came up with the two car bombs that were supposed to be detonated but somehow did not occur. And Doug has clear and convincing evidence. And I’m just telling you folks, there’s a plan A, there’s a plan B and there’s always a patsy. There’s always a patsy. And I appreciate you bringing that up. And I’ve seen that with Oswald to the Persona. I mean, when the guy defects to Russia, if he wasn’t part of the government plot, then how did they pay for he and the niece of the Deputy Director of the kgb, his now wife Marina come back and they pay him $500 and give him free transport.
He should have been arrested as a traitor when he landed on American soil. Exactly. And then they created the Alex Heidell Naval ID fiasco. Okay, in other words, he had that cover. He met with James Hostie how many times to get this Persona going? Yeah, you guys have nailed it right there. He was indeed the patsy. And you think though that the motivation. I think there were several. But what I’m hearing from you is the motivation was to create. They wanted to the Joint Chiefs and the elite, the Rockefellers and so forth. They wanted to invade Cuba, they didn’t care what the cost was.
And so now you kill Kennedy, blame Cuba because of Mexico City. Now they have motivation. By the way, There’s a former CIA agent on YouTube and I wish I could remember his name. He goes through an hour long diatribe of the biggest bunch of nonsense I’ve ever seen linking Castro indirectly to Oswald in Mexico City. I’m, I, Is it Bear by any chance? Yes, that’s it. Bear. Yeah, I know his story, but yeah, it’s, it’s Disinfo Deluxe. Oh yes, I would agree with that. Well, you see, in Mexico City, just. So again, this is before they decided to go the lone natural Johnson did not want to go the invasion route.
But before he happens to communicate with a Guy called Costakov. Kostakov was the. A KGB agent in the Russian embassy. And they have these weird exchanges and a letter pops up later. Oswald’s last letter to the Russian embassy again talking about this relationship with Kosakov. Now who is Kosakov? He’s the KGB guy who’s in charge of assassinations for the Western hemisphere. That’s exactly right. And, and, and look this. These. It’s later revealed that the phone calls that they intercepted was a person impersonating Oswald. It wasn’t Oswald himself. And even Hoover says that. Hoover says, hey, you know what? Our agents who are questioning Oswald after the assassination are listening to the tapes that were provided from Mexico City and they tell us that the voice on the tapes aren’t the same as Oswald’s.
So this was an impersonation. And they did use impersonators. Okay. To make Oswald appear unhinged and pro Castro. Exactly. I believe when you’re talking about Kostakov and the assassinations bureau, didn’t they call that something like Department K, Department 1313. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I, that was actually the first time I had actually heard that was in that bear report. And I went and researched it. Sure enough, that was one of the true elements in his report. But the fact that these connecting the two, the links were weak. And why on the. The eve when Trump comes into office and these records are hopefully released, why now are we seeing this kind of disinfo this many Years later, over 60 years later, we’re finally getting a connection here.
Because they’re covering their backsides. And gentlemen, I don’t know if you’ve concluded this, but I said this to Andrew earlier when we talked before the show that I. The only reason the CIA has reason to cover this up now because they either are or planning to do the same kind of shenanigans. They’re concealing because they’re not protecting people. They’re dead. Dave, you know, in terms of all of this business with Costakov and the Mexico embassies, and it’s just kind of shocking that these meetings happened in late September, October of 1963. So a month before the Dallas assassination, it’s pretty clear from the records that the CIA was aware that there was an alleged visit.
And the question really remains, how on earth was Oswald taken off the security threat list in the months before the assassination when the CIA was apparently well aware that someone. Maybe it was an imposter. Maybe it was really Oswald was visiting the embassies in, in Mexico for, for the Russian and, and Cuban Embassies. It, it just makes no sense that he was taken off any threat list. It’s just incomprehensible. No. To be in the Texas School Book Depository. Yeah. Well, that’s interesting. I know they changed the parade route because my uncle owned a tool and dye shop on Main street and that’s where the original motorcade was supposed to go on the way to the fundraiser meeting.
And then they changed the route unbelievably. They published it as, you know, and they put Kennedy going 14 miles an hour around the curve from Houston onto Elm and made it a crapshoot. I mean, it was unbelievable that people haven’t seen through this over and over. But changing the parade route, was that done about three days before the event? It was done shortly before. And there’s a lot of denials around this. And they claim they made a false claim that you couldn’t go from, I think it was mainstream to stemments. But they showed that in previous motorcades they had done exactly the route you were describing, Dave.
For, you know, for other politicians. The, the key thing is, is this is what brought Kennedy to be right in the, you know, first of all, force the over 90 degree turn, which slowed the whole motorcade down and put him right in the middle of a crapshoot where you could have triangulation of fire. Exactly. Did you ever connect anything? Let me tell you what Jim and I were working on when, before Jim got really sick, the Marianne Mormon photo. It surfaced and she had the FBI, we know, or fake FBI agent seized all the cameras in Dealey Plaza that they could, but they didn’t get hers.
She’s so horrified, she stuck it in her handbag and kept it for 25 years. Then it was developed. And then we get the infamous Badge man photo that Steve Revel identified through a series of connections as Lucy Anartia, hitman from the Corsican mafia brought in by the Giancani Carlos Marcello faction. Did you guys ever pursue that kind of line here and get a identified shooter on the grassy knoll? And I, maybe I’ll bring something interesting. I, I, the Mormon photo or badgeman photo that you refer to is really interesting, but again, that wasn’t something that reached the, you know, the standards of proof that our attorneys wanted to reach.
I say Jim said the same thing. Exactly. I’ll say this much though. This, this is really interesting. If you look at the Mormon photo, there’s a small protrusion along the picket fence exactly where Sam Holland claimed that he saw the shooter. Sam Holland was one of the best witnesses for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He was on the overpass. They saw smoke coming from the grassy knoll area and he immediately ran to the picket fence area. Now, a guy called Tank Thompson I think said, hey, put yourself exactly where you felt the shooter was placed where they saw footprints.
Okay, Vis a vis the picket fence. And they took a picture of him. And when you see Holland behind the picket fence, you see the same protrusion, the same shape that pops up on the Mary Farrell picture. In other words, it was a head that was only there temporarily because. So that I found to be extremely interesting. I less convinced by the, the badge man photo for all sorts of things. I wouldn’t take it to the bank, but that particular picture had me really interested. And we do place that in the, in our book Chokos. We do talk about that.
I mean the, the, the thing that really stands more out are, are our two chapters on the autopsy and on proof of the front headshot. And, and so we, we look at, at those elements more to a higher standard of proof than than badge man. Before you go there, let me just add in one thing though. The debate Jim and I were having in the end days about the badge man photo. What convinced me there was some pretty good circumstantial evidence to support it was the Gordon Arnold testimony. He was absolutely vilified when he came out and said that the badge man had approached him in a Dallas police uniform, demanded the film and then walked away.
And people said he’s a nutcase. I thought he was too, until the Marianne Mormon photo surfaced and it really confirmed looks like a police uniform. That’s what Gordon Arnold describes. And so I thought that was one more linchpin in this. But I agree with you. A good defense attorney probably could have made that really kind of hypothetical, more than realistic. But anyway, let’s go to the autopsy because that’s something that doesn’t get addressed enough. But I think it’s equally convicting. Yeah, Dave, The, I mean, the fact is, early in the days after the assassination, the government made substantial confusion over what the Parkland doctor saw in Dallas immediately after.
And these were the treating physicians, Paul. I mean, there was over 20 nurses and doctors, a lot of them actual trauma experts, including two neurosurgeons, the chair of neurosurgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas. They all testified, a lot of them under oath that they saw an avulsive head wound to the occipital parietal wound on the back right side. Of President Kennedy’s head. And then the government said, no, no, no, these people aren’t experts. They really didn’t look at the President’s head. We need to rely on the autopsy doctors who saw no back head wound, no large back head wound.
There was maybe a small entry wound in the back of the head, but there was no back head wound on the President. And they, they said that publicly. And sadly, the House Select Committee on Assassinations confirmed that. But in the mid-1990s, when the assassination Records Review Board was tasked with pulling out all the actual records and publicly disclosing. Disclosing the records. What we found is that a large number of the Bethesda autopsy witnesses, including the doctors, at least some of them, most of them, including corpsmen, including X ray technicians, including photographers, including the mortician who prepared the President’s body for the funeral.
Well, in reality, they all saw a large back of the head wound. And that information was suppressed between 1963 and the late 70s, right up until the ARRB came out with it in the 1990s. And the fact is, the media didn’t cover this. The media didn’t clear up the fact that there were almost no discrepancies between the back of the head wound that the Dallas doctor saw and what the autopsy medical staff at Bethesda saw. There was no discrepancy. You mean the Rockefeller media didn’t cover it. And that’s what we’re talking about at this point in time in our history, that’s who controlled most of the American media.
But when you look at the situation in the autopsy, there were a couple things that really bothered me. First of all, you’ve already addressed it. You’re taking experienced trauma surgeons who deal with gunshot wounds almost every day, and you’re telling you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about because it’s the President. It’s an irrelevant argument. Then you got the Secret Service rushing the body away against Texas law because there was no federal supremacy at that time. There is now, but there wasn’t then. And then you look at the fact that I had a real problem with the doctors who did the autopsy in terms of their experience level and what they did with their notes.
Can you guys address that? David, the chair of neurosurgery recorded cerebellar tissue. I think the chair of neurosurgery would be able to identify cerebellar, which is in the base of your rear brain. He would be able to identify that quite clearly. Probably more so than any of the autopsy doctors I want to just jump over. Paul’s first chapter of Chokeholds is absolutely incredible because it’s not only just the people that I’ve just mentioned, like the pathologist neurosurgeons. There are virtually 90 assassination investigation insiders that have stated on the record and privately, but it’s been documented that they never believed in their own findings.
They never believed in the single bullet theory, they never believed in the lone nut. And that’s their official findings have dramatically differed from what they’re saying later on privately. And that includes right down from several presidents to Warren commissioners. I think at least three or four of the Warren commissioners didn’t believe in their own findings. Dallas police, senior FBI officials, medical staff that initially supported the Warren Commission. They’ve made it clear that they didn’t believe their own findings. And I don’t know whether Paul wants to add in on that, but I think it’s one of the best chapters of the book.
It doesn’t immediately strike readers because it’s such a massive number of names and, and clear, clear statements. They didn’t believe their own findings. Well, if I can chime in, Andrew, yeah, that’s an important chapter because really it completely contradicts the history book version of what an official record should be. To them, it’s the Warren Commission, but really more weight should be given to the subsequent and what’s written in the reports and what is said by, as Andrew says, these Insiders. We chronicle 90, but we’re up to about 130. Okay, so there’s a lot more. And my favorite is Richard Schweiker.
Richard Schwier was an American senator. He was picked by Ronald Reagan to be his running mate in a, you know, a failed attempt to become president. And he headed the subcommittee for the Church committee that looked into the Warren Commission work, the intelligence work, around the JFK assassination. And he has two priceless quotes. One is everywhere you look with Oswald, you see the fingerprints of intelligence. He said that. And you can see that he said that to the BBC. And he’s on record. And it’s the second thing he says is I believe the Warren Commission was set up to feed pablum to the American people and as in fact, collapsed like a house of cards.
If that isn’t an official record from the top dog of the church committee, that completely, you know, and let’s not forget the HSCA concluded that there was a probable conspiracy and not just because of the acoustical evidence that is being contested for all sorts of reasons. So that is a, a chapter that should challenge history books writers legally because they are not following the American historical code of conduct by making their version of events evolve with new information. So that, that I agree with Andrew, because you know what it does is it takes the people like us out of the room and says, oh, wait a minute.
People who don’t want to believe Paul Blow, Randall or Dave. Yeah, okay, but shouldn’t people like Schweitzer and Senator Russell and Robert Blakey and others carry a lot of weight in this whole thing? And yeah, I agree. I love that chapter because it puts us on the side really of the less fringe. Who’s on the fringe? Yeah, exactly. You know, it’s people who are pushing this fairy tale still today when everybody knows it swallows. I don’t know if you’ve caught this. I’m sure it’s occurred to you. Reagan’s unsuccessful Schweiker despite running a good campaign. When was Reagan successful? When he took on the ex head of the CIA as his VP and he was forced to do so.
The stories are by blackmail with regard, you know, from forces. If you want to get elected, this is who you’re going to appoint. And this is the day after Reagan came out on ABC and criticized George Bush for being part of the Council on Foreign Relations. I almost fell out of my chair when I heard that, because I didn’t. I, I knew, I knew some researchers on that topic at the time, but I got to tell you, this was not a popular topic to talk about unless you wanted to get labeled as a fringe nut. And when I heard that on mainstream media, I almost fell out of my chair.
And then all of a sudden we have the Bush Reagan contingency and he goes forward and becomes President. I think that was to keep Reagan and his people away from the assassination. Well, can I throw in? This is. George Reagan surprised a lot of the people by siding with Schultz, who was more of a dove. Yeah, that’s right. And, and, and came up with, you know, came up with really good diplomacy with Gorbachev at the time. Nobody expected that. So, you know, I think that, that there’s a parallel between Kennedy’s diplomacy with the rest of the world and, and you know, not necessarily being a warmonger and what Reagan was attempting to do and that was to create better links with the evil empire, as he put it.
So anyway, I kind of see something in there too, you know, and I agree with you because yeah, if you look at Bush, his, his history around regime change operations is Pretty interesting. We brought this up and we kind of got away from it. The bona fides of the autopsy doctors. Could you address that for a couple minutes? If you want me to go on, on it. Andrew, you’re pretty strong on that too, but I can get started. Go ahead, Paul. Well, yeah, so what you found in Boswell, Fink and Humes are three people with very little experience in doing actual autopsies.
As a matter of fact, it was a free for all they were, you know, the, the number one guy who was out of Washington was a guy called Milton Helpburn or something of that nature. And, and Cyril Weck said, you know, how could that guy not have been called in for the most important autopsy ever done in the US there’s not more. So they get these three inexperienced guys who are being in a packed room with people, smoking with generals, admirals, and they’re being given instructions along the lines of, hey, don’t do this, don’t do that.
You know, so they don’t even do trajectory analysis, if you can believe it. Trajectory analysis is connecting the wounds. So you know, when you say, you know, a single bullet theory goes in the, the back and comes out the throat, you better be darn well able to make that trajectory. They don’t do it. Okay. And Pierre Fink during the garrison. Yeah, it’s a crazy single bullet trajectory. And, and Pierre Fink in the garrison trial testify and says, well, we were ordered not to, you know, do that and we were following orders. So it, it, this was a military autopsy with people who were following orders.
Now getting back, Dave, we didn’t answer the question on what happened to the notes. What does Humes do with his notes? These are notes that could have been used in a trial until Oswald died. He destroys them because there’s blood on the notes. That would have been extremely important information. Pierre Fink says his notes were lost. And then the first draft of the autopsy, which shocked Doug Horn of the arb, was also eliminated. So when you look at this whole thing, the, the autopsy was designed to make it engineered to make it fit the results they wanted to have.
That is a lone nun. And that’s what Liebler and others said. Hey, that’s our best evidence. Hey, Paul, if I can just jump in quickly. The fact is the single bullet theory is so preposterous. And if they really wanted the American people to believe that the single bullet theory was true, they would have traced that bullet wound. They would have been able to show conclusively that the bullet went from front to back in, you know, at T3, T4, and came out around the Adam’s apple on a strange trajectory based on where oswald was, what, 60ft above, or even more, the President’s limousine.
They would have connected those wounds. If they wanted the American public to actually conclusively believe that magic bullet, as well as the brain damage, they didn’t section the brain. They would have had to section the brain. And that, you know, later. Sorry. X rays showed that the minute particles of metal from the bullet were near the front and the larger ones were in the back. And what that suggests is the. The larger ones travel more because they’re more dense, they’ve got more mass. And it suggested a front shot and the fact that the two bullets behave very differently.
They were both supposed to be full metal jacket bullets. One remains pristine despite causing multiple wounds, breaking several bones. And then that one that hit, supposedly a very soft, thin part of the skull essentially evaporates and fragments into microscopic pieces and several pieces just by hitting a very soft bone above the occipital protuberance. Again, it’s inexplicable. Andrew, was it a hollow point, the bullet that actually hit the front, President Kennedy’s head? I can’t say for certain. I mean, there’s no evidence to show one way or the other. But I do think Paul’s correct that the X rays that are at National Archives actually show proof that there was a front headshot based on the way the bullet, the particles from the bullet are scattered from front to back.
Can I add this, Dave? Sure. One guy did a real good analysis of the splatter. Analysis. The splatter is where did the guts go and where did the cerebellum go and where did the blood go? And anybody in your audience, if you Google the Zapruder film, you’ll notice a very big hint of that. It’s when Jackie Kennedy gets up, goes on the hood, the back, the car, the back of the limousine to pick up part of her husband’s brain. Right. So that splatter going backwards, the motorcyclists that are to the left of Kennedy are hit, and they’re in back, left, back.
One of them is hit so hard by debris that he thinks he’s been shot. A guy called hard. Now, here’s the kicker. If you do a line between Harges and the headshot, and you follow that backwards, it brings you where? To the grassy knoll? Exactly. Okay. And the, the other thing, too, is one of the. The biggest pieces of evidence that’s being Currently withheld, and who knows how long it’ll be withheld is a very lengthy interview with Jackie Kennedy by William Manchester. And that’s being withheld in full. We don’t know when that will be released. Is this a private interview or a government sponsored interview? Yeah, it’s a private interview that was done, I think, in 1964.
And I think there’s several hours of. Of recordings that William Manchester did with Jackie Kennedy in the months following the assassination. And one would imagine that Jackie Kennedy would have mentioned why she crawled out onto the back of the limousine. Exactly. I’ve heard this over and over. I was not aware of that interview. But because it’s private, it can be held in secret in perpetuity. That’s correct, Dave. You know, I know we’re running short on time now till the end of the show. The one thing that both Paul and I have really focused on in the last several months are the remaining withheld records that are being kept in a segregated collection.
Let’s go there, the National Archives. And if I could just spend a couple of minutes. And I know Paul probably has a bit to add in on there as well, but in 1992, the Congress passed the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. It followed Oliver Stone’s film JFK. And what that piece of legislation required, it created the Assassination Records Review Board, which was an independent federal agency that was tasked with a. Obtaining, reviewing and releasing every single assassination record or government record and public record pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy. And the ARRB existed between 1994 and September 1998.
They collected over 4 million records during that period of time. And they released a ton of records. But the act stated that in October 2017 that all of the JFK records had to be released. It was 25 years after the date that the law was enacted. And only in very, very rare and special circumstances was a government permitted to withhold these records. But what happened in October 2017? Sadly, the records were postponed. They were postponed en masse. There were supposed to be individual determinations for each of those records. Now everyone’s aware that there’s still thousands of JFK assassination records being withheld from.
But what a lot of people don’t realize, Dave, is that the ARRB actually issued specific and separate orders for each and every record that was being withheld. And those orders are again written independent agency final orders for every single record. And what Paul and I did is we went down to the archives in College Park, Maryland, and, and we tried to obtain copies of all of These orders and we obtained over five, I think close to 500 ARRB final orders with regard to assassination records. They released them to you, but not generally to the public. Yeah, it’s there.
These records are very hard to find. They’ve randomly released some assassination records Review board final determinations. But a large number of them remain held. They’re not digitized, they’re not part of the catalog. They’re not generally available. You can’t even really search these forms on the National Archives website. They’re kind of hidden away. And what we found in the sample that we were able to obtain was that the ARRB issued final orders to release these records back in the early and mid 2000s. Particularly. They issued hundreds of orders to release these records in 2006. And what we found is that many, most of these records that, that we surveyed weren’t released until after 2017.
So they remained kept secret for over 12 years. And we found a few records that are still being withheld under the CIA transparency plans despite the fact that the ARRB issued them to be released in 2006. This is new information. Your viewers and your audience is hearing this for the first time. We’re still trying to obtain copies of tens of thousands of these assassination records Review board final determinations to see exactly what the state of the records is and how many of the 4,000 plus records that are currently being withheld were ordered released in the early and mid 2000s.
This is a big deal. It is, it is. I have to say I’m an assistant to Andrew on this. He deserves all the credit for having. Because that was in nobody’s, it wasn’t top of mind for anybody on no one’s radar. These final determination forms and they are supposed to be every one of them, even the ones that are linked to classified documents that should remain classified. If so you know, if for they are should be available to the public or easily available if you go to the archives. What Andrew found was a stroke of luck in a way.
They happen to be in one of 13 boxes that was. I mean when you look at how that box is identified and labeled, there’s no way one would think that you’d find final determination form. Somebody wanted that out. Nobody wanted that out. And somebody did or you wouldn’t have got it. No. But I’ll tell you, if you follow Andrew on X, you know, I know you’re going to. We’re going to be talking about this because it’s going to explode. It’s going to explode into the public pretty soon as well as an article I’m about to finish on something else.
But it has to do with one of the files that I’m focusing on right now that will be, I think, quite mind boggling. And there’ll be an article very shortly at Kennedy’s and King on this, but we’ll announce all this stuff on X. So if you go there, I don’t want to do. But you will not only get to know more about Chokehold’s book and all that, you’ll get to follow a lot of the current developments that will be happening. And that will, I think, intrigue your audience members who are interested in this case that has become so very pertinent again because of RFK and Donald Trump.
Yeah, Dave, I mean this is, it was a bit of an election issue. It’s the one thing that’s current in JFK assassination research. And Paul really hits it on the head. I mean, the fact that an independent federal agency with the power to release JFK assassination records ordered these records released in 2001 and 2006. But those records remained held secret until after the deadline and some of them are still being withheld. It’s kind of shocking. Everyone wonders why there’s still secret JFK assassination records. What Paul and I and another researcher, Jeff Krudel found at the archives was pretty surprising.
And we’re excited to release this information. And your audience should really stay tuned over the next couple of weeks. Without giving away a spoiler alert here, just a general question. Military Industrial Complex Intelligence Agency also part of this with their, well, their mafia allies that they developed when the CIA was the oss. Is this the general connection that we find? And is this one of the things that the CIA is so desperately trying to hide? Was we know about how they employed mafia to patrol the docks in World War II against German saboteurs. Okay. And that was a legitimate use.
But are they afraid of what the implications are from this And I, I’ll. Any separate project that we could discuss, myself and two other researchers did a survey and research among 600 people in the research community. We got between 120 to 160 responses on four surveys. And we interviewed some of the top researchers like Larry Hancock, Jim Dino, John Newman. Okay, so what the consensus is among the researchers and there’s even a petition that was signed a number of years ago pertaining to this. But if you look at JFK assassination, you have to see it as the way regime changes were conducted abroad.
But this one was done internally, according to the researchers so that points the finger to people who had the abilities to, for instance, change regimes in Guatemala, Iran. So when you start looking at the people who had those abilities, you have a very good idea of who the most likely persons of interest are for the internal change. I don’t know if that’s clear, but these, and they often use the. Dave, as you say, surrogates. Surrogates could have been the mafia. It could have been a, it could have been revolutionaries depending on what country, what situation. But the key thing is the CIA, this is on a need to know basis, kept very, very to very small group of handlers.
And you know, it’s not something that you do and that people in every department of the CIA are aware of. It could well have been people that were rogue to a certain degree but had the same contacts or the right contacts with the, the top, you know, the top movers and shakers or the, the, the, let’s call it the Cold War complex. I think that’s what Garrison called it. And so, you know, I mean that’s a simple answer. But, but if you look at it and we’re seeing the article I’m going to write, will will sort of, you know, answer or, or look into that area.
So you’re not far from, you know, and there are three levels, right. Who gave a green light, who planned it and who carried it out. Okay, exactly. Just real quickly, or Sir Wecht refer to, and I’m going to botched the title, but the Latin American Guide for Regime Change or assassinations. A title such as that, I don’t remember the exact verbiage. And Cyril Weck talked about that compromising the presidential protection detail is one of the key ways. It happened at Butler with Trump and it happened with JFK in Dallas. And this is the beauty of what you guys are doing.
I want to give out your links before we close again. Website jfkchokeholds.com and of course you’re going to want to go to X as you have heard at JFK chokeholds. Then of course, Facebook updates. Facebook.com JFK chokehold. Excuse me. And those are the three links you really want to pay attention to. Gentlemen, I want to have you back on after Trump is in office for a little while to bring pressure. And I’m not going to brag or drop names, but let’s just say I’ve got some contacts that can raise the level of heat if they buy what we’ve presented here.
And I’d like to follow up if things are not happening And I think we need to put pressure to bear because one, it’ll protect Trump, I think, to some degree. But also two, we’ll get the justice we so deserve. And by the way, it’ll get him, I don’t want to say off the hook because I don’t think he’s on the hook because the orders that Andrew talked about are orders to the archivists. Do you understand? So I do. I do. It’s the archivists responsibility to release the documents. And I’m not sure the people who were, you know, given information are aware of all that.
So it would be very useful for them to be aware of what Andrew is come upon. Very useful for them politically and also just doing the right thing. Pablo and Andrew Eiler have been our guests. Book is JFK Choke Holds. I highly recommend it. People, it’s, I tell you, this is work that needed to be done 50 years ago, 60 years ago. Unfortunately, we’ve had to wait this time, I think, to get people really on the trail. We’ve got a lot of good people out there working. You’ve heard about Jim being mentioned. Jim Mars, of course.
Ladies and gentlemen, you’re, you’re getting real history right here. Gentlemen, I thank you for your legal expertise in this because it made this presentation so believable, because you’re not taking the implied you’re going to what you can prove. And I appreciate that. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us on the conversation. Thank you. Happy New Year again. Happy New Year. Thanks, Dave.
[tr:tra].
Author
