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