All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:03:53
The New JFK Show #268 (5 March 2022) with Gary King and Larry Rivera
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
two, one.
All right.
Welcome to the new JFK show, everyone, number 268.
Tonight we've got Robert Coulson is gonna be the main topic and there's a HSCA interview and document that we're gonna be going through.
So Larry knows a lot more about this than I do, but I'm gonna go ahead and get the cast of characters going.
And get the slideshow, screen share.
Okay.
All right, so here's the White House photographer we're going to be talking about.
Now this is the other photographer of the Navy, J.T.
Stringer.
He took Certain photos of the autopsy and then later on come to find out that Robert here has done that.
I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce his name.
Knutson.
Knutson.
Knutson?
Knutson.
Knutson.
Yeah, Knutson.
Hey, Knutson.
All right.
Yeah.
You're jumping around in the photos.
I don't know who we got here.
Now, is this Knudsen and his wife Larry?
Yeah, right.
It's all him.
And no, not officially in the Warren Commission, but this is his... Wow, he died of a heart attack in 74.
Wow.
Obituary.
Right, and if you notice down here, he was part of photographing the slain president, JFK.
Yeah, he was on the staff for Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Five of them.
Yeah, so he was around a long time.
He just kind of got stuck in a place where he didn't really want to be.
And he was interviewed, and that's where we're going to go right now.
I'm going to fix that out.
Whoops.
That wasn't supposed to happen.
You got out of slideshow, Gary.
Yeah, we're going to get out of that.
What?
No, why did you get out?
I mean, they would normally show the whole screen, you know.
Yeah, but I'm going to go ahead and get my document ready that we're going to read.
Hang on one second.
There it is.
So I'll go back to the screen share.
All right, let's go to full screen.
Oh.
Okay, talk to us a little bit, Larry, on this one.
No, I guess what you're putting up there is a document that Douglas Horn mentioned and cited in the recent Oliver Stone documentary.
And if I'm not mistaken, during the program He mentioned that this document had been suppressed, including by the HSCA, by Robert Blakey.
Yeah, for 40 years.
And he, you know, they didn't know why until they read the document and they realized that this was a smoking gun here with the information that was contained in it.
I think it's only 50 something pages.
But, you know, we're talking about 1990, mid 90s, you know, when this document finally surfaces, but they had it since the HSCA, you know, and it, you know, it's perplexing to say the least.
Uh, why?
You know, why?
Maybe you or Jim, you know, can come up with an answer, you know, as far as that, you know, if it's such an important document, you know, and the House Select Committee of Assassinations was so intent on Finding out the truth about the assassination of JFK.
Except it wasn't, Larry.
We know.
I mean, look at that.
That's why I'm being sarcastic.
Well, let me just pick up here and see.
They say, could you please state for us your position during the early 1960s?
Knudsen, I was a White House photographer.
I mean, during what years?
Yeah, during what years?
You can flip to the next, Gary.
You can go.
I'll just pick out parts of it.
1958 to 19... Well, let me, before you go into that, let me just say that half of the document is actually him trying to squirrel away, trying to get
away from this uh so very important uh testimony yeah right he had taken an oath to not disclose anything to the secret service so in the middle of the document they say that look we'll get a hold of the secret service i think his name is golf the head of the secret service and eventually they they take a few recesses and then he gets
They start making phone calls!
Not just the head of the Secret Service, but the legal counsel of the Secret Service, which is going a whole different direction, you know, like, what are the legal parameters or issues of mine testifying before the House of the Committee here, you know, when, you know, they have the mandate, which they have, you know, and to hell with the Secret Service.
But, you know, even with that happening, you know, they had to go.
And until they obtained that permission, quote, unquote, you know, they were not able to actually get the important information out of it.
And then later on, it's interesting that they say not to talk to any JFK buffs or people looking to find information, but you can talk to the House Select Committee.
It's okay.
Because they're going to bury anything you say that's important, whereas the buffs would get it out to the public, so that's what we want to avoid at any cost.
Right, and it's interesting that they were concerned about us way back then.
All right.
Okay, Dr. Fetzer.
Well, I don't want to read it all.
Yeah, tell us which parts I should read.
You should, I think, at half.
Yeah, around page 27, I think.
Yeah, you can start around there.
Because, I mean, it's just... I can't tell what... Yeah, some of the...
I mean, the information that he brought to the table is just so incredible.
You know, my jaw just dropped, you know.
Hold on, we're on page... I see, we're on... You went way too far, Gary.
Yeah, I see it at the top.
I couldn't see the page number, but I see it now.
All right, here we go.
Right around here, I think.
Where are you?
Okay, let me see.
Okay, the number of prints.
Yeah, you can start with that.
See if you can...
I should point out that we have the full cooperation.
That's where you should start.
At the top left.
All right.
approximately is it correct correct what did you do go further back go further back one one more gary go okay right there okay now now right here i should point out that we have the full cooperation that's where you should start at the top left all right top of page 24 i should point out
we have the full cooperation of the secret service and other government agencies and obtaining all other information and there were other orders that came down pertaining to this material in the autopsy that had been for it says formerly rescinded i think he means formally rescinded but maybe formerly meaning already rescinded by government agencies so he could pursue the investigation i'm I am sympathetic to your concerns, meaning Knudsen's been hesitant.
I'm not sure you recognize the evidentiary significance of what you're saying here today and the importance of what you're not saying relative to other people's testimony, relative to examination of prints that we have made, Mr. Knudsen.
I think this would clarify the whole situation.
If the prints were examined, and then I would not be in the spot that I am, that I am sworn not to disclose it, it would give a very definitive answer to you as to the number of prints.
Purdy.
I should say that we have had access to... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, the number of probes.
The number of probes.
Ah, yes, very good.
Probes, very good.
Number of probes, yeah.
You mean like the back probe and was there more than that?
Yeah, all the way through his body.
All the way, all the way through his body.
You're talking about a probe all the way through JFK's body.
That's right, that's right.
Several, several probes.
Two.
Really?
He saw a picture of two distinct probes going through the president.
Gets better, it gets, this is why Go ahead.
I should say that we have had access to the autopsy photographs and the questions I'm asking remain unanswered.
I still like to ask again if either we could arrange or if you could arrange with the Secret Service to have this order lifted If you then would be willing to cooperate with us, Mr. Knudsen, I will cooperate as far as I can.
As I say, Bertie, if you are willing, we could take a short break and we could call the Secret Service, or I could give you the number and you can call them.
We could just ask a few other questions, have you gain a clearance, and then reconvene on another day, if that's convenient with you, Knudsen, whichever you prefer, Bertie.
And I think we'll take a recess at this break.
So what they were going to do, would that Secret Service be able to authorize his talking?
I don't think the Secret Service... No, no, no, not just the Secret Service, but the legal counsel, Robert Goff.
You're going to see in a second.
Okay, okay, so I come back from this short break.
Kurdi, we are resuming the deposition.
During the break, I spoke with John Meehan, an assistant to Robert Goff, and he's going to contact Robert Goff, General Counsel for the Secret Service.
For the record, the time is now 10 28 a.m.
Knudsen, Mr. Knudsen, Was this a totally unique situation, specifically the making of these prints and the number of sets that were made, or was this kind of a standard procedure for sensitive photographs?
Knudsen, I do not understand the question.
Ernie, were there other very sensitive photographs that you had to deal with that maybe were handled in a similar way as those with the Secret Service being involved in the transport of them with a certain set number of prints made up?
A definite number of sets of prints made up.
Was this customary procedure for sensitive material?
I have to say that this Purdy guy was pretty well prepared, you know, for this.
Yeah, he didn't step in the mud like they were trying to get him to.
I agree.
I mean, already he's been very specific about this and eliciting whether this was a unique situation.
And he's cornering him, you know, very effectively.
Excellent.
Doodson, I do not recall any other time Secret Service ever escorted me for something like that, needless to say.
Continue, Gary.
Yeah, did it go?
Come on.
I just go one up?
Okay.
Purdy.
Was the number seven a customary number for the sets of prints Knudsen?
No, I cannot tell you why it sticks.
It sticks in my mind very strongly.
Purdy, could it have been seven prints?
Are you very sure it's seven sets of prints Knudsen?
I know it could not have been seven prints because that would not have covered a print for each negative.
Purdy, how many negatives Where are you?
How many prints were made?
Knudsen, I do not recall.
Purdy, could you give me a rough idea?
For example, were there a similar number of color and black and white prints or was there a greater number of one than the other?
Knudsen, no black and white prints made to my knowledge.
Purdy.
That's the key.
That's the key.
He did nothing but white prints.
Knudsen only did color prints and the amount and the sets He's very specific during the whole interview.
Very good.
With a similar number of black and white negatives as compared to color, it seems to me approximately 10 negatives, color negatives.
I do not recall this as an approximate.
Do you think there were approximately 10 color prints made, Knudsen?
No.
Approximately 10 color negatives, 7 prints of each of these.
You made 7 prints of each negative, Knudsen?
Yes.
So that'd be 70 photographs.
He's very sure about that.
And so that each set consisted of 10 color prints.
12, Jim, 12.
It says 10.
12.
It says, oh, 10?
Yeah.
OK, OK, OK, OK.
10 in each set.
OK, right, right.
Knudsen, approximately.
I do not recall.
So we're talking about 70 prints.
That's what I said, 70 prints.
We don't know about any 70 prints of Jim Bialik.
I know.
I know, I know, I know!
And I got the sneaky feeling Robert Grodin is somewhere in the background here concealing a whole lot of facts he actually knows but isn't willing to reveal.
There again!
What I'm taking this from, it seems to me there were five holders that they took into the darkroom.
If there were five holders, ten negatives.
If there were one exposed sheet, then there would have been nine negatives per day.
Were there approximately ten black and white negatives or a greater or lesser?
He's still talking about black and white!
There was one total film, black.
There would have been twelve negatives, black and white.
Purdy, did you make an index of the prints describing each one, Knudsen?
No.
Was one made to your knowledge?
Not to my knowledge.
You worked in the White House until 1974 approximately, correct?
What did you do then?
Photographer?
Private?
I was employed by the U.S.
government on June 20, 1965.
I had my 20 years in the Navy, and I requested retirement.
I was advised that I could retire, provided I would stay in a civil service capacity.
They wanted my services to continue, so I retired.
I can tell you the exact date.
Just a minute.
Pause.
I retired on the 11th of June, 1965, which was a Friday.
I worked Saturday and Sunday and went on civil service payment on Monday.
Payroll.
Yeah, good.
On the 14th of June, I went to the civil service payroll.
Purdy, could you describe what you're reading that from?
Knudsen Navy retirement card.
They put the date of retirement on there.
I know that was the date I retired.
I know it was a Friday.
They had the Fine Arts Celebration.
Hey, Jim, you were in the Navy.
Do you have one of those?
I was in the Marine Corps.
Oh, I'm sorry.
A retirement card.
You got it.
It's a DD-214.
It's your... Right, right.
DD-214.
Yeah, DD-214.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, I mean, I've got... I've still got my military, you know, reserve ID.
I remember some time ago, some people tried to, you know...
Try to, what was it, insinuate that you were not really in the Marines.
Remember that time?
Yeah, I don't know what he was after.
That was very bizarre.
This is a guy, and I suspect it may have been the guy who calls himself Lenny Pauser.
Claiming that he would give $50,000 to my legal defense fund if I could prove I'd been in the Marine Corps.
So I went ahead and proved I'd been in the Marine Corps.
DD-214, the whole bit, photos of my uniforms, lots of photographs in service, being commissioned, remembering my promotion to captain where my wife put the bars on my... But of course, he never paid off.
The whole thing was some kind of scam.
But I've never figured out What it was, why he would want to see my DD214.
I just never figured that out, Larry.
You think when they were just trying to play you or something?
Oh, sure.
But I mean, I knew that from the beginning.
I mean, he wasn't going to give me $50,000.
To your defense fund, okay.
Yeah, it's just ridiculous.
Okay.
Is this payroll stuff important to read?
Isn't there other stuff?
Yeah, we can go down a little bit more when it gets a little more serious.
Have you had any contact?
Did you have any contact with any other autopsy-related materials while you were working at the White House during those years?
Knudsen, not to my knowledge.
Did you ever have knowledge?
Were you ever told about autopsy x-rays, for example?
No.
I do not know that any were ever taken.
He didn't even know about the x-rays.
Purdy, did you know from your personal knowledge or what you were told about the existence of any tissue?
Related materials from the autopsy itself, such as slides or tissue sections or paraffin blocks.
He's really, he's really, uh, taken all, all the, um, All the important details, you know, and eliminating the ones that would not apply, you know, you know, that's what I'm taking out of here.
You know, the obviously, you know, Knudsen would not have had anything to do with slides or anything like that, but at least, you know, he's throwing it out there to see if there was any reaction.
I'm extremely impressed with Purdy.
Yeah.
I was told I do not know who it was that there were tissues was taken from the back of the head.
I say I was told I do not know.
Did you also learn where that material was being kept when you learned of its existence?
I was told it was taken at the time of the autopsy at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda.
I would just assume it was studied out there because I understand they have a fine setup there as any place.
It would be an assumption.
I do not know.
Did you ever come into the possession of any information about where those tissue materials were kept or... Next page.
I'm sorry.
There you go.
Gary!
What happened to them?
Knudsen?
No, we will take another short break.
Baba.
We'll go back on record.
The time's now 11, 12 AM.
We've still been able to get the call back from Robert Goff at the secret service.
So Mr. Knudsen, I did, as I said, talk to John Meehan, who works for golf.
He's trying to get in touch with him, but we, you were In the Navy at the time, I believe.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
I will show you at this time a letter that we sent to the Secretary of Defense asking the order of silence given a new Navy personnel be lifted in the response, and I give you my assurance That the Secret Service is cooperating with us, and it is only a question of the communication getting through.
Specifically, this letter requests that the order of signs be lifted and that it pertains to the President of the Autopsy of the President.
I show you this letter.
It is dated February 27, 1978, to Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense.
And just take your time to read that.
Pause.
If you have a problem going into the details of your recollection, we can convene at another time to question you.
I probably would recall as good now as I could later.
Like I said, it's been a long time.
We have gone over quite a few of your recollections and we are going to show you in a second the color autopsy prints that we have and ask you whether the prints that you are shown are consistent with your recollections of them when you saw them.
A primary point we are going to cover are the number and location of wounds and the other details of the photographs that you described generally, such as the presence of metal probes in the photographs and the presence of rules in the photographs and what have you.
Are you confident now that you saw metal probes in the photographs?
Knudsen, yes.
Are you confident that the metal probes were actually through the wounds when you saw them?
Yes, I'm certain of that, because it showed the point of entry and exit with a probe.
Were there ever photographs that you have seen either before this instance or since that incident that you might be confusing with your recollection of these photographs?
To my knowledge, I've not seen anything regarding, I've never seen any photographs of it other than, next page Gary.
Yeah, it's just metal probes, non-metal probes.
Other than the ones taken there, Purdy.
Have you seen photographs of any other autopsies?
No.
Have you seen photographs of any other dead bodies that may have probes in them?
Yes, I have.
I'm certain on the Kennedy, there were the probes showing the point of entry and exit.
How many probes were there that you saw in a given picture?
What is the most probes you saw in a given picture at one time?
I know there were two.
Two mental probes that were through wounds when you saw them?
Yes.
We'll take a break.
Bertie, we'll resume.
The time now, 11.28.
Of course.
Of course.
It's getting hot.
It's getting dirty.
Newton and I have just spoken with Bob Goff and Mr. Newsom.
If you want to briefly state what Mr. Goff said to you about whether you could talk to us, Newton.
Well, Mr. Goff said that under the circumstances that it be the legitimate government subcommittee, that he felt it would be appropriate to cooperate to the fullest.
He did not have any objection to my talking.
The main thing that they felt was continued silence toward any assassination buffs, reporters, this sort of thing.
But insofar as any committee, they had no objection and thought that I should cooperate.
Thank you.
As I said previously, Mr. Goff is the General Counsel of the United States Secret Service.
Now, Before the break, we were talking about the number of probes, and you had said the most you saw in one picture was two.
I believe that's what you said.
Is that correct?
I said that the minimum was two.
What was the most?
Minimum.
That's key right there.
Minimum.
It could have been three, could have been four, but minimum two.
Very good.
Very good.
I said the minimum was two.
What was the most over this period of time?
I'm not certain.
It seemed to me there were three in one picture, but this I will not state for sure.
Probes, it says probes, but it means probes that you recall.
Where did they enter and where did they exit?
One was right near the neck and out the back.
Near the neck and out the back.
So that's a throat wound and I was actually.
And I never heard about that before.
Me neither.
Me neither, Larry.
This is brand new.
One was right near the neck and out the back.
The front of the neck and out the back of the neck.
The point of entry exit.
The middle probe extended from.
Uh-oh.
Gary, what did you do?
I switched pages.
I didn't want you to switch pages.
Go back.
I'm sorry.
I thought you just read the bottom line.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
He's at the middle of the second pair.
One was right near the neck and out the back, the front of the neck and out the back of the neck, the point of entry exit, the middle probic center from the front of the neck to the back of the neck.
Right.
One was through the chest cavity.
Did it go all the way through?
Yes.
Wow.
It seems to be at the entry point.
Now flip it, Gary.
Yeah, there we go.
Gary, you flipped it at the worst possible moment.
I was reading and it said the same thing at the bottom.
Go ahead.
A little bit lower in the back than, well, the point is the back was a little bit lower than the point in the front.
Put it that way.
The probe was going diagonally from top to bottom, front to back.
What the hell?
Repeat that.
Repeat that, please.
So the probe was going diagonally from top to bottom, front to back.
Top to bottom, front to back.
Larry, what the hell is this?
What the hell is this?
Pretty.
Approximately, regarding both probes.
How high?
You mentioned one was in the front of the neck.
The probe extended between prints on the front of the neck and the back of the neck.
How high on the back of the neck and how high or low from the front of the neck would you say for that probe?
Knudsen, as I said, Not studying them for technical purposes.
It seemed to me that the point on the front was about this point.
Someone in this area here indicating.
Where the hell was he indicating?
Could you articulate?
Right.
Bone is this.
You are pointing to a bone right around the top.
Right about where the necktie is, okay, yeah.
Adam's apple!
Adam's apple!
That would have been, you know, we all know that was where the entry point is.
Malcolm Perry and Charles Crenshaw and everyone else was the point of entry.
Right about where the necktie is, that would be somewhat in that vicinity approximately.
And let me quickly interject here.
Malcolm Perry, who was Eventually, who eventually was forced, and they talk about this in the Stone documentary, to actually abandon the frontal shot, you know, and go ahead with the government, you know, and apologizing, and actually where they paraded him, you know, on camera, you know, to admit his error, you know, which never was an error, you know, and it's in that Stone documentary, but
You know, one of those things that happens, you know, when you have to, you know, toe the line, you know, and especially in this type of case, you know, and be... Can we pause just for one second?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Yeah, let's just pause for one second.
All right.
I'll be right back.
What happened?
I just needed to take a break for a second.
Okay.
We lose our document?
Okay.
Well, already, uh, we have to make a couple of comments here regarding the importance of this document here, uh, that we're perusing here and, uh, how we are starting to find out things that we had never seen before, which is not easy for the JFK case because usually everything has already been, you know, uh, researched and, uh, and, uh,
Whatever, but this is one that is surprising the heck out of us tonight.
Like Doug said, it contradicts everything the Warren Commission had to offer.
Well, what astonishes me is that as much Time and effort is say the three of us, for example, have investigated the case.
We've never run across anything remotely like this before.
Never.
And Larry, were you inspired by Doug Horne's observations during the inside, you know, JFK revisited that to go to look at it or what led you to it?
Obviously, obviously.
Yeah.
When he mentioned, I said, I want to see that document and it didn't take long to find it really, you know, Yeah, Mary Farrell's got some stuff on her side.
It did not take long at all, you know, because, you know, I have my methods and as soon as I read the first half, you know, where, you know, he was having so much, he was putting so much, look at this.
I'm discerning something here.
They're talking about the throat wound to the back wound, Larry.
In other words, they were turning the entry wound in the back into an exit wound using this probe.
They were experimenting.
This is a falsification.
Right where the necktie is, that would be somewhere in the vicinity for the entry.
Then how much lower would you say the other probe went through the chest cavity?
I'd put it six, seven inches.
So they're connecting the back wound, which was an entry wound, to the throat wound, which was an entry wound.
And also they are continuing to desecrate, you know, JFK's body, you know, because if they're doing all kinds of probing here and there, you know, it's like... No, Larry, they were manufacturing.
This was trying to figure out a way to reduce the number of bullets.
Yeah, and trying to find out which was the scenario that best matched, you know, their probing here and there, obviously, yeah.
Yeah.
This is just ghastly.
Yeah, it's very...
Distressing, actually.
Now we see they're connecting the entry wound in the throat to the entry wound in the back, which was five and a half inches below the collar, just to the right of the spinal column.
And they created a probe to connect them.
They artificially created a transit.
And notice that Knudsen is going the opposite of what the government wanted us to believe, which would have been back to front, you know, and he's going, front to back, you know, with the pro, but he's going at a different angle altogether, you know, so.
Yeah.
Contradicting them every step of the way.
Okay.
Approximately how much lower would you play the other probe went through the chest cavity.
I put six, seven inches open or close a photograph as a side view.
I just glance at to make sure from the side view, you saw both probes, right?
Why would you place the points of the probes in the back?
You say one was in the neck.
One was in the back.
Approximately high up.
How low I put the back seem to be probably around.
Two bullet holes in the back.
I think you're right.
I think he is.
Yes.
Yeah.
You say I would put in the back.
It would seem to, it was probably around 10 inches again.
I don't recall like the two points of the probes in the back, two points.
Okay.
This is, this is very strange.
Okay, I would put it in the back.
It would seem to be probably around 10 inches there.
Again, I do not recall the length of time.
I cannot say.
You were kind of pointing to the middle of your back, about midway down, would you say?
Midway between the neck and the waist.
Where was the other probe?
This one, you just indicated where the probe came out on the Lord Knudsen, somewhere around the middle of the back.
It seemed to me it was right around mid-chest.
Purdy, the probe you said you could see coming out of the neck, the front of the neck.
Where was it?
Out of the back of the neck.
How high would you say it was?
About the base of the neck.
So now, In other words, they had two probes for the neck wound.
One was going straight through as though it had entered for the magic bullet trajectory, and the other was to try to connect the neck wound to the back entry wound.
Is that how you read it, Larry?
That's the way I interpret it, too.
But continue, because it gets better.
The probe that you said you could see coming out the neck, the front of the neck, was it out of the back of the neck?
How high would you say that one was about the base of the neck?
Was a body lying flat or stiffing up or sitting on its front when you saw the probes through it?
It would have been erected to put the probes through because on the back there was no way.
Could you make out the faces of the people who We're holding faces of people in the background.
To my knowledge, there were no faces.
Could you have their hands?
There were again.
I didn't study them.
Were there in the photographs a photo showing a metal probe through the head?
No, not to my knowledge.
To my knowledge, the only photograph of the head was to show them the wound in the right rear of the head there, a little right of center.
A wound in the right rear of the head.
Oh, the back of the head, yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, the heart was right.
We're talking about the wound that they— Now he's talking about a probe through the head, Jim.
A probe through the head.
I'm going to show you the color autopsy print.
They are numbered beginning with 26F.
If you want to make a comment on a particular print, just let me know and I'll double check the number of it so I'll be able to refer to it in the record.
Let the record show I am handing the witness a JFK autopsy photo 6 part 1 open to the color prints.
These are photographs of the autopsy prints.
These are not the actual prints.
Nudes, and I was going to say, these are not the original prints.
I can see that right off.
The color is off.
You want me to vote?
You want me to go through them, Purdy?
You can leaf through them and make comments where you feel it's necessary.
If you see photographs you recognize, you might say you recognize Knutson.
I recall roughly, then again I did not study them in detail, I just fanned through the negatives.
The witness has looked through photograph 26 through 29 so far.
These are roughly what I recall seeing, and here's a ruler I recall on one.
That would be the ruler we see on the back photograph?
Yeah.
Witnesses refer to photograph 38F.
I recall seeing one, the photograph of the back of the bread.
There again, I will not say it was this one.
I will, I see that there are others.
I recall in the back of my mind, there was a ruler in some of the photographs.
Bernie, what the record shows, some of these are, there are multiple prints of the same one.
Let me ask you, I did not see these.
The witness is referring to the color photographs of the brain.
He said he had not seen these.
Let me ask you about photograph number 44F.
Was this a photograph you made reference to earlier when you talked about the photograph of the head opened up or the skull opened up, Knudson?
Seems to me there was one photograph that showed, I can best describe it to you, this part of the hair indicating there seems there is a strand of skin holding this this way.
I wonder if he's talking about this skull flap.
Yeah, yeah, that they might have tried to... That's probably because there was skin holding it together.
Yeah.
The witness is pointing to the back portion of Ahead, I'm turning to photograph 42 and 43 up.
Knudsen, this is not what I meant.
Purdy, a photograph of the back of the president's head.
Just let me ask you if that looks like one you saw that matches your recollection.
This is the back of the president's head here, Knudsen.
There again, I did not study it in detail.
It seems to me there was a little bit more of the piece of skull hanging in one of the photographs.
Here, this is it.
We're now referring to photo 37F, showing the top of the president's head.
So it's your testimony today that these photographs are not inconsistent with the ones you saw, Knudsen?
No, not at all.
Is there anything you saw that's not represented by these photographs?
I feel certainly there was one with the two probes.
One photograph of two probes in the body?
That is correct.
I'm referring again to photograph 37 in the area on the right side of the photograph of your position, which is the front of the president's body.
There are some metal things vaguely in view, one which points toward the president.
No, that's not it.
That's not what I had in mind.
Could you once again go through the photographs, looking carefully to see if there's anything in there that you might have taken to be a metal probe, which was not on this examination?
Pause.
Let the record show the witness is beginning again at 26, pause.
I do not see a photograph here that covers the chest area.
It was your sense that it was from the side though, a side view.
Referring to photograph number 40F, showing the front of the present, including the front neck region, do you see a point on the present which would correspond to one or more of the locations of the probe that you recall?
Right here, indicating.
Could you articulate?
Right here, the neck where the necktie would be tied.
So we're talking about a probe going into the penetration, the entry wound in the neck.
Let the record show that the witness is pointing to the tracheostomy incision at the front of the breast.
Well, he's not.
He's pointing to the area where the tracheostomy incision was made, but he's not pointing to the tracheostomy incision, but he's pointing to the hole where the wound went.
Is your recollection, Alastair, that it was a probe lower than that area?
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Look at a photograph.
How much lower a point would it be visible in this photograph?
I'm beginning to wonder now.
I do not see anything here.
But is it in the back of my mind there was a probe through the body?
Is it your present recollection that body was not opened up in the chest area?
Or could you not tell whether it was opened up?
Or was it definitely not open in the picture that you recall but do not see here?
There again.
I was looking quickly for quality.
I did not study it.
I do not recall seeing any photograph of the chest being open.
Do you think it's something you'd remember?
The president's chest was cut and open?
Of course.
It's a Y incision.
I mean, right.
What a dumb question.
Does this approximately respond to the number of color prints you recall?
That is correct.
Is it just your recollection there was one more or at least one more than present here?
It seems to me the one I saw with the probes was strictly a negative.
I do not remember seeing a print of it.
The first day when we processed the film, we were just checking the negatives.
I believe it was a black and white.
I do not know.
I believe it was the negative of the probe.
You think it was black and white, or you think it might have been, or are you just not sure?
It was a negative.
I do not recall ever having seen a print, but it seems to me that was a negative, and checking the negatives.
Let me show you from the same photo book at the beginning photographs of the black and white prints.
You see if perhaps one of these might correspond to your recollection of the black and white negative that you just referred to beginning at photographs 1F?
Let the record show the witness is looking through the photograph sequentially.
Is this in the copy?
Let the record show the witness is referring to 13F.
It looks like a band of light across the lower portion of the photograph.
In looking at the negative, you have a band here.
It has been so doggone long, meaning since he looked at these.
If that is in the original, Mr. Purdy, I do not think it is in the original because it looks like it's on something from the copies.
I see it over here now.
I do not see it.
You are saying you do not see it?
I do not see it here, but the back of my mind, it still seemed there was one photograph, the body erect with two probes through it.
Let me ask you.
That's the one.
The body erect.
With two probes through it.
We've never been close to seeing anything like that.
No, no, no, no.
And it sounds like this is part of altering the body to fabricate a story, alter the body to correspond with a three-shot scenario.
No, no.
And he specifies the right side.
I don't know if he's already said it, but he will.
I wonder if David has ever seen this.
Do we know if David's ever seen this?
That's why I wanted to bring him in this.
Larry, have you sent me a copy of this doc?
I'll send it to David.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, several times.
You have sent me this.
Now here is where the amount of exposures per set is established.
And you said 10, but I remember, as I recall, it was 12 exposures per set having seven.
So we're talking about 84 exposures, which he, you know, none of them are included in what they are showing him here because he had, you know, again, Robert Knudsen took color photographs and they brought him To take color photographs because at the time they did not have, they only had a black and white photographer who had black and white capabilities.
Do you want me to read more of this?
I mean, yeah, I don't know if it's necessary, but... Let's go a little bit further towards the end.
Still talking about I mean, it's pretty obvious.
Was there anyone that you know of that may have seen the negative you were talking about that showed the probes?
Anyone else you might suggest we talk to about that?
No?
It's just in the back of my mind.
I'm certain that there is one shot of the body erect, two probes through it, and I processed the black and white.
I hung it up.
I just quickly went down it to make sure I had everything there.
I then closed the door.
Jim and I stayed outside, had a cup of coffee or something while the film was drying.
After it was dry, I put each negative in 4x5 preserver, took it, took the color, which had also dried the same.
Purdy, did Jim Foxx look at those black and white negatives tonight?
Not in my presence.
Not in my presence.
This is stunning!
This is stunning stuff.
I mean, I mean, this is totally, pens, you know, the apple cart, you know, and this is like I said, you know, this is as close to a smoking gun, you know, document you can find you're ever going to find.
And it just so happens that it was suppressed by the HSCA only to be found later on by the.
Why wasn't, why wasn't Cyril Weck jumping up and down about this?
Why wasn't?
Why wasn't Cyril Weck pointing out that they reconstituted the back of the head, which is not only inconsistent with the physicians at Parkland's observation, but with a bloody Bethesda autopsy report, which is detailed in mathematical precision!
I am incensed!
This would be a forensic scientist bonanza here.
This is stunning.
Did Jim Fox look at those black and white negatives?
No, he's not in my presence.
Fox, you were present when you and he turned them over.
We went back to it.
Seemed to me it was W16.
I'm not certain.
We did go into W16, but wherever it was, we went with a negative.
We turned them all back.
The only reason you would have a feeling that he had reviewed them was the fact that you assumed that he made black and white prints.
I assume that Jim is the one who made the prints.
Did Sandy Spencer or anyone else at Navy Photographic Center have an occasion to look at the black and white negatives, to your knowledge?
No.
Sandy was basically color.
As I say, I went into the darkroom, processed it, went out the door, stayed outside the door.
When it was dry, I went back and checked them.
They were dry, and we departed.
Have you had any discussion with any of the other people that you talked about today about what you saw in those photographs?
No, never.
I never discussed anything on these photographs.
And you know why?
And you know why?
And his wife is very specific in the Stone documentary.
She said he was...
By the book, you know, Military Man, you know?
And they said, you do not talk about this shit.
You do not talk about it, period.
He was a Navy man, and he had secret... If, but, or whatever.
Top secret clearance, and he never opened his mouth, ever.
That's what it says.
And thank God that this document, you know, because... And notice, you know, all the obstacles, you know, to get him to open up, to talk about this, Jim.
Yeah.
And the Secret Service, of all people, telling them, you know, to be quiet for 40 years.
You know?
They have to go and talk to this attorney, Goff, to get permission, you know, from the... I mean, how?
I mean, is this what... The same shit happened with the Secret Service when they destroyed all those records, you know, when the AIRB, you know, and they just destroyed them and said, hey, you know, so what?
We destroyed the records from 1963 outside of Dallas, November 22nd, you know, the whole year we destroyed them.
So what?
You know, what are you gonna do about it?
You know, and that's what happened with the ARB, you know, and the Secret Service said, you know, to hell with you guys, you know, we're not gonna produce anything that you guys want.
Hello?
Have you had any previous experience in metal probes such as this so that you would know what it would look like on a negative?
The only reason I say I thought it was a metal probe in my recollection, it was a rod.
24 inches long, probably, 3 8 7 inch diameter.
It appeared to be aluminum.
You can't get any more specific than that.
The description is right on the money right there.
Aluminum or stainless steel.
There again, it was a negative.
This size, hanging like this.
to dry.
You have a lot of experience looking at negatives over the years.
Over the years, could it have been some form of light shadow or a defect in the negative you may have thought was a metal probe or you think there was actually an object that there was a picture taken?
I thought there had to be something in the negative that I do not believe to have been a defect.
No.
It did not look like an artifact of any kind.
It did not appear that way to me.
Like I say, I did not take it down and study it over a view or anything like that.
I just glanced at it.
The wall was approximately this color, and the negatives were hanging like this, indicating.
I just flipped them around like this, indicating.
At the record show, the witness held up some papers from the top, as though it was a negative hanging from a line, and just turned them and glanced at the papers.
I'm glad that Purdy went through all kinds of contortions to make sure that he was getting, you know, he was, this guy was zooming in on what he really wanted him to talk about, you know, in this deposition.
To say it was an artifact is what he wanted.
Well, I don't think that's what Purdy wanted.
I think Purdy actually was doing a good job of verifying that Newsom's testimony was accurate.
I don't see perfidy in Purdy.
No, no, not at all.
I think he's a righteous dude.
It's like a funnel.
He's funneling everything to this common point there at the end.
That's what he's doing.
I was kind of suspicious when he said it looked like an artifact.
You know, but I understand what y'all are saying.
I agree with y'all now.
He's eliminating alternative explanations that might be offered retros, you know, in anticipation of trying to discredit Knudsen's testimony.
And he's doing a hell of a job of covering the alternatives.
Exactly.
That's what I meant.
He is a good lawyer.
Working with a lot of people.
How certain are you that seven sets of prints were made of the color negatives?
Knudsen!
That is the number that sticks in the back of my mind.
Why the number six there?
I do not know.
84 prints, Jim.
84 prints.
We're talking about 84 freaking prints that we have never seen.
You have a specific recollection that was the number.
That's a one or two, but a number of sets of prints made.
Is that correct?
Oh, yes.
There are more than one or two.
Does it refresh your recollection to know that no one else with whom we've spoken can recall that we're more than one or two sets of prints?
I do not mean to imply I'm questioning your word.
I just want to point to you that there's a very significant discrepancy in people's recollection.
And while yours seems very specific... Oh, I'm sorry.
That was... Are we back on the right page?
No.
Doggone it.
I'm feeling good.
There you go.
That's it.
And while yours seems very specific, I just want you to know that there were others who recalled that it was otherwise.
Knudsen, again I repeat, has been about 15 years.
So best of my recollection, there were more than one or two.
Like I say, why the number?
I will not swear to the number seven, but that number sticks in the back of my mind for some reason.
Apparently, there were more than seven negatives printed there for Purdy.
Let me ask you this.
If you were to be told that someone was absolutely certain had proof that there were only one or two or three sets of prints made, what would your reaction be to that?
Would your reaction be, well, I guess I just... If they are absolutely certain and have good reason to be certain of it, I would not argue with them.
He will.
Would you be surprised to find that there was, that that was the... Gary!
Gary!
Okay, here we go.
Case?
Like I say, this number 7, I don't know, it sticks in the back of my mind.
If you say, well, can you show me a document with a picture that was to be 2 or 3 of each, I would say, well, I still don't know where the 7 came from, but I will not argue with you.
You would be surprised if you found that to be the case, that there were only 1 or 2 or 3 sets made and not 7, is that correct?
I would not say I would be surprised.
Is it not your present recollection?
My present recollection is there were more than one or two sets made at this time.
As we do with each witness, we will give you an opportunity to elaborate, make any other comments you'd like to make.
I think we gave you that opportunity, but I asked a few more questions.
If you'd like to add anything, please do so at this time.
Knudsen!
Like I say, it's been a long time.
To the best of my recollection, it has been, as I said, on the number of prints.
If you have a reason to believe there were two or three, I would not argue with it.
If for some reason this number seven sticks in the back of my mind, I could well be wrong, but that number sticks in the back of my mind.
As to that, I am certain the black and white negative was one of the bodies sitting up with the probes through it.
I do not know.
I honestly do not know what to say now if that one is missing.
It's in the back of my mind.
In fact, even to the point that it was a right profile, the body... Right profile, like I said, right profile.
The body was sitting up and looking at the right side profile.
Purdy, I should add, Knudsen, I will tell you one thing that would clarify it.
If the negatives were available, the film pack is numbered right on the bottom of the factory and you can go through 1 through 12.
Purdy.
Also, there's been previous evidence that were either metal probes that were extending totally through the body or that such probes were photographed through the body, so obviously it would be significant if your recollection were correct, and it would be of evidentiary significance to us.
I in no way mean to question your view, your recollection.
I just want you to have it in historical perspective as to what some others say, and you may be absolutely, completely correct.
I do not know why that one sticks in my mind.
A right profile of the body.
It would seem to me that if it were, as I am sure it was, that there would have been something in an autopsy report as to the probes, and I cannot conceive in my mind why it would feel that this negative did have it.
Like I said... Hey Jim, you think there's something subliminal here with the way that Knutson keeps alluding to that right profile and the probes and everything, you know.
My interpretation is Knutson has an indelible recollection of a right side profile with two probes through it and that he is not mistaken.
I do not believe... And he's not deviating.
This is so fantastic.
You know, you wouldn't imagine making this up.
It was not made up.
Of course not.
And it's obvious to me, and I think it is to you, and perhaps to Gary too, they were experimenting to see how they could connect the various wounds to minimize the number of shots fired, you know, for various scenarios.
They were fucking with a body.
Oh, my God, you know, and fucking with a body to try to make it come out consistent with a predetermined conclusion.
That's a creation, of course.
And Knudsen is honestly, sincerely reporting whatever happens.
He's a he's a he's a military man.
He's a you know, he's He's a company man.
What can you say?
Well, that has a different meaning today.
A company man.
The company is a CIA.
You're a company man.
What you mean is he was an army guy.
He was a straight guy, as his wife said.
That's very important.
His wife said it.
His wife said it.
So here's Knudsen concluding.
Like I said a couple of times, I did not study these things.
Over a viewing glass like this.
As you say, it was suspended from a clothespin on a wire, a hook or a wire.
I was just flipping them this way.
I did not see any picture there that would confuse with a picture, the waist up picture.
Purdy!
If you should recall anything else, whether it's new things in your opinion, changing news, someone's name should come to mind.
Provide that information.
Free to contact us.
Have you talked to Jim Fox?
Yes.
He didn't recall a black and white negative event.
I'm not permitted to give out the substance of the investigation, Purdy said.
Because that was Knudsen asking, have you talked to Jim Fox?
Right.
Right.
Confirmation.
Can we call him black and white negative of that nature?
Purdy, I'm not permitted to give.
Wow.
But I think you can glean certain things from the nature of my questions.
I would infer that Purdy thinks he's telling the truth.
That's my inference.
He said if you just look at the print yourself, it'll say everything I'm saying.
I told you guys about this document, you know, it's crazy.
Well, we only have a page to go.
Jim is the one who apparently printed the black and white set nudes, and I know the black and white did not go into the photo center for printing, so I would assume that Jim did it.
Why this sticks in my mind, that there was one with these two probes to the body that nobody else recalls, it puts in question in my mind, but yet I could not imagine where I could get the idea from if I had not seen it.
And yet it is starting to bother me now that there's nothing in the autopsy about it.
Certainly it would be in the autopsy if it were true, but that's where he's mistaken.
It wouldn't be in the autopsy if they were manipulating the body to figure out how to write an autopsy report that would be more consistent with the government's contention of a single gunman.
That's where he's being naive here.
He's assuming the parties all had good intention, which is unquestionably false.
And he's following orders.
At this point, I wish I'd say the negatives rather than glance at them.
At this point, I'm confused why it sticks in my mind so strongly.
There was this photograph, yet no one else recalls it, and it's apparently not in any report.
If it's not in any report, I cannot conceive why it would not be in the report.
See, now that's where his imagination is failing him.
If it were there, it is really bothering me as to why it does stick in my mind as much.
And that's because it was real.
He did see it.
Well, don't forget this is 15 years after the fact.
Yeah.
Well, it's a salient features that people remember.
Exactly.
Especially when it's the president of the United States.
That's right.
He's got a body and a photograph with probes in it.
I bet you he knew every he could remember every last second of that weekend, Jim, every last second.
Yeah, you just don't make that stuff like that.
Purdy closes.
As I said, if you, you know, desire to talk about it or after you've thought about some more or whatever, please feel free to give us a call.
We'll be glad to talk about it.
My appreciation very much for taking the time and coming in, particularly since it took a lot longer than we thought it would, Knudsen.
That's okay.
I'm trying to rack my mind on why this shit's sticking my mind so strongly that there was this photograph and yet no other signs of it.
It bothers me, but I cannot think of any other reason that would stick in my mind if I hadn't seen it.
He keeps pounding it.
It's subliminal, Jim.
He keeps pounding it.
He wants you to know that the photos existed.
He keeps pounding it.
And staying within the guidelines of the company.
You can end the screen share, Gary.
Let me tell you, this is quite remarkable.
I have to say that Mr. Knudsen here was in quite a predicament Okay, because he's serving.
Look, this is a common technique if you're trying to badger somebody to tell them how everybody else saw something different.
There are these experiments.
We have stupid things going on.
Psychologists have discovered where you get group conformity overriding individual rationality and you do something just because everyone else is doing it, not because you have a good reason to do it.
The herd, the herd.
Right, right, right.
So I go with Knudsen.
There was such a photograph.
It was a right profile Iraq with two probes in it.
They were trying to manufacture transits for bullets that did not exist in the body.
Would you be surprised if our friend Arlen Spector was actually running that probe show, you know, here and there.
That would not surprise me in the least.
That would be highly explanatory, Larry, what's going on here.
This is called manufacturing evidence.
I'm disappointed, though.
I wrote to Doug Horn to join us, but of course we changed our date.
We didn't send him an update that we were doing it tonight.
I told you guys, this document is very, very disturbing to me.
I'm going to send this to David.
Yeah.
Of course.
You make sure I've got it, Larry.
I'm not sure I've got it.
I've never seen it before.
Gary's got it.
Gary sent it to me.
I've sent it to you.
I've sent it to you.
Oh, he's sent it to me, Gary.
I think we've reached the point.
Right.
So, summarizing what we're talking about here is that Knudsen or Knudsen or whatever.
Knudsen.
A, A, forget it.
Probes is number three.
A, the number of prints and how many Sets of prints, seven.
And how many photographs were in each set?
We're talking about 12 later on.
He said, you know, corrected was 12.
So we're talking about 84 color photographs, you know, and that they brought him in because he specialized in color and that the black and white photographs where he saw when they were developing and processing the one
With the probes going through and he's talking about several which go upwards and then downwards, you know, from front to back and back to front, you know, sort of like what Jim was saying, like sort of like experimenting to see what would be the one that would adjust to conform to, you know, the lone gunman theory.
What do you think?
Well, I think what I've gotten out of the whole thing, it was a very good show.
It was very difficult to go through, knowing how they treated his body like a rag doll, sticking things in it.
And in any regular autopsy, these crazy things wouldn't be going on.
And thanks to Newsom, he actually told us what really happened there.
And they were just mutilating the President of the United States.
But he didn't talk, he didn't talk of his own volition, you know, it had to go through other channels.
And he had to get permission, you know, so he was a dutiful, you know, soldier.
Gary, do you want to take us out?
Yeah, I think that was... Jim, Jim, what do you think, what do you think about the whole thing about the probes and everything and the sets of prints and whatever?
Oh, it's obvious they were trying out different hypothetical reconstructions and fabricating wound transits, bullet transits to fit what they thought would be the best, and they just discarded it because it didn't work.
You couldn't connect the entry in the throat with the entry in the back, but they had the probe.
So they could claim there was a transit that they'd even probed if they went that way, but they decided to discard it, and therefore they wanted to eliminate any evidence that they'd even ever thought about it or attempted to manufacture that scenario.
I don't think it's at all surprising that no one else recollects, because once they decided to discard it, The only memory of it, or record of it, was his memory, which stood out because it was such an extraordinary experience.
Right, right.
Impactful, yes, yes, of course.
Knudsen's good as gold.
No, and obviously it's something that he would say, you know, Something like that I would remember for the rest of my life.
Excuse me.
I agree, Larry.
As impactful as that weekend.
I'm glad we went through this exercise.
I think it was instructive.
The corruption of our government knows no bounds.
Yeah, they kept that document hidden for 40 years for a reason.
All right, fellas, we'll see you next week.
This has been JFK Show number 268.
And the only place where you're going to find out stuff like this, you know, on a regular basis.
You got it.
It's a new JFK Show for a reason, and we want everyone to join us.
However, the JFK community has nothing to do with many of our discoveries with rock-solid evidence.
▲
Export Selection