Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 15, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:18:15

THE [Great POTUS Debates]: "Donald Trump" Interviews Prof. Jim Fetzer For THE JOB Of National Securi

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is the Matricist Warrior Chronicles, where we search for the one.
	On today's episode, we'll be playing a very high-stakes game with guest ex-Marine college professor, historian of real-world conspiracies, Jim Fetzer, with Jim now on screen, playing the role of none other than himself.
	In this, the very first in our great POTUS debate series presented as a form of Edutainment, that is to say, entertainment many may find educational, given the urgency of questions raised, issues discussed.
	Game rules.
	I pretend I am DJT, your POTUS, i.e.
	U.S. President, aka the Honorable Donald John Trump, or the Donald, or just DJT for short, or his attorney in fact.
	Defending his positions by saying what we believe he'd say if he called you from the Oval Office or Air Force One after having seen many of your videos, so much so that I, the President, am now considering Jim here for any job in my Cabinet, starting immediately, any official role position you will invent alone or replace anyone you want to replace with only one test to qualify, namely satisfy my request to resolve all contradictions I've noted existing in many of your arguments and alleged evidence.
	Again, The game is to convince me and also pretend this is an unrecorded private conversation.
	Alternatively, think of this as a new episode in my TV show, The Apprentice, billed as the world's toughest job interview, only it's to get a job in the White House instead.
	You've agreed not to see the questions ahead of time, except that I'd email them to you only moments before we begin our chat.
	Note that as POTUS, I've had, as President of the United States, I've had no time at all to read any of your many books or internet posted articles.
	I've only listened to your videos.
	Please reply with the fewest words possible so we can cover as much content as possible in unlimited time.
	Finally, if I ask a yes or no question, then say yes or no.
	If you must add more, say with explanation, then...
	Ask my presidential permission to explain further if I grant that time.
	Finally, you can address me as Mr. President or simply Donald with respect.
	Remember, I am not Ed, unless you imagine Ed means educator.
	I am the President.
	Ready to go?
	Ready to go, Mr. President.
	Ring, ring, ring.
	Ring, ring, ring.
	Hello.
	Is this Mr. Fetzer?
	It is, Mr. President.
	This is not the President.
	This is Agent Smith of the Secret Service.
	Hold for the President.
	Click, click, click.
	Hello, Professor Fetzer.
	This is the President of the United States.
	May I call you Jim?
	You may, Mr. President.
	Delighted to hear from you.
	You emailed the White House saying you want to be my new NSA National Security Advisor or DNI Director of National Intelligence.
	If I was to give you one of those two jobs starting now, what would it be and why?
	In 60 seconds or less?
	Well, because I'm not...
	DNI or NSA, which one?
	Oh, let's try DNI.
	Okay.
	Director of National Intelligence.
	What makes you uniquely qualified to do that job better than anyone in the world?
	And if not you, who'd do an equal or superior job than you?
	60 seconds.
	35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
	The last 30 devoted to exposing corruption, false flags, phony events from Who would fill the position as NSA if I were to make you DNI,
	provided I gave you that discretion?
	Who do you want to be NSA if you're DNI?
	Well, Colonel McGregor would be an excellent choice.
	Scott Ritter, another.
	Tulsi Gabbard, presently DNI, could also serve in that capacity extremely well.
	Okay.
	Assume for the purpose of this conversation that you are now DNI candidate, provisional.
	Which one of the following crime scenes of actual, factual conspiracies do you want to resolve first to hopefully satisfy me?
	After I sum up my issues with you in a minute or so for each.
	Regarding 9 /11, regarding JFK assassination, regarding MLK, that's Martin Luther King assassination, regarding HRC, aka Hillary, regarding my alleged criminal record, regarding the Gaza-Israeli conflict, regarding January 6th and the "throne election." Regarding the so-called Jewish hollow hoax.
	Regarding the moon landing period.
	Regarding Alex Jones.
	Regarding the Houthis.
	Regarding sleepy, creepy Joe Biden.
	And finally, regarding women's sports.
	Of those categories, which would you like me to go first?
	9 /11, Mr. President.
	9 /11.
	Okay, that just happens to be at the top of the list.
	Now you can start looking at the email I sent you with all of this script if you want while you're talking.
	It's your call.
	No, that's all.
	I'll listen to you, President.
	Go right ahead.
	Yeah, listen or read.
	Probably better just to listen to me.
	First question.
	Is it your position none of the two alleged flight planes in 9-11 that allegedly hit the Twin Towers were holograms?
	60 seconds.
	Oh, there's no question about it that they were holographic projections.
	Richard Day, all of the UK, sorted this out in his Flight 175 3D radar study.
	The proof includes they were traveling at an impossible speed.
	Even pilots in their 9 /11 interdicted documentary show the planes would have physically come apart if they'd been bona fide 767.
	They make an impossible entry.
	Transitioning their whole length in the same number of frames they transition their whole length through air which makes sense only if a massive 500,000 ton steel and concrete building provides no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft in flight than air.
	The nose-out phenomenon which reveals conclusively this was a hologram and the fact that the holographic projector Would have given the sound of a plane to accompany the image it was projecting 1,200 feet to the side.
	Excellent.
	That was about a minute.
	Now, forgive me if I interrupt at times if you're running over a minute.
	I am looking at a clock.
	I would like to cover all these things.
	I know you have to go in anywhere from half an hour to an hour and a half.
	Second question.
	What evidence already exists that such things can be faked in other...
	Non-9 /11 circumstances.
	Specifically, hologram technology that can simulate a jet that size, as well as the sound of one approaching.
	How does one do that hat trick?
	Go ahead, 60 seconds.
	Always make it 60 seconds.
	All your responses try to limit to 60 seconds.
	Go ahead.
	I already have a page from an Australian Air Force manual for an airborne holographic projector.
	The two alternative theories are CGI and video compositing, but if either of those had been the case, there wouldn't have been any plane visible prior to the broadcast footage.
	Well, we have 100, 500 witnesses actually described having seen a plane, described in various ways, large, small, military, commercial, plus a recent video shows a group on the waterfront.
	Observing a plane pass over them as it approached the building, which would have been impossible had it been other than a hologram.
	Now, these witnesses, they can be from more than one location and still see that hologram?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It just depends where you were.
	Sometimes you'd see missing a wing, missing another part.
	We have all those images from multiple locations, but the key point is, if it were fake by means of CGI, Computer-generated images are video compositing, adding the image after the original footage has been shot, but before it's released to the public, a 17-second window.
	There would have been no plane to be seen in the air in real time prior to impact, only in the broadcast footage after.
	And yet we have 500 witnesses plus who actually observe what they took to be a real plane prior to impact, but before broadcast.
	I myself saw part of the event on television.
	As President of the United States now, I can say I've seen video on the internet.
	Some videos show a plane approaching, others do not.
	And other videos show what looks like an impossible image that couldn't be a plane.
	In any case, in other words, a pseudo-almost plane.
	On what evidence can be shown a so-called mini-nuke has ever been exploded?
	When and where?
	Outside, outside of the events of 9-11, as Joe Olson claims took down one or two of the towers.
	Well, we have many nukes already in Iraq.
	Christopher Busby, whom I interviewed, a world-famous expert on.
	Cancer and radiation traveled to Fallujah, expecting that the outbreak of genetic abnormalities reported there were the result of the use of depleted uranium in anti-tank missiles, but was astonished to discover it was from a new source of enriched uranium from a new class of tactical nukes.
	Israel also appears to have used nukes already in Lebanon, and I don't expect that is going to stop anytime soon.
	No, a mini-nuke.
	If it's exploded in a building, obviously there would be no mushroom cloud.
	It would only destroy the building.
	What if it's exploded outside of a building?
	Would we see a mushroom cloud?
	Well, it all depends.
	I mean, these are very sophisticated devices today.
	They're dialable as to how much power they expand.
	And depending on circumstances, you would or would not see a mushroom cloud.
	But it's not the sort of thing you'd expect from...
	You know, Nevada test sites or Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
	It's much different.
	Low radiation, for example, but nevertheless tremendous impact and tremendous temperature.
	Indeed, the fact that we had molten metal underneath the ground in Lower Manhattan for months after the event is only explicable by the use of any nukes.
	And also, Joe Olson has claimed radioactivity residue.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Go ahead.
	The U.S. Geological Survey studied dust samples from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there, had this not been a nuclear event.
	Corium, lithium, strontium, tritium.
	Okay, moving on, moving on.
	So your answer to the previous question, a mini-nuke can go off, set outside of a building, above ground, and have no mushroom cloud.
	That would be my opinion, yes.
	It would simply produce a lot of heat, maybe some light, radioactivity, but not necessarily one of those big plumes.
	We've seen in the famous videos.
	Can you use your persuasive abilities to motivate us to interview Joel Olson next in our great POTUS debates, provided you're happy with how this one goes?
	Whether I hire you or not as D&I?
	Consider it done, yes.
	Because we want to better understand his evidence and arguments as a professional engineer so he can run my hour.
	What is the best two or three pieces of evidence-arguments that 9 /11 was an inside job of the dozens to hundreds, maybe thousands of individual data points you've already gathered?
	Again, the best top or three off the top of your head, that it was an inside job.
	Well, it turns out...
	I mean, the official story is fake.
	It didn't happen the way they say.
	Not the hijackers with the box cutters, but very different.
	What are the top two or three?
	Well, two of the planes were not even in the air that day.
	Flight 11, North Tower, Flight 77, Pentagon.
	And the other two were still in the air.
	Flight 93 was over to Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
	After it officially crashed in Shanksville, and 175 was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
	After it officially hit the South Tower, where I myself obtained the FFAA registration data showed that the actual physical aircraft used for those two flights Okay, we'll get to that as far as custody of evidence in a moment.
	First, let's deal with Building 7. Do you agree WTC, which stands for World Trade Center Building 7, was not, again, not brought down via a mini-nuke, but instead with controlled demolition explosives of one kind or another, given the way it fell, like an accordion being collapsed or an elevator going down, thereby proving for knowledge...
	And pre-planning, given that such a perfect elevator-like collapse cannot have occurred unless those explosives were planted by experts.
	Absolutely correct, Mr. President.
	You have all the wars coming at the same time, virtually the speed of refall into their own footprint.
	Even Dan Rather.
	Was calling it out, saying this is just like the controlled demolition we see in Las Vegas when they're bringing down a casino or a hotel.
	He had it absolutely right.
	Danny Jones, the Dutch expert, confirmed it as well.
	Classic controlled demolition, Building 7. Yeah, plus some people hearing bombs going off just before the collapse occurred.
	Thus, based on that, that idea alone...
	That it was not a mini-nuke, but some type of explosives.
	The traditional explosives that are used to bring buildings down at construction sites.
	Based on that, wouldn't it make sense, in your considered opinion, that WTC 1 and 2, also known as towers 1 and 2, the big ones, may have been brought down in one of several different ways simultaneously to ensure success.
	Given that the 1993 explosion in the basement in one of those two towers failed to make one tower bring down the other.
	Yes or no?
	Yes.
	Because as we understand Joel Olsen, he's always saying mini-nuke, mini-nuke.
	And he doesn't open to the idea that maybe...
	There was a failsafe.
	In the same way, for example, that there were multiple shooters, you argue, at the JFK assassination, there may have been multiple things happening to the two towers.
	For example, would you agree, yes or no, that the DEWs, Directed Energy Weapons, that apparently destroyed Lahaina, Hawaii, the places in California and other such situations?
	Those weapons may have existed as far back as 2001, and that may have been one of the things hitting those two big towers.
	Not just a mini-nuke, not just traditional explosives, put it, various metal pillars and columns, but also is being hit by such a DEW.
	Yes or no?
	Yes, with qualification, the primary appears to be the mini-nuke destroying.
	The tube within the tube design of the Twin Towers, the inner tube from the bottom up, the outer tube from the top down.
	But do's may also have been used.
	Have you seen the video that...
	I can't remember her name.
	The woman who wrote...
	Judy Wood.
	Yeah, Judy Wood.
	Have you seen the video where you see after the collapse, there's still part of one of the towers there, and then it just dissolves in midair, as if it's...
	The fundamental molecular structure has been completely discombobulated.
	Yes, but that could be...
	She uses that to suggest a DEW, Directed Energy Weapon, was happening also.
	Yes, I have, of course, seen the vote age.
	Okay, to use the argument of...
	So that's a yes or no question.
	The argument of...
	Carl B. Herman.
	Directed implies it comes from somewhere.
	What's your belief, opinion, evidence as to where it was coming?
	Was it being shot from the Antarctic, from a harp weapon?
	Was it from a satellite in space?
	Was it a nearby building that was shooting the DEW that may have simultaneously brought the towers?
	Or was it maybe a cloaking device hiding some sort of ship nearby that's firing the thing and hiding the ship?
	We don't know.
	What would be your best guess at where it's probably coming from?
	Satellite, underground?
	Satellite, most likely, because Lahaina and Paradise, California and other areas.
	Okay, just as another possibility, as President of the United States, I have latitude to believe and say whatever I think.
	I speculate maybe it's possible to plant a directed energy weapon in the basement of the building, and at the same time that it sets off the explosion to destroy the building, it destroys the water.
	weapon itself.
	In any case, next question.
	Did you ever get the passenger manifest for the alleged flights that occurred the day?
	The four flights you say two are not in service or the ones that contradict the idea of a flight in Shanksville, a flight hitting the Pentagon?
	Yes.
	You did get that because This seems to me that if, in fact, none of those four flights happened, that they were holograms, some of those people may still be alive that were allegedly on those planes.
	And so they not only did not die on that plane, they could testify today, yeah, I still have the ticket to that day, and I was afraid to reveal that I'd been on a plane that flew, and I didn't die, and here I am.
	Misunderstanding.
	I was shown during a debate about 9 /11 by a proponent of the official narrative, a manifest where the names of the hijackers had been written in in ink.
	In other words, it was, in my opinion, further proof that this was all phony baloney because the official account doesn't add up on any grounds whatsoever.
	We know the cell phone calls were all manufactured, done in advance.
	They don't correspond to events on the ground.
	We know there's no debris from any plane having hit any of the buildings at any of those locations.
	All the kind of evidence you would expect to have had real planes been involved is absent.
	So...
	Your book, What Happened on 9-11, do you provide the passenger manifest in exactly how you got the document indicating?
	If not a perfect chain of custody from the standpoint of the law of evidence in the courts of our days, that you have the best you could do as chain of custody to convince people that this is the actual document showing the actual flights with the actual list of passengers on those planes that occurred that day or did not occur on that day.
	Is that in your book?
	I have two books on 9-11.
	One is called The 9-11 Conspiracy, The Scamming of America.
	The other is America nuked on 9 /11.
	I do not recall we have the passenger manifest in either, but it's been a while since I looked especially at the earlier book, which was published in 2007.
	But I can assure you they were all fabricated.
	No passengers died in these plane crashes, although some may have died at the Pentagon.
	Because of explosions that were set off there and a missile fired from an unmanned aerial vehicle into the building.
	Who would you say is the preeminent expert on this subject?
	If you were to get the top two, three people to run a new reopen 9 /11 investigation, who would head it?
	Well, that's a great question.
	Would Joe Olson be one of those top three?
	Joe would be excellent because he's so good in so many areas of engineering.
	Because we're interested in having an explanation that puts all the issues together.
	For example, either way, what happened to the bodies of the crew and passengers that allegedly died that day in those flights?
	There weren't any bodies, so...
	What we're saying is...
	In the official story, is the official story saying that all the bodies disintegrated at each of the locations?
	Well, they claim to have remnants of some bodies, but as Mr. President put it candidly, it's bullshit.
	They actually sought to kill.
	The financial expert, the financial analysts who were investigating the missing $2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld announced missing from the Pentagon budget the day before, where he directed them to come to the West Wing, which had recently been reinforced, the only such wing reinforced, and it was largely bereft of personnel and property except for...
	The section crew and all the documents and records he directed be brought there so they could be destroyed.
	But it wasn't because of a plane, but rather a missile fired into the building from an unmanned aerial vehicle.
	What I'm trying to say, put it another way, is there a way to track down at least if there were four planes and they hit the buildings, but in reality the passengers that were supposedly On those four planes that died in that day can be proven still to be alive.
	That would be another way of taking this thing down.
	Has anyone pursued that rabbit hole to say, "Oh, well, these five people supposedly died that day.
	Here they are alive and they're ready to testify." They were not on the planes and even if on the planes, they never died that day.
	Anyone pursued that angle?
	Well, of course, there are people who actually died in New York, and their wives and loved ones have been pretty upset about not getting the straight scoop from the government.
	I'm not talking about people who died in the towers, but allegedly died in the planes.
	Mr. President, it's easy to make up lists of names, okay?
	CIA does it all the time.
	CIA played a role here without any doubt.
	Dick Cheney appears to be the on-the-ground supervisor on 9-11, as Michael Rupert demonstrated in his magisterial book, Crossing the Rubicon, based upon publicly available sources.
	As we know, this entailed collusion between the CIA, the neocons in the DOD, and the Mossad.
	Where the whole plan was invented by Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Ulmer in order to devise a justification for American forces coming to the Middle East to take out the modern Arab state that served as a counterbalance Israel's domination of the entire region and eventually to confront the Persian nation of Iran.
	I'm not sure that you're following my question, but I don't want to beat a dead horse.
	We'll move on to the next issue, which in the list is JFK in sequential order, if that's something you're willing to deal with next, or do you want to move to a different subject?
	Minister Brassett, proceed.
	Okay, before that, on what evidence do you say that then-Governor Rudy Giuliani had a hand in 9 /11, if not as a conspirator before the fact, but after the fact?
	Well, he didn't go to his command and control center, which was too florist in Building 7, which had their own air and water.
	In fact, Jennings, a fellow from the New York, he went there and found Pappy sandwiches still steaming cups of coffee.
	He heard explosions going on while he was there.
	A fireman came along and said, we've got to get you out of here.
	He felt himself snapping over bodies when he couldn't see.
	When he got out, he gave an interview.
	Building 7 wasn't even included in the official report by the government.
	So point one, point one, Judy Olli, when an emergency was happening of that type, he should have been in Building 7. He should have died in Building 7. So that's point one.
	What's point two?
	Didn't he, like, ship off a bunch of the steel to China or something?
	What was the other major point?
	He had 115 dump trucks.
	I mean, Judy was perfect on this.
	She had 115 dump trucks lined up the following day to haul away all the debris.
	And what she observed was they were bringing in tons of dirt.
	Now, they were bringing in tons of dirt because that was what was done at Chernobyl in the aftermath of the nuclear meltdown there.
	Okay, so it feels like a cover-up.
	It feels like a cover-up.
	Before we move on to the JFK assassination, in your considered opinion, Whether other 9 /11 experts would agree or not, in your opinion, is there absolutely no reason to reopen the 9 /11 investigation done by truly independent people, no matter what Congress likes, put people like you and Joe Lawson and a few others on C-SPAN in the Congress chambers?
	Is there no point to do this because the 2, 3, 10, 100 books that have already written on the subject, if there's simply...
	Read out loud and shown the exhibits is more than enough to show the American people that this is an open and shut case.
	And the only thing that needs to be done now is create a list of perps, have them arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and let the trial, in other words, case closed, now let them defend themselves.
	No need for further investigation.
	And if you disagree, what areas need to be investigated further before proceeding to the step of...
	Well, there needs to be a public hearing so that the public can learn about the nature of the evidence and have the opportunity to consider it before they're hit cold on with indictments.
	Especially, we ought to bring in Philip Zelikow, who after Henry Kissinger declined the honor because it would have exposed his financial entanglements, became the executive director of the 9 /11 Commission.
	Where his position in the academy before he joined the government was as a professor who specialized in the creation and maintenance of public myths, MYTHS.
	I believe Philip Zelikow actually wrote the script for 9 /11 and they put him in charge of the investigation because he'd be the best possible person to make sure the truth was not revealed.
	Assuming everyone would be prosecuted today that had a part in this, how long would you say the purpose is?
	Is it 3 people?
	10 people?
	500?
	1,000?
	10,000?
	How many people have direct knowledge, pre-planning, participation, or conspirator act for the fact?
	Just roughly, give me a rough number.
	Oh, 300 is probably a pretty good guess, yeah.
	At least 300.
	Final question before we move on to JFK.
	Forgive my ignorance, naivete, I'm a virgin on this in a sense.
	Have I touched on any new things in all your discussions of 9 /11 in many years?
	Has this prior discussion we've had for 20 minutes now, have I touched on anything now?
	Or does this all feel like old stuff and you're just repeating things you've said a thousand times?
	No, I think the best in your list issue is a good one.
	The only occasion I had to address it was that debate with 9 /11 zealots, you know, defending the government.
	So I think that was very good to resurrect.
	I appreciate it, Mr. President.
	Okay, I appreciate you according to proper respect when you speak to me.
	Okay, regarding JFK, how many talking points, aka also known as data points, are there which, taken together or separately, stand for the proposition That JFK was, in fact, killed by a cabal of conspirators.
	Are there dozens of things?
	Hundreds?
	Thousands?
	Hundreds, even thousands, if you go into greater detail, there's no question about it.
	It was a large-scale conspiracy where more time was devoted to planning the cover-up than to the actual assassination itself.
	Okay, stop there.
	Stop there.
	Has anyone ever, to your knowledge, you or someone else, ever listed Many or most or all of those potentially hundreds or thousands of individual data points in order of which are the most compelling.
	Not so much individual.
	I mean, I've got so many experts I brought together, the world's best experts to study the case.
	And each of them has made their contribution.
	And it's fallen to me to summarize and distill our findings and report them to the public.
	What I'm trying to say is because there were so many aspects to the killing of that day, people can get into the deep minutia of the x-rays or ballistics or the many other things without...
	Organizing it in such a way so that it's presentable to the American people and the world at large.
	So I'm suggesting to you, being that apparently it hasn't been done, that it should be done before this is reopened and there's a public airing and creating a purple list, because I would argue there still are some people alive to this day who were involved, or they're conspirators after the fact trying to cover it up.
	So it's necessary to organize these many arguments.
	Now, being that no one has really done that list, off the top of your head, off the top of your head, of all those hundreds to thousands of individual data points of evidence arguments that stand for the proposition that there was a conspiracy and here's how it happened,
	what would you say, off the top of your head again, are the top three ones that either prove Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy and /or there were two or more shooters.
	Do I need to restate that or is it clear the question?
	No, I got it.
	Number one, that Lee Oswald was in the doorway of the book depository when the motor gate came by and therefore cannot not only have been the lone gunman, cannot have been one of the multiple shooters.
	That the FBI and the Secret Service concluded the day of the assassination, there had been three shots from above and behind.
	Jack had been hit in the back, Conley hit in the back, Jack in the back of the head, all three of which were bona fide shots.
	But concurrently, on the network, they were talking about a shot to the throat and a shot to the right temple, which had been announced by Malcolm Kilduff, the acting press secretary.
	And now we know.
	It was an additional third shot to the side of the head.
	Each of those shots was fired by separate shooters.
	That's already six, none of whom was named Lee Oswald.
	Okay.
	I anticipated part of what you just said.
	So, forgive me for doubting you, but would you agree there really is no direct evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was in that photo showing the JFK procession motorcade?
	Standing at the bottom entrance to the Texas School Depository, i.e., that is to say, CGI, computer-generated image photos, can be faked, just as the alleged photo of George Bush Sr. reportedly taken at that approximate same time of the assassination on that day.
	Put differently, why are you so convinced?
	That this is a bona fide document that came out of a camera at that time and it hasn't been tampered or altered or something else.
	Because I've seen that photo and yes, I agree that it looks like Lee Harvey Oswald.
	Absolutely looks.
	And if I were to wager a bet, if I was a betting man, I would say that's him.
	But it's not absolute proof because the image is fuzzy and people can tamper.
	With photos, using computers and so forth.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, there was tampering with a photograph, but it was by introducing Black Tie Man, who's both in front of and behind the doorman image, so that he doesn't even have a left shoulder, which is anatomically impossible.
	They've whited out a man known as Black Hole Man, who's holding his hands up to protect his eyes from the sun.
	And his shirt because the government wants to maintain the man in the doorway was Billy Lovelady.
	It was he whose face was blacked out and his shirt was obfuscated because Lee was wearing a long-sleeved richly textured shirt he'd brought back from Russia when he was arrested, which corresponds to the long-sleeved richly textured shirt on the man in the doorway.
	He has the same height, the same weight, the same build, the same shirt, the same undershirt, and When we conduct a superposition of images, it has the facial features of Lee Oswald, just as the black old man holding his hands up has the facial features of Billy Lovelady,
	where the government traded on an ambiguity by saying Billy was in the doorway, which he was, but Lee was there above him, and by the way, not in the foreground, but at the upper steps of the doorway to the book depository.
	When the motorcade passed by.
	If in fact that was late, approximately how many seconds or minutes after that photo was taken was the first shot ring out?
	Oh, Jack had already been hit in the back, and he'd already been hit in the throat, so he'd already been hit twice when that photograph was taken.
	Is that visible in the motorcade, in the car?
	Can you see JFK actually affected by shots?
	Oh, yeah.
	He's reaching for his throat because he's just been hitting the throat.
	So how many shots have already been fired by the time that photo was taken, in your considered opinion?
	Two hits.
	So we know a minimum of two.
	At least two.
	There may have been as many as two others because the anti-Castro-Cuban, who was in the Daltex using a Mandlick or Carcano, which was the only unsilenced weapon, had a...
	First shot that missed and injured a distant bystander, and then the second shot that missed in the chrome strip above the windshield.
	Okay, we'll get to that.
	We'll get to that.
	Where is the actual photo, the physical document that came out of the camera?
	Where's the actual camera that took that actual photo, and who took that actual photo at that moment in time?
	Well, it was the associate press reporter, James Eicholchens.
	And we do have a copy of the altered image, but it wasn't altered regarding doorman.
	It was other features around.
	So you don't know where the actual original photo was.
	It came out of the camera.
	You're asking me.
	I bring together the best experts.
	One of my, you know, Larry Rivera, for example, who's done a huge amount of work on this.
	The short answer is nobody knows.
	It may have been destroyed.
	The best we have is a copy of the original.
	I may say so, Mr. President.
	The fact that I'm not here personally able to answer the question doesn't mean nobody knows.
	I'm dealing with the best experts.
	I would be glad to bring one to answer your question specifically.
	That would be awesome if we could find the actual document and maybe even the actual camera that took the photo.
	We're talking about the published photograph, and the published photograph, in spite of its alteration, substantiates that was Lee Oswald in the door.
	Published?
	This was actually in a newspaper?
	Of course.
	Excellent.
	Well, then, is there a way to track down?
	A copy of one of the actual papers that were printed by the printing machine years ago.
	We've done that.
	We haven't.
	We've done that.
	Impressive.
	By the way, Mr. President, the CIA even went out of its way to redo some papers in obscure locations to redo their 22nd...
	of November issue to make it look as though the photograph had been appeared immediately when it actually only appeared the following day, so they could argue against alteration, but the proof of alteration in the photograph itself is so blatant, including as it does anatomical impossibilities of the black tie man being in front of and behind Lee at the same time, that's impossible to deny it has been subject to alteration.
	So the short answer is, to your knowledge, no one has an actual physical copy of one of the newspapers of that time.
	We only have a photograph.
	Look, this has all been reduced to microfilms at this time, right?
	Libraries can't keep the original newspaper.
	They have no room for anything else.
	So what we have is from microfilms.
	We have found the photograph.
	Even in fake newspapers created by the CIA to create the impression.
	But this photograph is well known, widely published.
	Okay, so that's the form that exists right now.
	Microfilm, part of the whole microfiche system.
	Sure.
	Okay, now so we're persuaded that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Patsy.
	But now let's deal with the two or more shooters.
	You say there were as many as...
	We'll be getting that to a moment.
	But before we get to that, have you ever heard the idea, and we'll put it in the form of a question, do you agree that Officer Tippett, a police officer, who reportedly died minutes or an hour that afternoon after the assassination, that that man was both a face and body double for JFK?
	And that's likely why He was murdered by someone, not Lee.
	Someone later claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald, which helps to explain why JFK's then wife, Jackie O, reportedly said, when she reportedly saw the alleged body later, that's not my husband.
	In other words, without her knowing it, it was Officer Tippett, a body double.
	Well, it was another body, but it wasn't Tippett.
	I have the autopsy photographs of Tippett, and frankly, his resemblance at JFK has been greatly exaggerated.
	I respect Robert Morningstar, who's a primary proponent of the theory that Tippett was used as a body double, but I've had conversation with a medical text from Bethesda, and Dennis David, who is the NCO in charge of logging in, who went into the morgue and who came out, was instructed not to report a body they referred to as the major.
	He was instructed, contrary to standard operating procedure, not to lock it in.
	It was a major who was used as a body double for some of the autopsy photographs.
	We have been able to prove that it was not JFK, and this is the body Jackie found not to resemble her husband.
	A Major with what name and when did he die, unless you've already answered that question.
	I don't have that, but when you have access to, you know, all the military, you can find somebody who has a pretty good resemblance to somebody else, no matter who it is.
	Do you believe that that body double was already established before they killed JFK?
	Oh, I think, yeah, they already had the Major standing by, yeah, meaning in a...
	They took...
	Okay, so not only was the body replaced, but as I recall in some of your videos, discussions, the brain, the physical great tissue in JFK's head was also replaced or manipulated at some point.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, Bob Livingston, world authority on the human brain, couldn't have a better expert.
	Concluded in the diagrams and photographs of the National Archive cannot be the brain of JFK.
	Because...
	From the observational physician at Parkland, the blood at the back of the head was extruding cerebellar as well as cerebral brain tissue, where the cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the stem, and yet the brain shown in the diagrams and photographs has a completely intact cerebellum.
	In fact, it's virtually a complete brain, whereas Jack had half his brain blown out in Dealey Plaza.
	Did I hear you say that National Archives actually has part of the physical tissue?
	In a test tube or something, somewhere?
	Not to my knowledge.
	So to your knowledge, where is the original body of JFK and her brain?
	Was he cremated or buried somewhere?
	And is it actually the place where they say his body is buried?
	Do you have reason to believe that his body is really not in that hole in the ground?
	Yeah, I'd be very surprised.
	I mean, look...
	Those who were running this op had great power, and they even had that bronze ceremonial casket in which he was transported.
	They would not want that body exhumed under any circumstances.
	Certainly not.
	No, no, no.
	So you would believe that the body has been long since cremated?
	I think it has been destroyed.
	That would be my surmise, yeah.
	Who would you say are the top?
	Similar question to 9-11.
	Is this an open and shut case?
	All that's necessary is to have someone read all these books on C-SPAN for the whole world to hear it, real-time live television, or is there any virtue benefit to reopen the investigation and have it aired out publicly in the halls of Congress?
	In other words, is there anything more to investigate and expose, or has all the exposure already been done?
	There are so many books, so many theories.
	There's no substitute for having a focused investigation with the best qualified experts to explain to the public what happened here and why this case has been so difficult to solve.
	That's indispensable.
	Alluding to books, even remotely, that is so far removed from what would be convincing to the American public.
	Not a wise idea.
	It's not a defensible option, Mr. President.
	What is not a wise idea?
	Just to have readings from books.
	You need to have formal hearings with the proper individuals to investigate, and I can name five or six that would be the best people to do this for the benefit of the public.
	You want to name them now, or have you already done that with the prior debate that you had with the Nyquist gentleman, or whatever his name was?
	David W. Manick, MD, PhD, leading expert on the medical evidence of the world today.
	Douglas Horne, who is a senior analyst for military records for the Assassination Records Review Board, has published a five-volume study.
	John Weekostella, who's another PhD, who's an expert on the Zapruder film and the internal features of the film that demonstrate that although it's 98% technically perfect, the other 2% give it away.
	Larry Rivera, who has done brilliant work on the film in discovering the new-come tapes.
	These were interviews with the four motorcycle escort officers and their supervisor, Stavis Ellis, confirming the limousine stop, which has been edited out of the Zapruder film, and all the activities that took place there.
	Plus, Mexico City research he's done based on the newly released records, where it turns out that...
	Well, in the past, the claim has been made that Oswald going to Mexico City to get a visa to escape to Cuba and back to the Soviet Union was the strongest evidence he was a communist and did it for the Russians.
	It turns out to be a total fabrication.
	We have photographs and audio that the person down there claiming to be Lee Oswald...
	We have a lot of other material to address, Jim.
	I just demanded the names of some experts.
	Have you said the basic names of the experts?
	David Bandit, Doug Horn, John Costello, Larry Rivera.
	Ralph Sinkey would be a good one to add in there, too.
	Just the names.
	Okay, would you be one of those people that would be testifying?
	Yeah, make it a half a dozen, yes.
	Okay, we fully expect this will be forwarded to...
	I can't remember her name.
	She's trying to reopen this stuff.
	The recent disclosure that was done under my order, do you feel that there's anything more that the government has to show as far as previously undisclosed JFK assassination-related papers, or they've shown us all that they haven't already destroyed?
	No, they're still holding back, Mr. President, including, for example, the file of George Joannidis, who was the PSYOP officer for CIA for both JFK and RFK.
	He was explaining how to make this, how to sell the official version to the American people.
	They don't want to release that because it's so telling.
	Have you had a chance to review every page of all the recent disclosures?
	I believe it was several hundred or several thousand pages that happened a few months ago?
	Absolutely not.
	But, I mean, what I can do is summarize what we discovered in the 30 years since Oliver Stone's film, JFK, was released.
	Which, sad to say, neither he nor this guy, D 'Eugenio, were able to comment on it all.
	They appear to be blissfully unaware.
	Would you agree with me that even though a public hearing would be valuable or irreplaceable, that there's probably nothing new that would be discovered?
	And if something new were to be discovered, it wouldn't be substantive in the sense of the major issues have already been settled.
	But it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald.
	And there were at least so many shooters, and this, that, and the other.
	Only minor issues might be uncovered.
	Well, Mr. President, with all due respect...
	The fact that this was LBJ all the way, that he originated the plot to assassinate J.A.K.
	so he could become president, that he enlisted George Herbert Walker Bush and Edward Lansdale to assist, where Lansdale appears to have positioned the shooters and determined the sequence of shots, that this was an enormous scale conspiracy involving eight major parties, each of whom put up their own shooter: CIA, the military, the mafia.
	The anti-Castro Cubans, the Texas oil men, the eastern establishment surrounding the Fed, Israel and Lyndon Johnson, each had their own hitman in Dealey Plaza, tying them together to blood oath.
	And where he as president could guarantee that no one who participated in the assassination of his predecessor would ever be punished for their involvement.
	Your point being, yes, it was a big conspiracy.
	Your point being?
	How many individuals are still alive that had a part in making it happen?
	Or do you believe they're all dead, those who did it?
	And the only ones who live now are the co-conspirators after the fact trying to continue to cover it up.
	Well, at least one...
	To put the question differently, you said about 300 people should be in prison over 9-11.
	Approximately, how many should be in prison?
	Just roughly.
	Two, twenty, a thousand that are to this day trying to cover up what happened.
	To JFK.
	How many of those should be in prison?
	When you extend to the media, it's going to run around 500, I would say.
	A lot of people knew and a lot of people talked about it.
	So 300 going down and 500 more going down over JFK as far as ending up in prison if all of this fully comes out.
	Yes.
	If there were justice to be had.
	Now, would you say that the death penalty would be appropriate for those who had a part of it years ago, and the death penalty should still be held for those who are continuing to try to cover it up, or is life in prison enough, or 10 years in prison?
	What do you see as an appropriate punishment for this thing?
	Well, let's look at the degree of proportionality of involvement and complicity, but all of the above should be open options.
	Would you say it's a form of treason or is treason to continue to try to cover this thing up, and so the death penalty should be on the table?
	Yes.
	Okay, getting the dealing with how many shooters, conspiracy by definition is two or more parties intending to do evil.
	On what evidence do you believe, or you know for sure, the actual identity of the seven or is it eight shooters with such...
	Precision.
	Not only their name, their rank, and serial number, if you have all that too, but also which sniper was shooting from which direction, in which sequence, resulting in the multiple wound strikes that impacted JFK's body and /or fragments of bullets that were later found.
	All of the above.
	Seven of the eight.
	How do you know those names?
	And were precisely where they were located at the Dealey Plaza location.
	Diligent research with lots of collaboration.
	Jim Mars, who was still alive and I, agreed about the shooter, fired the shot that hit Jack in the back at Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford.
	He used a.30-06 to fire a man-licker crack on a bullet using a plastic collar known as a sack.
	So the short answer is there's no way to say...
	Simply, it's based on a lot of information that's put together.
	You're saying that that has to be the guy.
	I don't need a perp walk.
	Everything put together shows these are the people or the most likely shooters.
	Yeah.
	Now, even if we don't have the names and faces, therefore, of those individuals, do we even need to, being that it's enough to know there was a conspiracy, being that there's a lot of evidence to show that there was...
	Eight shots, eight or more shots coming from how many different directions?
	There would have to be, what, eight different directions if there are eight shooters?
	Yes, yes.
	And we have the names and we have the faces for seven of the eight.
	Only one do I not.
	And what is the shot to which part of the body that is elusive?
	And was it the eighth shot or the third shot?
	I'm sorry, I misunderstood the question, Mr. President.
	This John Doe that has not been settled and probably will never be settled, if I were to guess.
	Which shot did that unnamed John Doe take?
	Maybe it was a female that took the shot.
	Probably a male Doe.
	Well, I've seen photographs of him standing behind the tree on the grass opposite of the knoll, holding his rifle in the hands.
	Two different photographs in the hands of two different experts.
	It was the infamous grassy knoll.
	That's the shooter that you're not sure of the identity.
	No, Mr. President, this is the grass opposite the grassy knoll.
	The grass opposite the grass.
	But there's a photograph of this individual, but the resolution of the face is not sufficient.
	Was he in a shade under a tree, or what was the problem?
	He had a rifle behind a tree, you wouldn't have thought.
	I mean, he had excellent camouflage, because none of us even knew he was there until I saw the photograph.
	Is that photograph on the Internet?
	If someone searches in Google or Yandex.com...
	Will that photo come up?
	No, I can identify the two experts who have the photographs, but to my knowledge, they've not been published.
	Are they in any book that's been published?
	Not of which I am aware.
	Wow, wow.
	A whole movie could be made just on that one guy, trying to track down the final name and face.
	Mr. President, please understand that I and Larry Rivera and Gary King have done 300 shows.
	It's called the New JFK Show that most Americans don't even know took place.
	We went into great detail in all aspects of the assassination 300 times.
	I mean, you're asking me, how do I know?
	I have devoted a huge amount of time and effort with the best people to sort these things out.
	What is the age, assuming that final sniper?
	Any of those, Snipe, actually, they're all dead.
	The seven and the eight, they're all dead now.
	That final one, is there any chance that probably it's a he that he's still alive?
	Let's say if he's 18 or 16 and he's already an expert marksman at that point.
	Or is he just too old at this point?
	Would he be, what, 100 years old now?
	Well, I mean, we're talking about 60 years.
	No, I mean, look, I'm 84 for crying out loud.
	If the shooter was in his 20s, I mean, he'd be 80 around my age.
	But he may still be alive.
	That final shooter may be still alive.
	Well, that sounds like the Holy Grail to track that guy down.
	At least one of the other shooters is alive.
	Really?
	And who's that?
	What's his name?
	Israeli.
	His name is Clyde Forshaw, and he's killed about a...
	1,000 people.
	He is the greatest serial killer in history.
	Kly what?
	Forshaw.
	F-O-R-S-A-W.
	Okay.
	How many eyewitnesses?
	I only have about two or three questions left.
	How many eyewitnesses of JFK's killing were later killed as part of the cover-up to help protect the Bogus Foreign Commission report?
	Approximately.
	Two?
	Ten?
	A thousand?
	Oh, no.
	Fifty to a hundred.
	50 to 100.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead.
	We know the CIA shooter who had become a Dallas Cobb, who was not one of those who fired the three shots from behind or the three shots from in front, but who was on the grassy knoll, had a pistol.
	But he had to pull his shot because it would have hit Jackie, and they were under strict instruction.
	She must not be harmed.
	The bullet wound up in the grass.
	Picked up by a Dallas lieutenant by name of Day and never seen again.
	His name was Roscoe White.
	He killed as many as 50 witnesses.
	He was the body double for Lee in the backyard photographs.
	His son found his diary.
	When you're an operative or the CIA, you have to keep a diary so they know where you were.
	If you're committed to a crime, they can fake your having been somewhere else.
	His diary, alas, he gave to the FBI and it disappeared.
	So you've already named the seven that you and others are convinced are seven of the eight in this private chat that we're having, and I trust you're not recording this, and I promise we're not recording it.
	Maybe someone else is recording it.
	We don't know.
	Look, Jack Lawrence was a shooter for the military.
	He was inside the triple underpass.
	He fired the shot that passed through the windshield, hit Jack in the throat.
	Tony Nestor, or Scaedro, was a anti-Cuban, Castro-Cuban shooter in the Daltech, supervised by George Herbert Walker Bush.
	He fired three shots with a bandlicker Carcano, two misses.
	One hit in the back of the head after the limousine was brought to a halt.
	I've already identified Harry Weatherford to fire the shot that hit Jack in the back.
	So you've named the seven?
	You've named the seven?
	Sure.
	Okay, which would you say of the seven was the kill shot when Jack was definitely dead?
	Who fired that killer?
	After the limousine was brought to a halt by William Greer, he was hit in the back of the head by a shot fired by Escadro.
	He was hit at the right temple by a shot fired by Frank Sturgis, who was a mafia guy.
	He was at the intersection of the triple underpass and the big offense.
	He may have been the best shot in the world at the time.
	And near simultaneous, he was hit beside the head by a shot fired by the Israeli shooter, Clyde Forshaw.
	Which is the kill shot?
	Short answer, which is the kill shot?
	Definitely dead.
	Any of those.
	It's even possible the throat shock could have killed it because it appears to have fragmented part going down into the right lung part upward to sever the tentorium, a tough membrane that covers the cerebellum in the opinion of world authority on the human brain, Bob Livingston.
	So you don't believe the one that blew out the brain that he may have already been dead by the previous shock?
	Yes.
	Uh-huh.
	Or at least, if not instantaneously dead, he was in the process of dying by a previous shot before his brain was blown out.
	Yes.
	Okay, well, I can tell you.
	Very impressive.
	You're getting much closer to becoming the Director of National Intelligence.
	I just still have other questions on other issues.
	How much more time do we have before we need to go?
	Go ahead.
	Okay, now...
	There was another thought in JFK, but it slips me at this time.
	Perhaps it'll come to me.
	Let's move on to MLK.
	Martin Luther King assassination.
	On what evidence have you said Jesse Jackson, who was part of the group on the balcony at that hotel...
	Actually, I do remember.
	Actually, I don't.
	Forget about JFK.
	You said Jesse Jackson had a hand in MLK's...
	Murder.
	On what evidence?
	Well, he appears to have made a phone call to change the room to get Martin up where he had this balcony where he'd be an easier target.
	I mean, it's all shameful.
	William Pepper is the expert on MLK.
	William Pepper has exposed it.
	Turns out the shot that was fired didn't actually kill Martin.
	But a racist doctor had explained that if he's not dead, bring him to me and I'll finish him off.
	So they took him to a more distant hospital where he chased everyone out of the room and took a pillow to smother to death Martin Luther King.
	Okay, so it's based on just that phone call or more than that?
	Jesse Jackson had a part in it?
	He clearly knew what was coming because he rushes up to get Martin's blood on himself.
	I mean, this is all very sad because I thought Jesse Jackson was a pretty good guy, but this is a discussion.
	Are you saying he may have had a part of it or probably or definitely had to have had a part of it?
	Definitely.
	Now, same question with the other topics, 9-11 and JFK.
	If a perplist were to be made, either people who...
	Were conspirators in the killing of Martin Luther King Jr., or are now co-conspirators in trying to cover it up to this day?
	How long is that list?
	People that should be in prison for...
	MLK short list.
	I mean, a lot of people weren't happy with Martin, but I think Edgar, J. Edgar Hoover had a...
	Intestinal, just a visceral dislike of MLK, who was no saint.
	He seemed to have a predilection for having sex with the white women and that Hoover recorded these and then sent them to Coretta King.
	I mean, it was just a form of harassment.
	So I think Hoover had a key role.
	The mayor of the city would have had a key role.
	Again, how many should be in prison to this day if there was a perp walk?
	10, 20, 100?
	And does it even matter being that, wasn't there a congressional investigation that basically admitted that MLK was murdered by the government years ago?
	So what is the reason to deal with this further?
	Well, the House reinvestigation of 77-78 was devoted to both JFK and MLK.
	And in the case of JFK, they tried to redo the medical evidence to conceal the blowout to the back of the head.
	I mean, it was pathetic what they did there.
	William Pepper is going to be the guy, but it's a much shorter list regarding Martin.
	I mean, you're going to have, I don't know, probably a couple dozen, you know, but that's going to be a much shorter list.
	It's a much simpler operation.
	As far as priority to reopen and do this properly before the American people on real-time TV.
	What should you say is more important?
	JFK's assassination or 9 /11?
	Well, 9 /11 because the enduring influence of Israel on American foreign policy.
	9 /11.
	And would you agree that those who were behind JFK ultimately were part of the same cabal that did 9 /11?
	Oh.
	In the sense that, put differently, if JFK had never been killed, the odds are very high.
	Oh, I completely agree with that.
	He was going to pull us out of Vietnam.
	He was going to end the oil depletion allowance.
	He was going to continue to crack down on organized crime.
	He was going to stop Israel from...
	He was probably going to get rid of the Fed.
	That would have made a huge difference right there.
	In other words, he was trying to make America great again decades before.
	Before I, the Donald, before us, Team Trump, are trying to do it.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	That is correct, Mr. President.
	So if JFK had made America great again back then, there would be no need to do it today.
	I think that's correct, Mr. President.
	Actually, I do remember now the thing I wanted to bring up on JFK.
	Do you recall the video?
	This is a somewhat famous video of...
	HRC, you know who that is?
	Female?
	HRC, what that stands for?
	There's a famous video where she's saying, I believe before Congress, what does it matter as far as getting into some investigation?
	Do you know who I'm talking about?
	Of course.
	Now, I would apply the same question to the JFK.
	What does it matter to try to get more disclosures, these paper documents or videos of whatever the heck happened to Jack decades ago?
	Being that, it's so easy.
	If all these materials are in the hands of what I call the anti-intelligence agencies, they can destroy these things so they can never be disclosed.
	Wouldn't it make sense that they've already destroyed key documents?
	And so the whole reason that some documents are preserved is to essentially play individuals like you, continually having a carrot, seeking something, seeking something.
	When whatever they disclose will ultimately never get you what you want because they've destroyed it?
	I'm sure you've thought of that.
	Your thoughts?
	The whole point of our investigation, which has now endured for 30 years, is sorting out the difference between the authentic evidence and the fabricated.
	And once you do that, the pieces fall into place pretty straightforward fashion.
	And I'm telling you, the file that's most important being withheld is for George Joannidis.
	But we've known a lot about it.
	Even E. Howard Hunt said the chain of command went from Lyndon Johnson to Kordmeyer, to David Anthony Phillips, to William Harvey, to David Sanchez Morales.
	And George H.W. Bush and Edward Lansdale were crucial on the ground in Dallas supervising the mechanics, the shooters.
	How would you know that that document or documents, plural, exists when...
	Logically, it would already be destroyed, wouldn't it?
	Well, I'm not sure what document you mean, if I may say so.
	We didn't have a rally in Washington Stadium.
	Well, you seem to be saying, forgive me, correct me if I'm wrong, a document yet to be exposed would show X, Y, and Z when it makes sense you wouldn't know what it would show by virtue of the fact that it hasn't been disclosed yet, no?
	Look, the guy was a PSYOP officer for CIA, for JFK and 9-11.
	We know, in general, what it would show.
	Namely, he figured out how to sell, how to market a phony story to the American people.
	I think it would be good to have that evidence, but the agency doesn't want to release it because it's so damning that the story they were telling the country was fabricated.
	Which all of us know now, but this is just getting the final piece of the puzzle.
	You want to know all the evidence?
	You want to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	That's me.
	That's who I am.
	Bottom line.
	Go ahead.
	Finish your thought.
	30 seconds more.
	I won't settle for less, Mr. President.
	I want it all.
	This is for closure for the American people.
	This and 9 /11 have been the two most dramatic events of American history.
	We deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.
	Final question on JFK.
	Do you agree that some part of the documents, maybe most, have already been destroyed?
	Because the powers that be don't want it to be seen, so they've already destroyed.
	Even if they disclose everything they've got, you're never going to see everything.
	They've already destroyed some...
	Parts of it may be really important parts.
	Perhaps the most important parts have already been destroyed.
	Wouldn't that make sense?
	Why would these anti-intelligence groups maintain records of these things when they can be so easily destroyed because it's in their hands and it's not in their interest to disclose it?
	Well, they've made their best effort.
	I'm still telling you the way it is and how it all fell out.
	And by the way, it appears to me that Lyndon recruited Alan Dulles.
	To put together the pieces, if you were to see a couple of the most brilliant books about this, go to Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, where he explains that the most perfect way to have this would be to combine Lyndon, Secret Service, CIA, Mafia, and military, and Hoover.
	That's how it went down.
	He talks about several variations on the theme.
	But it originated in Los Angeles in 1960.
	When Lyndon lost the nomination to JFK, Jack invited Stuart Simondon of Missouri to be his running mate, gave him overnight to think about it.
	Bobby went by the Johnson Street.
	I know where you're going.
	I've heard this several times.
	The line is, he will not live out the end of his term, and he will die a violent death.
	Is that where you're going?
	And Linden sent his chief administrative assistant Cliff Carter down to Dallas to make sure all the arrangements were in place for the assassination.
	That's where you're going, right?
	He will die a violent death and not live out to the end of his term.
	Correct?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I was just going to say...
	Okay, I've heard that repeatedly, and I don't doubt it happened.
	There are many statements in there.
	Forgive me, Jim.
	There are many...
	Well, not many.
	There are some statements that I sometimes wonder.
	How could you possibly know?
	Who was the witness of the event if it wasn't being recorded or videotaped?
	Isn't this hearsay?
	How do you know that that happened?
	How many of Lyndon's closest up, close personal associates, have explained why they became convinced that Lyndon was a key player?
	Billy Saul Assis, for example.
	Barb McClellan, for example.
	How many witnesses?
	When someone said he will die a violent death, blah, blah, blah.
	How many witnesses at that moment happened?
	That's a public statement for crying out loud.
	Public statement?
	Was it on TV or radio?
	We can go back and find out, but I'm telling you, Bobby Baker made those statements in public.
	Okay, before actually, there's one other thing.
	I listened to the debate, if it can be called that, between you and someone with the initials JN recently.
	In which he brought out the official story and you refuted it, what happened to JFK.
	This was days ago.
	Is there anything you would like to say responding to all of that in retrospect, now that it's been a few days?
	Sure.
	If you go and look at the CIA memorandum, How to Deal with Critics of the Warren Report, published back in 1964, that was his script.
	Just go down it.
	He was using virtually every argument CIA put out.
	In fact, I think literally he had a script because he was not being spontaneous.
	He was not replying to any of the points I made.
	I mean, he began by pointing out that it's preposterous to assume all the shots were fired from above and behind.
	When?
	During the announcement that JFK was dead, the acting press secretary.
	Pointed to his right temple and said it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head.
	Already that refutes a Warren Commission.
	Period.
	Was that videotaped and on TV, live TV or radio?
	Are you kidding me?
	The announcement of the death of the president?
	Are you kidding me?
	Now, when that man said that, it was a simple matter of to the front of the head.
	Was that man a personal eyewitness?
	He was actually at Daley Plaza?
	Or was that hearsay repeating something others had said?
	He was the acting press secretary, Malcolm Kiltoff.
	Was he or was he not at Dealey Plaza?
	Or was he repeating something someone else said?
	He was repeating what had been told by the president's personal position, Admiral George Berkeley, which was reported over television all afternoon.
	You go back, you can watch NBC.
	See it now.
	You can watch him reporting.
	Chet Huntley.
	They're reporting the shot.
	Which Malcolm Perry, MD, described three times as a wound of entry.
	You can see the shot to the forehead attributed to Admiral George Workley.
	They were all over it all day.
	So when the story starts to come in that the Secret Service and the FBI have concluded that there were three and only three shots from above and behind, Frank McGee says, "This is incongruous, given they've been describing all day these two shots from up front." He says, How can the man have been shot from in front, from behind?
	The government just ignored all those reports.
	The shot to the throat, the shot to the right temple.
	Now what turns out to be the shot to the side of the head.
	Very similar.
	Very similar.
	Would you agree to 9-11 that the initial news reports and things were essentially what really happened?
	And then it started getting changed within hours to days.
	The news started reporting the opposite.
	Yes.
	That's when the cover story kicks in.
	So your short version, your rebuttal to the man that you spoke to the other day in your debate is that you are saying he was reading CIA talking points on how to deal with this issue, or he may have been?
	Oh, basically, he was doing it.
	It was just totally scripted.
	Now, is that a coincidence?
	A coincidence?
	Or are you saying that if you were a betting man, you would wager that he was actually reading CIA talking points and he knew that he was doing that?
	Yeah, of course he was.
	He was following them.
	He was deploying them.
	I've never seen a less responsive.
	I've never been in a debate where the debater had no response to any of the evidence or arguments presented by the other side, but just stayed right on his script.
	But you would agree with me.
	The man was clearly articulate and intelligent, which would support the idea that he wasn't willingly, knowfully, he wasn't pretending to be Slow or unconscious, or rather he was pretending to be.
	It's not that he didn't have the wherewithal to say the more appropriate things, such as, "Wow, that's really interesting.
	I need to read those books.
	I could be wrong.
	Let's talk again after I've considered your opposing viewpoints." You would say he knew what he was doing.
	In essence, you would say the man was gaslighting.
	Yeah, sure.
	Absolutely, 100%.
	And he knew he was gaslighting?
	Of course.
	Okay, let's move on.
	Actually, before I move on to Hillary, also known as HRC, have I been reasonable so far in our discussion, or have I been interrupting you too much?
	Because I want to be fair to you.
	You have been fine, Mr. President, but today is Mother's Day, and my wife...
	I took to her daughter's home for us to have a Mother's Day celebration.
	So I have to join them.
	I have an obligation.
	That's fine.
	That's fine.
	And in fact, it's coincidental, perhaps, fate, destiny.
	Being that Hillary is herself a mother, out of respect for Hillary, also known as HRC, will address the questions regarding her and the other topics that I summarized at the very beginning at a future conversation when I continue with this.
	World's toughest job interview to become my next Director of National Intelligence.
	Agreed?
	Very gracious of you to be considerate on this day of all days.
	Okay.
	So we'll now disconnect, and the next person you speak to will be Secret Service to sign off.
	Bye-bye.
	Bye-bye.
	Thank you, Mr. President.
	My pleasure.
	Happy Mother's Day.
	Thank you.
	Same to you.
	And Elena!
	Okay.
	Bye-bye.

▲