All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 22, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:26:05
REAL DEAL SPECIAL (22 November 2025): David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. on JFK
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to a very special real deal special with my dear friend and colleague of 30 years, David W. Manic, MDPHD, who's the leading expert on the medical evidence and the assassination of JFK, who has done far more, published a whole lot not only on the medical evidence, but on the Zapruder film,
but also on what historians have and haven't appreciated about the assassination, what they've covered up.
I was astonished to find when that history of the United States that was supposed to be so striking had one sentence that Lyndon Johnson became president upon the assassination of JFK.
So the author didn't want to delve into the complexities of the assassination.
David, we're here to discuss your new book, JFK Was Killed by Conspiracy, about which we shall have much more to say.
But I just want to begin by welcoming you today.
And I dare say we're virtually the same age.
You've just had your birthday, your 85th.
I'm about to have mine.
Happy birthday again, my friend.
Yes, thank you for that.
David, let me use this occasion here to introduce JFK was killed by consensus.
Dealy Plaza was just a final stop.
Today's real deal special.
Here's a bit about the book as it appears on Amazon.
Unveiling the shadowy depths of one of history's most controversial events, JFK was killed by consensus.
Dealing Plaza was just a final stop by Dr. David W. Mantic.
Shatters the veil of the Warren Commission conclusion.
With forensic precision, Manic dives into the web of alliances, deceptions, and betrayals that culminated in the tragic events of November 22nd, 1963.
Explore the role of key figures, Bill Harvey, David Morales, and Lyndon B. Johnson, and discover the chilling dynamics of the consensus that sealed President Kennedy's fate.
This compelling investigation draws on decades of research, newly revealed documents, and the meticulous analysis of autopsy materials, offering insights that challenge the official narrative.
With rich historical contexts, Manic probes deeper into the intersecting forces of politics, intelligence, and power that orchestrated and concealed the truth.
Whether you're a cis student of history, a seeker of justice, or a skeptic of official stories, this book promises revelations that demand attention.
Prepare to question everything you thought you knew about Dealey Plaza, because the truth lies far beyond the crosshairs.
Now, James Corbett has done this fascinating little five-minute intro to the assassination that I want to share as a prelude to our deep dive with David into his new book.
Lee Harvey Oswald was your typical America-hating communist from Louisiana, and like every Rusky-loving pinko from the South, he grew up watching American spy dramas, volunteered for a civilian air patrol run by a CIA contract agent, and joined the U.S. Marines.
Nicknamed Oswalski for his tendency to speak Russian and spout pro-Soviet propaganda, he was given special training and assigned to one of the most sensitive facilities in the world running the radar for the U-2 spying on the rescues in the Chikoms.
After contracting gonorrhea in the line of duty, Oswald was tested for Russian proficiency before being honorably discharged to take care of his mother who wasn't ill and flew to Europe using money he didn't have on planes that didn't exist to arrive at Helsinki, where he stayed at the most luxurious hotel in town before waltzing into the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.
While there, he kept a detailed log of Soviet facilities, made notes about microdots, and carried a CIA standard issue Minox camera before getting bored and returning to the United States on a military jet using money loaned to him from the U.S. Embassy.
After waltzing back into the United States after supposedly defecting to the enemy at the height of the Cold War, he settled back in New Orleans where he appeared in radio and TV interviews, got into fistfights on the street, and handed out leaflets from a pro-Castro-Cuban group sharing office space with an ex-FBI agent involved in government-sponsored anti-Castro Cuban groups.
Moving to Texas and befriending a millionaire Russian oilman who helped to get him a job at the Texas Schoolbook Depository, Oswald made sure to let his murderous intent be known by attempting to assassinate a right-wing general in the area, thus potentially jeopardizing any plot to kill the president, and sent vanity photos of himself posing with his rifle to his close friends.
On the morning of November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald went to work in the schoolbook depository where the president just happened to be driving by.
After somehow getting the Secret Service to stand down before entering Dealey Plaza, Oswald set up a makeshift sniper's nest and got off three shots in six seconds leaving four bullets without leaving any nitrate on his cheek, a feat that has never been duplicated, including one bullet that managed to cause seven entry exit wounds, a feat that has never been duplicated, penetrating 15 inches of tissue, four inches of rib, and a radius bone to come out in almost perfect condition on a stretcher in the hospital while no one was looking, a feat that has never been duplicated.
He then ran downstairs and got himself a Coke from the vending machine within seconds of the assassination before heading home, grabbing his things, walking down the street, shooting a police officer, ducking into a movie theater, and waiting to be arrested.
After jumping up and pulling his gun on the police officers who swarmed the theater, he was let out the front door, or the back, and taken into police custody.
While there, he is not charged with the murder of the president.
No, I've not been charged with that.
In fact, nobody has said that to me yet.
And like any self-respecting America-hating communist grandstander who had just killed the president of the United States in a pinko rage, denied he had anything to do with it.
I'm just a shadowy!
Before being transferred to county jail, he was shot on live TV by a 2-bit Union Mafia stooge, supposedly torn by grief at the death of the president, whose brother he personally hated, later claiming that it was part of a conspiracy the world will never know.
Luckily, the crusading journalist of the unbiased media told the public the straight truth about what happened.
Hoover wrote a memo that weekend demanding that the public be convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin.
LBJ appointed a commission telling Commissioner Warren that he had to find that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, and, as luck would have it, that commission concluded, Now, what about the doctor at Proctor Hospital who reportedly said the president was wounded in the front?
Actually, the doctor told the commission and a newspaper report agrees, that he said only that the bullet could have entered from the front.
But because of the president's condition and their desperate haste, the doctors never turned him over.
Never saw a similar wound where the bullet actually entered from the back.
This is the story of the JFK assassination, as brought to you by the truth tellers and government.
Those weapons of mass destruction got to be somewhere.
And the media.
And if you have any questions about it, you are a woo-woo grassy-knall tinfoil lizard-fearing America hater.
If you love Jesus, sunshine, ponies, monster trucks, miniskirts, and the American flag, you will never ask any questions about any part of this story to anyone.
Ever.
This message has been brought to you by the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Warren Commission, and the MSM.
Because ignorance is strength.
David, isn't that sensational?
That's quite amazing, isn't it?
Yes.
And Dan Rather, you know, he did play a rather crucial role in convincing the American people that everything was on the up and up apart, of course, from accurately reporting initially Jack's head went forward, which, of course, was edited out of the film.
So when it was eventually revealed in 1975, it looked as though he had been lying when he, in fact, appears to have seen the film before it was edited.
And that forward motion was taken out.
Well, Deke Deloach reported the same event.
Deke DeLoach was the top assistant to J. Edgar Hoover in the FBI, and Deke saw the original Zapruder film.
And he also said that JFK's head went forward.
How many people do you know, Jim, who watch the current as a Pruder film who report that JFK's head goes in that direction?
Yeah, virtually zero.
I mean, we had Richard Feynman, who used a ruler, when David Lifton brought him blowouts of slide 312, 313, and others, and measured and saw there was forward motion.
And Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas had the most important part of his book, Scientific Analysis of the Forward Motion, then Back into the Left, which, as you know so well, was exaggerated.
He actually did come forward, Jackie eased him back up.
Then he shot the right temple.
And as you know, in addition, in the side of the head, he slumps to the side, slumps to the side.
But they took out so many frames in editing that you got this violent back into the left.
No one in Dealey Blaza witnessed, but everyone who sees a film concludes he was shot from the front.
So I think there was a real failure there, David, in the editing of the film.
They were just, there was too much to deal with.
They couldn't cover it up.
Yeah, there was too much in the film editing that was beyond their ability to take that head snap to the rear out.
They had to leave it in.
Yes.
And yet they took out so many frames it became violent rather than a mere slumping to the left.
David, I have made you the host so we can share your slides.
I know you have a PowerPoint presentation, which I'm very eager to share.
Please do go right ahead and set up for our extended conversation.
So I have switched over to my PowerPoint.
Are you able to see this?
Not as yet, David.
I think you're going to have to do something.
Maybe on the right, there's a couple of buttons.
You got boxes you can want to click when you do the share screen.
All right.
I'll go back to our original screen.
I'm not quite sure what button to click here in order to share this presentation.
Well, you got the green one right down at the bottom right that says share.
no i don't see any share buttons tell you what let me pause momentarily while we set this up David, I think we're set here to go.
Good work.
Yes, please proceed.
So we're all set.
I'll go ahead then.
I gave this.
Go right.
You're all set.
Yeah.
This is a repeat of a talk I gave two weeks ago for CAPA CIPA, their 2025 JFK conference, which was a virtual conference, and that will be available to listeners as well.
So it honors the memory of Cyril Wecht as shown in this first slide.
Now, who's going to advance the slides?
Oh, I will, David.
Okay.
Next.
Can you see them?
No, I do not know when you advance them.
So I will try to do it in sync.
Hang on, David.
Okay.
I think those will work.
can you see him now well i've i'm watching my own powerpoint so i i'll go back to no you need to you need to watch the the zoom Yes, I'm going back to the Zoom and I don't see them.
I don't see any of them.
No.
Okay.
You see me here, right?
No, I don't see you anymore either.
You're gone.
You don't see me either.
I hear you, but I don't see you.
Wow.
Well, we can probably do this in sync.
It shouldn't be that difficult.
You want to see, David?
It's David.
Yes, there it is.
Right ahead.
Begin again.
This slide is a reminder of the Kappa conference from one year ago, where I offered a tribute to Cyril Wecht, who had recently passed away.
For those folks who would like to review that, you can find it on my website, which I will show you shortly.
This is about a 15 to 20 minute presentation, so it helps to recall Cyril's life and his dedication to truth and also his personal courage in this case in particular.
So I think that this is worth looking at.
So this is my website.
You can just type in the Mantic View and it should pop up quite promptly.
And this is my current book, which is available on Amazon.
E-book came out a few weeks ago, so that is available for about $13.
Now, those folks who know me as interested primarily, go back to the book.
Sure.
Who know me primarily as interested in the medical aspects of this case may be somewhat surprised that this book is not about the medical evidence and it doesn't focus much at all on scientific evidence.
I allude to it occasionally where it's appropriate, but this book is mainly about something else.
In particular, it is about the three big questions in this case.
The questions are who pulled the triggers in Dealey Plaza?
Who ordered them to pull the triggers?
And why was this done?
So those listeners who are somewhat surprised that I would change directions so abruptly with a book like this may have forgotten that several decades ago, I wrote an essay called Silence of the Historians, which you, Jim, published in your book, Murder in Dealey Plaza.
Which you titled yourself, David.
You suggested that wonderful title.
Yeah, I suggested the title of Murder in Deale Plaza.
I was thinking today, maybe we should have called it Execution in Dealey Plaza.
Anyway, this is my new title, JFK Was Killed by Consensus, which implies that a vote was taken and virtually everyone agreed that he should go.
Well, it wasn't quite like that, as I discussed in my book.
Anyway, I have for a long time been interested in history, so this was no real turn for me.
It's just a continuation of my pursuit of the facts in this case.
There is one correction in the book that is somewhat pertinent.
In 2015, Larry Hancock had concluded, and this is now corrected in my e-book, the reality is that there was a Fort Worth newspaper article about visitors to the Johnson ranch based on JFK's upcoming visit.
To illustrate it, they pulled a file photograph taken in 1960, displayed in this book as the Summum Malum photograph of Dulles at the ranch.
A casual glance makes it appear that it was a contemporary photograph, but it wasn't.
So the point is that Alan Dulles did not visit LBJ's ranch just before the assassination.
This photograph had been taken several years before.
So that's a minor correction.
This whole chain of events was started in David Talbot's book, where he told us that Alan Dulles had visited the LBJ ranch shortly before the assassination.
Well, that was an error which we have now corrected.
We can proceed.
At my website, there is also a fairly important photo supplement.
Over nearly 100 pages, I show photographs of the major characters in the JFK assassination.
So those folks who are interested in this case may want to casually glance through here because many of these photographs have not appeared, certainly not together.
There is nothing like this anywhere else on the internet that I'm aware of.
Go ahead.
On my website, there is also a Lansdale supplement.
Since I regard General Ed Lansdale as the director of the assassins in Dealey Plaza that day, just 62 years ago today, it is quite interesting to read this long essay about Ed Lansdale.
He's a major player for sure.
Go ahead.
On Monday, November 3rd, 2025, Bruce B. wrote this.
As 112225, that's today, approaches 62 years after the JFK removal, virtually nothing has been accepted overall, agreed to, believed,
combined into any semblance of an intelligent, cogent dialogue, or combine books, book treatises, narratives, outlines, etc., with any universal dispositive assessment of salient issues whatsoever, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
Well, next slide.
That's totally absurd.
Bruce B. has just not been paying attention.
And in my book, I make this statement.
The JFK assassination is no longer a mystery.
That lie is now 60 years old and well past its sell-by date.
Any such myth of a mystery reeks of the garbage dumps of fraudulent evidence in this case.
Yes, David, I believe we have at least 95% knowledge of what actually happened, the players and what actually went down.
Yeah, I appreciate that comment very much because it's an analogy I often use.
Think of a jigsaw puzzle where you have 95% of the pieces.
Most likely you can see the overall picture, and that is very close to where we are in the JFK assassination.
We don't have every last piece, but I think that the missing part is somewhere only around 5%.
It's almost unnecessary to form the total picture.
And I believe we are very, very close to that at this time.
And I think that's actually the point of this book.
To proceed, we need a definition of a coup d'état.
It's an illegal attempt by a small minority to take over a government.
That's what happened in the JFK assassination.
In recent years, there have been about 15 of these per year.
Go ahead.
During a 60-year interval, there were a total of 457 coups.
That's about 7.5 per year, and the success rate was about 50%.
Here are some historical coups for comparison.
1653, Oliver Cromwell deposes Charles I. 1688, James II was deposed by his own daughter.
1799, Napoleon ends the French Revolution in his own coup.
1893, Queen Lilio Kalani was deposed by American businessmen.
Warren Commissioner John LaCloy claimed that the U.S. was not a banana republic, but Hawaii in 1893 was a fruit juice republic, a coup triggered by U.S. businessmen.
In 1993, the U.S. apologized to native Hawaiians for the role of these U.S. agents.
But it was all words.
The U.S. did not give Hawaii back to the native Hawaiians.
1917, the Bolsheviks subverted the Russian Revolution.
1933, American businessmen failed to recruit General Smedley Butler in an attempt to overthrow FDR.
In 1940, in Norway, Quisling attempted the world's first radio broadcast coup d'état.
In 1943, Mussolini was hung out to dry, upside down, with his mistress.
1944, Valkyrie attempt failed.
1945, Hirohito attempt failed.
1959, Castro deposed Batista.
And in 2016, many folks believe that RussiaGate was an attempt to overthrow Trump.
Next.
During the Cold War era, the U.S. was involved in many attempts.
1948, Italy, the CIA swung the 1948 general election to the centrist Christian Democrats and intervened in Italian politics until the early 1960s.
1949 in Syria, the CIA supported a military coup that ousted the country's democratically elected government.
Iran, 1953.
The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh, who had nationalized the oil industry.
The coup restored Mohamed Reza Pahlavi, a pro-Western monarch to the throne, and initiated a fiendish reign by the SAVAC.
1954, Guatemala.
The CIA backed a military coup against the democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz-Guzmán.
The intervention was driven by the connections of Alan Dulles and Nelson Rockefeller to the United Fruit Company, which opposed the land reforms of Arbenz.
Congo, 1960, the CIA assisted in the assassination of Patrice Lumumva, the country's first democratically elected prime minister.
This intervention fueled instability that helped Mobuto seize power in 1965 and maintain it for 32 years.
This is the legacy of Alan Dulles.
Cuba, 1961, the CIA, via Richard Bissell and Mac Bundy, launched the Bay of Pigs invasion, a thoughtless attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro's communist government.
South Vietnam, 1963.
The U.S. supported the assassination of Diem, which infuriated Lansdale, who was a friend of Diem for many years.
1964, Brazil, the CIA backed a military coup that overthrew President J.O. Goulard, thereby installing a military dictatorship that ruled until the 1980s.
Chile, 1973, the U.S. provided support to Pinochet, who staged a coup to oust the democratically elected socialist president, Allende.
Afghanistan, 1979 to 1992, the U.S. provided billions in arms and aid to the Muha Hadeen rebels fighting against the Soviet-installed communist government.
And there's more.
In the post-Cold War era, 1989 in Panama, the U.S. invaded Panama to oust its de facto leader, Noriega.
Iraq, 1991, the U.S. invaded Kuwait to remove the occupying Iraqi forces, but they refused to aid a subsequent uprising by Kurds and Shias against Hussein.
Haiti, 2004.
The U.S., along with France and Canada, backed a coup that removed the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristides.
Afghanistan, 2001.
A U.S. invasion overthrew the ruling Taliban government, replacing it with a U.S.-backed government.
Iraq, 2003.
A U.S. invasion overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Libya, 2011.
The U.S. provided military support to rebels during the civil war that overthrew Gaddafi.
Slavery markets followed, thanks to Hillary Clinton, who was ironically awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
So for those listeners who would like to explore this further, there are several Wikipedia sites that are really relevant involving the U.S. involvement in regime change.
And there's also on another site a list of coups and coup attempts by country.
It's really quite remarkable.
I want to bring your attention to a relatively new book by Corey Hughes titled A Warning from History.
And this is even pertinent to some of the comments that you showed, Jim, in your opening five minutes.
So watch carefully.
Go ahead.
Hughes discusses Oswald in Mexico.
He agrees with Larry Rivera and with David Josephs.
Oswald did not go to Mexico, but someone did.
Hughes says it was William Seymour who show his photograph.
Go ahead.
Here is William Seymour circled in red and shown on the right in a close-up.
He is described often as a rather lookalike to Lee Harvey Oswald.
This photograph appears in my book, and I spend a fair amount of time discussing the characters in here, including one of them, Porter Ghost on the left, second from the front, who was CIA director.
He's sitting right next to a drug smuggler.
That's discussed in my book.
Go ahead.
Seymour impersonated Oswald frequently, including while visiting Sylvia Odeo at the gun range, at the gun shop, in Ferry's movie of the Poncha Train training camp, at the Walker shooting, at the car dealership, escaping the Texas school book depository in a station wagon, and after the event, as seen by Robert Vinson in that military plane.
Go ahead.
Seymour was born in Fort Benton, Montana.
He spent three and a half years in the Pacific with the Navy.
He was a member of Interpen, established in 1961 by Jerry Patrick Hemming.
Others in this group included Lauren Hall, Roy Hargraves, Lawrence Howard, and Emmanuel Aguilar, presumably not related to Gary.
They were funded by the CIA, and Seymour may have fired from the west end of the book depository that day from the sixth floor.
Hughes also indicts Carrie Thornley, also often impersonated Oswald, including at Ferry's apartment, as seen in the movie JFK, while approaching Tippett's car.
David Ferry was there too, according to Hughes.
The shells, you may recall, were from two different guns.
Carrie arranged for the flyers that Lee distributed.
Carrie was often seen at 544 Camp Street, not Oswald.
Carrie was in Clinton, Louisiana with Ferry and Shaw.
That was not Oswald.
Carrie was seen driving a car, which, of course, Oswald could not do.
Carrie knew Perry Rousseau.
Carrie used the name Leon Oswald.
And Carrie was captured in the Texas theater.
And Jim, you've already alluded to this, or I should say that initial five-minute clip alluded to Oswald being taken out the front and the back.
Impossible for one man to be taken out in both directions.
But most likely, it was Carrie Thornley who was taken out the back, whereas Lee Harvey Oswald was taken out the front.
So Kerry was captured at the Texas Theater on the back, but then he was promptly released near a red 1961 Falcon with Carl Mather's license plate.
Go ahead.
Hughes claims, and I think he's probably right, that Garrison understood Thornley's role in this whole mad escapade.
In early 1959, these two guys served together in the same radar unit at El Toro in Santa Ana, California.
They both liked discussing literature, for example, 1984, politics and Marxism.
Thornley had also lived in New Orleans.
They were both atheists.
And in 1960, Kerry served at Otsugi, Oswald's former unit.
30 months before the assassination, Thornley started writing a book about Lee Harvey Oswald.
Go ahead.
And Thornley actually confessed.
He was on TV in a program called A Current Affair.
He confessed that he had been part of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
However, he did not name his fellow conspirators.
He died in 1998.
He was then working on a book with journalist Sandra London.
Confession to Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK was published in 2000.
Kerry was connected to Johnny Roselli and to Carlos Marcelo.
Johnny Roselli features in my book as well.
Go ahead.
This month, November 4th, 2025, is the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
Rabin departed Dallas on 11-22, 1963, and only learned of JFK's death on landing in Israel that same day.
Many Israelis considered Rabin's death to be a coup d'état.
Rabin was replaced by Shimon Perez, who won the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize and was incidentally related to Lauren Bacall.
Netanyahu was the opposition leader to Rabin at the moment of his assassination.
Perez was the godfather of the Israeli nuclear program.
He was best friends with Arnon Milchan, who produced the movie JFK.
This is a photograph from my website.
Yitzhak, Rabin, and Arafat signed their death warrants.
Leah Rabin, the widow of Yitzhak, refused to shake the hand of Netanyahu when he came to her house to offer condolences, but later she embraced Arafat.
The parallels between the JFK and Rabin assassinations are uncanny.
Well, emerging details about Charlie Kirk are beginning to sound like an echo, and let me make a specific point.
Rabin was said to have had a crushed thoracic vertebra while he was at the hospital.
Well, if your spinal cord is damaged that much, you cannot walk.
But multiple witnesses actually saw Rabin walking after he was supposedly shot, walking to the vehicle that took him to the hospital.
So there's something absolutely weird going on here.
And we still do not have x-rays of Charlie Kirk's body.
I'm not even sure if an autopsy was done.
But wouldn't it be interesting to see x-rays of Charlie Kirk's body?
Is it possible that the bullet lodged somewhere in his chest, for example?
maybe similar to Rabin go ahead even the Los Angeles Times in November 1995 drew a parallel between Rabin and JFK so I'm not speculating madly here go ahead
Some of those 1995 posters in Israel portrayed Rabin as a traitorous, Hitler-like figure in a Nazi SS uniform.
That's a quote from this month's issue of the Jerusalem POST.
On the morning of the assassination, JFK was portrayed in the Dallas Morning NEWS as a traitor, and that theme of traitors being killed to save the country is a central theme in my book.
The videotape of Rabin's shooting was probably altered.
This is an echo of Zapruder film manipulation.
Go ahead.
Hegel Amir, the lone assassin, had worked for Shinbet, which was Israeli security.
The parallel, of course, is that Lee Harvey Oswald, another supposed lone assassin, had worked for ONI.
the chief of national internal security Carmy Giloan alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the rhetoric of the protest netanyahu declined to do this go ahead netanyahu is the only foreign leader who has denied killing charlie kirk
he did not attend the recent protest rally in honor of rabin although it is traditional for israeli prime ministers to do so And here's a quote from this month's issue of THE Times OF Israel, the shots still resonate.
150 000 Israelis mourned at a protest rally 30 years after Rabin's murder.
The rally was held in Rabin Square.
It ended with a song for peace which Rabin himself sang at his own peaceful rally 30 years before he was promptly shot right after that, while leader was told that the bullets were only blanks, as in Jfk's autopsy, there was remarkable confusion about Rabin's wounds.
At a recent rally, attendees held signs calling for peace and reading, Rabin was right, while Israel's right wing still disagreed with this sentiment.
Go ahead.
november 4th is a musical play about rabin whose political assassination changed israeli history this is from news reported this month
mexico has its own story about colosio the 1994 slaying of mexican presidential candidate luis donaldo colosio has become an open soar in the mexican political psyche mexicans have refused to accept this as due to a lone gunman so jfk was killed by consensus
My point is that the powerful elite in America at that time had come to an almost universal agreement that JFK had to go because they viewed him as a traitor.
He was trying to stop the Cold War.
That's why he was killed.
They could not allow that.
I make parallels to history.
Socrates was killed because he was viewed as a traitor.
He was not following the rules of the city of Athens.
He did not accept the gods of the city of Athens.
And just before that, Athens had been subjected to a terrible plague and they had lost the Peloponnesian War.
So they had two strikes against them.
The Athenians were afraid that if they didn't take care of this traitor, Socrates, their gods would bring out strike three against them, and they would be in major trouble.
So they felt they had to save the city.
And in order to save the city, they had to kill Socrates.
Then we have the example of Julius Caesar.
Brutus liked Caesar, was a good friend of his, but he was finally persuaded that it was his duty to save Rome.
So in order to save Rome, he had to kill Julius Caesar with help from others, of course.
Same story in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.
The Sanhedrin, the ruling elite again, turned him over to the Romans because they viewed him as a traitor.
Next slide.
This book is mainly about relationships among the sponsors.
So among the sponsors, we see Paul Helliwell, who had served directly under Bill Donovan in World War II.
Lyman Lemnitzer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was essentially fired by JFK and transferred to NATO.
At NATO in Europe, he had direct access to GLADIO, which is the left-behind intelligence and military network that was designed to prevent communists from taking over European governments.
That meant that Lyman Lemnitzer immediately had total access to the Corsicans.
Then there is Frank Branstetter, very interesting character who knew most of these other sponsors and who had even met personally with LBJ.
And LBJ had vacationed at his world-famous resort in Acapulco, and so did JFK's family.
Then, most importantly, there is Charles Willoughby, who was second in command in the Pacific directly under MacArthur.
Willoughby also worked very closely with Ed Lansdale, who we just heard about, and they worked with Colonel William C. Bishop.
It is very likely that Willoughby, Lansdale, and Bishop were all in Neale Plaza that day, probably along with Philippe Vidal Santiago, who often traveled with William Bishop.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see their travel records?
Go ahead.
Can someone be guilty under RICO solely due to their relationships?
And the answer is yes.
Someone can be found guilty under RICO solely due to relationships.
Regal charges can be built around indirect involvement.
These often rely on a broad conspiracy theory that includes people who never personally committed a violent crime, such as an assassination.
Go ahead.
Well, I think we're coming near the end of my talk here.
This is a cartoon I adapted from my book.
Go ahead.
Either the Donald retires or Elon is indicted or this lecture must end.
The end is near for once.
I'm right.
Yeah, we needed a little humor here.
This is another item I've taken from my photo selection, which is online.
It reports assassins' bullets.
You notice the singular here.
Only one assassin.
And notice the date is November 22nd, exactly 62 years ago today.
And of course, you could buy this for 10 cents.
Go ahead.
David, I think that was the end.
I want to make one more comment before you proceed, however, you like.
H.L. Hunt was, of course, in the middle of this, too.
And he often communicated with J. Edgar Hoover.
And he knew Willoughby well, too.
So the point is that these relationships just go everywhere and they go everywhere back in history too.
Most of these people knew each other for decades.
But what I want to focus on is the wealth under the control of H.L. Hunt.
And I discussed this in my book.
H.L. Hunt's wealth was about 60.
I'm talking about 6-0 times that of the Kennedys.
Can you imagine how much money this man had at his fingertips?
He could have arranged any number of coups or assassinations he wished.
Money was no problem, and he knew all the right people.
I think we'll stop there.
Sure, we can pick up with H.L. Hunt, David.
He appears to have bought the first print of the original Zapruder that was processed at Kodak in Dallas.
Notice that one number is missing, and then we have the three prints.
Yes.
Where Josiah argues that since it was always under control of the Secret Service, there was no opportunity for it to have been altered, ignoring the Secret Service was in on it.
I mean, it's very clever how they beg the question.
That's all well said.
But there's another option, Jim, which I discuss in my book.
There was a CIA photographer in Dealey Plaza that day.
And those five or six individuals who have seen a slightly different Zapruder-like film may very well have seen copies of the CIA movie film.
And it may be this film that was purchased for H.L. Hunt.
We have no idea which one he got.
So in one long appendix, I show where the CIA photographer was located by use of six films from Dealey Plaza shot that day, where the same site is blacked out in the North Pergola.
Yes.
I agree.
And it was a camera on a tripod, David, which is why we have the disappearing limousine.
Anyone with a handheld camera would have kept the limo in focus.
It wouldn't have disappeared.
I agree completely.
That was shot by a camera on a tripod.
And you have indeed, I think, quite brilliantly identified how it was blacked out in those multiple different films.
I think that case is conclusive.
Yeah, and we know who was there.
I discussed the individual who was involved as reported by his own daughter.
And these people are named in my book.
David, I wonder if I missed what was the name there then of the primary.
I read, but not all of the appendices.
You start right off, of course, with the Zapruder film and the use of the camera on the tripod.
I mean, that's your very first key point of the book, which I yeah, I introduced the idea early in the book.
I'm looking at the book now.
The appendix is called Appendix 1B, The Zapruder Films and Those Other Films.
So there's a long discussion with illustrations about the manipulation that was done on Friday, November 22nd.
Manipulation done already on Friday, rather than rather than, of course, as Doug Horn has reported the film having been taken.
Well, at least some.
I'm not claiming that all the manipulation of the photographic evidence was done that day.
We know that the main film that shows where the CIA man was, the one that, well, let me give you the page number here.
Sure.
It's Appendix 1B, starting on page 65.
Yes.
And it's the Mormon photograph that I'm specifically referring to.
There is no original Mormon photograph in existence to this day, so far as I know or anyone else knows.
The only one that exists is an already altered photograph.
And on Saturday morning, Roy Schaefer, working at the Dayton newspaper, took off an image of this Mormon photograph, which was already altered early on the morning of Saturday.
So we know at least that one was altered on Friday.
Did that already have the thumbprint on it?
Yes.
That's on page 67 in my book.
You can read all the items there.
And all the altered photographs with the blackout areas are shown.
And also, that's it.
And also, two photographs from Bond are shown that are not altered.
So you can see what the scene in the North Pagola should have looked like before it was altered.
Yeah, I think that's wonderful.
I agree 100%.
That's pretty definitive.
Yeah, and of course, the Altons was being altered right off the bat, too.
So probably.
Yeah.
There's so many.
I think, David, notwithstanding all that I've done on JMK in terms of research, collaborative, including with yourself, I learned something from every single page of your book.
I was astonished.
We agree on very much.
I've learned so much from you.
There are additional questions I want to raise just to sort of reconcile our views to the extent that's possible.
Let me go all the way back to your memorial for Cyril Wecht.
I was in Cyril's home when the broadcast occurred of your research on the autopsy x-rays and your discovery they'd been altered.
Just he and I in his living room.
And I was astonished.
He wasn't elated.
He was expressing joy.
It was as though he was distressed, as though it were news he didn't want to hear.
And let me say something else.
Cyril always made much of the magic bullet theory.
We heard him a hundred times talk about this ridiculous bullet.
We all know, we've heard it, we've heard it, we've heard it.
But he was on the medical panel for the HSCA, which sought to reconstruct the medical evidence to perform.
what I think they thought was an even better cover-up by reconstructing the back of the head.
So as you know, as David Lyft had emphasized, we got the dramatic difference between the fifth-size blowout seen in Parkland, the enormous exaggerated skull with Humes had taken a craniosaw, which is described with mathematical precision in the Bethesda autopsy report.
I mean, the text and others report the fifth-size blow-up.
They saw that before Humes took the craniosaw to the skull.
But then the HSC reconstitutes, they move the actual shot to the back of the head up four inches to the top, and the whole back of the head is reconstructed.
Why did Cyril not call him out?
I mean, this troubles me profoundly, David.
See, I mean, I know we don't want to speak ill of the dead, right?
But I'm saying here's a guy who is leading the JFK research community.
He was praised by one and all.
And I just got to tell you, from my up close and personal, he ought to have been ecstatic as was I when that was broadcast about your research on the x-rays, and he was not.
Well, we have many people in the JFK research community today who totally believe that Oswald was a Patsy and the whole thing was a conspiracy.
But many of these same people still cannot believe that the Zapruder film has been altered.
They're just being normal human beings.
They're stuck in ancient, outmoded modalities of thinking, and they cannot come to face the facts.
Cyril is among them in this situation.
Of course, I take a more cynical view.
I mean, I think Josiah and Robert Grodon got the, you know, the accident version on with Ralto in 1975, were part of the cover-up.
I mean, I have so much experience.
I began almost idolizing Josiah when I was in the Marine Corps.
He'd been in UDT.
I was a philosophy.
He was philosophy.
We were, you know, professors.
I thought he was the cat's meow.
Even though I had a, you know, I think it was in that conference in, was it Chicago, David?
I think it was the first time we met that Southwest political conference, where Gary Aguilar came up to me and said, I shouldn't be deceived by your work on the x-rays back at the x-rays because it was just from overexposure of light.
And I shouldn't, it was crazy.
I'd never met the guy before.
That's absurd.
I've addressed that argument in detail in my essays.
That's an absurd argument.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood, David.
Yeah, that argument that the x-rays were merely overexposed and that explains everything.
Well, yeah, that's madness.
That's madness.
I've discussed that in great detail with lots of members.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Yeah, David, David, I'm making a comment about Gary Aigwell.
I understand, and that's what I'm replying to.
Well, I mean, it just troubled me that like the first words out of his mouth is a form of debunking your sensational work.
And let's go back to you talk about the sponsors and the mechanics, and you give a list of a number of possible mechanics.
As you know, I approach it rather the other way.
You were kind of looking at all the relationships in the administration, people who could have had a reason to be participants.
I think you're right about the motives and all that.
Whether Willoughby would have had a role in actually plotting the assassination when you had Lansale, and we agree 100% on Lansale.
I mean, this was, I think, a Lansdale op that he positioned the shooters and determined the sequence of shots.
I think we agree on that.
Yeah, we agree.
We agree on Lansdale, yes.
So does my publisher, by the way, whom I did not know that my publisher's father had been a colleague of Lansdale.
And so he drove the publishers forward to my book.
This was quite an eye-opening event for me.
So we all three agree that Lansdale was the main boss in Deale Plaza that day.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Except Verseman supervised by George Herbert Walker Bush.
Richard Hook, I think, established she was actually in the Dow Tech supervising the Anti-Castro Cuban shooter, fired three shots with a man like her carcano.
I'm not, I'm wanting to know whether you go that far.
I mean, that's my time.
I don't see the fingerprints of George Herbert Walker Bush in the actual execution in Dealey Plaza.
Whether he had foreknowledge is a separate question.
I have not addressed that.
I'm not sure.
But I do allude to his peripheral involvement in these issues.
And also I cite some of the characters who he knew as personal friends.
So he knew the wrong people, that's for sure.
We're talking about GHWB?
We are.
We are.
Well, we've got photographs of him there.
I may have been the first to identify in Jesse Curry's JFK files, you know, which you published.
Yes, I'm aware.
And we got Lansdale waiting to talk to him after he walked by the three tramps, you know, with a debriefing of their very successful assassination.
So you don't have him as a supervisor along with Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.
I cannot invoke the first Bush in participating or supervising.
All I can say is that he knew lots of wrong people in this case.
He was actually arrested coming out of the Daltech, David.
Craig talked about it.
He was actually arrested.
and we got photographs of W kind of wandering around not knowing what's happening because his father isn't available, so.
You seem to gravitate more toward the mob having had a heavier role in the actual shooting than do I, because as you know.
Well, I think there were four teams, and the mob was responsible for one of the four teams.
Where would you locate four teams?
In the Daltech building, of course.
That may have been the mob shooter.
And on the grassy knoll, I don't know for sure who was there.
Of course, James Files claims to have been there.
He may have.
I tend to believe much of what he says, but I don't see final objective evidence putting him there.
Then somebody was on the overpass as well.
showed photographs of someone or something there in our previous book, The Final Analysis.
And there surely had to be a shooter on the south side of Dealey Plaza where someone shot a bullet through the windshield and caused the throat wound.
Yeah, of course we differ whether it was a shard of glass, as you submitted, or I agree with Bob Livingston that it was actually a bullet that fragmented.
Well, the bullet went through the windshield.
It was a through and through hole in the windshield.
That had to come from the south area.
Sure, of course.
I've identified that shooter as Jack Lawrence.
He was using a weapon that was given to him by Curtis LeMay, a very select number of these weapons.
They were collapsible.
He appears to have put it in a circuit box that was there inside the triple underpass.
That's a fascinating wound because if Bob's right, as I believe, but you do not, that bullet, if it trisected his brain and severed the tentorium, I think it may have killed him.
He may have already been dead there, David, which is consistent with all the observations that people like Rouse and Kay and Alan Solarin have made about claiming a poison bullet.
And I don't think you or I really take that at all seriously.
But he's not responding.
We know he was corseted, tied up.
He had very limited motion.
But he's basically immobile, as it were, paralyzed, or I would submit even dead because you got Thomas Evan Robinson, you know, the mortician, saying there's no discoloration.
He died instantly.
If he died instantly, that might have been when he died.
Is that possible?
Is that consistent with your knowledge of the medical?
Well, you mentioned Robinson.
So here we, in the Charlie Kirk case, we have another Robinson, don't we?
Also, there's a parallel.
But Robinson seems to be on the up and up.
This Charlie Kirk thing, we may have big differences.
That was a staged event, David.
I even had rehearsal video for the people who were there.
They had hundreds of crisis actors.
Well, we may well agree.
We may well agree about Charlie Kirk, but there's an interesting parallel between Charlie and JFK.
Remember in the Zapruder film, how JFK's hands are shaped into a fist as he brings his arms upward?
Yeah.
Do you recall seeing the same response in Charlie Kirk?
Yeah, now you may.
Yes, you do.
Because they were both injured in the lower cervical area, and their brachial plexus responded in the same way.
Well, that's very, very interesting.
The shockwave, the shockwave hit the critical sides left and right of the brachial plexus so that both arms, left and right, responded in the only way they know how.
So that's a very strong anatomic and physiological parallel between JFK and Charlie Kirk.
Is this or is this not what's often referred to as the Thorburn reflex?
I don't think we'd call it the Thorburn reflex.
The posture, Gary Aguilar has discussed these issues in great detail, and I respect his work on this.
But it ultimately is due to the shockwave from the bullet, and the shockwave reached both sides of the spinal cord, hitting both left and right brachial plexuses.
Yeah, well, that is fascinating because from what I can tell, the whole Charlie Kirk thing was a stage event.
They did CGI in the blood.
You got the wound on the neck moving around.
You got the letters of his shirt moving around.
I mean, there's just a huge amount here.
Not enough blood.
So I think the one is real and the other is fake.
Have you looked at the online uh discussion by Chris Mortenson, the pathologist, Chris of of Charlie Kirk?
About Charlie Kirk?
Yes, yeah.
Have you seen Chris Mortinson's hour-long lecture about this?
No no no, oh.
You must see this.
You must see this.
He's a pathologist.
You need to pay attention to what he says.
You might want to look at some of what I piece together as well.
I mean, David, I have, Jim.
I have.
I'm trying to get all the evidence, all the pieces together.
And I suspect that you and I are very close to agreement on this case, actually.
But look at Chris Mortensen.
See, this is why I think it's so important.
You and I have been collaborating for 30 years talking about areas where we may have differences because our areas overlap or overwhelm.
I don't think our differences are profound.
I think they're quite close.
Well, you got four hit teams.
Now, let's see.
We got him shot in the back.
I think that was from the top of the county records building.
Or it could have been Deltex, too.
We got Connolly shot in the back, I think, from the west side of the book depository.
Yeah, I think we agree on that.
That may have been Seymour's shot.
Say again?
That may have been William Seymour's shot.
We're pretty close in agreement on that.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I got Harry Weather for top of the county record.
Well, I don't argue with that, Jim.
I don't argue with that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, Jim Mars and I agreed on that about and talk about Roscoe White beating the back body double.
But look, David, here's the point I'm making.
Those were the three shots identified by the Secret Service in the FBI the night of the assassination.
Meanwhile, on radio and television, they were talking about the shot to the throat and the shot to the right temple.
That's already five.
You've only got four hit teams.
We got three shots fired from the Daltex, I take it.
I believe it was Nestor Escedro, Tony Nestor Escedro, you know, the Cuban, anti-Castro Cuban shooter who appears to have been supervised by George H.W. Bush.
And I think Richard Hook really nailed that one.
But we missed and he hit the chrome strip of butlime.
He missed and he hit the diss at Kirby, which injured James Haig.
I mean, that's already three shots when you add in the hit in the back of the head.
Yeah, we're not in disagreement.
Yeah.
And then I have the Bob shooter firing that, you know, Sturgis firing the shot to the right temple.
And I have actually Clyde Porsche, the Israeli shooter, firing the shot to the side of the head.
And I went back and, you know, I've been in a conversation with this woman.
It was, grew up with him virtually.
He would take her to all his sites where his bodies, I mean, this guy is David.
He's a serial killer.
He's murdered over a thousand people.
Can you believe it?
This is most like the most dangerous man in the world, murdered over a thousand.
And Haley Otis, with whom I've been in conversation 15 years, told me he was there and he was the black dog man.
I've not heard you say from where you believe the shot to the side of the head.
I've heard you, I think, deny you thought it was from the curb opening, which I've tended to believe.
From where do you believe that shot was fired?
I think I missed something there.
Can you repeat that?
I'm talking about the shot to the side of the head, right?
Oh, the right temple shot.
I got Sturgis at the intersection of the triple underpass, and there's that above-ground sewer opening.
I believe that's from where Surge is shot.
Now, I'm talking about Clyde, the Israeli guy, who fired the shot to the side of the head.
From where do you believe that shot was fired?
I don't insist on this, but my best guess is that the right temple shot came from the grassy knoll.
But I can't rule out that it could have come from some yards closer to the overpass.
We just don't have enough data to pin it down.
Well, that's you're talking about the right temple.
I'm talking about then the side of the head, the third shot to the head.
From where do you believe that was fired?
Well, to summarize, there was a shot from the rear entering low in the right occipit.
That's what the pathologists reported.
I agree with them.
There was a shot into the right temple that James Jenkins and Pierre Fink saw.
That's the one that I think probably came from the grassy knoll, but it could have come from farther down, closer to the overpass.
That's true.
Then there's no question about the third headshot.
That's well defined on the x-rays.
It came high in the right forehead at the hairline.
We can see the tiny metallic fragments there.
So that's 100% objective proof that a shot came in high in the right forehead.
And on the autopsy photographs, we see the sight there.
We don't see a bullet entry site because a scalpel has sliced right through it to obscure it.
Yeah, no, I'm asking from where was that shot fired?
That's the question.
You're asking about the right forehead shot.
Most likely from the overpass.
Most likely from the overpass.
But I don't insist on that.
The problem is we don't know what position JFK's head was in when he was hit.
We cannot trust the Zapruder film.
So we're missing data there.
For sure.
Then you had Lieutenant Dave picking up the slug out of the grass on this, you know, in the south that appears to have been fired by Roscoe White by my analysis, who was a body double for Lee in the Backyard photograph, CIA.
Well, I think Roscoe is, I think Roscoe is in my list of possible trigger pullers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And I show photographs of four possible shooters.
Rob Reiner has named them, and I think Rob was well informed by Dick Russell.
Yeah, I think there were shooters at eight different locations rather than four.
I mean, that's really what I'm leading up to.
You know, there's so many shots to account for.
There were many shots.
Yes, we agree.
Altogether, would you say maybe is 10 or 12?
That's my best.
I think it's possible there were that many.
I have never publicly stated that because it's hard to pin this down.
I'm quite content to say that JFK was hit in the head with three headshots.
We have objective evidence of that.
That's enough for a conspiracy.
Yeah, of course.
Plus the throat.
We got five hits to JFK.
Yeah, he got hit in the back.
So he was hit five times.
I don't know if he was farther than that.
Conley more than once, possibly, or just once.
Yeah, probably twice.
Probably twice.
So that's five, that's seven.
Then we got that.
So you're getting eight shot by Roscoe White into the grass.
And there may have been an extra shot fired with the top of the county records, Billy.
Well, look, let's switch over back to the sponsors.
Yeah, I don't care too much about who pulled the triggers.
You can find these people anywhere.
Uh-huh.
Well, see, when I began identifying the shooters and discovered Jack Lawrence was Air Force expert, you got Harry Weatherford, who's a Dallas, and you got Sturgis, who's either Mafia or C.
It became evident to me as an inference that each of the sponsors had their own shooters.
Yeah, exactly.
I spell that out in the book.
I make that very clear.
Yeah.
Well, yeah.
Well, I, you know, I may go a tad further by identifying who I take to be those shooters, but there were, I have eight of them, David, and you got, you got four, right?
I mean, that's a pretty substantial diversity.
Well, my book identifies four shooters as well, specifically, and shows their photographs, and I identify who their sponsors probably were.
So that's pretty concrete.
Well, elaborate that for me, David.
I mean, I've read the book.
I didn't know that I missed that, but go ahead.
I'd like to read it.
Well, I'm holding the book in my hand.
Let me know.
Okay.
Starting at page 41, but 43, page 43 is very explicit.
On that page, I report exactly which trigger man was recruited by which sponsor.
Okay, recruited by, well, you got Morales and Harvey and Gianconna and Willoughby as your sponsors.
Yeah.
So you got an anti-Castle Cooper, of course, and a Mafia guy in a military.
See, I wouldn't have put Harvey, Gianconner, Willoughby, or Morales.
We can argue about this endlessly.
This is not very interesting to me because I'm interested in the people at the top, the sponsors who organized this execution.
Yeah, let's turn to that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
One of the fascinating aspects, I think you show how many ties there are leading to LBJ.
And of course, he's my guy.
I believe the whole plot originated in Los Angeles in 1960 when Jack beat him for the nomination.
And they already, he forced himself on the ticket in order for Jack to be taken out so he could ascend to the presidency.
He was a guy who could guarantee no one would ever be punished for taking out JFK.
LBJ was the linchpin.
And if you look at all the arrows in my book that connects these people, we're talking about relationships again, you'll see that I've always ended up with LBJ because he had to have foreknowledge.
Yeah, well, I mean, I'm going a little further.
I think he didn't just have foreknowledge.
I think he was the inspiration.
I think it was his plot.
He and Edgar, I regard as the facilitators.
I think they were in on it together from the beginning.
He used information provided by Edgar to force himself on the ticket.
Why in the world would he abandon being a powerful majority leader of the Senate for a position that he and others had described as not worth a bucket full of piss?
I mean, it's just ridiculous, David, for him to have taken the vice presidency unless he intended to use it as the climbing stone to be president.
He said, yeah, he was a gambling man, but he wasn't a gambling man.
Linden was anything but a gambling man.
He only went for certainties.
I'm just pushing you a little further here because I think Linden has been, you know, underplayed here.
And even you come to the conclusion, you're not saying this means that Lyndon was the guy.
You're saying it could have been Harvey.
But I don't think that cuts it.
I think that's wrong.
That Phil Nelson was right.
You start reading his book about Lyndon as a mastermind.
While he's been faulted for the word, what he meant, and what I mean is he was the guy who initiated the whole damn plot.
He's the guy who lit the fuse.
And yeah, sure, he didn't plan who was positioned and who took the shots.
And I do think Lansdale and George H.W. Bush had that role.
Lansdale more so in terms of mechanics, supervised overall by GHWB.
But I just think that, remember, you had E. Howard Hunt on his deathbed telling St. John, and you have St. John writing afterward, that the chain of command went from Lyndon Johnson to Cord Meyer to David Attlee Phillips to William Harvey to David Morales, Sanchez Morales.
And thereafter, you get Lansdale, George H.W. Bush, the whole bit in Dealey Plaza.
I do find what you presented here today fascinating about the look-alikes, the Oswald look-alikes, and who got into the Rambler.
Because it's funny, when Lee was questioned about that Rambler thing, he said, oh, don't bring in Mrs. Payne in his naivete, not realizing she and her husband were both CIA assets and were instrumental in getting him into the book depository so he could be framed as a patsy.
So, you know, this is very, very interesting, just like you have gave it cope all by itself.
But.
Well, I discussed the role of the Paynes in my book, too.
I think you and I are both very suspicious of them.
I think they did have intelligence connections.
Yeah.
I did a review.
You can find out on assassination science.com of the book, Mrs. Payne's Garage.
I just think there isn't a doubt about it.
I did like that little thing by James Perloff, you know, in five minutes.
It was, of course, Lee's favorite show was I Lit Three Lives with Herb Pilbrick.
I do believe he was working for American Intel.
I do believe he was recruited by Office of Naval Intelligence when he was a recruit in San Diego.
Then he's stationed at Sugi, our most secure base.
He makes a pseudo-defection at the end of the CIA to give him information about the U-2 overflights.
Fletcher thinks that the agency had shorted the fuel in the plane.
So Gary Powers was going to come down whether he wanted to or not.
Then he doesn't take his suicide capsule and they have the parts of the plane and aborts the summit meeting between Eisenhower and Khrushchev.
Very embarrassing.
Then he comes back and he's treated very kindly, not as a traitor.
And we know all the rest.
Well, I also enjoyed I Led Three Lives.
Yeah.
So maybe I'm a Patsy too.
Herbert Philbrick.
Well, David, your work on JFK has been unparalleled.
In particular, the medical evidence.
I cannot understand why it can only be deliberate attempt to obfuscate truth.
Sure.
That there hasn't been more recognition of your overwhelmingly important work on the medical evidence.
You were very instrumental in drawing attention to problems with the Zabruder film.
Your first essay, R. Rain, Murder and Dealey Plaza on the Zapruder, was wonderful, partly inspired by the conference I held in Duluth in 2003 that led to the publication of Great Zapruder Film Hoax.
Yes.
You've been a champion, and you mentioned your own essay on the silence of the historians.
That was just absolutely Seminole in calling.
Let's give credit to John Costella also for his remarkable, ingenious work on the Zapruder film, technically proving that it has been altered.
I totally respect John for that work.
Oh, 100%.
100%.
We even had Jack White still with us at the time.
And of course, David Lifton.
So that, you know, I think Lifton's book historically turns out to be the single most important that published on the assassination because it led to the.
Yeah, that opened the doors.
That book opened the doors.
Yes.
It did.
I regard assassination science, the books in which you and I collaborate so closely, assassination science, Maria and D. Lee Plaza Grades up from as sequels to David Lifton's breathtaking work.
And Doug Horn has done all this sensation.
Amazing hero.
Doug Horn is an amazing hero.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I would 100% credit that you're going to lift and you and Doug as Primo right out there and breaking this whole thing wide open.
And you got John and Larry and me filling in a lot of the blanks.
Larry's done such brilliant work on the limo stock.
I hope Larry Rivera takes a good look at William Seymour here in view of his close attention to the Oswald in Mexico story.
I think we need to look very closely at Thornley and Seymour here because these so-called Oswald sightings most likely were not all Oswald.
Well, actually, I don't know of anyone who looked like Oswald down in Mexico City.
Edgar put out a memorandum to all of his agents that someone was impersonating Lee Oswald, Mexico City.
I think that's all you knew about that.
That memo is in my book for anybody who wants to see it.
Yeah, that's wonderful, David.
That's wonderful.
Yes, I noticed.
That's wonderful.
But the guy who's photographed has been identified as Walter Tabinsky.
Actually, Haley.
I know.
I've heard that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I appear played a role.
He was even in Dee Lee Plaza too by Haley's account, actually on the South Grass wearing what looks an awful lot like a lead apron.
There's quite a lot going on there.
David, I don't want to try your patience.
You're a very patient man and a very wise man, and you've made so many wonderful contributions.
Where we do have differences, I do think they are significant, but our overlap is simply overwhelming.
Yeah, we agree on that.
Sure.
Yeah, and I'm very proud to have initiated our collaboration way back in 1992 when courtesy of the Journal of the American later resigned.
I couldn't take that.
I know you did.
And that was your letter.
Your letter of protest that led me to reach out to you to suggest we collaborate on a long article or a book.
And then others began to join, and it wound up in the three, the trilogy, that even Vince Bugliosi, in his attempt to resurrect the Warren Commission, Reclaiming History, around 1,500 pages, described as the only exclusively scientific books ever published on the assassination.
Why did he take them to heart, David?
What's going on with Vince?
I think he got a million bucks for that good.
He needed the money.
Yeah, he really needed the money.
As in the case of many other characters in this case, look at my photographic lists and ask yourself this question.
How many of them were paid off?
Yeah.
Yeah, well, or were CIA.
I mean, I think CIA's reach was enormous.
I think most of the journalists of the time were on the CIA payroll.
They were, quote, patriotic, unquote.
Yeah.
Yeah, patriotic, right?
Kiss my ass.
Unbelievable.
Well, David, just joyful to have this opportunity.
And I'm very pleased.
You and Larry and I will all three be speaking at my Volkswagen Conspiracy Conference on the 13th and 14th of December.
I'm just delighted to have you.
And I want to thank you for wearing your Wisconsin Badger shirt today in honor of their upcoming game in a few minutes.
Yeah, we're playing Illinois, of course.
Your audience probably doesn't know that I played in the marching band for the University of Wisconsin.
I love it, David.
And even went to the Rose Bowl.
My grandson is a freshman now and loving it.
And of course, my daughter and my son-in-law both graduated from UW-Madison.
And it's a great institution, and it's a joy to be here.
I do think we got a chance to beat Minnesota in the final game of the year next week.
I think so, too.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And of course, I refer to Professor McCoy often in my book, who talks about drugs.
McCoy was, of course, a distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who knew a great deal about the CIA connection to drug running.
So that's a big feature in my book also.
So there's another Madison connection for you.
Well, David, my warm regards to you.
Again, another happy birthday.
Congratulations on the book.
And Pat, Rachel, Christopher, my warmest regards.
You have a fabulous family.
You're the only one I've ever known who I thought was qualified to do homeschooling, and you did a brilliant, a brilliant job of it, David.
Most people would have no idea.
That's one of the highlights of my life to see how well my son, Chris, has turned out.
So taxing and demanding, and you superbly filled that role.
Truly admirable.
He's seeing probably the most challenging patients in the world right now and enjoying the challenge.
Yes, yes, yes.
And in the end, family means so very much, maybe most important in our lives.
Sure.
No matter what we do.
Yes.
How many truths we expose and controversial issues, and you and I have both done our share of that.
So this is Jim Fetzer, thanking David Manning for being my guest here on a real deal special report on the 22nd of November, 2025.
62 years, I've been saying 63, 62 years observing the assassination of a man who would have been a great president, and he had so many good things to do for America, which is why he was taken out.
So thank you all for being here.
Enjoy the game.
▲
Export Selection