Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Seventy One: Zig's Take on the JFK Assassination

Transcript

Episode Seventy One: Zig's Take on the JFK Assassination · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome to episode number seventy one of the Depth of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Ziggler. I'm your host today a quick review of recent news,
• 0:08
  and then, for the first time ever, I break down what really did
• 0:13
  and did not happen regarding the JFK assassination nearly sixty years ago. And I
• 0:19
  promise this analysis will blow your mind. I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing
• 0:26
  Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and EMO marketing specialist that also happens to
• 0:32
  be a big fan of John Ziggler and the Death of journ I listen,
• 0:35
  do you need help preaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the
• 0:40
  right messaging and confaded message in the best channels for your business. Please visit
• 0:44
  my website, the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help you
• 0:49
  tell your story. The website is the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com.
• 0:55
  If you want to grow your business, Peter can help. That's the Dutch
• 0:59
  Digital marketing Man dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show.
• 1:03
  So it looks like we're just never going to get to the bottom of who
• 1:07
  left their cocaine in the secured section of the White House Even the White House
• 1:12
  press core, which normally is extremely pro Biden and unwilling to ask uncomfortable questions,
• 1:19
  is very skeptical of this one. But I'm sure they'll let it go
• 1:23
  this week now that we've passed through a weekend and enough time has gone on
• 1:27
  to where we can get on to other stories that occur. It's almost too
• 1:33
  obvious. I mean, I hate going with the most obvious explanation, but
• 1:37
  since Hunter Biden apparently was indeed there on the time and question that it would
• 1:44
  have to be connected to Hunter Biden, given his experienced background in the area
• 1:49
  of cocaine. But we don't know, and apparently we're never going to know,
• 1:53
  And it's just absolutely hilarious that we're just going to pretend that there's just
• 1:59
  no possible way to figure out who left cocaine in a secured section of the
• 2:05
  White House when the son of the President has this history regarding cocaine and other
• 2:13
  related the aliens is with the illegalities. I mean, it's just it's it's
• 2:19
  hilarious. It's really you can't write this stuff. Hunter Biden is the gift
• 2:23
  that keeps on giving, and I'm sure you know, we'll continue to keep
• 2:28
  an eye on it. I let other podcasters have their fun with the Hunter
• 2:31
  Biden's story, because I well, I do think there's a lot there.
• 2:35
  I think it's being overplayed in most cases by the right. It totally ignored
• 2:39
  by the left wing media, which is also wrong. But in this particular
• 2:44
  case, we've just gotten to the absurd where where we're just going to pretend
• 2:49
  we there's just no way to figure out who possibly could have left cocaine in
• 2:53
  the White House. The story in the news media that has gotten a lot
• 2:58
  of attention on the right over the last few days, and rightfully so,
• 3:01
  and has caused a reaction on the left in the left wing media that is
• 3:07
  fascinating and incredibly telling is the surprise hit with regard to the movie Sound of
• 3:14
  Freedom. Now. We talked about this in episode number seventy of the podcast.
• 3:19
  This is the movie about child sex trafficking that stars Jim Caviezel. Jim
• 3:24
  Caviezel most well known for portraying Jesus in the Passion of the Christ, but
• 3:30
  has become a very controversial political figure because of his connections to Quanon, and
• 3:38
  this movie has blown the doors off of all expectations when it came to popularity
• 3:46
  and box office. As of this taping, it looks like their first week,
• 3:51
  which began on July fourth, they had an unusual opening beginning on July
• 3:55
  fourth, a day where they actually beat Indiana Jones. That was somewhat deceptive
• 4:00
  because it was their opening day and it was not Indiana Jones's opening day,
• 4:04
  but still that's a remarkable reality given that this is an independent company. Angels
• 4:13
  the name of the of the production company that has put The Sound of Freedom
• 4:17
  out, and of course you know it's Disney putting out Indiana Jones. Interestingly,
• 4:23
  Disney, as I referred to in the last episode, once owned Sound
• 4:27
  of Freedom. This is a movie that was actually in the can years ago,
• 4:31
  but it got caught up in the sale of the company. Disney owned
• 4:35
  it and they took a pass on it, didn't even decide to put it
• 4:39
  on their streaming services. An Angel picked it up and has now released it
• 4:44
  and as of right now, it looks like they're going to break twenty million
• 4:47
  dollars for the first week's receipts, which in this environment where fewer and fewer
• 4:53
  people are going to the movie theaters for an independent film, that's extraordinary.
• 4:58
  I mean, that is a surprise hit, and it is driving the left
• 5:01
  wing media crazy, and so much so that I'm kind of reminded of something
• 5:10
  that my old friend and then nemesis, I guess you would call him or
• 5:15
  adversary Andrew Breitbart, the guy whose name adorns breitbart dot com, a guy
• 5:21
  who was a legendary figure in conservative media, more so after he died than
• 5:26
  really when he was alive. But he and I were very very close for
• 5:30
  several years and then had a falling out just before he died. Suddenly,
• 5:33
  he used to use the phrase swift boating back to the two thousand and four
• 5:42
  presidential election where John Kerry, who was the Democratic nominee, was probably defeated
• 5:49
  in part because of the swift boat Veterans for Truth campaign that the media did
• 5:56
  not see coming, and it really had a lot of impact on Carrie's presidential
• 6:02
  hopes. Now who knows whether or not it was the reason why he lost.
• 6:05
  It was a pretty close election, very close actually, but the swiftbone
• 6:10
  Veterans for Truth, who were trying to tell what their version of the truth
• 6:14
  was regarding John Carey's Vietnam service, they got a lot of credit for defeating
• 6:19
  him, and Breitbart always used to talk about how the news media has learned
• 6:24
  from that experience that they no longer let any swift boats get out of port.
• 6:30
  They take it very very seriously that if they see a potential conservative movement
• 6:36
  gaining traction, they need to kill it in port, destroyed in port before
• 6:41
  the swift boat gets out of the port. That was his analogy that Breitbart
• 6:45
  would use. And I'm getting the same vibes when it comes to Souden of
• 6:48
  Freedom because they let this one slip out of port. This swift boat got
• 6:54
  out, and it's gotten traction, and it's driving the left wing media at
• 7:00
  asolutely nuts. Let me just give you a few examples. Here's a rolling
• 7:02
  Stone, which might have the worst example of their treatment of the film Sound
• 7:06
  of Freedom. Now let's be clear, by all accounts, I've not seen
• 7:11
  it, but I know people who have who I trust, who say this
• 7:15
  is an absolutely fantastic movie. I mean, there even been some critics who
• 7:18
  have had to begrudgingly admit that it's a great movie. But it's also an
• 7:24
  incredibly important topic child sex trafficking. I mean, who would be against raising
• 7:29
  awareness for this horrible problem of child sex trafficking. But apparently if it's perceived
• 7:36
  as being attached to a conservative victory and getting outside the left wing grip of
• 7:44
  Hollywood, then it has to be destroyed, or at least it has to
• 7:46
  be demeaned and diminished in every way possible. So here's what Rolling Stone wrote.
• 7:54
  They wrote in their article about Sound of Freedom. Their tweet said,
• 7:58
  review Sound of Freedom, the q onon tinged thriller about child trafficking is designed
• 8:07
  to appeal to the conscience of a conspiracy addled Bloomer. Then the headline of
• 8:15
  the article actually is Sound of Freedom is a superhero movie for dads with brainworms.
• 8:24
  So this is the surprise hit of the summer. I mean, a
• 8:28
  huge number of people are going to see it. By all accounts, it's
• 8:31
  very well done, it's on an important subject, and the immediate knee jerk
• 8:35
  reaction of the left wing media is we must destroy this because Jim Caviezel is
• 8:39
  seen as somehow a conservative figure, because he's very Christian, and because he
• 8:45
  has dabbled with qan On, which somehow has gotten connected to Trump. And
• 8:50
  there's no question that Jim has said some things that are absolutely crazy, and
• 8:56
  I have never met. Actually i've met Jim Caviezel. I have photograph of
• 9:00
  Jim Cofee, so we met at a conservative conference many years ago. But
• 9:03
  I know people who know him, and he seems like a very nice guy.
• 9:07
  But there definitely seems to be a screw loose. And you know,
• 9:11
  does that mean that he can't make a movie. Well, that clearly he
• 9:15
  can still make a movie. He's made several in recent years that were very
• 9:18
  good, and this one appears to have been some of his best work.
• 9:22
  And certainly it's people are responding at the box office. But Rolling Stone decides
• 9:28
  that they're just going to completely destroy him. To mean this, They're not
• 9:31
  alone. The Washington Post they tweeted out Sound of Freedom, the low budget
• 9:37
  film about child sex trafficking, almost topped the box office on July fourth,
• 9:41
  But it's star Jim Caviezel has linked it to q to the q Andon movement.
• 9:48
  Now, for those who don't know the QAnon movement, I don't even
• 9:50
  know how, really how to describe it. It's just a batshit crazy theory
• 9:54
  about all sorts of things that I really honestly cannot plane. It's just it's
• 10:01
  just absolutely nuts. Um. But um, but their subheadline is a Sound
• 10:05
  of Freedom is a box office hit whose star embraces Q and on which again,
• 10:11
  okay, fine, um, I don't remember all the Top Gun two
• 10:16
  stories about how Tom Cruise embraces scientology. I mean, where's the headline Scientology's
• 10:24
  spokespersts that are star Tom Cruise blows out the box office with this equal to
• 10:28
  Top Gun? Very little of that. They might be an occasional mention the
• 10:33
  fact that he's a scientologist, but it's nowhere near the same thing, even
• 10:37
  though in the media it's not the same thing, even though I would have
• 10:41
  suggested that it's very very similar. It's it's both are based in crackpot theories
• 10:46
  that are not in any way, shape or form related to reality. Now,
• 10:50
  what's really interesting about the way the Washington Post and The Rolling Stone have
• 10:54
  treated Sound of Freedom is that they had a very different treatment of a movie
• 10:58
  called Q, which created a lot of controversy because it seemed to exploit young
• 11:03
  girls sexually. And here's what the Post tweeted about Cutie's perspective. Cutis is
• 11:11
  an unflinching look at what it means to be a preteen girl. No wonder
• 11:16
  people can't handle it. So it's your problem if you can't just handle this
• 11:20
  sexualizing of preteen girls in The Washington Post and then Rolling Stone similarly, maybe
• 11:26
  going a step further, wrote thanks to a major marketing mistake, the award
• 11:31
  winning French film Cuties was accused of sexualizing young girls. It's actually a sensitive
• 11:37
  portrait of growing pains that deserves to be seen. Now. Contrasts that again
• 11:45
  to Sound of Freedom. But it wasn't just the Washington Post or Rolling Stone.
• 11:50
  The Guardian deserves special mention for their treatment of Sound of Freedom headlines Sound
• 11:56
  of Freedom, the QAnon adjacent thrillers Seducing a Man. Jim Caviesel stars as
• 12:01
  a hero trying to stop child traffickers in a paranoid new movie turning into a
• 12:07
  surprise box office hit. And they begin They begin this article by saying,
• 12:13
  type the words Sound of Freedom into Twitter. Decent people who wish to live
• 12:20
  good, happy lives should, under no circumstances, actually do this. That's
• 12:24
  the lead, and the search will yield dozens of triumphant reports crowing about the
• 12:31
  improbable victory of a film by that title over the likes of Indiana Jones at
• 12:37
  the box office this week. That's not strictly speaking accurate. Indiana Jones and
• 12:41
  the dial Destiny had already been out for five days, the first three of
• 12:46
  which out earns Sound of Freedom's opening Day, blah blah blah. So they're
• 12:48
  trying to rationalize this really isn't this great conservative victory. But more importantly,
• 12:54
  this is something that if you're not a conservative nutjob, you should not pay
• 12:58
  any attention to whatsoever. Pay no attention to the surprise Hollywood hit of the
• 13:03
  summer dealing with a very serious topic of child sex trafficking. No, no,
• 13:07
  no, Just focus on the fact that the star, Jim Caviezel,
• 13:11
  has ties to QAnon. So that's the left wing media's way of handling this
• 13:18
  kind of situation, which, of course, you know, only further creates
• 13:22
  distrust. But more importantly, I think the major issue to me is going
• 13:26
  back to your Breitbart's theory on this, the left wing media looks at their
• 13:33
  role as controlling the narratives and controlling the output of information, and anything that
• 13:43
  breaks their monopoly makes them very, very nervous. That's why during COVID they
• 13:48
  were so into the censorship, because you know, our view is that masks
• 13:54
  work and the vaccines are awesome, and that schools should be closed and blah
• 13:58
  blah blah blah blah. We're not allowed to have anybody tell you a different
• 14:01
  version of reality because we control the information that really matters, and because we're
• 14:09
  now living in this fragmented age, it's more and more theoretically possible for a
• 14:16
  swift boat to get out of port. Now, to get out of port
• 14:18
  to this degree, to twenty million dollars plus in one week, is still
• 14:22
  very, very difficult because it takes money an organization to do that, and
• 14:28
  a lot of luck. Well, apparently all that has conspired together when it
• 14:31
  comes to sound and of freedom. And like I said, I haven't seen
• 14:33
  the movie, but I respect people who told me it's awesome and that it's
• 14:37
  must see, So I intend to eventually see it when possible, although obviously
• 14:43
  not with my kids, probably not even with my wife because it'll scare the
• 14:46
  crap out of her. But the reality area is that we have a classic
• 14:50
  situation of something that is perceived as conservative, which I don't even know how
• 14:54
  the hell this gets perceived as conservative breaking out, and the left wing media's
• 14:58
  need your reaction is it must be destroyed. It must be destroyed, and
• 15:03
  it doesn't matter what the truth is, and we're going to do everything we
• 15:05
  can to destroy it. And that's what the left wing media has been trying
• 15:09
  to do the Sound of Freedom, and they will have no impact when it
• 15:13
  comes to its popularity on the right. In fact, they might even increase
• 15:16
  its popularity on the right, but they still have some control over whether or
• 15:20
  not anyone on the left gives it any attention. Because if we still lived
• 15:24
  in a world where everything wasn't left and right, this surprise it would get
• 15:28
  attention from everybody, and even people on the left might go, oh,
• 15:33
  what's this, Maybe I should check it out. But the left wing media
• 15:35
  is doing everything they possibly can to make sure that doesn't happen. I want
• 15:39
  to address something that has happened in the Trump to Santis race because it deals
• 15:46
  with someone I've spoken a lot about on this podcast and had as a guest
• 15:50
  on this podcast. His name is Steve Cortez. He's a friend of mine.
• 15:54
  Although we've never met, we've spoken many dozens of times. But in
• 16:00
  addition to the interview that he did on this podcast, when he decided to
• 16:03
  join the de Santist Political Action Committee never backed down after having been a close
• 16:10
  Trump aid for several years. And you know, because Steve was such a
• 16:15
  big Trump supporter and now he's the Santis supporter, we have a pretty unique
• 16:18
  relationship, especially since as an anti Trump guy, I was probably the person
• 16:23
  who most vociferously tried to convince him not to jump ship to the Santists because
• 16:30
  I did not think the Santist was going to win, and that personally it
• 16:33
  was probably gonna be bad for Steve in the long run to burn his bridge
• 16:37
  with the Trump and Trump world. I also, by the way, for
• 16:42
  those of you think, well, I'm not down with the cause, I'm
• 16:45
  always thinking, you know, trying to think two or three steps ahead.
• 16:49
  If in fact Trump's the nominee and maybe even president, I would like someone
• 16:55
  like Steve near Trump in an I Hill world, because Steve might be the
• 17:00
  only person with the brains and the balls and the character to actually tell Trump
• 17:03
  when he's wrong, and he's proven that he's willing to do that in the
• 17:07
  past. Well, Steve's relationship with Trump has become a bit of a news
• 17:12
  story in the last week or so because Steve made some comments in a Twitter
• 17:18
  spaces. I don't even know if you would call it an interview, but
• 17:22
  I guess, for lack of a better term, I'll call it an interview
• 17:25
  where he referenced that Trump is way ahead, which is true, and that
• 17:30
  you know, this is problematic for winning the nomination, and he even theorized
• 17:36
  that Trump could win the nomination and that the Santisi's campaign may actually help him
• 17:41
  be a better candidate in the general action because he'll have actually have faced a
• 17:45
  legitimate primary opponent. And then he also said that Trump is a maestro when
• 17:51
  it comes to debating, and basically, you know, said that it's a
• 17:56
  very he's very formidable as a debate opponent, and we'll see what happens with
• 18:00
  that. And these comments created a bit of news coverage because here you have
• 18:06
  someone who works for the Desantist Political Action Committee seemingly praising Donald Trump and being
• 18:11
  very honest about the state of the race, which I have been very honest
• 18:15
  about the state of the race, probably be more so publicly than Steve has.
• 18:18
  And it's done me no favors. All I get is criticism and lose
• 18:22
  Twitter followers from DeSantis people, because no one wants to hear the truth.
• 18:26
  No one wants to hear the reality that this was always going to be a
• 18:30
  very uphill battle, and now it's looking like we're climbing Mount Everest in bad
• 18:34
  weather. And not that I've totally given up yet, but that's the reality
• 18:40
  of this. And Steve got a lot of criticism publicly from DeSantis supporters for
• 18:45
  what I think is unfair reasons. First of all, he's telling the truth
• 18:49
  and sounding the alarm with regard to the state of the race. That's number
• 18:53
  one. The truth is always important, and in this case, I totally
• 18:59
  believe in sound alarms before it's too late. It may already be too late,
• 19:03
  but we were still several months before any actual votes are cast, or
• 19:07
  still over a month away from the first debate that's been scheduled, and so
• 19:12
  there's still theoretical time here. But I believe there has to be a change
• 19:18
  in course. So I support Steve in sounding the alarm. But as far
• 19:22
  as complimenting Trump as a debater, I actually thought this was brilliant, and
• 19:29
  I thought this immediately because Steve knows Trump very very well, and the way
• 19:36
  to play Trump is obviously by appealing to his ego and I have said on
• 19:41
  numerous occasions on this podcast, Donald Trump is either not gonna do the debates
• 19:48
  or he's going to sabotage the debates by having the leverage to create the rules
• 19:53
  where it's basically impossible for anyone to attack him, and there'll be too many
• 19:59
  people in the stage, and the right people in his mind will be on
• 20:00
  the stage, and the rules will be set up in his favor. And
• 20:03
  so those people in the de Santist camp who have been waiting for the debates
• 20:07
  for finally Trump to be exposed and finally Trump to be attacked and the Santists
• 20:12
  to take some semblance of control of the race, I think are delusional.
• 20:17
  And that's just assuming that Trump even does the debates. But by Cortez complimating,
• 20:22
  complimenting Trump's debating ability, which I'm not one hundred percent sure I agree
• 20:26
  with that from a factual standpoint. Steve and I have talked about that.
• 20:30
  I'm I'm not sure Trump is really that great a debater. I just think
• 20:33
  he plays by different rules than the rest of the field does. But that's
• 20:37
  another story for another day. The point of this is that by appealing to
• 20:41
  Trump's ego, I believe that Steve has increased the chances that Trump does in
• 20:49
  fact do the debates, which you desperately need to happen, because when the
• 20:55
  deck is stacked against Chew, anything that changes the deck at all is inherently
• 21:00
  good. And so if Trump were not to do the debates, and he
• 21:03
  would to get away with that, this thing would be officially over because there'd
• 21:08
  be no real legitimate way to make up the massive amount of ground that would
• 21:12
  have to be made up. And what I believe now is a fairly short
• 21:15
  period of time, given summertime and everything that else that happens between now and
• 21:21
  the end of the year, it's going to happen very very quickly by the
• 21:22
  time we get to Iowa and New Hampshire. And the other thing that Steve
• 21:27
  did was increase expectations for Trump. He's the maestro, right, He's this
• 21:30
  great debater. Well, that's the worst thing you can have when it comes
• 21:34
  to a debate is high expectations. So I thought what Steve did was fantastic.
• 21:41
  I don't have in any indication that the De Santis team agreed with that,
• 21:47
  but I disagree with the De Santist team all the time, almost on
• 21:51
  an increasing level on a daily basis. Well, yesterday is of this taping
• 21:56
  actually two days ago. Trump. Really, he's the statement on True Social,
• 22:00
  which I believe completely vindicated Steve and my view of what Steve was doing.
• 22:07
  This is Donald Trump on True Social with a post about Steve Cortez.
• 22:12
  Quote Steve Cortez, the Ron de sanctimonious top political strategist, thinks that Ron
• 22:19
  should get out now capitalized letters. That's false. That's a lie. Steve
• 22:26
  Cortes did not believe that Ron de Santras should get out of the race.
• 22:29
  I don't even know where Trump is coming up with that. It's just typical
• 22:32
  Trump. It's a flat out lie. But it's not the most important part
• 22:34
  of the statement. Trump continues while the getting is still good. He also
• 22:40
  said, parentheses, thank you Steve, exclamation point that Donald J. Trump
• 22:45
  is the best presidential debater ever and can't be beaten at the debate game.
• 22:52
  Well, based on that, maybe I should enter the debates. But then
• 22:56
  again, when you have a forty to fifty point lead over the field,
• 23:00
  maybe I shouldn't. Question mark. Question mark question mark, And I when
• 23:06
  I read that, I was like, Wow, Steve Cortes played Donald Trump
• 23:11
  like a fiddle, Like a goddamn fiddle. All you have to do is
• 23:15
  to appeal to his ego, and you know exactly what he's gonna do,
• 23:21
  because that was exactly the reaction that I believe Steve Cortes wanted to get out
• 23:26
  of Trump. You've got to get him into the debate game, and you've
• 23:30
  got to have it in a situation where expectations for Trump are as high as
• 23:34
  possible. That's the only scenario that might theoretically get you back in this game.
• 23:41
  And while what Steve did may not facilitate that reality from Trump's post,
• 23:47
  it's obvious that he moved the football in the right direction because cheer is Trump
• 23:52
  publicly acknowledging you know what, I'm so good at this. Maybe I really
• 23:55
  should do this. Maybe I would. I would be you know, making
• 24:00
  a mistake by not giving the American public what they deserve, which is my
• 24:03
  great debate skills. But then again, maybe I shouldn't because I'm so far
• 24:08
  ahead, which of course vindicates my view which I've been criticized for greatly,
• 24:14
  which I've been saying for months that the main problem that has occurred this year
• 24:18
  since the time period in January when this was close to a tied race.
• 24:23
  Is that now that Trump has broken containment, he has the leverage to do
• 24:27
  what he wants and he can avoid the debates should he choose to do so.
• 24:32
  And if I was a Trump advisor, god forbid, I would be
• 24:34
  telling him ditch the debates. There's really nothing forcing you to do them.
• 24:40
  Because the conservative media is terrified of you. They're not going to criticize you
• 24:42
  greatly for skipping the debates, especially when Biden's not doing debates. So kudos
• 24:49
  to my friend Steve Cortez for the effort. You know, whether or not
• 24:53
  it's going to work out, I don't know, but I do think that
• 24:59
  Steve is to do the right thing, and in this case, it was
• 25:00
  very obvious that Steve Cortez understands his old boss Donald Trump very well. Now
• 25:07
  I've said many times that the MVP of the Trump campaign so far has been
• 25:12
  Tucker Carlson, and this is particularly frustrating because I'm someone who has had a
• 25:18
  lot of respect for Tucker Carlson and once many years ago, work for him,
• 25:23
  used to have communication with him via text, although that has stopped since
• 25:27
  I ripped him to shreds several months ago when I realized what he was doing
• 25:32
  was going to very much help Trump win the nomination, and I criticized him
• 25:36
  both privately and publicly for that, and I think I've been one hundred percent
• 25:38
  vindicated in that view. I mean, if you look back so far in
• 25:41
  the history of this race, it really was Tucker Carlson, with the help
• 25:48
  of Glenn Beck, creating this narrative after the first Trump indictment, that Trump
• 25:52
  must be nominated otherwise we are setting a precedent that the left can get away
• 25:57
  with this, and we no longer have a country, we no longer have
• 26:00
  a republic, and all that stuff. I knew that was a very dangerous
• 26:03
  narrative. That narrative has taken hold, it got exacerbated with the second indictment.
• 26:08
  I even think that Tucker's firing very much helped Trump. Obviously, Tucker
• 26:14
  helped with the January sixth revisionist history and that whole story which exploded earlier this
• 26:18
  year. But the Tucker firing in many ways, I think was a huge
• 26:26
  boon. And I said this the day it happened to the Trump campaign,
• 26:30
  because Tucker was the one guy who theoretically had Trump world street cred. Who
• 26:37
  could have I'm not saying it would have happened, but who could have turned
• 26:41
  on Trump? And this was at a time period when Fox was still fought
• 26:45
  to have been moving away from Trump. I mean, Handy was never going
• 26:49
  to do it. Ingram was never going to do it. But Tucker had
• 26:52
  the street cred and the personality and maybe the balls to do it, the
• 27:00
  intellect to do it properly, and he could have theoretically been a leader in
• 27:06
  Fox News Channel finally divorcing themselves from Donald Trump. Instead, he went the
• 27:11
  exact opposite direction, and then his firing I think created the situation where Fox
• 27:17
  News had no leverage. They lost so much audience and so much street cred
• 27:21
  and Trump World by firing Tucker that they had no leverage anymore to divorce themselves
• 27:27
  from Trump, because if they divorced themselves from the guy who's the heavy favorite
• 27:32
  to be the Republican presidential nominee, then the whole thing could fall apart,
• 27:37
  and that was never going to happen. And so the Tucker firing, I
• 27:41
  think is the most underrated element of why it is that Trump is the heavy,
• 27:48
  heavy, heavy favorite for many, many reasons to be the Republican nominee
• 27:53
  in twenty twenty four. Well, Tucker has done his first interview since that
• 27:57
  firing, and he was asked about that firing. Now the interview is with
• 28:03
  Russell Brand, the comedian actor, British comedian actor who's very much a liberal,
• 28:08
  but to his credit, was a contrarian on COVID. So I give
• 28:14
  him respect for that, and I think that's how he and Tucker Carlson bonded.
• 28:18
  So Tucker went on Russell Brand's podcast or videocast and was asked about his
• 28:25
  firing, and his response I think was disingenuous, although interesting from a standpoint
• 28:32
  of his own personal happiness and how he thinks that that is maybe the greatest
• 28:37
  threat to his future when it comes to creating content. He gets to that
• 28:41
  towards the end of this response, but he's Here is the full question and
• 28:47
  answer from Russell Brand to Tucker Carlson on the issue of Tucker's firing from Fox,
• 28:53
  where Tucker still to this day, is just completely mystified as to why
• 28:57
  he was suddenly fired. Well, first of all, I want to start
• 29:02
  off viosity. It's like a how's it been in the six months? Six
• 29:04
  months or so since you left Fox, how have you been personally and how's
• 29:07
  it compared at the time when you left MSNBC in terms of its emotional impact
• 29:11
  on you. Well, I've been fired. You know. It's not the
• 29:15
  first time I've been fired. And I think in our business, when you
• 29:17
  work for a big company in media and you know, you say what you
• 29:21
  think, there's an expectation that you could get fired. So I've always had
• 29:25
  that, and I've always tried to take the long view, not just on
• 29:27
  media but on life. All graves go and visit it in the end.
• 29:32
  I always think that. And so I was. I was surprised. I
• 29:36
  didn't, you know, expect to get fired that morning at all in April.
• 29:41
  So I was shocked, but I wasn't really shocked, and I wasn't
• 29:45
  mad. It's not my company, and when you work for someone else,
• 29:48
  that person reserves the right and in fact has inherently the right to decide whether
• 29:55
  you work there or not. And I don't know why I was fired.
• 29:59
  I really don't. Uh. I'm not angry about it. You can believe
• 30:03
  me or not, but I think you can feel that I'm not And you
• 30:08
  know I wish Fox well, Uh, there was you know, ugly leaking.
• 30:14
  You know, I'm a racist or whatever. They leaked or someone there
• 30:17
  leaked to the New York Times. But I that's not true, and I
• 30:21
  think the people who run the company, No, that's not true. I
• 30:22
  actually don't think they did it. And I'm not mad about it. And
• 30:27
  I've been I've been happy. I guess the only thing that bothers me is
• 30:33
  I'm fifty four and when you get a little bit older, and my wife
• 30:37
  and I, you know, our children are grown, and we live in
• 30:40
  rural settings as you do, because we believe in nature and God and dogs.
• 30:45
  You know, you can lose your your drive. I mean, it's
• 30:49
  just a little bit too nice kind of And I do feel like we,
• 30:55
  you know, people who are healthy and aware and who can read, like
• 30:57
  have an obligation to be engaged in the life of the community they live in,
• 31:02
  and the life of the country they live in, and the life of
• 31:03
  the world to the extent that they can. And so my only fear has
• 31:08
  been maybe being a little bit too happy. You know. I've spent a
• 31:14
  lot of time trout fishing, a lot of time we have four dogs,
• 31:17
  a lot of time with my dogs, and my wife and a lot of
• 31:18
  kind of like late breakfast outside stuff. You know, luck you don't that's
• 31:23
  not I mean, that's great, but life has got to be more than
• 31:27
  that. So now I'm back to work, and I'm grateful to be to
• 31:30
  be doing that. The fact that you and that last portion there was was
• 31:34
  very interesting that the Tucker had the introspection to say, you know what,
• 31:37
  I might be too happy to still be effective at this game. I wish
• 31:42
  I would have that opportunity to determine whether or not that's actually a real threat,
• 31:48
  because I've never been in that position before. But good for him.
• 31:52
  But as far as the firing is concerned, I have said many times before
• 31:56
  and this answer certainly fits with my view on this is that basically Tucker's firing
• 32:01
  has become a religious holiday for conspiracy theorists, because every single conspiracy theorist can
• 32:08
  come up with their own pet explanation for why Tucker was fired. Of course,
• 32:13
  Tucker has an interest in not putting any cold water on that. He
• 32:17
  also has an interest in not telling the truth, which is what I said
• 32:21
  immediately. In fact, I went on News Nation television and said this because
• 32:24
  had a very very good source and that source turned out to be vindicated in
• 32:29
  the Wall Street Journal. That the primary reason, and whenever something the shocking
• 32:34
  happens, there's always going to be multiple reasons. But the primary reason was
• 32:38
  that Tucker Carlson, in court documents related to the Dominion Voting System's lawsuit,
• 32:45
  called his female boss, for lack of a better term, the C word,
• 32:50
  and then when the lawyers came to him and said, hey, we've
• 32:52
  got this redacted. You know you might want to thank us for it,
• 32:57
  Tucker basically said, why I want the world to know that he's the C
• 33:00
  word? Well, I'm sorry, I don't care who you are. In
• 33:04
  twenty twenty three, that's a fireball offense, especially when you're not making nearly
• 33:07
  as much money from them for the company as is perceived, because advertising on
• 33:13
  your show is perceived as toxic and none of the big time you know,
• 33:17
  dal Jones, SMP five hundred companies are advertising on your show, and therefore
• 33:24
  ad rates are lower, and because of the broken business model cable news,
• 33:30
  it's just not generating nearly the same kind of income as it might have previously
• 33:34
  with a show that was getting two and a half million viewers per night and
• 33:38
  so that's the real reason why Tucker was fired. I can understand why he's
• 33:43
  not saying that, especially given the fact that all these conspiracy theorists would love
• 33:47
  to have Tucker's firing be related to their pet cause. And I'm very frustrated
• 33:55
  that Tucker has become such a conspiracy theorist. Don't know how many of these
• 34:00
  conspiracy theories he actually believes, but it certainly seems as if he believes the
• 34:07
  one that I've mentioned several times previously in this podcast about the jfk assassination and
• 34:13
  how the CIA killed John F. Kennedy in nineteen sixty three. And this
• 34:20
  was further perpetuated this view by the fact that the Biden administration a few days
• 34:25
  ago announced that while they're releasing more documents related to the assassination, they are
• 34:31
  not, as had been previously required by law, releasing all of the documentation,
• 34:38
  all the classified documents related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
• 34:44
  That over ninety nine percent of all the documents have been released, but there
• 34:46
  are a few that are still being held back. Now, this in the
• 34:51
  conspiracy world is like game set match. Obviously there's a massive conspiracy. Otherwise
• 34:58
  why wouldn't you just release saw the documents if you have nothing to hide?
• 35:01
  And that's basically where Tucker is on this. And Tucker is completely sold on
• 35:08
  this one unnamed person that he has spoken to, who allegedly has seen the
• 35:14
  documents, who told him yep, the CIA killed Kennedy. As if you
• 35:17
  know, a non public interview with a person who's anonymous who saw documents that
• 35:24
  aren't public and therefore is inherently credible. I mean, that's just that's a
• 35:30
  joke that doesn't even pass the laugh test from a journalism standpoint. But that's
• 35:34
  what Tucker believes, and that's what here's what he said about that with Russell
• 35:38
  brand I just reclassified the Kennedy documents sixty years after his assassination. No one
• 35:45
  even peripherally involved is still alive. So what could possibly be the sources in
• 35:51
  methods that were supposedly showing the world by declassifying these are so outdated they're irrelevant.
• 35:58
  They were using disappearing ink in the sixty three So why in the world
• 36:02
  would we be continuing to hide the truth about the Kennedy assassination sixty years later?
• 36:07
  And of course the answer is obvious because it implicates not individuals, but
• 36:12
  institutions and reveals them as as as complicit in a in a murder and in
• 36:19
  the overthrow the US government, and the US government is complicit in the overthrow
• 36:22
  the US government. And that's the truth. I know that for a fact
• 36:27
  because I interviewed someone who saw the documents, and so you know, we
• 36:31
  have a long way. Look, the bottom line is, unless there is
• 36:35
  a compelling reason that relates to imminent physical security of citizens, we should never
• 36:43
  hide the truth from the population in a democracy, period, because that's that
• 36:49
  is incompatible with democracy. Secrecy is incompatible with democracy. How can I I'm
• 36:52
  runing the government, but you can't tell me what the government's doing. That's
• 36:55
  not democracy. That's it's something else. And don't insult me by calling it
• 36:59
  a democracy. It's very much not. And so, yes, there is
• 37:02
  much that remains secret. I'm not going to speculate, and you don't need
• 37:06
  to be conspiracy that we have in the United States. We've over a billion
• 37:09
  federal documents that remain classified, a billion going back to the Second World War.
• 37:15
  So that's a democracy. That is not a democracy. It's just not
• 37:21
  tell me how it is. Yes, now I have been stating on this
• 37:24
  podcast for months that Tucker is wrong about the CIA killing John F. Kennedy.
• 37:31
  Now, could the CIA have stopped it? Sure? I mean,
• 37:36
  I think there's a lot of evidence that a lot of people dropped the ball,
• 37:39
  all sorts of law enforcement agencies dropped the ball and allowed what happened to
• 37:45
  occur. Not on purpose, is because it was a different time period and
• 37:47
  far more innocent era and incompetence reigns throughout humanity, especially when it comes to
• 37:54
  government, and hindsight is twenty twenty. But the idea that there was a
• 37:59
  conspiracy to kill Kennedy, I have said many times, is not consistent at
• 38:02
  all with the facts or the logic of the case. And I get mocked
• 38:07
  for this. I get mocked all the time. I tweeted about this when
• 38:10
  the Tucker interview came out, and I got just trashed by all sorts of
• 38:15
  people thinking that I'm completely crazy. And I've decided that, you know what,
• 38:21
  I can't take it anymore. I have to outline what I very strongly
• 38:25
  believe really did and did not happen with regard to the jfk assassination. I
• 38:31
  had intended to wait until November with the sixtieth anniversary, but I can't do
• 38:37
  it anymore. And I think that Tucker's statements, as well as what the
• 38:40
  Biden administration did, is a pretty good news hook for doing this now,
• 38:45
  and it also kind of works from the standpoint of the scheduling of this podcast.
• 38:50
  So I'm going to do that for the rest of this episode. And
• 38:55
  I'm excited about doing it because I've never done this public before. I don't
• 39:00
  think anyone's ever tried to do this publicly before. But I'm also I have
• 39:05
  a little bit of trepidation because this is a herculean task what I'm about to
• 39:08
  go into here. I don't think anyone's ever even tried to do what I'm
• 39:12
  about to do, which is to fully explain the Kennedy assassination in a way
• 39:17
  that provides you with a very different view than anybody else has ever presented that
• 39:23
  I'm aware of in a public forum. And one of the many challenges in
• 39:29
  doing this is that this is a subject on which there is wide disparity of
• 39:35
  knowledge. I mean, there are you know, obviously, it happened almost
• 39:37
  sixty years ago, so most people I've live today, we're not even alive
• 39:44
  during the Kennedy assassination. And while there have been hundreds of books written about
• 39:49
  it, you know, there are a lot of people who have extensive knowledge,
• 39:52
  and then there also are a lot of people who just have very basic,
• 39:57
  rudimentary knowledge of the whole thing. And so I'm going to try very
• 40:01
  hard to have my argument appeal to both groups of people. If you're if
• 40:07
  you're really steeped in the the facts of the case and then and have a
• 40:12
  great deal knowledge of the case, I think you'll appreciate where I'm coming from.
• 40:15
  And hopefully, if you don't, you're going to learn a lot.
• 40:19
  So I urge you to bear with me here as I go through this this
• 40:23
  unprecedented effort. And I can assure you that if you if you do bear
• 40:28
  with me, you're going to look at this entire situation very differently, and
• 40:31
  I hope you're going to at least understand where I'm coming from, where I
• 40:37
  am positive that the conspiracy theorists are wrong in the essence of what happened.
• 40:45
  Now, for a little bit of context, I want to provide some how
• 40:52
  significant the actual Kenned the assassination was. I mean, it was obviously the
• 41:00
  killing of a US president. It's always going to be a massive story,
• 41:04
  and you know, this was as big as it gets, but it was
• 41:08
  even bigger than the killing of a US president. I believe that the cultural
• 41:14
  history of the United States of America has a demarcation point, which is before
• 41:20
  and after the Kennedy assassination. I believe that the Kenned they assassination ended the
• 41:27
  era of American innocence, of American romance, that Americans looked at the world
• 41:34
  completely differently after the Kennedy assassination. From a media perspective, I think you
• 41:38
  can write the history of the modern media from basically the morning of November twenty
• 41:45
  second, nineteen sixty three to the afternoon of November twenty, nineteen sixty three,
• 41:50
  or maybe a couple of days after that, because that's really when the
• 41:53
  modern media completely changed, and when television overtook print journalism or started to and
• 42:01
  radio, because that's when television really dominated a news story for the first time
• 42:08
  in a one in a very dramatic way. And so you cannot underestimate how
• 42:15
  important the Kennedy assassination is. Now, that's not really the reason why it
• 42:20
  still fascinates people to this day. It fascinates people to this day because there
• 42:23
  is a mystery involved. How did it happen, who did it, who
• 42:27
  was behind it? People love a mystery. That's really the juice that keeps
• 42:31
  interest in this and the conspiracy theories clearly are a huge part of that.
• 42:37
  But another reason why I want to do this is because the factual record is
• 42:40
  important. The truth matters. It's a large part of why I did,
• 42:45
  and Lizabe with me and Mgavino, our producer did with the benefit of hindsight
• 42:51
  on the whole Penn State Joe Paterno Jerry Sandski situation. I fully realize that
• 42:57
  my very strong view in that case was ever going to win the day,
• 43:01
  but at least we created a factual record with that epic podcast, and I
• 43:07
  am positive that the factual record on the Kennedy assassination is wrong, but not
• 43:13
  in a way that lines up with the conspiracy theorists. And then the last
• 43:17
  reason why I am so passionate about this topic is that I cannot stand how
• 43:24
  conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists like even Tucker Carlson have completely dominated Republican politics,
• 43:35
  and by the way politics in general have now become dominated by conspiracy theories on
• 43:42
  the left and the right. But I thought the right was better than this
• 43:45
  prior to Trump. And now. I mean, when I think of the
• 43:49
  list of things you got to believe to be a Republican, most of them
• 43:52
  have to do with conspiracy theories, crazy conspiracy theories. And I've gone through
• 43:58
  them many times. I get mocked all the time for not believing them.
• 44:00
  For you know, I use as the ultimate example, Epstein didn't kill himself.
• 44:06
  Yeah, Epstein did kill himself. At least tell me who the suspect
• 44:09
  is. I mean, if he was murdered because he was in a federal
• 44:13
  freaking prison, and the cover up and the conspiracy would have been massive and
• 44:16
  nonsensical. But I don't want to get sidetracked. The reality is that conspiracy
• 44:22
  theories have dominated now are politics in general and specifically Republican politics, and they
• 44:29
  have played very much into the hands of Donald Trump. And this bothers me
• 44:34
  greatly. And I think a lot of it goes back to the jfk assassination.
• 44:37
  Look at Tucker. I mean, Tucker is convinced wrongly, based upon
• 44:44
  one conversation with one unknown guy, that Kennedy was killed by the CIA,
• 44:49
  well, if you believe that, then it's a hell of a lot easier
• 44:52
  to believe all sorts of other nonsense. I mean, I use the you
• 44:59
  know, the Santa Claus analogy, and if you believe in that, then
• 45:05
  it's a lot easier to believe in the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy and
• 45:08
  O. J. Simpson's innocence, I mean, all sorts of fairy tales.
• 45:13
  I mean, And so one begets another. If you believe that our
• 45:17
  government killed our president and got away with it scott free, then it's a
• 45:22
  how of a lot easier to believe a whole bunch of other nonsense. And
• 45:27
  I think that might be the essence of the many reasons why I'm passionate about
• 45:31
  this, But that might be the primary explanation for why it is that I
• 45:37
  have studied this case so extensively for so long. In fact, I would
• 45:40
  argue that I may have put almost as many hours, not as many,
• 45:45
  that couldn't possibly be as many, but almost as many hours into this case
• 45:51
  as I have into the Penn State patern of Sandowsky case. And by the
• 45:54
  way, I think there are some similarities. Are there definitely some similarities with
• 45:58
  regard to how my evolution on the case went. But before I get into
• 46:05
  my evolution on the case and my view of what really happened and the counter
• 46:10
  narrative that no one has ever been able to figure out, which I believe
• 46:15
  is the truth, I want to play one other clip from from Robert Kennedy
• 46:20
  Junior. Since I said that, you know, our politics are now infested
• 46:23
  with conspiracies. Obviously, RFK Junior is running for the Democratic nomination. He
• 46:30
  is the nephew of JFK the son of RFK who was also assassinated. And
• 46:37
  RFK Junior is adamant, much like Tucker Carlson, that the CIA effectively killed
• 46:45
  his uncle, John F. Kennedy. And you know, that's extraordinary to
• 46:47
  have a guy running for president who is, you know, obviously a Kennedy
• 46:53
  who was the nephew of John F. Kennedy, making this statement in public
• 47:00
  on numerous occasions, yet he doesn't have anything to back it up. I
• 47:04
  mean, by this point, sixty years later, there ought to be if
• 47:07
  it's really happened, there ought to be massive amounts of evidence that you could
• 47:12
  specifically point to, not just vaguely, but very specifically saying this person did
• 47:19
  this at this time, and they did so on behalf of the government.
• 47:22
  Here's the evidence to prove it, something along those lines. But instead,
• 47:27
  RFK Jr. Goes on Sean Hannity Show on Fox News Channel, and by
• 47:30
  the way, I've been very critical of handed because I think he's an idiot.
• 47:35
  But my interpretation of this question from Hannity is a little bit of skepticism,
• 47:39
  and I'm wondering whether not he did so in reaction to his rival at
• 47:44
  the time, Tucker Carlson, because this happened a couple of months ago that
• 47:47
  Tucker was already gone. But Tucker was already you know, obviously very much
• 47:52
  in the realm of pro JFK conspiracy theories, were Handedy somewhat skeptically, in
• 47:59
  my interpretation, asks RFK Junior about this concept of the of the CIA having
• 48:07
  conspired to kill his uncle and listen to how bereft of any semblance of substance
• 48:15
  or evidence. RFK Junior's responses. Now, remember, this is a very
• 48:21
  unique opportunity for him. He's on Fox News Channel in front of you know,
• 48:25
  at least a million or maybe two million people, and this is a
• 48:30
  clip that's likely to go viral if he has any substance to it. This
• 48:36
  is his opportunity to prove his case, and in my opinion, RFK Junior
• 48:40
  comes up absolutely positively and said, the evidence is overwhelming and beyond any reasonable
• 48:47
  doubt that the CIA was involved in the killing of your uncle, a US
• 48:53
  president. What is the evidence, Well, you know, there's millions of
• 49:01
  pages of documents of CIA documents of transcripts of recorded conversations from Recuban embassy in
• 49:14
  Mexico City. From I mean, it's to summarize the evidence. There are,
• 49:20
  as I said in that in that podcast, there are confessions of people
• 49:27
  who are directly involved in the plot, who are involved in the planning of
• 49:30
  the plot, who were peripheral to the plot. There's a sixty year cover
• 49:36
  up. So again, if Urka Junior really had something substantive, it would
• 49:42
  be in that response. But instead there's absolutely nothing. Because that's all they
• 49:46
  have is the appearance of conspiracy. And I get that on the surface,
• 49:54
  this story screams conspiracy. It screams conspiracy. In fact, when I was
• 50:02
  young and dumb, I totally bought into JFK conspiracies. I mean, because
• 50:08
  my god, I mean, just look at the basics of it. You've
• 50:12
  got Lee Harvey Oswald, who you know, had connection. He was in
• 50:15
  Russia and Mexico and connected to pro Castro Cuban groups, and then he gets
• 50:22
  killed by this seemingly mob figure, Jack Ruby, and you know, my
• 50:29
  god, it just screams conspiracy. And when I was in my early twenties
• 50:35
  and started to investigate this, largely because I'd always been fascinated by the Kennedy's,
• 50:38
  because my own personal family hated the Kennedys because they believed that they would
• 50:45
  have been the Kennedy's of Philadelphia, being Irish Catholic people who came to this
• 50:51
  country to sell alcohol and had been very, very successful. And then there
• 50:54
  was prohibition and the Kennedy's continue to bootleg and the Trainers, my mother's family,
• 51:00
  did not, and they're both very political. The Trainers were conservatives and
• 51:04
  that Kennedy's were liberals, and there's all sorts of parallels. But there's a
• 51:08
  lot of Kennedy hatred in my larger family on my mother's side, and I've
• 51:14
  always been fascinated by it. When I first started looking at it, I
• 51:17
  a hundred percent bought in to the conspiracy theories. One hundred percent, so
• 51:22
  much like my Penn State Paterno Sandusky investigation, I began with the premise that
• 51:30
  basically I bought into a whole series of beliefs that in the end I realized
• 51:37
  we're not true, and that we're not based in evidence and we're not based
• 51:40
  in logic. And one of my bedrock principles that I've discussed previously on the
• 51:46
  Death of journalism about the news media, especially the modern news media, is
• 51:51
  that the bigger the story is, the more likely it is that the media
• 51:57
  will screw it up. This is almost a universal truth. I mean about
• 52:02
  the only story that I can think of that doesn't fit this is nine to
• 52:07
  eleven. Nine to eleven. The news media did a pretty darn good job
• 52:10
  of separating fact from fiction, although there were obviously many mistakes that were made
• 52:15
  in fact. I made a movie about one of them, which was the
• 52:19
  censorship of the ABC docudrama The Path to nine to eleven because they were protecting
• 52:23
  Bill Clinton, but that happened five years later. But by and large,
• 52:28
  the essence of the nine to eleven story is correct. But other than that,
• 52:32
  the bigger the story, the more likely it is that there will be
• 52:37
  massive screwups in the narrative, because when a story gets too large, it
• 52:42
  creates perverse incentives for those involved, and the Kennedy assassination absolutely, absolutely has
• 52:51
  created perverse incentives for anybody who looked into this, and weirdly for decades,
• 53:00
  for decades, the real money, the real attention. Then anyone could get
• 53:07
  a little bit like a climate change global warming, where if you're going to
• 53:10
  study this, you almost have to be in the conspiracy realm, because if
• 53:15
  you're not, you're not going to get any traction, or you're not gonna
• 53:20
  your book's not going to sell very much. And there have been a couple
• 53:23
  of exceptions where people have tried to put forward the more establishment view and have
• 53:30
  done so in successful ways, but by and large, by and large,
• 53:35
  there are only two tracks that are viable in this story, and I believe
• 53:39
  both attracts are wrong. There's the conspiracy track, where you've got to built
• 53:45
  in audience because most of the country believes that there was a conspiracy to kill
• 53:51
  JK. That Oswald did not act alone, so that's the easiest track to
• 53:55
  gain traction. And then the other track is basically backing up the Warren Commission,
• 54:01
  the Warren Commission was the group that was tasked with coming to conclusions about
• 54:07
  what happened. They were basically rubber stamping the government's view that Oswald acted alone,
• 54:15
  and I believe that the Warren Commission was also wrong. I'm in a
• 54:19
  very small group here. I am quite sure that the conspiracy theorists are wrong,
• 54:25
  and I'm almost as sure that the Warren Commission blew it on the basic
• 54:30
  logistics of how this actually happened, which is why there are so many conspiracy
• 54:36
  theorists out there. A large part of the reason why the conspiracy theories are
• 54:42
  so rampant is because no one buys the basic conclusions of the Warren Commission,
• 54:47
  and they shouldn't because the Warren Commission was wrong. And I'm gonna explain how
• 54:53
  and why the Warren Commission blew it on the logistics which fostered so many of
• 55:00
  these conspiracy theories over the last sixty years. Now, for the record,
• 55:07
  my evolution on this thing was based, ironically in two books with which I
• 55:13
  disagree, but they were a great resource for me, I believe, being
• 55:19
  able to figure out what really did and did not happen. One of them
• 55:22
  is called Six Seconds in Dallas, a book by Josiah Thompson. Now Josiah
• 55:27
  Thompson is a conspiracy nut, but there's a lot of things in that book
• 55:32
  that I was able to use as factual evidence that I believe he misinterpreted that
• 55:40
  made up my eventual theory about what happened here. The best book ever written,
• 55:45
  in my opinion, on the Kennedy assassination is called Case Closed. You
• 55:51
  know, that's a pretty audacious title after all that's been written and said about
• 55:55
  the Kennedy assassination. But Case Closed by Gerald Posner. And I've interviewed Gerald
• 56:00
  Posner a couple of different times in my career and we're still in touch,
• 56:04
  and I hope to interview him again as we get closer to the sixtieth anniversary
• 56:07
  of the assassination in November. But Case Closed basically is taking the position that
• 56:13
  the Warren Commission almost entirely got this right. And it is voluminous, and
• 56:19
  it is incredibly detailed and unbelievably well researched. And I am not a voracious
• 56:27
  reader. Reading is difficult for me, but I remember getting that book in
• 56:31
  my twenties and reading it twice in a week because I was just so interested
• 56:39
  in trying to figure out what really happened, because no scenario made any damn
• 56:44
  sense to me. And again, I was a conspiracy theorist when I picked
• 56:50
  up Case Closed. I was not at the end of having read Case Closed.
• 56:55
  The public, as I've mentioned, is completely convinced of the conspiracy.
• 57:00
  The big picture here clearly indicates a conspiracy. If you know nothing about the
• 57:06
  case other than the very basics of Oswald and Ruby and the questions about the
• 57:13
  logistics, then you are going to be in the conspiracy camp. Because it's
• 57:17
  very difficult for people to grasp the idea that an American president, even in
• 57:22
  a different era in nineteen sixty three, could possibly be assassinated by a bunch
• 57:28
  of losers working alone, you know, Oswald working alone and Ruby working alone.
• 57:35
  That's very, very difficult for people to grasp because in the human mind,
• 57:39
  we need there to be some level of equality between the nature of the
• 57:45
  act and the nature of the force behind it, and so we just can't
• 57:49
  grasp the idea that such a massive act of evil could be done in such
• 57:53
  an unsophisticated and really rudimentary fashion and almost haphazard fashion. But I would argue
• 58:01
  as I've already mentioned that one of the reason, one of the main reasons
• 58:07
  that conspiracy theories have been able to foster is that the government's story, as
• 58:14
  articulated by the Warren Commission, just doesn't make sense logistically. And I'm going
• 58:21
  to talk a lot about the logistics here, hopefully in a way that it's
• 58:24
  easily understood to people who are both knowledgeable and aren't that knowledgeable about the assassination.
• 58:32
  The clip that I'm going to play for you here, I think really
• 58:36
  articulates what the average person thinks about the logistics of the assassination. You've probably
• 58:44
  heard of what is called the single bullet theory or the magic bullet theory,
• 58:51
  and this is the essence of how the Warren Commission tied this all together in
• 58:57
  a way that they thought made logistical sense or that maybe the public would buy
• 59:02
  because they had they had a problem with the Zubruder film, which I'll get
• 59:07
  to momentarily. But the single bullet theory holds that there was one bullet.
• 59:14
  They went through John F. Kennedy's neck. Out his neck entered the body
• 59:20
  of the Governor of Texas, John Connolly, who was sitting in front of
• 59:23
  him in the limousine and then created all sorts of wounds and hit all sorts
• 59:30
  of bones within Connolly's body before finally landing in his thigh, and then was
• 59:37
  later found in pristine condition, almost completely undamaged, almost completely undamaged. And
• 59:45
  to the average common sense person, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And
• 59:53
  I think that was best articulated by a guy who often uses pretty good common
• 59:59
  sense. He's not a detailed guy, he's not an intellect, but he
• 1:00:02
  has a really good gut, and that is Joe Rogan, who obviously has
• 1:00:06
  the most popular podcast I Believe in the world. And here was Joe Rogan,
• 1:00:13
  and I think this was a few years ago, but this is Rogan.
• 1:00:15
  He was happening to be interviewing Oliver Stone. But you're not going to
• 1:00:19
  hear Oliver Stone's voice in this clip. This Oliver Stone, obviously the director
• 1:00:22
  of the movie JFK and a ardent JFK conspiracy theorist. Here's Joe Rogan,
• 1:00:29
  I think speaking for the everyman when it comes to the response to the entire
• 1:00:35
  concept that one bullet could do everything that the Warren Commission claimed that it did,
• 1:00:40
  but the bullet hitting those two people and finding its way on the Connolly's
• 1:00:45
  gurney magically with very little distortion. The bullet at all is straight up horseshit,
• 1:00:51
  and the fact that that still gets touted as being well, this is
• 1:00:54
  actually how it could have happened. And weird things happen with bullets. Sure,
• 1:00:59
  weird happen with bullets. But one weird thing that never happens with bullets
• 1:01:02
  is when they hit bone and shatter bone, they always distort. Always.
• 1:01:07
  Now I agree with Joe Rogan. I have always agreed with Joe Rogan on
• 1:01:12
  this particular issue, which, if you are a student of the Kennedy assassination,
• 1:01:17
  makes you think that I then must be a conspiracy theorist, because no
• 1:01:22
  one has been able to bridge the gap between the single bullet theory being false
• 1:01:30
  and Oswald's still being the lone gunman. Except I believe that I have,
• 1:01:37
  and it's not even that difficult. Now, before I get to what I
• 1:01:42
  believe actually did happen, I want to tell you what the Warren Commission concluded.
• 1:01:47
  And it's really remarkable to me how few people even know what the Warren
• 1:01:54
  Commission theory of the logistics of the case are or were, And this was
• 1:02:02
  all concocted by a guy the name of Arland Specter, who was a longtime
• 1:02:07
  senator from my home state of Pennsylvania, a guy I really don't respect very
• 1:02:13
  much, even though he was a Republican, largely because he voted to a
• 1:02:16
  quit Bill Clinton during the impeachment trial based upon Scottish law. He actually voted
• 1:02:24
  not proven. Trent Lott went bananas on Specter, but Spector was such an
• 1:02:30
  egomaniac that he actually had the audacity to vote not proven, which is not
• 1:02:35
  even an option based on Scottish law. When his vote would have given the
• 1:02:40
  Senate a majority. That wouldn't have meant that Clinton was removed from office,
• 1:02:46
  but symbolically it would have meant a majority of the Senate had voted to convict
• 1:02:51
  Bill Clinton in that impeachment. And so Specter is is an interesting guy.
• 1:02:55
  But he was working as a lawyer on the Warren Commission, and I'll explain
• 1:03:01
  in a little bit why he had to do this. But here is what
• 1:03:05
  the Warren Commission narrative is. And I guarantee you that even people who have
• 1:03:10
  studied the assassination did not fully understand the absurdity of what the Warren Commission claims
• 1:03:17
  happened. Now the Warrant Commission needed They needed Lee Harvey Oswald to be seen
• 1:03:27
  as the lone gunman. They believed him to be the lone gunman because the
• 1:03:30
  evidence all pointed that way. But they really really needed there to be three
• 1:03:36
  shots. And the reason why they needed there to be three shots is because
• 1:03:40
  there were three cartridges found in this so called sniper's lair of the sixth floor
• 1:03:46
  of the school book Depository building, where most of the witnesses saw or heard
• 1:03:52
  or felt that the shots had come from. And so if you know,
• 1:03:57
  if you get three shots and you have three artridges from a rifle that gets
• 1:04:01
  found on the same floor the same building, now you got one gunman and
• 1:04:05
  you don't have a conspiracy. And so they believe that the three shots came
• 1:04:13
  as followed. And this is just again, this is absolutely mind belonging to
• 1:04:16
  me that they this is what they came up with. They came up with
• 1:04:21
  this idea that there were three shots. That the first shot doesn't just miss
• 1:04:30
  JFK. It doesn't just miss the limo, it doesn't just miss the street.
• 1:04:39
  It misses everything, It misses absolutely everything, and hits a sidewalk,
• 1:04:47
  shattering into a billion pieces and never to be found because they only found two
• 1:04:54
  bullets. In their in their mind they only found two bullets. I think
• 1:04:57
  they actually found three bullets, but I'll get to that later. So they
• 1:05:01
  found two bullets, they need one bullet to disappear. So this is what
• 1:05:08
  they come up with. Now, what is the evidence for this? The
• 1:05:14
  evidence for this is literally that one person got by the name of James Teague,
• 1:05:20
  who was standing way far away near the underpass where the limo was driving
• 1:05:27
  towards, got a cut on his face, a cut on his face.
• 1:05:33
  There were no bullet fragments found, but a cut on a guy's face after
• 1:05:40
  he is just witnessed, by far, the most catastrophic thing he's ever going
• 1:05:44
  to see in his life. Who the hell knows what he did? What
• 1:05:46
  he I mean, he could have grabbed his face, he could have I
• 1:05:49
  mean, there's a billion things that could have happened. There's other things he
• 1:05:53
  could have been hit with, there's I mean, there was chaos going on.
• 1:05:57
  Literally, the only evidence for this is a hot on a guy's face,
• 1:06:02
  when there should be if this had actually happened, there should be a
• 1:06:08
  mountain of evidence a mountain because why well, because there were hundreds of people
• 1:06:15
  standing right there. Now, just from a from a human standpoint, I
• 1:06:20
  want you to consider the idea that you're Lee Harvey Oswald. And by the
• 1:06:25
  way, most people don't understand that Oswald just a few weeks before the assassination
• 1:06:30
  had tried another assassination. He had tried to kill a Goblin general Walker,
• 1:06:35
  and he took one shot at him while he was in his library. He
• 1:06:40
  missed and he ran away. All right, now, so we're supposed to
• 1:06:45
  believe and this is going to sound conspiratorial, but I'm not heading in this
• 1:06:49
  direction, but you were supposed to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald when he has
• 1:06:54
  the first shot where no one knows that there's a shooting going on, and
• 1:06:58
  theoretically would be the easy is shot, that he completely misses everything, I
• 1:07:04
  mean, catastrophically misses everything, and then regroups and fires a second shot that
• 1:07:13
  goes through Kennedy and hits the Governor Connolly sitting in front of him. And
• 1:07:17
  the third shot is the best shot of all, and he blows off Kennedy's
• 1:07:21
  head. Just from a human standpoint, that's a narrative. That's ridiculous.
• 1:07:28
  I mean it's it's utterly ridiculous. But most importantly, there's no evidence for
• 1:07:31
  it. Because if that had happened, if a shot had gone off the
• 1:07:36
  sidewalk, it would have shattered and people would have seen it. There would
• 1:07:43
  have been witnesses that would have said, holy shit, what was that.
• 1:07:46
  Instead there's nothing. And by the way, part of the explanation, a
• 1:07:53
  theoretical explanation that has been used for this miss was it somehow Oswald decided to
• 1:07:58
  shoot the first shot while the limo was obstructed by a tree, and that
• 1:08:04
  the bullet bounced off a tree and that's why it missed everything. Well,
• 1:08:10
  there would have been evidence in the tree. There would have been there would
• 1:08:13
  have been a tree limb that would have been knocked out, or leaves that
• 1:08:15
  we've been knocked down. People would have seen that. I would have created
• 1:08:19
  an enormous amount of evidence that dat had occurred. And one of the many
• 1:08:25
  things I've done on this case is I went through the next day's version of
• 1:08:30
  the Dallas Morning News, which is a fascinating document. You want to talk
• 1:08:35
  about how newspapers have died over the sixty years since the Kennedy assassination. My
• 1:08:42
  goodness, the Dallas Morning News the next day is one of the most amazing
• 1:08:45
  pieces of journalism that I've ever seen. They I can't remember the exact number,
• 1:08:51
  but I went through and counted. I believe my memories in my memory,
• 1:08:56
  I think there were a hundred and twenty eight uniquely locally generated articles about
• 1:09:03
  the assassination the next day in the Dallas Morning News in an era with no
• 1:09:11
  computers, no email, no text messaging, nothing. The assassination occurs just
• 1:09:16
  afternoon and less than twenty four hours. The Dallas Morning News has basically the
• 1:09:24
  entire story, almost all of it. It turns out to be true or
• 1:09:29
  mostly true. There's very few things in there that you go, wait a
• 1:09:32
  minute, that's totally wrong. And nowhere in there, nowhere in there is
• 1:09:39
  anything about someone seeing a tree be hit or a sidewalk at hit. There's
• 1:09:45
  no evidence. I mean, there's there was talk of a piece of the
• 1:09:47
  sidewalk being taken away for evidence, but that's never been seen publicly. The
• 1:09:53
  first shot miss theory makes no sense and there's no evidence to back it up.
• 1:10:00
  So why did the Warren Commission come up with this? Well, the
• 1:10:05
  Warren Commission came up with this because they had a big problem. They had
• 1:10:12
  a big problem with regard to the timing of the Zubruder film. They believed
• 1:10:19
  that there was not enough time for Oswald to have hit Kennedy the first time
• 1:10:30
  and then hit Connolly with a second bullet, because the man Laker Carcano took
• 1:10:36
  about two point four seconds from the time you fired one shot to be able
• 1:10:41
  to reload and aim and fire a second shot, and even that was kind
• 1:10:47
  of pushing it. Well, I believe that that premise was based on several
• 1:10:57
  false assumptions, several had herrings that occurred, and I believe that what really
• 1:11:03
  transpired here was incredibly simple. And I've debated, Okay, do I wait
• 1:11:11
  till the end of my entire dissertation to tell you what really happened? Or
• 1:11:15
  do I tell you what really happened and then I prove it? Well,
• 1:11:17
  I decided to go in the latter direction. So I'm gonna tell you what
• 1:11:20
  really happened. So the Warrant Commission's view of this is first shot miss second
• 1:11:27
  shot is a magic bullet that goes through Kennedy's neck and then through all sorts
• 1:11:31
  of places in Connolly's body ends up in his thigh. Third shot hits Kennedy
• 1:11:36
  in the head and kills him. That did not happen. It's wrong and
• 1:11:43
  everyone is wrong on this because, as I said, there's only been two
• 1:11:45
  viable tracks for people to analyze this case, which by the way, is
• 1:11:53
  a little bit by like Penn State. Again, either everyone was guilty,
• 1:11:57
  or Paterno was innocent but for sure, or Sandusky was guilty. Those were
• 1:12:00
  the basic two tracks. And I came in and said, wait a minute,
• 1:12:03
  No, you're all dealing with false premises here. You've bought into a
• 1:12:09
  fairy tale from the beginning and it led you down the wrong path. But
• 1:12:13
  no one has a self interest to go down in that path because it's going
• 1:12:15
  to ruin your life. And that's basically what's happened to me. Well,
• 1:12:18
  a very similar situation occurred with the JFK assassination. What really happened is this.
• 1:12:25
  This is the short version, and I'm going to prove all this as
• 1:12:29
  I go along here. But the short version, yes, there were three
• 1:12:31
  shots. The first shot hit Kennedy in the back. It did not go
• 1:12:36
  through his neck. It hit him in the back and it lodged there later
• 1:12:42
  to fall out at Parkland Hospital and to be misidentified as the so called magic
• 1:12:47
  Pristine bullet, which I will prove or come close to proving. I believe
• 1:12:54
  that was the first shot. The second shot hits Connolly alone, goes through
• 1:13:00
  all sorts of bones, and a piece of it is found in his thigh.
• 1:13:04
  By the way, the piece that is found in his thigh, if
• 1:13:10
  you combine that with the so called magic Pristine bullet, the weight of those
• 1:13:15
  two objects is greater than the weight of an unused bullet of this ammunition ammunition.
• 1:13:25
  So right there, people should have been going, wait a minute,
• 1:13:27
  that's not possible, because you can't go through Kennedy and Connolly and still end
• 1:13:32
  up with more mass than what you had at the beginning. I believe that
• 1:13:38
  what ended up in Connolly's thigh was all that was left of that bullet,
• 1:13:43
  which is not unusual. I'm not a forensics expert, but I've read that
• 1:13:46
  this is not unusual that bullets just get lost through being shattered and all the
• 1:13:51
  bones that they hid throughout someone's body. And then the third shot hits Kennedy
• 1:13:57
  in the head from behind, and by the way, for those who are
• 1:14:00
  so religious in their belief. Oh, you know, back and to the
• 1:14:04
  left, back into the left. I mean. Seinfeld even did an episode
• 1:14:09
  based upon this and a famous scene in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Back and
• 1:14:13
  to the left, back into as if it could not have come from up
• 1:14:16
  above and to the side, which is an important part of this. Oswald
• 1:14:21
  was not directly behind JFK. He was on the sixth floor, and he
• 1:14:28
  was to the side. And so the third shot hits Kennedy in the head.
• 1:14:33
  The ultimate proof that it came from behind is where the bullets were found.
• 1:14:39
  I shouldn't say bullet fragments. Here's what happened. We know the third
• 1:14:44
  shot hit the inside. After it hit Kennedy's head, it hit the inside
• 1:14:49
  of the windshield of the limousine. Why do we know this because we have
• 1:14:54
  photographs before the third shot and after Kennedy is first hit, where there's no
• 1:15:01
  crack in the windshield. Well, at the end of this there's a crack
• 1:15:05
  in the windshield. By the way, the windshield crack on the inside was
• 1:15:11
  tested and had metal fragments on it. And by the way, guess where
• 1:15:15
  the two fragments of bullets were found at the foot of the driver right there.
• 1:15:24
  We know that the third the head shot came from behind. It came
• 1:15:30
  through Kennedy's head, broke into two pieces at least maybe more and probably more,
• 1:15:35
  but two large pieces hit the windshield, caused the crack, and then
• 1:15:42
  was found basically at the seat of the feet of the driver in front of
• 1:15:47
  Kennedy. So that's what happened here. That's really not that difficult to understand,
• 1:15:53
  and by the way, under my theory. For those who say,
• 1:15:57
  well, this was an impossible shot, as one couldn't have done it,
• 1:16:00
  Oswald missed Kennedy's head two out of three shots, so it wasn't like it
• 1:16:03
  was this remarkable bit of marksmanship. So just a review, this is really
• 1:16:11
  pretty simple. Shot in the back doesn't go anywhere, falls out of Parkland,
• 1:16:16
  misidentified as the pristine bullet. Second shot hits Connolly, gets mostly lost
• 1:16:23
  in his body. Third shot hits Kennedy in the head, ends up on
• 1:16:27
  the driver's side, hitting the windshield, and two fragments are found at his
• 1:16:32
  feet. Now I will go to great lens to both prove my scenario as
• 1:16:41
  well as disprove the Warren Commission's scenario and other scenarios. As we move along
• 1:16:47
  here. But the primary issue for why the Warren Commission got it wrong is
• 1:16:54
  that they needed Oswald guilty, and the timing of the Zubruder film caused them
• 1:17:00
  this massive problem. And the Zubruder film itself is a fascinating story that I
• 1:17:09
  think could make a movie in and of itself. You could make a movie,
• 1:17:13
  literally, a great movie about just the history of that very short home
• 1:17:18
  movie, the most famous home movie in the history of America, taken by
• 1:17:21
  Abraham Zibrueder, where it's literally the only documentation of any real merit of the
• 1:17:30
  killing of an American president. One of the more fascinating elements of the Zubruter
• 1:17:35
  film, which played an incredible, incredibly important role for why and how everything
• 1:17:42
  got screwed up, is what happened after the film got developed. You see,
• 1:17:49
  we're living in we were living in nineteen sixty three in a completely different
• 1:17:53
  media era. Television was still basically in its infancy and prints still ruled the
• 1:18:00
  day. And so work got out that there was this film of the assassination,
• 1:18:08
  and representatives for Zebruder basically invited I think it was three media outlets or
• 1:18:15
  three media representatives to view the film. Don't quote me on that. I'm
• 1:18:19
  pretty sure it was three. One of them was Time Life company Life Magazine
• 1:18:27
  with their own Time magazine, Life Magazine, so Time Life. Another was
• 1:18:32
  Dan Rather. Now Dan Rather, Yes, that Dan Rather, who is
• 1:18:36
  basically the Forest Gump of the Kennedy assassination. He's everywhere. I mean.
• 1:18:42
  It was Dan Rather who Walter Cronkite reported as having said that the president was
• 1:18:48
  dead. By the way, Rather did that based upon a phone call with
• 1:18:54
  someone claiming to be a priest. Can you imagine in today's day and age,
• 1:19:00
  you don't know you're on the phone with them and they claim to be
• 1:19:02
  a priest. What a different era. This was that that Dan Rather was
• 1:19:05
  willing to trust that a priest at Parkland Hospital was telling him the truth that
• 1:19:11
  the president was dead and person he did not know, but it's a priest.
• 1:19:15
  Priest would never lie, right, So that was that was really the
• 1:19:19
  first report of Kennedy's death came from Rather. So Rather is in this room
• 1:19:25
  where they show the Zubruder film to this very small group of media representatives,
• 1:19:30
  and Rather, understandably, you know, is flabbergasted by what he has just
• 1:19:38
  seen, and he wants to tell the world. So he immediately runs out
• 1:19:43
  and does a report on CBS, where, by the way, he gets
• 1:19:46
  some of the key details wrong, which help helps manifest a false narrative.
• 1:19:54
  A little bit about the film, but that's not the most important part.
• 1:19:57
  The most important part is because rather left and I don't know what happened to
• 1:20:00
  the third party, But the bottom line here is, with no competition,
• 1:20:06
  Time Life buys the rights to the Zibruder film. Can you imagine. I
• 1:20:13
  mean, first of all, it'll be impossible today. If you know the
• 1:20:16
  President was ever shot in public, there'd be literally thousands of videos and there
• 1:20:20
  would be no bidding war because the videos would be everywhere. They'd be on
• 1:20:25
  Twitter within thirty seconds. But in this very different media era, Time Life
• 1:20:30
  buys up the Zibruder film. This plays an incredibly important role in how everything
• 1:20:40
  got screwed up, because the film itself never gets made public four years over
• 1:20:47
  a decade. In fact, the only reason why it ever becomes public is
• 1:20:54
  because of the trial that is depicted I believe erroneously in A Stone's film JFK.
• 1:21:02
  Because Time Life had a vested interest in keeping the Zubruder film exclusive.
• 1:21:10
  So what they what did they do well? In Life magazine, they put
• 1:21:13
  out frames of the Zubruder film, and a frame, especially when it's pretty
• 1:21:21
  blurry, is completely different than a film. And it's just astonishing that this
• 1:21:29
  was all America new about what happened in the Kennedy assassination for years were photographs
• 1:21:36
  of a film put in a magazine. It's extraordinary, and I believe that
• 1:21:45
  one of the main problems that were created by this media anomaly, where a
• 1:21:51
  magazine controls the film and is only putting out stills, is one of the
• 1:21:58
  key, not the only, but one of the key red herrings of the
• 1:22:02
  entire case. Everybody thinks that John F. Kennedy grabbed his throat when hit
• 1:22:13
  the first time. Everyone thinks that. I mean everybody the public thinks that,
• 1:22:19
  and almost all the experts except that as being real, I am positive
• 1:22:29
  he did not do that. John F. Kennedy. Go look at it
• 1:22:32
  for yourself, because it's now on YouTube. John of Kennedy does not come
• 1:22:36
  close to grabbing his throat, not even close. And this is the key
• 1:22:44
  to understanding the logistics of what happened in the case. It is the primary,
• 1:22:48
  not the only, but the primary misunderstanding that all the experts that bought
• 1:22:54
  into the primary false premise that has led everyone down the wrong path of understanding
• 1:23:00
  the logistics of how this happened, and therefore birthing all these conspiracy theories like,
• 1:23:05
  for instance, Joe Rogan because Joe Rogan is right. That makes no
• 1:23:13
  damn sense, except when you understand that that first bullet didn't go through John
• 1:23:20
  of Kennedy's neck, it lodged in his back. And the red herring is
• 1:23:27
  he appears in photographs to be grabbing his throat, but he's actually has his
• 1:23:32
  fists clinched and his elbows out. I've even done this at parties, which
• 1:23:40
  shows you what a great party guest I am. But I'm gonna ask you
• 1:23:43
  to do something right now. Grab your throat with both hands. Grab your
• 1:23:48
  throat. You've just been hit with something in the throat. Grab your throat.
• 1:23:53
  Okay, I guarantee you because I've done this, as I said that
• 1:23:57
  parties. No one has ever ever ever done what JFK did. Elbows out,
• 1:24:03
  fists clinched doesn't happen, completely absurd, completely against everything in human nature.
• 1:24:15
  Everyone who grabs their throat does so without equivocation. They put their hands
• 1:24:20
  over their throat and their elbows are down. If you just did it right
• 1:24:26
  now, I can almost guarantee you your elbows are down and your fists are
• 1:24:30
  not clinched. So what's the fist clinched and the elbow out thing all about.
• 1:24:36
  Well, that I believe is a neuromuscular reaction from having been hit in
• 1:24:42
  the back with a bullet just a couple of inches from his spinal cord,
• 1:24:46
  and that the reaction was somewhat delayed. Now, I'm not the only person
• 1:24:53
  that has theorized about this. There have been experts who have come up with
• 1:24:55
  the same exact analysis of Kennedy's reaction. They just haven't put it all together.
• 1:25:00
  But there have been doctors who said, that looks like a neuromuscular reaction,
• 1:25:05
  and that's what it is. It's not Kennedy being hit through the throat.
• 1:25:14
  And of course the throat is the key to their being a magic bullet,
• 1:25:19
  because that's how it exits allegedly Kennedy's body and then does all the damage
• 1:25:26
  through Connolly. Well, this is key to the whole timing of the shots.
• 1:25:33
  Because the Zibrueder film had caused Arland Specter and the Warrant Commission a massive,
• 1:25:41
  massive problem, and there are some issues with the Zibruter film that helped
• 1:25:45
  manifest this. The first is that at a very key moment, JFK is
• 1:25:53
  blocked from Zibruder's lens by a road sign, and it's only after he emerges
• 1:26:01
  from the road sign that you see what I believe to be this neuromuscular reaction
• 1:26:09
  where his elbows are out and his fists are clenched that is delayed from having
• 1:26:16
  been hit with that first shot in the back. That is not him grabbing
• 1:26:21
  his throat, but the Warrant Commission didn't understand that, and they didn't understand
• 1:26:30
  that because of what happens with the throat at Parkland Hospital, which is the
• 1:26:39
  second huge red herring of this entire case and a remarkable, mathematically insane coincidence
• 1:26:47
  that has manifested itself in a thousand conspiracy theories which I will get to momentarily.
• 1:26:57
  But the subud film has this is of JFK being blocked by the road
• 1:27:01
  sign. There are also a couple of frames that happened to be missing from
• 1:27:04
  the public version at key moments, which doesn't help things, especially since you
• 1:27:10
  conspiracy theorists always think that that's by design. I think that's just the way
• 1:27:15
  things sometimes work. There's a couple of frames missing. I don't think they
• 1:27:16
  change reality, but they do slightly change the perception and the timing of the
• 1:27:21
  whole thing. But you've got JFK blocked by the road sign and because of
• 1:27:28
  this timing, see there's the reaction of John Connolly begetting hit is far too
• 1:27:35
  close to the reaction that we see from JFK with his elbows out and his
• 1:27:42
  fins clip, fists clinged. It's less than that two point four seconds that
• 1:27:47
  they determined was the fastest you could fire the man Laker carcano in an accurate
• 1:27:54
  fashion the rifle that was found on the sixth floor the school Book Depository building.
• 1:27:59
  So pause, the reaction of Kennedy is both misinterpreted as well as miss
• 1:28:04
  timed. They thought they didn't have enough time for Oswald to hit Kennedy with
• 1:28:11
  bullet number one and reload and hit Connolly alone with bullet number two. But
• 1:28:16
  they did. And I would argue that when this first shot was fired was
• 1:28:24
  actually sooner, actually fairly significantly sooner than what most of the so called experts
• 1:28:30
  claim and I would pinpoint as the only evidence there is on the film,
• 1:28:36
  and again I urge you to look at it on YouTube yourself. If you
• 1:28:39
  watch it, there's a little girl about ten years old who is, you
• 1:28:45
  know, experiencing the biggest moment of her life, and she is chasing JFK's
• 1:28:50
  limo. She's on the left side of the limo on the sidewalk, and
• 1:28:56
  she's running with the limo and then all of a sudden, she stops on
• 1:29:01
  a dime and she doesn't just stop, she turns and she looks up and
• 1:29:11
  to her right, and I believe that's the moment of the first shot that
• 1:29:19
  to me, is the reaction of a ten year old girl who has just
• 1:29:24
  been startled by a sound and all of a sudden has stopped running after the
• 1:29:30
  President the United States and is looking in the direction of where the sound seemed
• 1:29:35
  to come from. And that is almost exactly in the sniper's nest of the
• 1:29:43
  sixth floor of the school book Depository building. So in my version of this,
• 1:29:49
  the first shot comes slightly sooner, Kennedy's reaction is slightly delayed. That
• 1:29:57
  gives enough time for the second shot that only and then there's plenty of time
• 1:30:01
  for the kill shot, the third shot to have hit Kennedy in the head.
• 1:30:08
  So I one of the things I love to do when I'm an analyzing
• 1:30:13
  any case is to use my critics, to use the other side what they
• 1:30:19
  are saying, and to be able to In fact, I've said this many
• 1:30:25
  times. I think I can in the Penn State Paterno, Sandowski Gates,
• 1:30:29
  I think I can do nothing but use what the other side has said to
• 1:30:32
  make my own case. And similarly, I want to do that here.
• 1:30:39
  And I think this was the early nineteen eighties, there was I guess you
• 1:30:44
  would have called it. You wouldn't have called it reality TV then, but
• 1:30:46
  it was certainly would become reality TV. There was a fake trial that was
• 1:30:53
  a made for TV special where they tried to put Lee Harvey Oswald on trial
• 1:30:59
  because there have been so much controversy and confusion over what really happened and Learry
• 1:31:08
  Oswald's lawyer for this TV experiment was a guy the name of Jerry Spence,
• 1:31:13
  who was considered the time to be a very well known defense attorney, kind
• 1:31:16
  of a you know, aw shucks, West Southern Western kind of guy.
• 1:31:24
  And by the way, the prosecuting attorney was Vincent Bugliosi, who would later
• 1:31:29
  write a very well done and popular book effectively making the Warren Commission's argument on
• 1:31:36
  this entire case. So he was prosecuting Oswald, Jerry Spence was defending Oswald,
• 1:31:43
  and one of the the witnesses that Spence put on the stand was a
• 1:31:48
  guy name of Cyril Wect. Now, if you know anything about the assassination,
• 1:31:53
  Cyril Wect is basically a very famous person. He's a long time Pittsburgh
• 1:31:58
  medical examiner. He's a little bit of a farrest, gumpy and character himself,
• 1:32:01
  and that he is in the movie Concussion about the Pittsburgh Steelers and the
• 1:32:08
  issue of concussions and his role in that whole thing. Now, Siri Wact
• 1:32:14
  is a television loves him. He's great on television. I used to be
• 1:32:17
  a fan of Sira Wac. I now think that SiO act is largely a
• 1:32:20
  fraud. But in this exchange they do a really good job of one explaining
• 1:32:29
  this key logistical problem with regard to the timing of the shots and how it
• 1:32:34
  is that the Warrant Commission came up with this clearly bogus single bullet theory.
• 1:32:41
  But I want you to two reasons. I'm going to play this one because
• 1:32:45
  it really further explains why this is the essence of the whole case from a
• 1:32:50
  logistical standpoint, because for Oswald to be the lone shooter, you need there
• 1:32:56
  to be three shots, and you need those three shots to be able to
• 1:33:00
  to have been done by one person, and they all have to have come
• 1:33:02
  from the same spot, which is the sixth floor of the school book Depository
• 1:33:08
  building. And Whick makes a very good case about why the warrant commission and
• 1:33:15
  the single bullet theory are wrong. But then he does something that I believe
• 1:33:23
  very much bolsters my case, and he talks about the origins of the actual
• 1:33:30
  physical bullet, the single bullet, the pristine bullet, and why and how
• 1:33:36
  it is that we think that the pristine bullet was allegedly found on John Connolly's
• 1:33:44
  stretcher and not Jfkay's. This is, in my view, mistake slash red
• 1:33:50
  herring number two that was key to all these misunderstandings and all these conspiracies.
• 1:33:58
  And so here is Jerry spends, I guess you would say, questioning zero
• 1:34:03
  whacked in this TV trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. Why is everybody concerned?
• 1:34:10
  Just explained as briefly as you can. Why everybody's concerned about whether there was
• 1:34:16
  one shot that went through both the president and Governor Connolly or two shots.
• 1:34:24
  I mean, what possible difference does it make? Explain? The reason for
• 1:34:29
  the problem was this. They got the alleged murder weapon, this Manaker Carcano,
• 1:34:34
  single election non automatic weapon, and it was determined that in the hands
• 1:34:41
  of the most skilled marksmen that the government could find, it took two point
• 1:34:44
  three seconds from shot to shot. They then looked at the suppruder film and
• 1:34:49
  they saw when Kennedy was hit the first time, then when Connolly was hit,
• 1:34:54
  and they determined that there was only a lapse of time somewhere between one
• 1:34:58
  half to one and a half. So it was then humanly impossible. They
• 1:35:02
  had already made the commitment to themselves that it was a sole assassin, Lee
• 1:35:06
  Harvey Oswald. They then had to find a way to fit all that in
• 1:35:12
  the way they found was the so called single bullet theory, which we preferred
• 1:35:16
  to refer to as the magic bullet theory. That is, the theory that
• 1:35:20
  holds that the same bullet that went through the President's back and out his neck,
• 1:35:25
  re entered Connolly's back, went through his chest, broke his rib,
• 1:35:28
  exited from the front of his chest, re entered the back of his wrist,
• 1:35:31
  caused the comminuted or shattered fraction of the distal end of the radius.
• 1:35:34
  The heavy bent, dense bone that comes from the elbow to the wrist exited
• 1:35:39
  from the front of the wrist, re entered the left thigh, fell out
• 1:35:43
  of the left thigh. Was not noticed by anybody until a few hours afterwards
• 1:35:46
  the Parkland Hospital when a maintenance man was trying to get to the men's room,
• 1:35:50
  found his way block by stretchers from the emergency room. Moved the stretcher
• 1:35:55
  and lo and behold there was Commission Exhibit three ninety nine, the magic bullet.
• 1:36:00
  About the single bullet theory, there has to be more than one person
• 1:36:03
  trans Now want you to remember that bid at the end, where what the
• 1:36:11
  evidence is for that bullet being in John Connolly's stretcher, Because that's remarkable,
• 1:36:23
  I mean, that is that is remarkably little evidence. I mean it was
• 1:36:28
  found a few hours later, after all this chaos and partly on hospital by
• 1:36:31
  a maintenance man on a stretcher that was believed to be Connolly's. That is
• 1:36:40
  huge and I believe totally false, and I believe I can prove it to
• 1:36:45
  be totally false as as we move along here. But let's just quickly review.
• 1:36:51
  So I believe that whacked is right, that Joe Rogan is right that
• 1:36:58
  there was no single bullet theory. But I believe that the first shot was
• 1:37:02
  not a miss, that it hit JFK. And I believe that the evidence
• 1:37:08
  of this is overwhelming. The evidence that Kennedy and Connolly were not hit by
• 1:37:15
  the same bullet is also overwhelming, and we can prove this largely based upon
• 1:37:21
  the testimony of the people who were either in or surrounding the limousine when this
• 1:37:30
  happened. So again, if Kennedy and Connolly were not hit by the same
• 1:37:40
  shot, if there was, if there was separation between those two, the
• 1:37:44
  Warrant Commission must be wrong. And this is always created so much confusion and
• 1:37:49
  so many conspiracy theories. And you know, I'm going down a path here
• 1:37:55
  that sounds like I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it's I'm not, because I
• 1:37:59
  figure out what the big problem was, which is that throat wound which I'll
• 1:38:02
  get back to again momentarily. So John Connolly, the governor of Texas,
• 1:38:10
  who was clearly hit multiple times by one bullet and who you know, suppose
• 1:38:16
  which was supposedly the magic bullet which was supposedly found on hit the stretcher that
• 1:38:23
  he used at Parkland Hospital, that was used for his body at Parkland Hospital.
• 1:38:29
  He and his wife, who were obviously you know, you can't get
• 1:38:32
  better witnesses than this. They're in the actual limo. This is their lives.
• 1:38:40
  There's their hearing shots. They're seeing Kennedy get hit. If you're Connolly,
• 1:38:45
  you're yourself are getting hit by a shot. They went to their deaths
• 1:38:53
  positive that the shot that hit Connolly was not the same one that caused Kennedy
• 1:39:00
  to react that first shot that I believe was lodging in the back, but
• 1:39:04
  the Warren Commission said went through Kennedy's throat and then did all this damage to
• 1:39:09
  Connolly. He was positive of this, And there were many people, including
• 1:39:14
  Gerald Posner, who tried their darnedest to get to Connolly's to change their story,
• 1:39:21
  because that's devastating to the Warren Commission's entire view of how this happened.
• 1:39:28
  I mean, if Connolly is positive that he was aware that Kennedy was hit
• 1:39:32
  and that there was a first gun shot that he heard well before he then
• 1:39:38
  felt getting shot. And remember, you know, sound takes longer obviously than
• 1:39:44
  a bullet, so you would get hit by a bullet before you would even
• 1:39:48
  hear it. Connolly in the clip about the Play for You even refers to
• 1:39:53
  that reality, So that even makes it more obvious that Connolly would be well
• 1:40:00
  aware that there had already been a shot before he then gets hit himself.
• 1:40:09
  And despite enormous media pressure to change their stories, John Connolly and his wife
• 1:40:15
  never ever did, and Connolly did many interviews articulating this, but this is
• 1:40:21
  one that I think kind of sums it up as succinctly as possible. So
• 1:40:26
  here's John Connolly, not long after the assassination, addressing this issue of okay,
• 1:40:32
  was I hit by the same shot that hit John F. Kennedy,
• 1:40:38
  causing him to react with his elbows out and his fist clinched and everyone to
• 1:40:42
  think that he grabbed his throat. And Connolly is absolutely positive that that is
• 1:40:47
  not what happened. These were two separate shots. I understand. There's some
• 1:40:54
  question in the minds of the experts about rather than not, we could both
• 1:40:59
  have been hit for the same bullet, and that was the first bullet.
• 1:41:02
  I just don't happen to believe that. I don't believe it. That will
• 1:41:05
  believe it, because again I heard the first shot, I recognized it for
• 1:41:12
  what I thought it was. I had time to turn to try to see
• 1:41:18
  what had happened. I was in the process of turning again before I felt
• 1:41:23
  the impact of a bullet. Now, obviously, if the bullet that hit
• 1:41:27
  me hit me before I could hear it, I was never conscious of the
• 1:41:30
  sound of the second bullet at all. I never heard the second bullet after
• 1:41:33
  I said, my god, they're gonna kill us all. I of course
• 1:41:39
  didn't know that they'd actually hit the president. Now, I can't emphasize just
• 1:41:42
  how important I believe that the testimony of the Connollys is, because there's no
• 1:41:46
  way to get around that they would know whether or not the President of the
• 1:41:53
  States, sitting a couple of feet behind them, was hit by a bullet
• 1:41:57
  before Connolly himself was. Now testimony evidence is not always reliable, but in
• 1:42:05
  this case, that at least demands an alternative explanation, and I've never heard
• 1:42:12
  one, and it's also not standing alone. The Secret Service agents who were
• 1:42:18
  in the vicinity all had exactly the same reaction. Twint Hill, who became
• 1:42:25
  rather famous because he is the Secret Service agent who climbed on the back of
• 1:42:29
  the limousine to try to save Jackie Kennedy as she was trying to gather pieces
• 1:42:33
  of JFK's brain. That's effectively what she was doing after the third shot.
• 1:42:40
  He gave his description many many times, he wrote a book and did lots
• 1:42:45
  of interviews. Now his story is almost always the same, but of course
• 1:42:49
  every time you tell it there's little pieces that are slightly different. But I'm
• 1:42:56
  going to use this clip because he tends to wander a little bit it and
• 1:43:00
  this was the one that I could find that was the most efficient. But
• 1:43:03
  to me, the most important part of this is that there's no question whatsoever
• 1:43:12
  in Clint Hill's mind. He's right there, right there behind the limousine that
• 1:43:17
  when he hears the first shot, which he has described, he doesn't do
• 1:43:21
  it. In this interview, he doesn't. He implies it, he describes
• 1:43:26
  as a backfire. This was consistent with other Secret Service agents who said the
• 1:43:31
  same thing. The driver of the limousine also described that first shot as a
• 1:43:39
  backfire. They weren't positive it was a gunshot, which is important for my
• 1:43:45
  theory because if there was something wrong with that ammunition or something slightly went wrong
• 1:43:50
  with that shot, it explains why when gravity takes a larger toll on the
• 1:43:59
  bullet that's not going as fast as it normally would, that a shot targeting
• 1:44:02
  Kennedy's head instead hits him in the back, lodges there and doesn't go anywhere.
• 1:44:09
  There was something wrong with the first shot, and this was almost every
• 1:44:15
  Secret Service agent said the same thing. So this is consistent again with my
• 1:44:20
  theory of how it is that we get a shot lodged in Kennedy's back that
• 1:44:24
  later falls out of Parkland Hospital and is misidentified as being on the stretcher of
• 1:44:30
  John Connolly. I have proof of that, which I again will get to.
• 1:44:33
  But here is Clint Hill talking about how there is no question in his
• 1:44:38
  mind when he hears this shot that he sees Kennedy react. Now he's gonna
• 1:44:43
  say Kennedy grabs his throat. But remember Clint Hill is behind Kennedy at this
• 1:44:48
  point, so he's not making that evaluation based upon what he saw, or
• 1:44:55
  maybe he's just perceiving it because he sees the elbows go out, and he
• 1:44:58
  later knows that there was is a wound in Kennedy's throat that was that was
• 1:45:03
  found at Parkland. And obviously there's been years and years of media coverage that
• 1:45:10
  Hill has been privy to, and so he's creating and going along with this
• 1:45:16
  whole entire narrative that Kennedy grabs his throat. But he could not possibly have
• 1:45:21
  witnessed that one because it didn't happen, and two was because he was behind
• 1:45:27
  the limousine. But the most important part of this clip is here's a secret
• 1:45:30
  Service agent saying without equivocation that that first shot miss theory that the Warrant Commission
• 1:45:35
  had is bogus. He doesn't say that, but that the first I heard
• 1:45:41
  the first shot and I saw Kennedy react, which was this shot that I
• 1:45:45
  believe lodged in his back. And here's Clint Hill, secret Service agent.
• 1:45:48
  I was in the fall of car on the left running board, and I
• 1:45:51
  had as we turned down Elm Street in Dallas from Houston, the crowd had
• 1:45:58
  kind of dropped off. They weren't there are many people on either side of
• 1:46:00
  the street, some but not many. And I was scanning to my left
• 1:46:05
  the crowd that was there and straight ahead of the motorcade which was going to
• 1:46:11
  go under and under underpass, and there were some people on top of it.
• 1:46:15
  Now I was concerned, but I saw some police up there, and
• 1:46:18
  then all of a sudden, I heard this eplosive noise over my right shoulder.
• 1:46:21
  Came from the rear and over my right shoulder, and I started to
• 1:46:27
  turn toward the noise, but I only got as far as the President's car,
• 1:46:30
  and I saw what happened in the car. Saw the President. He
• 1:46:34
  grabbed at his throat and he moved to his left, and I knew something
• 1:46:39
  was wrong. So I jumped off my position from the fall up car and
• 1:46:43
  ran toward the presidential car with the attention of getting up on top of the
• 1:46:46
  back of it to form a shield up on the top of the back of
• 1:46:49
  the car so that no further damage could be done to either President or Missus
• 1:46:54
  Kennedy. Now, they told me that there was another shot while I was
• 1:46:58
  running. I didn't hear it because I when I jumped off the car,
• 1:47:00
  there was a motorcycle officer just to my left, and I had to run
• 1:47:04
  between the motorcycle officer and the fall up car to get to the President's car.
• 1:47:11
  But then just as I reached just about got to the President's car,
• 1:47:15
  there was a third shot. Now the President had turned after he got hit
• 1:47:19
  the first time, got hit in the back of the neck, just below
• 1:47:24
  the neckline to the right of the spinal caliment came out the throat. When
• 1:47:29
  that happened, he couldn't fall to his right because the car was right up.
• 1:47:33
  The side of the car was right beside him, and he couldn't fall
• 1:47:36
  forward or duck because he had a back brace on, so he had to
• 1:47:41
  go to his left. He went to his left, and his head kind
• 1:47:44
  of went down. So when that third shot hit, it hit the back
• 1:47:48
  of his head here and exploded out the upper right rear quadrant of the skull,
• 1:47:55
  and it was blood and bone, fragments and brain, all that material
• 1:48:00
  out on the trunk on me and on Missus Kennedy. Just as I got
• 1:48:03
  to the car started up in the car. She came up on the trunk
• 1:48:06
  and she was grabbing at that material, trying to gather it together. That
• 1:48:12
  she didn't know I was there, and I finally got a hold of her
• 1:48:15
  and put her in the back seat, and then the President's body fell to
• 1:48:17
  its left with his head in her lap, and his right side of his
• 1:48:21
  face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed, and I could
• 1:48:25
  see through the hole in the skull that there was almost no brain matter left
• 1:48:29
  in that area. All I thought it was a fatal wound. So the
• 1:48:32
  witness testimony is overwhelming that when there was the salad of a first shot,
• 1:48:39
  Kennedy reacts. So the first shot miss, as I've already told you,
• 1:48:45
  is bogus. It is a contrived, reverse engineered narrative by Arland Spector to
• 1:48:50
  try to get around a perceived problem with regard to the timing of the Zubruder
• 1:48:57
  film that was not necessary, but it was thought to be necessary, all
• 1:49:01
  because of this remarkable, almost unbelievable coincidence that JFK appears to grab his throat,
• 1:49:10
  but he does not. It's a neuromuscular reaction, elbows out, fists
• 1:49:14
  clinched because he's been hit in the back, not the neck, by a
• 1:49:19
  bullet that barely lodged into his back and would later fall out at Parkland Hospital.
• 1:49:28
  And the really remarkable coincidence of all this and why there has understanding we've
• 1:49:32
  been so much confusion is not just that people thought that they had pictures and
• 1:49:40
  video via the subiter film of Kennedy grabbing his neck. It's that when they
• 1:49:44
  get to Parkland Hospital, there is a small hole in Kennedy's throat, a
• 1:49:51
  very small hole. Now I'm not a bullet expert, but in reading about
• 1:49:57
  this case, it is very well known that this espcially when it comes to
• 1:50:00
  soft tissue, that exit wounds are far larger than entry wounds, and this
• 1:50:09
  small, tiny, little hole in the throat has been used by conspiracy theorists
• 1:50:15
  to claim that that shot actually came from the front, because then it would
• 1:50:18
  be an entry wound. Of course, there's no exit wound that lines up
• 1:50:26
  with it, but there's no bullet, and there's all sorts of problems with
• 1:50:30
  that. But that's the theory. Well, I'm convinced that that's not what
• 1:50:34
  happened. But one of the problems is because of the placement of that tiny
• 1:50:41
  hole in his throat. In the emergency, the catastrophe, the chaos at
• 1:50:46
  Parkland Hospital, the doctors take what is a tiny hole in the throat,
• 1:50:54
  and they use it to create a tracheotomy to try to get the president to
• 1:50:59
  breathe through his throat, and that of course destroys the evidentiary value of the
• 1:51:08
  hole in the throat, because now it has been expanded far larger than it
• 1:51:14
  actually was to begin with. Now there's all sorts of problems in my view,
• 1:51:20
  with the entire concept of the hole in the throat being an exit wound
• 1:51:27
  for that first shot that ends up becoming the so called pristine bullet or magic
• 1:51:31
  bullet. The first if you just use basic logic, is that if Kennedy
• 1:51:39
  had an exit wound out his throat from a bullet, first of all,
• 1:51:43
  the hole would have been massive, but also it would have split his spinal
• 1:51:47
  cord having come from behind. I mean, there's no way where that hole
• 1:51:53
  is to miss the spinal cord. He would have been paralyzed immediately, and
• 1:51:59
  the whole armed thing never would have happened. So right there, that's a
• 1:52:03
  massive problem. But there are other big problems In Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds
• 1:52:11
  in Dallas. Again he's a conspiracy theorist, but he goes through a lot
• 1:52:16
  of the evidence here, which is fascinating. You know, there are holes
• 1:52:19
  in JFK's tie. No one ever tells you this. There are tiny holes
• 1:52:27
  in JFK's tie from whatever it was that came out of his throat that would
• 1:52:32
  eventually be used as a tracheotomy at Parkland Hospital. Well, that tie was
• 1:52:39
  tested for medical metal fragments. Guess what they didn't find any. Now does
• 1:52:45
  that proved there's no bullet involved? No, but there ought to be metal
• 1:52:49
  fragments. More importantly, the holes in the tie are minuscule, and they're
• 1:52:57
  probably bigger than minuscule, but they're very small, much too small to fit
• 1:53:01
  a fairly large bullet through. So we've got this tiny hole in the throat
• 1:53:08
  that gets end up used as a tracheonomy and an emergency procedure to try to
• 1:53:14
  save Kennedy's life. And you've got these tiny holes in the tie that have
• 1:53:20
  no metal fragments on them. So right there, none of this is consistent
• 1:53:27
  with a bullet exiting the throat of John F. Kennedy, Just isn't,
• 1:53:33
  I mean? But there's more. There's way bigger problems, And the biggest
• 1:53:39
  problem is the location of the back wound. And you probably even heard Clint
• 1:53:45
  Hill mentioned this that he references the wound as being below the neckline in the
• 1:53:54
  back. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if
• 1:53:58
  you're being shot from six floors above with a dramatically descending shot and you get
• 1:54:05
  hit below the neckline in the back, that there's no way that that shot
• 1:54:11
  is going to exit through the throat. Not to mention all the other problems
• 1:54:15
  I've already mentioned with the idea that this couldn't be an exit wound for a
• 1:54:19
  bullet in the throat, and the issue of paralysis, the issue of the
• 1:54:24
  holes in the tie necktie and all that, Well, what do we know
• 1:54:27
  about the placement of the wound in the back. It's way too low.
• 1:54:32
  How do we know this? We have the testimony of a doctor at Parkland
• 1:54:38
  who stuck his finger in the hole in the back and found nothing there.
• 1:54:44
  This was one of the few things Oliver Stone got correct in his movie JFK.
• 1:54:47
  I believe because the bullet had already fallen out at that point. We
• 1:54:51
  have sketches at the time at Parkland, we have the autopsy sketches. At
• 1:54:58
  Bethesda, we have photographs, the autopsy photographs, all of them all of
• 1:55:05
  them indicate that the back wound is way below the neck line, at least
• 1:55:12
  five or six inches below the neck line, so it doesn't even line up.
• 1:55:17
  And you know, there have been people who have in the media especially,
• 1:55:20
  who have desperately Dan Rather being one of them, desperately tried to save
• 1:55:26
  the single bullet theory of using computer animations that have lined everything up perfectly so
• 1:55:33
  that it's really not this convoluted magic bullet scenario where the bullet goes up and
• 1:55:41
  down and left and right and all that, that they can actually line a
• 1:55:45
  laser directly from the sixth floor the school Book Depository building through Kennedy's neck right
• 1:55:51
  into Connolly's body. And the reason why the single bullet theory seemed so crazy
• 1:55:57
  was that the positioning of Kennedy's seat was odd to the eye. Well,
• 1:56:01
  there's two big problems with that animation. It's completely reverse engineered. And the
• 1:56:08
  first thing it does, I believe it, it puts Connolly's body in a
• 1:56:13
  place that it wasn't. Connolly was very much towards the door of the limousine
• 1:56:18
  and they've pushed his body way to the left so that it lines up.
• 1:56:24
  That's number one Number two, the back wound is completely ignored. They just
• 1:56:30
  completely ignore the evidence that the back wound is a back wound and not a
• 1:56:33
  neckline wound. So they just decide reverse engineered. We're just gonna do everything
• 1:56:41
  we possibly can to line these wounds up. And yes, shockingly, using
• 1:56:46
  computer animation, they're able to do that, but it's not based in reality
• 1:56:50
  in my view. By the way, it's not just the autopsy sketches and
• 1:56:57
  the photographs. We have John Kennedy's shirt and we have John Kennedy's jacket,
• 1:57:02
  both of which have holes that are way below the neck line. Now there
• 1:57:08
  are those who say, and I think there's logic here that well Kennedy's shirt
• 1:57:13
  and jacket were bunched, you know, because the way he was sitting,
• 1:57:16
  and so therefore it distorts how low that back wound was. Okay, I'll
• 1:57:23
  give that an inch or two, but you're still not getting mewhere near the
• 1:57:28
  neck line. Nowhere near, and and so those wounds don't line up at
• 1:57:34
  all on a descending blow that he would have to have gotten hit almost in
• 1:57:41
  the skull for a bullet to enter him in the back and come out through
• 1:57:46
  the through the throat. And so what really did happen with the throat wound?
• 1:57:54
  You know, it's it's impossible to know for sure, but there are
• 1:58:00
  all sorts of possibilities because guess what happens next, Kennedy's head gets blown off.
• 1:58:08
  So, because Kennedy's head gets blown off after that first shot in the
• 1:58:14
  back, obviously the entire area of his body has endured a catastrophe, and
• 1:58:24
  there are bullet fragments flying everywhere. There are bone fragments flying everywhere. There
• 1:58:30
  are all sorts of possibilities, whether it was a metal fragment from a tiny
• 1:58:34
  one from the bullet and just didn't show up in the tie, or as
• 1:58:40
  Josiah Thompson theorizes, it could have been a bone fragment in the midst of
• 1:58:46
  Kennedy's head being blown off, a bone fragment comes through his throat, goes
• 1:58:51
  through the tie, doesn't leave any metal traces, and creates this incredible red
• 1:58:58
  herring coincidence that when he gets to Parkland Hospital there's a tiny hole in his
• 1:59:03
  throat. And when the Zubruder film is released by Life Magazine and Still Form,
• 1:59:10
  it looks like Kennedy seems to be either in the process of grabbing his
• 1:59:16
  throat or is actually grabbing his throat When I reiterate with one certainty, he
• 1:59:23
  did not do so. It did not happen, And it's the key to
• 1:59:29
  understanding the entire logistics of this thing, as well as how the Warren Commission
• 1:59:34
  got it wrong. But how this is still very very very consistent with there
• 1:59:40
  being one shooter. And I'll get too later why that shooter's name was Lee
• 1:59:44
  Harvey Oswald. Now there's one other piece of testimony that I don't know that
• 1:59:50
  it's one hundred percent reliable. I mean, because I'm trying to be as
• 1:59:54
  objective as I possibly can be here. I think I am that way and
• 1:59:57
  everything that I do. If I have a theory, I actually hold that
• 2:00:01
  theory to a much higher threshold than I would somebody else's theory. So you
• 2:00:09
  know, if I was not thinking that way, the testimony I'm about to
• 2:00:13
  share with you would probably be game set match. That I'm right, it
• 2:00:17
  would be checkmate. That there's no way that there was a throat wound before
• 2:00:25
  the third shot that hit Kennedy, and that the throat wound was as a
• 2:00:30
  result of something that happened collaterally to the third shot, the head shot,
• 2:00:34
  and that comes from Roy Kellerman, another Secret Service agent. He was the
• 2:00:41
  Secret Service agent in the front right seat, so he was sitting two seats
• 2:00:47
  basically in front of JFK. He was sitting right in front of John Connolly
• 2:00:51
  who was sitting right in front of JFK. And on November twenty seventh of
• 2:00:58
  nineteen sixty three, this is just a few days after the assassination, Kellerman
• 2:01:04
  testified in an FBI report. Kellerman said he heard a noise like a firecracker.
• 2:01:12
  Again, every single Secret Service agent that I'm aware of had concerns about
• 2:01:18
  that first sound not sounding like a gunshot. These are Secret Service agents.
• 2:01:23
  They know what a gunshot sounds like. There was something wrong with that first
• 2:01:27
  shot, which is why, again in my view, it lodges in Kennedy's
• 2:01:31
  back and doesn't do much damage. It would not have killed Kennedy. At
• 2:01:35
  this point, Kellerman advised he had been in almost daily contact for the past
• 2:01:43
  three years with President Kennedy and said he could pick his voice out from any
• 2:01:49
  group of people. Upon hearing a noise like firecracker, he distinctly and positively
• 2:02:00
  heard the presidents say, my god, I've been hit, Kellerman advised,
• 2:02:09
  he immediately turned his head to the left rear and almost instantaneously heard two additional
• 2:02:16
  shots. So what why is that significant? That's incredibly significant If it's true.
• 2:02:26
  Now, by the way, it doesn't jive with the testimony of the
• 2:02:30
  Connollies or with Jackie. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it also at
• 2:02:34
  least brings in the question. It could be it could be wrong itself.
• 2:02:38
  But if Kellerman is right and Kennedy was saying anything after being hit, then
• 2:02:44
  obviously there's no throat wound because Kennedy couldn't have made a sound if he actually
• 2:02:49
  had a bullet or anything else that had gone through his throat at that time,
• 2:02:55
  it would have been impossible. So that to me is very strong evidence.
• 2:03:00
  Then my theory is correct that at the time after the first shot there
• 2:03:06
  was no throat wound, that the throat wound was an absolute, unbelievable coincidence
• 2:03:15
  that occurs as a result of the third shot, and that that's one of
• 2:03:21
  the many red herrings that has caused everybody, including the Warren Commission, to
• 2:03:28
  go in a completely wrong direction. So again, under my theory, first
• 2:03:32
  hit is a backfire. First shot as a backfire. It occurs slightly before
• 2:03:39
  what has been previously presumed by the so called experts. JFK is a neuromuscular
• 2:03:45
  reaction to being hit in the back. Next to the spinal column. The
• 2:03:48
  little girl running next to the motorcage stops and looks in the direction of the
• 2:03:53
  school book depository building. I believe setting the timing for that first shot,
• 2:03:58
  which occurs soon enough to where there's plenty of time for Oswald to reload fire
• 2:04:02
  the second shot and hit Connolly in all the ways that he did. Now,
• 2:04:11
  this issue of what happened to the bullet in the back and how is
• 2:04:15
  it that it got mistaken for being attached to Connolly and not JFK has always
• 2:04:21
  been for many years a weakness in my theory because I had no real evidence
• 2:04:29
  for this. This was something that several years ago I came up with.
• 2:04:32
  This is the only scenario that makes any sense. So there must have just
• 2:04:38
  been confusion at Parkland. I mean, imagine the chaos going on where the
• 2:04:44
  president has been killed and Connolly is the governor of the state's been seriously injured,
• 2:04:49
  and no one's worried about whose stretcher is Who's and we played the clip
• 2:04:54
  of Cyril Wette talking about how this was found by a maintenance man hours later.
• 2:05:00
  I mean, who in the world was keeping track of whose stretcher was
• 2:05:05
  which at that point. But it was basically just conjecture on my part that
• 2:05:11
  this must have been a mix up, that the bullet that was later referred
• 2:05:17
  to as the single bullet, the magic bulle at the pristine bullet that was
• 2:05:21
  supposedly found attached to Connolly was actually the bullet that fell out of Kennedy's back,
• 2:05:28
  and that there was a mistake. But I couldn't prove it. I
• 2:05:31
  didn't have a lot of evidence for that. That had always been my theory.
• 2:05:36
  Well, then I found fairly recently in the last year or two,
• 2:05:41
  I found two clips that I believed to be very credible of interviews with critical
• 2:05:48
  people in this case that very very much back up what had been a theory,
• 2:05:56
  and now I believe is the only way this whole story can be made
• 2:06:00
  sense of. The first clip I'm gonna play for you is an extraordinary phone
• 2:06:05
  call. I mean, this blows apart so many conspiracy theories right out of
• 2:06:11
  the before they get out of the batter's box. This is a phone call
• 2:06:15
  between Jagger Hoover, the legendary head of the FBI, and now President Lyndon
• 2:06:23
  Johnson. Johnson was the vice president became president when Kennedy was killed, and
• 2:06:28
  Johnson was there that day. And this phone call is amazing on so many
• 2:06:34
  levels. It occurs just a couple of days after the assassination and after Oswald
• 2:06:41
  has been killed by Jack Ruby, and it is clear that Johnson has no
• 2:06:49
  idea what's going on. I mean, there are still people this day that
• 2:06:53
  think Johnson was somehow behind the assassination, which is just ludicrous on so many
• 2:06:59
  levels, even though he obviously benefited from it because he became president. But
• 2:07:03
  I mean, any human being that listens to this, there's just no way.
• 2:07:09
  I mean, Johnson is so clueless. He's also so narcissistic that his
• 2:07:13
  first question to Hoover in this clip is whether or not he was targeted himself,
• 2:07:18
  but he knows nothing, even though he was actually there that day.
• 2:07:23
  But Hoover starts off talking about who Jack Ruby is and makes the argument that
• 2:07:30
  Ruby is a nobody and explains how it was he was able to get close
• 2:07:34
  to the situation, and it's very obvious that Hoover is not believing that Ruby
• 2:07:42
  is part of any conspiracy. But the really significant part for me is as
• 2:07:47
  this clip goes along, because it is very obvious early on that Hoover's view
• 2:07:57
  of the order of the shots and the you know, the destination of the
• 2:08:03
  shots is almost a hundred percent my theory. This is the head of the
• 2:08:09
  FBI. He's very clear that the first and third shots hit JFK. Now
• 2:08:18
  he makes a mistake, and what I believe is the fog of war.
• 2:08:22
  But even in that mistake of determining where this bullet that was found came from,
• 2:08:31
  which shot it came from, he thinks it came from the third shot
• 2:08:35
  rolling out of Kennedy's head. That's not what happened. And that doesn't even
• 2:08:39
  make any sense from a ballistic standpoint, because the third shot made massive amounts
• 2:08:45
  of damage and would not be pristine. But if you listen carefully here,
• 2:08:52
  at this point, they already have two metal fragments found in the driver's section
• 2:08:56
  of the limousine. That's that's from the third shot in my and any logic
• 2:09:01
  would dictate that, and they have this pristine bullet that would later be perceived
• 2:09:05
  as having come from Connolly. But Hoover is not telling Johnson this story at
• 2:09:11
  all. He's telling him basically the Zickler theory, which is first shot hits
• 2:09:16
  Kennedy, second shot it's Connolly, third shot hits JFK. And this bullet
• 2:09:26
  gets found with JFK. He refers to it having rolled out of his head,
• 2:09:33
  fell on the stretcher, and he ends with making it very clear the
• 2:09:39
  president wasn't hit with the second one. The President wasn't hit with the second
• 2:09:46
  one. So listen, I mean, just from a historical standpoint, this
• 2:09:50
  is just an amazing clip. And again it's most important. This is a
• 2:09:54
  conversation. Neither of these guys ever had any anticipation would ever be made public,
• 2:10:01
  certainly not in their lifetime, and it wasn't made public in their lifetimes.
• 2:10:05
  And here was Jagger, Hoover and Lyndon Johnson just after the assassination.
• 2:10:11
  He would he's what I would put in the category one of these equal maniacs.
• 2:10:15
  He likes to be in the limelight. He knew all the police in
• 2:10:18
  that white light district where they joint thought. And he also let him come
• 2:10:24
  in see the show, get food and get the liquor, and so far,
• 2:10:28
  that's how I think he got into police headquarters, because they accepted him
• 2:10:33
  as kind of a police character hanging around police headquarters, and for that reason
• 2:10:37
  raised no question. Of course, they never made any moves that as the
• 2:10:43
  picture show, even when they saw him approaching this fellow and got up right
• 2:10:48
  to him and pressed the pistol against against Oswald's stomach, neither of the police
• 2:10:54
  officers on either side made any moves to push him away. He order grab
• 2:10:58
  him wasn'tuntil after the gun was fired that they then moved. Now, of
• 2:11:03
  course that is not the highest degree of efficiencies I have to say. Secondly,
• 2:11:09
  the chief of police admits that he moved him in the morning as a
• 2:11:13
  convenience and at the request of a motion picture people who wanted to have daylight.
• 2:11:18
  He should have moved him at night, but he didn't. And I
• 2:11:22
  mean those derelictions in that phase. But so far as time Rubinstein and Oswald
• 2:11:28
  together, we haven't as yet done so that then a number of stories come
• 2:11:31
  in. We've tried, We've tired Oswald into the Civil Liberties Union in New
• 2:11:37
  York, membership into that and then course into this thing to this Cuban Fair
• 2:11:43
  Play Commission Committee, which is which was pro Castrol and dominated by Communism and
• 2:11:48
  financed to some extent by the Castro government. Coming shots three, and he
• 2:11:54
  imparted me, I know all three or two? All three at the president,
• 2:12:00
  and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the president were
• 2:12:03
  splendid, but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistic expert was able
• 2:12:09
  to prove that they were fired by this gun. The third shot which which
• 2:12:15
  hit the president, he was hit for the first and the third. The
• 2:12:18
  second shot hit the governor. The third shot is a completely is a complete
• 2:12:22
  bullet that wasn't shattered and that rolled out of the President's head, had tore
• 2:12:26
  a large part of the President's head off, and in trying to massage his
• 2:12:31
  heart at the at the hospital. On the way to the hospital, they
• 2:12:35
  apparently loosened that and it had fell on to the stretcher and we recovered that,
• 2:12:41
  and we have that, and we have the gun here also with the
• 2:12:43
  aiming's president, and they were aiming directly at the president. There's no question
• 2:12:48
  about that. This this telescopic lens which I had looked through, it brings
• 2:12:52
  a person as close to you as if they were sitting right beside you.
• 2:12:56
  And we also have tested the fact that you fire. Those three shots were
• 2:13:01
  fired within three seconds. There's been some stories going around the papers and so
• 2:13:05
  forth that that must have been more than one man, But because no one
• 2:13:09
  man could fire those shots from the time that they were fired, we've just
• 2:13:13
  proved that by the actual test that we've made. How did have him?
• 2:13:16
  They hit Connolly, Conny turned conn They turned the president at when the first
• 2:13:22
  shot was fired, and I think that in that turning it was where he
• 2:13:26
  got hit. They ad at turned he probably wouldn't go to hit. I
• 2:13:30
  think that's very likely when the president got hit the second one. The president
• 2:13:33
  wasn't hit with the second one. Say, if I can't emphasize enough how
• 2:13:39
  important what Hoover says there, at least specially towards the end really is.
• 2:13:43
  And I really think he's just made a mistake, which is understandable given all
• 2:13:50
  the chaos at the time, that this bullet that was somehow found attached to
• 2:13:54
  Kennedy somehow was a result of the third shot and not of the first shot
• 2:14:00
  in the back. And let me be clear, there's only a few bullets
• 2:14:05
  that they have they've only found quote unquote one pristine bullet and two bullet fragments,
• 2:14:11
  And so he refers in that clip to the bullets being splintered. I
• 2:14:16
  think what he means there as he's talking about these two bullet fragments that ended
• 2:14:20
  up, as I've referenced several times, hitting the driver's side, inside of
• 2:14:26
  the windshield and falling basically at the driver's feet. That's from the third shot
• 2:14:31
  that hit Kennedy in the head. But here's Hoover referencing a full bullet being
• 2:14:39
  found related to Kennedy. He even says rolled out of his head, which
• 2:14:46
  is almost exactly the description of what really happened. Only it wasn't the head
• 2:14:50
  wound. It was the back wound. And I realize, you know,
• 2:14:54
  obviously I'm biased here because I have a particular point of view in a theory,
• 2:14:58
  but this fits almost perfectly. But that on itself would not be enough.
• 2:15:05
  Maybe maybe Hoover was mistaken, he wasn't there. Maybe he's getting bad
• 2:15:09
  information, he's misinterpreting it. Who knows. But then I stumbled upon an
• 2:15:16
  interview with a Parkland Hospital nurse named Phyllis Hall. Now I've become pretty darn
• 2:15:24
  good about being able to determine what people's objectives and agendas are. And when
• 2:15:30
  it comes to the JFK assassination, I talked about perverse incentives. Everyone has
• 2:15:33
  a perverse incentive. Everyone's trying to sell a book. Everyone's trying to placate
• 2:15:37
  either the Warrant Commission narrative, so they're you know, they're basically pro government,
• 2:15:43
  anti conspiracy, or they're trying to promote the conspiracy theory, which,
• 2:15:48
  by the way, is the easiest way to get attention. If you're looking
• 2:15:50
  for attention, that's the easiest way to get it. If you have something
• 2:15:56
  that you plausibly can claim you have knowledge of that fits a conspiracy theory,
• 2:16:01
  you're going to get a lot of attention. Well, I had never seen
• 2:16:05
  an interview with this Parkland nurse by the name of Phillis Hall before, and
• 2:16:11
  I searched, and I cannot find any evidence at all that this woman was
• 2:16:15
  trying to make a buck or trying to get attention. And the clip I'm
• 2:16:18
  about to play for you is a clip that is part of a larger interview,
• 2:16:24
  So this was not even the primary focus of the interview. This was
• 2:16:28
  almost as an aside. Oh, by the way, when I was there
• 2:16:33
  in the room administering helped to Kennedy with a whole bunch of other people,
• 2:16:37
  I saw a bullet. I saw a bullet. And then she references that
• 2:16:46
  she's never seen it since. So here is Phillis Hall, who was in
• 2:16:52
  the room where Kennedy's life was trying to be saved at Parkland Hospital, and
• 2:16:56
  she references seeing a full o bullet, which surely sounds a lot like the
• 2:17:03
  so called pristine bullet. Eyelids were about half closed, and his pupils were
• 2:17:09
  fixed and dilated. And at this time I noticed what appeared to me to
• 2:17:15
  be a big exit wound right underneath his Adam's apple. And just before then
• 2:17:20
  the notch there at the top of the breast bow and on the cart halfway
• 2:17:24
  between the air lobe and the shoulder, there was a bullet laying almost perpendicular
• 2:17:28
  there. But I have not seen a picture of that bullet ever since that
• 2:17:33
  day. So at this point I don't know what else I have to do.
• 2:17:39
  I mean, I've got a nurse in the in the room saying that
• 2:17:45
  there was a bullet. Again, it can't be emphasized enough because there are
• 2:17:48
  only two bullets, really, two fragments of a bullet that were from the
• 2:17:56
  same shot, the headshot and this so called Christine bullet. If there's a
• 2:18:00
  bullet found near Kennedy, and the chain of evidence is so incredibly weak when
• 2:18:07
  it comes to attaching that bullet to Connolly because it was found by a maintenance
• 2:18:11
  man a couple hours later on a stretcher that who the hell knows who stretcher
• 2:18:16
  that really was. To me, the preponderance of the evidence at least goes
• 2:18:22
  in my favor here, and it's the only way to make this whole thing
• 2:18:26
  work. It's logistically that that, to me is again a little bit like
• 2:18:31
  Penn State patern of Sandusky. The only way to make the whole story work
• 2:18:35
  logistically is for Sedowski to be innocent. The only way to make this whole
• 2:18:39
  thing work logistically is for that bullet to have fallen out of Kennedy's back.
• 2:18:43
  Because now everything has explained. Now there's some incredibly bizarre coincidences, but coincidences
• 2:18:48
  happen in life, and people misinterpreted them, and that's what I believe happened
• 2:18:54
  here. So again, just to review my theory one more time, we've
• 2:18:58
  got three shots. First one hits Kennedy in the back falls out of Parkland,
• 2:19:03
  Phyllis Hall says she sees it. Hoover describes it to Johnson, although
• 2:19:09
  he misinterprets which shot it came from. You know, we've got the testimony
• 2:19:16
  of the Secret Service agent saying he heard Kennedy say, my god, they're
• 2:19:22
  gonna kill us or gonna kill me, you know, when he could not
• 2:19:26
  have said that if there had already been a throat wound. So and we've
• 2:19:30
  also got, you know, the bullet fragment from Connolly's thigh, which when
• 2:19:35
  you combine it with the pristine bullet, is a greater mass than the bullet
• 2:19:39
  would have been before it was shot. So all these things, to me
• 2:19:45
  make it very very clear that my theory that the first bullet hits Kennedy in
• 2:19:48
  the back falls out of Parkland gets misidentified as being attached to Connolly. The
• 2:19:52
  second shot hits Connolly largely disappears in his body, leaving only a small fragment
• 2:19:58
  in his thigh. The third shot hits in the head. Two fragments hit
• 2:20:01
  the inside of the windshield and are basically left at the feet of the driver.
• 2:20:07
  All this fits All this fits with three shots. All of this fits
• 2:20:13
  with the basics of the warrant commission. They just got the logistics wrong because
• 2:20:18
  Arland Spector panicked and thought he didn't have enough time for one guy to do
• 2:20:22
  all the shooting, and inadvertently he manifests a thousand conspiracy theories by coming up
• 2:20:28
  with this bogus single bullet theory slash pristine bullet. Now, all of this
• 2:20:37
  proves in my view because I've solved all the logistics no one else has been
• 2:20:41
  able to do. It proves that there were three shots, all fired from
• 2:20:48
  basically what is consistent with the sixth floor of the school Book Depository building.
• 2:20:52
  It doesn't prove who fired those shots. I'll acknowledge that. I mean,
• 2:20:58
  what I've just gone through in the last hour and a half I believe proves
• 2:21:01
  that there were three shots, all fired from what has to have been the
• 2:21:07
  sniper's layer of the sixth floor of the school book Depository building, because that's
• 2:21:11
  where we found three cartridges, that's where we found a rifle. But who
• 2:21:16
  fired that rifle? Well, I believe the evidence is overwhelming that it was
• 2:21:20
  Lee Harvey Oswald. Let's go through the story of his day, okay,
• 2:21:26
  And I think in a normal case, the average person would go, well,
• 2:21:31
  Jesus Christ, of course this guy is guilty as hell. It's only
• 2:21:35
  because this is a case dealing with the president United States that everyone decides that
• 2:21:39
  they interpret facts differently and that you know, these vast are unbelievable conspiracies are
• 2:21:48
  somehow possible, and no one is ever going to say anything about them before
• 2:21:50
  they die, which everyone basically is dead at this point. Here's Oswald's day.
• 2:21:56
  Now, Remember this is a guy who, just a few weeks early
• 2:22:00
  had tried to assassinate General Walker unsuccessfully. This is a guy, in my
• 2:22:05
  view, who, as an inflated view of himself, has delusions of grandeur.
• 2:22:11
  By the way, Gerald Ford in one of the probably the most hilarious
• 2:22:15
  clips related to the assassination, you know very stayed Gerald Ford after he was
• 2:22:20
  president, he was a member of the Warrant Commission. He went into great
• 2:22:24
  detail about what he believed was the motivation for Oswald to be engaged in these
• 2:22:31
  assassination attempts, and that is that he was sexually impotent, that his wife
• 2:22:35
  was mocking him for being sexually impotent. So go go Google or YouTube.
• 2:22:41
  Gerald Ford talking about sexual impotence. It's pretty funny. But so Oswald was
• 2:22:48
  someone who had a very inflated view of himself and felt as if he's a
• 2:22:54
  historic figure. He's latching latching onto any group that will have him, whether
• 2:23:01
  it's the pro Cuban group, pro Castro Cuban group, which of course you
• 2:23:05
  know I bought into. That makes that makes sense as a conspiracy, right,
• 2:23:09
  I mean the Bay of Pigs. He's a pro Castro Cuban. All
• 2:23:13
  the connections to the Mob in New Orleans. The mob wanted Kennedy gone because
• 2:23:18
  of Robert F. Kennedy going out to the mob. That made sense to
• 2:23:20
  me, except when you find out that if it's Oswald alone, that none
• 2:23:26
  of that really makes a hell of a lot of sense. And there's nowhere
• 2:23:28
  near the amount of evidence that there should be if it was true. So
• 2:23:33
  you've got a guy who had previously tried to do an assassination attempt on unsuccessfully
• 2:23:39
  on General Walker. And then, by the way, that is I think
• 2:23:43
  maybe part of why there's been so much hesitancy to release all the documents,
• 2:23:48
  because I have no doubt that law enforcement, whether it's a CIA or the
• 2:23:54
  FBI, Secret Service Dallas police, whoever it was, should have been all
• 2:23:58
  over Oswald. His wife should have known that Oswald was a threat. I
• 2:24:05
  mean, my gosh, she knows he tried to kill jenneral Walker. She
• 2:24:09
  knows he's unhinged, and she knows he works at the school book Depository building
• 2:24:15
  where she has to know the President is driving by that day. She's not
• 2:24:18
  at least a little bit suspicious of him. Well if when she woke up,
• 2:24:24
  she should have been even more suspicious, because when he left for work
• 2:24:28
  that day to go to the school book Depository building, he left his wedding
• 2:24:31
  ring and a little bit of cash and a tea cup. Well, if
• 2:24:35
  you're her, how the hell are alarm bells not going off when you know
• 2:24:41
  the President of the United States, you have to know, is about to
• 2:24:43
  drive right past your husband's workplace, and he just tried to kill a general,
• 2:24:48
  and he's left his wedding ring and they don't have much cash and a
• 2:24:52
  little bit of money in a teacup, basically saying goodbye. So I actually
• 2:25:00
  am her for not at least making a goddamn phone call to somebody. But
• 2:25:05
  I digress. So Oswald goes to work that day with a friend and he's
• 2:25:11
  carrying curtain rods. That's what he tells the friend. He's got a paper
• 2:25:16
  bag that he says are full of curtain rods. Okay, awfully weird.
• 2:25:22
  Why the hell do you need to bring curtain rods to work at the school
• 2:25:26
  book Depository building? But for whatever reason, the friend doesn't really ask him
• 2:25:31
  any follow up questions. And it should be pointed out that a bag matching
• 2:25:37
  the description of the bag that Oswald carried in the work that day with the
• 2:25:41
  curtain rods was found empty, ripped open and empty, and no curtain rods
• 2:25:48
  wherever found anywhere near the sixth floor or any floor the school Book Depository building.
• 2:25:54
  So okay, that's pretty strong evidence that what was really in that bag
• 2:26:01
  was not curtain rods, but was actually a dismantled man man Licker Carcano rifle,
• 2:26:07
  a man Licker carcano that we know was purchased by Lee rb Oswald using
• 2:26:13
  an alias, where we have a photograph of Lee rb Oswald posing with that
• 2:26:20
  rifle and the gun that he would later use to kill a police officer that
• 2:26:24
  day. That photo, even conspiracy theorists who have tried mightily to prove was
• 2:26:30
  fake have not been able to do so in most at least the somewhat credible
• 2:26:35
  ones, if acknowledged. Nope, that's a real photograph because you have to
• 2:26:37
  go back and use the technology was that exist at the time, And it's
• 2:26:41
  a weird photograph that Oswald would photograph himself with the rifle and the gun.
• 2:26:46
  But the photograph is absolutely positively real, and we have the records showing that
• 2:26:52
  he purchased the gun. So here we have Oswald going into work with these
• 2:26:58
  curtain rods. There's never any curtain rods found, and everyone, almost all
• 2:27:03
  the witnesses say that the shots came from the sixth floor or around the sixth
• 2:27:09
  floor of the school book depository building. We have witnesses on the fifth floor
• 2:27:13
  right below Oswald who hear not just the gun shots, but they hear the
• 2:27:18
  cartridges falling to the floor. This is directly this is a few feet below
• 2:27:24
  where the sniper would have been, and Oswald is working there that day.
• 2:27:30
  Now a lot has been made of the fact that well, by the time
• 2:27:33
  police enter the building, because that's where witnesses are pointing to and saying,
• 2:27:37
  hey, I think the shots came from there. It took a while in
• 2:27:41
  the chaos, the police flying Oswald on the second floor in the coke room,
• 2:27:46
  or getting a coke in the in the break room. Now, the
• 2:27:50
  first thing I would argue is Lee R. V. Oswald, a guy
• 2:27:54
  who you know, views himself as a man of history and very very political,
• 2:28:01
  and the President United States has just driven past his workplace. He's not
• 2:28:07
  at least curious enough to be out a window looking at what's going on.
• 2:28:11
  If he's innocent somehow. No, he's in the break room, creating an
• 2:28:16
  alibi. And it has been proven time and time again that he had plenty
• 2:28:22
  of time to hide the gun on the sixth floor, go down four floors,
• 2:28:28
  and get into the break room before a police officer finds him there.
• 2:28:33
  I'll acknowledge. Okay, you know, it's weird that he has a semblance
• 2:28:37
  of an alibi. But again, you know, this reminds me of the
• 2:28:41
  O. J. Simpson case, where the OJ Simpson's defense tried to claim,
• 2:28:45
  well, OJ barely had enough time to get from the crime scene back
• 2:28:48
  home before the limo driver witnessed him him coming into the house. And I'm
• 2:28:54
  like, well, do you think he took his time? Do you think
• 2:28:58
  he was lollygagg. Of course it was barely enough time because he was in
• 2:29:01
  a rush. Well, it's the same thing with Lee Harvey Oswald getting to
• 2:29:05
  the second floor of the school Book Depository building. But then the evidence of
• 2:29:11
  guilt becomes even greater because, understandably, in the midst of all this chaos,
• 2:29:18
  the people at the school book Depository building, they do a roll call.
• 2:29:22
  They want to make sure all their employees who were there for work that
• 2:29:28
  day, who checked in, clocked in, are still there. Well,
• 2:29:33
  every single one of them was there except for one person. You guessed it,
• 2:29:39
  Lee Harvey Oswald. He slips out, which is unbelievable, right,
• 2:29:45
  I mean, I mean today's world. The idea that the building wouldn't be
• 2:29:48
  immediately closed off and no one would be allowed to leave is just astonishing.
• 2:29:54
  But this is a different era November twenty second, nineteen sixty three, where
• 2:29:58
  I believe you know the history America's before and after this date from almost every
• 2:30:03
  aspect, including the level of innocence and cynicism. So Oswald leaves the building
• 2:30:09
  and where does he go? He goes home? How do we know this
• 2:30:13
  because we have numerous witnesses telling us how he got there. People who who
• 2:30:20
  witnessed him on the bus getting back to his home and so and by the
• 2:30:28
  way, this is really important. So when Officer JD. Tippett stops Oswald,
• 2:30:37
  and which would be the last act of his life, this is after
• 2:30:39
  Oswald has has come home, gotten a jacket and apparently gotten a revolver,
• 2:30:46
  Tippetts stops him. Why does Tippetts stop him because Oswald exactly matches the description,
• 2:30:54
  exactly matches the description numerous witnesses of the person who was acting suspicious and
• 2:31:01
  left the school book Depository building and who was not there for the roll call.
• 2:31:09
  So it's not as if this was random. This was a situation where
• 2:31:13
  Oswald was extremely on edge. He gets stopped by a police officer. The
• 2:31:18
  police officer starts to ask him questions and Oswald shoots and kills him. Well,
• 2:31:24
  then Oswald goes on this desperate escape where was eventually found in a movie
• 2:31:31
  theater with guess what the revolver that killed JD. Tippett. So we have
• 2:31:37
  the bullets that were fired from the Manniker carcano from the sixth floor of the
• 2:31:43
  school Book Depository building matching ballistically the bullets that were found in Kennedy and Connolly
• 2:31:52
  and in the limousine, and we've got the gun that Oswald, the revolver
• 2:31:58
  that he was found with being used to kill Officer JD. Tippett. So
• 2:32:03
  I mean, this is literally using the OJ analogy. This is OJ level
• 2:32:09
  evidence that Oswald was involved. As they like to say, well, he's
• 2:32:16
  more than involved, because we know, I've just proven to you logistically there's
• 2:32:18
  only three shots, and they all are consistent with shots coming from the school
• 2:32:24
  book Depository building, and they're three cartridges there, and the cartridges came from
• 2:32:28
  a gun that was found on the same floor that was purchased by Lee R.
• 2:32:31
  B. Oswald, and where we have witnesses explaining how he got the
• 2:32:37
  gun into the building pretending their curtain roots. I mean, this is not
• 2:32:43
  difficult stuff unless this is, you know, an extraordinary case involving the assassination
• 2:32:50
  of the President of the United States. So to me, it is very
• 2:32:54
  obvious that the shooter was in fact Lee R. B. Oswald. There
• 2:32:58
  was one shooter, three shots. I've explained logistics in great detail. So
• 2:33:05
  is it possible that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy? I think I've
• 2:33:07
  established there was one shooter and it was Oswald. Is it possible he was
• 2:33:11
  part of a larger conspiracy? Well, I get that his history is consistent
• 2:33:18
  with this idea. I've already referenced the living in Russia, going to Mexico,
• 2:33:24
  the procaster, Cuban groups, all that as fishy as hell, and
• 2:33:28
  I understand why people automatically presumed that he must be part of some larger conspiracy.
• 2:33:33
  But here's the biggest problem that that with that theory. To me,
• 2:33:39
  to get any theory that Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy out of a
• 2:33:43
  batter's box, you have to explain how he got the job at the school
• 2:33:48
  Book Depository building. How did he get the job? When did he get
• 2:33:54
  the job? Well, he got the job because his neighbor, Ruth Payne
• 2:34:01
  knew that he was a loser and was friends with his wife and was trying
• 2:34:07
  to get his ass to work, and so she advised him that there was
• 2:34:11
  an opening at the school Book Depository building, and Oswald applied and got the
• 2:34:16
  job. That was before the parade route was announced as having gone by the
• 2:34:24
  way was changed to go right directly in front of the school Book Depository building.
• 2:34:30
  So I'm sorry for Oswald to be there and not just to be a
• 2:34:35
  coincidence. Ruth Payne has to be in on this massive conspiracy and there's no
• 2:34:41
  evidence of that. Not only does she had to be in on the conspiracy,
• 2:34:46
  the people at the school book Depository building have to at least be in
• 2:34:50
  part of this conspiracy. And the people who really had to be in on
• 2:34:54
  the conspiracy are the people that change the parade route to go right past the
• 2:34:58
  school book Depository building. Oswald could kill the president right there. You have
• 2:35:01
  a massive, impossible to contain conspiracy that is nonsensical and so right there,
• 2:35:11
  I'm sorry. This doesn't even as I say, get out of the batter's
• 2:35:16
  backs. It doesn't pass the smell test. And Oswald's entire persona is this
• 2:35:22
  completely inconsistent with who would be chosen to do this if this crackpot conspiracy ever
• 2:35:28
  got off the ground. Not to mention, let me say again, if
• 2:35:33
  any of this had occurred, there would have been many, many credible people
• 2:35:35
  before they died who would have cop to this, and nothing like that has
• 2:35:41
  happened. Now, I will say, because again I've always claimed I'm an
• 2:35:45
  incredibly objective person, I will say that there is a part of Oliver Stone's
• 2:35:50
  movie JFK that is inadvertently somewhat accurate when it comes to this issue of conspiracy.
• 2:35:58
  If you watch the movie, you remember the characters of David Ferry,
• 2:36:01
  who is played by Joe Peshi, and Guy Banister, who is played by
• 2:36:07
  Ed Asner, and they are the meat on the bone. I guess you
• 2:36:11
  will of Stone's conspiracy theory that they were part of the group that helped Oswald
• 2:36:20
  do this, and we're part of the entire conspiracy itself. I don't believe
• 2:36:26
  that, but I believe that Fairy and Banister acted very strangely in the aftermath
• 2:36:33
  of the assassination because they feared they would be implicated because they were in fact
• 2:36:37
  connected to Oswald. And they probably even maybe half jokingly or as an aside,
• 2:36:43
  said yeah, somebody ought to kill Kennedy, and they were like,
• 2:36:46
  oh my god, this back job actually did it, and they're gonna come
• 2:36:52
  after us. So that's why Fairy and Banister acted in such a nutty fashion,
• 2:36:58
  not because they were part of a conspiracy, but because they thought they
• 2:37:01
  would be implicated in a conspiracy. And as it turned out, that entire
• 2:37:05
  case in New Orleans with the prosecutor Jim Garrison, who Kevin Costner plays in
• 2:37:11
  the JFK movie. By the way, Jim Garrison is a complete total fraud
• 2:37:16
  and a crook and a scoundrel and did this for attention purposes, and that
• 2:37:24
  case was disregarded by a jury and basically record time clay Shaw, who was
• 2:37:31
  played by Tommy Lee Jones, that was the correct verdict. Those people probably
• 2:37:37
  had some connection to Oswald, but they were not involved, in my view,
• 2:37:41
  in the assassination itself, and they were certainly not part of a government
• 2:37:45
  conspiracy. That's the key part of this. There was no government conspiracy to
• 2:37:50
  get Oswald to kill JFK, because this would have been the dumbest plan ever.
• 2:37:56
  It was basically a miracle that he pulled this off. As I said,
• 2:37:58
  he was only he only connected on one of the three shots. For
• 2:38:01
  those who who very much like to say that the man licker Carcano was not
• 2:38:07
  capable of doing this or Oswald wasn't a good enough shot. Under my theory
• 2:38:11
  or even under the Warrant commission theory, He's only accurate if the target is
• 2:38:16
  Kennedy's head. He's only accurate one out of three shots, which is you
• 2:38:18
  know, good, but not not remarkable. Now, I will say there
• 2:38:24
  is one element of the Oswald story that I still don't have a good explanation
• 2:38:30
  for it. I have tried for years and I have not been able to
• 2:38:33
  come up with one, and if anyone has one, I'd love to hear
• 2:38:37
  it. But I will say that Oswald's reaction to finding that that he has
• 2:38:43
  been charged with the shooting of the president, the murder of the president,
• 2:38:48
  while he is paraded in front of reporters, which is a remarkable thing.
• 2:38:52
  Can you imagine. I mean, this guy who doesn't even know he's been
• 2:38:56
  charged with murdering the president gets parade in front of reporters for an impromptu press
• 2:39:01
  converence by Dallas police officers. I mean, this would in a bazillion years
• 2:39:05
  never happened today. But this happened, And there's film with the whole thing,
• 2:39:11
  and his body language and his physical reaction to learning that I find to
• 2:39:18
  be very odd. He is clearly shocked, in my view, that he
• 2:39:24
  has been charged with the murder of the president. Now, is it possible
• 2:39:26
  he honestly thought he had gotten away with that because he escaped, you know,
• 2:39:31
  the school book Depository building and that he had bought the gun nitor an
• 2:39:37
  alias. I mean, I don't know. I mean, the guy had
• 2:39:39
  a very inflated view of his own intelligence. But it's there's no question in
• 2:39:43
  my mind that Oswald is surprised. Go and look for yourself. That his
• 2:39:48
  body language is fascinating and even more important than his body language. When he
• 2:39:54
  leaves, he tells a reporter that he's a patsy. I'm a patsy,
• 2:40:01
  meaning I didn't do this. I'm being set up. I do not understand
• 2:40:07
  why Oswald said that, and he seemingly said so emphatic and apparently sincere fashion.
• 2:40:13
  That does not make sense to me, because the guy who's persona as
• 2:40:20
  the persona that I view Oswald as, would want the world to know that
• 2:40:24
  he did this. He wants to be known in history, he wants to
• 2:40:28
  be bigger than who he is. And so if I still have a little
• 2:40:33
  bit of doubt about what really happened here, it's in that one phrase.
• 2:40:37
  I do not get why I am a patsy. I don't get it at
• 2:40:41
  all, And I really don't have any explanation other than maybe he thought he
• 2:40:48
  was smart enough to be able to beat the rap. Maybe that's what his
• 2:40:50
  plan was. I don't know, but I don't think that that's a great
• 2:40:54
  explanation for something that is inconsistent with my overall theory of the case. Now,
• 2:41:00
  I'm sure a lot of people are wondering, what John What about Jack
• 2:41:01
  Ruby? Doesn't Jack Ruby prove the conspiracy? My god, they shut Oswald
• 2:41:07
  up? Well, the Ruby story, I think is easily disregarded and dealt
• 2:41:13
  with when it comes to conspiracy, even though on the surface, since he
• 2:41:18
  had mob ties and was a strip club owner, and he was hanging around
• 2:41:22
  the police station for the entire post assassination period, he was at that press
• 2:41:26
  conference bizarrely enough, where Oswald that I just referred to indicated that he was
• 2:41:33
  surprised that he had been charged with the murder of the president. I mean,
• 2:41:35
  on the surface, there are obviously things that make you go, what
• 2:41:39
  the hell was that until you actually learn the details and the facts of the
• 2:41:46
  killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby. I would refer you to a book by
• 2:41:50
  the name of Kennedy's Avenger, co authored by a friend of mine, Dan
• 2:41:56
  Abrams, television host on News Nation on New program Appear occasionally. Dan wrote
• 2:42:01
  this book with another author called Kennedy's Avenger, which I think does a great
• 2:42:07
  job of really dispelling a lot of the mythology around Jack Ruby and his killing
• 2:42:15
  of le Rvey Oswald. It's actually a fascinating story of the way the real
• 2:42:20
  world actually works and how oftentimes random coincidence and chance and circumstance dictates incredibly huge
• 2:42:28
  events. And that's what happened here. The essence of Ruby's killing of Oswald
• 2:42:35
  really centers around get this, an armored truck not fitting down a tunnel.
• 2:42:43
  That's what really transpired there. The original plan was to transport Oswald in an
• 2:42:50
  armored truck, but they couldn't fit the truck down the tunnel to get to
• 2:42:56
  where Oswald was and where they were setting up for a TV shot for the
• 2:43:03
  transfer. They wanted this dramatic TV shot of the Dallas police taking Oswald out
• 2:43:09
  and putting him in an armored truck so that they can transfer him, and
• 2:43:16
  the armored truck did not fit. This caused a massive delay. Now the
• 2:43:22
  delay is the key to understanding that this was not part of a plan,
• 2:43:26
  because you know, in nineteen sixty three, there are no cell phones,
• 2:43:31
  there's no text messaging, there's no emails, there's no way to communicate,
• 2:43:37
  Hey, Jack, we've delayed the hit show up later than was previously planned.
• 2:43:46
  This just can't do it. And we know that when Jack Ruby got
• 2:43:50
  there to that same location because he was wiring money to a stripper. We
• 2:43:58
  have the time on that, and it was way after Oswald was supposed to
• 2:44:05
  be brought out. Ruby was just there by coincidence, he was wiring money
• 2:44:11
  to a stripper. And if you don't believe that the wiring the money to
• 2:44:15
  the stripper is good enough evidence that maybe that was part of a scam,
• 2:44:20
  that this was an alibi, and that somehow Ruby knew that the armored truck
• 2:44:24
  wasn't gonna fit, and that this was all a ruse to create a delay
• 2:44:28
  for no apparent reason. I don't know why there would need to be a
• 2:44:31
  delay or how that would help in the killing of Oswald. To me,
• 2:44:35
  the number one Ruby fact is that Ruby loved one thing more than anything else
• 2:44:41
  in his life, his dog. And when he got out to wire money
• 2:44:46
  to the stripper, he left the dog in his locked car with the windows
• 2:44:54
  up. And you don't do that. And if you think your plan is
• 2:45:01
  to go kill the assassin of the president, and you're never coming back to
• 2:45:07
  that car. That was not Ruby's plan. What happened was just another unbelievably
• 2:45:15
  bizarre circumstance coincidence where Oswald I mean Oswald is being brought out later than expected.
• 2:45:24
  Ruby sees the commotion going down the tunnel. He goes. He wants
• 2:45:28
  to go see what's going on. The police don't really give him much heed
• 2:45:33
  because they know who he is. He's paid them off in various ways as
• 2:45:37
  the owner of a strip club. And then he sees Oswald right there in
• 2:45:43
  front of him. He's armed because it's nineteen sixty three and it's Dallas,
• 2:45:46
  Texas. Having a gun on you, especially as a pseudo mob figure,
• 2:45:50
  is hardly unusual, and he sees his opportunity to be a hero and he
• 2:45:56
  jumps on it, and in a split second knee jerk reaction, he decides,
• 2:46:01
  after fuming about Oswald for two days and basically almost stalking him for two
• 2:46:09
  days, he decides to kill Oswald in front of God and everybody on live
• 2:46:13
  television, and he shoots him in the stomach. By the way, you
• 2:46:18
  know, even Oswald dying is an untold story because they basically pumped the blood
• 2:46:26
  out of Oswald on the way to Parkland. I mean, I'm not sure
• 2:46:28
  he would have survived anyway, but they didn't do him any favors in the
• 2:46:33
  way that they administered first aid to him, and they tried very hard to
• 2:46:37
  get a deathbed confession out of Oswald, but they were not able to do
• 2:46:41
  so. But I believe that Ruby is not part of a conspiracy. Ruby
• 2:46:48
  thought he was going to be a hero. Ruby made some cryptic comments towards
• 2:46:52
  the end of his life because he knew that that's what conspiracy theorists wanted,
• 2:46:58
  and he very vaguely said, people never know the full story of why I
• 2:47:01
  did what I did, blah blah blah. But that's him just trying to
• 2:47:05
  come up because he was not treated as the hero he thought he would be.
• 2:47:09
  He was treated as a goat because it ended any chance of getting to
• 2:47:13
  the truth of what happened with regard to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
• 2:47:18
  and it obviously helped birth massive numbers of conspiracy theories. If you take
• 2:47:24
  away the single bullet theory, and you take away Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey
• 2:47:30
  Oswald, and there's an actual trial, then I think the truth of this
• 2:47:35
  is known long ago, and this is the story is no longer a major
• 2:47:39
  fodder for conspiracies, and it doesn't have this effect of creating all these other
• 2:47:43
  conspiracies, as I referenced earlier on the episode, in the real world impact
• 2:47:50
  of if you believe the government killed our president, then it's a hell a
• 2:47:52
  lot easier to believe in all sorts of other crazy ideas and conspiracies, and
• 2:47:58
  has an incredibly corrosive him act politically and on the trust in all of our
• 2:48:03
  institutions. And I'm somebody doesn't trust anybody doesn't believe we should trust our institutions
• 2:48:07
  blindly. But I think we've gotten too far in the other direction. And
• 2:48:11
  it all begins largely with this erroneous belief that the government killed John F.
• 2:48:18
  Kennedy. That's not what happened. There was no massive conspiracy here. This
• 2:48:24
  was one loan loser getting lucky in a series of coincidences and red herrings that
• 2:48:35
  push everyone down the wrong path of investigation with perverse incentives. And though the
• 2:48:39
  authorities should have been way more aware of Oswald as a threat, remember this
• 2:48:46
  is a much more innocent time. There was no effort whatsoever to get Kennedy
• 2:48:52
  killed at the governmental level. Oswald did this alone. He was the loan
• 2:48:58
  shooter. Three shots. As I've told you many times, different than what
• 2:49:03
  the Warrant Commission said, vastly different than what the conspiracy theorists claimed with absolutely
• 2:49:07
  no evidence. And this issue of not releasing all the documents as the Biden
• 2:49:13
  administration has recently announced, which by the way, Trump did not do so
• 2:49:18
  either, So in the conspiracy theorist mind, I guess Trump is in on
• 2:49:22
  this massive conspiracy. There's never ending massive conspiracy to cover up the real truth
• 2:49:26
  of what transpired. This not releasing of all the documents really is the final
• 2:49:30
  nail in the coffin for ending these conspiracy theories. I mean, especially now
• 2:49:35
  that we've already gone through the period where everyone has died. You would have
• 2:49:39
  thought in a rational world that that would be the end of the conspiracy theories,
• 2:49:43
  because in a logical world, someone would have talked, well, that's
• 2:49:50
  never happened, and the absence of evidence in this particular case is evidence of
• 2:49:54
  absence. They didn't talk because it didn't happen, because there was no massive
• 2:49:58
  conspiracy. This was all done by one lone nut who had an overinflated view
• 2:50:05
  of himself who got lucky and that got killed by another loser who thought he
• 2:50:09
  was going to be a hero. And I've already explained how these perverse incentives
• 2:50:13
  and the bizarre coincidences of the logistics of this led everyone down a path that
• 2:50:20
  was not true. I believe I have come up with the scenario that actually
• 2:50:26
  shows what really happened. I realize that there's a lot of arrogance involved in
• 2:50:30
  that. It's not because I'm you know, all that's smart. It's just
• 2:50:33
  because I'm not invested in narratives. I look at all the facts, I
• 2:50:37
  trying to come up with a scenario that fits with all of them. And
• 2:50:41
  my scenario is the only one that comes close to doing that. And there's
• 2:50:48
  no other alternative scenario that is remotely in the realm of possibly being truthful,
• 2:50:56
  because there's some roadblock to every single one. There's some element of it where
• 2:51:01
  there's just no possibility that that's true except for mine. Now, I'm still
• 2:51:07
  open to the idea I could be wrong. I don't think I am,
• 2:51:09
  and I'm happy to answer any and all questions that you might have about what
• 2:51:13
  I just put forward, which is you know whether you believe it or not,
• 2:51:16
  I think it's pretty extraordinary what I just did here. I don't think
• 2:51:18
  anyone's ever tried to do what I just did here. Again, whether you
• 2:51:22
  agree with me or not, but I'm happy to answer any and all questions.
• 2:51:24
  If you want to email me, or you want to post on Twitter
• 2:51:30
  or post on Facebook, or question in response to this podcast, I'd be
• 2:51:33
  happy to try to answer your questions. As is always the case, I
• 2:51:37
  ask you to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast, and share it
• 2:51:41
  with others. By the way, a programming note, it is possible possible
• 2:51:46
  that our Thursday podcast may be delayed or we may not have a second episode
• 2:51:52
  this week, depending on how I do in a golf tournament that I surprisingly
• 2:51:58
  qualified. Where that's going on this week, that's match play, So I
• 2:52:01
  have no idea whether it's going to be a one day deal, two day
• 2:52:03
  deal, or a three day deal. If I get lucky and hot and
• 2:52:07
  it's a three day deal, then we won't have a second episode this week,
• 2:52:11
  but I anticipate that we probably will. Statistically that is the most likely
• 2:52:15
  scenario, So that'll happen in episode seventy two later on in this week,
• 2:52:20
  until then, thanks so very much for listening again. Feel free to ask
• 2:52:24
  me any questions about the content of this podcast, and please share it with
• 2:52:26
  others. Until next time, this is the Death of Journalism podcast. My
• 2:52:31
  name is John Ziegler.