Latest / The Lone Gunman Podcast : JFK Assassination / RRR W/ Rob - May I Take Your Order Please?

Transcript

RRR W/ Rob - May I Take Your Order Please? · The Lone Gunman Podcast : JFK Assassination

• 0:06
  Speaker 1: This is Random Research Ramblings with Rob. Bring your notes,
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: your doubts, and your least favorite footnotes. The file says
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: one thing. The headline says three. Somebody sold certainty for
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: a subscription fee. JFK missing pages. Convenient alibi. A polished
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: little theory with a hole the size of Dallas skies.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: I'm not here for sacred cows or credential parade. I'm
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: here for the claims that collapse when the questions get made.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: Stream of consciousness, facts in the cricket stack. If the
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: evidence walks out, I'm dragging the argument back. Random research
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: ramblings with Rob. Pull the thread till the whole false
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: story comes undone. Random research ramblings with Rob. No padded conclusions,
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: no damage control, just questions and smoke. Conspiracies, history, rabbit
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: holes and scorched earth reviews of dishonest researchers selling certainty
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: as news.
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: Random research. Research Ramblings with Rob.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: Let's investigate the investigation.
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: What's up, everybody? Welcome in. Welcome in to another exciting
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: edition of the....
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Well.
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: Random Research Ramblings with Rob, a division of the Lone
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: Gumman Podcast. I'll get it right one of these days. Anyway,
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: welcome in, folks. I hope everybody is having a wonderful
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: weekend out there. I know I am. And tonight, I
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: want to point out some things to you about dishonest research.
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: There's a difference between The kooky, Ralph Sinque-esque horse shit research. Right?
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: It's just so ridiculous. It can't be real. And if
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: it is real, then that person is just a bona
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: fide idiot. Like, I just can't wrap my head around it.
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: You know, and then there's the dishonesty around the JFK
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: research community when it comes to dishonest witnesses. Like James Files,
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: Judith Baker, Beverly Oliver just passed, rest in peace. But
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: a fraud nonetheless. And then you have dishonest research where
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: Things are knowingly put out there that just aren't true.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: Then you have another vein of dishonest research, and that
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: is the folks that think they're doing something right, but
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: they're really getting something wrong. And what really hurts that case...
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: is when these people... are in... very premier positions... due
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: to their connections... they are put up on a pedestal....
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: And....
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: Given exclusive access to things... that the rest of us
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: just don't get. Some of these people... in the JFK
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: research community, have such inflated egos, it's almost laughable. And
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: how dare, how dare anybody question what they say? They're
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: supposed authorities on the case. So most of the time,
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: they glide by, unchecked, except for some of the more
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: notorious lone nutters with with balls I'll give them that
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: you know it's hard to check these people now I'm
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: gonna show you some examples this evening about what I'm
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: talking about so let's start here and this is a
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: place This is a statement of Jefferson Morley, an independent
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: journalist and author to the House Task Force on Classification.
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: Let me make this a little bigger. Maybe a little bigger.
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: Oh no, there we go. So we can skip down
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: through here. to this part. As I peruse this story,
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: I practice the tried and true techniques that I learned
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: at the Post. And he's referencing the Washington Post. And
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: the story that he's referencing was his first article that
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: he ever wrote on the role of CIA in the
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: events that led to the assassination. It was published in
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: the Washington Post 30 years ago this week. Now already,
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: he's being a little facetious. Heh. It wasn't actually in
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: the Washington Post. It was in Outlook, which is a
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: sequestered section of the Washington Post. It wasn't like it
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: was first, second page, even back page thing. He says,
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: as I pursued this story, I practiced the tried and
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: true techniques of a dogged journalist that he is that
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: he learned at the Post. He knocks on doors. He
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: gets two sources. He follows the money. Start with the
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: cover-up and proceed to the crime. And always ask the question,
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: what did they know and when did they know it?
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: And he says, my research and reporting simply did not
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: give me a clear answer to the question of who
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: killed JFK. What was clear over time is a new
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: fact pattern. In the spring of 2023, the CIA fully
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: declassified for the first time its pre-assassination file on Lee
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin who denied killing the president
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: and was killed himself in police custody before he could
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: defend himself. And he brought a copy of the CIA's
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: pre-assassination file on Lee Harvey Oswald and submitted it for
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: the record. It's 198 pages. And he talks about in
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: the fall of 63, November 63, this file was held
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: in the office of James Angleton, counterintelligence chief at CIA
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: headquarters in Langley, not five miles from the White House
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: where President Kennedy lived and worked. To be sure, the
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: declassified file was not a smoking gun. I showed it
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: to journalists whose judgment I trust and they just simply shrugged.
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: They said, this is evidence of incompetence. Cover your ass,
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: they said. I did not quite believe that, but I
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: could not prove them wrong until March 18th. And that
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: was the day that the National Archives began posting long
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: secret JFK assassination records that had been withheld from the
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: public view for decades. I started by looking at nine
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: declassified documents about Mr. Angleton. He was the man who
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: compiled the file, the Oswald file. And when I came
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: to a long secret transcript of Angleton's testimony to the
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: House Select Committee in 78, my reservations about passing judgment
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: on the responsibility vanished. One newly declassified passage showed that
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: Angleton had lied under oath about a surveillance of Oswald's
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: correspondence while he lived in the Soviet Union from 1959
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: to 62. And that, for me, was a tipping point. Now, folks...
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: Of course, the CIA would be monitoring the mail of
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: a former U.S. Marine who was trying to defect to
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: the USSR at the time, who while there ends up
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: marrying a Russian woman. Of course they're going to read
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: his mail coming into the United States. And the Russians
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: probably were reading it going out of the United States.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: And anything going to him from the United States, was
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: probably read by the United States, and anything coming in
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: to him was probably read by the Russians. Those poor
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: envelopes were getting steamed open and sealed back more than
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: I don't know what. But, it's not a great revelation, okay?
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: It's just not. It's something that you would expect the
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: CIA to do, or the NSA, or whoever was doing it.
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: It's to be expected. To be expected.
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: Okay?
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: Now, let's move on to Jefferson Morley's first ever foray
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: into the JFK assassination. And that was The interview with
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: former CIA... employee Jane Roman and he approached this interview
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: a certain way with Jane Roman and explained to her
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: uh kind of vaguely, about what it was going to
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: be about to get her to agree to the interview.
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: And at this point, Jane Roman is a very elderly woman, okay?
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: As you'll see here in a minute from her writing.
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: But she agreed to do the interview, and Jefferson Morley
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: brought along Somebody who is a former intelligence analyst for
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: the NSA. A guy by the name of John Newman
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: who was writing a book about Oswald and the CIA.
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: And they did their little interview. It was a very
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: gotcha style interview. Guerrilla tactics, if you will. And she
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: basically said, Morley got in the door. They sat down
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: and pretty much didn't say anything. It was Newman who
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: had all the questions. Which I believe. Morley's just sitting
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: back writing everything down. I believe he tape recorded the thing.
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: There is transcripts of it out there. I don't know
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: about the actual audio though. Make of that what you will. Now,
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: shortly after this article was published in the Outlook section
• 12:02
  Speaker 2: of the paper, it had a very sensational headline, if
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: you will. And Let us take a look at that.
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: I think this is the right thing.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: All right, so after the article comes out, Jane Roman
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: gets pissed. I mean, she was pissed after the interview.
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: She felt like she had been had. She had gotten
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: put in a very compromising situation, a very uncomfortable situation.
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: So she decided to write a letter to the editor. Now,
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: she never sent a letter, and she'll explain that in
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: a minute when we get to her letter to the ARRB.
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: But this is the letter that she penned to the
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: Washington Post, but she never sent it. And there's a
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: reason she never sent it, but we'll get there, I promise.
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: She says, to the editor, in the April 2nd Outlook
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: section of your paper, an article appeared headlined, The Oswald File,
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: Tales of the Routing Slips Six Weeks Before JFK's Murder.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: The CIA didn't tell all that it knew. Some weeks prior,
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: I had been contacted by an editor of Outlook who
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: informed me of yet another presidential committee set up to
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: quell the new speculations generated by the Oliver Stone movie, JFK. Now,
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: let me pause here. So, the way Morley framed this
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: to her is that there was a new committee being
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: set up, the Assassination Records and Review Board, to review
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: records of the CIA, and there was something that only
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: she could help with. So she acquiesced. It says, My
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: husband and I had made an absolute decision never to
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: submit to interviews by authors or journalists since the results
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: inevitably were twisted, contorted, or downright untrue in an effort
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: to cater to the prurient obsession of the American people
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: with sensationalist presentations of tragedies and intelligence operations. I bitterly
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: regret having breached this decision in my belief. in the
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: reliability and good sense of your paper. I was shown
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: a summary of an October 8th, 1963 cable from our
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: Mexico City station reporting the visit of a man giving
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: his name as Oswald to the Soviet Embassy in Cuban Consulate. There,
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure what that word is, requesting a visa
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: for Headquarters replied with a summary of information based on
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: State Department reports regarding their contacts with Oswald in Moscow
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: and his return to the U.S. The FBI information was
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: included and it was stated that something maybe that latest
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: information HT lingual information was a state report of May, 1962.
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: That would be a reference to the mail reading program.
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: It did not help prepare. I did not help prepare
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: this cable. I reviewed it in, in a draft and
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: coordinated its release. The Mexico city station cable report and
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: the possible identification was disseminated October 10th to state FBI
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: and Navy and excuse me, Oswald was an ex-Marine, in
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: Washington and Mexico Station was directed to pass it to
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: their Mexico representatives, including the INS. I bitterly regret this decision.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: At the interview, which was tape recorded by both men,
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: the Outlook editor spoke hardly a word. The interview was
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: done by Mr. Newman, who is writing a book on
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: Oswald and the CIA. His approach can best be described
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: as belligerent and confrontational. I later told the editor that
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: it appeared to me that he had set up this
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: interview in order that Mr. Newman could ask his questions
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: of me. The whole situation appeared to me to be
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: making a monstrous mountain out of a molehill. Which is,
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: as you can tell from Jefferson Morley's career path, is
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: what he does best. My statements have been seriously contorted,
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: taken out of context, or at best misinterpreted. I asked
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: for a copy of the statements made by me which
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: were to be placed in the article prior to publication
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: which I understood was agreed on. This was never done
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: for the record. I have never heard or read any
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: information that there was any CIA relationship, direct or indirect,
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: with Oswald. The Warren Commission, a body of distinguished, honorable,
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: and knowledgeable men, reached this conclusion, as did the three
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: other government commissions or committees set up in later years.
• 18:18
  Speaker 2: The CIA contributed wholeheartedly in all of these investigations. I
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: do not recall saying that the withholding of FBI information
• 18:27
  Speaker 2: from CIA Mexico Station was deliberate, nor do I believe it.
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: My explanation would be that the two FBI reports of
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: October 1963 mentioned in the Outlook article as initialed by
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: me went through extensive routing and would not have reached
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: Oswald's dossier in Central Registry and been available to the
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: desk officer who prepared and drafted the reply to the
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: Mexican station cable. I had nothing to do with the
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: preparation of drafting. I signed off on it as a
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: matter of routine, coordination, and review. The FBI reports in
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: any case would not have added anything to significant value
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: to the situation in Mexico City, and the cable was
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: a summary of pertinent facts. There was no particular reason
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: for the withholding... For the withholding... The Outlook article that
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: I can imagine says March 1, the CIA explanation. The FBI,
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's kind of a cluster here. But let's
• 19:40
  Speaker 2: jump into some where I can actually read it. The
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: station request focused on the status of Oswald's citizenship and
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: therefore denouncing draws on State Department information. I never saw
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: the incoming cable from Mexico Station, so I was in
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: no position to verify it. And frankly, I don't recall
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: having been informed of this explanation in this in this form.
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: The quotation of my saying, quote, this may or may
• 20:09
  Speaker 2: not be true was either taken out of context or contorted.
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: I certainly would not have impugned the veracity of another
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: CIA official. Naturally, Oswald or both the CIA and the
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: FBI was a subject of great interest to both the
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: CIA or Oswald was of great interest to both the
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: CIA and the FBI even before the assassination. And She says, naturally,
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: Oswald was the subject of great interest to both the
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: CIA and the FBI, even before the assassination. And, again,
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: you can understand why. You have a former Marine defecting
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: to the Soviet Union. That would definitely draw the interest
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: of the FBI and the CIA. Now, of course, you
• 21:06
  Speaker 2: could say, well, the CIA is behind it. You know,
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: it's Operation whatever the fuck. And, you know, Oswald is
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: a false defector. Now, we know the CIA did have
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: a false defector program. Yet we have no records proving
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: that he was in one. Pre-assassination. So was he? Well,
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: that's an argument that we'll have until the end of time.
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: But back to Ms. Jane Roman's letter. CIA would have
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: explored every available asset abroad to establish his motives and activities.
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: Some of this investigation may have been operationally sensitive and
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: therefore held closely. On a need-to-know basis, I have absolutely
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: no personal knowledge of this, The fact is publicly known
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: now that Oswald was a big headache to the Soviets
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: who finally placed him as a metal worker in Minsk
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: and were happy to return him to the States, complete
• 22:15
  Speaker 2: with a Soviet wife, a most unusual occurrence as some
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: Americans know, to their sorrow, speaks for itself. In my opinion,
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: he was a complete sociopath, if not, in fact, a psychopath.
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: The sub-headline, On the Outlook article, six weeks before JFK's murder,
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: the CIA didn't tell all that it knew, is sensationally misleading.
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: The information in the cable from Mexico Station was disseminated
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: to the state, FBI, INS, and Navy, and to their
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: representatives in Mexico City. The Soviets, Castro, the Mafia, and
• 22:59
  Speaker 2: President Johnson have all been publicly suspected of having been
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: behind the assassination, and the article stated that the JFK
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: film suggested that Kennedy was murdered because he was resisting
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: escalation of the Vietnam War. Mr. Newman was an advisor
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: to Oliver Stone. Are the military then to be considered
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: the next subject? I apologize to all my former CIA
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: colleagues and those presently Concerned for my much regretted involvement
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: in this most flagrantly ridiculous and incorrect article. Okay. So
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: there you have it. Now, again, she wrote this letter,
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: never sent it. There's a reason she never sent it,
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: but we'll get there. Now, just from reading this, does
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: this sound like a woman who was tricked? into giving
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: an interview and then ambushed by former military analyst who
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: was writing a conspiracy book about Oswald and the CIA.
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: Or does this sound like a, a very hardened woman
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: covering the tracks of the CIA still into her elderly age, uh,
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: and protecting secrets and, um, thinking that the interview was
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: going to go a certain way, yet it actually went
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: another way. So she got upset and was apologizing to
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: her CIA colleagues for even giving the interview. Of course,
• 24:42
  Speaker 2: whatever mindset you have, whatever you believe is how you're
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: going to take this. And I can't... your choice for
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: either one. Now, let's go check out what she told
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: the ARRB. Now, the article and the letter that she
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: just wrote to the Outlook happens in 1995. Okay? This
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: letter is from 1996. And it's to Mr. Jeremy Gunn
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: of the ARRB. Dear Mr. Gunn, I am sorry you
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: had such a difficulty in locating me, and it's a
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: wonder that your letter ever did reach me, since it's
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: a weird and wonderful combination of two of my addresses.
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: I have never received the other copy of the letter,
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: which I assume was sent to 3211 Newark Street in D.C.
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: The above address in Stockbridge is my summer address, and
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: I will be here until the middle of October. As
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: of April 30th, I sold the Newark Street house. My
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: permanent legal address is now 9707 Old Georgetown Road, apartment
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: 120 in Bethesda, Maryland. Here's the phone number. Neither number
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: is unlisted, but the listing is in the name of
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: Howard Roman, who is my deceased husband, now deceased husband.
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: The DC number would refer you to the Maryland number.
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: I would, of course, be more than happy to assist
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: you in any way, and recognize that it is your
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: mission to cover any leads available to you. I do, however,
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: feel that I can add absolutely nothing of value to
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: the information already available to you. It would be extremely
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: difficult and expensive for me to get to Washington at
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: this point. I also feel it would be a great
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: waste of your board's time and energy to meet with
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: me here. I also travel a great deal visiting my
• 26:48
  Speaker 2: New England relatives and friends. I am more than happy
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: to get together upon my return to Bethesda in October
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: if you still feel that that would be necessary. I
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: understand that your board was established to put to rest
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: once and for all all of the rumors, plots, conspiracies, etc.
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: as sparked by the Oliver Stone movie, JFK, and various
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: other financially lucrative books and articles. What a blessing that
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: would be. As far as I'm concerned, the Warren Commission
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: did a thorough and accurate job. Okay. Okay. I assume
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: that you are aware that I was interviewed last winter
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: by an editor from the op-ed page of the Washington
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: Post against my better judgment. The article published was sensationalist, scurrilous, tandem...
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: I don't even know what that word is. Words taken
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: out of context, implications of CIA duplicity and involvement. I
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: was so upset I wrote a letter to the Post
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: right off, but It was much too long to send,
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: and I couldn't seem to write a short enough one.
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: At the advice of my colleagues, I checked in with
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: the public affairs officer of CIA. He was very soothing
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: and said that anyone who knew me would realize what happened,
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: and the whole thing would soon sink into oblivion, which
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: it then did. Soon did. The editor was accompanied by
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: a man who was writing a book on Lee Harvey
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: Oswald and left me with a copy of his previous
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: book called Vietnam and JFK, which I didn't read, except
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: for the cover which said the author, whose name I
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: can't recall, had been an advisor to Oliver Stone on
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: the JFK movie. Good luck with your tasks. Sincerely yours,
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: Jane Roman. And she cc'd somebody at the CIA, a Mr.
• 28:40
  Speaker 2: John Pereira of the Historical Review Group. Interesting. I assume
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: they did end up talking to her, which is how
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: they got a hold of her unsent letter to the
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: Washington Post from the prior year that we just read through. Now,
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: I don't know what to make of this. You know,
• 29:08
  Speaker 2: I can sympathize with Jane Roman. in being tricked into
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: an interview and then ambushed by, cause I know how
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: Newman is. Uh, it can be very gruff and assertive and, and,
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: you know, she's sitting in an apartment with these two guys.
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: One's not saying nothing. And the other one's just questioning her.
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: Like he knows very intricate structures of the CIA intelligence and,
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: can figure out document routings and this and that and
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: the other and she's just not prepared for that at
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: all and it doesn't necessarily mean that anything okay but
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: it's just an example of of how Jefferson Morley's career
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: in the JFK industry started. To me, it's a little sus.
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: Just saying. But let us move on here. I gotta
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: stop this one. And let's see. Is it over here?
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: It is not over here.
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: Ah ha.
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: So let's move on in time a little bit. We
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: all know about the whole Joe and Needy's thing with
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: Morley and how he's been on this thing for All
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: these years. Chasing ghosts. And. We've talked here. On the show.
• 31:06
  Speaker 2: About making mountains out of molehills. Which Jane Roman just.
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: Accused him of. Or serving up some nothing burgers. You know.
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: He's been accused of doing that in the past as well.
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: For good reason.
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: But.
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: Let's go back. And talk about the Joe Enides thing.
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: For a little bit. Because. Morley has really placed a
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: lot of scrutiny on Joe and Edie's. And I think
• 31:37
  Speaker 2: me and Doug did a pretty masterful job, and Joe,
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: by laying out exactly how Joe and Edie's was used
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: and came to be used by the CIA and at
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: the time of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. And
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: if you go back and watch through that, we got
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: the documents, we got everything. I mean, by the time
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Joe Anides, by
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: all accounts, had done a somewhat wonderful service in the CIA. Okay?
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: Many, many, many, many, many years. And he was topped
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: out on his salary. And we have the documents basically
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: saying that, you know, here's a list of these guys.
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: They're topped out their salary. We kind of need to
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: put them out to pasture, if you know what I mean. Like,
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: they need to retire. Okay? Because we don't want to
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: keep paying their salary for what they're doing. And, uh,
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: Joe and Edie's had some health problems, and they set
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: up a retirement date for him, but he didn't want
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: to retire until a certain date, but they needed something
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: for him to do. And they were paying him very handsomely,
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: and he didn't want to sit around the house. And,
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: of course, they're not going to put him back in
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: the field, right? So they give him a pretty cush gig,
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: which is liaisoning between the CIA and the people at
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: the House Select Committee on assassinations. You know, it's a
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: good old man job, right? Now, was he honest in
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: his prior things and associations? No, he wasn't. But again,
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: at that time, he didn't need to be. At that time,
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: they didn't have the documentation about who exactly Joe Anides
• 34:08
  Speaker 2: was in 1963 and what he was in charge of
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: doing then. It turns out that he was overseeing several
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: of these anti-Castro Cuban groups based out of Miami. Because
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: they were getting a little unruly. And out of control. And.
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: They basically put him down there. To try to. Wrangle in.
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: What these groups were doing. And. They inserted. Bringier in there.
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: Replacing Ross Crozier. As the handler. To such entities as
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: the DRE.
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: And. And.
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: As 1963 progresses, they are putting more of a chokehold
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: on the DRE as far as their funding and what
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: they are allowed to do. They basically want to pay
• 35:18
  Speaker 2: them to sit back and shut up, do propaganda only.
• 35:21
  Speaker 2: There will be no more military operations against Cuba or Castro.
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: You guys just sit over here, take your money, and
• 35:29
  Speaker 2: shut up. Stop doing the most. If you want to
• 35:34
  Speaker 2: still do propaganda, great. But that's all you're doing. And
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: then eventually the money started dwindling towards the end of 1963.
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: So as that was coming to a halt, things were
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: not going good between the DRE and the CIA. And
• 35:56
  Speaker 2: then the Kennedy assassination happens. And things fall apart quickly
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: after that. Joe Nides is removed as their handler. They
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: are defunded by the CIA. And then they end up
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: dissolving to a shadow of what they were. And being
• 36:16
  Speaker 2: totally kaput by like 66. But the thing with... With
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: Morley and his assertions. About how important Joe Anides was
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: to the DRE. And how important Brunier was to the DRE. And.
• 36:40
  Speaker 2: The way they spoke between each other. And when they did.
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: Is a little bit of a problem. Now there is.
• 36:51
  Speaker 2: Some drama that goes along with this as well. Because supposedly. Supposedly.
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: Morley represented a phone conversation that he had with Brunier
• 37:04
  Speaker 2: as being an interview with Carlos Brunier. Which is a problem.
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: But let's take a look at this little piece right here.
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: Oh, sorry.
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: Might help if I did this first. Here we go.
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: Morley never interviewed me, Brunier said. He contacted me over
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: the phone, and initially we agreed to an interview here
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: at my house. When I checked his credentials and found
• 37:35
  Speaker 2: the inaccuracies that he had written about me, I called
• 37:38
  Speaker 2: back and canceled the interview. He persisted, claiming he'd already
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: bought a plane ticket to come here, and I told
• 37:46
  Speaker 2: him that, look, this area is a very nice place,
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: and he can enjoy a vacation here. but that I
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: would not allow him to put a foot inside my house.
• 37:56
  Speaker 2: We discussed his allegation that the CIA was giving me $ 25, 000
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: a month in 1963 at a time when I was
• 38:05
  Speaker 2: working at Casa Roca as a co-manager with a salary
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: of $ 60 a week and living with my wife and
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: four children in a low-income apartment of the New Orleans
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: Housing Authority. He backed up then stating that the money
• 38:20
  Speaker 2: was maybe going to the Miami office and then from
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: there trickling down to me. I told him I never
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: got a penny from the Miami office. He says I
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: was a delegate of the Miami central office from where
• 38:35
  Speaker 2: I received mail communication. Maybe I visited that office one
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: or two times while I had been vacationing in Miami.
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: I never met George Ioannidis. nor any other non-Cuban persons
• 38:51
  Speaker 2: during those couple of visits to the Miami office. I
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: wrote to Mr. Morley and said that his comment that
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: I had suggested that he had lied about interviewing Brunier
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: was false. I merely reported Morley's claim and Brunier's response
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: and made no judgment regarding the accuracy of either statement. So, again,
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: What do we have here? We have Jefferson Morley claiming
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: that he had interviewed Carlos Bernier when he actually didn't.
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: He was making all kinds of accusations. right? And much
• 39:32
  Speaker 2: like I surmised some years ago that Carlos Bernier was
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: not getting any money from the DRE leaders in Miami.
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: As I said before, my guess is those guys... were
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: keeping most of the money for themselves. The DRE was
• 39:54
  Speaker 2: a big organization, multi-country, multi-state organization. They were not sharing
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: the wealth out of Miami. These guys who were the
• 40:06
  Speaker 2: shot callers for the DRE were keeping all the money
• 40:09
  Speaker 2: for themselves. Now, sure, they would fund some things with
• 40:12
  Speaker 2: some propaganda money. They wanted to do things like buy
• 40:16
  Speaker 2: boats and weapons and go try to kill Castro, but
• 40:19
  Speaker 2: the CIA wouldn't let him. But they still were giving
• 40:24
  Speaker 2: them $ 25, 000 to $ 50, 000 a month, which is a lot
• 40:28
  Speaker 2: of money in 1963. So that's interesting. But again, do
• 40:37
  Speaker 2: we have pure honesty out of Morley about what he's
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: reporting on? Doesn't sound like it. Now, let's go to
• 40:56
  Speaker 2: something else he's been talking about here. And this would
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: be the old Bill Harvey FFA travel document from April 10, 1963. Attention, Mr.
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: Charles Niles, subject William K. Harvey. This is, of course,
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: to the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Agency, a.k.a.
• 41:22
  Speaker 2: the FAA. Dear Sir, in accordance with existing arrangements made
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: with the Federal Aviation Agency and to confirm our oral notification,
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: it is requested that your files reflect the above-named individual,
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: William K. Harvey, an employee of this agency, as having
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: been issued Federal Aviation Agency credential... Number 4883 on 2
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: January 1963. In the event of an inquiry, this information
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: may be released to verify the authenticity of this credential. Sincerely,
• 41:57
  Speaker 2: Nicholas Zubon, Chief of the Building Security Branch of the
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: Office of Security. Okay.
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: Well, what does this mean exactly? And Morley has attributed
• 42:17
  Speaker 2: a lot of meaning to this one very simple document.
• 42:24
  Speaker 2: And we're going to take a look and see what
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: he thinks this document tells us. Here we go. The
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: document about Harvey's FAA credential reveals two new facts about
• 42:47
  Speaker 2: his involvement in the events of 63, neither known previously. One,
• 42:52
  Speaker 2: that Harvey was authorized to travel undercover in the United
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: States while he was serving as chief of the CIA
• 42:59
  Speaker 2: station in Rome. The CIA did not disclose this arrangement
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: to Senate investigators in the 70s. Alright, so let's break
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: them two down first. Did the document that I showed
• 43:13
  Speaker 2: you previously ever say anything about William Harvey being able
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: to travel undercover in the United States? No, it did not.
• 43:29
  Speaker 2: And very simply, okay, very simply, I would point you
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: in the direction of Very simple logic. This is 1963.
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: This is the days before. Bomb sniffing dogs. And metal detectors. And.
• 43:55
  Speaker 2: A whole lot of other security procedures. At airports and
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: aboard airplanes. They did not search luggage. They didn't search
• 44:04
  Speaker 2: your briefcase. They didn't search your purse. They didn't search
• 44:07
  Speaker 2: your person.
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: So.
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: I would point you towards the whole D.B. Cooper analogy here,
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: which occurred actually 10 years, almost 10 years after the
• 44:30
  Speaker 2: Kennedy assassination. You could travel in the United States, anywhere
• 44:38
  Speaker 2: you wanted, under any alias you chose. All Bill Harvey
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: had to do is walk up to the counter, buy
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: an airplane ticket, and write Dan Cooper on there as
• 44:53
  Speaker 2: the person who's buying the ticket, pay with cash, and
• 44:56
  Speaker 2: get on the plane. And nobody would ever know that
• 44:59
  Speaker 2: William K. Harvey, who wrote a false name down on
• 45:06
  Speaker 2: the ticket as Dan Cooper, nobody would be any the wiser.
• 45:14
  Speaker 2: So why does he need a piece of paper from
• 45:17
  Speaker 2: the FAA that would authorize him to travel under a
• 45:22
  Speaker 2: false name? It doesn't make any sense. In 1963, Bill
• 45:29
  Speaker 2: Harvey could have walked into any airport in the United States.
• 45:32
  Speaker 2: They wouldn't know who the hell he was. You didn't
• 45:36
  Speaker 2: have to show an ID. You didn't have to show
• 45:37
  Speaker 2: a driver's license. You didn't have to show a passport.
• 45:44
  Speaker 2: You could go in there, pay money for the ticket,
• 45:47
  Speaker 2: write any name you want down and fly anywhere you
• 45:49
  Speaker 2: want with a weapon in your belt line, in a
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: shoulder hostel, in your briefcase, in your luggage, whatever. Remember,
• 45:59
  Speaker 2: in 1971 or two, whenever D.B. Cooper did his thing,
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: he allegedly brought a bomb on the plane in a
• 46:07
  Speaker 2: briefcase that they didn't check. And he wrote down a
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: false name when he bought the ticket. So, this whole
• 46:18
  Speaker 2: thing about this document being some great relevatory thing really
• 46:24
  Speaker 2: doesn't mean much to me. But let's get back to it.
• 46:31
  Speaker 2: Maybe I can be swayed. Maybe not. The document does
• 46:38
  Speaker 2: not prove that Harvey traveled to Dallas in November 1963.
• 46:42
  Speaker 2: as the State Department official said, but it does show
• 46:44
  Speaker 2: that contrary to previous CIA statements, the assassination chief was
• 46:49
  Speaker 2: authorized to travel domestically. Okay. He was authorized to travel domestically. Okay. Whoop-a-dee-doo. Whoop-a-dee-dippity-doo.
• 47:09
  Speaker 2: Anybody is authorized to travel domestically. You don't have to
• 47:14
  Speaker 2: be a CIA assassination chief to be authorized to travel domestically.
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 47:24
  Speaker 2: And just out of curiosity, I am going to check
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: something real quick. Because I had something pop into my
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: brain here. With his career... Trying to see exactly when...
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: He was sent... To Italy. He was eventually reassigned to
• 47:55
  Speaker 2: Rome as station chief in 1963. Following a punitive administration post.
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: And I believe that happened in June of 1963. So again.
• 48:13
  Speaker 2: Here at the bottom, you have Morley asking the question,
• 48:17
  Speaker 2: and what exactly were the duties of the Rome station
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: chief that required U.S. travel in late 63? Well, if
• 48:24
  Speaker 2: you go back to the document in question, where did
• 48:31
  Speaker 2: it go? Let me swap back here. because if you
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: look at things, if you look at this document again,
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: there's a date on the bottom that he was issued
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: Federal Aviation Agency credential 4883 on 2 January 63. Right?
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: This is before he was This is before he was
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: made the station chief in Rome, Italy. This is before
• 49:16
  Speaker 2: they had announced that he was going to be sent
• 49:20
  Speaker 2: to Rome to be the station chief in Italy. Okay.
• 49:27
  Speaker 2: This letter is right around the time where they decided
• 49:31
  Speaker 2: that they were going to send him to Rome, Italy.
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: It's also the same day that allegedly Oswald shot at
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: General Walker. April 10th, 1963. And I believe he was
• 49:43
  Speaker 2: actually sent to Rome in June or July of 63. So, again,
• 49:51
  Speaker 2: nothing about Morley's assertions about how important this document is
• 49:55
  Speaker 2: make any sense to me whatsoever. Now, I know I'm
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: not the smartest knife in the drawer, or the sharpest
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: knife in the drawer, but if somebody can explain this
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: to me better... the meaning of this, I'm all for it.
• 50:15
  Speaker 2: To me, this is a giant nothing burger. A giant
• 50:22
  Speaker 2: nothing burger. And just from this one small document, he
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: asked this question. Why did the CIA want the FAA
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: to backstop the cover story of its assassination chief as
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: he traveled within the United States? I.
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: He's attributing a lot of things that we just can't.
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: He's making a bridge too far to me. He's basing
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: the fact that Harvey allegedly traveled to Dallas in November
• 50:54
  Speaker 2: of 63, but he can't back it up and he
• 50:58
  Speaker 2: can't prove it. To me, it's all a bridge too far.
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: I just can't put a lot of stock into it.
• 51:14
  Speaker 2: But that to me is, and I didn't even get
• 51:20
  Speaker 2: to the whole Russian thing, but you see what I'm
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: saying when it comes to, I just don't understand how
• 51:30
  Speaker 2: some folks in this industry get their bona fides I
• 51:37
  Speaker 2: guess it is who you know, and maybe it's who
• 51:41
  Speaker 2: you blow. Insert joke here. I don't know. But, you know,
• 51:57
  Speaker 2: to be the guy, the professional looking and acting guy
• 52:02
  Speaker 2: with all the right bona fides, To go on mainstream
• 52:08
  Speaker 2: media and do these interviews and be talking to Luna's
• 52:13
  Speaker 2: task force and all this and that. And ask and
• 52:17
  Speaker 2: get whatever you want out of them. Fantastic. Good for you.
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: Good on you. But just know, there's people out here watching.
• 52:29
  Speaker 2: And there's people out here pointing certain things out. Some
• 52:36
  Speaker 2: things aren't just above board anymore. And when somebody claims
• 52:42
  Speaker 2: to have made a great research discovery, very rarely does
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: it ever pan out or matriculate into something that is
• 52:57
  Speaker 2: truly a great discovery. It's often... nothing burger or it
• 53:07
  Speaker 2: turns out to be or it's something that is misinterpreted
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: contorted as Jane Roman accused Jefferson Morley and John Newman
• 53:19
  Speaker 2: of doing to what she told them so is that
• 53:24
  Speaker 2: the key I mean we're all on the same side
• 53:28
  Speaker 2: of the thing here and you know there's supposed to
• 53:32
  Speaker 2: be a lot more important people than me out there
• 53:34
  Speaker 2: interpreting these documents And analyzing these documents. And that's the
• 53:38
  Speaker 2: best you can do.
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 53:45
  Speaker 2: I don't like it. And I ain't buying it. So. Anyway.
• 53:54
  Speaker 2: That's it for this one. Hope you enjoyed the little rambling.
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: It's just been something that's on my mind lately. as
• 54:04
  Speaker 2: Morley is on his hiatus, writing his paper for the
• 54:08
  Speaker 2: task force. And, you know, pretty soon we'll have everything,
• 54:13
  Speaker 2: Joe Anides and William Harvey's travel documents, and Jefferson Morley
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: will solve the case. And we can all just stop
• 54:21
  Speaker 2: what we're doing and move on. Allegedly. But until then,
• 54:29
  Speaker 2: keep tuning in to the Lone Gummin' podcast, Keep tuning
• 54:33
  Speaker 2: in to some Random Research Ramblings. And we'll see you
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: next time. Peace out. Random Research Ramblings. We rock. Random
• 54:44
  Speaker 2: Research Ramblings.
• 54:46
  Speaker 1: We rock.
• 54:48
  Speaker 2: JFK questions one by one. Talk it out.
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: The day ain't done. Random Research Ramblings.
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: Ramblings we rock.