Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Five: Exhibit Number 399

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Five: Exhibit Number 399 · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and five of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:03
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. As the
0:07
sixtieth anniversary of the JFK assassination approaches, I finally get the question Gerald Posner,
0:13
the author of Case Closed, about my alternative theory of the shooting.
0:18
Nikki Haley declares war on social media and the news media continues to use equity
0:24
and climate change to destroy America. I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing Man.
0:31
I'm a digital advertising SEO and email marketing specialist that also happens to be
0:37
a big fan of John Zigler and the Death of Journalist. Do you need
0:41
help reaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the right messaging and
0:45
confated message and the best channels for your business. Please visit my website,
0:50
the Dutchdigitalmarketingman dot com and let me help you tell your story. The website
0:56
is the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. If you want to grow your business,
1:00
Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. And hey,
1:07
thanks for sponsoring the show. I've been saying for quite some time that
1:11
when all the dust finally settles on the Republican presidential nominating process, that not
1:15
only will Donald Trump be the nominee, barring death or physical imprisonment before that
1:23
decision is finally made, but that Nicky Haley has a I would say,
1:29
better than fifty to fifty shot of, depending on when she drops out,
1:34
getting more votes than Ron DeSantis. Now, obviously this a lot of this
1:40
depends on whether or not she sticks around for South Carolina, her home state.
1:44
It's possible she may decide to bail before South Carolina to avoid an embarrassing
1:49
or potentially embarrassing loss there, or she may decide that finishing a decent second
1:53
there is a good way to go out for her. I have no way
1:57
of knowing that, But my point here is that Nicky Haley is in fact
2:02
gaining traction and Ron de Santis is not gaining any more traction than he's had.
2:09
He's just holding on to where he has been for the last several months,
2:15
despite some good debate performances. And we've discussed in great detail why that
2:21
frustrating reality exists. But now that Nicki Haley is doing better in the polls
2:28
and nationally seems to be on the verge of potentially catching Ron de Santis,
2:32
and is ahead of him in several states like South Carolina and like New Hampshire,
2:38
according to a new poll that has Ronda Santis in fourth place in New
2:43
Hampshire. I told you long ago that New Hampshire was going to be big,
2:46
big problems for DeSantis, and he ought to get the hell out of
2:49
there. And unfortunately, as usual, no one has been any goddamn attention
2:53
to me. But because Haley was the focus of a lot of attention at
2:58
the last debate, and because she's been doing better in the polling, she's
3:01
now getting a lot more scrutiny. And she made a statement a couple of
3:07
days ago that was rather startling and created a huge stir on social media.
3:14
Now I happened to believe that this is one of those stories that is way
3:17
way bigger on social media than it is in the real world, because obviously
3:23
it deals with social media. And basically what Haley said was that one of
3:28
her top priorities, She even said on her first day in office, which
3:31
is one of those cliches that gets way used too often, And so she
3:38
says that on our first day in office, one of the first things she'll
3:42
do is that she's going to force social media companies to give the US government
3:47
their algorithms because we need to understand, you know, what they're targeting.
3:53
And I think this is mostly specifically to TikTok, which is obviously a Chinese
3:59
company that is being used essentially as a way of gathering information on Americans in
4:04
a very successful fashion so far. And that was a huge part of the
4:10
last debate where she in the fake Obama Swamy got into it over the issue
4:15
of TikTok, and Obama Swami claims she was a hypocrite because you know,
4:19
she was against TikTok and believed that it should be banned. When her adult
4:24
daughter was actually posting on TikTok, then he went after her, and Hailey
4:30
called Obama's Swamy scum. I mean, it was just, you know,
4:33
most of it was just ridiculous imposturing, but it got a lot of attention
4:38
anyway. Haley then goes on to say, not only does she want the
4:43
algorithms, but she, as president of the United States, wants to four
4:47
social media companies to have every user be verified in their own name. And
4:56
this is what caused a huge amount of uproar on social media, especially on
5:01
Twitter, because there are a lot of very popular accounts that are anonymous,
5:08
and I happen to hate anonymous accounts. I really do. I hate dealing
5:14
with them, and it's very frustrating, especially since I spend so much time
5:17
on Twitter that there are many anonymous accounts that benefit greatly because of their anonymity.
5:26
In other words, people are far more willing to share an anonymous account
5:32
or something an anonymous account says, even if it's named something like cat Turd,
5:35
which is one of the more popular allegedly conservative accounts on Twitter. You're
5:42
much more willing to share cat Turd because we don't know who that actual person
5:46
is, and therefore you know you're not responsible for anything that they have said.
5:50
It's a weird phenomenon, like the number one reason why my tweets are
5:58
are not particularly popular, other than the fact I'm not a celebrity, is
6:01
that I happen to be a toxic personality because everyone knows. Everyone who cares
6:06
knows a lot about me, including the fact that I am seen as a
6:12
Jerry Sedusky supporter and a whole bunch of other things. So therefore no one
6:15
wants to or very few people want to be seen publicly as sharing my content.
6:23
But it's perfectly fine, and the weird psychology that is social media to
6:27
share an anonymous person under a synonym like Catter, I mean, that's just
6:32
the weirdness of social media. But Nikki Haley, saying that this is a
6:38
national security issue, wants to make sure that everybody who uses social media does
6:45
so in their own name. Now, this is something that seems well intentioned.
6:49
She believes that this would get rid of all of the foreign bought accounts,
6:55
and she's probably right about that, and that the bot accounts are in
6:58
fact the problem and it's very difficult to deal with them. So I understand
7:02
what her goal here is. But even as much as I hate anonymous accounts
7:10
in every possible way, this is not the appropriate use of the federal government
7:16
of the United States of America. There are potentially free speech issues there First
7:21
Amendment issues, but it's just not the role of the US government or the
7:26
US President to determining to determine for social media companies who is allowed to have
7:33
an account and whether or not that account has to be in someone's real name.
7:40
And there were people I think this was disingenuous people who were saying,
7:45
well, you know, that means that Nikki Haley is against the publishing of
7:47
the Federalist papers because many of our founding fathers wrote the Federal's papers under other
7:55
names, essentially anonymously. Of course, I'm not sure that that's exactly the
7:59
same thing is protecting cat Turd's ability to post under the name cat Turd,
8:05
But I get philosophically the point. The major issue here is that this,
8:11
I think is a great example of who Nikki Haley really is. That she
8:16
is, yes, a Republican, and she does have some good qualities,
8:20
but she's basically a Karen. She's a big government Karen. This goes back
8:26
to her days. To me, when she was the governor of South Carolina,
8:28
I did not like the way that she got rid of the Confederate flag.
8:33
At that moment, I saw her as a very very PC, politically
8:37
correct Republican, especially for a state like South Carolina. And you know,
8:43
I always use now the COVID example. To me, if COVID hit,
8:48
she would have gone right along with the conventional wisdom. She would probably do
8:52
so again the conventional wisdom, and would not fight back, and she's definitely
8:58
somebody who the establishment would like, and that's the perception of her. Is
9:03
an establishment Republican which has no chance of winning the nomination, especially with Donald
9:09
Trump alive in twenty twenty three. So I almost feel silly talking about Nicky
9:15
Haley. I have said that she has on paper, by far, the
9:20
best chance of beating Joe Biden if that's your only goal in the twenty twenty
9:24
four presidential election, although I acknowledge that data, which is very strong right
9:28
now, would not be as strong if she actually went through a brutal general
9:33
election campaign. However, despite the fact that she's the most electable of the
9:39
major Republican candidates by far, at least on paper and based on the data,
9:45
she has no chance of winning the nomination because there's just no way that
9:48
in twenty twenty four Republicans are going to go for a big an openly big
9:54
government establishment PC Republican's not going to happen, even though she does have good
10:03
qualities, and I believe being a woman, especially with the abortion issue being
10:07
as prominent and as it currently is, is a huge advantage for her,
10:11
and I think she'd still be you know, I've said, if Donald Trump
10:15
is going to have a rational vice presidential nominee, I think Nicky Haley would
10:18
probably be a good choice for him. I have no idea whether or not
10:22
he's willing to do that, because it's all based upon his own ego,
10:26
but I think politically that would be the smart move. But there's no question
10:31
that Haley has stepped in it over this issue. However, I do believe
10:35
that the impact of that is not going to be nearly as great as most
10:39
people on social media think, because even though social media has become very,
10:45
very popular, it is still nowhere near popular enough to where was this one
10:50
issue would wipe out Nicky Haley's campaign. The people who determine elections, even
10:56
primary elections, are general at least still to this day, not on social
11:01
media. And so this is one of those classic examples where people on social
11:05
media I think are overreacting because it's important to them, but to the majority
11:11
of voters, they're not even gonna be aware of this or care about it
11:16
even if they are aware of it. So that's the Nikki Haley issue,
11:20
and it you know, I think I think I have some credibility on this
11:24
issue because, as I said, I hate anonymous accounts. I'm kind of
11:28
you know, in between. On Nicki Haley. I mean, if you
11:31
gave me, if you if you said to me, zig, you can
11:35
pick anybody to go up against Joe Biden. If your only goal is to
11:41
beat Joe Biden, I'd probably pick Nikki Haley. But I don't really like
11:43
her personally. But I think she's absolutely wrong on this issue, and I
11:50
do think it'll harm her, but probably not as much as those on social
11:54
media are currently pretending. Now, I've said a lot in the last several
12:00
months. I mean, I think maybe the number one theme, other than
12:03
our coverage of the Republican presidential nominating process, the number one theme of this
12:07
podcast has been that there are two issues that are currently and in the future
12:15
the most dangerous to the heart and the essence of what America was supposed to
12:20
be. And in my view, those are equity and global warming climate change.
12:26
I've said many times that those two things and they are, believe it
12:31
or not related. Many on the left have tried to connect those two things.
12:35
We've even played clips from members of the left who have bizarrely tried to
12:39
connect equity and climate change. Global warming, but it is my very strong
12:45
view that those two factors combined together, and you put this underneath the umbrella
12:52
of wokeness, this is the greatest danger to the essence of America currently and
12:58
in the future. The Left is openly using both of these things as a
13:03
weapon to destroy what is left of the country. And in the last few
13:09
days we have had an enormous amount of evidence that this is the case,
13:13
and I want to go through some of that now before we get to our
13:16
interview with Gerald Posner, which I urge you to listen to because it's fascinating
13:22
on a number of different levels. But first let me deal with this issue
13:26
of equity in a couple of different ways. The Daily Wire, conservative news
13:31
outlet, has just broken a really remarkable story involving the National Security Agency.
13:39
Now this is NSA. Is that's serious stuff. This isn't supposed to be
13:45
some sort of academic government institution. This is where you know, lives can
13:50
be saved or lost in the NSA. So this is serious stuff. And
13:56
the Daily Wire has a story headlining exclusive leaked NSA doc reveals massive woke glossary
14:07
pushing critical race theory, gender ideology at the Intel Agency. Sub headline Intel
14:13
Agencies. Thirty four page glossary defines hundreds of social justice terms, including white
14:20
fragility, trans misogyny never even heard that word, and settler colonialism. And
14:31
this is just off the charts, wack a doodle stuff at the NSA.
14:35
And this glossary chart is really amazing. I mean, they specifically define where
14:43
it's like diversity and workforce diversity, and what the word equitable means, and
14:48
inclusion or inclusion culture. But the word equitable is the one I want to
14:54
focus on because that has been to me the most under rated story of the
15:01
last couple of years, certainly since the middle of COVID, where the left
15:07
used a crisis to totally change the definition of a keyword. That equality became
15:16
equity. Equality of opportunity became equity of outcome, and to stupid people,
15:22
those two things sound very similar, but they are one hundred and eighty degrees
15:28
different. Equality of opportunity is the essence of America. Equity of outcome is
15:35
the death of America. And that's not hyperbole. That is a fact.
15:41
And so here is the nessay the National Security Agency. This is their definition
15:46
of equitable. Hold on to your hats folks equitable. This is their definition
15:54
characterized by fairness, just honest, and free from bias. Whereas equality means
16:06
providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start
16:15
from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process
16:26
is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from
16:37
bias or systemic structures. Holy shit, this is the NSA, a federal
16:47
government agency, a very significant one, defining equitable in a way that is
16:55
one scary, two incorrect. Three seems as if they're literally flipping the words
17:03
equality and equity. I mean, it's one thing to change the definition or
17:10
to change the value system. We're no longer going to value equality, we're
17:14
gonna value equity. But it's another thing altogether to just completely change the definition
17:21
to where you're at least at the beginning of that you're making it sound like
17:25
you're defining equality of opportunity. But then there's the end part of that definition
17:32
where it's obvious that basically what they're saying is, look, we live in
17:34
an unfair society. People don't start from the same position we need equity of
17:40
outcome, and we need to force equity of outcome to overcome these systemic structures
17:48
and biases. Let's put that out of the theoretical into the practical. We
17:53
need to punish white people and Asian people as much as we possibly can on
17:57
behalf of black and Hispanic people. That's what we need to do. I
18:03
guess you don't I guess you put Indian. I don't know where you put
18:06
Indian people. Because Indian people are extremely successful, maybe the most successful demographic
18:11
that there is in America. They seem to go slide underneath the radar.
18:15
But in the real world, this is basically meaning you know what, as
18:19
a government entity, we need to be actively punishing white people and Asian people
18:26
in order to get equity of outcome. I mean, if you asked me
18:32
to come up with the most ridiculous, absurd, hyperbolic parody of an answer
18:41
to what a federal agency might use to define equity, I could never have
18:47
come up with something that bonkers as what the NSA has. And I mean
18:53
it's chilling, it's chilling, and it's not just theoretical, because in just
19:00
the last few days, there have been numerous stories that fit this exact narrative.
19:08
They're not fucking around, folks. This isn't just them sitting around when
19:15
I say they the liberal establishment, them just sitting around going you know,
19:19
boy, wouldn't it be great to live in an equitable society where we could
19:23
have outcomes that were equal and we didn't have to worry about this whole equality
19:30
of opportunity thing because it's just so unfair that the outcomes don't end up being
19:34
the same for every single demographic group. No, no, this isn't just
19:38
theoretical. And the news media plays a huge role in this, because just
19:44
in the last few days, there have been numerous recent stories where black people
19:48
have committed serious crimes against white people and the prospect of a racial angle has
19:56
simply been ignored. It's as if we have now this bizarre affirmative action equity
20:03
perspective on how to report the news, because if black people attack a white
20:08
person, that's just an attack. If a white person happens to do something
20:14
to a black person, that's inherently racist. George Floyd being the most obvious
20:19
example. There was never forget about the idea that maybe George Floyd really wasn't
20:25
murdered, which the evidence seems to indicate that he really wasn't murdered. There
20:29
was never any evidence that that was racially motivated by that police officer. There
20:33
was never any evidence of that at all. Yet it's just accepted white police
20:38
officer, black quote unquote victim. Therefore, if so facto, it's racism
20:47
in the minds of the news media. And again that didn't just happen in
20:52
a vacuum where it was theoretical. That almost changed America, the whole George
20:56
Floyd situation, largely because it happened in the middle of COVID and you know,
21:02
all our defenses were down. I mean, this had huge impact on
21:06
the country, and there was never any evidence of actual racism. But the
21:11
media plays pretend. They just probably pretend whenever there's a crime, or even
21:18
a theoretical crime that happens in the other direction, it's inherently racist. But
21:22
if it happens to white people by black people or or people of color,
21:27
nothing to see here, people, Let's move along, move along, please.
21:32
I mean, just so many examples of this. I mean, we
21:34
have the kid in Las Vegas, the teenager who died after being attacked by
21:41
over a dozen black kids. There's been no effort whatsoever by the news media
21:45
to raise this as a racial issue. By the way, coming in Las
21:48
Vegas, just a short period of time after there was that horrible video that
21:56
showed two kids of color. One was clearly black, the other seemed to
22:00
be of an ambiguous racial makeup but wasn't white, despite the Left trying to
22:06
claim that they were somehow white. But with two kids of color driving a
22:10
car purposely running over a poor, poor white guy, former police officer,
22:14
and a bicycle killing him in a hit and run, I mean, and
22:18
it took forever for that story to make any news at all. There was
22:22
never any major racial angle that was promoted by the news media on that story.
22:27
They did everything they could to ignore it. And in this situation,
22:30
also in Las Vegas, you got NBC. Remember there's a video of this.
22:37
There's a video of this attack on this poor white kid who dies as
22:41
teenager. NBC actually had a headline a Las Vegas teen died after he was
22:48
attacked this month by about fifteen people while defending a friend. His father says,
22:59
five says, So they're not even willing to state that as a fact.
23:03
They have said, well, you know, the father's claiming that that's
23:06
what happened. There's a video of this. There's a video of this,
23:11
and I can guarante mn to you, if there were fifteen white kids beating
23:15
up a black kid and that black kid died, NBC would not be referring
23:21
to those fifteen kids as people. They would be white racists and probably,
23:27
by the way, there would be logic to that. But that's just one
23:30
example. We've also had a Louisiana tech attack on four white women who were
23:41
stabbed by a black man. Do I have any knowledge or to my knowledges,
23:45
or any direct evidence that this was racist, not that I'm aware of
23:49
at the moment. It's awfully weird that a black man would go after four
23:53
white women with a knife, but I can guarante an to you if it
23:57
was reversed, you would immediately see that there was a racial angle to that
24:03
story. The Nashville massacre manifesto. Now, remember, this is a white
24:08
transgender person who was targeting white people over their alleged white privilege, and the
24:18
media has completely ignored this. And it's the media not just muting any racial
24:25
angle in these stories, because it doesn't fit their narrative. I think they're
24:30
ignoring it, at least in part because they're responsible for planning the seeds of
24:36
insanity in some of the heads of these people. I mean the media.
24:42
Where are these people getting this idea about white privilege or that we live in
24:48
a systemically racist society, if at least subconsciously, the way the media handles
24:56
race relations has to have an impact, especially on young younger people. Where
25:00
the hell are they learning the idea that somehow we're living in a racist society.
25:07
It's not based upon their own experiences because the real obviously there's still racism
25:14
in all directions, it's inherent in humanity, but from a systemic standpoint,
25:18
if anything, the racism goes in the other direction. Now we bend over
25:23
backwards, especially in academic institutions, to make sure that there's not even the
25:27
appearance of racism against people of color. So where the hell are they getting
25:33
the idea? Well, it's at least in part for media coverage and the
25:40
narrative that the media has created about our society, and whether it's about news
25:45
stories regarding George Floyd or about the history of the country and oura. Although
25:51
we're going all the way back to our founding fathers and slave owners. Just
25:53
the entire narrative that young people have now been given by the news and by
26:00
academia working hand in hand, absolutely at least subconsciously, has to be motivating
26:08
or enabling these things that are happening, and we're seeing it all over the
26:15
place. I mean, I think even that horrible death of the former NHL
26:22
hockey player in the UK who died because he got slashed in the throat by
26:30
Eskate, I think that story has been muted because that you have a white
26:36
victim and the guy who did this to him happens to be black. Now
26:41
there's no evidence at all that there was a racial motivation there, but it's
26:45
the way the news media sees the story, the prison through which they see
26:49
it. Oh, we've got a black perpetrator. We need to probably give
26:53
them more of the benefit of the doubt. It's the soft bigotry of low
26:56
expectations. Well, that person who has now been final charged with manslaughter,
27:02
but it took forever and the story I think would have been much bigger if
27:07
you took the angle out of this that the perpetrator happened to be black.
27:11
I could be wrong about that. Maybe I'm seeing it through the prism of
27:15
the way I now see the way the news media works. But it's awfully
27:19
coincidental that that story got way underplayed and still is getting underplayed. And we
27:26
happen to have a situation where the victim was white and the perpetrator was black.
27:32
And I mean to me, this is pervasive throughout our society, and
27:37
we're seeing it more and more and more, and it's really driven, in
27:44
my view, mostly by white liberals, and white liberals are how we got
27:49
Barack Obama to begin with their own white guilt and their view of white racism,
27:56
and how we have to atone for our past sins. And there's a
28:02
story I'm going to tell here that may not be directly related, but I
28:04
think it's certainly relevant and you may get a little bit of a kick out
28:07
of it. My father, who I said, is recently in the process
28:14
of moving with his wife to I guess you would call it an assisted living
28:18
facility, although I look at it more as a resort. And he's very
28:22
well to do, and he's been until now been living in a town near
28:29
the Cape Cod in Massachusetts called Marion, Massachusetts. It's a little enclave right
28:34
on the water, and these are very well off people and most of them,
28:41
not all of them, are liberals. And there's a sign in Marion,
28:47
Massachusetts. Now it's not an official sign, but it's prominent and so
28:52
it's not done there put there by the city of Marion, but somebody put
28:56
it up and the sign says, Marian the way life should be. And
29:04
my wife when I saw that, and we just laughed because we said to
29:10
ourselves, well, yeah, life is wonderful in Marion, Massachusetts, because
29:17
everybody's the same race, everybody's highly educated, everybody's rich, and there's enough
29:23
high school kids to come in during the summertime, attracted by the water to
29:29
do all the dirty work for you, so you don't need illegal immigrants to
29:32
come in and you know, and work for dirt wages underneath the table.
29:38
And so life is the way it should be. Yeah, wouldn't it be
29:41
great if if every community, every little community, could have the same situation.
29:48
No shit, Sherlock. But they're completely isolated. They have no semblance
29:56
of a concept of what reality is like outside of their little enclave. They
30:02
think that this is the way it ought to be. And why can't it
30:04
be this way everywhere else? Well, because of the circumstances I just stated,
30:11
and this is I think what drives a lot of this. But also
30:17
these are the type of people who have no idea what is happening in society
30:25
to their own race. These are white people who are sowing the seeds of
30:30
destruction for their own especially their grandchildren and their great grandchildren, because they're sitting
30:37
around going, well, everything's fine here. Well, of course it's fine
30:41
there because you don't have to deal with any of these issues, but the
30:45
vast majority of the country does, and many white people have no idea,
30:52
and Asian people too, how much they are really underattack by huge elements of
31:00
society, the news media, academia, their own government, as I already
31:07
documented with the NSA glossary terms. And it's everywhere, it's everywhere. I
31:12
mean, I could do a segment about this almost every episode of the Death
31:18
of Journalism. Just a couple days ago, in San Diego, La Jolla,
31:25
California, there's a poor white kid from middle school who has been suspended
31:32
from school because he went to a high school football game wearing makeup on his
31:37
face with his friends and somehow it got perceived he was wearing blackface when there
31:45
was no evidence he was intending to wear blackface. He was wearing like war
31:49
paint to go to a high school football game. Poor middle school kid trying
31:53
to show school spirit. He gets suspended from school and suspended from attending all
31:57
future athletic events for the rest of the year, not to mention that unless
32:02
it gets somehow expunged. And they're trying to bring in you know, lawyers
32:07
and and uh, you know, advocates, advocacy groups to try to fix
32:10
this, but the school was fighting the fixing of this. This certainly seems,
32:15
from all the evidence I've seen, the reporting I've seen on this as
32:20
to be a completely bogus situation, no evidence of racism. But because that's
32:25
the prism through which academia sees everything, Oh my god, we got a
32:30
kid in blackface, we must punish. It's not having anything to do with
32:36
race. And this kind of stuff is now almost routine, and and this
32:43
could be following this kid around on his record forever. And I mean,
32:47
and it's not an isolated situation. It's happening everywhere, and even in sports.
32:54
Sports used to be the area of life where you know you you didn't
33:00
have to worry about this because sports was based on performance. If you're the
33:05
best person for the job, you get the job. If you perform in
33:08
the job, you keep the job. No one really cares what color you
33:13
are. They just want to win the game. They want their team to
33:15
be in the best position to be successful. Now, obviously there was racism
33:22
in sports through much of the nineteen hundreds, but towards the end of the
33:27
nineteen hundreds the twentieth century that dramatically changed. And now after decades of the
33:34
sports media completely and totally creating a drum beat narrative of racism is bad,
33:44
and racism is bad, and it is pervasive and we must do everything to
33:47
stop racism. I mean, my god, it's unbelievable how much the sports
33:52
media has put out what I now believe to be propaganda even to this day.
33:58
Even to this day, we're pretending that somehow black athletes have it more
34:01
difficult than white athletes or athletes who are who are not black, And it's
34:07
just a flat out lie. I mean, and I'm somebody who began their
34:13
career as a television sports caster. I've been in sports in and out in
34:17
different ways, throughout different areas of my career, different eras of my career.
34:23
And I watch virtually every sports documentary, every major sports documentary that there
34:30
is, and it is comical. It is as predictable as a Hallmark Christmas
34:38
movie. You know, the Hallmark channel has movies on Christmas from October through
34:45
January. They're all basically exactly the same plot. The sports documentaries are as
34:52
predictable as Hallmark Christmas movies. When it comes to the issue of race.
34:57
They bring in racism into every storyline possible. It's almost impossible for me to
35:06
think of a major sports documentary that doesn't bring in the cliched racial angle of
35:14
overcoming racism or or how much racism existed in this element of the story.
35:21
In fact, the only one that I can ever remember, because I laughed
35:24
about this when I saw it. The only sports documentary that HBO, for
35:30
instance, was not able to figure out a way to bring race into it
35:32
was when they did their documentary on Lindsey Vaughn, the white female skier.
35:38
You know, they just couldn't figure out a way to make racism part of
35:44
the narrative. And I actually thought they missed an opportunity because I kept waiting.
35:47
I kept waiting while watching this Lindsay Vaughn documentary for them to bring in
35:52
the fact that she dated Tiger Woods and that that must have caused her some
35:58
sort of negative impact in her life, and and and her to experience some
36:04
sort of residual racism because she dated a guy who was partially black. I
36:08
mean, that's that's how pervasive it is. That's how much propaganda there is.
36:14
And again, I love looking at the past. I consider myself to
36:19
be more of a historian than almost anything. I love looking at past,
36:22
stories from the past and trying to figure out what really happened and learning from
36:25
them. I think the past is more interesting than the future. So so
36:30
I'm I'm all about learning from our past mistakes. But we've gone way,
36:35
way beyond that, and it's caused real damage now because there are ramifications.
36:40
When you have an entire generation, maybe two now of Americans who really truly
36:47
believe, because they've been brainwashed into believing this, that we are a systemically
36:52
racist society, and it's just not the truth. In fact, it's the
36:58
opposite. I mean, the NFL is a great example of this right now.
37:01
My God, throughout my entire life, there have been two things that
37:07
the liberal sports media have continually championed. More black quarterbacks and more black head
37:15
coaches. And at a certain time in history thirty forty years ago, absolutely
37:22
I agreed that there needed to be a push for that to happen because there
37:27
were social barriers to that. Well, those barriers have been broken. And
37:31
as far as the head coach issue, I actually think that the so called
37:36
Rooney rule is the worst thing that's ever happened the black head coaches because they've
37:39
forced holy reverse racism, wholly affirmative action, holy soft bigotry of low expectations.
37:46
Now you've forced every team to interview a person of color when an opening
37:52
happens. So now everyone that gets interviewed is looked at as an affirmative action,
37:58
either higher or interviewee. And it's embarrassing to them, not to mention,
38:04
every coach that gets hired happens to be black, as automatically seen as
38:07
having been hired because of pressure to hire black people, which is not productive
38:13
or fair to anybody. But the quarterback issue is really extraordinary, and there's
38:17
something happening right now in the NFL that nobody is even mentioning. I mean
38:22
for decades, and it's even recently, even recently. My god, I
38:27
remember when we had last Super Bowl, we had two black quarterbacks playing against
38:32
each other. The idiots on the view acted like this was some sort of
38:38
a new event with social significance, like, oh, my gosh, we're
38:42
finally in a realm where we can celebrate black quarterbacks, which is like a
38:47
narrative that's thirty years behind the times. Well, currently in the National Football
38:52
League there are fourteen teams with winning records. Fourteen teams with winning records,
39:00
only five of those teams currently have starting quarterbacks who are quote unquote white.
39:07
Five out of fourteen. There is no chance that that has ever happened before.
39:13
Yet nobody's paying any attention to this, and I think this is the
39:16
new normal. I think because of the rule changes and the different ways that
39:23
the quarterback play has been emphasized and more emphasis on quickness and running ability and
39:30
all different changes in the game, we're going to see more and more black
39:35
quarterbacks, which is fine. If they deserve to play, they should play.
39:38
If they deserved, if they're stars, they should play. The best
39:43
players should play the game Now I separately have issues with the way the rules
39:46
have changed and the values that football now promotes that are different than that used
39:52
to promote. But that has nothing to do with the racial angle. It's
39:55
just the reality is the black quarterback is now starting to dominate that n ASK
40:00
the Football league, and I think this is just the beginning. I think
40:04
we're going to eventually see if the rules continue to go in the direction that
40:07
they are, we're eventually going to see the white quarterback, which used to
40:09
be almost cliched, go the way of the white point guard in the NBA.
40:16
It's just not going to exist anymore. It's going to take a while,
40:20
but I think that's eventually where we're going on this, and that's going
40:22
to be an interesting phenomenon. We'll see how that impacts the white fan base
40:28
of the National Football League. Iving nothing to do with racism, having to
40:30
do with people wanting to relate to people that they have something in common with.
40:35
That's just human nature. And we've seen what's happened with the NBA since
40:38
the American white player has basically been eliminated from any real relevance. But this
40:46
is happening throughout society and it's hilarious to me. Which parts of this the
40:52
media latches onto and which parts they completely ignore. Let me give you another
40:57
example that seems really small but to me really pissed me off. This week
41:01
on the Golf Channel. On the Golf Channel, I always use golf as
41:06
an example because golf is perceived as a white sport still, although it's not
41:09
nearly as white as people think. It's perceived as a conservative sport, although
41:14
it's not nearly as conservative as people think, especially when it comes to the
41:17
golf hierarchy, especially in the media hierarchy. In golf, it's actually other
41:22
than a few examples like Jim Nantz, who's a conservative, liberals really do
41:28
run the roost, especially at the Golf Channel, and the Golf Channel this
41:31
week is airing for three days, for three days, a live amateur golf
41:37
tournament featuring golfers nobody has ever heard of before. It's sponsored by Southwest Airlines.
41:45
So for three days live coverage of an amateur golf tournament. Now,
41:50
why are they doing this? What's the hook? The hook is that the
41:54
players in this amateur golf tournament are from quote unquote diverse backgrounds. Diverse backgrounds
42:05
in other words translation, no whites or Asians allowed. No whites or Asians
42:13
allowed. This is being celebrated on the Golf Channel, a tournament that literally
42:20
bars people based upon their race for all intensive purposes, every single player.
42:27
I've watched it for two days now, just out of shock and awe,
42:31
like I cannot believe I'm watching this where there are only blacks and Hispanics playing
42:39
in this tournament, and they don't emphasize it. In fact, if you're
42:43
watching and you missed the first fifteen seconds of the tournament, you have no
42:46
idea why it is that there are no whites rations in this tournament. But
42:52
this is now happening on a white media outlet with a conservative audience base,
42:59
in a sport that's supposedly white and conservative, and there's no uproar about it,
43:05
and the Golf Channel has no fear of doing this blatant discrimination. Can
43:09
you imagine if the NBA channel decided to have an amateur basketball tournament for only
43:15
whites and Asians. Can you imagine, sorry, no blacks allowed. This
43:22
is gonna be a white an Asian only league for non professional basketball players.
43:29
There there would be riots in the streets, there would be no chance that
43:32
the NBA network would do such a thing. But this is now becoming normalized.
43:39
And when it becomes normalized, then you know, lookout, lookout,
43:45
because now they can do anything they want. Now, once it may become
43:49
it's no longer outrageous or unusual. A lot of this is subconscious, then
43:54
there's no there's no going back because you know, for instance, once the
44:00
Golf channel gets away with that, they can get away with all sorts of
44:02
other things, and they're never gonna stop. They're never gonna stop because they're
44:07
serious about this. This is a state through the heart of America, this
44:12
whole concept of equity. Look I am, I am as in favor of
44:17
equality of opportunity as anybody I know. I don't give a shit about your
44:22
race, your gender, your sexuality. I want it all as equitable I
44:28
want I want. I don't want equity. I want as much of an
44:31
equality of opportunity as possible. If you get equity by coincidence, fantastic,
44:39
great. I mean that that would be wonderful. That's not really the way
44:45
the world works, and that shouldn't be the end goal. The end goal
44:49
is equality of opportunity. And let the chips fall where they may, and
44:53
in some endeavors that means you're gonna have people of color do better, and
44:59
in some endeavors that means you're gonna probably have people who are white or Asian
45:04
or Indian or whatever. It's just the name that we're not all the same.
45:08
We have certain qualities that are better and worse. There's certain strengths and
45:15
weaknesses of every race, nationality, gender, sexuality. It's just human nature.
45:22
I frankly think we ought to be celebrating our differences instead of trying to
45:28
pretend we're all the same, because a lot of our differences are fun.
45:34
Some of them are funny. I mean, black comedians have made millions of
45:38
dollars rightfully making fun of the differences in the races. Not really allowed to
45:45
do that as a white person anymore, which again shows that we're getting away
45:49
from actual equality. And this equity of outcome thing is just a cancer.
45:57
It's worse than a cancer. It's a dagger through the heart, and it's
46:01
happening everywhere, and even white people are not even remotely fully aware of what's
46:07
actually happening here. And it's not alone. I've said that this is a
46:13
two pronged attack on America equity and global warming, climate change, and there's
46:20
a new report of doom and gloom. Of course there's always a little bit
46:24
of hope at the end. I love this is the new matrix that they
46:28
use. This is the new playbook. I think there's some logic to it.
46:32
What the climate change global warming people have done. They put out these
46:36
doom and gloom reports. They do it like every six months. There must
46:40
be like everyone takes turns, all these agencies. You know, maybe they
46:45
actually seem to do it even more than every six months. It seems to
46:47
be quarterly. They must they must all get together and say, okay,
46:52
you got the first quarter, you get the second quarter, you guys get
46:54
the third quarter, and then the other guys that get the fourth court.
46:58
And then we'll just do the same thing again next year, so that every
47:01
three or four months we have the media with this new report about all the
47:07
doom and gloom that's gonna happen in a far away enough future to where we
47:12
never have any accountability. This is the playbook. Make a doom and glue
47:15
prediction that's far enough away that there's never any accountability. People will forget about
47:21
the prediction we will all be retired or dead by the time this either does
47:25
or does not happen, so we can't be blamed if we're wrong. But
47:29
then also offer up a sliver of hope. Now they've figured this out,
47:34
they need to offer up a sliver of hope. And it's a lot like
47:37
a hostage situation, you know. Just pay us the ransom money and everything
47:44
will be okay. Just do what we say, give us what we want,
47:47
and we promise it's all gonna be okay in the end. That's really
47:52
what this is about. This is really what's happening. And this has happened
47:58
again this week. And I want to play a clip from a report on
48:02
CBS this morning which really encapsulates one this most recent report, and two the
48:10
way the news media is now handling this issue. And it's so similar to
48:16
what happened with COVID. I've said many, many times that climate change,
48:22
global warming is the new COVID. They figured out the plays that work and
48:25
the plays that don't work, and the way the media handles this is almost
48:30
identical. And it's all about governmental control over you and your life and your
48:37
way of life, and the economy of the United States of America. That's
48:43
really what it's about. This is about destroying the economy of Western countries,
48:50
specifically the United States, And it's a lot like COVID in the way that
48:54
they've handled it. It's also, to me a lot like for those of
48:59
you who followed our podcast with the benefit of hindsight, it's a lot like
49:02
the Penn State Paternal Sandusky story. And in that here's what they do.
49:08
They accept a premise that has not yet been proven, hasn't been close to
49:15
been proven. They accept that as gospel, and then they extrapolate from that
49:22
blindly, just accepting, oh, well, you know, in the Sandusky
49:27
case there was massive child sex abuse, So we're gonna focus on Penn State's
49:32
reaction to that, and we just accept that the abuse was real, and
49:37
we interpret everything through that prism. With COVID, Oh well, COVID is
49:43
the worst thing that's ever happened. Everyone's gonna die if we don't do something.
49:46
We must do something, So now the conversation is just about what it
49:51
is that we do or how incredibly effective what we've done, as insane as
49:55
it may have been, actually was. There was never any evaluation of wait,
50:01
a minute. Is COVID really that dangerous? Is what we're doing really
50:07
effective? Do masks actually work to the vaccine stop transmission? No? No,
50:13
no, no, no, no no. It was just accepted that
50:15
this is biblical, that we have to do absolutely everything, and everything,
50:21
no matter what we do, even if it doesn't actually work, is worthy
50:23
of doing because it's that level of an emergency. That was the premise when
50:28
it comes to COVID. Well, similarly, they just accept all sorts of
50:34
premises for this whole global warming climate change situation that are not in evidence,
50:40
that have not been proven, most specifically that the globe is warming because of
50:45
man made factors. That is something that has not yet been proven yet.
50:52
It's the premise of everything. It's just now accepted as if it's religion.
50:55
And so here is CBS this morning, and they're on this new report from
51:02
the government, the specific to the United States of America and how doomed we
51:08
are, but there's still hope at the end if you do what we tell
51:13
you to do. And here's what that sounded like on CBS, and yet
51:15
another disturbing new report, yet another bleak picture of what could happen in these
51:20
United States if global leaders don't take action to stop climate change. This is
51:24
the new National Climate Change Assessment. It says that by twenty fifty, coastal
51:29
flooding will happen five to ten times more often than it does right now.
51:32
That's if no action is taken. The report also details the risk that climate
51:37
change poses to the US energy supply. Ben Tracy joins US Now from Los
51:40
Angeles. Ben, not good news here, good morning, not good news,
51:45
but there is some good news. We'll get to that at the end.
51:46
This assessment by climate scientists and several federal agencies comes out about every four
51:52
to five years, and this edition is pretty sobering. It says the effects
51:54
of human cause climate change in the US are quote far reaching and worsening.
52:00
It provides more evidence that Americans are experiencing warmer temperatures and longer lasting heat waves,
52:06
and that flooding, hurricanes, drought, wildfire, it's all becoming more
52:09
frequent or severe now. This also warns that millions of Americans in coastal communities
52:15
are at risk of being displaced from their homes by the end of the century
52:19
due to rising sea levels. And according to this report, the US is
52:22
now experiencing a billion dollar weather disaster on average every three weeks, compared to
52:28
one every four months in the nineteen eighties. Now, these extreme events cost
52:32
the country close to one hundred and fifty billion dollars a year. Climate change,
52:37
of course, is caused mostly by our burning of fossil fuels such as
52:40
coal, oil, and gas, and this report says that if we rapidly
52:44
reduce our planet warming emissions, that will limit future warming and the risks that
52:49
come with it. Now, the good news, as we promised, is
52:52
that greenhouse gas emissions in the US have actually dropped twelve percent since two thousand
52:57
and five, and that is largely driven by this transition away from coal to
53:00
cleaner forms of renewable energy such as solar and wind power, and those forms
53:05
of energy are cheaper than they've ever been. So when I heard that,
53:08
I almost lost my mind because I'm like, oh my gosh, I mean,
53:15
you guys are not even considering the idea that this all may be based
53:20
on a false premise, And the evidence I believe is actually strong that it
53:25
is a false premise. There's all sorts of potential reasons for why the temperature
53:30
may or may not be increasing in fairly small ways. There's all sorts of
53:37
reasons for that, But there's so many problems with the evaluation that the media
53:45
has of this story. Not just that they accept that that false premise isn't
53:49
even to be considered anything but gospel, but just inherent in that report was
53:57
Okay, if we do what we're told to do, this problem can be
54:01
fixed. Well, as I always say, well, how do we know
54:06
we're not going to fix it too much? How do we know if we
54:08
can really lower the temperature, as absurd as that is, if we can
54:14
really lower the temperature, how do we know we're not going to go too
54:16
far and make it too cold? I mean, this whole thing is just
54:21
so insane. I mean, there's currently a volcano in Mexico and one that
54:25
appears to be ready to erupt in Iceland that are gonna spew far more carbon
54:30
emissions into the atmosphere than we could ever possibly save in our lifetimes, and
54:37
there's nothing we can do about this. And there's all sorts of factors that
54:40
have nothing to do with man. Those two volcanoes, if they are as
54:45
predicted, are going to create more of these carbon emissions than man could dream
54:52
of during that time period or ever possibly save. It's absurd. It's a
55:00
complete absurdity. And it's not this whole idea that well, the globe is
55:07
clearly warming due demand. All I ever ask is, can you explain to
55:12
me if this is happening and we're told these last few years the hottest ever
55:17
run record, and you heard in the report they're referencing wildfires again and droughts
55:24
and heat waves. Okay, explain to me, then, just please,
55:28
someone explained to me how the fuck it is that during this incredibly hot period
55:34
of time, unprecedentedly hot, California's drought ended ended completely. One hundred percent
55:43
of California, the epicenter of the climate crisis, one hundred percent of the
55:46
drought is now over. Could you explain that to me? Could you explain
55:52
to me how it is that last year in California we had one of the
55:55
lowest wildfire years ever last year, and this year it looks like we're gonna
56:02
have the lowest amount of wildfire damage in the modern history of California. We're
56:08
about to get rain here in California this week. If we get it as
56:13
expected, it will end any chance of major wildfires. Between now and the
56:17
end of the year, we have had no repeat, no major wildfires this
56:23
year. For two years combined, we will have historically low wildfire damage in
56:30
California. How is that possible if you're telling me that there is a causation
56:36
between these alleged higher temperatures, for which there are other possible explanations, including
56:40
the way the data is compiled in the satellite era. If there's causation between
56:47
temperature increase and drought and wildfire, then what the fuck is going on in
56:53
California? Could you please explain that to me? No one will, And
56:58
then it's not just even liberal outlets like the CBS that buy into this.
57:05
The Wall Street Journal, now the Wall Street Journal owned by News Corps.
57:07
The Murdocks are pro global warming climate change, so that that definitely has an
57:13
impact on the coverage. But the Wall Street Journal, they had a headline
57:17
this week related to this report, climate change is one hundred and fifty billion
57:23
dollar hit to the US economy. Consequences will worsen unless more is invested in
57:31
clean energy and cities adapt to changing environments. So this is very much in
57:38
keeping with the whole do what we say, or you know, the whole
57:43
world's going to end by the way, I would remiss if I didn't mention
57:47
with the CBS support. You know, they led with the whole idea that
57:52
there's going to be more coastal flooding by a magnitude of five to ten times
57:59
in the next few decades. Five to ten times. That is a ridiculous
58:05
increase. And if that's the case, if that was if anyone really believed
58:09
that, then why is it that liberals are still living in places like Marion,
58:14
Massachusetts, right on the coast where it's by far the most vulnerable to
58:21
coastal flooding. Why is it that the housing prices in the northeast on the
58:27
coast have not plummeted. Why is that? Why is you know, Barack
58:32
Obama still living there. Why are all sorts of other liberals putting enormous amounts
58:37
of money into property there. Why because they don't really believe it, Because
58:44
it's all bullshit, and these are all predictions that never end up coming true
58:49
ever. And so I'm glad I remembered to mention that part because that might
58:54
be the most ridiculous part of that whole CBS report on this government survey of
59:00
what the situation is. But here the Wall Street Journal, alleged conservative outlet,
59:05
is jumping on the bandwagon from an economic standpoint. Of course, the
59:08
most obvious canard in this is a right, how do you determine what the
59:15
cost of quote unquote climate change global warming is? Well, damage to property
59:21
from hurricanes and other stuff. Right, Well, property values have skyrocketed for
59:29
decades in this country, but specifically in the last few years, So of
59:34
course any damage to property. If you're counting the cost of climate change as
59:40
how much damage has been done economically to property, of course the number is
59:45
going to increase because the value of property has increased. And you know this
59:52
whole idea, Well, we're going to lose more money if we don't invest
59:55
more in clean energy. I mean, that's that's mail right there. I
1:00:00
mean, so, so you're telling me we're losing money because of this alleged
1:00:05
climate change, but we have to spend more money in order to bring the
1:00:09
temperature down so that the climate change will stop. Although we're positive, but
1:00:15
we're not going to go too far and make it too coal. And then,
1:00:19
of course, as I've already said, there's there's no accounting for things
1:00:22
like two massive volcanoes, completely obliterating whatever potential progress you allegedly made on the
1:00:30
carbon emissions issue. It's just so insane, and yet the media accepts it.
1:00:36
It's a religion. Now we don't even bother to look at any of
1:00:42
the fundamental premises on which this is based. And once that happens, it's
1:00:46
all over, because now you've accepted the basis of the religion, and now
1:00:52
that's that. Religion is the prism through which people will see everything. And
1:00:55
when it comes to climate change, the climate, there's it's gonna be evidence
1:01:00
of put unquote climate change, because something weird is always gonna be happening on
1:01:05
a globe this large and diverse, and heck, and in this country,
1:01:08
we've got a very large and diverse geography and many different micro climates, so
1:01:14
there's always gonna be something you can point to and go, well, see
1:01:16
climate change. It's impossible to disprove. And the end goal is the destruction
1:01:22
of America. Just in a different way than the whole obsession with equity.
1:01:29
This is more about economy as well as I think your freedoms, because there's
1:01:36
no question that, as they did with COVID, they're gonna use, if
1:01:38
they get the power to do so, They're gonna use this fear of global
1:01:43
warming climate change to restrict what we can do with our lives, how we
1:01:47
can travel, what we can buy, what we can eat. They're gonna
1:01:52
They're gonna use it in every way possible, and unfortunately they're getting away with
1:01:55
it. In the news media is a huge part of why this is being
1:02:00
allowed to happen. The news media is completely and totally on board, even
1:02:06
allegedly conservative outlets, which is why I'm so pessimistic about the impact of this.
1:02:10
Moving forward, now, I want to shift to the sixtieth anniversary of
1:02:15
the jfk assassination. This is a story I've talked a lot about in this
1:02:21
podcast because in episode number seventy one, I go through a very deep and
1:02:28
extensive evaluation of what really did and did not happen sixty years ago in Dallas,
1:02:34
Texas, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, I believe by a
1:02:38
single shooter named Lee Harvey Oswald. And I have gone through a massive evolution
1:02:44
on this story throughout my lifetime. When I was young and dumb, I
1:02:49
was definitely someone who thought there must be some semblance of a conspiracy here.
1:02:52
I didn't know how big it was, but it just the whole thing stunked
1:02:57
the high heaven. And as I got deeper and deeper in to it,
1:03:00
I realized that, no, that's not likely what happened, That Oswald very
1:03:06
likely acted alone. And a huge part of why I came to that conclusion
1:03:12
was a book by the name of Case Closed by an author by the name
1:03:15
of Gerald Posner. Now I taped an interview with Gerald Posner, which you're
1:03:21
going to hear momentarily, which has some issues related to it. So I
1:03:27
may end up the intro to the interview man that being almost as long as
1:03:30
the interview itself. But bear with me, because this is important stuff and
1:03:36
I think also some fascinating elements to this. So Gerald Posner played a huge
1:03:42
role in my evolution when it came to my belief system about the assassination of
1:03:47
JFK. But we disagree on the logistics of it. And in episode seventy
1:03:54
one of this podcast, I go through the logistics in a way I don't
1:03:59
think you have heard or could possibly hear anyone else do And whether you agree
1:04:03
or disagree with me, whether I'm right or wrong. I truly believe that
1:04:08
episode seventy one of this podcast is the most comprehensive, open minded evaluation of
1:04:15
the evidence that I'm aware of now. Part of it's because of the nature
1:04:19
of a podcast where I can spend two hours plus going through all of the
1:04:26
story, through all the evidence, and lay out in great detail my theory
1:04:31
as opposed to the theory of the Warrant Commission on how this actually happened.
1:04:39
And that's therein lies one of the problems with the interview you're going to hear
1:04:43
with Posner is that we just didn't have enough time. And this is a
1:04:47
very complicated story and there are many different elements to it. And before I
1:04:54
get to Posnor, I want to address another supposedly new piece of evidence or
1:05:00
new attempt to put out new evidence regarding the assassination that just happened yesterday,
1:05:08
because you know, Posner has been getting a lot of attention because of this
1:05:13
new Secret Service agent based evidence that Paul Landis says that he found the so
1:05:19
called magic bullet in the back of the limousine, and that would change everything
1:05:26
because that would prove that it didn't come through Kennedy and end up in John
1:05:31
Connolly's body, the governor of Texas, and therefore there's no single bullet theory.
1:05:36
And to some people that means there must have been a conspiracy, but
1:05:40
to me, no, that fits exactly with my theory, and it actually,
1:05:45
in a much more simple way, shows exactly how Oswald did this.
1:05:49
And this is something that Posner and I get into in a fairly heated fashion
1:05:54
during our interview. But before we get to Posner, I want to address
1:05:59
this. I guess you would call it a documentary that's being promoted by Rolling
1:06:03
Stone magazine of all outlets, called What the Doctors Saw. Now, this
1:06:09
just got released this week, and I don't think it's significant at all,
1:06:14
but I want to mention it for a couple of reasons. One because it's
1:06:19
allegedly new, it's getting a little bit of attention, not very much.
1:06:23
Two because I think it'll help set up for those that aren't that educated on
1:06:29
the assassination the interview with Posner. And three it'll show just how incredibly dumb
1:06:35
so many of these conspiracy theories really are. So this so called documentary What
1:06:43
the Doctors Saw, is about the Parkland doctors, the Parkland Hospital doctors,
1:06:47
most of whom are no longer with us. But so a lot of this
1:06:50
is hearsay. But the essence of this documentary is that there's a hole in
1:06:57
JFK's throat, something I go into great detail on in episode seventy one,
1:07:01
and how I believe it's been completely and totally misinterpreted by everybody, But the
1:07:06
hole in Jak's throat the Parkland doctors allegedly believed to have been an entry wound.
1:07:15
Now, it was a very it was a very small hole, so
1:07:19
small that they used it as a tracheotomy in a desperate attempt to keep JFK
1:07:27
alive, And so its evidentiary value was greatly reduced at that moment because they
1:07:32
took the tiny little hole and they blew it open. But they believed,
1:07:39
the doctors allegedly that this was an entry wound. And if this was an
1:07:45
entry wound of a bullet, that would be extremely significant because if it's an
1:07:48
entry wound, there's no way Oswald could have fired the shot. This would
1:07:54
have been under the I guess Grassy Knoll theory because the shot would from the
1:08:00
front. Now forget about the fact that there's so many problems with this one
1:08:03
of the problems is that at the time period where Kennedy allegedly grabs his throat
1:08:09
but does not, he he does never. He never grabs his throat.
1:08:13
That's incredibly important. Look at the Zuberbruder film for yourself. Never grabs his
1:08:16
throat. He appears to, but his elbows are out, his fists are
1:08:21
clinched. He never grabs his throat. But at the time period in the
1:08:25
Zubrinna film where he appears to grab his throat, the grassy knoll is largely
1:08:30
blocked, as was Subruder himself by a road sign. So I'm not sure
1:08:33
exactly how that would happen, even in theory. But okay, fine,
1:08:39
here's where I get so agitated and I lose so much respect for people who
1:08:44
seemingly are smart, because I'm always willing to buy the theory. Okay,
1:08:49
tell me your theory. Let's then evaluate what would we expect to also happen
1:08:56
if your theory is correct. And so if if if Kennedy had been shot
1:09:00
from the front and this tiny little hole in his throat was actually an entry
1:09:05
wound for a bullet, which a small hole was far more consistent with an
1:09:10
entry wound than it is an exit wound. An exit wound, especially with
1:09:13
soft tissue, tends to be massive as it blows out the bodily matter.
1:09:19
But okay, so that makes a little bit of sense. Even though the
1:09:23
hole was seemingly very very small, and even though the tiny holes in JFKs
1:09:28
tie were tested for metal fragments and came out negative, there were no metal
1:09:31
fragments in the holes created in JFKs tie. That's where the hole in his
1:09:36
throat was. Okay, fine, If you have an entry wound in the
1:09:42
throat, you must This is just basic logic. My eleven year old daughter
1:09:47
Grace could easily figure this out. You must have, then one of two
1:09:51
things happen. You must have either an exit wound for that bullet, or
1:10:02
you must have found a bullet inside JFK's throat. Those are the only two
1:10:10
options. If there's an entry wound in the throat, you must have an
1:10:15
exit wound, or you must find a bullet in the throat, or at
1:10:19
the very very least, you must find massive amounts of damage beyond just the
1:10:26
hole in the throat into the spinal column and the spinal cord and the vertebrae.
1:10:30
Because the bullet's got to go someplace, and so I guess in theory
1:10:34
it could do all that damage and then maybe fall out, I guess.
1:10:40
But there is no exit wound. There is no exit wound for a throat
1:10:44
wound from the front from JFK. None, none that's even theoretically possible,
1:10:48
does not exist, and there's no damage to the spinal cord. And it's
1:10:56
kind of ironic because there's been so many people that have made comparisons between the
1:11:00
Kennedy assassination and the Lincoln assassination. There's a lot of kind of funny coincidences
1:11:06
that are similar between the two of them. Well, one of them that
1:11:12
no one ever mentions is that John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln,
1:11:17
when he was apprehended, he was shot in the neck almost exactly where
1:11:24
Kennedy was, according to these doctors, allegedly shot from the front. You
1:11:29
know what happened to John Wolke's booth. John Wolkes Booth was instantly paralyzed.
1:11:32
Because a bullet, when it goes through your neck, guess where it's gonna
1:11:38
go. Well, likelihood it's gonna hit your spinal cord unless it somehow magically
1:11:44
stops before it gets there or at least blows out your spinal cord and your
1:11:48
spinal column the vertebrae. Yet there's nothing like that with JFK. JMFK was
1:11:54
not paralyzed. And if the bullet goes through his throat in either direction from
1:11:59
behind, which single bullet people theory people think, there's no evidence that that
1:12:04
happened because somehow it magically passes through his spinal column without any damage to the
1:12:11
to the spinal cord or the spinal column. And and Kennedy was clearly not
1:12:15
paralyzed, uh you know, and and was ended up ended up being killed
1:12:18
by the third shot to his head. And so that's that's a major problem,
1:12:26
a major problem. So, so how what one of these morons think
1:12:30
happened to the bullet? There's no bullet found that relates to an in to
1:12:34
a a UH an entry wound in the throat, there's no exit wound,
1:12:41
there's no damage beyond the tiny hole in the throat, So how did that
1:12:45
happen? There's no explanation. But this is something that gets attention because if
1:12:51
you have an entry wound in the throat, you have a second shooter.
1:12:55
Therefore you have a conspiracy. Therefore, because most Americans believe in a conspiracy,
1:13:00
you have an inherent audience for what you're selling. There So it's bullshit.
1:13:04
It's obvious bullshit. It did not happen. It's not even really worthy
1:13:10
of serious consideration other than to me, the relevance is. It just shows
1:13:14
how incredibly inane so many of these conspiracy theories are. That they don't even
1:13:20
get past first base. Okay, yeah, you got a tiny hole in
1:13:26
the throat. Okay, great, that maybe gets you the first base.
1:13:29
But to get home you need something else. You need an exit wound,
1:13:32
you need damage from the bullet, you need the bullet itself. None of
1:13:35
that exists. I believe, as Osiah Thompson, the author of the book
1:13:40
Six Seconds in Dallas, believed. I believe that that tiny hole in the
1:13:45
throat is a massive coincidence that when Kennedy's head gets blown off on the third
1:13:51
shot, that something pierces the throat, either a bone fragment from the catastrophe
1:13:59
that occurs to JFK's skull, or maybe a tiny metal fragment from the bullet.
1:14:05
I mean, the bullet explodes into numerous pieces at that time. So
1:14:11
you have this enormous trauma to Kennedy's head with a third shot. It shouldn't
1:14:15
be that shocking that you might have a wound that is indirectly created because of
1:14:24
that, and you have this very tiny hole in his throat. Again,
1:14:27
no metal fragments found in the tiny holes in the tie that JFK was wearing,
1:14:32
and you have the tracheotomy, which blows apart the evidentiary value of that
1:14:38
tiny hole. I believe that that is just one of those incredibly bizarre coincidences
1:14:44
that has led everyone down the wrong path. That Kennedy appears to grab his
1:14:48
throat but he does not, and then he has this tiny hole in his
1:14:54
throat once he gets to Parkland Hospital, and two things are not related.
1:15:00
My view, it's an amazing bizarre coincidence. But that's the way the evidence,
1:15:05
at least to me, appears to line up, especially when there's a
1:15:09
much more viable alternative explanation for what really happened. And that leads me to
1:15:15
the interview with Posner. So one of the problems with the Posner interview you're
1:15:20
about to hear. The major problem is we only had a little less than
1:15:26
a half hour. And Gerald and I have done many interviews in the past.
1:15:30
He's aware of who I am. I wasn't quite sure how aware he
1:15:33
was of my opinion, but he seemed to be very aware of my opinion
1:15:38
on all this. I wanted to prep him to be able to save as
1:15:41
much time as possible. He had given me an option of waiting to do
1:15:45
this interview in case some more time opened up closer to the assassination. Because
1:15:51
he's in great demand because he wrote this incredible book called Case Closed. He's
1:15:57
considered to be the preeminent expert on the Kennedy assassination. And I would agree,
1:16:02
although I'm not one hundred percent try I would agree with that after this
1:16:05
interview, but I would agree that in theory, Gerald Posner is the pre
1:16:11
eminent expert on the assassination. His book Case Closed, is an extraordinary document.
1:16:17
The amount of research research was off the charts. And I have enormous
1:16:24
respect for Gerald Posner and for the book Case Closed. So he's in great
1:16:30
demand. And he offered me, he said, look, we can do
1:16:33
this now, or we can wait and maybe I'll get more time. Because
1:16:38
I had asked for an hour, and he said no, I can.
1:16:40
I only got a half hour. And what I decided to do was,
1:16:44
I said, Okay, why don't we do this. I'll take the burden
1:16:46
hand, I'll take the half hour, and then if another time period happens
1:16:50
to open up between now and the assassination or thereabouts, maybe we can revisit
1:16:56
this. He says, fine, So we decide to do this very short
1:17:01
half hour interview, and there's an enormous amount to cover, and I knew
1:17:06
I wasn't going to get to all of it, but I wanted to at
1:17:11
least make sure that I provided him with the opportunity to debunk my theory,
1:17:16
which I outline in episode seventy one of this podcast. Now, just as
1:17:23
a way, a tutorial, because you're about to hear an interview with two
1:17:28
people who could basically teach a PhD class in the JFK assassination. So there's
1:17:32
going to be a lot of stuff here in an effort to save time that
1:17:38
might get confusing. So here's the short version of the tutorial. The tutorial.
1:17:43
If you want the longer version, you can go to episode seventy one
1:17:45
and listen to my entire evaluation of all of this, which I urge you
1:17:51
to do if you're interested in the topic, because it really is fascinating stuff,
1:17:55
regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me. But the basics here
1:17:59
are this that the major controversy among most people who have looked at the assassination
1:18:06
with regard to the logistics is the order of the shots and whether or not
1:18:13
there was one bullet that went through Kennedy and then hit Governor Connolly, the
1:18:18
so called single bullet, the magic bullet, the pristine bullet. It's also
1:18:25
and I refer to it in this interview as Exhibit three ninety nine. I
1:18:28
don't want people to get confused by that. Exhibit three ninety nine is the
1:18:31
so called pristine or magic bullet, called the magic Pristine bullet because it allegedly,
1:18:39
according to the Warrant Commission, goes through JFK even though the back wound
1:18:44
does not line up with the throat wound even a little bit, and their
1:18:46
throat wound is not consistent with an exit wound. But you know, this
1:18:50
is what the Warrant Commission felt like they had to come up with to be
1:18:54
able to make sure that there were only three shots and that they were all
1:18:58
fired by Lee Harvey Oswald needed Oswald to be the lone gunman, I believe,
1:19:03
because he was the lone gunman. But in order to jam this through
1:19:09
what they thought was a timeline that didn't work because of the Zubruder film.
1:19:14
And I referenced in this interview the fact that I believe that Arlen Spector,
1:19:17
who would end up becoming a senator from Pennsylvania in my home state, I
1:19:21
believe he reverse engineered the whole thing. I believe he mistakenly thought he had
1:19:28
a problem in the timing of the Zebruder film that therefore he needed one shot
1:19:33
to do all the damage other than the head shot to both JFK and to
1:19:39
John Connolly. And John Connolly was hit in multiple bones that got obliterated and
1:19:44
in numerous areas of his body, and somehow the bullet came out absolutely almost
1:19:49
perfectly pristine, which is why it's called the magic bullet. And you know,
1:19:55
most people with common sense look at that bullet and they go, there's
1:19:59
just no possible way that a bullet could do all that damage and come out
1:20:03
as if it was barely fired. And I agree with that, But the
1:20:09
essence of the problem is the timing of the shots in the Zabruder film.
1:20:13
And what I believe is the core problem is that that first shot hits Kennedy
1:20:18
in the Zebruder film way before anybody acknowledges it, and that his reaction when
1:20:27
he jets out his elbows, which is not the way you grab your throat.
1:20:30
When you grab your throat, your elbows dip. No one grabs their
1:20:35
throat by jetting out their elbows, and they certainly don't grab their throat by
1:20:40
jetting out their elbows and having their fists clinched. However, if you're experiencing
1:20:45
a delayed neuro muscular involuntary reaction which is consistent with having effectively a dart hit
1:20:55
you in the back just a couple of inches from your spinal cord, then
1:21:00
and that's the way you would react. And I believe that that's what happened
1:21:02
with JFK, and that there's actually plenty of time for that first shot to
1:21:08
hit him in the back. About a second or so passes. He then
1:21:12
starts to react with his elbows, jetting out, his fists clinch He never
1:21:17
grabs his throat. Then the second shot hits John Connelly on its own the
1:21:24
third shot from Oswald then hits Kennedy in the head, and that's what kills
1:21:29
him. To me, it's actually very simple, and unfortunately because Arlen Inspector
1:21:35
panicked and thought that he had this problem with the Zubruder film, that he
1:21:39
didn't have. Remember, the Zabua film does not have audio. But I
1:21:43
reference in this interview with Posner that I believe that there is a marker a
1:21:46
Posner and I agree that there is a marker for when the first shot gets
1:21:50
fired, and that is that there's a little girl around ten years old,
1:21:56
chasing after the limousine along the sidewalk, and all of a sudd sudden,
1:22:00
she stops on a dime, and she immediately looks away from the limo,
1:22:05
looks across the street and appears to be looking exactly, almost exactly at the
1:22:13
sixth floor of the school book Depository building. That's when the first shot in
1:22:17
my view and in Posner's view, is fired. Posner and the Warrant Commission
1:22:23
believe that that somehow was a missed shot, that Oswald missed everything on that
1:22:31
first shot, which is in my view, completely and totally wrong, for
1:22:38
which there is no evidence, and there's a massive amount of evidence against that
1:22:42
theory, and it's the essence of everything. And I want to save further
1:22:45
evaluation of that issue until after you hear this interview, because that's the key
1:22:50
moment of this interview. I wanted Posner to debunk my theory because I have
1:22:58
that much respect for him, and he doesn't do it, and all he
1:23:03
comes up with is this idea. But John, there's a first shot miss,
1:23:09
and in my view, his rebuttal was so weak, and granted we
1:23:15
were running out of time that I'm now more convinced than ever that my theory
1:23:18
is correct. But you can evaluate for yourself, and I'll have some thoughts
1:23:23
after you hear this interview. This interview does try to go through as much
1:23:29
of the key elements of this story as possible, but again we were limited
1:23:33
to half an hour, and then to add insult to injury. Somehow,
1:23:39
at the very very end, I stopped being able to hear him, and
1:23:44
he apparently stops being able to hear me. I don't even know, because
1:23:47
he hasn't responded to my messages trying to figure out what the hell happened.
1:23:50
I have no idea why there was a technical issue with the very very we
1:23:56
were at the last seconds of our interview. My gut tells me that there
1:24:00
may have been something going on on his end as he was technically preparing for
1:24:05
his next interview that may have caused this problem. But that's just a guess
1:24:09
because it happened to occur right at the time period where we were supposed to
1:24:13
end the interview. But regardless, the interview ends prematurely, although there's a
1:24:17
lot of very interesting stuff in here before we get to that point. So
1:24:21
here is what I still hope is part one of my interview with Gerald Posner,
1:24:27
although it might not be, but this is me and Gerald Posner,
1:24:30
author of the great book on the Kennedy assassination, Case Closed. Gerald Posner,
1:24:35
Welcome to the Death of Journalism podcast. John, great to be with
1:24:41
you. We have so much to cover in very limited time, and you
1:24:45
well know that you and I agree on the essence of the Kennedy assassination.
1:24:50
Your book Case Closed played a huge role in transitioning me from a young,
1:24:57
stupid person who was a conspiracy theorist to some to realized that Lee Harvey Oswald
1:25:01
clearly acted alone. Now we disagree on how it happened which we'll get to
1:25:05
momentarily, but I first want to address that essence in as short time as
1:25:15
you can. I know, it's very difficult because you need a thousand data
1:25:16
points in this case to prove anything. What is your short version of how
1:25:23
and why people should believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of John F.
1:25:27
Kennedy and that he likely acted essentially alone. You know, John, you
1:25:31
just hit the nail on the head, which is it's impossible to give what
1:25:35
I call, you know, a sound bite version that leaves anybody convinced if
1:25:39
they're already suspicious about the case, because the real answers to how it happens
1:25:43
that day is locked up in Oswald's personality and is psychology. Lets you understand,
1:25:48
if you understand him, why he would end up in a window shooting
1:25:50
at the president of the United States. And then there's overwhelming ballistic and forensics
1:25:57
evidence of where the shots came from and how was done. That all fits
1:26:00
in with Oswald being the assassin. Now, if you're a conspiracy believer and
1:26:04
you think the evidence was planted, it was faked, it was somebody made
1:26:09
it up. I just don't believe it. And that guy Jack Ruby,
1:26:12
who killed him two days later, was working for the secret government. Then,
1:26:15
no matter what I say in two minutes is going to bring you around.
1:26:18
Well, I understand that, I actually think that there is a decent
1:26:23
short argument. Let me try this one out on you. So we have
1:26:27
a photograph that was not possibly faked in nineteen sixty three because the technology did
1:26:33
not exist, of Lee Harvey Oswald holding the weapon that killed the president and
1:26:40
the weapon that killed a police officer in Dallas that day. That's pretty damning
1:26:45
evidence, isn't it. It is? But you know, okay, So
1:26:47
here, let's say that I was a contrarian coming in as a journalist,
1:26:53
and I hadn't investigated the case, and I didn't know what I know now
1:26:56
after spending a few years on it back in the early nineties, I would
1:27:00
say to you, how do I know that Oswald's not just part of a
1:27:03
much larger plot. He brought the rifle in the night before the assassination.
1:27:08
He went out to see his wife as the rifle was stored there. She
1:27:12
was separated from him with a friend living outside of Dallas. He brings the
1:27:15
rifle in the next morning, telling a co worker who's driving because Oswald doesn't
1:27:18
drive that they're curtain rods. There's no need for curtain rodds in his apartment.
1:27:23
He's lying about that. Wrapped in a brown paper bag. That's the
1:27:26
rifle tied ballistically to the assassination of the president, of the exclusion of every
1:27:29
other gun in the world. It's found afterwards on the sixth fourdth of the
1:27:31
depository, where Oswald was last left by three of his co workers alone beforehand,
1:27:38
and then after the assassination, within an hour, Oswald is shooting a
1:27:43
Dallas policeman who has stopped him, empties his revolver at him. Seen by
1:27:46
a dozen witnesses, that gun tied ballistically to the death of Officer Tippett,
1:27:50
to the exclusion of any other gun. So maybe Oswald was part of the
1:27:55
plot. He brought in the assassination rifle. Afterwards, when the President's killed,
1:27:59
he thought, oh my god, this is bigger than I thought.
1:28:01
He runs, he kills the policeman, and they have to kill Oswald two
1:28:06
days later with ruby because he would have spilled the beans on everything. Now
1:28:10
that's not what happened, but that's how I would explain the two guns and
1:28:13
what I would say in response to that is, explain Ruth Payne. Ruth
1:28:16
Payne, I mean, because I mean Ruth Payne has to be part of
1:28:20
this massive conspiracy. By the way, amazingly she's still alive and kicking sixty
1:28:26
years later. She's the one that got Oswald the job at the school book
1:28:30
Depository building. So how do you explain Ruth Payne under that scenario? So,
1:28:34
you know, it's so fantastic because I've always thought that Ruth Paine a
1:28:39
Quaker helping Marina. You know, they're doing their work. She'd been married
1:28:43
to this guy, Michael Payne, and she's the I've talked to her years
1:28:47
ago. She's straightforward, direct, as honest as the day is blue.
1:28:53
And over time conspiracy theorists have had to try to question her bona fides,
1:28:58
meaning that they say, well, why was she so nice to Marina?
1:29:01
What was it that she just happened to have taken the wife of the future
1:29:05
assassin, That she happened to talk to her friend and came up with the
1:29:10
idea that maybe you could call up the Texas school Book Depository for a job.
1:29:14
To Lee, it's a little too convenient, And so I've seen people
1:29:17
have innuendos and aspersions on her character. She talks to it. There's a
1:29:21
documentary out as a matter of fact, sort of impunes this. Her husband,
1:29:26
Michael had worked for Belle Helicopter or somebody, and they say, oh,
1:29:29
look at that her husband had worked for a defense contractor So people are
1:29:31
always trying to reach out and find out what's the weak spot. There isn't
1:29:34
any with Ruth Payne. She's the clear beacon. I agree with you on
1:29:39
this all right. Now, one last question on Oswald, because like any
1:29:44
good journalist investigator, I'm always open minded and I'm always trying to tie up
1:29:48
all the loose ends, and in this case has many theoretical loose ends.
1:29:51
But the one mystery that I still have with Oswald, and I'm fascinated to
1:29:57
hear what your opinion on this, is when I watched that amazing, incomprehensible
1:30:01
in retrospect press conference that Oswald gives while in custody and he gets told that
1:30:10
he is being charged with the murder of the president. There's two elements to
1:30:15
my question. Clearly, his body language is a man who is shocked.
1:30:20
He is shocked that he is being charged with murdering the President and later in
1:30:27
that same basic episode he refers to himself to a reporter as a patsy.
1:30:33
Why does the Lee Harvey Oswell, I'm all down with Oswald's personality wanting to
1:30:40
be bigger than he was being, wanting to be a historical figure, and
1:30:44
thinking of himself as something greater than he actually was, even though he's a
1:30:47
young man only twenty four at the time. Why does he not take credit
1:30:51
for this if this was his motivation? So I'm curious is what Gerald Posner's
1:30:57
reaction is to the body language of in that prize conference and the claim that
1:31:01
he's a pat See. Yeah, I think that Oswald was surprised that they
1:31:05
were able to bring the charge of the murder of the president that fast.
1:31:11
That really surprised, and he thought he was only being held for Tippet.
1:31:14
It would take a longer time if they were ever going to figure out what
1:31:15
had happened with with Kennedy. And the thing is, you know, we
1:31:19
forget often, You don't, johnp but a lot of people forget when Sir
1:31:24
Hun Sir Hun has tackled the scene killing Bobby Kennedy, the ambassador of Hotel
1:31:27
in sixty eight he later denies. He said, no, it's not me,
1:31:30
and no, I didn't do it, pleads not guilty and fights it.
1:31:32
Hinckley, you know, later admits that he was trying to impress Jody
1:31:35
Foster when he tried to kill Reagan. But it first says no, you
1:31:39
know, pleads not guilty, and then says no, I didn't do it.
1:31:41
We had that with James L. Ray, who flipped it around,
1:31:44
Brenner, who shot Wallace. So these assassins who go out they want their
1:31:48
moment in history, they do take it. And with Oswald there's something key.
1:31:51
And you understand this because you know Oswald's background. At twenty four years
1:31:55
of age, he was not a guy who had a lot of success in
1:31:58
life. Everything that he had tried had sort of failed. That even when
1:32:00
he went into the Marine Corps a kid, he thought it would be great,
1:32:03
and fellow marines thought he was gay, pushed him in the shower,
1:32:05
called the missus Oswald, he hated it. Went to the Soviet Union and
1:32:09
defected, thought he'd be greeted as a hero. They said, get lost.
1:32:12
They didn't want him there. He tried to kill himself and that doesn't
1:32:15
work, and they move him out to Minisquhere he ends up marrying a Russian
1:32:18
girl, and when he comes back to the US he has trouble holding a
1:32:21
job. He's battering Marina. He tries to kill a US Army General,
1:32:26
Edwin Walker. He Thinssa's his contribution to history only a few months before Kennedy
1:32:30
in April sixty three, and fails at that. He sets up a pro
1:32:33
cast organization in the sweltering heat of New Orleans in the summer of sixty three.
1:32:38
He gives out over a thousand pamphlets to try to get people to join
1:32:41
his new organization, and not one person joins it. Then he goes down
1:32:45
to Mexico City to try to get to Havana to the real revolution in September
1:32:50
of sixty three, and the Cubans and the Soviet missions say no, so
1:32:56
he comes back to Dallas, never having succeeded anything. He is given to
1:33:00
him on a silver platter. When he discovers a couple of days before the
1:33:03
motor Kate is coming by the place that he works, that he doesn't have
1:33:08
to kill Edwin Walker, the Army general to go into the history books,
1:33:12
that he can kill Jack Kennedy. It is a moment for him, and
1:33:15
when he that Oswald that I see, for whatever it's worth, for all
1:33:20
the study I've done of him and the person I've come to understand, the
1:33:24
Oswald I see at that press conference in that hallway, the guy who says
1:33:27
I'm just a Patsy. He looks like the cat that's just swallowed the canary.
1:33:33
He's the cheshire cat he is. He's got a grin on his face.
1:33:36
Somebody call it a smirk. He's at his moment. He's pulled it
1:33:41
off, he succeeded, and he's going to put everyone through it by saving
1:33:45
now it's not me and turning it upside down. He was going to keep
1:33:48
doing that. He was having the time of his life. I find that
1:33:54
in answer to be interesting but still not satisfying, because I will still will
1:33:58
never know. I mean, I guess it's one of those mystery. It's
1:34:00
one of those mysteries. So you're right, I mean, there are a
1:34:02
few things when you say mysteries about the case, we won't know because we
1:34:05
can't ask him because Ruby robbed us of that. So it's terrible. So
1:34:09
the best we can do is figure out based upon what we know about Oswald's
1:34:14
personality. Another great mystery you want. Another one that you know I racked
1:34:16
my head about all the time is where was he going after the assassination before
1:34:20
he is stopped by JD. Tippet, Dallas policeman who's acting on an all
1:34:25
points bulletin that gives a very generic description from somebody who looked up and actually
1:34:29
saw the shooter. Oswald mid twenties, brown hair, Caucasian. There were
1:34:32
four or five Dallas policemen who stopped people that looked like that that day,
1:34:36
that looked at those suspicious. We'll never know why Tippet stopped Oswald. We
1:34:41
know he didn't think he was a suspect because he didn't radio into police headquarters,
1:34:45
which he's supposed to do if he thinks he has a suspect. He
1:34:47
just pulled over and then got out of the car, so he's gonna ask
1:34:49
him questions. We'll never know what it was about Oswald's walk or the way
1:34:53
he was moving that got Tippet because Tippet's then killed, and we'll never know
1:34:57
where Oswald was going because Oswald, after he hills Tippett, then cuts across
1:35:00
these yards and down the side streets, he's reloading his gun. A fellow
1:35:04
follows him. It's only because they follow him that they see him sneak into
1:35:08
the theater, the Texas Theater, where he hopes to spend some time until
1:35:13
it all blows over then and he can keep going. Where was he walking
1:35:15
to? You know? The Warren Commission thought that he had enough money in
1:35:18
his pocket to get to a bus stop half a mile away that would have
1:35:21
then connected in Laredo, Mexico, and taken him back to Mexico City.
1:35:26
Maybe would have gone to the Mexican I mean the Cuban continent and said,
1:35:29
hey, look, you know they want me for killing the president and send
1:35:31
me to Havana. We don't know, So that's one of those mysteries you
1:35:33
can only speculate at. As well well my understanding that the money he had
1:35:39
was the exact train fair or something very very close to him, very close
1:35:43
to him, and he had left all the rest of his money like one
1:35:45
hundred and eighty seven dollars that morning. They didn't have a lot of money
1:35:47
to their name. The Oswald's on the dresser at his wife's home that she
1:35:53
was living at with Ruth Payne, together with his wedding ring, which he
1:35:57
had never taken off. She didn't see that until afterwards, So you know,
1:36:00
he left all the money they had almost for his wife and then took
1:36:03
enough money to be able to cover that bus ride. All right, let's
1:36:06
talk about the logistics of how Oswald pulled this off, because this is where
1:36:13
you and I disagree and where there has been a major, at least potentially
1:36:16
major shocking development at the very last hour. I mean, who would have
1:36:21
ever thought that, at this verge of the sixtieth anniversary of this thing,
1:36:26
we may have found a major piece of evidence, or at least the testimony
1:36:30
regarding that evidence. And of course I'm referring to Paul Landis, the secret
1:36:34
Service agent who has just released a book that listeners to this podcast will know
1:36:41
is potentially extremely consistent with my theory of what happened, which is that he
1:36:46
found the so called magic pristine bullet in the back of the limousine, not
1:36:53
in a place that would have been consistent with the magic bullet having passed through
1:36:57
Kennedy and through Connelly. You are a it's very strong defender of the single
1:37:02
bullet theory. I happen to believe that the single bullet theory is not necessary
1:37:08
for Oswald to be Underson shooter, and in fact, I think it harms
1:37:12
the cause of convincing people that Oswald was the Loan shooter because of the condition
1:37:17
of that bullet let. Me first ask you Gerald about Landis. Two things
1:37:25
about Landis. First question, what is your evaluation of him as a person,
1:37:30
as a character, not what he's saying. I want to get to
1:37:32
that momentarily. What is your evaluation of him as a person, because I
1:37:36
find his demeanor to be rather credible. It doesn't seem to me as if
1:37:42
he is an attention wore, and it doesn't even seem as if he's a
1:37:45
conspiracy theorist. He doesn't even seem to know that much about the assassination.
1:37:49
So what is your evaluation of Paul Landis? I agree with you on that,
1:37:54
John. As a matter of fact, I have not interviewed him.
1:37:57
They haven't been able to get to interview him. But everybody I speak to
1:38:00
who has, like Peter Baker at the New York Times, other people whose
1:38:03
judgment I trust, say that he comes over completely sincere, that he is
1:38:09
not a charlatan, He's not somebody out first fifteen minutes of fame. We're
1:38:13
looking to make a fast buck. I believe that what he describes he believes
1:38:17
without doubt. And then the question is, so he's sincere about it,
1:38:23
then what can we pull out and what do we give credibility to, what
1:38:28
do we find is credible on what may not be. So that's the question.
1:38:30
It's very interesting. I do think that Lands can be a bit of
1:38:32
a roar shot test. So for you, you agree with Governor Connelly and
1:38:38
you agree with Clint Hill. You know that there wasn't a single bullet.
1:38:42
There was a first shot that at the president of that Land is pretty much
1:38:45
you know, is being used by people say, oh, but that must
1:38:47
be the bullet because it must have gone into Kennedy's back at a reduced charge.
1:38:51
I look at land as testimony and I think to myself, Hey,
1:38:56
I think he's telling the truth about finding a whole bullet. That's not something
1:38:59
you forget. He's either making that up out of whole cloth or he's telling
1:39:01
the truth. I think he's telling the truth about finding a whole bullet and
1:39:04
leaving it on a stretcher as he left the hospital. I believe that as
1:39:09
well. Now I think that's the single bullet that the Warrant Commission mistakenly thought
1:39:14
had plopped out on the comedy stretcher. But we may now have the answer
1:39:16
as to how that single bullet ended up on a stretcher in a hallway at
1:39:20
Parking and was knocked on the ground by the chief engineer an hour after the
1:39:25
President's body was taken away. But that we can disagree with because I understand
1:39:28
how you can use it for another way around. Well, hold on,
1:39:30
WHOA. Now, I'm stunned by your answer, so I want to make
1:39:33
sure I understand it. So your belief is that Landis could be telling the
1:39:39
truth, but it's not Exhibit three ninety nine. He's referring to the so
1:39:44
called Ristine magic bullet. That's your belief. I think it is a commission
1:39:47
Exhibit three ninety nine because and I have an update in you know, to
1:39:51
case clothes. I have a new epilogue, and I discussed land It's in
1:39:55
some detail. After talking to memory people on that. It's interesting. So
1:39:58
what is what they call flashball memory? Traumatic event takes place. He's twenty
1:40:02
nine years old, He's on the backup car. He leaves out the mention
1:40:05
of the whole bullet in his contemporary is typer in statements. That's fine,
1:40:10
okay. For whatever reason he's decided, he picked up that bullet, he
1:40:13
puts it in his pocket, and on the way out of the hospital he
1:40:15
leaves it on a stretcher. Now in the book and the accounts he gives,
1:40:18
now his memory has improved over time about some things beyond the basics.
1:40:24
He now tells the story about finding it on the back seat in that area.
1:40:28
According to Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent, as you know,
1:40:30
threw himself on the back of the car as he was racing out of DD
1:40:33
Plaza managed to get there. He says land has told him this story in
1:40:36
twenty fourteen for the first time. Never mentioned finding it on the back seat,
1:40:41
never mentioned leaving it on JFK. Stretcher. Said it was just on
1:40:45
a stretcher. So Landis's memory has improved in the nine years since he told
1:40:48
Hill. I don't know if that's real or not. I'll give him the
1:40:51
credibility for having found a bullet, and I'll say that he left it on
1:40:56
a stretcher, which is a terrible dereliction of duty, but he did it.
1:40:58
Nevertheless, as he walked out of the hospital. I think that is
1:41:00
CE three ninety nine. He's provided the answer as to how it ended up
1:41:05
on a stretcher. Okay, But if he found it in the back of
1:41:11
the limo, well that can't that can't the single bullet theory can't be true.
1:41:15
Well, there are two things on that. First of all, I
1:41:17
don't know if he found in the back of a lemo, because now you're
1:41:19
assuming that his recall sixty years later is the accurate recall. But even if
1:41:23
it is, hold on a second, if he said he found it today
1:41:27
on Connolly's handsleg, you can't say with the details that that's correct. Therefore,
1:41:33
it's definitely a single bullet. Remember, I wish we had a video
1:41:38
because I interviewed the in nineteen ninety two, the doctors who responded, who
1:41:43
ran out with the trolleys to the car, and those nurses and the orderlies
1:41:47
who were responding to bring the president in. The Landis says, I didn't
1:41:51
want to leave the bullet there. Because I didn't it might have been a
1:41:55
souvenir or somebody could have picked it up. There was public getting around.
1:41:57
The Secret Service wasn't guarding the car. We know, for the first pictures
1:42:00
of the car at the hospital, there were Dallas police all around it.
1:42:02
That car was guarded. There was no public near it. He saw two
1:42:05
fragments in it. He didn't do anything about those, but the bullet he
1:42:09
picks up. You know what they did when they got to the car,
1:42:11
they went to take the president out first, and they couldn't take him out
1:42:14
because Connolly's in that first seat. Conney six feet five inches tall or was
1:42:17
he six' six That jump seat was so small that that day when they
1:42:21
started to get off of the car, connye had trouble fitting into that with
1:42:25
his legs up. And then when they're pulling him out of the car because
1:42:28
they have to get to the president who they're trying to save, who has
1:42:30
this massive wound, they're taking Conny and he's halfway if you talk to the
1:42:33
people back thirty years ago, as they're taking him out of the car,
1:42:38
before they even know of Landis's account, torso of his body's halfway over the
1:42:42
jump seat into the back seat. They're moving him out roughly to get him
1:42:45
out of there so they can get to the president, and then they pull
1:42:47
the president out. Is it possible that that bullet fell out onto the back
1:42:51
seat. Sure, but do I trust Landis's recollection sixty years later about precisely
1:42:57
where he found it. No, I trust that he found it that much.
1:43:00
I'll get all right. You make an interesting point about Okay, even
1:43:04
if Landis is telling the truth, is it theoretically possible that that bullet didn't
1:43:09
come out of Kennedy's body. But we still have the problem of Kennedy's stretcher,
1:43:15
and if Landis is telling the truth about that, and by the way,
1:43:18
it seems to be backed up by the testimony of Phyllis Hall, a
1:43:21
nurse at Parkland Hospital, who describes a bullet in that operating room. I
1:43:28
don't even know if you're aware of this, but there's an amazing interview from
1:43:31
a not interview, but a discussion between jaegg Or Hoover and President Johnson days
1:43:36
after the assassination, where Hoover describes a bullet rolling out of JFK's body at
1:43:44
Parkland Hospital, which sounds very much like what Phyllis Hall was describing. So
1:43:49
you don't just don't you have to get beyond just the limo problem, Gerald,
1:43:55
you have a problem with the stretcher situation. And here's my theory,
1:43:59
because my theory is rather simple but obviously takes a lot to describe the evidence
1:44:06
behind it. But Darryl Tomlinson, and this was new information to me after
1:44:12
the whole land Is thing broke that Darryl Tomlinson, who was the guy who
1:44:15
found the bullet on the stretcher, his testimony, in my view and Vanity
1:44:20
Fair did a hell of a job on this, I think was greatly distorted
1:44:25
by Arlen Spector in the Warren Commission. And it seems to me, and
1:44:29
I'm I'm someone who grew up in Pennsylvania, I know Specter's history pretty well.
1:44:34
I think Specter reverse engineered this entire single bullet theory because he thought he
1:44:40
had a problem with the Zebruder film's timing, and I think he bullied Tomlinson
1:44:45
into saying something that he didn't say. When you mean, Tomlinson's only mentioned
1:44:49
in the Warren Commission report one time, and he's the guy that found maybe
1:44:54
the most important piece of evidence, and his testimony is distorted. And so
1:45:00
to me, that's a major problem for you guys. And then a single
1:45:03
bullet theory people, because if Tomlinson is telling the truth the specter, the
1:45:08
single bullet theory is dead because I agree Tomlinson's testimony is what's critical. And
1:45:15
you know what, the Warren Commission stayed away from it because they couldn't figure
1:45:18
it out. Here's why, John, you'll like this because you know the
1:45:24
case well, and you're somebody who can think about this and then see the
1:45:27
other side and you say, Okay, maybe I agree with your postle or
1:45:30
maybe I don't. The key here is that Tomlinson, an hour after the
1:45:35
President's body has been taken away, is walking down a hallway and bumps bumps
1:45:42
into a stretcher. They're two in that hallway, and then a bullet rolls
1:45:45
off, but he doesn't know what stretcher it was. Now one of those
1:45:47
streachers, it turns out, was tied to Connley. That was the one
1:45:50
Kindy had been brought in on before they took them off of it to do
1:45:54
surgery. The Warren Commission wanted to squeeze that bullet onto the Connedy stretcher because
1:45:59
they said, hey, you know what that bullet the doctor Karako was doing
1:46:02
surgery on Conley looked at the wound in the thigh and it was a superficient
1:46:06
enough wound that the bullet had popped out somewhere and sent somebody looking for it,
1:46:10
but they couldn't find it. They didn't look at the stretcher anywhere else.
1:46:13
So the Warren Commission said, it has to be Conley's stretcher. But
1:46:15
guess what. The stretcher next to it, which is actually the one that
1:46:18
maybe was hit as he was walking along, belonged to a young kid who
1:46:23
had been taken into the hospital for emergency while all of this was taking place.
1:46:28
But it couldn't be on that kid's stretcher because then that means it was
1:46:30
planted. The Warren Commission things, or something's fake about it. Guess what?
1:46:35
Finally, Landis has provided The answer is how it gets there and what
1:46:40
I think has happened. Now, I allow me to speculate for one second,
1:46:43
Is said sixty years later as it comes on as Landis is ready to
1:46:46
take this account. When he told his fellow colleague Clint Hill about the bullet,
1:46:53
he said, as we were leaving Parkland Hospital, I dropped it on
1:46:57
a stretcher in the hallway as we were going out. Now it's become I
1:47:00
put it on. Jack Kennedy stretcher because that's where it belonged. It belonged
1:47:04
with the president. He deserved to have it, and somebody would find it.
1:47:08
I think Landis somehow feels as though it's better to be able to say
1:47:12
I grabbed the bullet that was a key piece of evidence in the case,
1:47:15
but I left it with the president. That doesn't seem as bad as saying
1:47:16
I just dumped it on a stretcher that I didn't even know who it belonged
1:47:19
to on the way out of Parkland Hospital. So when it's Tomlinson eventually bumps
1:47:26
into it, that bullet drops off it, Well, could be the stretcher
1:47:29
that belonged to the kid. Might have nothing to do with commonly, but
1:47:31
it is C three ninety nine. The Warrant Commission just never figured that out
1:47:35
because they couldn't imagine their wildest dreams that a secret Service agent had picked up
1:47:40
that bullet, wandered around with it for a while, and then dumped it
1:47:43
on the way out of the hospital. Okay, what's frustrating me, Gerald
1:47:46
is I think you and I agree on so very much about this. We
1:47:50
have this different conclusion, and let me just share with you my conclusion or
1:47:57
at least my theory, and I want you to tell me why I'm wrong.
1:48:00
You disagree with me. To me, it's very simple what happened here,
1:48:04
and that is that there is no first shot miss. The first shot
1:48:09
miss, which you guys have to believe in, you guys, being the
1:48:12
single bullet theory people, has no evidence behind it at all. It's a
1:48:15
pure reverse engineered speculation. The first shot happens earlier than we think. You
1:48:21
acknowledge that the little girl in the Zubuter film stopping is probably the marker for
1:48:27
the first shot. It happens earlier than most people acknowledge. There's no audio
1:48:32
in the Zubuter film. Kennedy's reaction to being hit in the back with that
1:48:36
first bullet is delayed, which is why he has a neuro muscular reaction to
1:48:43
it. He doesn't grab his throat, gerald his elbows jet out, his
1:48:47
fists are clinched, he never grabs his throat. It's the greatest red herring
1:48:54
in the entire assassination because people think that's evidence of the throat wound. What
1:49:00
ever touches his throat, and so that happens earlier than we think, giving
1:49:03
enough time. I'm for the second shot to hit Connolly and in plenty of
1:49:09
time for the third shot the hit Kennedy in the head. It's very simple.
1:49:13
First shot in the back, it falls out, Land has fallen,
1:49:15
finds it in the back of the limo. Second shot it's Connolly. Third
1:49:19
shot, it's Kennedy's head. It's all from Oswald. It's there's no pristine
1:49:25
bullet, there's no single bullet theory. And this is something that is not
1:49:28
only true, it's easily sold. Tell me why I'm wrong, John,
1:49:33
I would think that that's possible, and I could ascribe to it with just
1:49:38
one big caveat that is, then there's a conspiracy because there's a fourth shot.
1:49:43
There's this shot. It goes and hits a curbstone five hundred feet out.
1:49:46
There's no evidence for that. Gerald wounds bystandard right, Gerald erl jar
1:49:55
hold on a second, Gerald, you're buying into something for which there is
1:49:59
no evidence. The woman James T got a cut on his face fell away
1:50:08
from the assassination. When if it happened in the first shot, Gerald,
1:50:12
you know better than anybody T is nowhere near where the limo is in that
1:50:16
first shot. If it's the first shot miss he's nowhere close to this.
1:50:20
He's just seen the most traumatic thing he will ever see in his life.
1:50:25
There's a hundred things that could have cast a cut on his face. By
1:50:28
the way, it could have been scrapnel from the headshot to Kennedy the third
1:50:32
shot. So John, So John, here's the thing I wish that I
1:50:38
could have with everybody that I talked to the assassination about as much agreement as
1:50:43
you and I have about the case. And although we do have a disagreement
1:50:46
about the shooting sequence, you do have the agreement of Clint Hill, who
1:50:49
thinks that there were three shots that hit differently. Governor Conley thought that at
1:50:55
the thing. So you're not on your own I understand that, And all
1:51:00
I'm saying is that we, yes, we do disagree on the shooting sequence,
1:51:03
but we agree who the assassin was. It's ninety percent of the way
1:51:06
there. Okay, you have to go right, you're let me ask you
1:51:12
one last question because this is this is I think maybe the most important thing
1:51:16
I'm gonna ask you, because this is where we might actually be able to
1:51:19
find the truth and maybe you have an answer to why this can't be done.
1:51:25
I believe this could all be solved instantaneously. Why has there not been
1:51:30
DNA testing done on three ninety nine Because if we with modern technology and advances
1:51:36
in DNA, that bullet is gonna happen. My view, JFK's DNA on
1:51:41
it but not Connolly's, and you're the you have the power to create enough
1:51:45
pressure for that to happen. Why can't we get DNA testing on three ninety
1:51:49
nine because probably, and I don't know this to be the answer, the
1:51:56
no one will first believe it even if Kennedy's DNA on zhan Itel that that
1:52:00
was planted, if it had both DNA on it, no one. Gerald.
1:52:02
I know you have to go, but I actually could not hear you
1:52:05
the last portion of that answer. So all right, I don't know what
1:52:15
happened technically, but look, will you come back and do this again before
1:52:19
the assassination? Okay, Jerald, thank you so much. I know you
1:52:24
have to go. Appreciate the time, so as you might expect. When
1:52:27
the interview ended that abruptly and in that fashion, I was extremely frustrated.
1:52:33
In fact, I actually believed that episode number one hundred and four, our
1:52:39
previous episode of the podcast, was not nearly as good as it should have
1:52:42
been, because my brain was fried at that point, and I was then
1:52:46
after I taped the interview with Posner. That's when I started taping episode number
1:52:50
one hundred and four. It's just so typical the way things seem to work,
1:52:56
especially in my life and career, that the things you're looking most forward
1:53:00
to and have as your greatest priorities, something is going to go wrong in
1:53:03
a way that you have no control over. And I do not understand why,
1:53:08
all of a sudden we lost audio at the end of that interview.
1:53:13
And I really do believe that that question is a key question. I mean,
1:53:16
to me, this can all be solved if there's just a simple DNA
1:53:21
test, although how simple it would be. But you know, with modern
1:53:25
technology, we are certainly capable of determining who's DNA is on that so called
1:53:31
magic bullet pristine bullet Exhibit three ninety nine. Now, Posner's first reaction,
1:53:36
which I think is probably accurate, although irrelevant, is that, Okay,
1:53:40
even if we did that, it wouldn't convince people because they would think that
1:53:44
somehow the DNA was bogus or planted. Well, I don't care, I
1:53:47
don't care what those people think I just want to know what the truth is,
1:53:51
and I am more convinced than ever that if you ever did do a
1:53:56
DNA test on the so called pristine Magic bullet, that you would not find
1:54:00
John Connolly's DNA on it, and you probably would find JFK's DNA because it
1:54:06
was in his body for at least a short period of time, and presumably
1:54:12
there would be blood and tissue in somewhere on that bullet. Not a DNA
1:54:17
expert, but I would think that that would be something that would be findable
1:54:23
even sixty years later, and you know, that would solve the whole mystery,
1:54:28
at least for my satisfaction. Now, as far as what happened in
1:54:31
the interview before we lost audio, I have to say that I was very
1:54:39
disappointed with Gerald Posner's responses to me, not because you know, he didn't
1:54:46
do his best. I'm just now convinced that he just doesn't have the evidence
1:54:53
to combat my theory, and I frankly think some of what he said was
1:54:58
rather desperate, And if I had another opportunity to speak with Gerald on the
1:55:03
record, I would say that, I mean, if you listened carefully,
1:55:08
he's now seemingly positing the theory, and I got a bit confused during that
1:55:14
portion of the interview. He's positing the theory that the bullet that Paul Landis
1:55:18
found could still have fallen out of John Connolly's body because of the way Connolly's
1:55:24
body was removed from the limo, and that somehow would have fallen out in
1:55:28
the back of the limo, even though Connelly was sitting in the middle of
1:55:31
the limousine. And I'm just like, wow, okay, really, so
1:55:36
then the theory that Positive seems to be promoting is that bizarrely, this pristine
1:55:43
bullet falls out of Connolly in the back of the limo, even though Connolly
1:55:46
was never there. Landis takes it out of the limo, brings it into
1:55:54
Parkland, puts it on JFK's strutcher. But somehow the body that actually the
1:56:00
bullet that actually fell out of Connolly's body gets found on Kennedy's stretcher, but
1:56:06
the Mark Commission mistakes it for Connolly's stretcher, but it's all still the bullet
1:56:12
that came out of Connolly. I mean, that is just okay, really,
1:56:15
that's not the way real world stuff works. I mean that that feels
1:56:20
desperate to me. But okay, I'm open to all sorts of strange theories
1:56:25
as long as they're somewhat sensible. But where I really was astonished was when
1:56:32
I asked Posner, Okay, where am I wrong? And this is where
1:56:35
I wish we would have had more time, because there's so much more to
1:56:41
this theory. There's so much more evidence that I believe is on my side.
1:56:44
There's so many problems with the single bullet theory and especially the first shot
1:56:50
miss theory that I didn't get a chance to get Posner's reaction to. But
1:56:57
when I ask him where am I wrong? He is essentially says I'm with
1:57:00
you except for the first shot miss, and that's when I lose it.
1:57:06
I'm sure I was far more agitated and with far greater passion than Positor's ever
1:57:14
heard before about this issue of there can't be a first shot miss because there's
1:57:20
no evidence for it. And let me, just as briefly as I can
1:57:25
go through why the first shot miss theory is, in my view, ridiculous
1:57:31
and it's obviously a result of reverse engineering by Arlen Spector. Here's why.
1:57:39
Number one, the Secret Service agents and the Connollys, despite Gerald Posner himself
1:57:47
trying to convince the Connolly's before they died that they were wrong. But everybody
1:57:51
in the direct vicinity of the limousine connected the first shot with Kennedy's reaction to
1:58:01
it. So in their minds, it wasn't the second shot that causes Kennedy
1:58:11
to react, It was the first shot. They were all positive of this.
1:58:17
Now, that doesn't prove anything, because eyewitness testimony, especially in that
1:58:21
kind of a situation, is not always reliable. But that's a problem.
1:58:26
So why is it that the people in the limo and the Secret Service agents
1:58:30
all associated the first shot not with a miss, but with Kennedy's reaction to
1:58:38
it. That's number one. But the bigger problem with the first shot miss
1:58:44
theory is that if it happened, If it happened, there would be massive
1:58:51
amounts of evidence for it, because, and I try to allude to this
1:58:58
in the interview with Posner, if you have a first shot miss, if
1:59:02
the first shot misses when the little girl stops and turns and looks up towards
1:59:09
the school book depository building, and Oswald somehow badly misses, and the first
1:59:15
shot, the easiest shot because it's by surprise if he badly misses, horrifically
1:59:19
misses and hits the sidewalk. As Posner proposes, that's at a point within
1:59:28
the parade where there are still tons of people right there. It's not until
1:59:34
the third shot where the limo gets to a point in the street where the
1:59:39
crowd has dissipated. The little girl isn't the only one there. There are
1:59:44
dozens of people right there. Had there been a bullet that hit the sidewalk,
1:59:49
by the way, there would be clear evidence on the sidewalk. That's
1:59:53
never been proven, but there would be eyewitness accounts if it hit a tree,
1:59:58
which has been a a lot made of the tree. And I know
2:00:00
this is shocking to people, but over sixty years, trees tend to grow,
2:00:05
and so the tree that exists there now was nowhere near as big as
2:00:10
it was in nineteen sixty three. And the photos I've seen in nineteen sixty
2:00:15
three indicate to me that that tree was not a big problem for Oswald.
2:00:18
But let's pretend that somehow it was. The tree would have evidence that it
2:00:24
was hit by a bullet. There's no evidence of that. And the idea
2:00:29
that James Tigue got a cut on his face far from where the first shot
2:00:34
would have been fired. He's over by the underpass. Is just ridiculous.
2:00:40
There are it's a minor cut on his face, and there are all sorts.
2:00:45
I mean, I've gotten cuts playing with my kids before that I had
2:00:48
no idea even how I got them. I'm sure most people have had this
2:00:53
experience. He's just seen the most traumatic thing I've ever seen in his life.
2:00:57
Who knows. I mean, people were diving to the ground fearing other
2:01:00
shots. There's all sorts of potential reasons. And as I say in the
2:01:04
interview with Posner, it's much more logical that some sort of debris or shrapnel
2:01:10
from the third shot, which was much closer to where Tigue was, may
2:01:14
have somehow drifted and hit Tigue in the face and caused him to get a
2:01:18
slight cut, which would have no bearing on a first shot miss. But
2:01:24
James Tig's name is not in the Dallas Morning News the next day, nor
2:01:30
is there any eyewitness account of you know, I saw the tree rattle like
2:01:34
it got hit by a bullet, or I saw the sidewalk and it looked
2:01:40
like to me a bullet kramd off the sidewalk and sent dust up into the
2:01:45
air. Something like that. There's nothing nothing In the initial reports, Tigu's
2:01:51
name is not mentioned. He didn't come forward. Oh my god, I
2:01:56
was hit by a stray bullet. This was all away for Arnland Specter to
2:02:01
be able to reverse engineer this story. He needed an explanation for a third
2:02:08
shot. It's somewhat complicated, but basically he did not think that the timing
2:02:14
allowed for what I think is very clear that the first shot hits Kennedy in
2:02:18
the back, it falls out, Paul Landis finds it at Parkland Hospital in
2:02:23
the limo places it on JFK. Stretcher. It gets mistaken for Connolly Stretcher,
2:02:28
and Specter is very dead set on there being a single bullet theory and
2:02:33
a first shot missed because in his mind, because he misinterpreted the zu Bruder
2:02:39
film, that's the only way you get Oswald to be the lone gunman.
2:02:43
And it's all based upon the lack of understanding of a couple things, the
2:02:47
throat situation with Kennedy as well as his delayed reaction to being hit in the
2:02:54
back with an undercharged bullet, which was very common for that type of ammunition.
2:03:00
Most of the Secret Service agents all described it that first shot as a
2:03:04
backfire. They didn't the weren't even positive at the time until they heard a
2:03:08
second shot that it was even a gunshot. Something went wrong with that first
2:03:13
shot. It would not have killed Kennedy. And I believe that it hit
2:03:16
Kennedy in the back and came out at some point. And I always presumed
2:03:20
it came out at Parkland because they were doing CPR on him. But according
2:03:26
to Paul Landis, he provides a very plausible explanation for having found it in
2:03:31
the back of the limousine where JFK was sitting. I still have questions for
2:03:35
how it got out of his shirt, and you know why Landis did what
2:03:40
he did, but at least it makes some sense. But I have to
2:03:44
say that the headline for me of the Posner interview, and I'm more than
2:03:47
happy to have Posner get a second shot of this, and I would love
2:03:51
to have him back on the podcast, and I will ask him to come
2:03:55
back on again. In fact, they've already done that, but he's not
2:03:58
responded. But I'm presumed he's extremely busy in this week period of time the
2:04:02
week before the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination, I was thoroughly unimpressed by Posner's
2:04:11
rebuttal to my theory, which then makes me more confident than I'm actually right,
2:04:15
because I actually was expecting and almost hoping Pasner to be able to convince
2:04:19
me that I'm wrong, because I just want to know what the hell actually
2:04:23
happened here, And I'm now tilting more towards my theory being correct because I
2:04:30
don't think that Posner was able to lay a glove on it for the reasons
2:04:33
that I've already stated. But the fact that the poster interview did not go
2:04:39
as well as I had hoped because of timing issues and technical issues is pretty
2:04:42
much typical of my life and my career, as well as the entire JFK
2:04:46
story from the beginning, because there have been a perfect storm of circumstances that
2:04:51
have prevented the full truth from ever being known, learned, or told,
2:04:58
so in that sense, the conspiracy continuous. And here we are, We're
2:05:02
this close to get into the truth of what actually happened, and I can't
2:05:05
even schedule Gerald Posnor for a full hour long interview, and even the interview
2:05:11
that we do have has technical problems at the end, and I don't even
2:05:14
know what his full response was when it came to the issue of DNA testing
2:05:17
of the so called pristine bullet Again, I hope to get another shot with
2:05:23
Posner. We'll see if that happens. I honestly don't know at this point
2:05:27
of that if it will or not, but I do know that that'll do
2:05:29
it for episode number one hundred and five of the Death of Journalism podcast.
2:05:32
As is always the case, please remember to subscribe, rate, and review,
2:05:36
and share this with other people in your orbit or online. If you
2:05:41
do so, share it online, please tag me and I'll make sure to
2:05:44
share it with my followers on Twitter and my friends on Facebook. Until next
2:05:47
time, thanks so much for listening. This has been the Death of Journalism
2:05:51
podcast. My name is John Ziggler.