From the CHECKO Kelly, And he's been known too many years of applying GfK
researcher specializing in an Intellivit agency involvement in multiple assassinations prob again and other global
criminal operations in the twentieth and twenties first centuries. And your listeners are extremely
March tab Yeah, yeah, that's good. Best activated place in a media
Kelly, August six. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar,
twenty twenty is the year supposedly, And here we are on a Thursday
or Thursday night anyway. That is what it is as I go live here
at O'Kelly dot com. But you could be hearing us further on down the
stream via your final slab of choice, via the podcast, or possibly on
one of the amr FM affiliates. Brand new one being added this week is
w CET in South Carolina. So welcome to all of this, my friends.
It's gonna be an interesting ride tonight. Carlin Sabastano, the author of
Human time Bomb, The Violence Within Our Nature and Two Princes and a King
is with Me. His website is website website very good. Website is teapoktpaak
dot com and hopefully I don't trip over my tongue anymore than usual. And
with us tonight is Larry Handcock. Now, Larry has written so many books.
I'm not gonna take the time to list them all because I've only got
you know, two hours with these guys. However, one of the latest
ones and greatest ones as far as I'm concerned, is in Denial. That
is the main title, but of course it is a longer titled book,
and you can find out all about that at Larry Hyphenhancock dot com ps Shadow
Warfare The Awful Grace of God, which he co authored someone would have talked,
I mean, well a lot of stuff. There sis a whole bunch
of books Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. Check out his blog, check out his
stuff. You can get most of his material on Amazon dot com, if
not all of it, and you can also get Carmine's books there as well.
So there we go. Now I've given the introductions, and tonight what
we're going to do is we're gonna focus a bit on the Kennedy assassination.
For sure. Is this a myths episode? Not necessarily, but there may
be some mythological ideas that we're going to kick around and discuss. So let
me find out how everybody is first before I actually go into something that I
want to cover based on a past email. Carmine, first of all,
my friend, my co host every other week. How are you doing,
sir? I'm doing okay considering reality currently. Well, we're all living through
that, brother. I mean, really, listen, if you feel a
little nauseous, a little tired, a little exhausted, welcome to twenty twenty.
Uh, you might actually not have your head firmly planted, you know,
in your backside. Okay, I'm going to be as friendly about it
as possible. If you are disturbed, then you're probably breathing. I mean,
it's just that simple, right. Excuse me. Still have the cough
by the way, in case anybody was wondering. It's about like nine ten
days here. Yeah, I feel like crap, but I am getting better,
so hopefully I won't cough on you guys too much. However, I
do wind up laughing a bit, especially when I do this with Carmine and
Larry is with us. Larry Hancock, man, listen, I have a
great time every time you're on the show. I'm very happy to have you
along as as a matter of fact, we got to get you on more
often. I do want to discuss your new book one more time on the
show because I wasn't fully read through it the last time we spoke about it,
But so we might have to do another in Denial episode very very soon,
if you're available, sir. I know you're busy, and I know
you're always writing, always blogging again, Larry Hyphenhandcock dot com is the place
to go. But Larry, how are you tonight, sir? I I'm
I think, CARMI, I'm pretty well captured it. I'm I'm doing as
well as can be expected. Health is good, energy levels aren't what I
think probably any of us would hope they would be. I'm looking forward,
Like I saw a post basically somebody said, I'm looking forward to celebrating you
years. I'm going to stay up not to watch the new one in,
but to make sure the Owen leads. I think that pretty well captures things
for the moment. But yeah, I'm doing good and more. You know,
I really expected this. Lots of things have been canceled, lots of
things I'm normally involved with like fairs and festival and activities have been canceled.
And I really thought it would be quiet, and it's more lively than I
had expected it would be. So I'm awake and I'm sort of alert.
Yeah, it's getting stranger out there. I mean, and here's the funny
thing. There's still action going on in the street regarding the topic of police
brutality. Interesting that there has been such a long stretch of protests and meanwhile
a lot of us not really even paying attention to that anymore. I mean,
nothing's burning, So who cares? Right is that where we're at?
I mean, what a weird time and history still with the pandemic and the
other disease that's occupying the White House, and who knows what is going to
come next? I mean, could we have serious political upheaval because the selection
process might be postponed, delayed, or deluded to such a point that maybe
there is no legitimacy. Nobody's going to bother to accept the results, the
counts or anything else. And man, this is a long, long year,
Larry. I mean, if nothing else, even if you're not disturbed,
you gotta admit this year is taking its sweet time. Grinding itself out
of us. What do you think? Yeah, it just it kind of
sucks everything out, you know. I mean whatever you had planned, you
know, something different is happening. So whatever you had on your schedule,
you know, that's no good. Throw away the calendars. And I'm experiencing
a serious time dilation effect. It's like, wait a minute, what month
is it? Is it all already? Did we have the election? You
know? Has this not been going on for five years already? Yeah,
it's just like my whole it's like filerhythm. The cycles are just like,
oh, I just want to It's like when you were sitting in third or
fourth grade and you looked up at the clock and you wondered when class was
going to be over, And I felt like seventy years between the time you
looked up at the clock and you looked back down at the teacher talking amazing
stuff. I mean time dilation. That's that's a perfect phrase, because that's
what it's like. I mean, just everything is stretching out, and I
do feel kind of like like Carmine said, like when I was a child,
and it's like that's going to be two hours from now, that's forever
every hour. Right, It's like, well, I don't have to I
don't have to worry about that until tomorrow. That's a long way away from
now. And you know, the distortion and time is palatable. And it's
funny because no matter what your persuasion is, politically, socially, anything else,
everybody has to admit that there is at the very least a displacement in
the feel as to how time is actually moving, you know, one way
or another. People don't know what day it is, they don't know what
month it is. They they have no reason to keep track of these things.
A lot of those marked events that maybe people made habits out of,
like Larry was talking about with the festivals. I mean a lot of that
stuff. If it's the you know what, what do we have here?
The oh my, it's it's the some blossom festival is here? I don't
remember if it's the gin blossom or the honey blossom festival that is canceled,
you know, near where I am a lot of other street fairs that might
have taken place in your locality wherever you may be. Mister and missus listener,
uh, you know, the the the cultural affairs, all this stuff
out the window. I mean, it's not just the NFL and the you
know, in Major League Baseball. But go ahead. I just wanted to
say, you know, and what I think is two as you and I.
I think both of us actually are all three of us. I've just
discussed this with Larry an Chuck off the air. But I had a friend
who read my books and something say, you should have wrote this year earlier.
Yeah, well sorry, I can only research so fast. I had
no idea that people were going to act almost textbook. Yeah well, if
I had known I was fifteen, I would have written it then. Okay,
yeah, yeah, you know it's we can only find the information.
I didn't know we were going to get a crash course in what happens in
the degeneration of people in the society, right if they you feel bad?
I mean here, I wrote a book called Creating Chaos and the Curve.
All right, that's really going to make it feel bad. Yeah see that,
you know what. I wasn't going to say that to Hilarry, but
it really sucks that you put out Creating Chaos when you did, because quite
frankly, it should have been put out this year. And I mean it's
just yeah, those would have been two yeah, pre yeah, two good
precursor books to have a look at the systems and action. Now. Yeah,
but but it would have been so time, you know. I mean,
I'm expecting some other author to hijack you know, Larry's at least a
general idea on the surface and come out now and say, you know what,
or maybe that's already happened. I don't know. Well, and I
would just add that you know, what Larry said and what I said a
lot of people is that it's been said for There have been people that have
been at the edges of society yelling for us to pay attention that something like
this was going to happen, and no one wanted to believe it. Everyone
wanted to believe that people would just always defer to logic and they would always
defer on the whole anyway to rationality. But that's not the way humans work.
We're animals, we really are, and we behave in certain patterns,
and if you put enough pressure on us, we snap. So you add
all of the political division, to the isolation, to the media with ceaseless
division to normally occur in stress and boom, Yeah, well, the good
news is the good news is we man through one question. If there was
any question what our particular limiting cycle was, like how often do we go
all jump off clifs. We now know seventy five years roughly about the lass.
I's it. Seventy five years. Yeah, interesting, seventy five years
is actually a fascinating, reoccurring thing. I urge people to look that up.
Seventy five year cycles are very interesting for a lot of things. But
back to this idea that you know, there are people living seemingly in alternate
realities because they may have snapped. I want to deal with this email.
And it's an old one, and it's funny because I was talking to Carmine
earlier off air about the ridiculousness of YouTube commentary and somebody who had gone back
into episodes Myth six and it was episode six of the JFK Myth series and
it had started on me about you know, first of all, I'm looking
at people criticizing sherf fees. Then I was looking at because she was on
that one. Then I was looking at the fact that there was somebody very
recently making a comment that I was, you know, disinformation because I would
not accept that George hw Bush was in Deely Plaza. Okay, even though
I've already given many a presentation regarding this on more than one Myths episode.
We've talked about it, we've mentioned it, we've sub referenced it, we've
shown you the pictures, We've done all kinds of stuff, and I'm disinformation
because I won't admit to that. But okay, fine, that's YouTube.
It's successful. I get it, And welcome to our listeners on YouTube.
I know there's some of you out there that that's all you do, but
sadly, look at the comments under my shows and you'll see why I'm frustrated.
All right, anyway back to this or maybe you'll agree with them and
you'll pile on whatever have at it. But here's the thing. Yeah,
I just wanted to add so just for show title ideas Myths letters from the
public, because basically, these are going to be a lot of responses to
enduring myths that we hear over and over that we've covered some of them,
but they just won't go away, so apparently they need to be brought up
again. Yeah, Unfortunately, which is why there's a lot of repeat material
that's gonna occur, which is why I haven't done a myth series lately,
because it's like, I don't want to do the same ones again. I
want to do some new ones. And we could do like, you know,
the greatest hits run down in the last thirty minutes or something, but
I want to hit the new stuff. Anyway. You can't because of new
stuff. Well, aha, there you have it. It's the recycling of
the same old that we end up having to bat down over and over.
Yeah, they recycle it. They put a new twist on it. It's
like, look, this is a baseball bat and it's colored, uh,
purple. It's like, yeah, but it's still a baseball bat, you
know, but it's purple. Yeah, but it's a baseball bat, dude,
it's the same thing it was before. He is. Uh. Ideas
are like rocks. Some people build things with them, and some people bash
other people in the head with them. That's perfect. Where did you get
that from? I made that up, and that was something I said to
somebody once. Nice Okay, quote Carmine Savastano on that one. Ideas are
like rocks, Some people build with them and some people beat each other over
the head with them perfect. Uh. On that note, I got an
old email a while back because you and I have discussed mk ultra, and
we discussed it recently at length, right, but other times that we brought
up mk ULTRA and I talked about the ethics involved with testing unnowing subjects with
chemicals. Uh. And and I talked about how this, you know,
literally violates you know, the the Geneva Conventions against Medical Testing international law on
several levels, YadA, YadA, YadA. And yet the government does participate
in this. I pointed out in a couple of shows and said that something
called Shad Operation Shad had occurred under JFK. And I got an email a
while back and really just kind of let it sit in my inbox because I
didn't get a chance to address it. But I had somebody give me a
two or three paragraph complaint about how I made this up. And here's the
sad thing. Right before we went to air tonight, I asked Larry Hancock,
do you remember Operation Shad or do you remember a Project one twelve?
And look, nobody can remember everything. Larry's an expert on stuff like this,
and probably we'll find it interesting in context, but not necessarily. Everything
is in Larry's head at all times. So he said, no, I
never heard of it. I said, well, I assure you it exists.
I'll tell you what. Why don't you just do a take whatever search
engine you got, open it up, and just enter the following phrase ship
board hazard and defense, which is what shad shad stands for. If you
do that, you will come up with government websites admitting that this happened.
Now, why is this worthy of mentioning in this context? Because JFK authorized
and Robert McNamara authorized testing basically of exposure to chemical and biological agents to military
men who did not know they were being exposed to said agents. And this
happened in the Pacific South Pacific, excuse me, And happened in the waters
just off the coast of I believe, Alaska, and so on and so
on. Meanwhile, Project one twelve is one of one hundred and fifty examinations
of things that we're supposed to go on during that time period. Now,
I'm not saying that this is you know, major headline news or anything,
but a simple search on the Internet would reveal to you that I didn't make
it up. Now, I can make mistakes, but being accused of making
up things out of thin air because I want to a smear John F.
Kennedy, I'm really not one of these guys who worships the ground he walked
on. Nor am I one of these guys who wants to demonize him.
I want an objective view of his historical relevance to be had, and I've
got my arguments about things he did, things he didn't do, whatever.
But bottom line is, I didn't make it up. And I'm not even
going to give you the link to Shad. Here's what I want you to
do. Google exactly the phrase, or use whatever search engine you like Shipboard
Hazard and Defense. Just do that and you'll see that I didn't make it
up. You can interpret it slightly differently from me or whatever. But my
point about it was test subjects and biological or chemical agents. That was the
point of it, and that's why I brought it up, and that's why
I didn't expound upon it, because it wasn't part of MK Ultra or anything.
It was an example of something else where the government had participated in,
something that was not meant to be seen by the public. Even if you
look at the National Security Action Memorandum connected to it, you'll find that the
agency in charge basically said, yeah, we don't think anybody's ever going to
question this adequately. They're not going to find evidence that we did this.
I'm not kidding. By the way, go ahead and look it up.
Please, it happened. Okay, sorry, CARMI, go ahead. They
might want to look up Project shed Okay, fair enough, Project shatter,
Project one twelve. Yeah, those two things will work. Yeah. And
that's you know, I mean, it's not just the case with the Kennedy
government. It's the case with prior governments. It's the case with later governments.
You know. They they did things to prison populations, they did things
to student populations, they did things to military people. I've met some of
the victims of Agent Orange that Kennedy dispatched as well. Well. But there
you have it. My point was not necessarily to point at JFK aspre but
but that was the thing. Is even the guy that that people think of
as squeaky clean was you know, well, will we know about mongoose?
No, no, no, no, no. There's plenty of stuff that
went on, and this is just the way of doing business. For our
government, understand that part of it. The one person alone can stop it
or change it. There you have it. But my point again was only
that you know, people always like to say, well, Kennedy was absolutely
opposed to covert operations and wasn't ever part of anything that was kind of dirty
and yet not really true. I'm just just saying, God, go ahead.
I was just gonna say, you don't get to that office if you're
not part of something dirty, thank you. Okay, that was my whole
point in a nutshell, And I know I just took up time and I
apologized, But here we go. This is the problem with people, though,
that want to make assertions and decide that people are disinformation or misinformation agents
on one level or another. But here's your problem. If you don't have
any information to begin with, how are you even making that sort of claim
against me? Okay, so first first, maybe do a Google search or
search on bing or I don't care what your search engine is, Duck duck,
go, doesn't matter. Do something, look something up before you accuse
me of, you know, just making up things out of thin air.
I really don't do that on here anyway, And I don't allow others to
do it either. I mean, we can speculate and we can discuss theories
or whatever, but generally speaking, I'll always turn to, well, what
do you have to back that or to make that make sense? What do
we know in general that can be pointed to to make it make sense.
Sorry, that's part of my methodology, but it's never going to be made
up anyway. Enough of all of that, because now we're like twenty minutes
deep, and I didn't mean to even go this far. We want to
discuss some of the prevalent myths in the official record regarding the JFK assassination.
Of course, we already discussed the George HW Bush thing. But anyway,
Larry, by the bye, I did mention you and and used you as
an example there, But I mean, I'm telling the truth here. This
is exactly what went on before we went to air, right, Oh?
Absolutely. And I thought it was interesting that the first line item that came
back up in my search was a US government public health website releasing an internal
document study on the project. So it wasn't it wasn't you know, questionable
it. I was kind of actually surprised to see something that authority show up
as the first hit, and it's very comprehensive in a neat event. So
yeah, absolutely, yeah, And I'm not even saying I told the whole
story. It's just I'm explaining the reference, you know, And if you
go look for it for yourself, as Larry did, you'll you'll find out
maybe why. And it's not something I you know, wow, he discovered
this, It was not hard to discover. It's just there anyway, other
things that may or may not be hard to discover. For that, I'm
going to begin with Carmine and let him sort of lead off here as we're
already, like I said, more than twenty minutes deep. But I want
to get to some of this other stuff, and who knows, we may
have to make other references to things, maybe not necessarily on the official story,
so to speak. But go go right ahead, sir. Well I
figured we would, you know, we want to do both. You started
with a public myth, so you know that's recurring that people just don't seem
to be you know, that they want and that you know, And I'll
go right into this in a second, but just to speak to that one
more second, and I'm sure Larry might have something to say about it.
But we've all dealt with and unfortunately, we all will deal with people who
will just make the false claim that what you're saying is untrue or disinformation because
they have no evidence for what they're saying. In fact, we know some
people can writ a series of books like that anyway. Uh you know,
I mean that's that is the unfounded criticisms basis. They really don't have any
evidence, They really don't have anything to offer, so all they can do
is try to tear down the person with evidence. I mean, that's really
the only defense left to them. But it needs to be recognized that just
criticism without any sort of basis and rationality is useless. Being critical exactly,
but be reasonably critical. Oh no, listen, I'm all for challenging the
assertions of nearly anyone. Yeah, you know, go for it, Bass,
But yeah, bring something to challenge it with, That's all I'm asking.
I mean, even if you have an anecdote from somebody who is a
relevant witness that contradicts the official story, and you just have one anecdote,
at least that's something, you know, I mean, you should bring more
than that, because just a witness to something happening is not really good enough
to make a full spectrum assertion because an individual's memory is fallible and things like
this and could be mistaken. Their perspective could have been restricted. You might
not have a full view from their vantage point being represented here. They might
have missed a lot of things. But you start putting together a bunch of
them. You start putting together, Oh, here's some documents that contradict this.
Here's some other elements where there are assertions made, and we have something
contradicting. You know, say a vehicle or something is supposed to be in
a particular position at a certain time and you find evidence that it was not
there because it happened to be elsewhere. Now you start to have a whole
lot of things for your argument. Yeah anyway, yeah, yeah, you
make a basis of substantial evidence. You know, if you're gonna be critical,
fine, that's good. We should all be skeptical of everything. But
you have to have a basis of substantial evidence to be critical effectively. Otherwise
you're just yelling exactly, And and that's unfortunately it's not just limited to one
side. Ah, both sides just love to yell at each other, and
that was one of the things I wanted to bring up first. I think
one of my favorite things that I see happen over and over is people using
outdated material to try to lecture other people. Yeah, well that's that's one
of my favorites. Well see, and that's the other thing. And again,
I'm gonna off road for a second year because uh, you know,
Larry just put out this book in Denial and again I I do. You're
gonna hear a commercial for it during the break even and there is brand new
information in that book, okay, regarding the Bay of Pigs in the circumstances.
Now, I'm not going to entirely spoil it. We had a discussion
which partially hit upon it the last time that Larry and I did a show
on the book. But here's the thing. At all times, new information
can be added to an equation, and in fact, you've got to be
careful to not have outdated information no matter what your position is. And you
know, Larry, if you wouldn't mind speak to that for a second.
Sure, I think one of the one of the things that we're facing is
that, especially in regard to JFK or the Baya pis. We're so far
from the event that most people have locked in their heads either an opinion about
it or their personal take on it, and they really don't want to leave
that. And sometimes, you know, you're making a point that new information
becomes available. I don't know if they if they don't want to engage with
it because they're concerned that they might have to do just that engage with it,
like, oh geez, if I really take this seriously, I might
have to change my opinion. And you know, we've learned by now.
The other thing I've learned for sure is that whenever I say something that agrees
with someone, I'm just a lot smarter than the opposite. They do not
want to hear what I have to say. They want me to say what
they're saying. You know, that's just that's reality. And so yeah,
it's just human nature. So for whatever reason, there's a lot of a
version it seems like to engage if you go on to the forums and so
okay, I introduced a new book, as Chuck said, and I was
pretty specific in saying, we now know of things about JFK and the Bay
of Pigs that we didn't know when the history books were, and in fact,
we haven't known them up until this decade, and we know things about
the Bay of Pigs that JFK didn't know his actions, you know, what
he did right or wrong. He wasn't aware of all that was going on,
and now we know this. Okay, So that's that's a pretty striking
historical event. So you would expect things, especially JFK fans, if you
would, people interested in his presidency, to engage with that. Certainly I
did. But what I found was after I had said that, and after
I'd posted a couple of times, almost like in a teasing or challenging manner,
there was no response. And I look back, and what I see
are people discussing the rifle in the school book depository. You know, who
was Jack Ruby really, or things that you know, things that we have
been things that are already decided like decades ago, fifty play and you know,
and they're discussing them with no information. Okay, I think that's the
that's the other point that you were just bringing up. They're discussing them with
the same information that we've had all along. So how where can that possibly
lead? I can't explain it, but it's it's it's yeah, yeah,
I guess it does because and it's it's also a little bit different. I
see. Maybe it's a comfort level, but I see more and more people
dropping back into not what I could would consider critical exchanges. Uh, but
defending ter h without naming names, I will. I recently saw a very
good historical researcher come on to a form and try to do a point counterpoint
and it just didn't work. And he dropped me a note and and said,
you know, is this am I wasting my time? And the answer
really was yes, you are, because it's it's not an open minded approach
to the subject. People have become fans, you know, there are fans
of various positions, and it's like being a fan of an entertainer. Once
you become a fan, like if people don't like the person you're a fan
of, who cares? They're evil? They're you know, they you just
don't want to hear a problem. You know, I love this person,
so don't even talk to me. But that's where we are now in in
historical research, which okay, you can be that way as far as entertainment
tonight is concerned, that's fine. But history shouldn't be that way. Absolutely
true. I just wanted to quickly add, and I think you're correct,
Lary, But I think what it is is that some people don't realize the
difference between historical research and historical fandom. They believe that historical fandom is historical
research, and it's not because historical fandom doesn't have evidence. Historical fandom doesn't
have standards. Historical fandom as people threatening each other's lives over dead people,
which is ironic. It's almost like, Okay, I want to fit history
to my other agendas. You know. It's not history, is what it
is. It's just I have some other attitudes and agendas and let me look
for some history that supports that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, how can
I mold the story to what I want it to be? And that's the
danger of the parlor game. Yeah, which is fine when you're trying to
bolster an assertion of opinion, you know, like, look, I want
to say that the US government does things in the dark quite often and the
people don't know about it, So let me show you examples of that in
the history. Fine, that's fine, but you can't just ignore the new
information that doesn't put this in context. That's the thing. You know,
all the time I go to l Larry context. Go ahead, because this
is important, you know, need and absolutely needed, you know, to
make the assertion that, you know, the the US government has always got
the the moral high ground in every circumstance. Okay, Look, if that's
your opinion, that's fine, but you're gonna have to really produce some interesting
information to prove that one out, you know. And I'm not saying that
they're always on the low road either. It's just a matter of there is
a dynamic and it emerges out of necessity or perceived necessity. And a lot
of circumstances are not even necessarily tied to an agenda. They're tied to a
reaction, and you have to examine it understanding that there could be a variety
of motives for these things. Okay, And again, new information is always
good. I mean the stuff in Larry's book. Again, you know,
it should be added to the historical understanding of a key circumstance when examining the
presidency and even the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Yeah, okay,
it is significant in any new information, even beyond what Larry has put out
or beyond, you know, the the revelations about well gee, you know,
field commanders might have had control of what they call tactical nuclear weapons during
that time. This is relevant stuff. Whether it was known at the time
or not, whether it was known twenty years later or not, it's relevant
and you got to examine the whole of the circumstance anyway. With that,
like I said, I turn it back over to your Carmine. Well,
yeah, no, no, I think that those were good points, and
I think what Larry said is important because a lot of people are engaged,
and I'm sure all three of us and maybe even many of the listeners have
experienced people who are unreasonable, people who are not there, and unfortunately it's
troubling. But I suppose to me because I saw it so much at one
time, amusing at the same time that there are actually people creating little mini
conspiracies amongst themselves to prove the bigger conspiracy. So there are competing factions among
factions as where like you'll notice on the people who support the government's position are
pretty monolithic for the most part, not all of them. I think that
we have some friends that aren't part of the monolith who are who might disagree
with us on the end of the case, but they agree with us there
are certainly problems and there were certainly illegalities that occurred that need to be investigated.
So and I think that's the most reasonable position the people who are somewhere
in the middle, not the people who think it had to be a huge
plot, which it wasn't because they can't prove that, or the people who
think nothing happened except for Lee Harvey Oswald, because that can't be proven either
was he. And there's the thing we can come to an agreement though,
that you know, his his right to legal representation, that he was complaining
about Lee Harvey Oswald, that is is a valid complaint, Yeah, Or
the presumption of innocence, or the not using criminal standards, or that he
was murdered before he got any sort of due process or you know. Yeah,
there's a lot of good, legitimate legal complaints to be made, and
to dismiss those because you believe what the government says is the same as dismissing
all of the government's claims because you believe in what Judy Baker says. Yeah,
exactly. So with that, like I said, let's get into this
specific well, and I'm going into it. So let's go into some of
the ridiculous things that just in the last ten years, uh, some of
them from some of us, you know, not just people here, but
people we know, you know, from the the people who are actually what
I consider more reasonable, that are using evidence to prove things rather than trying
to beat people about the head with their ideas. And one of the people
a name I would offer is Jacques Richardson, and I'll throw in the references
the show we did on him. But Jacques Richardson, who for a long
time was known as Thomas Casson or Cassison, I always mispronounced off to ask
Allen Dale again, has I believe that because it rhymes with assassin or sounds
like assassin, I always pronounced it. But that's okay, Yeah, I
know I've heard Casasin, Cassassin, Cassison, and I never even try to
pronounce it. I have a hard enough time of spelling it, so I
think that most fair enough. But now we know who we're talking about.
Yeap, Yes, but his real name is Jaques Richardson. Let's let's throw
away the harder to pronounce pseudonym Richardson. So Jackson Richardson is a person who,
in an official cable, told another CIA officer that he considered using Lee
Harvey Oswald. But every day almost we hear in a group or online or
by the press that they would never have considered using him. Yeah, guess
what, that's not true. They lied to you. They would they might
have they And that doesn't mean that the whole of the CIA was in agreement,
No, No, it just means this one guy told another guy,
who both happened to be CIA officers, on the record that you know what,
he might have some information we could use. Yeah, and we've also
had a show where we've discussed how there was no problem using a paranoid schizophrenic.
Basically, yeah, forty operation callery, right. I mean to say
that, oh, they wouldn't have used somebody because they weren't, you know,
you know, is absolutely ludical. I mean. And also even here's
here's another thing. Let's let's do this really quickly, dirtily, dirtily.
That's funny. You know, when the CIA did collaborate with organized crime,
do you think they gave them psychological evaluations before they decided to work with them.
Mister ROSELLI tell me, have you ever slit someone's throat and had bad
thoughts afterwards? Does that give you nightmares? Sir? You know, come
on, let's get right. When you're robbing a business, do you feel
bad afterwards? Yeah, after you bust out a local business owner, I
mean, are there are their feelings of regret? However, let me offer
a counter All that is true. However, there's another thing we've learned,
and after having read umpty ump psychological profiles and polygraphs, what they were interested
in was whether or not someone would a be useful and be reliably useful.
They might not have been concerned about any Let let's take a look at at
staff D. Staff D in the CIA under William Harvey, its role was
to uh do burglaries, to do break ins, to do strong arm attacks
on couriers, basically to do whatever was necessary to get codebooks and coded messages
and and basically stuff that the NSA and that the other side of the CIA
was doing analysis could use. So were they concerned about using career criminals?
No, they needed career criminals their It's like here's my profile. It's like,
okay, I want somebody who's really reliable, who's done this lots of
times, does not make mistakes, is really effective, and you know,
so they went out and the Office of Security essentially contacted the FBI said kind
of like, who can't you catch? You know who does this stuff?
And I want them, and it's okay, I'll tell you when I'm using
them so you don't arrest them. Then okay, but you've also got to
put yourself in that. The CIA is, you know, from a task.
It's this is my task, So who do I want the same thing
with DEA. With when the CIA started expanding its operations in Latin America in
the sixties, basically it went to DEA and said, you know, I'd
really like list of the drug smugglers that you're aware of, because I really
want the big ones, the good ones, the ones you guys can't catch,
because I may, indeed to smuggle some stuff out or in, and
you know, would you set me up? And then you find a letter
coming back from the DEA saying, well, we gave you that list,
but now we find out those people that we were using as sources on smuggling
aren't talking to us anymore, and we think they're just talking to you and
that you stole them. So there's also a very pragmatic, practical reality check
on this too. It's not just ethics. Of course, they will use
people that they need to do things that are good at doing those things.
Yeah. Yeah, no, no, I totally agree with that. I
think the problem is that where we run into problems is is no matter how
well intentioned they are, there's two things that automatically occur when they do so
that we saw happen over and over. One, they're bad judges of character.
They're very bad judges of character, fair enough, but in the queues,
Yeah, they automatically connect themselves to criminality forever. That will be discus.
Oh, although I might argue her mind that I'm maybe they're really good
judges a character because they picked the guys that are the most benal. I
mean maybe, but I'm talking about what your qualifications were. Well, okay,
yeah, what you said earlier, like that they were reliable effective,
That's how effective they were. Yeah. It brings to mind a couple of
uh of things from the jfk assassination, where you know, someone would refer
a lead to an investigative committee or whatever, and the response would be,
well, you said that I should go talk to these people, but you
know they have criminal connections, and you know, should I believe them or
they've been involved in crimes. You know, it's just going to be a
useful lead. And it's like the response would be, well, we could
introduce you just to like the local charities and you know, a covenant of
nuns, and you know you could go talk to them, but they probably
don't know what you want to know. And see that's the thing. And
also, let's keep in mind, does get away from criminality for a minute.
If you just need an actor to go out and sort of ferret out
other people, you could say, hire somebody who is quite happy to make
a spectacle out of themselves, like say, by I don't know, handing
out pro Castro flyers in an area where it's going to either upset anti Castro
people or draw out others who might be sympathetic. Because this person is just
simply willing and happy to go out and do that. They don't have to
be proficient in anything else. They can be useful as sort of a phishing
lure one way or another. So again it's situational Larry, isn't it.
Oh, it's absolutely and I think you really captured something there. It's totally
situational and and in reality, you've got to put yourself in the mind of
the portion of the CIA that might find a use for Lee Oswell. You
know, a bland statement that we would not use Lee Oswell as a spy
is as you know, that might be sane, But the point is Lee
Oswell's been to Russia and he comes back, and if I'm in domestic operations,
am I not going to try to get information from this guy? Well?
Of course there are parts. There are lots of parts to the CIA,
and if I didn't, I wouldn't be doing my job. The thought,
the thought, and of course now we can prove it that domestics contacts
did get information from him and was interested in him. But it's just there's
got to be a sanity test on that. Of course, there are are
elements of the CIA and that for that matter, of the FBI. We
know that the FBI contacted le os Will after his return, and it's in
their report that he says, oh, yeah, I will let you know
if anyone comes in contact to me that might be subversive or you know,
interested in violating what he volunteered to be a source for the FBI. So
why would you be surprised when after he gets abusted in New Orleans he wants
to talk to the FBI? Right, just amazing? Well, yeah,
and look from a more pragmatic standpoint in case somebody's saying, okay, well
this is very fanciful and very interesting. I mean, what is useful and
what is situational? Well, let's look at it this way, and how
much of an asset does somebody have to be to be useful in an operation.
Let's take it to a whole other realm. You want to find out
where the drug deals are. Ask a junkie. Now, is that junkie
normally reliable? Is he normally the guy you want to go to for information?
Not necessarily so, But I bet if you have a little bit of
pressure on him, like, hey, look, we won't bust you for
possession this time or put you in for three years because you got caught.
If you just tell us where a couple of drug dealers are, Suddenly the
junkie's pretty useful if they don't know where the dealers are. And yeah,
yeah, and it becomes dangerous to the people that provide him with the drugs
because he could become an informant. And that makes a lot more sense to
explain some of the You know, as I've said before, it's not definitive
any in any way. Anyone that tells you they know the answer of the
JFK case is lying to you. Right, No one knows the answer yet,
but there is certainly a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that it is
not the official answer. And as I was talking about outdated information, you
know, just the other day in one of the groups that I'm one of
the Edmunds in, somebody brought up Gerald Posner's book from nineteen ninety two that's
before the the ARB. Well, not only does he not have any of
that evidence, he doesn't have any of the new evidence. So how could
you possibly say that that book is in any way definitive about anything. You
might as well go read the Warren Commission. There you have it. That's
about how contemporary it is. Well, and let me add a piece of
new information. I think that it actually is going to be showing up in
my final work, which should be out by the end of the next month.
On the Mary Ferrel site. We've all there's been a statement made that
you know, nobody in the CIA CI operations, CIA, say at JM.
Wade really would have known about Lee Oswald. Now, what is interested
is a piece of new information that and I can only touch on it here.
But the point is, if you look at his activities in New Orleans,
the first person that he contacted about kind of entering the Cuban scene in
New Orleans was fellow at the A Language School. Well, as it turns
out, the fellow at the language school was not a not only a close
friend to Brinear, he was Yeah, he was the brother of a senior
SaaS CIA officer stationed at jam Wave who was working projects against Cuban diplomats in
New York City and Mexico City. This guy's father was also New Orleans ultra
right. But the point is you had the first person that contacts the first
person that would have known anything about Lee Oswald, and the first person who
actually tapes the debate with Lee Oswald and the guy from INCA and integrates it
into propaganda is the brother of a SASS information's officer or an inteligence officer at
Jmway. And if you don't think that that information was shared between New Orleans
and Jmway, you are being awfully nigive. Well, I just wanted to
add real quick too, that you know at all of that, then you
look at I mean even before decades ago, when people found out Richard Sneyder's
connection to the CIA. When Oswald gets there, Oswald, it's a net.
The whole thing is a net. There's no way the CEA I didn't
know. And Richardson firms that they knew about Oswald while he was in Russia.
They've known about him for years at that point, so to say that
they didn't know is just a lie. We can see in their files they
knew. But we still find that disgust. It's just to make a list
of things that we really just don't even worry about anymore, you know,
take this for granted. Uh, Yeah, Oswald was a source. Oswald
well known he was. I was shocked, I had to say, and
here's a confession. Shock of the many things I don't know, I was
shocked to find out and researching that particular thing, that information had been provided
both to ciapace officers and d R E. Headquarters in Miami, and that
in late August and September, multiple Cuban exile organizations had written pieces about Leonswald
and written complaints to Congress naming him, naming him as a danger as an
illustration of how Cuba was subverting I mean, this guy, this lone nut
that nobody knew about, was the subject of multiple let protest letters to Congress
from Cuban exile groups. The same Cuban exile groups were holding supposedly secret meetings
in Chicago that Richard Kine said he heard about where they were talking about assassinating
the president. Yes, it just the fact that you could complain that this
was a guy was a loan nut and totally off the radar, like kind
of like Phillips does in Mexico City's like, oh, he was never even
on the radar. What ard were you looking at, David? You know,
he's on all of the radars. That might have been true for a
couple of the days he was there. One of them, he wasn't on
the radar because someone else calling themselves in once we checked at eleven pm at
nine and he was not on the radar on a well and you know of
course Jade Or Hoover never heard of him either, right, I mean again,
yeah, after he called to what Hosty and the guy in New Orleans.
I can't remember that guy's john something Liggett is that I can't remember his
name? Oh no, No, Liggett was one of the medical people.
Uh yeah, Oh that should come to me, the one FBI officer in
New Orleans that was actually blocked by Lindon Johnson from offering information to the Garrison
investigation. Oh anyway, so yeah, I think we could pretty well,
I think we can pretty well kill that as a myth at this point in
time. It's just like, do not use any more calories of energy discussing
that. Yeah. No, he had to have been known to most of
the intelligence groups and likely others like the NSA, who might have kept all
the copies of everything that they got from everyone else. See. The only
intelligence organization that I believe had no awareness of Oswald was guess what, the
Secret Service. I don't think they were ever communicated to about this, but
every other agency pretty much that was concerned with intelligence had this guy somewhere in
their files one way or another. I mean, oh, go ahead,
you're right, Jack, and you know why the Secret Service didn't know Now
this is you want to talk about irony and black humor. The only reason
the Secret Service would have known about Lee Oswald if he had been is if
he had been reported as a threat, and you'd to protect a services file
like okay, no, everybody else is doing collections, but the Secret Service
is only interested in threats. And no, he's not a threat. Never
nobody ever suggested him being a threat. He never, he never said a
word. Just about that for a minute. This guy is in doubt,
right, he's in He's in the heart of what we now consider, you
know, a red state, as anti Castro, anti Cubans, fossil and
he's he talks to lots of people. He talks to people at work.
He does talk to people. But clearly you know in the one place that
you might expect a threatening comment to report. Oh this dirty comedy doesn't like
the resident. Nope, nothing about Lee Oswell ever, right right, and
and not as though they didn't have a list of names, they had these
little books that they used stab with the with the picture and the vital statistics
on everybody who would have been a threat. This is part of what the
advanced teams. Did you know. I'm not exactly thrilled with the Kennedy detail
book, but it illustrates exactly how these guys would behave and Osweald's not part
of that book of possible threats in the area. Just yes, okay,
and here's another myth. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna bring this up as
a myth. Commie, all right, you may have already a listed Let's
talk about security in Dallas. I mean, one of the myths that I
still see discussed constant is you know the Secret Service didn't you know JFK was
sacrificed in Dallas because they wanted to be killed. They were part of the
conspiracy. What we know now is that the Dallas police and the Secret Service
went to an immense amount of trouble because Dallas had been a hot bed of
violent protest. I mean, Linda Johnson and Ladybird had been chased down streets
in Dallas and hidden in hotels by what violent women's protesters. You had Atlie
Stevenson beaten with signs in Dallas. There was a real concern in Dallas.
And when Lawson says in his Secret Service report, that they took special considerations.
Yeah, they built, they built mug file books, they built they
went out and interviewed people, They interviewed reporters, they collected photos, and
they built up this big case book of people that were felt to be likely
to be violent, violent and protesting demonstrations. There was a large effort to
deal with that because they considered the security threat primarily to be violent demonstrations and
primarily at the Trade Center, right, And that's why everybody, really from
the head of the Dallas Police security detail for the trip was at the Trade
Center. That's so. I mean, you can argue about what happened on
Elm Street all you want to, but the thought that the Secret Service and
the Dallas Police were not concerned about security or threats to the president that they
were aware of is simple not correct. Well, Also, Decker Sheriff's Department
did work in advance of this. Uh you know, Jesse Curry had commented
on it a bit before he died, for sure about the fact that there
were preparations in places that were taking by law enforcement. Now you can say
that they were inadequate, obviously because the man's dead. But I mean,
I'm just saying that there were efforts taken here. It was not like,
Okay, everybody take a break and have a beer. That didn't happen,
although although I was gonna say, I would note at least four Secret Service
agents did decide had been drinking. Again, I'm not trying to defend individuals,
but but the point is from a from a an agency level, from
a loss and level, from a it's just making a general blanket statement that
there were no security cautions and nobody worried about it. Basically, what they
were doing is and this is you know, it's nothing new. You tend
to prepare for the threats that you know about and anticipate, and the Secret
Service was tuned in to close and personal. You look at the presidents who
had been attacked and killed, they were done close range. Why people with
pistols and so in Dallas, they were really concerned about that. They were
worried about people getting too close to them, and they were worried about the
protest. Now, right, the is that you always get out flanked.
It's kind of like nine to eleven. It's the one that gets you is
the one that you weren't preparing well. Right, And look evidence really quickly
before we go to break here. Evidence of the fact that there was some
forethought involved here can be seen in the reality that Jesse Curry, the day
before his visit to Dallas, was on television basically stating that no sort of
you know, protest or you know, a disturb would be tolerated, and
all this kind of stuff happened in advance of Kennedy getting there. So I'm
just saying there were efforts taken. Now, were they adequate, Well,
we already know that they weren't. But that's not the case that it was
just, you know, well just let it all happen. It didn't go
down that way, and that assertion is still being made today. Anyway,
Larry Hancock and Carmel and Savastano were with me, and we've just basically started
to scratch the surface about some mythologies here. This may not be an official
Myths episode, but some myths will be taken down. Anyways, stick around
the O'Kelly effectively be right back, Ocelly dot com, Wallstreet Window, Dott
Gold Silver, the stock market, Wall Street Window dot dot. Perhaps you're
invested deeply, perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting
started. Wall Street Windows on Condo don com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant
author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and
now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street streetdo dot Dot
go there, now go there, Now go there Now. In Denial Secret
Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple
of US covert operations that are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial
rips the cover off many of them, using new five else it exposes things
about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It
shows why it really failed and why the United States did not learn from it.
Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations that are still happening today.
It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success.
This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light.
In Denial, Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock. For
more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy
of In Denial at Amazon dot com In digital or physical force. Barmind Savastano
Human time Bomb, The violence within our nature, poses significant questions and considers
the evidence that violence shapes the past and present. Author and professor David Tbiato
calls it an impressive tour deforce. Savastano shows a mastery of relevant work in
biology, anthropology, and intelligence. Each chapter will challenge readers to rethink old
assumptions. Doctor of Psychology are Blackstock notes it is a long, hard look
into the potency of our collective shadow that is extremely relevant in today's socio political
climate. Historian and author Larry Hancock declares this work is a slap on the
back of the head, a wake up call, and a serious reality check
as to the true human condition. Order your digital and print copies now on
Amazon dot com. For more information, visit tpaak dot com. June Fan
of the calls in to the Ocelli Affair. I just wanted to call in
and tell you and Michael Swanson and JP Fapilion all of Baguett that you have
how much I love your show. Always interesting, is always informative. I
just wanted to tell you in person on the phone, I mean I love
you. I love your show I love everything you do. I will always
be there to support you. You know that we appreciate you so much.
You have no idea thanks. Most of our fans just hate mail and death
threats. This is changing, seems less more frequently say we are now known
soroun that fascot listen and not gnaw real So the past choose as the sun
says, song, not the day, as two said, well, so
besmust not w never say never do now you'll have tsar choose as that song
says, song, not a day all rest said? When well, don
that supposed to be nothing? Way, go ahead, call it the truth
about the JFA assassination. Right, well, what do you want to know?
Toddy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby and Barrie answer weapons.
Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't
make me a wagon. But okay, Oswald on the building and trying to
prevent the murder of John Kennedy, Come on now has a real effort on
the Dafay assassination. Book into her claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter
Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
of a book. Where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence
in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can
get Judith Barry Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if
you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I A s JFK at aol
dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many men fantastic
claims. Juda's very Baker in her own words, Thank you information we should
learn from craft. We can get bring my brother where I'm coming from the
best activated grade check the second hour of the Ocelli effect continues now here at
Ocelli dot com. Course, like I say all the time, you could
be hearing us elsewhere, and we appreciate you no matter where you are when
you are anyway with me Tonight is Carlin Savastano. Te pok T P A
a k dot com is his website, and you can go and investigate Human
time Bomb The Violence Within Our Nature, which is the latest work from Carmine
to be released. Uh, there's probably more work in the works if you
don't mind. But two princes and a King, for which the website is
named after, tacoctpaak dot com is a concise review of three assassinations from the
nineteen sixties. But anyway, we're having a discussion about the mythology about one
of those assassinations tonight and Larryhancock is with us again. Many many books.
Surprise Attack Let's see in Denial is the latest, but whole world of stuff
over there at Larryhypenhancock dot com, including Creating Chaos, which I argue he
released a little too early, but anyway, it is what it is.
Lots of work from Larry and an upcoming piece is going to be published at
the Mary Farrell website and can't wait to see that. But anything that you
can find out about Larry's work, his thoughts, his blog, whatever,
Larry Hyphenhancock dot com is where you go, and there will be links in
the own notes. We are discussing the more more or less, although we've
kind of gone off road a few times here. Uh, official mythologies and
the things that people parrot based on the official mythologies we already covered in the
first hour. Lee Harvey Oswald would have never been considered to be used by
intelligence agencies. Yeah, first of all, false doesn't mean that you know,
Alan Dulles wanted to use him, uh, But it does mean that
there were people that considered it seriously. There were people monitoring him from all
sorts of agencies. And I point out again that one of the least cooperative
agencies out there when it comes to Kennedy assassination records we well know is the
NSA, who knows what's in their files necessarily that you know, I don't
even know what the solution is at getting at those uh at this point in
time. But we also had difficulty with the O, N, I and
G. The CIA did have stuff in their files about Lee Harvey Oswold previous
to his engagement as the alleged assassin, would pay no attention to that,
or the CIA officers that worked you know, with him or around him,
or were somehow placed in his proximity continuously throughout his very short life. Yes,
Karl, and then that's what I wanted to add, just to belabor
the point that you I and Larry made I think credit succinctly the last time.
But just there are a couple other names, you know, when people
want to consider if to believe that he was not on their radar, as
so many people still say, you have to believe that a seventeen year old
was able to get into Russia by means of the most convenient spot known to
intelligence. He had to go through there to get into Russia. Somehow with
that knowledge, he has that knowledge. Somehow he gets into Russia, and
he just so happens. The first place he goes after settling in his best
he can in the hotel well or before hotel I'm sorry, is to the
embassy, where he declares that he is going to give secrets to the communists
and rounds as his citizenship. The person he says that to is a former
CIA employee. He is then the former the other CIA employee he who McVicar,
who informs reporters about him and tells Priscilla Johnson McMillan to have a meeting
with him, which she does and is later used as the basis to impune
him. He is then told to other reporters like Aileen Moseby and others that
he's around if they want to go interview him, so he cannot be not
known to at least that cadre of CIA people who reported it. Yeah,
former CIA, you said, though, that's why weller or consultant or informant
or But the point is connection established in the documents. Yep. So it's
not just a coincidence that he gets handed around by people with connections to intelligence
groups almost everywhere he goes, right, and as Larry stated, when he
comes back to the US, he's dealing with you know, the anti Castro
Cubans and all these Yeah, it's funny. Ruth Payne's sister, Sylvia Hyde
Hoki, who worked for the CIA and asked Ruth Payne about the Oswalts that's
in files too. Oh yeah, is that another coincidence? Coincidences must we
accept until hey, maybe they knew, maybe they had some idea about the
guy. Yeah, some inkling to who this man might have been. Mm.
Probably couldn't even fit all those people in a good sized room during the
age of coronavirus, to be honest with you, with social distancing in place.
So yeah, there's a lot of them. Yeah, connections knew about
him. And then there's you're gonna need to pick a room. You're gonna
need a ballroom probably by the end, yeah, exactly. So yeah,
but but still people will say, well, there's absolutely no proof that there
was any action. Now, look to say that he was, you know,
James Bond type character CI agent himself. Uh, you also don't approve
for that. Yes, no, no, no, there's yeah, it's
he could have been unwitting. That's another thing I think a lot of people
overlook. Oswald was a young, dumb kid, Okay, right, He
wasn't a genius, he wasn't a mastermind. He didn't have any sort of
experience in life. He could have been easily manipulated. Yeah. I always
find that. Let me close that, let me close that out. And
of course this is anecdotal, but I think it really kind of closes it
out. One of Joe and Edes was not his only case officer for the
DRE. Another case officer for the DRI working actually in New Orleans during the
same time that Lee Oswall was there, and later years was asked by like
his daughter about Lee Oswald and he he really said, I can't talk to
you about it. But Leoso was a useful idiot. And I think that
captures exactly what he would have represented to the intelligence agency. Yeah. And
I think it's the universality of that phrase that needs to be considered as well,
too, because useful idiot is what all the agencies called people that were
useful to them. Yep, and mark the Yeah, the Soviet Marxists used
useful idiots. That's what the Western Communists were to them. They were intelligence.
That's in the internal dictionary. Okay, useful idiot is okay, yep.
We all know what they are, right, yeah, and we all
use them. And younger people are easy to manipulate, well, especially when
especially when based on just about you know, I don't know at least a
dozen anecdotal accounts about the guy state that he thought he was a bit more
clever than he really was, I mean, in other words, and obviously
useful idiot and a loyal one apparently, and a loyal one. That's the
other thing so interesting that I wonder would that be the right guy to try
and manipulate? Or do you want the most intelligent, critical thinker possible who
might be questioning things at every turn and might not think that they just simply
know how all things work and they are well informed when they are not.
Which one would you prefer as his? As his views of Marxism would show
us there, but they're not right, you know what? What is the
difference between Marxism and uh you know, Marxist Lenistists and communism exactly. Well,
you know there's this many cars here in Cuba and there's a yeah,
okay, anyway, what else do we have car mine? Because okay,
so now let's perhaps jump onto uh oh. And as far as as you
both said, yeah, we always have to introduce new evidence. You said
that earlier in the New Ark. We always must introduce it, no matter
if we like it or not, it must be introduced if we're going to
come to a reasonable conclusion. If you leave out any evidence, you're not
going to get the right answer. It's just that simple. So now what
you actually brought up to me that you got a message about the George W.
Bush thing again, Yeah, yes, I did Daily Plaza. Oh,
the hundreds of people that have been seen in Daily Plaza that weren't there
is amazing. Gotta say that's that's one of those things. And before you
go any further, I'd like to actually turn it over to Larry for a
second, because I'd love to know what Larry's favorite phantoms of the plaza are,
because you know, over the years, everybody from E. Howard Hunt
to George W. Bush, not just HW but W Bush have allegedly been
cited. I'm not I'm not making it up about that one, Okay,
I've been cited in Dealey Plaza. I was wondering, Larry, what are
some of your favorites that have been allegedly cited in Dealey Plaza that we we
now know we're a figment of somebody's blurry imagination while looking at a photo,
what are your thoughts if I if I want to annoy the maximum number of
people, I would probably say right at the top of my list is Lansdale.
You know, you face, you can't really see his profile, you
can only see his back and one suspicious hand with a ring on it,
right, yeah, uh so that's I mean, that's got to be right
up there, because you can't even like do a facial mash. You're doing
like a hand recognition thing. V Larry was such a good movie. It
was I know, I know, and then you another one of my favorites,
and I have to admit, okay, I've been doing this for thirty
years. I was so excited I bought a book. I'm not even to
name of the book now. That was was all about the Three Tramps and
who the three Tramps really were, and somebody spent a ton of money on
that book. You had glossy photos and oh, I know the book,
the overlays and all that stuff. I mean, it was actually a good
production. And so and I was like, I've gone through so many falsely
for years, but here's here's what blew me away. So that that was
someone of my my favorites that I really wanted to get behind, you know.
Okay, it's like, okay, that's that's really good. And then
what blew me away on that one was okay, so the proposition is that
Frank Sturge's was one of the tramps, okay, because he really look a
lot like this guy in some photos. Well, then I then I went
and I found a photo and I on a photo of Sturgis and Pedro DIA's
Lance and Diaz Lance's brother. And for those of knew you that are not
into all this, Dias Lance was a Cuban Air Force commander who defected very
close to Sturgis. In the early days after Sturgis came out, they flew
joint missions against the cast Or regime really really tight for a while, and
I went, oh, my god, this Pedro Diaz Lance looks more like
the Tramp than Sturgis does. And I was convinced it with Sturgis, but
he looks more like And then I looked over and I went, oh,
geez, and his brother looks even more like the Tramp. So here I've
got three picture of three guys that increasingly look more and more like the Tramp,
and I begin to wonder, Okay, this is a random three people
in a picture. How many hundreds of people? You know? So so
that that really was my favorite for a while and got blown away at this
point in time. And you know, there was an article that you know,
I think he had a photo analysis of twelve different people, all suspects
that would be in daily Plaza, and found, you know, reasonably good
matches, including Richard Bissell, who I'd love to have in Dally Plaza.
I mean that you read my book in Denial and you will find why Bistle
would have wanted to be in Deely Plaza desperately. Not that I think it
was him, but so those are those there's just no proof that he was
at this point in time. My position is, if I can come up
with actual documentary evidence that a person was in Dallas that day and find a
picture of someone in Deally Plaza who looks a lot like him, I'm willing
to consider that. Other than that, No, No, it's just it's
gonna to be the cut. And what I would add is that we have
to have some ground rules. It's fine, as you know, as where
Larry is nicer and more forgiving of such things. I do not accept any
of it unless it's a clear photo. None of it. Oh yeah,
yeah, Because even if you use the most modern technology I think one of
them is called chiros, it's just one of the tech systems to do facial
recognition, you need a clear picture to even get a solid seventy five percent
match. And if you can't get that sort of a match, you can't
prove it in court. So I mean, we can look at photos to
the end of time. It's like the doorway man photo. People can say
that's Oswald until the end of time, or somebody else on the stairs is
Oswald. But unless you can get a bunch of witnesses that confirm that with
a clear picture, you have nothing. You are just wasting everyone's time.
So have at it. Just to be perfectly transparent. Okay, you asked
the question, Chuck. So at this point in time, I do have
one person who is a favorite, because, as Carmine just said, you
know, we have a frontal shot. It's a fairly clear photos. Matter
of fact, we have frontal and side angles, and this is the dark
collected complexion man on ELM Street. And I do have I speculate that that
was Philip Avid Doll Santiago because I can prove he was in Dallas that day.
FBI documents prove that, because he looks like him, and because interestingly
enough, I also have photos of him wearing exactly the same type of beret
in the same manner as he shows in that photo. Now, having said
all that, that's still speculative, but that would that would be the only
one so far that I'm even willing to offer up with, you know,
like a touch of sanity. Yeah, and that I think is reasonable.
I mean, if you've got some evidence, which you do get evidence for
the things that you claim, that's I am totally willing to entertain such things.
I just think that it's ridiculous that people are coming into groups and misinforming
other people that they have the definitive answer when they have blurry pictures that they've
convinced themselves look like something. And I know why Larry's laughing, because every
so often, almost anybody who's ever discussed this on more than one occasion in
public will get inundated with photographs. And the photographs are really hilarious. I
I would love to see a composite poster of this stuff one day, just
just as a piece of art. When they are well, that's the thing.
It's like, Look I dumped a whole bunch of yellow into the black
and white photo with photoshop, and now it looks like And I'm like,
you know what I'm talking about, don't you, Larry? Uh yeah,
yeah, that's some Jackson. Now, once you get into that subject,
everybody, I mean everybody wants to play with photoshop. Everybody wants to play.
And not that there aren't some people that are good at it, but
you know, well, it disrupts the chain get lost in it forever.
Yeah, I would just add it disrupts the chain of evidence because as soon
as you manipulate something, it's no longer credible. You've changed it. You
need the original, The original evidence is what's going to prove what you want,
you can't say. Well, after I've done all of these adjustments and
all of these photos, and now that I've changed the blurs to look more
like I want them to, this is what I think it looks. It
doesn't make any sense the paint. That's the hilarious thing. Like about Oswald
in the doorway, right, I'm not gonna get into this at length,
but I want to address it really quickly. The funniest part of that to
me is do people know what the original photograph looked like and what the size
was, because the blow up of this little tiny portion of the photograph by
it's just by the fact that you've blown it up, is now ridiculous.
I mean, it's not even Yeah, they've lost so much clarity just to
get to what they want to say. The blur looks like yeah, I
mean. And that's the funny thing is take a postage stamp basically and turn
it into a poster. Okay, that's what they've done, relatively speaking,
And I understand when people did this in the seventies. I really do,
Like Chuck, I just want to I have to note the universal irony of
the partly blind guy having to lecture people about looking at pictures too much.
Go ahead, Yeah, I know, it's great, isn't it. That's
the thing, though, is that I've actually gone through the process of blowing
things up properly in order so that I had better access to them. Okay,
I mean hundreds and thousands of times magnification in some cases, in order
to examine some of this stuff. And at the end of the day,
you've lost detail. I mean, it's just it's no longer there examining the
original thing is this little tiny air. And that's the funniest part of it
all is that they take up a piece of a wall and here's a shadow
and it looks like somebody standing there, And it's just all day long with
this stuff. So I don't know what's worse. We've found somebody in Dealey
Plaza ranging from this person, this person, that person, regardless of where
we think they actually were at the time, versus here's a blur and now
I think it looks like a person that might be holding a gun. Well,
yeah, And it's just going to assure that in the future, if
someone is committed enough, they're going to find the evidence. And you're gonna
look foolish because that's happened multiple times on the show where I and Larry and
Chuck and a lot of other people, you know, Bill simpicch and you
know and Stu Wexler and all sorts of researchers and people actually go and find
the evidence have shown that those people were not where a lot of people are
claiming they were. Like Miltierre, we took him apart on the show where
we showed he was in quipment Georgia. He was at home. They confirmed
visually that he was there. Yeah, so there is no way he was
in Deally Plaza. He was traveling around the country. He wasn't in Texas.
Right, And look, my last little comment, and that is a
perfect example of something that went on for years and years, and still,
by the way, is going on. I'll give you one final example about
this photographic nonsense. And and you know we we did steer away from the
official step and we're gonna go back to it. Hold on. But one
last comment needs to be made, and that is about the badgeman because up,
well, but that's the thing about it is that I understood when the
technology was not there for this, and I understood that at a glance and
looking at it, it appears this way. The problem is to literally have
that figure where it is and to do the measurements to put it at the
size it should be. I mean, unless somebody saw a step ladder behind
the fence, I don't understand how you have it. I mean, you're
gonna tell me that he's standing on the bumper of a car. Maybe,
uh, even though you have a really awkward position here that nobody else saw.
Yeah, you know, people, I think people should apply the I
think the term for it is Hitchens razor after Christopher Hitchens. Basically, if
there is no evidence for the suggestion, there's no real you don't need any
to disprove it. It didn't happen, or Ockham's razor. The simplest answer
is likely the most. So if there's a step ladder, it probably didn't
happen. If these crazy things are required, it didn't happen. There you
have it. But anyway, and look, I don't want to get into
any other strangeness because there are witnesses that made claims about things and bla blah
blah blah. But at the same time, there is not a foundation of
evidence coalescing around a whole lot of assertions. And here's the funniest part about
you know, say, like Badgeman even firing from there. And I don't
even discount the idea that somebody could have fired from the grassy knoll behind the
fence. I'm not discounting that because there is some evidence actually that maybe there
was a shot fired from there, and it comes from more than one place.
But but we don't actually have evidence of it hitting Kennedy. Yeah,
and there is a problem there, So is it relevant? Possibly? Is
it all true. It's a little shaky, But I'm so sick of people
still bringing up Badgeman to me. Well, and I think that it goes
back to any of these famous figures that people and feel free to jump in,
Larry, I don't want to. I know we both will go forever
on the subject. But I think that the the problem is is that you
have to get into the mind of the person that you are trying to pin
this on. So as in the case of George h or as in the
case of George H. W. Bush, do you think that they are
so foolish that they would go to the crime scene? Is that what you
think you think they're a mastermind, but they'll allow themselves to be in a
photographed Yeah. And the other thing to compliment that, and and I've had
this discussion with the main proponent is what good what role would it play,
what purpose in the context of a shooting conspiracy? What value would there be
to have that person there? You know, just risk everything everything, And
it's it gets back to here. Here's a myth that if you want to
a myth that we're dealing with from decades ago, was this was an event
of such a scale that everyone that was involved in it, from different agencies,
different parts of government, senior government officials wanted to be in Dallas to
see John Kennedy killed. They hated him that much that I mean, you
both the big event, So dozens of people went to Dallas just to watch
it in person. And I would have to make the counter argument it may
be in some occasions, you know, with with pyromane acts, that they
do watch their crime in person. Uh, there are crimes where someone hates
someone enough that for personal reasons they would do. I don't think you could
make that case for Bush. And I can absolutely make the case that none
of a an experienced shooting team, nobody that was willing to go into Dallas
as part of an orchestrated professional or experience operational effort. You don't want George
Bush around, I mean, you don't need him. You don't want him.
Why is he there? And they wouldn't reason, he has no functional
reason. See, they get confused because we know certain historical facts like John
Gotti was not too far away when Paul Castellana was killed. Okay, so
that that that's a reality. But I think the locational get taken as evidence
is there. But but there you have it is that there are circumstances though
that Larry just hinted at, where it does make sense that someone would want
to see that the job got done, that someone would want to be there
as a backup somehow, that someone would want to make sure that maybe the
assassin themselves did not escape because they were personally vested in the situation. I
get it, But I don't see how that argument ever works regarding you know,
George H. W. Bush and also bringing his son with him.
You know, that's even more ridiculous, how much more sitbout Let me give
an example. Okay, on the conspiracy side, rationally, I could make
an arm argument and give you a psych profile and everything else. It said
that Richard Bissell truly did hate JFK and make an argument that he would be
the kind of person that would like to see him dead. It's a revenge
thing, Okay. I can make the argument that if Rip Robertson were running
a team, that team would want to know that he was there with them.
He always been, had been them on missions into Cuba. It's sort
of like, I'm going to do this, but I got to know that
my guy is there with me. And at least those are logical arguments,
either psychological or operational, for someone being there. George Bush, it doesn't
apply to Howard Hunt for God's sake, and once again person in the whole
world, but highly identifiable. Why do you do you want him there?
Well, and it goes against the most basic prints military thinking, which is
why likely none of the military commanders were there. If you don't want to
compromise your operation, you don't use identifiable people. That's always a good strategy.
Well, and we might as well surface another one that's come up lately,
and it will will make me no goodwill, but it's the argument that
that Allen Dulles would make sure that he was at CIA headquarters that day when
it was going to happen, when during the Bay of Pigs, he had
gone to great effort, not even to be in the country for the most
important operations that the CIA had ever done up to that point in time.
But he's he's known as having been fired at Kennedy, not being a fan
of Kennedy. But rather than staying home in his garden, he's going to
go to CIA headquarters that way and do what what? What? What's he
going to do at CIA headquarters. That's kind of like another well, Larry,
don't you understand that's his alibi. Larry's champagne. Yeah, Okay,
we're having an after party, Okay, Yeah, but not at the house.
We're gonna do it at headquarters. Okay, so they can implicate us.
That's just about his operationally stupid you want another myth? There was a
History Channel program about this with a CIA officer, Okay and I Will who
went to great links trying to prove that Fidel Castro had a radio link set
up from Havana to Dallas so that he conceptually could personally tune in to Dallas
Police radio, Dallas news channels, or the f wire. Okay, like
okay, but somehow he needed to hear from Dallas Police channel too, like
coordinate the attack. It's like, okay, this is Fordle you guys in
Dallas stop because the police are suspicious. Yeah. Yeah, and you guys
see program on TV. I mean, I mean it's it's they send out
votes to intercept signals and it's just amazing. Well and again it's ridiculous because
if you look at it, Okay, so what what what that proposes is
is that a country who was still trying to get its food system together because
the revolution was only four years earlier, was doing high tech things. That's
the proposition. We were redirecting the Yeah, they just had so much going
on the Dallas Police channel. And remember now, which I defy you wait
a minute, Larry, hold on a second. I defy anybody to go
listen to the Dallas Police dicta Belts and you know, try and even sort
out what the hell is going on. That is absolutely stupid. No,
seriously, I mean there's a I mean, I know a lot of what
happened second by second indialy Plaza and still listening to Dallas police radio. I'm
going, what what is that? And you mean to tell me in another
language? Uh, these terrible CB radio issues. You're going to amplify that
signal to make sure to relay it to Castro. How I hope you have
a lot of transmission line read the books. That was my first questions,
sort of like, and now there's a Cuban who said he did this right,
So this is the basis of the whole story. I was in Cuban
intelligence. I worked for Castro. I monitor American communication. Well, okay,
what American you know? Where? Who? What did you monitor for
Dallas? Castro ordered me to redirect vi attan antenna like, well, okay,
redirect my antennas to pick up conversations in Dallas. A little more detail
would be good. On the surface. That just makes no sense at all.
Well, it's it's kind of like when that Bob Bears CIA program by
yeah way trying to say everything that happened in Russia was like the CIA said,
And as we've dissected on the show multiple times, no that's not what
happened. In fact, you can't even prove he made every visit. You
just took the word a KGB agents and hoped it was the truth. A
mess, an absolute mess on both sides. And that's and that's the real
message, is that whoever things they know what happened is lying to themselves.
You still have no clue about major portions of this case. There are a
lot of so much more to be looked at. Yeah, absolutely true.
Okay, so let's try and get through at least one more of these interesting
points, car because we've got about, I don't know, twenty minutes left
at most, so I'd love to get through a couple more if we could,
Carmine, Yeah, yeah, Yeah. One of my favorites is and
I hope people won't think this is too overly simplistic, but it's one of
my favorites because it was one of the things that I got to contribute something
that helps our you know, And and I do attempt to be neutral,
but I do believe in a feasible conspiracy. So I do not support the
government's position, but I do respect some of the people who do, but
I don't respect many of the officials that do. But right, so,
one of the holes in their case that I was proud to help contribute was
the thirty hour hole, which is motive means an opportunity. So they have
never demonstrated a motive even to this day, official or official supporter has ever
demonstrated with evidence a proven motive. No, not a not a dim not
a demonstrable motive that has never existed in the case. In fact, there
are contradictions to even possible motives that are documented. Yeh, but but there
you have it. But it doesn't matter. He was just crazy, right,
Okay, So yeah, they have no motive. So means, as
we know, there are many problems, not even even if you because I'm
one of the people who believes that the as I learned recently Carcino that the
carcano was it had reasonable flaws, but it was an average weapon. But
it was an average resale weapon, which other examples of the same lot blew
up. So it wasn't great, it wasn't horrible, but it certainly wasn't
a good weapon, and it had flaws. So are the means strong enough
to say definitively no? But not so he doesn't have a motive, He
doesn't have any definitive means. He has possible means, And we go to
the park that I love most opportunity because, based on the evidence that the
government has given us, he has roughly thirty hours over three days of incremental
time to do everything, including come up with why he wants to shoot JFK.
If he's acting alone, because he can't know before the newspaper put out
the parade route. It's just that simple real motive. Questionable means little opportunity,
And the only way to expand his opportunity is to say that he was
informed by someone who had been in the know, which means you have somebody
helping him, at least from a logistical point of view. Hey, look,
we know next week, this is where the man's going to be get
ready. If you give him seven days, that's a little better, isn't
it. Well, it's a hell of a lot thirty and thirty hours at
best. Yes. And here's another thing. If he was so committed,
if all you have is a thirty hour window, one thing you might want
to do is practice. But he never did that. In fact, there's
actually no reliable evidence that we can show for in practicing purchasing ammunition. The
FBI attempted to find those things, and we have, you know, a
couple of anecdotes about a shooting range incident, one with which they couldn't prove
that the Commission had to dismiss them. So even they don't get behind that,
right. I think it was Garland was the guy's last name that stated
that he saw oswalded a shooting range shortly before. But that's it. Yeah,
that's all he got. Yeah, and they can't even so, so
he's got no practice. So where are his motive means an opportunity? They
don't, As someone pointed out to me in one of the groups, they
don't have to prove that legally. Well no, once they lowered the legal
expectations, they don't. But those are pretty standard. Most cases, from
the simplest to the most complex, can prove those things. Judges look for
those things. What are your thoughts, Larry Well, I mean I've heard
it. Motive well, I won't even go there, but I mean I've
heard that the time cut from thirty hours to about eight hours. Carmine,
I mean and serious seriously promoted to the fact that there was no planning,
There was no preparation. Once Marina rejected moving in with him that evening and
rejected his advances this all. It all occurred overnight, and it was essentially
a spontaneous action as of that morning or sometime that night when he just you
know, went into the garage, located the rifle, took it apart.
You know that it was even less than thirty hours it was, which makes
it even less likely. That's the whole problem, right, And that's seriously
been that serious. In fact, I think to some extent, actually that
is the only that's the only one really it's but it's the only one that
it would least be internally consistent. Well, I'm saying, yeah, they
have to say that's that's all that works now, yeah, right, But
it's not that he doesn't have to dislike Kennedy. It's just he's he's been
driven nuts and he was now one of the things I would offer, and
I don't. I don't know how many listeners have done this. You can
you can go online and look up a compilation of Oswald's last words, and
these are the actual statements of record that he made from the time of his
arrest to the time of his death, and they include things like he's worried
about getting shoes for the older daughter and if you do this, It gives
you a much better insight, I think into where his head was, and
would be a refutation that that he had done anything as part of a either
a plan or a spontaneous Oh, I was temporarily insane, you know,
Marina drove me to it. You know. Well. Another point against the
idea that this was pre planned, by the way, is that if one
assumes, let let's let's make assumptions for a second. You've decided you're going
to shoot from an elevated position in the book depository with a rifle at a
moving target. Find you own a handgun, according to most accounts, and
you don't bring that with you because you know, after you fire a gun,
you might think to yourself, I might have to shoot my way out
of here. He didn't have the pistol on him, not by anybody's stretch
of the imagination. If I was planning on shooting somebody from an elevated position,
especially because I thought that might attract the cops, I would bring the
handgun with me in case I had to shoot my way out. Yeah,
So that only fits the spontaneous He went psychotic overnight because he was true.
I mean, that only does not fit anything other than him deciding to do
that spontaneously sometime in the early morning or late at night. Well, and
the problem is is that basically what the official argument is now relying upon as
the evidence accruise against it, is the God of the Gaps argument. It's
the evidence. It's the gaps and the evidence that they're hoping to hide him
at this point, and that doesn't look likely as more evidence comes out,
So we might want to reconsider that. You know what, It probably isn't
true. The most fringe conspiracy ideas they're not true, But the most stolid
official ideas that cannot even begin to imagine that it could be more than Oswald
are probably not true too. That's correct, I mean that's the way I
see it. Anyway, Look as we come down to the last little bit
here, I think you made interesting arguments and observations and we've been able to
kick them around. Do we have one more we can maybe fit in?
Well? Okay, yeah, so we motive means opportunity. Well, and
i'd also go to that. Let's say, let's indulge for a second the
idea that where they have now found themselves officials, that they must say he
was crazy And he doesn't even have the roughly thirty, he's only got eight.
And if we break that down, yeah, eight at best. And
what does he do with it? He watches TV, he hangs out with
his kids. This is the most important day of his life. He's gonna
try. So it's what did he dream about it? So he doesn't even
have eight? When did think of this while he was watching TV or playing
with his kids? Is that when you come up with an assassination plan?
Well, see, one could argue that if you've already decided you're on a
suicide mission, maybe that is what you do with your time. Well,
and that's fine, but you have to give us a basis for the suicide
mission. I understand. But yeah, I mean they're just so. I
mean, if that's what they want to believe, that's fine, you can.
Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they like in spite of the evidence.
But it's not gonna be right. I mean, there is what is the
substantial life? Even and then if you go into it, like how about
how about the witnesses that changed their testimony? How about that for a second,
how about Marina, perhaps the most inconsistent witness in the case, red
Lick from the Commission's on staffs that she lied to them, So you know,
how can we rely on She gave two versions of what Oswald did that
morning. She said he got up before her and then that she had to
wake them up. In another version, what happened. We don't even know
what happened. That's a good example of a myth. We we really don't
know what did happen that night. We all of the That's why one of
the basic myths is that we understand the twenty four hours before the shooting,
and we really don't certainly holes of it. I mean, you know,
like what the thing. I tried to do a timeline to tract on as
much as I could from the official files, but of course there's still holes.
It's not like today. You know, there weren't people with's cameras everywhere
showing you. They couldn't ping you to find out where you were. Yeah,
that's true, that's true. I've had that discussion with people. Imagine
what would happen today. First of all, there would have been more than
twenty films of Kennedy and Daily Plaza, and they might have been to put
it on Instagram. High Lee go into the sub shop. Yeah really,
I mean we we would have had Facebook check ins from Oswald. I mean,
you know, it would have been a whole different circumstance. Of course,
there's going to be holes. That was back in the days when you
didn't expect to see cameras filming you everywhere you went or people taking your picture.
It was kind of a rare event. So you know, this is
what I will put. I'll put for one myth that we can could deal
with in like two or three minutes. Sure, and that is the myth
that the Warrent Commission report itself was supported by all the commissioners. Oh yeah,
certainly not Bogs. Bogs didn't support it, Richard or Richard Russell didn't
support it, for God's sake, and he was lying to the rest of
them. The reason I wanted to introduce that was this gets back to the
Grand Conspiracy. This is all well pre planned, and you know, all
well orchestrated, and you know it's it's it's really professional and orchestrated conspiracy.
In the end, we have what is arguably one of the sloppiest autopsies in
history. We have promis with all of the chains of evidence. The President
actor trying three different approaches to shut this whole thing down with and at just
an FBI report or a Texas inquiry or whatever, is stuck with the Warrent
Commission, who has to browby for a warrant to lead. And then when
it's all done and wrapped up in a report, several of the commissioners are
still not comfortable with it. Now, I got to tell you, if
this was really a tightly orchestrated planned operation, it doesn't sound like it.
Although I would add the counter here, Larry that statistically, when one examines
the inner workings of the Warrant Commission, it might have been more likely called
the Dullest Commission. And why do I say that? Because he's more active
than any of the other commission members in seeming to steer the questioning asking questions
in the first place. Uh and and actually kind of moving the discussion along.
If one examines the executive you know, the executive sessions and the record,
it seems to me like Dullest is definitely steering the whole thing. Oh,
I would agree with you, but I think that would be if this
were really well thought out. To me, he's steering it, and he
has to steer it, and Specter has to be to fill all sorts of
holes in a stupid manner. You know. You just look at at Spector
and he's making things fit, like putting a size twelve into size six shoe
box. Right, they have to make everything fit, which which speaks to
me is that they're working after the fact, you know, like we got
to sell the story, we got to make it fit. It wouldn't a
very good story to start with, right. Exactly What I would add too,
is that you have to look at the reasoning because people assume, okay,
well Alan dust was steering it, so he must have been behind the
plot. Wrong. Alan Dulla set up assassination plots against Castro, and if
any of that came out, his life was over, his legacy was destroyed.
That's right. Lots of things not to talk about. But yeah,
no, that's a very good point. That doesn't get back more that just
that's just what happened, and there would have been good reason to do that.
I would just the myth that the myth that this was all well organized,
coordinated and everything worked precisely certainly isn't reflected in what happened afterwards. No,
No, a well loyaled machine. It was not. I would say
that if any reason to believe that the government might have been involved is not
because of how well it functioned, but because of the disarray. Well said,
what's the old phrase there, Larry good enough for government work, oh
man. And you know what, I think that is a perfect way to
bring it to an end tonight, because this is the reality of the situation.
You're not looking at a well oiled machine after the fact for sure,
which again means there were a lot of reasons for a lot of cover ups,
and they don't necessarily mean that it was somebody covering up their own crime.
They were maybe trying to dissuade people from kicking over the wrong stone,
which I do argue that Jim Garrison did. He kicked over the wrong stone,
lots of them. And that's why they wanted to destroy his investigation,
not because he had the answer regarding who was responsible, but because there might
be other things that would see the light of day in a public court,
like at least a dozen of their informants in New Orleans, which is the
problem again, to see, they didn't destroy the Garrison investigation because he was
right. They destroyed it because he got too close to stuff they never wanted
ever to be seen by the public. That's what the problem was. And
in that case, if you transfer that over to the Warren Commission, and
the fact that Alan Dulles, as I said, statistically, was more involved
than the other commissioners, you'd have to say, maybe that's the cause.
Just like Carmine laid out and Larry backed up. But meanwhile, guys,
this one is all done. I do advise you to go over to tepoktpaak
dot com. That is Carmine's website. Check out his books. Go over
also to Larry Hypenhandcock dot com. Check out Larry's blog, check out Larry's
multiple books and also many articles on Carmine's website. Tepoctpaak dot com have tons
of information and then more more than some other people's books, not necessarily Larry's,
because Larry's books are always dense. Yeah yeah, but but definitely gives
you a run for your money on a bunch of other authors not gonna name
names, don't have time. But the thing is, both of these guys
put out great information which is extremely dense in the positive way. Lots of
stuff to be learned, brand new information and in denial secret wars with air
strikes and tanks. I believe is the full title. Don't have it in
front of me, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is, and I
advise that book. Check out Human time Bomb The Violence Within Our Nature from
Carmine Samastano and was that or or on your local TV station if you like,
just I don't know, open your eyes, look at the world around
you. But anyway, this one's all done, and I want to thank
all of you guys for doing this, especially Larry and Carmine. Always great
when I can have the three of us together on this show. Help helps
me feel a little smarter being in a room with two other smarter guys.
Anyways, the Ocell effect is all done, and no matter who you are,
where you are, not only do I hope you're will, but I
want you to remember I am merely O'Kelly in all of you are indeed the
effect. Good night. I want them to appreciate the incredible job with doing
so. We are doing your job, the likes of which has never been
done before. I want them to appreciate the incredible job with doing We are
doing your job, the likes of which has never been done before. You're
gonna have mental depression for people. You're gonna have large numbers of suicides.
Take a look at what happens in a really horrible recession or worse. So
you're going to have tremendous suicides. But you know you're gonna have more than
anything else, drug addiction. You will see drugs being used like nobody's ever
used them before, and people are gonna be dying all over the place from
drug addiction.