Is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you, yeah,
yeah, and now Media. October nineteen, Yeah, it looks like that.
October nineteen, twenty twenty three. Allegedly, according to that thing we
call a calendar, this is the o'celly effect. And we are live here
on a Thursday, so this is going to be an interesting one. Now.
I know that you might have noticed lately I'm doing a few shows on
JFK. I know, last night we did something on FDR, and this
week I've gone to a lighter schedule because my back is thrown out. But
uh, that's what happens when you try and do too much on a Saturday.
So you know, just going to try and heal before I go to
Lancer. And guess what got two guys with me tonight that are involved in
Lancer. Mike Swanson, the guy behind Wallstreet Window dot Com, being the
no go to Wallstreet Window dot Com. It's not just about Wall Street.
He's also the author of the War State and Why the Vietnam War, which
is the first in a series on that conflict, and you might have heard
those audio commercials during my podcast. In addition, as somebody who we have
not done much in a while, but he has been on here a lot
in the past. Carmine Savastano his website tapak tpaak dot com. What does
that stand for? Oh, just so happens to line up nicely to a
book he wrote called Two Princes and a King, the two princes being the
Kennedy's John and Robert, and of course the king being Martin Luther King Junior.
His concise review of three political assassinations, and that's what the website is
named after. He's also the author of another book, which we never did
get quite breakdown entirely on this show, but one of these days I might
have arguments with him about it, a bit more of a sociological study which
I find to be less than optimistic about the human condition and what it could
be. But anyway, the history and what it is is usually what Carmine
is about. So that's who I've got with me tonight, and we're gonna
do this for about an hour, but it might take more. Carmine will
be appearing at the Lancer Conference, okay in November, but he'll be there
virtually. Mike Swatson and I will be in the breakout room and I will
have some of Mike's books with me. Hopefully he'll be willing to sign some
stuff for you guys, all that good stuff. And uh yeah, the
whole tenth anniversary of the Ocelli effect going on in the room, sometimes in
the media room, et cetera. We're gonna do breakouts and on the MC
of the Lancer conference this year. So that's the way that's going. Okay,
now I've gotten it all out of the way first, Mike. You
know, I know Carmine is going to have the majority of the material tonight,
but you and I are going to be in the great position to being
able to comment on it as he goes through. And we got to catch
up with a bunch of things because haven't had Carmine on to discuss a whole
bunch of things that have emerged regarding the JFK case. But before we get
into all of that, how are you doing tonight, Mike? Oh,
I'm doing great. Yeah, I'm really looking forward to hearing what Carbon has
to share with us. He's been doing a lot of research into maybe figures
that people don't even know about in the history of the CIA and the KGB
and the whole intelligence world, right, I mean, and if you go
to his website you can see a lot of that stuff he's got, and
he's going to tell you about it, I'm sure. But I mean there's
a lot of stuff going on there, brand new material even that has been
going up in the past few months. I was rather fascinated by an article
about the destruction of evidence, and oh gee, since I do have Carmine
on, we might have to talk about evidence, since that's usually what we
cover, right, actual evidence, not fan fiction speculation or somebody's romantic machinations.
Has he talked about that on your show? I think he has that
file he found Oh no, no, not just yet. We never got
to it. We never got to it, but I think we're going to
get to it tonight. Plus didn't get Carmine's view on the Paul Landis thing
that came out not too long ago, you know, great selling book on
Amazon. There you hear that here there's crickets, I do, because I
ain't reading that crap the revelation anyway, whatever it is. Carmine, how
you doing, man? Doing good? Good to be back again. I'm
so glad to have you on. I mean, let's let's dispose of the
larger elephants in the room first, right, you know what, what was
your view on the Paul Landis revelation from you know, some weeks ago now,
which you know oversold the advanced orders on Amazon. I mean, it
made that book sell really well, didn't it. We can observe that publicly.
But what about the evidence? What about the revelation, Carmine, what
do you think of the I actually took the bullet and put it by Kennedy's
head there on a table in the hospital and all this. What was your
thoughts on Paul Landis, Well, there's I think quite a bit to be
said about it, But largely the problem is is now we're at such a
distance from the date of the event that for him to change his story so
utterly makes it really hard to believe. And if you want to believe it,
that's fine. But just as if someone you know, from the other
side of the case were to come out now and say, oh, by
the way, I knew all these people or I did all these things.
I do believe. We've heard that before. Yeah, it's amazing. It's
the it's the exact same thing. The credibility problem is you know, you
can't say one thing. That's why Maria Oswald, in my opinion, has
always been untrustworthy because she gives you two stories. If you tell multiple stories,
and if there's a lot of distance in between them, that makes it
even harder to substantiate. Well, well, Marina though, see now I
would defend Marina more than I would Paul Landis because Marina was under different pressures.
There was a language barrier, there was a translation issue, you know,
there were there were reasons why she could have why she could have had
different versions to some extent. But my whole thing with Marina is is that,
as far as Oswald goes, she told two different entire stories the day
of the crime. M Like, she told the FBI that she made him
breakfast, that he got up, that she saw him leave, But she
also told the FBI that she was in bed, that he left before she
got up. Oh yeah, I mean, big problems with her story and
and and but this is even worse because what Landas is saying is not only
did he let the the which I still think is improbable, story of the
magic bullet go on for all those years and support that lie his entire life
until he finally wanted to put out a book, right, which makes it
makes it worse, just another reason why it's hard to believe. I knew
we were going to get some laughs out of you on this, because here
we go. It is laughable. I mean, for somebody to come out
with this story so so long late, you know, so much, so
many years later. And on top of it, look, here's the here's
the other problem. If you took that story at face value, I mean,
you know, exactly what charges does this guy need to be put up
on tampering with evidence? Oh? Wait, the jurisdiction, would you know?
I mean, the statute of limitation would be gone. But I mean
still, you're telling me you tampered with history and you had no idea.
That's the other weird part of the story, right where it's like, well,
I had no idea that this was a big controversy, Like did you
see that part of it? His interviews and stuff. I saw a couple
of them, but I probably didn't see all the ones you might have seen
that. I'm sorry, ah, goodness, I'm interrupted you. Yeah,
Well, he you know, he was who he said he was, you
know, And that was the first thing I looked at he really was a
secret service agent. He really was at the Parkland Hospital, and he really
was spent a lot of time with Missus Kennedy at the hospital and then over
the course the next at least six months, think longer than that, along
with Clint Hill. And he claimed that, you know, him and Clint
Hill were really good buddies, and they simply never spoke about assassination together and
that's why he didn't tell the story. That's his claim about why he didn't.
They just didn't discover, which is hard to believe. I don't really
know how they would not discuss it. You know, I would think it's
impossible number one. Number two, it's anything is possible, but it's certainly
improbable. And here's the thing. The best case scenario what we have here
is is because this year my speech at Lands are gonna be talking about altered
evidence. So if we believe him, he altered evidence drastically right, and
then let the American public be misled for sixty years, That's that's the best
case scenario. Or the worst case scenario is he's lying just to sell more
books. But once again he's an official that's muddying the evidentiary waters for the
public. Well, I would say he could also be if his story is
true, then he's like a moron. Well is it a patsy? Certainly,
you know that's possible, or he's you know, got memory problems.
Well that's another problem here, because look, the way that I line it
up is based on a whole bunch of other corroborating evidence. That's a separate
bullet from what was found, because this bullet was not something that was placed
anywhere near Kennedy's head. He says he put this thing near his head.
Okay. In other words, if you believe how the bullet was found in
the first place, right, according to all the evidence, all the stuff
the FBI reports, et cetera, Right, this is now a different bullet.
How many bullets do we have here? Okay, especially considering some of
this stuff was dug out of the rug and so on and so forth.
Right, some of the fragments he's talking about a full bullet here? How
many full bullets are there? Is it even potentially the CE three ninety nine
bullet? Not according to his description? You know, there's all sorts of
problems here, And I find it funny, of course, that you know,
Yeah, he pre sales on a book first off. Second, Apple,
I think it's Apple as a brand new it might. I think it's
Apple has a brand new three part mini series now where you know Clint Hill
is also on it. And Clint Hill came out right away and basically said
he didn't buy Landis's story, which was interesting because you know, the guy's
got he's on oxygen. He's sitting there. I mean, Clint Hill look
sixty years later. You know, I'm surprised Clint Hill is still with us,
to be honest with you, Well, and if you want, if
you want to get even into you know, a sub depth to all of
this. Maybe this is intentional. See, maybe this is another thing they're
throwing out there to muddy the waters intentionally because they're running out of files to
produce. Well, then, well, I think you're onto something right there.
Not. I don't know if it's intentional. I don't know it's intentional,
but I would say this that this story when it hit and came out,
it dominated the news cycle. It was on like every single news website
you can look at, right. It was on all the major networks,
Fox News and full spread across corporate medium. Yes, everywhere, drudge everywhere,
everywhere. And the thing about it is, this is like the perfect
story for them to want to talk about. I mean, it was in
the New York Times for gonna sake, like on the front, you know,
the front page of it. This is like the perfect story for them
to talk about the Kenny assassination because here we go again, let's talk about
the bullet or some you know, thing that you can't prove one way or
the other because of the problems you've cited with the guy's account, and it
leads nowhere, and it's a great distraction from something is simple and more important,
such as the file you got a Carbine show. There's a lot of
structured documents, and I'm going to bridge into that in a moment. I
just want to finish with because this is important. I want to make sure
that people understand we're not sitting here saying that there is an intentional program out
there to muddy the waters by the officials, not even saying that that is
what's going on. But I would say that there's a passive endorsement here,
because the more muddy it is, the less likely it is that anybody is
ever going to get to any sort of culmination regarding the overwhelming weight of evidence.
Okay, And that is how this is useful. Immediately you have people
like you know, Jefferson Morley and Gary Aguilar and other people that are extremely
good at making very good points, okay, and debating the talking heads that
they dragged out in the MSM. Because right away, who are we confronted
with but Gerald Posnerner okay, you know, and others. Right there was
a couple other people that I didn't even know, Roe Kennedy books by the
way, that that we're so pulled out. Yeah, after the loss of
McAdams, they really have no one that has served assert of the champion of
the boy and your favorite Vince, Yeah, Vince is gone too, that's
right. With both of them gone, they really have no you know,
yeah, dominant voice that is. And honestly, now with once again with
Landis, like I said, the best case scenario is he altered evidence.
Well, and speaking of I know, that's that's the funniest part is if
you buy this story, then he altered evidence completely, you know, just
as much as the guy did with the sponge and the bucket. Okay.
Mopping up blood in the limousine. Just as much as that happened, this
guy's altering evidence period, because nobody is going to contend that the car is
a murdercy period. Okay, therefore people were destroying evidence. Oh and by
the way, you know those people that say, well, they don't destroy
evidence, they can't get away with it. Look, I don't often say
that. I don't default to that because a lot of people default to it
overall and say, look, all the evidence that is useful has been destroyed.
I don't buy that because I don't think anybody is familiar enough. Well,
there's too much. The thing is, nobody is familiar enough with this
stuff. Well, those kind of people too often use that as excuse not
to look at them any of the evidence exactly, And therefore they just declare
it all fake, and whatever was in fake is destroyed, and then you
have a whole other issue about muddying the water. But guess what, there
are actual pieces of proof outside of the hosty thing, which I bring up
all the time. When people say, oh, there was no destruction of
evidence, I go, yeah, what about hosting? Because that's easily demonstrable
he destroyed evidence. If Oswald wrote a note ahead of time, and he's
your prime suspect. That's evidence in this case. I mean, anybody want
to dispute that. I know you guys aren't going to dispute that, but
I mean, I'm just saying, if that's your position as the official,
you know position, you got a problem here because host destroyed evidence. But
Carmine, you wrote an article which is based on some of these new files
and interesting what you discovered there. So I'd love for you to talk about
that a bit before we get into some other issues here. Okay, Yeah,
So initially when I was, you know, I was talking to Mike.
I've been writing articles on my website but also for Mike's website for the
Wall Street Window, and we're trying to come up with, you know,
just we didn't want to As I was looking through and Mike was looking through
the new files, we didn't want to just put out the same stuff that
ever, because a lot of them are re releases with a little bit less
redaction, which on some of my pages I updated stuff to keep it,
you know, current twenty twenty three, but some of the files are actually
new, and one that I came across that actually got some people that I
was surprisingly even you know, some of the minor media paid attention, and
some of the people you know, like you know that we've talked to before,
like Jefferson Morley and James D. Junior and others actually put it out
there, which I thought was pretty cool. But because I think it escaped
the mainstream media, like you were saying, Paul Landers, the story was
top of the bill for so long that they didn't hear about what the DA
had done. And for those who don't know, the DA is the Defense
Intelligence Agency and it was created in the early sixties and it was basically the
clearing house for all military intelligence, so the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marines. Right, And since we don't have Larry here, let me
provide a little bit of context because at the time when John F. Kennedy's
administration was struggling to communicate properly with the CIA, which you know, if
you think about it, the CIA should have been the clearinghouse for like all
of the intelligence, right. Yeah, that's why they made it, that's
what it did. Well, it was supposed to be the central intelligence.
But anyway, he was having trouble there. He was transferring responsibilities over to
the DIA. He was doing that at the time when he was still alive,
Okay, and his brother was involved in that. Now am I saying
that the DIA is involved in the assassination? New New? But what I
am saying is that they are not minor players here in that his struggles with
the intelligence business, so to speak, were ongoing, and he was turning
over responsibilities to them, because consolidating military intelligence with the Defense Intelligence Agency sort
of makes sense, especially if you're having trouble controlling your central intelligence agency,
right, this would be one way of parsing it out. Okay, So
what do we do with the civilian operations? Not sure yet, but at
least we could centralize the military operations. This is what is apparent if you
study what was going on then, and I think Mike you would agree with
that, right, that was something that was ongoing even at the time of
the assassination. It appeared to me, would would you agree with that?
Yeah? I concur of what you're saying. Okay, No, I just
want to make sure because again, if Larry was here, he would provide
some context and I can't do it as well, but I'm gonna try.
But there you go. So the DIA is an important player here. They're
not just nobody. And it's also not the Office of Naval Intelligence on its
own. It's not just you know, air Force intelligence, Army intelligence.
No, this is all of this stuff is supposed to be centralized, right
again, a clearing house for the military intelligence. Okay, Defense Intelligence Agency
sort of makes sense when they name things that way. I mean, government
does that once in a while, they actually name things what they are.
So with that in mind, though, you would think that they might have
some angles on people that were former military, that were oh wait a minute,
the prime suspect he was former military, huh, and had worked well
somewhere in the intelligence court because he was involved with the U two, et
cetera. Again, I'm not making this guy into James Bond because my name
made Judy. Sorry. Anyways, point is, though, Carmine, that
this would be a place where some information might have been oh, I don't
know, gathered. It would make sense at that time, wouldn't it.
Well, And what happened was was basically an exponential growth rate with the DA,
kind of like what happened with the CIA. It exponentially grew in years
that since its creation. So I actually talked to Larry a little bit about
this, because there are multiple interpretations you can have of the ultimate results of
what happens here. But because we have so little specifics, we can only
go off of and I, you know, I'm only willing to go off
of what evidence we have. So the DIA gets created in sixty one by
McNamara and he creates them, and I think it's just a few dozen,
less than a few dozen. I think might be like twenty five people.
Is the original little cell of people that are the Defense Intelligence Agency from each
of the military agencies. And what people don't understand is that the military agencies
argued with everyone, even amongst themselves, as far as who had control over
intelligence in certain arenas, Like the earliest even before the CIA existed, when
Donovan was in charge of the OSS, he was always arguing with the Joint
Chiefs about what the power of the OSS was, what it extended to,
what theaters they were allowed to operate, And like MacArthur didn't want the OSS
operating in his part of the Pacific. That's why they were constrained to China
in other areas right, and these territorial disputes actually occur in the intelligence community
all the time. The FBI argues with the CIA about what their policing responsibilities
are. I mean, and we have the FBI, which is the Federal
Bureau of Investigation with all these sorts of foreign offices. It metastasizes into different
things as time goes on. Not only does the bureaucracy grow, but the
reach of these agencies, the activities of these agencies. We talked about it
not just the stuff that's off the books, but the stuff that's even on
the books. Anyway, I think it's all important that. Yeah, you're
right, there's lots of ways to interpret the exponential growth of the DA.
Okay, so what do we know from the evidence? Good. So basically
by the end of the sixties, the DA is thousands of people, right,
it is by the middle hundreds. So we go from twenty five to
hundreds to thousands to today currently it's four thousand people right roughly. The Okay,
so they're collecting all the intelligence for the military, which only the military
has access to. That's something else that we need to keep in mind.
The CIA gets intelligence from its military assets, that's true, but it doesn't
have the upper level military intelligence that the Joint chiefs and others will see,
and that isn't always shared, just like the CIA does. We share its
intelligence product with the military. Right, So what happened was is and I
just it. People always, as we've talked before, always seem to focus
on the CIA and the FBI as if the other sixteen plus agencies don't exist.
You know, they've always said the killers must be from there in most
assassination cases, whether there's RFKMLKJFK, Now, they've always said that it had
to be the others that you know, we're responsible for the cover up or
you know, destroyed the most files. Well it turns out they were wrong.
Well, now the CIA destroyed a lot of files instead of the FBI,
but they can't touch the DA. Well, and here's the funny part,
like, look who's involved in the cover up all of them? But
now you know, like you said, though, people focus on the CIA,
FBI and don't bother to look at the rest of the field. Has
another good one essay is the great one in my mind, because they're supposed
to be monitoring communications and I'm thinking to myself, if there was any sort
of covert communications that people were trying to, you know, keep out of
people's reach. The NSA was supposed to know about it, okay, especially
if it involved anybody foreign in any way, you know, much like that
what is that History Channel series tries to hang it on some sort of Russian
plot nowadays, you know, and things like this, okay, which I
don't buy either, But point is back to it. The NSA doesn't say
much. Now. They did add some files that weren't even scheduled for release
in these releases, which I found fascinating. But this is not as fascinating
as what you're gonna tell us about. And what you said is that and
here was your statement. I love it. They can't even touch what the
DEA did with destruction of evidence, the FBI and the CIA. We don't
know what the NSA had. It's pretty much like like I brought up the
you know, the Congressional Committee, the Council on American Activities, right how,
we don't have those files, so I don't know the extent of surveillance
they had on people, etc. I brought that up last night during the
FDR discussion because of his war on the Bill of Rights. David Beatos book
which is actually really good and discussed that last night. There's certain unknown still
to the public. But this is fascinating to me because what do you mean
the DEIA destroyed more evidence than the CIA and the FBI. Car Mine explained
that. So what happened was is over the years, as I'm sure the
other agencies did, they amassed evidence on various topics, including of course the
JFK case, and none of the investigators, the Warren Commission, Church Committee,
no one up until the How Select Committee had thought we asked the DA
and see what files they might have, because they have all the military files,
so at the very least they're going to have something on Oswald in the
early years that we might not have seen, or maybe they have some chatter
over, you know, a plot here, just something that might have contributed
to the historical relevancy of the case. So the House Select Committee investigators asked
the DA, can we have all of your files, just like they requested
the CIA and everybody else. And you know, the most famous ones are
the exchanges, and I personally enjoy them just because I love watching officials go
back and forth like school children. Sometimes, like when Scott Breckenridge and the
HCA staff would go back and forth like with you know, angry letters to
each other over access to certain things. So anyway, so they send the
DA this request and a gentleman named Roger Denk from the DA responds to them
that they cannot provide any any tennedy material to them because they destroyed it all
prior. That's it, not when, not how much, which, if
you want to go on the conservative side, thousands of files, if you
want to go on they didn't do it until before the HCA, tens of
thousands of files, and that's still conservative if you look at the numbers produced
by the CIA NFI. Now this is the entire military, right, that's
a lot of people. So that means the Office of Naval Intelligence, which
people would say, well, there must be stuff on Oswald in the Office
of Naval Intelligence at least, right just I guess if there was anybody else
involved who had any sort of military connections here, the DEIA should have had
all this stuff, plus should have had the MG two, should have had
the Marines should have had every file that they could have wanted as far as
military goes, which, by the way, the Marines have these special little
units that collect intelligence and then submitted back and it ends up with the old
because they are under the O and I okay, far as I can tell,
so you'd figure that that stuff would eventually track back to and this would
be again the whole of the military, right, the Defense Intelligence Agency,
This should be all of their intelligence. Yeah, even something that is benign.
It is just the discussions of the Joint chiefs of what they said after
it happened. There you have it. Now, what's funny to me is
that this was never brought up when the you know, the Assassination Records Review
Board was in session. That I remember because I mean, according to all
the stuff I read, I didn't see them discussing the destruction of files with
the DIA. I don't think they knew. I don't think they knew either.
Yeah, which kind of like Joiny these with the HCA. Yeah,
now that he had ran the dire And meanwhile, by the way, when
you're talking about they're declaring that they destroyed all these files, what year did
they declare that to the HSCA. It couldn't have been I was thinking it
was seventy eight, and yeah, couldn't be any later than seventy eight,
because they concluded their work in seventy nine, and I think preliminary work started
in what seventy six? So yeah, right, I mean there's your pocket
of time where they would have been sent to request and then responded in seventy
eight. Who knows, maybe they sent it to him in seventy seven initially.
Either way, By nineteen seventy eight, which is only fifteen years later,
the DEA says, we destroyed all this stuff. Yeah not why not?
Who gave the order? Nothing? It was just seriously almost like eight
auto response. I mean no, no, far sorry, we don't have
anything you're looking for that's destroyed. Have no no lame excuse, like you
know, we're making space, we were transferring things over to the digital or
exactly. Yes, they didn't give the Mexico City. Well we had to
use those tapes again, so we had to tape over the old tapes.
And it just so happened with the Oswald tapes. Yeah, I mean we
had to reuse the tapes, you know, I don't know we record over
the vhs no, none of that, just nope, gone, we just
tried it. Now what like you know, as somebody who has been familiar
with this kind of stuff for a while. Also, what were your thoughts
when you read that? Because I was I found that remarkable. What did
you think of that when you read that? I mean, it is pretty
crazy. I mean, I mean the Defense Intelligence Agency, I mean today
it's it's gigantic, right. So well, because here's the thing he said,
it started with twenty five people. Now you're looking at you know,
three four thousand people. It's even I think it's actually bigger than that.
It should be larger than that. It's And the other thing is with force
multipliers, Mike, you're not now talking about guys that are sitting there doing
mimeographs, okay, and making xerox copies. You're talking about people that are
able to work with high tech digital stuff, which means they can do it
much faster. That means that you're talking about, I mean, an exponential
group of people with exponential technology. They should be able to work faster,
harder, and be able to consolidate intelligence quicker than they ever could. And
yet it's still growing. So I mean, yeah, go ahead. I
mean, what are your other thoughts about this? Because to me, it's
like, wow, that's crazy. Fifteen years later they destroyed all this guaranteed
by then they did when they didn't know exactly what. Yeah, but yeah,
I mean, let mean read you something. It's pretty strange unusual on
Wikipedia. Okay, the da Let me back up for a second. This
is a little bit of a detour. But one interesting little signe note to
this is that the DEA was founded by an Air Force general named James Carroll.
Now, he actually was started out in the government as an FBI agent,
a counterintelligence agent, and like security agent was his specialty, and he
went in Then he moved into the Air Force kind of having the same duties,
and then became in charge of security for the entire Air Force, basically
before becoming the founder, the first head of the DEA under McNamara. As
Karma mentioned now as a side note, he had a son named James Carroll.
Okay, and he wrote a book about twenty years ago titled House of
Ward, The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise American Power. And I got the
book, can read it, and that book it is like people talk about
the Kenny assassination. For people to the James Douglas book if anyone wants to
read you know about the National security state, the wars, how this whole
system works. That is the one book I tell people to read. It's
real fascinating, so and it's a it's a history basically, I think started
a round covers World War Two up until maybe the end of the Cold War
a little bit after. It's been a couple of years since I read it.
But as to get even deeper into this, one thing the son noted
in the book is that he grew up, you know, in his dad's
house, and they lived right next to General Curtis le May their next door
neighbors. And he's got a couple of little different, little personal stories.
But when the Vietnam War was taking off, after the Kenny assassination, the
son became again. He turned against the war, became a demonstrator, became
very religious, and the father and son had a split over that. Now
the name the father Joseph Carroll. This is kind of bizarre. On Wikipedia,
I've never seen an entry that says this, but says controversy. First
Amendment rights helped produce some of the most curious non fiction literature. One of
the most dismissed projects within the world's eleven twenty twenty two community even among those
who believe in conspiracy, was entitled Nomenclature on Assassination Cabal, written by in
nineteen seventy by Texan who not uses a name quite widely circulated within that eleven
two community. Is author William Torbitt, used the name Joseph Francis Carroll on
eight occasions in the project, thereby implicating him as being in command of the
Defense Intelligence Age Sheet while it was underlings within the Defense Industrial Security Command assisted
in bringing about the assassination. That document and I've read it. I got
it now somewhere. Yeah, I've got a copy somewhere to you. It
basically says Carol was the planner, mastermind, mechanic of the assassination. I
don't believe any of that. Now. You might see that published somewhere as
NASA Nazis in the JFK assassination the Torbett document, which is later on,
Yeah, later on, but it was a long circulated, underground sort of
monograph for the longest time. And yeah, it does indicate this guy,
implicate excuse me, this this person that we're talking about here, which is
really strange because most legitimate researchers eventually dismissed this thing as ridiculous, which I
did, you know, because it involves this whole thing about NASA and Johnson's
involvement with NASA is somehow important, and the FBI is involved in the assassination
directly. And I mean it's bad, it's pretty bad. It's probably some
sort of red hairry. Yeah, it's clearly something that was laid out there,
that was custom made for the time when I think it was initially distributed
in the late seventies, I believe early seventies, early seventies. It is
after the Garrison Trial. I mean it names a lot of figures in the
g you know, surrounding the Garrison Trial, or are named in it,
like the UFO guy. What's up up? Get his name? We talked
about him on your show. Oh yeah, no, absolutely, But there's
a whole bunch of it. It's almost irrelevant because it's just it's this ridiculous
sort of like catch all of stuff that was popular at a certain point.
Which is funny because again, when I was a teenager and got into this
case, that was one of the first things I acquired was this Torbet document.
Right, it was like the underground the insider scoop, you know,
still even in the eighties. All right, So like here's another fifteen year
time period, fifteen years probably after this thing first hit you know, the
streets. I'm getting it in my hands, and people talked about this all
the way through the nineties, I know for sure. But it's one of
those widely distributed and now fully discredited pieces of work. And again, you
know, much like the odds sort of, you know, the Roger Craig
thing at a certain point, there's a whole bunch of stuff out there that's
been like, we can't prove who authored this, but you know, and
it's out there. But anyway, that's true. That's pretty strange, and
I forget the point you were making about this. It just that's okay.
But but that's it's to suggest, you know that for them to destroy all
you know, he he probably is the one that ordered the destruction of all
these documents. So it's yeah, because because we don't have the exact time
period, but he has the longest period of being running the agency during which
it could have occurred, because he was in charge until sixty nine. Yeah,
and nobody else was in charge as long as he was so chances are
they were destroyed under Carol. Why is certainly a question that he I mean,
this is the biggest evidentiary destruction in the case. They destroyed everything.
Nobody destroyed everything besides the DA. That's like the CIA. We choot on
them for how long? Because thirty of Oswald's documents are missing from his two
to one file that has millions of documents of them, right right, No,
I mean, it's it's insane to think of it. I mean,
and here's the fact, we don't even know the number of files destroyed.
It's got to be between, like I said, thousands to tens of thousands,
minimally. By sixty nine, they're operating at least with a thousand people.
They're generating so much paper at that point that they've got tens of thousands
of files about whether I'm not saying, you know, it's all exactly about
the Kennedy case, but it's about Oswald. It's about Oswald's younger years.
It's about anyone who knew Oswald and the military. It's about who JFK and
the military. Well, let me ask you this question, because you wrote
this article, do you know how long the search was conducted. Because here's
the thing. You make a request to an agency, right then they have
to conduct a search before they're supposed to tell you there's nothing there. So
they had to have conducted a search according to the fact that it was requested
right to say we don't have anything. Well, let me get you're go
ahead, I've got something to say after you talk, are Well, what
do you think? What do you think the time period was or do you
know the time period between when the request was made and when the answer was
given, because that would give us an idea a time frame for how long
a search could have been conducted. Well, I'm still looking for other documents
that link to this one. This is the only one, the only one
that mentions in any way the request or the destruction. Well, that's weird
too, isn't it, Because look, well I think the HSCA, yeah,
must have. I'm shocked that because there were some real fire brands in
the staff. I'm shocked that nobody said anything to the press quietly, but
maybe they didn't know. Maybe it was kept just to the top levels of
the Well, there's a line in the there's an interesting line in the HCA
report. I'd have to grab it and read it to you. But it
doesn't say anything of it the DEA, but it says something like it casts
a dispersion on Army intelligence, saying I have to grab it, And that
would make total sense in this instance because would Yeah, well, one thing
about what I was going to say is it's the d i A. You
know, people cared us and even if you research this stuff, you know,
you don't what is it exactly doing. What's the purpose of it.
So, as you mentioned, McNamara formed it in nineteen sixty one, and
they did it after the Bay of Pigs. There is a period of time
where Kennedy made changes under you know, McNamara did under his direction, and
they distrusted the Central Intelligence Agency and this was created as a result of it.
But what the CIA does is it's supposed to answer to the President and
the Cabinet and assists them directly. I mean, that's what the Central Toesis
Agency was formed to do. And it's supposed to you know, analyze just
collected intelligence. Yeah, on what it's asked to do or specific issues like
for example, maybe you know, I'm sure they are analyzing the personality of
Vladimir Putin this kind of you know, the headlines of the you know what
we all think intelligence is what you know. The DA was different though,
It's its purpose was and is not to answer directly to the President in the
White House, but to are to the Secretary Defense, the joint use of
status and the different you know, commanders across across the world, and so
its focus is really on the military and the military capabilities of enemies or adversaries
or people were at war with military intelligence, the battle of order and this
sort of business. So back in the sixties, I'm certain that during Kennedy's
time, they would be monitoring the Cuban embassy get you know, a lot
of the information is probably duplicate. They're probably getting all the NSA traffic about
Cuba and problem. Maybe they're mind you know, monitoring the Cuban exiles,
and they certainly be monitored in embassies of just like the NSA does so so
they you know, what would be what was destroyed duplicate information that other agencies
have. But also perhaps the reaction of foreign leaders to this assassination, The
movement of military forces around the world is a reaction to the assassination or a
lack thereof and maybe what some of the Cuban exiles are up to. I'm
just speculating, but yeah, but oh, I would think all that would
be in there. And like I said, the reactions not only of foreign
governments but are internally some of our own military leaders. Well, and there's
a guarantee there were meetings that happened after JFK was assassinating, and strategically there's
no reason not to keep track of what allied forces are doing as well.
Oh yeah, you know, just to say, and I'm just thinking off
the top of my head here that you know, ex military guys who might
be I don't know, attempting to defect. Yeah, you know, my
also be of interest to the day. They might have had collected files on
that there might be more information on that circumstance, not just a guy named
Oswald, but others who What I think we can do too is we can
compare it to what other agencies when other agencies destroyed things, Why did they
do it? The CIA destroyed things sometimes about the assassinated, about assassination programs,
and about the Castro exiles anti Castro exiles because it made them look bad,
because it made the opportunity that they might have financed people who could have
gone off the rails and done something. To me, that's a pretty good
reason. Maybe why did they get rid of some files? Well there's that
plus you know, look the benign explanation, right, why would you destroy
other stuff? Well, you don't want to look like you missed it.
Let's just say you do believe in the whole Oswald thing. Well, how
the hell did the FBI not know this? They had somebody following them around.
How the hell did did this one not know it? How the hell
did that one not know it? If you believe in the lone nut theory,
there's all kinds of problems here. A lot of cya has to happen,
because, yeah, you don't want to be seen as the people that
missed this. I mean, just the fact that we know that Hoover turns
around and drops that you know, uh emergency kind of flash warning on Oswald's
name just before the assassination doesn't look good. You know, now, what
about the d IA guess what we don't know? Right? Be good?
I'm sorry, Mike, go ahead, No God, I'm just chuckling.
Yeah, I was gonna say, and and that I think is not only
the mystery, but the importance of the document is because it shows that just
wholesale destruction of evidence without concern for anyone. I mean, I believe the
quote is this is what Denk said back to the HCA, that the DA
had quote destroyed all of its files which might be related to the assassination,
that therefore had nothing to offer nothing doing. That's it. We sorry,
we burned everything down. Good luck, fine stuff elsewhere. And the funny
thing is that you mean to tell me that there was no because you're supposed
to keep a document when you destroy documents too, you know, as far
as I know, I think that's like just one of those general conventions where
if you destroy a document, you're supposed to note it somewhere. Uh.
Nothing, Just we don't have anything. That's that. I mean, that's
where that lands. Look, I think we're gonna we're gonna come around and
maybe take a break here, uh and get into a couple of other issues.
So we're gonna go on the other side of the break, uh,
which I think Mike has to run. So Mike, anything you want to
add, sort them on your way out the door. Oh No, that
just pro fascinating conversation, and I'll do have to go, but I'll be
listening back get on the recording later on. Yeah, definitely you'll be interested
in the next part of it, because Carmine's gonna stick with me for a
few more minutes and we're gonna go over some other material here on the Ocelli
effect. Stick around. You've expressed, my callers. Is there anyone else
who happens to get on the air of jelly dot com who not necessarily reflected
he views jelly dot com ord Chuck Chilly and we are not responsible for any
stupidity which might ensued. Thank you. M going to Chuck o'chelly. Wall
Street, Window dot go Silver, the stock market, wall Stream, 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 don com, do 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. Rallstream indo 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 and are still happening today.
Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files
that exposes things about the Bay and Pigs that no one has ever written about
before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not
earn from it. 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 Larryhancock.
For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your
copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com. In digital or physical, Quoat,
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place
and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times and revealed never before
published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated
if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in
the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state before
World War II. The United States was a continental republic. In the decade
that followed it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only
wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the
island Arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile
launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they
wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why
and will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information the
Warstate dot com. Go ahead, Colin, I was just the truth about
the das, right, Well, what do you want to know? Dy
Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry handswer weapons. Really,
I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a
wagon. But okay, Oswald was on the building, and I'm trying to
prevent the leader of John Kennedy. Come on now, has a real effort
on the day of hay assassination. 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 Judithbary 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, many fantastic claims Judith very
Baker in her own words. Thank you for all the great information revelation through
conversation, Shelley dot com, Radio net, oh Chili dot com revelation through
conversation, Chuck O. Kelley. And if you know so many years applying
the FK research, you're specializing against any Tellys Jacy involvement in multiple assassinations,
PROPAGAIND and other global criminal operations in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. Yeah,
and now less aggerated and met O Kelly. The second segment of this
Thursday Night, O Chelli Effect is on now. Mike Swatson had to bow
out, he had somewhere to be, but Carlin Sabastano's still with me and
we're not done because there was one more subject to tackle here tonight uh.
And if you did miss it, if you're just tuning it now for some
reason or other, uh, whatever, you might want to go back and
take a listen to what we had to say about Paul Landers, those interesting
revelations, a few other things. Hey, how about the biggest piece of
evidence destruction that we can demonstrate in the JFK case. Overall those things so
far, so far. See you notice I restrain. I don't go ever
know that's it. Ever, I never know because there could be something larger,
because I did not imagine that we were gonna get you know that that
that is, And that's pretty wild that it took this long, by the
way, for that to come out. I stand by your point too,
that it's pretty weird that there wasn't like a little leak that because there was
other leaks to the press to try and get interest in the HSCA where it
was like, hey, listen, you know what's going on over here.
You know there's something about this you might want to you know, I mean,
it seemed like somebody was shoving things over and I have a feeling I
know who, but I have a feeling that, Yeah, Blakey and some
of the others at the top were like, look like idiots. Yeah,
you didn't do anything about an agency destroying all their files, so I think
we need to bury this. Yeah, somebody said, oh wow, you
know, let's make sure this doesn't really which is a good reason why it
might be difficult to find the initial request, even because see somewhere there's a
written request guaranteed a written request was transmitted in some way to the DA that
said hey, can we have your files? Right? Yeah? And where
is it? You see what I'm saying, like, yeah, and I'd
love to hear the response. Well, and what did they say back after
they said we'll destroyed everything? Well, the first thing is I'm thinking in
order there should be a request, then all right, we'll conduct a search.
We'll need this amount of time whatever. Okay, you know, same
thing like they did when they went to the O n I with the ar
RB. Because they went to the O n I and that whole thing.
I mean, you heard about that, and then they turned around. The
court martialed the record's liaison who went to actually to try and see if the
ON I I had files on Oswald. Yeah, they got to conduct the
search to see what they have. How did they automatically know this. They
couldn't have automatically known it. They shouldn't have automatically known it. They couldn't
have assumed it unless this was just you know, frontline office knowledge. Every
secretary even knows we destroyed. Well, that's why I have a feeling that,
Yeah, it might have occurred later than some people might think, because
I think it occurred later in the timeline, because if it was early in
the timeline, there was really no need to destroy the files. Yeah.
See, that's the other on did they really have They didn't really have anything
by sixty three? Well, the only thing I can think of there early
Oswald stuff at most, So there's no need to destroy all that. That's
not going to implicate anybody or be of any sort of concern. Like you
said, if they missed something that would have had to have happened the intervening
heres I would think. Yeah. But the other issue is it could be
because of the mk Ultra thing. And what do I mean by that they
had to conduct a search to go find those files. They'd ended up turning
up the financial documents. You know, in short story here, they end
up turning up the financial documents and reconstructing what happened from that, because somebody
forgot to destroy those and somebody might have said, hey, that's an interesting
lesson. Maybe we need to get rid of all of our stuff. Now
I'm thinking that that one a good time to say, you know, let's
clear things out in case there was because you know, military intelligence and experimentation
is not like you know, that wasn't part of it too. Remember they
were tied to the MK ultra thing. Yeah, I could see somewhere probably
around the Church committee. Yeah, when the CIA started getting blown up about
family jewels, documents and stuff like that, I can see that being around
the time. Yeah. Yeah, maybe it's good trying to be rid of
some things, you know, just saying I mean, you know, we
could search and also destroy, you know, and stuff like that, and
the d IA could have been sitting there going, you know, they might
come to us sometime and maybe we should get rid of some stuff. But
if I want to school, you know, a schoolboy like Colby in charge
like they did with the CIA, and he might actually admit some stuff publicly.
Yeah, that that's a possibility too. Anyway, what's uh, what's
interesting next though, is you you did something even more recently. And uh,
look, and I'm going to provide links to these articles and stuff on
I guess they're on They're on your website mainly, and they were also published
on Wall Street Window, right yep, yeah, so is this most recent
one also on Wall Street Window? Yeah? Okay, I'll get the link
from there too and put it in the show notes. Guys. Yeah,
just three some of the earlier ones, just because I was gonna talk.
I mean, you know, we have a shorter amount of time, so
I'm not really gonna get too deep into any of them, but I'll give
an overview. I'm on the sixth part of it. Basically, it's,
uh, the how the stories of these Cold War Soviet Cold War defectors reveal
the intelligence abyss. And as I was telling you off air, the intelligence
abyss is basically what I would term all that we don't know and all that
is out there in the intelligence arena. I mean, that's the biggest challenge,
kind of like the black space between stars. The biggest challenge is knowing
what's going on in that area where no one can see anything, where no
one has agents. You know, it's always about infiltration, It's always about
using tradecraft to somehow gain information and to somehow use the pieces of information you
already have to create a picture that you can't see yet. Oh, by
the way, there is one live question I want to get to about the
destruction of files, and I'll leave it to you to respond to because what
Wall Brown has been on the show recently and he often mentions the destruction of
Oswald's personal military file, his personnel file, and that was destroyed, you
know, when it was being like thermo copied, you know, apparently they
destroyed it while they were doing that. I mentioned earlier the xerox which people
used as a common expression for photo copying later but xeroxing a different process,
and they used to use this thermo copying methodology to uh, you know,
the technology kept changing. But allegedly his personnel file was destroyed when they were
trying to copy it. Does that fit into it? Well, the d
i A should have had a backup copy of that. That would have been
interesting. We might have been able to retrieve it if the DA had it.
But I mean the question as it's freeze here, I'll read it to
you. Wall Brown always mentions that Oswald's military personnel file was destroyed after being
quote Thermo facts end quote. How does this fit into Carmine's thesis if at
all? Well, I certainly think a copy of it certainly was destroyed.
See that's the thing, at least by the DA. I mean, if
they want to use the Thermofacts story to explain why they destroyed the copy,
that's a possibility, I guess. But yeah, the DA, Mike was
saying about the centralization of the collection of intelligence. That's what the DA,
like you were saying, because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, because of
all the things that were coming out about the CIA, you know, staff
d conducting assassination programs and right, you know, off the books operations that
weren't sanctioned by the executive They you know, were forming agencies like the DA.
Kind of the way the CIA, you know, went from Coordinator of
Intelligence OSS Central Intelligence Group, Special Services Unit CIA in the way that that
formed the DA was just another way to centralize the collection of intelligence, but
for the military side sort of to match the civilian side, and then if
they were better at it, maybe more of the CIA's powers would be given
to them, right, And it did seem like Kennedy was in the process
of doing that a bit, because again, the Central Intelligence Agency was not
being straight with them. It's just that simple. I mean, the way
I see it, well, it wasn't being st with itself. That's like,
if people want to get a chance, I want to wholly agree with
you there, if people want to get a chance to look at my Intelligence
Obys series articles, I talked about Soviet Cold War, about a mole hunt
that basically has been going on, and it's been discussed before, but I
try to give a view of it that most people don't see internally, from
the defectors themselves, from some of the victims within the CIA, because the
CIA went after one hundred and fifty of its own officers right during the mole
hunts, and it crippled Soviet Intelligenced Soviet Russia Division, and you know,
basically the CIA, it did more damage, the investigation of a penetration agent
did more damage than any agent could have done, which is a wild thing
really. And yeah, and like you were saying it, like I was
saying, they weren't they weren't strict with themselves because even then Angleton, when
he was conducting the mole Hunt wasn't being honest with the Upper Echiolans and was
doing illegal things to other employers. He's of the same group to try to
prove his thesis that you know, there had to be a mole. Right
Well, so we can't even trust him to be honest with each other.
Right Well, that's the thing is that you got this. And look,
Angleton's an interesting character for sure. Uh. And his you know, his
reaction to the the they got infiltrators and they're looking for moles. I mean,
it's going to be harsh. Uh. And it is not going to
be pleasant. It's not going to be all legal. I mean, it's
just it's Angleton. I mean, oh yeah, right. Well, and
like all good Frankenstein stories, eventually it turns on its creator. There you
go. No, I mean it's and we're not quite there yet. I'm
about halfway through the story. I think I'm in sixty six. I started
in the late fifties, and I started with Popov and the Petrovs, and
I went through some of the people we've discussed before, like Strashinski and Reno
Heinen, and I'm just moving through showing people that you know, you see
certain patterns too. With them, and one of the big you know,
I don't want to take too much time with this, but one of the
big clashes that you'll see people who have read into the intelligence of this period
is between Gallatson and the SENKO and you know, false defectors and true defectors.
And I discussed that, and unfortunately, what I think a lot of
them overlooked was that chances are based on the evidence, based on that the
KGB want to kill all of them. They probably were all legitimate, but
some of them are just egotists. It doesn't mean that what they said was
true, and it doesn't necessarily mean it's false if you don't agree with it.
If there's evidence to support it's true. If there's not, it's false.
But you know, people like to take sides more than they were,
like to prove the claims by these people, and they make them well.
And here's the other problem is that you know, when you're dealing with somebody
who is you know, in captivity, who's being held in a box,
who is now like you know, at the mercy of these people that are
interrogating them. Helm's called it durance vile. Okay, explain that it means
it translates to a duration of vile captivity. There you go, Well,
you're basically yeah, because I mean, like you said, they had them
in a twelve x twelve cell, you know, gruel and weak tea.
Right, you don't see people. You get out for a few hours every
week. You don't get reading material, you don't get cigarettes, you don't
get anything. Right, You're in a box. I mean, this is
what the common terminology I always use is you're in a box and you're in
isolation, which, of course it plays with the mind a bit. All
right, So you know, you gotta you gotta give a little bit of
latitude to some of what's being said here, because it is under duress,
no matter if anyway slice it, it's the rest. Uh, it's in
an opportunistic situation. You certainly want to if you're you know, you're selling
out your country, right, you're selling out your intelligence agency to this other
intelligence agency. Uh. You have the the desire to please your captors for
various reasons. Exactly you want to. You want them to be happy with
your bonafides so they'll accept you, so the look a lot of money,
so they'll resettle you nicely. Yeah, you want to get rewarded one way
or another. So look there there is a lot of possible alterations that could
be made. Oh yeah, no, no exaggerations happened. But see as
what I'm hoping that people will see. Though it's not limited in the sink
one gallotzon. No, they all do to some extent. All of the
defectors pretty much that I've looked over, have exaggerated their bonafeedes to some extent
or have tried to make themselves more important so that the country that they're defecting
to will take better care of them. No, not only that, but
look, all you got to do is look at basic interrogation, any law
enforcement interrogating anybody about something major. Okay, And even if you look at
a general local murder case, no name person doesn't make national headlines anything like
that. You take a look at that case and they let somebody come in
and they just tell us, tell us your side of the story. Their
initial storytelling never matches all the facts, right, because what do they have
to do. They have to go get stuff, They confront them with it,
they trick them with it. This and that, there is a back
and forth to this that is just a matter of interrogation for extracting information.
What people volus here is one thing. I'm just saying, there's a lot
of dynamics here to sort of, you know, unravel. So you have
to judge this information based on a lot of those dynamics and take a look
at the circumstances in which this information was collected. Wouldn't you agree to that?
Oh? Totally? And I think that it's a case by case basis
and it isn't a one size fits all absolutely true. Yes, you're dead
on. Yeah. Some people want, you know, they want everybody to
conform to some sort of defector cutout, and that's just not the way they're
people know, they're each different, they each have the foibles. They all
love to drink. That's the other thing is like what I've read about most
yeah, Soviet defectors, they do like to drink. Well. And here's
another thing. Look, I have seen a circumstance where and I'm not going
to describe where or when I saw this, but I've seen a circumstance where
you know, what you give somebody who was sitting there experiencing the dts from
alcohol, Okay, you give them a drink as a way of getting some
relief as a reward for giving you a piece of information. I've seen this
done. They'll say almost anything. They'll they'll they'll pretty much say anything to
get their addiction to stop itching. All right, Yeah, you know,
just saying all right, Well, that was one of the one of the
ridiculous claims that helms because they tried to justify it after the HCA found out
about it later on what they got called in about the SECO because they did
tell the Warren Commission about in the CENCO. But at the times when the
fetes were being you know, Angleton was saying he was false, and people
in Silver Rest Division was saying he was an honest defector, so that was
being argued. So they just never included his information about Oswa, what basically
would have proven and would have put the bed all these nonsense claims that the
Soviets tried to use Oswald to kill Kennedy. They didn't give to them because
they said they couldn't trust Nasenko, And then later on they hired Nasenko and
made him an advisor, So by then you figured they might have let us
know. Yeah, but you know this stuff, see you again, just
like we talked about with the Landis thing. It's not like the uh,
you know, official agencies need to participate in this. People will muddy the
water. And you can get sort of a you know, a passive kind
of endorsement B like, yeah, let him go ahead and do that.
Uh, and let him go ahead and not know this, and let him
go ahead and and know this piece of disinformation. Sure, go right ahead.
Uh why well yeah, and they and they honestly try to do it
like where we saw with U with the Jox Richardson that when I found when
I was able to identify who Cassisen was right the one who said that,
you know, because they said we'd never used Oswald, And then I did
that article about him, and then we all talked about him on the internet
for a while. And then if you go on to CIA dot com now
you can actually find where they say there was this one officer, Yeah,
there was this one life interesting they did consider using him. Now, was
it widely or considered by you know, CIA pro No? No, CIA
proper would have sat there and gone, m this guy's not really that useful.
But it doesn't mean that somebody else didn't think that he was maybe useful
or maybe he was useful to a limited extent, And there you go.
There's a whole lot of limited extent that people are useful to when it comes
to the agency. Also, so that one they get as much worse as
we've gone over with documents before. Oh yeah, no, I'm trying to
be nice about it. I'm just saying that, you know, just in
a general way. You can look at it that way where it's like,
look, there are plenty of people that are useful just because of the circumstances
they're in, and they don't even need to know that they're being useful to
somebody. They can just be encouraged by somebody else showing up and saying,
hey, listen, I want to fund you. Guys, I want to
help you. You're a friend. Maybe I'm gonna take care of your wife's
teeth. You know, it doesn't matter. Okay that that never mind,
somebody might know what I'm referring to there. The thing is George, Yeah,
exactly. You know de Moor and Shield. That's an interesting story there.
Well, yeah, and Emmograds were a big part of the CIA's bread
and butter at the time, too, right, and that was Tashunski,
that one of the guys that we've discussed in that I talk about in the
series. He was a KGB assassin and he was an immigrat and he took
out immigrays that spoke out against the KGB. There you go. So what
do we need to take away regarding this? I mean, because I'm now
talked you into a circle about this, about this issue. Sorry, but
well, well I just hope people take a look at it. It is.
It's gonna take you know, you're not gonna it's not a quick read.
You'll you may have to. But I do have links to a lot
of the evidence the people that I talk about, and I have all the
NARA numbers, so if they want to actually go look at the original documents.
But basically, I'm trying to take everyone, like I said, the
intelligence abyss, I'm trying to show people the areas around, you know,
where everyone has made a large deal about, like I said, the the
Senko Galotzen clash, or they've made a large deal about a specific defector.
But I think there's a bigger picture to be painted. I think we can
learn a lot from putting all these defectors together and seeing what they've all revealed,
how they've all acted, and what it can lead us to believe about.
Because what Peter Popov, what Michael Golanuski really hammered into the CIA,
and what Gallotzon in my opinion, took advantage of was a Russian term called
does informatzia disinformation, and it was their belief in a grand disinformation campaign that
really sparked off all of these mole hunts and the search for people because they
believe that everything must be disinformation then, and we can see that in some
conspiracy ideas right that same exact as Engleton called it, the wilderness of mirrors.
Well, but that's the problem here, is that if you create a
large enough wilderness, people can don't have time to examine the trees, or
you can put some of the real trees in the fake forest if you want,
because it doesn't matter anymore. You're lost. And that's what's kind of
happened in conspiracy land, that's what does happen in the intelligence abyss because quite
frankly, if you go digging into all of this too long, I don't
know how you get out of that labyrinth, because it's just it's endless.
It seems endless. So you know, and look, I'm gonna give you
guys the links along with the show notes to U. Looks like you've got
three parts up so far at teapok dot com. So I'm gonna give them
the links to those. Yeah. Yeah, well all six are up there.
There'll be links on each of those to the other ones too. Oh
excellent. So at the bottom of there. Yeah, and you're still working
on this, yep, yeah, probably another few more, try to get
it to the end. Basically to win Angleton is booted by Colby. Wow,
that's okay, So you got you got a little ways to go because
you said you were up to sixty six and what year did that sixty six?
Yeah, that's seventy five, I believe. So you start doing a
couple of years throwing a couple more. But I want to also a lot
of people when they when they talk about the mole hunts and everything, they
don't go into the people doing it and also the internal Like I wanna,
I'm going to focus on some of the members of not only the defectors and
the you know Angleton and the officers we know, but some of the members
of c I SIG and the kind of intelligence group that under Angleton and what
they were doing. I mean, there was actually one guy in the group
that was telling the rest of them were totally off track, what the hell
are you guys doing? Why are we investigating our own people? Right?
Well, and there you go, yeah, yeah, and he went quickly,
well, and that's special intelligence. But yeah, you don't last long
if you're pushing against the major operation. Uh that's just the way it goes,
because okay, you're not a team player. Uh, special intelligence group
kind of works that way. So how do we tie a bow on this
one? Carmine? What are you think? And by the way, you
can go to either Wall Street Window dot com and check out some of Carmine's
articles, or I'm gonna give you the links to TEA pok T p A
a K dot com again. Two Princes and a King, which is the
title of Carmine's first book, and you know, there's there's a lot to
be said for that. And also you were working on some of the consolidated
CIA files. There's a lot of information on Carmine's website if you explore it.
So not so many links to my shows anymore. But you know,
YouTube did a job on me. Boy. Yeah, I got rid of
all the dead one I do have some. I've gone onto your site and
put all the ones that are on there, and then any of the speaker
and other stuff I grab. That's great, but you know, but none
of that stuff is long long for this world. It seems like every time
I turn around, I'm getting knocked off of something or other. But best
I can, and I'm actually coming up with a way where I'm going to
be able to consolidate the ten years worth of the archive into a single device
and offer those for sale soon. Actually, I've got some bullet shaped thumb
drives, so I was thinking about offering the magic bullet basically nice and uh,
of course my magic bullet doesn't look like their his minds are pointed.
Uh, they're they're kind of like hunting looking bullets, sort of like the
one that Landa said evidence mine mine. I actually know where it came from
and everything. So yeah, there there is a chain of evidence. Uh,
it is marked. I didn't put my initials on it, but it's
marked and anyway, so that that's all going on. But uh, how
do we tie a bow on all of this. I mean, I'm gonna
try and get you in one more time before Lancer, because you're gonna be
appearing there virtually, Mike and I'll be there in person, which, by
the way, I I got it. I got a funny thing just the
guy, the guy I'm on the road trip with, right uh, I'm
going to Dallas with him. He is insistent that he wants to go to
where somebody else is having a convention and offer Walt Brown's book for sale outside
of that convention, which you know, we're obviously gonna have to film,
and he's gonna prepare some bail money for uh. So this could be an
interesting weekend in Dallas that you might have to watch virtually, Carbine, But
I promise you I'm gonna video everything I can. Unless the cops confiscate phones.
I don't know, we'll find out. So while I'm not em seeing
the Lancer stuff that might go on, I thought you might find that funny.
Though. He actually wants to get a sandwich board and walk around with
it, like you know, and offer it to people walking into another hotel.
But anyway, you'll be appearing virtually, so that'll be interesting. A
bunch of other people are as well, But there's gonna be a lot there
Friday, and then if they decide to do I don't know, because they
have a lot more They have a ton of speakers of this year, so
I don't know if they're gonna be doing any of the like the group chat
we did last year. Well, we have panel stuff that's going to be
in a separate breakout room and there's all going to be a media room.
This is a little different arrangement. So uh yeah, there's gonna be a
lot going on and some things will be simultaneous. Yeah, you know.
And I'm telling you now, if you're not able to attend, you the
listeners, you guys, if you're not able to attend, you're probably gonna
want to purchase the downloads of this because there's gonna be a lot of video
content that's going to come out of that weekend. It might be many,
many hours, even more than what you see on the schedule, because I'm
thinking some people are going to run over on their time, and there's no
way the schedule is gonna work exactly the way they got it laid out.
Well, it never works, nothing no planned that never works. Out exactly
how it's supposed to hear. There's always time delays and stuff. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. Another thing I was going to say too is now I
have my twenty eighteen up. I'm gonna have my twenty two twenty twenty twenty
two presentation of this month too before the new one. Oh hopefully, as
soon as I can get the new one, I'll get it up. I'm
doing that greats on the website and the YouTube, just trying to get stuff
like you know, right, trying to do you have that everything? Yeah,
I'm sorry. Do you have that group video that we did up on
YouTube? Yet? Uh? No, I gotta I think I still have
it. I saved most of my files, but I had to kind of
recreate part of the website which I lost when the whole hacking and everything.
I had to get rid of that hard drive, so I lost a lot
of that. I had to actually copy pictures from my website onto my new
heart drive. I had to do some weird stuff too, because there was
a hack attack that screwed up my data. My database was disconnected from my
website. Somehow nobody could explain that to me. Yeah, oh yeah,
yeah, fun stuff happens when you I don't know, I guess irritate the
wrong people. But anyway, Carmine, it's it's great to talk with you
again, and I do look forward to having you back on again very soon.
And obviously, as you keep writing this, I want to go into
more of this stuff because you know, these defectors and what went on with
them is an interesting thing for sure. You know, does it get us
closer to a solution on some stuff? Well, it might give us some
clarity as to what was actually going on at the time. Well, this
is what i'd say. I'd say, the one thing we can take away
that where it applies to the JFK case directly is manpower and hundreds of thousands
of dollars were being wasted chasing penetration agents that likely didn't exist instead of investigating
the JFK case. There you have it, plus the largest destruction of evidence
you know up down now that we know of, okay by an agency also
discussed earlier, and we got into the Paul Landis revelation. Revelations supposedly you
know, what he used to sell a book and all that good stuff.
But you know, Kelly effect is all done guy, no matter who you
are, where you are when you are remembering ammerely o' shelli