The o' chili effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like
you ye, yeah yeah and media Yeah twenty sixth day of December twenty twenty
three, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and this is
the o'ceelli effect. So we are live. I've gone to the stream very
very late, but that is because first of all, I had a little
technical issue, and then I wound up talking to my guest tonight for a
little while, okay, and uh yeah, just kind of lost track of
time. So those of you catching the podcast, you don't care. And
by the way, you might hear little squeaks and stuff in the background because
I got a box of puppies next to me. But anyway, they are
squeaking, they are making noise, and they are my co hosts for tonight.
So if you caught the video with t Snyder from Sunday night, we
just kept the camera on the puppies, right, so you had the puppy
cam the other night, check that out on Rumble and such, and there
they are nice and loud right on cue. Anyway, Pat Spear is with
me. Who is Pat Spear? Well, if you're a JFK researcher,
and you've been keeping track of things for the past while. You might know
who he is. But if you don't, let me tell you about something.
It's called the mysterious death of Number thirty five. Okay, what was
that? Well, it was this video that was on YouTube that I saw.
I'm thinking, and I didn't check the date before we started here,
but just going back to my memory, flipping through my index, I'm thinking
to myself, somewhere around twenty ten, maybe twenty eleven, twenty twelve,
somewhere between twenty ten and the fiftieth anniversary, I saw this video online and
what was it about the medical evidence and the mysterious death of number thirty five.
I thought that was an interesting turn of phrase, because, after all,
JFK is the thirty fifth president. He definitely had a mysterious death,
and we've been studying it ever after now sixty years on. Anyway, I
saw this video series and I heard about Pat Spear for the first time.
I think he did a spot on black Op Radio somewhere around there. Very
interesting, but I've always valued it. Now recently, when I was getting
things together and thinking about rarefied information and good stuff. Right before I went
to go MC the Lancer conference, and we had the whole run up to
Dallas this year. On the show and everything, I contacted Pat Spear and
said, you know, Pat, along with many of the other things that
I lost in life due to divorce, etc. I lost your DVD and
really valued it and appreciated it. Well, anyway, I got one back
in my hands and it is now part of my DVD collection that I'm rebuilding,
along with my book collection and my photographic collection on the Kennedy case,
and it is just that valuable. I would consider it essential. Indeed,
you can still see the videos online parts one through four, I believe if
you go to this channel on YouTube called Noise Vision. Anyways, all that
aside, I've got Pat Spear with me and I have been talking to him
for about twenty or thirty minutes off air already, So if he isn't sick
of me yet, we're gonna have a little conversation about this particular presentation.
And well we also mentioned him on the show last week talking to Larry Hancock,
so maybe we'll find out why that happened as well. Pat Spear,
how you doing tonight, man? I'm doing fine right now. Yeah,
excellent. Look, I know that introduction was a little sloppy, but it
is the way I go. I'm a little atypical, and we are conversation
based here. It's not like a question and answer call and response interviews.
So let me ask you first, because you tell the story of what got
you interested in the case in general in your life. And if you watch
the videos, guys, you'll hear about how he got handed a half dollar,
which is a little different from my story. I got a half dollar
at one point too. But I tell you about when in third grade,
because you know, I went to school in the seventies. I'm fifty one
years old, you know, so I wasn't alive when the Kennedy assassination happened.
But by the time I got the third grade, there was this mention
in class. And of course my first objection to the whole thing was when
my teacher said the guy who was supposed to have shot him was killed in
police custody, and as a street wise nine or eight year old, I
forget, which I stated, well, gee, unless the cops or a
fellow prisoner killed him, there's something wrong with this story. And yeah,
there is something wrong with the story. But pat, look, like I
said, they can find out in the video about how you got introduced to
it kind of as a child. But how about what caused you to decide
to make this video series which was extremely ahead of its time actually, And
you know nowadays people have all sorts of production values on their youtubes and this
and that. But we had even just discussed before we went to air about
how JFK stuff was really rudimentary until you kind of did this online. So
what provoked you to do this interesting presentation, talk about the mystery photo and
all of that and do it online in this very like well organized, well
orchestrated, well produced manner that turned into the mysterious death of Number thirty five.
Well, I was interested in the case in you know, I had
friends who kind of told me about it, and now then saw the movie
JFK, and I had an interest. And then it really comes down to
what they call FA or the mystery photo, the open crany and the photo
of like just an open skull, right, because it was in Robert Grodin's
book The Killing of a President, and I looked at it and I was
like, oh, there's a bullet hole there. And then I looked at
the caption and I didn't mention it, so that was weird. So then
I ended up, you know, years when after I got more sucked into
the case, I realized that officially what I was thought was a bullet hole
in the back of the net, you know, the low on the skull
was officially showing the forehead. I'm like, that's not a forehead, and
so I was just confounded by the fact that the official story about this photograph
was not what just seemed obvious to me. And so then I ended up
discovering the JF what's it called History Matters, Rex Bradford's website that had the
HCA materials on it, and I just read through all these things and I'm
like, I was just in shock that it was officially the forehead and that
there was no mention of this what appeared to me to be an obvious bullet
hole. So I got really interested in the medical evidence, reading everything I
could, got access to the you know, the Rockefeller Commission interviews and stuff
like that before you know, most people ever read them, and you know,
looked at every autopsy photo I could find online and then eventually I realized
that the autopsy photos as shown in David Lifton's book and Robert Grodens's book were
cropped differently, and that one of them, I think it might have been
the lifting book, there was a drainage hole on it, and I'm like,
well, you can make you could actually study around shape and figure out
what angle you're looking at that round shape is by its dimensions. So I
anyhow, so I came up with this idea that like we could I could
do that and figure out what angle this photograph was taken from by looking at
the drainage hole. Also, there there's to be a glass which is presumably
you know, a circle on the top of the glass, and you could
do the same there. So at my thirtieth high school reunion, I've had
a friend that I knew from school named Brad Mendelsohn, and he went on
to produce some rock music videos and actually produced a movie as well, and
we were talking and I said, like, you would you know, maybe
you could help me do some videos put them on YouTube, and so he's
like, sure, let's do it. Okay, let me pause you right
there and just tell the listener that if you go online and you look at
jfk autopsy photos today, there are many different versions that circulate around, and
sure back at this particular time earlier on, you might have had to go
buy Robert Croden's book or David Lifton's book, and you might have gotten a
look at these things. The picture that he's talking about, specifically, just
for reference here, is sort of weird to begin with, because we're all
familiar with the stare of death. You can see JFK's face and the look
in his eyes while he's laying, you know, supine, he's on his
back. All of that is happening in these autopsy photos that have made their
rounds ever since a guy named James Fox decided to sell off his copy,
and god knows that there's more copies out there. But anyway, there's a
photo which the skin is peeled away from the skull. This we could all
agree on, okay, regarding this photo. The skin is peeled away from
the skull, and obviously you're looking at a bare skull and this is you
know, purported to be Kennedy, And there is this obvious sort of notch
in part of the bone that almost screams this must be one of the bullet
holes in the skull. I'm not saying entrance exit nothing. All I'm saying
is that since you know that there was a gunshot to the skull, you're
looking at the skull, You're thinking to yourself, this must be the gunshot.
So I just wanted to give that point of reference the case people search
around. Maybe I'll put a photo on the on the post or something here
to show you guys, or a link to it in the show notes.
But good, well you could just go to chapter fourteen at patspere dot com.
There you go, Well, then that's what we'll do. We'll give
you the link to chapter fourteen at patspear dot com, which, by the
way, has a whole lot of stuff on it, but we'll get to
that more later. Please continue on, though, Pat, your friend with
the rock videos, said let's do it. And then what happened. So
we, over the course of about a year and a half, we get
together about, you know, maybe twice a month and work on these videos
and put them up and it being a four parter. This is this is
people can't even relate because now you could go to YouTube and there's like a
four hour video. There was a seven minute limit at first. So that's
why if you go online you'll see like part one part you know, just
thro your number thirty five, Part one A or Part one B or whatever,
and then later on you'll see it as all one piece. It's because
initially, because we had they were kind of all like, you know,
twelve to fifteen minute videos, as I recall, but you can only do
like seven minutes at a time on YouTube, so you had to split it
in half. I mean, even today, when you start out with a
brand new YouTube channel and it's been so long since you've done that and so
long since I've done it, we might forget this. But even today you're
limited to fifteen minutes on a video to start with. Now you can easily
build it up, and obviously there are people out there with eight, nine,
ten, twelve hour videos which you're allowed to do. But it's become
a more expansive and more easily accessible thing as the years have gone on.
But you're talking about a time when it was really actually kind of tough to
upload stuff like this, and they didn't have all the different software available and
different little helper things. The YouTube studio was some years away, et cetera.
So you couldn't produce it online. You literally had to produce whatever you
could by yourself and then you could upload it, but serious limitations. Uh,
data time, everything was very limited, so you had to be Yeah,
you had to have your stuff well prepared and be able to know how
to upload it properly. So yeah, go ahead. I was gonna say
yes. So, you know, we wrote about or I wrote the videos
and Brad directed them and put them together. And I didn't even you know,
I had to say I want a star of the videos. He's just
like, no, no, this is your videos. You're the star.
Okay. So I'm a narrator as well, but they the videos. But
we spread off, you know, we use that as the intro, like
what the hell is this? What are we looking at here? And then
we go through the history of it, and then we like say, well
would they lie? So then like the question is would they lie? Let
us talk about the back wound, and we talked about all the evidence that
they were lying about the back wound. And since that time, I continued
on like occasionally I realized that at the fiftieth anniversary for the warrant report.
So that's twenty fourteen, right, No one was going to do what do
you think about the single bullet ferry, which is kind of like the whole
you know, centerpiece. So I have I voluntary to do that, and
I got accepted as like, okay, you can do it. So I
went to the fiftieth anniversary of the Warren Report conference at Bethesda, Maryland,
and I introduced a whole lot of new information that people didn't realize that just
by like you know, trying to create timelines and reading various you know,
warrant commissioned internal documents and stuff like that that really like explained a lot and
proved that like our inspector he knew, damn well, it was a back
wound, and but he you know, it was written changed in the book
they have say neck wound and all this kind of stuff, I mean,
the war Report, and so so that got incorporated in the videos anyhow that
like you know, we know they would lie about the head wound because they
like about the back wound and so anyhow, so it ends up being an
exploration of pretty much all the medical evidence, and most of it stood up.
I still stand by, you know, my exact interpretation of the exact
angle of that how that photograph is I changed in a few years after making
the videos, but it's still the basic idea. It's showing the back of
the head primarily, and it's not showing the forehead like the doctors later on
try to claim. And it's because you mentioned that notch on the bone,
right, So the notch on the bone that's like centered in the photograph.
I initially thought that was on the far back of the head. Now I
realized it's more towards the crown of the head. But anyhow, it's it's
still it's not on the forehead. But when the doctors looked at it for
the Church committee, I mean the Clark panel and for the agency A panel,
they saw that and they said, this be the exit. So this
so they're like, if it's the exit, it can't be on the back
of that. It's going to be on the forehead. So they came up
with there's completely ridiculous. And I have a chapters on my website dealing with
this idea that that notch is on the forehead, and that caused so many
problems because to have the exit at that forehead, for instance, they hired
a guy from NASA, Thomas Canning, who was supposed to like line up
the entrance wounds and exit wounds on the body on JFK and Connolly and show
where the bullets would have come from. But of course it's reverse engineered because
he's got to prove that. They say he was you know, just uh,
what's there's a term for it. You know that he was just lining
things up to see where they went. But he actually was like he was
given the authority to move the wounds. Well, geez, he moved the
wounds and everything to make sure that they line up to point back to the
sixth floor, you know window. It's it's a total scam, right,
But so this is what we call begging the question, right, And what
happens here is fascinating because even as late as two thousand and three, right,
Cyril Wect invites Arle Inspector to you know, one of his conferences at
Toukane, and Spector is making the statements about, well, the single bullet
theory has now become the single bullet fact and all this his public presentations and
discussions of this basically present him as a true believer in the single bullet theory,
like, this is what I found. This is what I absolutely believe
based on the evidence that I got to see. Now, what's really funny.
A couple of things are really funny actually in your videos, which I
find extremely comical. In a couple of spots. One of them is Arlen
Spector basically acknowledging that he knew some of the stuff that he was saying was
BS when it came to the single bullet theory. For instance, having seen
probably you know, one of the Fox copies of a you know, of
a back wound, or at least somebody's copy, you know, something like
it, seeing a back wound that was in the wrong spot. Gerald Ford
moved that. But even showing the photographs of Specter, you know, doing
the demonstration, well, there's little problems with trying to put this in the
back of Kennedy's neck as opposed to his back, right, Uh, there's
that issue. But what's even more comical to me is Michael Bodden, Because
Michael Bodden was like the sweetheart of the United States when it came to the
forensic pathologists. Right, this guy got an HBO show. He was the
main consultant for everybody, everywhere everything. He's still doing it like he's you
know, he's always like with his public mid eighties and he's still like,
you know, being called in whenever there's some sort of controversial killing. Yeah,
yeah, right, he's still being called in. Now he's got a
partner that does a lot of the public presentations, you know, because he's
a little slowed down, I think. But the reality is this guy ever
after had a career. And the funny thing is in one of the rarely
publicized because they didn't show a lot of the HSCA on TV what went on,
but they did show a couple of public hearings. You know, you
could watch these things on PBS and whatnot. But during one of those things,
guess what happens. Bottom's trying to put a big giant picture on an
easel and pat you know, it was one of the first places I ever
saw this piece of footage. By the way, I think I discovered it,
to be honest. Yeah, I mean I discovered that he testified with
his exhibit upside down. Yeah yeah, with his exhibit upside down. Okay,
so forget about whether the bullet holes in the forehead or the back of
the head. This guy can't even orient the photograph in his own presentation correctly.
I mean that is hilarious. I forgot about that. That is comical,
you know, ironically, not ironically. I okay, Like you mentioned
that you had you asked for my DVD, and I gave it to you
because I've had so many people helped me over the years, including there was
a filmmaker Nam Sobol. Do you know Mark Sobol? Had all I ever
heard of him? Yes? I have heard him? Actually, yeah,
okay. He made a fairly good film called The Commission, which was he
took the exact transcripts of the Warren Commission of executive sessions and like where they're
arguing about like whether Oswald was CIA and stuff like that, and he got
like, you know, a list actors to play the Warren Commission. I
mean, it's really impressive of people he got involved, Sam Waterston, Martin
Sheen, Martin Landau Corbyn, Bernston, Edward Asner, I mean, really
good people. Joe Don Baker anyhow, and and he filmed this movie and
he couldn't get anybody to like distribute it for him, and then he kept
on thinking about recutting it Anyhow, he went to a Lancer conference and I
met him there and he turned out he lived in the Saffron out of Valley
like I did. So we met up and one time I'm over to this
house and and he said something like, oh, you know, thanks for
helping me or whatever. Oh, I played JFK's body. He was going
to add a scene of the of JFK's corpse, like were the doctors like
showing the back wound. And so I had to lay on my belly like
for like half an hour while he put like a fake back wound on my
back and took all these pictures. So I've if it ever comes forward,
like it will be like, oh there's Pat Sperry's he's the corpse anyhow.
Nice But anyhow, so Mark Soble, he turned out he had these DVDs
which he got for He told me about it from somebody in Canada of the
HCA hearings because they were televised on PBS. And I'm like, oh my
god, I'm like I have I've been looking for these. They're not on
line. I don't know where to get them. And he's like oh,
he said like, hey, I'll make you a copy and then he gave
me a copy of the of Bond's testimony. And nobody, as far as
I know, had ever noticed that Bond testified with a damn exhibit upside down,
And so I put them to the video, you know, and uh
it's and also you had actors, uh you know, portraying different people,
and you you were going with the transcripts there. This is actually a really
interesting presentation in and of itself. I just want people to know that not
only is the information solid, but it's entertaining. Uh. Yeah. The
pit with the actors was Brad was you know, it was a you know,
he produced movies featuring like, you know, known actors and stuff,
so he wanted it to be legit and not have like he put up a
video on YouTube and haven't get pulled off right away. So he want I
showed him the footage or the raw footage or whatever of doctor Hume's testifying to
not testify being interviewed by Dan rather where he basically says like, oh the
bat I looked at the photos of the back Woundo's basically at where it is
here and he points to the like drawing showing at the base of the neck
when it's obviously several inches lower when you look at the autopsy photo. So
Humes was lying. I'd also put together like because Humes gave the ARB a
document that he was sent basically a script of what he was supposed to tell
Rather, and in the script basically told him that he was supposed to lie,
you know. So you know, so I we wanted to have that
his interview with Rather in the video. So Brad contacted CBS because he's you
know, I would I would be afraid to do that because I would just
think they'd laugh at me. And they sent him a video like Okay,
this is what you're looking for, and then they told him it was something
like one hundred dollars per second for two years. And it's like, you
don't put YouTube videos up and then take him down after two years, you
know. So he's like, he's like, we don't want to spend like,
you know, two thousand dollars to have ten twenty seconds of CBS footage.
He's like, you know what, we know what happens, we have
the transcript, let's just reenact it with my friends. So he had some
friends with her comedy team, if I remember right, and they did the
scene. Yeah no, and it worked out perfectly. Look, you can
do a recreation and read off a transcript and that way you don't have to
worry about the copyright. It's crazy that they wanted that kind of money for
probably the interview from sixty four or it was the sixty sixty seven special.
Yeah, okay, so well, but here's one of two things that could
have been right. It could have been the sixty four or the sixty seven,
because I think Humes was interviewed on both. But the sixty seven one
is amazing because that's the one where they prepared everything in advance, and you
know, CBS, we're doing a fortnight investigation. You know, Kronkite was
still involved to we're doing a four night investigation into this ourselves, right,
and they did. They had the whole you know, we're going to actually
try to recreate the shooting. We're going to go over the evidence, and
then we're going to tell you the conclusions as we go along, which is
a funny thing to trail on. Like, if you ever get a chance,
you watch the sixty four special. They did the first hour before the
public got the Warrant Commission report you know, the eight hundred and eighty eight
pages, and then the second hour is okay, now it's been released to
the public and we have an advanced copy so we can tell you what's in
it, which was kind of funky. But in sixty seven they did four
nights I think in a row. Yeah, four nights, and well you
probably know the whole history, and I get into a little bit of my
website. Sure. John McCloy, John McCloy from the WARR Commission was consulted
on it, and he was actually kind of like pulling the strings behind the
scenes, like giving all sorts of advice. I'm like, this is what
you need to do here, this is what you need to do there.
And later on he tried to lie about it. But the oh, I'm
so sorry, I forgot his name. There was a lawyer who worked for
them. Do you remember his name? Oh, top of my head,
Yeah, I tell you. He got the documents and he put him online
and he then I think he was forced to take his presentation down from online.
But I did some screen grabs off of it, and it'sok out that.
When Oliver Stone was preparing for his most recent movie, I got a
call from his producer saying, like some dugenius says that you still have some
screen grabs because he died in his documents that he made that he got from
CBS are gone. There is no record of them anymore. So it's like,
well, thank god I was stupid enough to like, you know,
I think I needed them for something, because it turned out I did,
because you know, these are these uh messages between John McCloy and and the
CBS producers saying that we needed to uh, you know, we need to
show this or show that, and I can't remember what all's involved, but
it proved his involvement, which they which, which of course, they interviewed
him on the CBS special and they acted like he was just like, hey,
we got an exclusive here, and he's just gonna tell us what's going
on, rather than the fact that he was orchestrating the whole thing, right
right, And it turned out what was it his daughter worked for CBS or
something, Yes, a personal assistant to Richard Solant, the head of CBS
News. There go exactly so you know, just so happens. You know
that we got this happens. Yeah, you know, uh, nothing like
that, because they presented it as if they were going, we're going to
do our own investigation. It will be independent of the warrant Commission, you
know, the independent investigation. I always loved the way it was laid out
too, is uh, you know, the concept of, well, we're
going to do an independent inquiry into this, and we have no preconceived notions.
But the first three witnesses were gonna call they all happen to be named
Oswald, by the way, you know, and happen to be related to
this one particular person of interest. And we're going to form four committees and
three of the four actually in the titles of the committees might have things like
I don't know the name Oswald in them as well. So you know this
is this about Oswald? Or is this about an independent investigation? Hmmm?
You know, nothing like And I'll tell you the Arlen Spector story. It
got even weirder too, uh. And I'm trying to think of this guy's
name. You got me stumped here. Normally I know the guy's name that
the lawyer. You were trying to think, I'll figure it out before we're
done. Well, I'm actually yeah, I've tried to. I've got it.
I'll have it in a second. Yeah. But here's the funny part
about that is, you know, when you take a look at this thing
and you're trying to figure out, okay, where did they begin from?
You know, where is their starting point? Arlen Spector is the junior counselor?
Right. I always found it remarkable that nobody bothers to mention that who's
the senior counselor. Well, he showed up for like one meeting, went
back to New York and never came back pretty much. I think he came
back once, dropped off his papers, and disappeared again, which meant that
even though there were supposed to be two counselors in each one of these like
little teams, Spector was on his own and didn't have a senior counselor with
him at the time. Remarkable guy. And I mean Spector is an interesting
character to begin with. I mean, who flips and flops back and forth
between the Republican and Democratic Party as often as Arlen Spector does. Right,
It's it's very interesting what happened with that guy. And of course is his
own book is interesting again one of these things. And and like I said,
watching him do the presentation in two thousand and three, which which I
was there for. It was it was absolutely dumbbounding to watch the guys sit
there and and and do the whole You know, the single bullet theory is
now the single bullet fact. Pat you know, I've seen you know that
that video is released and I watched that. I was just like, this
guy is so full of it. And I actually have you know a chapter,
uh what I in my chapter on the single bullet theory on my website,
or actually it's the chapter before that called it Examining the Examinations, And
on that chapter, I go through the history of Specter's comments about the single
bullet theory and just show him, I think, anyhow demonstrates the guys it's
a full blown liar. And he actually did an interview it's sixty six where
he said that the back wound was definitely the wound in the back or whatever,
the back of the neck wound was definitely higher than the throat wound anatomically,
and if it's not, then the autopsy doctors Humes in Boswell should be
tried for perjury. He said that. And then in the seventies when the
HSCA takes a look at it and concludes that it's the opposite that the back
wound is. Actually you know that the throat the back wound is lower than
the throat wound, right or no, I got that's that's yeah, that's
that's what they concluded. The back wound was lower than the throat wound.
Around that same time, Spector shows up to be interviewed by the HCA,
and he's the only member of the Warrant Commission I believe who showed up with
a lawyer, though Gerald Ford also Gerald Ford also showed up with the lawyer
who was the actual his lawyer I think was David Bellin. But Specter shows
up with a lawyer, and this even though his son did you know,
you know, the disciplin of things that I didn't realize until twenty thirteen was
that Specter had ingratiated. Is that the word that whatever? He got his
son as an assistant on the HCA, so he knew he knew ahead the
whole time what was going to be examined and all that kind of stuff,
because so he had he had an inside source on the HSCA to let him
get him get a heads up, so he knew what he might be challenged
with because his son, I did not know his son was part of the
HSCA stack yep that is next to me. And okay, so Roger Fineman
was that's it, yes to his you know, it damaged his career.
But he got those documents and he made them public and you know, he
tried to like make people notice. But I don't think any of the other
networks, I mean there that would have been a chance for and or some
of the other networks to really like nail CBS, and I don't think any
of them were interested. They were just like, uh, you know,
we recognize the right of all networks to lie. So so they see there's
one of two answers to that. Because somebody would say, well, why
wouldn't because this is one of the challenges you'll get sometimes from you know,
let's just say the single bullet or loan assassin theorists. They will tell you
that, well, look, you know, if that was true, then
why wouldn't you know, the competing group turn around and expose them for it
because it would be to their advantage. You know, they say this kind
of thing all the time, Like the FBI and the CIA compete with each
other. If the FBI knew the CIA was lying, they would expose them
because it would make them look bad. And you know, but they do
this with corporate stuff as well as government agencies, and it cracks me up.
Look, CBS, NBCABC, if you take a look at what it
is they've done over the years, the entire higher history of the media presentations,
and I do mean starting with day one. You know why you never
see the as it happened? You know, like replays of ABC? Like
you ever noticed that NBC and CBS are the ones that their film has always
shown the kron Kite film has always shown the explanation about how you know,
they didn't have the camera warmed up, which is why Kronkite's talking behind a
CBS logo. You get all that stuff on the History Channel and everywhere,
right You ever noticed that ABC has never shown pat You ever noticed that they
didn't have a strong a national presence back then, and so I think that
was part of it, but well that could be. That could be one
benign explanation. But another good explanation is if you take a listen to the
audio of it, they are the absolute worst, most poorly informed of any
of the networks. They literally have a dead Secret Service agent in Deally Placid.
They you know, I mean, and I don't mean they just kind
of mentioned that maybe somebody was shot. I mean, they have all kinds
of stuff wrong. Kennedy was standing up in the limo at the time he
was shot. It is amazing, Actually chapter one on my website, I
go through a lot of the initial news stories and even Cronkite was saying shit
like that, Yeah, it's okay, it's okay. We don't do AM
and FM anymore, so it's all right. But here's the thing. No,
Kronkite was bad, but I'm telling you that ABC was fast and furious.
It's embarrassing how bad they were. Okay, that's one thing. The
next thing is this, if you are CBS and you want to call out
NBC or your ABC, you want to call out a CBS whatever, here's
the problem. You have mutually a short destruction here because they have all participated
in what first of all, miss forming the American public live as the news
went live. But secondly, forget about that. Let's just say that's symptomatic
of the chaos of the situation of the fact that you know, at the
time, there wasn't cameras you know, all along the motor cade route,
so they didn't have you know, professional recording of what actually happened, et
cetera. Although I still have my questions about what cameras were running when during
the last two days documentary stuff, But anyway, that's another question for another
day. When when they do not have the ability to cover all these things
blah blah, all right, but what they did ever after is absolutely adhere
to the official narrative. They have done nothing but all of them profit in
one way or another from continuously supporting the Warren Commission from the moments before its
release to its release to the American public. They have done nothing but back
up the Warren Commission. Even with the minor chain that were made by the
HSCA. They have stuck to the warrenant Commission's official narrative since before it was
issued. They were issuing things about it while it was still in progress.
They're the ones who showed, you know, you see that footage of say
like Alan Dulles, you know, standing outside of the book depository right with
his pipe. All these kind of things they were in place and endorsing the
official narrative and the official lie from day one, they've done nothing but back
it up. Even when something comes up that might be ludicrous, they will
occasionally discuss the ludicrous thing and then say, look, it's ludicrous. And
at the end of all their you know, consternations, whether it's Ted Copple,
or it's Dan rather Still, or it's the new guys over wherever,
whenever, they have stuck to the story Oh yeah, well then yeah,
it's yeah, the one that they were in bed. Because nobody wanted to
be scooped, right, They all wanted to get to They all wanted to
publish, wanted to tell their listeners and readers, hey, we got the
Warrant Commission report and here it is, and so like they they were giving
it ahead of time and then they you know, they read and they just
reported them what the report said, and they didn't you know, it was
another two months before they released the supporting documents. And the supporting documents.
That's where the conspiracy researchers started going like what, because you know, there
was all sorts of like witnesses and stuff who you know, like people who
thought there was shots from the Grassy Knoll and stuff like that that weren't really
mentioned in the war and report. And so then after that, the conspiracy
research community, if you will, will took off, you know, when
they realized how much was being left out and how the media had just played
along whatever the government was going to tell them, and it's it's sad.
In uh, you know, there's been times there's been breaks in the in
the in the damn every now and then or whatever, like you know,
in the sixty six Life magazine interviewed Connolly, and Conley said he didn't think
that the single military was true. In Life magazine called for a new investigation.
People kind of forget, and the New York Times around the same time
called for a new investigation, saying there's a lot of questions about what happened,
and so, you know, every now and then these things pop up.
And then in the seventies, after it came out that you know,
the CIA was performing assassinations, you know, some of the major media once
again got behind it and said like, hey, let's take a closer look
at this. But yeah, in general, they defend the Warren Commission,
and even when they look at the possibility there was, you know, it
was a conspiracy. They still adamantly hold on to this idea that it must
have been Oswald must have been, you know, a shooter. He must
have been a part of it. Well, it has to be. And
here's the funny thing is every time there is look, they can call for
new investigations when nothing's happening, but when something does happen, like, for
instance, the Garrison investigation. Okay, not only do you have NBC turning
around with that white paper you know where they got convicts on there trying to
say that, you know, they were being bribed in order to you know,
testify against Clay Showing. Now they told me to go rob the house.
There's literally a guy on there doing this, you know. I just
posted it on my Rumble channel. Actually the NBC special that they ran with
the turn coat on the bottom of it because NBC doesn't want to legitimately release
it. But yeah, you know, they gave Garrison they get I don't
know how he did it. I guess he went to a court. They
had to give Garrison a response, so he actually got it. I think
it was a full hour on NBC to respond to their slander. Basically,
yeah he did, like late at night in black and white and yeah,
it's just him sitting on a desk. I posted that as well his response.
But they did a whole produced special where they went and found people and
said, this person's lying. We got statements from Perry Russo he's a liar.
This one's a liar. They were trying to fabricate evidence, I mean
all over the place. And yeah, under the fairness doctrine which still existed,
he had a legal right to demand equal time, so he did and
he got it. But the thing is is that the entire media started to
react. You see, look, why was it that CBS decided to do
it reinvestigation in nineteen sixty seven because Garrison's case was starting to happen. See,
before he took Shaw to court, there was an investigation going on and
it was starting to make headlines. So every time there needs to be a
new defense of the Warren Commission, media assets are deployed. I mean you
can time it. It's perfect. You know, when they were getting ready
for Oliver Stones movie to hit, what did they do. They deployed people
like Posner, They deployed you know, new specials knew, let's get ready
for the thirtieth anniversary. They actually, I think, in my opinion,
and is this because I came into it around the twenty fifth anniversary. This
is when I got really interested in it. Is every time there is something
of significance that occurs that could legitimately challenge the case, brand new media products
are created, books, TV specials, radio shows, et cetera, in
order to do what, to run people around to satisfy their interest, and
then to answer it with what, Well, at the end of the day,
it's probably still just Oswald. And even the History Channel did it with
what a former CIA or FBI director who goes, well, maybe the Russia
thing was possible, you know, Oswald might have been a Russian agent now
according to this you know, pursuing Oswald or whatever they call it on the
History Channel. But either way, they deploy this stuff through the you know,
the Discovery networks, the media, the what do you call it,
the network, the regular standard dinosaur media network, you know, the soup
they do that. CNN does it. Tom Hanks gets involved in it,
well, Vince Bugliosi, you name it, man, it happens every single
time. I'm sorry, Pat well, I was just gonna mention like in
this case, I smelled that something like that was going to happen leading up
to the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination, and so I actually started tried to
watch everything and whenever I was in the store, I'd look around for what
books were on the rack, et cetera. And so I created a blog
which has been actually cited in a number of textbooks. Now it's on my
website where it's The Onslaught and then it got so extensive. It's The Onslaught
Part two, where I go through like the inundation of Oswald did It stuff
leading up to the fiftieth anniversary and shortly after that material It was because for
years, you know, you look back and you see a lot of people
complaining, Oh, the reason why people believe there's a conspiracy because they've been
inundated with all this conspiracy stuff. This is what David Bellen and people like
that used to complain all the time to the Meat about the media, you
know, and all over Stone and all this stuff. And so for the
fiftieth anniversary, it was more than two to one Oswald did It stuff,
you know, and I documented it you know, by saying like this show
comes on and I say, why why it shows a bias whatever. Some
of the shows didn't really show a bias. Some of them were about,
like, you know, just about how Walter Cronkite reported that day or whatever.
But then a lot of them were they'd throw in there like you know
about you know Oswald's smirk, look at Oswald's smirk while he walks into the
garage or whatever. Stuff like that. Were they just clearly like trying to
make you hate this guy. And there's just an awful lot of that.
So yeah, so anybody really interested in reading the I didn't do it for
the sixtieth Maybe I should have, but there wasn't nearly as much stuff,
you know, But they're also from what I gathered, the bias would the
bias was not nearly as bad, and there was quite a lot of conspiracy
stuff that made it through this time. Well, you know, yes and
no, because what happened is you have a different media landscape now. Okay,
people are not as reliant on the broadcast television or the cable delivered television
as they once were. So what you ended up with was every streaming service
had their version of the JFK interest one way or another. Right, Showtime
carried Oliver Stone's you know a documentary what is it Disney or Discovery or whatever
They came up with one three Days in America, as Disney did that one,
and Discovery might be part of Disney. It's kind of hard to keep
track of who bought who, But Paramount did what did the you know,
what did the Parkland doctors see? So now we're on to the medical students
as opposed to the doctors who have mostly passed away. You know, what
did they actually see in Parkland as opposed to what was seen in Bethesda?
You know, and and all of that going on, and even Amazon Prime
put out what I called, you know, part of the ridiculous, the
mythological area of stuff where you know, JFK's death was actually faked and so
on and so forth, you know, the ludicrous end of the pool.
Now sometimes I think they deployed the ludicrous stuff and prop it up because you
know, much like what was it? The Fox Business Channel picked up on
the You and I talked about the Hickey thing, the accidental shooting by the
Secret Service agent, right, we talked about that, which the book Mortal
Error was sued in court pretty heavily, the authors and all that by Hickey
himself, who was accused of basically being the accidental shooter of JFK. And
he won that lawsuit. That book, you know, was was successfully sued,
right, I mean Hickey won his case. Yeah, for good reason,
is it? But you know, I try to I've learned as from
reading flawed books and also from reading Oswald did it books. You know,
you can learn a lot from reading the Warren Report. You just have to
accept that, like, you know, a certain percentage of it's just wrong,
you know, but you can learn a lot from it. But I
learned a lot, you know. When I first started researching, I spent
a lot of time reading like John mccadams, the former historian from he had
a website on the John F. Kennedy assassination, which was the number one
website for several years. Anyhow, Yes, but I would read because he
would say, like, you know, why we think and you fill in
the blank, why we think Hickey didn't actually do it or whatever. And
you can learn a lot because a lot of those articles were actually written by
conspiracy theorists or were just trying to shut up the noise because there's just so
much noise about this being fake, that being fake, this person's a liar,
this guy's a criminal, you know. You know, Harry Livingstone,
I didn't get to meet him, but when I was first starting becoming a
researcher, I you know, I went to Dallas and I talked to Groden
on the knowle you know, and through various forums, I got to meet
Deavid, you know, got to know David Lyfton and eventually met him in
person. And the one thing that David Lifted and Robert Groden had in common
was that they both said that Harry Leving's son was a nutbag. You know.
They were just sorry, Harry, oh he's not with us anymore,
but they were just like that guy, you know, he's not well.
And sure enough, he ended up writing like what five or six books on
the Kennedy assassination, and like half of the books are filled with about like
diatribes against other researchers and about how he thinks that they're secretly working with the
government or whatever, and it's just like, oh Jesus, well, yeah,
I know, and look, you didn't know this, but you're you're
talking to somebody who actually attempted to work with Harry a bit. And uh,
yeah, you know when when he needed help promoting events and getting press
conferences together in New York. Uh, guess what, I happened to be
a musician in the New York, New Jersey area. So if you notice
that there's some music oriented press that showed up at some of those press conferences
that he held, there's a reason why. And Harry was certifiable at a
certain point. I mean he I thought he was on the right side.
I thought his heart was in the right place. I really did. But
I was a young man back then, and uh, just barely out of
high school, and quite frankly, I vaguely told this story in one of
these days, I'm gonna have to go and get the tape from New Jersey.
I've still got it in storage. But Harry called me up in the
middle of the night, ranting and raving in a drunken rage, threatening me,
you know in common Yeah, oh, he threatened you too. You
know well, David Lifton called me up and wanted to tell me some of
his most recent theories. Yes, and I was kind of like, that's
kind of wild David. I was. I was being supportive because I was,
you know, glad he was just sharing information, right, But then
he just took this turn where I thought he was joking at first, but
then I realized he was at least pretending to be at least thinking he was
serious, or he threatened to kill me and my family if I told anybody
his theories. I'm like, dude, you've been sitting on a book for
like forty years. You know, if I tell somebody your theories, it's
not going to like cut into the book sales, Like, oh, pat
Spirit told me his theory was this, Therefore I'm not going to buy the
book or whatever. But he was evident, like, don't tell anybody I
told you this. But you know, and that's kind of a weird feeling
when you realize that somebody is that serious. That Harry got Harry got paranoid
is what happened after a little while. And you know, I was also
helpful to him in that I put him in touch with some legitimate let's just
call them Italian businessman, you know, and I'm using the word legitimate ironically,
but I put him in touch with some of the real guys let's just
put it that way, right, And his whole thing was somehow he felt
threatened by me at some point and was trying to tell me that people in
the CIA were protecting him. And as much as I knew killers, he
knew killers too, and he could have me done away with. And I
don't even know what I actually to this day. I still have the tape.
It's on a cassette tape from an answering machine, but and it was
a long mess, like twenty minutes at least of this guy yelling at my
answering machine while I wasn't home, and it's it's pretty funny. It's really
one of these days, I might play it. Harry's dead now. David
Lifton's dead too, but you know, Harry's dead now, and he had
his history and his problems with people and whatever. But I might actually get
it and put it on a podcast one day, just to have people hear
what it was like to deal with them, because there was a couple of
incidents like this, But I saved the one tape because it was like twenty
five minutes of like just straight yelling and screaming and all kinds of like things
that nonsensical, Like clearly he was drunk, you know, on the tape.
But anyway, uh yeah, one of these days I think I'll just
I'll get a hold of that tape and put it out as a podcast.
Just here you go, this is Harry Livingstone in nineteen ninety or whatever.
Sure, but what it's a lesson that you know, it could be used
as a lesson because we don't want to become that guy. And two,
we have to realize what we're reading books and articles by researchers that some of
them are, you know, hire their own supply. They've got a theory
and they're just going to twist everything into their theory and make everybody their enemy.
And you just have to understand that. It's like, you know,
it's human nature. We're not really like truth truth finding machines or truth telling
machines. No, it's true. Look yeah, yeah, And you have
to understand that not everybody who gets obsessed with a murder for you know,
decades at a time is always going to be the most stable or rational individual,
you know. And that's the thing. Look, we can study something,
and we can invest our time, and indeed we do, we wind
up investing time, money, effort into just learning about you know, really
a moment in history essentially and what came of it. And it is an
obsessive thing to do. So there there there is something in that nature that's
not going to always attract the most rational or sound, sound reasoning individual,
you know what I mean. And that's something you just have to admit sometimes.
And I'm not saying everybody's crazy who does this or anything. I'm just
saying because obviously what I'm gonna call myself, I'm gonna call pat right now.
No, what I'm saying is that not always do you have the most
rational and sensible people. Now. The funny thing is we learn again through
media reactions and everything else. I always find it interesting the stuff that was
you know, unearthed because of the research community that has ever after been seized
upon by other people, you know, like the concept of people calling people
conspiracy theorists. To begin with, Initially, there were these people that they
called Warren Commission critics, you know, and they were criticizing the Warren Commission.
Sorry, go ahead, that they called them critics or buffs, Oh
yeah, assassination buffs or Warren Commission critics. If you were more serious.
I think you were a Warren Commission critic. But if you were somebody who
just sort of followed the books in the media, maybe you were an assassination
buff right. David Lifton mentioned this that, you know, he called it
buffed them at one point or something, I think. But the thing is
that, yeah, indeed, they transformed that into call them conspiracy theorists because
it's more nefarious. And to tell you the truth, today they even use
the word conspiracist, which to my mind is a word that means someone who
participated in the conspiracy. Yeah, that's right. I think you're right about
that, you know, But but oddly they apply that word to people like
you and me. They would call us conspiracists because we're on the side of
where we're advocates for conspiracy, and they call us conspiracists. And I say
to myself, that makes no sense. But you know, this is how
we adjust the language, the nomenclature. Will you know, go ahead and
be adjusted and be revised as needed, I guess so. Anyway, Pat,
I know this, Yeah, good, all right. I was going
to say about the use of the words and stuff, and I've seen a
problem in the research community. It used to be that that some of the
top researchers would devote some of their energy. You told me that you did
a series of shows basically debunking some stuff. Now I find like if I
online say well, I think that you know, the driver didn't shoot him
or whatever, people will say, oh, you're defending the War Commission or
whatever. It's like, No, the way to defend the research community is
by like cutting off some of this unnecessary conjecture that's just not only unnecessary,
it's just like wild and a lot of times it's completely wrong and obviously wrong.
You know, William Greer did not shoot President Kennedy. There I said
it, Okay, I'll get an email tonight threatening my life or something because
I said that. Could they But some people it's it's it's everything is everything
is fake, and they're all in a and if you say no, then
you're like one of the bad guys. And it's gotten really that paranoid.
And I think that there needs to be I think we talked about this before
the show. There needs to be like guidelines, particularly for like members of
the media who are somewhat interested in the Kennedy assassination that no, you know,
No, Cyril Weck does not believe the driver did it. No.
You know, Jim Dougenio does not believe that. I don't know Jim.
Jim believes a lot of stuff, but something he doesn't believe. You know.
Let's say James Files, you know public, So put together like a
list of like the top the you know, published authors, top people who
have podcasts, and just say like this is you know, these are things
that we're not we don't want to be associated with because, yeah, we
get when they use the word conspiracy theorists, we get associated with moon landing
is fake stuff, you know, And because you know Jack White, I
was actually friendly with Jack White. You know, Jack White was was was
encouraged a lot of young researchers when he was on the education for him.
But I want to be associated with that. And like, you know,
there was a point that Tosh Plumbly is somebody some people would not want to
be associated with because he had some ideas that people didn't really believe. But
Tosh Plumley left the education for him because there were so many people on it
saying that you know, nobody died at the Pentagon during nine to eleven or
whatever, and he's like, ullo, I knew people that were there.
What are you talking about? You know? And uh so, yeah,
there's people. Just you have to in order to have your beliefs have any
weight, you have to be able to say you won't believe anything. You
believe every you know, anything you're told. If you believe everything you're told
or everything you read in the book, then what you do believe isn't going
to have much credibility. And that's the sad fact, you know. Well,
see, that's the thing is that it undermines every piece of legitimate work
when this other nonsense is acceptable. It literally does because it allows opponents to
group it together. Right, So how do you best defeat an opponent?
You undermine their argument. And you can easily undermine their argument if you say
that, look, take a look at all of the methodology that comes around
them and surrounds them, all these other thoughts they believe. You know,
birds are not real. You know what I'm saying. This other weird thing
of JFK actually faked his death. He came back as Jimmy Carter. Have
you seen that theory? By the way, No, Okay, So JFK
was actually Jimmy Carter. Look, the pictures look a little similar. I
have seen that the autopsy photos are actually of Tippit It. Yeah, the
autopsy photos are of Tippet. I had to deal with that on the anniversary
this year, actually on a radio show the long time ago. It should
have, but the host was obsessing on it, saying that, you know,
I really think that they yeah, they substituted, you know. And
I'm like, well, look are you telling me that they took the bullets
that were supposedly in Tippit adam him in order to create the JFK. But
well, they said he looked like JFK. His nickname was JFK. JD.
Tippett was a body double for Oh my god. You know it hurts
my head. And I kept saying, look, you got no evidence to
back that. Okay, it's just that simple. Like I said, Jimmy
Carter is actually JFK. He faked his death. He came back and he
was Jimmy Carter, no kidding. You know, George Bush was in dally
Plaza. Look, George W. Bush was in Daley Plaza too. He
has no rhyme or reason to be there in any way shape or form,
no matter what nefarious label you want to put on him. And by the
way, I do think the Bush family's a crime syndicate. But I can't
hang the murder of JFK on him. Okay, I can't put him in
Daly plaza. I'm sorry, I can't. No, the limo driver didn't
shoot him. I don't care how blurry your's the bruder film is. It
just didn't happen that way. And even if you tried to say legitimately,
think about it logistically and just sensibly for a moment, like any he's gonna
turn around and blow the President's face off over top of the connollies like that,
shooting like you know, under his arm? Does any I mean,
has anybody handled a firearms? Not a good plot. It's not a good
plot for assassination. No, it's really not. Like Look the whole thing
with the Secret Service agent accidentally shooting him in the head. I actually find
that to be a more viable possibility than a whole lot of this other crap,
because at least it would make some sort of sense. You well,
exactly, I have, you know, chapters on the head wounds and the
womb ballistics and stuff, and it's Donahue, the guy who first came up
with a Hickey did it theory. He was not a faker, he was
he was I think he was a serious guy, and a lot of what
he said was true. That the head wound, as described by the warn
in the warm report, and it's described to the autopsy report, does not
reflect a Manicer carcando bullet entering low on the head and exiting from the top
of the head. In fact, we were talking about, like, you
know, probably of all the work I've done, what I'm most proud of
is probably chapter thirteen B, in chapter fourteen I'm screwing it up. Chapter
sixteen B in sixteen C on my website, which deals with the history of
Woon ballistics and the nature of Kennedy's brain. A lot of people think the
brain was replaced. Well, if they did, they did a really bad
job doing it, because the brain, as examined by the doctors does not
reflect a wound of a manager carcandle bullet being fired in you know, entering
low and exiting high, and that's not what they found when they looked at
the brain. So anyhow, but chapter sixteen B, which some of your
hopefully a lot of your listeners will be interested looking at I actually found a
Romanian book written in French that this Romanian book was the first book on the
woon ballistic of the Manlark Carcano rifle from the eighteen ninety five or whatever year
the book was written. And they have photographs of cadavers in there, and
I have them on my website fired at like you know, fifty yards,
one hundred yards or whatever. They at comparable distances to Kennedy and it's just
a small exit hole. This idea that the bullet's going so fast it blows
the top of the head off into the air, that's just made up by
Olivier and then Sturdivan wrote a book. These guys from Averade Improving Ground just
basically bullshitted because they saw that with some of the experimental rifles they've been working
with. But that's not how the Manacar carcano rolled. That wasn't that's not
Their bullets didn't do that unless they hit at its very shallow angle in a
tangential wound. And I actually have a picture of a tangential wound that I
found and show how it's probably attached so that the giant head wound on Kennedy
is it's not an exit for a bullet that entered elsewhere. It's a separate
wound entered an exit, and that's totally documented by all you know, I
probably I don't like footnotes. I'd rather just mention where I got it in
the article while I'm writing, Like because one, I've seen a lot of
well, having a chapter on my website where I review Biliosi's book his not
his I don't review the whole book, but I review his version of the
shooting, and he just totally cherry picked information. And a lot of times
his footnotes didn't say what you know, didn't say what he said. They
did. He say like, oh she said this, and then he has
a footnote, and so people just assume that's what they said in the footnote.
You read the footnote, you read what's you know, the actual testimony,
and they didn't say that at all. So a lot of people use
footnotes to lie. So I'd rather just tell you in the paragraph where I
got some information anyhow. But I mentioned, you know, all these textbooks
in books and articles about h you know, wound ballistics, and it's just
not a typical head wound. And the only kind of way it makes sense
is if it's it's a separate tangential wound. Right, And doctor Clark,
you know, the examined the neurosearch and who examined Kennedy at Parkland, that's
what he said. He'd even set it his work commission testimony that it looked
like a tangential wound. So I'm like, well, what are the odds
of that that all this, you know, looking through all these books and
all these articles, it looks like a tangent. It seems like it's a
tangential wound. And sure enough, that's what doctor Clark's initial impression was.
And I went through like every level, the scalp, skull, the lightning
of the brain, the brain itself, all these things indicate that that large
head wound was impacted as a supposed exit. And yeah, I just thought
i'd throw that in there in case anybody was thinking like I hadn't done any
research since the Mystery of thirty five. That's all stuff I did afterwards.
Oh yeah, no, Look, and there's a ton of work here on
on patsphere dot com. Uh and that is spelled p A T S P
E e r dot com. Uh, and I'll give you a link to
the uh you know, to the show in the show notes here to go
to his website and examine this work for yourself. It is one thing.
And I'll close on this because I've had you for about an hour here already
recording and uh, it went right gone by. I didn't even get to
most of what I wanted to get to. But you know, we do
another show. I mean, I don't want to, you know whatever.
I'm feeling better these days. I've had health issues, but I'm doing I'm
doing Okay, we can you know, you can call me again in a
month if you want or whatever. Excellent, Well, let's definitely do that.
But in the meantime, I want people to go check out your work,
all the stuff you've already done. I mean, I don't know what
you have planned for the future, but uh, there's a hell of a
lot of work already up on patsphere dot com. So I urge you guys
to go check it out and do look up, you know, the mysterious
death number thirty five. Maybe I'll grab the YouTube links and put them in
the show notes as well. Calm, by the way, Okay. Still,
well, I'll put the links up one way or another. They'll get
the links to these things so they can look at it for themselves, because
I want them to do that. But the brain, you know, there's
another interesting thing, right what happened to the brain? You know, I
I have felt for a long time that that is obviously something that was disposed
of along with the casket. Uh you know that casket dump that that that
Bobby Kennedy had done. Okay, so I'm thinking that that's probably where the
brain actually went. But it's fascinating to me when they showed the pictures to
uh, you know, allegedly the the autopsy pot the photograph photographer of record,
Uh you know, Stringer, he's got problems identifying those photographs as the
photographs he took. And that's an interesting point just to be made right there.
I mean, he has, uh, there's a bunch of problems here
with the medical evidence Stringer inability to recognize those as photographs he took. But
he was looking at the quality of the film and the nature of the film.
He did not say that the brain was a totally different kind of brain
that he remembered, and so a lot of people twist that his inability to
recognize the photos themselves as him saying, oh, that the brain was really
there was a blowout on the back of the head, because that's not what
he said at all. In fact, the back of the head photo he
said, yeah, I took that photo and that's how I remember it.
So a lot of times people will cherry picks certain things to try to like
push you in a direction. But Stringer did not think that the brain photos
were faked because he remembered the back of the brain all missing. That's not
true at all. It was the quality it was. As a photographer,
he didn't remember using that kind of film. Yeah, it was the type
of film. That's that's what I hope. I didn't present it like you
know. But I'm just bringing up the brain because he did recognize the brain
photo, but there is a controversy about where it actually ended up going.
The brain itself is what I was bringing up, you know, And there's
all kinds of things here. It is bizarre though, that he's basically said
I didn't use that kind of film. That is a really strange thing.
It almost makes you think that either we're looking at copies of his originals or
or or this is somebody else's photographs. I mean, that's what that leads
me too. Yeah. But unfortunately, you know, a lot of times
I have a bias because I look in a lot of times when people say
these things, you look and it's like, oh, well, he said
this in nineteen sixty five, he said this, in nineteen seventy seven,
he said this, and then the guys like ninety eight. It is eighties.
A case of stringer. He's seventy eight, and now we're saying something
different, and a lot of people will immediately grab on to what he says
later and say, well, this must be the truth. And unfortunately,
as people get further away from event their memories, in particularly as we age,
you know, and uh, the people, oh, you're being biased
against old people, And I'm like, oh, and I well, like
in the case of this whole thing with you know, with the Secret Service
agent who came out recently, right, oh sure, yeah, I think
he's just you know, one of the things which I jumped on right off
the bat, and some other people you know, documented it better or were
more interested in documenting it. But he, you know, in in the
eighties, and then I think on the fiftieth anniversary whatever he was always saying,
he said numerous times that he'd found a fragment on the on the on
the back seat, right, and now years later it becomes a full bullet
and then he takes it and he puts it on the stretcher. And it's
like, well, I believe he found something because he said it for a
long time that he said he found something. But the attack bullet that he
goes and puts on the stretcher, I'm not. I'm not really, I'm
I can't go there. I'm not believe good to believe that. Well,
I've got a problem with that. I've got a pro with the fact that
he says he put it on jfk stretcher, And I'm pretty satisfied that's not
where the bullet was found. Number one. Number two, he also seen
it right as somebody would have seen it. Yes, Well, and there's
another problem here is that numerous times the way he describes it, he could
not have been there at the time that he now describes it. You know
where already JFK's body was removed from the scene before he showed up a couple
of in a couple of versions of this story. Now, what's interesting to
me is that Larry Hancock at this year's Lancer conference, you know, makes
that statement about Look, you guys can't just go to somebody who's ninety years
old, now get a story from them, and discount everything that was ever
said before. You know, it doesn't work that way. As much as
there is such a thing as a deathbed confession, and there is such a
thing as somebody finally feeling as though they could be freed to make a truthful
statement after all these years and everything else, you can't judge things solely based
on the statement you got from somebody in their nineties. It's just that simple.
And that's again not a bias about old people. It was, you
know, it's just a matter of Look, memory is not a recording device
anyway. You know. You can remember things differently based on your perspective everything
else, but your subject. Your memory is always subject to revision. It
just is. It's subject to revision based on new information. If you don't
believe me, here's the thing, you know, forget about the gunshots in
daily Plaza. If you've ever been around other people who've been around gunshots,
that were not expected in any way, shape or form. Guess what.
At first, they don't always know that it's a gunshot. Later on they
might say that was a gunshot because they've assembled new information into it. But
their initial experience is usually there was a loud noise unless they see something that
backs it up that says that's obviously a bullet. You know, they see
a bullet strike, or they hear or they feel a bullet strike and things
like that. Okay, But initially, most people that are around gunshots,
they heard a noise. They didn't know what it was, unless they're very
accustomed to hearing gunshots. Okay. In that case, you might have somebody
who can identify a gunshot right away. And I'll tell you something else weird
is that being somebody who has been actually shot once. Gotta tell you you
you feel the shot and you don't necessarily even hear it, or if you
do hear it, you hear it after you feel it. That's another weird
thing that happens. Okay, Because guess what. A bullet travels faster than
the speed of sound. Okay, simple physical scientific reality. Most of the
time, Okay, muzzle velocity is above the speed of sound when I was
shot in the leg. Pat, You know what I noted first, not
that I was shot, but that my leg was wet. That was the
first thing. I I knew blood before I knew I was shot, Okay,
and I didn't know it was blood, as I just stated, my
leg is wet. That was my first sensation. I assembled that information afterwards
that I had been shot because I wasn't expecting to get hit with a bullet.
Okay, that's crazy, there kind of was it? By the way,
it was what from a nine what do you call it? A nine
millimeter semi automatic? But the thing is it wasn't that far away, maybe
what one hundred feet away? I think I was hit from something like that.
And yeah, I noted that my leg was wet before I realized that
a gunshot was fired. That was my personal experience. Now I'm not even
saying that that's everybody's experience. I'm just saying that there's one case I know
of personally, and I've heard from other people who have been shot, who
have been in combat, who had been in other situations. It is not
in order that a lot of people think it is. And when you're around
it and you're not being shot or the shooter. It's another experience. Again,
if it's an unexpected circumstance. And when people start to examine you know,
the ear witness testimonies, right and all that other stuff, they warp
and twist these things eighty different ways, and a lot of times, guess
what they wind up doing is making a lot of assertions based on preconceived notions.
And meanwhile, isn't that the thing that we're all complaining about when it
comes to the official explanation? Sure? So, yeah, you know,
I caution everybody to be very careful about the assertions you make, especially based
on a witness and you know, somebody's story, somebody's you know, newly
revealed information after they've been interviewed before, after they've been through it already.
Indeed, there are some people who will come to revelations later. And that's
true, but you have to you have to put all these things in their
proper context. And it's not Actually I actually a lot of research on I
witnessed accuracy, and I witnessed testimony and read a couple of books and a
number of articles, and yeah, people are really open to suggestion, Like
you know, I witnessed testimony, or people will line ups, you know,
during a criminal lineup, they say, oh, I saw the guy,
how good of how good a look at him did you get? And
they say, oh, you know, okay, I think maybe i'll recognize
him. Then they're shown somebody who's not the person, and then you know,
an actor will say a plane, a cop or something will say like,
wow, and is that the guy? And they'll say I think so,
and they'll say, well, good because he's definitely the guy and you
nailed him, and blah blah blah. And then later on then the last
the guy that the witness afterwards like how sure are you that it was him?
Oh, one hundred percent sure. I knew at the moment I looked
at him, because they got reinforcement. So sometimes people are it's something is
tentative, and then once they get reinforcement they say they're definitely sure or positive.
You know that the shots came from here or that the wound was there.
So yeah, people's memories are very fragile and they could really open a
suggestion from outside sources. Oh yeah, and I've even seen that again.
Last personal thing is that you know I used to run convenience stores and gas
stations. So guess what I had to deal with a few times when places
were robbed. And quite frankly, even the cashier standing five feet away from
somebody pointing a gun at them is open to suggestion. You figure it might
be burned in their mind, in their memory exactly what that person looked like,
what their height was, the type of gun they had, any of
that information. Quite frankly, I've seen it get shifted around and in real
time people that your memory is subject to revision, and it doesn't matter if
it's a traumatic event, if it's a violent event. I always loved that
thing that Boogliosi tried pulling at that mock trial, which was this whole well
you've never been in front of the president before, have you. I mean
it was exciting because you were in front of the president, so your memory
might be a little off. I mean, that is the weirdest thing.
Yeah. The best one of those is of Walter Cronkite. CBS tried to
do like a reenactment of how fast he could fire the rifle and all that
stuff, and it got to be where their reenactments and stuff were like,
well it's possible, but it's not likely. And so they actually wrote some
total bs for Walter Crockae to say, well, you know, Oswald,
this was he knew this was his only chance to shoot Kennedy, so he'd
be more he could fire faster and more accurately or whatever it is. It's
like, that's not how it works, you know. People. If anything,
he'd be nervous, then he'd be more likely to miss, right.
Yeah, he was so highly motivated. He was so highly motivated that it
literally increased his skill level. H yeah, exactly. Now I remember that.
I think that's from the sixty seven special as well. Yeah, it
is funny. Anyways, guys, Patspear dot com go over there. The
mysterious death of Number thirty five is definitely one of the things. But go
through all the chapters there. There's a lot of information. Now I'm gonna
have to go back over some stuff because I was not aware of a couple
of things he's got over there, and I definitely recommend it. And we're
gonna have Pat Spear back again probably in about a month if if he's up
for it, And that's the way we're gonna close this one out. Guys,
so no matter, We'll turn down the music for a second. No
matter who you are, where you are, when you are. I want
to thank Pat Spear for joining me tonight. Patspear dot com, P A
T. S P E e r dot com. That's the website to go
to check out his work on the Kennedy assassination and click around the website,
kick around there and check other things out. Anyways, no matter who you
are, where you are, when you are. I'm merely old. Do
you remember that time and Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going
to dispatch ninjas to take down the Illuminati. Oh that's interesting. Yeah,
did that ever work out too good? No, it didn't, did it?
But here on o'celly dot com Radio network, things work out a bit
better, don't they much better? Much and understanding about the programs, the
programs much clear, getting live people into it. They really have a good
conversation going much better, much better scene. I say, forget Benjamin Fulford
and his ninjas and listen to the ocelly dot com Radio Network. I agree,
it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like that idea.
Uncle, do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian
secret society was going to dispatch ninjas to take down the illuminatih that's interesting,
yeah in the latoon. Yeah, did that ever work out too good?
No? It didn't, did it? But here on Ocelli dot com Radio
Network, things work out a bit better, don't they much better? Much
media is clear and understanding about the programs, the programs much clear, getting
live people into it. They really have a good conversation going much better,
so much better scene. I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and
listen to the Ocelli dot com Radio Network. I agree. It's straight to
the point, straight talk, and I like that idea. Uncle, I'll
bet you remember the time when Benjamin Fulford said that the Asian Secret Society was
going to dispatch ninjas to take out the Illuminati to change the entire world for
the better. That it never gonna happen. That never did it, never
did did Yeah, because there's a lot of false promises, these fools I
did soon. We better not say and be polite, but there are no
false promises at the O'Kelly dot com Radio Network. That's exactly it. Nuts,
It's the truth the point, white to the point, and this is
what I like, straight to the point, o'kellylly dot com. This and
now, if you've expressed my callers goals, there anyone else who happens to
get on the air of Jelly dot com. You not necessarily replet we using
dot com or Joe Kelly and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which
might insuet In Denial the Secret Wars with Air Stripes 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 files. It 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 knows why other countries today are
doing the 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 Handcock dot
com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot Com in digital
or physical form, Wallstream Window dot Roll Silver the stock market, Wallstream Window,
dott Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe
you're thinking about getting started wall Street, Windows dot comdo dot 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. Wallow
dot com. Go there, now, go there, now go there,
now go ahead. Call it about the Jafa assassination. Right, Well,
what do you want to know Toddy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby
and Barrie Ganser 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 trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on,
now, has a real effort on the Dafay assassination into 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, many fantastic claims. Judith very Baker in her own words,
thank you for the information. Oh Chili dot com, revelation through conversation,
Get get ready for your Chi