The o' chile effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like
you Now Night and in our media December thirteenth, twenty twenty three. Allegedly,
according to that thing we call a calendar, this is the o'celly effect.
So if you're hearing us live, that's great, you're on the stream.
We appreciate you. I went to the stream a little late, but
as per usual, the best laid plans of mice men and guys named o'celly
just don't work out. So here we are. It is Wednesday, Wednesday,
in the middle of the week, and we are sticking to Some people
have written to me recently and said, you're doing a lot of JMK stuff.
Again, Yes I am, but that's because there's a lot of good
stuff to go over. And yes, I wanted to promote the conference before
I went and all that. Oh by the way, uh, you know,
I got two guys with me tonight that might have had something to do
with that conference. Let's see if you were paying attention, and let's save
you were paying attention again, because one of them is a return guesting one
of them I've never had on before. Actually had to ask him exactly how
to pronounce his name. I admit all this stuff before I go to air,
you know, and bring people on. Why not, I don't want
to hide it. But anyway, they are co authors in a weird way.
I haven't seen too many of these kind of books before, except when
I guess somebody used to claim to be the editor of a bunch of things
that they put together, and they would put together books in JFK Land,
and that would be a thing. This, however, is a different sort
of effort. Now Jim Dugenio is one of the authors of this book.
I don't have him with me. There's reasons for that. But anyway,
I got two of the key guys from this book, which has an interesting
name to begin with, Choke Holds all right, Yes, I said it,
It's JFK Choke Holds all right. Now. The subtitle choke holds that
proved there was conspiracy, interesting way of putting stuff. Almost sounds like I
might have gave him the title, but I didn't. And here we are
again. It is a fascinating piece because this has been attempted before, where
people say, what are the key elements that prove that there is a case
to be made here that there is some reason for disturbing the accepted history,
that there was a loan shooter, you know, and all of that good
stuff. What are the key elements, And there've been mock trials, and
we know some of the usual suspects used to come out. Some of them
have passed away now, but they made careers for a little while out of
it and all that good stuff. Sure, and some of them were lawyers.
And oh, there's a couple of lawyers involved in writing this book.
And I told these guys right before we went to air exactly how much I
love lawyers, and one of them told me the best joke possible regarding that.
And maybe we'll get to that in a little bit, but enough out
of me anyway. Paul Blow is with me, and also Matt Crumpton.
Now Matt is the guy who does that solving JFK thing that we talked about
before when it was still happening. I'm not sure if he's done with that
podcast or not, but I do know that there was an episode not too
long before I went to Dallas, but I've kind of lost track of time
because I was sick. We'll get to all of that and exactly what party
played in Choke Holds, and also with Paul, who I'm pretty certain I
ran into at the conference, although it's a little bit of a blur now,
So anyway, let's get to it. First of all, Matt,
how you doing tonight? Sir? Hey, Chuck, how's it going?
Man? Thanks for having me on. Absolutely Look, you're a good guy.
I love the way you were presenting your podcast and didn't even know that
there was a book going to be with you attached to it. So here
we go again. Why not have another conversation, Paul, how are you
doing tonight? Well? Absolutely great. Just to refresh your memory. When
we met at Lancer, you and I and I had a little discussion about
Judas Ferry Baker. You remember you told me that. Anyway, I'll it
was an interesting conversation put it that way. But you also introduced me because
I spoke about Choe Holds at the conference, right right, Well, that's
why I was being a little playful there at the beginning. But yeah,
no, of course, and I had one hundred conversations about about Judy at
the conference, trying to dissuade people from actually paying attention to her. But
and I was giving away Walt Brown's book, which you know contradicts anyway,
Enough out of that, because let's let's get into your work and what's going
on here. And you did do an interesting presentation, although I got to
say, I was so busy with other things I didn't see the whole thing.
But I am going to go over it again very soon. I want
to go back over it because I heard things about your presentation. So and
anytime I hear anything about somebody's presentation afterwards, that means I got to go
back and look at it, because you know, people yawned through most of
it. We've heard a lot of this stuff before. In other words,
we've been through a lot of this stuff before, Paul, and apparently you
presented some things that maybe weren't an old hat. I know that that almost
sounds insulting, but it's not. It means that if you had something new
to say, believe me, it's worth listening to. So and by the
way, he is part of the Lancer presentation. So if you got that,
it's still available I think through Christmas or maybe through the New Year on
the website. If you were somebody who going to take it for Lancer and
you can check out Paul's presentation for yourself there and we'll give you a website
and everywhere to get the book when we're done. So anyway, let's get
to this. Who should I start with? I mean, I guess I
can look and see which author is listed first in the book if I wanted
to, right, which is Paul? Yeah? Hey, hey, real
quick, Chuck, maybe we can just just tell you the backstory of kind
of how this came to be real quick. Is that cool? You know
what, Matt? I love this? Go right ahead please? Yeah.
So, so basically this is last year at the conference and Paul, I
don't know if it was Lancer or Kapa Tapa. Yeah, in Dallas and
basically, uh, the night before the conference started, I ran into Jim
Diugenio and Paul, who knew each other because they had recently they get Jim
and Paul worked together for a while. Paul had him to uh come up
to Quebec City for an event with Oliver Stone and and Paul also appears in
uh in Jim and Oliver's film Solving JF I mean Solving JFK JFK Revisited.
Uh. So so that's great. But anyway, uh, we're there in
the lobby of the night before and so the four of the five authors kind
of were just hanging out. We got a drink together, you know,
when you have jfk assassination sort of experts I suppose, for lack of a
better term, people who know a lot more than the average person. It's
kind of all you want to talk about, right, and everybody has it.
There's like all a little many controversies within you know what I mean,
like the inside baseball of it all. It's it's really cool. So anyway,
we started talking could carry our conversation on to the next day. We
had lunch after going to Dealey Plaza and we're kind of just like, what
are the greatest hits? Like if you could just make a few arguments of
the absolute you know, slam dunks. And that's when Paul brought on this
word choke hold, which I think he picked up for Malcolm Blunt. But
but yeah, that we we started talking about that, and we kind of
then we decided to do some sort of a project together afterwards, and we
voted on a list back and forth of you know, sort of the greatest
hits that we felt like we're you know, either either they're indisputable or there
are counter arguments, but the counter argument, you know, a reasonable person
wouldn't wouldn't be persuasive to a reasonable person. Let's say, Okay, that's
kind of really quick, Matt, just really quick. For those who are
unfamiliar with the name, Okay, uh uh you know Malcolm Blunt. Uh,
that means that you're actually unfamiliar with the best experts on the case when
it comes to JFK assassination and documentation both things. Just wanted to note that.
Go ahead, Matt. Yeah, no, I have yet to meet
mister Blunt, but certainly is highly regarded. So anyway, yeah, we
we kind of started those conversations, started to have some skypes and kind of
broke up the book into you know, assigning who's going to handle what chapters
and uh and yeah, we went from there. So I'll just say,
you know, Paul Paul has several chapters in this book where he was the
principal author. I want to say, maybe four chapters in the book,
maybe five. I have two where I'm I'm the guy, and I'll just
say I think the best my two favorite chapters of the book, like and
really the reason to buy the book is the first chapter in the last chapter,
both of which Paul wrote. And the first one is all of the
insider statements, so you know, people who worked in investigations, you know,
the Warren Commission, the Garrison Investigation, the HSCA ARB, all the
all the investigations over the years, Church Committee, what did they say,
like, what did they kind of stay behind the scenes, which is kind
of close to a confession. And then the last chapter is just documenting the
history, including up to date with the GfK Records Act of the obstruction of
justice in this case since you know, since the investigation started. So anyway,
yeah, maybe Paul can can take it from there and if you want
to have him walked through his chapters. But that's that's kind of how we
got started. And like I said, the first from the last I think
are the best chapters in the book. Okay, Chuck, if I can
add to that, thank you, Matt. But he's I think a bit
humble because really the way he wrote his chapters too, I think we're you
know that they really helped us reach the goals we were looking to reach.
You're right, Chuck, that Malcolm Blunt write his legendary and he used the
word choke holds. The time I heard him use the word choke holds is
when he described how Oswald's file was being managed when he was a you know,
a defector quote unquote to the to the in Russia. And he showed,
because of Betsy Wolf's work for the HSCA, that this isn't what a
normal defector's file should look like. And he used because what happened. First
of all, they took over a year to open a too oh one file.
And for your audience, normally, you know, a defector too on
one file is as basic as you can get. If someone has any is
of any interest to intelligence, you'll open a to a one file. If
you're a defector, it should be open day one. And it took over
a year. And the other thing that was abnormal was that the you know,
the information on Oswald would not go to the Soviet Russia Division. It
would go to the Office of Security. And Betsy Wolf, who was a
staffer for the HSCA, looked into that very deeply and you know, found
it. And when this information was presented to Peter Bagley, who was a
high up officer by Malcolm Blunt and Peter Bagley confirmed to Balcom Blunt that Oswald
had to be a witting false defector. So that's where Malcolm Blant used the
word choke hold. Now, you know, we made a few jokes about
attorneys and all that and had a good laugh before we went live. But
here's what happened is the three attorneys among the authors, what they did is
they made sure that the evidence, you know, the ten chapters or the
ten bodies of evidence that we discussed, reached standards of proof that they would
have been comfortable bringing to a jury. And what I mean by standards of
proof, we were talking about two standards. One is, I think the
readers of the JFK assassination choke holds would be convinced that he wouldn't have been
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is one standard of proof that is required
for criminal, you know cases. The other standard of proof we looked at
was, okay, what about you know, what about our arguing that there
was a conspiracy, And we brought many areas of evidence that reached the level
of clear and convincing evidence. And these have legal meanings and they're important,
and I think that is the way the chapters are treated, and that's the
way it's written. So the chapters, I don't think we're we go into
hyper bowl or exaggeration. We give facts, and you know when you read
these facts. I'll just give you one example. One of Maths chapters is
he chronicles seventeen cases of impersonation. Okay, that A's well being impersonated,
whether it's in Mexico City while he was in Russia. Well you might be
able to explain one, two, three, four, five, But why
would a twenty four year old loan not be impersonated? You know that it's
not supposed to be on anybody's radar, and you know, so that that
is one body of evidence, and so that's that's I think the concept of
chocals and how the authors I was a little bit, you know, we
didn't know one another. The only person I knew before I went down to
Kappa was Jim. I did not know the three other authors and we met
down there, and you know, to be honest, there was some risk
in this project. But I think that the combination of you know, research
research skills and knowledge and the legal knowledge played I think an important role in
the book. No, absolutely, And you know, Matt describes the conversation,
which is sort of laid out in short at the beginning of the book,
right where you know, what do you guys think of the backyard photo?
Is attributed to Matt. And I'll tell you I can already see where
I would have been disruptive in this argument. And it's it's odd because there's
nuance in all these things. And I'm wondering how that got addressed, because,
you know, trying to coordinate four authors not an easy thing to do.
I mean, I think if you put four of us together who were
interested in the case and tried to order a pizza, it might be trouble.
You know, really simple. What do you guys think of the backyard
photo? Okay, so according to this Mark says fake, I'm just looking
right at it, and Paul says, odds are it's fake? There seems
to be crop lines along the chin. Well, all right, I would
say immediately if I'm standing there, here's my issue. And it comes up
later in the conversation. I'm not sure about the crop lines on the chin,
but I gotta tell you that I happen to know that if you take
the shadows into account, which everybody brings up next, they do work oddly
enough. Why do I say that, because I've actually had a friend who
stood there at that time of day, in that location. Okay, hell
an object and duplicated the shadows. That's exactly That's exactly why the way White
Chuck we it didn't remake it into the book. What you're saying right there,
Right, it's a difficult thing. Now, the crop ladoffs are disputable,
and here's the thing, there's always these nuances in the arguments. Could
we all agree though, that it was useful anyway as a device to convict
him in the public's mind, because they threw that thing across What Life magazine,
right, which you know, the majority of the country got to see.
It was an infamous photo. It continues to be an infamous photo.
And there are many issues connected to these photos that create a forest of problems.
Twists and turns. One shows up, Roscoe White's wife has one,
you know, all kinds of things, right, I mean, Matt,
there's a lot of things that could have went into that conversation. And as
Paul said, that's why it's not in the book, right, Yeah,
and also you know on the photo in particular, which we again we didn't
that didn't make it in there's an HFCA panel of photographic experts that specifically like
granul granularly compared that photograph and the type that was used in YadA, YadA,
YadA. There's other there's counterpoints and counterpoints and counterpoints. That's why we're
all here doing this, right, because then what's the counterpoint to that?
Oh, well, the camera they said, Marina, didn't they even actually
know how to hold it? Like there's a million we all, you know
what I mean, that's kind of what we do. We all kind of
like flex to each other to show each other, Hey, do you know
this? Yes, I knew that? Well did you know this? You
know what I mean. It's kind of it's kind of fun, Like I
really like being part of of the group that kind of knows what's up.
But uh, anyway, the backyard photo, Yeah, I mean, like
we got to reserve the possibility that it is Oswald maybe because because like,
right, if he's like a Witning agent doing these things, who's to say
that he didn't do you know, the same thing. He's handing out pamphlets
in New Orleans, like maybe it was oz Well, or maybe it was
someone who looked a lot like Oswald and it wasn't Oswald. Maybe it will
just like him, or maybe there's the whole thing with Roscoe White and the
cutout that's found in the Dallas Police Department. I don't know. I'm not
sure where I've landed. So what's your final answer on the photos? Then,
chuck? Yeah, Well, my final answer is that Marina is not
a reliable witness for various reasons, so you got to put her aside and
understand that it does appear to be him. There's anomalies in those photographs though,
that are endless one way or another. But like you said, the
HSCA panel that went through it, I don't think Groden agrees with it.
I don't think Jim Deugenio agrees with the analysis from the HSCA. But here
we go. That's what I was wanting to get at, is how it
is that you come to a consensus on something like this where everybody's name has
to go into it, and there are a million ways to dissect these things
which we have now all been through. If we've been there for a couple
of years, you know, just to answer the process question. That's what
we do in this JFK case talk, right, we go deep down the
rabbit holes. But on that so we just voted basically, and they were
like the backyard photos was never in the conversation. There were like fifteen and
then we narrowed it down to ten and we just voted on the ones that
we had to all feel good about it. And I think there were some
that we thought were stronger than others and dependent. You know, we didn't
have complete overlapping agreement, but we had enough agreement about what the top ten
was and we had a pretty good like voting process excellently. Okay, well
that was what I was curious about. So I guess we should go back
to Paul and get back to what's in the book, right, or should
we or should we go on to you and talk about the first chapter?
Well, that would be me in both cases, that would be you in
both cases. I'm sorry, Yeah, that is you. I'm a little
mixed up. Excuse me. Go ahead, Paul, let's go to you.
Then I already made the decision, and Matt please fill in because it's
one of the the second longest chapter is the first one. And the reason
for that, and I'll explain is that, you know, about ten years
ago, Chuck I did an analysis on how history books covered the JFK assassination,
and you know, we went through twenty one of the most popular textbooks
for students in the US and Canada, and you know, you know,
an overwhelming majority described the assassination as one perpetrated by alone nun Oswald. Here's
the thing is, I was able to question the authors and I tried to
get their sources for that, and you know that almost all of them,
not all, but almost all were not aware that there were other investigations after
the Warrant Commission, and their number one source for writing what they wrote was
the Warrens Commission report in nineteen sixty four, repudiated document. So when I'd
ask them and I'd say, hey, you know, the HSCA has this
and that to say, you know, and they hadn't heard. Many hadn't
heard of the HSCA. So what that got me into is the American Historical
Association and what should constitute an official record? Okay, And they're clear in
their quote of conduct. It says that you know, when you're writing history.
You should evolve with new information, and yet all these history book writers
were gelled into the year nineteen sixty four. So what I find is fantastic
about chapter one is we go through, first of all, what the reports
actually say, and we go into what the insiders said. And the insiders.
Let me define an insider. An insider is someone who's either a police
officer, it could be a medical expert. It could be a staffer in
one of these investigations. It could be a commissioner, it could be legal
counsel. So we're talking about, you know, people, and when you
get into it, chuck and you look at even the Warrant Commission had an
awful lot of dissension, and especially as time went on. But if you
go and you got into the Church Committee, and then you get into the
HSSE and you get into the ARB, and you start, you know,
reading what did Richard Schweiker for your audience. Richard Schwiker was a Republican Senator
and he was one of the you know, the co chairs of that special
committee in the Church Committee that looked into how the intelligence agencies did their work
in the jfk assassination. The other co chair was Gary Hart. And if
you listen to what both of these people say is they're saying basically that there
was a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission did not do their work property nor
did the intelligence agencies that were investigating it. And it's right there in the
reports. But furthermore, it's you know, like everybody. I don't know
if Chuck you remember that famous line. I think it was for a BBC
documentary where Richard Schiker says that Warren Commission has in fact collapsed like a house
of cards, and and I believe was set up to feed pablem to the
American people. I mean, that's a historical trace. It's not Chuck o'chelly
saying it. It's not Matt Crumpton, it's not Paul Blow, it's not
Jim Dugidio. These are the insiders, the real people. And we have
ninety you know, over and above what said in the reports. We have
you know, Robert Blakey, Tannenbaum, Jeremy gunn Horn and and and then
we even have staffers. I talked to you about Bessie Wolf and the the
physicians that were at the says, then the physicians and nurses that were at
Parkland. And when you read that chapter, what it does, in my
opinion, is it puts people like us really on the side of what the
insiders, the people who spoke to witnesses, the people who had access to
classified documents, the people you know who you know went into the executive sessions,
the people who had a bird's eye view. And what mainstream media tends
to do is what they get fake experts on fake experts, who who who?
When you say, well, what was your credit were you there,
did you talk to witnesses? Have you gone through the documents that have been
released or declassified? And you know, they decide who these expert pundits are.
But the real experts are much closer to what you know people who believe
in the conspiracy have to say. So what the others have been so successful
at is saying, you know, conspiracy theorists, they're out on a limb.
And you know, Bobosi used to call us quacks and things like that,
But yet who's on our side? I much prefer having Schweiker on my
side and Gary Hart and tan and Baum and Delghorn. That's why that chapter
and look, the readers will have links to video, still have links to
articles, still have links to the actual pages in the reports that confirm these
blistering statements. And if anybody after chapter one still would want to refer to
the Warren Commission as their main source of information, well then you know,
there's no way they'll ever ever change, and I think they'll come a lot
closer to at least thinking, well, these people that wrote this book aren't
so crazy. So that's what I liked about chapter one. And what's good
is it sets the tone because the next chapters will go back to saying,
well, not only do we have this evidence, but listen to what so
and so of the HC had to say about it. So that's what I
in a nutshell, what chapter one is about is what is the official record?
Well that's why I took time on this show with Larry Hancock to go
through. Let's talk about the official investigations, all of them, because a
lot of people fail to recognize that there were a great many. And you
have to count Garrison's investigation as well, because that is the District Attorney of
you know, okay, and whatever you think of the conclusion or the conduct
of those investigations, let's lay them all out and I did that, you
know, which meant I had to go to the Clark panel. I had
to go to you know, Pike and Church and Rockefeller and of course the
HSCA. And there's this other Justice Department inquiry that occurs in eighty eight or
eighty six, I forget whish that doesn't even have a name. But there
were various official investigations one way or another. Now people would say, well,
the AARRB is not an investigation in a technical sense, Yes, but
it did investigate aspects here because they had to make sure that the records would
be legitimate when they were entered into the records collection. So therefore there was
investigative aspects to the ARRB, although it was not their primary focus to find
I took it. I mean, they took depositions, right, because they
had to clear up the whole medical aspect. So they did question Jume's Bosswell,
you know, so they did investigate certain areas. But you're right,
their job was to manage the declassification, if I could put it that way,
right, which meant that the functionality was to make sure that records were
legitimate. Therefore those interviews were necessary. Those depositions were necessary, that's the
way that went. But they were not, as a matter of fact,
attempting to solve the crime. But either way, some of these other investigations
are wholly unknown, even by some people who think they understand this case.
I mean, I mentioned the Clark panel. I bet you both of you
guys know who what that was. Not everybody does, so it's very interesting.
Now here's another part of this though, and it's something that if at
a bare minimum, the history books. Let's start with your premise from ten
years ago, and I bring this up on my show all the time.
The history books used to contain two sentences. I know this because I was
in a poor school. So when I went to school in the later seventies,
they didn't even get up to the Kennedy assassination in our history books.
Right, I go into the eighties or so, we finally have the Kennedy
assassination in the books, and it is literally two sentences. And that's all
it was. It was the Warrant Commission concluded this, it's most likely this
is what happened. He died in custody, end of story. Yeah,
that's it, I mean, and it's two sentences long, literally, Paul,
am I misrepresenting what you found in those history books ten years ago.
Yes, you're right. The only source is the Warrant Commission, and you
know, a blue ribbon panel of you know, highly distinguished people, you
know, came out with that concluded. Sometimes they'll say, you know,
but they'll always be controversy, and you know, but there's not a word
about the HSA. At a bare minimum. By the time we're into the
nineteen eighties, it should have said there are at least two official conclusions by
the United States government. Because they are separate, they are different slightly,
the hsca's conclusion and the Warren Commission's conclusion. It should at the very least
note that in one case, yes, they say Oswald acted alone. Ruby
acted alone, which, by the way, we're gonna have to get to
Jack Ruby at some point here, you know. And that's that for the
Warren Commission. But the HSCA concluded, indeed Oswald is guilty again, but
it's likely there was a conspiracy, and that is their conclusion, open ended.
Yes, but that was two separate and equally important official conclusions by the
government. Yes or no, Well, yeah, Matt, maybe can you
I'm going to express an opinion here, but normally the one that comes later
that lasted longer, you know, over two years, and then looked into
not only information the Warrant Commission had, but new information. Right, It's
sort of like an appeal. Right, And this is after the Church Committee
and the HSCA point out the defects in the Warrant Commission investigation. Which should
you give more weight to, right, the earlier one or that lasted nine
months or the later one that comes in ten years, you know, and
lasts longer in my opinion, and maybe Matt, you can you know if
you were, if you were to look at this legally, what you know?
It seems to me the Church and the HSCA should be given more weight
than the Warrant Commission. That's that's in terms of the American Historical Association.
It says, Okay, we've got new information, and what have we learned
since the classification is a whole other question, you know, Like with you,
documents have come up, so I don't know, Matt, what you
think on them. Yeah, I mean I would say in theory what you're
saying makes sense, Like as a metaphor, you know, like, hey,
we had the first shot at it. New information was for The problem
is, I'm an actual lawyer, so I'm trying to think in terms of
like, oh, what rule of civil procedure would this work under? But
I mean, I mean the reality is once you zoom into the history of
it, not just the law. I think they all kind of stand for
themselves in terms of when I say they all, including the ARRB. You
know, they all have their own body of evidence, right. We have
the Warrant Commission has a ton of evidence, right, And then you've got
You've basically had that. You've got Garrison Case, Pike, Church, HSCA,
all those documents, many of which came out with the JK Records Act
and with the ARB SO and then the ones that keep coming out. You
kind of have to balance. And my answer is, yes, kind of,
I hear what you're saying, but they kind of all have different things
they're doing. And I think you have to look at the Church and the
HSA just in terms of they opened up the whole door to the conversation about
what the CIA was doing around the world, and what the CIA was doing
in Cuba especially, you know, hand in hand with Cuban exiles and mafia
folks that have kind of been tied to this case. So that's that would
be my answer is in legal terms, I would call it a totality of
the circumstances the test to where you're grabbing facts from every different aspect of the
investigation. But I think the the late like, for example, okay,
the brain, let's look at let's look at the evidence of the brain.
Let's apply your question to the brain. You know, so at first,
whatever the Warner report says about the brain that you know, it was there
was, it was kind of messed up at the top, and whatever they
you know, they did what they did with it. But then we find
out in the HSCA. You know, I forget what Stringer said at the
HSCA. The photography canuts and also testify at the HSCA. But then the
ar RB Stringer's talking about, that's the last one. He's kind of he's
saying, hey, we didn't even take bassial reviews, didn't even take shots
from underneath the brain. Oh this is a different type of film, you
know what I mean, same thing with Sondra Spenser. So so to me,
that's you would go, well, Wait a minute, they don't even
have the same film, and there's like they have specific facts. Why they're
saying that there's a reason to actually believe it. That's that's wild. So
yeah, you know, I think that's the case. But in some cases,
the evidence that was brought out by the Warren Report may be the best
case, you know what I mean. So yeah, I know you you
have to look at the raw data too, I guess you know that good
point. And you know, Chuck, you were talking about the Garrison investigation,
right, believe it or not. I actually read his nine thousand files
and the thing that people don't understand is his you know, the legal case
was one thing, but his raw data, the raw data, you know,
like here's a deposition they took, and here's what so and so.
I'd say, here's a polygraph result report. There's some really interesting information in
there, and you know, you you can take that information and if you
because you know what poor Garrison was. You know, I'm not saying the
guy was perfect, but to a certain degree he was vindicated by Tanenbaum and
the HSC later because they said, hey, look, you know what they
found out that clay Shaw did have intelligence connections, something he denied, and
they, you know, they came to the conclusion that there was most likely
a relationship between Oswald and David Ferry. Okay, so that the Lincoln incident,
you know, in Lincoln where so many people saw David Ferry with Oswalt
and possibly Clay Shaw. They don't say definitely. So but what I'm saying
is if you take the raw data and you go through and I'm glad you
did that with Larry Hancock, by the ways, you went through investigation after
investigation, and well and you ask yourself what is the official record? But
you know, does does the CBS do that? Does the CNN do that?
When you know, when they invest the pundit on, did they actually
say what is the official record? Well, what's funny is that in the
old days, CBS and these other outlets used to actually do some work behind
all this, right, and they did in nineteen sixty eight or sixty seven,
I forget, which a series of shows four nights in fact, where
they took people and tried to recreate the shooting, and they had independent people
they said, examine stuff. Of course, if you look into those backgrounds,
you find out who everybody is and all that good stuff. But it's
interesting what they put on at first. Nowadays, all they do they're very
lazy. They just drag out Gerald Posner, and that's only because Vince Bugliosi
died, you know, And that's it, right, And then we complain
a little while, and who do they call? They call Jeff Morley,
and that's fine, that's good. I'm happy to hear from Jeff Morley.
But at first, what are we confronted with? Usually? You know,
Gerald Posner? Why because he wrote a best selling book. That's the explanation.
Vince Bugliosi. Yeah, okay, Anyway, I don't want to get
into that too far, because let's go back to what it is you got.
We're writing about Oswald's intelligence connections. Is the next chapter in the book.
But I'm not going to go chapter per chapter, Matt. I look
for your guidance here as to where we should jump to next regarding this,
because this is this is really interesting, Like I said, where you got
four authors coming together, and I like that you have the legalistic approach.
I really should have pin you down with my question and said, well,
you know, a counselor what would be the official conclusion according to the US
government, there is where I should opin you down and been specific because that's
what you got to do, right, the official conclusion of the case.
Yes, well that's what that's what I'm trying to find out with the podcast.
I'm trying to you know what I mean. Obviously that's what we were
all We've all been trying to find out our whole lives ever since we started
all studying this, right. But in terms of me going on the record
and taking a position, I'll do that when I when I get done with
season three. So just quickly to address your you were talking, you're asking
if I'm still doing the project. I finished season one. August eighth was
the last episode that came out, and I picked back up November twenty second,
was season two. I did a quick a couple bonus episodes and got
an interview with Paul and the other co authors on the Chokeholds book. Did
a special episode about the Pittsburgh conference, did a special episode deep diving on
Paul landis who's from my hometown? It's crazy and anyway, and now we're
doing the season two is who was Oswald? Really? So it's deep diving
on Oswald because where we landed on season one, I made conclusions on fifteen
topics. Eight of them I find are inconclusive, seven of them I find
support that the warrant report was in was incorrect, aka you know that there
was likely a conspiracy. So that those were my findings. And the one
that I wrote a choke old chapter about that I've covered so far is Oswald
being in place in the sixth floor. So you know, each chapter is
specifically written by an author, right by the author who knows about the chapter
or who studied it. So for example, like I haven't done the deep
dive on Oswald's intelligence ties yet, I really like I'm in the midst of
that journey right now. But I had done the deep dive on Oswald on
the sixth Floor, like I did two full episodes. You know, I've
already written like forty pages on it, and I already had all the incitations.
It was pretty easy. And then Oswald was impersonated. That was my
other chapter just in the season one of the podcast, you know, not
even looking at what he was up to in New Orleans and things that were
you know, Russia just really just looked looking at sort of right around November
twenty second, there were many instances of Oswald being impersonated, you know what
I mean. So so so there you go. So that's what we're covering
right now. We're covering who is Oswald? Really? We'll do season two,
then I'm gonna have a season three and season three is gonna be If
not Oswald, then who right? So, and I'm not even like I
I don't think Oswald could have been in place in the sixth floor. I
mean I think that we decided that's the choke hold. There is a dispute
on that, and and it kind of you know, it boils down here.
To answer your question, let's do this, Chuck, if I could
just quickly talk about both of the chapters just briefly. Sure me. Let
me just let me just throw something at you that's in my live chat room
though, if you don't mind, which is is pretty interesting. Uh the
this is this is directed at you, So let me make sure I have
it in front of me when I read it. Yes, just Crumpton.
The only legal opinion ever issued on the warrant report was by the judge,
and the Garrison case declared the report was actually hearsay and therefore not a legal
document. And I'm pretty sure that's correct, but you could correct what if
you like. That time in there, I think that was the when sorry,
I'm not sure that was the judge, but when Garrison brought it to
I'm sorry, I'm looking for the terms because he had to present it to
a grand jury, right, And I think it was at that point that
the judge determined that it wasn't it was hearsay based too much on hearsay.
Wells, defense, I made you wrong on that Shaw's defense at some point.
I again, I'm just reading from what the chat room said. Well,
I do recall that Shaw's defense tried to enter it as evidence and it
was rejected based on the fact that I was considered hearsay. But I don't
remember if it was during the grand jury worthy see here we go, Here's
you can know a million things. But anyway, Yes, and he's saying
in the chat room right now, the defense tried to enter the Moren report.
Yes, I'm saying that they did. They attempted to enter it his
evidence and it was rejected. But I don't recall whether it was during the
grand jury or it was during the actual proceeding against Sean. Do you do
you remember, Matt. No, that's actually news to me. So thanks
for the heads up. Yeah, I mean you know, like like I
said, I really am learning as I go. Here. I'm writing the
uh you know, I just did a deep dive on Oswald's background as a
kid, and now I'm step diving on the on the marine stuff. So
I'm going through all those all those records, all the granular details, learning
all the fun little anecdotes of all the things that happened to Ozwald while I
was in the marine. So so yeah, and then if I miss something,
I have a rebuttal episode and people can tell you and then I'll include
include their thing if they send me a citation. So right, well,
remember your remember though of your member of audience is very astute, because she's
right that it was refused. Yeah, yes, yeah, he's correct,
Jay, Jimmy, Yeah, he's correct. And the other thing. I
love it you're going through Oswald stuff because uh you know, let me know
when you get to the part where it suggested that he might have gotten VD
and also let me know how entertaining it is when he shoots himself with an
on with with it with an an authorized weapon. I love that. Go
ahead, Yeah, yeah, he shoots himself. He he freaks out in
Taiwan, starts randomly shooting in the woods. Yep. All kinds of fun
stuff going on. Yeah, so so. But but okay, these these
two chapters, let's just talk about Oswald being a place in the sixth floor.
So the whole conversation basically comes down to, you know, there's there
are a million sub points, okay, but the the highlight to me that
that kind of laid out in the chapter is that just following the timelines of
things, Okay, Kennedy shot at what twelve thirty twelve thirty one, and
we we we know that Arnold Rowlin saw a white guy with a gun in
the in the window at twelve fifteen. We know that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald
at in the warrant report of the FBI report says twelve fifteen on the on
the first floor, but she told her old Goals it was twelve twenty five
on the second floor. So if she's seeing him at twelve twenty five,
and she says that's what she originally told the FBI, and he came to
her This wasn't like a you know, she was. She wrote a book.
She wrote she found a bullet on the back of the thing, and
she wrote a book. No, but but anyway, So obviously, if
she sees him at twelve twenty five, he can't be there on the sixth
floor. Even if she sees him at twelve fifteen on the first floor,
how can he be the guy in the window that Arnold Rollan sees at twelve
fifteen on the sixth floor. That doesn't make any sense, all right,
So nobody sees him with a gun in the building. Jack Doherty doesn't see
him enter the building with a gun. Nobody sees him going up to the
sixth floor. You got Charles Gibbons, who worst case scenario. He probably
made the story up, we find out after the fact, and people can
disagree with that if they want to, but there's some reason to believe.
And all he does is put him up there around noon. Billy, I'm
sorry, Bonnie Ray Williams is sitting there eating chicken. He doesn't see anything,
which is I always think that's crazy about the case. But then there's
the whole girl on the stairs, Thevictoria Adams uh Sanders styles the story of
you know, immediately after the shots are fired, before the uh, before
the presidential Lemo went under the the the overpass. They they left to run
down the stairs. And Oswald would have had to be running down the stairs,
and he was on the sixth floor. They were on the fourth floor.
So who had had to cross and you know, when you kind of
time it up, he would have had to have run into them. And
they didn't see anybody or hear anybody. Doherty, I believe, also was
near the stairs and he didn't hear anybody either coming down. But but uh,
now there the whole argument is. And I've gotten deep on this with
with some folks that are you know that you know, they're they're Warren Report
defenders, and and they their position is this whole thing gets in he gets
real granular in the weeds. But there's this whole thing of Billy. I'm
sorry. These two guys, love Lady and Shelley a thing lovely, right,
yeah, love Lady and Shelley. They they say that they went to
it may not be Shelley, maybe somebody else, but these two guys say
that they they went to the railroad tracks and then they came back and they
saw her. But if they saw her come down after they went to the
railroad tracks and they had already come back, then it must have been much
later, because they didn't come back from the railroad tracks until later. So
there's that whole thing. And then basically her statement to the FBI is that
she did see them, but you know, in other words, so her
statement would support that that you know, she came down later, which in
other words, would invalidate her argument that she was should have been the stairwell
at the same time as Oswald. But when it turns out out she says
she told Earl Goals or not Earl Goals, who's the guy that wrote Girl
on the Stairs? I can't Yeah, yeah, scary ernest. I believe
she told him or send some other record that she signed it under duress.
That basically like, yeah, they came back, they told me I needed
to sign it. I didn't feel like I had a choice. But but
that was not my statement at all, So there you go. So that's
what it comes down to. Like but but but even if that's but even
if her whole thing, you know, if you throw out her part of
the story, it still doesn't look like he could have been there. I
mean literally, all you have is Howard Brennan, who, first of all,
there's no way you could have seen. It was too too far away.
You could see a person there, you can probably see like if they're
dark complexed or not, or if they had glasses or not, you could
identify their face if you had never seen them before. From that far away,
there's no way if you've been there before. He gives the from six
floors down, how do you identify somebody's height in a dirty window from six
floors down? Sorry, guys, you know who really pointed out the problem
with Brennan. It's tannonbamb Tannon Baum says, when we looked over that guy's
testimony and Jim's brought it up, Jim the Eugenius says he refused Brennan to
come back and give a deposition to the HCA. Brennan totally refused because he
said, I'm going to get an attorney. So the hs never heard directly
from him. But Tannerbaum said, look, when you go to where he
was, and he's got to look through a window and he's got to figure
out height, and you know it's Oswald got a rifle in front of his
face and so on to so Tannerbomb says, this is the worst witness you
know for placing someone that we've ever heard, right, So that comes from
Tannenbaumb at the HSCA, the star and star witness of the Warren Commission report,
because really that's the guy who puts him there with the gun and everything.
Guy puts him on the sixth floor now here. Here's one little thing.
I'm going to throw this in because it's not in our book, and
it's okay, But you know Oswald's alibi, right, the two people put
together what his alibi was. One I just finished reading her book and it's
Sylvia mahar in accessories after the fact. The other guy spoke at the Lancer
conference. It's Spark Camp and basically Oswald's head right, that I was having
lunch on the first floor and he says that he was two with two African
Americans I think to the back. Then he said black people. One of
them is Junior and the other guy I don't know his name. Now Junior
and the other guy were interrogated and they said, oh, there was a
guy there, but we don't know who it was. So what Sylvia Mahar
points out is, how the hell did Oswald point out these two people who
were who admitted being on the first floor during that period of time that he
was at. And the second instance is he says Oswald says, I went
out afterwards with Shelley and some people some I'm paraphrasing. Well, Shelley did
go out, okay, but we don't know who the other people were.
So what Oswald said, you know, so I find I haven't read Bartkamp's
book, but I think if you, if you put it together with you
know, with Sylvia Mahar stuff, I think Matt ifever we do a second
edition, we may be able to add some some you know, information also.
But anyway, I just wanted to bring that up because I found what
bart Camp did in his book he explained how he went about it unbelievable.
No, it's very interesting, And just to correct something from earlier, let's
be specific. It was actually at Shaw's preliminary hearing. I went to my
transcripts while you guys were talking and looked it over real fast. It was
during the preliminary hearing for Shaw where the warrant commission was offered and rejected,
and the judge's name was Baggered b A G E R T according to the
transcript. So there you go if you want to check the reference on that
and find out where it was, all right, And I've offered a link
to I found a link online as well and put it in the chatroom atchelli
dot com, so it's there if you guys want to read it. But
I went to my transcript on my computer first to get it and then sought
it out online afterwards. Anyways, here, here's the thing about this,
though, is every single one of these little nuances there's a problem with.
It's not you have to give Oswald an alibi, you know, literally,
Yeah, when we're talking about offering this up, trying to come up with
what needs to be offered into evidence right in a legal proceeding, it's not
about coming up with an alibi. An alternative explanation is helpful but not necessary.
You're right. First, they have to prove their case. Now,
if you need to dispute it, that's another issue. But here's the problem.
Could the case be proven in the first place, which is one of
the initial reasons why you guys involved the lawyers here and stuff, right,
I mean, well why you were involved, Matt, right, So help
me out here. Isn't that really the order of things? First, there
needs to be an established case against it. We could talk about all the
problems the way his rights were mishandled, you know, like Johnny Cards did
at Lancer, etc. We could do that all day, but somebody might
say, well, look, still the evidence remains. But does it that's
the biggest question. Do you even have it to begin in with to present
a reasonable case? Is that not the right way to look at this,
Matt of I mean, it's it's just so complicated because there's, like we
were talking about earlier, there have just been so many different investigations, and
there's been so much evidence that's already generated. But you know the question and
that, you know, it is hard to separate the evidence from you know
that it's hard to separate all the little things everybody knows from you know,
whatever specific things might be plaied. It's just it's a hypothetical at this point,
so it's kind of it's kind of tough. Well, that's why the
complication has to be boiled back down to these chokeholds and why it is you
have to come down to the very simple understandings of the case to prove this
point that this is not a slam dunk. This is not a slam dunk
for the Warrant Commission, they have not been vindicated over the years, much
like Paul was explaining. In fact, their entire position has collapsed bit by
bit. You know, Schweiker said it a house of cards, but you
can see this over the years, it has been absolutely destroyed in my mind,
outside of a very few things, has there been and all. And
this is the weird thing about this case in general, and I want to
get both of your takes on this, is that, in general, all
the work that we've either been involved with or witnessed or been able to go
back through in the media, the the literature, the history of this case,
whether it's the government investigations, the official investigations, the individuals who have
investigated this privately at their own expense, who have gone through those issues,
all of this stuff over the years. The strange thing is that in almost
any other murder case in history, over time, things become much clearer,
things become much more simplified. A lot of things get eliminated, it seems
like to me, even in any cold case where a case evolves over time
because there's interest in it, it seems like new science comes in, new
something comes in, It eliminates problems, it eliminates theories, it eliminates.
That has not been the case with this case. And I feel like your
book is an attempt to boil these things back down. Am I right or
wrong? You can address all of that, and I want to go to
Paul first on that if you don't mind that, and then let you conclude
because we've been through just about an hour of discussion already, believe it or
not so, and that's what I plan on having you guys for. Obviously,
can come back again. We can talk about this some more. But
and I know I derail things. I'm aware of that. Matt. I'm
sorry. I can hear your frustration. No, No, you're asking good
questions. But please, Paul, go go through this with me and tell
me about that because over time, like I said, usually in a case
of murder, and this is a murder case its core, it's a couple
of murder cases at their course. And we didn't even touch on Jack Ruby
and all that, not at all. But anyway, and I love that
because that's at the very end of the opening conversation in the book. Well,
what about Jack Ruby du du dah? This is where you know,
this is where my mind got This is where my mind started to fly by
the way as a kid is how is it that you kill a guy in
police custody and it wasn't the cops who killed him, or it wasn't some
prisoner in a cell next to him that killed him. Oh No, something
is very wrong here. And I was nine, But Paul, forget about
me. What about this though? The fact that you know, we've got
to boil this back down because the expansive universe of takes on. This could
go on and on forever, and it seems to keep expanding like the universe
itself, instead of contracting like any other case would. What do you think
about that, pot, Yeah, no, that's a great point. First
of all, the last chapter I think explains why it's still complicated. It's
called, you know, six years of obstruction of justice, and it chose
investigation by investigation how you know the investigations were derailed. Now in the case
of the Warrant Commission, I think it had to do right away with giving
instructions on going the Loane Nut route. You know, people who are familiar
with the cast and back memo or the way LBJ got Chief Foreign to involve
himself. And by the way this was brought up by the Church Committee and
the HSEA is that the investigation into a conspiracy was and they say that was
deficient. Now, if you keep going, you go to Garrison, right,
Garrison, how many times do you get the Attorney General of the United
States right involving himself in a state a state legal case. He did,
and he started saying things like, well, we investigated John King found he
was clean, and that that that brought the press say, well, why
did you have to investigate a guy uh in the first place? You know,
But Tann and Bomb says they formed something I think it was called the
Garrison group or the get Garrison group, and it's clear that they you know,
they bugged his office and they got some people like Sheridan and Hayes,
Ainsworth and others too to completely derail that that that inquiry, and they threatened
his witnesses. And Tann and Bomb's on the record for saying that. Then
you go to the Church Committee. Sorry, the the Rockefeller Commission, the
Church Committee, and through our book, you know, in that chapter we
show how things happen, like the HSCA, when did they kick out sorry,
when did they kick out Sprague and tanambob Ah? When they started investigating
David Athlete Phillips, who was a person of interest with the CIA, and
they start, you know, they start saying, this guy is lying,
he's not telling the truth. All the people that were trying to portray Oswald
as a Castro agent, they're all his contacts, and they were all,
you know, false flags. And then you go on to uh, you
know, all the way to the ar RB ARB what happens there the Secret
Service? Tim Samilak of the ARB says, well, the Secret Service destroyed
all the files on Kennedy's travels in nineteen sixty three. They didn't want people
to know about prior plots and you know, other information that preceded the assassination.
And they also saw that the Office of Naval Intelligence, I mean,
they put this poor lady who was Liaison Terry Pike, they completely ended her
career because she was cooperating with the ARB. And then finally, what happens
in twenty seventeen. You have both Trump and Biden later, you know,
breaking the law by not be classifying. So we have something there. So
to your question is why is everything more confused or still confused? It's because
of the obfuscation. Now, I think what we do in choke holds is
we try and get rid of the you know, the backyard photos is one
example all the debatable stuff, and say, hey, look, if we
have to present a case go to a jury, let's make it simple for
the jury. Let's show that Oswald was impersonated. Let's show that Jack Ruby
was not on a mission, Okay, that his job was to gag the
number one witness. Let's show that the experts, the insiders okay, agree
with us. Let's show that Oswald being on the sixth floor there's more than
a case for reasonable doubt. Let's show that Oswald had intelligence connections. You
know, what's the twenty four year old high school dropout doing meeting people like
Ed David Ferry, George de Mornshield. You know, we have like seventy
instances of touch points he has with intelligence assets, and thirty five of them
are definite, but seventy are plausible or over seventy. Let's you know,
let's go back to the single bullet theory. I know people are sick of
hearing about it, but the single bullet theory is so ridiculous when you think
of it. And let's go back to the medical and so that's what we
do. We identify ten chocals. Now, what we don't do, Chuck,
in this book is we don't even go into one inch in the direction
of saying, here's what we think happened. That will be face through,
okay, face through there. Like if we have a second project, we'll
say, look, you attack this book. You could tell us where we're
wrong, right, tell us we're wrong, because the way it was written
is to prove us wrong. You can't just contradict one choke cold. You
have to contradict or prove all tanti goals wrong. I think you'll agree that
if Oswald was impersonated, there's a problem. If Oswall wasn't on the sixth
floor, there's a problem. If Ruby, you know, I mean,
the HSCA concludes that he received assistance to get to the basement, and they
conclude that, hey, you know what, he wasn't just a nightclub operator.
This guy did have Matthea ties, and they go into details on some
of them. A guy called Dolan, how he went to mexican A,
Mexico, Cuba to meet trafficante, all the phone calls he received before the
you know, the assassination. I mean, I think that chapter is pretty
eloquent in itself. And you know, just to finalize on that, think
of this. You have the worst bloody security when Kennedy gets killed, followed
by the worst bloody security when the number one witness, Oswald gets killed.
I mean, yeah, of course you're going to be suspicious about that.
Well, you know, we're also not supposed to be suspicious. In recent
years, we also learned that, you know, among the destruction and removal
of documentation, our Defense Intelligence Agency, the DA destroyed the entirety of its
Kennedy assassination related files. You know, when you see things like that,
that to me indicates a problem. The Defense Intelligence Agency couldn't hang on to
its stuff. Really. You know, we have the various instances of the
FBI and everything else, and we know about that, whether it's hosty or
something else, it's all over the place. What actually happened to Jaegar Hoover's
files, et cetera, et cetera. But I mean wholesale destruction by the
DIA. Not a word really goes out about it, does it. You
know, this isn't suspicious at all. And I love how you point out
the Trump and Biden both colluding together to make sure and now Biden is,
you know, acquiescing just a bit giving in a bit, but after lawsuits
and things like that. Anyway, great stuff, though, Matt, How
should we finally look at all of this though, the expanding universe versus the
way this would normally come together. Maybe I'm crazy about this and I have
a weird way of looking at it, but it does seem that way that
we're faced with something that continues to expand exponentially endlessly, and really it should
be a universe that's shrinking by Now what are your thoughts on that? And
you know your your final thoughts I guess for tonight. Yeah, thanks,
Chuck. I mean, in terms of the experience, I hear what you're
saying, because it seems like there's always more and more stuff. But it
also seems to me, like, like I would, my perspectives may be
a little bit different and instead of describing it as an expanding universe, I
would say it's kind of, you know, shedding light on areas that we
didn't know about. Or another analogy would be just filling in the missing puzzle
pieces. Right. So where it becomes a challenge is if you're like,
oh, this is actually garbage, this is a red herring, this doesn't
belong in the puzzle at all. Right. But if that's the case,
then you know, then it shouldn't fit. The challenge becomes when it fits
but it's wrong, right, And that's that's the only way I'm getting down
the metaphor thing. But but I think what we what we can do is
we try to put together all the stuff that's out there. I mean,
that's you know, it's what everybody does tries to do. That's what I'm
trying to do, like methodically in the podcast, just kind of put put
together what's out there and and see kind of what you can prove in terms
of you know, who did it if it's not Oswald, and and what
are Oswald's motives? Like what is he up to? And and you know,
say it without speculation. So I'm sure like this season I'll get into
the George Jonides stuff and all that, which is fascinating and uh and yeah,
I mean I think the more we can get regular people to understand that
that likely something happened, and once we can figure out what happened and who
the culprit is, I would love to see like a you know, congressional
hearings Once again. It's just the question of like, let's say it's the
worst case scenario and it was the CIA, Like they're probably not going to
just be cool and give up power and be like sorry, are bad,
like you know what I mean. So so I just don't that That's why
I like, you know, a guy that's a fan of the I saw
my my my personal Twitter and where I'm just negative on all all political candidates.
Uh so, so I'm just kind of like, look, man,
like you know, doesn't really it doesn't really matter, does it if president's
not even in charge, like you know, And so you can become a
nihilist like me, or you can kind of have optimism and go, hey,
maybe if we can get everybody to pay attention and and care about it,
then we can sort of get a grassroots thing going. But I don't
know, sometimes it seems like the media is getting more receptive to it.
You look at the Paul Landers stuff, which I don't if you listen to
my podcast on it, I don't actually find mister Landis to be credible,
although I do find it to be a nice man. So so, so
anyway, the point is that, and then you know the who is the
JFK who killed JFK? Rob Brinder thing sold out Brian who's like pretty mainstream,
is like going pretty hard on the conspiracy side of things. And then
you got JFK with the Doctor Saw, which is a documentary on paramount plus
that I'm in hey uh, and that one, that one's you know,
it basically lands on like look, it's overwhelming. All these doctors saw a
big hole in the right rear of Kennedy's head that doesn't appear on the autopsy.
So so to you know, Peter Baker at the New York Times wrote
some stuff about Ruben Fron uh this year, which I don't know if you
do, you know, do you know the whole ruben Fron thing, not
by that name. I probably know what the what the go go ahead and
explain it just super quick. I know what we're trying to get out here.
But this is the last example of of how the news is covering things
a little bit more favorably. Now. Peter Baker, reporter of the New
York Times, wrote about Ruben Fron Uh, the c I A agent.
It was his job to read Oswalt's mail. He was the guy reading all
of Oswalt's Oh yeah, yeah, okay, go ahead, and they and
basically the article is about how he uh they declassified his name. And the
same guy that was reading Oswalt's male is also the guy that was present in
the in the room when Marina Oswald every time she testified, Right, okay,
I didn't know that, by the way, Yeah, no, there's
all kinds of weird saying. You know, the Joe and Edes case where
they sent the liaison that was supposed to not be involved with anything, is
not the only time that big shock. They they sent somebody who has already
read in on the situation to go deal with something. It happens all the
time, which I find amazing. Which, by the way, Matt,
here's a weird thing. And I want to address this to you just as
a final thing, because I'm really amazed at your ability to uh to do
certain things in certain ways. Your podcast came off to me as very objective,
like you didn't have a horse in the race at all at first.
And I told you that when when I brought you on to begin with right
over the podcast, and I love that you came in like I'm not here
to advocate for anything, I'm just gonna present what is. And I really
saw that as like, oh wow, this guy might be fully undecided because
I was unaware of other things you were doing, and I see you in
that special and I said, Okay, this is not mister objective. I'm
undecided. Couldn't be, because otherwise you'd be making different points here. And
I observe all the streaming services have come up with something pretty much for JFK
this year, either that or they brought things back around. Every cable news
network did something as usual, but also every one of the streaming services pretty
much participated. Whether it was the doctors or it was that ridiculously terrible thing
on Amazon, or it was you know, National Geographic, right, you
know, all these different ones participated in it. And it's interesting how it
got out there. The evolution of the way the media has covered its fascinating
it's one of the things that's one of my main interests actually, you know,
going from the Data News went live to now, there is a remarkable
story to be told there regarding exactly how that's affected public opinion. I would
like to see passion again, but we have seen grassroots stuff in the past,
Pat, we have seen it before. Otherwise there would have been no
HSCA. Otherwise there would have been no RRB. Otherwise, indeed, because
of the strangeness of the situation, they might have not been forced into even
creating the Warren Commission. So it does seem to me like public pressure is
important and does create other chokeholds here when it comes to trying to force the
official to answer some questions. But then they always do a dance and it
always becomes something else, and that's the major problem here in my mind.
But anyway, I advise you guys to take it and try and boil it
back down the ten choke holds like Paul was talking about here. Read the
book. I'm going to give you a link with the podcast here and I'll
try and drop it in the room before I'm done with the live show,
but it'll definitely be with the show notes plus a link to Matt's podcast Solving
jfk. Okay and Paul, you know, I don't know if I should
give links to other stuff. If you want give me a couple of links.
I would definitely like people to read some of the things that Paul has
written, because it's rather thought provoking, well considered, and you know what,
we all have to use whatever it is that is our you know,
in our quiver, so to speak, in our personal quiver if we care
about this, to push forward the idea that this must get re engaged with
not only officials, but must continue to be engaged with by the general public.
Go ahead. I'm sorry I was holding you back from saying no,
no, Chuck. First of all, I don't have a podcast, but
that's okay. I want to congratulate both of you on your podcasts and your
shows for your critical thinking because you know, you don't you know, you're
you're you're willing to you don't jump on every element of proof or any little
thing that's out there. Uh, And I think I think that's prudent and
it's it's smart. Okay, And congratulations because I find both of you are
very objective in your approach concerning your your audience. If you want to know
more about the book or want to know how to purchase it, we have
a website called JFK Chocols dot com. You can go on it, and
if you go on it, you'll be able to find our Facebook page.
I included in just giving an example in our Facebook page some pictures from Lancer
and pictures from Cyril Wackt and all sorts of links to to the shows that
we've been on and interviews. I just want to again thank you too for
the great work you've done. I've listened to both of your shows and it's
very professional, and I have more confidence in you as a source on this
because you know, you don't just take any conspiracy theorists out there and you
know and accept what they say. You you'll you'll and you'll consider the oppose
the opponent's point of view. So anyway, I'm happy to be on your
show and thank you so much. Appreciate it. Yeah, I put the
JFK Choke Holds website in the Chatroomaitochelli dot com. That'll also be included in
the show notes. Yet it is JFK Choke Holds All one word dot com
that is the home site for the book. Facebook, yeah, you can
go and explore it there too. I'm not always a proponent of Facebook because
they're annoying the crap out of me. But now everything I post on Facebook
is spam according to them. But that's a personal issue. By the way,
go and take a look at it, at this stuff anywhere. And
again I'll give you all the authors. But we had two of them tonight,
and that is you know, we had Paul on here, Paul Blow
and of course Matt Crumpton. Not only that, but we will give you
the link to the podcast that Matt does. Indeed, it is fascinating and
I would advise people go listen to it because it's different, let's just begin
there, and very thoughtful, as Paul said. But also James Diginio.
And there's two other authors here, I guess, Andrew Lear and Mark I
don't even want to attempt to say his name because too many consonants. There
were too many vowels in a row. Screws me up. But Adam and
Check, I guess would be it. And uh Andrew Eyler. See there
we go. Too many valels, too many, too many letters at all,
I'm a simple guy. I guess sorry, Matt, go ahead,
Yeah, just just uh just one closing point you're talking about, uh,
you know, listening to the podcast early and the perception that I was kind
of down the middle. I you know, like I kind of was down
the middle. But the problem is, excuse me, once, once you
learn something, you can't unkno it, you know what I mean, And
and and the other thing is like, obviously I've done the research enough to
have a whole season, so I kind of know where it's going. But
my stance is once I discover, once I conclude on the podcast, like
at the end of season one, I had conclusions like once I conclude that
there was a front shooter based on medical evidence, once I conclude that Oswald's
not in place on the sixth floor, then like, that's that's got me
down the path of you know, people you know of basically you know,
choosing a side for lack of a better term. But I'm I am.
I do remain committed to vetting every fact and so for example, just very
quickly, right now, the young Oswalt stuff, it's here's what I'm looking
at. I'm looking at Warren report, I'm looking at Posner and Bugliosi,
and I'm looking at Harvey and Lee. A little bit of Destiny Betrayed,
but a lot of Harvey and Lee. And and then I'm searching for articles
that are critical of Harvey and Lee. Right, so I'm gonna have a
whole episode that pulls it all together, and then and then kind of criticizes
it like that. So so, but the point is, I am still
objective about the ultimate case. But but there are some things, you know,
like the medical evidence of particular that that I think once you see you
can't pretend that you know there wasn't a front tutor. Once you see that,
you know, well, see, as a teenager, I wanted an
answer, and quite honestly, I started out on the side of you ready
for this. I think these conspiracy people are probably just making things out of
nothing. That's what I thought as a teenager. And then you know what
happened. I did research and actually got my hands on the documents and looked
at actually what happened. And yeah, once you learn something, you can't
unlearn it. So guess what, I could no longer conclude that you know
the government was telling the truth. The official conclusion would make sense. I
couldn't do it anymore because the evidence didn't support it. It was that simple,
and that's how I came to it, naturally, it wasn't I didn't
start out on the conspiracy side, even to be honest with you. So
yeah, and I but I love that about your podcast. It's really great
in that way. H yeah, go ahead, No, that's it.
Thank you, and thanks for having us on, and UH appreciate appreciate your
show as well, and we'll continue to listen to you man, good stuff,
and I appreciate you guys, and I hope to have both of you
back on again because there's gonna be another season of JFK Uh Solved. But
also I know we're gonna hear from Paul again, so please, I definitely
want to make sure that you guys can come back anytime anytime. In the
meantime, listeners go to JFK chokeholds dot com. It's all one word together
than dot com, so JFK choke holds dot com verbally. Like I said,
the links will be in with the show notes. So for now,
I am merely O'Kelly and all of you mh roll stream Window, Dott Verrible
Silver, the stock market, roll 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, do com, doos, don com. Michael
Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for
many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall
Street Stream though Dott go there, now go there, now go there now
o Chili dot com. Nuclear holocaust. You know what ur ennium is right?
Speak of nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what your
enium is right? Bad things things are done with uranium, letting some bad
things. Nuclear holocaust. You know what your enium is right? I've been
agree Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear holocaust. You know what your ennium is right.
Let's look from nuclear weapons and other things like let's say you know what uranium
is right? The things things are done with uranium leutting some bad things,
Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holaday, Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear
Holoshelle dot Com Radio network 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. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why
the United States did not 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 Larryhncock. 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. Ahead call it the DAFA as fascination. Right, Well,
what do you want to know? Judy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriend p
knew Ruby and the answer weapons Really? I imagine I could claim I have
four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon, but okay, wal Bid
and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy Come on now has a real
effort on the DAFA assassination claims. 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
Very 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.