Speaker 1: Where history's shadows cast long, unsettling doubts. The truth lies
Speaker 1: buried from cryptic wartime codes to assassinations that scarred generations.
Speaker 1: Unearth the secrets the world tried to forget. Post Tim
Speaker 1: Gardner guides you through a labyrinth of unanswered questions, where
Speaker 1: every clue pulses with danger and intrigue and perhaps an
Speaker 1: opinion or two. It's not all facts, because history never is.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Ciphered Past.
Speaker 2: A Welcome everybody to a new podcast of the cipher Past.
Speaker 2: I am your host, Tim Gardner, pleased to be here
Speaker 2: tonight with author and researcher of the Kennedy Assassination mister
Speaker 2: Corey Hughes. Now. Corey has been an author of two
Speaker 2: books right now. The first one is a in Black
Speaker 2: and White which just came out, story of Harvey Oswald. Cory,
Speaker 2: you can go ahead and reward that for me. I
Speaker 2: don't have the book up in front of me, but.
Speaker 3: Sure, Lee. Harvey Oswald and Black and White, Volume one
Speaker 3: is about the early life of Oswald, going back to
Speaker 3: his birth. I start with what we have of his
Speaker 3: birth certificates, which we actually don't have birth certificates for
Speaker 3: Lee Harvey Oswald. We have certificates of live birth which
Speaker 3: were signed about four or five days after his birth. So,
Speaker 3: but his life is a very interesting, twisted story, and
Speaker 3: it's been mostly ignored over the decades since the assassination.
Speaker 3: So I tried to shine a light on all the
Speaker 3: contradictions in Oswald's life growing up. And I'm currently working
Speaker 3: on Lee Harvey Oswald and Black and White Volume two,
Speaker 3: which focuses on Oswald's time in the Marines, which is
Speaker 3: even more of a complicated story to tell than the
Speaker 3: early life of Oswald. So it's the more you dig
Speaker 3: into it, the more it comes becomes a parent that
Speaker 3: they were two Oswald's and so that's the story that.
Speaker 2: I tell absolutely. And I want to welcome you, thank
Speaker 2: you again for being on. We've done work before on
Speaker 2: Our Spaces Dialogue before, so it's it's a pleasure to
Speaker 2: be have you on again. And I also wanted to
Speaker 2: give you a shout out to your first book, which
Speaker 2: is one of the best books I've I've ever read
Speaker 2: about the JFK assassination. It's a warning from history and
Speaker 2: it is really really, really good and detailed, and if
Speaker 2: you haven't picked it up on Amazon, do please pick
Speaker 2: that up. And again, it's a pleasure, Cory just to
Speaker 2: have you on, So.
Speaker 3: Thank you. A Warning from History took me about two
Speaker 3: and a half years to write. I started it at
Speaker 3: about I don't know, three or four years into my research.
Speaker 3: At that point I kind of come to the bulk
Speaker 3: of the conclusions that I flesh out in the book.
Speaker 3: But my focus was the shooters. So a lot of
Speaker 3: people out there will talk about the assassination and they'll say,
Speaker 3: I don't care about the shooters, Like, what are you
Speaker 3: talking about? Of course you should care about the shooters, right,
Speaker 3: And so nobody has ever even seemingly attempted to tackle
Speaker 3: that outside of some genuinely outlandish conspiracy theories. And so
Speaker 3: I felt that there was enough data in order to
Speaker 3: put that story together, and I believe I was correct
Speaker 3: in my assessments. So yeah, so Warning from History definitely
Speaker 3: if you're interested in knowing who pulled the triggers in
Speaker 3: their relationship to the larger apparatus, that's definitely the book
Speaker 3: to get.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's interesting because it does go back in detail.
Speaker 2: And again that's when I first got a copy, I
Speaker 2: kind of was in limbo with things I've been studying
Speaker 2: the assassination for a long time. You know, not Corey
Speaker 2: Hughes level. You know, Corey used to be a homicide
Speaker 2: detective and a street cop. Excuse me, forgive me, but
Speaker 2: it's just interesting the background and then getting into this
Speaker 2: and the parallels when it comes to let's say, a
Speaker 2: story like this which is still unsolved, but for you,
Speaker 2: you have you have a good idea of how how
Speaker 2: it happened, and and in your mind and in your
Speaker 2: research your fellow research team's mind, you feel like you've
Speaker 2: solved this case. Now, what I will say is the
Speaker 2: differences between let's say life as a police officer on
Speaker 2: a on a certain murder case versus a case like this,
Speaker 2: which is still open. What are the parallels on that?
Speaker 3: Well, I think it'd be easier if I went with
Speaker 3: the differences, because the big difference and the reason that
Speaker 3: we can't advance the way we would like to in
Speaker 3: our researches is in a modern day case, you can
Speaker 3: still track down suspects and interrogate them. We don't have
Speaker 3: that luxury in dealing with Kennedy. Almost everyone's dead. I
Speaker 3: can think off the top of my head right now.
Speaker 3: Two suspects who were well aware of what happened there
Speaker 3: in daily plaza. William Seymour and Paul Landis are still
Speaker 3: alive and they can be talked to, but they're the
Speaker 3: only ones. I can't think of another person who is
Speaker 3: still alive from these circles. And so one thing I
Speaker 3: want to comment on in general is that when I
Speaker 3: talk about my conclusions on shooters and whatnot, that is
Speaker 3: all based on the evidence that's out there, and that's
Speaker 3: been out there for a long time. And when you
Speaker 3: go through all the documents on all the relevant subject
Speaker 3: areas within the assassination, you will eventually establish a cast
Speaker 3: of characters, a central cast of characters that pretty much
Speaker 3: meets the descriptions of witnesses in various places. Right, So
Speaker 3: police always have when they construct a case, they have
Speaker 3: their lists of suspects, witnesses, you know, subjects, others, all
Speaker 3: kinds of stuff. And when in going through this case,
Speaker 3: I found that establishing a pretty centralized cast of characters
Speaker 3: wasn't overly difficult. The central cast of characters really circulates
Speaker 3: around New Orleans and David Ferry and that whole click
Speaker 3: I'd say, well, over I'd say, like sixty percent of
Speaker 3: the plotters are connected to this New Orleans circle, right,
Speaker 3: And so as you get to know David Ferry and
Speaker 3: you get to know the people he surrounded himself with,
Speaker 3: you can kind of establish whom was in his inner
Speaker 3: circle and whom was kind of on the outskirts, whom
Speaker 3: would have knowledge of his plotting of the assassination, and
Speaker 3: whom probably wouldn't because they were far enough away. Right.
Speaker 3: So establishing the central cast of characters is absolutely paramount
Speaker 3: in putting together any case. And so when I look
Speaker 3: at the conclusions I've drawn and I look for alternatives,
Speaker 3: alternatives to conclusions I've made, I have run out of
Speaker 3: people in central casting right to plug in the gaps
Speaker 3: and the idea that there's anybody who, in all the
Speaker 3: vast amount of research I've done, who's escaped me in
Speaker 3: anybody's inner circle, whether it's Jack Ruby in Dallas or
Speaker 3: David Ferry in New Orleans, you know, or the mercenaries. Doubt,
Speaker 3: in no name, key, there's nobody who I could possibly
Speaker 3: put in any of the roles who's outside these spheres,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean. There's not some random third
Speaker 3: party I never heard of who could replace any of
Speaker 3: the people I put in Daily Plaza. And so that's
Speaker 3: why I'm pretty confident in the conclusions I've come to.
Speaker 2: So h yeah, I mean, And again, if you read
Speaker 2: Corey's work, you'll you'll see just the vast detail that
Speaker 2: he is put into it. And again, his team of
Speaker 2: researchers are phenomenal. They really go into it and deep
Speaker 2: into the whole, you know, the plotting to the aftermath,
Speaker 2: and is just fantastic to read. I think I've gained
Speaker 2: more information from you in my time, just my little
Speaker 2: short time with the social media aspect of this thing,
Speaker 2: I've gained so much knowledge from you, and so I'm
Speaker 2: very grateful for that in itself.
Speaker 3: And another thing is that this central cast of characters
Speaker 3: we have been they're all round. The most important ones
Speaker 3: are surrounding David Faerry in New Orleans, and everybody has
Speaker 3: been on the verge of like those people are entrenched
Speaker 3: in everyone's knowledge. Everyone who's into Kennedy understands the New Orleans,
Speaker 3: seeing the relationships, and they're so close. So many people
Speaker 3: are so close but fail to pull the trigger, fail
Speaker 3: to match The descriptions of the man by ed Hoffman
Speaker 3: and Velma behind the book depository and the witnesses at
Speaker 3: the tip of shooting failed to connect that with the
Speaker 3: descriptions of David Ferry, right, And so it's to me.
Speaker 3: And like another example is, like Garrison had fucking Ferry
Speaker 3: in his office on Monday after the assassination. That's how
Speaker 3: close they came all the way back then thanks to
Speaker 3: Jack Martin's phone call. Right, Like, the assassination has been
Speaker 3: on the verge of being solved for decades. If you
Speaker 3: ask me, it just needed a couple pieces shifted around,
Speaker 3: that's it, you know.
Speaker 2: So Yeah, And speaking of which, for our audience members
Speaker 2: who are just casual viewers to this, your take on
Speaker 2: how close Jim Garrison got back in his time, you know,
Speaker 2: with Clay Shaw charging Clay Shaw for the murder of
Speaker 2: John Kennedy, please do talk a little bit about that
Speaker 2: and how our audience can learn about how close he was.
Speaker 2: And yeah, just give it, give a little spin on that.
Speaker 3: Sure. So, the entire assassination plot unfolds once you debunk
Speaker 3: David Fairi's alibi, once you realize he didn't go to
Speaker 3: the Winterland in Houston, the ice skating rink, once you
Speaker 3: realize that he spent most of that weekend in Hammond, Louisiana.
Speaker 3: And once you go through the statements of Thomas Compton,
Speaker 3: who was a Civil Air Patrol guy who is now
Speaker 3: up at Southeastern University in Louisiana, once you read his
Speaker 3: statements in the statements of his dorm room roommate of
Speaker 3: Frank Cholona, once you read those two documents, those two
Speaker 3: documents are like the thread that when you pull them,
Speaker 3: will unravel first David Faerri's entire story, then it will
Speaker 3: unravel the Knowle, and then it will unravel the whole assassination. Right,
Speaker 3: And so the problem with Garrison is that. And I
Speaker 3: don't know why he never put David Faerry in Dallas,
Speaker 3: but to the end he stayed adamant that David Ferry
Speaker 3: was not in Dallas. And I think most of his
Speaker 3: conclusions were drawn upon the fact that that information came
Speaker 3: from the FBI and the Secret Service. And I just
Speaker 3: don't understand how he never made that connection, because once
Speaker 3: he would have made that connection, the whole thing should
Speaker 3: have fallen right into place. When you go through the
Speaker 3: files about the Winterland, it becomes apparent that the two
Speaker 3: boys who went with David Ferry allegedly Alvin Bobouf and
Speaker 3: Melvin Coffee. Melvin Coffee never went on the trip. That
Speaker 3: was just an alibi use of his name by Leyton Martins.
Speaker 3: There are some interesting things in the Garrison files and
Speaker 3: how he structured his files. And he knew that he
Speaker 3: knew that Leyton Martin's went on that trip, and he
Speaker 3: also knew that David Ferry never went to the Winterland.
Speaker 3: And I don't know why he never put this in
Speaker 3: a book or said it in an interview, but from
Speaker 3: the manner in which Garrison structured his files, it became
Speaker 3: pretty apparent when you pull his file on Sergei Arcochia,
Speaker 3: who I have concluded was the man who went to
Speaker 3: the Winterland instead of David Ferry, who went as David
Speaker 3: Ferry to provide David Ferry with an alibi. When you
Speaker 3: get to the Sergeia Arcocha file in Garrison's collection, the
Speaker 3: entire file is about the Winterland. It doesn't mention Arkocha once. Now,
Speaker 3: at first I thought that might have been a mistake,
Speaker 3: but it wasn't a mistake. Garrison put all the Winterland
Speaker 3: stuff in the Arcata file because he knew Arkacha went
Speaker 3: to the Winterland, but he never said it out loud.
Speaker 3: A lot of things about Garrison and his files that
Speaker 3: the way he set up and structured his files told
Speaker 3: me a whole lot more than he ever said in
Speaker 3: a book or anywhere else. Like when you get to
Speaker 3: the the Kerry Thornley file within the Garrison collection, on
Speaker 3: page one is a note about JD. Tippett, Okay, because
Speaker 3: he knew that he was involved with the shooting of JD. Tippet.
Speaker 3: The second page I believe was up a picture of
Speaker 3: a file from Doug Jones at Jones Printing, and that
Speaker 3: was because he knew Kerry Thornley picked up the flyers
Speaker 3: from Doug Jones, the fair Play for Cuba Committee flyers.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: So Garrison, just in the way he structured his files
Speaker 3: told me that he knew a whole lot more than
Speaker 3: he ever said publicly, which is strange to me. And
Speaker 3: I haven't really quite figured that out because I can't
Speaker 3: ever conclude that he just fi he structured the files
Speaker 3: the way he did by accident or was or didn't
Speaker 3: realize the things that I'm telling you. It just that
Speaker 3: doesn't make any sense. And so Jim Garrison. Another problem
Speaker 3: with the Garrison files is we have barely any of them.
Speaker 3: I know that he arrested Emilio Santana, who I place
Speaker 3: as the shooter at the Daltex, and he interrogated him
Speaker 3: for five days. We don't have a single page of
Speaker 3: that interrogation. Okay, So the vast majority of Garrison's files
Speaker 3: were destroyed. There should be a thousand pages on Lauren
Speaker 3: Hall and William Seymour and Lawrence Howard, but there aren't.
Speaker 3: There aren't any. And I did find an interview of
Speaker 3: Lawrence Howard that was from the Garrison files, but it
Speaker 3: was actually stuck in the Wiseberg collection. So Wiseberg scored
Speaker 3: a copy before it was actually destroyed, which is interesting. So,
Speaker 3: but Garrison was the closest we had come. He arrested
Speaker 3: clay Shaw for conspiracy, and he was correct in doing so.
Speaker 3: He made the connections correctly so to Centremondia Commercial and
Speaker 3: Lewis Bloomfield and perm Index and the Israeli apparatus. But
Speaker 3: that never really he never really pushed that angle of
Speaker 3: things when you look at the materials that he had
Speaker 3: and the conclusions that he had drawn. He arrested clay
Speaker 3: Shaw extremely extremely prematurely, because he hadn't put the case
Speaker 3: together yet. The most important Garrison stuff came from later on,
Speaker 3: way after the case was concluded, in his personal notes
Speaker 3: and things like that. I think he eventually ended up
Speaker 3: coming to a lot of good conclusions, but he never
Speaker 3: put Fairy in Dallas, which is still very frustrating. And
Speaker 3: I'm positive he never identified the shooter on the knoll,
Speaker 3: or probably any of the mafia guys who are in
Speaker 3: Daily Plaza. But he was on the right track in
Speaker 3: his investigations of Faery and clay Shaw, but seemingly he
Speaker 3: didn't take either one of them far enough.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and when I allude to Jim Garrison, I'm talking
Speaker 2: about District Attorney Jim Garrison. To those people out there
Speaker 2: who don't know what we're talking about, you know, I
Speaker 2: think most people in the research community, if not everybody,
Speaker 2: has seen JFK the Oliver Stone film. And like you
Speaker 2: mentioned about Garrison himself, he came up with some really
Speaker 2: good conclusions. I mean, like he he obviously there there
Speaker 2: were moles and people he was dealing with, and he
Speaker 2: was he had threats, you know, his family had threats,
Speaker 2: you know, and the guy was really just I mean,
Speaker 2: you'd mentioned to me one time before that you feel
Speaker 2: like he was, out of all the researchers, he was
Speaker 2: pretty close, just like you mentioned about Fairy, I mean
Speaker 2: like he was he was that close to getting this
Speaker 2: thing dialed in. And unfortunately it's just like one of
Speaker 2: the some of those things in life, you don't know
Speaker 2: how close you are to greatness until you know. You know,
Speaker 2: but it that's how it goes. And so in the
Speaker 2: aftermath of Garrison, do you think that he just was
Speaker 2: deflated after losing that trial on Shaw.
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I don't really think he thought
Speaker 3: he had a chance. And looking at the case, really,
Speaker 3: it's almost seems like almost that he knew he didn't
Speaker 3: have a case, but he had to present what he had.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you're gonna say that Clay Shaws involved
Speaker 3: in the conspiracy to kill the president, you should be
Speaker 3: able to demonstrate how the president was killed, and he
Speaker 3: was never able to do that. So to be able
Speaker 3: to bridge a gap between that and Clay Shaw is
Speaker 3: that's difficult, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And he also he also had Perry Russo's testimony
Speaker 2: to work with on that right, and.
Speaker 3: Perry ruster testimony is so important, it's so important it's.
Speaker 2: Very, very important. But I think at that time the jurors,
Speaker 2: I mean, did they take an account about obviously I
Speaker 2: I don't want to get to graphic about this, but
Speaker 2: did they take an account obviously his sexuality and of
Speaker 2: course some of the problems that he had. And that's
Speaker 2: why they kind of discredited him for his testimony.
Speaker 3: I are you talking about Perry Russo? No, I don't
Speaker 3: think so. I think his testimony was all right. So
Speaker 3: when he identified Oswald as being the man at the party,
Speaker 3: but he said that he had whiskers. And when you
Speaker 3: study the Perry Russo story, it turns out that Perry
Speaker 3: Russo had been to David Ferry's house multiple times in
Speaker 3: the weeks leading up to that party and had met
Speaker 3: that individual several times, and that person had been introduced
Speaker 3: as Ferry's roommate. And the first couple of times that
Speaker 3: he met him, he had a big beard, a full
Speaker 3: on bushy beard. Okay, So first off, there's only one
Speaker 3: person in New Orleans in the circle who's ever had
Speaker 3: a big, bushy beard and was described as a beatnik,
Speaker 3: and that's Kerry Thornley, right, And so the party puts
Speaker 3: what Clem Bertrand and David Ferry and a couple of
Speaker 3: Cubans and Perry Russo and David Ferry. And the conversation
Speaker 3: is extremely prescient, I'll say, because David Ferry is ranting
Speaker 3: about Kennedy and they're talking about assassinating Kennedy. They're talking
Speaker 3: about triangulation of crossfire. They're talking about how everybody involved
Speaker 3: needs to have an alibi and they need to be
Speaker 3: somewhere where they can be saved, where they can be
Speaker 3: said that they were seen in public. They also talk
Speaker 3: about how one of the shooters will be the patsy
Speaker 3: and you'll have to pull it off in a way,
Speaker 3: and one way to do it would be that one
Speaker 3: of the shooters shoots Kennedy and that one of the
Speaker 3: other shooters shoots the patsy. And so that was talked about.
Speaker 3: And so when you start to dig into like what
Speaker 3: they were talking about at this party, and then look
Speaker 3: at what happened in Dealey Plaza, it's pretty close. Not identical,
Speaker 3: but it's pretty close. You know, triangulation to cross fire
Speaker 3: and then everyone has an alibi, right clay Shaw said
Speaker 3: that he was on the train to Portland, but he
Speaker 3: doesn't show up. In Portland till the twenty fifth David
Speaker 3: Ferry is seen at the funeral in Hammon, Louisiana. Right,
Speaker 3: that's supposed to be his alibi there, but that conflicts
Speaker 3: with a whole bunch of other stuff that he's supposed
Speaker 3: to be on this trip. Right, So David Ferry's whole
Speaker 3: trip story falls apart.
Speaker 2: And this was.
Speaker 3: God. I realized that David Ferry was lying about everything
Speaker 3: in about not only been doing my research for maybe
Speaker 3: a year, it was about twenty nineteen or so, and
Speaker 3: when I started to make discoveries I was I first
Speaker 3: started with research, not really thinking that I'd be able
Speaker 3: to figure anything out beyond what's already been done, because
Speaker 3: it's been out for sixty years and everyone's worked the
Speaker 3: case to death. What could possibly be left Once I
Speaker 3: started to realize that David Ferry had lied about everything,
Speaker 3: and that in the documents alone, just in the David
Speaker 3: Ferry file, from comparing his statements to what actually happened,
Speaker 3: it becomes obvious he's lying, right, And so I don't
Speaker 3: know if everyone was just stuck on the statements of
Speaker 3: Regis Kennedy and the alleged alibi story that he gave
Speaker 3: which is even he screws up when the FBI interviews
Speaker 3: David Ferry. He screws up his own alibi so bad,
Speaker 3: and they just brush right over it, you know. So,
Speaker 3: and when you think that David Ferry was in Garrison's
Speaker 3: office on Monday, held till Tuesday, and then talked to
Speaker 3: by the FBI and the Secret Service, and they clear
Speaker 3: him like the guy's immaculate, Like he couldn't possibly have
Speaker 3: anything to do with this. How could they be so
Speaker 3: sure after one in a short interview with David Ferry?
Speaker 3: It makes no sense. Here's an interesting connection. The first
Speaker 3: person to visit David Ferry in jail was John Corporan.
Speaker 3: John Corporan was the guy who put Oswald on television
Speaker 3: on WDSU. So that that is interesting, isn't it very
Speaker 3: interesting considering the series of events that got Oswald on television.
Speaker 3: So that's a great story. I love that story because
Speaker 3: it's proof that it's proof the CIA was setting up Oswald.
Speaker 3: The story started. It starts with, you know, when he's
Speaker 3: out there handing out those flyers on Canal Street and
Speaker 3: then he ends up getting filmed and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: That story came about because John corpor William Gaday is
Speaker 3: across the street in his building. William Gadday runs the
Speaker 3: Latin American Report, which is a straight up. He's a
Speaker 3: CIA employee and he runs Latin American propaganda add New Orleans,
Speaker 3: and he sees Oswald out there. So what does he do.
Speaker 3: He calls Jesse Corr at the Trademark, who's an associate
Speaker 3: close associate at clay Shaw. Jesse Corr goes and sees Oswald.
Speaker 3: He calls John corporand John corporand sends out a news crew.
Speaker 3: They get Oswald on TV. Then they set up the
Speaker 3: interview that he's on television. And who was William goad
Speaker 3: Day's boss? It's Joandas Joanitas of jan Wave is his boss.
Speaker 3: And we know that Joandas was in New Orleans that
Speaker 3: summer right, So to me, this is pretty clear evidence
Speaker 3: the CIA intentionally got Oswald on television to help build
Speaker 3: the legend of Oswald the communists.
Speaker 2: So hmmm. You know what's so interesting too when we
Speaker 2: talk about oswalden that day and again your second book,
Speaker 2: which is called in black and White, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2: You know, I, you know, we could go back to
Speaker 2: the beginning of it we'd have to do another separate
Speaker 2: show for that, because the story in itself about Oswald
Speaker 2: is just his humble beginnings to just everything that he'd
Speaker 2: went through. We could well, we'll talk about that another show,
Speaker 2: but I want to kind of stay on topic about
Speaker 2: what this whole thing is. You know, Oswald being involved.
Speaker 2: He wasn't involved. I mean, as the audience gets to
Speaker 2: know about you and your work, they'll begin to see
Speaker 2: that everything is not what it appears. But from a
Speaker 2: let's just say a surface level activity. You said that,
Speaker 2: and I agree with this that the CIA, you know,
Speaker 2: had Oswald there doing the interview basically just to talk
Speaker 2: to the guy from New Orleans. Now, when that expunges
Speaker 2: out to the day of the assassination, a lot of
Speaker 2: people have the impression that they had already had this
Speaker 2: thing pre coordinated about like what you mentioned that Perry Russo.
Speaker 2: It saw at the party, you know, where they had
Speaker 2: plans for Patsy, they had plans who would take the shot, this, this,
Speaker 2: that nature. So with the CIA's aspect in CIA's role
Speaker 2: in this, in your opinion, how would that coordinate with
Speaker 2: the day of the assassination.
Speaker 3: Well, the CIA are masters of plausible deniability, right, And
Speaker 3: so all the guys who were involved have overlapping relationships,
Speaker 3: most of the guys in New Orleans with Carlos Marcello, right,
Speaker 3: So I mean technically they CIA could say, yeah, you know,
Speaker 3: hypothetically speaking, you know, yeah, David Ferry might have shot Kennedy,
Speaker 3: but he was working for Carlos Marcelo, which is a fact, right,
Speaker 3: So they could kind of have a plausible deniability there.
Speaker 3: But every single one of these guys from Clay Shaw
Speaker 3: who was not working for Carlos Marcelo, right, clay Shaw
Speaker 3: was a long time upper level guy going back to
Speaker 3: the days of the OSS when he worked for General
Speaker 3: Charles Thresher. Isn't that his name Thrasher Thresher or Thrasher
Speaker 3: And so it's it's very difficult to separate the CIA
Speaker 3: from any one of these guys, even the mercenaries Hall
Speaker 3: Howard Seymour. Those guys were all CIA back through inter
Speaker 3: penn which was funding funded by the CIA down in
Speaker 3: no name key. So the CIA is completely entrenched. And
Speaker 3: then you can look at it from the angle that
Speaker 3: the CIA and the mafia has been working together forever, right,
Speaker 3: So the mafia guys, you could say, had some CIA contacts.
Speaker 3: That's the problem with the CIA. They're entrenched in everything.
Speaker 3: Like ever, it's hard to get away from it. So
Speaker 3: but people will often ask, did the CIA kill Kennedy
Speaker 3: or was it just a couple of rogue people within
Speaker 3: the CIA. I'm sorry, but when those rogue people are
Speaker 3: the top guys in the whole agency, that's not a
Speaker 3: rogue operation' that's the CIA. Okay. If Dulles and Angleton
Speaker 3: and Weisner and all these guys were in on this,
Speaker 3: that is not a rogue operation. That is how the
Speaker 3: CIA operates. The players might have just been more closely
Speaker 3: connected to the top than they normally are when they
Speaker 3: pull operations, whereas like an officer out in the field
Speaker 3: will be making the decisions, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: But still I believe the again more plausible deniability. I
Speaker 3: think a bulk of the decision making process was offloaded
Speaker 3: through the mechanism of permandex which permandecks, make no mistake
Speaker 3: about it, It's still CIA and Masad and Mafia and
Speaker 3: Corsican Mafia, and like permandex is like the proof that
Speaker 3: all these all these different organizations work together and they're
Speaker 3: like the center They're like the center of the wheel,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean. Everything connects to them. And
Speaker 3: so that's why they have organizations like permandecks for more
Speaker 3: plausible deniability, to outsource the things that they can't do
Speaker 3: within the agency, things that might be illegal within the agency,
Speaker 3: they could offload to this shadowy corporation to make the
Speaker 3: decisions on and then they can maintain their plausible deniability. Right,
Speaker 3: that's the name of the game. That's why the CIA
Speaker 3: does everything they do so they can maintain plausible deniability.
Speaker 3: That's why tradecraft even exists in the first place, you know. So,
Speaker 3: but yeah, they're entrenched in the whole thing. But you
Speaker 3: have to understand the overlapping interests because in nineteen sixty three,
Speaker 3: at that point in time, going back to World War Two,
Speaker 3: you have this relationship between the mafia, the CIA, and
Speaker 3: the Free Israeli Zionists, who all have the same interests.
Speaker 3: At this point in time, they're all the same organization. Fundamentally,
Speaker 3: the mafia is more concerned about money in their own territory,
Speaker 3: but they got the gunmen ready to go, you know,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean. So when I hear people
Speaker 3: talk about like, oh, even the gunmen don't know who
Speaker 3: gave the order. That's BS, you know, that's BS. Like
Speaker 3: I don't. I'll never buy that at all, because when
Speaker 3: I've come to understand too much about the mafia and
Speaker 3: their hitmen and how they operate, and they're not outsourcing
Speaker 3: to like nameless assassins on CIA payroll, you know what
Speaker 3: I mean. They got their guys in house, and that's
Speaker 3: how it was across the board. There's no outsourced assassins
Speaker 3: in this damn thing. So everybody's in an inner circle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting when you mentioned that, because there's a
Speaker 2: lot of red herring type stuff going on with this,
Speaker 2: whether it's all the intelligence agents in Dallas that day,
Speaker 2: whether it be you know, quote unquote the foreign assassins,
Speaker 2: all you know, whatever has been told before. You know,
Speaker 2: we hear different theories, you know, whether it be the
Speaker 2: driver that shot Kennedy Greer or the guy with the
Speaker 2: semi automatic rifle and back in the car. The stories
Speaker 2: go on. But you know, I think what people fail
Speaker 2: to realize is that the assassination itself was only what
Speaker 2: eight point four seconds, So you can't really do a
Speaker 2: whole lot. You have to have that thing well coordinated
Speaker 2: I mean, the thing has to be just like you
Speaker 2: mentioned triangulation of fire earlier. You have to have that thing.
Speaker 2: And you, as a former police officer, you know if
Speaker 2: somebody is planning to do the perfect crime, they are
Speaker 2: going to have that down to a t. And in
Speaker 2: eight point four seconds, that's quite clear what happened.
Speaker 3: That would indicate that they didn't just show up that
Speaker 3: day randomly to do the assassination. The twentieth there's that
Speaker 3: story about the two cops in Daily Plaza who see
Speaker 3: men pointing a rifle over the fence at the grassy Knoll.
Speaker 3: By the time they get over there, those men are gone.
Speaker 3: So we have that story. We have another story about
Speaker 3: a younger man and an older man moving a rifle
Speaker 3: from one car to another car, you know, in the
Speaker 3: days leading up to the assassination. So there's a lot
Speaker 3: of little tidbits that would give us the idea that
Speaker 3: they had thoroughly scope this thing out. Then you have
Speaker 3: the document involving Clara Flournoy Gay who was a client
Speaker 3: of g Ray Gills, who goes to Gill's office and
Speaker 3: she's there after the assassination and they're cleaning out David
Speaker 3: Ferry's desk, and she finds a piece of paper there
Speaker 3: on the desk that has like a street in the
Speaker 3: street has ELM written on it, and there's like a
Speaker 3: box which indicates a building, and that building had the
Speaker 3: words VIP written in it. Right, So, that to me
Speaker 3: is another piece of evidence that would indicate that they
Speaker 3: had the area very well. They were very familiar with
Speaker 3: the area that they were going to. Right. We have
Speaker 3: two or three of these little pieces of data which
Speaker 3: would indicate they knew exactly what was going on, what
Speaker 3: they were going to do. And I think one of
Speaker 3: the biggest, one of the biggest conclusions I've drawn in
Speaker 3: regards to their activities is that I think they knew
Speaker 3: there was an escape. They knew they had to blend in,
Speaker 3: and that's that they had to fire. And then instantly,
Speaker 3: like the statements of Ed Hoffman, the shooter fires, takes
Speaker 3: the rifle, throws it to the railroad man, and then
Speaker 3: he fixes his hat and just walks off casually. Right.
Speaker 3: So I think all of them were in that state
Speaker 3: of mind where they knew that's exactly what had to happen.
Speaker 3: And then when you ended up going through all the documents,
Speaker 3: you'll find out that they ended up they ended up
Speaker 3: locating I had found five rifles in Daly Plaza that
Speaker 3: they had found that day, and then one of the
Speaker 3: guys in the research chap pointed out that one of
Speaker 3: the cops is walking out of the building with a Remington,
Speaker 3: so that's a sixth rifle. So they found a slew
Speaker 3: of rifles there in Daly Plaza. The guy's fired and
Speaker 3: if they couldn't didn't have someone to handle the rifle,
Speaker 3: they just ditched it. And then they have the rifle
Speaker 3: that was traced back to Lauren Hall, the Johnson thirty six,
Speaker 3: which they There's no real clarification on how they found
Speaker 3: this rifle. The word on the street is that it
Speaker 3: was found the next day by the lawn crew, but
Speaker 3: I don't believe that because by the next day, the
Speaker 3: FBI had already contacted Richard Hathcock out in Los Angeles
Speaker 3: and he told him the whole backstory to the rifle
Speaker 3: and linked it to Jerry Hemming and Lauren Hall. Jerry Hemming,
Speaker 3: I can't put anywhere near Deally Plaza. He might have
Speaker 3: just been in Miami, like he said. But Lauren Hall,
Speaker 3: on the other hand, place on the sixth floor right
Speaker 3: next to Lawrence Howard, and so they had all the
Speaker 3: information on that rifle the very next day. So yeah,
Speaker 3: they found a slower rifles that day, two probably three mausers,
Speaker 3: the Carkano, the Johnson, and then they end up taking
Speaker 3: an infield three to zero three off of Buell Fraser,
Speaker 3: which I'm convinced they planted on Buell Fraser. And you know,
Speaker 3: I'm almost convinced that that rifle that they pulled off
Speaker 3: Bull Fraser was the actual rifle that shot Kennedy. And
Speaker 3: so I would love to find that rifle. My guys
Speaker 3: have tried to find that rifle. It's Dallas Police don't
Speaker 3: owe anything about.
Speaker 2: It, of course don't. Of course they don't. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: it's interesting about Buell Fraser. We could talk about that
Speaker 2: some other time too. But you know, his story is
Speaker 2: interesting because there's a lot of claims about Curry and
Speaker 2: the Dallas Police Department having pre type confessions for quote
Speaker 2: unquote Patsy's that day. What do you what's your thoughts
Speaker 2: in regards to that particular story.
Speaker 3: I don't doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised of that
Speaker 3: at all, You don't, Okay, So when where that could
Speaker 3: be heavily. Uh. The situation is there's a If you
Speaker 3: look for it, you'll find a stack of documents of
Speaker 3: statements of the people who worked inside the book depository. Okay,
Speaker 3: oh my god. There are some sentences in there that
Speaker 3: are straight up copy paste from one statement to the next,
Speaker 3: statements like um, and the phrasing was very specific, and
Speaker 3: they say in almost all the statements, I did not
Speaker 3: see any strangers or anybody who did not work in
Speaker 3: the building present that day. Something along those lines is
Speaker 3: virtually copy paste in everyone's statement from within the book depository.
Speaker 3: So this just a comment on the side. This set
Speaker 3: of statements of people who worked in the book Depository
Speaker 3: throughout all the different businesses. This is what really kind
Speaker 3: of gave me the first possible inclination that Oswald wasn't
Speaker 3: present in the book Depository and hadn't really worked at
Speaker 3: the book Depository at all. You'll find at least a
Speaker 3: half a dozen statements inside that collection where people are saying,
Speaker 3: I thought I might have seen him before, but he
Speaker 3: wasn't there that day. I didn't see him that day.
Speaker 3: A bunch of people said they didn't see him that day.
Speaker 3: A bunch of people said they didn't see him ever
Speaker 3: until he was on television, and so I thought this
Speaker 3: was very unusual because when you work in a building
Speaker 3: like that. I've worked in an office building with a
Speaker 3: bunch of businesses that weren't the ones that I worked for,
Speaker 3: and after a while, you know, you all go to
Speaker 3: lunch at the same time. You just see everybody coming
Speaker 3: and going at some point in time. So when I
Speaker 3: started to see witness statements that said that they didn't
Speaker 3: never see Oswald, I'm like, that's interesting, and that kind
Speaker 3: of gave me the idea to start looking and comparing
Speaker 3: statements and digging to see what proof do we actually
Speaker 3: have that Oswald was in the building that day. And
Speaker 3: you know what, to this very day, I'm still looking.
Speaker 3: I can't find any evidence that can't be easily explained away.
Speaker 3: So that's why I came to the conclusion that Oswald
Speaker 3: hadn't stepp foot in that building. And then recently it
Speaker 3: was shared with me a video of the district Attorney Wade,
Speaker 3: and he's talking to the press and he tells the
Speaker 3: press that when Oswald was interviewed, he completely denied being
Speaker 3: in the building that day, and then to clarify. One
Speaker 3: of the reporters asked him, well, he does work here, right,
Speaker 3: and then Wade says, yes, but not that day, like
Speaker 3: that's what Oswald told him, that he wasn't there that day.
Speaker 3: And I one hundred percent agree with that statement because
Speaker 3: we don't have any evidence that Oswald was there that day.
Speaker 3: We don't have a photograph, we don't have a video.
Speaker 3: And once you substitute Oswald for another person who was
Speaker 3: working as Oswald, it fills in all the gaps on
Speaker 3: the people who interacted with Allz over a couple of
Speaker 3: weeks that he was allegedly there. So Yeah, it's a
Speaker 3: very interesting set of events that happened within the book Depository,
Speaker 3: and it's so my conclusions are so drastically different from
Speaker 3: the official story that I don't see how they could
Speaker 3: ever let anything out that's even remotely close to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I agree with that. I mean to kind
Speaker 2: of branch off that statement that you just made. I
Speaker 2: posted something last night on my ex account and it
Speaker 2: was CBS News. I think it was back and well
Speaker 2: it was on the twenty I think it was a
Speaker 2: twenty third when he spent the night at the jailhouse,
Speaker 2: and he had confided into talking to a guard that
Speaker 2: was there, and he was they let him know that
Speaker 2: he was being charged for the murder of the president,
Speaker 2: and his words directly were, it's ridiculous. It's just ridiculous,
Speaker 2: you know. You know, And when you look at his
Speaker 2: quote unquote many press conferences that he had and he
Speaker 2: said he was a patsy, that's a legendary statement there.
Speaker 2: But you look at his by body language, just everything
Speaker 2: that he had. They don't have key transcripts to the
Speaker 2: interrogation too, which is very interesting. So you don't even
Speaker 2: you don't even right, Well, of course no, I don't.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't believe it either.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't believe him anyway. I wouldn't believe that anyway.
Speaker 3: Like I have a very hard time believing anything that
Speaker 3: they tell us was said by Oswald from the interviews
Speaker 3: or from who was it was it like Fritz's notes
Speaker 3: or whoever it was, because we're believing, we have to
Speaker 3: believe a bunch of liars that are gonna give us
Speaker 3: hearsay that Oswald said this, like the statement from Roger Craig,
Speaker 3: and I can't figure Roger Craig out Roger Craig's the
Speaker 3: one who said when they talked about the station wagon,
Speaker 3: that Oswald said, that's missus pain station wagon. You leave
Speaker 3: her out of this. That statement in and of itself
Speaker 3: doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Once you realize that that
Speaker 3: Green Nash Rambler actually was a Green Nash Rambler, it
Speaker 3: wasn't the Pains station Wagon, then that statement doesn't make
Speaker 3: any sense. There's no reason that he ever would have
Speaker 3: said that. And we got that from Roger Craig. Roger
Speaker 3: Craig the same guy who said that there were three
Speaker 3: shells underneath the window. Yet every single document surrounding the
Speaker 3: collection of those shells says there were two shells until
Speaker 3: the twenty seventh when that changes. So I don't know
Speaker 3: whether to believe Roger Craig about a damn thing, because
Speaker 3: he says somethings that like his statements in regards to
Speaker 3: when he believes he saw Oswald come running down from
Speaker 3: the slope gett into the Green National Rambler and leave
Speaker 3: his statements to me back my theory that it wasn't Oswald,
Speaker 3: that it was William Seymour. But then he says he
Speaker 3: sees that guy inside the office and he says that
Speaker 3: stuff about missus pain, Like, none of that jives at all.
Speaker 3: So I don't know what Roger Craig's deal is, but
Speaker 3: he seems he seemed kind of on the up and
Speaker 3: up sometimes, you know, and they didn't kill him for
Speaker 3: no reason.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, that's interesting. I mean I I always think
Speaker 2: about this too. I mean, this is just a hypothetical. Okay, Well,
Speaker 2: I have a two part question. Let me ask the
Speaker 2: latter question first and then I'll ask the generalized question secondly.
Speaker 2: So when it comes to and I don't want to
Speaker 2: spoil the book, but if people have done their research themselves,
Speaker 2: they'll know about the movie theater incident where there was
Speaker 2: a Oswald second quote unquote Oswald up in the balcony.
Speaker 2: It was arrested and taken out the back, and then
Speaker 2: obviously Oswald himself was taken out the front. Now is
Speaker 2: it a possibility, and this is just a really low probability,
Speaker 2: is it a possibility at the Dallas PD that day
Speaker 2: that there was two Oswalts being interviewed that day or interrogated.
Speaker 3: I don't believe so. No, because the series of events
Speaker 3: leading to that second person being arrested out of the
Speaker 3: balcony of the Texas Theater taken out the back right,
Speaker 3: they're wearing a white T shirt, put into a cop car,
Speaker 3: driven away. This is all seen by Bernard Hare at
Speaker 3: Bernie's hobby house. From there, less than five minutes later,
Speaker 3: we will then see the same person white T shirt
Speaker 3: inside the red Ford Falcon, which is owned by Igor Vaganov,
Speaker 3: and he's seen it mac Pate's garage, right, So that
Speaker 3: person got funneled out the back door given Igor Waganov's
Speaker 3: red Ford Falcon, and then he drives over by mac
Speaker 3: Pate's garage where he's probably just collecting himself because this
Speaker 3: is within five minutes of him being funneled out the
Speaker 3: back door, so that would preclude him from being brought
Speaker 3: to the station for any kind of questioning. Now, kind
Speaker 3: of separate from your question, Robert Oswald was there that
Speaker 3: day at the station, and Robert Oswald could have possibly
Speaker 3: been mistaken for Lee, And I can tell you at
Speaker 3: some point in his life he went by the name Lee.
Speaker 3: So it doesn't really answer your question, but I'm very
Speaker 3: suspicious of Robert Oswald at some point in time. I'm
Speaker 3: gonna I'm gonna do a big focus on him one
Speaker 3: of these days because it needs it.
Speaker 2: I am too. I am too. So let me let
Speaker 2: me give you Let me give you my take on
Speaker 2: Robert Oswald. And this is a very biased perspective because
Speaker 2: I mean, I you know, you know me, I believe
Speaker 2: Oswald is innocent. I believe that that he I just
Speaker 2: even said this earlier on my AX I said it
Speaker 2: was the biggest growth injustice in the almost American history
Speaker 2: and what happened that day because I believe he was innocent,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, regardless of who it was that
Speaker 2: got arrested that day, right, But anyways, for the fact
Speaker 2: that Robert would go in and talk to his brother
Speaker 2: and make this Kakamami story talking about how his brother
Speaker 2: was all cocky about things. You know, there's two sides
Speaker 2: of this, Corey. I mean, I would say that he
Speaker 2: wanted to protect his family, right, his his his wife
Speaker 2: and his kids. Right. I would think money would be
Speaker 2: a big factor protection things of that nature. To turn
Speaker 2: against your blood. But I got a major problem with
Speaker 2: that because that's gonna that lived with him for the
Speaker 2: rest of his life. I really believe that. I believe
Speaker 2: he screwed his brother over when it comes to I mean,
Speaker 2: you didn't see him ever defend his brother whatsoever. So
Speaker 2: either there was some sort of like vitriol that was there.
Speaker 2: They didn't like each other whatsoever, and so he wasn't
Speaker 2: afraid to just throw him under the bus. And if
Speaker 2: that's the case, why was he only one of the
Speaker 2: few people that went to visit Oswald when he was
Speaker 2: there jailed that weekend?
Speaker 3: Even ruled out the possibility that Robert Oswald played some
Speaker 3: role in the setup of Lee Harvey Oswald. I haven't
Speaker 3: ruled that out yet. His ability to throw him under
Speaker 3: the bus so quickly is inexplainable. Really, if you asked
Speaker 3: me the thing. Have you read his book Lee, It's
Speaker 3: a fascinating reads. He's so he's the whole book is
Speaker 3: him condemning? Is basically, Oh, my brother was a good guy,
Speaker 3: but he obviously did it. I mean, that's the theme
Speaker 3: of the whole book, you know. But Robert Oswald is
Speaker 3: duplicitous in as far as he was most certainly involved.
Speaker 3: And if you've gone through Lee, Harvey Oswald and Black
Speaker 3: and White, he was clearly involved in the dual Oswald
Speaker 3: scheme going back to probably nineteen forty five. So that
Speaker 3: means that Robert Oswald has never been honest about the
Speaker 3: life of Lee Harvey Oswald. Ever, his warrant commissioned testimony
Speaker 3: is a must read because he almost spills the beans
Speaker 3: several times on contradictions in Oswald's early life inadvertently, and
Speaker 3: so he's not somebody that can be trusted at all.
Speaker 3: Period the depths of which he was involved in Oswald's setup,
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I have a feeling that most
Speaker 3: certainly he was at some point in time.
Speaker 2: I mean, his whole circle of people that he was
Speaker 2: involved with, other than his children, I mean, they were
Speaker 2: all just crazy. They were all aloof to anything, perpetual liars,
Speaker 2: compulsive liars, people that they were kind of a mirror
Speaker 2: of like what the CIA is, right, I mean, even
Speaker 2: though they weren't made, they could have been CIA, could
Speaker 2: have been some sort of agency, you know, Oswald was.
Speaker 2: He was surrounded basically by piranhas, and he was the
Speaker 2: only fish in the pond.
Speaker 3: So my thesis is that Oswald. So we have Oswald
Speaker 3: handing out the flowers on the street corner. He's obviously
Speaker 3: dealing with Kerry Thorn Lee, But I feel as though
Speaker 3: you're not going to let your patsy in on the
Speaker 3: inner mechanisms of your operation, right, So I believe he
Speaker 3: was kept at a distance from David Ferry and that circle.
Speaker 3: We do have Clay Shaw going and looking for Oswald
Speaker 3: after he had moved back to Fort Worth at Lillian
Speaker 3: Morett's house, so and we know that Oswald did stay
Speaker 3: there for some time, both Oswald's believe it or not,
Speaker 3: and so Lillian Morett's most certainly in on that scheme.
Speaker 3: But I believe the only evidence that I have of
Speaker 3: people who would have been handling or even interacting with
Speaker 3: Oswald are Carrie Thornley and Clayshaw. I don't believe they
Speaker 3: ever would have let him around five point forty four
Speaker 3: Camp Street, which means then all the sightings of Oswald
Speaker 3: at five forty four Camp Street were Carrie Thornley, not Oswald.
Speaker 3: And so I don't believe that you're gonna have a
Speaker 3: central base of operations and then you're just gonna let
Speaker 3: the guy you're setting up come hang out with you
Speaker 3: all the time. It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
Speaker 3: So I don't think that he had anything to do
Speaker 3: with any of the stuff going on in New Orleans.
Speaker 3: Other than what he was told to do by carry Thornley,
Speaker 3: hence like the handing out the flyers and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: And then it makes more sense that Oswald was getting
Speaker 3: set up when you get into the letters that were
Speaker 3: sent to Vincent t Lee and the Fair Play for
Speaker 3: Cuba Committee. When you read those letters, it's clear that
Speaker 3: they were not written by Oswald. One of them was
Speaker 3: even one of the letters sent on August first of
Speaker 3: sixty three, sent to Vincent t Lee, talks about the
Speaker 3: fight that Oswald gets into on the street and how
Speaker 3: he got jumped in all that stuff. Well that fight
Speaker 3: didn't happen till August ninth, So how was it talked
Speaker 3: about in an August first letter?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: So they backdated letters and put in information that they
Speaker 3: screwed up. You know, they just screwed up. And so
Speaker 3: the only person in that who had been in that
Speaker 3: world who I think would have done that was carry Thornlee.
Speaker 3: I think Kerry Thornley forged those letters, and so yeah,
Speaker 3: I think he was kept at a distance. Same thing.
Speaker 3: That's why another reason I don't buy that he was
Speaker 3: ever at the book depository. So if you're gonna have
Speaker 3: assassins come in the back door. You're going to take
Speaker 3: all the employees, get him to come out in front
Speaker 3: of the building so they can't see what's going on inside.
Speaker 3: You know, you're going to kill the power to the
Speaker 3: elevator so that nobody can screw up the escape of
Speaker 3: the assassin's coming down in the elevators. And and all
Speaker 3: this time you're just gonna let Lee Harvey Oswald wander
Speaker 3: around the building. Give me a break. That doesn't make
Speaker 3: any sense either.
Speaker 2: So casually go on to a bus, have him leave
Speaker 2: the bus, then go on a cab, right and let
Speaker 2: him go to his boarding house, and then go right
Speaker 2: to a police officer, shoot him randomly, and then go
Speaker 2: on foot to a movie theater, get some popcorn, and
Speaker 2: then start talking to people.
Speaker 3: It's ridiculous, right and so, and Tippett has shot at
Speaker 3: one oh six, and we know he wasn't on the
Speaker 3: bus or in the cab. When you get into those stories,
Speaker 3: those stories fall apart right, right, and so, but Oswald
Speaker 3: from the time he pulled the trigger on Kennedy till
Speaker 3: the time he would have had to pull the trigger
Speaker 3: on tip it would have been thirty six minutes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 3: Either I don't think so.
Speaker 2: I don't think so, I don't think Yeah, it just
Speaker 2: doesn't add up to me. And that's how I figure out.
Speaker 2: You know, you put two and two if you know
Speaker 2: they've been hood winking the public for you know, sixty
Speaker 2: two years, and the fact that the public believes this
Speaker 2: is their naive, completely naive. And you could be on
Speaker 2: any camp that you want to. But the camp that
Speaker 2: I just can't buy into is the lone gunman camp.
Speaker 2: I can't believe. I just I don't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I don't think we're ever going to have
Speaker 3: the documents, so never gonna give us anything else. And
Speaker 3: the reason for that is it'll just tarnish American prestige
Speaker 3: and reputation if they were to ever admit anything, because
Speaker 3: right now they still have a plausible deniability. So think
Speaker 3: of it this way, like modern day Russia is a
Speaker 3: different country than the Soviet Union was, I mean vastly
Speaker 3: different everything. Yet and the Soviet Union committed atrocities like
Speaker 3: unbelievable against its own people. They had their own mk
Speaker 3: lture and all that stuff, and they didn't have any
Speaker 3: constitution to restrict them from doing anything. Yet Vladimir Putin
Speaker 3: would never ever let any of that information ever get out,
Speaker 3: period because it would tarnish on an international scale Russian prestige.
Speaker 3: You know what I mean, maintaining a plausible deniability is
Speaker 3: the story is the whole game, you know.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and that's what that that's what was with
Speaker 2: the March release. I mean, like you know, you and
Speaker 2: I talked about this a long time ago. I mean
Speaker 2: we both knew that nothing was going to come from
Speaker 2: those those those those files. And so the thing for
Speaker 2: me is that, you know, I look at all the
Speaker 2: files that came out, and sure you got an Underhill
Speaker 2: document there, you got the slush Ins, your memo, whatever,
Speaker 2: but those things were never going to be as you know,
Speaker 2: as our friend Jefferson Mortley likes to say, look for
Speaker 2: a fact pattern, not for a smoking gun. Okay, well
Speaker 2: yeah that's true. You're never going to find a smoking
Speaker 2: gun in any of these things.
Speaker 3: Well see, I disagree. I disagree completely because you have
Speaker 3: the to me that these smoking gun document of all
Speaker 3: time is the Frank Cholowna document.
Speaker 2: Right, But I'm not but I'm saying about the March files.
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about the March finals, the Shilloona document
Speaker 2: I'm not talking about the Sprague documents that you've talked about.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about what is in the what you might
Speaker 2: call it the National Archives or even the Mary Farrell Foundation.
Speaker 2: You're not gonna you're gonna find a generic wall of
Speaker 2: what they.
Speaker 3: Have, right. I've skimmed a big chunk of those, all
Speaker 3: the documents from twenty seventeen onward, you know. And there's
Speaker 3: a decent search function, and I go and I search
Speaker 3: for specific terms I never searched. They never have any
Speaker 3: of the stuff I want. It's all about Russia and
Speaker 3: so and uh, Mexico City. One hundred percent of it's irrelevant.
Speaker 3: There's nothing new or good in any of it. But
Speaker 3: I'll tell you what is good. I've been covering on
Speaker 3: my podcast this document we got from the Russians, which
Speaker 3: is it's not a no smoking guns or nothing, but
Speaker 3: it makes it very clear that they knew putting this
Speaker 3: thing on Oswald was bogus from the beginning. That's pretty
Speaker 3: apparent when you read that they call out the November ninth,
Speaker 3: nineteen sixty three letter to the Soviet embassy, which is
Speaker 3: clearly they even called it out. They said it's either
Speaker 3: a forgery or an intentional provocation because Oswald talks about
Speaker 3: if he stayed in Mexico any longer, he'd have to
Speaker 3: use his real name, which is totally bonk. He doesn't
Speaker 3: have another real name, right, So the letter is written
Speaker 3: in such a manner to try to connect Oswald to
Speaker 3: the Soviets, and they call it out. And that's the
Speaker 3: best part of this whole Russian document. Other than that,
Speaker 3: the whole point of the Russian document is it's a
Speaker 3: message to America. It's showing the parallels. You have to
Speaker 3: read between the lines on this one, but it's basically
Speaker 3: the Russians telling us, Hey, there's no need for us
Speaker 3: to repeat history. We don't have to have another Cuban
Speaker 3: missile crisis all the thing. Like when you read through
Speaker 3: it and it talks about like it's a lot of
Speaker 3: Russian posturing around the funeral and stuff like that, but
Speaker 3: it's it's very very clear that they're trying to send
Speaker 3: us a message with this document, and that's that we
Speaker 3: really all just need to chill out, not repeat history,
Speaker 3: and we can all move forward. That's what I get
Speaker 3: from reading this document. It has more to do with
Speaker 3: that than it does about the assassination but it does
Speaker 3: call out a lot of the stuff, you know, to them,
Speaker 3: it was pretty obvious in their internal communications back and
Speaker 3: forth between du Brennan, who was the ambassador and mccoyan,
Speaker 3: who was another one of these Russians. We have the
Speaker 3: internal communications pretty they know it was a conspiracy period.
Speaker 3: They're talking about it in terms of it was a conspiracy,
Speaker 3: whether Oswald was involved or not. They knew it had
Speaker 3: more moving parts than what we were being told. So
Speaker 3: this Russian document I think was great, and it was
Speaker 3: not translated by the government, thank god, it was translated independently,
Speaker 3: So very good stuff there. It's the best document we've
Speaker 3: forgotten in a decade.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. I do like I did skin through a
Speaker 2: little bit too, But they didn't mention that that. They
Speaker 2: didn't really think that highly of Oswald either. They they
Speaker 2: looked at him as more of a liability and like,
Speaker 2: you know, kind of but I don't want to say
Speaker 2: a joke, but.
Speaker 3: I believe Oswald wasn't sent there to do any kind
Speaker 3: of operative work. He was meant to go there and
Speaker 3: just get them to spin their gears. Meaning we know
Speaker 3: for fact they put him in an apartment that was
Speaker 3: bugged to the hilt, which means they had people listening
Speaker 3: to that guy twenty four hours a day for years. Okay,
Speaker 3: they must have generated thousands of pages of documents just
Speaker 3: documenting the fact that Oswald wasn't doing anything, you know,
Speaker 3: and I think that's why they sent him there. They
Speaker 3: sent a bunch of spies there just to do nothing,
Speaker 3: just to go and work and live. And he actually
Speaker 3: did bring back diagrams of like the radio factory and
Speaker 3: stuff like that, which is pretty interesting. But there is
Speaker 3: so much more that the Russians didn't give us. They
Speaker 3: have to have thousands upon thousands of other pages about
Speaker 3: just just their surveillance of him that they did not
Speaker 3: give us. And they downplay who he is big time.
Speaker 3: And you have to think part of their downplaying him
Speaker 3: could be just political posturing, modern day political posturing, going
Speaker 3: along with the American official story as a nod to hey,
Speaker 3: we're your friend. You know, that's always a possibility to so.
Speaker 3: But they they called out from the jump from the
Speaker 3: time he got there, and they see they put it
Speaker 3: in a different perspective. They said, from the first minutes
Speaker 3: that Oswald got there, he didn't even attempt to explore
Speaker 3: or enjoy Soviet culture or find out what Soviet life
Speaker 3: was like, or any of that stuff. He immediately went
Speaker 3: to the embassy and started to do all that stuff,
Speaker 3: which gave which tipped them off that he really didn't
Speaker 3: care about living in the Soviet Union. So it was,
Speaker 3: it was it was a new perspective on it that
Speaker 3: I hadn't heard.
Speaker 2: So, m uh, yeah, that's really interesting. I didn't. I
Speaker 2: didn't know that part of it, which would lead me
Speaker 2: to believe that, you know, when we fast forward from
Speaker 2: his time in Russia to when he gets back to America,
Speaker 2: which really blows my mind because there are some top
Speaker 2: tier quote unquote research or influencers that are out there
Speaker 2: that like to say that because they got back to
Speaker 2: the United States, they were not they didn't get the
Speaker 2: recognition or whatever they whatever they were looking for. And
Speaker 2: this is not my quote, this is their quote. They
Speaker 2: said that Oswald Marina had gotten fed up and they
Speaker 2: decided to go or they wanted to go down to
Speaker 2: the Mexico City embassy to get a passport, passport to
Speaker 2: go to Cuba. Now that's ridiculous.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, after the whole debacle in the Soviet Union
Speaker 3: in the first place, Oswald should have known or would
Speaker 3: have known, they never would have given him another visa.
Speaker 3: He went there, and then literally within the first six
Speaker 3: months of being there, he started sending letters trying to
Speaker 3: get home, right, But he was there for two and
Speaker 3: a half years, and so he couldn't get back, and
Speaker 3: so it took him that long to get out, and
Speaker 3: so why on earth would they ever give him a visa.
Speaker 3: The notion that they would ever even consider giving him
Speaker 3: a visa is ridiculous. So to me, it's just part
Speaker 3: of a ridiculous story that they tried to paint him
Speaker 3: as this still in all the way up till October
Speaker 3: September October sixty three, still a radical communist dissident, which
Speaker 3: when you read everything about what Oswald said about the
Speaker 3: Soviet Union, once he got back, he didn't like it
Speaker 3: at all. He couldn't wait to get out of that place, right,
Speaker 3: So the very notion he would even attempt to go
Speaker 3: back is ridiculous. Now, one thing that caught my attention
Speaker 3: was that the KGB they just they gloss over in
Speaker 3: this report why they let Marina leave, Because they don't
Speaker 3: let Soviet citizens leave married or not to an American.
Speaker 3: They don't care. And the fact that her uncle was
Speaker 3: KGB and they just let her go that doesn't make
Speaker 3: any sense to me either. So they're hiding something there. Honestly,
Speaker 3: I think they knew exactly what Oswald was, They knew
Speaker 3: exactly who sent him over here, and sending Marina back
Speaker 3: was more like a middle finger to them, Oh, you're
Speaker 3: gonna send us a spy. Well, here's one two, right,
Speaker 3: Because how much time did they put into surveilling Marina
Speaker 3: after she got back, Well, we don't really know, but
Speaker 3: I guarantee it's a lot more than we're told they're
Speaker 3: just gonna let the niece of a KGB officer just
Speaker 3: come into America and just everything's kosher. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 3: think so a lot. It's so much more to the
Speaker 3: story of Marina and Lee and their stay post June
Speaker 3: of sixty two that we don't know about. There has
Speaker 3: to be.
Speaker 2: Right now, I want to make a quick note that
Speaker 2: they had her lines tap too. You shared with me
Speaker 2: about five months ago, the you know, tap calls that
Speaker 2: she had, So it kind of makes me wonder if
Speaker 2: they actually had those lines tap prior to the assassination
Speaker 2: as well. It would be very interesting I mean, obviously,
Speaker 2: if they did at one point any records with Oswald
Speaker 2: on the call or even Marina at that time, they
Speaker 2: obviously are scrubbed. But that would just be fascinating to
Speaker 2: know if they had those lines tap prior to the assassination.
Speaker 3: Well, they were monitoring his mail, right, So what are
Speaker 3: the odds they're monitoring his mail but not tapping his phones.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think it's pretty slim. See. I bet
Speaker 3: you that's another big thing that they're hiding. We know
Speaker 3: about Hosty going out and talk to him. We know
Speaker 3: about him go to the FBI office about the note
Speaker 3: and stuff like that. We know that when he got
Speaker 3: arrested in New Orleans he has to talk to the FBI.
Speaker 3: I bet you that these are just the incidents that
Speaker 3: they couldn't hide. Those are the ones they couldn't hide.
Speaker 3: I promise you. This's probably a ton more contacts. They
Speaker 3: were probably all kinds of entrenched in these people, you
Speaker 3: know what I mean. So here's another thing I can
Speaker 3: tell you with certainty. The Office of Naval Intelligence has
Speaker 3: a nine hundred and eighty six page file on Marguerite
Speaker 3: Oswald in nineteen sixty three, years before the assassination a
Speaker 3: year about six months after the well, no, it's about
Speaker 3: a year after the defection. It was because it's from October,
Speaker 3: so about a year after the defection. They have almost
Speaker 3: one thousand pages on Margarite Oswald. That to me, the
Speaker 3: idea that they would have, that they would care, they
Speaker 3: would do so much research and digging and put together
Speaker 3: a file on Margarite Oswald just because she's the mother
Speaker 3: of Lee Harvey Oswald. But yet they had no contact
Speaker 3: with him when he gets back with his Russian defector wife,
Speaker 3: and they don't bug his phones and they don't have
Speaker 3: any contact until Hosty bs. That whole story sounds totally bunk.
Speaker 3: I have a feeling that everybody was all kinds of
Speaker 3: up in Oswald's business, like ohn I, the Marine, g
Speaker 3: G two, like everybody Defense Intelligence Agency, because we know
Speaker 3: we have documents from them from the seventies. So I
Speaker 3: bet you all of these guys were all kinds of
Speaker 3: up unmonitoring Oswald. I wouldn't be surprised if there were
Speaker 3: cars parked outside his house watching them. I mean, I
Speaker 3: bet it was. The surveillance was probably over the top,
Speaker 3: and they can't ever tell us that, you know, can
Speaker 3: they Oh, you watched the guy for a year and
Speaker 3: a half and he still killed the president. Like you know,
Speaker 3: it's just another just another piece of evidence against them.
Speaker 3: If they were so.
Speaker 2: Well, it's all too obvious too. I mean, but to
Speaker 2: a public back then, they were, they trusted the government.
Speaker 2: They were again, like I mentioned in the beginning of
Speaker 2: the show, they were very naive. And I believe like
Speaker 2: if the President said anything, you know Johnson, or if
Speaker 2: anybody you know, the fact that Lennon Baines Johnson hired
Speaker 2: Alan Dolls to help be a part of the Warrant Commission,
Speaker 2: I mean, that absolutely blows my mind. It just blows
Speaker 2: my mind. And then you you have I mean you've
Speaker 2: heard the phone calls with Richard Russell. Richard Russell's basically like, man,
Speaker 2: I do not want to be on the thing. I
Speaker 2: do not do want I don't want to be a
Speaker 2: part of this. And Johnson's like, well, you will do it.
Speaker 2: You got it, You're gonna do it, And uh.
Speaker 3: I love it when he goes he goes, well he
Speaker 3: didn't miss that automobile or the street. That's like the
Speaker 3: best quote from that whole call.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it just makes it. It just makes me think
Speaker 2: how obvious that was too. It's like some of these
Speaker 2: things are just so obvious. I feel like they're rubbing
Speaker 2: it into normal people's face, you know. I mean like
Speaker 2: they're rubbing it in their face. I mean, you have, you're,
Speaker 2: you're tapping the phones about the Oswalts, You're, you're you're
Speaker 2: going through their mail, you're you're heavily surveilling them. And
Speaker 2: then all of a sudden, like you just mentioned it
Speaker 2: perfectly a moment ago you said, you know, basically, but
Speaker 2: they didn't monitor him when he went to assassinate the president,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, like it just you know.
Speaker 2: And and for the Loan gunman people that are out there,
Speaker 2: they they're they just they are that either super naive
Speaker 2: or they are just they're compromised in some way. I
Speaker 2: just I can't. I honestly just can't. I don't see
Speaker 2: any other explanation, Corey.
Speaker 3: I don't understand the loan see I understand different variations
Speaker 3: of like I understand people disagreeing with my conclusions or
Speaker 3: within the research world, but like everyone agrees in the
Speaker 3: research world, Oswald didn't take part in the assassination, but
Speaker 3: like the lone gunman people. They ignore like the simple
Speaker 3: list of facts, Like they ignore the fact that the
Speaker 3: rifle was ordered with a fake money order, right, so
Speaker 3: obviously it wasn't ordered because the money order is fake, right,
Speaker 3: it was just planted, you know. So just like the
Speaker 3: just like the Revolver, you know, the Revolver gets ends
Speaker 3: up at Railroad Express picked up from there. We don't
Speaker 3: Oswald's signature isn't on it. We don't know where, we
Speaker 3: don't know what. You know. It's like, it's obvious at
Speaker 3: this point that Oswald really was just being set up
Speaker 3: and just a very cursory examination of the evidence will
Speaker 3: show that. And so lone gunman people just I just
Speaker 3: they're in their own world.
Speaker 2: They are they are, and how you cannot see ties
Speaker 2: from that? To Gerald Ford, I mean, like again, you
Speaker 2: and I could do a whole series on this. It's
Speaker 2: just crazy. But so I want to give you a
Speaker 2: quick shout out for your books right now. In Black
Speaker 2: and White, Volume one, Lee Harvey Oswald is now out
Speaker 2: right now, Corey's working on volume two, which is very exciting.
Speaker 2: You can get volume one on Amazon and then talk
Speaker 2: about just give a brief sypnosis of your inaugural book
Speaker 2: that you had written, which I you know, I I
Speaker 2: you mentioned a little bit at the top of the show,
Speaker 2: but I just want to get a little bit more
Speaker 2: perspective from you as the author to our audience about
Speaker 2: the first book, because the first book is just amazing.
Speaker 3: Sure, so I really just wanted to know who the
Speaker 3: shooters were. That was my whole focus. And when you
Speaker 3: there's enough data out there to put two and two
Speaker 3: together on who the shooters are, and like I said before,
Speaker 3: it all focuses around David Ferry and those guys. And
Speaker 3: once you realize who was surrounding David Ferry, and once
Speaker 3: you realize that those guys were all in Dallas also, right,
Speaker 3: the pieces of the puzzle will start to fall into place.
Speaker 3: And then I get into some very heavy character development
Speaker 3: on Jack Valenti, who I place as one of two
Speaker 3: shooters on the knoll along with David Ferry. And I
Speaker 3: think the proof in the putting of Jack Valenti's involvement
Speaker 3: in the assassination is in McIntyre photo number two. McIntyre
Speaker 3: photo number two to me depicts Jack Valenti and David
Speaker 3: Morales on the side of the Secret Service car that
Speaker 3: to me was the icing on the cake. I had
Speaker 3: already done two years of research into Jack Valenti when
Speaker 3: I found that photograph, and I had already placed him
Speaker 3: anywhere but where he said he was. So I focus
Speaker 3: heavily on Jack Valenti. I have multiple chapters where I
Speaker 3: talk about Jack Valenti, and I do a whole chapter
Speaker 3: on his background and debunking his alibi, thoroughly, thoroughly debunking
Speaker 3: his alibi. His alibi story is so stupid, it's impossible,
Speaker 3: and so yeah, and then I get into how some
Speaker 3: of the guys got out of Daily Plaza, and when
Speaker 3: I you know, in going through all the evidence and
Speaker 3: in writing the book, I still have zero evidence that
Speaker 3: Oswald was ever at the Book Depositor. And I believe
Speaker 3: that William Seymour was working there as Oswald, and he's
Speaker 3: captured in the Robert Hughes film. You know, and once
Speaker 3: you put him with Lawrence Howard and the Green Nash Rambler,
Speaker 3: the whole series of events from the Book Depository leading
Speaker 3: into oak Cliff and ultimately their escape from Dallas on
Speaker 3: a CIA plane, that stuff all falls into place. So yes,
Speaker 3: A Warning from History is available now on Amazon. I
Speaker 3: plan on probably by this time next year, I'll have
Speaker 3: my second edition out, which will be fully illustrated with
Speaker 3: documents and photographs and all that, so a multi volume
Speaker 3: set probably, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And with over fifty five ratings, so he's got a
Speaker 2: high rating on Amazon. It's an amazing book. It's one
Speaker 2: of the one of the best books I've ever read
Speaker 2: about the Kennedy assassination, if not the best. Is phenomenal.
Speaker 3: Mean, well, there's a lot of books out there that
Speaker 3: are amazing as far as digging up facts and information
Speaker 3: and laying out data and painting somewhat of a picture.
Speaker 3: But my biggest of most Kennedy authors is that they
Speaker 3: fail to pull the trigger and make definitive conclusions based
Speaker 3: on the evidence that they gather. So I didn't want
Speaker 3: to do that. We have enough of that, So I
Speaker 3: wanted to build the thesis around identifying the people who
Speaker 3: actually pulled the triggers. And so that's the whole focus
Speaker 3: of the book.
Speaker 2: Absolutely coming from a law enforcement perspective as well, which
Speaker 2: is fantastic. So I'm want to pivot to a different
Speaker 2: question here in your research starting with this, you said
Speaker 2: you have a a handful of year specifically on this topic.
Speaker 2: I you know, your perception of reality after investigating this
Speaker 2: case so deeply, how has it changed since you started
Speaker 2: to where you are now. I'm assuming because I've had
Speaker 2: talks with you off the air, and you your mind
Speaker 2: has been blown over and over and over by just
Speaker 2: how deep you've gone with certain things, especially with the
Speaker 2: doubles and all the other things that we'll talk about
Speaker 2: in upcoming interviews. But your perception of reality from what
Speaker 2: you know now versus back then, I'd like to hear
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, once you realize the strong influence that the
Speaker 3: intelligence community has over everything from mostly media but our
Speaker 3: government and our foreign policy and everything, you really come
Speaker 3: to realize that, like, it's hard to know what's real
Speaker 3: and what's not a good example we've seen recently with
Speaker 3: this Charlie Kirk shooting. This shooting is not what they're
Speaker 3: telling us at all, not even close, and why they're
Speaker 3: covering up stuff. I have no idea, you know, but
Speaker 3: I trust everything that goes on less and less, and
Speaker 3: I know that decisions are made aren't made by the
Speaker 3: President or Congress or made by our intelligence community, and
Speaker 3: then they whatever, they backdoor their policies into our policies.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's a scary world we live in. Wait,
Speaker 3: I look at it. I only got about twenty five
Speaker 3: years ago or so, so I gotta worry about it
Speaker 3: for too much.
Speaker 2: Logger. Yeah, I'm myself too. I got about about twenty
Speaker 2: five thirty years left, so but you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: and again with the Kirk thing, which is interesting, it's
Speaker 2: sort of there's a lot of, you know, similar things
Speaker 2: with the Kennedy assassination, except I feel like we're ultimately
Speaker 2: gaslighted on that. Today with all the things and you know,
Speaker 2: social media and and like your devices and stuff, you
Speaker 2: can actually see directly everything that's happened with the Charlie
Speaker 2: Kirk thing. I mean, whether then they're they scrub the scene,
Speaker 2: whether the cameraman grabbing the camera on the back there,
Speaker 2: like I mean, that whole con that whole crime scene
Speaker 2: was contaminated.
Speaker 3: So I've worked crime scene. I've probably processed five hundred
Speaker 3: crime scenes when I was a cop, and I can
Speaker 3: tell you with certainty that crime scene was toast within
Speaker 3: like ten minutes. Within ten minutes, all those people trampling
Speaker 3: on everything, I didn't see them at all. Get people
Speaker 3: out of there, and then like rope off the area.
Speaker 3: Like it took hours for them to clear that space out,
Speaker 3: and that was that's atrocious. That is absolutely unacceptable. Now,
Speaker 3: it's a tough situation having that many people there, but
Speaker 3: from the split second those shots were fired, you should
Speaker 3: have had no less than four to five cops at
Speaker 3: the location where he was shot, clearing everyone out. And
Speaker 3: that didn't happen. It didn't happen at all. Now, I
Speaker 3: can understand they weren't expecting this. No one is expecting
Speaker 3: stuff like this, you know. So I understand they only
Speaker 3: had five or six of the Caampus cops there in
Speaker 3: the first place, but from knowing my knowledge of crime
Speaker 3: scene processing and handling and seeing what they did, oh
Speaker 3: my god, it's a travesty, complete travesty. Like to this day,
Speaker 3: I still don't know where that bullet came from because
Speaker 3: that whole that doesn't look like an entrance wound at all.
Speaker 3: So I don't know where the hell that bullet came
Speaker 3: from or what he was even shot by. And here's
Speaker 3: another thing. If you're gonna set some if you're gonna
Speaker 3: they got to stop with this loan Patsy stuff, loan
Speaker 3: shooter patsy. They they should know everyone's a conspiracy theorist
Speaker 3: now and everybody wants a conspiracy, So you would think
Speaker 3: that they would set up a fake conspiracy to do
Speaker 3: something like this. They're not even smart enough to do
Speaker 3: that because they never changed the fucking playbook. Never, they're
Speaker 3: still running the Kennedy playbook. Give me a fucking break.
Speaker 3: It's ridiculous, you know. And I've seen enough. I've seen
Speaker 3: enough video evidence to where they'll never get a conviction
Speaker 3: on this kid. Never like the pictures of him walking
Speaker 3: up the stairs with the backpack, like he's got a
Speaker 3: black backpack. The other photographs where he's walking in shorts,
Speaker 3: he's got a blue backpack. So what did he do
Speaker 3: his backpack change colors in midway? Give me a break, Like,
Speaker 3: the whole thing is the whole thing is messed.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, not only that, but the story about that
Speaker 2: plane that that traveled. There was a plane that directly
Speaker 2: left i think Probo right directly after that, and they
Speaker 2: had tracked it and went overseas.
Speaker 3: Uh that, So you don't want to do you don't
Speaker 3: want to do stuff like that. You want to be
Speaker 3: David Ferry. You want to toss the rifle and just
Speaker 3: walk off casually, no big deal. You don't want to
Speaker 3: have any planes. You don't want to have no nothing, right.
Speaker 3: You just want to be casual and blend in with
Speaker 3: everyone else and act normal. That's how you get away
Speaker 3: with stuff. You know, having a plane take off ten
Speaker 3: minutes later. That's no good. There's no reason to do
Speaker 3: any of that stuff.
Speaker 2: You know. Yeah, and I want to. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is all like social media talk from people. But that
Speaker 2: that that. But it's interesting because you know, again with
Speaker 2: that case, I it's clear that he did not get
Speaker 2: hit from the rooftop adjacent to where he was he
Speaker 2: was sitting, and that in itself, I believe they're gonna
Speaker 2: have conferences for this saying, just like the JFK thing
Speaker 2: every year, they're gonna it's gonna be a conspiracy because
Speaker 2: the FBI really screwed this thing up. In my opinion,
Speaker 2: I believe they really they dropped the ball on this.
Speaker 2: And you know, I don't like the knock law enforcement.
Speaker 2: I mean, especially somebody for somebody like you, as a
Speaker 2: former you know, police officer. I don't like the knock
Speaker 2: law enforcement. But I mean I think that with the
Speaker 2: man running this whole deal, Cash Petel lying to us
Speaker 2: I feel like he's lying to us. I feel like
Speaker 2: he's gaslighting us and lying it lying to us. And
Speaker 2: you're right, I don't think the kid is going to
Speaker 2: get convicted, But then again, I don't know if he's
Speaker 2: going to be alive to actually make it right.
Speaker 3: So it seems, and this seemed to be partially the
Speaker 3: case in Kennedy's day that in the investigation, they they
Speaker 3: didn't want to make an international issue. So I gotta wonder,
Speaker 3: let's just say today, if they figured out one hundred percent,
Speaker 3: let's just say Israel killed Charlie Kirk, would they hide
Speaker 3: that from us because America would demand going to war.
Speaker 3: I think America would demand retaliation and the government would
Speaker 3: go out of their way to not so, therefore they
Speaker 3: would hide it from us even if they knew. Right,
Speaker 3: they're not even trying to pend it on like Venezuela
Speaker 3: or someplace they want to invade, which is also stupid,
Speaker 3: Like I see if I see so many missed opportunities
Speaker 3: in this dumb conspiracy. Really, I mean, so if I
Speaker 3: was if there was gonna pull out of conspiracy, I
Speaker 3: know exactly how to do it to make it seem
Speaker 3: like it was like a Venezuelan operative or something stupid. Right,
Speaker 3: Hell didn't Luna come out and safe? They thought China
Speaker 3: was involved. I'm like, Jesus, shut up about China. China
Speaker 3: at assassinating people?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yep, yep, No, I mean I mean there, yeah.
Speaker 2: Don't get me started on some of the theories with her
Speaker 2: and what she's done with this task force. I mean, like,
Speaker 2: I look, I can appreciate the attention it's brought to
Speaker 2: this case this year. I find myself in a predicament
Speaker 2: right anytime that I criticize it the Task Force committee, Okay,
Speaker 2: I get a lot of backlash from people. They always
Speaker 2: tell me, what are you doing? What are you doing?
Speaker 2: What are you doing? Well? You know, I mean, like,
Speaker 2: what do you want me to do?
Speaker 3: I mean, so all of these task force and committees
Speaker 3: have been either a joke from the start or compromised
Speaker 3: in some way, and I don't see this being any different.
Speaker 3: Like if the Church Committee couldn't get to the bottom
Speaker 3: of shit, then they really tried. What is Luna going
Speaker 3: to get to the bottom of nothing? Nothing? And I
Speaker 3: still don't understand how she's getting away with funneling documents
Speaker 3: to Jefferson Morley and putting him on a paywalled website.
Speaker 3: Those who go to NARA, why aren't they you.
Speaker 2: Know, yeah, yeah, I mean it's specifically states that they
Speaker 2: were supposed to be released to the National Archives. We've
Speaker 2: heard different explanations for that that they talk about, like, well,
Speaker 2: the government's shut down, they talk they there's all sorts
Speaker 2: of different things. But the government wasn't shut down when
Speaker 2: the William Harvey files were released to the Mary Farreell Foundation,
Speaker 2: the joannidese Ones, the DS files, they're all sitting in
Speaker 2: Mary Farrell right now. They're not uploaded over at the
Speaker 2: end the National Archives. So I mean, I think there's
Speaker 2: a little bit of a I think what it is is,
Speaker 2: I think Jefferson Morley and his camp they want to
Speaker 2: have first access to this stuff, right and to get
Speaker 2: credit for this when I think it's just a really
Speaker 2: you know, it's it's a very low ball way of
Speaker 2: looking at things. It's a very narcissistic way of looking
Speaker 2: at things, and it's just you know, release it to
Speaker 2: the National Archives. That's what it was meant to be
Speaker 2: meant to do. So, you know, yeah, and it's not
Speaker 2: you know, and I get where you're coming from about
Speaker 2: the documents and about how like people are complaining about,
Speaker 2: you know, they're not going to get anything from the documents.
Speaker 2: I totally get that. It's the premise of the whole thing.
Speaker 3: I get that, But I still want to know what
Speaker 3: documents do people want. I got a list of specifics.
Speaker 3: I need the Marguerite Oswald file. I need the social
Speaker 3: Security and tax files. I need some of the employment
Speaker 3: records from some of his jobs, from Oswald's jobs, you know.
Speaker 3: I need a whole bunch of stuff I got. I
Speaker 3: know specific stuff that I want in specific reasons why
Speaker 3: I want them, I can.
Speaker 2: Well I want I want specific files too. I want
Speaker 2: the Allan Dole's files. I want the James Angleton files,
Speaker 2: and I want them.
Speaker 3: With tax records.
Speaker 2: Hmmm.
Speaker 3: What I'm really interested in is her relationship with Antioch College.
Speaker 3: I know she went there, and I tried looking into
Speaker 3: Antioch College and seeing if I can find a CIA connection.
Speaker 3: And it's a tough one because that place was like
Speaker 3: really heavily investigated by the FBI over their possible ties
Speaker 3: to communists China and Russia and stuff like that. Because
Speaker 3: there were a bunch of hardcore comedies at that school.
Speaker 3: I mean there was a very leftist progressive school. So
Speaker 3: I couldn't make a CIA connect there. But if we
Speaker 3: could make a CIA connection there, then there's your Ruth
Speaker 3: Pain connection right there, besides her parents.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: So another thing like, I want the phone records of
Speaker 3: the phone records of the Winterland. We never got those
Speaker 3: in any of the phone in any of the what
Speaker 3: David Ferry is, they're making phone calls allegedly, right, where's
Speaker 3: he calling? We don't know, right, he just sat there
Speaker 3: by the phone. We're why didn't they give us those records? Right?
Speaker 3: You don't think the FBI pulled those I'm sure they did.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot of stuff that I want that
Speaker 3: I know we're never going to get. Then, I'm sure
Speaker 3: they pulled at some point. And then you got to
Speaker 3: ask yourself, did they destroy documents? Is it in their
Speaker 3: style to destroy documents? And I don't know, I don't think.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I really don't know. I know the
Speaker 3: CIA destroys documents.
Speaker 2: Because there's Richard Holmes. Yeah, Richard Helmes destroyed I think
Speaker 2: what they say, over one hundred thousand MK culture documents. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: So I mean think about that rabbit hole, right, there
Speaker 2: and how that ties up to everything. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: it's just it's crazy, but I mean like it all
Speaker 2: ties down together, you know, it through events, through history.
Speaker 2: I mean like I think our summary is is that
Speaker 2: obviously that day has really screwed things up. For what's
Speaker 2: going on today, I mean, both sides are just completely
Speaker 2: in my mind clueless. I mean, like you got the
Speaker 2: Republican side, who I don't even know what's going on
Speaker 2: over there, and then you got to and then you
Speaker 2: got the Democratic side, who is off e motion. They're
Speaker 2: baseless on things. They are just delicate as a flower man.
Speaker 2: I don't know. And that's why I'm not political. I
Speaker 2: sit from Afar and I just I gauge what's going on,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, yeah, I know that if this were Kennedy, right,
Speaker 2: Kennedy was actually the last president who was a president
Speaker 2: for me. And I think it's just I think our
Speaker 2: country was literally quasi destroyed that day.
Speaker 3: And yep, I think we were taken over by the cabal.
Speaker 3: And it's been the same group, no matter what president,
Speaker 3: running our country ever since until this new term of
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, which I don't know what's going on, but
Speaker 3: it's not the same establishment that we've had forever. It's
Speaker 3: a different kind of establishment, and I think the jury's
Speaker 3: out on what it's gonna end up as. But I'm
Speaker 3: now finally convinced that what's going on in the government
Speaker 3: today is a complete break from any kind of anything
Speaker 3: that we've ever had before in this country. So now,
Speaker 3: are we getting rid of a deep state? No, I
Speaker 3: think it's just creation of a new deep state, but
Speaker 3: definitely a destruction of the old one, which is interesting.
Speaker 3: So it's uncertain times. I would say we're in very
Speaker 3: uncertain time.
Speaker 2: Does that mean the dissolvement of the CIA? Though? Do
Speaker 2: you think that would be the dissolvement of the CIA.
Speaker 3: The way that he's getting rid of US aid people,
Speaker 3: like most people can't comprehend how big that is. That
Speaker 3: was the primary funding mechanism of the deep state for
Speaker 3: their bullshit projects around the world, Right, that was what
Speaker 3: they That was what that was, That was all that
Speaker 3: was all, Like when they're sending money to Guyana for condoms,
Speaker 3: they're not really sending money to Guiana for condoms. That
Speaker 3: money's going to somebody for some black operation somewhere, you
Speaker 3: know what I mean. So he went in and he
Speaker 3: just destroyed their largest funding mechanism. Crazy, crazy, how do
Speaker 3: you do that? But then still doesn't do everything that
Speaker 3: Israel wants you to do because they're also part of
Speaker 3: the same cabal, right, His actions are very contradictory. Trump's
Speaker 3: actions are very contradictory in as far as deep state
Speaker 3: kind of goes.
Speaker 2: You know, I think about it, and I'm just like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a famous line in JFK where you know,
Speaker 2: the the bs Prouty line when he's talking about, well,
Speaker 2: I thought things were never the same after that again
Speaker 2: after the assassination, because we know Proud he was not.
Speaker 2: He was not. You didn't even talk to Garrison at
Speaker 2: that particular time. You know, that was all made up.
Speaker 2: But yeah, things were never the same after that again.
Speaker 2: And you know, and if you look through throughout world
Speaker 2: history or not not world history, E see me US history,
Speaker 2: You'll see, like, you know, people that had heavy influence
Speaker 2: to that assassination, like all the way up until the
Speaker 2: late seventies or even the eighties. It's crazy. And then
Speaker 2: how you had everything tied I were on contra to
Speaker 2: even up to nine to eleven. It's crazy to me.
Speaker 3: These are all the same, These aren't separate conspiracies. This
Speaker 3: is they're all the same. To me, they're all the
Speaker 3: it's the same forces behind them, all with the same
Speaker 3: intentional uh, trying to get the same it's all leading
Speaker 3: to the same outcome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I agree. Well, Corey, it's been a pleasure
Speaker 2: interviewing you. And if you want to follow him, it's
Speaker 2: at Bloody History. Is that right? On X Bloody History
Speaker 2: sixty three? And again he has a booked in black
Speaker 2: and white, Volume one, Lee Harvey Oswald, which is everywhere
Speaker 2: on Amazon. You can pick that up there. I recommend
Speaker 2: it is a phenomenal book. Well, I want to have
Speaker 2: you back on again to talk about Oswald's past. I
Speaker 2: think our audience would love that. And yeah, it's been
Speaker 2: a pleasure. Thank you again for joining us tonight. And
Speaker 2: do you have any last words before we do take
Speaker 2: off tonight.
Speaker 3: Nope. I think I'm gonna do well. I think I'm
Speaker 3: gonna do on November twenty second, I'm going to redo
Speaker 3: my presentation of a Warning from History my big slide show.
Speaker 3: I think I gotta clean it up a little bit,
Speaker 3: but I think I'm gonna be doing that somewhere on
Speaker 3: the twenty second so perfect.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, we look forward to having you back on.
Speaker 2: I mean I definitely do. And so we'll get you
Speaker 2: booked up hopefully by the end of not maybe this
Speaker 2: month or maybe at the beginning of next month. We'll
Speaker 2: get your set back up, so that'd be great man. Yeah,
Speaker 2: thank you, and the truth is out there. You guys
Speaker 2: have a good one. We'll see you next episode. The
Speaker 2: Peak Him