March 30, 2025 • 41 mins
Last week’s dump of the remains of the JFK Assassination files were a complete dud (except for the sloppy non-redaction of social security numbers and the names of intelligence sources). Hollywood movie director Phil Robinson wasn’t surprised. For years, he’d grown up a JFK Assassination conspiracy theorist. But when he dug deep enough he found… nothing. Now he extols the sadly mundane truth — it was just Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. How did he climb out of this, the most famous of rabbit holes?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
I'm John Cipher and I'm Jerry O'sha. I was a
CIA officer stationed around the world in high threat posts
in Europe, Russia, and in Asia.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
And I served in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East
and in war zones. We sometimes created conspiracies to deceive
our adversaries.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Now we're going to use our expertise to deconstruct conspiracy
theories large and small.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Could they be true or are we being manipulated?
Speaker 1 (00:26):
This is mission implausible. So, as you know, we've been
careful about putting our foot too deep into the JFK wormhole,
but we found an interesting way in. We're going to
interview and talk to one of our friends, Phil Robinson,
a well known Hollywood director and writer who did fall
down that rabbit hole.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
So we're going to be doing that, And as always,
I just want to know, what are you hiding?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Why have we done so many episodes of this show
with two former CIA officers and you just refuse to
do JFK until I browbeat you.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Well, as you know, dam you know, you recruit assets early.
And I was four when JFK was killed and John
was only two, so you know, we.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Yeah, with all the drinking we did, and now we're older,
I could very well know that the CIA was involved
in killing Kennedy and I forgot it completely.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
All right, let me ask you this. Forget JFK. You
don't have to tell me what it is. But is
there a big shocking thing that the CIA did that
if you told us would be like, WHOA, I can't
believe that.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
No, yes, but had a good way. It's like what
you did this, you saved all those people.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
But you know what, people are so cynical that would
be like, that's what we expect you to do.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Well, it's it's a lot of ways. It's the lack
of something which makes puts us oh Is at a disadvantage.
After nine to eleven, we know that al Qaeda was
talking about a second strike and there were plans in place.
It never happened. There's a lot of reasons for that.
But we you know, terrible things could have happened, bombs
(02:00):
that didn't go. I mean, those are sort of the
things I'm thinking about.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
We definitely stopped lots of terrorist attacks. We've definitely stopped
lots of terrorists. But is that what you're talking about him?
Is that exciting to.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
You for us to say it's not exciting enough, that's
your job.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Come on, you want what do you want? You want
to met?
Speaker 1 (02:15):
It was pretty goddamn exciting that much, I can tell you.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
I bet it is exciting.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
But yeah, it's more fun when it's did you kill
presidents and stuff? I guess that is true. I guess
that is why conspiracy theories win.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Is it interesting if a president form president was a
spy for us? Or if we do have to kill
him for it to be interesting?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Wait?
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Was a former president of a spy for you?
Speaker 1 (02:34):
I'm not saying that, but it would that be interesting
to you?
Speaker 2 (02:37):
That would be which one ran the CIA?
Speaker 5 (02:39):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
All right, I'm excited to hear what your friend Phil
Robinson has to say.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Today's guest is Phil Robinson. Phil is a Hollywood big shot.
He's a writer and director, having written and directed such
classic films as Field of Dreams, Sneakers, Some of All Fears,
and involved with Band of Brothers and he Rewrote a
personal favorite of mine. But more importantly, he's a friend
of ours and for our purposes today, he's a recovering
(03:04):
obsessive on the assassination of President John F.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Kennedy.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Phil, welcome, It's very nice to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
It's funny just because we know you, we know that
you were interested in this. I know you've done some
work on the Cuban missile crisis and Beya Pigs. But
how did you get involved in following the rabbit hole
of the Kennedy assassination.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
I was in college in I guess it was the
beginning of college in nineteen sixty seven. A friend of
mine was a rabid conspiracy buff and he turned me
on to Mark Lane's book, excellent book called Rush to Judgment,
which was a fairly scholarly dissection of the war and Report.
And I think Lane did a real service by saying, Hey,
the War Report's got a lot of problems. There's a
(03:44):
lot of inconsistencies, there's omissions, there's mistakes. Lane inferred that
that was the result of a cover up, but he
also implied, look, this could be a rush to judgment.
They were told to come out with this conclusion. They
worked very fast, and they ignored certain things, they covered
up other things, and this was the result a report
(04:05):
that said Oswald acted alone, there was no conspiracy. The
conspiracy theories kind of began at that point, and I
was obsessed with them. They were fascinating. It was fun
to talk about that the CIA and the FBI and
the Secret Service and the mafia and anti Castro Cubans
or Procrastro Cubans, and all these people were involved in
(04:26):
the conspiracy and somehow kept the secret all these years.
I loved learning more about it. Every book that came out,
I would read it, and then I would bore my
friends by keeping them ball all night, telling them about
the hoboes who were removed from the train tracts and
the railroad overpass over Elm Street, one of whom looked
exactly like Howard Hunt. And you can show the picture
(04:48):
and you go, I guess it looks a little like
Howard Hunt. There was a lot of cool stuff, and
I realized, after years and years of obsessing on this,
that I wanted to believe the conspiracy theories. And then
I was not a applying the same level of rigorous
skepticism to conspiracy theories that I was applying to the
government's case. And I started looking at them in a
(05:11):
different light, and they all fell apart. I remember the day.
It was in the eighties. I was reading a new
book about the assassination, and I thought, wait a second,
this doesn't make sense. They wouldn't have planned it this way.
And I realized all the conspiracy theories were constructed from
today looking back at this constellation of facts and semi
facts and whatnot, and you could select what you wanted
(05:35):
and connect dots and make a scenario that made some
sort of sense. But that's not how the conspiracy was constructed.
It was constructed before the assassination by people planning what's
the best way to do this? And if you just
look at these theories from that point of view, none
of them made sense. They all seemed impossible.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Neither John nor I think I could speak for John,
neither of us have gone down the JFK conspiracy. See
rabbit hole, right. It's a whole industry. It's almost a
way of life for some people. But with the Warren Report,
I just have a really basic question in one that is,
an intelligence officer always gets face, and it comes down
to the burden of proof. The Warren Report says that
(06:16):
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy.
Is that exactly what it said or did it say
that we have no evidence that there was a conspiracy
that others weren't involved. There's a difference between we can
prove there was no one else involved in a conspiracy,
which is almost impossible to because you can never prove
(06:37):
a negative, righty right, it's unfalsifiable.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
I could be wrong. My recollection as they were very definitive.
I read the first volume. There's twenty six volumes of
the Warren Report, and then there's some I read that
when it came out. My recollection is they were very definitive.
There was no conspiracy. He acted alone, there was no
second assassin. In the seventies Committee on Assassinations and they
(07:00):
studied various assassinations, mostly the JFK one, they included a
lot of evidence supposed as evidence that had come out
since the Warrant Report, and they concluded it was probably
a conspiracy. But they then said, but we can rule
out the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the mafia, Cuba, Russia,
(07:24):
and anti Castro Cubans. They ruled out everybody who had
ever been suggested as a possible conspirator, leaving I don't
know who. And the reason that they said it was
probably a conspiracy was one piece of evidence which was
a Dickta belt. A Dickta belt recording supposedly a Dallas
police officer on a motorcycle in Deey Plaza had left
(07:47):
his microphone open and there was a dickt de belt
recording of this that people who listened to it said,
I hear four gunshots. Based on that one piece of evidence,
the House Select Committee said there was a fourth gun shot,
probably from the Grassy Knoll, and therefore it's a conspiracy.
Some years later, a panel of acoustical experts took a
(08:08):
look at this and said, no, A, these are not gunshots,
and b it did not take place at the time
of the assassination this recording, thereby ruling out that one
piece of evidence. The interesting thing about what the House
Select Committee said a fourth gun shot from the Grassy Null.
Remember the grassy Knoll is where the supposed professional assassin
(08:29):
was shooting from. If he fired the fourth gunshot, he missed.
According to that theory Oswald, the amateur fired three shots,
hit Kennedy twice, the professional and the grassy null fired once,
and so it kind of doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
So the FBI. JEdgar Hoover's FBI did an initial like
fifty page overview very soon after the assassination, and Hoover
himself pushed President Johnson to simply accept the FBI's report,
and because Hoover did not want to open up the
Bureau for criticism. They'd been monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald, they
hadn't spoke with him, and obviously they weren't tracking him
(09:05):
on the day of the assassination. And Hoover and Johnson
were pretty good friends. They lived on the same street
before Johnson was president, and Johnson eventually realized he did
have to have a special commission, but he nonetheless pushed
them to try to accept the FBI view, which I
think was right. But because trying to protect the Bureau,
it was limited and it failed to anticipate all the
(09:26):
possible scenarios and rule them out.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
And I think Mark Lane was right. I think the
Warrent Commission did omit certain things that they probably should
have included, particularly regarding Lee Oswald's background. And my theory
about that is that, as we learned from the Church
Committee in the seventies, Oswald was a kind of a
fringe character in this shadowy world in which the intelligence
(09:52):
community and law enforcement at the mafia were involved in
all kinds of illegal activities together, assassinations, spying on Americans,
trading political groups. And I think that Oswald, when he
was in New Orleans, rubbed shoulders with some of this.
And I think the Warrant Commission felt if we reveal
all we know about Lee Oswald's background having nothing to
(10:16):
do with the assassination, it could bring down the whole house.
So let's just put a lid on that stuff. And
I think in the course of doing that, it made
it look like they were covering up the assassination, when
in fact they were covering up something else. That's just
a theory.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Years ago, there was a reporting that had come out
from in the press, but according to the agency, there
was real indications that the GRU the Russian intelligence service,
was offering bounties for the killing of American CIA officers
back then in Afghanistan and of US officials. And we
(10:55):
could never prove that one hundred percent officially, and to
a certain extent that that's good insofar as even if
we're only ninety ninety five percent certain that's true that
the Russians are putting bounties on the heads of our officers,
that is arguably that's a cause for war, I mean,
because you have to respond to that. So you've got
(11:17):
to have at one hundred percent learn that in the
Iraq war, with WMD claiming that it was there, when
it turns out it likely was, but it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
If with the Kennedy assassination, with Oswald having close ties
to both Cuba and certainly to Russia, if one of
the theories entertained and talked about was there is good
reason to believe that Cashrow or Russia was behind this.
Where does that take us? That takes us on a
maybe to the brink of war, and is that really
(11:46):
worthwhile if we can't be certain?
Speaker 1 (11:48):
But in that case, you are actually suggesting a potential
cover up to.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Me based on nothing. It does make sense. He was
a Russian citizen, He was in the Russian embassy. Before this,
the Bay Pigs had gone down. He and Cruise Jutt
has squared off in Vienna the Cuban missile crisis. The
Russians may have seen him, or some rogue element may
have suggested to him that it would be a good
(12:13):
idea for Kennedy to be gotten rid of zero evidence
of this, right, I mean but it's how many Americans
in those days were hanging out in the Russian embassy
and then having the shootcaster. I think.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
But he was such a low level schmuck, the fact
that they would suggest, hey, you're the one we want
to kill.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
The president of the United States, and we know from
our business it may not have been a guy a
KGB officer saying go shoot him, but a KGB officer saying,
if only he were gone. There's all sorts of ways
short of paying him money to do this.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Man, you are you were going down the rabbit hole,
Jerry Are No, I'm the different help tree.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The difference Betwe is like, I can see that as
a possibility, but it's completely unproven. It's total conjecture. I
get that well.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
And I think you raise a good point, which is
that the Warrant report has good reason to tamp down
any suggestion that Oswald was working on behalf of the Russians,
because if they said he was, then we could be
at war. And I think John's pointed a I would
assume the Russians had better people than this, you know,
incompetent to pull this off. And the other thing is,
(13:20):
if you look at the geopolitics at the time. After
the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy and Khrushchev had a rap prochemont.
They both felt that we are the only two people
who pulled the world back from nuclear holocaust, and in
sixty three they were working together on a nuclear arms tree.
There was actually a warming between those two men in
(13:42):
nineteen sixty three. I don't know that the geopolitics at
the time would have led the Soviet Union to want
Kennedy killed because he'd be replaced by somebody who was
more of a hardliner.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
But if you're going down rabbit holes and you're like yes,
But perhaps the KGB, the CIA had been had been
embarrassed by Kennedy who didn't support them in the Bay
of Pigs, and the KGB now thought Khushchef was being weak. Therefore,
those people could have wanted Even if Khrushchef didn't want
Kennedy killed, maybe the KGB thought it was worthwhile, or
(14:14):
maybe the CIA wanted Kennedy killed because he wasn't strong enough.
So that's why this game is interesting, and that's why
this has stayed on for thirty forty years, because if
you go take any of these scenarios. They have a
piece of it that's very interesting, and so of course
you would want to cover that up.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
In a way, it's a little bit like the religious
argument of God works in mysterious ways. It's an answer
to pretty much everything. I don't know that either the
CIA or the Soviets would have picked Lee Harvey Oswald,
who was one of life's losers, to pull off the
biggest event of the century, and there's certainly no evidence
that they did. And I realized one day, I felt
(14:51):
I wanted to believe the conspiracy because psychologically this may
sound counterintuitive. I don't want to believe that one possess
low life loser can have such a huge, deleterious, damaging
effect on my life, in the life of my country.
I'm much more comfortable believing that something this damaging, this
(15:11):
hugest monumental, could only be pulled off by the most
powerful forces on earth. Because if a nothing like Oswald
can have this effect on history, then we're hanging by
a narrow thread.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
That's why conspiracy are comforting, right, because it helps explain
unexplainable or complicated or chaotic or random things.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
All Right, we're gonna get right back into that.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
But first let's hear this.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Did you lose friends, Phil after you came out of
the rabbit hole? And did you keep all your materials
and books?
Speaker 5 (16:01):
I did not lose friends after I committed that. I
lost friends while I was in the rabbit hole because
I bored people to tears night after the night telling
them these and connecting assassination theories with the Robert Kennedy
and the Martin Luther King assassination because there were tenuous
ties that people would make to that. I think I
probably I was persona on grata in a lot of
(16:25):
rooms in the college dormitory because oh God, here comes Phil.
We're going to be up till three listening to these
horror stories.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And it's interesting. On one of our other episodes, we
had Michael Weissan, who was an expert on Russian intelligence
written some books on history of Russian active measures and
disinformation campaigns, and he points out that the JFK movie
by Oliver Stone was actually part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
In other words, the Russians saw that we were deep
(16:53):
in these rabbit holes and picked a conspiracy to push
into different things. Now, back then, we probably didn't have
the sense of this that we do now to see
how beautifully evil that is to say, oh, look at
the Americans are like chasing their tails here, let's throw
something in the middle of the watch to meet each
other up.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
I have to say, I mean all of Besonde's movie JFK,
I think is one of the great movies. I disagree
with his interpretation of the events, but just as pure
as filmmaking, I think it's as good as it gets.
I love that movie.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
One of the things too, that doesn't make any sense
is conspiracy. Theorists now on the JFK event keep saying
and hoping that one more there's one more document and
it will show right. And how many administrations have we
been through Obama, trum Biden, going back to Trump again,
(17:42):
if there was a piece of paper that laid out
this hunting plan. And we've said this before, but just
to be clear, some of the documents that are still
being held, one of them that came out was the
reason we knew Oswald was in the Russian m se
in Mexico City is because we had this We had
(18:02):
the embassy bugged and it was against Mexican law, and
the Mexican president himself said, I will allow you to
break Mexican law, but I will be in big trouble
and my legacy will be in big trouble if I
allow this. So you must promise to keep this secret forever.
But before that, people are thinking, oh, they're keeping these secrets. Oh,
(18:23):
this has got to be the one. And then it
comes out that it basically see, I had just made
a promise. I come something completely different, and we broke
our promise and it didn't solve anything.
Speaker 5 (18:34):
Some people lie, some people forget details. But there's one
thing that prevented us from ever knowing definitively for sure,
and that is the wounds in Kennedy's neck and the back.
Doctors at Parkland Hospital saw him lying on his back
with a hole in the front of his throat. Now,
the Warren Report says that's the exit wound from the
(18:56):
bullet that entered his back. The doctors at Parkland Hospital
never turned him onto his back, They never saw a
hole in his back, They saw the hole in his throat,
assumed it was an entry wound, did an emergency tracheotomy
to try to save his life. He dies. The body
is shipped to Bethesda Naval hospital for an autopsy. The
doctors who do the autopsy see a tracheotomy opening in
(19:17):
the front of his neck and a hole on the
back of his neck, so they say, okay, the bullet
entered the back of his neck. They never talked to
the doctors at Parkland who thought that the hole in
the front was an entry wound. If the doctor's doing
the autopsy had been told, hey, there's a possibility that
there was an entry into the front, they would have
dissected the entire path of that bullet to see if
(19:41):
the tissue is pushing from front to back or from
back to front. They never did that. The body was
sealed in the coffin lying in state, and only then
did the two sets of doctors talk to each other
and was too late to examine it. Because of that
one missed communication, we don't have the definitive proof that
the hole in the front of his was an exit word.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
There was a law in nineteen ninety two that stipulates
that anything that Menson mentions the assassination must be cross
filed into the JFK material. So in CIA, obviously there
was such pressure even back then on the agency, like, hey, listen,
we have to make sure that we keep good records
of all this stuff. And so they said, any if
you're anywhere in the world and someone says something about
(20:22):
the JFK, then has to be cross filed into the
JFK material and files. And the problem then becomes that
there's a bunch of sensitive material that has nothing to
do with the assassination in these files. For example, when
I was in Belgrade and Serbia, I met the former
head of the Serbian Intelligence Service, and as I was
sitting down and drinking with him, it turns out he
was obsessed with the assassination and he talked about it
(20:43):
for the bulk of the evening of our meeting. So
therefore I wrote up a meeting with the head of
the Serbian intelligence Service, and I included the JFK discussion
had nothing to do with the issues we were doing.
But then that report gets cross filed into the JFK material.
So when it comes time to release said they can't
release it because it has to deal with sensitive issues
going on and Serbia or what have you. But it
(21:06):
looks like we were, you know, to the outside, like, oh, look,
they're not giving up this sensitive JFK material. But it's
not in fact at all what happened.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
And when we're planning our conspiracies, small conspiracies like an operation, right,
we always say Murphy gets a vote, And my mind
goes back to this one operation we were doing, and
it was a small conspiracy and it's a third world country.
We had a female officer meeting someone from a radical
(21:35):
Arab regime and he was thinking about he'd let us know.
He was thinking of telling us what was going on
in his government, but he wasn't sure yet, And so
they arranged for this walk in this park and as
they were walking through the park this isolated tops of trees,
police jump out, five or six police and they yell,
you're under arrest. And she's thinking looking at him, thinking oh,
(21:59):
he set me up. And he looks at her and thinks, oh,
she set me up. And they both looked at each
other and realize nobody set anybody up. And they started
talking to the police. And I swear to God what
came out of this was the police said, last year,
on this date, there was a ritual murder, a witchcraft murder,
in this exact spot, and we have determined that it
(22:23):
is likely for halt reasons as a country that believes
in witchcraft, that the perpetrators would return to this spot
perfectly with heart of the body that they took. And
so they talked back and forth, and the police very
you know, it's like, oh, well, these two clearly are
not like involved in witchcraft. And she said no, he's
my tutor. I'm teaching him English. And they went, oh,
(22:44):
you can go, but don't tell anybody we're here because
we're waiting for the next people and so and so,
you know, we planned everything out to be perfectly done,
and then when we had to send it into Washington,
it's like, yeah, we didn't think about the pulp murder.
Witch craft came that right.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
So do you still follow this issue at all? Or
has coming out of the JFK rabbit hole made you
someone who's very skeptical of conspiracies in general.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
I did stay in the rabbit hole for a while
when Vince Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History came out, because I
think it's brilliant. It's a definitive, exhaustively long examination of
every conspiracy theory and every piece of supposed evidence that
supports them, where he examines them very carefully and knocks
(23:32):
them all down. There's all kinds of things he knocks down.
For instance, the opening of JFK, the film with the
drug addicted prostitute is thrown out of the car and
she claims, there's two Cubans on the way to Dallas
and they told me they were going to kill Kennedy.
Buugliosi traces tracks that down. There was a woman who
claimed this, but she claimed it after the assassination, not before.
(23:54):
The myth was always that it was two days before
the assassination she was telling people they're going to kill Kennedy.
It was after. And Bugliosi does this to every piece
of supposed evidence. But it's it's appealing. I understand the
appeal of it. It's fun, it's cool. It's cool to say, hey,
I know something you don't know. The government was lying
about this. Let me spin this tale. And I love
(24:15):
a good story. And the assassination conspiracies are really compelling, interesting,
vital stories. They just happen to be fiction. But I
like fiction too.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
The issue of how hard it would be before the
fact to arrange something, as opposed to after the fact
putting it together. You put together sort of a small
example of like if someone was trying to plan this,
and someone was querying them what that might look like,
and you sent that to us, I was wonder if
it would be worthwhile reading that through to try to
(24:47):
help make that point.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Sure.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
Sure. The idea is that instead of looking back at
the assassination from today, let's put ourselves in the middle
of October of nineteen sixty three and the three of
us are sitting together in Dallas. You're my case officers,
you're my handlers. You have entrusted me with the planning
of the Kennedy assassination. By the way, where would we
(25:08):
be meeting in a hotel room or somebody's house? Where
would this take place? Hotel room would be just fine, okay,
And I'm going to lay out for you the plan
that I've come up with, and I would start by saying, Okay,
we just got word Kennedy is coming to Dallas in
late November, and we're going to kill him. We've got
(25:29):
a guy, Lee Harvey Osworth, and he's a professional assassin. No,
he's just some guy who works in a warehouse.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
But he's been a hit man.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Was he military?
Speaker 5 (25:39):
Yes, he was a marine how'd that work out? Not
so good? He was court martialed for accidentally shooting himself
a lot terrific.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
So has he ever shot anyone other than himself?
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Well, he shot at someone. I remember it was in
all the papers earlier this year that someone took a
shot at that guy, General Walker. Yeah, yeah, well that
was Lee. But he missed. Okay, he missed, but he
did shoot at him.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Is it a hard shot?
Speaker 5 (26:01):
No, it was actually a pretty easy shot. Walker was
sitting in a chair at home. It was nighttime, perfectly lit.
Oswald was outside thirty yards away. Why did he miss
He was using this piece of crap mail order rifle.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
Oh okay, So for Trinity, we'll get him a really
good sniper rifle.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
No, he's going to use the same piece of crap
mail order rifle.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
What did he do after the route?
Speaker 5 (26:20):
He defected to Russia.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
I'm sorry, it sounded like you said he defected to Russia.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
Yeah, he defected to Russia, but he changed his mind
and we let him back, so the authorities know he
defected to Russia and came back to the United States. Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Are you a teeny bit concerned that he might be
on a watch list? Or something.
Speaker 5 (26:38):
Oh, he's on a watch list, are right, it's one
of the reasons he's pissed off at the government. The
FBI is always coming around interrogating him, his wife, his family,
his friends.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I'm sorry, So why the hell are we using this guy?
Speaker 5 (26:48):
Because he works at the Texas school Book Depository. Yeah,
so from the sixth floor window, he will have a
perfect shot if the presidential limo goes down Elm the street.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
What do you mean if the residential limo goust down
Elm Street.
Speaker 5 (27:01):
They haven't announced the President's I tinerary yet, they haven't
even announced where he's gonna speak. And truth be told,
there's no reason to believe he'll drive by there.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
But if he does, if the president doesn't drive down Elm.
Speaker 5 (27:11):
Street, honestly, we haven't thought about that yet.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
Okay, walk me through how this goes down. The morning
of the presidential motorcade, Oswald drives to work.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
And no, no, he doesn't drive. What do you mean
he doesn't have a car. He doesn't even have a license.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
How is he gonna get to work?
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Probably just hitch your ride as a neighbor.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Okay, so I guess you'll stash the rifle at the building.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
So when he arrives, no, no, noly, he's gonna carry
the rifle with him in his neighbor's car.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
And the neighbor says like, hey, Lee, why are you
carrying a rifle to work on the day the president
is driving by your building?
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (27:46):
Come on, he's not gonna carry it in the open,
but do you think we're stupid? He's gonna wrap it
in paper?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Hey, Lee, why are you carrying a rifle shaped object
wrapped in paper on the day the President is driving?
Speaker 5 (27:56):
Guy, Well, mister smarty pants, we actually have an answer
for that. He's going to say. It's curtain rods.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Hey Lee, why are you carrying curtain rods to work?
Speaker 5 (28:06):
Okay, that's a good question. I'll run it by Lee.
I'm sure he'll think of something.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Oh good, sir, he's smart, savvy.
Speaker 5 (28:12):
No, he's stupid. But maybe i'll have the guy's work on.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
All right, So let me see if I've got this.
This not very smart guy, who's not a very good shot,
who is being watched by the FBI, is going to
position himself to shoot the president if the President drives
on that street, which right now, we have no Reasonablie
he will.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
That's our plan.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Then what what do you mean after he shoots the president?
Then what what's your escape plan? How do you get
him away from the scene of the crime. How do
you get him out of the city, out of the country.
What's the plan?
Speaker 5 (28:44):
Well, I think Lee was just planning to go back
to his apartment. Maybe take in a movie, take in
a movie. Oh, I get it. You're worried he's going
to get arrested, and if he gets arrested, he could
talk and that could implicate us. Yes, worried about that.
Don't worry. We're gonna kill him, Thank.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
God, that's the first sensible thing you said. You're going
to kill him before the police find him.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
No, we're gonna kill him after the police find.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Him, before they interrogate him, right before he has chance
to say anything.
Speaker 5 (29:14):
No, we're gonna let them interrogate him for a few days,
and then we're gonna kill him where right there in
the police.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
I get it.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
One of the cops will say Oswald grabbed his gun
and there was a scuffle.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
And there won't be a cop. We got this guy,
Jack Rup and he's a hitman. No, he owns his
strip club, but he's killed people before. Jack, he's a
pussy gut.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
How is he gonna do this?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
He's gonna walk into that police station and march right
up to Oswald, pull out his gun.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
And think, and he can do this without being seen.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
Hell no, he's gonna do it on live television. What oh,
I get what you're worried about? What if they arrest him?
Will he talk?
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Yeah, that's a concern.
Speaker 5 (29:51):
Don'n't worry.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
We're gonna kill him to cook, thank you.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
Yeah, about three years later, we're gonna give him cancer.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Three years later, too long a little.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
I sense you're a tiny bit skeptical about Plan A,
So let me run Plan B by. In Plan B,
Oswald is not the only shooter. He'll be up there
on the sixth floor, just like Plan A, but we'll
also have a real, highly experienced professional assassin, let's call
him Harlows, and he'll be on the grassyno.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Good, Okay, now you're talking. What's the grassy knoll.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
It's a little slope next to Oswald's building. Carlos will
be at the back of the grassyno.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Okay, so what's the player.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
The President's limo will drive right past the grassy knoll
at a perfect ninety degree angle, and Carlos will shoot him.
Then we say, hey, there's a guy in the sixth
story window behind the president with a rifle. Everyone will
go after Lee and he'll take the fall.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
I'm sorry, So Carlos is going to shoot Kennedy from
the side at almost ground level, but you're gonna say
the real shooter was six stories up and behind.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
Yeah, pretty good.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
I can't believe I have to ask this, But if
Carlos shoots Kennedy from the side and it almost ground level,
how are you going to make the wounds look like
they came from behind and six stories up.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
I'll tell you exactly how. Carlos is gonna shoot Kennedy
in the front of the throat, but he's not gonna
kill him, so they'll rush into the hospital. They'll do
an emergency trachey out of me and that will obliterate
the entry wounds in the front of his throat. But
here's the brilliant part. Oswald will shoot him in the
back of the head at the same time that Carlos
shoots him in the front of the throat. So when
they do the autopsy, they won't see an entry wound
in his throat because it's been obliterated by the trachy
(31:27):
out of him. But they will see the entry wound
in the back of his head, and they'll say it
was only one assassin. He was the guy shooting from behind,
and we put it on the lead pretty good.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Huh.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Just one thing. If Carlos is shooting from the grassy
knoll at a ninety degree angle to Kennedy, in other words,
from the side, how does he hit him in the front.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Of the throat?
Speaker 5 (31:46):
You are so negative?
Speaker 2 (31:48):
All right?
Speaker 1 (31:48):
So that's our little.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
That's pretty much how it could have gone down. But
it's a dumb plan. I think we can agree on that.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
We'll be right back in a moment.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
Jerry and I are concerned about going so deep in
the rabbit hole because it becomes such an industry. But
if you just go back to the like, okay, playing
this out for me, it all seems to fall apart.
All the clever things fall apart pretty quickly.
Speaker 5 (32:21):
Yeah. And also then if you think specifically about was
it the KGB, was it the mafia, you always have
to come back to would they have hired Lee Harvey Oswald,
a guy who failed at everything in his life.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
We would speak about conspiracies and myths. There's a view
out there that there are professional assassins roaming the earth
that can be just found via certain dark web or
whatever it is. I think one of the little secrets
of law enforcement is that actually, these professional assassins don't exist.
There isn't a crew of people who make their living
off of killing people. There's crappy, low level criminals who
(32:58):
are willing to do something for money and maybe get
themselves caught. But there's a notion that there's these incredibly
skilled professionals. Like in the Day of the Jackal or
what have you just done?
Speaker 5 (33:08):
Was there Carlos? Was there? Carlos?
Speaker 1 (33:11):
He was a terrorist? Yes, he wasn't really a Carlos.
A jackal had a cool name.
Speaker 5 (33:16):
But the guy who Day of the Jackal was about
the guy who tried to kill de Gaul? Was that
a real personal thing?
Speaker 2 (33:22):
So no, But there were conspiracies. So that go back.
De Gaul gave or withdrew the French from Algeria, where
they'd been for one hundred and forty years, and inside
of two months, over a million French had to like
bandon Algeria, where they'd been for generations, and those people,
(33:42):
the Piagnois, they had put together over and over again
conspiracies to real conspiracies to kill de gaul and they
all failed. I think the book and the movie were great,
but there never really was a Jackal, that the oas
the underground piegnoits resistance to the Gal, that none of
(34:03):
them ever panned out. Now, these people were professional military
and the French Foreign Legion guys, and they were unable
to do it. So, Phil you famously did Sneakers and
about CIA, and I was wondering, what is your sense
of the role of CIA now in US politics?
Speaker 5 (34:20):
Is that, first, I say, Sneakers is more about the NSA.
Some of all fears, which I directed, is certainly about
the CIA. My sense, and I as an outsider, is
that the agency has, like everything else in American society,
has gone through a lot of changes. I think that
in the fifties and sixties it was probably less bound
by laws and rules and was more free flowing. It
(34:44):
was the guy, the OSS guys who were cowboys in
some ways, and I think they way overstepped the bounds.
My guess is that today it's much much more difficult
for the agency to break the law, and that the
role is much more about intelligence gathering then the way
the movies depicted, which is about cloak and dagger. And
I've learned from you guys that I think the first
(35:06):
time we talked and you corrected me said, we're not
CIA agents, We're officers. We're not spies. We recruit spies,
we run spies, but we're not out there with the
binoculars at the edge of the nuclear base trying to
break in. I actually went to the CIA where we
were prepping some of all fears, and went to the
Russia desk, and what really struck me was it looked
(35:29):
like it could be the Russian studies office at some
mid sized university. It was a room of desks. All
the desks had books and magazines, and everybody had little
nesting dolls from their trips to Russia, and everybody had
little bottles of vodka. And some of the people were
watching Russian cable television, must monitoring television. Others were reading magazines.
(35:54):
And I realized this is the unglamorous, most important work
that the agency does, which is intelligence gather and a
lot of that intelligence is gathered from public sources, just
watching what's available and say, oh, that guy didn't used
to stand next to that guy. What does that mean?
And it was really based on that trip that we
added a scene to the movie where they're watching their
(36:15):
Russian president and some newsreel footage and someone says, oh,
his jacket isn't fitting well, I wonder if he's like
losing weight, you know. And that guy he was standing
next to him at the conference in Vienna. No, that's
not that guy. That was a different guy. And it's
all these people just arguing as they would in a
college dorm. But when we entered that office, as you
(36:37):
guys know this, if you walk down the hallway and
a door opens, what you see is an interior wall
that blocks the view of that room. You have to
walk in through the door, walk around this little interior
wall to get into the room, so that anybody walking
down the hall can't see anybody in those rooms. And
I said that was cool.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
In the early days of CAA, when people talked about
it was a rogue elephant, or it got involved in
illegal things or over through countries. It was often because
it did not have congressional oversight in those type of things.
It was essentially a plaything of the president. Eisenhower would
just say that head a CIA. It would really helped me.
If you I'm getting pressure from United Fruit, can you
(37:17):
go into wherever it did Hondurst or something and overthrow
those people. And they just acted on behalf of President's whims.
And what I worry now is newly elected President Trump
is he wants an organization that works specifically for him.
He doesn't want outside interference, he doesn't want the Congress involved,
he doesn't want to have to justify or he's doing.
He wants it to be his weapon. And we spent
(37:39):
a lot of years changing, adapting, and reforming the intelligence
community to be responsive to the will of the people
and the Congress and the president. And I worry we
might be going back to that old thing.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (37:52):
Years ago, I was researching the Cuban missile crisis. I
did a huge amount of research into it for a
mini series. And one of the things that really impressed
me is that in the summer of nineteen sixty three,
we knew there was a Russian military build up in Cuba,
but everybody said it's not nuclear, including the CIA analysts,
(38:12):
But It was the Director of Central Intelligence who was
the one person who said to Kennedy, I think it's nuclear,
and his analysts had told him, no, it's not. And
he said, look, I'll let you guys submit your report
as it is, but I'm just going to tell the
President that I have a different opinion. And it was
based on one thing. He said, these anti aircraft emplacements
that the Russians are putting in Cuba are all in circles,
(38:36):
but there's nothing in the middle of those circles. He said,
I think those will someday have nuclear launch pads in
the middle of those circular array of anti aircraft emplacements.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
And so they set the U two's up to go. Look,
that was a director McCahon, I think.
Speaker 5 (38:51):
The Director mccon, who was a Republican Eisenhower administration official.
And what's interesting is after he told Kennedy this and
Kennedy said, okay, sent up more two's. Macone goes to
the south of France for his honeymoon. He spends all
of August in France, and when he comes back, he says,
what are the U two's found? And they go, oh,
the weather hasn't been good. We couldn't send them up,
(39:12):
and so it's not until the end of September early
October when the weather clears and they can send U
two's and then also send those low level fighter photography planes.
And that's what comes up with.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
And what also happened simultaneously is is that Clendestine Service,
the part where Jerry and I worked, had a really
successful spy in Moscow. One of our first senior gru
military intelligence spi is named Penkowski, who provided us a
lot of the military books and doctrine, and so we
were able to look at how those forces had arrayed
(39:47):
themselves and look at their official doctrine and realize, oh
my god, this is a setup for a nuclear thing.
So the human spy who gave us information allowed the
U two and others that went over to put those
pieces together and realize what was happening there.
Speaker 5 (40:00):
There's a great moment to the night that the photo
analysts call the National Security Advisor to say there's nuclear
emplacements going into Cuba. It's a Sunday night and McGeorge
Bundy is having a cocktail party at his house and
he gets this phone call from someone at CIA. It
wasn't the director somebody below him. It's an unsecured phone,
(40:22):
and so the guy says, doesn't say who it is.
He says, you know those things we were talking about,
and Bundy recognizes the voices he asked and he goes,
they're there.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
Phil. It's always fantastic talking to you. We love meeting
with you and talking to you. And you've had an
incredible career and little did we know you had this JFKP.
So thank you for spending time with us.
Speaker 5 (40:41):
It's always my pleasure. I always learned so much from
talk to.
Speaker 7 (40:44):
About Thanks so much for Mission Implausible is produced by
Adam Davidson, Jerry O'Shea, John Cipher, and Jonathan Stern. The
associate producer is Rachel Harner. Mission Implausible It's a production
of Honorable Mention and Abominable pictures for iHeart Podcasts.
I'm John Cipher and I'm Jerry O'sha. I was a
CIA officer stationed around the world in high threat posts
in Europe, Russia, and in Asia.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
And I served in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East
and in war zones. We sometimes created conspiracies to deceive
our adversaries.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Now we're going to use our expertise to deconstruct conspiracy
theories large and small.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Could they be true or are we being manipulated?
Speaker 1 (00:26):
This is mission implausible. So, as you know, we've been
careful about putting our foot too deep into the JFK wormhole,
but we found an interesting way in. We're going to
interview and talk to one of our friends, Phil Robinson,
a well known Hollywood director and writer who did fall
down that rabbit hole.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
So we're going to be doing that, And as always,
I just want to know, what are you hiding?
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Why have we done so many episodes of this show
with two former CIA officers and you just refuse to
do JFK until I browbeat you.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Well, as you know, dam you know, you recruit assets early.
And I was four when JFK was killed and John
was only two, so you know, we.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Yeah, with all the drinking we did, and now we're older,
I could very well know that the CIA was involved
in killing Kennedy and I forgot it completely.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
All right, let me ask you this. Forget JFK. You
don't have to tell me what it is. But is
there a big shocking thing that the CIA did that
if you told us would be like, WHOA, I can't
believe that.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
No, yes, but had a good way. It's like what
you did this, you saved all those people.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
But you know what, people are so cynical that would
be like, that's what we expect you to do.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Well, it's it's a lot of ways. It's the lack
of something which makes puts us oh Is at a disadvantage.
After nine to eleven, we know that al Qaeda was
talking about a second strike and there were plans in place.
It never happened. There's a lot of reasons for that.
But we you know, terrible things could have happened, bombs
(02:00):
that didn't go. I mean, those are sort of the
things I'm thinking about.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
We definitely stopped lots of terrorist attacks. We've definitely stopped
lots of terrorists. But is that what you're talking about him?
Is that exciting to.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
You for us to say it's not exciting enough, that's
your job.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Come on, you want what do you want? You want
to met?
Speaker 1 (02:15):
It was pretty goddamn exciting that much, I can tell you.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
I bet it is exciting.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
But yeah, it's more fun when it's did you kill
presidents and stuff? I guess that is true. I guess
that is why conspiracy theories win.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Is it interesting if a president form president was a
spy for us? Or if we do have to kill
him for it to be interesting?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Wait?
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Was a former president of a spy for you?
Speaker 1 (02:34):
I'm not saying that, but it would that be interesting
to you?
Speaker 2 (02:37):
That would be which one ran the CIA?
Speaker 5 (02:39):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
All right, I'm excited to hear what your friend Phil
Robinson has to say.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Today's guest is Phil Robinson. Phil is a Hollywood big shot.
He's a writer and director, having written and directed such
classic films as Field of Dreams, Sneakers, Some of All Fears,
and involved with Band of Brothers and he Rewrote a
personal favorite of mine. But more importantly, he's a friend
of ours and for our purposes today, he's a recovering
(03:04):
obsessive on the assassination of President John F.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Kennedy.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Phil, welcome, It's very nice to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
It's funny just because we know you, we know that
you were interested in this. I know you've done some
work on the Cuban missile crisis and Beya Pigs. But
how did you get involved in following the rabbit hole
of the Kennedy assassination.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
I was in college in I guess it was the
beginning of college in nineteen sixty seven. A friend of
mine was a rabid conspiracy buff and he turned me
on to Mark Lane's book, excellent book called Rush to Judgment,
which was a fairly scholarly dissection of the war and Report.
And I think Lane did a real service by saying, Hey,
the War Report's got a lot of problems. There's a
(03:44):
lot of inconsistencies, there's omissions, there's mistakes. Lane inferred that
that was the result of a cover up, but he
also implied, look, this could be a rush to judgment.
They were told to come out with this conclusion. They
worked very fast, and they ignored certain things, they covered
up other things, and this was the result a report
(04:05):
that said Oswald acted alone, there was no conspiracy. The
conspiracy theories kind of began at that point, and I
was obsessed with them. They were fascinating. It was fun
to talk about that the CIA and the FBI and
the Secret Service and the mafia and anti Castro Cubans
or Procrastro Cubans, and all these people were involved in
(04:26):
the conspiracy and somehow kept the secret all these years.
I loved learning more about it. Every book that came out,
I would read it, and then I would bore my
friends by keeping them ball all night, telling them about
the hoboes who were removed from the train tracts and
the railroad overpass over Elm Street, one of whom looked
exactly like Howard Hunt. And you can show the picture
(04:48):
and you go, I guess it looks a little like
Howard Hunt. There was a lot of cool stuff, and
I realized, after years and years of obsessing on this,
that I wanted to believe the conspiracy theories. And then
I was not a applying the same level of rigorous
skepticism to conspiracy theories that I was applying to the
government's case. And I started looking at them in a
(05:11):
different light, and they all fell apart. I remember the day.
It was in the eighties. I was reading a new
book about the assassination, and I thought, wait a second,
this doesn't make sense. They wouldn't have planned it this way.
And I realized all the conspiracy theories were constructed from
today looking back at this constellation of facts and semi
facts and whatnot, and you could select what you wanted
(05:35):
and connect dots and make a scenario that made some
sort of sense. But that's not how the conspiracy was constructed.
It was constructed before the assassination by people planning what's
the best way to do this? And if you just
look at these theories from that point of view, none
of them made sense. They all seemed impossible.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Neither John nor I think I could speak for John,
neither of us have gone down the JFK conspiracy. See
rabbit hole, right. It's a whole industry. It's almost a
way of life for some people. But with the Warren Report,
I just have a really basic question in one that is,
an intelligence officer always gets face, and it comes down
to the burden of proof. The Warren Report says that
(06:16):
Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy.
Is that exactly what it said or did it say
that we have no evidence that there was a conspiracy
that others weren't involved. There's a difference between we can
prove there was no one else involved in a conspiracy,
which is almost impossible to because you can never prove
(06:37):
a negative, righty right, it's unfalsifiable.
Speaker 5 (06:39):
I could be wrong. My recollection as they were very definitive.
I read the first volume. There's twenty six volumes of
the Warren Report, and then there's some I read that
when it came out. My recollection is they were very definitive.
There was no conspiracy. He acted alone, there was no
second assassin. In the seventies Committee on Assassinations and they
(07:00):
studied various assassinations, mostly the JFK one, they included a
lot of evidence supposed as evidence that had come out
since the Warrant Report, and they concluded it was probably
a conspiracy. But they then said, but we can rule
out the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the mafia, Cuba, Russia,
(07:24):
and anti Castro Cubans. They ruled out everybody who had
ever been suggested as a possible conspirator, leaving I don't
know who. And the reason that they said it was
probably a conspiracy was one piece of evidence which was
a Dickta belt. A Dickta belt recording supposedly a Dallas
police officer on a motorcycle in Deey Plaza had left
(07:47):
his microphone open and there was a dickt de belt
recording of this that people who listened to it said,
I hear four gunshots. Based on that one piece of evidence,
the House Select Committee said there was a fourth gun shot,
probably from the Grassy Knoll, and therefore it's a conspiracy.
Some years later, a panel of acoustical experts took a
(08:08):
look at this and said, no, A, these are not gunshots,
and b it did not take place at the time
of the assassination this recording, thereby ruling out that one
piece of evidence. The interesting thing about what the House
Select Committee said a fourth gun shot from the Grassy Null.
Remember the grassy Knoll is where the supposed professional assassin
(08:29):
was shooting from. If he fired the fourth gunshot, he missed.
According to that theory Oswald, the amateur fired three shots,
hit Kennedy twice, the professional and the grassy null fired once,
and so it kind of doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
So the FBI. JEdgar Hoover's FBI did an initial like
fifty page overview very soon after the assassination, and Hoover
himself pushed President Johnson to simply accept the FBI's report,
and because Hoover did not want to open up the
Bureau for criticism. They'd been monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald, they
hadn't spoke with him, and obviously they weren't tracking him
(09:05):
on the day of the assassination. And Hoover and Johnson
were pretty good friends. They lived on the same street
before Johnson was president, and Johnson eventually realized he did
have to have a special commission, but he nonetheless pushed
them to try to accept the FBI view, which I
think was right. But because trying to protect the Bureau,
it was limited and it failed to anticipate all the
(09:26):
possible scenarios and rule them out.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
And I think Mark Lane was right. I think the
Warrent Commission did omit certain things that they probably should
have included, particularly regarding Lee Oswald's background. And my theory
about that is that, as we learned from the Church
Committee in the seventies, Oswald was a kind of a
fringe character in this shadowy world in which the intelligence
(09:52):
community and law enforcement at the mafia were involved in
all kinds of illegal activities together, assassinations, spying on Americans,
trading political groups. And I think that Oswald, when he
was in New Orleans, rubbed shoulders with some of this.
And I think the Warrant Commission felt if we reveal
all we know about Lee Oswald's background having nothing to
(10:16):
do with the assassination, it could bring down the whole house.
So let's just put a lid on that stuff. And
I think in the course of doing that, it made
it look like they were covering up the assassination, when
in fact they were covering up something else. That's just
a theory.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Years ago, there was a reporting that had come out
from in the press, but according to the agency, there
was real indications that the GRU the Russian intelligence service,
was offering bounties for the killing of American CIA officers
back then in Afghanistan and of US officials. And we
(10:55):
could never prove that one hundred percent officially, and to
a certain extent that that's good insofar as even if
we're only ninety ninety five percent certain that's true that
the Russians are putting bounties on the heads of our officers,
that is arguably that's a cause for war, I mean,
because you have to respond to that. So you've got
(11:17):
to have at one hundred percent learn that in the
Iraq war, with WMD claiming that it was there, when
it turns out it likely was, but it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
If with the Kennedy assassination, with Oswald having close ties
to both Cuba and certainly to Russia, if one of
the theories entertained and talked about was there is good
reason to believe that Cashrow or Russia was behind this.
Where does that take us? That takes us on a
maybe to the brink of war, and is that really
(11:46):
worthwhile if we can't be certain?
Speaker 1 (11:48):
But in that case, you are actually suggesting a potential
cover up to.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Me based on nothing. It does make sense. He was
a Russian citizen, He was in the Russian embassy. Before this,
the Bay Pigs had gone down. He and Cruise Jutt
has squared off in Vienna the Cuban missile crisis. The
Russians may have seen him, or some rogue element may
have suggested to him that it would be a good
(12:13):
idea for Kennedy to be gotten rid of zero evidence
of this, right, I mean but it's how many Americans
in those days were hanging out in the Russian embassy
and then having the shootcaster. I think.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
But he was such a low level schmuck, the fact
that they would suggest, hey, you're the one we want
to kill.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
The president of the United States, and we know from
our business it may not have been a guy a
KGB officer saying go shoot him, but a KGB officer saying,
if only he were gone. There's all sorts of ways
short of paying him money to do this.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Man, you are you were going down the rabbit hole,
Jerry Are No, I'm the different help tree.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
The difference Betwe is like, I can see that as
a possibility, but it's completely unproven. It's total conjecture. I
get that well.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
And I think you raise a good point, which is
that the Warrant report has good reason to tamp down
any suggestion that Oswald was working on behalf of the Russians,
because if they said he was, then we could be
at war. And I think John's pointed a I would
assume the Russians had better people than this, you know,
incompetent to pull this off. And the other thing is,
(13:20):
if you look at the geopolitics at the time. After
the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy and Khrushchev had a rap prochemont.
They both felt that we are the only two people
who pulled the world back from nuclear holocaust, and in
sixty three they were working together on a nuclear arms tree.
There was actually a warming between those two men in
(13:42):
nineteen sixty three. I don't know that the geopolitics at
the time would have led the Soviet Union to want
Kennedy killed because he'd be replaced by somebody who was
more of a hardliner.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
But if you're going down rabbit holes and you're like yes,
But perhaps the KGB, the CIA had been had been
embarrassed by Kennedy who didn't support them in the Bay
of Pigs, and the KGB now thought Khushchef was being weak. Therefore,
those people could have wanted Even if Khrushchef didn't want
Kennedy killed, maybe the KGB thought it was worthwhile, or
(14:14):
maybe the CIA wanted Kennedy killed because he wasn't strong enough.
So that's why this game is interesting, and that's why
this has stayed on for thirty forty years, because if
you go take any of these scenarios. They have a
piece of it that's very interesting, and so of course
you would want to cover that up.
Speaker 5 (14:28):
In a way, it's a little bit like the religious
argument of God works in mysterious ways. It's an answer
to pretty much everything. I don't know that either the
CIA or the Soviets would have picked Lee Harvey Oswald,
who was one of life's losers, to pull off the
biggest event of the century, and there's certainly no evidence
that they did. And I realized one day, I felt
(14:51):
I wanted to believe the conspiracy because psychologically this may
sound counterintuitive. I don't want to believe that one possess
low life loser can have such a huge, deleterious, damaging
effect on my life, in the life of my country.
I'm much more comfortable believing that something this damaging, this
(15:11):
hugest monumental, could only be pulled off by the most
powerful forces on earth. Because if a nothing like Oswald
can have this effect on history, then we're hanging by
a narrow thread.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
That's why conspiracy are comforting, right, because it helps explain
unexplainable or complicated or chaotic or random things.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
All Right, we're gonna get right back into that.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
But first let's hear this.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Did you lose friends, Phil after you came out of
the rabbit hole? And did you keep all your materials
and books?
Speaker 5 (16:01):
I did not lose friends after I committed that. I
lost friends while I was in the rabbit hole because
I bored people to tears night after the night telling
them these and connecting assassination theories with the Robert Kennedy
and the Martin Luther King assassination because there were tenuous
ties that people would make to that. I think I
probably I was persona on grata in a lot of
(16:25):
rooms in the college dormitory because oh God, here comes Phil.
We're going to be up till three listening to these
horror stories.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And it's interesting. On one of our other episodes, we
had Michael Weissan, who was an expert on Russian intelligence
written some books on history of Russian active measures and
disinformation campaigns, and he points out that the JFK movie
by Oliver Stone was actually part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
In other words, the Russians saw that we were deep
(16:53):
in these rabbit holes and picked a conspiracy to push
into different things. Now, back then, we probably didn't have
the sense of this that we do now to see
how beautifully evil that is to say, oh, look at
the Americans are like chasing their tails here, let's throw
something in the middle of the watch to meet each
other up.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
I have to say, I mean all of Besonde's movie JFK,
I think is one of the great movies. I disagree
with his interpretation of the events, but just as pure
as filmmaking, I think it's as good as it gets.
I love that movie.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
One of the things too, that doesn't make any sense
is conspiracy. Theorists now on the JFK event keep saying
and hoping that one more there's one more document and
it will show right. And how many administrations have we
been through Obama, trum Biden, going back to Trump again,
(17:42):
if there was a piece of paper that laid out
this hunting plan. And we've said this before, but just
to be clear, some of the documents that are still
being held, one of them that came out was the
reason we knew Oswald was in the Russian m se
in Mexico City is because we had this We had
(18:02):
the embassy bugged and it was against Mexican law, and
the Mexican president himself said, I will allow you to
break Mexican law, but I will be in big trouble
and my legacy will be in big trouble if I
allow this. So you must promise to keep this secret forever.
But before that, people are thinking, oh, they're keeping these secrets. Oh,
(18:23):
this has got to be the one. And then it
comes out that it basically see, I had just made
a promise. I come something completely different, and we broke
our promise and it didn't solve anything.
Speaker 5 (18:34):
Some people lie, some people forget details. But there's one
thing that prevented us from ever knowing definitively for sure,
and that is the wounds in Kennedy's neck and the back.
Doctors at Parkland Hospital saw him lying on his back
with a hole in the front of his throat. Now,
the Warren Report says that's the exit wound from the
(18:56):
bullet that entered his back. The doctors at Parkland Hospital
never turned him onto his back, They never saw a
hole in his back, They saw the hole in his throat,
assumed it was an entry wound, did an emergency tracheotomy
to try to save his life. He dies. The body
is shipped to Bethesda Naval hospital for an autopsy. The
doctors who do the autopsy see a tracheotomy opening in
(19:17):
the front of his neck and a hole on the
back of his neck, so they say, okay, the bullet
entered the back of his neck. They never talked to
the doctors at Parkland who thought that the hole in
the front was an entry wound. If the doctor's doing
the autopsy had been told, hey, there's a possibility that
there was an entry into the front, they would have
dissected the entire path of that bullet to see if
(19:41):
the tissue is pushing from front to back or from
back to front. They never did that. The body was
sealed in the coffin lying in state, and only then
did the two sets of doctors talk to each other
and was too late to examine it. Because of that
one missed communication, we don't have the definitive proof that
the hole in the front of his was an exit word.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
There was a law in nineteen ninety two that stipulates
that anything that Menson mentions the assassination must be cross
filed into the JFK material. So in CIA, obviously there
was such pressure even back then on the agency, like, hey, listen,
we have to make sure that we keep good records
of all this stuff. And so they said, any if
you're anywhere in the world and someone says something about
(20:22):
the JFK, then has to be cross filed into the
JFK material and files. And the problem then becomes that
there's a bunch of sensitive material that has nothing to
do with the assassination in these files. For example, when
I was in Belgrade and Serbia, I met the former
head of the Serbian Intelligence Service, and as I was
sitting down and drinking with him, it turns out he
was obsessed with the assassination and he talked about it
(20:43):
for the bulk of the evening of our meeting. So
therefore I wrote up a meeting with the head of
the Serbian intelligence Service, and I included the JFK discussion
had nothing to do with the issues we were doing.
But then that report gets cross filed into the JFK material.
So when it comes time to release said they can't
release it because it has to deal with sensitive issues
going on and Serbia or what have you. But it
(21:06):
looks like we were, you know, to the outside, like, oh, look,
they're not giving up this sensitive JFK material. But it's
not in fact at all what happened.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
And when we're planning our conspiracies, small conspiracies like an operation, right,
we always say Murphy gets a vote, And my mind
goes back to this one operation we were doing, and
it was a small conspiracy and it's a third world country.
We had a female officer meeting someone from a radical
(21:35):
Arab regime and he was thinking about he'd let us know.
He was thinking of telling us what was going on
in his government, but he wasn't sure yet, And so
they arranged for this walk in this park and as
they were walking through the park this isolated tops of trees,
police jump out, five or six police and they yell,
you're under arrest. And she's thinking looking at him, thinking oh,
(21:59):
he set me up. And he looks at her and thinks, oh,
she set me up. And they both looked at each
other and realize nobody set anybody up. And they started
talking to the police. And I swear to God what
came out of this was the police said, last year,
on this date, there was a ritual murder, a witchcraft murder,
in this exact spot, and we have determined that it
(22:23):
is likely for halt reasons as a country that believes
in witchcraft, that the perpetrators would return to this spot
perfectly with heart of the body that they took. And
so they talked back and forth, and the police very
you know, it's like, oh, well, these two clearly are
not like involved in witchcraft. And she said no, he's
my tutor. I'm teaching him English. And they went, oh,
(22:44):
you can go, but don't tell anybody we're here because
we're waiting for the next people and so and so,
you know, we planned everything out to be perfectly done,
and then when we had to send it into Washington,
it's like, yeah, we didn't think about the pulp murder.
Witch craft came that right.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
So do you still follow this issue at all? Or
has coming out of the JFK rabbit hole made you
someone who's very skeptical of conspiracies in general.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
I did stay in the rabbit hole for a while
when Vince Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History came out, because I
think it's brilliant. It's a definitive, exhaustively long examination of
every conspiracy theory and every piece of supposed evidence that
supports them, where he examines them very carefully and knocks
(23:32):
them all down. There's all kinds of things he knocks down.
For instance, the opening of JFK, the film with the
drug addicted prostitute is thrown out of the car and
she claims, there's two Cubans on the way to Dallas
and they told me they were going to kill Kennedy.
Buugliosi traces tracks that down. There was a woman who
claimed this, but she claimed it after the assassination, not before.
(23:54):
The myth was always that it was two days before
the assassination she was telling people they're going to kill Kennedy.
It was after. And Bugliosi does this to every piece
of supposed evidence. But it's it's appealing. I understand the
appeal of it. It's fun, it's cool. It's cool to say, hey,
I know something you don't know. The government was lying
about this. Let me spin this tale. And I love
(24:15):
a good story. And the assassination conspiracies are really compelling, interesting,
vital stories. They just happen to be fiction. But I
like fiction too.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
The issue of how hard it would be before the
fact to arrange something, as opposed to after the fact
putting it together. You put together sort of a small
example of like if someone was trying to plan this,
and someone was querying them what that might look like,
and you sent that to us, I was wonder if
it would be worthwhile reading that through to try to
(24:47):
help make that point.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Sure.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
Sure. The idea is that instead of looking back at
the assassination from today, let's put ourselves in the middle
of October of nineteen sixty three and the three of
us are sitting together in Dallas. You're my case officers,
you're my handlers. You have entrusted me with the planning
of the Kennedy assassination. By the way, where would we
(25:08):
be meeting in a hotel room or somebody's house? Where
would this take place? Hotel room would be just fine, okay,
And I'm going to lay out for you the plan
that I've come up with, and I would start by saying, Okay,
we just got word Kennedy is coming to Dallas in
late November, and we're going to kill him. We've got
(25:29):
a guy, Lee Harvey Osworth, and he's a professional assassin. No,
he's just some guy who works in a warehouse.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
But he's been a hit man.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Was he military?
Speaker 5 (25:39):
Yes, he was a marine how'd that work out? Not
so good? He was court martialed for accidentally shooting himself
a lot terrific.
Speaker 1 (25:45):
So has he ever shot anyone other than himself?
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Well, he shot at someone. I remember it was in
all the papers earlier this year that someone took a
shot at that guy, General Walker. Yeah, yeah, well that
was Lee. But he missed. Okay, he missed, but he
did shoot at him.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Is it a hard shot?
Speaker 5 (26:01):
No, it was actually a pretty easy shot. Walker was
sitting in a chair at home. It was nighttime, perfectly lit.
Oswald was outside thirty yards away. Why did he miss
He was using this piece of crap mail order rifle.
Speaker 1 (26:12):
Oh okay, So for Trinity, we'll get him a really
good sniper rifle.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
No, he's going to use the same piece of crap
mail order rifle.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
What did he do after the route?
Speaker 5 (26:20):
He defected to Russia.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
I'm sorry, it sounded like you said he defected to Russia.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
Yeah, he defected to Russia, but he changed his mind
and we let him back, so the authorities know he
defected to Russia and came back to the United States. Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Are you a teeny bit concerned that he might be
on a watch list? Or something.
Speaker 5 (26:38):
Oh, he's on a watch list, are right, it's one
of the reasons he's pissed off at the government. The
FBI is always coming around interrogating him, his wife, his family,
his friends.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I'm sorry, So why the hell are we using this guy?
Speaker 5 (26:48):
Because he works at the Texas school Book Depository. Yeah,
so from the sixth floor window, he will have a
perfect shot if the presidential limo goes down Elm the street.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
What do you mean if the residential limo goust down
Elm Street.
Speaker 5 (27:01):
They haven't announced the President's I tinerary yet, they haven't
even announced where he's gonna speak. And truth be told,
there's no reason to believe he'll drive by there.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
But if he does, if the president doesn't drive down Elm.
Speaker 5 (27:11):
Street, honestly, we haven't thought about that yet.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
Okay, walk me through how this goes down. The morning
of the presidential motorcade, Oswald drives to work.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
And no, no, he doesn't drive. What do you mean
he doesn't have a car. He doesn't even have a license.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
How is he gonna get to work?
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Probably just hitch your ride as a neighbor.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Okay, so I guess you'll stash the rifle at the building.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
So when he arrives, no, no, noly, he's gonna carry
the rifle with him in his neighbor's car.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
And the neighbor says like, hey, Lee, why are you
carrying a rifle to work on the day the president
is driving by your building?
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Oh?
Speaker 5 (27:46):
Come on, he's not gonna carry it in the open,
but do you think we're stupid? He's gonna wrap it
in paper?
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Hey, Lee, why are you carrying a rifle shaped object
wrapped in paper on the day the President is driving?
Speaker 5 (27:56):
Guy, Well, mister smarty pants, we actually have an answer
for that. He's going to say. It's curtain rods.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Hey Lee, why are you carrying curtain rods to work?
Speaker 5 (28:06):
Okay, that's a good question. I'll run it by Lee.
I'm sure he'll think of something.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Oh good, sir, he's smart, savvy.
Speaker 5 (28:12):
No, he's stupid. But maybe i'll have the guy's work on.
Speaker 1 (28:15):
All right, So let me see if I've got this.
This not very smart guy, who's not a very good shot,
who is being watched by the FBI, is going to
position himself to shoot the president if the President drives
on that street, which right now, we have no Reasonablie
he will.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
That's our plan.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Then what what do you mean after he shoots the president?
Then what what's your escape plan? How do you get
him away from the scene of the crime. How do
you get him out of the city, out of the country.
What's the plan?
Speaker 5 (28:44):
Well, I think Lee was just planning to go back
to his apartment. Maybe take in a movie, take in
a movie. Oh, I get it. You're worried he's going
to get arrested, and if he gets arrested, he could
talk and that could implicate us. Yes, worried about that.
Don't worry. We're gonna kill him, Thank.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
God, that's the first sensible thing you said. You're going
to kill him before the police find him.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
No, we're gonna kill him after the police find.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Him, before they interrogate him, right before he has chance
to say anything.
Speaker 5 (29:14):
No, we're gonna let them interrogate him for a few days,
and then we're gonna kill him where right there in
the police.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
I get it.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
One of the cops will say Oswald grabbed his gun
and there was a scuffle.
Speaker 5 (29:24):
And there won't be a cop. We got this guy,
Jack Rup and he's a hitman. No, he owns his
strip club, but he's killed people before. Jack, he's a
pussy gut.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
How is he gonna do this?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
He's gonna walk into that police station and march right
up to Oswald, pull out his gun.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
And think, and he can do this without being seen.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
Hell no, he's gonna do it on live television. What oh,
I get what you're worried about? What if they arrest him?
Will he talk?
Speaker 2 (29:49):
Yeah, that's a concern.
Speaker 5 (29:51):
Don'n't worry.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
We're gonna kill him to cook, thank you.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
Yeah, about three years later, we're gonna give him cancer.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Three years later, too long a little.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
I sense you're a tiny bit skeptical about Plan A,
So let me run Plan B by. In Plan B,
Oswald is not the only shooter. He'll be up there
on the sixth floor, just like Plan A, but we'll
also have a real, highly experienced professional assassin, let's call
him Harlows, and he'll be on the grassyno.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Good, Okay, now you're talking. What's the grassy knoll.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
It's a little slope next to Oswald's building. Carlos will
be at the back of the grassyno.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Okay, so what's the player.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
The President's limo will drive right past the grassy knoll
at a perfect ninety degree angle, and Carlos will shoot him.
Then we say, hey, there's a guy in the sixth
story window behind the president with a rifle. Everyone will
go after Lee and he'll take the fall.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
I'm sorry, So Carlos is going to shoot Kennedy from
the side at almost ground level, but you're gonna say
the real shooter was six stories up and behind.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
Yeah, pretty good.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
I can't believe I have to ask this, But if
Carlos shoots Kennedy from the side and it almost ground level,
how are you going to make the wounds look like
they came from behind and six stories up.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
I'll tell you exactly how. Carlos is gonna shoot Kennedy
in the front of the throat, but he's not gonna
kill him, so they'll rush into the hospital. They'll do
an emergency trachey out of me and that will obliterate
the entry wounds in the front of his throat. But
here's the brilliant part. Oswald will shoot him in the
back of the head at the same time that Carlos
shoots him in the front of the throat. So when
they do the autopsy, they won't see an entry wound
in his throat because it's been obliterated by the trachy
(31:27):
out of him. But they will see the entry wound
in the back of his head, and they'll say it
was only one assassin. He was the guy shooting from behind,
and we put it on the lead pretty good.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Huh.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Just one thing. If Carlos is shooting from the grassy
knoll at a ninety degree angle to Kennedy, in other words,
from the side, how does he hit him in the front.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Of the throat?
Speaker 5 (31:46):
You are so negative?
Speaker 2 (31:48):
All right?
Speaker 1 (31:48):
So that's our little.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
That's pretty much how it could have gone down. But
it's a dumb plan. I think we can agree on that.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
We'll be right back in a moment.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
Jerry and I are concerned about going so deep in
the rabbit hole because it becomes such an industry. But
if you just go back to the like, okay, playing
this out for me, it all seems to fall apart.
All the clever things fall apart pretty quickly.
Speaker 5 (32:21):
Yeah. And also then if you think specifically about was
it the KGB, was it the mafia, you always have
to come back to would they have hired Lee Harvey Oswald,
a guy who failed at everything in his life.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
We would speak about conspiracies and myths. There's a view
out there that there are professional assassins roaming the earth
that can be just found via certain dark web or
whatever it is. I think one of the little secrets
of law enforcement is that actually, these professional assassins don't exist.
There isn't a crew of people who make their living
off of killing people. There's crappy, low level criminals who
(32:58):
are willing to do something for money and maybe get
themselves caught. But there's a notion that there's these incredibly
skilled professionals. Like in the Day of the Jackal or
what have you just done?
Speaker 5 (33:08):
Was there Carlos? Was there? Carlos?
Speaker 1 (33:11):
He was a terrorist? Yes, he wasn't really a Carlos.
A jackal had a cool name.
Speaker 5 (33:16):
But the guy who Day of the Jackal was about
the guy who tried to kill de Gaul? Was that
a real personal thing?
Speaker 2 (33:22):
So no, But there were conspiracies. So that go back.
De Gaul gave or withdrew the French from Algeria, where
they'd been for one hundred and forty years, and inside
of two months, over a million French had to like
bandon Algeria, where they'd been for generations, and those people,
(33:42):
the Piagnois, they had put together over and over again
conspiracies to real conspiracies to kill de gaul and they
all failed. I think the book and the movie were great,
but there never really was a Jackal, that the oas
the underground piegnoits resistance to the Gal, that none of
(34:03):
them ever panned out. Now, these people were professional military
and the French Foreign Legion guys, and they were unable
to do it. So, Phil you famously did Sneakers and
about CIA, and I was wondering, what is your sense
of the role of CIA now in US politics?
Speaker 5 (34:20):
Is that, first, I say, Sneakers is more about the NSA.
Some of all fears, which I directed, is certainly about
the CIA. My sense, and I as an outsider, is
that the agency has, like everything else in American society,
has gone through a lot of changes. I think that
in the fifties and sixties it was probably less bound
by laws and rules and was more free flowing. It
(34:44):
was the guy, the OSS guys who were cowboys in
some ways, and I think they way overstepped the bounds.
My guess is that today it's much much more difficult
for the agency to break the law, and that the
role is much more about intelligence gathering then the way
the movies depicted, which is about cloak and dagger. And
I've learned from you guys that I think the first
(35:06):
time we talked and you corrected me said, we're not
CIA agents, We're officers. We're not spies. We recruit spies,
we run spies, but we're not out there with the
binoculars at the edge of the nuclear base trying to
break in. I actually went to the CIA where we
were prepping some of all fears, and went to the
Russia desk, and what really struck me was it looked
(35:29):
like it could be the Russian studies office at some
mid sized university. It was a room of desks. All
the desks had books and magazines, and everybody had little
nesting dolls from their trips to Russia, and everybody had
little bottles of vodka. And some of the people were
watching Russian cable television, must monitoring television. Others were reading magazines.
(35:54):
And I realized this is the unglamorous, most important work
that the agency does, which is intelligence gather and a
lot of that intelligence is gathered from public sources, just
watching what's available and say, oh, that guy didn't used
to stand next to that guy. What does that mean?
And it was really based on that trip that we
added a scene to the movie where they're watching their
(36:15):
Russian president and some newsreel footage and someone says, oh,
his jacket isn't fitting well, I wonder if he's like
losing weight, you know. And that guy he was standing
next to him at the conference in Vienna. No, that's
not that guy. That was a different guy. And it's
all these people just arguing as they would in a
college dorm. But when we entered that office, as you
(36:37):
guys know this, if you walk down the hallway and
a door opens, what you see is an interior wall
that blocks the view of that room. You have to
walk in through the door, walk around this little interior
wall to get into the room, so that anybody walking
down the hall can't see anybody in those rooms. And
I said that was cool.
Speaker 1 (36:57):
In the early days of CAA, when people talked about
it was a rogue elephant, or it got involved in
illegal things or over through countries. It was often because
it did not have congressional oversight in those type of things.
It was essentially a plaything of the president. Eisenhower would
just say that head a CIA. It would really helped me.
If you I'm getting pressure from United Fruit, can you
(37:17):
go into wherever it did Hondurst or something and overthrow
those people. And they just acted on behalf of President's whims.
And what I worry now is newly elected President Trump
is he wants an organization that works specifically for him.
He doesn't want outside interference, he doesn't want the Congress involved,
he doesn't want to have to justify or he's doing.
He wants it to be his weapon. And we spent
(37:39):
a lot of years changing, adapting, and reforming the intelligence
community to be responsive to the will of the people
and the Congress and the president. And I worry we
might be going back to that old thing.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (37:52):
Years ago, I was researching the Cuban missile crisis. I
did a huge amount of research into it for a
mini series. And one of the things that really impressed
me is that in the summer of nineteen sixty three,
we knew there was a Russian military build up in Cuba,
but everybody said it's not nuclear, including the CIA analysts,
(38:12):
But It was the Director of Central Intelligence who was
the one person who said to Kennedy, I think it's nuclear,
and his analysts had told him, no, it's not. And
he said, look, I'll let you guys submit your report
as it is, but I'm just going to tell the
President that I have a different opinion. And it was
based on one thing. He said, these anti aircraft emplacements
that the Russians are putting in Cuba are all in circles,
(38:36):
but there's nothing in the middle of those circles. He said,
I think those will someday have nuclear launch pads in
the middle of those circular array of anti aircraft emplacements.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
And so they set the U two's up to go. Look,
that was a director McCahon, I think.
Speaker 5 (38:51):
The Director mccon, who was a Republican Eisenhower administration official.
And what's interesting is after he told Kennedy this and
Kennedy said, okay, sent up more two's. Macone goes to
the south of France for his honeymoon. He spends all
of August in France, and when he comes back, he says,
what are the U two's found? And they go, oh,
the weather hasn't been good. We couldn't send them up,
(39:12):
and so it's not until the end of September early
October when the weather clears and they can send U
two's and then also send those low level fighter photography planes.
And that's what comes up with.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
And what also happened simultaneously is is that Clendestine Service,
the part where Jerry and I worked, had a really
successful spy in Moscow. One of our first senior gru
military intelligence spi is named Penkowski, who provided us a
lot of the military books and doctrine, and so we
were able to look at how those forces had arrayed
(39:47):
themselves and look at their official doctrine and realize, oh
my god, this is a setup for a nuclear thing.
So the human spy who gave us information allowed the
U two and others that went over to put those
pieces together and realize what was happening there.
Speaker 5 (40:00):
There's a great moment to the night that the photo
analysts call the National Security Advisor to say there's nuclear
emplacements going into Cuba. It's a Sunday night and McGeorge
Bundy is having a cocktail party at his house and
he gets this phone call from someone at CIA. It
wasn't the director somebody below him. It's an unsecured phone,
(40:22):
and so the guy says, doesn't say who it is.
He says, you know those things we were talking about,
and Bundy recognizes the voices he asked and he goes,
they're there.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
Phil. It's always fantastic talking to you. We love meeting
with you and talking to you. And you've had an
incredible career and little did we know you had this JFKP.
So thank you for spending time with us.
Speaker 5 (40:41):
It's always my pleasure. I always learned so much from
talk to.
Speaker 7 (40:44):
About Thanks so much for Mission Implausible is produced by
Adam Davidson, Jerry O'Shea, John Cipher, and Jonathan Stern. The
associate producer is Rachel Harner. Mission Implausible It's a production
of Honorable Mention and Abominable pictures for iHeart Podcasts.
Hosts And Creators
Adam Davidson
John Sipher
Jerry O'Shea
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com