June 9, 2024 • 57 mins
Unlock the hidden history with Chris & Steve in Part 2 of their examination of the JFK assassination, the ultimate "conspiracy theory" that continues to fascinate the public.
Chris & Steve highlight overlooked witnesses, expose flaws in the official investigation, and questions the Warren Commission's conclusions. Get ready to confront many unanswered questions and consider the possibility of a different truth.
As the echoes of Dealey Plaza's gunshots fade, many are left with a sense that the story we've been told might not be complete. Join Chris & Steve as they piece together the fragments and explore the possibility of a conspiracy, never accepting a simple explanation when the truth demands further investigation.
The Kennedy assassination may have happened decades ago, but to Chris & Steve, as well as the court of public opinion, the case remains wide open, and is indeed some "Deep Shit".
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve, and we're talking about some
deep shit, and we're back totalk about some more deep shit.
(00:30):
How's it going, steve?
Chris, how you doing?
Not too bad.
We're fresh off of our lastepisode, which was all about
conspiracy theories in general,and, and now today we're going
to dig into a specificconspiracy.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yes, one of the largest that I know about.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, and the the, the big, the big daddy of all
conspiracies, right, the JFKassassination.
Here we are talking about itand it's worth being said that
you know there's so much on thistopic.
I think we, I think we saidthis last last episode too, and
we last episode too, and we whenwe touched on it that like it's
(01:07):
impossible for for us to reallygive it the in-depth treatment,
the whole thing.
It's just there's so much there.
It would it would require many,many episodes.
So we're just going to focus onsome of the more interesting
parts.
I mean, we're not going to getto everything, but there's a lot
here.
There's definitely a lot here.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Yeah, and I I think that maybe, maybe sometime in
the future, we revisit and talkabout some other points, only
because there's just when I'm,when I was taking it all in, I
was like god, there's just somany things and each one takes
you down a different rabbit hole.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
yes, yes, and it all, yeah, it all spirals off in
different directions and thenspirals into other things.
Yeah, it ties up with otherconspiracies too, which you know
.
It's just.
There's miles and miles ofstuff, of material on this.
On this topic, I asked chat gbtjust to.
I was curious if it could tellme how many books have been
published about the jfkassassination.
(01:59):
It's even chat gbt said it wasimpossible to estimate and I
said, well, give me a ballpark.
And it said, well, at leastseveral hundred it's crazy.
Several hundred, and that's justbooks, right you?
Know you have movies,documentaries, I'm sure there's
been, you know, radio programsand things like that.
So probably other podcasts.
So I'm sure there's, I'm surethere's probably dozens upon
(02:21):
dozens of podcasts.
There's probably podcasts thathave been running for quite some
time that only cover the JFKand every, every time they do
like a different element of it.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
And it's interesting why this topic just resonates
with so many people.
Right, because it's been inthis November it'll be 61 years
since it happened, right.
So what is it about it?
And I think what it is about itis.
First of all, it's interesting,right.
(02:51):
Second of all, it's kind ofmind-blowing to think that, if
there's some truth to it, thatthat's what's happening, that
that's what happened.
Our government decided to holdsomething back, or decided to be
the perpetrator.
I have no idea.
It's just.
It's something a lot of people,I think, have a hard time
wrapping their heads around.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Right, and it's so many open questions.
And what's what I foundinteresting in going back and
kind of looking at it is some ofthose open questions were there
right from the beginning.
I think I always assumed that,like at the time, it was only in
hindsight that people startedto to come up with conspiracy
theories about it.
But what you find out is thatthe conspiracy theory started
(03:31):
almost immediately.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Right and um, I think yes, and I also think that what
had was happening immediatelyis there was a.
There were different peoplethat were just wondering well,
why is somebody not listening tomy story, or why are they not
considering this?
And then I think it startedbecoming a theory of a
(03:56):
conspiracy, especially after theofficial Warren Commission
report came out.
Yeah, and I think that's whenpeople said oh, wait a minute,
they're not thinking of allthese other things.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yeah Well, and we'll talk a little bit about that.
So in case you don't know whathappened and I know that most
people are aware, but let's justgive the basic facts.
So November 21st 1963,president Kennedy, accompanied
by his wife, jacqueline Kennedy,and Vice President Johnson,
accompanied by his wife,jacqueline Kennedy and Vice
President Johnson, theyundertook a two-day five-city
(04:27):
fundraising trip to Texas.
They were hitting a bunch ofcities.
So on November 22nd they werein Dallas as part of this trip.
So they had a little event.
And then there was a motorcadethe last time, of course, that
motorcades with the presidentwere like in a convertible.
Right can looking back andseeing that it blows your mind,
(04:48):
because now when the presidentcomes to town he practically in
an arm and limousine right nowand but but back then it's just
like hey, here's a convertibleand here's the president sitting
there like doing his thing.
You know, it's just strange.
So at approximately 12, 30 p30PM, shots rang out as the
motorcade passed through dailyPlaza in Dallas.
(05:09):
Kennedy was struck in the neckand the head by bullets.
That's important.
The motorcade sped to nearbyParkland Memorial hospital where
Kennedy was pronounced dead at1 PM.
So that's crazy too.
Like the, the shots took placearound 1230 and then by 1 PM he
was pronounced dead 1 pm, sothat's crazy too, like the shots
took place around 1230.
And then by 1 pm he waspronounced dead.
So that happened quick, right,he was probably dead before he
(05:30):
got there.
Yeah, I mean his head was blown, and we'll talk a little bit
about that, because there's someinteresting stuff there.
Lee Harvey Oswald, he's a formerMarine who had spent some time
in the Soviet Union union.
He was arrested shortlythereafter and accused of
killing uh, kennedy, uh.
And then oswald himself was uhmurdered while being transferred
in police custody two daysafter kennedy's death.
(05:52):
Right, that's always you know.
And then the warren commission,which was established um,
headed by a us supreme courtchief, uh justice earl warren,
was established to investigatethe assassination and they
eventually released an 888-pagereport concluding that Oswald
acted alone from the bookdepository which I believe we
(06:15):
talked about that a little bitlast time what a book depository
?
It's a school book depository,I guess, a place where they keep
excess school books that healone killed Kennedy with his
rifle, and that was it Right.
So that's the official story.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
So here we are to talk about a little more details
that might make that officialstory seem not so solid.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Yeah, and most people .
It's funny you talk to mostpeople.
Very few people I've ever askedabout this would like defend
the Warren Commission and say,no, they figured it out.
There was so many questionslike right from the beginning
that I thought and about thebullets and all that Right and
about the bullets and all that.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Right Today, I'm sorry, 2024, it's very difficult
to find anyone that you say youbring this subject up to.
That just says well, I mean,there's a warrant, commission, a
report, why are we talkingabout this?
Nobody.
Everybody has their ownthoughts on it and none of those
(07:28):
thoughts generally are, Ibelieve, the official story.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah, it's true, and even among people who haven't
looked into it, you know peoplewho have a casual relationship
with this story, meaning thatmaybe they saw the JFK movie by
Oliver Stone.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It was such a well-crafted movie.
Yeah, it really was.
I think he's a very gooddirector and again, it's a movie
Right, but it kind of piquedeveryone's interest again.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
He was back in the news not even too long ago,
revisiting.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Oh, he's a believer.
I mean, he didn't just do, I'msorry, he did it to make money,
I'm sure, but he is a believerin that topic.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Yeah, so where do we want to start?
What's the best?
Where do you feel is a goodplace to kind of kick off this
discussion?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
I think that it's pretty well established that
something happened, right?
So we know that John F Kennedywas in the limousine.
Well, the car, right, and itwas a convertible, it was open,
he's driving through.
A number of shots were fired.
There's a question was it three, was it four?
(08:41):
That's something we could talka little bit about, but I think
that we all know what happened.
So the question is, first ofall, we know that Lee Harvey
Oswald was blamed as theperpetrator, right?
And I think maybe where westart is what are our thoughts
(09:05):
on whether or not he was theperpetrator?
I guess, because there's justagain I don't investigate
murders, I don't investigateassassinations generally, but
every single detail hassomething that says maybe that's
not correct, right?
(09:26):
I've never seen anything likethis.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, In the heat of the moment you can understand
that there's some discrepanciesbetween how many shots people
heard.
Yes, and you can kind ofunderstand that, because in the
heat of the moment you're notexpecting it.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
And where it's located.
They were kind of in the middleof some buildings where you
could see maybe echoes could bean issue.
So I mean, just because someoneheard something that to me
isn't.
Oh well, we got a conspiracy.
But there's just so many morethings, right?
Speaker 1 (09:58):
The whole grassy knoll Knoll.
Is that what they call it?
Grassy knoll?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yeah, some people that because we have a few
recordings that maybe we'll play, Hopefully.
Some people called it a hill.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
You know, I think the grassy knoll has a has has
become something in our cultureof saying.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Right, right and only , which only applies.
I've never heard somebody referto a grassy knoll in any other
context besides the Kennedyassassination.
No, no, but I mean I don't know, is it?
(10:34):
Maybe it's more of a Southernthing to say I have no idea we
weren't to show what a bookdepository was either, like we'd
never heard of that.
So did they make this stuff up?
The whole thing's fictionalthat this is a recording of one
of the witnesses that was therethat day, named James Leon
Simmons, and at the time he wasworking for the train company.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
And listen to this clip which they were operating
somewhere kind of behind thearea of where the Grassy Knoll
was actually.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Right, and so there's two employees that we have
another one named Lee Bowers,but we'll play James Leon
Simmons first that were workingfor the train company that had a
view of this.
So, yeah, it seems like theywere right there to see it,
Right?
So let's listen to what MrSimmons has to say.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
Yes, we are in Mesquite, Texas, in the home of
James Leon Simmons, a carinspector for the Union Terminal
Railroad.
Mr Simmons, how long have youbeen employed by the Union
Terminal?
Speaker 4 (11:32):
I've been employed by the Union Terminal 11 years.
Speaker 5 (11:36):
Were you a witness to the assassination of President
Kennedy?
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Yes, I was standing on the Elm Street overpass at
the time of the assassination.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
Were you there alone or with others?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
There was a group of employees from the Union
Terminal at the time and twoDallas policemen.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
What did you see and what did you hear?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve
on Elm Street, there was a loudexplosion.
At the time I didn't know whatit was, but it sounded like a
loud firecracker or a gunshotand it sounded like it came from
the left and in front of us,towards the wooden fence, and
(12:23):
there was a puff of smoke thatcame underneath the trees on the
embankment.
Where was the puff of smoke, mrSimmons, in relation to the
wooden fence?
It was right, directly in frontof the wooden fence.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
After you heard the shot and saw the smoke, what did
you?
Speaker 4 (12:45):
do.
I was talking with a patrolmanfoster at the time and as soon
as we heard the shots we ranaround to the wooden fence and
when we got there there was noone there, but there was
footprints in the mud around thefence and there was footprints
(13:08):
on the wooden tube beforerailing on the fence.
Were you questioned by theDallas police on that day?
Yes, I was.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
Did you give your name to the Dallas police?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Yes, I did.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Did you tell them what you just told me?
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Yes, I did.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
Were you subsequently questioned by agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Speaker 4 (13:30):
About a month later, I was questioned by the FBI.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
Did you tell them what you told me and what you
told the Dallas police?
Yes, I did.
Were you ever called as awitness by the Warren Commission
?
No, sir, I wasn't.
As a witness by the WarrenCommission?
No, sir, I wasn't.
This is the Warren Commissionreport.
The back of it has an index ofevery person who is referred to
(13:55):
by the commission.
Is your name present there?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
No, sir it is.
Do you think it's rather?
Speaker 5 (14:03):
curious that you had such a fine view of the whole
Dealey Plaza area and you wereamong those who saw smoke coming
from evidently behind the fenceand yet you were not called by
the commissioners and witnesses.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Well, I always found it peculiar, but I thought
that's the way they did business.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Wow, he sounds very sincere.
Yeah, I mean, first of all theyasked him how long you worked
there.
He wasn't just hired the daybefore He'd been there for a
little bit.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
And he saw what he saw when he reported it.
He didn't make any conclusions,he just said this is what I saw.
A couple people asked him.
Obviously, they said that hetold the police, he told the FBI
, but he wasn't called orreferenced in the Warren
Commission, which is just that,right off the bat.
It's like there's aninconsistency.
(15:01):
Maybe he misheard, Maybe hemissaw, maybe the smoke that he
saw was something else.
It's like there's aninconsistency.
Maybe he misheard, maybe hemissaw, maybe the smoke that he
saw was something else.
It's very possible.
But you think they would atleast like hey, we looked into
this aspect and we found out itwas a kid with firecrackers or
it was somebody who was smokinga cigarette and that's why you
saw a puff of smoke.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Exactly at the same time, jfk was shot Right, and
the people you were with all sawthe same thing because you all
went over there to look Right.
So none of those people wereinterviewed by the Warren
Commission.
Yeah, so this is just oneaspect, right, so if you had a
(15:42):
trial and this person wasn'tcalled, that would be you could
have a mistrial.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Right.
Right, because if you weredoing a criminal trial,
reasonable doubt.
So if, let's say, lee HarveyOswald was the one on trial and
you're trying to prove that heshot from the book depository
and that was it, he was the oneguy that did it.
And now all of a sudden youhave this guy come in and say
well, I, I saw, like all of asudden like you're introducing
potentially reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Yeah, so I and um, I think, if you look at it from
that angle which I tried to,that, if you look at the
evidence um, some of it we'regoing to talk about today right,
if you had this at a criminaltrial which is what would have
happened eventually if Oswaldwasn't killed right, you'd have
(16:33):
had a trial.
And if you had a trial with allthe facts, just that, maybe
that we're going to talk abouttoday, it would be hard to find
that he would be found guilty,right, because there is a lot of
reasonable doubt.
I'm not saying he didn't do itRight, I'm just saying that
there's a lot of evidence thateither he didn't do it or he
(16:57):
didn't do it by himself.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I don't think there's much evidence that he didn't
have anything to do with itOtherwise, because then the
question would come up well,what exactly were you doing in
that building, but with a rifle?
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Well, that's the question.
So there is some evidence juston the rifle, whether or not he
actually had it.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
That's right, because he never really they never
really got much out of him.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
No one saw him walking in with anything that
would resemble.
Some people placed him that hewas walking in with some long
thing, right, right, but mostpeople say, no, we didn't see
him with anything.
Nothing, because that wouldcause that would actually you
walk in with some long thingthat usually just work at a book
place, right, this was like alike a kind of a middle place or
(17:47):
the distribution for schoolbooks, right, really what it was
right what did he do there?
Speaker 1 (17:51):
no huh, what did he do there?
Do you know what he, what hisjob was?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
he worked there he did work there and I don't I am
not positive.
I believe it was kind of in thelike shipping receiving kind of
D clerk kind of stuff Okay.
Yeah, he was.
It wasn't a high level job.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
That's the, the part of the that.
You know, what makes it a deadend is the fact that he was
caught and then, and then, liketwo days after transferring him,
oh yeah, you know, he getskilled and then.
That's all your all the answersto most of your questions have
just gone away.
Uh, you know, and that'sanother whole direction to go
down, is the jack ruby thing oflike, why did suddenly this guy
(18:34):
just decide he was so incensedabout this guy potentially
killing kennedy?
He decided to vigilante justiceyou know.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
so this is out of character, right?
So I mean we could talk abouthow did he even get into the
police station, right, there's alot there.
So the whole thing there was.
They believe that he came downthis ramp okay, that was kind of
under the police state like toget down, because this happened
kind of in the basement levelright where he Ruby shot Oswald
(19:02):
and there was only one area hecould have come in and it was
this ramp right and they didhave a police officer there
right and that police officersaid that one police officer
there was a few other onesfurther away from the ramp right
those few other ones saidnobody came down that ramp.
That they all said no, nobodycame down that ramp.
(19:23):
There's one guy that says thata man passed by, that that man
looks like he might've had a gun.
This is what the police officersays okay, that he thought it
was okay because he saw that manspeaking to his supervisor.
Everybody else says there'snobody that went down that ramp.
Wow.
(19:44):
So every way you go, you knowRight.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
And it's entirely possible that you know everybody
else says there's nobody thatwent down that ramp.
Wow.
So the every way you go, youknow.
So Right, and it's entirelypossible that you know that
group of people who said theydidn't see anybody, it's
entirely possible that they wereengrossed in a conversation or
that they were in the process of, you know, clearing some people
out of the area and you knowsomebody walked by.
So it area, and you knowsomebody walked by.
So it's possible.
It's not outside the realm ofpossibility.
(20:07):
It's just more inconsistenciesto the whole story that make you
go.
Well, that's you know.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
And again, I'm not gonna sit here and say what
somebody said is or is nottruthful I don't know, I'm just
reading things.
Maybe sometimes we're like justwe just did listening to
something, but I can't gauge ifyou're right.
But the police officer thatsaid I let him go by and it
looked like he had a gun, but Ithought it was okay.
(20:30):
That's odd.
What are you talking about?
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Because he was talking to my supervisor.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
There was no actual communication with his
supervisor.
So it was not like hissupervisor said yeah, he has a
gun, but it's perfectly okay.
I just thought it was okay.
It's not like two In what?
Speaker 1 (20:42):
perfectly okay, I just thought it was okay, and
it's not like too, in what?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
world.
Would that happen?
Speaker 1 (20:45):
When he was talking to the supervisor was he waving
the gun around?
Speaker 2 (20:48):
So he said well, my supervisor had his hand in his
jacket.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Right, he said what are you?
Speaker 2 (20:53):
talking about.
This guy is protecting thepolice, you're protecting the
police station from the verything that you say you saw
walking in.
You thought it was okay, likethink you're there, you're there
to protect, but anyway.
So, right from the beginning,chris um oswald was found
(21:14):
because of a description givenby a gentleman that was in a
building across across the way.
It was on the seventh floor,his name was howardnan.
Okay, he's the one that gave thedescription, all right.
So he says that he was just,you know, just like other people
, looking out the window towatch what was going to happen.
(21:35):
And he said he noticed a man inhis hold on, man in his
thirties, okay, and this man washold on, I have it over here.
Okay, and this man was Hold on,I have it right over here.
This man, 30s, white, sittingin the window.
He basically says he sees thisguy sitting in the window,
(21:55):
notices him.
Then he says and he, you know,they're doing their thing right
and he hears a shot ring out.
Okay, so he's looking around.
And he happens to look over andsee, and now the same guy is
holding a rifle.
He shoots it again, drops itand takes off.
(22:17):
That's basically what he says.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
So he said he saw, he heard a shot, saw that person
in the window of the bookdepository yes, and described it
, and that he saw him fire asecond shot, yeah, or he saw him
.
So he only saw him fire oneshot.
He heard a shot, yeah, helooked around.
He looked across to him, sawhim holding a rifle, yeah, and
then saw him fire a shot, yes,and then drop it, which is
(22:41):
interesting because that wouldmean at most Oswald could have
fired two shots, yes, the firstone that this guy heard and then
the second one that this guysaw, and then he dropped the
rifle and went, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
Well, I mean again, was it one shot?
Was it two shots that he heard?
I don't know.
Well, that's the question,right.
Right, he says this is what hesays.
That's the question, right?
Right, he said this is what hesays.
He says that he saw a man witha gun shouldered to his right
shoulder, holding the gun withhis left, took a positive aim
and fired the last shot.
Okay, this man then let the gundown to his side, stepped out
(23:17):
of sight.
I could see this is what hesaid.
I could see this man from thebelt up.
I believe I could identify thisman if I ever saw him again.
Guess what?
He saw him again.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
Really fast.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Not too long after he , not too long after this, he
saw him again at a police lineup.
And guess what he did?
At the police lineup he said Idon't know if that's him Really.
Yes, he said I can't.
How did he say it?
Interesting.
This was Howard Brennan really.
Yes, he said I can't wait.
What?
How did he say it?
He's interesting.
This was Howard Brennan.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
How far was he?
Do you remember how far he was?
Like he across the way acrossthe way.
Yeah, it's his distance, I mean, he'd be hard.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So I'm reading his voluntary statement to the
police.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
He gave it and notarized it on 11, 22 16th of
the day of the assassinationright.
Is that the day of the dayafter the day?
Speaker 2 (24:06):
after 22nd was the day of the assassination.
Yeah, so the day of.
I'm sorry, he said.
This man let the gun down tohis side, stepped out of sight.
I could see this man from thebelt up.
I believe I can identify thisman if I ever saw him again.
So that same night, that samenight, same day, okay, he sees a
(24:28):
police line, goes to the lineup.
He says he looks like him, butthe man I saw wasn't disheveled
like this fella.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I can't, I just can't be positive right and I'm just
saying no, it's interesting andbut one could reasonably argue
that the dishevelment that hewas referring to was, you know,
you know, lee harvey.
Oswald did the thing and yes,and then, you know, then was
arrested and shoved in a car andspent some, you know, spent
(24:51):
some time in a cell before thepolice line up, like that could
account for the dishevelment.
But just the fact it is oddbecause this guy's like, if I
saw him again I could identifyhim.
And then the same day you showhim the guy and he says I'm not
sure, right, does that mean thatyou know it's again, it's more
(25:13):
questions, it's a question andyou know, and I mean I'm sure
you know from cases, I meanpeople's perception, people's
recollection are all flawed.
You and he could have, you know,had a, had a very strong
picture in his head at themoment and say, oh, I could
totally, you know, identify thisguy if I saw him again.
And then hours pass and thememory kind of fades a little
(25:36):
bit, and then you see it and heand he goes.
Well, I don't know, it could beit kind of looks like him, but
I'm not sure, because yourmemory can fade like immediately
after the event, like when it'sreal.
One could argue that of course.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Right but his description, apparently, is
where the APB came from to lookfor him.
Right and again, we're nottalking about a description of a
man.
That is not common, right,right?
A man in his 30s, white, 160 to175.
(26:10):
We're not talking about likethis guy that's going to stick
out, right?
You know, I'm still wonderinghow they found him in the
theater Exactly, but that'sanother day, right?
But Interesting.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Yeah, they found him in the like.
How did they check?
Yeah, supposedly Interesting.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah, they found him.
How did they check?
Yeah, supposedly there's justso many damn things, right.
But, there was two women thatwere also working at the school
book depository right.
They, right after the shotswere fired Victoria Adams,
(26:44):
sandra Stiles.
This is another issue as towhether or not he was there on
the sixth floor, because theythen went to the stairs, which
is the only way Oswald wouldhave had.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I mean, he could have taken the elevator, but One
would think that if you just dida major crime and you're trying
to flee the building, that youwouldn't wait for an elevator.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
And there is some testimony that that was the
elevator was being occupied byother things at the time.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
That these two ladies were in the stairwell right and
they testified and that was atright after the shots were fired
.
So right after 1230, right,they were in the stairs.
They said we didn't hear or seeanyone, we didn't see Oswald.
(27:28):
But at 1225, another workerthis is 1225, five minutes
before 1225, another worker atthe school book depository,
carolyn Adams, said she sawOswald on the second floor at
1225.
So, and there's okay, there'sanother witness.
(27:50):
His name is Aaron Rowland.
He was outside he's not,doesn't work at the school book
depository.
He said he saw a light-skinnedman with dark hair and with a
scope and a gun, but in atotally different window than
Oswald was on the other side ofthe building.
And then there's anotherwitness that says they saw a man
(28:10):
.
I'm sorry, there was one guywith dark skin, one guy with
light skin together in a windowright Together.
Two guys who's the other guy?
A window right together, twoguys who's the other guy right?
Speaker 1 (28:30):
this just so the question and then was he, was he
even in that window?
I don't know right.
I mean, if somebody says theysaw him on the second floor five
minutes before, right, fiveminutes would not be enough time
to go up, to what floor was heon when he, when he shot six,
the six.
So you have to go four floorsand get situated.
Yeah, get ready, like yeahthat's.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
I don't think that if somebody had the either
assignment or you know, my planis to shoot the president when
he comes around they'd becutting it that close Right,
because his opportunity wouldhave been missed.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Yeah, there's always been so much about like the
number of shots and how, how hecould have, could he have even
made that shot Like from fromthat location.
You know it's interesting andthere was a senior research
scientist at IMSG Incorporatednamed Nicholas Nolley and he did
(29:29):
a model of like the shootingthing and determined that the
bullet that struck PresidentKennedy in the head could not
have come from the Texas SchoolBook Depository where Oswald was
positioned which totallycontradicted the Warren
Commission findings waspositioned, which you know,
totally contradicted the WarrenCommission findings.
So like there have been peoplewho've done analysis and said,
well, no, it's.
You know, that's the, thatwhole magic bullet thing comes
(29:54):
in which.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
What do you think of?
Speaker 1 (29:54):
that From the moment I heard it it sounds ridiculous.
Like I know that Kevin Costnerdid a good job in the JFK movie
of like oh, it kind of stopsLike it would have had to stop
midair and turn Right, and likethat alone should.
Well, obviously that didn'thappen right, and well, no, we
(30:15):
have to keep going with thistheory.
It's weird.
Well, so let's go into oursecond clip, because this is the
one from the other employee ofthe rail company who was there
and who talked about seeing theevent go down and hearing the
number of shots.
So let's hear him.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
Mr Bowers, what is your present?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
occupation.
I'm vice president of BlockwoodMeadows Incorporated, which is
a real estate land developmentcompany.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
And where were you employed on November 22, 1963?
Speaker 3 (30:51):
At that time I was employed as a tower operator for
the Union Terminal Company.
And where were you at about1230 that day was?
At the south end of theterminal, of the tower building,
or rather looking down towardthe terminal and observing the
motorcade, as was everyone elsein the area At the time of the
(31:13):
shooting.
In the vicinity of where thetwo men I've described were,
there was a flash of light andthere was something which
occurred which caught my eye inthis immediate area, on the
embankment, and what this was Icould not state at that time,
and at this time I could notidentify it, other than there
(31:36):
was some unusual occurrence, aflash of light or smoke or
something which caused me tofeel like something out of the
ordinary had occurred there.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
In reading your testimony, Mr Powers, it appears
that just as you were about tomake that statement, you were
interrupted in the middle of thesentence by the commission
counsel, who then went intoanother area.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Well, that's correct.
I was there only to tell themwhat they asked, so that when
they seemed to want to cut offthe conversation, I felt like
that was the end of it.
Mr Bowers, how many shots didyou hear, with one shot, then a
pause, and then two shots invery close order, such as
(32:30):
perhaps almost on top of eachother, while there was some
pause between the first and thesecond shots, did you tell?
Speaker 5 (32:35):
that to the Dallas police.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
Yes, I told this to the police and then also told it
to the FBI and also I had thediscussion two or three days
later with him concerning thisand they made no comment other
than the fact that when I statedI felt like the second and
(32:58):
third shots could not have beenfired from the same rifle, they
reminded me that I wasn't anexpert and I had to agree.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
They reminded me that I wasn't an expert.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Quiet you, you don't know what you heard, Right right
, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
There was a part there that he mentioned the men
I had referred to earlier.
I cut that a little bit becauseit was too long, but he just
talked about seeing some, some,uh, a couple guys nearby.
I'm gonna link both of these.
Any of the clips we play, I'mgonna link the original in the
show notes, so if you want towatch, you know the whole thing.
It's just a little bit longer,but it's fascinating to go back
(33:37):
and see some of those black andwhite um yeah interviews that
were just done, you know fresh.
Those.
The people all seem very sincere, like they're trying to help,
like they just they want to tellyou what they, what they saw,
what they heard.
It's just interesting.
You know, he was trying to talkabout the two guys that he saw
over here and the and the andthe County commissioner just
(33:58):
suddenly like cut him off andwalked away, like almost like
don't want to hear it.
That's, that's part of this.
Like it seems like they had anarrative that they wanted to
make it work and any, anyinformation that came in that
disrupted that.
They did what they always do,which is just well.
We'll ignore that.
Let's just go with what we have.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
It's crazy it doesn't seem like a?
Um, a thorough investigation,right, right, and there's
another witness that I found, Ithink, here, and the interesting
thing about this guy is you'renot going to find a interview of
him because he is well, he'snot alive anymore, but he was
(34:41):
deaf and he was a mute.
Oh, wow, okay, and he was there.
His name is Ed Hoffman, allright.
He says that he saw two guysthat had fired shots.
They were about 200 yards away.
Further closer to, there was akind of an overpass.
Okay, he said he saw the twomen, one heavier man in a dark
(35:05):
suit and a dark cat, another manwho was tall and thin, dressed
like a railroad road worker, hesays the man the dark suit was
standing behind the fence.
He reached down for something,lifted it up and he saw a puff
of smoke, which corroborates theother railroad workers yes.
Rail road workers.
Sorry, interesting, he said.
(35:28):
Hoffman saw this man turn witha long gun, toss the gun to the
railroad road worker who twistedit to disassemble it and put it
in a brown tool bag and they uh, and they ran down the railroad
tracks.
That's what he said he saw.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
And the FBI.
The FBI spoke to him I don'tknow exactly how they did it,
but maybe it was some of thesign language or something and
the FBI says that he wasmistaken, that he didn't see
what he says he saw.
And Hoffman claims that the FBImisrepresented what he told
(36:03):
them.
Right, so it's probably not theeasiest interviewing a guy like
him, true?
Speaker 1 (36:09):
But you could also argue because he's deaf, he
didn't hear the shots.
So for all he knew that thatperson theoretically could have
taken the rifle aimed it, but hesaid he's on a puff of smoke
too, right, right, right.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
So I mean, I think that as soon as that first shot
was fired, it was just, it wastotal chaos and you know, people
, probably even someone that'sdeaf and mute, could understand.
You know, wow, the actions infront of him that there's
something going on.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
It's the three shots, the boom, boom, boom.
That is the problem because-.
Yeah, talk about that.
That is the problem because,yeah, talk about that.
Yeah, I mean the rifle that LeeHarvey Oswald had was a
(36:59):
6.5-millimeter Carcano Model91-38 bolt-action rifle, meaning
that each time you fired it youneeded to re-cock it, and so
you could not have fired twosuccessive.
You couldn't have fired thatboom, boom, boom.
Maybe he fired the first one,maybe he fired the second one,
but there was another shot goingoff at the same time, or right,
kind of aligned with that,which also explains why some
witnesses said they heard twoshots and some witnesses said
(37:19):
they heard three.
Right, Because those two insuccession if, if you were,
depending on where you were andthe echoing, you could have
thought those were one shot.
You know, if you're likeacoustically right, that makes
total sense.
Right, because that what hesaid was is those two second
shots were right on top of eachother, like boom, boom, like
almost like they, you know,happening right around the same
(37:41):
time.
So somebody hearing that couldbe like oh, I heard one shot
instead of two.
But man, it's like, right offthe bat, you got questions about
he couldn't have, besides thequestions of whether he could
have made that shot.
Like you're talking about amoving vehicle, the head of a
person, and it's a movingvehicle.
(38:03):
You're up at six floor, sixfloor down and they're saying
the angles that there's no wayyou could have hit it, and then
you add the magic bullet.
It's like what?
How is it not clear thatsomething like is fishy here?
Because we all, like you saideveryone you ask I've never met
a person who says I, oh, Ibelieve the Warren commission a
hundred percent.
Everyone says there's somethingfishy.
(38:24):
But but they just sort of likeeh, what are you going to do?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Right, right, and I think I mean I got a lot of
issues with this topic, but oneissue I have is this if it
didn't happen the way we're told, it had it happened, right, and
if the government was notinvolved at all in terms of any
cover-up or anything like that,right, the investigation that
(38:52):
the government did into itdoesn't look like an
investigation someone would doif you weren't covering
something up, right, right,because there's just so many
unanswered questions, there's somany witnesses, there's so many
pieces of evidence that werenot considered Right, that you
say, if this was really an openinvestigation, why were you not
(39:15):
considering these things?
Because there's really not alot of good answers, you know.
Yeah, here's somethinginteresting regarding the gun
itself right, so, was Oswald inthe window?
Was he even there?
Right, we were just talking inthe window.
Was he even there?
Right, we were just talkingabout?
Well, was he on the second?
Speaker 1 (39:31):
floor.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Conceivably, he has to have had the gun, right?
J Edgar Hoover himself.
Okay, it was in the WarrenCommission.
I saw, right, it was exhibit.
There's a lot of exhibits, thisexhibit number 2968.
Okay, which was a letter fromfrom J Edgar Hoover.
(39:53):
Okay, and he wrote that thecartridge shells and evidence
did not possess sufficientcharacteristics for identifying
the weapon which produced them.
Think about that.
That's J Edgar Hoover writingthat.
That's J Edgar Hoover writingthat.
So, according to J Edgar Hooverhimself, we cannot prove the
shells on the sixth floor camefrom the Carcano in evidence.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
Right, because they found shell casings on the floor
of the sixth floor depository,and that's how they said okay,
did they say how many shellcasings they found?
Four, right, wasn't it four?
Was it four?
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
But then, yeah, then J Edgar Hoover, who was head of
the FBI, and said oh, we can'treally confirm that those came
from the gun that we say did it,which is weird too.
Yes, I mean, that smells likeneed to.
We need to establish that this,this is where it happened.
(40:51):
Well, let's sprinkle a coupleof um shell casings on the floor
, but a four like that's odd,right, unless one assumes that
before the first shot, he had toeject a previously fired shell
casing.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (41:08):
Well, it's interesting about the four only
because there's a gentleman thatsays he was hit in the right
cheek.
I think his name was JamesTeague.
He was also an observer outsideand he says that he was hit by
something in the right cheek andthat fourth bullet would
account for that.
(41:28):
As they say, maybe Oswaldmissed everything once and hit
the sidewalk and some concretehit this guy in the face.
That's the story.
To account for that.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
It's odd, though, because, as far as I know, did
any of the witnesses say theyheard four shots?
Like most of them were eithertwo or three right, exactly.
So that's so weird.
It's just crazy that with somany inconsistencies, so right
(42:08):
off the bat, like from theget-go, it's not like.
At first it seemed like a solidcase and as things went, you
know, problems were wereinjected into it.
It's like almost right off thebat something smells fishy.
It's um, I mean that, that gun.
I was doing some research intohow fast that gun could fire.
(42:30):
How fast could you fire that6.5 millimeter Carcano model
9138?
And I asked ChatGPT and I said,hey, how fast.
And according to ChatGPT, hesaid the Warren Commission they
found that a skilled shootercould fire three aimed shots
within a span of approximately5.6 to 8.3 seconds.
(42:51):
This means that the timebetween each shot could vary,
but on average, first to secondshot about 2 to 2.7 seconds
apart, and second to third shot,same 2 to 2.7 seconds apart.
So the fastest that somebodycould fire that is two to 2.7
seconds, which wouldn't accountfor the boom, boom, boom,
(43:13):
because that's not two secondsbetween those shots.
And then you know the addedthing you're on the sixth floor.
You're aiming down on a movingvehicle, right, that vehicle did
not stop at any time.
I think it only moved fasteronce, that, once the you know
event had taken place.
Yep, so you'd have to reacquirethe aim.
So you're not going to be ableto fire off two, you know two,
(43:37):
shots.
Um, it's just it.
It it makes no sense, right offthe bat of it.
Speaker 2 (43:45):
Well, here's something interesting the rifle
that they found there on thesixth floor right was this
Carcano rifle right.
There is not really a ton ofevidence that.
Oswald really received the gun.
(44:08):
He supposedly ordered itthrough the mail.
Okay, the PO box that he hadwas under his name.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Okay, okay, that's where the gun was sent.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
That's where the gun was sent.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
You can have guns sent to a PO box.
That's odd.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
No, no, yeah, and there was a special form.
Well, it's Texasas.
There was a special form thathad to be filled out.
Okay, okay, um, because youknow you're shipping a firearm,
right, right, and maybe it'sstill today.
There's a form, there's afederal form that had to be
filled out.
There is no federal form forthat gun that was shipped.
Okay, there is, there is none.
(44:47):
Excuse me, there's none.
But I think, interestingly, thePO Box that Oswald first of all
, oswald denied he ever ordereda gun, okay, but the PO Box that
it was shipped to was under hisown name, but he also had this
(45:09):
alias, apparently, that he used.
It was AJ Heidel or somethinglike that.
Right, the gun was orderedsupposedly by an AJ Heidel.
Would that have been deliveredto a PO box that was not for AJ
Heidel, right?
So, like you know, if I orderedsomething under Steve Blair,
(45:32):
right, and I had it sent to yourPO box, they wouldn't deliver
it.
They'd just send it back andsay you know.
Speaker 1 (45:41):
I don't know.
Actually, I think when you givea PO box, the name doesn't
matter.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
The name doesn't matter, no because nobody knows.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
I mean the name is on file somewhere, but who's to
say, I mean, if you put PO boxthis, that the other thing they
deliver to that PO box.
So I don't think the name wouldhave necessarily done it, but
again it seems like there's.
He denied ordering the gun,right?
(46:07):
I mean he obviously deniedeverything, right?
He denied he had anything to dowith anything, which of course
he would.
So his interesting, he's notgoing to admit to ordering the
gun if that same gun was used inan assassination that he does
not say he did.
So one could easily imagine himsaying well, I didn't do it, I
(46:28):
didn't do anything.
But I don't know what aboutprints on the gun?
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Oh, so here's interesting on the prints right,
there was a lieutenant of theDallas Police Department,
lieutenant Day, where he hadkind of a central part of the
fingerprints.
He examined the rifle shortlyafter it was discovered.
Okay, it was a guy named DeputySheriff Boone found it All
(46:55):
right.
There are two areas of therifle where fingerprint evidence
was potentially found a metalhousing near the trigger and a
lifted palm print from undersideof the barrel.
Okay, which is an odd place tohave your hand.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
Wouldn't you hold it there If you were holding the
barrel?
Okay, which is an odd place tohave your hand.
Wouldn't you hold it there Ifyou were holding the rifle?
Wouldn't your hand beunderneath the barrel to support
the barrel?
Speaker 2 (47:13):
Well, not on the barrel itself, it would be on
the-.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Oh, you're right, it would be on the the guard
underneath.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Oh, this is on the barrel.
It's on the barrel.
It's an odd place to put yourhand when when you're firing a
gun.
Okay, but it's even.
It's a little weirder than that, all right.
So, yeah, that's weird.
The Lieutenant Day looks at therifle and he examines it for
fingerprints.
Then he takes a fingerprintfrom the trigger.
(47:43):
Okay, the trigger.
Okay, they take it and they putcellophane over it and they,
they send it out for the FBI tolook at it.
Okay, well, between that timeand a few, about six days later,
(48:05):
which is important the FBI hadvisited Oswald in the morgue.
Okay, okay, whatever.
After six days, lieutenant Daysays, oh, you know, he sends in
that.
He also found the palm print onthe barrel, right, and everyone
(48:31):
said well, why are you tellingus this now, right, six?
days later and his story is well.
And also, why didn't you coverthat part up with the cellophane
?
Why did you just do the triggerRight?
His story is that.
This is what's interesting.
(48:52):
How does he explain this?
One, he's the sole witness theWarren Report relies on for the
proposition that, one, a palmprint was found on the rifle.
He's the only witness, Okay.
And two, the palm print waslifted from the rifle.
Okay, Day, Lieutenant Day tookno photographs of the palm print
(49:12):
.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
But he took photographs of the other, the
other print.
Yeah, he took, and he didn'twrap that one up in cellophane
either.
He wrapped the other one up incellophane, yeah, there was
another.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
There was a FBI agent that Latona.
He said he never saw the palmprint on the rifle.
All right, so Lieutenant Day'sword is that he lifted the palm
print then sent it to the FBIseparate from all the other
evidence.
His explanation is he didn'trealize he had completely lifted
(49:43):
the palm print and he expectedthe other agent, latona, to find
it on his own.
So he didn't tell anybody aboutit and didn't take any pictures
about it.
This is his story.
He just expected someone elseto find it, and that someone
else said I never found anything.
That is so.
It's just what I mean, like youkeep adding.
Speaker 1 (50:06):
And, yes, is his story conceivable?
Yeah, I guess I guess it'sconceivable.
Like it's, nothing in his storyis like so far out of the realm
that it couldn't happen.
But it doesn't make sense.
Like, if you are checking itfor prints and you are wrapping
said prints in cellophane toprotect them, why would you only
(50:26):
wrap one and not the?
other wrapping said prints incellophane to protect them.
Why would you only wrap one andnot the other?
And then, like you said, theFBI visits Lee Harvey Oswald in
the morgue and, lo and behold,more prints are found right.
And it's like, yeah, it's likeeverything in this, it has a
smell.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
So his in this the chief counsel of the Warren
Commission.
His name is J Lee Rankin.
Right, mr Rankin?
Attorney Rankin also had anissue with this late arriving
palm print.
This is now the chief counselof the Warren Commission.
Okay, august 28th 1964, so alittle less than a year
(51:07):
afterwards he said that quote MrRankin, which is the attorney
here, advised that because ofthe circumstances that now exist
, there is a serious question inthe minds of the commission as
to whether or not the palmimpression was removed from the
rifle barrel or whether it wasobtained from some other source.
(51:29):
This is the Warrant Commissionthemselves Right Questioning the
only witness regarding this.
Speaker 1 (51:37):
You know, with government commissions and
reports I've seen this in theUFO area as well is what often
happens is that there's theconclusion, the report has a
conclusion, and then all thatsupporting evidence is inside it
.
And what people do is they readthe conclusion and that's what
they go with and they never readthe report, which in some cases
(51:59):
contradicts completely theconclusion.
That was the case of um in theufo.
There was a um, a report thatwas done I can't remember off
the top of my head it was umjust basically to disprove it.
And at the end of this reportthey said, oh, this has nothing
to it.
But then if you actually readthe report you'd find that
that's not quite true, right?
So it seems like it's a similarthing where it's like the
(52:21):
conclusion of the report wasthat lee harvey oswald, by
himself, with no help, did it.
And people would read that andgo, oh, that's what they
concluded.
And you know, read the 800 and888 pages and go well, that's
not quite what you said.
Speaker 2 (52:33):
No.
So this Rankin went one stepfurther.
He asked the FBI to questionLieutenant Day about what his
problem was.
So the FBI did they questionedDay.
Okay, and the FBI, oh, theyquestioned Day.
They also questioned an agent,vincent Drain.
(52:53):
Agent Drain says he was nevertold about the palm print when
he picked up evidence.
Lieutenant Day says he did tellhim about the palm print.
Okay, but Drain must have justforgotten.
So then, agent Drain then askedLieutenant Day to sign a
statement.
Lieutenant Day would not sign astatement.
So, just that itself, the chainof custody of the evidence.
(53:15):
One guy says, hey, you didn'ttell me about it.
The other guy says, yes, I didSign something, saying you told
me no, right.
That alone should be that alonewould say well, what are you
doing, what do you mean?
Speaker 1 (53:28):
Yeah, when two parties have a disagreement and
one of them will willingly speakunder oath and the other one
won't, like that's immediate.
Speaker 2 (53:37):
That's a red flag.
Speaker 1 (53:38):
That's more than that's a series of flags.
Right, that's six flags.
Speaker 2 (53:45):
There's lots of flags on that, on the party I mean
and this is the guy that isrelied on as the only I know
this is people say, well, that'sonly one small piece of
evidence.
Well, you're right, it is, butit's important, it's the murder
weapon, it's, yeah, it'simportant.
And they say, well, what abouthis finger on the trigger?
That is a problem.
I mean, that's a problem if youwere defending Oswald, right,
(54:09):
that is a problem, the fact thatyou can't show exactly where
the fingerprint came from on thehandprint.
Maybe there's an issue on thefingerprint, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (54:19):
Well, all right.
So here's my issue with that.
And I am not an expert infingerprints.
I am not an expert in firearms.
I guess I'm really not anexpert in anything, but I will
say this as a lay person Atrigger is a very small thing,
yes, very, very narrow.
So one would have to think thatthe fingerprint that they got
(54:43):
off the trigger is not a wholefinger, because if you put your
finger across the trigger, it'sright, it's not well, his it's
not right.
So what I'm saying is is thatwhat they got was a partial
print.
Speaker 2 (54:56):
Oh, I want to.
Yeah, I was going to talk aboutthat, okay, yeah, yeah, so the
agent latona okay, uh, it sayson november 23rd the rifle with
the prints was sent to the FBIfingerprint expert.
Agent Latona the area near thetrigger was protected with
cellophane, like we just talkedabout right said that the prints
(55:30):
near the trigger wereinsufficient for purposes of
either affecting identificationor determination that the print
was not identical with prints ofpeople.
He concluded that the triggerprints were ultimately of no
value.
Agent Latona then examined therest of the weapon for
fingerprints and found none.
He also noted that there was noevidence of any lifted
fingerprints.
So this is the FBI expert thatsaid there are no marks on this
(55:52):
gun that tie him to Lee HarveyOswald.
Right, yeah, I mean.
So there's questions whetherthis guy was even in the window,
right, right, I'm not saying hewasn't Right, I'm just saying
there are questions.
There are questions whether ornot he ever had that gun in his
(56:13):
hands.
Right, I mean, right from thebeginning.
You'd say I don't know if we'regoing to be able to convict
this guy.
Right, if he wasn't killed andyou had that as your evidence,
you got a problem right from thebeginning, we'll be right back.
I'll see you next time.
I'm Chris, I'm Steve, and we're talking about some
deep shit, and we're back totalk about some more deep shit.
(00:30):
How's it going, steve?
Chris, how you doing?
Not too bad.
We're fresh off of our lastepisode, which was all about
conspiracy theories in general,and, and now today we're going
to dig into a specificconspiracy.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Yes, one of the largest that I know about.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, and the the, the big, the big daddy of all
conspiracies, right, the JFKassassination.
Here we are talking about itand it's worth being said that
you know there's so much on thistopic.
I think we, I think we saidthis last last episode too, and
we last episode too, and we whenwe touched on it that like it's
(01:07):
impossible for for us to reallygive it the in-depth treatment,
the whole thing.
It's just there's so much there.
It would it would require many,many episodes.
So we're just going to focus onsome of the more interesting
parts.
I mean, we're not going to getto everything, but there's a lot
here.
There's definitely a lot here.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Yeah, and I I think that maybe, maybe sometime in
the future, we revisit and talkabout some other points, only
because there's just when I'm,when I was taking it all in, I
was like god, there's just somany things and each one takes
you down a different rabbit hole.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
yes, yes, and it all, yeah, it all spirals off in
different directions and thenspirals into other things.
Yeah, it ties up with otherconspiracies too, which you know
.
It's just.
There's miles and miles ofstuff, of material on this.
On this topic, I asked chat gbtjust to.
I was curious if it could tellme how many books have been
published about the jfkassassination.
(01:59):
It's even chat gbt said it wasimpossible to estimate and I
said, well, give me a ballpark.
And it said, well, at leastseveral hundred it's crazy.
Several hundred, and that's justbooks, right you?
Know you have movies,documentaries, I'm sure there's
been, you know, radio programsand things like that.
So probably other podcasts.
So I'm sure there's, I'm surethere's probably dozens upon
(02:21):
dozens of podcasts.
There's probably podcasts thathave been running for quite some
time that only cover the JFKand every, every time they do
like a different element of it.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
And it's interesting why this topic just resonates
with so many people.
Right, because it's been inthis November it'll be 61 years
since it happened, right.
So what is it about it?
And I think what it is about itis.
First of all, it's interesting,right.
(02:51):
Second of all, it's kind ofmind-blowing to think that, if
there's some truth to it, thatthat's what's happening, that
that's what happened.
Our government decided to holdsomething back, or decided to be
the perpetrator.
I have no idea.
It's just.
It's something a lot of people,I think, have a hard time
wrapping their heads around.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Right, and it's so many open questions.
And what's what I foundinteresting in going back and
kind of looking at it is some ofthose open questions were there
right from the beginning.
I think I always assumed that,like at the time, it was only in
hindsight that people startedto to come up with conspiracy
theories about it.
But what you find out is thatthe conspiracy theory started
(03:31):
almost immediately.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Right and um, I think yes, and I also think that what
had was happening immediatelyis there was a.
There were different peoplethat were just wondering well,
why is somebody not listening tomy story, or why are they not
considering this?
And then I think it startedbecoming a theory of a
(03:56):
conspiracy, especially after theofficial Warren Commission
report came out.
Yeah, and I think that's whenpeople said oh, wait a minute,
they're not thinking of allthese other things.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yeah Well, and we'll talk a little bit about that.
So in case you don't know whathappened and I know that most
people are aware, but let's justgive the basic facts.
So November 21st 1963,president Kennedy, accompanied
by his wife, jacqueline Kennedy,and Vice President Johnson,
accompanied by his wife,jacqueline Kennedy and Vice
President Johnson, theyundertook a two-day five-city
(04:27):
fundraising trip to Texas.
They were hitting a bunch ofcities.
So on November 22nd they werein Dallas as part of this trip.
So they had a little event.
And then there was a motorcadethe last time, of course, that
motorcades with the presidentwere like in a convertible.
Right can looking back andseeing that it blows your mind,
(04:48):
because now when the presidentcomes to town he practically in
an arm and limousine right nowand but but back then it's just
like hey, here's a convertibleand here's the president sitting
there like doing his thing.
You know, it's just strange.
So at approximately 12, 30 p30PM, shots rang out as the
motorcade passed through dailyPlaza in Dallas.
(05:09):
Kennedy was struck in the neckand the head by bullets.
That's important.
The motorcade sped to nearbyParkland Memorial hospital where
Kennedy was pronounced dead at1 PM.
So that's crazy too.
Like the, the shots took placearound 1230 and then by 1 PM he
was pronounced dead 1 pm, sothat's crazy too, like the shots
took place around 1230.
And then by 1 pm he waspronounced dead.
So that happened quick, right,he was probably dead before he
(05:30):
got there.
Yeah, I mean his head was blown, and we'll talk a little bit
about that, because there's someinteresting stuff there.
Lee Harvey Oswald, he's a formerMarine who had spent some time
in the Soviet Union union.
He was arrested shortlythereafter and accused of
killing uh, kennedy, uh.
And then oswald himself was uhmurdered while being transferred
in police custody two daysafter kennedy's death.
(05:52):
Right, that's always you know.
And then the warren commission,which was established um,
headed by a us supreme courtchief, uh justice earl warren,
was established to investigatethe assassination and they
eventually released an 888-pagereport concluding that Oswald
acted alone from the bookdepository which I believe we
(06:15):
talked about that a little bitlast time what a book depository
?
It's a school book depository,I guess, a place where they keep
excess school books that healone killed Kennedy with his
rifle, and that was it Right.
So that's the official story.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
So here we are to talk about a little more details
that might make that officialstory seem not so solid.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
Yeah, and most people .
It's funny you talk to mostpeople.
Very few people I've ever askedabout this would like defend
the Warren Commission and say,no, they figured it out.
There was so many questionslike right from the beginning
that I thought and about thebullets and all that Right and
about the bullets and all that.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Right Today, I'm sorry, 2024, it's very difficult
to find anyone that you say youbring this subject up to.
That just says well, I mean,there's a warrant, commission, a
report, why are we talkingabout this?
Nobody.
Everybody has their ownthoughts on it and none of those
(07:28):
thoughts generally are, Ibelieve, the official story.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah, it's true, and even among people who haven't
looked into it, you know peoplewho have a casual relationship
with this story, meaning thatmaybe they saw the JFK movie by
Oliver Stone.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It was such a well-crafted movie.
Yeah, it really was.
I think he's a very gooddirector and again, it's a movie
Right, but it kind of piquedeveryone's interest again.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
He was back in the news not even too long ago,
revisiting.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Oh, he's a believer.
I mean, he didn't just do, I'msorry, he did it to make money,
I'm sure, but he is a believerin that topic.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Yeah, so where do we want to start?
What's the best?
Where do you feel is a goodplace to kind of kick off this
discussion?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
I think that it's pretty well established that
something happened, right?
So we know that John F Kennedywas in the limousine.
Well, the car, right, and itwas a convertible, it was open,
he's driving through.
A number of shots were fired.
There's a question was it three, was it four?
(08:41):
That's something we could talka little bit about, but I think
that we all know what happened.
So the question is, first ofall, we know that Lee Harvey
Oswald was blamed as theperpetrator, right?
And I think maybe where westart is what are our thoughts
(09:05):
on whether or not he was theperpetrator?
I guess, because there's justagain I don't investigate
murders, I don't investigateassassinations generally, but
every single detail hassomething that says maybe that's
not correct, right?
(09:26):
I've never seen anything likethis.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, In the heat of the moment you can understand
that there's some discrepanciesbetween how many shots people
heard.
Yes, and you can kind ofunderstand that, because in the
heat of the moment you're notexpecting it.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
And where it's located.
They were kind of in the middleof some buildings where you
could see maybe echoes could bean issue.
So I mean, just because someoneheard something that to me
isn't.
Oh well, we got a conspiracy.
But there's just so many morethings, right?
Speaker 1 (09:58):
The whole grassy knoll Knoll.
Is that what they call it?
Grassy knoll?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yeah, some people that because we have a few
recordings that maybe we'll play, Hopefully.
Some people called it a hill.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
You know, I think the grassy knoll has a has has
become something in our cultureof saying.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Right, right and only , which only applies.
I've never heard somebody referto a grassy knoll in any other
context besides the Kennedyassassination.
No, no, but I mean I don't know, is it?
(10:34):
Maybe it's more of a Southernthing to say I have no idea we
weren't to show what a bookdepository was either, like we'd
never heard of that.
So did they make this stuff up?
The whole thing's fictionalthat this is a recording of one
of the witnesses that was therethat day, named James Leon
Simmons, and at the time he wasworking for the train company.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
And listen to this clip which they were operating
somewhere kind of behind thearea of where the Grassy Knoll
was actually.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Right, and so there's two employees that we have
another one named Lee Bowers,but we'll play James Leon
Simmons first that were workingfor the train company that had a
view of this.
So, yeah, it seems like theywere right there to see it,
Right?
So let's listen to what MrSimmons has to say.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
Yes, we are in Mesquite, Texas, in the home of
James Leon Simmons, a carinspector for the Union Terminal
Railroad.
Mr Simmons, how long have youbeen employed by the Union
Terminal?
Speaker 4 (11:32):
I've been employed by the Union Terminal 11 years.
Speaker 5 (11:36):
Were you a witness to the assassination of President
Kennedy?
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Yes, I was standing on the Elm Street overpass at
the time of the assassination.
Speaker 5 (11:46):
Were you there alone or with others?
Speaker 4 (11:49):
There was a group of employees from the Union
Terminal at the time and twoDallas policemen.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
What did you see and what did you hear?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve
on Elm Street, there was a loudexplosion.
At the time I didn't know whatit was, but it sounded like a
loud firecracker or a gunshotand it sounded like it came from
the left and in front of us,towards the wooden fence, and
(12:23):
there was a puff of smoke thatcame underneath the trees on the
embankment.
Where was the puff of smoke, mrSimmons, in relation to the
wooden fence?
It was right, directly in frontof the wooden fence.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
After you heard the shot and saw the smoke, what did
you?
Speaker 4 (12:45):
do.
I was talking with a patrolmanfoster at the time and as soon
as we heard the shots we ranaround to the wooden fence and
when we got there there was noone there, but there was
footprints in the mud around thefence and there was footprints
(13:08):
on the wooden tube beforerailing on the fence.
Were you questioned by theDallas police on that day?
Yes, I was.
Speaker 5 (13:17):
Did you give your name to the Dallas police?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
Yes, I did.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Did you tell them what you just told me?
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Yes, I did.
Speaker 5 (13:25):
Were you subsequently questioned by agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Speaker 4 (13:30):
About a month later, I was questioned by the FBI.
Speaker 5 (13:33):
Did you tell them what you told me and what you
told the Dallas police?
Yes, I did.
Were you ever called as awitness by the Warren Commission
?
No, sir, I wasn't.
As a witness by the WarrenCommission?
No, sir, I wasn't.
This is the Warren Commissionreport.
The back of it has an index ofevery person who is referred to
(13:55):
by the commission.
Is your name present there?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
No, sir it is.
Do you think it's rather?
Speaker 5 (14:03):
curious that you had such a fine view of the whole
Dealey Plaza area and you wereamong those who saw smoke coming
from evidently behind the fenceand yet you were not called by
the commissioners and witnesses.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
Well, I always found it peculiar, but I thought
that's the way they did business.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Wow, he sounds very sincere.
Yeah, I mean, first of all theyasked him how long you worked
there.
He wasn't just hired the daybefore He'd been there for a
little bit.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
And he saw what he saw when he reported it.
He didn't make any conclusions,he just said this is what I saw.
A couple people asked him.
Obviously, they said that hetold the police, he told the FBI
, but he wasn't called orreferenced in the Warren
Commission, which is just that,right off the bat.
It's like there's aninconsistency.
(15:01):
Maybe he misheard, Maybe hemissaw, maybe the smoke that he
saw was something else.
It's like there's aninconsistency.
Maybe he misheard, maybe hemissaw, maybe the smoke that he
saw was something else.
It's very possible.
But you think they would atleast like hey, we looked into
this aspect and we found out itwas a kid with firecrackers or
it was somebody who was smokinga cigarette and that's why you
saw a puff of smoke.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Exactly at the same time, jfk was shot Right, and
the people you were with all sawthe same thing because you all
went over there to look Right.
So none of those people wereinterviewed by the Warren
Commission.
Yeah, so this is just oneaspect, right, so if you had a
(15:42):
trial and this person wasn'tcalled, that would be you could
have a mistrial.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Right.
Right, because if you weredoing a criminal trial,
reasonable doubt.
So if, let's say, lee HarveyOswald was the one on trial and
you're trying to prove that heshot from the book depository
and that was it, he was the oneguy that did it.
And now all of a sudden youhave this guy come in and say
well, I, I saw, like all of asudden like you're introducing
potentially reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Yeah, so I and um, I think, if you look at it from
that angle which I tried to,that, if you look at the
evidence um, some of it we'regoing to talk about today right,
if you had this at a criminaltrial which is what would have
happened eventually if Oswaldwasn't killed right, you'd have
(16:33):
had a trial.
And if you had a trial with allthe facts, just that, maybe
that we're going to talk abouttoday, it would be hard to find
that he would be found guilty,right, because there is a lot of
reasonable doubt.
I'm not saying he didn't do itRight, I'm just saying that
there's a lot of evidence thateither he didn't do it or he
(16:57):
didn't do it by himself.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
I don't think there's much evidence that he didn't
have anything to do with itOtherwise, because then the
question would come up well,what exactly were you doing in
that building, but with a rifle?
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Well, that's the question.
So there is some evidence juston the rifle, whether or not he
actually had it.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
That's right, because he never really they never
really got much out of him.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
No one saw him walking in with anything that
would resemble.
Some people placed him that hewas walking in with some long
thing, right, right, but mostpeople say, no, we didn't see
him with anything.
Nothing, because that wouldcause that would actually you
walk in with some long thingthat usually just work at a book
place, right, this was like alike a kind of a middle place or
(17:47):
the distribution for schoolbooks, right, really what it was
right what did he do there?
Speaker 1 (17:51):
no huh, what did he do there?
Do you know what he, what hisjob was?
Speaker 2 (17:55):
he worked there he did work there and I don't I am
not positive.
I believe it was kind of in thelike shipping receiving kind of
D clerk kind of stuff Okay.
Yeah, he was.
It wasn't a high level job.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
That's the, the part of the that.
You know, what makes it a deadend is the fact that he was
caught and then, and then, liketwo days after transferring him,
oh yeah, you know, he getskilled and then.
That's all your all the answersto most of your questions have
just gone away.
Uh, you know, and that'sanother whole direction to go
down, is the jack ruby thing oflike, why did suddenly this guy
(18:34):
just decide he was so incensedabout this guy potentially
killing kennedy?
He decided to vigilante justiceyou know.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
so this is out of character, right?
So I mean we could talk abouthow did he even get into the
police station, right, there's alot there.
So the whole thing there was.
They believe that he came downthis ramp okay, that was kind of
under the police state like toget down, because this happened
kind of in the basement levelright where he Ruby shot Oswald
(19:02):
and there was only one area hecould have come in and it was
this ramp right and they didhave a police officer there
right and that police officersaid that one police officer
there was a few other onesfurther away from the ramp right
those few other ones saidnobody came down that ramp.
That they all said no, nobodycame down that ramp.
(19:23):
There's one guy that says thata man passed by, that that man
looks like he might've had a gun.
This is what the police officersays okay, that he thought it
was okay because he saw that manspeaking to his supervisor.
Everybody else says there'snobody that went down that ramp.
Wow.
(19:44):
So every way you go, you knowRight.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
And it's entirely possible that you know everybody
else says there's nobody thatwent down that ramp.
Wow.
So the every way you go, youknow.
So Right, and it's entirelypossible that you know that
group of people who said theydidn't see anybody, it's
entirely possible that they wereengrossed in a conversation or
that they were in the process of, you know, clearing some people
out of the area and you knowsomebody walked by.
So it area, and you knowsomebody walked by.
So it's possible.
It's not outside the realm ofpossibility.
(20:07):
It's just more inconsistenciesto the whole story that make you
go.
Well, that's you know.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
And again, I'm not gonna sit here and say what
somebody said is or is nottruthful I don't know, I'm just
reading things.
Maybe sometimes we're like justwe just did listening to
something, but I can't gauge ifyou're right.
But the police officer thatsaid I let him go by and it
looked like he had a gun, but Ithought it was okay.
(20:30):
That's odd.
What are you talking about?
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Because he was talking to my supervisor.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
There was no actual communication with his
supervisor.
So it was not like hissupervisor said yeah, he has a
gun, but it's perfectly okay.
I just thought it was okay.
It's not like two In what?
Speaker 1 (20:42):
perfectly okay, I just thought it was okay, and
it's not like too, in what?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
world.
Would that happen?
Speaker 1 (20:45):
When he was talking to the supervisor was he waving
the gun around?
Speaker 2 (20:48):
So he said well, my supervisor had his hand in his
jacket.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Right, he said what are you?
Speaker 2 (20:53):
talking about.
This guy is protecting thepolice, you're protecting the
police station from the verything that you say you saw
walking in.
You thought it was okay, likethink you're there, you're there
to protect, but anyway.
So, right from the beginning,chris um oswald was found
(21:14):
because of a description givenby a gentleman that was in a
building across across the way.
It was on the seventh floor,his name was howardnan.
Okay, he's the one that gave thedescription, all right.
So he says that he was just,you know, just like other people
, looking out the window towatch what was going to happen.
(21:35):
And he said he noticed a man inhis hold on, man in his
thirties, okay, and this man washold on, I have it over here.
Okay, and this man was Hold on,I have it right over here.
This man, 30s, white, sittingin the window.
He basically says he sees thisguy sitting in the window,
(21:55):
notices him.
Then he says and he, you know,they're doing their thing right
and he hears a shot ring out.
Okay, so he's looking around.
And he happens to look over andsee, and now the same guy is
holding a rifle.
He shoots it again, drops itand takes off.
(22:17):
That's basically what he says.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
So he said he saw, he heard a shot, saw that person
in the window of the bookdepository yes, and described it
, and that he saw him fire asecond shot, yeah, or he saw him
.
So he only saw him fire oneshot.
He heard a shot, yeah, helooked around.
He looked across to him, sawhim holding a rifle, yeah, and
then saw him fire a shot, yes,and then drop it, which is
(22:41):
interesting because that wouldmean at most Oswald could have
fired two shots, yes, the firstone that this guy heard and then
the second one that this guysaw, and then he dropped the
rifle and went, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
Well, I mean again, was it one shot?
Was it two shots that he heard?
I don't know.
Well, that's the question,right.
Right, he says this is what hesays.
That's the question, right?
Right, he said this is what hesays.
He says that he saw a man witha gun shouldered to his right
shoulder, holding the gun withhis left, took a positive aim
and fired the last shot.
Okay, this man then let the gundown to his side, stepped out
(23:17):
of sight.
I could see this is what hesaid.
I could see this man from thebelt up.
I believe I could identify thisman if I ever saw him again.
Guess what?
He saw him again.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
Really fast.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Not too long after he , not too long after this, he
saw him again at a police lineup.
And guess what he did?
At the police lineup he said Idon't know if that's him Really.
Yes, he said I can't.
How did he say it?
Interesting.
This was Howard Brennan really.
Yes, he said I can't wait.
What?
How did he say it?
He's interesting.
This was Howard Brennan.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
How far was he?
Do you remember how far he was?
Like he across the way acrossthe way.
Yeah, it's his distance, I mean, he'd be hard.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So I'm reading his voluntary statement to the
police.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
He gave it and notarized it on 11, 22 16th of
the day of the assassinationright.
Is that the day of the dayafter the day?
Speaker 2 (24:06):
after 22nd was the day of the assassination.
Yeah, so the day of.
I'm sorry, he said.
This man let the gun down tohis side, stepped out of sight.
I could see this man from thebelt up.
I believe I can identify thisman if I ever saw him again.
So that same night, that samenight, same day, okay, he sees a
(24:28):
police line, goes to the lineup.
He says he looks like him, butthe man I saw wasn't disheveled
like this fella.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
I can't, I just can't be positive right and I'm just
saying no, it's interesting andbut one could reasonably argue
that the dishevelment that hewas referring to was, you know,
you know, lee harvey.
Oswald did the thing and yes,and then, you know, then was
arrested and shoved in a car andspent some, you know, spent
(24:51):
some time in a cell before thepolice line up, like that could
account for the dishevelment.
But just the fact it is oddbecause this guy's like, if I
saw him again I could identifyhim.
And then the same day you showhim the guy and he says I'm not
sure, right, does that mean thatyou know it's again, it's more
(25:13):
questions, it's a question andyou know, and I mean I'm sure
you know from cases, I meanpeople's perception, people's
recollection are all flawed.
You and he could have, you know,had a, had a very strong
picture in his head at themoment and say, oh, I could
totally, you know, identify thisguy if I saw him again.
And then hours pass and thememory kind of fades a little
(25:36):
bit, and then you see it and heand he goes.
Well, I don't know, it could beit kind of looks like him, but
I'm not sure, because yourmemory can fade like immediately
after the event, like when it'sreal.
One could argue that of course.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Right but his description, apparently, is
where the APB came from to lookfor him.
Right and again, we're nottalking about a description of a
man.
That is not common, right,right?
A man in his 30s, white, 160 to175.
(26:10):
We're not talking about likethis guy that's going to stick
out, right?
You know, I'm still wonderinghow they found him in the
theater Exactly, but that'sanother day, right?
But Interesting.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Yeah, they found him in the like.
How did they check?
Yeah, supposedly Interesting.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Yeah, they found him.
How did they check?
Yeah, supposedly there's justso many damn things, right.
But, there was two women thatwere also working at the school
book depository right.
They, right after the shotswere fired Victoria Adams,
(26:44):
sandra Stiles.
This is another issue as towhether or not he was there on
the sixth floor, because theythen went to the stairs, which
is the only way Oswald wouldhave had.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I mean, he could have taken the elevator, but One
would think that if you just dida major crime and you're trying
to flee the building, that youwouldn't wait for an elevator.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
And there is some testimony that that was the
elevator was being occupied byother things at the time.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
That these two ladies were in the stairwell right and
they testified and that was atright after the shots were fired
.
So right after 1230, right,they were in the stairs.
They said we didn't hear or seeanyone, we didn't see Oswald.
(27:28):
But at 1225, another workerthis is 1225, five minutes
before 1225, another worker atthe school book depository,
carolyn Adams, said she sawOswald on the second floor at
1225.
So, and there's okay, there'sanother witness.
(27:50):
His name is Aaron Rowland.
He was outside he's not,doesn't work at the school book
depository.
He said he saw a light-skinnedman with dark hair and with a
scope and a gun, but in atotally different window than
Oswald was on the other side ofthe building.
And then there's anotherwitness that says they saw a man
(28:10):
.
I'm sorry, there was one guywith dark skin, one guy with
light skin together in a windowright Together.
Two guys who's the other guy?
A window right together, twoguys who's the other guy right?
Speaker 1 (28:30):
this just so the question and then was he, was he
even in that window?
I don't know right.
I mean, if somebody says theysaw him on the second floor five
minutes before, right, fiveminutes would not be enough time
to go up, to what floor was heon when he, when he shot six,
the six.
So you have to go four floorsand get situated.
Yeah, get ready, like yeahthat's.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
I don't think that if somebody had the either
assignment or you know, my planis to shoot the president when
he comes around they'd becutting it that close Right,
because his opportunity wouldhave been missed.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Yeah, there's always been so much about like the
number of shots and how, how hecould have, could he have even
made that shot Like from fromthat location.
You know it's interesting andthere was a senior research
scientist at IMSG Incorporatednamed Nicholas Nolley and he did
(29:29):
a model of like the shootingthing and determined that the
bullet that struck PresidentKennedy in the head could not
have come from the Texas SchoolBook Depository where Oswald was
positioned which totallycontradicted the Warren
Commission findings waspositioned, which you know,
totally contradicted the WarrenCommission findings.
So like there have been peoplewho've done analysis and said,
well, no, it's.
You know, that's the, thatwhole magic bullet thing comes
(29:54):
in which.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
What do you think of?
Speaker 1 (29:54):
that From the moment I heard it it sounds ridiculous.
Like I know that Kevin Costnerdid a good job in the JFK movie
of like oh, it kind of stopsLike it would have had to stop
midair and turn Right, and likethat alone should.
Well, obviously that didn'thappen right, and well, no, we
(30:15):
have to keep going with thistheory.
It's weird.
Well, so let's go into oursecond clip, because this is the
one from the other employee ofthe rail company who was there
and who talked about seeing theevent go down and hearing the
number of shots.
So let's hear him.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
Mr Bowers, what is your present?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
occupation.
I'm vice president of BlockwoodMeadows Incorporated, which is
a real estate land developmentcompany.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
And where were you employed on November 22, 1963?
Speaker 3 (30:51):
At that time I was employed as a tower operator for
the Union Terminal Company.
And where were you at about1230 that day was?
At the south end of theterminal, of the tower building,
or rather looking down towardthe terminal and observing the
motorcade, as was everyone elsein the area At the time of the
(31:13):
shooting.
In the vicinity of where thetwo men I've described were,
there was a flash of light andthere was something which
occurred which caught my eye inthis immediate area, on the
embankment, and what this was Icould not state at that time,
and at this time I could notidentify it, other than there
(31:36):
was some unusual occurrence, aflash of light or smoke or
something which caused me tofeel like something out of the
ordinary had occurred there.
Speaker 5 (31:49):
In reading your testimony, Mr Powers, it appears
that just as you were about tomake that statement, you were
interrupted in the middle of thesentence by the commission
counsel, who then went intoanother area.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
Well, that's correct.
I was there only to tell themwhat they asked, so that when
they seemed to want to cut offthe conversation, I felt like
that was the end of it.
Mr Bowers, how many shots didyou hear, with one shot, then a
pause, and then two shots invery close order, such as
(32:30):
perhaps almost on top of eachother, while there was some
pause between the first and thesecond shots, did you tell?
Speaker 5 (32:35):
that to the Dallas police.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
Yes, I told this to the police and then also told it
to the FBI and also I had thediscussion two or three days
later with him concerning thisand they made no comment other
than the fact that when I statedI felt like the second and
(32:58):
third shots could not have beenfired from the same rifle, they
reminded me that I wasn't anexpert and I had to agree.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
They reminded me that I wasn't an expert.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Quiet you, you don't know what you heard, Right right
, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
There was a part there that he mentioned the men
I had referred to earlier.
I cut that a little bit becauseit was too long, but he just
talked about seeing some, some,uh, a couple guys nearby.
I'm gonna link both of these.
Any of the clips we play, I'mgonna link the original in the
show notes, so if you want towatch, you know the whole thing.
It's just a little bit longer,but it's fascinating to go back
(33:37):
and see some of those black andwhite um yeah interviews that
were just done, you know fresh.
Those.
The people all seem very sincere, like they're trying to help,
like they just they want to tellyou what they, what they saw,
what they heard.
It's just interesting.
You know, he was trying to talkabout the two guys that he saw
over here and the and the andthe County commissioner just
(33:58):
suddenly like cut him off andwalked away, like almost like
don't want to hear it.
That's, that's part of this.
Like it seems like they had anarrative that they wanted to
make it work and any, anyinformation that came in that
disrupted that.
They did what they always do,which is just well.
We'll ignore that.
Let's just go with what we have.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
It's crazy it doesn't seem like a?
Um, a thorough investigation,right, right, and there's
another witness that I found, Ithink, here, and the interesting
thing about this guy is you'renot going to find a interview of
him because he is well, he'snot alive anymore, but he was
(34:41):
deaf and he was a mute.
Oh, wow, okay, and he was there.
His name is Ed Hoffman, allright.
He says that he saw two guysthat had fired shots.
They were about 200 yards away.
Further closer to, there was akind of an overpass.
Okay, he said he saw the twomen, one heavier man in a dark
(35:05):
suit and a dark cat, another manwho was tall and thin, dressed
like a railroad road worker, hesays the man the dark suit was
standing behind the fence.
He reached down for something,lifted it up and he saw a puff
of smoke, which corroborates theother railroad workers yes.
Rail road workers.
Sorry, interesting, he said.
(35:28):
Hoffman saw this man turn witha long gun, toss the gun to the
railroad road worker who twistedit to disassemble it and put it
in a brown tool bag and they uh, and they ran down the railroad
tracks.
That's what he said he saw.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
And the FBI.
The FBI spoke to him I don'tknow exactly how they did it,
but maybe it was some of thesign language or something and
the FBI says that he wasmistaken, that he didn't see
what he says he saw.
And Hoffman claims that the FBImisrepresented what he told
(36:03):
them.
Right, so it's probably not theeasiest interviewing a guy like
him, true?
Speaker 1 (36:09):
But you could also argue because he's deaf, he
didn't hear the shots.
So for all he knew that thatperson theoretically could have
taken the rifle aimed it, but hesaid he's on a puff of smoke
too, right, right, right.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
So I mean, I think that as soon as that first shot
was fired, it was just, it wastotal chaos and you know, people
, probably even someone that'sdeaf and mute, could understand.
You know, wow, the actions infront of him that there's
something going on.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
It's the three shots, the boom, boom, boom.
That is the problem because-.
Yeah, talk about that.
That is the problem because,yeah, talk about that.
Yeah, I mean the rifle that LeeHarvey Oswald had was a
(36:59):
6.5-millimeter Carcano Model91-38 bolt-action rifle, meaning
that each time you fired it youneeded to re-cock it, and so
you could not have fired twosuccessive.
You couldn't have fired thatboom, boom, boom.
Maybe he fired the first one,maybe he fired the second one,
but there was another shot goingoff at the same time, or right,
kind of aligned with that,which also explains why some
witnesses said they heard twoshots and some witnesses said
(37:19):
they heard three.
Right, Because those two insuccession if, if you were,
depending on where you were andthe echoing, you could have
thought those were one shot.
You know, if you're likeacoustically right, that makes
total sense.
Right, because that what hesaid was is those two second
shots were right on top of eachother, like boom, boom, like
almost like they, you know,happening right around the same
(37:41):
time.
So somebody hearing that couldbe like oh, I heard one shot
instead of two.
But man, it's like, right offthe bat, you got questions about
he couldn't have, besides thequestions of whether he could
have made that shot.
Like you're talking about amoving vehicle, the head of a
person, and it's a movingvehicle.
(38:03):
You're up at six floor, sixfloor down and they're saying
the angles that there's no wayyou could have hit it, and then
you add the magic bullet.
It's like what?
How is it not clear thatsomething like is fishy here?
Because we all, like you saideveryone you ask I've never met
a person who says I, oh, Ibelieve the Warren commission a
hundred percent.
Everyone says there's somethingfishy.
(38:24):
But but they just sort of likeeh, what are you going to do?
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Right, right, and I think I mean I got a lot of
issues with this topic, but oneissue I have is this if it
didn't happen the way we're told, it had it happened, right, and
if the government was notinvolved at all in terms of any
cover-up or anything like that,right, the investigation that
(38:52):
the government did into itdoesn't look like an
investigation someone would doif you weren't covering
something up, right, right,because there's just so many
unanswered questions, there's somany witnesses, there's so many
pieces of evidence that werenot considered Right, that you
say, if this was really an openinvestigation, why were you not
(39:15):
considering these things?
Because there's really not alot of good answers, you know.
Yeah, here's somethinginteresting regarding the gun
itself right, so, was Oswald inthe window?
Was he even there?
Right, we were just talking inthe window.
Was he even there?
Right, we were just talkingabout?
Well, was he on the second?
Speaker 1 (39:31):
floor.
Speaker 2 (39:32):
Conceivably, he has to have had the gun, right?
J Edgar Hoover himself.
Okay, it was in the WarrenCommission.
I saw, right, it was exhibit.
There's a lot of exhibits, thisexhibit number 2968.
Okay, which was a letter fromfrom J Edgar Hoover.
(39:53):
Okay, and he wrote that thecartridge shells and evidence
did not possess sufficientcharacteristics for identifying
the weapon which produced them.
Think about that.
That's J Edgar Hoover writingthat.
That's J Edgar Hoover writingthat.
So, according to J Edgar Hooverhimself, we cannot prove the
shells on the sixth floor camefrom the Carcano in evidence.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
Right, because they found shell casings on the floor
of the sixth floor depository,and that's how they said okay,
did they say how many shellcasings they found?
Four, right, wasn't it four?
Was it four?
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
But then, yeah, then J Edgar Hoover, who was head of
the FBI, and said oh, we can'treally confirm that those came
from the gun that we say did it,which is weird too.
Yes, I mean, that smells likeneed to.
We need to establish that this,this is where it happened.
(40:51):
Well, let's sprinkle a coupleof um shell casings on the floor
, but a four like that's odd,right, unless one assumes that
before the first shot, he had toeject a previously fired shell
casing.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (41:08):
Well, it's interesting about the four only
because there's a gentleman thatsays he was hit in the right
cheek.
I think his name was JamesTeague.
He was also an observer outsideand he says that he was hit by
something in the right cheek andthat fourth bullet would
account for that.
(41:28):
As they say, maybe Oswaldmissed everything once and hit
the sidewalk and some concretehit this guy in the face.
That's the story.
To account for that.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
It's odd, though, because, as far as I know, did
any of the witnesses say theyheard four shots?
Like most of them were eithertwo or three right, exactly.
So that's so weird.
It's just crazy that with somany inconsistencies, so right
(42:08):
off the bat, like from theget-go, it's not like.
At first it seemed like a solidcase and as things went, you
know, problems were wereinjected into it.
It's like almost right off thebat something smells fishy.
It's um, I mean that, that gun.
I was doing some research intohow fast that gun could fire.
(42:30):
How fast could you fire that6.5 millimeter Carcano model
9138?
And I asked ChatGPT and I said,hey, how fast.
And according to ChatGPT, hesaid the Warren Commission they
found that a skilled shootercould fire three aimed shots
within a span of approximately5.6 to 8.3 seconds.
(42:51):
This means that the timebetween each shot could vary,
but on average, first to secondshot about 2 to 2.7 seconds
apart, and second to third shot,same 2 to 2.7 seconds apart.
So the fastest that somebodycould fire that is two to 2.7
seconds, which wouldn't accountfor the boom, boom, boom,
(43:13):
because that's not two secondsbetween those shots.
And then you know the addedthing you're on the sixth floor.
You're aiming down on a movingvehicle, right, that vehicle did
not stop at any time.
I think it only moved fasteronce, that, once the you know
event had taken place.
Yep, so you'd have to reacquirethe aim.
So you're not going to be ableto fire off two, you know two,
(43:37):
shots.
Um, it's just it.
It it makes no sense, right offthe bat of it.
Speaker 2 (43:45):
Well, here's something interesting the rifle
that they found there on thesixth floor right was this
Carcano rifle right.
There is not really a ton ofevidence that.
Oswald really received the gun.
(44:08):
He supposedly ordered itthrough the mail.
Okay, the PO box that he hadwas under his name.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Okay, okay, that's where the gun was sent.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
That's where the gun was sent.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
You can have guns sent to a PO box.
That's odd.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
No, no, yeah, and there was a special form.
Well, it's Texasas.
There was a special form thathad to be filled out.
Okay, okay, um, because youknow you're shipping a firearm,
right, right, and maybe it'sstill today.
There's a form, there's afederal form that had to be
filled out.
There is no federal form forthat gun that was shipped.
Okay, there is, there is none.
(44:47):
Excuse me, there's none.
But I think, interestingly, thePO Box that Oswald first of all
, oswald denied he ever ordereda gun, okay, but the PO Box that
it was shipped to was under hisown name, but he also had this
(45:09):
alias, apparently, that he used.
It was AJ Heidel or somethinglike that.
Right, the gun was orderedsupposedly by an AJ Heidel.
Would that have been deliveredto a PO box that was not for AJ
Heidel, right?
So, like you know, if I orderedsomething under Steve Blair,
(45:32):
right, and I had it sent to yourPO box, they wouldn't deliver
it.
They'd just send it back andsay you know.
Speaker 1 (45:41):
I don't know.
Actually, I think when you givea PO box, the name doesn't
matter.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
The name doesn't matter, no because nobody knows.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
I mean the name is on file somewhere, but who's to
say, I mean, if you put PO boxthis, that the other thing they
deliver to that PO box.
So I don't think the name wouldhave necessarily done it, but
again it seems like there's.
He denied ordering the gun,right?
(46:07):
I mean he obviously deniedeverything, right?
He denied he had anything to dowith anything, which of course
he would.
So his interesting, he's notgoing to admit to ordering the
gun if that same gun was used inan assassination that he does
not say he did.
So one could easily imagine himsaying well, I didn't do it, I
(46:28):
didn't do anything.
But I don't know what aboutprints on the gun?
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Oh, so here's interesting on the prints right,
there was a lieutenant of theDallas Police Department,
lieutenant Day, where he hadkind of a central part of the
fingerprints.
He examined the rifle shortlyafter it was discovered.
Okay, it was a guy named DeputySheriff Boone found it All
(46:55):
right.
There are two areas of therifle where fingerprint evidence
was potentially found a metalhousing near the trigger and a
lifted palm print from undersideof the barrel.
Okay, which is an odd place tohave your hand.
Speaker 1 (47:07):
Wouldn't you hold it there If you were holding the
barrel?
Okay, which is an odd place tohave your hand.
Wouldn't you hold it there Ifyou were holding the rifle?
Wouldn't your hand beunderneath the barrel to support
the barrel?
Speaker 2 (47:13):
Well, not on the barrel itself, it would be on
the-.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Oh, you're right, it would be on the the guard
underneath.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Oh, this is on the barrel.
It's on the barrel.
It's an odd place to put yourhand when when you're firing a
gun.
Okay, but it's even.
It's a little weirder than that, all right.
So, yeah, that's weird.
The Lieutenant Day looks at therifle and he examines it for
fingerprints.
Then he takes a fingerprintfrom the trigger.
(47:43):
Okay, the trigger.
Okay, they take it and they putcellophane over it and they,
they send it out for the FBI tolook at it.
Okay, well, between that timeand a few, about six days later,
(48:05):
which is important the FBI hadvisited Oswald in the morgue.
Okay, okay, whatever.
After six days, lieutenant Daysays, oh, you know, he sends in
that.
He also found the palm print onthe barrel, right, and everyone
(48:31):
said well, why are you tellingus this now, right, six?
days later and his story is well.
And also, why didn't you coverthat part up with the cellophane
?
Why did you just do the triggerRight?
His story is that.
This is what's interesting.
(48:52):
How does he explain this?
One, he's the sole witness theWarren Report relies on for the
proposition that, one, a palmprint was found on the rifle.
He's the only witness, Okay.
And two, the palm print waslifted from the rifle.
Okay, Day, Lieutenant Day tookno photographs of the palm print
(49:12):
.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
But he took photographs of the other, the
other print.
Yeah, he took, and he didn'twrap that one up in cellophane
either.
He wrapped the other one up incellophane, yeah, there was
another.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
There was a FBI agent that Latona.
He said he never saw the palmprint on the rifle.
All right, so Lieutenant Day'sword is that he lifted the palm
print then sent it to the FBIseparate from all the other
evidence.
His explanation is he didn'trealize he had completely lifted
(49:43):
the palm print and he expectedthe other agent, latona, to find
it on his own.
So he didn't tell anybody aboutit and didn't take any pictures
about it.
This is his story.
He just expected someone elseto find it, and that someone
else said I never found anything.
That is so.
It's just what I mean, like youkeep adding.
Speaker 1 (50:06):
And, yes, is his story conceivable?
Yeah, I guess I guess it'sconceivable.
Like it's, nothing in his storyis like so far out of the realm
that it couldn't happen.
But it doesn't make sense.
Like, if you are checking itfor prints and you are wrapping
said prints in cellophane toprotect them, why would you only
(50:26):
wrap one and not the?
other wrapping said prints incellophane to protect them.
Why would you only wrap one andnot the other?
And then, like you said, theFBI visits Lee Harvey Oswald in
the morgue and, lo and behold,more prints are found right.
And it's like, yeah, it's likeeverything in this, it has a
smell.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
So his in this the chief counsel of the Warren
Commission.
His name is J Lee Rankin.
Right, mr Rankin?
Attorney Rankin also had anissue with this late arriving
palm print.
This is now the chief counselof the Warren Commission.
Okay, august 28th 1964, so alittle less than a year
(51:07):
afterwards he said that quote MrRankin, which is the attorney
here, advised that because ofthe circumstances that now exist
, there is a serious question inthe minds of the commission as
to whether or not the palmimpression was removed from the
rifle barrel or whether it wasobtained from some other source.
(51:29):
This is the Warrant Commissionthemselves Right Questioning the
only witness regarding this.
Speaker 1 (51:37):
You know, with government commissions and
reports I've seen this in theUFO area as well is what often
happens is that there's theconclusion, the report has a
conclusion, and then all thatsupporting evidence is inside it
.
And what people do is they readthe conclusion and that's what
they go with and they never readthe report, which in some cases
(51:59):
contradicts completely theconclusion.
That was the case of um in theufo.
There was a um, a report thatwas done I can't remember off
the top of my head it was umjust basically to disprove it.
And at the end of this reportthey said, oh, this has nothing
to it.
But then if you actually readthe report you'd find that
that's not quite true, right?
So it seems like it's a similarthing where it's like the
(52:21):
conclusion of the report wasthat lee harvey oswald, by
himself, with no help, did it.
And people would read that andgo, oh, that's what they
concluded.
And you know, read the 800 and888 pages and go well, that's
not quite what you said.
Speaker 2 (52:33):
No.
So this Rankin went one stepfurther.
He asked the FBI to questionLieutenant Day about what his
problem was.
So the FBI did they questionedDay.
Okay, and the FBI, oh, theyquestioned Day.
They also questioned an agent,vincent Drain.
(52:53):
Agent Drain says he was nevertold about the palm print when
he picked up evidence.
Lieutenant Day says he did tellhim about the palm print.
Okay, but Drain must have justforgotten.
So then, agent Drain then askedLieutenant Day to sign a
statement.
Lieutenant Day would not sign astatement.
So, just that itself, the chainof custody of the evidence.
(53:15):
One guy says, hey, you didn'ttell me about it.
The other guy says, yes, I didSign something, saying you told
me no, right.
That alone should be that alonewould say well, what are you
doing, what do you mean?
Speaker 1 (53:28):
Yeah, when two parties have a disagreement and
one of them will willingly speakunder oath and the other one
won't, like that's immediate.
Speaker 2 (53:37):
That's a red flag.
Speaker 1 (53:38):
That's more than that's a series of flags.
Right, that's six flags.
Speaker 2 (53:45):
There's lots of flags on that, on the party I mean
and this is the guy that isrelied on as the only I know
this is people say, well, that'sonly one small piece of
evidence.
Well, you're right, it is, butit's important, it's the murder
weapon, it's, yeah, it'simportant.
And they say, well, what abouthis finger on the trigger?
That is a problem.
I mean, that's a problem if youwere defending Oswald, right,
(54:09):
that is a problem, the fact thatyou can't show exactly where
the fingerprint came from on thehandprint.
Maybe there's an issue on thefingerprint, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (54:19):
Well, all right.
So here's my issue with that.
And I am not an expert infingerprints.
I am not an expert in firearms.
I guess I'm really not anexpert in anything, but I will
say this as a lay person Atrigger is a very small thing,
yes, very, very narrow.
So one would have to think thatthe fingerprint that they got
(54:43):
off the trigger is not a wholefinger, because if you put your
finger across the trigger, it'sright, it's not well, his it's
not right.
So what I'm saying is is thatwhat they got was a partial
print.
Speaker 2 (54:56):
Oh, I want to.
Yeah, I was going to talk aboutthat, okay, yeah, yeah, so the
agent latona okay, uh, it sayson november 23rd the rifle with
the prints was sent to the FBIfingerprint expert.
Agent Latona the area near thetrigger was protected with
cellophane, like we just talkedabout right said that the prints
(55:30):
near the trigger wereinsufficient for purposes of
either affecting identificationor determination that the print
was not identical with prints ofpeople.
He concluded that the triggerprints were ultimately of no
value.
Agent Latona then examined therest of the weapon for
fingerprints and found none.
He also noted that there was noevidence of any lifted
fingerprints.
So this is the FBI expert thatsaid there are no marks on this
(55:52):
gun that tie him to Lee HarveyOswald.
Right, yeah, I mean.
So there's questions whetherthis guy was even in the window,
right, right, I'm not saying hewasn't Right, I'm just saying
there are questions.
There are questions whether ornot he ever had that gun in his
(56:13):
hands.
Right, I mean, right from thebeginning.
You'd say I don't know if we'regoing to be able to convict
this guy.
Right, if he wasn't killed andyou had that as your evidence,
you got a problem right from thebeginning, we'll be right back.
I'll see you next time.
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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.