June 23, 2024 • 62 mins
Could the most famous assassination in American history be a cover-up?
Join Chris & Steve as they scrutinize the puzzling inconsistencies surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and his role in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. How could Oswald have handled the murder weapon without leaving any fingerprints? And why was there ONLY 4 bullets?
The Zapruder film has long been a cornerstone in the JFK assassination story, but what if there's more to it than meets the eye? Chris & Steve explore the provocative claim that an edited version of the film implicates the driver, William Greer, in the shooting. This puzzle deepens as we discuss the missing JFK brain and the CIA's history of unconventional assassination methods like poison-tipped umbrellas. The life and actions of Greer post-assassination provide an intriguing twist, suggesting broader conspiracy implications.
The investigation doesn't stop there. Chris & Steve also dive into the so-called "magic bullet" theory through an eyewitness account from a Secret Service agent who discovered bullet fragments and an intact bullet in the aftermath. They also question the logic and potential mishandling of evidence, scrutinizing the agent's testimony and its impact on subsequent investigations.
Finally, Chris & Steve reflect on the broader context of 1960s conspiracies and the necessity of being critical and realistic about official narratives.
This episode promises to challenge everything you thought you knew about the JFK assassination,
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.
It's odd, too, that there wereno fingerprints anywhere else on
(00:34):
the gun, because presumably atsome point he would have had to
load the gun or he had topractice with it, practice with
it, and it's conceivable, yetnot logical, that he would have
worn gloves for every step ofthis endeavor, except the firing
of the weapon at the end.
Can you imagine that if he woregloves to practice with it and
(00:56):
wore gloves to load it, sothere's no fingerprints anywhere
but then, when it came time toactually do the deed, he took
those gloves off and said, well,I could just fire this thing,
and then, like you said, he heldit by the barrel.
That's such an odd way to holda weapon.
You wouldn't hold it by thebarrel.
Like that's weird, it wouldhurt.
(01:17):
Yeah, it's that.
You know there's so much here.
And that's when we say there'sa lot of inconsistencies.
Right, it sounds likeexaggerated, like, okay, well,
you just got a couple there.
It's like we haven't evenscratched the surface.
This is just like the firstcouple of things right.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
I mean you could do a deep dive into even who leave.
Javi oswald was because there'sa lot of issues with yeah
regarding him leaving thecountry, coming back to the
country.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
What connections, if any, to Russia?
Who is he connected?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
to?
You're right.
Why was he in New Orleans Allthis stuff?
Right, that you say you know Ialways fall back on.
I'm a believer in law.
They call it an excitedutterance.
Right, that'd be a good namefor a band.
Would it you like that Excitedutterance?
Excited utterance, so what itreally kind of means is in the
(02:11):
heat of the moment or right atthe beginning of an event,
something like that.
I guess maybe I'm notdescribing it good enough is
people are generally mosttruthful right Right people are
generally most truthful right.
So, like, right after somethinghappens, somebody blurts
something out.
Well, they're doing it.
They probably haven't been ableto formulate an idea of lying
(02:32):
yet, right, so that usuallythose types of things are given
weight.
I should say in evidence,because we can kind of, maybe
kind of already know there'ssome credibility to what you
said, because it happened justas soon as you you know.
You yelled it out.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Right, in the spur of the moment, it's very few
people would be able toconstruct a lie, articulate a
lie and get it out in like theheat of the moment, right, you
know?
So, yeah, it's kind of likethat I've seen in various places
, where you play a game, weanswer questions fast and you
get on a fast roll and then youask that question.
That's the one you want to getto, because you got them on the
(03:09):
roll of answering questionsquickly and so they just blurt
out the answer and that's howyou get to the truth and that
makes total sense, right, right,that's yeah right, that does
make total sense and so it's notexactly an excited utterance
what Oswald did, but from theminute he got caught right, he
got grabbed.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I don't even want to call it.
He was yelling out I'm just apatsy, I'm just a patsy right.
And it's an odd thing to say asyour defense of something Like
he immediately went, becausesaying that means it is a
conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
It means that he realizes in the heat of the
moment that he was set upBecause, in the heat of the
moment you would think what youwould utter is I didn't do it.
I had nothing to do with this.
I wasn't involved.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
He did say both Right .
But it's just odd to just gostraight to I'm part of a
conspiracy or they're setting meup, right, however you want to
say, but that's exactly where hewent, immediately Right, right,
it's just.
You don't usually hear thatwhen someone's grabbed for doing
a crime, oh, there's a big guy,there was someone else.
(04:20):
You don't usually hear thatstuff.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
And also you know the fact that he didn't live to
undergo how much questioning didhe undergo?
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Okay, so the whole night, right.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
And there are no notes of that and there's no
recordings.
There's no notes.
They said they questioned him.
They said they questioned him,but there are no notes and no
recordings.
Yes, that doesn't sound likereal.
There's nothing Like why wouldyou do that?
So that night they questionedhim, yeah, and then, like the
next day, nothing happened,because he died two days later.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Yeah, so where was he just held at that police
station for another day?
That like nothing happened?
Let's see it's odd, I mean thepart about they questioned him
that night and no recordings andno notes.
No, there's nothing I couldunderstand.
No recording although Icouldn't in a situation where a
(05:20):
person is accused of killing thepresident of the United States,
that they would like every wordout of his mouth would have
been, like, recorded and notedand, you know, registered and
said okay, we got to be clear onthis on every step of the way.
(05:41):
You would think that that wouldbe the case, but apparently not
.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Some people took notes kind of after the fact but
there are no official reportsand notes and evidence from the
police that were done right andall the police that did question
him.
He did nothing but just denythat he knew anything about this
(06:07):
Right.
He never said anything exceptthat I didn't do it and I've
been set up.
That's what he said.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Right.
And I mean I guess, like wesaid earlier, if you didn't do
do it, of course you're gonnadeny it, and if you did do it,
you're probably gonna deny itright.
So the fact that he denied itisn't unusual in and of itself,
but the fact that, well, onethat he brought up the patsy
thing, so like right away, likealmost realizing that you, like
(06:44):
you, were put in a situationwhere they could point at you
and say, oh, you did it, torealize that, yeah, because he
wasn't like you said, he had aweird past too, he had some
involvement with some things.
So, like the idea ofstrangeness, it wasn't like he
(07:04):
was, just, you know, lee HarveyOswald, this guy who worked at a
book depository and before thathe had, just, you know, been a
regular guy and nothing weirdabout him.
I mean, his past had all sortsof inconsistencies.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Yeah, he kind of defected to Russia in the 50s,
but then came back.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Right.
And then, of course, you know,to touch on this a little bit
the footage of the event itself,the Zabruta film.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
And I've always found that to be a fascinating thing,
because it's very difficult tojust get to watch it.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
It shouldn't be.
You should just be able towatch it whenever you want.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
My understanding is that Life magazine ended up with
the rights.
They bought the rights fromZabruta and nobody saw it for
years and right, and then theysort of kept it.
And now when you see it, yousee selected clips.
You don't ever see the wholething.
You know, and I hesitate tobring this up only because it's
so.
It's so off the mark.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
No, but I love it.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I know what you're going to talk about, I still
haven't seen.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
I still haven't seen this show.
Okay, what's the show again?
Speaker 1 (08:03):
It's called the Octopus Murder.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I always want to say it's like the 007, but I know
it's not that?
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Yeah, it's on Netflix .
It's about a.
I know they said it a littledifferently A journalist, danny
Casolaro, who was investigatingthis story that was just
branching off into all thesetentacles.
That's why they called it kindof the Octopus Murder, because
(08:30):
it was basically tying into theKennedy assassination and coups
and CIA.
And at one point during thisdocumentary, a woman who's a
reporter mentions, in dealingwith one of the people that
Danny Casolaro was dealing withbefore he died, that this other
gentleman showed her a footageof the spruder film.
That was odd.
(08:51):
So let me go back a little bit,because in the in the early 90s
, when I was looking into ufos,I came across there was this
tape from a guy named john lear,whose father had invented the
learjet, who designed thelearjet, and so john lear had
gotten into ufos and he was anodd character because he would
make all sorts of of wild claims, some some that turned out to
(09:13):
be true and some that were justlike so wildly crazy that you
roll your eyes.
And one of the things that hesaid I was listening to a tape
where he was doing a talk and Iwish, I wish I still had this,
because he talked about how jfkwas not killed by a bullet but
the jfk was killed by get readyfor this, yeah, the driver of
(09:36):
the car who turned around andshot him while all this was
going on.
It was like the backup plan tomake sure that that that that
that the president, you know,did not leave dallas, right,
that he shot him with not a gun,but with, like this specially
designed gun that was supposedto uh, inject shellfish poison
(09:58):
into the president to make surethat he died shellfish poison
it's like this.
I know what a shellfish is yeah,there's some sort of poison
that you can get from a.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Oh, there is.
Yeah.
Well, they're also allergic tocertain things, so maybe it's
just like no, it was some poison, so like.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
that sounded so outlandish at the time.
I remember like listening to it.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
It does sound something crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
And then go like, oh man, probably all the stuff this
guy's saying about UFOs iskooky too.
I've never even heard anythinglike that, so I forgot about
this.
And then all of a sudden I'mwatching the Octopus Murders and
that documentary and this womantalks about that contact,
showing her the Zabruta film andshowing her she's like in the
film that I saw you couldclearly see the driver turn
(10:43):
around and shoot somethingdirectly at kennedy.
And then the question came upas well, why that's not in the
film?
And she said, yes, but it gotedited, because he showed me the
part you always see, andsupposedly there's a tree in the
background that's lifted offthe ground, as if there's
(11:04):
somebody was splicing thefootage together to to oh, okay,
all right and because of that,the sideline was that that this
tree was off, off shot from oh,because they're saying something
was cut.
They had to move the film to tohide the fact.
And I just that was the secondtime I'd heard that about the,
the shellfish poison, and thesecond time well I'm saying
(11:25):
about the shellfish poisonSecond time.
Well, I'm saying like the firsttime was in that tape oh okay,
and I'm just like that's such aweird detail.
It is very strange.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
And so I'm like okay, how does?
How would the governor therethat was, wasn't he in the front
seat, Connolly?
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Was he in the front seat?
Yeah, and it well.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Well, just to wrap up this part of it, so was that
after a shot was fired andpeople were distracted.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
It was right Almost like the first shot and
everything, the pandemonium.
Then all of a sudden the driverturns around to make sure that
it was done.
Now one could say, all right,well, that's, I mean, that's
easily proven, right?
You just, you just check them,you know if there's no shellfish
poison in the body, well, well,well, it turns out that the
(12:08):
brain actually went missing,jfk's brain, which was taken out
during the autopsy and putaside for further study and then
it went missing.
So to this day nobody knows whathappened to jfk's brain.
That's weird.
Yeah, I mean, it doesn't provethe shellfish, no, but I mean.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
I've.
I've misplaced some papers.
Sometimes I thought I put it inmy bag, you know?
Uh, you know, we misplacethings.
I'm looking at a stapler rightnow.
I've misplaced things, right,Everybody does.
I don't think I'd misplace abrain, Right?
I don't think I'd misplace thebrain of a president who had
(12:51):
been.
And then a president that hadbeen murdered Right or
assassinated Assassinations aremurder right and the shots went
into his head, right, I mean.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
That's the thing about this is is like the shots
that into his head right, I mean, that's that's the thing about
this is is like the, the shotsthat were taken, like this
question of whether or not theycould have hit at that target,
and you know the fact that his,his brain went missing.
So, like I added, on its facethat story sounds so outlandish,
(13:25):
so completely crazy.
But then you say, okay, well,now they're saying, like, again,
this woman is saying that shesaw the footage that showed it
clearly and that he showed herthat and then showed her this is
the version you see, orsomething was it that she said
show him I cannot remember hisname during this, uh, during
this documentary, this dannycasolaro, was dealing with a lot
(13:47):
of sketchy people in theintelligence world and he had
one contact that he was dealingwith a lot and this guy and it
was.
It was funny because it was asimilar thing that I've heard
about john lear is that this guyspouted lots of stuff.
Some of it seemed to be trueand some of it seemed to be just
crazy, and it was a verysimilar thing.
(14:10):
I don't know.
I just I always thought thatwas fascinating because I have
to watch that show.
It's a documentary show, yeah,it's documentary on Netflix.
It's called something somethingcan make me something
conspiracy, but the subtitle isAmerican, yeah, and then the
subtitle is the octopus murdersand it's I think I started.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
It seemed kind of compelling, it is fascinating,
but I need to finish.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
So one would say, okay, that's, that's crazy.
Who would even think that youwould try to kill somebody by
injecting them with poison?
Then you find out that, youknow, the cia at a certain time
had a, had a plan I don't knowif it was ever put into into
into operation where they weregoing to, like, put poison on
the tips of umbrellas, so yes,and so they could poison, like
(14:54):
russian diplomats or somethingto do with cuba, you know.
So like I'm just saying that,like our intelligence agencies
had a track record of of usingpoison in a weird way to like,
uh, to kill people, and so, likethe idea of you know, and
that's something I've neverlooked into, who was the driver?
(15:15):
Like I don't think I everreally looked.
It'd be interesting to lookinto, like who was the driver?
Who, who is he?
Who's the driver listed as?
What was their recollection ofthe day and whatever became of
them, because sometimes it'sinteresting finding out what
happened to people after thefact.
The other question I had, whichI don't know if you His name's?
Speaker 2 (15:37):
William Greer.
Okay, william.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Greer.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
He was a Secret Service agent.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
And he passed away February of 1985.
So he lived quite a while,service agent Okay, and he
passed away February of 1985.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
So he lived quite a while after that.
Yeah, I mean, it's a long wayto say that this.
You know if you're accusing thedriver of the vehicle, but
that's the other thing too.
Right is could you imagine aworld where, even while all this
is going on, that the driverturns around and does this and
nobody says that, like there'snot a single witness who said
(16:11):
although, actually this,somebody said the driver did
something this is interesting,yeah, because it says that, um,
I mean it gives a little bit ofa uh, opens the door a little
bit to what you had just saidabout that show.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
What's it called American Conspiracies?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, the.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
Octopus Murders.
It says Secret Serviceprocedures in place at the time
did not allow Greer to takeaction without orders from
Senior Agent Roy Kellerman, whosat to Greer's right.
So he was in between Greer andConnolly.
Okay, kellerman has stated thathe shouted let's get out of
(16:46):
line, we've been hit, but thatGreer apparently turned to look
at Kennedy before acceleratingthe car.
So it's kind of funny.
So somebody does say he didturn to look at Kennedy.
I'm not saying anyone says heshot him Right, but that's what
this says.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
And presumably I don't remember if these details
were ever.
I don't know, but like itwouldn't necessarily have to be
a gun that looks like a gun tooright, it could just be like a
tube that you hold in your hand.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
You push it.
Yeah, who knows?
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
I mean, if the idea of it was to shoot a dart with
poison, it doesn't need to looklike a gun.
So if he came to look andanything with his hands, I don't
know, that's a weird one, notto jump around, but let's go
back just for one second becauseI always want to talk about.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
You know, we have the issue of the prints on the gun.
From what we're talking about,there's not just small questions
, there's huge questions whetheror not Oswald was holding that
gun.
On the sixth floor.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Yeah, I mean in a murder trial, right the murder
weapon and proving that themurder weapon was possessed by
the accused.
I mean that's one of the mostimportant pieces.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
So was it possessed by him?
First of all, was he there, andmaybe he was, but there are
questions as to whether or nothe was even there.
On the sixth floor, they knowhe was in the building because
he worked there, right?
There's some testimony, there'ssome evidence that he wasn't on
the second floor minutes before, right?
So was he holding the gun?
Speaker 1 (18:22):
Sure, because the evidence doesn't seem to
indicate for sure that he washow would he have carried said
gun and not got his prints onany part of it?
Well, they said.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
some people said he put it in like this tube kind of
thing, and some people thoughthe had, like you know, curtain
rods, so something like that.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Right, but I mean, if you have a gun in that you'd
have to take it out.
And in taking the gun out andputting it into, whatever you
use to carry it.
I mean, that's when you put thegloves on right, like why would
you put gloves and then sayokay, now for the actual firing,
the weapon.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
I practiced with gloves for the real thing.
I'm going to change everythingup and take them off.
It just makes no sense right itdoes so, um, but so was was
where the prints on the on thegun, I don't know.
Was he on the sixth floor?
I don't know how's this?
Were the bullets even firedthat they?
(19:18):
First of all, they found fourbullets, and this is let's just
talk about this for one second,because I find it interesting
the gun that he had the carcanoright.
It could hold seven, um,bullets, seven shells, whatever
you want to call it.
Right, it had four.
First of all, why, what for?
Why would you go to assassinatea president and not just fill
(19:45):
up the whole Right?
Speaker 1 (19:46):
why would you stop at ?
Speaker 2 (19:47):
four, why would you just put all seven in?
Right, and it gets even weirder.
That is weird.
It gets even weirder.
No one ever found any morebullets at Oswald's house.
So you don't just go buy fourbullets, you gotta buy a package
of them.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
You're that sure of your skill.
You're like can I have?
Speaker 2 (20:07):
single bullets.
Four is going to do it.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
I'm only going to need four.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
You know, I might not even fire four.
I'm thinking of maybe onlyfiring two or three, but four is
the maximum.
Well, you're going to holdseven.
I don't need those extra three.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
That's that's I smoke cigarette and I don't smoke
cigarettes, but I used to.
You know, I never bought fourcigarettes, you just bought a
pack of them.
Yeah Well, you can't buy fourcigarettes Well sometimes at the
stores you can buy the littleloosies.
I don't know if you're likeyou've never smoked right?
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Oh I did.
I smoked for years.
Oh you did, oh I did.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
I just gave no.
I don't know that that is weird, but anyway, no, who does?
But okay, so nobody would buyfour bullets.
First of all, where would youbuy them Right?
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Just singly bullets that you could just buy Right,
and if they found like the boxof bullets at his house yes,
with four missing, then likeokay it still doesn't answer why
he didn't just load no but,completely, but at least you
know.
But the fact that they neverfound any bullets, that is at
his residence means that, likeyou're right.
(21:19):
Why?
Why would somebody do that?
The?
The thing I was reading aboutthe um the zabruta film too is,
they said, uh and this was whenI was doing some of the research
one of the widely discussedclaims that the film was edited
to hide evidence of the secondshooter.
Some researchers have suggestedthat frames of the film showing
the fatal shot to presidentkennedy's head was were removed
(21:40):
or altered to obscure the trueorigin of the shot.
This claim is often linked tothe back and to the left
movement.
Remember that from over andover again.
Back and to the left Movement ofPresident Kennedy's head in the
Sabruta film, which some argueis indicative of a shot from the
front, not the rear, whereOswald was positioned right.
(22:01):
So the way his head snaps atone point would do that if the
guy in front of you turnedaround and fired something into
your.
Yes, you know, like I, mean hishead exploded.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Right right, it's just so.
Regarding the bullets, too more, more bullets no, no, there's
more stuff more bullets stuff.
Okay, uh, now I'm, I'm givingyou information from the warren
report, right?
Okay, this is from the warrenreport.
It exhibits three emptycartridge shells.
(22:42):
Exhibits Exhibits 543, 544, 545.
543 had a dented shell.
Okay, ballistic expert HowardDonahue said that that 543 could
not have been fired, could nothave been used to fire a bullet.
You know they got the shell.
(23:03):
However you want to phrase it,I'm not a gun expert that day
because the dent in the shellwould have prevented the weapon
from firing properly.
Okay, that's what he says.
All right, there's anotherexpert that says oh, that dent
came from after it came out ofthe.
So that other expert whotestified in front of that house
(23:27):
thing they did in 1976, he saidhe doesn't dispute that if it
was in that condition prior tobeing fired, that it wouldn't
fire.
So he agrees.
But he says, oh, but the denthappened after it got shot out
of the gun and hit the ground.
Okay, there's a lot of otherexperts that side with the first
(23:48):
guy.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Right, because you'd have to believe that the shell
was fine when it came out.
And when it hit the ground, ithit the ground with such force
that it dented it.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I don't know.
I mean, I know it Again, I'mnot a gun expert but, and I
guess it ejects- the shell,you'd have to have a lot of
weight to that when it hits theground.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
But wait, you mentioned that that committee,
the, the house select committeeon assassination, which was
established in 1976, um reportedthat it had audio evidence of a
fourth shot being fired atKennedy's vehicle, which had
claimed prove that there was asecond gunman Like the.
It's so funny that the, the um,it's so funny that the Wait,
here's something interesting.
They determined that there wasprobably a what, that the fact
(24:30):
that that commission onassassinations kind of
determined that now there's noway that that this could happen,
that this could happen this way.
Yeah, it's just so funny thatyou don't hear much about that
second thing.
It's like the first.
The first determination is allyou hear about.
Right now they have the secondthing comes out.
(24:51):
That's not quite right and andwe yeah, and we just move on
with it.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
the two other bullets right um the five exhibit 544
had markings revealing it hadbeen ejected by the Carcano.
In evidence so ejected, but nomarkings of a firing pin.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
So it was ejected from the weapon, but there's no
evidence that it was fired.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Interesting.
Okay, 545 has no markings of afiring pin either, both the
dented one and then the last one, 543 and 545.
So those three bullets hadmarkings made by the magazine
follower, which I guess issomething in the magazine that
clips in right, which would haveonly made the mark if the
(25:38):
bullet was the last bullet inthe in the magazine okay, okay,
according to these experts.
But neither one of thosebullets could have been the last
one in the magazine, becausethe police found a live round in
the rifle, so-.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
That would have been the last one.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
There was no fingerprints found on the shell
casings Right.
That's the weirdest part.
How do you load a gun ammo clipall the live round, yeah so how
do you do that?
Speaker 1 (26:12):
how do you load?
You were careful and you woregloves throughout the entire,
all your time handling theweapon, loading the weapon,
practicing with the weapon,whatever with the weapon.
You wore gloves and thendecided on the day of the event
not to wear gloves and stillonly managed to get prints on
(26:33):
two very specific places rightonly on that on the barrel,
which doesn't make any sense,and on the trigger, which again
that makes sense.
But that's hardly conclusive,because I have a feeling that
the fraction of a fingerprintthat could be taken from the
trigger of a gun couldpotentially be matched up with
lots of fingerprints, because ifit's only a partial, then you
(26:56):
can always you know, oh it wasthis part of the finger, oh it
was this part of the finger Likeline it up.
So, yeah, it's so funny thatit's one of the clearest cases
that there's more to the storythan the official story.
Maybe all these crazyconspiracies about drivers doing
it, or Russians or Cubans, orCastro or the CIA I mean there's
(27:22):
a million different ways thatit could have happened.
Maybe they're all incorrect,but clearly incorrect is the
idea that one guy did this onhis own and was both incredibly
competent and incrediblyincompetent at the same time.
(27:46):
You know what I'm saying.
Like he's competent enough toto be very careful to not put
his fingerprints on the weaponat all, except at the very end,
where he does it in a couple ofweird places.
You know he does this thing andthen he wanders out of the
building Right.
Wouldn't you think that, likeif you really wanted to make it
seem like you didn't do it,you'd do it and then go back to
(28:09):
work?
You know like, just like.
You know like keep a lowprofile, but instead he like
leaves.
And then there's the questionof how they found him.
You know they seem to havepicked him up quickly, but like,
how?
did you it's just very quickwith that description quickly.
That like how did you.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
It's just very quick with that description with a
very, very vague first of all,we're in Dallas, texas.
We're looking for a white man.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
We're not going to find those around yeah and in
his 30s and yeah of averageweight average weight right,
right, the only thing that wouldhave made it more like cookie
cutters.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
And there's a question because there was a
police officer that was shotsoon after Right.
And there's a question if hewas even involved in that.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
You know it's funny.
The only thing that would havemade that description more
generic is if they said he alsohad a 10 gallon hat on, it would
be like, okay, well, that'slike surrounded by people with
10 gallon hats.
So so I think the last thing tocover up on this is the idea of
the magic bullet.
The magic bullet, Because Ifind that to be well, the most
(29:11):
ridiculous of the theories, Likethe idea that a bullet could
stop midway.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
They had to account because they were running out of
bullets that could do things.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Right, it seemed like there were more injuries than
bullets, right.
So the cap to this is what cameout not too long ago.
I want to say it was like sevenor eight months ago that there
was a secret service agent whowas there that day.
I think he was in the trail carand his name was paul landis
(29:49):
and he was there that day and Ihave an audio clip of one of his
interviews where he talks aboutit.
But what he says is is that,after all was said and done,
they got to the.
You know the event happened.
Um, they rushed to the hospital, he came up to sort of left the
trail.
That became the magic bullet.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
So let's listen to him, because this is fascinating
(30:33):
in the meantime, while this washappening, I happened to look
uh to the right, where miss?
Where mrs kenny was sitting andsitting in a pool of blood.
There I saw two bright brassbullet fragments.
I picked one of them up, lookedat it and it was kind of like
(30:53):
the end of my little pinky.
It was mushroomed and I put itback right exactly where I found
it.
By then Mrs Kennedy wasstanding up up and I was looking
around for other agents.
I didn't see anybody, but I sawan intact, fully bullet on the
(31:16):
back of the seat, where thecushioning meets the met the
trunk of the car, and I pickedit up and looked at it and it
was only thing I noticed thatwas wrong with it were bullet
striations.
There was no other deformities.
I started to put it back.
(31:36):
Mrs kennedy and clint wereleaving the car and I made a
quick decision I didn't seeanybody to secure the car.
People were emerging on the car.
I did not want this piece ofevidence to disappear and I
slipped it into my pocket.
(31:57):
As we raced through the lobby ofthe emergency room, we got to
trauma room one.
They had to pivot the journeythat the president's body was on
and push it into the traumaroom.
There was a crowd that kind ofjoined us doing this.
(32:20):
I was pushed right up next tothe president's body and
standing right next to his feet,most everybody in the room was
focused on the headroom.
I could not look, but I knew Iwould pass out if I saw it.
And all these things arewhirling through my mind on what
(32:43):
to do, things that are whirlingthrough my mind on what to do,
and I realized this was aperfect place to leave a bullet
with the president's body and itwould be found during the
autopsy and about that time.
So I reached out, I put thebullet on Gurney, right by his
(33:06):
feet, and about that time thedoctors were asking everybody to
leave.
Somebody came in and saidplease, please, let me through,
I'm a doctor and somebody elseanother doctor.
They asked everybody to leave.
Give them room to work.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
That's crazy.
So he says he found an intactbullet, which is weird to begin
with.
Yeah, I was just thinking aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Like just a bullet just sitting there that he's
saying looks to him like it hadbeen fired from a gun, but
according to him, no otherdeformities and it might have
hit something.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
And couldn't.
What could explain that istraveling through a body, like a
body, or, you know, like that'swhat I'm saying.
Well, that, wouldn't that slowthe bullet down enough to, I
don't know like yeah likebecause the skull is pretty hard
.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
This is the magic bullet, right this is it.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
And they claim that this bullet was found on the
stretcher of governor connelly.
I'm yes, and that's how itbecame the the magic bullet is
because it was found on hisstretcher, as they said, then
that's how they constructed thiswhole thing.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
But I mean, yes, the story sounds odd, but before he
said this no one really knewexactly how that bullet got
there, Right, right and thatpart kind of bewilders me that
an agent would be I.
To me it sounds sloppy to say,well, I just want to put it
(34:33):
somewhere, someone would find it.
Well, what are you talkingabout?
Just tell somebody that youhave it, and I would think it
doesn't make sense Like thatpart of it.
I just it was like that otherguy with the fingerprint.
Well, I just figured you'd findit.
What do you mean?
You'd figure I find it.
Yeah, what kind ofinvestigation is this?
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Yeah, I mean you would think that then
immediately that car would belocked down.
That car is evidence, a sceneof the crime, you know yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Hey, by the way, I found this bullet Right when,
right over here.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I would think it would need to be left, exactly
like you, you don't want to justlike.
How did it get exactly whereyou?
Speaker 2 (35:11):
found it right.
That's a question in of itself,like how did it end up there if
it had been fired?
But there are no otherdeformities and but it where,
where, I'm sorry, where he sayshe found it would have been the
bullet, would have to gonethrough everybody and then gone
back because he says he found itwith near the back seat in the
Right, which means it would havecome from the front.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yes, it would have come from the front, would have
traveled potentially throughsomebody and not gotten deformed
because it can cut through aperson without but slowing it
down enough.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
If it was a bullet that went through someone, it's
evidence of more than one bulletwhen the shooter was coming
from, because there's no way itcould have come from the back
and then ended up going throughpeople then ended up behind them
.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
It's not a boomerang bullet, yeah it was it's a super
magic bullet.
Yeah, I mean, that's the thingright is is that that just came
out fairly recently and now ontop, laid on top of the fact
that that commission onassassinations, the house
committee, had had determined,okay, something, something's
fishy here.
And now he comes out and yearslater, and I guess they asked
him, you know like, why did you,you know, never say anything.
(36:14):
He's like I just didn't want todisrupt the, you know, the
official story wasn't my placeto disrupt the official story
but the official story was.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Nobody knew where it came from I know, know it's
weird.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
I mean, according to him, he didn't.
After that day he says that hedidn't, he didn't read about it,
he didn't follow it.
He, after that day and afterwhatever questioning, you know,
whatever, he, he just put it out, tried to put it out of his
head and he was having, you know, pretty traumatic because he
saw a lot of things happen andthen he just never really looked
(36:46):
into anything about it and itwasn't until many, many, many
years later where he actuallylearned oh wait, that bullet
that I put on the stretcher,they've created this whole idea
around and he came out with abook.
You know, immediately you haveto just have to always say you
know, okay, this guy comes outwith a book and, as I said
(37:09):
earlier in the episode, there'sbeen hundreds of books on the
JFK assassination.
So how are you going to makeyours stand?
Speaker 2 (37:15):
out.
You got to sell it baby.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
And now all of a sudden you have this crucial
piece of evidence which changesthe thing.
But it also fits the facts ofthe weirdness of the bullet.
But I never believe that magicbullet thing.
I mean, first of all it has theword magic in the theory, like
I don't think the officialwarren commission report has
magic bullet.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
Although it's really not called the warren commission
, they called it that because ofthe um, the guy that so where's
magic?
Speaker 1 (37:41):
so all right, but I don't think they call it.
I don't ever call it the magicbullet.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
I don't think that would be cool.
Yeah, the magic bullet.
I think, that's the lore ofwhat it's called because it kind
of is.
You know, I don't think thatit's called that.
No.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Okay, well, that makes me feel a little bit
better.
That only takes the layer ofbullshit down one level.
We're not going to use the wordmagic, that'd be ridiculous.
Yeah, but you're saying thebullet stopped in midair and
turned, yeah, but we're notgoing to say it's magic, that
would be crazy.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
Right, there's a whole thing about that Kennedy
was seated somewhat higher thanConnolly and that accounts was.
But you know what?
The trajectory doesn't work andone bullet can't just go
through all those things to befound pristine, right, because
it went through bones.
Right Went through someone'sskull Right.
Speaker 1 (38:33):
And that's the thing is that bullet that was found
pristine would match with goingthrough a body and being slowed
down by organs and internalthings.
But if it impacted with a bone,it one may have stopped there
and two, if it had come out theother end it would have
definitely been deformed.
So the bullet like that, Iwould think again.
I'm not an expert on bullets,but I would think that if it
were fired and it were in goodcondition pristine condition
(38:55):
besides being fired, it meansthat it would have traveled to
something soft enough to slow itdown.
So it ended up where it endedup, but not otherwise damaged.
But, like you know, his headexploded.
If that bullet exploded hishead, it would have been damaged
because your skull is prettyhard.
So like that's the thing is.
(39:17):
It's so funny how that storycame up and it was out for a
little bit and then, like mostthings, it just sort of goes
away.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
You know, when I look at this investigation, I don't
want anyone to think that Ithink that our government is out
to get us, because I just Idon't believe that, right.
I don't believe that, right.
I believe there are pocketswithin our government because
it's so huge that have their owninterests, and sometimes those
(39:52):
interests don't align with thepublic's interests, of course,
because just by this small thingI mean, we've been talking what
?
A little over an hour and ahalf now, and we could probably
talk for another five and a halfhours and still scratch the
surface of this whole thing butthe small amount we've been
talking about, you can see, oh,why are there so many
(40:14):
discrepancies?
But the discrepancies are foundbecause other government
employees are finding them, ofcourse, right.
So it's not this conspiracythat everyone's involved in,
right, but I do think there arepeople that are involved in.
Some of them might have beenconnected with the government.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
Yeah, I mean the whole idea of a quote unquote
government conspiracy to me is astraw man, because no
organization first of all theUnited States government is the
biggest organization like on theplanet, but no organization, no
matter its size, ever operatesas one Like.
I'm sure everyone listening hasbeen in organizations, whether
(40:55):
it's PTA or part of a company orwhatever it is.
Think of any organizationyou've ever belonged to.
Was everyone in cohesive?
No, there was always thisfaction over here and this
faction over here.
Somehow it all works, but likethat idea has never been.
I always feel like that idea oflike.
Well, you're saying it's agovernment conspiracy, therefore
(41:18):
you're saying the entiregovernment conspired and that's
ridiculous.
So your, your theory is wrongand I don't.
My answer that would no.
No one ever said it was theentire government.
What we're saying is is thatall you need to have is a couple
people in a couple of positions, like with most big
organizations.
You don't need to control thewhole thing.
All you need to do is have acouple of choke points.
(41:41):
And the thing about conspiracytheories which has always
bothered me in general is youdon't have to police them.
We do such a good job ofpolicing ourselves.
It bothers me how strong of aword or phrase conspiracy
(42:02):
theorist is.
Like.
If you bring that up, if you'recalled that, uh, people you
know recoil like, oh my god,don't call me a conspiracy
theorist, you know if.
If you say I say it was pride,though, right I actually I think
the better term would beconspiracy realist, because
conspiracy, like we said in thelast episode, conspiracies
happen all the time.
All the time there are factionsconspiring for very sometimes
(42:26):
they're caught, sometimesthey're not.
Well, it's an actual crime.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
It's a thing people get convicted of Right.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
And so, like conspiracy theory, it has, like
this idea of oh you have atheory that it's a conspiracy,
you must be crazy, right, andbut nothing about the word
conspiracy or the word abouttheory.
It's that we've put, or it'sbeen put in that for us, that
idea that it's such a powerfulthing, and we reject
conspiracies so often by saying,well, you're, don't be a
(42:54):
conspiracy theorist.
Not everything's a conspiracy,yeah, not everything is, but a
lot of things are.
Most things are, unless theywere done by one person.
The only things that can't beconspiracies are things that
were carried done by one person.
Right, the only things thatcan't be conspiracies are things
that were carried out by oneperson to one person alone if
more than one person wasinvolved, they needed to
conspire in which to do whateverthey did right, and it might
(43:15):
just be conspiring to bakedelicious cookies for the, for
the, you know, for the bake well, I think a conspiracy means
you're doing something wrong is.
Is it built into conspiracy?
I thought conspiracy was justcoordinated effort.
You know what?
Speaker 2 (43:27):
You might be right.
I always thought it meant forlike something, not a good gain.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
I mean, you know that is the, despite what the actual
definition is, words often takeon a meaning all of their own
and the meaning is just sort ofunderstood.
So I, I think, you're right.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
So well, this is in the oxford okay.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful
or harmful okay, yeah, so makingcookies unless they had
something that would not be aconspiracy, that would just be a
plan right unless they weregoing to conspire to put poison
in it or you know or?
Marijuana.
So raisins, which is the worstdefense out of those three?
(44:11):
You put a little poison in.
Ok, no harm, no foul andmarijuana I'm OK with that.
But if you're going to putraisins in it now, you're
ruining the cookie, I'm out.
Have you ever eaten like bitteninto a cookie that you thought
in your heart was chocolate chipand it turned out to be raisin?
Speaker 2 (44:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (44:26):
In that moment of realization.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
I actually get angry.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Oh, it is the worst thing ever, but anyway.
That being said, but it's justso funny that this is the
granddaddy of conspiracies.
And you're not supposed tobelieve in conspiracies, but
this is the granddaddy of themand it's pretty clear to anyone
who has a brain that, whateveryou think, the answer is, it's
(44:49):
not what they said, it was right.
So, and in order for that to betrue, in order for this, you
know, government commission tocome out and say we 100 think
this is what happened, andeveryone looks and goes that's,
there's no way.
That's what happened.
Implies that there would havehad to have been a conspiracy,
because one person didn't dothis.
(45:10):
It would have taken at leasttwo people, probably a lot more.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
And it was something unlawful and harmful.
It's clear.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
So it's a conspiracy that it happened.
But it's amazing how well wepolice ourselves against
conspiracies and like it's just,it's infuriating when you you
know, like I said, I'm going tostart using the new term
conspiracy realist Because, like, obviously something's fishy
here, and if something fishy ishere and nobody discovered, it
(45:41):
means that somebody had to havedone something to hide it up.
Hide it, you know, cover it up.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
Do you imagine if you were on a jury of a crime like
this and the evidence was wedon't have any real prints on
the gun.
Okay, what do you get?
Oh, it must be something thebullets actually know.
It looks like I might've had ahard time firing these, and some
of the marks on it couldn'thave happened the way that's
(46:08):
well, what do you get?
That's pretty much what we got,Right.
Speaker 1 (46:13):
Yeah, there's no way somebody would be convicted
beyond reasonable doubt.
Did he admit it?
Speaker 2 (46:18):
No, what do we?
Speaker 1 (46:20):
have and you know, and then you get into the whole
thing about the one guy whocould have answered a lot of
these questions dies immediately, you know, two days after, and
now it's by a guy wait a minuteand I guess you know I know it's
been talking a while, that'sokay, but a guy that runs
(46:43):
nightclubs in the area, rightOkay, he's not the best guy in
the world.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
They say he was kind of you know, kind of maybe not
organized crime, but organizedcrime adjacent?
Speaker 1 (46:54):
yes, if you're.
If you're running clubs yeah,if you're running nightclubs.
Uh, he was known in the 60s youprobably had something to do.
Speaker 2 (47:03):
yeah it, yeah, he knew the story goes.
He knew maybe 20, 25% of theguys that worked on the force.
Okay, Many of them were therethat day.
What do you know, right?
What the F is he doing there?
What's?
Speaker 1 (47:19):
happening any evidence that he that he had
such a strong affection forpresident john f kennedy that he
would have been moved bysomeone harming him to harm them
, like like.
Well, here's an interesting.
Is he a jfk?
Speaker 2 (47:36):
stan, I was like not, not that I could find okay,
there was a lot of people thatliked them, but you know, at
that time there were a lot ofpeople that didn't too right.
Speaker 1 (47:45):
It was not totally different than it is now well, I
imagine, if you, if you runnightclubs, you know I'm talking
about john f kennedy.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
Oh, of course there was a lot of people liked him, a
lot of people that didn't.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Well, that's true of any politics.
Obviously the other partydidn't like him right.
He could have been mothertheresa and the other party,
would you know, in politicswould go you're evil, he'll be
somebody, right?
Speaker 2 (48:07):
The story goes that you know, of course, ruby was
put in jail after what happened.
Right, oswald didn't die rightaway, okay, it took him a little
while to die.
Okay, the guy that he was inthe cell with, all right, he
says that Ruby was like likefrantic between the time it
(48:33):
happened until the time he foundout Oswald died.
He said as soon as Oswald died,ruby became calm and he said it
was weird that the guy that hadbeen arrested for shooting
Oswald calmed down after Oswalddied, because now your charges
(48:56):
are worse.
And at that's the point that hekind of became calm again that
he.
The story is that maybe hethought his job wasn't done and
that he was going to somethingwas going to happen to him
because he didn't actually dowhat he was supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Well, yeah, because what would happen is is that,
theoretically, if Oswaldsurvived long enough to start
talking Right, and then all of asudden it would be shady, and
then whoever came next to cleanup the mess would include Ruby.
Yeah, you're right, because upto that point, if he hadn't died
, then he would be charged withyou know whatever.
(49:32):
What would be the charge if youshot somebody that they didn't
die?
It could be Assault battery.
Speaker 2 (49:37):
dangerous weapon Aggravated you know?
Speaker 1 (49:38):
Yeah, exactly so.
But then once he dies, you'reon the hook for murder.
Yeah, why would you be relievedwhen the target of your like
you really wanted him dead?
You wanted him dead so muchthat, oh my God, it's just
bothering me that I failed.
Oh wait.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
It wasn't just bothering him, they said he
looked scared.
Speaker 1 (49:57):
Yeah, that's how long did Ruby?
I mean, did Ruby live out hislife?
I don't.
Speaker 2 (50:02):
He died of cancer.
Let's see.
Speaker 1 (50:06):
Or so we think Well, there's a whole thing with that.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
You could go down the-.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
You could go down the rabbit hole of Death date Just
because somebody died of- 1967,january 3rd 1967.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
He died in the same hospital where Oswald and
Kennedy died.
Imagine that.
Speaker 1 (50:26):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (50:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (50:28):
So here's my question , and I don't know if anyone
knows this.
So he died in 67, you said yes.
And all right.
And so four years after the sowhen I say nightclubs.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
He had strip joints.
I mean, I'm not trying to sayeveryone that's involved in a
nightclub has, you know, badmotives, because they do not,
and I'm not saying everyone thathas a strip joint is involved
in bad motives.
Speaker 1 (50:57):
But you know, as you start going down that road, you
would at least and especially inlike Dallas, like in a city,
kind of.
Speaker 2 (51:05):
Well, I mean, it's just the guy that runs a strip
joint isn't the Avenger of theworld Right.
Speaker 1 (51:10):
But what I'm wondering is and I don't know
this, but like so he, he passedaway about four years after the
events, right because 63, andthen he died in 67 yes, is it so
?
Speaker 2 (51:22):
it was a yeah about three years, but is it?
Speaker 1 (51:24):
conceivable that he could have known he had cancer?
Do you know?
I'm saying, like you know, it'sa big ask of somebody to say,
hey, we need you to, in fullview of everybody, shoot this
person and go to jail.
But he died of a pulmonaryembolism which, but years after
(51:48):
which again doesn't mean butwhat.
You know what I'm saying?
Like that's a big ask ofsomebody, but if somebody
already Well, he wasn'tdiagnosed until after oh, he
wasn't okay, all right but Iwhere you're going.
Speaker 2 (51:59):
But like you know what I'm saying, like how would
you convince somebody to do thatright?
Speaker 1 (52:02):
like how, like what, what could they have had over
him that would have made himagree to do that?
That's what I'm.
That's.
My question is like that's,that's a big ask, you know, and
obviously he lived out the restof his life in prison.
I mean he didn't liveincredibly long, but four more
(52:25):
years.
But I don't know, I mean it'sweird, I mean all of it's weird,
right, there's none of thisthat that makes sense when you
came at it.
It's just he.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
there's never really been a great reason why he was
even there Right and I, I couldfind have you.
I don't know if you ever looked.
Speaker 1 (52:50):
I looked a little bit .
I just I there wasn't muchabout.
You know it's funny that howquickly his stories kind of
moved.
You know you can spend all thetime, as we did with this.
You know, with this episode, intalking about the other parts
of that's fishy about theassassination.
Like there's so much that'sstrange about it that you're
(53:12):
often a million differentdirections and wormholes before
you get to the fact of the guywho killed, the guy who did it.
And isn't this where kind ofthe trope kind of comes of like
you hire somebody to assassinatesomebody and then you kill the
assassins.
Isn't that where this idea kindof came from?
Isn't that where this idea kindof came from Like that's a
common trope now in like moviesand television, the idea of of a
(53:34):
patsy and the idea of you getsomebody to do a thing and then
you kill them.
Speaker 2 (53:38):
Oh yeah, Like I clean up the loose ends but, departed
that, that you ever see thatmovie, the departed I think so.
Speaker 1 (53:44):
Yeah, like the movie ended with like every loose end
getting which, but isn't this?
That's kind of where that ideacame from.
I don't know if this idea, thatidea, really existed pre this.
Speaker 2 (53:54):
Well, I mean, you know, I mean, when you have more
than one person committed acrime, it's it's a lot easier to
get away with it If you can getrid of that other person.
Speaker 1 (54:02):
Oh yeah, I think it was at, wasn't it Benjamin
Franklin that said that the theway that three, three men, as if
two of them are dead.
Yeah, and that's kind of yeah.
So maybe that idea existedbefore that, but it's just yeah,
this is the granddaddy of allconspiracies and there's talk
that this conspiracy isconnected with others, like
(54:23):
there's Like what?
There's some talk that he waslooking to, you know, to really
clamp down on the CIA.
Well, I think it's.
You know, I think it's more thanjust talk Pretty solid that he
was doing that.
Speaker 2 (54:36):
But it was also he didn't like the autonomy that
they had.
Speaker 1 (54:38):
No, because they'd been caught doing some shady
stuff frequently and he was butthere was also some talk that,
like with Marilyn Monroe andlike there's a whole connection
there, right, because that's thething is like the time when
this was going on is around thesame time.
(54:59):
We had, you know, the UFO thingand you had Marilyn Monroe pass
it, you know.
So it's like all there's allthese conspiracies and Kennedy
seems to be the nexus of them,which is funny.
I don't know, it's fascinating,man, I it's.
It's one of those things youknow.
When you ask people if youcould go back and see like any
(55:21):
event and and witness it and seewhat really happened, this is a
big one, like you know.
People will often say you know,I'd like to see the building of
the pyramids, that's kind ofmine, but, like you know, what
events would you love to see asa bystander?
And a lot of people say this isthe one because it's like, oh,
you could.
Speaker 2 (55:39):
Have you seen that?
It's old now, With James Francothere was a TV show.
It was on Hulu.
Speaker 1 (55:48):
About him going back and stopping it.
Speaker 2 (55:50):
Yeah, yeah yeah, it was an interesting show yeah.
But I think that if I was goingto say I could be somewhere, if
I was to be there, I would tryto do something to try to stop
the event.
I don't think I'd want towitness this.
Speaker 1 (56:05):
Unless you were of the mind that changing it would
be bad.
I mean, I don't know how you'dmake that determination, but,
like you know, history unrolleda certain way.
Speaker 2 (56:20):
It kind of seemed like society was pushing towards
more progressive change at thattime.
Speaker 1 (56:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (56:28):
Right, and then there was a Martin Luther King, John
F Kennedy, and then things kindof just went to like not too
long, with the culmination ofthe capitalism of the eighties.
Speaker 1 (56:39):
But, yeah, I almost wonder if it's, if it's like
yeah, like the, the, the embersof that fire that we're going to
burn to to.
You know, they were like how dowe squash this?
And a couple, a couple of, keydeaths here and there Next thing
, you know, all right, we got itback under control.
Speaker 2 (56:55):
Because it just seemed like.
It seemed like again, I wasn'talive then, but it just seems
like when you look back it'slike there was more of a younger
person's progressive ideas werebecoming like mainstream kind
of.
But yeah, like mainstream kindof.
Speaker 1 (57:12):
But yeah, Now, I mean I would like to see a world
where you know what would haveunfolded if that, if he hadn't.
You know if it hadn't happenedor he had somehow, you know, a
la Reagan made it through thatattempt, yeah, and so there we
have like another one, to kindof compare it with right, Like
(57:32):
an attempt on Ronald Reagan, Onedude who, like you, found the
motive, you found, like it alladded up, it was weird, he was
trying to impress Jodie Foster,Right, which is such a weird
thing I mean yeah.
It's such a weird thing, but Imean, we've all been there.
We've all been there.
You know, you want to impressan actress, and so you decide
(57:54):
you shoot a present, yeah I mean, how could she not fall in love
with him after that?
But it's just so weird thatthat that one kind of makes
sense in a weird way.
As weird as that is, it kind oflike, well, that one at least
lines up, whereas this onedoesn't line up at all?
Speaker 2 (58:12):
No At all.
Well, there were no questionswhether or not that guy fired
the gun.
We knew, you know, they grabbedhim Right.
Speaker 1 (58:17):
He was right there on film.
I actually I know it's offtopic, but I was the TV was on
in the other room and I wasyoung, but I saw the aftermath
of that, which was very weird.
I was at a friend's house andwe were playing with matchbox
cars and in the other room, um,her mother was watching, uh, you
(58:41):
know, whatever the news orwhatever, whatever they were
showing, and and that allunfolded like, and I was right
there, it was, it wasinteresting, that was weird
times, but I don't know.
This has been fascinating.
There's so much to this topic.
I feel like at some point downthe road we should circle back
and revisit this.
Speaker 2 (58:58):
I'd like that.
Speaker 1 (59:00):
Because there's more here, but I don't think that's
as good a place as any, though,to wrap things.
Any final thoughts on this, anyfinal pieces of?
Speaker 2 (59:08):
I have nothing extra that I can really wrap up,
except that I would ask anyeveryone that's listening just
consider that.
It's just this, the, theevidence we've talked about,
which there's so much more right, just the evidence we're
talking about.
Would you convict somebodybased on this?
Listen, there was way moreevidence against OJ Simpson,
(59:32):
right, right, way more Simpson.
Speaker 1 (59:36):
Right, right, way more, yeah, right.
Yeah, that's so weird.
Yeah, I've yet to meet a personwho, if I mention the JFK, that
they just agree with theofficial word and know more than
that.
It's all that, like you said,that conspiratorial, like well,
we know something happened.
Speaker 3 (59:53):
We all know something happened.
Oh, it's all that, like yousaid, that conspiratorial, like.
Well, we know somethinghappened we all know something
happened.
Speaker 2 (59:55):
Oh well, right right.
Speaker 1 (59:57):
Implications are big.
If this in fact, was some sortof conspiracy man, the
implications are huge.
Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
And you know I'll leave it with this, when Donald
Trump was asked by.
There's a guy he's on Fox,judge Napolitano or whatever his
name is.
Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
Oh, napolitano, yeah, I remember him yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
He says that he asked Donald Trump why didn't you
release all the documentsregarding JFK.
He said that Donald Trump toldhim, if you saw what I saw, you
wouldn't have released themeither.
Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
Yeah, well, that's the that's, you know that's's.
We'll wrap it up on that partalone.
But that's the weirdest thing,is you know the weirdest?
But one of the weird things isthat the papers, all the
documents, now 70 years later,still have not been released
right, even though they were allslated to have been released
yeah, and every slated butordered and every president both
(01:00:52):
sides.
They kick that can down the roadalways kicked that can down the
road, has always kicked the candown the road and said, nope,
now's not the time, now's notthe time and what.
I can't think of.
Anything else other than anelement of our intelligence
agency had something to do withit.
Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Which is why you would not want to release that,
because confidence would bedemolished, like that's.
Like there's no other reason,because any individual person
who is involved in that is longdead right.
So there's no individuals youwould ever be protecting.
The only thing you'd beprotecting is the reputation or
(01:01:30):
stability of a, of aninstitution.
Right, and what institutionscould have done it?
Uh, would want to do it andcould have covered it up, and
our intelligence agencies arelike the top of that list.
There's not really anyonebesides that.
So, uh, fascinating stuff,awesome.
Well, that's been a greatdiscussion.
I think we'll leave that hereand uh, yeah, and until next
(01:01:52):
time.
I'm Chris and I'm Steve andthis has been some deep shit.
We'll be you next time.
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some
deep shit.
It's odd, too, that there wereno fingerprints anywhere else on
(00:34):
the gun, because presumably atsome point he would have had to
load the gun or he had topractice with it, practice with
it, and it's conceivable, yetnot logical, that he would have
worn gloves for every step ofthis endeavor, except the firing
of the weapon at the end.
Can you imagine that if he woregloves to practice with it and
(00:56):
wore gloves to load it, sothere's no fingerprints anywhere
but then, when it came time toactually do the deed, he took
those gloves off and said, well,I could just fire this thing,
and then, like you said, he heldit by the barrel.
That's such an odd way to holda weapon.
You wouldn't hold it by thebarrel.
Like that's weird, it wouldhurt.
(01:17):
Yeah, it's that.
You know there's so much here.
And that's when we say there'sa lot of inconsistencies.
Right, it sounds likeexaggerated, like, okay, well,
you just got a couple there.
It's like we haven't evenscratched the surface.
This is just like the firstcouple of things right.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
I mean you could do a deep dive into even who leave.
Javi oswald was because there'sa lot of issues with yeah
regarding him leaving thecountry, coming back to the
country.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
What connections, if any, to Russia?
Who is he connected?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
to?
You're right.
Why was he in New Orleans Allthis stuff?
Right, that you say you know Ialways fall back on.
I'm a believer in law.
They call it an excitedutterance.
Right, that'd be a good namefor a band.
Would it you like that Excitedutterance?
Excited utterance, so what itreally kind of means is in the
(02:11):
heat of the moment or right atthe beginning of an event,
something like that.
I guess maybe I'm notdescribing it good enough is
people are generally mosttruthful right Right people are
generally most truthful right.
So, like, right after somethinghappens, somebody blurts
something out.
Well, they're doing it.
They probably haven't been ableto formulate an idea of lying
(02:32):
yet, right, so that usuallythose types of things are given
weight.
I should say in evidence,because we can kind of, maybe
kind of already know there'ssome credibility to what you
said, because it happened justas soon as you you know.
You yelled it out.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Right, in the spur of the moment, it's very few
people would be able toconstruct a lie, articulate a
lie and get it out in like theheat of the moment, right, you
know?
So, yeah, it's kind of likethat I've seen in various places
, where you play a game, weanswer questions fast and you
get on a fast roll and then youask that question.
That's the one you want to getto, because you got them on the
(03:09):
roll of answering questionsquickly and so they just blurt
out the answer and that's howyou get to the truth and that
makes total sense, right, right,that's yeah right, that does
make total sense and so it's notexactly an excited utterance
what Oswald did, but from theminute he got caught right, he
got grabbed.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I don't even want to call it.
He was yelling out I'm just apatsy, I'm just a patsy right.
And it's an odd thing to say asyour defense of something Like
he immediately went, becausesaying that means it is a
conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
It means that he realizes in the heat of the
moment that he was set upBecause, in the heat of the
moment you would think what youwould utter is I didn't do it.
I had nothing to do with this.
I wasn't involved.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
He did say both Right .
But it's just odd to just gostraight to I'm part of a
conspiracy or they're setting meup, right, however you want to
say, but that's exactly where hewent, immediately Right, right,
it's just.
You don't usually hear thatwhen someone's grabbed for doing
a crime, oh, there's a big guy,there was someone else.
(04:20):
You don't usually hear thatstuff.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
And also you know the fact that he didn't live to
undergo how much questioning didhe undergo?
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Okay, so the whole night, right.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
And there are no notes of that and there's no
recordings.
There's no notes.
They said they questioned him.
They said they questioned him,but there are no notes and no
recordings.
Yes, that doesn't sound likereal.
There's nothing Like why wouldyou do that?
So that night they questionedhim, yeah, and then, like the
next day, nothing happened,because he died two days later.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Yeah, so where was he just held at that police
station for another day?
That like nothing happened?
Let's see it's odd, I mean thepart about they questioned him
that night and no recordings andno notes.
No, there's nothing I couldunderstand.
No recording although Icouldn't in a situation where a
(05:20):
person is accused of killing thepresident of the United States,
that they would like every wordout of his mouth would have
been, like, recorded and notedand, you know, registered and
said okay, we got to be clear onthis on every step of the way.
(05:41):
You would think that that wouldbe the case, but apparently not
.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Some people took notes kind of after the fact but
there are no official reportsand notes and evidence from the
police that were done right andall the police that did question
him.
He did nothing but just denythat he knew anything about this
(06:07):
Right.
He never said anything exceptthat I didn't do it and I've
been set up.
That's what he said.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Right.
And I mean I guess, like wesaid earlier, if you didn't do
do it, of course you're gonnadeny it, and if you did do it,
you're probably gonna deny itright.
So the fact that he denied itisn't unusual in and of itself,
but the fact that, well, onethat he brought up the patsy
thing, so like right away, likealmost realizing that you, like
(06:44):
you, were put in a situationwhere they could point at you
and say, oh, you did it, torealize that, yeah, because he
wasn't like you said, he had aweird past too, he had some
involvement with some things.
So, like the idea ofstrangeness, it wasn't like he
(07:04):
was, just, you know, lee HarveyOswald, this guy who worked at a
book depository and before thathe had, just, you know, been a
regular guy and nothing weirdabout him.
I mean, his past had all sortsof inconsistencies.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Yeah, he kind of defected to Russia in the 50s,
but then came back.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Right.
And then, of course, you know,to touch on this a little bit
the footage of the event itself,the Zabruta film.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
And I've always found that to be a fascinating thing,
because it's very difficult tojust get to watch it.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
It shouldn't be.
You should just be able towatch it whenever you want.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
My understanding is that Life magazine ended up with
the rights.
They bought the rights fromZabruta and nobody saw it for
years and right, and then theysort of kept it.
And now when you see it, yousee selected clips.
You don't ever see the wholething.
You know, and I hesitate tobring this up only because it's
so.
It's so off the mark.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
No, but I love it.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I know what you're going to talk about, I still
haven't seen.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
I still haven't seen this show.
Okay, what's the show again?
Speaker 1 (08:03):
It's called the Octopus Murder.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
I always want to say it's like the 007, but I know
it's not that?
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Yeah, it's on Netflix .
It's about a.
I know they said it a littledifferently A journalist, danny
Casolaro, who was investigatingthis story that was just
branching off into all thesetentacles.
That's why they called it kindof the Octopus Murder, because
(08:30):
it was basically tying into theKennedy assassination and coups
and CIA.
And at one point during thisdocumentary, a woman who's a
reporter mentions, in dealingwith one of the people that
Danny Casolaro was dealing withbefore he died, that this other
gentleman showed her a footageof the spruder film.
That was odd.
(08:51):
So let me go back a little bit,because in the in the early 90s
, when I was looking into ufos,I came across there was this
tape from a guy named john lear,whose father had invented the
learjet, who designed thelearjet, and so john lear had
gotten into ufos and he was anodd character because he would
make all sorts of of wild claims, some some that turned out to
(09:13):
be true and some that were justlike so wildly crazy that you
roll your eyes.
And one of the things that hesaid I was listening to a tape
where he was doing a talk and Iwish, I wish I still had this,
because he talked about how jfkwas not killed by a bullet but
the jfk was killed by get readyfor this, yeah, the driver of
(09:36):
the car who turned around andshot him while all this was
going on.
It was like the backup plan tomake sure that that that that
that the president, you know,did not leave dallas, right,
that he shot him with not a gun,but with, like this specially
designed gun that was supposedto uh, inject shellfish poison
(09:58):
into the president to make surethat he died shellfish poison
it's like this.
I know what a shellfish is yeah,there's some sort of poison
that you can get from a.
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Oh, there is.
Yeah.
Well, they're also allergic tocertain things, so maybe it's
just like no, it was some poison, so like.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
that sounded so outlandish at the time.
I remember like listening to it.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
It does sound something crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
And then go like, oh man, probably all the stuff this
guy's saying about UFOs iskooky too.
I've never even heard anythinglike that, so I forgot about
this.
And then all of a sudden I'mwatching the Octopus Murders and
that documentary and this womantalks about that contact,
showing her the Zabruta film andshowing her she's like in the
film that I saw you couldclearly see the driver turn
(10:43):
around and shoot somethingdirectly at kennedy.
And then the question came upas well, why that's not in the
film?
And she said, yes, but it gotedited, because he showed me the
part you always see, andsupposedly there's a tree in the
background that's lifted offthe ground, as if there's
(11:04):
somebody was splicing thefootage together to to oh, okay,
all right and because of that,the sideline was that that this
tree was off, off shot from oh,because they're saying something
was cut.
They had to move the film to tohide the fact.
And I just that was the secondtime I'd heard that about the,
the shellfish poison, and thesecond time well I'm saying
(11:25):
about the shellfish poisonSecond time.
Well, I'm saying like the firsttime was in that tape oh okay,
and I'm just like that's such aweird detail.
It is very strange.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
And so I'm like okay, how does?
How would the governor therethat was, wasn't he in the front
seat, Connolly?
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Was he in the front seat?
Yeah, and it well.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Well, just to wrap up this part of it, so was that
after a shot was fired andpeople were distracted.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
It was right Almost like the first shot and
everything, the pandemonium.
Then all of a sudden the driverturns around to make sure that
it was done.
Now one could say, all right,well, that's, I mean, that's
easily proven, right?
You just, you just check them,you know if there's no shellfish
poison in the body, well, well,well, it turns out that the
(12:08):
brain actually went missing,jfk's brain, which was taken out
during the autopsy and putaside for further study and then
it went missing.
So to this day nobody knows whathappened to jfk's brain.
That's weird.
Yeah, I mean, it doesn't provethe shellfish, no, but I mean.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
I've.
I've misplaced some papers.
Sometimes I thought I put it inmy bag, you know?
Uh, you know, we misplacethings.
I'm looking at a stapler rightnow.
I've misplaced things, right,Everybody does.
I don't think I'd misplace abrain, Right?
I don't think I'd misplace thebrain of a president who had
(12:51):
been.
And then a president that hadbeen murdered Right or
assassinated Assassinations aremurder right and the shots went
into his head, right, I mean.
Speaker 1 (13:04):
That's the thing about this is is like the shots
that into his head right, I mean, that's that's the thing about
this is is like the, the shotsthat were taken, like this
question of whether or not theycould have hit at that target,
and you know the fact that his,his brain went missing.
So, like I added, on its facethat story sounds so outlandish,
(13:25):
so completely crazy.
But then you say, okay, well,now they're saying, like, again,
this woman is saying that shesaw the footage that showed it
clearly and that he showed herthat and then showed her this is
the version you see, orsomething was it that she said
show him I cannot remember hisname during this, uh, during
this documentary, this dannycasolaro, was dealing with a lot
(13:47):
of sketchy people in theintelligence world and he had
one contact that he was dealingwith a lot and this guy and it
was.
It was funny because it was asimilar thing that I've heard
about john lear is that this guyspouted lots of stuff.
Some of it seemed to be trueand some of it seemed to be just
crazy, and it was a verysimilar thing.
(14:10):
I don't know.
I just I always thought thatwas fascinating because I have
to watch that show.
It's a documentary show, yeah,it's documentary on Netflix.
It's called something somethingcan make me something
conspiracy, but the subtitle isAmerican, yeah, and then the
subtitle is the octopus murdersand it's I think I started.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
It seemed kind of compelling, it is fascinating,
but I need to finish.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
So one would say, okay, that's, that's crazy.
Who would even think that youwould try to kill somebody by
injecting them with poison?
Then you find out that, youknow, the cia at a certain time
had a, had a plan I don't knowif it was ever put into into
into operation where they weregoing to, like, put poison on
the tips of umbrellas, so yes,and so they could poison, like
(14:54):
russian diplomats or somethingto do with cuba, you know.
So like I'm just saying that,like our intelligence agencies
had a track record of of usingpoison in a weird way to like,
uh, to kill people, and so, likethe idea of you know, and
that's something I've neverlooked into, who was the driver?
(15:15):
Like I don't think I everreally looked.
It'd be interesting to lookinto, like who was the driver?
Who, who is he?
Who's the driver listed as?
What was their recollection ofthe day and whatever became of
them, because sometimes it'sinteresting finding out what
happened to people after thefact.
The other question I had, whichI don't know if you His name's?
Speaker 2 (15:37):
William Greer.
Okay, william.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Greer.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
He was a Secret Service agent.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
And he passed away February of 1985.
So he lived quite a while,service agent Okay, and he
passed away February of 1985.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
So he lived quite a while after that.
Yeah, I mean, it's a long wayto say that this.
You know if you're accusing thedriver of the vehicle, but
that's the other thing too.
Right is could you imagine aworld where, even while all this
is going on, that the driverturns around and does this and
nobody says that, like there'snot a single witness who said
(16:11):
although, actually this,somebody said the driver did
something this is interesting,yeah, because it says that, um,
I mean it gives a little bit ofa uh, opens the door a little
bit to what you had just saidabout that show.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
What's it called American Conspiracies?
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Yeah, the.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
Octopus Murders.
It says Secret Serviceprocedures in place at the time
did not allow Greer to takeaction without orders from
Senior Agent Roy Kellerman, whosat to Greer's right.
So he was in between Greer andConnolly.
Okay, kellerman has stated thathe shouted let's get out of
(16:46):
line, we've been hit, but thatGreer apparently turned to look
at Kennedy before acceleratingthe car.
So it's kind of funny.
So somebody does say he didturn to look at Kennedy.
I'm not saying anyone says heshot him Right, but that's what
this says.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
And presumably I don't remember if these details
were ever.
I don't know, but like itwouldn't necessarily have to be
a gun that looks like a gun tooright, it could just be like a
tube that you hold in your hand.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
You push it.
Yeah, who knows?
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
I mean, if the idea of it was to shoot a dart with
poison, it doesn't need to looklike a gun.
So if he came to look andanything with his hands, I don't
know, that's a weird one, notto jump around, but let's go
back just for one second becauseI always want to talk about.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
You know, we have the issue of the prints on the gun.
From what we're talking about,there's not just small questions
, there's huge questions whetheror not Oswald was holding that
gun.
On the sixth floor.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Yeah, I mean in a murder trial, right the murder
weapon and proving that themurder weapon was possessed by
the accused.
I mean that's one of the mostimportant pieces.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
So was it possessed by him?
First of all, was he there, andmaybe he was, but there are
questions as to whether or nothe was even there.
On the sixth floor, they knowhe was in the building because
he worked there, right?
There's some testimony, there'ssome evidence that he wasn't on
the second floor minutes before, right?
So was he holding the gun?
Speaker 1 (18:22):
Sure, because the evidence doesn't seem to
indicate for sure that he washow would he have carried said
gun and not got his prints onany part of it?
Well, they said.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
some people said he put it in like this tube kind of
thing, and some people thoughthe had, like you know, curtain
rods, so something like that.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Right, but I mean, if you have a gun in that you'd
have to take it out.
And in taking the gun out andputting it into, whatever you
use to carry it.
I mean, that's when you put thegloves on right, like why would
you put gloves and then sayokay, now for the actual firing,
the weapon.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
I practiced with gloves for the real thing.
I'm going to change everythingup and take them off.
It just makes no sense right itdoes so, um, but so was was
where the prints on the on thegun, I don't know.
Was he on the sixth floor?
I don't know how's this?
Were the bullets even firedthat they?
(19:18):
First of all, they found fourbullets, and this is let's just
talk about this for one second,because I find it interesting
the gun that he had the carcanoright.
It could hold seven, um,bullets, seven shells, whatever
you want to call it.
Right, it had four.
First of all, why, what for?
Why would you go to assassinatea president and not just fill
(19:45):
up the whole Right?
Speaker 1 (19:46):
why would you stop at ?
Speaker 2 (19:47):
four, why would you just put all seven in?
Right, and it gets even weirder.
That is weird.
It gets even weirder.
No one ever found any morebullets at Oswald's house.
So you don't just go buy fourbullets, you gotta buy a package
of them.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
You're that sure of your skill.
You're like can I have?
Speaker 2 (20:07):
single bullets.
Four is going to do it.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
I'm only going to need four.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
You know, I might not even fire four.
I'm thinking of maybe onlyfiring two or three, but four is
the maximum.
Well, you're going to holdseven.
I don't need those extra three.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
That's that's I smoke cigarette and I don't smoke
cigarettes, but I used to.
You know, I never bought fourcigarettes, you just bought a
pack of them.
Yeah Well, you can't buy fourcigarettes Well sometimes at the
stores you can buy the littleloosies.
I don't know if you're likeyou've never smoked right?
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Oh I did.
I smoked for years.
Oh you did, oh I did.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
I just gave no.
I don't know that that is weird, but anyway, no, who does?
But okay, so nobody would buyfour bullets.
First of all, where would youbuy them Right?
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Just singly bullets that you could just buy Right,
and if they found like the boxof bullets at his house yes,
with four missing, then likeokay it still doesn't answer why
he didn't just load no but,completely, but at least you
know.
But the fact that they neverfound any bullets, that is at
his residence means that, likeyou're right.
(21:19):
Why?
Why would somebody do that?
The?
The thing I was reading aboutthe um the zabruta film too is,
they said, uh and this was whenI was doing some of the research
one of the widely discussedclaims that the film was edited
to hide evidence of the secondshooter.
Some researchers have suggestedthat frames of the film showing
the fatal shot to presidentkennedy's head was were removed
(21:40):
or altered to obscure the trueorigin of the shot.
This claim is often linked tothe back and to the left
movement.
Remember that from over andover again.
Back and to the left Movement ofPresident Kennedy's head in the
Sabruta film, which some argueis indicative of a shot from the
front, not the rear, whereOswald was positioned right.
(22:01):
So the way his head snaps atone point would do that if the
guy in front of you turnedaround and fired something into
your.
Yes, you know, like I, mean hishead exploded.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Right right, it's just so.
Regarding the bullets, too more, more bullets no, no, there's
more stuff more bullets stuff.
Okay, uh, now I'm, I'm givingyou information from the warren
report, right?
Okay, this is from the warrenreport.
It exhibits three emptycartridge shells.
(22:42):
Exhibits Exhibits 543, 544, 545.
543 had a dented shell.
Okay, ballistic expert HowardDonahue said that that 543 could
not have been fired, could nothave been used to fire a bullet.
You know they got the shell.
(23:03):
However you want to phrase it,I'm not a gun expert that day
because the dent in the shellwould have prevented the weapon
from firing properly.
Okay, that's what he says.
All right, there's anotherexpert that says oh, that dent
came from after it came out ofthe.
So that other expert whotestified in front of that house
(23:27):
thing they did in 1976, he saidhe doesn't dispute that if it
was in that condition prior tobeing fired, that it wouldn't
fire.
So he agrees.
But he says, oh, but the denthappened after it got shot out
of the gun and hit the ground.
Okay, there's a lot of otherexperts that side with the first
(23:48):
guy.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Right, because you'd have to believe that the shell
was fine when it came out.
And when it hit the ground, ithit the ground with such force
that it dented it.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I don't know.
I mean, I know it Again, I'mnot a gun expert but, and I
guess it ejects- the shell,you'd have to have a lot of
weight to that when it hits theground.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
But wait, you mentioned that that committee,
the, the house select committeeon assassination, which was
established in 1976, um reportedthat it had audio evidence of a
fourth shot being fired atKennedy's vehicle, which had
claimed prove that there was asecond gunman Like the.
It's so funny that the, the um,it's so funny that the Wait,
here's something interesting.
They determined that there wasprobably a what, that the fact
(24:30):
that that commission onassassinations kind of
determined that now there's noway that that this could happen,
that this could happen this way.
Yeah, it's just so funny thatyou don't hear much about that
second thing.
It's like the first.
The first determination is allyou hear about.
Right now they have the secondthing comes out.
(24:51):
That's not quite right and andwe yeah, and we just move on
with it.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
the two other bullets right um the five exhibit 544
had markings revealing it hadbeen ejected by the Carcano.
In evidence so ejected, but nomarkings of a firing pin.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
So it was ejected from the weapon, but there's no
evidence that it was fired.
Speaker 2 (25:16):
Interesting.
Okay, 545 has no markings of afiring pin either, both the
dented one and then the last one, 543 and 545.
So those three bullets hadmarkings made by the magazine
follower, which I guess issomething in the magazine that
clips in right, which would haveonly made the mark if the
(25:38):
bullet was the last bullet inthe in the magazine okay, okay,
according to these experts.
But neither one of thosebullets could have been the last
one in the magazine, becausethe police found a live round in
the rifle, so-.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
That would have been the last one.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
There was no fingerprints found on the shell
casings Right.
That's the weirdest part.
How do you load a gun ammo clipall the live round, yeah so how
do you do that?
Speaker 1 (26:12):
how do you load?
You were careful and you woregloves throughout the entire,
all your time handling theweapon, loading the weapon,
practicing with the weapon,whatever with the weapon.
You wore gloves and thendecided on the day of the event
not to wear gloves and stillonly managed to get prints on
(26:33):
two very specific places rightonly on that on the barrel,
which doesn't make any sense,and on the trigger, which again
that makes sense.
But that's hardly conclusive,because I have a feeling that
the fraction of a fingerprintthat could be taken from the
trigger of a gun couldpotentially be matched up with
lots of fingerprints, because ifit's only a partial, then you
(26:56):
can always you know, oh it wasthis part of the finger, oh it
was this part of the finger Likeline it up.
So, yeah, it's so funny thatit's one of the clearest cases
that there's more to the storythan the official story.
Maybe all these crazyconspiracies about drivers doing
it, or Russians or Cubans, orCastro or the CIA I mean there's
(27:22):
a million different ways thatit could have happened.
Maybe they're all incorrect,but clearly incorrect is the
idea that one guy did this onhis own and was both incredibly
competent and incrediblyincompetent at the same time.
(27:46):
You know what I'm saying.
Like he's competent enough toto be very careful to not put
his fingerprints on the weaponat all, except at the very end,
where he does it in a couple ofweird places.
You know he does this thing andthen he wanders out of the
building Right.
Wouldn't you think that, likeif you really wanted to make it
seem like you didn't do it,you'd do it and then go back to
(28:09):
work?
You know like, just like.
You know like keep a lowprofile, but instead he like
leaves.
And then there's the questionof how they found him.
You know they seem to havepicked him up quickly, but like,
how?
did you it's just very quickwith that description quickly.
That like how did you.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
It's just very quick with that description with a
very, very vague first of all,we're in Dallas, texas.
We're looking for a white man.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
We're not going to find those around yeah and in
his 30s and yeah of averageweight average weight right,
right, the only thing that wouldhave made it more like cookie
cutters.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
And there's a question because there was a
police officer that was shotsoon after Right.
And there's a question if hewas even involved in that.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
You know it's funny.
The only thing that would havemade that description more
generic is if they said he alsohad a 10 gallon hat on, it would
be like, okay, well, that'slike surrounded by people with
10 gallon hats.
So so I think the last thing tocover up on this is the idea of
the magic bullet.
The magic bullet, Because Ifind that to be well, the most
(29:11):
ridiculous of the theories, Likethe idea that a bullet could
stop midway.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
They had to account because they were running out of
bullets that could do things.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Right, it seemed like there were more injuries than
bullets, right.
So the cap to this is what cameout not too long ago.
I want to say it was like sevenor eight months ago that there
was a secret service agent whowas there that day.
I think he was in the trail carand his name was paul landis
(29:49):
and he was there that day and Ihave an audio clip of one of his
interviews where he talks aboutit.
But what he says is is that,after all was said and done,
they got to the.
You know the event happened.
Um, they rushed to the hospital, he came up to sort of left the
trail.
That became the magic bullet.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
So let's listen to him, because this is fascinating
(30:33):
in the meantime, while this washappening, I happened to look
uh to the right, where miss?
Where mrs kenny was sitting andsitting in a pool of blood.
There I saw two bright brassbullet fragments.
I picked one of them up, lookedat it and it was kind of like
(30:53):
the end of my little pinky.
It was mushroomed and I put itback right exactly where I found
it.
By then Mrs Kennedy wasstanding up up and I was looking
around for other agents.
I didn't see anybody, but I sawan intact, fully bullet on the
(31:16):
back of the seat, where thecushioning meets the met the
trunk of the car, and I pickedit up and looked at it and it
was only thing I noticed thatwas wrong with it were bullet
striations.
There was no other deformities.
I started to put it back.
(31:36):
Mrs kennedy and clint wereleaving the car and I made a
quick decision I didn't seeanybody to secure the car.
People were emerging on the car.
I did not want this piece ofevidence to disappear and I
slipped it into my pocket.
(31:57):
As we raced through the lobby ofthe emergency room, we got to
trauma room one.
They had to pivot the journeythat the president's body was on
and push it into the traumaroom.
There was a crowd that kind ofjoined us doing this.
(32:20):
I was pushed right up next tothe president's body and
standing right next to his feet,most everybody in the room was
focused on the headroom.
I could not look, but I knew Iwould pass out if I saw it.
And all these things arewhirling through my mind on what
(32:43):
to do, things that are whirlingthrough my mind on what to do,
and I realized this was aperfect place to leave a bullet
with the president's body and itwould be found during the
autopsy and about that time.
So I reached out, I put thebullet on Gurney, right by his
(33:06):
feet, and about that time thedoctors were asking everybody to
leave.
Somebody came in and saidplease, please, let me through,
I'm a doctor and somebody elseanother doctor.
They asked everybody to leave.
Give them room to work.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
That's crazy.
So he says he found an intactbullet, which is weird to begin
with.
Yeah, I was just thinking aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Like just a bullet just sitting there that he's
saying looks to him like it hadbeen fired from a gun, but
according to him, no otherdeformities and it might have
hit something.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
And couldn't.
What could explain that istraveling through a body, like a
body, or, you know, like that'swhat I'm saying.
Well, that, wouldn't that slowthe bullet down enough to, I
don't know like yeah likebecause the skull is pretty hard
.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
This is the magic bullet, right this is it.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
And they claim that this bullet was found on the
stretcher of governor connelly.
I'm yes, and that's how itbecame the the magic bullet is
because it was found on hisstretcher, as they said, then
that's how they constructed thiswhole thing.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
But I mean, yes, the story sounds odd, but before he
said this no one really knewexactly how that bullet got
there, Right, right and thatpart kind of bewilders me that
an agent would be I.
To me it sounds sloppy to say,well, I just want to put it
(34:33):
somewhere, someone would find it.
Well, what are you talkingabout?
Just tell somebody that youhave it, and I would think it
doesn't make sense Like thatpart of it.
I just it was like that otherguy with the fingerprint.
Well, I just figured you'd findit.
What do you mean?
You'd figure I find it.
Yeah, what kind ofinvestigation is this?
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Yeah, I mean you would think that then
immediately that car would belocked down.
That car is evidence, a sceneof the crime, you know yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Hey, by the way, I found this bullet Right when,
right over here.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I would think it would need to be left, exactly
like you, you don't want to justlike.
How did it get exactly whereyou?
Speaker 2 (35:11):
found it right.
That's a question in of itself,like how did it end up there if
it had been fired?
But there are no otherdeformities and but it where,
where, I'm sorry, where he sayshe found it would have been the
bullet, would have to gonethrough everybody and then gone
back because he says he found itwith near the back seat in the
Right, which means it would havecome from the front.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yes, it would have come from the front, would have
traveled potentially throughsomebody and not gotten deformed
because it can cut through aperson without but slowing it
down enough.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
If it was a bullet that went through someone, it's
evidence of more than one bulletwhen the shooter was coming
from, because there's no way itcould have come from the back
and then ended up going throughpeople then ended up behind them
.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
It's not a boomerang bullet, yeah it was it's a super
magic bullet.
Yeah, I mean, that's the thingright is is that that just came
out fairly recently and now ontop, laid on top of the fact
that that commission onassassinations, the house
committee, had had determined,okay, something, something's
fishy here.
And now he comes out and yearslater, and I guess they asked
him, you know like, why did you,you know, never say anything.
(36:14):
He's like I just didn't want todisrupt the, you know, the
official story wasn't my placeto disrupt the official story
but the official story was.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Nobody knew where it came from I know, know it's
weird.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
I mean, according to him, he didn't.
After that day he says that hedidn't, he didn't read about it,
he didn't follow it.
He, after that day and afterwhatever questioning, you know,
whatever, he, he just put it out, tried to put it out of his
head and he was having, you know, pretty traumatic because he
saw a lot of things happen andthen he just never really looked
(36:46):
into anything about it and itwasn't until many, many, many
years later where he actuallylearned oh wait, that bullet
that I put on the stretcher,they've created this whole idea
around and he came out with abook.
You know, immediately you haveto just have to always say you
know, okay, this guy comes outwith a book and, as I said
(37:09):
earlier in the episode, there'sbeen hundreds of books on the
JFK assassination.
So how are you going to makeyours stand?
Speaker 2 (37:15):
out.
You got to sell it baby.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
And now all of a sudden you have this crucial
piece of evidence which changesthe thing.
But it also fits the facts ofthe weirdness of the bullet.
But I never believe that magicbullet thing.
I mean, first of all it has theword magic in the theory, like
I don't think the officialwarren commission report has
magic bullet.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
Although it's really not called the warren commission
, they called it that because ofthe um, the guy that so where's
magic?
Speaker 1 (37:41):
so all right, but I don't think they call it.
I don't ever call it the magicbullet.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
I don't think that would be cool.
Yeah, the magic bullet.
I think, that's the lore ofwhat it's called because it kind
of is.
You know, I don't think thatit's called that.
No.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Okay, well, that makes me feel a little bit
better.
That only takes the layer ofbullshit down one level.
We're not going to use the wordmagic, that'd be ridiculous.
Yeah, but you're saying thebullet stopped in midair and
turned, yeah, but we're notgoing to say it's magic, that
would be crazy.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
Right, there's a whole thing about that Kennedy
was seated somewhat higher thanConnolly and that accounts was.
But you know what?
The trajectory doesn't work andone bullet can't just go
through all those things to befound pristine, right, because
it went through bones.
Right Went through someone'sskull Right.
Speaker 1 (38:33):
And that's the thing is that bullet that was found
pristine would match with goingthrough a body and being slowed
down by organs and internalthings.
But if it impacted with a bone,it one may have stopped there
and two, if it had come out theother end it would have
definitely been deformed.
So the bullet like that, Iwould think again.
I'm not an expert on bullets,but I would think that if it
were fired and it were in goodcondition pristine condition
(38:55):
besides being fired, it meansthat it would have traveled to
something soft enough to slow itdown.
So it ended up where it endedup, but not otherwise damaged.
But, like you know, his headexploded.
If that bullet exploded hishead, it would have been damaged
because your skull is prettyhard.
So like that's the thing is.
(39:17):
It's so funny how that storycame up and it was out for a
little bit and then, like mostthings, it just sort of goes
away.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
You know, when I look at this investigation, I don't
want anyone to think that Ithink that our government is out
to get us, because I just Idon't believe that, right.
I don't believe that, right.
I believe there are pocketswithin our government because
it's so huge that have their owninterests, and sometimes those
(39:52):
interests don't align with thepublic's interests, of course,
because just by this small thingI mean, we've been talking what
?
A little over an hour and ahalf now, and we could probably
talk for another five and a halfhours and still scratch the
surface of this whole thing butthe small amount we've been
talking about, you can see, oh,why are there so many
(40:14):
discrepancies?
But the discrepancies are foundbecause other government
employees are finding them, ofcourse, right.
So it's not this conspiracythat everyone's involved in,
right, but I do think there arepeople that are involved in.
Some of them might have beenconnected with the government.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
Yeah, I mean the whole idea of a quote unquote
government conspiracy to me is astraw man, because no
organization first of all theUnited States government is the
biggest organization like on theplanet, but no organization, no
matter its size, ever operatesas one Like.
I'm sure everyone listening hasbeen in organizations, whether
(40:55):
it's PTA or part of a company orwhatever it is.
Think of any organizationyou've ever belonged to.
Was everyone in cohesive?
No, there was always thisfaction over here and this
faction over here.
Somehow it all works, but likethat idea has never been.
I always feel like that idea oflike.
Well, you're saying it's agovernment conspiracy, therefore
(41:18):
you're saying the entiregovernment conspired and that's
ridiculous.
So your, your theory is wrongand I don't.
My answer that would no.
No one ever said it was theentire government.
What we're saying is is thatall you need to have is a couple
people in a couple of positions, like with most big
organizations.
You don't need to control thewhole thing.
All you need to do is have acouple of choke points.
(41:41):
And the thing about conspiracytheories which has always
bothered me in general is youdon't have to police them.
We do such a good job ofpolicing ourselves.
It bothers me how strong of aword or phrase conspiracy
(42:02):
theorist is.
Like.
If you bring that up, if you'recalled that, uh, people you
know recoil like, oh my god,don't call me a conspiracy
theorist, you know if.
If you say I say it was pride,though, right I actually I think
the better term would beconspiracy realist, because
conspiracy, like we said in thelast episode, conspiracies
happen all the time.
All the time there are factionsconspiring for very sometimes
(42:26):
they're caught, sometimesthey're not.
Well, it's an actual crime.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
It's a thing people get convicted of Right.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
And so, like conspiracy theory, it has, like
this idea of oh you have atheory that it's a conspiracy,
you must be crazy, right, andbut nothing about the word
conspiracy or the word abouttheory.
It's that we've put, or it'sbeen put in that for us, that
idea that it's such a powerfulthing, and we reject
conspiracies so often by saying,well, you're, don't be a
(42:54):
conspiracy theorist.
Not everything's a conspiracy,yeah, not everything is, but a
lot of things are.
Most things are, unless theywere done by one person.
The only things that can't beconspiracies are things that
were carried done by one person.
Right, the only things thatcan't be conspiracies are things
that were carried out by oneperson to one person alone if
more than one person wasinvolved, they needed to
conspire in which to do whateverthey did right, and it might
(43:15):
just be conspiring to bakedelicious cookies for the, for
the, you know, for the bake well, I think a conspiracy means
you're doing something wrong is.
Is it built into conspiracy?
I thought conspiracy was justcoordinated effort.
You know what?
Speaker 2 (43:27):
You might be right.
I always thought it meant forlike something, not a good gain.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
I mean, you know that is the, despite what the actual
definition is, words often takeon a meaning all of their own
and the meaning is just sort ofunderstood.
So I, I think, you're right.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
So well, this is in the oxford okay.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful
or harmful okay, yeah, so makingcookies unless they had
something that would not be aconspiracy, that would just be a
plan right unless they weregoing to conspire to put poison
in it or you know or?
Marijuana.
So raisins, which is the worstdefense out of those three?
(44:11):
You put a little poison in.
Ok, no harm, no foul andmarijuana I'm OK with that.
But if you're going to putraisins in it now, you're
ruining the cookie, I'm out.
Have you ever eaten like bitteninto a cookie that you thought
in your heart was chocolate chipand it turned out to be raisin?
Speaker 2 (44:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (44:26):
In that moment of realization.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
I actually get angry.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Oh, it is the worst thing ever, but anyway.
That being said, but it's justso funny that this is the
granddaddy of conspiracies.
And you're not supposed tobelieve in conspiracies, but
this is the granddaddy of themand it's pretty clear to anyone
who has a brain that, whateveryou think, the answer is, it's
(44:49):
not what they said, it was right.
So, and in order for that to betrue, in order for this, you
know, government commission tocome out and say we 100 think
this is what happened, andeveryone looks and goes that's,
there's no way.
That's what happened.
Implies that there would havehad to have been a conspiracy,
because one person didn't dothis.
(45:10):
It would have taken at leasttwo people, probably a lot more.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
And it was something unlawful and harmful.
It's clear.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
So it's a conspiracy that it happened.
But it's amazing how well wepolice ourselves against
conspiracies and like it's just,it's infuriating when you you
know, like I said, I'm going tostart using the new term
conspiracy realist Because, like, obviously something's fishy
here, and if something fishy ishere and nobody discovered, it
(45:41):
means that somebody had to havedone something to hide it up.
Hide it, you know, cover it up.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
Do you imagine if you were on a jury of a crime like
this and the evidence was wedon't have any real prints on
the gun.
Okay, what do you get?
Oh, it must be something thebullets actually know.
It looks like I might've had ahard time firing these, and some
of the marks on it couldn'thave happened the way that's
(46:08):
well, what do you get?
That's pretty much what we got,Right.
Speaker 1 (46:13):
Yeah, there's no way somebody would be convicted
beyond reasonable doubt.
Did he admit it?
Speaker 2 (46:18):
No, what do we?
Speaker 1 (46:20):
have and you know, and then you get into the whole
thing about the one guy whocould have answered a lot of
these questions dies immediately, you know, two days after, and
now it's by a guy wait a minuteand I guess you know I know it's
been talking a while, that'sokay, but a guy that runs
(46:43):
nightclubs in the area, rightOkay, he's not the best guy in
the world.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
They say he was kind of you know, kind of maybe not
organized crime, but organizedcrime adjacent?
Speaker 1 (46:54):
yes, if you're.
If you're running clubs yeah,if you're running nightclubs.
Uh, he was known in the 60s youprobably had something to do.
Speaker 2 (47:03):
yeah it, yeah, he knew the story goes.
He knew maybe 20, 25% of theguys that worked on the force.
Okay, Many of them were therethat day.
What do you know, right?
What the F is he doing there?
What's?
Speaker 1 (47:19):
happening any evidence that he that he had
such a strong affection forpresident john f kennedy that he
would have been moved bysomeone harming him to harm them
, like like.
Well, here's an interesting.
Is he a jfk?
Speaker 2 (47:36):
stan, I was like not, not that I could find okay,
there was a lot of people thatliked them, but you know, at
that time there were a lot ofpeople that didn't too right.
Speaker 1 (47:45):
It was not totally different than it is now well, I
imagine, if you, if you runnightclubs, you know I'm talking
about john f kennedy.
Speaker 2 (47:52):
Oh, of course there was a lot of people liked him, a
lot of people that didn't.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Well, that's true of any politics.
Obviously the other partydidn't like him right.
He could have been mothertheresa and the other party,
would you know, in politicswould go you're evil, he'll be
somebody, right?
Speaker 2 (48:07):
The story goes that you know, of course, ruby was
put in jail after what happened.
Right, oswald didn't die rightaway, okay, it took him a little
while to die.
Okay, the guy that he was inthe cell with, all right, he
says that Ruby was like likefrantic between the time it
(48:33):
happened until the time he foundout Oswald died.
He said as soon as Oswald died,ruby became calm and he said it
was weird that the guy that hadbeen arrested for shooting
Oswald calmed down after Oswalddied, because now your charges
(48:56):
are worse.
And at that's the point that hekind of became calm again that
he.
The story is that maybe hethought his job wasn't done and
that he was going to somethingwas going to happen to him
because he didn't actually dowhat he was supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Well, yeah, because what would happen is is that,
theoretically, if Oswaldsurvived long enough to start
talking Right, and then all of asudden it would be shady, and
then whoever came next to cleanup the mess would include Ruby.
Yeah, you're right, because upto that point, if he hadn't died
, then he would be charged withyou know whatever.
(49:32):
What would be the charge if youshot somebody that they didn't
die?
It could be Assault battery.
Speaker 2 (49:37):
dangerous weapon Aggravated you know?
Speaker 1 (49:38):
Yeah, exactly so.
But then once he dies, you'reon the hook for murder.
Yeah, why would you be relievedwhen the target of your like
you really wanted him dead?
You wanted him dead so muchthat, oh my God, it's just
bothering me that I failed.
Oh wait.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
It wasn't just bothering him, they said he
looked scared.
Speaker 1 (49:57):
Yeah, that's how long did Ruby?
I mean, did Ruby live out hislife?
I don't.
Speaker 2 (50:02):
He died of cancer.
Let's see.
Speaker 1 (50:06):
Or so we think Well, there's a whole thing with that.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
You could go down the-.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
You could go down the rabbit hole of Death date Just
because somebody died of- 1967,january 3rd 1967.
Speaker 2 (50:21):
He died in the same hospital where Oswald and
Kennedy died.
Imagine that.
Speaker 1 (50:26):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (50:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (50:28):
So here's my question , and I don't know if anyone
knows this.
So he died in 67, you said yes.
And all right.
And so four years after the sowhen I say nightclubs.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
He had strip joints.
I mean, I'm not trying to sayeveryone that's involved in a
nightclub has, you know, badmotives, because they do not,
and I'm not saying everyone thathas a strip joint is involved
in bad motives.
Speaker 1 (50:57):
But you know, as you start going down that road, you
would at least and especially inlike Dallas, like in a city,
kind of.
Speaker 2 (51:05):
Well, I mean, it's just the guy that runs a strip
joint isn't the Avenger of theworld Right.
Speaker 1 (51:10):
But what I'm wondering is and I don't know
this, but like so he, he passedaway about four years after the
events, right because 63, andthen he died in 67 yes, is it so
?
Speaker 2 (51:22):
it was a yeah about three years, but is it?
Speaker 1 (51:24):
conceivable that he could have known he had cancer?
Do you know?
I'm saying, like you know, it'sa big ask of somebody to say,
hey, we need you to, in fullview of everybody, shoot this
person and go to jail.
But he died of a pulmonaryembolism which, but years after
(51:48):
which again doesn't mean butwhat.
You know what I'm saying?
Like that's a big ask ofsomebody, but if somebody
already Well, he wasn'tdiagnosed until after oh, he
wasn't okay, all right but Iwhere you're going.
Speaker 2 (51:59):
But like you know what I'm saying, like how would
you convince somebody to do thatright?
Speaker 1 (52:02):
like how, like what, what could they have had over
him that would have made himagree to do that?
That's what I'm.
That's.
My question is like that's,that's a big ask, you know, and
obviously he lived out the restof his life in prison.
I mean he didn't liveincredibly long, but four more
(52:25):
years.
But I don't know, I mean it'sweird, I mean all of it's weird,
right, there's none of thisthat that makes sense when you
came at it.
It's just he.
Speaker 2 (52:39):
there's never really been a great reason why he was
even there Right and I, I couldfind have you.
I don't know if you ever looked.
Speaker 1 (52:50):
I looked a little bit .
I just I there wasn't muchabout.
You know it's funny that howquickly his stories kind of
moved.
You know you can spend all thetime, as we did with this.
You know, with this episode, intalking about the other parts
of that's fishy about theassassination.
Like there's so much that'sstrange about it that you're
(53:12):
often a million differentdirections and wormholes before
you get to the fact of the guywho killed, the guy who did it.
And isn't this where kind ofthe trope kind of comes of like
you hire somebody to assassinatesomebody and then you kill the
assassins.
Isn't that where this idea kindof came from?
Isn't that where this idea kindof came from Like that's a
common trope now in like moviesand television, the idea of of a
(53:34):
patsy and the idea of you getsomebody to do a thing and then
you kill them.
Speaker 2 (53:38):
Oh yeah, Like I clean up the loose ends but, departed
that, that you ever see thatmovie, the departed I think so.
Speaker 1 (53:44):
Yeah, like the movie ended with like every loose end
getting which, but isn't this?
That's kind of where that ideacame from.
I don't know if this idea, thatidea, really existed pre this.
Speaker 2 (53:54):
Well, I mean, you know, I mean, when you have more
than one person committed acrime, it's it's a lot easier to
get away with it If you can getrid of that other person.
Speaker 1 (54:02):
Oh yeah, I think it was at, wasn't it Benjamin
Franklin that said that the theway that three, three men, as if
two of them are dead.
Yeah, and that's kind of yeah.
So maybe that idea existedbefore that, but it's just yeah,
this is the granddaddy of allconspiracies and there's talk
that this conspiracy isconnected with others, like
(54:23):
there's Like what?
There's some talk that he waslooking to, you know, to really
clamp down on the CIA.
Well, I think it's.
You know, I think it's more thanjust talk Pretty solid that he
was doing that.
Speaker 2 (54:36):
But it was also he didn't like the autonomy that
they had.
Speaker 1 (54:38):
No, because they'd been caught doing some shady
stuff frequently and he was butthere was also some talk that,
like with Marilyn Monroe andlike there's a whole connection
there, right, because that's thething is like the time when
this was going on is around thesame time.
(54:59):
We had, you know, the UFO thingand you had Marilyn Monroe pass
it, you know.
So it's like all there's allthese conspiracies and Kennedy
seems to be the nexus of them,which is funny.
I don't know, it's fascinating,man, I it's.
It's one of those things youknow.
When you ask people if youcould go back and see like any
(55:21):
event and and witness it and seewhat really happened, this is a
big one, like you know.
People will often say you know,I'd like to see the building of
the pyramids, that's kind ofmine, but, like you know, what
events would you love to see asa bystander?
And a lot of people say this isthe one because it's like, oh,
you could.
Speaker 2 (55:39):
Have you seen that?
It's old now, With James Francothere was a TV show.
It was on Hulu.
Speaker 1 (55:48):
About him going back and stopping it.
Speaker 2 (55:50):
Yeah, yeah yeah, it was an interesting show yeah.
But I think that if I was goingto say I could be somewhere, if
I was to be there, I would tryto do something to try to stop
the event.
I don't think I'd want towitness this.
Speaker 1 (56:05):
Unless you were of the mind that changing it would
be bad.
I mean, I don't know how you'dmake that determination, but,
like you know, history unrolleda certain way.
Speaker 2 (56:20):
It kind of seemed like society was pushing towards
more progressive change at thattime.
Speaker 1 (56:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (56:28):
Right, and then there was a Martin Luther King, John
F Kennedy, and then things kindof just went to like not too
long, with the culmination ofthe capitalism of the eighties.
Speaker 1 (56:39):
But, yeah, I almost wonder if it's, if it's like
yeah, like the, the, the embersof that fire that we're going to
burn to to.
You know, they were like how dowe squash this?
And a couple, a couple of, keydeaths here and there Next thing
, you know, all right, we got itback under control.
Speaker 2 (56:55):
Because it just seemed like.
It seemed like again, I wasn'talive then, but it just seems
like when you look back it'slike there was more of a younger
person's progressive ideas werebecoming like mainstream kind
of.
But yeah, like mainstream kindof.
Speaker 1 (57:12):
But yeah, Now, I mean I would like to see a world
where you know what would haveunfolded if that, if he hadn't.
You know if it hadn't happenedor he had somehow, you know, a
la Reagan made it through thatattempt, yeah, and so there we
have like another one, to kindof compare it with right, Like
(57:32):
an attempt on Ronald Reagan, Onedude who, like you, found the
motive, you found, like it alladded up, it was weird, he was
trying to impress Jodie Foster,Right, which is such a weird
thing I mean yeah.
It's such a weird thing, but Imean, we've all been there.
We've all been there.
You know, you want to impressan actress, and so you decide
(57:54):
you shoot a present, yeah I mean, how could she not fall in love
with him after that?
But it's just so weird thatthat that one kind of makes
sense in a weird way.
As weird as that is, it kind oflike, well, that one at least
lines up, whereas this onedoesn't line up at all?
Speaker 2 (58:12):
No At all.
Well, there were no questionswhether or not that guy fired
the gun.
We knew, you know, they grabbedhim Right.
Speaker 1 (58:17):
He was right there on film.
I actually I know it's offtopic, but I was the TV was on
in the other room and I wasyoung, but I saw the aftermath
of that, which was very weird.
I was at a friend's house andwe were playing with matchbox
cars and in the other room, um,her mother was watching, uh, you
(58:41):
know, whatever the news orwhatever, whatever they were
showing, and and that allunfolded like, and I was right
there, it was, it wasinteresting, that was weird
times, but I don't know.
This has been fascinating.
There's so much to this topic.
I feel like at some point downthe road we should circle back
and revisit this.
Speaker 2 (58:58):
I'd like that.
Speaker 1 (59:00):
Because there's more here, but I don't think that's
as good a place as any, though,to wrap things.
Any final thoughts on this, anyfinal pieces of?
Speaker 2 (59:08):
I have nothing extra that I can really wrap up,
except that I would ask anyeveryone that's listening just
consider that.
It's just this, the, theevidence we've talked about,
which there's so much more right, just the evidence we're
talking about.
Would you convict somebodybased on this?
Listen, there was way moreevidence against OJ Simpson,
(59:32):
right, right, way more Simpson.
Speaker 1 (59:36):
Right, right, way more, yeah, right.
Yeah, that's so weird.
Yeah, I've yet to meet a personwho, if I mention the JFK, that
they just agree with theofficial word and know more than
that.
It's all that, like you said,that conspiratorial, like well,
we know something happened.
Speaker 3 (59:53):
We all know something happened.
Oh, it's all that, like yousaid, that conspiratorial, like.
Well, we know somethinghappened we all know something
happened.
Speaker 2 (59:55):
Oh well, right right.
Speaker 1 (59:57):
Implications are big.
If this in fact, was some sortof conspiracy man, the
implications are huge.
Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
And you know I'll leave it with this, when Donald
Trump was asked by.
There's a guy he's on Fox,judge Napolitano or whatever his
name is.
Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
Oh, napolitano, yeah, I remember him yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
He says that he asked Donald Trump why didn't you
release all the documentsregarding JFK.
He said that Donald Trump toldhim, if you saw what I saw, you
wouldn't have released themeither.
Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
Yeah, well, that's the that's, you know that's's.
We'll wrap it up on that partalone.
But that's the weirdest thing,is you know the weirdest?
But one of the weird things isthat the papers, all the
documents, now 70 years later,still have not been released
right, even though they were allslated to have been released
yeah, and every slated butordered and every president both
(01:00:52):
sides.
They kick that can down the roadalways kicked that can down the
road, has always kicked the candown the road and said, nope,
now's not the time, now's notthe time and what.
I can't think of.
Anything else other than anelement of our intelligence
agency had something to do withit.
Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Which is why you would not want to release that,
because confidence would bedemolished, like that's.
Like there's no other reason,because any individual person
who is involved in that is longdead right.
So there's no individuals youwould ever be protecting.
The only thing you'd beprotecting is the reputation or
(01:01:30):
stability of a, of aninstitution.
Right, and what institutionscould have done it?
Uh, would want to do it andcould have covered it up, and
our intelligence agencies arelike the top of that list.
There's not really anyonebesides that.
So, uh, fascinating stuff,awesome.
Well, that's been a greatdiscussion.
I think we'll leave that hereand uh, yeah, and until next
(01:01:52):
time.
I'm Chris and I'm Steve andthis has been some deep shit.
We'll be 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.