Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, the barbecue at Dairy Queen is better than any
of the things they ever mentioned before.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
You gotta try it. It's great. Love the show.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Correction it is McDonald's. Warren Buffett has a lifetime card
so he can get his cheeseburgers for free. And the
Jerry Queen I went to, Oh terrible.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Michael and Dragon.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
I've actually had food other than the dessert variety at
Dairy Queen.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
And it was not very good. Let me just say
here's what I love about this kind of question, who's
right and who's wrong?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
So far it outweighs tremendously that the quote real food
at Dairy Queen is good.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Right, but there are people who think it's awful. True,
So there are people who think it's great. The people
think it's awful. Put all those people in the room
and just you know, have a little overhead microphone and
just let them all argue it out. Just argue it out.
But we're missing we bury the lead in all those talkbacks.
(01:21):
Barbecue Dairy Queen, what kind of barbecue? That just seems
scriligious to me. And at first I thought he's gonna
say it was the best barbecue anywhere. And I thought, oh, son,
we got to talk. It can't be the best barbecue anywhere.
(01:42):
And I I doubt or I don't know for certain
about Warren Buffett and McDonald's versus the Dairy Queen. So
but maybe we'll do a little research and find out.
(02:02):
Let's let's let's think about one of the most enduring
mysteries in American history, the assassination of jfk And November
twenty second, nineteen sixty three. I I remember being in
school that day, and I remember the teacher coming in
or the principal coming in, and the whole mood just
(02:24):
suddenly changed. I do not recall the teacher must have
said something after the principal came in, because in the
room just was silent. And I had a cub Scout
meeting that day. And we went to the cub Scout meeting,
(02:48):
and our cub Scout, our Den lady or Den woman,
Den mother had the you know, had the Zenith Honor,
whatever it was, and she just wilds to sit down
and watch. And that's all we did for the for
the cub Scout meeting that day. I remember it vividly
(03:12):
well for decades, the official narrative as that lamee of
the Warren Commission has always been that Lee Harvey Oswald
acted alone as the lone gunman. I I tend to
believe that he acted as the loan gunman, but I'm
certainly open to other theories that there may have been
(03:34):
others involved. And we now have declassified documents that were
released by the CIA on July third, that I wouldn't
say necessarily challenge the narrative, but is certain raises some
provocative questions about the CIA's role in the assassination of
(03:56):
JFK or to not carry this lead to give you
an idea where I may be going in this story.
The CIA may have been concerned that they might get
blamed for not preventing the assassination of JFK, and so
that's why they've been so secretive about their interactions with
(04:21):
Lee Harvey Oswald. So let's think about these smoking gun
documents and what they reveal about CI CIA officer by
the name of George Joe Nides. It's a Greek name,
I think it's pronounced Jenides, and all the agents and
(04:44):
all the agency's activities back in nineteen sixty nineteen sixty three.
So I just find this kind of a fascinating Cold
World journey to understand the significance of the documents. It's
the early nineteen sixties. We're locked in a cold war
with the Soviet Union. Tensions are sky high, especially after
(05:06):
the Cuban missile crisis nineteen sixty two. I recall all
of this. My dad was in the Army reserves and
he was the local sergeant, major commander or whatever it
was of the local reserve unit. And we got stopped
during the Cuban missile crisis. They'd gotten to see some
friends in a town outside our town. My brother and
(05:28):
I are in the back seat and we get stopped
by highway patrolman. And then I hear my parents talking
about because my dad had to go to the to
the armory and open it up because everybody had been
put on alert. So those the tensions were high. And
then you add Ian Kennedy, charismatic trying to navigate this
(05:52):
delicate balance confronting communism while trying to avoid all out conflict,
his reluctance to invade Cuba after the faith the Bay
of Pigs fiasco that put him at odds with hardline
elements in the military and the intelligence community, including the CIA.
I'm not saying draw any conclusions from that. I just
(06:15):
think that's what the facts on the ground were at
that time. Well, the CIA, we know, was deeply involved
in covert operations against Castro in Cuba. They were funding
anti Castro Cuban exiles, they were orchestrating covert plots to
destabilize the regime. The DRE, the Director Revolutionary stond Intial
(06:38):
whatever it was called, that was a CIA backed Cuban
student organization was based in Miami that was opposed to Castro.
And that's where this CIA agent, George john nydes comes
into the story. So who was this Who was this agent?
(06:59):
He was the chief covert action in Miami in nineteen
sixty three. What was his job? His job was overseeing
the operations involving the anti Castro groups like the DRE.
So now, these newly released declassified documents include his personnel file,
which is probably the most important, revealed that he and
(07:19):
the CIA were closely monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald. Now, some
would consider that to be a bombshell because some would
also argue that it contradicts the long held claim that
Oswald was an isolated figure with no significant ties to
(07:39):
the Intel community. If that's true, why does it matter. Well,
if the CIA was tracking Oswald, why didn't they intervene,
and why was that information hidden for more than sixty years?
Those questions ship the burden of proof onto the government
(08:03):
to explain how this fits the lone gunman narrative. I'm
not saying the lone gunment narrative is true or false.
I'm simply saying that the release of these documents have
kind of opened up the proverbial can of worms. So
what are the documents? Well, from the file released on
(08:25):
July third, which I've tried to read through as many
of them as I can, here's what I found out.
The document show that the CIA monitored Oswald between nineteen
fifty nine and nineteen sixty three, during his time in
the Soviet Union, his return to the United States, his
all of his activities in New Orleans and in Mexico City.
(08:47):
So it wasn't just some casual observation. He was being
watched by the top levels of the CIA's clandestine service.
If he was just a loane nut. If he was
just a loane actor, then why the high level scrutiny
of one individual. Again, I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm
(09:09):
just telling the questions out there because I'm fascinated by
these documents, and I'm fascinated by you know, it's taken Trump,
It's taken all these years to release these documents. I've
not yet reached the point where I can say it's
changed my mind about a lone government theory or not.
But let's go to the DRE connection. That's the group
(09:29):
in Miami. That's the student group based out of Miami
that was anti Castro in New Orleans in nineteen sixty three.
Oswald interacted with the DRE, the same group that the
CIA agent was funding and directing. The DRE even generated
(09:51):
propaganda about Wallswold before and after Kennedy's assassination, and the DRE,
the student activist group, portrayed oz Wald as a pro
Castro communist. All right, Didn't that raise a question in
your mind? Was Oswald being manipulated? Was Oswald being set
(10:12):
up as a patsy? I don't know. I'm just these
are the questions I have when I go through the
documents and then think about this. For years, the CIA
withheld that information about this agent's Joe Knyde's role in
nineteen Back in nineteen seventy eight, when the House Select
Committee on Assassination was reinvestigating Kennedy's death, Joe Knide was
(10:38):
brought in as a liaison. But he never disclosed his
nineteen sixty three activities, and he never disclosed his connection
to this student group, the DRE. Now you could say
I'm not but you could say, which I guess, is
really in the mission that I thought the FEDO mission
(10:59):
suggests a deliberate effort to mislead the investigators. Doesn't it
seem somewhat important to you that if you bring in
this CIA head of the clandestine Services, he's in charge
of covert ops, he's working with the DRE in Miami,
(11:19):
which is an anti Castro group. You bring him in
in nineteen seventy eight because there's been all this pressure
to you know, let's re review the Warren Commission, let's
re review all of this. So you bring him in
and he never discloses his activities back in nineteen sixty
three with the anti Castro group. So what would have happened.
(11:42):
Let's play a little what if? What if those documents
have been released back in nineteen sixty four. During the
Warren Commission's actual investigation, the revelation that the CIA had
tracked Oswald for years could have turned the lone gunman
theory on its head. It would have at least forced
(12:05):
the investigators to ask, was Oswald a CIA asset? Was
Oswald a double agent? Was Oswald upon in a larger
game that we still don't understand what the larger game was.
It just raises a lot of questions. Let's think about
(12:28):
the official narrative for a minute. The Warren Commissions nineteen
sixty four report did conclude that while Oswald acted alone,
no conspiracy, just you know, a nutjob. Let me give
you a let me give you comparison. This is not
my notes, but you just crossed my mind. The shooter
(12:51):
and Butler without being a conspiracy theories a theorist. Don't
you just have questions like, we don't know what was
on a cell phone? How come? I mean it it is?
Is the reason we don't know what was on his
cell phones because I forgot he had more than one?
Is that because there's an angling investigation? Why they just
(13:15):
tell us that? How come there's just there's just silence
about that shooter Now we learned in the news this morning.
I haven't confirmed it, but it was on the Chiron
on Fox News that the eight this that six agents,
(13:37):
six Secret Service agents that were at Butler have either
been reassigned, suspended, or fired. I'm not sure what it was.
I just know they think in some disciplinary action against
six agents. Okay, well that's the first we've heard, and
that's the only thing we've heard. Well, that again, in
my mind, just raises questions. Okay, they made mistakes, you
(14:03):
still don't answer anything about what was on the phones.
Now there's a journalist, but a journalist by the name
of Jefferson Morley. He's kind of a Kennedy assassination I
don't want to say expert, but it's a focus of his.
(14:25):
He argues that the secrecy of the CIA undermines the
conclusion that Oswald acted alone. He points out that those
that defend the official narrative, like Gerald Posner I read
Gerald Posner quite a bit, who claimed that the CIA
hit its actions because they were trying to protect their
(14:48):
anti castro operations, not because it was guilty of wrongdoing.
But then this journalist counters that this sounds like a
defense lawyer's excuse for a nervous client. Because you do
have this, that you have the CIA with a pattern
of withholding evidence, especially about their agent. Well that naturally,
(15:10):
if if I'm a lawyer investigating all of this, I
would ask, what are you hiding or what are you
trying to hide? Are you trying to hide something? So
think critically for a minute. If the CIA was innocent,
then why go all these links to conceal this agent's role.
(15:31):
Why monitor Oswald for years and then say that he
was an unknown quantity? He can't be if you're thinking critically.
If you're monitoring him going to the Soviet Union, marrying
a Soviet woman, bringing her back to the United States.
You monitor his movements in the Soviet Union, you monitor
(15:53):
his movements in Texas, You monitor his movements in Louisiana,
you monitor his movements in Mexico. You do all of that.
Of course, you would want to know why do you
claim he was an unknown quantity. We don't have a
videotaped confession, but you've got some circles. You have at
(16:16):
least questions about circumstantial evidence. You have clues that, when
piece together, at least cause you to question the official story,
and I guess I guess that's what I'm doing. I'm
questioning the official story. Why should we care about something
from nineteen sixty three. Well, first, if you recall the assassination,
(16:41):
that was probably the first time in modern American history
that public trust in the government was completely shattered. I
think that's when we started to get really skeptical, and
that skepticism continues today. And I think it also highlights
when you have the intel community kind of doing whatever
(17:03):
they want to do and there's no accountability and their
ability to withhold this information for decades, well in an
era where we're focused on transparency and accountability, it's kind
of like they take in a baby step and that
baby step says okay, but we have other questions. And
I think the other thing that it does is it
(17:23):
reminds us this history is not static. I mean, history
is history. But then you hit new evidence like this
agent's file can at least cause historians to start questioning
some of the assumptions and the premises and even some
of the contentions that we believe have been true for decades.
(17:45):
Was Oswald truly a lone gunman? Was he part of
a larger plot. I don't know. I don't know, but
you know what these documents do. He causes people to
ask questions. Morning from South Dakota. I really like dairy Queen,
but then again, I like gas station hotdogs and gas
station gizzards. Everyone have a great day, Mike.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
For the love of God, consider your listeners. Extrapoli, do
not eat the food at dairy Queen.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Don't do it, Please, don't do it. Please don't. So
he knows we're passive aggressive, and so he knows he's
just trying to poison. He's trying to get rid of us. Dragon.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Yeah, it sounds about right now.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
He's just trying to get rid of us. And what
amazes me is I I you know, I work hard.
I know people think this is not a real job,
and it's not a real job. I don't get my
hands dirty, except you know, Tamer's got me doing crap
at the house or whatever. But you know, I work
hard to bring what I think is interesting, unusual, kind
(18:51):
of get people to think about stuff, pique their curiosity,
and no, just nothing. But we mentioned dairy Queen or
quank fries or whatever, and the text line just blows up.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
Ye, real food a dairy queen. Apparently it's a thing, and.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
We had no clue. But now and he knows, I'm
going to go try it. I don't know when, but
it's good. It may not be today, but at some
point I am going to go try it now, and
then I'll come back and I'll report on it, and
then half the audience will go oo, don't you sow
your dumbass, and then the other half will be see,
(19:31):
wonderful you CNN. This just came across the clipping service,
but it fits with a story that I want to do.
Speaker 5 (19:45):
Are Americans afraid of climate change? And the answer is.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And the answer is, are you afraid of climate change?
Speaker 4 (19:52):
Raging love of God, let it be no, please.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Please, it's CNN. It's not go to be, but maybe
it's seeing in.
Speaker 5 (20:03):
Are Americans afraid of climate change? And the answer is,
Americans aren't afraid of climate change? Look he Americans afraid
of climate change? And the answer is, Americans aren't afraid
of climate change. But but climate activists have not successfully
(20:28):
made the case to the American people. I want you
to take a look here, greatness.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
You see it's like socialism works. We just haven't had
the right socialist Marxism works. Communism works. We just haven't
had the right people to do it yet. We just
haven't fully explained to them how wonderful communism is.
Speaker 5 (20:47):
We worried about climate change. We have data going all
the way back since nineteen hundred and eighty nine. Look
at that. It was thirty five percent, two twenty twenty
forty six percent, and twenty twenty five forty percent, which
is the exact same percent as back in two thousand,
despite all of these horrible weather events.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Despite all the despite see.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Or it could just be that those generations that grew
up knowing that, hey, we need to recycle or we're
going to end up in the world that is the
movie Wally uh and and nothing is nothing has changed
at all?
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Right? Or what I love about that point is despite
all of these weather events, now you know precisely why
the networks always if there's a storm or they've changed.
You know that. I mean, where did you used to
get your weather? I mean I can remember fat ass
(21:44):
Al Roker, who has lost I mean he's lost a
lot of ways, I know, So congratulations to Al Roker.
But what does he do? He gives weather out of
New York City for the entire country. Well, that's meaningless
bull crap. And that's now why it's also expanded to
the networks. So the ABC Evening News, the nightly news,
(22:06):
what's lestra hole, or the CBS Evening News, whatever kind
of a joke that is. Now have you seen that recently?
I don't know what they're doing over there, but that
is total crap now, I mean it's even crap squared.
That's now why they talk about, oh, we're going to
have a we're going to have a severe storm warning
for the eastern third of the United States, which now
(22:28):
covers two hundred and thirty nine million Americans. They're trying
to propagandize you. They're trying to get you to draw
some sort of correlation between the weather and climate. This
is this is only a forty four second SoundBite, and
I think it is packed with stuff.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
Americans afraid of climate change, And the answer is Americans
aren't afraid of climate change. Climate activists have not successfully
made the case to the American peace Well, I want
you to take a look here. Greatly worried about climate change,
We have data going all the way back since nineteen
hundred and eighty nine. Look at that, it was thirty
five percent, two twenty twenty, forty six percent and twenty
(23:11):
twenty five.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Pause that for real quickly?
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Did he say we have data that goes back all
the way to nineteen hundred eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
Yes, yes, it's.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
The way he dated it. I mean, can you seriously, bro.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
Come on?
Speaker 2 (23:24):
That's look. Have you heard the commercial on it's all
over the radio. Uh, and it's it's some like online
human resources outfit, Bambi or something. Okay, yeah, and the
guy says you can get all of this for only
twenty Yes, that's right, only twenty nine dollars a month.
(23:46):
Have you heard that spot?
Speaker 4 (23:47):
I don't recall.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I hardly listen to you. I'm not going to listen
to the commercials. That drives me, baddie. It's like, did
you try to be any more misleading? Hey, you buy
it my diet coke? It's only twenty Yes, that's twenty
nine dollars a month? Is it twenty?
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Because when you use it twenty nine, nineteen hundred nine,
you know, like nineteen twelve. But no, no, no, our
data goes as far back as nineteen hundred.
Speaker 5 (24:18):
Eighty nine eighty nine Americans afraid of climate change, And
the answer is, Americans aren't afraid of climate change. Climate
activists have not successfully made the case to the American people.
I want you to take a look here. Greatly worried
about climate change? We have data going all the way
back since nineteen hundred and eighty nine. Look at that.
It was thirty five percent, twenty forty percent, twenty twenty
(24:40):
forty six percent, and twenty twenty five forty percent, which
is the exact same percentage as back in two thousand.
Despite all of these horrible weather events, the percentage of
Americans who are greatly worried about climate change has stayed
pretty gosh darn consistent, which kind of boggles the mind
a little bit. Granted, everything that we see on our
televis experience our computer screens, the hurricanes, tornadoes, to flooding,
(25:03):
but yet greatly worried about climate change twenty five the
exact same percentages back in.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Two thousand, despite everything that we see on our television screens,
on our computer screens, that we see everywhere they're driving
a narrative. Wow, I have just bumfuzzled by that. But
let me add a little to it. It's even funnier
in a story that you really could not make up
(25:28):
in a million years if it didn't really happen. The
New York Times recently lamented the loss of an Earth
orbiting satellite whose sole job was to sniff out methane
that was released from oil and gas sites. The New
(25:48):
York Times called it a blow to climate efforts. Now
what does that mean? The Times notes that the catchy
named Methane SAT Methane SAT, Methane SAT was a project
of the climate alarmist activists. These this is These are
(26:12):
the deacons at the church of the Climate Activists, the
Environmental Defense Fund, the EDF. Wouldn't you have called if
you have a satellite that's up in space trying to
detect methane leaks from oil and gas sites, wouldn't you
call it something like like instead of a ghostbuster or
(26:33):
a gasbuster or something as in, you know who you're
gonna call? Well, according to the New York Times writer,
the guy's name is Raymond zong Zhong. Information are sensibly
gathered by this satellite would quote give governments and the
public fresh insight into where this planet heating gas was
(26:55):
coming from and who was responsible for it. Well, what
is that? That is the methane is a plain heating
gas canard. That's the old idea that methane is heating
up the planet. That's pretty predictable and tiresome. But so
is this story. Because if you look at Raymond Soong's bio,
(27:18):
he is a quote reporter focusing on climate and environmental
issues who covers a swath of topics relating to the
natural world and humaniti's relationship with it extreme weather, water, heat, ice, rocks, fire,
usually from the perspective of the scientists who study these things.
(27:41):
What he doesn't say is bio is that he only
covers the emissions from scientists who study of these things.
Fits neatly into that narrative that CNN is so upset
about that it hasn't taken hold with except only forty
percent of the public. As luck would have it, a
(28:02):
guy by the name of Steven Hamburg, who's the chief
scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, is just one of
those narrative fitting scientist types who is only too happy
to assure the reporter that during its oh short time
in orbit, it lasted about a year. Matt Than said
collected magnificent, because what else would the chief scientists at
(28:25):
the Environmental Defense Defense Fund say about his own damn satellite?
Then the data we got was magnificent. That tells you
one how the Environmental Defense Fund works, but it also
tells you how the New York Times really does report
about climate change. So even better to assuage the feels
(28:46):
and the feelings of the Upper east Side, white, upper
class housewife subscriber base that is the only people that
ever read The New York Times except me, because I
always looked for these stupid things. The scientists for the
EDF assures us that he and other researchers will continue
processing the measurements, it being back before it's untimely, demids,
(29:11):
don't you feel better? Don't you feel so much better?
So what happened to methane sat Well, it turns out
that nobody has a clue. It just went dead on
June twenty. It was out over the Pacific, just a
year into its expected five year life. I betty they
used some sort of battery tech to power the satellite.
This is the same battery tech that's used by the
(29:32):
ev industry. We should explain all the range anxiety surrounding
this incident. Anyway, you might be, as I am, wondering
what dimwick folks over the reported eighty eight million dollars
it took to mount this project. Well, it turns out
that the dimwit is Jeff Bezos, because it either had
(29:52):
to be him or Bill Gates or a foundation funded
by some other you know, self loathing family like Oh,
I don't know. The Rockefellers are the Getties, Michael.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
You get that soft served cone dipped in your locolate
you can get in order of super hot crisp creakle fries.
You bite off the tip of that cone and you
dip the fries inside the ice cream heaven.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
No, no, not a French fries dipped in like the Frosty's,
the Windys and the Frosty's and the fries.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
You know, do you do that? No? No, I Sometimes
I don't even like to dip fries in ketchup. I
know it sounds that's communists, I understand that, But sometimes
I just like salty French fries. I don't need no
stinking ketchup. No, I'm not saying it's not always the case.
Sometimes I like ketchup on my fries.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
You do the mayonnaise and ketchup and then dip it
in there.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
No, sometimes I'll do mustard and ketchup and dip it
in that. But ranch dressing, you know, fries and branch dressing. No, no,
you know I'm not much of a guy for that. Okay, yeah, yeah,
but dang it. Can we just I wonder what time
they start serving cheeseburgers, because I could I can go
for a cheeseburger right now. Well, now now that this
(31:14):
is now, we've still screwed up this segment. Let's get
to the text line and see everybody's yelling at me. Now, uh,
dairy queen chicken fingers basket comes with gravy and fries,
white gravy. Oh that's a good question, Oh white grievy. Now,
(31:39):
white gravy, chinger chicken fingers. I would be tempted to
dip both the chicken fingers and the fries and the
white gravy.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
Mike and Dragon.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
When's the listener then, too, d Q or this one?
This is how well? You know, maybe I maybe I
expose too much of myself on the on the radio.
I don't expose myself elsewhere, Trust me, I don't I
don't do that. Uh, you were fifty eight eleven, Michael.
Every time I think about you trying to do handyman
(32:12):
work around the house for Tamra, I'm like lo o L.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
But Michael, the barbecue was like a sloppy Joe. I'd
get what I'd get one whenever i'd pick up a
birthday cake. Actually got surprised with a DQ cake this
year for my birthday.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
And I think we should have a listener event. Well, no,
we need to test. We need to test DQ first, right, Yeah, yeah,
we gotta go test it first. Blindly show up. Yeah,
we can't just blindly show up with you know, twelve
listeners and expect DQ to be able to serve it.
I read a story about somebody that bitched about they
walked into I don't I don't think it was a subway,
but like a Jersey Mikes or a Quizno's or something,
(32:49):
and they ordered sixty nine subway sandwiches and it took
an hour, and they started yelling at the people because
it took an hour to make sixty nine subway sandwiches.
Wrong with people
Michael, the barbecue at Dairy Queen is better than any
of the things they ever mentioned before.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
You gotta try it. It's great. Love the show.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
Correction it is McDonald's. Warren Buffett has a lifetime card
so he can get his cheeseburgers for free. And the
Jerry Queen I went to, Oh terrible.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Michael and Dragon.
Speaker 4 (00:32):
I've actually had food other than the dessert variety at
Dairy Queen.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
And it was not very good. Let me just say
here's what I love about this kind of question, who's
right and who's wrong?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
So far it outweighs tremendously that the quote real food
at Dairy Queen is good.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Right, but there are people who think it's awful. True,
So there are people who think it's great. The people
think it's awful. Put all those people in the room
and just you know, have a little overhead microphone and
just let them all argue it out. Just argue it out.
But we're missing we bury the lead in all those talkbacks.
(01:21):
Barbecue Dairy Queen, what kind of barbecue? That just seems
scriligious to me. And at first I thought he's gonna
say it was the best barbecue anywhere. And I thought, oh, son,
we got to talk. It can't be the best barbecue anywhere.
(01:42):
And I I doubt or I don't know for certain
about Warren Buffett and McDonald's versus the Dairy Queen. So
but maybe we'll do a little research and find out.
(02:02):
Let's let's let's think about one of the most enduring
mysteries in American history, the assassination of jfk And November
twenty second, nineteen sixty three. I I remember being in
school that day, and I remember the teacher coming in
or the principal coming in, and the whole mood just
(02:24):
suddenly changed. I do not recall the teacher must have
said something after the principal came in, because in the
room just was silent. And I had a cub Scout
meeting that day. And we went to the cub Scout meeting,
(02:48):
and our cub Scout, our Den lady or Den woman,
Den mother had the you know, had the Zenith Honor,
whatever it was, and she just wilds to sit down
and watch. And that's all we did for the for
the cub Scout meeting that day. I remember it vividly
(03:12):
well for decades, the official narrative as that lamee of
the Warren Commission has always been that Lee Harvey Oswald
acted alone as the lone gunman. I I tend to
believe that he acted as the loan gunman, but I'm
certainly open to other theories that there may have been
(03:34):
others involved. And we now have declassified documents that were
released by the CIA on July third, that I wouldn't
say necessarily challenge the narrative, but is certain raises some
provocative questions about the CIA's role in the assassination of
(03:56):
JFK or to not carry this lead to give you
an idea where I may be going in this story.
The CIA may have been concerned that they might get
blamed for not preventing the assassination of JFK, and so
that's why they've been so secretive about their interactions with
(04:21):
Lee Harvey Oswald. So let's think about these smoking gun
documents and what they reveal about CI CIA officer by
the name of George Joe Nides. It's a Greek name,
I think it's pronounced Jenides, and all the agents and
(04:44):
all the agency's activities back in nineteen sixty nineteen sixty three.
So I just find this kind of a fascinating Cold
World journey to understand the significance of the documents. It's
the early nineteen sixties. We're locked in a cold war
with the Soviet Union. Tensions are sky high, especially after
(05:06):
the Cuban missile crisis nineteen sixty two. I recall all
of this. My dad was in the Army reserves and
he was the local sergeant, major commander or whatever it
was of the local reserve unit. And we got stopped
during the Cuban missile crisis. They'd gotten to see some
friends in a town outside our town. My brother and
(05:28):
I are in the back seat and we get stopped
by highway patrolman. And then I hear my parents talking
about because my dad had to go to the to
the armory and open it up because everybody had been
put on alert. So those the tensions were high. And
then you add Ian Kennedy, charismatic trying to navigate this
(05:52):
delicate balance confronting communism while trying to avoid all out conflict,
his reluctance to invade Cuba after the faith the Bay
of Pigs fiasco that put him at odds with hardline
elements in the military and the intelligence community, including the CIA.
I'm not saying draw any conclusions from that. I just
(06:15):
think that's what the facts on the ground were at
that time. Well, the CIA, we know, was deeply involved
in covert operations against Castro in Cuba. They were funding
anti Castro Cuban exiles, they were orchestrating covert plots to
destabilize the regime. The DRE, the Director Revolutionary stond Intial
(06:38):
whatever it was called, that was a CIA backed Cuban
student organization was based in Miami that was opposed to Castro.
And that's where this CIA agent, George john nydes comes
into the story. So who was this Who was this agent?
(06:59):
He was the chief covert action in Miami in nineteen
sixty three. What was his job? His job was overseeing
the operations involving the anti Castro groups like the DRE.
So now, these newly released declassified documents include his personnel file,
which is probably the most important, revealed that he and
(07:19):
the CIA were closely monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald. Now, some
would consider that to be a bombshell because some would
also argue that it contradicts the long held claim that
Oswald was an isolated figure with no significant ties to
(07:39):
the Intel community. If that's true, why does it matter. Well,
if the CIA was tracking Oswald, why didn't they intervene,
and why was that information hidden for more than sixty years?
Those questions ship the burden of proof onto the government
(08:03):
to explain how this fits the lone gunman narrative. I'm
not saying the lone gunment narrative is true or false.
I'm simply saying that the release of these documents have
kind of opened up the proverbial can of worms. So
what are the documents? Well, from the file released on
(08:25):
July third, which I've tried to read through as many
of them as I can, here's what I found out.
The document show that the CIA monitored Oswald between nineteen
fifty nine and nineteen sixty three, during his time in
the Soviet Union, his return to the United States, his
all of his activities in New Orleans and in Mexico City.
(08:47):
So it wasn't just some casual observation. He was being
watched by the top levels of the CIA's clandestine service.
If he was just a loane nut. If he was
just a loane actor, then why the high level scrutiny
of one individual. Again, I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm
(09:09):
just telling the questions out there because I'm fascinated by
these documents, and I'm fascinated by you know, it's taken Trump,
It's taken all these years to release these documents. I've
not yet reached the point where I can say it's
changed my mind about a lone government theory or not.
But let's go to the DRE connection. That's the group
(09:29):
in Miami. That's the student group based out of Miami
that was anti Castro in New Orleans in nineteen sixty three.
Oswald interacted with the DRE, the same group that the
CIA agent was funding and directing. The DRE even generated
(09:51):
propaganda about Wallswold before and after Kennedy's assassination, and the DRE,
the student activist group, portrayed oz Wald as a pro
Castro communist. All right, Didn't that raise a question in
your mind? Was Oswald being manipulated? Was Oswald being set
(10:12):
up as a patsy? I don't know. I'm just these
are the questions I have when I go through the
documents and then think about this. For years, the CIA
withheld that information about this agent's Joe Knyde's role in
nineteen Back in nineteen seventy eight, when the House Select
Committee on Assassination was reinvestigating Kennedy's death, Joe Knide was
(10:38):
brought in as a liaison. But he never disclosed his
nineteen sixty three activities, and he never disclosed his connection
to this student group, the DRE. Now you could say
I'm not but you could say, which I guess, is
really in the mission that I thought the FEDO mission
(10:59):
suggests a deliberate effort to mislead the investigators. Doesn't it
seem somewhat important to you that if you bring in
this CIA head of the clandestine Services, he's in charge
of covert ops, he's working with the DRE in Miami,
(11:19):
which is an anti Castro group. You bring him in
in nineteen seventy eight because there's been all this pressure
to you know, let's re review the Warren Commission, let's
re review all of this. So you bring him in
and he never discloses his activities back in nineteen sixty
three with the anti Castro group. So what would have happened.
(11:42):
Let's play a little what if? What if those documents
have been released back in nineteen sixty four. During the
Warren Commission's actual investigation, the revelation that the CIA had
tracked Oswald for years could have turned the lone gunman
theory on its head. It would have at least forced
(12:05):
the investigators to ask, was Oswald a CIA asset? Was
Oswald a double agent? Was Oswald upon in a larger
game that we still don't understand what the larger game was.
It just raises a lot of questions. Let's think about
(12:28):
the official narrative for a minute. The Warren Commissions nineteen
sixty four report did conclude that while Oswald acted alone,
no conspiracy, just you know, a nutjob. Let me give
you a let me give you comparison. This is not
my notes, but you just crossed my mind. The shooter
(12:51):
and Butler without being a conspiracy theories a theorist. Don't
you just have questions like, we don't know what was
on a cell phone? How come? I mean it it is?
Is the reason we don't know what was on his
cell phones because I forgot he had more than one?
Is that because there's an angling investigation? Why they just
(13:15):
tell us that? How come there's just there's just silence
about that shooter Now we learned in the news this morning.
I haven't confirmed it, but it was on the Chiron
on Fox News that the eight this that six agents,
(13:37):
six Secret Service agents that were at Butler have either
been reassigned, suspended, or fired. I'm not sure what it was.
I just know they think in some disciplinary action against
six agents. Okay, well that's the first we've heard, and
that's the only thing we've heard. Well, that again, in
my mind, just raises questions. Okay, they made mistakes, you
(14:03):
still don't answer anything about what was on the phones.
Now there's a journalist, but a journalist by the name
of Jefferson Morley. He's kind of a Kennedy assassination I
don't want to say expert, but it's a focus of his.
(14:25):
He argues that the secrecy of the CIA undermines the
conclusion that Oswald acted alone. He points out that those
that defend the official narrative, like Gerald Posner I read
Gerald Posner quite a bit, who claimed that the CIA
hit its actions because they were trying to protect their
(14:48):
anti castro operations, not because it was guilty of wrongdoing.
But then this journalist counters that this sounds like a
defense lawyer's excuse for a nervous client. Because you do
have this, that you have the CIA with a pattern
of withholding evidence, especially about their agent. Well that naturally,
(15:10):
if if I'm a lawyer investigating all of this, I
would ask, what are you hiding or what are you
trying to hide? Are you trying to hide something? So
think critically for a minute. If the CIA was innocent,
then why go all these links to conceal this agent's role.
(15:31):
Why monitor Oswald for years and then say that he
was an unknown quantity? He can't be if you're thinking critically.
If you're monitoring him going to the Soviet Union, marrying
a Soviet woman, bringing her back to the United States.
You monitor his movements in the Soviet Union, you monitor
(15:53):
his movements in Texas, You monitor his movements in Louisiana,
you monitor his movements in Mexico. You do all of that.
Of course, you would want to know why do you
claim he was an unknown quantity. We don't have a
videotaped confession, but you've got some circles. You have at
(16:16):
least questions about circumstantial evidence. You have clues that, when
piece together, at least cause you to question the official story,
and I guess I guess that's what I'm doing. I'm
questioning the official story. Why should we care about something
from nineteen sixty three. Well, first, if you recall the assassination,
(16:41):
that was probably the first time in modern American history
that public trust in the government was completely shattered. I
think that's when we started to get really skeptical, and
that skepticism continues today. And I think it also highlights
when you have the intel community kind of doing whatever
(17:03):
they want to do and there's no accountability and their
ability to withhold this information for decades, well in an
era where we're focused on transparency and accountability, it's kind
of like they take in a baby step and that
baby step says okay, but we have other questions. And
I think the other thing that it does is it
(17:23):
reminds us this history is not static. I mean, history
is history. But then you hit new evidence like this
agent's file can at least cause historians to start questioning
some of the assumptions and the premises and even some
of the contentions that we believe have been true for decades.
(17:45):
Was Oswald truly a lone gunman? Was he part of
a larger plot. I don't know. I don't know, but
you know what these documents do. He causes people to
ask questions. Morning from South Dakota. I really like dairy Queen,
but then again, I like gas station hotdogs and gas
station gizzards. Everyone have a great day, Mike.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
For the love of God, consider your listeners. Extrapoli, do
not eat the food at dairy Queen.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Don't do it, Please, don't do it. Please don't. So
he knows we're passive aggressive, and so he knows he's
just trying to poison. He's trying to get rid of us. Dragon.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Yeah, it sounds about right now.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
He's just trying to get rid of us. And what
amazes me is I I you know, I work hard.
I know people think this is not a real job,
and it's not a real job. I don't get my
hands dirty, except you know, Tamer's got me doing crap
at the house or whatever. But you know, I work
hard to bring what I think is interesting, unusual, kind
(18:51):
of get people to think about stuff, pique their curiosity,
and no, just nothing. But we mentioned dairy Queen or
quank fries or whatever, and the text line just blows up.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
Ye, real food a dairy queen. Apparently it's a thing, and.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
We had no clue. But now and he knows, I'm
going to go try it. I don't know when, but
it's good. It may not be today, but at some
point I am going to go try it now, and
then I'll come back and I'll report on it, and
then half the audience will go oo, don't you sow
your dumbass, and then the other half will be see,
(19:31):
wonderful you CNN. This just came across the clipping service,
but it fits with a story that I want to do.
Speaker 5 (19:45):
Are Americans afraid of climate change? And the answer is.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
And the answer is, are you afraid of climate change?
Speaker 4 (19:52):
Raging love of God, let it be no, please.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Please, it's CNN. It's not go to be, but maybe
it's seeing in.
Speaker 5 (20:03):
Are Americans afraid of climate change? And the answer is,
Americans aren't afraid of climate change? Look he Americans afraid
of climate change? And the answer is, Americans aren't afraid
of climate change. But but climate activists have not successfully
(20:28):
made the case to the American people. I want you
to take a look here, greatness.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
You see it's like socialism works. We just haven't had
the right socialist Marxism works. Communism works. We just haven't
had the right people to do it yet. We just
haven't fully explained to them how wonderful communism is.
Speaker 5 (20:47):
We worried about climate change. We have data going all
the way back since nineteen hundred and eighty nine. Look
at that. It was thirty five percent, two twenty twenty
forty six percent, and twenty twenty five forty percent, which
is the exact same percent as back in two thousand,
despite all of these horrible weather events.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Despite all the despite see.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
Or it could just be that those generations that grew
up knowing that, hey, we need to recycle or we're
going to end up in the world that is the
movie Wally uh and and nothing is nothing has changed
at all?
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Right? Or what I love about that point is despite
all of these weather events, now you know precisely why
the networks always if there's a storm or they've changed.
You know that. I mean, where did you used to
get your weather? I mean I can remember fat ass
(21:44):
Al Roker, who has lost I mean he's lost a
lot of ways, I know, So congratulations to Al Roker.
But what does he do? He gives weather out of
New York City for the entire country. Well, that's meaningless
bull crap. And that's now why it's also expanded to
the networks. So the ABC Evening News, the nightly news,
(22:06):
what's lestra hole, or the CBS Evening News, whatever kind
of a joke that is. Now have you seen that recently?
I don't know what they're doing over there, but that
is total crap now, I mean it's even crap squared.
That's now why they talk about, oh, we're going to
have a we're going to have a severe storm warning
for the eastern third of the United States, which now
(22:28):
covers two hundred and thirty nine million Americans. They're trying
to propagandize you. They're trying to get you to draw
some sort of correlation between the weather and climate. This
is this is only a forty four second SoundBite, and
I think it is packed with stuff.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
Americans afraid of climate change, And the answer is Americans
aren't afraid of climate change. Climate activists have not successfully
made the case to the American peace Well, I want
you to take a look here. Greatly worried about climate change,
We have data going all the way back since nineteen
hundred and eighty nine. Look at that, it was thirty
five percent, two twenty twenty, forty six percent and twenty
(23:11):
twenty five.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Pause that for real quickly?
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Did he say we have data that goes back all
the way to nineteen hundred eighty nine.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
Yes, yes, it's.
Speaker 4 (23:20):
The way he dated it. I mean, can you seriously, bro.
Speaker 5 (23:23):
Come on?
Speaker 2 (23:24):
That's look. Have you heard the commercial on it's all
over the radio. Uh, and it's it's some like online
human resources outfit, Bambi or something. Okay, yeah, and the
guy says you can get all of this for only
twenty Yes, that's right, only twenty nine dollars a month.
(23:46):
Have you heard that spot?
Speaker 4 (23:47):
I don't recall.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I hardly listen to you. I'm not going to listen
to the commercials. That drives me, baddie. It's like, did
you try to be any more misleading? Hey, you buy
it my diet coke? It's only twenty Yes, that's twenty
nine dollars a month? Is it twenty?
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Because when you use it twenty nine, nineteen hundred nine,
you know, like nineteen twelve. But no, no, no, our
data goes as far back as nineteen hundred.
Speaker 5 (24:18):
Eighty nine eighty nine Americans afraid of climate change, And
the answer is, Americans aren't afraid of climate change. Climate
activists have not successfully made the case to the American people.
I want you to take a look here. Greatly worried
about climate change? We have data going all the way
back since nineteen hundred and eighty nine. Look at that.
It was thirty five percent, twenty forty percent, twenty twenty
(24:40):
forty six percent, and twenty twenty five forty percent, which
is the exact same percentage as back in two thousand.
Despite all of these horrible weather events, the percentage of
Americans who are greatly worried about climate change has stayed
pretty gosh darn consistent, which kind of boggles the mind
a little bit. Granted, everything that we see on our
televis experience our computer screens, the hurricanes, tornadoes, to flooding,
(25:03):
but yet greatly worried about climate change twenty five the
exact same percentages back in.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Two thousand, despite everything that we see on our television screens,
on our computer screens, that we see everywhere they're driving
a narrative. Wow, I have just bumfuzzled by that. But
let me add a little to it. It's even funnier
in a story that you really could not make up
(25:28):
in a million years if it didn't really happen. The
New York Times recently lamented the loss of an Earth
orbiting satellite whose sole job was to sniff out methane
that was released from oil and gas sites. The New
(25:48):
York Times called it a blow to climate efforts. Now
what does that mean? The Times notes that the catchy
named Methane SAT Methane SAT, Methane SAT was a project
of the climate alarmist activists. These this is These are
(26:12):
the deacons at the church of the Climate Activists, the
Environmental Defense Fund, the EDF. Wouldn't you have called if
you have a satellite that's up in space trying to
detect methane leaks from oil and gas sites, wouldn't you
call it something like like instead of a ghostbuster or
(26:33):
a gasbuster or something as in, you know who you're
gonna call? Well, according to the New York Times writer,
the guy's name is Raymond zong Zhong. Information are sensibly
gathered by this satellite would quote give governments and the
public fresh insight into where this planet heating gas was
(26:55):
coming from and who was responsible for it. Well, what
is that? That is the methane is a plain heating
gas canard. That's the old idea that methane is heating
up the planet. That's pretty predictable and tiresome. But so
is this story. Because if you look at Raymond Soong's bio,
(27:18):
he is a quote reporter focusing on climate and environmental
issues who covers a swath of topics relating to the
natural world and humaniti's relationship with it extreme weather, water, heat, ice, rocks, fire,
usually from the perspective of the scientists who study these things.
(27:41):
What he doesn't say is bio is that he only
covers the emissions from scientists who study of these things.
Fits neatly into that narrative that CNN is so upset
about that it hasn't taken hold with except only forty
percent of the public. As luck would have it, a
(28:02):
guy by the name of Steven Hamburg, who's the chief
scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, is just one of
those narrative fitting scientist types who is only too happy
to assure the reporter that during its oh short time
in orbit, it lasted about a year. Matt Than said
collected magnificent, because what else would the chief scientists at
(28:25):
the Environmental Defense Defense Fund say about his own damn satellite?
Then the data we got was magnificent. That tells you
one how the Environmental Defense Fund works, but it also
tells you how the New York Times really does report
about climate change. So even better to assuage the feels
(28:46):
and the feelings of the Upper east Side, white, upper
class housewife subscriber base that is the only people that
ever read The New York Times except me, because I
always looked for these stupid things. The scientists for the
EDF assures us that he and other researchers will continue
processing the measurements, it being back before it's untimely, demids,
(29:11):
don't you feel better? Don't you feel so much better?
So what happened to methane sat Well, it turns out
that nobody has a clue. It just went dead on
June twenty. It was out over the Pacific, just a
year into its expected five year life. I betty they
used some sort of battery tech to power the satellite.
This is the same battery tech that's used by the
(29:32):
ev industry. We should explain all the range anxiety surrounding
this incident. Anyway, you might be, as I am, wondering
what dimwick folks over the reported eighty eight million dollars
it took to mount this project. Well, it turns out
that the dimwit is Jeff Bezos, because it either had
(29:52):
to be him or Bill Gates or a foundation funded
by some other you know, self loathing family like Oh,
I don't know. The Rockefellers are the Getties, Michael.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
You get that soft served cone dipped in your locolate
you can get in order of super hot crisp creakle fries.
You bite off the tip of that cone and you
dip the fries inside the ice cream heaven.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
No, no, not a French fries dipped in like the Frosty's,
the Windys and the Frosty's and the fries.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
You know, do you do that? No? No, I Sometimes
I don't even like to dip fries in ketchup. I
know it sounds that's communists, I understand that, But sometimes
I just like salty French fries. I don't need no
stinking ketchup. No, I'm not saying it's not always the case.
Sometimes I like ketchup on my fries.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
You do the mayonnaise and ketchup and then dip it
in there.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
No, sometimes I'll do mustard and ketchup and dip it
in that. But ranch dressing, you know, fries and branch dressing. No, no,
you know I'm not much of a guy for that. Okay, yeah, yeah,
but dang it. Can we just I wonder what time
they start serving cheeseburgers, because I could I can go
for a cheeseburger right now. Well, now now that this
(31:14):
is now, we've still screwed up this segment. Let's get
to the text line and see everybody's yelling at me. Now, uh,
dairy queen chicken fingers basket comes with gravy and fries,
white gravy. Oh that's a good question, Oh white grievy. Now,
(31:39):
white gravy, chinger chicken fingers. I would be tempted to
dip both the chicken fingers and the fries and the
white gravy.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
Mike and Dragon.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
When's the listener then, too, d Q or this one?
This is how well? You know, maybe I maybe I
expose too much of myself on the on the radio.
I don't expose myself elsewhere, Trust me, I don't I
don't do that. Uh, you were fifty eight eleven, Michael.
Every time I think about you trying to do handyman
(32:12):
work around the house for Tamra, I'm like lo o L.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
But Michael, the barbecue was like a sloppy Joe. I'd
get what I'd get one whenever i'd pick up a
birthday cake. Actually got surprised with a DQ cake this
year for my birthday.
Speaker 2 (32:27):
And I think we should have a listener event. Well, no,
we need to test. We need to test DQ first, right, Yeah, yeah,
we gotta go test it first. Blindly show up. Yeah,
we can't just blindly show up with you know, twelve
listeners and expect DQ to be able to serve it.
I read a story about somebody that bitched about they
walked into I don't I don't think it was a subway,
but like a Jersey Mikes or a Quizno's or something,
(32:49):
and they ordered sixty nine subway sandwiches and it took
an hour, and they started yelling at the people because
it took an hour to make sixty nine subway sandwiches.
Wrong with people
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.