From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A production of iHeartRadio.
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt, my name is Noa.
They called me Ben. We're joined with our guest superproducer Max the Free Train Williams. Most importantly, you are here. That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know. We're at the beginning of birthday month, as we call it here on this show, and for anybody with an August birthday, we wish you well and grand adventure. We have so much stuff to get to the epas it's getting on message with some things that we talked about
a few years ago. We've got some notable politicians in the news, but maybe not in the way you think. We promise we did want to start. We're talking off air, but with one quick update. A while back we reported on a Kansas City, small town newspaper raid. Do you guys remember that one?
Oh yeah, so that was a big deal. Someone died in someone died in connection with the raid on the newspaper or the house, right.
Yes, Yeah, the big news, the big update is that the former police chief who led the raid on this Kansas City newspaper for doing their journalistic duty. His name is Gideon Cody. He is going to be charged in the Marion County District Court. And the report says that this guy, a actual police chief at the time, committed the crime of obstruction of justice by knowingly or intentionally inducing a witness to withhold or unreasonably delay the production
of testimony, info, or documents. You can read more about this on multiple outlets, but I think we're all very happy to see that there were consequences for this, because, like, cast your memory back just last year, it felt like this could be a harbinger of other crackdowns on the press, right, oh.
One hundred percent.
I mean, it really does feel like a kind of bullying tactic to make the free press scared to exercise the rights of the free press.
And speaking of free press, will take a brief pause here, and then we're going to technically give some free press to several crazy stories, starting with your favorite guy, Elon Musk. We're back. Probably the most conservative opinion of this strange enterprise of hours is that we refuse to call a certain social media platform X. We still call it Twitter and a funny thing. I know, we all clock so
many of the same stories. A funny thing that I saw a headline and wanted to share with everybody is the following from AP News quote Elon Musk X sues advertisers over alleged massive advertiser boycott after Twitter takeover. So even AP news isn't on board with calling it X, they're still calling it Twitter.
Yeah.
I think I maybe mentioned I don't remember if I saw this in an official news source, but it's definitely accurate that just about every news source out there still refers to it as X formerly known as Twitter, making it probably one of the least successful rebrands in the history of rebrands. It's just not taking. People don't like it, and people don't want to say it.
I mean, AP News, the Daily Zeitgeist, the top journalism of America, the top two, for sure. I'll call it Twitter, you, oh, the top two. We're not picking favorites, but those are the top two. This is the story, guys. The social media platform under Musk's management and ownership, has sued a bevy of advertisers and they're saying there's a massive advertiser boycott that has somehow illegally deprived the company of billions
of dollars and also violated anti trust laws. We're going to see some more anti trust kind of stuff coming up later in tonight's program regarding Google. But it's funny to me this story, because hopefully funny to all of us, because not too long ago, didn't Musk tell advertisers to go, you know, take a long walk off a short.
Pier in no uncertain terms. I believe he maybe even swore at them, if I'm not mistaken.
But isn't it funny to see the language of a lawsuit like this more or less to the layman reads, well, if you're not going to advertise with me, then I'm going to assue you for not advertising with me.
No one has to advertise with anybody, right, Like, I don't know. I mean, it's so easy to be gas lit by these very powerful people where you're like, maybe I missed the memo, or there's some legal footnote I'm not aware of, or maybe they do have to advertise with them for reasons unknown.
But no, let's just shake ourselves out of that stupor. I don't believe that's the case, guys. I believe the free market means you can advertise with whoever the hell you want to and or not advertise with whoever the hell you want to.
Yeah, but they isn't the idea or some attorneys, some powerful attorneys somewhere working for Musk, decided it was illegal for at least a blanket organization to say don't buy Twitter.
Yeah, that's what. Yes, that's why. Like ideally, in strange news, we always want to include stories that are a little below the fold and involved in some way with the concept of conspiracy. And you nailed it there. Because the suit is against something called the World Federation of Advertisers. It's an anti trust suit, meaning they're saying a single organization has too much power. Member companies of the World Federation of Advertisers include things like Unilever, CVS Health, and Mars.
Yeah this is not the planet, but the candy company Bars okay, yeah, the other one and so and maybe Mars. Maybe he got soured on the Mars explorations. But in that case, it does seem to have some theoretical sand if you're saying that the if you're alleging that this massive organization pretty much the specter level or the freemason level of advertisers, has banded against you, then you might have a case you can take to court.
That's interesting, and apologies if I misspoke.
I still think I'm somewhat correct in thinking that this is still, at the end of the day, up to the individual members whether or not they choose to advertise with a particular brand or a particular you know, platform. I guess it's just a recommendation or it's sort of like laying out sort of like, hey, we as an organization think that it's bad business to advertise with this platform because of X, Y and Z.
Yeah, you nailed it. Because the specifically they're targeting something called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is a safety initiative that is under the auspice or the control of the World Federation of Advertisers, and they're saying this brand safety initiative sort of orchestrated a pause in advertising. And to your point, Noel, there's not a there's not a provable case of like this kind of organization is not the United Nations, you know what I mean, it's
not the International criminal court. They can't lock up the top six people at Unilever if they want to advertise with whomever.
But even the United Nations more or less issues recommendations on a lot of which are pretty toothless and up to the member nations to decide whether or not they want to play ball or not.
And I mean, I guess if the argument.
Is there is some threat of retribution if our member organizations are member brands, et cetera, don't follow these guidelines set out.
But that was seemingly would be pretty easy to prove. And if that's the case, then yeah, I think that is too much power. But isn't it the job of organizations like this to kind of have ethical guidelines that they sort of lay out.
You know, yes, that that is a solid argument. You know, all less aspects of that are completely vaid. What we can say here is, despite the fact that this is easily a turn of the heel for Musk based on his previous statements, we can say one of the big
questions ultimately becomes one about the legality of boycotts. Now, it wasn't too long ago that there were some kind of polemical forces in the United States and abroad arguing that boycotts against certain countries should be illegal, even though that's very much a grassroots movement, and to this, you know, before we move to the next story here, I think it's a question for us and all of our conspiracy realists listening along at home, should people be able to
make boycotts illegal? Like if a bunch of people decide they don't want to mess with you, should they be forced to mess with you if you're not the actual government.
I think the term that pops up to me, and I just want to pop it up for you guys, is the idea of brand safety, and that's something that we see a lot here in pot casting and as a podcasting network. We have methods and mechanisms in place that ensure brand safety, you know, because brands have guidelines they don't want to be advertised on certain types of shows. Certain types of shows don't want certain types of brands advertised on them.
You know. It's it's it's a.
Very reasonable thing. And one could argue that for certain brands advertising on a platform that is so willy nilly and Lucy Gussey with hate speech and very you know, inflammatory content, it could well be something they might want to be aware of.
Sure, and totally understandable. But to that earlier question, should it be illegal for people to boycott something as private private individuals or private entities?
Oh? Yeah, I think so.
I don't think it should be illegal.
That should know, it should be legal. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, excuse me. It should be legal.
Yes, that is exercising. I mean, hell, if corporations are people, you know, like, come on, shouldn't we be able to do what people do. I don't have to give my money or my business to anybody I don't want to. So it shouldn't be a double standard if we treat corporations like people in one respect, shouldn't we? I mean maybe that's a silly thing to mention, but I do think yes, of course, you should be able to boycott something that you see as being negative and toxic.
Yeah. It gets sticky, though. It really does get sticky, because there are actions you could take to completely tank a corporation, to take a you know, an individual, even a sole proprietorship or an LLC or something. You could tank those things if you had enough players boycotting right that were big enough. In this case, major advertisers Mars
and Utiliver. Come on, you've seen em and yeah, you've seen eminem ads recently probably, and you know all kinds of other ads that you know, all the products that Unilever has to have an organization come through with those massive conglomerates and say no, you cannot do this, you cannot take this one action.
Sure, what what's the what's the recourse though, Guys?
If this is overturned and it's determined, like, isn't it ultimately up to the brands? I mean there's I can't see any possible outcome where it would be like, no, you Unilever have to advertise with Twitter, Like, what's the outcome?
I just don't see kind of what the outcome It.
Will ultimately, I mean, obviously it will ultimately be litigated in courts. The primary, most immediate outcome is that this is awesome for the lawyers involved. They're going to make so much, like egregious, stupid amounts of money. One of them might buy Twitter. I don't know, but this this is going to wend on for a while and make it dismissed. If it gets dismissed, I mean, the rulings
will be appealed, regardless of the courts the side. We're keeping an eye on it again because this is an allegation of conspiracy technically, and for the etymology nerds before we move on, right, because the law is always litigated constantly. That's our next that's our next story in this bit. The etymology of Boycott comes from a guy named Captain Charles C. Boycott back in the mid to late eighteen hundreds.
Everybody in Ireland hated him, everybody in County Mayo specifically because he refused to lower rents for his tenant farmers, just like just like a lot of private corporations refuse to lower post pandemic prices today. We call that foreshadowing. So imagine being so hated that your last name became a word for when a group of people refuses to mess with you.
Like Benedict Arnold or something. You know, it's like a stand in for being a trader.
Yeah, we should call that arnoldy.
Yeah, it's true.
He got his whole name, you know, made into a concept of being a bad guy.
Yeah, this is very interesting.
I mean there is politics involved too, obviously, because I believe some of these findings that are making this seemingly actionable word determined by a House Republican led committee that heard evidence and believe they determined that there were current laws in place sufficient to deter anti competitive collusion in online advertisement. So I mean there's a there's a political
edge to this as well. Of course, not to say that there isn't always when it comes to lawsuits and such, but it does feel maybe a little loaded, and especially since Musk has been such an out such a you know, vocal supporter of the right.
Yeah, especially in recent years. How the turn tables, as they say on the office. But this, this leads us to a setup for another story that we believe is very important for all of us to be aware of. The law is imperfect, law is fallible, and the law can be manipulated. So aside from our billionaire beefs and celebrity beefs that are so often mentioned in media, it's important to look at things like the recent case in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the family members of a woman who died in two thousand and eleven. Her death is currently ruled as a homicide. Ellen Greenberg, a first grade teacher at the age of twenty seven, was found in her apartment with twenty stab wounds. Ruled a suicide. What Yeah, originally ruled a homicide until the medical examiner encountered pressure from local law enforcement and switched the ruling at their order.
Yeah, this is a really sticky, deep Well we could go into if we want to, just all of the things, all of the aspects he went into this case where the boyfriend, you know, is the person that found her.
Yes, the boyfriend breaks down the door. We could also learn a little bit more about Philly medical examiner Marlon Osborne. Right, I don't know, it's.
It's dirty pool the back of the neck. How does one stab oneself in the back of the neck.
And this is coming from AP news, Well, this was this is a while ago.
This is a case that was I think it all hit all of our true crime radar. I can't remember we talked about it on Strange News or not, but.
I don't recall it until this point.
It's really weird because the boyfriend apparently went down to the gym and then came back up and the door was locked, and found his girlfriend that way and there's all kinds of other fishy stuff I remember from like the initial uh, you know, before it even went to court.
I believe, yes, exactly. And this also does a factor in a guy who was going to be a presumptive or he was in the running to be a vice presidential candidate pick. That would be Governor Josh Shapiro. He is now under scrutiny as well because he was in office during the time of this just tragic, tragic case. We're bringing this up to let you know that the
law doesn't always get things right. Again, the law can be pushed, it is fallible, and perhaps this may be an actual episode in the future, because I agree that there is a lot to cover here. The case got it's thirteen years old, you know what I mean, It was more than a decade ago, and Greenberg's parents for more than a decade have been fighting to get the truth about their daughter's murder out there. And it's not just you know, people on Reddit or something who are
saying it's fishy. We're talking about a bevy of for Ren experts who have said something similar to what you just said, Noel, you can't stab yourself ten times in the back in suicide.
Am I missing where the pressure the initial pressure was coming from? I mean, I feel like that would be the red flag, like powerful parents, you know, with access to high powered lawyers, there's.
Some inside person in the coroner's office.
Because a big thing that's mentioned in this ap article is the idea that a coroner should not have quote absolute discretion that can't be challenged, which I think we would all probably agree with on its face, but like, what an odd ruling to happen, you know, right off the rip like that, And I just don't understand where the pressure would have been coming from.
I'll tell you law Tube all of these there are so many YouTube channels that stream like cases every day, and Ellen Greenberg's case has been something that's been going on and on and on and on, and her family has been pushing really hard recently to see change.
No, I'm saying the pressure initially to get yeah.
To initial suicide, to the homicide. How who the flow did Osborne get pushed?
Who's applying said pressure, or at least who is suspected of being the insider and that's maybe pulling the strings or something, Because that, to me is the first thing that my mind goes to, is if we know that oddball ruling like this, where's the political pressure being applied.
Philly PD my guy.
To be quite honest, you think so because it's easier for them because they don't have to do anything about it, because it's just like a case that's checked off.
Well, you're asking who, and that question is why, so who is Philly PD? Why? Maybe it's clearing case. We have to do an episode to know for sure. We can say that the initial calculus on the side of law enforcement and the homicide detectives was that the door was broken down by the boyfriend, the paramore. We mentioned Goldberg right, the door was locked from the inside. The PD said there were no signs of an intruder and
that Greenberg, the teacher, had no defensive wounds. And then later they said there were mental issues that Greenberg may have had and that was their primary impetus for coming back and pressuring the Medical Examiner's office to change the ruling to a suicide. But you know, again, without being lawyers, without being doctors, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that that would be a virtually impossible way to kill yourself,
like stabbing yourself. That many times repeatedly without dying part way through. Yeah.
I mean, you know, even in cases like the death of Elliott Smith, for example, the singer.
Who stabbed himself stabbed himself in the.
Chests, and there were immediate questions about whether his girlfriend was involved for that very reason, because it's just he like shot himself in the gut, want to say, which is also the worst possible way to go, and then stabbed himself in the heart. So I believe, again I'm not getting the details exactly right, but I think it was. There were initial questions that his girlfriend, who was either nearby or present, had something to do with it, but that was eventually quashed.
But there were questions.
M Yeah, and there are questions that hopefully and most importantly, uh, the family will the family of Greenberg again, Goldberg is the boyfriend, Greenberg is the victim. Hopefully the family of Greenberg will be able to get those answers. And if you guys think it's worth making an episode on it, I say, I say let's do it, because this is still this is still ongoing and hopefully hopefully investigations continue. How does that.
Sound sounds good?
Well, we can't leave you on that note. So we're gonna we're gonna move to something that is less disturbing to some of us but intensely disturbing to a few of our our fellow conspiracy realist. If you gets squiked out by food, fast forward about three to four minutes. The country of Singapore has some new stuff on the menu. You guys have eaten crickets right, like Sunday school crickets, sometimes tacos.
Yeah.
Yeah. Singapore has approved edible insects at not because there was you know, some nepotism and some like kid of a billionaire is a edgy chef or something. It's because they have growing food security concerns, the same way that the European Union has a bunch of farm subsidies to keep their agricultural industry going despite rising costs. Singapore just approved edible insects. And if we want to call out a school early and head to Singapore's house at seafood restaurant,
we can get the fishhead curry, Matt, you'lvecurry. We can get the fish head curry with a side of crunchy crickets. We can also get tofu that comes with the bugs, no extra charge.
Delicious that crunch. Instead of those little crispy wantons, you just get some bugs.
It's a feature, not a bug, but it's a bug.
Worth it, worth it. It's sixteen species of different things that can be served in Singaporean restaurants now crickets, grasshoppers, grubs, meal worms. It took about two years for the notoriously strict Singaporean government to decide on this and say it it could actually happen. TikTok is going to go crazy for it. We also know the real reason it's happening is not because Singapore loves TikTok. It's not nepotism. It's because insects are primarily protein one. You can fry about
anything and make it taste good too. And in twenty nineteen, Singapore looked around and realized ninety percent of its food is imported, and they're aiming to create thirty percent of their nutritional needs internally by twenty thirty. So there are a lot more bikes in the future. We talked about this a little while back. When did we gosh, it was years ago we talked about this idea. Was it
lab grown meat something like that? Protein alternatives absolutely and you know, there's been a lot or much a do I think maybe in certain circles about like.
This is the future that liberals want, you know, or we're eating bugs. Everything's bugs, you know, bug protein, and it is kind of the stuff of sci fi where like a dystopian future where everything is just sort of made of like an amalgamation of like insect kiten or something.
Like that, you know.
But it is certainly better for the environment than like with all the gases that come from slaughterhouses and cow cattle production and things like that, and of course the if you go that route, the inhumanity of meatduction in general.
But it is a talking point that you hear about, like the idea they just want.
To serve us bugs and before we go to an at break and we'll have to say that is a perfect setup. There's other news. We didn't get to corpse shortage due to rise in Scottish medical students. Clearly a necromancer wrote that headline. Heightened tensions in Lebanon. Hope everybody can get a flight out. Chinese American man has been convicted of spine on dissidence for China. There's way more to that story, but for now speaking of weird foods,
would you ever eat a bear? Or if you had a dead bear, what would you do with it?
Well, you know, Ben, they say, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear, well he eats you.
We'll be right back after a word from our sponsors.
And we returned with I think one other stranger political stories in a political season that has been rife or as you point out, our friend Frank says, wide rife with.
Strangeness, This comes from fledgling.
I guess one could argue third party candidate and political dynasty member Robert F.
Kennedy Junior. Guys, he would be the son of Bobby Kennedy, isn't that right? Son of Robert Kennedy senior.
Yaes career, son of the assassinated assassinated Bobby Kennedy exactly.
And I don't know.
Political dynasties are fascinating, And I know that's one of your pet subjects, Ben, and one that you have mega problems with. The scruples shall we say, because I was talking to my kid the other day trying to explain to them what a political dynasty is and I couldn't help. Probably from your influence, Ben, just say it's basically like a monarchy, but it just sort of like plays by a different set of rules, but ultimately is kind of
the same thing. It's like a lineage that yeah, sure they get elected, but it also calls into question all the things behind the scenes about what does it mean to get.
Pold it's jag just as gross.
Yeah, I think so too, and it really again not this isn't really what the story is about, but it does call into question all of the machinations behind the scenes of what it takes to get elevated to that level and what it means to actually get you know, that level of prominence, and is it Is it fair?
Because I would argue it.
Can't possibly be with a number of repetitive entries into the political United States political history that do come from these dynasties.
But we're talking about.
RFK Junior, who you could also argue is a bit of a black sheep of the Kennedy political dynasty because the Kennedys have traditionally been pretty I guess liberal, I get, I don't know. I mean, that's means different things, you know, throughout history, but in general a little bit more on the progressive side, A little bit more from that kind of Boston lawyering kind of background, well spoken and well educated and typically you know, proponents of pretty progressive policies.
RFK Junior, on the other hand, has had some real problematic bouts with the public. I I suppose in terms of his anti vax standpoint, his anti VAX's few viewpoints. I believe he even had like an organization that he founded that was intended to proliferate anti VAX sentiment, like shut down or at least like taken off of social media platforms for disseminating incorrect information let's just say determined to be incorrect.
Also been in the news recently because he's.
Running as this third party candidate, a lot of people are calling him kind of a spoiler candidate, which would be spoiler for the Democrat side, the Democrat ticket, and up until the point, you know, recently, when Joe Biden dropped out of the race, that certainly seemed like the case.
But now his continued presence.
Almost seems like it might actually be a spoiler for the Republicans because of the way things are sort of shaping up. So that's interesting in and of itself. No one certainly thinks he's a viable candidate. He is married to Cheryl Hines of Curb Your Enthusiasm fame, which I was a little bummed to here.
I at least kind of like Cheryl.
He does have a background of conservationism in a way. Was recently announced to have been diagnosed with having brainworms that he believes he may have gotten on his travels abroad, you know, for some of these humanity, you know, humanitarian efforts. But now it turns out he may actually have gotten these brain worms from a dead bear cub carcass that he decided in his wisdom to pick up off the road on his way on a falconing expedition with an unnamed buddy of his.
He lives in.
Westchester, which is a very affluent part And is it Connecticut, geyser?
Is that upstate New New York?
Connecticut and upstate New York almost blend together in my mind geographically in terms of like where the rich people who go into the city during the day for work actually live.
But it does true, Okay, so it is it is upstate, isn't.
Well, it's a Westchester county, Westchester County exactly.
And I've never purported to be a master geographer, but I'm trying to do my best here. He was on his way to a falconing expedition, which is, I guess another thing rich people do in the Hudson Valley when apparently a car or a van as he describes it, in front of him, hit and killed a bear cub. How do we know about this, you guys might be asking, Well, he posted a video of himself essentially admitting to this whole affair we're going to get into the details of
with Roseanne Barr, the I don't know troubled comedian. I guess it was once a household name for the Roseanne show, the sitcom with John Goodman that was, like, you know, a staple of nineties kind of televisual viewing.
And she later became a poster child for ambient correct.
Well because she said some things, some very offensive, racially insensitive. Dare I say hateful things that I'm not going to repeat here, but then claim that she only did it because she was on ambient And if anyone knows anyone who takes ambient or has any experience with themselves, you do know that there is a thing is.
Like this ambient lore.
It's true that it can cause you to say some weird stuff, or make weird food in the middle of the night, or just generally kind of have these like you know, fugue state moments, these incidents. And this is what she claimed was the case. But she's been problematic for other reasons. She's just been a real political firebrand and has some pretty insensitive views, let's just say.
But that's not the point.
The point is this is the venue which Rfka Junior chose to cop to this occurrence essentially. So what happened was he claims he saw the bear being hit, he got out of.
His car, he picked up the bear, put it in his.
Car, with the intention, he said, of taking it home, skinning it, butchering it, and saving the bear meat to consume at a later date. Berting it, yeah, dehydrating it, making bear jerky whatever.
Really yeah really.
And then he also went so far as to say, and this is totally legal in the state of New York.
Because this is considered roadkill.
Is true, it is legal. It's illegal to have people pay you to serve it to them, but it is legal to consume it yourself. And also I would argue. You know, it's an accident. He wasn't purposely hunting the bear. It is not an unethical thing to do. But he was on the way to the airport in a bit of a rush.
Well, it gets weirder. He wasn't well, he wasn't on the way in the airport. Even yet, there's more. He was on the way to falconing.
But Matt, I see you have some more questions before we get to the next bet.
But he was going to eat the bear meat.
Which is not a good It's it's apparently right though, guys, ye general.
Yeah, you're thinking of the viral video that posted recently with all the tapeworms coming out of it's but for years. Yeah, like it's it's true though, they are riddled because they eat a lot of raw salmon, eat a lot of raw raw food that already has parasites. It's part of the grand circle of life of creepy things. But yeah, people eat bear meat.
There are parts of the bear.
There are parts of the bear that are apparently safer than others to consume. It is not my wheelhouse at all,
so I couldn't tell you what it is. But you know, you've eaten exotic jerky's been that's sort of a thing that you've done in the past, and in our travels together, we went on a weird road rally in like West Virginia, down that part of the country where you might have a little more roadkill based culinary let's excursions, and there are lots of crazy road roadside shops that would sell rattlesnake jerky and all of this kind of stuff that's
probably prepared regionally, So there's a certain acceptance for that kind of thing in certain parts of the country.
But we yeah, so he and he's a guy.
That's an outdoorsy guy. He likes to get out the great outdoors. He's going falconing. This sort of tracks, I would argue, But what gets a little suss is what happens next. He puts the bear in his car, he goes falconing, has such a lovely time falconing.
Is that do you hunt when you're falconing?
Is it literally just you send the falcon out and it catches small game and then it brings it back to you.
Sometimes you can you can have it bring back game, or you can just set it for itself. The big trick is getting it to trust you enough to come back.
You got the glove and everything.
And he's also the falcon hat. You know about that, right.
That's the one that it humps basically right like it. It's attracted to it sexually.
And the reason the reason my friends and I are not falconers.
Actually, if anyone listening to this show for any amount of time, they know there's many reasons that I'm not a fant falconer, and this whole hobby is mystifying to me. These are birds of prey, they got sharp beaks and claws and talons or whatever.
I just I would be terrified.
But so they had such a lovely time falconing, and then afterwards he's the idea was he was going to go back to his place in Westchester. Almost want to do some fact checking here with lebe a little Google map. So if we do Google maps, like from Hudson Valley to west Chester, you know it takes a long time to get anywhere in this part of the country because of traffic, and then especially if you're factoring in like
going into the city. So let's see Hudson Valley, New York, get directions from there to west Chester, Westchester.
New York. That is a good hour and forty minutes. You know.
Also two questions. One did he have a bear tag? In Two? What time of year was it?
Well, that's the thing, though, Ben. What he claims is that he didn't need one because it was roadkill. That's what he says to Roseanne. That's all I'm saying.
But it's I think he said, at least if I'm remembering the video posted.
To x he posted himself.
Yeah, yeah, he got in front of the story. They would call it right. So if I'm remembering this correctly, didn't he say? It's legal in New York to take home route kill bear if you have a bear tag, it's a bear tag.
There's no bear hunting in this part of the I guess, would you, I get maybe there is, I guess in the Hudson Valley air I mean they are wooded area.
Maybe you could go bear. So it's a bear tag like a hunting license for bear.
Like According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, if you hit I think if you hit most wild animals with a vehicle, local law enforcement can and will allow you to take the animal by They just say, writing a tag for it. You can learn more by contacting the New York Bureau of Wildlife at five poet eight four oh two eight eight eight three. I'm reading straight off their twitter.
I just I'm sorry not to get log jams here with this, but right like it's it's this form of a license.
Then is it a one time thing? Who writes the tag?
I'm also seeing that, you know, bears in the wilderness for research purposes, for various other conservation purposes are tagged.
You know, that's a different kind. It is a different I know.
I'm just making sure that I'm on the same page, right right, So I don't want to get caught up in the weeds here. So let's just for for auntents and purposes, let's just say that he thought what he was doing was legal, and he made that clear to Rosehirt and said that what I you know, what.
I was doing. He actually goes out of his way to say that this is legal.
All the while Roseanne is just kind of listening, seeming somewhat mystified by the whole thing. It's sort of like, why are you telling me this kind of and to your point, Ben, it does feel as though he was trying to get ahead of a story that he knew was going to drop about a news event that happened about ten years ago where a bear's carcass was found in New York City's Central Park next to like a
broken down bicycle in a bike lane. And it was a big old mystery as to where this bear came from, because there's no bears in the Central Park.
There are no bears in New York City.
They would be much more relegated to the surrounding wilds of New York State and in Connecticut, et cetera. So this is our FK Junior coming out and saying, yeah, that was me. I dropped the bear there because he was having such a grand old time falconing that they didn't have time to go back to his home in Westchester, where he was going to deposit the bear into a freezer of some sort, I guess, until he had time
to butcher it. Instead, he had to make it over to Peter Luger Peter Luga Steakhouse, where he had a business dinner. It's the kind of place the valet's okay, so presumably he valeid his car with a dead bear. KRK is in the back because another article written about him claimed that he has a really disgusting car, like really like covered in animal fur. Like instead of the back seat, there's just like a bench and like the side mirrors smashed.
But I don't know, maybe he's self parked.
But typically places like that you got a valet, so presumably the dead bear Carkers is still in there, rotting all the.
While before we move on. It's sitting there. Let's pause there in time, dead bear sitting there in the car. It reminds me so much of the SNL sketch The Falconer, Like the basis of that sketch, do you guys remember it?
And I don't know that one tell us it's.
Will Forte playing a guy who just leaves his whole family, goes out in the woods, meets a falcon. I think its name is Donald, Yeah, it's Donald. He's always yelling, he gets trapped all the time. He yells for Donald to help him, who's his falcon? And then Donald goes and eats at a like crazy fancy luxurious restaurant instead of helping him. And it's just like it's an excuse to show a falcon doing bougie stuff. I think, yeah, but it reminds me so much of this.
It's a Peter Luger steak house likely might have been a place that the Donald would have frequented, but presumably he had a change of clothes. You know, you don't go to Peter Luger wearing your falconing scrubs. I don't know what when falcon's in, to be honest. And then
apparently it was running late for the airport. You didn't seem like he planned ahead very well in all of this, and so then thought that it would be a real hoot in a holler if he just dumped the bear in Central Park, which we'll get into this in a minute.
Why a lot of this doesn't quite make sense.
And he recently there had been a spate of cyclists, like the new bike lanes had been put in and around Central Park and people were getting pancaked by bicyclists. So he thought it'd be funny if he staged a crime scene to make it look like the bear was hit by a cyclist. So he left his disheveled bike Lely also had in his vehicle on top of the bear, and then skid addled.
And that would be the conspiratorial part of the story.
Well, there's a bunch because the report, you know, from the original discovery of this bear carcass was.
That it had stab wounds.
It was determined to have been you know, that life was determined to have been ended by a vehicle, But it also was reported to have had stab wounds.
Maybe that's certainly possible.
There are also images out there. I don't know exactly
where they came from. It must he must have posted them himself, but of RFK like posing with the bear carcass, like putting his hand down its throat and kind of weird stuff like yeah, yeah, because graphic picture here shows RFK Junior posing with dead bear code before dumping it in Central Park, and it does show him like with the bear cub like propped up and got his hand in his mouth looking like pretending like he's being bitten, and he's making this face like oh my hand with
this kind of messed up looking bear carcass. And he claims that he just had to get to the airport and didn't have time and so he dumped it in Central Park as a goof.
But guys, Central Park isn't near the airport. There's a million places, like you know, in the woods.
If he's out there, he's I think I think Peter Lugers is in Jersey, and then the depending on which airport he's going to with JFK or LaGuardia or even Newark, there's a lot of like kind of wooded areas around there. They're not like smack in the middle of the city, and it takes an hour to get to Central Park or more from the airport.
You know, I know this isn't a mere mortal.
He probably has special transportation or maybe even a choppa, who knows, but it just doesn't track.
It's super weird, and it's.
Also super weird that he was like, see, this is funny, and I told Roseanne, so it's funny, she's a comedian.
It's just mega weird the whole thing.
And then he even joked when asked about it, like that maybe he got his brain worms from the bear carcass.
So I don't know that.
That's the best I can do to sum up this bizarre hotale. Maybe you guys have some stuff to add, or we could chat back and forth about it for a little bit, because I'm a little mystic.
Fine the conspiratorial angle are plenty, Like what was he thinking? Why did he do this? He said he was playing.
A prank more or less. But it's like ten years had passed. He had to know that it was reported on you know, I don't know guys.
Well, you know, it always makes you wonder about supremely wealthy, powerful families like the Kennedys, like you know a lot of others. What do they get up to, just, you know, for a little laugh.
That's what I was.
That's literally the vision. But that's not fun that's not funny. It's funny that you said it in that way, but chap equittic is not funny at all. But but it does make me wonder about just the little things that they do for a laugh. When I'm just imagining my family didn't have much money, we would we would just go outside, or we would play lawn darts, or we would.
Make illegal matt.
That is a privileged position, you playing your illegal hunger games.
When we were young, back when when I was growing up as a kid, like, I just wonder what a supremely powerful, wealthy family considers. Oh that's silly, let's do that's a prank.
Yeah, tap equittic was Ted Kennedy, right, Yeah, who who you know ended up drunk driving and taking the life of one of his passengers, married Joe Kopecney. Out there in Martha's vineyard, another place where the rich and powerful l like to frolic.
There were consequences of a sort. It's the reason he didn't become president.
Well, but the one could argue that it is barely at It is a consequence if that's.
Your whole bag and that's your whole life's goal.
But I can say it again more sarcastically.
No, no, I get what you say. I'm man, We're on the same page there. I'm just saying, like, it's not the same consequence as if someone.
Like you or I did something like this.
And speaking of consequences, I do believe what he did was illegal. Dumping a bear carcass in a public park in that way, I believe that's like a biohazard at the very least.
If not something has.
Leased against the city ordinance, it has to be otherwise it's New York City. They'd be riddled with bear carcasses because that's how people work. I'm kidding there, but I don't know it does seem, it does seem like, without being a Bureau of Wildlife Management experts ourselves, ourselves, that there would be some other less controversial way to dispose of that, Like you could get I'm making things up, but surely you could call some kind of wildlife removal
and ask them to pick it up. Right. Even here in Georgia we have some we have various sorts of roadkill management.
You know, Yeah, you let somebody know and then you drive on.
I just sounded like he was just tickled by the whole thing, you know, like he just thought this was a real silly goof, only to then realize that it was reported quite widely, even outside of New York City like this certainly made some headlines. I guess it was a slow news day, but it does appear that he could well have faced some fines for dumping a dead
bear in Central Park. The state agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, that led an actual forensic investigation into the bear dumping, set in a statement this week, but the statute of limitations had long expired on that, so really just kind of another embarrassing gaff for for old RFK Junior By.
The way, listen to episode what was the chapiquetic Incident? It was put out in twenty eighteen and then again as a classic last year.
Thanks for that, Matt.
Yeah.
So with that, let's take a quick break and hear a word from our sponsors, and then we'll come back with one more piece of strange news.
We've returned and we are jumping to a story from the EPA, really an announcement maybe from the EPA that's been covered to a lot of places. But before we get there, let's talk about a specific herbicide product that's produced by this outfit, am VAC Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary of the American Vanguard Corporation. The herbicide brand in question is dakthal dac t h a L fluwable herbicide herbicide
excuse me, aka dimethyl tetrachlor tariff tholate aka DCPA. For the rest of this evening, we're going to call it DCPA.
Now.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, this substance DCPA is quote and herbicide applied to control grasses and certain broad leaf weeds in both agricultural and non agricultural settings. Agricultural uses include coal, crops such as broccoli, kale, and cabbage, cucurbits such as squash, pumpkin, and zucchini, tomatoes, onions, and many herbs. And they also note that this is primarily used on crops such as broccoli, brussels, and cabbage, also onions.
The EPA also notes that this herbicide is commonly used for non agricultural purposes on sites that have quote non residential turf. What do you think that means, guys, non residential turf?
You mean, like, no, I don't think I do know.
The neighborhoods is yeah.
Well there's a neighborhood around a thing.
That it's not on the actual Just to clarify, I'm saying it's not used technically in the neighborhood. Yes, it's used Is that correct?
Pretty much the golf course. That's what that reads or should read.
Yes, that's why I was getting exactly Yeah.
Yeah. They also say it's used on ornamentals, but I don't think we need to worry about that for this. The reason why we are concerned is because it is used on a ton of crops that a ton of us consume, and it is used It was used on golf courses where a ton of I'm gonna say it, mostly wealthy people go and hang out. Maybe that's is that, Maybe that's not right. I'm sure there are a lot of public golf courses that are available to everyone that
many people use. Perhaps in my personal experience, the golf courses are reserved for people who have quite a bit of money to spend in.
Say, country can country clubs.
You gotta be like invited, you know, you gotta it's like.
Well the gut ones. Yeah, there are a lot where you can just pay it and they'll let you in. Yeah.
Probably in my experience, it's people who have that that that money to spend to get in and play golf frequently enough for the purposes of this episode, to play golf frequently enough to be exposed enough to this chemical.
An important distinction. This is an herbicide, not a pesticide, but.
It has been called a pesticide in a lot of the reporting, which I do too. They call it a pesticide that targets weeds. Right, what you don't do you mean an herbicide? Sorry? The EPA even called it a pesticide after previously calling it an herbicide. In September twenty twenty three release, which is just whatever. So why are
we talking about this thing? It's because, for the first time in forty years, the seriously, the first time in forty years, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken an emergency action to stop the use of a chemical herbicideer pesticide linked to serious health risks for fetuses for unborn babies. Sure,
so why is it dangerous? Well, according to the EPA, unborn babies whose pregnant mothers are exposed to this substance, sometimes even without knowing exposure has occurred, can experience changes in fetal thyroid hormone levels, and these changes are generally linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ, and impaired motor skills later on in life, and a
lot of that can be completely irreversible. These are birth defects that this chemical, at least according to the EPA, may cause.
So there are mitigation strategies, but there is no way to fix it.
Oh.
Speaking of fixing things, Matt, I'm so sorry to intertect before we get to before we get too far. If you're writing the email, yes, we understand. Pesticides are the umbrella category, and plants count as pest in some cases, so herbicides are more under that umbrella specifically focused on unwanted plants.
But that's what this thing is. That's why I'm so upset about it. This thing doesn't target creatures. It targets the weeds that you don't want growing next to your cabbage and your broccoli and your backchoi or whatever.
And unborn humans. Clear. Oh but that's thet I mean. I'm just putting the pesticide herbicide thing there to get again in front of the email.
Oh sure, short, short, st sure and write the email please. We will still read it. So this is very very strange, you guys, because this substance DCPA has been looked at by the EPA for a long time. It goes way back to twenty thirteen. Well, actually goes back to two thousand and two when this company started producing the substance. But in twenty thirteen there was basically what's known as a data call in or a DCI, issued by the EPA.
They send it out to let's say the manufacturer of a chemical in this case AMVAC, and they say, hey, we need you to conduct these internal studies on your product, and we need you to send us all of the data. And it was requiring them to submit more than twenty studies to support the existing registrations of this specific chemical.
So it's a lot of that what we were talking about with the Supreme Court decision right pretty recently, where the EPA is going to going to war or you know, let's say battle with a company that's producing a chemical like this. And now the Supreme Court doesn't have to rely on the previous rulings or the previous decisions by a federal body like the EPA. Now they can look at whatever in this case, AMVAC says, and so we'll go with that. They don't have to go with the
EPA's ruling in this case. So it goes back to twenty thirteen. EPA is trying to get information on the product from the company that produces it. They are failing to send in this information. They fail to do so for almost ten years. They don't get all the information needed on this chemical substance that is being applied to broccoli and cabbage and kale and all kinds of pumpkins
and stuff across the United States. But the company making the product doesn't care enough, I guess, or is concerned enough with their own product that they don't want to get it taken off shelves because they're making a lot of money's and that's my own words there as my accusation. But eventually, in I think it's in twenty twenty two, finally all of the information gets from this company to the EPA. The APA can finally evaluate it, and when they do, they realize, oh crap, there is there is
serious risk. And back in twenty twenty three, this is why I bring up the turf so much. Guys, back in twenty twenty three, there was basically a voluntary cessation of the use of this substance on turfs, so like on golf courses for things like that, because the risk was unacceptable.
Guys.
On the label for this substance, when you are buying it as an herbicide and you're gonna put it on your golf course, let's say it says after you apply this stuff, you get like twelve hours, don't go out there on the golf course, and you should be fine
after that. But according to the EPA and the internal studies that were submitted, it takes around twenty five days for it to be safe to go back out on the turf, which in my mind I imagine CEOs, wealthy business owners and entrepreneurs that are out there on the links and realizing, oh crap, we were being exposed to like a really dangerous chemical. We should probably stop doing that. And you know, well over a year later it's like, oh, yeah,
the fetuses are at risk too. I guess we should probably stop that.
But unlike public school playgrounds, the victims here have the legal and financial wherewithal to prosecute their case.
Do something about it. Yeah, dude, Yes, it does kind of call into start or place in stark contrast that kind of you know, upstairs downstairs model of these kinds of things, like the folks who really you know, are just in communities where these kinds of things have been used or even tested. Uh, And just the lack of transparency.
But of course when it's on the golf course and people are gonna stand up and say something about it and use their you know, clout to have it rectified.
Mm hmmmm, it should be noted here, guys, are just a couple more things The EPA attempted to stop the production of like the maybe you can think about it as a concentrated version of this pesticide. The EPA tried to do that last year, but they it's one of those weird things where but any of that stuff that was already in the marketplace or had already been purchased by a consumer or you know, by a big company that's got to use it on a huge farm. All of that's fine, you can still use all of that.
That's all gravy. Just company don't make anymore. And it was all because they were working on they're waiting on paperwork still.
So not a recall. Knowing a lot of these larger private entities or even municipalities might be buying a ton of this at once, like in bulk literal tons.
Exactly, but then for less than a year later to come out and issue an emergency order to stop use. So that isn't to stop selling, to stop producing, that is, to stop using this product no more can you use it? The EPA says. They say, this order is a effective immediately, and this is interesting to me. This is why they're taking this action right now. They say that The EPA says that the continued sale and use of DCPA products during the time it would take to follow the normal
cancelation process poses an imminent hazard to unborn babies. And they said the company Amvac, attempted to address these concerns and they note that here, but they've determined that there's no practical mitigation measures that could be put into place to allow its continued use. So like Amvac proposed a couple of changes to the product itself, a couple of changes to you know, what the product would say, and all this other stuff, but the EVA came back and said, no, no,
we got to stop this thing right now. This is really scary for me guys personally, considering literally how many Brussels sprouts and like broccolis and broccolini and all this other stuff that I feed my son and vegetable yali, yes, all the onions and just all these things that you use in normal everyday cooking, especially for meals that you wouldn't even think about onions being in your dish, but you're using it, you know, for the flavor or as you know, part of a trinity.
It's just.
I don't know, it really freaks me out, and I'm glad this is happening. But I kind of feel like this thing, this power that the EPA is flexing right here, should be happening like once a month.
Isn't that kind of the issue it? Maybe correct me if I'm if I'm misunderstanding it isn't.
What led to them actually doing something about it was the you know, complaints from the halves.
I'm not a I'm not sure about that. Maybe what I'm seeing is more this back and forth between the EPA and the company and EPA trying to get internal document and in studies that they're conducting themselves, which is a major problem.
Also, Yeah, it's a long time in coming, but I think I would agree with Noel there that it is at least partially due to the demographic of people affected in some circumstances. Still, cruciferous vegetables in particular are such a common part of the diet. If you could clarify for this, just to be sure everybody knows, this is not the kind of thing you can just wash off the vegetable.
Right No, no, no, like it's.
Inside it, it will it can get to people. Yeah, the consumption check.
One of the big selling points on the website for this product, the one that's got a brand name.
What is it?
A dackthel is just how long it sticks around after you apply it. You know, basically, you plant your seeds, you've already weeded or treated your soil to some extent. You've planted your seeds. Then you put this stuff on and it's supposed to stick around for a long time and it's it has staying power, and that's why it's so good.
Just once. I want one of these environmental contaminants to have a positive effect on the population, like microplastics that are good for your balls, you know, lead that makes you smarter. Just one, just give us one win.
Yeah, that would be cool. But I don't think it's gonna have been the tie a runoff and everything. We're going down as a species. Silver lining silver lining, sorry, silver lining.
We're for Genie news species.
Yes, that's right. The silver lining is is they got it.
They did They did good. They you know it's not the.
EPA did its job. That is an awesome thing. And you know, thankfully, if Project twenty twenty five goes its way, the EPA will no longer exist and they won't have to do this anymore.
It'll well it's colloidal silver.
You're doing a bad job at silver lining this sorry escort.
It's a EPA the sole proprietorship right of a guy who's retired from DuPont a while back. And you know, everybody, it's like Lord Michael's where you pitch Saturday Night Live guest appearances. You if you have a complaint about contaminants in the environment, you get three minutes in front of this guy, shark tank style, and he gives you a yes or no, whether or not he believes you.
Hmm, I believe you, guys. This is a I'm gonna end with this. This is a statement from Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michael Friedolf. He says DCPA is so dangerous that it needs to be removed from the market immediately. It's EPA's job to protect people from exposure to dangerous chemicals. In this case, pregnant women who may never even though they were exposed, could give birth to babies that experience irreversible lifelong health problems.
That's why, for the first time in almost forty years, EPA is using its emergency Suspension authority to stop the use of a pesticide boom again every month, Michael, every month, we need another chemical out of there.
And I hope please freight train keep that clap it. Because these emergency powers exist for a reason, and in just because something doesn't seem as I'm using the word in the old school sense here as spectacular as a natural disaster, it doesn't mean it's not disastrous.
And I guess we'll have to tackle several other stories that we didn't talk about today, maybe next week, or maybe we won't talk about them at all because there's so much happening. Oh, do look up the attorneys general that when on a France trip with this really ah man, I wrote all this stuff out and it's just it's
just gross. It's another example of kind of ben It was a lot like your story, where it's a conglomerate kind of blanket umbrella thing that's really hard to even see through where all the campaign finance donations come from
and where all the lobbyist money comes from. But all of these attorneys general get to go hang out somewhere every year or even every you know, a couple of quarters and half of them, right, Yeah, in this case, I think it's twenty six of them got to go out to France on a trip sponsored by these donors or lobbyists of some sort a company called sh Yeah, you can look it up. It's gross.
Yeah.
Check out also the story of Shu Zhun Wang. That is one we didn't get to. There are so many stories we haven't gotten to. We want to thank everybody for tuning in. Will be back next week, still birthday month, still strange news. You know the score. Fellow conspiracy realists, Please please, please please make our evening and become part of the show. We can't wait to hear from you. And it is so distressingly easy to find us online.
Yes, indeed distressingly easy. That's a good thing, right. You can find us in the handle conspiracy Stuff, where we exist on x FKA Twitter. Isn't it funny that some parts of that platform still call it tweets and have leftover remnant language from the previous regime.
I just think that's funny.
You can also find that handle on Facebook, where we have our Facebook group Here's where it gets crazy. And on YouTube we have a video content galore. On Instagram and TikTok, we are Conspiracy Stuff showely.
Lead tweet lead. Isn't that a song?
I don't know?
And that's it? Okay. I think I heard that in my parents' cars a long time ago when I was string.
On ninety seven point one the oldies channels.
It's also Andy Bernard's ringtone on the office and Jim hides it in the ceiling at one point and causes Andy deg bunkers.
Speaking of ring tones, give us a call one eight three three STDWYTK. When you call in, give yourself a cool nickname, and then you've got three minutes say whatever you'd like do. At some point in that message, let us know if we can use your name and message on one of our listener mail episodes. If you've got more to say than can fit in that three minutes, one out. Instead, send us a good old fashioned email.
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence we receive. Be well aware, but not afraid. Sometimes the void writes back. In fact, some of us are on the road for a little bit due to some situations. If you would like to receive an out of context photograph, write to us conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.