Ochelli Effect JFK Myths Episode 6 12-19-2015 Featuring Sherry Fiester

And now and now most underrated voice in all media, the alternatives alternative, Chuck o'celly. So it's the nineteenth day, according to what I can see, the nineteenth day of December twenty fifteen. And good evening to you. We are live at the moment. Who knows if you're catching this further on down the stream the o'celly Effect from American Freedom Radio at Americanfreedomradio dot com. Anyway, here we go again with yet another Myths episode. Yes, I

have done this several times, but it bears repeating. And besides, it is nearly endless, the amount of material that is out there which is based on a foundation of well, let's just call it nonsense, badly sourced information, extremely poorly scientifically studied information, et cetera, et cetera. And this is part six of the Myths series. So moving forward, I have with me, as always Carmine Sabastano, who has joined me on every single one

of these Myths episodes from Mineapolis Media Group. And of course his book is soon to come out a it's called Two Princes and a King, and that will focus on not only the JFK assassination, but the assassination of Bobby Kennedy as well as doctor Martin, Luther King Junior. How you doing tonight,

Carmine doing great? Chuck, thanks for having me back. Man. I can't do this without you, because otherwise, otherwise I wind up just upset, Sir, I need someone else to like take take you know, take a few minutes of the broadcast every once in a while, for sure. Even though you know I do like to talk. I'm happy to discuss this subject, but sometimes, out of abject frustration, disappointment, and complete disbelief, I have to take a step back from some of the things talk about

on these shows. So I appreciate you helping me through them in a therapeutic fashion. By Zan Noble and a very special guest I have with us tonight, and she has been on my show a few times. I do appreciate every single time I get to sit down and talk to Miss Sherry Feaster.

Now, Cherry Feaster is an interesting character, not in the simple way that she's merely been an author, okay, but her approach to the subject of the JFK assassination and the background she possesses, as well as the sanity with

which she makes her presentations well, what am I going to say? You guys have heard me several times, even during these arguments and very strange situations, including the night that we did at the anniversary show, where I turned around and mentioned her directly during a heated exchange and said, you know, if you take a look, look at somebody who actually understands the forensic spine. Don't take my amateur understanding of them for granted, but hey, how

about somebody who actually worked in that particular profession. How about somebody who's studied it from that particular angle, who's written about it, who completely disagrees with your nonsense. And I'll omit the name of the person I was arguing with. How about her study on this and why everything you're saying right now makes absolutely no sense based on that and modern forensic techniques which were not even imagined

at the time that you're saying everything was falsified. Oh yeah, that didn't go well. But I absolutely do look at Sherry Feaster as somebody who you need to study. Of course, she is the author of what do we call it? Enemy of the Truth? Okay, And the subtitle makes perfect sense with this show tonight, of course, what is that subtitle exactly, Sherry, just so I don't screw it up. It's Myths, forensics and the Kennedy Assassination. So who better to have on a JFK Myths show than

Sherry Feaster. How are you doing tonight? I am, well, thank you so much, and gosh, what a great introduction. Because I know that a lot of people that are on a lot of the radio shows and present themselves to the community of people that are interested in the Kennedy assassination call themselves conspiracy theorists, and I don't call myself that. I don't because I'm

not really a conspiracy theorist. I am a person that brings what was my day job for thirty years, using rational, a provable facts and look at the Kennedy assassination as an open homicide. And so when you do that, you're not looking at theories. You're looking at what is reproducible, consistent results based in scientific disciplines. And so you're really not a historical researcher at that

point. And so my focus with the Kennedy assassination is very limited. It is it is very driven with what I can prove as a forensic investigator and using my education and training and expertise and helping to develop an idea of what really did happen with the murder of an American president. Well, right, and very specifically, I mean, you were a blood spatter analyst for quite a few years. I mean, for those who don't necessarily understand what that

means, maybe you've seen the TV series Dexter. You know, No, Sherry is not a serial killer, but she is somebody who understands the job that Dexter is portrayed as having been doing for the police department there in that TV series. Is that accurate, SHERI, it is accurate. I'm not a serial killer. You're absolutely right about See I've gotten one thing right,

very good so far in this broadcast. Now, yeah, shit that well, for about thirty years in three different states, at both state, local, and federal levels, I am a court certified expert in crime scene reconstruction, which includes bloodstained pattern analysis and shooting reconstruction. Oh see, that to me sounds like somebody who actually has had to study various disciplines to understand the analysis of crime scenes. Excuse me, A crime scene investigator a much overused

term at this point because of TV shows and things like that. But I mean that's truthfully what you are were both because well you're still analyzing things, but of course in a professional capacity where that was your day job that was going on for what three decades? Right? Yes, that's right. So who else could we ask to analyze, you know, a murder scene and

tell me, is anybody who's sitting here? I mean, Carmine, can you say that there is any dispute that the Kennedy assassination, the car and various other scenes, Okay, but the car especially is quite clearly the scene of a murder part of the evidence, let's you say, but definitely a

murder scene, right, Carmine, Yeah, definitely the car. And the unfortunate use of the Secret Service and the FBI in using not the exact car but a different car that had similar qualities in the SBT reconstruction is a problem. I think that, you know, I think that it's excellent that the insights and the knowledge that Cherry can offer through forensics and ballistics that a lot

of people only speculate on. You know, I think that there's a lot of people that are qualified for different areas, but no one is an island to themselves and knows about all these things. So it's really helpful to to have someone who has decades of experience in the field. Well exactly, And of course when you talk about this, we are talking about the car,

and of course Carmine alluded to the reconstruction. There have been a few reconstructions and I'm holding up air quotes for those of you listening of the Kennedy assassination, and a lot of them have been problematic. Let's just say that. You know, of course I'm not a qualified expert or anything, but I'm sure Sherry wouldn't have a problem with me saying there were problems with the reconstructions, right, Sherry, absolutely, especially if you're talking about the Discovery Channel

thing that they did inside the target car. That is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with all the problems. Well, right, some years ago, for those who don't know, the Discovery Channel, through a company, had actually sort of commissioned these individuals to do a reconstruction of the shooting and it was lauded as being one of the most

useful things ever to have been conducted for the public's eyes. Regarding the Kennedy assassination, and they were able to duplicate the conditions that one could see when it came to the photographic evidence on the case and Oswald's shooting performance and all this other nonsense. And actually there was a lot of media hype about it.

Wasn't there there was, But they made a oh my gosh, such a significant era that people do not catch by their trying to say that they were able to prove that there was a rear shot by doing that reconstruction and oh my gosh, they spent so much money on these targets that they would shoot through and all of this stuff. But what they did is they brought in two p people that had seen blood in the inside of the vehicle and they said, can you tell us we're going to create a blood spatter pattern,

which is what they did. They shot from the rear, and then they said do you think that this looks like what you saw? And the people said, yeah, that's what that looks like what we saw. Well, really, I mean, you could have shown them anything, they would have probably said, yeah, this is what it looks looked like. And then they brought in two people that were blood span spatter analysts. One was

Steve Scheibel and the others time Tom Bevell, who I know. And they said to them, based upon this blood, can you tell me where the shooter was located? And they said absolutely, from behind the president. Well, of course that's what they did to create the pattern. All they really did was prove that these two analysts knew what to do and that they were good at their at their craft. But there's no way for them to have reproduced the blood that was actually in the car. And so people look at

that and they say, oh my gosh, look at this. They the Discovery Channel did this, and you know, they used all these replications that were anatomically correct of Kennedy, and these two people who are blood spatter experts came in and people that looked at the vehicle said, this is what the blood looked like. But the truth of the matter is all they did was create a pattern and say, to someone who had no training, whatsoever,

does this look like what you saw forty five years ago? And when they said yes, they brought in experts and said can you tell me how this was created? And they were able to tell them. So it really didn't

do anything. It did nothing. All it proved is that the experts could show you using the forensic stand ins that they understood the directionality of the shot in order to create this spatter pattern from the forensic stand ins, which, okay, good for them, but in a relative sense, that doesn't tell you anything about what actually happened on November twenty second, nineteen sixty three, does it. Yeah, Yeah, it's I was going to agree that.

I saw the documentary and quotation marks itself, and I think another one of the big problems in it was that they also didn't fire from the sixth floor of the Texas school Book Depository and didn't fire from the alleged window that the sniper fired from right, you know. And that's what I think the biggest problem with all of these recreations is people talk about what we used a building that was it reminds me of the original FBI recreation. It looked sort of

similar to the Texas school Book Depository. We're gonna use a window that's similar to the window that I was. Well, they never actually used the area that it supposedly occurred and how it supposedly occurred, and what was really you know, and I know, we're really doing a lot on that Discovery program. But I think there are a lot of people that put safe in that

they have safe in that. But the other thing is that they know they used an elevated shooting platform that recreated the distance in the height of the sixth floor window that supposedly Oswald would have shot from. And then they actually show in the in the television show itself, how the bullet comes comes through President Kennedy and then exits his chest and you know, cannot hit Connolly. And yet the person that's doing the voiceover says, and the bullet exits President Kennedy

and moves on to strike Governor Connolly. And it's like, really, you're asking people to believe something that they're not seeing with their own eyes, and you're actually proving to us a single bullet theory is incorrect and impossible. But yet you're going to stand by this. And that's the kind of things that they did in this show, and people continually point to it and say,

well, what about the Discovery Channel program? Ye? Right, I mean, And this is the trouble is that there was a bit of a sleight of hand used here in order to convince people that hey, we have actually done this by looking at it. But you know what I want to talk about, what it is that you've done, Okay, in trying to understand I mean, there are photographs available of the blood spatter pattern that someone could observe. You didn't have to go through all the recreations if you take a

look at the evidence the way it exists. I mean, to my knowledge, both the Secret Service and the FBI photographed the rear of the limousine Okay, post assassination, which means that despite the fact that some of the evidence apparently had been cleaned up, you still have an existing pattern which can tell you something. I mean, Am I wrong about that? Jerry? No,

you're right. I'll tell you. The significant thing for me is everybody thinks and they and they and they will write this to me, Well, the only thing you're thinking about or talking about is the blood in there a Pruder film. But that's not true, Okay. I really looked at blood evidence in testimony and statements from other people, even in the the the trial that was held in New Orleans, and uh, things that people have said

more or less to newspaper reporters or whatever. Other photographs, other books that have been written from first hand information and other films, because there's more than one film and photographs, and when we look at the great preponderance of evidence, it really messes quite quite perfectly. There's nothing that stands out to me that says, well, wait a minute, this, this doesn't just this doesn't look exactly right. But because people don't really understand blo batter analysis,

it's difficult to really grasp that. I will tell you that I first published my read my result in blood spatter analysis in nineteen ninety three, and since that time, not one person who is a blood spatter analyst has ever come forward and said, you know what, I think she's mistaken. I think she interpreted it wrong. I think that she didn't include all the available information.

I think she is erroneous in her conclusion. Not one, which is a pretty big deal because I am, i think, the only expert in my field that is really addressing the Kennedy assassination and addressing the blood spatter evidence and what it shows in I want to say that it was in the early

nineteen nineties, maybe the first COPA conference in Washington, DC. I don't know if any of you guys out there remember that, but I was the first person to speak to a scientific manner of proving a front headshot, and that's through blood spatter, and when Yeah, that's pretty significant. No, that's very significant. And the fact is that it hasn't been challenged by anyone who and I'm sure that more than one blood spatter analyst has taken a look

at the work that you've done here. I'm very sure of that she has not been challenged by any of them. They haven't come out and said, listen, Sherry Feaster made an error. They haven't come out and said that you've misrepresented anything, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, it just hasn't happened, you know. And here's the thing. You're not basing your conclusions on the Subruder film. That's one of these weird misconceptions out there about

you. It's just that the Zubruder film is consistent, okay when it comes to the blood spray and everything else with the other pieces of the evidence. And that's what you found. So what are you supposed to do? I mean, listen, if it's consistent, it is. If it were inconsistent,

I'm sure you would say listen, everything here matches. Except here's one problem that that spray which is observable, which by the way, does not necessarily mean that it was only there for that one frame that everybody talks about. It just means that it was observable photographically during one frame. There is a difference. Okay, you have that going on. It doesn't mean that you based your conclusions on that. You actually looked for a bunch of corroborations

in a scientific way. And let's not let this loopy. You're the first person to have come out and from that particular discipline, yes, to write extensively about it, but also you're somebody who's come out and scientifically said that what I have here for the head shot, for certain is evidence of a shot from the front, not from the rear. And also, let me just say that we're not talking about the grassy knoll scoring the head shot here, right, No, we're not. No. Well, there's two things

that you've touched on that I want to talk about. Number one is that using contemporary twenty fifteen methods for determining the directionality of a bullet, which means did it come from the front, the rear, the side, or whatever. There's five methods. There's only five. That's what we have today. In nineteen sixty three, there was one. And this is what we know now is that of the five, and I'm talking about fracture patterns that are

created within the skull. When a bullet strikes the skull, it creates fractures, and they are very specific and show you the location of the point of the impact and the direction that the bullet was traveling, the target movement, which we have in the Zapruter film, the fra the bullet fragment distribution which we have in the X rays, and the blood spatter which we're already talking

about. Those are four and the fifth is deviling, and that's the one that they used in nineteen sixty three, and that was the only thing that they had in nineteen sixty three. But guess what we know now that that is no longer proven to be reliable because we can have entry and exit wounds

that create the same characteristics. And when we know that, because we know that it's easy to misinterpret whether or not you're looking at an entrance or an exit wound, and so now forensic pathologists no longer use beveling alone as a way to determine the directionality of bullets. Well, let's explain bevling really quickly, because this is one of the things that I had to learn about during my journey. Okay, into understanding the forensics. I mean, I'm picking

up textbooks and everything else, and lo and behold. You know, anything that was printed, say previous to two thousand and three, I think would only solely mention beveling as a way of determining directionality. Now bevling. Okay, when a projectile is fired through something like a skull bone, okay, you have a fairly clean entrance. A lot of people think, and you

have a simple hole. This is not the case. Okay, bone is displaced a little bit different from the shape of the projectile, like in other words, the bullet hole doesn't necessarily you know, you could just squeeze another bullet through it, and it makes a simple, clean hole like a drill would when you're running it properly through you know, a piece of metal or

wood or something. No, what happens is there is this kind of a divot, a depression that is formed sometimes right, and this used to be It used to be thought that the beveling would be on the inside of where the bullet came from. Okay. So in other words, if you fired into a skull, okay, the beveling would end up being on the inside portion of the skull bone. This is the way it was thought to be.

Right. So if you could find that a bullet had been fired into a skull and that there was beveling on the inside, by taking a look at the directionality determined by that beveling, one could extrapolate if you knew the position of the head at the time, from whence the shot was fired. I mean, is that about right the way it was previous to the turn of the century and a bit after, yes, absolutely. But actually the

big studies on that started in about twenty ten. So although there were questions, I think that Quatrum was the first person in nineteen ninety eight to start to question whether or not there was a problem with beveling. It actually took another couple of years before people really started studying that, and ballistics experts,

researchers, people that were looking at woon ballistics. In twenty ten there were two really big publications Atoms and Prelo, and they both showed that the beveling is inconsistent, and especially when you're talking about a high velocity projectile, and it's actually the initial transfer of kinetic energy creates chipping of the bone, and so you could have an entry wound that looks like an exit wound, an

exit wound that looks like an entry womb. And so of course what we know in twenty ten and in twenty and fifteen wasn't available to people in two thousand, in nineteen sixty three. So obviously they used the best information that they had. They weren't trying to be deceptive, but we now know that what they were doing was incorrect. So we can't use the beveling information that they had to make a determination about the directionality of the bullet. Well,

but here's the thing. It coul to be part of the supporting evidence, but it in and of itself is not the determining factor. But it once was thought to be right. He is still used as supporting evidence. But

you're not supposed to use deviling alone. You have to have something else to go with it to support it. Right, you want to answer something, well, yeah, I wanted to say, speaking to Sherry's point in some of the Aarb testimony, when Gunn is questioning Hume's human states that Admiral Berkeley had the madd into the autopsy protocol that it was presumptions they presumed a wound of entrance, they presumed a wound of exit based on the small amount of

information, half the time incorrect information that they had been given by others outside the autopsy room. So there was a lot of guessing. Yes, they have the eyes part, and definitely in the medical evidence, I agree. See. And here's the thing, just as the science has evolved, your view of the evidence needs to be well, you know, readjusted. You need to take another look, reevaluate exactly what it is that you're looking at.

And I mean, now this sounds like a very complex, arcane discussion to some people, but the truth is that a lot of the things that have been argued about over over many many years regarding this boil down to to to poorly understood scientific evidence, and this is something that needs to be handled. And of course I'm sure this is one of the things. And I no longer have my copy of your book thanks to thanks to the puppy.

But you know, I set these things down, and there's this new dog that we saved over here and he's eaten a couple of books and anyway, so I no longer have it in front of me, but I'll tell you something. It is. It is one of the most amazing things. And I love the fact that you know that you that you use the word myth in the description in your book. You know, here's the other thing.

And I want to let you just speak about what's on your mind as of late regarding that and the sort of misunderstandings or the mythologies that have grown up around the ideas about forensics. Of course, the Discovery Channel presentation was certainly one of those things that made a mark with the general public, and it's

very unfortunate because it was very unfairly done. But I'm wondering about other things as well that really stand out to you at this point in time, because you have been doing this work now for more than two decades as somebody who is looking at the Kennedy assassination, and it's it's definitely one of those things that changes over time the way you look at this stuff, and of course with the with the evolution of the science, it has certainly changed your viewpoint

a bit. I mean when you were talking about it in in the nineteen nineties, because I know you not only did the one COPA conference, but at one point you did some of the Lancer conferences as well and gay presentations about this. You know, your viewpoints have changed, and you know, I'm wondering if you want to just you know, speak to whatever it is that stands out to you at this point in time. You know, well, g two decades deep into what you're doing. What do you mean about

my viewpoints have changed? Well, no, I'm not saying that your viewpoints have changed, but I mean, obviously because the science has changed a little bit, I mean it must have given you a bit of a different viewpoint. Yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah, because in twenty ten we had new information that was made for forensic investigators, and so of course, you know that became a part of what I do. And

I'll give you a great example, and that's target movement. Because when we look at the Zapruda film frame by frame, thanks to John Castello, who is a great friend of mine, it's really readily apparent that President Kennedy's head moves forward slightly for one frame before his head and shoulders move backwards in response to a gunshot wound to the head. And in twenty and eleven we're not

talking about that far away. A guy by the name of Robert Cooplan coupla n D used high speed photography to confirm and document forward movement into the line of fire that was referenced by a guy by the name of Bernard Karger, a German woon ballistic researcher who in two thousand and eight published a paper that said that when kinetic energy is immediately transferred to the target, the target movement is initially into the force of the moving bullet and then followed by the continued

direction of movement, which is more pronounced. So absolutely, I have incorporated new things as years have gone by because forensics is my feel so I want to stay abreast of what the latest information is, especially when you're talking about shooting reconstructions. So in you know, absolutely, I think it was in two thousand and nine I did the first presentation that talked about when you have impact that the bullet of the bullet to the front of the head, that

the head would move towards the front or against the line of fire. Towards the shooter, however you want to state that, and then as more kinetic energy is transferred to the target, it would then move with the continued direction of force of the moving bullet. The application of contemporary woundalistics research to what

I'm presenting absolutely is going to change what I'm presenting. However, it's still consistent with a single shot from the front, which, just to kind of put it into a pretty little package for the layman, goes as follows the observable backward head snap in the Subruder film as well as in what is alleged to be the Knixt film, because we still don't know where the original is. Take a look at Gail nick Jackson on that. But anyway, what is alleged to be the Nixt film, the much More film, even in

the Bell film. All of these films which do depict the head shot, you can find evidence, yes, indeed, of a movement forward which is almost unobservable to the naked eye when the film is running, okay, or is unobservable depending on who you talk to. And bottom line is that the violent backward head snap is apparently not something that is inconsistent with a shot from

the front. So in other words, guess what that violent head snap looks like, what it should look like if somebody was hit from the front, even with that odd movement forward, because that is consistent with what one should observe in that case. Am I right? You're absolutely right? And in fact, when Coopland published his paper, he published video and photographs of that

forward movement. So the other thing is that you can go on YouTube and search for on ballistic gel shooting into ballistic jail whatever you know, however you want to word that, and you can actually see for yourself that targets move into the direction of force before they move with the direction and force. So this is something that is available to the ordinary person to go on. You don't have to have these big books. You don't have to have it translated

in from German to English or whatever. You don't have to spend two hundred and fifty dollars for a textbook, which is some of the things that I've had to do. But you can actually see it on YouTube. So how can we say that it's not true? There you go. So a lot

of these suppositions regarding fakery of the evidence and everything else. What someone would have to believe in order to understand that all of the photographic evidence has been completely made whole cloth a fiction, from scratch or from composites, et cetera, et cetera. What somebody would have to understand is that, well, first of all, the people like you would be looking at this decades later would have a different understanding of what they were observing. I mean, you

know, follow my logic on this area. I mean, they'd have to know that there would be a change in what one could observe in those X rays in order to tamper with them, they would have to know that someone would would have to, you know, mess around with those photographs that I mentioned earlier from the FBI and the Secret Service regarding the blood spatter, and they'd have to recreate it in such a manner that would leave you a nice

trail so that even with your newly understood knowledge of the forensics information, it would still still hang together pretty well. I mean, is that insane to say? You know? What is amazing to me is for people to say everything has been faked, everything's fake, and we can't trust anything. Why if that's the case, why how do they alter something to show what they're not going to know even exists for another fifty years. How do they make

those alterations? How do they what a great trick? Right? I want to know that I want to be able to see fifty years into the future and alter things so that people will come to the same conclusion that I want them to come to, but not necessarily the truth. Right, So not only would you have to be a photographic expert and somebody who's quite familiar with the black arts of Hollywood, but you'd also need to be psychic Carmina, I think that's what the skill set would require. What do you think,

Carmia, Yeah, it's highly improbable. It's kind of like the people who say that all of the documents were faked. We're working on a timescale here. Yes, there were things that we can actually prove were changed or that were lies based on other documents, but we can't say if you say that everything was fake, then what you're operating on faith alone, and that's not

going to prove anything. You need to have substantial evidence. And as you guys said about the alteration, they didn't need to alter the X rays because they screwed them up by using the portable that was subject distortions. There's a lot of reasons that things were bad enough they didn't need to be altered.

You know, I agree with you, Carmine. Don't you think that if they would have ever known that in fifty years in the future people would know the things that we know now, they would have done a lot more than they have what may have been done. But we have we have a choice. You know, they didn't think we'd ever read the Warrant report, much less have access to the X rays or to any of the other evidence that we have, or that people would come forward and talk about what they saw,

that the notes from the Executive Committee would ever be released. Don't you think that they're because they could not possibly know all those things that people that always want to raise the everything is altered flag that there may be some misconceptions there or am I wrong? No? No, I wholly agree with that. I think that that's one of the big problems. Unfortunately, on the fringe side of those who support a conspiracy, they don't want to believe in

anything. But if you're not going to believe in anything except your own opinions, you're never going to verify anything unless you're never going to prove anything. You know. We can slap each other's backs and agree with each other all day, but until we can produce some substantial evidence, we're not going to

be able to get the attention of those who are not sure. And those are the people that need to be brought the evidence so that they can form a reasonable opinion based on it, rather than just saying it's all not true. Just believe what I have to say. People who want you to believe aren't trying to actually help you. They just want you to believe what their ideas are. Yeah, I think that there are many many people that are so vested in their belief they feel like they can't say that they're wrong.

They just can't. They're so entrenched in where they all are. And you know a great example of that, and I hope you guys don't mind if I bring this up, but a great example of that is people that look at the X rays. There's so much Now do I believe that the X rays have been altered? I think that there's something fishy about the X rays. But at the same time, I know that the X rays prove a

front shot. They prove one shot. Why if the X rays prove one shot improve a front shot, if they were going to alter them, why would they not alter that? Yeah, I believe that the that what we should see as a defect in the rear of the head is not there.

I believe that. I think that that part is altered. But the front part of the X ray we know is President Kennedy, and we can look at the information that's provided to us in the fracture sequencing, which is the fracturing of the skull and the distribution of the bullet fragments, and they prove a front shot. Now, why would they not change that information? You know why they didn't change it because I didn't know it existed at that point.

That's one of the problems with that. Of course, what you're referencing in part is is some of the work that like people like David Mantik have done. Now, I'll put aside the idea of the patch because you know, we've heard this discussed many times and I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll be honest with you. However, the idea that we may be looking at the same X ray having been flipped over and then made a copy of that looks like a possibility to me. Very strange, you know.

And here's the thing. The things were not great quality to begin with. I mean I've shown different copies of these to people who work in that field just to get their opinions about them, not even told them what they were looking at, but just to have them tell me what it is they see, you know, blind observations. And then I've also done the same

thing and told them what they were looking at. And it's interesting because the ones that I told they were looking at X rays of Kennedy, they told me that they had a hard time believing that that's what they were looking at. Now, why is that? Does they have a preconceived notion of what happened? Possibly? Right, That's exactly what the conclusion I came to.

But what's interesting here is we could agree easily that there is something wrong with these X rays, whether you want to say that they were poorly done, which I have not had anybody tell me that they look like very good X rays when you don't look at the enhanced copies. Okay, I'm not talking about those ones that are you know, stark, and I think they were redone by what was it was it I Tech Corporation or something like that.

I think they redid them for the House Select Committee, I'm pretty sure. But when you look at the original, these things are very difficult to uh, to make determinations about a lot of things, okay, unless one studies them in depth. And of course I only had copies. Of course, it would be much better if somebody was able to see the original films, all right, uh, And and that would determine a whole set of new

possibilities for somebody looking at them. But yeah, go ahead. I just wanted to say, also, I think we should factor in two that beyond the distortions, we also have missing pictures reported by almost everyone that was a major player in the autopsy Boswell, think Hume's Stringer, Jenkins, Spencer. You know, there there were two sets handed out, so one set went to the White House, one set went to Anacosta. So now we've got

two sets of prints that get mixed in. Everyone talks about missing pictures, and they talk about I think the alterations to the X ray tune might be explained also by not only just the distortions, but at some points they reconstructed the skull and took pictures. So those are the pictures that definitely survive that we can verify, but the collection is not verified. There are pictures that

have been mixed in, pictures that have been left out. There's one document that I talk about a little bit in my book where Hume's, Humes, Fink, and Stringer, and Boswell all signed an agreement that there were no pictures missing. And in the same thing Ramsey Clark tells the Justice Department that everybody's on board and we won't be mentioning the one picture that Hume said was

missing. So in the document they say that there's a picture missing, So we know there's I think that you know, maybe it was just the things that were supportive of the commission that perhaps survived or got out to the public well right, And Sherry makes an excellent point that they did not know that there was other evidence in there, so could there be hampering on many levels. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything was manufactured from ground zero here exactly.

They have a neptitude factored into part of this. I mean the nature of the individuals that were given to do the autopsy, the nature of the individuals who actually took the X rays, there is all kinds of possibilities and questions one could raise there, the choice of equipment, the choice of location. They don't found any of the important measurements. They don't do a full dissection of the trachea, they don't take out all of the thoracic organs that they

were supposed to. They give very strange landmarks. I mean, Sherry, do me a favor to stop me here if I'm saying something that doesn't make sense to you. Now, you're absolutely right. Both of you are really on point. The things that you're bringing up absolutely are things that if you really look at this, they're going to raise red flags for you right in multiple directions. Absolutely. A couple of things I want to mention here because

time is flying by quickly. First of all, if you guys want to join in on the discussion two p one eight three three nine eight five two five, I have the the phone lines open at two one eight three three nine eight five two five. I'll be happy to add in your questions or

comments during the course of the show, uh, at any point. The other thing is, though, Sherry, I really want to get though at your mind for a moment, and uh, you know, have we have we struck upon the things that you think are most important about the misunderstandings and misconceptions and therefore the mythology here regarding the medical evidence, regarding the forensic evidence.

There's something else that we need to talk about good And this is fairly new, so for people that are not familiar with this, I'm probably going to be like maybe saying bringing up Oh my god, I can't believe she's saying this thing. But I want to tell you that David Mantik did a presentation at JFK Answer November in Dallas this past year, and I was very disappointed in the information that he presented. For one thing, he misconstrued information

and misinterprets information that is outside his scope of expertise. And this is not the first time that he's done this, and it certainly wasn't the first time that I've ever had to address that with him at a conference, because I had to do the same thing during the fiftieth At the fiftieth he misconstrued how bullets fragment and the type of pattern and what that pattern looks like in an

X ray. He was absolutely wrong. Had to admit that he was wrong, and actually at the fiftieth said you may have the remaining time of my presentation to present the correct information. So that's pretty significant. And now he's doing the same thing again. He has a book that's an ebook, it's

really just an article, but at any rate it is available. And in that where he makes a couple of things statements that are that are it's disheartening for me because he's talking outside of his area of expertise, and he's presented presenting erroneous information. If you are an expert in a field, you need to stay in that field. No one can ever come to me and say, Sherry, I heard you talk about something outside of your field of expertise

because I've never done it. No one can do that. I mean, you may have asked me things in the in the past and I've said that's outside my area of expertise. I can't comment on it. But one of the things that he says is that he proposes that there's three headshots, but he doesn't produce any evidence to support that. In fact, he says that one of the reasons that he gives for an argument for a successful rear shot is present presidence of debris. Talking about bloody debris on the inside of the

windshield and on the hood ornament. Actually it's all over the front of the car, not just on the hood ornament, but all over both sides, inside the windshoe, out on the outside edges of the car, on the top, and across the trunk. And he says that a front shot could not create that type of blood spatter, but he's erroneous because he doesn't understand

how blood spatter works. He also talks about blood spatter from a shot that would create blood spatter being deposited on Bobby Hargas could only happen from the grassy knoll, which is another indication that he does not really understand that he doesn't

understand woon ballistics. And so this is what I'm saying, I don't and David I and I are in a dialogue right now to help him to have a better understanding and to make some corrections to the statements that he's making, because you know what, here's a dear, It's not about being right. It's about having the right information available to people. And so that is what I am trying to do. But you can't go to a plumber and ask them about electricity. Okay, No, And I don't go to my dentist

when I need an MRI. So what I'm trying to say is that we need to look to the experts in the field. And David Mantick has expertise, but it certainly is not in roomballistics, nor is it in blood spatter. Well no, And in all fairness, I would say that looking at the X rays. If he's examining the X rays, I say again, there, I think he has, you know, good ground to stand on because that is one of the things he does as a part of his professional

existence. I mean, so his examination of the X rays I find to be useful. Okay. However, he also had to admit at the latest NID conference that he did not know what fracture patterns were and he did not understand how that could show you the direction or the number of gunshot injuries to the head. So there's a lot of controversy going on right now. I think that I just and I mentioned this because I want people to really dig deep and look, don't trust me, don't trust David, don't trust anybody

else. Do your own research, decide for yourself what the truth is. There's lots of opportunity for us. You can do Google searches, you can go to the library, you can check out books. You know, you can talk to people. If you're going to be a researcher, whom I'm not a researcher, but if you've got to be a researcher, then you

need to actually make that word a verb. Yes you do. And you know that is an amazing thing that fracture patterns are not part of his understanding, because even I know, and again I'm not an expert, but even I know that this is one of the key elements here in understanding what it is you're looking at regarding the wounds. They're there. Look, and it's not just a matter of okay, it radiates from an area and that's it.

It doesn't work like that. The nature of how far it goes, the nature of interceding fractures in the pattern, like the bones break away at certain points. And I mean a lot of people have described Kennedy's skull as having been fractured like a hard boiled egg when you roll it on a counter. You know, all of these things, the nature of them, the order in which they happened, which can be determined based on a forensic examination,

which unfortunately would be best done by examining the skull firsthand. But all of these things are part of the factors with which one could determine the directionality, the order in which injuries occurred exactly the nature of the missile even is determined or is evident in these determinations as well. I mean, unless I'm out of my mind here' seriat, I mean, am I right? You are right? And I think it's important for everyone to have the same kind

of understanding that you have. If you're going to use something as evidence to prove a headshot, regardless of where the direction is, you really need to have a complete understanding. And it's not enough just to say I believe this. We need to be able to prove it. We need to be able to put citations forward and say this is what helps me to understand because I never ask people to believe me as an expert, even in my own book.

And one of the people that one of the peer reviews that we're looking at my book, one of my teers said, I don't understand why you're using all these references because you are an expert. You are published in this field, you can just say this that it's true. You don't have to

do that. But I don't want people to believe me. I want them to believe me and the scientific community as a whole, because that is what is going to bring real confidence to people in the information that they're receiving well. Right, And when it comes to any of these areas of study, let's just say this because we're about ready to run out of time on this hour. But when it comes to any of these areas of study, not only must one understand how to find the evidence, but how to interpret it

is also a big part of being able to present it. Okay, this is one of those things. See, this is why evidence is important, because not only do you need to have evidence which is verifiable, but you need to be able to interpret it as well. That's another thing that goes on here, and that's why there are so many misunderstandings. I would say, Sherry, if you want to stick around for the next hour a bit,

you know you can. We may get into some areas that I don't know you might find amusing, but I'd be more than happy to get your take on some of them, that's for sure. But it may get a little strange, and I don't know if you want to be part of it, but Carmine, you're gonna stick with me, right yep. Absolutely, So that's the first hour. Sherry Feaster, who I'm telling you right now. Enemy of the Truth is a book that you need if you want to

try and understand the physical nature of the evidence and the Kennedy assassination. The o'celly effect will continue in the second hour, Stick Around Guys, Underrated voice in all Media, the alternatives alternative Chuck o'lly. And so the second hour of the O'Kelly effect begins here on this Saturday evening. I don't know when it is you the listener are hearing it. If you're catching it further on down the line, you are also appreciated. But we are broadcasting alive here

on this Saturday evening. So, and I guess it's just after one o'clock to our listeners in Australia. Not sure what day it is, but it's just after one pm, so you guys have just finished lunch there down Under. That's what I understand. By the way, I think we're being heard on six continents right now, So good evening. Gooday, how are you and all those other greetings still journal and all of that, and hey,

I am so happy that you're with us here for Myths number six. So far we have discussed a great deal about the forensics and a few other side issues got worked into it there. When one takes a look at what can be observable from a scientific standpoint, and we did that with Sherry Feaster, who is hanging around with us for the second hour. I'm not sure if she's going to want to really participate in some of this stuff. So if

you don't hear, it's not because I'm keeping her quiet. It's because guess what, folks, she said during that first hour that if you're not speaking in your field of expertise, and that is what you are putting out there as your contribution into this discussion, hey, sometimes it's good not to speak

when you're going way outside of what it is. You know. Found it rather shocking that she was discussing David Mantick and his suppositions and revealing to us that, quite honestly, he had not utilized a rather essential point that that one needs to comprehend, that one needs to factor in when examining things like the bones the X rays. Of course, we can't examine the bones directly of John F. Kennedy's head, so we all have the X rays to

contend with. But when examining those X rays and looking at fracture patterns, I can't tell you how essential that is from my understanding, of course, as a layman trying to study this and also looking into in a very cursory fashion the disciplines that that Sherry you know, professionally partook of. You know, I even have a basic understanding that allows me to know that guess what, you know that this is necessary. This is a necessary factor that you

have no idea about. And wow, anyway we're going to move forward or because I was asked about this particular documentary, now this is not going to be a singular subject. This is going to touch on a lot of different things. Carmine, I know you've got a chance to take a look at it. But hang on the way, Okay, we all have to take a deep breath because JFK to nine to eleven, it's all a rich man's trick or something like this. I got I can't even I don't even want

to memorize the title. We're not even going to discuss the nine to eleven portion of this, okay, because well, look, I can do that on another show if you want. But we won't even have enough time, honestly, to really dig into every single solitary problem with the JFK assassination portion JMK problems to work on. We don't even need to try to illuminate anything about now, oh, myths seven might actually take up the rest the rest of this discussion. And I also see that we have Rob Clark waiting in

the wings, the host of the Lone Gunman podcast. And what do you think, Carla, should I just bring him right on in? Okay, let's bring Rob Clark in, the host of the Loan Gunman podcast. Who is Let's see you can access him on speaker. I'm not sure if it's a TLG podcast dot com still, but I do know you can find TLG or the Loan Gunman Podcast on spreaker. And hey, I was even a guest on there not too long ago. How you doing, Rob? Oh? Okay, might have a little difficulty with the line there, Carmine.

He's still with me though, right, yep, I'm still there Okay, no problem. We will get Rob Clark on shortly. Uh, and of course any other callers that want to join us. At two point eight three three nine eight five two five two one eight three three nine eight five two five that is the open line if you want to join into the discussion, Carmine, where do we begin? See I gotta take that deep breath to where do we begin? With this rich Man's trick JFK to nine to eleven,

excluding the nine to eleven portion. Well, I'd like to use some of the films. As you know, I'm often a fan of using people's own evidence against their pet ideas. Oh, here we go, let us let us begin with the film's suppositions. Yes, the film claims. One of its big claims is that some books and films that it endorses, such as The Men Who Killed Kennedy, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that

what occurred is a physical impossibility as endorsed that. So basically they're saying that nothing beyond those films and whatever books they endorse proves they're what they can tend the many contentions that we will go into, and I would want to say this assertion is incorrect, and it relies upon the verifiable evidence of each of

its sources. Well, yeah, problematic anyway, because look, the Men Who Killed Kennedy for its time when it was first produced, was rather revolutionary, let's just say, because it had, for the first time presented a lot of theories which were in direct opposition to the loan gunman solution, to the loan nut solution, the loan nut theory that is presented by the Warrant

Commission. So it was interesting to see all these things brought together. Now, of course A and E and the History Channel brought it to America. Was originally produced by Nigel Turner, you know BBC guy, all that good stuff. And honestly, in the early days of my studies, when when this stuff was being brought around, okay, you know, I thought to myself that that we had, that we had something interesting to present here.

But if one examines just that, and we'll leave aside the books they endorse, because that could be a rabbit hole that will never get out of.

But when one looks at the The Men Who Killed Kennedy, there are a great many assertions in there, including that which we should have dispossessed you of in the first hour, the idea that the headshot was scored from the grassy knoll, you know, the idea that that it was the Badgeman figure who did it, that it was jee Malcolm Wallace Baker, Judith Baker was part

of the series. Uh, the mouser having fired the shot. My my, my alterations of the physical body so that someone else could be photographed. I mean, yipes. Okay, again, we have a lot of fakery being brought up. And what did we deal with in the first hour that not all of the evidence is faked. I would I would go beyond that to say a majority is not. I'd say, if anything, it's a minority, and it's only going to be key pieces that can destroy their case.

If you're going to fake something, you don't fake every little thing. You fake the major pieces of evidence that need to be changed. Right, And inconsistency and incongruity is not it is not a definite you know sign that

everything was created out of whole cloth. See it goes back. See this is why Sherry was perfect in the first hour, because it all goes back to you can't sit there and manufacture this stuff, okay, and wind up with it matching you know, techniques and examinations that weren't even dreamed of at the time that this stuff had to have been manufactured. Okay, et cetera, et cetera. So okay, there's the opening conclusion of that film, and I think we have Rob Clark with us. Now, Rob, can

you hear me now? Yeah? I can hear you now, sir. Right, we started the discussion in case you missed it on the rich Man's Trick JFK to nine to eleven, And yes, did you have to sit and suffer through this? I did? Thank you for the torture today. For sure, You're most welcome. I'm always happy to help my friends to remember why it is they want to look for verifiable, provable things, things that are worthy of examination. I feel like I'm playing the twenty five thousand

dollars pyramid. Okay, but here we go, Rob. We talked about the opening set of it, the men who killed Kennedy and these books proving without a you know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there was no physical possibility for the shots who have been fired by Oswald as shown. Meanwhile, you know, I have a question here, Karma, do you

recall, because I don't Sherry's work having been brought up in there. No no, okay, no, good, no good, No, there was there was nothing credible that was brought up ons in that film, thank you. That was my next point. Okay, that's why Sherry's Sherry's book was not brought up or her work or you know, the fact that somebody who was a trained crime scene investigator might have actually taken a look at the No, no, no, let's not bother with that. That makes absolutely no

sense. Okay, So no, they were they were drawing from what you know. Another one of the improbable things that they were talking about was eight riflemen. They said that eight riflemen, including such names as Frank Sturgis, who that's just so funny when you really know who Sturgis was. But uh or a small unseen army of shooters, and I can't state how highly improbable

that is. You know, a neglectsic account for the ballistics and things that Cherry would definitely know more about than I. Forensic evidence and the majority of consistent witness testimony. Nobody saw a small army from you know, three various buildings in multiple locations firing m Well, you know what, let me let me pass that question to Sherry. I think she's back with us, now, Sharry, are you there? Oh okay, I thought she was back with us. But you know, when she does get back, I want

to ask her about whether there is observable evidence. Oh now I hear you. Yes, you must have seen yes, I'm sorry. I want to ask you about this veritable army of shooters right that these people propose, because well, here's my question. It's very simple. Ready, you've examined the forensic evidence as it stands that is available. You know that is accessible. Obviously you didn't examine President Kennedy's body, probably did not examine the limousine first

hand yourself. But based on the photographs, based on the X rays, based on the films, based on the reports, right, all of these things, let me ask you a question. Do you see evidence anywhere for a small army of shooters having fired upon President Kennedy at that time in Daily Plaza on November twenty second, nineteen sixty three. No, I don't I see one front which probably was responsible for the head well, absolutely responsible for

the head shot. I mean, there's no doubt whatsoever for that likely for the throat shot, and I think we have a rear shooter, but I don't know that we can definitely say if there was one or two rear shooters. And that's based upon the trajectory analysis that was done by Thomas Canning, because he presented to the House Select Committee more than one trajectory analysis for the rear shots to Kennedy and Conley. So at the very most, I think

we could say four shooters. But I think more likely is that we're talking about two. Well two, and here's we're I'll make an allowance that we could add to those two. Right, Let's let's give a little bit of

allowance for the possibility of a missed shot. Okay, let's just assume that one shot completely missed everything, and we can easily do that by something verifiable, and that would be well, sorry, but my discussions with a guy named James Tag would tell me that there's a good possibility that there was a missed shot. Is it, you know, completely reliable based on his testimony.

No, but the idea that there may have been a missed shot is possible, And hey, well let's give him two I think is possible. But let me let me make a correction real quick. I misspoke. I want to say three shooters, maybe two from the back, one from the front. Okay, maybe two from the rear. So do I think there was a shot that that missed totally? Yes, I do. I think

that tag was evidence of that exactly. So let's just imagine for a moment that that you do have a shooter from another location, because I do believe there's enough evidence to begin to believe that there is a shot which landed on the turf opposite from what they call the grassy knoll. Now, I don't see and have never witnessed evidence for anything more than and this is a wild speculation on my part. Folks. Uh four shooters? Four shooters? Now,

what was the size of that veritable army? Again, Carmine, did they give us eight? I believe eight? They They didn't just state they think there was eight shooters. They named who named there? Yes, eight shooters, and yeah, one was Sturgis, one was Malcolm Wallace. It's like they took every bad idea about who the shooters were and rolled them up into one ball. Right, So that's the idea. So let's dial this

back into what's verifiable. Once again, what Jerry said is that she sees the possibility based on the forensic evidence that you have two well two two had a minimy two two had a minimum, and then three is a possibility, right, probably three, probably two from the rear and one from the from

the front. And here's why I'm saying that, because when Thomas Canning did the original trajectory analysis through President Kennedy and for the head shot and for Governor Conley, his original analysis did not even include the sixth floor of the Texas

school Book Depository at all. Period. It didn't. It said it was higher and higher and a little more to the right, which would be the dal Tech building for one of the shots, and the other, he said, was from another portion another the other end, if you want to say, of the Texas school Book Depository. So that's the two shooters from the rear. And of course the House select community did not like that at all

and said, hey, you need to make some adjustments. And he said, well, what I will do is expand my margin of era, and so he barely included the Texas school Book Depository on what originally came from the dal Tech building. When he enlarged that trajectory analysis, but he never said I can completely eliminate the other location. Now, of course he thought everything came from the rear, right, and this is ah he didn't. He didn't consider a front shop. But he did say more than one location.

So that's the two that I would go with, from the rear and I and of course the one from the front. But assuming now now here here's an assumption I make, and here's here's where I say, you know, we could bring it down to two. Possibly still, because Canning is working with information that is not necessarily as good as what we have. Now there's a possibility. I don't know it's worthy of re examination. But let's even go with Canning, which, by the way, just for people's clarification.

House Select Committee on Assassinations, this revision of scientific evidence. This didn't just happen in Canning's instance either, By the way, this kept happening over and over again, where people would come to them with conclusions that they did not fully appreciate, so they'd be asked to revisit them. That happened a lot, from what I understand, so I'm not surprised in the least to hear that, But okay, let's go with the three. Fine, you have

three possible purchase based on what is evident. Okay, I don't know how you get to eight. I just don't know how that leap is made. Apparently you watch eight different bad shows and you combine all the people into one idea, and like I said, it doesn't just stop with them, I mean it goes on for another consideration. How do eight people to escape without being seen by anyone? Carmine, Come on, now, you're asking for

too much. You know, First of all, you have to accept the word of a guy like Sturgis, who uh you know what it would have told you that he was at the crucifixion if he thought it was going to

pump up his image, depending on who he was speaking to. But anyway, uh, please, you know this guy, and I'm telling you from from people that knew him very well, would tell you that, you know, boastful and kind of being one of these guys who speaks a little bit out of school and kind of pumps himself up as a as a bad guy

was definitely a part of Sturgess as being so all they have. There is some alleged admission that he made I mean nothing putting him in the plaza, really, no evidence of it, no arrest record, no witnesses stating truthfully that they saw him there at the time, nobody even accounting for him being in Dallas. But anyway, why should any of that matter when you're making

a alleged documentary, rob How are you following all this so far? Well, what struck me when I first went to watch that video was how many people have watched that video. It's I think it's over two million, approaching two and a half million people. Yes, And it just goes to show you, you know that if you have enough money, if you have a very slickly produced video presentation and you sound somewhat authoritative when you're giving it,

anything is possible. You know, I've never even heard of this guy before, whoever made the video, Connolly or whatever his name is, Richard Connolly, And uh, you know, as far as anything to have to do with the assassination or associated with it. And like you said, I mean, it's like he took I mean, now, don't get me wrong, because watching it, there is some credible stuff thrown in there, but everything under the sun is thrown in there, every every outlandish theory, every crazy

theory, every credible theory, every Fetzer type theory, you know. I mean, it's like you said, eight shooters sixteen shots. But yeah, but I feel like I should be Grabchal Marx at this point and say, you said the secret word, because this is where it seems to all come from. And I I, well, I'm sorry, I was going to roll out of my head when when he said that Richard Nixon and George Bush were on the sidewalk watching the motorcad. I mean, come on, now,

well that's yeah, of course. Do you see him coming? I think he's coming around the corner. I don't. I don't think that Tricky Dick and George Bush, who was busy on a campaign stop, were there. Yeah. Yeah, I think somebody would have recognized old Tricky Dick standing on the sidewalk. I mean, he had just run for president, you know, three years before that against JFK. I mean, come on,

yes, he might be kind of recognizable, that's for sure. But then again, there are people that want to put George W. Bush there as well. I don't know if you guys have seen that yet, but hey, let's let's put everybody in dealy plaza, you know, why not I say that, of course, you know, yeah, prominently he was mentioned in you know, the little party at Clint Merchant's house the night before.

As you know, there was you know, these twenty conspirators that were meeting there, and of course the Medelin Duncan Brown story, yep, and and all of that. He's our good friend, Charles Cliff debunked because Murchison didn't even own the property when they said that these parties occurred. Well, you know, why should that matter whether he owns the house or not. Hey, you know, and let's put everybody in the world there, I mean,

toward the end of her life, Madeline Duncan Brown. I'm very very sorry to report, I mean practically put everybody there except me, I think, because I mean we had Jaeger Hoover. John J. McCloy was supposedly there, I mean, geez, of course LBJ, and well every oil man in Dallas, and now nobody noticed, including the Secret Service, the people that observed, you know, our friend mister Hoover rather early back to work the next morning in Washington, d C. Not looking at in the

least bit tired. After all, he had been there rather late and things like that. And I'm sorry, but you know, Madeline Brown the source of this parting, although you know, I'm not sure about it because you know, Penn Jones had talked about it in the nineteen seventies and I thought we had disposed of it at that point, but of course it got a resurgence in the eighties and the nineties. And I'm sorry to say, you know again, when one begins to see, here's the problem when you want

to point to a perpetrator. Okay, and I mean, I don't know if Sherry would speak about this, but when you want to look at a perpetrator, when you want to try and prove that someone was in a particular location, and the first thing that they usually do is look for, you

know, witnesses that say they were there. Okay, fine. In a lot of cases, they begin to study things that might be this positive of them being there, Like a lot of people can be eliminated as not being at the scene of a crime or at the scene of a conspiratorial discussion in a lot of cases if you can literally place them elsewhere. Now I'm not saying that this is Sherry's area of expertise. I'm simply saying that, having worked in law enforcement, though, you know, Sherry, what would you

have to say about that? I am, I guess a little shocked that so many people would buy into the idea that there may be so many shooters when there's not any evidence for that. I really don't know what else to say about that. I'm kind of taken aback. Well and a perpetrator. I'm sorry to put a perpetrator at the scene of the crime, right, You would look for links forensically, you might look for witnesses to state that

they were there. Photographic evidence is a little more readily available now because everything is videotape, photographed, et cetera everywhere, But at that time, you would look for something showing that they were there. And ever after, in order to state that someone was emphatically at a scene, you would want some sort of well, gee, there's that word again evidence to back that claim,

wouldn't you. Let's talk about fingerprint evidence. Let's talk about the guy Malcolm what's his name, ellis Well, right, one of the alleged shooters in this solution. Right, our good friend Charles Malcolm Wallace yeah, all right, Malcolm Wallace so many years ago, and now I'm going to really show my age. Before APHIS was something that people used every single day.

In Louisiana, there was a woman who worked for the Batan, New State Police who sat on the board for eight for the certification board that internationally certifies people as fingerprint identified Identification officers. Okay, I don't want to say her name, but this woman lived in Louisiana. I was from Louisiana, and

so I went to her. I knew, well, obviously I knew her because I was in law enforcement, and you know, she worked for state police and did all the fingerprint stuff, and she was the person there were four regions the United States for APHIS, and she was the head of one of those four regions. So not only did she sit on the board that developed APHIS for the United States, but she also was on the board for a certification of people in all of the world for certification as an analysts analyst.

And so I took to her the fingerprints that people say are belonging to Malcolm Wallace and a known set of fingerprint latent in or rolled prints, and said, can you make an identification out of this, and she said, no, this is not an identification, which kind of stunned me because I had heard from so many people. Oh, no, his fingerprints have been

identified, and they named the person that made that identification. But honestly, the way that fingerprint identifications are made in most states, there's not a certain number of points, and it is based upon what the experience of the identifier is, and that analyst says, in my experience, this is a match. In her experience, it wasn't a match. To the person directly under her, it wasn't a match. And to the person immediately under that person,

it was not a match. So I had three different people look at this, and I'm not talking about my local person that works at the police department down the street. I'm talking about people that help other people or determine whether or not other people are experts, and they said it was not a

match. So when people talk to me about Malcolm Wallace being a shooter from the sixth floor, I can't accept that because there's no evidence to prove that there's a match, and all of the points that someone used, all those minutia points have to come from the same finger and not adjacent fingers. And if there's one minutia point which is a little identifying characteristic that does not match,

that means you have to eliminate it as a match. I've looked at those prints myself, and I'm going to tell you I can show you things that do not match, even though you might have three or four things that do match. If you have something that doesn't match, it cannot be the

same person. And so I think that this is just reaching and conjecture and people that do not truly understand what evidence is and how forensics works, and they're just jumping on the bandwagon because oh my gosh, isn't that sensational to know that you have information that other people don't? And I think that's part of what it is. Well, then that's it, And it's a convenient conclusion because look, Malcolm Wallace is approvable somebody who could be tied to Lyndon

Bins Johnson. Okay, uh and and Johnson having been involved in Wallace's life, et cetera, et cetera. If you're looking to hang the assassination on Lyndon Bins Johnson, here we go with the preconceived notions again, Malcolm Wallace looks like a good guy to hang it on. However, the problem is that once you take that fingerprint out of the equation, you've got nothing, okay. And I tried to explain this to Roger Stone, who I had

as a guest talking about his book on the Clintons. Just what a week ago, two weeks ago, I can't remember, but either way, you know, and I and I said this to him, and I also stated that, you know, Joan Mellon commissioned a look at this alleged fingerprint that's supposed to belong to Wallace, utilizing Wallace's military record fingerprints as the you know, as the point of comparing between this and this alleged fingerprint of the small

finger that everybody keeps talking about, that would place Wallace on the sixth floor of the Depository building. And she would have much enjoyed being able to have a match out of Malcolm Wallace because she was writing a book about him at

the time. And unfortunately that is not what the evidence showed. The expert that she hired, who was yet again another person seemingly very similar to the individual you're talking about, Sherry, somebody who was in that business, was not only in that business, but was somebody who determined whether others were experts in the field or not. Okay, so what we have at the end

here is something that is best I can determine, not a match. I haven't done the examination myself, but it seems as though when competent experts examine it, we don't have a positive idea of Malcolm Wallace on the sixth floor

of the depository building. I think to Chuck that also what we should consider is is that is now confirmation from two separate sources, using two separate groups of experts, that it's not him, It was not a Wallace print using better source materials as well than the person who tried to say that it was Wallace because they were using a photo copy, and to be brutally honest,

neither were they licensed at the time. See, there's a problem with Darby, because that's my understanding about him, is that he was no longer certified at the time he conducted the examination. And ever after, this thing has continued to resonate because it's a very convenient thing to want to hang it on

Johnson. And I've said this to you, Rob, and I think I said this on your show, but I know I've said it to you privately that you know, the the LBJ did it thing has been around since the day after I wall died, you know, as far as it being a point of discussion, and yet it kind of made sense in nineteen sixty three.

But you know, as time marches on, you know, for Lyndon Baines Johnson to hire a shooter and for it to be Malcolm Wallace, and for him to be on the sixth floor of the Depository building, all of this supposition falls apart every which way you look at it. I mean, unless you disagree with me, Rob, go ahead, No, not at all. I mean, it's almost ridiculous to think that this university professor, as Malcolm Wallace was, I think he was teaching at the University of Texas

at the time. Is this super scary personal hitman of Lyndon Baines Johnson, you know, and you know a lot of people want to want to believe it. It's a good story, you know. Was Lyndon Johnson a bad person? Yes, you know, I think we can all agree on that mastermind of the JFK assassination, not by a loan shot right. And my estimation of Mack Wallace is that, you know, from what I've been able

to gather, because I didn't know the man. Okay, you know, he died when I was a baby or not born, I forget which, but either way, I didn't know the man. But from what I can gather, I mean, not the Boogeyman, but definitely not a boy scout either. Quite capable of murder, guess. I mean we know that public record shows you that. But is he an assassin is the question? You know, as far as I'm concerned, And I don't see it, guys,

No, you're no. I agree with you guys as well. I think that with Wallace, the problem is also is he's already associated with the murder of Kinser. That's just going to attract attention. You don't want somebody that's going to attract attention to be an assassin. You want somebody who can blend into the crowd and fade away. Yes, a man who can disappear. That This is who you hire as an assassin. Is a man who can disappear, A man who's already supposed to be there, et cetera,

et cetera. A guy like Wallace would would not have escaped, notice, you know, And this idea that somebody believes they saw from the ground level someone wearing glasses that was on the sixth floor is not adequate as far as I'm concerned, to place him there either. And when you don't have the fingerprint evidence, what do you have when it comes to mac Wallace, And that's only one of the shooters in their alleged eight shooter configuration, you know.

So okay, let's move forward, though, Carmine, what else did we take note of? Well, okay, so we went from there. Oh. One of my favorite things that they said during the course of the movie was they claimed that because of the lack of evidence in some cases their ideas are stronger than the other goes against them. And I just like to tell the author they're mistaken or the director whoever contrived, that a lack of evidence does not make your argument stronger, it makes it worse. The argument

with more evidence is the more is the superior argument. You know. They talked about the Murchison dinner party as we went over, and the problem with the property. They talked about the roths child and old money illuminati conspiracies were sort of the setup to the JFK case, and they sort of had a hand in making what happened to JFK happen. Wow, all right, Rob I'm gonna throw it at you on that one. And why because I have a feeling that you and I see now I'm a little bit more of a

far flung conspiracy guy when it comes to some of this stuff. So I'm gonna try and keep my mouth shut because I've got my viewpoints on the Rothschilds.

But what do you have to say about that? Well? Yeah, I mean this, this guy's akse on this fantastic journey from from the early Robber barons, you know, the Rothschilds, the JP Morgan's, you know, through through World War One and of course the Harryman's and you know, the Bushes and the Nazis, and you know, somehow, you know, it kind of evolved into you know, then being the architects or actually led to them, you know, to be being part of the architecture of the

JFK assassination. And you know, these certain people, I should say, have been making you know, these connections, especially with Bush and the Skull and Bones Society at Yale. You know, while all these connections are interesting, you know, it lacks teeth, it lacks proof. You know that. Well, yeah, here's the thing. Here's the thing, right when it comes to the Bushes and I look, I very I I don't pull any punches about it. I call the Bush family the Bush crime syndicate.

I really do believe they are their corporate criminals. They have gained profits from warfare, and my estimation, they have gained on the misery of other people. This is my viewpoint of these individuals. Their whole family has done this. Prescott Bush was a part of, you know, the the cadre of individuals who were called on the carpet with trading with the enemies, you know, contrating with the enemies, act unconscionable individuals, you know, political polecats,

if you will, no problem there. But here here is where I begin to have to draw a line. You can't put a gun in George HW. Bush's hand in Deally Plaza. Okay, why well, see once again I would turn to Sherry real quick here and say, don't you want to have some sort of evidence that puts a gun in a man's hand? And something besides one blurry photograph from one particular hand which appears like it might possibly be somebody, in order to present it as positive evidence for somebody being

present at a scene. I'm glad you've asked me that question. Well, first off, everybody looks at those blurry photographs that you're talking about and they're thinking Grassyn. And we now know that no headshot came from the grassy, know, So you know that kind of eliminates a lot of things that people look to. But here's something that I just want to tell you about. Okay, when I was working in law enforcement many years ago, there was

a traffic accident on Interstate ten. And in that traffic accident, we recovered a briefcase that looked like a Haliburton CA. I don't know if if you know what that means. It's like a metal case. And when we were able to open that because the person was deceased, we found, I guess something that you would call fairly unusual, and it was a lot of money,

a weapon and a silencer and a note. The note was what was interesting because the note was too a family member and basically what they were saying was you think that I'm one kind of person, but I'm not, and there's not any way that anybody can come back and prove anything that I've ever done. And here's why. And they he had actually kind of laid out a way to say, you know, if you gained property by illegal means that that property can be seized. I don't know if you know that.

Oh yeah, So this is someone who was trying to say to a family member, you don't have to worry because the property that we have is not going to be seized because there's not any way for anyone to prove that I gained it illegally. And here's why, and this is what, this is why I'm bringing this up. Their story was basically, if hypothetically I was going to kill someone, I would hire someone to kill them, and then on the same day I would hire someone to kill that person. I wouldn't

tell either of them why I wanted this done. But eventually what would happen is I could continue to do this indefinitely until it would never ever be able to be traced back to me. So my question is, for people that wanted to see President Kennedy dead, why would they do anything that would allow that to be traced back to them When it's so easy to make sure that it's not not not the least of which would be showing their face at the murder scene. Yeah scene, that's a good one. I think that's a

very good rule of thumb. So, if someone were actually going to be involved with the homicide assassination however you want to call whatever you want to call it, of a sitting president, do you honestly believe that they would have an have any way that it would ever come back to them. I mean, really, it's water than that. And these people had money. So I think it's ridiculous for people to say, oh, yeah, I know so and so did it because they weren't well liked or whatever the situation is.

I think that is just so ridiculous. Well, it's the concept of insulation. It's the concept of insulation. And this is the why, you know, mob guys put things in their wives' names and turn around and go through the trouble of wandering money because at some point, yeah, if things are seized based on the fact that they were obtained in a criminal conspiracy, you know, you forfeit your rights to those assets. That's money, that's

your houses, that's your cars, et cetera, et cetera. That's why ownership is always played with and you require people that are called forensic accountants to reconstruct what happened so that you can trace back all of the assets. You can get a hold of where the bank accounts were. This is why they're offshore bank accounts, et cetera, et cetera. Now, look, I'm not even making a distinction between corporate criminals and you know, your street level

guys who are organized or anything else. I'm just telling you that in a criminal conspiracy where it's well organized and high finance, this is what is done. You don't send players who are recognizable in any way, shape or form, or forget about recognizable. You wouldn't want them to be recognized at the scene of the murder. That's just a no no. I mean, come on, seriously. There's something to be said for the banking conspiracy, the

damage it's done. There's something to be said for corporate criminals. There's something to be said for the individuals who have gotten rewards and been involved in different government agencies and have absolutely profited off of the blood of others. But when it comes to something like this, you're not going to be able to put a key player like that, assuming that he's even a player on the scene.

It's just not going to happen that way. I don't know, Rob, I know you were speaking about this to start with, but I mean, I don't know any any anybody want to argue with what Sherry or I just said. No, and I mean not at all. I mean I think I mean that that was kind of what they were trying to say in the movie. You know that all these rich and powerful people like g and Conna and hl Hunt and Murchison, you know, had had hired these hitman

hitman for for you know, plausible deniability. But the cast of characters that they supposedly hired are all, you know, almost all notorious for one reason or another and can be associated right back to him, especially the mafia guys like Nicoletti and Kane and you know a couple of these other people. Yeah, and you know, you got these people that he associated with the hit like Jack Lawrence, who seemingly had no connection to anybody at all, you

know, and they just kind of came out of left field. I guess they were supposing that they were maybe you know, c I A I don't know. But you know, even when they talked about the tramps, you know, they have him identified as Charles Rogers, who that's not even a you know, a dead set identification, as we don't really have any verifiable pictures of Charles Rogers period, And to say that that guy is Charles Harrelson,

you know, he doesn't look like him to me. And then of course they identified the old tramp as Hunt, you know, and it was Wholt who said he was with Harrelson Rogers, not Hunt, and that Hunt identification has been debunked for years. So there's a lot of debunked information. I mean, he even went so far as to do the old Robert Morning

Star thing and say JD. Tibby's body, you know, was to be used as a substitute for Kennedy's. You know, just every theory under the sun is thrown into this movie, right, I mean, well, you know, mixed in with credible stuff, you know, to kind of sucker people in, and you know, it's it is a great story, but that's it. That's it. It's a story, it's entertainment, and it's told by one person who I would wonder because he has images of the Pruder

film in this movie. He has a lot of images from other films in this movie. And I know if if he uses a Pruder film without permission, the sixth floor comes after you. So I'm just wondering if this guy paid for permission to use all these different films in his one film. And I would venture to say the answer is no. Oh right, I would too, and that that is another interesting question. But you know what, you bring up the other thing that I wanted to run by Sherry because we're

down to less than ten minutes left. But I do want to run this by Sherry real quick, because once again, there is this idea, this concept which has been floated around by this guy, Robert morning Star for a long time. About the idea, Now brace yourself, Sherry, please, And I'm sure you've heard this before, but man, I don't know if I can even get through this sentence that JD. Tippet's body is the one which is being exhibited in the Kennedy autopsy photos. You know, the fox

set that has been circulated that they actually utilize JD. Tippett's body for these photographs, and then you know, turned around and prettied up the body so that they could show the wounds to be a certain way. I'm only going to give you a couple of minutes here, but I mean, can you somehow attack that in a like sixty seconds, Well, that's pretty ludicrous. I would tell you. For anybody that has actually look at the evidence I have, and I will tell you that number one, the location of the

wounds don't correlate. The trajectory of the wounds don't correlate. The dental records don't correlate. The size of the head don't correlate. So I can't see how anyone who truly wants to look at the differences between these two sets of X rays could ever be considered from the same person. So I don't really know how else I could say that, you know, other than it is

absolutely false. Thank you, Thank you so much, because this is what I've been trying to say about this for years, and I believe it or not, it's not the first time I've been confronted with this idea. But man, I just want to throw up my hands when somebody says this, because it's like, I don't know where to begin with exactly how ludicrous this is. But hey, if you actually examine the evidence. You can't line up the two bodies. Just forget about the wounds. You can't line up

the two bodies. But it doesn't the known information about Tippett and Kennedy means that you can't switch one for the other. They're not even going to be close. They say that they're physically similar, they're not. They really aren't. They are not. So I have to agree with you on that. I have no idea why people would lean towards such an absolutely bizarre conclusion.

I really, I really can't explain that because there's in no way does it work wasted energy, absolutely, and I don't feel like we've wasted a lot of energy here, but I mean, rapid fire, Carmine, what else do you have left in your notes as points from this moblaste? Okay, I think we're going to get through maybe some of it, but there's a lot. Okay, I know there's more than we can cover, but let's just give people are Okay, Let's go to a Mark Lane's spotlight trial.

And what I would say about that is, these guys say that it proved that Surgis and Hunt were responsible for President Kennedy's death, but that didn't occur if you read into it. The trial established that it was not unreasonable to accuse some of the people Lane did based on established connections. It didn't prove they were guilty. It just showed that Spotlight was not guilty of defaming them

because they had been in some very illegal operations before. Right, So moving on, read the actual article, read what happened in the court transcripts, and guess what you'll find that isn't what was proven. Moving forward, the film claims Kennedy fired Alan Dulles, and this is not correct. Dallas resigned and the resignation was likely due to political necessity, not because Kennedy hated Dullas

as The film tries to make it sound like they were enemies. But the president never condemned but praised Dullas. If you actually look into the record, and you'd look into some of the honors and awards he gave him. I'm not saying that Dulles wasn't kicked out because of his mistakes. He was,

but Kennedy wasn't. They weren't some sort of enemy. I mean, remember that it was Robert Kennedy and Katzenbach who suggested Dullas for the commission and Dulles, no matter what, even though he was the most active member of the warrant commission, was not necessarily the guy who presided over it. Because that was the statement made in that film, and that is absolutely ludicrous. He was the most active guy when it came to making statements and asking questions.

If you sit and draw an actuary up and try and follow the activity of the commissioners based on the executive sessions and the public record, guess what you will find that Dallas was active. But anyway, moving forward, Okay, the film claimed that Oswald was a low level CIA operative, and while this is possible, the film offers no proof. Now evidence was submitted to the viewer, just more claims. The film attempted to offer that the conspirators were

contriving a full proof plan. Control of the body is deemed essential. However, the actual evidence is that it remains contrary and disjoin it. I mean, you guys spent the first hour Sherry told us about some of the things, so did you. I mean, if the evidence was so messed up, there was no way this was a full proof plan, as the film tries, was certain well, right, the only thing that was full proof is that a disaster was made. And listen, we are out of time

for JFK Myths Part six. I want to thank author Sherry Feaster, Enemy of the Truth is the book Get It, Carmine Sabastano, who is the author of the upcoming book Two Princes and a King, And of course my friend Rob Clark who does the Lone Gunman podcast. Guys, I appreciate every last one of you for joining me for this and I hope the listener learned a little something about what a myth is. Everybody, have a good night and we'll see you on Tuesday.