The o' chile effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you Now Night and in our media December thirteenth, twenty twenty three. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this is the o'celly effect. So if you're hearing us live, that's great, you're on the stream. We appreciate you. I went to the stream a little late, but as per usual, the best laid plans of mice men and guys named o'celly
just don't work out. So here we are. It is Wednesday, Wednesday, in the middle of the week, and we are sticking to Some people have written to me recently and said, you're doing a lot of JMK stuff. Again, Yes I am, but that's because there's a lot of good stuff to go over. And yes, I wanted to promote the conference before I went and all that. Oh by the way, uh, you know, I got two guys with me tonight that might have had something to do
with that conference. Let's see if you were paying attention, and let's save you were paying attention again, because one of them is a return guesting one of them I've never had on before. Actually had to ask him exactly how to pronounce his name. I admit all this stuff before I go to air, you know, and bring people on. Why not, I don't want to hide it. But anyway, they are co authors in a weird way.
I haven't seen too many of these kind of books before, except when I guess somebody used to claim to be the editor of a bunch of things that they put together, and they would put together books in JFK Land, and that would be a thing. This, however, is a different sort of effort. Now Jim Dugenio is one of the authors of this book.
I don't have him with me. There's reasons for that. But anyway, I got two of the key guys from this book, which has an interesting name to begin with, Choke Holds all right, Yes, I said it, It's JFK Choke Holds all right. Now. The subtitle choke holds that proved there was conspiracy, interesting way of putting stuff. Almost sounds like I might have gave him the title, but I didn't. And here we are
again. It is a fascinating piece because this has been attempted before, where people say, what are the key elements that prove that there is a case to be made here that there is some reason for disturbing the accepted history, that there was a loan shooter, you know, and all of that good stuff. What are the key elements, And there've been mock trials, and we know some of the usual suspects used to come out. Some of them have passed away now, but they made careers for a little while out of
it and all that good stuff. Sure, and some of them were lawyers. And oh, there's a couple of lawyers involved in writing this book. And I told these guys right before we went to air exactly how much I love lawyers, and one of them told me the best joke possible regarding that. And maybe we'll get to that in a little bit, but enough out of me anyway. Paul Blow is with me, and also Matt Crumpton. Now Matt is the guy who does that solving JFK thing that we talked about
before when it was still happening. I'm not sure if he's done with that podcast or not, but I do know that there was an episode not too long before I went to Dallas, but I've kind of lost track of time because I was sick. We'll get to all of that and exactly what party played in Choke Holds, and also with Paul, who I'm pretty certain I ran into at the conference, although it's a little bit of a blur now, So anyway, let's get to it. First of all, Matt,
how you doing tonight? Sir? Hey, Chuck, how's it going? Man? Thanks for having me on. Absolutely Look, you're a good guy. I love the way you were presenting your podcast and didn't even know that there was a book going to be with you attached to it. So here we go again. Why not have another conversation, Paul, how are you doing tonight? Well? Absolutely great. Just to refresh your memory. When we met at Lancer, you and I and I had a little discussion about
Judas Ferry Baker. You remember you told me that. Anyway, I'll it was an interesting conversation put it that way. But you also introduced me because I spoke about Choe Holds at the conference, right right, Well, that's why I was being a little playful there at the beginning. But yeah, no, of course, and I had one hundred conversations about about Judy at
the conference, trying to dissuade people from actually paying attention to her. But and I was giving away Walt Brown's book, which you know contradicts anyway, Enough out of that, because let's let's get into your work and what's going on here. And you did do an interesting presentation, although I got to say, I was so busy with other things I didn't see the whole thing. But I am going to go over it again very soon. I want
to go back over it because I heard things about your presentation. So and anytime I hear anything about somebody's presentation afterwards, that means I got to go back and look at it, because you know, people yawned through most of it. We've heard a lot of this stuff before. In other words, we've been through a lot of this stuff before, Paul, and apparently you presented some things that maybe weren't an old hat. I know that that almost
sounds insulting, but it's not. It means that if you had something new to say, believe me, it's worth listening to. So and by the way, he is part of the Lancer presentation. So if you got that, it's still available I think through Christmas or maybe through the New Year on the website. If you were somebody who going to take it for Lancer and you can check out Paul's presentation for yourself there and we'll give you a website and everywhere to get the book when we're done. So anyway, let's get
to this. Who should I start with? I mean, I guess I can look and see which author is listed first in the book if I wanted to, right, which is Paul? Yeah? Hey, hey, real quick, Chuck, maybe we can just just tell you the backstory of kind of how this came to be real quick. Is that cool? You know what, Matt? I love this? Go right ahead please? Yeah. So, so basically this is last year at the conference and Paul, I
don't know if it was Lancer or Kapa Tapa. Yeah, in Dallas and basically, uh, the night before the conference started, I ran into Jim Diugenio and Paul, who knew each other because they had recently they get Jim and Paul worked together for a while. Paul had him to uh come up to Quebec City for an event with Oliver Stone and and Paul also appears in uh in Jim and Oliver's film Solving JF I mean Solving JFK JFK Revisited.
Uh. So so that's great. But anyway, uh, we're there in the lobby of the night before and so the four of the five authors kind of were just hanging out. We got a drink together, you know, when you have jfk assassination sort of experts I suppose, for lack of a better term, people who know a lot more than the average person. It's kind of all you want to talk about, right, and everybody has it. There's like all a little many controversies within you know what I mean,
like the inside baseball of it all. It's it's really cool. So anyway, we started talking could carry our conversation on to the next day. We had lunch after going to Dealey Plaza and we're kind of just like, what are the greatest hits? Like if you could just make a few arguments of the absolute you know, slam dunks. And that's when Paul brought on this
word choke hold, which I think he picked up for Malcolm Blunt. But but yeah, that we we started talking about that, and we kind of then we decided to do some sort of a project together afterwards, and we voted on a list back and forth of you know, sort of the greatest hits that we felt like we're you know, either either they're indisputable or there are counter arguments, but the counter argument, you know, a reasonable person
wouldn't wouldn't be persuasive to a reasonable person. Let's say, Okay, that's kind of really quick, Matt, just really quick. For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Okay, uh uh you know Malcolm Blunt. Uh, that means that you're actually unfamiliar with the best experts on the case when it comes to JFK assassination and documentation both things. Just wanted to note that. Go ahead, Matt. Yeah, no, I have yet to meet
mister Blunt, but certainly is highly regarded. So anyway, yeah, we we kind of started those conversations, started to have some skypes and kind of broke up the book into you know, assigning who's going to handle what chapters and uh and yeah, we went from there. So I'll just say, you know, Paul Paul has several chapters in this book where he was the principal author. I want to say, maybe four chapters in the book,
maybe five. I have two where I'm I'm the guy, and I'll just say I think the best my two favorite chapters of the book, like and really the reason to buy the book is the first chapter in the last chapter,
both of which Paul wrote. And the first one is all of the insider statements, so you know, people who worked in investigations, you know, the Warren Commission, the Garrison Investigation, the HSCA ARB, all the all the investigations over the years, Church Committee, what did they say, like, what did they kind of stay behind the scenes, which is kind
of close to a confession. And then the last chapter is just documenting the history, including up to date with the GfK Records Act of the obstruction of justice in this case since you know, since the investigation started. So anyway, yeah, maybe Paul can can take it from there and if you want to have him walked through his chapters. But that's that's kind of how we got started. And like I said, the first from the last I think are the best chapters in the book. Okay, Chuck, if I can
add to that, thank you, Matt. But he's I think a bit humble because really the way he wrote his chapters too, I think we're you know that they really helped us reach the goals we were looking to reach. You're right, Chuck, that Malcolm Blunt write his legendary and he used the word choke holds. The time I heard him use the word choke holds is when he described how Oswald's file was being managed when he was a you know,
a defector quote unquote to the to the in Russia. And he showed, because of Betsy Wolf's work for the HSCA, that this isn't what a normal defector's file should look like. And he used because what happened. First of all, they took over a year to open a too oh one file. And for your audience, normally, you know, a defector too on one file is as basic as you can get. If someone has any is of any interest to intelligence, you'll open a to a one file. If
you're a defector, it should be open day one. And it took over a year. And the other thing that was abnormal was that the you know, the information on Oswald would not go to the Soviet Russia Division. It would go to the Office of Security. And Betsy Wolf, who was a staffer for the HSCA, looked into that very deeply and you know, found it. And when this information was presented to Peter Bagley, who was a high up officer by Malcolm Blunt and Peter Bagley confirmed to Balcom Blunt that Oswald
had to be a witting false defector. So that's where Malcolm Blant used the word choke hold. Now, you know, we made a few jokes about attorneys and all that and had a good laugh before we went live. But here's what happened is the three attorneys among the authors, what they did is they made sure that the evidence, you know, the ten chapters or the ten bodies of evidence that we discussed, reached standards of proof that they would
have been comfortable bringing to a jury. And what I mean by standards of proof, we were talking about two standards. One is, I think the readers of the JFK assassination choke holds would be convinced that he wouldn't have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is one standard of proof that is required
for criminal, you know cases. The other standard of proof we looked at was, okay, what about you know, what about our arguing that there was a conspiracy, And we brought many areas of evidence that reached the level of clear and convincing evidence. And these have legal meanings and they're important, and I think that is the way the chapters are treated, and that's the way it's written. So the chapters, I don't think we're we go into
hyper bowl or exaggeration. We give facts, and you know when you read these facts. I'll just give you one example. One of Maths chapters is he chronicles seventeen cases of impersonation. Okay, that A's well being impersonated, whether it's in Mexico City while he was in Russia. Well you might be able to explain one, two, three, four, five, But why
would a twenty four year old loan not be impersonated? You know that it's not supposed to be on anybody's radar, and you know, so that that is one body of evidence, and so that's that's I think the concept of chocals and how the authors I was a little bit, you know, we didn't know one another. The only person I knew before I went down to Kappa was Jim. I did not know the three other authors and we met down there, and you know, to be honest, there was some risk
in this project. But I think that the combination of you know, research research skills and knowledge and the legal knowledge played I think an important role in the book. No, absolutely, And you know, Matt describes the conversation, which is sort of laid out in short at the beginning of the book, right where you know, what do you guys think of the backyard photo? Is attributed to Matt. And I'll tell you I can already see where
I would have been disruptive in this argument. And it's it's odd because there's nuance in all these things. And I'm wondering how that got addressed, because, you know, trying to coordinate four authors not an easy thing to do. I mean, I think if you put four of us together who were interested in the case and tried to order a pizza, it might be trouble. You know, really simple. What do you guys think of the backyard photo? Okay, so according to this Mark says fake, I'm just looking
right at it, and Paul says, odds are it's fake? There seems to be crop lines along the chin. Well, all right, I would say immediately if I'm standing there, here's my issue. And it comes up later in the conversation. I'm not sure about the crop lines on the chin, but I gotta tell you that I happen to know that if you take the shadows into account, which everybody brings up next, they do work oddly enough. Why do I say that, because I've actually had a friend who
stood there at that time of day, in that location. Okay, hell an object and duplicated the shadows. That's exactly That's exactly why the way White Chuck we it didn't remake it into the book. What you're saying right there, Right, it's a difficult thing. Now, the crop ladoffs are disputable,
and here's the thing, there's always these nuances in the arguments. Could we all agree though, that it was useful anyway as a device to convict him in the public's mind, because they threw that thing across What Life magazine, right, which you know, the majority of the country got to see. It was an infamous photo. It continues to be an infamous photo. And there are many issues connected to these photos that create a forest of problems.
Twists and turns. One shows up, Roscoe White's wife has one, you know, all kinds of things, right, I mean, Matt, there's a lot of things that could have went into that conversation. And as Paul said, that's why it's not in the book, right, Yeah, and also you know on the photo in particular, which we again we didn't that didn't make it in there's an HFCA panel of photographic experts that specifically like granul granularly compared that photograph and the type that was used in YadA, YadA,
YadA. There's other there's counterpoints and counterpoints and counterpoints. That's why we're all here doing this, right, because then what's the counterpoint to that? Oh, well, the camera they said, Marina, didn't they even actually know how to hold it? Like there's a million we all, you know what I mean, that's kind of what we do. We all kind of like flex to each other to show each other, Hey, do you know this? Yes, I knew that? Well did you know this? You
know what I mean. It's kind of it's kind of fun, Like I really like being part of of the group that kind of knows what's up. But uh, anyway, the backyard photo, Yeah, I mean, like we got to reserve the possibility that it is Oswald maybe because because like, right, if he's like a Witning agent doing these things, who's to say that he didn't do you know, the same thing. He's handing out pamphlets in New Orleans, like maybe it was oz Well, or maybe it was
someone who looked a lot like Oswald and it wasn't Oswald. Maybe it will just like him, or maybe there's the whole thing with Roscoe White and the cutout that's found in the Dallas Police Department. I don't know. I'm not sure where I've landed. So what's your final answer on the photos? Then, chuck? Yeah, Well, my final answer is that Marina is not a reliable witness for various reasons, so you got to put her aside and
understand that it does appear to be him. There's anomalies in those photographs though, that are endless one way or another. But like you said, the HSCA panel that went through it, I don't think Groden agrees with it. I don't think Jim Deugenio agrees with the analysis from the HSCA. But here we go. That's what I was wanting to get at, is how it is that you come to a consensus on something like this where everybody's name has to go into it, and there are a million ways to dissect these things
which we have now all been through. If we've been there for a couple of years, you know, just to answer the process question. That's what we do in this JFK case talk, right, we go deep down the rabbit holes. But on that so we just voted basically, and they were like the backyard photos was never in the conversation. There were like fifteen and then we narrowed it down to ten and we just voted on the ones that we had to all feel good about it. And I think there were some
that we thought were stronger than others and dependent. You know, we didn't have complete overlapping agreement, but we had enough agreement about what the top ten was and we had a pretty good like voting process excellently. Okay, well that was what I was curious about. So I guess we should go back to Paul and get back to what's in the book, right, or should we or should we go on to you and talk about the first chapter? Well, that would be me in both cases, that would be you in
both cases. I'm sorry, Yeah, that is you. I'm a little mixed up. Excuse me. Go ahead, Paul, let's go to you. Then I already made the decision, and Matt please fill in because it's
one of the the second longest chapter is the first one. And the reason for that, and I'll explain is that, you know, about ten years ago, Chuck I did an analysis on how history books covered the JFK assassination, and you know, we went through twenty one of the most popular textbooks for students in the US and Canada, and you know, you know,
an overwhelming majority described the assassination as one perpetrated by alone nun Oswald. Here's the thing is, I was able to question the authors and I tried to get their sources for that, and you know that almost all of them, not all, but almost all were not aware that there were other investigations after the Warrant Commission, and their number one source for writing what they wrote was
the Warrens Commission report in nineteen sixty four, repudiated document. So when I'd ask them and I'd say, hey, you know, the HSCA has this and that to say, you know, and they hadn't heard. Many hadn't heard of the HSCA. So what that got me into is the American Historical Association and what should constitute an official record? Okay, And they're clear in their quote of conduct. It says that you know, when you're writing history.
You should evolve with new information, and yet all these history book writers were gelled into the year nineteen sixty four. So what I find is fantastic about chapter one is we go through, first of all, what the reports actually say, and we go into what the insiders said. And the insiders. Let me define an insider. An insider is someone who's either a police officer, it could be a medical expert. It could be a staffer in one of these investigations. It could be a commissioner, it could be legal
counsel. So we're talking about, you know, people, and when you get into it, chuck and you look at even the Warrant Commission had an awful lot of dissension, and especially as time went on. But if you go and you got into the Church Committee, and then you get into the HSSE and you get into the ARB, and you start, you know,
reading what did Richard Schweiker for your audience. Richard Schwiker was a Republican Senator and he was one of the you know, the co chairs of that special committee in the Church Committee that looked into how the intelligence agencies did their work in the jfk assassination. The other co chair was Gary Hart. And if you listen to what both of these people say is they're saying basically that there was a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission did not do their work property nor
did the intelligence agencies that were investigating it. And it's right there in the reports. But furthermore, it's you know, like everybody. I don't know if Chuck you remember that famous line. I think it was for a BBC documentary where Richard Schiker says that Warren Commission has in fact collapsed like a house of cards, and and I believe was set up to feed pablem to the American people. I mean, that's a historical trace. It's not Chuck o'chelly
saying it. It's not Matt Crumpton, it's not Paul Blow, it's not Jim Dugidio. These are the insiders, the real people. And we have ninety you know, over and above what said in the reports. We have you know, Robert Blakey, Tannenbaum, Jeremy gunn Horn and and and then we even have staffers. I talked to you about Bessie Wolf and the the physicians that were at the says, then the physicians and nurses that were at
Parkland. And when you read that chapter, what it does, in my opinion, is it puts people like us really on the side of what the insiders, the people who spoke to witnesses, the people who had access to classified documents, the people you know who you know went into the executive sessions, the people who had a bird's eye view. And what mainstream media tends to do is what they get fake experts on fake experts, who who who? When you say, well, what was your credit were you there,
did you talk to witnesses? Have you gone through the documents that have been released or declassified? And you know, they decide who these expert pundits are. But the real experts are much closer to what you know people who believe in the conspiracy have to say. So what the others have been so successful at is saying, you know, conspiracy theorists, they're out on a limb. And you know, Bobosi used to call us quacks and things like that,
But yet who's on our side? I much prefer having Schweiker on my side and Gary Hart and tan and Baum and Delghorn. That's why that chapter and look, the readers will have links to video, still have links to articles, still have links to the actual pages in the reports that confirm these
blistering statements. And if anybody after chapter one still would want to refer to the Warren Commission as their main source of information, well then you know, there's no way they'll ever ever change, and I think they'll come a lot closer to at least thinking, well, these people that wrote this book aren't
so crazy. So that's what I liked about chapter one. And what's good is it sets the tone because the next chapters will go back to saying, well, not only do we have this evidence, but listen to what so and so of the HC had to say about it. So that's what I in a nutshell, what chapter one is about is what is the official record? Well that's why I took time on this show with Larry Hancock to go through. Let's talk about the official investigations, all of them, because a
lot of people fail to recognize that there were a great many. And you have to count Garrison's investigation as well, because that is the District Attorney of you know, okay, and whatever you think of the conclusion or the conduct of those investigations, let's lay them all out and I did that, you know, which meant I had to go to the Clark panel. I had to go to you know, Pike and Church and Rockefeller and of course the
HSCA. And there's this other Justice Department inquiry that occurs in eighty eight or eighty six, I forget whish that doesn't even have a name. But there were various official investigations one way or another. Now people would say, well, the AARRB is not an investigation in a technical sense, Yes, but it did investigate aspects here because they had to make sure that the records would
be legitimate when they were entered into the records collection. So therefore there was investigative aspects to the ARRB, although it was not their primary focus to find I took it. I mean, they took depositions, right, because they had to clear up the whole medical aspect. So they did question Jume's Bosswell,
you know, so they did investigate certain areas. But you're right, their job was to manage the declassification, if I could put it that way, right, which meant that the functionality was to make sure that records were legitimate. Therefore those interviews were necessary. Those depositions were necessary, that's the way that went. But they were not, as a matter of fact,
attempting to solve the crime. But either way, some of these other investigations are wholly unknown, even by some people who think they understand this case. I mean, I mentioned the Clark panel. I bet you both of you guys know who what that was. Not everybody does, so it's very interesting. Now here's another part of this though, and it's something that if at a bare minimum, the history books. Let's start with your premise from ten years ago, and I bring this up on my show all the time.
The history books used to contain two sentences. I know this because I was in a poor school. So when I went to school in the later seventies, they didn't even get up to the Kennedy assassination in our history books. Right, I go into the eighties or so, we finally have the Kennedy assassination in the books, and it is literally two sentences. And that's all it was. It was the Warrant Commission concluded this, it's most likely this
is what happened. He died in custody, end of story. Yeah, that's it, I mean, and it's two sentences long, literally, Paul, am I misrepresenting what you found in those history books ten years ago. Yes, you're right. The only source is the Warrant Commission, and you know, a blue ribbon panel of you know, highly distinguished people, you know, came out with that concluded. Sometimes they'll say, you know, but they'll always be controversy, and you know, but there's not a word
about the HSA. At a bare minimum. By the time we're into the nineteen eighties, it should have said there are at least two official conclusions by the United States government. Because they are separate, they are different slightly, the hsca's conclusion and the Warren Commission's conclusion. It should at the very least note that in one case, yes, they say Oswald acted alone. Ruby acted alone, which, by the way, we're gonna have to get to
Jack Ruby at some point here, you know. And that's that for the Warren Commission. But the HSCA concluded, indeed Oswald is guilty again, but it's likely there was a conspiracy, and that is their conclusion, open ended. Yes, but that was two separate and equally important official conclusions by the government. Yes or no, Well, yeah, Matt, maybe can you I'm going to express an opinion here, but normally the one that comes later that lasted longer, you know, over two years, and then looked into
not only information the Warrant Commission had, but new information. Right, It's sort of like an appeal. Right, And this is after the Church Committee and the HSCA point out the defects in the Warrant Commission investigation. Which should you give more weight to, right, the earlier one or that lasted nine months or the later one that comes in ten years, you know, and lasts longer in my opinion, and maybe Matt, you can you know if you were, if you were to look at this legally, what you know?
It seems to me the Church and the HSCA should be given more weight than the Warrant Commission. That's that's in terms of the American Historical Association. It says, Okay, we've got new information, and what have we learned since the classification is a whole other question, you know, Like with you, documents have come up, so I don't know, Matt, what you think on them. Yeah, I mean I would say in theory what you're saying makes sense, Like as a metaphor, you know, like, hey,
we had the first shot at it. New information was for The problem is, I'm an actual lawyer, so I'm trying to think in terms of like, oh, what rule of civil procedure would this work under? But I mean, I mean the reality is once you zoom into the history of it, not just the law. I think they all kind of stand for themselves in terms of when I say they all, including the ARRB. You
know, they all have their own body of evidence, right. We have the Warrant Commission has a ton of evidence, right, And then you've got You've basically had that. You've got Garrison Case, Pike, Church, HSCA, all those documents, many of which came out with the JK Records Act and with the ARB SO and then the ones that keep coming out. You kind of have to balance. And my answer is, yes, kind of, I hear what you're saying, but they kind of all have different things
they're doing. And I think you have to look at the Church and the HSA just in terms of they opened up the whole door to the conversation about what the CIA was doing around the world, and what the CIA was doing in Cuba especially, you know, hand in hand with Cuban exiles and mafia
folks that have kind of been tied to this case. So that's that would be my answer is in legal terms, I would call it a totality of the circumstances the test to where you're grabbing facts from every different aspect of the investigation. But I think the the late like, for example, okay, the brain, let's look at let's look at the evidence of the brain.
Let's apply your question to the brain. You know, so at first, whatever the Warner report says about the brain that you know, it was there was, it was kind of messed up at the top, and whatever they you know, they did what they did with it. But then we find out in the HSCA. You know, I forget what Stringer said at the HSCA. The photography canuts and also testify at the HSCA. But then the
ar RB Stringer's talking about, that's the last one. He's kind of he's saying, hey, we didn't even take bassial reviews, didn't even take shots from underneath the brain. Oh this is a different type of film, you know what I mean, same thing with Sondra Spenser. So so to me, that's you would go, well, Wait a minute, they don't even have the same film, and there's like they have specific facts. Why they're saying that there's a reason to actually believe it. That's that's wild. So
yeah, you know, I think that's the case. But in some cases, the evidence that was brought out by the Warren Report may be the best case, you know what I mean. So yeah, I know you you have to look at the raw data too, I guess you know that good point. And you know, Chuck, you were talking about the Garrison investigation,
right, believe it or not. I actually read his nine thousand files and the thing that people don't understand is his you know, the legal case was one thing, but his raw data, the raw data, you know, like here's a deposition they took, and here's what so and so. I'd say, here's a polygraph result report. There's some really interesting information in there, and you know, you you can take that information and if you
because you know what poor Garrison was. You know, I'm not saying the guy was perfect, but to a certain degree he was vindicated by Tanenbaum and the HSC later because they said, hey, look, you know what they found out that clay Shaw did have intelligence connections, something he denied, and they, you know, they came to the conclusion that there was most likely
a relationship between Oswald and David Ferry. Okay, so that the Lincoln incident, you know, in Lincoln where so many people saw David Ferry with Oswalt and possibly Clay Shaw. They don't say definitely. So but what I'm saying is if you take the raw data and you go through and I'm glad you did that with Larry Hancock, by the ways, you went through investigation after investigation, and well and you ask yourself what is the official record? But
you know, does does the CBS do that? Does the CNN do that? When you know, when they invest the pundit on, did they actually say what is the official record? Well, what's funny is that in the old days, CBS and these other outlets used to actually do some work behind all this, right, and they did in nineteen sixty eight or sixty seven, I forget, which a series of shows four nights in fact, where they took people and tried to recreate the shooting, and they had independent people
they said, examine stuff. Of course, if you look into those backgrounds, you find out who everybody is and all that good stuff. But it's interesting what they put on at first. Nowadays, all they do they're very lazy. They just drag out Gerald Posner, and that's only because Vince Bugliosi died, you know, And that's it, right, And then we complain a little while, and who do they call? They call Jeff Morley, and that's fine, that's good. I'm happy to hear from Jeff Morley.
But at first, what are we confronted with? Usually? You know, Gerald Posner? Why because he wrote a best selling book. That's the explanation. Vince Bugliosi. Yeah, okay, Anyway, I don't want to get into that too far, because let's go back to what it is you got. We're writing about Oswald's intelligence connections. Is the next chapter in the book.
But I'm not going to go chapter per chapter, Matt. I look for your guidance here as to where we should jump to next regarding this, because this is this is really interesting, Like I said, where you got four authors coming together, and I like that you have the legalistic approach.
I really should have pin you down with my question and said, well, you know, a counselor what would be the official conclusion according to the US government, there is where I should opin you down and been specific because that's what you got to do, right, the official conclusion of the case. Yes, well that's what that's what I'm trying to find out with the podcast.
I'm trying to you know what I mean. Obviously that's what we were all We've all been trying to find out our whole lives ever since we started all studying this, right. But in terms of me going on the record and taking a position, I'll do that when I when I get done with season three. So just quickly to address your you were talking, you're asking if I'm still doing the project. I finished season one. August eighth was the last episode that came out, and I picked back up November twenty second,
was season two. I did a quick a couple bonus episodes and got an interview with Paul and the other co authors on the Chokeholds book. Did a special episode about the Pittsburgh conference, did a special episode deep diving on Paul landis who's from my hometown? It's crazy and anyway, and now we're doing the season two is who was Oswald? Really? So it's deep diving on Oswald because where we landed on season one, I made conclusions on fifteen
topics. Eight of them I find are inconclusive, seven of them I find support that the warrant report was in was incorrect, aka you know that there was likely a conspiracy. So that those were my findings. And the one that I wrote a choke old chapter about that I've covered so far is Oswald being in place in the sixth floor. So you know, each chapter is specifically written by an author, right by the author who knows about the chapter
or who studied it. So for example, like I haven't done the deep dive on Oswald's intelligence ties yet, I really like I'm in the midst of that journey right now. But I had done the deep dive on Oswald on the sixth Floor, like I did two full episodes. You know, I've already written like forty pages on it, and I already had all the incitations.
It was pretty easy. And then Oswald was impersonated. That was my other chapter just in the season one of the podcast, you know, not even looking at what he was up to in New Orleans and things that were you know, Russia just really just looked looking at sort of right around November twenty second, there were many instances of Oswald being impersonated, you know what I mean. So so so there you go. So that's what we're covering
right now. We're covering who is Oswald? Really? We'll do season two, then I'm gonna have a season three and season three is gonna be If not Oswald, then who right? So, and I'm not even like I I don't think Oswald could have been in place in the sixth floor. I mean I think that we decided that's the choke hold. There is a dispute on that, and and it kind of you know, it boils down here. To answer your question, let's do this, Chuck, if I could
just quickly talk about both of the chapters just briefly. Sure me. Let me just let me just throw something at you that's in my live chat room though, if you don't mind, which is is pretty interesting. Uh the this is this is directed at you, So let me make sure I have it in front of me when I read it. Yes, just Crumpton. The only legal opinion ever issued on the warrant report was by the judge, and the Garrison case declared the report was actually hearsay and therefore not a legal
document. And I'm pretty sure that's correct, but you could correct what if you like. That time in there, I think that was the when sorry, I'm not sure that was the judge, but when Garrison brought it to I'm sorry, I'm looking for the terms because he had to present it to a grand jury, right, And I think it was at that point that the judge determined that it wasn't it was hearsay based too much on hearsay. Wells, defense, I made you wrong on that Shaw's defense at some point.
I again, I'm just reading from what the chat room said. Well, I do recall that Shaw's defense tried to enter it as evidence and it was rejected based on the fact that I was considered hearsay. But I don't remember if it was during the grand jury worthy see here we go, Here's you can know a million things. But anyway, Yes, and he's saying in the chat room right now, the defense tried to enter the Moren report. Yes, I'm saying that they did. They attempted to enter it his
evidence and it was rejected. But I don't recall whether it was during the grand jury or it was during the actual proceeding against Sean. Do you do you remember, Matt. No, that's actually news to me. So thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I mean you know, like like I said, I really am learning as I go. Here. I'm writing the uh you know, I just did a deep dive on Oswald's background as a
kid, and now I'm step diving on the on the marine stuff. So I'm going through all those all those records, all the granular details, learning all the fun little anecdotes of all the things that happened to Ozwald while I was in the marine. So so yeah, and then if I miss something, I have a rebuttal episode and people can tell you and then I'll include
include their thing if they send me a citation. So right, well, remember your remember though of your member of audience is very astute, because she's right that it was refused. Yeah, yes, yeah, he's correct, Jay, Jimmy, Yeah, he's correct. And the other thing. I love it you're going through Oswald stuff because uh you know, let me know when you get to the part where it suggested that he might have gotten VD and also let me know how entertaining it is when he shoots himself with an
on with with it with an an authorized weapon. I love that. Go ahead, Yeah, yeah, he shoots himself. He he freaks out in Taiwan, starts randomly shooting in the woods. Yep. All kinds of fun stuff going on. Yeah, so so. But but okay, these these two chapters, let's just talk about Oswald being a place in the sixth floor.
So the whole conversation basically comes down to, you know, there's there are a million sub points, okay, but the the highlight to me that that kind of laid out in the chapter is that just following the timelines of things, Okay, Kennedy shot at what twelve thirty twelve thirty one, and we we we know that Arnold Rowlin saw a white guy with a gun in
the in the window at twelve fifteen. We know that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald at in the warrant report of the FBI report says twelve fifteen on the on the first floor, but she told her old Goals it was twelve twenty five on the second floor. So if she's seeing him at twelve twenty five, and she says that's what she originally told the FBI, and he came to her This wasn't like a you know, she was. She wrote a book. She wrote she found a bullet on the back of the thing, and
she wrote a book. No, but but anyway, So obviously, if she sees him at twelve twenty five, he can't be there on the sixth floor. Even if she sees him at twelve fifteen on the first floor, how can he be the guy in the window that Arnold Rollan sees at twelve fifteen on the sixth floor. That doesn't make any sense, all right, So nobody sees him with a gun in the building. Jack Doherty doesn't see him enter the building with a gun. Nobody sees him going up to the
sixth floor. You got Charles Gibbons, who worst case scenario. He probably made the story up, we find out after the fact, and people can disagree with that if they want to, but there's some reason to believe. And all he does is put him up there around noon. Billy, I'm sorry, Bonnie Ray Williams is sitting there eating chicken. He doesn't see anything,
which is I always think that's crazy about the case. But then there's the whole girl on the stairs, Thevictoria Adams uh Sanders styles the story of you know, immediately after the shots are fired, before the uh, before the presidential Lemo went under the the the overpass. They they left to run down the stairs. And Oswald would have had to be running down the stairs, and he was on the sixth floor. They were on the fourth floor. So who had had to cross and you know, when you kind of
time it up, he would have had to have run into them. And they didn't see anybody or hear anybody. Doherty, I believe, also was near the stairs and he didn't hear anybody either coming down. But but uh, now there the whole argument is. And I've gotten deep on this with with some folks that are you know that you know, they're they're Warren Report defenders, and and they their position is this whole thing gets in he gets real granular in the weeds. But there's this whole thing of Billy. I'm
sorry. These two guys, love Lady and Shelley a thing lovely, right, yeah, love Lady and Shelley. They they say that they went to it may not be Shelley, maybe somebody else, but these two guys say that they they went to the railroad tracks and then they came back and they saw her. But if they saw her come down after they went to the railroad tracks and they had already come back, then it must have been much later, because they didn't come back from the railroad tracks until later. So
there's that whole thing. And then basically her statement to the FBI is that she did see them, but you know, in other words, so her statement would support that that you know, she came down later, which in other words, would invalidate her argument that she was should have been the stairwell at the same time as Oswald. But when it turns out out she says she told Earl Goals or not Earl Goals, who's the guy that wrote Girl
on the Stairs? I can't Yeah, yeah, scary ernest. I believe she told him or send some other record that she signed it under duress. That basically like, yeah, they came back, they told me I needed to sign it. I didn't feel like I had a choice. But but that was not my statement at all, So there you go. So that's what it comes down to. Like but but but even if that's but even if her whole thing, you know, if you throw out her part of
the story, it still doesn't look like he could have been there. I mean literally, all you have is Howard Brennan, who, first of all, there's no way you could have seen. It was too too far away. You could see a person there, you can probably see like if they're dark complexed or not, or if they had glasses or not, you could identify their face if you had never seen them before. From that far away,
there's no way if you've been there before. He gives the from six floors down, how do you identify somebody's height in a dirty window from six floors down? Sorry, guys, you know who really pointed out the problem with Brennan. It's tannonbamb Tannon Baum says, when we looked over that guy's testimony and Jim's brought it up, Jim the Eugenius says he refused Brennan to come back and give a deposition to the HCA. Brennan totally refused because he
said, I'm going to get an attorney. So the hs never heard directly
from him. But Tannerbaum said, look, when you go to where he was, and he's got to look through a window and he's got to figure out height, and you know it's Oswald got a rifle in front of his face and so on to so Tannerbomb says, this is the worst witness you know for placing someone that we've ever heard, right, So that comes from Tannenbaumb at the HSCA, the star and star witness of the Warren Commission report, because really that's the guy who puts him there with the gun and everything.
Guy puts him on the sixth floor now here. Here's one little thing. I'm going to throw this in because it's not in our book, and it's okay, But you know Oswald's alibi, right, the two people put together what his alibi was. One I just finished reading her book and it's Sylvia mahar in accessories after the fact. The other guy spoke at the Lancer conference. It's Spark Camp and basically Oswald's head right, that I was having lunch on the first floor and he says that he was two with two African
Americans I think to the back. Then he said black people. One of them is Junior and the other guy I don't know his name. Now Junior and the other guy were interrogated and they said, oh, there was a guy there, but we don't know who it was. So what Sylvia Mahar points out is, how the hell did Oswald point out these two people who were who admitted being on the first floor during that period of time that he was at. And the second instance is he says Oswald says, I went
out afterwards with Shelley and some people some I'm paraphrasing. Well, Shelley did go out, okay, but we don't know who the other people were. So what Oswald said, you know, so I find I haven't read Bartkamp's book, but I think if you, if you put it together with you know, with Sylvia Mahar stuff, I think Matt ifever we do a second edition, we may be able to add some some you know, information also.
But anyway, I just wanted to bring that up because I found what bart Camp did in his book he explained how he went about it unbelievable. No, it's very interesting, And just to correct something from earlier, let's be specific. It was actually at Shaw's preliminary hearing. I went to my
transcripts while you guys were talking and looked it over real fast. It was during the preliminary hearing for Shaw where the warrant commission was offered and rejected, and the judge's name was Baggered b A G E R T according to the transcript. So there you go if you want to check the reference on that and find out where it was, all right, And I've offered a link to I found a link online as well and put it in the chatroom atchelli
dot com, so it's there if you guys want to read it. But I went to my transcript on my computer first to get it and then sought it out online afterwards. Anyways, here, here's the thing about this, though, is every single one of these little nuances there's a problem with. It's not you have to give Oswald an alibi, you know, literally, Yeah, when we're talking about offering this up, trying to come up with what needs to be offered into evidence right in a legal proceeding, it's not
about coming up with an alibi. An alternative explanation is helpful but not necessary. You're right. First, they have to prove their case. Now, if you need to dispute it, that's another issue. But here's the problem. Could the case be proven in the first place, which is one of the initial reasons why you guys involved the lawyers here and stuff, right, I mean, well why you were involved, Matt, right, So help me out here. Isn't that really the order of things? First, there
needs to be an established case against it. We could talk about all the problems the way his rights were mishandled, you know, like Johnny Cards did at Lancer, etc. We could do that all day, but somebody might say, well, look, still the evidence remains. But does it that's the biggest question. Do you even have it to begin in with to present
a reasonable case? Is that not the right way to look at this, Matt of I mean, it's it's just so complicated because there's, like we were talking about earlier, there have just been so many different investigations, and there's been so much evidence that's already generated. But you know the question and that, you know, it is hard to separate the evidence from you know that it's hard to separate all the little things everybody knows from you know,
whatever specific things might be plaied. It's just it's a hypothetical at this point, so it's kind of it's kind of tough. Well, that's why the complication has to be boiled back down to these chokeholds and why it is you have to come down to the very simple understandings of the case to prove this point that this is not a slam dunk. This is not a slam dunk for the Warrant Commission, they have not been vindicated over the years, much
like Paul was explaining. In fact, their entire position has collapsed bit by bit. You know, Schweiker said it a house of cards, but you can see this over the years, it has been absolutely destroyed in my mind,
outside of a very few things, has there been and all. And this is the weird thing about this case in general, and I want to get both of your takes on this, is that, in general, all the work that we've either been involved with or witnessed or been able to go back through in the media, the the literature, the history of this case, whether it's the government investigations, the official investigations, the individuals who have
investigated this privately at their own expense, who have gone through those issues, all of this stuff over the years. The strange thing is that in almost any other murder case in history, over time, things become much clearer,
things become much more simplified. A lot of things get eliminated, it seems like to me, even in any cold case where a case evolves over time because there's interest in it, it seems like new science comes in, new something comes in, It eliminates problems, it eliminates theories, it eliminates. That has not been the case with this case. And I feel like your book is an attempt to boil these things back down. Am I right or
wrong? You can address all of that, and I want to go to Paul first on that if you don't mind that, and then let you conclude because we've been through just about an hour of discussion already, believe it or not so, and that's what I plan on having you guys for. Obviously, can come back again. We can talk about this some more. But and I know I derail things. I'm aware of that. Matt. I'm sorry. I can hear your frustration. No, No, you're asking good
questions. But please, Paul, go go through this with me and tell me about that because over time, like I said, usually in a case of murder, and this is a murder case its core, it's a couple of murder cases at their course. And we didn't even touch on Jack Ruby and all that, not at all. But anyway, and I love that because that's at the very end of the opening conversation in the book. Well,
what about Jack Ruby du du dah? This is where you know, this is where my mind got This is where my mind started to fly by the way as a kid is how is it that you kill a guy in police custody and it wasn't the cops who killed him, or it wasn't some prisoner in a cell next to him that killed him. Oh No, something is very wrong here. And I was nine, But Paul, forget about me. What about this though? The fact that you know, we've got
to boil this back down because the expansive universe of takes on. This could go on and on forever, and it seems to keep expanding like the universe itself, instead of contracting like any other case would. What do you think about that, pot, Yeah, no, that's a great point. First of all, the last chapter I think explains why it's still complicated. It's called, you know, six years of obstruction of justice, and it chose
investigation by investigation how you know the investigations were derailed. Now in the case of the Warrant Commission, I think it had to do right away with giving instructions on going the Loane Nut route. You know, people who are familiar with the cast and back memo or the way LBJ got Chief Foreign to involve himself. And by the way this was brought up by the Church Committee and the HSEA is that the investigation into a conspiracy was and they say that was
deficient. Now, if you keep going, you go to Garrison, right, Garrison, how many times do you get the Attorney General of the United States right involving himself in a state a state legal case. He did, and he started saying things like, well, we investigated John King found he was clean, and that that that brought the press say, well, why
did you have to investigate a guy uh in the first place? You know, But Tann and Bomb says they formed something I think it was called the Garrison group or the get Garrison group, and it's clear that they you know, they bugged his office and they got some people like Sheridan and Hayes, Ainsworth and others too to completely derail that that that inquiry, and they threatened
his witnesses. And Tann and Bomb's on the record for saying that. Then you go to the Church Committee. Sorry, the the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee, and through our book, you know, in that chapter we show how things happen, like the HSCA, when did they kick out sorry, when did they kick out Sprague and tanambob Ah? When they started investigating David Athlete Phillips, who was a person of interest with the CIA, and they start, you know, they start saying, this guy is lying,
he's not telling the truth. All the people that were trying to portray Oswald as a Castro agent, they're all his contacts, and they were all, you know, false flags. And then you go on to uh, you know, all the way to the ar RB ARB what happens there the Secret Service? Tim Samilak of the ARB says, well, the Secret Service destroyed
all the files on Kennedy's travels in nineteen sixty three. They didn't want people to know about prior plots and you know, other information that preceded the assassination. And they also saw that the Office of Naval Intelligence, I mean, they put this poor lady who was Liaison Terry Pike, they completely ended her career because she was cooperating with the ARB. And then finally, what happens in twenty seventeen. You have both Trump and Biden later, you know,
breaking the law by not be classifying. So we have something there. So to your question is why is everything more confused or still confused? It's because of the obfuscation. Now, I think what we do in choke holds is we try and get rid of the you know, the backyard photos is one example all the debatable stuff, and say, hey, look, if we have to present a case go to a jury, let's make it simple for
the jury. Let's show that Oswald was impersonated. Let's show that Jack Ruby was not on a mission, Okay, that his job was to gag the number one witness. Let's show that the experts, the insiders okay, agree with us. Let's show that Oswald being on the sixth floor there's more than a case for reasonable doubt. Let's show that Oswald had intelligence connections. You know, what's the twenty four year old high school dropout doing meeting people like
Ed David Ferry, George de Mornshield. You know, we have like seventy instances of touch points he has with intelligence assets, and thirty five of them are definite, but seventy are plausible or over seventy. Let's you know, let's go back to the single bullet theory. I know people are sick of hearing about it, but the single bullet theory is so ridiculous when you think of it. And let's go back to the medical and so that's what we
do. We identify ten chocals. Now, what we don't do, Chuck, in this book is we don't even go into one inch in the direction of saying, here's what we think happened. That will be face through, okay, face through there. Like if we have a second project, we'll say, look, you attack this book. You could tell us where we're wrong, right, tell us we're wrong, because the way it was written is to prove us wrong. You can't just contradict one choke cold. You
have to contradict or prove all tanti goals wrong. I think you'll agree that if Oswald was impersonated, there's a problem. If Oswall wasn't on the sixth floor, there's a problem. If Ruby, you know, I mean, the HSCA concludes that he received assistance to get to the basement, and they conclude that, hey, you know what, he wasn't just a nightclub operator. This guy did have Matthea ties, and they go into details on some
of them. A guy called Dolan, how he went to mexican A, Mexico, Cuba to meet trafficante, all the phone calls he received before the you know, the assassination. I mean, I think that chapter is pretty eloquent in itself. And you know, just to finalize on that, think of this. You have the worst bloody security when Kennedy gets killed, followed by the worst bloody security when the number one witness, Oswald gets killed. I mean, yeah, of course you're going to be suspicious about that.
Well, you know, we're also not supposed to be suspicious. In recent years, we also learned that, you know, among the destruction and removal of documentation, our Defense Intelligence Agency, the DA destroyed the entirety of its Kennedy assassination related files. You know, when you see things like that, that to me indicates a problem. The Defense Intelligence Agency couldn't hang on to
its stuff. Really. You know, we have the various instances of the FBI and everything else, and we know about that, whether it's hosty or something else, it's all over the place. What actually happened to Jaegar Hoover's files, et cetera, et cetera. But I mean wholesale destruction by the DIA. Not a word really goes out about it, does it. You
know, this isn't suspicious at all. And I love how you point out the Trump and Biden both colluding together to make sure and now Biden is, you know, acquiescing just a bit giving in a bit, but after lawsuits and things like that. Anyway, great stuff, though, Matt, How should we finally look at all of this though, the expanding universe versus the
way this would normally come together. Maybe I'm crazy about this and I have a weird way of looking at it, but it does seem that way that we're faced with something that continues to expand exponentially endlessly, and really it should be a universe that's shrinking by Now what are your thoughts on that? And you know your your final thoughts I guess for tonight. Yeah, thanks, Chuck. I mean, in terms of the experience, I hear what you're
saying, because it seems like there's always more and more stuff. But it also seems to me, like, like I would, my perspectives may be a little bit different and instead of describing it as an expanding universe, I would say it's kind of, you know, shedding light on areas that we didn't know about. Or another analogy would be just filling in the missing puzzle pieces. Right. So where it becomes a challenge is if you're like, oh, this is actually garbage, this is a red herring, this doesn't
belong in the puzzle at all. Right. But if that's the case, then you know, then it shouldn't fit. The challenge becomes when it fits but it's wrong, right, And that's that's the only way I'm getting down the metaphor thing. But but I think what we what we can do is we try to put together all the stuff that's out there. I mean,
that's you know, it's what everybody does tries to do. That's what I'm trying to do, like methodically in the podcast, just kind of put put together what's out there and and see kind of what you can prove in terms of you know, who did it if it's not Oswald, and and what are Oswald's motives? Like what is he up to? And and you know,
say it without speculation. So I'm sure like this season I'll get into the George Jonides stuff and all that, which is fascinating and uh and yeah, I mean I think the more we can get regular people to understand that that likely something happened, and once we can figure out what happened and who the culprit is, I would love to see like a you know, congressional
hearings Once again. It's just the question of like, let's say it's the worst case scenario and it was the CIA, Like they're probably not going to just be cool and give up power and be like sorry, are bad, like you know what I mean. So so I just don't that That's why I like, you know, a guy that's a fan of the I saw my my my personal Twitter and where I'm just negative on all all political candidates.
Uh so, so I'm just kind of like, look, man, like you know, doesn't really it doesn't really matter, does it if president's not even in charge, like you know, And so you can become a nihilist like me, or you can kind of have optimism and go, hey, maybe if we can get everybody to pay attention and and care about it, then we can sort of get a grassroots thing going. But I don't know, sometimes it seems like the media is getting more receptive to it.
You look at the Paul Landers stuff, which I don't if you listen to my podcast on it, I don't actually find mister Landis to be credible, although I do find it to be a nice man. So so, so anyway, the point is that, and then you know the who is the JFK who killed JFK? Rob Brinder thing sold out Brian who's like pretty mainstream,
is like going pretty hard on the conspiracy side of things. And then you got JFK with the Doctor Saw, which is a documentary on paramount plus that I'm in hey uh, and that one, that one's you know, it basically lands on like look, it's overwhelming. All these doctors saw a big hole in the right rear of Kennedy's head that doesn't appear on the autopsy.
So so to you know, Peter Baker at the New York Times wrote some stuff about Ruben Fron uh this year, which I don't know if you do, you know, do you know the whole ruben Fron thing, not by that name. I probably know what the what the go go ahead and explain it just super quick. I know what we're trying to get out here. But this is the last example of of how the news is covering things
a little bit more favorably. Now. Peter Baker, reporter of the New York Times, wrote about Ruben Fron Uh, the c I A agent. It was his job to read Oswalt's mail. He was the guy reading all of Oswalt's Oh yeah, yeah, okay, go ahead, and they and
basically the article is about how he uh they declassified his name. And the same guy that was reading Oswalt's male is also the guy that was present in the in the room when Marina Oswald every time she testified, Right, okay, I didn't know that, by the way, Yeah, no, there's all kinds of weird saying. You know, the Joe and Edes case where they sent the liaison that was supposed to not be involved with anything, is not the only time that big shock. They they sent somebody who has already
read in on the situation to go deal with something. It happens all the time, which I find amazing. Which, by the way, Matt, here's a weird thing. And I want to address this to you just as a final thing, because I'm really amazed at your ability to uh to do certain things in certain ways. Your podcast came off to me as very objective, like you didn't have a horse in the race at all at first.
And I told you that when when I brought you on to begin with right over the podcast, and I love that you came in like I'm not here to advocate for anything, I'm just gonna present what is. And I really saw that as like, oh wow, this guy might be fully undecided because I was unaware of other things you were doing, and I see you in that special and I said, Okay, this is not mister objective. I'm
undecided. Couldn't be, because otherwise you'd be making different points here. And I observe all the streaming services have come up with something pretty much for JFK this year, either that or they brought things back around. Every cable news network did something as usual, but also every one of the streaming services pretty much participated. Whether it was the doctors or it was that ridiculously terrible thing on Amazon, or it was you know, National Geographic, right, you
know, all these different ones participated in it. And it's interesting how it got out there. The evolution of the way the media has covered its fascinating it's one of the things that's one of my main interests actually, you know, going from the Data News went live to now, there is a remarkable story to be told there regarding exactly how that's affected public opinion. I would like to see passion again, but we have seen grassroots stuff in the past,
Pat, we have seen it before. Otherwise there would have been no HSCA. Otherwise there would have been no RRB. Otherwise, indeed, because of the strangeness of the situation, they might have not been forced into even creating the Warren Commission. So it does seem to me like public pressure is important and does create other chokeholds here when it comes to trying to force the
official to answer some questions. But then they always do a dance and it always becomes something else, and that's the major problem here in my mind. But anyway, I advise you guys to take it and try and boil it back down the ten choke holds like Paul was talking about here. Read the book. I'm going to give you a link with the podcast here and I'll try and drop it in the room before I'm done with the live show, but it'll definitely be with the show notes plus a link to Matt's podcast Solving
jfk. Okay and Paul, you know, I don't know if I should give links to other stuff. If you want give me a couple of links.
I would definitely like people to read some of the things that Paul has written, because it's rather thought provoking, well considered, and you know what, we all have to use whatever it is that is our you know, in our quiver, so to speak, in our personal quiver if we care about this, to push forward the idea that this must get re engaged with not only officials, but must continue to be engaged with by the general public. Go ahead. I'm sorry I was holding you back from saying no,
no, Chuck. First of all, I don't have a podcast, but that's okay. I want to congratulate both of you on your podcasts and your shows for your critical thinking because you know, you don't you know, you're you're you're willing to you don't jump on every element of proof or any little thing that's out there. Uh, And I think I think that's prudent and it's it's smart. Okay, And congratulations because I find both of you are
very objective in your approach concerning your your audience. If you want to know more about the book or want to know how to purchase it, we have a website called JFK Chocols dot com. You can go on it, and if you go on it, you'll be able to find our Facebook page. I included in just giving an example in our Facebook page some pictures from Lancer and pictures from Cyril Wackt and all sorts of links to to the shows that we've been on and interviews. I just want to again thank you too for
the great work you've done. I've listened to both of your shows and it's very professional, and I have more confidence in you as a source on this because you know, you don't just take any conspiracy theorists out there and you know and accept what they say. You you'll you'll and you'll consider the oppose the opponent's point of view. So anyway, I'm happy to be on your show and thank you so much. Appreciate it. Yeah, I put the
JFK Choke Holds website in the Chatroomaitochelli dot com. That'll also be included in the show notes. Yet it is JFK Choke Holds All one word dot com that is the home site for the book. Facebook, yeah, you can go and explore it there too. I'm not always a proponent of Facebook because they're annoying the crap out of me. But now everything I post on Facebook is spam according to them. But that's a personal issue. By the way, go and take a look at it, at this stuff anywhere. And
again I'll give you all the authors. But we had two of them tonight, and that is you know, we had Paul on here, Paul Blow and of course Matt Crumpton. Not only that, but we will give you the link to the podcast that Matt does. Indeed, it is fascinating and I would advise people go listen to it because it's different, let's just begin there, and very thoughtful, as Paul said. But also James Diginio. And there's two other authors here, I guess, Andrew Lear and Mark I
don't even want to attempt to say his name because too many consonants. There were too many vowels in a row. Screws me up. But Adam and Check, I guess would be it. And uh Andrew Eyler. See there we go. Too many valels, too many, too many letters at all, I'm a simple guy. I guess sorry, Matt, go ahead, Yeah, just just uh just one closing point you're talking about, uh, you know, listening to the podcast early and the perception that I was kind
of down the middle. I you know, like I kind of was down the middle. But the problem is, excuse me, once, once you learn something, you can't unkno it, you know what I mean, And and and the other thing is like, obviously I've done the research enough to
have a whole season, so I kind of know where it's going. But my stance is once I discover, once I conclude on the podcast, like at the end of season one, I had conclusions like once I conclude that there was a front shooter based on medical evidence, once I conclude that Oswald's not in place on the sixth floor, then like, that's that's got me down the path of you know, people you know of basically you know, choosing a side for lack of a better term. But I'm I am.
I do remain committed to vetting every fact and so for example, just very quickly, right now, the young Oswalt stuff, it's here's what I'm looking at. I'm looking at Warren report, I'm looking at Posner and Bugliosi, and I'm looking at Harvey and Lee. A little bit of Destiny Betrayed, but a lot of Harvey and Lee. And and then I'm searching for articles that are critical of Harvey and Lee. Right, so I'm gonna have a whole episode that pulls it all together, and then and then kind of criticizes
it like that. So so, but the point is, I am still objective about the ultimate case. But but there are some things, you know, like the medical evidence of particular that that I think once you see you can't pretend that you know there wasn't a front tutor. Once you see that, you know, well, see, as a teenager, I wanted an answer, and quite honestly, I started out on the side of you ready for this. I think these conspiracy people are probably just making things out of
nothing. That's what I thought as a teenager. And then you know what happened. I did research and actually got my hands on the documents and looked at actually what happened. And yeah, once you learn something, you can't unlearn it. So guess what, I could no longer conclude that you know the government was telling the truth. The official conclusion would make sense. I
couldn't do it anymore because the evidence didn't support it. It was that simple, and that's how I came to it, naturally, it wasn't I didn't start out on the conspiracy side, even to be honest with you. So yeah, and I but I love that about your podcast. It's really great in that way. H yeah, go ahead, No, that's it.
Thank you, and thanks for having us on, and UH appreciate appreciate your show as well, and we'll continue to listen to you man, good stuff, and I appreciate you guys, and I hope to have both of you back on again because there's gonna be another season of JFK Uh Solved. But also I know we're gonna hear from Paul again, so please, I definitely want to make sure that you guys can come back anytime anytime. In the meantime, listeners go to JFK chokeholds dot com. It's all one word together
than dot com, so JFK choke holds dot com verbally. Like I said, the links will be in with the show notes. So for now, I am merely O'Kelly and all of you mh roll stream Window, Dott Verrible Silver, the stock market, roll Stream, Window dot dot Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started. Wall Street, Windows, do com, doos, don com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for
many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street Stream though Dott go there, now go there, now go there now o Chili dot com. Nuclear holocaust. You know what ur ennium is right? Speak of nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what your enium is right? Bad things things are done with uranium, letting some bad things. Nuclear holocaust. You know what your enium is right? I've been
agree Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear holocaust. You know what your ennium is right. Let's look from nuclear weapons and other things like let's say you know what uranium is right? The things things are done with uranium leutting some bad things, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holaday, Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear Holoshelle dot Com Radio network in Denial. Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are
still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not earn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, secret wars with
air strikes and tanks Larryhncock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical. Ahead call it the DAFA as fascination. Right, Well, what do you want to know? Judy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriend p knew Ruby and the answer weapons Really? I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon, but okay, wal Bid and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy Come on now has a real
effort on the DAFA assassination claims. Go to Amazon dot com, enter Judith Baker in her own words, you'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Very Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I A s JFK at aol dot com.
It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith Very Baker in her own words. Thank you for all the great information.