The Ochelli Effect 12-26-2023 Pat Speer

The o' chili effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you ye, yeah yeah and media Yeah twenty sixth day of December twenty twenty three, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and this is the o'ceelli effect. So we are live. I've gone to the stream very very late, but that is because first of all, I had a little technical issue, and then I wound up talking to my guest tonight for a little while, okay, and uh yeah, just kind of lost track of

time. So those of you catching the podcast, you don't care. And by the way, you might hear little squeaks and stuff in the background because I got a box of puppies next to me. But anyway, they are squeaking, they are making noise, and they are my co hosts for tonight. So if you caught the video with t Snyder from Sunday night, we just kept the camera on the puppies, right, so you had the puppy cam the other night, check that out on Rumble and such, and there

they are nice and loud right on cue. Anyway, Pat Spear is with me. Who is Pat Spear? Well, if you're a JFK researcher, and you've been keeping track of things for the past while. You might know who he is. But if you don't, let me tell you about something. It's called the mysterious death of Number thirty five. Okay, what was that? Well, it was this video that was on YouTube that I saw.

I'm thinking, and I didn't check the date before we started here, but just going back to my memory, flipping through my index, I'm thinking to myself, somewhere around twenty ten, maybe twenty eleven, twenty twelve, somewhere between twenty ten and the fiftieth anniversary, I saw this video online and what was it about the medical evidence and the mysterious death of number thirty five. I thought that was an interesting turn of phrase, because, after all,

JFK is the thirty fifth president. He definitely had a mysterious death, and we've been studying it ever after now sixty years on. Anyway, I saw this video series and I heard about Pat Spear for the first time. I think he did a spot on black Op Radio somewhere around there. Very interesting, but I've always valued it. Now recently, when I was getting

things together and thinking about rarefied information and good stuff. Right before I went to go MC the Lancer conference, and we had the whole run up to

Dallas this year. On the show and everything, I contacted Pat Spear and said, you know, Pat, along with many of the other things that I lost in life due to divorce, etc. I lost your DVD and really valued it and appreciated it. Well, anyway, I got one back in my hands and it is now part of my DVD collection that I'm rebuilding, along with my book collection and my photographic collection on the Kennedy case,

and it is just that valuable. I would consider it essential. Indeed, you can still see the videos online parts one through four, I believe if you go to this channel on YouTube called Noise Vision. Anyways, all that aside, I've got Pat Spear with me and I have been talking to him for about twenty or thirty minutes off air already, So if he isn't sick of me yet, we're gonna have a little conversation about this particular presentation.

And well we also mentioned him on the show last week talking to Larry Hancock, so maybe we'll find out why that happened as well. Pat Spear, how you doing tonight, man? I'm doing fine right now. Yeah, excellent. Look, I know that introduction was a little sloppy, but it is the way I go. I'm a little atypical, and we are conversation based here. It's not like a question and answer call and response interviews. So let me ask you first, because you tell the story of what got

you interested in the case in general in your life. And if you watch the videos, guys, you'll hear about how he got handed a half dollar, which is a little different from my story. I got a half dollar at one point too. But I tell you about when in third grade, because you know, I went to school in the seventies. I'm fifty one years old, you know, so I wasn't alive when the Kennedy assassination happened. But by the time I got the third grade, there was this mention

in class. And of course my first objection to the whole thing was when my teacher said the guy who was supposed to have shot him was killed in police custody, and as a street wise nine or eight year old, I forget, which I stated, well, gee, unless the cops or a fellow prisoner killed him, there's something wrong with this story. And yeah, there is something wrong with the story. But pat, look, like I said, they can find out in the video about how you got introduced to

it kind of as a child. But how about what caused you to decide to make this video series which was extremely ahead of its time actually, And you know nowadays people have all sorts of production values on their youtubes and this and that. But we had even just discussed before we went to air about

how JFK stuff was really rudimentary until you kind of did this online. So what provoked you to do this interesting presentation, talk about the mystery photo and all of that and do it online in this very like well organized, well orchestrated, well produced manner that turned into the mysterious death of Number thirty five. Well, I was interested in the case in you know, I had friends who kind of told me about it, and now then saw the movie

JFK, and I had an interest. And then it really comes down to what they call FA or the mystery photo, the open crany and the photo of like just an open skull, right, because it was in Robert Grodin's book The Killing of a President, and I looked at it and I was like, oh, there's a bullet hole there. And then I looked at

the caption and I didn't mention it, so that was weird. So then I ended up, you know, years when after I got more sucked into the case, I realized that officially what I was thought was a bullet hole in the back of the net, you know, the low on the skull was officially showing the forehead. I'm like, that's not a forehead, and so I was just confounded by the fact that the official story about this photograph

was not what just seemed obvious to me. And so then I ended up discovering the JF what's it called History Matters, Rex Bradford's website that had the HCA materials on it, and I just read through all these things and I'm like, I was just in shock that it was officially the forehead and that there was no mention of this what appeared to me to be an obvious bullet

hole. So I got really interested in the medical evidence, reading everything I could, got access to the you know, the Rockefeller Commission interviews and stuff like that before you know, most people ever read them, and you know, looked at every autopsy photo I could find online and then eventually I realized that the autopsy photos as shown in David Lifton's book and Robert Grodens's book were cropped differently, and that one of them, I think it might have been

the lifting book, there was a drainage hole on it, and I'm like, well, you can make you could actually study around shape and figure out what angle you're looking at that round shape is by its dimensions. So I anyhow, so I came up with this idea that like we could I could do that and figure out what angle this photograph was taken from by looking at the drainage hole. Also, there there's to be a glass which is presumably you know, a circle on the top of the glass, and you could

do the same there. So at my thirtieth high school reunion, I've had a friend that I knew from school named Brad Mendelsohn, and he went on to produce some rock music videos and actually produced a movie as well, and we were talking and I said, like, you would you know, maybe you could help me do some videos put them on YouTube, and so he's

like, sure, let's do it. Okay, let me pause you right there and just tell the listener that if you go online and you look at jfk autopsy photos today, there are many different versions that circulate around, and sure back at this particular time earlier on, you might have had to go buy Robert Croden's book or David Lifton's book, and you might have gotten a

look at these things. The picture that he's talking about, specifically, just for reference here, is sort of weird to begin with, because we're all familiar with the stare of death. You can see JFK's face and the look in his eyes while he's laying, you know, supine, he's on his back. All of that is happening in these autopsy photos that have made their rounds ever since a guy named James Fox decided to sell off his copy, and god knows that there's more copies out there. But anyway, there's a

photo which the skin is peeled away from the skull. This we could all agree on, okay, regarding this photo. The skin is peeled away from the skull, and obviously you're looking at a bare skull and this is you know, purported to be Kennedy, And there is this obvious sort of notch in part of the bone that almost screams this must be one of the bullet

holes in the skull. I'm not saying entrance exit nothing. All I'm saying is that since you know that there was a gunshot to the skull, you're looking at the skull, You're thinking to yourself, this must be the gunshot. So I just wanted to give that point of reference the case people search around. Maybe I'll put a photo on the on the post or something here to show you guys, or a link to it in the show notes. But good, well you could just go to chapter fourteen at patspere dot com.

There you go, Well, then that's what we'll do. We'll give you the link to chapter fourteen at patspear dot com, which, by the way, has a whole lot of stuff on it, but we'll get to that more later. Please continue on, though, Pat, your friend with the rock videos, said let's do it. And then what happened. So we, over the course of about a year and a half, we get together about, you know, maybe twice a month and work on these videos

and put them up and it being a four parter. This is this is people can't even relate because now you could go to YouTube and there's like a four hour video. There was a seven minute limit at first. So that's why if you go online you'll see like part one part you know, just thro your number thirty five, Part one A or Part one B or whatever,

and then later on you'll see it as all one piece. It's because initially, because we had they were kind of all like, you know, twelve to fifteen minute videos, as I recall, but you can only do like seven minutes at a time on YouTube, so you had to split it in half. I mean, even today, when you start out with a brand new YouTube channel and it's been so long since you've done that and so long since I've done it, we might forget this. But even today you're

limited to fifteen minutes on a video to start with. Now you can easily build it up, and obviously there are people out there with eight, nine, ten, twelve hour videos which you're allowed to do. But it's become a more expansive and more easily accessible thing as the years have gone on. But you're talking about a time when it was really actually kind of tough to upload stuff like this, and they didn't have all the different software available and

different little helper things. The YouTube studio was some years away, et cetera. So you couldn't produce it online. You literally had to produce whatever you could by yourself and then you could upload it, but serious limitations. Uh, data time, everything was very limited, so you had to be Yeah, you had to have your stuff well prepared and be able to know how to upload it properly. So yeah, go ahead. I was gonna say yes. So, you know, we wrote about or I wrote the videos

and Brad directed them and put them together. And I didn't even you know, I had to say I want a star of the videos. He's just like, no, no, this is your videos. You're the star. Okay. So I'm a narrator as well, but they the videos. But we spread off, you know, we use that as the intro, like what the hell is this? What are we looking at here? And then we go through the history of it, and then we like say, well

would they lie? So then like the question is would they lie? Let us talk about the back wound, and we talked about all the evidence that they were lying about the back wound. And since that time, I continued on like occasionally I realized that at the fiftieth anniversary for the warrant report. So that's twenty fourteen, right, No one was going to do what do you think about the single bullet ferry, which is kind of like the whole you know, centerpiece. So I have I voluntary to do that, and

I got accepted as like, okay, you can do it. So I went to the fiftieth anniversary of the Warren Report conference at Bethesda, Maryland, and I introduced a whole lot of new information that people didn't realize that just by like you know, trying to create timelines and reading various you know, warrant commissioned internal documents and stuff like that that really like explained a lot and proved that like our inspector he knew, damn well, it was a back

wound, and but he you know, it was written changed in the book they have say neck wound and all this kind of stuff, I mean, the war Report, and so so that got incorporated in the videos anyhow that like you know, we know they would lie about the head wound because they like about the back wound and so anyhow, so it ends up being an exploration of pretty much all the medical evidence, and most of it stood up.

I still stand by, you know, my exact interpretation of the exact angle of that how that photograph is I changed in a few years after making the videos, but it's still the basic idea. It's showing the back of the head primarily, and it's not showing the forehead like the doctors later on try to claim. And it's because you mentioned that notch on the bone, right, So the notch on the bone that's like centered in the photograph. I initially thought that was on the far back of the head. Now I

realized it's more towards the crown of the head. But anyhow, it's it's still it's not on the forehead. But when the doctors looked at it for the Church committee, I mean the Clark panel and for the agency A panel, they saw that and they said, this be the exit. So this so they're like, if it's the exit, it can't be on the back of that. It's going to be on the forehead. So they came up

with there's completely ridiculous. And I have a chapters on my website dealing with this idea that that notch is on the forehead, and that caused so many problems because to have the exit at that forehead, for instance, they hired a guy from NASA, Thomas Canning, who was supposed to like line up the entrance wounds and exit wounds on the body on JFK and Connolly and show where the bullets would have come from. But of course it's reverse engineered because

he's got to prove that. They say he was you know, just uh, what's there's a term for it. You know that he was just lining things up to see where they went. But he actually was like he was given the authority to move the wounds. Well, geez, he moved the wounds and everything to make sure that they line up to point back to the

sixth floor, you know window. It's it's a total scam, right, But so this is what we call begging the question, right, And what happens here is fascinating because even as late as two thousand and three, right, Cyril Wect invites Arle Inspector to you know, one of his conferences at Toukane, and Spector is making the statements about, well, the single bullet theory has now become the single bullet fact and all this his public presentations and

discussions of this basically present him as a true believer in the single bullet theory, like, this is what I found. This is what I absolutely believe based on the evidence that I got to see. Now, what's really funny. A couple of things are really funny actually in your videos, which I find extremely comical. In a couple of spots. One of them is Arlen Spector basically acknowledging that he knew some of the stuff that he was saying was

BS when it came to the single bullet theory. For instance, having seen probably you know, one of the Fox copies of a you know, of a back wound, or at least somebody's copy, you know, something like it, seeing a back wound that was in the wrong spot. Gerald Ford moved that. But even showing the photographs of Specter, you know, doing the demonstration, well, there's little problems with trying to put this in the back of Kennedy's neck as opposed to his back, right, Uh, there's

that issue. But what's even more comical to me is Michael Bodden, Because Michael Bodden was like the sweetheart of the United States when it came to the forensic pathologists. Right, this guy got an HBO show. He was the main consultant for everybody, everywhere everything. He's still doing it like he's you know, he's always like with his public mid eighties and he's still like, you know, being called in whenever there's some sort of controversial killing. Yeah,

yeah, right, he's still being called in. Now he's got a partner that does a lot of the public presentations, you know, because he's a little slowed down, I think. But the reality is this guy ever after had a career. And the funny thing is in one of the rarely publicized because they didn't show a lot of the HSCA on TV what went on, but they did show a couple of public hearings. You know, you could watch these things on PBS and whatnot. But during one of those things,

guess what happens. Bottom's trying to put a big giant picture on an easel and pat you know, it was one of the first places I ever saw this piece of footage. By the way, I think I discovered it, to be honest. Yeah, I mean I discovered that he testified with his exhibit upside down. Yeah yeah, with his exhibit upside down. Okay, so forget about whether the bullet holes in the forehead or the back of the head. This guy can't even orient the photograph in his own presentation correctly.

I mean that is hilarious. I forgot about that. That is comical, you know, ironically, not ironically. I okay, Like you mentioned that you had you asked for my DVD, and I gave it to you because I've had so many people helped me over the years, including there was a filmmaker Nam Sobol. Do you know Mark Sobol? Had all I ever heard of him? Yes? I have heard him? Actually, yeah,

okay. He made a fairly good film called The Commission, which was he took the exact transcripts of the Warren Commission of executive sessions and like where they're arguing about like whether Oswald was CIA and stuff like that, and he got like, you know, a list actors to play the Warren Commission. I mean, it's really impressive of people he got involved, Sam Waterston, Martin Sheen, Martin Landau Corbyn, Bernston, Edward Asner, I mean, really

good people. Joe Don Baker anyhow, and and he filmed this movie and he couldn't get anybody to like distribute it for him, and then he kept on thinking about recutting it Anyhow, he went to a Lancer conference and I met him there and he turned out he lived in the Saffron out of Valley like I did. So we met up and one time I'm over to this house and and he said something like, oh, you know, thanks for

helping me or whatever. Oh, I played JFK's body. He was going to add a scene of the of JFK's corpse, like were the doctors like showing the back wound. And so I had to lay on my belly like for like half an hour while he put like a fake back wound on my back and took all these pictures. So I've if it ever comes forward, like it will be like, oh there's Pat Sperry's he's the corpse anyhow.

Nice But anyhow, so Mark Soble, he turned out he had these DVDs which he got for He told me about it from somebody in Canada of the HCA hearings because they were televised on PBS. And I'm like, oh my god, I'm like I have I've been looking for these. They're not on line. I don't know where to get them. And he's like oh, he said like, hey, I'll make you a copy and then he gave

me a copy of the of Bond's testimony. And nobody, as far as I know, had ever noticed that Bond testified with a damn exhibit upside down, And so I put them to the video, you know, and uh it's and also you had actors, uh you know, portraying different people, and you you were going with the transcripts there. This is actually a really interesting presentation in and of itself. I just want people to know that not

only is the information solid, but it's entertaining. Uh. Yeah. The pit with the actors was Brad was you know, it was a you know, he produced movies featuring like, you know, known actors and stuff, so he wanted it to be legit and not have like he put up a

video on YouTube and haven't get pulled off right away. So he want I showed him the footage or the raw footage or whatever of doctor Hume's testifying to not testify being interviewed by Dan rather where he basically says like, oh the bat I looked at the photos of the back Woundo's basically at where it is here and he points to the like drawing showing at the base of the neck when it's obviously several inches lower when you look at the autopsy photo. So

Humes was lying. I'd also put together like because Humes gave the ARB a document that he was sent basically a script of what he was supposed to tell Rather, and in the script basically told him that he was supposed to lie, you know. So you know, so I we wanted to have that his interview with Rather in the video. So Brad contacted CBS because he's you know, I would I would be afraid to do that because I would just

think they'd laugh at me. And they sent him a video like Okay, this is what you're looking for, and then they told him it was something like one hundred dollars per second for two years. And it's like, you don't put YouTube videos up and then take him down after two years, you know. So he's like, he's like, we don't want to spend like, you know, two thousand dollars to have ten twenty seconds of CBS footage. He's like, you know what, we know what happens, we have

the transcript, let's just reenact it with my friends. So he had some friends with her comedy team, if I remember right, and they did the scene. Yeah no, and it worked out perfectly. Look, you can do a recreation and read off a transcript and that way you don't have to worry about the copyright. It's crazy that they wanted that kind of money for probably the interview from sixty four or it was the sixty sixty seven special. Yeah, okay, so well, but here's one of two things that could

have been right. It could have been the sixty four or the sixty seven, because I think Humes was interviewed on both. But the sixty seven one is amazing because that's the one where they prepared everything in advance, and you know, CBS, we're doing a fortnight investigation. You know, Kronkite was still involved to we're doing a four night investigation into this ourselves, right, and they did. They had the whole you know, we're going to actually

try to recreate the shooting. We're going to go over the evidence, and then we're going to tell you the conclusions as we go along, which is a funny thing to trail on. Like, if you ever get a chance, you watch the sixty four special. They did the first hour before the public got the Warrant Commission report you know, the eight hundred and eighty eight pages, and then the second hour is okay, now it's been released to the public and we have an advanced copy so we can tell you what's in

it, which was kind of funky. But in sixty seven they did four nights I think in a row. Yeah, four nights, and well you probably know the whole history, and I get into a little bit of my website. Sure. John McCloy, John McCloy from the WARR Commission was consulted on it, and he was actually kind of like pulling the strings behind the scenes, like giving all sorts of advice. I'm like, this is what you need to do here, this is what you need to do there.

And later on he tried to lie about it. But the oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot his name. There was a lawyer who worked for them. Do you remember his name? Oh, top of my head, Yeah, I tell you. He got the documents and he put him online and he then I think he was forced to take his presentation down from online. But I did some screen grabs off of it, and it'sok out that.

When Oliver Stone was preparing for his most recent movie, I got a call from his producer saying, like some dugenius says that you still have some screen grabs because he died in his documents that he made that he got from

CBS are gone. There is no record of them anymore. So it's like, well, thank god I was stupid enough to like, you know, I think I needed them for something, because it turned out I did, because you know, these are these uh messages between John McCloy and and the CBS producers saying that we needed to uh, you know, we need to show this or show that, and I can't remember what all's involved, but it proved his involvement, which they which, which of course, they interviewed

him on the CBS special and they acted like he was just like, hey, we got an exclusive here, and he's just gonna tell us what's going on, rather than the fact that he was orchestrating the whole thing, right right, And it turned out what was it his daughter worked for CBS or something, Yes, a personal assistant to Richard Solant, the head of CBS News. There go exactly so you know, just so happens. You know

that we got this happens. Yeah, you know, uh, nothing like that, because they presented it as if they were going, we're going to do our own investigation. It will be independent of the warrant Commission, you know, the independent investigation. I always loved the way it was laid out too, is uh, you know, the concept of, well, we're going to do an independent inquiry into this, and we have no preconceived notions.

But the first three witnesses were gonna call they all happen to be named Oswald, by the way, you know, and happen to be related to this one particular person of interest. And we're going to form four committees and three of the four actually in the titles of the committees might have things like I don't know the name Oswald in them as well. So you know this is this about Oswald? Or is this about an independent investigation? Hmmm?

You know, nothing like And I'll tell you the Arlen Spector story. It got even weirder too, uh. And I'm trying to think of this guy's name. You got me stumped here. Normally I know the guy's name that the lawyer. You were trying to think, I'll figure it out before we're done. Well, I'm actually yeah, I've tried to. I've got it.

I'll have it in a second. Yeah. But here's the funny part about that is, you know, when you take a look at this thing and you're trying to figure out, okay, where did they begin from? You know, where is their starting point? Arlen Spector is the junior counselor? Right. I always found it remarkable that nobody bothers to mention that who's the senior counselor. Well, he showed up for like one meeting, went

back to New York and never came back pretty much. I think he came back once, dropped off his papers, and disappeared again, which meant that even though there were supposed to be two counselors in each one of these like little teams, Spector was on his own and didn't have a senior counselor with him at the time. Remarkable guy. And I mean Spector is an interesting character to begin with. I mean, who flips and flops back and forth

between the Republican and Democratic Party as often as Arlen Spector does. Right, It's it's very interesting what happened with that guy. And of course is his own book is interesting again one of these things. And and like I said, watching him do the presentation in two thousand and three, which which I was there for. It was it was absolutely dumbbounding to watch the guys sit there and and and do the whole You know, the single bullet theory is

now the single bullet fact. Pat you know, I've seen you know that that video is released and I watched that. I was just like, this guy is so full of it. And I actually have you know a chapter, uh what I in my chapter on the single bullet theory on my website, or actually it's the chapter before that called it Examining the Examinations, And on that chapter, I go through the history of Specter's comments about the single bullet theory and just show him, I think, anyhow demonstrates the guys it's

a full blown liar. And he actually did an interview it's sixty six where he said that the back wound was definitely the wound in the back or whatever, the back of the neck wound was definitely higher than the throat wound anatomically, and if it's not, then the autopsy doctors Humes in Boswell should be tried for perjury. He said that. And then in the seventies when the HSCA takes a look at it and concludes that it's the opposite that the back

wound is. Actually you know that the throat the back wound is lower than the throat wound, right or no, I got that's that's yeah, that's that's what they concluded. The back wound was lower than the throat wound. Around that same time, Spector shows up to be interviewed by the HCA, and he's the only member of the Warrant Commission I believe who showed up with a lawyer, though Gerald Ford also Gerald Ford also showed up with the lawyer

who was the actual his lawyer I think was David Bellin. But Specter shows up with a lawyer, and this even though his son did you know, you know, the disciplin of things that I didn't realize until twenty thirteen was

that Specter had ingratiated. Is that the word that whatever? He got his son as an assistant on the HCA, so he knew he knew ahead the whole time what was going to be examined and all that kind of stuff, because so he had he had an inside source on the HSCA to let him get him get a heads up, so he knew what he might be challenged with because his son, I did not know his son was part of the

HSCA stack yep that is next to me. And okay, so Roger Fineman was that's it, yes to his you know, it damaged his career. But he got those documents and he made them public and you know, he tried to like make people notice. But I don't think any of the other networks, I mean there that would have been a chance for and or some of the other networks to really like nail CBS, and I don't think any of them were interested. They were just like, uh, you know,

we recognize the right of all networks to lie. So so they see there's one of two answers to that. Because somebody would say, well, why wouldn't because this is one of the challenges you'll get sometimes from you know, let's just say the single bullet or loan assassin theorists. They will tell you that, well, look, you know, if that was true, then why wouldn't you know, the competing group turn around and expose them for it

because it would be to their advantage. You know, they say this kind of thing all the time, Like the FBI and the CIA compete with each other. If the FBI knew the CIA was lying, they would expose them because it would make them look bad. And you know, but they do this with corporate stuff as well as government agencies, and it cracks me up. Look, CBS, NBCABC, if you take a look at what it is they've done over the years, the entire higher history of the media presentations,

and I do mean starting with day one. You know why you never see the as it happened? You know, like replays of ABC? Like you ever noticed that NBC and CBS are the ones that their film has always shown the kron Kite film has always shown the explanation about how you know, they didn't have the camera warmed up, which is why Kronkite's talking behind a

CBS logo. You get all that stuff on the History Channel and everywhere, right You ever noticed that ABC has never shown pat You ever noticed that they didn't have a strong a national presence back then, and so I think that was part of it, but well that could be. That could be one benign explanation. But another good explanation is if you take a listen to the audio of it, they are the absolute worst, most poorly informed of any

of the networks. They literally have a dead Secret Service agent in Deally Placid. They you know, I mean, and I don't mean they just kind of mentioned that maybe somebody was shot. I mean, they have all kinds of stuff wrong. Kennedy was standing up in the limo at the time he was shot. It is amazing, Actually chapter one on my website, I go through a lot of the initial news stories and even Cronkite was saying shit like that, Yeah, it's okay, it's okay. We don't do AM

and FM anymore, so it's all right. But here's the thing. No, Kronkite was bad, but I'm telling you that ABC was fast and furious. It's embarrassing how bad they were. Okay, that's one thing. The next thing is this, if you are CBS and you want to call out NBC or your ABC, you want to call out a CBS whatever, here's the problem. You have mutually a short destruction here because they have all participated in what first of all, miss forming the American public live as the news

went live. But secondly, forget about that. Let's just say that's symptomatic of the chaos of the situation of the fact that you know, at the time, there wasn't cameras you know, all along the motor cade route, so they didn't have you know, professional recording of what actually happened, et cetera. Although I still have my questions about what cameras were running when during the last two days documentary stuff, But anyway, that's another question for another

day. When when they do not have the ability to cover all these things blah blah, all right, but what they did ever after is absolutely adhere to the official narrative. They have done nothing but all of them profit in one way or another from continuously supporting the Warren Commission from the moments before its release to its release to the American public. They have done nothing but back up the Warren Commission. Even with the minor chain that were made by the

HSCA. They have stuck to the warrenant Commission's official narrative since before it was issued. They were issuing things about it while it was still in progress. They're the ones who showed, you know, you see that footage of say like Alan Dulles, you know, standing outside of the book depository right with his pipe. All these kind of things they were in place and endorsing the official narrative and the official lie from day one, they've done nothing but back

it up. Even when something comes up that might be ludicrous, they will occasionally discuss the ludicrous thing and then say, look, it's ludicrous. And at the end of all their you know, consternations, whether it's Ted Copple, or it's Dan rather Still, or it's the new guys over wherever, whenever, they have stuck to the story Oh yeah, well then yeah,

it's yeah, the one that they were in bed. Because nobody wanted to be scooped, right, They all wanted to get to They all wanted to publish, wanted to tell their listeners and readers, hey, we got the Warrant Commission report and here it is, and so like they they were giving it ahead of time and then they you know, they read and they just reported them what the report said, and they didn't you know, it was

another two months before they released the supporting documents. And the supporting documents. That's where the conspiracy researchers started going like what, because you know, there was all sorts of like witnesses and stuff who you know, like people who thought there was shots from the Grassy Knoll and stuff like that that weren't really

mentioned in the war and report. And so then after that, the conspiracy research community, if you will, will took off, you know, when they realized how much was being left out and how the media had just played along whatever the government was going to tell them, and it's it's sad. In uh, you know, there's been times there's been breaks in the in the in the damn every now and then or whatever, like you know, in the sixty six Life magazine interviewed Connolly, and Conley said he didn't think

that the single military was true. In Life magazine called for a new investigation. People kind of forget, and the New York Times around the same time called for a new investigation, saying there's a lot of questions about what happened, and so, you know, every now and then these things pop up. And then in the seventies, after it came out that you know, the CIA was performing assassinations, you know, some of the major media once again got behind it and said like, hey, let's take a closer look

at this. But yeah, in general, they defend the Warren Commission, and even when they look at the possibility there was, you know, it was a conspiracy. They still adamantly hold on to this idea that it must have been Oswald must have been, you know, a shooter. He must have been a part of it. Well, it has to be. And here's the funny thing is every time there is look, they can call for new investigations when nothing's happening, but when something does happen, like, for

instance, the Garrison investigation. Okay, not only do you have NBC turning around with that white paper you know where they got convicts on there trying to say that, you know, they were being bribed in order to you know, testify against Clay Showing. Now they told me to go rob the house. There's literally a guy on there doing this, you know. I just

posted it on my Rumble channel. Actually the NBC special that they ran with the turn coat on the bottom of it because NBC doesn't want to legitimately release it. But yeah, you know, they gave Garrison they get I don't know how he did it. I guess he went to a court. They had to give Garrison a response, so he actually got it. I think it was a full hour on NBC to respond to their slander. Basically, yeah he did, like late at night in black and white and yeah,

it's just him sitting on a desk. I posted that as well his response. But they did a whole produced special where they went and found people and said, this person's lying. We got statements from Perry Russo he's a liar. This one's a liar. They were trying to fabricate evidence, I mean all over the place. And yeah, under the fairness doctrine which still existed, he had a legal right to demand equal time, so he did and he got it. But the thing is is that the entire media started to

react. You see, look, why was it that CBS decided to do it reinvestigation in nineteen sixty seven because Garrison's case was starting to happen. See, before he took Shaw to court, there was an investigation going on and it was starting to make headlines. So every time there needs to be a new defense of the Warren Commission, media assets are deployed. I mean you can time it. It's perfect. You know, when they were getting ready

for Oliver Stones movie to hit, what did they do. They deployed people like Posner, They deployed you know, new specials knew, let's get ready for the thirtieth anniversary. They actually, I think, in my opinion, and is this because I came into it around the twenty fifth anniversary. This

is when I got really interested in it. Is every time there is something of significance that occurs that could legitimately challenge the case, brand new media products are created, books, TV specials, radio shows, et cetera, in order to do what, to run people around to satisfy their interest, and then to answer it with what, Well, at the end of the day,

it's probably still just Oswald. And even the History Channel did it with what a former CIA or FBI director who goes, well, maybe the Russia thing was possible, you know, Oswald might have been a Russian agent now according to this you know, pursuing Oswald or whatever they call it on the

History Channel. But either way, they deploy this stuff through the you know, the Discovery networks, the media, the what do you call it, the network, the regular standard dinosaur media network, you know, the soup they do that. CNN does it. Tom Hanks gets involved in it, well, Vince Bugliosi, you name it, man, it happens every single

time. I'm sorry, Pat well, I was just gonna mention like in this case, I smelled that something like that was going to happen leading up to the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination, and so I actually started tried to watch everything and whenever I was in the store, I'd look around for what books were on the rack, et cetera. And so I created a blog which has been actually cited in a number of textbooks. Now it's on my

website where it's The Onslaught and then it got so extensive. It's The Onslaught Part two, where I go through like the inundation of Oswald did It stuff leading up to the fiftieth anniversary and shortly after that material It was because for years, you know, you look back and you see a lot of people complaining, Oh, the reason why people believe there's a conspiracy because they've been

inundated with all this conspiracy stuff. This is what David Bellen and people like that used to complain all the time to the Meat about the media, you know, and all over Stone and all this stuff. And so for the fiftieth anniversary, it was more than two to one Oswald did It stuff, you know, and I documented it you know, by saying like this show comes on and I say, why why it shows a bias whatever. Some

of the shows didn't really show a bias. Some of them were about, like, you know, just about how Walter Cronkite reported that day or whatever. But then a lot of them were they'd throw in there like you know about you know Oswald's smirk, look at Oswald's smirk while he walks into the garage or whatever. Stuff like that. Were they just clearly like trying to make you hate this guy. And there's just an awful lot of that.

So yeah, so anybody really interested in reading the I didn't do it for the sixtieth Maybe I should have, but there wasn't nearly as much stuff, you know, But they're also from what I gathered, the bias would the bias was not nearly as bad, and there was quite a lot of conspiracy stuff that made it through this time. Well, you know, yes and

no, because what happened is you have a different media landscape now. Okay, people are not as reliant on the broadcast television or the cable delivered television as they once were. So what you ended up with was every streaming service had their version of the JFK interest one way or another. Right, Showtime carried Oliver Stone's you know a documentary what is it Disney or Discovery or whatever They came up with one three Days in America, as Disney did that one,

and Discovery might be part of Disney. It's kind of hard to keep track of who bought who, But Paramount did what did the you know, what did the Parkland doctors see? So now we're on to the medical students as opposed to the doctors who have mostly passed away. You know, what did they actually see in Parkland as opposed to what was seen in Bethesda?

You know, and and all of that going on, and even Amazon Prime put out what I called, you know, part of the ridiculous, the mythological area of stuff where you know, JFK's death was actually faked and so on and so forth, you know, the ludicrous end of the pool. Now sometimes I think they deployed the ludicrous stuff and prop it up because you

know, much like what was it? The Fox Business Channel picked up on the You and I talked about the Hickey thing, the accidental shooting by the Secret Service agent, right, we talked about that, which the book Mortal Error was sued in court pretty heavily, the authors and all that by Hickey himself, who was accused of basically being the accidental shooter of JFK. And he won that lawsuit. That book, you know, was was successfully sued, right, I mean Hickey won his case. Yeah, for good reason,

is it? But you know, I try to I've learned as from reading flawed books and also from reading Oswald did it books. You know, you can learn a lot from reading the Warren Report. You just have to accept that, like, you know, a certain percentage of it's just wrong, you know, but you can learn a lot from it. But I

learned a lot, you know. When I first started researching, I spent a lot of time reading like John mccadams, the former historian from he had a website on the John F. Kennedy assassination, which was the number one website for several years. Anyhow, Yes, but I would read because he would say, like, you know, why we think and you fill in

the blank, why we think Hickey didn't actually do it or whatever. And you can learn a lot because a lot of those articles were actually written by conspiracy theorists or were just trying to shut up the noise because there's just so much noise about this being fake, that being fake, this person's a liar,

this guy's a criminal, you know. You know, Harry Livingstone, I didn't get to meet him, but when I was first starting becoming a researcher, I you know, I went to Dallas and I talked to Groden on the knowle you know, and through various forums, I got to meet Deavid, you know, got to know David Lyfton and eventually met him in person. And the one thing that David Lifted and Robert Groden had in common was that they both said that Harry Leving's son was a nutbag. You know.

They were just sorry, Harry, oh he's not with us anymore, but they were just like that guy, you know, he's not well. And sure enough, he ended up writing like what five or six books on the Kennedy assassination, and like half of the books are filled with about like diatribes against other researchers and about how he thinks that they're secretly working with the government or whatever, and it's just like, oh Jesus, well, yeah, I know, and look, you didn't know this, but you're you're

talking to somebody who actually attempted to work with Harry a bit. And uh, yeah, you know when when he needed help promoting events and getting press conferences together in New York. Uh, guess what, I happened to be a musician in the New York, New Jersey area. So if you notice that there's some music oriented press that showed up at some of those press conferences that he held, there's a reason why. And Harry was certifiable at a certain point. I mean he I thought he was on the right side.

I thought his heart was in the right place. I really did. But I was a young man back then, and uh, just barely out of high school, and quite frankly, I vaguely told this story in one of these days, I'm gonna have to go and get the tape from New Jersey. I've still got it in storage. But Harry called me up in the middle of the night, ranting and raving in a drunken rage, threatening me,

you know in common Yeah, oh, he threatened you too. You know well, David Lifton called me up and wanted to tell me some of his most recent theories. Yes, and I was kind of like, that's

kind of wild David. I was. I was being supportive because I was, you know, glad he was just sharing information, right, But then he just took this turn where I thought he was joking at first, but then I realized he was at least pretending to be at least thinking he was serious, or he threatened to kill me and my family if I told anybody his theories. I'm like, dude, you've been sitting on a book for

like forty years. You know, if I tell somebody your theories, it's not going to like cut into the book sales, Like, oh, pat Spirit told me his theory was this, Therefore I'm not going to buy the book or whatever. But he was evident, like, don't tell anybody I told you this. But you know, and that's kind of a weird feeling when you realize that somebody is that serious. That Harry got Harry got paranoid

is what happened after a little while. And you know, I was also helpful to him in that I put him in touch with some legitimate let's just call them Italian businessman, you know, and I'm using the word legitimate ironically, but I put him in touch with some of the real guys let's just put it that way, right, And his whole thing was somehow he felt threatened by me at some point and was trying to tell me that people in the CIA were protecting him. And as much as I knew killers, he

knew killers too, and he could have me done away with. And I don't even know what I actually to this day. I still have the tape. It's on a cassette tape from an answering machine, but and it was a long mess, like twenty minutes at least of this guy yelling at my answering machine while I wasn't home, and it's it's pretty funny. It's really one of these days, I might play it. Harry's dead now. David Lifton's dead too, but you know, Harry's dead now, and he had

his history and his problems with people and whatever. But I might actually get it and put it on a podcast one day, just to have people hear what it was like to deal with them, because there was a couple of incidents like this, But I saved the one tape because it was like twenty five minutes of like just straight yelling and screaming and all kinds of like things that nonsensical, Like clearly he was drunk, you know, on the tape.

But anyway, uh yeah, one of these days I think I'll just I'll get a hold of that tape and put it out as a podcast. Just here you go, this is Harry Livingstone in nineteen ninety or whatever. Sure, but what it's a lesson that you know, it could be used as a lesson because we don't want to become that guy. And two, we have to realize what we're reading books and articles by researchers that some of

them are, you know, hire their own supply. They've got a theory and they're just going to twist everything into their theory and make everybody their enemy. And you just have to understand that. It's like, you know, it's human nature. We're not really like truth truth finding machines or truth telling

machines. No, it's true. Look yeah, yeah, And you have to understand that not everybody who gets obsessed with a murder for you know, decades at a time is always going to be the most stable or rational individual, you know. And that's the thing. Look, we can study something, and we can invest our time, and indeed we do, we wind up investing time, money, effort into just learning about you know, really a moment in history essentially and what came of it. And it is an

obsessive thing to do. So there there there is something in that nature that's not going to always attract the most rational or sound, sound reasoning individual, you know what I mean. And that's something you just have to admit sometimes. And I'm not saying everybody's crazy who does this or anything. I'm just saying because obviously what I'm gonna call myself, I'm gonna call pat right now. No, what I'm saying is that not always do you have the most

rational and sensible people. Now. The funny thing is we learn again through media reactions and everything else. I always find it interesting the stuff that was you know, unearthed because of the research community that has ever after been seized upon by other people, you know, like the concept of people calling people conspiracy theorists. To begin with, Initially, there were these people that they called Warren Commission critics, you know, and they were criticizing the Warren Commission.

Sorry, go ahead, that they called them critics or buffs, Oh yeah, assassination buffs or Warren Commission critics. If you were more serious. I think you were a Warren Commission critic. But if you were somebody who just sort of followed the books in the media, maybe you were an assassination buff right. David Lifton mentioned this that, you know, he called it

buffed them at one point or something, I think. But the thing is that, yeah, indeed, they transformed that into call them conspiracy theorists because it's more nefarious. And to tell you the truth, today they even use the word conspiracist, which to my mind is a word that means someone who participated in the conspiracy. Yeah, that's right. I think you're right about that, you know, But but oddly they apply that word to people like

you and me. They would call us conspiracists because we're on the side of where we're advocates for conspiracy, and they call us conspiracists. And I say to myself, that makes no sense. But you know, this is how we adjust the language, the nomenclature. Will you know, go ahead and be adjusted and be revised as needed, I guess so. Anyway, Pat, I know this, Yeah, good, all right. I was going to say about the use of the words and stuff, and I've seen a

problem in the research community. It used to be that that some of the top researchers would devote some of their energy. You told me that you did a series of shows basically debunking some stuff. Now I find like if I online say well, I think that you know, the driver didn't shoot him or whatever, people will say, oh, you're defending the War Commission or

whatever. It's like, No, the way to defend the research community is by like cutting off some of this unnecessary conjecture that's just not only unnecessary, it's just like wild and a lot of times it's completely wrong and obviously wrong. You know, William Greer did not shoot President Kennedy. There I said it, Okay, I'll get an email tonight threatening my life or something because

I said that. Could they But some people it's it's it's everything is everything is fake, and they're all in a and if you say no, then you're like one of the bad guys. And it's gotten really that paranoid. And I think that there needs to be I think we talked about this before the show. There needs to be like guidelines, particularly for like members of the media who are somewhat interested in the Kennedy assassination that no, you know, No, Cyril Weck does not believe the driver did it. No.

You know, Jim Dougenio does not believe that. I don't know Jim. Jim believes a lot of stuff, but something he doesn't believe. You know.

Let's say James Files, you know public, So put together like a list of like the top the you know, published authors, top people who have podcasts, and just say like this is you know, these are things that we're not we don't want to be associated with because, yeah, we get when they use the word conspiracy theorists, we get associated with moon landing is fake stuff, you know, And because you know Jack White, I was actually friendly with Jack White. You know, Jack White was was was

encouraged a lot of young researchers when he was on the education for him. But I want to be associated with that. And like, you know, there was a point that Tosh Plumbly is somebody some people would not want to

be associated with because he had some ideas that people didn't really believe. But Tosh Plumley left the education for him because there were so many people on it saying that you know, nobody died at the Pentagon during nine to eleven or whatever, and he's like, ullo, I knew people that were there. What are you talking about? You know? And uh so, yeah, there's people. Just you have to in order to have your beliefs have any weight, you have to be able to say you won't believe anything. You

believe every you know, anything you're told. If you believe everything you're told or everything you read in the book, then what you do believe isn't going to have much credibility. And that's the sad fact, you know. Well, see, that's the thing is that it undermines every piece of legitimate work when this other nonsense is acceptable. It literally does because it allows opponents to group it together. Right, So how do you best defeat an opponent?

You undermine their argument. And you can easily undermine their argument if you say that, look, take a look at all of the methodology that comes around them and surrounds them, all these other thoughts they believe. You know, birds are not real. You know what I'm saying. This other weird thing of JFK actually faked his death. He came back as Jimmy Carter. Have you seen that theory? By the way, No, Okay, So JFK was actually Jimmy Carter. Look, the pictures look a little similar. I

have seen that the autopsy photos are actually of Tippit It. Yeah, the autopsy photos are of Tippet. I had to deal with that on the anniversary this year, actually on a radio show the long time ago. It should have, but the host was obsessing on it, saying that, you know, I really think that they yeah, they substituted, you know. And I'm like, well, look are you telling me that they took the bullets that were supposedly in Tippit adam him in order to create the JFK. But

well, they said he looked like JFK. His nickname was JFK. JD. Tippett was a body double for Oh my god. You know it hurts my head. And I kept saying, look, you got no evidence to back that. Okay, it's just that simple. Like I said, Jimmy Carter is actually JFK. He faked his death. He came back and he was Jimmy Carter, no kidding. You know, George Bush was in dally Plaza. Look, George W. Bush was in Daley Plaza too. He has no rhyme or reason to be there in any way shape or form,

no matter what nefarious label you want to put on him. And by the way, I do think the Bush family's a crime syndicate. But I can't hang the murder of JFK on him. Okay, I can't put him in Daly plaza. I'm sorry, I can't. No, the limo driver didn't shoot him. I don't care how blurry your's the bruder film is. It

just didn't happen that way. And even if you tried to say legitimately, think about it logistically and just sensibly for a moment, like any he's gonna turn around and blow the President's face off over top of the connollies like that, shooting like you know, under his arm? Does any I mean, has anybody handled a firearms? Not a good plot. It's not a good plot for assassination. No, it's really not. Like Look the whole thing

with the Secret Service agent accidentally shooting him in the head. I actually find that to be a more viable possibility than a whole lot of this other crap, because at least it would make some sort of sense. You well, exactly, I have, you know, chapters on the head wounds and the womb ballistics and stuff, and it's Donahue, the guy who first came up with a Hickey did it theory. He was not a faker, he was he was I think he was a serious guy, and a lot of what

he said was true. That the head wound, as described by the warn in the warm report, and it's described to the autopsy report, does not reflect a Manicer carcando bullet entering low on the head and exiting from the top of the head. In fact, we were talking about, like, you know, probably of all the work I've done, what I'm most proud of is probably chapter thirteen B, in chapter fourteen I'm screwing it up. Chapter sixteen B in sixteen C on my website, which deals with the history of

Woon ballistics and the nature of Kennedy's brain. A lot of people think the brain was replaced. Well, if they did, they did a really bad job doing it, because the brain, as examined by the doctors does not reflect a wound of a manager carcandle bullet being fired in you know, entering low and exiting high, and that's not what they found when they looked at

the brain. So anyhow, but chapter sixteen B, which some of your hopefully a lot of your listeners will be interested looking at I actually found a Romanian book written in French that this Romanian book was the first book on the woon ballistic of the Manlark Carcano rifle from the eighteen ninety five or whatever year the book was written. And they have photographs of cadavers in there, and I have them on my website fired at like you know, fifty yards,

one hundred yards or whatever. They at comparable distances to Kennedy and it's just a small exit hole. This idea that the bullet's going so fast it blows the top of the head off into the air, that's just made up by Olivier and then Sturdivan wrote a book. These guys from Averade Improving Ground just basically bullshitted because they saw that with some of the experimental rifles they've been working

with. But that's not how the Manacar carcano rolled. That wasn't that's not Their bullets didn't do that unless they hit at its very shallow angle in a tangential wound. And I actually have a picture of a tangential wound that I found and show how it's probably attached so that the giant head wound on Kennedy is it's not an exit for a bullet that entered elsewhere. It's a separate wound entered an exit, and that's totally documented by all you know, I

probably I don't like footnotes. I'd rather just mention where I got it in the article while I'm writing, Like because one, I've seen a lot of well, having a chapter on my website where I review Biliosi's book his not his I don't review the whole book, but I review his version of the shooting, and he just totally cherry picked information. And a lot of times his footnotes didn't say what you know, didn't say what he said. They

did. He say like, oh she said this, and then he has a footnote, and so people just assume that's what they said in the footnote. You read the footnote, you read what's you know, the actual testimony, and they didn't say that at all. So a lot of people use footnotes to lie. So I'd rather just tell you in the paragraph where I got some information anyhow. But I mentioned, you know, all these textbooks in books and articles about h you know, wound ballistics, and it's just

not a typical head wound. And the only kind of way it makes sense is if it's it's a separate tangential wound. Right, And doctor Clark, you know, the examined the neurosearch and who examined Kennedy at Parkland, that's what he said. He'd even set it his work commission testimony that it looked like a tangential wound. So I'm like, well, what are the odds of that that all this, you know, looking through all these books and all these articles, it looks like a tangent. It seems like it's a

tangential wound. And sure enough, that's what doctor Clark's initial impression was. And I went through like every level, the scalp, skull, the lightning of the brain, the brain itself, all these things indicate that that large head wound was impacted as a supposed exit. And yeah, I just thought i'd throw that in there in case anybody was thinking like I hadn't done any research since the Mystery of thirty five. That's all stuff I did afterwards.

Oh yeah, no, Look, and there's a ton of work here on on patsphere dot com. Uh and that is spelled p A T S P E e r dot com. Uh, and I'll give you a link to the uh you know, to the show in the show notes here to go to his website and examine this work for yourself. It is one thing. And I'll close on this because I've had you for about an hour here already recording and uh, it went right gone by. I didn't even get to most of what I wanted to get to. But you know, we do

another show. I mean, I don't want to, you know whatever. I'm feeling better these days. I've had health issues, but I'm doing I'm doing Okay, we can you know, you can call me again in a month if you want or whatever. Excellent, Well, let's definitely do that. But in the meantime, I want people to go check out your work, all the stuff you've already done. I mean, I don't know what you have planned for the future, but uh, there's a hell of a

lot of work already up on patsphere dot com. So I urge you guys to go check it out and do look up, you know, the mysterious death number thirty five. Maybe I'll grab the YouTube links and put them in the show notes as well. Calm, by the way, Okay. Still, well, I'll put the links up one way or another. They'll get the links to these things so they can look at it for themselves, because I want them to do that. But the brain, you know, there's

another interesting thing, right what happened to the brain? You know, I I have felt for a long time that that is obviously something that was disposed of along with the casket. Uh you know that casket dump that that that Bobby Kennedy had done. Okay, so I'm thinking that that's probably where the

brain actually went. But it's fascinating to me when they showed the pictures to uh, you know, allegedly the the autopsy pot the photograph photographer of record, Uh you know, Stringer, he's got problems identifying those photographs as the photographs he took. And that's an interesting point just to be made right there. I mean, he has, uh, there's a bunch of problems here

with the medical evidence Stringer inability to recognize those as photographs he took. But he was looking at the quality of the film and the nature of the film. He did not say that the brain was a totally different kind of brain that he remembered, and so a lot of people twist that his inability to recognize the photos themselves as him saying, oh, that the brain was really there was a blowout on the back of the head, because that's not what

he said at all. In fact, the back of the head photo he said, yeah, I took that photo and that's how I remember it. So a lot of times people will cherry picks certain things to try to like push you in a direction. But Stringer did not think that the brain photos were faked because he remembered the back of the brain all missing. That's not true at all. It was the quality it was. As a photographer, he didn't remember using that kind of film. Yeah, it was the type

of film. That's that's what I hope. I didn't present it like you know. But I'm just bringing up the brain because he did recognize the brain photo, but there is a controversy about where it actually ended up going. The brain itself is what I was bringing up, you know, And there's all kinds of things here. It is bizarre though, that he's basically said I didn't use that kind of film. That is a really strange thing. It almost makes you think that either we're looking at copies of his originals or

or or this is somebody else's photographs. I mean, that's what that leads me too. Yeah. But unfortunately, you know, a lot of times I have a bias because I look in a lot of times when people say these things, you look and it's like, oh, well, he said this in nineteen sixty five, he said this, in nineteen seventy seven, he said this, and then the guys like ninety eight. It is eighties.

A case of stringer. He's seventy eight, and now we're saying something different, and a lot of people will immediately grab on to what he says

later and say, well, this must be the truth. And unfortunately, as people get further away from event their memories, in particularly as we age, you know, and uh, the people, oh, you're being biased against old people, And I'm like, oh, and I well, like in the case of this whole thing with you know, with the Secret Service agent who came out recently, right, oh sure, yeah, I think he's just you know, one of the things which I jumped on right off

the bat, and some other people you know, documented it better or were more interested in documenting it. But he, you know, in in the eighties, and then I think on the fiftieth anniversary whatever he was always saying, he said numerous times that he'd found a fragment on the on the on the back seat, right, and now years later it becomes a full bullet and then he takes it and he puts it on the stretcher. And it's like, well, I believe he found something because he said it for a

long time that he said he found something. But the attack bullet that he goes and puts on the stretcher, I'm not. I'm not really, I'm I can't go there. I'm not believe good to believe that. Well, I've got a problem with that. I've got a pro with the fact that he says he put it on jfk stretcher, And I'm pretty satisfied that's not where the bullet was found. Number one. Number two, he also seen

it right as somebody would have seen it. Yes, Well, and there's another problem here is that numerous times the way he describes it, he could not have been there at the time that he now describes it. You know where already JFK's body was removed from the scene before he showed up a couple

of in a couple of versions of this story. Now, what's interesting to me is that Larry Hancock at this year's Lancer conference, you know, makes that statement about Look, you guys can't just go to somebody who's ninety years old, now get a story from them, and discount everything that was ever

said before. You know, it doesn't work that way. As much as there is such a thing as a deathbed confession, and there is such a thing as somebody finally feeling as though they could be freed to make a truthful statement after all these years and everything else, you can't judge things solely based on the statement you got from somebody in their nineties. It's just that simple.

And that's again not a bias about old people. It was, you know, it's just a matter of Look, memory is not a recording device anyway. You know. You can remember things differently based on your perspective everything else, but your subject. Your memory is always subject to revision. It just is. It's subject to revision based on new information. If you don't believe me, here's the thing, you know, forget about the gunshots in

daily Plaza. If you've ever been around other people who've been around gunshots, that were not expected in any way, shape or form. Guess what. At first, they don't always know that it's a gunshot. Later on they might say that was a gunshot because they've assembled new information into it. But their initial experience is usually there was a loud noise unless they see something that

backs it up that says that's obviously a bullet. You know, they see a bullet strike, or they hear or they feel a bullet strike and things like that. Okay, But initially, most people that are around gunshots, they heard a noise. They didn't know what it was, unless they're very accustomed to hearing gunshots. Okay. In that case, you might have somebody who can identify a gunshot right away. And I'll tell you something else weird

is that being somebody who has been actually shot once. Gotta tell you you you feel the shot and you don't necessarily even hear it, or if you do hear it, you hear it after you feel it. That's another weird thing that happens. Okay, Because guess what. A bullet travels faster than the speed of sound. Okay, simple physical scientific reality. Most of the time, Okay, muzzle velocity is above the speed of sound when I was shot in the leg. Pat, You know what I noted first, not

that I was shot, but that my leg was wet. That was the first thing. I I knew blood before I knew I was shot, Okay, and I didn't know it was blood, as I just stated, my leg is wet. That was my first sensation. I assembled that information afterwards that I had been shot because I wasn't expecting to get hit with a bullet. Okay, that's crazy, there kind of was it? By the way, it was what from a nine what do you call it? A nine

millimeter semi automatic? But the thing is it wasn't that far away, maybe what one hundred feet away? I think I was hit from something like that. And yeah, I noted that my leg was wet before I realized that a gunshot was fired. That was my personal experience. Now I'm not even saying that that's everybody's experience. I'm just saying that there's one case I know of personally, and I've heard from other people who have been shot, who

have been in combat, who had been in other situations. It is not in order that a lot of people think it is. And when you're around it and you're not being shot or the shooter. It's another experience. Again,

if it's an unexpected circumstance. And when people start to examine you know, the ear witness testimonies, right and all that other stuff, they warp and twist these things eighty different ways, and a lot of times, guess what they wind up doing is making a lot of assertions based on preconceived notions. And meanwhile, isn't that the thing that we're all complaining about when it

comes to the official explanation? Sure? So, yeah, you know, I caution everybody to be very careful about the assertions you make, especially based on a witness and you know, somebody's story, somebody's you know, newly revealed information after they've been interviewed before, after they've been through it already. Indeed, there are some people who will come to revelations later. And that's true, but you have to you have to put all these things in their

proper context. And it's not Actually I actually a lot of research on I witnessed accuracy, and I witnessed testimony and read a couple of books and a number of articles, and yeah, people are really open to suggestion, Like you know, I witnessed testimony, or people will line ups, you know, during a criminal lineup, they say, oh, I saw the guy, how good of how good a look at him did you get? And they say, oh, you know, okay, I think maybe i'll recognize

him. Then they're shown somebody who's not the person, and then you know, an actor will say a plane, a cop or something will say like, wow, and is that the guy? And they'll say I think so, and they'll say, well, good because he's definitely the guy and you nailed him, and blah blah blah. And then later on then the last the guy that the witness afterwards like how sure are you that it was him? Oh, one hundred percent sure. I knew at the moment I looked

at him, because they got reinforcement. So sometimes people are it's something is tentative, and then once they get reinforcement they say they're definitely sure or positive. You know that the shots came from here or that the wound was there. So yeah, people's memories are very fragile and they could really open a suggestion from outside sources. Oh yeah, and I've even seen that again. Last personal thing is that you know I used to run convenience stores and gas

stations. So guess what I had to deal with a few times when places were robbed. And quite frankly, even the cashier standing five feet away from somebody pointing a gun at them is open to suggestion. You figure it might be burned in their mind, in their memory exactly what that person looked like, what their height was, the type of gun they had, any of

that information. Quite frankly, I've seen it get shifted around and in real time people that your memory is subject to revision, and it doesn't matter if it's a traumatic event, if it's a violent event. I always loved that thing that Boogliosi tried pulling at that mock trial, which was this whole well you've never been in front of the president before, have you. I mean it was exciting because you were in front of the president, so your memory

might be a little off. I mean, that is the weirdest thing. Yeah. The best one of those is of Walter Cronkite. CBS tried to do like a reenactment of how fast he could fire the rifle and all that stuff, and it got to be where their reenactments and stuff were like, well it's possible, but it's not likely. And so they actually wrote some total bs for Walter Crockae to say, well, you know, Oswald, this was he knew this was his only chance to shoot Kennedy, so he'd

be more he could fire faster and more accurately or whatever it is. It's like, that's not how it works, you know. People. If anything, he'd be nervous, then he'd be more likely to miss, right. Yeah, he was so highly motivated. He was so highly motivated that it literally increased his skill level. H yeah, exactly. Now I remember that. I think that's from the sixty seven special as well. Yeah, it is funny. Anyways, guys, Patspear dot com go over there. The

mysterious death of Number thirty five is definitely one of the things. But go through all the chapters there. There's a lot of information. Now I'm gonna have to go back over some stuff because I was not aware of a couple of things he's got over there, and I definitely recommend it. And we're gonna have Pat Spear back again probably in about a month if if he's up for it, And that's the way we're gonna close this one out. Guys, so no matter, We'll turn down the music for a second. No

matter who you are, where you are, when you are. I want to thank Pat Spear for joining me tonight. Patspear dot com, P A T. S P E e r dot com. That's the website to go to check out his work on the Kennedy assassination and click around the website, kick around there and check other things out. Anyways, no matter who you are, where you are, when you are. I'm merely old. Do you remember that time and Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going

to dispatch ninjas to take down the Illuminati. Oh that's interesting. Yeah, did that ever work out too good? No, it didn't, did it? But here on o'celly dot com Radio network, things work out a bit better, don't they much better? Much and understanding about the programs, the programs much clear, getting live people into it. They really have a good conversation going much better, much better scene. I say, forget Benjamin Fulford

and his ninjas and listen to the ocelly dot com Radio Network. I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like that idea. Uncle, do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninjas to take down the illuminatih that's interesting, yeah in the latoon. Yeah, did that ever work out too good? No? It didn't, did it? But here on Ocelli dot com Radio

Network, things work out a bit better, don't they much better? Much media is clear and understanding about the programs, the programs much clear, getting live people into it. They really have a good conversation going much better, so much better scene. I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen to the Ocelli dot com Radio Network. I agree. It's straight to

the point, straight talk, and I like that idea. Uncle, I'll bet you remember the time when Benjamin Fulford said that the Asian Secret Society was going to dispatch ninjas to take out the Illuminati to change the entire world for the better. That it never gonna happen. That never did it, never did did Yeah, because there's a lot of false promises, these fools I did soon. We better not say and be polite, but there are no

false promises at the O'Kelly dot com Radio Network. That's exactly it. Nuts, It's the truth the point, white to the point, and this is what I like, straight to the point, o'kellylly dot com. This and now, if you've expressed my callers goals, there anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com. You not necessarily replet we using

dot com or Joe Kelly and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which might insuet In Denial the Secret Wars with Air Stripes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations that are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay and 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 knows why other countries today are doing the 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 Larryhancock. 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 form, Wallstream Window dot Roll Silver the stock market, Wallstream Window, dott Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started wall Street, Windows dot comdo dot 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. Wallow

dot com. Go there, now, go there, now go there, now go ahead. Call it about the Jafa assassination. Right, Well, what do you want to know Toddy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barrie Ganser weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon. But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on, now, has a real effort on the Dafay assassination into claim. 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 Barry 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 the information. Oh Chili dot com, revelation through conversation, Get get ready for your Chi