The Chili Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you, yeah and now at a noise and in our media back May twenty four, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, this the o'celly effect. You listening to us, most likely via the podcast, But we do broadcast live, and we are live as we speak on a Tuesday Tuesday,
and that's just the way it is. Now. I've got a couple of different things I got to cover tonight, and no, I'm not gonna go deeply into the news, although I do have something topical to discuss with the guy who's been on the show before. More than happy to have him back, and in fact, I plan to have him back a couple more times in the next month or so to discuss a couple of different topics. Anyway, Jacob Hornberger, you know, I do want to discuss books, and
we're gonna focus on one in particular tonight. We're gonna get there. But before we go there, look, I've been talking about the presidential selection, the upcoming public appearances, how the campaigns are being run. But you know what, even my friends and independent media not really discussing all that much what's
happening in the Libertarian Party, what's going on with the other conventions? Very much trapped in the one party excuse me, supposedly two parties that are the major parties, but you know, the one party reality that's out there and talking about Trump and all that, but eh, nobody's talking about anything else. And meanwhile, you actually have a little personal involvement here. So let's begin there. Tell us what's going on there, and then I'll ease into
your introduction and get into the main focus of the discussion tonight afterwards. But let's start there. How would you like to explain that, sir? Well, first of all, let me say it's nice to be back here with you. Check it so, it's always an honor and a pleasure. And I am a candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. I've been running for this nomination for more than a year. I announced back in February of twenty
twenty three, and there's about eight of us running. And unfortunately, the Libertarian Party circus is going to be held in Washington, d c. In a couple of weeks. And the reason I call it a circus is because the National Party hierarchy has turned the convention into a circus. You know,
this is a nominating convention. The centerpiece of this convention is selecting the presidential candidate who the Libertarian Party delegates and overall, since the Libertarian Party members field would be the best exponent of libertarianism and the principles and philosophy of the party. But the national Party hierarchy has expressed a pretty much distaste for all the
Libertarian Party presidential candidates. They even have said the party chairman even said last year that she was blaming the severe problems of the party in their our severe problems on the lackluster group of presidential candidates. Well, I took umbradge at this. I think all eight of us are fighting our hearts out. I disagree with the message of my opponents that they want to run, but I have the utmost respect for them, and I took Ms mccartal to task for
doing this. Well, now she's doubled down and invited Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Junior to be the feature of this convention. I mean, it's really it can be called the Kennedy Trump Convention, And yeah, that's everything that is that's a very weird situation because you know, and look, just for the record, you know, Jacob is a guy associated with the Future of
Freedom Foundation. I urge you to go over there and at least subscribe to their newsletters, by the way, because you can be well informed about a great many things that just happen to have something to do with guess what libertarian ideals. And I'm not saying that I agree with everything on the website or anything like that, but I've determined that the majority of my listeners are some flavor of libertarian generally, and therefore you will find something over there at at
F I think it's f FF dot org. It is the regular way. I got a bookmark, so i'd have to look myself right now. But I'm gonna give you guys the link in the show notes, so you can go over there and subscribe to the newsletter and also check out mister Hornberger's blog because you did write a little bit about this. I think you put it on your substack as well, didn't you. Well, I never addressed the political side at the Future of Freedom Foundation because we keep a wall of separation
between my political activity and my foundation activity. So when people go to FFF dot org, they will not see anything about the Libertarian Party at all. And for that matter, I don't even address Trump or Biden. I keep a real strong wall of separation. They can go to my website at Jacobfurliberty dot com. Okay, and that's that's my campaign website where I take Trump and Kennedy and Biden, Democrats and Republicans to task for what they've done to
this country. And that's why it's I have a fierce objection to what the party hierarchy is doing by inviting Trump and Kennedy to address our convention. I mean, it's like going to war and inviting the enemy general to come into your camp and recruit soldiers and donations and members. And it's just bizarre that these two candidates who will be competing against our candidate are being allowed to come
in here and say vote for me, send me your donations. I mean, an intentional saboteur cannot do a better job at sabotaging our presidential campaign. And yet there it is, and it's just right. And a big point I'd like to make here is that you know, look, I said libertarian idealism. I didn't say anything about your political aspirations over there. I said, you have to go to your blog to follow that, right, But
that's your website either way. You partitioned this all and don't involve your foundation. You keep that clean because that is a separate issue from your own personal views and your own personal efforts, right, I mean there is a difference. And guess what this is. How is it that the Libertarian Party is going to invite the Republican nominee to a convention. I don't understand the logic
behind that. Well, the logic is that the party for the last twenty years has moved in a right wing direction, and the party hierarchy is right wing. That the press refers to the Libertarian Party as a right wing organization. They target Republicans of their votes. They are strong advocates of immigration controls, which is one of Trump's signature positions, and so they have come to view Republicans as libertarians, and so they look at Trump as an idol.
They go Google eyed when they see Trump, they idolize and they want to feature him. And my hunch is that there's quite a few of them and the party leadership that are really looking for a position with the Trump administration, and by Curry in favor with him giving him a featured spot. They can say, mister Trump, when you're elected, would you please give us a position in your administration? And Trump's almost certain to say yes. He'll promise
anything to anybody. And I think that's what's going on, is that they realize that if they run the same kind of standard message they've run for twenty years, they're going to get the standard zero to one percent, and so they might as well just throw in the towel on the presidential race and start buying for attention with Donald Trump to get into his administration. I think that's
what's going on. That's my opinion. Look, and I can't argue with your opinion at all, because that's the way it looks to me as an outsider, as somebody who's not necessarily as educated on I mean, I'm sick of the whole system. And yeah, the Libertarian Party has certainly moved to the right. I've talked about this that you know, when I first emerged as a legal vote right, I wanted to be libertarian. It's the only
party I've ever registered with. I've registered as libertarian and independent only in my life, right, and yeah it moved to the right, though it was not always as it looks today. Number one and number two. It's very strange to see this sort of like, I don't know, it's like the influencer grab. It's not about, you know, necessarily what the ideals are or the fact that this is a separate entity from the two main parties.
Okay, it's now about populism and just what is not even populism but popularism? What's popular? Let's move that in there. I mean Bobby Kennedy frankly is a little more akin to libertarianism in some of his stances, not all in some of his stances. But nonetheless, it's just bizarre to watch that happen. And I know that legitimately you have a different point of view from the typical definitely not on to the two party or one party system guys.
So more than happy to get into that with you another day. Today, I want to focus on something else, because you're also an author. Could I just add one more thing though, sure that you made a really good point about the one party system, and that's the way I see it, that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, the right wing and element in our party Seese Republicans differently than Democrats. They see Republicans as libertarians,
which is why they glorify Donald Trump and other Republican candidates. What I want to do, and what I'm arguing to the party is that if you want to achieve a major breakout in votes, you got to change your direction completely away from this libertarian support for socialism like social security, Medicare, school vouchers, education grants, immigration controls, and restore the founding principles of this party, the libertarian principles, the genuine principles, and that that's what we
need to do to get this party back on a foundation of rock rather than a foundation of sand in which it's based right now. Right, So I just want to add that and go ahead. You were starting to say something about the book we're going to discuss. Oh yeah, no, I want
to go there too. But you know, just another quick shout out to Murray Sabran, who is the only libertarian candidate that ever legitimately ran for governor in the state of New Jersey. You know, I had this kind of discussion with him some months ago too, where it was like, look what has happened here, you know, to the party. Maybe we could do that in a future discussion. Okay, I'd really love to focus on it and talk about it, because to me, it's like the hijacking of what
could have been a much larger libertarian party than it is. Significant, Yes, and I appreciate it a lot more than the one party system as it stands. But when when you're when you're completely hijacked by one of the larger corporate entities, I mean, well, welcome to America. I guess it just is the way of things, the order of things, if you will.
Anyways, But but I appreciate all that. Believe me, I didn't want to bog you down in that discussion tonight's or you know, sort of shock you with it or surprise you with it, because I really want to talk about this book and a couple of things about it, honestly, because look, it's got a striking title to begin with, an Encounter with Evil. Let's just begin with the main title and encounter with evil. Okay,
colin the Abraham's Zubruter story. Now, Abraham Subruter. My listeners will be well aware of who that is. It is a household name in any household that listens to this show, that's for sure. And I've talked about the Zubruterer film with a lot of different people, everybody from the individuals who say it's an absolutely legitimate piece of work to those that you know, had David mantikon not too long ago. His position is not that it is a completely
honest documentation of the events in Deily Plaza. Let's let's put it that way politely, Okay. I've talked about, although I didn't have her as a guest, I talked about Alexandra Zapruter's book twenty six Seconds on this show, and clearly it's come up with so many different JFK assassination discussions on my show over the years, not always the main focus, but always a focus on my show. Encounter with Evil. It's a striking title, and it's again
another another examination of the man and the film. So first tell me how it is you come to this title, why it is necessary to have this striking title, and you know, without giving us everything that's in the book and what it is that drew you to the Abraham Zubruter story in the film, itself outside of the obvious that it is the best known photographic record, whether you think it's legitimate or not or whatever, it's probably the best known
photographic record linked to the Kennedy assassination. But aside from that, what is it that attracted you to this subject to write about it? Well, many years ago I read a book called People of the Lie. People of the Lie by Scott Peck, psychiatrist. He wrote a book that's much more famous called The Road Less Traveled that I absolutely loved, but People of the Lie was a very scary book. The thesis there that Peck developed was that there
is evil in the world and that phenomenon exists. Now he was speaking as a Christian, but he says this is not just some estheteric concept. There is genuine evil in the world, and it concentrates itself in various areas, both in the government and in the private sector, and that it is a
battle that we wage Christians and others against this force of evil. And I believe that I believe there is evil in the world, and I believe that it was an evil force that took out John F. Kennedy on November twenty second, nineteen sixty three, and that is part of the cover up.
This evil force was very, very successful, both with respect to the autopsy that the Military Intelligence Establishment committed conducted on President Kennedy's body on the very evening of the assassination, and then the very next day by producing an altered copy of the Zabruder film, the film by Dallas businessman Abraham's a bruder of the assassination. And what drew me to this, to this concept of evil in the story was alexandra' z Abruder's book twenty six Seconds. I've done a lot
of reading and studying on the Kennedy assassination. I've written a few books on the Kennedy assassination, including this one. I've written countless articles. I've had conferences at the Future of Freedom Foundation on the Kennedy assassination. And so when I paid picked up her book called Twenty six Seconds, I thought it was just going to be a kind of an interesting read of the family history with
the Zabruder film. And as I'm reading through it, I'm realizing there's much more to this than meets the eye, and she develops a she tells in the early part of the book that there was a family taboo that developed against discussing the Zabruder film in the Zabruder family. And she didn't call it a taboo, and she actually denies it was a taboo. She says it was
just an unwritten code that you don't discuss this. As a kid growing up, she was the granddaughter of Abraham's Abruder, and well, that's exactly what a taboo is. It's an unwritten code in a family that you don't discuss things. So she decided to violate this code, and she did it with much trepidition, and rightly so, because when these family codes developed, these taboos, there's usually a dark secret behind them. Right now, let me
just interrupt you here because look, two very similar concepts come up. One is that it's not dissimilar, this idea of darkness and evil. It sounds very similar to what's developed in Jim Douglas's book, right JFK And the Unspeakable, That is the name that he gives for the darkness that jumps up and swallows Kennedy. But he also claims it's the very same unspeakable that you know went and swallowed Gandhi and went and swallowed Martin Luther King Junior, et cetera,
et cetera. But this concept that there is a dark force, no matter how you name it, is one thing that is consistent not just in literature but in our real world, because anywhere where power coalesces leads to the attraction of what we would have to plainly describe as evil elements that are attracted to it. One Two, this concept of you know, the family talking about it. I find it interesting that she put out that book about a year I think a year or a year and a half before Yours was released.
It's interesting because the family had only ever contributed in minor ways to other people's works. They would begrudgingly give interviews, you know, ever since abrahams A. Pruter was gone the family ever after, although they controlled the film, and there's a very weird story about how, you know, the government acquires the film, pays them a huge amount of money for it, doesn't take the copy right away, and then they donate it. You know that
whole story too. But anyway, it's it's remarkable to me that she wrote this book. That's why I brought it up. And obviously it was remarkable enough to you to get you to want to explore this a little more deeply. So back to this taboo that you're talking about, And look, lots of families have secrets. Not all of them are connected to one of the crimes of the century, though, you know, in some cases it might
be who's you know, who's somebody's real daddy is. In some cases it might be you know, where did aunt Ethel spend ten years of her life that nobody knows where she was? Whatever? Right? Dark secrets? Anyway, could you give us a hint about the dark secret that jumped out at you that you recognized before you started writing your book, or did you not
know until you really started to delve into your research. After reading Alexander's work, No, it dawns on me that there's something dreadfully wrong with this story. As I'm reading her book, I'm like my jaws just dropping at the very beginning of the book because I'm saying, this is ridiculous as to this thesis she's developing, because she very rightly fears going down this road. She says that she knew that there was going to be a tremendous adverse reaction in
her family because of this unwritten code, you don't discuss this film. So she knows she's going down a very scary road, and she says she didn't know what she was going to discover. And I'm sitting there as I'm reading this, saying that means a dark secret. When there's a taboo this long, there's a dark secret. So she was right to be scared. So but what really hit me was that she finally says, well, I came up with the two reasons for the taboo, and again she didn't call it
a taboo. Two reasons why this code developed, okay, And one reason is because her grandfather felt tremendous grief over having witnessed this assassination, like paralyzing grief, and therefore the family just could not discuss the Kennedy assassination with him, and therefore this is how this code developed. That was one of the
reasons the code developed. The other reason she gives is that her grandfather felt tremendous guilt at having received so much money and having benefited financially from this film. He got paid fifty thousand dollars for the print rights, which is equivalent
to about almost half a million dollars to day in inflationary money. And then he two days later he sells all the rights to the film to Life magazine for triple that like the equivalent of one point two million something like that, and that he felt so much grief over this that it just could not be discussed in the family. Well, Chuck, I'm reading this and saying, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my entire life.
That this woman goes down this dangerous road to discover what's behind the taboo, and she comes up with this ridiculous thesis. And so the whole book is surrounding this thesis, and she goes on this lecture tour to promote the book, saying this is what my grandfather's fears were all founded on. This is how the code developed. Well, I'm sitting there saying, I don't think so, lady. So there's something missing, is what you're saying. There's
a huge piece of the puzzle missing. And make no mistake for a listener who doesn't know isn't aware. I would say a fair estimate would be that the Zabruder family over the years, over sixty years, has at the very least reaped about one hundred million dollars from this twenty six seconds of film. Is that an unfair estimate in your mind? Because that's about where I'm at
with it. Between the money that they got, the tax right off, all of the different fees that they were paid when different video releases were made, various things that happened. I think they made at least one hundred million dollars over that sixty years. What do you think? I'm not sure that might might be exaggerating, because but they got the equivalent of a million dollars up front that I mean over they had annual stall installments to ze Bruder.
But then later on when the when the government seesed the film when it was in the National Archives and under an imminent domain proceeding, they got sixteen million. Now I don't know how that translates out in today's dollars, but let's say it translates out to twenty five million. The fiends that you're talking about was when they control the film after Life magazine gave it back to them for
a dollar. And I don't know what they were making in those films, but I would I would venture to say probably nowhere close to one hundred million, I would say we're talking more like thirty or forty million maybe, okay, but you know what it is, I'm trying to account for all the times that TV shows had to pay Remember every TV show had to pay them
to utilize this thing for a certain time period, unsolved mysteries. I actually have one of the one of the weird videotape things from when they used it. There's various documentary shows over and over again. They all paid them different fees, and you know, somebody would have to have the books open on this really, But whatever it is, let's just say it is forty million
dollars. Then all right. If it was forty million dollars, still it's a substantial amount of money to make over the course of half a century. I mean you're talking maybe a million dollars a year between nineteen sixty three and say twenty thirteen. Oh, it's an extraordinarily large sum of money. But my point about her thesis is because they remember, he dies I think in nineteen sixty nine, so he and he could have waived he was getting paid
on an annual basis by Life magazine for the original purchase price. He could have waived that money at any time. He just write Life Magazine is saying I'm feeling so guilty, don't send me any more money. He never did that, and then he dies and the family reached this huge benefit as you're talking about renting it out selling it. They could have waived all that money. So why does the taboo continue after this guy's death. That makes no
sense. And then the grief. The guy was over there negotiating the film rights on Monday after the assassination. He clearly wasn't so grief stricken that it paralyzed him from selling the film. And there were a lot of people, well, they were grief stricken over the assassination, including witnesses in dely Plaza. Nobody, no family had a fifty year long code against discussing the film
or even discussing the assassination because of that. And it's when I read that when I said, you know what, I'm going to delve into this. And I read her book very very carefully, and I figured out the real reason for this code, this taboo, and I said, I'm going to write a book. So the encounter with evil was Abraham's. The Bruders encounter with this evil force that brought this taboo into existence, something that in my
opinion, she just lacked the intestinal fortitude to confront. Well that's a hell of a statement. So where did you begin your examination after this? Okay, so you read this book, you have this feeling you've got a missing piece. What did you decide to do next? I mean, did you try to acquire the best copy you could? Did you? I mean tell us about that trip through your putting this together? No, what I did was I already knew the basic parameters of what had happened with the Zubruder film.
And that was based on Douglas Horn's work, including his especially his five volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. Now, Horn was a member of the Assassination Records Review Board THEARRB in the nineteen nineties. That was the agency that was charged with enforcing the JFK Records Act, which had come into
existence as a result of Oliver Stones movie JFK. And when people learned that the National Security Establishment and other federal agencies were still keeping their assassination related record secret, so they they enact the JFK Records Act to get into secrecy. And so Horn writes, this magnificent, you know, five volume work, and part of that is making the case for they the way they altered came up with an altered copy of this film to disguise what really happened in Dealey
Plaza. So and I'd already started with that parameter. But what I couldn't figure out is how does that lead to this code? And that was the mystery here. I wanted to solve this mystery. Now, I come from a law background. I got a law degree. I practiced law for twelve years in Texas. I was a trial attorney, and so my mind thinks like a lawyer. I'm trying to figure out what the heck is going on
here. And I figured out that what happened was that the Bruder himself knew that they had produced an altered copy of his film, but he was stuck. If he comes out and makes a statement along these lines, they will crucify him. Now this guy was Jewish, this is in Dallas, Texas. If he comes out with a statement right after the assassination that this is an altered copy of his film, they will go after him with everything.
They will destroy him. A conspiracy theory an alterationist. They would boycott his businesses. The conservative right in Dallas, which was the most conservative city in the world in the United States, they would have gone after him with all guns blaring. So this man is faced with a very bad situation in his life. Does he go public with what he knows is a fraudulent film or does he stay quiet and support the official version. And that was his quandary.
And he and he he had an altercation with Mark Lane, that the guy who was investigating and questioning the official narrative. And it was not a pleasant thing. And and what I write in the book is the reason it wasn't pleasant was because Lane was reminding this guy that he was standing on the truth and the principle and taking a lot of flak being called a communist, and and and and Zeebruter had taken the easy way out, that he had gone with a lie. And this is what ends up destroying the man.
And she made it very clear that his life was totally changed after this filming, that he was never the same again. He wouldn't he was a master at taking home movies, she said. He never took home movies again. And so it's his conscience is bothering him throughout this thing. And but yet
they are hints of what happened. For example, if you watch the film at the very beginning, it shows the motorcate turning left onto Elm Street, and then suddenly there's a jump, just just a dramatic jump, where the next frame is showing Kennedy's limousine all the way down Main Street at Elm Street. So you've eliminated what happened during the turn. And Zabruder had to know this because he watched his film for his partner, said Erwin. Short said
he watched it at least fifteen times during the weekend of the assassination. So imagine a guy that's looking at frames of his film, which is kind of interesting. When they took his deposition in the Warren Commission, they didn't show him his film. They showed him dark like fog ridden frames from his film. But even looking at the frames, he has to be able to see that there's frames missing. I mean, if anybody knew his film, it
was him. So I dug up quotes by him and his assistant, Marilyn Sitzman, who was there with him at Dealey Plaza helping him do this film, and she was holding on to him because he had vertigo on the pedestal that he was standing on. They both said, we started filming or he started filming. He said, I started filming with the turn and kept filming, which is logical. If you won a momento for your grandchildren later in life, you're going to start filming immediately because you know this is the end
of the motorcape. You can't afford to take the chance that the guy's going to speed up to sixty miles an hour and bypass you and start filming where you're filming his back. So it's logical that he would start filming the turn and just keep filming until he until he runs out of film. Let's stick
with it. Now. Here's the interesting part about that that I want to ask you about, because the story I've heard over the years is that he stopped and cranked his you know, because it was one of these things that was he actually had to wind it up. The type of camera he had, you had to wind it up in order to keep the spring loaded mechanism running, which pulled the film through. But he stopped and wound it real
quick and then went back to filming. Now. I found that strange in that he had to have somebody hold him so that his vertigo wouldn't screw him up, and yet he's going to stop and crank the camera around. He didn't do that ahead of time. I always found that to be weird. Do you know what I'm talking about? I know exactly what you're talking about. It's a ridiculous explanations, because, as you say, he would already be prepared. This guy was as professional a movie maker as an amateur could
be. He'd been taking home movies for years and years. This was his hobby. He had a state of the art Bell and Howell movie camera. So this guy knew what he was doing. He's going to have that thing wound up. But let's assume that this little story in here is correct, and it's really just a hypothesis. Why would he even start filming the turn if he feels like he's going to run out of film where he's got to rewind and so where just start filming? When Kennedy's halfway down Elm Street.
Why start the filming, stop it, rewind it, and start it up again. That makes no mistake and no sense, because this was the end of the motor cab. Even his partner said, you're not going to get any film. He's going to be rushing out of there sixty miles an hour. So it makes sense. And this is exactly what the Breweder and Marilyn Sisman said. We started filming on the turn and essentially kept filming down the
Elm Street. They never said we stopped filming and cranked it up. So based on their own words, that the guy keeps filming, and it's logical that he's going to keep filming until he runs out of film. And he knew how much film he had. That, Like I say, this guy was a professional as professional as an amateur could do. And so now when when he he's over there at the when they show him these these frames that they don't show him the film, which is really revealing. Uh, he's
got to see something's wrong. Now here's another very revealing aspect of this thing. Life magazine, the week after the assassination publishes a story by a guy named Paul Mandel, who's one of their reporters. I mean, this guy was, you know, very reputable, very prominent. Okay, So he writes the story on the Zabruder film, and which Life Magazine now has custody of, and he's and they're trying to explain the shot through Kennedy's throat.
The doctors in Dallas said he had an entry wound in his throat, which is obviously contrary to the official narrative where you have the shooter in the back the accused assassin leeve Harvey Oswell, so they've got to explain this wound in the front. And the reason the Dallas doctor said that is because there was just a small bullet entry wound into the throat. And this Parkland Hospital is one of the best trauma hospitals in the country. This is what they deal
with his gunshot wounds at this hospital. So Paul Mandel rides in Life Magazine that there's an explanation for this. He says that the za Bruder film, which was now being sequestered. Once Life Magazine bought this film, they announced that the world would never be permitted to watch it. And Mandel says, but the za Bruder film shows Kennedy making a complete turn around, like one hundred and eighty degree turn, facing the school book depository when the shot that
hits him into in the front of the neck rings out. Well, there's no there's no way to disprove this. I mean, they've got the possession of the film. And so the average person that's reading Paul Mandel's article is saying, I'll be darn. So that's how the shot hit him in the front of the neck, and this ruder film doesn't get released for another twelve
years. Well, there's one man that would have been reading that issue of Life magazine, because that's the magazine that he highly respected and that he had sold his film to. He would have been reading every single aspect of Life magazine, especially the week after the assassination. And that's Abraham's a bruder. Now, if there's any man that would know that that is not what the film showed, it would be Abraham's a bruder. Why didn't he speak out?
Why didn't he say Mandel is lying? And my hunch is at what happened was that he went home and he talked to his wife, who Alexandra says was very streets she didn't have a formal education, but a very street smart woman. And he went home and he says, Lilian, they have lied about my film. They've paid me a million dollars over a million dollar well whatever, one hundred and fifty thousand, and they've now lied about my
film? What should I do about this? And I, as I write in the book, I think the street smart Maryland said, Abe, there are things that we can't understand, but there's something big going on here and we just have to keep our heads down and keep our mouths shut. And
I think that's what happened. Well, I mean, what good are you going to do if they're saying it and they have possession of the film, right, And at this point in time, his claim is that he had no copy, so it's not like he could take his film out and say, look, this isn't what's in my film? Right. The only people that have copies of this allegedly are the Secret Service, the FPI, and
Time magazine. Okay, that's it right. Matter of fact, you see the print of the frames in a Warren Commission volume, I think it's eighteen, where they print the frames of the Zubruder film. One of them out of order, by the way, but uh yeah, interesting stuff there. But yeah, what are you gonna do at this point? You don't have any proof, so what are you gonna do call up their competitor magazine and say, uh, Time magazine has it wrong. Life magazine has it wrong.
Sorry, Life, it is not Time, it's Time Life. But anyway, you know, what are you going to do at that point right exactly? And you know what's going to happen? You see, they can't. They both came from Russia where and she was Jewish too, and Alexander describes in the book how you know Jews were under severe persecution in Russia and that was one of the reasons why they were escaping and coming to New York, uh and other parts of the United States. But the Zubrugers went to
New York and ended up in Dallas. But they have to conjure up images of what happens if they take on this huge dark force that is obviously surfacing here where they're lying about his film, and he's very suspicious about the assassination because he's investigating. She discloses in the book that he actually goes out to Dealey Plaza and he looks at the scene. He's trying to figure out what's
going on. So this is clearly a very troubled man about what's going on now Here's another factor is that he there's a trial in the late nineteen sixties. I think it was around sixty nine or so sixty eight is that involving a man named Clay Shaw, where the district attorney in New Orleans Garrison was prosecuting Shaw for having supposedly been involved in the Kennedy assassination. But the overall theme is that this was a national security state regime change operation, which is
the theme of Allerstones movie JFK. It's based on this prosecution. And the subpoena is a brewder who is called to the witness sand and he is shown his film for the first time since the assassination, or at least what is supposed to be his film, right, And it's a copy. It's not the original, and it's not the original copy. It's a copy of what I contend is the copy the original copy. And the judge, the prosecutor asks the breuter to identify the film to authenticate the film. Is this your
film? And his answer was fascinating. He says, well, something to the effect. I can't verify whether there's been frames omitted or not. It's possible they could have eliminated frames well that was just like that is not an unequivocal endorsement of the film. Once a witness says that, it's incumbent on the judge to say, well, you have not authenticated the film. We
need the original because copies can be fraudulent copies. So when a witness hedges on the authentication of a copy, the judge would have said, you bring the original, which would have been an original copy. It would have been
a duplicate of what he said. There may be frames missing. Well, I think that's a very revealing statement, because, as I state in my book, and this is based on horn Horns analysis, there were fifty nine witnesses, fifty nine that said that the limousine in which the president was writing made a complete stop or a near stop. Well, a Zabruter film, the extant film, the film we see today shows no stop at all or
even near stop. Now that's very incriminating. Obviously, if you have a film that's showing the driver's stopping and then the headshot taking place, that looks pretty bad. So we can tend those of us that argue this is that those frames were deleted in the altered copy showing the stop and That's what bothered
Zu Bruter. And when he was testifying, he knew he was committing perjury, but he was having to hedge his bets, and I think in his conscience he thought, well, maybe if I hedge my bet and say that, maybe they're frames missing. I'm not really lying about this. It's a man, it's clearly troubled with a troubled conscience. See, and I'm one
of these people who doesn't necessarily believe in the stop. I gotta be honest with you because eyewitness testimony is problematic and all that, but I'm not here to argue with you. I want to go through this story with you and find out what it is you found. It's interesting to me though, that yes, they subpoened the film from life also, right, so they're supposed
to bring the original film. Now this leads to, by the way, copies of this thing getting out, which you know the legendary story about that. How these copies. Then the bootleg copies just started to emerge after the trial. You know about that as well, right, Yes, absolutely somebody was. It appears somebody was making some unauthorized copies of part of this trial. Oh guaranteed, somebody was because only a couple of years later, these
things were circulating all over the country. In fact, I had my hands on one of them in the nineties. But the copy was made in like sixty eight. Okay, probably a copy of a copy of a copy at that point, and it looked terrible by the way, I mean, nothing like what you see today. But even so, okay, so let's go, let's go back through. This is what you're saying is during the show
trial. He's got testimony there. Now. They subpoenaed what should have been the original film, though, right, I mean, isn't that what they were after when they made the request and they had it sent to New Orleans. Absolutely, when you subpoena something, they are required to bring the original. But they don't bring the original, they bring a copy. But it's my contention that the so called original was the same as the copy anyway.
I mean, that's the fraudulent copy, so it wouldn't have made any difference. The original that I'm talking about is the one that is gone. We don't know what happened to it, and I know we're limited by time, So I'd like to jump up to Dino Brugioni and what was happening on the night the night after the assassination. This is really feels in part of the
mystery as well. So in the late two thousands, Doug Horn is collaborating with an author named Peter Janney, who ends up writing a fantastic book called Mary's Mosaic, and they become friends and they're talking about the assassination. They're on the same page. Well, Janny, in researching his book, discovers the existence of a CIA at former CIA official named Dino Brugioni. And Janny's father had been in the CIA. He had been a high official in the
CIA during the Kennedy assassination. And so he contacts Brugioni, who's this very friendly, genial guy, and he Brugioni. You can google him to google Dino Brigioni. He is the world's most renowned photographic expert ever. I mean this guy. He was analyzing the film for the Cuban Missile Crisis. He's written books on photographic analysis. Everybody acknowledges that Brugioni was the best of the best at analyzing photographic stuff. So Brugioni says, well, Peter, come
on over and have a chat with me coming to my house. He's retired by this time. During the course of the conversation, this Zabruder film comes up, and Brugioni discloses something which he really shouldn't have disclosed. And I don't know whether he did it on purpose or whether he just innocently discloses it, but he says, oh, I had possession of the Zabruder film on
Saturday night of the of the assassination. And Janny's like stun what because the official story has always been that the film went to Life Magazine on Saturday after afternoon, after the Breweder had sold the original. He gives the original to Life Magazines representative Dick Stoley, and it gets on a plane to Chicago at
three pm on Saturday. Briggioni says, well, no, it was around late at night, ten o'clock at night or something like that that a Secret Service agent or two Secret Service agents bring the film in the original eight millimeter film, and he says, they told me that I needed to make briefing boards like poster boards with blown up frames. So he does that and he watches the film over and over again. They even had to go out and
get an eight millimeter movie projector if you can believe that. Now, this is at the National Photographic Interpretation Center, which is the CIA's photographic center in Washington, d C. Top secret operation. So the two Secret Service agents take the film. This is all detailed in my book. And they leave with the film and Bridge one does his briefing boards and gives him over to his boss. On Sunday night night, it turns out that another Secret Service
agent shows up with a sixteen millimeter copy of the film. Now that's significant because the film starts as an eight millimeter film. It all of a sudden, you have a sixteen millimeter copy. The reason I say that is because the only way you can get a sixteen millimeter film out of an eight millimeter film is by copying it on sixteen millimeter format. Once you have an eight
millimeter film, you can't convert that film into a sixteen millimeter film. And the Secret Service agent tells the Sunday Night team, I've just come from I brought the film from Hawkeye Works. Now, Hawkeye Works was a top secret CIA operation located in the middle of Kodak's research and development headquarters at Rochester, New York. Now there's no indication that Kodek was involved in what was going
on here with respect to the The Grider film. But according to representatives at Hawkeye Works, they told Brudeoni, we can do whatever Hollywood can do to films, and they had everything there. So you have these two top secret operations that are totally compartmentalized. Breugioni was the second in command at Nitpick and he was also the duty officer in charge. So when Janny says to him in the late two thousands there was another operation on Sunday night with briefing boards,
he says, that's impossible. I would have known about this. I'm the duty officer in charge, and that Jenny says, it's not impossible. They've testified to it that under oath that that team, and so they show Brigioni the briefing boards. There's only one set of briefing boards that's ever been disclosed, and they showed Breugioni the copy of the briefing boards in the record, and brew Gioni says, those are not my briefing boards. I don't
prepare briefing boards like that. And they used to call Brigioni the briefing boards are because of how he produced his briefing boards. So here's here's the final kicker to this. Chuck, Janny and Horn show Brugioni the extant film, the film that we all see today, and Brugioni is stunned. He says, no, that's not the film we watched on Saturday night. And he says, for example, the head shot, that's only one frame. And
he's mystified by this, and they've got this all on videotape. He's passed away now, but fortunately they videotaped the entire interviews with Brugioni, and Brugioni is there saying there's only one frame for the head shot, and they say, yeah, there's only one frame, that's frame three thirteen, and Brigioni says, no, no, he says there were multiple frames of the head shot. He says, because we were so fascinated, because there was a
plume of blood and brain tissue shooting straight up into the sky. And he says, we were just so stunned by and mesmerized by this that we had to keep watching it over and over again. Well, he said, that's not the film, and so that was the clincher. Brugioni's not testimony because he was never under oath, but his statements as to what was going on with this film that was the clincher. There's no way to avoid what his
statement is with respect to the authenticity of this film. Well, one strange question I have for you is when you say that a sixteen millimeter film showed up after an eight millimeter film showed up, is it possible that we're talking about the sixteen millimeter version that is produced when the film was originally printed, Because the eight millimeter film is literally printed as a sixteen millimeter piece and then it's slit, it's cut down the middle and then connected to make an eight
millimeter film. That's part of the process that went along with that particular setup with the camera, right, So is it possible that it's a uncut version of the film, which by the way, would be strange too, or we talk talking about a sixteen millimeter print that is literally sixteen millimeters wide. Okay, that's a great question, all right. The film starts out what's called double eight when he's filming, right, and that's a sixteen millimeter film.
The Bell and Howley has starts out filming on a sixteen millimeter wide film. And the reason they call it double eight is because it would later be slit. You would film on one side, you know, vertically down, and then you would turn it over to film on the other side, so you'd have two vertical strips on the same strip, and then you would slit it down the middle and connect the two strips end to end. So it started out as a twenty five millimeter long strip of film would be fifty feet
now of eight milimeter instead of a sixteen milimeter. So what happened in this case He takes the film sixteen milimeter format to Kodak in Dallas on the afternoon the assassination and he says, I need this developed and they said okay, So they developed the film, but they said and he says, I want three copies, and they said, we can't do copies here. You have to take it to Jamison Film Company for copies, but they can only copy
sixteen milimeters. So we don't want to slit your film because if we slit your film, you're not going to get copies made. So he takes his sixteen millimeter film, the original film, to Jamison that then makes the three copies, and so he then returns to Kodak with his original and his three copies, and they slit all four films down the middle. Now, how do we know that, Because your question is a very good one. What if he leaves the original film in a sixteen milimeter format. Well, we
have statements from the Kodak people. They're cited in my book saying we slit all the films down the middle, including the original one, which stands to reason because zae Bruder's entire quest here was to get as much money for this film as he could, and he had even told a secret service agent that he made that statement, saying, I'm going to get as much money as I can for this film. Well, it stands to reason that if he's going to get a bidding war going with the media, he's going to want
to show the original. It would be stupid. Because the Kodak people also stated that they saw the difference between the original and the first generation copy. This is the first generation copy, and they said, you could clearly see the difference. And then if we then go over to Brugioni, this is the world's most renowned expert on photo analysis, he said, there is no question that I had the original. He says, it was so clear and
so crisp. Now, if there's anybody that can distinguish an original from a copy, it's Brugioni. And so he had to go out and get this eight millimeter projector to show this eight millimeter film, and he's saying this was an original. So when they take it to Hawkeye Works, the only way they can produce a sixteen millimeter film is by making a copy, and that would be done with what was called an aerial optical printer. And then you copy it, and then you make the altered copy. You make the copy
the altered You make the copy the altered copy. You don't delete frames and omit frames from the original. You do that with the altered copy. And so they bring it back. Why do they bring it back in sixteen mil sixteen milimeter format? Bad mistake, you would think, I mean, that's dumb. Well, for one thing, because it's all top secret. This is the CIA operation. Keep in mind that the CIA kept his secret for what fifty years or so, so they don't really have to worry about secrets
getting out. But my hunch is the guy who brought it back, the secret service agent who called himself, Bill Smith, who I have absolutely no doubt since I written my book, was actually a CIA agent disguised as a Secret Service agent. That he he understands that they don't have an eight millimeter format a projector at Nitpick. He didn't know that they've they went out and
bought one late at night on Saturday night. So he's bringing the sixteen millimeter format back to make briefing boards again, to make copies from this briefing board. So he figures, well, I'll just take it back in the sixteen milimeter format since they don't have an eight millimeter projector there, And that screw
up is what became manifest fifty years later. And that's that's the hell of a thing because again you're not going to get that without making a copy from the original, because the only other way to have a sixteen millimeter physical sixteen millimeter pieces, like I said, from the original uncut. So you know, there you go. That is that has always been the wildest part of
the story. Now do we know what happened to because here's the other thing I was also thinking, because you talked about how he was, you know, a Russian Jew, and it clearly had a serious sphere of government agencies. I'm sure even though he knew the American government was different than the Russian point is I doubt he would have argued with them when they wanted their copies
too. So he gave them whatever copies they asked for, probably right away, but wanted to also retain his right to sell this thing, right, so both things had to be done right away. This is why there was a need for all these copies, right well, that's right now. He had this mindset of of that warped version of patriotism that the government is, you know, you can trust the government. And so when he made these copies and he immediately gave him over to the Secret Service, he's trusting government.
Is Americas did at that time that, you know, the thought that the government would be behind this assassination was ridiculous. I mean, nobody even thought about that. Maybe Mark Lane did, Salandra did too, but most people would never dream. There was a deepen abiding faith in government, and
Zabruta had that faith. She describes in her book. What I'm saying is that he trusts these people, he trusts the Secret Service, But all of a sudden he realizes that there's something going on here with his film, and he recognizes that it's much bigger than him, and that if he takes this thing on now, he doesn't know what's going on. He doesn't know that he knows there's a force out there, and I suspect he realized this is a dark force, as James Douglas points out in his book, But he
doesn't know what that force is. He doesn't know what's going on. And I don't think he suspected that, oh this was a military CIA operation. He didn't know what this force was, but he was scared of it. But at the same time he had this blind sense of patriotism, faith in government, in the American government. Right, fair enough. So again, the name of the book is an Encounter with Evil, the Abraham Subruder story.
And you want people to get it from Amazon? Should I give him the link there to get it. Yeah, that's the only place that's sold. And we have been in audio format as well as ken and print version. Right, it's a I should say that, Yeah, I should pointed that c Span Book TV did an interview with me on the book, and so if people want to get a little synopsis of the book, they can google that at c SPAN book TV. Okay, I'll find a link to
that. I'm sure it's available online, probably at no cost, So I'll see if I can find a link to that as well. But any final words you want to put on this, you know, I mean, because we went through a little deep into part of the story about the film and about this dark force, the evil that would have been encountered, and obviously you're gonna have to read the book to get the rest of it, guys, But you know what else, what else do we need to make sure
people hear about if they're thinking about picking up this book. What is one other just final point you want to put on this? Well, I think it's the point that you made earlier about James Douglas's book Came the Unspeakable, that that book, I is the first book I ever recommend to anybody who's getting into the assassination. It's a deep, profound book. It's a very
spiritual book. And the Unspeakable is this dark force. And it's that dark force that I emphasized throughout this book, an encounter with evil like it has called it an encounter with the dark force, And I think that's what's important for people to keep in mind here that the federal government was converted to a national security state after World War Two. I have long contended that this was the worst mistake America ever made. This is a totalitarian form of governmental structure.
They have omnipotent totalitarian powers like assassination, torture, indefinite detention. It is dark, dark element in our governmental structure. And what we need to do to get this country back on the right road is dismantle that national security
state structure and restore our founding governmental system of a limited government republic. And that's the real big message in all of my books and articles about the Kennedy assassination is that the cover up continues because this darkforce is still with us, and at all times the system will defend and protect itself. Jacob Warrenberger once again, guys the name of the book just so you remember, and like
I said, check the links with the show notes and all that. But an Encounter with Evil, the Abraham Zubruder story and Window Silver, the stock Market, Wall Street window Dott. Perhaps you're invested deeply, perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started. Wall Street windows Condo 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. Wall Street Street, Window dot dot Go there, now go there, now go there, Now go ahead, calling about the day of hay assassination. Right, well, what do you want to know Judy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry Canty weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon, but okayil and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now has a real effort on the day of Hay assassination. Go to Amazon
dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book. 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 kias jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Arry Baker, in her own words, thank you for all
the great information. Wow the US expressed by callers schools. There anyone else who happens to get on the air who jelly dot com? If you not necessarily reflect viviews of jelly dot com or jum O'Kelly, and we are not responsible, We're in stupidity, which might ensue plet you. In Denial The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and 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 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 force. Let him know, let her know, let no got to let them know. I'm bringing all shot. Let the tar Rocks ballout at the drut show. I'm bringing all shot, lock of care rots the ball lot at the drug shows. The Wings method, the world's worst professional provocket. Tool took them like it's two thousand something and buckets back on tool dot Com Radio Network Chili dot
Com. Revelation through conversation? Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen
sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson