The-Ochelli-Effect-8-6-2020 JFK Myths 16

From the CHECKO Kelly, And he's been known too many years of applying GfK researcher specializing in an Intellivit agency involvement in multiple assassinations prob again and other global criminal operations in the twentieth and twenties first centuries. And your listeners are extremely March tab Yeah, yeah, that's good. Best activated place in a media Kelly, August six. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, twenty twenty is the year supposedly, And here we are on a Thursday

or Thursday night anyway. That is what it is as I go live here at O'Kelly dot com. But you could be hearing us further on down the stream via your final slab of choice, via the podcast, or possibly on one of the amr FM affiliates. Brand new one being added this week is w CET in South Carolina. So welcome to all of this, my friends. It's gonna be an interesting ride tonight. Carlin Sabastano, the author of Human time Bomb, The Violence Within Our Nature and Two Princes and a King

is with Me. His website is website website very good. Website is teapoktpaak dot com and hopefully I don't trip over my tongue anymore than usual. And with us tonight is Larry Handcock. Now, Larry has written so many books. I'm not gonna take the time to list them all because I've only got you know, two hours with these guys. However, one of the latest

ones and greatest ones as far as I'm concerned, is in Denial. That is the main title, but of course it is a longer titled book, and you can find out all about that at Larry Hyphenhancock dot com ps Shadow Warfare The Awful Grace of God, which he co authored someone would have talked, I mean, well a lot of stuff. There sis a whole bunch of books Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. Check out his blog, check out his

stuff. You can get most of his material on Amazon dot com, if not all of it, and you can also get Carmine's books there as well. So there we go. Now I've given the introductions, and tonight what we're going to do is we're gonna focus a bit on the Kennedy assassination. For sure. Is this a myths episode? Not necessarily, but there may be some mythological ideas that we're going to kick around and discuss. So let me find out how everybody is first before I actually go into something that I

want to cover based on a past email. Carmine, first of all, my friend, my co host every other week. How are you doing, sir? I'm doing okay considering reality currently. Well, we're all living through that, brother. I mean, really, listen, if you feel a little nauseous, a little tired, a little exhausted, welcome to twenty twenty. Uh, you might actually not have your head firmly planted, you know, in your backside. Okay, I'm going to be as friendly about it

as possible. If you are disturbed, then you're probably breathing. I mean, it's just that simple, right. Excuse me. Still have the cough by the way, in case anybody was wondering. It's about like nine ten days here. Yeah, I feel like crap, but I am getting better, so hopefully I won't cough on you guys too much. However, I do wind up laughing a bit, especially when I do this with Carmine and Larry is with us. Larry Hancock, man, listen, I have a

great time every time you're on the show. I'm very happy to have you along as as a matter of fact, we got to get you on more often. I do want to discuss your new book one more time on the show because I wasn't fully read through it the last time we spoke about it, But so we might have to do another in Denial episode very very soon, if you're available, sir. I know you're busy, and I know you're always writing, always blogging again, Larry Hyphenhandcock dot com is the place

to go. But Larry, how are you tonight, sir? I I'm I think, CARMI, I'm pretty well captured it. I'm I'm doing as well as can be expected. Health is good, energy levels aren't what I think probably any of us would hope they would be. I'm looking forward, Like I saw a post basically somebody said, I'm looking forward to celebrating you years. I'm going to stay up not to watch the new one in, but to make sure the Owen leads. I think that pretty well captures things

for the moment. But yeah, I'm doing good and more. You know, I really expected this. Lots of things have been canceled, lots of things I'm normally involved with like fairs and festival and activities have been canceled. And I really thought it would be quiet, and it's more lively than I had expected it would be. So I'm awake and I'm sort of alert. Yeah, it's getting stranger out there. I mean, and here's the funny thing. There's still action going on in the street regarding the topic of police

brutality. Interesting that there has been such a long stretch of protests and meanwhile a lot of us not really even paying attention to that anymore. I mean, nothing's burning, So who cares? Right is that where we're at? I mean, what a weird time and history still with the pandemic and the other disease that's occupying the White House, and who knows what is going to

come next? I mean, could we have serious political upheaval because the selection process might be postponed, delayed, or deluded to such a point that maybe there is no legitimacy. Nobody's going to bother to accept the results, the counts or anything else. And man, this is a long, long year, Larry. I mean, if nothing else, even if you're not disturbed, you gotta admit this year is taking its sweet time. Grinding itself out of us. What do you think? Yeah, it just it kind of

sucks everything out, you know. I mean whatever you had planned, you know, something different is happening. So whatever you had on your schedule, you know, that's no good. Throw away the calendars. And I'm experiencing a serious time dilation effect. It's like, wait a minute, what month is it? Is it all already? Did we have the election? You know? Has this not been going on for five years already? Yeah,

it's just like my whole it's like filerhythm. The cycles are just like, oh, I just want to It's like when you were sitting in third or fourth grade and you looked up at the clock and you wondered when class was going to be over, And I felt like seventy years between the time you looked up at the clock and you looked back down at the teacher talking amazing stuff. I mean time dilation. That's that's a perfect phrase, because that's

what it's like. I mean, just everything is stretching out, and I do feel kind of like like Carmine said, like when I was a child, and it's like that's going to be two hours from now, that's forever every hour. Right, It's like, well, I don't have to I don't have to worry about that until tomorrow. That's a long way away from

now. And you know, the distortion and time is palatable. And it's funny because no matter what your persuasion is, politically, socially, anything else, everybody has to admit that there is at the very least a displacement in the feel as to how time is actually moving, you know, one way or another. People don't know what day it is, they don't know what month it is. They they have no reason to keep track of these things. A lot of those marked events that maybe people made habits out of,

like Larry was talking about with the festivals. I mean a lot of that stuff. If it's the you know what, what do we have here? The oh my, it's it's the some blossom festival is here? I don't remember if it's the gin blossom or the honey blossom festival that is canceled, you know, near where I am a lot of other street fairs that might have taken place in your locality wherever you may be. Mister and missus listener, uh, you know, the the the cultural affairs, all this stuff

out the window. I mean, it's not just the NFL and the you know, in Major League Baseball. But go ahead. I just wanted to say, you know, and what I think is two as you and I. I think both of us actually are all three of us. I've just discussed this with Larry an Chuck off the air. But I had a friend who read my books and something say, you should have wrote this year earlier. Yeah, well sorry, I can only research so fast. I had no idea that people were going to act almost textbook. Yeah well, if

I had known I was fifteen, I would have written it then. Okay, yeah, yeah, you know it's we can only find the information. I didn't know we were going to get a crash course in what happens in the degeneration of people in the society, right if they you feel bad? I mean here, I wrote a book called Creating Chaos and the Curve. All right, that's really going to make it feel bad. Yeah see that,

you know what. I wasn't going to say that to Hilarry, but it really sucks that you put out Creating Chaos when you did, because quite frankly, it should have been put out this year. And I mean it's just yeah, those would have been two yeah, pre yeah, two good precursor books to have a look at the systems and action. Now. Yeah,

but but it would have been so time, you know. I mean, I'm expecting some other author to hijack you know, Larry's at least a general idea on the surface and come out now and say, you know what, or maybe that's already happened. I don't know. Well, and I would just add that you know, what Larry said and what I said a lot of people is that it's been said for There have been people that have been at the edges of society yelling for us to pay attention that something like

this was going to happen, and no one wanted to believe it. Everyone wanted to believe that people would just always defer to logic and they would always defer on the whole anyway to rationality. But that's not the way humans work. We're animals, we really are, and we behave in certain patterns, and if you put enough pressure on us, we snap. So you add all of the political division, to the isolation, to the media with ceaseless division to normally occur in stress and boom, Yeah, well, the good

news is the good news is we man through one question. If there was any question what our particular limiting cycle was, like how often do we go all jump off clifs. We now know seventy five years roughly about the lass. I's it. Seventy five years. Yeah, interesting, seventy five years is actually a fascinating, reoccurring thing. I urge people to look that up.

Seventy five year cycles are very interesting for a lot of things. But back to this idea that you know, there are people living seemingly in alternate realities because they may have snapped. I want to deal with this email.

And it's an old one, and it's funny because I was talking to Carmine earlier off air about the ridiculousness of YouTube commentary and somebody who had gone back into episodes Myth six and it was episode six of the JFK Myth series and it had started on me about you know, first of all, I'm looking at people criticizing sherf fees. Then I was looking at because she was on

that one. Then I was looking at the fact that there was somebody very recently making a comment that I was, you know, disinformation because I would not accept that George hw Bush was in Deely Plaza. Okay, even though I've already given many a presentation regarding this on more than one Myths episode. We've talked about it, we've mentioned it, we've sub referenced it, we've shown you the pictures, We've done all kinds of stuff, and I'm disinformation

because I won't admit to that. But okay, fine, that's YouTube. It's successful. I get it, And welcome to our listeners on YouTube. I know there's some of you out there that that's all you do, but sadly, look at the comments under my shows and you'll see why I'm frustrated. All right, anyway back to this or maybe you'll agree with them and

you'll pile on whatever have at it. But here's the thing. Yeah, I just wanted to add so just for show title ideas Myths letters from the public, because basically, these are going to be a lot of responses to enduring myths that we hear over and over that we've covered some of them, but they just won't go away, so apparently they need to be brought up again. Yeah, Unfortunately, which is why there's a lot of repeat material that's gonna occur, which is why I haven't done a myth series lately,

because it's like, I don't want to do the same ones again. I want to do some new ones. And we could do like, you know, the greatest hits run down in the last thirty minutes or something, but I want to hit the new stuff. Anyway. You can't because of new stuff. Well, aha, there you have it. It's the recycling of the same old that we end up having to bat down over and over. Yeah, they recycle it. They put a new twist on it. It's like, look, this is a baseball bat and it's colored, uh,

purple. It's like, yeah, but it's still a baseball bat, you know, but it's purple. Yeah, but it's a baseball bat, dude, it's the same thing it was before. He is. Uh. Ideas are like rocks. Some people build things with them, and some people bash other people in the head with them. That's perfect. Where did you get that from? I made that up, and that was something I said to

somebody once. Nice Okay, quote Carmine Savastano on that one. Ideas are like rocks, Some people build with them and some people beat each other over the head with them perfect. Uh. On that note, I got an old email a while back because you and I have discussed mk ultra, and we discussed it recently at length, right, but other times that we brought up mk ULTRA and I talked about the ethics involved with testing unnowing subjects with

chemicals. Uh. And and I talked about how this, you know, literally violates you know, the the Geneva Conventions against Medical Testing international law on several levels, YadA, YadA, YadA. And yet the government does participate in this. I pointed out in a couple of shows and said that something called Shad Operation Shad had occurred under JFK. And I got an email a while back and really just kind of let it sit in my inbox because I

didn't get a chance to address it. But I had somebody give me a two or three paragraph complaint about how I made this up. And here's the sad thing. Right before we went to air tonight, I asked Larry Hancock, do you remember Operation Shad or do you remember a Project one twelve? And look, nobody can remember everything. Larry's an expert on stuff like this, and probably we'll find it interesting in context, but not necessarily. Everything is in Larry's head at all times. So he said, no, I

never heard of it. I said, well, I assure you it exists. I'll tell you what. Why don't you just do a take whatever search engine you got, open it up, and just enter the following phrase ship board hazard and defense, which is what shad shad stands for. If you do that, you will come up with government websites admitting that this happened.

Now, why is this worthy of mentioning in this context? Because JFK authorized and Robert McNamara authorized testing basically of exposure to chemical and biological agents to military men who did not know they were being exposed to said agents. And this happened in the Pacific South Pacific, excuse me, And happened in the waters just off the coast of I believe, Alaska, and so on and so on. Meanwhile, Project one twelve is one of one hundred and fifty examinations

of things that we're supposed to go on during that time period. Now, I'm not saying that this is you know, major headline news or anything, but a simple search on the Internet would reveal to you that I didn't make it up. Now, I can make mistakes, but being accused of making up things out of thin air because I want to a smear John F. Kennedy, I'm really not one of these guys who worships the ground he walked on. Nor am I one of these guys who wants to demonize him.

I want an objective view of his historical relevance to be had, and I've got my arguments about things he did, things he didn't do, whatever. But bottom line is, I didn't make it up. And I'm not even going to give you the link to Shad. Here's what I want you to do. Google exactly the phrase, or use whatever search engine you like Shipboard Hazard and Defense. Just do that and you'll see that I didn't make it up. You can interpret it slightly differently from me or whatever. But my

point about it was test subjects and biological or chemical agents. That was the point of it, and that's why I brought it up, and that's why I didn't expound upon it, because it wasn't part of MK Ultra or anything. It was an example of something else where the government had participated in,

something that was not meant to be seen by the public. Even if you look at the National Security Action Memorandum connected to it, you'll find that the agency in charge basically said, yeah, we don't think anybody's ever going to question this adequately. They're not going to find evidence that we did this. I'm not kidding. By the way, go ahead and look it up. Please, it happened. Okay, sorry, CARMI, go ahead. They might want to look up Project shed Okay, fair enough, Project shatter,

Project one twelve. Yeah, those two things will work. Yeah. And that's you know, I mean, it's not just the case with the Kennedy government. It's the case with prior governments. It's the case with later governments. You know. They they did things to prison populations, they did things to student populations, they did things to military people. I've met some of the victims of Agent Orange that Kennedy dispatched as well. Well. But there

you have it. My point was not necessarily to point at JFK aspre but but that was the thing. Is even the guy that that people think of as squeaky clean was you know, well, will we know about mongoose? No, no, no, no, no. There's plenty of stuff that went on, and this is just the way of doing business. For our government, understand that part of it. The one person alone can stop it

or change it. There you have it. But my point again was only that you know, people always like to say, well, Kennedy was absolutely opposed to covert operations and wasn't ever part of anything that was kind of dirty and yet not really true. I'm just just saying, God, go ahead. I was just gonna say, you don't get to that office if you're

not part of something dirty, thank you. Okay, that was my whole point in a nutshell, And I know I just took up time and I apologized, But here we go. This is the problem with people, though, that want to make assertions and decide that people are disinformation or misinformation agents on one level or another. But here's your problem. If you don't have any information to begin with, how are you even making that sort of claim

against me? Okay, so first first, maybe do a Google search or search on bing or I don't care what your search engine is, Duck duck, go, doesn't matter. Do something, look something up before you accuse me of, you know, just making up things out of thin air. I really don't do that on here anyway, And I don't allow others to do it either. I mean, we can speculate and we can discuss theories or whatever, but generally speaking, I'll always turn to, well, what

do you have to back that or to make that make sense? What do we know in general that can be pointed to to make it make sense. Sorry, that's part of my methodology, but it's never going to be made up anyway. Enough of all of that, because now we're like twenty minutes deep, and I didn't mean to even go this far. We want to discuss some of the prevalent myths in the official record regarding the JFK assassination.

Of course, we already discussed the George HW Bush thing. But anyway, Larry, by the bye, I did mention you and and used you as an example there, But I mean, I'm telling the truth here. This is exactly what went on before we went to air, right, Oh? Absolutely. And I thought it was interesting that the first line item that came back up in my search was a US government public health website releasing an internal document study on the project. So it wasn't it wasn't you know, questionable

it. I was kind of actually surprised to see something that authority show up as the first hit, and it's very comprehensive in a neat event. So yeah, absolutely, yeah, And I'm not even saying I told the whole story. It's just I'm explaining the reference, you know, And if you go look for it for yourself, as Larry did, you'll you'll find out maybe why. And it's not something I you know, wow, he discovered this, It was not hard to discover. It's just there anyway, other

things that may or may not be hard to discover. For that, I'm going to begin with Carmine and let him sort of lead off here as we're already, like I said, more than twenty minutes deep. But I want to get to some of this other stuff, and who knows, we may have to make other references to things, maybe not necessarily on the official story, so to speak. But go go right ahead, sir. Well I

figured we would, you know, we want to do both. You started with a public myth, so you know that's recurring that people just don't seem to be you know, that they want and that you know, And I'll go right into this in a second, but just to speak to that one more second, and I'm sure Larry might have something to say about it. But we've all dealt with and unfortunately, we all will deal with people who will just make the false claim that what you're saying is untrue or disinformation because

they have no evidence for what they're saying. In fact, we know some people can writ a series of books like that anyway. Uh you know, I mean that's that is the unfounded criticisms basis. They really don't have any evidence, They really don't have anything to offer, so all they can do is try to tear down the person with evidence. I mean, that's really the only defense left to them. But it needs to be recognized that just

criticism without any sort of basis and rationality is useless. Being critical exactly, but be reasonably critical. Oh no, listen, I'm all for challenging the assertions of nearly anyone. Yeah, you know, go for it, Bass, But yeah, bring something to challenge it with, That's all I'm asking.

I mean, even if you have an anecdote from somebody who is a relevant witness that contradicts the official story, and you just have one anecdote, at least that's something, you know, I mean, you should bring more than that, because just a witness to something happening is not really good enough to make a full spectrum assertion because an individual's memory is fallible and things like this and could be mistaken. Their perspective could have been restricted. You might

not have a full view from their vantage point being represented here. They might have missed a lot of things. But you start putting together a bunch of them. You start putting together, Oh, here's some documents that contradict this. Here's some other elements where there are assertions made, and we have something contradicting. You know, say a vehicle or something is supposed to be in a particular position at a certain time and you find evidence that it was not

there because it happened to be elsewhere. Now you start to have a whole lot of things for your argument. Yeah anyway, yeah, yeah, you make a basis of substantial evidence. You know, if you're gonna be critical, fine, that's good. We should all be skeptical of everything. But you have to have a basis of substantial evidence to be critical effectively. Otherwise you're just yelling exactly, And and that's unfortunately it's not just limited to one

side. Ah, both sides just love to yell at each other, and that was one of the things I wanted to bring up first. I think one of my favorite things that I see happen over and over is people using outdated material to try to lecture other people. Yeah, well that's that's one of my favorites. Well see, and that's the other thing. And again, I'm gonna off road for a second year because uh, you know,

Larry just put out this book in Denial and again I I do. You're gonna hear a commercial for it during the break even and there is brand new information in that book, okay, regarding the Bay of Pigs in the circumstances. Now, I'm not going to entirely spoil it. We had a discussion which partially hit upon it the last time that Larry and I did a show on the book. But here's the thing. At all times, new information can be added to an equation, and in fact, you've got to be

careful to not have outdated information no matter what your position is. And you know, Larry, if you wouldn't mind speak to that for a second. Sure, I think one of the one of the things that we're facing is that, especially in regard to JFK or the Baya pis. We're so far from the event that most people have locked in their heads either an opinion about it or their personal take on it, and they really don't want to leave that. And sometimes, you know, you're making a point that new information

becomes available. I don't know if they if they don't want to engage with it because they're concerned that they might have to do just that engage with it, like, oh geez, if I really take this seriously, I might have to change my opinion. And you know, we've learned by now. The other thing I've learned for sure is that whenever I say something that agrees with someone, I'm just a lot smarter than the opposite. They do not want to hear what I have to say. They want me to say what

they're saying. You know, that's just that's reality. And so yeah,

it's just human nature. So for whatever reason, there's a lot of a version it seems like to engage if you go on to the forums and so okay, I introduced a new book, as Chuck said, and I was pretty specific in saying, we now know of things about JFK and the Bay of Pigs that we didn't know when the history books were, and in fact, we haven't known them up until this decade, and we know things about the Bay of Pigs that JFK didn't know his actions, you know, what

he did right or wrong. He wasn't aware of all that was going on, and now we know this. Okay, So that's that's a pretty striking historical event. So you would expect things, especially JFK fans, if you would, people interested in his presidency, to engage with that. Certainly I did. But what I found was after I had said that, and after I'd posted a couple of times, almost like in a teasing or challenging manner, there was no response. And I look back, and what I see

are people discussing the rifle in the school book depository. You know, who was Jack Ruby really, or things that you know, things that we have been things that are already decided like decades ago, fifty play and you know, and they're discussing them with no information. Okay, I think that's the that's the other point that you were just bringing up. They're discussing them with the same information that we've had all along. So how where can that possibly

lead? I can't explain it, but it's it's it's yeah, yeah, I guess it does because and it's it's also a little bit different. I see. Maybe it's a comfort level, but I see more and more people dropping back into not what I could would consider critical exchanges. Uh, but defending ter h without naming names, I will. I recently saw a very good historical researcher come on to a form and try to do a point counterpoint and it just didn't work. And he dropped me a note and and said,

you know, is this am I wasting my time? And the answer really was yes, you are, because it's it's not an open minded approach to the subject. People have become fans, you know, there are fans of various positions, and it's like being a fan of an entertainer. Once you become a fan, like if people don't like the person you're a fan of, who cares? They're evil? They're you know, they you just

don't want to hear a problem. You know, I love this person, so don't even talk to me. But that's where we are now in in historical research, which okay, you can be that way as far as entertainment tonight is concerned, that's fine. But history shouldn't be that way. Absolutely true. I just wanted to quickly add, and I think you're correct, Lary, But I think what it is is that some people don't realize the

difference between historical research and historical fandom. They believe that historical fandom is historical research, and it's not because historical fandom doesn't have evidence. Historical fandom doesn't have standards. Historical fandom as people threatening each other's lives over dead people, which is ironic. It's almost like, Okay, I want to fit history to my other agendas. You know. It's not history, is what it is. It's just I have some other attitudes and agendas and let me look

for some history that supports that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, how can I mold the story to what I want it to be? And that's the danger of the parlor game. Yeah, which is fine when you're trying to bolster an assertion of opinion, you know, like, look, I want to say that the US government does things in the dark quite often and the people don't know about it, So let me show you examples of that in the history. Fine, that's fine, but you can't just ignore the new

information that doesn't put this in context. That's the thing. You know, all the time I go to l Larry context. Go ahead, because this is important, you know, need and absolutely needed, you know, to make the assertion that, you know, the the US government has always got the the moral high ground in every circumstance. Okay, Look, if that's your opinion, that's fine, but you're gonna have to really produce some interesting information to prove that one out, you know. And I'm not saying that

they're always on the low road either. It's just a matter of there is a dynamic and it emerges out of necessity or perceived necessity. And a lot of circumstances are not even necessarily tied to an agenda. They're tied to a reaction, and you have to examine it understanding that there could be a variety of motives for these things. Okay, And again, new information is always

good. I mean the stuff in Larry's book. Again, you know, it should be added to the historical understanding of a key circumstance when examining the presidency and even the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Yeah, okay, it is significant in any new information, even beyond what Larry has put out or beyond, you know, the the revelations about well gee, you know, field commanders might have had control of what they call tactical nuclear weapons during

that time. This is relevant stuff. Whether it was known at the time or not, whether it was known twenty years later or not, it's relevant and you got to examine the whole of the circumstance anyway. With that,

like I said, I turn it back over to your Carmine. Well, yeah, no, no, I think that those were good points, and I think what Larry said is important because a lot of people are engaged, and I'm sure all three of us and maybe even many of the listeners have experienced people who are unreasonable, people who are not there, and unfortunately it's troubling. But I suppose to me because I saw it so much at one time, amusing at the same time that there are actually people creating little mini

conspiracies amongst themselves to prove the bigger conspiracy. So there are competing factions among factions as where like you'll notice on the people who support the government's position are

pretty monolithic for the most part, not all of them. I think that we have some friends that aren't part of the monolith who are who might disagree with us on the end of the case, but they agree with us there are certainly problems and there were certainly illegalities that occurred that need to be investigated.

So and I think that's the most reasonable position the people who are somewhere in the middle, not the people who think it had to be a huge plot, which it wasn't because they can't prove that, or the people who think nothing happened except for Lee Harvey Oswald, because that can't be proven either

was he. And there's the thing we can come to an agreement though, that you know, his his right to legal representation, that he was complaining about Lee Harvey Oswald, that is is a valid complaint, Yeah, Or the presumption of innocence, or the not using criminal standards, or that he

was murdered before he got any sort of due process or you know. Yeah, there's a lot of good, legitimate legal complaints to be made, and to dismiss those because you believe what the government says is the same as dismissing all of the government's claims because you believe in what Judy Baker says. Yeah, exactly. So with that, like I said, let's get into this

specific well, and I'm going into it. So let's go into some of the ridiculous things that just in the last ten years, uh, some of them from some of us, you know, not just people here, but people we know, you know, from the the people who are actually what I consider more reasonable, that are using evidence to prove things rather than trying to beat people about the head with their ideas. And one of the people a name I would offer is Jacques Richardson, and I'll throw in the references

the show we did on him. But Jacques Richardson, who for a long time was known as Thomas Casson or Cassison, I always mispronounced off to ask Allen Dale again, has I believe that because it rhymes with assassin or sounds like assassin, I always pronounced it. But that's okay, Yeah, I know I've heard Casasin, Cassassin, Cassison, and I never even try to pronounce it. I have a hard enough time of spelling it, so I think that most fair enough. But now we know who we're talking about.

Yeap, Yes, but his real name is Jaques Richardson. Let's let's throw away the harder to pronounce pseudonym Richardson. So Jackson Richardson is a person who, in an official cable, told another CIA officer that he considered using Lee Harvey Oswald. But every day almost we hear in a group or online or by the press that they would never have considered using him. Yeah, guess

what, that's not true. They lied to you. They would they might have they And that doesn't mean that the whole of the CIA was in agreement, No, No, it just means this one guy told another guy, who both happened to be CIA officers, on the record that you know what, he might have some information we could use. Yeah, and we've also had a show where we've discussed how there was no problem using a paranoid schizophrenic.

Basically, yeah, forty operation callery, right. I mean to say that, oh, they wouldn't have used somebody because they weren't, you know, you know, is absolutely ludical. I mean. And also even here's here's another thing. Let's let's do this really quickly, dirtily, dirtily. That's funny. You know, when the CIA did collaborate with organized crime, do you think they gave them psychological evaluations before they decided to work with them.

Mister ROSELLI tell me, have you ever slit someone's throat and had bad thoughts afterwards? Does that give you nightmares? Sir? You know, come on, let's get right. When you're robbing a business, do you feel bad afterwards? Yeah, after you bust out a local business owner, I mean, are there are their feelings of regret? However, let me offer

a counter All that is true. However, there's another thing we've learned, and after having read umpty ump psychological profiles and polygraphs, what they were interested in was whether or not someone would a be useful and be reliably useful.

They might not have been concerned about any Let let's take a look at at staff D. Staff D in the CIA under William Harvey, its role was to uh do burglaries, to do break ins, to do strong arm attacks on couriers, basically to do whatever was necessary to get codebooks and coded messages and and basically stuff that the NSA and that the other side of the CIA was doing analysis could use. So were they concerned about using career criminals?

No, they needed career criminals their It's like here's my profile. It's like, okay, I want somebody who's really reliable, who's done this lots of times, does not make mistakes, is really effective, and you know, so they went out and the Office of Security essentially contacted the FBI said kind of like, who can't you catch? You know who does this stuff? And I want them, and it's okay, I'll tell you when I'm using them so you don't arrest them. Then okay, but you've also got to

put yourself in that. The CIA is, you know, from a task. It's this is my task, So who do I want the same thing with DEA. With when the CIA started expanding its operations in Latin America in the sixties, basically it went to DEA and said, you know, I'd really like list of the drug smugglers that you're aware of, because I really want the big ones, the good ones, the ones you guys can't catch, because I may, indeed to smuggle some stuff out or in, and

you know, would you set me up? And then you find a letter coming back from the DEA saying, well, we gave you that list, but now we find out those people that we were using as sources on smuggling aren't talking to us anymore, and we think they're just talking to you and that you stole them. So there's also a very pragmatic, practical reality check on this too. It's not just ethics. Of course, they will use people that they need to do things that are good at doing those things.

Yeah. Yeah, no, no, I totally agree with that. I think the problem is that where we run into problems is is no matter how well intentioned they are, there's two things that automatically occur when they do so that we saw happen over and over. One, they're bad judges of character. They're very bad judges of character, fair enough, but in the queues, Yeah, they automatically connect themselves to criminality forever. That will be discus.

Oh, although I might argue her mind that I'm maybe they're really good judges a character because they picked the guys that are the most benal. I mean maybe, but I'm talking about what your qualifications were. Well, okay, yeah, what you said earlier, like that they were reliable effective,

That's how effective they were. Yeah. It brings to mind a couple of uh of things from the jfk assassination, where you know, someone would refer a lead to an investigative committee or whatever, and the response would be, well, you said that I should go talk to these people, but you know they have criminal connections, and you know, should I believe them or they've been involved in crimes. You know, it's just going to be a

useful lead. And it's like the response would be, well, we could introduce you just to like the local charities and you know, a covenant of nuns, and you know you could go talk to them, but they probably don't know what you want to know. And see that's the thing. And also, let's keep in mind, does get away from criminality for a minute.

If you just need an actor to go out and sort of ferret out other people, you could say, hire somebody who is quite happy to make a spectacle out of themselves, like say, by I don't know, handing out pro Castro flyers in an area where it's going to either upset anti Castro people or draw out others who might be sympathetic. Because this person is just simply willing and happy to go out and do that. They don't have to be proficient in anything else. They can be useful as sort of a phishing

lure one way or another. So again it's situational Larry, isn't it. Oh, it's absolutely and I think you really captured something there. It's totally situational and and in reality, you've got to put yourself in the mind of the portion of the CIA that might find a use for Lee Oswell. You know, a bland statement that we would not use Lee Oswell as a spy is as you know, that might be sane, But the point is Lee Oswell's been to Russia and he comes back, and if I'm in domestic operations,

am I not going to try to get information from this guy? Well? Of course there are parts. There are lots of parts to the CIA, and if I didn't, I wouldn't be doing my job. The thought, the thought, and of course now we can prove it that domestics contacts did get information from him and was interested in him. But it's just there's got to be a sanity test on that. Of course, there are are

elements of the CIA and that for that matter, of the FBI. We know that the FBI contacted le os Will after his return, and it's in their report that he says, oh, yeah, I will let you know if anyone comes in contact to me that might be subversive or you know, interested in violating what he volunteered to be a source for the FBI. So why would you be surprised when after he gets abusted in New Orleans he wants

to talk to the FBI? Right, just amazing? Well, yeah, and look from a more pragmatic standpoint in case somebody's saying, okay, well this is very fanciful and very interesting. I mean, what is useful and what is situational? Well, let's look at it this way, and how much of an asset does somebody have to be to be useful in an operation. Let's take it to a whole other realm. You want to find out where the drug deals are. Ask a junkie. Now, is that junkie

normally reliable? Is he normally the guy you want to go to for information? Not necessarily so, But I bet if you have a little bit of pressure on him, like, hey, look, we won't bust you for possession this time or put you in for three years because you got caught. If you just tell us where a couple of drug dealers are, Suddenly the junkie's pretty useful if they don't know where the dealers are. And yeah, yeah, and it becomes dangerous to the people that provide him with the drugs

because he could become an informant. And that makes a lot more sense to explain some of the You know, as I've said before, it's not definitive any in any way. Anyone that tells you they know the answer of the JFK case is lying to you. Right, No one knows the answer yet, but there is certainly a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that it is

not the official answer. And as I was talking about outdated information, you know, just the other day in one of the groups that I'm one of the Edmunds in, somebody brought up Gerald Posner's book from nineteen ninety two that's before the the ARB. Well, not only does he not have any of that evidence, he doesn't have any of the new evidence. So how could you possibly say that that book is in any way definitive about anything. You

might as well go read the Warren Commission. There you have it. That's about how contemporary it is. Well, and let me add a piece of new information. I think that it actually is going to be showing up in my final work, which should be out by the end of the next month. On the Mary Ferrel site. We've all there's been a statement made that you know, nobody in the CIA CI operations, CIA, say at JM.

Wade really would have known about Lee Oswald. Now, what is interested is a piece of new information that and I can only touch on it here. But the point is, if you look at his activities in New Orleans, the first person that he contacted about kind of entering the Cuban scene in

New Orleans was fellow at the A Language School. Well, as it turns out, the fellow at the language school was not a not only a close friend to Brinear, he was Yeah, he was the brother of a senior SaaS CIA officer stationed at jam Wave who was working projects against Cuban diplomats in New York City and Mexico City. This guy's father was also New Orleans ultra

right. But the point is you had the first person that contacts the first person that would have known anything about Lee Oswald, and the first person who actually tapes the debate with Lee Oswald and the guy from INCA and integrates it into propaganda is the brother of a SASS information's officer or an inteligence officer at Jmway. And if you don't think that that information was shared between New Orleans

and Jmway, you are being awfully nigive. Well, I just wanted to add real quick too, that you know at all of that, then you look at I mean even before decades ago, when people found out Richard Sneyder's connection to the CIA. When Oswald gets there, Oswald, it's a net. The whole thing is a net. There's no way the CEA I didn't know. And Richardson firms that they knew about Oswald while he was in Russia. They've known about him for years at that point, so to say that

they didn't know is just a lie. We can see in their files they knew. But we still find that disgust. It's just to make a list of things that we really just don't even worry about anymore, you know, take this for granted. Uh, Yeah, Oswald was a source. Oswald well known he was. I was shocked, I had to say, and

here's a confession. Shock of the many things I don't know, I was shocked to find out and researching that particular thing, that information had been provided both to ciapace officers and d R E. Headquarters in Miami, and that in late August and September, multiple Cuban exile organizations had written pieces about Leonswald and written complaints to Congress naming him, naming him as a danger as an illustration of how Cuba was subverting I mean, this guy, this lone nut

that nobody knew about, was the subject of multiple let protest letters to Congress from Cuban exile groups. The same Cuban exile groups were holding supposedly secret meetings in Chicago that Richard Kine said he heard about where they were talking about assassinating the president. Yes, it just the fact that you could complain that this was a guy was a loan nut and totally off the radar, like kind of like Phillips does in Mexico City's like, oh, he was never even

on the radar. What ard were you looking at, David? You know, he's on all of the radars. That might have been true for a couple of the days he was there. One of them, he wasn't on the radar because someone else calling themselves in once we checked at eleven pm at nine and he was not on the radar on a well and you know of course Jade Or Hoover never heard of him either, right, I mean again, yeah, after he called to what Hosty and the guy in New Orleans.

I can't remember that guy's john something Liggett is that I can't remember his name? Oh no, No, Liggett was one of the medical people. Uh yeah, Oh that should come to me, the one FBI officer in New Orleans that was actually blocked by Lindon Johnson from offering information to the Garrison investigation. Oh anyway, so yeah, I think we could pretty well, I think we can pretty well kill that as a myth at this point in time. It's just like, do not use any more calories of energy discussing

that. Yeah. No, he had to have been known to most of the intelligence groups and likely others like the NSA, who might have kept all the copies of everything that they got from everyone else. See. The only intelligence organization that I believe had no awareness of Oswald was guess what, the Secret Service. I don't think they were ever communicated to about this, but every other agency pretty much that was concerned with intelligence had this guy somewhere in

their files one way or another. I mean, oh, go ahead, you're right, Jack, and you know why the Secret Service didn't know Now this is you want to talk about irony and black humor. The only reason the Secret Service would have known about Lee Oswald if he had been is if he had been reported as a threat, and you'd to protect a services file like okay, no, everybody else is doing collections, but the Secret Service is only interested in threats. And no, he's not a threat. Never

nobody ever suggested him being a threat. He never, he never said a word. Just about that for a minute. This guy is in doubt, right, he's in He's in the heart of what we now consider, you know, a red state, as anti Castro, anti Cubans, fossil and he's he talks to lots of people. He talks to people at work. He does talk to people. But clearly you know in the one place that you might expect a threatening comment to report. Oh this dirty comedy doesn't like

the resident. Nope, nothing about Lee Oswell ever, right right, and and not as though they didn't have a list of names, they had these little books that they used stab with the with the picture and the vital statistics on everybody who would have been a threat. This is part of what the advanced teams. Did you know. I'm not exactly thrilled with the Kennedy detail book, but it illustrates exactly how these guys would behave and Osweald's not part

of that book of possible threats in the area. Just yes, okay, and here's another myth. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna bring this up as a myth. Commie, all right, you may have already a listed Let's talk about security in Dallas. I mean, one of the myths that I still see discussed constant is you know the Secret Service didn't you know JFK was sacrificed in Dallas because they wanted to be killed. They were part of the

conspiracy. What we know now is that the Dallas police and the Secret Service went to an immense amount of trouble because Dallas had been a hot bed of violent protest. I mean, Linda Johnson and Ladybird had been chased down streets in Dallas and hidden in hotels by what violent women's protesters. You had Atlie Stevenson beaten with signs in Dallas. There was a real concern in Dallas. And when Lawson says in his Secret Service report, that they took special considerations.

Yeah, they built, they built mug file books, they built they went out and interviewed people, They interviewed reporters, they collected photos, and they built up this big case book of people that were felt to be likely

to be violent, violent and protesting demonstrations. There was a large effort to deal with that because they considered the security threat primarily to be violent demonstrations and primarily at the Trade Center, right, And that's why everybody, really from the head of the Dallas Police security detail for the trip was at the Trade

Center. That's so. I mean, you can argue about what happened on Elm Street all you want to, but the thought that the Secret Service and the Dallas Police were not concerned about security or threats to the president that they were aware of is simple not correct. Well, Also, Decker Sheriff's Department did work in advance of this. Uh you know, Jesse Curry had commented on it a bit before he died, for sure about the fact that there

were preparations in places that were taking by law enforcement. Now you can say that they were inadequate, obviously because the man's dead. But I mean, I'm just saying that there were efforts taken here. It was not like, Okay, everybody take a break and have a beer. That didn't happen, although although I was gonna say, I would note at least four Secret Service

agents did decide had been drinking. Again, I'm not trying to defend individuals, but but the point is from a from a an agency level, from a loss and level, from a it's just making a general blanket statement that there were no security cautions and nobody worried about it. Basically, what they were doing is and this is you know, it's nothing new. You tend to prepare for the threats that you know about and anticipate, and the Secret

Service was tuned in to close and personal. You look at the presidents who had been attacked and killed, they were done close range. Why people with pistols and so in Dallas, they were really concerned about that. They were worried about people getting too close to them, and they were worried about the protest. Now, right, the is that you always get out flanked. It's kind of like nine to eleven. It's the one that gets you is

the one that you weren't preparing well. Right, And look evidence really quickly before we go to break here. Evidence of the fact that there was some forethought involved here can be seen in the reality that Jesse Curry, the day before his visit to Dallas, was on television basically stating that no sort of you know, protest or you know, a disturb would be tolerated, and all this kind of stuff happened in advance of Kennedy getting there. So I'm

just saying there were efforts taken. Now, were they adequate, Well, we already know that they weren't. But that's not the case that it was just, you know, well just let it all happen. It didn't go down that way, and that assertion is still being made today. Anyway, Larry Hancock and Carmel and Savastano were with me, and we've just basically started to scratch the surface about some mythologies here. This may not be an official

Myths episode, but some myths will be taken down. Anyways, stick around the O'Kelly effectively be right back, Ocelly dot com, Wallstreet Window, Dott Gold Silver, the stock market, Wall Street Window dot dot. Perhaps you're invested deeply, perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started. Wall Street Windows on Condo don com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and

now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street streetdo dot Dot go there, now go there, Now go there Now. In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes 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 five else 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 learn from it. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations that are still happening today. 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 Larry Hancock. 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. Barmind Savastano Human time Bomb, The violence within our nature, poses significant questions and considers the evidence that violence shapes the past and present. Author and professor David Tbiato calls it an impressive tour deforce. Savastano shows a mastery of relevant work in

biology, anthropology, and intelligence. Each chapter will challenge readers to rethink old assumptions. Doctor of Psychology are Blackstock notes it is a long, hard look into the potency of our collective shadow that is extremely relevant in today's socio political climate. Historian and author Larry Hancock declares this work is a slap on the back of the head, a wake up call, and a serious reality check as to the true human condition. Order your digital and print copies now on

Amazon dot com. For more information, visit tpaak dot com. June Fan of the calls in to the Ocelli Affair. I just wanted to call in and tell you and Michael Swanson and JP Fapilion all of Baguett that you have how much I love your show. Always interesting, is always informative. I just wanted to tell you in person on the phone, I mean I love you. I love your show I love everything you do. I will always be there to support you. You know that we appreciate you so much.

You have no idea thanks. Most of our fans just hate mail and death threats. This is changing, seems less more frequently say we are now known soroun that fascot listen and not gnaw real So the past choose as the sun says, song, not the day, as two said, well, so besmust not w never say never do now you'll have tsar choose as that song says, song, not a day all rest said? When well, don that supposed to be nothing? Way, go ahead, call it the truth

about the JFA assassination. Right, well, what do you want to know? Toddy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby and Barrie answer weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon. But okay, Oswald on the building and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy, Come on now has a real effort on the Dafay assassination. Book into her 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 men fantastic claims. Juda's very Baker in her own words, Thank you information we should

learn from craft. We can get bring my brother where I'm coming from the best activated grade check the second hour of the Ocelli effect continues now here at Ocelli dot com. Course, like I say all the time, you could be hearing us elsewhere, and we appreciate you no matter where you are when

you are anyway with me Tonight is Carlin Savastano. Te pok T P A a k dot com is his website, and you can go and investigate Human time Bomb The Violence Within Our Nature, which is the latest work from Carmine to be released. Uh, there's probably more work in the works if you don't mind. But two princes and a King, for which the website is named after, tacoctpaak dot com is a concise review of three assassinations from the

nineteen sixties. But anyway, we're having a discussion about the mythology about one of those assassinations tonight and Larryhancock is with us again. Many many books. Surprise Attack Let's see in Denial is the latest, but whole world of stuff over there at Larryhypenhancock dot com, including Creating Chaos, which I argue he released a little too early, but anyway, it is what it is. Lots of work from Larry and an upcoming piece is going to be published at

the Mary Farrell website and can't wait to see that. But anything that you can find out about Larry's work, his thoughts, his blog, whatever, Larry Hyphenhancock dot com is where you go, and there will be links in the own notes. We are discussing the more more or less, although we've kind of gone off road a few times here. Uh, official mythologies and the things that people parrot based on the official mythologies we already covered in the

first hour. Lee Harvey Oswald would have never been considered to be used by intelligence agencies. Yeah, first of all, false doesn't mean that you know, Alan Dulles wanted to use him, uh, But it does mean that there were people that considered it seriously. There were people monitoring him from all

sorts of agencies. And I point out again that one of the least cooperative agencies out there when it comes to Kennedy assassination records we well know is the NSA, who knows what's in their files necessarily that you know, I don't even know what the solution is at getting at those uh at this point in

time. But we also had difficulty with the O, N, I and G. The CIA did have stuff in their files about Lee Harvey Oswold previous to his engagement as the alleged assassin, would pay no attention to that, or the CIA officers that worked you know, with him or around him, or were somehow placed in his proximity continuously throughout his very short life. Yes, Karl, and then that's what I wanted to add, just to belabor the point that you I and Larry made I think credit succinctly the last time.

But just there are a couple other names, you know, when people want to consider if to believe that he was not on their radar, as so many people still say, you have to believe that a seventeen year old was able to get into Russia by means of the most convenient spot known to intelligence. He had to go through there to get into Russia. Somehow with that knowledge, he has that knowledge. Somehow he gets into Russia, and

he just so happens. The first place he goes after settling in his best he can in the hotel well or before hotel I'm sorry, is to the embassy, where he declares that he is going to give secrets to the communists and rounds as his citizenship. The person he says that to is a former

CIA employee. He is then the former the other CIA employee he who McVicar, who informs reporters about him and tells Priscilla Johnson McMillan to have a meeting with him, which she does and is later used as the basis to impune him. He is then told to other reporters like Aileen Moseby and others that he's around if they want to go interview him, so he cannot be not

known to at least that cadre of CIA people who reported it. Yeah, former CIA, you said, though, that's why weller or consultant or informant or But the point is connection established in the documents. Yep. So it's not just a coincidence that he gets handed around by people with connections to intelligence groups almost everywhere he goes, right, and as Larry stated, when he comes back to the US, he's dealing with you know, the anti Castro

Cubans and all these Yeah, it's funny. Ruth Payne's sister, Sylvia Hyde Hoki, who worked for the CIA and asked Ruth Payne about the Oswalts that's in files too. Oh yeah, is that another coincidence? Coincidences must we accept until hey, maybe they knew, maybe they had some idea about the

guy. Yeah, some inkling to who this man might have been. Mm. Probably couldn't even fit all those people in a good sized room during the age of coronavirus, to be honest with you, with social distancing in place. So yeah, there's a lot of them. Yeah, connections knew about him. And then there's you're gonna need to pick a room. You're gonna need a ballroom probably by the end, yeah, exactly. So yeah, but but still people will say, well, there's absolutely no proof that there

was any action. Now, look to say that he was, you know, James Bond type character CI agent himself. Uh, you also don't approve for that. Yes, no, no, no, there's yeah, it's he could have been unwitting. That's another thing I think a lot of people overlook. Oswald was a young, dumb kid, Okay, right, He wasn't a genius, he wasn't a mastermind. He didn't have any sort of experience in life. He could have been easily manipulated. Yeah. I always

find that. Let me close that, let me close that out. And of course this is anecdotal, but I think it really kind of closes it out. One of Joe and Edes was not his only case officer for the DRE. Another case officer for the DRI working actually in New Orleans during the same time that Lee Oswall was there, and later years was asked by like his daughter about Lee Oswald and he he really said, I can't talk to you about it. But Leoso was a useful idiot. And I think that

captures exactly what he would have represented to the intelligence agency. Yeah. And I think it's the universality of that phrase that needs to be considered as well, too, because useful idiot is what all the agencies called people that were useful to them. Yep, and mark the Yeah, the Soviet Marxists used useful idiots. That's what the Western Communists were to them. They were intelligence. That's in the internal dictionary. Okay, useful idiot is okay, yep.

We all know what they are, right, yeah, and we all use them. And younger people are easy to manipulate, well, especially when especially when based on just about you know, I don't know at least a dozen anecdotal accounts about the guy state that he thought he was a bit more clever than he really was, I mean, in other words, and obviously useful idiot and a loyal one apparently, and a loyal one. That's the other thing so interesting that I wonder would that be the right guy to try

and manipulate? Or do you want the most intelligent, critical thinker possible who might be questioning things at every turn and might not think that they just simply know how all things work and they are well informed when they are not. Which one would you prefer as his? As his views of Marxism would show us there, but they're not right, you know what? What is the

difference between Marxism and uh you know, Marxist Lenistists and communism exactly. Well, you know there's this many cars here in Cuba and there's a yeah, okay, anyway, what else do we have car mine? Because okay, so now let's perhaps jump onto uh oh. And as far as as you both said, yeah, we always have to introduce new evidence. You said that earlier in the New Ark. We always must introduce it, no matter if we like it or not, it must be introduced if we're going to

come to a reasonable conclusion. If you leave out any evidence, you're not going to get the right answer. It's just that simple. So now what you actually brought up to me that you got a message about the George W. Bush thing again, Yeah, yes, I did Daily Plaza. Oh, the hundreds of people that have been seen in Daily Plaza that weren't there

is amazing. Gotta say that's that's one of those things. And before you go any further, I'd like to actually turn it over to Larry for a second, because I'd love to know what Larry's favorite phantoms of the plaza are, because you know, over the years, everybody from E. Howard Hunt to George W. Bush, not just HW but W Bush have allegedly been

cited. I'm not I'm not making it up about that one, Okay, I've been cited in Dealey Plaza. I was wondering, Larry, what are some of your favorites that have been allegedly cited in Dealey Plaza that we we now know we're a figment of somebody's blurry imagination while looking at a photo, what are your thoughts if I if I want to annoy the maximum number of people, I would probably say right at the top of my list is Lansdale.

You know, you face, you can't really see his profile, you can only see his back and one suspicious hand with a ring on it, right, yeah, uh so that's I mean, that's got to be right up there, because you can't even like do a facial mash. You're doing like a hand recognition thing. V Larry was such a good movie. It was I know, I know, and then you another one of my favorites, and I have to admit, okay, I've been doing this for thirty years. I was so excited I bought a book. I'm not even to

name of the book now. That was was all about the Three Tramps and who the three Tramps really were, and somebody spent a ton of money on that book. You had glossy photos and oh, I know the book, the overlays and all that stuff. I mean, it was actually a good production. And so and I was like, I've gone through so many falsely for years, but here's here's what blew me away. So that that was someone of my my favorites that I really wanted to get behind, you know.

Okay, it's like, okay, that's that's really good. And then what blew me away on that one was okay, so the proposition is that Frank Sturge's was one of the tramps, okay, because he really look a lot like this guy in some photos. Well, then I then I went and I found a photo and I on a photo of Sturgis and Pedro DIA's Lance and Diaz Lance's brother. And for those of knew you that are not into all this, Dias Lance was a Cuban Air Force commander who defected very

close to Sturgis. In the early days after Sturgis came out, they flew joint missions against the cast Or regime really really tight for a while, and I went, oh, my god, this Pedro Diaz Lance looks more like the Tramp than Sturgis does. And I was convinced it with Sturgis, but he looks more like And then I looked over and I went, oh,

geez, and his brother looks even more like the Tramp. So here I've got three picture of three guys that increasingly look more and more like the Tramp, and I begin to wonder, Okay, this is a random three people in a picture. How many hundreds of people? You know? So so that that really was my favorite for a while and got blown away at this

point in time. And you know, there was an article that you know, I think he had a photo analysis of twelve different people, all suspects that would be in daily Plaza, and found, you know, reasonably good matches, including Richard Bissell, who I'd love to have in Dally Plaza. I mean that you read my book in Denial and you will find why Bistle would have wanted to be in Deely Plaza desperately. Not that I think it was him, but so those are those there's just no proof that he was

at this point in time. My position is, if I can come up with actual documentary evidence that a person was in Dallas that day and find a picture of someone in Deally Plaza who looks a lot like him, I'm willing to consider that. Other than that, No, No, it's just it's gonna to be the cut. And what I would add is that we have to have some ground rules. It's fine, as you know, as where Larry is nicer and more forgiving of such things. I do not accept any

of it unless it's a clear photo. None of it. Oh yeah, yeah, Because even if you use the most modern technology I think one of them is called chiros, it's just one of the tech systems to do facial recognition, you need a clear picture to even get a solid seventy five percent match. And if you can't get that sort of a match, you can't prove it in court. So I mean, we can look at photos to

the end of time. It's like the doorway man photo. People can say that's Oswald until the end of time, or somebody else on the stairs is Oswald. But unless you can get a bunch of witnesses that confirm that with a clear picture, you have nothing. You are just wasting everyone's time. So have at it. Just to be perfectly transparent. Okay, you asked the question, Chuck. So at this point in time, I do have one person who is a favorite, because, as Carmine just said, you

know, we have a frontal shot. It's a fairly clear photos. Matter of fact, we have frontal and side angles, and this is the dark collected complexion man on ELM Street. And I do have I speculate that that was Philip Avid Doll Santiago because I can prove he was in Dallas that day. FBI documents prove that, because he looks like him, and because interestingly enough, I also have photos of him wearing exactly the same type of beret

in the same manner as he shows in that photo. Now, having said all that, that's still speculative, but that would that would be the only one so far that I'm even willing to offer up with, you know, like a touch of sanity. Yeah, and that I think is reasonable. I mean, if you've got some evidence, which you do get evidence for the things that you claim, that's I am totally willing to entertain such things.

I just think that it's ridiculous that people are coming into groups and misinforming other people that they have the definitive answer when they have blurry pictures that they've convinced themselves look like something. And I know why Larry's laughing, because every so often, almost anybody who's ever discussed this on more than one occasion in

public will get inundated with photographs. And the photographs are really hilarious. I I would love to see a composite poster of this stuff one day, just just as a piece of art. When they are well, that's the thing. It's like, Look I dumped a whole bunch of yellow into the black and white photo with photoshop, and now it looks like And I'm like, you know what I'm talking about, don't you, Larry? Uh yeah, yeah, that's some Jackson. Now, once you get into that subject,

everybody, I mean everybody wants to play with photoshop. Everybody wants to play. And not that there aren't some people that are good at it, but you know, well, it disrupts the chain get lost in it forever. Yeah, I would just add it disrupts the chain of evidence because as soon as you manipulate something, it's no longer credible. You've changed it. You need the original, The original evidence is what's going to prove what you want,

you can't say. Well, after I've done all of these adjustments and all of these photos, and now that I've changed the blurs to look more like I want them to, this is what I think it looks. It doesn't make any sense the paint. That's the hilarious thing. Like about Oswald in the doorway, right, I'm not gonna get into this at length,

but I want to address it really quickly. The funniest part of that to me is do people know what the original photograph looked like and what the size was, because the blow up of this little tiny portion of the photograph by it's just by the fact that you've blown it up, is now ridiculous. I mean, it's not even Yeah, they've lost so much clarity just to get to what they want to say. The blur looks like yeah, I mean. And that's the funny thing is take a postage stamp basically and turn

it into a poster. Okay, that's what they've done, relatively speaking, And I understand when people did this in the seventies. I really do, Like Chuck, I just want to I have to note the universal irony of the partly blind guy having to lecture people about looking at pictures too much. Go ahead, Yeah, I know, it's great, isn't it. That's the thing, though, is that I've actually gone through the process of blowing

things up properly in order so that I had better access to them. Okay, I mean hundreds and thousands of times magnification in some cases, in order to examine some of this stuff. And at the end of the day, you've lost detail. I mean, it's just it's no longer there examining the original thing is this little tiny air. And that's the funniest part of it all is that they take up a piece of a wall and here's a shadow and it looks like somebody standing there, And it's just all day long with

this stuff. So I don't know what's worse. We've found somebody in Dealey Plaza ranging from this person, this person, that person, regardless of where we think they actually were at the time, versus here's a blur and now I think it looks like a person that might be holding a gun. Well, yeah, And it's just going to assure that in the future, if

someone is committed enough, they're going to find the evidence. And you're gonna look foolish because that's happened multiple times on the show where I and Larry and Chuck and a lot of other people, you know, Bill simpicch and you know and Stu Wexler and all sorts of researchers and people actually go and find the evidence have shown that those people were not where a lot of people are claiming they were. Like Miltierre, we took him apart on the show where

we showed he was in quipment Georgia. He was at home. They confirmed visually that he was there. Yeah, so there is no way he was in Deally Plaza. He was traveling around the country. He wasn't in Texas. Right, And look, my last little comment, and that is a perfect example of something that went on for years and years, and still, by the way, is going on. I'll give you one final example about this photographic nonsense. And and you know we we did steer away from the

official step and we're gonna go back to it. Hold on. But one last comment needs to be made, and that is about the badgeman because up, well, but that's the thing about it is that I understood when the technology was not there for this, and I understood that at a glance and looking at it, it appears this way. The problem is to literally have that figure where it is and to do the measurements to put it at the size it should be. I mean, unless somebody saw a step ladder behind

the fence, I don't understand how you have it. I mean, you're gonna tell me that he's standing on the bumper of a car. Maybe, uh, even though you have a really awkward position here that nobody else saw. Yeah, you know, people, I think people should apply the I think the term for it is Hitchens razor after Christopher Hitchens. Basically, if there is no evidence for the suggestion, there's no real you don't need any to disprove it. It didn't happen, or Ockham's razor. The simplest answer

is likely the most. So if there's a step ladder, it probably didn't happen. If these crazy things are required, it didn't happen. There you have it. But anyway, and look, I don't want to get into any other strangeness because there are witnesses that made claims about things and bla blah blah blah. But at the same time, there is not a foundation of evidence coalescing around a whole lot of assertions. And here's the funniest part about

you know, say, like Badgeman even firing from there. And I don't even discount the idea that somebody could have fired from the grassy knoll behind the fence. I'm not discounting that because there is some evidence actually that maybe there was a shot fired from there, and it comes from more than one place. But but we don't actually have evidence of it hitting Kennedy. Yeah, and there is a problem there, So is it relevant? Possibly? Is

it all true. It's a little shaky, But I'm so sick of people still bringing up Badgeman to me. Well, and I think that it goes back to any of these famous figures that people and feel free to jump in, Larry, I don't want to. I know we both will go forever on the subject. But I think that the the problem is is that you have to get into the mind of the person that you are trying to pin this on. So as in the case of George h or as in the case of George H. W. Bush, do you think that they are

so foolish that they would go to the crime scene? Is that what you think you think they're a mastermind, but they'll allow themselves to be in a photographed Yeah. And the other thing to compliment that, and and I've had this discussion with the main proponent is what good what role would it play, what purpose in the context of a shooting conspiracy? What value would there be to have that person there? You know, just risk everything everything, And

it's it gets back to here. Here's a myth that if you want to a myth that we're dealing with from decades ago, was this was an event of such a scale that everyone that was involved in it, from different agencies, different parts of government, senior government officials wanted to be in Dallas to see John Kennedy killed. They hated him that much that I mean, you both the big event, So dozens of people went to Dallas just to watch

it in person. And I would have to make the counter argument it may be in some occasions, you know, with with pyromane acts, that they do watch their crime in person. Uh, there are crimes where someone hates someone enough that for personal reasons they would do. I don't think you could make that case for Bush. And I can absolutely make the case that none of a an experienced shooting team, nobody that was willing to go into Dallas

as part of an orchestrated professional or experience operational effort. You don't want George Bush around, I mean, you don't need him. You don't want him. Why is he there? And they wouldn't reason, he has no functional reason. See, they get confused because we know certain historical facts like John Gotti was not too far away when Paul Castellana was killed. Okay, so that that that's a reality. But I think the locational get taken as evidence

is there. But but there you have it is that there are circumstances though that Larry just hinted at, where it does make sense that someone would want to see that the job got done, that someone would want to be there as a backup somehow, that someone would want to make sure that maybe the

assassin themselves did not escape because they were personally vested in the situation. I get it, But I don't see how that argument ever works regarding you know, George H. W. Bush and also bringing his son with him. You know, that's even more ridiculous, how much more sitbout Let me give an example. Okay, on the conspiracy side, rationally, I could make

an arm argument and give you a psych profile and everything else. It said that Richard Bissell truly did hate JFK and make an argument that he would be the kind of person that would like to see him dead. It's a revenge thing, Okay. I can make the argument that if Rip Robertson were running a team, that team would want to know that he was there with them.

He always been, had been them on missions into Cuba. It's sort of like, I'm going to do this, but I got to know that my guy is there with me. And at least those are logical arguments, either psychological or operational, for someone being there. George Bush, it doesn't apply to Howard Hunt for God's sake, and once again person in the whole world, but highly identifiable. Why do you do you want him there? Well, and it goes against the most basic prints military thinking, which is

why likely none of the military commanders were there. If you don't want to compromise your operation, you don't use identifiable people. That's always a good strategy.

Well, and we might as well surface another one that's come up lately, and it will will make me no goodwill, but it's the argument that that Allen Dulles would make sure that he was at CIA headquarters that day when it was going to happen, when during the Bay of Pigs, he had gone to great effort, not even to be in the country for the most important operations that the CIA had ever done up to that point in time. But he's he's known as having been fired at Kennedy, not being a fan

of Kennedy. But rather than staying home in his garden, he's going to go to CIA headquarters that way and do what what? What? What's he going to do at CIA headquarters. That's kind of like another well, Larry, don't you understand that's his alibi. Larry's champagne. Yeah, Okay, we're having an after party, Okay, Yeah, but not at the house. We're gonna do it at headquarters. Okay, so they can implicate us.

That's just about his operationally stupid you want another myth? There was a History Channel program about this with a CIA officer, Okay and I Will who went to great links trying to prove that Fidel Castro had a radio link set up from Havana to Dallas so that he conceptually could personally tune in to Dallas Police radio, Dallas news channels, or the f wire. Okay, like okay, but somehow he needed to hear from Dallas Police channel too, like

coordinate the attack. It's like, okay, this is Fordle you guys in Dallas stop because the police are suspicious. Yeah. Yeah, and you guys see program on TV. I mean, I mean it's it's they send out votes to intercept signals and it's just amazing. Well and again it's ridiculous because if you look at it, Okay, so what what what that proposes is is that a country who was still trying to get its food system together because

the revolution was only four years earlier, was doing high tech things. That's the proposition. We were redirecting the Yeah, they just had so much going on the Dallas Police channel. And remember now, which I defy you wait a minute, Larry, hold on a second. I defy anybody to go listen to the Dallas Police dicta Belts and you know, try and even sort out what the hell is going on. That is absolutely stupid. No, seriously, I mean there's a I mean, I know a lot of what

happened second by second indialy Plaza and still listening to Dallas police radio. I'm going, what what is that? And you mean to tell me in another language? Uh, these terrible CB radio issues. You're going to amplify that signal to make sure to relay it to Castro. How I hope you have a lot of transmission line read the books. That was my first questions, sort of like, and now there's a Cuban who said he did this right, So this is the basis of the whole story. I was in Cuban

intelligence. I worked for Castro. I monitor American communication. Well, okay, what American you know? Where? Who? What did you monitor for Dallas? Castro ordered me to redirect vi attan antenna like, well, okay, redirect my antennas to pick up conversations in Dallas. A little more detail would be good. On the surface. That just makes no sense at all.

Well, it's it's kind of like when that Bob Bears CIA program by yeah way trying to say everything that happened in Russia was like the CIA said, And as we've dissected on the show multiple times, no that's not what happened. In fact, you can't even prove he made every visit. You just took the word a KGB agents and hoped it was the truth. A mess, an absolute mess on both sides. And that's and that's the real message, is that whoever things they know what happened is lying to themselves.

You still have no clue about major portions of this case. There are a lot of so much more to be looked at. Yeah, absolutely true. Okay, so let's try and get through at least one more of these interesting points, car because we've got about, I don't know, twenty minutes left at most, so I'd love to get through a couple more if we could,

Carmine, Yeah, yeah, Yeah. One of my favorites is and I hope people won't think this is too overly simplistic, but it's one of my favorites because it was one of the things that I got to contribute something that helps our you know, And and I do attempt to be neutral, but I do believe in a feasible conspiracy. So I do not support the government's position, but I do respect some of the people who do, but

I don't respect many of the officials that do. But right, so, one of the holes in their case that I was proud to help contribute was the thirty hour hole, which is motive means an opportunity. So they have never demonstrated a motive even to this day, official or official supporter has ever demonstrated with evidence a proven motive. No, not a not a dim not a demonstrable motive that has never existed in the case. In fact, there

are contradictions to even possible motives that are documented. Yeh, but but there you have it. But it doesn't matter. He was just crazy, right, Okay, So yeah, they have no motive. So means, as we know, there are many problems, not even even if you because I'm one of the people who believes that the as I learned recently Carcino that the carcano was it had reasonable flaws, but it was an average weapon. But it was an average resale weapon, which other examples of the same lot blew

up. So it wasn't great, it wasn't horrible, but it certainly wasn't a good weapon, and it had flaws. So are the means strong enough to say definitively no? But not so he doesn't have a motive, He

doesn't have any definitive means. He has possible means, And we go to the park that I love most opportunity because, based on the evidence that the government has given us, he has roughly thirty hours over three days of incremental time to do everything, including come up with why he wants to shoot JFK. If he's acting alone, because he can't know before the newspaper put out

the parade route. It's just that simple real motive. Questionable means little opportunity, And the only way to expand his opportunity is to say that he was informed by someone who had been in the know, which means you have somebody helping him, at least from a logistical point of view. Hey, look, we know next week, this is where the man's going to be get ready. If you give him seven days, that's a little better, isn't it. Well, it's a hell of a lot thirty and thirty hours at

best. Yes. And here's another thing. If he was so committed, if all you have is a thirty hour window, one thing you might want to do is practice. But he never did that. In fact, there's actually no reliable evidence that we can show for in practicing purchasing ammunition. The FBI attempted to find those things, and we have, you know, a couple of anecdotes about a shooting range incident, one with which they couldn't prove

that the Commission had to dismiss them. So even they don't get behind that, right. I think it was Garland was the guy's last name that stated that he saw oswalded a shooting range shortly before. But that's it. Yeah, that's all he got. Yeah, and they can't even so, so he's got no practice. So where are his motive means an opportunity? They don't, As someone pointed out to me in one of the groups, they don't have to prove that legally. Well no, once they lowered the legal

expectations, they don't. But those are pretty standard. Most cases, from the simplest to the most complex, can prove those things. Judges look for those things. What are your thoughts, Larry Well, I mean I've heard it. Motive well, I won't even go there, but I mean I've heard that the time cut from thirty hours to about eight hours. Carmine, I mean and serious seriously promoted to the fact that there was no planning,

There was no preparation. Once Marina rejected moving in with him that evening and rejected his advances this all. It all occurred overnight, and it was essentially a spontaneous action as of that morning or sometime that night when he just you know, went into the garage, located the rifle, took it apart. You know that it was even less than thirty hours it was, which makes it even less likely. That's the whole problem, right, And that's seriously

been that serious. In fact, I think to some extent, actually that is the only that's the only one really it's but it's the only one that it would least be internally consistent. Well, I'm saying, yeah, they have to say that's that's all that works now, yeah, right, But it's not that he doesn't have to dislike Kennedy. It's just he's he's been driven nuts and he was now one of the things I would offer, and

I don't. I don't know how many listeners have done this. You can you can go online and look up a compilation of Oswald's last words, and these are the actual statements of record that he made from the time of his arrest to the time of his death, and they include things like he's worried about getting shoes for the older daughter and if you do this, It gives you a much better insight, I think into where his head was, and would be a refutation that that he had done anything as part of a either

a plan or a spontaneous Oh, I was temporarily insane, you know, Marina drove me to it. You know. Well. Another point against the idea that this was pre planned, by the way, is that if one assumes, let let's let's make assumptions for a second. You've decided you're going to shoot from an elevated position in the book depository with a rifle at a

moving target. Find you own a handgun, according to most accounts, and you don't bring that with you because you know, after you fire a gun, you might think to yourself, I might have to shoot my way out of here. He didn't have the pistol on him, not by anybody's stretch of the imagination. If I was planning on shooting somebody from an elevated position, especially because I thought that might attract the cops, I would bring the

handgun with me in case I had to shoot my way out. Yeah, So that only fits the spontaneous He went psychotic overnight because he was true. I mean, that only does not fit anything other than him deciding to do that spontaneously sometime in the early morning or late at night. Well, and the problem is is that basically what the official argument is now relying upon as the evidence accruise against it, is the God of the Gaps argument. It's

the evidence. It's the gaps and the evidence that they're hoping to hide him at this point, and that doesn't look likely as more evidence comes out, So we might want to reconsider that. You know what, It probably isn't true. The most fringe conspiracy ideas they're not true, But the most stolid official ideas that cannot even begin to imagine that it could be more than Oswald are probably not true too. That's correct, I mean that's the way I

see it. Anyway, Look as we come down to the last little bit here, I think you made interesting arguments and observations and we've been able to kick them around. Do we have one more we can maybe fit in? Well? Okay, yeah, so we motive means opportunity. Well, and i'd also go to that. Let's say, let's indulge for a second the idea that where they have now found themselves officials, that they must say he was crazy And he doesn't even have the roughly thirty, he's only got eight.

And if we break that down, yeah, eight at best. And what does he do with it? He watches TV, he hangs out with his kids. This is the most important day of his life. He's gonna try. So it's what did he dream about it? So he doesn't even have eight? When did think of this while he was watching TV or playing with his kids? Is that when you come up with an assassination plan? Well, see, one could argue that if you've already decided you're on a

suicide mission, maybe that is what you do with your time. Well, and that's fine, but you have to give us a basis for the suicide mission. I understand. But yeah, I mean they're just so. I mean, if that's what they want to believe, that's fine, you can. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they like in spite of the evidence. But it's not gonna be right. I mean, there is what is the substantial life? Even and then if you go into it, like how about

how about the witnesses that changed their testimony? How about that for a second, how about Marina, perhaps the most inconsistent witness in the case, red Lick from the Commission's on staffs that she lied to them, So you know, how can we rely on She gave two versions of what Oswald did that morning. She said he got up before her and then that she had to wake them up. In another version, what happened. We don't even know what happened. That's a good example of a myth. We we really don't

know what did happen that night. We all of the That's why one of the basic myths is that we understand the twenty four hours before the shooting, and we really don't certainly holes of it. I mean, you know, like what the thing. I tried to do a timeline to tract on as much as I could from the official files, but of course there's still holes. It's not like today. You know, there weren't people with's cameras everywhere showing you. They couldn't ping you to find out where you were. Yeah,

that's true, that's true. I've had that discussion with people. Imagine what would happen today. First of all, there would have been more than twenty films of Kennedy and Daily Plaza, and they might have been to put it on Instagram. High Lee go into the sub shop. Yeah really, I mean we we would have had Facebook check ins from Oswald. I mean, you know, it would have been a whole different circumstance. Of course,

there's going to be holes. That was back in the days when you didn't expect to see cameras filming you everywhere you went or people taking your picture. It was kind of a rare event. So you know, this is what I will put. I'll put for one myth that we can could deal with in like two or three minutes. Sure, and that is the myth that the Warrent Commission report itself was supported by all the commissioners. Oh yeah,

certainly not Bogs. Bogs didn't support it, Richard or Richard Russell didn't support it, for God's sake, and he was lying to the rest of them. The reason I wanted to introduce that was this gets back to the Grand Conspiracy. This is all well pre planned, and you know, all well orchestrated, and you know it's it's it's really professional and orchestrated conspiracy. In the end, we have what is arguably one of the sloppiest autopsies in

history. We have promis with all of the chains of evidence. The President actor trying three different approaches to shut this whole thing down with and at just an FBI report or a Texas inquiry or whatever, is stuck with the Warrent Commission, who has to browby for a warrant to lead. And then when it's all done and wrapped up in a report, several of the commissioners are

still not comfortable with it. Now, I got to tell you, if this was really a tightly orchestrated planned operation, it doesn't sound like it. Although I would add the counter here, Larry that statistically, when one examines the inner workings of the Warrant Commission, it might have been more likely called the Dullest Commission. And why do I say that? Because he's more active than any of the other commission members in seeming to steer the questioning asking questions

in the first place. Uh and and actually kind of moving the discussion along. If one examines the executive you know, the executive sessions and the record, it seems to me like Dullest is definitely steering the whole thing. Oh, I would agree with you, but I think that would be if this were really well thought out. To me, he's steering it, and he has to steer it, and Specter has to be to fill all sorts of

holes in a stupid manner. You know. You just look at at Spector and he's making things fit, like putting a size twelve into size six shoe box. Right, they have to make everything fit, which which speaks to me is that they're working after the fact, you know, like we got to sell the story, we got to make it fit. It wouldn't a

very good story to start with, right. Exactly What I would add too, is that you have to look at the reasoning because people assume, okay, well Alan dust was steering it, so he must have been behind the plot. Wrong. Alan Dulla set up assassination plots against Castro, and if any of that came out, his life was over, his legacy was destroyed. That's right. Lots of things not to talk about. But yeah,

no, that's a very good point. That doesn't get back more that just that's just what happened, and there would have been good reason to do that. I would just the myth that the myth that this was all well organized, coordinated and everything worked precisely certainly isn't reflected in what happened afterwards. No, No, a well loyaled machine. It was not. I would say that if any reason to believe that the government might have been involved is not

because of how well it functioned, but because of the disarray. Well said, what's the old phrase there, Larry good enough for government work, oh man. And you know what, I think that is a perfect way to bring it to an end tonight, because this is the reality of the situation. You're not looking at a well oiled machine after the fact for sure, which again means there were a lot of reasons for a lot of cover ups, and they don't necessarily mean that it was somebody covering up their own crime.

They were maybe trying to dissuade people from kicking over the wrong stone, which I do argue that Jim Garrison did. He kicked over the wrong stone,

lots of them. And that's why they wanted to destroy his investigation, not because he had the answer regarding who was responsible, but because there might be other things that would see the light of day in a public court, like at least a dozen of their informants in New Orleans, which is the problem again, to see, they didn't destroy the Garrison investigation because he was right. They destroyed it because he got too close to stuff they never wanted

ever to be seen by the public. That's what the problem was. And in that case, if you transfer that over to the Warren Commission, and the fact that Alan Dulles, as I said, statistically, was more involved than the other commissioners, you'd have to say, maybe that's the cause. Just like Carmine laid out and Larry backed up. But meanwhile, guys, this one is all done. I do advise you to go over to tepoktpaak dot com. That is Carmine's website. Check out his books. Go over

also to Larry Hypenhandcock dot com. Check out Larry's blog, check out Larry's multiple books and also many articles on Carmine's website. Tepoctpaak dot com have tons of information and then more more than some other people's books, not necessarily Larry's, because Larry's books are always dense. Yeah yeah, but but definitely gives you a run for your money on a bunch of other authors not gonna name names, don't have time. But the thing is, both of these guys

put out great information which is extremely dense in the positive way. Lots of stuff to be learned, brand new information and in denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks. I believe is the full title. Don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is, and I advise that book. Check out Human time Bomb The Violence Within Our Nature from Carmine Samastano and was that or or on your local TV station if you like, just I don't know, open your eyes, look at the world around

you. But anyway, this one's all done, and I want to thank all of you guys for doing this, especially Larry and Carmine. Always great when I can have the three of us together on this show. Help helps me feel a little smarter being in a room with two other smarter guys. Anyways, the Ocell effect is all done, and no matter who you are, where you are, not only do I hope you're will, but I want you to remember I am merely O'Kelly in all of you are indeed the

effect. Good night. I want them to appreciate the incredible job with doing so. We are doing your job, the likes of which has never been done before. I want them to appreciate the incredible job with doing We are doing your job, the likes of which has never been done before. You're gonna have mental depression for people. You're gonna have large numbers of suicides. Take a look at what happens in a really horrible recession or worse. So

you're going to have tremendous suicides. But you know you're gonna have more than anything else, drug addiction. You will see drugs being used like nobody's ever used them before, and people are gonna be dying all over the place from drug addiction.