Your Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wall Street, Window dot Com and listeners like you now, Kelly, fourteenth day of September. Yeah, it is September twenty twenty three, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar. And this might be the show you were looking for, because you're hearing me say this anyway, you could be hearing me on the live stream. I'm a couple of minutes late going to live but that's okay. If not, you
don't care. You're hearing the podcast, and who knows when you're listening to it no matter what. Welcome. So it is Thor's Day, and I'm happy to be here, especially because I've got two good friends with me that are going to discuss something that's very important to me and has been in the news past couple of days for sure. Now it could have been in the news a lot, and it's going to be in the news some more as
we get toward November and the twenty second day. And there goes a loud, loud vehicle going buy me of course right when I go to air, too loud for me to muffle it. This is what happens when you broadcast from home. Anyway, as we approach the twenty second day of November in the sixtieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. Yes, there are many relevant things that are going to come up. It is what it is, and enough out of me. I've got Alan Dale with me. If you don't know
Alan, I guess you're not really paying much attention to JFK literature. Yeah, obviously don't know the community too well. You haven't read his book, which is really excellent, his conversations with Malcolm Blunt, The Devil in the Details. I guess you don't know Alan Dale. If you don't know Allen Dale. But if you don't, you're missing out other side of the table, so to speak, Larry Hancock. And if you're aware of my show,
then you know Larry Hancock, that's for sure. Also, he takes up so many slots on my bookshelf, quite honestly, more than any other author with good reason. So if you don't know Surprise Attack, and you don't know Creating Chaos, and you don't know someone would have talked, and you don't know I don't know all of his work on King Kennedy, etc. I don't know what to tell you except welcome to the Internet and welcome
to discussions about political assassination. So let's get to them. And we're gonna talk about a secret service agent coming out with a new book. It's not quite out yet, but the media blitz has begun. And how do I know this? Especially because already Gerald Posner is out there commenting online, and already the script has been shared between many MSM assets because they all sound really similar when they're interviewing. Paul Landis okay, who is Paul Landis? Well,
maybe I'll let Larry Hancock explain that. First off, Larry, how are you doing tonight, sir? It's good to have you and it's good for you to be back. I'm glad you're here this week because last week you weren't feeling too well, so we we said, well, we'll do it another time. We'll figure out what to do, and the news cycle gave us exactly what to do next time. How are you tonight, sir? I'm doing much better, Chuck, thank you, And yes we have JFK back in the news. I can hardly stand it. You know,
they ignore us for decades and then here we are again. Well, and you thought they would have paid some attention to the document releases and oh no they're not not really not proper attention. But what else is old? Although I gotta say, it's good to see Gary Agilar back on TV. It's good to see Jefferson Moraley back on TV. It's good to see a lot of people back on TV who should have been heard from a lot this year. But you know what am I gonna say? And by the way,
where is Larry Hancock on TV? Anyway? Anyway, I love your lazy I've always got to say that good Chuck. Like you said, I was kind of getting afraid it would be November and they would miss us entirely on the system sixtieth anniversary. Now they're trying to get it out of the way early. Alan Dale, you know you do some podcasts. You do some work. I mean some work. I'm really understating this, A lot of
stuff you do. Maybe not everybody knows everything you do, and I'm not sure if you want to let everybody know everything you do, but you're wise a lot of work behind the scenes. Yes, I'm glad you think so. But anyway, Alan Pow, are you tonight, sir? I'm really glad to grateful to you, as always honored to participate with my great teacher Larry Hancock, privilege to represent with Larry the rational wing of the JFK research
community. It's the numbers are not overwhelming within our little group, but we do save a lot on snacks. Listen, it doesn't cost that much if we all go to a restaurant at once, exactly right, and one six pack does it pretty much pretty much? You know. That's the crazy thing is, as you know, nuts, as some people think I am on a lot of things, I belong to the rational wing. I believe you. Indeed, I may be a begrudging member to somebody or two, but
you know what, I know. I'm there because you know, you know what is in evidence to your listeners. And I should think this is partly responsible, responsible, partially responsible for the numbers of listeners who continue to participate and support you. Listen to your programming. You're diverse programming because you do a hell of a lot more than just JFK related or deep state related or
you know, covert related, and all of that is. You are not paranoid, which is slightly uncommon in this realm, and you're not an ideologue in terms of pushing what you believe is commonly accepted as a consensus. I know you for years now. You and I've become very close. I consider you a brother behind the scenes, and one of the things I love and respect about you is that you are a critical thinker who is not invested so
much so exclusively nor primarily in your own certainties. And as per usual, my much more civilized brother, as I have decided to call him, Yeah, it's as though you know this is what happens. If I might have been civilized, I might have been a more talented musician and much more eloquent, just like Allan Dale. But then again, how many people could claim that they could ever be anything like Allan Dale? Not too many. So let's let's get to this though, because this is interesting Alan, and I
really am glad to have both of you along. I don't know where to start. Should we start with the history of Paul Ales or should we begin with what do you think I would? I have. One of my responsibilities is to be aware of as much as I'm capable of being aware of, so that I can explain it to people who are smarter than I am. So I prepared two paragraphs for some of the people, a couple of the people that I serve most closely, and uh, and this was within the
first twenty four hours. So I'm going to propose that you allow me to read just what I wrote within the first twenty four hours, where already behind the scenes, there was already there was already an animated discussion on email chain among a number of people, some of whom I think are probably recognizable. And here's what I wrote. I said, there's been a very animated dialogue among many of our nations leading JFK researchers about this development. The discussion centers
around two distinct issues. The first concerns the story as presented by former United States Secret Service agent Paul Landis, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support or dispute the claim he is making in his soon to be published memoir The Last Witness. On that issue, there is a consensus, this is twenty four hours into the story. There is a consensus that we have zero supporting
corroborating, dependent or independent corroboration. The second issue is about the unusual circumstance that The New York Times and Vanity Fair magazine, through journalists and historians with national reputations, name recognition are writing about the JFK story in a way that calls into question the conclusions of the Warren Commission. That makes this story unique.
That's how I begin. And you know, again having studied the literature and coming into this a bit later than some others, I gotta say that from Ray Marcus to John Hunt on CE three ninety nine, which is you know, the magic bullet, every media outlet is now making them aware of that out there. They then those that might have a passing interest, even in the case, I'm glad to see that part of it. And you
know, this is a point of interest. This is practically the point of interest, or at least it was for decades, and one would say this is a good place to start. Larry, Is there anything you'd like to add at this point? Yeah? I think that there probably is one other thing that this is doing for us in the general media, and that is waking the public up to something that we have known for decades now about the
lack of consistency in the official record. I mean, basically, what you have to face here, what all these people are saying from you know, mister Landis is there were Secret Service agents charged with the security and law enforcement related to the president, charged with the crime scene who handled primary evidence related to the assassination, yet did not put that in their reports, did not their written reports, did not offer testimony on it to any of the following
investigations. And the mere fact that this is surfacing right now with headlines like a raises questions about what we really know about the un the assassination is that's good. It's just that we have known these same questions for decades. But I in a way, that's good because mainstream media are saying things that we've known from the very beginning, which was there's a whole lot of evidence lying
around that was mishandled and not recorded properly. Right to say nothing, to say nothing of the fact that, as Larry points out, this aspect of the context of the story is brand new news to people, even educated people who simply have never bothered or never have been exposed to some of the more pertinent aspects to the government's case against Lee Harvey Oswald, which of course was
dependent upon the FBI and the Warrant Commission's proclamation. So that is an important aspect the headlines that are being generated, not just through the two outlets to which I referred, Vanity Fair Magazine and The New York Times, which in twenty twenty chose to pretend that a journalist who was a successful and respected national journalism figure, Robert sam Anson, he died and nowhere in either the New York Times nor the Washington Post obituaries. They actually did a profile piece in
the New York Times about Robert sam Anson. They pretended that he never wrote a book in nineteen seventy five called They've Killed the President with a subtitle something to the effect of searching for the Killers of JFK. So this does represent
a couple of different things. One is the point to which I referred that it's very is it meaningful in terms of a paradigm shift, that maybe the old guard has died off the less guard, the new guard is less guarded about this, you know, the sacred their sacred duty to defend the Warren Commission and to pretend that there are no controversial issues to a new generation of people who if exposed to the things to which Larry referred, things about which
we've been concerning ourselves and been aware for many decades. Then maybe it is a new era. I understand all this, and I would say that, you know, again, I look at it and wonder exactly what is the purpose of this though, I mean, I can get from the personal aspect of this. The ghostwriter there that has now appeared with him a few times, mister Larry on some of the programs. I understand their motivations. I understand their desires to tell this story. But here we go again, folks.
Okay, the problem that okay, for years and years, what was the complaint? Well, you conspiracy theorists, you want to talk about this bullet on a stretcher and how it got there, And this has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't change the fact that only three shots were fired. And you know which which arguments I'm about to advocate here already, right and and and here it comes. And I'm not advocating them personally. I'm just playing the role, folks, so you know, but but here we
go. Uh and we were talking about, well, ge, you know what, it was discovered on a stretcher. At a certain point a guy claimed he found it. We believed his testimony, maybe some of us did, some of us didn't clink up against the metal part of what everybody calls a stretcher, but it's a transport, uh, you know, in the hospital. And did a maintenance man discover it? And you, you the
listener, can go and explore all this yourselves. I'm not going to belabor this discussion with a complete accounting of it, but the point is that I came to a conclusion at a certain point, and a lot of people did that perhaps this thing showed up on the wrong stretcher entirely because there was a kid there named I think Ronald Fuller who was injured and had also been there
same day Kennedy and Connolly went to two different trauma rooms. We have been treated to discussions about the two different trauma teams that had to attend to both the governor and the president, all these things going on. I find it fascinating that somebody now says, well, I found this thing in the seat. I mean, I hate to cut down his account because I could play it if you guys want to sit and listen to part of it. And Tapper beginning to set him up and let him tell his story on CNN if
you like, And the story is now consistent across the media platforms. Okay, but a story that was never entered. I find it difficult to believe that, even though Landis all so says he never looked at the literature and all that. It sounds very much like some other Secret Service agents stories, almost adapted from somebody else's. I'm throwing out a lot of supposition here.
Why because there's a lot that could be drawn from all this if you look at the entire arc, Okay, the entire story arc as it has come out over the years, and even the tour there that went on with the Kennedy detail, Jerry Blaine's book, and the involvements of other Secret Service agents. Even Landis himself looking a bit different in a documentary around that time and
a couple of interviews. I don't think he was on all of them, but he was available in a couple of them where they tried to like reunite everybody, and he never told this story during that time on that topic, and allude to a guy who is a generous archivist apart from whatever else he is in relation to the study of these complex issues, a guy named David
von Payne. I believe his pronunciation pei N. He's walking encyclopedia about the media coverage of these areas that we're interested in pertaining the JFK story for clarity years ago, he corrected me, and it's bon Pine, even though it's spelled yeah. But even though it's spelled like pei N, I think and her, Yes, that's right. So he contributed recently a clip a clipping from the Sunday, November twentieth, nineteen eighty three, the Shockton Tribune,
because Shockton is a small city in Ohio. It's between Columbus Ish and akron Ish and it's a small paper covering that region. And here's the headline. Ex Secret Service agent witnessed assassination during the course of this article that was exclusively about mister Landis, his experiences, trauma, his retirement from the Secret Service. I think six months or so after the assassination, something like that.
But the relevant part is what follows here. He says. As the motorcade sped to Parkland Memorial Hospital, Landis said he and other agents with him were in a state of disbelief. Quote I don't know if anything really sank in at that point. Close quote he said they wondered if there might be some conspiracy against the government and its top officials, and hoped against hope that the president's wound might not wounds might not be as serious as at first appeared.
Landis said that when he got to the Kennedy limousine outside the hospital, the president had already been taken inside, but he helped Missus Kennedy out. He said, there was a bullet fragment on the top of the back seat, and he picked up that. He picked up and gave to somebody. He said. He and Hill, meaning Special Secret Service Agent Clan Hill, were among those who stayed with Missus Kennedy while doctors tried in vain to save her
husband. So the reference from November twentieth of nineteen eighty three covers the moment that is, you know, the big attention getting headline producing. Just today I saw a headline from the Philadelphia Enquirer, why a JFK murder bombshell landed with a thud? Will in the Will Bunch newsletter landed with a thud? And this other one and I think is worth sharing. A new JFK assassination
revelation could up end the long held lone gunman theory. So you know it's it's a subject that is being examined and it's not just a national story. The British news outlet Daily Mail thanks to someone within the JFK reach research community and not certain who discovered references to and here's the headline from today, Thursday, September fourteenth, twenty twenty three. JFK assassination nurse says she saw the
pristine bullet. Secret Service agent Paul Landis now claims he retrieved from the limo and placed on stretcher, up ending the magic bullet. Phyllis Hall previously said she had she saw a bullet sitting on Kennedy's stretcher. That backs up a new eyewitness claim by secret Service agent who says he saw he set the bullet there Atlandis eighty eight, broke his silence after sixty years with the bomb show claim and plans to write a book about his experience. Okay, now that
is interesting, and I'd like to go to Larry on this next. Okay, and with good reason, because Larry, to me, is the lord of context. It comes to these. Larry, just from your memory alone, I'm sure you can recall a great many firsthand witnesses at Parkland Hospital who
have made various different claims. They were certainly there. We do believe they were there always, not always, but almost always legitimate witnesses, many of them at Parkland Hospital, who have had varied accounts about where a bullet might have been. I even once saw an article proposed. I don't know if it was ever published, but I saw a rough draft of it trying to
show the various locations where a bullet was sited at Parkland Hospital. Again, I don't recall if that was published, but maybe you do, Larry, and maybe, yeah, recall other accounts. Go ahead, Hey, yeah, Then there have been interviews dating back, oh, I would say at least to the nineties, probably a little bit earlier, of multiple people, as you say, Chuck, who who saw bullets? Who who saw bullets
being handled. One of the one of the problems we have all with this whole story, I think, is everyone, or many people seemed to be assuming that the bullet that's been talked about in this most recent revolution revelation might be the magic bullet CEE three ninety nine. However, that is pure supposition. We don't know that it's not a different bullet at this count. Yes,
we have people that saw bullets on multiple stretchers. I think the most interesting thing is some of the interviews that I've personally seen that seemed to be the most striking, and we're conducted a long time ago. I mean, this is really late in the game to get anything reliable from a witness very specifically talked about and described a rifle bullet, a shooting bullet, not a not a carcano type bullet, a bullet with a sharp nose, and this
is this is different there, We're talking about different bullets. So I guess my response really is if what pains me is that a ghostwriter and a publisher are going to come out and bring out a book about the Landis experience, and this is going to be done by interviewing someone who is of a significant
age, who is going to be saying things to support that book. I'm not saying that he doesn't believe them, but you're talking about a ghostwriter who's developing a story around this person for publication decades after the fact, when nobody was around to do a story, a book, a decent investigative journalism from the mainstream media about all these other people. I mean people that saw bullets picked up out of the floor of the limo, that saw fragments taken out
of the floor of the limo. People other people who said, oh yeah, we were with the president's cart at the White House garage when it was brought back, and we found things and we put them in envelopes and we sent them over to Bethesta. They refused me about none of these people on the law enforcement side. Is they all appear to be like mister Landis. They're all secret service agents or officials, and they just pick up things and
they send them off to wherever, and they disappear from the record. That's the thing that troubles the story. The headline, I would more likely say is investigation of Kennedy assassination screwed in the beginning. You know, I quite plan. How can you have How can you believe anything when nobody is treating evidence as evidence and about half of it never seems to make it into the
official record. Well there is the brass tax key of it. Uh, you know, here we go. You know, I'm thinking to myself, well, did any buddy asked the guy who had the sponge and bucket or rag and bucket if he had kept any bullet fragments because there was a guy there trying to clean it up. We know that. Did anybody ask? And here we go again forensically right, if you're talking about the collection of evidence. In the decades afterwards, people got treated to this on television through
CSI shows of all sorts, crime scene investigations, etc. Etc. And some people who do that for a living have examined this case. One thing you got to say is that with all these different accounts and possibilities going on, you have nobody seemingly accurately collecting carefully the evidence in the immediate aftermath the rolling climb scene, that is, the limo is not being treated as a
crime scene, you know. And odd thing too is that you know, also Alan, when you were reading that account about him encountering missus Kennedy in the immediate aftermath, well that's changed now too, because he has repeated a few times in these recent interviews about a scene and her trying to cover his head and all these other things. Well, according to what you just said, he had already been taken away, so she couldn't be covering his head,
and he's taken away there is clear contradiction just there. Yeah, contradictions
everywhere we look, and that's that is part for the proverbial course. I think Glary made typical astute observation, drawing attention to the minutia about what is being discussed in terms of the physical description of a bullet, an intact bullet largely not deformed, that really does not resemble the ammunition attributed to that, that Italian made rifle that is the government's you know, commission exhibit super super basic layman's terms. There are accounts of a bullet with a pointy tip.
The CE three ninety nine has a rounded tip. In case you have never seen it or never bothered to look at it, not you Allen, not you Larry, but you know somebody else listening a totally different bullet one that would be more attributable to a hunting rifle with a pointy tip. Okay, there are multiple accounts of that, including by the individual who allegedly collected the thing in the first place at the hospital, which would be a maintenance worker
who handed it over to his boss. I mean, I'm giving a very cursory explanation of something that has been documented by more than one person in multiple interviews about how CE three ninety nine allegedly comes into existence. And by the way, CE three ninety nine stands for commission exhibit. It actually had an FBI exhibit number before that, I believe, and then was given a commission exhibit number, and it so happened. The magic bullet is CE three ninety
nine. And again the magic bullet is a name that comes out later because of the idea. And they explain this in all the media pieces, almost again seeming to read off of the same script that here's the way the bullet traveled. Here's what happened. It passes through Kennedy, goes into Connolly, comes back out of Connolly, goes back into Connolly, etcetera, etcetera.
And now is on the wrong seat, by the way, because if it went through Connolly, are you telling me this thing jumped back behind Connolly afterwards? Little interesting? And also for many years people have been trying to figure out whether it fell out of his leg or was in his clothes, trapped, etc. Because it was alleged to have fallen onto his stretcher for a long time and seems to have terminated its trajectory, making its final wound in
a almost superficial manner in Governor Connolly's leg. Now, I don't think I've been unfair in this really quick time description. I've been limited, but I haven't been unfair in describing this alan am I Or is there something wrong with
not at all? No. The point with regard to us taking in whatever this new thing is and finding the means by which we can differentiate between what is persuasive about the story that is being represented to us and what is not includes a new model in terms of the forensics, and the new model would be that one this is conjecture in the context of the new bit of the
new claim. One model is that there was a misfire of some kind from behind President Kennedy which struck him in the back and left a shallow wound, an oblong shallow wound, and did not penetrate, did not hit him in the back of the net, did not exit the front of his throat, and did not do all of those additional wounds into Governor Connolly's body, but
rather got sort of just tangled up. And maybe that the bullet to which mister Landis is referring could conceivably be that that it had an insufficient charge because of something that was not right about the bullet or about the firing mechanism, or whatever is involved in that. The other factor here is now, or at least another factor, is that the nurse to whom I referred in the British article becomes a little bit more interesting than some other kinds of corroboration or
alleged corroboration, because she was interviewed ten years ago. So quoting from this article from the Daily Mail, the prior eyewitness testimony of a nurse president in the emergency room after President Kennedy was fatally shot in nineteen sixty three seems to
corroborate a former Secret Service agent's bombshell new claim. In short, he claimed to have picked up a nearly pristine fired bullet from the backseat of the limousine where Kennedy was shot, placed it on the president's hospital stretcher to serve as evidence. Several interviews given by nurse Phyllis J. Hall in twenty thirteen seemed to corroborate Landis's fresh claim quote on the cart, halfway between the earlobe and
the shoulder, there was a bullet laying almost perpendicular there. But I have not seen a picture of the bullet ever, she told the Telegraph almost ten years ago. Separately, she told the Sunday Mirror also ten years ago fiftieth anniversary, I could see a bullet lodged between his ear and his shoulder. It was pointed at its tip and showed no signs of damage. I remember looking at it. There was no blunting of the bullet or scarring around the
shell from where it had been fired. I had a great deal, she goes on. She continues, I'd had a great deal of experience working with gunshot wounds, but I had never seen anything like this before. It was about one and a half inches long, nothing like the bullets that were later produced. It was taken away, but never have I seen it presented in evidence or heard what happened to it. It remains a mystery. And so that's an interesting little part of these pieces that are being presented to us.
Well for a couple of reasons, Alan because immediately, first of all, we're now dealing with a pointed bullet again, which cannot possibly be ce three ninety nine if she is accurate in her memory. Also, Land talks about placing this bullet. Hear his feet, So unless you're telling me, this thing rolled all the way up to his head and found itself around his neck and head where surgeons were working attempting to do different things. Life saving measures
were being taken, including a tracheotomy right in that area. You would think it's right there. There's doctors should be standing around there. Other people may be trying to assist them as well. I have a little problem with her
Lina's sight. And also now the bullet has gone from his well, from his toes to his head, you know, and he's supposed to be lying virtually lifeless, to say nothing of the disparity between what mister Landis claimed in referring to a bullet fragment back in nineteen eighty three, which is not the
same as a nearly pristine bullet that was picked up in its entirety. There's one brief other thing that I can share with you and Larry, and this comes from doctor Randy Robertson, with whom I've worked on occasional articles on the aa ARC library dot org website. This one is from a couple of years ago. Really quick, Allen Alan, could you could you just make sure to tell people a little more about Randy Robertson real fast, like some of
the stuff that he is presented about Wesson. He's an a an Assassination Archives Research Center board member. He's one of the only civilian physicians who's been allowed to examine forensic materials that are relevant to the kind of stuff that our dear brother Pat Spear and doctor David Mantik and doctor Aguilar, others who have small number of people who have gone to the National Archives and given special permission to
do this. And doctor Robertson to someone who has participated, has been a visible medical professional and an expert on in his areas of expertise for many, many many years within the JFK research community. Absolutely thank you. He brought something to me, certainly, and I put it up. We put it
up in combination with something else that will allude to very briefly. But the headline for this article at the AARC library dot org website is White House Physician Autopsy Eyewitness questions President Ford about missing bullet in December of two thousand and one. In January of two thousand and two, during an interview with US Navy Bureau of medicine and surgery historians. Doctor James Young, a physician who had
worked White House physician Admiral George Berkeley. Berkeley was President Kennedy's military physician. He was with He's the only person who was at He was in the motorcade, he was at Parkland Hospital, he was on Air Force one, and he was in the room during the autopsy. Guess how often he was interviewed by the Warren Commission. That's a trick question. He wasn't, wasn't,
so to continue. Doctor James Young, a physician who worked with White House physician Admiral George Berkeley during the Kennedy administration, related that during the autopsy, he had been given a bullet in an envelope by White House Medical Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Thomas Mills after the return from the White House. After a return after his return, I'm sorry, this is an unusual format for me to read. It's English, goes from left to right. Take your time,
that's all right. After his return, meaning after Petty Officer Thomas Mills return from the White House garage to retrieve skull fragments from the rear of the limousine, Young described this bullet as jacketed straight but with a bent tip, and visually close in diameter to CE three ninety nine, which he estimated to be one half centimeter. Doctor Young voiced his concerns to the interviewers that he had
never seen any reference to it in Warren Commission investigation files. The last thing he remembers is that he gave the envelope another envelope larry being given to someone else. He gave the envelope containing the bullet with the bent tip to doctor Humes, the head autopsy pathologist, and the bullet was never seen or documented
after that. And it goes on and on and In an interview from two thousand and one December two thousand one, doctor Young said that he had initially contacted White House Corpsman Chief Petty Officer Mills by telephone, and Mills confirmed his recollection. Navy historians called Mills in an effort to verify doctor Young's claims.
Mills told historian Jan Herman or Jan Herman that he remembered the event, but when pressed for details, Mills stated that he didn't want to talk about it, even after the historians notified him that they represented the United States Navy Bureau of Medical and Surgery Office of Medical History. Significantly, Mills did not repudiate doctor Young's claim, something that might have been expected if Young had fabricated the
episode and falsely implicated Mills in the process. Doctor Robertson meaning Randy Robertson, then contacted Navy interviewer Jan Herman, who informed him that the interview with Mills had not been taped, but that mills tone of voice changed perceptibly when pressed for details on the episode. Herman also vividly remembered the Young interview because of After having the tapes transcribed, Doctor Young then adamantly refused to sign the release
form for the Navy to use them. In the hundreds of oral history interviews that Herman had conducted, doctor Young was the only one who had refused to sign such a release, which leads very elegantly into a brief article that I connected a piggybacked on this one on same page the missing physician, the Warrant
Commission was faced with contradictions in the medical evidence. Parkland Hospital doctors who treated the mortally wounded President described an entrance wound in the throat large occybital rear word, wound in Kennedy's head, etc. One man was best suited to address these conflicting accounts, the President's personal physician, doctor George Berkeley. Berkeley road in the motorcade, was President Parkland Hospital, road Air Force one to Washington
with the body, and was present at the autopsy. He signed the White House death certificate, wrote verified on a face sheet created during the autopsy, and took physical possession of JFK's brain and tissue slides the Warrant Commission. The Warrant Commission never interviewed him. To make a long story short, questions abound about Berkeley's handling of the now missing brain of JFK, his role at the autopsy, and his involvement in the nineteen sixty five transfer of autopsy materials to
the Kennedy family's hands for reburrow, by the way were for burial. Did the Warrant Commission and HCA HSCA avoid Berkeley because they were afraid of what he would say. In a nineteen sixty seven oral history, General Berkeley was asked whether he agreed with the Warrent Commission's view on the number of shots. Berkeley replied, and I quote I would not care to be quoted on that close
quote. That's it. We should probably also note that Admiral Berkeley also contacted the HSCA specifically to offer them information that would be suggest that there was not a single shooter, and that was unfortunately during the transition of the hsc laid leadership, and no one responded to that offer, right that point, good
point, good point. So that was a lost opportunity. And when people finally did recontact him, he refused the lawyer who I think he had passed away, and the family, through their lawyers, said no, they were not interested in discussion about this subject. Right. So, but I think
this leads to something that really needs to be said. That because it's it's been brought up over the last couple of days, one can understand how, you know, a year later, ten years later, twenty years later, when it became apparent to a lot of people that the full story had not been offered evidence. I mean, we've talked to any number of people that basically were the attitude, you know, this is not what I saw, this is not what I heard the fixes in I better keep my mouth shut.
I mean that, so you can understand why people after the fact would hesitate the buck the story. But I will make the point that at two o'clock on the afternoon of November twenty second, that wasn't what was going on. There's absolutely no indication and no reason. There's no story in place at that point in time. There is no lone nut shooter. There's nobody in custody that it's a matter of collecting evidence in a crime. You know.
So for the first twenty four hours, certainly for the first few hours the verse twenty four hours, the thought that somebody would not put something into evidence, that they wouldn't show it to their boss, they wouldn't put in an envelope and put their initials on it. They they wouldn't put it in their report. I'm let's let's say I'm a secret service agent and under the trauma
of the moment, I do something really stupid. I pick up a bullet and I put it on a stretcher, and you know, a couple of hours later, I'm going, oh, jeezus, violates everything that we've been told. I shouldn't have done that. But I get to write a report, and I could acknowledge that in my report, but I don't it's that
because I'm just embarrassed. But pressure, pressure when this is going on, that what you just talked about alan a Navy person who picks up something, a secret Service person who picks up something, there is no reason why that should not have been handled as evidence and that there shouldn't be a trail that
this thought of it I gave it to someone is just ridiculous. Well, okay, So despite the fact that doctor Robertson you know, did more due Deli gents than any of the staff of any of the talking heads that decided to interview Paul Land as you know, in the past week or so on the major corporate outlets in America at the very least. I haven't observed all
of the British press just yet, but I'll get there anyway. Despite the fact that he did that, and there seems to be more envelopes traveling around than on a busy weekend in the Italian section of Jersey City, Okay, with numbers not on them or on them, depending on who you listen to.
Despite the fact that all that's happening, and the idea that quite honestly, I'm watching the reaction, I'm watching people responsible intelligent people and also Gerald Posner make you know, statements out there giving you the way to interpret this information and ways to interpret what this means, what this could mean, and what this changes or does not change it. Again, like most things in the media, in discussion, in the various alleys of interest that people like
to bowl down intellectually. You know what very interesting that we have a roar shock test again, because some people are saying, this is verification of the magic bullet theory, This is vindication of the Oswald did it alone scenario. This is showing the contradictions and the record, This is showing that clearly there was more than one shooter. All of these things that people are drawing conclusions
from. Again, I believe, and this is not to contradict a lot of people who are smarter and many a specified area in the assassination than I could possibly be, because they're doctors, they're lawyers, they are in fact former law enforcement people that were trained specifically to collect evidence, and they might be out there making statements right now, handing analysis to other people in the media, people like Jefferson Morley, who's an excellent writer, who as somebody
who is a journalist understands those concepts might be handing it to somebody else to help them out, to assist them in their analysis. Here's the thing, it's very hard to determine based on simply Landis's account and the official story what's actually happened here. There are contradictions no matter what direction you go in, and I'm curious, you know, I sort of want to go to the
unfair question real early right here for both of you. And it's unfair question that I'm going to ask each of you individually here if you don't mind, and you, guys, take all the time you want, because I really don't want to offer a supposition on this all. I've offered a few points of contention and things to consider. I do have my opinion on this, but you might already I guess I have a tell when it comes to this
or ready, I don't want to go there. I want to hear from you, guys, because again, it will be much more considered and measured than something that might come out of my mouth at this point, because I have a very short answer to it, and I don't want to do it just yet. I actually Larry you want to ask more. I'm sorry go ahead, Chuck, Well, I want to know, well, yeah, would you You're you're offering Larry to go first, are you? Yeah?
Yeah, Well I want to find out which way he goes, and then I'll take the opposite position, you know, because that makes good television. There you go. There you thought Alan was going to point me in the direction of the bus so I could jump under it. But nice, No, I think there's a very I think you've stated alright, Chuck. What I'm very tired of at this point in time is that everyone is looking to
validate their position. And and you know, that's a human instinct. It's kind of like anything that you comes up it, you know, does it help me? Does it hurt me? And then I'm going to take my position accordingly to me. This tells us just one thing, and it's absolutely nothing new. What it tells us is that we cannot trust the evidentiary record. I mean, what it tells us if we believe one everything that mister Landis says. It didn't really tell us about the bullet, about the shooting,
about which bullet it was. It doesn't tell us any of that. There are too many inconsistencies. What it does tell us, is that a Secret Service agent admits that he mishandled evidence which we can't trace through any paper trail. We can't identify it, And that just keeps opening the door one more time to the fact that people made the Warrant Commission reached a conclusion, the House Let Committee reached to conclusion that any conclusions that were reached were based
on insufficient and questionable evidence. To me, that's all it tells us, not that we haven't known this, but now we've just been told again well, based on and by a Secret Service agent. No less. Okay, yes, based on your awareness of the documentary evidence as it stands and as we know it, and there is plenty regarding the Secret Service that is available to us at this time. Is there any corroboration that you recall for any
of this story that he's telling now in the documentary evidence? In other words, is there a report, Is there a sighting of this by someone else in the official record, someone else who was taking notes, someone else who was taking accounts, anyone else that we know of that could corroborate some part
of this or no? Okay, Not only is there no documentary an ans one of the things that I've been asking people for, and Alan brought it up to a certain extent because Landis's story is inconsistent in terms of Jackie and the President's body. I would like to see some photographs of the presidential limousine
with Landis at it in it, looking around in the backseat. You know, We've got a whole bunch of photographs that were taken with park at Parkland, because the photographers were there pretty much as soon as anybody else was and film. So I'm not sure we can even place him. I'm not sure what part that we can photographically or from other agents verify either. I think
that's still an open question. Okay, So with regard to my perception, there's nothing that I could add that would improve upon Larry's fundamental understanding of what is at work in terms of how we deal with this stuff as it's being
developed and imposed upon us. First thought is that because I saw and enjoyed a movie about the amazing Kreskin, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, probably, Chuck, you and I feel the same, and that if we had to press a button, because we're conditioned to think that we live in a binary universe where it has to be all yes or all no. I would press the no button, But I also would emphasize that
it is premature. Only really silly people would be absolutely adamant because they want it to be either true or false, and so the rest of us don't have to be fanatical in that way. We don't have to be a zealot.
We don't have to be fundamentalistic in the service to some kind of religious imperative that this thing has to help us prove that Oswald did it by himself, where it has to help us prove that there were multiple gunmen, many of us would would fit comfortably with the conceit that we already know that there was more than one gunman, and we don't really need this, uh, you know, to prove anything to us. But the fervor with which this
story is being debated right now is premature. We just learned about the whole thing. Everything we have to work with. We we've just been introduced to it. We're still examining things. I'm aware of some action that's going on by some people whose names are familiar to all of us behind the scenes in terms of examining, you know, examining relevance his things, and it's too
early to make an absolute declaration. What we can say is that if it should turn out that there's a grain of truth to this, maybe something similar that very much might resemble what mister Landis was saying in nineteen eighty three. And believe me, I am not without compassion in terms of somebody who was
traumatized by this. I think one of the most affecting things I'll ever see in my life is when Mike Wallace ambushed Clint Hill after recording for a couple of hours with him one week earlier, and then called and said, hey, I think we had we missed some stuff where we had a technical problem. Can you wear the same clothes you wore last week and meet me at the Willard or wherever they shot it? And then he drops the ultimate question,
and you know, mister Hill was devastated beyond words. He was you to borrow term from Alfred Bester. He was the demolished man. I mean, he looked like Robert Oppenheimer before he quoted the Bag of Adita. He was destroyed. And mister Landis, I believe, left the service not many months after Dallas, so I'm not without compassion in terms of people who live through a traumatic thing where time doesn't pass the same way. It's not perceivable
the same way. Reasoning is not something that is in action the same way as when you're not traumatized by something as it's happening and just unfolding. But if there's a grain of truth to it, then that's interesting. And if none of it is true, then we could say, well, this is yet another example of somebody who comes up with a sensationalistic claim for the purpose of drawing attention to the product, usually a book that they are hopeful you
will choose to spend your money on. Right now, on that exact point, Alan, here's the thing. I did not get an advanced copy of this one. I have gotten advanced copies of things from Simon and Schuster and other publishers, and have had the opportunity to pour over the source material, say before it's available to the public. As I understand it, the book is not even fully available yet. It is out there for pre order, although as per usual, people in the media have copies months in advance,
and some of us get it a couple of weeks in advance. Et cetera, et cetera. And sometimes I get sometimes I don't. So I'll be honest with you. I have not had the opportunity to go over the actual material as it's released, so I can't say definitively what is useful, what is not. And here's the other part of it. It could, indeed be that due to all the things you cited, or just the simple malleable nature, if that is a word malleable, I believe rture of human memory
to begin with, it is not a verbatim recording device. It is subject to revision regardless of circumstances at any given time as new information is added into the memory. The mind works in an interesting way, and there are people that spend all of their lives studying such things. Yes, sir, so fair enough that there could be alterations here, fair enough that there could be misunderstandings, There could be in good faith alterations of the actual event. There
could be a lot of things at play here. And without having witnessed the entirety of the documentation that they present in this book, without having gone over every single interview, I've gone over many, but not every single one. And I had one I was going to queue up and play here. But I don't even think we need it, given what we've been able to relate here and what youtubo gentlemen have provided, I don't even think it's necessary.
Although I advised the listener to go ahead and take a listen out there for yourselves. Here out what he has said in the past. Here out what he's saying. Now read it for yourself, even if just an excerpt. Make a judgment for yourself. But I would say that ultimately, yeah, I have to come down on the side of this is premature. I think a declaration of it being completely useless is not fair. Although, like you said, if I had to press a button in the binary universe, I
probably press the same button you described. That's what I thought. I told you to watch the Kriskin movie. It inspired me. You did. You did well there. But I don't think I'm hard to read either, So it is what it is. May I share with you. I want to interject very briefly. I'm looking at the Amazon and I know Larry will be
thrilled to hear this because Larry's produced as you. As you pointed out at the beginning of the program, Larry's produced an awful lot of valuable stuff that if only people would read it, maybe a lot of these arguments would be framed very differently. Absolutely so in this case, the Final Witness A Kennedy's This is the title of the book book A Final Witness Colon A Kennedy's secret Service agent breaks his silence after sixty years. So the reveal is built into
the subtitle of the book. It is already it's It will be released October tenth of twenty twenty three. It is already the number one bestseller in the categories of US State and local history on Amazon. It is already as a pre order, it's the number one thing. So I'd say, getting national media attention that is covered in a way that that is somewhat sensationalistic, may
be intrinsically sationalistic, but it pays off. It looks like you know what I mean, It pays off well when you have I certainly want to make a disclaimer that I have no new book coming out for the sixtieth anniversary, so you can read that however you want. Kind of like boys, this guy stupid, but no it all look if you've already what do they say
if you've already contributed to the art world. Why again pick up the chisel, because after all, we have someone would have talked, we have nexus, we have tipping point, we have the various things that you posted online. For sure, plenty of work out there if somebody wants to see unidentified, unidentified shadow warfare. Yes, in denial, awful, grace, surprise attack. I mean, we can go on and on. Like I said
many spots on my bookshelf. I do wish, however, I really wish if he is going to write that book though, that he would have written it with I don't know, Jeff Morley, not just a ghostwriter. You know. I don't want to diminish his contribution either, and I just think it would have been what we have is. Obviously, aside from everything we've just said, we have to face the fact that it was packaged and launched and marketed as a book, not his history. He didn't go to the
Justice Department, he didn't go to I don't know. But it's not a history. Yeah. So it's a product. It's a commercial product in its
most essential form. I will say it's been marketed successfully so far. It's number one in its category, right I will say, at the very least, though the ghostwriter had the decency to state in a couple of different interviews to to really represent his lack of contextual knowledge regarding uh, the specifics here, because he seemed to not have a grasp on exactly what was going on.
That's true, and he was up front about that and said, you know, well, I thought it was significant, but then I read it and I went over to bed, and I thought this might be very secret. No, of course, you know, maybe I'm cynical, but I don't necessarily buy everything at face value on this subject, especially when it's being served to us by elements of the governing media, which I am, you
know, sensitively skeptical about. So you know, if all the world's a stage and there's there are actors in the theater, that is American popular culture, which includes the way history is taught, how we teach history to ourselves and to our children. I'm not I don't know anything about this guy, James Robinoldt. In fact, Russ Baker earlier today was asking around has anybody ever heard of him? Checked out? And what do we know? I'm
not aware of anybody that had anything substantive to contribute. So you know, I mean, you don't have to see, you don't have to watch the Forrest Gump thing to be a little bit skeptical about the way the message is delivered. You know, for instance, in both the Vanity Fair piece, which is by mister James, or James wrote Robin Alton, I apologize if I'm not pronouncing it correctly, and the New York Times piece, which was a hell of a piece by Peter Baker, who I think was a White
House correspondent for some period of time. You know, if you look closely at the way things are framed, you will not see the word alleged before the word assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. No, when you see a product of this type being given primary space, let's say in and I'm saying space because it would be space on a web page, it would be space on a video channel. It is space. It's real state, so to speak.
In the various media worlds, it's given a very very prominent spot, and it's across the board, across the uh you know, the the the philosophical and political divides. It seems to be universally being shown by corporate media in this country. Immediately, I am suspicious of it because it is there generally, I mean, they they what do they put forth most the things that support them and the stories that they need to continue to tell for one reason
or another. So it is you know, why why did Tom Hanks, you know, produce the CNN documentaries that all related to this case? Right his company? I know it's not just him, but why was Tom Hanks the most prominent name attached? Gary Getsman? It said, why was that? Well? Because he was going to tell the story they wanted told that. That's exactly why you hire anybody for that TV show they called the News. They're going to tell the story the way you want it told, given
your agenda. Therefore, wait a minute now, I'm gone too cynical. Look, we've already gone past an hour. So I want to just give each you an opportunity if you want to say anything in parting here regarding this, I really want to thank both of you for your excellent and really a textured analysis here where we've gotten a whole lot more than just a grand declaration and an absolution or an absolute point that needs to be made and is being
stuck in people's spaces in a pointed way. You know, we're not having that. And I really appreciate the fact that both of you took a considered and measured look at this with me and went through it not only just about the media and how it's been presented, but the context, the history. Alan provided you some other background and hopefully we have given you the listener something else to consider along with this bit of a flurry that you've been treated to
in the past few days. Regarding this and still, by the way, as Alan said, even though it is already h in pre orders well ahead on the sales charts, just because it's popular doesn't mean it is a So well, we'll leave it at that, and I'll give I love giving Larry the final word on this. So I have to give it to you first now, and go on and tell me if you have anything you want to say in parting, or you can say no, Chuck, I'm done things. That's fine too. What it's up to you do I have a quick
moment. Oh wait a minute, Larry, Larry will leave it in first. No, no, no, not at all. Oh no, that wasn't my intent. I would certainly insist that Larry have the last word always yes. I simply wanted to point out that there is action that is that is in motion. As strange as it seems, mister Landis is scheduled to participate, either remotely or otherwise in the Decaye WET conference in the third week,
during the third week of November in Pittsburgh. That's I think Citizens Against Political Assassinations collaboration with Decayne and the Wet Institute there and at that same at
that same event. I believe, I understand, and I don't think it's premature, although I've been wrong before and I could be wrong now, that there will there is discussion about a press conference which our dear friends Bill Simpach and David Talbot and maybe Jeff Morley and perhaps others might have a little press conference while they are on the scene there in the company of mister Landis, if he indeed chooses or is able to participate in the third week of November.
Thank you for allowing me to be a part of this. I'm grateful to you always. And Alan, you know something has circulated that you may be participating in a conference in November as well. I'm not sure if that's been confirmed, but something has circulated there is Do you want to say anything about that or do you not know yet? I don't know much, Okay. My part, I serve as a you know, as an administrative research
assistant to doctor John Newman. And there are a lot of balls in the air right now, and I believe I understand that we've been asked to contribute something and I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that we will do that. Whether I'm able to be there in person, don't know yet, but I know we have innumerable areas that we could elaborate upon in terms of doctor Newman's work. And I hope that Larry is still here. Did I step on him?
And you know I'm still here, Allan, And that's exactly where the way we're listening in the program, it says something, yeah, okay, well the way it is written, I've written some new songs Larry, so you know, so that we'll have a darn good time. I've modeled the act after the Smothers brothers. It's just me and doctor Newman, and Mom always liked him best. That's what I told Gabriella. That's the way we need to write it up. And either way, it's a win win for anybody,
because Alan is a damn fine drummer. So there you go, you know, just saying, uh and and yeah, it is possible that there may be a contribution according to what they're saying, that might have something to do with Alan and doctor Newman at the Lancer conference. I am going to be physically present, and uh, you know, if you're there remotely, great, And if you're not there remotely and you end up there in person, only thing is you and I got to have a drink at least a
week better believe it. Yeah. So with that being said, Larry, who, hey, wait a minute, you've got something to do with this conference also, So just pointing out, I would love to see that thing at WEX and uh, you know, love to see a joint thing happened with Landis and all that which Allan talked about. But I will be at the Lancer conference. Uh, and I'm planning on taking the road trip there and I believe Larry saw are you yes, indeed road trip with Rex Bradford.
So we'll be in Dallas. And I guess I wanted to give a positive, upbeat like final comment, and that is quite frankly, I think it's a lot more interesting to go into November twenty second and the conferences with the headline that says new revelations on Kennedy assassination than ho hum. Right, okay, uh, this is this is not all bad. I mean I've seen headlines it's like Secret Service Agent Brains Warren Commission, you know, findings
into Doubt. Well, okay, I'll take that headline any day in the week, right, Yeah. No, Look, it's a lot more positive a spin than I thought we were going to be confronted with, because previously it was yes, some more records came out and nothing to see here, folks, was pretty much the sentiment that I was getting in my mind from again our friends in the corporate media seemed like that was going to be the headline. Here's the sixtieth year and look, we'll show you a quick film
clip of these conspiracy guys over here. But there's nothing really to see, despite the fact that Joe Biden's been totally transparent, just like everybody else before. But in keeping with this administration's policy of transparency, I am suspending or ending the review process of the remaining records that are being held by federal agencies. Yeah, and thank you very much. And you know, and why we ask well COVID, you know, I mean, okay, gotcha.
Anyway, I don't I don't want to go into it too much. I'm just saying with a straight face, I can't even finish the whole, you know. But but it is it is necessary to remember that we could have been coming into this worse and who knows what will happen in between now and then. But but I'm more than happy if people are asking questions and actually interested, and maybe a new flock of people goes, hey, CE three nine nine, that's the magic bullet. Huh, maybe it's what's Maybe there'll
be new questions asked. I mean, it could be that that's ultimately the best thing that comes out of this. And I want to look for the bright spots. So again, tonight with me and for more than an hour. Alan Dale, who has many hats and titles to wear, but he's usually the guy really secondary in a lot of places, except when he authors a book, which again he focuses on conversations with well some but he was probably one of the greatest walking indexes in the total time that I've been aware
of assassination research for sure. Malcolm Blunt he talks to in a book, well, the Devil in the Details, and we've had a discussion about that on this show, and I would urge people to go back in the archive and take a listen to it, and who knows, maybe I'll rerelease it again as we approach November. Larry Hancock again, what can I say? If I take the rest of the time to list all of his books,
we'll be here for another hour. But all of them great, all of them worthy of And I urge you to go to Larry Dash or Hyphenhancock dot com. You can go over there see Larry's blog as he chooses to write it, and follow through and find out about the books. And if you don't have them in digital or physical form, well you indeed are missing out about a lot of things that could be said and examined regarding the behavior of the national security state at all, and regarding a lot of things outside of
the assassination and inside the assassination and all around it and as interconnected. So you know, like Alan said, everything from UFOs unidentified to creating chaos to surprise attack to g the JFK assassination, the Martin Luther King assassination, and if you look online you'll see even more on RFK other issues. Co author Stu Exler Oh Stu is possibly scheduled to do something regarding the Lancer conference,
and there's gonna be a lot of action this November. So I heard you all to stay informed as much as you can handle, because there may be a lot of information to be had. So again thanks to Alan Dale, Larry Hancock, and to all of you listening, because after all, I am merely o'celly, and all of you are indeed the effect mmmmm. Wall Street Streindow dot gold, silver, the stock market, wall Street three, 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 dot com, doow dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street, Streetindow dot do go there, now go there, now go now. In denial, secret wars with air strikes and tanks by Larry Handcock, secret wars became a staple of us covert operations and are
still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not learn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that
puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical. Go ahead, go ayah listed in the Truth about the days as Operation Right, Well, what do you want to know? Judie Baker's wild claim Oswald, girlfriend Ruby and very anser weapons. Really I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
But okay, Oswald was on the guilty and I'm trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on, now, has it wheel effort on the day Pay's acmation? Go into her claims. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get 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 KIA s JFK at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith Barry Baker in her own words, thank you for all the great information dot
Com Radio Network. The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy president in the context of the times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national
security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third
World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, the War State dot com. In Denial The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations center happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the
Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not learn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock. For more information,
go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical forel Jellowe dot com Radio network work revelation through conversation. Wait, look, I actually have a little offer that I want to drop to everybody who's on here and anybody listening, if if you don't mind, mister Cooper, I'd like to take a minute and
make a little offer and ask of everybody watching, listening and participating. No, okay, Look, I am continuously building my little network and I've got a twenty four seven radio station. Okay online, it's got a bit of reach. It's been interesting. I've had it running steadily without interruption for I don't know, five seven years something like that. But here's the thing I would love to get because some people are going to start paying to run things
on my radio station, but I don't. I'm not looking for money here today. I mean, you know, I'll take it if anybody's got something they want to give it up, but you know, because I could use it, but I'm not looking for that right this minute. My offer is simple. Actually, if you have short audios that you would like because you have a presentation of tight five ten minutes worth of something that you think is absolutely worthy of the world hearing. Okay, because I have listeners all over
the world to that radio station. They're not in huge numbers all at one time, but they're constant twenty seven. Every country you could possibly think of tunes into my radio station at one point or another. It's not huge.
It's not like, oh, I've got millions of listeners, but we do have thousands, and we have thousands of people that tune in and catch Get Mad with Chris Graves and catch the replays and catch my show, which is the Ochelli effect, and they catch the replace and they catch Aaron Fads as the age of transitions. Pretty soon they're going to be catching the cult priestess
on there anyway. And I've got offers to other people to join us, you know, working on it. But here's the thing, I don't care if you're a podcaster, or if you're a musician, or if you're just somebody who's got some great thoughts that you take the world needs to hear. Do me a favor, record them, make an MP three and send them on over to me. I want to start populating the stream for the next little while with stuff that I'm not charging anybody to run it's just good stuff.
Send me your good stuffy blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com. Just email it to me. All right. You got music. Maybe you're a musician. Maybe you're a podcaster, and you want to do an ad for your podcast because you want other people to listen. You haven't been a guest on my show. Maybe you have been a guest on my show. I don't care. Tell me together a couple of minutes. Tell me why people should listen to you. Tell me why people should pay attention to something else.
Why should they pay attention to what's going on in congress? I don't care. Send it over to me, Okay. I want to populate this with anybody who's got good ideas. Okay, it is outside of the mainstream for the next little while. We'll still run our replays, we'll still run our regular shows. Okay, but I want to see what happens if I open it to everybody. I'm not asking you to pay for ads. And again, you could do an ad for your podcast. You could do an
ad for your rock Finn channel. You can. I don't care. Send me something that is of interest, that moves information forward, that helps to educate people, whether it's your project, your song, your poem, your article you want. You're a writer, you like to write, read me your article. Send it to me. Okay, do any of this and send it to blind JFK researcher at email dot com. If you can't remember that, go to Shelley dot com. Click on the email thing there.
It might go to that email address. It might go to infoodocelly dot com. I control both of those, so it doesn't matter. Email it to me. I will play it, Okay, I'm not gonna say I'm gonna play it a million times. If you want to make an arrangement to play a commercial with me, I do have open handspace. But and I'm looking not to charge people a lot of money. If you're doing a small project, we can customize it all that stuff, and we need support for the
network. Sure, but I'm not looking for money today. I'm looking for your ideas. I'm looking for your voices. You want to be heard somewhere. You think you're not being heard enough places. Send it over to me. Send me a short piece of audio. Okay, don't send me videos. I can't play videos on my stream. It's a twenty four seven audio radio station. Okay, and I'll be more than happy to add you to the mix. I'm suspending. I usually don't like to have harsh slanguage on
my station. We're not going to bother with that because I'm no longer carried on AM and FM. Fuck it, we're going Okay, bring it to me. Iss you got and show me your good ideas. Show me your good podcasts. Anybody on here. You guys all have some sort of podcast you do. Send me an add for your podcast. Fine, you got good ideas, obviously, you think, because that's what you're making. Send me good ideas. Send me the good material, Send me the good places
to point people too. You've written an article you're proud of, read it, send it to me. You wrote a song, you think it's great. You're not gonna hit me for using it for copyright. Actually, I've got a license to play copywritten stuff on my online radio station. Me your music, no problem, Original things that moved, ideas and reality forward that inform people, that educate them, that do some kind of good. Send
me your audio. I can't offer it any more open than that revelation through conversation