(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t on The JFK Assassination (Part 2)
Could the most famous assassination in American history be a cover-up?
Join Chris & Steve as they scrutinize the puzzling inconsistencies surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and his role in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. How could Oswald have handled the murder weapon without leaving any fingerprints? And why was there ONLY 4 bullets?
The Zapruder film has long been a cornerstone in the JFK assassination story, but what if there's more to it than meets the eye? Chris & Steve explore the provocative claim that an edited version of the film implicates the driver, William Greer, in the shooting. This puzzle deepens as we discuss the missing JFK brain and the CIA's history of unconventional assassination methods like poison-tipped umbrellas. The life and actions of Greer post-assassination provide an intriguing twist, suggesting broader conspiracy implications.
The investigation doesn't stop there. Chris & Steve also dive into the so-called "magic bullet" theory through an eyewitness account from a Secret Service agent who discovered bullet fragments and an intact bullet in the aftermath. They also question the logic and potential mishandling of evidence, scrutinizing the agent's testimony and its impact on subsequent investigations.
Finally, Chris & Steve reflect on the broader context of 1960s conspiracies and the necessity of being critical and realistic about official narratives.
This episode promises to challenge everything you thought you knew about the JFK assassination,
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some deep shit. It's odd, too, that there were no fingerprints anywhere else on the gun, because presumably at some point he would have had to load the gun or he had to practice with it, practice with it, and it's conceivable, yet not logical, that he would have worn gloves for every step of this endeavor, except the firing of the weapon at the end. Can you imagine that if he wore gloves to practice with it and wore gloves to load it, so there's no fingerprints anywhere but then, when it came time to actually do the deed, he took those gloves off and said, well, I could just fire this thing, and then, like you said, he held it by the barrel. That's such an odd way to hold a weapon. You wouldn't hold it by the barrel. Like that's weird, it would hurt.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's that. You know there's so much here. And that's when we say there's a lot of inconsistencies. Right, it sounds like exaggerated, like, okay, well, you just got a couple there. It's like we haven't even scratched the surface. This is just like the first couple of things right.
Speaker 2:I mean you could do a deep dive into even who leave. Javi oswald was because there's a lot of issues with yeah regarding him leaving the country, coming back to the country.
Speaker 1:What connections, if any, to Russia? Who is he connected?
Speaker 2:to? You're right. Why was he in New Orleans All this stuff? Right, that you say you know I always fall back on. I'm a believer in law. They call it an excited utterance. Right, that'd be a good name for a band. Would it you like that Excited utterance? Excited utterance, so what it really kind of means is in the heat of the moment or right at the beginning of an event, something like that. I guess maybe I'm not describing it good enough is people are generally most truthful right Right people are generally most truthful right.
Speaker 2:So, like, right after something happens, somebody blurts something out. Well, they're doing it. They probably haven't been able to formulate an idea of lying yet, right, so that usually those types of things are given weight. I should say in evidence, because we can kind of, maybe kind of already know there's some credibility to what you said, because it happened just as soon as you you know. You yelled it out.
Speaker 1:Right, in the spur of the moment, it's very few people would be able to construct a lie, articulate a lie and get it out in like the heat of the moment, right, you know? So, yeah, it's kind of like that I've seen in various places, where you play a game, we answer questions fast and you get on a fast roll and then you ask that question. That's the one you want to get to, because you got them on the roll of answering questions quickly and so they just blurt out the answer and that's how you get to the truth and that makes total sense, right, right, that's yeah right, that does make total sense and so it's not exactly an excited utterance what Oswald did, but from the minute he got caught right, he got grabbed.
Speaker 2:I don't even want to call it. He was yelling out I'm just a patsy, I'm just a patsy right. And it's an odd thing to say as your defense of something Like he immediately went, because saying that means it is a conspiracy.
Speaker 1:It means that he realizes in the heat of the moment that he was set up Because, in the heat of the moment you would think what you would utter is I didn't do it. I had nothing to do with this. I wasn't involved.
Speaker 2:He did say both Right. But it's just odd to just go straight to I'm part of a conspiracy or they're setting me up, right, however you want to say, but that's exactly where he went, immediately Right, right, it's just. You don't usually hear that when someone's grabbed for doing a crime, oh, there's a big guy, there was someone else. You don't usually hear that stuff.
Speaker 1:And also you know the fact that he didn't live to undergo how much questioning did he undergo?
Speaker 2:Okay, so the whole night, right.
Speaker 1:And there are no notes of that and there's no recordings. There's no notes. They said they questioned him. They said they questioned him, but there are no notes and no recordings. Yes, that doesn't sound like real. There's nothing Like why would you do that? So that night they questioned him, yeah, and then, like the next day, nothing happened, because he died two days later.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so where was he just held at that police station for another day? That like nothing happened? Let's see it's odd, I mean the part about they questioned him that night and no recordings and no notes.
Speaker 1:No, there's nothing I could understand. No recording although I couldn't in a situation where a person is accused of killing the president of the United States, that they would like every word out of his mouth would have been, like, recorded and noted and, you know, registered and said okay, we got to be clear on this on every step of the way. You would think that that would be the case, but apparently not.
Speaker 2:Some people took notes kind of after the fact but there are no official reports and notes and evidence from the police that were done right and all the police that did question him. He did nothing but just deny that he knew anything about this Right. He never said anything except that I didn't do it and I've been set up. That's what he said.
Speaker 1:Right. And I mean I guess, like we said earlier, if you didn't do do it, of course you're gonna deny it, and if you did do it, you're probably gonna deny it right. So the fact that he denied it isn't unusual in and of itself, but the fact that, well, one that he brought up the patsy thing, so like right away, like almost realizing that you, like you, were put in a situation where they could point at you and say, oh, you did it, to realize that, yeah, because he wasn't like you said, he had a weird past too, he had some involvement with some things. So, like the idea of strangeness, it wasn't like he was, just, you know, lee Harvey Oswald, this guy who worked at a book depository and before that he had, just, you know, been a regular guy and nothing weird about him. I mean, his past had all sorts of inconsistencies.
Speaker 2:Yeah, he kind of defected to Russia in the 50s, but then came back.
Speaker 1:Right. And then, of course, you know, to touch on this a little bit the footage of the event itself, the Zabruta film.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:And I've always found that to be a fascinating thing, because it's very difficult to just get to watch it.
Speaker 2:It shouldn't be. You should just be able to watch it whenever you want.
Speaker 1:My understanding is that Life magazine ended up with the rights. They bought the rights from Zabruta and nobody saw it for years and right, and then they sort of kept it. And now when you see it, you see selected clips. You don't ever see the whole thing. You know, and I hesitate to bring this up only because it's so. It's so off the mark.
Speaker 2:No, but I love it.
Speaker 1:I know what you're going to talk about, I still haven't seen.
Speaker 2:I still haven't seen this show. Okay, what's the show again?
Speaker 1:It's called the Octopus Murder.
Speaker 2:I always want to say it's like the 007, but I know it's not that?
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's on Netflix. It's about a.
Speaker 1:I know they said it a little differently A journalist, danny Casolaro, who was investigating this story that was just branching off into all these tentacles. That's why they called it kind of the Octopus Murder, because it was basically tying into the Kennedy assassination and coups and CIA. And at one point during this documentary, a woman who's a reporter mentions, in dealing with one of the people that Danny Casolaro was dealing with before he died, that this other gentleman showed her a footage of the spruder film. That was odd. So let me go back a little bit, because in the in the early 90s, when I was looking into ufos, I came across there was this tape from a guy named john lear, whose father had invented the learjet, who designed the learjet, and so john lear had gotten into ufos and he was an odd character because he would make all sorts of of wild claims, some some that turned out to be true and some that were just like so wildly crazy that you roll your eyes.
Speaker 1:And one of the things that he said I was listening to a tape where he was doing a talk and I wish, I wish I still had this, because he talked about how jfk was not killed by a bullet but the jfk was killed by get ready for this, yeah, the driver of the car who turned around and shot him while all this was going on. It was like the backup plan to make sure that that that that that the president, you know, did not leave dallas, right, that he shot him with not a gun, but with, like this specially designed gun that was supposed to uh, inject shellfish poison into the president to make sure that he died shellfish poison it's like this.
Speaker 1:I know what a shellfish is yeah, there's some sort of poison that you can get from a.
Speaker 2:Oh, there is. Yeah. Well, they're also allergic to certain things, so maybe it's just like no, it was some poison, so like.
Speaker 1:that sounded so outlandish at the time. I remember like listening to it.
Speaker 2:It does sound something crazy.
Speaker 1:And then go like, oh man, probably all the stuff this guy's saying about UFOs is kooky too. I've never even heard anything like that, so I forgot about this. And then all of a sudden I'm watching the Octopus Murders and that documentary and this woman talks about that contact, showing her the Zabruta film and showing her she's like in the film that I saw you could clearly see the driver turn around and shoot something directly at kennedy. And then the question came up as well, why that's not in the film? And she said, yes, but it got edited, because he showed me the part you always see, and supposedly there's a tree in the background that's lifted off the ground, as if there's somebody was splicing the footage together to to oh, okay, all right and because of that, the sideline was that that this tree was off, off shot from oh, because they're saying something was cut.
Speaker 1:They had to move the film to to hide the fact. And I just that was the second time I'd heard that about the, the shellfish poison, and the second time well I'm saying about the shellfish poison Second time. Well, I'm saying like the first time was in that tape oh okay, and I'm just like that's such a weird detail. It is very strange.
Speaker 2:And so I'm like okay, how does? How would the governor there that was, wasn't he in the front seat, Connolly?
Speaker 1:Was he in the front seat? Yeah, and it well.
Speaker 2:Well, just to wrap up this part of it, so was that after a shot was fired and people were distracted.
Speaker 1:It was right Almost like the first shot and everything, the pandemonium. Then all of a sudden the driver turns around to make sure that it was done. Now one could say, all right, well, that's, I mean, that's easily proven, right? You just, you just check them, you know if there's no shellfish poison in the body, well, well, well, it turns out that the brain actually went missing, jfk's brain, which was taken out during the autopsy and put aside for further study and then it went missing.
Speaker 1:So to this day nobody knows what happened to jfk's brain. That's weird. Yeah, I mean, it doesn't prove the shellfish, no, but I mean.
Speaker 2:I've. I've misplaced some papers. Sometimes I thought I put it in my bag, you know? Uh, you know, we misplace things. I'm looking at a stapler right now. I've misplaced things, right, Everybody does. I don't think I'd misplace a brain, Right? I don't think I'd misplace the brain of a president who had been. And then a president that had been murdered Right or assassinated Assassinations are murder right and the shots went into his head, right, I mean.
Speaker 1:That's the thing about this is is like the shots that into his head right, I mean, that's that's the thing about this is is like the, the shots that were taken, like this question of whether or not they could have hit at that target, and you know the fact that his, his brain went missing. So, like I added, on its face that story sounds so outlandish, so completely crazy. But then you say, okay, well, now they're saying, like, again, this woman is saying that she saw the footage that showed it clearly and that he showed her that and then showed her this is the version you see, or something was it that she said show him I cannot remember his name during this, uh, during this documentary, this danny casolaro, was dealing with a lot of sketchy people in the intelligence world and he had one contact that he was dealing with a lot and this guy and it was.
Speaker 1:It was funny because it was a similar thing that I've heard about john lear is that this guy spouted lots of stuff. Some of it seemed to be true and some of it seemed to be just crazy, and it was a very similar thing. I don't know. I just I always thought that was fascinating because I have to watch that show. It's a documentary show, yeah, it's documentary on Netflix. It's called something something can make me something conspiracy, but the subtitle is American, yeah, and then the subtitle is the octopus murders and it's I think I started.
Speaker 2:It seemed kind of compelling, it is fascinating, but I need to finish.
Speaker 1:So one would say, okay, that's, that's crazy. Who would even think that you would try to kill somebody by injecting them with poison? Then you find out that, you know, the cia at a certain time had a, had a plan I don't know if it was ever put into into into operation where they were going to, like, put poison on the tips of umbrellas, so yes, and so they could poison, like russian diplomats or something to do with cuba, you know. So like I'm just saying that, like our intelligence agencies had a track record of of using poison in a weird way to like, uh, to kill people, and so, like the idea of you know, and that's something I've never looked into, who was the driver? Like I don't think I ever really looked. It'd be interesting to look into, like who was the driver? Who, who is he? Who's the driver listed as? What was their recollection of the day and whatever became of them, because sometimes it's interesting finding out what happened to people after the fact. The other question I had, which I don't know if you His name's?
Speaker 2:William Greer. Okay, william.
Speaker 1:Greer.
Speaker 2:He was a Secret Service agent.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:And he passed away February of 1985. So he lived quite a while, service agent Okay, and he passed away February of 1985.
Speaker 1:So he lived quite a while after that. Yeah, I mean, it's a long way to say that this. You know if you're accusing the driver of the vehicle, but that's the other thing too. Right is could you imagine a world where, even while all this is going on, that the driver turns around and does this and nobody says that, like there's not a single witness who said although, actually this, somebody said the driver did something this is interesting, yeah, because it says that, um, I mean it gives a little bit of a uh, opens the door a little bit to what you had just said about that show.
Speaker 2:What's it called American Conspiracies?
Speaker 3:Yeah, the.
Speaker 2:Octopus Murders. It says Secret Service procedures in place at the time did not allow Greer to take action without orders from Senior Agent Roy Kellerman, who sat to Greer's right. So he was in between Greer and Connolly. Okay, kellerman has stated that he shouted let's get out of line, we've been hit, but that Greer apparently turned to look at Kennedy before accelerating the car. So it's kind of funny. So somebody does say he did turn to look at Kennedy. I'm not saying anyone says he shot him Right, but that's what this says.
Speaker 1:And presumably I don't remember if these details were ever. I don't know, but like it wouldn't necessarily have to be a gun that looks like a gun too right, it could just be like a tube that you hold in your hand.
Speaker 2:You push it. Yeah, who knows? I don't know.
Speaker 1:I mean, if the idea of it was to shoot a dart with poison, it doesn't need to look like a gun. So if he came to look and anything with his hands, I don't know, that's a weird one, not to jump around, but let's go back just for one second because I always want to talk about.
Speaker 2:You know, we have the issue of the prints on the gun. From what we're talking about, there's not just small questions, there's huge questions whether or not Oswald was holding that gun. On the sixth floor.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean in a murder trial, right the murder weapon and proving that the murder weapon was possessed by the accused. I mean that's one of the most important pieces.
Speaker 2:So was it possessed by him? First of all, was he there, and maybe he was, but there are questions as to whether or not he was even there. On the sixth floor, they know he was in the building because he worked there, right? There's some testimony, there's some evidence that he wasn't on the second floor minutes before, right? So was he holding the gun?
Speaker 1:Sure, because the evidence doesn't seem to indicate for sure that he was how would he have carried said gun and not got his prints on any part of it? Well, they said.
Speaker 2:some people said he put it in like this tube kind of thing, and some people thought he had, like you know, curtain rods, so something like that.
Speaker 1:Right, but I mean, if you have a gun in that you'd have to take it out. And in taking the gun out and putting it into, whatever you use to carry it. I mean, that's when you put the gloves on right, like why would you put gloves and then say okay, now for the actual firing, the weapon.
Speaker 2:I practiced with gloves for the real thing. I'm going to change everything up and take them off.
Speaker 2:It just makes no sense right it does so, um, but so was was where the prints on the on the gun, I don't know. Was he on the sixth floor? I don't know how's this? Were the bullets even fired that they? First of all, they found four bullets, and this is let's just talk about this for one second, because I find it interesting the gun that he had the carcano right. It could hold seven, um, bullets, seven shells, whatever you want to call it. Right, it had four. First of all, why, what for? Why would you go to assassinate a president and not just fill up the whole Right?
Speaker 1:why would you stop at?
Speaker 2:four, why would you just put all seven in? Right, and it gets even weirder. That is weird. It gets even weirder. No one ever found any more bullets at Oswald's house. So you don't just go buy four bullets, you gotta buy a package of them.
Speaker 1:You're that sure of your skill. You're like can I have?
Speaker 2:single bullets. Four is going to do it.
Speaker 1:I'm only going to need four.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:You know, I might not even fire four. I'm thinking of maybe only firing two or three, but four is the maximum. Well, you're going to hold seven. I don't need those extra three.
Speaker 2:That's that's I smoke cigarette and I don't smoke cigarettes, but I used to. You know, I never bought four cigarettes, you just bought a pack of them. Yeah Well, you can't buy four cigarettes Well sometimes at the stores you can buy the little loosies. I don't know if you're like you've never smoked right?
Speaker 1:Oh I did. I smoked for years. Oh you did, oh I did.
Speaker 2:I just gave no. I don't know that that is weird, but anyway, no, who does? But okay, so nobody would buy four bullets. First of all, where would you buy them Right?
Speaker 1:Just singly bullets that you could just buy Right, and if they found like the box of bullets at his house yes, with four missing, then like okay it still doesn't answer why he didn't just load no but, completely, but at least you know. But the fact that they never found any bullets, that is at his residence means that, like you're right.
Speaker 1:Why? Why would somebody do that? The? The thing I was reading about the um the zabruta film too is, they said, uh and this was when I was doing some of the research one of the widely discussed claims that the film was edited to hide evidence of the second shooter. Some researchers have suggested that frames of the film showing the fatal shot to president kennedy's head was were removed or altered to obscure the true origin of the shot. This claim is often linked to the back and to the left movement. Remember that from over and over again.
Speaker 1:Back and to the left Movement of President Kennedy's head in the Sabruta film, which some argue is indicative of a shot from the front, not the rear, where Oswald was positioned right. So the way his head snaps at one point would do that if the guy in front of you turned around and fired something into your. Yes, you know, like I, mean his head exploded.
Speaker 2:Right right, it's just so. Regarding the bullets, too more, more bullets no, no, there's more stuff more bullets stuff.
Speaker 2:Okay, uh, now I'm, I'm giving you information from the warren report, right? Okay, this is from the warren report. It exhibits three empty cartridge shells. Exhibits Exhibits 543, 544, 545. 543 had a dented shell. Okay, ballistic expert Howard Donahue said that that 543 could not have been fired, could not have been used to fire a bullet. You know they got the shell. However you want to phrase it, I'm not a gun expert that day because the dent in the shell would have prevented the weapon from firing properly. Okay, that's what he says. All right, there's another expert that says oh, that dent came from after it came out of the. So that other expert who testified in front of that house thing they did in 1976, he said he doesn't dispute that if it was in that condition prior to being fired, that it wouldn't fire. So he agrees. But he says, oh, but the dent happened after it got shot out of the gun and hit the ground. Okay, there's a lot of other experts that side with the first guy.
Speaker 1:Right, because you'd have to believe that the shell was fine when it came out. And when it hit the ground, it hit the ground with such force that it dented it.
Speaker 2:I don't know. I mean, I know it Again, I'm not a gun expert but, and I guess it ejects- the shell, you'd have to have a lot of weight to that when it hits the ground.
Speaker 1:But wait, you mentioned that that committee, the, the house select committee on assassination, which was established in 1976, um reported that it had audio evidence of a fourth shot being fired at Kennedy's vehicle, which had claimed prove that there was a second gunman Like the. It's so funny that the, the um, it's so funny that the Wait, here's something interesting. They determined that there was probably a what, that the fact that that commission on assassinations kind of determined that now there's no way that that this could happen, that this could happen this way. Yeah, it's just so funny that you don't hear much about that second thing. It's like the first. The first determination is all you hear about. Right now they have the second thing comes out. That's not quite right and and we yeah, and we just move on with it.
Speaker 2:the two other bullets right um the five exhibit 544 had markings revealing it had been ejected by the Carcano. In evidence so ejected, but no markings of a firing pin.
Speaker 1:So it was ejected from the weapon, but there's no evidence that it was fired.
Speaker 2:Interesting. Okay, 545 has no markings of a firing pin either, both the dented one and then the last one, 543 and 545. So those three bullets had markings made by the magazine follower, which I guess is something in the magazine that clips in right, which would have only made the mark if the bullet was the last bullet in the in the magazine okay, okay, according to these experts. But neither one of those bullets could have been the last one in the magazine, because the police found a live round in the rifle, so-.
Speaker 1:That would have been the last one.
Speaker 2:There was no fingerprints found on the shell casings Right. That's the weirdest part. How do you load a gun ammo clip all the live round, yeah so how do you do that?
Speaker 1:how do you load? You were careful and you wore gloves throughout the entire, all your time handling the weapon, loading the weapon, practicing with the weapon, whatever with the weapon. You wore gloves and then decided on the day of the event not to wear gloves and still only managed to get prints on two very specific places right only on that on the barrel, which doesn't make any sense, and on the trigger, which again that makes sense. But that's hardly conclusive, because I have a feeling that the fraction of a fingerprint that could be taken from the trigger of a gun could potentially be matched up with lots of fingerprints, because if it's only a partial, then you can always you know, oh it was this part of the finger, oh it was this part of the finger Like line it up. So, yeah, it's so funny that it's one of the clearest cases that there's more to the story than the official story.
Speaker 1:Maybe all these crazy conspiracies about drivers doing it, or Russians or Cubans, or Castro or the CIA I mean there's a million different ways that it could have happened. Maybe they're all incorrect, but clearly incorrect is the idea that one guy did this on his own and was both incredibly competent and incredibly incompetent at the same time. You know what I'm saying. Like he's competent enough to to be very careful to not put his fingerprints on the weapon at all, except at the very end, where he does it in a couple of weird places. You know he does this thing and then he wanders out of the building Right. Wouldn't you think that, like if you really wanted to make it seem like you didn't do it, you'd do it and then go back to work? You know like, just like. You know like keep a low profile, but instead he like leaves. And then there's the question of how they found him. You know they seem to have picked him up quickly, but like, how?
Speaker 1:did you it's just very quick with that description quickly. That like how did you.
Speaker 2:It's just very quick with that description with a very, very vague first of all, we're in Dallas, texas. We're looking for a white man.
Speaker 1:We're not going to find those around yeah and in his 30s and yeah of average weight average weight right, right, the only thing that would have made it more like cookie cutters.
Speaker 2:And there's a question because there was a police officer that was shot soon after Right. And there's a question if he was even involved in that.
Speaker 1:You know it's funny. The only thing that would have made that description more generic is if they said he also had a 10 gallon hat on, it would be like, okay, well, that's like surrounded by people with 10 gallon hats. So so I think the last thing to cover up on this is the idea of the magic bullet. The magic bullet, Because I find that to be well, the most ridiculous of the theories, Like the idea that a bullet could stop midway.
Speaker 2:They had to account because they were running out of bullets that could do things.
Speaker 1:Right, it seemed like there were more injuries than bullets, right. So the cap to this is what came out not too long ago. I want to say it was like seven or eight months ago that there was a secret service agent who was there that day. I think he was in the trail car and his name was paul landis and he was there that day and I have an audio clip of one of his interviews where he talks about it. But what he says is is that, after all was said and done, they got to the. You know the event happened. Um, they rushed to the hospital, he came up to sort of left the trail. That became the magic bullet.
Speaker 3:So let's listen to him, because this is fascinating in the meantime, while this was happening, I happened to look uh to the right, where miss? Where mrs kenny was sitting and sitting in a pool of blood. There I saw two bright brass bullet fragments. I picked one of them up, looked at it and it was kind of like the end of my little pinky. It was mushroomed and I put it back right exactly where I found it. By then Mrs Kennedy was standing up up and I was looking around for other agents. I didn't see anybody, but I saw an intact, fully bullet on the back of the seat, where the cushioning meets the met the trunk of the car, and I picked it up and looked at it and it was only thing I noticed that was wrong with it were bullet striations. There was no other deformities. I started to put it back. Mrs kennedy and clint were leaving the car and I made a quick decision I didn't see anybody to secure the car. People were emerging on the car. I did not want this piece of evidence to disappear and I slipped it into my pocket.
Speaker 3:As we raced through the lobby of the emergency room, we got to trauma room one. They had to pivot the journey that the president's body was on and push it into the trauma room. There was a crowd that kind of joined us doing this. I was pushed right up next to the president's body and standing right next to his feet, most everybody in the room was focused on the headroom. I could not look, but I knew I would pass out if I saw it. And all these things are whirling through my mind on what to do, things that are whirling through my mind on what to do, and I realized this was a perfect place to leave a bullet with the president's body and it would be found during the autopsy and about that time. So I reached out, I put the bullet on Gurney, right by his feet, and about that time the doctors were asking everybody to leave. Somebody came in and said please, please, let me through, I'm a doctor and somebody else another doctor. They asked everybody to leave. Give them room to work.
Speaker 1:That's crazy. So he says he found an intact bullet, which is weird to begin with. Yeah, I was just thinking about that.
Speaker 2:Like just a bullet just sitting there that he's saying looks to him like it had been fired from a gun, but according to him, no other deformities and it might have hit something.
Speaker 1:And couldn't. What could explain that is traveling through a body, like a body, or, you know, like that's what I'm saying. Well, that, wouldn't that slow the bullet down enough to, I don't know like yeah like because the skull is pretty hard.
Speaker 2:This is the magic bullet, right this is it.
Speaker 1:And they claim that this bullet was found on the stretcher of governor connelly. I'm yes, and that's how it became the the magic bullet is because it was found on his stretcher, as they said, then that's how they constructed this whole thing.
Speaker 2:But I mean, yes, the story sounds odd, but before he said this no one really knew exactly how that bullet got there, Right, right and that part kind of bewilders me that an agent would be I.
Speaker 2:To me it sounds sloppy to say, well, I just want to put it somewhere, someone would find it. Well, what are you talking about? Just tell somebody that you have it, and I would think it doesn't make sense Like that part of it. I just it was like that other guy with the fingerprint. Well, I just figured you'd find it. What do you mean? You'd figure I find it. Yeah, what kind of investigation is this?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean you would think that then immediately that car would be locked down. That car is evidence, a scene of the crime, you know yeah.
Speaker 2:Hey, by the way, I found this bullet Right when, right over here.
Speaker 1:I would think it would need to be left, exactly like you, you don't want to just like. How did it get exactly where you?
Speaker 2:found it right. That's a question in of itself, like how did it end up there if it had been fired? But there are no other deformities and but it where, where, I'm sorry, where he says he found it would have been the bullet, would have to gone through everybody and then gone back because he says he found it with near the back seat in the Right, which means it would have come from the front.
Speaker 1:Yes, it would have come from the front, would have traveled potentially through somebody and not gotten deformed because it can cut through a person without but slowing it down enough.
Speaker 2:If it was a bullet that went through someone, it's evidence of more than one bullet when the shooter was coming from, because there's no way it could have come from the back and then ended up going through people then ended up behind them.
Speaker 1:It's not a boomerang bullet, yeah it was it's a super magic bullet.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, that's the thing right is is that that just came out fairly recently and now on top, laid on top of the fact that that commission on assassinations, the house committee, had had determined, okay, something, something's fishy here. And now he comes out and years later, and I guess they asked him, you know like, why did you, you know, never say anything. He's like I just didn't want to disrupt the, you know, the official story wasn't my place to disrupt the official story but the official story was.
Speaker 2:Nobody knew where it came from I know, know it's weird.
Speaker 1:I mean, according to him, he didn't. After that day he says that he didn't, he didn't read about it, he didn't follow it. He, after that day and after whatever questioning, you know, whatever, he, he just put it out, tried to put it out of his head and he was having, you know, pretty traumatic because he saw a lot of things happen and then he just never really looked into anything about it and it wasn't until many, many, many years later where he actually learned oh wait, that bullet that I put on the stretcher, they've created this whole idea around and he came out with a book. You know, immediately you have to just have to always say you know, okay, this guy comes out with a book and, as I said earlier in the episode, there's been hundreds of books on the JFK assassination. So how are you going to make yours stand?
Speaker 2:out. You got to sell it baby.
Speaker 1:And now all of a sudden you have this crucial piece of evidence which changes the thing. But it also fits the facts of the weirdness of the bullet. But I never believe that magic bullet thing. I mean, first of all it has the word magic in the theory, like I don't think the official warren commission report has magic bullet.
Speaker 2:Although it's really not called the warren commission, they called it that because of the um, the guy that so where's magic?
Speaker 1:so all right, but I don't think they call it. I don't ever call it the magic bullet.
Speaker 2:I don't think that would be cool. Yeah, the magic bullet. I think, that's the lore of what it's called because it kind of is. You know, I don't think that it's called that. No.
Speaker 1:Okay, well, that makes me feel a little bit better. That only takes the layer of bullshit down one level. We're not going to use the word magic, that'd be ridiculous. Yeah, but you're saying the bullet stopped in midair and turned, yeah, but we're not going to say it's magic, that would be crazy.
Speaker 2:Right, there's a whole thing about that Kennedy was seated somewhat higher than Connolly and that accounts was. But you know what? The trajectory doesn't work and one bullet can't just go through all those things to be found pristine, right, because it went through bones. Right Went through someone's skull Right.
Speaker 1:And that's the thing is that bullet that was found pristine would match with going through a body and being slowed down by organs and internal things. But if it impacted with a bone, it one may have stopped there and two, if it had come out the other end it would have definitely been deformed. So the bullet like that, I would think again. I'm not an expert on bullets, but I would think that if it were fired and it were in good condition pristine condition besides being fired, it means that it would have traveled to something soft enough to slow it down. So it ended up where it ended up, but not otherwise damaged. But, like you know, his head exploded. If that bullet exploded his head, it would have been damaged because your skull is pretty hard. So like that's the thing is. It's so funny how that story came up and it was out for a little bit and then, like most things, it just sort of goes away.
Speaker 2:You know, when I look at this investigation, I don't want anyone to think that I think that our government is out to get us, because I just I don't believe that, right. I don't believe that, right. I believe there are pockets within our government because it's so huge that have their own interests, and sometimes those interests don't align with the public's interests, of course, because just by this small thing I mean, we've been talking what? A little over an hour and a half now, and we could probably talk for another five and a half hours and still scratch the surface of this whole thing but the small amount we've been talking about, you can see, oh, why are there so many discrepancies? But the discrepancies are found because other government employees are finding them, of course, right. So it's not this conspiracy that everyone's involved in, right, but I do think there are people that are involved in. Some of them might have been connected with the government.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean the whole idea of a quote unquote government conspiracy to me is a straw man, because no organization first of all the United States government is the biggest organization like on the planet, but no organization, no matter its size, ever operates as one Like. I'm sure everyone listening has been in organizations, whether it's PTA or part of a company or whatever it is. Think of any organization you've ever belonged to. Was everyone in cohesive? No, there was always this faction over here and this faction over here. Somehow it all works, but like that idea has never been.
Speaker 1:I always feel like that idea of like. Well, you're saying it's a government conspiracy, therefore you're saying the entire government conspired and that's ridiculous. So your, your theory is wrong and I don't. My answer that would no. No one ever said it was the entire government. What we're saying is is that all you need to have is a couple people in a couple of positions, like with most big organizations. You don't need to control the whole thing. All you need to do is have a couple of choke points.
Speaker 1:And the thing about conspiracy theories which has always bothered me in general is you don't have to police them. We do such a good job of policing ourselves. It bothers me how strong of a word or phrase conspiracy theorist is. Like. If you bring that up, if you're called that, uh, people you know recoil like, oh my god, don't call me a conspiracy theorist, you know if. If you say I say it was pride, though, right I actually I think the better term would be conspiracy realist, because conspiracy, like we said in the last episode, conspiracies happen all the time. All the time there are factions conspiring for very sometimes they're caught, sometimes they're not. Well, it's an actual crime.
Speaker 2:It's a thing people get convicted of Right.
Speaker 1:And so, like conspiracy theory, it has, like this idea of oh you have a theory that it's a conspiracy, you must be crazy, right, and but nothing about the word conspiracy or the word about theory. It's that we've put, or it's been put in that for us, that idea that it's such a powerful thing, and we reject conspiracies so often by saying, well, you're, don't be a conspiracy theorist. Not everything's a conspiracy, yeah, not everything is, but a lot of things are. Most things are, unless they were done by one person. The only things that can't be conspiracies are things that were carried done by one person.
Speaker 1:Right, the only things that can't be conspiracies are things that were carried out by one person to one person alone if more than one person was involved, they needed to conspire in which to do whatever they did right, and it might just be conspiring to bake delicious cookies for the, for the, you know, for the bake well, I think a conspiracy means you're doing something wrong is. Is it built into conspiracy? I thought conspiracy was just coordinated effort. You know what?
Speaker 2:You might be right. I always thought it meant for like something, not a good gain.
Speaker 1:I mean, you know that is the, despite what the actual definition is, words often take on a meaning all of their own and the meaning is just sort of understood. So I, I think, you're right.
Speaker 2:So well, this is in the oxford okay.
Speaker 1:A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful okay, yeah, so making cookies unless they had something that would not be a conspiracy, that would just be a plan right unless they were going to conspire to put poison in it or you know or? Marijuana. So raisins, which is the worst defense out of those three? You put a little poison in. Ok, no harm, no foul and marijuana I'm OK with that. But if you're going to put raisins in it now, you're ruining the cookie, I'm out. Have you ever eaten like bitten into a cookie that you thought in your heart was chocolate chip and it turned out to be raisin?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:In that moment of realization.
Speaker 2:I actually get angry.
Speaker 1:Oh, it is the worst thing ever, but anyway. That being said, but it's just so funny that this is the granddaddy of conspiracies. And you're not supposed to believe in conspiracies, but this is the granddaddy of them and it's pretty clear to anyone who has a brain that, whatever you think, the answer is, it's not what they said, it was right. So, and in order for that to be true, in order for this, you know, government commission to come out and say we 100 think this is what happened, and everyone looks and goes that's, there's no way. That's what happened. Implies that there would have had to have been a conspiracy, because one person didn't do this. It would have taken at least two people, probably a lot more.
Speaker 2:And it was something unlawful and harmful. It's clear.
Speaker 1:So it's a conspiracy that it happened. But it's amazing how well we police ourselves against conspiracies and like it's just, it's infuriating when you you know, like I said, I'm going to start using the new term conspiracy realist Because, like, obviously something's fishy here, and if something fishy is here and nobody discovered, it means that somebody had to have done something to hide it up. Hide it, you know, cover it up.
Speaker 2:Do you imagine if you were on a jury of a crime like this and the evidence was we don't have any real prints on the gun. Okay, what do you get? Oh, it must be something the bullets actually know. It looks like I might've had a hard time firing these, and some of the marks on it couldn't have happened the way that's well, what do you get? That's pretty much what we got, Right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's no way somebody would be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. Did he admit it?
Speaker 2:No, what do we?
Speaker 1:have and you know, and then you get into the whole thing about the one guy who could have answered a lot of these questions dies immediately, you know, two days after, and now it's by a guy wait a minute and I guess you know I know it's been talking a while, that's okay, but a guy that runs nightclubs in the area, right Okay, he's not the best guy in the world.
Speaker 2:They say he was kind of you know, kind of maybe not organized crime, but organized crime adjacent?
Speaker 1:yes, if you're. If you're running clubs yeah, if you're running nightclubs. Uh, he was known in the 60s you probably had something to do.
Speaker 2:yeah it, yeah, he knew the story goes. He knew maybe 20, 25% of the guys that worked on the force. Okay, Many of them were there that day. What do you know, right? What the F is he doing there? What's?
Speaker 1:happening any evidence that he that he had such a strong affection for president john f kennedy that he would have been moved by someone harming him to harm them, like like. Well, here's an interesting. Is he a jfk?
Speaker 2:stan, I was like not, not that I could find okay, there was a lot of people that liked them, but you know, at that time there were a lot of people that didn't too right.
Speaker 1:It was not totally different than it is now well, I imagine, if you, if you run nightclubs, you know I'm talking about john f kennedy.
Speaker 2:Oh, of course there was a lot of people liked him, a lot of people that didn't.
Speaker 1:Well, that's true of any politics. Obviously the other party didn't like him right. He could have been mother theresa and the other party, would you know, in politics would go you're evil, he'll be somebody, right?
Speaker 2:The story goes that you know, of course, ruby was put in jail after what happened. Right, oswald didn't die right away, okay, it took him a little while to die. Okay, the guy that he was in the cell with, all right, he says that Ruby was like like frantic between the time it happened until the time he found out Oswald died. He said as soon as Oswald died, ruby became calm and he said it was weird that the guy that had been arrested for shooting Oswald calmed down after Oswald died, because now your charges are worse. And at that's the point that he kind of became calm again that he. The story is that maybe he thought his job wasn't done and that he was going to something was going to happen to him because he didn't actually do what he was supposed to do.
Speaker 1:Well, yeah, because what would happen is is that, theoretically, if Oswald survived long enough to start talking Right, and then all of a sudden it would be shady, and then whoever came next to clean up the mess would include Ruby. Yeah, you're right, because up to that point, if he hadn't died, then he would be charged with you know whatever. What would be the charge if you shot somebody that they didn't die? It could be Assault battery.
Speaker 2:dangerous weapon Aggravated you know?
Speaker 1:Yeah, exactly so. But then once he dies, you're on the hook for murder. Yeah, why would you be relieved when the target of your like you really wanted him dead? You wanted him dead so much that, oh my God, it's just bothering me that I failed. Oh wait.
Speaker 2:It wasn't just bothering him, they said he looked scared.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's how long did Ruby? I mean, did Ruby live out his life? I don't.
Speaker 2:He died of cancer. Let's see.
Speaker 1:Or so we think Well, there's a whole thing with that.
Speaker 2:You could go down the-.
Speaker 1:You could go down the rabbit hole of Death date Just because somebody died of- 1967, january 3rd 1967.
Speaker 2:He died in the same hospital where Oswald and Kennedy died. Imagine that.
Speaker 1:Interesting.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So here's my question, and I don't know if anyone knows this. So he died in 67, you said yes. And all right. And so four years after the so when I say nightclubs.
Speaker 2:He had strip joints. I mean, I'm not trying to say everyone that's involved in a nightclub has, you know, bad motives, because they do not, and I'm not saying everyone that has a strip joint is involved in bad motives.
Speaker 1:But you know, as you start going down that road, you would at least and especially in like Dallas, like in a city, kind of.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, it's just the guy that runs a strip joint isn't the Avenger of the world Right.
Speaker 1:But what I'm wondering is and I don't know this, but like so he, he passed away about four years after the events, right because 63, and then he died in 67 yes, is it so?
Speaker 2:it was a yeah about three years, but is it?
Speaker 1:conceivable that he could have known he had cancer? Do you know? I'm saying, like you know, it's a big ask of somebody to say, hey, we need you to, in full view of everybody, shoot this person and go to jail. But he died of a pulmonary embolism which, but years after which again doesn't mean but what. You know what I'm saying? Like that's a big ask of somebody, but if somebody already Well, he wasn't diagnosed until after oh, he wasn't okay, all right but I where you're going.
Speaker 2:But like you know what I'm saying, like how would you convince somebody to do that right?
Speaker 1:like how, like what, what could they have had over him that would have made him agree to do that? That's what I'm. That's. My question is like that's, that's a big ask, you know, and obviously he lived out the rest of his life in prison. I mean he didn't live incredibly long, but four more years. But I don't know, I mean it's weird, I mean all of it's weird, right, there's none of this that that makes sense when you came at it. It's just he.
Speaker 2:there's never really been a great reason why he was even there Right and I, I could find have you. I don't know if you ever looked.
Speaker 1:I looked a little bit. I just I there wasn't much about. You know it's funny that how quickly his stories kind of moved. You know you can spend all the time, as we did with this. You know, with this episode, in talking about the other parts of that's fishy about the assassination. Like there's so much that's strange about it that you're often a million different directions and wormholes before you get to the fact of the guy who killed, the guy who did it. And isn't this where kind of the trope kind of comes of like you hire somebody to assassinate somebody and then you kill the assassins. Isn't that where this idea kind of came from? Isn't that where this idea kind of came from Like that's a common trope now in like movies and television, the idea of of a patsy and the idea of you get somebody to do a thing and then you kill them.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, Like I clean up the loose ends but, departed that, that you ever see that movie, the departed I think so.
Speaker 1:Yeah, like the movie ended with like every loose end getting which, but isn't this? That's kind of where that idea came from. I don't know if this idea, that idea, really existed pre this.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, you know, I mean, when you have more than one person committed a crime, it's it's a lot easier to get away with it If you can get rid of that other person.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, I think it was at, wasn't it Benjamin Franklin that said that the the way that three, three men, as if two of them are dead. Yeah, and that's kind of yeah. So maybe that idea existed before that, but it's just yeah, this is the granddaddy of all conspiracies and there's talk that this conspiracy is connected with others, like there's Like what? There's some talk that he was looking to, you know, to really clamp down on the CIA. Well, I think it's.
Speaker 1:You know, I think it's more than just talk Pretty solid that he was doing that.
Speaker 2:But it was also he didn't like the autonomy that they had.
Speaker 1:No, because they'd been caught doing some shady stuff frequently and he was but there was also some talk that, like with Marilyn Monroe and like there's a whole connection there, right, because that's the thing is like the time when this was going on is around the same time. We had, you know, the UFO thing and you had Marilyn Monroe pass it, you know. So it's like all there's all these conspiracies and Kennedy seems to be the nexus of them, which is funny. I don't know, it's fascinating, man, I it's. It's one of those things you know. When you ask people if you could go back and see like any event and and witness it and see what really happened, this is a big one, like you know. People will often say you know, I'd like to see the building of the pyramids, that's kind of mine, but, like you know, what events would you love to see as a bystander? And a lot of people say this is the one because it's like, oh, you could.
Speaker 2:Have you seen that? It's old now, With James Franco there was a TV show. It was on Hulu.
Speaker 1:About him going back and stopping it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah yeah, it was an interesting show yeah. But I think that if I was going to say I could be somewhere, if I was to be there, I would try to do something to try to stop the event. I don't think I'd want to witness this.
Speaker 1:Unless you were of the mind that changing it would be bad. I mean, I don't know how you'd make that determination, but, like you know, history unrolled a certain way.
Speaker 2:It kind of seemed like society was pushing towards more progressive change at that time.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Right, and then there was a Martin Luther King, John F Kennedy, and then things kind of just went to like not too long, with the culmination of the capitalism of the eighties.
Speaker 1:But, yeah, I almost wonder if it's, if it's like yeah, like the, the, the embers of that fire that we're going to burn to to. You know, they were like how do we squash this? And a couple, a couple of, key deaths here and there Next thing, you know, all right, we got it back under control.
Speaker 2:Because it just seemed like. It seemed like again, I wasn't alive then, but it just seems like when you look back it's like there was more of a younger person's progressive ideas were becoming like mainstream kind of. But yeah, like mainstream kind of.
Speaker 1:But yeah, Now, I mean I would like to see a world where you know what would have unfolded if that, if he hadn't. You know if it hadn't happened or he had somehow, you know, a la Reagan made it through that attempt, yeah, and so there we have like another one, to kind of compare it with right, Like an attempt on Ronald Reagan, One dude who, like you, found the motive, you found, like it all added up, it was weird, he was trying to impress Jodie Foster, Right, which is such a weird thing I mean yeah.
Speaker 1:It's such a weird thing, but I mean, we've all been there. We've all been there. You know, you want to impress an actress, and so you decide you shoot a present, yeah I mean, how could she not fall in love with him after that? But it's just so weird that that that one kind of makes sense in a weird way. As weird as that is, it kind of like, well, that one at least lines up, whereas this one doesn't line up at all?
Speaker 2:No At all. Well, there were no questions whether or not that guy fired the gun. We knew, you know, they grabbed him Right.
Speaker 1:He was right there on film. I actually I know it's off topic, but I was the TV was on in the other room and I was young, but I saw the aftermath of that, which was very weird. I was at a friend's house and we were playing with matchbox cars and in the other room, um, her mother was watching, uh, you know, whatever the news or whatever, whatever they were showing, and and that all unfolded like, and I was right there, it was, it was interesting, that was weird times, but I don't know. This has been fascinating. There's so much to this topic. I feel like at some point down the road we should circle back and revisit this.
Speaker 2:I'd like that.
Speaker 1:Because there's more here, but I don't think that's as good a place as any, though, to wrap things. Any final thoughts on this, any final pieces of?
Speaker 2:I have nothing extra that I can really wrap up, except that I would ask any everyone that's listening just consider that. It's just this, the, the evidence we've talked about, which there's so much more right, just the evidence we're talking about. Would you convict somebody based on this? Listen, there was way more evidence against OJ Simpson, right, right, way more Simpson.
Speaker 1:Right, right, way more, yeah, right. Yeah, that's so weird. Yeah, I've yet to meet a person who, if I mention the JFK, that they just agree with the official word and know more than that. It's all that, like you said, that conspiratorial, like well, we know something happened.
Speaker 3:We all know something happened. Oh, it's all that, like you said, that conspiratorial, like. Well, we know something happened we all know something happened.
Speaker 2:Oh well, right right.
Speaker 1:Implications are big. If this in fact, was some sort of conspiracy man, the implications are huge.
Speaker 2:And you know I'll leave it with this, when Donald Trump was asked by. There's a guy he's on Fox, judge Napolitano or whatever his name is.
Speaker 1:Oh, napolitano, yeah, I remember him yeah.
Speaker 2:He says that he asked Donald Trump why didn't you release all the documents regarding JFK. He said that Donald Trump told him, if you saw what I saw, you wouldn't have released them either.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, that's the that's, you know that's's. We'll wrap it up on that part alone. But that's the weirdest thing, is you know the weirdest? But one of the weird things is that the papers, all the documents, now 70 years later, still have not been released right, even though they were all slated to have been released yeah, and every slated but ordered and every president both sides.
Speaker 1:They kick that can down the road always kicked that can down the road, has always kicked the can down the road and said, nope, now's not the time, now's not the time and what. I can't think of. Anything else other than an element of our intelligence agency had something to do with it.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:Which is why you would not want to release that, because confidence would be demolished, like that's. Like there's no other reason, because any individual person who is involved in that is long dead right. So there's no individuals you would ever be protecting. The only thing you'd be protecting is the reputation or stability of a, of an institution. Right, and what institutions could have done it? Uh, would want to do it and could have covered it up, and our intelligence agencies are like the top of that list. There's not really anyone besides that. So, uh, fascinating stuff, awesome. Well, that's been a great discussion. I think we'll leave that here and uh, yeah, and until next time. I'm Chris and I'm Steve and this has been some deep shit. We'll be you next time.
