Behind the Headlines: The JFK Assassination, 50 Years Later

Sott Editors
Sott.net
Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:00 UTC

People running up the grassy knoll on November 22nd, 1963. They knew what direction the fatal bullet came from. Do you?

Today, November 22nd, 2013, marks 50 years since the Day America Died. A tragic event for most Americans and for ordinary people the world over who choose peace over war, equality over injustice, and happiness over greed, the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was pivotal in setting the United States on its current path towards doom.

In our recent SOTT Talk Radio show we reflected on the life of a man who dreamed of a better world, and was making that dream a reality until assassins' bullets killed the American Dream that sunny November day in Dallas, Texas.

Half a century later, it's common knowledge in the U.S. that JFK's murder was ordered by a powerful cabal. And yet, successive U.S. administrations have refused to release documents that would fill in the remaining gaps. Who exactly carried it out? And on behalf of whom? How did they organise it? And why did they do it?

Despite the passing of time, the 'suiciding' of key witnesses, the barrage of misinformation and disinformation, and the 'loss' of crucial documentation, excellent research has enabled others to form a cohesive and reasonably objective narrative that counters the official propaganda and places the assassination in proper historical context.

Running Time: 01:54:00

Download: MP3

Transcript

Niall: Hello and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. My name is Niall Bradley and your co-host tonight is Joe Quinn. We also have Pierre Lescaudron and Laura Knight-Jadczyk with us tonight.

Pierre: Hello.

Niall: It's coming up on 50 years - half a century - since the assassination of JFK. That marked a day that America died. It was tragic for most Americans but also for ordinary people the world over; people who choose peace over war, equality over injustice and happiness over greed. The assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was pivotal in setting the United States on its current path towards doom.

So this week on SOTT Talk Radio we are going to reflect on the life of a man who dreamed of a better world and was making that dream a reality until assassins killed the American dream that sunny November day in Dallas, Texas. Where were you that day, Laura?

Laura: I was 11 years old in my 6th grade classroom. The rest of the class had gone out to recess and I had to stay inside because I was sick so I was allowed to sit in the classroom alone and watch television and the news report came on and it was very shocking so I ran outside to my teacher on the playground and I said "you'll never believe what just came on the news. They said the President's been shot." And he thought I was joking and I said "I'm not joking, this is real, I'm watching TV and it's on the news" and he and the class came running inside and everybody in the whole school came running inside their classrooms from recess and it was just really, really terrible. We sat there in stunned silence the whole rest of the day until we went home on the school bus watching the news and learning the President had died. It was devastating. Everyone was crying.

Pierre: What's interesting is when you ask people who were alive at the time where they were when you they learned about JFK's death; it has been 50 years now and they all still remember where they were at that moment.

Laura: I don't think anyone can forget it. I'm 61 years old now and I still grieve for what happened that day. It still invokes in me a very strong emotional reaction and the more I have learned about John Kennedy, even in the face of the defamers, slanderers and libellers, filthy-minded people who have tried to blacken his memory and make him look like he was a psychopath or whatever; the more I've learned about him from actually researching the topic, the more grievous I realize that day actually was. When John Kennedy was assassinated and the American people did not rise up en masse and demand a true accounting was the day that the American conscience was killed and the day that that America died.

Pierre: This reminds me of Walter Cronkite mentioning to one of his colleagues that the children's schools were crying so much they had to cancel class and send the children back to their houses. It makes me wonder how children who don't know much about politics and what is generally going on can react with such intensity. And maybe at a subtle or unconscious level a lot of human beings knew what was going on, knew that it was literally the beginning of the end for them and for the others.

Niall: In the historical narrative that has grown up around that time - and not just around the event itself - but also JFK's legacy and what his administration achieved and didn't achieve, it's nearly always filtered through this texture of 'oh, well it was a very polarizing presidency, he wasn't popular in all quarters and not everybody understood and liked him' and so on and so forth, but it's clear that the vast majority of ordinary people understood him, even if they didn't grasp exactly what he was saying because he set a pretty high standard. Pierre, I think you're on to something when you say that, instinctively, they knew he was a good man.

Pierre: And you cannot please everybody. In our world, which presents such a duality where a small elite is oppressing the majority of the people, either you please the elite or you please the people, and JFK was one of the very few leaders who genuinely was trying and did actually serve the people. And therefore, he had to threaten the privileges of the elites.

Laura: Yeah, and it's very reminiscent of the assassination of Julius Caesar and how the assassin Brutus claimed he was doing it for freedom and what it really was, was the freedom of the oligarchy to continue to oppress the masses and steal their stuff and own everything and let everyone else starve; The 1% versus the 99%. I don't even think in Rome that it was 1%. It was a percentage of 1% and I think that what has happened in the US since the assassination of John Kennedy is very similar to what happened in Rome though in a slightly more technological fashion after what happened to Caesar. We are really approaching an imperium if something else doesn't happen. We don't know what's going to happen.

Pierre: The similarities between the two statesmen are striking. Actually, Fortune Magazine, published in April right after the steel crisis where the US Steel Company was raising the prices and Kennedy fought against this illegal practice and won, he became a clear enemy of the industries of the businessmen, and Fortune titled it 'Kennedy: The Ides of April'.

Laura: Very interesting. There was a similar defamation campaign that was instituted against Kennedy following his death that was very reminiscent of the one instituted against Julius Caesar, including very slanderous claims about sexual proclivities, horsing around, getting it on with every woman, doing the Don Juan number 7 days a week or whatever, and whether or not John Kennedy actually had affairs, I can't really say.

It seems possible that he did. There are certainly people that have come forward and said he did, but just recently his medical records were released among the records that have been sequestered for the last 50 years; I just read the article recently and apparently, according to his medical records, he was in constant pain for years and years and he was receiving treatments and injections.

He had drugs to help him keep going, drugs to help him sleep, drugs to help him control the pain, and we're taking about major pain, and I could tell you right now, based on his medical records and having suffered from rheumatoid arthritis since I was 9 years old, I know that when you're in pain and on the medications that keep you going so that you can function in spite of pain, getting romantic is kind of like the last thing you feel like doing, either through inclination or being functionally able to. So there's a huge problem with his medical records, vis-à-vis claims about romantic escapades. This man couldn't have been doing all that stuff for crying out loud!

Joe: Yeah, he suffered from colitis, prostatitis and a disorder called Addison's disease, which affects the blood's ability to regulate blood, sugar and sodium. He also had osteoporosis of the lower back, causing pain so severe that he was unable to perform simple tasks such as reaching across his desk to pull papers forward or pulling the shoe and sock onto his left foot. That's according to historian Robert Dallek, who had access to his medical records.

Pierre: What he did is all the more impressive when you know the amount of suffering he had to cope with. But just to go back to these womanizing accusations, even if JFK or Caesar had mistresses, the people who point the figure are the very ones who delight in the now extensively documented pedophile rings, including torture or other sacrificial rituals.

Niall: This all began with Hoover. This was a guy who had sex parties with men only, at a time when it was illegal, and exposure of which would have cost him his job.

Laura: Well, he was hunting down homosexuals in his day job and partying with them at night.

Niall: And he was using rumours of homosexuality against others to blackmail them. So he teamed up with Johnson, the Vice President, to get both the Kennedy brothers blackmailed, and the way they did it, they would send a message through someone else saying 'it's okay, we know about so and so.' For example, there was one time when Hoover personally went to the White House with photos of JFK leaving the house of a young woman when he was a Senator, and Hoover would say to him 'we're on top of things. It's safe with us.' And he did this over and over again, especially in the case of the Kennedys. This is the source of the womanizing claims and this is probably how they boxed the Kennedys into having to accept Lyndon Johnson as the Vice President.

Laura: Right. And making a claim or threat that 'we've got a photograph of you leaving someone else's house', John Kennedy knew that even if nothing had happened; and I'm not saying it did or didn't - I don't know. But considering his condition, the likelihood of there being much in the way of hanky-panky would be extremely mild with things like Addison's disease and circulatory problems. It's just not too likely that there was a lot going on; but he knew that this could be blown-up and made into a very big thing. So the fact that he was leaving a certain person's house could be used.

Pierre: Niall, I think you mentioned an important; compromises. And sometimes we have an idealistic vision of the present world but with JFK we have to keep in mind that he was between a rock and hard place. He had to fight every minute against the establishment, against the CIA, the FBI, the Generals and businessmen to make his way, so he had to make some compromises and throw the dog a bone. He did agree to some covert sabotage operations in Cuba. He did agree to some extent with the coup d'état against Diem in Vietnam, but every decision had to take these pressures into account.

Joe: That wasn't him who was involved in that in Vietnam.

Laura: What's the story on that?

Joe: It was the people behind him. It was his generals; I can't remember the particular name of the guy; but he was basically betrayed.

Laura: I read that he was shocked when he heard that Diem had been assassinated.

Joe: He wanted Diem to the leader of the country and Diem was overthrown by the CIA essentially, against JFK's wishes.

Laura: For example if you read James Douglass' book 'JFK and the Unspeakable', if your heart doesn't break when you read the passage about the exchanges between John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev and how they defused the Cuban Missile Crisis by communicating directly with each other rather than allowing their spymasters and generals to handle things and how, between the two of them, they averted a nuclear war at a time when it could have been mutually assured destruction: MAD!

Even if John Kennedy got into office with the help of the Mob - as is fairly well known because his father spread a lot of money around among the Mob and that helped get him elected... even saying that tells us something about elections in the US as far back as then, that they were completely manipulated events. So if anybody thinks that the American people actually electe their President, then please, think again.

But in any event his father did help him get into the Presidency and I think that once John Kennedy got there he thought about things. He may have had a briefing and realized what the situation was. He may have gotten himself into power because he wanted to fix things. He may have had a change of heart of some sort. James Douglass seems to think that he had a change of heart and that he saw and realized things, that he had a conscience and his conscience began to bother him, and he also looked at his children who he knew would inherit whatever he did and that this affected him profoundly.

So we don't know all of the details, we may never know the details but there are certainly enough biographies written, each one providing a different perspective and different details that we can sort of piece together as a picture and come to the conclusion that there is no way in hell that John Kennedy was a psychopath. Who was it that said that? It was the same guy that thinks psychopaths are the new man, right?

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: I think it was somebody building on the study. There was a guy by the name of Kevin Dutton who came out with a book about some of the great qualities of psychopaths that we should aspire to. You know, like leadership and decisiveness.

Laura: Like leadership and decisiveness cannot belong to a non-psychopath? That's jaw-dropping.

Niall: That was the implication. Somebody took that and ran with it and did a kind of diagnostic of the last 50 Presidents and JFK came out number # 1.

Laura: Number # 1, eh?

Niall: The best, i.e. 'the most psychopathic', President the United States has had.

Laura: And of course they were basing their assessment on his leadership and dynamic decision-making qualities and a whole boatload of slurs, smears and BS information provided by that slimeball, J. Edgar Hoover.

Niall: Exactly. We're not sure about this, but if there was a psychopath in that administration, it was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Laura: That man was evil, pure evil. You know he was complicit.

Niall: The way he wormed his way into the administration to begin with, the pressure he put them under constantly and some of the things that Robert Kennedy said immediately after - he confronted Lyndon the day after the assassination at the White House and the conversation was overheard by a photographer who captured the moment where Lyndon puts on a pitiful face of 'what are you saying?' and Robert had apparently punched a pillar in order to avoid punching Lyndon in the face and he cried out to him 'why did you have my brother killed?' So I suspect Robert knew right away.

Laura: Yeah, there was an article recently where his son says his father believed the CIA was also very much involved in the assassination of John Kennedy and his father Bobby Kennedy. So, LBJ had to be complicit because the first thing he did when he got into office was reverse all of the peace-oriented maneuvers that JFK had made and began turning the wheels of the cover-up.

Joe: Over the years there have been a lot of people who have written books, published articles and even Geraldo, back in the 90s, had Jim Mars and two other guys who had written a book that basically said Johnson did it. So that makes me a bit suspicious when the focus is only on LBJ, because obviously the idea that US Presidents are essentially ceremonial heads holds true, and has held true for a long time, and the real power structures are behind them.

So to focus it all on the President, for me, doesn't tell or reveal the whole story and truth about the nature of the power structure within the US and who really pushes the buttons or pulls the strings. There is big oil Texas oilmen, the FBI and Hoover, and the CIA are all over this behind the scenes. Certainly Johnson couldn't have done it on his own. I would say he wasn't even the main player. He went along with it, was complicit in it, and he was happy for it to happen because he got to President.

Laura: And he made promises that if you do it, this is what I'll do for you.

Joe: Well yeah, and he has to hold to those promises, which points directly to the real power source.

Laura: Exactly.

Niall: Immediately afterwards, you have Johnson's attorney - who was his attorney for his whole career as a Senator in Texas before he went into the Federal Government. There is sworn testimony from one guy that "I think it was Clint Murchison who ran Texas" - which was a quote from him - and who said that he expected, from Johnson, $8 million spread over his two terms as President.

Joe: That was Edward Clark, the attorney.

Niall: That's right. He was a big Texas millionaire.

Joe: He was Johnson's legal counsel for most of his political career and afterwards he was brought into government and Johnson made him the ambassador to Australia, but he was part of it as Johnson's legal counsel through those years during the Kennedy assassination so he wanted 8 million but didn't get it because Johnson resigned in his second term.

Niall: But he still ended up getting $6 million, so we know that one person, once removed from Johnson, was paid $6 million for doing his part.

Laura: So we have a guy that was complicit in the assassination of an American President who was given the plum job of being the ambassador to Australia as compensation for his evil-doing and that's kind of how government works. And he only got $6 million?

Joe: He only got $4 million [initially], and when Johnson resigned he went to Clint Murchison.

Niall: Another Texas millionaire.

Joe: The point is, he went to the oil barons in Texas, who were all involved in the assassination and said 'listen, where's the rest of my money?' and they gave him an extra $2 million. So they were the moneymen and motivators behind it but it's all tied up with the FBI and CIA. There are all sorts of different threads throughout this conspiracy involving the anti-Cuban groups the CIA had been running as possibly part of it or being on the scene.

Laura: The Mob.

Joe: Yeah.

Laura: The Mossad, probably.

Niall: I think something needs to be said at this point regarding all these different groups and threads. Over the years it's lost a lot of people and their interest in continuing research because there is a lot of plausible evidence whichever way you look and you can't form a cohesive argument for this group or that group.

Laura: Because it was all of them.

Niall: The thing is, all of them overlap. The boundaries really blur. I mean, where do the Mob end and the CIA begin?

Joe: It doesn't. The CIA is a Mob. The CIA is the Mafia and always has been.

Niall: Organized Crime. That's the State.

Joe: The Mob in America is organized crime - based in and operating within America predominantly - while the CIA is organized crime around the world.

Pierre: And there is one common denominator between the Mob, CIA, FBI, the Businessmen, the Texas Police, Secret Service; they all have evidence against them and a lot of loose evidence added. They are all part of the elite that was targeted and threatened by Kennedy and therefore Kennedy became their target. They all participated and brought what they could bring to the plot to assassinate JFK.

Laura: That's like when they assassinated Julius Caesar. They had 60 conspirators and they all had a knife and were all supposed to stab him at least one time and by the time it was done it was 23 wounds.

Pierre: 35 stabs, 1 lethal.

Laura: So 35 people actually stabbed him so we may assume that the whole thing was set-up to spread the guilt, responsibility, and implicate everybody so nobody would rat out anybody else.

Joe: They threw in other groups over the years. People have disseminated or put information out there pretending to be conspiracy theorists just so they can muddy the waters and put people off. To make it so confusing that people go 'oh my god, it sounds a bit crazy' - to run it off the tracks and come out with ever more outlandish explanations or throw in more and more groups. If you look at it, you've got almost every major actor on the world stage involved in it, but that's unlikely. It just muddies the water and makes it less credible for a lot of people. They throw their hands up.

Laura: I read one book and watched a video by two different individuals, both of whom claimed that they fired the kill shot. One was a French Intelligence person and the other one was a guy who's being promoted as the assassin of JFK and he's in some prison in the Netherlands, or the US or something, and the guy who is promoting this particularly theory is in the Netherlands. But I've read of two people who have claimed to have fired the kill shot.

Joe: I would be suspicious of that because people are still alive and can make that claim.

Laura: Absolutely.

Joe: And suddenly it's attention seeking, i.e. 'I killed JFK and I'm still alive'. I think the people who killed him and fired the shots are dead. There's some pretty hard evidence that the person who actually fired the shot from the Texas Schoolbook Depository is dead because LBJ had a long history of criminality and having people bumped off.

Laura: And this guy was a US President; a criminal.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. He had been involved in legal scandals for many years beforehand.

Laura: And his daughter had such a lovely wedding at the White House. I mean, they acted like normal people.

Joe: But he had a professional hitman by the name of Malcolm Wallace from Austin, Texas, who murdered the man who was dating Johnson's sister in 1951. So there's a suggestion that, at the time, for whatever reason, Johnson didn't like this guy dating his sister so he had him killed. This is the kind of calibre of person we're talking about.

Niall: And that murder took place is while [Johnson] was Vice-President.

Pierre: And Johnson's sister had a tendency to talk a lot and she was using substances as well as revealing information.

Joe: When the police went to the Texas Schoolbook Depository after the murder and went up and supposedly found this sniper's nest, they dusted the place for fingerprints and held back everybody who had been there in that floor of the building, took all their prints and disqualified them. So they were left with one print and that print was on a box right beside the sniper's nest where the shooting occurred and that print was then locked away in the National Archives for 35 years until 1998 when an investigator in the US got it and dug up a matching fingerprint from Malcolm Wallace from the Records Office in Texas or whatever and gave it to a long-term fingerprint analyst.

Niall: This is a guy who was an expert in this; 30-some years in the military. This was his job: to match fingerprints. He got a near perfect match.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: It was the highest score you could get.

Joe: A qualified, certified latent print examiner.

[Audio cuts off temporarily]

Joe: Do we have a call?

Caller: I'm just listening.

Joe: Alright. Anyway, we're talking about JFK.

Pierre: Other than Wallace and the sniper's nest, another inconsistency in the official story...

Joe: I haven't finished that story.

Laura: I would like to know when we got cut off because it's getting really interesting that every time we get onto a really hot topic we get knocked off!

Niall: It's a bit of a pattern.

Laura: Yeah, it's getting to be a real pattern and I would really like to know what was said last.

Joe: We were talking about this guy Malcolm Wallace and the fact that there's a fingerprint taken from the Texas Schoolbook Depository, the only fingerprint that could not be identified, and that it was taken away from the FBI and kept hidden and languished in a vault for 35 years until 1998 when someone got access to it, and got a copy of LBJ's hitman, Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint, and gave it to a highly qualified, certified latent print examiner along with the other fingerprint from a 1951 murder that Wallace was involved in... and they were an exact match. That's a slam dunk.

Laura: Basically, whoever was in the School Book Depository was definitely NOT Lee Harvey Oswald?

Joe: No.

Laura: It was somebody who was just there to be firing a shot to make it look like somebody was there as an assassin to draw attention away from the fact that the actual assassins doing the killing were elsewhere like on the overpass and on the grassy knoll. Because I don't think anybody could have gotten off a shot that would have killed Kennedy from the School Book Depository.

Joe: Maybe.

Pierre: It's mutually exclusive.

Joe: It might have been difficult, but possible. The trajectory of the bullet was kind of downward from behind so it did come from an elevated position behind the motorcade.

Laura: Yeah, but there were other bullets that came. The one that took the back of his head off came from the front.

Joe: Yeah, of course.

Laura: The one that shot him in the throat...

Niall: There are a few things here. The important point we were making as we got cut off is that the only evidence of somebody being in that sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the School Depository was a known hitman with at least 17 murders to his name; a personal hitman of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Laura: And Lyndon B. Johnson was basically a criminal who was made President of the United States. People, you're President was a freaking criminal!

Pierre: And the way they connected the shooting nest to Lee Harvey Oswald was because of the rifle, a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm. But in the beginning of the story in 'Evidence of Revision' - in which you see the historical documents - the first reports mention a Mauser 765 and the Mannlicher-Carcano is only placed later in the official narrative, and the only .65 bullet found is not found in the body of JFK, it's found on...

Laura: A stretcher in the hospital. Somebody just walked up there and took it out of their pocket and dropped it there. 'Oh, this bullet just fell right out of him.'

Joe: It's so full of really obvious inconsistencies! Just talking about the trajectories, someone fired from behind and hit Kennedy in the upper back that went through his body. And this 'magic bullet' thing is also a bit dubious because people have assumed that Connally was sitting right in front of JFK at the same height but he was actually sitting more to the left in a jump seat which is a smaller seat that was pushed to the left. So it was front and to the left of where Kennedy was and three inches lower. So based on that configuration it's possible that there was no need for a magic bullet. The same bullet that went through Kennedy's upper back could have done the damage to Connally.

Niall: We should probably explain a little more for the young 'uns like me who are fairly new to this. I couldn't believe it when I first heard this but the official story of Lee Harvey Oswald being a lone assassin of the President of the United States rests on this magic bullet. That's their term. They called it the magic bullet because it managed to create two wounds, an entrance and exit wound in Kennedy and then two wounds in Connally. It went through his shoulder and then through his wrist.

To me that seemed preposterous, but the whole case rests on that. It also rests on the story that just never changed. It was the first story and they stuck with it: they had to shape everything else around their claim there were three bullets only, because three casings, three empty cartridges, found in the snipers' nest were sitting perfectly lined up in a row on the window ledge. And they initially said they found a Mauser, then they went 'oops' it was a different rifle because the Mauser was a .65... while the [pre-placed] casings were .75 calibre!

Joe: The bullets were from a different gun but they found a Mauser in the building. They went and grabbed the Mauser and said 'look, I found it' but then they found out the bullets didn't match the gun. But they covered that up. Afterwards they didn't say that they found another Italian rifle that matched it.

Pierre: The way they explained it was a mistake in identification of the gun because the Mannlicher-Carcaro used the same mechanism as a Mauser but Roger Craig, the Dallas Sheriff's Deputy, was present when another man - a weapons expert - identified the Mauser 765. For years this expert had run a weapons store so it was pretty obvious to him what type of rifle he was looking at. 'Mauser' could even be seen written on the side of it when he showed it to the other detectives.

Joe: Yeh, it was written on the barrel of the gun: Mauser. One of the Dallas Police Chiefs was there, grabbed the Mauser from the box head and said 'oh look I've found the gun', and asked 'what does it look like?' And this guy with the Dallas Police who was an expert in firearms said 'it looks like a Mauser to me', and the Police Chief who found it said 'yup, you're right. Look, it's written here; Mauser, right on the barrel.' Case closed. They can't change that afterwards. It was a Mauser; they found a Mauser; that was the gun, and they found three casings from bullets that could not have been fired from a Mauser.

And other thing with bullets is there was a .45 calibre bullet that could not have been fired from either rifle, even if there were two guns; certainly not from a Mauser, or the Italian gun that the bullets matched. It was found on the road to the left of the limousine that hit the concrete surrounding a manhole. A Dallas Policeman saw a Secret Service Agent pick it up, put it in his pocket and walk away. A few years later, the guy who saw him do that died in a shootout.

Another thing about this assassination is that a lot of these people who had information that conflicts with, and directly contradicts, the official story have all died in rather mysterious circumstances.

Pierre: Like Roger Craig. In 1975 he died of a wound in the back inflicted by a rifle, although he only owned two pistols. The conclusion was suicide.

Laura: Yeah, he shot himself in the back.

Pierre: With a rifle.

Laura: That's like Gary Webb who committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head.

Pierre: And the Colt .45 story is a bit more valid because the female witness saw something that looked like a mole excavation under the grass near the manhole cover and a detective came over and rationalized that it as a piece of the skull of the President that flew under the grass and made this long shape.

Niall: Clearly, the story that was set beforehand was that there would be three bullets. Hence they had pre-placed three, ready-to-be found spent cartridges. Initially they said three hit the President and Connally, but they had to reduce that to two - and this is where the 'magic bullet' came in - because at least one of them missed completely, ricocheted off the street and hit a bystander, James Tague, who was up at the underpass further on where the motorcade passed. And because he was hit, they couldn't say it was something else. That discounted one of the bullets.

Pierre: Several witnesses reported four shots.

Niall: And up to five and six. So no matter which angle you are looking at it from, you can come away pretty satisfied there was at least more than one shooter.

Joe: What pisses me off a lot is that even today there are a lot of news stories these past few weeks and more - leading up to the 50th anniversary next week - that talk about or refer to conspiracy theories. They think they are being so open-minded by saying 'was there a conspiracy? Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't.' They're trying to find this middle ground when it's so goddamn obvious that the official story is complete and utter bullshit, and any person - you don't have to be a scientist or a forensic expert - can see through it, because all you have to do is look at the video footage and you can see that Kennedy was clearly shot from the front-right.

You just need to have a basic understanding of mechanics. It's like if you ever got hit in the head by a baseball and your head goes in the direction opposite to the direction that the baseball came in. There are certain aspects of human mechanics that everyone is familiar with because they have a human body and have experienced that themselves so when you see someone's head going back and to the left, that means that something hit them on the front-right and that's what happened to Kennedy!

And that means if the bullet came from the front-right it didn't come from the Texas Schoolbook Depository, therefore it wasn't Oswald. But the media - up until today - are still insisting that 'conspiracy theorists have been going on for so long' and 'it's so strange that this kind of thing is still being discussed'.

Yeah, because you've been lying blatantly and flagrantly for 50 years in the face of clearly observable facts and it's ridiculous!

There's no other explanation when you see the media doing that. They are deliberately and constantly lying, unless they are complete and utter retards. Supposedly a newscaster, anchor or journalist is more intelligent than the average person on the street, right? Yet, the average person on the street can tell what happened, i.e. the bullet came from the front, therefore it wasn't Oswald. But journalists can't bring themselves to simply say that.

Pierre: You also have pictures of Jackie Kennedy crawling on the back of the limo.

Laura: To get pieces of her husband's head.

Pierre: Exactly. The shot that went through the head of the President was shot from the front, not from the back.

Laura: Yeah, and she wanted to get bits and pieces and put him back together. That's kind of instinctive.

Pierre: Heartbreaking.

Laura: Hell of a woman.

Joe: Talking about Malcolm Wallace, who as LBJ's hitman was undoubtedly up there in the sniper's nest - i.e., and not Oswald - he died in a car accident one night in 1971. There are several other people who have had access to information that have also died under mysterious circumstances. One of them is a journalist called Dorothy Kilgallen, who was the only one that managed to get a private interview with Jack Ruby out of earshot of the police. She never fully revealed what was said but she was writing a book that was going to be called 'Murder One.'

But she said, and I'm quoting her here: "It appears that Washington knows or suspects something about Lee Harvey Oswald that it does not want Dallas or the rest of the world to know or suspect." She wrote that in 1964. "Lee Harvey Oswald has passed on, not only to his shuddery reward but to the mysterious realm of classified persons whose whole story is known only to a few government agents. Why is Oswald being kept in the shadows, as dim a figure as they can make him, while the Defence tries to rescue his alleged killer with the help of information from the FBI? Who was Oswald, anyway?"

So she was writing a book and said she had information that she had gleaned from her interview with Jack Ruby. She also said she was "about to blow the JFK case sky high". The book, however, was never released because she was found dead in her New York City apartment on November 8th, 1965, of an accidental overdose in the early hours of the morning. The cause of death was a potent mix of alcohol and barbiturates, but like so many who died in connection with the assassination, her abrupt passing was suspicious.

There are several clues that were pretty flagrant. I won't go on about her in particular but she is just one of many who have died under mysterious circumstances because they had readily available information, but she had a bit of a reputation and was a journalist so she could have disseminated the information widely. She was going to write a book.

But Malcolm Wallace was clearly bumped off because there were strange circumstances around his car crash on that night in 1971, so that suggests to me that not only were they bumping off people who could expose what actually happened and the truth about the assassination, but the people involved in it as well; any of the patsies. Oswald was a patsy and he was bumped off. Jack Ruby was the same but also the people involved who were the lower level shooters. They thought they would get protection.

Laura: It's easier to bump them off.

Joe: I think these guys are a bit of a liability.

Niall: They're expendable.

Pierre: Higher levels too. The Case of George deMohrenschildt is interesting because he was a CIA asset nicknamed the 'Baron' and he was the babysitter in the CIA of Oswald. Glen Morangie had realized that he had been manipulated too and a few days before testifying in front of the House Select Committee, he died of a heart attack.

Laura: Supposedly.

Niall: Actually, on the day of the Senate hearing itself. I think deMohrenschildt died of a gunshot wound.

Pierre: A gunshot wound?

Niall: I think he supposedly swallowed a shotgun on the day he was supposed to testify.

Pierre: A rifle in his mouth which is a difficult trick to do.

Niall: And they investigated it and the ruling was suicide. However, we know it's not suicide, or have good reason to suspect it isn't - because he had a special alarm system in his house and he was being monitored as well as having his phone conversations recorded. His alarm system was arranged in such a way that any sound emanating could be picked up. This recording was leaked at some point, and you can hear the very moment the sliding French windows open and the alarm goes off. It's set at 'medium' level so it's just going 'beep, beep, beep,' and then 'boom'.

Pierre: Someone came in.

Niall: Someone came in and killed him.

Laura: I read an article the other day where somebody revealed a letter that deMohrenschildt wrote to his close friend, George Bush Sr.

Niall: That's right, they went to school together.

Laura: Or some relative when to school with him. There was some familial association, and he wrote asking George Bush Sr. to call off the dogs from harassing and surrounding him and so forth. Then I read a copy of the letter that George Bush Sr. wrote back to him which was basically the coldest letter I have ever read in my life. It was like 'I don't know what you're talking about. I don't think there is anybody following you, closing in on or harassing you. I'm really sorry you've had such a rough time, problems with your wife and that your daughter died. Tragic, but nothing's going on. You're not being followed, harassed, tailed or pressured in any way' ...and then boom, he ends up eating a bullet.

Niall: This was 1975 and Bush had just become Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Joe: 1976. He was about to become.

Niall: If listeners haven't seen it yet, you must watch 'Evidence of Revision'. It's an incredible montage with some narration of archival footage. Some of it is pretty readily available. You might recognize it from other documentaries.

Laura: But it's all put together and it makes the case. It's about 10 hours of footage and you'll never forget watching it because you'll see the actual news shows that appeared at the time, you'll see Walter Cronkite announcing that the gun they first announced as having been used was then changed so it's really 'this kind of gun', and all of these various things that happened as it happened. These video clips are amazing historical footage.

Pierre: 'Evidence of Revision' also follows his brother RFK, Robert Francis Kennedy, and Martin Luther King and how those heroes were put down one after the other according to a similar model, and that the guilty ones were never identified.

Laura: You can get it on Amazon.

Joe: What people don't understand and what makes it so monstrous is that there is no evidence whatsoever to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination of JFK. There is none. Not only is there no evidence to link him to it any direct way, as we've been discussing, but there is evidence that other people were responsible.

Yet, look it up in Wikipedia or listen to the media talk about it and it's all 'Lee Harvey Oswald did it'. They perpetuated this myth with no evidence whatsoever. No one can produce evidence, so it's based on hearsay and propaganda at this point. There's nothing to support it, and at the time, Walter Cronkite read out the official statement from a Russian Attaché by the name of Valentin Zoran I believe, and I actually have an audio of it hear so I'll let you listen to it. It's quite short.

"Radio commentator Valentin Zoran, one of their respected - as far as the Soviets go - mouthpieces of the Kremlin is trying to counter-charge on Moscow radio that President Kennedy was a victim of a leftist fanatic. He has said that 'those who know how the security of President Kennedy is organized know that it is not possible for a fanatic to commit such an assassination. A political crime, thoroughly prepared and planned has taken place,' Valentin Zoran says in this terribly inflammatory statement by one of the kingpins of Soviet propaganda in Moscow.

He went on to say that 'it is not accidental that it took place in the Southern States which are well known as a stronghold of racist and other fascist scum. It is precisely here that Goldwater' - referring of course to Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater who is one of the contenders for the presidency - 'gets his support.' We repeat, in case anybody could mistake the import of these words, that this is Soviet propaganda broadcast by Moscow Radio commentator Valentin Zoran. Zoran went on to charge that 'the President's slaying was inspired by forces opposed to President Kennedy's policy of improving relations with the Soviet Union'."

Joe: So there you have a kingpin of American propaganda reporting the truth from the Soviets - and calling it Soviet propaganda - when the Soviets were pretty much on the money at the time. They were a superpower but I think most countries in the world - from at least the political level - knew what was happening. Anybody who had kept their finger on the politics saw what was going on in America and would have automatically seen what the truth was. Yet people like Walter Cronkite, a kingpin of propaganda and much loved, unfortunately, disseminated lies and propaganda to the American people.

Laura: The Soviets were blaming some kind of government conspiracy for god sakes, after the assassination of the President and they were telling the absolute, cold truth.

Pierre: At the same time the perpetrators of the assassination were framing Oswald as the assassin. His motive was the Communist cause that was totally fabricated. At the same time, Russia was trying to cancel or stop the assassination. There's this case of a KGB/CIA double agent who heard about the assassination plan and managed to delay it because apparently the assassination was scheduled for September, 1963 in Washington D.C. Oswald was planning to go to Washington D.C., but cancelled his trip because the plan was cancelled and finally moved it to the fateful day of November 22nd. The Russians had absolutely no interest in putting down Kennedy.

Niall: And yet they went to extraordinary efforts to sheep-dip Oswald as this 'leftist'. They had to try and get whatever possible leftist credentials out of Oswald that they could. So this is where it gets a bit weird. Three years beforehand, Oswald defects, quits the US Marine Corps with a dishonorable discharge and goes to Russia, which in those days wasn't exactly common.

Pierre: And not easy.

Niall: He's allowed in so he must have had help to get in. He works, gets married and has children and renounces his US citizenship. I think in early 1963, in the summer, just a few months before the assassination, he returns to the US...

Joe: He gets in with no problems after defecting.

Pierre: Worse than that, he had made public the fact that he had been a radar operator for the US Army and possibly disclosed all kinds of information because he had a higher-than-top-secret clearance in the US Army and revealed U2 spy-plane data. And despite this major act of treason, when he got back to the US he didn't go to jail. He was given a passport, he was given money, he was listed on the FBI pay-roll at $200 a month and he was babysat by the CIA. He was a CIA asset.

Niall: And it didn't end there. They had him hand out fliers on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which is ostensibly a grassroots movement that was basically against the defamation and attacks coming out against Cuba because they had had a successful revolution. He gets himself attached to this group and publicly makes a show of handing out fliers on behalf of this group in the middle of New Orleans, which, from the movie JFK, we see he was doing from a street corner that was surrounded by the local offices of the CIA, NSA and FBI.

Laura: To attract attention.

Niall: To be seen. 'Look at me, I'm a leftie'. At the same time, he's a member of the Civil Air Patrol and hanging out with the Cuban group set up by the CIA for landing further 'Bay of Pigs' type invasions in Cuba.

Laura: And don't forget this, supposedly, according to Judyth Vary Baker, he was involved in some sort of cancer project to inoculate Fidel Castro with cancer.

Joe: It wasn't anti-Castro; Fair Play for Cuba was pro-Castro.

Niall: The implication being here's a guy who is an extreme leftie and he wants to kill the President, because... what? The other thing, apart from being a so-called womanizer, the thing they hit Kennedy with repeatedly was that he was a Communist. So how does it fly that another 'Communist' kills him?

Joe: They don't try and make sense of that kind of stuff but it seems to me that one part of the plan was that it was being set up to lay the blame on an anti-American, pro-Soviet defector.

Laura: Who managed to come back to the country; didn't get charged with treason; they gave him a new passport even though he had renounced his citizenship; gave him some money; set him up on the payroll; handed him over to George de Mohrenschildt to be his babysitter; basically paved his way to go right down there to the street corner in New Orleans in full sight of the CIA, FBI and whoever and apply his trade as a defective defector pro-Castro, commie pinko.

Joe: What's interesting is that if you think about what was going on, and if the plan was to essentially sheep dip him in this way, I tend to think his mind was messed with a la MK Ultra. At some point, he was to some extent mind-controlled.

Laura: Like Sirhan Sirhan.

Joe: Exactly. He's a dupe, gullible, naïve and impressionable, so he is told he's working for the CIA and needs to go to Russia to act as our spy but your cover is that you're a defector and you love Russia and the Soviet Union and hate America. They send him off and he gets there and tells this story to the Russians and they say 'okay, sounds interesting but we've heard it before and are a bit suspicious that you're bullshitting us and are in fact a double agent.' That's the first thing you're going to think of, right?

Then they think 'okay maybe we think that, but let's play along with his game because we might get some information from him. We'll keep an eye on him, won't let him do anything too serious or damaging, we won't give him access to any sensitive information, and we'll see what happens. And hey, you never know, we might turn him.' So they start playing this mind game and a few steps down the line it gets so complicated that nobody knows what this guy is doing - or not doing - or whose side he's on.

But the thing that blows that whole thing open and goes way beyond that, and I think this is what the Russians didn't understand at the time when they had Oswald, was that they were thinking Oswald was a spy for the Americans pretending to be a spy for the Russians: what they didn't conceive of at the time was that Oswald was being sent to Russia to be set up by the Americans to kill the American President.

Laura: As a patsy.

Joe: Exactly. They would have thought what the Americans were going to try and do with their spies in Russia, they're going to try and overthrow the government, stir up some trouble, do something that's going to affect Russia. They probably didn't conceive of the fact that this person was in Russia for a very specific purpose and it had nothing to do with Russia. It had everything to do with killing the American President. What Russian would ever have thought of that? What Soviet agent, politician, or whoever, would have ever conceived of the idea that he was being used to kill an American President, not a Russian politician or president.

Pierre: When you read A Secret Order by Albarelli, he made an extensive study of Oswald's life right from his birth. And you see that Oswald lies at almost every step. He's surrounded by the CIA and mind control things. The hospitals he went to, the schools he went to, his employers, his jobs, his relatives, and his friends. I suspect that Oswald unfortunately is not an isolated case. When you see the amount of resources of the CIA and other agencies, they probably have thousands of people that they groom from birth basically for a disposable...

Laura: Asset.

Pierre: Whenever they want.

Laura: And what these people don't realize and should realize is if you are among these so-called selected individuals that are being groomed ,and you think that they're telling you all of these great things you're going to do, that they're grooming you for, and that you're going to help them out like they told Oswald; Oswald never in his wildest imagination thought that he was going to become the patsy.

Joe: No.

Laura: And that he then was going to be assassinated as part of the plan by Jack Ruby. And Jack Ruby certainly never thought that the next thing that was going to happen to him was that he was going to be done away with.

Joe: It's far too convoluted, Machiavellian and pure evil.

Laura: And all the shooters that you talked about and the various people who were involved who then got bumped off because they became liabilities. In these kinds of circles, these people all think they're exceptions. They all think that, 'it's not me. I am not going to be done away with after they use me.' But that's what they do. They use them and throw them away like Kleenex. And if they would even realize that and just say "We're not going to participate in this sort of thing anymore. We're not going to be tools for this kind of an oligarchy that just uses people and chews them up because we're just henchmen, we're just gophers, we're just disposable assets," then the whole thing would come to a screeching halt.

It's like if soldiers laid down their gun and refused to fight, there would be no more wars. If these soldiers, these assets of the CIA secret plots would just, you know, refuse to participate anymore, or if they would start exposing their spy masters. I think there should be a website set up where if you know anybody who's in the CIA or you know a rogue cop who's been violent or used Tasers on people or a government official who's corrupt and has committed crimes, there should be a website, kind of like Wikileaks, where these people can be exposed and listed. People should know their names, addresses and where they live.

Pierre: I think for this action to be successful you need to reach a critical mass and have enough people doing this move at the same time, because in JFK's story you can see several CIA assets. We mentioned de Mohrenschildt. We also saw Jim and Elsie Cartwheel, ex-CIA agents who defected, saw the evil of the CIA and started to speak out. And it's heartbreaking in the JFK story to see those people start speaking up who get neutralized and killed because they are so alone and isolated. But there are exceptions to the rule.

Joe: That's why there's so few of them - or none - today. Anybody who has any plans or thoughts that they might reveal secret information that could do some serious damage or expose the nature of the beast are probably smart enough to do a little bit of research if they don't know it already and see a 60 or 70 year-long tradition of people in their position very quickly meeting with an untimely end. So you can understand why there is no one today. And I'm leaving out Edward Snowden here.

Laura: Well look at all the people who claim to be so-called whistleblowers.

Joe: What do they say?

Laura: There are entire websites that are devoted to all these whistleblowers and we know perfectly well whistleblowers that are really blowing the whistle on something really serious that can get any kind of legs or any kind of media coverage don't last very long.

Joe: No.

Laura: Or they don't get out at all. Because I think they do some kind of profiling. They must do profiling to know who may or may not do that.

Joe: Absolutely.

Laura: They may even select them to be whistleblowers to attract attention to the wrong things and dis-inform people.

Joe: Edward Snowden for example.

Laura: Julian Assange.

Joe: Wikileaks.

Niall: In this train of thought, JFK was like the ultimate whistleblower. This is the way I think of it anyway. If you look at his speeches and what he was saying from the beginning, boom! He wasn't just saying things that would irritate the powers that be. He was informing people. So he gets up there, his first talk on U.S. foreign policy - particularly related to Latin America - and the first thing he says is "I want to apologize on behalf of the American people for all the stuff we've done to you over the past 10 years." This news hadn't been broken yet.
The American people had no idea what was going on, all the subterfuge and people being overthrown, democracies being subverted across Latin America, up to that point. So JFK was doing several things at once by getting up there and apologizing. He was indicating and heralding a new foreign policy by apologizing, he was informing people, and at the same time he was sticking it to the CIA and everyone else: "Well, things are going to change around here."

Pierre: He was more than a whistleblower because in addition to these great speeches he was following those speeches with acts and ground-breaking decisions.

Joe: Let's just listen to one of them here:

"We need a permanent unemployment insurance program so that there are those who want to work, those who want to work, and can't find a job will not be shifted and living on a marginal income without hope for themselves. These are things which other countries in Western Europe did 30 or 40 years ago. Great Britain. And we regard ourselves as a progressive society, had these provisions at the time of the First World War. And yet this is suggested as a most radical proposal. We have to, in the next eight years, build as many school buildings as we built in our entire history. And yet we have found it extremely difficult to secure support for this vital program.

We cannot leave the 17 million people who have retired and who may become ill. If they have no money under the legislation now on the books, they have a chance to receive some as indigents. But that is not the way we believe it should be done. And if their son happens to have some money in the bank, they do not qualify and he goes and pays out and it may break him at a time when he has responsibilities to his children. Why it is so difficult to secure passage of a minimum wage, paying somebody in interstate commerce a dollar, a dollar ten or fifteen cents, I do not understand. But it is regarded in some circles as highly radical and highly inflationary.

For the first time unemployed men can retire at 62. For the first time, and I do not regard this as a particularly radical proposal, dependent children can receive aid for the first time in our history without the wage earner deserting his family. In the old days before this Act was passed, if a child was undernourished, it was necessary for the wage earner to desert his wife and family in order that those children should qualify for assistance. But last year that was changed.

[Narrator] The President's willingness to abandon tradition was responsible in part for his failure to succeed with the business community in spite of efforts at conciliation.

[Unknown quote] I don't remember the figure exactly, but the President was not extremely popular in Texas nor was he in the country.

JFK: I am delighted to have a chance to say a few words about this administration's policy which has been the subject of a good deal of discussion, acrimony and controversy on wages and prices and profits. Now I know there are some people who say that this isn't any business of the President of the United States and that what - and who believe that the President of the United States should be the honorary chairman of a great paternal organization and confine himself to ceremonial functions.

But that isn't what the Constitution says. And I did not run for President of the United States to fulfil that office in that way. Harry Truman once said there are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests. And that the interests of the great mass of the other people, the 150 or 160 million are the responsibility of the President of the United States. And I propose to fulfil it! And I believe it is the business of the President of the United States to concern himself with the general welfare and the public interest and if the people feel that it is not, then they should secure the services of a new President of the United States."

Joe: Pretty smart right there. "My job as President is to work for the people. If you don't want me to work for you, then get someone else." Yeah, what's the answer going to be?

Laura: Yeah, I think if you really want to assess John Kennedy, despite what the defamers and slanderers and libellers write about him, I think you need to listen to his own words and then look at the actions. Look at the legislation. Look at the plans and programs he put into place. Make your own decision based on that, the same as you would make your decision about Julius Caesar, based on his words and his actions, his legislation, and not the slander and defamation. Because the same kinds of programs that John Kennedy tried to implement in the United States of America that led to his assassination are the same kinds of programs that Julius Caesar tried to implement in ancient Rome that led to his assassination.

Pierre: Exactly.

Niall: JFK, in his first 300 days - not just him alone but I imagine most of the creativity and impetus came from him - tried to get over one thousand new pieces of legislation through Congress. Only a few succeeded because he was up against such resistance.

Laura: He was up against an oligarchy.

Joe: The psychopaths.

Niall: That statement where he says "The President of the United States is not the honorary chairman of some paternal organization" - that is another example of him spilling the beans, because he is revealing and informing the people at the same time. He's saying this is what the powers that be expect the presidency to be!

Joe: If you listen to his quotes, his speeches and some of the things he says, he says it very subtly...

Laura: Sometimes not so subtle.

Joe: Well, not so subtle, but in terms of what he's talking about, his words are loaded.

Laura: Absolutely.

Joe: And he's saying it to the people in a way that's hinting to them what's really going on and what they themselves feel and he's saying 'This has to change and I'm going to change it.' He doesn't want to be too inflammatory - he's not going to expose the evil-doers because he realizes that would bring the hounds of hell after him - but he does it in a way that gets the people on his side. And this is very similar to when you were talking about what Caesar realized, where he realized his power base lay and who he had to essentially court and appeal to.
Forget about all the cronies and the oligarchs and the psychos in power. Focus on the people and get them on your side. And this is what he believed was the way he would push through change, by saying 'Listen, you might not like it, oligarchs, but there's 160 - 170 million Americans who all say yes. What're you going to do? You live in a democracy, right? At least you say so, so you you've got to go with it, right? This is the pressure he was putting on them and they did not like that. They did not like that kind of a manoeuvre being done on them, and that manifested in their extreme viciousness in the way that they killed him.

Laura: What about the speech he made about "We are surrounded by a ..."

Niall: "A monolithic and ruthless conspiracy."

Laura: "A monolithic and ruthless conspiracy."

Niall: He got that in. That was in a context of a discussion on communism.

Laura: He slipped it in.

Niall: It was easy to pass off and be understood by those who were so brainwashed by communism, as being 'Oh yeah, yeah.' They were nodding, going 'Yeah, yeah'. But if you listen carefully to what he's really saying...

Joe: Well listen to what else he says. This is a short one. And he said this very often about the Soviet Union:

"... political developments to build the new institutions of peace. Let both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity. It is therefore our intention to challenge the Soviet Union not to an arms race, but to a peace race. Let us call a truce to terror. The logical place to begin is a treaty assuring the end of nuclear tests of all kinds, in every environment, under workable control. We also proposed a mutual ban on atmospheric testing, without inspection or controls, in order to save the human race from the poison of radioactive fallout. Together we shall save our planet or together we shall perish in its flames."

Pierre: At one point, he mentions a nuclear test ban and it's a good example. A good leader can only make a better world a reality with the support of people. With this nuclear test ban, in the beginning only one Senator was for the ban, versus 25 Senators against the ban. Then Kennedy started a major public campaign. He informed people using celebrities and the media to inform the people, to make them aware. In the beginning even the U.S. population was against the ban. But after this communication campaign, there was a major shift in public opinion and the elected ones, the Senators, followed public opinion because it was difficult to go against such a popular tide. And in the end U.S. voted for the nuclear test ban.

Laura: But it took a lot of effort on his part. It took a lot of lobbying on his part to get the backing to promote the test ban. And that is probably one of the most beneficial things that could have been done because our planet has been literally poisoned with radioactive fallout. I mean, you could say that all the blame that gets put on smoking for cancer and lung cancer is probably due primarily to the radioactive fallout in the atmosphere from the endless nuclear tests that have been going on.

Pierre: 2,051 nuclear tests since 1945.

Laura: That's poisoning our planet. And he was trying to stop the poisoning of our planet and trying to stop the terrorism. And like you just said, the people in the beginning, because they'd been propagandized, were against the test ban. And then with information and with media support...

Pierre: Common sense.

Laura: Common sense, he managed to turn the tide which then turned the opinion of the Congress people. And, by the same token, in our present time, there are all of these people in Congress and in the presidency and at this point I don't even know if they care about what the people think because the people are really against a lot of things that Congress is doing. But they don't seem to care anymore. They've learned that they don't have to care, that they can do what they damn well please.

And unless people start really en masse waking up and acting together as one to put pressure on their Congress people... and, you know, I'm saying this but at the same time I know that the Congress people know also that they don't get elected by the people. They get elected by who counts the votes. So they're not even worried about whether their constituents are satisfied with their services or not. So, something has to be done about that.

You know, the problem has compounded itself in the days since Kennedy was elected. So we're basically facing an almost insurmountable difficulty and it's going to take a whole lot of waking up and acting together in concert. It's going to take demonstrations and it's probably going to take some blood. Look at the Anonymous group and the Occupy movement and how that got shut down and taken over very quickly.

These are people that really were seeing what was going on and it was building and growing and then they turned it into a violent affray and banned it and broke it up. But that's the kind of thing that the oligarchs were afraid of, that people will actually do that and it'll actually grow, and it'll get bigger and then they won't be able to break it up. That's what needs to happen.

Pierre: One of the main differences between Caesar and JFK, I think, is that after Caesar's death there was this mass anger within the population. But after JFK's death there was a lot of sadness but I didn't see this legitimate anger, as if people had been desensitized from this essential emotion.

Laura: Well what Caesar had that JFK didn't have had been that Caesar was a general. He had an army. He had many legions. What did he have, like 11, 12, however many legions, of faithful soldiers who loved him and had been with him for 10 years or more. And when he was assassinated, all of those soldiers were near Rome, in Rome, around Rome, and they followed Augustus who was Octavian at the time.

Joe: The big difference between Julius Caesar is... I don't think it was so much that people had been desensitized to anger but with Caesar a lot of people knew who the culprits were.

Laura: That was pretty obvious, yeah.

Joe: But with JFK, people were sold by propaganda and the media and people like Walter Cronkite sold a lie that it was Oswald and then Oswald was dispatched. In less than 48 hours he was removed from the scene and people supposedly had accepted that as resolution.

Laura: Yeah, they were angry at Oswald.

Pierre: And they sacrificed the scapegoat.

Laura: Yeah.

Joe: In other speeches like the last one we just heard, JFK talks about calling a truce to terror - and he says that on a few different occasions - and he's referring directly to the Cold War and the threat of nuclear Armageddon, and he calls that 'terror', and rightfully so. It's terrorizing the population and he wants to call an end to it. And it's just interesting to compare that to what has happened over the past 10, 15 or 20 years, where his descendants, or rather the people who took power after him, i.e., the Presidents and the cabal of the power elite in the U.S., did precisely the opposite. They called for terror.

Laura: They increased it.

Joe: They used terror and introduced terror and terrorism and a 'war on terrorism' to control the population. What JFK was espousing was in such direct contrast to what has happened since he was assassinated. And, like we were discussing earlier, it's not that they took over after he was assassinated. They were already in power and he was the last opportunity, it seems, looking at history from our vantage point, he was the last opportunity to stop the rot.

Laura: Turn the tide.

Joe: Stop the rot and turn the tide. And it was impossible. And since then, what those people have done is literally and figuratively, kind of destroyed the planet. They've done it by literally poisoning and killing people all over the world through their greed and excess and they have destroyed peoples' livelihoods or peoples' ideas of a decent, humane society where people can live. Just look at the world around you and look at America, for example, and what's happening in America and the kind of society that is there now compared to what JFK was espousing.

You have that story just recently, it's one of many, obviously, of, you know, policemen shooting at a minivan full of children because the mother didn't want to accept a ticket for speeding. She was speeding 20 mph over the limit and they pulled her over and wanted to get her out of the car. She didn't want to get out of the car so the cop went back to his police car and she just decided to drive off. So they went on a high speed chase and then dragged her out. She had four or five kids in the car, as young as six years old, and the police opened fire.

Laura: On the car.

Joe: Live rounds on the car, right behind it, for a speeding ticket.

Laura: Shooting at people for a speeding ticket?

Joe: That's what's happening, yeah.

Laura: That's just freaking unbelievable.

Joe: Things would have been so much different. In one of those speeches we just heard, we just heard that JFK was talking about - he was referring to European countries - he mentioned England and European countries in terms of social welfare that they've had since 1914.

Laura: Social insurance.

Joe: What he was essentially planning to do was to give free health care, free education, unemployment, benefits for sick people and the little people and people who couldn't work, and just create, as best he could, a humane, decent, egalitarian society and spread it down from the top, and enforce it, even against people who didn't want to do it because they had been ponerized or twisted. The twisted elements in society, they were going to have to accept a decent, humane society. And America could have been - imagine what would have happened in those 50 years, to today, if that had been allowed to happen? The problem though is he would have had 8 years at most.

Niall: Well, it would have been 8 years, and then Robert would have had 8 years.

Joe: Yeah.

Laura: Sixteen years.

Joe: Sixteen years would have done a lot.

Niall: Sixteen years could have done it.

Joe: Yeah, that would have been hard to overturn if they had 16 years to impose it, but unfortunately, like was often said or often referred to in the case of Caesar, in hindsight for him or Bobby to actually have done that, they would unfortunately, have had to eliminate in some way, the people around them that had become entrenched in positions of power. There would have had to have been a culling. How else were you going to - because those people were going to - I mean, if he became aware that they were going to kill him, what was he going to do about it?

Niall: The way he was playing it, he was firing them.

Joe: Well that's what got him killed.

Niall: And that's morally...

Joe: But that wasn't enough; that's what got him killed. He fired Allan Dulles, the director of the CIA and he fired ...

Niall: The number 2, Cabell.

Joe: General Cabell, who was deputy CIA director and was the brother of the mayor of Dallas on the day that JFK was killed. There was a conspiracy against him by all these people who were in positions of power.

Laura: And he was taking their positions away.

Joe: Because he picked them off. He was taking their positions away because they weren't fulfilling their duties to the people responsibly and he said, "Okay, you don't have a job anymore." And that wasn't enough because they killed him for doing that.

Niall: He's supposed to have said 'whatever, if they kill me, they kill me,' and to have had it in the back of his mind that his time was short. But I do wonder if even he seriously considered they would do such a thing. It's very risky proposition, to just shoot the guy...

Laura: He couldn't have understood psychopathy.

Niall: Maybe not. But I suspect his brother did. He said something about Lyndon Johnson...

Laura: Well yeah, he figured it out pretty quick when that happened. He realized how completely sick and how completely desperate and how completely evil these people were when they killed his brother the way they did.

Joe: Here's what Bobby said about LBJ. This was before [the assassination]...

Niall: Yes, they were monitoring all of his conversations.

[Female voice]: There's a photograph that I published in Texas in the morning with the White House photographer in tow... you can see that Lyndon lost composure at the time Bobby hit a post and he has something in his hand and Lyndon is real shocked... and the photographer said that Robert Kennedy said to Johnson, "Why did you have my brother killed?"

[RFK in taped conversation to third person]: The President was a gentleman and a human being. This man is just not. He's mean, bitter, a vicious animal in many ways. He's got this other side of him and his relationship with other human beings makes it very difficult unless you want to kiss his behind all the time. He's able to eat people up.

[RFK in taped conversation with LBJ]: I understand that... you know... he [Hoover] sends all kind of reports over to you about me and about the Department of Justice.
LBJ: Not any that I've seen.
RFK: Well I just understand that he's got... he's planning and plotting things.
LBJ: But he hasn't sent me any report on you or on the Department, at any time.
RFK: Well I had understood that he had - that you had had reports sent over about me.
LBJ: No, no.
RFK: About the overthrow of the government by force and violence.
LBJ: No, no.
RFK: Leading a coup...
LBJ: No, no. That's a, that's a, that's an error. He never said that or indicated it, or given any, any indication of it.
RJK: As I say, we'll all get through.
LBJ: Okay. I'll talk to you in a day or two."

Joe: So that second part was Bobby talking to LBJ about Hoover, saying that he had heard reports that Hoover was spying on him and accusing and sending over reports to Johnson that Bobby was trying to overthrow the government by a violent coup.

Niall: That LBJ was.

Joe: No, I think he said that "me", 'reports that I was plotting'...

Laura: That Bobby was.

Joe: But the first part of it was Bobby talking about LBJ. That he's a vicious, mean...

Laura: A violent, bitter animal.

Joe: He's an animal, really, and he eats people up. Now, what are you going to do with someone like that? You can't just fire them. Someone who's in a position of power with that nature and who has contacts and can organize things and has the big oilmen and people in industry and in the military all behind him? If you fired them, you're dead.

Pierre: That's a very tricky question. Because if you want to lead a truly populist policy in favour of the people and you're surrounded with psychopaths, what do you do? If you leave them in power you won't be able to reach your goal. If you fire them, you make enemies and you die. So how do you deal with the psychopathic environment?

Laura: And you can't bump them off the same they would do you because then that reduces you to their level.

Joe: Exactly.

Laura: It's like what Caesar did. Caesar had this policy of forgiveness, clemency. Those people who were against him, he forgave them, he gave them jobs, he gave them honours. And the ones that he gave the most to are the ones who killed him.

Joe: Yeah, because it wasn't enough because they wanted control of the people. They wanted the people poor and in servitude to them and if a leader comes along and says "I'm going to raise the people up", well, then you immediately provoke the ire of these people who have been abusing and exploiting the people.

Laura: So it comes down to the question, you know, what do you do? What do you do? I mean, look at poor Chavez. I mean, he couldn't - anything he did that blocked the activity of the psychopaths that were trying to destroy his people's revolution, he was blamed for being...

Joe: A demagogue.

Laura: Blamed for being a totalitarian.

Niall: Anti-democratic.

Laura: Anti-democratic, whatever. And there was a whole bunch of slander because it's like he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If he didn't take care of them, they would kill him, which they probably did with that fast growing cancer.

Joe: The analogy is wolves in sheep's clothing.

Laura: Yeah.

Joe: And the wolves saying, "We're sheep too. And why are you excluding us? Because you're being anti-democratic and a demagogue, you're excluding us from the sheep pen." But you see that these are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Laura: So what do you do?

Joe: You're going to have to appear as excluding them as wolves from the sheep pen. But the ordinary people don't recognize that they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Laura: I think the only answer is for somebody who's in that position to really be a whistleblower, even more than JFK was. To really expose who is who, who did what, bring out their dirty laundry, really let the people know and then let the people decide what to do, because sometimes the wisdom of the people and the activity of the people is the right answer. Let the people do it. Let the people decide.

Pierre: And you need the awareness of the people also, to stop falling in the traps set by the media and all the psychopathic voices.

Laura: Right, so you have to educate them.

Pierre: You have to educate them because a leader alone in a ponerized world is nothing and ends up like JFK.

Joe: I think that would have been an alternative, for him to collect information and to just wait for a certain time and then just dump it all. And then say, 'I've done the best I can do'. If you want to preserve your own life and don't want to sacrifice your life for it, then the best you could do is not try and fire these people and institute a kind of utopian society - which you realize is not going to work - but the best thing you can do, as Laura was saying...

Laura: Expose them.

Joe: ...is to try and expose as much truth about the nature of the system and the world as possible and then just get out of dodge.

Laura: Yeah, just dump it all out there. Do a real Edward Snowden, not a fake Edward Snowden. Get the scoop and really pour it out there, and take your bodyguards and go to your Island Retreat.

Niall: He did do something very direct. On the second of October 1963 - well, it was indirect, but still, the message was pretty clear for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. There was an op-ed in the New York Times written by a journalist who was very well known at the time, Arthur Krock, and who would have been understood in Washington circles as a close confidante of the administration.

Laura: JFK's spokesman.

Niall: Basically, yes.

Niall: He wrote an article entitled "The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam". Here are a couple of snippets. This is basically JFK speaking through Arthur Krock:

"The CIA's growth was likened to a malignancy which the very high official ... [Niall: which was really JFK] ... was not sure even the White House could control any longer. If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The agency represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone. Representatives of other executive branches have expanded their war against the CIA from the inner government councils to the American people via the press."

Niall: Which is exactly what this article was doing. 'There is a war going on inside the administration and we're battling for peoples' minds here, we're hanging on by a thread'. That's the most he could communicate.

Laura: That's what he was saying. And the thing is, since those times, the CIA is kind of in second place now and the NSA is top dog. So they were trying to gain control over the CIA, and they did, and then they gained control over the presidency and everything else.

Pierre: If you look at JFK's mandate, by far his first enemy was the CIA. When you see the Cuban missile crisis, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Laos and Congo, all the time in front of him, hidden, were the CIA agents working to set him up, to put him in a trap, to put him in a bad light, to make his plan fail and be infeasible.

Niall: In the 1950s, the CIA had Operation Mockingbird in which apparently thousands of U.S. journalists, broadcasters, anchors and anyone working in media was either unwittingly or knowingly an asset of the CIA. They were basically reading out what the CIA wanted the nation to hear. This is established, this is the system into which JFK arrived. Pathocracy had already congealed in the U.S. at that point.

Joe: And all the polls today are usually distorted and in favour of the establishment. But the polls can't... because there's such an overwhelming number of people who realize what happened based on the simple evidence, they realize that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Polls since then, in the last 50 years, have repeatedly all shown that the vast majority of Americans still think that there was a cover up and that it wasn't Oswald.

Laura: I think it was 87% recently.

Joe: Yeah.

Laura: That 87% of the American people believe that there was a conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy and it did not include Lee Harvey Oswald. That he was only the patsy.

Joe: So in a way, people didn't react at the time against this crime that was committed against them but they can still react today. It's 50 years ago, but surely with that knowledge people should at least be uncomfortable with the state of politics and the ruling elite of the U.S.

Laura: Well the problem is people are afraid to do things because they're afraid to be uncomfortable in their personal lives. They're afraid of getting involved in political action or in protest action, and of course the government makes the threat covertly or overtly that if you do this, look what we have. We have Tasers; we have prisons and you can disappear into Guantanamo Bay. We can torture you. They made the whole torture thing pretty clear because that was designed to terrorize the American people. 'This is what we can do to you too. We can render you to some prison in Morocco or Poland or wherever and torture the heck out of you and that's what'll happen to you if we decide to pick you up.'

But the thing is that if people acted en masse, I mean really en masse, they would not have enough planes, they would not have enough prisons, they would not have enough torturers. And if people acted en masse, even government employees could walk out of the job. What if the people who work for the power companies decided to shut down all the power to the government office building?

What if they decided to shut down all the water to the government office buildings? What if the clerical workers, the secretaries, the gophers, the low-level administrators all just walked out of all their jobs? What if they just turned off their computers? What if they just refused to support this system any longer? Then that 1% - or fraction of 1% - that's in power that is actually doing this - that's actually planning and executing all of this - would be helpless.

Pierre: And there's a major lie in the statement pronounced by the elite, according to which, if you comply, you will be allowed to continue a comfortable life.

Laura: Yes, it's not true.

Pierre: Because, as a matter of fact, when you see the evolution, or the devolution, over the last years or decades, people have complied in general and their quality of life keeps dropping. And whether they're aware of it or not, they're going straight into the war zone. They have nothing to lose.

Laura: They intend to make slaves out of you and to terrorize you and to turn your children into slaves and to make you beg for food and if they really like you and if you're a good enough slave and if you kiss their boots enough times, they might let you have a little food to eat and maybe a place to live. It's just like the low-level patsies in these conspiracies. They become liabilities, they bump them off. Do you really think that they're going to let you continue to live any kind of a decent life if you're a middle class person? I mean, the middle class has become the poor class. The poor class is not even on the radar anymore, and this has just happened in the last 13 years.

Pierre: And even being a good slave won't be enough because one trait, one of the main traits of psychopaths, is that it's never enough. The violence, the power, the wealth... it's always 'more and more', and how to get more? By oppressing people more.

Laura: They enjoy watching people suffer so they're going to make you suffer whether you're good or not, whether you mind your own business or not, whether you comply with their will or not. They are going to make you suffer because they enjoy it!

Niall: I think JFK wasn't just being rhetorical when he said 'either we get ourselves together and we commit to world peace and we actually start to care for one another, or we're going to perish in the flames'. And when you look at what's going on around you now, fireballs are raining out of the skies people! JFK probably didn't have any awareness of cyclical catastrophes but he was touching on something so true. If you do not overthrow their yoke in some way, at least in terms of not believing the lie anymore, then the cosmos will help you.

Laura: And the cosmos will take you out too.

Joe: Well, people should take his word for it because he was in a position to see just how psychopathic and evil the system was at the time, and he could see where it was going. Ordinary people don't see it, don't get that insight. So you take his word for it because he saw it and he was trying to change it. His words were inspired by his view, his vision, seeing exactly what was going on. People don't have access to that kind of information and don't get to know the facts, the smoking gun details and stuff, but, you know, we try to figure it out. But someone in his position knew and saw it clearly, and if he said it, then that's what was happening. And it's got 10 times, if not a hundred times, worse in the last 50 years. It just compounded itself.

Pierre: When JFK was making good progress in stopping the Cold War, Life magazine had a headline which stated, "If peace happens, what will happen to business?" And I think it's a good summary of the state of mind of the psychopathic elite. The life of human beings is as cannon fodder, as an accessory to their needs. What matters is their power and wealth, and when you think about it, what will happen to business if it happens on a national scale? It means less bombs and more schools. It's simple. No loss.

Laura: It means social insurance and no drones.

Niall: Less stress.

Laura: Less stress. It means people having food on their tables. It means people getting educated and being able to develop things scientifically.

Pierre: At the national level and also at the international level, we can see that these wars are just Neocon ideas and wars to loot the resources of target countries. So, it's more inequalities, the destruction of people and the destruction of resources in foreign countries.

Laura: Yeah. So we spend all of our resources.

Pierre: To enrich U.S. elites.

Laura: Yeah, the elites.

Pierre: They [the soldiers and ordinary people in belligerent countries] don't get it.

Laura: It used to be when an army went to war, they would go and get a lot of booty and then they would spread the booty out among the soldiers. The soldiers got something. Now they go to war and they spread the booty out among the 1% of the elite, the military industrial complex, and maybe some generals.

Pierre: Mining companies and oil companies.

Laura: Congress people, because they get to be on the boards of directors of these companies that are building the war machines. They're building the munitions. They're building the planes. They're building the drones. So they get to make tonnes of money and all of the money that you pay in taxes that should be going to build schools, to build roads, to build infrastructure, to provide everybody with good clean, fresh water for free, to provide everybody with electricity for free, to provide everybody with health insurance, with good health care, with good education for your children without your children being burdened with a student loan for the rest of their working life, all of that money is being spent on killing other people and taking their stuff and giving it to the elite. Not to you. They're taking your money!

Joe: It's absolutely horrible when you think about it, just in basic terms. In an ordinary human society, certain people have certain proclivities, you know. Some people are more adept at certain tasks, or take an interest in certain jobs or they're inclined in different ways. In an ordinary society, if it was based on a humane kind of society, you'd have someone who could be a doctor and you'd have someone who was a carpenter. And there's perfectly fair and equitable exchange, for example when the carpenter is sick, the person who has specialized or researched medicine would tend to the carpenter given that the carpenter makes chairs for the doctor, right? I mean, what's wrong with that? That's human society. People share their gifts in the community together. But in the U.S., for example, there are people who are woodworkers or carpenters and who are denied the ability or the access to their fellow human being who knows how to cure them of a disease or to fix up their wound, denied by the elite - by this cabal of psychopaths - who say, 'No, you doctor cannot help that person who is sick because...'

Niall: Because he has no medical insurance.

Joe: 'Because we don't get money for it', is what it comes down to. Because if you give it to him for free, then we won't make money from you doing that. I mean that's such an abrogation of basic human rights in terms of an individual, sovereign individual saying 'I'm a doctor and I want to help people. I have gifts.' But people have been ponerized and convinced themselves that that's the way it should work, that the doctor shouldn't give his services to someone in fair exchange.

Laura: And of course the person who makes the chairs, he can't really start a business and make any money making chairs because he's going to be taxed into oblivion because he's not working for a big corporation on a pittance that makes him unable to afford good health insurance coverage so that he can get the doctor to care for him. I mean, everything funnels through the corporations.

Joe: And feeds the elite.

Laura: And feeds the elite; everything.

Pierre: And the workers of the world today; their sweat, their blood, their time, their lives, are dedicated towards earning a miserable wage. And this money goes to taxes or purchasing goods from multinational companies that are in the pocket of the elite. Let's use this money to oppress the very people who gave us this money. As if you're a slave in jail and instead of using all your money to free yourself and live your life, you use it maintain the cell you're imprisoned in.

Laura: Yeah.

Pierre: That's the irony of the current world.

Laura: And what are taxes? Taxes are a protection racket. You pay us your money or we'll break your legs. That's what it is.

Joe: Pretty much.

Laura: Because you don't get anything for your taxes. It's basically, 'Pay us your money or we'll break your legs.' Not 'Pay us your money and we'll give you infrastructure, health care, education, food, water, electricity and a decent lifestyle.' It's not that. You're not paying taxes for any of that. It's 'Pay us your money or we'll break your legs.'

Niall: And now it's 'Pay us your money and we'll pay the bankers their bonus we promised them because they are in trouble.'

Laura: ...'And then we'll still break your legs.'

Joe: Thinking about Oswald, he was a patsy and was sold a lie. He didn't know until the end when he was in the Dallas police station and he shouted to reporters, "I'm just a patsy." He didn't realize what was coming a few hours later but he realized he had been set up. He'd been lied to and he'd been set up and used as a patsy and, in a way...

Laura: ...Oswald is America.

Joe: Pretty much, we're all patsies to the elite. We've all been lied to and sold a bullshit line about what's going to happen and how we're going to be taken care of and how this is going to happen and that is going to happen. But in the end, we're all ultimately going to be bumped off by the elite in one way or another.

Laura: And that's what happened thanks to the assassination of John Kennedy and nobody demanding the truth, nobody demanding a real investigation, nobody rising up against this criminal gang that took over the United States. People, you have been ruled by criminals, the lowest, filthiest, most disgusting human being types in existence.

Joe: Racist scum as the Russians said.

Laura: Animals that will eat you up.

Pierre: And those animals play the only role they can play. You don't change psychopaths. So the only thing we can change is ourselves. Stop believing in the lies, seeing the truth and acting upon the truth because they will not change and until the end of the world, they will oppress us more and more.

Joe: And on that note folks, I think we're going to leave it there for this week. We've just about got to our time limit. So, thanks for listening, we hope you enjoyed the show. Our chatroom chatterers were as usual chattering and having all sorts of fun. We'll be back next week with another show. As usual we haven't figured out what it's going to be about yet! But it'll be a good one. So, until then, good night.

Niall: Good bye.

Laura: Good night.

Pierre: Au revoir.

Comment: If you do nothing else, just take the time to watch the Sott.net/QFG produced version of 'Evidence of Revision', a three disc set that presents archive footage that will leave you in no doubt who killed JFK and why.