Protect and secure your retirement savings now with this complimentary precious metals guide. https://bit.ly/3UWFgJD
FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
PBD Podcast Episode 207. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by James DiEugenio, Dr. Paul Gregory & David Montague.
Visit James' website KennedyAndKings.com: https://bit.ly/3VAhvaz
Purchase James DiEugenio's book "JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass" - http://bit.ly/3OqdaUW
Follow James DiEugenio on Twitter: http://bit.ly/3AwtvSf
Purchase Dr. David Montague's book "Overnight Code" - http://bit.ly/3gvN6uP
Purchase Dr. Paul Gregory's book "The Oswalds: An Untold Account of Marina and Lee" - https://amzn.to/3TZgmrM
For more info go to PaulRGregory.net - http://bit.ly/3Owbo4v
Purchase Ernst Titovets' book "Oswald: Russian Episode" - http://bit.ly/3AEfq5k
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
0:00 - Start
8:11 - Why won’t Biden Release the JFK assassination records?
15:49 - The biggest conspiracies on the JFK assassination
25:59 - Was LBJ behind the JFK assassination?
33:39 - Was George Bush Sr. behind the JFK assassination?
55:16 - The percentage of People who believe JFK assassination isn't a conspiracy
59:32 - Why most Americans don’t trust their government
1:03:50 - Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?
1:08:48 - Interviewing Lee Harvey Oswalds Best Friends
1:33:51 - Did JFK wanted to get rid of the FED?
1:37:23 - Will we ever know what happened to JFK?
Why would you bet on Goliath when we got bet David?
Value payment, giving values contagious.
This world of entrepreneurs, we get no value to hated.
Howdy, run, homie.
Look what I become.
I'm the one.
It should be a UC because it's what it's done.
Anyways, folks, today's a special podcast.
59 years ago today, a president who was loved by tens of millions of people around the world was assassinated.
And 59 years later, today, we have a very simple mission.
Our mission is in two hours to solve who was behind that assassination.
And to do that, we have a few special guests today.
One, we have James DiEugenio, who wrote the book JFK Revisited, who this ended up being a documentary, a film.
There's four parts.
There's one part.
There's a bunch of different things with it.
At Oliver Stone here a few months ago, we talked about the book together.
But James DiEugenio's book here with Oliver Stone.
We have him here to my left.
He's the co-founder of two organizations, The Citizens for Truth, about Kennedy assassination and the coalition of political assassinations.
He was a co-editor of the Assassinations, a book on the death of, deaths of JFK, MLK, Robert Kennedy, and Malcolm X. Thank you for being on the podcast.
My pleasure.
We also have David Montaugh, am I saying it correctly?
Montaguer.
Montaguer on the podcast as well.
He is the Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock.
He earned PhD at Howard University, a very great, powerful university.
A lot of friends went there for political science.
An MA at George Washington University in Crime and Commerce and a BA in Morehouse College in Political Science.
He was an investigator for the Drug Enforcement Administration, hence DEA, and intriguingly, was the head of investigations for the United States JFK Assassinations Record Review Board.
Thank you for being on the podcast as well.
And we have two other guests that will join us at 10 o'clock at the same time.
One will be from Belarus that's going to be joining us.
The one joining us from Belarus is Ernest Tiovets, who is a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald.
They hung out together in Russia.
He's got his own perspective of who he really was.
And the other person that'll be joining us will be Paul Gregory when he came back to the States in Dallas.
They had a friendship together.
They'll give us our perspective on what he was really like.
Was he capable of doing what he did?
What was the experience of a friendship with them?
And then we'll take it from there.
So the reason why we have both of you here is because you both have a different feeling of what happened with the JFK assassination event.
Now, here's what's interesting.
Everybody needs to know.
Both of you were at the same event.
Justice, you came from Dallas.
We flew both of you guys up from Dallas with Cyril Weck's event that's taking place in Dallas right now, which the event's called Citizens Against Political Assassinations.
We're glad we're having these types of events so there's not any political assassinations.
So, James, if you don't mind, take a minute and if you can introduce yourself to the audience, your background, why the fascination with this topic, and then we'll take it from there.
All right.
I've been working this field almost non-stop for approximately 30-some years.
All right.
And the reason I got interested in this is that several years after Jim Garrison did his interview in Playboy, I picked this up and I read the interview.
And I thought, God, this is really fascinating.
This guy had like a lot of interesting insights into what really happened.
And so then After I graduated from film school at Cal State North, a friend of mine asked me, Well, why don't you try and do the screenplay?
And I said, About what?
And he said, Well, what are you really interested in?
And I thought, well, this would make a very good subject, this garrison guy.
So then I worked on this for a while.
And then I picked up Daily Variety and I read that Oliver Stone had purchased the rights to Jim Garrison's book.
And I go, well, there goes that idea.
And so what I did is I turned my research into my very first book, which was the first edition of Destiny Betrayed.
And then I started probe magazine Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy, which was an early website.
And today I run their website of KennedysandKing.com.
The reason this has stayed with me for so long is as time goes on and I see the political situation that we have in this country, I really do believe that Kennedy's assassination was a landmark in a steadily disabling country, you know, that somehow has lost its way.
And, you know, if you're haunted by the past, which I think we all are in this case, then I don't think you can really understand the present.
All right.
So that's why, you know, I've like from a historical view, that's why I've still worked this case.
How about yourself?
You know, I wasn't alive when President Kennedy was killed, assassinated.
And, you know, in connection, I do agree.
I said that they think that the Kennedy assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, Bobby Kennedy, certainly pinnacle moments that impacted our history.
And, you know, I had mentioned at the conference last week that the Morehouse College School, it was the same school that Dr. King attended.
So, you know, I grew up in the DC area and we had a very patriotic family, just believed in, you know, of course, you know, taking advantage of the opportunity to vote, being active in understanding the world around us.
And by happenstance, I ended up joining the review board.
And, you know, and in all honesty, I had no, you know, Jim talks about kind of how he learned more about it and became intrigued.
Same thing kind of happened for me because I remember, you know, I was with DEA at the time.
I took an Amtrak down to DC from New Jersey.
And when I sat across the desk from David Marwell, who was the director, executive director of the Assassination Records Review Board, you know, he was kind of explaining, you know, what the agency was about.
And in my mind, I'm piecing it together, like there's a federal agency to look at specifically this.
And I had no idea as to, you know, how deep and how many other investigative groups, you know, think about it compared to like 9-11.
There's been one 9-11 commission.
And you think of the multiple commissions or groups have been put together to look at these assassinations.
And so it really became something of great interest to me just as a unique opportunity.
I had come with a lot of investigative, like interviewing experience.
I had worked the white collar side of DEA.
So I would interview a lot of people, you know.
And so, you know, for me, one of the most interesting things was getting a chance to talk to witnesses, kind of getting them to re, you know, in some cases for the first time opening up and they felt they couldn't before, people in tears.
So, you know, these events, you know, impacted my life in a major, major way.
And, you know, one of the things that I think that is important is for people not to forget the records need to be released.
December 15th, Joe Biden apparently were being told the records for John F.K. assassination are going to be released.
And the reason why they said it wasn't released, because we were supposed to get it earlier, was significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
If you guys remember that, October 23rd, 2021.
But hopefully by December 15, 2022, it'll be released.
And Trump was also one that hesitated a little bit to releasing the docs.
It seems to be a trend.
I mean, it's been 59 years and they're still not releasing it.
What's your speculation on why this thing keeps getting backed up?
I think your audience probably needs a little background on what the review board was and why we're in this situation today.
When JFK came out back in 1991, it created a firestorm of controversy.
And because at the end of his film, Oliver Stone wrote that the files of the House Select Committee are classified until the year 2029, which was the last investigation.
And they closed in 1979.
So the question was, why do we have to wait 50 years to learn the last things about John F. Kennedy's assassination?
So Congress created this, what we call Assassinations Record Review Board, which had unprecedented powers in the history of record declassification.
Well, they did not finish their work.
They only had a four-year lifetime.
And so what happened is this dragged on and dragged on and dragged on.
The terminal date where everything was supposed to be let go was 2017.
So that comes up.
And Trump says about a week before, I'm really looking forward.
He tweets in, I'm really looking forward releasing these last files on the JFK assassination.
And so what happens?
He doesn't.
He didn't do that.
Why are they afraid of releasing it?
This is what was in most of the papers, is that he got a last-minute visit by the FBI and the CIA.
And what these guys do, because I know this for a fact, is that they come in and they read the Riot Act.
And by the way, let me add this.
The only person who could have stopped a declassification was the president, because it says that right in the law.
And so they usually give you this speech about if you let these go, you're going to endanger the life of a lifelong agent or some kind of ongoing operation.
Now, how the same agent could be in place 50 years later is really amazing to me.
So he, what he did is he asked for a six-month extension.
Then when the six-month extension was up, he asked for a three-year extension, which actually went beyond his presidency.
And so this then bounced to Biden.
All right.
And Biden released, I think, about 1,400 pages.
And he said, we have to wait because NARA is somehow behind the curve due to the COVID epidemic.
What they were doing in the intervene 20 years, I don't know.
And so now, now the new terminal date is about three or four weeks from now, December the 15th.
And I can tell you for a fact that Biden was already planning to delay that because I know some of the lawyers, you're aware that it got a lot of publicity, that they filed a lawsuit against Biden and NARA in Northern California to force the declassification.
Well, in that lawsuit, they have that information that he was already planning on another delay.
But what's the, do you know the reasoning behind it?
I mean, it's got to be.
He was on the review board.
So why are you guys delaying it?
Maybe we ought to blame you.
What is wrong with you, Doc?
Why are you delaying it?
Why do you think they're delaying it?
If you were to give your perspective before we get into what we really think happened.
So I'm, you know, this is a very personal thing for me after all the work that we put in to actually find people, you know, find records or arrange deeds of gifts, transfer of records to the National Archives and Records Administration, all the visits to Archives 1 and 2 and other facilities around the country to do research.
Just like Jim said, you know, I kept looking on the JFK collection that's on the National Archives Records Administration website to see my record group.
And here's the interesting thing.
You can find records of mine in other people's records groups, but not in mine, which doesn't make sense, right?
So I'm just as upset about this because in my mind, we were doing that work to literally provide a centralized place and let the American people decide.
You know, don't hold a thing back.
I mean, yes, I was taught to do, you know, skip tracing, find people, things like that.
We didn't have Google.
That's a skill.
You have to be taught to do that.
There are sources and methods associated with how I was able to do that.
I don't think those things should be released.
However, like you said, it doesn't take 20 years to take those things.
And what threat?
And you have to really have an actual threat against the country, against national.
So, you know, you know, you watch movies like Argo.
What is that sound, that clicking noise?
You hear it?
What is that clicking noise?
It's like somebody's clicking something.
Do you hear that?
Okay.
So, you know.
David, can I ask you?
I want to say something.
Hang tight.
So I'm from Iran, okay?
And I watched the movie Argo.
And you watch the movie Argo with Ben Affleck and you see what's going on in Iran with the whole movie, Canada, everything that they did.
They waited 30 years.
How come you didn't release this earlier?
Well, you got to wait 30 years, CIA, whatever the numbers are, right?
And then you look at this.
This is 59 years.
Okay.
It's similar to when they said, you know, the COVID investigation cannot take place till 2076 or whatever the number that they put.
That's like 50 years from now, 40 years from now, right?
50 years from now.
And they're like, why can't this be not investigated for 50 years?
Is it because the people who are making those decisions are not going to be around 50 years?
So then it goes back to the point of 1963 today, 59 years.
Most of those guys have been dead that were a part of it anyway.
It's only a few people of that.
So who's protecting who at this point?
Is it a legacy?
What's being protected?
See, one of the things that John Toonheim talked about when we interviewed him and the rest of his interviews in the book, all right, he said, these guys really, they don't want to give up anything.
All right.
And he said, he described the first meeting with the CIA.
And he said he threw up a document on the screen.
And he said, what on earth could you possibly object to in declassifying that document?
Because to him, there was nothing in it that seemed to endanger anything.
All right.
And so the CIA guy looked at the document for about a minute or so.
And they're waiting and waiting.
And he says, give me a couple of minutes.
I'll think of something.
See, that's the kind of attitude these guys have that's been embredded into their whole being.
I was hoping we could figure it out right now, but apparently we can't force these guys to release them.
Maybe we got to take a different route.
Let me first look.
What I want to talk to you guys about.
Pull up the different conspiracy theories that we have.
JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the Grassy Knoll Umbrella Man, which I think was actually in his 1991 movie that Oliver Stone did.
LBJ, Ted Cruz's dad, obviously that came out of nowhere during the elections.
There's so many different stories that we read about.
You know, Jack Ruby, the mob, I've interviewed Samuel de Bolgravano, Michael Francis.
They said the mob had to do with it.
Clint Hill said, no, I think it's just exactly what people think.
It's Harvey, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Jim Jenkins, who was in the room holding John FK's brain, one of the four people in the room said, this just didn't make sense.
It looks like somebody cut it before they did.
And then, you know, the new brain weighs 1,500 pounds.
How does a brain weigh 15, not 1,500, 1,500 grams after it's been shot?
That doesn't make there's so many different things that you hear with these conspiracy theories.
And some are just playing it safe and saying, no, Cyril Wex says this doesn't make.
He's trying to figure it out from his perspective.
But I want to hear your views on what happened.
And before we get into these topics and have our guests from Belarus, as well as two of Lee Harvey Oswald's former friend, one claims they were best friends, give their perspective.
One is a doctor.
Now, they're both educated.
One's with the Hoover Institute.
The other one's a doctor, I believe, in Belarus, was in their Olympic team or national team.
So these are not just regular people in the streets giving their opinions.
They have some perspective to give.
Let me go to our sponsors first.
Today's podcast is sponsored by Goldco.
If you're watching this, you're a hard worker.
You're seeing what's going on with inflation, interest rates, and everybody's concerned about what's going to be happening.
For me, I years ago decided to hedge against inflation by buying gold, and I've been doing this for many, many years.
I have physical, I own funds that have to do with gold.
And whether it's gold, silver, we decided to team up with Goldco.
We did a lot of investigation.
We called many different friends who have been in this business, some that sold with competitors of Gold Coin, some that sold with Goldco.
Eventually, after two years of talking about who we're going to team up with for gold, we decided to partner with Goldco and give them a call today to learn more about protecting your savings.
And as a value team and viewer, you could get up to $10,000 in free silver.
That's right, $10,000 in free silver.
When it comes down to precious metal reputation matters, that's why we chose Goldco.
Call them today at 855-598-2758 or click on the link below in the description or the chat to go to Goldco.
Again, 855-598-2758.
Okay, so let's get right into it.
James, I'll go to you first.
Okay.
What do you think happened?
There's a lot of theories based on where you are from your different access to information that you have.
Are any of these conspiracy theories, do you give them any credibility?
Or do you say, no, you know, what we know is exactly what happened.
Where do you stand with it?
You know, it's interesting.
That's a great question because I remember David Marwell made the comment when he was interviewing me because Ann Butterman was actually head of investigations when I first came on board.
And when she left, I took over.
Surprise, I didn't expect it.
And I'll just say technology played a big role in how we're able to do our investigative work.
But to your question, you know, I walked in.
Dave Marwell made the comment that one of the reasons he wanted to hire me was because I did not have a perspective either way when they hired me.
You know, we did have some people that were single bullet, some people that were conspiracy that worked there.
And quite frankly, I will say I really enjoyed my coworkers working with them.
We went through a lot of things.
I did have some people try to tell me to not push on certain topics when people bring things to my attention.
And I always saw doing the investigative work as wide of a net as possible until I really understand.
I need to follow it if somebody brings it somewhere from the assassination research community or government or whatever, a witness.
You know, I interviewed a lot of people.
I talked to a lot of folks.
I had to review Oswald's belongings at Archives II, all the investigative material, including some body things, things from his body.
And after looking at the autopsy photos, the brain of record, all those different things, my personal take is I don't see how anyone could have assassinated the president alone.
That's my personal take.
How anyone could have assassinated?
I think it was a conspiracy.
Okay, so you think there was somebody involved in the shooting?
It wasn't just Lee by himself.
I think there is definitely more than one person for sure.
Okay, and so which direction have you, if you're in that space, I'm assuming you've spent endless hours studying it.
So do you have an idea or even a level?
I mean, at this point of the game, to say 100%, it's very hard to say 100%.
Everything is theories that we're trying to get closer to it.
But what do you think happened?
If you're saying another person, which one do you believe?
So, you know, there was the radio evidence that Robert Grodin put in during the HSCA.
I had talked to witnesses in De Laplace, like James Taig, for instance, and others.
There were so many people that kept talking about they thought shots were coming from the front, you know, and what they, what the officials, and that they had given statements to law enforcement and that those statements did not end up in the Warren Report.
I mean, I didn't make those things up.
People just independently were saying those things to me when I was tracking them down and talking to them.
And so after a while, I was like, hey, I wasn't there.
I did read a lot of books associated with the assassination.
I did work very closely with Doug Horn and others to really get perspective on the different stories associated.
But a lot of the folks that I talked to, I mean, I walked away, not the physical things, the stories.
I don't see how any one person could have done that.
James.
On the day of the assassination, Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark, two doctors who worked on Kennedy in the ER room at Parkland, had a press conference briefing the press on what they had found.
And Malcolm Perry stated that Kennedy was hit in the front of his throat by an entering projectile.
Kemp Clark said that there was a large gaping hole in the back of JFK's head.
Both those would indicate that there were shots from the front.
All right.
Because exit wounds leave much larger.
All right.
And so as Malcolm Perry was leaving the podium, a guy in his suit grabbed him by the arm and he said, don't ever say that again.
This is an hour and 45 minutes after JFK was killed.
That evening, in the morning, early in the morning, Perry got a call from the Bethesda Morgue.
And it was the Humes and Boswell, two of the pathologists working on Kennedy, were trying to talk him out of his story.
And they said, if you don't take that back, we're going to bring you before a medical board and get your license taken away.
Now, to me, that would indicate somebody is snapping on the cover-up about this thing within 24 hours of Kennedy's assassination.
And it wasn't any mobster, okay?
It wasn't any Cuban exile.
It was somebody in a high position.
Because we know that in the morgue that night, there were very high-positioned Pentagon brass.
And one of the guys there, Paul O'Connor, said that Humes told him to go over to the gallery and tell that guy in the corner to take that cigar out of his mouth.
And he walks over, O'Connor walks over, and he looks at it, and it's Curtis LeMay, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force.
He walks back to Humes and he says, I can't tell that guy to take, that's Curtis LeMay.
What was LeMay doing there that night?
And so these are all indications that this was kind of a high-level plot, all right, to go ahead and get and get rid of.
And like I'm trying to intimate, I believe that the cover-up was planned with the conspiracy.
The cover-up was planned with the conspiracy.
Yes.
Meaning.
Meaning that they knew that they had to conceal certain things immediately after they assassinated JFK, and they were looking for ways to do it in advance.
Another example being, I'm sure you're aware of this, Jefferson Morley and his work on Joe Anites, the RCI official.
His group had the first newspaper blaming Oswald of killing Kennedy for Castro.
That was like within 24 hours of the assassination.
They were getting that story out.
And that was a CIA-sponsored journal.
That was a CIA-sponsored journalist.
They were paying a pair of 24 hours prior to that.
No, no, 24 hours after.
24 hours after.
So when you hear, so for me, I look for motive and I look for strategy and I look for strange, you know, reasons why somebody wants it to happen, doesn't want it to happen.
The enemy of an enemy is a friend.
The enemy of a friend is an enemy.
All this stuff that you look at, right?
Okay, so let's look at it.
There are pictures.
Can you pull a picture of, not this one, if you can pull up pictures of John F. Kennedy and LBJ, John F. Kennedy looking at LBJ, okay?
So when you look at John F. Kennedy looking at LBJ, there are many instances where, you know, you just don't see a lot of trust in the way he looks at him.
You don't see a lot of where, you know, he's worried what's going to happen here.
So it's kind of like the case where he has to go get him as a VP to help him because he had Texas and et cetera, et cetera.
And he had a lot of power and LBJ was more driven to become a president than JFK was.
JFK wasn't really supposed to be the president out of the Kennedy.
It was supposed to be Joseph, the oldest son, John F. Kennedy, kind of like he's the last guy that ends up becoming a president.
So you look at LBJ, a lot of ambition there to become a president.
Okay, that's one person you'll look at.
The other one, mob, what, you know, John F. Kennedy was trying to do to the mob, making their life a little bit tougher.
RFK, his brother.
So could have been the conversation of the mob talking to each other where you have this potential conversation with multiple mob bosses talking to each other saying, look, are you seeing what RFK is doing, targeting everybody after we helped him out in Chicago or Illinois?
Yes.
We got to take this guy out.
One of the mob bosses says, if we take him out, John F. Kennedy is going to spend the rest of his life targeting us.
But if we take John F. Kennedy out, RFK loses his power.
He won't be able to do anything.
We start with John F. Kennedy first, and then we go to RFK.
We're done with.
And we don't have to worry about them coming after us.
So, okay, cool.
Let's go that route.
And then, you know, if you've seen Godfather 2, there's a scene in Godfather 2 where in Lake Tahoe, they're trying to kill Michael.
They come and shoot up Michael's house with glasses.
I don't know if you've seen this one scene where he's getting shot up.
And then right afterwards, you see them in a creek.
A couple other guys come and shoot them, and they're dead.
And the shooters are, you know, dead at this point.
Nobody can find out who paid them to come and try to kill Michael.
If a mobster is trying to kill somebody, they hire somebody to kill the person, and then they hire somebody to kill the killers who are going to kill the person.
So you can sit here and speculate and look at all this stuff to see what the motive is.
Who benefited the most from John F. Kennedy being assassinated?
I don't know if you're aware of this.
After the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission were published, which was in November of 1964, three months later, Johnson sent the first combat troops to Vietnam.
That's a line that Kennedy was never going to cross.
And that's very clear to any historian who studies this case.
And I don't have to tell you what a big amount of money was made on dredging up things like Cameron Bay, Bell helicopters, Huey, et cetera.
You're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that were spent over there.
And so this is why some people consider what Eisenhower referred to, which I'm sure you're aware of, what he called the military-industrial complex.
We must never let them encroach on our human rights and liberties.
All right.
So I believe that that was at least part of the reason for this whole debate that sprouted after JFK came out.
They now have these guys declassified so many records on this issue of this whole issue about Vietnam.
that I don't think it's debatable anymore.
JFK was never going to go into Vietnam, and he was getting out at the time of his assassination.
I'm sure you're aware of that, that they issued an order.
And remember, Patrick, there were no combat troops in Vietnam, only advisors at the time of JFK's death.
There was not one combat troop in when he was inaugurated.
There was not one combat troop in the day he was assassinated.
LBJ changes all of that within a matter of weeks.
Some say it's actually days.
And there's that famous scene in JFK, which I'm sure you're aware of, where he's talking to the Joint Chiefs and he says, just get me reelected, and I'll give you your war.
Okay, so I think that's one of the very serious motives in the JFK assassination.
I'll just piggyback.
I agree with that.
I'll piggyback as well and talk about, you mentioned RFK.
I mean, you know, it's no secret, you know, that, you know, you probably heard of Evelyn Wood, and she was on a record on a documentary talking about LBJ and the discussion between Bobby Kennedy and JFK and getting LBJ on the ticket to put him on the ticket with him for VP, you know, and what a heated conversation.
And you talked about the lack of trust, you know, and that was clear from the beginning.
But, you know, I think, you know, Jim just, you know, is exactly right.
There was tension for different goals of the two people for sure between the two, you know, JFK and LBJ.
And you also, Jim mentioned Curtis LeMay, you know, the Joint Chiefs.
You know, there's a very famous movie made about, it's called Seven Days in May.
You know, it's an old black and white film about, you know, Legends coup, You know, and we think about the level of power struggle that we're talking about here.
And of course, as I mentioned before, both Bobby Kennedy, you know, being so insistent and working very diligently to fight organized crime.
Organized crime was a dirty word back then.
It was allegedly non-existent, you know, and there were a lot of people that didn't like it.
So my point is there were several people.
I do think the push to try to do Vietnam was a huge thing.
But there are a lot of people that these other, these civil rights issues, fighting organized crime.
There are a lot of people that had a lot of different motives.
Patrick, you're aware that Kennedy liked that book so much that he got out of the White House so they could film.
John Frankenheimer was a director.
And he's, that's a great book.
I'll get out of the White House.
You can use it as a prop.
Okay.
That's how much he was so concerned about what the story was.
Can I add one more thing?
Because it's interesting, you know, as you mentioned, you know, when we were doing our work, our mandate was really different.
You know, and at first, I didn't realize how different our mandate as an agency was to be able to do the work we did.
We still have some things we weren't able to finish, like was said, you know.
But when you talk about motive, the fear in the general public that the lack of trust, people lost their trust in government after the assassinations happened.
And so many people were just completely amazed that they were free to talk, you know, and it was something to, you had to, you had to be there to be part of that and to experience that there were a lot of people that, you know, we had subpoena power, a lot of people requested subpoenas to be able to come and bring records.
And for a while, a lot of people didn't believe they actually could talk to us.
A lot of people didn't think they could talk to you.
Right.
Okay.
So, Tyler, if you can, another thing I want to bring up is the following.
The story about, and I don't know where you guys stand with this, the story about George Bush Sr., you know, for many years asked, where were you on that day?
Were you in Dallas?
You were seen in Dallas.
I wasn't in Dallas.
There's a lot of talks about George Bush Sr.
If you can pull up that one picture I just sent you this one here.
If you zoom in a little bit, you know, that's him to the right on how he stands, and then that's him to the left in Dallas at the book depository.
So you hear, why wasn't he there?
Why wasn't, you know, why wasn't, why doesn't he say where he was at?
Why does he not remember that?
Was there any, is there any credibility to senior's involvement in this?
You're asking me?
Yeah.
No.
That's not him.
The picture of him in Dee Lee Plaza.
He was there the day before.
Okay.
The day of the assassination.
He was in a little town called Tyler, Texas, which I believe is the home of Earl Campbell.
And he was addressing a group of businessmen.
Also, also city of Johnny Mann.
Johnny Manner is the legend.
Yes.
There were at least 100 people there.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, no, that's now.
Now, if you're going to tell me, was he CIA?
Did he conceal his?
I agree with that.
You know, when he became CIA director, which I think was 75 or 76, I believe he was dishonest when he said he had no connections with the CIA.
So, so, okay, so here's another question for you with the family, John F. Kennedy.
Who feared the Kennedy legacy family to think that maybe these guys can be in office for 16 years?
You know, this could be a possibility where, you know, John F. Kennedy first, eight, and then Bobby eight, 16 Kennedys are going to be, you know, running the country.
They're going to have power over everything.
We have to slow this down.
Who feared for the possibility of that happening?
You want to answer that, David?
Well, I think that we talked about some of the, you know, in terms of economics, I say a lot of folks have theorized that it was the oil industry as well, but in terms of LBJ's connection.
But there are a lot of things, as I mentioned before, that the Kennedy family, you know, a lot of people didn't like them to begin with, didn't feel that they were worthy of holding office.
And at the same time, they were pushing an agenda that was changing the course or threatened to change the course of America to actually focus on other types of issues and topics.
There were a lot of people that were very uncomfortable with that.
And again, that's why it, I mean, rightly so, there have been, like we looked at all three, we looked at Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King's assassination, and also JFK.
And just like if you look at the HSCA records, you know, having investigators literally looking at primarily the JFK and MLK as well.
And you can see that even if you go to Memphis and see the sniper's nest, you know, for Martin Luther King and to see where they talk about the work of the HSCA, you know, and all those different things.
Who would be the modern-day Kennedy last name?
Is it a fair comparison to say the modern-day Kennedys would be a Trump where a lot of people in the swamp were not fans of us?
Or these are complete opposite comparisons?
What would you say?
Well, John F. Kennedy, if you take a look at his record, he was trying to pass Medicare.
He was talking about universal health care.
And he was really the first president that actually stood up for civil rights, even though knowing that this was really going to hurt him.
Very few people know this.
Robert Kennedy wrote a resignation letter on November the 21st because he says, I have cost you at least half the states in the South with this civil rights program.
And if you remember, Kennedy forced open the University of Mississippi.
There was a huge riot there.
Two people were killed.
And then a few months later, he forced open the University of Alabama.
At that confrontation, Kennedy ordered 3,000 American troops in case George Wallace was going to bring in the state troopers, et cetera.
So if you ask me, there really isn't anybody today that can compare with both Kennedy's ability to win very big elections and also the kind of progressive kind of attitude that he had.
In fact, if you take a look at his civil rights record, Kennedy did more for civil rights in three years than Truman, Eisenhower, and FDR did in three decades.
It's that simple.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but also at the same time, some people would say if he ran today on his policies, he's not a Democrat.
He would be running as an independent or a center-right type of a guy because he was for low taxes.
He was about low regulation.
He was pro-business.
He was many of those qualities today that would be seen as a center-right, not a person that's a full-on Democrat.
I don't see how standing up to the steel companies and forcing them to their knees in 48 hours is a pro-business.
I mean, nobody did that before, and nobody's done that.
You aware of what I'm talking about?
Yeah, he caught the steel companies trying to rig prices.
They basically challenged him on this.
And so him and his brother, 3 o'clock in the morning, were issuing subpoenas to the steel company executives.
All right.
So, you know, I don't think that that's.
But a true capitalist would fight against that.
A true capitalist would be to me is a true capitalist.
By the way, that's what he said.
Not going after, you know, living in a country where there's only two countries in the world where big pharma can do advertisement.
One is U.S., one is New Zealand, and nobody has the audacity to stand up against them.
You're not in capitalism if you allow these big pharma companies spending billions of dollars on lobbyists every year and, you know, doing commercials on all these different news stations, CNN, NBC, all these places that are getting all these ads because, hey, here's another 10 million, another 5 million, another 3 million.
That's, to me, is fighting for capitalists.
When these guys are price gouging, if you're talking about steel at that time, today you can talk about big pharma.
One pill takes 20 cents to make.
You're selling it for $200 and no one's willing to go up against those guys because there's so much money coming from the back end.
If a person goes after big pharma to me, you are a capitalist.
So for John F. Kennedy to be doing that, I would say, yeah, that's a pro-capitalism move.
I wouldn't say that's a pro-liberal move.
I'd say it's for pro-capitalism.
I don't know if you know this.
In 1963, Kennedy overhauled the whole FDA program for approving medicines to be marketed to the people.
And about 600 patents, okay, he challenged them because he didn't think that they, A, passed all the safety tests.
And B, the other test that he wanted to use was efficacy.
In other words, does this thing really work?
So I believe Kennedy was a radical reformer in foreign policy, and he was a strong reformer in domestic policy.
All right.
And I'll just add, and I agree.
I can't think of anyone, any person or family today in the same ranks and having that same.
The only reason I make that comparison is because they came, they were outsiders that they came in.
They were not.
And by the way, this is not about Republican or Democrat.
Trumps are outsiders.
Kennedys were outsiders.
They were not insiders.
Johnson was an insider.
FDR is an insider.
You go to Bush as an insider.
You're in the space that you're coming in.
The only family you can compare it to, only family.
This is not about who's a better president or not.
There's only one family that shook things up the way Kennedys did.
And that's the Trump family.
So if you compare families to families, we haven't had a president that people feared as much as they feared Trump and Kennedy.
The last time people feared a family as much as they do hasn't happened for 59 years.
That's really interesting that you would bring that up about them being outsiders.
Because what people forget about JFK is that he was an Irish Catholic.
And he had a meeting.
It was impossible for an Irish Catholic to become a president.
And he had a meeting with Nehru, the guy from India.
And Nehru was trying to lecture him on the evils of colonialism, British colonialism.
And Kennedy stopped him in mid-sentence.
He put up his hand in front of him and said, look, nobody has to tell me about the evils of colonialism.
All right.
Because my family comes from a history of eight centuries of being dominated by the British.
So I don't have to listen to any lectures on this topic.
When I heard that story, I thought that was such an interesting perspective.
And I was talking to Dick Gregory, the late, great Dick Gregory, one night.
And he said that when he got back from Birmingham, the great, you know, tremendous race riots there, Kennedy called him up.
And his wife, when he got in, his wife said, the president called.
And he goes, really?
And he goes, yeah.
He says he wants you to call him back.
And Dick Greger goes, well, wait a minute, it's midnight.
He said it didn't matter what time it was.
And so he calls the White House at midnight and Kennedy picked up the phone.
And he goes, Dick, I need to know everything that's going on down there, please.
All right.
And so Gregory went on for about 10 minutes.
And he stopped.
And Kennedy said, I don't know if I can say this on the air.
You can.
Okay.
He said, oh, we've got those bastards now.
All right.
And Dick said, and I started crying because I didn't think any president could ever say something like that.
And he said it was, he said after he thought about it, he goes, because Kennedy was an Irish Catholic.
He knew what it was like to be discriminated against.
And that's why he said that.
So again, going back to it, to me, name me a president in the last 80 years that was part of the swamp and tried to drain the swamp.
And, you know, the people that have the country club type of people that have been in politics for 40, 50 years who, I mean, let's face it, our president just turned 80 years old.
Our president just turned 80 years old.
And he's been, how long has he been in politics?
What is the 49 years?
I think the more we have to celebrate the 80 years, it's how long he's been in politics.
There isn't anybody that's been in the swamp more than him.
If you were to look at the swamp, by the way, this is both left and right.
McConnell, that's a person that's been in this game for how long?
Pelosi, worth a couple hundred million dollars, been in this business.
How long?
McConnell's wife linked to China.
How long?
This isn't a, to me, it's not about a matter of a left or right or a Democrat or a Republican.
And this is uncomfortable because I had Oliver Stone here, and I know politically we're both of you lean, and I understand that part.
For me, having lived in Iran and seen what happens when people get into politics and all of a sudden they take control and use their powers to bully people, I can only think of two people, two families, who had the audacity to face him.
And one got assassinated and the other one went through a different kind of assassination.
It's a character assassination.
But it's a different form of assassination.
Because if you assassinate, like I know what you guys are doing with, you know, citizens against political assassination, there are many different forms of assassinating today.
You don't have to kill today.
There's so many creative ways of doing it.
Both of these guys had the brass to go after the government.
I mean, John F. Kennedy was an NRA member, for God's sakes.
Can you imagine if today Joe Biden was an NRA member, what they would say about Joe Biden?
That's supposed to be a Democrat today?
John F. Kennedy would be a very different kind of a president.
I think he was the last independent president that we had, that he understood things that was needed on the left and he understood things that was needed on the right.
But the comparison of the two families, I can only find one other family, Trump and Kennedy.
And I don't know if you guys agree or not, but those types of families will typically be a big target.
Look at families who are not a target.
Why not?
Look at families who are a target, Kennedy and Trump.
Why?
You're from Iran.
I'm from Iran, yes.
Born and raised.
Did you know that JFK commissioned a State Department study on the cost and liabilities of bringing back Mossadegh?
Did you know that?
Okay.
Yeah, he did.
And in fact, it was him, him and Bobby Kennedy were so much against the Shah, okay, that they made it clear that if you don't start reforming, you don't start opening up your society, you know, we are going to think about bringing back Mossadegh.
And this caused, which I'm sure you're aware of, the so-called white revolution, which I think is 62 and 63.
All right.
All right.
And so that's the very few people know this.
Which he ended up being wrong, by the way.
He ended up being what?
John F. Kennedy ended up being wrong to bank on Mossadegh, because you know what that led to.
Well, you're talking about the return of the Muslim fundamentalists?
Sure.
Okay.
You think Mossadegh could have gone against them?
You think he was strong enough to fight against them, really?
I think Mossadegh and Nasser could have.
Yeah, I don't think.
And Kennedy favored Nasser, too.
So I think it's, you know, as much as people want to sit there and say, you know, what a great man Jimmy Carter was.
Half the stuff that's happened in the Middle East we can bring back to Jimmy Carter.
Half the stuff.
Because Kissinger could have helped him, the Shah.
Carter could have helped him.
They promised they would.
December 31st of 1977, Carter is in Iran, toasts with the Shah.
This is a very important partnership to us.
They leave.
We got your back.
Boom.
And then what happens today in Iran, the complete opposite is being happened.
And women are being tortured.
Women are being killed.
What's our government doing about it?
We want to give money to Iran, $7 billion.
We want to give them $150 billion.
Tell me how that makes any sense.
So we can sit here and kind of go and, you know, you're talking to a guy who watched 10,000 men flagellate their backs walking on the streets of Tehran.
And I lived there as a kid, as an eight-year-old watching outside my window saying, why is there a trail of blood on the ground?
Yeah, I said, this is a very different type of a conversation.
To me, the same way why I love what you guys are doing to push the envelope to get us to the truth, we have to also realize, man, some of the people that were behind this were dirty people from the swamp.
If you're saying what you're saying, who killed Kennedy?
The swamp killed Kennedy.
No?
Yeah.
Okay, then.
Then there you go.
That setup did it.
Yeah.
And he was not part of the swamp, right?
So would you say Trump is part of the swamp?
No.
Okay, so they try to get him as well.
Tell me who's part of the swamp.
Left and right, there's so many names.
Tell me somebody today in politics that's not part of the swamp.
Let's see what name you're going to give us.
Give me a name that's not part of the swamp that's a very powerful political leader.
I'd love to hear it.
I'm here.
Well, people in power for a long time become part of the game.
And there isn't anybody in power today, either in the upper level of the Senate, upper level of the House.
And Biden, of course, has been in this, I think, the Senate since 1964 or something like that.
1972.
So they've all been there a lot.
They're very hard to dislodge.
I don't have to tell you that.
They were very difficult to defeat.
Because we have such a closed system.
So I can't think of anybody right now in the upper levels who is not part of the game.
So the last, one thing we can all agree on, the three of us, is the last two presidents we've had that were anti-swamp were Trump and Kennedy.
It's tough that you have to agree to that.
Well, kind of uncomfortable.
I understand.
Only reason I'm saying this is because as much as you have spent all these years giving your case an argument, which millions of us agree with, who sit there and say, damn, this is a pretty scary thought.
And I agree with you.
A lot of this makes sense.
Who's the problem?
You guys, my challenge, my biggest challenge when I sit there and you're like, hey, you're talking about all this stuff and you make these arguments.
You have one more step to go and you guys stay right here.
You don't want to take that next step.
You know what that next step is?
The problem is the swamp.
The problem is we, the people, forgot this is their country.
They're controlled by all these people that play the same game.
It's the, you know, hey, guess what?
Sanders, step this one out.
Elizabeth Warren, kick it.
Pete, Tuesday, I want you to endorse Biden.
Amy, here's what I want you to do.
We've chosen Biden's our guy.
Hey, I have decided to stop my, I appreciate all the support, or we've decided to stop our election.
We're going to endorse Biden.
And everybody in America is like, wait, you were losing.
And Kamala is going to be the VP.
What?
She called you out in the election and she, is this a joke?
Is this like, are you guys entertaining us?
Like, do you guys think we're idiots?
And then we have to sit there and take it?
That's a little confusing as well.
And the same thing on the other side.
Now, here's what we're going to be doing.
And by the way, this isn't sitting here saying Trump's approach or how he is and, you know, McDougal or Stormy.
And this is not sitting there saying, you know, this is just saying the swamp is so powerful that the only two people who decided to stand up to them, one of them was killed.
The other one's been character assassinated for six straight years since he chose to do it.
And you have to say there is some credibility in that.
Patrick, don't you think that what happened in Dee Lee Plaza sent a signal to other people that if you try and do something about what we have arranged, okay, it can also happen to you.
I believe the Zapruder film is a clear signal, you know, to anybody who wants to really try and shake up the system.
But I think that, like, to me, I think it also should inspire people to say, I'm not backing down.
I'm not going to let you control my life.
This thing, as important as I think I am, I'm going to be gone in no time.
Life goes on.
My kids got to have an opportunity like I do.
I'm not as important as I think I am.
The country's more important than me, right?
I think there are people like that in America as well.
We'll sit there and say, oh, you're going to do that to him and get away with it?
Yeah, I'm good, man.
I don't like that.
Let me go find 50 other people who feel like me who are patriots.
Let's go figure you guys out and say you can't be doing this.
You know, connecting that back to the assassinations, I mean, I think you do have people like that.
You have people, you know, when we've had these previous investigative bodies that have stepped up.
They've, you know, after the JFK movie came out, a lot of people are saying, hey, I'm getting older.
I want to, I have records.
I have died.
Why is this stuff still not released yet?
You have people that have worked for these groups.
You have the assassination research community that are daring to write these books and have these conversations and these conferences, you know, and challenge the narrative that's out there.
So I think we do have a pretty good cadre of folks that are looking to country first.
Very important.
You guys are playing a very important role because it's patriotic.
It's brave.
It's not popular, but you're doing it.
And a lot of other people who their job isn't to sit there and investigate and research and pull up articles and go back and read a, how many pages was the Warren report?
288.
Yeah, the average person is not going to read a report like that.
I'd be excited about it.
The average person doesn't want to read an 800-hour page romance novel, let alone a, you know.
So, can you pull the percentages up of what I just sent you?
Pull the percentages up.
Most people believe in the JFK conspiracy theory.
This is five years ago.
Okay, if you go up a little bit on the percentage, yeah, look at this where we're at.
Keep going, right there.
So, most people believe JFK wasn't killed by Oswald alone.
Okay, 61% don't believe it.
And by the way, it's no difference between male or female, 62 and 60.
Okay.
56% of white believe others were involved.
72% of Hispanics, 76% of African Americans.
College grads, 52%.
No college degree, 65%.
So the ages, 60, 62, 60.
It doesn't matter.
Republicans, identical.
Look at that.
60 or 71.
Independents think it's even more.
So independents are saying, no, I think it's even more.
Look at Clinton and Trump.
Democrats, a little bit less that somebody else was involved.
Trump, a little bit more.
So this has got nothing to do with politics.
People on both sides are sitting there saying something happened here.
Why do we not know about it?
Now, here's a question for you.
Behind closed doors, the people that are protecting this story, that want it to stay the way it is, which is a one bullet, the magic bullet.
That's just, it's what happened.
We got to stick to it.
Let's stop talking.
Guys, can you guys stop doing these meetings and these events?
Like, you're bothering us a little too much.
You're pain.
Why do you think it's necessary for us to know who did this and who was behind this?
Why is it necessary for us to know?
Why should we know?
Why shouldn't we just move on?
Well, I believe it's important to know from the fact that I don't think we've had an honest democracy since.
And what this has done, as you can see right there, I don't know if you probably have another graph of this.
The public's belief in what the government is saying when JFK took office was something like 75%.
All right.
Today, it's in the 20s.
And if you look at the graph, the single-year biggest drop was 1964 when the Warren report was issued.
So I don't see how you can have a functioning democracy if you have that much cynicism.
And they then focus groups on this.
And an unbelievable 90% of the public believes that Kenny's assassination caused a period of depression and cynicism to take over the country that had not really existed before.
I mean, I'm sorry, Jim, I didn't mean to cut you off.
No, go ahead.
I mean, anecdotally, that's exactly what we heard when we were talking to people.
Exactly what he just said.
We heard a lot of people use that.
The phrasing is a little different depending on who you talk to, but a lot of folks said they grew up, well, people I talked to who were witnesses or alive at that time.
And they would say, I grew up, you know, thinking I need to, I was patriotic.
I care about my country, you know.
And they said that that whole period shook their belief in our country.
And for like, I think a lot of younger people, you know, Oh, it's a different graph now, but I know that when I talk to younger people, I talk to high school students, I talk to college students, and we use actually the assassinations as education tools to think about careers, things like that, you know, like nursing, photography, things like the film.
And a lot of them just assume that I talk to say, oh, yeah, conspiracy is not a dirty word to them, you know?
And they just believe that that's just the way things are.
And it's more often than not.
And then the other part, can you pull up the report he was talking about from 77%?
Zoom in a little bit to see when it went up.
So 75%, Eisenhower, 60s, Kenneth.
So public trust in the government has gone from 75 to 77 under Johnson, then all the way down to it was down with Nixon, down with Ford, down with Carter, and then up with Reagan, down with Bush, up with Clinton, down with Bush, down with Obama, a little bit of up with Trump, and then flat with Biden.
The American people don't trust.
I can't read it.
What is it?
That's just a public trust in the world.
What's the percentage today?
The percentage today is less than 20%.
20%.
It's even worse today.
It's worse today than it was.
It's ever been.
I mean, go under Obama.
Obama's was the lowest ever where people trusted America.
It hit 19% under Obama.
He holds 15% under Obama, where people didn't trust the government.
And by the way, I would be curious to know what that event is that caused it to drop to 19%.
That's 17%.
15% or 17%?
15%.
So, yeah, people don't trust them.
So, you know, again, to me, not trusting the government.
What is the government?
I think people don't trust the swamp is who they don't trust.
The people within the government they don't trust.
It's not what it was before.
How do we get there?
How do you think we got here to have this little of a trust in the government?
Well, in my opinion, when you have a series of events, which I believe are kind of like the equivalent of earthquakes in the 1960s, when you have four assassinations that took place in a period of five years under the most suspicious circumstances, and the government and the Department of Justice don't do anything about them.
All right.
And this is what I believe eventually led to the combination of the extension of the Vietnam War and to Watergate.
All right.
And in my opinion, since then, it's essentially been a kind of downward curve since.
The Watergate scandal took place over two solid years.
All right.
And so, you know, to restore the trust of the people in the government, I really believe it's almost a lost cause now.
I guess I like fighting for lost causes.
Okay.
Please keep doing that.
Keep doing that.
You know, what would be an interesting thing for you guys to investigate next?
I had a guy on General Spalding.
I don't know if you're familiar with General Spalding or not.
And General Spalding says one day he's given, he's being asked, he's working for the U.S. government.
He's being asked.
He was a former general of the Air Force, lived in China for a long time.
He was there to learn about the systems of China.
Comes over here, and he's telling them what China's vision is long term.
And on one side, McConnell is sitting there.
On the other side, Biden's sitting there.
Both of them were not happy about his message about China because McConnell's wife, their lineage goes back to China and the power that his wife has, and then obviously Biden's link to China as well.
Neither one is happy.
And then he says, immediately, I got fired right after.
They hired me to teach him about China, and then all of a sudden I'm being fired.
I think, James, if whatever you choose to investigate next and study, I would be very curious if you would have any interest in studying the swamp and seeing what really goes on within the political world.
You know how people say they?
They.
They don't want this to be released.
They don't want people to know.
They.
Well, the title of the book should be, Who is They?
Okay.
Let's go figure out who this they community is, the they party, right?
Because once we figure out the they people who are protecting all these things from people knowing about it, I think then we can lead to accountability.
But I think if you wrote that book, you would need 24-7 protection to make sure you're safe.
And I don't know if you want to live that kind of a life.
Probably not.
Probably not.
Do we have our friends here from Belarus?
We have one of them?
Okay, so if we get one of them out, before we get these folks out here, to you, obviously you've had to study Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who is he to you?
What kind of a person was he?
You know, we've read all about it.
We've seen his inspiration, his wife, what he was linked to.
We heard what he did to different folks.
Who is Lee Harvey Oswald to you?
Well, Lee Harvey Oswald, I believe, is probably the most complex 24-year-old that probably anybody has ever studied.
I mean, this is a guy who has so many facets to him, so many unusual moves to his life, okay, that even though he only lived at 24, people have written books about him.
All right.
In my opinion, I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was recruited into intelligence work at a relatively young age.
I mean, how many Marines study the Russian language?
Okay.
How many Marines then get a hardship discharge six months before they're supposed to be regularly discharged, then go ahead and travel into Europe and then the Soviet Union and try to bargain with them about selling them secrets of the U-2 plane and then get shipped 400 miles out of Moscow to Minsk because the KGB thinks he's a spy.
All right.
Then he comes back home.
And now, listen to this carefully.
We're supposed to believe Oswald is a Marxist, right?
Who does he live with first?
The white Russian community who want to overthrow Khrushchev and bring back the czar.
All right.
And then where does he go next?
To New Orleans.
Cuban exiles who want to overthrow Castro and bring back Batista.
What kind of a communist does that kind of stuff?
All right.
And then he goes back to Dallas and he's so lucky to get this job at the Texas School Book Depository, which just happens to be the building that the parade is going to take a right turn in front of.
So the secrets of Lee Harvey Oswald are still coming out.
All right.
Do I have a couple of minutes just to explain a very interesting thing?
They declassified the work of a woman named Betsy Wolf who worked for the House Select Committee.
Her job was to study the CIA file on Oswald.
She asked for every division's charter.
I think there's nine in the CIA.
All right.
She read over every charter, studied it.
All right.
And then she did an imaginary graph.
This is what Oswald's files should have done at the CIA.
And then she goes, okay, I'm ready for the file.
She studies the file.
Guess what, Patrick?
It didn't do that.
It didn't do anything like that.
All right.
His files should have gone to what we call the SR division, Soviet Russia.
They didn't go there.
They went to some place called the Office of Security.
Why is that significant?
The Office of Security does not set up a 201 file, which that was the most common file in the whole CIA.
All right.
And everybody had access to it.
So she started interviewing people.
And she finally found a guy who was running the, Robert Gambino, who's running the Office of Security at that time.
And this is what he said.
He said, look, it doesn't matter how many documents come in.
It doesn't matter how they're pre-stamped.
If the client goes to a place called the Office of Mail Logistics, they will only send his files to that department.
What this means is that somebody was rigging Oswald's file in the CIA in 1959 as he's going to the Soviet Union.
Why would you do that?
It was so unusual that those memos, if you can believe this, those memos didn't get printed in the HSCA volumes.
All right.
And in fact, her work is all handwritten.
In other words, it never got typed in the memorandum form.
The only reason we know about it is because the ARB put what they call the delayed release number on her memoranda.
What that means is they figured that this can be declassified in, say, 2004, and this was declassified in 2005.
That's how secret the life and career of Lee Harvey Oswald is.
Well, let's learn about it.
We have two folks here who actually spent time with them.
Gentlemen, appreciate you for being on here with us.
Let me properly introduce you.
We have Paul Gregory, who is, yes, who is a fellow research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
He's a pioneer in the study of Soviet and Russian economics.
He holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University and is the author and co-author of 12 books and more than 100 articles on economic history, the Soviet economy, transition economics, and comparative economics and economic demography.
So he wrote a book called The Oswalds, An Untold Account of Marina and Lee.
Paul, thank you for joining us and being on the podcast.
And then we also have Ernest Titovets, which I may be butchering this last name.
Forgive me if I did, but we have him here as well.
Never mind.
He's in Belarus, and he's also MD PhD as a researcher, author, translator, interpreter.
He was a member of the Belarusian national sailing team.
He has authored or co-authored six research books, 14 patents, and over 400 research papers.
And as an interpreter, he translated three books and wrote a book called The Real Oswald based on his close friendship with the American six decades ago, had no reason whatsoever, either political or personal, to murder John F. Kennedy.
Gentlemen, thanks for being on.
Thank you for having us.
Yes, so Ernest.
Hello, Ernst.
Hello.
Hello.
Gary.
Have you guys spoken to each other before or no?
Have you guys had any kind of interaction?
Without a change of email.
Oh, so it's only through email.
You guys have never done a Zoom or spoken to each other.
No, no.
First time.
Well, we're glad to make this introduction.
Waiting for Gregory's book.
Oh, fantastic.
Fantastic.
Awesome.
So, if you don't mind, if Ernest, let's start off with you.
If you don't mind taking a minute and share with us your experience with Lee Harwe Oswald, so the audience knows how the relationship was started, what year was it, what he was like.
Give us a little bit of background.
Well, let's travel in time back to early 60s.
In this country, we were a rather isolated society.
I was a fan of English.
I studied it very hard.
And well, and I believe that's why I get in touch with Lee Hardy Oswald.
It was he came, it was in 1960, and that's all our meetings, all our friendship, was in that surrounding the Soviet world at that time.
He was the only foreigner whom I could speak English to, I mean, a native English speaker, and also he was sort of a window to the Western world.
Not that I was politicized, I was very curious what people were there behind the Iron Curtain.
And our friendship was in at this nothing political about that.
Just two guys were the same age, met, spoke the same language.
There was no other guys around speaking English, for Lee to speak English too.
And somehow we got together, hit it off, and that was it.
Well, we just led life of two young men, people, who just discussed things, discuss politics, discuss music.
We were both fond of music, of music, classical music, would go to opera, listen to tape recordings, then just had a great time, we say with tape recorder when I started his English, and there's a lot of fun.
And, you know, I can't go into detail within this rather limited time.
I just described all that in my book, also Russian episode.
But what I want to say is that I saw him as a human being.
There was no overlay to those after the assassination of the case.
So, when you hung out with him, you never saw him capable of doing what he did.
Like, did he show hate?
Like, you know how sometimes you're hanging out with a friend, or like I have friends in the army, we had a couple of.
Well, I see.
At our level, he was a very friendly, mild person as I know him, no aggression at all.
And in my book, I gave many examples when other people would have turned wild and started fighting.
That was not Lee's way.
Got it.
And, you know, so my impression of him was very mind, a very reasonable person.
It's very important, reasonable person, dedicated person.
You know, he studied Russian before going to the Soviet Union.
And to study Russian, it's something.
It's a very difficult language.
And again, interesting.
Got it.
Started the system.
He came here to study the system.
He was after the idea of improving life for poor and unpossessed in the United States.
At a certain time, at the age of 15, he read Marx's teaching.
He found the books somewhere in dusty shelves of the library.
And he was, in a way, possessed with the idea.
He got the drift of Marx, genuine who happiness and everything.
Got it.
Let me go to Mr. Gregory as well.
Thank you for that.
Paul, how about yourself?
What was your experience with him?
What was he like?
I think Ernst knew Lee during the best period of his life.
He had friends.
He was looked up to.
He was the only American in Minsk.
So I completely understand and accept Ernst's description of Lee in Minsk.
I met him during another period, which was after his return to the United States and to my hometown of Fort Worth, where he and Marina arrived.
Lee had expectations of grandeur.
He was going to publish his historic diary.
He had written extensively on Marx, Engels, socialism, capitalism, and so forth.
So he thought he would return to Texas as a celebrity who could finally avoid a manual labor job.
And I think he had told Marina the same.
So when I met him, it was a period of growing frustration.
There were no signs of violence other than the fact that there was a lot of abuse going on within that marriage.
It was a challenge.
Guys, Eric, in the back, can we increase the audio?
I don't know why you guys decrease it as much as you did.
I can't hear for the last 10 seconds.
Let's increase by 10 points.
Please continue, sir.
I couldn't hear you.
Keep going.
Let me try to raise that.
That's much better.
That's much better.
It's not on you.
It's on our guys in the back.
Go for it.
Okay, I thought you're talking to me.
No, I was talking to the guys in the back.
So when I met them, they were just getting accustomed to life in America.
Lee understood that it was important that Marina not know that they were really starting out at the bottom of the ladder.
Lee was making $1.25 an hour.
He was telling Marina that he was destined for greatness.
So, and Lee, and I would say something interesting is the fact that it was quite obvious that Lee did not want Marina to understand American life, because if she understood American life, she would understand that they were living really a life of poverty.
So it was quite a concession when Lee agreed that I would come to their house regularly and speak Russian with Marina and with Lee, by the way.
So whenever we met, we spoke entirely in Russian.
So I would say I caught Lee at a point of increasing frustration.
And so I'd say that's the best I could do with describing him.
Well, let me ask you this.
One thing I would say is although he was working at manual labor, he dressed well.
He was very neat.
I think this was also a characteristic of Lee in midst.
Got it.
What would you say about Marina?
What was Marina's personality like?
Was she also ambitious and believing in his vision of who he could one day become?
Was she saying, oh my God, Lee's a special man.
He's one day going to be dot, dot, dot, or was she more like just a supportive spouse?
She was the opposite of a supportive spouse because she recognized early on that his ambitions and dreams were totally unrealistic.
Got it.
So instead of being a supportive wife with respect to his ideas, which she understood were unrealizable, she really spoke with scorn about these wild ideas.
Got it.
James, what do you think in hearing both of their takes?
Because you've also studied him.
Either what questions do you have or what thoughts do you have of what they're saying?
I've met Ernst Titovitz.
He was in Washington for a conference.
Maybe a little closer to the mark.
I met Ernst.
He was in Washington for a conference, I believe, in 2014.
The first question I asked him is, when you first met Lee, did he speak good Russian?
And he said, yes, he spoke very good Russian when I first met him.
Now, this goes back to the point I wanted to make.
Oswald spoke good Russian when he left the Marine Corps.
He went out with a girl named Rosaline Quinn, who was learning Russian from Berlitz to get a job in the State Department.
She said, Oswald spoke better Russian than I did.
And if you'd study this thing, Russian is one of the most difficult languages there is to learn.
It's not like Spanish or Italian, one of those Romance languages.
It's a very difficult language to learn.
But Oswald knew it good, pretty well, when he left the Marines.
By the time he met Ernst, he was speaking pretty much...
Ernst, would you say he was speaking fluent Russian when you met him?
Ooh.
Well, yes, all things considered, with a very heavy American accent.
And I was under the impression that whoever taught him English didn't pay much attention to Russian phonetics.
Otherwise, he within things, domestic, household, work, newspaper language, he was quite proficient.
And there was no problem.
Everybody around had no problem to understand him.
That's the way.
And excuse me, if I may, if I may comment on Lee in the United States, just to continue what Gregory said.
You know, Lee was very determined, and I don't think he was frustrated in a way as far as what he wanted to accomplish was concerned.
Well, in the first place, he delivered a brilliant lecture at your diswith college and professional there.
I believe he got university education.
He was very proficient in Russian affairs and that was rewarding to his, well, as a researcher.
Again, he delivered rather ostated in radio debates exposing his views.
And he stood against very experienced anti-communists and anti-castro people.
And he went through with flying colours.
All that taken together means that he the first player was satisfied.
He got satisfaction at the result of his, well, political, excuse me, some technical problem, political activity.
Again, he organized this fair play for Uber committee.
I believe that was his idea starting his own party, first as a fringe party, and then to turn it into a real party to put forward his ideas and put him on practical ground.
So I think he was quite, there was not despondency in him at that time.
He determinedly did what he planned to do.
That's my vision of that.
For Marina and Lee, Marina was rather a practical woman.
She rather was after things household, things earthly.
And she never interested in what's in Oswald's idea.
They were boring to him.
She wouldn't listen to that.
And as far as her ability to grasp American life...
Why did she marry Ernest Affair?
If I may, Ernest, if I may, why did she marry him?
Either one of you guys, Paul, do you know why she married him?
If there is no, what was the reasoning for the marriage?
Is it just what was the motive?
Was it to come out here?
Ernst could answer that better than I, but the fact that he had an apartment, the fact that he was an exotic American, and the fact that she herself was something of a maverick.
But Ernst would have a much better sense because I was not president at that time.
Got it.
So Paul, maybe let me ask you a different question.
Your friendship with him or the relationship that you guys had at the time, and then when you see the events that take place with Oswald, did you kind of say, you know, because of my involvement with a relationship, I want to know what really happened here.
As a friend, were you curious on the events that took place with JFK assassination where you said, I want to know what really happened here?
You know, what was the motive?
Why would they do something like this?
And if yes, what ideas do you have with what happened with the assassination?
First, let me speak to his Russian, because he and I and Marina spoke Russian.
Lee could express himself well in Russian, but his grammar was terrible.
And as Ernst says, Russian is a very difficult language.
So if he were trained in some CIA camp or some KGB camp, they probably would have taught him better grammar.
With respect to my reaction to the assassination, I was watching it on TV along with everybody else.
I saw them bring us in a suspect, and immediately I saw it was Lee.
And I would say within a few hours, I more or less accepted the proposition that he did it and he did it alone.
So I've never really had a problem with that, irrespective of the counter-evidence that I've seen.
Got it.
If I may, if I may, one remark.
You know, Lee professed stoicism, and he wrote that only those who really, well, it's free telling us what he said, support stoicism, could support his theory.
So he didn't most after the best of earthly life.
He was stoic, and that was part of his theory.
So he was ready to do with all hardships, no matter what, to promote his ideas.
I would say the most important thing I have to relate is the fact, and Ernst may agree with this, that we have grossly underestimated Oswald.
He was persistent.
He was a very smart guy.
He had his goals, which he would pursue persistently.
So, and much of this is disguised by the fact that I believe he was dyslexic.
So, if you look at his writing in English and in Russian, it's pretty bad.
So, but I would emphasize the fact that Oswald was not dumb.
He was a smart guy, had street smarts.
He had, as far as I could see, all the characteristics needed for assassinating a public figure.
And we know from Marina's testimony and other testimony that he barely missed assassinating General Walker in Dallas, which shows he has the so-called soul of a killer.
May I have a word here?
Yeah, let's go.
Final words here, and then we'll.
You know, well, I wouldn't say he was smart or street smart.
With me, he was quite open, and he demonstrated this in many ways.
Again, I revert you, those who are interested to my book.
Well, violence wasn't in his character in the first place, and it was not in his teaching.
He wrote in black and white, that we are against violence.
He believes that historic events after Marx result in that capitalism would be next best political affirmation would be socialism.
He believes that those historic causes will do without what he wanted achieved without him residing and rising to violence.
And again, in literature, there's controversy about him attempt at General Wallace.
Walker.
Walker.
Walker, yeah.
And again, had he committed this crime, killing president, could undermine his teaching.
And that was where he would draw the line.
No violence.
He suffered a lot to promote his teaching and to result in committing this heinous crime would be absolutely undermining his theory.
Then he would be a low, you know, well, nobody would believe him anymore after this act.
So he was absolutely against violence.
He was absolutely against violence.
It's interesting listening to both of you guys because there is a different feeling and view of him.
But gentlemen, appreciate you for making a time to come out here.
Paul, we're going to put the link to your book below for folks who wanted the Oswald's and Untold Account of Marina and Lee's.
And Ernest, once again, Paul, thank you for making a time for joining us here on the podcast.
Appreciate you guys.
Welcome.
Thank you.
It's our pleasure.
It's my pleasure.
Take care.
Bye-bye.
So did you listen to this, either one of you?
Did you hear anything that's out of the ordinary that you didn't know?
No, I've read Ernest's book.
I think at that time it was called Oswald Russian Episode.
And I met him, okay, like I said, in Washington.
Gregory is essentially giving us the one report version of Oswald.
Okay, so there's nothing that I haven't read about that.
Can I make a comment about the Fair Play for Cuba committee?
All right.
They both commented on Oswald and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
All right.
What neither one of them said is some kind of important information.
Oswald was the only member of that committee in New Orleans, which is kind of strange.
They told him, the FPCC, we wouldn't advise you to do what you're doing in a southern big city like that.
All right.
He did anyway.
All right.
And then the third thing is a few of those flyers that Oswald was handing out contained the address of 544 Camp Street, which I'm sure you're aware of, you know, was the address of the office of a rabid right-winger who had ties to the FBI, the CIA, and the American Nazi Party, a guy who I'm sure you're aware is the name Guy Bannister.
So why would Oswald, you know, be making these kind of flyers based out of that particular building?
All right.
And these are paradoxes that I believe that have to be explained if you're really going to try and understand who Lee Harvey Oswald was.
And I don't, I think today, you know, there is essentially one solution to this, that Oswald was what they call an engine provocateur, which means he really wasn't doing what it appeared to be doing, that he was really a kind of provocation agent, okay, in real life.
That's my idea and a lot of other people who know the case fairly.
Somebody just posted a super chat on Anmar Elma Halawi, Google order number 11110, JFK ordered since 1963, anyone that tries to disrupt the current monetary system gets killed.
The swamp exists because the Fed, a private entity, is in charge of the money supply.
You hear the story with the Fed.
What have you found with what John F. Kennedy wanted to do with the Fed?
Some say he wanted to end it.
Some were not happy about it.
What do you know about that?
Do you want to take that one?
I don't know.
That's not true.
Okay.
That thing about the Fed order.
All right.
It's not true the way some people spin it.
It was really a technical kind of change that Kennedy was making.
All right.
It was not.
But Kennedy did have a dispute with the Federal Reserve.
And this is why he hired a guy named James Saxon to be the controller of the currency.
Kennedy did not think that the Fed was making it easy enough to borrow money.
Okay.
And so Saxon became his agent in that.
He wanted to sanction more lending for small farmers, for small businesses.
He even said, you know, I don't like the Federal Reserve's their description for qualifying for loans.
And he then tried to encourage the opening up of more state banks that would have more lenient lending requirements.
All right.
And so in that sense, in that sense, yes, Kennedy was trying to oppose.
And I'm sure you're aware that the Federal Reserve essentially represents Wall Street in New York, the Rockefeller Empire, the Morgan Empire.
In fact, I think they're signed on to the actual Constitution of the Federal Reserve.
The Warburgs and people like that were a part of the Federal Reserve.
And like you said, Kennedy was not from that particular branch of the power elite.
I held a meeting in the room at Jekyll Island where the whole meeting took place.
And I don't know if you've been there or not.
It's a very interesting place where, you know.
You've actually been to Jekyll Island?
I've been at Jekyll Island.
I flew our guys in, chartered a plane, flew them in, took them there, show them through all the homes, all the vacation homes, how they lived in this community and what it was like.
And, you know, some guys stayed in some of the properties.
It was a very interesting experience.
See what Jekyll Island is.
It's actually, I don't even know why they went there.
It's not like the nicest place.
If you go to it, it's not somewhere where you say, oh, my gosh, what a beautiful place for all these billionaires to have a place to live.
It wasn't that fancy.
I understand some people's fascinations with it, but I wasn't enamored by it.
It wasn't nothing that I was underwhelmed more than anything else when I left.
I think you should.
Jekyll Island was the place where these very powerful and rich people went to formulate the idea of a Federal Reserve Bank.
Okay, so that's why it's important history.
Yeah, have you ever read the book, The Creatures of Jekyll Island?
What'd you think about that?
Yeah, it's a very interesting book.
A lot of interesting information in that, which I didn't pick up anywhere else.
Yeah, and again, another conspiracy.
There's no way these guys have that much power.
What they do, they don't.
That's another one that goes back and forth.
So do you think we'll eventually get to a time when you and I are alive, where we're going to know what happened, or no?
You mean with specificity?
John F. Kennedy, yeah, assassination.
Do I think we'll, no.
As far as the actual specifics of what really happened, I think it's too much of a cold case.
Okay.
I think we can, I think intelligent people who know the material can make a very kind of what we call informed speculation of what really happened.
I think that's becoming more, with the work that the ARB did especially, and which I mentioned before about these documents on Vietnam.
And we didn't get to talk about one of the most sensational discoveries these guys made, which was, and I'm sure you're aware of it, Operation Northwoods.
Okay.
You want me to explain that?
Sure, go for it.
Okay.
Operation Northwoods was a wild scheme that was dreamed up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in which they would create what they call a causes belli, a great event that would provoke an invasion of Cuba.
Some of these were having, you know, Cubans, Cuban refugees go on a killing spree in Miami.
All right.
Another one of them was to, the most bizarre one, was to fly a drone over Cuba, have a tape playing, we're being under attack, and blow up the plane.
Okay.
And that would be the excuse to go in and invade Cuba.
And Kennedy took a look at these and he says, no, I don't want to do anything like this.
All right.
And this was brought to him by Edward Lansdale and Lyman Lemnitzer.
Okay.
And then Lemnitzer said, well, let's go ahead and invade anyway.
And so Kennedy fired him.
All right.
And unfortunately, by hook or by crook, he ended up going to Europe and being part of the whole NATO agreement anyway.
So these are some of the things I believe are very important in trying to put together some kind of feasible scenario.
Northwoods is really kind of a scary kind of, if you want to talk about false flag, I mean, it doesn't get any more bigger than that for a false flag.
Let me ask this question from you.
When say that John F. Kennedy declassified documents, all of them are out and we have them.
Are we going to see anything?
Is that going to be like, oh my gosh, how come you kept this from us for so many years?
Is there going to be anything revolutionary?
And then the second part of the question would be the following.
How do we know they're going to release everything anyways?
How are we going to know that some of the stuff's not going to be kept that never made it out to us?
So two questions.
One, will it be that revolutionary?
Two, can they hold back some documents that they don't want us to see?
Well, I'm in agreement with James here that I don't think that we're really going to ever get a full clear picture.
I mean, we all want that.
I mean, that was reasonable.
We've been doing the work that we've been doing over the years and pushing for release of records.
I think it also ties to the fact that, you know, when we started our work, we knew of a lot of CIA and FBI records, but what we didn't realize was all the other types of records that were out there that people brought to us or we were able to look and discover.
So did I answer the second part?
Okay.
All right.
So.
So I don't think that we're really going to see.
I think we need to keep pushing, though.
We really need to keep pushing.
Do you think we're going to see anything?
I really can't answer that question with any kind of authority.
I think there might be a couple of interesting nuggets.
But if you ask me, Patrick, with what they already did, that was a big, a huge, what they call a quantum leap already.
It's just that, except for people like you, you know, and there aren't that many of you, you know, the MSM just doesn't want to acknowledge a lot of this stuff.
And I believe it's because of, number one, they missed a boat on the assassination and what really happened.
And number two, they completely missed a boat on the cause and effect between what happened to Kennedy and then what happened later.
Like, for example, the whole Vietnam War debacle.
You know, so they just don't want to deal with this kind of thing.
And by the way, I believe that the MSM has gotten so bad, that kind of opened a door for people like you, okay?
Because people want to hear, you know, contrary to what they say, they want to hear this kind of stuff.
It's so funny that we're showing the numbers of the trust the American people have in the U.S. government.
You know how much of that matches the trust people have in the mainstream media?
You're exactly right.
That's a good point.
The lack of trust in the government and mainstream media matches.
So what does that say about the two?
Maybe they're on the same team.
So that's another part of the swamp.
This is why we need people like Kennedy's.
We need people like Reagan.
We need people like Trump.
We need people who are willing to push the envelope on both sides of the aisle.
Boy, that is a really shocking.
Wow.
You're right.
You're right.
It's what is it, 21%?
Do me a favor, match it with the U.S. government.
Match it with what you were shown with the U.S. government.
So if you can put those two, look at that.
That right there, the lack of trust in the public's lack of trust in the U.S. government matches.
It's historic lows right now.
It matches public's lack of trust.
Go to the media in a media.
So the media equals the government.
So maybe they're just a spokesperson on behalf of the government.
Here, you guys, I want you to say this to the people and they go and tell us.
No wonder people don't trust the media and the government today.
Yes.
So it helps when guys in the media that are in the podcast side, there's a lot of them right now that are pushing the envelope who are very interested in this.
Rogan's done a fantastic job interviewing a bunch of JFK assassination.
He's done a phenomenal job at it.
A few of us have put some time into it as well.
But it's great on what happens when you try to control the people.
People eventually find a creative way to get the message out to others.
And then people say, wow, I'm starting to not believe what you have to say.
I think you guys are both full of shit, mainstream media and the government.
And I think that's a good thing.
And that's why the whole purpose of us having everybody on the podcast here today, just so you know, I don't know if you know this or not.
We're coming to the last minute here, was to challenge you to write a book on the swamp.
I think it's the next chapter of your life for you to take the next couple of years, have some courage.
You're a great author.
You write stuff that makes readers look into stuff.
So if you say, JFK, revisit it through the looking glass, okay?
Where this should say the swamp, okay?
Looking through the glasshouse that they live in, right?
And we all pick it up and you're not afraid of going after people on both sides.
I think that'd get a lot of people interested, especially nowadays.
Anyways, any final thoughts before we wrap up?
We'll go with you and then, James, you'll take us on.
Well, we just saw each other in Dallas the other day.
And the question came, there have been so few people that have been connected with the investigative bodies that have written a book about it.
And I've been trying to get my book out for a long time.
I even did a sabbatical, we call it an off-campus studio assignment, you know, to do research and life changes of written books since then.
But that's actually my next step is to really, you know, be able to finally get my book out.
And especially the par part, though, is my record group is released now.
I always have to be careful because of my connection with the review board that I can only talk about the things that I can talk about, which is a real thing, you know.
But that is my next step.
And I think that's, yeah.
Awesome.
Looking forward to it, James.
Well, I'd like to thank you for the appearance.
And I think it's, like you said earlier, even if it's a lost cause, this deserves to be talked about.
Okay, because I think the mass of American people, contrary to what the MSM says, really wants to know what happened.
And they deserve to try and know what really happened.
Because as we both agree, the assassination of President Kennedy was an earthquake moment, you know, in Caribbean.
Do you think when people become presidents and they go to Area 51 or whatever it is?
Because, you know, there's only been 46 of these guys.
When they become presidents, do you think they fully know what happened or they still keep it away from them as well?
No, I believe, well, let me tell a story.
After Barack Obama was re-elected into his fifth year, one of the guys who was working for him asked him, you know, what happened to all the hope and change?
And Obama said, you saw what happened to JFK, didn't you?
So I think that's kind of what happens.
Yeah.
It's a paralyzing.
Don't push the envelope.
Right.
I don't know if the fear of death should be that, man.
I don't know.
I don't know if you have to choose between the truth and death.
I'm not convinced that people are willing to live quiet lives of desperation and hiding if they know the truth just to live a life that you're going to disappear in a few decades, man.
You're not as important as you think you are.
No matter how rich, how famous, how powerful you are, your life's going to be gone and people are going to move on with or without you.
You know, and I think maybe that mindset of getting to the bottom of it scares the crap of some people.
But I do believe there's going to be some true believers that are going to rise up and say, yeah, I need to know exactly what's going on.
We need more people like that.
We need more true believers.
Anyways, appreciate you guys for coming out.
Thank you for your great work that you've done.
Thank you also for last minute we called you to fly out and get on a flight here with us and come to Florida.
Gang, tomorrow, I'm doing a podcast that I've been looking forward to doing for a while.
I am very, very curious about what's going on with Brazil.
Tomorrow, I'm having two folks that are going to be on the podcast.
One is Rodrigo Constantin, and the other one is Paulo Figuerdio, who's the son of the former president of Brazil.
That'll be on the podcast.
And we're going to be talking about what's going on in Brazil.
It's a mess.
I can't wait for that podcast tomorrow.
For those of you guys that are interested in the Brazil topic, we will address that tomorrow.
