JFK Facts Podcast #110: RFK Files Released

welcome everybody just for those late comers um jeff is uh celebrating his birthday and uh is going on a much deserved um vacation short vacation he'll be back next week um so chad and i gonna handle the duties tonight. And the news from the week, I guess, officially, is a whole bunch of RFK records got dumped yesterday. I only have seen a couple of them, but the interesting ones to me was that Bobby had actually asked the Attorney General in 2012 to look into the possibility that his father was killed by a conspiracy and as a result of that request the fbi digital service examined uh some tapes that had been recorded on the assassination and um not surprisingly they determined they were inconclusive so um uh but i i mean i think there were like 60,000 or 70,000 pages chad that were dropped i that's uh that i did that sort of rings a bell for me i don't remember what the exact number was but it's it's it's quite a lot and and as you said i mean that's the only thing that stuck out to me was he actually wrote a letter to obama didn't he asking him to investigate the two gunmen uh well i think he wrote to the attorney general but i mean it was obama's administration he wrote it in september of 2012 which is interesting timing because he was the middle of a re-election campaign yeah and then they did uh i think they reported on the results in in october so they did a really quick turnaround you know i don't know i know that john or had gotten the fbi to to do some analysis on the organic material on the bullet fragments that were found in the limo and he had a really and he was in the department of justice and he really had a you know they were dragged they were dragged kicking and screaming to do that so um and i was never aware that bobby had asked for this so it's interesting uh he never made this public i don't know what to make of that and I don't know how good the analysis was. I always, with anything with these assassinations, I'm very dubious when the government is the one that's making the study. I would have loved to have some outside reputable, objective third party do it. um otherwise it appears that um you know the pressure seems to be off right now um uh i'm re-engaging with my contact with with the dni to see you know what's going on with the records not in the collection i think they've done a good job on the jfk collection releasing records that were previously withheld, although there are still redactions in many of the records, but at least they're doing that, but they've done nothing on the records that we asked about that are outside the collection. And I, you know, I don't know if they're still looking for them, whether they found them and they're scanning them, but I'm going to be speaking to my contact, who's really good friends with her, tomorrow to see what, if he could find out, you know, what's going on behind the scenes. Chad, I know you've been at the archives. I'm really interested to follow up on what you said last week about those 2,400 FBI files that you seem to be suggesting, you seem to, if I recall correctly, that you seem to suggest that when they get scanned, they kind of sanitized. And I wonder if you could go into that a little more detail, because I wasn't quite clear what you were referring to. Well, what I was basically trying to say was, if you look at the hard copies of these FBI files that were released, now I was actually told by somebody who was sort of in the know that these were nothing new. it was going to be from the JFK task force of the FBI, which was set up before the convocation, before the start of the ARRB. But I think after, or maybe they even started just before the passage of the JFK Records Act in 1992, because they knew it was going to be passed. So I think, I think it dates to before that, and they were sort of preparing to comply. But what happened was, as far as I can tell, they have all these documents and they've got all these handwritten notations. Sometimes it's like a, not a post-it, but you know, like a stuck on thing with something written, or sometimes it's lots of marginalia and sometimes it's lots of stamps with different years going up through the 80s of being postponed. And all that's gone from what you eventually saw released. So it's not totally old. These files are, you know, they're not new records, but they do have some new information in them. And that's why I thought I could, you know, write a couple of pieces. And, you know, the one about the FBI sort of ceding its domestic intelligence function to the CIA by virtue of giving the CIA control over the declassification of all the FBI records. I mean, it's there. And it's, you know, it's not J. Edgar Hoover. This is way beyond. Yeah. Just, you know, everything had to be referred to the CIA, even if it was an FBI report, even if it was prepared by the FBI. And they were claiming, I guess, that the FBI, the CIA had equities in the information in that document. Yeah, they did. But I mean, you've got to remember, the interesting thing to remember about this is that, let's say, for example, it's surveillance of the DRE. Okay, well, the DRE, for all that the FBI is supposed to know, the DRE is not AMSPEL. I mean, how does, except that maybe it was, but as far as we know, as far as the official information is concerned, the FBI was just under the impression it was a Cuban exile group, right? I mean, they didn't know it was a CIA operation. So the idea that there's nothing on the document that identifies the DRE as under the AMSPELL CIA operation, but they're still saying, oh, yeah, this has to be referred to the CIA. I mean, that indicates to me that either they did actually know it was a CIA operation or they just did whatever the CIA wanted because, you know, they had Hoover by the Short and Curleys or whatever. I mean, I don't know. Is that what you're saying? Like when you see a little note, is it the note saying this has to this has to be reviewed by CIA? Yes. OK. Yeah. I mean, I did actually do little screenshots and I put them in the piece about the Puerto Rico situation because it's you know, it's it's a totally obsequious kind of abdication of of their own domestic intelligence mandate. and there was another document but you know in the interest of brevity you know you don't want to make these things too long people stop reading after i don't know 1500 words but that's interesting chad because he's you know there's all these documents where hoover has written stuff on the memo on the paper itself right you know we see those his handwriting notes and yet for some reason someone else makes a notation on a piece of paper that attaches to this document and someone decides that this piece of paper is not part of the record that is being withheld by or being held by the archives? Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I just know that the ARRB, when they eventually released these FBI files, and by the way, you know, there's a running joke that the JFK collection consists of, you know, 5,000 copies of the same 500 documents or whatever. But in this case, you know, you can see FBI reports released as CIA documents. In other words, I mean, you know, the numbers, they're 104 documents. Now they're also released as one, two, four documents. Well, why, why aren't they just released as one, two, four documents? So it really just goes to remind you of the sort of painful, uh, concentration of power. I think that the CIA has or had, I mean, I don't I don't I have no evidence that it's been seriously diluted. And so and so I thought that that was sort of interesting. And by the way, I saw some interesting things that I'd never seen before, like a lot of photos of of Oswald in the Soviet Union. There were these photos of Marina Oswald's bracelet that he's supposed to have brought her from from Mexico City, even though it says Japan on it. I mean, I took pictures of all these things. And, and then I, you know, I was talking to Jeff, and he said, I'd never seen that bracelet either. And then he said later on, well, Larry Hancock said he's, he's already seen it. I mean, it's out there somewhere. I just don't see these things online. But there's like, Oswald at a picnic in Russia and stuff. And I mean, and it says on an FBI evidence. So I'm thinking they were released at some point, they're in evidence, but they're just not the pictures I'm used to seeing. Not particularly exciting. It's like oswald standing somewhere in minsk or maybe he's one with one of those friends that you've seen a million times i mean it's not you know a big deal but it is kind of interesting to go to see to look through those things and i also thought what was interesting was the um uh you know when hoover was disciplining all the um the agents uh that he sort of wanted to blame for having dropped the ball remember that was that whole security index thing where they they took oswald security Well, the guys that really came in for it were people like, well, Gordon Shanklin. They did a big thing on him. They did a big thing on a guy, the guy, Albert Turner, who was in the D.C. He was in headquarters. He was an espionage guy. He was a he was a, you know, and Bill Simpich told me that Albert Turner threatened Hoover, if he did anything to him, to sue him. And Albert Turner ended up not getting transferred out of Washington. But what happened was he was transferred from headquarters, Washington, to the Washington field office. He's still in D.C. I mean, you know, it's like he gets to stay in D.C. And the other guys go off to Seattle, Milwaukee or wherever, wherever they go. city yeah hostie went to kansas city and stuff and uh so i thought that was sort of interesting because there's photos of these guys through the ages you know getting older because they have periodic reports and i mean it's just they're just it's just interesting i mean i i couldn't find any really kind of hardcore story in there um although i did think it was interesting that the um the the fbi report listing all the agents who were going to be censured punished and so most of them just were censured which meant nothing they're only only hostie i think actually got um you know a pay pay loss and and leave of absence without pay i think the other there were transfers there were like four transfers and then the rest is just you know it's just nominal punishment but i did think it was interesting that nobody could find and we really did try to reach out a completely unredacted version of that report online so this was the first time that we had seen it and it was in a hard copy so we we you know we got a copy of that um but that was already in the collection just wasn't online right it was yeah exactly and and actually i've i've i've found out that um there you know you you have to do a little bit of digging i actually have a question for you about something that's never been answered for me but just yesterday and i'm sorry i didn't get a chance to to look for your document but i was literally i was there yeah you know and they took them a while i was i was hoping that they would i sent an email request for that you can do that and then they have it ready for you in the morning But this time they didn't have the turnaround. So I waited until almost noon before I got my boxes. And there's only three of them. But we're interested, as you know, in JFK collection files that don't have RIF numbers, research identification form numbers, but are redacted. OK. And so I contacted Eugene Morris, who's a big he's he's the guy that knows the most about the JFK collection at NARA, too. Nobody else knows much at all. He knows he's a wealth of knowledge on that. And he's a helpful kind of guy from what I can tell. He's very helpful. Yeah, but he's very, very busy. So I got him to answer me and he said, well, actually, these documents are do have riff numbers. but what happened was they're really long documents, like maybe they're 158 pages. They've been broken up into, I don't know, scores of documents, each with a RIF number. But one of the problems that I did find was that, you know, there's a collection within the HSCA CIA Segregated Collection called CIA Segregated Collection Printed Microfilm, right? You know that. so what the print of microfilm is is just when you open it's very depressing because it's all the same type of paper it's just you know it's not old there's no old like uh of fbi teletypes that are crispy and sort of fragile um but the problem is they're not very legible a lot of it is really not legible and the photographs can't you can't make them out and so i asked and i still haven't gotten an answer and maybe you know the answer can we actually see the actual microfilm because i mean i'm guessing that the printed microfilm these printed paper things which were printed for microfilm were done by the cia and then handed over i don't think they even have that at narutu we should have access to the microfilm why not and the microfilm would probably have much clearer images there's photographs of all kinds of people in there and the printed microfilm version is is lousy and and and and a lot of the documents are practical mostly illegible many of them are now when they were when they made so these were made these copies were made in 78 then right uh yeah so they took the microfilm and they made an image in 78 or 77 or whatever um using technology available then yeah you know i bet they consider those artifacts which have a whole different set of rules it's like trying to grab uh the zabruda film or trying to grab a bullet you know um they i i bet they can i i don't know i'm guessing but they may consider that this is this is just amazing every time you know you talk about it or someone i remember when we had our settlement conference and we were talking to the people there and it's like it's just when we showed them there was something that was missing and we had it though they just acknowledged that the collection's a mess yeah it is aren't careful yeah they they know it's a mess and in fact i had a quite a long conversation with a very bright younger guy there who was able to help me find some things and he said you know the jfk collection is not like any other collection in the entire archives it's really he didn't say it was a mess but he said it is its own uh sort of monster or something its own beast and it it very much felt as if it it had been that way from the beginning almost by design in other words it's really really difficult to to navigate the JFK collection and you you have to keep throwing yourself at it and keep sort of burying yourself in it. And, you know, you find these things and, and sometimes you do, like, I have found things that are, that have riff numbers that are still redacted and they weren't part of the last release. I don't know how significant the redactions are. They're some of them very small. You know, there's like little numerical codes that are, maybe they apply to informants or some sort of sources. And I never understood why they would redact code names or, or, you know, numbers when you, it doesn't identify who the person is anyway. I mean, I don't, you know, why would you, but anyway, that's what they did. And, and actually a, another question, and maybe somebody on the call tonight could, could answer this. I haven't been able to find an answer online, but I finally got access. Actually, we got access, Jeff and Margo and I, to these Zapruder film briefing boards. Okay. So those, now this was an interesting story because last year I wanted to get access to those. And it was a real rigmarole. And in the end, I couldn't. The only way that we did was because of this release this year. But last year was impossible because Gene Morris, who went to find them, said they're not in the usual stack, which is numbered 650L1. That's the stack for the JFK collection. This was in 550L4 for some reason. and he said it's a it's like a cage it's like a big cage and it's locked and he said i can see the boxes but i can't reach them i can't get to them of course they're oversized but they're not but wait a sec does that mean he didn't have the authority to access them did not have the authority and he didn't couldn't find anyone who did so i said well i mean i know that peter jenny got off got access to those at some point and he took pictures of them so you know i was just interested why can't i see them but anyway so we finally saw them and i got to look at them up close and take pictures and i think the briefing panels are a very very strange animal because i don't understand why they bothered to make them i think they were made and and nothing online all discussions about them relate to alteration or possible alterations as a pruder film so these long essays by douglas horn about the briefing mouth it all has to do with dina brugioni and what happened on the weekend of the assassination. And, you know, but I want to know what they were actually used for, because I think Jeff said he thought that Lyndon Johnson was briefed on the Monday, which is the day of the funeral. But maybe that's not the exact date, but they used them to brief him. Well, why not just show him the movie? And again, with the Warren Commission, you're showing witnesses, including Abraham Zapruder stills, black and white stills, by the way, of the film and ask him questions why not just roll the film and i've heard people i said oh well the warren commission probably didn't have access to a projector really a presidential panel appointed like by the white house they can't get a projector he's saying the blow-ups are not in color they're black and white no no no they are in the the the briefing panel uh stills are in color but i was told that abraham zapruder and any other witnesses who were showed stills were shown black and white in the like in the can you imagine what kind of stupid so that raises a lot of suspicion not necessarily that the film was altered but just that people didn't want to you know people to see the film because it looks like kennedy gets hit from the front you know what i mean i mean so what was the quality of of these uh blow-ups i mean i don't think they're great but i can't judge because it's an old eight millimeter celluloid it's pretty antiquated film as far as i know i don't know what the original look like they're not too bad i guess i mean i mean there's some there's an anomaly i saw in one where it looks as if jackie's left arm is almost like in front of um connelly's face which is a physical impossibility because his profile seems to be cut off like he doesn't have a nose and i'm thinking really i mean why would they bother to do that so i mean they look okay i mean i i thought i might do a piece about it and my pictures came out quite well i can reproduce them on the site people can see but i i don't i just think they're a strange bird i don't understand why they were now there supposedly were two separate sets i think doug horn is saying that the extent version is different from the one that uh what's his name said he saw right well dean well what he's saying is that on the weekend of the assassination It was either the Friday night they delivered the film to Dino Brugioni and his NPIC crew. And then on Saturday night, it was a different crew that received the film again. It was a Saturday, Sunday. Wasn't it Saturday, Sunday? It was a Saturday, Sunday. It was a Friday, Saturday, Saturday. Saturday, Sunday. Saturday and Sunday. So one team with Dino Brugioni worked on it on Saturday and made the briefing boards. And then on Sunday, another team was brought in and made another set of briefing boards. And when Dino Brugioni brought his briefing boards to whoever his superior was, the guys just said, get rid of those. Get those out of here. We're using the new ones. I mean, I don't know. I've heard, you know, non-conspiratorial explanations for that. Like there was some problem with the first ones and they had, I mean, I don't know. But that's not what Dino Brugioni said. That's not what he told Doug Horn. What he told Doug Horn was, you know, I don't understand why they did this. And that and then he called into question some of the images that as they were portrayed in the film itself Because of course 313 is of course one of the stills of the 28 stills in those four briefing panels And it's very much, you know, there's one plume of something going up for one 18th of a second. And it's going up and in front. And he said, that's not what I remember. I remember there was a huge cloud and there was white, white. And it was for several slides. It wasn't just, you know. Yeah. So, I mean, that doesn't seem possible that I'm not a physicist. And I don't know if, I don't think Chambers is on here tonight. But the idea that everything could be gone in one 18 second. I know. That's very, very strange. And not only that, but the Warren Report defenders had the temerity to point to this Bruder film as some kind of evidence of a shot only from behind. And they always do it the same way. And people have made these gifs, which show between 312 and 313, another 1 18th of a second, Kennedy's head moving forward just ever so slightly. And that's proof of the jet effect. In other words, that little movement forward means he was hit in the back of the head and then it blew out the front. And then, of course, they always use the Zapruder film as proof that there was no avulsion in the back of his head. and I lean toward it having been in some way tampered with in some way altered I don't know how but I find you know I find the explanations with the patch put on the back of his head that looks all this basically black and kind of monotone as sort of compelling I mean I don't know but I'm not dismissing whatever it was 42 witnesses in Parkland and Bethesda who said they saw a huge blowout in the back they said I'm not just going to dismiss that in just on the basis of this old film, which was, you know, disappeared on the weekend of the assassination and which no one saw until 1969. And even then only in a courtroom. So I'm okay with thinking it might have been altered. I'm okay with that. I mean, I don't dismiss it. That's for sure. Hey, everybody, I wanted to call your attention to one surefire way to deepen your knowledge of the assassination of President Kennedy. And that's to read my three books about the CIA. a trilogy of spies that tells how the assassination actually unfolded in the eyes of CIA insiders. You see, my work on JFK's assassination is rooted not in the literature of conspiracy, but in the history of CIA operations. And that makes all the difference when it comes to understanding the events that culminated on November 22, 1963. You'll want to check out my three CIA books that tell the story of the founding generation of the Central Intelligence Agency, Agency and what three insiders actually thought about JFK's assassination. Meet charismatic station chief Winston Scott as he surveils Lee Harvey Oswald six weeks before Dallas. Meet Urbane CIA director Richard Helms as he fends off President Richard Nixon's attempts to blackmail him over JFK's assassination. Meet James Angleton, the ingenious paranoid and sinister counterintelligence chief who had controlled the agency's vial on Oswald since 1959. In these books you'll see the real historical foundation of the events that led to President Kennedy's assassination and you'll understand this event in a much deeper way. Check out my books at jeffersonmorleybooks.com. You can buy all of these books there as well as my other non-fiction book, Snowstorm in August. So check out the trilogy of spies. Carl, go ahead. I was just curious, the briefing boards that you saw, Chad, were they hinged in the middle with tape? No, they were separate. They were, and I didn't, I should have looked to see whether there was the remnants of a hinge or tape, but the way that they are stored is separate. They don't fold open. um you know yeah but what it was i know that uh i know dino brugioni said that the set that he made he put you know a taped hinge in the middle so that they folded together almost like a book yeah and and and you couldn't i mean one point he made you could take them somewhere and nobody could see what was inside right but then the extant version as i understand it consisted of separate boards and i think there were more than dino had produced there may have been more stills but i think dino said that he did four panels but as you say i think it was two sets of hinged panels I think I could be wrong. I don't remember. I've watched the interview. I should probably go back. It's very interesting. But but the ones we saw were four separate panels that were not connected. As far as I remember now, they were lying on tables. So two were on one table and two on another. And actually, I can go back into my light room and see the full photos and see whether I see a hinge. but I don't remember, I don't remember that. We did, we weren't, we actually weren't really allowed to, um, touch those, to, to move them. We were just allowed to photograph them from every angle and look at them, uh, lying there, but I don't, um, I don't think we, so I'm, I'm going through my, um, my light room here where I, where I cropped them. Let's see, this is, uh, One thing I do remember that Brugioni said was he said the film was extremely clear and that there was no doubt in his mind that the film that was brought to him on Saturday night was the camera original. Yeah. And then he had no insight into the second attempt to produce briefing boards, which was totally compartmentalized by a different crew. And neither crew knew what the others had done. That's right. Yeah, that's right. I mean, you know, that's very suspicious. is i i am i will i was always sort of semi-sold by the by the fact that the the film simply disappeared from from all view from public view for years and and it's a it was a vital piece of crime scene evidence that should have been used in the investigation and and and if it had been a real judicial proceeding in a court of course it would have been but but it wasn't it was a whatever stitch up with no cross-examination and no no count no opposing counsel or whatever you want to call it so yeah I don't know there's a Prudder film to me is a very very peculiar phenomenon and the way it was treated and and as we know the original of the Knicks film has completely disappeared nobody knows what happened to it um and uh yeah i expect there were other films you know that went missing a lot of people would have been out there with their cameras that day, I think. Well, Derek Compey, hi, you've got your hand up. Yeah, just something, I have kind of a couple of questions, but something came to mind, I think I've brought this up before, probably quite a while ago, just kind of curious as to your thoughts, or anyone, I mean, you know, this is something that I've been interested in since I was a young man or maybe even late teenager and the internet was first coming along and I remember you know being online and looking at the Subrooter film and looking at other images and I could have sworn I mean this could be a figment of my imagination I'm not gonna say it couldn't be but I could have sworn that I saw film footage or a picture of a policeman putting a pencil through a hole in the limousine at Parkland. And kind of going back to another conversation I think we had a year ago or so about images on the internet, like a photo of people looking towards the grassy knoll and And all of the people who are looking in that direction are blacked out. So my question is, what are your thoughts on do you think there's been a concerted effort over the years to sort of wash the Internet of images? I mean, it could be my own paranoia. And then people could be putting their own images, fake images online. I don't know. But I get the sense that images and evidence has just sort of disappeared through the years. I'm just kind of curious, Chad, to your thoughts on that. I'm back. Sorry, I got disconnected. Okay, well, good, good. I'm glad to know you're still alive and well. But, yeah, I mean, in answer to your question, Derek, I'm on the paranoid side. I do think this type of thing happens. I definitely do. I think there's all kinds of, I don't know, erasure and combing the internet for things and suppressing things. And that includes, by the way, websites and social media accounts that are serious and question the sort of official narrative or official version of history on a number of events. I mean, you know, the things that are shrill and, you know, kind of yelling conspiracy theory, I don't think that they're considered to be as, I don't know, as threatening or what have you from an establishment point of view. But I think that, I mean, I think that JFK facts might be, what do they call it? Shadow banned? Is that maybe it? I mean, it's sort of like a way of tamping down visibility that would otherwise be greater. and I have absolutely no proof and no evidence that it's going on I am not you know I do not dwell in the CIA's you know decision making tank or vault or whatever they do I don't I don't know but I can certainly believe that images have been suppressed and by the way I just discovered today that the video that I put on my last article which was about the Cuban exile Romino Diaz who was sort of identified by a couple of Cuban exile associates as having somehow participated in the assassination in some unspecified way there was a video from the telegraph youtube channel the telegraph is a major uk broadsheet newspaper been around for i don't know how long and it was their video and i put a link to that not just in that but in my first piece on Erminio Diaz from, I guess it was earlier this year or maybe late last year, because there's an interview that Antony Summers and Robert Blakey did with this Cuban exile guy who's telling the story. And I think it was, I think they interviewed him in, it might be 2013. I think it was, but they, I put a note because they, somebody made an editorial error or something. they kept putting the wrong guy's face on it wasn't ermina diaz it was another guy who also died in the same raid and identifying him as ermina diaz and you know the link worked fine and now if you scroll down to where it is in the articles it says this is a private video or something right and you can't click on it and if you go to the telegraphs youtube channel it's it's gone that that's that's not it i can't find it i can you know there are people that you know post things and suddenly their stuff is gone. And it could be copyright. But for the most part, we know that the government intervened during COVID, right? Bobby was one of the first people censored. Yeah. So I have no doubt that, you know, I mean, I think there's more of misinformation and disinformation being put on the internet to try to, you know, confuse and distract people. But there is certainly a way for people to. There is a way for the platforms to reduce the amount of visibility that things get, you know, right. Right. Right. Right. But, you know, the thing about seeing I still don't understand all of the angst about the bullet hole in the windshield, because it doesn't mean even if there's a bullet hole in the windshield, it doesn't mean that was an entry that could be an exit. So the mere fact there's a hole in the windshield doesn't mean, I mean, I don't think, know of any self-respecting sniper that would shoot through windshields on the first shot, for example. But, you know, even if there was a hole, it doesn't mean that was a, that was an end. Right. Well, some there, you know, I can't remember this, but there was a piece that we did on another kind of assassination movie that surfaced at an auction. And it was filmed by somebody who was standing west of the triple underpass, you know, as the... oh yeah the guy this summer the guy that just sold that movie right yeah and so we did a piece and last year and it was it was the the question was does this show um uh you know any crack in the windshield because there's there's only stills available and you can't see it there's like a gif but it's the sun is the angle and the sun you can't see what if there's something there and it was very small anyway but i seem to remember that one of the witnesses to the to the hole in the windshield did say that it looked like it came from the outside now i mean that doesn't mean that it did but one of them did and i did also uh as you said derek um that there was somebody who talked about putting a pencil into it again that's not a big hole which which way but the other thing like what what what i'm enraged about is that how that auction is allowed to occur without the National Archives or somebody saying this is an assassination record and it can't be auctioned off or the government needs to have a copy. Right. That would be a data point, though. Sorry to interrupt. But if there was a hole or a crack in the limousine front windshield, it's a data point. Yeah. OK. Yes. When did it occur? Right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. But so we got Don and Gary Severinsen that want to speak. Don, go ahead. Yeah. Hey, Larry and Chad. Hey, Don. Hey, so Larry, you were out for a couple of minutes there and Chad brought up the Zapruder film and looking at the boards. Yeah. Archives. You probably know this, but I don't know if everyone knows. I think about a week ago, I ran across something where the Knicks family or Gail has now actually sued the Sixth Floor Museum. So and apparently the so the attorney that represented her and the family also represented the Sixth Floor Museum. So I think that's the basis of the lawsuit, because guess what? they have the copyright on the Knicks film, which was new. That was news to me. The fact that the sixth floor had alleging is, is Knicks alleging that the sixth floor claims it has the copyright to it. Apparently it does. What they're alleging in their lawsuit is that there is, I don't know the legal term, but there was like a breach where there was no, um, um, and they were not the, the attorney that represented the Gale, the Knicks family also represented the sixth floor museum, but did not tell anything about that to, uh, or didn't notify the Knicks family or something like that. So there's a blatant conflict of interest and that's why they're, that's basically why they're suing them. Um, and so I think, you know, they did, they did somewhere along the way, acquire the copyright to the next film which you know that stinks it's like we just you know it's a good segue because it's like how does the the sixth floor museum have copyright i know how they got it for the zapruder film but in the context of don are you saying that the nicks family negotiated transferring the the nicks film to the sixth floor that they had an attorney representing both sides and now they're in dispute you know about that but you're saying that they they gave it over to the sixth by the way did you also see that the sixth floor might be losing its lease wow a couple days ago that can't be for money there's got it i guess all the big cats that were propping that place up for so long croaked or something apparently they want an outrageous amount of money to renew the lease but that's another story so that's an interesting So she's arguing that because of the conflict of interest, they didn't have the conveyance of the title to the sixth floor should be disallowed. Yeah, I guess their interests were not properly handled. Represented, yeah. Exactly, handled. and so that's why and and probably and again i think i saw it on jim d jim d eugenio's page and a lot of times what he does is he he writes about articles i don't so i don't know if he was writing about an article that that spoke to this or or if he i forgot but i saw it so if you go to his site you can see okay i'll take a look that's yeah again the question there like so are they trying to get damages or are they trying to actually get physical control of the film back i think that's mainly what their objective is is to actually get the copyright back because they they were basically uh what's the bamboozled kind of in that in that deal um so so so i you know and you you know how it goes if if there could have been some you know some whatever backsliding going on between you know what he was you know telling his the nicks family versus what he was talking oh yeah no i mean you know he's probably look you know if if he was representing the nicks family he he might have negotiated stronger terms on the conditions but which the film could be seen or maybe have a conditional you know it's not it's not didn't relinquish all their rights to some of the rights, but he was representing both sides, you know, who's ever paying him more. Well, it sounds like they got, the Knicks family got beat on the deal. I'll take a look. I'll take a look. So you're saying Jim, Jim wrote about it on his, on his page. Yes. Yes. And, and, and, but, but like in, in the context of Trump and releasing the records and everything that's going on recently and i know that this this is like a whatever a pipe dream but i mean someone needs to slap around a six-floor museum and i don't know what it's same thing however the hell they got control of the uh the copyright for the for the zapruta film the government needs to step in and hip check them out of the way and say sorry that was a mistake you lose the government's taking it back government the government and done judge tunheim told us at the cap and not the cap at one of the MFF programs that the government negotiated this huge amount to buy the Zabruda film from the Zabruda family. And then they turned it over to the sixth floor. They gave the sixth floor some rights to it. The more important thing, the sixth floor has some blowups and they're really high qualities. And John Orr wanted to see them so that we could use them for the 3D animation and they won't let us see them. You can't trust the sixth floor. You know, there's something shady going on there. You know, and for them to be able to control things. And look what, I mean, they're controlling substantial documents. You know, these aren't, this isn't like one of those FBI records that talks about nothing. You know, this is like, you know, it's a significant record in it. It should have never had landed there in the first place. No, it shouldn't have. And actually the way they priced it Judge Tundheim said they were very foolish that they priced it as if it was like a collectible of like say the Kennedy family as opposed to the historic document a document film that would have much less value But before we get to Gary, there's a James Wilberforce. He has a question in the chat. Could someone summarize where they believe we are out now with the release of all the useful documents and parentheses? um chad i'll just say that i think they you know most of the records that were in the collection the jfk collection have been released uh but not all in unredacted form but as of now still none of the records outside the collection have been well well you i mean you say that but you see i i'm afraid and i'm gonna have to confess i'm slightly ashamed of myself about this because the original JFK Most Wanted list was a list of 15. Right. Five of those were in the JFK collection. Correct. And all five of those were released. So we had five out of 15. Then Jeff wrote something more recently, and I didn't commit it to memory, where he said it was eight out of 18. And I didn't read closely enough or commit to memory whether the additional three, because clearly five of the eight were those jfk collection ones whether the other three were also and they were part of an expanded list that came out later where they'd expanded it from 15 to 18 due to all the requests that came like for example i don't i don't know but but i think it's safe to say that the key documents the most important documents that jfk facts has requested um from outside the JFK collection have not been released. I mean, the Joe Anides files, the, you know, the CIA, JM wave investigation. I think the Arminio Diaz 201 file is very important. And the RFK trust papers. Right. All of that stuff. And, you know, the stuff that the Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy controls, I think that's extremely important. And I, you know, now I'm, I'm already forgetting some of these other things. And I've, you know. Also, there's different categories because there's some things that the DNI, that Gabbard could release under her because she's the head of national intelligence. But for example, the Marcello tapes, the Walter Sheridan stuff, the Wegman and Darnell films, that has to be Pam Bondi. The DNI has no jurisdiction over those films. So you also have to say, But if you're looking at the totality, right? Yeah. As far as I know, not a single record that was not in the collection has been released. It's only records in the collection. Well, that must mean then that the additional three from the original five, so the eight out of 18, they're all JFK collection documents. And I mean, it is great to have the JFK collection out there. But I mean, I think we all knew that there wasn't going to be anything really compromising in there. It's just sort of a bunch of stuff that, I mean, it's some of it's kind of embarrassing, like the Schlesinger memo and some of those PFIAB memoranda, you know, so that, I mean, some of that stuff is, is embarrassing. And also the pissing matches between Hoover and the CIA, where, you know, you see these memos where they're asking McCona, so how is the relationship with the FBI now? Oh, it's getting better. Right. But Hoover's pissed off when he discovers that the CIA is bugging, you know, the Mexico City embassy. And then, I mean, I can't remember what document I saw where they actually bugged McCona's office. i mean that's not cool yeah um all right uh gary and then did uh carl did carl speak before also before but carl can speak again after gary yes all right go ahead gary yeah i only had one comment when i raised my hand now i've got five okay well we got time or so So as far as the Zapruder film, there was a guy named Doug Weldon who's passed away. I don't know if anybody here is familiar with him. But he gave a piece at Lancer about, I want to say, 2000. And I was there, and I subsequently talked to him quite a bit. And he even rented a limo and did a really high-tech analysis of Dealey Plaza to come up with the sweet spot, so-called sweet spot for where a shot might have come from. and he put it on the South Knoll. And subsequently, a woman who I've just been talking to in the last few months, Linda Zambanini, has been at this for a long time. She and Sherry Feister, who did the blood spatter analysis research in the limo, Linda took one of the... I believe it was Cancelaire, that was a photo of the South Grassy Knoll. And she eventually came up with a hypothesis that since the parking lot on that side of the plaza was a U.S. postal depot, it wouldn't be unusual for a postal truck to be parked. Lo and behold, she found it. Yeah, there's an image of a vehicle. And someone said that they saw some guy sitting in a vehicle at the right time at the right place. Well, how she analyzed the photo was to say that it was kind of a takeoff on the Washington, D.C. shooter shooting out of his trunk, laying in the back. And at any rate, she's got light analysis and so on. But another photo taken a few seconds after the assassination then shows the van missing from that very spot, as if somebody drove off, obviously. So that's one thing that's pretty new. I think she came up with that about three years ago. The other thing is, Chad, you mentioned that the Zapruder film just kind of dropped out of sight. But it was, correct me if I'm wrong, during that time from 63 to 75, it was With Life magazine. uh yeah but um so there's a very i think what i would recommend people do is to go and read the um the transcripts of the testimony well the transcript of the testimony of abraham zapruder in the trial of clay shaw in 1969 so there's a point at which he's asked to authenticate the film and I personally think my my and I've talked about this with Jeff and he doesn't agree I think his sort of answer is very kind of evasive and kind of you know non-committal it's sort of like he says well I mean yeah but you know if you'd taken a few frames out you know you might not notice and it would still be my film I mean what do you mean take a few frames out nobody asked him whether any frames have been removed but and there's a book that's written by Jacob Hornberger and about the Zapruder film that came out a couple of years ago and you know his style of presentation is very much to present a theory and then from that point on state it as fact and that can be very off-putting a lot quite a few authors do that but it's still a very interesting treatment and it's very detailed and it's basically a sort of study of Alexandra Zapruder who I think is the granddaughter of Abraham Zapruder. And basically, I mean, more or less politely rebutting her every step of the way in what she said about why her father put a family-like prohibition taboo on discussing that subject for the rest of his life. And he died in 1970, so the year after the Clay Shaw trial. And Jacob Hornberger comes up with, you know, an explanation that he died of stress because he had stomach cancer and he couldn't deal with it. They'd done something to his film and it was really sinister and all that. I mean, we don't know whether that happened, but I'm open to the possibility that, and by the way, apparently the copy that was screened in the courtroom in New Orleans in 1969 was really lousy. It was very muddy images and not very good. Of course, you could make it out and you could see the head snapping back famously or infamously. Well, hold on a second. We have a person, I'll see if he wants to talk about this. bob saltzman do you want to discuss your experience can i finish well then there's a brood of him well i was when i asked chad the question i was leading up to something okay okay because i want bob was there bob might have some information that he's got some first-hand account information but go ahead right well in about 2000 i interviewed uh a woman whose husband was the editor at Life magazine, and he edited 600 consecutive issues of Life. He was a photo genius. He invented compositing photos for newspapers when he was in Milwaukee. I spent six hours with her. I didn't push her. I let her talk. she ended up giving me a video of his retirement party that had three shots superimposed during his roast. Now, he also controlled the backyard photo. And when Rankin asked him, finally, after four times, give me the backyard photo or there's going to be trouble, he turns it over. This is 64 during the Warren Commission, obviously. and ed thompson who i'm referring to here edward k thompson uh says okay here it is all i did was touch up a few places around his foot around his knee around his shoulder around the rifle butt it appeared to be a limited hangout of course that's the picture oswald said was his uh head on somebody else's body now here you got the master yeah you got the master compositor being hired by life magazine who has possession of just about all the photos and the film for 10 12 years when he's he retires and he in about uh about 78 and goes to the smithsonian and starts the smithsonian magazine again because of his expertise with photography. But at any rate, here was a guy who was a child prodigy when it came to photo analysis. And that's why he handpicked 600 issues with their photos for Life Magazine from 1939 on. Nobody knows about him. The only reason I know about him is he went to the university I went to and I just happened to catch him in an alumni magazine. Went to New York to interview his wife. The other thing is with Doug Weldon, who found the sweet spot in Dealey Plaza, he was in law school in Michigan and a classmate said I know you're really interested in in JFK's assassination my father was at the glassworks at the Fort Rouge plant the weekend of the assassination and he got a call on Sunday, and he was asked to show up at the Fort Rouge plant, Glassworks. And in fact, he was the foreman of the Glassworks. And he tells Weldon, and Weldon told the story at Lancer. I walked in, I knocked on the door, I walked into the Glassworks, seemed to be under security, and I walked by the windshield outside of the car sitting on the floor. I passed my hand over it and it was clearly a shot from the front because the glass was beveled on the inside. Now, five other people saw the hole after he did. He wouldn't let Weldon talk about it until he died. He was fearful for his family. Yeah. And I'll just add just at the end, And if anyone's familiar with the podcast by Jeff Crudell called JFK, The Enduring Secret, he does a very interesting series of episodes. He's up to like 268 episodes, but he does an interesting series of episodes just about the windshield. And he reproduces an entire, I think it's a presentation by Doug Weldon at a conference, and it may have been in 2000, I don't know, but where he discusses the whole thing. and um it's very very interesting and all that business by going to the plant and seeing it and everything and i can't remember the guy's name but he's the guy that doug welton found and so let me i want to go back to bob saltzman do you have anything you'd like to add about the zabruta film um well i i'd like to defer to the new member uh james who has his hand up so i'll be very brief I think I've shared this before. My closest colleague from very early on in the early 70s was Robert Grodin. And some of you may, many of you may know about his name and have various understandings of his participation. So I will tell you that he was an employee of a photographic house that received a copy of the film to reproduce. Bob, when would that have been around? That was with Seymour Weitzman and it was, no, Mo Weitzman. Yeah. And it was EFX. And I'm sorry, I don't want to misstate the date. So I'll, I just don't recall the exact date, but it was, you know, in. 73 though, right? Oh, no, it was long before that. Yeah, right. Okay. and uh so he had a copy that he applied well established and well understood photographic techniques this is before digital and he did things like rotoscoping and so forth so i like i promise i won't go down in the weeds and through a whole series of remarkable events that i've told in stories there are a few people on the call tonight who've heard heard my presentation about this. Grodin sought me out. He remained anonymous for a while, but his attempt was to use me as a vehicle to show the, what I will call the enhanced visibility version of the Sapruta film, which was in 16 and 35 millimeter. So it had been blown up from the, it wasn't standard eight, it was a double eight, which was used in that Bell and Hollow 414 camera that Sapruder had. And so he gave me a copy of the 16 millimeter version because it was hard. You couldn't show 35 unless you were in a theater. And then I'll just end it with this is that I spent a lot of time looking at that film on a device called a movieola. You can look that up. That was the device that was used to edit motion picture film before it was done with non-linear video editing systems that they have today. And I satisfied myself based on my knowledge, and I can present credentials, but they're not extensive, that it was authentic. And I showed the film for the first time in public in November of 1973 at a conference from the group that I work with, the Committee to Investigate Assassinations. It was called Decade of Assassinations. And it was quite a quite a response you know people like mark lane and others were there as was gary shaw that's where as was gary shaw and he reminded me of all the details because gary uh has an eidetic memory and he he went through the whole thing so i showed it the first time there and then you know a couple of years later we negotiated with the network to have it shown on aroldo rivera's goodnight america and that's when the american public saw a version of it so i've been using that version, a 16 millimeter version for many, many years. And I'll just leave you with this anecdote. Gary Shaw contacted me last year and referred a RIF number to me. And I looked up the document and read the document in completion. And I was stunned to find out that I and the other people were being surveilled at this conference in November of 1973. And the person who was doing the surveilling was James Jesus Angleton. And he wrote his report and he had it for directly sent to J. Edgar Hoover. That in and of itself has no value in the bigger picture of what you're all concerned about. However, it does show that the CIA was, you know, doing surveillance domestically. Bob, how long do you think that you were in possession of the Zabruda film before you showed at that 73 conference? I'm going to estimate a year. So it suggests that Grodin got in touch with me maybe in late 71, early 72. And I apologize that I didn't, I can't find my records on that. I had notes and I can't find them in my file. Okay. Can I just remind people, I don't know how many of you know this, but I think it's a very important and interesting fact that's never been explained, which is that on October 9th, 1964, so this was after the Warren Report had released its report, and I'm not sure if the volumes had come out yet, but James Angleton's liaison with the FBI, I think she was liaison with every other agency actually, made a request to the FBI, to this guy Sam Papich, who I think was their liaison, I can't remember, for a copy of the Zapruder film. OK, so and when she made the request, she said that the CIA only wanted it for, quote, training purposes. I mean, you know what? And that has never been explained. And he did get the copy, I think. So James Angleton saw the Zapruder film, you know, whatever it is, 11 years before the general public did. But I mean, you know, what training purposes? What do you mean? You mean like training how to film something or train? I mean, it absolutely makes no sense at all, unless it's something really sinister. But why would she say that to the FBI? So I don't know. I thought that was an interesting factoid I should throw out. These anecdotes are helpful. And the only other thing I would say is what we had been working with, what I'd been using in presentations from 1970 to 73, was an eight millimeter copy that was probably an eighth generation that I got directly from Jim Garrison. So that step up was dramatic in how people perceived the film, regardless of the controversy that you're all, you know, kicking around today. And, you know, in the Brugioni information and so forth. So you're saying that the film, the 8mm version that you had, you got indirectly from Garrison? Yeah, I got it from him. He became aware. So then we're down to a window of 63 to 69, right? Or 68, depending on. Otherwise, whatever Garrison got, you had. Well, I mean, I don't remember. I probably got it from him sometime after May or June of 1970, which is when I started speaking publicly about it. He became aware of me. I'm the version he got. That's so we're talking about Jim was talking of James was talking about, you know, the 12 year period when we actually shrink it down to, you know, a shorter period of time. Doesn't mean that something nefarious couldn't have happened, but just that we're talking 64 to 69 ish because Garrison had a copy. Well, if you were talking about the issue of what could have happened in the timeframe, I'm not qualified to speak to the ability to modify celluloid in that way. I'm aware that you can do it. But you got to remember that, you know, an eight millimeter image is very tiny. It's 6.9 by 4.0 millimeters in size. And so that's, that's pretty sophisticated stuff. If it was happening. the copy that I had from Grodin came from his copy of the Life Magazine version Oh Okay So the version that I working with was certainly after the event but before you know i mean it was from the 60s so groden work is a time stamp right right so whatever that does for anybody in looking at the chain of evidence of the film which indeed has a few questions still in it but i've never been you know overly concerned about it there's another film and i don't know chad whether you've even heard of this but it's called the dca film and the dca stands for the dallas cinema associates and they had put together a composite of numerous films and they were making a buck at it was an eight eight millimeter film and i think it was on a larger real i have a copy of that as well i have never seen another copy other than the one that i have so it's called the dca film which stands for dallas cinema associates i have not heard of that but i will certainly look at look it up but there was there was something on youtube the other day that there was footage that i hadn't seen it was it was the day it was all someone had put together all the footage from the president's trip and there was stuff there i had never seen before i mean it was before the assassination obviously but just different angles and stuff and really interesting it may be the dca film i mean um james go ahead bob did you did you ever run across reference to edward k thompson at life um that name is you know causing some neurons to connect gary but i don't i don't uh well remember he's the one that told the warren commission that a technician of his had dropped the film causing the splice mark so he was fooling around with that film from 63 to whenever whenever loose or thompson sent it over to groden And so they had, let's say, five years to break it, dropping it. And, you know, of course, there's a reference to the black patch that Mantic hypothesizes over the wound in Kennedy's head. So and it was very poorly done. But you or I could have done it with a paintbrush. Wilkerson is the one that really they did some really great work on that. Sidney Wilkerson. Yeah, I would presume, and I think this is where you're going, Gary, that the method that would be used is you'd have to take the film in its original format, and you would have to project it and create another copy of it in a larger format in order to do, let's say, the kind of retouching that is actually done with retouching paint. but again I don't want to speak in as an authority but I personally don't see how the eight millimeter film format could be retouched with that level of accuracy but you know again I'm just throwing it out there all right let's get James he's been waiting a while can you hear me yep okay good uh I uh I I'm sitting uh across the street from the Kennedy School of Government in Harvard Square. Maybe you can see it in the background now. So I have a couple of things. And by the way, I'm using a pseudonym, but I had my real name was up there earlier. So too bad. You see a Dunkin Donuts behind you, but that's. Yeah, that's where it's a nice patio here. A woman I know who's. It's the was the reason there's this patio. They were fighting fast food places years ago in harvard square and a woman i was quite knew very well who just recently passed uh her name was pebble gifford her husband uh was a top aid to ted kennedy and went to work for bobby when he decided to run and uh this is not what i was going to planning to mention but she told me that that uh he was among the people who jumped on sirhan sirhan um the gift his last name was gifford i think it was uh uh done gifford and actually then the nephew is was the protocol officer having been the ambassador to denmark because he raised a lot of money from gay uh contributors and he was they had a tv show he was ambassador to denmark in the Biden administration or was it back? No, Obama. Anyway, that's a side thing. But two things I wanted to share. One, I lived in Mexico when I was 12 years old with my parents in 1963. Remember well, you know, hearing, you know, that Kennedy had been shot. And I thought this is, you know, kind of relatively trivial, but for the specialists, it might be of some interest. I remember my parents, they were members of a club, a tennis club mainly, called the Club reforma, which was mostly British oriented. But, you know, you go play tennis and have limonada preparada afterwards, take a nice shower. And they had a tennis partner who I remember them saying he was with the FBI, but there wasn't supposed to be any FBI in Mexico at the time. That might have been inaccurate. I mean, that was my parent. I remember my parents saying, well, he's with the FBI, but they're really not supposed to be here in Mexico. And his name, as I remember, it was Clark. So that's just a little, little tiny anecdote from 1963 in Mexico City. The other thing is, I was just recently in New Orleans before going to Kent State for the 55th anniversary commemoration of the shootings and the protests and shootings there. And in New Orleans, I had met briefly, Rosemary James, who some of you will certainly know and maybe even have spoken with, who was reporting on the Garrison trial as a very critical. She's not she doesn't think it was Oswald acting alone. I've heard heard her and, you know, listen to her in YouTube, you know, a YouTube session. So she doesn't she's not she's not trying. I don't think she's trying to buy into some simplistic account, but she's very critical, as some of you will know, of Garrison. And there's this whole homosexuality angle to the Garrison-Clay Shaw story that she got interested in. Having met her a few times, she and her husband, who's deceased, owned and lived upstairs from Faulkner House Books there by the cathedral, which is where Faulkner lived when he wrote his first novel. She's very involved in literary stuff. Her ex-husband, her deceased husband, Joe DeSalvo, was a retired Exxon lawyer, I think. So anyway, so I wrote, sent an email to Rosemary. I don't know if she saw it or if she would have remembered me from the few times that we met. and I said I'd like to get together with you when I'm there and talk about Oswald and you know you may be tired of it I'm sure you're tired of it but maybe or that among other things and I didn't hear back from her it could have been you know the email didn't get through to her but a friend of mine who now runs the Faulkner House books since they divested of it said oh you you what did she ever get back to you she said she hears from like hundreds of people it's very unlikely she you know the way this friend characterized it was she's getting emails solicitations from all kinds of quote-unquote wackos and very unlikely that she would have even responded uh which was disappointing because i had met her and you know had i think could have been seen to be you know like a legitimate having a legitimate interest in sitting down with her, but she didn't get back to me. But if anybody has any comment on Rosemary James, I'd be really interested to hear about it. Okay. If anyone, anyone has anything to add, you can put it in the chat. Carl, I guess you'd be the last person you got your hand up. Okay. This is in relationship to the newly discovered film that was auctioned last summer. Yes. There was a still shot when the presidential vehicle passed the person that filmed it on Stemmons Freeway. And I think a greater evidentiary value, aside from trying to look at the windshield, is the fact that you can see JFK's head, Jackie's head. And, I mean, I'm looking at this thing, and I can see a big hole behind JFK's ear. Really? and I would really like to look I would really like to look at a clearer version of it I don't know uh you know this is like internet fidelity uh this was posted I think by the auction house but it could be they've got a clearer version of it are you able to put it in the chat well i'm i'm working on a um phone okay an ipad here it'd be a little tough to do but uh uh i can i can send it to you uh chad do we know who the purchaser was of that film uh i don't i don't if we did i don't remember it but i seem to remember that it was kept um private yeah that might be something for bondy to kind of look into maybe i need to add that to the list if langley bought it it's probably gone into their incinerator yeah i i don't know you know well i think it was there was the guy the person that was conducting the auction it was out of boston right chad wasn't does that ring a bell it's it yeah rings Isabelle, yeah, that it was Boston. It's called RR Auction, but they are out of Boston. That's right, yeah, RR Auction. So maybe Luna or Bondi might want to inquire, because that is an assassination record, and the people are willing, or, you know, should be, the American people should be entitled to get a clean copy of that. Yeah. One other thing I'd like to comment on, talking about some of the strange things that happened. I mean, I would really believe that the CIA could have used the Z film for training purposes. There was a man that was taking the CIA's assassination course, and he said they taught the whole Dealey Plaza setup in it. And he claims later he was asked to assassinate the audiovisual guy at Bethesda, William Bruce Pitzer, I think was his name, but he was murdered, I think, or at least died in very suspicious circumstances. But he had taken a 16 millimeter film during the JFK autopsy. And I think they were afraid that he was about to retire and that that film would get out. Yeah, I know there was some scuttlebug about that. Chad, I was listening to an interesting program. Now, I'll close with this and you can close what you want to close with about Senator Russell. And what I didn't realize was Senator Russell, when he was sitting on the I always think he was involved with civil rights, you know, but when he was on the Warren Commission, he was also the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And intelligence or armed services? Well, anyway. Well, so he was privy. And in those days, only the chairperson would have the information from the CIA. It wouldn't be the whole committee. and what they and so some of his staffers from that time were speaking and they said that the reason that he knew that the fbi and the cia were not being fought with with the commission was because he was aware of the castro assassination attempts by virtue of his position and when they were not disclosing this to the warren commission he knew they were not being fully you know they were not fully disclosing what they knew to the Warren Commission. But of course, because he had this information is in his capacity, as a chair of this committee, he could not share that information, or the reason for his suspicions with the Warren Commission. Right. And Dulles knew stuff that, you know, right. So it, you know, there was not an accident that, that he was put on that committee. yeah yeah i mean it just it makes you think about you know it's like you have to like within your head you have to create these silos we used to call them chinese walls but i guess that's an inappropriate term nowadays but you have to silo off what you know and where you learned it while you're sitting in the warren commission and you can't even tell your your fellow commissioners why you believe that these guys are not telling you the truth because of what you know right Right. Right. So what are you going to be looking for? What's next on your agenda at the archives? Well, I mean, I'm still I'm still going to try to track down this printed microfilm. I have a particular sort of, what do you call it? Not albatross, but, you know, like an Ahab's whale involving the Oswald and the KGB in Mexico City. Because, of course, you know, before they came out with their sort of tales about what happened inside the embassy in 1993, nobody really knew. Nobody had any information. Nobody ever deposed any Russians, no HSCA or anything. it was only the Cubans. And I always thought that was a really weird kind of description. And that's not really something in the archives. I mean, I think I communicated with you about this before. I think that the ARB's request for KGB records, which Tunheim often brings up, only relating to surveillance of Oswald inside the Soviet Union, but they forget that there was also contact and those guys wrote a report to Moscow Center and no one's ever seen that yeah I mean I on my list of to do is to reach out to Rubio and State Department I think should be you know seeking information yeah and you know if I was if I was uh in a position of authority I would say as part of any Ukraine deal that they turn over what they have. But, you know. And the proper way for the Congress to do it would be actually to interface or interact directly with the Russian parliament about it. But of course, that would end up, you know, it's always ends up being, you know, Putin, the czar deciding what ultimately happens. I'm very worried. You know, the New York Times had a hit piece today on Luna. And I am concerned that that is running out of steam. Well, you know, the old story, right? You wait out the commission, you wait out the HSCA, you wait out the ARB. They just keep waiting it out, waiting it out, stonewalling, diverting and deceiving. and sure i mean the task force i think is only scheduled for six months or something started off in what february so it's up in august i mean yeah they'll probably try to continue to just put them off and everything but um and i can't wait it down with more ridiculous now than it's ever been i mean let's face it this is the closest we've ever come so and i really think that they've lost so much public trust and credibility at this point i mean you know you could be right they'll just sort of stonewall again and just wait it out and and that'll be it but they'll really have left things hanging i told jeff after that hearing last month that i thought it was sort of a miracle that you could get onto the official record a statement from a witness in a house in front of a house you know subcommittee whatever that no, the evidence does not support the proposition that Oswald killed Kennedy. And Garcia was shocked. He kept asking Jeff that. Yeah, Robert Garcia couldn't believe it. And I mean, you mean you're saying you don't think Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy? And Jeff said, no, I don't. The evidence does not support that. And then in his classic way, he said he may have fired a gun that day, but he was not the intellectual author of President Kennedy's death. I mean, that is really, that's some careful language right there. But it sank in somewhat, and it's on the official record, televised. You know, we've come a long way. I just, I don't know. I just don't know how much mileage there is. I think the only person who could probably really force it would be Trump himself. And, you know, I mean, I don't think Trump really... He's not that interested. But I mean, there there's still some forensic stuff that we could do i mean you know uh we could determine whose dna is on the the the the organic material um on the bullets you know and what kind of material is it is it skull tissue is it neck tissue because that would tell you is this you know if there's neck tissue then yeah i guess there was a shot that went through kennedy But if it's all skull tissue, then, you know. Yeah, I mean, I just think all of that is really, you know, the chain of custody issue. And we're talking about chain of custody, not just of bullets and C399, the whole limousine, the chain of custody, the whole body of President Kennedy. I mean, it's ruined. The chain of custody was completely ruined right away. and now people argue about oh no there couldn't have been you know he arrived at uh bethesda you know look at the autopsy photos i mean they don't show any blow out the back of his head and it's like look it's a long way between parkland and bethesda i'm sorry i'm not saying that that's when it happened but i mean it's it's ruined so yes we could do some forensics but i don't trust any of the stuff in evidence you did a thing about the the walker bullet at that conference i mean you know walker himself said that's not the bullet that's not the one they pulled out of my wall um in the next week or so i suppose we're going to be seeing bob tannenbaum's book is that right uh yeah that got pushed back but i think may is yeah may and then there's another book i just saw that came out called is a technical analysis of the assassination i don't it looks like it's a forensic i don't know who the guy is that wrote it but i saw something on facebook that you know yeah and then also also there's going to be an updated version of the um that guy who wrote a book about the martin luther king assassination which oh his surname is emerson and so he's got a second edition coming out and i only just heard on black up radio from james de eugenio who somehow has read it all i don't think it's come out yet he said it's even better than the first one and probably get a few copies and then um this is guy james manning or jim manning he has all these short bit youtubes on um on uh i think he has a book called patriotism extreme or something and i don't know he just from his tapes it doesn't seem like he has anything new i was wondering if anyone read his book um it's an e-book i think but i don't know if he's got any original material um but anyway so those are a couple things that are out there um so with that i guess uh we don't see any more questions uh we're losing attendees it's 9 30 so uh chad thank you so much for uh being able to step in um and uh keep up and maybe you could find that missing page for me uh yeah i'll see i mean it's a trek to the archives even from alexandria man it's brutal with traffic. Unbelievable. Wow. It's an hour each way. It can go like 20 miles. Chad, I sent you an email with the DCA information in it. Thank you, Bob. Have a good weekend. Hopefully, we'll have the captain here next week. For more information