Episode 56: JFK - The Men Who Killed Kennedy - The History Channel's rebuttal episode

You know someone lobbed a Molotov when a network decides to impanel a trio of "experts" to tell everyone how bad/false a previous episode was. 😆

And said experts are old white men who tell everyone what they need to officially believe. Quelle surprise.

Links:

All eps can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0XNiu-yutk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy

Rebuttal Episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSY_TUVxtSs

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/arts/history-channel-apologizes.html

"we very much owned the facts" (consaracytheories.com)

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmcclellan.htm

Need more? You can visit the website at: https://consaracytheories.com/ or my own site at: https://saracausey.com/. Don't forget to check out the blog at: https://consaracytheories.com/blog. 

Decoding the Unicorn: A New Look at Dag Hammarskjöld is available now! Click here to buy it on Amazon. 

Transcript

Transcription by Otter.ai.  Please forgive any typos!

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

JFK assassination, conspiracy theories, History Channel, rebuttal episode, Lyndon B. Johnson, Warren Commission, Oliver Stone, Oliver Stone's JFK, mainstream historians, Bar McClellan, Blood Money and Power, Lee Harvey Oswald, Kennedy family, Oliver Stone movie, public trust.

Welcome to con-sara-cy theories. Are you ready to ask questions you shouldn't and find information you're not supposed to know? Well, you're in the right place. Here is your host, Sara Causey. 

Hello, hello, and thanks for tuning in. In tonight's episode, I will be talking about the final installment of the men who killed Kennedy Docuseries. Now this was not part of the actual Docuseries itself, but rather, I wanted to use this time to discuss the rebuttal episode that the History Channel felt compelled to record. You know that you have stepped in it big time when you have to have a rebuttal episode with mainstream, socially acceptable historians coming on to be like, naughty, naughty. We're gonna slap some wrists and tell you all the things that you got wrong. So let us saddle up. Let's bring this Docuseries to a conclusion in style. Let's saddle up and take this ride a bit of backstory here. If you go to the men who killed Kennedy Wikipedia page, you will find the third of these additional segments the guilty men was based substantially on the book Blood Money and power, how LBJ killed JFK by bar McClellan, the book, and the episode directly implicates Lyndon B Johnson, who was the US Vice President at the time of the pop pop and it's airing in 2003 created an outcry among Johnson surviving associates, including Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, former LBJ aides Bill Moyers and Jack Valenti, long time president of the Motion Picture Association of America, as well as US presidents Gerald Ford, who was the last living at the time of the outcry, Warren Commission member and Jimmy Carter. These Johnson supporters lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel and subsequently threatened legal action against arts and entertainment company, owner of the History Channel. The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dalek, Stanley Cutler and Thomas Sugrue. I'm probably saying that wrong. On a program aired April 7, 2004 the guilty man, a historical review, the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired. The History Channel issued a statement saying in part, the History Channel recognizes that the guilty men failed to offer viewers context and perspective and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologized to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show, the channel said it would not show the episode again. Author bar McClellan, on whose work the episode was largely based, complained that he had tried to cooperate with the reviewing historians to discuss his evidence with them and had been ignored. End Quote, you know, all this serves to do is make people want to watch that episode even more. If it had just faded into obscurity and nobody had made a ruckus about it, we wouldn't be talking about this all of these years later. So this episode is released in 2003 more than 20 years later. Here's a woman on a podcast talking about the guilty men and the rebuttal episode, I am certain by now you wouldn't have people watching it if they hadn't fanned the flames of controversy around this thing. Now, as of this recording, I have not yet read bar McClellan's book, Blood Money and power, but I intend to, because I think it's important go to the source material, give somebody a fair hearing like, okay, you've got evidence you say that these things were going on. Let's hear him out. Let's see what he has to say. Maybe it's one big nothing burger, I don't know, but this was definitely a firestorm. At the beginning of this rebuttal episode, we hear the moderator Frank cessno Say, last fall to mark the 40th anniversary of the pop pop of JFK, this network aired a series of independently produced programs. They're going to emphasize that independently produced programs that examine numerous conspiracy theories. They included the alleged involvement of Fidel Castro the mafia and the Charlie India Alpha. One of the programs accused President Lyndon Johnson of being directly involved in the pop pop it was called the guilty men, and after it was televised, the History Channel came under criticism for the program's controversial allegations and one sided presentation. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, the History Channel asked three historians to view the program and report on its credibility. They are totally independent from one another and from the History Channel, as am I they are free to offer any opinions and observations they feel are warranted, and they're here to talk about their findings. End quote, When is any mainstream media news source really been totally fair and biased and completely independent? I mean, okay, and then it's. Like, okay, so they pointed fingers at Castro, at the mafia, even at the Charlie India alpha, and we let all of that go, but then when they pointed a finger at Johnson, that's when the firestorm erupted. So I'm like, that also feels a bit suspicious and strange, doesn't it? So we first learned about Thomas sa grew or sugar. Hopefully, I'm going to say this, right? He's a bicentennial class of 1940 Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania. He's an expert on 20th Century American political and social history professor Chagres, first book, The origins of urban crisis, won several major awards, including the Bancroft Prize for Best Book in American history. He's written extensively on a wide range of topics, including the history of liberalism and conservativism America in the 1950s and 60s, and the politics of American No, excuse me, the politics of affirmative action on urban and public policy. Then we're told about Stanley Cutler. He's a professor of history and law at the University of Wisconsin. He's the author of more than 10 books, including the wars of Watergate privilege and creative destruction and the American Inquisition. Winner of the American Bar Association's silver gavel award, he successfully sued to release the Nixon White House Tapes in 1996 and then Professor Robert dalick has taught American history at Columbia University, UCLA Oxford and the University of Texas, and most recently at Boston University. He's the author of eight books, including Hail to the Chief the making and unmaking of American presidents, flawed giant Lyndon Johnson at his times, 1961 to 19 six to 1973 an unfinished life, JFK, 1917 to 1963 which I have that book, by the way, I just haven't read it yet, but it's on my shelf because I think it's important that we take a look at people, not just the good parts, but the negative parts too. We need to get a sense of the whole picture. So my JFK bookshelf doesn't just contain fawning puff pieces it. It has critical pieces on it as well. All right, where was I? And then also Lyndon B Johnson, portrait of a president. He's the recipient of numerous fellowships and awards, and is currently president of the Society of American historians. So there you go. You have these three mainstream historians, experts that are going to tell you what to think. What I mean, really, that's what it amounts to, isn't it? Hey, Maya culpa. We put on these conspiracy theorists, these wackadoodle conspiracy theorists. I'm so now we need to have people from the old guard come out. Three old white guys need to come out here and tell you what to think. Let's just call a thing a thing I scar. Let's say it before I go on, there's something amusing that I want to point out. I'm going to go back to my book, Kennedy by Ted Sorensen. The copy that I have is from 1965 it's a hardback copy if you go to the end of chapter 11. It's the one early crises, the Bay of Pigs, if you just go to the end of that chapter. So if you're looking at Kendall, if you have some other copy, you'll be able to find this at the end of chapter 11. But his assumption of responsibility was not merely a political device or a constitutional obligation. He felt it strongly, sincerely and repeated it as we walked. How could I have been so far off base? He asked himself out loud, all my life, I've known better than to depend on the experts. How could I have been so stupid to let them go ahead? His anguish was doubly deepened by the knowledge that the rest of the world was asking the same question. End Quote, so I just, in fairness to the topic that we've got here, I just think it's amusing that JFK himself was like, I should not have trusted these experts. All my life, I've known better than to do that. It's better to be able to think critically, to ask good questions, to be able to do your own research. Now we're not supposed to do any of that in modern times, whatever expert or scientist trots out and says, I am the infallible word of God, and you should just trust whatever I say. Well, that's what you're supposed to do. So I just think the whole setup here, the whole shebang, is funny, because in like some kind of free democratic society, you're supposed to be able to ask questions, you're supposed to be able to come forward and say, I have a theory to posit, you know, and if this guy has documents, if this bar McClellan guy has documents and hard proof of what he's saying, then it's not defamation. That's the thing. Defamation is when you are making up lies, you're trying to intentionally hurt somebody by making up lies about them. But if you say A B, C D, and then you have all of the proof that A B C D is correct, then you're just telling the truth. I'm not saying that's what happened here. I haven't read his book yet. I don't know, but like this whole idea of we're going to impanel the experts to tell. You what to think. Okay, the first question before they ever get into the meat and potatoes about this particular episode, they asked the question, or I should say, this Frank guy, that's the moderator, asked the question like, Why do you think that all of these conspiracy theories persist, even though the Pop Pop took place more than 40 years ago. Obviously, it's been more than 60 years ago now. Why? Why are all of these conspiracy theorists still out there? So Thomas chagr says, well, JFK occupied a larger than life position in America in the early 1960s and his murder came at this critical juncture when American politics were taking a turn. People look back on JFK and see him as a blank slate. They project listen to this language. They project on him the what if question, what if Kennedy hadn't been pop popped. Where would America go? So the pop, pop in this picture takes on a meaning that goes well beyond the events of November 1963 I want you to just think about that language particularly. What I myself is just my opinion, and it could be wrong. I want to be very clear on that. What I myself would say is the intentionality of that language people project onto JFK. Just sit with that for a second. I want you to really think about what that means. What is the subtext there? I've told told this story before, but it's like how Marlon Brando would say that the audience really does the work. In his opinion, it wasn't so much the actors and the actresses on the screen, it was the audience. So like, if you're watching on the waterfront and you're really moved by the struggle of Terry Malloy in that film, Brando didn't think it was because he did anything extraordinary. It's because that's the emotion that you are imputing onto that character. You're projecting your own feelings onto that character, and that's why it has such a deep meaning for you. I would venture to say that's what this historian is saying. You're you are making JFK a blank slate, and you're projecting onto him whatever your thoughts and hopes would have been for what he would have done. Do you get? Do you get kind of where that's going? Because I think I do. So the moderator says, How does the what if question lead to all these conspiracy theories, though, and they just continue to linger, don't they? They do? They do. What a rebuttal this is, I'm sorry. So this is now Professor Stanley Cutler speaking. He's the one that's like they do. I agree with everything Tom said, but just to take it a little step beyond that, we all love a mystery. We love conspiracies more. The idea that one man could have pulled this off, is almost incomprehensible to most people, but the idea that there had to be some network of people who had ulterior motives, that's a very appealing idea. Look at the business with Princess Diana. When we think that Americans love a conspiracy theory, you've got the French and the English very, very happy with this whole notion that there was some big plot to do her in, whether it was her ex husband, the royal family or who knows what. So this idea that one person should have pulled this off is incomprehensible. End quote. So again, we go back to this idea that the average peon cannot fathom. The idea that a lone nut, a little old nobody, a little shrimpy, creepy dude like Lee Harvey Oswald could go to the book depository with a crappy mail order, boom, stick and kill the golden Prince of Camelot. It's like view peons and plebs are still hung up on the Camelot myth. You still think that JFK was something special, and he totally fucking wasn't. And it's hard for you to imagine some little dweeb might have killed your golden Prince, but that's what happened. And if you don't think so, then you're just one of those nut bad conspiracy theorists. Okay, all right, at this point, Robert Dalek elaborates on the same notion. Well, I think people are so uncomfortable with the idea that someone is inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone as consequential as Kennedy. I think it gives people comfort to think that there was some larger design here, some larger order, some larger purpose. And then the moderator butts in and says, It gives people comfort to think that. How's that? Well, because the world is too chaotic. And if just this one man, this inconsequential figure, this dysfunctional character, Oswald, how could he have killed Kennedy, the President of the United States, surrounded by Secret Service. How could this guy have done it? So it leaves the world too shattered, too endangered, so to speak, to think that he was the sole killer. Okay, I definitely think back now to Jim Garrison and his argument that, like the government wants to treat you like you're a child, it wants to try to give you a fairy tale and protect you from the truth. You're too stupid to get it, you might be too damaged by the information. You might have some kind of a riot. You might react poorly, and that's not what we want you to do. We're going to sit down and shut up. Take your pablum. Believe whatever we tell you, it's the same narrative we get with the economy and the job market. I talk about this all the time, on my business blogs, on the job market journal, in my daytime business hours podcast, they go back and quietly revise the numbers. But see, you don't hear so much about that. You hear that the economy is doing great, churning and burning. The consumer is resilient. We've got all of these open jobs for every one unemployed person, the unemployment rate is still below 4% Wowie Zowie, but then they go back, after they've told you there's been, like, 300,000 new jobs that have opened up, they go back and quietly revise it and actually show that we lost jobs. You just have to go dig for that information, but it's findable. I don't believe they're bullshit to me. I don't appreciate being treated like a child. I don't like having somebody condescend to me and give this attitude of, well, the world would be too scary for you if you believe that Oswald was an inconsequential little dweeb, and he was the one who fell the great prince of Camelot, this very consequential person that would be too much for you, and you're just psychologically damaged, and so that's why you don't believe the official narrative. Okay, the moderator says the numbers are really quite remarkable. When you ask Americans what they actually believe, three out of four Americans do, still to this day, believe that more than one person was involved. Does that surprise you? I mean, that's more than conspiracy theories. That's the public saying we don't believe the prevailing explanation. And I laughed a little bit at that, because I'm like, Well, no, Sherlock, no, it really isn't a conspiracy theory. If you have that many people saying we don't think that the official narrative holds any water, we think they got it wrong. That's like the whole idea of fringe media versus alternative media. In my mind, if you've got a million or more listeners, a million or more subscribers. You're not fringe anymore. You might be able to say that your alternative, but you're not fringe anymore. If you have that many people listening to you. Cutler responds by saying, but the public represents consumers of an industry that has proliferated in this country over the last 40 years, this industry of conspiracy theories and people, the more and more is said about it, there are less and less answers to them. People are able to project these things. So here we go again. With that language you guys are just projecting. They have, as I say, a veritable industry going with all kinds of newsletters, websites and so forth. And to people, the more distant that people are from, the event that is the younger people are more inclined to believe this. I was appalled a few years ago when I suddenly discovered that my students had seen the Oliver Stone movie of JFK and believed it holy. Here we go. We get a lot there. I mean, he gives us like several notions for the price of one. I intend to do a separate episode about this topic at some point. But there is a conspiracy theory about the conspiracy theories that we don't have any firm answer about what really happened to JFK, because it's too profitable for us to not know the conspiracy theories around JFK murder are too profitable. There's also a similar line of thinking that we already do have the official answer, which is Oswald did it and he acted alone. Case closed. But this conspiracy theory industry just keeps going and going because it's too popular. So that's one narrative we get here. We get the projection again. JFK, wasn't anything special, but you peons keep projecting your theories onto him. There aren't as many answers to the conspiracy theories because they're cuckoo quacky anyway, and so you guys just project whatever meaning you want onto them. Then we get Oliver Stone. Oh, my students, the younger people, are inclined to believe in Burling theories, these fucking Gen X morons, they weren't even alive when Kennedy was in office. They just don't even know and they took Oliver Stone's movie and believed it in its hole. I mean, oh my god. Collection, my pearls. I've talked about that and talked about that. I am. It on the young side of Gen X, and I really take offense to the idea where normally we're an entire generation that's forgotten. I guess our only purpose those of us born 65 to 80, our only purpose now is to debunk Oliver Stone's JFK movie. Allegedly, we all, those of us that were in our teens and 20s at that point in time, we all went en masse to see Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, in the theater, and we all believed it. We all believed that we were watching literal history, and we took every word of it like it was gospel truth. This is just simply not true. I did not see that movie for years. I didn't care about it. Had no interest in the life of JFK. Had no interest in the death of JFK. It meant nothing to me. Now, I admit it was Oliver Stone's film that was a catalyst for me to start asking questions. But I didn't sit and watch it and think, holy shit, I'm watching literal history. My impulse was, I need to read some books. I need to look into this. I need to decide for myself if this guy is telling the truth or if he's way off base. So I just resent this implication that all of Gen X went to see this movie. We believed it, and so we're the trouble. Everybody else would believe that Oswald did it and he acted alone from the Texas School Book Depository, if it weren't for these Gen X morons that all went to see Oliver Stone's film. He goes on to say that he thinks it speaks to the cynicism, the extraordinary cynicism, about politics in the US. People don't believe they're leaders. They don't trust what the government says, and they think behind every action of the government there's some kind of conspiracy. They see skullduggery, they see manipulation, and it's not totally false. And I'm like, well, at least he would say that it's not totally false. Back on january 23 of this year, I wrote a blog post on the conspiracy theories blog titled, we very much own the facts, which is a quote from Davos the MSM went to Davos and they lamented that there was a lack of trust, a lack of public trust in the mainstream media. They just couldn't believe it. They used to own the facts. If somebody read something in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, it was considered a fact, but nowadays, people are just questioning what the mainstream media tells them. How dare those little stupid peons question us? We used to own the packs. You know, I think after we've lived through all of these scandals, we we've lived through too big to fail, we've seen all of these economic crises, you have something like Greenspan saying with a straight face that you can't tell that you're in a bubble. While you're in the bubble, you don't know that you were in an economic bubble until the bubble pops and you're dealing with the aftermath. And it's like that is such bullshit. You don't need a degree in economics to look around and go, I think this is artificially manipulated, overheated bubble situation happening. I saw it so clearly in 2021 the FOMO and the Yolo that was going on in the housing market was mirrored also in the job market. People would quit a job for any reason or no reason at all. Their boss looked at him funky. The Boss sneezed in the wrong direction. Fuck you. I'm out. It was happening constantly. I was so busy that year I could hardly see straight. But I knew, I knew it was not gonna last. It was a boom cycle, and it was artificially manipulated. And then people wonder, why don't you trust the government? Won't you trust the mainstream media? Really? Chagr starts to make a valid point, I think, because he says, I would also say that the conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Pop Pop took root in the fertile soil of anti government attitudes in the 1960s Lyndon Johnson had a credibility gap about the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon, of course, added fuel to the fire that there must indeed be darker forces at work deceiving and manipulating the American public. And then the moderator interrupts and says, Well, let me come back to the numbers, though, on the conspiracy theory, because the documentary that we're talking about, and I'm I'm going to get into great substance in detail in just a moment, It alleges that LBJ was directly involved, that he was behind the murder of JFK. That is just explosive. It's kind of like, okay, fella, you're starting to get onto a valid point about how the government has earned the mistrust that people have. So shut up. We need to talk about something else. And he says in these polls that are taken one just by Gallup last fall. Of course, this is out of date now, but 18% of Americans believe there was involvement by the then Vice President, subsequently the president. What lingers here, of course, is Johnson's credibility gap. Okay, so I think I'm getting into somebody else's quote now, but he it's kind of like I want to get you off this topic. You were starting to make a good point, so I want to get you off of it and just talk about the numbers, like 18% only 18% Believe that there was some kind of involvement by LBJ, and then we aired this documentary, and clutch my pearls. Oh my god. Robert dalick starts talking about Johnson not being remembered for civil rights, for Medicare, for federal aid to education, for the great society, for the war on poverty, but just seems to be remembered for the skullduggery, the manipulation, the behind the scenes operation. Then we get into the three of them discussing Watergate, and it's like, okay, I mean, he's, look, he's entitled to show up to this broadcast and give a defense of LBJ, if that's what he wants to do. He has the right to free speech. Earlier this year, I recorded a bonus episode of RFK Jr's interview on Vlad TV, which I mostly watched because I was interested to hear his rebuttal to the various rumors that have gone on about Joseph Kennedy senior being a bootlegger, and the Kennedys were in with the mafia, and JFK only one because the mafia rigged the election. I wanted to hear his rebuttal. People are entitled to a defense. So if this guy wants to show up and say, Well, look at all the good things that LBJ did that get swept under the rug, he has a right to do that. Robert Dalek admits that the Warren Commission never looked at Lyndon Johnson because they, quote, knew that Johnson had nothing to do with killing Kennedy. The Moderator at least to his credit, butts in and says, Well, how did they know that? And Dalek says, well, because they had plenty of evidence to demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole killer. Okay, we're also told that Johnson himself believed that there was a conspiracy. He thought at first that maybe it was the Vietnamese retaliating for the killing of Diem during Kennedy's presidency, and then later he thought that it was the Cubans. But he he he's convinced that Johnson himself had nothing to do with it. Chagr tells us that for all of its flaws, the Warren Commission report is still the best and most comprehensive study of the Kennedy pop pop that we have, and will probably be the best will ever have. So I mean, that tells you exactly where this panel stands. This is, as I said at the commencement, it's a gathering of old white men telling the rest of us what to think again, just long pause there. I mean, isn't isn't that the way of it? When you think about the WEF and the Bilderberg Group and these power brokers so often, that's what it amounts to. I myself right now, as I'm saying this, I'm having a flashback to the odds. For me, it was like W was the front man. He was almost like a cowboy clown that would go out and be a buffoon in public. Now I'm not saying he was necessarily a buffoon in private, but he would go out and be a buffoon in public. And I think most of us that were adults with half a brain at that point in time really considered the administration to be Cheney Rumsfeld. Not Bush Cheney, but Cheney Rumsfeld. I mean, it really seemed like those two individuals made a lot of the decisions, not that they really ran the entire country, because I don't think any president or vice president does that. I just think that Cheney and Rumsfeld were much more ingratiated with the power structure and had a deeper understanding of the way that the world really works. Again. I think that Debbie's job was to trot out and be the front man, to be like, you're doing a good job, Brownie, you're good old guy, mission accomplished, and all of that, all of that. But that's it. It's like these old white dude power brokers are the ones that make the decisions, and then all the rest of us are supposed to just sit down, shut up, and go along with it. It's like on your word because you're a history professor and you're saying, Well, I think that the Warren Commission report is the best there's ever been and the best we'll ever get. I'm supposed to just take your word for it, because you're a history professor. I kind of don't fucking think so. Guy, Robert Dalek also plugs Max Holland, says there'll be an excellent book coming out next year by Max Holland, who has studied the Warren Commission to an extent that nobody has done before. I think it'll be a definitive study of this, and it will express the conclusion that they were right. Basically, the book hasn't even come out yet. At that point, it's like, hey, I want to make a shameless plug for this guy. I'm going to tell you that it's an excellent book ahead of time and ahead of time that it's going to vindicate the Warren Commission. So let's plug this book because it says what we want it to say. They bring up one of the allegations that's made in the guilty men that JFK was basically lured to Texas, and Robert dallox says, as the British say, stuff and nonsense, John F Kennedy wanted to go to Texas. He was concerned about raising money about the coming presidential election in the. 1964 he wanted to go there for political reasons. Connolly was resistant to it. He wasn't eager for Kennedy to come there, and Johnson wasn't eager for him to go there, either. But it was Kennedy himself who promoted this idea and arranged it. And I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with that, to be honest with you. I mean, Kennedy knew that he was going to have to carry the South. He knew that he was going to have to appeal to at least some of the voters in these hostile areas. I mean, even if he was persuaded or goaded a bit to go down there, it was ultimately still his decision. He could have said, No, I don't want to go down there. I don't think that that necessarily means that there weren't some ne'er do wells involved in what happened in Texas. But as arguments go, I don't think that that one's necessarily off base. Kennedy could have canceled that trip if he had really wanted to. And they also say that, yes, some of the people that are mentioned in the guilty men were ruthless, they were politically ambitious, and they may have cut corners, and they may have done things that they shouldn't have done in other respects, but that doesn't automatically make them guilty of participating in the murder of JFK, which is true, by the way, just because somebody stuffs a ballot box or did some shady things. Politically, it doesn't necessarily mean that they committed the murder of a president. By extension, again, as arguments go, I'm not opposed to that argument at all. Cutler speaks up and says, bar McClellan cites as his witnesses. And as those who will know this are very careful. He is, in one respect, a very careful lawyer. He libels only the dead. He brings forth only dead people's, I guess, opinions or dead people's testimony. They bring up bar McClellan's own background. And the moderator is like he was a lawyer himself and was disbarred. And one of the others, I think it was Cutler, speaks up and says, Well, he resigned because he was convicted of forgery. So it's like, Okay, I'm going to go over now to Spartacus educational, because they talk about this as well. McClellan's background is worth a mention. He is a convicted forger who then resigns from the bar before disbarment proceedings ran their course. His certitude knows no bounds. LBJ murdered John F Kennedy Johnson knew of the Pop Pop he was involved beyond a reasonable doubt. His evidence rests entirely on the alleged utterances of dead people, with the sole exception of that poster child for a con artist, Billy Sol Estes, a McClellan supporter, wrote to me urging that I call Estes to get the truth. He said, Billy Saul Estes was there when LBJ ordered the killings, 18 of them in all this includes JFK. Don't take my word for it. Get it from the man who was there at the time the killings were ordered. Call Billy Saul Estes the Foxtrot Bravo India has investigated Estes accusations, and they found his credibility non existent, a further cover up. Then consider how this pitiful figure admitted to a sentencing judge in 1979 I have a problem. I live in a dream world. In a rare sensible moment, the filmmaker wisely did without his services, but not without his fabrication. End quote, so there's some sketchy shit there for sure. And the thing is, if we're going to bring up everybody else's sins, then it's worth saying, wait a minute, is this attorney even a credible source of information? And then if he says he's mostly getting his information from Billy Sara Estes, well, how credible? How credible was he, where they start to lose me again. Is where they're like, well, if they wanted to make this documentary, why didn't they go to reputable mainstream historians? Why didn't they talk to people that had already upheld the Warren Commission? Why didn't they talk to people in the mainstream? Well, I've said this before about Oliver Stone's movie JFK. If the purpose of JFK was to give a voice to alternative voices, okay, the mainstream narrative is very well represented. We want to give the opportunity to people outside the mainstream to say what they saw, to say what they believe. Well, why would you call people in the mainstream? If the whole raison d'etre of what you're doing is to present an alternative theory, then you're not going to call a bunch of people that just go with the main line. They also bring up this infamous dinner party that Madeline Duncan Brown was talking about where all these famous people were in attendance, and supposedly LBJ was like, Those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That's not a threat, that's a promise. And they bring up something that I have brought up before too, which is that LBJ was in Houston at the time, apparently, when this dinner party would have been taking place. LBJ wasn't even there. So it's like, when did this happen? Was it in the middle of the night? Was it the next day? I mean, like when? When did this dinner party supposedly, actually happen? Because there's only a certain window of time there that. It could have happened, and if LBJ was in Houston, which, by the way, Jack and Jackie were as well. So it's like, well, how the hell did he supposedly get to this party at Clint murchison's house where all of these movers and shakers were talking about the impending murder of JFK? Like, to me, that seems awfully, awfully suspicious. I can't sit here and tell you it didn't happen. I'm just telling you where's the evidence for it. They go on to talk about some of the other people that were allegedly at this party, J Edgar Hoover, for example, and how there it would just be preposterous to even believe that he could possibly be involved in the plotting or the actual mechanisms of the murder of JFK and the rest of the rebuttal episode is more so dedicated to like, the obligation of a History Channel, you have an obligation to present better material than this. And it was so one sided, and they should have gotten people from the mainstream, and they didn't. They were pushing a certain narrative, blah, blah, blah. Watch this for yourself. I don't want to, I don't want to spend a lot of time on on that. Watch this episode for yourself and decide what you make of it. Mean to me. I i go back to what we always hear lobbed at Oliver Stone's movie JFK, that people saw it. They took it seriously. They believed that they were watching actual, literal history, like it was a documentary, even with documentaries, even with so called educational channels, it's still television. It's still a form of entertainment. I mean, my God, common sense is not common anymore. I was about to say, Isn't it common sense that you would question it and you'd want to go and do your own reading and your own research and try to get various viewpoints? I guess not. I mean, maybe there is this category of person that, well, I saw it on the TV, I don't know, but for me, it's like, well, even if there was something on the History Channel, because, you know, let's be real. Here they're, they're on their high horse, and they're like a little the History Channel is an obligation to put on certain kinds of programs. People are gonna take your program seriously, and they should. You should be doing better back checking this should just never have been allowed to been shown on your upright moral your Mopr, immoral network? Well, let's see what's on History Channel looks like they're showing, I'm just going through the TV guide right now. They're showing a bunch of stuff called swamp people. Then tomorrow, they're going to be showing Ancient Aliens. They're going to be showing something else called the unexplained about deadly forests and haunted houses, the foods that built America history's greatest mysteries. Looks like there's gonna be a ton of stuff on about Hitler, something called the curse of Oak Island, which I have no idea what the hell that even is, oh, there's a big block of paid programming about prostates and erections and things, a block of Pawn Stars. Yeah. I mean, all of that, really, to me, sounds like moral upright programming about history. Give me a break. People. Come on. So there you have it. That is, in total, the men who killed Kennedy, Docu series, the Docu series itself, as well as the follow up rebuttal episode. As I've said, I've not read bar McClellan's book, and I think you know, based on this credibility problem, that he's a convicted forger, and then you have Billy Saul Estes saying that I have a problem. I live in a dream world. And then you know he's he's faced charges of being a con man. Maybe this is just distraction. Maybe this is just misinformation or disinformation of some kind to keep people going down rabbit holes that are silly. With that being said, I don't think that the answer to all of it is, well, it was Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone from the Texas School Book Depository. End of story. I don't think that that is the end of the story. However, this particular rabbit hole of Well, l there was this party at Clint murchison's house, and LBJ was there. And it's like, but wait a minute, what like, how was he even there? How did he get there? What time did this really happen? Is this just somebody's complete fabrication? Is it a made up fantasy? Is somebody misremembering the attendees of this party? I mean, what the hell seriously I've talked before, also on the air, about what Dr Phil calls outrageous overshadowing. Sometimes you'll have two people in a toxic relationship, and they're both doing things that they shouldn't be doing. It's just that one is so outrageous and so loud and so brassy and over the top that it overshadows the bad behavior of the other one. Yeah, and that that could be what is going on with a theory like this. It's so outrageous that it's pulling a lot of attention, and by proxy, it makes any conspiracy theory around JFK murder look stupid. Oh, well, you must believe that guy that was a convicted forger that was getting his information from a con artist about some party that didn't take place because LBJ was in Houston at the time. You know what I mean? Like, it's just meant to make anybody that questions the official narrative look stupid. And there are tons of theories out there, and I intend to talk about some more of them, because there's theories about JFK dropping acid and talking to aliens. And, I mean, it gets really, really out there. And I'm like, okay, but wait a minute, to me, it seems like there are much more earthly, down to earth, practical reasons. When you start looking at the people who benefited from his death, and you start looking at the amount of money that's involved in these forever wars, and the amount of money that's involved not in nations having their own real independence, but on installing puppets that are beholden to the west crazy amounts of money, enough money that somebody could be bumped off in order to ensure that that money keeps flowing. I don't find that that that theory is difficult for me to believe at all. Now we could get into the drugs and the aliens, and was it LBJ and was there a dinner party at Clint murchison's house? Who knows? I just think all of that becomes a distraction, and then it also becomes a tool for discrediting somebody. Watch this episode. Watch this rebuttal for yourself and see what you think. Well, I normally on my daytime podcast, say, stay safe and stay sane, but I will say, here, stay a little bit crazy, but maybe not so crazy that you get discredited, and I will see you in the next episode. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to this podcast and share it with others.