con-sara-cy theories

Episode 39: JFK - The Men Who Killed Kennedy - "The Forces Of Darkness"

• Episode 39

Share episode

Transcription by Otter.ai.  Please forgive any typos!

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 discussing episode two of the docuseries the men who killed Kennedy, titled The forces of darkness. It was released in the UK in 1988 and in the US in 1991 this is one of the episodes from the original the episodes they're now calling the coup d'etat and the forces of darkness, which were released on October 25 of 1988 to the British public. That's originally what the docuseries, the men who killed Kennedy was composed of as time goes on, they add more and more episodes. As I said last time around, if you haven't already watched this docuseries, do so for yourself. Make up your own mind. It's somewhat controversial. Some people really love it and swear by it and think it's gospel truth, and other people don't watch it for yourself. Make up your own mind. Download these episodes and then come back to them later. Spoilers lie ahead. Of course, there's no way for me to review this information and talk about it without getting into some spoilers. You have been warned, so pour yourself a frosty beverage of choice, and Let's saddle up and take this ride. Episode one ends on something of a cliffhanger. They introduce us to Mary Mormon, who took a Polaroid picture, allegedly within a sixth of a second from the fatal shot that was fired at JFK. And then we're told, after all these years, maybe, just maybe, there's an image in this photograph that reveals the man who really did kill Kennedy, and we see this kind of blurry, not totally clear, image of a man and a Boomstick firing where there's some flash of light that's there by his face. And you're thinking, Whoa, wait a minute. And they tease us by saying, for the first time ever, we're gonna reveal this information. Well, what better way to guarantee people stick around to watch episode two. We open up episode two with a little bit of a recap from what we already learned in episode one. Beverly Oliver claims to be the babishka lady. Says that she had a camera with her and was taking footage. She also believes that the the person that really fired the fatal shot at Kennedy was standing near the picket fence area of the grassy knoll, and no one will ever convince her differently. She feels assured that's where the pop popper was. They show a video clip of an early interview with Charles brim. You may remember, he's also featured as an interviewee in Mark Lane's film rush to judgment, where he gives his account of being there with his son to watch the motorcade. His son goes to wave at Kennedy. Kennedy goes to wave back, and then suddenly, shots are fired. Now in this documentary, Charles tells an interesting story that we don't hear in rush to judgment. He talks about how, because of his proximity and his apparent knowledge of what happened, he was taken to the front area of the Book Depository and put into a police car with his son. And he said it was an atmosphere of like you didn't know the cops from the robbers. At that point, people were upset. They were banging on the cop car, telling him names that he couldn't repeat. So he paints a pretty scary picture of he was just a bystander. He was just a witness, and yet, he was flung into a cop car with his young son, and people are beating on the car, saying terrible things to him that must have been a terrifying experience. You've already witnessed this thing that's going to give you PTSD anyway, and then now you're being flung into a cop car under the presumption that maybe you did something in this series. Beverly claims that her film had not only the best shot of the actual Pop Pop, but also of the grassy knoll. She claims that she was visited at work by Foxtrot Bravo India. Agents who confiscated her film told her it would be returned to her at some point, but has not resurfaced. That's the story as of the recording of this Docu series, as I mentioned in the last episode, there are people who doubt the veracity of her story. You will have to make up your own mind on whether you think she really was the Babushka Lady, and whether you think that she had this film that was confiscated by authorities of some type and then disappeared never to. See the light of day again. So now we go back to the cliffhanger from episode one, Mary Mormons photograph and this allegation of a badge man. We meet two researchers named Gary Mack and Jack White, who have studied the Mormon photo, and this like bushy area over by the grassy knoll and the picket fence, and they say that they have found some startling evidence that has been overlooked for all this time. One of the researchers even says it may seem a bit like an ink blot. That was one of my thoughts too. I typically try to wait and hold opinions until the end of a review like this, but for me, in looking at the images, they really do just seem like ink blots. I'm not sure how anybody could make these figures out now, once they do the enhancements, the coloring, and they tell you, I feel like they lead the witness here. They tell you, look at this shape. That's somebody's glasses, that's a badge on a uniform. And then they add in the color. Here's a soldier's uniform. Here's the dark color of a policeman's uniform. It reminds me of scrying in a pot of water, or the people that say they found the outline of Jesus and a piece of toast, or the Virgin Mary in a bowl of mac and cheese, and you're like, what? Why would that even be there? So I myself, am not convinced that we are looking at the image of a soldier and the image of this so called badge man. Now maybe as time goes on and enhancements get even better, it's possible that we'll know the researchers themselves admit, you know, we're talking about an area that's like the size of a postage stamp, maybe smaller than that, so they don't have a lot of surface area to work with there. If it's true, if I'm wrong, if my opinion is wrong, and there really was a soldier and a badge. Man, there, yeah, obviously that is frightening. Now, Jim Morris talks about this in his book Crossfire, and I'll read just a little bit from his passage about the badge. Man, when blown up, the figures are detectable by untrained observers. One police official even commented that one man appeared to be wearing glasses. The main figure has been dubbed the badge man because he appears to be wearing a dark shirt with a semicircular patch on the left shoulder and a bright shiny object on his left chest, the exact configuration of a Dallas police uniform, although the badge man's hairline, eyes, left, ear and jaw are visible, his mouth and neck are obscured by a bright flash, apparently the muzzle blast of an R, i, f, L, E, he is holding up in the classic firing position after analyzing the photographic blow up, as well as making reenactment photos in Dealey Plaza, Mac And white feel the badge. Man and perhaps even a companion are standing behind the wooden picket fence about 15 feet north from the corner. This places the figure just to the left of Gordon Arnold's position and to the right and rear of Abraham Zapruder. I'll get to Gordon Arnold in a minute. Mac and White tried unsuccessfully to interest a major news organization and financing a scientific analysis of the badge man photo. Finally, in 1980 a national tabloid agreed to have the blow up studied white and a representative from the news magazine flew to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where the photo was subjected to sophisticated computer enhancement. I will just simply but in and say, imagine what it would be now, okay, in 2024 if we think about whatever technology was available to do this photographic enhancement in 1980 surely by now, it would be even better. They were told that, without question, the photo showed a man firing an R, i, f, l, e the next day, however, the chairman of the MIT department involved suddenly gave all materials back to them, and with no explanation, told them the school would no longer participate in any study of the photo. Today, efforts continue to have the photo enlargement further enhanced by sophisticated means. The badge man blow up was included in the men who killed Kennedy, a British television documentary produced in 1988 end quote, so we also, in the Docu series, meet this character named Gordon Arnold. In the docuseries, Gordon Arnold talks about how he was a young soldier, and he wanted to come down there and watch the motorcade, and he tries to get down by the bridge, and as he's in the process of doing that, another man comes up and stops him to tell him that he's not allowed to be there. And he says that he was young and spunky and was like, Yeah, you and who else is going to keep me from going where I want to go in this Docu series? He says that the man pulled out and. Identification card and said that he was with the Charlie India Alpha. At that point, Gordon is like, well, that's enough muscle for me, and so he retreats. Now, if we return again to Jim Mars's book Crossfire, Mars has an interview with Gordon Arnold, and here's what Jim Mars said that Arnold has told him I was walking along behind this picket fence when a man in a light colored suit came up to me and said, I shouldn't be up here. I was young and cocky. And I said, why not? And he showed me a badge and said he was with the Secret Service and that he didn't want anyone up there. I said, All right, and started walking back along the fence. End. Quote, okay, so in the men who killed Kennedy docuseries, he says that this man is Charlie India alpha and produces an ID. But then, according to Jim Mars, when he has an interview with Gordon Arnold, Gordon Arnold had said that the man furnished a badge and said he was with the Secret Service. So which account is true? I think that those of us that are interested in the pop pop, or just, you know, various conspiracy theories in general, asking the questions you're not supposed to, trying to find the information that you're not supposed to get. We can't. We still have to be skeptical of what we hear, even if we think it comports to the overall theory, which I'm not going to try to hide anything about myself here. Do I believe the Warren Commission Report? No, no, I don't do I think that Lee Harvey Oswald was just some maladjusted loser and for reasons unknown to us, he just nutted up and decided to pop Kennedy all by himself. No, I don't. The thing is, that doesn't necessarily mean that anybody who sticks a hand in the air and says, I'm a witness or I think I know what happened, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're telling the truth. Doesn't mean that they're lying, either. With any of these resources, please come to your own conclusions and make up your own mind. For me, personally, I'm like, Well, why would you say in the documentary that the person was agency, but then when you're talking to Jim Mars, allegedly, you say that the person was Secret Service, those are two different things. He claims that he was filming near the grassy knoll, like in front of that picket fence area, and he hears and senses a bullet quiz past his left ear. Gordon goes on to say that when this happens, he hits the ground, and he believes a second shot might have been fired. He's not sure, because of the noise and the reports, but this man comes up, who is dressed like a police officer, minus the hat, and it's also weird because his hands are dirty. He says that this man demanded his film, and Gordon said he pretty much would have given him anything except the camera, because the camera belonged to his mother. So he takes the film out and gives it to this this man who is maybe a cop or maybe an impostor dressed as a cop, and then Gordon's in the military, so he has to go off a few days later to Alaska, and never even returns to the scene there in Dallas. So let's go back again to Jim Mars's account in crossfire of the interview that he said that he had with Gordon Arnold of this same incident. We're told, the next thing I knew, someone was kicking my butt and telling me to get up. It was a policeman, and I told him to go jump in the river. And then this other guy, a policeman, comes up with a Boomstick. I don't recall if it was a shot Boomstick or what, and he was crying, and that thing was waving back and forth. I felt threatened. One of them asked me if I had taken any film, and I said yes. He told me to give him my film. So I tossed him my camera, and I said, you can have everything. Just point that Boomstick somewhere else. He opened it, pulled out the film, and He then threw the camera back to me. All I wanted to do was get out of there. The Boomstick and the guy crying was enough to unnerve me. End quote. I will drop a link to an article by Dave Right. Sees, hopefully I'm saying that correctly. Right. Sees ritzes, called the Nowhere Man, the strange story of Gordon Arnold, again, make up your own mind as to the credibility of these witnesses. Do you think that what they're saying makes sense? Is it possible that there's just a bit of misremembering that happens over the years? Do you think there are people that are trying to perpetrate a hoax? Are there people that are trying to get rich and famous, or at least have their 15 minutes of fame? I don't know. I want you to decide that question for yourself. It's not me. Sitting here telling you, well, here's what I think you ought to think. Look at the evidence. Decide for yourself. They interview another purported witness, Ed Hoffman, who is a deaf mute, and he says that he witnessed suspicious behavior, but then whenever he tries to report it, it's like nobody will take him seriously. Now, Jim Mars talks about this in his book Crossfire, and devotes several pages to the story of Ed Hoffman in the Docu series. In this episode, Ed Hoffman tells the story of getting off work early because he has a dental appointment, and then, just like suddenly remembering, oh yeah, today is the day that President Kennedy's motorcade is coming through. He pulls over, parks the car near the freeway, just so he can get a glimpse of Jack and Jackie going by and over on the other side of the road, he has an unobstructed view. I believe there are trees there at the time of the recording of this Docu series, but not at the time in 1963 so he claims to have had this unobstructed view of the car park behind the grassy knoll. He says he saw a man at the picket fence with a dark hat and a blue shirt on, and he sees a puff of smoke, which he thinks is a cigarette, but then he notices that it's a Boomstick, and he sees and he reenacts this in the Docu series. He sees the man take the Boomstick and walk off towards the railroad. He then takes the Boomstick, tosses it to another man casually, like adjusts his shirt and his hat, and then just calmly walks off like nothing has happened. He claims that the second man dismantles the Boomstick, takes it apart and puts it inside of a toolbox. He says that he, at the time, doesn't understand this, but then when the motorcade does go by, from where he had parked near the freeway, he realizes, from what he's seeing that Kennedy has been hurt. He puts the puzzle pieces together. Then he sees a police officer standing on the railroad bridge, and starts waving frantically to try to get this officer's attention. But the officer doesn't pay any attention to him, he says. He gets in his car and he drives back by the area where he had seen the two men. But by that point in time, there's all of these people, there's a crowd, and he can't find the individuals that he saw initially, he goes to the fox trot Bravo India tries to tell them what he's seen. He claims in the documentary that they even offer him money to keep quiet. Hoffman concludes that the two men were working together, and the one that he saw around the picket fence area, you know, where there was the puff of smoke. He must have been the one that actually shot at Kennedy. I will drop a link to a thread on Cora about this exact story. What is his credibility? What are potential plot holes, so to speak, in the story that he tells. Also, as I mentioned, Jim Mars devotes several pages to Ed Hoffman's story in his book Crossfire, you'll have to make up your own mind if somebody were to say this agency threatened me, they told me to keep quiet. That would seem a bit more believable to me than the idea that they would offer this person a bribe. But that doesn't mean that he's not telling the truth. It just means, hmm, there's something on my radar screen that's a little bit like, Hmm, I don't know about this. Senator Yarborough pops up and says that he did see a man like ducking for cover and hitting the ground. It caught his attention, and he thought to himself, there's somebody that's been in combat before because he knows what to do. Does that necessarily mean that it was Gordon Arnold, no, it doesn't. It could have been. It could have been. And Gordon is then shown the greatly enhanced photographs where there's the badge man and then there's also the soldier man. Now keep in mind, they have taken these ink blots, or the blotchy areas in this photograph, and through this reconstruction enhancement, they've gone in and added like coloration. Here's what we think is the outline of a soldier. Here's what we think is the outline of the badge man. They show these images to Gordon, he becomes emotional. And he was like, I could have been the only one that saw this man, to be honest with you, if I had known about this, I wouldn't have given the interview. And he gets choked up. And I thought of another documentary that I watched. I need to review it at some point. It's very much its own separate episode. But there's a documentary called Everything is a rich man's trick by Francis Richard Connelly, and he's pretty, let's say, broadly, sweeping in his denunciations of various things about the Pop Pop, which is not to say that he. Thinks that it was Oswald acting alone and the Warren Commission got it right. No, not that it's just that he attributes a lot of what's been made public about the Pop Pop, whether it's movies, documentaries, books, etc, as just being propaganda, being intentional agency, disinformation. And in his documentary, he puts the men who killed Kennedy, the entire Docu series into that bucket of this is agency propaganda. Is Connolly right? I don't know. Is he wrong? I don't know. You have to decide that for yourself, but it is interesting because he points out this exact clip in his documentary of Gordon Arnold crying and getting emotional. And one of Connolly's assertions is that when you're watching these interviews, when somebody starts crying, they start to emote, your critical thinking gets turned off. You're not taking the information in and potentially being skeptical of it, really trying to evaluate it the way that you would if someone were just sitting here like I am now speaking to you in a normal calm tone of voice. When someone's breaking up, they're crying on camera. Suddenly, as an empathetic human being, you're like, Whoa, wait a minute, and you're focusing on the emotionality of it, rather than the content of what's being said. Now to be clear, just because Gordon breaks up on camera, do I think that means he's lying, or that he's some sort of shill? No, I don't. We just have to factor these possibilities into our decision making, I think because you know, to me looking at the photograph again, I just see blotches without the coloration, without somebody telling you hey. I see a head. I see a flash of light. I see something that could have been a badge without somebody taking you, like hand in their hand, and leading you to that conclusion. I'm not sure that anybody would get there independently, and that, to me, is suspect. From here we get into an interview with Steve Ravel, and he talks about how he met this French narcotics drug trafficker named Christian David. And through his various conversations with David, he leads him down this path of Corsican drug traffickers and claims that a man named Antoine Guarini, or Guarini is trying to get a contract on, quote, an American politician. And so Daveed asks, Is it a congressman? Is it a senator? And then this Antoine says, No, it's higher than that. It's the highest vegetable. And Daveed freaks out. And this guy supposedly says that it's going to happen within the US, and David refuses to do it because he thinks that it's going to be much too dangerous. So Ravel lays out this story of these Corsican crime bosses, Corsican drug traffickers, and like Daveed turns the contract down. That's supposed to be on JFK, but allegedly it was accepted by this Lucien Sarti and then two other people who were part of the Marseille mafia. Okay, a lot to digest there, right? He tells the story that these mobsters get to Dealey Plaza ahead of time, they survey the scene, and they set up a dynamic where you would have this triangulation of Crossfire, which, let's face it, there have been plenty of authors who have said the exact thing, have had that exact theory. So it's like, okay, well, is this guy really, you know, he's in jail, supposedly, when Ravel's talking to him. So it's like, is he just making things up, hoping that maybe he'll get a parole? Is he trying to be infamous? Is he just repeating things that he's already heard somebody else say before, or is he legit? Is he telling the truth? He said that David alleged that sartee changed his appearance. He wouldn't get specific other than to say he wore a uniform. What kind of uniform? He didn't say but then the documentary cuts back to the enhanced photograph of the badge man, so the obvious conclusion there is, they're trying to get you to think, could sartee have been the badge man, David claims that these assailants did not really try to escape. They in the panic in the melee that followed, they just casually wandered back off to the safe house, and they stayed in the safe house for several days until they were taken by plane to Montreal. Ravel asked David, is there anybody who can substantiate your claims, and David allegedly sends him to a Michelle nickoly and Ravel has to go on this goose chase to try to track Nicoli down. He says that he does through a contact at the Delta Echo Alpha and. This person claims that Nicoli has been an informant and has never given them bad information. Whatever Nicoli informed to them was going to happen or had happened, it always turned out that he was giving them truthful information. Michelle is interviewed, at least. I think that's supposed to be Michelle. He's like his face has been disguised, and he's having to have French translation done. And Ravel claims that Michelle also confirms that sartee was one of the pop poppers. David sees some aerial shots of Dealey Plaza and says that sartee was on the grassy knoll in the picket fence area, and that he used, quote, explosive ammunition. And then at the time, Ravel didn't understand what he meant by that. When he said that sartee was using explosive ammunition, and that sartee was the only one who would do such a thing, or the only one who used such a thing, Michel says that the reason to do that is because it, quote, leaves a bigger hole in the body. He also asserts that the pop poppers were paid in heroin in terms of identifying, well, who put out this contract, who's at the top of this pyramid? We just get vagaries. Well, it was the mafia. We're not gonna say. We're not gonna finger who it was that actually, supposedly told us to do this. And Ravel, on the interview here in this docuseries, says that he suspected that it probably had to do with Carlos Marcello. He also says that, given the geography and some of the logistics of what happened, Gambino could have also been involved. Ravel makes the claim that because this was going to happen in the American South, they had to use Caucasian men so they were not able to go to Beirut or Hong Kong, which he alleges were the other two like centers of finding pop poppers of that day, they needed people who were not known to the American mafia as well as to the American police force, and people that who could Be counted on not to talk. If the poop hit the fan and they were apprehended, they would keep their mouth shut. Ravel opens up to the agent about what was going on with Michelle and David, and tries to get official inquiries going on, also with the Foxtrot Bravo India. But nothing really happens, because they say, in order to proceed forward, to really have an investigation and try to take this before the grand jury, we have to have at least two witnesses. So Ravel thinks, Okay, well, we've got Michelle now if I can get David involved in this. But David refuses to take part. He says that if he can get released from jail, where he's on in imprisoned on an unrelated murder charge, by the way, if he can get released from jail because he fears for his safety, then he would consider testifying again. You know this, this starts to fall into the realm of how how trustworthy, how credible are these people, if they have something to gain by making these claims, are they completely neutral in what they're doing? David furnishes his attorney with a letter that's been sealed, and on the front you're expecting him to say, don't open this until after I'm deceased. But he gives his lawyer the instruction, don't open this unless I'm free. If I get out of jail, you can open this letter, but otherwise, keep it sealed. And the lawyer speculates that there's probably details about murderers, plural, not just a murderer, that's in that letter. Of course, we don't know. We don't we don't even know, like, really, what's going on here, because, okay, well, you can't open it unless I'm free. You can't even open it in the event of my death, but only if I get out of prison. Okay, there could be nothing in there but pocket lint. For all we know, I'll drop a link to the Spartacus educational.com site and their page about Ravel, because there's some interesting details there, where he says that he believes some of the people he identified in this Docu series were guilty and some were not. If he had it to do over again, he might look at other people, which, okay, in hindsight, this is interesting. It's also, I think, worth reading an article that appeared in the New York Times December 2, 1972 titled A heroin smuggler chooses us prison over the guillotine. Christian David, the alleged kingpin of one of the world's largest heroin smuggling rings, chose here yesterday, to go to prison in the United States for narcotics trafficking rather than face the French guillotine for murder, confronted with the possibility of extradition to his homeland, where he has been sentenced to death in absentia for the 1966 murder of a French police commissioner, David pleaded guilty to a federal narcotics charge and was probably given a maximum sentence of 20 years in jail without parole and a $20,000 fine. There's a little back story for you about David and the Docu series, really, because they go back to the. Scene in the Zapruder film, the horrifying scene where you can watch pieces of JFKs head being blown apart, and they're talking about Sati as the shooter and using a dumb, dumb bullet, and it's like, um, yeah, presenting it like it's a fait accompli, like that, like we can just hang our hat on this information. I don't know about that. And then they segue over to an interview with Cyril wecht, who's been an outspoken critic of the official narrative, particularly around the autopsy and the way that the body was handled. For a very long time, almost since the very beginning. Has he been an outspoken critic of all this, and I feel like that it's it's constructing this idea of further credibility, at least. That's how I interpret it. Okay, we're gonna go from Ravel and his stories about Corsican drug traffickers and Marseille mobsters and all of this, we're gonna say that Sakti fired a dumb, dumb bullet. And look, you can see the evidence of it here on the Zapruder film. Oh, and then we go to Cyril wecht, who's going to very rationally, tell you why the autopsy was a botched job. I feel like they're creating a flow. They're creating a narrative there of things that sound incredible. Now we're going to cut to a guy who sounds credible, so that you'll take the whole thing at face value. We also segue to L Fletcher Prouty, who was a consultant for Oliver Stone on the film JFK. He's also supposedly the character Mr. X, played by Donald Sutherland. Prouty is supposed to be the inspiration for Mr. X, and he pulls out this manual. It's like a manual for how to do pop pops in Latin America, and reads this passage that, whenever possible, use professional criminals. So again, we're getting further confirmation of this idea that what Ravel is saying about sartee and Dave and their various associates must be true. But it's like, well, no, not necessarily. It wasn't necessarily them. Professional criminals could be used. Well, my God, take your pick. There's a variety of professional criminals that fall into the purview of the JFK, pop, pop. It doesn't necessarily mean that it was the Corsican drug traffickers and the Marseille malt, it doesn't mean it wasn't. It just doesn't mean that it was as proud he mentions, you're dealing with a high echelon of power, because it's one thing to pop pop somebody, but then you have the cover up. Now, who has the power to cover it up? A variety of people would have had the money and the means of hiring some thugs to do the Pop Pop. But then how do you cover it up? And then use as Prouty asserts the Warren Commission report as your vehicle to substantiate the cover up? That's going to have to go beyond these characters like Michelle and sartee and David. It there's just no way that they could have done the cover up, even if they were involved, or knew people who were involved in the actual Pop Pop how would they have been able to manage the cover up? Episode Two closes out with Cyril wecht making the observation that just like Watergate, just like Vietnam, people have a right to know the truth. And if this could happen to Kennedy, it could happen again. Something of this magnitude could be done. Again, you can't just go around having coup d'etat in America. People have a right to know what happened, and we have a right for the government to work the way that it's supposed to. So again, I mean, that's a very logical, rational statement for someone to make. And I feel like this is done intentionally, the editing, the placement of these interviews, in my opinion, it's done intentionally to give the reader or the viewer, in this case, pardon me, the viewer, give the viewer the sense that, well, this is all credible because you have Fletcher Prouty saying things that make sense, you have Cyril wechs saying things that make sense, and then sandwiched in the middle, you have this story, Ravel's telling you about a convicted murderer who was sentenced to death in absentia, who just wants to get out of jail. It's like, Hmm, you know, is he telling us the truth? Is this Michelle guy telling us the truth? I don't know. I don't know if you want my personal opinion, I find that whole ball of wax sketchy. Not to say that Ravel is lying. I just think it's possible that David may have been pulling his leg. I think it's possible that some of these people will say and do anything that they think is necessary to try to get notoriety, to try to be viewed as too important to be in jail, what this person knows is so significant they need to be paroled, or they want to get a book deal. They want to try to get some money out of all of this, maybe a movie can be made about them. You really never know how deep some of these motivations go when it comes to making money. And I intend at some point to record an episode about this. Question Is it, is it possible that this just keeps going on and on and on and on and on because the cottage industry around it has become so damned probably. Comfortable that people don't want a firm answer. Everybody wants to throw their hat in the ring and make a comment about who done it and why, or Oh, I was a witness. Oh, I believe this. That's a point to ponder. So when do you think of Episode Two? Do you think that all of these witnesses are totally credible? Do you think that the blob in the photograph could actually be a soldier and the badge man, could the badge man have been sartee? Was David telling the truth was this sort of, kind of like a deathbed confession. I just want to unburden myself. I'm not going to ask you for anything. I just want to unburden my conscience before I go. Or did he have ulterior motives? Stay a little bit crazy, and I'll see you in the next episode. 

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