Episode 100: JFK - JFKTV

A former actor wants you to know JFK wasn't actually killed. I guess that's good news for Jack and bad-ish news for everyone else who was concerned about him. 😐

We've been down this road before with JFK X and the story of the faked death, trap door in the limo, and the squib. Like Jay Weidner's documentary, is this a total descent into madness? Is it like Francis Richard Conolly's documentary where everyone else in the world is C!A except him? 🤔

➡️ Was there predictive programming in Dallas that day?

➡️ Was the adoring crowd at Love Field a group of prescreened paid actors?

➡️ Was JFK as impotent a President as everyone else?

➡️ Is this a photo of JFK surrounded by "crisis actors" with the parties in the motorcade "pasted on" later?

➡️ Did the real motorcade vanish and leave a group of paid actors to make the fateful trip through Dealey Plaza?

➡️ Was Abraham Zapruder in with the de Mohrenschildts? Why do so many of the people in Dallas that day form an interconnected web?

➡️ If there was a sh00ter on the Grassy Knoll, were the plotters willing to kill or maim Jackie if that person had missed?

➡️ Did the Warren Commission "prearrange a demolition of their own
conclusions" from the get-go?

➡️ Did witnesses wait in the grass to be photographed by the MSM because they were told to do so?

➡️ Were the doctors paid actors as well? Was this a Freemason conspiracy?

➡️ Did John Frankenheimer and Oliver Stone curate a JFK murder mythology?

➡️ Was the Cuban Missile Crisis a hoax to lead people to Jesus?

➡️ Did a coup take place not on 11/22/63 but on 9/18/47?

➡️ Were man-on-the-street interviews with churchgoers actually interviews with C!A shills?

➡️ Do the autopsy photos show a wax dummy?

➡️ Was Oswald's death also faked? As well as RFK, some of his children, JFK Jr, and even little Patrick? Did they all wind up in Greece with Jack until Onassis died and they moved to a horse farm together? 🤣


Or is this nucking futs? 

➡️ "The real power in the world is never seen." This may be the truest statement in the entire post.


Links:

https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/12/23/jfktv-new-revised/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/kennedy-assassination-americans-react-20539686

https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayl:Dealey_Plaza_on_November_22,_1963_after_the_assassination_of_US_president_John_F._Kennedy.jpg

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. 

****

My award-winning biography of Dag is available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Decoding-Unicorn-New-Look-Hammarskj%C3%B6ld-ebook/dp/B0DSCS5PZT

My forthcoming project, Simply Dag, will be available globally next summer. 

Transcript

Transcription by Otter.ai.  Please forgive any typos!

The discussion centers on Tyrone McCloskey's article "JFK TV," which posits that JFK's assassination was a hoax. McCloskey argues that the event was staged, involving crisis actors and predictive programming, to manipulate public perception. He claims that JFK faked his death, likely to escape to Greece, and suggests that the media, including Life magazine and ABC, played a crucial role in perpetuating the hoax. McCloskey also questions the authenticity of key evidence, such as the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, and implies that the Kennedy family's deaths were also staged. The conversation explores the plausibility of these claims and the broader implications of media manipulation and conspiracy theories.

SUMMARY KEYWORDS
JFK assassination, conspiracy theories, Tyrone McCloskey, JFK TV, crisis actors, predictive programming, media manipulation, Kennedy family, Cuban Missile Crisis, nuclear weapons hoax, Zapruder film, Dallas Police Force, Oliver Stone, controlled opposition.


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 a peculiar article that I stumbled across. There's a guy. And, no, I'm not going to mention any names. Don't write to me and ask me none of that. I don't want to get some kind of war or Battle Royale going between people in the research community. So I'm not going to mention the name. I'm going to be necessarily vague. There's this guy whose stuff pops up occasionally on social media, and as best as I can tell, he's trying to make a name for himself by all the time, saying that everything that happens is right wingers. And I don't disagree that sometimes it is right wingers, especially, hello, look at all the things we learned from that Docu series on Operation Gladio. And I've said many times you can't swing a dead cat in the system without hitting Nazis and fascists. It seems to be some kind of shtick with him, though, and the part that really galls me is that he's very careful to be like I believe that JFK was murdered by right wingers, but it had nothing to do with the government. It had nothing to do with the Foxtrot Bravo India, or the Charlie India alpha, or anybody in the military. It was just fringe right wingers that all did it on their own. And I'm like, dude, dude, dude. Who are you fooling? Are you feeling yourself? I mean, I don't know if the guy's a paid shell, and I don't want to make that accusation, because I don't know just seems kind of funky to me. And he quoted this article called JFK TV, not ironically. And I was like, huh, this is something I haven't heard of. I'll check it out. So it's JFK TV, the Kennedy Pop. Pop is television programming written by somebody named Tyrone McCloskey, who, as best as I can tell, is some kind of former actor. It's not somebody that I'm terribly familiar with not making any judgments about him as a person, because I don't know him strictly this episode is to judge the merits of his argument as I see it. It's just my opinion, and it could be wrong. Lord knows it has happened before. This is in the same vein as Jay widener's film JFK X, the idea that JFK didn't really die, so automatically, I'm like, okay, all right, I don't know, but I'm willing to read and review things that I disagree with. You know, that's part of life. It should be part of life anyways, that you're willing to interact with things going in. You know you're going to disagree. It's not going to necessarily be your cup of tea, but you can expose yourself to this material without flying off the handle. With that being said, we're in for it tonight. Choose your frosty beverage of choice, and we will saddle up and take this ride at the beginning of this article, he clearly writes this book can be read as a spoof of JFK research or as nonfiction, your choice. Okay, fair enough, so we could ostensibly put it in the same bucket as something like Richard Condon's book. Winner kills Nick, the protagonist of the book goes down one rabbit hole after another, after another, after another. And in its own way, it too, is a spoof of JFK research and JFK researchers, because Nick gets one wild goose chase after another in trying to figure out who killed his brother. It wasn't mafia. No, it was Hollywood. No, it was an actress who was spurned. No, it was the family. No, it was the government, no, it was the local police force. I mean, just on and on it goes. He just goes from one accused pop popper to another, to another, to another to another. And it's like, is anybody ever gonna get any answers? And in fact, one of the things that he says in his intro to this JFK TV essay is pretty similar. He writes that said, the fact that half a century of research has not produced a definite answer to the JFK Pop Pop, nor has it brought anyone to justice. It is long overdue to question whether or not the Pop Pop took place at all, and it's reasonable to ask that question in a country that still insists it operates under the rule of law. End, quote, fair enough.

Okay, I'm willing to listen.

As I mentioned when I recorded my review about Oliver Stone's film JFK, there are some conspiracy theorists that the answer is always the same. It was fake. And I mean, they just think every. Everything has been fake. Whether you're talking about political murders, wars, T word, attacks, illnesses, etc, it's just all been fake. Everything is fake, fake, fake, fake, fake. And that's, I think, a pretty convenient worldview. I compared it in that episode to the idea of the devil made me do it, or the devil is everywhere I stubbed my toe when I got out of bed this morning, so I was under demonic attack. And it's like, I guess Satan's dance card must have been awfully empty if he decided to spend his morning making you stub your toe. So I'm just going to admit my bias up front. I think it requires critical thinking. I think some events have been real and some events have been fake, and it's up to us as individuals to suss out what we believe, to figure out which from from which. Now in the introduction here, he points out that we've we have, like, faith based reality because of the media, but yet we know that so often the media lies to people. So can we really trust the media telling us that JFK was murdered? Can we really trust that it actually happened? In part one, which he calls society of the spectacle, he gives us the mise en scene, Friday, November 22 1963 pardon me, my voice is trying to go. John F Kennedy was shot and killed at 12:30pm central standard time while riding in a motorcade through downtown Dallas. How do we know this? There is still extant as of this writing, several grainy home movies, two of which appear to have captured the killing in full. So it's sort of like we only know that this happened because of these home movies. And I'm like, Well, wait a minute, I don't know that. We only know it because of the home movies. To his credit, he doesn't bury his thesis. There is no way to solve this crime with the available forensics evidence. And the reason this crime cannot be solved is that there was no crime committed on November 22 1963 Bum Bum Bum bum. He starts with his argument that the programming began in the morning. You have JFK and First Lady Jackie showing up at Love Field. He asserts that the crowd there at love field that was greeting them was made up entirely of paid extras, as he writes, The Secret Service would never have allowed such unprotected contact, and the President would comply, as he would know there was no real political hate to be made with any real individual he might shake hands with. They may cast a ballot for him, but the ballots are ballots aren't actually counted. The game is rigged to a predetermined outcome with each election. And this man of the people maneuver is for the myth makers and the media to forward the lie that there is in the US a working democracy, in effect, in quote, I'm going to be honest with you, I partially agree with what he's saying there, yeah, the game is rigged. Of course it is. The ballots aren't actually counted. We are. I agree with what he's saying there. It makes sense that the crowd of people at Love Field handing flowers to Jackie and shaking hands, it makes sense to me that that would be a crowd of paid extras, or at the very least, let's say they weren't paid. Let's say they were people that wanted to show up and wave and hand flowers and shake hands, people that were pre screened, people that had already been, I don't know, patted down, checked out, made sure that there were no possible weapons that could be hidden anywhere I get it. That makes sense to me. I don't necessarily know that it's true that they were a group of paid extras, but I can follow the logic in that argument for sure. Earlier that day, he had been to a breakfast in Fort Worth that was broadcast on local television. Okay, so yet again, we're getting more more of this event being broadcast on television. He points out that back at Love Field, nervous commentary by the local television reporter explained what a breach of security it was for the President to defy protocols and spontaneously approach such a large crowd, he's making the argument in this essay that it's predictive programming. It's setting the audience up for the reality that something bad is about to happen. And that's one viable interpretation. I think you could also argue that it supports this idea that JFK was reckless. He didn't want to listen to anybody. He was a hard head. He was a vapid idiot. He didn't understand the danger that he was in, or he did understand the danger and just decided, fuck it. I'm going to go into this crowd because I want the ego adulation. We see a similar narrative about JFK, Jr, that he was flying a plane by himself, didn't know what he was doing, and he was just reckless. It's bad enough to endanger himself, but then to also endanger his wife and sister in law. Wow. He was. Really asking for trouble. So there are multiple potential interpretations of this one event. Now he also writes about the Oh god, you know what? Let me, let me think of a euphemism. Okay, I had to hit pause because I'm like, I really need to look at some synonyms. I really need to think about how I want to say this, because I'm not going to just come right out and say it, that's it. That's a great way to get yanked off the air. Okay. So he writes, it should be stressed here that the perpetrators of these psi operas don't actually break any laws. Their control model would not work if they did. They may expand the law as, for example, they did to keep the public from seeing non existent death certificates of the Sara fastener victims by railroading through a legal waiver to keep records of minors from public scrutiny. The Nazi project run out of Wall Street and the City of London made sure that within the legal framework of Nazi Germany, all of the alleged oppressions of one minority or another fell within the legalities of the Nuremberg laws, the maintenance of their embassies abroad depended upon this legal framework, as well as for their internal security measures at home. End Quote, well, I will leave it to you to decide what you think of what happened at the Sandra fastener incident, the same one that got Alex in so much fucking trouble, I'm not even going to go there. But as far as the Nazi project being run from Wall Street in the City of London, I don't disagree with him there, either. He asserts that the only person who could have been brought up on charges would have been George Berkeley jfk's personal physician, because he would have been signing the death certificate knowing that it was phony. A little further down, he writes, the concern for security reveals a major clue in the complicity of the President to participate in the faking of his own death. The willful desire to actually breach security squeezing a few palms at the risk of his own life makes no sense whatsoever unless you believe the President has actual power and needs public support. These crowd pleasing gestures also laid the groundwork for absolving the Secret Service and reinforcing the idea that Kennedy was actually killed and by his own impulsiveness. End quote, well, I agree with the part he's saying about his own impulsiveness. I think that feeds the narrative this idea of, well, he just had to go out. He just wanted to be seen as a man of the people, and he thought that he was really going to get folks in Dallas on his side for the 64 election, if he just went down there and pressed some flesh and smiled at the crowd and kissed a few babies. But Isn't that ridiculous? Because it doesn't matter anyway, I'll be honest, that's not an altogether wackadoodle point. I don't think.

Anyway, let's continue to read a bit more. As the motorcade assembled and began rolling away from the crowd and onto the highway, Secret Service man Henry ribka, who was running alongside the Presidential limousine, was called back by Emory Roberts, the ranking agent in the motorcade on extant video, Ripka expresses his confusion by turning his palms up, gesturing with his arms, seemingly dismayed by this order to back off. He then dutifully climbs into the Secret Service car trailing the president by a car length. All of this is captured by the live video broadcast with the commentator continuing on with remarks about the difficulty the Secret Service faces when the President appears in public. End quote, so look, one argument here is this was done on purpose. It was setting the stage. It was predictive programming. It was letting the audience know. Uh oh, JFK is being impulsive. Uh oh, the Secret Service is not protecting him the way that they ought to. I hope something bad doesn't happen. Wink. I mean, other conspiracy theorists would tell you that this is going on because the Secret Service didn't want to protect him. A gap was being left on purpose. He has published a photograph that he says is evidence of a total lack of security, and he says that this photograph was actually taken at an early date using a crowd of crisis actors in a controlled area, just like an on location movie set. The photos were discovered years later, after the fact, and then the Presidential party had been pasted on. I will find a copy of this photograph so that you can look at it and judge for yourself. Do you think that it's a phony photo using crisis actors and that the presidential party for the motorcade was pasted in at a later date, you will have to judge for yourself. So in the same way that Jay Weidner gives us his story about the squib, here is Tyrone. I was going to say shooting his shot, but not so funny of a metaphor. Here's Tyrone making his pitch to us of what he thinks happened out of sight of the crowds as they pulled away from love field, and prior to the motorcade approaching the first crowds lining the streets, the switch was made, and actors took over as President, First Lady. Governor Connolly and his wife, Nellie, an identical limousine with the actors on board, positioned itself within the motorcade, likely around a corner, briefly out of view of the press bus and trailing vehicles the genuine president and his party vanished, surrounded by other vehicles guiding the limo down a cordoned off street devoid of witnesses. Okay, yeah, I don't know about that. Again, you're just gonna have to judge for yourself. Something I do find interesting. He writes, as the presidential limousine approached Dealey Plaza, a Dallas dressmaker named Abraham Zapruder took his position on a short wall to film the president passing by. Zapruder would initially be held up as an innocent bystander, but later it would be revealed that he was the former business partner of Jean de Morin shield, wife of George de Morin shield, Charlie India, alpha handler for Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. End quote. There are a number of connections between all of these people in Dallas and how it was all this weird interconnected web. Russ Baker talks about this. Particularly, I'm thinking of his book, family of secrets. There's this whole web of folk in Dallas that are interconnected with one another.

Definitely a thing that makes you say, hmm.

He also writes, Many researchers have poured over every frame of the Zapruder film, a sizeable number of these researchers have concluded that the film is a forgery. Numerous anomalies appear in the film, from mismatched shadows to the height of some of the scattered bystanders appearing to be over seven feet tall, suspected of utilizing traveling mats to reposition the limo and change its speed, to contradict eye witnesses who claim the limo came to a brief stop. The film also reveals odd reactions of several bystanders, bystanders, some of whom move faster than humanly possible or seem oblivious to the presence of the limo and its occupants. End, quote, this is another fair point. He is correct. There have been a number of people who have poured over every frame of the Zapruder film, and have come to the question, or have come to the conclusion, I should say, that it is missing certain frames, that it's been altered. And so they asked the question, who altered it and why? And then the next question is, what are we not allowed to see? Now here's a point that Tyrone brings up that I 100% have wondered myself many times. One aspect of the film that has received no comment is that, if there were multiple shooters, including one forward and to the President's right, situated behind the picket fence, atop the grassy knoll and presumably author of the fatal head shot, did the plotters feel that Mrs. Kennedy was acceptable collateral damage? Should any of the shooters, especially the one behind the fence, Miss and hit the first lady at the time of the event? Jacqueline Kennedy was arguably the most famous, glamorous and sympathetic woman in the world. The trip to Dallas was her first public appearance in America since the death of her infant child several months earlier. End quote. This is a really good point. I have thought about this numerous times because I'm like, okay, look, assuming that that the event was real, which I believe that it was, were they willing to have Jackie killed? This is a great point. If somebody had missed and had murdered Jackie, they would have burned Dallas to the mother fucking ground. People would have lost their goddamn minds. I mean seriously, especially if you had killed Jack and Jackie, if both of them had been killed that day, you know this young, pretty, soft spoken, sweet little lady had just recently lost a baby. Oh, my God, Holy fucking shit. We totally would have been in world war three. I mean, somebody would have been to have blamed for that, and there would have been nuclear warheads flying immediately. My God, so I've wondered this same thing, were they willing to sacrifice Jackie in order to get rid of Jack

but even if it was

fake, let's, let's say for a minute that the whole thing was fake. I mean, yeah, I'm trying, I'm trying to reason this out in my mind, because it's like, okay, if it was real and somebody had missed, were they willing to sacrifice Jackie. And if it was fake, were they willing to torment everybody into thinking, Oh, my God, even Jackie could have been killed by these people.

I feel like this is a valid point.

He also shows a photograph under which he has written 40 plus years later, pristine footage of the limousine and its occupants surfaced. This is a standard ploy in such hoaxes, completely reliant on photographic evidence to sell the fiction, the grainy originals give way to vibrant new releases to update the lies. End quote, he questions the veracity of the Mary Mormon photo and says that his best guess is that the photo was taken during a rehearsal day. Days or weeks ahead of the public pantomime on 1122, 63

My question would be, well, where

would that have taken place,

a rehearsal days or weeks ahead of the public pantomime? Where? I mean, surely that would have had to have been done in secret somewhere. And if so, where and then, who did it? Who too did the rehearsal? He writes that Life magazine was a propaganda tool, nothing more. CD Jackson, life's publisher was a spook from way back, specializing in psychological warfare. No argument for me there, either. According to Tyrone, crisis actors dotted the plaza and the most photogenic young women in the immediate vicinity of the kill zone, stepped forward to recite their lines. Mary Mormon presented her Polaroid and vague recollections about the directions of the shots, but leaned towards the knoll. Her friend Jean Hill suggested the knoll as a direction, but couldn't be certain. Beverly Oliver, a party girl in Jack Ruby's orbit, had a ringside seat as the Babushka Lady so labeled by her appearance in the Zapruder film, and she claimed she filmed the kill shot, but a man she took to be a Foxtrot Bravo India agent wanted to develop the film, and he never returned it. And as an added bonus, Oliver floated the story that she had witnessed Oswald and Ruby Together, well, prior to the Pop Pop Well, I've said before, I'm not completely convinced that Beverly Oliver was the Babushka Lady. When you look at photographs of the Babushka Lady and then you look at Beverly Oliver, you're like, I don't freaking think so. So, I mean, look, is he bringing up a potential good point here? And maybe so. I mean, I myself am not going to get up here and be so bold as to say that these witnesses were crisis actors. He's pretty ballsy.

Let let him do that.

Let him do that. I mean, they could have just been innocent people that were there and witnessed a horrible thing. He's bringing up a question that we're not supposed to ask. Is it possible that they were crisis actors? Some young, attractive women suddenly come forward and go, Oh, hey, I saw it, and I want to get on TV and talk about what I saw. Definitely a question you're not supposed to ask. He also brings up Gordon Arnold, as he writes in this article. Two days later, Arnold reported for duty in Alaska. His poor acting can be seen in the epic misdirection video from 1988 titled The men who killed Kennedy, where he recalls his tale of woe, complete with a cascade of tears. End quote, yeah, I don't buy Gordon Arnold completely. To be totally fair. I'm not saying that he's lying. I don't know. I never met the man I remember Francis Richard Connolly making pretty similar arguments in everything is a rich man's trick that whenever you see people on TV and they start crying and they start emoting, you're no longer thinking critically, you're just paying attention to the emotionality of the situation. So he has a similar argument to this idea of Gordon Arnold is on this Docu series crying and oh, if I had known that you were going to show me this photo, I don't think I would have done this. It's kind of a weird reaction. They also show in that docuseries badge man and somebody who they claim is it's basically just a blob that they've colored in with an army uniform. And they're like, hey, this might be you. And then he starts crying. And I'm like, it could just be blobs. I mean, whenever you take blobs in an old photograph, but then you use obvious power of suggestion to put one in a police uniform and one in an army uniform. It's like, how trustworthy is this really? I mean, just saying, he shows a picture of the Newman family, and he has family in quotations. And beside the photograph, he has written, the Newman family posing for the camera amidst utter chaos. The odds that these people comprised an actual family are slim to none. End quote, I will drop a link to that photo as well so that you can take a look and judge for yourself. I mean, do do they seem like crisis actors? Do they seem like they're not a real family. That is up to you to decide. One thing I will say for this guy is, man, he's got a big pair of low hanging brass balls to make some of the accusations that he makes under the tab that he has titled medical drama, a midday soap opera staple. He says, like many professions of the day, the medical men who rose in the rank were inevitably Freemasons. End Quote, remember, we saw similar kind of Masonic conspiracy going on in that BBC Docu series about Operation Gladio, and there was that crazy stuff that happened around the p2 lodge in Italy. I mean, all of that's been documented that's not just a key species theory, all that's been documented as having been true. So in this essay, Tyrone is apparently extending that out to the doctors at Parkland, I guess, like they're going to go along with it. And they. Sense to me, his argument about the mainstream media is just going to go along with whatever they're told to publicize. I get that, but a little bit like, Okay, so now the doctors at Parkland are in on this hoax, because, invariably, they must have been Freemasons. Okay? Under some clips of the reporters, including Cronkite, he has written seasoned white males whose trustworthiness is unchallenged, recite the prefabricated narrative that will become cemented in the mass consciousness as actual history. I agree with that. I don't agree with the idea that there's that they are perpetrating a hoax that JFK faked his own death, but I do agree that they're perpetrating the hoax that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone from the Texas School Book Depository and Oh, just a lone up paw popper that one guy shot him from behind in part two of this essay, he writes Oliver Stone, who took over for Frankenheimer, meaning John Frankenheimer as the primary director of the ongoing JFK project, but also wrote and directed the successor hoax to JFK 911 also had a father who was a fixture on Wall Street. This is not surprising, given that Wall Street was reinvented by Joseph Kennedy, Sr, at the behest of FDR during the depression like Hollywood another, Joe Kennedy reinvention Wall Street was largely a money laundering scheme for government graft, and certainly laden with well vetted spooks in the boardrooms and on the exchange floor. End quote. He also of Frankenheimer writes with these military bona fides. Frankenheimer segued into television production at that bastion of pro military propaganda, CBS, operated by a super spook named William Paley, and started a career that led to the three films that spell out exactly what the JFK hoax entailed on October 24 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hoax. Because here we go, everything's a hoax. Frankenheimer released The Manchurian Candidate with Kennedy camp follower Frank Sinatra in the lead role. Now he's presented a footnote here that says, Though touched upon later, there are, in fact, no nuclear weapons. The ever present threat of global Annihilation is the biggest hoax since Armageddon that was concocted by Christian mind benders and preached from every pulpit in creation. End quote, wow. So a lot going on. There a lot of directions that we could go in, one of which is, okay, did John Frankenheimer start some kind of JFK hoax and run the Hollywood side of it and then pass the baton to Oliver Stone? Was the Cuban Missile Crisis a hoax? Are nuclear weapons a hoax? I mean, we seem to be firmly in the territory of everything is a hoax. Everything is fake, which I think is overstating it, as I've already said, I have wondered the same question with nuclear brinksmanship. Because all the time this threat of somebody's going to do it, somebody's going to drop a bomb, somebody's going to kill half the world. We're all going to have to deal with radiation and Fallout. We're going to have world war three. Or if you believe what Vincenzo Vin Sara says in Operation Gladio, then we have already had world war three. It was the Cold War. So at any point in time, we can have World War four, where some madman blows up half the planet. Is that just a Psy op? Is that meant to terrorize people? But it's never going to fucking happen? I really think that's a valid question. I totally do. So we've got a couple of different competing conspiracy theories. Here you have this man saying, no nuclear weapons exist. It's fake. It's a hoax. But then I've also read conspiracy theory that the Nazis had nuclear weapons, this whole idea of the Manhattan Project and Oppenheimer, I'm the destroyer of worlds. I am become death, is just all fucking fake, and that the Nazis had nuclear weapons. And in fact, Mussolini talked about how they had nuclear weapons before he died. Pick your poison. When it comes to conspiracy theories, pick your poison. He also talks about the staged hysteria, whether you're talking about Sinatra being mobbed by girls that, he says, teenage girls that were paid to scream on the street for Frankie in front of news cameras, or Beatlemania. I mean, and I'm not disagreeing with that, to me, it makes sense that you would have some teenagers that are paid to scream at a band or to scream at a particular entertainer to get other teens to get on board. I mean, to me, that makes perfect sense. I don't necessarily think it's part of a JFK hoax, but it makes perfect sense. He makes the argument that the Manchurian Candidate film states what they were going to do, and then Seven Days in May purports to show what they actually did do. He writes, the military did, in fact, overthrow the government. They did not do it on November 22 1963 they finalized the process on September 18, 1947 with the implementation of the national security. Security Act, the final nail in the coffin where America's democracy lay in state, the stage craft of the J, f, k, Pop. Pop was a pantomime in a cascade of mysticism of that event from 16 years earlier a couple of paragraphs later, he writes, of course, Seven Days in May has a cop out ending just like the Manchurian Candidate, but the spectacle that precedes it is the message, the military runs things from behind the curtain. The election circuses are for hoi polloi. End quote. I don't disagree with that. Now, whatever his critiques of the movies may be, that's one thing, but I agree with what he says, the military runs things from behind the curtain. The election circuses are for hoi polloi, yeah, I would argue that it's not even the military running things. I believe that you have power brokers that are well above the military, the President, the Vice President, Congress, all of this. And I think that those power brokers are in the shadow, and we're we don't even necessarily know who they are. I think the military is, is their militarized Enforcer. But are the elections a circus for the commoners? Yeah, of course,

as we saw with Jay Widener, the question of okay, so JFK fakes his own death, and he has a very distinctive face as well as a very distinctive voice. Where is he going to go after he fakes his own death? Where he's not going to be seen? Well, as with Jay Weidner, Greece. I guess, instead of all roads leading to Rome, all roads lead to Greece. On this thing of the Zapruder film, he writes, As the film bearing his name would not be presented to the general public until 1975 zapruders description and the few frame reproductions posted in Life Magazine were all anyone had to envision. What was contained within those precious 24 seconds of brittle Super Eight home movie film, a film likely constructed at the Jameson film company in Dallas, the military contracted Hollywood of Texas. End quote, there's an ABC interview that he believes is, well, he says, revolting and obviously staged. I did find a copy of it. I'm going to drop it in the write up for this podcast, a link to it so you can look for yourself, so you can see all right, do you think that this is obviously staged in his write up, he's written in one such revolting and obviously staged interview, the execrable Frank Reynolds of ABC cut short a young man who has wandered off point as he warns against the dangers of viewing this event through the divide of left versus right. It's a specious argument, but it is also steering the mood away from the manufactured pathos Reynolds tries to get back on track with a black lady, but she is too measured, and has to be subtly reminded that Jackie's welfare is the most important concern for women, and that that concern should be the topic discussed. Both Reynolds and the lady seem frustrated, and he's about to send the feed back to the mothership in Chicago, when a young girl is shoved into the picture. She appears to be about 11 years old, and Reynolds immediately seizes her and sticks the microphone in her face, asking for her thoughts. Her response is as blatantly coached as the unfortunate kids in the Sandra fastener videos of nearly half a century later, the girl frustratingly admits she has nothing to say, and Reynolds agrees that there is nothing to say and sends it back to the anchor's desk. How anyone could watch this and not immediately spot its completely artificial nature is beyond comprehension. But such is the trust in the media that even today, they can still largely exploit the gullible proles who sit in a catatonic daze and let the damage to their subconscious continue undeterred. End quote. So in his mind, this girl is supposed to have been coached, but she loses her lines. So it's like all of a sudden we even push her out of the way, and in the interview, like I say, watch it for yourself. Come to your own conclusions. Means some of the people do seem awfully wooden to me. Not saying they're crisis actors. They could have just been people that were pulled in off the street and it was like, hey, we need you to opine about President Kennedy's murder. Are you going to do it? I don't know. Judge for yourself. He also writes, the girl smiles nervously knowing she screwed the pooch. Reynolds would later go on to fame as the original host of ABCs, long running Nightline, a late night, innovative national news program originally designed to hype hysteria the Iranian hostage hoax, a hoax that gave the final push to bring American militarism back to respectability in the minds of the gullible public, making perpetual war as routine policy a fait accompli. End. Quote, I do plan to talk about the October surprise, some of the conspiracy theories around the hostages and the election of Reagan, what actually happened with Carter, a topic for another time under the tab the Dallas Police Force Tyrone writes along with the Secret Service. Dallas motorcycle cops escorting the President were ordered to remain behind and to the side of the limousine so as not to obstruct the public's view of the President and First Lady like the leashed in Secret Service agents the trailing motorcycle cops gave the shooters an unobstructed view of their target. Again, the opportunity was seized upon to blame the President for his own death. Kennedy's detractors in the post mortem literature have kept up this barrage Kennedy's apparent reckless disregard for his safety echoed these detractors assertions that the commie loving trader had a total disregard for the safety of the nation, to which these claims invariably implied America didn't lose much with Kennedy's murder, and almost subconsciously suggested a vote of thanks to the pop poppers for getting rid of such a dangerous peacenik. End quote. What I think is interesting about this passage is that that's exactly how I would categorize this piece. If JFK faked his own death, we didn't lose anything, if he was willing to do it, if he was complicit in this, and he was willing to fake his own death and cause a big national period of mourning, make people very upset, allow LBJ to ascend the throne, whatever that even fucking means, really, and kick off Vietnam, then he's a piece of shit too, because he went along with it. All roads lead back to the same argument. We didn't lose much that day. There's no reason to probe, there's no reason to ask any questions. There's no reason to debate any of it. Don't do any research. It's pointless. We didn't lose anything he argues, of course, as you might suspect, that the murder of JD tippet was a hoax. It was done to gain sympathy for the force as a whole, and then also to make sure that the entire police force went behind the charges that were levied against Oswald. He excuse me, my voice is trying to go. He believes that the autopsy photos we see are actually of a wax dummy. He makes the argument that also the murder of Tippett was a hoax, and it was staged in order to pay for all of the planet witnesses and crisis actors involved, so that donations would be set up for Tippett widows and widow and orphans, and then those donations could be used to pay for people that were crisis actors. His opinion, his assertion, not mine. He also tells us that he believes all the important people in the Dallas Police Department were also Masons. He branches off into some other topics, particularly as he's discussing the idea that there was more than one Oswald, and he shows a series of photographs where it's pretty clear that all of these men that are supposed to be Oswald are not all the same man. I mean, anybody with two eyes is going to be able to tell that you're looking at different people, at minimum, two different men. He writes, it's well documented that Wall Street and the City of London paid for and maintained the Communist Revolution in Russia. The most accessible source for that claim is the work of Anthony C Sutton. He shows categorically that the dichotomous split between communism and capitalism was manufactured from the beginning. I intend to record an episode, at least one, maybe more, about Sutton's book about Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. I have wondered before about the Cold War being manufactured, because it's like we immediately go from World War Two kaboom into the Cold War, and then the Cold War is used as an excuse for so much terrible behavior. Now I feel like we're getting a little far afield from JFK faked his own death, but you know, that's Tyrone's choice to do that. He also writes, Karl Marx was a Western intelligence agent. He was bankrolled by his uncle on his mother's side, Benjamin Phillips, head of one of the richest families in Europe. Marx's own wife, Jenny von Westphalen, came from old line Prussian aristocracy. In Marx's writings, he appears to be advocating the overthrow of all that his family lines hold near and dear, until you realize Marx was controlled opposition, and his writings and actions were eternally subdividing liberal factions into useless cadres distracted by infighting over semantics, there's another good potential topic for us to talk about. Was Karl Marx a Western intelligence agent? Was he controlled opposition? As Tyrone points out, it was easy, awfully easy, for Oswald to enter the Soviet Union, and then it was also very easy for him to come back wink at the right time. He also shows pictures, evidently, of two different Marguerite Oswalds. So it's like how many different Oswalds were there. I mean, you have more than one Lee Harvey Oswald, and then now, apparently we have more than one of Oswald's mother. Something is definitely a miss. He also points out that after Oswald is shot, there's a brief glimpse where there's no sign of a wound, no blood. And no powder burns. So is the whole thing. One big staged, crazy cuckoo Sara Kennedy's not murdered, therefore Oswald was also not murdered. Jack Ruby didn't murder Oswald. Tip it wasn't murdered. Jack Ruby probably doesn't even die himself. Hmm. He writes this. Kennedy speech writers had the actor in chief say all the right things, emphasizing progress and celebrating youthfulness and healthy living. When manufactured troubles like the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban missile crisis hit the airwaves, the young leaders steered the public's emotions carefully toward and then away from panic and the relief these psychological warfare operations generated only gained him further popularity. If there was any opposition to him, personally or his policies, they came from the same elements that play the opposition in all of these phony left right splits in opinion, the corporate media and their intelligence handlers. End quote,

he also writes, As for the space race and his pleas for cooperation with the Soviets, we all breathe the same air. There were likely more a hedge against Soviets spilling the beans in their slavishly incompetent way, with regards to the fact that space travel was simply not possible, no matter how many Nazi scientists you could buy off without any great digression, we have never visited the moon. The espionage agency known as NASA was a weapons and surveillance development front. DARPA carries on most of the research and development now, and NASA is nothing more than an internal government money laundromat beyond financing advanced CGI imagery systems to broadcast the illusion of a space program. The rest of the money allocated for phantom projects like the ISs are secretly redirected to Earthbound projects slash payoffs in other military intelligence agencies. Then he shows a picture and says shadows on the moon close enough for government work. End quote. So again, we're in the territory of everything is fake. And there are people who, Jay winder, I think, said we eventually did go to the moon, but not in the video that you see, that was staged by Stanley Kubrick. We're we're right in the territory of everything's a hoax. Anything major that you have ever heard of is a hoax. He writes, The Kennedy handlers made great use of the media, especially television, to further the charade of a liberal, progressive administration. The photogenic first couple were never off the front pages and off television screens for too long. The White House Tour Jackie hosted on CBS in 1962 brought the office of the presidency out to the public television program is essentially what the Kennedy administration was all about. End quote, I don't disagree with him there. I really don't, because

let me think about how I want

to say this exactly. It was very clear that JFK himself, as well as the people around him understood the importance of media. And I'm thinking about what happened to Marlon Brando as a case in point. There was all that mess about Mutiny on the Bounty and a lot of that, the delays and the cost and the budget and all of this got laid at the feet of Brando, and Saturday Evening Post wrote a scathing article about how he was the hold up. He was the drama. He was the problem, and it really soured his career. Through most of the 60s, he doesn't have his great comeback until films like The Godfather and Last Tango in the early 1970s but throughout most of the 60s, if you go back and watch the Brando films of that era, a lot of them are not great. So the media can make you or break you in a lot of cases. And I think that JFK and the people around him understood that television programming definitely had an integral part, along with the photographs, the all the beautiful photographs of JFK and Jackie and the kids and the ponies and all of this. I mean, that certainly played a role in the administration. Anybody would be crazy to say otherwise. So here is his argument a bit more crystallized. He writes, What happened in Dallas was television programming, nothing more, and Dallas was the place to stage this dog and pony show. It was in the Central Time Zone, half past noon, so the entire country would be awake and alert and accessible to the broadcast. The people would hear the drama unfold live and direct from the major networks, AP UPI and Reuters, the three largest wire services in the world would control the dispatches to local outlets. Only in Dallas would there be original reports, and as I said, Dallas, one of the most corrupt cities in the world, would be controlled on the ground by the police and the Secret Service as well. The investigation would be under total control of trusted assets of the intelligence agencies and the military. End quote. A little further down, he writes, The strangle hold corporate media had on the collective imagination in the post war era is difficult to comprehend. In this internet age, this hegemony allowed those few in control of this apparatus to sell any fairy tale or nightmare they chose. If you agree that nuclear weapons are a hoax, then Kennedy's performance during the Cuban Missile Crisis identifies him as one of the perpetrators, and not a martyr for justice and civil rights. He is one of them, and was born into it. He was no more a traitor to his class than FDR was. These so called liberal administrations impose a covert socialist agenda. They are the ones who wage war on their own citizens, the hawks and conservatives wage war abroad, both fronts, domestic and foreign, must be tended to periodically, all while the rights of the citizens are whittled away in the name of national security. It's one of the oldest cons on the books. End quote. Part of that, I think, is absolutely true. It is an old con. Was the Cuban Missile Crisis a hoax? Are nuclear weapons a hoax. Is it? Basically, to go back to what I've said before, is this a situation where everything you've ever heard of any major event, positive or negative is a hoax? I mean, are the conspiracy theorists who are just like, everything's a hoax. It's all fake. It's all lies. Are they the ones that are telling the truth? He goes on to identify the island of Scorpios, the island that was a central compound for Aristotle Onassis. So just as we see with Jay Widener and JFK X, the idea is that Kennedy fakes his own death, and then he winds up in Greece on the island of Scorpios, having some connection there to Aristotle Onassis, who Jackie later marries, as we know. And He further writes, he and Jackie had several different dwellings, one of which was a horse farm in New Jersey, the best candidate for where JFK hid upon his return to the United States, likely in 1975 after Onassis possibly did die. So there you go. Did JFK fake his own death? And then go off to Greece, and then he was still able to have a relationship with Jackie and his kids. And then, when Onassis probably died in 1975 he went back to a horse farm in New Jersey to live out the rest of his days.

You be the judge.

Tyrone believes that in 1988 25 years after the Pop Pop, The Manchurian Candidate, was finally re released to theaters, and he feels that that happened sometime around JFK, is actual real death at the age of 71 it was a signal to the operators of the hoax so that they could go ahead and re release The Manchurian Candidate to theaters. And the response to the Manchurian Candidate would indicate how the public would respond to a film about jfk's murder, which would turn out to be Oliver Stone's film JFK. He believes that Oliver Stone is probably an intelligence agent himself, and that his film, by proxy, is more of this propaganda under the tab other Dead Kennedys. We learned that after JFK is false, murder had concluded Bobby was the next one up to be fake murder, also JFK JR and the plane crash with the wife and the sister in law that was a hoax. They did not die of the little baby Patrick, who died shortly after his birth, he writes that Jackie smoked herself to an early grave. So it's possible that Patrick was the victim of bad prenatal care, or he may have been hidden away to take place behind the curtain from birth. That would be one strategy for increasing the hidden yield by having natives of the deception never know of their public origins. Another possibility in the drive to accelerate the Irish American Kennedy clan within the hidden oligarchic power structure, have this son simply breed more Kennedy's without the encumbrance of public scrutiny.

Wow. So even a baby

has been accused now of faking his own.

I can't believe some of the stuff I read you guys.

He talks about Joe Kennedy, Jr, who was, you know, according to him, allegedly supposedly killed in World War Two. Like, why would he have taken on this suicide mission, as Tyrone writes, the wealthy, the Uber wealthy, do not put their children in harm's way, especially not during wars that they have helped to create. So he believes that also, Joe Kennedy Jr faked his own death, and then Catherine kick who died in a plane crash in 48 she. She also faked her own death. In fact, he talks about Kathleen and her husband, William Cavendish, and he writes, no matter if the couple appeared deceased, the families know and the bloodlines continue, the children produced secretly simply are integrated into the public branches of the family. Did rose and Ethel really sire nine and 11 kids respectively. All it takes is a press release to announce another unseen birth and the two ghosts continue whatever invisible machinations assigned to them. End. Quote, okay, so there you go. I mean, it's not uncommon for families of certain religions to be large families. I've known several Catholic and Mormon families, both that had a multitude of kids. In fact, there was a lady in the town where I live that had 11 kids. Now they were the Christian fundamentalist types that believed in the quiver of arrows, but she absolutely went until the 11th kid. She had a lot of complications with the pregnancy, and the baby was born prematurely and had to go in the NICU. And finally, her doctor was like, I think it's time to be done. Like the next pregnancy could kill you, but they were not going to stop until they were stopped, honestly. So, I mean, it's not, it's not that uncommon for some families to have a multitude of children. You don't have to have somebody fake their own death to be breeders. He says that Chappaquiddick was a hoax that was designed to keep Ted Kennedy away from the presidency. And there's a conspiracy theory to talk about at some point. What actually happened at Chappaquiddick? Did he like actually, in whether intentionally or unintentionally kill that woman, or was all of that stage to keep him away from the presidency, towards the conclusion, he talks about the idea that history is bunk, because to the victor go the spoils, and the victors will then burn down the libraries of whatever nation they've conquered and then rewrite history to their own favor and get rid of dissenting views. He also, for good measure, lets us know that he thinks that the death of Marie Antoinette was a hoax. Of all the things that he says in this very long essay when he writes, the real power in the world is never seen. I was like, Yeah, that might be the truest statement in the entire post.

Whew. That was an experience, wasn't it?

Wow, wow. We Wow, wow.

I mean, I always say, I don't tell you what to do, I don't tell you what to think you're gonna have to make up your own mind. Me personally, do I think that JFK faked his own death and then ran off to Greece? Whether he ran off to Greece to be with Jackie and with his kids, or he ran off to be with some mistress? No, I personally don't. Now some of the other things that he brings up the President as a figurehead that doesn't actually have any power. I agree elections as a circus or a show for the unwashed masses, but not really deciding anything. Yes, I agree with that television and mass media being an integral part of Kennedy's campaign and then his administration. Yes, I agree with that. Is it possible that the adoring crowd at Love Field was simply a group of pre screened paid actors? Yeah, of course. It's possible. Of course it is. Now, did the motorcade vanish and leave a group of paid actors to make that fateful trip through the plaza? I don't know about that. I mean, look, we know that leaders have body doubles. This is very common, and it's been done for years and years and years. That's nothing new. I don't necessarily know that a body double was killed that day instead of the real JFK, or that nobody was killed and it was all just faked on television. I mean, Tyrone doesn't seem to think that there was the use of a squib or some kind of special effects makeup, that it was all just a hoax that was perpetrated through the use of pictures and film, that the actors were the only ones there and they weren't going to squeal. So the only way the American public knows, in quotations, knows that Kennedy got shot was because they're they've been told, and then they saw it on the Zapruder film. I do think it's an interesting question. He asked, If there had been a pop popper on the grassy knoll, was that person willing to maim or kill Jackie? I mean, had there just been the slightest miss, she could have died that day too, assuming there was a real pop popper there. Why do so many of these people who were in Dallas that day form an interconnected web? I mean, there are some really good questions that he asks In this essay. As I've said before, and look, just my opinion, it could be wrong. I think we tend to find two different styles here with something that I would consider to be either controlled opposition or intentional misinformation. It's either 90% bullshit with 10% truth mixed in, or the other way, around, about 90% truth with 10% bullshit mixed in. I think that we're getting a lot of weird, far fetched over the top claims in this essay, but then at the same time, you get some very good questions mixed in. He makes some good points. So it's like a lot of what I in my opinion, what I would call bullshit and weird oddities. But then every so often, he throws a curve ball, and you're like, Well, wait a minute, that question actually makes sense. That point is a valid point. I could see that I could believe that I could go there. So what do you think was this television? Was this some kind of psyop? Was it designed to terrorize and torment people? Did you have it in between these bookends, let's say of Eisenhower Nixon and then Johnson, did you have JFK in the middle to galvanize the youth, to give people hope to be a pretend peace Nick, to make people think that the nation was moving forward. There was going to be a new vision for the 60s. And then, haha, no, not really. We're back to war Hawking. We're going to sort of rub the young people's nose in the fact that they have no power and no control. Your little prince, your golden man, is dead, and now we're going back to some old asshole that's going to drag everybody to war. Was that the point? Was he an actor? Was he sincere, or was he an actor? Did he go along with it? Are nuclear weapons a hoax? Was the Cuban Missile Crisis, therefore a hoax? And if it was, was Kennedy in on it? Is it possible that the whole thing was a hoax? But he didn't know that, and he really was legitimately stressed out and freaked the fuck out, or did he know and he was just going along with it because it was part of the role that he was meant to play. These are not questions that I can answer for you. I can give you my opinion, which could be wrong, and in my opinion, most of this essay is fucking bonkers. But by that same token, he does ask some good questions. He sneaks in some really good material, and you're like, Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. This is worth thinking about. This is a point worth pondering.

Stay a little crazy, 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.