That Day in Dallas-Lee Harvey Oswald Did Not Shoot JFK

0:00 The topics and opinions expressed in the following show are solely those of the hosts and their guests and not those of w FOCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates. We make no recommendations or endorsements for radio show programs, services, or products mentioned on air or on our web. No liability, explicit or implied shall be extended to W FOURCY Radio or its employees are affiliates. Any questions or comments should be directed to those show hosts. Thank you for choosing W FOURCY Radio. Well, it's been over six decades, right, and the mystery still continues as to who was responsible for killing John F.

0:47 Kennedy. And you know has many. As many people out there are opinions, but clearly the majority of America believes that this is a conspiracy that yet has been resolved. And one of the greatest mysteries is why the man accused of assassinating President John F. Kennedy was himself gonned down. Think about that, right? Well, Robert Tannenbaum, who was an attorney that in seventy six was appointed Deputy Chief Council in charge of the Congressional Investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy. He is the author of the book That Day in Dallas, Leigh Harvey Oswald did Not Kill JFK. He's an author of thirty three books twenty nine novels for nonfiction books. One of the most successful prosecuting attorneys, having never lost a fellow new trial and convicting hundreds of violent criminals. He was a special prosecution consultant on the Hillside Strangler case in Los Angeles and defended Amy Grosberg in her sensationalized baby death case. He was the Assistant District Attorney in New York County and the office of legendary District Attorney Frank Hogan, where he ran the homicide Bureau. Robert Tennenbaum joins us, now, welcome to the show. Good to have you with us.

2:01 Sir, Yeah, thank you, thank you. It was good to be here. Well, this has been one of those questions that has haunted the American people for six decades as to who shot JFK. And in your book That Day in Dallas, you said, there's no question about it, it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswell. That's right. The evidence in the case is overwhelming. As a matter of fact, the way I got involved in this whole thing. Was in aug was in October of seventy six, and Richard A. Sprague, who was mister Pennsylvania as far as lawyers were concerned. He was a chief assistant DA in Philadelphia, and he was he became in the middle of October seventy six he was appointed Chief Counselor of the House of that Committee on Assassinations where I was looking into the assassinations at President Kennedy and the Reverend doctor Martin Luther King, and.

2:56 He called me up. I didn't know who he was. I was, as you mentioned that, during a homicide here, and I was trying murder case. After I was prosecuting murder case after murder case turned out that the only person who ever tried more, no one ever tried more in New York than I, but Richard Spray tried more than I. And that's kind of guy he was. He was tremendous and teperity person and a brilliant, brilliant, wonderful individual. So he called me up in the middle of October seventy sixth and asked me if I wanted to be part of this investigation that he wanted me to work with him on the assassination of President Kennedy, and it was a subcommittee. So we met, we chatted, and I believed in him that he was a truth seeker, and indeed I was right, and we stayed together for many, many years. We had a forty six year friendship as a result of meeting through this case and what happened when we went to Washington. As you know, so that committee has a life of two years. That is to say, it gets funded. All the standing committees funded each every couple of years. They don't go through a press, but a select committee has a two year life. So this select committee was starting in seventy seven in January, and it would have expired or did expire in seventy eight December thirty one.

4:19 Now, a lot of things. Happened during this period of time because ultimately Sprague and I obtained a commitment from the members of the committee that they would not interfere with the investigation, they wouldn't politicize this thing. If they did, we would leave because it's their committee. It was a congressional committee, wasn't a Tanaban committee or a Spray committee. And they agreed they were not pulled around with this, and we said, we have no brief in this case. That is to say, we're not coming down here to say Oswell did it or Oswell did it to it? We don't know and exactly, but whatever the evidence would be, we're going to tell the American public, if that's what you. Want, Robert, I want to make sure our audience understands the kind of attorney that you and Sprague represent, which is the majority of attorneys. You didn't come in with a fixed agenda. You didn't come in, you know, off the heels of you know, the Warrant Commission or what anybody else said. You just said, look at we're attorneys.

5:11 We follow the evidence, and we follow the evidence to it to its truthful conclusion. Is that fair to say? That's exactly right to say. And that's what we started out doing. And as a matter of fact, what happened was but the evidence in this case is so overwhelming that when I spoke to lous Stokes every day and he was the chairman of our committee Lustos, he was a kind of he was a member of the or the the House for represented Cleveland, Ohio. And as a matter of fact, he took a special seat because his brother, Karl STOs was the first black mayor of Cleveland. They wanted to have a federal seat so that they can get the money and do good things with infrastructure, schools, education, all these kinds of things that you know, people want when they go to Washington. Whether they do it when they get there's a whole other story, whole other story.

6:03 Anyway. Our story is is that first week we were in Washington, I got a call from Richard Schweiker. He's a Republican member of the so called Church Committee, which was investigating the assassinations of the executive intelligence agencies, and they wanted to know the effect on the executive intelligence agencies and who may have committed the murders that were involved with President Kennedy and ultimately with Martin Luther King. So the bottom line here was that Schweiker told me he wanted to sit in the Schweiker again a conservative Republican. He wasn't ounced for any kind of self angrandizement. He wasn't looking for any meetings with the press, etc. And as a matter of fact, he was very subdued because he said, I want you to take my notes. The evidence is in there from what we found. We know that you're not bound by it by any stretchy imagination. And I said that's correct. And I said, what else can I do for you? He said, I want you to know two things, both of which I know your background. You were head of the criminal courts and the homicide hereau in the New York County DA's office. And when you were ahead of the criminal courts, you had two hundred and fifty new cases every day because we arranged seven days a week at night as well as during the day.

7:21 So there were one hundred and fifty new cases during the day and one hundred at night. And he said, I need someone who can evaluate caseload, who can evaluate evidence. You're the person for me. So that was what the whole thing with Sprague was. And so anyway, Schwiker gives me his notes and he said, what I have to tell you is that the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, totally obstructed this investigation from inception. They lie told you. He told you that upfront. Up front, right the first week when I was in Washington, when he asked me to come to his office when it all happened in his office, and he said, they totally obstructed this investigation. They lied, they made things up, and it's all there in my notes. But what really rankles me, and I must say it's gut rentry for me to tell you, is someone who spent ten years in the DA's office in Manhattan doing what you were doing.

8:17 We know about all the cases that you prosecuted. They were all cases, jury cases. Confernic by the way, not that you put a juror in the box and someone then polase guilty. Oh I haven't I just had a jury trial. Yeah, no, that's a dream. But anyway, what I'm saying is that he then said to me what his gut wrenchry for me to tell you is from the evidence as we found it, CIA was involved and participated in the assassination. Of President John F. Kennedy. Well, I must tell you he was right. I was shocked. And when he told me that, I felt that there were like ten gallons of ice water poured on my head. Because because you're kind of going into this in with a neutral mindset, saying okay, let me find the evidence, and so the guy who brings you in says, well, let me tell you. Let me tell you upfront all my research. I mean at this point, where what fourteen almost fifteen years since the assassination, right.

9:11 Yeah, exactly, This was seventy seven six. I was appointed in October, right, and then is seventy seven It was the first week I was in Washington on this case along with Sprague. And that's when Senator Richard Schwiker called me to tell me what his findings were, because he was head of the subcommittee the Congression, the Senatorial Subcommittee on the assassination that occurred in the Executive Intelligence ass is how they responded to it. That was what his mission was. So he investigated the Kennedy assassination. And these were the things he told me the very first week we were in Washington. So what other things did he revealed to you, Robert, besides that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK.

9:58 Did he refute the sole gunman, Lee Harvey Oswell, that. Is probably the evidence that was offered by the select committee was so embarrassing. And he said that to me during the course of the conversation. He said, you're not going to believe what people did who were on these committees. They definitely, in his opinion, the government contrived knowingly This was not some naive situation. He claimed from the evidence, all of which was in his notes, that the government knowingly contrived the predetermined conclusion through the pretense of an investigation. It was a pretense probe, if you will, and both the Warrant Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, according to his opinion, were disregarded all the convincing and testimony of evidence that and trustworthy evidence that was there, and it's still there as far as he was concerned, You'll be very surprised.

10:58 How would so accessible? I said, why? Why has nobody else come up with this? Exactly? That's that I want to. Tell you why. And you're going to hear this from other people who I'm sure Low Stokes, who was chairman of the committee, will tell you and verify this. People were afraid of retaliation from the CIA if they investigated this case properly. I said, that is something that I find absolutely also incredible. Moreover, what was incredible was the committee decided, after they came down with the single bullet theory with neutron activation analysis, the ellegts science in this case, they claimed, and you know, the lest science metallurgical PhDs like PhDs rather by metallurgical PhDs when they heard about this neutron activation analysis, which was the principal testing component for comparative bullet letter analysis.

11:59 What does all that mean? I mean is that they claimed he's so called experts from neutron activation analysis. They claimed that a fragment could match a fragment and a fragment could match a bullet. Why is this important in the case, because the in the justification for what they decided the CIA decided to go through, it was that neutron activation analysis NAA was science and if anybody disbelieved the science of NAA, and this is what they said, this is not something to be made up, that then you believe in the world is flat. Oh yeah, exactly yeah, same argument they told us about COVID, right, yeah.

12:41 Exactly, yeah, there's no question. And so what happened was no one bothered from the government at that time to speak to metallurgical PhDs. But once they found out about what was. Being alleged from NAA, they came in and they said NAA is invalid and here are the reasons why you can't get involved in this soup. Development of these issues as it relates to for example, a pistol. We know from every pistol that's made as an infirmity, and so now bullet spins through it. You have the loops in the world, and you can show that they came from the same gun. That's not what this is. That's not what neutron activation analysis is. That is since and the importance in the case, in the lie which the evidence tells us, was that the NAA issue left two pieces of missiles in the case, two pieces of ballistics. Why they claimed that that there were two major fragments in the limo that matched each other and that they came from one bullet. Then they said Governor Connolly had some fragments removed from his wrist because Tonnally, as you know, was struck as they found out that they made up that in their wound in JFK's throat, the magic all it came out finally in the back and the shoulder, fractured his his axial nerve, in his right wrist and seven to ten and in his thumb and is between his right thumb and his right index finger. Now this

14:13 bullet talking about absurdity was that we know from from what happened at dearly Plaza. The government's position was and has never changed for six or two years, is that there were three shots from the rear of JFK. One hit him in the head and one hit him in the right in the in the body five six inches below the neckline, so the opening were on the throat. It was below the neckline on the show of the blade area of his back, and it was a downward track exactly. Rushian Arose I wanted to know if that was If that's the case, we know that from war tops you and all this evidence is in the book. It's all in the book. So what happened was they said, yes, there was a downward track, but you know what happened here, It actually went up eleven degrees and came out JF case throat.

15:02 And that's the bullet of the one bullet theory. Now, I mean, you mean, in all your court cases and dealing with and dealing with any kind of bullet trajectory, you've never seen a bullet, you know, alter its flight. Well, offer its trail. It all takes a rail, right, Yeah, we want to talk about the absurdities of this case. By the way, the House Select Committee decided that once they were getting questioned about what they were finding, they then sealed for fifty years the evidence in this case, which was totally improper to do. In my judgment, there's no there was no evidence here that we found to this date that dealt with national security. And I said to them, I said to the government people, if there is any interferes here or disclosures we don't want to make about about national security, we'll go to court. We'll have an end camera, you know, a private meeting with the judge on the record, and asked the judge to make a I know from my experience when I looked at all these documents, there's nothing there involving any embarrassment or unnecessary disclosures of national security or anything else. So they totally ignore this. But here's the other aspect of the case which I think is important, and that is when the shots were fired at Daily Plaza, and when you and again Sprague and I did nothing different than we did with investigating every murder case we had responsibility for, and for that matter, every other case as well. And that is there were

16:33 five shots fired at Daily Plaza. I mean the significance of it was the witnesses were very important. Why do I say that, because most witnesses feel if they can't make an identification of a shooter, and in a shooting murder for example, or any kind of case like that where they think they could identify the shooter at a lineup, they don't think they made any contribution. But that's not the case, because here we go at Dearly Plaza. The witnesses told us that there were basically from all the documents and everything else we looked at that there were two flurries of shots. The first flurry hit. Kennedy and Connelly in the back, and Kennedy according to the government, that was hitting the head. Those were it turned out because of the science in the case. Keep in mind, from when I was investigating this case, I had what I call immutable evidence scientific visual, audio, and acoustics that were laid out more scientifically than others who at the time were doing this. So when I say that the witnesses said there were two or three shots in the first flurry, there were three shots, we know that.

17:36 And they said it happened very quickly, Well, we know what happened in two point six seconds. And then they said, by the way, all the shooting at that at the at dearly Plasa took eight point three seconds two point six they said. It happened quickly. Then the witnesses said there was a pause. The pause was four point eight seconds. They didn't know these numbers right exactly. And then this is what happened. And I urge everybody to take a good look at this see for yourself. We're about to tell you. The fourth shot was a boom blast that people on the bridge watching the motorcade, the limo come down Elm going westerly, and that was Holland and his other group of five that were with him and so on.

18:21 They immediately turned to their left to look at the area of the stockade fence. A matter of fact, when you look and you look at Zapru to filming, he looks over there in that area, and there were people on the grass in front of that area who went down on the grass to someone who protect their children because they thought they were a line of fire. Right. So now at frame three one three, I call that Zapru to frame three one three, we see and again this is all in the book that day in Dallas. It's in the book because it represents what we see a major flare and that's the shot that blows Kennedy's head out. So he's murdered complete lately, he's murdered at frame three thirteen. I even have frame three twelve and there, so you see the difference right away, Bengal, it's eighteen point three frames per second from the film. So when we're talking a few frames, it's an insignificant period of time because.

19:16 Four Robert and Robert, this is a side shot. And it isn't right. That's right, because seven tenths of a second later is the fifth shot that takes place in this case, and it it's Kennedy in the top of his cow lick. And we were able to Bob Groden and I Bob Groden was a representative expert in all of this who worked with me on this issue when we determined that there must have been a fifth shot because of all of the damage that the fragments had done. But where'd they come from? But I'll get to that in the moment, because what happened with the fourth shot that was in the stockade fence area in close proximity to where Zach Rudu is filming this shot and this is what destroys in part, the entire government pretense of an investigation. The fourth shot was Kennedy's head to violently move backwards and to his left, just as I'm doing here for you.

20:13 Now his head with he was shot here above the right temple and above the right temple, above his right ear. His head snaps back as if he were hit with a baseball. About it, some of the witnesses said, who were watching this whole thing? And it falls on his wife's right shoulder where he becomes vitally depressed. He's immobile and he basically is slum dead resting on Missus Kennedy's right shoulder. But why do I mention this to you? Is so important? We know this as human beings who know the very basics of science. If someone is shot in the back of the head, which the government says Kennedy was, how does his head go backwards? No, does it goes forward?

20:53 Thank you. Now, the government was confronted with dilemma. They knowingly went out of its way to say that Kennedy was shot three times off from the back. But now the evidence shows us on film that is head snapped back. So what the government did to try to cover that up was to make ten gelatinized skulls, and they were going to do with a shooting practice same height as the depository window, six floor, same distance, same rifle. And they then shot these ten skulls and guess which direction they went take a while, Guess. Well, they had to go forward exactly. Thank you very much. You win the prize, you get the cooopy doll here, that's it.

21:34 I'm a witness for you. So how can they justify all this? And that's how they come up with neuchrun activation analysis, and then that gets destroyed because these metallurgical PhDs went out of their way to give skating critiques. And so what happened was the FBI now was under the gun because they had sent agents into court under road testifying that you can match to a fragment or a fragment to a bullet. And now the I said, please, do the experts. Give us the ten best experts you know in the country who are metallurgical experts, and we want to know what their opinion is. And they did that, and every one of them in their opinion was you shoot somebody in the back of the head. The head's going to go forward. This is so basic.

22:16 Yeah, I mean Rogers and Roger Stone even presented it in his movie as you know. Well, I'm not something if I tell you about something about Stone. In my opinion, we don't share the same view of America. I thank god I was born in Brooklyn, New York. Okay, you don't have to you know what I'm coming from with that. Yeah, I know, and I don't perceive him. And I've had this argument with him about how we differ about what America is and so on. I'm very much as far as my value system goes somewhere, you know, between Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington. So but that doesn't mean I don't listen to other people and I don't respect their right to have a different opinion. I'm just telling you myself and that movie. The reason I mentioned Stone was he puts in that movie a load of important It's very difficult for someone to watch that film for the first time and process it all. So to his credit, I told him this when we met on occasion. You know, what you've done here is a good service, no question about it. And that's my opinion, and he was very gracious about it all. Always we were very professional. This wasn't any head of anti stuff.

23:20 So we now know that neutron activation analysis was invalid. And the one bullet theory is an embarrassment because how do you get a bullet that has a downward track to come up eleven degrees and come out the throat in order to justify what the one bullet theory is all about? Right, So Robert, let me ask you what about was there any validity to that bullet that was found in the stretcher. No, because the bullet that was found in the structure they claimed to be the pristine bullet. That's the other aspect of all this. In the evidence in the book, I was able to show where the government took that bullet as an example and and and did test firing with the bullet and with other similar bullets. And that is to say they had they took two shots with bullets into cotton wadding. Well, there was no deformity, nor did anybody expect it. But that's two bullets. So the third, the third bullet, I'm sorry, the fourth bullet was shot and struck Kennedy in the rib, and that bullet was had some deformity. The fifth bullet struck struck the skeleton in the right wrist. This is the axial nerve and the right wrist where Kennedy was where Connolly was shot, and that's where they took that fragment from. And that's where Connolly was struck. According to the government in the single bullet theory. From the bullet going up with eleven degrees out the throat, it struck.

24:52 It struck Connolly in the back, in the right shoulder and the right in. His back and his rib and struck him the actual nerve. Now, why didn't want to mention this against you because when you look at the testing that the government did on this bullet, it was totally deformed. But not the pristine bullet, not alleguly did all this. You're with me, and I'm saying, I know, I guess confused after a while. But the bottom line here is that the pristine bullet that they used and this five bullet example, the first two in cotton wadding, no deformity. The fourth bullet I'm talking one is the pristaine two three cotton watting. The fourth bullet strikes the rib and then the fifth bullet, which did most of the damage here struck and in the actual nerve in Connolly's wrist fractured his wrist. And by the way, how do we know all this as well? Connelly, as you recall, was holding that stetson hat, the white hat, exactly upside down, so they could just flip it on to all the shooting. He holds onto that except when he gets that shot in the axial nerve, and it would be the equivalent that doctors have told me the experts is if we were shot in the right below the knee. If that were the case, we would fall down.

26:15 We wouldn't be able to stand up. Similarly, when you're shot in the axial nerve and it fractures your wrist and severs the tendon in your right hand from right thumb to index finger, you must he must have had. That's why he experienced and that's why he drops the white stets in hat. So there were so many different ways to tell the truth here, but yet our government contrived its conclusion. It was predetermined that it was a pretense and none of this evidence was off it. By the way, the Parkland doctors offering what were potential major truth tellers in this case here they are in trauma Room one when the body is brought in and they're trying to do everything they can experimentally or in otherwise.

26:59 We're all within the is that they were familiar with. They could not save his life, and they tried to do everything they could to do it. And it's amazing how heroic that was, Robert, because his brain, half of his brain was out of his skull. That's exactly right. And what your perfect point I wanted to mention that to you, and that is that doctor kem Clark, who was chief of neurosurgery, was in the intrauma Room one with his staff and he said he observed the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head and it was it was the lower right occipital bone, which is the harryella bone in the occipal bone meet together in the back of our head that was blown out. And he said he saw the cerebellum. And Clint Hill was a secret service as when he went and hit the car at the back of it, he looked down, he said he saw JFK had an empty head and he wrote about that in his own book.

27:52 Clinton And also that the Jacqueline Kennedy when you saw her, you know, jumping to the back of the truck was and Clinton I interviewed Clinton. He said that she was just grabbing the president's brain matter and bringing him back in. So then we have doctor Robert McClellan. This is interesting. He drafted a vivid diagram and an expert came in and it depicted the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, which has been legendary. You see it. It's about this large just taking hole in the back of the president's head. And then an interesting phenomenon was that doctor Robert Shaw was the thoracic surgeon that helped out that went right to the aid of Governor Connolly in the drama room, and he did something and says something a few people mentioned, but I want you to hear it, and that is that doctor Robert Shaw, who was Connery's thorastic surgeon, said that it was a downward track.

28:54 He keep in mind, this was before he smoke to anybody, and that has to say other than the injured. And he said it downward track. And he's talking into his microphone as the doctors do at autopsy and sell on the pictures of which they want to make sure that anyone else who comes in can pick. It up right away. And they don't own this day. Know that it's all scientific and they share information. And Shaw said that the shot in Connell that hit Connolly was had a twenty seven degree declination downward. Track exactly right. Let me let me ask you this side sidebar, real quick. I'm sorry, but did they ever did they ever determine that the rifle that Lee rb Oswald supposedly used, Was there any evidence of that around had been shot from that gun?

29:45 No? And I want to tell you something about it. Let me just finish this point to us. Oh yeah, all right, I'm sorry. I'm going to go right to that the rifle issue, the problem they really had, and it deals exactly with your question, so thank you. I'm going to get right to it though, and that is Robert Shaw said. Doctor Roberts Shore said that there was a twenty seven degree declination and it was a downward track in and out bullet that hit Connolly in the back. Remember what the first shots the first flurry? Right, here's something few people you have ever mentioned. Guess what the downward track is? From the rooftop of the County Records building, in the northeast corner of Houston Street and Elm and that was directly to the rear of presidential the presidential limo. That the downward track from the rooftop of the County Records Building to the point of hitting Connelly and Kennedy in the back was twenty seven degrees. Now keep in mind you know this that the downward track from the County Records Building on high has a direct view of Elm Street and that limo moving down westerly. So when people say, what is the evidence of another shooter, that is evidence of another shooter. And here's why a problem occurred in the case. And part of the problem that occurred in the case was that the following had happened. In December of sixty three, the Secret Service of the FBI found that Connolly and Kennedy was struck by two separate bullets.

31:18 Two separate bullets, both were shot within one point nine seconds of each other. Well, why is that important? This wipes out the Van Louko Carcano rifle as the murder with whys because the man look of Carcano takes two point three seconds in order to engage in the. Right exactly repeat that for a moment. Kennedy and Connolly were struck with separate bullets at a differential of one point nine seconds in order for that rifle to fire, or it takes two point three seconds. So the best that it could say in this case was they got off the first shot, it could not have got off the second shot. Therefore it is no longer the major murder weapon in this case.

31:58 Exactly. But yet, you know, they showed this demonstration I think was ABC did this whole demonstration about this nineteen dollars rifle and how they were able to release those rounds. You know, accordingly, so it was irrefutable. But here you know, you're proving, you know, you're saying it was impossible. Exactly, it's possible because you can't get off the second shot from the rifle in less than two point three seconds, right, Well, then who else shot? There had to be another shooter to the extent that we know there was more than one shot, and that it. Took. The manual bolt action says you can't fire this rifle, the manical coccano rifle in less than two point three seconds, But they were hit between one point nine seconds. All of what you see when they lied they didn't know any of this. Whatever happen, they didn't know. The zach Ruder film would show us exactly what was going on here.

32:55 Frame three thirteen, we see the president's head step back. Heads do not step back when they're shot from the back has moved forward when they're hit. By the way, an interesting thing I think for your audience to appreciate what you're doing here, and you're making your major service as far as I'm concerned, is that scientifically from the facts here, not opinion. We're demonstrating that the government's case is totally unbelievable and contrary to what they alleged, they alleged they had science. The metallurgical PhDs said, there is no science in this case. That neutron activiation analysis is a fake, it's invalid, and it's a fabrication.

33:36 And as a matter of fact, what we have in the. Case, which I haven't mentioned yet, is what we call me minute metallic fragments. I'll be very quick on this. If someone who shoot me in the back of the head right now, there would be no minute metallic fragments in the front of my skull. So keep in mind that the minute metallic fragments inside jf case head. We're at the side of his head, and. Scientifically, the minute metallic fragments tell us that the direction of the wound, and you could get you can see the three skull X rays. It's available in the archives right, and it shows it shows how this wound goes from the above his right ear the temple area all the way to the back of his skull.

34:19 But what it also tells us is the point of entry. I was going to say exactly that was my question. That's it, the point of entry. Once we know the point of entry. He came from the front send the geographically front of the limo, the limos moving this way. The shots were here and hit Kennedy in the side of the head and blew his head back. That's why one thing is watch the head, not the body of JFK. Because it's not the body moving JFK's head. It's the head moving the body. And that's why we know all of these facts that are irrefutable. This is just my opinion on. Any of this. Well. And the thing is, lest we forget, jam was in a brace exactly.

35:03 Oh right, absolutely right. That gets into the detail that is so magnificent From an evidentiary point of view, all of this is let me keep in mind, this is our government telling us neutron activation analysis. We know how the science. They were going around saying, and they were saying, you, you, congressman, you said it you if you disagree with us, you believe the Earth is. Flat, they said these things. This is not made off. Yeah, well it turns out that guess what, the only people who believe that the Earth is fly and people who believe in the one bullet theory. And that's the bottom line here. It's a big twist around. They weren't be expected not to happen from our government. But lo and behold, that's what happened.

35:43 You know, you imagine you imagine here, Robert, how many millions of dollars did the government spend a taxpayer money to come up with this big lie. Well, not only is it the money, as you well know, but I know from you, given the kind of person you are, it shatters the credibility of our government. Exactly. And there's no reason for this to have happened except that the CIA was running the show, pure and simple. And complicit with the FBI exactly. Exactly So there was another piece of evidence that I was able to uncover which I think we should mention him, and that was this John mccoone issue. John McComb was a lawyer and JFK was so livid about what happened at the Bay of Pigs in the Cuban fiasco in sixty one that he fired Alan Dolles and he put in John mccoon and mccoone. Again, I mentioned this is important for what he did. John mccoone was a major Kennedy supporter, and he received an inquiry from James Rowley, who was then Chief of the Secret Service, and Raley said to him, you know, we're concerned here that there're being links from our committees, that is the Secret Service and from the CIA, because mccoone now was headed the CIA from sixty one, and he wanted.

36:59 To know what mccone's feeling was. Mister Rowley who was Chief of the Secret Service, and McCone wrote back to him and said the following. In substance, he said, the leafs about Lee Harvey Oswald are very very important because he gets involved with his training and his suspect activity. They were concerned at that point more with hiding the fact that Oswald was an agent of the CIA and the FBI since nineteen fifty seven when he was at at Sudi Air Force Base in. Japan exactly monitoring the U two flights. And one of those flights got shot down, as you may recall, and the government figured there must be a mole because no one can know, no one can know how to bring these planes down and or lift them up except experts, and so they decided that they would try and make sure that people did not know. And that's the American people were talking about here, that the American people would not know that Lee Harvey Oswold was a contract employer for the CIA and the FBI. So what he says is, I'm concerned if this information in any way is disclosed to the wrong person's meeting the media right that they will claim that that this agency, the CIA, and perhaps others were directly involved in the assassination Mason come in. It's a two page letter. At the top of page two, which is paragraph six. While the persons involved, he goes on to say, we're in

38:29 the employ of the CIA, the persons involved in the assassination. We're involved and by the way they recfer to the assassination as the Dallas Action. So let me put that together again for you. Macoone says in response to rallies, concerned about people finding out that Oswald was really an expert, a person who was working for our government, And he said, I'm concerned that this information in any way is disclosed to the wrong persons, who would lead the media to erroneously claim that the CIA and perhaps others would directly involve in the Dallas Action assassination at president and the next sentences, you got to sit down for this one, Okay, Well, the persons involved in the assassination weren't in the employ of this agency talking about in the United States an admission later on this happened. Oh my god, please tell the public that this was a lie. Yeah, and I had this checked out from afflatu Omega from that what's in the field when who found it?

39:30 Others who were who used it? And it was all the document was there where were supposed to be. There was no fake here. The fake here is the government trying to spin itself out yet. Again exactly and look at how far the government's come, Robert, I mean, you know here at least in paper they're saying they're concerned the media could chase this down. Now fast forward to the Trump assassin attempted assassination, and it's interesting the pattern and how you may have people who were government operatives involved, and how this kind of ends up, you know, disappearing conveniently. I don't know it just there's some similarities here for me in my mind as I follow this, and of course now today whether it's January sixth or other events that have happened in our country where you know, the exposure of government operatives FBI and CIA operatives are operating domestically within our country doing a lot of bad stuff.

40:37 That is why I received I was able to get a hold of you, leading me right into this point of President Truman. President Schruman was had a major revelation that he felt responsible for the CIA, that the Office of Strategic Services OSS, which was our intellig organization in World War Two. He was the stress that he permitted OSS, Office of Stecution Services to morph into the CIA, and why was he concerned about that? And he wrote a very damning memo on this thing on December twenty two, sixty three, twelve twenty two sixty three, and in it is a very important critique of the CIA, and what he's saying was it's become operational and it forms policy, and the people involved in oversight are not doing their job.

41:27 They're afraid of retaliation. I'll give you an example, mister Schumer, this great senator from Brooklyn, not when I was that, That's all I can tell you. He went after Trump and Trump's first term when you recall, I'm sure Trump was dealing with the executive intelligence agencies that they've gone a far afield here. So what did Schumer say? And by the way, he was in charge of oversight in the United States senator at the time, because that was the majority party at the time, the Democrats. Schumer says, as the major overseer, I thought, you know, we thought that that Trump was so smart. This was during his first term. He's now taking on the executive intelligence agencies. Doesn't he know.

42:07 There is ten seven, eight, nine, ten ways till Sunday that they'll come back at you. And get you. Yes, that was that was crazily telling. You're exactly right. I remember when he said that, and I'm going, whoa, that that's quite you know because everyone, because even crazy Jerry Nadler, right, he goes, there's no such thing as the deep state. Absolutely absolutely, So all of the things that we're talking about here render what they've done, you know, in a very shad fed I'll give you another example of this. We've got about five minutes left, so I'm going to let you kind of do a summation here, Robert, Okay, We're gonna put you a little bit and the.

42:47 You know, there's a lot of viewers here well. A part of any insulation here. You're the first person I have to commend for giving me the opportunity and others to tell what the facts are. That's all we talk about the truth. It's not an opinion. The facts here are overwhelming. And I'll give you an example of what I mean. I always kept time. It's been loose Stokes every night. I told him where we were. So everything I'm telling you i've I told him. This is not something that Sprague and I kept to ourselves. We weren't here again trying to make history, if you will. To the contrary, we were appalled with the facts that were there, So why didn't others do this? So I said to Lou lose Stokes, very good man, and we became lifelong friends. And I said, Lou, I need a subpoena.

43:37 Two subpoenas. One, I have information that the CIA. In fact has has memos talking about its participation in this assassination, and the other memo and the other. The other subpoena I need is that I'm trying to determine whether this was an action taken by the CIA. Or it was a rogue. Action by some one or two or more people decided to take us into their own hands. He said, Bob, the Committee's not going to help you. I said, why do you hire us? I told you not to hire me and Dick if it comes down to any issue. We're not going to compromise on search for truth here.

44:18 And you can't win the Congress in Article one in any way without compromise. You can't have everybody as a chief executive here in the Article two. So he said, Bob, the committee never thought you would find out much less how quickly you did about this sortied mess we have. I said, Lou, you know everything I know because I've told you this. Why what am I missing? He said, they're afraid of retaliation. So here I am again. I went through this. You know, we went through this with new Shorn activation analysis. We went through this with a single bullet theory. And here he is, at the end of this mess telling me that people are afraid that they can be somehow unfriendly. Let's put it in a very quiet light, a gym light, that somehow or rather the CIA can harm them in some fashion, is.

45:16 What he was telling me. Robert, hundreds of people have died who have investigated the jfk assassination. Donald Trump, you and I talked about this last time. He was getting ready to release everything right, and all of a sudden he stops. Why does he stop? He said. The reason he stopped he said to good people that if you saw what I saw in these records, he said, you would not have released them either. But that's exactly what we need to see, exactly. So tired of listening to people who don't trust the American public that you represent the American public, representing the very people you're saying to the American public, we don't trust you. It's just too heavy handed. That's nonsense and stokes.

45:59 As I said, a good man, and as a matter of fact, I wanted to mention that we started off with this in essays was a Stone movie. It created the JFK Records Act of nineteen ninety two. I think the movie was in ninety one and run in that area, and it created the Assassination. Record Review Board of ninety three. I was asked by the District court judge from Minneapolis, very fine young man and federal judge, and he asked me if I, after talking to him, would appear before the committee and give my testimony. I said absolutely. The reason I mentioned this is I in ninety three and this is on the record. You can get these this transcript.

46:43 I said in ninety three that every document should be given over exactly. There was no absolute reason for anyone to suggest that the American public can't handle all of this information. They're the best people to handle all this information. Out. So yeah, in summation, I would say, we need desperately to cut this nonsense out about who is who can who can we trust with information? Right when it's the government's responsibility in cases like this to tell the truth. And that's what we went to Washington to do. We found out that we didn't let us do it, and Sprague and I left and like the March of seventy seven, and we never regretted that because I never dreamed that they would wind up doing what they did, and that was they made major lies to the American public.

47:36 Well, Robert Tannebaum, you're you're a true patriot, and I appreciate all the great work. Thank you so much for coming on and bringing the evidence you know to our audience. They can continue to do their research. The book That Day in Dallas Lee Rvey Haswall did not Kill JFK. And read and do your own research. This is, after all, is the government of for by we the people, which means means that in order to have the consent of the govern the government must be educated. They must be intellectualized. This is why our first Amendment is so key. Robert, again, thank you so much. God speed, my friend. I appreciate you. God bless you. Thank you so much. You got it.

48:17 Robert Tennenbaum. His book That Day in Dallas Lee, Harvey Oswell did Not Kill JFK is best described as prosecution by mister Tennenbaum of those corrupt, unscrupulous government and unelected agency officials who from inception with predetermined outcomes deceitfully engaged in insecure bony pretense probes regarding the assassination in daily plaza, those responsible should be prosecuted, while those who speak truth to power should be exonerated. In nineteen seventy six, as Robert pointed out and explained, he was appointed Deputy Chief Counsel in charge of the Congressional Investigation into the assassination of President JFK. And it would appear that he has not finished with his job yet because the truth fully has not gotten out. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for sharing a part of your day, and hopefully this motivates you to do further research and find out for yourself.

49:19 As we say, own your own knowledge. I thank you for being with us. May God bless you, may keep you, may make His face shine upon you and give you peace. God bless