JFK II: The Bush Connection | Multiple Shooters and 12 Bullet Holes: JFK Evidence They Covered Up

➡ The podcast discusses a documentary called “JFK 2, the Bush Connection” which suggests various conspiracy theories about JFK’s assassination. The documentary, divided into four parts, makes claims such as the driver of JFK’s car intentionally slowing down, multiple shooters being involved, and the autopsy being faked. The podcast hosts also discuss the documentary’s criticism of a Peter Jennings report that debunked JFK conspiracy theories. They conclude that the documentary presents a complex and controversial view of JFK’s assassination.
➡ The text discusses various conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination, suggesting involvement of figures like John Connolly, Nixon, and George Bush Senior. It also mentions claims about the Bush family’s connections to the Bay of Pigs operation and the JFK assassination. The text also suggests that J. Edgar Hoover, despite his controversial personal life, played a positive role in investigating Nazi collaborators. However, the text acknowledges that these claims are largely unsubstantiated and based on loose connections rather than solid evidence.
➡ The text discusses various conspiracy theories related to JFK’s assassination, including claims that Oswald was an FBI informant and that George Bush Jr. was involved in JFK Jr.’s death. It also critiques the production quality and narration style of a documentary called “JFK 2: The Bush Connection.” The text suggests that the documentary lacks new information and fails to convincingly link the Bush family to JFK’s assassination, despite its title.
➡ The documentary about JFK’s assassination uses crude animations and references to popular media like South Park and The Simpsons, which undermines its credibility. The film also makes sweeping claims about American history and racism, which seem unrelated to the main topic. The filmmaker’s attempt to prove a conspiracy theory through a failed libel lawsuit is unconvincing. Overall, the documentary’s confusing approach and lack of solid evidence make it hard to recommend.
➡ The text discusses a sequel to Oliver Stone’s JFK movie, which the speaker found confusing and poorly executed. The speaker criticizes the film’s use of South Park and Simpsons clips, its disjointed narrative, and the arrogance of the narrator. Despite these flaws, the speaker acknowledges the effort it takes to independently produce a film. The speaker concludes by recommending other JFK-related content and teasing upcoming Christmas-themed documentaries.

Did the simpsons predict bush jr. Killing jfk jr. Under the docks? Welcome back to under the Docks. Paranoid American. Sean. Chris. And in our thankful giving month, jfk. And we promised leftovers. And you’re getting plenty of leftovers. This is going to be the tail end of the JFK month. I would highly recommend that you bring all of this up. Thanksgiving dinner with all the friends and family. Ask. Ask Gam Gam what she thinks about jfk. She thinks the back of his head was missing or not. And this one is going to get way into the weeds, and we’re going to try and break it down the best we can.

This is JFK 2, the Bush Connection. And this came out in 2003. Directed by John Hanke, not Hinckley Hankey. And essentially it’s broken into four different segments. The first segment is called History is written by the winners, which is a weird paraphrasing in Napoleon. Part two is called through the Looking Glass. Alison Wonderland. Obviously part three is who Killed jfk? Owns a little obscure. I’m not sure what that means. And then part four is Deep History. So the first three, by the way, you can kind of watch the first three parts of this movie, and it feels like it ends.

The credits roll and everything. And after the credits roll, then you get part four, Deep History. And it sort of tells you. It’s like, if you’re still an idiot or if you’re still like a newbie to this, don’t even watch this part yet. Go back and watch the first three a few times until you get here. So in my mind, this is doing the opposite of what Oliver Stone’s JFK Revisited did, which is where it takes very complex topics and it breaks them down so that if it’s your first time learning about some of this, you can kind of catch on with it.

This documentary, he explicitly states, like, hey, a lot of this might go over your head. You might not be ready for this. Yeah, he’s a little smug right through the. Through the whole thing. And Makish of, like, his style of narrating a. It’s a unique style, I’ll say that. All right, let’s plot the course for this one. This one makes a lot of claims, and usually I try and keep myself to, like, the top five or so just in an effort of time. Well, we’ve already reviewed two different JFK documentaries at this point. And this one, the claims, they’re going to bring up a lot of the similar things that we’ve kind of heard before.

And we’ve gone into detail, so I’ll keep these ones a little more brief. But there’s way more of them. There’s like at least 10 different claims here. So let’s just pepper through some of these. The very first one, which I think was the motivation for John Hanke to create this documentary is that there was a special on ABC News by Peter Jennings which, where he goes out to disprove these JFK assassination theories. And I think this was in the 90s or early 2000s and it is clearly the catalyst because John Hanke has no uncertain words for what he thinks about Peter Jennings and abc.

And he, and I think it was kind of like, oh, if, if you’re going to say this, well, I need to make something that completely disproves what you’re saying is just common knowledge now. So that’s, that’s where this all starts out is on the claim that Peter Jennings was falsely spreading more JFK propaganda decades after the event just to keep this story suppressed. Yeah, it definitely seemed like a disgruntled viewer, right? And then at the age of where like, oh, I could put this out on the Internet, right? He’s like, I’m gonna prove you wrong. It’s like a back and forth of the debunking the debunker which is sort of a interesting snapshot in time, right? Because if this happened in 95, yeah, people had the Internet and computers, but they weren’t recording three hour documentaries and uploading them on.

It would have taken you two and a half months to upload this thing somewhere. And who the hell is watching it, right? Everyone was downloading real time clips of south park episodes that you could barely even see unless you squinted your eyes. So this one was a little bit of like mess around find out by Peter Jennings and ABC where they realize too, I think that maybe it’s not the same world that existed during Mockingbird and during the 60s and 70s. This is a whole new animal. So I, I appreciate this documentary for that. That is specifically was created to counter this Peter Jennings report.

One of the things that we haven’t gone into in the previous two movies that we talked about was this concept that the driver of the motorcade, the one that was driving jfk, intentionally slows down. And in addition to him intentionally slowing down, the rest of the Secret Service members were told to stay away from the car so that they couldn’t be in the way of this bullet. I’m sure that’s not the example they were given, but they show the footage over and over again. And you can clearly see that one of the, the Secret Service guys in the back of the car is sort of told to stand down and, and jump off.

And he kind of like throws his hands up in there kind of like in frustration, like, all right, I don’t understand what you’re telling me, but I guess I’ll follow orders. And then the car drives off. The, the whole part too, about this driver intentionally slowing down. And I don’t, I don’t know. I mean, the claim is very specific. I don’t know how much I understand or agree with this claim, but it’s that the Zapruder film, the one that is famous, this is the JFK video footage that it looks as though that all happens as the car is driving and moving.

And then once the shot happens and they realize it speeds off. But apparently there was a whole chunk of frame, There was like 10 frames cut from the Zapruder film that show that what actually happened is that the motorcade came to damn near a complete stop. And then JFK got shot and then it starts moving again. So the, I guess the premise being that they intentionally line this up so that all these different people could take their shots at a non moving target. Yeah. To almost present it as like, hey, we’re always talking about it’s a moving object.

And the way they now premise it as he stopped, he’s stationary, makes it much more likely that this would happen and, and to really make sure that they get the shot off and that they’re successful. And speaking of getting the shot off and being successful, just like in the first documentary, I think that one said there was around like 15 shots. This one says there’s about 13 shots, that there’s still multiple shooters front and back and side. They had all of their bases covered for this thing to go off and in case everyone missed, which they kind of did.

But. So another one of the claims that this re emphasizes that we’ve heard so often is the autopsy was all faked. That JD Tibbets was used to swap in a JFK lookalike. So that they had sort of a plan B and then they botched the plan B as well, which is kind of Keystone Cops style that we talked about. And that two different groups of doctors six hours apart from each other had had completely different descriptions of the wounds. So the doctors that see JFK’s body and his head and his upper torso before he gets into the plane, and then the reports of what he looks like after he gets out of the Plane are completely different.

And the only thing that was supposed to have been happening is a routine autopsy and a transport, not a complete, you know, plastic makeover. And glow up. Yeah. And then. And their claims of restructuring the cranium like that. They actually mash it together like play doh and rebuilt like, a fake head upon his head to, like, position it to what they wanted it to look like because of the whole. But the blow from the back then. And they were like, that’s not his head. That’s a whole different piece of it there. This is another weird one, too, that this movie did a decent job at.

And this was the bullet hole that was apparently the official one that went through his back. That the actual shot was, like, closer to the back of his neck, but that this trajectory, I guess, didn’t line up. And the Warren Commission, they move it down like five or six inches in the report. And then there’s this discrepancy because someone’s like, wait a minute, that’s not where it was. It almost feels like there was a bargaining process where, you know, the original reports are like, no, no, no, it was in, like, the, the upper back of his neck.

And the Warrant Commission’s like, no, it was in his upper back. And they’re like, let’s just meet somewhere in the middle. And that’s kind of what happens in the report to where the report just, like, adjusts it just ever so slightly up so that the people complaining are like, okay, I, I can see what’s happening here. I guess that’s far enough. Don’t. Don’t put me in jail for bribery like you did with the JFK Secret Service agent, that they wouldn’t shut up about any of this. Another one of the claims. And we’re going to start getting into some unsubstantiated territory.

By the way, one of the claims is that John Connolly, the guy that was in the car with jfk, that was on the receiving end of the, quote, magic bullet that went through his wrist and that ended up in his thigh, that he was in on it and that he was meant to take part of that shot to just sell how realistic it looked a little bit. They don’t really go into evidence of any kind of how he was related. The. The one thing they cite is that John Connolly is the one that brought George Bush senior into the White House.

And then, in fact, he said that he wasn’t going to join like a, like a staff until they put George Bush in the White House first. So that’s the only real connection, but it’s a very specific claim that they make, is that John Connolly was in on this JFK assassination. Yeah, that’s where they kind of get in the weeds a little bit, right? Like, it’s almost like the people that are like, yeah, you know, he, he got paid to get knocked out. You’re like, dude, you can literally die. So you’re like, hey man, just shoot me, but try not to kill me.

Make sure I’m not trusting that. I don’t know about you. I don’t even want to have the apple on my head when someone’s doing an arrow. I’m not gonna be like, yeah, for sure, bro. Like, I trust you. Just make it a flesh wound, okay? Like, make sure I’m not dead. Well, plus after, after the fact, you’re like, wait, there were 13 shots and one of them hit the windshield and one of them hit like a bridge. What were you guys doing? Like, yeah, you can’t never trust the CIA when they’re like, just be in the car, you know, or you just need to sell it.

Don’t worry, we’ll make sure it just goes to your wrist or something simple. Another one. And I, a lot of these are going to start just getting into unsubstantiated territory. But that, I mean, this is a classic conspiracy style documentary. One of the other claims is that what. And, and I want to be specific, it’s not a claim as much as it’s one of those open ended questions where they’re leading you to the claim without making it themselves. So the question is, was Nixon involved in the Kennedy assassination? And they point out that Jack Ruby was working for Congressman Nixon in 1947, so that there was a direct connection between Nixon and Ruby.

And they go later on that Nixon was given his political power by Prescott Bush. So there’s this weird chain of events where Prescott gets Nixon positioned into power and then Nixon is able to get other people positioned into power. And then eventually like George Bush Senior comes up under these connections to Nixon. So again, we don’t have the nice. And here’s documentation and here’s a, a witness and here’s court records. We don’t have any of that in this particular movie. We just have a bunch of open ended questions. But that is the claim is that there is a Nixon, Connelly Bush connection, that we’re all orchestrating the JFK assassination to happen.

Loosely connected. Like they don’t, like you said, they don’t back it up with documentation or plenty of other ways to you know, obviously they knew each other, right. So that’s where I, they, some of these things lose me. They’re like, well that guy was in the same room as that guy. So they has, has to be that they were connected. And you’re like, all right man, like another one of those claims and I’m gonna have to save some of this for hidden treasures and overboard. Right. They’re all gonna. One of the claims was that Henry Ford and the Herman brothers and the Rockefellers, we, we heard this in Everything’s a Rich Man’s Trick that they were all Nazis and they all supported Hitler.

Uh, honestly, like I’m on board with that. I don’t even have to be sold on that so much. I feel like there’s enough paper trail that show that sympathizing and funding like whatever you want to define it, like they were making sure that the German war machine was well funded and had the resources it needed to continue doing what it was doing even after everyone knew like the atrocities of war that were happening. Right. So that’s one of the claims. But what gets into a weird area, which we’ll get into more in a second, but that J.

Edgar Hoover is sort of a good guy superhero in the context of JFK to the Bush connection. That he was also aware that all these guys were Nazis and that despite this is quote from the movie, he had recently been criticized for being gay and a crossdresser. Does J. Edgar Hoover that you still have to respect that he investigated the Ford Herman Rockefellers for collaborating with the Nazis. And he goes on the site that J. Edgar Hoover was instrumental in shutting down the Union bank which is where Prescott Bush was funneling all of this money into Germany.

And so that he. It’s almost if you were to put this in like a Q framework, he’s kind of painting J. Edgar Hoover as a cross dressing white hat. That’s like just trust the plan. He, you know he’s going to take all these guys down from the inside. But they also never cease. Whenever you see J. Edgar Hoover in this movie, he’s wearing a dress. So it’s like let’s not forget that this guy was a gay cross dresser, but also he was fighting these Nazis. It’s, it’s a weird I. In my mind it was like a hole that the director kind of put themselves in because he needed some sort of a white hat in the story to explain how certain things went wrong or didn’t go according to the plan of like the all powerful Illuminati.

The funny thing to me is that, listen. Watching this and listening the narrator, how he did the whole film, it was almost the beginning of this whole progressive left movement. Like you could tell he would. Because obviously this film was done a long time ago. Like it wasn’t like. But it’s like this was the precursor. And, and it’s interesting that a lot of these guys were. We have similar views on like, obviously we both think that the JFK magic bullet theory is bull crap, but the, the narrative of like, hey, LGBTQ L. XYZ is the reason we’re not all under communism right now almost.

You know what I mean? Or Nazi ism. You can definitely see that a lot of the influence in this movie, aside from the Peter Jennings thing, was it was created during the, the, the Bush W. Bush two term presidency. So there’s a little bit of like Bush derangement syndrome that comes out in this. I want to be clear. Personally, I do think that the Bush family was absolutely instrumental in the JFK assassination. However, a lot of that comes from the sources that this documentary cites, but they don’t really do it justice. Like he cites the unauthorized biography of George W.

Or George Bush Senior and a lot of like the Nazi connections and the, the Nixon connection and the JFK stuff. It comes directly out of that book. But again he, he paraphrases it in a way that it doesn’t do the buck a lot of justice. However, he does go into. Here’s the eighth claim was that Prescott Bush was in skull and bones 100% true. So was George Bush Senior. So is George Bush Jr. That Zapata Oil just happened to be right outside of Cuba, this place called Case all. And that the Bay of Pigs was codenamed Operation Zapata.

So. So you’ve got the Zapata Oil Corporation that’s allegedly drilling for oil. This is where the Bush had reason to send George de Morill over to Cuba into Haiti because he was like again, looking for oil. So all really just kind of reconnaissance stuff. And that the Bay of Pigs was named Operation Zapata after Zapata Oil. So he’s drawn this connection that clearly the Bushes were involved with Bay of Pigs and with Haiti and with Cuba, all sort of connected through these. These different associ. And that this guy, it was a Bush associate named Bill Lydicke who paid off Howard Hunt, who was a CIA agent to get him out of jail so that he wouldn’t talk about being involved in the JFK assassination.

That this guy, Howard Hunt, Howard E. Hunt, he’s is like a just a troublemaker and he’s going around telling people like yeah, I killed jfk, you know what I mean? And then when he gets stuffed up in jail, he basically lets the establishment know like hey, if you don’t get me out of here, I’m gonna start singing. And I guess instead of just murking them on the spot, they actually do pay to get him out of jail. I guess this is pre Epstein so they didn’t really understand that it’s a lot cheaper just to let him hang himself.

The ninth one was that again Oswald was working for the CIA. This one does give a few extra cool details that we didn’t hear in the first two. One is that Oswald was an FBI informant. So he was also working tangentially for J. Edgar Hoover in a way. And, and they even say that his FBI informant number was S179 and that he was getting paid $200 a month. That when he died he had a Dallas FBI agents info in his wallet. And that J. Edgar Hoover noted way before any of the JFK assassination went on. He noted that someone was using Oswald’s identity while he was in Russia.

But there was another Oswald or someone using Oswald’s name to buy trucks in Texas. So he was. Again there’s another example of, of Lee Harvey Oswald already being on the radar of the CIA and the FBI way before any of the assassination actually happens. I thought that was kind of interesting. And they also gave all that detail. And then finally the tenth claim that I’ve noted here is that George Bush Jr killed JFK Jr that while this is literally while Bush Jr is on the campaign trail during the day he disappears and he’s not seen for three days.

The prep, the press doesn’t know where he’s at. They’re not getting any sort of feedback from him. And the questions on his campaign and that the day that Bush disappeared that night JFK Junior’s plane went down. So there it’s one of those things where they’re like wow, isn’t this interesting? But there’s really no other evidence other than the fact that Bush disappears for three days that aligns with when JFK juniors and they go on to kind of make this idea that well, if Bush seniors initiation into running the CIA was hey, will you help us take out jfk? Well maybe that was Bush Jr’s initiation rituals.

Like hey, just like your dad, we need you to take out the JFK junior. Wouldn’t that be fitting the jfk, the Bush Senior has to kill JFK Senior and then Bush Junior has to kill JFK Junior. Yeah, it’s a great storyline, but like, there’s no pieces, like you’re not piecing it together. You’re like, whoa, John, Chris wasn’t there and he was in the same city as jfk. Just gonna say, you know what I mean? Like, that’s so vague. Some of the, that claim that, that. That’s the parts that frustrate me with some of these films. I, I appreciate they’re trying to question things and trying to shake things up, but sometimes it’s frustrating where you have this open ended.

Like, maybe I’m just saying it’s possible. And you’re like, yeah, technically it’s possible, but like, is it actually practical? I always want to be like, where were you? Where were you when JFK Junior’s plane went down, my friend? All right, let’s talk about the good, the bad, the ugly. What were the hidden treasures and the overboard moments for you in this movie? Unfortunately, I wouldn’t say there’s a lot of hidden treasures, but I’ll get the. The ones for me was a lot of the Florenc and like going over like the actual body, even though I seen a lot of it in the other films.

But I, I could appreciate them talking about the restructuring the skull. That was like important for me, but that’s kind of like limited because a lot of unfortunately they also are under the bad of me seeing both films before this. Right. So like everything that they said, almost entirely I’m like, yeah, I heard that before there. So it wasn’t. Not a lot of new information. The only one that got me is what you had just spoke about was the Oswald being an informant for the FBI, which I. We knew Jack Ruby was, but we never heard osw.

I’ve never heard that claim anywhere else. So that was pretty interesting. But it’s very limited on the Hidden treasures for me. Yeah, My, my one note for the Hidden Treasures ahead of its time. And I think that that kind of summarizes what you were just saying, that again, that we are at a disadvantage here that we watch three different documentaries all about the exact same thing, and they all kind of touch on the same notes and everything. So maybe I’d have more notes if this were the first one that we watched. But yeah, after seeing the first two, I feel like this one just kind of does a lot of the same stuff.

Again, they do mention the FBI informant connection, which didn’t come up on the first two. So that One was interesting, but I just had a long list of kind of overboard and just bad notes on this, so those might be more fun to talk about. Anyways, so let’s see. 45 minutes. Again, the name of this movie is called JFK 2. The Bush Connection. Right. I actually had a note at a certain point. I was like, I haven’t heard the, the name Bush come up at all. It comes up about 45 or so minutes into this documentary is the first time you hear the name Bush come up, which is weird since it is like literally in the title of the movie.

So I, I feel like they didn’t do a great job of marrying those ideas together. And obviously the Bush connection was just because of the, the flavor of the day and then it kind of gets shoehorned at the end. He does a lot of work on it, but it’s not like perfectly mixed in. It’s almost like oil and water. There’s like a definite first part and a second part to this documentary. Despite being chopped up into four sections, I thought we were going to hear nothing but about Bush. I thought it was going to be from Prescott or maybe even the Prescott’s father and the Nazism and how it’s all rooted in America.

I thought we’re going to go further on that then. Everything is a rich man’s trick. Now I know this came out before Everything is a rich man’s trick. But I was like, okay, this, maybe this is where info from, right? Like the. Maybe he got some of it, but they didn’t really dive into it as I was hoping and expecting. This one is, is maybe just more of a stickler thing. But man, the microphone this dude used, I, I can almost envision it. It was one of those ones that came with your PC in like 1998.

The little like one on the, the wire with the hard plastic on the top. A little wand. Yeah, this was one of those like seven dollar wand microphones because you can, you can hear it crackle and just peak when he gets too close to it or too far away. And I wouldn’t say that this takes away from the document. If anything, it might give it that conspiracy theory charm a little bit. But also, man, if you spend this much time and effort into recording this whole documentary and he animate stuff and you know, this, this was not just like a weekend podcast for this guy.

This was definitely a long investment of time and effort. I think it would have been worth just shelling out 40 bucks, 50 bucks for just a slightly different microphone. Because again, like, you can just hear how bad it is in certain parts where he screams or he’s trying to get loud for some sort of emphasis, but you just hear it bottoming out on the mic. And I don’t know if it would cost. What the cost would be in that. In that time frame, the early 2000s. But I would almost say also just get a different narrator.

Like, you know, his style was not for me. And like, he’s like, yeah, well, notchy. And like, you know, he’s trying to add all these little flares that, like, I get it. Like, he’s, like, talking crap to the video and he has these little voices and he’s a little arrogant and. And almost full of himself. It kind of reminded me of, like, a nerdish Michael Moore. Like, a nerd Michael Moore fan. Like, you know, someone that was obsessed with his films and must have been, like, watching some of that and, like, kind of. It just had that esque of, like, the little.

Yeah, like, that’s why I was saying the beginning of the leftists. He does a really horrible Nixon impression. And at that point, I. I was also thinking, like, man, why not just get someone else narrate this for you or just don’t do voices. Like, if you. Someone had to have seen this and been like, dude, come on. Like, that doesn’t even sound like Nixon. But you can also. This movie in a such a strange way, that doesn’t help it. It has these really horrible south park visuals and a lot of Ms. Paint stuff where, like, the dude just opened up Ms.

Paint and drew, you know, a person getting shot or something or, like, Bush on a boat. And. And. And then tries to animate it in just really weird ways where you see the background moving with the foreground. Like, I appreciate the effort 100, but it. It didn’t add to the credibility. And in fact, this makes this movie something that I don’t think I’d recommend to anyone unless they were already so deep down the JFK rabbit hole and they’re like, hey, you’re ever seeing, like, a really weird one that maybe I haven’t come across, maybe I’d suggest this one.

But this is not one to suggest to Gam gambling over the Thanksgiving table or to show to anyone because then you’re halfway in and you see him showing, like, Mike and Philip from, like, the Canadian south park or. I can’t remember their two names. Phil and something you’re on somewhere around there. So, I mean, it’s. It just loses some credibility for that. And then Also at the end, you can tell that they are of a certain persuasion. Maybe this again, this is like the. The Bush syndrome where it was in early 2003, but it’s like, we are grateful to south park, the Simpsons, pbs, the Discovery Channel, the Learning Channel.

And. And one of the points, they’re even like, everyone knows that Richard Nixon was evil. Look, here’s a clip from the Simpsons that have him dressed up as the devil. See, isn’t that enough proof? If the Simpsons say that you’re bad, then clearly you’re bad. And. And I just felt like I was, you know, in Twilight Zone a little bit, especially at the end, because the first thought I had was like, is this the same Discovery Channel that has put out their own debunkings of the 911 sort of architects for truth claims? So now we’re saying like, oh, well, I love south park and Simpsons and PBS and Discovery Channel.

And it seems to eliminate credibility for a. A conspiracy documentary about the JFK assassination, which we’ve seen in previous ones, that they had all of these corporations under their thumb. And let me go back to those little crude drawings, man, that. That did really hurt the film for me. Like, it’s like, was watching like a pre adolescent, like psychopath, like, trying to explain a story to me where I’m like, okay, man, let’s institutionalize this guy. And to. To your point, he kind of discredits himself with everything. But I think the hard part is that we’re in 2025.

So if we were going back then and I was trying to get my head wrapped around while I was doing my notes, like, you know what, this guy is totally different. But this was. That’s why I was saying earlier the seed of where we’re at now, because they were conspiratorial in some senses, but they were still complicit of like, hey, yeah, let’s listen to the media. Like, PBS has my best interest. Like, the Simpsons are what, like, solidifies things for me. Whatever they say goes. Yeah. And again, like, this is ignoring the fact that Bohemian Grove and Epstein connections to the Simpsons and like the disproving, like 911 debunking stuff.

It’s very convenient to leverage the credibility of mainstream media on one hand and be like, see, look, mainstream media agrees with me. And then immediately be like, you can’t trust anything that mainstream media says. Look, here’s my own research. Like, you can’t. You can’t use the two in the same time unless you’re looking to just like, ruin your Credibility. And then speaking of that, this documentary also makes some pretty grand and sweeping claims that just seem completely wrong. Like, I’m sure that he had his own thought pattern. But for example, he’s. This is a direct quote.

American slaveholders invented state sponsored racism. Now I’m pretty sure that racism probably predates America, right? And like the concept of the state predates America. So I mean, even if you go back and I don’t know, like watch Spartacus, which is even that far back, right, that was state sponsored racism and slavery as well. So again, one of those weird claims that somewhere in the process of making this documentary, it shifts into just like crapping all over America in general, which doesn’t offend me. I’m not, I’m not saying like, oh my God, now I don’t like this documentary because it’s stomping over, over America, right? But it was just that it was a weird sort of like left turn out of nowhere in the middle of this documentary.

And then he starts talking about American slavery and then he starts talking about the Native American genocide and that just there’s something inherently violent and corrupt with all Americans because, look, we’re just based on, you know, slavery and racism. And then he shows Holocaust images with the people starving and. But there’s, it’s really non sequitur. It’s not as though he’s actually talking about anything specific. It’s just like, yeah, well, JFK was assassinated and Bush was involved and Bush is an American family and Americans killed Native Americans and America was part of World War II and slavery happened.

So therefore, watch this clip of the Simpsons in South Park. I rest my case. Like, that was kind of how the ending of this movie wound up and it kind of fizzled out for that reason. That’s what gave me the Michael Moore feeling, right? Like that was bullying for Columbine. Like how we went through that film. It’s the same kind of concept of where you’re like, guns are bad. And there’s a little bit of. But let me go tell you this other stuff, because racist people once had guns and those guns killed. It had the same feel.

It was like that meme, like corporate wants you to decide which picture is which. And you’re like, yeah, that’s the same. You could tell he was very inspired by Michael Moore, in my opinion. And then this is. I gotta save the best one for the last. This was the biggest sort of overboard moment for me. And it’s this weird non rational legal logic that he strings together. So the claim that he makes in. In this documentary was that that guy was talking about Howard Hunt, the one that had to get sprung out of jail, otherwise he was going to spill beans on being part of the JFK assassination.

Well, someone writes about him in a magazine article about him being involved in the JFK assassination, right? Even. Even though he himself was, like, bolstering. So anyways, that gets written about Howard Hunt accuse. He sues this magazine for libel for, you know, for, like, printing lies about him that could ruin his life. It was called Spotlight magazine. So he tries to sue them for libel for printing a quote from Richard Helms, who was running the CIA at that point. Richard Helms said Hunt was part of the conspiracy. Spotlight magazine prints this claim by Richard Helms. So first of all, I don’t think you can sue a magazine for printing someone else’s claim, especially if it’s from the freaking head of the CIA, Richard Helm.

So it was weird that Howard. That Howard Hunt is trying to sue the magazine over a Richard Helms quote and not sue Richard Helms. But it was not successful. So Howard. Howard Hunt tries to sue Spotlight magazine. It doesn’t go through. This is obviously not a criminal court. This is like a. Like a civil court where you sue for money, not for jail time. Right. Well, the director of this movie, he goes on to make this weird legal connection. He’s like, ah, Because Howard Hunt tried to sue Spotlight for libel, but it didn’t go through, then that proves that Howard Hunt is guilty of being part of the JFK assassination.

So it was like. Like, I’m a hundred percent sure that I’m not a lawyer, but that is not how you prove whether or not someone is guilty of murder is whether or not their libel lawsuit to a magazine went through or not. But, I mean, and it feels like this in this documentary. It’s like his big crescendo climax moment. And it’s like, I’ve got the smoking gun. I’ve got undeniable proof. Look, this guy sued a magazine and lost. Therefore, he killed jfk. Mic drop. All right, ripples and waves. Let me just beat us to the punch here.

I don’t think this one had any ripples and waves. I would be surprised if you had heard of this one before we even did this. Has. Have you ever heard this movie before? No, it was my first time, like, and I wasn’t even sure if I was watching the right one at first. I was like, wait a second. Like, because there was a couple different versions. And then, like, the way the guy Comes off. I’m like, is this the right thing? Because JFK2, it’s just weird because you’re like, what’s the first one? Right? Like, there’s not JFK1, and he’s going back like, it’s JFK2.

And I’m like, what do you mean? Like, what’s the sequel to? Like, so it kind of threw me off in the beginning. Well, and to answer that, this was supposed to be the sequel to Oliver Stone’s JFK movie. That you see the JFK movie and you’re like, oh, I don’t really understand everything. So then you’re supposed to watch this one after that. And he does a couple times where he’ll show a picture of someone from the JFK movie and be like, and they’re talking about this guy. And so that was the. The point. But, yeah, to go from Oliver Stone and Kevin Costner in a very dramatic movie and then see this guy moving like south park and Simpsons sprites around on the screen and MF paint.

Yeah, it’s a little bit finger painting versus Michelangelo in a way. But I don’t really think that this had ripples ways beyond that. The main reason that I remembered this existed is because I accidentally downloaded it when I got, like, a huge torrent full of Alex Jones movies. And I ended up watching this one. And the first time I watched it years later, I was like, oh, yeah, I think that was an Alex Jones documentary. But it clearly is not. It’s just some other guy. Yeah, Hanky guy. Right. And it is kind of funny that his name is Hanky and he likes south park, so you know that he liked Mr.

Hankey or whatever. And then there’s this ending song where he sings like a version of the movie in lyrical form. I feel like that should. Everyone should hear that at least once. But, yeah, I don’t think it would make any ripples and waves. All right. Sink or swim to sing for me to the bottom. I mean, it was cool. It was kind of entertaining. Bits and pieces. I did not like the narrator’s voice. I did not like his style. I just thought, like, he had a throwing things at the wall, hoping they stick, and then doesn’t even really admit that.

And he’s so arrogant that he feels like he solved the whole thing. And like, hey, dummy, you’re not figuring it out. I already figured it out. Watch it a couple more times and maybe you’ll get it. And I didn’t like. I didn’t like that aspect of it. And I don’t like, I don’t mind either. Like, you can on America if you want, but like, make it cohesive, right? That and what really set him at a disadvantage, this film is that I saw the Oliver Stone first, which, if you watch both of those together, you’re gonna be like, oh, this other one’s like trash, bro.

Like, I give him credit for like, hey, you independently put it out. It’s not easy to do things like that. But he was too all over the place. It’s like a leftist Q mentality, right? Like, it’s like, connect this and the White House sit in there and the, the cross dressers and the FBI are going to save us. I. I just, I’m not sold, man. The whole Nazi. We know that. I, I agree that the Bushes probably did prop up the Nazis in some sort. There’s a lot of evidence to back that up. And the title’s misleading.

It’s not even the connection. It’s like, yeah, he was. Bush Senior was here and he did this. There’s a. Here’s a little memo. And then here’s Bush Jr. He kind of was on the trail missing for three days. And JFK Jr dies. Like, it’s not threads for me. So it’s a definite sink. I mean, same. I don’t have a whole lot to add on to that. The one redeeming quality maybe is at the end of this documentary. He does shout out all the books and other videos and documentaries that he watched in order to create his.

And the one thing where I think a majority of the interesting information about Bush came from came from the unauthorized biography of. Of George H.W. bush. So, I mean, if you’re interested in the Skull and Bones connections and the. In the Bush, JFK and Nixon Connection, just read that book. It’s like 700 pages or something. It’s well worth the read. But yeah, I think I have to give this one a sink just because of how many outlandish claims that it made. I could have maybe even been forgiving about some of them, but as soon as they started, like tripling and quadrupling down on the south park and Simpsons clips and then even citing the sim like a Simpsons episode as part of the case that they’re building, they completely jumped the shark for me.

Like, I couldn’t take it seriously at that point going forward. So ahead of its time in 2003. Absolutely. But it has since been surpassed by so many others. I mean, I would even recommend Rich Man’s Trick over this one, which I did give a Swim. Even though it wasn’t like the best of of all versions. Honestly, I think that you should watch the JFK movie by Oliver Stone and then watch JFK revisited by Oliver Stone and then you can probably go and watch the other, like, conspiracy ones once you have some, like, ground footing. But yeah, it was a little bit wild to hear the first movie talk bad about Oliver Stone and then see Oliver Stones and then the third movie.

Basically talk about, about all mainstream media and then site mainstream media. This was, this was a weird collection of JFK documentaries. All right, what’s on the horizon for next month? Well, I think we’re going to be doing some Christmas themed documentaries. I don’t have you. Have you looked into any yet? I’ve looked up a couple. I mean, it’s a little bit different. I don’t want to. I’ll show you the list off air, but we’re gonna leave this one. You’re not gonna find out. And it’s gonna be a little Christmas present for you. Right? You’re gonna get some documentaries that we probably both haven’t seen because we’re just digging some up just to have it for the holiday season in particular.

So there’s a couple I got on the list. I’ll show you off air and it’ll be a present for everybody, I think. All right, well, happy Thanksgiving. And remember, make sure that Gam Gam knows all about the JFK Bush connection. Peace. Ready for a cosmic conspiracy about Stanley Kubrick, moon landings and the CIA. Go visit NASA comic.com nas biggest com Stanley Kubrick put us on that’s why we’re singing this song about NAS. Go visit NAS. Go visit NASA comic.com. Yeah go visit nasacomic.comic CIA’s biggest come Stanley Kubrick put a song that’s why we’re singing this song about NASA comic.com go visit nascomic.com go visit NASA comic.com yeah go visit NASA comic.com never a straight answer is a 40 page comic about Stanley Kubrick directing the Apollo space missions.

This is the perfect read for comic Kubrick or conspiracy fans of all ages. For more details visit NASA comic.com. Yeah I scribbled my life away driven to write the page willing to light your brain give you the flight my plane paper the highs ablaze somewhat of an amazing feel when it’s real to real you will engage it your favorite of course the lord of an arrangement I gave you the proper results to hit the pavement if they get emotional hey, maybe your language a game how they playing it well without Lakers? Survey them whatever the cause they are to shapeshift snakes get decapitated? Met is the apex, execution of flame you out? Nuclear bomb distributed at war? Rather gruesome for eyes to see? Max them out that I like my trees, blow it off in the face? You’re despising me for what though calculated and rather cutthroat? Paranoid American? Must be all the blood smoke for real? Lord, give me your day your way? Vacate, they wait around on the hate? Whatever they say, man, it’s not in the least bit? We get heavy rotate when a beat hits a thing? Because you welcome? Three niggas for real? You’re welcome? They never had a deal? You’re welcome? Man, they lacking appeal? You’re welcome? Yet they doing it still? You’re welcome.
[tr:tra].