You. Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet Window dot com and listeners like you
Now and Now in our media Jack. Hopefully the introduction to the show was
not overdriven and too loud, but if it is, that's the way it
will be retained in the podcast. Anyway, Welcome to Wednesday. Woldnesday the
middle of the week, and it is allegedly the twentieth day of December twenty
twenty three, according to that thing we call a calendar. Welcome to the
show where your host has a brand new hole in his mouth where a tooth
used to be, and still going live despite the fact that I'm jammed up
and had to test sound right before I went to air. Anyway, enough
of all that, and enough of the Christmas chair that I really should have
I think I don't know which. By the way, anybody who wants to
assist with that, there is the donate BUTTONTTOCHELLI. I'm not gonna sit here
and harp on it. But we are also going to start in January sending
out the archive emails. So if you want to get in on that list,
you can sign up as a supporter at Ocelli dot com and for ten
dollars a month, you get all the stuff that the members used to get
and all that good stuff. And gee, I might even still have a
promotional code out there, and I'll get it before the end of the show
and give it to you right at the end, because I got to get
to my guest who's here on an unusual day, because on last Thursday I
tried getting a hold of Larry Hancock as I usually do by a Skype,
and he couldn't hear me. Everything else was working fine, but he couldn't
hear me. And it turns out it was just you know, Skype,
and it's quirky, wonderful ways of changing settings, is all it was.
But it took us a little while to sort it out, and by the
time we did, I didn't want to keep Larry waiting because we had already
used the hour we were going to speak to Well, you know, examine
what the problem was with the skype true story, right, Larry? Oh,
yes, it another true story. Although thinking back on it would have
been kind of interesting to try to do the show with you just typing in
questions and he respond respondings that you could hear me. But that might not
have been as much fun. Well, it could have been fun if I
put it on video though, and like literally had your video reactions. Well,
yeah, right, and so like one minute you see the text and
the next minute we see your video reaction. You read it and then try
and figure out what I was saying, because guarantee there'd be typos in it,
and yeah, that would have been fun as long as you promised not
to forward a copy to Well, anyway, won't go up into software updates.
So are that subject? Well, we could always just put it up
on you know, the members section or something or other, because I do
have a Patreon where it could be behind a paywall. So only if you're
really a supporter of the show, or I could put it in the member
section at the website, would you be able to get a hold of that,
And that way, you know, it wouldn't be the silly thing all
around the world, right, it would just be for our friends. So
well, we know what to do if it happens again. Hopefully it won't.
There you go, but let's get to it, Larry, I have
not spoken to you in public anyway since the Lancer conference and you were there.
I was there. It was an interesting time. I talked a little
bit about the chaos of it that I experienced that apparently other people didn't get
to see because while I was working and doing the best I could do more
than just introduce people, because that's what I actually thought I was gonna do
when I said, yeah, i'll MC. But you see, everybody forgets
what that means the master of ceremonies. I mean, how are you going
to master something if all you do is introductions, right, because then you're
just what what was that guy that used to do Don Pardo or whatever on
TV? Right? He was like the announcer guy for like the whole network,
So that's all he did pretty much is tell you what was on next
and do live announcements like that. Now coming up on the stage, I'm
Don Pardo, right, You remember that. I could relate to that because
of course I am seed several conferences and was timekeeper, and amongst all that
was trying to locate speakers when they didn't show up on So I understand that
full role. And you could at the end of the conference you could ask
me, well, what happened did you learn? What'd you hear? And
it's kind of like huh what? Uh? Sorry, I missed the head.
Yeah, in all honesty, I didn't watch too many presentations because I'm
carrying around tables, running around looking for thumb drives, trying to figure out
who goes next, canceling somebody else, putting somebody else in another slot,
making sure we're on time. Oh and by the way, trying to figure
out why people in the back of the room can't hear it. Uh,
you know, stuff like that. But I look, and I don't want
anybody to think that it was a total disaster, because apparently it wasn't.
And frankly, I've watched a couple of the presentations and they went off pretty
smoothly. Indeed, we even had an impromptu, you know, roundtable discussion
of sorts, but it wasn't all that round the table because Gayle Nick Jackson
wound up featuring in the midst of a panel discussion and that was not on
the agenda, that was not in the program. That was kind of a
well, an impromptu edition, and you were part of it as well,
David Boylin. Let's see, before I forget anybody, Doug Campbell and I
gave up my spot so that there was enough microphones because I was going to
be on that panel, but it wound up being the Gail Knick Jackson Show
for a minute, and it was a pretty good one that I got to
see a bunch of or hear a bunch of. Anyway, what were your
thoughts on that, by the way, Well, I think it was great.
It was great to be there with Gayo, and I think it's it
brings up an interesting observation to me in that, you know, it shows
how valuable in person conf its attendance can be because I ended up having lengthy
discussions with Gail, who I'd known before. But again, you get a
chance to be really much more focused to the conference when you can step away
and get into a good discussion. And so I have really gone back and
am working then the whole Walker issue again, combining Gail's remark and Gail's book
along with some work that Gregg Doubt had done. So I'm I'm kind of
off on attangent again after the conference working on that. I think I've fallen
into like three different follow up dialogues with people that I really had not anticipated
doing before we got together in Dallas and kind of spurred each other's interests.
So yeah, I really enjoyed interacting with everybody. It just it brought back
to me how much that person contact can trigger further research. You know,
you're not you don't just have to listen to presentations. It really gives you
an opportunity to get in there and engage. Right. And another nice thing
is this is going to give you some additional well, some additional insights,
some additional leads, some additional possibilities regarding one of the things that you also
gave a presentation on at the conference, which which is Oswald and his entanglements.
Right, Reframing Oswald is what I keep saying. But you're working on
a monograph, and I do have a couple of listeners who are very interested
and want to know, you know, what the progress is on that,
and are actually waiting to see what you have to say regarding a re evaluation
of who the alleged accused assassin. Right. I put both words in front
of it, because why not. But but here we are a lot of
reframing needs to be done because, as we discussed at length on another show,
previous observations might be quite outdated, even your own, with all humility,
you said, so you know, here we go you're working on that,
what's the progress and did the U did the conference itself have an influence
over maybe some of the directions you were looking into, or some of the
material that you thought was more or less important before or after? What do
you have to say about that? Yeah, I think the conference, you
know, I had already kind of kicked myself into into if you want to
call or reframe or revisit a Basically, what's become clear to me is that
we've been trapped. Right, Certainly, I've been trapped. I won't say
everybody's been entrapped, but I've been trapped in a lot of what I've written
about Oswald because I was functioning honestly, totally within the JFK research community,
rather than looking at it for my true historical analysis the way I'm supposed to
be trained to do. And I accepted too many things. I made too
many inferences based on things that I'd read in tertiary literature. I like MJFK
books. Well, if those guys, I brought along too much baggage,
And as I went on along writing more books, I didn't necessarily get rid
of that baggage. And at this point in time, That's what I'm kind
of busy doing is stepping back to look at Oswald. I mean check,
you know, we've got three views of Oswald. We've got the popular public
view of Oswell, which actually formed over started within you know, twenty four
hours. Over the first several months. I mean, the public was given
a view of Oswald by what was being leaked from the FBI report, which
was done in two weeks, agonized enough, leaked by you know people,
And it's amazing what leaked out of the Dallas Police Department, out of the
DA's office, all of which went directly to the press, none of which
should have happened, none of which should have happened if Oswad was alive and
had been prosecuted in a normal legal fashion. Instead, he was literally tried
in the court of opinion. Well he was convicted in two weeks by the
FBI, but he was tried in the court of opinion, you know,
within weeks and months before the Warren Commission ever offered an official view. So
we've got to face the fact that those views were out there. And then
the research community, the skeptics, first generation skeptics, responded to to clearly
what were problems with the Warren Commission report. Not so much with what they've
put in the appendices, because there's some really good stuff in the volumes,
but in their report. And I will say I want to hand off some
kudos. I have been rereading some work done by Pat Spear, who has
collected a lot of the internal Warren Commission dialogue, stuff that we didn't see
for three or four decades, right, stuff that's been released then that really
shows how much internal criticism there was, where somebody like Leebler was not even
satisfied with what they were putting in the report because he didn't think they could
support it, and people responding it's kind of like, well, it's all
right, we don't want to say too much because we don't want to leave
any doors open. And just rereading that impressed so much onto me that you
know, yeah, we've got a good reason to be skeptical of what's in
the report, and that's encouraged. That's encouraged me to kind of answer your
coil question, to step back like historians are supposed to do, and take
a look at primary sources and qualify secondary sources, and not just repeat what's
out there, but to go back and really treat it methodically. So if
you ask me what I'm doing, I've stepped back into the monograph that I
had about eighty percent done, and I'm going to restructure it. And it
looks like it's going to be about double in size to do a really concrete
job with it. So that's where that's going. And yes, I'm making
more work for myself. Yeah, well, you kind of wind up having
to because again people were relying and this is why some of your remarks I
think it was maybe it was the banquet remarks, I'm not sure, but
some of your remarks during the conference where you said, you know, look,
no offense to all the authors the room, and there were many,
but you know, when you're going to discover something new, something of significance,
and you're going to be able to add to these discussions and move the
conversation and the knowledge base, you know forward. Quite frankly, you're not
going to find it in anybody's book. It's just that simple. You're going
to have to do the actual work. Get with the people, get with
the primary sources, go back to, you know, some of the earlier
stuff, and also look at what has been newly released. What has changed
since that time period. Pat Spier, course is the wonderful guy who created
The Mysterious Death of Number thirty five right, which was a really great series
on the Internet and at one point was released as a DVD. I highly
recommend it, even though it's got a completely different focus than what we're talking
about right here. It's more about medical evidence and has a shocking interesting piece
about you know, what we've all referred to as the mystery photograph and all
that. But Pat spears very quietly, actually done an incredible amount of work
on a diverse area, a diverse many areas, excuse me, within the
JFK evidence universe, one way or another, and that includes documentation, but
nobody ever points to it. I actually want to get Pat on the show
soon. I don't think anybody's really been talking to him lately, and I'm
certain, given some of the things that he said privately, that his work
has continued much like many other people's. You know, just because a book
is not being published doesn't mean people have stopped working too. Let's remember that,
you know. Yeah, he covers a broad gamut of different areas,
and one of the things again, because if I'm going to do an appropriate
job of this. I've got to go back and visit these three you know,
the different views of oswel how they were formed, so everybody understands the
weaknesses and issues with each of the views, like including my earlier views.
But one of the things he cites is some an internal document within the Warrant
Commission that says basically, basically it's saying that they're concerned about actually handing over
the evidence to NARA so that people can see it. And it's like,
we have got to negotiate with the archivists at NARA to delay turning over the
evidence that we've looked at as long as possible. And you're going why,
and essentially their reason was they they're very concerned about providing ammunition for the first
generation critics right now, which was does not speak to one thinking that you
have a really strong case. Can you can Can you imagine an attorney going
into court saying, well, we've got to make sure nobody sees the prosecution's
evidence because you know, we're going to win this case without it. That's
that's strange. Well, tactically it's weird because it's almost a reversal philosophically of
what you would expect from a defense attorney. A defense attorney might look to
serve their client by trying to get evidence excluded, delayed, let me object
to it being entered in the first place. This and that. Generally speaking,
the prosecution, for the most part, if they developed the evidence,
wants it all in. If they developed it, you know, I mean,
unless they found something that's really truly exculpatory, they generally will want it
all in. So that usually speaks to look if the prosecution in this case,
the government effectively serving as prosecution despite the fact that there was no prosecution
or truly adversarial procedure officially done, you would expect that the prosecution, if
they had such a super solid case, would be looking to include as much
evidence in the in the public court of opinion, you know, they would
seek to let's release this stuff so the public sees this to undermine in a
legitimate way the backlash we're getting because of these Warrant Commission critics. But that's
not what we see. That's not what we observe, is it. No,
it's exactly the opposite of what you think it should. In fact,
I think I've only seen this in one other place from a prosecution, and
that is in the Robert Kennedy trial, where the prosecution asked the defense simply
to admit all of the evidence without challenge, which defense did, which is
amazing. You know that that's insane, Okay, and then they very quickly
moved to destroy a good bit of it or completely hide most of it in
the California I Archives to make it extremely difficult to get to. This is
Yeah, this brings up some very fundamental questions about the prosecution and and it's
the sort of thing you did mention. You know, what do we see
now that we didn't see before? We saw none of this information about the
internal concerns within the commission itself for decades. This is brand new. Well,
with the exception of what was it Weisberg and Rohan, I think with
their Boyer request, right, that's the only getting some of the executive sessions
in the public sphere to be observed. With that exception, I would say,
you got nothing about what was actually internally happening outside of the you know,
the pr face if you will, of the Warrant Commission, like when
they made that trip to Texas. It was public. You know, you
had you had the news there, you had other people recording it. That's
why we have the pictures of you know, Arlin Arlen Specker and indeed,
oh god, who else are we thinking of? Like it's kind of striking
to see Alan Dulles outside of the school book depository right looking up at the
window. Have you seen these clips? Right? Yep. So I'm also
fascinated by the press releases and in fact, the wire releases that come out
at different time periods. I'm actually actively looking at those and collecting some of
them, even myself currently, because it's remarkable to see what it is they
were doing in sixty four regarding these you know, these photographs. Yes,
indeed, we know about the photographs that were released, but if you take
a look at the text and the intent and the things they're trying to demonstrate,
even with the selection of what the Associated Press and the UPI is sending
to everybody, you know, newspapers, TV, it's it's really fascinating to
take a look at what's happening in sixty four and then how they are reacting
to public criticism. By the time you get to seventy three, because it's
around the tenth anniversary. See, this is why these anniversaries are so significant
from the standpoint of studying the media's coverage, Okay, because you can literally
see the reaction and the actions that are taken by the media and put them
in the context of what is going on in the public sphere. In seventy
three, it's now been ten years since Kennedy was assassinated. So because of
that, there's a resurgence of interest, right, and they're literally re releasing
stuff and showing you new things. And you know, I mean there's different
time periods before that, like say during the Ruby trial, you know,
sixty eight and there Garrison. Obviously, this creates different reactions from the press
time there is something going on significant tied to the investigation and anniversary, some
actions that are the results of the assassination one way or another, you know,
the things that stemmed from it. Like I said, Ruby's trial,
all this kind of stuff. Every time something happens, you can literally if
you had, you know, access to the entire archive of the world,
you can track these things and take a look at these different actions that are
taken collectively by the well by the corporate media. The for profit media,
the news media, and historians will have to recognize this. It's not historians
doing it, but they will have to recognize it and how these things changed
and literally come back around to influence things like the investigations that were then called
for, you know, the fact that we have, I mean, everybody
points to Oliver Stone and how you know, he definitely pushed the already in
motion movement of release the documents over the cliff so that they had to react
after that. One slide shows up at the end of the movie, right,
But there was a whole release the files movement before that that was already
putting pressure on Congress to do something stuff like this. But there's a lot
of other points way before that and indeed after that, where we can intellectually
wrap our minds around, Look, this is what was happening. We can
see what was memorialized, what the efforts were, who's actually you know,
doing what We can almost start to, you know, outline everybody's motives and
their motions and put them in place. Now, that to me is a
fascinating study in and of itself and might be one of the things that I
delve into and do presentations on in the future, because I don't see anybody
adequately tackling it thus far. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I mean,
I love pictures of the pain and a lot of these other things that try
to give you a good sort of reference for what's happening regarding something as as
NAR always say, the photographic evidence or whatever. But I think the media's
reaction that everybody talks about, but nobody has ever truly examined the entire spectrum
of and the history of it, like the historiography of it all at once.
I don't think that's ever been kind of summarized or given an It hasn't
mentioned because I've been looking at that because obviously one of the questions I have
to deal with is how did this How did this popular view of os WILL
emerge? What were the mechanics? You know, before there was there was
no criminal report, there was no you know, how did that happen when
it's really supposed to happen. I mean, you're you're really not supposed to
find out all that information and advance? How did all all that stuff get
leaked? Who was really complicit was it? We've always assumed that it for
some out was the FBI. Actually it looks much more like most of it
came through the DA's office in Dallas and the Dallas Police office, who just
totally had no security on anything. Just like, Okay, let's make copies
for your cousin. Let's uh, oh yeah, I was there. Let's
let's copy this photo. Here's twenty of them, circulate them through the department.
You know. Uh, somebody, somebody's on record is saying he if
you had five bucks, you could get anything you wanted out of the DA's
office, right, you know. So, But I think another thing,
just to quickly come in on what's happening with the Oswald study, is we
now have enough data that I don't think people have revisited. People have painted
very broad brush about about sources, and I think we can do better than
that. And even even the Warrant Commission I was looking some stuff that and
even they're going, for example, talking about something about Oswald sighting in the
rifle, and they're they're going back and looking at uh, Marina's testimony and
it's like, well, no, she she really didn't say what she said
was uh. And they're not talking about their own her interviews with the Warren
Commission. They're talking about her early interviews with the Secret Service or the FB
or whatever. And this is a Warren Commission lawyers saying, well, no,
we've got to watch it because all she said in the beginning was he
took he took his rifle and he went outside. Okay, And we've looked
at, you know, the attorney's sayings, We've looked at what happened during
the rest of the her testimony. It's like they managed her testimony. They
led her into saying what they wanted her to say. And this is a
Warren Commission attorney talking about the FBI and the Secret Service, you know,
trying to get her to say, oh, he took the rifle outside and
somehow sighted it in at night, which is really tricky to do, by
the way. You know, so even even the Commission, you've got to
identify where this stuff happens, to know who you can trust about what,
And nobody's ever really done. I think the JF community me included it again,
is painted with such a broad brush. It's kind of like, well,
we can't trust anything. We can't trust Yet Sylvia or Meyer found extremely
good stuff within two years within the volumes of the Warrant Commission. There is
good stuff in there. So it's not that you can't trust anything. You
just have to test everything, right, I mean, accessories after the fact
is still a useful guide, you know at this point in time, because
people, you know, they did pick up on certain things and the obvious
is easy. You know, Like you just said, there's managed testimony.
Okay, how do I prove that? Well? I mean it's right there
in their volumes. Actually, because okay, we already talked about this off
the record. Now you've prepared to offer anything else that we haven't already discussed,
like if you break down, if somebody can get through that word salad
for a minute, okay, and imagine it in real life. First of
all, a lot of people are not even sophisticated enough to handle the now
if we discussed this before, and we're not going to discuss it any further
on by the time they're done with that, right, I mean, you've
looked at this questioning before. It's like, does the witness even know what
they were just asked? I wonder sometimes you know, or are they just
going to give a yes or a no to get the hell out of this
because it's this weird management and that's what we see on the record. That
doesn't tell us about all what went on off the record, you know,
like when somebody gets taken out into a hallway and yelled at and stuff like
that, there's no stenographer for it. Okay, so you know we've got
a variety of things. But is that enough to say that the well,
well, the testimony is not reliable because of that. No, because a
whole lot of other things get revealed. Now, I would argue that a
guy, like when you're looking at Givens being interviewed right, who was a
worker for those not necessarily as obsessive, was one of the workers at the
school book depository. Was an African American guy who had a criminal record,
who, in my opinion, was being leaned on to give testimony a certain
way, and it was all about timing and trying to place Oswald somewhere so
that he could be eligible to be in the right place at the right time.
And this guy merely tries to offer, well, look, I went
outside to get cigarettes or something out of my jacket, and it turns into
this whole fiasco that at the end of it you might have to disregard his
testimony because he's a influenced b being leaned on and then on the record even
I would say, almost intentionally being confused. Now, is that the case
for everybody, No, every single one of these witnesses needs to be re
examined to take a look at the validity of what it was they were saying,
and that includes Marina, who you know, again, some people say,
well, look at certain points we know she lied. It doesn't mean
that she lied all the time, and it doesn't mean that we can't gather
a lot of useful information, especially if you can corroborate it elsewhere it's helpful.
But when she says certain things like sighting in that rifle, that's hilarious
because how do you cite you know, this is why I and Griggs was
so important. How do you actually do this? And let's face it,
Marina would not have brought that up her own. Marina hardly knew what a
rifle was. You know, Marina is not going to say, oh,
we went outside to side in his rifle. She doesn't know what to sight
is. You know, somebody let her there, you know, And yeah,
in was reality checks for all of this but you know, the thing
that strikes me, and that's why I made the reference to history, chuck,
to a large extent, we haven't necessarily approached sources the way historians approach
to hell. Historians deal with these kind of problems all the time, you
know, usually many years after the fact, right, but they still have
multiple sources and who said what about who? And we've got to reconcile them.
And there are practices, right, yes, there are practices that you
can follow. And so that's one of the reasons I kind of have to
say to myself, Okay, straighten up, go back, what are the
best practices and why didn't you follow them before? It almost seems like we
need a new instruction manual that ought to be mandatory to be offered at every
JFK conference and at any place where JFK literature is being sold, that is
titled something like how to approach the JFK case like a historian, you know,
which would be really really useful, because see, that was the thing
about Roger Remington was definitely a character, you know, Doctor Remington was a
fascinating and sort of moody guy who definitely didn't tolerate nonsense. Too well.
And you know he's passed away now, but he wrote Biting the Elephant.
I don't know. If you're you're probably familiar with his work, right right,
Okay, So you know the thing is, though, is that in
speaking with him all the time, though he was constantly pulling me back to
look, look, look, look, before you get way down into this,
you know, quagmire of problems. Understand there is an easy fix,
and it is to look at it the way that I was trained to look
at it, you know. And I didn't really appreciate it as much at
the time as I have come to appreciated over the years. So yeah,
Roger Remington's another guy who I recommend you read his stuff because it is written
in a whole different fashion than most of what you see in the land of
the literature. And that's not any offense to a whole lot of people who
have put a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of
their own money into doing what revealing things that would not have been revealed otherwise.
And I appreciate them, I really do. But at certain points you
have to step back and take another analytical track. And that's what I liked
about that statement that you made at the conference. Anyway, what is the
progress report on the Oswald thing before we get out of this particular quagmire,
because we could talk about this all night. I think, so the progress
is I had something like ninety pages written, okay, and Rex Bradford even
I were even talking about. It's kind of like, Okay, Rex,
when are when are you going to be ready to edit it? Now that
I've looked at it and thought about it some more, Yeah, those most
of those ninety pages are probably good, but it's going to need another fifty
pages to do justice and to set the stage more correctly and define why this
is being accepted and that's not being accepted, to make it perfectly transparent.
You know. It's it's sort of like you might find this funny. When
I got back, just for entertainment, I read a lot of history on
the side, and I'm reading I'm reading an historical study of Alexander the Great's
campaigns, right, and I get into the first introduction and the historian is
going to say is talking about his problems like, well, there were several
of these sources and this one was bias this way, and that one was
bias this way, and here's how we have to deal with it. And
I'm going, oh, shoot, you know this guy, this guy's looking
over my shoulder now, like why did I not do that in the first
place, Because you've got to make it transparent while you're taking one thing and
not taking another. So to answer your question, I've probably added at least
three or four months to it to step back and do a better job than
I was doing. No, And look, Alexander the Great is an excellent
example because quite frankly, there is a lot of stuff that's been memorialized about
the massive campaigns, about the domination of certain other nations, et cetera,
et cetera, And frankly, it is a labyrinth very similar to the Oswald
Labyrinth in a certain way. Depending on who's writing about it, you have
a whole different view of what's happening, you know, whether it's the And
again, there is the tremendous Asian campaign, which is not a simple thing.
And I have no idea why in the hell Oliverstone decided to tackle that
one, by the way, mone because it's a bit messy, uh to
say the least. Okay, that figures, because again, and I like
that movie. And and I find Alexander fascinating, you know, I find
his father fascinating. I find the the parallel journeys between the two kingdoms,
so to speak. Right, because you have you have Xerxes and uh oh
uh the the the father. I forget who is the father's name, but
it's it's almost a relevant Who are ruling a huge part this huge empire,
right and and really a great deal of Asia, and Alexander takes this on
and you know, and it's just wild. I mean, even if we
think about the concept of the libraries of Alexandria and all that kind of stuff,
and the different Alexandrias that were built, and uh, the way that
he conquered people but then also allowed their local governments to stay in place,
their local customs to stay in place. There's a lot of things to be
examined here from a conqueror and you know, colonization sort of standpoint. From
a military standpoint, there's various histories that could be written around this one character,
and you have all sorts of different directions that they could go in if
you allow bias to steer, you see, And that's what the interesting thing
is. If you want to make Alexander a tremendous hero if you want to
make him a butcher, if you want to make him and that's the that's
where it comes together here. You want to make Oswald the crazy kid who
swept himself up into madness and you know, did something to make history.
Okay, we can find you stuff to do that with. You want to
make him into mister innocent and he was just you know, a poor victim
of happenstance. We can kind of do that. We can make him part
of a larger conspiracy and like some people want to do, Tournament an almost
James Bond like character. Sure, but is any of that gonna get us
any closer to the historical reality? The answer is no, not if we're
going to allow that sort of bias, that preconceived notion to formulate what's coming.
And indeed, the funny thing about it to me is that it's exactly
the hypocrisy that the Warrant Commission critics started with. You know, in the
very beginning. I used to love this thing. And it's been said many
different ways about well, if you're gonna have an impartial investigation, isn't it
funny that the first three people you decide to you know, interview or guess
who three people that are connected to this guy who was temporarily hired at a
bookstore to you know, mainly to refinish the floor coincidentally happen to be there
at the assassination. Are you looking into the assassination or this guy? Or
if you take a look at the subcommittees in the division between these junior and
senior counselors, which, of course Arlen Spector was the junior counselor of a
team of two. One guy shows up one day and never comes back,
you know, this kind of thing, that's the senior counselor. So Arlen
Spector becomes a one man team. And take a look at what the responsibilities
of these little subcommittees that are for the investigation. Well, three out of
four or four out of five of them have the name Oswald in the title
of their job description. I mean, you know, so are we investigating
the murder of the president or are we investigating Lee Harvey Oswald in the Warren
Commission, which again is a misnomer because the most active guy there is Alan
Dulles for some odd reason. While Brown points that out, in the Warren
omission mathematically in a realistic sense, who's the guy who's actually there all the
time, Who's the guy who's influencing things, who's the guy who seems to
be steering everything including the questioning? By the way, might not be a
guy named Warren, you know, looks more like the dullest commission to me.
But anyway, all these things aside, I'm looking forward to it.
So you need to come up with another fifty pages to do the whole thing
justice and we might see it what sometime this coming year? Yeah, yeah,
I would say that would be right. So the real thing is I
reset, I've kicked myself in the rear, said I need to do a
better job, and it's going to get longer. Well, isn't that always
the case? Plus you got the chiropractic adjustment from the things that you encountered
at the conference, and since so there you go, which, by the
way, you had some conversations with Rex Bradford, and that alone is enough
to go for an attitude adjustment regarding what you're working on, right, I
mean, yeah, it's a it's having it. Well, I had a
like five hour car ride down and five hour car ride back with Rex,
and basically he just kept beating me up with questions. You know, you
know, you've got to address this and the paper, and you've got to
address that in the paper. And so after that kind of dialogue, that's
another reality check. Well, look, I'm a little jealous because I think
the shortest car ride I had was thirteen hours in one direction, so you
know, and I didn't have Rex Bradford with me, so jealous twice.
Anyway, we'll leave that alone, and unless you've got some more things you
want to add about the conference, we can move on to a couple other
subjects before we close this one out, because this is more of a Larry
Hancock update, and for listeners, I would suggest that you can always get
a Larry Hancock update by going to larrydash Handcock dot com. Obviously you hear
me say Larry Hyphenhandcock dot com on the commercial that we run here all the
time for in Denial, which you know as per usual. I'll tell you
Larry takes up more spots on my bookshelf than any other author in every single
one of those volumes, whether he authored it alone or with a co author.
Is absolutely essential reading in my mind, so you can't go wrong.
If you don't have a Larry Hancock book and you want to pick one up,
go to larrydsh Hancock dot com and take a look at his work,
and also catch his blog. You can get updates there and look. If
you got to go to Amazon and buy them or whatever, do that too.
But wherever you see Larry's book sold, it's a good place to go
to get them. Anyways, back to it. You have other work though,
going on other things in motion. It's not just all JFK. I
did have a curiosity from a listener before I move on to something I know
you have an answer for if there is any updates on your work on RFK
or MLK. This was a collective question from an email before Dallas, but
I never got to it with you. I think MLK is done after doing
two books on that. I think Stu and I have captured probably everything that
we have to say on MLK. I'm not really sure what more could be
done. RFK is just kind of sitting there. It hasn't dropped over the
last last year. I've kind of revisited RFK a couple of times that the
real, honest answers to the listener. I think Stu and I spent a
lot of time doing RFK. I did the monograph on Incomplete Justice, which
is on the Mary Feraoh website, which I'm still pretty comfortable with. But
where we ended up basically is our view of the solution of the RFK matter
lies with the Polka Dot Dress girl, and the problem is breaking through with
the identity of the Polka Dot Dress girl. I've discussed what we viewed as
the probabilities of even fact discussed before. I think we've talked about the fact
that LAPD and the FBI were actually interviewed people that were most likely conducted to
the Polkadagstral and totally dropped the ball. But the problem is that this distance
in time, unless I mean Sir hands her Hand has gone so far to
say that she is the key, that she was the seminal factor in getting
him involved in at the hotel and triggering what happened. I believe he's faced
up to that, but he's not seen anymore so even Sir hands her Hand
now agrees on that point, is on record of it. But until you
can break through and confirm the in identity of that individual. I don't know
what more you can do. No, but I haven't found a way to
do that yet. Have taken a couple for your listens. I haven't totally
given up. I've worked with some other people, took a couple of shots
at it this past year and it didn't work, but I haven't given up
on it. Just no progress to report fair enough. You know what it
is though, is because in the past couple of years we've been confronted with
the near release of Sir Hann right, and then the Governor California excuse me,
oh boy, sorry about that, but odd reaction there because of the
tooth of my apologies for that noise. You know, the thing is that
when you have the near release of Sir an sur Ann right, he was
almost paroled if it wasn't for the Governor of California saying nope. And you
have the recent proclamation from RFK Junior right regarding the assassinations, where looks like
he's got questions about accuse. Of course, he's always had questions about his
father's assassination, but also about his uncle's assassination. It's come up a bit
more in the news, so of course people are gonna start asking about it
more. So I think that's fair enough. But meanwhile, let's get away
from murder and mayhem. Uh. You know, the the the hotel in
California no longer exists. You know, a lot of the evidence is gone,
a lot of the people are gone. I'm glad we still have an
open mind about that whole situation with RFK, and I'd love to see a
real resolution there and something change regarding Sarian, But it is what it is.
You have other work going on though, with the UAPs, and of
course you did a book called Unidentified, But ever since you've been working with
this committee and that is of interest to some of the listeners as well.
So is there any updates on that. It would probably surprise some people to
know that over the last five years I've probably put far more work into the
UFO UAP thing than on JFK or any of the other Cold War stuff that
I've been doing. Yeah, I think the real what's really interesting, what's
what's at this point point in time. The team that we've had together for
some years now is actually published two studies, basically their intelligence studies. We
use the practices of strategic intelligence intentions analysis that we've we've adapted, we've published
and two peer reviewed studies that are available online. Even the data is online
at a Harvard server talking about what appeared to be the intentions of the UFO
slash UAPs over a thirty year period of the Cold War in regard to the
atomic warfare complex, and that that proved to be pretty definitive in our view
as to what their priorities were, what they were doing. And so now
we've transferred looking at that same database again in terms of what was going on
in the public domain. Okay, if that's what was going on with the
Mili terry, is there anything ain't going on with the public that's different?
How do the patterns match? Do we see the same patterns, the same
focus of activity going on with the public And the answer is no, we
don't. There is a major transition between UAP activity from the military space to
the public space circa about nineteen sixty four sixty five, the type of activity,
the locations, the activity, and so we have we have just finished
peer review and anticipate publication of a pattern study of UAP activity in the public
space that should go out and be available in January, where just the process
of doing it again, doing it in a at least a semi academic fashion
with peer reviewers and responses and editors. It. Even when we finished a
paper for peer review, it usually takes us something like eight months beyond that
point to get it through the process, responding to the peer reviewers and in
any way protracted process. But that should be out and I think people are
going to find that very interesting. If you've read UFO literature, you know
that this is an approach people just have not taken in the literature. All
you tend to read about in the literature is individual incidents, and those can
be entertaining, exciting, fascinating, but patterns are not the focus to most
of the literature. So we're in the process of getting that published out in
January, and we're deeply at work on the Force study, which takes us
into some really fascinary areas because we're taking a look. We now know what
this transition was like, the transition and focus the transition and activities. Now
we're going back to those activities and going what does that tell us about intent?
We saw what the intent was in the military space, what does the
you know, of all the alternatives, because that's what you do. You
lay out, you know, half a dozen alternatives as to what could be
happening, and then you have to come up with and rank them. So
that that requires us to take a look at encounters contacts and actually explore the
concept of contact, contact with an unidentified intelligence. That's taken us back into
a lot of the work that SETI has done in the past, and to
a lot of what has written been written by anthropologists and archaeologist and social scientuss
that's that's relevant to the question of contact. What would it look like?
The issues? Most everything you're reading science fiction is way over simplified, although
I'm a terrific science fiction lover, but it's generally when push comes to show,
somebody takes the box out of the cabinet and says, oh, this
is the universal translator. What are they saying? And it's not really that
easy. So yeah, the direction for this one is really I think the
paper coming out in January will set the stage, but the one that we're
working on now, the fourth paper, will really again it will make people
think it should get a lot of discussion. It certainly it's going to be
it'll push some buttons. Well, I don't know. It's it's very good.
It's funny to me because it seems to me like a lot of the
work that you do, no matter what the field is, should be pressing
buttons on people. And you know, because you often have this nun for
finding things that other people did not challenge previously, and you say, well,
wait a minute, you didn't do this. It's it's like the guy
who goes mind you and says, you didn't do this part of the work,
Now let's do it. This is like the Larry Hancock roll, and
what do we call it? Generally? It's kind of like what was the
context for that? Okay? But yeah, you're right. It's because I've
got a hole of this wall behind me is full of books on UFOs and
it's almost incident by incident. You know, they're so fascinating, each one,
each report, each each individual thing is so fascinating that even you know,
the Air Force always looked at it incident by incident. Currently, the
the DoD team that's looking at now still looks at it incident by incident.
Everybody that writes it gets gets hung up on the individual incidents, and nobody
crunches them together. So look, in fairness though the incidents are fascinating,
it's not like the the you know, the the JFK universe, where people
get so bogged down in the minutia you're bored to death unless you're interested,
you know what I mean. I've had people glaze over. Well I'm sitting
there explaining something very specifically because it's like, look, you're getting into details
about a subject area that just doesn't But when you go with the UFO thing,
every single one of these incidents could be if they're well documented, right,
extremely fascinating. There's a lot of places to go. There's a lot
of story to tell. It's not just you know, data, data point,
data point. Oh, by the way, you're unfamiliar with you know,
all of these concepts when it comes to ballistics. Well, let me
enlighten you. No, it's not like that. See, with the science
fiction thing, it's like, look, these are people that go into an
area or you know, not science fiction. With the UFO stuff, Excuse
me, it's just like science fiction. Show me the world, right,
show me the the audit in it. Why is it so different? You
know? And yes, I want some of the details that's why it's science
fiction, because it has to have that element to it, you know what
I mean, where it's just fun. I mean I collect these books for
ages, and I will say that there I have like a whole shelf full
of books which I know everything in it is not true, right, Okay,
I actually have a couple of shelves like that, But it's fun and
occasionally I'll pull out one of those books and read it because it's fun.
It's just entertaining. So yeah, there is and and there's no bloodshed and
gore and okay, what did the blood spatter look like? And where you
know, it's generally speaking better entertainment. See. But that's the thing is
you go making up stories about you know, about Lee Harvey Oswald or the
assassination. You're really just a jerk when you're making up stories. You make
up stories about you know, aliens and UFOs and it's kind of fun.
It's you know, you're it's perfectly permissible. There's a whole genre for that,
you know what I'm saying. But you go with this other historical situation
or you know, the RFK thing or MLK, how dare you go in
there and falsify history. But if you make up stuff about you know,
encounters with an alien intelligence, if you go and you make up a story,
it's it's fun. It's what it is. Like you said, I've
got this one book that's it just relates the experience over like eighteen months of
this couple who got really turned on to the earliest contact these back in you
know, the early fifties, and so they went to Mexico. They went
around and visited all these people and talked to them, and you know,
they're setting down with somebody who's met aliens from Venus, and they're sitting down
with other people who are mentally in touch with the twelfth dimensional rulers of the
universe, and it's like, wow, this is you know, yeah,
I know none of it's true now, but gosh, that would be fun.
Well, and it is also fascinating. Yeah, the people that go
and there are people trying to do this in the JFK genre, by the
way, but thankfully they've been ignored for the most part so far. I
mean literally, after I did Coast to Coast, I started getting contacts from
people who said, look, you want to really you know, I got
a bunch of emails that start out with do you really want to get at
the actual truth behind the Kennedy assassination? Dozens of those, right, So
some of them were, do you really want to get at the truth?
Well, I know this, and I've seen this, and I know the
guys in the mob that really did it, okay, and you know,
and other people say I know the real story because I know Judy Baker,
Okay, you know, stuff like that. And then I come across you
want to get at the real truth, here's how you do it. There's
these people that are channeling JFK and Jackie and you can hear right from Jackie's
mouth exactly what happened that day, Larry. You know, it's a perfect
one. Did you ever hear of a TV show called Dark Skies. I've
heard of it. Yes, I'd be interested if your listeners heard of that.
It was like perfect basically what it is. The the aliens show up
at Roswell, we shoot them down, they become hostile, they killed JFK,
and RFK begins begins a crusade against these aliens. I mean, it's
like the mash of both worlds. Like I would sit down and watch it
I'm going, wow, okay, yeah, this is this has got everything
I got. I did not know it had that much in it. Was
that one episode or was that like a b No, it was on for
at least one full year, maybe two. I you know what, I've
heard of this but didn't know the detail. I'm going to have to check
out Dark Skies Okay, oh yeah, anyway, I will get into it.
Just but look, that kind of thing is fun, and I know
Stephen King tried to have some fun with it, but I mean, you
know, I don't know, it's it's it's not the same thing. It's
just not you know, like the time travel aspect of it or all that
stuff. Like I like the Twilight Zone episode. Do you ever see that
one the oh yes, yeah, yeah, like the eighties one or whatever
it was. It was the eighties or nineties, I forget, but they
put a different guy in charge. JFK actually got to go to the future
in that one. Spoiler Yeah, uh yeah, yeah, I actually like
that one. You know, he's carrying around the half dollar, the whole
bit. It's it's it's really campy and really silly, but kind of fun,
you know what I mean. Like here's the one that was That was
why dark skies. It was it was kind of outrageous enough to be fun
because you didn't feel compelled like the even's quas I take it seriously, you
know, like nobody is offering this as a an even of what if?
So but anyway, so, yeah, the the UFO UAP thing that we
are, So we're moving forward with that, like I say, I just
U And actually, interestingly enough, I'd forgotten to mention it. This month,
another one of the papers that I with a different team cooperated on doing
a study of basically the physical characteristics electronic kinematic basically how unconventional are these UFOs
And we looked at the entire span of time from like forty seven up to
twenty sixteen. And that paper we've just published it. It's fear reviewed and
available. We had a totally separate team with some university students out of Canada
and some other people, and that I just if anybody goes to my word
press blog, I've just recently blogged about that paper, so I tend to
get lost, like, yeah, that was another paper we did. There
you go, and I urge people to do that. I'll also put the
word press blog link in the in the show notes here for tonight's show,
and with that, I'm gonna, you know, kind of wrap a bow
around this one for everybody, because this is the little Larryhandcock update for Christmas
basically. Okay, so we'll put a bow around it as best we can.
My apologies if anybody thinks, you know, I didn't answer all the
questions or get to everything everybody wanted to know from Larry. But I figure
this this will have to do until next year, when I'll I'll have Larry
back on regularly hopefully, and we'll get into all the things that he's doing
and whatever the hell else is happening in the news. And thankfully I haven't
had to discuss Goza with you yet, you know, et cetera. Okay,
so or jivoody. I mean, well that's another one. That's another
one, and god knows what will happen in between now in the beginning of
the new year. But in the meantime, Yeah, Larry Hypeinhancock dot com.
Go there check out his work, and obviously I'll give you the WordPress
link, but if you go to Larry dash Handcock dot com, I know
there's a link there too, so you can get in touch with all this
stuff. As a matter of fact, Larry, I appreciate if you sent
me over the link to the latest paper and maybe even a spot to where
the uh the new paper is gonna be available just next month, right sometime
in January, we're gonna have a new pattern study, right, uh on
what's going on with the uap S and the history of it and the uh
well the military and uh intelligence reaction, right, Uh yeah, definitely yeah.
I mean I'm trying to bottle it as best I can without you know,
stealing directly from the title you put but I'm just saying uh anyway,
So in the meantime, Larry, I appreciate you for doing this with us,
and UH always appreciate your your contributions to the show. I actually got
a couple of ideas and a couple of requests. Uh. People want to
get some Myths episodes in and have asked specifically if you could join in on
uh one or two of them. They're they're pitching ideas for Myths episodes now,
so uh, I might do. I might do a few, just
to get back at it. Always happy, you just have to remember how
quiet and shy I am in a group. Ah, well, not so
much, though, I don't know, except when I mean with Gayle there
though, I mean, what are you gonna do? You know? That
was interesting If you guys didn't catch that at the Lancer conference, it is
one of a kind thing. And shout out again to Dale and Doug and
Larry and David, all of them, David Boiling, all of them who
participated in that. And again the Walker panel, Well, what is it
about the alleged you know, the alleged attempt at shooting of General Walker?
What kind of character he was, what we can know about him now?
What is being learned even today about what actually happened there? How that links
to Oswald? And well, how about the whole way that Oswald was shaped?
Indeed, I think you have to begin with the Walker discussion. But
then again I haven't. I haven't seen what the monograph's gonna look like,
and that'll be coming up this year. So actually, Gail's work and some
of the stuff in her again, I think she gets real kudos. One
of the things I'm finding is that independent authors get in her book goes into
and fb elements of the FBI and investigation of the Walker shooting that I had
never seen before and are very important to understanding. I would say when I
first encountered that twenty years ago, everybody was treating it as if the FBI
had blown it off and not even investigated it, which is the furthest thing
from the truth. So anyway, another story indeed, And yeah, again
kudos to Gail, and kudos to a lot of people who have uncovered a
great deal of information that was previously unknown. So once again, Larrydshhancock dot
com, go there, check it out. I do recommend any one of
the books that has his name as the author or the co author. So
that's the end of that for tonight. No matter who you are, where
you are, when you are, I am merely O'Kelly, all of you
are indeed effect Larry Hancock my guest tonight, and uh we should all thank
you for doing that. Wall Stream Window dot dot who silver the stock market?
Wall Stream Window dott Perhaps you're invested deeply, perhaps you're not in deep
enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street Windows dot com, doo
dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State understood these
trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his
knowledge. Wall streetdo dot dot go there, now go there, now go
there now to use expressed by coler schools. There anyone else who happened to
get on the air of jelly dot com if you not necessarily reflect views of
jelly dot com, ord job Jelly, and we are not responsible for any
stumidity which you might ensue. Thank you. The War State by Michael Swanson
explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the
context of the times and revealed never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis.
President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and
the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United
States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an
imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
but knew that there were short range missiles on the island. Arn't with nuclear
warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion
could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to go to
anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you
what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The War State dot
Com, dot com Radio Network, Chili dot com. Go ahead, call
it about the JAFA assassination. Right, well, what do you want to
know any Baker's wild claim? Oswald girlfriends he knew, Ruby and Barry answer
weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
doesn't make me a wagon. But okay, on the building and trying to
prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now has a real effort on
the DAFA assassinationlaim Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words.
You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown
utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well
a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Barry Baker in her own
words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown
one kias jfk At Aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually
dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Vary Baker, in her own
words, thank you for revelation through conversation. In Denial the Secret Wars with
Air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the
cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the
Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why
it really failed and why the United States did not earn from it. It
also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This
is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In
Denial, Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock. For more information,
go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In
Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical. A quick little drop in
just a note that if you wish to become a supporter at o'chelly dot com,
I have a special for you up until the beginning of the year,
and it could be a big, big help to me as challenges have come
up and I've gotten quite drained with the removal of another tooth and other fun
things. And also tis the season after all. So anyway, a twelve
month membership, okay, and a spot on our wall. I've got that
up at the website for one hundred fifty dollars. But if you use the
discount code year end all one word year end, seventy five bucks right now
until January first, and that gives you a twelve month subscription to ocelly dot
com, which means you get special access podcasts that don't go out everywhere,
extra stuff on the exclusives page droughout twenty twenty four. And you'll also be
included in the archive emails because I'll be emailing zip folders that contain the entire
decade of the O'Kelly effect, the shows I produced, the shows I guessed
it on, extra stuff, all that over the course of the year.
So once a month you'll get a massive ZIP folder full of up to it'll
be around five thousand podcasts, I'm sure when it's all said and done,
five thousand podcasts and other media all in these folders, these zip folders.
Once a month, if you remember at Ocelli dot com, somewhere around the
end of January, the first one will come out. But here's the other
thing. Okay, seventy five bucks is a little much. Can't afford it
because it's Christmas time. I mean, I don't want to give you that
Christmas present, Chuck cool. Here's the thing I'm also now because well,
if you sign up nowadays, okay, if you've already signed up at six
ninety nine, you're there, you're good. But if you sign up today,
normally it's ten dollars a month. Now to get that whole year twenty
twenty four with the emails, no spot on the supporter wall, but with
the emails and all that good stuff, normally that costs you ten dollars a
month. So at the end of the year you spent one hundred and twenty
bucks, but it's only ten dollars a month. However, if you use
the promo code, you can get it for five to fifty a month.
Your sign up is nine dollars, but then it's five to fifty per month
after that, and that ends up being seventy five bucks. Again, but
over the course of the year, you pay it off and you use the
promo code year end monthly. All one word year end monthly is the promo
code. When you sign up to be a subscriber at Ocelli dot com.
Now you don't have to use the promo codes. But if you want to
sign up to be on the supporter wall, pay one time one fee for
the whole year of a membership, plus you're on the wall permanently. Year
end is the promo code, one time payment. It prices normally one hundred
and fifty bucks. It's seventy five if you do that. If you want
to do it by the month, make your monthly installments. You don't care
about being on the supporter wall. Cool enough, all the same stuff,
Like I said, the emails with the entire archive from ochelli dot com over
the course of the entire year. Once a month you get a zip folder
if you sign up for nine bucks and then pay five fifty per month after
that, so even cheaper than the old price, except you sign up for
nine dollars. So there you go. That's the total promo plus. Obviously,
I'm more than happy to take any donations at oceli dot com. You
keep us going and you can indeed be the effect. So again for the
total package and to be on the supporter wall, the promo code is year
end, one word, no spaces, no capitals. Year end is the
promo code. And if you want to sign up for a discount membership,
nine dollars on your first payment, but five point fifty every month after that,
year end monthly all one word, no capitalization. Year end monthly is
the way to go. So and it's y EA R E n D year
end or year end monthly, depending on what you sign up for at o'celli
dot com or don't sign up. Just make a donation in the upper right
hand corner on a most desk and laptop, but somewhere on your mobile device
you can make a donation via PayPal and everything counts this time of year.
I hate having to go to friends and ask them to help me out with
things, and that's what I've had to do recently, So I'd really really
appreciate it if some of you who have thought about signing up would sign up
or make a donation or something. We only keep going because you are indeed
the effect at O'Kelly dot com going to Chuck o'ceelly. We're here, Shark
or Shelley. You know it's sharka Shelley. You are about doing marking upon
the wait, you say, the eyes of the world out upon you,
The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you, in company
with our braid allies and brothers in arms on the other front. Your attack
will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped.
In battle Heart it was