The o'chilly Effect is sponsored by Wall Street Window dot Com and listeners like you.
Yeah now check lly first day of June twenty twenty three, allegedly according
to that thing we call a calendar, and this is indeed the o'chelly Effect,
the show you were looking for. How do I know this because you're
hearing me say what I'm saying. Most of you will catch it further on
down the stream by your final cyber choice, your applicable application, your podcatcherd
your We well know this no matter who you are, where you are when
you are welcome to it. Anyways, Thursday Thursday, and it's been unusual
lately for me to have both Mike Swanson and Larry Hancock on the same show.
And even though I went late to air here on the live stream,
you podcatcher people, you podcast listeners out there aren't going to care. I've
got both Mike Swanson, the guy behind Wall Street Window dot Com be in
the no go to Wall Street Window dot Com. It's not just about Wall
Street but also the author of the War State and Why the Vietnam War,
which is a book in a series on that particular conflict. The other two
projected. It's supposed to be three books. The other two projected have not
been released yet. I think Mike's working on him. But we might have
to delve into said subject tonight a touch maybe or maybe not. Gonna be
spoiler by the way, Gonna be some JFK stuff coming up in both hours.
Why second hour author Larry Hancock is with us, and although I have
some interesting thoughts on UAP stuff that he should be talking about very very soon,
tonight, we're gonna focus in the second hour of the show, and
the second probably the third segment will be Lee Harvey Oswald and the reframing of
and not trying to frame him as in for a crime, but the reframing
of the portraits, so to speak, of the individual of historical interest known
as Lee Harvey Oswald. So Larry handcockleby with a sting in the second hour,
definitely, and in the third segment, I believe. But Mike Swanson
is with us, live as we go, and again happy to have you
along. And little pause again last week Mike you were away, but boy
am I happy to have you back. How are you doing tonight? I'm
doing great? Good to talk. Yeah, And you know, I was
going to talk to you a little bit about local news stuff and and and
so on and so forth. But why why stress on that you and I
have lots of personal interests in history and all that good stuff. Oh by
the way, speaking of history and our personal interests, just a really quick
thing about the website and the swag bag packages that will be going out,
um, if you would like after ten pm tonight, I'm going to you
the listener, not you, Mike, you the listener, although Mike you
you could if you felt like. If you're hanging around after ten pm tonight
and want to be part of the o'chelly dot com promo video that I'm gonna
make, which is about two or three minutes long, if you want to
participate in that, get in contact with me and let me know you the
listeners. If you hear this live, contact me Charles dot o'ceelly on Skype
or right to blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com. Do one of those
two things, and you, any listener who wants to and has use of
Skype, could participate in the making of a short promo video tonight sometime after
ten pm. Because I want to promote the swagbag stuff, which is not
on sale in any way, shape or form. It's stuff being offered to
you as thank you gifts for supporters you out there. Choose to support us
At fifty dollars or more, you get to choose a hat with the Ocelli
dot Com show on it that you would like. Currently that's only four shows.
But each one of these hats are all in very short run and quite
unique. The most of them that might be made in exactly the same form
in this run, there might be three or four of them that are the
same. They're mostly one and two of a kind. And you can get
in nochelly dot com shirt excuse me hat. You might get shirts so too
because the random swag bag comes up later. But back to the hats.
O'chelly dot Com, o'celly Effect hat, Age of Transitions hat, Uncle the
podcast hat, or get Mad with Chris Graves hat. These things you can
choose from the rest of your swag bag. I'm going to assemble and you
may or may not get a bag in with that too. Bunch of stuff,
but we'll talk about it later, much much more because again I'm making
Mike Swanson wait, and I've already killed about five minutes of podcast time.
So Mike, I did ask you how you're doing already, But what is
on your mind this evening, sir, Well, I'm gonna make a connection
with local stuff and history. I'm starting, you know, to do more
writing, and it is part of that thinking about how to write, you
know how, because I'm writing a follow up to the last book I did
about the Vietnam War, but it's really going to be about the Ken administration
and covert action and all sorts of different topics in one book, which at
different points you get different perspectives because you know a lot more today. Even
if you were fully studied up on it's say ten or fifteen years ago,
there's been more information that has come to light since then, so you have
to update it and you are doing that as you as you well do.
And by the way, Mike has authored more books than I ever mentioned on
here, but uh and and one of them is very relevant to this conversation
considering that you're you're from Virginia there, and you wrote a book about the
history of Danville. Indeed, Um, you've also taking the time to release
a writing by your dad where you wrote a foreword about the Roman Empire.
Generally speaking, you're interested in history altogether, but local history is one of
those things that is extremely useful, especially when somebody's trying to develop context and
figure out things that we're going on. When somebody looks at the microcosm of
their local situation and historical reality, it's always relevant and fascinating. So you
have actually done that. You've written on global geopolitical issues for sure. You've
written about Kennedy before, although you haven't had a full book dedicated to it.
And this book about the first book about the Vietnam conflict is very interesting
why and I wonder how that's going to go in the second volume. I'm
actually anxious to see how that's going to go. But all these things are
interconnected and makes sense, especially because you're the kind of writer that you are.
And as I've tried to explain to people, if you haven't read Mike's
writing the long form stuff, I advise it because quite often what Mike is
extremely adept at doing is taking very complex historical realities that requires some nuance,
that require um, you know, a bit of a detailed study, and
and seem to be overwhelming to some people when it comes to details and stuff,
and quite frankly, Mike communicates a lot of complex ideas and situations in
a very attainable and um well just easily understood way. Yeah, go ahead,
I'm just complimenting your right this way. Like the topic though, that
that you know, that's common on your show that we're all you know,
share a lot of interested in and Larry will be talking about it someway or
another afterwards, is really the national security state and uh, you know the
history of that in the United States. I mean, it's the Vietnam War.
That's touches on the Kenny assassination. It touches on UFO and as and
as with you. Right, Larry has covered this stuff contextually all over the
map. I mean when you take a look at books like Surprise Attack and
uh, what what's the other one there? H there's two very very good
ones, but Surprise Attack is one. Uh. He talks about the behavior
of the interesting situations involving and so on and so forth, where Larry a
subgenre in and of itself would be the behavior of the national security state under
different circumstances, right, I mean, that's just what he does shadow warfare.
Shadow warfare is the other back is great. I mean it's I mean
his books. He's one of the best writers on on on this. The
thing is, this topic isn't just covered in books. You know, you
got movies. Uh, you know the whole list of these, not just
the JFK movie. But you can go back to the President's men um two
Days in the condor right zero dark thirty. Yeah, it was a thirteen
days. You could talk about executive action, you could talk about uh.
You know. One of my favorite ones was a movie called Deterrence, believe
it or not, which was, you know, a dramatization, but it
was Kevin Pollock was the president. Really weird sort of circumstance. He ends
up in a diner. You ever see this one and he chooses to oh,
well, yeah, take a look at it. It's a really an
underrated kind of weird thing. Kevin Pollock is the president and an accidental nuclear
strike occurs in Russia common theme in some other movies, right where you know,
they then make a trade off and deterrence, what did we do to
deter the greater nuclear conflict? Uh? And you and I have discussed the
day after, you know, whether it's a dramatization, a historical dramatization,
or just a sort of you know, taking a dip into the zeitgeist of
a particular time period and drama tizing that, or it's a documentary. Many
different film entries have been made, I mean, even going all the way
to you know, your your average YouTuber or whatever who got serious about history,
all the way to Hollywood productions, and many many different stops in between.
So I mean there's a great deal of media out there available for people
to learn, not just books, but audio presentations, video presentations. I
mean, help my podcast, if you look at it from one point of
view, A lot of social, historical, and even current events as they're
unfolding have been memorialized in my podcast. Over the years. One could say
that you could take a dance through at least twentieth century history a lot through
my show, although I've gone outside of the twentieth century and the twenty first
century too. One could say that there's a collection of media there where people
could learn something. So it's it's all great and it's all good. You
actually write historical non fiction and you participate, you know, clearly through Wall
street window and stuff in a way of memorializing various events that are unfolding currently,
always with an eye on history though, because obviously it's like what can
we learn from it? What can we determine will be the future of things
based on the history. So all of this stuff is great context and uh
and necessary in my mind for somebody to be well educated and aware of what's
going on in the world. And larrys is again one of my favorite authors
as well, So you know, a little bit of bias there on my
part, but so are you, Mike. I appreciate your style and the
information that you do work very hard at presenting to people so that they can
be educated about previously unknown stuff. A lot of times, I mean,
there's documents in the Why the Vietnam War book and references to things that I
don't think are really out there generally to the public that are sort of rare
in their presentation, or am I wrong about that? Now, there's there's
new information in that book, for sure. I'm not saying every page of
the book is new, but but people who read it they'll find definitely in
the last couple of chapters there's a lot of new information Um, but I've
been reading or I've read a book several years ago. It's called The Secret
War Trees and Espionage and Modern Fiction, and it's an academic book that's studying
this topic in literature and in movies. Going back, right, And let's
not confuse it with the Secret Team, by the way, which somebody might
not. Yeah, it's you know, the Secret Team, the Proudie Book
and all that is the Secret War. This is about the John You're itself
going back to Rudyard Kipling, T. T. Lawrence up to Steven Spielberg
and so forth. Okay, So as opposed to history, as opposed to
a book about history, this is a history book of the history. So
this is what we call historiography, I believe, Yeah, yeah yeah,
or literature its analyzing the literature of it. But anyway, you know,
it's the different forms of how this topic is tackled. And like, for
example, the Kenny assassination, I would say the two best books written about
it are the James Douglas book and then, um, the Don DeLillo book
Libra, which is a novel. You know, I would actually tell people
that novel might be closer to what happened on the ground and and not that
it's a factual book it hardly at all, but as a metaphor or something
maybe closer to what actually happened than any work of non fiction and about the
assassination has been written. Um in what the book. What that book does
though, to not this novel is it doesn't purport and I only read it
once, you know, years ago, but it doesn't purport to like solve
it. It tries to kind of put you in the shoes of some characters
that were involved in manipulating Oswald, and then the assassination goes off about them,
you know, having been on it, been in been in on it.
That's one of the plots of the novel. Um it wouldn't be shocked
if that happened. That there are people that knew of Oswald or knew of
some of the aspects or surrounding the assassination, who were shocked when the event
itself actually took place. But I picked this book up again, u In
read one chapter in it where she talks about some author I've never read that
you know, wrote these novels and asserted in it in it in his novels
that they that history itself you know, the very when I was at the
community college that I had a history course, and the professor said, well,
you take the word history and it says his story. It's a story.
Um. And you know that's how we understand history is through narratives and
so forth and um. And then when I went to college, uh,
in a graduate program in history, the professors were asserting at that time that
history it's you know that these stories aren't all necessarily true. You can't really
know percent uh what happened. And that's that's kind of self evident. But
this uh idea that I countered rereading this book The Secret War, UH that's
mentioned here is that this person said that history is a story that we're told,
but what really drives history our secret betrayals. That the person you know,
reading the history book or let's say today watching a movie, really rarely
know anything about it all. And if we do know there's a betrayal,
it's like the Kenny's assination. We know something happened, but you know,
we don't really know the full details of it. But the author was making
out like these are personal betrayals that take place, um, that that are
driving historical events. And the thing about is locally, I'm not gonna bore
everyone with the details or it's not really that important. But a couple of
weeks ago, I was involved and I went to an event. It was
a nomination locally for candidates to the who would be endorsed by the local Republican
party. And you know, I know a lot what happened in the event.
You know, I was sort of working with some of these candidates,
and there was a I'll just say there was like a betrayal that happened and
maschinations that happened that helped to generate the winners of this event. And then
the newspaper reported on it a couple days later, and no one who read
the article would have any clue of what really took place at all. Right,
and you know, even the US that when in some of the candidates
had to take a couple of days to figure it all out, and the
candidates had to talk to each other to understand what happened. The point of
the point of that is this, you know, there's a lot of things
that happened. You know, I guess it's a funny feeling, you know,
to know the details of something and then pick up a newspaper and read
a story that is basically fiction. Right, So it's like, how much
of everything is is that? You know, everything we read is how much
of it is the same? It's it's it's really more going on than then
we got any clue of And and then we look at history something that happened
so long ago. Um. Yeah, throw another example out. A couple
months ago, I read a book about I'm not sure how I hold it
was a couple of years old, but it's supposed to be the newest best
book about World War two and Hitler. And I'd read probably five or six,
you know, world War two Hitler books. I know me and you've
talked about the Rise and Fallow the Third Reich, which was a big hit
in the nineteen fifties. And but so anyway, this new book I read
had, you know, a lot of interesting information in it that made me
think of some of the things we've been told about Hitler differently. For example,
you know, the stereotype of Hitler is that he was nuts and tried
to take over the world, and he was crazy to even think he could
fight, you know, the United States and Britain and the Soviet Union,
and the whole world all once. Well, when I read this, I
understand that actually what he was doing came close to working, and he because
he wasn't trying to take on the whole world at once. What he was
hoping to do was invade the Soviet Union and when before the United States could
be ready and kind of have a fatal complete like I've won, and now
what you're gonna do, you know, and then negotiate with the England,
uh, some sort of settlement. That's really what his goal was. And
I already knew that when he invaded the Soviet Union the first couple of months
of that war, the United States intelligence people actually thought he was gonna in
because he was rapidly advancing on the battlefield. And it wasn't like six months
or so later that he was slowed down when the wintertime came, and then
it became clear Corn this book is pretty convincing that once his assault was slowed
down and stopped at Moscow, that the Germans pretty much knew they were gonna
lose, and he was just you know, even he knew it um And
it is from that point on that he started to physically de teriate. But
he you know, had to keep keep on doing what he was doing.
Then everyone kept tobeying him basically around him. But um, but anyway,
that's the point is that's a new interpretation to me of part of World War
Two that I never had heard it before, and it's pretty convincing, and
it's a lot different than the stereotype of well, this guy's just crazy.
You know, if I look at the pattern of his career and what he
was actually from the way he started to that moment, he was basically being
super aggressive and whatever he was doing and doubling down like a like someone betting
at blackjack or something until he went bust. Basically, Yeah, but maybe
that's crazy, But maybe it's crazy to want to be a world leader anyway.
But well, a lot of leaders that have been of consequence, who
have conquered a great deal of land or have achieved, you know, unifying
countries whatever quite often. I mean, there are large gambles here. If
you were betting with the odds all the time and your movements, would would
Italy have been unified? Would you know, would this or that or the
third thing have been turned into a nation state when it was something else?
You know, what I'm saying, so there's always, um, you know,
there there's always a gamble, so to speak, when it comes to
these kinds of things. And one could say, look, what is it.
What is the old saying? Right? Uh, fortune favors the bold,
etc. Uh. You know again, I'm not making any moral judgments
here. What I'm saying is that if you're gonna do something of massive significance
like that, uh, it does require uh some risk taking. Yeah,
I said, throwout. You know this is um. As far as World
War two history, one thing that helped me ununderstand or has influenced my thicken
in regards to the national security state in the United States is I read a
couple of books, you know, this is probably ten years ago now,
um, about the Hall cost and how it was organized and how it happened
and so forth. And there's two basic historical arguments for why it happened.
Um. The one is that the Germans were simply and I don't i'd buy
the second one, So I'm telling you the one I don't really believe.
But the first one is basically that the German people were basically more anti Semitic
and basically than anyone else in the world more evil, you can almost say.
And their ideology and hatred it was what drove them to do it,
you know, um, and it you know, it'd be easy to find
evidence of someone's being hateful. Uh. In fact, a couple of months
ago, I've watched um, I think it's called I've Been Uh. I
watched this movie that's um, the Nazi propaganda movie about people. And this
movie is censored. You really, in order to watch it, you have
to go it's illegal to watch it in Germany. In order to watch it,
you have to go to a video website and type in your information.
You know, you gotta give him your name and stuff. I mean it's
I mean, I don't know any movie like that. Uh. But well
Germany, Yeah, Germany has some very strict laws about the dissemination of information.
I mean, Americans have to do that, we have to do it.
Well. No, but that's the thing too, it's it's a it's
a but if you just type top German, you know, go to Gooden,
Wikiput or something and get a list of German propaganda films. This is
my point, is that the intellectual that the intellectual properties that are registered in
Germany, though what I'm trying to say here is that because they're an intellectual
property registered in Germany, they have done their level best to suppress access to
anything that is It makes the German nation appear to be on board, because
at one time they were National policy was like that. So anything that is
in support of maybe you know, the Holocaust wasn't such a bad thing kind
of deal. They don't want that disseminated if they can help it, because
they would really like to st The thing about the movie. The thing about
the movie, I mean, it sounds terrible to say this when I say
this, but this movie probably I would say this that that historical argument that
I said, i'd dismiss in favor of the second one, which I've given
us second. But this movie is probably the best evidence for that historical argument
because if you watch the movie M, which I watched the movie M,
it is convincing propaganda that I'm not saying it's true, but it's it's an
effective piece of propaganda because the way it ends. The last couple of scenes
they show and I don't even know this is true, you know, but
they show a bunch of Jewish people killing animals. Oh yeah, Well,
they there's a whole history to this where they got, you know, the
best German filmmakers of the day, and even when they conquered territories, they
took other filmmakers from conquered territories and literally employed them to make these films.
Um. The most famous example everybody knows about it and they can't suppress is
the whole presentation of the Olympic Games, right, which is what was that
Leni Riefenstall I think was her name was apparently this this woman director in Germany
who was, you know, excellent at creating imagery. And yeah, Steve
Stephen, uh, Steven Spielberg produced one film that it's it was a Nazi
propaganda film of the ghettos, trying to make the people look like they're so
down tried and that they know that they're sub human and basically deserve to die.
That's what they're trying to argue in this propaganda movie. It's not really
doesn't make me feel like that when I watch it. Wait, stea,
Steven Spielberg made a film that is a Nazi propaganda film, you say,
now, yeah, yeah, yeah, he took an old Nazi propaganda film
and released it. Oh he released it. He didn't make it. I'm
going an old Nazi propaganda film that they did. It's it's Nazis film and
the ghetto and showing how bad off everyone is and release that and then he's
got commentary afterwards and you can watch that. But uh, why I am
I bringing that up? Um, It's just a piece of German propaganda.
But the film that I've watched, I think it's called The Eternal Jew or
something something like this, right, yeah, but it's the way the end
scene, one of the ends, one of the second end scene of it
is a bunch of Jewish people killing I think there are cows killing these animals.
But they're they're torturing them, you know, they're stabbing them and letting
them bleed to death, and they're the animals are suffering. They're making you
watch this, yeah, over the several minutes, right, I get what
they're doing. What they're right, what they've what they've done is they've taken
the the Kosher slaughter process and they're showing it to people. Because Kosher slaughtering
is you gotta like literally split the animals throat and you hang them upside down
and this, uh, you can't kill them in the regular mechani slaughterhouse way,
uh, in order for them to get the blessing to be a kosher
piece of beef. Right. So what they did is they took a film
like that and repurposed it. Uh. And you know, they shoot it
and showed the ugly, the ugliest possible side of that. I assure you,
if you go to look at a slaughter house anywhere, you're not gonna
feel too good about the treatment of animals. Uh. You know, and
you might not want to eat steak for a couple of weeks, uh,
depending on who you are. But what they did is they took a piece
of film like that and they made it into a propaganda thing. So Spielberg
re released this in order to show people. No, no, this wasn't
in Spielberg movie. Okay, this is the one I watched. You know.
I'm sorry I got getting you confused talking about two different things. But
this is the this is the thing I'm telling you was effective propaganda, right.
Uh. I don't remember what the name of the Spielberg thing is,
but this is the this scene was in this movie that you really can't find
on the internet. Uh. It's like in one spot. You got to
give them your information to watch it. You know, they want to know
who watches it. Um it. It's very very difficult to apparently to find
a film that is allegedly Beverly Oliver and a Stag film too. You can
only go to one website. But but anyway, Yeah, I'm just so.
There's this scene where they're making these animals suffer, and what that does
is it makes you, you know, you don't want to see people harming
animals in that way. In the narrator then is telling you how terrible they
are to the torture animals and making animals suffer. And the implication that they
then make is that, well, you know, we're not gonna We're not
like that. You know, we're gonna stop the suffering or these animals they're
doing. And we're not going to make the Jewish people suffer. We'll kill
them in an easy, humane manner. That's the implication that you get,
well, and you're saying and this is very typical, Yes, very typical.
This is very typical. This is what we you and I have talked
about several times regarding the dehumanization of the enemy one way or another. Where
you make them appear to whether it's true or not. You make them appear
in the worst possible light. You dehumanize them, You take away, uh
you know, you make them appear to be doing the ugliest and most terrible
things possible in order so that you can justify your treatment of them, right,
the dehumanization, that's what they do. And then you know, the
whole thing you've been watched. I think it's an hour long. The whole
thing is how terrible these people are, and this and that, and you
don't you know, it's so overblown, right, but that's what the narrator
tells you. Yeah, but then they show that scene is the most convincing
scene. I mean, these people, the way they treat poor animals.
Look look at what they do. Look at how terrible they are, heartless
they are. And meanwhile, yeah, yeah, and then the movie ends
with one final scene after that, which is Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag declaring
that if you know, if there's a world war, he's going to do
the ultimate solution. You know, how, don't um against Jewish people.
He's gonna fix this. What they do is they show you the darker frames
of this other film where these people appear to be darker and a bit more
you know, nefarious, just in the even in lighting. They'll change the
lighting and the composition. And then what you do is you present the hero
Hitler. Yeah, in in Germany, and anyone who watched this movie,
you know, sees the n scene and Hitler is saying he's gonna kill them
all. Well, not only is he gonna kill him all, but the
restag everyone in Germany knew these people, you know, right. So what
he does is he comes on and he looks clean and pressed, and he's
well dressed, and he looks way more civilized, and he says, look,
we're gonna we're gonna solve this problem. And again that was part of
it, along with the filming of the you know, the Olympics where they
were supposed to be showing the superiority of the German athlete and blah blah blah.
You know, it's all about celebrate us, and also we are justified
in whatever terrible acts we do because look at how terrible these people are.
And again this is very common. This is not something that is unused by
you know, the the good, the bad, or the ugly. When
it comes to conflicts of all types. But yeah, yeah, of course.
Good now, Now, so what I've just presented is evidence that the
Germans we're diabolically racist and driven into that through the propaganda. I mean you
can watch it and see. You know, now that's the argument that's been
made for why the whole cost has happened, since the whole cost has been
revealed. Um. In fact, there's a whole argument that either the American
propaganda and you can watch Why We Fight, um right, you know what
I've watched the first two of that. It depicts the Germans, the Japanese
and the Italians is just diabolically evil. Oh yeah, and there and they're
savage. There, there's savages, there's sub human h you know, and
so on and so forth. I mean, everything from cartoons onto regular films
were meant to depict the enemy in a less than human way. You know,
they're they're either idiots, or they're savage, or they're like Chromagnan men.
You know what were the Germans? They were huns? Right? Uh,
I forget what that's what one I'm watching another movie and that's called The
Vands Conference, and there's two versions of it. One was put out I
believe by this by an Israeli filmmaker in the seventies or nineteen eighty or so.
None. Another one is on HBO. It might have been retitled,
but so with the hall cost There was a famous meeting at this place,
uh called Vandasi. It was a you know, the fancy living quarters like
mansion um in Austria somewhere. But anyway, Um, they had been killing
people, shooting people on a mass scale, and then at this conference the
decision was made to use gas. Well, right, this was the point
in which there were evaluations made, and I've seen a dramatization of this.
The HBO one was very well done. Actually, yeah, you see,
you see what I'm talking about? Oh yeah, where they do just for
the listener, well for the listener, just Mike, let me help out
the listener a little bit. Is that this is a dramatization that I saw
on HBO of this conference where you know, they're sitting there saying, look,
we're rounding people up, we're shooting them, we're drowning them. But
it's not very efficient. And apparently there's historical documentation to back up a lot
of this, where they say, look, it's just not efficient. It's
not working out well. We're wasting bullets and time and manpower. We can
do it in a much more efficient mechanized way, which is allegedly where this
concept of the final solution gets born. And it's a weird thing because even
now today we have propaganda going in the other direction where look, you know,
Jewish people are part of our culture and they need to be recognized as
such, and so on and so forth. I don't know if you saw
it, but there was like, you know, Jewish Heritage month. I
forget if it's May or June, because I just saw it the other day
and it's on the cusp of the change of the month, right where you
know that that is now a propaganda out there to reverse the negative stereotypes,
etc. Which which are are part of what goes on. But again you
got propaganda pushes for various reasons. Um, what's interesting here is we're going
to transition into talking about something else very soon, So I want to let
you get out your final thoughts on this portion of it. We'll take a
little break and then we're gonna spend the last little bit of the hour on
the point I'm trying to make is that if you watch this fansea conference thing,
what you see is how it's planned out, and the people that are
planning it out they're basically a bunch of bureaucrats. They're not fanatical, foaming
at the mouth most of them. One or two were, but most of
them are just regular bureaucrats. In fact, two people I want to point
out that were there. One was the head of the Gestapo, not the
SS but the Gestapo that like the police, and this guy, before Hitler
took power, was had the same basic position. He's head of the State
Secret Police of Germany. Before Hitler took power, and he was against the
Nazis. He was spying, you know, he had his people watching and
spying on Nazis. And then when Hitler took power, he just joined just
kept doing it for them, you know, he just kept the same position
and it was one of the most important people inside their security state. And
so here is a guy that's not an ideological Nazi, but it's just this
like Jagger Hoover type or something, just sudden bureaucrat that goes along and just
you know, has his position and you know, is very you know,
he plays a big role in the mecha. The carrying out of the hall
cost. Another guy was like a judge who was one of the top judges.
You know, he invented the Nuremberg Code that was used to discriminate against
Jewish people and remove them basically from civil society before the war started. And
he attends this conference and he basically says, I don't want to do this,
this is too extreme. I'm not gonna do it, and they just
that's all right. He just doesn't do anything. The point of that is
that that shows that in many cases the Germans had a choice that were involved
in this stuff whether to do it or not. You know, they had
it's the idea that they all had to fallow orders is well, there's a
yes to note to that that some resistance was was there. But once the
you know, just like anything else that we've discussed about political uh situations and
the sort of gravity or the inertia, if you will, of the of
the bureaucratic system, in some cases, once momentum gets moving in a certain
direction, I mean, there's nothing somebody who's within it. It's not like
he'd be able to stop it. He might have been able to withdraw from
it. But see, there might have been but there might have been consequences.
Wait a second, Mike, there might have been consequences to that,
and it is very interesting. We're going to skip the break and go straight
to Larry in the next hour. But um, but what there are consequences
that might have come along with that that maybe aren't revealed. What is interesting,
though, is that during that dramatization, you could clearly recognize that there
were people that really looked at it as just a bureaucratic issue. I mean,
they were sorting out people like they were sorting out you know, paperwork.
Oh well, I guess we'll make it. You know, we'll staple
it together every ten pages. Uh, well, we'll just stop using bullets
and we'll use gas. It'll be more efficient, save money. I mean,
there were people looking at it as cold as that. There were others
that were fanatical. There were others that were maybe going, man, I
don't know if this is a great idea, you know, glory of Germany,
but we need to do this. It just shows that everything wasn't homogeneous,
It wasn't completely just you know, an entire nation of bloodthirsty people.
There were various directions that some people looked at it from, you know,
and look, I'm not going to argue the guilt or whatever of individuals depending
on the different tiers they may have been involved here. But what I am
saying is that there is a nuance that one needs to recognize that it wasn't
necessarily just you know, like a lot of history channel presentations look at the
evil that was an entire nation, well maybe not an entire nation. I'm
not trying to make excuses or anything. What I'm saying is that you can't
always assume that everybody in any ways one hundred percent on board with anything once
you start adding people to the equation, right, I mean, it's difficult
to get five people in a room to agree, I'm what type of pizza
to order, Mike, you know what I'm saying. So it's literally like
that, and I think nuance, all this stuff is important. And the
funny thing is we didn't even hardly get to the JFK thing, which I
was going to get to with you and definitely going to cover with Larry,
because we could talk about the propaganda involved there. We could talk about the
different films both pushing in various different directions regarding conspiracy advocacy, regarding the lone
Nuts solution, if you will. We've seen this go on and on and
on throughout our lives, where there's been different shifts and different sort of postures
taken by the government, the officials, the people involved. I was searching
in my mind for Robert Tannenbaum's name earlier because he wrote a fictional book two
that had a lot of truth in it related to the assassination. And meanwhile,
he was an investigator on the HSA during a time when Blakey was there,
and you know, I would argue that that portion of it was kind
of a limited hangout and it's still having residence today. I know you saw
the recent thing passed around about Gail Nick Jackson and her attempts to retrieve her
grandfather's film. She's got a lawsuit going now, and indeed there's proof that
she's assembled in a very interesting way that the HSCA literally had their hands on
the film that she has been now in search of for forty years, right
so, you know, or maybe longer. I'm not sure how long she's
actually been involved in it, but my understanding is she's been looking to find
her grandfather's original film now for about forty years, and even a small issue
like that can reveal a great deal about the way propaganda has handled, about
the way government handles, you know, things that are supposed to be important
documentation, whether it's a film or historical document etc. Very fast. Gotten
a little bit of attention in the New York Post and stuff recently, but
nationally you don't hear it being discussed very much. It's not a headline news
event. And very much like what we were talking about with the Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich, that wasn't just popular in the fifties, that
continued to be a mildly popular book for decades because of the revelatory way with
which a lot of things were revealed there. People are always curious to know
about history, but at the same time display some levels of apathy too.
So it's very interesting and it's and it's a great it's a great effort that
you're going to be involved in here with this next Vietnam book. Can't wait
to see how it turns out. But now I'll just shut up and give
you about four or five minutes to conclude anything you want to conclude here,
but we're going to talk to Larry Hancock in the next hour about the reframing
of Lee Harvey Oswald. And I don't mean to frame him for a crime.
So by all means, Mike, go ahead continue. Yeah, yeah,
yeah, I'll just connect how this applies the assassination, the whole the
Germany stuff. So the second his historical argument about the Hall cost is that
it drew out of the bureaucracy, and it wasn't simple like Hitler. You
know, he didn't dream up himself personally how it would be carried out.
He didn't come up with the idea of putting people in concentration camps and gassing
them. What happened is he would create the broad policy objectives, which when
it comes to this topic, the first wasn't actually that's just kill everybody,
but it was removed them from Germany. And as the war developed, they
came up with different ideas of how to do that. Let's send people into
Poland, maybe after we defeat the Soviet Union would just keep sending them further
and further their east and use people as slaves. Basically, well you just
enfranchise them. Yeah, they would disenfranchise them send them to the ghettos,
this kind of thing, so that they would be concentrated, not in a
camp, but in an area which would restrict their movement, restrict everything they
could do, and it would strip them of all of the things that they
had gained throughout their lives and they would become non persons that would be pushed
out of the territorial area. That was one methodology, And again your bureaucrats
came around and said, not very efficient, boss, so they would present
them with other ideas. I mean, that's the way I understandable go ahead.
What happened was once they started to lose the war and you started to
go you know, they were going backwards and stead of forwards, the realization
came that we're not gonna be able to take put them somewhere else, and
they started to say, well, we're just gonna have to start to kill
them here. So that's, in a nutshell, you know, the the
driving force of what happened. But um, the ideas of how to do
it would be created by mid level people and then taken to the top for
approval and then implemented. The point of that is that that's how I think
basically all national security states operate. Is very rarely is someone like let's say
Alan Dulles coming up with this master plan to do something. But instead people
in the lower levels are coming up with ideas and then getting them if they
match the objectives, the broad objectives as outline you know, at the top,
then they can get get them improved, and then they implement them.
And that whole process, though pretty much gets lost to history, you know,
right, well, and that's an interesting thing too, that often the
missed thing, right is that people want to point the figure at the prominent
character who indeed did create a policy, but didn't create all the mechanisms by
which it was enacted. So, you know, there are lots of other
thing and we talked about this before about contingency plans and things like that.
How there are people employed as we speak right now, coming up with contingency
plans that might have no realistic use at any point in time, but they
want them in hand because the guy who's in control of the situation, the
alandules is say, in your scenario, they get handed a whole lot of
work that somebody else already did and said, you know, if we use
this and we use this kind of person and so on and so forth.
This is what it would cost us, and this is what it would take
to get it done this way. And they hand them mechanisms and choices,
and that is the functionality of the bureaucracy, right, I mean, it
doesn't matter if it's military intelligence, if it's a you know, governmental social
issues taking care of food stamps, all his stuff. Somebody's in charge,
yes, indeed, but they are not usually even the visionary. They just
kind of sign off on things and a whole lot of people figure out the
nuts and bolts of how to get that done. And that's all levels of
subordinates and uh that that's a reality that a lot of people miss when they're
interested in the historical, you know, topic of any kind. Right,
And it doesn't matter if it's a nefarious thing or if it's a mundane operation.
It all functions sort of the same, right Yeah, I agree,
Yeah for sure. So to me, the idea I like to say,
like George Bush killed Kennedy, Yeah, yeah, I don't really think that
makes any sense. Well, yeah, exactly, because a he would have
never been the mechanic. He's shown no proclivity for being a you know,
an assassin, a shooter, right. I mean this is I realized he
was, you know, a veteran and he was a pilot and whatnot.
But honestly, his track record shows nothing that would suggest that he's like the
guy who's dreaming up you know, ways to lay out shooters and things like
this. It's not his area of expertise. Now, if you're saying to
me that he's a guy who would have dreamed this up, I again object
because he wasn't in a position of power where he's being presented all these you
know, underlings plans and objectives and things like that. So he's really not
in a good spot in my mind to be a mastermind or a mechanic,
right. And this is the problem, you know, and people mix the
two up where it's like, this is a smart guy. He knows how
to get things done, but that's not the guy who gives the orders.
A lot of times, you know, the man who is the expert shooter.
You know, even a famous sniper like Carlos Hathcock. He's not deciding
what missions to go on, but he knows how to execute them, right.
And that's the thing here. There are people play their different roles here,
and I think a lot of people ascribe it's like, that's the the
very mastermind. That's the guy who came up with everything. He's the guy
who comes up with all the little details. And it's like, dude,
that's not the way the real world works, you know. And uh,
And that's the fascinating thing to go through when you actually study these things from
a realistic perspective. What do you think of that, Mike, Yeah,
for sure. And one of the things that they were studying at the right
before the assassination a couple of months beforehand, Desmond Fitzgerald, who was overseeing
all the CIA operations against Cuba, he was at a meeting of the Joint
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and said that they're studying how the failed assassination
attempt against Hitler was carried out, so maybe they could apply that against Castro
somehow. So you know that they were studying these sort of things themselves to
figure out how to do stuff right. Well. I mean, listen,
if you have a successful or an unsuccessful assassination plot that you know the details
about, you could learn from that if you're looking to enact your own right
Okay, where did these guys fail? You mean to tell me this simple
mistake and maybe all these things would have just went down properly and it failed.
Great, Now we've got another one that's completely successful. But why did
it succeed? Maybe we can copy some of those things. Okay, this
is the way they handled the press, this is the way they handled the
guy's personal security. These were successful methodologies. Would they work the same way
here? Yeah? And there's a whole array of underlings that are studying these
things like at all times, right, So it's not always just the mastermind,
the prominent, the prominent name. I argue, in fact, that
the majority of the people that come up with the nuts and bolts are very
difficult to discover for people like you and me, because we have to dig
through many layers, and then you don't have a headline name that people are
attracted to that want to learn about. It's it's very difficult. You like,
just the thing about the Holocaust, Like I said, I've read a
book describing all this and the names, and you know who did the innovations,
who tested that, who came up the idea of using gas, and
who they had people tested on people and this and that. You know,
I forget who these people are. You can't know, but you needed engineers.
They're totally unmemorable. You know, you needed people with scientific knowledge,
you needed people with engineering backgrounds, you needed all that. And that's not
the guy who's walking around goose stepping. Okay, it's just not the guy.
But they need to hand the information to those guys in order for them
to enact their bigger plan, which again was probably handed to somebody else.
I mean, you know, a guy who actually moves people is not always
the guy who owns the company, right. That's why there are personnel managers
in any organization. So you know, there's that aspect of it too,
where their whole job is not to think, is not to create, is
not to do anything. It is just to manage people to accomplish the goals
that they are given. So you know, again there are many layers to
it, and there's a lot of things to be studied. Meanwhile, we're
going to study a few things in the next hour with Larry Hancock, stick
around Mike Swanson, Wallstreet, Window dot Com again being the no go to
Wall Street Window dot Com, and learn a great deal about the world around
you. It's not just about Wall Street. Also the author of the War
State and Why the Vietnam War, the first in a series of at least
three volumes on that conflict, and I'm looking forward to it. Mike,
thanks for being here, and I definitely look forward to Larry Hancock in the
next hour. Wallstreet, Window dot com, Silver the stock Market, Wallstreet,
Window dot dot Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're not in deep enough.
Maybe you're thinking about getting started Walls, Windows dot com, doos 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 three Street, indow dot com. Go there, now,
go there, now there. Now you're listening to the o'helly dot com radio
network. Did you like history? Real history that you were never taught in
schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia by
author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that will open your eyes
to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your
copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Go ahead, go away, I live in the truth about the day
of aassassination? Right, Well, what do you want to know Judie Baker's
wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry Dancer weapons. Really, I
imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
But okay, Oswald was Onmadotean and France prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Come on, now has a real ecort on the daykay as fascination go
into reclining. Go to Amazon dot com, enter Judas Baker in her own
words. You'll get 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 Arry Baker in her own
words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown
at KIA s JFK at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it
actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith Arry Baker in her own words
all the great information. This is James Formatt Qarber Report dot com and you're
listening to the Ocelly Affected o'ceelly dot com. Going to Chuck o'celly. You're
Chuca Shelley. You know, Shelley. You are about doing market upon the
great rotate. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and
prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you, in company with our bred
allies, rather than armed on other front. Your cat will not be an
easy one. Your enemy of well trained, well equipped, and latter heart,
he will fight that demand demand. The tide had turned. The three
men of the world are marking together to victory, good luck, and let
it all be but of Almighty God upon the great and noble under than 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
learn from it. It also shows why other countries today are in 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 Hancock dot com. Pick up
your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com. In digital or physical force,
what would I do? Revelation through conversation in a radio show slash podcast.
You want the good news? Listen to the o'celly effect. Shack o'celli
is the most underrated voice in all media, news, education, and entertainment.
But daily bread from o'celly dot com. Go there, save yourself from
ignorance o'celly dot com. But we all agreed to put o'ceelly dot com on
and listen to the ocelly effect. Revelation through conversation ocelly dot com. See
you watch yourself to see that you want your screen, ride back and ship.
Listen to what you want more? They can say, try if we
are not will love well watch you come. This is oh chilly dot call
Devilation through conversation. Second segment of this Thor's day night, o'celly effect now
in effect if you will at o'ceelly dot com and the various places that you
get your podcast from, because I don't know you're you're mostly listening at other
times, other places and all that good stuff. Meanwhile, are you lucky?
Yes you are because you have the second segment featuring author Larry Hancock,
who again occupies more spots on my bookshelf than any other author with good reason.
Actually, I talked to somebody recently about you quickly, Larry, and
UH was saying, yeah, well, obviously run things by Larry Hancock if
you can. First, when when somebody said what do you think of this?
Regarding a presentation that had to do with JFK. But you do a
lot of other things. I could list all of his books if you like
everybody. I mean creating Chaos Unidentified, which I look forward to speaking about
in the very near future. But tonight we're going to talk about Well,
what I keep saying is the reframing of Oswald, and I don't mean framing
him for the crime. I do mean reframing the portrait. Larry tends to
use the phrase, how about we look at Oswald in three dimensions, get
away from the two dimensional viewpoints that a lot of people have on this.
And I'm gonna let Larry explain it, because he is well, really the
most consistent historical presenter on the show who comes up with some rather sober and
excellent points of view regarding things that are not necessarily the mainstream point of view
always. But as we talked about with Mike in the first hour, he
is often involved with the behaviors of the national security state. That is sort
of the subgenre if you will, that Larry focuses on mostly, and you
can find that in surprise attack and shadow warfare, which we mentioned in the
first hour. But you know, you go all the way back to someone
would have talked, and indeed they did talk. A lot of people did.
But are we getting a clear view of this historical character known as Lee
Harvey Oswald from any side of the alleged equation here, I don't think so.
So I love the fact that Larry is sort of re examining this after
so many years of studying it, and I'm glad to have you along.
Larry. How are you doing tonight. I'm doing fine. It's good to
be back. Chuck absolutely and go to Larry dash Hancock dot com follow Larry's
work and also could be could be that if you're going to the Lancer Conferences
year, which I am and I know some of you guys are planning on
meeting me there, you might be able to meet Larry Hancock there as well,
and looking forward to that. By the way, I have secure you're
a supply of some of Mike Swanson's books, the Why the Vietnam War Book.
I'm going to have those into at the conference, along with other stuff.
And I have the swag program going on now. Once again, I'll
make an announcement that if you want to be part of a promotional video for
the swag program, which is none of this merchandise is going on sale,
but for supporters of the network, starting at a fifty dollars donation, you'll
be guaranteed a hat from one of the shows that you like on the network.
You can pick that, but I'm gonna randomly insert other swag, which
could be T shirts, stickers, key chains, wallets, even all of
this stuff in very limited runs. Only a handful of any of these products
produced, and you'll be able to get that deck of cards by the way
and a few other things that are specially branded celebrating the ten years of the
o'celli effect that have been in effect, so to speak. So if you
want to be a part of that promotional video, which you'll take a couple
of minutes to shoot and you use Skype, get in touch with me,
let me know, and we'll get that done tonight and get it out probably
by the morning, and hopefully I'll get this podcast out because this is some
good stuff. I mean, we wound up talking about World War two and
the Third Reich and propaganda in the first hour, which I didn't expect,
but that was historical context or something else Mike is going to talk about in
weeks to come, and hopefully we'll be able to drag Carmine Savastano on the
show to talk about maybe some evidence destruction in the JFK assassination theater, if
you will. But meanwhile, how about evidence mutilation that's gone on regarding the
historical character of Lee Harvey Oswald back around Larry Hancock. So where should we
begin with this conversation that I think we're going to be able to accomplish in
about forty minutes here, And I'm gonna suspend the commercial break. We'll just
end when we end, Larry, where should we begin with this topic once
again? Well, I think what we need to do is, and you
mentioned it several times in the remarks that you just made, Chuck, is
is to go back to historical sources. One of the things, you know,
you and I have talked, and we've done JFK one oh one,
we've looked at all of this. But one of the things I decided at
this point in time was that I needed to go back and take a look
at Lee Oswell from a truly historical perspective, not from a Warrant Commission perspective,
not from a JFK research community perspective, because I started getting the sense
that everybody wanted to put him into box and everybody wanted to treat him as
a certain type of historical figure, regardless of who he really was. And
so I think the I think of it as three dimensions is you know,
the Warren Commission looked at the dimension of Oswald as the presidential assassin, and
quite frankly, that's what they were interested in, and that was their charter.
Well, the kookie kid, the communist, Yeah, the kukie kid,
the kookie kid, the communist, the subversive. Obviously he would be
the kind of guy who would do this. They were pre judging him.
I mean, even if you look at the organization of the Warrant Commission to
begin with, right, they set up these subcommittees and I think, what
was it, three or four or five of them, maybe there was five
altogether or four, and the majority of them, at least three out of
that box, were all about Lee Harvey Oswald and his guilt basically, I
mean, and that was it. That was the predetermined kind of thing.
And even people that want to advocate for the idea that he was innocent,
they go at it and try and create a sympathetic character and so on and
so forth, therefore influencing the end results of what should honestly be objectively attained.
Right, shouldn't we seize upon this guy and figure out who he actually
was forgetting about your sentimentality? Wouldn't that be a wiser thing to do?
Larry? Yeah? And I think you can see it so clearly. I
think I see it. You see it more clearly if you really know the
players. I mean, if you'd know that the FBI was chartered to write
a report presenting him as the single assassination. Okay, well we know that
as a fact. Let's just start with that. And they are the primary
source for the Warrant Commission. How could the Warrant Commission deal with the subject
objectively if that's their starting point, right, I mean, it's just and
then we look. I've been rereading a lot of the testimony given it to
the Warrant Commission, and you can see that their staff members are working,
you know, they're not their work, their prosecution staff. You can see
it in the questions they ask, the way they channel the interviews. I've
people people have come down really hard on people like Marina Oswald, But when
you start looking at it, well, everybody says you can't trust anything Marina
says because she lies. Actually in a lot of cases she's pretty credible.
They're just steering the questions to the extent of putting her in a certain position
or whatever she says supports. What's they want? What do they want to
support? You know, they steer witnesses incredibly and obviously, so I think
that's it's it's so clear. And in the report itself. I've also been
checking statements from people that they cite, you know, like Ian and I've
talked about one of Oswald's buddies in the Marine Corps, Delgado. Okay.
Delgado had a lot to say about Lee Oswald. Okay, And if you
read his interviews, you know there's a lot to say. But they just
pick. When you you look at get away from the interview and look at
what goes into their summary report on Leoswell's character, they cherry pick. So
there they were building a case. The Warren Commission report is and I had
an investigation, it's an argument for guilt, okay, and you know,
just kind of accept that, and certainly we do now. But I'm afraid
that there are equal sins on the other side because when I start looking at
what's written by the JFK community, as you said there, I mean,
there is a lot of writing that really wants to portray him as kind of
being totally innocent, goable, um plastic, if you will, pliable.
You know, he's he's always being used by someone, right enough, you
know there's always people using it Leoswell. Give him orders Well on the one
side, right on the one side, and they'll do that all the way
from his mother to the Marine Corps and on and on. They'll try and
present him as a guy who was constantly being told what to do on the
one hand, but then when it suits him, they'll go in another direction.
And if you want to see something, I'm sure it's still available on
YouTube. If you want to see the type of steering of Delgado in particular,
you can watch Bugliosi try and steer him during that mock trial in what
it was an eighty eight or eight, you know, in that time period
there around the twenty fifth anniversary, which of course grew into his ridiculous you
know, cinder block of a book later. But I mean that that whole
thing that that British television company did right the on trial the Harvey Oswald.
You can watch Delgado get pushed around and also express his attitude problems, which
I got to experience talking to him myself, where he's like, look,
why are you guys trying to you know, make me say stuff? Why
are you know? And that's how he interpreted, And that's literally what they
do, because guess what it's not even about look at look at the evil
people trying to frame Lee. It's actually just prosecutors doing what they do,
which is why am I going to bother finding out about whether this guy likes
to whistle Dixie And while he works, it doesn't matter to my case.
Let me just unearth the things that are supportive of my prosecutorial brief, right,
And that's what they did, whether it was Bugliosi on TV or it
was the Warren Commission, you know, during that process, which was not
fairly adversarial, as Mark Lane famously complained about, it wasn't like a real
court proceeding, etc. Etc. So there's a lot of ways to look
at this, and yet at the end of the day, what you end
up with is if people go in with a preconceived agenda, then they will
shape what it is they choose to not only highlight, but begin to collect,
begin to reveal the others. And therefore you're going to have an automatic
distortion no matter what point you want to make, because you really need to
step back and allow the whole thing to come in so that we have a
clear picture of the historical character. Right. Yeah, So the bottom line
is I can no longer accept Lee Oswald from what I see in the Warren
Commission report. Summaries. Okay, I can no longer accept Lee Oswald in
terms of what I see in almost everything written in the JFK research community.
Obviously that kind of makes me an outsider. But what that kind of forced
me to do is the only way to test this stuff for me was to
go back and look at his real history. Now, the fascinating thing is,
his real history to a large extent, is documented quite well by the
Warren Commission. It's just that they didn't use it. You know, they
documented it. They gathered the data about his childhood, about his school life,
about the test he took, about you know, the fact just literal
facts, just the facts. But of course that's not what shows up in
the Submarine report. So I'm going, okay, I've got to get back
to the facts. You know, let me let me get inside his school
life, let me get inside you know how he tested. For example,
one of the things that jumped out, two things that really jump out when
you get back to his real character and personality is he was bright. There's
no doubt about it. From from his very first elementary school test all the
way through his Marine Corps testing, he was bright. He was He was
not a plutz in any way, shape or form. From an IQ standpoint,
from an intelligent standpoint. When he wanted to do something, he tested
well. Right when he didn't want to do something, he tested poorly.
It's all situational and and I think that's what every I mean, that's what
you don't see in the war in commission, that's what you don't see in
the JFK community, is the degree to which his behavior is situational. And
that doesn't mean that you can't present him as somewhat klutzy or clumsy in a
physical sense, because I mean, we are, after all, talking about
a guy who accidentally shot himself in the leg, you know, And that's
that's historical record. While he was in the Marine Corps. What was one
of his uh you know, his uh did they call it a court martial
in the Marine Corps where he was disciplined anyway, uh was was because he
had an unauthorized firearm that he injured himself with, which is true. So
this is part of the picture too. Um, even though he may have
been very intelligent, Yeah, yeah, he is physical. And it's kind
of like there is no doubt that Leon's well life guns. You know,
there just is no argument from from his high school friend where who says I
talked with Lee and he's really interested in maybe we could break into a pawn
shop and steal a pistol because he really wanted a pistol. Well, he
got one in Japan and as you say, dropped it neared himself when he
got into Russia. What is he doing Russia? He buys a shotgun and
joins a hunting club, right, you know, so that is that's very
consistent. Now was he a good shot? No? Was he clumsy?
Yes? But I know a lot of people who have guns who are both
clumsy, and you know, you don't want to go out hunting with them
because when they unload their shotgun, their libels screw up and you know,
you get the ricochet pellets off the ground. So those aren't they're separate things.
Cluts seen us and ability is not, you know, wanting to do
something. But so so yeah, you've got to you've got to. You've
got to look for the patterns. I think the other thing that jumps right
out, and it astounds me how many people Lee Oswald from the very first
moment that you start looking at his actual life a character's personality. Lee Oswald
does not take orders unless you know he does not. He does not play
well with others. The least effective way of getting Lee to do what you
want him to do is to give him an order, and he will get
his back up. And he blows every job he ever has in the end
because he gets bored with the job. He doesn't take orders. Well,
he didn't make him. This doesn't matter whether he's in high school or in
the Marines or in Russia. I mean, this is a guy in you
and I have both talked about Titowitz. I mean, this is a guy
who gets a great job inside Russia in a factory, a relatively great job,
good apartment, relative lots of money. And what happens. He's in
Russia and he can't get along with his co worker, right yeah, and
he starts grewing up and making life difficult for the managers who are in charge
of him, and he starts criticizing the system. Can you see this?
Ex marine goes to Russia and starts creating a problem in the Russian work factory
workplace. You know how many people do? We know that? Right about
that? As part of Oswald's real character, well, you know, they
don't must be a really great spy. And it's very consistent makes himself outstanding,
right, it's very difficult. It's very consistent actually across his entire life
story that he has a problem with authority because he's either bucking his mother's authority
whatever, judge her any which way you want, but he bucks his mother's
authority to some degree. He's causing problems in the Marine Corps. He's got
problems in school listening to authority. This is not a guy who easily falls
in line, and that is an apparent path. Now we only have up
until he's twenty four years of age because that's when he died. But still
you have a well established pattern here of he doesn't just quietly accept the declarations
of the authority, whether it's the you know, the bosses in the factory,
or it's whoever, even when he's dealing with you know, the people
at the consulate, right, I mean, if you have Yeah, his
biggest problem in life, as I would cut that is a pattern that recurs
over and over again is how quickly he gets bored, which which actually speaks
to his intelligence in the fact that he has a hard time getting into jobs
that he would consider really challenging. But even when he gets a I mean
in the marine corps, he tests well. He gets into a technical skill
level. I mean he gets into radar and aircraft equipment. This is one
of the best and most technical. And he's in marine air he's not in
marine infantry. So he has a relatively plush job and he's happy with it.
His performance reports come in good. His supervisor says that he's a good
calm radar calm under pressure, good radar operator. And then he gets bored
with the job and starts growing up. And his in Texas, he gets
really kind of a plum job and with a graphics company, really enjoys that
and then gets bored with it. It's over and over. He creates problems
for himself by getting bored with things, including bored with Marina. You know,
for leonslove. Everything is enthusiastic for you know, like ninety days,
and then it's not. He cannot maintain his enthusiasm and he goes off on
tangents and at all you know, what was good yesterday collapses. I was
intrigued. I had forgotten he had a a reasonably good job. Early job
in Texas in a in a metalworking plant. Not a great job, but
you know, he had done metal work in Russia and he had a steady
job, steady income, and one one day comes home and tells Marina,
well, they fired me. Well, no they didn't. And when they
were interviewed by the warrant commissioner, it's like, oh, he was okay.
It was kind of a you know, might be a difficult to talk
to, but he did the job well and and we were Actually he was
getting good performance reviews up until the time he didn't show up for work anymore.
So you know, there are there are personality characteristics, and these that
are constant over time, even as you said, even for just twenty four
years, and those have to be brought into play. And quite frankly,
that was that was not at all part of the summary reports that the Warrant
Commission does, and it's missing for most of the conspiracy writing. Well,
right, And the other part of the context here is that it's not just
about Okay, yes, it's clearly an intelligent person that gets bored with the
mundane or the less intricate, challenging jobs or scorework or whatever. True,
but it also doesn't mean that he's the super genius that some people have tried
to make him into either, right, because the super genius might have found
a way to cope with this and been a bit more pragmatic and not created
these other ancillary problems that come along with the tangential issues that now come along
with you didn't hold the job, etc. Right, So, on the
one hand, you have somebody who's probably more than average intelligence, but he's
also not the super spy that some people make him into either. I mean
they practically make him into a James Bond like figure in some cases. And
I'm like, well, we'll hold on. Maybe he was capable of some
of that, but good. Yeah, the thing is that we have factual
information on that. There's no reason to speculate because well, when he got
back, well, even in the Marines, I mean he took test all
the time. He took intelligence tests in school, he took you know testing
the Marines. When he came back, he kept going to you know,
apply for jobs, and he would take screening tests with job placement in Texas.
And interestingly enough, if you look at his records, basically it's it's
obviously he was well read. I mean, that's one thing you can establish.
He's well read. When he wants to, he can hold a very
good conversation. Even his officers and the Marines would admit that a he was,
you know, difficult and challenging and annoying, but he could hold a
conversation on say politics or international affairs on the level of the officers themselves.
And one of the reasons he was a pain in the rear is he would
try to make himself look equal to or superior to an officer, which you
know that doesn't go down well. But even in these reviews they admit that.
And then in the job placements, in several instances they really write it
up as saying, he could we could try to place him in a higher
level job, but he's unemployed, he's got a wife, she's pregnant or
has a child. He needs money, so we're going to have to put
him in a lower level job right now because he needs money. But so
this is fact, this is not supposition. These are people who tested him,
interviewed him. So no, he's not the way you would place him
in terms of intelligence and potential in the job market. Is they actually say
at you know, college entry or college you know, undergraduate level. But
the problem is that's where he might be, you know, at knowledge why,
but he doesn't have any skills to go along with it, you know,
he never developed that. So that also puts in a very difficult position.
And I think that's one of the things we often looking at those kind
of records, which are kind of dull and boring and whatever. You know,
that's not what we see in a lot of conspiracy writing. We don't
see in conspiracy writing that Leoswell got a job the school book depository and was
already bored and looking for other jobs, right and it applied for other jobs
already. That doesn't fit well with the general Leoswell is part of a conspiracy
that has to have him in school book depository right well. And it also
doesn't help that he's dysfunctional to certain degree, because look, either he is
a well organized and you know somebody who pulled this off, okay and can
functionally get things done, or or he's not right so he seems to have
functional problems sort of getting things done, but he's intelligent enough to understand complex
things that might require you know, again some level of intelligence a bit above
average, So you have those two things to balance. Where again, unless
it's very exciting and intriguing to him, you're not going to keep him engaged
well enough to have him functionally accomplish things. And even then it's almost like
a time limit because okay, let's put him in here. We can train
him for something. The JCS, the Jackson Child snowball incident is very interesting
there, right, because there was plenty of room for him to maybe get
into other areas might have been more challenging with that job. But he didn't
say right, so there you go, right, I mean, all right,
so go ahead. He doesn't. He doesn't can't focus for long enough
to really become skilled as I mean, he dabbles. Oswald is a dabbler.
Oswald is as is kind of a short attention span, you know,
not in terms of minutes, but in terms of weeks or months, and
and to some extent, you you know, you almost kind of expect this.
This is a kid who up until his like sophomore year in high school,
he was averaging two or three schools a year and moving back and forth.
That's with that kind of background, that doesn't you know, you don't
he didn't do anything for very long. He didn't develop any you know,
the ability to slog you know, just apply himself, because it would have
made no sense. He's somewhere else, you know, he's moved on.
There is no there's no history but h and it's interesting too. It's interesting
too. You bring up the Marina thing because and this will be the last
like big comment making. I want to let you run with it after this,
because I think this is necessary to recognize as well. They try not
only to point out his levels of intellect and sort of ride it and steer
it into one column or the other inaccurately. And I do mean from all
sides of people trying to draw out this character, but emotionally they do it
too, where there's this you know, look, he's a dedicated Marxist,
right, he is so entirely invested in that that he's like fanatical and that's
the thing that drove him. And you know, okay, well you go
with that, and that doesn't quite fit with the portrait I'm seeing Emotionally again,
he got bored. You know. The wife was probably exciting because she's
an oddity. She's from Russia, she's from that place. She's different,
right, so she's an oddity and then he gets bored with her. Everything,
it seems like, goes this way right where you know, again,
the emotional makeup of the man is adapted. For people that want to make
him the assassin. He has to be really, really inconsistent and really intense.
And on the other hand, if you want to make him mister Innocent,
he has to be very steady and very you know, like, oh,
I'm just not really looking for trouble, but you know, I have
different ideas about the world. You can't really fit him anither one of those
boxes, despite the fact that people place him there. And I think a
good example of this show, and I've tooth talked about this, I had
encourage everybody to read Titovits book on Oswal in Russia absolutely to get a real
feeling for this. I think one of the things that was most striking to
me is, you know, right Oswald was Oswald became socially outgoing and successful
with women in Japan. Okay, he had not been before then, but
that's an absolute fact that things changed for him that way in Japan, right,
But that was still a new thing for him and Russia Titovts writes about
how you know Oswal really he had a number of sexual conquests. They dated.
It was easy for him to date because of his apartment. The girls
school was handy. But after a certain period of time he even gets bored
with that, like Antenebis is going and now we're not going over to the
girls school anymore. You know, also just spending a lot of time at
home by himself, and he's starting to get depressed, and you start going,
wait a minute, what does this guy want? This dedicated to votist
Marxist who's also a spy, right, I mean, he's got a charter,
he's in Russia, and you know, is he trying to ingratiate himself
within the factory complex, become a great worker, get transferred to the the
you know, the area where they're actually making military radio systems. Does he
start trying to make No, he gets bored of even of the women at
the girls school, and just you know, he gets bored. And then
that's not that's the real Oswald, And so you've got to really get your
head around the real personality and the character if we're going to deal with him,
you know, in the fall of nineteen sixty three in Dallas. And
your comment about Marina is people ignore what Marina has to say about Oswald,
which is which is really mixed. You know, she's very Marina is very
on the money when she talks about Lee Oswald and his good side and his
bad side. And yes he would he would be set you pay that they
didn't live together all that much. I mean, once they got back in
the States, they were constantly apart. She was living with friends. It's
really only for like three months in early nineteen sixty three where they're living together
where he's working at Jagger Stoval, and then he leaves that in New Orleans.
They're living together for a couple of months. You know, this is
not a couple that is in syne. Necessarily, her interests are not his
interest It's pretty clear that Marina was a typical Russian woman of her period,
educated but but not politically interested. Certainly not not politically. Oswald is more
interested in geopolitics, and then certainly he can't talk to Marina about that.
Oswald is You and I have also discussed what Oswald is writing. Oswald takes
a typing course and is really big into writing. Various critiques in nineteen sixty
three. People have got to read those to understand the real aswell. Marina's
He's not talking to Marina about that. She you know, they're Marina's work,
dealing with the kids. She's trying to learn to cook, you know,
an American range. So when people take her to task, because she
may not she doesn't answer everybody's questions. She doesn't answer them accurately. She
seems to wonder, and so on and so forth. You know, you
got to look at the relationship between those two. They got into fights,
they made up. She wanted him to make money, and she had married
him because he looked like he would be a good American prospect. And it's
not turning out that way. And even if they very last, it kind
of like, Welle, you need to step up, you know, Okay,
I'll come back and live with you if you show you can make something
of yourself. And Oswald's on and off about that. You know, he
will be good with that for thirty days or sixty days, and then he's
off to something else, right, and then me look in complete sympathetic fairness
to her. She's confronted with a culture shock. I mean, you know,
what is expected of her as a Russian woman is very different when she's
in America. You know, she's got different expectations, a language barrier,
a lot of things going on there, you know. And then meanwhile,
the inconsistency of their living situation means she's not necessarily familiar with everything, although
she does have a good feel for him because she does know him better than
a whole lot of other people who are very transient in his life. Right,
So, you know, it's a mixed bag. You're not going to
get a consistent Well, she knows him so well, oh so well.
But at the same time, she does know who he was, you know.
So it almost sounds like I'm contradicting, but I'm not. It's a
mixed situation here. It's not all you know again, like you said,
the complexities of his political and social views, she might have known them generally,
but did she really know the nuances of them. Could she have known
them if he's expressing them in English anyway, versus whatever knowledge he had of
the Russian language, right, could you have even communicated that to her?
As there's another factor there, they're too check. I mean, Oswald lied
to her, and we've got to worth right about that Oswal At one the
other patterns that Oswald had, it just constantly. It's not that he's pathological,
but when an Oswald gets stressed or when he gets backed into a corner,
he lies. And he didn't live very well because you know, if
you look at it over time, even when he gets back to the United
States and he's interviewed by the FBI, which you know you probably should want
to get your story straight, he does, well, I didn't offered a
fact I didn't do this and that when I was in Russia, and they
immediately checked with the State Department, and yes he did say that, and
yes he said he never wanted to return to the US again. So Oswald
is under stress, he lies, and he doesn't do it very well,
not certainly, not like a trained agent should. But he also he you
know, when you look at his job applications, he embalances these things he
puts in, you know, things that are not right. So the whole
pattern is when you're looking at what Marina says, you are hearing what she's
heard from Lee, and that might not be correct, you know, so
people falter for well, we know this and like, we may not know
that, and we may know that now, but you have no idea what
marine knew at the time, right, right, And it's really interesting that
a guy in his position, if people want to support the idea that he
was some sort of master spy, very important to note that he would have
actually shut his mouth a lot more as opposed to talking, as opposed to
making a point of getting involved in certain conversations. Right, Like, you
literally see that all the way going back to Japan, where he's entered rejecting
himself in situations where if you're a spy, you don't hand them a bunch
of things that could be contradictory or embellishments or whatever. You don't offer that
because you just you don't. It's not part of the equation, right.
This is not the way somebody who's trying to, you know, only have
attention paid to them in certain circumstances behaves. And then when he's dealing with
her, he might also be thinking, well, she doesn't know anything,
she can't even speak the language. It's not like she could go and check
things on me. Maybe he slides her a little more sloppy because he doesn't
feel as though he needs to tighten them up with her, you know.
And that's the thing. All of these things are worthy of consideration when looking
at this character. Right, And I think here's an example, and I
know people like it, but I'll be writing about it to some extand it
I think the perfect picture of their relationship. And it's a real world relationship.
It's it's a pro con like a lot of marriages, a lot of
couples. At times it's good and at times it's not good. But the
photo, the backyard photo that's left for the Warren shield, right, which
the copy on the front is signed by Lee. Okay, and it's kind
of like, okay, this is from my buddy. And on the bat
Marina writes Hunter of Fascist. Now that strikes me as a real couple,
you know, it's kind of like this is what the wife would have said
to your buddy's wife, kind of punching you into in the back for you
know, like bragging or you know, that's the guys say their thing.
And in the background the women are going yeah, right, right, yeah,
I mean, look, you can see that in the real world example
where somebody's you know, talking up about some situation they were in, and
quite often a wife will come in and undercut it, you know. Oh
yeah, well I stood up and I said something, and I was a
big tough guy, and this and that, and then the wife kind of
walks in the room and sort of goes, yeah, well that's that's funny.
How how are you able toot ducking under the counter there? Because that's
the way I remember it happening, you know, and I've seen that happen.
It just seems so real. It's like you just can't avoid it.
That that's got to be it's gotta be a real stuff. And and Marina,
I think what we're talking about her. One of the parts of the
equation is people liked her. People did not generally likely unless there are a
handful of people. If you sort of agreed with Lee's worldview, you could
be become a friend of his, like Tedovits did. I mean, you
didn't have to agree it with him, but if you agreed to some extent,
you could actually get bond with him to the extent that you could argue
or have fights or disagree, and you know, he does not push you
away. That didn't happen very often. Tedovitz is one Delgado is another in
the Marines. Uh de Mornshield clearly is one and where Lee would would have
exchanges with him, and the Morenshield gets ignored because we put everybody in a
box. Right. The Morenshield, you know, reported on Oswald through a
government agency. Yeah, the Morenshield reported on a lot of things to government
agencies. That doesn't mean that when he talks about Lee as his friend,
he's not a viable resource if especially if it's consistent and it checks out.
And I think that it's one of the thing, one of the traps that
we build for ourselves is you know, I don't what do you want to
call it, throw the baby out with the bath or whatever is you know
that we've gotten to the point where people won't cite something out of a book
or from a source because they don't like it. Right, this source is
wrong about this, So I don't accept anything they have to say, Oh,
this source did this. You know it's this source took a position on
that that I don't agree with. So nothing in their book is viable.
Um right, I think that's silly and I feel the same way, which
is which is why I've turned to sources like Jack's Wick who investigated Oswald in
the Marines, or to Tito Bits or to de Mournshield for that matter,
Uh, to kind of say, what are they saying that I can learn
something from and not just not just throw it away because it doesn't match what
I want Oswald to be. You know, that's that's not my choice.
Well is what he is, what he was? And why should I turn
away from somebody who actually knew him and go, oh, well, I'm
going to believe what I read in this book versus the person who really knew
him for three months and helped his family and and provably well up or anything
like that. Yeah, here's the thing right where, which is very interesting.
Yeah, he's a sketchy character. Yes, he's somebody that you better
you know, get some breeds of salt ready for on a lot of topics.
But when he describes the idea that like, look, Marina, people
wanted to help Marina. They wanted to fix their teeth and all that.
Remember that that whole bit where the other Russians in town there, they just
you know, wanted to help their fellow Russian and they liked her, right,
they wanted to help her. But he was a big turn off for
a lot of people just personally. It didn't matter about you know, well,
oh well de Moorn Shields was attached to him because of intelligence. That
maybe maybe so, But when you're talking about this kind of situation where he
describes that dynamic, there's no reason too, I mean, there's no reason
to say that de Moorn Shields is not reliable when when relating that sort of
concept. Yeah, I mean, you could hate the Moor Shields all you
want, but yeah, go ahead, that den Moren Shields points out.
It's sort of like, look and again, this is so real life,
it's difficult to reject. He said. Look, everybody liked Marina. Marina
was easy to get along with. Um Lee was unless unless you absolutely agreed
with his worldview. It was an asshole. Okay, you would argue with
you, he would whatever. Which obviously the Russian next Patriots are not going
to be very much in sync with Lee Oswald, you know, that's why
they're in the first place. But everybody like Marina. But there got to
be a point when she decided to go back and live with Oswald after having
been separated from him several times, left him whatever, where they just kind
of threw up their hands and said, oh, it's just not worth it.
Yeah, she's nice, but if we try to maintain contact, then
we have to deal with him, and we're not going to do it.
Yeah, you know that he's the way it is too. That's that's too
real world to ignore. Nobody's making that up. Well, it's a very
real world. Look, you and I have lived long enough that we have
encountered somebody that we might really appreciate, right, and they might be a
good person to have around and were forming a ship or a working relationship with
them, but somehow their spouse or their child is somehow injected into the situation.
And since that person comes along with this other person, you go all
right, look I really like them, but I can't deal with you know,
for whatever reason, right, the person's just plain obnoxious or is counterproductive
or hinders that person directly while they're working in a group. You and I
both encountered this. It's not them, but their spouse makes it unlivable.
And it sounds to me like that's one of these situations where you could be
like, look, Marina is just fine. We'd love to help her.
We like her. She's a good person. But since this guy is going
to be attached to her, maybe I don't want to be around so much.
I mean, and that just sounds like a normal sort of you know,
non fabricated, just happenstance that you tend to believe it because it's it
just makes sense, you know, sometime again, or if you want to
put him in the box the other way, the Warrant Commission takes examples that
make him violently antisocial, not just a social but antisocial. Right. On
the other hand, it's funny, it's like, wait a minute, I
just read in the summer report this is guy's anti social, right, But
over here in the appendix there are ten pictures that show him in Russia,
you know, like out on picnics, arm around girls, arm around guys,
arm around girland. Guy dating. Um proposed Okay, uh proposed not
except for proposed again excepted. This is antisocial. He's got two children.
You know how antisocial? Can you? You know it just everybody that tries
to put him in a box, there's a problem, right, he's dating,
he's going to dances. This is not an antisocial person who's just like
lead me alone. I just want to stay in my house. No,
this is somebody who's interacting. And it's not just now. Some people are
antisocial except when it comes to dating, right, But that's not consistent here.
He's inconsistent all the way around, enough to tell you that one thing
I wouldn't call him actually is anti social. He may be difficult in social
situations, right, I mean, just the evidence the way it's being presented
to me, even when you go back to the girls that talked about him
in middle school. Right, again, the trajectory of his full life appears
to come out a little clearer if you just start to accept Look, the
guy's a little difficult. He makes problems. He likes to be argumentative,
you know, and that apparently is something that he had even as a child.
And he continued on, Yes, he's willing to date. Yes he's
willing to interact, but only when it really suits him. And if he
does interact, there's usually some level either agree with me or argue with me,
and other people, you know, they make their judgments about it.
Again, all the way back to middle school. You remember some of the
things that we've read, you know, not always official reports, but other
interviews conducted by you know some of his school age peers where you'll find Yeah,
this is kind of the same guy. Still boy, Yeah, or
the pictures again, I'm always nonplussed. Here's the picture out of Growths book.
He has picture of Oswald in the classroom during the middle of the class
and Oswald has turned around looking at the camera and as his arms up in
the air, is smiling and clowning around. This guy is the class clown.
He's not a social. He might be annoying, but he's not a
social. Another picture from middle school. Oh look at that. He's out
at the water fountain and he's talking with this girl. Oh, well that's
not you know. So they're these disconnects all over the place. Where it's
funny we talk about disconnects and warrant commission, evidence free data. They are
all sorts of disconnects about Oswald all over the place. Which is which is
really? That's why I'm taking the approach. You know, you've got to
get away from those two dimensions. There's dimension where the real Oswald, the
real personality, the character comes out good parts, bad parts. But you've
got to get the real Oswald if you understand what's what's going on and in
the warrant commission virtually managed to totally ignore the testimony from Marina and from his
mother and from people that knew him. When he comes back from Mexico City,
he's frustrated, but he goes back even to the pains, and Ruth
may not like him, but the point is he it's like he reset again,
like he always does. He resets, and and he's looking to make
up with Marina. He's getting a job, he's hunting for better for better
jobs he wants to and he's having difficulties. And of course she's just about
to have a baby, So who wants to leave Oswald around at the paint
home when she's just about to have But he's back in a personal mode,
if you will. He's not writing his manuscripts anymore, he's not taking pictures
of himself, and he's so there's an Oswald that constantly, as I said
before, his situation was like what's he like this month? Now? Don't
tell me what he's like about six months? And what if we want to
understand what's going on with him in October and November, what's he like?
Then? Don't don't fix him, you know? Pennham against the dartboard with
what he was like in the Marine Corps, or what he was like as
a teenager, or what he was like. You know what's going on then,
because Oswald does constantly Resett's about the only word a. You know,
he gets bored, something new happens, he goes and looks for a venture,
that something doesn't work any resets. Well, Larry, as as we
get ready to tie a bow on this one, I just want to offer
this little piece of commentary, is that if somebody even takes a look at
say Robert Growden's books, right, the one the unsearchably Harvey Oswald book and
the other one Absolute Proof, where he's got a section on Oswald, right,
you can take a look at various social situations where Oswald is posing for
a camera, who is interacting with people, and so on and so forth.
And one thing that you have to declare from that just that sampling,
Okay, And that's what I'm confronted with because I didn't know the man,
is that you can't ascribe the a social or fully antisocial label to this guy
because it doesn't make sense. And a social person is going to ignore the
camera, turn away from the camera, not want to pose for it.
Okay, an antisocial person I tend to believe would not interact with people as
much as is evidenced in the photography. Now maybe it's just me, but
I've even looked at you know, that one home movie that's out there.
It's Thanksgiving, you know, with his brother there right, you can see
he's not purely antisocial. Even if he is an antisocial at times, it
couldn't possibly be a consistent character trait. And that's all I'm offering here.
I'm not saying that all we know just based on the foot We don't,
but we do know that some things cannot possibly be fully consistent based on the
fact that these things exist. Okay, it's not one or two photographs that
exist with him interacting with people. There's a lot of them. And I'm
just saying, if you've got somebody who's truly antisocial in the nineteen sixties,
seventies, eighties, I dare you define an array of photographs where they're interacting
with people. You know, you occasionally catch him at a Christmas photo.
Maybe you know what I'm saying, but you won't see a ton of different
things, different situations, different social makeups, whether it's friends, family,
work, etc. Marines, so on and so forth, where you're gonna
get such a mixed bag. So the consistency here is literally the inconsistency that
is easily observed by this sample. And again not saying that I have a
complete portrait by it. I'm anxiously awaiting when it is you will put this
together. Are you gonna are you gonna do a book on it? Or
is it going to be a blog post or is it going to be a
monograph? What? What are we going to eventually see? I think it
will be more like a monograph, trying to pull together pieces. I don't
I don't see it as a book. I don't, but I can see
it as an extended monograph and just kind of doing what you just described.
It's interesting that you said that because I can remember back in the CompuServe days,
being online and having exchanged with a real hardcore or a loan nut person
who would say, as we's just violent in these antisocial and it's well,
i'll tell you what you've got the Groden book. Let's look at page forty
seven. Explain those pictures to me, Okay, tell me how those pictures
work with what you just said. And the strange thing is that the exchange
online exchange would just pretty much end at that point in time because they couldn't
do it. And it's so your your reference to the photos in the book,
I've yeah, that's a great place. If you think you know Lee
Oswald and have not looked at that mix of photos, then you really should
kind of restart yourself and go, wait a minute, what's going on here?
But yeah, I hope I hope to do that, just at least
to have it for reference for people that want to want to take another kind
of make maybe an open minded look at Oswald. And and I think for
my purpose it's it's kind you know, you and I talk context all the
time. It's sort of like, what is the context for November nineteen sixty
three, right? What what mode was seeing? What state was he in?
Uh? It was he you know, totally dedicated in some sort of
a conspiracy? Whatever was he? You know? Or you've got to understand
the context before we can understand the conspiracy that really, you know, I'm
not abandoned any conspiracy at all, um, but uh, basically it's kind
of interesting at this moment. I would disclose as as I always have,
I see Oswald as more vulnerable in terms of being set up as a patsy,
as being any kind of knowing participant in an action against the president.
And vulnerable is probably the key word he had. He had come back.
He was extremely frustrated by what had happened to him in the past sixty days.
And you can look at his exchanges with Marina and the pains and to
some extent see how vulnerable he was in terms of being, you know,
being used as it were. Absolutely, and I think that that not only
is context necessary here for this historical character, but a search for continuity,
uh you know, amongst the evidence that is presented, that is preserved,
I think is necessary if you want to get an accurate portrait of the man.
And I would say that again a nod to uh Bob Groden's you know,
second big book. He's got three big books, but the second one,
which is devoted to Oswald, is a unique resource in that you can
have all those things collected together. Now, certainly in the Internet age,
you can collect together a lot of photographs all by yourself, so on and
so forth. But as a book, as a freestanding, something you can
hold in your hand and not have to be connected to a Wi Fi to
see this stuff or have to, you know, spend hours and hours downloading
stuff. I mean, there's something like nine hundred pictures in there. Remarkable
the amount of a character study one can do through that photographic array that Pop
put together there. Robert Groden did. In fact, maybe maybe I should
get him back on the show before not too long and maybe discuss just that
book. I know he wants to discuss Absolute Proof, and we'll do that
too, but but I think I'd like to devote a section of that to
to you know, to his book, and maybe bring him on the show
to revisit it again, because I think it's necessary. And Larry dash Hancock
dot com is where you can go Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. Uh, follow
Larry's work. But you think you'll put it out through your website or you
have a place where it will go eventually or not yet, not really.
I want to get it written and kind of peer reviewed by several people and
then decide what to do with it. Because when you're writing about somebody's personality
and character, you can't help but insert some of your own, and I've
got to make sure it doesn't have too much of my own. So that's
why it's going to be more protracted than something that's, oh, just based
off the documents. It's going to be a you know, trying to present
him needs to need some balance to it, and of course you've got to
have the balance check. But if I get the balance done well enough,
shoot, I might convince Rex Bradford to let me put another another paper on
Mary Farrell. Well, I look forward to seeing it no matter where it
is, because I look forward to just about anything Larry writes. It always
is loaded with context and continuity. And I look forward to the Three Dimensions
of Lee Harvey Oswald or whatever is the title will be here because I think
we'll get a much more maybe not totally complete portrait, but a much more
reasonable portrait of the historical character that we have all gotten to know in one
way or another, to some degree or another over the years. Larry Hancock
was my guest in the second hour, and of course Mike Swanson in the
first, and I heard you go to Larry dash Hancock dot com. I
recommend all of Larry's writing, and I recommend Mike's as well. Anyway,
no matter who you are, where you are, when you are, remember
I'm merely o'chelly. All of you are indeed the effect and get in touch
with me if you want to get involved in that video after ten pm tonight.
Thanks a lot, Larry, Thanks Mike. Goodnight,