You. Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like
you Yeah and now Aggerated Night and a Media Kelly January tenth, twenty twenty
four, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and I thought
I was going to trip over it and say twenty twenty three because I got
used to saying it. But anyway, here we are live on a Wednesday,
and uh, you know, new move here. Nobody knows about it
except me and Larry because Larryhancock will now be on every other Wednesday, so
that happens to be today, And that's the way we're going to do this
going forward, and I'm happy to do so. Now. Larryhancock is obviously
the author of a great many books, taking up a lot of spots on
my bookshelf, which I was talking to Larry about just before I went live
here. And it's sort of funny what I was talking to him about.
His books usually don't collect a lot of dust, but there's dust on the
bookshelf, and I feel like my my allergies are all worked up over it.
Anyway, a huge portion of my bookshelf taken up by Larry Hancock.
If you go to larrydash Hancock dot com. You can follow all sorts of
stuff, including his blog. There'll be a link to the WordPress and all
that in the show notes. And you know, a lot of different subjects,
a lot of different books. I could mention here someone would have talked,
of course, that's the most obvious one, but unidentified I thought of
lately because I was watching that NewsNation special. They ran the News Nation specials
first on UAPs, then on the JFK assassination, and other people have been
talking to me about special things that have been run about the JFK assassination.
I have a feeling we're going to talk about that a little bit tonight,
so let's find out. But before we get there, how you doing,
first, Larry, how you doing. I'm good, Chuck, I'm glad
that January is almost halfway through. I want to just move right on to
March. Sounds good. Let's get to the warm weather. It has been
cold and damp and rainy here in Georgia, even really cold for Georgia,
so you know, and again my voice could be all over the place because
of this, the weather changes and the dust and everything else. But again,
let's not digress. I want to start off right away with something you
mentioned to me in a text just before we went to air. Because I've
been avoiding something on purpose. A lot of people have brought to my attention,
and of course the WET conference brought to a lot of people's attention,
the Rob Rhiner efforts, the podcast, the JFK assassination. You know,
what do we know after sixty years all of that, Every streaming service gave
us something. Sure, but Rob Reiner famously right. Everybody was paying a
lot of attention to the podcast, and he kind of ended it up with
a couple of well known authors in the JFK case. But man, it's
getting weird, and he gave he gave notation to a couple of things that
I really wish he didn't. I mean, you know, I like when
Hollywood gets involved, but I don't like when they think they've done research.
I got to say it's it's bad, you know. Anyway, Look,
I'm going to keep my comments to myself because I've avoided this podcast for the
most part. I guess you've been able to follow most of it or some
of it? What what what have you observed about it? Yeah, I've
been following the commentary on it. One of the things that shocked people early
on, I think in the in the first and second parts of the podcast,
I mean, now he's concluded it actually named the people that that he
sees and given the shooting sequence and everything, But in the very beginning,
the first couple of sessions, he talked about giving a lot of attention to
Tosh plumb Lee, who we've discussed before, as as a serious contributor to
what he was doing, and that that threw a lot of people off.
And I think one of the flags that raced early on, and you kind
of brought this up, Chuck, I think it's one of the things that
we've come to face is, you know, there are documentaries on the History
Channel that are in no way, shape or form history. You know,
there's they'd never get there's no peer review, there's no fact checking, They're
they're just entertainment. And I think I talked to Rob briefly at one time.
Didn't it seemed to me like he had already had a very classic view
of what was going on and didn't want to hear a lot more. And
I think we were facing a problem with JFK and that we're now the good
news. It's moved to the entertainment phase and it gets a lot of attentions
and DVDs, and but people are taking it as if it's established history and
Rob Reiner is no historian. There is no fact checking, no review for
his his periods of pot because he has a name. It's the old it's
the old marketing thing. You know, you're presenting something with a spokesperson,
and essentially he's acting as a spokesperson for a particular view, and that that's
that's one of our problems at the moment, and converting what we've learned over
the last you know, fifty years into real history is that, you know,
we'd kind of hope that would slide into a new history direction and we
could give a better history than the Warrant Commission did, right, But now
it's moved into this entertainment thing. So people were worried about that at the
very beginning, right when he introduced ash plummelay. And now that he's kind
of wrapped it up by naming like four or five shooters that are from totally
different venues, totally unrelated, a couple of them very questionable, and and
he's offering that is the solution, which is essentially brought together like four different
tracks through this this milieu that we have been working on separating, and now
he's plumped it all together again. There's a channel. Okay, here,
here are two problems I want to present to you, right, And I
know I'm not supposed to criticize Oliver Stone, but guess what gonna You know,
when Oliver Stone did his work, I always try and forgive it by
saying there wasn't a whole lot of information available to fill in certain blanks,
so some supposition was necessary, and that was a Hollywood presentation meant to be
a singular film, so I get it right. But ever after, we
have these different platforms, these different channels, these different entertainment entities one way
or another getting involved in documentary and stuff like that. And for a while
it was like, well, it's got gravitas because the History channel it,
it's got gravitas because ABC did it, and of course they're going to push
the warrant commission and so on and so forth. Like there was this this
bit of I don't know, legitimacy that was placed upon it because it was
the great corporate entity that put it out right. Then we move into a
phase where indeed there are people in Hollywood outside of Oliverstone who are willing to
make the statements, and we get happy about that for a minute. But
then they do get some technical advisor who obviously doesn't advise them that well.
And even when they try to add in legitimate people, they added into a
mix, which is a mess. Tosh Plumbley is going to bring you a
mess. I mean, it's just that simple, all right, because I
mean, this is the guy that they used to back up the James Files
thing. This is a guy they used to back up you know, their
shooters on the other side of the noll, which there is absolutely no proof
for, you know what I mean, on the other side of the excuse
me, not on the other side of the no, on the other side
of the of the highway, okay, like basically way over toward the other
side of the plaza. He's putting shooters in the other part of the woods,
okay, which there's no good reason to think that that exists, but
his word right. He also claimed to have been a witness at one point
and seeing Kennedy's head go flying way back from the other side of the street.
Right, his statements alone contradict each other. Enough, is this guy
trustworthy? Well, you know, if I wanted to find out about some
other things that happened a little later in history, I might ask Toosh Plumbley,
I might, but I don't know if he'd be reliable because he can't
keep his story straight. And I'm sorry, these are my words. These
are not Larry Hancocks. Okay, but I doubt Larry's going to argue with
me too much. Well, no, And I think with Reiner, I
think there's some responsibility here. I mean, if you're going to say that
you've got the story, I mean Ryner has some money. You know,
he could have had research assistants. He could have gone back and find found
as I did two decades ago. That Toash, Plumbley has has had five
different versions of his story since he started talking about it as to where he
was, what he was doing, and he and to how he knew.
There was one point in time where Tash is on record is saying he has
all the details about an attack that was planned to occur on Main Street in
Dallas. Was that was aborted at the last minute. JFK and RFK were
both told they decided to continue on with the Motorcate with Jackie in it,
and Tosh claimed to have known all of this because he was briefed by a
senior CI officer after the fact, like who flew to to Florida just to
breathe them? None of it made any sense, But Reiner should have at
least. I mean, I guess we have all liked to consider ourselves who've
studied this from the first generation on as skeptics. Right, we were skeptical
of the Warren Commission, So that would imply that we would be skeptical of
pretty much anything we would encounter, and we would we would fact check it,
and you know that sort of thing. Well, I would expect Reiner
would at least do that much. And in that case, you know,
leading with Tosh kind of set a bad example, and he just went on
to take different cuts of different views of different people. It's almost like a
sampler. My impression is that if you looked at everything that we've done in
the world of JKA research over the last like four decades, it was like
a buffet and he just picked what was most interesting. You know, Oh,
okay, I'm going to take one of that and we'll talk about this.
I'm thinking, yeah, that's what it was like, rather than any
real construct as it were. Right, Okay, So, and here's where
the problem is. I mean, I give you one name off of the
list of the five shooters and then just ask you to try and put it
in context with anything else that's going on here. You know, he puts
Nicolette on there, Charles Nicoletti. Okay, if you know the story,
I'll tell you where his name pops up most prominently is in the James File
story. Right, Nicoletti is there most prominently. Now that's not the only
story he pops up in, but that is, you know, and again
this is the mob connection. This is a Chicago mob connection. This is
who would have Nicoletti taken orders from? Where was Charles Nicoletti exactly at that
time? Et cetera, et cetera. A lot of things can be done
here to figure out whether he should be in the mix at all. But
he doesn't belong in the mix with these other names that are presented at the
end. Again, like you said, like somebody said, well, I'm
gonna have tacos and pizza and pasta and some chicken wings. These foods don't
normally go together on the same plate. They don't belong together because they're not
usually served at the same restaurant. But again, if you're at a buffet,
you know, if you're going to the Golden Corral of JFK, I
guess it works. But Nicoletti, how do you put them in context with
these other people even that are listed at the end? So good as someone
has said, you know who would coordinate this? Even of the names of
the shooters. The shooters are so diverse. A couple of them well known
and essentially deconstructed over the years, A couple of them not well known at
all, A couple you know, one of them certainly a lot of argument.
At least you could do, is I mean, if you wanted to
do justice to it, you could. You could put them forth and say,
okay, Ryder could have done this. You know, this name has
been surfaced. Here are the pros and cons, Here's where it came up,
Here's why it's supported, here's why it's not. You know, some
balance. Even the History Channel, which we kind of all have come to
loathe and say the non History channel at least often has point counterpoint and it
shows, but there's nothing like that. There's there's that Rob is offering.
Rob is presenting it as far as I can picture, as if you know,
I researched this, and this is what's true. You know, there's
no there's no point counterpoint, and I think that would apply to Nicolette.
And of course, as you say, and as as people have been bringing
up, you know, what he is doing to some extent is introducing a
lot of names that most of the more serious researchers thought had already been tossed
out right, you know, and which will will definitely muddy the water.
One of them Hermanio Dias Garcia, who I've spent a lot of time with.
In reality, the real support for that story, which is totally undocumented,
comes from Cuban intelligence and is a figure in a book by Fabu Escalante,
which was a book really about all sorts of assassination attempts against Fidel Castro.
And not that that part wasn't true, But Dias Garcia only arrived in
the United States, like in the spring of nineteen sixty three. It's hard
to connect him to anybody other than to say that he's reputed according to Escalante
to have been a bodyguard for Traficante in the old Cuba casino days. Well,
being a bodyguard for traffic Conte doesn't really put you in bed together with
Nicolette and Jim Conna. You know, how does that even work? You
know, And we'd spent a lot of time because the name had been tossed
around, you know it, Does it make any sense at all? Can
we can we connect it in any fashion? And you know, there's some
still some points to be worked on that, but to assert it as if
it were proven fact, which is essentially what he's doing, just with no
point counterpoint, just just bring brings us back to where we were. It's
kind of like he just reset the button back to like nineteen ninety, right.
He doesn't really incorporate anything that we've learned from the work of the ar
be any of you know. So it's it's like this giant reset button and
I'm going, oh, geez, didn't we get didn't we already do that?
So that's that's a concern, which is strange because he presents Jeff Morley
and Dick Russell in there as well, and both of them, you know,
have done excellent work have uh furthered the research, you know, post
a r r B, both of them. In my mind, I would
say, you know, Jefferson more okay, but but nonetheless, look,
you're you're talking about two guys that should be well aware that that mixed bag
is not Whoops, I think we lost you, Jeff. Oh, I'm
sorry. Can you hear me still? Okay? I'm not sure if Larry
can hear me. Maybe maybe I'll go to a break real quick, because
uh oh, there he is. Okay. So what I was saying is
that, you know, Jeff Morley and Dick Russell should be well aware of
this mixed bag not being workable because Jeff has definitely done work post a r
r B, right, uh you know, and Dick I believe has also,
they should be aware that this this grab bag is not a solid grab
bag of contenders here for just the shooting solution. There's a lot of other
problems along the way in the ten episodes too, Larry, right, I
think part of it may be timing too. Just I've not really had a
chance to talk to either Dick or Jeff about this, but my impression is
that he had talked to Dick fairly early on, you know, like some
years ago, even maybe more recently with Jeff, But certainly in my conversations
with Jeff, who I talked to fairly routinely, I don't think he's included.
I don't think he's in the same space Jeff is now, you know.
And so that that gets back to the issue of, you know,
because he might have heard something from Dick several years ago, is that really
current thought. It's hard to say if he's curting, and you know,
to be fair, you wouldn't want to really blame either one of those fellows
if they didn't get a chance to listen to, you know, his podcast,
or at least do, like I say, do some fact checking with
him, even if they'd been his sources, you know, to see if
if they have any current concerns. I'm pretty sure Jeff would be concerned about
the plumb Lee part. But as it's that that's where we're facing this.
We were congratulating ourselves a few months back, I think, because oh,
well, with the anniversary and now the subject has become more popular in the
media, it's getting more coverage, and as if that were a good thing.
And then suddenly I'm going, well, you know the old coverage is
it's not public relations, you know, it's it's not all good, not
if you're really looking for some history. Well there's the trouble, right is
that? Okay? I took note of everybody said to me, well,
you should be really pleased because every you know, I noted, every single
streaming platform had something out about the assassination. Multiple networks did things about the
assassination that wasn't always true, and it was interesting, but I noted every
time they were making huge mistakes all over the place, and it wasn't just
like let's make that mistake that's going to only support the Warrant Commission, you
know, or let's just say, oh, well, the government concluded,
like like a couple of them did not even mention that the House Select Committee
had happened, right. Some of them would mention other odd things and say
like, you know, the Zapruder film had not been seen anywhere at all
until you know, it showed up on Heraldo's show. And I'm going,
well, these guys don't know the history of things like that. I guess,
you know, I'm trying to be forgiving of the different mistakes all over
the place, and the truth is, it seems like the fact checkers were
working full time on the Warren commissioned supporter shows because they got most of their
stuff straight. They ignored, they left out a bunch of things, but
what they presented was done right. And yet on the other side, we
have something completely different happening. And you know, when you take a look
at an Amazon pushed up forward that was terrible what they presented as new stuff
and what they then brought back around as old stuff. They brought back around
antiquated things that were outdated. And you know, there was a couple other
networks that decided to play the Men who Killed Kennedy by the way over again,
you know, and I'm like, wow, I don't know where the
licenses went for that. I guess History Channel is no longer penalizing anybody for
that stuff because there were independent networks doing that, like Newsmax on its cable
channel was I think the Men who Killed Kennedy? You know what I'm saying,
right, And I saw the same discussions online about oh well, what
happened to that one thing that covered Johnson or like these are the same decisions
I saw twenty years ago. And now we're back having the same discussions,
well because in some cases they were rerunning the same crap and exactly so obviously
the new person, the person who wasn't interested in this fifteen years ago,
now comes around, looks at it and goes, oh, this is new.
No, it's not. We saw this in nineteen ninety nine, you
know, we saw this in two thousand and three, we saw this in
you know what I mean. It's like so between that and then, like
I said, Amazon's best big piece there for a second, and thankfully it
didn't catch fire. Really was you know, a body swapping. You know,
Kennedy faked his death documentary, no kidding, one of those, all
right, And I'm going, what in the hell is going on here?
And then people tell me, yeah, but this Rob Reiner thing, I'm
telling you, it's big, And the WET conference actually featured stuff from those
people, you know, and I'm going, Wow, okay, glad I'm
not involved with that. Part of what depresses me, I think is we
complained so long and so hard about the Warren Commission, right, and we
we praised the people that were the first generation skeptics that found all of the
problems with the Warren Commission report, even the Warren Commission report versus the volumes,
you know, and we praised people like Sylvia Meyer who were like fact
checkers and showing inconsistencies. And so for years and years and years we have
panned and cursed and whatever the Warren Commission for doing things that we're not doing
now, Like, okay, where did all the skeptics go for the conspiracy
stuff? Where were we raised all sorts of issues like well, this is
inconsistent with that, and how do you connect these dots? And where's this?
And we slam the Warrant Commission and the Dallas Police and everybody all the
time for doing that, But we don't do it to our own stuff,
right, And that's a problem, you know. We can't. We can't.
It's certainly not even handed. You know, if there are two views
in play here, you ought to be on the same plane field for both.
You can't criticize them and then not apply any of those same standards to
what we're generating out of the conspiracy community. Right. That's the thing is
that that now there's no standard and the idea that you don't just automatically agree
with anything that is other than the official conclusion is a problem. You know,
and this is again the same thing that I was complaining about for years
on this show is exactly this, and it got worse. It didn't get
any better. You know. I'm sorry. I guess I had no effect.
I really wanted to have an effect on this and say, look,
why don't we begin to police this stuff on our side and say, you
know, look, there's got to be some level of realistic judgment on this.
There's got to be some way to peer review these things among people who
know the facts to say, look, you know, this is sort of
a ridiculous thing. And all of this stuff just continues to permeate and just
gains popularity, like it's a meme online. It's just if people like it,
great, they'll share it, it'll go viral. That's all there is
to it. Now, you know, there's no like. It's not because
the facts fit, it's not because it answers questions. It's not because it
adequately you know, explains all of the oddities. It's not. None of
that is there. And it's it's really kind of depressing because that's the stuff
that personally, I used to be very impressed with where it was like,
look, can you explain the oddities? You know? Very much like with
the different circumstances. I don't know. It's like you're supposed to just accept
things because they are of the conspiracy side of the equation, you know,
and whatever it is, the more mysterious they are, the better. Again,
it's it's sort of like the more mysterious, the more Oh, we
don't have answers, that makes it credible. Yeah, And we're kind of
playing that game like, well, it could be anything one of the you
and I've discussed. One of the things that continues to bug me is if
you throw out everything right, Like, I can't accept anything from the police,
I can't accept anything from the FBI. I can't accept any witness,
and I can't accept any except anybody that says anything about Lee Oswald that I
really don't like. It doesn't make them look like innocent whatever. If I
just automatically throw out all that I have no data. One of the things
that strikes me is like, well, one of the places we end up
with is we do so much it's speculative because it has to be speculative because
you threw out everything like that means I can make up my own story,
believe it or not, because there are no facts to hold me respond.
It's easier that way. Well, see, yeah, believe it or not.
I want to simplify this though a little bit for the listener, because
this is a huge, huge problem where Okay, you start discussing documents with
somebody, Eventually you'll find an argument, well, all the documents are you
know, obviously they destroyed everything that they didn't want you to see, so
those documents aren't legitimate. Okay. Then you say, well, you know,
based on the different parts of the investigation that we're conducted, we know
this, we know that. Well, the cops all lied. Okay,
fine, the cops all lied. Well what about the FBI reports? And
then they go, well, the FBI is obviously covering it up, so
they're lying. And you go, okay, what about the film Well,
the films have all been tampered with, so none of those are reliable.
And at the end of it, one by one, every single area I
wind up going through, I go, all right, so tell me what
is it that you think is legitimate? Okay? What is legitimate that is
publicly accessible, that is in evidence? Okay? Not not your ideas,
not your speculation, not your you know, theory, but in all honesty,
what is a legitimate piece of evidence? Let us begin there. And
you know what, there's a lot of people out there that don't have an
idea about what could be a legitimate piece of evidence. It's all illegitimate.
In other words, everything is faked. Everybody's lying, nobody's telling you the
truth for all different reasons. And so you left with you know, at
the end of it, I throw my hands and go, well, then
there is nothing for me to discuss with you, because what am I supposed
to do. I'm making an observation that two observations, one of which will
make people mad. I will say, as an author, you can write
a lot more quickly that way, because you don't need footnotes or endnotes or
or source just you can just go, okay, you can just go,
and it'd be a lot faster. The other thing is it's also a lot
easier to engage in social media forms whatever that way, because you're not handicapped
again by sources. I keep telling everyone, the reason I can't really engage
meaningful and online is the conversations we get into can't be carried out with like
three posts of twenty words each. There, you know, you want to
give me six hours and let me sait two hours of contact or before we
even talk, then we can get serious. But if you're not bound by
any if you're not bound by any data, then you can just go at
it. You know, I believe this. I believe that. I believe
this. I don't trust that it's all you, so it goes much more
quickly. Yeah. No, And the other problem here is that. And
now, now here's the thing. I just threw out all that different evidence,
right and I said, okay, forget it. You can't listen to
the photographs, you can't listen to the recordings, you can't go with the
timelines. Okay, fine, all that stuff you toss aside. What is
it that people will accept, Well, they do accept testimony on one level
or another. Right, somebody's story, This person said this, and I
believe that person because they should have been in the know. That's usually where
you get to when they think all the evidence is faked. Right now,
there's problems with that because every time I turn around, okay, you got
you got people like Kosh Plumley. I mean, you know, pick one
end of the pool or the other. What he said. You got others,
you know, like Frank Sturgis. Let's say, all right, let's
bring up another name that'll confuse people. Frank Sturgis might have told you different
stories at different times, allegedly said something to some cop. But wait a
minute. You don't usually trust the cops. Yeah, but I trust that
cop. Okay, Larry, And then you have the stories and this is
the thing that you brought again. I keep pointing this out because I was
really moved by this when I heard you say it, you know, and
I was waiting for like noise from the back of the room, from you
know, gass from people that I know absolutely relied on the kind of thing
that you said. You're being ridiculous if you're relying on a guy who's like
ninety years old to now tell you his new story, even though he's already
told the story fifty times other times over fifty years since you discovered him.
You know, now he's ninety and tells you a story, now you accept
it. Not a good way to go, not reliable testimony fifty years later.
Witnesses do not age well. They don't like Malcus only good for three
weeks. Witnesses are not good for sixty years. What is can you you
know, can you accept anything that is you know, I mean it's seriously
and I think we can. But one of the other things, and I
think this is to get back to Ryan Er, I think this is a
perfect case. If if you're going to get that amount of airtime and that
amount of FaceTime, you have a responsibility and you have a responsibility to check
your sources. You really do. You have a responsibility to see the other
side. I mean, if we if we're going to hold the Warren Commission's
feet to the fire, then okay, we ought to hold ourselves the fire.
I'll give you an example. It just came up this last week.
Okay, someone made a post again about doctor Berkeley moving President Kennedy's body out
of Dallas, you know, and I made a post back about something Berkeley
had said about well, you know, it was clear at the time,
you know, there was no there there was no criminal investigation, the police
were not involved when they were taking the body away. Berkeley said, you
know, the only way a legal post mortem would have been available at that
point in time was for the family to sign the paperwork to do it,
or for a court to order the autopsy. Okay, now we know that
that did happen in DC when the Kennedy family ordered it, but that's not
happened in the Dallas. Jackie is traumatized. And someone came back to me
and posted something and this this struck me. It's kind of like, wow,
now I've missed this and we have all missed this. They said,
well, what about that phone call from Air Force one ordering from Johnson personally
ordering the body to be taken back to Washington, DC. And I said,
well, where'd that come from. I've never heard anybody say that.
It's never been We've argued this point for decades now before I has been argued
before I came along. Yes, I said, well, somebody just posted
that. Back in nineteen seventy five, a book was written that says Jack
Valenti said he was setting by Linda Johnson on Air Force one and he heard
him make a call to somebody. He didn't know who. Now we don't
since we don't know who, we don't know where where. But anyway,
the inference was it was Johnson that made the call to tell the Secret Service
to bring that goudy guns blazing if necessary, take the body. I said,
well, okay, that's that's pretty fascinating. Are you going to research
that? Can? Can we can confirm that? You know, when did
Valenti say it occurred with Johnson on the plane at that time? Was Jackie
and the body? And who's going to do the legwork to see if that's
even possible? And what you heard was a big resounding nobody. It's like,
okay, you can't just posit that out to nowhere and explain a mystery
and let it lay because somebody wrote it in a book in nineteen seventy five,
for lord's sake. Well, and sadly you could say, maybe it's
true, but yeah, maybe it is true. Yeah, you got to
do the homework, and you could start with, Look, there was media
coverage of the body leaving the hospital. There's media coverage of Johnson leaving the
hospital. That gives you a clock. Okay, it shows you when the
body left, It shows you when Johnson left. Okay, pretty simple.
Right. Manchester has a very detailed chronology in his book, and we have
a very detailed chronology of what Johnson was doing when he got on the aircraft.
Yeah. I mean what we've heard from people that were there is that
he didn't settle down by a phone. I mean, he just was running
up and down the aisle looking at TV monitors and doing that. You know,
So when could it be that Valenti would have set down beside him to
hear and him on the phone. It's not on the Air Force one tape
all of Johnson's calls that we know, So that's another thing. It's kind
of like, if we accept that, that means somebody scrubbed that off the
Air Force one tape, but they didn't even scrub off this exchange with RFKR
or which Johnson lies. But they didn't scrub that, but they scrubbed this,
you know. So especially since it's not on the tape, you've got
to prove it in I think it would be great if you could prove it
and get one more mystery out of the way. But nobody's doing that kind
of homework now, right because it's just easier to say, oh, you
know that's the answer. Well I don't know that. That's the answering.
Essentially the same thing saying I got all the answers. But that's well,
say Rob and that's the crazy thing, is BLENTI would be a guy who
was in the know. But yeah, it doesn't mean that he accurately related
the story. Okay, it just doesn't. I'm sorry. So you better,
you know, back that up. You better come with some verification,
right, you better come with corroboration regarding this. As you said, Manchester
has got a great chronology. But also again, you can study the media
that day. You can get a clock as to when the body left.
You can get a clock as to when Johnson had departed. Okay, you
can do all that and then try and put this together because to my knowledge,
I don't think there would have been a lot of time where he's telling
them he's already on the plane and telling the hospital to go get it.
I mean, in my mind, maybe I'm remembering this wrong. Yeah,
but I don't think there would have been there would have been time to do
that. You can One of the things that you can do from the Air
Force one tape is you can see exactly when Johnson started making telephone calls.
Right, because one of the things that we know from the Secret Service agents
on the plane was that when Johnson first got on the plane, he didn't
really even somebody had to tell him there was a telephone available, because in
those days, let's face it, you didn't get on a plane and use
a telephone that would work on Air Force one. It would not work on
a normal airplane in nineteen sixty three, you know, So somebody had to
make him away. He could even start making telephone calls, right there was
the phone was back in the private presidential area, so Valente would have to
be back there so it could be checked. And I think that would be
great, But it's just again, if we're going to hold ourselves to the
same standards that we hold the Warren Commission into, you need to check it
out before you assert it as fact, right right. And meanwhile, I'm
thinking that Johnson could not make a direct order to the Secret Service. He'd
have to get the head of the Secret Service, who was back in Washington,
to issue the order to the Secret Service. So this means there has
to be communication here, uh, in order for that order to get transmitted
from Johnson. It's just look, there's just a lot of problems here,
and that doesn't happen in a matter of seconds. It still didn't happen in
a matter of seconds, even with the best technological setup at that point in
time. Anyway, and this is me speculating about it and trying to say,
these are the questions I would need to answer in order to satisfactorily say
that's the way it went down. Uh maybe I'm craid that just it gets
back to if you're offering alternative history, which is what all of us really,
you know, we would we would like to offer an alternative to the
official story, right right, Well, that means that your history, you
know, it has to be treated as if it were history. You've got
to be open about what you know, what you don't know. Uh.
It was we talked about this before a little bit. I think it was
was fascinating when when we see that, uh, you know, even even
on the Warren commissioned staff. Uh, there were memos written that said we
can't say this. You knowel Lebeler writes a memo that says, here are
thirty things that we can't say in the report because we really don't know for
sure. And you're saying this as if it was positive, positively true,
you know. And he writes that memo and nobody wants to read it,
right, So at least there was some some internal level of consciousness from the
commissioners themselves, you know, at least at least they had some level of
well, you know, and in the end, of course they decided to
waive all that. Well, bad on them, But we don't want to
be the same way. Well, that's the other thing here is, for
all the complaining anybody can do about the official story, you're doing a worse
job of it by accepting all this nonsense that contradicts itself. And that's the
other problem, is just the logic of it contradicting. Okay, how could
you put those five people together, like you said, right, I mean,
it's it's not even comprehensible, comprehendible in my mind to assemble these people,
you know what I mean. And they're shooting in a coordinated fashion.
But by the way, you just you can't have them. They've got to
function as a tactical paramilitary team in the six seconds, right, yeah,
I mean, I mean, you don't just like plumbing, you just don't
send five people to the plaza and they end up shooting at the same point,
just over the same six seconds of time, from five different locations.
No less, you know, how does that work? How does that work?
Rob? Tell me brings, bring a military person into this dialogue and
tell me what has to be done to make that work. Don't just assert
it? Yeah, I mean, because look, if you even open to
just open speculation, right, somebody could say, well, look if you
dispatched in whatever number of shooters you wanted and gave them all the same signal
and they were all supposed to shoot at the same time, right, that
this is this is a way to go at it, and then and then
they all did and some of them didn't. Maybe, Okay, that's great
and all, But you know, I could also assume that there were one
hundred guns there and only three of them fired. You know, we we
we could go through many different assumptions that are wide open. Right. Well,
if somebody pointed out and you did that so you could blame it all
on one guy. Yeah, there's people had them all shooting simultaneously, and
your plan was to blame it on one guy. If nobody gets on this
one guy, tell us how that worked too, if nobody gets caught,
And mind you, five people got the escaped as well, right, I
mean, you know, given Nicoletti's age and you know, it's kind of
like saying, I mean, I'm surprised they didn't name Roselli, But I
mean, you want to take all these old guys who can not move all
that well anyway, and have them score good shots when they haven't fired a
rifle for ages, and then have them get away right because they're trained in
how to do that. Sure. I mean, I remember talking to a
guy who knew Nicoletti at one point and him laughing at the idea that Nicoletti
would use a rifle even, you know, like, yeah, the same
with Roselle. We talked to some people and knew Roselle and knew it that
at that point in time, and they're going, now, you've got to
be kidding. It's just it's laughable. So so anyway, and I don't
I was going to say, I don't want to be too critical, but
on the other hand, yes, I do, because if you're going to
offer offer something that not just me, but generations of people have been working
on to find the right story, you need to have a little responsibility to
all of them to make it as right as you can make it so people
don't laugh at it or people believe it and then then it gets deconstructed.
I had somebody call me up, actually had a couple of people call me
up after the special with the Dallas doctors was on, and they knew nothing
about this subject, and they were all excited about what they had heard.
And it's like, well, okay, you know, tell me what you
got out of that. And they said, well, what I got of
that. Out of that was every single doctor at Parkland knew immediately after the
assassination when they'd seen the body, that the president had been shot from the
front. Well, not quite that simple, you know. So again we're
at the point now we blamed the mass media right for crafting the Warren commissioned
story and the CIA for issuing an internal memorandum that says, okay, everybody,
you've got to help us defend the official story. Now we're crafting the
unofficial story. Anyway. It doesn't feel good. Yeah, And the unwritten
memo is, now, look, you got to support everything that supports conspiracy,
otherwise you're a bad guy. I mean, really, that's what it
comes down to. H And if you question even some of these things,
it's the weirdest thing, I'm telling you. And I had this experience with
the Judy Baker things still still which by the way, he had a kind
of a tacit endorsement of her, I think earlier on in his podcast from
what I understand, Yeah, you know where it's like, well and she
says, and it's like, really, he didn't really leave much out.
No he didn't. I mean I don't think he did. The driver shot
him. I don't think he did that. But other than that, you
know, I guess it could have been worse. It could have been worse.
But at the end of the day, he leaves us with a g
a bag of easily beaten down. If somebody uses logic, you know again,
Uh, as much as I can't stand Gerald posnor one thing, is
he at least sticks to a logical story. Uh you know, I'm just
well, it makes it difficult for the rest to follow on behind. You
know, if if I was to go out and and talk to everybody that
viewed that series and say, well, it's not here's here's the problem and
maybe it wasn't quite you know, they would look at me like, well,
what could you possibly know? You know? Uh, it, because
he has that will have the kind of reach that it has and the kind
of mind share that it has, it's going to be very hard to back
away from it. People will think that they now know. Uh. And
if you disagree, as you said, suddenly you're you know, we're kind
of like, Okay, if if we just agreed with the Warrant Commission,
we were idiots. Now we disagree with this scenario, we're idiots. We
just can't get out of that. Yeah, one way or another, you're
gonna you're gonna be branded as an idiot because you've objected to the wrong thing.
Uh what what what can you do when you're looking for I don't know,
an actual solution, you know, a reasonable, plausible explanation of the
history here, given the facts, given the evidence that exists. Uh.
And again, if you're going to throw out all the evidence, and I
have this problem all the time where you know, again, I'll begin explaining
something and they just find a way to throw out that evidence. You know,
you can't trust the cops, Okay, you can't trust the documents.
Okay, you can't trust the films. Okay, you can't trust any of
the medical evidence. Okay, where do you want me to go? Don't
trust what Lee Oswell said either oh okay, yeah right, not even the
stuff that he said himself, you know, regardless, right, And and
I'm not gonna tell into that too much, but I mean it bothers me
a little bit with the prayer man thing because guy says he was not ounce
he was in the building at the time, but anyway, he said it
publicly. Okay, you know, all right, uh, which, but
I think in all honest we have to commit there are ways to deal with
this. I mean, historians have to deal with this stuff all the time.
Law enforcement has to deal with this stuff. People say different things at
different times, people lie, You have confusion in the facts, and you
have to approach it in a practical manner. It's not that it can't be
done. There's context, there's situation. Leo's will lied at times, Yeah
sure he did. Can we get a handle on when he lied and when
he didn't lie? Yeah, sure we can't. So we don't have to
throw it all away. And I guess that's another thing that strikes me.
This is like real world. This kind of chaotics situation occurs in most crimes,
many crimes, certainly many violent crimes, and people deal with it.
You know, the system deals with it. So it's not like there aren't
best practices and approaches and so on and so forth. Certainly we wouldn't be
in the place that we are now if this had gone to court and there
had been a defense attorney, and we would have tossed all of this stuff
out before it ever got past nineteen sixty four. You know, the fact
that it was all accepted in the evidence essentially by the Warren Commission was a
problem. Just like we've talked about it. The same thing happened with MLK
and RK. You know, the system failed because Oswald had no defense.
But I think it's fascinating that looking into it a little bit more, the
fellow that Warren that was supposed to look out for, le Harvy Oswall from
the Justice Department, never did anything essentially except write a memo that say,
you guys actually shouldn't make a case that Lee Oswell could shoot well, because
that's going to be hard to support. That's the only thing he contributed.
But I'm sorry to rant that, but there are practices that allow you to
deal with it at least openly and transparently and even handily without just making you
know, assertions right so look, at the end of the day, I
guess without continuing to beat the dead horse, what we got to do is
say that there is a lot of work, you know. And I'm not
saying you are, Larry, I mean I am. I know I am
because I'm frustrated. You know, at the end of the day, there's
a lot of work still to be done. And I think there is a
way to do. What happens in most criminal cases, Like you said,
yeah, the chaos factor happens, right, People lie, people are covering
things up, people deny stuff at first until they're caught, etc. But
see, nobody ever got caught up in their bs at the time, and
we didn't go through that process at the time. So what you have is
instead of this contracting universe of possibilities and this contracting universe of evidence that normally
occurs in a murder case, you don't have that here because it never got
to that point that would have condensed it. It never got to that point
in the system where somebody had to challenge this stuff, where you actually had
to have a standard by which you entered these things into evidence right in a
court. And that's one way of doing it. There's more than one way.
But I mean one standard one could use is what could you actually enter
into evidence in a court, right? And what would be stronger evidence,
What would be more persuasive evidence, what would weigh a great deal more,
what could be corroborated direct, what could be maybe possibly true but not corroborated,
et cetera, et cetera. And what might have changed had there been
pressures on people if there was not a need to testify, you know,
with the Warren Commission, but it needed to testify in a courtroom, it
would have been a different circumstance. So we don't end up with the contracting
universe of explanations and evidence. We end up with an expanding one. And
unfortunately it has continued to expand now for more than half a century. You
know, look, I'll give the first few years to the people needing to
take time to do the work in the research right, and say, let's
just give the first decade away to the Warrant Commission and just the early critics.
After that, the universe continues to expand because people started to dig into
things more and dig in on their positions more, and therefore the universe really
started to expand after that first decade. Right, So this is what we've
dealt with for now a half a century, and how does it get better?
Well, there's still a lot of work to be done. I think
there is a responsible way to handle this, but I just I don't know
how to come up with a consensus on it. How do you convince now
this whole new group of people, because a bunch of people have written to
me about this Rob Reiner thing, like, oh, this is so great.
They're thrilled because it is a recognizable name. It is somebody with a
large platform who is legitimately advocating for something other than the Warren commissioned solution.
But on the other hand, did he do us any favors? You know?
Like I get the Oliver Stone thing, and people complain about that still,
and oh Stone entered a whole bunch of things into his movie that really
don't make sense if you put them together. Was it the mob? Was
it? This was that? But Oliver Stone was making a movie. He
wasn't telling you that that was the absolute facts. Even he said it was
a counter myth, and a counter myth could be this way, yes,
But these podcasts where you're telling people you have solutions. These podcasts where you're
telling people you have actual information is different than that Hollywood movie, that work
of historical fiction that Stone used and utilized in order to get a result,
which got us a lot more documentation, got us a lot more research,
got us a lot more of a lot of things. But I don't know
if we're going to be able to do ourselves any favors moving forward. I
mean, is there a way to start making the universe contract as opposed to
expanding? I mean, do you have any ideas about that? And I'll
close this discussion with you on that is, do you have any ideas about
going forward? What can we do? And I think perhaps the positive spin
is that you can get all is that more history books would be written,
or more you know, more would be written where Oswald is simply characterized as
the suspected assassin, or there's some comment about it being in dispute, you
know, not asserting it as absolute one hundred fact as the way the Warren
Commission did and as the way that the history books were for a time.
Maybe we'll get the point where we can claim that much as a victory.
I think the other part of what can happen is it does have to age
to the point where there are history books written on it. I will say,
there are history books being written now on the Korean War, or on
aspects of World War two, or the Lincoln assassination, for heaven's sakes,
that are actually much more factual and much more accurate than anything that was written
in the years following the incident. You know, as an example, right
now, if you were a good historian, you could not write about the
Vietnam War without writing to the extent that the Russians actually had troops inside Vietnam.
The same thing goes for Korea. That would have been verboten in the
first years after those wars. So maybe the point is that we can generate
enough hard data so that another, you know, one hundred years later historians
can treat it from a distance and treat it far more objectively than we could
up to this point in time. I think we just we have to generate
the data. We have to put it out in some format where a historian
would trust it, you know, where they can see that it's cited and
sourced and we just didn't make it up, you know. So that's a
problem with books these days, even with the way that publishers do or doing
books where where they're consolidating sources page by page and you can't tell where any
particular commentary came from as far as the source, I don't know. I
guess the answer to me is it's almost as if you need more history students
writing real history papers on the assassination. You need more, You need less
entertainment and more history. And that maybe is just my personal book, but
you can't. You can't overwhelm the entertainment. We can't overwhelm right, He'll
create a general impression. All we can do is collect and put together stuff
that a historian may find useful. When when it gets to the point where
you can tell the real story, we're closer than we were forty years ago,
thirty years ago, you know, is the challenge somewhat of a taboo.
Quite frankly, it's still sort of a taboo subject for real historians,
possibly because what we just talked about. They'll look at what they say see
on you know, they're human too, they'll look at what they see on
TV and they'll go, oh, jeez, I can't you know, I
can't do a paper on that kind of stuff right right, Well, you
know, and the good thing is, I guess again we got to take
the positive spin is that at least the idea that this can be challenged is
viewed as legitimate. Now, what it is that is used to challenge the
official story is yet another question. And like you said, I guess it'll
just have to be up to the data and eventually it'll all shake out,
and we'll hope that it shakes out to a point where, you know,
there is a most likely story that could be told that there's another positive point
that I just don't want to overstep. But one of the things that the
first second generation, when they wrote something right, there was no way for
the reader to verify it. It's totally critical now the body of information that
is build built on the Marial Mary Farrell Foundation, the Black Vault, getting
all of this actual. That's why we can't throw away the documents. If
you say I'm throwing away all the documents and all the witness testimony, the
Storian fifty years from now will say, I'll go write about something else.
You know, if you guys say this is all fake. But the good
news is we've collected that a lot of people have spent tons of work collecting
that body of information, so you can write, someone could write a good
historical paper on how the Warren Commission screwed up, you know, and quote
real sources and real documents. So I don't want to be too depressed because
we've done that much to enable real histories exactly, exactly. All right,
Well, Larry Hancock, I just want to thank you for walking through this
with me again. Go to larrydoshncock dot com. I recommend all of Larry's
right, But you know, this is a necessary thing, and this conversation
is going to have to be continued because look, it's not just Rob Reiner,
and it's not just what will be put out, you know by people
that have major reach and all this. At this point in time, I
think there is still this continuing need to police this, to begin to come
up with a reliable contradiction to the official story that is not based on wild
speculation and grab bags some things thrown together. I mean, that's really what
it comes down to. We've got to eliminate that stuff. We've got to
eliminate it from legitimate you know consideration. Is the general public going to consider
many different things, I guess. So we don't have a choice about that,
but we do have a choice about what it is we choose to present
and what it is we choose to lend credence to as we go forward.
So that's the way I'll leave it with you guys for tonight. And remember
I'm merely o'helly, and all of you are indeed the effect. Remember go
to Larry dash Hancock dot com. And I'll also give you the link to
his blog in the show notes. And uh, we'll talk to Larry in
two weeks. Take care of everybody. Wallstreet window dot dot, gold,
silver, the stock market, Wall Street window dot dot. Perhaps you're invested
deeply, perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started.
Wall Street windows, don com doos do 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. Dot go there,
now go there, now go there, now go ahead. Call it about
the DAFA assassination. Right, well, what do you want to know?
Tony Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby and Barry answer, weapons
really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make
me a wagon, but okayal bili and trying to prevent the murder of John
Kennedy come on now has a real effort on the day of hay assassination.
Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get
the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own
words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective.
Let's say you can get Judith Barry Baker in her own words from the
author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I
A S JFK at aol dot com. It's a fun book and actually dissects
the many, many fantastic claims Judith Barry Baker in her own words. Thank
you for all the great information the news expressed. Like all the schools there
anyone else who happens to get on the air of jelly dot com. If
you don't necessarily reflect ned views of Jelly dot com or jock O jelly and
we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which might ensued. Do 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'll 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. The War State by
Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency
in the context of the time times and reveals never before published information about the
Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been
president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the
Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II,
the United States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed,
it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to
invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island.
Aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers.
Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted
to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and
will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The
Warstate dot com. Nuclear Holocaust. You know what uranium is right? I
think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what uranium is
right? Bad things things had done with uranium, including some bad things Nuclear
holocaust. You know what uranium is right? I have brief Nuclear Holocaust,
Nuclear Holocaust. You know what uranium is right? They think on nuclear weapons
and other things like blood. Say, you know what uranium is right?
Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad things Nuclear Holocaust,
Nuclear Holo Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear hollow On the dynamics
of a crop, how do you move a mab? How do you expect?
How do you make them feel? Is one? But you? How
joined them? First? Join them? This when you episode remold