Is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you Yeah and Nowgted
Noise and in our media shack April seventeen, twenty twenty four, allegedly,
according to that thing we call a calendar, this is indeed the o'celly effect,
and I am live on a woldenes Day, Wednesday, middle of the
week, hump day, whatever you want to call it. Uh, But
most of you will catch this further on down the stream, et cetera,
et cetera, cause we are also a podcast, the o'cell effect. That
is, I'm not a podcast, although sometimes I play one on your device
of choice. Anyway, it is what it is. It is Wednesday.
This day in history, in fact, is relevant to tonight's discussion and my
returning co host once again for the evening, Larry Hancock, who is the
author on many, many, many subjects, often revolving around the intelligence reactions,
the United States actions, the geopolitical spheres of influence, many many things,
aside from the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which, oh,
by the way, we might have to discuss here because the Bay of Pigs
happened sixty three years ago. Now, all your numerology people might be going
sixty three years ago for the thing that happened in nineteen sixty three, and
then you're gonna tell me which parallel it occurred on and what time of day
it actually was on the clock according to the Sun dial. Let's calm down,
everybody and get some real context from Larry Hancock about this. And while
you're at it, check out Larry's work takes up a lot of space on
my bookshelf, et cetera, et cetera, And it doesn't just take up
space or collect dust, because it's very useful stuff and some of the best
stuff out there. From Surprise Attack, Shadow Warfare. You might think that
something like the Bay of Pigs would get mentioned in those books, and indeed,
I'm sure they do, as well as in Tipping Point, as well
as in someone would have talked maybe not unidentified, because I don't remember any
sort of unidentified flying objects at least, you know, maybe there were some
in the rooms in DC when things were occurring, but I don't think there
were unidentified flying objects at the Bay of Pigs, this location near Cuba.
Of course, we're back to talking about Cuba and what might have been involved
there, and many people discuss it and reference it when talking about the assassination.
Oh, by the way, did I mention tipping point? Did I
mention someone would have talked? Did I mention that? Larry has many other
books out there, either authored or co authored by him, The Awful Grace
of God Killing King one an update of the other. You know this kind
of stuff, So that assassination various interactions UAPs, which we have discussed recently
on the show, A wide variety of topics where you get some very clean,
good solid analysis from a man who I'm satisfied to call not only an
author but a historian. I don't think you technically have that training per se,
but all the work you've done, you've definitely laid out a historical set
of references, and all of them valuable. I recommend all of them highly
well. And indeed you might want to look at a detailed discussion of the
Bay of Pigs in a book called in Denial, which you might recognize that
title because I do run a spot almost every show that comes through this network
for that book authored by Larry Hancock, and I happen to have a copy
of that, and well, every one of Larry's books, and I'm looking
forward to the new one, which I'm not sure when it's coming out.
Maybe Larry can help us and fill us in as to when that might be
presentable. But a new book taking another look at Lee Harvey Oswald, when
does that do to come out? Larry? And how you doing tonight?
By the way, Oh, I'm fine, Jack. I certainly hope that
the Osweall book will be out by the end of the year. I hope
it will be out by the time of the Lancer conference in November. It's
we have the going into the final edit with Rex right now, but then
there's proofreading, there's publishing, but the writing part is essentially done, so
that's relief and turn out. There were only four hundred and twenty seven footnotes,
so people can really look forward to that too. Oh, there you
go, four hundred and twenty seven footnotes. I mean, Larry, what
are you getting lazy? I mean, what's going on here? And by
the way, I believe that out numbers the number of pages, and I'm
obviously busting your chops. But I look forward to that as well as looking
forward to Lancer, which we'll both be participating in this coming year. Although
as it stands right now, I am planning on being there in person to
MC and maybe do some other things, and you may or may not be
there in person. That's still not fully decided, I guess, but looks
like either way you'll be presenting somehow though, whether it's virtually or in person,
you're going to do that and probably participate in the online situation. Maybe
I heard a rumor that you might actually, I don't know, be running
the little Facebook group that they have as the live conference is happening. Something
like that. Maybe I heard wrong. You could tell us later, because
all we know right now is the dates, which coincidentally, speaking of this
day in history, are going to line up rather nicely because it's going to
begin this year on the twenty second, as far as we're planning thus far,
so the weekend of the twenty second, of the twenty fourth in November,
the Lancer Conference will happen, and if you're watching it online or you're
there in person, you'll be suffering through me in person, but you'll get
Larry Hancock either virtually or maybybe we'll have a live connection with you, even
if you're from a remote location. Still to be determined what you're going to
do exactly right. That depends on how early the book is and whether I
survive the publishing. Yeah, one never knows. It's like given birth.
But I've done it a few times now, so I know what's coming up.
Well, there you go. So we will sit in anticipation and see
exactly what participation you'll have. But you will be involved with Lancer this year,
one way or another, so we have that to look forward to.
Only geez, it's about seven months away now. But before we get there,
let's talk about this day in history, just briefly, and of course
only one event April seventeen right now. I hear this reference constantly when people
do podcasts, when people do presentations, documentaries. It is worthy of mention
when you're going to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the time
period it is a watershed event. Some interesting things occur in the face of
the public, in the public, not the face of the public really,
but in the public's view that quite often didn't used to occur in the public's
view. How would you approach this If somebody's like, look, I've heard
of the Bay of Pigs, but I don't know much think it happened in
Cuba. I heard that once from somebody. I think that happened in Cuba,
and that was the extent of what they had heard about it, not
somebody who was, you know, extremely interested in all of the minutia of
the Kennedy assassination, obviously, but a general kind of introduction, how would
you introduce not only the historical event to someone who might not be read in
on it, but also how would you explain the context as to why it
is of note regarding the assassination, et cetera, et cetera. I mean,
obviously without speculating, just in a very general, pedestrian, easily accessible
way. Larry, what would you say about the Bay of Pigs for somebody
who's only familiar with the freeze? Let's say yeah. I think one of
the problems that we face from a historical standpoint is we we fight the same
problem with the discussion of the Bay of Pigs that we do with the Kennedy
assassination. What is written about both in the history books is very menialist,
minimalist. You often find, you know, a paragraph of you know,
when the assassin app assassination nappened in Dallas Learsrey Oswald the loan Shooter and you're
done. Uh. The same thing goes with the Bay of Pigs. The
Bay of Pigs was essentially a landing of a Cuban force at the Bay of
Pigs in Cuba. Uh. It was a disaster over some three days.
The force was essentially landed successfully and operated for a day day and a half
successfully and then was basically overwhelmed. And it was an immense political disaster for
brand new president President Kennedy. And and when it's talked about, that's the
ways talked about it, sort of like it was. It was Kennedy's first
trial by fire. It was a disaster, you know, And and it
sets a very negative tone for the administration, which which he later came back
with during the Missile crisis. But in the history books, it's it's presented
as a Kennedy disaster based on Kennedy's decision making. Unfortunately, as with a
jfk assassination, which we've learned far more about over the decades, that's not
as simple it is is in the history book, and neither is the bfpis
isn't it right? So let me let me get the story for the ball.
Let me interrupt you. Let me just interrupt you real quick for one
reason only because we require quick snapshots here of two things, uh one,
the event itself. But also let's put into context the idea that in real
time and ever after, according to history, you have the figure of Fidel
Castro, who's a person of interest, clearly somebody that you have to mention
when you're discussing the Cold War in general, et cetera, et cetera.
So it goes far beyond the Kennedy assassination, and you'd have to say that,
you know, regardless of whether it was during those days when the news
reports are happening and Kennedy gives the famous press conference where basically he says,
you know, I'm gonna very badly paraphrase here, the buck stops here.
I'm responsible for this mess, et cetera. He says that in public,
But there's a public and private occurrence here, and it's in the context of
the height of the Cold War, before the Cuban Missile crisis seen as a
victory, you know, for the administration for America in general. So there's
a context of what was going on then and how it has been carried out
through history, as you said, with really not even a full paragraph,
a few sentences in a lot of history books. So you have to kind
of land those two things before you even get into the description, don't you.
Absolutely, And you've got a key point there. It's three days,
and it's always one. It's described is described as the Bay of Pigs land
E's three days, when in essence, the operation was initiated by President at
Eisenhower the year before. The operation is approved and conceived under Eisenhower was nothing
at all similar to what was instituted by the CIA only weeks after JFK had
come into office. But that backstory has never given that nobody ever writes about,
oh, the Bay of Pigs as part of a much longer Cuba project
that had been you know, it's three days, compared to what had actually
been in play for over a year, and without the backstory of how,
what author what Eisenhower had authorized, what came about what Kennedy had authorized,
which was actually nothing at all similar to what actually happened at the Bay of
Pigs. Your left hanging, as we often are with the JFK assassination,
with only a very small part of the story, and I think that that's
one of the things that makes it important. We can learn a lot from
the Bay of Pigs in terms of educating ourselves of how how the sound bites
and the history books are really not helpful for understanding what happened historically. And
if you know, if that's all you ever read, and if that's what
you just repeat, then it's wrong. You're making a mistake. Everybody's making
a mistake. Yet, I will say, sixty three years after the fact,
articles are being written in papers around the nation about the Bay of Pigs,
and they continue to recite a whole set of things that are faults that
we took this quite a while to learn. But there's still it's like they're
repeated year after year after year simply because that was what was said in the
beginning, and it never gets any more accurate, which is is definitely frustrating
for historians and anybody that would really like to understand that, you know,
the real story. But the newspaper, it's easy. They just pick up
the copy and the copy is extremely negative because that's the way people were talking
about it immediately afterwards. Well, and much like you know, any real
time news story. There's also remnants of things that do get retained over time,
like the introduction of Richard Nixon to the conversation, because he was the
uh, you know, the officer of the White House who was given responsibilities
regarding this. According to the very well, what do we call it,
the very sort of condensed version of the historical sound bites, Nixon is the
executive action officer under Eisenhower. He had knowledge of this. He had more
knowledge about it than the president who was being told about it as he's coming
into office, according to well, a lot of reports. So there's some
context here. You got to think about that. This is during that transition
and all of it. But this can get confusing, so let's cut through
that and get to the event itself. Right, we've given a lot of
the context and a lot of the cautionary tales about being careful about what was
recorded in public and real time. What we've been able to learn the arguments
over you know, could he have given air cover? Did he give air
cover? Is that really the thing? Did that build resentment? Put it
all aside, and let's get to the event itself. If you don't mind,
what do you think Larry, is that appropriate. It's appropriate only with
one caveat, and that's the fact that what Kennedy actually authorized was the landing
of a Cuban force inside Cuba. This force had been prepared over some ten
months. Originally it only supposed to was supposed to be a very small group
of people who were highly trained, who would go in and lead a revolution.
There was no way what Eisenhower prewed was in no way resembling what happened
at the Bay of Pigs. And so I think we can talk about what
did happen at the Bay of Pigs, which was a literal D Day style
landing craft, tanks, aircraft, transports, paratroops, was in no way
what was supposed to have happened. It all morphed literally into something brand new
over approximately four months at the very end of the Icenower administration, and Kennedy
basically inherited it and asked some questions about it. It's interesting when Kennedy asked
for a brief and actually asked whether or not the Joint Chiefs of Staff had
approved it as a military action. He was told no, they hadn't,
and he said, well, then send them over the plan and let them
take a look at it. And the answer was, well, there's no
plan, there's no written plan, we have nothing to send them. This
is a denial operation. It's all verbal. Well, okay, go ahead
and brief them. And when you read the documents, it's kind of like
the Joint Chief people are going, we're not even sure. We have to
talk to these people and they're telling these bits and pieces, so we're going
to give you an opinion, but it's not like they've given us a well
thought out plan. And basically all we can tell you is, yeah,
it looks like they will be able to land a force, they'll be able
to put them on the beach, but it absolutely looks like they do not
have a plan in place that would allow them to support them over a long
term, that would allow them logistically to do that support. And by the
way, the Joint Chief's recommendation, which went back to the CIA, said
two things. A, this is not going to work at all, and
the group will literally be wiped out unless there is a massive internal revolution that
happens at the same time as the landing. And B you've got to pull
this off in such a fashion that there are absolutely no Cuban aircraft operating over
the beach that can target those landing ships. Because you're only putting the small
number of ships in there, they're loaded with ammunition and if you don't have
total air control, haul it off. So that just sets you a little
context for what happened and during the next three days after the landing, which
was totally hand violation of all the warnings that the CIA had been given.
Right and again for context, this is beyond because a lot of people just
imagine it as the great invasion that is meant to be Okay, there's an
invasion boom done. The idea here, although there wasn't a formal plan,
it seems like was for a revolution to be sparked. This was meant to
be an inciting incident beyond the invasion, Like the invasion is almost a secondary
thing. It is the landing of the parties there, But what they're supposed
to do is create a popular uprising and that's really the key year. And
yet am I correct in thinking there was no specific plan for doing that from
what we can discern, or is it possible it's actually worse than that,
Chuck, And by the way, for people that I'm not really making this
stuff up. This all came up. There were, as you can imagine,
numerous inquiries, investigations, histories done internally within the CIA, which were
extremely damning to the people in charge within the CIA. But literally in the
month before the landings, the CIA became aware that Castro had essentially rolled up
the major revolutionary groups on the island, had had penetrated them, either killed
their leaders or locked them up, and there were literally thousands of people in
jail at that point that might have helped with the popular revolution, and the
CIA absolutely knew that that was not going to happen, and they did not
even bring it up as an issue to the president. You find we find
that in the transcripts of the meetings. And not only did they not do
that, but the people they had trained over the better part of the year
to infeil trade and lead that sort of revolutionary action were not inserted either.
Even some of the most basic things that you would do, like put these
people in as pathfinders, have them block roads and the interior, blow up
bridges sort of, none of those people were even deployed with the landing.
So, yeah, to answer your question, it's not an overstatement to say
that the major part of the plan, which relied upon an internal revolution.
In fact, the plan even called for sending in hundreds of thousands of rounds
of ammunition to support this revolution. It was not even that the picture at
the time of the landings, and the CI officer in charge, Richards Bissel
and Tracy Barnes, knew that and were aware of it, weren't telling anybody
well. In fact, one of the leading figures that was imagined to basically
take over if Castro's overthrown, at least one of them was not even in
the country or near the country at the time, which I find interesting.
But here's the thing the post wortem get asked on that note, Chuck,
just to expand on that. Sure, the CIA actually locked up all of
the major revolutionary leaders that were inside the United States. That again, you
would expect, you know, if this is going to be a popular revolution,
you've got to have people at the Cuban populace identifies with, recognizes,
you know, participating with this. You'd even you don't want them on to
be you want you want them there. No, they're all locked up in
a hotel room in Miami because somebody's concerned that they're going to talk and give
away the operation, right and the mortem. One last note on the post
mortem, and is often pointed to, is that this leads to they often
say, oh, he fired the head of the CIA and various other people,
et cetera. We know those names, we know who they were.
But Kennedy didn't fire them. He asked for their resignations and got them.
Uh. Key figure, their biggest name, key figure anyway, who plays
a role later on in this entire narrative and even into the assassination and into
the days of the Warren Commission, Alan Dullas Uh. Not only that,
but the brother of the mayor of Dallas, you know who as a CIA
building named after him. When you're leaving town, which I noted walking to
the greyhound station in Dallas. You know Cavell, all right, you got
you got Earl Cabll and Charles Cavell. Charles, Uh, somebody who is
involved with the CIA seemingly asked to offer a resignation along with Dallas and some
others. But he's got a building named after him, a CIA building in
Dallas, right there on that same strip where the Greyhound bus station is I
noted that because I took a look up and realized I was standing in front
of the Charles cabll CIA building. And that's part of the story as well.
But often one of the things that people focus on that takes us away
from the historical event a little bit. But is significant or what do you
think? I think it's significant only that you know, nobody ever asked the
question. Nobody really explores what Dulles or Cabell or what the officers did or
didn't do. The discussion is always in terms of Kennedy. You know,
what did Kennedy do or not do the which means the only blame for the
whole thing is placed on Kennedy. There really is no discussion. You read
a biography of Dallas, or you read something about now there's nothing in there
about oh associated with the disaster at the bay. You know it's missing.
So to me, it's just it's a missing just another part of the missing
piece of the puzzle that didn't get any discussions. And if if you actually
read the historical reports, the CIA historical reports or the commission that studied the
Bay of Pigs, you would see what these people didn't do and it's just
it's amazing what they didn't do. Actually, Kennedy was more than graceful and
simply offering to let them resign, both of them. If they had been
in the military and you looked at what they did and what they didn't do,
would have been court martial offenses dereliction of duty. I mean, there
is just absolutely no doubt about it. Cabbell give an example in that regard.
Kennedy authorized a whole bunch of things that are never talked about during the
three days of the landings that he had said no to before and when it
became clear how bad things were going on the beach head. He authorized air
strikes by American pilots which he had initially ordered not to happen. He authorized
air drops by Air Force aircraft, and Cabell was supposed to take care of
that and did not. It's just amazing. Kennedy authorizes first on day two,
but actually day one, day two air strikes by American pilots flying B
twenty six aircraft, and then he authorizes air cover from the Navy, and
the Navy screwed up both of them. They got their timing wrong, communications
wrong. They weren't even using the same frequency as the landing force was.
It's just but the fact is, on the anniversary, none of that will
ever be discussed by anybody except here, because it will all be a regurgitation
of Kennedy's, you know, failure of decisiveness somehow because he didn't go ahead
in order a full military invasion of Cuba. Well, and that's the way
it stands. So how is it we should interpret this, put this in
its right context the event itself. Let's go into that. I mean,
do we need to get into the reference. I mean, we've mentioned the
landing good The simple explanation is that this whole broad checkt was not run by
Dulles, It was not run Buck Cabell. It was really run by Tracy
Barnes and Richard Bissel. These were the two senior operations officers that were given
the project. And it's a very unusual organizational thing within the CIA. In
fact, it received heavy criticism because it was not the way they normally did
things. But these guys were given the mission because they had been in charge
of a very successful overthrow of our bents in Guatemala years before, and they
were felt to be the best on hand for you know, regime change.
They got into this and basically for the better part of eight months, Barnes
and Bissell put together a you know what was supposed to be an infiltration program
land people in Cuba take leadership role of these revolutionary groups, and the whole
thing was actually, you mentioned Richard Nixon, The whole thing was supposed to
result in the overthrow of Castro before the elections, and Nixon would have a
shoe in the Icenower administration would have had a very victory. Actually, both
Icenower and Nixon were appalled when they found out that nothing was on schedule and
nothing had happened in the way that they had been promised. Was an immense
shock to them. And at that point in time, since the first caught
Plan one, if you will, Plan one clearly was way too late.
Castro had managed to arm him self far better. The Soviets were beginning to
ship in everything up to jet fighters. They did a quick reset and built
an entirely new plan and trained an entirely new force. Over some four months
October November December January, they totally shifted the plan to this full scale invasion
with landing craft and tanks and heavy weapons groups and paratroopers, which was totally
different than what it had been. This was all essentially a kind of a
hail Mary, with Bistol and Barnes recrafting the whole thing into something that might
work and at least stood a chance so they didn't have to admit, you
know, back off and admit failure. And one of the things we see
in the documentations when Kennedy took over again and again, he asked Biscile if
he just wanted to drop the whole thing, like it looks like this is
really challenging, looks like they're real issues. The joint chiefs have some problems,
you know, just tell me no and it's okay, we'll we'll back
off it. And they would not do that. Bisil and Barnes would not
do that. In fact, really the upshot in what kind of wraps it
all together is decades after the fact, a very good author and reporter showed
documents that discuss this whole process to the two actual military officers who who were
in charge of the Cubans, who were in charge with you know, field
operations with Cubans, Hawkins and the Easter Line, and they showed them to
them, including what Kennedy had been told, what he had not been told,
what commitments, et cetera. And their immediate reaction was Bistle was lined
to Kennedy and he was lined to us at the same time. You know,
we we don't know what in the world was in his head, but
you know, these guys had walked into Bissele's home and said they were resigning
weeks before the landing because the whole thing was nonsense unless they got, you
know, major extensive support, more aircraft, more air raids, and Bistle
persuaded them, I'm sorry, Bissell persuaded them not to resign and he would
go to Kennedy and get what they needed, absolutely committed to them. What
we now know he did was to go to Kennedy and actually cut the request
for air power right now, even yes, sorry, day of the land
date, you refuse to argue for more air strikes right now. Look,
this is a key thing, and just for in the show notes, you'll
see that I've provided some references to the JFK Library about the Bay of Pigs
and also THECIA dot Gov's official story about this. Why do I present this
because after we study documentation and go through a whole bunch of things. As
Larry is describing, you find that, you know, the story that is
generally told, not unfairly but in an incomplete fashion, is that Kennedy was
misled regarding this. But it seems as though so was Nixon, so were
other members of the CIA, so were military. It seems as though there
was a whole lot of misleading going on here, and it was done,
what I can read, with the intention of causing people to have to react,
to add more things into the mix, to add more resources, more
reactions in real time because they would sort of be cornered into doing so.
And you presented it or the people that were in charge presented it as something
that was well taken care of. But at the same time, it goes
further because, as you said, Kennedy authorizes some things, others might have
authorized some things, and then these guys don't even take advantage of that,
which could have been helpful to the overall plan, which again on paper,
was an incomplete plan. But somebody had to a bad an idea in mind
here. I mean, I'm sure they didn't just throw it at the wall
and say, let's see what happens. I'm sure it'll turn out good,
you know. To take it to the street level. I'm sorry, Larry,
but I mean that's the story that's emerging here. A great concrete example
that it's not that we don't have unfortunate The Cubans, who were awesome fighters
and did everything they possibly could after having been landed, were not aware they
had not been told the full story, partially because the sea officers had not
been told in charge of them hadn't been told the full story either. Give
a very simple example, Graceton Lynch, who was one of the leaders at
the landing, actually the American leader at the landing, and went in with
the group, wrote a book which was a very good book in terms of
what he understood was supposed to happen, which we now know was in no
way what Kennedy had authorized. But just a very simple example is Kennedy had
given a direct, explicit order that in terms of dying deniability, the whole
landing had to be accomplished in darkness, and that all the ships, the
landing ships, supply ships, troop ships, everything would be outside of Cuban
Cuba's national waters by daybreak, which from his standpoint would make you know,
we're just here to land these people. We insert them. If things go
wrong, they'll go guerrilla, which he had been promised, and they weren't
trained for work for But it's at that standard because everybody knew that the ships
could be setting ducks for the Cuban Air Force if anybody had if they had
survived, which by the way, Bissel knew that a good part of the
Cuban Air Force was still operational. Okay, those ships were the ones that
were hit by the Cuban aircraft exploded, The main ammunition carrier exploded, the
others fled for their lives and their captains refused to ever bring them back to
the beachhead. That the ships were not run by the brigade itself. They
were commercial ships that had been volunteered by the Cuban owner of a fleet of
ships. They were not really they were just brought in separate from the brigade.
But said in his book, it's sort of like no, nobody,
nobody, no. We never expected that we could have the landing done by
daylight. That was never part of the plan. We had tanks to unload,
we had trucks to armored, trucks to unload heavy weapons. It's insane.
No nobody ever mentioned that to us, yet the president's directive was explicit
that that was to happen, So that there's a whole breakdown between what Kennedy
set as requirements what the officers in the field were expecting. It just it
was an operational nightmare as far as command and control goes, right, And
it's a back and forth of people not informing whether they're in charge not in
charge. On the ground, they're simply not being informed the whole way.
This complete ball of miscommunication, which you know, I'm assuming the majority of
it is intentional. I guess you could put some of it off on the
incompetence side of the board. But I mean, honestly, it seems as
though it's intentional in order to cause certain events to occur. And I don't
think failure was the thing that anybody involved had in mind. I don't think
there was an intentional failure here. This was meant something else, Chuck.
And here's what really clouds that question. We have learned only relatively recently that
Bissell had three different things going that might have changed this whole picture. At
first, something we did know about before. He had an assassination plot and
played a poison Castro which almost worked, and then another assassination plot to take
him out with a sniper team. If you taken cast Her out of the
equation, it would have been entirely different theme. Bisil Bisil, I mean,
only half a dozen people knew about these things, and Bisil was the
one running them. The other thing was that they had they had used the
Navy base at Guantanamo to move in a massive amount of explosives and into stage
what can only be interpreted as a false flag attack on Guantanamo. If that
had happened and the Navy had inter intervened to defend Guantanamo massively, it would
have been all over. Because the third thing we know is that Bissile had
made an arrangement with the commander of the Atlantic Fleet to put a carrier task
group off of Cuba that nobody told Kennedy about. This was a massive task
force. And if if Guantana had indeed been attacked in a false flag and
that carrier group in deploy had been activated by the admiral who said he was
in his notes which I've read, said he's totally prepared to do this.
Then it would have been over in three days. The Navy jet. The
Navy jets were equipped with everything they needed, including air to ground weaponry,
to take out the entire Castro military. Just to make about this, in
the interest of absolute clarity, just to get this very straight, there is
a group of assets sitting off of the shores of Cuba, of US assets
fully prepared to back militarily to launch further attacks, prepared sitting there waiting.
We did not know about this until very recently. In my mind, I
don't think historians knew it. It was not part of the general conversation.
Is that true or false? That is true, and it only was revealed
to us by like a couple of articles and Navy populate publications, the oral
history written by this admiral, and a couple of comments from people serving in
the ships that had come up over time. Even even the command ship for
the landing force. Okay, this one, Kennedy knew it was out there
the carrier Essex. Later years later, people on the ship you know,
personnel were commenting. One of the things surprising is that a group of carrier
ground attack aircraft, including all the weapons that they needed for a large scale
ground attack campaign had been loaded on that ship offshore very covertly. Now,
if you look at what Kennedy had authorized, there's no way that US Navy
jets were ever going to be ordered or allowed to conduct, you know,
ground attacks across Cuba with those kind of weapons. So somebody had that in
mind. I would propose Bissile had it in mind. So I'm just inserting
this to say, you know, things that look intentional as versus stupid may
not be quite as wild if certainly these other things had happened. You know,
these are wild cards that Bissole had in his pocket. None of them
worked for different reasons. But is that what made him make stupid mistakes because
he thought he still had cards to play? I have no idea. What
I do know is that even the night that the landing group was launched,
that it sailed, he and Cabelle were given the opportunity to talk to Kennedy
and argue for more air attacks, and they chose not to do so.
And when someone asked him, well, you know, is this not dangerous,
and he said, well, the only thing I would have been able
to tell the president is you know, there is a possibility that we could
have lost, you know, ships in the landing group. Wait a minute,
that's all the ships you got, you don't have anymore. That's all
the ammunition you've got. There are no plans to resupply any of that.
If you lose it, it's all over. He's a smart guy. He
knows that. So it's like one of the dumbest answers you could possibly expect.
Is that because he knew more? Or is it because he just was
so egotistical? Or you know, is he a person who thinks that he's
always going to win? I don't know. And you do go into a
deep discussion of this in the book In Denial, correct, because yes,
and just forth and all those elements, including the other carrier group and the
false flag and yeah, the other things they may have had play right.
All of this is described in detail in the book In Denial, secret wars
with air strikes and tanks, which I'm also going to provide you guys the
link to. And as a matter of fact, as we go to a
break here, because I want to take a break for a moment, let
people digest this. That the assets to further this entire circumstance were available,
but due to miscommunications and some unknown factors were not implemented, we're not utilized.
And what do we end up with at the end. Well, we're
going to find out about that from Larry Hancock after we take a little break.
But in the meantime, you can always study for yourself by going and
picking up IRI's book, checking out some of the articles that I'm going to
attach to these show notes and all of that, because further study is necessary
here regarding this event that is given short shrip by most documentary filmmakers, podcasters,
and even authors about John F. Kennedy, whether they're talking about the
assassination or simply the administration. Either way, This is James Corvin at coorb
report dot com and you're listening to the O'Kelly affected O'Kelly dot com. In
Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became
a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book
In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It
exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before.
It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not earn
from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing 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 larryheiphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of
In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical form. The War State
by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy
presidency in the context of the times and 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 armed
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 we'll show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information,
The Warstate dot com. Oh cool. Do you remember that time when Benjamin
Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninja's to take down
the Illuminati? Ooh that's interesting, Yeah in the clatchoon? Yeah did that
ever work out too good? No? It didn't, did it? But
here on o'chelly dot com radio network things work out a bit better, don't
they? Much better? Much money is clear and understanding about the programs,
the programs, how much clearer getting live people into it. They really have
a good conversation going much better, much better scene. I say, forget
Benjamin Fullford than his ninjas and listen to the ochelly dot com radio network.
I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like
that idea. O Cholly dot com, This world get you down? Are
you living your bliss? Tired of therapies that don't offer you any real direction?
Or answers. Did you know that Maria does personal life coaching sessions?
Save thousands of therapy dollars and get the direction and answers you need to live
an authentic life based on your own personal blueprint for this life. All this
typically in just one private session with Maria, not countless hours on a couch.
Maria combines her professional experience, life experience, and her heredity into inted
gifts to get you back on track. Email Maria today for an appointment at
Maria at Maria dot nette. That's m E R I A at me eri
i A dot net. Get on with the best life you can possibly have.
Check out the other side of this happy, loving, passionate woman at
www dot Maria Heller dot com and amail yourself of the best coaching and I'll
in the privacy of your home via the telephone, gift yourself with yourself.
Make an appointment today bright Maria at Maria that bet if you was expressed my
caller stools there anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot
com. Do not necessarily reflect he views little Jelly dot com ord Jumbo Jelly,
and we are not responsible for getting stupidity, which might have students thank
you revelation through conversation, let them know, let know no doubt, to
let them know I'm a real shock luck and tear rocks with the bullet out
of the drug show. I'm bringing all shot block and tear rocks of the
bullet lout at the drug shows. The ah we just met that the world's
worst professional propocket tool took them like it's two thousands something and Bucker's back on
tool. You never really wanted me anyway. Alcohol turns me into your enemies.
I go some of me sad with some highnessy. I used to think
that bottle was the remedy picked it up once or twice after I let it
go, but finally had to let it be. I used to roll over
the fat there she would have given me a lett timpers and literacy, I
mean literally, I figure, I mean the letter. They all want chances
meet, except as chances to learn the let it go. We learned the
letter go, oh it take. I think the Tokaa have a couple of
years. The Toka fair flows how in the stay Sober without Sandford Oh Chili
dot com Yeah, and finishing out this Wednesday edition of The Ocell Effect discussing
the Bay of Pigs, which happened on this day, April seventeenth, in
nineteen sixty one. Okay, but it is currently April seventeen, twenty twenty
four, according to all those things called calendars. And yeah, the Bay
of Pigs invasion. Again, it happened on this day. It began on
this day, but it went on for a while too, the invasion itself,
as Larry points out, the planning, and we've discussed what was happening
in the time of the invasion, in the time of the landing, whatever
it is you want to call it. But now I think it's appropriate to
get to, well, what was the end result, what actually occurred at
the end, despite the fact that there's a battle group waiting to join in,
despite the fact that the President didn't authorize that it's sitting and waiting.
There's many things about what the president authorized, what he didn't authorize, what
was going on. But okay, Larry, how does this event shake out?
And let's talk about the aftermath if you don't mind what is it.
People need to take a hof about the conclusion and then, as you say,
the aftermath, because it's it's really two different things. Yes. Unfortunately,
the way it ended was Kennedy had in all the planning sessions, the
discussions with the admirals with Bissel, Kennedy had insisted that if for some reason
the landing failed, that there'd be a plan for the Navy to evacuate and
reland the force, because, in Kennedy's mind, again, the national directive
he'd getten given was simply to land a Cuban force in Cuba and let them
essentially fight it out, okay. So his expectation was that the Navy would
be prepared, the troops would be trained, here's a plan to evacuate them
if they can't hold the beach, okay, and they would be landed someplace
else, or they would be prepared to go into conducts guerrilla warfare. Especially
you'll see evacuation and guerrilla warfare throughout all of the discussions. What we now
know was that there were never any preparations for that. There were no evacuation
plans. The troops were never briefed on this. They were not supplied,
equipped, or trained or prepared with plans to go into guerrilla warfare. And
the landing site really didn't support that. It was physically, especially when the
Cubans had had time to lock the roads coming into it, it was swamps.
So neither one of those options were really going to work. So whatever
Kennedy had expected as they fall back was never realistic. So at the end
he gave another order which said, the Navy is to provide fighter cover to
evacuate the troops, and you know, we'll execute that plan. The Navy
jets got there at the wrong time. There was no coordination, no communication
with the ground forces, and when actually Lynch discussed that with the Cuban commander
on the beach, the Cuban commander on the beach basically rejected that whole idea.
You know, we're here to fight. We'll continue to fight as best
we can. And essentially the majority of the force was taken captive, taken
prisoner, and remained in Cuban prison camps for another couple of years. That
was the end of the landing. What the aftermath of the landing was you
discussed earlier, Chuck, and it was the press coverage, and it was
Kennedy's decision to accept total responsibility, and that's what ended up in the history
books. But what didn't end up in the history books is the fact that
there was an intense internal CIA investigation of this disaster, and the Inspector General
of the CIA looked into it in great detail, interviewed people, and wrote
a scathing report on Bissle and Barnes, and the fact that this was,
you know, dysfunctional, that they their chain of command was terrible, just
highlighted all these different things. Bisil was so irt by this that he managed
to persuade the CIA director to let him write a response. I mean that
never happens. So you had two stories. One was the inspector general story
was this is our problem, it wasn't Kennedy's. We totally screwed up this
operation, and an apologia from Bisle saying, oh no, we did everything
right. Just you know, don't listen to that other guy. That's what's
in the historical record which never gets covered. But the offshoot of that was
that Bissile had the opportunity to talk to Hawkins, an easter line who with
the actual American military commanders of the force, and Bissile got the chance to
tell them his story. It was all Kennedy's fault. He didn't listen to
me, he wouldn't do the things I asked him to do, and bistle,
I'm sorry. Hawkins an easter Line just became tremendously bitter and actually carried
that story down to Florida and started telling the operations people in Florida Biscil's story
about how it was all Kennedy's fault. So unfortunately, even the Cuban forces
themselves only heard that story. They have never seen or never told the other
story. And so to this day, of course, they developed an extremely
hostile added towards truths. They used the term treason, abandonment, you know,
all of these, which is what Hawkins and easter Line got from Bistol
and Barns. And year decades later, when they're shown the real documents,
they realized and apologized for what they had done. You know, we didn't
realize we were telling them a wrong story. But it's way too late.
I mean, it was thirty years after the fact. So that's where we
are now, really, with the history books which describe it as Kennedy's disaster,
the documents and Scoothing Inspector General Report giving a totally different picture, and
the Cuban community and a lot of the CIA group in Miami having Barnes and
Bissell story of Kennedy screw up. And then, of course, like I
said, the public, you know, look at this, and ever after
you have the ideas the combination of ideas that come out. This leads directly
into the discussions of the Howard hunt, long before the alleged deathbed confession.
But he wrote a book about it, he made statements about it, he
was tied to it, the Watergate guys, right, this comes back up
and what about that? I mean, obviously there's the press conference that I
mentioned where you know, the president takes responsibility and all this, which clearly
the responsibility should lay with whoever's idea was to completely not have communication function or
be so dysfunctional that it's almost laughable. But at the same time, there's
more to it, right, and there's still as yet unknown elements to this,
isn't there? Or am I mistaken about that? Oh well, it
becomes a mystery. You know, you you covered it is so stupid that
it raised the question of was this intentional? Right? Were they? You
know, are they this stupid and this uncoordinated and displayed this much hubrius or
is this part of a plan that that remains an open question. The know
to force Kennedy's hand, that's still discussed. Uh. Some of the things
we just uh, that we discussed were that were not known at the time.
I mean, those assassination attempts were not known at the time. That
eventually came out through the work of the Church Committee and the HSCA. But
that was what fifteen years after the fact, and it's only more recently that
we've learned more about the false flag what might have been in play there.
So yeah, I guess that it's kind of like Howard Hunt. You mentioned
Howard Hunt. Howard Hunt was not involved with any of this. He was
a political action officer. He knew nothing about any of this. But Howard
of course claimed to know everything about everything, right, So you know,
Howard just adds more disinformation to the mix about all he would have known were
a couple of names out of jam Wave in Miami, guys who were in
operations and we're doing some support for this, like David Morales. But so
you just it kind of piles on top of each other in terms of mystery
after the fact and leaves us chasing our tail when if you go back to
the IG's report and the inquiry into this, which which never surfaces, but
but nobody does. I mean, yes, there have been a couple of
books written on that, good books written on that, not just in denial,
but nobody reads them. I mean they're deep history books, and nobody
reads deep story, so that those parts never make it really into discussion discussions
that we're interested in. The Bay of Pigs remains a mystery. It remains
all Kennedy's fault, or it remains something weak, you know, we'll just
puzzle over forever, like the only thing that they don't need to Yeah,
well, the only thing that can be agreed upon is that it's a massive
failure. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. As to
who's responsible for it and everything else. There's open questions, and the open
questions have a lot of leading pieces, you know, you have, I
have some pretty decent priority suspects here. As for their motivation, though,
it's difficult to connect the motivation to it, but it's still relevant even sixty
three late years later, right, it still is relevant? And does it
The ultimate question, which a lot of people who listen to my show might
have is does this have any relevance to the assassination in your opinion? Is
it relevant to that discussion in a realistic and direct way that that's the certainly
it is. Certainly it's relevant to discussion in my view of what happened because
it raised the issue of motive. There is no doubt that the anti Castro
Cubans regarded JFK's action as treachery and literally leading to the deaths of many of
their friends. I mean, this became a very personal thing and whether that
was right or wrong, that was the belief that they were left with.
That's what people they trusted told them. And so it established a level of
individual bitterness towards JFK that you still see repeated in their remarks. And that
was a prelude to the missile crisis, where again, is resolution of that
without an invading Cuba and without a war just elevated that bitterness. So yes,
in terms of motive, and you know, Chuck, my take on
the actual motive behind the attack in Dallas is yeah, I think it's more
than relevant because the story that they were given created the motive of revenge.
It created an intense emotional state in people that felt that they had more than
adequate reason to take an action against JFK. So yeah, in terms of
motive and conditioning, I think it's more than relevant to the attack in Dallas,
right, And I'd like to add an addendum to what you just said,
and if you want to object to it, please do. I don't
like to add on to what you have to say, but I think this
is necessary. Is that even for those that might not wish to entertain the
idea that anti Castro Cubans are the responsible party, the masterminds, the planners,
whatever, here's one thing that I think is beyond argument, and that
is that a group of individuals, through various things that happen, including the
Bay of Pigs, definitely have one of the best motivators for murder and makes
them eligible to be a useful group and have useful individuals within their group for
an operation if you wanted to partake of an operation of this kind, and
they are a useful group who are probably readily available and at lead helpful if
you wanted to plan out such an operation, even if they're not the planners
themselves, the anti Castro Cubans are fully eligible to be for lack of a
better term in play. Regarding the attack in Dallas. Do you feel as
though that's an adequate or reasonable statement. No, I think that's quite reasonable,
And I think the one thing that has to be added to that is
they not only have motive, they not only have emotion. They're not only
available to other people who know them, who've worked with them, and if
they choose to put this together, know who to talk to. But they
are extremely well trained, extremely proficient. By the time of the Bay of
Pigs, there's a cadre who's been trained and been in and out of Cuba.
They know infiltration, exfiltration, they're extremely skilled at that. And they
are skilled in the tactics of assault and assassination because some of them have involved
in several attempts, including sniper attacks on Fidel Castro. So we're not just
talking about a group of potential candidates. We're talking about a group of highly
skilled potential candidates. So one could easily argue that in the classic framework of
means, motive and opportunity, what you have here is an easy assumption of
motive and an easy assumption of means on a lot of levels. Due to
the fact that there was training, access to equipment, access to information,
connection to undercover people, intelligence people, underground people, etc. Et cetera.
Now, only thing left there is opportunity in the classic structure, and
that's it. So two out of three of the criteria are met regarding an
eligible suspect group, and that's something to keep in mind as you go further
and as you study this, and that is relevant. Now does that mean
that they absolutely are involved? No? No, no, no no no.
I can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. But who knows
evidence might emerge to that effect. And if it did, at the very
least two thirds of the three pronged or the triad of necessary elements are already
attached easily observably. So with all that in mind, I urge you guys
to go to Larrydashancock dot com read the blog that Larry puts out. Obviously
I recommend all of his books. A great discussion about the Bay of Pigs,
though, is included in the book in Denial, which you might recognize
as one of those things that we do a book commercial for here Onnochelly dot
com and during podcasts, etc. But not just because he's my friend,
and he's a great writer, but because you can be educated rather deeply by
observing his work, and not just on this case, this sub section of
the case, this part of history nineteen sixty one, etc. Etc.
But on a lot of things all the way from unidentified creating chaos, shadow
warfare, the awful grace of God, and one more time, let's mention
it in denial, which has a lot to do with the failures and the
successes and lack of successes by US assets regarding secret wars that are not always
so secret, but quite often are and could involve anything from air strikes and
tanks to flotillas of individuals who are rebels being landed on their native soil in
order to retake it, despite whatever the communication is at the moment, or
despite whatever assets could be lying in wait. Success or lack thereof, is
not necessarily ensured. As you study the history of the Cold War, the
twentieth century, the United States, and totality, there's a lot to be
said and a lot to be studied. Once again, just recognizing that on
this day in history, yeah, we're talking about the beginning of the Bay
of Pigs and the landing, but there's a lot more to it, the
lead up to it, the overall program that the Bay of Pigs was clearly
born out of, and the aftermath and residual resonance which has continued to echo
through history. So, all of that having been said, any final thoughts,
Larry Hancock, anything else you want to drop on here? Or do
you think we've covered this pretty well for today? Now? I think we've
covered it well, and I think I appreciate doing this, and it's always
good to revisits this particular one and try to I won't say correct the historical
record, but maybe maybe expand it a little bit. So I appreciate being
on shock, clarification, expansion and addition of real facts, real information I
think is always relevant and good to know, because how are you going to
know how to avoid the mistakes of history if you don't know the history to
begin with, if it's all kept undercover, how are you ever going to
witness what may have been that you don't want to repeat? And also,
how is it that you could relive some of the successful efforts in the past
if you're not informed? So you can be informed by checking out all the
works of Larry Hancock again, larrydsh Hancock dot com. In weeks coming up,
we will be discussing more about Lancer as those details are planned out,
and the twenty twenty four conference we do know is going to occur between the
twenty second and the twenty fourth in November. Larry will be part of it,
so will I. But in the meantime we're also on the lookout for
the Oswald book and any idea what we might discuss in two more weeks when
you come back around like every other Wednesday, Larry is with us. I
don't know if we were talked kind of talked about the Bay of Pigs as
being like a mystery of black hole whatever, there's more to it. I
think maybe we should talk about Mexico City and the jfk Assass Nation, Chuck,
because I mean, if we start started this one, that's another good
place to go into mysteries. True enough, true enough, And just as
a teaser to that, I'll tell you this. You know, the first
time I heard about Mexico City and all that scary thing, do you know
where that was? I mean, you have an idea about my history with
what I've studied, where I've been through in the literature and stuff I've done
in research. Where do you think I first actually learned about Mexico City and
Oswald and all that. Oh goodness, Peter Dale Scott, No, you
would think it would be something good like that, right, it's kind of
laughable. I saw that mock trial, right, which made it to America
a little bit after, because they did it in eighty six, and I
got really interested. My interest begins in eighty eight, you understand around there,
I mean I was mildly interested, but around the twenty fifth anniversary,
because of all the media attention, it drew my eye to the jfk assassination
particularly, and I'm watching that mock trial and what did uh you know one
of the lawyers decided to call up this guy Ed Lopez. Oh yeah,
And it was funny because Ed Lopez comes on the stand there in this mock
trial, which you know, later on I learned how ridiculous this thing was,
but I thought I was watching, you know, something really really incredibly
insightful because it was real witnesses, right, and you know, Bugliosi's supposed
to be America's lawyer and all that, and Jerry Spence is involved, and
they're using real jurors from Dallas, and they were pretending they were in the
Dallas courtroom. Turns out they were actually in the UK. But anyway,
all that's going on and we're bringing real witnesses, and they brought this guy
on who was an investigator for the House Select Committee, Ed Lopez, And
this is all I knew. And there's Eddie Lopez. He's on the stand,
and over and over again, he pretty much says, yeah, I
can't talk about much of this. I mean, he's a witness. I
couldn't talk, but I can't talk about it. Yeah, yeah, And
I watched that and I went, ooh, that's got to be the good
stuff. And I was not educated on the case at all. It was
it was almost all brand new to me. Larry and I just went,
that's got to be the good stuff. And ever after there is a serious
learning curve there that I had to get on. And but isn't that funny
that that's the way I was kind of introduced. Oh that is, And
I'm sure Ed would have liked to say more. I can picture him going,
I can't talk about it, but if I could, I'd tell you
not to believe any of them. Yeah, maybe I'll include a link to
that with tonight's show or whatever, but I think we should go over the
Obviously, we're gonna have to talk about the Lopez Report, which is written
by Ed Lopez and Dan Hardaway. I think Mexico City would be great,
unless something else comes up in the news that might be more relevant to our
discussion, because we could do Mexico City later. But two weeks from now,
I'd love to cover Mexico City with you. So let's plan on that
for now, tentatively, let's pencil it in. Does that sound good?
Sounds good? All right, guys. So in two weeks, hopefully Larry
will be back with us and we'll talk about Oswald and Mexico City and that
debacle chicanery that went on there. And why do I say that? Well,
I guess you'll have to listen in two weeks and find out. In
the meantime, Larrydshncock dot com all of Larry's books. There are links to
his books from that website, from the word press site, which is available.
I'll give you the links to both in the show notes. And I
thank you Larry for doing this with us once again. So it's good to
be here. We'll see in a couple of weeks. Absolutely, and hopefully
you guys will be back with us as time turns on and we get closer
to November in Dallas, because that's going to be an interesting one. But
we'll get educated more and more with Larry Hancock every other week as often as
we can get him, and talk about Mexico City next time. In the
meanwhile, I am merely ocelly. All of you are indeed the effect.
And by the way, I could certainly use any help that you want to
kick forward, because I just got done paying some pretty big annual bills for
ochelly dot com and the free podcast and all that. It's free to you
guys, not to me. I am merely ocelly. All of you are
indeed the effect, and you can be more of the effect if you make
a contribution at the oh donate button on ochelly dot com. Be well,