The Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you,
Yeah, now and nowivated in our media tack February seven, twenty twenty
four, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and this is
the O'Kelly effect. So I'm doing this live, but of course most of
you will catch the podcast later on, and it's always interesting on a Wolden's
Day Wednesday, middle of the week to speak with you. Who do I
have with me tonight, Larry Hancock? What are we going to discuss ready?
The JFK assassination. No, it's not a replay, but we have
done this quite a few times, and lately Larry's been working on something that
well, I'm extremely interested in because I think an honest and really serious re
evaluation, reframing, reissuance, if you will, of literature which has covered
this one individual, you know, in the case that would be the alleged
assassin, right, And I do say alleged because he was never actually convicted
and so on and so forth. And no, I don't buy the hsca's
conclusion that it's a conspiracy most likely, but Oswald's involved, Nor do I
necessarily buy the conclusion of the Warrant Commission, which is Oswald did it all
by himself, and then Ruby decided to kill him all by himself too,
and all that good stuff. But look, let's put that aside. How
about an honest view, a lens to look at this fascinating character who only
lived to be twenty four years of age when he died two days after the
President of the United States, which he allegedly assassinated. He dies in police
custody, and all of that. And is that at the beginning of the
problem, the end of the problem, or the remarkable unleashing of factoids and
representations of a guy who has been represented as everything from the next James Bond
to the crazy commy kid that just wanted to make his mark in history.
And authors of all stripes have tried to cover this, either in short biographies
or in completely dedicated volumes about this kid, Lee Harvey Oswald kid because he
was twenty four years of age. Again, I stress it. Former marine
defective to the Soviet Union argued over now for more than half a century as
to exactly what his motivations were, what his activities were, etc. Etc.
And I've got Larry Hancock with me. Go to Larry Dashncock dot com,
Larryhypenhancock dot com. However it is you want to go, take a
look at his blog, take a look at his work. I recommend all
of his books, and there are many taking up a lot of space on
my bookshelf, and not just because they take up space, but because they're
extremely valuable. And gee, let's see someone would have talked, yes,
indeed, point but a new project, re examining, reevaluating, going after
this individual who did exist, who was a person and according to some people
was multiple people, according to others, was again, like I said,
a great spy, according to some fan fiction, had a mistress and a
wife, and his Russian wife was of interest, et cetera, et cetera.
Man, there's a lot to try and get at when it comes to
Lee Harvey Oswald Larry Hancock. First off, how you doing tonight, sir?
I think Jack, it's always good to be back. I appreciate it,
I really do. And we're going to tackle other issues throughout the year,
and I really appreciate that you're a regular reoccurring person on this this odyssey,
this this conversation, this revelation through conversation that we do here on the
O'Kelly effect foreshore, and really grateful. Gotta say, though, it's really
fat to me that a guy like you is wanting to take another look,
a serious look. And again, if we take a look at all the
authors who have tackled this subject, who have attempted to present us with a
biography, the real story, the guy behind the allegation, the alleged assassin.
I mean, whether it's television shows or again authors of I can't even
describe the different types of authors. I mean everybody from from Popkin to uh,
who was that guy who wrote Oswald's Tale? What was his name?
He was Norman Maman. Yeah, so from Norman Mayler to Richard Popkins to
God help us, the fan fiction of Judith Farry Baker to you know.
I mean, it's it's crazy, the the I mean, how many different
guys can you squeeze into one name as far as how he's been represented,
But how about a legitimate look at what it is as we can learn about
the character. I mean, I've even seen people displaying the psychological studies,
all these other things. And by the way, look in the show notes
because the Lopez Report and links to it and how you can publicly access it
are going to be there, along with links to Larry's work, etc.
And again I urge you to follow through on all this stuff. Judge for
yourself and learn for yourself. You the listener. But Larry, you know,
I know I talk to you about the motivation behind this, but I
mean speak to me for a minute about the wide range of possibilities that have
been presented from everyone who is attempting to utilize them as part of a thesis,
part of a giant treatise, part of a massive volume of work.
Whether they wrote Oswaldness THEIA, or they wrote Reclaiming History and they wanted to
give you a biography on this guy, or they wrote and yeah, I'm
purposely choosing extremely diverse things here, whether they wanted to tell you that he
was two different people or three different people, and he had been guided by
the Intelligence agency since he was a child, like mister Armstrong wants to tell
you all these things. And then, of course people that might have been
advised or been advising the CIA, who are authors who also decided to move
in with Marina Oswald and live with her for a while, and I mean
it goes all over the place as to people getting in on it, telling
us they have the inside dirt, telling us they know the people who knew
him, telling us that they have all the information. And yet we have
a character you can't even begin to define with a paragraph or bring down to
a singular description. That makes sense when you take a look at the diverse
literature that has all been presented as nonfiction. So tell me about that for
a minute, like your thoughts on that. Yeah, one of the things
we have to deal with is at this point in time, and certainly it
was not true then. At one point in time, Oswell was just an
individual. I mean, if you just looked at Oswald's life as an individual
and look at him as a person, you know that you have an interesting
view of Oswell as a person with their own agenda, their only beliefs,
their own interests, their own evolving personality. You know that he was that
person at one time, but we've kind of thrown that away to some extent,
and now he exists in It's like it's multiple dimensions. There's Oswell's personal
dimension, there's the dimension of the Warren Commission report. There's the dimension of
us skeptics and critics and conspiracy believers. And then quite frankly, there's another
dimension entirely in which he existed, and that is the intention of American intelligence,
which which he certainly did exist in he was known to them was So
the point is not getting stuck in any single dimension, because that's what tends
to happen when you tend to you want to write a book and you want
to focus it, you tend to pick one of those dimensions. You tend
to pick one of those views and do a job on it. And the
problem is that that kind of sharp lensed focus doesn't really give us the full
view of Oswell, because all it was in all of those different dimensions at
the same time. Something you and I are going to chat about this evening
Mexico City. Clearly, one of the things that's confused and made things chaotic
force is that Oswald was acting as an individual, he was of interest to
the CIA. The CIA was falling all over itself, and then after the
fact, Mexico City becomes convoluted even worse because of the obfuscation and obstruction that
occurs within the CIA itself in regard to the stumbling here over its own feet,
which makes everything look especially sinister and especially mysterious. And so that's if
you want to address Lee Harvey Oswald, you've got to slice it. I
mean, you have to slice it to write about it. But you also
it has to be a linear view as well. You have to go back
and go you know, let's look at Oswald as a person, as an
individuals in history. What do we see him doing right now? Is that
consistent? Is it? Anomalists? As you and I have talked off,
Then it's like the real question is what are the what is the anomaly at
this point in time? And who owns it? In Mexico City, one
of the big anomal the big anomaly is owned by the CIA, not Lee
Oswald. If you look at israel story, what he said he was going
to do, what he did, and what he came back to Dallas afterwards
and did, it's all quite consistent. The ball of twine that we ended
up inheriting all comes from how the CIA responded him to him being there,
right And what's fascinating to me is that public exposure of this begins again in
a biographical sense, to me, in nineteen sixty four. Really after the
initial rush of you know, the news during the assassination and then during the
investigation of the Warrant Commission, you have you know, for instance, Life
Magazine in the summer of sixty four printing you know, parts of his so
called historical diary, right, stuff like that, Let's reveal what's really going
on behind this figure, and you sort of can't blame people in sixty four,
sixty five, sixty six, Like I said, going through the Mark
Laane era, the Popkins era, where you have different exposures of things based
on limited information. That information, reliable information one way or another, into
various degrees, has been presented over the years in different packages. And indeed,
I think early on, for the first ten years, almost there is
a curiosity and a fascination, but there's limited lenses, there's limited abilities to
peer into that box, so to speak. That is that person, that
personality, that individual who was clearly involved in this somehow, But what was
his you know, what was his motive, who was in control, who
was actually pulling the strings? You know, all those things and the various
speculations that come into play. I mean, people a tied Oswald to every
thing from the CIA, to you know, various other government agencies, to
God help us all again somehow involving him with the mob, putting him in
the really bizarre David Ferry universe, which he was part of at one point,
but to what degree and what that actually means? Still as he had
unknown, all these things evolved over the years, and again the public perception
has been just all over the place. There is almost nowhere where people have
not tried to put him. I mean, and you don't have to be
Stephen King trying to write a time traveling essay about this, to create anomalies,
oddities, unanswered questions, so on and so forth. But the information
itself has evolved, and I think some people have picked a particular time on
the timeline and decided to stop looking beyond it. You know, once we
get to nineteen seventy five, we've got it all. Once we get to
nineteen ninety three, we've got it all. Once we get to you know,
Oliver Stones movie, we got it all. And it continues to evolve
as to what is available for somebody to cobble together right from various sources,
the different pronouncements, right even TV stations going and trying to interview the girls
that went to middle school with them. I mean, for God's sake,
they went all over the map on this. So what do we do with
it and what can realistically be learned at this point in time? Again,
now we're sixty years beyond his death as well, it seems like maybe we're
further away from the truth because we're further away from that time period, and
yet we've been better informed all along the way. So I mean, that's
a hell of a thing to try and tackle again, just sticking to the
narrow lane here of the character of Lee Harvey Oswald. Who actually was he
on the board? Is he somebody who's being controlled by someone else? Or
is he an an independent actor? Is he somebody who just was in the
wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, it's all over the place,
right, I mean, where how do we how do we start to
boil that down and get to a realistic viewpoint that can be useful for people
to go forward. Is that what you're attempting to do? Well? Yeah,
And I will say, you know, the way you describe it is
it is not unusual in writing history. I mean, we shouldn't really picture
it as something nobody's ever done before. Almost every major act in history,
every major individual in history. You know, that's always a challenge, you
know, because people have, especially any significant feature, they're going to have
different views. If you go back to the original sources, yeah, you
will find six different sources that that offer you different insights and views. You
know, we think this guy was this, We think this guy was that.
He thought this battle, no, he thought that. This is not
unusual in history. Historians have to wrestle with this all the time. It's
a matter of looking, you know, looking for your sources, looking for
holes in the sources, where the holes are prejudiced, where they're biased,
where they're credible, checking them against other sources. A major point is looking
for consistency, you know, looking for consistency over time among different sources.
So I guess, Chuck, you know, I don't see it from the
perspective of a historian. It's challenging, but not unusual to face those obstacles.
It's just that in the realm that we live in in conspiracy, that's
not generally the way it's approached. It's generally looking at it from one of
the views I talked about, you know, we're we're not looking for history.
We're looking to thin the position. We suspect there's already a position,
and what can we find to support it. You mentioned something earlier with Life
Magazine and Oswell's diary. Okay, if you want the full picture, you
have to look at everything Oswell wrote. Okay, the letters he wrote,
the correspondence he did. You look at what he read read from his teenage
years on the speech. You look at what he read and wrote in Russia,
what he read and wrote in the US. You look at what he
was writing in nineteen sixty three. And it would have been fascinating if Life
Magazine had had printed some of the monographs that he wrote in the spring of
nineteen sixty three, or had printed his seminary lecture talking about the problems with
Soviet communism, but that did not have But it's all there for us from
a historical perspective, right, And that's that's what's most interest. That's why
I said a couple of times when you were talking the speech you gave,
because that is fascinating, right, And this is a lot of writing,
again for a kid who joined the Marine Corps, right, you know,
did complete his training went and got an assignment. Interesting part of history there
defects to the Soviet Union. I mean, this is a busy kid and
he takes typing classes in the spring of nineteen sixty three. So he wants
to be a serious writer, and he starts writing letters to the editor.
Nobody ever printed his letter to the editor about political issues of the day.
You know, you don't see that, but you know he wants seriously,
he wants to be a writer. That's his goal. He wants to be
a to do commentary on social issues. Now, you know, you got
to you got to say, that's a tough thing to hold for somebody that's
limited to manual labor because of the status of his service discharge. H And
we've talked about the fact that whenever he goes into interview, he interviews well
with the placement people and they actually test him and test his IQ and his
skills and want to put him in management jobs. But there's no time for
that because he needs money immediately. So it's a it's a very very complex
situation for an individual. But again, the good news is all that's therefore
us if we want to see it now, right, that's the the spring
Hill College, the speech he gave, right, right, Uh huh,
yeah, okay, No, I'm just trying to I'm thinking through this,
and I mean it's interesting that, you know, he's got these public pronouncements,
he's got this you know, historical diary. Again, people have gone
over that many times for different reasons, and and all of this writing it
should provide a whole lot of insights into who the guy was, what he
was thinking, and what it was he was trying to present to the world.
And at the end of the day, though a lot of people relied
on people like Ruth Payne and individuals that were supposed to be close to him.
Right, what did they used to describe her as on early CBS TV
broadcasts and specials The best friend of the Oswald's, Right. I always find
that funny when when he, well, one of the Oswalds. I think
that would probably be safe to say at that time, right, but the
best friend of the couple. You know. Uh, it's interesting though,
she threw she threw a birth now and I'm going to push backed. She
threw a birthday party for le that fall after, you know, after he's
back in Dallas. Right, she threw a birthday party. It's not like
they didn't. She didn't treat him reasonably well, you know, she might
have whatever she felt. You know, he came to the house virtually every
weekend hung out. You know, obviously who wants that. But reasonably speaking,
she didn't do. You know, she was not hostile towards you before
the assassination, right, And I mean, you know people have written things
about his last forty eight hours. I mean, Carmi did that article about
the last seventy two hours and what it was that he had the ability to
do during that time. Of course, Bill Wesley Frasier's written a book because
he's the guy who gave him a ride to work all the time. I
mean, you got Epstein with legend. I mean again, I'm just pointing
out the diverse stuff that it will come out here. And I know I
keep repeatedly doing it. It is not easy, There's no doubt about that.
And if somebody asked me how far out on the limb I was prepared
to go, I would go, well, there leaves out here, Yeah,
there you go. And I mean look, even if you go to
Robert Grodin's, you know, one of his you know, picture books on
the assassination is the search for Lee Harvey Oswald, which again presents a lot
of interesting stuff. There's a lot of photographs of him doing this and that
I mean, you have Marina and Lee. Of course, Priscilla Johnson's you
know, was it McMillan was the final last name, Priscilla Johnson McMillan,
right, you know, and she moves in that's the one I mentioned before,
moved in with Marina for a while. So there's lots of people that
went for the inside story, that had inside information, and I think pieces
of all of it are relevant now as to what they were spun into.
And again the fan fiction that's out there where you know, to me,
I see you know, Stephen King and some other people being in the same
category there because it's clearly not part of reality, but interesting how people interpret
the guy anyway, and even even the work of you know, somebody like
Newman Oswald and Cia. You've got this guy all over the place. So
again, how are we going to boil this down to this individual? And
I mean, I know you said that everybody in history who is a character
of interest gets a sort of treatment, and of course their character, their
representation how it is they're going to be preserved ever after. Always evolves and
usually settles down. But it seems to me after sixty years we've got nothing
settling down here when it comes to hot well, yeah, the best way
to do it, and historically the only way to do it is to do
it, is to do what I would call point counterpoint a good history.
We'll talk about taking information from you know, we'll actually say this is the
view from this direction, this is how it's supported, this is the view
from that direction. You know, you let the reader make their own choice.
And if you think there's you know, a particular source has issues,
then you call it out. But you don't. It's not solving something.
I think that's I'm talking about offering something which is historical view of Oswald in
several dimensions. I'm not talking about solving the issue of who was Oswald inside
his head? I can't go there, historians can't go there. Right,
It's just to give the most accurate and comprehensive view as possible, and then
the reader makes their call. There's again, I think it's kind of like
conspiracy. We would all who have been obsessed with this and interested in we'd
like the final solution, right, Okay, you know, so how do
you write that book? We you can't write that book. It's that we're
sixty years too late. Okay, So how can you read without having Oswald
around to interview? How can you write that book? You can't write the
absolute you know, biography autobiography of Oswald without being able to talk to him
and interview them, so as you can. I will say, one of
the many things that it does is that it flushes out a lot of assumptions.
It flushes just trying to do that flushes out what I what I'm seeing
it is, it flushes out a lot of the assumptions that went with the
different views. You know, when you when you force them to the surface
and say, okay, if if I accept your view that Oswald is this,
what does it mean? Do we see that? Do we see that
it consistently yes or no? And it flushes out and raises those two maybe
grown words flush it. It raises those issues to the point where you can
deconstruct them. And and I think that I think that's doable. But what
we're suffering from is just way too much cherry picking. And I think,
for example, you cited one example from Grown's book. We have all suffered,
maybe consciously or not, from doing the cherry picking. We wanted to
go down the road. We wanted to go down the Warren Commission. I
found fascinating that the FBI did so much research that you find in the volumes
that the Warren Commission report does not use. Here's an example, Okay,
one of Oswell's teachers. They quote the teachers saying Oswead was not, at
this point in time, not a social young man. Okay, So I'm
going, so what did the lady say. Let's go back and look at
her whole testimony. Back in her whole testimony, she talks about him getting
a new dog puppy at Christmas time and bringing it to her house to visit
with her so they can all play with it. That did not show up
in the report. So you bounce this stuff against each other. That's the
way it really works. There's certainly more professional ways to say that than what
I just said, but you got to throw against each other and see what
survives, and what survives, for example, is totally a false view that
Oswald was antisocial. The most that you could ever say is that under certain
circumstances, he was asocial. Under other circumstances, he was extremely social.
In fact, maybe too social. But it's back to your question. No,
I don't think there's any reason to give up thinking that one can do
a reasonable objective history of Oswald acknowledging that there are different views that are in
contention. See what I think is what hasn't been done. Okay, and
this is what I haven't observed. Perhaps I've missed a book here or there,
but I haven't seen somebody say, look, here is a complete chronology
of significant events. Basically, let's treat this guy's life as a whole.
Right, here's where he was born, et cetera. I mean, they
sort of start to do that, but it always spins away. Here's where
he was born, Here are significant events, so on and so forth,
and you only have to go up to twenty four years. Okay, it's
not that not that bad. You lay that out and you say, these
are the things of significance, these are formative, these are the things that
create the situations later, et cetera. You boil it down to some very
significant stuff and you lay it on a timeline, and then you have to
do that that's that's kind of that's kind of a minimum. Yeah, absolutely,
that has to be part of it. Yeah, but you notice none
of these books ever quite do that. They always you know, it gets
to a certain point and then it spins off into let's cherry pick what we
need to get from this jump off point to he's actually connected to the mob,
He's actually connected to this. He's he's actually training anti Castro Cubans a
whole lot more than we know, and he's actually really legitimately involved in that.
It's not a fake thing, because even though his chapter of the Fair
Play for Cuba Committee was a fake, he wasn't. He was really into
it. You know, like they go into these other things and then they
abandon the actual chronology of it. Here's the timeline, here's the things,
how they happened, in order, how one thing leads to another, and
then that would amen. And I think the worst sin in that regard is
to write about something at one point in his life that's out of context.
It's kind of like you're writing about him now as he was three years before
with Oswald. In particular, to write about him at different points in a
school year, a school life, grade school, in high school life totally
different, which is another sin the Warrant Commission did. They wrote about him
in New York City and not in New Orleans. Totally different young boy,
totally different performance in school, writing about him before his experiences in including his
social experiences in Japan. No, he's a different He changes as any young
person will. Most of the change in anybody's life is during those first twenty
four years. But we don't do that with Oswald. We don't give him
the grace of being a different person at one point in time than he was
later. You know, it's okay, we can just we can pick cherry
pick things from different points in time and his own development and throw them together,
you know, take them out of time, as it were, take
them out of the right sequence, right, And that that's a gross mistake.
This has always been my contention with these with these attempts to write him
into a particular you know, to kind of corner him into a character,
right, is that they always go into a certain direction and almost almost inevitably
claim that there is a consistency here. When I dare anybody listening to us
right now to find somebody who is consistently the same person. Okay, during
that part of their life. You are the one thing that is guaranteed in
early adolescents, adolescents to teenage years, to your young manhood so to speak,
Okay, or you know, not not just that he's a man.
Young adulthood, Fine, let's go back to that. Young adulthood is guaranteed.
You're in flux. You are what do they always say, you're finding
yourself. I mean, I don't know anybody who is exactly the same going
through that time period, who has consistency. I mean, there may be
some consistent character traits. True, Okay, some things you may you know,
grab onto, you love chocolate ice cream from the time you're five,
Okay, fine, But I mean, honestly, who is not in flux
even without all of this activity, more mundane setting, in a more pedestrian
setting, in a more you know, I didn't join the army, I
didn't go out, I never left the town I lived in, or whatever.
It doesn't matter the dynamic of that person is. I mean, find
me anybody who's exactly the same from the time they're a small child to the
time that they're a teenager to the time that they're a young adult. I
mean, help me here, because I don't think that that's like a person,
a real person. Now, the best you can find, and for
Oswell, the best I could offer there may be a couple of general behavior
profiles. One thing you can say about Oswell is he was easily bored,
and he was bored even with things that he liked. He could throw him
into self into something and six months later it's even want something else. He
did become easily bored both as a from I would say from his school years.
He could be a good student in class up to a certain point,
and we thought he had gotten everything out of he could be making a's If
he thought he'd gotten everything out of it, he would start cutting class.
He was just easily bored. And that that goes all the way through.
It's fascinating. It applies to his social life too, right in compand he
throws himself into you know, kind of the frat house collegiate behavior, and
you know after six months he's bored with that. Okay, so much for
sex and bars, you know, okay, let's move on, which is
kind of a fascinating character trait, right, And honestly, look, I've
heard that story a million times from different guys who you know, got in
the military as young men. Right, they get involved, they get to
travel, they're excited. Everything's great and cool and all that, and they
have fun and they're enjoying, you know, drinking beers. They can't read
the labels of there. They're in a place where they can't speak the language,
but they're having fun. Stuff like this they do when they're getting stationed
overseas. And I don't think he's a typical in that way. And that's
the funny thing. The consistency you could see is that he's a guy who
is in search of acknowledgment. Right. He wants to be acknowledged. He
wants to be viewed as somebody of significancy. Now this almost sounds like I'm
making the warrant commission argument, Right, he wanted to make his place in
history, right, Ruth Payne supporting that. Maybe he did, But was
it the way that they're saying it? Yeah? Good, yeah, but
in a different way. That's where you get back to his writing that if
you look at that statement, he wanted to his writing, he was looking
for a solution. He really wanted to be as de Mornshield said, Oswold
himself quoted him. It's like I know that I'm looking for something that I'm
never going to find. What he was looking for is some political solutions,
some ideological solution to address the things that had most concerned him throughout his life,
which were already social services. You know, that had been a problem
for his mother, had been a problem for him. And if you look
at his writing, that's where he's going. He wanted to his The last
thing he wrote was essentially a thesis on how you could bring two political systems
together and address that problem. It wasn't you know personally, It was recognition
for what he was thinking, for his ideas, not for what he was
doing. And I think that's the problem is you can take that same statement
that you just made kind of like he wanted to be known for, okay,
and again you can jerry pick it into where you wanted he wanted to
be famous for. I see no sign he wanted he wanted to solve that
problem. He really did, and he and he knew it was probably unsolvable
with his think about that for a minute. No, but but almost,
you know, he was almost meant to be in the current Congress. Well,
right, because look, you're meant to go out there and say there's
a problem here. Uh, And yeah, he was definitely stating that he
could recognize the problem. He wanted to be seen as the clever guy.
And that's in the macro and the micro, right, because the guy who's
giving speeches and also conducting himself the way that he's consistently represented as as a
young adult in social gatherings, right, he always wants to be seen as
a clever person who has who is well informed. Right. That seems to
be consistent. Again, that's one of those consistent things that does carry over
throughout your life. You know, the usually the quiet kid in school is
you know, remains that reserved person later on. That kind of thing.
It happens a lot. Some people do change. But I mean that's a
very general thing. A lot of other stuff is in flux though, because
again this is still a young person not quite with a handle on who they
want to be exactly. You know, if you take it at face value
that he goes to the Soviet Union thinking he's going to find much much better
situations there and then seems to become disillusioned with that from what we can tell.
You know, Okay, this is not the right way to go now,
I want to leave. You know, these are the kind of things
that somebody who is not quite as well informed as they think, they are
searching for that and learning through those experiences, right, So, I mean
that's another way to look at him throughout this. And again we're not getting
to the Hey, he wanted to make his mark in history by becoming an
assassin. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the guy wanted
to be better informed than others around him, again in the micro and the
macro, right, And it's just that's an interesting characteristic good which is really
quite unusual. I mean, he was quite a unique character. Now that
doesn't make him make him, you know, easy to deal with sometimes,
because people who are searching for something and thinking, you know, that they're
smarter or that they're trying to solve a problem that nobody else. You know,
they don't usually fit well into the system, right. You know this,
you don't do well and into the establishment. You don't do well in
academia. You know, you're constantly knocking things over, right, Well,
that would be Oswald. So, uh, you know, he was kind
of destined not to fit in the system, if you will. Unfortunately,
but even from that regard, you know, those people are not you know,
they're around us. Uh, they're they're kind of jousting with the system,
which is what he was doing. And and if you if you agreed
with him that there were problems like that that need to be addressed, you
know, you could have people relay having great conversations with him, right,
you know, very high level conversations. If you wouldn't accept that, and
you wouldn't admit it, he was just plain ass I mean, he was
obnoxious, you know, so because you're going to keep accept that. Yeah,
And there's always looked a hierarchy, uh emerges among outsiders as well.
Right, So when you have the people that are clearly not establishment friendly and
they get together, a hierarchy always does emerge. And he didn't seem to
be from what I can tell from his actions. It didn't appear to me
as though he wanted to be the leader, so to speak. There are
people that want to be the leader. I alone have all the great ideas,
right, but some people do present him in that way that that was
part of the problem, is that he thought only his ideas counted, et
cetera. And that is the push and pull that you'll get from somebody who
doesn't quite fit with the establishment people. But simultaneously he's going to butt heads
with people who really do want to be the leader, you know, who
want to be the seminole figure in a movement, et cetera. If he
was trying for that, he didn't do a very good job of it.
Although some people would argue with me, well, that was what the whole
play was regarding I'm representing the Fair Play for Cuba committee. But he never
said he was the head of it. He said he was the treasurer.
You know what I'm saying. He good catch, Yeah, absolutely, I'm
just a member here. Okay, go talk to that guy right who didn't
exist, mister Hydale. He's the one that's running it. And I again,
I've been reading the and Osla was great. He gave all these details.
So Hydeale's running it. He calls people and sets up meetings and does
a it's where the meetings are going to be. And Oswald's giving the FBI
all these details on meetings and people for what you might think of as semi
clandestine group, and and he just made it up out of whole cloth,
you know. But he no, he's not. He doesn't show any signs
of wanting to be. He wants to be, if anything, known as
a good follower. You know, I'm part of it. I want to
help move this thing forward. He wants to be part of the movement,
if you will, you know, but not not the leader. He wants
to join groups, and interestingly enough, when he can't join groups when he
as a as a teenager, when he wrote the Young Socialist, it's kind
of like I want to join a group, right, and they're right back.
It's kind of like, well there's no group in your area, and
it's like, well, could I start a group? Uh? You know,
he just wants to be part of something that fits him, and it's
very hard for him to find that. You know, he thought he was
going to find it in Russia, didn't really find it. He thought he
was going to find it in Cuba anyway. Well, right, And that's
the interesting thing about taking a look at what Titibitz writes about him right where,
you know, he gets there and initially it seems like oh okay,
well where are you guys who really believe in the party and the actual you
know, communist movement and for the people and the workers United. Where is
everybody? And they kind of go, dude, you know, we got
we got jobs, we got stuff to do. You know, come on,
you really think that's the way it works. And he goes, yeah,
I thought that's the way it worked. Okay. But again, he
wanted to join, He wanted to be part of He wanted to be,
you know, not necessarily just everybody in the crowd. He wanted to stand
out a little bit, but not so much that I'm the leader with the
great ideas. Again, seeking to be part of something and seeking to be
part of a greater whole, a little bit, a little bit better.
You know, how do I put this? I don't want to own the
store, but I want to be a manager at least, you know that
kind of thing. Right. It's like that, that's the way he viewed
these groups, these political groups, these social movements. I don't necessarily want
to be in charge, but I want to have a little bit better of
a spot than just your card carrying member. Right. You look at the
letters that he writes them. He writes a letter and says, you know,
I have some photography skills. Could I help you work on your newsletter?
I you know, I'd be happy to work in the office, you
know. So he does volunteer his services, not you know, not as
a not as a like, oh I want to run the place, or
I want to be but it's kind of like I just want to in some
ways. It's interesting that we're talking about him in guards to him being a
joiner, which is to premise that everybody rejects. Right, yeah, well
that's why I'm doing it though, because what is the the the primary thing
here, right if you're a Warrant Commission adherent, your your whole idea is
he's a lone nut, a lone nut, a guy who couldn't fit in,
couldn't socialize that, and they use a lot of that. See now,
now here we go, is this us coloring it the wrong way or
we saying, hey, look he's trying to be a joiner, uh you
know, and and and this because we want to be contrary to you know,
contrary excuse me, I'm not going for the British thing. We want
to be contrary to the idea that he's a lone nut. Is that really
our prejudice pushing it that way, because he does wind up ultimately quite a
bit seeming to not have friends because of some of the personality quirks that you
just talked about, where you know, he's kind of a jerk when when
when you can't acknowledge him enough in certain social settings, he can become obnoxious.
Even so, he ends up sort of in a Loane nut position because
he doesn't have a lot of friends. He's not making you know, he's
not hooking up with the groups, but he's trying to so. Well.
For example, when he when he goes to New Orleans to look for work,
the first thing he does is family networking, and he's serious about it.
He starts looking up using the Yellow Pages. He starts contacting cousins and
aunts and uncles. He wants to, you know, go talk family history.
You know so. But but again, at another point in time,
like when he's just back in Dallas for Mexico, you know, what are
the priorities. First he needs to find a job. Well, it's fair
to say that he doesn't socialize well with guys at work. That's just it's
not the way it is, okay, But you and again, I know,
we don't necessarily want to accept some of this. But he gets along
reasonably well with Michael Payne. He goes to meetings with Michael Payne, he
meets Michael Payne's friends, right, you know, but at this time his
wife is just having a new baby. She's not living with you know,
looking at the circumstances, he's said, he's not in a position to even
if he wanted to. There's nobody around to hang with that he knows,
he's kind of like just back in a new environment. Well, frankly,
not for him personally, but given the climate of the time, some of
the school book depository workers are I mean, let's just face it, they're
black and black and white people being super friendly in certain parts of the South
might not have been acceptable, not necessarily from his end, because he did
seem to, according to what he wrote, and according to things he said,
had a rather progressive view of that. He wasn't all about you know,
hey, I'm a white and I'm separate. He didn't believe in that
crap. But given the climate of the time, maybe black friends wasn't something
that was easily gotten at the school book depository form So he might have been
disqualified based on the circumstance, not for his actions. Same time, though
he's in that rooming house and all accounts that I ever got from that,
I mean, maybe I'm misinformed. He didn't really socialize at the rooming house,
and there's opportunities there, right, people coming and going, the other
residents, so on and so forth. He wasn't a bad guy or a
problematic there at all. Yeah, Oh he wasn't. And he wasn't really
a handshaker or whatever. Yeah, but I wanted to get back to a
point that you made just a little bit earlier. Are we putting him when
we are we looking at him through a lens? Well, I guess the
point is the way it has to be treated is again its point counterpoint.
You when you're writing history, you call out something, it's kind of like,
this is a view, Okay, this is the warrant commission view.
What supports it? What doesn't support it? This is the conspiracy view or
skeptic view. What's the point? There's no The only way to avoid looking
through a lens is to look through different lenses and beat them against each other,
point counterpoint. That's that's the challenge that's the methodology. So I know
in our conversation it might sound that way, but when I write about it,
you can't get away with that. You have to offer up each lens
and say, what do we see at this point in time? Does it
support that lens or does it not? Now I use the term view,
you know what, what's the warrant commission view? What's he doing now?
Does it fit? What's the skeptical view? Does it fit? What's for
that matter, what's the oslole view? You know, what is he doing?
Is it? Is it anomalous? You know? Is this consistent?
Is he doing what he has said before it? You know? So that's
the only way to deal with the risk of cherry picking. I think.
Well, I think the other thing to understand is that, you know,
just because he has a certain desired result for certain things doesn't mean that he
attained that. And you know, and is this an attack on him,
like, look at him, he's a loser. No, I'm not trying
to do that. What I'm trying to say is you might try a bunch
of things and you might not be successful because why early in life you're not
exactly informed as to how this works. So well. Like I said,
he goes to the Soviet Union with the idea, seemingly based on his actions,
that he's going to find a whole bunch of people to unite with.
And meanwhile, at best he was a curiosity because he's a foreigner, you
know. And that's the way that worked out. He didn't end up with
that all of a sudden, I'm going to be famous and have loads of
friends, and it didn't quite work that way. You know. Well,
I think that you brought up on another and this is something else you can
call out as a long time personality characteristic, like I did with boredom,
and I would think of it as a reset mode. One of the things
that makes Oswald quite fascinating is he does not get defeated easily. If he
tries something and it's not working out or he's not satisfied, it's like he
resets and he can do where lots of people would just get depressed or you
know, lose it, you know, if they fail. Then he just
resets and goes back again. It's kind of like before after he came back
to the US, he had separated from Marina. By my count, at
least five times before they move to New Orleans. He leaves her an apartment,
goes to work somewhere else. Okay, she moves away, goes to
say with friends. You know, they literally separate, and but then he
resets. He goes back into ana family mode and goes and hunts her up
and pleads with her, and they get back together again. Which is one
of the things I find quite fascinating because that's exactly what he did. On
November twenty first, he goes after he's gone to Mexico City, and this
is kind of like this, this attempt, this plan, whatever doesn't work
out for him. He comes comes back to Dallas. Okay, first thing
he starts to do. He starts looking for a job. There is just
no doubt about that. It's in the records. It's in the Texas State
Employment Commission records. He starts looking for a job. He's resetting, and
then finally he's you know, trying to stay with Marina. She's pregnant,
you know, but this recently is the twenty first he goes to her and
says, you know, desperately pleading with her, which has done before,
move back in with me. I want us to be a family. This
and that, and she says, look, you know, got a brand
new baby and a very young child, and this lady here has is a
washing machine. I will move back in with you and we'll be together again
as soon as you make enough money to get me a washing machine. And
Oswall says, okay. You know, it's a classic reset for Oswald.
I'm not saying this is a good, bad, or different, but you
see it again and again and again because he does have he's not defeated easily,
and the Warrant Commission view has him defeated, right right, I mean
perpetually defeated with Oswald. It's like Oswald always has a plan B, or
he'll come up with a plan B. He's it's just when he learns that
he's made a terrible mistake, like in Russia, it's like, well,
okay, I'll just go back to the US. Okay, that's not going
to be easy to do. And he wrestles with that for two years to
get the US to let him back in. Right. You know, quite
frankly, he was better off in Russia financially, in every other respect than
he ever would be back in the United States. But nope, but that
didn't get to the goal. See, that's the thing is that, Okay,
I didn't achieve my goal. He doesn't go, well, let me
change my goal. He goes, all right, let's regroup, try this
again. You know, clearly it seemed to me as though he wanted to
have his family together. And you know, I think that's a real thing
that is demonstrated by his actions and his words. I mean, I think
it's consistent there. He wanted to put it together with her. Now,
of course, the warrant commission contention is, once he knew that wasn't going
to happen, he said, to hell with it, I'm gonna go do
this. But he never said to hell with it otherwise. I mean,
that would be the first time, right, that would be a true anomaly,
that would be truly inconsistent. That is the inconsistency. Truthfully, this
whole idea that Okay, so now he left his wedding ring and his money
and this and that, and he gave up. This is his surrender.
That's their proof, right, But it is totally inconsistent with what we've seen
before. And this is a character trait again, not just in the last
couple of years, last couple of days. This is something that seems to
have carried over because what happens, things change. I'm gonna roll with him,
I'm gonna go out this a different way, right, I mean that
just seems to me. And even to that extent, how is he defeated.
I've wrestled with that. Okay, he can still go visit or anytime
he wants to, or on the weekends. He's still got a job.
He didn't lose his job. He's lost his job before, right and during
one of these resets that would be And has he been depressed before? He
was depressed? Actually, Reen and Ruth Payne said when he lost his job
in New Orleans, he really was depressed. But he just he you know,
so in on November twenty first, all he's really heard is Okay,
we can't move together right now. You just need to keep working and make
some money and buy me a orsh machine, get an apartment. How is
that defeated? You know, because I didn't get my way. This like
instant suddenly, this is a defeat like nothing he's ever suffered before. Oswell
is defeated over and over again, right, right, and again, that's
not the point and that's the other thing, right, he's a continuous loser.
He's a continuous loser. Well, he doesn't seem to be, because
you know, he did accomplish parts of his goals as he went. I
mean, it wasn't an easy thing to get himself to in a position where
he was going to be able to live in Minsk. Right, that was
something they tried to deny him. And we could go over that too.
That's a weird sort of thing with the slashing, the wrists and all that,
you know. I mean, but either way, it's like, let
me come up with another solution. It might be a little bit ill advised
on occasion, but he comes up. There is a sense of drama with
off. Well yeah, okay, let's let's get their attention. I mean,
even in Mexico City, he shifts from one mode to the other.
He will shift from being pleasant and okay whatever. And if he doesn't get
away, does he does he have a plan B that involves some drama?
Yeah? Does it always work? Sometimes it works like in Russia, right,
I mean, you know most I mean it doesn't work when he gets
kicked out of both consulates in Mexico City, and you know, and from
the story when he's getting resistance. I mean, at one point he shows
up at one of the consulates and puts a gun on the desk. I
mean, you know, if that is to be believed, you know that
that's kind of consistent with the all right, I gotta step up here and
do something a little outside the box. I'm going to continue to you know.
So this is a continuous push. This isn't like, well they told
me, no, I'm going to go away. So no matter where you
meet him in the story here, right, you got a guy who is
see, not easily discouraged, I would say, you know, yeah,
and he never considers himself a loser. You know, Like I said the
quote I gave earlier, it's kind of like I'm looking for it and I
may not find it. I probably won't find it. But there's never any
sign that like I'm going to give up. You know. It's it's me
looking for what I want to find, you know. So there's no sign
that he ever considers that he's a loser, right, And how they can
paint him that way, you know, he might be and other you know,
given the criteria and standards for other people. Yeah, you can paint
him that way. But we all know your view of yourself as a loser
is your view, right, you know, unless your other driven. And
there's no sign that Oswea was other driven. Well, and there's many many
guys who have trouble with their you know, especially at that age, with
their marriage, with their jobs, with their you know what I'm saying,
and a lot of them do wind up falling into a pattern of sort of
surrend where it's like, look, I'm just going to get a hold of
this one little thing and I'm just going to settle into it whatever it is,
and they accept it. That is not the dynamic I see here,
you know, where he's constantly pushing for Again, I think he wanted to
settle his family down. He did seem to care about that, cared about
their futures, you know, to some degree. Some people would say,
well, he was self centered, he was off on his adventures and this,
okay, fine, But at the end of the day, he thought
that that was a good thing he was doing, even going and involving himself
and all these things, because why, he wanted to make the world a
better place. Even Fraser says this, you know, in some way or
other. He wants to make things better for his children. Right, this
is part of the thought This is not the thought process as somebody who was
surrendered, you know what I mean. This is a good way to judge
that, and I hope people will reject it because they don't fit their mode.
Like okay, but one interesting thing to do. May Brussel collected Oswell's
last words in other words, conversations that he had with his brother, with
Marina, his mother, other people after he was in custody, and one
of the fast units search Forard online in may Brussels, Oswell's last words and
some of those dialogues are just fascinating and I do not think they are made
up. I mean, yeah, Oswell can do some drama. The fascinating
thing is there's no drama in them. He's talking. In one exchange,
he's talking about you know, you know June needs new shoes. Now you
make sure that you get them. This is there's there's not the drama.
You put me in jail after that. I would show you drama, but
he's just like matter of fact, he doesn't believe this. I will all
go out straight out. He does not believe that they're gonna he didn't do
this, he didn't kill the president. They're not going to convict him of
it. That this is just not that you might not lie about a few
things. Let's let's make that straightforward. But if you look at those dialogues,
it's kind of like this is not a guy who's is giving up because
he knows he's he's dead meat. That's not the way he's talking. And
it's not dramatic either, right, just very straightforward. Yeah, what is
it? Radical? Yeah, that's it? Got org under Ratville. I'll
give a link in the show notes as well, actually has this compilation of
what what May Brussell came up with the last words of Lee Harvey Oswald.
It's literally called that compiled by May Brussel, and she starts with the assassination
and then yeah, and then goes into it, right, what what happens?
Okay arrest at the Texas Theater and all of that, and begins quoting
him at what eleven? No, wait, excuse me, and goes through
it and it's actually really I remember this. I haven't thought about this in
some years. This is way back. You know, May hasn't been with
us in several years, so I don't even remember when this was first like
compiled, but oh it was back to the seventies. Let's irving. Well,
they have a reference here from a book in nineteen seventy eight, so
yeah, but it is it's rather interesting. Oh from the People's Almanac number
two. Yeah, okay, anyway, no fascinating peace and that. That's
some of the things that hippies did in the seventies. You probably wouldn't remember
it, chuck, thank you, Yeah, baby, yeah, the People's
this and that. But uh, okay, well, look, we have
spent almost an hour on this, just batting it back and forth, and
I really appreciate it. I know it's a little bit probably a little bit
tiring for you to have to bat it back and forth with somebody like me.
But I think all of these points of interest that I brought up,
the public perception, how it's been present and uh and and indeed how it's
uh, whether intentionally or not, not been explored. Honestly, to me,
it's always been with these preset agendas. And one thing I know about
the way that you're gonna put this together is it's not about a preset agenda.
Here it's really you know, it's not about let me try and fit
this character into a mold that I've decided already without exploring. I think you're
gonna You're gonna finally give us a very unique perspective on this character. Lee
RB. Oswald And uh, you know you mentioned to me that maybe you
know it was gonna be a monograph and all, that it might be book
length. Now, what are your thoughts on that? It is definitely book
length now and it will it will be published in one form or the other.
I think, yeah, it's uh, it's now it's closing out.
The first part of it is closing out at about one hundred and sixty page
is of just the Oswell study, because we're talking about presenting it in two
sets. One is this is the Oswell in three dimensions, and then a
second more speculative part like we just said, Oswald always had a Plan B
in mind, you know, And did Oswell have a working Plan B that
week at that time? Was there something else going through the back of his
head that might explain some of his Some of us you've got to got to
accept that there's some strange things that he did on the day of the assassination
regardless, Uh, not that that implied that he was involved with shooting,
but it's just kind of like, why did he do that? Was?
Did he have any concerns? You know? Why did he go back and
get his pistol? Was it? Was it as simple as he thought?
You know that I've been in Russia, I worked in the building. They're
going to come after me and they'll kill me. I don't know, but
we may may address that too. But yeah, I think Chuck to kind
of wrap it up. I think, what's what surprised me so far?
And treating it this well, it's it's brought out some several things that I
never thought of it before, and I always enjoy that. It's kind of
like, you know, I've written about this before, I wrote about it.
Now I realized whether it superficially that, but now that I'm doing the
point point counterpoint thing, it's it's suggesting some interpretations and some explanations that frankly,
had not occurred to me at all, not just just not just involving
Oswald. You know, why why did Oswell say certain things at certain times?
Why did Marina say certain things at certain times? What? What are
some of the is there a logical explanation for some of the things that we've
always considered either mysterious or conspiratorial And you know, operating at a little deeper
level allows me to say, yeah, this could have been an explanation.
I can't guarantee it, but in context, this might explain this happenings at
this time. All as we talk. All you know, situational context is
always the key. People people do different things at different times because of this
situation they're in right, Well, what you know exactly what is and and
you know, like you brought up what was the primary concern at the time,
Like what is the priority at a certain point, like when he's doing
certain things. Obviously he needs a job, he needs to get things rolling,
he needs These are realistic ways of looking at it and necessary. Uh.
We got a little praise from the live chat room about this conversation and
how it's a good way to re examine things. In fairness to you,
saying that you had written about this, you know, in a superficial manner
in the past. In total fairness to you, you know, you were
working with less information then you have access to today. When you when you
first wrote this. You know, when you first wrote about Lee Oswald and
gave your version of a sort of a pseudobiography at some point, right,
and that wasn't your main focus. And you know what, again, a
little bit of time, a little bit of better information comes around, a
little bit of maybe certain things that were mysterious or not so mysterious now And
we didn't even really get into the Lopez thing too much. But again,
there's a lot of ways to go at this and give an honest view of
this interesting historical character. So I urge you to go to Larry Danshancock dot
com. You'll, I'm sure give us updates on when this is coming.
I look forward to it for sure, and I think it's going to be
really interesting no matter how or where it gets published. But I'm sure you'll
inform people as to when it's actually coming. Do you have a target date
for when you might be completing work on this, Well, I think certainly
it needs to do peer it needs peer review, and normally a peer review
process would take a good you know, ninety days to let people look at
it and look for holes in the facts or holes in the logic. At
that point in time, it's going to have to go through heavy edit because
quite frankly, I don't write nearly as grammatically as I should. You know,
that kind of edit. So if assuming my friend Rix, who is
one of the most vicious editors in the world, edits it, that could
well be another three months, you know, by the end of the year.
I would hope if we'd go through the whole cycle, so by the
end of twenty twenty four we should see this emerge and look, I look
forward to it. Did you get a working title or are we still working
with the working title or have we settled yet We're still doing the working title,
the working title still Oswald in three Dimensions, Oswald in three Dimensions,
which again you also talked about at Lancer this past year. If people had
seen that, I think that's going to become available shortly online for people that
you know didn't sign up for the conference pretty soon. But if not,
I know that you spoke about it there, and you spoke about a great
deal of taking a look back at certain things that were assumed, let's say,
by the research community earlier on. And I really appreciated the stuff that
you discussed at Lancer, But I appreciate all Larry Hancock's work and recommend all
of it, so I can't wait to see how this looks. Obviously,
Also, if you're interested in the Kennedy assassination, recommend Tipping Point as well
as someone would have talked. Again, keep in mind, you know in
context these things are written a little earlier. This Three Dimensions of Oswald could
be well, very very different and new. So I'm looking forward to it,
Larry, and I hope everybody out there is as well. Thanks for
doing this with me. Oh you then enjoy it anyway. Guys, no
matter who you are, where you are, when you are h revelation through
conversation. If you use expressed by callers school, is there anyone else who
happens to get on the air of jelly dot com? Do not necessarily replied
he us jelly dot com or check go chilly, and we are not responsible
for any stupidity which might issue. Thank you. Wallsendo dot dot whoa steward
the stock market, Wall three window dott Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're
not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street, Windows
on com 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. Wall st dot com. Go there, now, go
there, Now, Go there now. 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 learn from it. It also shows
why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the
book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial,
Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhncock. For more information, go to
Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon
dot com in digital or physical dot Com radio network. Go ahead, call
it about the Jay assassination right, Well, what do you want to know?
Judy Baker's wild claim oswal girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry answer weapons,
Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make
me a wagon. But okay, I'm the building and trying to prevent the
murder of John Kennedy. Come on now has a real effort on the day
of pay assassination claim. 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 it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Juda's very
Baker in her own words information. Uncle. 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? Oh that's interesting? Yeah? Yeah, did that ever
work out too good? No? It didn't, did it? But here
on o'ceelly dot com radio network, things work out a bit better. Don't
they much better? Much is clear and understanding about the programs, the programs,
how much clear? Getting live people into it. They really have a
good conversation going much better, so much better scene. I say, forget
Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen to the o'ceelly dot com radio network.
I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like
that idea. Oh, Cholley dot com. 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 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 place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of
the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a
continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that
there were short range missiles on the island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could
not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to
a Third World War, and they wanted to go to 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, Oh Chili 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 are done with uranium, including some bad things. Nuclear
holocaust. You know what uranium is, right? I've been a brief nuclear
holocaust. Is nuclear holocaust? You know what uranium is right? Next think
called 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 Holoculear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear Hall