Speaker 1: I read.
Speaker 2: October twenty nine, twenty five, allegedly according to that thing
Speaker 2: we call a calendar, This the o'celly effect. You catching
Speaker 2: it because most likely you got it on the podcast feed.
Speaker 2: But we are live on a Wednesday, Wolden's Day, middle
Speaker 2: of a week, all that good stuff. Yeah, hump day,
Speaker 2: some people say, But I don't know. I'm disinterested, so
Speaker 2: I'm not all about the hump day thing. I don't
Speaker 2: even know what that's about, except I guess it's the
Speaker 2: hump in the middle of the week or whatever. But
Speaker 2: that's not what I'm here to talk about tonight. I
Speaker 2: got Larry Hancock with me, okay, and I'm more than
Speaker 2: happy we might get another chance to hear from Larry.
Speaker 2: I'm hoping that we pull off this Halloween special on Friday,
Speaker 2: where Larry said he would drop in briefly and probably
Speaker 2: you'll give a quick summary about well, part of what
Speaker 2: we're going to talk about tonight on that show, along
Speaker 2: with a bunch of other people that are scheduled. But
Speaker 2: let's see what happens, because so far, I can't get
Speaker 2: somebody to understand the difference between no, I can't call you,
Speaker 2: you got to call me and a few other issues
Speaker 2: regarding communication that day. But we'll see, we'll see if
Speaker 2: I can sort it by then worse comes to worst,
Speaker 2: we'll do something about you know, hey, the lead up
Speaker 2: to Lancer on Friday and let you guys know a
Speaker 2: little more about it. Then of course that's going to
Speaker 2: be the twenty first to the twenty third, you know,
Speaker 2: in Dallas, Texas. And if you go to Assassination Conference
Speaker 2: dot com, whether you're planning on attending in person or
Speaker 2: virtually Assassinationconference dot com, you can sign up there and
Speaker 2: if you want ten percent off, use the code o'elly ten. Okay,
Speaker 2: so that's my name, o'ceelly and ten the number ten
Speaker 2: one zero okay, not not the nuts, don't spell it,
Speaker 2: so O'Kelly and one zero o'celly ten. You get ten
Speaker 2: percent off from the conference whatever it is you're deciding
Speaker 2: to attend or get. And if you use most browsers,
Speaker 2: although not on Firefox, if you use most browsers, you'll
Speaker 2: be able to download the videos and keep them too.
Speaker 2: Uh So, just so you know, that's the way it is.
Speaker 2: And hopefully everything is all good by then. But I
Speaker 2: should be traveling in a couple of weeks and we're
Speaker 2: going to take some time off anyway. Until then, Larryhncock
Speaker 2: is with me, larrydash Hancock dot com. Go over there
Speaker 2: follow his blog Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. However you want
Speaker 2: to put it, and I'll there's links in the show notes.
Speaker 2: By the way, if you don't listen to what I'm
Speaker 2: saying and don't want to type it out, click on
Speaker 2: it larrydash Handcock dot com. And yeah, you can also
Speaker 2: read about his books and his blogs. And you recently
Speaker 2: blogged actually about something in the past day or so,
Speaker 2: I think, and might be what we're discussing tonight, Larry,
Speaker 2: But then again who knows. So first of all, how
Speaker 2: are you doing, sir?
Speaker 1: I'm doing as you'd say.
Speaker 3: I am blogging again, probably be a little bit more
Speaker 3: active blogging now that we're with the Now that we've
Speaker 3: finished our we finished our presentation for the Lancer conference,
Speaker 3: so David and I have kind of we might have
Speaker 3: some time to go back and blog, which that really
Speaker 3: doesn't seem like a pad for months.
Speaker 2: So just so everybody knows, there's a little little issue
Speaker 2: with teams and we might might have a little bit
Speaker 2: of an odd exchange here and there, just so everybody knows.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I might change that up with Larry
Speaker 2: in the near future. But he's working with David Boyland
Speaker 2: b O Y L A N. Who is his co
Speaker 2: author on the Oswald Puzzle, and those two together we'll
Speaker 2: be making a presentation virtual at the Lancer conference, uh
Speaker 2: you know again the twenty first of the twenty third
Speaker 2: in Dallas, Texas in November. So November in Dallas and
Speaker 2: all that good stuff at the Lancer conference. Anyway, So Larry,
Speaker 2: what what exactly? What's the title of that blog? I
Speaker 2: don't have it in front of me or anything, and
Speaker 2: I'm just gonna mute up and listen to you talk
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 4: It's a WordPress blog and the title for for the
Speaker 4: this evening was the post I made this morning was
Speaker 4: the Devil and the Details and and.
Speaker 3: Basically it's a it's a discussion of how even my
Speaker 3: anger in coming out with the document released those things
Speaker 3: you know, from a personnel file, not operational files that
Speaker 3: can can really change our perspective and kind of take
Speaker 3: us out of the box.
Speaker 1: Depending on what.
Speaker 5: We know now. And yeah, h h it, yeah, it's all.
Speaker 1: Decades of dealing with kil.
Speaker 3: If we had seen it twenty years ago, we probably
Speaker 3: wouldn't have understood it or appreciated it. But the world
Speaker 3: has changed and now we have so much more contact
Speaker 3: than we had had.
Speaker 1: That h.
Speaker 3: What uh how information comes together? But it was a speculation.
Speaker 3: Now at the point, we're at the point we're going
Speaker 3: to actually trace it in the documents.
Speaker 2: Mhmm. Okay, I am okay. I'm gonna take a quick
Speaker 2: break here and see if I can't straighten things out
Speaker 2: real fast and get hooked back up with Larry. Let's
Speaker 2: just see if this is my problem over here or what,
Speaker 2: and hopefully we'll be able to continue this here on
Speaker 2: a Wednesday, o Chelli effects stick.
Speaker 6: Around Otilly dot com.
Speaker 7: Do you like history, Real history that you were never
Speaker 7: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and
Speaker 7: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 7: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 7: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War,
Speaker 7: Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 7: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 7: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike.
Speaker 8: Swanson, the dot Com Radio Network were were.
Speaker 9: In Denial the Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks
Speaker 9: by Lairry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 9: covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In
Speaker 9: Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 10: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 10: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 10: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 10: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 10: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 10: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 10: In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 10: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 10: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 10: In digital or physical.
Speaker 7: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 2: To the effect, Sure through conversation.
Speaker 11: The time, postop your lives, show fact revelation, conaba, I'm
Speaker 11: a devastation. Revelation through conversation the effect you are the effect.
Speaker 7: Listen to conversation all.
Speaker 11: Lay demonstrator, I'll tell you effect. Relasten conversation season through conversation,
Speaker 11: Oh shall effect revelations consation gone, had forgotten what's show?
Speaker 11: The effect beyond display of lass and fears are the shape.
Speaker 1: And the mid of years. Find the shot, find.
Speaker 2: Me afraid and that is not a three decay not
Speaker 2: charge with scroll. I am the master of of my face.
Speaker 8: I am the chat of my soul.
Speaker 9: Un fact revelation.
Speaker 8: Protection propaganda.
Speaker 7: Horse continued cashing in teachers about religion, keeping score at home.
Speaker 11: People you'd like to see eaten by wolves, miss dropped,
Speaker 11: dying soon. The tangles are Tago taps and his continued golf.
Speaker 5: Storming tour him.
Speaker 7: When he streak, he says God sparred him and decided
Speaker 7: a firefighter dies.
Speaker 5: In the.
Speaker 11: Revelation conversation.
Speaker 9: Affect, you are the effect, You are the effect.
Speaker 1: Revelation to conversations are.
Speaker 2: Okay, rejoining the Ocelli effect live and hopefully you're still
Speaker 2: with us now. It might be the Microsoft teams just
Speaker 2: had a nasty, nasty network issue, So Larry and I
Speaker 2: have moved to an alternative form of communication and you're
Speaker 2: hearing it live. So sorry about the broken up audio
Speaker 2: on everybody, and also frustrating Larry while he's trying to speak,
Speaker 2: but here we are back at it anyway, Larry again,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna shut up and lets you talk about your
Speaker 2: blog and let's begin from there again, because things got
Speaker 2: a little robotic sounding and I'd rather hear your voice, Larry,
Speaker 2: and let you explain yourself. So, like I said, you know,
Speaker 2: based partially on what's going on regarding the presentation. We
Speaker 2: already covered that, David Boyl and of course you're co
Speaker 2: author on the Oswalt puzzle. Both of you will be
Speaker 2: doing that. But yeah, talk to us about the blog.
Speaker 2: You're getting more active lately, et cetera. That's kind of
Speaker 2: where we left off.
Speaker 3: Yeah, basically, the blog post called Devil the Devil is
Speaker 3: in the Details kind of introduces my thoughts on the
Speaker 3: fact that we're now at a point, after several decades
Speaker 3: of what i'd call grant work, of being able to
Speaker 3: take even small details and look at them and say,
Speaker 3: you know, does this challenge the assumptions that we've been making,
Speaker 3: Does it challenge our ideas, or does it take us further?
Speaker 1: A lot of things. Everybody who's been in.
Speaker 3: For this for decades knows a lot of what we've
Speaker 3: discussed has been speculation, you know, things that were intuitive,
Speaker 3: that were logical, bits and pieces that seem like they
Speaker 3: should come together, but we didn't have the connective tissue.
Speaker 3: But some of the details that are emerging are giving
Speaker 3: that the connective tissue to us where we can actually
Speaker 3: follow things and go, oh, this is not just speculation anymore.
Speaker 3: We thought people at Miami station knew about.
Speaker 1: Lee Harvey Osco. In fact, we thought, you know, we
Speaker 1: weren't sure.
Speaker 3: We were sure that somebody there knew about Lee Harvey
Speaker 3: Oswald and didn't talk about Le osweo Harvey Oswell after
Speaker 3: the assassination. Now we can trace through to the point
Speaker 3: and based on David's a lot of David's workers saying, yeah,
Speaker 3: we can follow the the iMOS, We can follow the
Speaker 3: DRE communications. We can see eight people at Miami Base,
Speaker 3: both than the Spacer's Cuba Project staff and and the
Speaker 3: JM Wave Paramilitary Operation staff who were aware of Oswald,
Speaker 3: who was being copied on Oswald, copied on Oswald because
Speaker 3: of his connections to the Fair Play commit for Cuba Committee,
Speaker 3: his connections and engagement with a DRE.
Speaker 1: You know, we can verify that people were well.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe joint edies just didn't pass information on the
Speaker 3: Cuban stole them and he kept it, and so now
Speaker 3: we know the same information was coming from the FBI.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we can connect a lot of these things.
Speaker 2: Yea, let me interrupt you for a moment, because it
Speaker 2: sounds like a lot of little details coming together to
Speaker 2: finally topple this the old adage, right when we used
Speaker 2: to watch the television specials and we used to read,
Speaker 2: you know, the brand new articles in the in the
Speaker 2: earlier legacy media, not the stuff today where stuff blasts,
Speaker 2: you know, instantaneously out there. You know, we're not getting
Speaker 2: the instant Russian translation like we did, you know, from
Speaker 2: the documents that were finally handed over.
Speaker 1: And this and that.
Speaker 2: In the days when you watched the television special and
Speaker 2: government people would come on and say, look, I worked
Speaker 2: in the government, and I can tell you unequivocally, we
Speaker 2: had no idea about this loan nut. We knew nothing,
Speaker 2: you know pretty much that that's what it was. And
Speaker 2: it was almost left to an argument of is this
Speaker 2: incompetence on their part that they didn't know about this guy,
Speaker 2: or you know, is it something else. They would answer with,
Speaker 2: we had no idea about him. We can't possibly keep
Speaker 2: track of every loan. It's not a maya coopa. It's
Speaker 2: just like a hey, what can you do? The world's
Speaker 2: a dangerous place? Right? I mean literally going into the
Speaker 2: thesis that a Gerald Posner feeds us about this, right,
Speaker 2: is that, oh, you know, these conspiracy theorist people, they
Speaker 2: don't want to believe that, you know, some loser like
Speaker 2: Oswald could actually pull this off. And hey, isn't it
Speaker 2: crazy that the government even knew about this guy? I mean,
Speaker 2: who is He's nobody. What you're telling me is that
Speaker 2: we now have documentation that proves that all of that
Speaker 2: was absolutely false, and that there were plenty of people
Speaker 2: within different government structures who should have been, would have been,
Speaker 2: and were well aware of Lee Harvey Oswald. And we're
Speaker 2: actually looking at him for different reasons, from different angles,
Speaker 2: different agencies, all coming together here. And what we have
Speaker 2: again is further confirmation of that. Or am I reading
Speaker 2: this wrong?
Speaker 1: No, that's exactly correct, and we can see the detail.
Speaker 3: I mean before I think you're right, they could claim, well,
Speaker 3: you know, he just wasn't on our radar like David
Speaker 3: Phillips did.
Speaker 1: Now he's a nobody, he's doing nothing.
Speaker 3: Why should we have been concerned about him, you know,
Speaker 3: and kind of be take that position of well, it's
Speaker 3: no big deal.
Speaker 1: He was no big deal. But when you go back
Speaker 1: and look and you find the guy who was.
Speaker 3: The head of the Cuba desk at the FBI sending
Speaker 3: a copy of the FBI's arrest report on Oswald of
Speaker 3: his activities with the air fair Play for Cuba Committee
Speaker 3: with his arrest for demonstrating, and the FBI fellow actually
Speaker 3: is circulating a member that says, is this a national
Speaker 3: security issue?
Speaker 1: You know, we know this guy's been enraged, this national
Speaker 1: security issue.
Speaker 3: And Agent Hosty out of Dallas replies and starts giving
Speaker 3: background information on Oswald in.
Speaker 1: Dallas at the previous fall.
Speaker 3: Uh And that information is not only goes to the FBI,
Speaker 3: but the FBI does this job and it passes it
Speaker 3: on to counter intelligence at CIAD quarters, who pass it on.
Speaker 1: Down to Miami.
Speaker 3: And so this is we're looking to someone who the
Speaker 3: FBI was concerned about, is what he's doing this summer
Speaker 3: and national security issue, and we're sharing that with everybody.
Speaker 1: So it's it's not just somebody, it's somebody who is.
Speaker 3: Interacting with the fair Play for Cuba Committee, who has
Speaker 3: been designated as a subversive organization. And also there's there's
Speaker 3: every reason that this should have been passed to counter
Speaker 3: intelligence at headquarters and the people who are dealing with
Speaker 3: the fair play for Cuba may and so they were
Speaker 3: doing their job before, as you said, maybe pleading ignorants,
Speaker 3: and we're supposed to think that they weren't really doing
Speaker 3: their day jobs.
Speaker 1: Now we know they were, and they were doing them
Speaker 1: for multiple directions.
Speaker 3: And these people are getting information from the FBI, and
Speaker 3: they're also getting it through their own assets at the DRE,
Speaker 3: the Student Revolutionary Committee from New Orleans.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that David and I began to.
Speaker 3: Explore is that the CIA had a lot of assets
Speaker 3: in New Orleans and they actually had a spotter project
Speaker 3: in New Orleans to identify individuals who might be Castro agents,
Speaker 3: Castro supporters. There's this whole network in place to capture
Speaker 3: information about exactly who and what OSWA was doing. So
Speaker 3: they should have had that information and they did, which
Speaker 3: is perhap that's the shocking thing, and nobody admitted.
Speaker 2: It right now. Perhaps David has focused on this more,
Speaker 2: but I'm going to ask you the question. Anyway, they
Speaker 2: also were likely to know that his fair Play for
Speaker 2: Cuba Committee chapter that he was out there representing publicly
Speaker 2: and also ended up getting you know, we all know
Speaker 2: about the radio interviews and all that stuff and the
Speaker 2: TV footage when he's out there doing that, these people
Speaker 2: should have also known that he didn't have a legitimate chapter.
Speaker 2: Even so he's out there independently hawking the fair Play
Speaker 2: for Cuba Committee without even actually creating a chapter and
Speaker 2: running it, which he could have done. And even the
Speaker 2: fair Play for Cuba Committee people, you know, they had
Speaker 2: been contacted or whatever at some point, but he never
Speaker 2: had a legitimate chapter. So you're right, or did we
Speaker 2: learn something else here? Because to me, this is like
Speaker 2: a bigger red flag, even because he's independently doing that
Speaker 2: as a pro Castro publicly pro Castro agent on the
Speaker 2: streets in New Orleans, which of course leads to the
Speaker 2: you know, the public scuffle let's call it, with bereng
Speaker 2: gear and all that, the arrest, he gets fined, I mean,
Speaker 2: and that gives him notoriety. There's no way that they
Speaker 2: didn't catch that situation and know that he doesn't have
Speaker 2: a legitimate chapter and that he's literally volunteering on his own,
Speaker 2: like we learned later that he actually hired people to
Speaker 2: go out and help him hand out the leaflets, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is something that should have gotten noticed
Speaker 2: and definitely did. Sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 3: This is another point of where the devil is in
Speaker 3: the details, and this time the detail is the chronology.
Speaker 3: Even though and you've got to really dig in at
Speaker 3: exact dates on this, which David is great at.
Speaker 5: Even though.
Speaker 3: The FBI I was advising, you know, of his arrest
Speaker 3: and of his fpc C connections. Even though they were
Speaker 3: advising certain people at the CIA about that, the CI
Speaker 3: was not really going back and asking for any details,
Speaker 3: which is a rather fascinating thing because we have a
Speaker 3: lot of message traffic that is going into CIA from
Speaker 3: FBI on him and nothing going back to which quite unusual.
Speaker 3: And as far as what you just pointed out, actually,
Speaker 3: even the FBI itself, and I've seen the documents, where
Speaker 3: they did not realize that Oswell was scamming them four
Speaker 3: weeks they actually actively started to investigate Hidel and not Oswell.
Speaker 3: By that matter, They didn't you'd think they would jump
Speaker 3: all over Oswell, but they started investigating and looking for
Speaker 3: this This highdel person going to their sources. And it
Speaker 3: was not until just about the time that Oswell actually
Speaker 3: left New Orleans that the FBI began to, I think,
Speaker 3: get suspicious. And there's a memo saying and now we
Speaker 3: think that this Oswald and Heidel may.
Speaker 1: Have been the same person. But it took them weeks
Speaker 1: to get there.
Speaker 3: And so there was a period of time when Oswald
Speaker 3: when when nobody knew that that was a bogus chapter,
Speaker 3: when nobody knew that there was no real high tell that.
Speaker 3: That's one of the reasons that David and I have
Speaker 3: pointed out that according to standard FBI practice, Oswald should
Speaker 3: have been treated as a provincial provisional subversive informant because
Speaker 3: he went to the FBI and volunteered them information on
Speaker 3: this way you might call a cell within the FPCC
Speaker 3: and I there's there are a lot of good reasons
Speaker 3: to think that they may.
Speaker 1: Have actually had him on the leash.
Speaker 3: Uh and later actually covered that up, explaining why Deburius
Speaker 3: was giving presidential approval not to answer all the questions.
Speaker 1: That were asked of him.
Speaker 3: You know, the FBI, No, the FBI really didn't know
Speaker 3: for some time what the real deal was with Hydell.
Speaker 3: They were suspicious of this connection, but they didn't know
Speaker 3: ideal Hydell and Oswa were the same person.
Speaker 5: It.
Speaker 3: Strangely enough, we don't even see that until we get
Speaker 3: to November twenty second, when one hundred and twelfth Military
Speaker 3: Intelligence Group, who's been copied by the FBI, comes up
Speaker 3: with a document that's from New Orleans from the FBI
Speaker 3: that says, oh, now we think this highdel person might
Speaker 3: have been this Lee Harvey Oswell person. So if you
Speaker 3: see the name Hidel, maybe it means Oswald. So again,
Speaker 3: if you don't, if you don't have a really strict
Speaker 3: chronology on this stuff, you get trapped as to who
Speaker 3: knew what win Well.
Speaker 2: And this is very important because he was representing Hydell
Speaker 2: as like the head of that cell, the head of
Speaker 2: that chapter. And he was meanwhile advertised as what the
Speaker 2: treasurer uh, which is like, you know, a secondary I'm
Speaker 2: not the leader of this, I'm just the treasurer uh,
Speaker 2: you know. So therefore I'm in charge of figuring out
Speaker 2: how we're gonna spend money on coffee when we get together,
Speaker 2: uh whatever, or we're gonna spend money on you know,
Speaker 2: flyers and whatnot. But but that's what he's figuring out,
Speaker 2: and he's doing that publicly, which is an interesting move.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 2: And and they hadn't caught up to the fact that
Speaker 2: they're the same guy, uh until later and even you know,
Speaker 2: in more of this, when they find out that it's
Speaker 2: Hidel who ordered the rifles supposedly, uh, you know, and
Speaker 2: everything else. I mean, this continues to be a problem,
Speaker 2: but they weren't aware of it, is what you're saying.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: All the way up until the assassination, they hadn't figured
Speaker 2: it out, although that military group said, hey, maybe it
Speaker 2: is a little bit.
Speaker 3: Before that, the FBI guys and the FBI guys in
Speaker 3: New Orleans thought they had it figured out. I would say,
Speaker 3: you know, in set by the end of September early October,
Speaker 3: one of the guys on the case is in a
Speaker 3: memo is saying, we think it might be the same person.
Speaker 3: And that's what ended up with military intelligence. There was
Speaker 3: never any follow on. Here's a fascinating thing, Chuck, There
Speaker 3: was never.
Speaker 1: Any follow on.
Speaker 3: There's never any follow on that says, oh, yeah, we
Speaker 3: actually determined they are one of the same.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, we tracked oswell.
Speaker 3: Down and he talked about this because you know, he
Speaker 3: lied to the FBI, and we usually don't have a
Speaker 3: sense of humor about that. But when HOSTI is brought
Speaker 3: back into this whole thing in Dallas because Oswell was
Speaker 3: back in Dallas, there's no memo that says, jerk this
Speaker 3: guy into the office and charge him, which is really strange.
Speaker 1: It's just like, you know, you might want to keep
Speaker 1: back of him.
Speaker 3: But by the way, we think he lied to us,
Speaker 3: and you know, lying to the FBI and New Orleans
Speaker 3: translates in Dallas into looking up Marina at Ruth and
Speaker 3: asking her or husband works. That's that's not standard FBI practice.
Speaker 3: It seems to me there's got to be a real disconnect.
Speaker 1: Something's going on, right, and now.
Speaker 2: It looks a whole lot more reasonable. Why host he
Speaker 2: got so angry because if you remember in the aftermath,
Speaker 2: I mean, he was like, hey, don't stick me with
Speaker 2: this problem, because look, my superiors are telling me to
Speaker 2: do stuff. I mean, it's not just about the note
Speaker 2: he destroyed, which you know, again is a problem. But
Speaker 2: he's always claimed that he was told get rid of it,
Speaker 2: but it seems like he was kind of told not
Speaker 2: to pursue this in a way that he probably thought
Speaker 2: was normal to pus do it all together, which is.
Speaker 3: You know, very standard, yeah, very standard stuff. Do a
Speaker 3: pretext call, find this location? Not I mean, in any
Speaker 3: other case, you might wonder why didn't they go ahead
Speaker 3: and fly to Buries, down to Dallas and pull Oswell
Speaker 3: into a room, into an interview case and stay, why
Speaker 3: do you lie to me?
Speaker 1: You know? And in the end, the strangest thing in
Speaker 1: the world.
Speaker 3: Is if you track down the documents as to why
Speaker 3: they supposedly closed out that lead.
Speaker 1: They closed it out because the.
Speaker 3: FBI called up the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and said,
Speaker 3: do you have a chapter in New Orleans? And the
Speaker 3: Fair Play for Cuba Committee wrote back and said, we don't.
Speaker 3: And the FBI Headquarters file says, well they don't, so
Speaker 3: we're good.
Speaker 1: That seems insane.
Speaker 3: There are all sorts of you know, you have to
Speaker 3: wonder what's missing out of the file. Why is this
Speaker 3: that'th so innocuous? Why what was there in New Orleans?
Speaker 3: Did New Orleans make a major mistake and take Oswell
Speaker 3: seriously and then become embarrassed by it? You know, because
Speaker 3: we don't have the New Orleans files. We only have
Speaker 3: what ended up at headquarters, which looks pretty routine. But
Speaker 3: you know, you don't have a guy volunteer. The FBI
Speaker 3: is always looking for.
Speaker 1: Sources, right, right, So this guy walks in after being.
Speaker 3: Arrested and volunteers as a source, and you just let
Speaker 3: him go and never talk to him again, which is
Speaker 3: according to the record what happened. But according to people
Speaker 3: in New Orleans who said, oh, well we saw Hosweald
Speaker 3: with FBI guys with you know, with government people, I'm
Speaker 3: now inclined to believe.
Speaker 1: That they were right.
Speaker 3: And there was an interaction going on with Oswald after
Speaker 3: his exchange after being arrested that the FBI, if want
Speaker 3: to put keep in the file.
Speaker 2: Right well cause? And was it about the post assassination
Speaker 2: embarrassment or was it about embarrassment before that. That's another
Speaker 2: question because like like I said, look, you you could
Speaker 2: almost chalk this up to well, look, the FBI was
Speaker 2: aware of the guy and they dropped the ball, so
Speaker 2: it makes sense that they don't want to really get
Speaker 2: into it too much. But the weird thing again is
Speaker 2: that all the follow up, I mean, I'm even thinking
Speaker 2: to myself the tactic that the FBI and I don't
Speaker 2: find it exactly to be, you know, an admirable tact
Speaker 2: kick on their part. But one of the things that
Speaker 2: they would have done to a guy like this is
Speaker 2: probably put FBI guys at his workplace, you know, to
Speaker 2: be obvious and get the you know, other workers and
Speaker 2: the boss nervous about Hey, the FBI is looking into
Speaker 2: this guy. Even they did stuff like that as a
Speaker 2: matter of routine, especially then, and you would have thought
Speaker 2: this guy is a perfect candidate for that, especially because
Speaker 2: they find him lying. He's involved with these you know,
Speaker 2: subversive organizations he's claiming and like you said, offers himself
Speaker 2: up as a source and all this other stuff. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's almost inconceivable that there weren't FBI guys that were
Speaker 2: seen in his vicinity, even if they were there just
Speaker 2: to sort of intimidate and just stand there all day
Speaker 2: while he's working. Uh, that's the kind of crap they
Speaker 2: would do. I mean, unless I'm reading this wrong again,
Speaker 2: Uh that that why didn't that happen? Yeah? Good?
Speaker 1: Certainly not talking to him again.
Speaker 3: Having no apparent follow on contact for weeks until he
Speaker 3: left New Orleans is strange, right, I mean.
Speaker 1: That's it's sort of like we don't. We don't go
Speaker 1: to the apartment and say, has this high Dell guy
Speaker 1: called you again? Have you been in touch with him again?
Speaker 1: When's the next meeting.
Speaker 3: We'd like to kind of monitor this next meeting, tell
Speaker 3: us when it's going to be.
Speaker 1: None of that happens. The other thing, and this is
Speaker 1: kind of off off the rails a bit. The other
Speaker 1: thing that doesn't.
Speaker 3: Happen, which when you get out of the box and
Speaker 3: you begin to think about what should have happened. I mean,
Speaker 3: Oswald is arrested after the Cubans rush up, and the
Speaker 3: Cubans have have bounced him twice, they've interfered with two
Speaker 3: of his leafleting things, and they've engaged with him on
Speaker 3: the street, and they've gone to court. Yet he goes
Speaker 3: on picketing. In fact, he goes on to have his
Speaker 3: biggest protest outside the trademark and no Cubans show up,
Speaker 3: not even counter pickets. Okay, we don't have to punch
Speaker 3: the guy, but they were. They were very outgoing in
Speaker 3: a servant that we don't even see any placards saying
Speaker 3: this guy lies. Cuba's a prison. It's like hands off.
Speaker 3: Nobody beats him up in an alley. This is a
Speaker 3: violent time. There's a very very assertive, aggressive anti Castro
Speaker 3: group and New Orleans enhancement. That's why the Fair Play
Speaker 3: for Que Committee told him not to start a chapter
Speaker 3: because it's actually even dangerous out there, and you're not
Speaker 3: gonna They don't show up. It's like somebody called them off.
Speaker 1: And one begins to wonder, did deburaus talk to somebody?
Speaker 1: Did he talk to Guy Banister?
Speaker 3: Did somebody say, hey, Oswald has given us some information
Speaker 3: and we're watching things.
Speaker 1: Don't bother them.
Speaker 2: Well see, and there you go, because at a bare minimum,
Speaker 2: guys would have been standing across the street yelling at
Speaker 2: these guys handing out the fleaflets. Right, They would have
Speaker 2: at least been don't take you know, like you see
Speaker 2: in the JFK movie, don't take this people, it's communist propaganda.
Speaker 2: You would have had guys standing, even if they were
Speaker 2: trying to be not so confrontational or violent, they would
Speaker 2: be standing across the street yelling at people that were
Speaker 2: passing by, don't take that, hey, guy in the white shirt,
Speaker 2: don't take that crap. It's communist crap. They would have
Speaker 2: at least been in that you would have thought at
Speaker 2: least a handful of those guys would have time to
Speaker 2: show up, but they.
Speaker 3: Didn't, and they don't and they don't seem to, you know,
Speaker 3: they thought enough of him at first to like do
Speaker 3: their own bogus call on him and have somebody go
Speaker 3: and try to you know, is he real is he
Speaker 3: really support Cuba?
Speaker 1: What's going on?
Speaker 3: And then apparently he keeps on, He's going on the
Speaker 3: media and nobody, nobody says anything or engages with him.
Speaker 1: In fact, when the FBI goes back to one of
Speaker 1: the guys who was at.
Speaker 3: His hearing, Artes Marta says, I never heard of Oswald's
Speaker 3: which is a risky thing to do to the FBI
Speaker 3: because you've been filmed at his hearing.
Speaker 1: You know, if the FBI I had.
Speaker 3: Done their work, they would have gone back to Partiest
Speaker 3: and said, where are you lying to us?
Speaker 1: What's going on? You know, what are you not telling us?
Speaker 3: So there are people lying all over the place and
Speaker 3: not doing what you would expect them to be doing, right.
Speaker 2: Which leads you to believe that what is likely in
Speaker 2: my mind is that they were directed to do so,
Speaker 2: you know, is that somebody said, look, just deny it,
Speaker 2: just walk away. Just let it be what it is,
Speaker 2: because there's something happening here. You know, we have a
Speaker 2: handle on this. In other words, so I would think
Speaker 2: that that message might have gotten and look at the amount,
Speaker 2: look at the different places that message could have been
Speaker 2: coming from. Oh it's funny because now it seems like
Speaker 2: we have documentation showing that those places where those kind
Speaker 2: of words would have came from to these people were informed.
Speaker 2: So you know, it leads to a logical conclusion that
Speaker 2: the people that were working with the DRE said, listen,
Speaker 2: leave them alone, right, The people that were CIA said
Speaker 2: leave them alone. The people that were FBI said, look,
Speaker 2: we have a handle on this already, leave them alone.
Speaker 2: And thus they did. Or am I drawing the wrong
Speaker 2: conclusion here? No, and we would.
Speaker 3: It would be understandable. It would be understandable. And by
Speaker 3: the way, Chuck, are we still connected?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, we're good.
Speaker 1: Okay, I got a strange blip and message. But anyway,
Speaker 1: it would be understandable that.
Speaker 3: The FBI would take that position if they did consider
Speaker 3: him as a potential source, right, if they were kind
Speaker 3: of in the background, monitoring, waiting, waiting for a high
Speaker 3: down meeting, waiting for whatever or talking to him. Uh
Speaker 3: that would that would make some sense from the FBI's perspective. Uh, now,
Speaker 3: it certainly doesn't make any spend. You know, you've read
Speaker 3: Hosty's book and from hostings you it's sort of like
Speaker 3: Oswell is not even a host He's not even heard
Speaker 3: of Oswell until he gets this file on his desk
Speaker 3: the day before the assassination, you know, just just days before.
Speaker 3: Whereas now we know Hosty had been the guy who
Speaker 3: had been asked by FBI headquarters to give them background
Speaker 3: on Oswald in at the end of August and in
Speaker 3: September when he becomes a potential national security question for headquarters.
Speaker 3: So it's not like Hosty didn't know what was going
Speaker 3: on in New Orleans either. So that's but anyway, so
Speaker 3: the FBI, pursuing its own path and its own practices,
Speaker 3: might have had a legitimate reason to keep hands off
Speaker 3: for a while, at least. I don't quite understand why
Speaker 3: that would last all the way up to the.
Speaker 1: Time of the assassination.
Speaker 3: But that the question is why would the CIA not
Speaker 3: be responding, what would the why would the CIA know
Speaker 3: about him and apparently not be interested in him because
Speaker 3: their own group we know now, and we know that
Speaker 3: the student director was reporting it to their case officer.
Speaker 3: And you know, we know that the CIA was aware
Speaker 3: that its own surrogates, its own people, had already started
Speaker 3: to do propaganda around Oswald and would continue to do
Speaker 3: that because.
Speaker 1: He was a perfect foil.
Speaker 3: I mean, he's the perfect mixture of you know, former
Speaker 3: you know FBI, sorry from former marine, you know, young, naive, gullible,
Speaker 3: the Cubans and the Communists have warped his war. He's
Speaker 3: great propaganda vehicle. But suddenly the DR stops doing that
Speaker 3: and everything goes silent.
Speaker 1: It's like, what's going on at the CIA level?
Speaker 3: Everybody we now know knows about him, But why don't
Speaker 3: they engage with him. Why don't they get behind the
Speaker 3: d R and support that effort, because that's what they're
Speaker 3: paying the DR to do. Why you know, what's going on?
Speaker 3: We see this silence to send all over all over
Speaker 3: the not only headquarters in Miami. In fact, it's so
Speaker 3: silent that when he goes to Mexico City and Mexico
Speaker 3: City ask for information on him, nobody will share it.
Speaker 3: So it's not silent because somebody's ignoring it or missed
Speaker 3: the point. It's that a conscious decision was made not
Speaker 3: to share it. And as Bill Simpacz pointed out, somebody
Speaker 3: already pulled his two oh one and made a SAFT
Speaker 3: file and cleaned it out for some purpose. Okay, And
Speaker 3: they just did that that fall. So there is something
Speaker 3: active going on with the CIA. Also, it's not just ignorance.
Speaker 3: It's not just doing their job. They're doing their job,
Speaker 3: and actually they're doing a job that they don't want
Speaker 3: to explain later after the assassination.
Speaker 2: Well, right, because here's the thing again, the two you know,
Speaker 2: most likely explanations are that either he's useless as you know,
Speaker 2: an asset for whatever purpose, or he is useful, and
Speaker 2: therefore they don't want to admit that they had, you know,
Speaker 2: hands on him pretty much and should have known what
Speaker 2: he was doing. So, you know, one way or the other,
Speaker 2: they don't want to cop to that and say, look,
Speaker 2: we knew about him, We knew all about him, because
Speaker 2: whether he's their guy or not, you know, here we go,
Speaker 2: So you knew about the guy who killed the president, right,
Speaker 2: how come you didn't know that he was going to
Speaker 2: do that? You know, it's it's it's so much, it's
Speaker 2: it's it's crazy because again, this was speculating about for
Speaker 2: a long time and now we have, you know, solid
Speaker 2: proof that no, you can't claim ignorance, you can't claim well,
Speaker 2: we didn't know, he was just some loser, you know, again,
Speaker 2: totally destroying Daryl Posner's whole gig pretty much when he
Speaker 2: shows up on media and goes, oh, you know, people
Speaker 2: just don't want to admit that this guy, you didn't
Speaker 2: really matter to anybody, you know, pulled this off. That's
Speaker 2: his whole thing, right, I mean, that's why nobody wants
Speaker 2: to accept his book. That's why nobody wants to accept
Speaker 2: the low nut solution, because we just don't want to
Speaker 2: accept that there's nobody did this and he says it
Speaker 2: today even I mean, he's been doing this for thirty
Speaker 2: years now, right, I mean, what do you do with this?
Speaker 2: This is the narrative falling apart, is what it is.
Speaker 3: The narrative falls apart, and I think what it does
Speaker 3: is open the doors for us, because that's what my
Speaker 3: blog post was about, is so we have made a
Speaker 3: box for ourselves of what we thought was going on
Speaker 3: with Oswald. Now Posner and others tried to make a
Speaker 3: box for us and force us in it.
Speaker 1: But we've made a bit of a box ourselves.
Speaker 3: By making assumptions before we really understood how these agencies
Speaker 3: operated on a daily basis, before we had these documents
Speaker 3: that showed who was sharing information with who.
Speaker 1: You know, we made a lot of We not that
Speaker 1: these were bad assumptions.
Speaker 3: It's kind of like you did the best you could
Speaker 3: with what you had at the time. But we've got
Speaker 3: We've got a lot more now, and we should be
Speaker 3: opening up a lot more doors.
Speaker 1: For example, and.
Speaker 3: If if I, if I were, you know, able to
Speaker 3: give Representative Luna list, I would say, you know, if
Speaker 3: I were asking for documents for the see from the
Speaker 3: CIA from nineteen sixty three, I would want to know
Speaker 3: about all of the propaganda operations that the Cuba Project
Speaker 3: was doing that might have involved like Harvey Oswald, not
Speaker 3: necessarily personally, but by name, because as it turns out,
Speaker 3: we now know that half of their budget was going
Speaker 3: to propaganda and political action, and we have no documents
Speaker 3: on any of that. We know everything there is to
Speaker 3: know about their paramilitary operations, sabotage missions, you know, second
Speaker 3: Naval Gorilla and what we know about all those guys
Speaker 3: down in the Keys and what they were doing, right,
Speaker 3: but we know nothing about what the other staffers were doing,
Speaker 3: people like Tilton and folks that David has discovered that
Speaker 3: are now names to us.
Speaker 1: That we didn't even know about before.
Speaker 3: What were they doing because they would have been the
Speaker 3: ones who OSWA would have been of interest to.
Speaker 2: So what we're what we're missing here in those documents? Yeah,
Speaker 2: So what we're missing here from the entire anti Cuban operation,
Speaker 2: the anti Castro excuse me not anti Cuban, anti Castro
Speaker 2: operation focusing on Cuba, is where's the propaganda stuff? Because
Speaker 2: clearly there had to be that there was a public
Speaker 2: you know, thing going on there regardless of all this
Speaker 2: stuff we're learning about that you know clearly wouldn't have
Speaker 2: been in the public's view. There was clearly public operations
Speaker 2: that were happening to get people to say, look, it's
Speaker 2: just a communist thing. You know, they're nothing but a
Speaker 2: Russian puppet. That's it. You know, Castro is a dictator.
Speaker 2: I mean to continuously put that across in the media,
Speaker 2: in the public's consciousness, to make it just a given point.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have a propaganda operation obviously in you know,
Speaker 2: in in full view, and clearly Oswald is also in
Speaker 2: full view. He's doing his thing. So is it part
Speaker 2: of it or is it something that they're working against?
Speaker 2: And we now know that they were fully aware of them.
Speaker 2: So where is that stuff? Where is the propaganda operation
Speaker 2: that touches upon this character? I mean, is that what
Speaker 2: we're getting to here?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we know we have the connective tissue, and
Speaker 1: this kind of amazes me.
Speaker 3: It's one of the things moving moving me out of
Speaker 3: my box is between what Bill Simpitch has done and
Speaker 3: what Dave has done. As I mentioned earlier, the FBI
Speaker 3: was providing all sorts of information of the CIA, which
Speaker 3: is kind of funny because the FBI, you know, we
Speaker 3: always say they don't share anything with anybody.
Speaker 1: Well, actually they.
Speaker 3: Were sharing Lee Harvey Ossel with the CIA, not everything,
Speaker 3: and the CIA wasn't asking for much.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that we found going back from.
Speaker 3: The CIA to the FBI is the CIA sends a
Speaker 3: memo to the guy who's at the FBI Cuba ask
Speaker 3: and says, hey, we're in September, We're about to launch
Speaker 3: this new black propaganda project against the FPCC, and we're
Speaker 3: going to do this internationally and we need to actually,
Speaker 3: we need to help you to help us, because you've
Speaker 3: got a source inside the FPCC. We need copies of
Speaker 3: correspondence letters to the FPCC, responses names, you know, because
Speaker 3: we're going to make up a bunch of bad stuff
Speaker 3: about the FPCC and start planning it overseas in Central
Speaker 3: America Caribbean where they still had FPC still had a voice,
Speaker 3: because there was a lot more support for Cuba, and
Speaker 3: that's where we're going to.
Speaker 1: Wage our propaganda war.
Speaker 3: So we'd like for you to provide us with some
Speaker 3: stuff from your source, you know, that we can use
Speaker 3: in this mission, because we're launching this new project. Right
Speaker 3: and that's the last we hear of it. Not a
Speaker 3: single follow on document from the special staff about what
Speaker 3: the project was, what it involved. But what we do
Speaker 3: know is that they're the asset that the FBI turned to,
Speaker 3: was the one who passed on the correspondence who had
Speaker 3: been corresponding with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2: So meanwhile, and it makes perfect.
Speaker 3: That Lee Harvey Oswell comes up again. Oh we just
Speaker 3: heard of Lee Harvey Oswell and the FPCC. Oh, and
Speaker 3: here we have correspondents from Lee Harvey Oswell, Lee, if
Speaker 3: you know, maybe we should use this buy in the
Speaker 3: propaganda project.
Speaker 2: Well, at the very least, Look, if he's an informant,
Speaker 2: then he's useful in that project. And if he's an
Speaker 2: informant who is not going to be cooperative, then he's still,
Speaker 2: guess what, useful in that project. So either way, no
Speaker 2: matter what his orientation is, he's useful. This isn't the
Speaker 2: only thing you're going to be discussing at Lancer though, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's there's a lot more stuff that you
Speaker 2: guys are going to go into.
Speaker 1: Uh. Yeah, there's a lot more. There's a lot more detail,
Speaker 1: of course of who knows what.
Speaker 3: But I think two of the key things we'll be
Speaker 3: discussing is what the FBI knew and might have been
Speaker 3: doing with Oswald and acknowledge, what the CIA knew and
Speaker 3: might have been doing with Oswald and dignity acknowledge. But
Speaker 3: there is other information that's coming available, for example, but
Speaker 3: you know, we're not going to have time to cover
Speaker 3: all of that. There is information as to that develops
Speaker 3: from this, as to who else might have known about
Speaker 3: Oswald that could have pulled them into a conspiracy and
Speaker 3: started to manage them because you've got to take trace
Speaker 3: those trails to Jmwave and Miami Base as well and
Speaker 3: the Cuban community there. The other thing that comes up
Speaker 3: that I brought up in the bog post is we
Speaker 3: now know from some of the information that's just been
Speaker 3: released after, you know, making us take another look at it,
Speaker 3: that the Castro assassination project, which involved JMWAVE staff paramilitary staff,
Speaker 3: which was referred specifically to by Harvey as ZR Rifle
Speaker 3: slash em I for Miami Station, was very much alive
Speaker 3: and operational and didn't get canceled out and was still
Speaker 3: a very very going.
Speaker 1: Thing up to the time of the assassination.
Speaker 3: We have no records on it, and one of the
Speaker 3: things that's becoming a real question is was it so
Speaker 3: strictly compartmentalized that nobody, even Fitzgerald, the head of Special
Speaker 3: Affair staff, was aware of it.
Speaker 1: Harvey may have been running this bottom line chucked to
Speaker 1: a nutshell.
Speaker 3: At the point is Bissell had given Harvey the task
Speaker 3: to set up an executive assassination program. Harvey had been
Speaker 3: removed and Helms allowed that to continue, and Helms allowed
Speaker 3: it to be funded, but there's no sign that anybody
Speaker 3: ever told Fitzgerald about it. And Fitzgerald launched his own
Speaker 3: Castro assassination project with Coebella, and so you may very
Speaker 3: well have had to completely compartmentalized assassination projects running at
Speaker 3: the same time through some of the same people, and
Speaker 3: we never heard.
Speaker 1: About that either.
Speaker 3: There's just a lot that's that these bits of data there,
Speaker 3: we didn't never really accepted that Harvey was running for
Speaker 3: sure with the guys at JM Wave, the paramilitary staff
Speaker 3: like Morales and Robertson Bradley errors that told us that,
Speaker 3: but we had no proof of it. Now we find
Speaker 3: a record of Harvey that says exactly that, and that's
Speaker 3: where he was charging his expenses, right.
Speaker 2: And meanwhile we also have this other anomalist thing that
Speaker 2: went on what we talked about regarding the you know,
Speaker 2: the the FAA credentials and all these other things that
Speaker 2: go on, which now you have to look at it
Speaker 2: all differently based on the new information, right, I mean, anyway,
Speaker 2: there's a lot to cover here, and clearly you're going
Speaker 2: to get into it in depth as you and David
Speaker 2: do this presentation, uh and and really show us a
Speaker 2: lot of new stuff. And the funny thing is, look
Speaker 2: the Oswald puzzle. It kind of almost seems like it
Speaker 2: needs an addendum.
Speaker 3: Now, uh, you know that happens to me every time
Speaker 3: I swear it's it's kind of it's great in a way,
Speaker 3: and then you go, well, you know, how could you
Speaker 3: Why did you put that in the first book?
Speaker 1: Well, because I didn't know it for the first edition.
Speaker 1: What can I tell you?
Speaker 5: You know, we did.
Speaker 3: I did three editions, as somewhat have talked, and people went, well,
Speaker 3: why did why'd you do three editions?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, you learn things over time. You didn't
Speaker 1: know that, and it's the amazing.
Speaker 3: Thing is we're still learning things well news, which is
Speaker 3: almost unbelievable this much later.
Speaker 2: Well, new stuff comes out all the time, and I'll
Speaker 2: take it away from you on that. You know, so
Speaker 2: it's not just you, but yeah, you have had to
Speaker 2: add and you've done three versions off someone would have talked,
Speaker 2: which I advise all of them are useful, but but
Speaker 2: if you get the latest one, you get the most
Speaker 2: complete because new stuff came out. But I always find
Speaker 2: it funny when some people start saying things about like,
Speaker 2: you know, the JFK movie with you know, Oliver Stone.
Speaker 2: And they turn around and they go, how come you
Speaker 2: didn't put this in the movie? And I look at
Speaker 2: it and I go, guys, do you realize that that
Speaker 2: stuff like came out after the movie? It came out
Speaker 2: as a result of the boost that the movie gave
Speaker 2: to the release the files movement. Like, so it's impossible
Speaker 2: for Oliverstone to have put that in the movie. We
Speaker 2: didn't have it yet. You know, this is new, so
Speaker 2: you can't you know, you can't rewind. You can't go
Speaker 2: back in your time machine and go, okay, now add
Speaker 2: this to the movie. And if you did, you'd screw
Speaker 2: things up badly because we didn't have it yet, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know you've heard that before where somebody
Speaker 2: said it's kind of weird that he didn't put this
Speaker 2: in the movie, and I go, yeah, he couldn't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And it's tough because somebody will say, well, now
Speaker 3: we know that what you had in your first edition
Speaker 3: was wrong on this point.
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, we do, and I wish I could
Speaker 1: edit it, but I do not have a time machine, right,
Speaker 1: you know, That's just the way it is. Do you
Speaker 1: do the basketball is what you have at the moment, right, and.
Speaker 2: This has contented. Look, and it has continued to evolve,
Speaker 2: and there have been, you know, times of rapid evolution,
Speaker 2: and there have been very slow years where things have
Speaker 2: not gone on. I mean, it felt like forever waiting
Speaker 2: to get to twenty seventeen, Larry, I got to tell you,
Speaker 2: and I often talk about this because it was so
Speaker 2: frustrating waiting to get to twenty seventeen. And then, of course,
Speaker 2: you know, Trump comes in and everybody screaming at me,
Speaker 2: you know that was happy about that. They say, oh, well,
Speaker 2: he's definitely going to release everything, you know, and don't worry.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, oh, no, guys, And I told everybody
Speaker 2: in advance that I said, no, you're about to learn
Speaker 2: a very very rough lesson because I'm telling you that,
Speaker 2: no matter who's in that office, there is always a
Speaker 2: reluctance to drop everything out there in the public's you know,
Speaker 2: in the public's fingers. It's not going to happen. And
Speaker 2: everybody thought, oh, you know, you're just a guy who
Speaker 2: doesn't want to support Trump. So I'm like, no, it's
Speaker 2: got nothing to do with Trump. I'm telling you that
Speaker 2: they will not release all this stuff, even though we've
Speaker 2: been waiting twenty five years, and we did. We waited
Speaker 2: twenty five years to get to twenty seventeen, and a
Speaker 2: lot of people forget that. And then when Trump did
Speaker 2: what he did, and then they went, well, don't worry,
Speaker 2: because we'll get another president there and he'll do it different.
Speaker 2: And I shook my head again and said, no, guys, listen,
Speaker 2: we are going to deal with the resistance still. I
Speaker 2: promise you. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or
Speaker 2: a publican, or it doesn't matter. The government doesn't want
Speaker 2: to give us this stuff. Watch and learn and what
Speaker 2: did Biden do? So, you know, and that's when the
Speaker 2: lawsuit started with Mary Farrell and everything, and everybody went, oh,
Speaker 2: we got to sue bide him because he was terrible.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, guys, remember that whole Trump disappointment. It's
Speaker 2: still gonna happen. So I got to say, at least
Speaker 2: over this past you know, ten years, it's been interesting
Speaker 2: to watch the evolution and to watch that, you know,
Speaker 2: finally we do have a bunch of stuff that we
Speaker 2: should have had about, you know, eight years ago or so,
Speaker 2: you know, finally come out. And I'm glad I'm happy
Speaker 2: for the progress. But anybody that thinks that, you know,
Speaker 2: it's like flip a switch and it's all gonna come out,
Speaker 2: you know, I just I always advise the caution against it, because, sadly,
Speaker 2: this comes right back to the point that you made. Sadly,
Speaker 2: as we write about these things and we analyze them,
Speaker 2: we can only work with what we have. And true,
Speaker 2: the new stuff will change that if there's anything new
Speaker 2: in it, and sometimes there is. Yes, it's buried in
Speaker 2: a lot of stuff. And you know this too, and
Speaker 2: I just want to get your take on this and
Speaker 2: then we'll just close it out. But a whole lot
Speaker 2: of the many many, many, many many pages they come out, right,
Speaker 2: and the many many, many many documents that come out,
Speaker 2: a whole lot of this stuff. Yes we have seen
Speaker 2: it before, but it takes somebody, and you're not going
Speaker 2: to do it with an AI yet. It takes somebody
Speaker 2: going through it and comparing what we had with what
Speaker 2: we now see in order to figure out what's different,
Speaker 2: just to begin to know what was added to the information.
Speaker 2: And then once you do that, you got to take
Speaker 2: it and put it into context. And that's what Larry does.
Speaker 2: But again he can only work with what he has.
Speaker 2: So you know, when was the first version of someone
Speaker 2: would have talked. I'm embarrassed to say, I don't remember
Speaker 2: what year it came out, but when was the first
Speaker 2: version of that book published?
Speaker 1: It was two thousand and six, okay six, and it
Speaker 1: came out. It came out as a as a well.
Speaker 3: I think actually two thousand and four was the very
Speaker 3: first version, and it came out in a comb binding
Speaker 3: in two thousand and six. Two years later we did
Speaker 3: the hardcover, and then in twenty and ten we did
Speaker 3: the soft cover. So it had that happened over period
Speaker 3: of about six years, right for those three editions.
Speaker 2: So the initial thing you're talking about with the combinding,
Speaker 2: that's like that plastic spiral stuff that you see sometimes
Speaker 2: on that version. I saw those, but I don't have one.
Speaker 2: I saw those and it was remarkable. It was interesting.
Speaker 2: It was like a collection of exactly how far we
Speaker 2: could have gone? Ready for this, guys around the fortieth anniversary,
Speaker 2: Like Larry waited for the fortieth anniversary to come and
Speaker 2: go and then drop that out there as like this
Speaker 2: is how far we've got on and you know, now
Speaker 2: we're past the sixtieth anniversary, okay, and hello, it's twenty
Speaker 2: years later plus, and yeah, there's been new information. And
Speaker 2: you know that is not the fault of a guy
Speaker 2: like Larry Hancock or really anybody else that is you know,
Speaker 2: doing their best to show you what is available. We
Speaker 2: can only work with what we have at the time.
Speaker 2: And as time has gone on, we've gotten more and
Speaker 2: that's the important thing. And even if it's small stuff,
Speaker 2: here we go. We're now filling in things and able
Speaker 2: to you know, finally clear up any of these sorts
Speaker 2: of you know, issues. Like I said before, for many years,
Speaker 2: there was this argument in legacy media especially like you know, look,
Speaker 2: this loser did this and there's no way that anybody
Speaker 2: could have stopped him, and you know, and so on
Speaker 2: and so forth. And we're on the other side going, yeah,
Speaker 2: but he didn't really do it, you know, and they're going, look,
Speaker 2: you don't want to accept it, because you know, that
Speaker 2: whole argument has now been undermined. Even though they made
Speaker 2: that argument for probably I don't know, those first forty
Speaker 2: years pretty much, you know, I mean, they did it
Speaker 2: well ahead of Posner. Posner was just the he's kind
Speaker 2: of like the last survivor of that group from the
Speaker 2: nineties that were introduced out there to counter you know,
Speaker 2: the counter myth of you know, of Oliver Stones film
Speaker 2: and the impact it made. And therefore we're still dealing
Speaker 2: with the legacy of that because guess what, that's where
Speaker 2: a lot of these documents came from the aftermath of that.
Speaker 2: So anyway, Larry, anyway you want to close this out,
Speaker 2: let's just do that and we may talk on Friday
Speaker 2: briefly and we may get one more chance to talk
Speaker 2: before Lancer. But really grateful that you took the time
Speaker 2: to do this with us tonight. But anything you want
Speaker 2: to say in closing the floor is yours.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think, just to illustrate your last point, it's
Speaker 3: come a higher level point.
Speaker 1: Shock is at some point in time, we have to
Speaker 1: learn that we're not going to be given all the
Speaker 1: information we want, and we have to accept that.
Speaker 3: But we're also going to have to learn that we
Speaker 3: can't necessarily trust all the denials. People should have said
Speaker 3: things we now know they knew things that they should
Speaker 3: have said. There should have been whistleblowers, there were not
Speaker 3: at the time. That just didn't happen, and so people
Speaker 3: like Posner and those folks should not be allowed to
Speaker 3: get away with the premise that, well, if there'd been
Speaker 3: something shady going on at any level, people would have
Speaker 3: revealed that. Their consciousness would have been clear, they would
Speaker 3: have shared that, and so we can really trust what
Speaker 3: we're you know, we can trust their lack of information. Okay,
Speaker 3: we don't have to question that there's nothing more in there,
Speaker 3: or they would have told us.
Speaker 1: I kind of strikes me. It's like I interviewed the.
Speaker 3: News photographer video guy who had been in the sixty
Speaker 3: four schoolbook depository on the sixty four after the assassination.
Speaker 3: He saw the bullets being picked up, he saw them
Speaker 3: being thrown down, he saw them being taken in, photographed
Speaker 3: his evidence after they've been picked up and thrown down.
Speaker 3: And I challenged him about that, and basically he said, yeah,
Speaker 3: that's right. So the police, what's the photographic record regarding
Speaker 3: to the halls, shellcaseinges, and the boxes. It's false because
Speaker 3: they screwed up how they did it. The crime scene
Speaker 3: guy didn't know what he was doing. He mishandled it
Speaker 3: and they had to refilm all of that later. And
Speaker 3: I said, well, okay, Tom, all right, And then he said,
Speaker 3: but of course, all the other evident was good. So
Speaker 3: it's like, Tom, you just told me that the Dallas
Speaker 3: Police reconfigured crime scene evidence and it doesn't reflect the
Speaker 3: true story. And then they swore that it was accurate.
Speaker 3: Yet you trust everything else that they said, and he
Speaker 3: said yeah, And so at that point in time, I
Speaker 3: just paid for lunch and we walked away.
Speaker 1: And it's like, wait a minute, no, you can't.
Speaker 3: If you can prove this part is false, you can't
Speaker 3: just blithely accept everything else as being through.
Speaker 2: You're talking about Tom Olier, the guy who actually took
Speaker 2: the film inside the uh, you know, the sixth floor
Speaker 2: and threw his film out the window to get it
Speaker 2: out to the team.
Speaker 1: Stay, we lost the connection.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. Let me just double check.
Speaker 1: Here, Chuck, I think you went away.
Speaker 2: Here we are, here, we are. I got it. You're talking. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you're talking about Tom Olier and Tom And what's amazing, guy,
Speaker 2: what's amazing is this is the guy who is just
Speaker 2: for the listeners. This is the guy who's responsible for
Speaker 2: filming inside the sixth floor, you know, of the depository
Speaker 2: and that black and white film of the alleged search
Speaker 2: and everything. And he's the guy who you know legendarily
Speaker 2: threw his film out the window to get it over
Speaker 2: to the TV station. And it's a great piece of
Speaker 2: film and everything. But when you learn that a lot
Speaker 2: of things were photographed and staged afterwards, and then you go, okay, now,
Speaker 2: I know I have staged photographs of the evidence being
Speaker 2: laid down, but he's willing to accept the rest of it.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's kind of funny because it negates all
Speaker 2: those analyzes of, well, look at where the bullets are.
Speaker 2: Did they actually you know, get ejected from the rifle
Speaker 2: like this or that? Yeah, it doesn't really matter if
Speaker 2: these guys just threw them back on the floor, okay,
Speaker 2: because they've destroyed the crime scene. Now, okay, that's that's it.
Speaker 2: It's over.
Speaker 3: And yeah, for all the boxes like that, if you
Speaker 3: go to the Warrant Commission and you look at this
Speaker 3: great layout and photographs of Oswalds shooting position right.
Speaker 1: And Tom told me, no, that box was not out
Speaker 1: in the window like that. I thought it was not
Speaker 1: out in the window like that.
Speaker 3: It's like they put it out it what you know,
Speaker 3: it just made no sense whatsoever. Which so that's kind
Speaker 3: of a you know, one of those moments when you go, oh, geez, okay,
Speaker 3: I better, I better open the filter a little bit.
Speaker 3: I can't take all of this is self evident, right.
Speaker 2: And here's the funny part about that is that metaphorically
Speaker 2: it's perfect what you're bringing up because for years people said, look,
Speaker 2: they're staring at photographs and film pieces and saying, the
Speaker 2: boxes have been moved. Right, So people were doing that
Speaker 2: from way outside with a blurry picture, going the boxes
Speaker 2: have been moved. They're not in the same configuration they
Speaker 2: were fifteen minutes ago, and people did studies on this,
Speaker 2: and people were thought people were nuts. Why are you
Speaker 2: studying the boxes? They're moving them, is why? Okay, they're
Speaker 2: being moved. So this whole concept and even when you
Speaker 2: go to look at the six floor Museum, I'm sorry
Speaker 2: to say, you go to look at the six floor
Speaker 2: Museum and they have, you know, the glass around the
Speaker 2: sixth floor window with the boxes, and they go, okay, indeed,
Speaker 2: those may be exactly the same kind of boxes that
Speaker 2: were there in nineteen sixty three. They may even be
Speaker 2: the boxes, but they're not configured correctly. They're not shown
Speaker 2: because they were being moved around and people knew it
Speaker 2: from outside the window with a blurry picture for years
Speaker 2: and years, and remarkably, you could have heard from other people.
Speaker 2: They could have blown the whistle, like you said, and said,
Speaker 2: I saw these things move, I knew this, this happened,
Speaker 2: and that happened. Well, why didn't you say anything? Well,
Speaker 2: the rest of the evidence seemed good. So and that's that.
Speaker 2: That explains a lot, doesn't.
Speaker 3: I'm going to trust everything else, The crime scene guy said, yeah,
Speaker 3: And I tended to. I tended to give Tom some credibility.
Speaker 3: And here's the reason, other than he was just being
Speaker 3: sincere and adamant about it.
Speaker 1: But it was like he published on his.
Speaker 3: Own three different newsletters which I bought copies of, that
Speaker 3: asserted the absolute truth of Oswald being the low nut shooter.
Speaker 3: I mean, his whole point was to push back against
Speaker 3: conspiracy people. Yet as part of that he was presenting
Speaker 3: his own information, you know, undermining the evidence in custody
Speaker 3: by the Dallas police. And so it's like I figured
Speaker 3: he must be he must be sincere. If he's that
Speaker 3: you know that bipolar.
Speaker 2: Well there you go, because why would you even undermine
Speaker 2: your own case otherwise? So no, and I find that completely.
Speaker 12: The war State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 12: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 12: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 12: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 12: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 12: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 12: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 12: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 12: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 12: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 12: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 12: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 12: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 12: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 12: go to war anyway.
Speaker 8: The War State by Michael Swanson.
Speaker 12: Reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 12: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com