Speaker 1: Get get ready for July sixteenth, twenty twenty five, allegedly
Speaker 1: according to that thing we call a calendar, this Woden's Day, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: middle of the week, hump day, whatever you want to
Speaker 1: call it. And we're doing a double live show on
Speaker 1: the stream now, two completely diverse topics for sewer and
Speaker 1: in the first hour we're gonna be talking to Larry Hancock.
Speaker 1: Of course, go to larrydash Hancock dot com. If you
Speaker 1: have listened to my show before, you're familiar, and you
Speaker 1: should be familiar with the fact that I highly recommend
Speaker 1: all of his books. But gotta tell you a special
Speaker 1: place for not only things like in Denial and I
Speaker 1: don't know, Creating Chaos and a few other things that
Speaker 1: are oh so oh maybe not relevant to today's news,
Speaker 1: right chuck, he said sarcastically as I read my own
Speaker 1: parenthetical commentary. The thing is this, Larry's got a lot
Speaker 1: to say, and he's usually ahead of the curve, and
Speaker 1: I love that. Plus he's a responsible historian and if
Speaker 1: you don't know it, you need to know it, So
Speaker 1: go get the books. The Oswald Puzzle is the latest
Speaker 1: and the one that I highly recommend in the future.
Speaker 1: I might want to talk to Larry about Joean Mellon
Speaker 1: a little, but I did a two part tribute to
Speaker 1: her already on this show, so not today. We have
Speaker 1: other things in the news, and indeed I'm going to
Speaker 1: get to it and again go to larrydash Hancock dot
Speaker 1: com and any one of Larry's books you don't already have,
Speaker 1: go get it. Anyhow, back to the subject at hand.
Speaker 1: The fact is I had Jefferson Morley on this show
Speaker 1: long time ago, and I used to follow them when
Speaker 1: all I was doing was reading things like Deep Politics
Speaker 1: Quarterly and gee, what was that other thing, the Crosswinds
Speaker 1: or whatever? I forget what it was called. And you
Speaker 1: know different magazines out there, zines, in general newsletters, etc.
Speaker 1: Email chains. You know, was even on the Vince Landria
Speaker 1: email chain for a minute, although my name wasn't on it.
Speaker 1: It was actually somebody else's and I ended up inheriting it.
Speaker 1: Strange story there, Maybe someday I'll tell it. But the
Speaker 1: point is I've been involved in the community a long
Speaker 1: time and one of the things that we learned very
Speaker 1: early on was that there was this guy, George Joannides
Speaker 1: who got sent to the hsca as a liaison from
Speaker 1: the CIA. Why because they needed one, They needed to
Speaker 1: communicate with the agency during the investigation. I'm speaking in shorthand.
Speaker 1: If you're not a JFK person, you might not be
Speaker 1: savvy on this, but trust me, you might get that
Speaker 1: way because it's been in the news. Anyway, back to it.
Speaker 1: Jefferson Morley, who was a journalist and still is a
Speaker 1: journalist of sorts, but is also now the I think
Speaker 1: he's the vice chair of the Mary Farrell Foundation, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Anyway, Jeff is a published author, highly respected
Speaker 1: in the community, et cetera. But he sued the CIA
Speaker 1: and most famously was turned down on his last go
Speaker 1: round by Brett Kavanaugh. Even you know the guy who's
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. Now, yeah, that Trump judge said, now,
Speaker 1: you're not getting the CIA files on this guy. Joe Needes,
Speaker 1: who was the liaison to the HSCA, who was involved
Speaker 1: in the DRE, who was maybe privy to some things
Speaker 1: about Oswald, et cetera, et cetera. Big mess, big lies,
Speaker 1: lot of stuff there. We in the community knew that
Speaker 1: Jeff was right, but he kept suing the CIA, trying
Speaker 1: to get him to just give over their documentations, whatever
Speaker 1: is left of it, and they wouldn't budge, and he
Speaker 1: kept going to court, and kept going to court, and
Speaker 1: kept going to court. And now recent transparencies allegedly have
Speaker 1: finally freed the Joe and Edes files. Now are they
Speaker 1: all of them? Are they part of them? Are they
Speaker 1: more than what we had before? Are they a bit
Speaker 1: beyond the bootleg bits that did float around when people
Speaker 1: got a hold of documents they weren't supposed to, not
Speaker 1: because they were international spies or anything, but because it
Speaker 1: was such a nightmare at NARA or the National Archives
Speaker 1: that sometimes you got a hold of things you weren't
Speaker 1: supposed to do, and also they changed the rules about
Speaker 1: things you were supposed to get hold of it. At
Speaker 1: one point, indeed, you didn't know if you had declassified
Speaker 1: or classified documentation in your hand at a certain point
Speaker 1: in JFK research history. But put all that confusion aside,
Speaker 1: we may have some clarity. We may have a new
Speaker 1: revelation and confirmation of what it is we've suspected for
Speaker 1: a long time, what it is that Jeff Morley has
Speaker 1: said for a long time, and what it is that
Speaker 1: CIA and the government in general has denied and obfuscated
Speaker 1: and completely obstructed about regarding freedom of information and this
Speaker 1: character George, Joe, and Ed's now Larry. That is my
Speaker 1: quick summary, and I'm trying to be as objective as
Speaker 1: possible here. But the fact is the government lied to us.
Speaker 1: We knew they lied to us because we knew about
Speaker 1: Joe and Eades, but we didn't have the files to
Speaker 1: confirm certain things. And Jeff was the crusader, was the
Speaker 1: guy who in the government was going after it seemingly
Speaker 1: as a journalist slash author slash researcher for years and years.
Speaker 1: I mean indeed I had him on after the case
Speaker 1: was virtually dead but then resurrected once again in twenty
Speaker 1: fourteen or fifteen somewhere in there. So ten years ago,
Speaker 1: I'm talking to Jeff about a case he had already
Speaker 1: been at for a while, and yeah, we knew that
Speaker 1: this was what it was. But now we've got some
Speaker 1: new documentation and it has made some headlines. So I
Speaker 1: just want to throw it on the table. Maybe I'm
Speaker 1: all wet regarding this, right they used to use that phrase,
Speaker 1: you're all wet, like you don't know what you talking about.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you're you're wet and confused at
Speaker 1: the same time. But then again, if I think back
Speaker 1: to parties as a teenager, I could I can imagine that.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Larry, and you've been in the military, So anyhow,
Speaker 1: what are we talking about here? I mean, the Joe
Speaker 1: Needy stuff is finally, at least in part release, do
Speaker 1: we do we have what Jeff was suing for for years?
Speaker 1: And in that case, do we end up with a
Speaker 1: big yawn because we knew all this or is there
Speaker 1: something new in it? Is there? I don't know. There's
Speaker 1: a lot to be said and a lot to be
Speaker 1: looked at. And quite honestly, I haven't done my own
Speaker 1: analysis of this yet, so I'm not going to make
Speaker 1: any solid declaration here, but maybe you could. What have
Speaker 1: you seen?
Speaker 2: What do you know?
Speaker 1: And have I given this a fair introduction?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: At you And we've been beating this David, and I've
Speaker 4: been beating this back and forth with David the last
Speaker 4: few weeks as it is, anyway, just kind of trying
Speaker 4: to see what he's getting, what it means, that sort
Speaker 4: of thing. I think. I think one of the fundamental
Speaker 4: things is this takes us back to something that Peter
Speaker 4: Dale'scot came up with decades ago, which is the concept
Speaker 4: of a negative template. You know, if somebody is trying
Speaker 4: to hide something from you, and somebody is smart and
Speaker 4: somebody has a lot of control, they will mean, they
Speaker 4: will destroy things, they'll move things around. And if you
Speaker 4: if you expect to find something that the CIA has
Speaker 4: been hiding from you since nineteen sixty three, and something
Speaker 4: that's so explosive that they chose to do that for
Speaker 4: the Warrant Commission and the House Select Committee and everybody.
Speaker 4: You know, it's got to be significant enough, so it
Speaker 4: creates a whole Are you going to find that? You know?
Speaker 1: Just say no, no, just one second there, because something
Speaker 1: you reminded me of a Peterdale Scott presentation and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna butcher what he said. Uh, but he wanted to
Speaker 1: remind everybody at the end of his you know discussion.
Speaker 1: It was one of those you know, Dallas sixty three
Speaker 1: things he did and I'm sure you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about, where he did a series of him and
Speaker 1: they were they were kind of similar, but they picked
Speaker 1: up little bits of things and then he answered questions
Speaker 1: and he always had way more to say than he
Speaker 1: had time. But Peter Dell Scott, who is the guy who,
Speaker 1: by the way, is responsible for the concept of the
Speaker 1: deep politics and deep state and all of this, whether
Speaker 1: he wants to be or not, he is, you know
Speaker 1: that phrase and all that he said at one point.
Speaker 1: You know, you got to keep in mind another thing
Speaker 1: about this, which is, you know, you want two pages,
Speaker 1: they're gonna dump two thousand on you. Or you want
Speaker 1: two pages, they're going to hide two thousand and make
Speaker 1: you fight for each one of those two thousand, so
Speaker 1: that nineteen hundred and ninety eight of them end up
Speaker 1: being nothing. And the idea is that through attrition, you'll surrender.
Speaker 1: And that is a strategy that's also been part of
Speaker 1: this that I think a lot of researchers never bothered
Speaker 1: to mention because it you know, it used to be
Speaker 1: a big gigantic waste of time, paper, energy, money. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know you're paying for pages. I mean I remember
Speaker 1: getting angry, and I've told you this several times. You know,
Speaker 1: I request and pay for you know, thirty pages, and
Speaker 1: what I got are ten copies of the same newspaper
Speaker 1: cutout article that we're in, you know, ten different folders,
Speaker 1: so therefore at different numbers, but were literally the same
Speaker 1: repetitive crap that I already had, you know, and I
Speaker 1: had a better copy than the congressman did. That kind
Speaker 1: of thing happened to me, and it happened to a
Speaker 1: lot of researchers, and it did cause people to say,
Speaker 1: you know what, there's nothing to see here. There's just
Speaker 1: a bunch of redundant garbage. And in other cases, when
Speaker 1: you're trying to pry things out, you'd be confused because
Speaker 1: you'd get a hold of some things and you'd say
Speaker 1: to yourself, like I said, with the newspaper articles, why
Speaker 1: is this classified? This is something that was publicly available.
Speaker 1: They stuck it in their workfolder, and therefore it's classified.
Speaker 1: What a waste of time. So you have this double
Speaker 1: waste of time thing that also goes in with this
Speaker 1: regular hiding, destruction moving, you know, claims of ignorance. We
Speaker 1: can't find it, we don't know where that is, we
Speaker 1: never heard of that person, et cetera, et cetera. There
Speaker 1: is a wide array of weapons that are used to
Speaker 1: keep things away from the public, Am I right or wrong?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I think we see it in the join
Speaker 4: The first thing is we have to acknowledge that that
Speaker 4: people were dealing with their smart people, right, they were
Speaker 4: coping with foreign intelligence agencies, not just a KGV, but
Speaker 4: even foreign intelligence agencies British, French allies who would have
Speaker 4: liked to know thinks about what we were doing. Now,
Speaker 4: these are professional people who have to cope with controlling information.
Speaker 4: And if you don't think they're smart and that they
Speaker 4: have good practices for that, you just be naive. So
Speaker 4: the fact that they don't have a body of best
Speaker 4: practices that they can use against us, even if it
Speaker 4: was just for us, you know, they know how to
Speaker 4: do this. So first off, you have to accept that.
Speaker 4: And the sources of things that you're describing are in
Speaker 4: their Their best practice is manual. You know, trainees get that.
Speaker 4: And in what Jeff is pursuing, we have a good
Speaker 4: reflection of that because we have the We have the
Speaker 4: CIA fighting Jeff in court for years and years and
Speaker 4: years over Joinees administrative file. Now this is his personal
Speaker 4: admin file, what jobs he held, what clearances he got.
Speaker 4: We have had personal files on Hunt and Morales and
Speaker 4: other well known CIA figures for ages. You know, it's
Speaker 4: not like they have not shared that stuff before I
Speaker 4: shared them with committees, you know this, So you'd have
Speaker 4: to say, why in the world, you know, would I
Speaker 4: have David Phillips adman file or David Morales sadmin file
Speaker 4: and I don't have you know, I don't have Joan
Speaker 4: edies And they're fighting in court? What what is the
Speaker 4: big deal? And I think it gets back to what
Speaker 4: you're saying. You know, there's there's kind of like a
Speaker 4: first line of defense. You define, you defend something that's
Speaker 4: relatively innocuous and that holds you at bay. So you
Speaker 4: can't request his operational files or the special affairs staff
Speaker 4: files pertaining to him, or the DRE files, or you
Speaker 4: can't you don't get the opportunity to really pursue the
Speaker 4: question of all why months and months of his DRE
Speaker 4: files uh just went missing? Now you're stuck on this
Speaker 4: admind Phil edmin file. So I think it's it's like
Speaker 4: what you're saying, Chuck, we all wondered, why would they
Speaker 4: be so stubborn in protecting that. Well, it's like first
Speaker 4: line of defense. If you can keep winning in court
Speaker 4: on that, then you don't open the door going to
Speaker 4: the really critical stuff, which might tell you the Osbale story.
Speaker 4: So that's part of it. Because so we need to remember,
Speaker 4: first off, what Representative Luna managed to get for us
Speaker 4: is literally to persuade the CIA to release that admin file.
Speaker 4: And they didn't make a big deal. They kind of
Speaker 4: snuck it out onto the server on Friday evening, you know,
Speaker 4: and there it is. So there's the admin file. Finally,
Speaker 4: it's like, what's the big deal. You were in court
Speaker 4: for years and years and then and then you told
Speaker 4: Jeff in court, oh, we can't find it, but oh
Speaker 4: you found it when the congress person asked for it,
Speaker 4: and you just put it on there. So you know,
Speaker 4: this does kind of expose the fact that there's something
Speaker 4: of interest here. None of us expected a smoking gun
Speaker 4: in an admin file, that would be ridiculous, but this,
Speaker 4: if they're fighting this hard to hold back even the
Speaker 4: most basic information about Joe and Edes, it's it's interest signal.
Speaker 4: And I'm amazed by the number of people that say, oh, well,
Speaker 4: this means there's nothing there our contrere. It absolutely means
Speaker 4: that there's something there, maybe not in their file, but
Speaker 4: something associated with Joe and Edes and the dre in
Speaker 4: nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 1: Right, And a quick note on context. Jeff Morley started
Speaker 1: suing the CIA, from what I can understand publicly in
Speaker 1: two thousand and three, folks, So you know around the
Speaker 1: fortieth anniversary is when he started suing the CIA to
Speaker 1: get to get this, among other things, but to get this.
Speaker 1: And here's the funny part. Let's not forget ten years
Speaker 1: before that, there was supposed to be a whole lot
Speaker 1: of collection anything that would be relevant. You know, the
Speaker 1: JFK Records Collection Act, right put into law by George
Speaker 1: hw Bush and then enacted by Bill Clinton when he
Speaker 1: took office because it was an executive branch agency. Just
Speaker 1: giving you that context that in ninety three you have
Speaker 1: the HSCA in existence. I mean, no, excuse me, the
Speaker 1: ARRB in existence. My fault there, Sorry, I misspoke. And
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three Jeff starts to sue the government. Okay,
Speaker 1: as far as I know publicly, all right, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe the case was worked on before that, etc. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. I'm just telling you that first filings I
Speaker 1: see here in two thousand and three, Okay, But it
Speaker 1: went on and on and on and like I said,
Speaker 1: all the way up to right before Kavanaugh's last decision
Speaker 1: before going to the Supreme Court is shooting down this
Speaker 1: situation in court. Meanwhile, one congress person happens to ask
Speaker 1: for it. That causes me to ask a few questions.
Speaker 1: But I'll leave it alone, Larry, and let you get
Speaker 1: back to it. But I think that context is necessary
Speaker 1: to understand as we sit here in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: almost sixty two years after the assassination, when he started
Speaker 1: suing them, forty years after the assassination, and we had
Speaker 1: a you know, an agreed upon bipartisan bill that went
Speaker 1: through Congress, and a law created and an executive branch
Speaker 1: agency created to collect anything relevant, you know, in ten
Speaker 1: years before Jeff started suing in the early nineties. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, I mean, you want to keep going backwards.
Speaker 1: We could talk about the seventies and the HCA and
Speaker 1: the Warrant Commission and what the hell is going on here,
Speaker 1: But anyway, just the context I want to give people
Speaker 1: is that after sixty two years, almost here you go
Speaker 1: because a congress person asked, go ahead, Larry, please continue.
Speaker 4: Well, and let's pull back for and go back that
Speaker 4: far for just a little bit more context. If you
Speaker 4: want to pull like three basic things out of this.
Speaker 4: It's sort of one basic thing is that Jeff knew
Speaker 4: because the Cubans that he was talking to within the
Speaker 4: Student Directorate told him that they report repeatedly met with
Speaker 4: and talked with and passed on information about Lee Rvy
Speaker 4: Oswald to their case officer. You know, they've talked repeatedly
Speaker 4: about that over the years. There was no mystery to them.
Speaker 4: They passed on to their case officer propaganda pieces and
Speaker 4: letters that they were preparing about Lee Harvey Oswall's okay. Now,
Speaker 4: as far as Johan Edes is concerned, he never admitted
Speaker 4: to anybody that he was in contact with the DRE,
Speaker 4: that he was in contact with the DR about oz Wall.
Speaker 4: When he was assigned to be liaison to the HSCA,
Speaker 4: he knew the HSCA was asking him about the Student Directorate.
Speaker 4: You know, we're trying to find out about the student Directorate.
Speaker 4: We knew that they had contact with Oswald. Could you
Speaker 4: help us locate information on this? Joinees never brought forth
Speaker 4: that he's the guy. Okay, Now there's a real problem
Speaker 4: there because there's no reason he shouldn't do that. There
Speaker 4: was nothing in world. Now you might argue domestic surveillance,
Speaker 4: domestic operations. But in any event, he made the decision
Speaker 4: not to share that information. So you have to ask
Speaker 4: why the CIA made the decision not to share the
Speaker 4: information that their case officer had been getting this stuff.
Speaker 4: So none of this would could be officially confirmed to
Speaker 4: Jeff he knew what had happened, he could not essentially
Speaker 4: confirm that the CIA was lined and the Joean Edes
Speaker 4: with wisoling information with this ADMIN file. One of the
Speaker 4: key parts, not the only key part, but one of
Speaker 4: the key parts is it confirmed the alias that the
Speaker 4: Cubans had said that they were using in their contacts
Speaker 4: with their case officer Howard. Okay, kind of innocuous Howard.
Speaker 4: They even had a copy of a receipt we sent
Speaker 4: stuff to Howard. This this exposes the fundamental why that
Speaker 4: the CIA knew Joeann Edes knew. They knew about these
Speaker 4: contacts with the DRE. They knew all about Oswald. There
Speaker 4: was information going into a file, a case officer's file
Speaker 4: at made a minimum at JM WAVE about Oswald and
Speaker 4: within the Special Affairs staff, oswelld was a non figure
Speaker 4: in an old character and there was a body of
Speaker 4: information in their in their possession there at the CIA. Okay, Okay,
Speaker 4: So this, this one thing in that admin file gave
Speaker 4: lie to the CIA's denial. That's that's a big thing,
Speaker 4: because why would they do that. There's by itself that's no.
Speaker 4: But this was his job. He's supposed to talk to
Speaker 4: these people, you know, why why not disclose that? Okay,
Speaker 4: So that's the first thing that you have to back
Speaker 4: off and say, why in the world were they defending that. Well,
Speaker 4: one of the things is it gives lie to the
Speaker 4: to the depth of information that the CIA held on
Speaker 4: Oswald prior to the assassination. But it exposes another big
Speaker 4: thing that we need to bring into the context that
Speaker 4: Jeff and John Newman had pursued years before earlier as well,
Speaker 4: and that was conversations about Oswald in Mexico City and
Speaker 4: conversations with ci off Sir Jane Roman, in which they
Speaker 4: pointed out to her that CIA co headquarters had been
Speaker 4: asked by their Mexico City station to pass on current
Speaker 4: information about Lee Harvey Oswald and they had not done so.
Speaker 4: In fact, they had overtly not done so, saying basically,
Speaker 4: we know he's about to come back from Russia. Oh,
Speaker 4: by the way, he's been back for over a year. Okay,
Speaker 4: and that's the most recent thing in the files where
Speaker 4: we know now without a doubt that there was a
Speaker 4: body of data in CIA at wave within spatial Affairs staff,
Speaker 4: and the two guys got Roman to even admit that
Speaker 4: what this looks like was that there was an operational
Speaker 4: interest in Oswald and the information of him on it
Speaker 4: was being compartmentalized, compartmentalized within SaaS from the rest of CIA,
Speaker 4: certainly in compared to life from Mexico City. So in
Speaker 4: the second stroke to all of this, without putting it in,
Speaker 4: you know, in a little memo to anybody, we now
Speaker 4: know that the CIA was holding information on Oswald that
Speaker 4: they were not sharing internally, and just on that piece alone,
Speaker 4: it's almost impossible to think there was not a reason
Speaker 4: there was there was, indeed an operational interest. To Jeff
Speaker 4: in his articles has interviewed you know, two or three
Speaker 4: CI officers and said, look at this, look at this situation,
Speaker 4: look at what we now know, and tell me what
Speaker 4: you think it means. And they're all going, based on
Speaker 4: our experience, it clearly means there was an operational interest
Speaker 4: in Oswald. For something how serious, whatever, you know, anybody
Speaker 4: within the experience in the CIA would draw the same conclusion.
Speaker 4: So now we've learned that too. The only question is
Speaker 4: where are those files?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: And the funny thing is we may be getting close
Speaker 4: to where they should be. Getting them would be another story,
Speaker 4: but this laid to us a big step in the
Speaker 4: direction of where they should have existed.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't want to pass by this too quickly
Speaker 1: and forget that. We need to hammer the fact that
Speaker 1: the House Select Committee on Assassinations wanted people that were
Speaker 1: going to liaise with them from various government agencies and
Speaker 1: representing industries and all kinds of stuff, and their one
Speaker 1: condition seemed to be, we want people that weren't involved
Speaker 1: in the events in nineteen sixty three, and we need
Speaker 1: liaisons that will be knowledgeable enough to go find what
Speaker 1: we need found, you know, during the course of our investigation, etc.
Speaker 1: And they send Joe Eadies, who clearly at some point
Speaker 1: had to say, no, I don't know anything about any
Speaker 1: of this stuff, and yet he's being asked specific questions
Speaker 1: in the seventies. Right, So isn't this the big red flag?
Speaker 1: Isn't this the thing that really got Jeff to chase
Speaker 1: it in general.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, it's a huge red flag when you know
Speaker 4: somebody knows something. Now, the thing is, Jeff knew that
Speaker 4: because of what the Cubans had told him, and multiple
Speaker 4: Cubans had told him that he believed that. Jeff just
Speaker 4: couldn't hold up anything and wave it and say, you
Speaker 4: know you're lying to me. You know, he did know
Speaker 4: this information, He did that have this information. He made
Speaker 4: a conscious decision he didn't have that he now does
Speaker 4: have it. So yeah, it's a huge red flag. And
Speaker 4: I will say, you know, going all the way back
Speaker 4: to that time, because the other thing that was revealed
Speaker 4: by that work is the fact that the DR reports
Speaker 4: their reports to the CIA, which everybody acknowledged they were
Speaker 4: making they were being paid to make on their activities.
Speaker 4: And by the way, there is there is a master
Speaker 4: DRI file. Okay, so we need to clarify this. You can.
Speaker 4: You can log on and look at a CIA head
Speaker 4: quarter file that symblarizes the activities of the DRE. So
Speaker 4: we absolutely know that CIA was collecting information on this group,
Speaker 4: which I mean they're paying them, so they should get
Speaker 4: something in return, and then information is being reported into
Speaker 4: this file But here's another instance of the negative template.
Speaker 4: You go through this file and you see the file
Speaker 4: contains incidents in which DRE people were involved in propaganda,
Speaker 4: you know, sending out flyers, letters, doing radio shows, they
Speaker 4: were involved in media activities. In one document I read
Speaker 4: sort of some students had been to Cuba and they
Speaker 4: had come back and made a strong endorsement of Cuba,
Speaker 4: and the CIA is asking the DRI to go on
Speaker 4: the radio and respond to that, and you know, you know,
Speaker 4: and so there's this whole file on the DRE at headquarters,
Speaker 4: but there's absolutely nothing in it about New Orleans, about Oswald,
Speaker 4: about the propaganda that DRI has done on Oswald, which
Speaker 4: Jeff is documented and which they confirmed, and so it's
Speaker 4: another part of the negative template. It just raises the question,
Speaker 4: you know, did somebody scrub the DRA file after the fact,
Speaker 4: or was somebody in again controlling information at Special Affairs
Speaker 4: staff in Miami and not even reporting that to headquarters.
Speaker 4: Why is it all? What was so damaging or threatening
Speaker 4: about this information related to Oswald that somebody decided that
Speaker 4: it had to be kept even out of the internal records.
Speaker 1: So therefore you have something that's either scrubbed or redirected.
Speaker 1: And if it was redirected, where to right? Isn't that
Speaker 1: the point of it? Because look, if you take away
Speaker 1: the Oswald information that should be connected to the dr
Speaker 1: refile just because they're tracking an asset, very simple, It
Speaker 1: would be malpractice for them not to do so. But
Speaker 1: the idea that you have Oswald running up against these
Speaker 1: people and clearly in the same sphere, in the same
Speaker 1: social circles, all kinds of things going on. He's handing
Speaker 1: out procastro leaflets and he's not appearing in that file.
Speaker 1: That means it's either like you said, scrub or directed
Speaker 1: elsewhere or or am I incorrect about it?
Speaker 4: Or or held I mean held. One of the things
Speaker 4: we had to get back to CIA file structures. Okay,
Speaker 4: you know things go in the headquarters file that are
Speaker 4: routine information collections. You know, they're they're generally not related
Speaker 4: to a specific project. You know, those that goes into
Speaker 4: operational files. You know, uh, you know this this master
Speaker 4: file in the DRA is just kind of like what's
Speaker 4: going on with DRI, what's in the papers? What are
Speaker 4: they doing? Mean? And it doesn't relate to any specific
Speaker 4: operation that you're doing with them. You know that you've
Speaker 4: you've pulled them in and made them a specific asset
Speaker 4: of what you're doing. For example, Uh, we do know
Speaker 4: that the the DRE was invited to participate in a
Speaker 4: new autonomous deniable operation against Cuba and over several months
Speaker 4: came up with a plan for that. That doesn't show
Speaker 4: up in this headquarters file. That shows up in operational
Speaker 4: files related to that activity. So, I mean, there's a
Speaker 4: reason for compartmentalizing data. It's just that you've got to
Speaker 4: know what to expect to find where. The other thing
Speaker 4: we have to consider is if somebody is simply thinking
Speaker 4: about a project or an activity, it's it's uh, you
Speaker 4: know there, it's we haven't decided on it yet, we're
Speaker 4: talking about it. We're talking about it in the local office.
Speaker 4: Those sorts of things are set kept in saw files
Speaker 4: in somebody's desk, drawer, file, cabinet until they really gel
Speaker 4: to the point of well, let's propose it the headquarters
Speaker 4: and let's get it somebody to kick it off as
Speaker 4: a as a proof project, fund it, you know, do
Speaker 4: a tasking on it, you know. So there may as
Speaker 4: well have been if you're looking for an operational file
Speaker 4: related to Lee Harvey Oswall. It could have never passed
Speaker 4: that stage. It could have been setting in a you know,
Speaker 4: we might be able to do with this with Oswell,
Speaker 4: we've got these propaganda programs that we're considering. We'll work
Speaker 4: with INC and New Orleans. They'll make up some propaganda materials.
Speaker 4: But we're you know, we're just it's just generating. You know,
Speaker 4: we're just generating it. And you know maybe that's only
Speaker 4: in a SAW file. Uh. And saw files don't necessarily
Speaker 4: go to headquarters. We know that, especially if they don't
Speaker 4: get you know, fully endorsed. So we we just have
Speaker 4: to face the fact that the people that say, oh,
Speaker 4: there's no smoking gun because you haven't found an OLATA
Speaker 4: while operations file are being either very naive or they're
Speaker 4: literally just being in denial, or they have no clue
Speaker 4: to how things really worked within the CIA, right.
Speaker 1: And that that operated, that that type of file could
Speaker 1: be under you know, code named Henry at this point,
Speaker 1: you know, we got Howard over here. Maybe this guy's Henry.
Speaker 1: Remember when they put his his middle name as Lee
Speaker 1: Henry Oswald. Maybe that's it, right, Henry.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: These are no, yeah, these are notional files. Interesting thing
Speaker 4: about a notional file. It could you haven't even applied
Speaker 4: to headquarters for security clearances, or you know, you haven't
Speaker 4: gotten aliases assigned, you haven't got pseudonyms of sign that's
Speaker 4: all when it's at a notional level. That's before that happens.
Speaker 4: So yeah, we have come across the fact that even
Speaker 4: the CI officers themselves often used use their own alias
Speaker 4: outside the system for things that they were just kind
Speaker 4: of developing and pursuing before they they elevated it. So
Speaker 4: you're right it and it quite frankly, there are also
Speaker 4: things that we know never get reported to headquarters, and
Speaker 4: we've talked about that before. It's sort of like, you know,
Speaker 4: this is risky. Maybe we want to test it a
Speaker 4: little bit, see how it's working, and you know, then
Speaker 4: we'll take it to washing and run it up the flagpole.
Speaker 1: Well, the other interesting thing here is the name Howard, Right.
Speaker 1: I've heard that name used loosely in some of these
Speaker 1: sort of like less organized operations and things and mentioned
Speaker 1: by people who seem to like, I don't know, Howard
Speaker 1: is just an interesting there must have been a connotation
Speaker 1: to that name, right, because I mean, at a certain point,
Speaker 1: you know, e Howard Hunt obviously It's just at some
Speaker 1: point was called Howard, but there was other people called Howard. Okay,
Speaker 1: and it's a weird thing, like maybe Howard meant something
Speaker 1: like you might not know it, but in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: if you called somebody Becky, there was a meaning to that,
Speaker 1: and it might have been just that, like a little
Speaker 1: inside joke about being a Howard.
Speaker 4: I don't know, strictly, within a group of people in
Speaker 4: Miami who know each other, it's a code where when
Speaker 4: they talk about things.
Speaker 1: You know, because he just said, it's a white man.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm speculating here. I'm not saying that that's
Speaker 1: what it is, but I'm my speculation is here, it
Speaker 1: is a white man who lives among you know, Latino people.
Speaker 1: So there you go, boom, he's a Howard. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it could be theoretically. But please continue,
Speaker 1: because a lot of people who are like not as
Speaker 1: deeply read into this or not as familiar with a
Speaker 1: lot of the things that you just very clearly explained
Speaker 1: are probably saying to themselves, Okay, but what does this
Speaker 1: really mean, Larry? What does it mean that you know
Speaker 1: he finally got this and what can be plainly explained
Speaker 1: based on this thing that was held back now for
Speaker 1: what twenty years, What.
Speaker 4: Can be plainly explained is that the CIA and Johnied
Speaker 4: himself made a decision to hold back something that would
Speaker 4: be seemingly innocuous. You know, part of his regular job,
Speaker 4: he's assigned as a case officer. He's assigned as a
Speaker 4: case offer to m SPELL, which is their code for DRE. Right,
Speaker 4: there's nothing, like I said, this is day job type information.
Speaker 4: So what has been exposed is the fact that someone
Speaker 4: decided that there's something associated with this that is threatening.
Speaker 4: That is, you know, still decades later, there's something behind that.
Speaker 4: There's something behind this Howard DRE connection. There's something about
Speaker 4: this compartmentalization of Oswald information. There's something that was dangerous.
Speaker 4: It was considered dangerous for decades. So you just can't
Speaker 4: avoid the fact that information was compartmentalized by about Oswald,
Speaker 4: about Oswald and the DRE. You can't avoid that that
Speaker 4: that shows up all over the places now. So there's
Speaker 4: that's a very serious lead, perhaps the most serious lead
Speaker 4: that we have. There's something going on in Miami with
Speaker 4: Howard and with those DRE contacts that was evolving into
Speaker 4: into something that had to be protected. Now there's something
Speaker 4: else in the file that my my friend David has
Speaker 4: really seized on. I probably would have missed the fact
Speaker 4: that the file shows that Joyne's got A had to
Speaker 4: go through a special clearance process and get read into
Speaker 4: and approved for some new covert project in the late
Speaker 4: spring of nineteen sixty three, apart from his regular day jobs.
Speaker 4: This is something new. The fact that he would actually
Speaker 4: have to be cleared and go through a new security
Speaker 4: process read into a new program. That's very interesting because
Speaker 4: that's more, you know, more than his just been a
Speaker 4: staff officer and a case officer. What's this new project?
Speaker 4: And the interesting thing, of course is we know some
Speaker 4: interesting projects that got kicked off in that timeframe. The
Speaker 4: other interesting thing that has been disclosed is that David
Speaker 4: Phillips got read into and assigned to a news project
Speaker 4: within specialized fair staff in this same period of time.
Speaker 4: Does that confirm anything to us, No, but we can
Speaker 4: say both men had expertise and properanda and in Phillips's case,
Speaker 4: especially in what's called black propaganda. So what it's his
Speaker 4: leading us to is, you know, is again, is there
Speaker 4: something explosive in an admin file. No, But the fact is,
Speaker 4: again it points to something going on with Joan needs
Speaker 4: that may lead us to what they're trying to protect,
Speaker 4: is there and what was threatening which could lead us
Speaker 4: with one to one or more operations involving the Harvey
Speaker 4: Oswald well, not necessarily involved, but built around Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 1: Fair enough. But here's the thing that everybody's going to wonder, right,
Speaker 1: is there some new direction? Is there something new that's
Speaker 1: been learned here where it's like, Okay, now we did
Speaker 1: not know that this agency, this subset, this special Operations
Speaker 1: Group or whatever existed before, but now it's in the
Speaker 1: file here, we can request files on that group because
Speaker 1: it's clearly associated to this which was clearly associated to
Speaker 1: Like do we have Domino's falling here that are going
Speaker 1: to bring us into a fresh direction?
Speaker 4: That's the question, and they certainly could. Luna has asked
Speaker 4: for the DRE files. Uh, Luna has asked for the
Speaker 4: d r E files, which up to now the CIA
Speaker 4: has maintained or they're missing, we can't locate them. And
Speaker 4: but of course they had said that about join Ed's
Speaker 4: admin file two. Right, if we could obtain the full
Speaker 4: set of case files, we would we would know the
Speaker 4: depth of information being provided, and more importantly, we would
Speaker 4: know what join Edes was saying back to these people.
Speaker 4: You know, who was he talking to?
Speaker 3: Was he was he?
Speaker 4: Was it one way? We don't know. They may have
Speaker 4: just been providing him information and just getting ahead. Nods
Speaker 4: came like that's good or was there some than going
Speaker 4: the other direction? And uh, there's been requests for operational
Speaker 4: files related to join adios. If we can really find
Speaker 4: out what this way was cleared for, what is this
Speaker 4: new project? Yeah, it opens the door and it actually
Speaker 4: allows Luna to specifically locate these files beyond the admin file.
Speaker 4: You know. That really puts the pressure on Uh. So, Yeah,
Speaker 4: there's there's a great opportunity there if they comply, and
Speaker 4: if they don't comply, certainly it will be yet another signal. Right,
Speaker 4: But I can't say that any of this is is
Speaker 4: going to be easy because we don't really we don't
Speaker 4: have the and have we've we've gotten a lot of
Speaker 4: files on Miami, Miami Operating Base in terms of military activities. Uh,
Speaker 4: and David has gotten a great doing great work and
Speaker 4: digging into those works. We know what their maritime guys
Speaker 4: were doing. We don't have nearly the same view into
Speaker 4: what psychological operations propaganda operations we're going on with these
Speaker 4: new initiatives that it really raises the question. And we've
Speaker 4: talked to Jeff somebody should be requesting memoranda or documents
Speaker 4: related to phillips new assignment, because Phillips may end up
Speaker 4: being a key factor in this, as many of us
Speaker 4: has speculated for a long time. So yeah, it does
Speaker 4: target us to specific things, whether we can get them
Speaker 4: or not. You know, I don't know where they destroyed
Speaker 4: long ago, may have been. They've gone through a lot
Speaker 4: of work to even hold back the basic leads that
Speaker 4: we're following up now, and we have to acknowledge that.
Speaker 4: So again we're back to the a thing of are
Speaker 4: we going to end up with the cold hard data
Speaker 4: that we want to see the operational file? You know,
Speaker 4: what we're Joe and Ed's and maybe Phillip's doing with
Speaker 4: Lee Harvey Oswell is in terms of propaganda, black propaganda,
Speaker 4: white propaganda, maybe something more sinister. Certainly, if it's more sinistor,
Speaker 4: I don't expect we're kind of see it.
Speaker 1: Well, there's that. Plus, look, I got an email as
Speaker 1: we're speaking by the way, because I've had a little
Speaker 1: back and forth with somebody and they asked a question
Speaker 1: which I find kind of interesting, and I'm just going
Speaker 1: to throw it at you. It's a bit of a curveball, though.
Speaker 1: Does this mean I should dust off my old unauthorized
Speaker 1: copy of the Winston Scott book because there will be
Speaker 1: new connections to some loose ends there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that that's certainly well. I will say
Speaker 4: the answer the question is David and I certainly did
Speaker 4: that when we were writing the Hospital Puzzle because it
Speaker 4: became far more important. Let's let's since it's a curveball,
Speaker 4: I'll give you a little longer winded answer than I might.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 4: The point is that David Phillips was assigned to jobs
Speaker 4: in Mexico City. Is his day job now his new job?
Speaker 4: We don't know much about that, but his day job
Speaker 4: would have made him the lead guy to investigate Oswald
Speaker 4: in Mexico City. Okay, And you know that's very important.
Speaker 4: But when you look at it, you step back and
Speaker 4: look at it from an instance, you see that things
Speaker 4: got so obscure, and especially with the HSCA, with the
Speaker 4: CIA trying to explain itself that they actually got to
Speaker 4: the point where they said ignore anything they as Phillips
Speaker 4: is telling you, because he's not really aware of what's
Speaker 4: going on. Wow, now that's strange. On the other hand,
Speaker 4: David Phillips himself wrote in one book that Oswell wasn't
Speaker 4: even on the radar, wrote in another book later actually
Speaker 4: same book, if I recall, But Phillips wrote like two
Speaker 4: or three different books. He wrote in the book and
Speaker 4: asserted that he absolutely was convinced that Oswell had come
Speaker 4: back from Mexico City with ten thousand dollars in his possession,
Speaker 4: that he had been given by the Cubans to kill JFK,
Speaker 4: which is the old Gilberto Alvarado story. So you've got
Speaker 4: you got three things going on in Mexico City. You've
Speaker 4: got owe Phillips doesn't even know anything about you know,
Speaker 4: Oswell's time here, So don't talk to him. Don't let
Speaker 4: him confuse you, or Phillips saying, oh, it was important
Speaker 4: to Oh, by the way, actually the Cubans paid them
Speaker 4: to kill JFK. That's a strong reason to go back
Speaker 4: to look at everything that's being said at Mexico City,
Speaker 4: because again, this is the level of disconnect that's not tolerable.
Speaker 4: It absolutely hads to mean that Phillips was going on
Speaker 4: was doing something related to Lee Harvey Oswell in Mexico City,
Speaker 4: maybe after the fact. I'm not saying it was before
Speaker 4: the fact. Maybe after the fact in regard to that visit.
Speaker 4: And we're not we're not being given the truth, and
Speaker 4: we're going to have to try to piece it together.
Speaker 4: That Alverado story is extremely interesting because it's Simpach and
Speaker 4: still have pointed out there are elements of the Alverado
Speaker 4: story that are quite real, right in terms of personnel
Speaker 4: within the Cuban Somebody knew what they were doing when
Speaker 4: they put that story together. Now the real question was
Speaker 4: did they put that whole story together on Ova twenty
Speaker 4: second or had that story been being assembled before that
Speaker 4: for some other purpose. I have to raise that possibility
Speaker 4: because that's the sort of thing that Phillips did. Phillips
Speaker 4: can already be traced back to black propaganda, which involved
Speaker 4: threats by Cuba against JFK in nineteen sixty one. It
Speaker 4: all traces back to his role during the Cuba project.
Speaker 4: Was David Phillips thinking about revising that and bringing Lee
Speaker 4: Harvey Oswell into a new Black propagand to project before
Speaker 4: the assassination. I don't know, it's an interesting thought.
Speaker 1: Well, it's an interesting thought. And again, when these guys
Speaker 1: prepare things like this, they usually do it so they
Speaker 1: have options for something that is upcoming and anticipated. So
Speaker 1: the idea that he would do that for some other
Speaker 1: purpose and it just so happens this guy got swept
Speaker 1: up into other things is not the craziest thing I've
Speaker 1: ever heard.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's not the craziest thing to say, oh, look,
Speaker 4: we have this almost together and we didn't get a
Speaker 4: chance to use it, and there's some loose ends. But look,
Speaker 4: Lee rv els Will in Dallas, let's just throw this out.
Speaker 4: We can do that and you know see how it works.
Speaker 1: Yep, exactly. And so with that, Larry.
Speaker 4: It almost did. I mean it almost did. That was
Speaker 4: the one thing that drove worshing DC distraction for forty
Speaker 4: eight hours.
Speaker 1: Right, so much so that you got Jay grew Hoover saying, look,
Speaker 1: I'm being lied to here, you know, like that's pretty
Speaker 1: rough when he when he's writing that on a memo.
Speaker 1: I mean, I always point to that. I know, it's
Speaker 1: one of my favorite things, but because it's so funny
Speaker 1: to me. It's so rare to see him say, you know,
Speaker 1: I got slowed it is. It is very rare. Anyway, Larry,
Speaker 1: this has been extremely enlightening. But would you like to
Speaker 1: tie a bow on it in the last few minutes
Speaker 1: here and give us an idea of what it is?
Speaker 1: I don't know, we can anticipate possibly in the future.
Speaker 1: Do you have an idea about that or you know?
Speaker 1: And and by the way, when Larry keeps saying his
Speaker 1: friend David, of course he's talking about David Boylan, who
Speaker 1: is the co author of the Oswald Puzzle. Again, that book,
Speaker 1: which I do recommend. I recommend all of the books
Speaker 1: with Larry as a author or co author. But either way,
Speaker 1: that is the latest and one of the greatest. To
Speaker 1: be honest with you, I enjoy that book and it's
Speaker 1: a great reference. I've got a copy of it within
Speaker 1: an arm's length. So just telling you as I speak.
Speaker 1: But Larry, what you know, what should we take away
Speaker 1: from all of this? Ultimately? How would you kind of
Speaker 1: give us a quick summary?
Speaker 4: Well, the first thing is Jeff is not going to
Speaker 4: give up on this now that he is, He's proved
Speaker 4: his basic point. There's just no doubt that he's proved
Speaker 4: his basic point.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: I don't think Representative Luna is going to get back
Speaker 4: off from it. She's not the person that backs off
Speaker 4: for much. She has already made a public speech in
Speaker 4: which a public appearance in which she has made a
Speaker 4: statement stronger than that which Striker said way back in
Speaker 4: decades ago. She just made a statement that there's every
Speaker 4: evidence that what has been revealed is that the CIA
Speaker 4: lied and that indeed rove CI officers maybe have been
Speaker 4: involved in the assassination of the president. Now, this is
Speaker 4: the first time we've heard had a reputable congress person
Speaker 4: saying that in a long time. You know, could that
Speaker 4: actually lead to a true investigation, not just a records release?
Speaker 4: Interesting concept with as much chaos as there is, you know,
Speaker 4: it's just I don't know that the president is going
Speaker 4: to get away with not having an investigation of Epstein.
Speaker 4: If you can investigate that, you could investigate this again,
Speaker 4: a real investigation this time. Uh So, this is a
Speaker 4: story that has some legs to it. That's that's on
Speaker 4: one side. You know, it's when you when you can
Speaker 4: prove that the CIA is line and clearly had something
Speaker 4: to cover up that was important enough to do so,
Speaker 4: I mean, not just the routine stuff, but in regard
Speaker 4: to a presidential assassination. That's one story as far as
Speaker 4: the leads I discussed. Yeah, that's opened the door. I
Speaker 4: think you you will definitely hear more from Jeff. You
Speaker 4: will definitely hear more from David and I once we
Speaker 4: work through some scenarios on this. I suspect you'll hear
Speaker 4: from you know, there are there are researchers that have
Speaker 4: been you know, necked deep in JF wave and special
Speaker 4: affairs staff for years now, building the database, building the
Speaker 4: org chart building the crypt base that would let us
Speaker 4: go to work if we actually had you know, if
Speaker 4: we had a find like this and join d And
Speaker 4: is it that kind of a fine Phillips, Maybe that
Speaker 4: kind of a fine too.
Speaker 1: There you go. And I mean, so there's a lot
Speaker 1: more to come from this. If anything else comes loose,
Speaker 1: it's going to be interesting, that's for sure. However, I
Speaker 1: gotta say, just as a counterweight to part of what
Speaker 1: you just said, it's almost impossible to predict exactly what
Speaker 1: is going to come out of this administration when it
Speaker 1: comes to releasing stuff like this, Because I'll tell you something.
Speaker 1: I thought he would have put the Epstein thing up front,
Speaker 1: you know, priority wise. I didn't think this was a priority.
Speaker 1: He feels like he's done with it whenever he's asked
Speaker 1: about it, even off and hey, you know what about
Speaker 1: the Jay I already did that, you know, like it's
Speaker 1: already done as far as he's concerned. And you know,
Speaker 1: Trump is the key element here when it comes to
Speaker 1: getting things done, it seems like in that administration. But
Speaker 1: then again, maybe I'm misreading stuff.
Speaker 4: Anyway, I'm expecting two things might happen. Jeff might either
Speaker 4: get a shipment of Patriot missiles in his apartment, or
Speaker 4: he could be sanctioned. I don't know. Could he be
Speaker 4: a tariff it with this level of chaos, who knows?
Speaker 1: Or a big bill for Look, we'll print out all
Speaker 1: this stuff for you, and then they'll just bury him
Speaker 1: in an office boxes. I mean, you know, who knows. Really,
Speaker 1: it's a roll of the dice in my mind. So
Speaker 1: I just have to make that point, Larry. I love
Speaker 1: how optimistic you just sounded, but I gotta say, I
Speaker 1: hold my breath and go, let's see.
Speaker 4: Well, at least there's a game in town, Chuck. I
Speaker 4: would say it like that. I'm not a gambler, but
Speaker 4: it's kind of like, at least there's a game in town.
Speaker 4: Before there wasn't even a game, you know what?
Speaker 1: That is absolutely true and a positive spin we can
Speaker 1: end on. So again, go to Larrydash Hancock dot com.
Speaker 1: I recommend all of his books. You can find his
Speaker 1: books through Larryhancock dot com. And it's just got that
Speaker 1: hyphen or that dash whatever you want to say between
Speaker 1: Larry and Hancock. And again, once more, I highly recommend
Speaker 1: the latest book, The Oswald Puzzle. But I also recommend
Speaker 1: there's going to be some discussions here at Lancer this year.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be there in person. Larry should be
Speaker 1: presenting virtually, but David might be there in person. I
Speaker 1: don't know. We're waiting to see, but who knows who
Speaker 1: else might show up and have something to say. Representative
Speaker 1: Luna has been invited. Now I don't know where that
Speaker 1: invite has gone. I don't know if she's even seen
Speaker 1: it or just her staff has, but I do know
Speaker 1: it's been sent. So who knows what will happen in
Speaker 1: November between the twenty first and the twenty third this
Speaker 1: year in Dallas Texas, and I'll get into more details
Speaker 1: about that very very soon and give you the discount
Speaker 1: code if you want to sign up at Assassination Conference
Speaker 1: dot com you ken, but primarily I want you to
Speaker 1: go to larrydsh Hancock dot com. And again, if you're
Speaker 1: missing any of those books, get them, get them while
Speaker 1: you can, and if they're on sale, get to Anyways,
Speaker 1: I'm merely o'celly. All of you are the effect. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Larry Hancock. And I'm gonna do another hour after this,
Speaker 1: so keep listening to ocelli dot com live, and if
Speaker 1: you're catching the podcast, as most of you do, do
Speaker 1: me a favor and go to the next one because
Speaker 1: it's going to be a little more about declassifications and
Speaker 1: files and oh hell, I'm gonna be talking to Pierce
Speaker 1: Redmond about the Epstein thing. So two points of interest
Speaker 1: about you know, transparency, let's put it that way. On
Speaker 1: a Wednesday, on the Ocelly Effect, stick around, uncle.
Speaker 6: Do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that
Speaker 6: an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninja's to
Speaker 6: take down the Illuminati.
Speaker 7: Oh that's interesting, yeah in the latroon.
Speaker 6: Yeah, did that ever work? Out too good. No, it didn't,
Speaker 6: did it? But here on Ocelli dot com radio network,
Speaker 6: things work out a bit better, don't they?
Speaker 4: Much better.
Speaker 7: And understanding about the programs, the programs, how much clear
Speaker 7: getting live people into it. They really have a good
Speaker 7: conversation going much better, much better scene.
Speaker 6: I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninches and listen
Speaker 6: to the Ochelly dot com Radio network.
Speaker 7: I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and
Speaker 7: I like that idea.
Speaker 2: Oh, Chelley dot call, go ahead, call.
Speaker 5: It the truth about the Dayfay assassination.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, what do you want to know Judy Baker's
Speaker 1: wild claim Oswald girlfriend if he knew Ruby and Barry
Speaker 1: answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 5: But Okayal was on the building and trying to prevent
Speaker 5: the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 8: Come on now, has a.
Speaker 9: Real effort on the day of Hay assassination. Book into
Speaker 9: her claim.
Speaker 1: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 1: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 1: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 1: and the known evidence in the Cave to get at
Speaker 1: Well a different perspective, Let's say you can get Judith
Speaker 1: Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself,
Speaker 1: signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
Speaker 1: k I A S JFK at aol dot com. It's
Speaker 1: a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many
Speaker 1: fantastic claims Judith very Baker in her own.
Speaker 5: Words, thank you for all the great information under.
Speaker 8: Full of brass rail pull.
Speaker 4: Fire flow through everythaise.
Speaker 1: Go ahead call it.
Speaker 5: About the JFA assassination.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, what do you want to know Judy Baker's
Speaker 1: wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby and Barrie answer weapons, Really,
Speaker 1: I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make me a wagon, but okay.
Speaker 4: I'm building and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Come on now, has a real.
Speaker 4: Effort on the DAFA assassination claim.
Speaker 1: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 1: own words. You'll get the results for digital copy of
Speaker 1: a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and
Speaker 1: the known evidence in the case. To get at Well
Speaker 1: a different perspective, Let's say you can get Judith Barry
Speaker 1: Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed
Speaker 1: if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at kias
Speaker 1: jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and
Speaker 1: it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Arry
Speaker 1: Baker in her own words, thank you for all the
Speaker 1: great information the use expressed by caller schools. There anyone
Speaker 1: else who happens to get on the air who Jelly
Speaker 1: dot com can not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly
Speaker 1: dot com or jocko Jelly and we are not responsible.
Speaker 4: We're in stupidity, which might ensue.
Speaker 5: King in Denial the Secret Wars with air strikes and
Speaker 5: tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of
Speaker 5: US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's
Speaker 5: book in Denial rips the cover off many of them,
Speaker 5: using new files.
Speaker 1: It exposes things about the Bay of Pig that no
Speaker 1: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 1: really failed and why the United States did not earn
Speaker 1: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 1: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 1: that puts what some want to deny into the Light
Speaker 1: in Denial, Secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock.
Speaker 1: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 1: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 1: com in digital or.
Speaker 2: Physical force hotelly dot com. Do you like history, Real
Speaker 2: history that you were never taught in schools? Why the
Speaker 2: Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia
Speaker 2: by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before
Speaker 2: that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this.
Speaker 2: Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in
Speaker 2: Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen teen sixty one.
Speaker 2: Get your copy to day at Amazon dot com. Why
Speaker 2: the Vietnam War by author Mike.
Speaker 4: Swantz dot com, Radio.
Speaker 2: Netword Revelation through Conversation.
Speaker 9: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 9: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 9: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 9: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 9: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 9: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 9: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 9: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 9: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 9: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 9: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 9: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 9: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 9: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 9: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 9: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 9: up against. For more information, the War State dot com.
Speaker 3: Episode relies rebord.
Speaker 8: Revel through calm sage.
Speaker 3: Here oh Shell, Oh Sally.
Speaker 8: Yeah, revelation.
Speaker 3: Through coversation Carril