Speaker 1: Ready, and just like that, it's the seventeenth day of
Speaker 1: December twenty twenty five, amazing, only a day's till Christmas.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to try to sing right now. I could,
Speaker 2: I could clear up my throat and attempt to smooth
Speaker 2: it all out for you and give you the Christmas
Speaker 2: tunes that you deserve. Actually, I've already done that on
Speaker 2: o'chelly dot com, and it's mostly about, you know, have
Speaker 2: a sense of humor already, you know, the Twelve Nightmare
Speaker 2: Days of Christmas, Christmas Time in the Ghetto run DMC.
Speaker 1: I mean, I got all that stuff going. Clips from movies.
Speaker 1: Might not be safe for work though, if you're gonna
Speaker 1: play it, but if you're having a party and you want,
Speaker 1: you know, the comedy Christmas theme, listen to the tracks
Speaker 1: in between the shows here all the way up until
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe the new year. We'll run Christmas
Speaker 1: music like nobody else is doing it, okay, and other
Speaker 1: Christmas themed stuff on o'chelly dot com Radio. O'chelly dot
Speaker 1: com Radio your one stop shop for Christmas bliss. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it is Wednesday, Woden's Day, and I did give you
Speaker 1: the date already, so surprisingly, I have Larry Hancock with me. Okay,
Speaker 1: little rant I went through and I explained that before
Speaker 1: I went live with Larry on Friday. I know I
Speaker 1: did that, guys, but is what it is. And in
Speaker 1: case you didn't understand it, I made sure Larry understood
Speaker 1: it straight up front and go ahead and play the
Speaker 1: tape clipman anyway you want. Okay, so far, I'm just
Speaker 1: getting angry notes about people that I didn't openly criticize directly.
Speaker 1: I didn't name anybody, but still it's like, how dare
Speaker 1: you not, you know, say a nice thing about Yeah, okay, whatever.
Speaker 1: And I don't just say nice things about Larry because
Speaker 1: he's my friend. It's because he's a real person. And
Speaker 1: you know, I got to tell you even the side
Speaker 1: conversations I have with him where he tells me what
Speaker 1: he's doing in his daily life outside of any sort
Speaker 1: of research, his authorship, you know, what he's doing in
Speaker 1: this field whatever. Yeah, he's probably one of the most
Speaker 1: genuine people that I talk to, even in the side conversations.
Speaker 1: So you know, it is what it is. Just because
Speaker 1: there ain't many of you out there doesn't mean I'm
Speaker 1: not going to recognize the one that I have contact with. Okay,
Speaker 1: So putting that all aside, Larry Hancock, now you no
Speaker 1: longer go to Larry's website, but the word press link
Speaker 1: is in the show description. Now I know he didn't
Speaker 1: get banned off his website, but there's an issue there. Whatever,
Speaker 1: Maybe in the future we'll see a new Larry Hancock website,
Speaker 1: but then again maybe not. Larry could just do his blog,
Speaker 1: and it's not like he wants to, you know, have
Speaker 1: a constant radio presence. You can go on Amazon dot
Speaker 1: com check out his other page. It's loaded with plenty
Speaker 1: of stuff. Hey, if you want to look at the
Speaker 1: o'ceelly dot com archive or the last couple hundred shows,
Speaker 1: you'll find plenty of stuff from Larry. You can follow it,
Speaker 1: and his constant work on his blog is good enough.
Speaker 1: So look for the WordPress link in the show notes, Okay,
Speaker 1: which I do. I thought I had in front of me,
Speaker 1: but now I don't. Of course, you know, I'll get
Speaker 1: that later. But either way, if I forget in the
Speaker 1: show notes, I promise you is and it's always been there,
Speaker 1: but now we got rid of the website, so it's
Speaker 1: the word press. Okay, the dot WordPress page anyway, I'll
Speaker 1: shut up about that and get into other things. I
Speaker 1: highly recommend all of Larry's books, especially one that I'm
Speaker 1: waiting for an additional printing of, because hey, he's going
Speaker 1: to add some material and it's a good thing, and
Speaker 1: not because he made mistakes in the first place, but
Speaker 1: because there's always work to be done no matter how
Speaker 1: much somebody does in this field. Strangely, if they're paying
Speaker 1: attention and all that, you know, the final definitive, all
Speaker 1: that is never actually true. And Larry always admits that
Speaker 1: with the reissues of things, the additions, there can always
Speaker 1: be more work done, etc. But still Larry does a
Speaker 1: hell of a job. The Oswald Puzzle there will be
Speaker 1: a reissue next year. Pre orders are already happening on Amazon.
Speaker 1: I'm getting all this out of the way now, Larry,
Speaker 1: because we're going to be uninterrupted here and discuss Lee, Harvey,
Speaker 1: Oswald and New Orleans on some level. So I'm waiting
Speaker 1: to do that. But before we go to any of it,
Speaker 1: how are you doing tonight, sir, I'm doing good, Chuck.
Speaker 3: I hope Santa is listening to this. Get me some
Speaker 3: good marks, you know on this list. They can always
Speaker 3: help but I'm doing good. We're decorated for Christmas, all
Speaker 3: the Christmas cards are out, all the traditional stuff is done.
Speaker 3: You know, we're good. We're ahead of time. It's like,
Speaker 3: wait a minute, how did this happen? How could we
Speaker 3: possibly be ahead? But so it's looking good. The only
Speaker 3: downside here in Oklahoma's we're in the midst of a
Speaker 3: tremendous growth, one of the worst this time of year
Speaker 3: in ages, which is really hard on agriculture and animal
Speaker 3: husbandry and that sort of stuff and on your sinuses
Speaker 3: if you happen not to light dust right.
Speaker 1: Well, see, I'm having a difference. Well see, I'm having
Speaker 1: a different sinus issue here because we're having to use heat.
Speaker 1: I don't even want to talk about the rest of
Speaker 1: what's going on. You know, I'm doing my best to
Speaker 1: heal up still from November's adventure. But what's happening is
Speaker 1: the dry heat, because in Georgia we usually don't need eaters. Honestly,
Speaker 1: is killing my sinuses just trying to stay warm. Christmas
Speaker 1: preparation has been strange and quite frankly again, I tried
Speaker 1: to get some you know, food ahead of time so
Speaker 1: that we could have a nice Christmas dinner, but frankly
Speaker 1: I can't seem to keep extra food around all that long,
Speaker 1: so you know, work in progress regarding that. I want
Speaker 1: to give my son at least a nice Christmas dinner,
Speaker 1: and you know, a couple of presents would be nice.
Speaker 1: And it's been a struggle this year, as per usual
Speaker 1: and as you could imagine, but as I do that,
Speaker 1: it's just I got these headaches and this problem, and
Speaker 1: it's a really basic, simple thing. I'm drying out my
Speaker 1: sinuses with these you know, heaters that are not usually
Speaker 1: active in the house. You know, normally it's we're fighting
Speaker 1: with the air conditioning and electric and all that. And
Speaker 1: it's been really really cold in Georgia off and on.
Speaker 1: So you know, whether anomalies do cause us issues holiday
Speaker 1: or no, so it happens anyways. Look, I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: you know, the season is interesting, not just for the
Speaker 1: pressure on people's travel. And I'm not going nowhere. I
Speaker 1: can't even hardly leave the house unless I'm going to
Speaker 1: a doctor at this point. So you know, it is
Speaker 1: what it is. But uh, let's put it all aside
Speaker 1: and talk about New Orleans now, just before we go
Speaker 1: straight into it, you were recently on the Lone Gunman podcast, Right, Yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Was on there and we were revisiting we had we
Speaker 3: had promised, David and I promised before Lancer actually when
Speaker 3: we did the first edition of the Oslo Puzzle, that
Speaker 3: we were going to dig into you know what happened
Speaker 3: to Oswald? What happened in New Orleans? That led to
Speaker 3: you know, what happened on the way to Dallas, and
Speaker 3: that we were we're pretty much done with New Orleans,
Speaker 3: but we wanted to explore that time. How how did
Speaker 3: he how was how did he get on people's radars?
Speaker 3: Was he really on the CIA's radar? Was he really operational?
Speaker 3: How did he get across the line into being a
Speaker 3: patsy in the conspiracy? So that that's what we've been
Speaker 3: working on since, and that's what we presented at Lancer
Speaker 3: and talked with on the Long Gun and all of that.
Speaker 3: That story turned out to be a lot longer than
Speaker 3: we thought, which is why we ended up actually with
Speaker 3: an addition, making a second edition of the paperback version
Speaker 3: of the book. Because it's as you and I thought before.
Speaker 3: It's sort of like when David and I sat down
Speaker 3: and say, you know, we should maybe write a short
Speaker 3: paper on what we've learned. Short papers never stay short.
Speaker 3: And the only good thing in this case is they
Speaker 3: didn't turn totally book link.
Speaker 1: Well okay, but pause it right there, because here's the
Speaker 1: fun part. Right. I listened to part of the Loan
Speaker 1: Gunman thing, and I like how you and David explain
Speaker 1: this evolution. But I think I want people to really
Speaker 1: appreciate this because you know, full disclosure, I've been kind
Speaker 1: of along for the ride with the Oswald Puzzle since
Speaker 1: before it was even a paper, right, because you showed me,
Speaker 1: you know, your early drafts of that paper, and then
Speaker 1: you kept going, well, maybe we have to turn it
Speaker 1: into something that's a little longer. Well, maybe it's got to.
Speaker 1: And this evolved gradually, not because you know the work
Speaker 1: was bad, but because there is almost a bottomless amount
Speaker 1: of questions here regarding just this issue. And in my mind,
Speaker 1: why you know, being an observer of the literature for decades, right,
Speaker 1: I mean no offense, Larry, but long before you wrote
Speaker 1: your first book, it seems I was observing people struggling
Speaker 1: with wrestling with this, sometimes with way less resources than
Speaker 1: you had, you know, writing the Oswald Puzzle, right, And
Speaker 1: This has been a constant need to revisit this because
Speaker 1: there are so many open, unanswered pieces to the puzzle,
Speaker 1: so to speak. And that's what's weird here. It evolved
Speaker 1: because it needed to, but also in real time, your
Speaker 1: thing evolves from well I got an article to okay,
Speaker 1: now I got a paper, to well, maybe i'll turn
Speaker 1: it into a monograph to you know what, David is
Speaker 1: really going to have to do some heavy lifting on
Speaker 1: part of this because I'm doing something else. Like a
Speaker 1: real sincere need for the co author was there, and
Speaker 1: really it wouldn't hurt you guys if you could find,
Speaker 1: you know, a couple of copies of yourselves and have
Speaker 1: you know, four authors altogether, just to do the work
Speaker 1: so that there was focuses from individuals who were actually
Speaker 1: being conscientious about their work the whole way through. So
Speaker 1: I watched this evolve into what eventually becomes the book. Okay,
Speaker 1: as somebody who got to see drafts all along the way,
Speaker 1: right then I get to see, well, you know what,
Speaker 1: maybe you need to go back in. And it's not
Speaker 1: like we didn't think we gave a complete manuscript to
Speaker 1: people when we turned in the book, but we need
Speaker 1: to add to it now, you know, which to me
Speaker 1: is actually great because the people that think they've reached
Speaker 1: the ultimate conclusion all the time in this type of
Speaker 1: work are often the people that make the largest mistakes.
Speaker 1: I have the greatest answer. I know how it worked.
Speaker 1: I have the solution, and you're going to have to
Speaker 1: read my book or buy my DVD to get it.
Speaker 1: And there it is, you got it. And those people
Speaker 1: are often way off a couple of years later, when
Speaker 1: all of a sudden somebody unearth's contradictory stuff, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and you and David are doing something entirely
Speaker 1: different in that you're answering more more responsibly with this
Speaker 1: evolving process. So I just want to recognize that and
Speaker 1: also say that you know, it stands out to me. Instead,
Speaker 1: it stood out to me even more listening to Rob
Speaker 1: and Joe talk to you guys, and having finally caught
Speaker 1: the lancer presentation in its entirety, you know, which took
Speaker 1: me a little while to get to due to circumstances
Speaker 1: outside of my control. But when I was able to
Speaker 1: focus and everything else. I think people need to appreciate that,
Speaker 1: and I encourage you if you have appreciated any of
Speaker 1: Larry's work. Not only the existing Oswald puzzle is great,
Speaker 1: but there will be additional material in this new one
Speaker 1: with good reason. And here's the thing again, Larry, no
Speaker 1: offense to you or David. None of this will be
Speaker 1: entirely definitive, I think. But you're getting real close now
Speaker 1: and you can actually watch the process, watch this thing evolve,
Speaker 1: so that this is the way work should be done.
Speaker 1: You're being given a template, folks, about how this work
Speaker 1: should be done. And I just want to stop, pause
Speaker 1: and mention that before we go into the minutia of
Speaker 1: Oswald and New Orleans, which has been a question for
Speaker 1: a very very long time. I'm openly in the public
Speaker 1: in the author's works out there, people have been fascinated
Speaker 1: and also led down different rabbit holes because of guess what,
Speaker 1: not Dallas, but because of Oswald in New Orleans and
Speaker 1: Oswald's defection. What does this mean? Who is he around?
Speaker 1: You know? It goes well beyond the Oliver Stone film.
Speaker 1: It goes well beyond the story of Jim Garrison. There
Speaker 1: is a lot to get to. Although those things are
Speaker 1: important too, there is still, you know, as we speak,
Speaker 1: some more things that need to be explored, and I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to see how much of it you get
Speaker 1: to with this re release of the Oswald puzzle. So, Larry,
Speaker 1: that being said, if you want to say anything else
Speaker 1: about that, go ahead, But if not, let's really, you know,
Speaker 1: go soup to nuts, so to speak, on Lee Harvey
Speaker 1: Oswald and New Orleans. Starting with it's you know, why
Speaker 1: is this important to say the uninitiated? Why is this
Speaker 1: an important thing? Oswald in New Orleans? He didn't kill
Speaker 1: anybody there that we know of. He handed out the
Speaker 1: pamphlets there, Yes, indeed, but why is this so important
Speaker 1: in your mind to study? Please?
Speaker 3: It's interesting check because I can recall asking the same
Speaker 3: question you just asked back in in nineteen sixty nine,
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy, when we heard on the radio that this
Speaker 3: attorney in New Orleans was investigating Lee Harvey Oswell in
Speaker 3: the assassination, and we all went, well, what the heck
Speaker 3: does that have to do with Dallas, remember, and deciding
Speaker 3: not to pay any attention to it because it must
Speaker 3: be silly because it didn't have you know, an they
Speaker 3: didn't do with Dallas, and that's where it happened, you know.
Speaker 3: So it's it's interesting that that that is a quite
Speaker 3: common question to ask. But to step back, the comment
Speaker 3: I would make is that I think one of the
Speaker 3: things that we're suffering from at this point in time
Speaker 3: is that a lot of us have all worked on
Speaker 3: this for so long that it's tempting to get moved
Speaker 3: from the position of exploration to a position of defending
Speaker 3: your positions, like, Okay, we did find it. We understand
Speaker 3: what happened, and we understand the nature of the conspiracy
Speaker 3: see it, and we've learned that, and we just need
Speaker 3: to stand from all that and convince you people, this
Speaker 3: is what happened. Well, you can do that, but the
Speaker 3: problem is, it's like setting up a series offenses. You're
Speaker 3: you're going to stay inside those boundaries because you just
Speaker 3: set up your own boundaries, because you picked your own evidence,
Speaker 3: your own assessments, you know, and you're going to that.
Speaker 3: And I'm afraid in many cases we've moved into a
Speaker 3: position of promotion rather than researchch exploration. We're not doing
Speaker 3: stuff with new data that comes out because we don't
Speaker 3: we really don't need it because we already understand what's
Speaker 3: going on, and we've been saying it for some time.
Speaker 3: Now and it would just be intrusive. It we're just
Speaker 3: get in the way and the approach David and I
Speaker 3: are taking. David is especially good at this, as David
Speaker 3: will will challenge me with a piece of information or
Speaker 3: it's like, well, you know, we just learned this, we
Speaker 3: just saw this document, you know, or do we just
Speaker 3: ignore this or are we going to examine where there's
Speaker 3: new implications that we haven't considered. And that all leads
Speaker 3: me back to the point of what is there about
Speaker 3: New Orleans that all of us have not paid nearly
Speaker 3: enough attention to?
Speaker 1: Right now, clearly, well, Larry, one thing here, yeah, one
Speaker 1: thing here before you go forward, though, is that you know,
Speaker 1: the time period that you're talking about where you first
Speaker 1: asked that question, there are active authors in the JFK
Speaker 1: research community that were involved with the Garrison situation right directly.
Speaker 1: You know, people like Weisberg, you know definitely was in
Speaker 1: contact with him in real time when this stuff was
Speaker 1: going on. Now, you weren't one of those guys, but
Speaker 1: you were asking at a distance at that point from
Speaker 1: those guys. Right there were people that later become the
Speaker 1: iconic authors in the historiography, if you will, of the
Speaker 1: assassination who are documenting things you know now they're just
Speaker 1: in the pile of conspiracy theorists. But there were some
Speaker 1: unique individuals that included David Lifton. I don't remember if
Speaker 1: Lyfton made direct contact with Garrison, but he was studying
Speaker 1: it as a very guy back then. Even though best
Speaker 1: evidence was a decade and a half away or whatever
Speaker 1: from being the phenomena, not from being released. It was
Speaker 1: about a decade away from being released in context with
Speaker 1: the time where you were asking this question, but there
Speaker 1: were authors that were active writers at that time that
Speaker 1: involved themselves in Garrison before you observed it. Because you
Speaker 1: were observing it, it seems like through the literature, and
Speaker 1: you didn't live in New Orleans, so you weren't getting
Speaker 1: local newscasts. You weren't getting the local TV cast or
Speaker 1: the local newspaper coverage, so you were in the second
Speaker 1: hand column there as far as authors, creators, and people
Speaker 1: really directly involved as researchers, you were just an observer,
Speaker 1: a bystander, if you will, from the public perspective, And
Speaker 1: that's interesting. But those guys even then who were closer
Speaker 1: to the situation were working with very little information compared
Speaker 1: to what's available today to own anyone. So they were
Speaker 1: bringing things out. You're looking at it and saying, okay,
Speaker 1: why is this important? Because in my mind, these people
Speaker 1: were authors at the time simply took it as a
Speaker 1: pivot point. Okay, since we know about this, we need
Speaker 1: to go somewhere else from here. And so therefore, their
Speaker 1: trip through this information, their trip through this period on
Speaker 1: Oswald's timeline or whatever it is you want to call it,
Speaker 1: was a very temporary thing and just part of the
Speaker 1: directions that they were going through to get to whereever
Speaker 1: it is they were going, whether it was to bring
Speaker 1: the story into Dallas. You need to know this, and okay,
Speaker 1: move on or listen. We need to recognize why the
Speaker 1: media was sharing certain things, you know, because as I've observed,
Speaker 1: you know, during that weekend between when Kennedy was killed
Speaker 1: and when Oswald was killed, we already got to hear
Speaker 1: stuff that was recorded in New Orleans months before, knowing
Speaker 1: that you know, this Oswald was a kooky communist. He's
Speaker 1: getting arrested. You know, the berengear thing that was being
Speaker 1: shared and often forgotten in the constant coverage that emerged
Speaker 1: post assassination and immediately too, where they had part of
Speaker 1: the audio, you know, being shared out there. But again
Speaker 1: it was about establishing a background as opposed to actually
Speaker 1: studying what was going on there. They were giving a
Speaker 1: summary for that, and their version was, look, he was
Speaker 1: being a comedy in New Orleans before he went to Dallas.
Speaker 1: Huh huh. That's what they were doing with it. But
Speaker 1: nobody really studied it unless you were deep, deep, deep
Speaker 1: into the Garrison investigation. And we know now that he
Speaker 1: definitely had limited access to everything and he was attempting
Speaker 1: to prosecute Okay, you know anyway, I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: put that in context. I think that's a fair thing
Speaker 1: to do here, because when you say I'm paying attention
Speaker 1: to it in nineteen seven or seventy one or sixty nine,
Speaker 1: that's after the trial, that's after some public outcry, that's
Speaker 1: after a Playboy interview in sixty eight, right, So this
Speaker 1: is after the media has shared this in its way,
Speaker 1: and I mean all of the media at the time,
Speaker 1: you know, no Internet, et cetera. But all the media
Speaker 1: of the time has already filtered this, redistributed it and
Speaker 1: given you here's the hints about Oswald and New Orleans.
Speaker 1: So there's a good reason to set that perspective in
Speaker 1: its own box. Okay, I think, and somebody might say, well, welcome,
Speaker 1: Larry didn't write about it in nineteen seventy one, then
Speaker 1: you know, where were you in nineteen seventy one, Larry?
Speaker 1: How come you didn't have a book on this already?
Speaker 3: That is a good question. As I recall, in nineteen
Speaker 3: seventy one, I was just out of basic training in
Speaker 3: technical school in the Air Force and get to go overseas,
Speaker 3: and it somehow just really didn't occurred to me to
Speaker 3: think about this at the point at that point in time,
Speaker 3: and had been married for a whole year.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, so.
Speaker 3: I just I just missed it. What can I say?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you had you had what they call a life.
Speaker 1: It is interesting you had what they call a life,
Speaker 1: you know, one of those things that some of us
Speaker 1: give up when we get deep into research. Yes, sorry, yeah, sorry.
Speaker 3: I think one of the things. Just for that perspective
Speaker 3: is a lot of and I've I've spoken with Mary Ferrell,
Speaker 3: she was very involved with Garrison. I've had some exchanges
Speaker 3: with Liften, I've uh, certainly I've read everything Wiseberg wrote
Speaker 3: on it. They were. They had a couple of difficulties.
Speaker 3: One thing is the Garrison investigation itself, and by and
Speaker 3: of course Debrah Conways from New Orleans. I've known people
Speaker 3: who were there in New Orleans. They followed it very closely.
Speaker 3: But it was it would be like being in the
Speaker 3: middle of the war zone and trying to really deal
Speaker 3: with what's and make sense out of the information. You know,
Speaker 3: it's fog of battle and that sort of thing. Garrison
Speaker 3: had supporters, he had attractors. Shaw had a lot of
Speaker 3: local support just because of cultural issues. No everybody knew
Speaker 3: that the FBI and the CIA or sometimes how I'm
Speaker 3: trying to undermine Garrison. But they had no idea how
Speaker 3: Garrison knew he was trying to be undermined. He had
Speaker 3: no idea how he had suspicions. It just people began
Speaker 3: taking sides, even within the research community for all and
Speaker 3: anti Garrison. He's going the right way, he's going the
Speaker 3: wrong way. He's making a case out of nothing. Why
Speaker 3: didn't he stay with this? It was a very combative
Speaker 3: situation and a lot of heat and you know, smoke
Speaker 3: and fog of battle. Like I said, to even try
Speaker 3: to deal at that time with what came out. That's
Speaker 3: that's cleared some what now because we can answer a
Speaker 3: lot of those questions. We know what the CIA was
Speaker 3: doing to undermine them, We know what they were concerned about.
Speaker 3: The same way goes with the FBI. We know what
Speaker 3: they were concerned about. No need for speculation. We can
Speaker 3: see it. Uh. You know, perhaps this is long enough
Speaker 3: after the battle to see it. But the interesting thing
Speaker 3: is a lot of those positions that were taken immediately
Speaker 3: and in the years right following that the investigation are
Speaker 3: still being defended without stepping back and looking at what
Speaker 3: we've learned, you know, because the other and that's what
Speaker 3: proples me a bit. If you lock yourself into that
Speaker 3: mode and you don't, if you're now just defending Garrison
Speaker 3: and his investigation and his positioning of Oswald and and
Speaker 3: and then what the first researchers wrote, then you're kind
Speaker 3: of locked several decades back, you know, And I consider
Speaker 3: that to be a problem.
Speaker 1: One other thing that occurs to me here is that
Speaker 1: if you are if you have some distance from those events,
Speaker 1: the trial, the aftermath, the media treatment of Garrison, all
Speaker 1: that stuff that was going on at the time, Guess what,
Speaker 1: no shock to anybody in twenty twenty five, but they
Speaker 1: forget this part of it. There were political and social
Speaker 1: and cultural issues involved in this situation too. Immediately, there
Speaker 1: were some people that quietly talked about, you know, Garrison
Speaker 1: is persecuting Shaw because he's gay, which does not seem
Speaker 1: to be a valid criticism to me. But there are
Speaker 1: people you know, Oh, wow, an invalid criticism in a
Speaker 1: political or you know, a social charged issue. Wow, what
Speaker 1: a shock. But that stuff went on. Garrison's track record
Speaker 1: is called into question. Oh he's not blaming the mob
Speaker 1: because he's been bought out by the mob. These things
Speaker 1: have emerged and re emerged over the years, as you know,
Speaker 1: criticisms of Garrison's investigation of the man himself. Oh well,
Speaker 1: actually it was because you know, I've heard everything now
Speaker 1: from you know, he was in the mob's pocket to
Speaker 1: you know, but he was really fighting them to he
Speaker 1: was persecuting Gaze, because that's just the way it was.
Speaker 1: To know, he was a champion of the Gaze to
Speaker 1: all the way. To guess what ultimately what it actually
Speaker 1: is is, Well, you know the answer, Larry, Ultimately, with
Speaker 1: some people, every answer is the juice, you know, and
Speaker 1: I you know, orange or apple or whatever the juice
Speaker 1: that you got to let loose. Right, I'm making a
Speaker 1: mocking judgment of that, because I don't see how you
Speaker 1: get from A to P without ever counting any of
Speaker 1: the letters in between. But you know, to each his own.
Speaker 1: But these things that keep emerging now afterwards are echoes
Speaker 1: of what was hot at the time. You know, is
Speaker 1: it because Garrison's a liberal? Is it because Garrison is this?
Speaker 1: Is he just bought out? Is he just crazy? And
Speaker 1: you know, we got a maniac at the switch? It happens.
Speaker 1: Those things were happening back then, They happened when Stone
Speaker 1: released the movie. They're still occurring. I mean, there are
Speaker 1: hit pieces and books still coming out about the man,
Speaker 1: and he's been dead for a couple decades, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know what are we talking about here. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying that contemporaneous issues and political issues and social issues
Speaker 1: played a role in all these lenses and on the
Speaker 1: people who were writing about it, covering it, trying to
Speaker 1: contribute to it. Whether it was Mary Ferrell, good call there,
Speaker 1: but there were others that also showed up. I think
Speaker 1: Sylvia mar might have even contacted him at one point.
Speaker 3: If I remember, Yeah, Sylvia was definitely in contact. I've
Speaker 3: seen some of her correspondents, and of course she was
Speaker 3: talking with Mary about it. They were both approached Garrison
Speaker 3: the goal of assisting him, but he was he was
Speaker 3: kind of going in a different direction.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: And and the problem being, of course, is you're describing
Speaker 3: a war that's still being fought. If you go into forums,
Speaker 3: going to discussions in the research community, this is still
Speaker 3: a war that's been fought and is never going to
Speaker 3: be resolved and has become a huge diversion, and it's
Speaker 3: part of become of that history. You know, it's baggage
Speaker 3: that we're carrying along rather than dealing with the essential
Speaker 3: elements of you know, what went down in New Orleans
Speaker 3: that could relate to Dallas not you know.
Speaker 1: And the only thing that's unique, well, Larry, hang on,
Speaker 1: the only thing that's unique here about this situation as
Speaker 1: opposed to you know, various other things that we could
Speaker 1: talk about in the case. And a lot of people complain, Look,
Speaker 1: you're you're putting your modern arguments onto this and you're
Speaker 1: adding to the issue, and you're distracting from it. Not you, Larry,
Speaker 1: but I mean, this is the general you and the
Speaker 1: argument that I see all the time. You know what,
Speaker 1: you're judging it based on modern considerations and you're not
Speaker 1: putting it in context with the time. But what's unique
Speaker 1: about this Oswald you know in New Orleans issue, is
Speaker 1: that it's the same issues from then that keep just
Speaker 1: re emerging and getting heated in different ways. It's like,
Speaker 1: how many different ways are you going to cook that
Speaker 1: turkey from Thanksgiving? Now it's the same turkey, but now
Speaker 1: you've had the sandwiches, You've made turkey salad out of it.
Speaker 1: You know, you've definitely gone and just reheated it once
Speaker 1: and we've gotten everything out of this and it keeps
Speaker 1: going as if the bird is you know, has unlimited
Speaker 1: meat on it, and they just keep redoing it and
Speaker 1: redoing it. But it's the same arguments from then to now.
Speaker 1: It's not just the modern influence. It's literally the thing
Speaker 1: that won't shut up. As far as these different socio political,
Speaker 1: religious aspects, you know, whatever you want to call them,
Speaker 1: depending on which area we're talking about. These things are
Speaker 1: what came with the turkey in the first place and
Speaker 1: are still being recycled and reused, and the leftovers from
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving keep on giving. That's all there is to it.
Speaker 1: It's not something that oh, now they're adding, you know,
Speaker 1: stuff from modern times into it, like you know, they're
Speaker 1: using a new technology that wouldn't count for that at
Speaker 1: the time, et cetera, et cetera. No, it's the same
Speaker 1: things that just haven't actually ever stopped. It's just they
Speaker 1: have new forums, like you said, and I don't mean
Speaker 1: just in the digital sense, to argue these things in
Speaker 1: that's all it is. You know, back in those days,
Speaker 1: you might have gotten radio debates about it. You might
Speaker 1: have gotten television shows that showed one side and another
Speaker 1: television show sewing another side. Maybe newspaper articles for a moment,
Speaker 1: going back and forth editorials. Nowadays you've got instantaneous I
Speaker 1: can type whatever the hell it is I want, even
Speaker 1: though I'm nobody from Nowhereville, and they're still having literally
Speaker 1: all the same arguments that we're there to begin with.
Speaker 1: It hasn't changed there. So that's an interesting thing about
Speaker 1: this that really, I mean, tell me if I'm wrong. Realistically,
Speaker 1: it has just remained with these arguments that keep re
Speaker 1: emerging and somebody claims to now have won the argument.
Speaker 1: And that's the only thing that actually changes here. Different
Speaker 1: people are claiming victory with the very same issues that
Speaker 1: were there from day one on the New Orleans issue,
Speaker 1: and it's only really been amplified and meant to be
Speaker 1: a cause celeb now and then because of Jim Garrison's
Speaker 1: work in my mind, But it's it's always been the
Speaker 1: same thing. It's always been the same arguments, except now,
Speaker 1: you know, it's the Jewish mafia, you know, and that's
Speaker 1: not new. That was an old thing. It's the Garrison's
Speaker 1: not paying attention to it because of the pinball machines.
Speaker 1: And now we go back into his record, you know, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Which is why I liked when Joan wrote the you
Speaker 1: know that other book on Garrison after a Farewell to justice,
Speaker 1: you know, she releases how about the rest of his
Speaker 1: Life book? I forget the name of it, but I
Speaker 1: have it behind me because it was necessary, you know,
Speaker 1: because people were like, well, he's actually a cowtowing to
Speaker 1: the mob. The Jewish mafia owned him. Hey, you know what,
Speaker 1: it's Bobby Kennedy's people that were actually interfering with his election,
Speaker 1: not the CIA, you know, or maybe that's you know,
Speaker 1: a bird by a feather and a different name. It's
Speaker 1: the same thing. Okay. Well I'm saying is that this
Speaker 1: is interesting to me in that it's really consistent. It's
Speaker 1: not new crap being thrown on the pile. It's just
Speaker 1: the same pile, you know, being reheated like that Thanksgiving
Speaker 1: bird I brought up over and over again. It's just
Speaker 1: like I said, sometimes you're making you know, turkey gravy
Speaker 1: out of it because you're toward the end. Sometimes you
Speaker 1: making turkey soup because you're picking the last off of
Speaker 1: the bone, you think. But either way, it's the same turkey. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's been there since wow, you know, nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 1: I guess really when this emerged media wise. But either way,
Speaker 1: what do you think of that idea that I'm explaining
Speaker 1: to you? This is a little different in that it's
Speaker 1: really remained the same no matter how you try to
Speaker 1: slice it.
Speaker 3: Right, The arguments about Garrison, the arguments about his investigation
Speaker 3: are the same threads. If you would to go on
Speaker 3: a forum and do an AI search or do a
Speaker 3: search on the forum, you would find exactly the same
Speaker 3: series of arguments being made today as we're made five
Speaker 3: years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago, and I
Speaker 3: think it's fascinating. It's the same as you say it
Speaker 3: never the same points are argued, the same pros and
Speaker 3: cons are brought up, and it just consumes a huge
Speaker 3: amount of energy and a huge amount of resource. And
Speaker 3: actually very few of those arguments, you know, they're not
Speaker 3: going to be resolved, and they really you know, it's
Speaker 3: like noise in the system, to be perfectly honest, But
Speaker 3: it's great because they're good arguments to be having people
Speaker 3: become enthralled in them and then they get diverted away
Speaker 3: from more basic questions. So yeah, going to New Orleans
Speaker 3: does plunge you into a midst of decades of noise
Speaker 3: on the Garrison investigation. And at this point in time,
Speaker 3: what's interesting in David and I about the Garrison Information
Speaker 3: Investigation is is the leads that it generated and actually
Speaker 3: the data that's exposed in terms of the FBI and
Speaker 3: the CIA relating to the Garrison investigation. You know, Garrison
Speaker 3: did raise names, It could come up with names that
Speaker 3: we can now check. But it led us into I
Speaker 3: think the two the two biggest areas that led us
Speaker 3: to and the one that David and I are focused
Speaker 3: on in regard to the FBI, and so let's let's
Speaker 3: cut to the chase on this.
Speaker 1: Let's finally cut through the noise and get to the
Speaker 1: signal through the noise.
Speaker 3: One of the one of the foundational things about Lee
Speaker 3: Harvey Oswell that's remained the same for decades is that
Speaker 3: in New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswell was acting as an
Speaker 3: asset for the FBI to ceia any number of intelligence agencies,
Speaker 3: doing any number of different things. Okay, I mean, that's
Speaker 3: just that's taken as an article of faith at this
Speaker 3: point in time. It's just it's part of the religion.
Speaker 3: That's just that's what he was doing. But the fascinating
Speaker 3: thing is nobody ever goes back and looks at the
Speaker 3: core data. They just kind of state that as by
Speaker 3: the way, I did myself back in the beginning, because
Speaker 3: I took it as an article of faith. Now I'm
Speaker 3: I'm more like challenging articles of faith. So it's sort
Speaker 3: of like, Okay, first of all, let's ask some fundamental questions.
Speaker 3: What do we have. Do we do we show reports
Speaker 3: within the FBI talking about what information they got from him.
Speaker 3: Do we do we have contacts with him? With the FBI.
Speaker 3: What we we have, list of FBI sources in New Orleans,
Speaker 3: CIA sources in New Orleans, sources domestics OPA. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's a whole body of information out there that should
Speaker 3: pertain to that basic question. You know, what was Oswell
Speaker 3: doing in relation to the intelligence agencies? And so that
Speaker 3: is one of the big questions that David and I
Speaker 3: addressed in the book and have carried on in the
Speaker 3: additional work, and and what everybody seems to avoid, and
Speaker 3: I'll just throw this out is the fact that we
Speaker 3: know that Oswell actually did provide information to the FBI,
Speaker 3: not covertly as he would if he were an asset. Not.
Speaker 3: You know, we know how sources and informants work. Okay, fine,
Speaker 3: well that works. We know how I should be reported,
Speaker 3: we show, but we find reports on Oswell providing information
Speaker 3: to the FBI, voluntarily approaching them, asking them to meet
Speaker 3: with him, not on some unscheduled you know, here I'm
Speaker 3: passing a coded message to you. You know, we'll use
Speaker 3: a drop out on the street. None of this spy stuff.
Speaker 1: Right at this point, he has a.
Speaker 3: Message through the Dallas I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, you know, I was just going to say, at
Speaker 1: this point, you have a reason to revisit James Hosty
Speaker 1: and his role because this is where we have some
Speaker 1: documentation about the interaction directly, not like you said, covert
Speaker 1: or anything, but on the record, right for sure, No covert, no,
Speaker 1: you know, keeping off the book stuff, but literally Hosty
Speaker 1: is a good place to start, I think, to begin
Speaker 1: to trace what we have at the surface level, or
Speaker 1: or is that incorrect on my part to start there?
Speaker 3: We we know what Oswell talked. Osweald originally had two
Speaker 3: FBI interviews back and forth worth when he first got
Speaker 3: back from the Soviet Union, Okay, and they contacted him
Speaker 3: and he basically refused to talk to them. We have
Speaker 3: that report them talking about his being uncooperative. Uh, And
Speaker 3: then they're not going to give that up. They contact
Speaker 3: him again, tell them we really have to talk to you.
Speaker 3: Oswell talks to his brother about well, they're already harassing me.
Speaker 3: He goes into the office and we have that interview
Speaker 3: and which they say, well, he was a little bit
Speaker 3: and more informative. He told us some things. He promised
Speaker 3: to report to us if he had any subversive contacts.
Speaker 3: And by the way, in that second interview, he lied
Speaker 3: to the FBI about a couple of things, minor things
Speaker 3: about what had gone on in Russia, and we can
Speaker 3: record it because they recorded what he told him. So
Speaker 3: we had contacts with the FBI all the way back
Speaker 3: to Fort Worth and HOSTI comes into the picture later,
Speaker 3: but Hasty eventually picks up and gets you know, the
Speaker 3: Oswall files for the FBI. That file starts in Dallas
Speaker 3: Fort Worth. That's kind of the office of record because
Speaker 3: that's the first time they interview him, you know, domestically.
Speaker 3: But in New Orleans, the point of contact is very clear,
Speaker 3: and he goes to the FBI. He actually volunteers. The
Speaker 3: interesting thing is he doesn't just walk into the FBI
Speaker 3: office after his arrest. He asked the New Orleans police
Speaker 3: to contact the FBI because he has information for the FBI.
Speaker 3: It's a really interesting thing. So the police are acting
Speaker 3: as a moderary, you know, he is going to volunteer information.
Speaker 3: And then it starts to get a little complex. But
Speaker 3: the upshot of the whole deal is he gives the
Speaker 3: police and the FBI documents about his contacts with the
Speaker 3: Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He gives them membership cards,
Speaker 3: he gives them he is providing information to them. You know,
Speaker 3: they didn't have to send him out to get it.
Speaker 3: He's providing information to them. And the big upshot of
Speaker 3: the whole thing is eighty percent of it is false.
Speaker 3: He is actually lying to the FBI, and he triggers
Speaker 3: an FBI investigation that's going to go on for the
Speaker 3: next four months and consume FBI manpower. The FBI goes
Speaker 3: out to their sources and ask them Oswald has sent
Speaker 3: them to look for this subversive fair play for committee
Speaker 3: commute group that meets clandestinely. They don't reveal their names.
Speaker 3: They have a secret leader, and he names the leader
Speaker 3: guy named Hydell. He gives them all sorts of untrue information,
Speaker 3: which is fascinating because obviously, if he were an actual
Speaker 3: some kind of FBI intelligence collection source, this is not
Speaker 3: a good thing. When your guy comes out, it starts
Speaker 3: sending you off on wild goose chases. So this pretty
Speaker 3: well deconstructs the whole fundamental concept that he's an intelligence
Speaker 3: source of good information that has been sent out to
Speaker 3: collect stuff locally in New Orleans to bring back to them.
Speaker 3: And by the way, we now know the names of
Speaker 3: all of their sources because they go back and ask
Speaker 3: these guys about Oswald and who Oswell might have been
Speaker 3: in contact with. And interestingly enough, most of these sources go,
Speaker 3: we never really heard of Lee Harvey and the fact
Speaker 3: they lie to the FBI, which makes it even more interesting.
Speaker 3: But the very fundamental point that we have repeated over
Speaker 3: and over and over again for decades is disproven by
Speaker 3: this exchange with the FBI. Now you can make a
Speaker 3: case that for a period of time the FBI actually
Speaker 3: may really have carried him as a potential subversive informant,
Speaker 3: and actually they should have according to standard practices, but
Speaker 3: that would have been you know, at his initiative by
Speaker 3: contacting him them and offering information. So that's one big
Speaker 3: foundational thing that we have to deal with. Another is
Speaker 3: that Oswell has lied to the FBI. This is a
Speaker 3: federal crime along with everything else in his Backgroundswell any
Speaker 3: minute could be charged and he would have been convicted
Speaker 3: and he would have done time in the US. And
Speaker 3: the only reason he doesn't is because, first off, he
Speaker 3: has successfully diverted the FBI. So they're looking for this
Speaker 3: hygel character and they don't even talk to Oswald. They
Speaker 3: don't go to you know, if they talk to him,
Speaker 3: you know, maybe it's on a straight corner, maybe whatever,
Speaker 3: But they don't. They don't begin investigating Oswald. They begin
Speaker 3: investigating Hydel and this clandestine group, and by the time
Speaker 3: they start to figure out that they've been led down
Speaker 3: the garden Path, he's gone from New Orleans and they
Speaker 3: don't even catch up with him until he's back in
Speaker 3: Dallas and they start passing things to host He and
Speaker 3: host He starts looking into him. But the fascinating thing is,
Speaker 3: even at that time they're not sure about this Highdell thing.
Speaker 3: They haven't closed out that investigation. But if the assassination
Speaker 3: had not occurred, and if they had closed out the
Speaker 3: investigation and determined that included that he had lied to them,
Speaker 3: it's quite possible that he would have gone to jail.
Speaker 3: And Oswald must have known that because he knew he
Speaker 3: lied to them well, And then there may be part
Speaker 3: of the explanation of why os Will keept jumping around
Speaker 3: using the part, you know, like he knows he's just
Speaker 3: done something that could get him in real trouble. This
Speaker 3: is not a little lie. This is a big.
Speaker 1: Lie right now, something that hasn't even come up in
Speaker 1: what you were just discussing is the idea that the
Speaker 1: FBI had to go ahead and follow him around because
Speaker 1: sorry imported Russian wife at that time period, Right, so
Speaker 1: you know, this guy just came back from Russia or
Speaker 1: you know, Minsk really and all that, but still nonetheless
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. So he's got a Soviet wife, he's
Speaker 1: got a passed you know, you didn't even bring up
Speaker 1: any of that here, right, But that would have been
Speaker 1: forget about if the Pair Play community, you know, fair
Speaker 1: Play for Cuba committee existed or not, or if it
Speaker 1: was volunteered or any of that. Without any of that,
Speaker 1: the FBI would have still been on them or should
Speaker 1: have been, right.
Speaker 3: And the FBI was on them, we know for it.
Speaker 3: For a matter of fact, when Oswell was arrested in
Speaker 3: New Orleans, and this is two things are going on,
Speaker 3: you always got to separate what's going on locally versus
Speaker 3: what's going on at headquarters because the two are not
Speaker 3: necessarily in the sink, and the two can be out
Speaker 3: of phase by literally months.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: So a lot of people that write about this don't
Speaker 3: get it right because they blur the timelines. But what
Speaker 3: was going on at headquarters within a week to two
Speaker 3: weeks what I just discussed. Oswell, offering information Headquarters, gets
Speaker 3: a copy of this rest report from the FBI office.
Speaker 3: He's been arrested. He's been promoting Cuba. He's been promoting
Speaker 3: the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which is on the
Speaker 3: FBI subversive list. And at the FPCC Cuba and Cuba
Speaker 3: Desk at FBI headquarters, the guy who chairs that desk
Speaker 3: and is supposed to be on top of all of this,
Speaker 3: actually writes Hosting a memo and says, is this is
Speaker 3: Lee Harvey Oswald an object of national security concern, literal
Speaker 3: national concerti concern. That's that's as high get as it
Speaker 3: gets for the FBI. So at that level, and by
Speaker 3: the way, they write the CIA and copy that letter,
Speaker 3: and they copy Hosty's response, who gives them background on
Speaker 3: Oswald and fort Worth with a Russian wife, maybe meets
Speaker 3: his wife. He can't hold the job. This is happening
Speaker 3: at FBI headquarters and is being copied to the CIA.
Speaker 3: So that's all going on in parallel. Oswell has no
Speaker 3: idea of that. While in New Orleans, the local guys
Speaker 3: are just really concerned about this clandestine chapter that that
Speaker 3: he that there began to investigate. So you're right, chucked there.
Speaker 3: But at that as of the end of August, Oswell
Speaker 3: is seriously on the radar as a national security concern
Speaker 3: because he has been in the Soviet Union as a
Speaker 3: Russian eye. He's contacting the FPCC and that's why he
Speaker 3: goes back. He's been off the FBI watch list because
Speaker 3: fort Worth investigated and couldn't show him in contact with communists.
Speaker 3: Now he's going to go back on the watch list.
Speaker 3: And what pulls them off the watch list? You know,
Speaker 3: they're they're looking for him. We don't know exactly what
Speaker 3: pulls them off the watch list. But one thing we
Speaker 3: don't we do know is they did close down the
Speaker 3: New Orleans and investigation and conclude that there was no
Speaker 3: real chapter, there was no real highdel you know. Uh,
Speaker 3: but that came that came months later. So yeah, you
Speaker 3: have to you have to keep in mind. And something
Speaker 3: that none of us have fully paid attention to is
Speaker 3: all of these people after the fact tried to step
Speaker 3: away from their knowledge of Oswald, and while in reality
Speaker 3: they were doing their day job, they were communicating on Oswald,
Speaker 3: they were taking Oswald's information, they were investigating it. You
Speaker 3: have to wonder there's nothing wrong with what they were doing.
Speaker 3: Actually that was what they should have been doing. So
Speaker 3: why did they want all want to step back from
Speaker 3: it after the fact? You know, like when when you
Speaker 3: Bury's who's the guy in charge of the subversive desk
Speaker 3: in New Orleans is viewed by the HSCA, it's sort
Speaker 3: of like, were you aware of Lee Harvy Oswell, well,
Speaker 3: we were aware of him, Okay, now that's you can
Speaker 3: look at his testimony. They weren't just aware of him.
Speaker 3: And if your Burius had not been personally engaged with
Speaker 3: his case, he would have should dereliction of duty, you know.
Speaker 3: And at one point in time the Attorney General of
Speaker 3: the United States even interceded with Garrison to limit the
Speaker 3: number of questions to buriaus could have been asked. So
Speaker 3: the fascinating thing is not Oswald as an agent of
Speaker 3: the FBI, but what in the heck was going on
Speaker 3: with the FBI and the CIA, etc. That made them
Speaker 3: so sensitive to what they had been doing with Oswald,
Speaker 3: when in respect it was very legitimate. It was Oswald
Speaker 3: that was at fault providing false information.
Speaker 1: Well, he's providing a mixture of information, which is the problem, right,
Speaker 1: so they have to sort between the BS and the
Speaker 1: legitimate stuff. They have legitimate reasons for collecting this, and
Speaker 1: he adds to the reasons with his BS, which, you know, look,
Speaker 1: chase down this fair play for Cuba Committee. It's mysterious,
Speaker 1: it's all this. Meanwhile, the answer to that is it
Speaker 1: doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: You know, it's going to take a while find that out,
Speaker 3: absolutely right.
Speaker 1: You know, how do you prove that something isn't in existence?
Speaker 1: You know, it's much easier to find evidence of something's
Speaker 1: existence than evidence that it doesn't exist, you know, unless
Speaker 1: it's irrational by the laws of you know, time and space.
Speaker 1: Kind of difficult to say.
Speaker 3: You can't fault them for that. I mean, I can't
Speaker 3: fault them for taking some time. If this group is
Speaker 3: is clandestine as he described it, it's going to take
Speaker 3: some time.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: You just can't next week. You can't say, well, they
Speaker 3: don't exist. Yeah, so there's nothing wrong with them, you know,
Speaker 3: taking some months to work through that and nothing all
Speaker 3: wrong with that, which which still brings up the question,
Speaker 3: why are they so defensive when they're doing the right job?
Speaker 1: Now? Is this part of the problem? Why you keep
Speaker 1: needing to add to this information, because in real time
Speaker 1: when you try and trace it as it was occurring,
Speaker 1: there is this mixture of what's happening and sort of
Speaker 1: a shaky logical path to follow regarding the behaviors of
Speaker 1: not just Oswald, but the FBI. I mean, the most
Speaker 1: often asked question usually that I encounter is why in
Speaker 1: the world did they take him off of the list?
Speaker 1: You know, the whole thing about he's on that list
Speaker 1: of people there or there's an alert present with the
Speaker 1: FBI right and jay Ed Gruber himself drops the alert
Speaker 1: right before the assassination. Basically you know, okay, guys, there's
Speaker 1: really not much to see here right now, so you
Speaker 1: know he's not We're going to drop him on the
Speaker 1: priority list here regarding this. That's literally what happened. We
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 3: What people fail to is what is that alert list.
Speaker 3: That alert list was a list of individuals that are
Speaker 3: may be in touch with the Convage party, maybe under
Speaker 3: control of the Communist party. That watch list was really
Speaker 3: a pick up list, and that's what it should be called.
Speaker 3: Hoover Hoover in the case of a national emergency, kind
Speaker 3: of like World War two, We're going to pick up
Speaker 3: all the Japanese, Okay, in the case of a conflict,
Speaker 3: It's like, I want this master list. All these people
Speaker 3: are potential subversives, and if something goes down, we pick
Speaker 3: them up and we jail them immediately before they can
Speaker 3: begin sabotage and so on and so forth. That's what
Speaker 3: that list was for. Because actually it's not like the
Speaker 3: FBI stopped watching Lee Harvey Oswald. Hosty is contacting his wife,
Speaker 3: he's visiting the pains there. They did a pretext cot
Speaker 3: Paul to confirm his employment at the school book Depository.
Speaker 3: It's not like the FBI backed off from Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 3: That watch list and what they're doing with him and
Speaker 3: monitoring him and trying to interview him are two different things.
Speaker 3: One is very bureaucratic, one is operational in the field.
Speaker 3: And I do get neither the neither the FBI nor
Speaker 3: the CIA, uh you know, stopped looking at Lee Harvey
Speaker 3: Oswell's And for that matter, I just I have to
Speaker 3: assert again Lee RV. Oswell at that point in time,
Speaker 3: as far as anybody knew, you know, he had not
Speaker 3: had communist contacts. The FBI throughout the whole span of
Speaker 3: investigation could never confirm a Communist contact. He had avowed
Speaker 3: on air that he was not a communist, so they
Speaker 3: really they put him on and off the list because
Speaker 3: their criteria was, is this guy, you know, in touch
Speaker 3: with the Communist Party? Is he a Communist tool? Would
Speaker 3: he be a subversive actor? That was their criteria, you know,
Speaker 3: So as he was setting in quite frankly in October November,
Speaker 3: as far as the New Orleans office is concerned, he
Speaker 3: might have still been on their list as a provisional
Speaker 3: subversive informant. And by the way, maybe we should take
Speaker 3: him off to watch list if he's our informant. I
Speaker 3: don't know. I can't, but you know, you've got to
Speaker 3: separate a lot of the things that we've just blithely
Speaker 3: said at a high level from what was really going
Speaker 3: on in reality that we can see from the documents
Speaker 3: now that we could not see before, and that's really
Speaker 3: changed things. How many times have we discussed this without
Speaker 3: bringing up the point that as of you know, as
Speaker 3: of the end of August and early September, you had
Speaker 3: somebody at FB high headquarters asking if he was a
Speaker 3: national security threat and going back to Dallas to investigate it.
Speaker 3: You know, have we really discussed that before. I don't
Speaker 3: think so. No, I had never seen that memo before.
Speaker 3: I had never seen that memo copied to the CIA
Speaker 3: and copied the CIA headquarters and the Cuba Project down
Speaker 3: in Miami. One of the things that we've talked about
Speaker 3: for ages is, you know, who really even knew about
Speaker 3: Lee Harvey Oswald and the fair Play for Cuba committee,
Speaker 3: and you know, as an activist and everything. Now we
Speaker 3: know that that information was being circulated fairly widely within
Speaker 3: certain parts of the CIA and held back from other
Speaker 3: parts of the CIA as the story we could see before.
Speaker 1: Right, So it's literally the newly emergent documents that have
Speaker 1: given us a better path through this, you know, because
Speaker 1: on the surface, like I said, when Newman, you know,
Speaker 1: I remember watching a presentation from Newman where he shows, look,
Speaker 1: here's literally Jay Edgar Hoover dropping the alert, and the
Speaker 1: timing of it alone makes you go, what in the
Speaker 1: hell why would they do this at this point in time?
Speaker 1: I mean open question? And he had the you know,
Speaker 1: he pinpointed here's Hoover dropping the alert, you know, which
Speaker 1: was completely bizarre to me at the time. You know,
Speaker 1: given the information I had, it made no sense. But
Speaker 1: now with a bit of you know, hindsight number one,
Speaker 1: but number two, with newly emergent documents, you guys can
Speaker 1: show us maybe why that happened or or give us
Speaker 1: a better answer as to what was being confused here anyway,
Speaker 1: because again there's a lot of things going in two
Speaker 1: different directions at once where you know, you could see
Speaker 1: that maybe it was crazy to drop that alert. But
Speaker 1: then on the other hand, given what the alert is
Speaker 1: supposed to do and the type of list it's meant
Speaker 1: to maintain, here we go there is an issue because
Speaker 1: he's not directly this or that. They checked with the
Speaker 1: Communist Party of the USA. They had a correspondence which
Speaker 1: you know, the FBI already knew about, where Oswald's writing
Speaker 1: to them asking for advice.
Speaker 3: Right, he's writing to their fair play right, Yes, okay,
Speaker 3: I'm following, Yeah, yes he is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he wrote, well, he asked for advice from CPUSA.
Speaker 1: Here's Sar saying.
Speaker 3: About Chuck that Again, people don't timeline. That was something
Speaker 3: that the FBI was getting from a source inside. They
Speaker 3: were getting from getting from opening the Communist Party's mail
Speaker 3: right in the illegal program that they're doing. That that
Speaker 3: sort of information was really restricted inside the FBI, and
Speaker 3: quite frankly mail opening was restricted inside the CIA as well.
Speaker 3: It wasn't that that was being shared with everybody, you know,
Speaker 3: after the fact. What happens to us after the fact
Speaker 3: is we we get access to files and information from
Speaker 3: different sources at different times is lumped into it, and
Speaker 3: you kind of think, well, like these people knew all
Speaker 3: of this at one point in time. It's not that simple.
Speaker 3: Who knew who had seen that letter, who'd reviewed it?
Speaker 3: And I will say, at this point in time, that letter,
Speaker 3: you can't really track it down and say did anybody
Speaker 3: respond to that letter? What the letter actually is? And
Speaker 3: again we've I think we've mischaracterized it a little bit
Speaker 3: now that I've looked at it again, and David showed
Speaker 3: me again what what Lee Arvy Oswell is doing is
Speaker 3: really writing to different different organizations and expressing the fact
Speaker 3: that he thinks he has screwed up. It's like all
Speaker 3: of us, the socialists, the communist everybody is behind the
Speaker 3: Fair Play for Cuba Committee. We're behind Cuba, you know.
Speaker 3: And I've been going on the air and defending this
Speaker 3: in New Orleans. But then if you read the second
Speaker 3: and third pages of the letter. What he's saying is
Speaker 3: did I do the right thing? Maybe I didn't do
Speaker 3: the right thing, because now everybody's going to associate with me,
Speaker 3: with you, with communism, and I actually should I. What
Speaker 3: he's saying is should I lower my profile? Should I
Speaker 3: stop doing this? Should I go back underground not be
Speaker 3: out where I was promoting it? Because simply associating Cuba
Speaker 3: and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with the Soviet
Speaker 3: Union and my Russian wife and my background is doing
Speaker 3: more damage than good. That's what his letter is actually saying.
Speaker 3: Now that we can see all the pages and all
Speaker 3: the content.
Speaker 1: In it, right, So the point here is that.
Speaker 3: It is not the way I wrote about it the
Speaker 3: first time around. Again disclaimer, you know, like it's easy
Speaker 3: to cherry and go, oh whoa, what why does that
Speaker 3: mean until you have the full story.
Speaker 1: What it is is that, look, everybody, it seems like
Speaker 1: oversimplified here, right If you lay it out on a
Speaker 1: simple timeline, just the timeline, yeah, it looks like, Wow,
Speaker 1: it looks like one thing. Now you have to add
Speaker 1: into Okay, yes that occurred on a timeline at this time,
Speaker 1: but now we need another timeline that explains when that
Speaker 1: information was now available to the other actors here. So
Speaker 1: it's not just about when it occurred, but it's about
Speaker 1: when the information was actually distributed and who had access
Speaker 1: to it, regardless of what their role was. So this
Speaker 1: is far more complex than simply laying out a timeline, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is how I'm trying to break it down.
Speaker 1: Does this make sense to you?
Speaker 3: Yeah? That is really hard work because that goes on
Speaker 3: with real time. When David and I he'll come back
Speaker 3: and answer a question that I've asked him and saying, well,
Speaker 3: somebody knew this, and it will be like, David, when
Speaker 3: did they know that? And who else knew it at
Speaker 3: that time? We got to work the timeline because just
Speaker 3: just because somebody knew it at one place at one
Speaker 3: point in time, doesn't mean everybody knew it, you know, right,
Speaker 3: And where's the memo that communicated it? Where was it shared?
Speaker 3: And some of those things are missing because I'll be
Speaker 3: I'll be real straightforward. It appears at this point in
Speaker 3: time that that some of the communications. Let's talk about
Speaker 3: the communications that should have existed if the Burius was
Speaker 3: actually considering oswald as a as a PSI, which you
Speaker 3: should have according to FBI practice, that's gone. Yet we
Speaker 3: have somebody out of the New Orleans office, William Walter,
Speaker 3: who said, when I worked in the office as a clerk,
Speaker 3: I saw that file and it was in the subversive
Speaker 3: desk file with Oswald as an informant, just exactly where
Speaker 3: it should have been by all the rules and regulations.
Speaker 3: That the man was telling the truth, right, And that's gone.
Speaker 3: That file is gone. Anything relating to him as a
Speaker 3: PSI has gone. The Bureau's obfuscates about it, lies about it.
Speaker 3: And when we got further into that, as it turns out,
Speaker 3: Hoover actually required every agent in the New Orleans office
Speaker 3: to sign a statement saying that no such file had
Speaker 3: ever existed.
Speaker 1: Right, So here we go, like and they.
Speaker 3: Signed it, like it's okay, you know, I didn't see it.
Speaker 3: If Jayeker wants me to sign this, I'm going to
Speaker 3: sign it. So there are places wherefore we're missing information
Speaker 3: that they did, for whatever reasons, decide not to you know,
Speaker 3: Like I guess it would be embarrassing, right if I
Speaker 3: tried to recruit a presidential assassin as a subversive informant,
Speaker 3: that would be sort of you know, considering what they
Speaker 3: did to Hosty. You can imagine where the guys in
Speaker 3: New Orleans would have ended up. Is it like Alaska
Speaker 3: field offices?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Right, So that's what I'm trying to say, though,
Speaker 1: is that And this is why I set it up
Speaker 1: with you this way, is that we can make some
Speaker 1: seemingly logical assertions here about Okay, when did they know it,
Speaker 1: what did they know and when do they know it? Yes,
Speaker 1: that's clever and all, but it doesn't help if you
Speaker 1: don't understand what should have happened. It doesn't help if
Speaker 1: you understand, because how are you going to know that
Speaker 1: something was hidden if you don't know the normal procedures? Right,
Speaker 1: that's the first problem, right, But then there's other issues
Speaker 1: of context here that don't simply boil down to well,
Speaker 1: they knew this in September, so therefore they should have
Speaker 1: acted on it by November. No, because not everybody had
Speaker 1: that information. So therefore some of the people that are
Speaker 1: acting in a way that makes no sense in November
Speaker 1: might have been ready misinformed because they didn't have all
Speaker 1: the information. That might have been intentional, that might have
Speaker 1: been because of the process that might have been because
Speaker 1: Oswald was lying that might have been. I mean, here
Speaker 1: we go. So you've got to lay these things out
Speaker 1: on multiple timelines to make sense out of what was occurring.
Speaker 1: And you need to know what should have happened in
Speaker 1: the first place in a normal, typical situation where you're
Speaker 1: not dealing with, you know, in hindsight, a presidential assassin
Speaker 1: suspect and on and on. So you know, these things
Speaker 1: that you're doing and redoing are necessary because you're now
Speaker 1: able to put it in its ready proper context and say, look,
Speaker 1: just because that information existed and we know when it
Speaker 1: was generated, now we have to figure out when it
Speaker 1: was distributed and who it was distributed to. Okay, great,
Speaker 1: now look at those actors again and take a look
Speaker 1: at their actions. This is why revision is necessary on
Speaker 1: this Or have I just made that clear, do you think,
Speaker 1: Larry or because we're over an hour now, and I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, but I think this is helpful because I
Speaker 1: don't think you have broke this down with other people
Speaker 1: in exactly this way to understand why there is a
Speaker 1: continuous need to re examine these things, because the new
Speaker 1: information doesn't just add to the pile. Sometimes it redivides it.
Speaker 1: You know, the math is not as simple as plus
Speaker 1: and minus all the time. Sometimes you have to determine
Speaker 1: these other factors that create you know, other mechanics in
Speaker 1: the mathematics, so to speak. So you know, is that
Speaker 1: fair or do you think I'm going too far with it?
Speaker 3: It's better tracing who knew what at what time, but
Speaker 3: also what their personal agendas work, what the office agenda worked,
Speaker 3: what's their day job requiring them to do standard practices.
Speaker 3: For example, we know that every every FBI FEEL office
Speaker 3: was tasked with recruiting a certain number of criminal informants,
Speaker 3: criminal sources, subversive informants. They they had a recruiting goal
Speaker 3: every month and they had to report on how many
Speaker 3: they had obtained, and they were judged on their their
Speaker 3: effort to generate sources. Which is why I can step
Speaker 3: back and say, if Uburus didn't consider Oswell's a potential source,
Speaker 3: he wasn't doing his job and I think he was, uh,
Speaker 3: and I think that did create a file. See, you've
Speaker 3: got to you've also got to incorporate their their agendas.
Speaker 3: You know what what the what was Hosti's agenda in Dallas?
Speaker 3: You know what was what was driving him on his
Speaker 3: day job? People you know what was his priority? You know,
Speaker 3: was Oswald really his priority? At that point in time,
Speaker 3: the file had simply been passed back to hosting because
Speaker 3: it was determined that Oswell was resident in Dallas. Again,
Speaker 3: New Orleans had not completed its investigation. So nobody said, oh, Jim,
Speaker 3: you know this guy lied to us. Bring him in,
Speaker 3: put his back against the wall, and tell him he's
Speaker 3: going up for you know, five years. Well, and let's
Speaker 3: see what happens. Nobody did that.
Speaker 1: Now here's another consideration, another consideration here, Just Larry real quick,
Speaker 1: and then I'm gonna let you tie a bow on
Speaker 1: this because we you know, we're over an hour. Like
Speaker 1: I said, But in other investigations where I've looked into
Speaker 1: other circumstances, right, sometimes people make these weird assertions about
Speaker 1: and I'll just I'll give you a generic here. But
Speaker 1: this really happened where there was a murder. Okay. So
Speaker 1: the homicide unit is checking things out. Now, in the
Speaker 1: course of their investigation, they find out this guy was like,
Speaker 1: you know, selling marijuana. All right, you know who is
Speaker 1: the murder suspect. That's not a homicide divisions problem. Okay.
Speaker 1: Now they can take that information and pass it away
Speaker 1: long to narcotics are passing along to regular detectives, but
Speaker 1: their focus is on the homicide. Okay, So unless the
Speaker 1: distribution of marijuana had something to do with the homicide,
Speaker 1: it's not their problem necessarily. Now, most people would assume
Speaker 1: that always the police have to investigate everything. They found
Speaker 1: a crime, they needed to investigate it. But now we
Speaker 1: have a different circumstance where maybe that's somebody else's job.
Speaker 1: It's not their job to figure out the whole marijuana
Speaker 1: thing unless it ties directly to the homicide. They're working
Speaker 1: on the homicide. This happens in you know, local crimes.
Speaker 1: You so in a way you could look at the
Speaker 1: FBI that way.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, and you don't want somebody stepping on your investigation.
Speaker 3: I'm doing a murder investigation. I don't want somebody from
Speaker 3: the drug unit approaching people that I'm talking to or
Speaker 3: haven't talked to yet, or which is why often on
Speaker 3: TV it's kind of like whose crime scene is this?
Speaker 3: You know, we see all that in time, This is
Speaker 3: my investigation. Get out of here. These things do get compartmentalized,
Speaker 3: and sometimes for good reason.
Speaker 1: And there you go, because right because homicide could turn
Speaker 1: around and try and kick over the marijuana thing, and
Speaker 1: meanwhile they wind up revealing that there's an undercover in there,
Speaker 1: you know, And now they've created a complication for the
Speaker 1: prosecution that they didn't know that the narcotics unit was
Speaker 1: working on already. Simply because they discovered it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: another unit didn't know about it. So here we go.
Speaker 1: This is why this is done. It's not simply because well,
Speaker 1: the homicide guys don't care because it's not their job.
Speaker 1: In a way, that's true, But in another way, they
Speaker 1: have to be careful with it so as not to
Speaker 1: screw up somebody else's work that they're unaware of. You
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying. It's like, well, that is these
Speaker 1: guys problem, not because I don't want to deal with
Speaker 1: it or I can only focus on my thing. Even
Speaker 1: they probably could figure it out, but that's not the point.
Speaker 1: There could be a whole separate operation that they're not
Speaker 1: involved with, not supposed to know about because they're trying
Speaker 1: to keep it quiet because it's let's just say, potentially
Speaker 1: it's related to a cartel. So if somebody finds out
Speaker 1: there's an informant in there, people are going to get killed.
Speaker 1: The homicide people could wind up making more work for
Speaker 1: themselves by getting an informant killed, you know. So therefore,
Speaker 1: there are reasons why these things are compartmentalized. Like you said,
Speaker 1: is that not a fair sort of you know, way
Speaker 1: to take it out of context with this, but to
Speaker 1: give you an idea of why it is. Okay, this
Speaker 1: is this guy's job, this is that guy's job, and
Speaker 1: maybe they didn't need to know about this or that
Speaker 1: because it's not part of their job. But also so
Speaker 1: they don't step on somebody else's work. Both of these
Speaker 1: things are valid concerns. So therefore, I mean, again, I'm
Speaker 1: usually the guy who's willing to point the dirty end
Speaker 1: of the stick of the government real quick. But you
Speaker 1: got to be logical, You got to be reasonable about this.
Speaker 1: There are certain things that happen here for good reason,
Speaker 1: where information is not shared, it's withheld, or it's handled
Speaker 1: in a certain way that doesn't necessarily make sense to you.
Speaker 1: If you're trying to wrap up, you know, the half
Speaker 1: hour hour long you know, Law and Order episode, Okay,
Speaker 1: it makes more sense to move it right along. We
Speaker 1: shared the information real quick, and in real life, that
Speaker 1: is not how this works. You know there's reasons for
Speaker 1: shutting it down, handing it over to certain people, and
Speaker 1: certain people only have certain jobs. Am I right or
Speaker 1: wrong about that?
Speaker 3: Yeah? And it's very practical, and we know that happens
Speaker 3: within departments, but it also happens between agencies. As an
Speaker 3: example that we should be aware of, we know that
Speaker 3: staff D within the CIA, which was responsible for collections
Speaker 3: of foreign intelligence. One of the things they did was
Speaker 3: they burgled safe to get code books. They you know,
Speaker 3: had couriers assaulted to steal code books. They did dirty tricks. Okay,
Speaker 3: And we know that Angleton and Harvey both ran staff
Speaker 3: D for periods of time, and that we know, for example,
Speaker 3: Angleton had a relationship with the FBI where he would
Speaker 3: give the FBI a list of well known and expert
Speaker 3: burglars and essentially say, you know, for this period of time,
Speaker 3: would you please not pick these guys up because I've
Speaker 3: got work for them.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: We know that in Iran contract, the CIA gave Dea
Speaker 3: a list of people that were running drugs and sold
Speaker 3: the s Deea not to pick them up because those
Speaker 3: same people were going to carry in weapons for the CIA.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Okay, we know Chris stuff happens between agencies. Just as
Speaker 3: an interesting area of speculation. What if the CIA had
Speaker 3: some operational interest in Oswald in September October of nineteen
Speaker 3: sixty three. Maybe they're going to use them for propaganda purposes.
Speaker 3: Maybe what if CIA reached out to this guy at
Speaker 3: the Cuba desk at FBI headquarters and said, could you
Speaker 3: might maybe not hassle this guy, like, don't pick him up,
Speaker 3: don't we have some things We want him to go
Speaker 3: ahead and do what he's doing because we have a
Speaker 3: use for what he's doing. And you know, this gets
Speaker 3: even more interesting when it all has to be covert.
Speaker 3: It's like, you know, don't don't harass him, don't take
Speaker 3: him off the street, don't lock him up, whatever, let
Speaker 3: him run, because he's doing some things that we have
Speaker 3: found would be useful to us. We don't know that
Speaker 3: did happen, when we don't know that it did happen,
Speaker 3: but it would be an example of compartmentalization of information.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean, even with that look with the Iran
Speaker 1: contra sort of you know, universe and things. I mean,
Speaker 1: I was recently looking back at that actually, and you know,
Speaker 1: people have always had these questions about why are these
Speaker 1: nick roguins based being able to deal drugs and everybody
Speaker 1: knows they're dealing drugs. Well, it also happens to be
Speaker 1: that they're part of the revolutionary connection that's supposed to
Speaker 1: be fighting you know, the government down there. So therefore
Speaker 1: they're being allowed to operate as drug dealers because guess what,
Speaker 1: they're giving information to the DEA as distributors. And they're
Speaker 1: also working, you know, on the covert plot to arm
Speaker 1: certain people, which unfortunately, even though nobody's supposed to do this,
Speaker 1: they're making exchanges for you need guns, you have cocaine,
Speaker 1: we'll take the cocaine, we'll take, We'll give you your guns.
Speaker 1: That's going on, and certain agencies are letting it happen
Speaker 1: because that's part of the plan. This is how we're
Speaker 1: going to fund it. Off the books, and some of
Speaker 1: these you know boy scouts during the day are going well,
Speaker 1: that makes no sense, of course, it makes no sense.
Speaker 1: But they're not always going to jump up front and
Speaker 1: challenge it because sometimes things don't appear, you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: things appear in ways and they're not actually that way.
Speaker 1: You know, the guys who would have arrested Donnie Brasco
Speaker 1: you know, while he's undercover, right, you know, they would
Speaker 1: have arrested him because he's part of the mob. Well,
Speaker 1: no he's not. He's actually an FBI guy. But you
Speaker 1: need to have somebody tell you back off and a
Speaker 1: guy because you don't want to arrest him and maybe
Speaker 1: potentially reveal him as an FBI agent, you know, because
Speaker 1: if he doesn't get treated just like the other guys,
Speaker 1: then it's gonna look bad. So, you know, in other words,
Speaker 1: it's not as.
Speaker 3: Right and be embarrassing. And Iran Contra. One of the
Speaker 3: interesting things was that there was a period of time
Speaker 3: when the CIO was authorized to fly aircraft clandestine ly
Speaker 3: and so on, and so fourth grade son air, I'm
Speaker 3: an air I'm an air operator, and I've got this
Speaker 3: and I'm doing this. And then the next day somebody
Speaker 3: comes up. Well a couple of years later, somebody comes
Speaker 3: up and says, well, you know, you're busted because you're
Speaker 3: flying this stuff. And I go, well, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: and you're told that, oh, by the way, the ci
Speaker 3: was no longer authorized to do that. That authorization was
Speaker 3: taken away. And the guys that you've been working with
Speaker 3: and we're working with that have been flying stuff back
Speaker 3: and forth, have now been just doing drugs and you're
Speaker 3: going to go but but but and you know, and
Speaker 3: you might go to jail. So it's, uh, we have
Speaker 3: to be it's it's not too good to be too
Speaker 3: simple mind it about all of this, right, there are
Speaker 3: wheels within wheels, right.
Speaker 1: I got two words for you, Barry Seal, you know,
Speaker 1: just okay? So yeah, no, I got you. But that
Speaker 1: that's all important. Okay, Larry, I've taken up a lot
Speaker 1: of your time tonight. I really appreciate it. We had
Speaker 1: an interesting conversation that I almost wish we had recorded
Speaker 1: before the show, but that was about current events. Who knows,
Speaker 1: maybe that's what we'll talk about next time we get together,
Speaker 1: which I got to look at a calendar here, let's see, Oh,
Speaker 1: you and I would get together like around the beginning
Speaker 1: around New Year's Eve. I don't know if that would
Speaker 1: work for you or not.
Speaker 3: What day is? I don't have a what day is?
Speaker 3: We could probably sue something New Year's.
Speaker 1: Week, okay, fair enough, because the thirty first is next,
Speaker 1: and it's two wednesdays from now, you know, Like the
Speaker 1: next one is the twenty fourth, then it's the thirty first, So.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we can plan on that week. Just let me
Speaker 3: go back and take a look and and but yeah,
Speaker 3: that should work out.
Speaker 1: Okay, So somewhere around the new year, folks, we'll hear
Speaker 1: from Larry again, and who knows, maybe we'll do a
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe it would be fun for you
Speaker 1: to do a year in review because it's been a
Speaker 1: really interesting year for you. As far as the stuff
Speaker 1: you would.
Speaker 3: Be kind of interesting, yes, like how did all those
Speaker 3: document releases come out? Well, you know, now that we've
Speaker 3: had everything supposedly everything was released, we now know everything.
Speaker 3: We could just wrap it up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, hey, Trump, Trump did it all. According
Speaker 1: to some people, he released everything, So done right, hold on,
Speaker 1: and we should be done with the Kennedy assassination and UAPs.
Speaker 1: I mean there was You know, Luna's a one stop shop,
Speaker 1: so she's helping with all of it, right, Who knows,
Speaker 1: Maybe we could do a twenty twenty five year in
Speaker 1: review what progress we made in the history and.
Speaker 3: What do you think provided information? I provided information to
Speaker 3: her committee on JFK, rfk MLK and UFOs.
Speaker 1: Well Well there you go, so how about sorry?
Speaker 3: Yeah, good, that should all be done by now I'll
Speaker 3: have to I'll have to check my notes and see
Speaker 3: what happened.
Speaker 1: But well, I think that would be a good one.
Speaker 1: What do you say, like twenty twenty five in review?
Speaker 1: What you know the stuff that Larry Hancock was directly
Speaker 1: connected to? And that does cover RFK, MLK, JFK and UAP,
Speaker 1: lots of three letter lots of three letter alphabet soup.
Speaker 3: Well we can just call it. Are we really done now?
Speaker 1: Show? Sounds perfect to me, So yeah, let's do that
Speaker 1: next time. Twenty twenty five in review? Are we really
Speaker 1: done now with Larry Hancock? Perfect? I gotta plan. Don't
Speaker 1: any other podcast or steal it on me, please, because
Speaker 1: you know, let's do that next time we get together.
Speaker 1: But is there anything you want to say? In closing
Speaker 1: here tonight? Again I'll give you guys the link to
Speaker 1: Larry's word press, and again another place to go get
Speaker 1: the Oswald Puzzle, which you can pre order the upgraded version. Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know if people are getting their books yet
Speaker 1: or not. Larry, I don't know what the progress is there.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 3: I don't think that the new edition will be the
Speaker 3: paperback edition, and I don't think that's scheduled actually ship
Speaker 3: until April.
Speaker 1: Okay, well fair enough, but but well look I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to it, that's for sure. And again I'm gonna
Speaker 1: want another paperback.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: It was kind of funny because somebody saw I brought
Speaker 1: my original someone would have talked with me accidentally to
Speaker 1: the conference, right, and somebody looked at it and went, God,
Speaker 1: that thing is beat up. And I said, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I've had it a while, and it's you know, the original,
Speaker 1: the original, you know, a hardcover, right, and it's I've
Speaker 1: lost the dust jacket, so it's the hardcover without the
Speaker 1: dust jacket. It's green. So I don't know how long
Speaker 1: I've had it, but I've had it a while.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm not even sure I have my copy anymore.
Speaker 3: If I do, it's not with an arms link. I
Speaker 3: guarantee that.
Speaker 1: But there you go.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, okay, we'll do it show in the new.
Speaker 1: Year, exactly in the new year, or around it. We'll
Speaker 1: we'll recover twenty twenty five And what was that phrase
Speaker 1: you used? Again? Like what do we know? Now? What
Speaker 1: was it?
Speaker 3: Are we done yet?
Speaker 1: Are we done yet? That's oh that's so perfect. Okay,
Speaker 1: So next time we talked to Larry Hancock. It's are
Speaker 1: we done yet? And twenty twenty five in review with
Speaker 1: disclosures and all of the three letter things that Larry's
Speaker 1: been involved in. How about that? So once again it
Speaker 1: will be RFK, MLK, JFK. You know, I might want
Speaker 1: to talk with you. I don't think I've discussed with
Speaker 1: you the autopsy photos with the RFK. Maybe we'll cover
Speaker 1: that briefly, and you know, yeah, just to talk about
Speaker 1: that because that was, you know, relative to me, relatively,
Speaker 1: that's the only semi new thing that was really released.
Speaker 1: But then again, I've seen those before. Anyway, we'll get
Speaker 1: into that maybe during that discussion Are we done yet?
Speaker 1: Next time with Larry Hancock, But until then, go to
Speaker 1: his word press get yourself a copy of the Oswald Puzzle.
Speaker 1: It's at the top of the list of all the
Speaker 1: things that Larry's written that I recommend spoiler alert, I
Speaker 1: recommend them all. And you can check out all of
Speaker 1: his books on Amazon et cetera, et cetera, and there
Speaker 1: will be links in the show notes. So with that, Larry,
Speaker 1: you got a final word on your way out the door.
Speaker 3: No, I just Merry Christmas. I'm happy New Year to
Speaker 3: everybody there.
Speaker 1: You go same here, Larry, and I hope yours is
Speaker 1: extremely happy, safe, And I know you'll also be doing
Speaker 1: some good works around this time of year, because guess what,
Speaker 1: you do good works all year. We've never discussed that
Speaker 1: on the show, but you know, it's one of those
Speaker 1: things that I find extremely endearing about you. And I
Speaker 1: meant what I said when I said that, you know,
Speaker 1: Larry put all of this stuff aside, and he also
Speaker 1: happens to be a decent human being, and that is
Speaker 1: just rare in the world. So I highly recommend him,
Speaker 1: not just because of his scholarly work, but because this
Speaker 1: is a legitimate good guy out there who is informing you,
Speaker 1: in educating you through all of his books, which I
Speaker 1: highly recommend. And go head over to Larry's word press
Speaker 1: blog because you can learn a tremendous amount of what's
Speaker 1: being revealed currently and you might get some spoilers as
Speaker 1: to are we there yet before we do the podcast
Speaker 1: that we might title exactly that next time in about
Speaker 1: two weeks from now. So in the meantime, remember this,
Speaker 1: I am merely Ocelli. You the listener, are The effect.
Speaker 5: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 5: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 5: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 5: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 5: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 5: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 5: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 5: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 5: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 5: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 5: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 5: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 5: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 5: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 5: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 5: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 5: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com.
Speaker 6: Oh Chili dot com.
Speaker 1: Do you like history?
Speaker 6: Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why
Speaker 6: the Vietnam War? Nuclear bombs? In Nation Building in Southeast
Speaker 6: Asia by author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen
Speaker 6: before that'll open your eyes to events that led up
Speaker 6: to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs in Nation
Speaker 6: Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 6: Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the
Speaker 6: Vietnam War by author Mike.
Speaker 1: Swanson dot Com Radio Network.
Speaker 4: In Denial Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks by
Speaker 4: Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 4: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 4: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 7: It exposes things about the Bay and Pigs that no
Speaker 7: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 7: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 7: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 7: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 7: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 7: In Denial, Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 7: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com.
Speaker 7: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 7: com in digital or physical.
Speaker 8: Force, Uncle, do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford
Speaker 8: said that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch
Speaker 8: ninja's to take down the Illuminati.
Speaker 9: Oh that's interesting, Yeah in the platoon.
Speaker 8: Yeah did that ever work out too good?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: It didn't, did it didn't?
Speaker 8: Look But here on Ocelly dot com Radio network, things
Speaker 8: work out a bit better, don't.
Speaker 1: They Much better much?
Speaker 9: I mean it's clear and understanding about the programs. The
Speaker 9: programs much clearer, getting live people into it. They really
Speaker 9: have a good conversation going much better, much better scene.
Speaker 8: I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen
Speaker 8: to the Ocelly dot com Radio Network.
Speaker 9: I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I.
Speaker 1: Like that idea.
Speaker 6: Olly dot com nuclear holocaust?
Speaker 4: What the effect.
Speaker 1: Report dot com? And you're listening to the affect at
Speaker 1: Olly dot.
Speaker 7: Com, wall Stream, Window dot dot wall Street, Window, don
Speaker 7: com do dot com.
Speaker 1: Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, gives
Speaker 1: you the benefit of his knowledge, wall Stream, Window, dot
Speaker 1: dot Go there, now go there, now go there, now
Speaker 1: I'm there.
Speaker 6: Revelation through conversation