Speaker 1: Welcome to the One on one Podcast with your host
Speaker 1: one A Yalla, Welcome back.
Speaker 2: To another episode of the One on one Podcast. I'm
Speaker 2: your host. As always, make sure the follow the show
Speaker 2: on social media at the One on one Podcast pretty
Speaker 2: much all social media platforms. Make sure to check out
Speaker 2: the Patreon, Patreon dot com, slash the one Podcast www
Speaker 2: dot tj OJP dot com, all the links down in
Speaker 2: the description. And today joining us for the very first time,
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock, sir, how are you. It's a pleasure to
Speaker 2: meet you.
Speaker 3: I'm good, it's great to be here and thanks for
Speaker 3: having me.
Speaker 2: Yea, sir? Can you let people know where they can
Speaker 2: find you, Larry, if this is the first time they've
Speaker 2: heard about you, and where they can find your book,
Speaker 2: which we will be covering today, the Oswald Puzzle reconsidering
Speaker 2: Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Probably the best word to see all my works
Speaker 3: and I've done some twelve fourteen books over the last
Speaker 3: few years is on Amazon's author page, So just look
Speaker 3: for Larry Hancock on books on Amazon. The books are available.
Speaker 3: They also puzzles available pretty much everywhere, including Walmart's website,
Speaker 3: which is kind of interesting, so you can find it anywhere.
Speaker 3: But the other place to see what I'm doing is
Speaker 3: I have a blog on WordPress, so it's Larry Hancock
Speaker 3: and WordPress. Do a search for that and you'll find me.
Speaker 2: Awesome. And I'll post the links down the description after
Speaker 2: the show so people can check it out and check
Speaker 2: out the book. I actually I was telling you I
Speaker 2: haven't talked about the jfk assassination on my show because
Speaker 2: it's one of those conspiracies. Because it is a conspiracy.
Speaker 2: I mean, at the end of the.
Speaker 3: Day that.
Speaker 2: The governmental hey, the CIA and the FBI both investigated
Speaker 2: that the CI and the FBI had no wrongdoing, so
Speaker 2: we're good to go, like that sort of thing. I
Speaker 2: don't find that interesting. What I find interesting is what
Speaker 2: happens after the fact. So we have the event, which
Speaker 2: was obviously the jfk assassination that we know for a
Speaker 2: fact happened, right, he was taken out. Now the whole
Speaker 2: conspiracy is who actually did it, how did he pull
Speaker 2: it off, motivations as to why he would do it, right,
Speaker 2: and of course the patsy or the fall guy that
Speaker 2: took the hit for this, which we will never truly know.
Speaker 2: The actual truth is Lee Harvey Olswalk. How many years, Larry,
Speaker 2: have you been at it? Researching the JFK assassination and
Speaker 2: topics related to this.
Speaker 3: I started in the mid nineties, so over thirty years
Speaker 3: on JFK, but not just JFK, basically political actions in
Speaker 3: the sixties and early seventies where there's JFK, MLK, RFK.
Speaker 3: I've written on all of them, plus basically the national
Speaker 3: security that's my wheelhouse, national security activities during the Cold War.
Speaker 3: So yeah, over over three decades, and as you say,
Speaker 3: also down lots of rabbit holes. If there were rabbit
Speaker 3: holes to be found, I fell in them.
Speaker 2: Is there any in particular that you enjoy the most.
Speaker 3: Larry, I would say I would say researching and writing
Speaker 3: about real American history, deniable operations, covert activities, partially because
Speaker 3: we know a lot about that now. I mean, everybody
Speaker 3: says you're only gonna know what really happened, like fifty
Speaker 3: years after the fact. History. History is never immediate, right.
Speaker 3: Historians write about the past, and I'm a history buff,
Speaker 3: I'm a document buff. So it's satisfying to go back
Speaker 3: to something like Vietnam or something like the Tonkin Gulf,
Speaker 3: things that were very real to me, that's my period
Speaker 3: of time, you know, and find out now what was
Speaker 3: really happening that we didn't know at the time. So
Speaker 3: I would say that's probably the most satisfying for me,
Speaker 3: especially when you find it and find proof of it
Speaker 3: in the records.
Speaker 2: So it's safe to say that aliens that didn't take
Speaker 2: JFK out, would you.
Speaker 3: I'm pretty good on no on know on that one.
Speaker 3: Yeah know on that one. And it wasn't the relatives
Speaker 3: of the crew of the Thresher submarine that blamed them
Speaker 3: for that. And yeah, there are a few others like that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Out of all of those, we can write at least
Speaker 3: some off.
Speaker 2: How has this research putting in so much time? And
Speaker 2: there are people who write their doctors who dedicate their
Speaker 2: entire lives to studying one particular field of medicine historians
Speaker 2: that you know, like yourself, that you're studying this niche areas.
Speaker 2: How has researching at least the JFK assassination shaped your
Speaker 2: worldview if any.
Speaker 3: At all, It really has shaped my worldview. And you
Speaker 3: bring up a very good point, and it's a point
Speaker 3: that often gets lost in the conspiracy community, and that is,
Speaker 3: if you've studied just one piece of history, you tend
Speaker 3: to become fixated. But all history is situational. All needs context.
Speaker 3: If you don't know, if I tried to study JFK
Speaker 3: without knowing how the CIA really operated, I would lose,
Speaker 3: or how the FBI operated. You've got to know how
Speaker 3: they're organized, how they're structured, what their standard operating practices are.
Speaker 3: So without that kind of context, you go down these
Speaker 3: rabbit holes and never come back. So for me, that's
Speaker 3: that's been really the biggest thing that I've become aware
Speaker 3: of and learned is that you you can't you can't.
Speaker 3: You can't slice it too Finally, it's kind of like
Speaker 3: painting with too broad a brush. If you do that,
Speaker 3: you may you're never going to get the right answer.
Speaker 3: It's kind of like again painting, You've got to be
Speaker 3: able to do broad brush in detail to make it right.
Speaker 2: How does someone go about writing a book like this
Speaker 2: that's very heavy on documents? You know, I want to
Speaker 2: focus on what what what the documents and what the
Speaker 2: facts say from the people who are providing it. And
Speaker 2: a follow up question from that, how do you not
Speaker 2: let your thinking be tainted by the conspiracy realm of
Speaker 2: things and how do you not let your mind wander
Speaker 2: as you're doing this research.
Speaker 3: Boy that that is a real channel. But the first
Speaker 3: thing you have to you have to look for what
Speaker 3: put it this way. You have to look for what
Speaker 3: you find, not what you want to find. The thing
Speaker 3: that I'm always most pleased about is if I'm finding
Speaker 3: something that I didn't expect, I know I'm on the
Speaker 3: right track. If I find what I was thinking was there,
Speaker 3: and only that, you know, I'm afraid I'm driving myself.
Speaker 3: So when I'm actually going down a trail and find
Speaker 3: something unexpected, I think I'm going in the right direction.
Speaker 3: And you've got to do that with documents, which means
Speaker 3: that you have to look at not just one set
Speaker 3: of documents. For example, I've found a lot of things
Speaker 3: about CIA operations and practices in general looking at State
Speaker 3: Department documents because State department has their version of what's
Speaker 3: going on, and if they think the CIA is doing
Speaker 3: something stupid or they'll write it down. Same for the
Speaker 3: CIA versus the State, same for military intelligence. If you
Speaker 3: look at multiple sources in the documents describing the same event,
Speaker 3: it becomes very informative. So you've got to bounce this
Speaker 3: stuff against each other. You can't just go down one trail.
Speaker 3: And then that requires a huge amount of document work,
Speaker 3: you know, tens of thousands of pages and learning how
Speaker 3: to read the documents one of the things that's been
Speaker 3: most valuable for us. And you might be surprised. People
Speaker 3: are surprised kind of like, well, you've got documents, but
Speaker 3: how do you read them? And the first thing you've
Speaker 3: got to do is you've got to be able to
Speaker 3: crack the names in the documents, the pseudonyms, the aliases,
Speaker 3: the organizations. If you don't go do your homework and
Speaker 3: are not able to find that, you won't really even
Speaker 3: know what you're reading because it will talk about something
Speaker 3: going on, but you don't know who conducted it, who
Speaker 3: they're connected to. Just one of the things that's allowed
Speaker 3: us to crack a lot of stuff in regard to
Speaker 3: JFK assassination is being able to basically what we call
Speaker 3: busting pseudonyms, find out the names that are used in
Speaker 3: the documents to describe real people, who were they and
Speaker 3: what are their aliases? So we contract them ensu who's
Speaker 3: really involved and what their networks were long winded answer
Speaker 3: to it's a lot of slogging.
Speaker 2: Do you do it by yourself there or do you
Speaker 2: have a team that helps you out with this?
Speaker 3: Usually I work with well, usually just a small group
Speaker 3: of say like half a dozen people that really get
Speaker 3: to be expert in you know, how do we read
Speaker 3: the CIA operations files out of the Cuban branch in Miami?
Speaker 3: You know, in the whole world, that's a small group
Speaker 3: of people, maybe a dozen people. And then to pursue
Speaker 3: any particular line of thought, it's it's usually two or
Speaker 3: three people that really dig in, which was why in
Speaker 3: many of my books I do it with a co author,
Speaker 3: And often the co author is really is really the
Speaker 3: document expert with the Oswald puzzle, David Boyle, and is
Speaker 3: the fellow who had the had the intensity to essentially
Speaker 3: construct an organization chart of CIA operations in Miami. Now
Speaker 3: you've got to imagine that if I talk about slogging
Speaker 3: for me, it's even more for him. So it's it,
Speaker 3: and we talk with each other. We share information, like
Speaker 3: on the cryptonim busting, you know who ran across it?
Speaker 3: A real kind of an interesting thing is there that
Speaker 3: aliens and krypton ms were So we're done to confuse
Speaker 3: the Soviets. I mean, they're not done to confuse us
Speaker 3: and the documents, but they actually get to the point
Speaker 3: where they confuse the readers. So a CI officer will
Speaker 3: pencil in a little annotation going, oh, this is really
Speaker 3: this person or true name or whatever, kind of like, Okay,
Speaker 3: we got them. And those notes were never supposed to
Speaker 3: be on the documents, right, somebody's just trying to help themselves.
Speaker 3: When you start finding those, you make progress.
Speaker 2: So a lot of these documents are safe to say.
Speaker 2: They're encoded in some sort of way in case information
Speaker 2: gets leaked to foreign power, that way they won't be
Speaker 2: able to read it. But then at the same time,
Speaker 2: as a layman, a person who is not in the organization,
Speaker 2: you can sometimes take things for face value and then
Speaker 2: you're led off a completely wrong track.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely if and you will make wrong assumptions. You
Speaker 3: maybe assume it's a different organization. One of the most
Speaker 3: fascinating things about him is to learn the distribution, who's
Speaker 3: getting what information, who's copied, what offices or what copied,
Speaker 3: what individuals or what copied. What's happening to the control
Speaker 3: of the information And in CIA, one of the things
Speaker 3: that's become very helpful to us in regard to le
Speaker 3: Avrey Oswald is to find out who is getting information
Speaker 3: on him at various points and times and who has
Speaker 3: been withhell from compartmentalization can tell you a lot. And
Speaker 3: what you find out in Oswald's case in particular, at
Speaker 3: different points of time, certain parts of the CIA are
Speaker 3: not telling other parts of the CAAA who ask about him.
Speaker 3: They're holding back information. And there's only one real interpretation
Speaker 3: for that, and that the organization holding the information is
Speaker 3: using not him as an agent, but using information about
Speaker 3: him for some purposes. So even even distribution can be informative.
Speaker 2: So not to throw the baby out with the bathwater,
Speaker 2: But can the documents be trusted Larry at all?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they can be trusted. Here's the thing is, the
Speaker 3: documents we're talking about are day to day operational documents.
Speaker 3: If people could not do their day job without them,
Speaker 3: and we know based on them and things that happen. Next,
Speaker 3: it's like things that were discussed in the documents did
Speaker 3: happen people that discussed You know, you can reality check
Speaker 3: the documents. Now. It is true that on occasion fake
Speaker 3: documents were creative, but usually the strange thing is the
Speaker 3: fake documents that we have found are generally created outside
Speaker 3: agencies for some other purpose, you know, to fool someone.
Speaker 3: We've even and it's very infrequent, but we've run a
Speaker 3: couple of cases where someone outside an agency will do
Speaker 3: a document, know enough to do a good document, and
Speaker 3: then actually go into the National Archives and plant it.
Speaker 3: The good news is, though, you can track that down
Speaker 3: because the National Archives, doing their job, has a record
Speaker 3: of all their intake, so they can go back and
Speaker 3: you and we work with them and it's kind of like,
Speaker 3: did you guys ever really take this document in? Nope, no,
Speaker 3: we didn't. Aha a case of a particular case of
Speaker 3: that is there's a document that circulates about every three years,
Speaker 3: seen it like eight times over the decades, and it's
Speaker 3: a document saying that Oswald was actually briefed by the
Speaker 3: Office and Naval Intelligence for going into Russia, and it's
Speaker 3: supposed to be a correspondence between you know, like senior
Speaker 3: people at both agencies. Well, now, first of all, that
Speaker 3: would never be written down. That's not standard operating practice
Speaker 3: to write an inner agency membo after the assassination to
Speaker 3: confirm this sort of thing, you know, doesn't happen. But
Speaker 3: as it turns out that document never existed in reality,
Speaker 3: it was planted to support somebody's books, somebody's story, whatever.
Speaker 3: But it can be checked, so we have devices to
Speaker 3: check that sort of thing. And people people often ask me,
Speaker 3: it's like, well, if somebody makes up a series of
Speaker 3: fake documents, would would is that illegal? And the interesting
Speaker 3: thing is, if there's no actual crime involved, no fraud, no,
Speaker 3: you know, it's sort of like if if it's not
Speaker 3: a real government document, there's nothing illegal about circulating it.
Speaker 3: If it was never classified, never a real document. You know,
Speaker 3: I can the FBI can investigate it. And we know
Speaker 3: instances where the FBI or the Air Force or someone
Speaker 3: has investigated a document and go it's bogus, and it's like, well,
Speaker 3: you're going to prosecute them. Well, it's not a crime
Speaker 3: because they didn't profit from it. They didn't. They just
Speaker 3: used it for self agran astisement or promoting themselves or
Speaker 3: gaining influence. So it's not a crime per se unless
Speaker 3: you can't prove it really is part of a fraud.
Speaker 2: That's actually pretty amazing and kind of scary at the
Speaker 2: same time, because it's just making me want to trust
Speaker 2: the government less because Hey, who's to say. I mean,
Speaker 2: that just opens up a whole can of worms. If
Speaker 2: you're able to insert information that, hey, it's not a
Speaker 2: crime technically, and they nothing happened. That's crazy, Larry, like,
Speaker 2: how that could happen?
Speaker 3: But we can find it. I guess that's the good news.
Speaker 3: You you ask, is it possible the government does check itself.
Speaker 3: I mean I think that's like the FBI can investigate.
Speaker 3: They will call in document experts. We're at the point
Speaker 3: I have friends who are experts enough to say, you know,
Speaker 3: is the record keeping in this document? It's a serial
Speaker 3: number ride every you know, look at this document? Is
Speaker 3: it right or it's wrong? So the government can investigate
Speaker 3: those sort of things. NARA controls it's archives and does
Speaker 3: a good job. Like I say, it was, it was
Speaker 3: easy to check that Oswald document. It didn't require a
Speaker 3: lot of time. It's just like Nara, this thing is
Speaker 3: floating around and people are saying, it's real. Did you
Speaker 3: ever hold this document? No, So there's you have to
Speaker 3: be cautious about, and frankly, you have to be cautious
Speaker 3: in the more sensational claims like that you mentioned earlier,
Speaker 3: Like one of the frauds that I was talking about
Speaker 3: had to do with the aliens at JFK.
Speaker 2: I mean, is there really a document saying that.
Speaker 3: There are there are actually documents saying that the government
Speaker 3: knew all about alien contact and had alien contact from
Speaker 3: nineteen forty seven. It's called the Majestic Series of Documents,
Speaker 3: and that JFK was going to expose this and and
Speaker 3: it's yeah, it's a whole thing in and of itself,
Speaker 3: so but you know, we've learned how to deal with
Speaker 3: that sort of thing. But yeah, you bet, Yeah, I'm
Speaker 3: sure you thought it was joking and where he's going,
Speaker 3: it's just a pain and a rear another alien JFK.
Speaker 2: Thing I was, I was kidding. I've heard I've heard
Speaker 2: that before, but I didn't know it was an actual thing.
Speaker 2: You know that there's actual documents and an idea that
Speaker 2: it could happen that And this is how little I've
Speaker 2: looked into the JFK assassination. And it's kind I'm kind
Speaker 2: of doing it backwards with your book because it's more
Speaker 2: on you know, you focus on more of Lee Harvey
Speaker 2: Oswald and you don't really get into the events of JFK,
Speaker 2: even though you have written about them. And I remember
Speaker 2: back in I think I was still in in high school,
Speaker 2: I read one of the many many books on the
Speaker 2: magic bullet. I think at one point where that again,
Speaker 2: that's a whole nother rabbit hole, and I don't even
Speaker 2: I don't ever think I finished it, but again that
Speaker 2: that's the whole thing. But I want to get your
Speaker 2: because I heard you. I watched a few of your interviews,
Speaker 2: and I heard you talk about memory and how memory
Speaker 2: can be tainted. And right off the bat in the
Speaker 2: forward by Rex Bradford, he gets into what the Attorney
Speaker 2: General wrote the White House, right, the public must be
Speaker 2: satisfied that Oswald was the assassin, that he did not
Speaker 2: have any did not have confederates who are still at large.
Speaker 2: Uh So the public must be what it say here,
Speaker 2: must be satisfied, like, Hey, this is what we're dishing out,
Speaker 2: this is what you're going to accept. But I've heard
Speaker 2: you talk about how memory itself can be tainted very easily.
Speaker 2: Can you talk a little bit about that, because it
Speaker 2: seems that history relies a lot on memory. And then
Speaker 2: if the people writing that history, if they're doing their
Speaker 2: due diligence, how you guys are doing double checking and
Speaker 2: fact checking all these documents. If they're not doing good
Speaker 2: job doing that, they weren't there to experience what happened.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: There have been a lot of really good studies done
Speaker 3: on that, and what we learn is say, the experience
Speaker 3: of a witness is good for well, it's good until
Speaker 3: they start talking to other people. If you can catch
Speaker 3: them within an hour or so after the event, take
Speaker 3: a statement, get as much detail as you can, you're
Speaker 3: pretty good. But once they start circulating and talking to
Speaker 3: other people or listening to the news, they become less
Speaker 3: and less liable over time, and they essentially absorbed these
Speaker 3: things you're talking about gaining the narrative. People can absorb
Speaker 3: the narrative, just like because through media, through people, through
Speaker 3: We have people that first had witnesses within the first
Speaker 3: hour or two who describe things that they later go
Speaker 3: back and it stuns me. It's sort of like I've
Speaker 3: seen statements taken later by the Warrant Commission that says, well,
Speaker 3: I heard more than three shots, but I must have
Speaker 3: been wrong. Wait a minute, why do you think you
Speaker 3: were wrong? Because the narrative was that there can only
Speaker 3: be three shots, and they actually say this in interview,
Speaker 3: it's like, I know what I saw, but I must
Speaker 3: have been wrong. Well, no, that's not very useful. I'll
Speaker 3: give you a plastic example of that and how things
Speaker 3: can go bad, not from the JFK assass nation, but
Speaker 3: from the RK Asas nation. There was a young woman
Speaker 3: who named Santa Serrano, who saw people run away from
Speaker 3: the RFK assassination, heard them talk about actually laughing about
Speaker 3: the fact that they'd managed to kill RFK. She became
Speaker 3: a prime witness in that case. Ultimately she was disregarded
Speaker 3: because of a bogus polygraph test that was administered. The
Speaker 3: net was that the line was that she had been
Speaker 3: brought into a pantry and sat down with other witnesses,
Speaker 3: and she'd picked this whole story up from other people,
Speaker 3: and it was just it was not true. The problem was,
Speaker 3: for the official story is an assistant da out of
Speaker 3: Los Angeles had talked to her within minutes before she
Speaker 3: ever went anywhere else, and actually ended up writing number
Speaker 3: of letters saying she told him exactly what she said
Speaker 3: later before she could ever have been contaminated by anyone else.
Speaker 3: You have to be able to parse through that stuff.
Speaker 3: And they ignored her and they ignored him. After two
Speaker 3: or three letters, he just kind of gave up. And
Speaker 3: this isn't associate DA. But we've also learned in lots
Speaker 3: of experiments, for example, a classroom of students, a professor
Speaker 3: can perform and has done, perform experiments in a psychology
Speaker 3: class of having something unexpected happened at the part of
Speaker 3: the front of the room, in front of the whole class.
Speaker 3: Then he has them right down what they saw that day,
Speaker 3: open up that thing at the end of or having
Speaker 3: them write down at the end of semester what they
Speaker 3: recall seeing. Open up their letters, and they're going, well,
Speaker 3: I must have made a mistake when I write the
Speaker 3: The bottom line is interview witnesses on aspects of detail
Speaker 3: of an event weeks, months, years after the fact is
Speaker 3: very problematic and just get you in trouble. I'm surprised
Speaker 3: now that the new Congressional Committee on Disclosure is going
Speaker 3: to Dallas to interview witnesses. You know, it's way too late.
Speaker 3: You know they if you go back to their first
Speaker 3: day state, let's take those. Don't interview them now. You're
Speaker 3: not going to get You're going to get overlays.
Speaker 2: They really went back because one of the main things
Speaker 2: I saw keeping up with the news is that I
Speaker 2: think Trump unclassified a ton of new documents. Have you
Speaker 2: had a chance to look through those? Have you your
Speaker 2: colleagues looked through those? Is there any new information that
Speaker 2: would perhaps change the outcome of this book at all,
Speaker 2: or is there any new revelation that has come from
Speaker 2: that at all?
Speaker 3: Well, what's what has happened is he wrote a directive
Speaker 3: that literally said, and then the interest of disclosure. Within
Speaker 3: fifteen days, I'm appointed a team under the Director of
Speaker 3: National Intelligence to come up with a plan to release documents.
Speaker 3: Supposedly they submitted it to the White House. We've seen
Speaker 3: nothing about it. Within forty five days. There was to
Speaker 3: be a plan to address MLK. The first plan was
Speaker 3: just JFK, MLK and RFK. We've seen nothing of either
Speaker 3: of those. We've see no DO documents. And one of
Speaker 3: the troubling things is if you look at like the
Speaker 3: fine print in that directive, it also says that the
Speaker 3: order will not override the authorities of the agencies involved,
Speaker 3: which would still leave them the option of redacting information.
Speaker 3: It doesn't require them to unredact anything that's already been released,
Speaker 3: you know, which is Okay, what I really want is
Speaker 3: all the black off the stuff I can already see,
Speaker 3: because I know that's what I need. It doesn't so
Speaker 3: so far, it really hasn't led to anything concrete. Hopefully.
Speaker 3: You know, there are people that I know, and we're
Speaker 3: reaching out to this group, say hell, we know where
Speaker 3: to look, we know what to look for, and we
Speaker 3: actually know important things that have been withheld. Let us
Speaker 3: help you. So far, no response yet, so no, we've
Speaker 3: not seen anything new yet. Separately, this Congressional Committee on
Speaker 3: Disclosure is going to start holding hearings on a whole
Speaker 3: suite of subjects, but all it's been out so far
Speaker 3: is literally that they're going to Dallas and interview witnesses,
Speaker 3: and my expertise would literally say, don't you know there
Speaker 3: are better things that you could be doing with your time.
Speaker 3: I've talked to most of those people myself years ago,
Speaker 3: so you know, lots of us have that's already on record,
Speaker 3: and I still wouldn't consider it good as compared to
Speaker 3: the first day statements. See what they said on TV
Speaker 3: that day and use that you see.
Speaker 2: How this could fuel more conspiracy Larry where it's kind
Speaker 2: of dodgy, very secretive. Do you what are your thoughts
Speaker 2: on maybe someone who is very influential that had a
Speaker 2: hand in this conspiracy, because that's what it is, right,
Speaker 2: they're conspiring against a JFK. I'm sure that there are
Speaker 2: various reasons one could come up with to want to
Speaker 2: take out a political figure like that, Right, Ideological differences,
Speaker 2: political differences. Anyone can talk a crap about a political
Speaker 2: person for whatever reason. Now to actually act on something
Speaker 2: like this takes it to a whole another level. Right,
Speaker 2: But why the secrecy? Do you think that maybe there's
Speaker 2: somebody who's still alive who had like a hand in it,
Speaker 2: who was influential, and they don't want them to know
Speaker 2: and what we see in our lifetimes.
Speaker 3: I don't think the secrecy has anything to do with that.
Speaker 3: Strangely enough, from what I know on the road that
Speaker 3: I have gone down to some extent, I think the
Speaker 3: people that were involved that are still living were quite
Speaker 3: it was. It was an very personal act of act.
Speaker 3: They considered to be patriotic. I don't think they would
Speaker 3: be embarrassed by it now they would be actionable. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's another story, But that's not the issue. The issue
Speaker 3: is the fact that at the time, during you know,
Speaker 3: a twelve month period, agencies and the president of the time,
Speaker 3: the president acted to pre empt and investigation of conspiracy.
Speaker 3: We know that you saw some of that in the
Speaker 3: first part of the book, because we we tried to
Speaker 3: revisit a little bit of why we why we know
Speaker 3: that was so egregious, you know, why we can say
Speaker 3: factually that the investigation wasn't done that should be done.
Speaker 3: It was focused entirely on Oswald as a loan nut,
Speaker 3: even even though no motive could be found, you know,
Speaker 3: and they had to cherry pick that positioning. But there
Speaker 3: were agencies that were involved with Oswald that we're doing
Speaker 3: operations built around Oswald, that would not want it. It's embarrassing.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's compromised. It's not a big deal now,
Speaker 3: should it really shouldn't be a big deal now with
Speaker 3: what we know about covert and deniable operations for the
Speaker 3: last sixty years, But still there would be people that
Speaker 3: would consider it, you know, embarrassing and quite frankly, you know,
Speaker 3: these people did not do their duty. They did not
Speaker 3: do their duty and sharing information. The FBI didn't reveal
Speaker 3: everything it really had, you know, we know the FBI
Speaker 3: actually destroyed a couple of documents relating their contacts with Oswald.
Speaker 3: We know that the CIA actually investigated and lied about
Speaker 3: investigating and said, no, we didn't do it. Cuban connections,
Speaker 3: connections to their people, to anti Castro people, to Cuban operators.
Speaker 3: They did that investigation because they had leads that said
Speaker 3: that could have been in play, but they didn't report
Speaker 3: that to anybody, and when asked, they said, no, we
Speaker 3: never touched it. Investigating the assassination was the Warrant Commission. Now,
Speaker 3: you talked earlier about trust. You know at the time,
Speaker 3: if we'd have known that in nineteen sixty five or
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy, it would have accrued a lot of distrust.
Speaker 3: You know, Can you trust agencies to disclose their own operations?
Speaker 3: And I think they're still following on that rule, you know,
Speaker 3: like we have to trust our agencies, so we don't
Speaker 3: want them to embarrass themselves. I think this is more
Speaker 3: about trust and embarrassment than anything else. Is there anyone
Speaker 3: that's going to suffer from disclosing that information after sixty
Speaker 3: seventy years, I don't think so. The agencies might suffer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that does make a lot of sense. And then
Speaker 2: obviously that would a cascade towards a public opinion towards
Speaker 2: them and towards the people, And obviously they can't have
Speaker 2: that happening. But there seems to be a pattern of
Speaker 2: you know, assassinations or attempts where they've had a previous
Speaker 2: contact with the suspect, right, the latest one that really
Speaker 2: I was going to ask you, if this were to
Speaker 2: happen today, do you think somebody could have gotten away
Speaker 2: with it? You know, do you think Lee Harvey would
Speaker 2: have gotten away with it in today's terms? And I
Speaker 2: think he would have done it and would have still
Speaker 2: got caught, because if you look at the most recent one,
Speaker 2: right with Trump, I mean, what really came of that?
Speaker 2: And you know, it's it's few and far between the
Speaker 2: assassinations and attempts to have happened throughout history, right, Abraham Lincoln,
Speaker 2: all these other guys. You can even put MLK in there,
Speaker 2: but it always seems like as soon as it happens, boom,
Speaker 2: here's the guy, we got it solved, and then something
Speaker 2: happens to him, where hey, dead men tell no tales, right, yeah?
Speaker 3: What? And you know, I I asked that same question myself.
Speaker 3: It's kind of like is the JFKs said. And in
Speaker 3: terms of the national response, you know, the establishment of
Speaker 3: response if you were that, That's what we called it
Speaker 3: when I was younger. The establishment. Okay, I know there
Speaker 3: are new names for it, but the establishment response is
Speaker 3: always the same. And I went back and I did
Speaker 3: a book called Surprise Attack, literally to tackle that question.
Speaker 3: What do you expect after an event of national consequence,
Speaker 3: whether it's an assassination, assassination attempt, something historical called like
Speaker 3: the attack on the Liberty or the Pueblo, both of
Speaker 3: you know, one of which really started the Vietnam War,
Speaker 3: to a higher level, what happens, And the point is
Speaker 3: the rush. There's always a rush by any administration, doesn't
Speaker 3: matter what party, what politics, whatever. The knee jerk reaction
Speaker 3: is always to seize the narrative and to essentially dim
Speaker 3: the consequences, like we don't people want people going off
Speaker 3: half crocked. Johnson did not want people you know, Oswell's
Speaker 3: associated with Cuba and as a Castro supporter, Castro did it.
Speaker 3: We need to invade, right. You know, if you're in charge,
Speaker 3: you don't want those kind of reactions. If you're we
Speaker 3: have an instance in the MLKA assassination of where the
Speaker 3: evening of the attack, the Attorney General and the head
Speaker 3: of the FBI went on the air and said, we
Speaker 3: know who did it. It was one person. There's no conspiracy,
Speaker 3: and it had nothing to do with race. Now, everybody
Speaker 3: I was there, you know, it's like, no, no, we don't.
Speaker 3: But why did they say that when they knew nobody
Speaker 3: would believe it. There's this there's this temptation to ice
Speaker 3: seze the narrative, and and once you sees the narrative,
Speaker 3: how do you escape from it? How do you go
Speaker 3: back and really investigate it after you've told every I'm
Speaker 3: not even sure that there's evil intent. It's just like
Speaker 3: there's this teptation. You do it, and then how do
Speaker 3: you recover? You know, oh, ignore what I told you,
Speaker 3: trust me next time. It's not going to work. Well.
Speaker 3: I think they trapped themselves each and every time. And
Speaker 3: do we hear more about it, even if there's investigation,
Speaker 3: We don't hear anything about it other than what's going
Speaker 3: to end up supporting that original narrative, because otherwise you
Speaker 3: lose trust and nobody Republican, Democrat, whatever, whoever's an administration
Speaker 3: always wants trust. Now, unfortunately they tend to lose it
Speaker 3: because of just those things. But you know, that's human behavior.
Speaker 3: That's another story entirely.
Speaker 2: So speaking of trusting the narrative and taking their word
Speaker 2: for it. What are some of the more common misconceptions
Speaker 2: about Oswalt? Since this book does focus on Oswald the
Speaker 2: most one of the ones that I fell for, which
Speaker 2: apparently there's no evidence for, is that he was a
Speaker 2: CIA asset. Well, what are some of the more common
Speaker 2: ones that most people probably believe that turns out to
Speaker 2: be bullshit?
Speaker 3: Well, there's two. It's kind of like, there's two limited,
Speaker 3: very focused views of Oswald. The Warrant Commission wanted you
Speaker 3: to see him as asocial or anti social, no interreactions
Speaker 3: with people, no friends, a loner, violent, you know, a
Speaker 3: radical activist. This guy's a radical communist. None of that's true.
Speaker 3: And how do we know that's not true. We know
Speaker 3: it by looking at the long pattern, like several years
Speaker 3: of Oswell's dialogues, friends, writings. By nineteen sixty three, he
Speaker 3: was writing a lot of monographs and his worldview. He
Speaker 3: was talking to people and he would tell people. For example,
Speaker 3: he would tell people he thought Kennedy was the person
Speaker 3: who could talk with Kruse Chef and dial down the
Speaker 3: Cold War, resolved the issue of possible nuclear warfare. You know,
Speaker 3: Kennedy is even talking to them about going to the
Speaker 3: Moon with the Russians, the joint program, you can, and
Speaker 3: with his friends. I mean, this is supposedly the Warrant
Speaker 3: Commission wants to see you as antisocial and a loner.
Speaker 3: And he's got friends that friends in the military, friends
Speaker 3: in Russia. Even he's dating in Russia. He proposes it,
Speaker 3: turned down, proposes again, gets married, has two children, you know,
Speaker 3: And so this is a person who's also in media
Speaker 3: a lot TV and radio and New Orleans. And when
Speaker 3: they brought him on and it's actually a radio host
Speaker 3: tried to get him to speak out against JFK over Cuba,
Speaker 3: OS will pull back and said, basically, no, it's not
Speaker 3: President Kennedy. It's years of administration policy towards Cuba that
Speaker 3: I oppose. There's no reason that we should not relations.
Speaker 3: So you know, if you look at all that detail,
Speaker 3: you see that the Warrant Commission was cherry picking. Now,
Speaker 3: on the other hand, us conspiracy folks have our own
Speaker 3: blame to carry because we have tended to want to
Speaker 3: simplify FID matters and make Oswald a tool of the
Speaker 3: bad guys, whoever the bad guys were. I mean that
Speaker 3: ranges from him being some kind of a contract killer,
Speaker 3: like just taking an assignment from the mob, you know,
Speaker 3: like okay, somebody decided to pick oswe will to goo
Speaker 3: shoot the president, or being a tool of the CIA, whatever.
Speaker 3: But when you study his personality and his beliefs, and
Speaker 3: he's very much an idealist, more of an idealist in
Speaker 3: politics than you could imagine, and more practically took orders
Speaker 3: from nobody. This is a guy who in the Marine Corps.
Speaker 3: You know he gets he gets the classic thing in
Speaker 3: barracks because he's not clean enough and he gets soapd down. Okay,
Speaker 3: if you've been on the military you might know what that.
Speaker 3: You know, it's not pretty. You know, he ends up,
Speaker 3: doesn't like the duties he's getting to sign too much KP.
Speaker 3: He confronts the n c O in a club and
Speaker 3: throws a drink on the n c O. You know,
Speaker 3: this is not a guy. He's not passive. You know,
Speaker 3: if he feels he's being picked on, he will speak out.
Speaker 3: But he's not violent. He's just you know, just not passive.
Speaker 3: But we want to the conspiracists tend to take to
Speaker 3: him as an order taker and like have moved him
Speaker 3: from taking totally different sets of orders to multiple groups
Speaker 3: over a period of time, which is totally out of
Speaker 3: character for Oswell. Who who Oswell is the only one
Speaker 3: I know who ever actually conducted a strike in a
Speaker 3: Soviet factory and got his boss into trouble because he
Speaker 3: didn't like the bureaucracy. So he said he was just
Speaker 3: going to stop going to meetings and and it's like, oh,
Speaker 3: that's the Oswell. I know, this is not the oswol
Speaker 3: that you're just going to call up and say, oh,
Speaker 3: assassinate the president and he'll just toddle off and do it.
Speaker 2: So he seemed like pretty much a regular guy, a regular,
Speaker 2: you know, clean cut guy that was just trying to survive.
Speaker 2: Do you have are you familiar at all? And maybe
Speaker 2: we can get a little conspiratorial ry where the catcher
Speaker 2: in the Rye connection with Oswald allegedly was his favorite book.
Speaker 2: Is there any evidence to prove that?
Speaker 3: No, I wouldn't say there's no evidence to prove that,
Speaker 3: and I would offer up the other in contrast to
Speaker 3: Catcher and to Raye. If you want to get into
Speaker 3: Oswell's reading material, which we know a lot about from
Speaker 3: his library cards, and you know he's a different person.
Speaker 3: I would step back and say, not the not the
Speaker 3: Catcher in the Rye image, but he is. He's a
Speaker 3: guy that I knew in nineteen sixty eight. He's one
Speaker 3: of his best friends. In sixty three called him a
Speaker 3: proto hippie. He's a political idealist. He's a in one expense,
Speaker 3: he's he's liked socialism, parts of socialism, he likes parts
Speaker 3: of capitalism. He wrote a monograph about how you bring
Speaker 3: the two together. Yes, you have healthcare, you have education,
Speaker 3: but you need this for capitalism. For you know, he's
Speaker 3: that kind of guy, and he will he will speak
Speaker 3: out on his beliefs. He's not quiet. As a teenager,
Speaker 3: he would challenge his friend's parents in the barracks. You
Speaker 3: know he's going to be the oddball. I've talked with
Speaker 3: Marines who said, yeah, we had guys like that in
Speaker 3: the early sixties and the late fifties. They were just characters.
Speaker 3: And in nineteen sixty eight, I would it would be
Speaker 3: the guy I was standing by it said Okay, let's
Speaker 3: go occupy the student union building. And I would go, so,
Speaker 3: what is that going to accomplish? And he would go,
Speaker 3: I know, but it'll be fun. I don't know. I
Speaker 3: don't want to make him passive. He was. He was
Speaker 3: an average guy in a way, but he was very
Speaker 3: unique in other ways, very intelligent, extremely well read. His officers.
Speaker 3: Marine officers said that he could he would discuss geopolitics
Speaker 3: with them at their level. And this one guy had
Speaker 3: been a graduate of the Foreign Services at Georgetown. So Oswell,
Speaker 3: Oswell was different. I guess that's I wouldn't call him
Speaker 3: an average guy, but I wouldn't. He's not average in
Speaker 3: a necessarily an evil sense. He's just not your average guy.
Speaker 3: The marine officer said, Look, you know, and in training,
Speaker 3: the other guys are just worried about when the first
Speaker 3: leave is going to be, where to find the bars
Speaker 3: and the girls, and Oswell is in his bunk reading.
Speaker 3: You know, He's not like the other marines.
Speaker 2: So would the sleeper sellar Manchurian candidate theory be out
Speaker 2: the window, because that's one that you hear a lot
Speaker 2: of about. Where again, this catcher in the ryal where
Speaker 2: he was program you said, programmed to kill and they
Speaker 2: gave him the string of words that made him snap.
Speaker 2: Because if you are convicted, which he was never technically convicted,
Speaker 2: is that correct? And they never actually convicted him. If
Speaker 2: you have the cameras on you, obviously he said he
Speaker 2: was a patsy. Have you been able to decipher that
Speaker 2: what exactly he meant by that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, And we deal a lot with that in the book,
Speaker 3: in the latter part of the book as to what
Speaker 3: he was talking. Literally, actually the full statement he made was,
Speaker 3: I don't know what's going on. They they haven't told
Speaker 3: me what I've done. I've been arrested because I worked
Speaker 3: in that building, you know, the school book depository I worked.
Speaker 3: I did work in that building, and I was in Russia,
Speaker 3: And because I was in Russia, They're going to make
Speaker 3: me a patsy. It was all about his past. And
Speaker 3: literally we maintain in the book that Oswald had no idea,
Speaker 3: had a totally different agenda about what was going to
Speaker 3: happen on November twenty second. He was following his own
Speaker 3: agenda that had nothing to do with JFK, and he
Speaker 3: had no idea how he'd been framed. One of the
Speaker 3: things it has to be pointed out is the police
Speaker 3: had him in custody for almost forty eight hours. They
Speaker 3: never showed him the rifle that they took into evidence
Speaker 3: and said, lea's this your rifle used to kill the president?
Speaker 3: Is this not your rifle? Never ask him that question.
Speaker 3: They never showed in the bag that was represented that
Speaker 3: he used to carry it in the depository and said
Speaker 3: did you make this? Did you bring this this morning?
Speaker 3: Never showed him that. They did show the bag to
Speaker 3: the guy who drove him to work, who under polygraph
Speaker 3: exam said, no, that's not the bag he took to work.
Speaker 3: It was a little bag. It was like a sandwich bag.
Speaker 3: It's not that bad, and they showed him the real bag.
Speaker 3: They did not show Oswald the real bag. Some of
Speaker 3: the stuff is so stupid it's hard to follow. And
Speaker 3: if you don't know that sort of thing, the evidence
Speaker 3: looks a lot better than it really was in fact.
Speaker 3: But now I will say another thing that we do
Speaker 3: is look very closely at his behavior after being taken
Speaker 3: into custody. Oswald never when he when he did something
Speaker 3: radical like going to Russia, wants to see what it's
Speaker 3: like in Russia. When he's leafletting in New Orleans and
Speaker 3: gets into fire. He's never quiet. He will say why
Speaker 3: he did it and what he believes and you know
Speaker 3: what's going on. He will take credit for it, every
Speaker 3: opportunity to do that. In Dallas after the assassination, he
Speaker 3: leaves no notes, you know, nothing like, no claims, no agendas,
Speaker 3: totally denies everything, tells his brother and his family that
Speaker 3: they have no that they're making this up. There's no evidence.
Speaker 3: Don't worry about it, it's okay. His main concern with
Speaker 3: his wife is did you get the baby the shoes
Speaker 3: she needs? Did you get June the new shoes? You know,
Speaker 3: we've got to take care of the family through this become.
Speaker 3: We feel he had no idea how he had been
Speaker 3: framed and how he had been set.
Speaker 2: Up, Larr, Could that have been code that he was
Speaker 2: talking in when he was saying all those things. I'm
Speaker 2: guessing this was in letters to his wife. Could that
Speaker 2: have been code? Maybe?
Speaker 3: Oh that was actually personal, that was actually in person stuff. Again,
Speaker 3: one of the answers to that question, and that's a
Speaker 3: good question that we look at from an historical standpoint,
Speaker 3: is continuity. Is this the way Oswall always talked is
Speaker 3: this the language that you know? Is this consistent? Is
Speaker 3: there continuity there or is it an anomaly? Now, there are
Speaker 3: anomalies in his behavior on November twenty second, and in
Speaker 3: the book we offer an explanation for those what he
Speaker 3: thought was going to happen. But one of the one
Speaker 3: of the big keys to this is these expressions in
Speaker 3: this terminology with his wife, with his family was very consistent.
Speaker 3: It was the sort of thing that he had been
Speaker 3: talking about two weeks before. A week before people had
Speaker 3: heard him talking that way. He had visited his wife
Speaker 3: the night before discussing getting the family back together. In fact,
Speaker 3: one of the reasons he went to talk to his
Speaker 3: wife was he was tired of visiting Chu staying with
Speaker 3: had just had a baby, staying with the pains. He
Speaker 3: wanted to get them back together. Now, if you want
Speaker 3: a dose of reality, this tells you that this is
Speaker 3: real and not something coded. Because what he asked her,
Speaker 3: he asked her, you know, I'm tired of this. I
Speaker 3: want to get the family together. I want to move
Speaker 3: you into an apartment tomorrow. I want to come back immediately.
Speaker 3: And what she said, as a matter of record, is look,
Speaker 3: I got a brand new baby, I got a small child.
Speaker 3: I'm staying with the lady as a worshiping machine. You
Speaker 3: know how many diapers we're going to be dealing with
Speaker 3: for the next few weeks. Tell you what you keep
Speaker 3: your job, save some money, get an apartment with a
Speaker 3: washing machine, and we'll talk after Christmas. You know, that's
Speaker 3: real world stuff, that's not code. That is okay and OsO.
Speaker 3: So he's going to face the dilemma we talk about.
Speaker 3: He had a choice. The reason he went to see
Speaker 3: her is he had a choice. He had a choice
Speaker 3: of doing something he'd been wanting to do for some months,
Speaker 3: which was going to Cuba. We're thinking he was going
Speaker 3: to Cuba or moving them back together, and when she
Speaker 3: said let's put it on hold, we think he went
Speaker 3: one particular way. So to answer your question, I don't
Speaker 3: think there's any cod I think it's very real world.
Speaker 3: I think we've got some real history.
Speaker 2: My conspiratorial mind sometimes bleeds through, Larry, and I just
Speaker 2: can't help but look at it from a different perspective.
Speaker 2: Maybe they were speaking in code or something, right, because
Speaker 2: you just hear so many things, and you said earlier
Speaker 2: that conspiracy heads they want to kind of sort of
Speaker 2: simplify thing and kind of just ram it all down.
Speaker 2: It's like this was it that, that's that. But this
Speaker 2: is such a complex story when you really come to
Speaker 2: think about it, and I wanted to get into maybe
Speaker 2: you know where some of these things come from as
Speaker 2: far as hey, he was a CIA asset, he was
Speaker 2: a sleeper cell, he was a man cheering candidate, blah
Speaker 2: blah blah, all these things. What are your thoughts on
Speaker 2: the James Files James Files guy, because he was one
Speaker 2: of the ones that he has I'll be honest, like
Speaker 2: he has a very compelling story, like he is telling everything,
Speaker 2: but then he's telling things a little bit too good,
Speaker 2: almost like he's telling a story and wanting to take
Speaker 2: credit for essentially, you know, one of the I don't
Speaker 2: want to say, one of the greatest events of history,
Speaker 2: but one of the most infamous events within history, because
Speaker 2: they took out a president and this guy's telling telling
Speaker 2: you about how many cigarettes he smoked and how he
Speaker 2: left the bullet casing on top of the fence, and
Speaker 2: he's making this whole spectacle out of it. Are these
Speaker 2: people planted to spread misinformation or what's his deal? And
Speaker 2: what are your thoughts on.
Speaker 3: Him, I can. I can give you that that's one
Speaker 3: of the rabbit holes, and I could give you two
Speaker 3: or three rabbit holes like that. That that, you know,
Speaker 3: took me two or three year. Yes, I did I
Speaker 3: buy the James Files VHS videotape the moment it was available.
Speaker 3: Yes I did. Okay, yeah, okay, not a day I've
Speaker 3: I've been suckered way too much. We won't look at
Speaker 3: that side of the expense reporter, it's like how much
Speaker 3: money did you spend on what? But long term, the
Speaker 3: thing is I came to know. I came to know
Speaker 3: two people. One is the person who took the James
Speaker 3: File story to the media, and I came to know
Speaker 3: him over time, and he altered RECANDID and explained in
Speaker 3: detail how he had been had by files and what
Speaker 3: files its motive was. I was good friends with another
Speaker 3: lady who's deeply into assassination research for years, who had
Speaker 3: been in correspondence not only with files, but with several
Speaker 3: women who were files as pen pals in prison files.
Speaker 3: You would not know it from just his book and
Speaker 3: from what you're talking about. He was a long time
Speaker 3: he was looking, I mean quite frankly bored he's in
Speaker 3: for decades, right, He's got along, he's got a long
Speaker 3: thing to serve. He needs something to occupy himself. He
Speaker 3: becomes a pen pal with lots of women, gets engaged
Speaker 3: to several of them, actually marries one of them, and
Speaker 3: gets conjugal visits. Okay, all right, that's that's that side
Speaker 3: of the ledger. He and my friend is corresponding to
Speaker 3: multiple of these women's at the same time because they're
Speaker 3: telling her what's going on with Files in her life.
Speaker 3: The other fellow was telling me how he's he talked
Speaker 3: with the FBI agent that brought Files to him that
Speaker 3: kind of surface File's story. Files convinced him about it,
Speaker 3: and this guy bought into it a couple of that Actually,
Speaker 3: File's story was sold twice to different people for different
Speaker 3: amounts of money, and taken to market twice by a
Speaker 3: different account. These people gave me a lot of insight
Speaker 3: because they tried to. First of all, they had to
Speaker 3: verify files at one level, like the FBI guy had,
Speaker 3: and then they dug deeper. And it was only after
Speaker 3: they dug deeper that they started see it falling apart.
Speaker 3: And one of the things that Files light about many
Speaker 3: things that were provable when you started digging. It sounds
Speaker 3: great up here, But one of the things that really
Speaker 3: exposed him was the fact that he constantly said he
Speaker 3: knew nothing about the Kennedy assassination and had no way
Speaker 3: of knowing anything about the Kennedy assassination. Well, as it
Speaker 3: turns out, the prison library had a series of books
Speaker 3: on the Kennedy assassination, and there's nothing that James File
Speaker 3: said that couldn't be found in those jfk. Early books.
Speaker 3: So he did have source material. Now part of his
Speaker 3: story was he part of the Chicago mob. Absolutely, but
Speaker 3: there have been a whole host of people, not a host,
Speaker 3: that's an exaggeration. There have been eight or nine people
Speaker 3: like this who have parlayed parts of their past into
Speaker 3: stories for their own purposes. Sometimes there were political purposes. Sometimes,
Speaker 3: like for Pile, File, File started writing poems. He started
Speaker 3: writing poems about the Kennedy assassination and how he was
Speaker 3: a good guy in the Kennedy assassination. He wrote songs.
Speaker 3: I mean sorry. But in any event, long, long story short, No,
Speaker 3: File did not prove to be credible in the long run,
Speaker 3: as many of these people did not. I think a
Speaker 3: couple of them. I'm not going to condemn them, because
Speaker 3: I think they might be very sincere with their story,
Speaker 3: and their story came to be for certain personal reasons.
Speaker 3: We have to deal with that. But I'll have to
Speaker 3: admit only by seeing the evolution of a lot of
Speaker 3: these stories over the decades and knowing people and contacting
Speaker 3: people on the inside of the stories, it's the only
Speaker 3: way that you know, I was able to deal with
Speaker 3: the stories because they all look sound on a certain
Speaker 3: level because there's always a certain amount of truth. It's
Speaker 3: it's kind of like standard disinformation. This information doesn't work
Speaker 3: unless there's some element of truth in it.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely, And it always seems like with a lot
Speaker 2: of these big stories, like I said, they have people
Speaker 2: who you know, with disclosure and with everything else, that
Speaker 2: are there to kind of steer how you said the
Speaker 2: I forgot what you called it earlier, where they take
Speaker 2: the initial to take the narrative over and it's like
Speaker 2: it just muddies the waters up even more because this guy,
Speaker 2: he's you know, linking the CIA. He said he was
Speaker 2: hanging out with Lee Harvey Oswald, you know, the day
Speaker 2: the day prior to that, you know, they're they're driving
Speaker 2: around blah blah blah, and it makes me think of
Speaker 2: I believe it was Jack Ruby when uh, there there
Speaker 2: there is it like an interview or something. They're filming him,
Speaker 2: and he's like, we're never gonna know the truth, right,
Speaker 2: the truth will never see something I'm paraphrasing see the
Speaker 2: light of day or something like that. And that's very enigmatic.
Speaker 2: That's a very mysterious thing to say, and ask, oh
Speaker 2: why not. It's like, because does it does it contain
Speaker 2: higher people? Does it involve higher people? And he says yes,
Speaker 2: you know, almost like again this grand conspiracy and one
Speaker 2: can only think, Larry, how far up the line does
Speaker 2: it go?
Speaker 3: Well? And with Jack Ruby, I mean spent a much
Speaker 3: longer amount of time on Jack Ruby than James Files.
Speaker 3: You're getting much closer to the truth. Yeah, So just
Speaker 3: to kind of push past that, Yes, Jack Ruby was
Speaker 3: as part of the conspiracy. He was brought into the
Speaker 3: conspiracy by Johnny Roselli. He started out with a very
Speaker 3: low level role and then after oswelld was captured, which
Speaker 3: was not part of the plan, he was given a
Speaker 3: totally new role and things become much more complex. So
Speaker 3: agreed some of the stories just have a nugget of truth.
Speaker 3: They do have truth in them, and you've got to
Speaker 3: deal with them. So I don't want to pretend, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean, there is a conspiracy there and you have
Speaker 3: to track it down and certain people who have elements
Speaker 3: of the truth. Ruby's truth actually emerges through analysis of
Speaker 3: Ruby doing things and behaving in ways that make no
Speaker 3: sense unless he was actually associated with the conspiracy over
Speaker 3: some seventy two hours before and after the assassination itself.
Speaker 3: I spent an agonizing amount of detail looking at micro
Speaker 3: analysis of his movements, of his phone calls, of his behaviors,
Speaker 3: and there's certainly a case to be made for his
Speaker 3: involvement his prior Jack Ruby. Most people would probably shocked
Speaker 3: to know that he was so deeply into Cuban gun
Speaker 3: running and during the revolution that he was actually used
Speaker 3: by the FBI for a period of over year as
Speaker 3: a provisional criminal informant. They provided him equipment for tape recordings.
Speaker 3: It's very likely that his contribution to that investigation was
Speaker 3: used in the conviction of a gun running effort by
Speaker 3: a fellow out of Houston named McCowan. Long story there,
Speaker 3: but Jack Ruby's Jack Ruby had part of the real story.
Speaker 3: He certainly didn't have the whole story. He just knew
Speaker 3: a little bit of it. But he's very dangerous, which
Speaker 3: is why basically what happened to him happened to him him.
Speaker 3: He was turned into an unreliable source. And we we
Speaker 3: won't get too far into it, but no, I do
Speaker 3: not think the visit by Jolly West, who is the
Speaker 3: CIA LSD specialist, to Ruby in jail on multiple occasions,
Speaker 3: and the true observable fact that Ruby became more and
Speaker 3: more irrational after those visits up to the comment that
Speaker 3: you're talking about is your circumstance. So yeah, I can
Speaker 3: do conspiracy, honest.
Speaker 2: That's wild to see. I again, this is this is
Speaker 2: why you're the expert, because I had no idea about that.
Speaker 2: But that's pretty crazy that again we're dipping into the
Speaker 2: conspiracy round with things. How do you think it would
Speaker 2: have because this seems like such a clear cut case.
Speaker 2: It's so convenient, right, they get Lee Harvey Oswald, he's
Speaker 2: coming out what was he coming out of a police
Speaker 2: stationers something or other and then boom, Jack Ruby gets
Speaker 2: him and that's all she wrote.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was clear cut, and anybody and we know
Speaker 3: so much deal in detail about it. It was so suspicious.
Speaker 3: The biggest problem the Warren Commission had, honestly with the
Speaker 3: whole suppression of information was Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission,
Speaker 3: surprisingly enough, other than the FBI, who they didn't trust,
Speaker 3: and we know that from their own documents, had only
Speaker 3: two investigators. Those two investigators were sent to Dallas to
Speaker 3: investigate Ruby and his connections, his connections to the police,
Speaker 3: his other connections. They were all over Ruby, especially his
Speaker 3: crime connections in his history with people like Rosselli and
Speaker 3: with you know, these other things. The Warren Commission actually
Speaker 3: dismissed them because they were pointing towards some connections with
Speaker 3: the police East and Ruby that might have resulted in
Speaker 3: Oswald's death that nobody wanted to see. They dismissed them.
Speaker 3: Those two guys said, Okay, we'll leave, we'll resign. Actually
Speaker 3: we'll go away, but we want to promise from you
Speaker 3: that when you come down to Dallas to question Jack,
Speaker 3: we got the right questions. You've got to call us
Speaker 3: back and let us participate. The Warrant Commission did not
Speaker 3: call them back. Ruby was Ruby could have unraveled at
Speaker 3: least one part of the conspiracy, and and it was
Speaker 3: very dangerous and people that knew that were very dangerous.
Speaker 3: People that knew. I mean, you look at the fact,
Speaker 3: and this is hard to take. If you want something
Speaker 3: that's hard to take is up to a certain point
Speaker 3: in the day of the assassination, Rufe is chipper. He's cheerful,
Speaker 3: he's fine. You know, he's good. Everybody that meets him,
Speaker 3: it's the same old Jack Ruby. Right after the assassination,
Speaker 3: he goes back to his club. He's told he's gotten
Speaker 3: several calls from somebody unnamed. Then he makes a call
Speaker 3: and there are a couple of calls exchanged with the
Speaker 3: guy in La. It was a known contact of John
Speaker 3: Roselle with his circuit. And after that Jack falls apart.
Speaker 3: He goes to his sisters and he starts throwing up,
Speaker 3: and from then on over the weekend, he's a totally
Speaker 3: changed person. The obvious reason, he's been told that what
Speaker 3: he was doing, his role has changed. You know, it's
Speaker 3: kind of like Jack, you know what the game is like, Yeah,
Speaker 3: you were you were locating some dirty cops for us
Speaker 3: to use. You were doing a good field guy. You're
Speaker 3: not minor role. It's kay. You got paid some money.
Speaker 3: We even know if banker said he came into some money. Okay,
Speaker 3: but you know what the rules are, right Jack, You
Speaker 3: either do this. We've got a loose end that wasn't
Speaker 3: supposed to be there. You take care of it, or
Speaker 3: you know your sister, Jack love You love your sister, right,
Speaker 3: JACKI you know what's going to happen if you don't
Speaker 3: do this, And that's what happened. He had no choice
Speaker 3: even afterwards when you talk about motive. Oswald had no motive.
Speaker 3: Ruby had no motive for killing Lee Harvey Oswald. And
Speaker 3: it's supposed to be spontaneous, right, but you know that's
Speaker 3: not gonna fly. It's just he didn't even go see
Speaker 3: the motor Cave, right. It's not like he's a fan
Speaker 3: of JFK. He's not like so he didn't even go
Speaker 3: see the Motor Kve. But suddenly he's concerned enough to
Speaker 3: kill Lee Harvey Oswald. So they asked him what his
Speaker 3: motive was. He said, well, I really wanted to make
Speaker 3: sure that Jackie didn't have to come back to Dallas
Speaker 3: for a trial. Jack is not known for being a
Speaker 3: sympathetic you know, Jack is the guy who bounces people
Speaker 3: out of his club, kicks people. He's not known for
Speaker 3: being a sympathetic individual or ever having talked about Jackie
Speaker 3: Kennedy or Jack Kennedy. Later on we found out his
Speaker 3: lawyer gave him that motive, and his lawyer admitted, you've
Speaker 3: got to have something to tell people, Jack, I can't
Speaker 3: just go to court without you here.
Speaker 2: Try this to sympathize with that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's so like it's it's stupid, but it's better
Speaker 3: than nothing.
Speaker 2: WHOA So the actual so the person that might how
Speaker 2: you said, hold the actual key here is actually Jack Ruby.
Speaker 2: But again he conventely died of a pulmonary embolism in
Speaker 2: sixty seven. And who made the call? So he had
Speaker 2: this minor role and I guess he they They gave
Speaker 2: him a promotion, right, they gave him a promotion midway
Speaker 2: he obviously didn't want to do it. And it's it's
Speaker 2: it's who has the power to was it governm was
Speaker 2: it mob? Was it the illuminati? Larry? Who was it?
Speaker 2: Do we have any idea who it could have been?
Speaker 3: Well? I have talked to and worked with We know
Speaker 3: the here's what we do know that the we know
Speaker 3: that the call to this guy in LA And by
Speaker 3: the way, Jack Ruby's explanation and this guy's explanation of
Speaker 3: what did you talk about the afternoon of the assassination
Speaker 3: when the entire country is talking about the killing of
Speaker 3: the president, this guy and Jack Ruby, we're talking, ostensibly,
Speaker 3: according to them, about Jack Ruby's dogs and the fact
Speaker 3: that you know, Jack might be providing you want to
Speaker 3: talk code in a conversation. Dog, Now we can code
Speaker 3: in a conversation. Uh yeah, I'm you know, you need
Speaker 3: to take care of your dog. We need to your
Speaker 3: dogs anyway. But the bottom line is the connection goes
Speaker 3: back to, as I said Johnny Roselli, it goes back
Speaker 3: to Las Vegas. We have a lawyer who is brought
Speaker 3: in to defend uh, Jack Ruby, who gets a call
Speaker 3: after Jack Ruby shoots Oswald and and basically the lawyer says,
Speaker 3: I knew he was calling. I recognize the voice. Uh
Speaker 3: you know, and they and by the way, and the
Speaker 3: call they go, you know this, all the money that
Speaker 3: we're going to talk about, and this whole defense fund
Speaker 3: that we're going to talk about has to go through
Speaker 3: Jack's brother, you know, with this has got to be
Speaker 3: totally deniable. You're going to make a lot of money
Speaker 3: off this. The guy said, I knew it was Johnny
Speaker 3: Roselli calling me from Vegas, and we have an FBI
Speaker 3: surveillance report putting Johnny Roselli in Vegas at the time.
Speaker 3: That gets to be this. The conspiracy itself is a
Speaker 3: combination of people. It's not just one individual, and and
Speaker 3: they have their strengths. Roselli had had certain strengths, and
Speaker 3: he had connections to Dallas and and could make things.
Speaker 3: You know, to do something like the attack in Dallas,
Speaker 3: you not only need people that are experienced and trained
Speaker 3: and enough to do that kind of paramilitary attack and dealing,
Speaker 3: but you need field work. I mean, that's the way
Speaker 3: things you need to You need to set up things.
Speaker 3: You need to know who can be given minor jobs.
Speaker 3: How can you get access to information that's ru That's
Speaker 3: what Jack Ruby was doing up until Oswald got captured.
Speaker 3: Then it all changed.
Speaker 2: They had to be a professional team. Now this Rosellie
Speaker 2: guy right has connections to the CIA. That would that
Speaker 2: would make one's mind wander as to who could have
Speaker 2: been behind this. How proficient was Oswald with a weapon?
Speaker 2: Because if we're talking, I've seen I think even did
Speaker 2: MythBusters do an episode on the shooting? How you had
Speaker 2: to do like two shots and you know, so x
Speaker 2: amount of time and that it was I think it
Speaker 2: was like impossible. I could be completely remorant wrong. But
Speaker 2: how proficient was he with weapons? If at all?
Speaker 3: Well, two things? To make those shots? You had to
Speaker 3: operate a bolt action rifle. For anybody who's ever followed,
Speaker 3: that means you've got to eject your cell, you got
Speaker 3: to work your bolt, you've got to reseat your shell
Speaker 3: even though you've got a clip in the rifle, and
Speaker 3: you've got to re require a target either through the scope,
Speaker 3: which the FBI found was not sighted in correctly. So
Speaker 3: if he had used this, so he would have missed.
Speaker 3: So okay, let's say he's using the iron sights, he's
Speaker 3: got to real Nobody could ever duplicate that they could
Speaker 3: get off six shots in three shots in six seconds
Speaker 3: but not hit the target. You know, so people always go, well,
Speaker 3: you can do you can take those shots. Hey, you
Speaker 3: can't take you can take the shots, you can't hit it.
Speaker 3: The Marines couldn't duplicate it, the FBI couldn't duplicate it.
Speaker 3: Nobody could duplicate it. But the real story on a
Speaker 3: well is when he went through basic training, infantry training
Speaker 3: basically AI T or Marine infantry training, a fired competent.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's truth. You know, he's on the range
Speaker 3: a lot. He's firing competent. That's not a problem. Oswald
Speaker 3: has shot before he was a kid. You know, his
Speaker 3: family talks about going out and hunting, so, you know,
Speaker 3: not an expert or anything, but he's used a rifle before,
Speaker 3: and he likes guns. Most people in my generation down here, yeah,
Speaker 3: guns were routine. But when he was exiting the Marines
Speaker 3: and taking his last firing range test, he barely qualified,
Speaker 3: which just shows you, again, as anybody shooter knows, if
Speaker 3: you're not practicing, you get worse. You've got to be
Speaker 3: practicing with that weapon. You've got to have the weapon
Speaker 3: sited in just to show you how bad this is.
Speaker 3: When we put this out in the book, when the
Speaker 3: Warren Commission decided that they had to have a section
Speaker 3: on Oswald's shooting ability, their advisor from the Justice Department said,
Speaker 3: do not do that. Nobody's going to believe it. You
Speaker 3: don't have a case. Leave that whole section out, which
Speaker 3: they did not. But it's like anybody who really looks
Speaker 3: at the background. There, No, he didn't. He not only
Speaker 3: did not have those skills, he had not there was
Speaker 3: no practice that could be found. You know, for years
Speaker 3: when he had been in Russia, he joined a factory
Speaker 3: shooting team because that was kind of expected, and we
Speaker 3: know from people that talked with members of the team
Speaker 3: he was not a good shot. Then then they laughed
Speaker 3: at him. He did buy he bought a shotgun and
Speaker 3: went hunting in Russia, and again they laughed at him
Speaker 3: because he couldn't hit anything. So there's not really a
Speaker 3: good there's a reason why the Justice Department guy said,
Speaker 3: don't do that. I would throw one thing other thing
Speaker 3: in for peace people that are maybe not as familiar
Speaker 3: as how badly this sort of information was obscured by
Speaker 3: the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission convened a ballistics panel.
Speaker 3: These are guys experienced, experienced weapons experience and wounds experienced ballistics,
Speaker 3: and they gave him the supposedly the fatal bullet, the
Speaker 3: bullet that went both through Kennedy and Conley, and they
Speaker 3: studied extensively and they generated a report that said, no,
Speaker 3: this bullet doesn't work. This bullet does not do what
Speaker 3: you said it do. It doesn't support the shooting scenario
Speaker 3: that you have. It doesn't work. As I recall, there
Speaker 3: was something like a dozen people on the panel that
Speaker 3: just said it doesn't work. There was one person that
Speaker 3: advised the panel who said it worked, Arlen Spector, the
Speaker 3: guy who had come up with the shooting scenario for
Speaker 3: that bullet, and basically Specter said, well, I believe it
Speaker 3: can anyway, and the Warrant Commission just took it and
Speaker 3: hit it in the twenty six. In fact, I'm not
Speaker 3: even sure it's in the twenty six volumes. They just
Speaker 3: it's like, we don't want to see this. This is
Speaker 3: not going to be part of the story.
Speaker 2: Yikes. That's not a good look for the for the
Speaker 2: for the team at all. It seems like Oswald was
Speaker 2: and maybe he wasn't. I was going to say he's,
Speaker 2: you know, wrong place, wrong time. No, he was exactly
Speaker 2: where he needed to be. But it was calculated even
Speaker 2: before that, how you said earlier, he had a whole
Speaker 2: different series of events of what was going to go
Speaker 2: down that day, and that didn't include being framed for
Speaker 2: the assassination of JFK. So where do we go from here, Larry,
Speaker 2: what I know? You leave it open for speculation in
Speaker 2: the book, and you say, towards the beginning of the
Speaker 2: book he was not, you know, this calculated, cold blooded killer.
Speaker 2: And towards the end of the book he kind of
Speaker 2: say the same. You know, we're presenting the information, you
Speaker 2: go through his life and everything, But what's next? Are
Speaker 2: we ever going to know the truth theory? Is this
Speaker 2: ever going to come and see the light of day?
Speaker 3: Well, after four books on the subject, I would say,
Speaker 3: let's put it this way. I've satisfied myself. I can't
Speaker 3: claim that it will satisfy anybody else. But I wrote
Speaker 3: a book called Tipping Point, which deals with the conspiracy
Speaker 3: and the attack. Right, Okay, this is where the here's
Speaker 3: how the conspiracy jelled here with the high level motives,
Speaker 3: the low level motives, the kind of people that were involved.
Speaker 3: That was in a book called Tipping Point, And that
Speaker 3: was kind of the summary of all the other work
Speaker 3: that I'd done, my best view of how it had
Speaker 3: happened and who was involved. But the reason I went
Speaker 3: on to write this book with David was because it
Speaker 3: had left Oswald out of the equation. It's kind of
Speaker 3: like Okay, that's the conspiracy and those are the guys.
Speaker 3: But what about Oswald? What's going going on with Oswald?
Speaker 3: And how could he be blamed for this? How much
Speaker 3: of it was coincidence? How much was it framed? And
Speaker 3: one of the things that is important to remember is
Speaker 3: if you're going to really patsy someone, it's kind of
Speaker 3: like a con job. The easiest way to con somebody
Speaker 3: is to say that you're doing what they want to do.
Speaker 3: You know they're trying to make money. You offer them
Speaker 3: a money making scheme. You know you never got you
Speaker 3: never win at the tables. I got a system, you know.
Speaker 3: It's You've got to offer him something that they find
Speaker 3: is it's in their agenda. And that's what happened with Oswald.
Speaker 3: The bad guys really offered him something that fit his agenda,
Speaker 3: had nothing to do with JFK, but that made him usable.
Speaker 3: And they started that effort as early as August in
Speaker 3: New Orleans when they had first approached him. And there's
Speaker 3: a whole series of activities that they did with him
Speaker 3: to convince him that they were on his side, were
Speaker 3: going to offer him something that he wanted, which literally
Speaker 3: was to go to Cuba. And join in the Cuban experience,
Speaker 3: the Cuban revolution and maybe even carry you know, a
Speaker 3: Yankee imperialism, carry this on, participate. So they offered him
Speaker 3: something and we can we can describe that. I mean,
Speaker 3: we we actually have documents of him saying that he
Speaker 3: wanted to do that, trying to go to Cuba, even
Speaker 3: talking about hijacking an aircraft to go to Cuba. So
Speaker 3: that's why to answer your question is what can we
Speaker 3: do to solve this? I think to one extent, we're
Speaker 3: not going to go much beyond that in the conspiracy
Speaker 3: because it was not investigated, and to the extent that
Speaker 3: it was investigated, like the report I talked about earlier,
Speaker 3: when the CIA investigates itself, that's gone. You know, if
Speaker 3: they found something that implicated some of their people, we're
Speaker 3: not going to see it. So I don't know that
Speaker 3: we're going to get better on that. I think that
Speaker 3: there are some documents that exist in regard to the
Speaker 3: CIA and Oswald, the FBI and Oswald that could could
Speaker 3: tell us a lot about what they were doing with
Speaker 3: Oswald and tell us why it was covered up. So
Speaker 3: I think we could understand. I think we will be
Speaker 3: able to understand the cover up more. If we get
Speaker 3: some of the right that documents that we know existed
Speaker 3: at one point in time, we may be able to
Speaker 3: undercover a little bit more about the conspiracy because we
Speaker 3: know what to look for. I will say this, and
Speaker 3: it's not to if the people, if the d n
Speaker 3: I and these teams that are looking at revealing documents
Speaker 3: don't talk to us, they won't know what they need
Speaker 3: to get because it's not just taking what's going to
Speaker 3: be given to you and releasing it. That's not the
Speaker 3: point that would have happened a long time ago. We
Speaker 3: do know what to look for, and I hope they
Speaker 3: there's soveral people that could help them. I hope they
Speaker 3: go that route. But another long wined answer to your question,
Speaker 3: I think we have an insight into the actual conspiracy
Speaker 3: among all the many that there could have been, the
Speaker 3: actual motive among all the many that there were, and
Speaker 3: we have a view of Oswald that I think is
Speaker 3: finally more rational, it's more real. Regarding to Ashwall, it
Speaker 3: doesn't doesn't make Oswell a good guy, doesn't make him
Speaker 3: a bad guy, but it makes him doing his own thing,
Speaker 3: which is a lot easier to understand.
Speaker 2: And I think it's important to look at because I
Speaker 2: love history as well. I love everything about it. Some
Speaker 2: people would say that history has been manipulated, which I mean,
Speaker 2: I can't help but agree with them to a certain extent,
Speaker 2: because I mean, it's going to happen. How you're saying.
Speaker 2: If the CIA found something, what's to say that they
Speaker 2: didn't scrub it behind the scenes, And we're never going
Speaker 2: to know the truth about that. But I love the
Speaker 2: fact that you took this book and you wrote it
Speaker 2: from a different perspective. One always focuses right, JFKJFKJFK, the
Speaker 2: magic bullet, magic bullet. I've even seen conspiracies where it
Speaker 2: was actually the driver of the limousine or whatever you
Speaker 2: want to call it that turns around and actually fires
Speaker 2: back at JFK. I mean, there's been so many different things,
Speaker 2: and this is a multifaceted conspiracy. And you know, even
Speaker 2: if you go deeper into the conspiracy, people are like
Speaker 2: November twenty second, right, eleven, twenty two, thirty three, So
Speaker 2: it was the Freemasons that you know, got to JFK,
Speaker 2: the Illuminati, the mob ties. He was gonna I've also
Speaker 2: heard he was gonna cut off funding to Israel or
Speaker 2: something like that. So I was the Zionist or whoever.
Speaker 2: There's so many things going on, and similar to how
Speaker 2: we're never gonna truly know probably you know the origins
Speaker 2: of life. I don't think we're ever gonna truly truly
Speaker 2: know the secret of the Jeff, you know what actually
Speaker 2: happened that day? And maybe how you're saying he was
Speaker 2: promised all these things, would you say he was more
Speaker 2: of a I don't want to call him an idiot,
Speaker 2: but a useful idiot to where he kind of fell
Speaker 2: for the plan, and like, hey, we got him because
Speaker 2: he kind of There are holes in the whole character
Speaker 2: of Oswalder, we can find those in some discrepancies, but
Speaker 2: he fit the narrative so well. And then on top
Speaker 2: of him being dead, which we're never gonna know, how
Speaker 2: old would he have been if he survived till this day,
Speaker 2: he would have been what eighty something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, eighty something, I think eighty two something like that.
Speaker 2: He fit the narrative. And then they wipe him out,
Speaker 2: Jack Ruby croaks you know a little bit after that,
Speaker 2: and then who's left other than the main players, Right,
Speaker 2: it's a game of chess that they're playing, and would
Speaker 2: you say they got away?
Speaker 3: Yeah, here's the thing, and actually that question makes me
Speaker 3: feel a little bitter about the whole thing. First of all,
Speaker 3: you use the term useful idiot, and that that's interesting
Speaker 3: because that doesn't come from us. That comes from a
Speaker 3: CIA officer. We have an action quote from cha officer
Speaker 3: who who's in this same group that we're talking about,
Speaker 3: in this Cuban operations group, and his his daughter asked
Speaker 3: him one time she goes and she's open about this,
Speaker 3: she said, well, okay, tell me who killed Kennedy. You know,
Speaker 3: all right, this is what you talk about at Thanksgiving
Speaker 3: at the dinner table. It's like when your dad's been
Speaker 3: in the CIA, right, Okay, you should know you're there.
Speaker 3: And his response to that was you don't want to know,
Speaker 3: which is not a reassuring response. And then then she said,
Speaker 3: well what about you? What what about Lee Harvey Oswald?
Speaker 3: And his dad said, he was simply a useful idiot.
Speaker 3: Now in CIA terminology, that doesn't mean he was an
Speaker 3: idiot and not bright. That means that he could be manipulated.
Speaker 3: We used him unknowingly. He is, he is an idiot
Speaker 3: in terms of what our agenda is he's got his agenda.
Speaker 3: So actually that term useful idiot, I think is a
Speaker 3: very good descriptor on on your other question and other response.
Speaker 3: What makes me feel better about it? Okay, if that's possible.
Speaker 3: One of the people, and I did find a few
Speaker 3: people who were inside the conspiracy that eventually had heard
Speaker 3: about it at the time, not later, I mean at
Speaker 3: the time in November nineteen sixty three. One of them
Speaker 3: was a young man from Florida who his father was
Speaker 3: John Martino, who had been a prisoner inside Cuba, very
Speaker 3: anti Castro, and his dad had talked about what was
Speaker 3: going to happen to Kennedy when he got to Texas. Okay,
Speaker 3: and actually this is on red record. Two of his friends.
Speaker 3: He talked to them both right before his death, and
Speaker 3: they provided information to the HSCA, the House Select Committee
Speaker 3: on Assassinations. He didn't know much, and he didn't claim
Speaker 3: that he knew much, but he knew a couple of things,
Speaker 3: and he had had a very minor role. He was
Speaker 3: a courier, had gone in New Orleans and Dallas. What
Speaker 3: he knew was Lee rv Oswell was not the shooter,
Speaker 3: never intended to be a shooter was not a part
Speaker 3: of the shooting plot. Learvy. Oswell was supposed to be
Speaker 3: thought that he was going to meet people at the
Speaker 3: Texas School at the Texas Theater who were going to
Speaker 3: help him get out of the US and go to Cuba.
Speaker 3: But that was not going to happen. He was going
Speaker 3: to be killed with evidence planted on him pointing to
Speaker 3: Castro and Cuban agents, and Oswell went off the rails.
Speaker 3: At twelve thirty, the first part of their plan succeeded.
Speaker 3: They killed JFK and a comp polish what they their
Speaker 3: mission was. Ozma went off the rails. He got concerned,
Speaker 3: He heard things he wasn't supposed to hear. It was
Speaker 3: a shock to him that the president had been to
Speaker 3: kill what's going on? And he gets himself caught And
Speaker 3: for them, these people, Martino and his friends had been
Speaker 3: told that their action was going to cause the US
Speaker 3: to invade Cuba and replace Castro. That's why they were
Speaker 3: in it, That's why they were participating a big part
Speaker 3: of it that didn't happen. Eventually they reached the conclusion
Speaker 3: that they had been given a false story. These people
Speaker 3: had never really intended that to happen. It was just
Speaker 3: something to help co opt them and get them to
Speaker 3: go along. But I guess your question was, you know,
Speaker 3: did they win. The bad news is they won because
Speaker 3: they killed JFK. The good news is that they didn't
Speaker 3: win what they wanted to win. And it does cheer
Speaker 3: me up to think that. You know, he said his
Speaker 3: dad was on the phone all afternoon. Everybody was just
Speaker 3: going out of their minds because things weren't happening that
Speaker 3: should be happening. And I it makes me feel better
Speaker 3: to know that they were frustrated.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, almost definitely. And I'm just wondering, let's say that, right,
Speaker 2: Let's say that all this is true, that he wasn't
Speaker 2: the shooter, and that he was actually just this amos,
Speaker 2: almost a willing participant, almost right where he actually was,
Speaker 2: within the building that he was in, and if he
Speaker 2: heard the shots that went off and all of that,
Speaker 2: and what his thoughts and reactions would be, right, And
Speaker 2: I just wish he would have done more when the
Speaker 2: cameras were on him to get rid of that narrative
Speaker 2: right to maybe maybe he was maybe he was taking
Speaker 2: a little bit LSD Larry. I mean, who knows, right.
Speaker 3: But let's think about this. And this is something David
Speaker 3: and I got to in the epilogue. It's kind of like, Okay,
Speaker 3: what if what if Oswell doesn't get shot by Ruby?
Speaker 3: What's he going to have to say? All right, here's
Speaker 3: the bad news. There is a rifle traceable to him
Speaker 3: at the scene of the crime where the shooting occurred.
Speaker 3: Now is he going to get off with public opinion
Speaker 3: being what it was? What's he going to have to say?
Speaker 3: It's kind of like, well, he asked my rifle, but
Speaker 3: I didn't put it there. I didn't bring it to work.
Speaker 3: Oh who did well? I don't know who did well.
Speaker 3: Why would they do this to you? I don't know
Speaker 3: why they would do it to me? This guy's said
Speaker 3: and they said they were Cuban agents trying to help me.
Speaker 3: Oh oh we Oh, so your friends are Cuban agents
Speaker 3: trying to help you. They're pro Castro and and we're
Speaker 3: just kind of getting you know, if he said everything
Speaker 3: that he knew that we think he knew, yeah, nobody
Speaker 3: would have believed it. He might have just dug himself
Speaker 3: in a deeper hole. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think you guys said nobody would have believed them.
Speaker 2: If you would have told the truth anyways to begin with,
Speaker 2: because the right they had already taken a hold of
Speaker 2: the narrative. Larry, you know, just a few more questions
Speaker 2: here before we start wrapping up. Are do you believe
Speaker 2: maybe there are there people still alive till this day
Speaker 2: that know the truth?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I think so. I think there are still They're
Speaker 3: the ones that that do know are in their eighties. Certainly,
Speaker 3: there's no doubt about that. I don't see any reason
Speaker 3: that I have actually talked on occasions like could you
Speaker 3: persuade somebody to write a note and leave it, you know,
Speaker 3: with their attorney for after they pass away, to tell
Speaker 3: this story. I don't really expect that's going to happen.
Speaker 3: I'm led to believe that. You know, they were still
Speaker 3: proud of what they did. There there was you know,
Speaker 3: they were acting on their agenda. They were they were
Speaker 3: acting to you know, they had been fighting for years
Speaker 3: to get rid of Castro in the Cuban regime. So
Speaker 3: they viewed it as an act of patriotism. And I
Speaker 3: don't think you're going to see anybody recant an act
Speaker 3: of patriotism. The ones that would be alive, the CI
Speaker 3: officers seem to be. You know, they're not going to embarra.
Speaker 3: If they didn't embarrass the agency before, they're not going
Speaker 3: to embarrass the agency now. The agency was fighting the
Speaker 3: Cod War, they won the CO War, they won the
Speaker 3: first COD War. At least they're not gonna recant. So
Speaker 3: I don't really know who it would be. The witnesses
Speaker 3: we've you know, we're not going to hear anything new
Speaker 3: from the witnesses. So no, I think there are people living.
Speaker 3: I don't see any of them at risk. I think
Speaker 3: the thought that the records might somehow, you know, be
Speaker 3: a risk for them, it's not realistic. I don't think
Speaker 3: any of that is true because there's nothing in There's
Speaker 3: nothing in the records. It wasn't investigated, or when it
Speaker 3: was investigated, it disappeared. Right.
Speaker 2: You think RFK Junior knows, No.
Speaker 3: He suspects. I don't think he's heard anything other than
Speaker 3: what we've discussed. I mean, I know people that know him.
Speaker 3: I talked to him briefly on a couple of occasions.
Speaker 3: He might not even remember I talked to him about
Speaker 3: the RFKS as nation, not JFK. But I know I
Speaker 3: don't think I think he has the same suspicions from
Speaker 3: high level people who heard it. It's kind of like
Speaker 3: this useful idiot thing. Did he hear from people you
Speaker 3: would think know that you know? But on November the
Speaker 3: twenty second, we know that Robert Kennedy Bobby made two
Speaker 3: telephone calls. The first call was to the director of
Speaker 3: the CIA to ask him, and Bobby said, this, did
Speaker 3: the CIA kill my brother? Now? The strangest thing is
Speaker 3: nobody ever asked Bobby, why did you think they would?
Speaker 3: What led you? Why is this your first call? Now
Speaker 3: Macau told you no, but he's not CIA's just the
Speaker 3: director who knows. But why would you think that? The
Speaker 3: second call was to a friend of his in an
Speaker 3: Anticastro group who was working on a new new project
Speaker 3: to launch a new regime change operation against Castro, and
Speaker 3: he called him and wanted to talk to and he said, literally,
Speaker 3: your people did it. Nobody asked Bobby why he said that,
Speaker 3: you know? What did Bobby know? What did Bobby suspect?
Speaker 3: We know from documents and things that have been revealed
Speaker 3: that both Bobby and Jackie told the Russians sent contacts
Speaker 3: to tell the Russians that they knew it wasn't the Russians,
Speaker 3: they knew it was a domestic conspiracy, or they suspect
Speaker 3: that it was a domestic conspiracy. One of the documents
Speaker 3: that we're not going to get is that William Manchester
Speaker 3: interviewed Jackie and several others witnesses about these sorts of things,
Speaker 3: and because he was writing a book on the assassination,
Speaker 3: William Manchester right afterwards the Kennedy family Jackie seal those
Speaker 3: records for seventy five years as to what she told Manchester,
Speaker 3: it's not part of the JFK collection. We're not going
Speaker 3: to get that as any part of I think that
Speaker 3: would tell us more, you know, what Jackie and Bobby
Speaker 3: suspected and why they suspected. It would tell us any
Speaker 3: more more than any document that we're going to get.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's why RFK was taken out. Perhaps, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's just an idea.
Speaker 3: Maybe, I mean that has been expressed. It's I have
Speaker 3: one of the issues. Of course, I was there when
Speaker 3: RFK was campaigning. I was a big part of on
Speaker 3: campus and part of what was going on at the time.
Speaker 3: Even if RFK had not become president, there's no doubt
Speaker 3: that RFK would have been part of the next administration,
Speaker 3: you know, and what role is probably not Attorney general again,
Speaker 3: but he would have had a role. He would have
Speaker 3: been a big decision maker in any Humphrey administration. And
Speaker 3: one of the things that you have to look at.
Speaker 3: I'm not so sure that if Robert had wanted to
Speaker 3: disclose what he knew and raise the roof, he would
Speaker 3: have done it. I mean, he would have done it
Speaker 3: what he could. I My particular thing is I think
Speaker 3: his role either as a president or you know, that
Speaker 3: threatened people outside the jail. It wasn't just about JFF assassination.
Speaker 3: It was Bobby and his inclination to do things that
Speaker 3: were kind of like his brothers. It's sort of like
Speaker 3: he's for the same sorts of thing as his brother was.
Speaker 3: Who wouldn't like that. It's not so much just the
Speaker 3: JFK assassination. It's just what administration policies would Bobby and
Speaker 3: as president or Bobby is a major figure pursue. That's
Speaker 3: the danger.
Speaker 2: I guess we'll never know, Larry right, I mean, this
Speaker 2: is a lot of rabbit holes, a lot of I
Speaker 2: find it super fascinating, super interesting, And I look at
Speaker 2: the JFK assassination almost like a thought experiment, right, It
Speaker 2: makes you think, makes you wonder we have the mainstream ideas. Man,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna take James Files word on it. I think
Speaker 2: maybe he did it. He's a good storyteller. Who knows.
Speaker 2: But Larry, do you have anything planned? I know you've
Speaker 2: written many, many books, You've researched this for a lot
Speaker 2: of years. Do you have any other plans on other
Speaker 2: books coming out here soon? What can people expect from
Speaker 2: you now?
Speaker 3: David and I are still still working on some of
Speaker 3: the aspects of this. You know, who would have set
Speaker 3: Lee Oswald? Harvey Oswell, how did that really happen? Who
Speaker 3: traveled with him after New Orleans? We think maybe we
Speaker 3: can piece some of those things together, really take this
Speaker 3: to a finer level of detail, and kind of like,
Speaker 3: there are certain number of suspects, could you condense the
Speaker 3: number a little bit? So we plan to keep working
Speaker 3: on that. For myself, you know, it has been thirty
Speaker 3: five years. I'm kind of thinking I need another hobby.
Speaker 3: You know, there's a telescope behind me. Maybe I should
Speaker 3: take that out again. It's like, you know, I used
Speaker 3: to go fishing. Was life better before all the history.
Speaker 3: I love the history just like you. I love it.
Speaker 3: I don't doubt that I'll ever get away with it,
Speaker 3: but I keep going. You know, Okay, options.
Speaker 2: You don't look at day past thirty, Larry. You look great,
Speaker 2: all right.
Speaker 3: So I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: Keep up the great work. I really appreciate you talking
Speaker 2: to me today. And if I've learned anything from today's
Speaker 2: interview is that the aliens did really take JFK out.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to tell my kids that's what happened,
Speaker 2: and hopefully they tell their kids that that's what happens.
Speaker 3: I've got a program for you. Do a search on
Speaker 3: the Dark Skies television series.
Speaker 2: I've heard about that is that on Netflix.
Speaker 3: Dark Skies is like the perfect thing. It's like Bobby
Speaker 3: Kennedy investigates his brother's assassinations and finds it all due
Speaker 3: to the aliens. Like it's it's the perfect convergence of
Speaker 3: all these conspiracies. It's great. You know, it's Bobby Kennedy
Speaker 3: against the aliens for assassinating JFK. You know, so you
Speaker 3: might want to share that with them. That'll that'll go there.
Speaker 2: There's nothing new under the sun, that's for sure.
Speaker 3: You know, when it first came on television. I'm going,
Speaker 3: oh finally, okay, good, We're done, Larry.
Speaker 2: Any closing thoughts. You want to let people know where
Speaker 2: they can find you one more time, if anyone hasn't
Speaker 2: heard of you or anything else, you want to plug
Speaker 2: and say.
Speaker 3: If people do choose to read the book, you know,
Speaker 3: I'll be talking about it on the blog. In any
Speaker 3: of the books that there are four books, someone would
Speaker 3: have talked. The whole thought was if there was a conspiracy,
Speaker 3: would someone talk? And I found a few people that did,
Speaker 3: but only to their wives and lawyers. You know, anybody
Speaker 3: that talks to the public, irrespective of James files, don't
Speaker 3: believe them if they talk to their you know, near
Speaker 3: death confessions are the best kind that you can get.
Speaker 3: You know, if there, if they did it, don't expect
Speaker 3: them to go to the media. So someone would have
Speaker 3: talked Nexus, which goes into this in regard to CIA
Speaker 3: assassinations and regime change and what it looks like. And
Speaker 3: then Tipping pointed this. But if anyone reads those and
Speaker 3: have any questions, I'm very accessible by email and I'm
Speaker 3: happy to chat about it. I don't, as you say,
Speaker 3: we're never going to have exactly the final answer, but
Speaker 3: I'm happy to discuss the one I found.
Speaker 2: I appreciate your time. Larry, thank you so much again
Speaker 2: for speaking with me today. We'll make sure to check
Speaker 2: out the Oswald puzzle reconsidering Lee Harvey Oswald, available Amazon
Speaker 2: or wherever just look up. Larry Hancock has done a
Speaker 2: ton of work on the subject. I was very excited
Speaker 2: to talk to him today because again, this is something
Speaker 2: that I haven't really dive down the rabbit hole so much,
Speaker 2: and it's uncovered. It's uncovered a lot of things for me,
Speaker 2: so I'm happy you were here with me tonight. Larry,
Speaker 2: thank you so much, and as always, everyone make sure
Speaker 2: to check out the show on social media at the
Speaker 2: one podcast www dot tj ojp dot com, comment, like, share, subscribe,
Speaker 2: all that good stuff, and as always, will catch you
Speaker 2: on the next one. Goodbye now,