Speaker 1: Get ready for.
Speaker 2: October twenty second, twenty twenty four. Allegedly, according to that
Speaker 2: thing we call a calendar, this is the show that
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to be able to get.
Speaker 3: To the internet lately.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my internet's been down for the majority of many
Speaker 2: hours over the past few days. So not active. You
Speaker 2: don't see me on social media. I was going to
Speaker 2: do a live show on Monday night, didn't get to it.
Speaker 2: But here we are on Tuesday, and I am able
Speaker 2: to do a live show and was able to reschedule
Speaker 2: from last week when I was really not feeling well.
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock, So I've got him with me here on
Speaker 2: a Tuesday, which is unusual, but pleased to do. So
Speaker 2: why Larry's got Well, you know, it's always great to
Speaker 2: talk to Larry number one. He takes up a lot
Speaker 2: of space on my bookshelf. I've told you you got
Speaker 2: to go over to Larry dash Handcocked Larry hyphenhandcock dot com,
Speaker 2: follow his blog, check out as many many books. I
Speaker 2: recommend all of them. And you know, we could follow
Speaker 2: his work on UAPs, which he's actively involved in a
Speaker 2: group of people, an academic group that is studying things
Speaker 2: like that. So it's not all about little green men
Speaker 2: or anything. And he's also been a participant in the
Speaker 2: Lancer conferences for geez a long time. He's going to
Speaker 2: be participating this year remotely. I think he'll be running
Speaker 2: the Facebook group and also, hey, doing a presentation at Lancer,
Speaker 2: but he won't be there physically.
Speaker 3: I will because I'm the MC.
Speaker 2: But anyway, he's also got a brand new book coming
Speaker 2: out about well, something that you might care about if
Speaker 2: you know what the Lancer conference is in the first place,
Speaker 2: Lee Rvy Oswald, the Oswald Puzzle, and it is available.
Speaker 3: For pre order.
Speaker 2: I have put the link in my chat at ochelly
Speaker 2: dot com, the live chat, but also I'm gonna make
Speaker 2: sure it's in the show notes and all that good stuff.
Speaker 2: So anyway, Larry, okay, I know it's geez.
Speaker 3: Look at this.
Speaker 2: It's exactly one month from now that November twenty second
Speaker 2: through the twenty fourth will be alive in Dallas and
Speaker 2: Lancer will commence. So how you doing tonight? And you
Speaker 2: know you're feeling good about one month from now, after
Speaker 2: I travel a while and you turn on your computer
Speaker 2: and get into the Facebook group on that Friday, how
Speaker 2: are you feeling about that, and how are you feeling
Speaker 2: in general, Larry.
Speaker 1: I'm feeling good in general. I feel it's kind of
Speaker 1: strange because the temperature here this week is going to
Speaker 1: be going into the nineties. So the thought that you know,
Speaker 1: Lancer and the conference in Dallas is that close, it
Speaker 1: just doesn't doesn't feel right. You know, it's not even
Speaker 1: fall here yet, so how could we possibly be having
Speaker 1: a conference? So that that seems a little strange. But
Speaker 1: I will say my co author on the Oswald Postle,
Speaker 1: David Boylan, will be in Dallas and in person, and
Speaker 1: he will be representing us, and so we'll be We'll
Speaker 1: be jointly doing a presentation. I'll join him remotely, but
Speaker 1: he will be there in person to take questions. And
Speaker 1: you know, so between the two of us we have
Speaker 1: one one physical participation. So I do wish I could
Speaker 1: be there, but it's just not happening this year, and
Speaker 1: it does feel strange.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I was going to ask you if it
Speaker 2: did feel odd you're not going, but uh, are you
Speaker 2: actually going to be live remotely or are we just
Speaker 2: going to get a recording of you remotely? And then
Speaker 2: David's going to handle all the live stuff.
Speaker 1: Now I'll be live. Uh, that'll bring us in and
Speaker 1: actually David will run our PowerPoint and uh, I'll be
Speaker 1: doing the presentation. You may join in on questions where
Speaker 1: the title of the presentation kind of interesting. The title
Speaker 1: is Oswell gaming the FBI. The effective on the relationship
Speaker 1: between Oswell and the FBI will be revealed to be
Speaker 1: a little different than many people's views.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, hardly anybody usually mentions Oswald in the FBI, right,
Speaker 2: the jump to the immediate preoccupation is always Oswald in
Speaker 2: the CIA. And we've learned a lot about that in
Speaker 2: recent years. Even was, you know, the whole standard answer
Speaker 2: that they were never interested in Lee Harvey Oswald whatsoever.
Speaker 3: Look, he was a loser, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Kinda doesn't hold all as much water as they said
Speaker 2: for many years in the day. I do mean, the
Speaker 2: the the sort of powers that be, the establishment so
Speaker 2: so so to speak, had always maintained that Oswald was
Speaker 2: not useful to the CIA. The CIA wouldn't have been
Speaker 2: interested in him, And of course John Newman wrote a
Speaker 2: whole book on it called ironically Oswald and the CIA.
Speaker 3: But yeah, Oswald in the FBI. Oswald and what.
Speaker 2: Was he doing during certain times he was speaking.
Speaker 3: To the FBI.
Speaker 2: We know that factually, even if you don't go and
Speaker 2: do you know the the more far flung theories, we
Speaker 2: know factually he was interacting with the FBI. So it
Speaker 2: would be interesting he was gaming the FBI or Oswald.
Speaker 2: That's just a provocative statement in and of itself. Are
Speaker 2: you gonna make some new friends and some new enemies
Speaker 2: there you think in the community.
Speaker 1: I suspect we will, and I think a number of
Speaker 1: people who haven't really read the documents on Oswald's test
Speaker 1: statements to both the New Orleans Police Department and the
Speaker 1: FBI may want to go back and reread them because
Speaker 1: when you look at what Oswa was actually telling, the folks,
Speaker 1: ay it was all a lie and b it was
Speaker 1: something that the FBI had to be taking quite seriously,
Speaker 1: seriously enough, So I'll get out and say it. They
Speaker 1: buy the book, they should have at least considered him
Speaker 1: as a potential subversive informant because of the information he
Speaker 1: was following tearing to them.
Speaker 2: Now, are you going to cover the fact that alert
Speaker 2: that seemed to get dropped right before the assassination? You
Speaker 2: know something that I don't know, maybe should have been
Speaker 2: kept in place. Are you going to go over that
Speaker 2: whole thing and explain that. I mean, I know Newman's
Speaker 2: done a pretty interesting presentation on it years and years
Speaker 2: ago in fact, and you know, even people who have
Speaker 2: a very superficial understanding of the case, maybe we're very
Speaker 2: much into the JFK movie, might recall that even during
Speaker 2: these little rushes in that movie, he's supposedly trying to
Speaker 2: contact an FBI agent in the movie named John Quigley. Now,
Speaker 2: some of the names are changed and swapped around in
Speaker 2: that movie, and very, very many things were not known
Speaker 2: at that time because the JFK Records Act had not
Speaker 2: come to fruition when Oliver Stone was making this thing,
Speaker 2: and again it was not meant to be a one
Speaker 2: hundred percent factual all the way through, et cetera. But yeah,
Speaker 2: he actually asked to speak to an FBI agent when
Speaker 2: he's arrested for something, and that's kind of weird. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you're just arrested for disturbing the piece. Basically, he
Speaker 2: wouldn't think that most people would ask to speak to
Speaker 2: an FBI agent unless there was a good reason for it.
Speaker 3: So are you going to.
Speaker 1: Ask us generally had good reasons for what he did,
Speaker 1: and so we yeah, we do spend in the book,
Speaker 1: we go into that period of time in great detail.
Speaker 1: We also, I mean, one of the things that I
Speaker 1: think most people don't appreciate and which I did not
Speaker 1: appreciate when I was first writing about Oswald or the
Speaker 1: Kennedy assassination, was something that Stu Westley and I learned
Speaker 1: when we were researching the Keen assassination. And that was
Speaker 1: really how the FBI operated, how it's local offices operated,
Speaker 1: What they told headquarters, what they told other offices, who
Speaker 1: copied what on whom, and who who knew what at
Speaker 1: a given time. And again we often think of information
Speaker 1: as being compartmentalized within the CIA, Well, information was compartmentalized
Speaker 1: within the FBI as well. And one of the purposes
Speaker 1: for compartmentalizing information was the FBI each field office actually
Speaker 1: had a quota of criminal informants, criminal sources, subversive informants
Speaker 1: versus forces. They were required to go out prospecting and
Speaker 1: identify certain number of people every month, make up list,
Speaker 1: work them, move them from one classification to another. And
Speaker 1: that's one of the things the office was rated on
Speaker 1: and Again, when you actually read enough FBI reports, you
Speaker 1: see that in a lot of instances what the FBI
Speaker 1: offices were really doing was just that they weren't necessarily
Speaker 1: certainly they did investigationations, but a good part of their
Speaker 1: time was spent on just identifying and cultivating sources. Now
Speaker 1: you didn't. For example, in Dallas, Jack Ruby for a
Speaker 1: period of time was identified as a source, and then
Speaker 1: he was a provisional criminal informant, and then after they
Speaker 1: either used him and decided to take that out of
Speaker 1: the record because the testimony was offered in confidence in court,
Speaker 1: he was moved off that list. But to some of
Speaker 1: these things, unless you understand the operations of the FBI, again,
Speaker 1: as per usual, many things look mysterious unless you know
Speaker 1: what standard practices are. And I think now once we
Speaker 1: got a good taste for standard practices, it's easier to
Speaker 1: see what easier to see what is anomalous and what
Speaker 1: is not. And one of the things I will just
Speaker 1: point out in regard to this, it's somewhat fascinating that
Speaker 1: virtually everybody in the FBI who touched Oswald got reprimanded
Speaker 1: by direct Hoover after the fact. Some of them, like
Speaker 1: host he got moved to other assignments which were not
Speaker 1: good assignments. The only people in the in for organization
Speaker 1: who were not criticized, critiqued or penalized by Hoover with
Speaker 1: the people in New Orleans, which raises a really interesting fact.
Speaker 1: In fact, what they appear to have gotten off scott free,
Speaker 1: which raises a big question as to why did they
Speaker 1: do something right? Did they do something wrong? Hoover wasn't.
Speaker 1: Hoover was quite ready to deal with anybody he felt
Speaker 1: did something wrong. But here we have Oswald talking at
Speaker 1: some links to the FBI and an FBI investigation in
Speaker 1: New Orleans, and it like it just disappears afterwards. In fact,
Speaker 1: agent Deburys is given authorization from the Justice Department not
Speaker 1: to answer certain questions. So New Orleans, the experience in
Speaker 1: New Orleans is quite different than the rest of the
Speaker 1: FBI experience with.
Speaker 3: Oswald, right, That's why I found it interesting.
Speaker 2: Joan mellen Wentz goes into a bunch of stuff about
Speaker 2: Debrui's debris. However it is you want to say his name,
Speaker 2: and you know, and focused on him quite a bit.
Speaker 2: People criticize that, you know, basically saying, look, it's not
Speaker 2: a big deal. But it is when you consider what
Speaker 2: you just said, which is that, look, if everybody else
Speaker 2: that pretty much touched him got punished one way or another, reprimanded, whatever,
Speaker 2: except those guys, then well, that means one of two
Speaker 2: interesting things to me in my mind, Either they did
Speaker 2: something very right and therefore were not worthy of punishment,
Speaker 2: or there was something that needed to not be delved
Speaker 2: into that needed to be put aside so that nobody.
Speaker 3: Now, let's not even dig into.
Speaker 2: This at all, because if we do, it might kick
Speaker 2: over something else, you know. And that's another consideration here
Speaker 2: that I think people forget about, which is that, you know,
Speaker 2: it may not be primarily and I think that's the
Speaker 2: case with a whole bunch of things that people have
Speaker 2: discovered over the years, where they think things are very
Speaker 2: mysterious because oh, this person must be important because they
Speaker 2: were not delved into. And I say, no, not necessarily them,
Speaker 2: but something that's connected to them could.
Speaker 3: Be actually the target of the problem.
Speaker 2: You know, if you I don't know, maybe I'm not
Speaker 2: explaining this clearly.
Speaker 3: Do you know what I'm trying to get at here?
Speaker 2: When you don't want to, Okay, if it's not necessarily
Speaker 2: what Oswald did. Maybe it is something that was around
Speaker 2: him that they didn't want, Like with the clay Shaw situation.
Speaker 2: The reason why the CIA was resistant, in my mind,
Speaker 2: is not because the guy was directly involved in the assassination,
Speaker 2: but it's because he was ause somebody who was useful
Speaker 2: to the agency and they didn't necessarily want to reveal
Speaker 2: whatever the hell else he was connected to, you know
Speaker 2: what I.
Speaker 1: Mean, which always manages to revealing your other sources. One
Speaker 1: of the fascinating things that we know now that nobody
Speaker 1: knew before Garrison, or to some extent even after Garrison
Speaker 1: until the HSCA is virtually everyone that Oswald contacted in
Speaker 1: New Orleans, certainly in the Cuban community, but even in
Speaker 1: the ultra right community was already an FBI source. So
Speaker 1: the thought that he would be collecting information from all
Speaker 1: of these people who were already FBI sources is kind
Speaker 1: of fascinating. If anything, it's interesting to turn around and go, well,
Speaker 1: what did they report about him? If we know they're
Speaker 1: already FBI sources, and we know that they had files
Speaker 1: and they were reporting on so in any event, but
Speaker 1: so to answer your overall question, we spend a good
Speaker 1: bit of time on this in the in the book,
Speaker 1: and we'll we'll be that will be the focus of
Speaker 1: our presentation at the Lancer conference.
Speaker 2: Is there any touching upon this whole thing with what
Speaker 2: becomes ice immigration and all that, because there was a
Speaker 2: discussion about that, uh in a couple of books before,
Speaker 2: and there was also something about him maybe being involved
Speaker 2: with customs US customs at one point.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: Do do you end up touching upon any of that we.
Speaker 1: Talked about I N S. Interestingly enough, the first person
Speaker 1: to actually interview Oswald after his arrest and after he
Speaker 1: spent the night in jail was somebody from I N S.
Speaker 1: Because uh, New Orleans PD for some reason reached the conclusion,
Speaker 1: perhaps because he had been protesting forecastro on Cuba, that
Speaker 1: Oswald was Cuban. So the first thing that they did
Speaker 1: was called I N S over determine whether this person
Speaker 1: was actually an American citizens citizen or not. So certainly
Speaker 1: there was an involvement there, and and I S did
Speaker 1: confirm to them and then pretty much dropped out of
Speaker 1: the picture. Now that doesn't mean that they dropped out
Speaker 1: of the picture entirely. So there is there is a
Speaker 1: documented I n S connection, and as far as Customs
Speaker 1: is concerned, Oswell, of course was was leaf liting in
Speaker 1: the dock area. And Oswald had you remember, Oswald had
Speaker 1: worked for companies and actually applied for work in the
Speaker 1: as a courier and for and for companies that were
Speaker 1: doing uh shipping and handling off the docks in New Orleans.
Speaker 2: Right, So, just to clarify, I said ICE, I should
Speaker 2: have said Immigration and Naturalization Services because that's I n
Speaker 2: s uh. But later on, I mean, that's what ICE
Speaker 2: covers now, but it was then it was iron S. Then, Okay,
Speaker 2: I do find it.
Speaker 1: I've read somewhere, and it just I don't even see
Speaker 1: how I can fathom this. Somebody wrote that Lee Harvey
Speaker 1: Oswell was actually working for either Customs or Ions and
Speaker 1: had a desk in their office. Kind of like, No,
Speaker 1: that did not happen. I'm sorry. I don't know where
Speaker 1: you got that. I don't know who said that, but no,
Speaker 1: there's just no sign that sort of thing happened.
Speaker 3: Right right.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, a lot of times when a couple
Speaker 2: of pieces of evidence emerged, people try to put a
Speaker 2: desk in somebody's office.
Speaker 3: I mean, it just seems to be a very common thing,
Speaker 3: don't they.
Speaker 2: Uh, you probably know which jokes I'm referring to there,
Speaker 2: But we'll leave it at that, all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: there's a desk in somebody's office, even if the office
Speaker 2: doesn't contain desks, right, anyways, it just happens that way.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: But but back to the seriousness of this. You know,
Speaker 2: how do you feel.
Speaker 3: Overall about the book though?
Speaker 2: I mean, now that you've completed it and it's you know,
Speaker 2: you're you're no longer working on it, right, I mean
Speaker 2: the photographs. I mean, we talked about the photographic section
Speaker 2: last time. What do you think Do you think that
Speaker 2: this is going to be a very serious change in
Speaker 2: the way people that mew Oswald? Or have you only
Speaker 2: made some minor adjustments? Do you think it's radical or not?
Speaker 1: Oh, it will be a different, a serious change, there's
Speaker 1: no doubt about that. It's not just a tweaking. And
Speaker 1: the last thing we finished it has an extremely extensive index.
Speaker 1: That was the last task that we finished. No, it
Speaker 1: will be it will be extreme from both views. It's
Speaker 1: an extremely different picture of Oswald than the official story.
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, it's certainly an extremely different version and the
Speaker 1: Warrant Commission presented and it's a much different version than
Speaker 1: much has been written about in the conspiracy community. So
Speaker 1: we've we've tried to be very balanced with this, which
Speaker 1: that means we will annoy all parties, which is the
Speaker 1: way history is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be,
Speaker 1: you know, the agenda driven. So and I guess the
Speaker 1: other thing, and I pointed out it's some of the
Speaker 1: things in the book are developmental. They're not sound bites.
Speaker 1: If I were just to say it, you would go,
Speaker 1: huh what. But if you read you know, the ten
Speaker 1: pages in front of it, the fifty pages in front
Speaker 1: of it, the continuity, the context, it has to be
Speaker 1: taken as a whole because Oswald, as an individual with
Speaker 1: his own agendas, is a developmental thing and has to
Speaker 1: be taken as a whole. So I think that's all
Speaker 1: Also one of the reasons will be a bit contrarian
Speaker 1: because up to now, all of us, including me, have
Speaker 1: written bits and pieces about Oswald, and we picked the
Speaker 1: thing that fit what we were writing about and kind
Speaker 1: of threw him into the mix. But this is quite
Speaker 1: different from that perspective. It's it's very developmental and constantly
Speaker 1: asked the question does this make sense and what we've
Speaker 1: already learned in light of what we've already learned?
Speaker 2: Right, And so in fact, we have a live comment
Speaker 2: that that's kind of interesting because we were discussing I
Speaker 2: in S a few minutes ago, and you know, the
Speaker 2: live comment is from Kevin Florida, and his whole thing is, Look,
Speaker 2: it makes perfect sense.
Speaker 3: I'm going to condense what you said, Kevin.
Speaker 2: It makes perfect sense that the I n S would
Speaker 2: be interested in Oswald anyway due to the fact that
Speaker 2: he had a Russian wife. So there should be something
Speaker 2: that we can track with the I in S records
Speaker 2: regarding that alone. And to his knowledge, he's never seen
Speaker 2: anybody really lay that out. He is, after all married
Speaker 2: to Marina. He brought her from Russia.
Speaker 3: That was an unusual situation. And what about that? Is
Speaker 3: that covered in your book? No, it is not.
Speaker 1: I mean the State department side of that. Again, his
Speaker 1: we cover in great deal his exchanges with the State Department,
Speaker 1: a role that the State Department played that may have
Speaker 1: been secret quite frankly, a negotiation with Oswald. We cover
Speaker 1: the State Department side of things as far as getting
Speaker 1: Lee and Marina into the United States, and of course
Speaker 1: we'd cover it from a domestics OP, domestic OP, CIA
Speaker 1: and FBI perspective. But as far as I in S
Speaker 1: Is concerned, you know, the state Department that, let's just
Speaker 1: put it, all the paperwork was in place for her
Speaker 1: to legally be inside the United States. So you know,
Speaker 1: I would expect those records would have been on file,
Speaker 1: would have been copied, but I'm not sure that they
Speaker 1: definitely had files on him. And as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: it looks like when the I n S guy was
Speaker 1: called in to New Orleans police that he may well
Speaker 1: have checked his files on Oswald or at least put
Speaker 1: in a query, because you can see in the in
Speaker 1: the police question of Oswald himself, the I N S
Speaker 1: officer does do some work on Oswald and then assures,
Speaker 1: you know, n O PD that he is an American citizen.
Speaker 2: Another thing here is uh the the question about At
Speaker 2: one point a character was mentioned by by the attorney
Speaker 2: in New Orleans that was played by John Candy in
Speaker 2: the film. The guy can't remember his name at the moment, uh,
Speaker 2: but the guy was who was the uh that jazz
Speaker 2: talking attorney in New Orleans? Named Oswaldo something or other.
Speaker 2: Is that maybe a confusion of oswald and a Cuban
Speaker 2: identity that was just floating around?
Speaker 3: What about that?
Speaker 1: Certainly there was in Oswaldo as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: if you look in the crypt files, I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: there were there was at least one and perhaps more
Speaker 1: Cuban exile that used the name Oswaldo. Uh uh, so
Speaker 1: that could have been some confusion. Uh, there's there's no
Speaker 1: indication that oswald himself was ever called that or used
Speaker 1: that with anybody. Yeah, but there were there were Cubans
Speaker 1: and actually I think, as I recall David's probably we've
Speaker 1: we've looked at the files of two or three individuals
Speaker 1: that even were cleared by CIA for various operations where
Speaker 1: oswald was a, if not a war name, at least
Speaker 1: a name associated with the individual. But I'm not I
Speaker 1: would not say that that has anything to do with
Speaker 1: the attorney that you're talking about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Dean Andrews is the guy, by the way.
Speaker 2: It's just that he couldn't remember the name, but it
Speaker 2: was Dean Andrews, and Dean Andrews had mentioned that on
Speaker 2: the NBC special and it actually named this Oswaldo something
Speaker 2: or other during that discussion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as one of a group of a group of
Speaker 1: people that came to visitors office. I think there were
Speaker 1: there other young Cubans that were supposed to be also
Speaker 1: along during that visit.
Speaker 2: Right, right, And that's what that was about. But that's
Speaker 2: what the guy was referring to when he was asking
Speaker 2: about it. But he was just wondering if there was
Speaker 2: possibly just a confusion of that name. But what you're
Speaker 2: saying is that name existed independent of Lee Harvey Oswald's correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, I don't think. I don't think there could
Speaker 1: have been. There could have been a confusion with an individual,
Speaker 1: a Cuban actually, who was using the name Oswaldo, but
Speaker 1: not our Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay, just hey, I'm just you know, asking the
Speaker 2: questions as they're handed to me, and uh oh sure
Speaker 2: that one was a little messy, but I figured we'll
Speaker 2: put it in.
Speaker 1: I was quite surprised, you know, when we ran across
Speaker 1: the files of I think even like I say, more
Speaker 1: than one Oswaldough. It's like, okay, that's interesting. Wasn't expecting that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, it's almost like how many guys named Martin
Speaker 2: there were, which I found funny from last year's Lancer conference.
Speaker 3: But there are a ton of.
Speaker 1: Them, and uh, you know, we won't even get into
Speaker 1: Hernandez and Rodriguez.
Speaker 2: Hernandez Rodriguez, Oh my goodness. Uh yeah, I mean in
Speaker 2: first name and last name. By the way, you never
Speaker 2: know where it's gonna go. H what was it Hernandez
Speaker 2: I think was a first name even.
Speaker 1: Anyways, and DFA, as long as we were talking, the
Speaker 1: FBI kept transposing them. It's like, wait a minute, could
Speaker 1: you guys at least keep the Spanish names in the
Speaker 1: right sequence. Yeah, that that's just really be helpful.
Speaker 2: That's what I was actually referring to is that when
Speaker 2: depending on what you're reading, it can go one way
Speaker 2: or the other, and it gets very confusing, especially when
Speaker 2: you have something that sounds similar.
Speaker 3: So I don't think it's a bad question.
Speaker 2: Is Oswaldo possibly just a you know, weird transposition of
Speaker 2: them thinking he's Cuban?
Speaker 3: Anyways, So aside.
Speaker 2: From this, we also in the past, well what is
Speaker 2: it now, about fifteen days I guess, since the big
Speaker 2: announcement from well, you know, the vice president there of
Speaker 2: the Mary Farrell Foundation, right vice chair whatever it is
Speaker 2: they call him, Jefferson Morley put out announcement that he
Speaker 2: had a you know, an earth shattering sort of thing
Speaker 2: that the media had to catch and I went over
Speaker 2: it and had my views on it. Did you take
Speaker 2: a look at what he put out and what are
Speaker 2: your thoughts if you have any? Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, there were there were several pieces that were kind
Speaker 1: of melted together and what Jeff published, But I think
Speaker 1: that what his the real main thrust was that he
Speaker 1: had found the source a whistleblower and collected some information,
Speaker 1: and the two main points of information, although again for
Speaker 1: us it's probably not shocking for the general public, maybe
Speaker 1: it's a different story, but the two main points where
Speaker 1: the source had confirmed to him having seen a physical
Speaker 1: container that had material in it labeled JFK assassination that
Speaker 1: had been isolated in a not part of the CIA's
Speaker 1: on headquarters building. It was a secure facility. But you know,
Speaker 1: for some reason, there's this box of JFK related materials
Speaker 1: that's still setting around over there and has never been
Speaker 1: shared with anyone apparently, which is kind of curious at
Speaker 1: this stage, you know. But I think the more important
Speaker 1: thing was that the same individual stated that they had
Speaker 1: actually come across a file which was and CIA Inspector's
Speaker 1: General file, and the Inspector General's file had to do
Speaker 1: with the CIA's behavior during the House Select Committee on
Speaker 1: Assassinations inquiry, and the way I read it essentially was
Speaker 1: the ig was evaluating what they had done and more
Speaker 1: or less commending them for their ability to shield information
Speaker 1: from the HSCA. It was kind of a read the
Speaker 1: work you did, and you did a good job, and
Speaker 1: know they didn't learn what they wanted to learn. Now,
Speaker 1: that's that would be far more dramatic from my perspective
Speaker 1: that the existence of that would be explosive if someone
Speaker 1: could actually turn that up, because that would, you know,
Speaker 1: confirm that at the highest level a government agency was
Speaker 1: commending itself on how well it had done as an
Speaker 1: agent and see not an individual CIA officer, Okay, we've
Speaker 1: seen that all the time. People have you know, committed
Speaker 1: perjury and have been happy, But that the agency itself
Speaker 1: had had had an organized effort to withhold information that
Speaker 1: I would consider explosive.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, especially because you're talking about a congressional committee which
Speaker 2: is investigating the circumstances which we already know. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't care what anybody says, we already know George
Speaker 2: Joe and Edes Okay was sent over there in bad
Speaker 2: faith to run interference.
Speaker 3: There's no other answer for.
Speaker 2: Why he was there, and they were lied to about that,
Speaker 2: I mean, g Robert Blakey for years.
Speaker 1: We also know that CIA officer was was literally caught
Speaker 1: red handed rifling through an HSCA evidence safe.
Speaker 2: Yeah, having to do with the you're talking about, Oh
Speaker 2: my goodness, the guy's name Regis, But kidding, no.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. No. Sorry, So that's why I
Speaker 1: say to us in our community, you know, it's like
Speaker 1: we're we're kind of like, well, g Jeff, we already
Speaker 1: knew that they were trying to stiff the hsc A. Well,
Speaker 1: the general public does not necessarily know that. And if
Speaker 1: there truly was an IG report, you know, unfortunately, all
Speaker 1: you've got is a whistle blower who's under protection. Now
Speaker 1: we have no idea how Jeff is handling that understander
Speaker 1: whistle blower guidelines, but you know, if that that would
Speaker 1: be a major story. I think. I think the other
Speaker 1: thing that one of the reasons why the box of
Speaker 1: the box of materials is really not so stunning is
Speaker 1: we know that there. Even the HSCA was told and
Speaker 1: hsc A staff members listen to tapes, okay, that we're
Speaker 1: never put into evidence. We know, we know that there
Speaker 1: were agreements between the hs c A and the c
Speaker 1: i A that you know, people could listen to information,
Speaker 1: people could view things, but it wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: provided physically and they couldn't have copies. So we know
Speaker 1: that game was played. Now. According to Jeff, the whistleblower
Speaker 1: actually made the comment that the i g's report appeared
Speaker 1: to comment that mister Blakey was not nearly as inquisitive
Speaker 1: as they were afraid the event and had been essentially
Speaker 1: more gullible. I think we were generally of that opinion
Speaker 1: within the community before, so that might have been not
Speaker 1: been shocking. But the fact that the that the c
Speaker 1: I could We knew they were playing games, right, Chuck.
Speaker 1: We knew there was there's every sign that they were.
Speaker 1: They were walking a very tight line, and that stuff
Speaker 1: existed that the HSCA did not manage to collect and
Speaker 1: take into evidence. Now, if you're going to play that game, A,
Speaker 1: are you going to leave that at CIA headquarters? Are
Speaker 1: you going to put you know, the photos and the
Speaker 1: tapes and a little box and storm and a sub
Speaker 1: facility that nobody ever looked worries about.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: I will say this, At one point in time Stu
Speaker 1: Wexler and I were tipped off by Malcolm Blunt that
Speaker 1: there was a box within Justice Department in a safe
Speaker 1: and a walk in safe that said JFK assassination materials.
Speaker 1: And actually Stu we jumped through the hoops contacted people
Speaker 1: and actually traced it down and they acknowledged that that
Speaker 1: box was there and that they'd opened it up and
Speaker 1: that there was nothing significant in it, right, Like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I trust that, but you know, so the fact that
Speaker 1: there could be little boxes left dangling out in different
Speaker 1: facilities is not a shocker to me.
Speaker 3: No, not at all.
Speaker 2: The thing that I was starting to refer to, and
Speaker 2: I couldn't remember the exact agents, but there were two
Speaker 2: guys that were punished I think when autopsy materials were
Speaker 2: mishandled during the HSCA. That's what you were referring to, though, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, correct, it was autopsy materials photos or X rays
Speaker 1: or something like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely was images and it was supposed to be
Speaker 2: kept in a secured safe and only viewed through a
Speaker 2: certain procedure and all this other stuff, and yeah, these
Speaker 2: two guys got there's a hearing about it. There's an
Speaker 2: audio hearing about it. I don't remember. I'd probably have
Speaker 2: to look it up. But the truth is that there
Speaker 2: was two guys that ended up getting in some trouble here,
Speaker 2: but also Blakey for years and years, right, they used
Speaker 2: to haul him out for all sorts of the documentaries
Speaker 2: to have him say, no, I'm pretty sure the CIA
Speaker 2: was straight with me about stuff. He said that for
Speaker 2: a lot of years until he has confronted with a
Speaker 2: few things. Indeed, I think what Tunaim even went to
Speaker 2: him and said a few things to him, you know.
Speaker 3: Did you realize this or did you realize that?
Speaker 2: And in recent years I think he's finally said, you know, well,
Speaker 2: I think they might have misled me. But it only
Speaker 2: took about forty years to get there, right, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, And that would actually seem to if there was
Speaker 1: such a thing as this mysterious IT report their assessment was,
Speaker 1: you know, that would tend to confirm their assessment that
Speaker 1: it was possible to play the CIA. Another piece of
Speaker 1: evidence that we have on that I've written about is
Speaker 1: that you know, sixty Minutes did an investigation of some
Speaker 1: documents information about Oswald in the Soviet Union that the
Speaker 1: CIA apparently held and denied, although I have no idea
Speaker 1: why they would deny that, since everybody was aware from
Speaker 1: the beginning, but we even you know, during that piece,
Speaker 1: we had ended up with documents essentially suggesting that they
Speaker 1: had had managed to dodge a bullet, that that materials
Speaker 1: had not actually made it onto sixty Minutes, that they
Speaker 1: had able to been able to divert the whole matter.
Speaker 1: And so we do know that the CIA, you know,
Speaker 1: to corroborate just with Blower. We do know that the
Speaker 1: CIA was actively involved in trying to control information related
Speaker 1: to the HSCA, that they did an effective job of
Speaker 1: it in many instances, and apparently we're quite happy about
Speaker 1: the fact that how they were managed to carry that off.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there's a lot to that, I mean.
Speaker 2: Anyway, So overall, though you would say that it is
Speaker 2: you see, I don't know if the general public would
Speaker 2: find it earth shattering either, but it's definitely interesting. And
Speaker 2: if we have a you know, still living whistleblower that
Speaker 2: could come out with some information, obviously it would have
Speaker 2: to be more detailed than what was released to really
Speaker 2: land I think, or if there is some more documentation
Speaker 2: that should be collected, that should be brought into the collection,
Speaker 2: you know, let's get this over with. I mean, is
Speaker 2: sixty years not long enough already? You know, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's just me and that whole idea I have
Speaker 2: in my head that you know, just seems to me
Speaker 2: like they should have released all this stuff already. But
Speaker 2: still that's going on, dragging of the feet. Nobody's quite
Speaker 2: gotten there.
Speaker 3: And yet what do.
Speaker 2: They try to tell us all the time, and what
Speaker 2: have they been telling us now for decades? Look, whatever's
Speaker 2: left in there, there's nothing important anyway, There's nothing that's
Speaker 2: going to really make a difference, Larry, isn't that the
Speaker 2: general IMPRESSI that we're supposed to take from all this right,
Speaker 2: according to well the CIA and the government in general. Right,
Speaker 2: just look, there's some things still classified, but none of
Speaker 2: that's going to tell you anything, Come on, right.
Speaker 1: I think the real cut of that though, that sometimes
Speaker 1: get what they're what they're really saying is there's nothing
Speaker 1: specific to do with the assassination. You know, the documents
Speaker 1: that and we do kind of lose sight of the
Speaker 1: fact that when these documents were collected, both originally you know,
Speaker 1: by the different government inquiries and then under the JFK
Speaker 1: Records Act, it was very It's like using a bulldozer.
Speaker 1: There was no investigative body following leads and collecting stuff
Speaker 1: that was particularly relevant. It was more like, Okay, you guys,
Speaker 1: go through the master files, the headquarter files, and anything
Speaker 1: you see associated with the CIA and JFK or CIA
Speaker 1: in Cuba or Sierra Russia. Just bring it all in,
Speaker 1: which is why so many of us has spent so
Speaker 1: long looking at materials that are very historically significant and
Speaker 1: they're great for historians of that era and the Kennedy administration,
Speaker 1: but they really do not have anything to do with
Speaker 1: the assassination. And you and I have talked about this
Speaker 1: previous land and that's the fact that to a large extent,
Speaker 1: if the CIA, who was not assigned to investigate the assassination,
Speaker 1: you know, it didn't. I mean, there are CIA records
Speaker 1: that are useful and interesting and helpful for us to
Speaker 1: investigate it, but they didn't investigate it except for the
Speaker 1: one report out of jf WAVE where they did and
Speaker 1: it disappeared. But other than that one report. So we
Speaker 1: face the fact that they're literally tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: pages of information that were scooped up, some of which
Speaker 1: they consider, you know, we need to sanitize it, and
Speaker 1: you know, but it's not like I will. I have
Speaker 1: to say, I don't expect that there. I still don't
Speaker 1: expect there is a smoking gun document there that's like
Speaker 1: the CIA investigation of the assassination that says who did
Speaker 1: it that they're not sharing with us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that, But I'll tell you something else.
Speaker 2: And I have this weird open question for you, And
Speaker 2: maybe it's a silly one, Isn't there though a ton
Speaker 2: of Inspector General reports that you would think would logically
Speaker 2: exist based on the fact that there were a bunch
Speaker 2: and I do mean more than one. Inspector General should
Speaker 2: have had reports evaluating a whole bunch of different elements here,
Speaker 2: you know the investigation, how about you know the IG
Speaker 2: reports on.
Speaker 3: The Secret Service?
Speaker 2: I do mean multiple reports should have been generated regarding
Speaker 2: the Secret Service. How about you know the CIA, Yeah,
Speaker 2: they should have had one. There should have been inspector
Speaker 2: general reports from many agencies that I don't think have
Speaker 2: been I don't know revealed or have been studied up
Speaker 2: to this time.
Speaker 3: Am I wrong about that?
Speaker 2: Because it just seems logically there should be a ton
Speaker 2: more than I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: There should Well, let's look at who has an Inspector General.
Speaker 1: The FBI really did not, right, the Justice Department did.
Speaker 1: There There should have been a Justice Department report on
Speaker 1: the performance of the FBI. Absolutely, yeah, not within the FBI,
Speaker 1: but in Justice Department. Although at the time the problem
Speaker 1: with with you know, with the Attorney General being RFK.
Speaker 1: You know, RFK would have had to order that. R
Speaker 1: have had to prove it. It's not automatically going to
Speaker 1: be done unless somebody is tasked with it. And Inspector
Speaker 1: General's report on projects, big projects that the agency does,
Speaker 1: and quite frankly, they're usually not so much. Sometimes their
Speaker 1: performance reports, like the IG reports on the Cuba project
Speaker 1: and the Bay of Pigs, you know, if there's something
Speaker 1: at that level. Otherwise, a lot of what the ig
Speaker 1: IG does is financial. Quite frankly, how are we handling money?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: How how are the different groups? Uh, you know, we've
Speaker 1: seen IG reports all over the place within the military.
Speaker 1: But so okay, back back to your question. So we
Speaker 1: write off the FBI. Probably we write off the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: the c I A well, the CIA's position is going
Speaker 1: to be, we had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.
Speaker 1: We weren't asked to investigate it, and so we weren't
Speaker 1: tasked with it. So the IGS, you know, we weren't
Speaker 1: tasked to do anything. We didn't do anything. What would
Speaker 1: the IG have to report on the department that you
Speaker 1: would expect to see it come out of, as you're
Speaker 1: talking about, would be the Secret Service? Right there, certainly
Speaker 1: should be an IG report on the Secret Service handling
Speaker 1: of the protection of the president, and that appears to
Speaker 1: be missing.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a key, but I'm saying I still feel
Speaker 2: like there should be a whole lot of other reports there,
Speaker 2: especially because Okay, there's another weird thing that comes to
Speaker 2: mind here, and I am pulling random questions out of
Speaker 2: the air, Larry, because this is I'm just having an
Speaker 2: open discussion with you.
Speaker 3: Right. Here's the thing.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you recall this, but somewhere around
Speaker 2: the twenty fifth anniversary, there were claims that there was
Speaker 2: a Department of Justice inquiry into the case. Okay, and
Speaker 2: there were people that stated that they were approached by
Speaker 2: individuals claiming to be from the DJ We have never
Speaker 2: seen evidence of that investigation in any files anywhere. Do
Speaker 2: you think this is pigment of the imagination that's gotten
Speaker 2: spread around because it seems rather odd to me some
Speaker 2: of the people that have reported about this, For instance,
Speaker 2: the photographer's family that was you know, connected to the
Speaker 2: to the White House, right, his family said there was
Speaker 2: some sort of investigation around that time period. There were
Speaker 2: a couple of other people that stated this, a couple
Speaker 2: of former FBI agents that said something about it.
Speaker 3: And I've never.
Speaker 1: Seen I've heard that too, Chuck, and I've heard. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are people. But one of the things that gets
Speaker 1: confusing is you had talked about you know, I gez.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that gets confus using about,
Speaker 1: of course, is there there have on occasion, you know,
Speaker 1: we've we've had congressional investigators. We had congressional investigators that
Speaker 1: were asking questions before the Church Committee, right right, Uh,
Speaker 1: we had congressional investigators that were asking questions before the HSCA.
Speaker 1: We've had It's really hard to parse out. You know, Yes,
Speaker 1: I talked to somebody and they were on a fact
Speaker 1: finding mission and they asked this or that, Well, was
Speaker 1: that relevant to an investigation that jail later? Who was
Speaker 1: you know, unless you know who that they were working
Speaker 1: for or were they just working for a congressman That
Speaker 1: happens to Uh. Congress persons have have pursued these things
Speaker 1: for their own particular agendas and interest. So, yeah, if
Speaker 1: you can't connect the dots, but I I've heard of
Speaker 1: I've heard of those two like, well, somebody was here
Speaker 1: talking to me about Well, tell me exactly when and
Speaker 1: what agency were they from, and what were they going
Speaker 1: to do with it, and maybe we could parse it out.
Speaker 1: But I've never seen that level of specificity. It was
Speaker 1: just somebody was asking about this.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The only reason why I find it out is because
Speaker 2: it's in the nineteen eighties. It's in the late eighties
Speaker 2: that this happened, and from what I could tell, there
Speaker 2: is no investigation current to this. There's no reason for it.
Speaker 3: You know what I mean.
Speaker 1: That may be, it may be that some congress person
Speaker 1: was considering it and didn't get enough information to push
Speaker 1: it right, But I can't see why any agency itself,
Speaker 1: I could I cannot. I could see why the CIA
Speaker 1: would rea you know it sert itself into the HSCA.
Speaker 1: But as you say, there's no known official congressional or
Speaker 1: other government inquiry going on in the art. What I'd
Speaker 1: have to do is which I can't do, I said,
Speaker 1: is you know what political access might have been ground
Speaker 1: in that time period where somebody was looking to pursue
Speaker 1: this because of their interest or because it you know,
Speaker 1: it represented a political leverage for them or whatever. But uh,
Speaker 1: we do know quite that congressional committees have asked questions,
Speaker 1: not standing committees, not special committees, but standing committees on intelligence,
Speaker 1: standing committees on you know, on different subjects, have have
Speaker 1: freely sent people out to ask questions. Uh, over time.
Speaker 2: Well that was my next Yeah, that was my next
Speaker 2: sort of question for you, was about the idea that, look,
Speaker 2: we have standing committees on intelligence, right, and if somebody
Speaker 2: says that something links back to that in some way
Speaker 2: or other, you could have somebody emerge and say, well,
Speaker 2: let's talk to somebody who was in that office in
Speaker 2: the sixties, and therefore it would cross back over.
Speaker 3: The Kennedy assassination, right, And we're.
Speaker 1: Seeing that it really the questions may have been about
Speaker 1: how a department was operating you know, never know, maybe
Speaker 1: they're investing. They might have an inquiry going on into
Speaker 1: into a department that they're you know, have concerns about,
Speaker 1: are investigating, and they're just trying to pull up some history.
Speaker 1: Like these guys have a background of screwing up or
Speaker 1: covering up information. Uh. But I will tell you right
Speaker 1: at the moment, we're seeing the same thing in regard
Speaker 1: to UFOs. Okay, right, there are a couple of there's
Speaker 1: one committee in the Senate, one committee in the House.
Speaker 1: The House in particular has investigators out asking lots of
Speaker 1: people questions about UFOs. There's some political agendas at work,
Speaker 1: and there is no there's no House committee. Mean, there
Speaker 1: is an affairs committee. It's not even an intelligence committee.
Speaker 1: And what they're really trying to do is dig up
Speaker 1: dirt on misbehavior, harassment of whistleblowers, this and that. I'm
Speaker 1: not even saying it's all wrong, but there is it's
Speaker 1: a sitting committee, but there is no special committee on
Speaker 1: the subject.
Speaker 3: Yet.
Speaker 1: The Citying Committee and each congress person can do this
Speaker 1: by themselves, right, They don't have to have the committee
Speaker 1: behind them. They can have staffers go out to collect
Speaker 1: information on subjects they want to pursue.
Speaker 2: Well, like, my thought is, if somebody wanted to look
Speaker 2: into presidential or Secret Service protection and say, okay, you
Speaker 2: know the recent attempts on Trump, right, you would say, okay, well,
Speaker 2: there have been failures in the past.
Speaker 3: Maybe we go out and ask questions.
Speaker 2: Of people that might know something a little bit more
Speaker 2: about what happened to Ronald Reagan. Yeah, maybe we ask
Speaker 2: some people about what happened to Gerald Ford. Maybe we
Speaker 2: ask about other failures in the past, whether the assass
Speaker 2: and succeeded or not according to the official record. And
Speaker 2: you might tip over some Kennedy stuff while you're at it,
Speaker 2: but only because they're building a history on again failures
Speaker 2: by the Secret Service in the past. And well, one
Speaker 2: would say that November the month.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you you would love to have it
Speaker 1: in it. It's saying not only have they screwed up,
Speaker 1: but they have covered it up.
Speaker 2: And here's an example, right, especially when you're looking at
Speaker 2: is there a way to you know, improve this?
Speaker 3: Right, Well, how do we prevent this?
Speaker 2: You would think that was one of the main priorities
Speaker 2: of the Secret Service following nineteen sixty three, and yet
Speaker 2: we ended up with another rash of attempts, right.
Speaker 3: Uh, you know in the seventies.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And I brought it up on here that there have
Speaker 2: been many failed attempts that have you know, not gone
Speaker 2: as well. For the assassins even you know, they're not
Speaker 2: necessarily the big headlines because nobody got close. But when
Speaker 2: somebody got close to Trump, there there you go. Now
Speaker 2: the discussions come back open.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And like I said, they could even go into the
Speaker 2: Reagan stuff. They could go in to Gerald Ford had
Speaker 2: uniquely two female assassin attempts.
Speaker 1: Right, Ama Clinton. I mean, the Secret Service, unfortunately, especially internationally,
Speaker 1: has a woeful record of their agent's behavior, right. I
Speaker 1: mean that as compared to military organizations whatever. They just
Speaker 1: they really have a poor track record, whether it's drinking
Speaker 1: or prostitutes or whatever. And people have investigated that over
Speaker 1: and over again, and I'm not sure that there's been
Speaker 1: any sign of institutional change.
Speaker 2: Right, although occasionally, what you know, you get a little
Speaker 2: reprimand you get a little hey, these guys could have
Speaker 2: done better, whatever, But the behavior pattern persists because like
Speaker 2: you said, I mean, we see the whole thing, Okay,
Speaker 2: we know about the drinking the night before in the
Speaker 2: Kennedy assassination, right, but that continued on and on and on.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, there were several instances in
Speaker 2: international trips with Obama we have the Secret Service was caught,
Speaker 2: you know, partying and all this other stuff, and uh,
Speaker 2: like you mentioned prostitutes. I don't think any of Kennedy's
Speaker 2: guys had prostitutes, but the drinking was like practically ah,
Speaker 2: I don't know anything built in. It was like an
Speaker 2: epidemic with the Secret Service in the sixties up until
Speaker 2: that point.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I think.
Speaker 1: That's what would make we're telling you in terms of
Speaker 1: what Jeff was pointing out, what would make that really
Speaker 1: explosive if truly there was an IG report, Because as
Speaker 1: you're saying, a lot of a lot of questions get
Speaker 1: asked over time for various reasons, Okay, and they can
Speaker 1: be asked by you know, standing committee and uh, sitting
Speaker 1: committee on different subjects. I mean they're sitting committees that
Speaker 1: are strictly administrative. That would raise questions like we're what
Speaker 1: we're talking about. It's kind of like who are you
Speaker 1: paying what to do? How's how's the how's this being received?
Speaker 1: How are these guys filing their trip receipts. You know,
Speaker 1: there are lots of reasons to inquiries. But if it
Speaker 1: truly an Inspector General had indeed done a formal report
Speaker 1: and put it in the file somewhere, and by the way,
Speaker 1: a compartmental fives file about the CIA's actually having an
Speaker 1: official tasking to subvert the HCA, that would be so
Speaker 1: totally different than all, you know, all of what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here. It would be explosive, no, for certain.
Speaker 2: And again, just one last thing to point out. I mean,
Speaker 2: one could even say, look, if you want to look
Speaker 2: at the the interactions with local law enforcement, right, that's
Speaker 2: another topic that came up post the incident in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: Oh, you know, and.
Speaker 2: The Secret Service has always utilized local assets, right, I
Speaker 2: mean we've heard about this all along, even back to
Speaker 2: the Kennedy time. Well, one might say, how has this
Speaker 2: changed since then? Right, because there was plenty of controversy
Speaker 2: about the you know, the Dallas sheriffs not being involved
Speaker 2: in protection. Uh, you know, what were the DPD doing.
Speaker 2: Of course they got plenty of criticism, rightfully, so uh
Speaker 2: and so on and so forth, And then you look
Speaker 2: at Pennsylvania and you still have this issue of well,
Speaker 2: did local law enforcement know about this? Yeah, they did?
Speaker 2: What were they told to do? How is it that
Speaker 2: this guy got that close in that elevated position? Which
Speaker 2: was my initial question anyway, Uh, it makes no sense
Speaker 2: that that that should have been absolutely covered over and
Speaker 2: over again, I mean blanketed more than once that entire area.
Speaker 3: There should have been no change. Yeah.
Speaker 1: What it reminds me a little bit of is you know,
Speaker 1: and it was reported. I mean people were reporting him,
Speaker 1: but the communications apparently between local law enforcement and the
Speaker 1: Secret Service or you know, the reaction time was terrible.
Speaker 1: But what it reminds me of a little bit is
Speaker 1: in Dallas, where we know that there were police report,
Speaker 1: there was at least one police report in advance of
Speaker 1: the motor keke going through Daley Plaza of where the
Speaker 1: Dallas Police reported and investigated people seen apparently practicing shooting
Speaker 1: from behind the parking lot behind the fence, right, and
Speaker 1: that clearly never got to the Secret Service, well as
Speaker 1: far as we know, it didn't get you know, talk
Speaker 1: about talk about lack of coordination. What if the Secret Service,
Speaker 1: if Lawson or those guys would go, oh, well, gosh,
Speaker 1: there are people in Dallas that are practicing shooting at
Speaker 1: the motor Cave. You know, maybe we should change our
Speaker 1: plan a little bit here, could. It's sad because it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to ever really change.
Speaker 2: Right, right, No, But I just wanted to point it
Speaker 2: out that there's a whole lot of aspects here that
Speaker 2: that could cause somebody to look back at the history
Speaker 2: and say, okay, but but anyway, that's but that's interesting.
Speaker 2: So overall you would say that it's a point of
Speaker 2: interest what Morley put out, And yeah.
Speaker 1: It's a point of interest. But without that whistleblower, you know,
Speaker 1: unless he has which I do not know I have
Speaker 1: talked with Jeff, unless he has it set up for
Speaker 1: that whistle blower to talk to a congress person, to
Speaker 1: actually become you know, known, and to go on record,
Speaker 1: and then then it unfortunately, it's just it's it's just anecdotal,
Speaker 1: you know. It just confirms our suspicions and you can't
Speaker 1: do anything with it. It's kind of like, as Jeff
Speaker 1: would point out, it's like the Joines Joynedies thing. We
Speaker 1: ever have every reason to suspect this, but they won't
Speaker 1: show us the documents, so we won't know. And Jeff
Speaker 1: will go and It's just like the Secret Service trip records.
Speaker 1: We have every reason to believe that there were known
Speaker 1: threats that the Secret Service didn't respond to, and they
Speaker 1: destroyed the records and they won't tell us who to
Speaker 1: authorize the record. Just you know, it's the same old
Speaker 1: thing over and over again.
Speaker 2: Right, So there you go. Sometimes business as usual is
Speaker 2: just that anyway. What won't be business as usual is
Speaker 2: what we're gonna do in Dallas November twenty second to
Speaker 2: the twenty fourth. Okay, And just want to give you
Speaker 2: guys another heads up on that before we're done. But Larry,
Speaker 2: in closing tonight on this though, is there anything you
Speaker 2: want to add that we didn't get to or or
Speaker 2: should I just do the uh the Dallas plug here
Speaker 2: and get that over with? I mean, I I want
Speaker 2: to I want to tell people again and you can
Speaker 2: attend the conference virtually, and I'm gonna explain all that
Speaker 2: in just a minute. But I mean, is there anything
Speaker 2: else that you need to touch on here to wrap
Speaker 2: all of this up that we've covered tonight? You know,
Speaker 2: mostly I wanted to hover on the Oswalt thing, but
Speaker 2: I also wanted to get your take on what Jeff
Speaker 2: Morley put out.
Speaker 3: Because I find it interesting.
Speaker 2: But is the general public even gonna get you know,
Speaker 2: interested in it based on that?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: And I see the you know, the the research community
Speaker 2: in general not necessarily reacting to it. But that doesn't
Speaker 2: necessarily mean it's not something important or couldn't be developed
Speaker 2: into something very important later, which if that whistleblower were
Speaker 2: to come forward and there were a couple of hard
Speaker 2: pieces of evidence to offer in some way, this could
Speaker 2: be really remarkable, really fast, and I would love to
Speaker 2: see some headline news on it. But are we going
Speaker 2: to I guess your guess is as good as mine,
Speaker 2: And unless you're Jeff Morley, you don't necessarily know what
Speaker 2: the next step is there.
Speaker 1: Knowing Jeff a little bit, I think my synopsis would
Speaker 1: be sometimes you have some of these things are foundational. Yes,
Speaker 1: he had a press conference. Yeah, he got some news
Speaker 1: people to cover it. There were a couple of programs
Speaker 1: on it, and he's got that in the record. Does
Speaker 1: that suggest he, I mean, this stuff all has to
Speaker 1: be done step by step. We didn't just the HSCA
Speaker 1: just didn't start right. The Church Committee preceded it. There
Speaker 1: were other committees that you know, sometimes you have to
Speaker 1: build a foundation to get people's attention, and in this
Speaker 1: instance it also proves something else. If you think about
Speaker 1: it for a minute, you would have gained the whistleblowers
Speaker 1: trust because he didn't expose them, right, So that also
Speaker 1: allows him to, I'm sure, maintain a dialogue with the whistleblower.
Speaker 1: So for all we know, it's your speculation on my part,
Speaker 1: this could all be part of building a foundation to
Speaker 1: gain the trust, encourage the whistleblower to come forward, and
Speaker 1: to be able to put that whistle blower in front
Speaker 1: of a congress person in a credible fashion. And you
Speaker 1: and I have talked. It's not that whistleblowers haven't come
Speaker 1: forth before, but in some instance they've actually been compromised
Speaker 1: before you could get them in the right place, talking
Speaker 1: to the right person. Jeff is playing it very much
Speaker 1: by the book in doing this, so against speculation on
Speaker 1: my part, but sometimes sometimes you slight baby steps.
Speaker 2: Right, And I would say this generally speaking, foundation building
Speaker 2: is extremely important because significant actions do often come after
Speaker 2: other foundational pieces have been laid in place. Okay, what
Speaker 2: do I mean by that, Well, there was a citizens committee,
Speaker 2: there was a bit of a public outcry. There was
Speaker 2: interest in the public in general that got Congress involved.
Speaker 2: There were committees that preceded the House Select Committee on Assassinations,
Speaker 2: which say what you will about it. It was a
Speaker 2: more significant action that was built upon previous.
Speaker 3: Smaller ones.
Speaker 2: Indeed, even the JFK Records Collection Act, which everybody loves
Speaker 2: to point to Oliver Stone's movie. And it was a
Speaker 2: unique catalyst for that, you know, to bring that stuff forward,
Speaker 2: and again to bring forward the rest of the secret
Speaker 2: files from the HSCA. And it did have that effect.
Speaker 2: We cannot forget. There were people out there campaigning for
Speaker 2: releasing the files. There were people out there bothering their
Speaker 2: Congress people and saying, look, this is of interest, we
Speaker 2: need the truth on this. And all of those things
Speaker 2: culminated came together as sort of a composite foundation for
Speaker 2: what later becomes a law written, the JFK Records Collection Act,
Speaker 2: which leads to the AARRB and so on and so forth.
Speaker 2: So a lot of these things are actually built incrementally
Speaker 2: that allow us to get at more of the records,
Speaker 2: that allow us to get at more information. And sometimes
Speaker 2: it can take a decade to build it. Sometimes it
Speaker 2: takes a couple of years to build it. Sometimes it
Speaker 2: takes a couple of smaller committees, you know, like we
Speaker 2: discussed on here when we went through the one oh
Speaker 2: one series and we went through every official investigation, right
Speaker 2: that was known on this show, and what do we see?
Speaker 2: There was a sort of snowball. This led to this,
Speaker 2: This led to that, you know, so on and so forth.
Speaker 2: I mean, even the clerk panel plays a role in
Speaker 2: what ends up becoming the HSCA later.
Speaker 3: You have to acknowledge all that. So the idea that
Speaker 3: Jeff is.
Speaker 2: Building something here, it could be that we're only seeing
Speaker 2: one of the early pieces of the foundation for something
Speaker 2: that could later roll out over into something much more significant.
Speaker 3: Would you agree with that, Larry.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely, and quite frankly, sometimes there is a political
Speaker 1: aspect sometimes, you know, you have to wait for a
Speaker 1: congressman or senator who sees this particular topic to be
Speaker 1: match their agenda. I'd say it but that we wouldn't
Speaker 1: have seen the HSCA if it had not matched political
Speaker 1: agendas of the period, right. And this goes across the aisles,
Speaker 1: you know. Sometimes it's somebody from one side of the aisle,
Speaker 1: sometimes the other. So again, that's part part of the
Speaker 1: foundational thing. Somebody may look at it and go, hm,
Speaker 1: you know, once I get on the right committee, you know,
Speaker 1: once I get the right assignment and my party has
Speaker 1: this the House or whatever, you know, I might be
Speaker 1: able to take advantage of this. So I hate to
Speaker 1: add that element to it, but that's part of it
Speaker 1: being foundational.
Speaker 2: No, politics is definitely part of it. Again, you can
Speaker 2: watch the politics percolate in the nineteen seventies, you know,
Speaker 2: going from you know, a Pike and Rockefeller on right,
Speaker 2: you see that. You have to admit that even Watergate
Speaker 2: and the public outcry that resulted from it participates in
Speaker 2: that overall percolation that's sort of blending together of this
Speaker 2: need to get at something that maybe the government's hiding.
Speaker 2: I think that is a significant thing to consider that
Speaker 2: without that sentiment, without that, you know, again backing that
Speaker 2: the Congress got, you would have never seen the HSCA,
Speaker 2: you would have never seen any of this stuff. So again, politics,
Speaker 2: of course, it has to play a role in it
Speaker 2: because those are the people that have the power to actually.
Speaker 3: Dig into these things. So there you go.
Speaker 2: And I'm not saying every official investigation results in anything
Speaker 2: I'm just saying that you get a really good chance anyway, though,
Speaker 2: to have them at least look into the things that
Speaker 2: are connected to the government. Okay, does that always answer
Speaker 2: the questions? Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't still be asking
Speaker 2: the questions.
Speaker 3: We are over sixty each years later.
Speaker 2: Anyways, November in Dallas JFKL Answer Conference November twenty second
Speaker 2: to the twenty fourth. That is this year, and it's
Speaker 2: exactly a month from when I'm speaking right now.
Speaker 3: But of course you could.
Speaker 2: Be catching this podcast later and probably you are. Virtual
Speaker 2: tickets start at seventy four ninety nine. In person tickets
Speaker 2: one hundred and forty four ninety nine for the whole weekend.
Speaker 2: There's also a student price, but you got to show
Speaker 2: proof of being a student, and you can.
Speaker 3: Use code Shelley ten.
Speaker 2: Okay, code o Shelley ten to get ten percent off
Speaker 2: your tickets at Assassination Conference dot com. Okay, and uh,
Speaker 2: it's always great to just show that you're you're you know,
Speaker 2: picking up this information from my show too. And the
Speaker 2: hotel is the Dallas Marriott Downtown in case you're going
Speaker 2: in person, and I'd love to see you there because I'm.
Speaker 3: Going to be there.
Speaker 2: Uh, there's room prices and all that information will be
Speaker 2: in with my show notes. But it'll be at the
Speaker 2: the Dallas Marriotte Downtown and uh, let's see. You can
Speaker 2: get a hold of them at one eight hundred two
Speaker 2: two eight nine two nine oh or two one four
Speaker 2: nine seven nine nine thousand and make sure to mention
Speaker 2: the November and Dallas conference group rate. Okay, and that
Speaker 2: way you will, uh you'll you'll get a discount there
Speaker 2: as well. All that information is in the show notes,
Speaker 2: but I wanted to let you guys know that because
Speaker 2: it's exactly one month from now, and like I said,
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock will be there presenting with David boy Len,
Speaker 2: who is his co author on the book. Uh, the
Speaker 2: Oswald Puzzle. Is it the Oswald Puzzle or Oswald Puzzle?
Speaker 1: Let me look at this real the Oswald Puzzles. Pull
Speaker 1: it all out on three words for the title this time.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: You know why though, because Amazon has it as Oswald Puzzle.
Speaker 3: That's why.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the cover.
Speaker 1: I've changed that and we've asked you Amazon is its
Speaker 1: own universe.
Speaker 3: Of course it is.
Speaker 2: But look the book cover says the Oswald Puzzles.
Speaker 3: So that's the way it is.
Speaker 1: That's the way I can guarantee that for the cover,
Speaker 1: whatever ammas, that that's the that's the right cover. I
Speaker 1: will add one remark to the it's not so much
Speaker 1: a pitch foot for the Lancer conference in Dallas. One
Speaker 1: of the things that makes it a bit unique, I
Speaker 1: won't say just a bit unique, is it always has
Speaker 1: offered a real diversity of views. You're not going to
Speaker 1: hear the same story from every speaker. You are going
Speaker 1: to hear disagreements, uh, controversial interpretations from one speaker to
Speaker 1: the other. Uh, speakers aren't are aren't all following the
Speaker 1: same track? You know? Can that be confusing? Yeah? But
Speaker 1: if you're if you intend to be a researcher yourself,
Speaker 1: you have to be prepared for that. You go into
Speaker 1: everybody with healthy skepticism. You weigh one against the other,
Speaker 1: and the Lancer conferences have always sought to have some balance.
Speaker 1: They're not just a platform. And quite frankly, there are
Speaker 1: other conferences there are more like platforms for positions. That's
Speaker 1: not what you're going to see at Lancer. So if
Speaker 1: you if you do participate, expect that you're going to
Speaker 1: see some diversity and in this subject, diversity is a
Speaker 1: good thing.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Look, the conference is going to lead off. You
Speaker 2: want to hear about diversity, I'll give you a quick overview.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to mention every name, but this will
Speaker 2: give you an idea if you're familiar with the Unity.
Speaker 2: It's gonna lead off with Mike Swanson this year, and
Speaker 2: he's going to be talking about overall political things that
Speaker 2: were occurring during the Kennedy administration. And I don't even
Speaker 2: want to go into the details of his presentation because
Speaker 2: I'm hoping to get him on here before the conference
Speaker 2: to discuss it himself. But when you take a look
Speaker 2: at Mike being there leading it off, you have Robert Grodin,
Speaker 2: who was somebody who was part of the HSCA and
Speaker 2: has released more photographic evidence on the case than I
Speaker 2: think any other individual author. For sure, Janet Groden will
Speaker 2: be with him, Larry of course, Doug Campbell, Alex Harris,
Speaker 2: one of the youngest people I've well, the youngest person
Speaker 2: I've ever seen present at a conference this year. He
Speaker 2: can't be because he was last year. But meanwhile, interesting
Speaker 2: Bill Simpitch, who definitely goes into the legalistic end of things,
Speaker 2: because he's a lawyer. You have me as at mc okay,
Speaker 2: Gail Nick Jackson. We all know about her quest for
Speaker 2: the film, but who knows what Gail is going to
Speaker 2: wind up talking about.
Speaker 3: I mean, please, we have a very diverse group here.
Speaker 1: Joe Barelli just to butt in, but again, Gail again
Speaker 1: is a perfect example of diversity because we think about
Speaker 1: Gail in the film. Most of her research work has
Speaker 1: to do with the Walker shooting yep, And we had
Speaker 1: her last year speak about the Walker shooting and she's
Speaker 1: a person who's done her homework and offers some contrarian
Speaker 1: perspectives on that that actually really influenced my work and
Speaker 1: stuff that I hadn't seen. So you go to the
Speaker 1: conference not to see the stuff you already discussed on
Speaker 1: a Facebook page. Right, that's the whole point of a conference.
Speaker 1: If you were part of a forum, you've already seen that.
Speaker 1: You don't need to see it again. You need to
Speaker 1: hear from people that you hadn't heard from before.
Speaker 2: Right, And it's good to hear from some people you
Speaker 2: have heard from before, like Larry, like Dick Russell who's
Speaker 2: going to be there, like Bob Nelson, who's going to
Speaker 2: be there, Okay, Casey Quinlan, who has some interesting thoughts
Speaker 2: about stuff, but I didn't expect from Casey, you know,
Speaker 2: on a few very very fascinating connections to individuals that
Speaker 2: were connected to things or in the JFK assassination universe,
Speaker 2: let's say. And speaking of that, Carmine Sabastano will may
Speaker 2: be making a virtual presentation as well. And when you
Speaker 2: put all of that together, okay, with the fact that, well,
Speaker 2: let me just say this very cryptically, I was told
Speaker 2: that certain worries I had about restricting my commentary are
Speaker 2: no longer going to be a consideration.
Speaker 3: So the handcuffs are off on a few things this year. Okay.
Speaker 2: I'm just telling you that now we may have a
Speaker 2: little more controversy than usual. There may be a bit
Speaker 2: more contrary points of view and statements coming out this
Speaker 2: year at the conference. Of course, up to the speakers themselves,
Speaker 2: because nobody's controlling them, Okay, but just letting you know,
Speaker 2: this could be really really different this year, all right, So.
Speaker 3: Let's put it that way. And I didn't even give
Speaker 3: you all the names on the list.
Speaker 2: There are many other presenters and it will be occurring
Speaker 2: from November twenty second, to the twenty fourth, and again,
Speaker 2: of course I'm looking very forward to Larry Hancock and
Speaker 2: David boy Len's discussion. Plus are you going to be
Speaker 2: part of a panel as well, or is David going
Speaker 2: to be part of a panel.
Speaker 3: Do you know about that yet?
Speaker 1: Or I have volunteered for that. I have not heard
Speaker 1: from Gabby back on that yet.
Speaker 2: Okay, there are various people that have volunteered for panels,
Speaker 2: and it could be that I will have to organize
Speaker 2: them on the fly there, so that might happen.
Speaker 3: I'll be around, So I'm going to.
Speaker 2: Call upon you, Larry. I need you for context. But
Speaker 2: of course Larry has authored you know, a good handful
Speaker 2: of books on this already. But I do advise you
Speaker 2: to go and look for the Oswald Puzzle and pre
Speaker 2: order it on Amazon, and yeah, get to it. It's
Speaker 2: going to be different. I mean, I am anxiously awaiting
Speaker 2: my own copy of it myself. I definitely want this thing,
Speaker 2: and I urge you to get it out there. And
Speaker 2: also if you pre order, sometimes even if they tell
Speaker 2: you it's at a certain date, occasionally Amazon sends it
Speaker 2: to you early somehow. So I don't know I would
Speaker 2: get on that if I was you guys and get
Speaker 2: yours reserved, definitely, and maybe just maybe Larry, there might
Speaker 2: be a way that I can get a hold of
Speaker 2: a book or two maybe at the conference.
Speaker 3: Is that a possibility still, we.
Speaker 1: Beat our deadline, so I have hopes that we're gonna
Speaker 1: it's gonna be out before the official mid January release date.
Speaker 1: I just don't know if it's going to be that quickly.
Speaker 2: Well, look, if there is a way though, maybe just
Speaker 2: maybe I could come up with a way of putting
Speaker 2: one out for a drawing or something.
Speaker 3: I think that would be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: Oh we can do something about that. Absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 2: And you know what, even if I don't physically have
Speaker 2: the book, maybe we could just somehow come up with
Speaker 2: a way of, look, you'll have a ticket that's going
Speaker 2: to get you the free book when.
Speaker 3: It comes out.
Speaker 1: I think we can do that, you.
Speaker 2: Know, how about something like that, because I would love
Speaker 2: to offer this to somebody who you know, is really
Speaker 2: interested but also would like to contribute to the cause,
Speaker 2: so to speak. So anyway, and I didn't even talk
Speaker 2: to Larry about this before air, so I kind of
Speaker 2: put him on the spot. Apologies Larry, but but I
Speaker 2: know we discussed this, and I definitely want to have
Speaker 2: some promotional materials from you in hand. So you got
Speaker 2: to get those mailed to me soon, Okay, so I
Speaker 2: can bring them with me.
Speaker 1: Actually, David, da talk to David. David has something already. Oh,
Speaker 1: I sent it to you.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Did you get my address? No? Oh he might
Speaker 3: have it though, huh.
Speaker 1: But I know, yeah, I know he has how to
Speaker 1: find you electronically, but no I did not.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay, well I'll check with David on that.
Speaker 2: But anyways, I don't need to check with anybody else
Speaker 2: about a lot of things if I go to straight
Speaker 2: to Larry Hancock because he's a great source on a
Speaker 2: whole lot of this historical research and again the Oswalt puzzle.
Speaker 2: But don't forget the other books on the case, like
Speaker 2: Tipping Point, like someone would have talked, how about Nexus,
Speaker 2: which touches upon many many things that would be of
Speaker 2: interest to a JFK researcher. But gee, what else could
Speaker 2: we recommend Larry? I mean, I could recommend all of
Speaker 2: your books, because I do, and I think I have
Speaker 2: every single one on my books show. So there you go,
Speaker 2: and I'm looking forward to adding the Oswalt puzzle to
Speaker 2: my collection. So anything else Larry, before we're all done.
Speaker 1: Here today, I think that should do it.
Speaker 3: So there you have it, guys.
Speaker 2: Once again, I thank Larry Hancock for joining us tonight,
Speaker 2: and even though it is a Tuesday, I had to
Speaker 2: reschedule from last week. But it's always great to talk
Speaker 2: to Larry Hancock, and always great to talk to you guys,
Speaker 2: because after all, I am merely o'chelly. All of you
Speaker 2: are indeed the effect. Go to Larry dash Hancock for
Speaker 2: further information on his work, follow us log do all that,
Speaker 2: and check us out in Dallas November twenty second to
Speaker 2: the twenty fourth, either virtually or in person at the
Speaker 2: Downtown the Dallas Marriotte Downtown in Dallas, Texas for the
Speaker 2: JFK Lancer November in Dallas conference.
Speaker 3: Take care.
Speaker 5: If you've expressed my callers, tools there anyone else who
Speaker 5: happens to get on the air, it was Kelly dot com.
Speaker 5: If you not necessarily reflect the views over Kelly dot
Speaker 5: com or up Kelly and we are not responsible, we're
Speaker 5: getting stupidity.
Speaker 2: Which go ahead, call it.
Speaker 4: About the JFA assassination.
Speaker 3: Right, Well, what do you want to know Judy.
Speaker 1: Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew, Ruby and Barrie
Speaker 1: answer weapons.
Speaker 2: Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
Speaker 3: It doesn't make me a wagon, but okay, I'm building.
Speaker 1: And trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 2: Come on now has a real effort on the DFA
Speaker 2: assassination in claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith
Speaker 2: Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for
Speaker 2: a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes
Speaker 2: her own words and the known evidence in the case
Speaker 2: to get at well a different perspective.
Speaker 3: Let's say you can get Judith.
Speaker 2: Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself,
Speaker 2: signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
Speaker 2: k I A S JFK at aol dot com.
Speaker 3: It's a fun book and it actually.
Speaker 2: Dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith very Baker in
Speaker 2: her own words. Thank you for all the great information.
Speaker 4: Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks by Larry Hancock.
Speaker 4: Secret Wars became a staple of US covert operations and
Speaker 4: are still happening today. Larryhancock's book in Denial rips the
Speaker 4: cover off many of them using new files.
Speaker 6: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 6: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 6: really failed and why the United States did not earn
Speaker 6: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 6: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 6: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 6: In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhncock.
Speaker 6: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 6: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 3: In Digital or.
Speaker 1: Physical Revelation Through Conversation, The.
Speaker 7: War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation
Speaker 7: that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the
Speaker 7: content next of the Times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 7: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 7: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 7: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 7: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 7: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 7: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 7: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 7: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 7: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 7: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 7: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 7: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 7: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 7: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com to.
Speaker 5: Use expressed by Colers Schools. There anyone else who happens
Speaker 5: to get on the air of Jelly dot com if
Speaker 5: you not necessarily reflect the views little Jelly dot com
Speaker 5: or job o' chilly, and we are not responsible for
Speaker 5: any stupidity which might ensue.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 5: The Incentertioner, a local found the inc comm