Speaker 1: Ready, get ready for.
Speaker 2: October eighth, twenty twenty five, allegedly, according to that thing
Speaker 2: we call a calendar, this the Ocelly effect. How do
Speaker 2: I know that because you found us and I'm glad
Speaker 2: you did. Anyway, Wednesday it's the middle of the week,
Speaker 2: they say, and some places, I guess they still call
Speaker 2: it Hume Day. I'm not sure. But either way, we're
Speaker 2: not talking about that. We're not gonna talk about the
Speaker 2: days of the week or the uh you know what
Speaker 2: do they call that? The etymology of the names and
Speaker 2: the nomenclature. No, we're not doing all that, but we
Speaker 2: are gonna be sophisticated. Why do I say that. Larry
Speaker 2: Hancock is with me live today and we're gonna tackle
Speaker 2: guess what, some JFK stuff And maybe next time we
Speaker 2: get together we're gonna do something way different. So stick around.
Speaker 2: And it's always different with Larry anyway. If you go
Speaker 2: to Larrydashancock dot com you read his blog, you know
Speaker 2: he's got a diverse array of interest that he could
Speaker 2: be relating to you on that blog. He's definitely written
Speaker 2: a great many books that cover a lot of ground
Speaker 2: when it comes to the behavior of the national security state,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. Let's see most relevant books today
Speaker 2: on this discussion would have to be the Oswald puzzle
Speaker 2: tipping point. Someone would have talked, Yeah, all that, and
Speaker 2: maybe nexus nexus might be one. I know I don't
Speaker 2: mention that one often, but nexus is a good one,
Speaker 2: and I also just love that word. But anyway, Larry
Speaker 2: dash Hancock or Larry Hypenhancock dot com. In the show notes,
Speaker 2: you'll see it along with links to books, etc. So
Speaker 2: now that I've gotten that out of the way as
Speaker 2: quickly as I could, Larry, how are you doing tonight, sir?
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm doing fine this evening, Chuck. Happy to be back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, listen, I am thrilled. And recently I was doing
Speaker 2: an interview with somebody who wanted me to break down
Speaker 2: films on the jfk assassination, and I brought you up
Speaker 2: and how I'm so happy to have you on, and
Speaker 2: I had to reference something that we recently spoke about,
Speaker 2: not because you and I talk about films, but just
Speaker 2: so happens, you and I talk about evidence, and I
Speaker 2: was talking about evidence collection and how it is you
Speaker 2: should view things in history and context. So as soon
Speaker 2: as I mentioned the word context. I said, Larry Hancock's
Speaker 2: name has to come up here anyway, I did that.
Speaker 2: And this is interesting because recent file releases, Jeff Morley
Speaker 2: got very happy because he got at least part of
Speaker 2: what he's been asking for for I don't know twenty
Speaker 2: years now regarding the Joe and Edes file, etc. People
Speaker 2: have made declarations about this. Jeff has written about it
Speaker 2: quite a bit. Of course. JFK facts and he does
Speaker 2: his zoom calls and he's got that thing going. And
Speaker 2: he's the author of many books. We know that former reporter,
Speaker 2: and we saw the article in his publication that he
Speaker 2: used to work for at one point about this. And
Speaker 2: he's been involved with Representative Luna and the Oversight Committee.
Speaker 2: And I'm trying to catch everybody up. Larry, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to kill the air. I'm trying to
Speaker 2: get things out of the way for you. But there's
Speaker 2: a lot here to unpack, so to speak. And Jeff
Speaker 2: has said a few things about what's been discovered. And oh,
Speaker 2: by the way, a name that I didn't used to
Speaker 2: hear very much, but did hear in short bursts in
Speaker 2: different time periods in research, Lore William King Harvey's name
Speaker 2: comes up a bit lately, and one would wonder, Oh,
Speaker 2: I don't know, how should we begin to look at,
Speaker 2: you know, what Jefferson Morley has been declaring, what he's
Speaker 2: been writing about, what they're writing about at JFK Facts, etc.
Speaker 2: And I'll give you guys the link to JFK Facts
Speaker 2: tonight too, just because you should follow what Jeff is
Speaker 2: doing over there. Of course, he's also the vice chair
Speaker 2: of Mary Farrell Foundation. I think you owd a position
Speaker 2: with them too, don't you, Larry.
Speaker 3: Ah, Yes, sir, I am a board member.
Speaker 2: You're a board member as well. Okay, Look, I can't
Speaker 2: keep track of all this, but I'm just saying there's
Speaker 2: been a lot said, and I'm wondering, what about the progress, Larry,
Speaker 2: what do you think about the progress? Have we learned
Speaker 2: something really truly new with the personnel files, etc? I mean,
Speaker 2: do you have an independent evaluation of this or what
Speaker 2: do you think of what Jeff has been writing? I mean,
Speaker 2: not personally about what Jeff is writing necessarily, but about
Speaker 2: the information that he's been writing about and what is
Speaker 2: known that maybe previously wasn't etc. I'm throwing a ball
Speaker 2: of questions at you where should we begin, Larry.
Speaker 3: Well, I think it gets back and you mentioned context,
Speaker 3: and I think it's fascinating at this point time, we
Speaker 3: have spent decades essentially building context for what was going
Speaker 3: on in nineteen sixty three, nineteen sixty two, nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 3: Who was doing what, who had what job? You know,
Speaker 3: who would be suspects? It just JFK Research has spent
Speaker 3: a lot of time building data structures, if he will,
Speaker 3: about who was doing what now while we were doing that,
Speaker 3: which is largely grunt work, you know, what everybody is
Speaker 3: hoping for is, Oh, for some reason, the government actually
Speaker 3: knew what really happened, and it's all in some files somewhere,
Speaker 3: and if we could just get them to release them,
Speaker 3: you know, we could avoid all that nonsense. We don't
Speaker 3: have to do it ourselves. It's there and they will
Speaker 3: tell us, you know, like that would be great because
Speaker 3: that shortcuts the whole process. They know, their studies, their reports.
Speaker 3: That's just great.
Speaker 2: What'd you call it?
Speaker 3: Well, now that the files are being released, we see
Speaker 3: that that is not true. You know that. I don't
Speaker 3: know that many of us ever really thought that that
Speaker 3: was going to happen, but it was. It was kind
Speaker 3: of a hope. So what we're getting is more bits
Speaker 3: and pieces to put into this structure that we built.
Speaker 3: And a real question that comes out of all of
Speaker 3: that is which of those bits are significant? And do
Speaker 3: any of them really open a door?
Speaker 2: Right now, Wait a second, here's the thing, right the
Speaker 2: general public is almost in in some researchers are almost
Speaker 2: in the perpetual search for the smoking gun. Okay, that's
Speaker 2: really what I call that, where it's like I'm going
Speaker 2: to find this one clutch of documents or document that
Speaker 2: absolutely proves insert in something into the blank, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean, and therefore the case is now totally
Speaker 2: different or we have and I've always said, you know, look,
Speaker 2: you're not going to get like, hello, I'm the agent
Speaker 2: in charge, and I here is my confession, okay as
Speaker 2: to how I allowed this to happen, participated in it.
Speaker 2: Fill in the blank. Again. You're not gonna get that
Speaker 2: the smoking gun is not going to be there. It's
Speaker 2: not going to be We knew this, and we knew
Speaker 2: it this time, and this is how it went down
Speaker 2: on one page. You're not getting that, okay, So you
Speaker 2: got to remove the less than realistic expectations of the
Speaker 2: general public from the equation. And then you also have
Speaker 2: to remove some of the anxiety from researchers who maybe
Speaker 2: have been in a pitched sort of work cycle trying
Speaker 2: to get at a particular corner of the information field
Speaker 2: right where they're particularly interested in, let's just say the Cubans,
Speaker 2: and they're particularly interested in a group of Cubans. And
Speaker 2: by the way, that might come up in a minute here,
Speaker 2: you know, just saying, right, because Joe and Edes we
Speaker 2: got to talk Cubans, it's going to happen, and all
Speaker 2: of that needs to be taken in context here. First
Speaker 2: of all, remove your expectations and let's examine the evidence,
Speaker 2: what tidbits there are, because that's really what keeps happening
Speaker 2: is the collection. It's like collecting change in a jar.
Speaker 2: Eventually you're going to have a bank that's going to
Speaker 2: pay for something big, but you've got to collect that
Speaker 2: change a while in that water bottle, right, Larry, I mean,
Speaker 2: isn't that what we're looking at here?
Speaker 3: Yeah? It is. And but if you step back for
Speaker 3: a minute, what Jeff is pursued for all these years,
Speaker 3: you know, you might say, it's oh, it's real simple.
Speaker 3: It has to do with the student director at the
Speaker 3: Dre Joe and Edies. But what's at the bottom of
Speaker 3: all of it really is the question of did the
Speaker 3: CIA have a level of knowledge of Lee har Harvey Oswald?
Speaker 3: Were they using him operationally or thinking about using him
Speaker 3: operationally before the assassination? And did they withhold that from
Speaker 3: the Warrant Commission and the HSCA. And was the CIA
Speaker 3: guilty of obstruction of justice? Because if you said that,
Speaker 3: that is a big thing. I mean literally, if I
Speaker 3: said stood up and said, yes, the CIA had information
Speaker 3: and they withheld it and you can't trust them. Therefore
Speaker 3: there should be a new investigation because the investigation that
Speaker 3: was conducted was flawed. That's a big deal. So at
Speaker 3: the core of what Jeff is doing is really questioning
Speaker 3: the credibility of the CIA in terms of what they
Speaker 3: said or didn't say about Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2: Well, shouldn't we be satisfied at this point though that
Speaker 2: the CIA certainly acted in a way to manipulate the
Speaker 2: investigation on some level due to the fact that if
Speaker 2: Joe and Edes was attached to the HSCA when there
Speaker 2: was supposed to be nobody involved in the circumstance sent
Speaker 2: to the HSCA to be a liaison. I may not
Speaker 2: be using the exact proper terms here, but I'm representing
Speaker 2: this pretty well. Isn't that kind of a clear case
Speaker 2: of you intentionally sent us a guy who's going to
Speaker 2: have inside knowledge on certain things when you were told
Speaker 2: not to to be a liaison. That indicates to me
Speaker 2: that there is some effort to guide the investigation at
Speaker 2: the very least in the direction or two. Is that
Speaker 2: not a fair thing to say in your mind?
Speaker 3: See would I would take a contrarian view of that,
Speaker 3: because some people are saying that that's what's really come
Speaker 3: out of this. I think that's a diversion because what
Speaker 3: the bottom line is, the HCA and everybody knew this
Speaker 3: was focused on collecting information relating to Cuba, the attempted
Speaker 3: assassination of cast Or, so you know, the HSCA to
Speaker 3: some extent was a follow on to the Church Committee.
Speaker 3: So if you're going to provide a liaison to them,
Speaker 3: I mean you are going to need to pick somebody
Speaker 3: that knows something about those affairs that were going on
Speaker 3: in sixty two sixty three. You're going to have to
Speaker 3: send somebody Now, what's the role of the liaison If
Speaker 3: you look at at what hard Way says and what
Speaker 3: others says, that we were just hoping for someone who
Speaker 3: would point us to information, not you know, so you
Speaker 3: your question of improper behavior is then did they not
Speaker 3: point them to certain information that would have helped their
Speaker 3: investigation that would be culpable? And so in one hand,
Speaker 3: I can say assigning Joan Edes who was worked at
Speaker 3: Miami station, you know, did work with a student directorate.
Speaker 3: Did we're in he's He's the kind of person that
Speaker 3: you would want, I mean to help you. Then the
Speaker 3: question is did he help you? Now? Was he acting
Speaker 3: under orders not to help you? Did he make that
Speaker 3: decision not to help you? Clearly he did obfuscate and
Speaker 3: obstruct their efforts, There's no doubt about that that he did.
Speaker 3: But I personally consider that, you know, as part of
Speaker 3: all the things that the CIA knew and could have
Speaker 3: helped with. That's only one part of it. So their
Speaker 3: lack of support is much broader than that.
Speaker 2: Right now, that's true, But for context, Larry again, right now,
Speaker 2: now here's where I had context. Wow, I'm stepping into it.
Speaker 2: They also offered scientists to the HSCA when they said,
Speaker 2: we don't want people that were involved with the labs
Speaker 2: that previously worked with this stuff. We want fresh people
Speaker 2: on it. And guess what a disingenuous offering once again
Speaker 2: from the government to the HSCA, you know, the House
Speaker 2: Select Committee, the government offering to itself. Yes again people
Speaker 2: under false pretense. Right, Look, we don't want people that
Speaker 2: were and they did this with the scientists. You know
Speaker 2: that too, right, So I mean.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I think that's different. Check because this case,
Speaker 3: the HSCA wanted somebody like that knew this subject, right,
Speaker 3: and they didn't want somebody neutral or objected. They wanted
Speaker 3: somebody that knew what was going on with Miami station
Speaker 3: and Cuba. They did.
Speaker 2: Uh oh uh oh, Sorry you dropped off for a
Speaker 2: moment there and you said they did want somebody from
Speaker 2: the CIA station there, but go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I would say that's a little bit different.
Speaker 3: They wanted the liaison is there to help them things. Well,
Speaker 3: you don't want someone that doesn't know anything about the
Speaker 3: CIA or anything about what they're looking for. The person
Speaker 3: has to have some credibility in terms of of knowing
Speaker 3: what they're asking about in order to help them, so
Speaker 3: that they had to whether it was Joan Es or
Speaker 3: some other officer that was familiar with this, they did
Speaker 3: have to pick somebody that supposedly knew where to go
Speaker 3: and could provide advice and and and knew the you know,
Speaker 3: knew the game that was being played. I'm not defending
Speaker 3: joann Edies per se. I'm just saying to me, this
Speaker 3: is just one other example of you know, the CIA
Speaker 3: goes along and doesn't proactively give the investigation what it needs. Well, okay,
Speaker 3: I just see that as one more.
Speaker 2: Time simultaneously, though, they didn't disclose this though to the
Speaker 2: HSCA people. Oh right, So.
Speaker 3: Well, Joannides didn't disclose it.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Well, when I say they, I mean it wasn't disclosed
Speaker 2: to them, I should say properly, right right right, yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: fair enough, And yes, in the scientific arena, I would
Speaker 2: say that, indeed, it's a little bit more of a
Speaker 2: red flag because look, if you're asking for scientific you know,
Speaker 2: experimentation to be conducted, you don't require somebody who's already
Speaker 2: familiar with the material, because science is science. Okay, So
Speaker 2: therefore familiarity is a factor here, and that's an adequate
Speaker 2: counterpoint to what I said, and that's why I presented it.
Speaker 2: But still I see a pattern of behavior here though,
Speaker 2: where disclosure is not exactly upfront regarding did you work
Speaker 2: with this stuff before? I'm just saying from more than
Speaker 2: one government agency, Okay, And I think that's a fair assessment, right,
Speaker 2: That's all I.
Speaker 3: Would certainly yeah, I would certainly agree that the disclosure
Speaker 3: is not a priority, right, Okay, enough, And it gets
Speaker 3: much worse than that. I mean, that's what That's what
Speaker 3: join Edes really tells us, and that the door that
Speaker 3: is join Edes has opened is the fact, and Jeff
Speaker 3: has opened with join Edes. Was that knowledge of Lee
Speaker 3: Harvey Oswald at the Miami station within the Special Affairs
Speaker 3: staff was far greater than we could ever document before.
Speaker 3: Far more people were aware of Oswald, far more people
Speaker 3: were aware of Oswald in New Orleans, of his activities,
Speaker 3: of what he had done with the Student Directorate, with
Speaker 3: what was going on at Oswald. In contemporary fashion, we
Speaker 3: combine what the door that opened through join Edes with
Speaker 3: the door that Simpacha had opened early, which shows all
Speaker 3: these same people were also being told about Oswoll by
Speaker 3: the FBI, not just the Student Directorate, but by the FBI.
Speaker 3: So I can give you half a dozen people at
Speaker 3: Miami Station who knew all this contemporary information on Oswal. Okay,
Speaker 3: they all know that he's been arrested. They all know
Speaker 3: that he's working with the FPCC, and there's an association
Speaker 3: there they all know about. You know, this is knowledge
Speaker 3: that's fairly broadly spread across both Miami Station and Jim Wave,
Speaker 3: SAS and jam Way. Yet they all know this in September,
Speaker 3: they all know this in October. Yet when Oswell shows
Speaker 3: up in Mexico City and my Mexico City Station asked
Speaker 3: for information, nobody provides that information. Now you might think, well,
Speaker 3: this is just a mistake, it's a clerical mistake because
Speaker 3: that information is just in one file and it's at
Speaker 3: headquarters and it's in security, and we don't share stair
Speaker 3: stuff that's in security files, et cetera, et cetera. But no,
Speaker 3: it's not just in that one place. It's all over
Speaker 3: the Cuba Project and the Spatial Affair staff, and it's
Speaker 3: withheld from Mexico City Station. So this really shows a
Speaker 3: level of compartment it shows a level of operational It
Speaker 3: proves I'll go beyond that, it proves a level of
Speaker 3: operational compartmentalization that we just thought about before we speculated
Speaker 3: about it. Jeff and John questioned, Buttermer and she says, yeah,
Speaker 3: it looks like that. Well, now there's no looks like it.
Speaker 3: It is absolutely confirmed in two independent directions that there
Speaker 3: was something going on with nolg Edge about Lee Rvy Oswald,
Speaker 3: that the Cuba project, that Gerald's people were shielding from
Speaker 3: the rest of the CIA.
Speaker 2: So there you have that. Also, I think it's worthy
Speaker 2: to mention though, that you have Oswald being noticed, let's say,
Speaker 2: in a lot of halls of investigation, okay, a lot
Speaker 2: of halls of intelligence, and yet he never quite makes
Speaker 2: it to the you know, the big ring binder of
Speaker 2: threat assessment when it comes to the Secret Service. You
Speaker 2: know it. And some people would say, look, that's a
Speaker 2: product of the time, et cetera. But you know, they
Speaker 2: had known threats. If the President was going to a city,
Speaker 2: the known threats were tracked down. They had a little
Speaker 2: you know, a little flip book in some cases of
Speaker 2: these people that they had to go track down, figure
Speaker 2: out where they would be on the day the President
Speaker 2: would be there. Things like that. The advanced team had
Speaker 2: to do this stuff. So I'm just saying, look, there
Speaker 2: is a difference in the continuity of these agencies from
Speaker 2: then to now, certainly, but from then from a lot
Speaker 2: of different points of view here. And you also have
Speaker 2: the oddity of you know, the FBI and the threat
Speaker 2: assessment and how that changed and there was an alert
Speaker 2: on them and it got dropped, And a lot of
Speaker 2: things are going on here. This is not like some
Speaker 2: stale old information either, Larry right. This is all current stuff,
Speaker 2: including the alleged visit to Mexico City.
Speaker 3: So yeah, but there I think we've learned that there's
Speaker 3: that may make more sense than it looked like in
Speaker 3: the beginning. First of all, as far as the Secret
Speaker 3: Service and threat assessment, there's absolutely no reason that Oswald
Speaker 3: would have been considered a threat. You only got on
Speaker 3: the threat list if you expressed a threat, if you
Speaker 3: said the President ought to be shocked, the president, we
Speaker 3: got to get rid of him, so on and so forth.
Speaker 3: You know, he's a trader, he said. Oswell never said
Speaker 3: anything like that. If anything, he said just the opposite.
Speaker 3: So there was nothing that Now what would make him
Speaker 3: of serious interest. And what jayek Er who were complained about,
Speaker 3: is that the CIA. Mexico City, not the CIA. Okay,
Speaker 3: Mexico City, who was generating the information on Oswald in
Speaker 3: their station, basically didn't up the ante. They if they
Speaker 3: had known about his recent activities, if they had known
Speaker 3: about his arrest, if they had known about his connection
Speaker 3: to the affair Play for Cuba committee, clearly they would
Speaker 3: have amped up attention to Lee Harvey Oswall, not just
Speaker 3: within the CIA, but with the other agencies. Now that
Speaker 3: they did report his they didn't did report his visit
Speaker 3: to other agencies, but they didn't report all the elements
Speaker 3: of it, and they didn't give it any recent history.
Speaker 3: They didn't talking about context, They didn't give it any
Speaker 3: current context because that was withheld from them. So even Hoover,
Speaker 3: we know, famously made a note on the thing that
Speaker 3: was like, we just cannot trust the CIA to provide
Speaker 3: us with current correct information. And he was right right now,
Speaker 3: why wasn't that provided Well, it was because Mexico City
Speaker 3: station wasn't given it. So why was it withheld from them? Actually,
Speaker 3: the only thing that makes any sense is that Oswald
Speaker 3: was at a minimum being considered for operational use by
Speaker 3: the CIA. So I would agree with part of this
Speaker 3: there are a lot of things going on with Oswald,
Speaker 3: but it wasn't. The system as a whole was being
Speaker 3: neutered to a certain extent because of this compartmentalization of information,
Speaker 3: which makes it a lot more important if you think
Speaker 3: about it. We've always talked about it. It's because what
Speaker 3: was the net result of all of this. The net
Speaker 3: result was to keep Oswald's profile at a low level,
Speaker 3: and the CIA did another action that was the same thing.
Speaker 3: The Student Directorate had been promoting Oswald. They had been
Speaker 3: not just in New Orleans, but they had been sending
Speaker 3: out flyers and letters to Congress drawing attention to Oswald
Speaker 3: and proud about it because that's what they were supposed
Speaker 3: to be doing in terms of propaganda. So what happens
Speaker 3: does the CIA seize on that and make it a
Speaker 3: big deal, and because it was great, it was working,
Speaker 3: it was great media stuff. No, it gets shut down.
Speaker 3: So not only does the information on Oswald gets compartmentalized,
Speaker 3: the propaganda that the DRE had started gets shut down,
Speaker 3: and suddenly what was a great story and what they
Speaker 3: thought they had done really goes away. So it's all
Speaker 3: being dampened down domestically inside the United States and your
Speaker 3: point earlier. The point is Oswald's profile is lower than
Speaker 3: it should have been, maybe not as a threat, but
Speaker 3: just in terms of visibility.
Speaker 2: Well, and we also still to this day, I don't think, no,
Speaker 2: precisely what was in the hands of the what is it,
Speaker 2: the House on an American Activities Committee, right, because I've
Speaker 2: heard of allegations. I've read of allegations that indeed Oswald's
Speaker 2: name and other informa might have traveled to that, right
Speaker 2: and those files are still classified all the way around
Speaker 2: as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
Speaker 2: You know, somebody could check on.
Speaker 3: Now, that could be good considering what the dr the
Speaker 3: letters that they were writing to Congress, the flyers they
Speaker 3: were sending that that certainly wouldn't be. In fact, you'd
Speaker 3: almost expect some of that to hand up with the
Speaker 3: HFCA because obviously they were sending it to conservative, right
Speaker 3: wing android you know, anti communist legislators, right who you know?
Speaker 3: That seems like that would be a logical thing. So no,
Speaker 3: we don't know about that, right, No.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to point that out. Okay, So let's
Speaker 2: get back on track. What have we learned very recently though?
Speaker 2: Outside of what you've already pointed out that is of
Speaker 2: significance in your mind. I mean, is there some other
Speaker 2: bullet point here to be made regarding this? And oh,
Speaker 2: by the way, why did I mention William King Harvey earlier?
Speaker 2: Maybe we should get to that. Give somebody a thumbnail
Speaker 2: in case they've never heard that name. I've heard it
Speaker 2: really way out of context in other fields of study.
Speaker 2: Let's say, you know where people talk about, you know,
Speaker 2: his behavior and where he got sent and everything else.
Speaker 2: I mean, who is this guy? And you know, how
Speaker 2: do we enter that into the discussion? But also what
Speaker 2: have we learned as of late? That's like brand new?
Speaker 2: Is there something brand new?
Speaker 3: Yeah, go ahead, there is something brand new? And I
Speaker 3: think here we get back to So let's let's have
Speaker 3: a picture of Mexico City Station station in the summer
Speaker 3: fall of nineteen sixty three. What's going on, Well, there's
Speaker 3: a lot going on. But on one side over with
Speaker 3: the Fitzgerald's Special Affairs staff, which is the Cuba Project.
Speaker 3: We just talked about the fact that Oswell is visible.
Speaker 3: He's visible to a number of people there, both in
Speaker 3: the propaganda section, the counterintelligence section, and that information we can't.
Speaker 3: One of our problems, of course, is that, as I been,
Speaker 3: one of our problems is that all of the memoranda
Speaker 3: and reports that we should see related the information being
Speaker 3: passed on from the student Directorate is gone, literally gone.
Speaker 3: It's just missing. The case officer reports, joined EDI's reports
Speaker 3: are gone. We look at the history of the group
Speaker 3: for that year at headquarters and we find nothing about this,
Speaker 3: which is insane. But so we know that the special
Speaker 3: affairs staff there know about Oswell, they know about Oswell's
Speaker 3: engagement with the DRE. Uh. That information would have been
Speaker 3: shared with the other people at the station that have
Speaker 3: been working the DRE issue, and that would include David Morales,
Speaker 3: and it would include uh, you know Morales because he
Speaker 3: had actually been the military officer advisor to the DRE
Speaker 3: up until about the beginning of the year. Uh, that
Speaker 3: information would have been passed on. Uh. He was, he
Speaker 3: was one of the he was. His complaints were one
Speaker 3: of the main reasons why Helms brought in Joann Edes
Speaker 3: and they put the dr into new management. So, you know,
Speaker 3: that's an obvious thing. So people in Miami station know
Speaker 3: about Oswald, what else is going on? So and that's
Speaker 3: been hidden Okay, so let's just look at what's been hidden.
Speaker 3: The knowledge of Oswell has been hidden, sanitized, scrub whatever
Speaker 3: you want. And and after the assass it's amazing. After
Speaker 3: the assassination, all of those people whose names that we
Speaker 3: see copied on distribution from the FBI. Oh, the FBI
Speaker 3: told none of those people ever admitted having heard of Oswald.
Speaker 3: It's like, yes, there was a there was a knowledge
Speaker 3: of Oswald that everybody chose not to talk about, not
Speaker 3: just join Edies, but a lot of other people, John
Speaker 3: Ed's boss, Tilton, the CI people, a lot of people
Speaker 3: just wasn't just join Edies holding back information. Uh. But
Speaker 3: then again, nobody asked them the right questions, you know. Okay,
Speaker 3: of course, yes, So let's let's go to to William
Speaker 3: King Harvey, who, after his testimony to the House Select Committee,
Speaker 3: was quoted by reporters as saying, oh, they didn't ask
Speaker 3: me the right questions, like can you see law enforcement
Speaker 3: things going on like this? It's like I won't tell
Speaker 3: the police. You know, they didn't ask me if my
Speaker 3: cousin killed this guy, so I don't have to tell them, right,
Speaker 3: you know, it's unless they ask me the right questions.
Speaker 3: I'm safe, everybody's say, But William. The other thing that's
Speaker 3: going on in Miami that is totally mysterious and totally
Speaker 3: compartmentalized is the Castro assassination project that's been going on
Speaker 3: for about two and a half years by that point
Speaker 3: in time, and it's known under the crypt z R
Speaker 3: rifle slash m I, which means uh assassin assassination project
Speaker 3: targeting Castro run through Miami station right, very specific. So
Speaker 3: there are a group of people that have been involved
Speaker 3: there supporting this for some time and they're still supporting it,
Speaker 3: and there are no records of this. And when inquire
Speaker 3: were made, the people said, basically, we never wrote memoranda
Speaker 3: about those sorts of things, We never made documents. It
Speaker 3: was all on telephone conversations. It's was never discussed anywhere.
Speaker 3: So you're never going to find any record of it, Okay.
Speaker 3: But one of the things that we've kind of missed
Speaker 3: in a way was that that project was still very
Speaker 3: live up until the time of the assassination, and the
Speaker 3: person who had been running it was William King Harvey.
Speaker 3: William King Harvey had had started he hadn't started the effort,
Speaker 3: It had started before him. Under Richard Bissell. Okay, Richard
Speaker 3: Bissell started this assassin executive action project, if you will,
Speaker 3: to set up a system by one whereby you could
Speaker 3: kill senior foreign leaders if somebody unquote press the button.
Speaker 3: That task was given to Harvey by Bissell. He started
Speaker 3: working on it. How you would set it up, who
Speaker 3: would you would use, how would you make it deniable?
Speaker 3: And then shortly after that he was assigned to the
Speaker 3: UH the New Cuba project that came out after the
Speaker 3: missile crisis. I'm sorry. After Bay of Pigs and et
Speaker 3: took over Mongoose under Lansdale and and revived the assassination
Speaker 3: project and made it part of this. You know, we've
Speaker 3: got an assassination project. Castro is a foreign leader. He qualifies,
Speaker 3: So we'll call it ZR Rifle am I, and we'll
Speaker 3: target it on Castro. So, if you think about it
Speaker 3: in for a minute, William King, Harvey is like, how
Speaker 3: many people inside the CIA are actually trusted, selected felt
Speaker 3: to have the fortitude, the moral quotient whatever to kill
Speaker 3: presidents and national leaders at direction? You know, there aren't
Speaker 3: a lot of those guys. He's very unique in the
Speaker 3: fact that they picked him in the first place that
Speaker 3: he took the assignment and that he carries on with
Speaker 3: it through nineteen sixty three. We never really understood the
Speaker 3: fact that he carried under We thought we thought it
Speaker 3: was done in nineteen sixty three. We thought we had
Speaker 3: been misled by the fact that it had been closed down,
Speaker 3: he'd gotten rid of the assets, and he had been
Speaker 3: transferred to Rome as a political officer in Rome, headed
Speaker 3: the CI station there, And so really he as of
Speaker 3: April March April he had he should have been off
Speaker 3: the map, as it were, inside the US. He shouldn't
Speaker 3: have been doing anything in the US. But what Jeff's
Speaker 3: work is uncovered, and what the committee hascovered is a
Speaker 3: document showing at exactly that point in time, there is
Speaker 3: an application to the FAA for a new credential that
Speaker 3: would give Harvey essentially an FAA cover. Okay, suddenly he's
Speaker 3: working for the United States the FAA and he has
Speaker 3: FAA credentials in his name, which is very interesting because
Speaker 3: what comes out of that It appears that he could
Speaker 3: use those credentials to travel at will anywhere by air
Speaker 3: domestically that he wanted. And I think it's interesting that
Speaker 3: his biographer rights that he was at such a level
Speaker 3: inside the agency that he didn't have to get permission
Speaker 3: for anything that he did, any travel. He doesn't have
Speaker 3: to you know, he doesn't have to have projects, he
Speaker 3: doesn't have to get assignments. He just goes and does
Speaker 3: whatever he wants to do and if he decides he
Speaker 3: wants to file an expense report.
Speaker 2: And also being assigned to Rome, at this point, one
Speaker 2: would beg the very simple question of what you need
Speaker 2: FAA credentials for? If you are now attached to the
Speaker 2: station in Rome, you're not given to really through your work,
Speaker 2: have to fly in the US. So much seems like
Speaker 2: or do you have to be involved? You know how
Speaker 2: much involvement with the FAA do if you're in Rome.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just basic.
Speaker 3: You have none. It makes That's that's why I consider
Speaker 3: this another. What this has really raised the bar on
Speaker 3: is and you know this Chuck that listeners may not
Speaker 3: know this is that for a period of time we
Speaker 3: have known that this this group that Harvey had put
Speaker 3: together to kill Castro in various ways, had himself John Roselli,
Speaker 3: Antonio Verona, and a few guys Uh Morales out of
Speaker 3: the Miami station that was that was the core of
Speaker 3: the group. Okay, it's been known for some time that
Speaker 3: that Roselli actually went to Washington, d C. At the
Speaker 3: time the Garrison investigation was started and tried and talked
Speaker 3: to Jack Anderson flowed a story that got all the
Speaker 3: way to Hoover Johnson, basically that there had been a
Speaker 3: conspiracy and that the conspiracy involved Fidel Castro taking a
Speaker 3: group of CIA assets that have been trying to kill
Speaker 3: him and killing the President of the United States instead.
Speaker 3: Now that that story never made much sense if you
Speaker 3: think about it a bit. One of the things this
Speaker 3: is raised the whole question of we need to take
Speaker 3: another look at these guys, Harvey, Roselli, Morales what they're
Speaker 3: doing in nineteen sixty three, because Harvey is obviously doing
Speaker 3: something operationally that we didn't know about and that we
Speaker 3: don't know about. And one of the things I've been doing,
Speaker 3: I've just just been reading through the best biography of
Speaker 3: Harvey called Floyd Patriot. But I find that Harvey was
Speaker 3: among his closest friends independently circulating that same story. Rosselli was, Yeah,
Speaker 3: Castro killed JFK. And he used these Cubans to do it.
Speaker 3: And you know that they CEI thought there were there
Speaker 3: guys and they were actually Castro's guys. So Castro's behind
Speaker 3: it all. It just looks like it was anti Castro
Speaker 3: Cubans because it was so well done and everything. So
Speaker 3: Harvey is spreading this conspiracy story independently as well. Something
Speaker 3: is going on. These guys have even got their story synchronized, right,
Speaker 3: Why would this be? Why should they even be know
Speaker 3: each other, why should they be friends long term? As
Speaker 3: we now know they were? What's going on in nineteen
Speaker 3: sixty three that they felt that they had to defend
Speaker 3: with his story When Garrison starts his investigation.
Speaker 2: Well, and there's the trouble, right, because it's not necessarily
Speaker 2: that the story is accurate. But what is being covered
Speaker 2: with this story? Because one would think also that you know,
Speaker 2: what about the sabotage operations that were going on, right
Speaker 2: and things like that, which were going on concurrently with
Speaker 2: the assassination against Castro. Right, these things are going on
Speaker 2: at the same time, the pig flu and you know,
Speaker 2: the swine virus whatever, swine flu, all these weird sabotage
Speaker 2: operations and things, right, So.
Speaker 5: One might say the interesting thing is yeah, good, yeah,
Speaker 5: Jack you got The really fascinating thing about is we
Speaker 5: know about all those Yeah, those have been revealed and documented.
Speaker 3: Those were sanctioned, as as nasty as they might be, right,
Speaker 3: they were sanctioned projects. We know about them. The Church
Speaker 3: Committee flushed them out and investigate them, and we know
Speaker 3: when they stopped or started, when they stopped, who was involved.
Speaker 3: We know about all those other things. We know about
Speaker 3: the missions that were being ordered against Cuba out of
Speaker 3: JM Wave, We know about the Amworld project, We know
Speaker 3: about the Regime chan we know about all this other stuff.
Speaker 3: We know nothing about what Harvey was doing with the
Speaker 3: r rifle. And it appears that that was totally undocumented,
Speaker 3: totally out of uncontrolled, and it's unclear that Fitzgerald even
Speaker 3: knew about it. It literally is unclear that anybody knew
Speaker 3: what Harvey was doing. Yet Harvey was doing something so
Speaker 3: significant that he gets an FAA cover and credentials and
Speaker 3: it's invisible. What and the heck was that?
Speaker 2: And studying what Jack Anderson winds up floating, okay, as
Speaker 2: a journalist in air quotes, but you know how much
Speaker 2: agency contact he had and how much propaganda he was
Speaker 2: putting out there in order to steer the narratives. Let's say. Look,
Speaker 2: I'll leave that for someone else to study, and I'm
Speaker 2: not going to ask you to explain it. But one
Speaker 2: would say that it is rather curious that this story
Speaker 2: is being floated by a guy like him and a
Speaker 2: guy like Harvey, because you would think normally they would
Speaker 2: give Anderson the disinformation right in order to cover the
Speaker 2: thing that Harvey knows about that. This is the way
Speaker 2: I would see the pattern normally that Harvey's doing. Here's
Speaker 2: Jack Anderson with the cover story to kind of steer
Speaker 2: people away from the real deal, and we have synchronization
Speaker 2: of these two things, am I reading?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Right, Okay, now that's exactly. Well. First of all,
Speaker 3: you would expect everybody not to talk to Jack Anderson.
Speaker 3: I mean, at that point in time, Roselli was actually
Speaker 3: under heavy FBI pressure, he was under legal pressure, he
Speaker 3: was likely to be deported, he was likely to go
Speaker 3: to You know, there's no reason for Roselle to make
Speaker 3: himself visible. You would want to be as invisible as possible.
Speaker 3: You don't want people, you know, the fb's our eyes
Speaker 3: already on your case. Now they're going to be on
Speaker 3: your case because the President assigned us to interview about
Speaker 3: your assassination story. You know, last thing he needs is
Speaker 3: more interviews with the FBI diddle with Harvey. Harvey had
Speaker 3: already been under express censure actually internally, and could have
Speaker 3: been fired because he had continued to meet with Roselli,
Speaker 3: a known criminal figure. I mean, the CIA guys that
Speaker 3: knew about that thought, why this is insane, Why would
Speaker 3: he do this. There's something going on between these two
Speaker 3: guys that is just strange. And so I think you've
Speaker 3: got a real point there. First of all, they would
Speaker 3: have been saying nothing. Something put them under so much
Speaker 3: pressure that they felt that they had to personally start
Speaker 3: circulating disinformation. What was that? Was it? Because they thought
Speaker 3: there was going to be an investigation and the investigation
Speaker 3: was going in the right direction. Because we do know
Speaker 3: at that point in time when that happened, that Garrison
Speaker 3: had his investigation buried and nobody knew about it, and
Speaker 3: he was going to Miami and he was going after
Speaker 3: Cubans that had been associated with us Oswald and he
Speaker 3: ended up being directed to Bernardo, to Taurus, who is
Speaker 3: a prime suspect is being part of all of this,
Speaker 3: and Detaurus worked with him for a bit and then
Speaker 3: immediately took it to the press and blew open his
Speaker 3: whole investigation, which started his downfall. But you know, obviously
Speaker 3: one thought is that somebody was really afraid that Garrison
Speaker 3: was starting to look in the right direction. So if
Speaker 3: anybody's going to look towards Cuba, we want him to
Speaker 3: look at Fidel, not our Cubans, right, right.
Speaker 2: And the other strange thing here is that, you know,
Speaker 2: when they're talking about, well, the anti Castro Cubans were
Speaker 2: turned back around the other way, well, Oswald was like
Speaker 2: a pro castro guy you know, out there, which is weird,
Speaker 2: right because and not even officially, because he wasn't officially
Speaker 2: part of the Fair Play for Cuba committee, Right, So
Speaker 2: he's out there with a chapter that really wasn't established,
Speaker 2: claiming to be the treasurer I think in the interviews,
Speaker 2: right and literally you know, doing the flyer work and
Speaker 2: everything else without actually establishing a legit chapter.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it makes no sense, you just it makes about
Speaker 3: us little sense. I keep going into my mind. It's
Speaker 3: sort of like, Okay, I've got a team of anti
Speaker 3: Castro Cubans, right, They're going into Cuba. Castros, people catch them.
Speaker 3: They don't kill them. Castro just says, hey, good news,
Speaker 3: We're going to release you if you go back to
Speaker 3: the United States and promise to kill the president. And
Speaker 3: the guys go, oh yeah, cool, Well show us the
Speaker 3: way to the boat and they go back to the
Speaker 3: United States and immediately go to the You know what
Speaker 3: hole does he have over them if he returns them
Speaker 3: to the US. They're fanatically anti q Castro. He catches them,
Speaker 3: sends them back, and then they do what he asked
Speaker 3: him to do.
Speaker 2: I doubt it, right, And meanwhile, you got them in
Speaker 2: proximity to different people that don't belong in proximity with them.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just it's really strange. I mean, if
Speaker 2: you put these guys with David Ferry, you say, okay,
Speaker 2: this kind of makes a little bit of sense, right,
Speaker 2: But putting them with all right, look, it just gets
Speaker 2: it gets my head spinning. But ultimately, Larry, you know,
Speaker 2: what are we looking at here that that's you know,
Speaker 2: brand new? Like I said, Okay, now we know certain
Speaker 2: things that were speculated about in the past, but there's
Speaker 2: still more to be uncovered here because I mean, obviously
Speaker 2: Jefferson Morley didn't get everything. He wanted. He got a
Speaker 2: lot more than he you know, got all these you know,
Speaker 2: all these many years now with the lawsuits and Bret
Speaker 2: Kavanaugh finally putting it to bed, you know, and all that.
Speaker 2: But you know, how much progress do we make here
Speaker 2: out of this? We have a better idea that you know,
Speaker 2: it's not just the fingerprints but literally the greasy handprints
Speaker 2: of intelligence on Oswald now right where it's like, look,
Speaker 2: they were doing something with him, but can we be
Speaker 2: certain what it was? Was he just going to be
Speaker 2: useful as an asset? Was he somebody that could be directed?
Speaker 2: You know what? What are we looking at there? We
Speaker 2: don't know still right? Or is there something to be
Speaker 2: gleaned there that I'm missing?
Speaker 3: It's a long shot. I think The point is we
Speaker 3: have we actually have had a lot of documents released
Speaker 3: from Miami Station and the Special Affairs staff over on
Speaker 3: the military side. You were talking about it, sabotage operations, infiltrations,
Speaker 3: attacks we know we've seen virtually and we know what
Speaker 3: their budget was, and we know that half of their
Speaker 3: budget was for propaganda and political actions. We've seen none
Speaker 3: of that. If Osweald was being considered for use in anything,
Speaker 3: it would have been that. So do those records still
Speaker 3: exist and we've just not seen them? Mike, you find
Speaker 3: someone we know who join Edie's boss was. We know
Speaker 3: it's a fellow named Tilton. We know who some of
Speaker 3: these other people were. If if you did a real
Speaker 3: if you went to CIA and gave them these names
Speaker 3: and say, you know, we need their operation files, we
Speaker 3: need the projects they were working on, might that turn up?
Speaker 3: I hope so, because Luna's got that list. Okay, So
Speaker 3: could that clarify matters in regard to Oswald and and
Speaker 3: how far and to what extent and how exposed the
Speaker 3: CI was, you know, like, what were they planning for him?
Speaker 3: How were they planning to use them? That would be
Speaker 3: that would be interesting. I mean, that's not going to
Speaker 3: give us the conspiracy. On the other hand, if we
Speaker 3: have a new focus on Harvey and Roselle and Morales
Speaker 3: and these z R rifle slash m I guys as
Speaker 3: to what they were really doing. You know, maybe everything
Speaker 3: was talked about over the telephone, but still, I mean, Harvey,
Speaker 3: is there any record of his travel? He had to
Speaker 3: be doing something. I mean, there was a budge for
Speaker 3: ZR rifle that was a brew for sixty three, we
Speaker 3: have one, you still have one? Still?
Speaker 2: My question right there, because that's where I was, is
Speaker 2: that the financial Look here, here's the thing, right, and
Speaker 2: I call this the mk Ultra solution because look, there's
Speaker 2: financial documentation here. Nothing happens without funding. Okay, even if
Speaker 2: you got a okay, it was phone calls, well, who
Speaker 2: paid for the phone line? Something happened. If there was
Speaker 2: man hours invested, if there was cash given, if there
Speaker 2: were flyers printed, if there was you know anything, right, transportation,
Speaker 2: money is spent, and generally speaking, those are the receipts
Speaker 2: that will survive, even if people are trying to purge
Speaker 2: the files, so to speak. And that's what happened with
Speaker 2: mk Ultra in a nutshell, right, this is how it
Speaker 2: was reconstructed and people figured things out was from the
Speaker 2: financial records. So I would imagine again that when money
Speaker 2: is spent, there has to be an account for it somewhere.
Speaker 2: Nobody's gonna hand just cash here, Ego, take it out
Speaker 2: of petty cash. Nobody will count it. No receipts got
Speaker 2: to come back. Okay, it's it's it's the government. I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: but that's the way it is now. I know that
Speaker 2: there are black budgets, and there are you know, off
Speaker 2: off the radar sort of you know, revenue streams, let's
Speaker 2: call them. I know that, but for this, this revenue
Speaker 2: stream wouldn't have been like, Okay, we're gonna sell cocaine
Speaker 2: in order so that we can take that cash which
Speaker 2: nobody can account for, and then we're gonna do this
Speaker 2: with it. That was not happening here. This is the
Speaker 2: kind of thing where money had to come from somewhere
Speaker 2: in order to fund some of this stuff. So there
Speaker 2: should be a financial trail of breadcrumbs so to speak
Speaker 2: to this, don't you think, Larry, that was my whole question.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The only reason we even know that there was
Speaker 3: a canastroussassination project in the first place, right, and what
Speaker 3: the Church committee you know, allowed them to dig into
Speaker 3: it is, Yeah, money has to be spent. So during
Speaker 3: the early on in the first Cuba project before the
Speaker 3: BAFPX landing, you know, how do you fund this? We
Speaker 3: need some cash. We're going to have to give some cash.
Speaker 3: So these guys were using inside Cuba, We're going to
Speaker 3: there's got to be you know, we need fifty thousand dollars, Okay, right, Well,
Speaker 3: who's what manager is going to sign off for fifty
Speaker 3: thousand dollars? Horrible, Somebody's got to sign that off and
Speaker 3: it's got to come out. It's got to have a
Speaker 3: signing authority on it. And so what really happened is
Speaker 3: somebody had to call up somebody else and say, would
Speaker 3: you just sign me, you know, a voucher for this,
Speaker 3: and the guy immediately the guy goes, what am I
Speaker 3: signing it for? You know, okay tell me that. Oh well, okay,
Speaker 3: there's a point in time where somebody has to disperse
Speaker 3: funds and they're going to want to know what it's for,
Speaker 3: and they want to going to cover themselves, right because
Speaker 3: when the ig shows up and says, you know, we
Speaker 3: can't find that fifty thousand dollars and we understand you've
Speaker 3: got a bookie, I'm going I want this piece of paper,
Speaker 3: you know, memoranda do self soft file. You know, here's
Speaker 3: here's where it went. Go talk you want something. So yeah,
Speaker 3: I think the funny thing is Harvey was a real
Speaker 3: focus of interest for a period of time and then
Speaker 3: he dropped off the radar because I think we fool ourselves.
Speaker 3: It's like, he can't have been involved in nineteen sixty
Speaker 3: three because he was in Rome, and then we come
Speaker 3: up with this FAA credential that suggests no, he was
Speaker 3: doing continued to do something with this ZR Rifle Executive
Speaker 3: Action project that we don't know anything about and it
Speaker 3: should be researched. So I think that's the real opening here.
Speaker 3: It's another It's like our attention is shifted back to
Speaker 3: something we we thought had no legs. You know, we
Speaker 3: just thought, well, he's he's gone. He can't really be
Speaker 3: part of this. He can't have initiated. But now we
Speaker 3: know we don't know, and that's always important to know.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, I should have looked at that further.
Speaker 3: Is there an expense trail? Is there a travel trail?
Speaker 3: Or by the way, how often did he come back
Speaker 3: from Rome? Did he did he come back from Rome?
Speaker 3: Did he work this issue? Or you know, could is
Speaker 3: this something that he could have just started off and
Speaker 3: it ran himself? Maybe? You know? So I think that's
Speaker 3: the real key when when you say what is new,
Speaker 3: we have a couple of keys that we didn't have before.
Speaker 3: And that's always the way it's worked, right, you know,
Speaker 3: you never you're not going to look into the files
Speaker 3: and find a solution.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: The best that you can get is you're going to
Speaker 3: find keys that let you find something for yourself. This
Speaker 3: is this is not AI. This is this has got
Speaker 3: to be a human intelligence, right or wrong. It can't
Speaker 3: be AI because there's not a database for its to sert.
Speaker 3: You can't have trained it on this nonsense.
Speaker 2: Well no, and I'll give you an example as to why.
Speaker 2: Let's just say, okay, Larry, that's indicative of this, and
Speaker 2: I insist upon that you better hold your horses because look,
Speaker 2: an FAA credential. Let me give you a potential idea
Speaker 2: for where that could have went to. Maybe he's got
Speaker 2: to deal with people at an Italian airport, so he
Speaker 2: shows up as an American FAA official. You see, it
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily absolutely, so that's a possibility. But until we
Speaker 2: know it, we don't know it. And that's the thing
Speaker 2: that was just a clearly hypothetical I pulled it out
Speaker 2: of thin air idea of where that FAA credential could
Speaker 2: be justified in another way. Right, So until we know it,
Speaker 2: we don't know It's go ahead.
Speaker 3: Sorry, what we're what's being researched now is with that
Speaker 3: credential or who approved it? Who authorized it? Looks like
Speaker 3: it had to be approved by the head of the FAA.
Speaker 3: Was that a standard practice? Did lots of CIA officers
Speaker 3: have this sort of certificate? What you know is this?
Speaker 3: What does this credential give you? Can you The speculation
Speaker 3: is that you can just walk up to the gate,
Speaker 3: show this credential and deadhead on any aircraft and you'll
Speaker 3: never show up on any roster or any passenger list.
Speaker 3: You'll just get on board, which I think you and
Speaker 3: I have talked about this before. It immediately made me
Speaker 3: think of David Morales. I talked to his friend Rubin.
Speaker 3: His friend Rubens was very impressed. One day when David
Speaker 3: needed to leave go back to DC. They went to
Speaker 3: the airport. He didn't have tickets. You know, the flight
Speaker 3: was full, and Ruben is saying, you're never get to
Speaker 3: get on this flight, and Morales just looks at him
Speaker 3: and kind of sneers, walks over, flashes some kind of credential,
Speaker 3: walks on the flight, no ticket, no nothing, Well because Ruboves.
Speaker 2: Are impressed, Yeah, because they're off the record ways to
Speaker 2: dead head on a flight, which is by the way,
Speaker 2: they do this for airline pilots all the time because
Speaker 2: they end up landing somewhere and they got to go
Speaker 2: back home. So there's always a seat for them almost
Speaker 2: on every flight where they can just stick a guy
Speaker 2: there who shows up and looks like an airline pilot.
Speaker 2: And we learned that in the movie Catch Me if
Speaker 2: you can, right. I mean, this is something that went
Speaker 2: on for quite a while where pre nine to eleven airports,
Speaker 2: especially if you looked right, they gave you access to
Speaker 2: things and there you go and all you have a credential,
Speaker 2: government credential. I mean, look, there are guys that had
Speaker 2: you know, an FBI and a CIA, you know, a
Speaker 2: piece of plastic in their pockets, right, and a local
Speaker 2: badge to you know, various cities. They would have these
Speaker 2: things in their pockets ready to go, because you know,
Speaker 2: you get access to places just by flashing car go ahead.
Speaker 3: The interesting thing is that this isn't. If this is not.
Speaker 3: Harvey did have another alias that he was using, and
Speaker 3: that's another thing that's come up. We didn't talk about that,
Speaker 3: but at this same time or shortly, he had an
Speaker 3: alias that he continued to use. If you're station chef
Speaker 3: in Rome, you do not need an alias for the US,
Speaker 3: you really don't. And so what was he using that
Speaker 3: alias for? The FAA is going to have to explain
Speaker 3: this practice to Luna, to Kyle. It's like and apparently
Speaker 3: as agreed. You know, we're going to research it. How
Speaker 3: often did this happen, who was given these passes, what
Speaker 3: was the you know, what was going on. So there's
Speaker 3: some more things that we can learn, regardless of you know,
Speaker 3: not having documents on a lot of stuff, just just
Speaker 3: the fact that you have to do something like that.
Speaker 3: If I'm going to be deniable within the agency, I'm
Speaker 3: going to have to do something that puts me on
Speaker 3: record with another agency. Oh great, So you know, by
Speaker 3: the way, how many times did you use your credential
Speaker 3: or how long did you carry it? What were there
Speaker 3: any restrictions? That will be interesting to find out. But
Speaker 3: I so I guess that's yes, we have new stuff
Speaker 3: and it opens new doors. It doesn't give us an
Speaker 3: any final answers. But I think the most most important
Speaker 3: thing to me is it does expand the extent towards
Speaker 3: the CIA, as you maintained earlier, did obstruct justice in
Speaker 3: regard to their knowledge of oswaldt right and it certainly
Speaker 3: opens the door to you know, if you take the
Speaker 3: scenario that, oh, a team that was supposed to kill
Speaker 3: Castro was turned and kill JFK, I would probably consider
Speaker 3: that would be more reasonable that it was turned inside
Speaker 3: the US than outside the US.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, that would make most sense, right because you
Speaker 2: got all kinds of things that can happen if you
Speaker 2: have to import people. That was the other trouble with
Speaker 2: many of the other scenarios that were presented, you know,
Speaker 2: earlier on in my research path. Let's say where it's like,
Speaker 2: why do you need to go to all this trouble?
Speaker 2: You got people here that can do these things. You know,
Speaker 2: just just saying, you know, if somebody's already in town
Speaker 2: and they're a mechanic, why not get them to fix
Speaker 2: the car instead of having a guy drive three hours
Speaker 2: to come and fix your car. Uh, you know, very simple.
Speaker 2: But anyway, they're just.
Speaker 3: They're known and trusted and they and they come cheap
Speaker 3: by the way.
Speaker 2: Usually you know, and they happen to be right there,
Speaker 2: which means speedy service as well. Anyway, it is what
Speaker 2: it is. Larry Hancock, again the author of many books,
Speaker 2: I will point to the Oswald puzzle, Uh, because that's
Speaker 2: quite relevant here. But also I think tipping point as well,
Speaker 2: Uh is quite relevant. Uh, someone would have talked definitely.
Speaker 2: But anyway, all those things and much more go to
Speaker 2: Larry dash Handcock dot com, Larryhypenhancock dot com and uh, yeah, Larry,
Speaker 2: I appreciate you anything you want to throw in on
Speaker 2: your way out the door here.
Speaker 3: Now I would say, since you're talking about books, what
Speaker 3: I would say, it's fascinating to me. The book is
Speaker 3: probably the most your Maine is a book called Nexus,
Speaker 3: where I sat down about, oh, I don't know, ten
Speaker 3: twelve years ago and said, from what I know about
Speaker 3: the CIA at this point in time, where would I
Speaker 3: look if this were to come together within the CIA?
Speaker 3: You know, let's see how the CIA did assassinations, Who
Speaker 3: were the people that were involved, who had the authority,
Speaker 3: how could it be done? And that was the origin
Speaker 3: of the book Nexus. The whole point was where could
Speaker 3: a presidential assassination gel within the CIA? There you go
Speaker 3: so quite frankly that I think we're getting closer, unfortunately,
Speaker 3: to finding that hypothesis is credible, but it goes back
Speaker 3: that far.
Speaker 2: That's right, and that's why I brought it up at
Speaker 2: the beginning of the show Nexus, by the way, But anyway,
Speaker 2: I was focusing on the assassination there this time, thinking
Speaker 2: about that. But Nexus, I brought it up at the
Speaker 2: beginning of the show. And I don't mention it often
Speaker 2: enough because it is again not just an interesting book,
Speaker 2: but an interesting word in and of itself, because there
Speaker 2: are nexta seas I guess if it's plural, that you know,
Speaker 2: present to us some very interesting scenarios that are possible here.
Speaker 2: And as we learn more, we'll learn what is more
Speaker 2: likely and what is less possible, I guess, and all
Speaker 2: of that. Anyway, Arry, and again I think you.
Speaker 1: Uncle, do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said
Speaker 1: that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch Ninja's
Speaker 1: to take down the Illuminati?
Speaker 6: That's interesting, Yeah, in the clutchoon?
Speaker 1: Yeah did that ever work out too good?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: It didn't, did it? But here on o'chelly dot com
Speaker 1: Radio network things work out a bit better, don't.
Speaker 4: They much better?
Speaker 6: Much me is clear and understanding about the programs, the programs,
Speaker 6: how much clearer getting live people into it. They really
Speaker 6: have a good conversation going.
Speaker 1: Much better, much better scene I say, forget Benjamin Fulford
Speaker 1: and his ninjas and listen to the o'chelly dot com
Speaker 1: radio network.
Speaker 6: I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I.
Speaker 4: Like that idea Olly dot com. Do you like history,
Speaker 4: real history that you were never taught in schools? Why
Speaker 4: the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast
Speaker 4: Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen
Speaker 4: before that'll open your eyes to events that led up
Speaker 4: to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation
Speaker 4: Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 4: Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the
Speaker 4: Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 7: Relation conversation, You are here, fetnversation, silence, broken, commission, dementation, elation, commisation, conversation, fall, spring, shine, the.
Speaker 4: Effect conversation.
Speaker 2: Of straint, jury of.
Speaker 8: My relation, fro conversation.
Speaker 4: A division called first station.
Speaker 8: Of revelation for conversation.
Speaker 4: The doctor, the author, place of years.
Speaker 7: In the medicine years, my.
Speaker 2: Main operations, not to house.
Speaker 7: Okaymolishment was called my commaster of my faith, the captain
Speaker 7: of my soul.
Speaker 4: You are the effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 2: Express my callers to is there anyone else who happens
Speaker 2: to get on the air of jelly dot com if
Speaker 2: not necessarily reflect reviews of the Jelly dot Com ord
Speaker 2: joo jelly and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity
Speaker 2: which might ensued. Thank you, go ahead call.
Speaker 8: It about the JFA assassination.
Speaker 2: Right, well, what do you want to know Toddy Baker's
Speaker 2: wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby and Barrie answer weapons. Really,
Speaker 2: I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
Speaker 2: doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 7: But okay, Oswal was on the building and trying to
Speaker 7: prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 2: Come on now has a real effort on the DAFA
Speaker 2: assassination inlaim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker
Speaker 2: in her own words. You'll get the results for a
Speaker 2: digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her
Speaker 2: own words and the known evidence in the case to
Speaker 2: get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can
Speaker 2: get Judith Barry Baker in her own words from the
Speaker 2: author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor
Speaker 2: Brown at k I A S JFK at AOL dot com.
Speaker 2: It's a fun book, and it actually dissects the many,
Speaker 2: many fantastic claims. Judith Vary Baker, in her own words,
Speaker 2: thank you.
Speaker 8: For In Denial. Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks
Speaker 8: by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 8: covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In
Speaker 8: Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 8: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 8: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 8: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 8: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 8: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 8: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 8: In Denial, Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks Larryhncock.
Speaker 8: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 8: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 8: In digital or physical faces.
Speaker 4: Around Tama, Tanada, what's your name?
Speaker 8: Around?
Speaker 4: Around the glasses?
Speaker 6: No wams, grass and dabas Come?
Speaker 4: Why don't it's one time around so kingcup? We'll burn
Speaker 4: it on the
Speaker 6: No okay, no, no, come, you've got to sing the
Speaker 6: farest one and went wild and for the smallest drunken
Speaker 6: sex in three districts align with regulated and LAS