Speaker 1: Ready, Get Ready, April nine, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Allegedly, according to that thing we call a counter, this
Speaker 2: is the o'celly effect.
Speaker 3: You are listening to us there, and I'll tell you this.
Speaker 2: I am watching what I'm saying a little more carefully
Speaker 2: at the beginning of the show because now we have
Speaker 2: transcripts available that are automatically generated. If you go to
Speaker 2: the spreaker feed, God help you all, you have to
Speaker 2: read what I say if you decide to open that tab.
Speaker 2: But anyway, there it is. It is Wednesday, or the
Speaker 2: middle of the week, and I'm starting a little late
Speaker 2: if you're on the live stream, but that's okay because
Speaker 2: most of you listen to the podcast anyway. Larry Handcock
Speaker 2: is with me. Larry Dash Handcock dot com does it.
Speaker 2: Nobody even says the Dash, But what are you gonna do?
Speaker 2: Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. That's the website he's got, Okay.
Speaker 2: You can catch up on his blog. You can see
Speaker 2: all the books he's written, which, by the way, I
Speaker 2: recommend every single one of them, but relevance for tonight
Speaker 2: would be well a handful of them, really, But the
Speaker 2: latest one, the Oswald Puzzle, that's co authored with David Boylan,
Speaker 2: and I always pronounce his name differently every time I
Speaker 2: say it. That's all right, I guess, as long as
Speaker 2: I remember how to spell it, and there'll be links
Speaker 2: in the show notes the Oswald Puzzle, but of course
Speaker 2: Tipping Point as well as someone would have talked, why
Speaker 2: do I bring up those books? Well, because we're going
Speaker 2: to talk a little JFK tonight and get an update
Speaker 2: on a few things, maybe get an update on a
Speaker 2: few things that we don't have updates on Tomorrow. We're
Speaker 2: going to discuss the whiplash in the markets and what
Speaker 2: that really means, maybe unless the entire world shakes in
Speaker 2: a different direction by tomorrow. But then again, Thor's Day
Speaker 2: is not upon us just yet. Anyhow, Larry Hancock is
Speaker 2: with me and not talking about the markets. Larry, although
Speaker 2: that's part of why I went to air late, because
Speaker 2: you and I were chatting about current events before airtime
Speaker 2: and we went ten minutes late to air.
Speaker 3: But again, most people are going to hear the podcast,
Speaker 3: so whatever, So Larry, how are you tonight?
Speaker 4: I'm doing good.
Speaker 5: It's spring here, it's warming up, starting to work outside.
Speaker 5: Really enjoy this time of year, so doing good and
Speaker 5: trying not to obsess over the stock market.
Speaker 2: I look all I can say, and I don't know
Speaker 2: anything about Larry's finances or anything like that. But I
Speaker 2: really really hope that you're not being hurt by it.
Speaker 2: That's all I can say. Anyway, News Nation, I saw
Speaker 2: something on TV somebody mentioned your book there. Then I
Speaker 2: saw on a couple other little interviews people whose names
Speaker 2: I don't even know. We're mentioning your book. Apparently people
Speaker 2: are reading it. I see they're not really reviewing it
Speaker 2: as well as they should. On Amazon.
Speaker 3: I added a review to a book site. Man, what
Speaker 3: was it two weeks ago? A week ago? I forget?
Speaker 2: But either way, you know, but there's a lot to
Speaker 2: discuss in the news here, or maybe there isn't, you know,
Speaker 2: where should we begin the underhill thing?
Speaker 4: Now?
Speaker 2: I have a piece that's going to be published on
Speaker 2: the front page at Ocelli dot com. I delayed a week,
Speaker 2: by the way, because other people did not get their
Speaker 2: edits back to me. And I have a flow that
Speaker 2: I want to maintain, and there is an article coming
Speaker 2: up regarding what we're talking about tonight, so this will
Speaker 2: be good.
Speaker 3: I'll attach this to that article. But anyway, let's.
Speaker 2: Talk about these the document dump of twenty twenty five, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, Jeff Morley's out there telling us a lot
Speaker 2: of things. He's made a lot of appearances in a
Speaker 2: lot of places. Geez, he talked to everybody. It looks
Speaker 2: like he seemed like he could, uh many many podcasters
Speaker 2: of all stripes, TV shows, everywhere.
Speaker 3: What's new? What's happening? We had the hearings. I haven't
Speaker 3: spoken to you since those hearings?
Speaker 5: How I no, No, you haven't and and and yeah, Jeff,
Speaker 5: is I see more than one email a day from
Speaker 5: from Jeff. There's small group of us and it shows
Speaker 5: up and it's like, Okay, here's this new line or
Speaker 5: this new piece or this new paragraph and this document.
Speaker 5: You know, does it mean what we think it means
Speaker 5: that sort of thing. So it exchanges with Jeff are
Speaker 5: very lively, even like, you know, is this really new?
Speaker 5: It seems to be new, or did they It's it's
Speaker 5: a it's an ongoing dialogue. And I think part of
Speaker 5: the reason why, of course, the document release feels kind
Speaker 5: of like the rest of the world at the moment, chaotic,
Speaker 5: because what we do know is that the White House
Speaker 5: said that it was going to receive plans for releasing
Speaker 5: these documents JFK, MLK, RFK, and they've had those plans
Speaker 5: now for a couple of months. Even for the MLK
Speaker 5: RFK stuff, we have not seen anything from the White
Speaker 5: House on that. And it's kind of irksome because this
Speaker 5: whole thing of release has to do with transparency. Well,
Speaker 5: if you can't even see the plan, how do you
Speaker 5: know if that's not transparency, So we really don't know.
Speaker 5: We've got eighty thousand pages that is that it? You know,
Speaker 5: was that all it was supposed to be. Have we
Speaker 5: seen all of the JFK stuff. It does not appear
Speaker 5: that we've seen the twenty three hundred pages documents that
Speaker 5: the FBI just found and submitted irrespective of this, So
Speaker 5: one of the things that's keeping it chaotic is if
Speaker 5: there is a plan, it's not being shown to us,
Speaker 5: so we can't measure it.
Speaker 3: Let's just be clear about this real fast, right.
Speaker 2: The MLK and RFK Assassination Transparency, which was also part
Speaker 2: of that executive order, released all the stuff that the
Speaker 2: federal government has, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: We've seen zero.
Speaker 2: There not even a plan regarding what will happen with
Speaker 2: those two cases. However, a lot of people say, look,
Speaker 2: they released all the documents on JFK, it's over.
Speaker 3: That's done.
Speaker 2: First of all, that only catches us up to where
Speaker 2: we should have been in twenty seventeen in my mind,
Speaker 2: And secondly, it does not reveal anything new. That announcement
Speaker 2: the FBI had brand new documents. I don't know what
Speaker 2: cash Pttel is doing about that. I had heard at
Speaker 2: one point that he couldn't get hold of the documents
Speaker 2: that were supposedly found himself, and he's supposed to be
Speaker 2: the head. Yeah, all right, well there's the unseen FBI stuff, right,
Speaker 2: but also no plan to go further. It looks like
Speaker 2: Representative Luna, though, is enthusiastic despite the fact that the
Speaker 2: task force I hold up in air quotes here is
Speaker 2: not very well educated on the topic the releases. Okay,
Speaker 2: how this is supposed to work? And clearly they don't
Speaker 2: have a plan because they don't even know what they're
Speaker 2: looking at. I mean, I'm sorry, but Representative Bobert, I
Speaker 2: watched Live as she mixed up you know Roger Stone
Speaker 2: with Oliverstone and you know Larry. I mean, can you
Speaker 2: not say that. It was a clear demonstration of the
Speaker 2: people in Congress have no idea what they're looking for,
Speaker 2: what they're not looking for, what they can and cannot do.
Speaker 3: Good news. I guess with the NBC, maybe there'll be
Speaker 3: a subpoena for the film, et cetera. Blah blah.
Speaker 2: But what do we have at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: and what does it look like going forward? Despite the
Speaker 2: fact that Representative Luna is willing to show up on
Speaker 2: Morley's podcast and again she seems enthusiastic and sincere about
Speaker 2: the project, but what else do we have so far?
Speaker 3: In your mind?
Speaker 5: Yeah, what we have again? And it illustrates the chaos
Speaker 5: once more. You know, the White House presented this as
Speaker 5: a great advance for transparency and government. Okay, releasing documents
Speaker 5: is a good thing. No one can argue about that.
Speaker 5: Releasing them without a plan, so you know what you've
Speaker 5: gotten what you don't is not so good. But the
Speaker 5: White House seems to We've heard remarks that you know,
Speaker 5: something more is going to happen, but we don't know
Speaker 5: what that would be. It's kind of like the rest
Speaker 5: of the world at the moment. We just don't know
Speaker 5: what's going to happen next Luna is a different story.
Speaker 5: At least we know.
Speaker 4: What her charter is.
Speaker 5: She will say what she intends to do, what she
Speaker 5: intends to cover. You know, you can relate it to
Speaker 5: her goals at least, so you know where she is.
Speaker 5: And we do know, and I think this is fairly
Speaker 5: obvious at this point, is that she's in the midst
Speaker 5: of regardless of her sincerity, which is there, there's no
Speaker 5: doubt about that, she's in the midst of a highly
Speaker 5: charged political thing. And it's not all her call. She's
Speaker 5: reporting to someone up her party chain of command who
Speaker 5: is going to be pulling her strings. Does he let
Speaker 5: her continue with JFK and do more work or does
Speaker 5: he say no, the White House said, we've got.
Speaker 4: To move on. We're done.
Speaker 5: You need to don't hold another JFK hearing, hold an
Speaker 5: MLK hearing, holding our You know what, that makes it
Speaker 5: very hard to get the big picture because they're really
Speaker 5: pulling the strings on her, not as to what she does,
Speaker 5: but what her focus is now. What she is doing,
Speaker 5: as she said Chuck, is I think she is using
Speaker 5: her her leverage at the moment to reach out and
Speaker 5: try to collect some materi as that we brought to
Speaker 5: her attention right well, that are not in the JFK collection.
Speaker 5: As we've talked before. That's really the key, because it's
Speaker 5: not like we didn't know what was in the JFK
Speaker 5: collection largely ninety nine percent. What we need is this
Speaker 5: other stuff to put together to rest issues that have
Speaker 5: surfaced in the last several decades. So I think a
Speaker 5: summary of the whole situation is, if there is any
Speaker 5: progress being made at all, it's being made in regard
Speaker 5: of empowering Luna to at least make some request, write
Speaker 5: some letters, requests some materials. People want to really cooperate
Speaker 5: with the administration now for whatever reason, and they may
Speaker 5: force out some of this stuff, but to really go
Speaker 5: any further than that, I keep seeing posts on forms. Oh,
Speaker 5: she should pursue this lead, She should pursue that lead.
Speaker 5: She does not running an investigation. She is head of
Speaker 5: a chair that is looking to collect information, release things.
Speaker 5: That's that's your charter, okay, So but let me think
Speaker 5: more out of her than that.
Speaker 2: Right, And this is almost the same problem we had
Speaker 2: with the ARRB, which was there was a lot of
Speaker 2: enthusiasm from the community et cetera, to go after this,
Speaker 2: go after that, find out about this, find out about that.
Speaker 2: And the truth is that wasn't the arrb's mandate. That
Speaker 2: wasn't their design. That's not Luna's design to go investigate
Speaker 2: right now. Her whole thing really is just the collection
Speaker 2: and it is subject to what the higher ups want here.
Speaker 2: So we got to be careful that people aren't completely
Speaker 2: satisfied at this point. This is the thing I want
Speaker 2: to warn against and I want to see if you
Speaker 2: agree with me. I don't want people saying, well, that's it,
Speaker 2: we got everything we asked for.
Speaker 3: It's done.
Speaker 2: Because if there's no pressure, if there's no desire to
Speaker 2: go forward, she's going to lose that leverage. And she's
Speaker 2: to be told, look, we got other priorities here. You
Speaker 2: got to get on this. That the third thing. It
Speaker 2: could be the MLK stuff, It could be further transparency,
Speaker 2: it could be the RFK stuff. But then again, it
Speaker 2: could be something else, and it could be another priority
Speaker 2: unless we stick to it and keep up the idea
Speaker 2: that look, more stuff needs to be collected, more stuff
Speaker 2: needs to be shown. If we don't do that, then
Speaker 2: I think she'll she'll go in another direction, and also
Speaker 2: she might give in to the idea that, yeah, there
Speaker 2: was a bit of a sloppiness here, which I think
Speaker 2: is inexcusable considering the amount of time that they actually
Speaker 2: had these documents.
Speaker 3: You know, it should have.
Speaker 2: Been in their hands for preparation for release long time.
Speaker 2: There's no excuse about you know, the release of the
Speaker 2: social Security.
Speaker 3: Numbers and all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: You heard about that as well, And I mean they
Speaker 2: even had a privacy document guy there at the hearing,
Speaker 2: you know, in addition to the three people we always
Speaker 2: talk about, there was that other guy there who was saying, look,
Speaker 2: people's personal information got released here too. And I get
Speaker 2: that argument, and I get that that needs to be
Speaker 2: protected against. And good that morally made the statement he
Speaker 2: did about Mary Ferrell and going to add reactions to
Speaker 2: make sure that there's no further damage done when they
Speaker 2: upload this stuff to their website, their portal.
Speaker 3: And all that.
Speaker 2: But in all honesty, do you think we're also in
Speaker 2: danger of losing some of the steam and Luna losing
Speaker 2: some of her leverage. Therefore they will move on from
Speaker 2: the JFK case and that'll be the end of it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I absolutely do, And I think people the pressure
Speaker 5: is going. If there can be pressure applied, it has
Speaker 5: to be on the White House, and it has to
Speaker 5: be on her party because yeah, quite frankly, this is
Speaker 5: this whole transparency point is a political issue. She's carrying
Speaker 5: out her part of the art. But that wasn't her
Speaker 5: is she? I mean she's she's fulfilling that issue. So
Speaker 5: you you can't really give her anymore. You can't pressure her.
Speaker 5: She's doing what she can do with her resources in
Speaker 5: her time.
Speaker 4: Uh. It has to go back up the food chain.
Speaker 4: And this this.
Speaker 5: Issue of transparency, which is a bible, should be a
Speaker 5: bipartisan issue. Although I'm not sure we saw that in
Speaker 5: the committee.
Speaker 3: Yeah that was the problem.
Speaker 5: There, didn't hear that was there. This whole issue of
Speaker 5: transparency has to can't be just JFK. It has to
Speaker 5: be government transparency. Uh, because that's the political issue. I've
Speaker 5: been on enough shows lately to understand that that's really
Speaker 5: the political issue. It's not just JFK. But that's where
Speaker 5: the leverage has to go. Otherwise, Chuck, what I'm afraid
Speaker 5: of is that the here's what we saw with Luna's
Speaker 5: other committee. She had a community on on UFO's UFAPS,
Speaker 5: and there was a big push for transparency, again on
Speaker 5: a political basis, got to have transparency about UAPs. What
Speaker 5: happened and net result of that was that a government committee,
Speaker 5: a government office was created. The ARO won't go into that,
Speaker 5: but the bottom line is that the government did start
Speaker 5: collecting reports, investigating reports, and containing those reports, not sharing them.
Speaker 5: So you emphasized a really important subject and you ended
Speaker 5: up with, oh, great, there's action being taken, but it's
Speaker 5: not going to be transparent because of national security issues.
Speaker 5: I don't think we'll see that with JFK unless somebody
Speaker 5: created a new investigations committee, then you might see it.
Speaker 5: But the history of this in terms of total transparency,
Speaker 5: good for Luna, not necessarily good for the system.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: And the thing is, look, bottom line, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: unless frankly, Donald Trump gets a bug in his ear
Speaker 2: about there's more to be done here, there may not
Speaker 2: be any more commanded from up top because he is
Speaker 2: of the mind that, look, I got a lot of
Speaker 2: other things to do here. It looks like to me,
Speaker 2: I mean just being objective, not even taking this in
Speaker 2: the political direction like my opinions or anything else. Let's
Speaker 2: just look at situational behavior. Okay, If he thinks he
Speaker 2: already accomplished what he needed to here, that's that, you know,
Speaker 2: the dusting off of the hands. Let's move on, and
Speaker 2: that's what he'll do now. If he thinks that there's
Speaker 2: a public outcry still, if he thinks that people are
Speaker 2: still of the mind that he didn't do all what
Speaker 2: needed to be done, then perhaps pressure could be applied
Speaker 2: in that direction and LUNOI get different marching orders, you know,
Speaker 2: very simple. All I'm saying is we got to make
Speaker 2: sure that JFK is not like just sort of okay,
Speaker 2: that's satisfied alone, and we do want to move on
Speaker 2: to the other things, yes, but we don't want to
Speaker 2: let go of the JFK thing again and have us
Speaker 2: accomplish nothing new. And like I said, I feel like
Speaker 2: it we almost just played catch up to twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: where we should have been and that's it so far.
Speaker 3: What do you think about that? Am I wrong?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 5: The only difference is her subcommittee in terms of the
Speaker 5: record release, I would say that's absolutely true.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: The only difference here is that it was an important
Speaker 5: enough political issue so that it actually got kicked into
Speaker 5: Congress to you know, like we're going to deliver on
Speaker 5: our promise before nobody even really talked about delivering a promise.
Speaker 5: So at least this has gone that far. So we're
Speaker 5: ahead if where we were overall and possibilities. But as
Speaker 5: far as the release is, again, I was looking at
Speaker 5: some stuff this afternoon and it's like, well has this
Speaker 5: been Is this really redacted? And my buddy Bill Simpitch
Speaker 5: comes back and says, it's been released twelve times and yeah,
Speaker 5: it's finally redacted, but it was you know what are
Speaker 5: we seeing three more sentences?
Speaker 4: That's it?
Speaker 2: Well finally yeah, finally unredacted stuff. Yeah, finally unredacted. You
Speaker 2: mean to say, but I get where you're at underredacted.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that would be right.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's because if it's redacted, that's when they cover
Speaker 2: it up, but if it's unredacted, that means they removed
Speaker 2: the cover ups. You got to keep track of these terms, folks,
Speaker 2: just saying not you, Larry. I know you're you're practically
Speaker 2: yawning over this because you've been through this a thousand times,
Speaker 2: but I'm just saying it's one of those things we
Speaker 2: need to keep track of. So my live chat reminds
Speaker 2: me that there have been conversations where people are asking
Speaker 2: me questions privately and you know, what do I think
Speaker 2: about this and that? And oh, this isn't that big
Speaker 2: a deal, And I've seen this before, and I'm watching
Speaker 2: you know, lots of people that are a different leg
Speaker 2: levels of research, uh, you know, interpreting this stuff. And
Speaker 2: I've even watched a few YouTube channels go in depth
Speaker 2: on these documents and you know, make statements like nothing
Speaker 2: big came out of this, this is this is garbage anyway. Uh,
Speaker 2: their interpretations, I mean, look, they're there, their opinions are
Speaker 2: a noted and be there, entitled to them. But you know,
Speaker 2: without a large background, some of these people have no
Speaker 2: idea what they're looking at.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: But anyway, my live chat reminds me, though that a
Speaker 2: lot of people have asked this question and have positive
Speaker 2: this and I wonder what your thoughts are on it.
Speaker 2: Uh that without a say, Senate subcommittee to go further
Speaker 2: investigation wise, Uh, we're only in the collection the recovery
Speaker 2: stage here of stuff from the past. That's all we're onto.
Speaker 2: We're not going to get any further investigation unless one
Speaker 2: is launched, and it seems like, you know, a Senate
Speaker 2: subcommittee would be something that could happen, but is it likely,
Speaker 2: especially in the political climate we have right now.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's.
Speaker 2: It's on the one hand, something that's possible, but on
Speaker 2: the other hand, are they going to have time for
Speaker 2: it and is it going to a surface with enough
Speaker 2: public pressure because people are going to be worried about
Speaker 2: a lot of other things ahead of let's get another
Speaker 2: investigation going and finally close up some of these loops
Speaker 2: regarding JFK. So what are your thoughts on the possibility
Speaker 2: of a Senate subcommittee or even say a HSCA if
Speaker 2: you will, for twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six, something
Speaker 2: like that. I mean, what do you think about that possibility?
Speaker 2: Have you heard anything, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 5: I think it's absolutely a good call, and a good
Speaker 5: insight is that is that we're not going to you know,
Speaker 5: we're not going to have an investigation. This is not
Speaker 5: an investigation. Our real question is can you even have
Speaker 5: a criminal investigation sixty years plus? In all honesty, is
Speaker 5: that really even viable? Is that not wishful thinking? But
Speaker 5: if you're talking about an actual legal criminal investigation with
Speaker 5: subpoena power, with you know, basically the ability to collect anything.
Speaker 5: You know, we're talking, we're talking beyond Luna. It's like
Speaker 5: imminent domain. Yes, I want that piece of evidence. I'm
Speaker 5: taking it. Without that kind of criminal investigation, no, I
Speaker 5: can't really see us proceeding any further. And the real
Speaker 5: question that comes up there is how do you fund it?
Speaker 5: I mean, at this point in time, coming up with
Speaker 5: money and a budget to fund anything within the government
Speaker 5: that's new, aside from space or military national defense order,
Speaker 5: you know, clearly money is going to be channeled that direction.
Speaker 5: But to do a good criminal investigation, you're talking about
Speaker 5: a reasonably good sized budget, and I don't think it
Speaker 5: would be funded. I'm not even sure it's a matter
Speaker 5: of will or politics. I'm thinking it's a big question
Speaker 5: of money, right, you know, where would you get a
Speaker 5: budget for it at this point in time, and it's
Speaker 5: something that would have to continue for two years, three years. Again,
Speaker 5: you're going to have to fund it, not just for
Speaker 5: one year.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 5: Because it would have to be the criminal investigation that
Speaker 5: wasn't done before we all know what wasn't done, But
Speaker 5: so that that would be my call Chuck, is A
Speaker 5: you'd have to have that, but B you'd have to
Speaker 5: fund it. And with the fight that there's going to
Speaker 5: be over money in the government, it's hard for me
Speaker 5: to see that happening.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: See, that's why when I when I use a sweeping
Speaker 2: word like priorities, that encompasses the idea that yes, you'd
Speaker 2: have to fund it, and it's not going to be
Speaker 2: a funding priority. We're in a time when people are
Speaker 2: very happy with the idea that we're cutting the government down,
Speaker 2: So this would be an expansion of government action at
Speaker 2: a time when that's not really you know, in the zeitgeist. Okay,
Speaker 2: it's just not there. So it's counterintuitive at the moment.
Speaker 2: But would it be something that people would desire if
Speaker 2: it was sort of put, you know, to a vote, maybe,
Speaker 2: but would they fund it? Would we be able to
Speaker 2: get action on that? Is there not one hundred other
Speaker 2: things that are going to be ahead of it?
Speaker 3: In line? There's your problem.
Speaker 2: And like you said, you also have to have the
Speaker 2: foresight to know this has to go on for a
Speaker 2: few years. You know the HSCA for instance, Yeah, they
Speaker 2: issued their report in seventy nine, but they were working
Speaker 2: on that since what the bi centennial at least, so
Speaker 2: it was like a three year process, wasn't it seventy
Speaker 2: six when they got to work.
Speaker 5: You know, you got to get if you're going to
Speaker 5: do this right, given what we know now, there's certainly
Speaker 5: a group of people that will disagree with this, but
Speaker 5: given what we know about the primary forensics evidence, including fingerprints,
Speaker 5: and all of that should be restudied with today's techniques,
Speaker 5: with professionals, with people that are truly independent, which we
Speaker 5: know wasn't the case the first time around. So you're
Speaker 5: not just talking about pursuing leads to people. You're talking
Speaker 5: about a new legitimate criminal investigation, which I think you
Speaker 5: and I would agree never happen in the first place.
Speaker 5: For those who think it did, sorry, too bad, okay,
Speaker 5: But if you want to get real, you're going to
Speaker 5: have to do all that work again.
Speaker 3: Right, It's just that simple. Okay.
Speaker 2: So now that we've covered all that underhill, I want
Speaker 2: to return to that because I just want to get
Speaker 2: a couple of comments from about it, because I've gone
Speaker 2: over this a little bit and I don't know, you know,
Speaker 2: on the one hand, it is significant, but then again,
Speaker 2: when I study exactly where some of that information comes from,
Speaker 2: is it? You know, it's kind of an open question
Speaker 2: to me where it's like, you know, again, we're dealing
Speaker 2: with half a lead here in my mind, because this
Speaker 2: is what keeps happening. We have these fragments of something
Speaker 2: that could have been investigated more thoroughly. And I'm speaking
Speaker 2: very generally here to leave it open for you, because
Speaker 2: I just want to get your take on it. Now
Speaker 2: that we've had a little time for this to sort
Speaker 2: of settle in, we've seen the rest of this stuff posted,
Speaker 2: it appears as though they're done. Yes, indeed, they did
Speaker 2: finally at least come up with the eighty thousand pages
Speaker 2: around approximately that Trump said we're going to drop that
Speaker 2: one day, right when he was at the Kennedy Center
Speaker 2: and made the announcement, he said, eighty thousand pages, it's coming.
Speaker 3: It did happen. Got to give them that. But here
Speaker 3: we are.
Speaker 2: What is the significance of the Underhill stuff, and you know,
Speaker 2: and how complete or incomplete is that information, et cetera.
Speaker 3: What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 5: I actually I think the Underhill thing is a perfect
Speaker 5: example of what we have gained and why it's much
Speaker 5: more important. Probably than most people will realize. I first
Speaker 5: wrote about it, and I think I was probably one
Speaker 5: of the first people to write about Underhill back in
Speaker 5: two thousand and six, and someone would have talked, and
Speaker 5: at that time, I didn't think it was nearly as
Speaker 5: meaningful as I do now. But hopefully that's because in
Speaker 5: twenty some years we learned a lot. We've been able
Speaker 5: to connect a lot of dots that weren't visible. But
Speaker 5: those dots go back to really understanding the documents great
Speaker 5: level of detail and being able to do connective tissue.
Speaker 5: Give you an example, Back when I first wrote about Underhill,
Speaker 5: one of the one of the pure questions is why
Speaker 5: would he think people would know about him? Why would
Speaker 5: he know that these people had a history in Southeast Asia?
Speaker 5: Why would he know that these people had a history
Speaker 5: with smuggling. You know, it's because it's a nebulous group
Speaker 5: of people that he's scared of, right, well, as long
Speaker 5: as it's a nebulist group, and it was then right
Speaker 5: because I didn't know, I don't think anybody really, you know,
Speaker 5: he just he thinks it's a it's a group and
Speaker 5: he gives a.
Speaker 4: General description of them.
Speaker 5: Now we can put names to those people, We can
Speaker 5: put names to the operations that they were engaged in,
Speaker 5: and we can even answer some.
Speaker 4: Of the questions.
Speaker 5: The question I got the other day was, well, how
Speaker 5: in the world, you know, what was he doing during
Speaker 5: that period of time in the summer fall of nineteen
Speaker 5: sixty three that would have got him deeply inside anything
Speaker 5: with his connection through Sam Cummings, you know, and weaponshipments,
Speaker 5: And how could he have gotten inside anything that would
Speaker 5: have named some of these people and convinced them that
Speaker 5: they were really dangerous.
Speaker 2: Well, can you do me a quick favor here, because
Speaker 2: let's just say, somebody is going, okay, underhill, I kind
Speaker 2: of recognize the n Who the.
Speaker 3: Hell was this guy in nineteen sixty three?
Speaker 2: Like, can you you and I know who we're talking
Speaker 2: about it, but somebody listening might not. Could you just
Speaker 2: do the ABC on this for me, just so that
Speaker 2: I know it was covered and somebody doesn't go you
Speaker 2: never explained who that was, you know, for somebody who
Speaker 2: doesn't like, who were we talking about? And why is
Speaker 2: this even remotely important? If you don't mind, and you know,
Speaker 2: the very basic like the Wikipedia as sort of bullet points,
Speaker 2: if you don't mind.
Speaker 5: Garrett Garrett Underhill was a weapons expert. His specialty was
Speaker 5: studying weapons, especially foreign weapons. He had served as an
Speaker 5: advisor to the military during World War II on weapons
Speaker 5: and what those weapons were capable of, and where they
Speaker 5: come from and how many of them there are. He
Speaker 5: actually got a deferment during the war because he was
Speaker 5: considered so valuable in terms of that knowledge that he
Speaker 5: got a military service deferment. He really made a career
Speaker 5: out of that understanding. You know, who was dealing with
Speaker 5: what weapons, not just in America, but to say say,
Speaker 5: mostly foreign weapons. And he became involved with through this
Speaker 5: both the CIA, but the CIA through a fellow named
Speaker 5: Sam Cummings. Sam Cummings was became was involved with the
Speaker 5: CIA and became basically the biggest international arms trader in
Speaker 5: the world, selling weapons from all over the world to people.
Speaker 5: But for the CIA, he provided a new unique source
Speaker 5: of deniable weapons. In other words, that they want to
Speaker 5: go do a covert operation and a regime change without
Speaker 5: looking like it's American behind it.
Speaker 4: You've got to give.
Speaker 5: Your people, your surrogates, not American weapons.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 5: So this is great because Sam comings this is his business.
Speaker 5: So you do a deal with Sam and he gets
Speaker 5: you weapons that are deniable and gets them to your people,
Speaker 5: and you trust him because you've vetted in. And he
Speaker 5: essentially a major CIA asset, and his company is to
Speaker 5: some extent a cover company because obviously the CIA's concealed
Speaker 5: its relationship with him. Well, Garrett over this period of
Speaker 5: time becomes very close to Sam Comings and Comings company
Speaker 5: called inter Armco International Arms Company, So he remains. After
Speaker 5: the World War Two, he becomes a consultant for various
Speaker 5: national magazines when they write about military affairs, and he
Speaker 5: is his business in the world is kind of what
Speaker 5: what's monitoring what's going on in hotspots around the world,
Speaker 5: whether it's laws or after the Congo or Guatemala, whatever,
Speaker 5: He's got to monitor what's going on there. You know,
Speaker 5: what factions are involved, where are they getting their weapons from,
Speaker 5: and what does that mean? And so he becomes a
Speaker 5: consultant to a lot of magazine articles, right are they're
Speaker 5: written about these things. So that's the backstory of Sam Cummings.
Speaker 5: After the assassination of President Kennedy, Comings panics. He goes
Speaker 5: to personal friends of his. He's he's obviously terrified and
Speaker 5: he's basically says you know, I've been doing some research
Speaker 5: and I'm studied and one of the things I came
Speaker 5: across with this was this group of people who have
Speaker 5: been doing smuggling, who've been involved with weapons transfers, who've
Speaker 5: been involved in drugs. Uh, and they're doing these in
Speaker 5: it's rogue, They're not they're he's obviously suggesting that it's
Speaker 5: CIA officers. They're doing activities to make money for themselves,
Speaker 5: but the things they're doing are not administration policy. And
Speaker 5: he feels that JFK finally found out about it, they
Speaker 5: knew he found out about it, and to preserve themselves,
Speaker 5: they killed them. And he is terrified about this, tells
Speaker 5: his friends about this, is almost frantic about you know,
Speaker 5: these people, I not only know what they know, they
Speaker 5: know me. They know that I've been asking the wrong questions,
Speaker 5: and they know I know what they were doing.
Speaker 4: Uh. It's always terrified.
Speaker 2: Right well, because at the end of the day, look
Speaker 2: forget about the JFK assassination.
Speaker 3: In a lot of other cases where you see.
Speaker 2: A foreign leader who is killed, especially like in a
Speaker 2: coup attempt, people start asking questions as to where the
Speaker 2: people and the coup got their weapons from.
Speaker 3: This guy would know that.
Speaker 2: And look in circumstances where there's narco state kind of
Speaker 2: situations and stuff like that, and people are creating let's
Speaker 2: call them, off the books funding resources, right, you know,
Speaker 2: where they're creating revenue that nobody's ever going to report anywhere,
Speaker 2: but can be used to fund projects, pay assets on
Speaker 2: the ground, take care of business, et cetera in other places.
Speaker 2: And the chicanery that we learn about, you know through
Speaker 2: I Ran Contra leader and all that kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. Right, it's reasonable this guy is
Speaker 2: actually a little worried, okay, because in another country they
Speaker 2: definitely would have no problem with Okay, Well, the president
Speaker 2: who might have you know, the president of country X,
Speaker 2: whatever you want to say, might have powers to go
Speaker 2: ahead and punish some of the people that failed in
Speaker 2: a coup attempt against him, stuff like that, you know,
Speaker 2: so they might seek to eliminate that guy to capitate
Speaker 2: the government, make sure there's nobody to strike back against them.
Speaker 2: And well maybe that's one of the theories that works
Speaker 2: here regarding JFK.
Speaker 5: Right, So, and I think you bringing up a run
Speaker 5: Contra is a perfect example because we know across history
Speaker 5: there have been times when there have been CIA officers
Speaker 5: and their surrogates and people people doing things that were
Speaker 5: obviously against administration policy, against what the administration says it's
Speaker 5: doing is legally allowed to do, as with a ran contra.
Speaker 5: Now in some cases there we found out, oh it
Speaker 5: was the president himself who was act against official State
Speaker 5: Department policy.
Speaker 4: Okay, but you don't know. You wouldn't know that at
Speaker 4: the time.
Speaker 5: Right at the time, it's like, good lord, you know,
Speaker 5: what if the presidents find out about this drug smuggling
Speaker 5: to from Nicaragua and Central America and what if he
Speaker 5: finds out this is somebody is going to get you know,
Speaker 5: jailed or whatever. And now later on at the time
Speaker 5: you would be terrified thinking about what was going on.
Speaker 5: And it's not until later on you know that this
Speaker 5: is actually sanctioned by this rogue thing within the government itself.
Speaker 5: So in regard to Underhill, I think what has emerged
Speaker 5: now that I would say about Underhill that I couldn't
Speaker 5: say then is And this came from a question someone
Speaker 5: asked me the other day. They said, do we know
Speaker 5: what under Hill was working on? And the thing is
Speaker 5: we do because of his friends and some of the
Speaker 5: letters and conversations that they had after this and after
Speaker 5: his death, and one of the things he was working for,
Speaker 5: Fortune magazine. Fortune Magazine, like Life Magazine, was a loose publication.
Speaker 5: Louis was a rabbit anti Communist, a rabbit anti Castro.
Speaker 5: He was so rabbid. He had been paying for reporters
Speaker 5: to go on missions, to do photo coverage of missions
Speaker 5: against Cuba. He was a rabbit about Cuba. And Louise,
Speaker 5: we now know, had been convinced that Russian missiles had
Speaker 5: been left in Cuba and that JFK had been totally
Speaker 5: gamed by Khruschef, and was so naive that it was
Speaker 5: virtually amounted to treason.
Speaker 4: As he was that naive.
Speaker 5: Loose was very interested in Cuban missiles, in Russian missiles
Speaker 5: in Cuba, and that's what Underhill was working on in
Speaker 5: the summer and fall of nineteen sixty three. Now that
Speaker 5: by itself doesn't mean anything until you put together the
Speaker 5: connection to Operation Tilt, which is a big thing in
Speaker 5: JFK literature, which was a mission financed by Henry Loose,
Speaker 5: supported by the CIA, and was totally against administration policy.
Speaker 5: As a matter of fact, what Lewis wanted to do
Speaker 5: was bring out Soviet missile techs, missile texts, and he
Speaker 5: had arranged with certain CIA officers to bring them out
Speaker 5: and take them immediately to a congressional committee where they
Speaker 5: would testify about missiles inside Cuba and JFK would be
Speaker 5: made to look like a fool.
Speaker 4: It was Tilt.
Speaker 5: Was TILT or Operation Red Cross or whatever you want
Speaker 5: to call it was a mission inside the CIA that
Speaker 5: was politically motivated to essentially hang JFK out to look
Speaker 5: like an idiot. And if if that's where Anderill was looking,
Speaker 5: he would have seen a bunch of CI officers that
Speaker 5: were doing something that appeared to be totally rogue and
Speaker 5: totally you know, explosive. If JFK had found out what
Speaker 5: they were doing, which it appears that he never did.
Speaker 4: It was it was either.
Speaker 5: JFK or RFK ever heard of that mission or understood
Speaker 5: it or its implications. If you want to continue that
Speaker 5: on a couple of months, then we have m World
Speaker 5: and the m World project, which was intended to initiate
Speaker 5: military action. It gets Cuba from offshore, but it was
Speaker 5: so deniable that the people that were being recruited into
Speaker 5: that project, were told that JFK had deserted them, that
Speaker 5: the US couldn't be trusted, they had new sponsors, and
Speaker 5: that yes, they were going to be buying a lot
Speaker 5: of weapons and a lot of armaments and ships and planes.
Speaker 5: All the money was coming from overseas. If Underhill had
Speaker 5: seen that happening, and since the weapons were coming through
Speaker 5: inter Armcow, most likely he did, he would once again
Speaker 5: have come across this same group of people who appear
Speaker 5: to be acting totally against the President, and the guy
Speaker 5: that's leading this new operation named Hecksher had just come
Speaker 5: over and been reassigned, having been chief Assation in Laos
Speaker 5: and worked in the Golden Triangle, and we all know
Speaker 5: what that means. So if you reverse engineer a lot
Speaker 5: of those things which were not meaningful to me back
Speaker 5: in two thousand and six, suddenly I have very good
Speaker 5: reason to feel that under His had every reason to
Speaker 5: think he had stumbled across something that was extremely dangerous.
Speaker 2: Right, And you know, for people that think all of
Speaker 2: that just sounded too complex, I would recommend Larry's book Nexus,
Speaker 2: which makes perfect sense here because you're talking about a
Speaker 2: complex nexus of connections. But this is the way the
Speaker 2: world worked then and still I argue works today when
Speaker 2: it comes to this stuff. You know, there's often confusion
Speaker 2: about like, well, that doesn't make sense, why would they
Speaker 2: support that that's not with them politically or whatever. It's
Speaker 2: not always about politics. It's all political, but it's not
Speaker 2: always about the surface level of the politics. You know,
Speaker 2: there are operations that are going on constantly where there's
Speaker 2: outside influence being exerted on various nations for different reasons
Speaker 2: over resources, strategic positioning, et cetera, et cetera. Maybe there
Speaker 2: is the surface level political consideration, but you don't understand
Speaker 2: these things as they just well, gee, the US sends
Speaker 2: an envoy and they deal with it. No, it doesn't
Speaker 2: always work that way. You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: things going on here. But again I recommend to all
Speaker 2: of Larry's books, and I don't mention nexus enough, although
Speaker 2: I use the term constantly.
Speaker 3: So it is.
Speaker 2: But that's what's relevant here regarding Underhill, right, is that
Speaker 2: there is a reason why this guy was nervous. There
Speaker 2: is a reason why this was reported, as for who
Speaker 2: reported it and why you got these different sources going
Speaker 2: on in the paperwork. The way I see it, and
Speaker 2: again it's because of the incomplete nature of so many
Speaker 2: things that could have been investigated that we're stuck with.
Speaker 2: We only have this or that source to work with here, right,
Speaker 2: So you know about that, there's nothing can be done
Speaker 2: about it now, even if we did empower a Senate
Speaker 2: subcommittee something like that. I mean, the majority of people
Speaker 2: just again, just you know, time keeps ticking and sixty
Speaker 2: let's see now sixty two years later, right from the
Speaker 2: date of the assassination. People that were forty years old
Speaker 2: are likely dead. People that are thirty years old might
Speaker 2: be alive. But you know, you're not dealing with a
Speaker 2: lively group of living witnesses any longer. You're not dealing
Speaker 2: with active operations that are even remotely related any longer.
Speaker 2: You know, things are very far flung at this point.
Speaker 2: So there is that difficulty trying to do something, say
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six, or on into
Speaker 2: you know, twenty thirty, almost by the time if they
Speaker 2: did get a committee started, So you know, there's that
Speaker 2: hurdle regarding all this too. Anyway, Larry, I think we've
Speaker 2: actually covered everything pretty well here. Is there anything you'd
Speaker 2: like to add add to this? About and you know,
Speaker 2: hopefully next time we speak we'll talk about other things.
Speaker 2: Unless there's more releases, I'll be more than happy to
Speaker 2: discuss if there's more transparency to observe here. But you know,
Speaker 2: as we said, it's kind of difficult to predict if
Speaker 2: when slash whatever, considering we haven't seen the plans for
Speaker 2: it yet. And again, we know we have an enthusiastic partner,
Speaker 2: let's say, in the Government in Luna Representative Luna at
Speaker 2: this point, and of course Jeff is definitely doing his
Speaker 2: best to keep this in the public's mind, and the
Speaker 2: rest of us are trying to, I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: as much as we can to keep people aware that
Speaker 2: there's still work to be done, et cetera. There's still
Speaker 2: things to be revealed, et cetera. But I stand by
Speaker 2: all the statements I made earlier. You know, we've gotten
Speaker 2: to a point of transparency where we're sort of caught
Speaker 2: up to twenty seventeen as far as documentation goes, but
Speaker 2: now going further unless you know, voluntarily, there are things
Speaker 2: pride out of agencies, you know, in the background somehow
Speaker 2: In the meantime, I don't know where else we're going
Speaker 2: to go on this, So what are your thoughts and
Speaker 2: we'll just kind of close it out now.
Speaker 5: I think that's I think that's a good summary. The
Speaker 5: under lead illustrates what the kind of lead that could
Speaker 5: have been useful back in nineteen sixty four, right, you know,
Speaker 5: if you took that, regardless of his death suicide or not,
Speaker 5: if you took that just to this fellow you know,
Speaker 5: has real good sources within the CIA and came across
Speaker 5: something to make him think that there were a group
Speaker 5: of rogue actors within the agency and at surrogates who
Speaker 5: were so dangerous that they might even have killed the president.
Speaker 4: Then that would have been a good lead. You know.
Speaker 5: It's just one of many leads actually that we know
Speaker 5: about today that that might in the direction, but it's
Speaker 5: no longer. Then it would have been a lead, it
Speaker 5: would have been worth investigating, and it would have pointed
Speaker 5: to the people that I was talking about earlier. But now,
Speaker 5: you know, it's interesting. There's a lot of stuff in
Speaker 5: the records that we see now that is historically relevant.
Speaker 5: You know, I've got I've got to say that it's
Speaker 5: good history. But the leads that are there, including the
Speaker 5: details like people and names and sources and where this
Speaker 5: came from and who knew this when it's too.
Speaker 4: Late for us.
Speaker 5: It helps us with our speculation, but I'm not sure
Speaker 5: that it would help you know, criminal investigation. It's too late, right,
Speaker 5: and that's that's frustrating. But I think I think it's reality.
Speaker 5: I would find My summary is if I was starting
Speaker 5: this all over again, as far as the criminal investigation,
Speaker 5: and I would focus on items of evidence, forensics materials,
Speaker 5: autopsy materials. I would have that revisited to see if
Speaker 5: they really support the government story, which most of us
Speaker 5: no longer believe. I think that that could lead to
Speaker 5: a resolution. It could literally lead to a statement that says, no,
Speaker 5: it didn't happen the way the history books say it happened.
Speaker 4: Here's why. We don't know, and we won't know.
Speaker 5: But that would be good history, and that would be
Speaker 5: good for the country because it would force the country
Speaker 5: to face up to its history, bring in the criminals
Speaker 5: to justice. Not so much, but you know, resolving our history.
Speaker 5: Maybe so, But I doubt that anybody's going to call
Speaker 5: and put me in charge of that effort.
Speaker 2: So yeah, because objectively, if anybody asked my opinion, here's
Speaker 2: you know, you want to hear something that probably sounds
Speaker 2: ridiculous but true.
Speaker 3: This would be a baseline.
Speaker 2: We would actually have to exhume Kennedy's body to retrace
Speaker 2: some of this stuff properly, and it could be done.
Speaker 2: It could be done. You know there it is at Arlington.
Speaker 2: Somebody could crack open that tomb and I guarantee you
Speaker 2: it's encased well enough that he would be preserved. I
Speaker 2: know that sounds crazy to some people, but believe it
Speaker 2: or not, that would be helpful and would be extremely
Speaker 2: informative and would close a whole lot of open loops here,
Speaker 2: a whole lot of open questions.
Speaker 5: Yeah, closure, maybe that's what we should be talking about,
Speaker 5: Jack Klouicher, justice, but closure.
Speaker 2: Right, and that's really what we can hope for in
Speaker 2: the future.
Speaker 3: It looks like to me, I.
Speaker 2: As time goes on, I gotta tell you, I'm less
Speaker 2: and less enthusiastic about you know, gee, we could still
Speaker 2: hold a criminal hearing here and you know, hold somebody accountable.
Speaker 2: I'm feeling like that ship might have sailed. But the
Speaker 2: idea that we could get closure, that we could get
Speaker 2: a reality check on this and actually solve a whole
Speaker 2: lot of open questions and put a lot of things
Speaker 2: to rest and say, look, for the most part, we
Speaker 2: understand it now completely. And yeah, they didn't do a
Speaker 2: good investigation in the first place, but now we know this,
Speaker 2: and now we know that.
Speaker 3: It could be done.
Speaker 2: But again, it would require some radical actions and one
Speaker 2: of those things that I guarantee you the Kennedy family
Speaker 2: would definitely fight, but so would many others, just on
Speaker 2: the basis of you know, not disrespecting the memory.
Speaker 3: Da da da da dah is.
Speaker 2: Stuff like what I just said, And some people might
Speaker 2: even find that offensive, the exhumation of JFK.
Speaker 3: What's wrong with you?
Speaker 2: But that would be a proper way to re examine,
Speaker 2: you know, with primary evidence that is preserved.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, but that's what it is.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Larry, Is there anything you want to say in
Speaker 2: closing year or you think we covered it all?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 5: I think I think that was a good summary as
Speaker 5: to what a reality check maybe even call it. Don't
Speaker 5: call it a summary, call it a reality check.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we we more records and more collections will help
Speaker 5: us refine our speculation, but without going back to a
Speaker 5: real reset for you know, the basics of a kriminal investigation.
Speaker 4: Uh no, it's going to require that for closure. Good.
Speaker 4: I think that's a good that's a good summary. I'm
Speaker 4: going to start using those words.
Speaker 3: There you go.
Speaker 2: See I've added somehow to your to your lexicon, right
Speaker 2: little little bit my contribution. I've added to Larry Hancock's lexicon.
Speaker 2: If that's the best I can do, that's not bad anyway.
Speaker 2: Go to Larry dash Hancock dot com. I'm sure that
Speaker 2: you have also blogged about some of this stuff in
Speaker 2: recent weeks, right yeah, And people can follow that there
Speaker 2: as well as find out about all of Larry's books.
Speaker 2: By the way, I recommend them all. But aside from
Speaker 2: the fact that he takes up a lot of space
Speaker 2: on my bookshelf. Got to tell you the most recent book,
Speaker 2: The Oswald Puzzle. If you don't have it and you're
Speaker 2: interested in this case, or even remotely interested in the
Speaker 2: individual historically we know is Lee Harvey Oswald, I strongly
Speaker 2: advise you pick that one up in digital or physical form.
Speaker 2: I like the book though the book looks nice. It's
Speaker 2: a black and white picture, and you know the cover
Speaker 2: of the hardcover is very nice looking, but also a
Speaker 2: solid reference book. In my mind, there's very few things
Speaker 2: in this case that I count as reference books. Right,
Speaker 2: A lot of people get deep into their speculations, their
Speaker 2: theoretical assumations, I guess their assumptions, whatever it is. And
Speaker 2: you know, I like this book because it's very, very straightforward.
Speaker 2: And again you can flip the different things. Just use
Speaker 2: the uh, you know, the table of contents as a guide,
Speaker 2: and you can flip the different things in this book
Speaker 2: and really go deep on a bunch of a bunch
Speaker 2: of stuff about the character of Lee Harvey Oswald. So
Speaker 2: I definitely advise you to pick that up if that's
Speaker 2: what you're interested in.
Speaker 3: So I thank Larry for you doing this with me.
Speaker 2: We'll talk again in a couple of weeks, I guess,
Speaker 2: and who knows, maybe by then we'll have a UAP
Speaker 2: project to talk about, or god knows what by then,
Speaker 2: because the world keeps changing hour by hour, but.
Speaker 5: Yeah, i'll have we we're publishing a u UAP study
Speaker 5: within the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 2: Excellent, Maybe that's what we'll be discussed the next time.
Speaker 2: And really glad to have had you along and you
Speaker 2: listening out there. I appreciate you as well, because I
Speaker 2: am merely o'celly, all of you.
Speaker 6: Go ahead, Colin, I'm just sit in the truth about
Speaker 6: the day.
Speaker 7: If I have talked those right, well, what do you
Speaker 7: want to know?
Speaker 2: Nady Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and
Speaker 2: Barry answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim I have
Speaker 2: four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon. But okay,
Speaker 2: Oswald on the building and I'm trying to prevent the
Speaker 2: murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 8: Come on now, has a real effort on the DAFA assassination.
Speaker 3: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 3: own words.
Speaker 2: You'll get the results for a digital copy of a
Speaker 2: book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the
Speaker 2: known evidence in the case to get at well a
Speaker 2: different perspective.
Speaker 3: Let's say you can get.
Speaker 2: Judith 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. It's
Speaker 2: a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many
Speaker 2: fantastic claims Judith very Baker in.
Speaker 3: Her own words.
Speaker 8: Thank you for all the great.
Speaker 1: Information Chili dot com.
Speaker 6: In Denial The Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks
Speaker 6: by Larryhancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 6: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 6: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 7: It exposes things about the Bay and Pigs that no
Speaker 7: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 7: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 7: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 7: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 7: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 7: In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock.
Speaker 7: For more information go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 7: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 7: com in digital or physical, radio.
Speaker 9: Level through Comsage, Oh Shell, Oh Sally.
Speaker 4: Day World.
Speaker 1: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 1: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and
Speaker 1: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 1: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 1: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War,
Speaker 1: Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 1: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Speaker 8: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 8: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 8: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 8: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 8: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 8: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 8: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 8: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 8: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 8: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 8: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 8: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 8: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 8: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 8: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 8: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy would
Speaker 8: up against. For more information, The War State dot Com,
Speaker 8: dot Com Radio, New Nuclear Holocaust.
Speaker 3: You know what uranium is, right, you think called nuclear
Speaker 3: weapons and other things like lots of you know what
Speaker 3: uranium is right, bad things.
Speaker 1: Revelation through Conversation dot Com Radio Network