Speaker 1: Get ready for.
Speaker 2: So it is still Thor's day, and this would be
Speaker 2: the second hour of the show, except I usually don't
Speaker 2: do a second hour anymore. However, I got it, you
Speaker 2: know why. I got Larry Hancock with me, and we
Speaker 2: can't turn away an opportunity to bring on Larry Hancock,
Speaker 2: who is the author of a great many books on
Speaker 2: my shelf and hopefully yours too, a variety of things
Speaker 2: covering geopolitics, assassinations, the behavior of the national security state,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera, from books like Nexus and Creating
Speaker 2: Chaos all the way to someone would have Talked, and
Speaker 2: of course the most recent and excellent Oswald Puzzle, which
Speaker 2: he co authored with David boy Len. But on top
Speaker 2: of that you could also find other things, curious stuff,
Speaker 2: unidentified behavior of you know UFOs whoops they call him
Speaker 2: UAPs now. Anyhow, all of that stuff and a lot
Speaker 2: more in books I recommend all of from author Larry Handcock,
Speaker 2: and you can go check out his stuff at Larrydashhandcock
Speaker 2: dot com or the WordPress site which I give you
Speaker 2: at the in the show notes all the time whenever
Speaker 2: Larry appears. Plus, I urge you to follow his blog
Speaker 2: read his books, follow his blog, et cetera, and you
Speaker 2: will learn, I promise you that much, and always with
Speaker 2: solid information in great context. Now, before we go any further,
Speaker 2: I got an email, what was it two days ago,
Speaker 2: that they were putting up an archive on a website
Speaker 2: that I consider to be an essential. If you're somebody
Speaker 2: an essential, stop one of those things you got a
Speaker 2: bookmark and make sure you have bookmarked on all your devices,
Speaker 2: because it is a resource and inform normative place regarding
Speaker 2: the assassinations and American history in general, but especially the
Speaker 2: assassinations of the sixties. And I get this notice saying
Speaker 2: that we're putting up a Larry Hancock archive, which, by
Speaker 2: the way, I hear rumors might be expanded soon, and
Speaker 2: we shall see about that. But anyway, I want to
Speaker 2: ask Larry about that, and then, believe it or not,
Speaker 2: we might tackle the world of the geopolitical feeder as
Speaker 2: it is being run at the moment. But more on
Speaker 2: that later. Larry, First, how are you doing tonight?
Speaker 3: I'm a pretty good check. We're having lovely weather here
Speaker 3: before the fourth of July. It's unseasonably wet and green.
Speaker 3: Don't really know what to make of green in Oklahoma
Speaker 3: and any July. It's just not it's not normals. But
Speaker 3: so it's great. Fireworks are no problem. We're looking for
Speaker 3: tomorrow and so so it's a good.
Speaker 2: Early summer, hot and wet here in Georgia because you know,
Speaker 2: we're in that subtropical region that covers just the southeastern
Speaker 2: corner of the continental US. If you notice, it's in
Speaker 2: a slightly different temperate zone. And unusually this year, though, Larry,
Speaker 2: I gotta tell you, I'm not hearing all the fireworks outside.
Speaker 2: It hasn't been crazy like it usually is every other year.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking people don't have money to burn, literally, because
Speaker 2: that's what you're gonna wind up doing if you buy fireworks.
Speaker 2: And I know well that the fireworks are not popping
Speaker 2: off out there, because I got five little dogs and
Speaker 2: they freak out. Two of them are terribly terrified, but
Speaker 2: all of them bark, and you know what you hear
Speaker 2: any bark and Larry, no, there's no fireworks happening outside now.
Speaker 2: Tomorrow will be the fourth and maybe we'll get some.
Speaker 2: But anyway, enough of that. I'm glad you're doing well,
Speaker 2: and you sound like you're in good spirits. But tell
Speaker 2: me about this Larry Hancock archive and a few other
Speaker 2: things that are going on regarding that before we get
Speaker 2: into the world of geopolitics as they stand here this summer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there are two elements to it. First of all,
Speaker 3: all the credit is due to Alan Dale, who really
Speaker 3: does content for that website at the AARC. And Alan
Speaker 3: contacted me and really kind of approached me and said,
Speaker 3: you know, he would he would do some work. Could
Speaker 3: I help him to kind of pull together things that
Speaker 3: I've been interviewed about that I've blogged about on different
Speaker 3: research topics that to some extent are not just the
Speaker 3: political assassinations are They're they're beyond the books, you know,
Speaker 3: bits and pieces of work.
Speaker 2: Right now, Larry, hold on just a second, because I
Speaker 2: want to give proper credit to Alan without embarrassing him
Speaker 2: or overstating it. But Alan doesn't just provide content and
Speaker 2: work on that website. Now, Alan Dale, you know, he
Speaker 2: is an author to and he's written a book, and
Speaker 2: he's made presentations and he was my predecessor really as
Speaker 2: the mc at lancer. But truthfully, a lot of people
Speaker 2: don't know Alan does a lot of work behind the
Speaker 2: scenes on a bunch of relevant websites. Having to do
Speaker 2: with the assassinations and modern contemporary American history. You're aware
Speaker 2: he does. I'm letting the listeners know this. I'm sure
Speaker 2: you know, but Alan's a friend, so I know this.
Speaker 2: Not only does he do that, but he's also had
Speaker 2: the patience to slock through a lot of things with
Speaker 2: John Newman, which is not an easy job when he's
Speaker 2: working on his books. But Alan has made contributions very
Speaker 2: quietly and very intelligently and very directly from the tech
Speaker 2: side of things when it comes to what it is
Speaker 2: you're getting out there now. He hasn't made any contributions
Speaker 2: to my website or anything like that, but it seems
Speaker 2: like he's touched almost anything else that is JFK related
Speaker 2: out there. So I just want to make people aware
Speaker 2: that a lot of what's available to you outside of
Speaker 2: the National Archives, Alan may have had a hand, a
Speaker 2: role in, or participated in when it comes to making
Speaker 2: sure it's successible to people on the internet. Just saying, Larry,
Speaker 2: that's how I would want to credit Alan.
Speaker 3: Alan as an enabler. He maintains a low profile. He
Speaker 3: does a huge amount of work. As you said, He's
Speaker 3: done a huge amount of document work for John Newman.
Speaker 3: But he's he's very much you know, low key, He's
Speaker 3: very objective, pragmatic, stays behind the scenes, so he doesn't
Speaker 3: get the credit he really deserves. And as she said,
Speaker 3: he he mc to Lancer with us for years. He's
Speaker 3: got a wonderful speaking voice. He's a jazz musician, you know,
Speaker 3: he is multi talented. You don't find that many jazz
Speaker 3: musicians at the National Archives, you know, enough of you maybe,
Speaker 3: but Alan stands out on his own merits.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely. I just wanted to make it clear to
Speaker 2: people because Alan Dale is not necessarily the first name
Speaker 2: that comes to their mind regarding, you know, who gets
Speaker 2: the job done when it comes to this stuff. But also, yeah,
Speaker 2: full credit, he's not just a jazz musician, but a
Speaker 2: talented drummer. And you know, I do say this in
Speaker 2: a very nice way because he's also oddly a friend
Speaker 2: of mine, which you know is not I don't have
Speaker 2: a huge circle of friends in the community. But he's
Speaker 2: actually a friend but also deserves a lot more credit
Speaker 2: than he ever gets. So I just want to make sure. Sorry, Larry,
Speaker 2: I don't mean to, you know, step on what you
Speaker 2: were saying, but I had to throw it in there
Speaker 2: because I think Alan needs more recognition than he gets.
Speaker 2: But please continue about this. He wanted your help assembling
Speaker 2: some things and putting together bits and pieces about what
Speaker 2: you were interviewed on and what happened next well, and.
Speaker 3: Some of the things, I mean, some of the things
Speaker 3: are obvious. It's it's pretty easy to come up with
Speaker 3: a list of the books. Alan's done some interviews with me. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so finding some of the contents okay, But he really
Speaker 3: did challenge me to go back and find some of
Speaker 3: the subjects that I tackle, that are that have come
Speaker 3: up over the decades. You know, sometimes there are a
Speaker 3: hot topic, sometimes they're not that I've done some very
Speaker 3: long term research on that that you know, you would
Speaker 3: have to know where to find it now, as you
Speaker 3: and I both know, in this community, things are topical.
Speaker 3: You know, for six months something will be just the
Speaker 3: subject of discussion and then it fades away, only to
Speaker 3: come back through four years later. So you know, there
Speaker 3: was a time when Dallas eranium and oil in the
Speaker 3: dal text building was you know, really really a subject
Speaker 3: of focus and what was going on in the dal
Speaker 3: texts and what were the mysterious connections there? And then
Speaker 3: that faded away, so where do you find it? Well,
Speaker 3: I spent a lot of time I blogged about it,
Speaker 3: so Allan kind of challenged me to go back and
Speaker 3: find some of that material, which which fortunately, with what
Speaker 3: remaining memory I have left, I was able to do
Speaker 3: some searches and come up and we we've added that too.
Speaker 3: So there there some articles and monographs and some interviews
Speaker 3: that a lot of people even that know my books,
Speaker 3: may not be aware of. They're also you know that
Speaker 3: when a topic comes up, it's like, oh, has that
Speaker 3: ever been discussed before? And you do a Google search
Speaker 3: on it and you don't find much. Well, that doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that the work wasn't done. So you know, you'll
Speaker 3: you'll find things in this archive that you know, people
Speaker 3: may be interested in that they don't even know there
Speaker 3: was any research on.
Speaker 2: Well preservation has been a difficult thing in the modern
Speaker 2: media era, believe it or not, even though it seems
Speaker 2: like it would be easier. For instance, you know, the
Speaker 2: total of the amount of interviews you've done a lot
Speaker 2: of discussions with me over the past decade, more than
Speaker 2: a decade actually, And the funny thing about it is
Speaker 2: the majority of that stuff one way or another has
Speaker 2: gotten knocked off of platforms, or I've been deplatformed, or
Speaker 2: Facebook page has been banned or whatever. And guess what
Speaker 2: the links to those things or the networks have disappeared,
Speaker 2: or the archives. It's not available out there, like the
Speaker 2: total interviews that you and I have done from anybody,
Speaker 2: not even me because I can't afford all the storage.
Speaker 2: Although I do have a partially completed Larry Hancock tab
Speaker 2: for my website, but it's not complete at the moment anyway,
Speaker 2: Just saying, and that's a narrow focus to just think
Speaker 2: about the diverse amount of current events JFK myths we
Speaker 2: talked about. You were on one of those episodes we did,
Speaker 2: the one oh one series about the investigations we did.
Speaker 2: You know a lot of different series even of topical
Speaker 2: discussions that today some people can't find, don't access, if
Speaker 2: they didn't save it themselves, they don't have it. You know.
Speaker 3: Another thing about that this beginning to trouble me check
Speaker 3: and we've chalked about this a little bit before, but
Speaker 3: people are becoming increasingly rely on what I would call
Speaker 3: semi intelligent search tools and of course on AI. Right
Speaker 3: and I have done a number of searches lately using
Speaker 3: both of those and asking questions and about material that
Speaker 3: I know is out there, and I'm getting answers that
Speaker 3: don't show that. And I think we really need to
Speaker 3: understand how limited the training for AIS are on certain things.
Speaker 3: Great in some areas, but when you start using it
Speaker 3: in the social sciences, when you start using it in history,
Speaker 3: you start getting answers that are quite incomplete but sound
Speaker 3: like they are right right. I mean, they're very authoritative,
Speaker 3: and I read them and I go, no, uh huh.
Speaker 2: And sadly, Larry, I hate to say this to you,
Speaker 2: but frankly, if you do that search from someone else's
Speaker 2: computer that is not already marked and tagged and known
Speaker 2: to the algorithms, you'll get different results. You know, a
Speaker 2: search for you and I to do the same search
Speaker 2: might come up similar because you and I might look
Speaker 2: into similar topics. But if you were to go to
Speaker 2: somebody's computer who you know is on Etsy all day
Speaker 2: and is trying to figure out arts and crafts and
Speaker 2: you know, following doggie and kiddie pictures, and they put
Speaker 2: in the same search inquiry into one of these systems,
Speaker 2: they get entirely different, customized results. So there is that
Speaker 2: as well. Right, we are so compartmentalized in this technology
Speaker 2: at this point that quite frankly, you don't have the
Speaker 2: broad complete open source even though again, as you said,
Speaker 2: it's almost represented as no, this is more complete, this
Speaker 2: is more efficient. Well, it's also narrowed because of guess what,
Speaker 2: what you've already fed into your algorithms that are personalized.
Speaker 2: And I'm not trying to criticize or make you belabor this,
Speaker 2: but I want to stamp your point twice that you
Speaker 2: know what your Google search is not what you think
Speaker 2: it is. And guess what. Unless people make an effort
Speaker 2: to collect things together and create things that are you know,
Speaker 2: relevant and archival in nature, guess what, you're not going
Speaker 2: to get an archive. You're not going to get a
Speaker 2: full view of anything anymore. And the Internet archive is
Speaker 2: another thing. Have you looked at that, by the way,
Speaker 2: just done a search on yourself on the Internet archive
Speaker 2: dot org.
Speaker 3: Yes, I have, and it's certainly not complete.
Speaker 2: No, it is not, and I know that too because
Speaker 2: I've been there. But the point is that some more
Speaker 2: obscure things do end up there, and it's interesting. You've
Speaker 2: got to come up with a way of sweeping through
Speaker 2: these things, you the listener, not you Larry, in order
Speaker 2: to find a true representation of what's available to begin with.
Speaker 2: If you're even so interested anyway, please continue though about this,
Speaker 2: because I think this is relevant and interesting and what
Speaker 2: do we have as an end result here? After working
Speaker 2: with Alan a bit and you know, and you collected
Speaker 2: some things and gave it to him, there's now like
Speaker 2: a section over there at the organization's website now right right, and.
Speaker 3: So it is an archive devoted to my work. And
Speaker 3: I think one of the interesting things about it is
Speaker 3: you really need to scan it to see if you
Speaker 3: come up with a topic that's of interest to you,
Speaker 3: because we've tried to. I've tried to go through some
Speaker 3: back through some of my blog posts on what things
Speaker 3: that come up periodically, like the Chicago threats or Surtray
Speaker 3: and his reported presence in Dallas. There's some of those
Speaker 3: things that you know, over the years, I might have
Speaker 3: spent months on any given time, consolidated into a relatively
Speaker 3: small blog post. I've still got all my research data's
Speaker 3: buried somewhere if I could find it. But you know,
Speaker 3: nobody will be interested unless it comes up again, you know,
Speaker 3: it's sort.
Speaker 2: Of like the relatively revived interest in Billy Celestes that
Speaker 2: you and I went through on the two part piece
Speaker 2: with Billy Celestie's grandson, right exactly, which was curious.
Speaker 3: But yeah, go ahead, Well, and I think that raises
Speaker 3: a very good point check because again, this is a
Speaker 3: potential weakness for us, I think, and this is a
Speaker 3: weakness for document geeks in general. We're becoming more and
Speaker 3: more used to all right, well we'll go. You know,
Speaker 3: there are document collections. They're government collections, private collections, university collections,
Speaker 3: and that's kind of the world of information. But it's
Speaker 3: really not because a lot of there's a lot of
Speaker 3: primary evidence that's held by individuals. Like we talked about
Speaker 3: the Billy all Celestes thing, Nobody, if you had not
Speaker 3: done the research that I did a couple of decades ago,
Speaker 3: would have found the court documents, the interview that was
Speaker 3: never investigated. You know, there was not a government investigation.
Speaker 3: There were lots of newspaper articles, so you had to
Speaker 3: go back to that kind of material to find the
Speaker 3: context for the story and some of the you know,
Speaker 3: some of the stuff we provided him. The only place
Speaker 3: that's setting is because I happen to have an interest
Speaker 3: in it at one particular point in time and put
Speaker 3: it all into a file. It's not out there on
Speaker 3: the internet, which is I won't say it's it's not
Speaker 3: an issue. It's only an issue if you think that
Speaker 3: everything is. You know, it's like, Okay, I looked at
Speaker 3: the Internet and it wasn't there, so I'm good, you know,
Speaker 3: which is because interesting because obviously he himself had done
Speaker 3: some you know, of his own research, and Billy Solvent
Speaker 3: had not seen these things. But I think it's just
Speaker 3: important that we don't fool ourselves into becoming too bureaucratic
Speaker 3: in terms of information. It's just like if it's if
Speaker 3: it's not out there in the world of the Internet,
Speaker 3: then it's okay, because that's all there.
Speaker 2: Is, right right, No, And I appreciate it. And I
Speaker 2: just put the link in the live chatroom at Ocelli
Speaker 2: dot com to the aa r C Library dot Org's website.
Speaker 2: The page is under Larry Let's see, it's under Larry
Speaker 2: Dashhancock dot archive is Larry Handcock dash Archive. Excuse me,
Speaker 2: but the weblink will be right there in the show
Speaker 2: notes and also in the Ocelli chatroom. If you roll
Speaker 2: it back at any time, you can see it anyways.
Speaker 2: Just want to let people know that that's available and
Speaker 2: it is evolving. There will be more added to it.
Speaker 3: Larry, I think I'm glad you brought that up, because
Speaker 3: that brings up a good illustration of what we were
Speaker 3: just talking about. Allen has actually done me a favor
Speaker 3: and posted a solicitation for something that's missing. And one
Speaker 3: of the areas that's missing out of my research is
Speaker 3: I spent months and years on certain individuals related to
Speaker 3: the JFK assassination. Thomas Beckham, Fred Chrisman, both very important
Speaker 3: to the Garrison investigation, Richard case Miguel very important for
Speaker 3: a lot of reasons to this full story of Nagel.
Speaker 3: To get the full stories of these people, Frank Sturgis,
Speaker 3: I had to go way beyond what's in the documents,
Speaker 3: for example, and Chrisman and Beckham. I was fortunate enough
Speaker 3: to connect with a person who had been involved in
Speaker 3: several lawsuits related to their activities and Theacific Northwest, and
Speaker 3: who had done an immense amount of private research on
Speaker 3: the backgrounds of the individuals for his legal papers. That
Speaker 3: sort of thing, I mean it was amazing to me
Speaker 3: when he when he sent me the whole background document
Speaker 3: that both of them had represented themselves as certified evangelical ministers.
Speaker 3: And I came across Beckham who Wood was performing now
Speaker 3: song routines, but also evangelical appearances, and I was fascinated
Speaker 3: because the symbols that he was using on his flyers
Speaker 3: related to all face. It's like, oh man, this guy
Speaker 3: touched everything, including a swastika.
Speaker 2: Look, I would never put a swastik on my file,
Speaker 2: on my file or flyer or anything else. But quite frankly,
Speaker 2: I'm actually an ordained multi faith minister. You bet you
Speaker 2: didn't even know that.
Speaker 3: Larry I did not where do we start a file
Speaker 3: on you? But and for him it was it was
Speaker 3: a mail order thing because both of them were doing
Speaker 3: But the point of that whole thing, I have one
Speaker 3: of those two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have one of those also. Anyway, Well they.
Speaker 3: Were actually white valuable back in the sixties because you
Speaker 3: could pursue that for a draft deferment.
Speaker 2: Well draft deferment, plus you can provide a service by
Speaker 2: marrying people in a lot of states. Uh, you know,
Speaker 2: I happen to know this. I've only performed three marriages
Speaker 2: in my life. But but I've done it anyway. It's
Speaker 2: just one of those. It's interesting, uh. And outside of
Speaker 2: Joan Mellon's interviews with with Beckham, I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: it's difficult to get to know this guy, so there
Speaker 2: you go. But meanwhile, the solicitation that Alan put out
Speaker 2: is interesting because a lot of us, and I do
Speaker 2: mean us, those of us who have you know, labored
Speaker 2: and done independent work, whether they were trying to write
Speaker 2: a book or not. A lot of us have you know,
Speaker 2: purchased or required CDs over the years, and a lot
Speaker 2: of the CDs or you know, work files that you
Speaker 2: picked up digitally in one way or another, CD ROMs
Speaker 2: I used to call them at one point. You know,
Speaker 2: quite frankly, a lot of that stuff is not on
Speaker 2: the Internet, and some of us have you know, boxes
Speaker 2: or spindles full of these things. And somebody out there
Speaker 2: right now listening to us might have the Larry Hancock
Speaker 2: collection on a CD.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, they were Basically what happened is I I
Speaker 4: wrote narratives to introduce all the documents and you know,
Speaker 4: like a ten or twelve page analysis, then double up
Speaker 4: all the documents and.
Speaker 3: Sent boxes to Lancer and Debra would have them scanned
Speaker 3: and put on CD. And there there were two collections.
Speaker 3: One was there the research of Larry Hankyck I think,
Speaker 3: and then there was another one specifically on Beckham and Chrisman,
Speaker 3: and so I know they did sell some of those. Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: my copies of both CDs are no longer readable, which
Speaker 3: does happen to CDs. But then the documents themselves got misplaced,
Speaker 3: lost whatever in various moves at Lancer. So if anybody
Speaker 3: happened to have purchased those and we can get copies
Speaker 3: of the CD, get the CD credit off reconstructed, there's
Speaker 3: just there are literally hundreds of pages of documents and
Speaker 3: research in those CDs that will disappear forever. Strangely, it's
Speaker 3: kind of like, gosh, I remember that was a lot
Speaker 3: of work, but it would be nice to be able
Speaker 3: to recover it.
Speaker 2: Well, quick question, do you still.
Speaker 1: Have your CDs?
Speaker 2: Why are they not readable? Is it? Are they telling
Speaker 2: you that the files are no good or I do not.
Speaker 3: I sent them off to a couple of archives who
Speaker 3: were going to try to attempt to recover them, to
Speaker 3: go into university archives. They were unable to read them.
Speaker 2: Okay, if you wind up with those CDs back in
Speaker 2: your hand and you're willing to mail them to me.
Speaker 2: I've been able to recover some stuff off of CDs
Speaker 2: that people have told me you can't get anything off,
Speaker 2: so I'm just saying, as a last resort, I'd be
Speaker 2: willing to help you get them, and that would save
Speaker 2: a lot of work and would present people with a
Speaker 2: unique opportunity to study that stuff and get those nice
Speaker 2: narratives that I'm sure were exclusive to those CDs that
Speaker 2: you wrote. So I wouldn't mind helping you recover them
Speaker 2: if nobody else can send them to me. As a
Speaker 2: last resort, I'll get it done if it's possible, because
Speaker 2: I got a couple of weird techniques that people told
Speaker 2: me wouldn't work, and they do. It just has to
Speaker 2: do with branching between some old programs that you can
Speaker 2: no longer get. But I still have on a device
Speaker 2: or two that actually allowed me to recover some things
Speaker 2: from some CDs in the past. I'm just telling you, oh.
Speaker 3: Sure, I certainly, and if anybody finds them, I I
Speaker 3: don't think I have any left if I can recover
Speaker 3: If anybody finds them, just let's try to do this,
Speaker 3: because there's really some interesting stuff in there if we
Speaker 3: could locate it.
Speaker 2: Right and do me a favor. If anybody does and
Speaker 2: you don't know what to do with them, by all means,
Speaker 2: contact me or contact Larry through his blog if you'd
Speaker 2: rather do that, but one or the other. I will
Speaker 2: make sure they either get to them or get recovered
Speaker 2: if you send them to me, you know, but info
Speaker 2: atochelly dot com or blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com,
Speaker 2: and I'll be more than happy to assist Larry and
Speaker 2: recovering those anyway. But one way or another, I'd like
Speaker 2: to see your work preserved, and I'm glad that it's
Speaker 2: being done over there, you know, some of it. Obviously.
Speaker 2: I don't think any website can hold all your work
Speaker 2: at this point, but we'll give it a shot, you know,
Speaker 2: and see what we can get done. So, anything else
Speaker 2: about this that you want to let people know or
Speaker 2: should they contact you know? Do we want to give
Speaker 2: out any other email addresses?
Speaker 1: Is there anything?
Speaker 3: Or Oh I'm always happy to give out my email
Speaker 3: address if somebody saw a particular interview or particular posts
Speaker 3: that I've done. That thanks, worthwhile with me sharing. I
Speaker 3: tried to recall and search everything, but I could for
Speaker 3: allan but people might very well have suggestions. At this point,
Speaker 3: my recollection of everything that I've done myself is getting
Speaker 3: a little hazy.
Speaker 2: There you go, And I'm planning to contribute a little
Speaker 2: piece to the Hancock archive over there as well. I'm
Speaker 2: not telling you what it is yet, but you will
Speaker 2: see it, probably within the next forty five days or
Speaker 2: so at most, because it's going to take me a
Speaker 2: little time to reconstruct something, but it'll get done. And anyway,
Speaker 2: I really want to see this continue. And again the
Speaker 2: link is in the show notes and also at the
Speaker 2: ocell dot com chat room there for the public to see.
Speaker 2: So by all means, go there, visit it, take a
Speaker 2: look at Alan Slash Larry's work at the web site.
Speaker 2: So there you go, Larry, that's the past and all
Speaker 2: of your work of the past. But you want to
Speaker 2: talk about the current season of geopolitics as it is
Speaker 2: presented on the reality show or.
Speaker 3: What yeah it is. It's amazing to me to try
Speaker 3: to really you and I have talked about, you know,
Speaker 3: and ongoing. Did the Cold War suddenly become hot? You know?
Speaker 3: Is this a new Cold War, a new type of
Speaker 3: World war?
Speaker 1: Whatever?
Speaker 3: And I think I think we've run into a fascinating
Speaker 3: thing of it's become more like a reality show. You know,
Speaker 3: how much of this is really staged? How much of
Speaker 3: it is posturing? Is it? I mean, certainly there are
Speaker 3: people dying, there's huge amounts of damage being done, but
Speaker 3: it's almost as if it's theater.
Speaker 2: Well, look, there's real blood, there's real consequences, there's real death.
Speaker 2: There's really people getting shot trying to get food in Palestine. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's really happening. It's not crisis actors, it's not Ai Okay.
Speaker 2: And I'm not telling you this, Larry, I'm telling the
Speaker 2: listener this because there are people out there speculating and
Speaker 2: even look, I've been a little mocking about this. I
Speaker 2: call it the War of the two Eyes. Okay, Israel
Speaker 2: and Iran. All Right, I know it's not very creative,
Speaker 2: but best I could do with only twelve days to
Speaker 2: work with. Really, all right, and now there's speculation, well,
Speaker 2: you know, did the US strikes really destroy nuclear capabilities
Speaker 2: or did it do nothing? Or what was this? And
Speaker 2: all along? Quite frankly reality show. It's less real than
Speaker 2: a reality show. It seems like it is performative, like
Speaker 2: people that are out there trying to demonstrate how outrage
Speaker 2: they are over things just to make the point of
Speaker 2: their outrage to score points. And this is what occurred. Plus,
Speaker 2: I think there's an added benefit. And you may disagree
Speaker 2: with me about this, but there's an added benefit to
Speaker 2: the business model. What business model am I talking about?
Speaker 2: The military industrial complex? Of course, you know those big
Speaker 2: huge Mother of All bombs or bunker busters or whatever,
Speaker 2: the planes, the fuel, all that stuff. Guess what costs money?
Speaker 2: And now we got to restock. I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: like any other business. And I'm sorry to put it
Speaker 2: that way, because, like I said, there's real bloodshed, there's
Speaker 2: real consequences, there's real death and destruction. But at the
Speaker 2: same time, there's some people that I think are just
Speaker 2: looking at a cost benefit analysis, whether it's political or financial,
Speaker 2: and a lot of people are cashing in. And that's
Speaker 2: the way I see it. Maybe I'm crazy, but I
Speaker 2: mean that's the way I've come through this, regardless of
Speaker 2: all the rhetoric, regardless of all the hyperbole. What are
Speaker 2: your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Yeah, And the reason I referred to it as maybe
Speaker 3: political theater is the right word is given the amount
Speaker 3: of death and destruction with the relative lack of engagement.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's like, Okay, we're going to launch a
Speaker 3: huge missile barrage and then we'll come back and say, well,
Speaker 3: let's let it set for a couple of weeks and
Speaker 3: maybe we'll start negotiations, okay, And one party says, all right,
Speaker 3: they've agreed to negotiations. The other party says, no, we haven't.
Speaker 3: And as a matter of fact, yeah, it's it's like
Speaker 3: there are two levels as things occurring. One is explosive
Speaker 3: and as you said, there's blood and casualties and destruction,
Speaker 3: and then at a higher level it's just like, well,
Speaker 3: we talked, and then we'll talking and Putin will call
Speaker 3: me or I'll call somebody, and there's no level of urgency.
Speaker 3: I cannot fathom the fact that the United States would
Speaker 3: would first of all, bomb someone that it has made
Speaker 3: no threat against us and is certainly not an exec
Speaker 3: general threat against the continent of the United States in
Speaker 3: any way, shape or form. Yet we bond them with
Speaker 3: one of the most massive displays of force since World
Speaker 3: War Two.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, in the end, there's an additional But there's
Speaker 2: an additional element to this that I'd like you to
Speaker 2: address as well, which is the longstanding history of Okay,
Speaker 2: they're not an existential threat to us, you know, the
Speaker 2: colloquial us, but you know us. But the thing is,
Speaker 2: we have been a constant interference, element of interference. Let's
Speaker 2: say for almost a century in that country that we
Speaker 2: just dropped some bombs on in the middle of the country,
Speaker 2: by the way, regardless of what the facility allegedly was
Speaker 2: or whatever else. Here's the thing. I mean, if we
Speaker 2: go back to Mohamed Mozdek and all that, we're talking
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties. So okay, excuse me, I said, a century,
Speaker 2: seventy five years? How what will be fair that way?
Speaker 2: Mohamed Mozdek, that whole incidence where we reinstall the shaw
Speaker 2: of Iran basically with the help of British intelligence. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you go from there, through the hostage crisis, through
Speaker 2: the give us back you know, the guy that you
Speaker 2: supplied the Savak training to and everything else for the
Speaker 2: secret police, we want to punish him. Big miracle. They
Speaker 2: turned the country over to the priests. After all that.
Speaker 2: From the secular government interference.
Speaker 3: You know, here we.
Speaker 2: Go again and again and again and again, and meanwhile,
Speaker 2: nobody even wants to look at that history and say,
Speaker 2: you know, if I was these people, I might be
Speaker 2: a little more angry or reactive to this, And yet
Speaker 2: we got virtually no reaction. So there's a context to
Speaker 2: be spoken of here that I didn't see in the media,
Speaker 2: in the talking heads, the political analysts, the you know,
Speaker 2: we're going to bring on Spider, you know, General Spider,
Speaker 2: they always bring him on CNN. What's his name, Spider
Speaker 2: Marx retired general right, and these other guys who are
Speaker 2: military experts everything else. Nobody talked about the constant interference
Speaker 2: and the other war that has been going on again
Speaker 2: for seventy five years in the spheres of influence, in
Speaker 2: the political assassination and you know, upheaval and regime change
Speaker 2: and all these things. They throw around all these words
Speaker 2: and never look at the history, and yet we get
Speaker 2: a result that makes no sense given that history. Or again,
Speaker 2: am I speaking out of school here?
Speaker 3: Now? I think certainly the media has forgotten much of
Speaker 3: the history. But let's face it. Let's let's step back
Speaker 3: one phrase during the period of time that you were
Speaker 3: talking about the first cod War, American foreign policy was global,
Speaker 3: right right, Ignow, we accept that we're at war with
Speaker 3: the communist menace. We are part of the global We're
Speaker 3: part of a global war. It just has to be
Speaker 3: a co war, right now. About six months ago, we
Speaker 3: decided our foreign policy stopped at our border, right, didn't
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere, And then it's
Speaker 3: it's just all about us here, and we're just focused
Speaker 3: on something that's a direct threat. You know, if it's
Speaker 3: not at the border, it's none of our business, except
Speaker 3: it is suddenly and suddenly and then re engaged. We
Speaker 3: suddenly pushed that border out way far. And I'm absolutely
Speaker 3: certain that none of Ourn's missiles will reach across the Atlantic.
Speaker 2: Well because because Israel, you know, because yeah, I got that.
Speaker 3: But it's it's it's like it's it's a shifting it's
Speaker 3: there's no common perception of it. So we're all only
Speaker 3: concerned about our on boarders. And this, as you say,
Speaker 3: it has to do with a threat to Israel, Okay,
Speaker 3: but of course a threat to you know, people attacking Israel,
Speaker 3: it's a threat and we should help them. People attacking
Speaker 3: Ukraine it's not a threat, and we should not help them.
Speaker 3: As a matter of fact. You know, even if they
Speaker 3: offered a bias from US, we wouldn't necessarily sell it
Speaker 3: to them, but we will give it to Israel. You know,
Speaker 3: there's a disconnect here. I hate disconnects. And and by
Speaker 3: the way, the only country that has actually threatened US
Speaker 3: with atomic weapons is North Korea. But you know they've
Speaker 3: actually got them, and we're not going to mess with them.
Speaker 3: You could almost say, you know, Iran says they're going
Speaker 3: to attack us and left we have an atomic weapon,
Speaker 3: and sure enough they did. And North Korea is a
Speaker 3: perfect example of you get one and you can do
Speaker 3: anything you want and threaten whoever you want, and we
Speaker 3: won't mess with you, right, dear Russia. You know, so
Speaker 3: Iran may have a point in you know, the fact
Speaker 3: that nukes are a defensive device.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, and that was the other point I brought up,
Speaker 2: is that, you know, when we got a circumstance, there
Speaker 2: was that common you know, perception, right, and we threatened
Speaker 2: and cajoled North Korea and everything else. They went ahead
Speaker 2: and said, nope, now we got a bomb. That changed
Speaker 2: the equation. Iran, it would be insane for them not
Speaker 2: to pursue a nuclear weapon, even if just to say
Speaker 2: they have it. They can have a test and say, look,
Speaker 2: we have it, we could use it. Now. We bargain differently,
Speaker 2: and we demonstrated that.
Speaker 3: I mean, we made their point for them, right, Uh,
Speaker 3: you know that. And but as you said, it's it's
Speaker 3: all about Israel. That's it's all about Israel. The rules
Speaker 3: are not being applied across the board, which is driving
Speaker 3: us all nuts.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: I think that's part of why I consider it theater.
Speaker 3: We've got different shows going on in different regions. Geopolitically,
Speaker 3: there's no common strategy to any of this. There was.
Speaker 3: I mean, you could have made an argument six months
Speaker 3: ago that there is a new common strategy and it
Speaker 3: stops at the border. Yeah, we're going to defund all
Speaker 3: of you know, Radio Europe, right, that's just an example.
Speaker 3: We don't care about the rest of the world anymore.
Speaker 3: So that would have at least been a common, consistent strategy.
Speaker 3: But that's not the way it's playing now. We're picked
Speaker 3: and choosing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it would have been coherent, but uh, Israel never mind,
Speaker 2: you know, up to that point, right, we're not intervening
Speaker 2: and we did another smaller version of that where we're
Speaker 2: not intervening in certain places where you know, hey there's
Speaker 2: a genocide occurring, but we intervened in South Africa.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just saying. Look, I'm not trying to make
Speaker 2: and some people are probably already screaming at this podcast
Speaker 2: right now, going Chuck the liberal, Chuck the Look. I'm
Speaker 2: not being the liberal here. I'm just pointing out what's happening.
Speaker 2: And Larry Hancock is the last guy that I would
Speaker 2: ever think to complain about Israel, frankly, but yet here
Speaker 2: it is.
Speaker 3: Look, you know, let's let's talk about moral imperatives, because
Speaker 3: we both come out of a period of time from
Speaker 3: JFK on when the US at least did have one
Speaker 3: uncommon theme, not that we did not screw it up
Speaker 3: up all the time and do things to deniably that. Okay,
Speaker 3: we're not talking about what we did. At least, what
Speaker 3: we said was that we had the moral perative of
Speaker 3: helping defend people that were being attacked, defend democracies that
Speaker 3: were being attacked, and we would It's Kennedy and Berlin,
Speaker 3: the speech at the Berlin Wall. I am a Berliner. No,
Speaker 3: the border doesn't stop at the US. The US will
Speaker 3: assume the moral imperative of defending against aggression. Yet here
Speaker 3: we are. We can defend against aggression. For Israel, we
Speaker 3: stop defending against ingressia, for Ukraine. We can morally reject
Speaker 3: genocide in South Africa and just totally ignore it in Gaza.
Speaker 3: And when you see stories of US funded relief organizations
Speaker 3: their own people saying their own people are firing on
Speaker 3: the Palestini Palestinians trying to recollect the release, you know,
Speaker 3: it takes real, an real effort to ignore that. So
Speaker 3: my point is you're going to be consistent. Either you
Speaker 3: stop at your borders or you don't. Or you have
Speaker 3: a moral imperative that you honor everywhere, or you don't.
Speaker 3: Otherwise it's just theater and you're doing whatever you want
Speaker 3: wherever for your purpose, not with any consistent morality or
Speaker 3: strategy either one.
Speaker 2: Well, and that's the thing, it's not even necessarily. Look,
Speaker 2: you know, people say, oh, look, you know you're moral,
Speaker 2: you're this way, you're that way, you're bleeding heart. You're
Speaker 2: worried about certain people, not worried about other people. Look,
Speaker 2: how about remove that from the equation it's strategically incoherent
Speaker 2: as well as morally yeah coherent, So yeah, go ahead, please.
Speaker 3: That's what I was going to say. You can if
Speaker 3: it was one or the other, maybe somebody could make
Speaker 3: the argument as you say that you're just a liberal
Speaker 3: and you know morality does not apply to geopolitics. Okay,
Speaker 3: a fine plan, but then at least you ought to
Speaker 3: have strategy. You ought to have tactics, You ought to
Speaker 3: have a plan. You know, if you're going to be
Speaker 3: like Gung Ho brute force, I'm all out for me,
Speaker 3: then at least you should have a plan.
Speaker 2: It reminds me of that. You know that that Batman movie.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you ever saw it, but the
Speaker 2: Dark Knight, you know, the one with the with the
Speaker 2: heath ledger joker. Yes, yes, and he's in the nurse's
Speaker 2: uniform and he's looking at the now Harvey Dent, who
Speaker 2: has become two paced, and he goes, do I look
Speaker 2: like a guy with a plan. I really felt like
Speaker 2: that's what was being said to the world, is that
Speaker 2: America had become the Joker here? Do I look like
Speaker 2: a guy with a plan? Because you don't.
Speaker 3: That's a that's a perfect line. That's a perfect line.
Speaker 3: If somebody was writing about American geopolitics right now, that
Speaker 3: would be the line to use. Do I look like
Speaker 3: I have a plan? Do I look like I have
Speaker 3: a plan anywhere?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 3: You and I talked about this a bit earlier. But
Speaker 3: to add to this equation, you have to add to
Speaker 3: the fact we are busily making enemies a lot with
Speaker 3: a lot of people that don't necessarily have ballistic missiles
Speaker 3: but have asymmetric warfare tools. Okay, and we've been through
Speaker 3: that before. And we're in the midst of making lots
Speaker 3: of people very mad at us who have the ability
Speaker 3: to attack us in numerous ways, whether it's forget the aircraft,
Speaker 3: when's that next bomber drone going to hit a big building?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 3: But what did we just do today? I'm appalled that
Speaker 3: we're going to cut the Fusion Center for counter Terrorism
Speaker 3: Threats by like seventy percent. I mean, this is insanity. See,
Speaker 3: but don't you don't go off start making start making
Speaker 3: people totally mad at you and at the same time
Speaker 3: reduce your defenses for the easiest way for them to
Speaker 3: attack you.
Speaker 2: Well, right, but now I'm going to present to you
Speaker 2: my last crazy piece of input into this discussion. And
Speaker 2: then I'm going to let you wrap it up any
Speaker 2: way you want regarding this circumstance that we find ourselves in.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing that I find remarkable at this point.
Speaker 2: For decades now, okay, and I'm a little younger than you, Larry,
Speaker 2: but I'm sure you can agree with me that from
Speaker 2: the nineteen seventies to now, okay, past fifty years, we
Speaker 2: have effectively been told continuously by various talking heads both parties,
Speaker 2: people of isolationists and of you know, the people that
Speaker 2: want to be the global police, remember the whole you know,
Speaker 2: we're going to police the globe. It's going to cost
Speaker 2: us a fortune. We can't afford it. Or the people
Speaker 2: that say we must because we're the only ones that
Speaker 2: can among all of them, what they always said about Iran,
Speaker 2: right ever since the hostage I mean, I was a
Speaker 2: kid when that went on, and that's where you got
Speaker 2: day twenty seven of the hostage crisis, Day one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty of the hostage crisis. We heard that on
Speaker 2: the radio every day, on TV every day. That's how
Speaker 2: Nightline got started. Right. Anyways, it was amazing to me
Speaker 2: that all these people that told us over and over
Speaker 2: again that if we weren't careful, we could have ourselves
Speaker 2: swarmed in all places all over the world by people
Speaker 2: that sought to blow up, kill, create chaos, and they
Speaker 2: had people ready at all times, and we're constantly sending
Speaker 2: them there a message that was taken much more seriously
Speaker 2: in the post nine to eleven reality by people who said,
Speaker 2: look what happened, guys with I'm not even getting into
Speaker 2: the conspiracy the discussion. Let's just use the official narrative here.
Speaker 2: Guys with box cutters hijacked airplanes and took New York
Speaker 2: City down. Part of our financial institutions were crushed. Serious
Speaker 2: things were done, low tech asymmetrical warfare. And that was
Speaker 2: the thing. This is why we needed homeland security. This
Speaker 2: is why we needed the Patriot Act. This is why,
Speaker 2: why why why why? In light of all of that
Speaker 2: and the constant, continuous threat, the fact that we've seen
Speaker 2: nothing happen since this, you know, attack on Iran almost
Speaker 2: says to me, obviously, you've been telling me about a
Speaker 2: boogeyman that doesn't necessarily exist, or at least not the
Speaker 2: way that you've explained it. Just like we found out
Speaker 2: that you know, Saddam Hussein. Yeah, one time he was
Speaker 2: kind of on our side. Then we kind of, you know,
Speaker 2: smacked him down. Then we got rid of him. He
Speaker 2: was an asset coincidentally against Iran. Anyway, let's not get sidetracked.
Speaker 2: The point is that at this point in time, I'm
Speaker 2: saying to myself this boogeyman you've always told me about,
Speaker 2: maybe he's about as real as sy because that's where
Speaker 2: we're at. And I wonder what your thoughts are. Again,
Speaker 2: I know it's a crazy thing and it's not the responsible,
Speaker 2: you know, sane thing to say in mixed company, but
Speaker 2: I present it to you. I mean, put me in
Speaker 2: my place, put this in its context any which way
Speaker 2: you want, Larry, But what are your thoughts on that
Speaker 2: idea that maybe just maybe we have just seen a
Speaker 2: mask drop here and the reality is not as it
Speaker 2: was represented. Could be there was collusion here for this
Speaker 2: political theater, or it could be that it's just been
Speaker 2: an unrealistically amplified threat in the perception of most of
Speaker 2: us when those in the know knew better. What are
Speaker 2: your thoughts, Well.
Speaker 3: Maybe he gave a different slant on it, and I
Speaker 3: only would speak this way because I did look into
Speaker 3: this a lot in writing the section of Surprise Attack
Speaker 3: that deals with post nine to eleven. Yes, And one
Speaker 3: of the things I will say is there was a
Speaker 3: period of time during three or four administrations where we
Speaker 3: took that kind of threat very seriously. And I'm not
Speaker 3: talking about immigrants or asylum seekers. I'm talking about the
Speaker 3: real threat being the recruitment of American citizens for terror acts. Yeah,
Speaker 3: because you can. You can only get away with nine
Speaker 3: to eleven. You know, you you sneak sawdies in and
Speaker 3: you know, put them through aircraft pilot training. You get
Speaker 3: you get away with that once. Next time you're going
Speaker 3: to have to do something really different because everybody's watching
Speaker 3: for that. But there was a period of time for
Speaker 3: a couple of decades where truly the Fusion centers, the
Speaker 3: the fbis and Home Rand security, they were being very diligent.
Speaker 3: They were doing uh exercises, they were they were turning
Speaker 3: people looking at the Internet. They were turning people. Now
Speaker 3: you can like that or not like that, but one
Speaker 3: argument can be made is that they were being preemptive
Speaker 3: and they were being proactive, and did they trample on
Speaker 3: some people's rights? Very likely, Either like that or not,
Speaker 3: But one day.
Speaker 2: One day, you and I I will. I don't know
Speaker 2: if I ever shared with you my personal interaction with
Speaker 2: the Department of Homeland Security in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 2: I think I did, But if not, maybe one day
Speaker 2: I'll have to discuss it with you, because I got
Speaker 2: to tell you there's a lot of overstepping that was
Speaker 2: done during that time period as well, and from my
Speaker 2: personal experience, I don't know if I ever told you
Speaker 2: about Did I tell you about that when I was
Speaker 2: getting married?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yes, uh huh, okay, fair.
Speaker 2: Enough, fair enough. I leave it there, But I'm just
Speaker 2: saying to me, it's still one of those things. Where
Speaker 2: was that done, you know, as a demonstration, as a
Speaker 2: preventative measure. Was it realistically necessary? Well now nowadays doesn't
Speaker 2: seem to be, because I think we would have had
Speaker 2: a serious attack back.
Speaker 3: As I said, ahead, Well, but I guess my point was,
Speaker 3: you'll never know. It's one of those things that did it.
Speaker 3: Did it pre empt I mean those things if they're proactive.
Speaker 3: I I'm not necessarily saying that I like them, but
Speaker 3: they are also preemptive. We won't know what it stopped.
Speaker 3: I mean, we know a few people got picked up,
Speaker 3: and I tracked some of those cases in the book
Speaker 3: there there that was an issue for a time. Now
Speaker 3: that tapered off because we did get ahead of the
Speaker 3: curve globally with al Qaeda. Now we're falling behind again
Speaker 3: in Africa. There's no doubt that al Qaeda is growing
Speaker 3: again in Central Africa. It's looking for outlets to the
Speaker 3: to the Atlantic Ocean. I guess what my counter to
Speaker 3: what you just said is, I don't know that we
Speaker 3: can know. All I can say is we did a
Speaker 3: lot of things domestically in a nation to get ahead
Speaker 3: of it, some good things, some not bad things. Now
Speaker 3: we're stopping all that just at the time that that
Speaker 3: threat is developing again now, which seems inconsistent to me. Again,
Speaker 3: if we're making the argument that we're at threat on
Speaker 3: our borders because they've been so loose, well, would this
Speaker 3: be the time that you decreased counter terrorism? You know,
Speaker 3: next week when they're all gone, six months, when they're
Speaker 3: all gone, and you can sign off a slip. But
Speaker 3: they're still here and we're making we're making new enemies.
Speaker 3: There's no doubt about that. So I guess I just
Speaker 3: bring this up as an area of again inconsistency and
Speaker 3: the lack of any overall strategy. We are. We are
Speaker 3: diming down our cyber warfare. That's been very clear over
Speaker 3: the last three or four months. We actually for a
Speaker 3: period of time turned it off in regard to Russia, right,
Speaker 3: And we're doing a lot of things that in homeland security,
Speaker 3: we're focused in one particular area like detention camps and deportees.
Speaker 3: I mean, for whatever that's worth, that does not address
Speaker 3: an appending attack from some of the people that we're
Speaker 3: making really upset with us right now. So that's all
Speaker 3: I was really pointing out is this is another area
Speaker 3: of inconsistent tactics supporting no strategy at all.
Speaker 2: Right, And I want to point out just a couple
Speaker 2: of quick red flags and then we can close out
Speaker 2: this discussion, because here's two red flags to me when
Speaker 2: I'm watching the performative nature of the administration where Trump visits,
Speaker 2: you know, Alligator Alcatraz, and it's not because it's Trump,
Speaker 2: it's the president anyway, so forget it. It's not about
Speaker 2: Trump here. Trump visits Alligator Alcatraz as the president shows
Speaker 2: it to the media, and the next day I'm reading
Speaker 2: reports about how there are people arriving there. Okay, so
Speaker 2: that is a priority that is occurring in real time.
Speaker 2: But a funny thing about those massive strikes on Iran,
Speaker 2: if they knew nothing about it, if they were striking
Speaker 2: an active facility, etcetera, etcetera, et cetera. I don't see
Speaker 2: complaints about casualties. I don't see they killed one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty people. I don't see they killed thirty of
Speaker 2: our scientists in the strikes. I don't see that as
Speaker 2: a priority, which, by the way, would normally evoke the
Speaker 2: need for vengeance, the need for and the legitimate which
Speaker 2: we did develop earlier on in other conflicts, the legitimate
Speaker 2: desire for people to want to get back at you
Speaker 2: for the fact that you blew up their family, you
Speaker 2: blew up their livelihood, you blew up their village, etc.
Speaker 2: None of that occurred in this twelve day war of
Speaker 2: two Eyes that the US put a punctuation mark on.
Speaker 2: So I point out to you that these things either
Speaker 2: happened because they're not meant to happen, or because people
Speaker 2: were warned there was an understanding. Something occurred here. That
Speaker 2: is strange. When you can see people moved in real
Speaker 2: time for a priority, and then another priority doesn't have
Speaker 2: the expected consequence. And oh, by the way, pay no
Speaker 2: attention to whatever the hell's going on in Ukraine now
Speaker 2: because we don't have the weapons to send them anyway.
Speaker 2: I think Trump earlier today said we need those for
Speaker 2: us for what. Anyway, I'm just saying, when you see
Speaker 2: these things, yeah.
Speaker 3: To wrap that up too, that's one thing that makes
Speaker 3: you think, see, Iran is not behaving as they've behaved
Speaker 3: in the past, threats whatever you know. There and there
Speaker 3: was a very interesting interview with a scientist from ros
Speaker 3: Alamos today talking about the fact that again we're forgetting
Speaker 3: our science and we're doing away with our science. But
Speaker 3: it takes a lot less. If you're at sixty percent enrichment,
Speaker 3: going from sixty to eighty takes minimal time and resources
Speaker 3: compared to what it took you to get to sixty.
Speaker 3: If you've already got a store of material enriched, you
Speaker 3: can go quickly to a working bomb or a dirty bomb. Yes,
Speaker 3: you know. And one of the things that nobody is
Speaker 3: talking about is the most radical part. The only thing
Speaker 3: you're talking about is they killed all their commanders, right,
Speaker 3: But the guys down below who are still radical and
Speaker 3: just had their commanders wiped out are the ones that
Speaker 3: could very well be in control of that stuff. And
Speaker 3: they never took orders from the Iranian National God what ever,
Speaker 3: They launched their own attacks. They launched their own strikes,
Speaker 3: and they just might take it in their head to
Speaker 3: do it again. We somehow have managed to convey the
Speaker 3: messages after those strikes, it's all over and we're safe.
Speaker 3: And again that's again, that's the nothing is ever that simple.
Speaker 2: Well, if you read Son Sou's The Art of War,
Speaker 2: you make your enemy feel safe just before you attack them.
Speaker 2: And if you don't read that, how about read this.
Speaker 2: If you blew up a nuclear facility that had a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of radioactive stuff in it, that stuff might
Speaker 2: have gotten spread around and noticed by people, you know,
Speaker 2: in the region. Just saying, But anyway, Larry, maybe it's
Speaker 2: just my you know, curious mind and the odditch I
Speaker 2: have in my brain and could be the concussions I've
Speaker 2: taken in my life that makes me think this way.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but Larry, I appreciate you giving us context.
Speaker 2: And I told people in the chat room that you
Speaker 2: were going to bring some sanity to the broadcast and
Speaker 2: you've done so, so I appreciate that. I want people
Speaker 2: to check out the archive, which I've given you a
Speaker 2: link for at the at the AARC website, as well
Speaker 2: as going to Larry's blog at Larry Dashancock dot com.
Speaker 2: Always always a good idea to follow that if you
Speaker 2: want to keep up on the reality of some of
Speaker 2: the unreal things that are happening. And I recommend to
Speaker 2: all Larry's books, especially by the way, you know the
Speaker 2: Oswald Puzzle, which is the newest one. But you're also
Speaker 2: going to make a presentation at Lancer this year and
Speaker 2: I'm hoping to hear some new stuff. I think there
Speaker 2: will be actually by the time you get to it.
Speaker 2: Is that a possibility, Yeah, I think there could be.
Speaker 3: We're we're we're still pursuing what was happening with with
Speaker 3: Oswald starting in New Orleans, right and what was going
Speaker 3: on with him, and I think there might be some
Speaker 3: new stuff on that. And just one final comment that
Speaker 3: I will offer check. I think I would love it
Speaker 3: if I could go anywhere and add some sanity to
Speaker 3: something these days. I would just I pretty much think
Speaker 3: that what I can do is delineate the insanity you
Speaker 3: know then we're all going to have to deal with it.
Speaker 3: I'm just not fineing much sanity.
Speaker 2: Listen, I hear you, and I'm seeing that exactly the
Speaker 2: same way you are, even though it might be from
Speaker 2: a slightly different angle. So there you have it, guys,
Speaker 2: one way or another, Larry gives you something that you're
Speaker 2: not getting elsewhere, and that's why I recommend his books,
Speaker 2: his blog and everything else. Very unique and ethical work.
Speaker 2: Ethical and ethical, by the way, I'm saying both words.
Speaker 2: Work from Larryhncock again, larrydsh Hancock dot com, Larry Hyphenhandcock
Speaker 2: dot com, whatever, and the links will be in the
Speaker 2: show notes. So anyway, that'll do it for us. I
Speaker 2: know it's less than an hour, but I promised Larry
Speaker 2: would be less than an hour, and we covered a
Speaker 2: lot of ground. Hopefully you guys got something out of it.
Speaker 2: I'm o'chelly, you are the offend.
Speaker 6: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 6: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 6: the context of the Times and reveals never before published
Speaker 6: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 6: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 6: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 6: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 6: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 6: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 6: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 6: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 6: island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 6: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 6: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 6: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 6: reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 6: up against. For more information, The War State, dot com.
Speaker 7: Devilation through Conversation.
Speaker 8: Dot com radio net funders.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, I'm about the Javassas.
Speaker 2: Ration, right, Well, what do you want to know Rudy
Speaker 2: Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry
Speaker 2: answer weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
Speaker 2: It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 4: But okay, Bill, and I'm trying to prevent the murder
Speaker 4: of John Kennedy Come On Now has a real.
Speaker 3: Effort on the day of pay assassination book into her claims.
Speaker 2: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 2: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 2: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 2: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 2: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith
Speaker 2: Very 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 as jfk at aol dot com. It's a
Speaker 2: fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic
Speaker 2: claims Judith Very Baker in her own words.
Speaker 5: Thank you for all the great information. Jesus, what would
Speaker 5: I do? Revelation through conversation in a radio show slash podcast?
Speaker 5: You want the good news? Listen to the o'shelley effect.
Speaker 5: Check o'ceelly is the most underrated voice in all media, news, education,
Speaker 5: and entertainment. The Daily Bread from ocelly dot com. Go there,
Speaker 5: save yourself from ignorance ochelly dot com. But we all
Speaker 5: agreed to put o'ceelly dot com on and listen to
Speaker 5: the o'helly effect. Revelation through conversation o'helly dot com.
Speaker 7: Geochili dot com.
Speaker 9: Nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 10: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 11: Just think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots
Speaker 11: of you know what uranium is right? Bad things things
Speaker 11: are done with uranium in living, some bad things.
Speaker 9: Nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 8: You know what uranium is right.
Speaker 9: I agree Nuclear holocaust is nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 10: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 11: Just think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots
Speaker 11: of you know what.
Speaker 1: Uranium is right.
Speaker 11: Bad things things are done with your anim including some
Speaker 11: bad things.
Speaker 9: Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear hollolear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, Nuclear Holocaust, nuclear.
Speaker 12: Hollow Yo yo. This Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas
Speaker 12: Action podcast presented by Wall Street Window. And you are
Speaker 12: listening to the o'chill effect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 7: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 7: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and
Speaker 7: Nation Building in Southeast Asia.
Speaker 13: By author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen before
Speaker 13: that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this.
Speaker 7: Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in
Speaker 7: Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 13: Get your copy today at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 7: Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swans o'chilly dot com.
Speaker 14: Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larryhncock. Secret
Speaker 14: wars became a staple of US covert operations and are
Speaker 14: still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover
Speaker 14: off many of them, using new files. It exposes things
Speaker 14: about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever
Speaker 14: written about before. It shows why it really failed and
Speaker 14: why the United States did.
Speaker 15: Not learn from it. It also shows why other countries
Speaker 15: today are doing secret operations with more success. This is
Speaker 15: the book that puts what some want to deny into
Speaker 15: the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes and
Speaker 15: Tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock
Speaker 15: dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at
Speaker 15: Amazon dot com. In Digital or Physical.
Speaker 6: Force Radio, The War State by Michael Swanson explains the
Speaker 6: great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy
Speaker 6: presentdency in the context of the times, and reveals never
Speaker 6: before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy
Speaker 6: would not have been assassinated if he had been president
Speaker 6: two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the
Speaker 6: context of the Cold War and the rise of the
Speaker 6: national security state. Before World War II, the United States
Speaker 6: was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it
Speaker 6: became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not
Speaker 6: only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were
Speaker 6: short range missiles on the island aren't with nuclear warheads
Speaker 6: that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers.
Speaker 6: Their invasion could have led to a Third World War,
Speaker 6: and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War
Speaker 6: State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you
Speaker 6: what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The
Speaker 6: Warstate dot com the.
Speaker 2: Use expressed by callers schools. There anyone else who happens
Speaker 2: to get on the air at Olly dot com. You're
Speaker 2: not necessarily reflecting he views of Olly dot com or
Speaker 2: Jeff Chelly, and we are not responsible for any stupidity
Speaker 2: which might ensue.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 10: This is James Corbet at corner Report dot com and
Speaker 10: you're listening to the affected Olly dot com revel.
Speaker 1: Through conversation here, Yeah, ravel through convers well, a truth
Speaker 1: breaking through.
Speaker 10: Uncle. Do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said
Speaker 10: that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninja's
Speaker 10: to take down the Illuminati.
Speaker 8: Oh that's interesting, Yeah in the clutchroon.
Speaker 10: Yeah did that ever work out too good?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 10: It didn't, did it? But here on o'chelly dot com
Speaker 10: radio network things work out a bit better, don't they?
Speaker 3: Much better?
Speaker 8: Much is clear and understanding about the programs. The programs
Speaker 8: much clearer, getting live people into it. They really have
Speaker 8: a good conversation going much better, much better scene.
Speaker 10: I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninjas and listen
Speaker 10: to the Ochelly dot com radio Network.
Speaker 8: I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and
Speaker 8: I like that idea dot com.
Speaker 12: Roll of brass, red bones, smash fire flows through everything,
Speaker 12: little
Speaker 7: Storm, unleash the pain.