Speaker 1: Get ready.
Speaker 2: And hey, it's the first day of July twenty twenty six,
Speaker 2: allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and
Speaker 2: I am live here on a Wednesday, Wednesday, middle of
Speaker 2: the week, all that good stuff, and glad to be here.
Speaker 1: Although I went to air lait, so.
Speaker 2: Most of you will be hearing the podcast I know. Well,
Speaker 2: even if I didn't go to air late, you'd be
Speaker 2: hearing the podcast because that's just the way things work now. Anyway,
Speaker 2: glad to do it, especially every other Wednesday. Generally speaking,
Speaker 2: I have author Larry Hancock with me.
Speaker 1: Who is the author of a great.
Speaker 2: Many books, but today's focus might be on books that
Speaker 2: are titled things like Tipping Point someone would have talked,
Speaker 2: oh and the Oswald Puzzle, which if you haven't gotten
Speaker 2: the updated version of it, I would highly recommend it.
Speaker 2: But also, you know various writings Larry Hancock's blog whoops,
Speaker 2: I spoiled it.
Speaker 1: That's who's with me, And if you're a regular listener you.
Speaker 2: Already know that. But anyway, you know, I recommend all
Speaker 2: of Larry's books. They're all on my shelf. And even
Speaker 2: if I sell off a bunch of my books, I'm
Speaker 2: not selling those just saying so I will keep them
Speaker 2: because they are among the best of the best that
Speaker 2: you can possibly acquire.
Speaker 1: So it's just that simple.
Speaker 2: I might recommend some other things that have more photos
Speaker 2: or better photos in them than Larry's books.
Speaker 1: Sorry, Larry.
Speaker 2: I might recommend some stuff that has, you know, verbatim
Speaker 2: interviews in it that maybe Larry didn't reproduce in his books.
Speaker 2: You know that other people went out of their way
Speaker 2: to simply collect a bunch of interviews. Things like this,
Speaker 2: I will recommend outside of Larry's books or even honestly,
Speaker 2: Walt Brown's, well, his entire chronology is a piece of
Speaker 2: work that is unequaled by anybody. I mean, there's thirty
Speaker 2: thousand pages in there. What are you gonna do? Okay?
Speaker 2: But outside of that, you know, when you're talking about
Speaker 2: individual volumes, the behavior of the national security state in
Speaker 2: America and elsewhere, whether you're talking about UAP, you're talking
Speaker 2: about the chaos created or creating chaos, I should say,
Speaker 2: you know, And when it comes to Russia and oh
Speaker 2: my America surprise attack, I mean shadow warfare, the awful
Speaker 2: grace of God, Am I naming all your books? No,
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna get there, Larry. But the thing is this,
Speaker 2: they're all valuable, and they're all worth the time and
Speaker 2: space that you will take up with them by reading
Speaker 2: them and owning them if you don't already have them.
Speaker 2: And In Denial, you hear a little ad for still
Speaker 2: played on this show. Even though I probably sold all
Speaker 2: of the copies of In Denial to whoever I'm going
Speaker 2: to sell them to, I'll still play that anyway, because
Speaker 2: we need to break up. You know, my voice and
Speaker 2: times that I'm talking and doing other things as well.
Speaker 2: And you might as well be reminded of a good book. Besides,
Speaker 2: never a bad thing to buy one for somebody else
Speaker 2: and make it into a gift either all of Larry's books,
Speaker 2: how about that? But the Oswald Puzzle definitely on the
Speaker 2: top of that list right now.
Speaker 1: In my mind anyway, Larry, now that I gave that.
Speaker 2: Wildly long and ridiculous introduction to you, how are you
Speaker 2: doing tonight?
Speaker 3: I'm doing okay, Chuck. Kind of looking forward to celebrating
Speaker 3: the fourth of July. It's kind of a holiday week
Speaker 3: not but you know, but so picnics and you know,
Speaker 3: celebrations going on. So that's a good thing. I'm up
Speaker 3: for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I listen. I'm looking forward to the possibility of pleasantness.
Speaker 2: And you know, my dog's barking a lot because there's
Speaker 2: fireworks outside.
Speaker 1: And people are having fun. You know.
Speaker 2: I like that. It is nice, even if I'm not
Speaker 2: participating in it. I like to be surrounded by it,
Speaker 2: because you know, it's not always a good idea to
Speaker 2: give explosives to.
Speaker 1: A blind guy.
Speaker 2: But but I will, you know, light some fireworks and
Speaker 2: bottle rockets and things if I can afford them.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: And my kid loves hot dogs and his birthday just passed,
Speaker 2: you know, fascinating thing. And you're gonna find this funny,
Speaker 2: and it'll be the last sidetrack I do, because what
Speaker 2: I want to get to is an update with you
Speaker 2: about what's going on regarding well again, sort of disclosure,
Speaker 2: except we're not going to talk UAPs tonight, So everybody
Speaker 2: put a pin in that.
Speaker 1: But a lot of people don't know this.
Speaker 2: My children were almost born on like the three most
Speaker 2: patriotic days on the calendar. My daughter was born on
Speaker 2: Flag Day, okay, my oldest son, who is my second child,
Speaker 2: was born on Veterans Day, and my youngest son was
Speaker 2: nearly born on the fourth of July, so it would
Speaker 2: have been interesting if that synergy had sort of come together,
Speaker 2: but he just missed and came a little early due
Speaker 2: to distress. And yeah, so Frankie just had his birthday
Speaker 2: like two days ago, on the twenty ninth, And yeah,
Speaker 2: so I always but I love that kind of thing
Speaker 2: when I was a little kid, you know, and I know, Larry,
Speaker 2: you were already an adult by then. But nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 2: the bi centennial, there was you know, people who weren't
Speaker 2: alive then, don't realize there were flags and flag decorated
Speaker 2: themes everywhere.
Speaker 1: In America.
Speaker 2: You couldn't go to a grocery store and not get red, white,
Speaker 2: and blue and stars and stripes pretty much shoved at you.
Speaker 2: Every product adapted it.
Speaker 1: It seemed like you.
Speaker 2: Couldn't escape this country celebrating it's two hundredth birthday. And
Speaker 2: now we're coming to the two hundred and fiftieth, and
Speaker 2: I dare say that, one, you don't have the same atmosphere,
Speaker 2: you don't have the same color, you don't have the
Speaker 2: same you know, decorations or generally sort of shared commonality anymore.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I like when I get at least a
Speaker 2: little glimpse of that old fashioned sort of Listen, we can.
Speaker 1: Be against one another and argue all the time and.
Speaker 2: Everything else, but at the end of it, we're all,
Speaker 2: you know, in the same place, and we're all Americans,
Speaker 2: and therefore, no matter where we came from, we should
Speaker 2: come together. I means, as bad as my upbringing was,
Speaker 2: that was a positive theme. I felt like in my
Speaker 2: I don't know, maybe I'm just rambling about stupid things
Speaker 2: in nostalge.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Larry, but I mean there's there's something to
Speaker 1: be said for that.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, I can contribute to that, because nineteen seventy six,
Speaker 3: it's really kind of sad for those folks that weren't
Speaker 3: around for that yet. Not that being young and sad
Speaker 3: that's a good thing. But we were coming out of
Speaker 3: a very tough period Vietnam, Watergate, a lot of internal conflicts,
Speaker 3: a lot of people very violently upset with each other,
Speaker 3: and I remember that year has been just almost like
Speaker 3: a period of relief. It's like, Okay, we can get
Speaker 3: back to being in one country, some fundamental beliefs, you know.
Speaker 3: There were songs. It really it was kind of like
Speaker 3: a party, a national party that was working and you
Speaker 3: could feel it. And I'm saddened by the fact that
Speaker 3: you're not feeling it now. Some people may be, but
Speaker 3: generally we don't have that feeling right now. I hope
Speaker 3: we come back with it again. It was great. I
Speaker 3: remember it well, like, okay, could we not do that again?
Speaker 1: Yeah? See. And that's the thing.
Speaker 2: And you know, for those that say, well, we were
Speaker 2: facing financial trouble, yes we were. It was actually financial
Speaker 2: troubles were constant then. I was experiencing it and a
Speaker 2: lot of other people were, because you know, you had
Speaker 2: price changes on a daily basis where things would jack
Speaker 2: up overnight constantly.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't based on the supply chain and the internet.
Speaker 2: It was we had this problem going on financially in
Speaker 2: this country where even though you know, on.
Speaker 1: Some level it seemed like everybody was suffering.
Speaker 2: There were fuel shortages, all kinds of problems went on
Speaker 2: during this time period. And like you said, it was
Speaker 2: post Vietnam, I mean, just after the official end and
Speaker 2: everything else, which was a bone of contention in many
Speaker 2: parts of this country. Nonetheless, there was that sort of
Speaker 2: like you said, like you know what, despite all that
Speaker 2: we're all here, and yeah, there's almost like a part
Speaker 2: already going on. Even if you observe television shows that
Speaker 2: were filmed in nineteen seventy six, you'll see that. You know,
Speaker 2: they have tablecloths that are red, white and blue. They're flags,
Speaker 2: little American flags all over the place. Everybody, even if
Speaker 2: they didn't like the president or whatever else. You know,
Speaker 2: Saturday Night Lives making fun of Gerald Ford and Gerald
Speaker 2: Ford was easy to make fun of, you know, and
Speaker 2: all that. Nonetheless, it was all still at the end
Speaker 2: of it all, we're coming together. This is about celebrating
Speaker 2: what is and we're all here. Let us experience this together.
Speaker 2: That's what it felt like to me again as a kid,
Speaker 2: and so you know, you were a little older, so therefore,
Speaker 2: you know, you had a totally different perspective on almost
Speaker 2: everything else. But you had to admit this was a
Speaker 2: constant everywhere, you know, and it didn't matter in poor
Speaker 2: places and rich places.
Speaker 1: It was a celebration.
Speaker 2: So, like I said, when I get the sense of
Speaker 2: like any of that sort of you know, bling up
Speaker 2: again and it's only for brief flashes, now, yeah, I
Speaker 2: think back to it and say, man, I really wish
Speaker 2: we could go back to that. That's one of my
Speaker 2: terrible nostalgia member bary kind of things, you know, where
Speaker 2: it's like, man, I wish it was like the old days,
Speaker 2: you know, and now I'm old, right because I say that,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Anyway, that aside, though, it is a factor. And of
Speaker 2: course this is also during the time period where the
Speaker 2: assassination was becoming laid a lot more bare in the
Speaker 2: public's mind. You had, you know, the House Select Committee
Speaker 2: on Assassinations going on, you know, fifty years ago, you
Speaker 2: had you know, the the previous congressional committees who had
Speaker 2: looked into CIA misdeeds.
Speaker 1: You know, the the Cuba.
Speaker 2: Plots, MK Ultra becoming revealed, et cetera.
Speaker 1: It's or at least beginning to become revealed.
Speaker 2: You know, and all this stuff going on and people
Speaker 2: questioning things. And this is post the assassinations of the sixties,
Speaker 2: which I feel was a demoralizing trend. You know that
Speaker 2: that affected that generation that was now coming into power
Speaker 2: in the nineteen seventies. Plus you know, nobody should ever
Speaker 2: forget Disco. I mean, for God's sake, that affected everybody.
Speaker 1: All right. Now, I've had my joke.
Speaker 3: Long live, long lived the BGS.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess anyway, you know again, jokes Larry. But
Speaker 2: to get back to the serious point and what it
Speaker 2: is we're going to talk about tonight, there is something
Speaker 2: to be said. We're not in that time period, even
Speaker 2: though we're going into the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And of course we've been through a lot
Speaker 2: of different gymnastics as a society, as a country in
Speaker 2: the legal, you know, corridors of power, in political corridors
Speaker 2: of power, and and you know, today we have this
Speaker 2: Oversight Committee that a lot of people misunderstand as the
Speaker 2: great revealer mechanism, you know, and are asking them to
Speaker 2: do things that previous committees like the House Select Committee
Speaker 2: or the Pike Committee or Rockefeller Commission or et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera. They want to see some of that kind
Speaker 2: of action come through an oversight committee, which is not
Speaker 2: its function, is not empowered to do so, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And what does this bring us to, well, the recent
Speaker 2: disclosures or whatever, the recent document dumps or whatever, and
Speaker 2: what it is we're going to be left with because
Speaker 2: you know, theoretically the Trump administration will depart in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty eight. They've had two years, they've made headlines. Jeff
Speaker 2: Morley went there to do, you know, testify with others.
Speaker 2: There were some other interesting you know people that testified.
Speaker 2: Oliver Stone, despite being confused for Rogerstone, went there to
Speaker 2: testify regarding this whole thing disclosure.
Speaker 1: How about we complete.
Speaker 2: The work of the AARRB, which was expected in twenty
Speaker 2: seventeen but you know, was delayed and then the can
Speaker 2: was kicked down the road and then again by a
Speaker 2: different administration. Okay, a lot of road in between there
Speaker 2: and here, but there are things still happening currently, So
Speaker 2: I want to get an update from you and just
Speaker 2: kind of shut up and tell me what's happening as
Speaker 2: far as you can see, because I've got my opinions.
Speaker 2: But that's not what this show is about. How is
Speaker 2: it that the general public who maybe is not catching
Speaker 2: any headlines right now regarding this, I mean, there's still
Speaker 2: stuff happening or not, or is there things to be expected, etc.
Speaker 2: Maybe you can help us navigate that. Larry, I'm sorry
Speaker 2: I took a long time to do that, but that's
Speaker 2: where I'm at.
Speaker 1: So yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 3: I think I think one of the things that you
Speaker 3: have to do. Is people in general have had the
Speaker 3: same confusion about this as as with the ar B.
Speaker 3: You know, both of these are congressionally empowered. You know,
Speaker 3: they worked under a charter.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: But I think the funny thing is there is such
Speaker 3: a subconscious desire for another investigation. You know, we all think,
Speaker 3: could we actually do a criminal investigation and get it right?
Speaker 3: Maybe this is it, But this is not it. This
Speaker 3: is not what the oversight committee. Oversight Committee was chartered
Speaker 3: to really look at the government's ability to be transparent.
Speaker 3: You know, it's it's a transparency effort. It is not
Speaker 3: a new investigation. So you they're not they're not in people.
Speaker 3: They're inviting people to come tell them what they think
Speaker 3: is there that is not surfaced, right, you know, actually
Speaker 3: what the government knows in various areas or holes in
Speaker 3: various areas and has not come to the surface. And
Speaker 3: that's that's that's the real reason. It's an oversight committee
Speaker 3: of the government in essence, is the government doing transparency?
Speaker 3: Is the government doing what we would expect it to do.
Speaker 2: And just to address well, hang hang on a second,
Speaker 2: just to address your comment about you know, what people
Speaker 2: expected from the ARRB and also what they expected from
Speaker 2: previous efforts. Let's get that straight real quick. The Assassination
Speaker 2: Records you view board was not there to investigate, although
Speaker 2: they did some investigation to verify the validity or the
Speaker 2: authenticity of some things. Now, that is not the same
Speaker 2: as investigating the crime. And each of these committees that
Speaker 2: we could look back on did have an outreach one
Speaker 2: way or another to people who were doing independent work.
Speaker 2: It came in different forms though the HSCA, you know,
Speaker 2: they contacted Mark Lane, right, they contacted Jim Garrison. I mean,
Speaker 2: these are just the big names, but they contacted many
Speaker 2: people who might have independently had knowledge that the committee
Speaker 2: could use to guide it. Later on, the RB did
Speaker 2: consult with some people who were let's call them experts
Speaker 2: for lack of a better term, on certain areas in
Speaker 2: order so they could narrow the focus of their inquiries
Speaker 2: regarding the collection of documentation, because ultimately the ARRB was
Speaker 2: there to collect.
Speaker 1: And release documentation.
Speaker 2: That their purpose not to investigate the crime or not
Speaker 2: to come up with a new solution, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: and not to add to the already confusing dual conclusion
Speaker 2: of official realities we have with the cot with with
Speaker 2: our government, which is that the Warrant Commission concluded Lee
Speaker 2: Harvey Oswald acting alone, uh, you know, killed JFK and
Speaker 2: Jack Ruby acting alone killed Lee Harvey Oswald, and they
Speaker 2: had nothing to do with each other.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: The House Select Committee on Assassinations ultimately concluded that it
Speaker 2: was likely a conspiracy. And people can complain it was
Speaker 2: all about the acoustics evidence or whatever. But the point is,
Speaker 2: the ultimate conclusion was we have a likely conspiracy here,
Speaker 2: but it's still mainly we only have evidence for Oswald.
Speaker 1: And if you listen to the.
Speaker 2: Guy who ran it and the guy who wrote the report,
Speaker 2: who then released, you know, a publication later in the
Speaker 2: form of a book.
Speaker 1: Also by the way, the mob did it. But anyway,
Speaker 1: you know, but the.
Speaker 2: Official conclusion varies a little bit, and both of them
Speaker 2: stand legitimately as far as I know. According to the
Speaker 2: official record, the ARRB did nothing to contradict it or
Speaker 2: add an addendum to any of it. They were there
Speaker 2: to just release documents. Now, have I gotten anything wrong here, Larry?
Speaker 2: In general, like in my explanations, O my simplification of
Speaker 2: what it is that people expected and that there was
Speaker 2: outreach and interaction because some people think they never asked
Speaker 2: any of it, and yes they did, and yes people volunteered,
Speaker 2: and yes some people insisted that information was given to
Speaker 2: some of these previous committees' efforts, etc. So we don't
Speaker 2: have a homogenous Well now they're inviting new people in
Speaker 2: we have now they're being allowed to testify in Congress.
Speaker 2: I don't recall that a thing except in you know,
Speaker 2: certain sessions with the HSCA, you know, so that was different.
Speaker 2: And we didn't have live broadcasts of all of that.
Speaker 2: I think we had one day with the HSCA, you know,
Speaker 2: where there was live broadcasts. But am I missing anything
Speaker 2: here for context, Larry or you know, help me fill
Speaker 2: it in.
Speaker 3: And I think that the point, the big differentiation is
Speaker 3: there were two inquiries or investigations whatever you want to
Speaker 3: call them, you know, and the House Select Committee did
Speaker 3: supposedly was chartered by Congress to inquire or investigate different assassinations.
Speaker 3: They were to address different subjects. The Warrant Commission only
Speaker 3: had one subject. The HSCA had three assassinations they were
Speaker 3: supposed to deal with, and they really focused on two
Speaker 3: never got around to the third one. But as you said,
Speaker 3: check That is the big differentiation. They were at least
Speaker 3: inquiries where you could go out and they're one of
Speaker 3: their charters, and they did you know, they did have investigators,
Speaker 3: people that went into the field, ask questions, collect information.
Speaker 3: Not as many as we would like, but they did
Speaker 3: have investigators because they were investigations. That is not true
Speaker 3: for either the ARB or the current Oversight Committee. Those
Speaker 3: committees are named very well. The ARB it's a records
Speaker 3: review board where we're reviewing records that the government holds
Speaker 3: or that somebody holds. It's it's records the government. You know,
Speaker 3: let's let's review what the government got and let's make
Speaker 3: sure we get at public. And to that extent, the
Speaker 3: Oversight Committee is doing the same thing again, let's let's
Speaker 3: review what the government knows, what the government holds, and
Speaker 3: let's make it public. So the second, second, two or
Speaker 3: quite on a lie like the first one, and I
Speaker 3: think the current committee, you know, every everybody wants their
Speaker 3: thing in front of the current committee, but the current
Speaker 3: committee is really looking at you know, discrete assassinations related
Speaker 3: records and documents and did they get released, did they
Speaker 3: not get released, what's been missed, and what they're going
Speaker 3: to produce. Obviously they're going to produce a report that
Speaker 3: said we heard from these people, we looked at these sources,
Speaker 3: we identified these documents and managed to get them released
Speaker 3: or didn't. And these are still outstanding. And by the way,
Speaker 3: here's our list of ESK. You know, we ask agencies
Speaker 3: for this during the time we existed, we didn't get them.
Speaker 3: It's still the responsibility of you know, Congress could step
Speaker 3: back after the Oversight Committee is is finished, and Congress
Speaker 3: could set back and in panel another body to force
Speaker 3: those releases be up to Congress. But that's the next
Speaker 3: stage in what the Oversight Committee is doing is preparing
Speaker 3: reports in all their areas. And if you look at
Speaker 3: what they have tried to do in a relatively short
Speaker 3: period of time compared to the others, is to tackle
Speaker 3: five different subjects. As a matter of fact, while they
Speaker 3: were I mean, we've got five different subjects, some of
Speaker 3: which are totally different than each other. And the thought
Speaker 3: that they could effectively do that, it's amazing. But even
Speaker 3: during the period in which they've been in existence a
Speaker 3: relatively short term, another subject has surfaced and brought up
Speaker 3: that they are addressing with its own hearing and its
Speaker 3: own task and that's mk Ultra right, that was not
Speaker 3: on the original list. So it's a phenomenal breadth of
Speaker 3: work that they're even trying to shine the light on,
Speaker 3: and they're having some success in certain areas. But as
Speaker 3: you say, one big difference is they you know, they
Speaker 3: don't have the time to do what the ARB did.
Speaker 3: The ARB could go around the country and hold regional hearings,
Speaker 3: which they did and ask for people to submit you know,
Speaker 3: I know of this document. I've seen this document. You
Speaker 3: guys should look for this document. You know, they had
Speaker 3: the time to do that. I think with five different
Speaker 3: subjects the Oversight Committee, it is like, no, we have
Speaker 3: no time to do that. We need to bring people here,
Speaker 3: we need to have hearings. You know, not that people
Speaker 3: have not contacted them directly with their staffs, but to
Speaker 3: accelerate the process. That's why they decided to have hearings
Speaker 3: in DC, because they don't have time to do what
Speaker 3: the ARB did right well.
Speaker 2: Also, the ARRB was created as a matter of a
Speaker 2: law being passed, which means that it was empowered by
Speaker 2: that and then it created that law created a uh,
Speaker 2: you know, an agency within the executive branch of the government,
Speaker 2: and that is different than the functional panel of the
Speaker 2: Congress acting on its own.
Speaker 1: Now, they are inspired by an executive order, but that
Speaker 1: is not a law. Yeah, it's a differentiation.
Speaker 3: I apologize good and they're not funded in the same fashion.
Speaker 1: No, because I gain so it.
Speaker 3: Is even if their task is somewhat the same, they
Speaker 3: existed a totally different level. And in some instances it's
Speaker 3: it's clear the ARB was largely bipartisan. The Oversight Committee,
Speaker 3: if anyone's listening to their hearings, will find out that
Speaker 3: there's there's still I don't think there could be anything
Speaker 3: that goes on in America right now that's not partisan,
Speaker 3: but it is partisan to extent that you did not
Speaker 3: say with the ARB.
Speaker 2: Right, And look, you could blame that on the uh,
Speaker 2: you know, hyperbole that is loaded into the rhetoric of
Speaker 2: our politics in general right now. But the truth is
Speaker 2: that all of these inquiries, right, all four that we
Speaker 2: mentioned as as the main topic here, all of them
Speaker 2: had political uh you know, actions occurring during affecting them
Speaker 2: and guiding them.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, there was quite a bit of politics with
Speaker 2: the Warrant Commission. It was a bit more independent than
Speaker 2: the the following three things.
Speaker 1: But politics played a role here.
Speaker 2: I mean you had the whole thing going on with
Speaker 2: Dick Sprague and you know, the removal and then uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the the guy who was the New York
Speaker 2: cop before, Robert Tannenbaum, right, you know, ending up taking
Speaker 2: over and this and that, and ultimately you had you know,
Speaker 2: a Professor Blakey running the show over there. That was
Speaker 2: a whole lot of political maneuvering. The ARRB had politics
Speaker 2: in it, but it was purely it was clearly excuse me,
Speaker 2: not purely, clearly more bipartisan than probably the previous and
Speaker 2: what would follow it, you know, as an agency in
Speaker 2: my judgment anyway, And you had an oversight committee that
Speaker 2: up until a certain time wasn't doing this work, but
Speaker 2: was doing oversight on other things. And the changing of
Speaker 2: the guard occurred when you know, the Republicans basically took
Speaker 2: over and you know, you can't get through a hearing
Speaker 2: without you know, political grand standing points being scored. This
Speaker 2: is about your attacking the Trump administration. You could be
Speaker 2: talking about the Kennedy assassination and noe, you're attacking Trump,
Speaker 2: you know, or no, not attacking Trump enough, you know,
Speaker 2: And all this crap goes on in the midst of
Speaker 2: these hearings. They're using their five minutes in some cases
Speaker 2: to not question the witnesses or ask for clarity on evidence.
Speaker 2: They're entering statements in and then making statements publicly, and
Speaker 2: a lot of them are just well, you know, for
Speaker 2: political gamesmanship, that's it. They're politically gaming the situation and
Speaker 2: utilizing their TV time to make statements, you know, which
Speaker 2: that didn't seem to occur with the previous ones, okay,
Speaker 2: where you had that public element of it. So you
Speaker 2: have differences, and but again it's not an investigation. We're
Speaker 2: not here with the expectation that you know, even if
Speaker 2: there isn't impaneling of another circumstance that's got to be
Speaker 2: done separately. That's not this where an investigation will be
Speaker 2: conducted about even anything specific. And as you pointed out,
Speaker 2: they started with a mandate which was from the executive
Speaker 2: order that covered a lot of ground. I mean, you're
Speaker 2: talking about the King assassination, Uh, the two Kennedy assassinations, right,
Speaker 2: uh you know UAPs okay, and oh boy, what was
Speaker 2: the fifth thing, Larry? You know, I think kr K Trump,
Speaker 2: So you know, I'm just saying these things were all
Speaker 2: collectively thrown out as like, let's get to all this.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, as you said, the HSCA had ultimately they
Speaker 2: had two you know, parallel investigations. Uh, but they initially
Speaker 2: started with three that were intended.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: The Warren Commission was only you know, it was not
Speaker 2: the Warrent Commission. It was the presidential you know, commission
Speaker 2: to explore Kennedy's assassination.
Speaker 1: That's all.
Speaker 2: It was JFK, you know, and the ar RB was
Speaker 2: there to collect things about the JFK assassination. This is
Speaker 2: different from all of them because of this multi you know,
Speaker 2: multipurpose multih you know, actual subjects. That oversight is being
Speaker 2: held over right, So that in and of itself makes
Speaker 2: a big difference, doesn't it.
Speaker 3: And and it has no power other than writing report,
Speaker 3: you know, summer reports of what they did and what
Speaker 3: they got and what they didn't manage to get. That's
Speaker 3: that's all. That's the extent of their power unless unless
Speaker 3: the Republican Congressman who is actually over Luna's oversight committee
Speaker 3: decides to take action, nothing further will happen. That if
Speaker 3: you want to talk about something being political and a
Speaker 3: committee within Congress, even if it completes its work, is
Speaker 3: still subject to the politics of what happens to its work.
Speaker 3: And I will say, you know, our friend Stu Wesler
Speaker 3: tells me an update is during his testimony to the committee.
Speaker 3: You know, Luna said, you know, came back and said,
Speaker 3: we're absolutely working. Right now as you speak, we've started
Speaker 3: launching the effort to get the HSCA material on the
Speaker 3: King assassination. As of now, weeks actually months later, she
Speaker 3: still hasn't got it. That's not her fault. She's asked
Speaker 3: for it, but people above her in the Congressional Republican
Speaker 3: congressional hierarchy have to make that happen. If they don't
Speaker 3: make it happen, if they don't push it, then it
Speaker 3: just sits there. You know why it wouldn't happen, But
Speaker 3: I think we have to. You pointed it out, Wealchuck,
Speaker 3: the ARB was a body existing on its own. This
Speaker 3: is simply a subcommittee of another committee of Congress.
Speaker 2: Right, and it in and of itself doesn't necessarily have
Speaker 2: subpoena power, which the ARRB did you know, and things
Speaker 2: like that. She's making requests, she's not making subpoenas go out,
Speaker 2: you know, which the ARRB had the option to do,
Speaker 2: you know. And Congress when it was holding the House
Speaker 2: Select Committee had a different set of powers to be
Speaker 2: able to compel certain things. But even within the government,
Speaker 2: the FBI could resist handing over things to these committees.
Speaker 1: You know. And and where is the enforcement arm.
Speaker 2: Where is the ability to compel someone to come forward
Speaker 2: or information to be turned over? Well, that gets a
Speaker 2: little dicey, doesn't it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, and you you can't? Yeah, who wants that?
Speaker 3: Gets back to a political thing. Does anybody want to
Speaker 3: I would say, with the mid terms coming up, does
Speaker 3: anybody want to stir things up more than they already stirred?
Speaker 3: You know? At this point, it's hard to see anybody
Speaker 3: gaining politically from forcing these issues, you know, does right now?
Speaker 3: Everybody is trying to just kind of write it out.
Speaker 3: It feels like, well.
Speaker 2: Right, because in this circumstance, you could do harm to
Speaker 2: yourself as a candidate if a major mistake was made,
Speaker 2: or if you know, you're requesting things quite loudly and
Speaker 2: people are ignoring you. These kind of things could do
Speaker 2: harm to someone who's a candidate. In twenty twenty six,
Speaker 2: which is just around the corner, you know, the elections. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so you know there are political considerations here anyway, All
Speaker 2: of that again is just about the context. But you know,
Speaker 2: where are we currently, I mean, there aren't things happening,
Speaker 2: it seems. And there have been you know, records turned
Speaker 2: over and there's been different disputes about it, and there
Speaker 2: was the problem with you know, turning over people's personal
Speaker 2: information and making a public when they shouldn't have and
Speaker 2: all of that has gone on, Larry already, But who
Speaker 2: wants to really shake things up real big in the
Speaker 2: last few months leading up to the midterm elections where
Speaker 2: the balance of power could shift, you know, from one
Speaker 2: political party to another in that chamber. That is again
Speaker 2: as you said, over the Oversight committee, right, so.
Speaker 1: Different issues here, yeah, and a bit.
Speaker 3: Of risky business if you want to slide over to
Speaker 3: the UAP or the UFO section. She took statements from
Speaker 3: a number of people on panel in front of her
Speaker 3: talking about uh, information that existed within the government, things
Speaker 3: that existed within the government. And then there are two
Speaker 3: levels of response. It's sort of like, well, what's your source,
Speaker 3: which is any any investigator would ask, what, how can
Speaker 3: I trace that out. You know, you say you heard
Speaker 3: this or you saw this, tell me where and who's
Speaker 3: so we can call them? Right, okay? And then the
Speaker 3: response as well, I'm within security classification. I can't tell
Speaker 3: you an open hearing. Maybe you know you questioned me
Speaker 3: in a skiff. Okay, fine, But then it enters into
Speaker 3: this level of vagueness sort of did they do that.
Speaker 3: Let's is somebody going through the list of who testified,
Speaker 3: who said they heard abcdef things and did the committee
Speaker 3: bring them into a skiff and get more detail? Did
Speaker 3: they get names, did they follow up on those names?
Speaker 3: Did they go back Some of the individuals were saying
Speaker 3: the whistleblowers were saying that they had made reports to
Speaker 3: the IGS already on this or to is the commit
Speaker 3: Did the committee go back to the IGS and say
Speaker 3: is that really true? The back the back end, I'm
Speaker 3: afraid will be missing. It will be like we always are,
Speaker 3: a lot of rather sensational things were dropped in in
Speaker 3: the various hearings, all the various hearings, and but that
Speaker 3: won't be part of the oversight report because especially in
Speaker 3: that area, it's it's there are issues of security and classification,
Speaker 3: you know, I just don't expect the Oversight Committee review
Speaker 3: to say we did this, this and this, name new
Speaker 3: people and and release information that we will. You know,
Speaker 3: the transparency is going to run into national security in
Speaker 3: that area pretty quickly, just like it appears that the
Speaker 3: release of the HC investigation on the MLK is going
Speaker 3: to run into the politics of the king family. There
Speaker 3: there are things that you can do everything that you
Speaker 3: want on the front end to bring issues out and
Speaker 3: bring them to the light of day, but you know
Speaker 3: that next step gets to be very difficult across a
Speaker 3: gambit of things from national security to politics.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So that being said, though, what would you say is
Speaker 2: the latest on the progress regarding you know, the individual
Speaker 2: because you have insight into multiple topics here based on
Speaker 2: your experience and also, uh, you know your current work
Speaker 2: and again you know your experience in the past.
Speaker 1: So I mean, you can see this.
Speaker 2: Well informed in various areas. So we've talked about the
Speaker 2: UAPs and what's happened recently. What has happened, say, you
Speaker 2: know regarding the JFK assassination recently, Well, I.
Speaker 3: Think the JFK assassination, what's happening on all fronts is
Speaker 3: that they're working on their staff is beginning the process
Speaker 3: of writing their reports. You know, we had a committee,
Speaker 3: we did hearings, we collected information. Now we need to
Speaker 3: write this all up because that is their obligation. So
Speaker 3: they're in the process of writing reports on what they
Speaker 3: have done and where they stand with the information. Think
Speaker 3: of that. That's where they are now. I think as
Speaker 3: it stands, there may be there are rumors that there
Speaker 3: will be one more hearing open hearing on MK Ultra,
Speaker 3: but the rest are done and that they've run out
Speaker 3: of time. It's over. They're working over writing their reports.
Speaker 3: In some instances, like I said, we can know from
Speaker 3: the outside that certain things have not happened, like with
Speaker 3: the m l M LK document releases, that seemed like
Speaker 3: a very simple thing and an easily done thing by
Speaker 3: you know, the party in power, but that hasn't happened
Speaker 3: yet on the JFK front. A given example. One of
Speaker 3: the things that was brought up in the in the
Speaker 3: testimony is is the fact that uh, the President's physician,
Speaker 3: JFK's physician during the House Select Committee had his lawyer
Speaker 3: right to the House Select Committee basically offering a statement
Speaker 3: that he had information to offer on the fact that
Speaker 3: there was indeed a conspiracy uh. His his his lawyer
Speaker 3: is on record of having done that. Later, during the
Speaker 3: period of the R A R b UH the AARB
Speaker 3: attempted to pursue it, with no luck because they needed
Speaker 3: the lawyer would tell them everything that he had been told.
Speaker 3: But you know, he didn't know what that information was.
Speaker 3: You know, he didn't have the files, he didn't have
Speaker 3: the interviews. So the only way to get that is
Speaker 3: to go back to the papers of the of the
Speaker 3: doctor and see if he had written down anything or
Speaker 3: done any interviews that would substantiate his remarks. Unfortunately, when
Speaker 3: the ARB appealed to his daughter, who legally owns his materials,
Speaker 3: she refused the request. Now it is possible that the
Speaker 3: Luna Committee could revive that request to her. As you said,
Speaker 3: they don't have subpoena power, but at least they could
Speaker 3: ask her to go on record and publicly say no
Speaker 3: and publicly perhaps he even make a declaration of why
Speaker 3: she's refusing to share it, you know, so they can
Speaker 3: That's why I used the term earlier. They can do
Speaker 3: an ask. So I think what's happening in several of
Speaker 3: these areas is the committee is documenting quote unquote these
Speaker 3: ask you know, these are things that have been identified.
Speaker 3: They're still open. There still exists to known documents, and
Speaker 3: the least we can do in our report is itemize
Speaker 3: these as asked that somebody could pursue.
Speaker 2: Well, right, And as I said, both the ARB and
Speaker 2: the current committee did accept input from outsiders, you know,
Speaker 2: and advice about what should be sought, what would be useful,
Speaker 2: and what should be disclosed. Right, That's a common thing.
Speaker 2: Although again they were two different you know, they were
Speaker 2: two different animals, but nonetheless they did do that, both
Speaker 2: of them, except outside input about what should be sought.
Speaker 3: Right, And I saw it in terms of known records. Again,
Speaker 3: this is this is not it's not an inquiry, it's
Speaker 3: not investigating. This is back to did the government itself
Speaker 3: within you know, within all these investigations are the things
Speaker 3: that are part of the body of record, you know,
Speaker 3: like this was, that have never really been in They're
Speaker 3: loose ends, they've never really been pursued. But this is
Speaker 3: not brand new information. This is information that has already
Speaker 3: proven to be out there and exists, and nobody managed
Speaker 3: to obtain the same thing would be with the UAP reports.
Speaker 3: These people that are testifying are talking about things that
Speaker 3: are known to exist within the government, that have been
Speaker 3: part of whistleblower reports by g investigations. You know, this
Speaker 3: is all known stuff. It's not new, and I guess again,
Speaker 3: I know it's belaboring the point, but it's this is
Speaker 3: the whole point is to identity things that are already
Speaker 3: known and whose location is clear and try to close
Speaker 3: the loop on those.
Speaker 1: So so there you have that.
Speaker 2: But you know what, what else can be said regarding
Speaker 2: the interactions, because you know, some people have sort of interpreted,
Speaker 2: you know, the events of the past couple of years,
Speaker 2: whether it be an UAP or it be on JFK,
Speaker 2: or you know, the fact that we did see a
Speaker 2: release regarding our FK that was a bit more expansive
Speaker 2: than what was available in DC anyway, or at you know,
Speaker 2: at the archives, although you and I discussed that, and
Speaker 2: the majority of it was stuff that had been around
Speaker 2: but was not necessarily as accessible. So there are you know,
Speaker 2: the upgrades, if you will, of access where nowadays somebody
Speaker 2: can go and click on a file folder and look
Speaker 2: at things that were particularly hard to obtain not too
Speaker 2: long ago. I'm not speaking to the quality of that
Speaker 2: or exactly how well it's organized or anything else. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying that it's now available where it was not previously,
Speaker 2: to the whole country.
Speaker 1: You say, yeah, go ahead, I.
Speaker 3: Would, but there is again, there's a good deal of
Speaker 3: confusion about that. Yes, I know of nothing related to
Speaker 3: j f K, MLK or RFK that is now. You know,
Speaker 3: we've had some some documents that have been provided, right.
Speaker 3: You know that that Luna asked for things about William
Speaker 3: Harvey things. So there are some documents that have been
Speaker 3: requested and are now visible.
Speaker 2: And Morley got some of the Joe stuff right right, Yeah, okay.
Speaker 3: But but that's only happened literally, if you think about
Speaker 3: this is very strange. This has only happened because a
Speaker 3: a committee chair has asked an agency for something and
Speaker 3: they have responded, and she has released it. You know,
Speaker 3: it's kind of like the the Soviet records of Oswald.
Speaker 3: She has released it. There there's no mechanism to release
Speaker 3: this stuff. That's a personal personal act on her part
Speaker 3: as chairman for Transparency, because there is no federal mechanism
Speaker 3: to release what she's asking for. In getting this strange
Speaker 3: thing when you carry that over to the UFOs, the
Speaker 3: UAPs is there's all this talk and all this media
Speaker 3: about oh, we're seeing UFO reports now, and so none
Speaker 3: of that has anything at all to what her oversight
Speaker 3: committee is doing. We are getting documents released because the
Speaker 3: President gave a directive executive order and the DNI, whoever
Speaker 3: the DNI is at the given moment, made a request
Speaker 3: and asked to various agencies and started doing a collection.
Speaker 3: How they're doing a collection, it's sort of like, is
Speaker 3: everybody just sending stuff in the mail to a desk
Speaker 3: and it's all being dumped out by the White House essentially, Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's what is happening. That's not at all anything to
Speaker 3: do with their oversight committee. The stuff that's coming out
Speaker 3: of the other congressionally mandated group, the on UVAPS, has
Speaker 3: nothing to do with your committee. So I think people
Speaker 3: are probably looking at this like saying that there's some
Speaker 3: mechanism at work that's actually somehow now reaching out and
Speaker 3: grabbing stuff and making it available, And no, that's just
Speaker 3: things that are happening independently, right.
Speaker 1: No, that's the thing with the ARB.
Speaker 2: There was a system by which this stuff would travel
Speaker 2: be considered, and the records would be as you said,
Speaker 2: you know, just like the name implies, the records would
Speaker 2: be reviewed.
Speaker 1: And you know.
Speaker 2: That that led to the whole description of you know,
Speaker 2: the CIA guys sitting there would fight them on every document.
Speaker 2: But you know, so on and so forth all that,
Speaker 2: but that mechanism is not even there. It's not even
Speaker 2: there for someone to obstruct.
Speaker 3: It's just yeah, yeah, it is fascinating. And that again,
Speaker 3: I talked to so many people about the UAPs. It's like,
Speaker 3: all you guys are getting all these records. Well, now
Speaker 3: what we're getting is we're not getting what we got
Speaker 3: fifty years ago from the Air Force investigation, where you
Speaker 3: would see, okay, here's the report, here's who made it,
Speaker 3: here's where it was made, here are descriptions, here's how
Speaker 3: it was investigated. Great, we're getting none of that. Everything
Speaker 3: is redacted out. You know, I'm looking at report. Fascinating
Speaker 3: to report the other day that says, you know, on
Speaker 3: an unstated date, at an undefined location in the Western
Speaker 3: United States, these people were interviewed by the FBI about
Speaker 3: something that they observed, and it's there's it's not actually
Speaker 3: a government document. There's no routing on it. There's no
Speaker 3: was it investigator?
Speaker 1: Was it not?
Speaker 2: It's not a threeero two form. It doesn't tell you.
Speaker 2: Does it even indicate you who conducted the investigation.
Speaker 3: Or in some cases yes, in some cases no. In
Speaker 3: the case I'm taking about it is the FBI, because
Speaker 3: a lot of a lot of the reports that we
Speaker 3: would have wanted would have come from the Strategic Air
Speaker 3: Command or the Strategic Command or nor Read or whatever.
Speaker 3: That's not what we're getting. We're getting reports that came
Speaker 3: through the Department of Energy and related to the FBI,
Speaker 3: who who interview people about an incident, or homeland security
Speaker 3: or you know it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These are
Speaker 3: all kind of miscellaneous reports. The only reports that are
Speaker 3: being released from the military, the Department of whatever you
Speaker 3: want to call it, relate to things that are overseas.
Speaker 3: And you are now go and look at the list
Speaker 3: and go, oh man, all those videos, all those images,
Speaker 3: all that sort of stuff there, you know, from aircraft
Speaker 3: and the receptors and so on and so forth. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's great. It's all over the Persian Gulf, you know,
Speaker 3: like about the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the one we discussed about the hell fire
Speaker 2: missile that appeared to almost bounce on that was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was in the that was over in the
Speaker 1: Middle East. That occurred.
Speaker 3: It would almost lead you to think that the United
Speaker 3: States has no military in the continental the United States.
Speaker 3: They're all overseas, and then it's like, well, maybe that's true.
Speaker 2: Well some people do think that, but they clearly don't
Speaker 2: live near any of the bases because they're bases anyway.
Speaker 2: All right, So all that being said, I mean, that's
Speaker 2: where we're left. And it's actually kind of an interesting
Speaker 2: situation in that things are happening despite the fact that
Speaker 2: they're not being compelled by a specific mechanism.
Speaker 1: Still, all of it's sort of inspired.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, by the generalized executive order.
Speaker 1: So Trump's executive order.
Speaker 2: Is kind of being followed in a loose sort of
Speaker 2: way by people all along the chain instead of it
Speaker 2: being run through the normal channels.
Speaker 1: Is that accurate you think.
Speaker 3: In any kind of a structured fashion. I think it's
Speaker 3: sort of like an announcement is made that says we're
Speaker 3: going to have transparency, right, and then things happen and
Speaker 3: if you know, a year later, you would look back
Speaker 3: and say, did we have transparency? You know, let's let's
Speaker 3: evaluate this. It's it's not the kind of transparent see
Speaker 3: who were expecting so.
Speaker 2: Far right right now, It's just it's an anomaly, if
Speaker 2: you will, when it comes to these things. And you know,
Speaker 2: and that's even in the face of people not understanding
Speaker 2: that you know, oh well, you know they were going
Speaker 2: to withhold stuff for seventy five years and that was unusual.
Speaker 1: And you know, if it wasn't for you know, Oliver Stone,
Speaker 1: then Bubba. You know.
Speaker 2: The problem there is that people don't look at the
Speaker 2: regular procedures anyway for congressional committees, because if you did,
Speaker 2: you'd know that Pearl Harbor's information, which there were various
Speaker 2: investigations regarding Pearl Harbor, a lot more investigations through the Congress,
Speaker 2: I think than anything close to what we have here
Speaker 2: with the Kennedy assassination, King and probably UAPs combined. I
Speaker 2: think there were more investigations if I remember right about
Speaker 2: Pearl Harbor, but that information was not forthcoming and transparent
Speaker 2: right away because of the normal procedure of withholding congressional records,
Speaker 2: which is part of the equation as well.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, there are two things that are working against
Speaker 3: each other. The one thing is if Congress any there
Speaker 3: is an official federal investigation of anything, at least information
Speaker 3: is collected, and it's collected in a body about that subject,
Speaker 3: and it's in a set of holders whatever, And then
Speaker 3: the good news is it's collected, so it just doesn't disappear.
Speaker 3: But then it falls under the classification that says fifty years,
Speaker 3: seventy five years. So the good news is it's still
Speaker 3: there and eventually somebody will get it. As compared to
Speaker 3: what again, most people don't know that there are very
Speaker 3: specific protocols about records retentions within the military services and
Speaker 3: with any government agencies, and most of them, I mean,
Speaker 3: this makes sense, like you can't keep every piece of
Speaker 3: paper forever, so in some cases they're very short. I
Speaker 3: was reading several related to UAPs and it sort of, yes,
Speaker 3: we had a threat report. There was actually an operational
Speaker 3: report about a threat to this base. But our standard
Speaker 3: records retention protocol is, after you know, thirty days it's gone,
Speaker 3: we don't you know whatever happened. If there was no
Speaker 3: military action, we don't keep it. And there was no
Speaker 3: body to collect that. So what we end up is
Speaker 3: we end up with a lot large compilation at the
Speaker 3: National Archives of investigations that are conducted by government bodies
Speaker 3: that stay there for a very long time, and the
Speaker 3: other stuff that happens on a daily basis or a
Speaker 3: weekly basis, unless it's part of something you know, above
Speaker 3: the daily operations of that agency or service. It just
Speaker 3: it's destroyed after thirty days, sixty days, whatever. They all
Speaker 3: have retentions protocols, but it never gets saved, which is
Speaker 3: you know, I think people don't really understand that information
Speaker 3: goes away that quickly at a local level unless there's
Speaker 3: been a special investigation to collect it, which is everything
Speaker 3: that we've talked about tonight, Chuck. As far as the
Speaker 3: JFK records were records that were collected by various congressional activities, right,
Speaker 3: and there is a related record out there that an
Speaker 3: FBI local office that nobody collected it went away.
Speaker 2: Well, right, because here's the thing, they were given special
Speaker 2: you know, classifications for retention because, as you said, in
Speaker 2: the normal course of things, eventually most of this stuff
Speaker 2: has destroyed. Now, a major exception to that might be
Speaker 2: the records of the President, where you know, pretty much
Speaker 2: every scrap of paper that's pretty much utilized or touched
Speaker 2: by the president, is supposed to be preserved, you know,
Speaker 2: according to the standards, right, But Congress, they have different
Speaker 2: time periods where these things are you know, summarily destroyed, okay,
Speaker 2: or preserved you know, again, depending on what they are.
Speaker 2: And I used to have to explain this when people
Speaker 2: said there was no reason in the world for them
Speaker 2: to pick the twenty twenty nine date, you know, because
Speaker 2: that was the initial date. And I'm like, actually, there's
Speaker 2: a perfectly mathematical explanation for twenty twenty nine as being
Speaker 2: the year, and you know, people would be mystified, and
Speaker 2: I'd say it's pretty simple. You know, the Warrant Commission
Speaker 2: concluded its work in nineteen sixty four that stuff was
Speaker 2: to be withheld from a public view, you know, outside
Speaker 2: of what was published by the Government Printing Office. Remember
Speaker 2: I'm using the word government here in a lot of places,
Speaker 2: because guess what. That's who's involved, and that's who's guiding when,
Speaker 2: how and where this stuff is released and also how
Speaker 2: it's collected and preserved. So the thing is sixty four.
Speaker 2: If you add seventy five years to nineteen sixty four,
Speaker 2: guess what year you get to twenty twenty nine. It's
Speaker 2: not a special thing that was done because Kennedy. It's
Speaker 2: that's the way it was.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: There have been disclosures because the Freedom of Information Acts.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is how we got, you know, hold
Speaker 2: of the first executive sessions of the Warrant Commission and
Speaker 2: everything in the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 1: I think it was doctor Ron and Howard Weisberg.
Speaker 2: You know, we're actively involved in that at a certain point, right,
Speaker 2: you know, but these are things that were done under
Speaker 2: the procedures and based on some actual common practices where yeah, indeed,
Speaker 2: Congressional records, under the right circumstances are withheld from public
Speaker 2: view for seventy five years. So when the House Select
Speaker 2: Committee was also going to be withheld for fifty years,
Speaker 2: it also made perfect sense, right, because that's what they
Speaker 2: did with a lot of things. And you're never going
Speaker 2: to see the House on non American activities, you know,
Speaker 2: in total, I don't think that's ever going to see
Speaker 2: the light of day, because there are provisions where you
Speaker 2: can prolong it, delay it, change the release date, but
Speaker 2: there are standard procedures that take over without anybody making
Speaker 2: a declaration or decision.
Speaker 1: So you know, that's I mean, does that sound like
Speaker 1: a fairly reasonable basic explanation.
Speaker 3: There's nothing mysterious about that. There's nothing intentionally evil about that.
Speaker 3: It's just records retentions are different against agencies and at
Speaker 3: different levels of government, and they just it's it. It is.
Speaker 3: Is it a bureaucracy, Yes it is, Yes it is.
Speaker 3: But there you know, there's a reason for that, or
Speaker 3: people would be deluged with pieces of paper and they
Speaker 3: could never find anything. But so nothing mysterious. You just
Speaker 3: have to know what their their protocols.
Speaker 2: Are, right, And there are various presidential commissions, okay, outside
Speaker 2: of what people commonly refer to as the Warrant Commission,
Speaker 2: uh where, Yeah, their records are basically handled in a
Speaker 2: very similar fashion, and they could be studying, you know,
Speaker 2: something like the farming communities and the effect on our
Speaker 2: food supply during a ten year time period where there
Speaker 2: appeared to be.
Speaker 1: You know, this is what I'm saying. It could be
Speaker 1: the most mundane things.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily always the most controversial, or things that are filled.
Speaker 1: With murder mayhem and you know, intrigue.
Speaker 2: Those records are withheld too, and you end up with
Speaker 2: an even smaller report. I mean I've got reports on
Speaker 2: stuff from the Kennedy administration, you know, regarding the behavior
Speaker 2: of the shipbuilding industry and how it relates to you know,
Speaker 2: stuff like this goes on all the time. This is
Speaker 2: part of the bureaucracy as well, So you know, let's
Speaker 2: look at what's normal and also not necessarily ascribe the
Speaker 2: nefarious nature to everything right away. That's not to say
Speaker 2: there isn't nefarious purposes or that it's useful that these
Speaker 2: procedures delay the release until everybody's dead who was involved.
Speaker 1: You know, and all that.
Speaker 2: Yes, and even I've stated on here, you know, which
Speaker 2: I find funny. You'll find that there are documents on
Speaker 2: the on guess who the Lincoln assassination that are still withheld,
Speaker 2: you know, for national security purposes. Figure that one out, folks.
Speaker 2: There was no Secret Service protection at the time. Okay,
Speaker 2: they were fully engaged in counterfeiting. So it's not about
Speaker 2: the Secret Service. Obviously there was a failure of whatever
Speaker 2: the hell was going on because well Lincoln got shot.
Speaker 1: But there's stuff withheld on that to this day that
Speaker 1: if you.
Speaker 2: Go and you try and get it from the National Archives. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you could ask for a document and get one of
Speaker 2: those slips. I mean, I don't know if they physically
Speaker 2: do that anymore, but you get a slip where you
Speaker 2: open a folder and the record is withheld, so you know, that.
Speaker 1: Is still possible.
Speaker 2: Anyway, all of that aside, it's just a matter of,
Speaker 2: you know, let's have some clarity and not look for
Speaker 2: Santa Claus to deliver as presence, you know, because there's
Speaker 2: no Santa Claus here.
Speaker 1: There is a mechanism. There are things happening.
Speaker 2: But you know, the people that say, well, they should investigate,
Speaker 2: and they should, they're not empowered to do that. That's
Speaker 2: like asking a local cop, you.
Speaker 1: Know, to do the work of the FBI. They're not
Speaker 1: empowered to do that.
Speaker 2: They don't have the resources to do that, they don't
Speaker 2: have the directives in place to do it. You're asking
Speaker 2: the wrong person to do something. Now, could a local cop,
Speaker 2: you know, inspire the FBI to get involved in an
Speaker 2: interstate investigation? Possibly there are mechanisms in place where they
Speaker 2: can ask for assistance and they can make them aware
Speaker 2: of evidence that would fall under their jurisdiction, et cetera,
Speaker 2: et cetera. This is my you know example here to
Speaker 2: draw a parallel that you can only ask, you know,
Speaker 2: the office of anything, whether it's a sheriff or you know,
Speaker 2: or it's a congress person or whatever, to operate within
Speaker 2: the parameters of said office.
Speaker 1: Okay, And we.
Speaker 2: Have to get to the reality of that, and I
Speaker 2: think people fail to understand that, and they're just like
Speaker 2: they need to disclose this stuff and go after this
Speaker 2: information and get these people. That's not what they're there
Speaker 2: to do, you know. And again, remember, like Larry said,
Speaker 2: you know, the record's review happens with the Records Review Board.
Speaker 2: The oversight happens with the Oversight Committee where they're looking
Speaker 2: over things and that have already happened. They're not making
Speaker 2: new things happen necessarily.
Speaker 1: You know. Do you think that's fair to say, Larry.
Speaker 3: Oh, I think that's fair to say. And I think
Speaker 3: this is I mean, I don't blame people for not
Speaker 3: knowing this. This is like, you know, the senior level
Speaker 3: Civics class know your government and know your government at
Speaker 3: this level of details. You know, we all have trouble
Speaker 3: knowing the government at any level of detail. And this
Speaker 3: is this is pretty minute. But so there's there's the
Speaker 3: problem is nobody intuitively knows this. It's not even civics
Speaker 3: hasn't covered that much in high school these days.
Speaker 1: But even the basis, yeah, even the basics.
Speaker 3: If you missed it, this isn't the basics. But you know,
Speaker 3: you shouldn't be shocked. I guess you're as you're saying. Check.
Speaker 3: People want it, they expect it. It's intuitive, but that's
Speaker 3: just it's not the way the system works, right.
Speaker 1: Right, So so there you have it.
Speaker 2: I mean, ultimately, you know, you can say whatever you
Speaker 2: want and closing here, but I think we've covered this
Speaker 2: pretty well, uh, given people an idea of what's happening. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, And again this is not a criticism of anybody,
Speaker 2: uh that's involved. Everybody seems to have, you know, good motives,
Speaker 2: you know, for the most part regarding Hey, let's get
Speaker 2: to some clarity on these things. If documents can be released,
Speaker 2: let's get them released.
Speaker 1: Uh, you know.
Speaker 2: And and that's the thing, regardless of what you think
Speaker 2: of whoever's in charge. And I've had my mixed thoughts
Speaker 2: watching some of the hearings, you know, the fact is
Speaker 2: that ultimately it looks to me like they're kind of
Speaker 2: doing their job, you know, And yeah, go ahead, and.
Speaker 3: That would be my summaration. They are doing their job
Speaker 3: within the constraints of that job. It's it's not their
Speaker 3: fault that their Congress did not the clear and fund
Speaker 3: a new investigation of at least one of these things.
Speaker 3: But it didn't, you know. That's so within the constraints
Speaker 3: and within their environment and the very as you talked
Speaker 3: about earlier. You mentioned it hyperpole, and I think if
Speaker 3: if we all had hyperpole gauges, our heads would be
Speaker 3: blowing off now because nobody can make a statement in
Speaker 3: government without blaming somebody else, and that's slowing down the
Speaker 3: whole process. But that aside, they are doing what what
Speaker 3: they're legally constrained to do with within you know, the scope,
Speaker 3: and it's our our problem is not clearly understanding their
Speaker 3: scope or accepting it, you know, because we want a
Speaker 3: bigger scope, but they can't do that. So we just
Speaker 3: have to be realistic. And we are getting new things.
Speaker 3: We're getting bits and pieces. We're seeing things that we
Speaker 3: didn't see before, you know, whatever you want to call them.
Speaker 3: We are getting more details. And when this is all
Speaker 3: said and done, we don't know if they do a
Speaker 3: good job and their oversight committees of what I've been
Speaker 3: calling the ask, you know, kind of like, well, we
Speaker 3: weren't able to get you know, we got one through
Speaker 3: five and we didn't get six through fifty, and somebody
Speaker 3: really should make sure that you get six through That's
Speaker 3: that's still the responsibility of Congress. The committee's over them
Speaker 3: could do something further. We might get something more if
Speaker 3: somebody really wanted to push it from a political standpoint.
Speaker 3: So part of doing their job is that oversight report
Speaker 3: calling out all of the things that they identified that
Speaker 3: they didn't get is actually a very important things. I remember.
Speaker 3: I was shocked one time when I read the HSCA
Speaker 3: report and one of the early documents that was created
Speaker 3: was a document HSCA is specifically saying, these are all
Speaker 3: the things the FBI should have done in support of
Speaker 3: the Warren Commission but didn't do. So let's do it.
Speaker 3: You know. That's a good starting point, and these folks
Speaker 3: could leave a good starting point, just setting there for
Speaker 3: something else to occur.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So, ultimately, you also wrote about this, you know, in
Speaker 2: a blog post that is to be published soon or
Speaker 2: is it already because I know you shared it with me,
Speaker 2: I had of publishing it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Actually, actually I dug into something that we've learned
Speaker 3: more about that actually being this is not being discussed much,
Speaker 3: and there are being claims made even now about Oswald
Speaker 3: and and this surface. One of the things that surfaced
Speaker 3: as part of these new documents have been documents as
Speaker 3: to when and where Oswald appeared on various government lists,
Speaker 3: whether it was a CI list or an FBI list.
Speaker 3: And you know, there's a lot of dialogue about, well,
Speaker 3: he wasn't on this list at the time of the assassination,
Speaker 3: and he should have been, because if he had been,
Speaker 3: he would have been pulled in for questioning and so
Speaker 3: and so this almost have been part of the conspiracy.
Speaker 3: And unfortunately that's resurfaced the whole point of of what
Speaker 3: we often call the watch list. So if anybody wants
Speaker 3: to take a look, what I've done is to go
Speaker 3: back and say, you know, let's take a look at
Speaker 3: what that really means. You know, we've seen some new documents.
Speaker 3: Let's look at them all all combined, see whose list
Speaker 3: he was on, and really challenged that issue, you know,
Speaker 3: was him not being on a male intercept list? Did
Speaker 3: that contribute somehow to the assassination? If he'd been on
Speaker 3: that list would have been picked up by the FBI. No,
Speaker 3: he would not have been. And the thing that emerges
Speaker 3: from all of that is that, yes, if Oswald had
Speaker 3: been considered a threat and been on a threat list, okay,
Speaker 3: he might well have been picked up and questioned. I mean,
Speaker 3: people that have expressed overt threats and made aggressive statements
Speaker 3: against the president of the United States can be picked
Speaker 3: up in questioned. Oswald had not done any of that,
Speaker 3: which is the reason he was not on those lists,
Speaker 3: which becomes a really interesting thing to consider. A trouble.
Speaker 3: An issue that the Warrant Commission faced is you know,
Speaker 3: none of these agencies had Oswald listed as a threat.
Speaker 3: Were they not doing their job? Were they not looking
Speaker 3: at him? The point is they were looking at him.
Speaker 3: You had agents from New Orleans to Dallas looking over
Speaker 3: all this little shoulder making pretext calls to the school
Speaker 3: book depository, visiting his wife. You know, they were watching him.
Speaker 3: They were, but they didn't see a threat, right and
Speaker 3: you know, the at best they saw him as a
Speaker 3: you know, is there is he having subversive contacts we
Speaker 3: might want to know about. But you can almost see
Speaker 3: why the Warrant Commission really didn't want to surface that issue. Right,
Speaker 3: because it would have been negative information. It's like, oh
Speaker 3: this this radical loan nut gun liking you know, you know,
Speaker 3: Oh no, he wasn't because yew all these people investigated
Speaker 3: him and they didn't see any of that beforehand. But
Speaker 3: oh we see it now. Wait a minute, yeah, going on.
Speaker 2: That's a problem considering he was you know, there was
Speaker 2: a like basically a threat you know, attached to his
Speaker 2: name where an alert could have been sent out and
Speaker 2: would have been sent out had he crossed the right paths,
Speaker 2: and that list or that you know, alert that was
Speaker 2: connected to his name was dropped at a very curious time.
Speaker 3: Check what you'll see in my blog as I challenge that,
Speaker 3: oh you do, it was not He was never on
Speaker 3: any list. The only list that he was on and
Speaker 3: what was dropped is a list that would have said
Speaker 3: basically this, this person is under investigation because of possible
Speaker 3: subversive contacts, and so we flag this so if any
Speaker 3: of the offices come up with something about him, we
Speaker 3: circulated to all the offices. That's the only that's the
Speaker 3: that was the flag that was not there. Nothing would
Speaker 3: about him being a threat. My argument is that's been
Speaker 3: misunderstood over all these years because that had nothing to
Speaker 3: do with this being a threat. That had to do
Speaker 3: with him actually being an FBI source in New Orleans
Speaker 3: because at the time of the assassination, he had actually
Speaker 3: provided subversive information to the FBI and they were treating
Speaker 3: him as a subject of interest and that's why they
Speaker 3: were watching him. They weren't watching him for anything related
Speaker 3: to a threat.
Speaker 2: Well, and Hosty is you know, because that was Newman's
Speaker 2: assertion years ago, and you know, it seemed to make
Speaker 2: sense to me. But the thing is, you have host
Speaker 2: He following him, and we're what you're saying is that
Speaker 2: we're interpreting that as you know, we got to keep
Speaker 2: an eye on him, but really it's more about maintaining contact.
Speaker 1: And I mean, you know, the guy had.
Speaker 2: Changed his opinion and explanation of what he was doing
Speaker 2: and everything else regarding that work over the years because
Speaker 2: he felt, you know, kind of burned by the whole
Speaker 2: thing host.
Speaker 3: Hosty did, and I talked to hev felt burned, but
Speaker 3: in honesty, and I include the links of the documents,
Speaker 3: he had not done what he should have done because
Speaker 3: New Orleans still had an active investigation going on of
Speaker 3: Highdell and this you know FPCC that investigation was still
Speaker 3: live at the time of the assassination, which meant Oswald
Speaker 3: was still live. That that's why if he had not
Speaker 3: been live, hosty would not have even been supposed to be.
Speaker 3: You know, you don't just go investigate American citizens if
Speaker 3: there's not some reason. I know that sounds like canaya
Speaker 3: you statement, But there was a reason to be monitoring
Speaker 3: what he was doing because he himself had voluntarily reported
Speaker 3: meeting with subversives on you know, the FPCC was on
Speaker 3: Hoover's list as a subversive organization.
Speaker 2: And suspicion based on the fact that he had recently
Speaker 2: lived in the Soviet Union might have also had something
Speaker 2: to do with it.
Speaker 3: No, I mean that was that's covered separately. That was
Speaker 3: the FBI handed that or that would have been the
Speaker 3: CIA's thing to hand it off to CIA domestic operations,
Speaker 3: which they did. The FBI would have done this, they
Speaker 3: would have been copied from the CIA and the FBI.
Speaker 3: Absolutely what you're saying is correct. That's why they contacted
Speaker 3: Oswell and fort Worth and interviewed Oswell twice and put
Speaker 3: him on this put him on this list. They flagged
Speaker 3: him because their concern was that he might be make
Speaker 3: contact with communist organizations. Okay, because of the Soviet Union,
Speaker 3: they flagged both he and Marina. But after they checked
Speaker 3: him out over about ninety days and found no sign
Speaker 3: that he was attempting contact, they checked all their sources,
Speaker 3: they took the flag off, which is the way these
Speaker 3: things are supposed to supposed to work. Hosti's mistake was hasty,
Speaker 3: failed to fill out a form and check a box,
Speaker 3: which should have continued that flag. Hosty did make a mistake,
Speaker 3: like it or not, and not that he liked it.
Speaker 3: But that's really Hoover did have a gripe with his
Speaker 3: handling his work on. If you read Hosty's book, it's
Speaker 3: kind of like, oh, well, Oswald was just in Dallas
Speaker 3: and I just got there. You know his file from
Speaker 3: New Orleans. No, Jim, you've had that for weeks now,
Speaker 3: and you were making pretext calls, and don't lay that
Speaker 3: off that you had him under active investigation. And you
Speaker 3: even told a Secret Service agent on November twenty second
Speaker 3: that he was under active investigation as a subversive.
Speaker 1: Yes he did.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you got to parse out there. I think
Speaker 3: our real problem is if you parse these out separately,
Speaker 3: it begins to make a lot more sense as to
Speaker 3: who did what and who made what mistake.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, in the aftermath of the events, he did
Speaker 2: feel scapegoaded, and I can't say that he wasn't, but
Speaker 2: you know, yeah.
Speaker 3: I can't say that. But with Uber that was kind
Speaker 3: of that kind of went with the territory. But all
Speaker 3: I'm really countering here is that there are people once
Speaker 3: again making remarks that oh Oswell was a threat to
Speaker 3: the president, he was a known threat to the president,
Speaker 3: and somebody covered that up or he would have been
Speaker 3: picked up and the president would not have been killed.
Speaker 3: And that just that simply is not true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because that leans into the hole he must have
Speaker 2: done it issue too. That's the other part, which you know,
Speaker 2: I can't say I can concur with either.
Speaker 1: Anyway, Larry. But there will be a.
Speaker 2: Link to Larry's blog in the show notes, just so
Speaker 2: you know, as well as a link to the Oswald puzzle, because.
Speaker 1: Why not, you know, and maybe maybe a few other links.
Speaker 2: To Larry's work as well in the show notes, because
Speaker 2: there were the you know, relevant ones to this discussion obviously,
Speaker 2: But Larry, I really appreciate you, you know, coming in
Speaker 2: and clarifying this stuff and you know, helping us all
Speaker 2: kind of understand what's happening now, because again, it's not
Speaker 2: really the primary thing in the headlines at the moment,
Speaker 2: even for those that are interested parties. You know, it
Speaker 2: appears to sort of have gone to the back burner,
Speaker 2: if you will. But you know, there's still things going on,
Speaker 2: and you know, as you pointed out, there's still possibilities
Speaker 2: for things to occur in the future that might be
Speaker 2: different from the Oversight Committee alone. But we're gonna have
Speaker 2: to wait for the politics to shake out and the
Speaker 2: results of what is happening here to sort of you know, settle,
Speaker 2: if you will, before any of that might occur, or
Speaker 2: somebody might get alarmed enough to say, hey, we need
Speaker 2: a rein investigation of And then they got to be specific.
Speaker 2: They can't just put out a general you know, let's
Speaker 2: reinvestigate all this stuff. No, that's not going to work.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: There's gonna have to be a specific directive designed and
Speaker 2: uh and specific empowerment given to an existing agency or
Speaker 2: a creation of a new one in order to get
Speaker 2: the kind of results that a lot of people are
Speaker 2: imagining the Oversight Committee can generate. So with all that, Larry,
Speaker 2: anything else you want to add.
Speaker 3: I think Mike, you pretty well wrapped it up. It's funny.
Speaker 3: A few years ago people in politics or were talking
Speaker 3: about having laser like focus on issues. No boy, yeah right,
Speaker 3: you remember that, I do common common turmoil. We have
Speaker 3: to be laser focused on issues, and I think the
Speaker 3: whole somebody either defocused the laser or you know, we
Speaker 3: we we replaced that with hyperbole. You know, we we
Speaker 3: have no more focus focus at best. As for five
Speaker 3: minutes and one head, Well what I think the Vice
Speaker 3: President said, you know, these days, Watergate would have lasted
Speaker 3: five minutes now he thought that that was a good
Speaker 3: thing to SKay. That terrifies me because that means that
Speaker 3: everything has been so marginalized that any level of corruption
Speaker 3: or miscontact it doesn't matter. So I think that would
Speaker 3: be my summary. I'd like to see a little return
Speaker 3: to focus, laser like or not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it doesn't necessarily have to be a laser, but
Speaker 2: how about you know, we narrow the field a bit.
Speaker 1: That would be nice.
Speaker 2: But yeah, Watergate might only last five minutes nowadays, because
Speaker 2: it would be a hiccup compared to what you know
Speaker 2: is was has been recently, so you know, leave it there,
Speaker 2: I would say, and you know, judge for yourself what's
Speaker 2: going on, you the listener, not you, Larry, But of
Speaker 2: course you always do judge things for yourself. You are
Speaker 2: an independent thing and I appreciate that about you, because
Speaker 2: you're not so easily swayed to other people's you know,
Speaker 2: prescribed ideas and concepts. You actually examine the evidence and
Speaker 2: the reality itself and put it into context and.
Speaker 1: That often results in a book.
Speaker 2: So again, I recommend all of Larry's books. I appreciate you,
Speaker 2: Larry for doing this with me, and you guys for listening,
Speaker 2: you know, as per usual, I'll just say, well before
Speaker 2: I go, actually, you know, there are opportunities to contact
Speaker 2: me lately to you know, to maybe get some materials
Speaker 2: on the assassination that you're not going to find everywhere else.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm just looking to get rid of these things because
Speaker 2: I'm done doing that work.
Speaker 1: It's just that simple.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean I won't discuss it doesn't mean I'm
Speaker 2: not going to go over it with Larry as many
Speaker 2: times as he allows me to, you know, because I
Speaker 2: love to get you know, sober angles on these things
Speaker 2: that I don't seem to be able to find independently
Speaker 2: out there in any sort of media presentation, anybody else's writing, etc.
Speaker 2: So we should all thank Larry for giving us the
Speaker 2: privilege of his wisdom, insight, and authorship regarding just colating
Speaker 2: this information, sometimes but often interpreting a great many complexities.
Speaker 2: See I sort of like Larry's work for the same
Speaker 2: reason I like Mike Swanson's work. He takes very complicated
Speaker 2: things and makes them digestible. Mike has a way of
Speaker 2: simplifying things so that even if you are not very sophisticated,
Speaker 2: you can get it. From Swanson, he really does bring
Speaker 2: it down to whatever level you need it to. Larry
Speaker 2: does the same thing, but it's got a different style,
Speaker 2: and it's more like the way a textbook should look
Speaker 2: as opposed.
Speaker 1: To the way they do look most of the time.
Speaker 2: Anyways, that's the way it is, that's the way it was.
Speaker 2: I am ocelly, and I hope that you guys are
Speaker 2: the effect. And again look to the show notes and
Speaker 2: read further with Larry Hancock's work, whether it be in
Speaker 2: the blog, a book, or.
Speaker 1: Even if you already have a book, take it off
Speaker 1: the shelf.
Speaker 2: Read it again because sometimes I go back over and stuff,
Speaker 2: and I discover things I didn't realize. We're there the
Speaker 2: first two times.
Speaker 1: And Wall Wall Street Windows, Don con don com.
Speaker 5: Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of The War State, gives
Speaker 5: you the benefit of his knowledge.
Speaker 6: Wall st Do.
Speaker 4: Go there, now, go there, now, go there now.
Speaker 7: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 7: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 7: the context of the Times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 7: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 7: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 7: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 7: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 7: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 7: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 7: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 7: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 7: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 7: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 7: led to a Third World War. And they wanted to
Speaker 7: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 7: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 7: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com the.
Speaker 1: Views expressed by Coler Stools.
Speaker 2: There anyone else who happens to get on the air
Speaker 2: of Jelly dot com who not necessarily reflect the views
Speaker 2: of the Jelly dot Com or of chill And we
Speaker 2: are not responsible for any stupidity which might have students
Speaker 2: than you do.
Speaker 6: You like history, real history that you were never taught
Speaker 6: in schools. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs, in nation
Speaker 6: Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike swamp with new
Speaker 6: documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events
Speaker 6: that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear
Speaker 6: Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five
Speaker 6: through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon
Speaker 6: dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike.
Speaker 4: Swantson in Denial. The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and
Speaker 4: Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret Wars became a staple of
Speaker 4: US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's
Speaker 4: book in Denial rips the cover off many of them
Speaker 4: using new files.
Speaker 5: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 5: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 5: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 5: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 5: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 5: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 5: In Denial Secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 5: For more information go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com.
Speaker 5: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 5: com in digital or physical form.
Speaker 1: Pledge Allegians were a false flag of the.
Speaker 8: Never United Manic State, a maclarrida reda orange margarita, one nasymbotea,
Speaker 8: the anti gods and anything they would seem worthy of
Speaker 8: ranting completely divided, explaining algorithms animized without the liberty.
Speaker 1: Estate, freely, and justice.
Speaker 8: Probably the elite that can afford the right, but no