Speaker 1: Get ready for.
Speaker 2: Hey, August six, twenty twenty five. Allegedly, according to that
Speaker 2: thing we call a calendar, this is the Ocelli effect,
Speaker 2: and we do this live sometimes. Now. Gotta tell you,
Speaker 2: I am going to reduce schedule lately, and I am
Speaker 2: only only doing the shows that are being requested by
Speaker 2: people that support the network. So that's it. That's the
Speaker 2: cut down schedule right now until I can maneuver and
Speaker 2: get a few things done and fix some problems. And
Speaker 2: we're not going to go into that anymore. It is
Speaker 2: a Wednesday Wednesday. And you know what's funny, I'm real
Speaker 2: happy to have Larry Hancock with us. And I know Larry,
Speaker 2: I told you Harry Hancock. That's hilarious. Larry Hancock, whose
Speaker 2: name I've said a thousand times, and I don't know
Speaker 2: how many times I've screwed it up, but I don't
Speaker 2: think it's that many. Anyway, Allergies getting in my way
Speaker 2: on a and you know, everybody requests Larry. It is
Speaker 2: usually very highly informative, sometimes extremely entertaining when we're talking
Speaker 2: to Larry, and I'm extremely grateful to probably have him
Speaker 2: as the longest running He's not a guest on this show.
Speaker 2: He's a co host basically, and I'm happy to have
Speaker 2: him along anytime, but here in August for God's sake,
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty five. It's been a while, and I
Speaker 2: got to say every single time he's on, I learned something,
Speaker 2: so I know you guys too. Go to Larrydshancock dot com.
Speaker 2: Of course, we're going to focus on some issues that
Speaker 2: might relate to one of Larry's latest books, and one
Speaker 2: of the best, really, even though I highly recommend them all,
Speaker 2: The Oswald Puzzle, which is co authored with David Boyle,
Speaker 2: in whose name I pronounced differently every time I say it,
Speaker 2: and I'm hoping that they'll be presenting at Lancer in
Speaker 2: some fashion this year. Well, I'll be there, and I
Speaker 2: was even talking for a little bit, and we went
Speaker 2: to air late in order so that I could discuss
Speaker 2: a few issues with Larry just before with what I
Speaker 2: plan to present, because he's probably the only guy who
Speaker 2: woman to take advice from. And I might do something
Speaker 2: a little weird Atlanta this year and we'll see how
Speaker 2: it's received. Anyway, Hey, why not? You got to take
Speaker 2: a shot Larry. How are you this Wednesday evening? First
Speaker 2: of all, I'm.
Speaker 3: Doing good, Chuck. We had a little break in our
Speaker 3: heat wave last week. It was cooler for at least
Speaker 3: a few days. We had some brain Now we're going
Speaker 3: back into August weather. But that kind of relieved things.
Speaker 3: Although I have the same sinus problems you're having, so good,
Speaker 3: but sinus is with us at summer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, who wants to complain. I mean, my eyes
Speaker 2: are running, my nose is running. I guess if they
Speaker 2: all run in the same direction, it won't hurt so much.
Speaker 2: But anyway, look, there has been and I just want
Speaker 2: to get right into the subject matter. There has been
Speaker 2: some talk lately, and finally, uh, you know, Jeff Morley
Speaker 2: got part of what it is, at least in part.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure he got all of what he wanted,
Speaker 2: but part of what was denied to him by Brett
Speaker 2: Kavanaugh finally not too long ago, you know, being given
Speaker 2: to him as in the Joe and Needy stuff, right,
Speaker 2: And there was a bit of celebration, There was a
Speaker 2: bit of understanding, it seemed like, and then everybody kind
Speaker 2: of went back to sleep as per normal, or they
Speaker 2: tried to convolute it with other events that involved let's say,
Speaker 2: government transparency, criminal Acts Intelligence. Maybe yeah, I'm trying to
Speaker 2: avoid saying Epstein, But what am I going to do?
Speaker 2: The Epstein files? The you know, show us the show
Speaker 2: us the files, show us the information. And the general
Speaker 2: public now is kind of a sleep on JFK because well,
Speaker 2: they're giving us MLK files on they need to give
Speaker 2: us the Epstein files. They already gave us the JFK files,
Speaker 2: and that's happening. And I'm just being blunt here and
Speaker 2: trying to summarize in case, you know, nobody's keeping score
Speaker 2: at home. Seems like, what do you think of this?
Speaker 2: And what is happening here? Because I'm seeing what Jef's writing.
Speaker 2: I'm seeing that he's still doing you know that podcast.
Speaker 2: He's had a lot to say. Some of his supporters
Speaker 2: have written supportive articles about this. I know what my
Speaker 2: thoughts are after looking over what has been released, and
Speaker 2: you might be able to tell. I'm thinking there's more
Speaker 2: they should have given him. But you know, you can
Speaker 2: leave it there and say, first of all, what the
Speaker 2: hell took so long? Because you know, and you've got
Speaker 2: to be read into this. I'm not going to waste
Speaker 2: Larry's time by explaining to you. Although Larry could probably
Speaker 2: give you a quick summary about you know what it
Speaker 2: is I'm talking about here. Why is Joe Needy's important
Speaker 2: for various reasons and everything else? And why was he
Speaker 2: covered up? There might be multiple reasons for that, and
Speaker 2: what the hell is the difference when it comes to it.
Speaker 2: He's not a shooter, He's not Oswald. But you know, Okay,
Speaker 2: here we go, Larry. I know I've thrown you a
Speaker 2: terribly wobbly spitball here, but I'm conn I believe you
Speaker 2: could at least get a base hit out of this. So,
Speaker 2: by all means, where should we take this for people
Speaker 2: that are somewhat read into it, because that's all the
Speaker 2: people that are going to want to hear this. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think one of the interesting things about it, Chuck,
Speaker 3: is that Jeff has had probably more response, more luck,
Speaker 3: more visibility with portions of the media, not the entire media,
Speaker 3: not the mainstream media. To some he's add more receptivity
Speaker 3: to this story and of the fact that clearly there's
Speaker 3: something sensitive going on in regard to Lee, Harvey Oswald
Speaker 3: and the CIA. I mean just that basic theme. It's like, okay, ouch,
Speaker 3: because there's no reason for the CIA to have been
Speaker 3: as obstructionist.
Speaker 4: As they were there.
Speaker 3: So the media is responsive to that, I would say
Speaker 3: in large And what it was perhaps surprising is that
Speaker 3: to me, the research community has not been They've let
Speaker 3: themselves be diverted. Maybe it's sensory overload, you know, by
Speaker 3: everything quote unquote being released at once, although it really hasn't.
Speaker 3: We all know that, but like you're getting questions about
Speaker 3: so many things at once, and you're curious, and have
Speaker 3: you read through the five thousand MLK files? No? I haven't, Well,
Speaker 3: then we can't talk about it yet because you haven't read. Yeah,
Speaker 3: just just that level of the the community trying to
Speaker 3: respond to all of this at one time, it has
Speaker 3: not been very effective. The only the only really insightful, straightforward,
Speaker 3: pithy response I've seen to it is Malcolm Blunt's article
Speaker 3: about you know, yes there is something here, Yeah, there's
Speaker 3: some things that we could do, and Malcolm essentially challenging
Speaker 3: all the people that were saying it's a nothing burger
Speaker 3: because it was not at all nothing burger. But Malcolm
Speaker 3: kind of stands alone in that regard. The the research
Speaker 3: community is not following the story the lead that Jeff
Speaker 3: produced and that's that's a bit depressing. Now agreed to
Speaker 3: follow his lead. You've got to know a lot, You've
Speaker 3: got to have a lot of context. But but there
Speaker 3: are people that do have that, and if if they're following,
Speaker 3: I guess the good news is if they're seriously following it,
Speaker 3: they're following it to the extent that they're not talking
Speaker 3: about it because they're too busy. And the people that
Speaker 3: just get on boards and chat and like bring up
Speaker 3: the same things over and over again haven't changed. They're
Speaker 3: not engaging at all with it. Really, So yeah, I
Speaker 3: think my general response is there's a lot of potential
Speaker 3: and just the administrative file that Jeff got, there's a
Speaker 3: lot of potential in getting the operational files that that
Speaker 3: points to that might tell us some really serious and
Speaker 3: props even incriminating stuff. But the one thing that puzzles
Speaker 3: me is all of us conspiracy folks have said for years, Oh,
Speaker 3: you're not going to find a report that says this
Speaker 3: is how somebody killed the president. You know, a file,
Speaker 3: a document. Yeah, we looked at it, we investigated it's here.
Speaker 3: You know, you're not going to found that sort of thing.
Speaker 3: And now when we get the joint Edies file. Everybody
Speaker 3: is going, well, now the CEEIA didn't give us the
Speaker 3: smoking gun, or are we expecting it? I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Well. Here's the other thing I need to ask right
Speaker 2: here in this context, and that is, and I'm not
Speaker 2: going to point the finger at any particular platform, but
Speaker 2: I am going to suggest that it represents the current
Speaker 2: culture of communication when you are restricted to two hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty characters to try and make a point, okay,
Speaker 2: and people already are not receptive, open minded, or looking
Speaker 2: to cooperate as a general condition. Because we've seen this
Speaker 2: shift in the in the research community, we've seen the
Speaker 2: shift in the general public. Nobody wants to work with anybody.
Speaker 2: You disagree with me, you're out. God. Uh okay, that's
Speaker 2: just the culture. I'm not even pointing a finger in
Speaker 2: any left or right direction. I'm saying that's the culture,
Speaker 2: but also the culture of communication, keep it keep it real, pithy,
Speaker 2: so much so that it doesn't carry very much information,
Speaker 2: but must make a strong declaration. This just seems to
Speaker 2: be the cultural shift in my mind. So you know,
Speaker 2: the younger people are not going to do any better
Speaker 2: the older people that are setting the ways they're not
Speaker 2: going to do any better. The people that refuse to
Speaker 2: use a computer mostly are dead now, but still right,
Speaker 2: nobody is going to cooperate correctly, and nobody is going
Speaker 2: to communicate correctly, and that means they're not going to
Speaker 2: receive or send correctly at this point to make an
Speaker 2: actual point with context and texture or am I just
Speaker 2: you know, being picky about you know, modern tech and
Speaker 2: getting my grumpy old man on even though I'm only
Speaker 2: in my fifties here, Larry, I mean going. You can
Speaker 2: tell me I can handle it.
Speaker 3: No, I think we've fallen into a bit of a
Speaker 3: trap in the vehicles we're using. As you say, our
Speaker 3: bandwidths have really been dialed down there are you know,
Speaker 3: every everybody wants to see something addressed, you know, like
Speaker 3: give me the fact in five sentences or I'll move
Speaker 3: on to something else, you know, like was it in
Speaker 3: the text? No it didn't fit. Sorry. I have a
Speaker 3: problem with a lot these days because someone will want
Speaker 3: to talk to me and have a question. Let's say
Speaker 3: it's about Oswa, Mexico City, and you know it's really
Speaker 3: if you don't have the full story, the full background,
Speaker 3: the field context, you and I can't really discuss it.
Speaker 3: So the best I can do is refer refer them
Speaker 3: to the book, because otherwise I'm not doing them a favor.
Speaker 3: They're not going to get what they want. You know,
Speaker 3: are they going to get a yes or no? Was
Speaker 3: he there? Was he not there? Yes or no is
Speaker 3: not a good answer, you know, a on these complex subjects,
Speaker 3: you you can't you can't compress it to a character limit.
Speaker 3: It's so No, you're absolutely right. And interestingly, I see
Speaker 3: even on forums that I visit a lot shorter post
Speaker 3: where people seem to compel to say, oh, I agree
Speaker 3: with you, or I agree with that post, or I
Speaker 3: don't agree with that post, or you know, let me
Speaker 3: post something I posted fifty times before in response to this,
Speaker 3: just so you're forced to read it again. You know,
Speaker 3: the threads get derailed, and there's just no coherent dialogue
Speaker 3: on these things that are really complex history. You know,
Speaker 3: you don't discuss history with you know, soundbites just doesn't
Speaker 3: work that way.
Speaker 2: No, And that's the bottom line. It's not soundbites. It's
Speaker 2: not going to be in a you know, in a
Speaker 2: TikTok video, it's not going to be in a tweet
Speaker 2: it's not in the abbreviated form that you're going to
Speaker 2: be able to do this unless you can think it's
Speaker 2: super speed, and I don't know too many people that can.
Speaker 2: I gotta be honest. Nobody thinks as quickly and goes
Speaker 2: through material as quickly as you know a super speed reader.
Speaker 2: They just don't. So they're not absorbing any of the
Speaker 2: nuances and understanding that you know, a connection to or
Speaker 2: a somebody who's working for, or somebody who's a contract agent,
Speaker 2: or somebody who's an asset, whether knowing or unknowing, these
Speaker 2: are nuances and differences in these narratives that nobody's picking
Speaker 2: up on anything new. They are just you know, repeating
Speaker 2: their own positions and therefore paying no attention to any
Speaker 2: progress that's being made or redefining of any terms, people's
Speaker 2: positions or anything else that could be had even in
Speaker 2: their own paradigms. If they just realized something might have
Speaker 2: changed here, we might have learned something new. Collectively. Well,
Speaker 2: see there's my problem right there. Nobody thinks there is
Speaker 2: a collective. There's only the camps and the compartmentalized algorithm,
Speaker 2: and that is where people are living. And I'm not
Speaker 2: just talking about on the computers, I mean in their
Speaker 2: personal lives and their willingness to engage. And you know,
Speaker 2: I mean people talk about the Socratic methods still, but
Speaker 2: they don't use it. Nobody gets together and has a
Speaker 2: discussion anymore, where a actual debate. They think a debate
Speaker 2: is when you lose. That's not the purpose of a debate. Actually,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, yeah, everybody likes the win and loss,
Speaker 2: and we're Americans, we love that sort of conflict, but
Speaker 2: that's not the full purpose of a debate. And that's
Speaker 2: not how you're going to learn anything, because if you
Speaker 2: think you know it already, what's the purpose of learning anything. See,
Speaker 2: here's the problem, right, And I'm talking about psychology as
Speaker 2: opposed to even the technology here or again, you know,
Speaker 2: I accept, No, you mean a grumpy old man truck.
Speaker 2: You're just saying these kids don't know what the doing.
Speaker 2: I'm not even saying the kids, because I see this
Speaker 2: in people older than me, younger than me, my age.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter. It's across the board, it seems like.
Speaker 2: And I think that's one of the major problems. But
Speaker 2: let's put that aside. Can you talk to me about
Speaker 2: what it is that people could see here if they
Speaker 2: were willing to listen, if they were willing to see
Speaker 2: the progress a couple of points. Maybe not you know,
Speaker 2: the same points that Jep's making, but maybe you see
Speaker 2: some progress here. Malcolm sees some progress. And Malcolm Brunn
Speaker 2: is one of the best brains on this case that
Speaker 2: we have that people should really have utilized differently earlier on,
Speaker 2: but didn't. Only a few very intelligent people did. Just
Speaker 2: in praise to Malcolm Brunt right here, Okay, because I
Speaker 2: don't want to just say nice things about people when
Speaker 2: they're gone. Okay, here we go. What is your thought
Speaker 2: about that? What is it that we could learn here
Speaker 2: if we were willing to pick up and you know,
Speaker 2: follow the newly presented pieces of evidence here that obviously
Speaker 2: had some import because they hit it for over a decade.
Speaker 2: They sent the guy to the Supreme Court, who basically
Speaker 2: killed it in court for Jeff to begin with, and
Speaker 2: without the special circumstance of his connection to Representative Luna
Speaker 2: and a few other pieces of luck, Jeff might have
Speaker 2: never seen this while he was alive. Let's be honest.
Speaker 2: Other researchers have died waiting to get documents and Jeff
Speaker 2: might have done the same, even though he starts out
Speaker 2: as a reporter, as a guy trying to put together
Speaker 2: a story as you know the author, or that it's
Speaker 2: a long journey Jeff's been on. Some people have been
Speaker 2: on longer ones, I admit. But let's talk about what
Speaker 2: it is that he may have finally loosed that we
Speaker 2: could take further in your mind.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think one of the big takeaways is confirmation
Speaker 3: Jeff had been told over a number of years by
Speaker 3: people within the student directorate that they had been providing
Speaker 3: detailed information on Oswle's activities in New Orleans. Is his
Speaker 3: media visibility, his political stance to the CIA, and that
Speaker 3: would have been reported up within the CIA organization at JM.
Speaker 3: Waven Miami, up within the Specialistairs Affair staff, going up
Speaker 3: to Des Fitzgerald, going up to J. C.
Speaker 2: King.
Speaker 3: We know enough to know how the information should have traveled.
Speaker 3: We basically we would have known enough to know a
Speaker 3: number of names of significant people that would have been
Speaker 3: aware of what Oswald was doing. And we know that
Speaker 3: because we've seen other memoranda and paper trails on people
Speaker 3: of much less significance. You know, I will give an example.
Speaker 3: An example would be that a Cuban reported another Cuban
Speaker 3: in Miami of being a potential CIA deep asset. You know,
Speaker 3: this guy is just your every day you know, works
Speaker 3: for cleaners, he works in manual labor. They report him
Speaker 3: to the CIA, they report him to the FBI, and
Speaker 3: for two years they try to investigate this guy to
Speaker 3: see what his real alliances are. How do we know
Speaker 3: about this Well, actually, in Dallas, Walter Heypman, FBI subversive
Speaker 3: desk guy in Dallas, is still working on this case
Speaker 3: in November twenty second, nineteen sixty three, a year after
Speaker 3: it started. Because this guy's now living in Dallas and
Speaker 3: they're still investigating him, and they don't finish that investigation
Speaker 3: for another eight months after the assassination because Heypman is
Speaker 3: pulled off to work on the JFK inquiry. So this
Speaker 3: is like a trivial person, you know, not visible in
Speaker 3: the media, not with an obvious political He's just a
Speaker 3: kind of a suspect. We don't know if he's Procastro,
Speaker 3: we don't know if he's anti Castro. But it's minutia
Speaker 3: and we have a paper trail on that within the
Speaker 3: CIA and the FBI. And yet what we find with Oswald,
Speaker 3: even though they know about Oswald and the Cubans have
Speaker 3: been telling him about Oswald and running their own propaganda,
Speaker 3: which Jeff is confirmed that disappears within the CIA. Now,
Speaker 3: their their position has always been, oh, well, we didn't,
Speaker 3: it's not in the case officers materials. We didn't. We
Speaker 3: disclaim all the knowledge of this because this guy Joannides
Speaker 3: is not the Howard that they were talking to that
Speaker 3: they told you, Jeff, He's not you know, he's not
Speaker 3: even in our files. He's not different guys, you must
Speaker 3: be wrong. They must be wrong. Now we know that's
Speaker 3: all not true. That information was being passed in great detail,
Speaker 3: and it starts not showing up in places we should
Speaker 3: be able to look for it because these people have
Speaker 3: day jobs. It's a bureaucracy. I was just looking at
Speaker 3: a case file on the headquarters file on the student
Speaker 3: director that goes into great detail. In fact, there's one
Speaker 3: entry registrate that says, oh, there were these students that
Speaker 3: were on the air in New York City and they've
Speaker 3: been to Cuba and they were promoting the Cuban experience.
Speaker 3: And yes, the DRE is going to is going to
Speaker 3: respond to it, you know, counter this media. Well, heck,
Speaker 3: we have a major media confrontation in New Orleans between
Speaker 3: Oswald and Vre that goes into multiple venues over several weeks.
Speaker 3: That doesn't even show up in this dre case file.
Speaker 2: Why not right now? This is now let me just
Speaker 2: interrupt with this because this is very important. You bring
Speaker 2: up the Howard issue. To my mind, first of all,
Speaker 2: we need to define the difference between what something suggests
Speaker 2: and what something proves. And for a long time we've
Speaker 2: known that this was suggested. Many things were suggested that
Speaker 2: have now been proven by these files. Like you said, confirmation,
Speaker 2: We now have confirmation to certain things. But the Howard issue,
Speaker 2: to my mind, there's more than one Howard. This is
Speaker 2: what the thing is. Howard is almost like a title,
Speaker 2: not even a person. Okay, in my mind, that's what
Speaker 2: it suggests. Now. I have not thoroughly gone through this
Speaker 2: as well as some others, but that's what I see there.
Speaker 2: That's what I see the potential for for certain. In
Speaker 2: addition to that, do we get at any of the
Speaker 2: Joe and Needy stuff involving is then later on interactions
Speaker 2: in the investigation, or do we have to piece that together,
Speaker 2: you know, because they told the House Select Committee, Okay,
Speaker 2: you know what do you want? We want people that
Speaker 2: had no connection to any of the events in nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty three, and they were lied to. I'm probably gonna
Speaker 2: have to turn my mic down because I think I
Speaker 2: hear the dogs getting upset about something. But anyway, the
Speaker 2: thing is, this is a series question here, right, the
Speaker 2: after action and the Howard issue. If you don't mind,
Speaker 2: just go back over that Howard thing real quick because
Speaker 2: they might have missed it. And yeah, talk to me
Speaker 2: about this House Select Committee thing and Joan's involvement. And
Speaker 2: again I'm gonna kill my mic quickly just to keep
Speaker 2: the dogs out because I want them to hear you
Speaker 2: marry more than anything. God.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And the Howard thing, the good news is that was
Speaker 3: resolved in the admin file because all the questions about
Speaker 3: it might have been another Howard. Officially there was no Howard,
Speaker 3: there was no Howard alias. The admin file that was
Speaker 3: released to Jeff shows that indeed there was a cover backstop.
Speaker 3: For example, one example it in there is is a
Speaker 3: driver's license in the name of Howard and with his residence,
Speaker 3: and clearly there was a cover for and this is
Speaker 3: for join Edes. By the way, there was a cover
Speaker 3: for Joines to operate as Howard, which was the name
Speaker 3: that was used with the Cubans. It was that the
Speaker 3: name on the address that the Cubans were given to
Speaker 3: send information to, So that that was resolved in the
Speaker 3: admin file there you know, as to whether or not
Speaker 3: it was you know, kind of a soft file situation
Speaker 3: where it was only known at jam wave and maybe
Speaker 3: it was lonely a local AVOs and not a headquarters alias,
Speaker 3: and debate that all day long, but the file itself
Speaker 3: shows that clearly a backstop cover had been put in place,
Speaker 3: including a driver's license for joint eds as the Howard
Speaker 3: that the Cubans were were contacting and providing information to.
Speaker 3: So that got resolved, which is a big deal because
Speaker 3: now that's not even it's not even argument. What what,
Speaker 3: of course is not resolved is that what was given
Speaker 3: to Morley is just the admin file. And you don't
Speaker 3: find operational level activities in an admin file. At best.
Speaker 3: You might find some promotions, some you know, job endorsements
Speaker 3: or evaluations. You know, we're talking about a regular business
Speaker 3: admin file. So no one would have expected or should
Speaker 3: have expected anything explosive in that. In fact, it's kind
Speaker 3: of amazing that that backstop cover showed up there tom
Speaker 3: of the driver's license.
Speaker 2: To translate this, this is the same type of file
Speaker 2: that I might have kept on an employee when I
Speaker 2: ran businesses. That's all this is in an agency sense,
Speaker 2: it's you know, this is what the guy did. This
Speaker 2: is any major incidents, This is his promotions, his position,
Speaker 2: you know, this kind of thing. That's what he really
Speaker 2: got his confirmation that this guy was you know, official reagency.
Speaker 2: And some of those details are helpful, but I mean,
Speaker 2: am I essentially correct or is that really the bottom line?
Speaker 3: That's absolutely there, although one of the sometimes you can
Speaker 3: you can pull stuff out of that. For example, another
Speaker 3: thing in the file was the fact that he had
Speaker 3: gone had to go through another security clearance and a
Speaker 3: special security check to give him the clearance to assign
Speaker 3: him to a new project in the late spring of
Speaker 3: nineteen sixty three. Doesn't name the project, doesn't give us
Speaker 3: a crypt for the project, but we can see he
Speaker 3: had to go to that process. So he had been
Speaker 3: assigned as a case officer, fairly routine staff job, even
Speaker 3: though at a high level, I mean, because he's not
Speaker 3: operating just individuals. He's operating groups. The our student director
Speaker 3: as a group, not an individual. He's a case officer
Speaker 3: at a higher level than most. But he's being assigned
Speaker 3: to something beyond that. That's really special that we don't
Speaker 3: we don't know what it is. We know it's something
Speaker 3: new going on. It wave and that provides us a
Speaker 3: lot of ground to look because we know what join
Speaker 3: ed specialties are, we know what he does, we know
Speaker 3: what he's capable of, so we can start matching to
Speaker 3: that too. Oh, what where should we look for operational files?
Speaker 3: What might he have been engaged in that justice getting
Speaker 3: started and kicked off in the late spring of nineteen
Speaker 3: sixty three. That's that's super secret that he had to
Speaker 3: get a new clearance for. That's way beyond just his
Speaker 3: case officer activities.
Speaker 2: Well, right, so that gives us timelines, That gives us,
Speaker 2: you know, new open possibilities. Why is it that he
Speaker 2: needs extra training if what it is he's already trained in.
Speaker 2: We have confirmation of what he was capable of. Like
Speaker 2: you said, he's capable of running groups. That is a
Speaker 2: difference for running individuals. It's a different skill set, it's
Speaker 2: a different requirement, it's a different money level, you have
Speaker 2: access to funding resources, et cetera. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: things that can be drawn from this, right, So that
Speaker 2: is a positive and it's great. What it doesn't give
Speaker 2: us the whole story, and it doesn't assign to us
Speaker 2: even a beginning explanation in my mind for what happened
Speaker 2: with the HSCA or am I wrong about that?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 3: As far as what happened with the HSCA with to
Speaker 3: get back with that, Joinese John eds at the time
Speaker 3: that the hsc was not in good health, it was
Speaker 3: considering going into retirement. But among all of the other
Speaker 3: officers that the CIA would have had to select to
Speaker 3: service the liaison to the HSCA, you know, to be
Speaker 3: the guy that knows how the CIA work, that knows
Speaker 3: overall how to help the HSCA do his job. Actually,
Speaker 3: you would probably want to pick somebody from headquarters, somebody
Speaker 3: who has real expertise with the c AA record systems,
Speaker 3: you know, not join It is not a very good
Speaker 3: personnel pick to do that job. So one of the
Speaker 3: things that immediate the question has raised is, you know,
Speaker 3: we've all talked about the fact, why would you pick
Speaker 3: James Angleton to be the CIA liaison to the Warrant Commission,
Speaker 3: you know, to help the Warrant Commission. You know, Angleton
Speaker 3: being counter intelligence CI sigg you know, not not the
Speaker 3: most helpful sort of person in the world. Ankleton's skills
Speaker 3: are covering things up, not exploring things. But and so
Speaker 3: here we have again a CI officer picked whose skill
Speaker 3: set really doesn't match the job. So then you raise
Speaker 3: the question of just like Angleton might have known something
Speaker 3: that he wanted to make sure it didn't get shared
Speaker 3: with the Warren Commission, perhaps Joe and Edies knows something
Speaker 3: that we want to make sure it doesn't get shared
Speaker 3: with the HSCA. Oh, what might that be the CIA's
Speaker 3: interest in Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2: Well, let me challenge you from a different activement that
Speaker 2: perhaps you learn about that.
Speaker 3: Uh, here's this happened.
Speaker 2: Well, but here's why. Let me explain. You know, I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not just gonna say you want I'm not on
Speaker 2: my firms. Okay, I'm not a jerk. Uh, but but
Speaker 2: here's the thing. Angleton fits the job for the Warren
Speaker 2: Commission based on the type of inquiry it was. If
Speaker 2: you want to deflect and make sure that you control
Speaker 2: the flow of information, Angleton might be positioned well to
Speaker 2: not get them started on something that will end up
Speaker 2: on the record. And indeed, Joe Eddies might be positioned
Speaker 2: well because of his intimate knowledge of what the HSCA
Speaker 2: was actually after. The Warrant Commission only wanted to know
Speaker 2: about Oswald. If you take a look at the subcommittees
Speaker 2: that were laid out, the investigative groups. Okay, sorry, but
Speaker 2: where you have a junior and a senior council, you
Speaker 2: have four groups, and three of them have the name
Speaker 2: Oswald and the damn title of the group. They were
Speaker 2: all after Oswald. With the Warren Commission. Okay, the HSCA
Speaker 2: didn't do that. They broke it down a little differently
Speaker 2: and went after very particular things. So indeed Joe Edens
Speaker 2: might have been positioned to take care of the one
Speaker 2: particular thing that they were going after at the time.
Speaker 2: And he's available, he's not busy with other things because,
Speaker 2: as you said, his health was bad. So actually he
Speaker 2: might be the right man for that job, just like
Speaker 2: Angleton was the right man for the CIA job with
Speaker 2: the Warren Commission, to control the flow, to make sure
Speaker 2: that only certain things would reach them, whether they are evocative, provocative,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But only certain things would reach them because really,
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, they're there to filter
Speaker 2: things properly. Both of them.
Speaker 3: Oh, I agree with that, take Chuck, and that's actually
Speaker 3: what I'm trying to say. Oh, it's just a lif
Speaker 3: if you have a particular goal in my let's talk
Speaker 3: about personnel selection, right, Okay, what's what is my goal
Speaker 3: for this job? Okay, my goal for this job is
Speaker 3: not the same as the goal that you know. May
Speaker 3: not my goal is CIA may not be the same
Speaker 3: as the goal that Earl Warren has, or maybe it is.
Speaker 3: I don't know. But the job descriptions might not match.
Speaker 3: The goal of exposing information and an inquiry is on
Speaker 3: their side, the goal of controlling information on an inquiry
Speaker 3: is on my side. So the job descriptions aren't quite meshing.
Speaker 3: And I would say, yeah, I think both of them
Speaker 3: fit exactly the profile for shielding information whether than open. Yeah,
Speaker 3: they're in a position to keep doors closed, not to
Speaker 3: open doors. And and their activities absolutely with their respective
Speaker 3: commissions show that you know that there intentionally. We know
Speaker 3: that Angleton was intentionally and demonstrates that he was intentionally
Speaker 3: closing doors, especially in regard to Mexico City, Joe and Eddies.
Speaker 3: When asked directly some questions related that would relate to
Speaker 3: the ERE, and Oswald absolutely closed the door. He did
Speaker 3: not volunteer the fact that, oh, yeah, I can get
Speaker 3: you that information because I happen to have it. So yeah,
Speaker 3: Actually in this case, darn looks like we agree.
Speaker 2: Oh it does. Actually, I see I was misinterpreting and
Speaker 2: thinking you're saying that, you know, joean Nis is not
Speaker 2: really greatest fit for this job, and I'm thinking to
Speaker 2: myself now it's And also context once again, I love
Speaker 2: using that word with you because it is really your
Speaker 2: key word all the time. Context, the information that was
Speaker 2: going to be presented to the public as the end
Speaker 2: product of each of these inquiries will use loosely. Is
Speaker 2: different because word commission time, there is no awareness of
Speaker 2: the castrow plots. There is no awareness. I mean this,
Speaker 2: The CIA is a mythical organization that is, you know,
Speaker 2: run the up and up in nineteen sixty four on
Speaker 2: the Naples at their report. Right by the time the
Speaker 2: HSCA is full swing of its work, seconding up in
Speaker 2: the seventies we already know the public even knows the
Speaker 2: CIA might not be behaving. You know, bout boards all
Speaker 2: the time. Oh, we have a different context, a different
Speaker 2: dat of information, so a slightly different you'll set, a
Speaker 2: slightly different familiarity is required of that control officer that's
Speaker 2: called in between Angleton and Joanne's, who is supposed to
Speaker 2: be a liaison to help but also has to control
Speaker 2: for his side what's going to be fed. It's a
Speaker 2: different context. Joannes can fed stuff to the HSCA make
Speaker 2: them happy, they couldn't be fed to the Warrant Commission,
Speaker 2: and vice versa. You know, things that seem very benign
Speaker 2: in nineteen sixty four no longer look benign in nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy four or seventy six or any of that time period.
Speaker 2: Do you think that that's an important thing to realize
Speaker 2: here when comparing those.
Speaker 3: Two Yeah, I would say that as you a set
Speaker 3: presents it essentially, angle then has to worry about the
Speaker 3: door to the CIA as an entity, because there are
Speaker 3: a lot of embarrassing things you don't want to reveal
Speaker 3: as you're going along. Do I want to reveal the
Speaker 3: castro plots? Do I want to reveal the CIA uses
Speaker 3: criminals on occasion. Do I want to really reveal that
Speaker 3: the CIA acts domestically against citizens? Lots of things I
Speaker 3: don't really want to reveal at the level of the
Speaker 3: total agency. But when we get to the HSCA, you
Speaker 3: know that a lot of that's come out because of
Speaker 3: the Church Committee. That's no longer shocking. That's no longer
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, we know the CIA does assassinations, big deal.
Speaker 3: We know they have media people in their control, and
Speaker 3: we know they do domestic property. Okay, we know all that,
Speaker 3: all right, So what's the big secret By the time
Speaker 3: we get to HS the HSCA, you know, like, where
Speaker 3: would the explosive part be at that point in time,
Speaker 3: because the CIA has already been suffering. Uh, and it
Speaker 3: probably has to do specifically with the agency Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2: Right, and here we go, and again all they had
Speaker 2: to do is make a basic denial. In nineteen sixty four,
Speaker 2: CIA says they weren't connected to him. We accept it. Done.
Speaker 2: Plus we have the former head of the CIA or
Speaker 2: on our panel, so therefore we know Oswald's not connected
Speaker 2: to CIA. Done. I mean, it's not simple in sixty four,
Speaker 2: it's not ten years later. Okay, it's just not.
Speaker 3: The CIA is not nearly as trusted ten years later
Speaker 3: as it was before.
Speaker 2: Well well yeah, remember you know the warrant commissions made
Speaker 2: up of several what did they say, prestigious individuals who
Speaker 2: are you know all that Alan Dolls being one of them,
Speaker 2: who very much controlled the activity of the Warrant Commission.
Speaker 2: If you take a look at the executive sessions, the
Speaker 2: amount of questions asked, a lot of things. I still
Speaker 2: love a Waltz book on this, the moron Omission. But
Speaker 2: anyway they shout out to Walt Brown. The thing is,
Speaker 2: it's a different landscape for a different skill set required. Okay,
Speaker 2: you know, the guy who makes your French fries might
Speaker 2: not be able to form your potato, but if they're
Speaker 2: part of the same process, Okay, So I want to
Speaker 2: shut up now and let you continue on this and
Speaker 2: kind of, you know, give us the ultimate conclusion here
Speaker 2: in short form, as best you'd like, you know about
Speaker 2: what it is this progress represents. And I do want
Speaker 2: people to read Malcolm Blunt's article, but I don't have
Speaker 2: a link to it available right away. I will find one,
Speaker 2: or maybe you could pass me one. Larry and we'll
Speaker 2: put it in the show notes. But I want to
Speaker 2: get to that point where it's like, Okay, now that
Speaker 2: we've gone through this and tried to explain some context
Speaker 2: and some reality is connected to what was actually handed over,
Speaker 2: what does it mean ultimately or what should it mean
Speaker 2: going forward?
Speaker 3: Well, part of it is that a it does confirm
Speaker 3: another point as well, and that's the point that and
Speaker 3: John Newman had developed years ago in regard to Jane Roman,
Speaker 3: and in regard to the fact that the CIA had
Speaker 3: provably withheld current information on Lee Harvey Oswald after his
Speaker 3: return from Russia from its own people. It had withheld
Speaker 3: it from its people in Mexico City, and when Lee
Speaker 3: Harvey Oswell was there and being queries were being made
Speaker 3: about him, the only reason that happens is if the
Speaker 3: CIA does have an operational interest in him, whether or
Speaker 3: not there already using him knowingly for something, have an
Speaker 3: idea about a notional idea about using him for something.
Speaker 3: There's every reason for us to accept the fact that
Speaker 3: there were operational interests, possibly in several different venues. There's
Speaker 3: several given the image that he had created for himself
Speaker 3: in New Orleans, given the fact that he had volunteered
Speaker 3: to the FBI to provide information on the FPCC. Both
Speaker 3: the FBI and the CIA have operations going on something
Speaker 3: called Amsanta related to the FPCC. Every reason to think
Speaker 3: that over a course of some ninety days there could
Speaker 3: have been different types of operational interest within the agency
Speaker 3: in Lee Harvey oswelld Okay, there's just our job now
Speaker 3: would be to pursue that. Because we know what was
Speaker 3: going on within the agency, we know the kind of
Speaker 3: things that we're doing. There are places we could look
Speaker 3: to try to find evidence of that, unless that's been
Speaker 3: taken away. But that's an important lead. But I think
Speaker 3: the more important lead, and where this all really comes
Speaker 3: down to is let's take that as a given, as
Speaker 3: a hypothesis. Lee Harvey Oswell is of operational interest. He's
Speaker 3: an operational interest as of late August through September, through
Speaker 3: October and November. And there may be an evolving interest
Speaker 3: in him, you know, immediately in New Orleans propaganda wise,
Speaker 3: with the DRE evolving into something more in regard to
Speaker 3: Mexico City. But there's an operational interest in him within
Speaker 3: the CIA.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: One of the things that we all most all of
Speaker 3: us can serious types have talked about for a long time,
Speaker 3: is if you're going to hijack Lee Harvey Oswall and
Speaker 3: make him a real poisoned pill, make him really dangerous
Speaker 3: to the CIA, because they have an operational interest in him,
Speaker 3: who's going to hijack him? Where would you turn to
Speaker 3: look for somebody that would know about that operational interest
Speaker 3: and be in a position to say, Aha, actually, if
Speaker 3: we pass this guy, and if we use them, and
Speaker 3: we take their plan the air propaganda and we make
Speaker 3: it ours. Let's take let's say that they were already
Speaker 3: working on the Gilberto Alvarado story of Cuban's contracting Oswald
Speaker 3: to kill JFK giving him money, which David Phillips maintained
Speaker 3: to his death, say that was already project. That's great,
Speaker 3: we can hijack that, we can make them a patsy.
Speaker 3: We can turn this whole thing against Cuban a heartbeating
Speaker 3: and problem solved. Where would that hijack occur? You know,
Speaker 3: of all the potential characters that have been offered, all
Speaker 3: the scenarios that have been offered for this conspiracy, who
Speaker 3: wouldn't know enough about that operational interest to hijacket My
Speaker 3: point be obviously somebody within his CIA and somebody that's
Speaker 3: involved in that operational interest. That's where the hijack has
Speaker 3: to occur. So just what I'm going to toss out
Speaker 3: is this gives as a real direction. Look, we've made
Speaker 3: apotheses about all this before, but now it's giving us
Speaker 3: a real suggestion of Yeah, we were thinking we were
Speaker 3: looking in the right place. Now we should look more closely.
Speaker 2: Okay, I actually have a live question, which I didn't expect,
Speaker 2: but he then also emailed me to make sure I
Speaker 2: looked at it, and I'm not sure if I've got
Speaker 2: the right question. I hope it's right. Let's see where
Speaker 2: is this thing so I could get the scoop on
Speaker 2: the context of this the document they mentioned a couple
Speaker 2: of KGB mails on trial where these are the ones
Speaker 2: known before. Jeez, this is kind of a bit of
Speaker 2: a complex thing for me to try to read. I
Speaker 2: really want you to restate that question in the chat
Speaker 2: rooms that you're listening live quickly though, because Larry's almost
Speaker 2: out of time with me. Yeah, please, because I don't
Speaker 2: know if you want to ask the question about you know,
Speaker 2: he had just come back from Greece. It just come
Speaker 2: back from Greece. There's one part one thing that looks
Speaker 2: like a question there, and then there's some other things.
Speaker 2: But there's a bit more chat going on in the room,
Speaker 2: so I'm not sure which thing he wants to ask here,
Speaker 2: so please enter it back in the chat room. The
Speaker 2: exact question, well, just a couple.
Speaker 3: Of comments while that's been done. Is we do know
Speaker 3: John Ed's background is not unlike David phillips background. Both
Speaker 3: of them were case officers. They handed individuals. Increasingly, they
Speaker 3: handed handled higher level individuals up to political action type individuals.
Speaker 3: Join Edes actually appears to have been a serious factor
Speaker 3: in regime change in Greece and had some regimes games
Speaker 3: regime change skills, just like David Phillips did. But both
Speaker 3: of these are former case officers who have advanced through
Speaker 3: the ranks and have specializations in propaganda, especially black propaganda,
Speaker 3: something that should be very much on our minds in
Speaker 3: the fall of nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, let's see I get the scoop on the Okay,
Speaker 2: the context of this Mary Ferrell document. Yikes, let's see
Speaker 2: in the document they mentioned a couple of KGB models
Speaker 2: in trial where these ones known before and George joannides
Speaker 2: to had to testify concerning a phone call and Bruce Soli,
Speaker 2: who was alive Jezu. Yeah, it is a very complex issue.
Speaker 2: So you know, if we look at the member from
Speaker 2: Bruce L. Soli chief SAG regarding camp files. Okay, you
Speaker 2: might have seen this before, Larry, Do you know what
Speaker 2: I'm referring to it even to begin with? Or no?
Speaker 3: Oh, just very generally, it seemed to me that that
Speaker 3: was separate from what he was doing in nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 3: So I have read it and I noted it, but
Speaker 3: it didn't really seem directly relevant to what he was
Speaker 3: doing in sixty three, so I didn't pursue it, honestly.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, the beginning the memo is on this day,
Speaker 2: George Joani's number forty one six fifty five was received
Speaker 2: the May nineteen seventy eight letter from subject was interviewed
Speaker 2: by WFO slash FBI agents Terry Neast and Ken Patten.
Speaker 2: The interview was conducted in for eed S thirteen. Prior
Speaker 2: to the interview, the undersign had obtained the original letter
Speaker 2: from Vivian Psachos. However, you pronounced that and it was
Speaker 2: furnished to the above agent or permanent FBI retention. The
Speaker 2: undersigned was not present during the interview, but it should
Speaker 2: be noted that Joe and Needes in all caps had
Speaker 2: open heart surgery about the time he received the above letter,
Speaker 2: and that was from solely there and this is dated.
Speaker 2: Let's see when is this day to day? Seventeen August
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy eight. Anyway, it's a bit of a complexity there.
Speaker 2: I don't know how you would answer that anyway. In short,
Speaker 2: if you want.
Speaker 3: To put it in the chat or drop me an email,
Speaker 3: I can try to give you a response that you
Speaker 3: could put in the chat, but it looks like I
Speaker 3: would have to do some background reading to give any
Speaker 3: reasonable response.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll do that. And what we'll do is I'll
Speaker 2: get your response after the show, my friend, because I
Speaker 2: don't want to short change your question, Okay, to be
Speaker 2: honest with you, especially because that guy's actually a supporter
Speaker 2: of the show, who you know, sometimes gives me a
Speaker 2: little heart burning on the calling show. But that's okay.
Speaker 2: I would rather answer his question for even if we
Speaker 2: got to do it after. But anyway, the total discussion here,
Speaker 2: you know, we got we got a bit of progress
Speaker 2: out of this confirmation. For sure, you got some more context,
Speaker 2: but it's still as yet incomplete, as per usual. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is almost where Yeah, I kind of go along
Speaker 2: with the people that go yeah, yes, same old, but
Speaker 2: it's not because it's part of what was being held
Speaker 2: back for a long time, no matter how long you know,
Speaker 2: morally sued to get the documentation. This is part of
Speaker 2: what he wanted, but it's not everything. And that seems
Speaker 2: to be the name of the game with all this, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and we wouldn't expect it to be. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is this is a lead. Is it any different
Speaker 3: than Jane Roman going Yeah, they'rewithholding information, So that looks
Speaker 3: like there's an optional interest. No, it's not quite that good.
Speaker 3: But basically Jeff has interviewed a couple of people to
Speaker 3: go along with the lead that are about that level.
Speaker 3: You know, it's like, this is yet one more confirmation
Speaker 3: from real people working within the CIA and talking to
Speaker 3: the CIA about an operational interest.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I did copy and paste it, by the way,
Speaker 2: the live listener, But I'm telling you he's saying he'd
Speaker 2: want to look over it before he answers it.
Speaker 3: So I am looking at the link check and I see.
Speaker 3: All I see is like a one page letter from
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy eight. So security and now this group is
Speaker 3: interviewed Joe and Needes obviously well after his uh you know,
Speaker 3: his retirement, and it rapes to a letter from I
Speaker 3: don't see the letter. So they've reviewed interviewed him about
Speaker 3: a letter that they and this is the FBI interviewing
Speaker 3: about a letter. So I to give a comment, I've
Speaker 3: got to see what uh uh Vivian was asking about.
Speaker 3: You know, it's like, we interviewed him about the letter. Well,
Speaker 3: where's the letter. I need to see that.
Speaker 2: I know this is the problem with a singular document.
Speaker 2: And I get he's saying, look, it's a cold war question,
Speaker 2: but it's not that simple. You got to know the
Speaker 2: fully what's going on here, not just what's in that letter.
Speaker 2: And you know, off the top of your head, it's
Speaker 2: not easy to know the precise details. You got to
Speaker 2: look back over them to be honest with you.
Speaker 3: Well, it's it's it's it's FBI.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: This is so Chief Security Analysis Group within the CIA
Speaker 3: talking about the fact that Joe and Edes was interviewed
Speaker 3: by FBI agents about this letter. So here's here's a
Speaker 3: CI officer who's in retirement who solely is allowed has
Speaker 3: given permission to be interviewed by the FBI because he'd
Speaker 3: have to do that. In regard to whatever is being
Speaker 3: asserted in the letter, is is this new information? I
Speaker 3: don't think we've ever seen this letter, so to that extent,
Speaker 3: I would say it would be new. I know, there's
Speaker 3: I guess the bottom line is there's a lot of
Speaker 3: talk these debates about solely because of what John Newman
Speaker 3: is writing about solely, and perhaps this relates, you know,
Speaker 3: something new about the fact that Solely would let Joe
Speaker 3: and Edes be interviewed. But again, I'm sorry, I just
Speaker 3: I don't have another context to just make a reasonable observation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, I know. I just this is what
Speaker 2: I try to explain all the time, and people go, oh,
Speaker 2: that's because you don't know what you're doing, and I'm like, no,
Speaker 2: it's because I don't have all the information that you
Speaker 2: really need to fully decode what you're asking, and I
Speaker 2: need other information along with you know, it's not what
Speaker 2: happened here is on the internet, modern Internet, Larry. And
Speaker 2: this is how I'm going to break this down, is
Speaker 2: that people came to expect I have the one document
Speaker 2: in my hands. You probably know who I'm imitating some listeners,
Speaker 2: But anyway, I have this one document right here. It
Speaker 2: proves this, and it never does because in and of
Speaker 2: itself shows nothing, and you have to take it and
Speaker 2: have the other context to be able to know what's
Speaker 2: going on altogether. And I'll tell you what, after reading
Speaker 2: millions of pages, as I'm sure you have, Look, you're
Speaker 2: not going to memorize the specifics on everything or trust
Speaker 2: your memory anymore on everything because it gets blurred after
Speaker 2: a while.
Speaker 3: Well, sorry, in regard to this check, it's kind of
Speaker 3: triggering a little bit. I think I have read some
Speaker 3: more dialogue about this letter, and the issue was the
Speaker 3: FBI agents interviewed Joannides, and I think there was a
Speaker 3: complaint that he was not being cooperative, he was being
Speaker 3: testing and grumpy with them, and that they were actually
Speaker 3: complaining to Solely that he was not being helpful and
Speaker 3: had not been helpful. And that's the reason for that
Speaker 3: item number two in the letter. It's sort of like
Speaker 3: Solely is going by the way, you guys realize that
Speaker 3: you know he has had open heart surgery, He's probably
Speaker 3: not at his best. You know, this is a polite
Speaker 3: way for the for Solely to go back and say, well, yeah,
Speaker 3: he's an old guy's retired and he said searcher recently,
Speaker 3: and yes he was grumpy. You know, get a life.
Speaker 3: I saw that somewhere else. It's that much as coming
Speaker 3: back to me. But it's still not coming back to
Speaker 3: me what the interviewed him about.
Speaker 2: Right, And what he says in the room is as
Speaker 2: he's trying to get, you know, at the question, but
Speaker 2: he says, you know, George Joanedi's had to testify in
Speaker 2: the trial concerning Soviet moles.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, so that makes sense. So otherwise Solely would
Speaker 3: not be it wouldn't have come under the security. So
Speaker 3: obviously there was some kind of claim about moles. Right,
Speaker 3: And that's interesting because obviously, you know, my first thought
Speaker 3: would be, you know, George was just about to read
Speaker 3: you know, what did George. I'm wondering if it does
Speaker 3: not have to do with his time in Greece more
Speaker 3: than what we're talking about here in nineteen sixty three
Speaker 3: in terms of people that he may have run across
Speaker 3: who were being investigated as being moles. But so, yeah,
Speaker 3: that that part makes perfect sense to me and to
Speaker 3: that to that extent, in all honesty, Joan Edes, We've
Speaker 3: we've looked at Joann edes entire career has not been
Speaker 3: looked at in the same fashion that say, David phillips
Speaker 3: entire career has been looked at, because Joe and Ed's
Speaker 3: up to this point had been a and the CIA
Speaker 3: had managed to make him a rather trivial figure. I
Speaker 3: will say, there are all sorts of people now that
Speaker 3: we know of that our major figures in regard to
Speaker 3: the JFK assassination as persons of interest or suspects. You know,
Speaker 3: that includes Morales more Joe and Edes now that that
Speaker 3: we didn't even know about, or that the HSC that
Speaker 3: the CIA effectively stonewalled for years, so we wouldn't even
Speaker 3: be able to investigate their entire the background, right.
Speaker 2: And they also did a little bit of diversion where
Speaker 2: they can you know, contrive some you know, a whole
Speaker 2: lot of that in misdirection that goes on in order
Speaker 2: to keep you off the trail. So this is actually
Speaker 2: a step down the trail, but it leads to other trails.
Speaker 2: And that's what the problem is again, because they turned
Speaker 2: around and they did keep some trivial nonsense, a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of it away from us that has nothing to
Speaker 2: do with anything. And they fought tooth and nail to
Speaker 2: keep that hidden, right, and it.
Speaker 3: Works because if you keep everything hidden, we have no
Speaker 3: idea where should we be spending her time?
Speaker 2: Right right? You know exactly. This is why I point
Speaker 2: out that whole thing when I know spent that money
Speaker 2: and then got my documents in the mail and got,
Speaker 2: you know, five copies of the same cut out badly
Speaker 2: cut out, by the way, photo copied or xerox newspaper
Speaker 2: article that was just part of somebody's file. And I
Speaker 2: got five copies of this stupid thing now and it
Speaker 2: was something that was in the public domain. That come
Speaker 2: on you. But I'm leasting my money, my time doing that,
Speaker 2: and what does that meant to do? Maybe you give
Speaker 2: up after a while. You know, if you keep digging
Speaker 2: for treasure and you got holes all over your yard,
Speaker 2: you're gonna stop digging in your yard after a while.
Speaker 2: It's just pretty simple. You can't walk across the yard anymore. Anyway, Larry,
Speaker 2: I really appreciate you taking the time today and we
Speaker 2: went over a little bit. Sorry about that. But would
Speaker 2: you this is my final question for you, just real quickly,
Speaker 2: would this have changed anything or do we already see
Speaker 2: an update maybe to the Oswall puzzle or an addendum?
Speaker 3: Oh, definitely, it doesn't change to me. It doesn't change
Speaker 3: anything about Lee Harvey Oswell per se. What it does
Speaker 3: is extend significantly what was going on around here at
Speaker 3: the moment. There are half a dozen different operational possibilities
Speaker 3: that David and I are examining. I think it greatly
Speaker 3: extends the areas that we have to look at for
Speaker 3: these operations, especially to find operations that both Joe and
Speaker 3: Edes and Phillips, who were propaganda backgrounds may have been
Speaker 3: participating in. They direct us towards this new super secret
Speaker 3: operation that was forming at the same time. Both Phillips
Speaker 3: and joann Edes appear to have been assigned to it,
Speaker 3: or to assign We know what Phillips was assigned to
Speaker 3: at that point in time, it was the new Autonomous
Speaker 3: Operations Special Operations under des Fitzgerald, and if join Edes,
Speaker 3: if that was the operation that joann Edes was assigned to,
Speaker 3: There's a huge range of possibilities and some very dark
Speaker 3: possibilities that are going on there. So not so much
Speaker 3: on what's in the eye puzzle, but what might have
Speaker 3: been going around the Oswald puzzle. And as I said,
Speaker 3: even raising the possibility for at least some speculation on
Speaker 3: a scenario of this time exactly who and when and
Speaker 3: how they hijacked Oswald.
Speaker 2: Almost seems like you could write a sequel called the
Speaker 2: Oswald Frame, because this is well I was thinking of it.
Speaker 3: I was thinking of a short monograph, Chuck, you know,
Speaker 3: twenty or thirty pages. But that's what I was thinking
Speaker 3: of when I started the Oswa puzzle too.
Speaker 2: That I was about to crack up, because that's exactly
Speaker 2: what happened with the Oswell puzzle. As you went, you
Speaker 2: know what I'm going to write like an article? Yeah,
Speaker 2: and then you know it might be big enough that
Speaker 2: I might have to make a monograph. We'll post it
Speaker 2: online somewhere for free. It'll be that okay. And I said,
Speaker 2: oh oh, because if if.
Speaker 3: Jeff just got a few more operational documents.
Speaker 2: Who knows, then then we might have, you know, the
Speaker 2: sequel to the Osma puzzle from Larry. I'm laughing because
Speaker 2: Larry has several times tried to tell me basically, look,
Speaker 2: I think I'm gonna put the JFK thing away now,
Speaker 2: and I went, great, let's go in other directions. And
Speaker 2: you know it's like that, which, by the way, here's
Speaker 2: a hint at what I may do during the Myths
Speaker 2: presentation at Lancer, and it's gonna be worth your ticket
Speaker 2: that day, you know, the whole Godfather trilogy, all right.
Speaker 2: Every time I try to get out, they pulled me
Speaker 2: back in. Larry is suffering that and he's not even Italian. Anyway,
Speaker 2: we'll we'll, we'll get into that more in the in
Speaker 2: the future. And thanks Larry for taking the time to
Speaker 2: do this. Maybe a little follow up, you know, if
Speaker 2: you get a chance to take a look at this,
Speaker 2: who knows, maybe it'll be the seed of something interesting
Speaker 2: for you, and maybe you'll be able to add to it,
Speaker 2: because you know, your mind those to different places sometimes.
Speaker 2: I mean, I look at things, I put them in context.
Speaker 2: I try to follow up on each thing. First of all,
Speaker 2: I define things, and this is my oversimplified explanation. I
Speaker 2: want to know what that letter says, since they mention it.
Speaker 2: I want to know who the person is that's mentioned.
Speaker 2: So I go and I study those things, and it
Speaker 2: seems like a sidetrack, but it's not. It's to put
Speaker 2: total context so that I'm reading this as if I'm
Speaker 2: knowledgeable on every subject in the paragraph. Even That's why
Speaker 2: it takes me time to figure things out, because sometimes
Speaker 2: I'm familiar with the people and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes
Speaker 2: I'm familiar with the subject, sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I'm
Speaker 2: familiar with the kryptonym, sometimes not. And this is the
Speaker 2: process I go through, probably not the most efficient way.
Speaker 2: And you know, I would like to see a well
Speaker 2: trained AI that can do it. But as smart as
Speaker 2: those things are, they don't get very far with this.
Speaker 2: You still people, So I mean, there may be technology
Speaker 2: that's you know, in certain industries that I haven't seen yet,
Speaker 2: but as far as what the public has seen so far,
Speaker 2: there is not a researcher AI for JFK. Not yet.
Speaker 2: Maybe we'll get there, Larry, Maybe maybe we'll become unnecessary.
Speaker 3: The only remark I can make, Chuck, is if the
Speaker 3: AIS trained themselves into a certain position the same way
Speaker 3: we have trained ourselves into different positions, you know, that
Speaker 3: makes them no smarter than we are. The problem with
Speaker 3: AI is it's still a matter of training. If if
Speaker 3: what you're training them to do is fairly straightforward, and
Speaker 3: you just give them tons of data. Cool, more data
Speaker 3: than any human can handle. Cool, right, which means AIS
Speaker 3: and science and astronomy, geology, physics, cool AIS in the
Speaker 3: areas we cover maybe not so cool right.
Speaker 2: And you know what's funny is just gave you the
Speaker 2: punchline I wanted to give, and he did it better,
Speaker 2: so I appreciate it. Follow Larry's blog Larry not Harry,
Speaker 2: Larry Larry Dash, Handcock dot com or hyphen whatever you
Speaker 2: want to call it. Go there. Follow his blog. He
Speaker 2: does give you some information on occasion over there about
Speaker 2: a variety of subjects, not just the jfk assassination. And
Speaker 2: although I'm highly recommending the book The Osma Puzzle at
Speaker 2: the moment all year year and a half, actually now
Speaker 2: you know this is the thing. I was recommending it
Speaker 2: before it came out because well, I had an idea
Speaker 2: what was in it, and it was necessary. Here's the thing,
Speaker 2: it's required reading. But I got a shelf full of
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock books and not a one of them is
Speaker 2: something you waste your money on, whether it's nexus, or
Speaker 2: it is creating chaos, or it is surprise attack. His
Speaker 2: co authors have changed a few times. Occasionally his wife
Speaker 2: has given him the title of the book, But the
Speaker 2: content and the context of those books is an incredible
Speaker 2: education on the behavior of the security state, whether it's
Speaker 2: about UAPs they call them now, or it's about you know,
Speaker 2: spheres of influence, the intelligence agencies, the JFK assassination. You
Speaker 2: have a serious library that Larry has put out all
Speaker 2: by himself, and I'm really proud and happy to have
Speaker 2: him on here and grateful.
Speaker 6: Do you like history, real history that you were never
Speaker 6: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 6: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 6: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 6: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 6: Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 6: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 6: Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson,
Speaker 6: Revelation Conversation Chili dot Com.
Speaker 5: Revelation through Conversation.
Speaker 7: Here it oh.
Speaker 1: Ll you.
Speaker 5: Fact, oh Shelley Fashion Trams and truth right Jay trow.
Speaker 7: RYA ain't all the world your fact?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah?
Speaker 7: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 4: Through that.
Speaker 1: Of that.
Speaker 3: Truth.
Speaker 4: Breaking through the War State by Michael Swanson explains the
Speaker 4: great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy
Speaker 4: presidency in the context of the times and reveals never
Speaker 4: before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy
Speaker 4: would not have been assassinated if he had been president
Speaker 4: two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the
Speaker 4: context of the Cold War and the rise of the
Speaker 4: national security state. Before World War II, the United States
Speaker 4: was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it
Speaker 4: became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not
Speaker 4: only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were
Speaker 4: short range missiles on the island aren't with nuclear warheads
Speaker 4: that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers.
Speaker 4: Their invasion could have led to a Third World War,
Speaker 4: and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War
Speaker 4: State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you
Speaker 4: what President Kennedy was up against.
Speaker 2: For more information, The War State dot.
Speaker 3: Com dot com radio the.
Speaker 2: Vius expressed by caller Stools. There anyone else who happens
Speaker 2: to get on the air of Jelly dot com. You
Speaker 2: not necessarily reflected the US little Jelly dot com or
Speaker 2: Jelly and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which
Speaker 2: might ensued.
Speaker 3: Thank you revelation.
Speaker 7: Through com sage.
Speaker 2: Here Shell you.
Speaker 5: Oh Shelley, Fast, trais and truth right Jay True, you
Speaker 5: are the fast.
Speaker 7: I ain't on the world. You are the hop back. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 7: mm hmmm mm hmmm.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm yeah.
Speaker 7: River like.
Speaker 5: Through cover, shot, carried sound, a lie aside.
Speaker 7: A reason, truth ran true.
Speaker 3: M.
Speaker 1: Own Oh.
Speaker 8: Baseline crowds raise the strings, black smoke, bleed, kick drunk,
Speaker 8: crushed bone, snaps from the beats, greed, brass, screams, loud raise,
Speaker 8: a cuts through the night, little swap.
Speaker 7: And blues bleed, dice in a fighter.
Speaker 8: Spear crashed with fire, rhythms oft the change, sweat hits
Speaker 8: the stage, pleasure point from paint, saxophone whales, shark like
Speaker 8: a fang, hip hop, Bloke, glen were chaos, sun chained,
Speaker 8: infernal roars, let the boy, John.
Speaker 9: Soon, grassing beads, pain O, sonic toom, metal grime.
Speaker 8: Soul breaks in Soon, Horns.
Speaker 9: Of madness, screaming, boom, twist, bite deep twist, the groove,
Speaker 9: insane blues and beats, breaking through the pain, trumpets, how
Speaker 9: violence caught en rage, fury unleashed on his burden stake,
Speaker 9: hip hop breaks, weathing.
Speaker 8: Through the Red, Swagger breaks, Chaos still meets brass neck.
Speaker 7: Trump, Phil murders.
Speaker 8: Cash just feels like why look Bruce talked down.
Speaker 7: The end of time.
Speaker 1: Out.
Speaker 7: It burn on Morse let the void.
Speaker 9: Consume, rossing beats, pain or sonic toom.
Speaker 7: Little Grid Soul breaks in too. It's a madness streaming.
Speaker 1: Fye more the n