Speaker 1: Get ready June eighteen, twenty twenty five. Allegedly, according to
Speaker 1: that thing we call a calendar, this is the o'celli effect.
Speaker 1: It is Wednesday Wodnesday, and that's the way it was.
Speaker 1: That's the way it is. Anyhow, glad you could join
Speaker 1: us tonight, and I'm really really pleased as always when
Speaker 1: this happens to have Larry Hancock along with me. I
Speaker 1: meant to get together with Larry earlier than we are
Speaker 1: alive on the stream. You listening in the podcast form
Speaker 1: don't care, but I did mean to get together with
Speaker 1: him earlier, not just because I wanted to be on
Speaker 1: time for the live stream, but I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: to Larry before we went to air about some stuff
Speaker 1: and didn't get a chance to really do it. So anyway,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe next time you and I get together we
Speaker 1: can do that. We have the occasion to talk a
Speaker 1: few more times before November, if plans go according to plan. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So Larry Hancock, of course the author taking up a
Speaker 1: lot of space on my bookshelf, but not just taking
Speaker 1: up space, giving me an education over the years on
Speaker 1: a great many things, And tonight's focus will not be
Speaker 1: the JFK thing and the November reference I just gave you.
Speaker 1: We're going to continue on with something that's rather fascinating
Speaker 1: as well and just as necessary to study if you
Speaker 1: want to understand intelligence agency behaviors. In my opinion, that
Speaker 1: would be the uap UFO et cetera, et cetera contramacy,
Speaker 1: as they say, on the other side of the pond.
Speaker 1: Larry has authored a book called Unidentified. It is a dark,
Speaker 1: dark colored you know, I got it behind me. I
Speaker 1: should have put it in front of me, dark colored
Speaker 1: book with some blue writing on it, I believe, And
Speaker 1: it says unidentified. And it has a longer title which
Speaker 1: I do not recall. But either way, it comes along
Speaker 1: with the highly recommended works of Larry Hancock, and there
Speaker 1: will be a link in the show note for you
Speaker 1: to go and find out about it and go get
Speaker 1: it anyway. You can always go to Larry dash Handcock
Speaker 1: dot com and check out Larry's work, his blog, his books,
Speaker 1: et cetera, anyway, plus all the other references in my library.
Speaker 1: So Larry, first of all, how you doing tonight?
Speaker 2: I'm doing good?
Speaker 1: Check why to be back? Listen. I am more grateful
Speaker 1: to you than your no because I needed a break
Speaker 1: from the news, and actually I needed a break from
Speaker 1: JFK stuff because of what I'm doing privately, So thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you. Anyway, the thing is, you passed me an
Speaker 1: article which was in the Wall Street Journal. Now, let's
Speaker 1: see what you know, what I should have memorized when
Speaker 1: the data of this article was but I did not.
Speaker 1: It is from the from the sixth Okay, so it's
Speaker 1: this month and it's just from the sixth.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: It's interesting because here's the headline, guys, the Pentagon disinformation
Speaker 1: that fueled America's UFO mythology. All right, there is a
Speaker 1: mouthful in a loaded statement right there. Why, because I
Speaker 1: gotta be honest with you. I start skimming over this
Speaker 1: thing and all I see is standard operating procedure. Why
Speaker 1: because you know, the the one armed man, the smoking
Speaker 1: man all rolled into one, Okay, is the unnamed source
Speaker 1: when it comes to politics, parapolitics, political conspiracy research, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. The unnamed source that you can't name, who's
Speaker 1: close close to the situation, larry or maybe involved in
Speaker 1: the situation, etc. And meanwhile, we got people on the
Speaker 1: internet being surprised that there might have been a two
Speaker 1: oh one file of RFK, and I don't mean junior
Speaker 1: that existed in the CIA's hands. They're surprised over that
Speaker 1: because they don't understand the functionality of any of these things.
Speaker 1: And anyway, I'm not going to get into that, and
Speaker 1: we're not talking RFK tonight, But I'm just saying a
Speaker 1: profound misunderstanding which is perpetuated by the intelligence agency's army intelligence,
Speaker 1: the military itself, in order to keep people in the
Speaker 1: dark and guessing, feeling around, much as you would be
Speaker 1: if you were literally suddenly thrust into darkness. For most
Speaker 1: people here we are, this kind of stuff reads to
Speaker 1: me like, let's keep people guessing, and let's make sure
Speaker 1: that we perpetuate the open question and open door for
Speaker 1: the kookie conspiracy stuff, the speculation, the reasonable questions, and
Speaker 1: all of it all at once, because you know what,
Speaker 1: it all serves to keep people from doing what actually
Speaker 1: getting to an answer regarding the subject at hand. And
Speaker 1: here we are with UAPs. How am I doing so far? Larry?
Speaker 1: Is this reading correct to you? Or am I just
Speaker 1: you know, crazy and spouting off at the mouth here?
Speaker 4: Well, it does sound something like we we encountered this
Speaker 4: all the time, as you say, an article shows up
Speaker 4: in a newspaper from a journalist, you know, And basically
Speaker 4: what we've learned over time is the way the Pentagon operates,
Speaker 4: the way the agencies operate, the way the CIA always
Speaker 4: operated is they had they had people within the media
Speaker 4: community and there was a quid book low.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: If those folks were curious about a particular topic or
Speaker 4: what was going on in a particular area, you know,
Speaker 4: they would they would feed, you know, into the agency
Speaker 4: or the government or what they were hearing, and then
Speaker 4: they would be given information. Sometimes it was good information,
Speaker 4: sometimes it was bad information. But you know, there was
Speaker 4: never an attributable source. As you said, it's like the
Speaker 4: article appears and according to reliable sources, and there's nothing
Speaker 4: to go with it. You know, there's no documentation, there's
Speaker 4: no official statement. And the problem, as you kind of outlined,
Speaker 4: is it has to be real to work sometimes, but
Speaker 4: you never know. It reminds me of a movie from
Speaker 4: a couple of decades ago about this fellow who.
Speaker 2: Published a conspiracy newsletter. Yeah, and then he became.
Speaker 4: Threatened and at risk and it's like, well, I know
Speaker 4: it's over something at my newsletter, but I don't know
Speaker 4: what it is. You know, well, you can't tell, you
Speaker 4: can't tell what's going on.
Speaker 2: It's all there and you don't really know for sure.
Speaker 1: See there's that. Plus. Look, they don't just float fake
Speaker 1: stories and just give reporters fake stories, because after a while,
Speaker 1: first of all, you know, the unnamed source would lose
Speaker 1: credibility and people would go, yeah, here we go, unnamed source.
Speaker 1: It never pans out, So they got to give him
Speaker 1: some real stuff now and then. And sometimes I think
Speaker 1: they're brainstorming a little bit. You know, what do they
Speaker 1: call that? There's a methodology.
Speaker 2: Like a market task just a focused group.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a focus group, except you know it's wide. It's
Speaker 1: the readership of whoever, and what are we doing. We're
Speaker 1: floating the idea to see how people react to it,
Speaker 1: to see if they're going to get mad, to see
Speaker 1: if they care, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: I think that's true in some ways. And sometimes they
Speaker 1: give some information in there, Like I said, so people
Speaker 1: can point back and go, look, you know that unnamed source,
Speaker 1: look at how correct he was, or look at out
Speaker 1: incorrect he was. Guess what plausible deniability? Hey, who knows
Speaker 1: who that unnamed source was. So you have a variety
Speaker 1: of things going on here, but again it's it's one
Speaker 1: of those issues. Right, Let's see if the public's even
Speaker 1: interested in UFO cover up, et cetera. Right, I mean
Speaker 1: that's what it seemed like to me here in this article.
Speaker 1: I mean I can't read the whole thing because I
Speaker 1: don't have a Wall Street Journal, you know, and I
Speaker 1: already used up my articles for the month. So you know,
Speaker 1: hopefully some of you guys listening, I'll give you a
Speaker 1: link to the article as well, so you guys can
Speaker 1: go see it yourselves. But the thing is, when you
Speaker 1: do this, it can be useful for a variety of reasons,
Speaker 1: but once again, you have to blend it with speculation
Speaker 1: that makes sense, with some real stuff that makes sense
Speaker 1: and will come out later. So it does look like
Speaker 1: it was, you know, prognosticating something on occasion, not always,
Speaker 1: but on occasion. Right. And also, just like you said,
Speaker 1: the test market idea, let's see how it flies in
Speaker 1: the South, because if they'll buy this kind of fried
Speaker 1: chicken in the South, we got a shot in the North.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's like a fast food restaurant.
Speaker 1: Try it out, you know, when they did Mick Pizza
Speaker 1: and thank god that didn't take off. But you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, it didn't work out, So they go, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's move on to another idea we have or maybe
Speaker 1: and then in.
Speaker 4: This case, they still they still have to come up
Speaker 4: with them. This agency, the agency has chared with this,
Speaker 4: and we have no idea who these reporters actually talked to.
Speaker 4: Not only do we not have a name, we don't
Speaker 4: have an agency or you know, there's they're not They
Speaker 4: weren't given an official statement that they're writing from.
Speaker 2: You know, this is just a source somewhere.
Speaker 4: But assuming that it's within the agency that was created
Speaker 4: by legislative action, that's a r O who's supposed to
Speaker 4: resolve the issue of anomalous objects.
Speaker 2: Uh, assuming it.
Speaker 4: Came from them, we know, as you mentioned in the
Speaker 4: Luna hearings, that that they face a problem because they
Speaker 4: had whistle blowers and they had people that said, oh,
Speaker 4: you know, I've talked to people that have seen this
Speaker 4: and that, or you know, they're still they still have
Speaker 4: to deal with it.
Speaker 2: They haven't really resolved it, and this is one way
Speaker 2: to resolve it.
Speaker 4: One approach that they've taken is that these people were
Speaker 4: simply hearing secondhand information and and you know, the people
Speaker 4: that they were talking to misunderstood, you know, perhaps Yeah,
Speaker 4: this is this is to kind of perpetuate the concept
Speaker 4: that there's something going on and circulating and cover stories
Speaker 4: are being used that can confuse people. So we're really
Speaker 4: the takeaways you really shouldn't be surprised at people even
Speaker 4: within the military or intelligence agencies here cover stories and
Speaker 4: bad stuff and misinterpret them and then pass it on. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's that's the real message here, Like okay, there it's
Speaker 4: an effort to address second hand information isn't work.
Speaker 1: There's that, Plus there is the ability to protect you know,
Speaker 1: secrets or secretive actions or things that need to be
Speaker 1: handled a certain way and sort of edited for public consumption.
Speaker 1: And I give you a Luna we talkalked about before
Speaker 1: we went to air. Really but Luna's hearings on JFK
Speaker 1: we talked about recently and I've talked about him without
Speaker 1: you on the show, and you hear the convoluted defense
Speaker 1: that occurs as a result of those hearings. What do
Speaker 1: I mean some other podcasters that you know have larger
Speaker 1: audiences in me quite frankly. But we'll sit there and say,
Speaker 1: how come Luna's not investigating stuff, not realizing that this
Speaker 1: isn't the HSCA. And yes, it's a public hearing Congress,
Speaker 1: but it's not the same thing. And what happens is
Speaker 1: she and she plays a role in this, by the way,
Speaker 1: directly for listeners who might have forgotten, because she was
Speaker 1: involved in those UAP hearings too. You know, she's disclosure lady.
Speaker 1: And I'm not blaming her, by the way, but here's
Speaker 1: the thing. They float that out in public and now
Speaker 1: the public things since the Congress entertained it. It is
Speaker 1: the same thing as the HSCA. Oh well, the Rocker
Speaker 1: Pefeller commission. They went and did this. Yeah, this isn't
Speaker 1: the Rockefeller Commission. This isn't the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Speaker 1: This is the people dealing with declassification. And yes, this
Speaker 1: is where that guy went on you know, and made headlines. Yes,
Speaker 1: I know directly about alien technology, we reverse engineered, etc.
Speaker 1: And that stuff is another pillar of this obfuscation. Really,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to come up with another word, but I can't.
Speaker 1: By design that appears to be efforts toward disclosure and transparency.
Speaker 1: And that's the way it's meant to appear for an
Speaker 1: unsuspecting public that doesn't understand the mechanisms, doesn't necessarily understand
Speaker 1: the material, but reflexively states, you know what, I want more,
Speaker 1: I want this whatever, And they do what politicians do.
Speaker 1: They take polls and figure out what is it that
Speaker 1: the public will accept, will want, will demand, and they
Speaker 1: work that into the program as well. And that's what
Speaker 1: I see when I see articles like this, the hearings,
Speaker 1: all of these things coming out. They are a symptom
Speaker 1: of what the protection of national security via various methods.
Speaker 1: And I still think it's the defense by by convoluting
Speaker 1: the subject is I mean, that's kind of a mouthy
Speaker 1: way to put it. There's probably a better phrase I
Speaker 1: could come up with, but that's.
Speaker 2: What it is.
Speaker 1: You convolute everything so that people take that grab bag
Speaker 1: cherry pick out of it what they want. And now
Speaker 1: they've got the pulse of the public. What is it
Speaker 1: they're willing to accept? What is it they're willing to
Speaker 1: accept that we keep to ourselves, you know, like the
Speaker 1: acceptable defense over well, you know, the public couldn't handle
Speaker 1: for what decades, many decades the public probably couldn't handle
Speaker 1: it if we told them that we knew about aliens anyway,
Speaker 1: not saying we do, but if we did, why would
Speaker 1: we tell the public about it? And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: if they have these you know, crazy things lying in
Speaker 1: the air that are well beyond on our technology that
Speaker 1: we can't shoot down, we can't deal with at all,
Speaker 1: why should we alarm the public that despite all of
Speaker 1: our technological advances, we can't do anything about these craft.
Speaker 1: Whether they're from a foreign adversary or from another planet,
Speaker 1: it's irrelevant because the public doesn't need to know. It'll
Speaker 1: just alarm them needlessly. You know, those arguments, right are
Speaker 1: born of it, and the Gerald Posner argument. Of course,
Speaker 1: you know, the psychology of the American public is such
Speaker 1: that they can't believe a great man was taken down
Speaker 1: by a loser like Lee Harvey Oswald. So you know,
Speaker 1: therefore that's why they don't accept the you know, loan
Speaker 1: nut theory. So on. And I know this sounds like
Speaker 1: I'm convoluting things together here, but I'm not. It's the
Speaker 1: same methodology. Or again, am I seeing a pattern where
Speaker 1: there's no pattern? Larry Well, I.
Speaker 2: Certainly there's a pattern.
Speaker 4: The pattern is kind of flawed in a way because,
Speaker 4: if you think about it, essentially an issue I'm providing
Speaker 4: information that says, look, over time, we the Air Force,
Speaker 4: the intelligence community.
Speaker 2: But let's just say the Air Force used UFOs as
Speaker 2: a cover.
Speaker 4: For new technology developments, and we actually at Area fifty one,
Speaker 4: we sent somebody out to a local bar and showed
Speaker 4: them pictures that you know, okay, and that story started
Speaker 4: circulating or or in another instance, you know, we know
Speaker 4: this happens.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is nothing new.
Speaker 4: Wall Street Journal started with something in nineteen eighty, but
Speaker 4: we have known that cover stories were in play, and
Speaker 4: some pretty nasty cover stories are in play for decades.
Speaker 2: So that part's not new.
Speaker 4: But if you think about the problem, you really have
Speaker 4: it sort of like, well, I'm going to be honest
Speaker 4: with you and tell you that I foment hoaxes and
Speaker 4: rumors and send out information and cover stories to protect
Speaker 4: what I'm doing. But now you should accept that I'm
Speaker 4: telling you the truth. It's kind of a a catch
Speaker 4: twenty two. It's like, yes, I admit, I admit that
Speaker 4: I lie to you, but not this time, which and
Speaker 4: maybe not this time, but how would I know because
Speaker 4: that's the part you.
Speaker 2: Talked about it.
Speaker 4: It actually adds to the chaos because they give you
Speaker 4: some some real examples and you listen to them and
Speaker 4: they're perfectly logical, but they don't give you a paper trail.
Speaker 2: They don't give you any history.
Speaker 4: So again you have to accept it or not accept
Speaker 4: it on faith. So it really doesn't clear up anything
Speaker 4: unless you know you wanted to be reassured. If you
Speaker 4: wanted to be reassured, it probably works. And that's maybe
Speaker 4: what they're testing, like, is this a good enough.
Speaker 2: Story so that everybody will calm down?
Speaker 4: And this deals with the reason gossip that were talked
Speaker 4: about in that hearing.
Speaker 2: Is this good enough?
Speaker 1: And again, you know, to put it into uh to
Speaker 1: personify this, right is I think back to E. Howard
Speaker 1: Hunt and the quote deathbed end quote confession where people
Speaker 1: were like, look, this guy finally gave it to us.
Speaker 1: He was a CIA guy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And at the end of those you know, excited rants
Speaker 1: where people said, finally we have the truth. You know,
Speaker 1: how many times have you heard that in JFK circles? Right,
Speaker 1: finally we got this and boom, that's what it is.
Speaker 1: Hold on, hass let me ask you a question. What
Speaker 1: was E. Howard Hunt's job? Was he not in a
Speaker 1: disinformation guy? You know? So you're supposed to believe his
Speaker 1: stories when he does give us our day or give
Speaker 1: us this our day or whatever that book was called
Speaker 1: about the Bay of Pigs. You're supposed to believe the
Speaker 1: deathbed confession that his son shopped around, but don't worry
Speaker 1: about all the other b s he slung over the years,
Speaker 1: because that was just that and this is now. So
Speaker 1: what you're doing is selectively choosing when someone is a
Speaker 1: reliable source, and it makes it even easier when that
Speaker 1: source is unnamed and is, you know, close to the situation.
Speaker 1: I keep bringing up that phrase because I love it.
Speaker 1: It's it's one of the constants in media, you know,
Speaker 1: sources close to uh oh, here we go. And people
Speaker 1: do that as a matter of I mean, the police
Speaker 1: admittedly use it in various jurisdictions to float stories out
Speaker 1: there to trick a murderer. Sometimes like they know who
Speaker 1: did it, they're missing some evidence, so they've floated out
Speaker 1: there that sources close to the situation, you know, sources
Speaker 1: in the police department have said they're after this person,
Speaker 1: the guy who actually did it. Hears that, goes, oh good,
Speaker 1: they're onto him, not me, and relaxes, and they literally
Speaker 1: do that strategically. I mean, if the local police in
Speaker 1: a metropolitan or even a small town area pull that,
Speaker 1: what makes you think that our government agencies who have
Speaker 1: you know, exceedingly more complex and sprawling issues to deal
Speaker 1: with than a singular murder case, except in some cases
Speaker 1: they do have murder cases to deal with, But that's
Speaker 1: beside the point. The point is, why would you think
Speaker 1: that that, you know, mechanism, that operational technique would not
Speaker 1: apply here to this. So to me, again, it's a
Speaker 1: matter of perspective. Why are you going to believe it
Speaker 1: coming from here when you didn't believe it coming from there?
Speaker 1: You know, look, when I speak out of the right
Speaker 1: side of my mouth, it's the truth. When I speak
Speaker 1: out of the left side, your guests as good as mine.
Speaker 1: That's weird, isn't it.
Speaker 4: Yeah? And sometimes if you're removed in history's let's be nice. Okay,
Speaker 4: Let's say these people, whoever the source was there, has
Speaker 4: done some historical research, and let's say that they found
Speaker 4: a couple of examples.
Speaker 2: Of where for whatever purpose.
Speaker 4: Us within the Air Force information with spread cover story
Speaker 4: or just someone playing around.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's a credibility.
Speaker 4: Test for new officers, you know, like let's see how
Speaker 4: vullible they are. We'll show on mcfielm and see if
Speaker 4: they believe it. Maybe this happens, Okay, that's fine.
Speaker 2: But in.
Speaker 4: If without the documentation, without the paper trail, we don't
Speaker 4: know what they found it, and we don't really know
Speaker 4: if they themselves have the history to interpret it correctly.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 4: For example, one of the one of the stories in
Speaker 4: the Wall Street Journal article was involved essentially a UFO
Speaker 4: taking a whole wing of ICBMs offline, you know.
Speaker 2: And which is is pretty spectacular and would tend to
Speaker 2: worry you.
Speaker 4: And and the what you see in the Wall Street
Speaker 4: Journal article is that this whole thing was actually a test,
Speaker 4: a control to and the wing did go offline, but
Speaker 4: it was a test to determine whether or not the bunkers,
Speaker 4: the silos, and the missiles would be affected by e
Speaker 4: MP okay, electromagnetic paulse. The problem with all of this is,
Speaker 4: again we don't even know that the person that researched
Speaker 4: it got it right. Because this incident has been researched
Speaker 4: at great length, and I sent you a week called.
Speaker 2: A book called Faded.
Speaker 4: Giant, which actually was researched and written by people that
Speaker 4: were involved with the contractor for this missile sit control system,
Speaker 4: and it contains a lot of documents. And one of
Speaker 4: the documents that it contains is you can see that
Speaker 4: the Strategic Air Command and the National Military Command Center
Speaker 4: took this as a real event. So if it was asked,
Speaker 4: somebody forgot to tell a Strategic Air Command that, oh,
Speaker 4: by the way, we're testing a live operational wing of missiles.
Speaker 2: Don't be concerned if.
Speaker 4: They go offline, We're good and you know, we'll check
Speaker 4: back with you.
Speaker 2: And does that make any sense at all?
Speaker 1: Well, No, the only thing that makes sense here, and
Speaker 1: this is a direct question to you is and I
Speaker 1: want to know if this is again right thinking on
Speaker 1: my part or if I'm just off. But I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems to me like this is damage control, either
Speaker 1: preemptive damage control or damage control for a circumstance which
Speaker 1: is in the public domain already, where it's like, how
Speaker 1: do we explain that. Well, you know what, people don't understand.
Speaker 1: They think that this and this and this, But it
Speaker 1: was actually a test we were running that day, you know,
Speaker 1: and we don't tell people that because that's all classified.
Speaker 1: And this is a good way with the unnamed source
Speaker 1: to float it out there? Is it because of researchers
Speaker 1: like you know, the work that you're doing at the
Speaker 1: SCU that they need to explain things now and say, look,
Speaker 1: you know, these guys are going to come up with patterns,
Speaker 1: but maybe we punch a few holes in there by saying,
Speaker 1: you know, some of these patterns are a little more
Speaker 1: easily explained by XYZ. There was a test going on.
Speaker 1: We took it offline because you know, nobody knew that
Speaker 1: there was an electrical fire at a you know, a
Speaker 1: classified installation that nobody's supposed to know even exists, So
Speaker 1: we can't report that there was a fire, you know,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I mean, is does that have anything to
Speaker 1: do with this?
Speaker 4: Do you think it's time for me to visualize that
Speaker 4: at this late date? I mean, that story is long gone.
Speaker 4: That's from the nineteen seventies. Nobody is asking.
Speaker 2: About that anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not uch does get written about, Yeah, not particularly.
Speaker 1: There see again, an example of something that's tangible that's
Speaker 1: already known, already out there. It's not a revelation. But
Speaker 1: is there other stuff in here that maybe they're trying
Speaker 1: to get ahead of or trying to answer for, that's
Speaker 1: being produced right now, or that's you know, on its
Speaker 1: way to production or on its way to publication. Do
Speaker 1: you think that that's something going on here when they
Speaker 1: release stuff like this?
Speaker 4: No, I honestly don't. This To me, it sounds like
Speaker 4: a conversation. I mean, the journalists that are covering Luna's hearings, Yes,
Speaker 4: clearly heard a lot.
Speaker 2: Of people.
Speaker 4: With some pre sensational statements, including about missiles being taken offline.
Speaker 4: So you can imagine that there is like Trump just
Speaker 4: in a conversation.
Speaker 1: Spy.
Speaker 4: By the way, did you guys ever find out a
Speaker 4: reasonable explanation for this?
Speaker 2: Or should I still consider it might have been aliens? Okay? Yeah,
Speaker 2: have you found anything to explain it yet?
Speaker 4: And somebody goes, yeah, we found out that they were
Speaker 4: doing EMP testing, and it looks like that's what really
Speaker 4: caused it, and then somebody goes and writes the story.
Speaker 4: So I think it's probably simpler. The problem that concerns
Speaker 4: me is, you know, is the person providing the information.
Speaker 2: Did they do a third job?
Speaker 4: Is that really a good explanation, because that is a
Speaker 4: big outstanding question for us. If if they had read
Speaker 4: the book Faded Giant, which I just gave you the
Speaker 4: link for, they would have quickly seen that, Yeah, the
Speaker 4: military was doing e MP testing and they described how
Speaker 4: it was being done, and it in no way matches
Speaker 4: what was reported at Dismissile Base. It was not being
Speaker 4: done with flying objects. It was being done with stuff
Speaker 4: on trucks, and it was never done with an operational
Speaker 4: wing at first off, that's you know, you've got to
Speaker 4: think that's insane that I'm going to take down an
Speaker 4: operational wing as part of a test.
Speaker 2: It was always done with missile installations that were offline.
Speaker 4: And by the way, the fellow did an excellent job
Speaker 4: of research, even has the investigation itself, and you can
Speaker 4: see that one of the things that they looked at was,
Speaker 4: you know, could this have been caused by EMP? And
Speaker 4: there's their papers in there, you know, could this like
Speaker 4: if they had done it as a test after the fact,
Speaker 4: would they be researching if it could have been you know, again,
Speaker 4: none of those things, none of the documents that we
Speaker 4: see align with this story, And of course the problem
Speaker 4: is we don't know what documents were looked at to
Speaker 4: reach that conclusion that was.
Speaker 2: Shared with the reporters. So we have.
Speaker 4: Documents that give us a good picture that the official investigation,
Speaker 4: and there was one of course, literally says we don't
Speaker 4: know what caused it. One one particular command control circuit
Speaker 4: logic gate change states this did it.
Speaker 2: You know, you know, it's very detailed. So they did.
Speaker 4: They did do a length and spent time and money
Speaker 4: trying to figure out what it was. Again, if it
Speaker 4: had been a test, they would have already known that.
Speaker 4: Even the documents in this paper trail show that, you know,
Speaker 4: when it happened, people at the highest levels of the
Speaker 4: national security establishment. You can see in their memos it's like,
Speaker 4: this is really a problem, we need to resolve this immediately.
Speaker 4: And there's nothing in this whole collection of documents that
Speaker 4: suggests that they view that it was a test. So
Speaker 4: I guess that's the answer check that raises the question
Speaker 4: to me that it actually what it shows is the
Speaker 4: practice that you were talking about of sharing information this
Speaker 4: way maybe work sometimes, maybe it doesn't work sometimes, but
Speaker 4: works very poorly. If somebody's already investigated it and maybe
Speaker 4: you don't know about it, so that that appears to
Speaker 4: be that's the most contentious thing about the article right
Speaker 4: at the moment that's being discussed is like did these
Speaker 4: guys just not do.
Speaker 2: Their homework or were they wrong or you know, we've.
Speaker 4: We've seen a lot of paper trail on this and
Speaker 4: it doesn't match with what they're saying.
Speaker 2: So what's what's happening?
Speaker 1: Right? And you also sent me a link to another
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna put these book links in the show
Speaker 1: notes as well, along with Larry's book Unidentified but but
Speaker 1: Project Beta, which is pretty interesting. And you know, here
Speaker 1: we are, we're talking Roswell. Now you know what what
Speaker 1: what do we what does that have to do with,
Speaker 1: like say, the military installations? And then you got another
Speaker 1: guy who's you know, convinced that he saw, you know,
Speaker 1: extraterrestrial lights in the sky and why do they always
Speaker 1: do this Ober deserts by the way, But yeah, tell
Speaker 1: us about that as well, which.
Speaker 4: At Beta, again something that's been researched heavily and written aback,
Speaker 4: it's probable one of the nastiest examples of disinformation. Again,
Speaker 4: if if the Wall Street Journal people are being told that, oh,
Speaker 4: the military has used disinformation in the past. Absolutely true,
Speaker 4: there is not even intentional. This Project Beta is an
Speaker 4: example with the Air Force who was working back on
Speaker 4: a Star Wars project. Okay, at Sandia Base outside Abuquerque,
Speaker 4: New Mexico. We're doing something it has to do with
Speaker 4: adaptive optics, and that they knew that they were going
Speaker 4: to have to put a lot of stuff in orbit,
Speaker 4: and they needed to get much clearer pictures of what
Speaker 4: was going on at orble distance than they could because
Speaker 4: they were building Star Wars, just like we're supposed to
Speaker 4: be building.
Speaker 2: The Golden Dome.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: We all know how Star Wars came out.
Speaker 4: In any event, they're doing a lot of testing and
Speaker 4: then included laser beams and you know, signal used in
Speaker 4: a way that would would generate electro magnetic signals. And
Speaker 4: an engineer who actually had a business near San Dia,
Speaker 4: UH started observing that from his home and actually went
Speaker 4: to the Air Force and went, you know, there's something
Speaker 4: going on at one of your secure areas. I can
Speaker 4: see that you guys should look into it. There seems
Speaker 4: to be some kind of signaling, you know. UH, And
Speaker 4: the Air Force UH decided you know, they were being compromised.
Speaker 4: But the bad thing is the fellow was also talking
Speaker 4: to you a UFO group and UFO researchers, and they
Speaker 4: were becoming interested. And from an intelligence perspective, this is
Speaker 4: not good because it's kind of like Area fifty one.
Speaker 4: You don't want to people drawing the tent to you.
Speaker 4: If all of the UFO people start showing up, guess what,
Speaker 4: the Soviet agents may be right behind him, like, we
Speaker 4: want to.
Speaker 2: Know what's going on too.
Speaker 4: So what they did was they created this story that
Speaker 4: indeed it was aliens. I mean we're talking something really
Speaker 4: serious and convoluted. They started playing with this guy. They
Speaker 4: even got to the point of providing him tapes of
Speaker 4: purported communications with the aliens. They co opted one of
Speaker 4: the UFO researchers who agreed to play along and feed
Speaker 4: him bad information in turn four good information at some
Speaker 4: point in the future, which actually never happened because they
Speaker 4: played him too. The net of all of this, if
Speaker 4: you really want to read how this stuff can go
Speaker 4: bad in real life, is the fellow ended up committed suicide.
Speaker 4: He became psychotic over the information they were feeding him.
Speaker 2: He committed suicide. And this whole experience.
Speaker 4: Ended up being the source of rumors about secret government
Speaker 4: agreements with aliens, underground bases, abductions, we've got to we've
Speaker 4: actually signed a treaty with the aliens. All this got
Speaker 4: fed into the UFO community ultimately in the media and
Speaker 4: generated things like reptilians and underground bases and the stuff
Speaker 4: that totally co opted the UFO community for decades.
Speaker 1: And all on the story we might have gotten either
Speaker 1: Truman or Eisenhower actually meeting in a field with aliens too, right,
Speaker 1: isn't that the same group of disinformation operations that did
Speaker 1: that as well?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it's all that you know, all the way back.
Speaker 4: You know, we did contact them at Roswell, and you know,
Speaker 4: we've had relations with them, and we've signed treaties and
Speaker 4: they get to take away people for bariments.
Speaker 2: And we get something.
Speaker 4: I'm never quite sure what we got in exchange, but
Speaker 4: you know, and that's what's been And actually you've heard
Speaker 4: some of that surface in the in the Luna hearings.
Speaker 4: Some of this, you know, it's it never went away.
Speaker 4: And Project Beta. This one experience with one gentleman UH,
Speaker 4: a UFO researcher, hypnotic regression person. It all steamrolled into
Speaker 4: this story that has done huge damage to UFO research
Speaker 4: for decades. That's what's in Project BEA Bishop did a
Speaker 4: fantastic job of studying it. So unfortunately we do know
Speaker 4: that not only have cover stories been used to cover
Speaker 4: up research and development, but this is much worse than
Speaker 4: a cover story. It was an intentional co opting of
Speaker 4: innocent people using a UFO organization.
Speaker 2: You know, they knew what they were.
Speaker 4: Doing, and it it went so far that it ended
Speaker 4: up in a death.
Speaker 1: Well, and there we go with the recurring thematic because
Speaker 1: a lot of times these journalists who end up, you know,
Speaker 1: uncovering things like oh, I don't know, the CIA and
Speaker 1: drug dealing or you know, actually get in but they
Speaker 1: they magically have their lives spiral to a degree where
Speaker 1: suicide is the result at the end. And that happens.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you could you could talk about
Speaker 1: the Castellaro thing and and the octopus, which is strange,
Speaker 1: and you could go back to the guy who first
Speaker 1: did the stuff with the was it the San Jose Mercury, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, and on and on right. The movie Killed
Speaker 1: a Messenger, if you remember, was a way to memorialize it.
Speaker 1: But I mean this is a recurring theme as well,
Speaker 1: right where these guys either get driven to madness or
Speaker 1: something happens that well kind of looks like a suicide
Speaker 1: is ruled a suicide, but maybe is It almost seems
Speaker 1: like one of the go tos for the agency because
Speaker 1: now you can't ask him any questions, you can't dig
Speaker 1: up his notebooks that are missing. You know, he's not
Speaker 1: like the shooter in Minnesota who's still got his hit
Speaker 1: list sitting on his passenger seat. Okay, and now speculation
Speaker 1: is rampant, and what are you left with except you know,
Speaker 1: the real people that are affected by the destroyed life
Speaker 1: of the individual who committed suicide allegedly. And I hate
Speaker 1: to put it that way. And I know you don't
Speaker 1: often go into deep, dark subjects like this because kind
Speaker 1: of a surprise, you got a lifetime ban on Facebook
Speaker 1: considering how nice and polite a guy you are. But hey,
Speaker 1: a subject maybe for another day, but go ahead.
Speaker 2: It just seems unfair.
Speaker 4: I miss all of the Australian animals and the cats
Speaker 4: and everything.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I thought I was a nice guy.
Speaker 4: But I think it's tempting for the reporters, because all
Speaker 4: reporters that deal with national security subjects or you know,
Speaker 4: Jill politics almost have to survive by having contacts.
Speaker 2: You know that.
Speaker 4: Nobody's if they want to really be successful. And we
Speaker 4: have an example is that of the JFK World. I mean,
Speaker 4: one of the known media assets for JM Wave in
Speaker 4: Miami got a Pulitzer for his reporting on the landings
Speaker 4: at the Bay of Pigs. And it was clear that
Speaker 4: he was getting information from somewhere that everybody else wasn't okay.
Speaker 4: So sometimes those CIA connections can be very very useful.
Speaker 4: Now later on they can they can go south too,
Speaker 4: because he wrote a story about a assassination and revolution
Speaker 4: at Chile and it got published unfortunately the day before
Speaker 4: it actually happened.
Speaker 2: So you know, you've got to get your timing right.
Speaker 2: But you know, a.
Speaker 4: Good source can make you and I think that's why
Speaker 4: the temptation is always there, uh, and for reporters to
Speaker 4: cultivate these sources.
Speaker 2: And and maybe not be too critical if there was
Speaker 2: a story with a story like this.
Speaker 4: You know, this UFO story is not earth shaking, but uh,
Speaker 4: the other stories you know, we've seen where reporters.
Speaker 2: Demand some kind of a paper trail or some kind of.
Speaker 4: Proof or you know, I'm not going to print this
Speaker 4: if you don't give me something I can use, you know,
Speaker 4: But you can also play the other way around. And
Speaker 4: when we've seen that too, which seems to be what
Speaker 4: what we're seeing here. But I just want to bring
Speaker 4: up the point is that it's it's hard to totally
Speaker 4: fault the media because it's part of their practices too. Now,
Speaker 4: their practice in terms of getting stories that establish themselves,
Speaker 4: make career for themselves.
Speaker 2: So it's kind of like both sides are playing this game.
Speaker 1: No, absolutely true, And how just out of curiosity, how
Speaker 1: does all of this play into the work you're doing.
Speaker 1: Did you have a conference coming up? Don't you?
Speaker 2: Oh we just had the conference.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, sorry, okay, But it does.
Speaker 4: Do tail it because we certainly studied the incidents at
Speaker 4: these these missile bases at great length, and and the
Speaker 4: thing is there were there were not just one missile
Speaker 4: base involved as far as reports of UFOs were concerning.
Speaker 4: There are five different bases all across called the Northern
Speaker 4: Tiers Northern Tier bases all the way across the northern border.
Speaker 4: Uh So it wasn't just one base were you having
Speaker 4: these UFO reports all within the same period of time. Again,
Speaker 4: things were so bad that the National Military Command Center
Speaker 4: issued an alert to all the bases. Now, I will
Speaker 4: posit that if this is an MP test at one base,
Speaker 4: they should have known about it, and you know, I
Speaker 4: wouldn't want to alert all bases. Now they explained it
Speaker 4: it's being due to a helicopter. But that's another story.
Speaker 4: But it does relate to us, and that's one of
Speaker 4: the reasons we're interested in it, even though what we're
Speaker 4: studying is much broader than just this one base and
Speaker 4: this one incident. Of course, that there's a document trail
Speaker 4: and the proof of stuff that we haven't seen. We
Speaker 4: need to see it, but we don't, and so we
Speaker 4: can't really make it into history. What we're seeing does
Speaker 4: not make this argument. What's in Faded Giant does not
Speaker 4: make the argument. And we use Faded Giant as one
Speaker 4: of our sources because it does have a lot of
Speaker 4: documentation in it. So this this, certainly this incident does
Speaker 4: relate to our studies of UFOs and the atomic warfare complex.
Speaker 4: The other incidents that the Wall Street Journal sites really don't,
Speaker 4: you know, don't relate thirs, but this one certainly does.
Speaker 4: So we had to take it seriously, and we had
Speaker 4: to look at their explanations and we're going through and
Speaker 4: kind of checking them to the extent that we can,
Speaker 4: having no documents that make this this kind of contrarian Positionally,
Speaker 4: it was it was an MP test and nobody knew
Speaker 4: about it, and it drove everybody crazy, and they investigated
Speaker 4: it and found out it wasn't MP because the conclusion
Speaker 4: of the investigation was it wasn't MP. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So yeah, long wind and answer is it.
Speaker 4: Is definitely related in one aspect of the studies that
Speaker 4: we've been conducting.
Speaker 1: And it does allow you to see what the pattern
Speaker 1: of behavior is from an intelligence perspective regarding agencies trying
Speaker 1: to keep information from reaching the public with any clarity
Speaker 1: at least, right, I mean, it gives you that to
Speaker 1: work with as well, because you see what's happening here
Speaker 1: regarding well, how did they react to it, what was
Speaker 1: the public knowledge of it, how did it leak out,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And I bet there's a lot more news
Speaker 1: stories with unnamed sources close to the situation along the
Speaker 1: way in the press too.
Speaker 4: Anyway, well checked the challenge I think one of the
Speaker 4: fundamental challenges shows you Again, we talk about the system
Speaker 4: a lot.
Speaker 6: Here.
Speaker 4: You've got an organization that was legislation was passed to
Speaker 4: create and fund this organization. It's supposed to look at
Speaker 4: current cases and historical cases and you know, assess it
Speaker 4: and make reports. It's on it and that's its job, okay,
Speaker 4: And that's supposed to make people more comfortable, you know,
Speaker 4: whichever way it goes, that somebody's actually looking at.
Speaker 2: But the problem is if if they don't.
Speaker 4: Officially share their investigations and share the documents behind their investigations,
Speaker 4: even if they have to redact them. You know, we're
Speaker 4: all familiar with that. Take out the names, take out whatever.
Speaker 4: If they don't share that information, we're really no better
Speaker 4: off than we were, because it's kind of like asking
Speaker 4: you know, we've asked the CIA to share certain information,
Speaker 4: you know, for decades, but if they don't give it
Speaker 4: to us in a fashion where we can evaluate it,
Speaker 4: you wasted your time, their time, you wasted the money.
Speaker 4: So again, that's the other kind of depressing standpoint. It
Speaker 4: may be that this Wall Street Journal article was just
Speaker 4: a precursor and that down the road.
Speaker 2: Because the AR is mandated to make.
Speaker 4: Reports, they will actually publish their study, publish their findings,
Speaker 4: give us some citations, and will be all good. And
Speaker 4: we hope that's what would happen, because that way they
Speaker 4: can fulfill their mandate from Congress when they do have
Speaker 4: a mandate to do that.
Speaker 2: But this sort of.
Speaker 4: Stuff, if anything, I would say, creates what we used
Speaker 4: to call fraud or fear uncertained and doubt as to
Speaker 4: whether that's going to happen. And by the way, if
Speaker 4: they're going to do that and they let this get
Speaker 4: out and the story comes out in advance, that also
Speaker 4: undermines the process. So just it does not seem to
Speaker 4: me that it's helping things, and certainly not what Congress
Speaker 4: really intended, right.
Speaker 1: And of course there's no executive order from the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to get at UAPs at the moment, at least
Speaker 1: not that I've seen. But he does release a lot
Speaker 1: of them, so who knows. Anyway, is there anything that
Speaker 1: we missed here along the way, because I feel like
Speaker 1: I've gone over this, I've sidetracked you a little bit,
Speaker 1: and I apologize, but I felt like it was a
Speaker 1: worthy exercise. Nonetheless, but what else are we meant to
Speaker 1: take away from tonight Now.
Speaker 4: I think we often spend time work talking about how
Speaker 4: the system works, you know, and in researching any of
Speaker 4: these things, we've got to understand the system and know
Speaker 4: that it's you know, the system does what it's built
Speaker 4: to do, and it's just just another insight into how
Speaker 4: the system works. With government agencies, with the military services,
Speaker 4: you know, there are standard practices, and I think that
Speaker 4: the article gives us just an opportun tunity to talk
Speaker 4: about what the standard practices are from from the media
Speaker 4: standpoint and to say, from the institutional standpoint. And once
Speaker 4: you understand the standard you know what the practices are,
Speaker 4: you can at least begin to go, well, wait a minute.
Speaker 2: Let's as we often talk about context.
Speaker 4: Right now that I know the context, I'm going to
Speaker 4: adjust my expectations. And one of the things I just is,
Speaker 4: by the way, everything we know about this should be
Speaker 4: supported by for you, by the way, okay, just just
Speaker 4: forget releasing stuff.
Speaker 2: I'm going to do a foya for it.
Speaker 4: I'm going to for you you aaro for how you
Speaker 4: got this information. So to some extent, if you're young
Speaker 4: enough and live long enough, Actually the system is built
Speaker 4: to deal with these things, even within the you know,
Speaker 4: intelligence community.
Speaker 2: But I think that's the take away check. It's not
Speaker 2: for most of the listeners.
Speaker 4: Perhaps some UFOs are interesting, and we talked about some
Speaker 4: of that, but I think overall, it's back to again,
Speaker 4: if we're going to play in this arena and try
Speaker 4: to work in this arena, we have to understand practices.
Speaker 2: We have to understand the rules.
Speaker 4: You know, who's calling what signal or we just are
Speaker 4: out to launch right.
Speaker 1: Plus I mean, you have to understand how things actually
Speaker 1: function in order to you know, to get it operations,
Speaker 1: what's really happening, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Because
Speaker 1: if you don't understand how things work, what do you
Speaker 1: know when you're looking at the evidence you don't.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 1: That's the amazing thing I think is that you know, again,
Speaker 1: like I said, they see hearings and they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this and this and this should be happening, when it
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with what it is they're looking at.
Speaker 1: You know, it's amazing that way, and I think it
Speaker 1: stands even more hyperbolic when it comes to UAPs. They
Speaker 1: just haven't had the headlines lately. But anyway, that's the
Speaker 1: way it is, that's the way it was. And got
Speaker 1: to tell you it's always an interesting education to talk
Speaker 1: to you about these things. And the nuances of the
Speaker 1: behavior that we can witness here and understand when it
Speaker 1: comes to the standard operating procedure is amazing and I
Speaker 1: think it does form a pattern. It gives you an
Speaker 1: idea of how it is. You know, real full on
Speaker 1: cover ups are achieved. But also you know, what is
Speaker 1: the use of missing disinformation where it's meant to mislead
Speaker 1: the public? Yes, but it's got more than one purpose.
Speaker 1: Just like any good tool in your box, you know
Speaker 1: you have more than one purpose for it. But anyway,
Speaker 1: on tonight's subject matter, I would definitely recommend Unidentified, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, again one of those books you could find
Speaker 1: here and there. I think you can still get it
Speaker 1: directly from the publisher maybe if not, you can certainly
Speaker 1: get it on Amazon, et cetera. It's the National intelligence
Speaker 1: problem of UFO's is the subtitle, but the main title
Speaker 1: is unidentified. And yes, indeed the lettering is mostly in blue,
Speaker 1: and Larry Hancock is the author of that. But I
Speaker 1: highly recommend all of Larry's books and that you go
Speaker 1: over to his blog Larry dash Handcock dot com. Again,
Speaker 1: you can follow all the links in the show notes
Speaker 1: or roll back the live chat at Ocelli dot com
Speaker 1: and follow through and follow up on all of what
Speaker 1: you heard tonight pretty much except for the ramblings of
Speaker 1: your host, which you can always email me if you
Speaker 1: want to try and explain things that I you know,
Speaker 1: kind of mushmouth my way through, but that's okay, That's
Speaker 1: what I'm here for anyway, Larry, thank you once again.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking the time here on a Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and we'll get together again in a couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: and God knows what we'll have to talk about by then,
Speaker 1: because I mean, who knew would be in the middle
Speaker 1: of a conflict you know right now, But well, if
Speaker 1: you were listening to my show, you might have known,
Speaker 1: because I said about a month and a half ago
Speaker 1: that military assets were being moved in the Middle Eastern direction,
Speaker 1: and that's usually preparation for something, but there was no
Speaker 1: official anything at the time, and shots had not been
Speaker 1: fired in what I'm calling the Two Eyes War at
Speaker 1: this point, because you know, Iran and Israel, but I
Speaker 1: don't even know if you want to comment on that.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll talk JFK. Maybe you'll catch up on the
Speaker 1: new RFK document dump and we'll discuss that. Who knows.
Speaker 1: I guess you'll have to tune in a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks to hear it and we'll get together in a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks.
Speaker 4: Larry, right, It sounds good and the pace of life
Speaker 4: is definitely picked up. I just it's hard to stay
Speaker 4: is he hard to stay current on any of the
Speaker 4: subjects we normally talk about, which, you know, back to
Speaker 4: the old Chinese thing, you know, may essentially may your
Speaker 4: life be dull?
Speaker 2: Unfortunately we're not having that.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, may you live in interesting times? And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, just a little ps, I haven't seen
Speaker 1: any movement on the King files yet, that's all. You know.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's not politically expedient or interesting for the current
Speaker 1: regime to get to it, But weren't we also promised
Speaker 1: that he was gonna, you know, dump a bunch of
Speaker 1: stuff on him, okay as well? Or have you noticed?
Speaker 4: Actually actually I wrote an op ed on that last week.
Speaker 4: Jeff Morley published it on a substack. Basically, what has
Speaker 4: happened is a judge has is holding up that process
Speaker 4: because essentially the King family is strongly objected to the
Speaker 4: release of those files, as we knew they would, and
Speaker 4: the judge has taken that and not put a cease
Speaker 4: and desist order on but essentially outlined a due process
Speaker 4: that must be followed to screen out personal information that
Speaker 4: would seriously extend in the time of release. In the
Speaker 4: out there, I wrote kind of addressed how you could
Speaker 4: deal with that issue and you know, maybe go more
Speaker 4: quickly and still make the family feel okay, how do
Speaker 4: you handle different sections of files? But yeah, that has
Speaker 4: slowed down due to legal process.
Speaker 1: Actually, all right, well that's why I brought it up,
Speaker 1: because I also read the JFK facts emails and blog
Speaker 1: as well, and indeed Larry has it published over there
Speaker 1: on the substack along with a lot of other articles.
Speaker 1: But I would advise that you go read up on
Speaker 1: that because that was my question for a while, and
Speaker 1: I was not aware of what was going on, because
Speaker 1: it just seemed to me like no word is no word.
Speaker 1: But you are talking about the because the King Family
Speaker 1: has kind of been two factions, and you're talking about
Speaker 1: the faction of the King family that runs the you know,
Speaker 1: the King Center here in Georgia, in Atlanta, rights obsessing
Speaker 1: to it. Yeah, and they're always very very cautious and
Speaker 1: wanting to preserve the legacy of doctor King in as
Speaker 1: respectful and highly upheld of fashion as possible. I don't
Speaker 1: know how to phrase that exactly, but they don't want
Speaker 1: any of his legacy tarnished unnecessarily. And they're always active
Speaker 1: in that realm of actions, ideas, and even publications that occur.
Speaker 1: So that's something that's just not unusual. Larry, that's kind
Speaker 1: of normal as far as my experience goes.
Speaker 4: What do you say, Yeah, that's been true all along,
Speaker 4: and they have reason for concern because we know through
Speaker 4: the research that we've done that the FBI did fake evidence.
Speaker 2: I mean, well all probably.
Speaker 4: Everybody has heard of the tape that they created and
Speaker 4: sent to Martin Luther King with a note telling him
Speaker 4: he should commit suicide. I mean, this isn't really nasty
Speaker 4: stuff coming out of the FBI. Knowing that they created,
Speaker 4: doctored and fake scandalous information of that sort. You know,
Speaker 4: we can deal with it because we know what happened.
Speaker 4: But once you turn that loose on the internet, that
Speaker 4: no longer there's no label that's going to go out
Speaker 4: with it saying fake fraud. You know, it'll become history.
Speaker 4: And I think their injection is, you know, if you
Speaker 4: release that with no way to define it, you know
Speaker 4: you've you've gotten a personal vendetta from the director of
Speaker 4: the I that's going to translate into history. And people
Speaker 4: that look at this in four or five, ten years
Speaker 4: will have no idea that it's not.
Speaker 1: Real, right, And for people who don't understand what that is,
Speaker 1: just I'm gonna say this because you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: quite as polite as Larry. Here's the deal. If you've
Speaker 1: heard the story of the alleged audio sex tape that
Speaker 1: occurred there for many years, you know, it was like, oh,
Speaker 1: they fabricated this. Then it turns out it wasn't actually
Speaker 1: doctor King on the tape anyway, and it was you know,
Speaker 1: the kill yourself note that was penned by you know,
Speaker 1: various authors have claimed responsibility for it or have been
Speaker 1: implicated to be responsible for it, But it was the FBI,
Speaker 1: you know, in their co intel pro you know, behaviors
Speaker 1: at the time, and that means that there would be
Speaker 1: manufactured crap, there would be doctored stuff, there would be
Speaker 1: slanted things. There would be you know, maybe some things
Speaker 1: are true, but maybe hyperbole comes into play here, or
Speaker 1: like I said, with the sex tape deal, right, you know,
Speaker 1: here we go, maybe it's not even him and then
Speaker 1: that'll come out under his name with a label on it,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And so they want to be careful that
Speaker 1: everything you know is in its what proper context. There's
Speaker 1: that word again, Larry. But that article, which I'll also
Speaker 1: provide a link to in the show notes is the
Speaker 1: MLK files released the facts, not the smears. That was
Speaker 1: the article that you penned for. Did you pen that
Speaker 1: specifically for Jeff.
Speaker 2: Or I did?
Speaker 4: Actually, yeah, yes, I did, excellent while I was on vacation.
Speaker 2: No list, thank you.
Speaker 1: There you go. And also there's an article on the
Speaker 1: O'Kelly effect front page the Weekly Reader regarding JFK stuff
Speaker 1: from Larry Hancock. So you are constantly writing, a constantly
Speaker 1: active author or a constantly active writer. Seems like so
Speaker 1: glad that you are, though, because we need the sense
Speaker 1: and sensibility of a Larry Hancock. Despite your unceremonious Facebook
Speaker 1: band for life. For some reason, they've never given you
Speaker 1: a reason, have it now?
Speaker 4: There's a generic message that says you violated violated one
Speaker 4: of our rules essentially, and then they give you a
Speaker 4: list of a dozen totally different types of rules, so
Speaker 4: you don't even know what category it was in, right,
Speaker 4: and they don't give you an example of what the
Speaker 4: violation was.
Speaker 2: So I had but they're they're pretty good. They actually
Speaker 2: uh require you know, a.
Speaker 4: Facial scan now facial ID, so you know once once
Speaker 4: they I appealed, and but when I appeal and they
Speaker 4: use facial wreck, that's.
Speaker 2: Not it's you're not coming on here anymore unless you
Speaker 2: have plastic surgery. I suppose, Well, there you go.
Speaker 1: Plus in my case, of course, I have a lockout
Speaker 1: on one of my accounts or which is my main account,
Speaker 1: et cetera, because I had to start up a whole
Speaker 1: brand new one. Thanks a lot, because why well you know,
Speaker 1: if I don't have a proper up to date government
Speaker 1: I d that I can scan it. So they want
Speaker 1: scans of your ID, your face, everything before they deal
Speaker 1: with you about community standards, Larry.
Speaker 2: So but there you can say whatever, Brade do you
Speaker 2: want to. It's like we verified at.
Speaker 4: You, but you're on and we have no way of
Speaker 4: judging what you're saying, whether it's true falter or but
Speaker 4: it's you.
Speaker 2: So we're good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, great. Anyway, maybe there'll be uh, you know
Speaker 1: more coming soon or coming soon possibly more information about that.
Speaker 1: But I'm still in disbelief that you, of all people,
Speaker 1: got a lifetime ban for some violation of a community standard,
Speaker 1: like as if you don't think about every single word
Speaker 1: you ever you know, I would say, put to paper,
Speaker 1: but who the hell uses paper anymore? Every single word
Speaker 1: you ever type anywhere? Do you you know, not consider
Speaker 1: it carefully? It makes absolutely no sense. You know.
Speaker 4: Also, it's just too late in time for me to
Speaker 4: be find a bad boy wreck to be useful.
Speaker 1: Well there's that. Plus I happen to know you don't
Speaker 1: really drink, you know, you don't, You're not on ambient
Speaker 1: I mean, what is the you know like? Anyway, Sorry,
Speaker 1: I just all I'm saying is that Larry Hancock is
Speaker 1: the last guy in the world I would expect to
Speaker 1: get a pan on a platform, But here we are,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. What a country in the year. Anyway, Larry, again,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, and I really am glad that you
Speaker 1: also handled that tail end thing with me. Because I
Speaker 1: forgot to mention it earlier, and I put the link
Speaker 1: in the live chatroom at ochelli dot com. And we'll
Speaker 1: also include with the show notes in case I forgot
Speaker 1: to mention it the article that you wrote for JFK
Speaker 1: fax over there, which is entitled the MLK files released
Speaker 1: the Facts not the smears, how to ensure transparency and Fairness.
Speaker 1: This is the subheading how to ensure transparency and fairness
Speaker 1: in the overdue release of files related to the murder
Speaker 1: of the civil rights leader in nineteen sixty eight. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't carefully consider the words you Typeer, it's like anyway,
Speaker 1: Larry Hencock, thanks again, and I thank all of you
Speaker 1: for listening again. Go to Larry Danshancock dot com every
Speaker 1: book with his name on it. I highly recommend uh
Speaker 1: the JFK stuff, especially the latest one definitely highest up
Speaker 1: on the list of recommendations, but also relevant to tonight
Speaker 1: unidentified That book I also highly recommend.
Speaker 8: And oh Chili dot com go ahead call it the.
Speaker 1: Truth about the Jafay assassination. Right, well, what do you
Speaker 1: want to know? Dy Baker's wild claim, Oswald girlfriends he knew,
Speaker 1: Ruby and Barry answer weapons really, I imagine I could
Speaker 1: claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 1: But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to
Speaker 1: prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 9: Come on now has a real effort on the day
Speaker 9: of pay assassination.
Speaker 1: Book into Claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith
Speaker 1: Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for
Speaker 1: a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes
Speaker 1: her own words and the known evidence in the case
Speaker 1: to get at well a different person. Let's say you
Speaker 1: can get Judithbary Baker in her own words from the
Speaker 1: author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor
Speaker 1: Brown at kias jfk at aol dot com. It's a
Speaker 1: fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims.
Speaker 1: Judith Vary Baker in her own words. Thank you for information.
Speaker 10: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 10: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 10: nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson with
Speaker 10: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 10: events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 10: Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 10: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 10: Amazon dot Com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike
Speaker 10: Swanson revelation through conversation.
Speaker 9: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 9: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 9: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 9: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 9: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 9: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 9: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 9: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 9: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 9: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 9: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 9: island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 9: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 9: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 9: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 9: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 9: up against for more information the Warstate dot com mm.
Speaker 5: Hmm udio dot com radio.
Speaker 1: The views expressed my callers, schools, there anyone else who
Speaker 1: happens to get on the air of Chelly dot com
Speaker 1: do not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot com
Speaker 1: or CHEMOLLI, and we are not responsible for any stupidity
Speaker 1: which might ensue.
Speaker 2: Thank you, m hm.
Speaker 11: Out to the shack Sat.
Speaker 2: I'll ten a thousand detis of.
Speaker 5: Steel going down the count of the daw to make
Speaker 5: sound funny, a rowing bl I go a dead dat
Speaker 5: down in amount of roar as I gas in ja,
Speaker 5: I'm just doing that.
Speaker 1: Com hell.
Speaker 7: Just plug out, but scrap gog out, fight scraper and
Speaker 7: try down.
Speaker 2: And fight stan go down and fight.
Speaker 7: Hug out by slack, dug out by.
Speaker 3: Spack woke out.
Speaker 2: I am so just that. He's tell me Ama and me.
Speaker 1: Call me.
Speaker 4: I'm one.
Speaker 12: They meet a man that'll do the job like you said, oh.
Speaker 7: No, and I'm said, I come and they're run in man,
Speaker 7: I've gone out like mystand I'm a cold.
Speaker 2: I'm a fire brand.
Speaker 11: Come down, slack out.
Speaker 7: And go down and fight flat.
Speaker 3: I come down and fight.
Speaker 2: Got down.
Speaker 7: Oh now.
Speaker 11: I sinking now.
Speaker 12: Combat with help wire on my with you. You must
Speaker 12: of that jolt you some woman that.
Speaker 11: Come to I'm your best friend, of.
Speaker 3: Your must man of exactly Wow, how.
Speaker 7: About you make me happen to be like that to
Speaker 7: the guy don't care, go down, Come down and bent, run,
Speaker 7: come down and vis go down.
Speaker 3: Provide revelation through calm the station here.
Speaker 7: Oh oh.
Speaker 2: Shall you?
Speaker 3: Oh Shelley fast rais and trows right, Jay, trow you
Speaker 3: hardy back. I ain't on the world. You are the back. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: m hm.
Speaker 7: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 3: Mm hmmm, h yeah.
Speaker 11: Through of that, through the breaking through.
Speaker 13: In Denial the Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks
Speaker 13: by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 13: covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book
Speaker 13: In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using
Speaker 13: new files.
Speaker 1: It exposes things about.
Speaker 13: The Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written
Speaker 13: about before.
Speaker 1: It shows why it really failed and why the United
Speaker 1: States did not learn from it. It also shows why
Speaker 1: other countries today are doing secret operations with more success.
Speaker 1: This is the book that puts what some want to
Speaker 1: deny into the light. In Denial, Secret wars with air
Speaker 1: strikes and tanks Larryhncock. For more information, go to Larry
Speaker 1: hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In
Speaker 1: Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical. Yo
Speaker 1: Yovis Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast presented
Speaker 1: by Wall Street Window, And you are listening to the
Speaker 1: o'cell effect. Revelation through conversation, revel.
Speaker 6: Through calm, sage, Shell, Oh Chale fast
Speaker 11: Stringing me from right James bro