Speaker 1: Get ready.
Speaker 2: So it's still the tenth day of September twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar on
Speaker 2: a Wednesday, and I'm a little bit late starting, so
Speaker 2: I'm going to get to it as quickly as possible.
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock with us, And this was an unplanned situation
Speaker 2: where I had Mike Swanson and Larry Hancock on on
Speaker 2: the same night, but works out for me because I
Speaker 2: get two hours of a good conversation with two intelligent
Speaker 2: and thoughtful people who are both authors.
Speaker 1: Of course, Larry is a prolific author and.
Speaker 2: Takes up a lot of space on my bookshelf and
Speaker 2: doesn't just take up space, actually is a big part
Speaker 2: of my education and could be yours as well. A
Speaker 2: variety of books, which one should I mention this time? Well,
Speaker 2: I like Nexus for Today. I like someone would have
Speaker 2: talked for today. I like Tipping Point for today. Oh gee,
Speaker 2: I wonder why?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: And The Oswald Puzzle, which is the most recently released
Speaker 2: book as far as I know, unless Larry snuck another
Speaker 2: one in on me, who knows.
Speaker 1: Maybe they'll be a new one soon.
Speaker 2: Unintentional again, probably produced, but that one he co authored
Speaker 2: with David Boylan, and they will both be presenting at
Speaker 2: the Lancer Conference November twenty first to the twenty third.
Speaker 2: This year looks like virtually for one and in person
Speaker 2: for the other. But you know, your experiences may vary
Speaker 2: and stay tuned, but either way the Oswald Puzzle and
Speaker 2: there'll be links in the show notes. See you can
Speaker 2: go follow Larry's stuff at Larry dash Handcock dot com,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. And I'm sure everybody wants to
Speaker 2: hear what Larry has to say about Charlie Kirk. I'm kidding.
Speaker 2: I'm sure that's not where we need to go right now.
Speaker 2: But political violence, it's not like it's new, That's all
Speaker 2: I'm saying about it, and I sadly predict that it's
Speaker 2: not the end of it.
Speaker 1: One way or another.
Speaker 2: It does seem to be in the American character to
Speaker 2: violently eliminate people that we disagree with. Maybe it's worse
Speaker 2: than other places, maybe it's just better covered here.
Speaker 1: But is it acceptable?
Speaker 2: I'm not asking your political persuasion, you listening to me
Speaker 2: right now, I'm just saying is it acceptable? And reactions
Speaker 2: or whatever, we know this is going to be a
Speaker 2: game now for a while, and the flags are at
Speaker 2: half staff because he was a Trump supporter. But all
Speaker 2: I gotta say is I find the video of them
Speaker 2: being shot and the fact that it was distributed sickening.
Speaker 1: And that's that.
Speaker 2: And this is not a guy I agreed with or
Speaker 2: wanted to join in the prove me wrong debates. But
Speaker 2: is this the way that we react? I guess that's
Speaker 2: an open question for you guys. Meanwhile, there's other controversies
Speaker 2: or controversies out there, and there's certainly the demand for files,
Speaker 2: the promised release of upcoming files, the newly released files.
Speaker 2: What am I talking about? Could be a lot of things.
Speaker 2: We had releases this year alone, MLK, RFK, those assassinations
Speaker 2: from the sixties, in some cases newer stuff released, in
Speaker 2: some cases not so much. Phase one of the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: In that case, nothing new released as far as I
Speaker 2: could tell. But some people believe more to come. And
Speaker 2: isn't that part of the game that well, those of
Speaker 2: us interested in the JFK assassination have been playing for
Speaker 2: what more than sixty years, even if we weren't alive
Speaker 2: for the whole game.
Speaker 1: I wasn't. I'm only in my fifties.
Speaker 2: So yeah, nonetheless, about half of that time, I've definitely
Speaker 2: been engaged with these files and they have evolved anyway,
Speaker 2: Larry Hancock's another guy who's written about that, who has
Speaker 2: observed it, who's been alive longer.
Speaker 1: But you know, does he have a complete handle on
Speaker 1: all this.
Speaker 2: Let's find out, because there's a lot of expectations and
Speaker 2: a lot of possibilities yet to come when it comes
Speaker 2: to the release of many, many files, Larry, and maybe
Speaker 2: we can look back at some of the I don't know,
Speaker 2: the behaviors of the past to predict what we might
Speaker 2: see in the future, or at least to know what
Speaker 2: we should be looking out for. Maybe that's where I
Speaker 2: turn it over to you. But first, how are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm doing fine, Chuck. It's early fall here in Oklahoma.
Speaker 3: It's dry and it's hot and it's brown, and it's
Speaker 3: the time when you begin going ah, maybe I do
Speaker 3: like winter after all. And then in about three months ago,
Speaker 3: wrong about that?
Speaker 1: Well, right?
Speaker 2: The changing of the seasons sometimes more welcome than others,
Speaker 2: and depending on what direction things are going in. But
Speaker 2: speaking of the changing of seasons, you know, there is
Speaker 2: a lot of discussion right right now, in fact, about
Speaker 2: what should be released, what could be released, what people
Speaker 2: are demanding to be released.
Speaker 1: I don't know, a lot of.
Speaker 2: This sounds very familiar, regardless of what the controversy is,
Speaker 2: and who might be dead, who might be alive, who
Speaker 2: might be unlived, as they say, who might have been assaulted,
Speaker 2: and what the real history is according to what the
Speaker 2: government collected. Gee, it sounds like I'm dancing around talking
Speaker 2: about a specific here. Wonder why that is? Where should
Speaker 2: we begin with this, Larry? I mean, like I said,
Speaker 2: until the headlines got broken today with a murder in
Speaker 2: real time and the video being distributed, and that being
Speaker 2: of course attached directly to our political agreements and disagreements
Speaker 2: out there.
Speaker 1: You know, it would have might have might have been just.
Speaker 2: Another day of discussing what should be released in what
Speaker 2: shouldn't be So where do we begin and put it
Speaker 2: in context with?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Let's go with the thing with the longest standing argument
Speaker 2: over the files I've ever seen, which is the JFK assassination.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think, Chuck, I think it has to do
Speaker 3: with expectations and things are so radically different in terms
Speaker 3: of expectations as far as quote unquote what's in the files.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's a group of people I think that
Speaker 3: always assume that you know in regard to things, whether
Speaker 3: there covert operations or assassinations or UFOs. They we've kind
Speaker 3: of gotten into a space where people think the government
Speaker 3: knows and it's not sharing with us. So the whole
Speaker 3: quest for file releases is basically to beat them up,
Speaker 3: to tell us what they really know that they're keeping
Speaker 3: from us, And that seems to have become the mantra. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's like, so if your expectation is really that you
Speaker 3: think the government does know about everything and it's keeping
Speaker 3: it from you, then we get into file releases and
Speaker 3: the president releases them all and we find out that,
Speaker 3: to a large extent, there's nothing new because no, the
Speaker 3: government didn't know and they didn't put it into documents
Speaker 3: and it wasn't sitting there being kept from us. I
Speaker 3: think that's one place to start, is what were your expectations.
Speaker 3: If that was your expectations for file releases, you're generally
Speaker 3: going to be disappointed. Now, on the other hand, there's
Speaker 3: another way to look at it, and another way to
Speaker 3: look at it is to look at these various areas
Speaker 3: and say, well, what have we learned, What have we
Speaker 3: learned outside government files? What have we learned from the
Speaker 3: files that we have seen from the four year releases
Speaker 3: that we've seen, you know, there's a body of work
Speaker 3: already there.
Speaker 1: And then it.
Speaker 3: Becomes kind of interesting because, all right, let's take that
Speaker 3: body of work. You know, what we learned through non
Speaker 3: official channels, side channels, you know, releases of things that
Speaker 3: they made a mistake and they were never supposed to
Speaker 3: be released, notes that were on a document that you
Speaker 3: never know, what did we learn. Let's let's compare that
Speaker 3: body of work with what they released and see if
Speaker 3: there are any differences. You know, did you know did
Speaker 3: they hold something back? Maybe even unknowingly, which is quite
Speaker 3: interesting because that's something that's something we have seen in
Speaker 3: the past. But I think so those are two things.
Speaker 3: What are your expectations. And if your expectations are they're
Speaker 3: suddenly going to share, you know, dish the dirt, whatever
Speaker 3: you want to call it, that's unlikely, okay, because most
Speaker 3: of the things that we look at, if they're truly
Speaker 3: were conspiracies, you know, they worked right, or we would
Speaker 3: already know it. Would have been early knowledge, so they work,
Speaker 3: so things were covered up somewhat effectively. But another thing
Speaker 3: I'd like to point out that's happening in tandem that
Speaker 3: is confusing people is, in addition to the file releases
Speaker 3: which the President authorized and which are bringing out primarily
Speaker 3: things that were already setting at the National Archives that
Speaker 3: are just kind of being flushed into the system and
Speaker 3: which in general, you know, we're sitting there not because
Speaker 3: they were super secret, but because nobody had gotten through
Speaker 3: the process to really release them, because they weren't all
Speaker 3: that important. You know, nobody had done foya is on them.
Speaker 3: They were just sitting there. That's what happened. But there
Speaker 3: are a series of hearings going on with the House
Speaker 3: Oversight Panel, which we've discussed with Representative Luna, that are
Speaker 3: happening in tandem. And the interesting thing about that is
Speaker 3: that's pursuing the attitude that the government knows things that
Speaker 3: they're not sharing with us, and they might even not
Speaker 3: be sharing it with each other. You know, for all
Speaker 3: we know, is there stuff setting out there that didn't
Speaker 3: make it into official government repositories? You know, was it
Speaker 3: interrupted on the way. Are people screwing with the system. Basically,
Speaker 3: you know, there are there whistleblowers that are making reports
Speaker 3: and somehow that's never getting into the system. So I
Speaker 3: think one of the things that's getting confabulated is what's
Speaker 3: going on with the Oversight Committee and the testimony it's
Speaker 3: taken versus the file release and they're two dramatically different things.
Speaker 3: Are we are learning some things from the Oversight Committee, right,
Speaker 3: that is forcing out some information that is far different
Speaker 3: than this file release thing. So a long winded answer
Speaker 3: to say, you know, if you're just kind of on
Speaker 3: the periphery of this stuff, try to keep this segmented
Speaker 3: because it is different.
Speaker 2: Well, another thing to consider here, Larry, in my opinion
Speaker 2: is that the priority, okay, of the bureaucrats and the
Speaker 2: people that were at the heads of these agencies in
Speaker 2: different time periods are going to differ. For instance, the
Speaker 2: people that were basically in charge in nineteen sixty four
Speaker 2: when you had your first you know, release of any
Speaker 2: information from the federal government regarding the Kennedy assassination, even
Speaker 2: if you want to begin with the Warrant Commission, but
Speaker 2: didn't begin with the Warrant Commission. There was already releases
Speaker 2: before that, but let's begin with that as a mark
Speaker 2: in the timeline. Those people are all gone, the bureaucrats,
Speaker 2: the heads of the agencies, they're dead and gone, retired whatever,
Speaker 2: you know, sixty some odd years later, if they're still there, I'm.
Speaker 1: Afraid you know.
Speaker 2: So reality is, the people that are now handling these
Speaker 2: things don't even have the initial context. So, you know,
Speaker 2: does that work in our favor or against us? That's
Speaker 2: something that we're gonna have to considering, you know, posthumously,
Speaker 2: we're gonna have to consider it looking back.
Speaker 1: Did it change things? Because here's the thing again, if
Speaker 1: you have.
Speaker 2: Circumstances where the government collected information but doesn't.
Speaker 1: Know what happened.
Speaker 2: And I've said this before, you know, maybe they did
Speaker 2: an investigation and couldn't come to a reasonable conclusion about aspects.
Speaker 2: Let's not say ultimately because people would be out about that,
Speaker 2: but let's just say they couldn't come to you know,
Speaker 2: they came to many dead ends. They came to circumstances
Speaker 2: where they had to say, look, we have you know,
Speaker 2: contradictory information here, and we can't definitively say exactly this
Speaker 2: or exactly that because the records show one thing here,
Speaker 2: you know, sort of like when you end up with
Speaker 2: people that are in two different places according to official
Speaker 2: records at the same moment. It doesn't mean that you
Speaker 2: have a definitive answer that there were two different people.
Speaker 2: You have various possibilities things like that. And now I'm
Speaker 2: traveling down a road where it sounds like I'm confabulating.
Speaker 1: I'm trying not to, you know, but I.
Speaker 3: Think check think what you're releasing. If they didn't know
Speaker 3: it even back in sixty four, right, if they the
Speaker 3: people that were releasing the documents and over the following years,
Speaker 3: and they didn't know what really might be relevant and
Speaker 3: what might not be real elevant, and if they if
Speaker 3: they didn't classify something as assassination related, then it didn't
Speaker 3: go to the Warren. First of all, it can go
Speaker 3: to the Warren Commission, and second of all, then it
Speaker 3: just stayed in the file somewhere and eventually either got
Speaker 3: sent to Nara or it got shredded, depending upon what
Speaker 3: file hand and lean protocols were. So there could be
Speaker 3: stuff missing that we would think was very important right
Speaker 3: now that they would not have had a clue to. Then. Actually,
Speaker 3: most of the stuff that we really think that's important
Speaker 3: as far as the Kennedy assassination, the Jaya, you know,
Speaker 3: our k assassination. Most of the stuff that we think
Speaker 3: would be important now that we want to see those
Speaker 3: people at the time, it would have had no clue
Speaker 3: that that was even necessarily relevant. So that's another thing
Speaker 3: that you know, a lot of stuff probably never got
Speaker 3: to the National Archives that we would want to see.
Speaker 3: We know from the Heath Memo that the JM wave
Speaker 3: investigation of CIA and Cuban involvement never got anywhere, you know,
Speaker 3: So it's it's not going to be released now, right,
Speaker 3: But we wouldn't know that unless we could reverse engineer
Speaker 3: the paper trail. And I think what you and I
Speaker 3: have talked about is the good news to some extent,
Speaker 3: is that we're positioned that we can reverse engineer some
Speaker 3: of the paper trails now and at least ask for
Speaker 3: what might be helpful. Now, that's not going to help
Speaker 3: any good to ask the President's office, but asking the
Speaker 3: House Committee, maybe you're going to get something because they've
Speaker 3: got a channel. Just one of the things that appalls
Speaker 3: me about some of the current hearings is they're collecting information,
Speaker 3: but the people that hold the information aren't in the room.
Speaker 3: So when somebody goes in front of the here the
Speaker 3: UFO UAP hearings today and comes up with incidents and
Speaker 3: gets the congress people all excited, it's kind of like
Speaker 3: there's nobody in the room to ask like, did you
Speaker 3: guys was this not investigated? Does the Department of Defense
Speaker 3: have something? Does the Air Force have you know, there's
Speaker 3: nobody in the room. So there's this this separation between
Speaker 3: the people that are should be accountable and the people
Speaker 3: that are bringing information.
Speaker 2: To the fore and along with the sort of whether
Speaker 2: intended or unintended misdirection in this labyrinth is and let
Speaker 2: me give you for instance, JM. Wave we know is
Speaker 2: you know what the largest CIA station domestically we had
Speaker 2: at exactly the critical time that would have involved various
Speaker 2: political activists, people that were involved with Cuba, so on
Speaker 2: and so forth. The CIA's operational individuals all right there
Speaker 2: in Florida, Okay, logistically placed perfectly to handle all of
Speaker 2: that when it came to all of the Cuban situation,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Well, look, do we know even reliably how
Speaker 2: much of the communication and paperwork was actually preserved from
Speaker 2: that massive operation, Because it seems to me it was
Speaker 2: pretty large, And then other people say to me, you
Speaker 2: know what, you're overestimating the size of the thing, And
Speaker 2: I say, well, I don't know. I'm just going along
Speaker 2: with what I see here. It does appear to be
Speaker 2: a pretty large operation. And do we even have a
Speaker 2: hint as to you know, a level a percentage, say
Speaker 2: of how much of the communication or operational paperwork or
Speaker 2: anything that would be proof.
Speaker 1: Let's just say of you know, financial.
Speaker 2: Dealings, different you know, subprojects, whatever. Do we even reliably
Speaker 2: know how much of that was deserved and how much
Speaker 2: of it might have been just routinely destroyed as part
Speaker 2: of it?
Speaker 3: Actually, yeah, actually, actually we do only because my friend
Speaker 3: David Boyle and is like so much of a bigger
Speaker 3: document geek than I am. For example, we know how
Speaker 3: much jam Wave was spending on types of projects, say
Speaker 3: in nineteen sixty two, sixty three, so we kind of say, well,
Speaker 3: we know how much money they're spending, what files do
Speaker 3: we have? And we find we have a lot of
Speaker 3: operational files, maritime operational files, you know, so we can say, oh,
Speaker 3: at least we have a few hundred a few thousand
Speaker 3: operational files on what were they were doing on the
Speaker 3: military side. We have none on the propaganda side, which
Speaker 3: is kind of interesting because you know, they were spending
Speaker 3: as much on propaganda and covert political action as they
Speaker 3: were spending on military, and that's none of that's there.
Speaker 3: It's just flat gone. Uh. And one of one of
Speaker 3: the reasons that makes it particularly interesting to us is
Speaker 3: that it's very likely where the operational interest in Lee
Speaker 3: Harvey Ossell was and that stuff is just just flat gone.
Speaker 3: The operational documents for military. Yeah, and for some for
Speaker 3: some reason, we have a lot of detail on their
Speaker 3: military activities and virtually nothing on political warfare, psychological obligation, propaganda.
Speaker 3: So we do have some clues.
Speaker 2: Well, it's weird because once again, just like in the
Speaker 2: MK Ultra situation, you need a forensic accountant to sit
Speaker 2: there and say, okay, we've got receipts.
Speaker 1: Now, we got to figure out what it was spent on. Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, like, That's what it seems like to me
Speaker 2: over and over again that if it wasn't for somebody
Speaker 2: trying to keep the books straight and account for money.
Speaker 1: You might have the disappearance of all of the proof. Here.
Speaker 1: No way to reconstruct these things. And I'm not.
Speaker 2: Saying that's the only path. It's only just followed the
Speaker 2: money here, which sounds like an oversimplified version of that.
Speaker 1: But truth is truth.
Speaker 2: You know, if you see a bunch of you know,
Speaker 2: people being employed and then you go, okay, well, where's
Speaker 2: what the job they did? And you have no job
Speaker 2: for them to be doing. You know, you have no
Speaker 2: time cards, you have no base of operations. You wonder, well, gee,
Speaker 2: where did the money go? They just paid people to
Speaker 2: do nothing. No, that didn't happen, right, So you know,
Speaker 2: here we go. I'm again oversimplifying stuff, but it speaks
Speaker 2: to where you have certain things that are missing and
Speaker 2: some people jump on it and say it's missing. Therefore
Speaker 2: they destroyed it. Maybe they did, or maybe it was
Speaker 2: sent somewhere else. I mean, that's yet another possibility where
Speaker 2: you have things that are sense somewhere else so they
Speaker 2: can be overlooked, you know, in another storage facility. Let's say,
Speaker 2: you know, and I've seen this with divorces, where you know,
Speaker 2: like people turn around go after each other's income and
Speaker 2: they find out that you know, okay, yeah, they owned
Speaker 2: a business or whatever, but here's where other money was,
Speaker 2: and it's not mixed in with their tax returns, you
Speaker 2: know what I mean, there's all sorts of ways to
Speaker 2: go about this, and yet I don't know if people
Speaker 2: appreciate the concept of what you called the negative template,
Speaker 2: that yeah, there's stuff that should be here that's missing.
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you put that kind of into.
Speaker 2: A short summary to explain to people, like how that
Speaker 2: works and what's important about that when information is missing.
Speaker 2: I know we discussed in our you know, back and
Speaker 2: forth texts about the oswalt to a one file which
Speaker 2: has evolved over the years, which is a personnel file,
Speaker 2: you know, held. Maybe you could explain this a little
Speaker 2: bit and give people the proper context to get into
Speaker 2: when you see something as missing and you know it
Speaker 2: should be there, and how to follow on that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the reverse temple. It's a really important methodology because
Speaker 3: it allows you to it gives you clues for what
Speaker 3: was happening that most likely someone tried to shield from
Speaker 3: the system. I mean, because the system. There are standard
Speaker 3: operating practices in any agency and any bureaucracy. You keep
Speaker 3: records for a purpose, because it's like any business. If
Speaker 3: you don't keep records, nobody knows what's going on. It's inefficient,
Speaker 3: you lose money whatever. So there are standard practices for everything,
Speaker 3: including covert operations, including everything that JM Wave did, everything
Speaker 3: that was going on in Miami there. You know, there
Speaker 3: are special practices in regard to Oswol's tool what's called
Speaker 3: to A one file, which originally the Army had something
Speaker 3: called the DD two to one form which just captured
Speaker 3: all the personnel information out of a person. Over time,
Speaker 3: other agencies began to adopt it, and it was like
Speaker 3: the the file if you wanted to pull it. Selecting
Speaker 3: your in high school and this is your permanent record, right,
Speaker 3: this is where we collect information about you. So if
Speaker 3: anybody and you know, if anybody in the agency, you know,
Speaker 3: if your name came up, are you come up in
Speaker 3: a discussion and a report whatever, there's a central storage
Speaker 3: of information. So one of the things that's been really.
Speaker 1: Really fast diary.
Speaker 2: A quick snapshot of that might be when I went
Speaker 2: to go try and get my father's military record, there's
Speaker 2: a top sheet that says when he was inducted, his birthday,
Speaker 2: gives him a serial number, talks about his job description,
Speaker 2: and that's the top sheet, right, his name, his number,
Speaker 2: when you know some dates things like that his birth date,
Speaker 2: but also his date of induction, the job he was given.
Speaker 1: That's your top sheet. You peel that back.
Speaker 2: The next thing is what he's supposed to have done,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, real basic, like a biography,
Speaker 2: but point by point. And that was a standard with
Speaker 2: the military. Everybody has had one of these at one point,
Speaker 2: in physical form for sure. I don't know what the
Speaker 2: digital looks like now, but at one point that was
Speaker 2: true for everybody, just to keep track of individuals as.
Speaker 1: You moved them around. Those files went with them. You
Speaker 1: knew who you were dealing with.
Speaker 2: Commanding officers could sit there and leave through them and go, Okay,
Speaker 2: I've got this guy, he does this. I've got that guy.
Speaker 2: He's a tank guy. I've got this guy, he's an
Speaker 2: auto mechanic. It doesn't matter what it is. They now
Speaker 2: know who they have and what they're dealing with quickly.
Speaker 2: And that's where that was based. But the CIA had
Speaker 2: its own version of this two a one file that
Speaker 2: was semi adopted from that template, right.
Speaker 3: And not all that different. I mean, the military record
Speaker 3: would have showed your training and your job skills. It
Speaker 3: will show your assignments, it will show your security clearances. Okay,
Speaker 3: unless you something's really strange and you're going to be
Speaker 3: given a clearance for an off the books project. But
Speaker 3: that's another story. But yeah, it's very much the same
Speaker 3: and the cias in the same boat. Basically, these are
Speaker 3: called personality files or you know, basically they are like
Speaker 3: a personal record. But for the agency, of course, these
Speaker 3: are not necessarily personnel. They're all cosso also called name files,
Speaker 3: because you might very well set up a name for
Speaker 3: somebody that was not an employee, that was just a
Speaker 3: person of interest. For an example, let's take a someone
Speaker 3: that you were considering for a mission. Let's say, yeah,
Speaker 3: you've been talking to a human exile who has friends
Speaker 3: of family in Cuba. Uh, they've they've volunteered to contact
Speaker 3: them maintain get information on what's happening in Cuba. So
Speaker 3: you start a file on them. You started two O
Speaker 3: one and you're going to go through but uh, you know,
Speaker 3: you're going to have some background on that family connection.
Speaker 3: Who are they really related to? Did we check that out?
Speaker 3: Are they lying to us? You know, who are they
Speaker 3: really related to? So you're going to sign some information
Speaker 3: on that, and then further down the road you might
Speaker 3: find that Okay, we're going to take them seriously. So
Speaker 3: here's a you know, here's a document where now we're
Speaker 3: taking them seriously. We're going to do a p r
Speaker 3: Q one, which a personality first level file, you know,
Speaker 3: like you just that's the top sheet, like you just said, Chuck.
Speaker 3: And but then then we're going to say, all right,
Speaker 3: are we going to are we going to screen them?
Speaker 3: Are we going to give them a polygraph? And so
Speaker 3: there'll be a form on that did they pass. There'll
Speaker 3: be a security review form, and then there'll be a
Speaker 3: form that says, all right, we're officially considering them for
Speaker 3: operational like provisional operational improvement, okay. And then as they
Speaker 3: go further down the line, then there would be an
Speaker 3: operational improvement for a given mission or a different project.
Speaker 3: Generally not for more than six months, and so there's
Speaker 3: a whole series of steps that you go through and
Speaker 3: that would that becomes visible not just for people that
Speaker 3: are employees. And I think that's the big difference between
Speaker 3: the agency and a military service or something like that.
Speaker 3: The agency's got to keep track of all sorts of
Speaker 3: people who are not on the payroll. They're not on
Speaker 3: as you know, full time employees, not even as contract employees.
Speaker 3: You know their potential or current assets.
Speaker 1: So that's yeah, not to slow it down too much.
Speaker 2: But let's just say, for instance, there was a guy
Speaker 2: who just happens to deal guns. Now, he's not linked
Speaker 2: to the agency at all, but he happens to be
Speaker 2: in a location or connected to people where it would
Speaker 2: be easy for your off the books people to go
Speaker 2: ahead and deal with him business wise, go buy guns
Speaker 2: from this guy. There might be a person of interest
Speaker 2: file on a gun dealer that is Look, this is
Speaker 2: a guy who's friendly, keeps his mouth shut, and always
Speaker 2: has the kind.
Speaker 1: Of weapons we want and whatever.
Speaker 2: He's not an employee, he's not an official member of anything,
Speaker 2: but he's somebody that we have to deal with, so
Speaker 2: I can quickly fill in anybody who goes to deal
Speaker 2: with him.
Speaker 1: This guy's a gun runner.
Speaker 2: This guy will get you machine guns or bazuokas if
Speaker 2: you need him. You want the kind of thing that
Speaker 2: mounts only to the side of a helicopter, this guy's
Speaker 2: got it. You want small arms, no problem, You want untraceable,
Speaker 2: no problem. Maybe there might be details like that in
Speaker 2: that guy's file, and he's not an official CIA guy,
Speaker 2: government guy. Nothing, He's just somebody who is a person
Speaker 2: of interest because he might become useful in an operation,
Speaker 2: even just for the purchase of weapons. Say, is that
Speaker 2: not a possibility?
Speaker 3: But another thing that you'll probably find in his file,
Speaker 3: in his file in particular as an arrest record, right,
Speaker 3: you'll find FBI documents on him. You'll find atf documents
Speaker 3: on him. Material from other agencies will go in that file.
Speaker 3: But certainly, if there's an arrest, it's going to go
Speaker 3: on that top sheet because that's going to be part
Speaker 3: of the security background. And so a to A one
Speaker 3: file may well contain information from other agencies. In fact
Speaker 3: that it should, because one thing about a to A
Speaker 3: one file is if it's going to be useful. I mean,
Speaker 3: think of it this way. This is a headquarters file.
Speaker 3: Anybody can get to it. Now, different areas of CIA
Speaker 3: headquarters may have control of it. It might rest in
Speaker 3: the Soviet Division or the Western Hemisphere Division. Oswald's was
Speaker 3: controlled by security most likely because it originated when he
Speaker 3: was overseas and he was a matter of national security
Speaker 3: because he was being unreported on when he was in Russia.
Speaker 3: But the point is that information has to be current,
Speaker 3: or it's not only useless, it can get you in
Speaker 3: real trouble obviously, if you're considering this person and you
Speaker 3: don't keep current. And so to get back to the
Speaker 3: kind of what we're talking about, one of the things
Speaker 3: that is very interesting about Oswald's to A one file
Speaker 3: is that in the fall of nineteen sixty three, it's
Speaker 3: not exactly clear when, but contemporary information is not in
Speaker 3: his file. That contemporary information and other information was pulled
Speaker 3: out out of his two to one and put into
Speaker 3: a separate file that was setting outside the standard to
Speaker 3: A one. We only know about this because after the assassination,
Speaker 3: as part of the process, it was put back into
Speaker 3: the file. It's kind of like, so we know what
Speaker 3: was taken out, we know what was put in, and
Speaker 3: so it's very strange to find a to A one
Speaker 3: file that's got contemporary information not in it. It's particularly
Speaker 3: strange because in Oswald's case, when he was in Mexico
Speaker 3: City and Mexico City's really excited about this guy who's
Speaker 3: been with the Cubans and the Russians and contacts headquarters. Basically,
Speaker 3: it's like, we need everything we're concerned. Tell us everything
Speaker 3: about this guy. What they get back has no contemporary information.
Speaker 3: What they get back says, well, he's in Russia and
Speaker 3: it looks like he may be coming back to the
Speaker 3: United States. Well, that is wildly out of date, and
Speaker 3: actually it's almost like misdirection in a way. But the
Speaker 3: fact that that that is definitely a negative template that
Speaker 3: says something's going on around Lee Harvey Oswald. That is
Speaker 3: not standard operating practice.
Speaker 2: So literally, what you're saying is that in nineteen sixty three,
Speaker 2: they're saying the most contemporary.
Speaker 1: Information we have on this guy is from like nineteen.
Speaker 3: Sixty Yeah, yeah, absolutely not well, nineteen sixty one, sixteen one.
Speaker 3: But they're especially concerned because they're saying, look, Mexico City
Speaker 3: is going here. He's here, he's talking to the Cubans,
Speaker 3: he's trying to get into Cuba. He's showing credentials from
Speaker 3: the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. You know, obviously it
Speaker 3: would be of interest to Mexico, to Mexico City to
Speaker 3: know what association's Oswald has with the FPCC. And of
Speaker 3: course he's been on radio, he's been on TV. There's
Speaker 3: there's a lot of information about the FPCC related to
Speaker 3: him that's not going to Mexico City. It's being shielded.
Speaker 3: And later it was found that rather than being copied
Speaker 3: to his to A one file, it's in an FPCC file.
Speaker 3: So you can find about it, but you can't find
Speaker 3: it from his to A one file nor And this
Speaker 3: is really striking. We now know, uh that there was
Speaker 3: a lot of reporting on Oswald and his arrest for
Speaker 3: in New Orleans for you know, uh, the protest on
Speaker 3: the street, and as that came to the to the
Speaker 3: CIA from the FBI, certainly that should have gone into
Speaker 3: his to A one file. And we know that that
Speaker 3: did go to CIA headquarters. We know it went to
Speaker 3: the lady who can roll this file. We know it
Speaker 3: went to JM Wave, it went several places in Miami.
Speaker 3: But it's like not in the system. And so nobody
Speaker 3: is telling Mexico City that, yeah, this guy is actually
Speaker 3: a real trouble maker. He's been protesting for the FECC.
Speaker 3: He claims to have some sort of specialist connection to them,
Speaker 3: and he was just arrested a couple of months ago.
Speaker 3: Nobody's telling Mexico City that, well.
Speaker 1: And there you have it.
Speaker 2: Look, there's stuff that's missing, and you know when it
Speaker 2: was missing, But now do we know that the same
Speaker 2: information which was extracted from that file was replaced or not,
Speaker 2: and this becomes an issue.
Speaker 1: Now try to apply this.
Speaker 2: Just quickly if you wouldn't mind to current events where
Speaker 2: people are talking about, you know, release everything, and I
Speaker 2: know that's the reflex release everything, release everything.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that the public.
Speaker 2: Would understand that, and if it was all dumped in
Speaker 2: front of us, what we're looking at even right, I mean,
Speaker 2: they can fabulate many things. I'm going to use that
Speaker 2: term a few times since you decide to use it, which,
Speaker 2: by the way, independently, I was looking at using that
Speaker 2: term more often because it's necessary now to sit here
Speaker 2: and combine a bunch of issues and sort of spit
Speaker 2: out this recycled and you know, just because you can
Speaker 2: melt it into a usable piece of metal, doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that all these elements belong together.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: And it's a weird sort of thing happening with what's
Speaker 2: emerging right now, right where people are demanding the emergence
Speaker 2: of files and talking about what's missing, but they're missing
Speaker 2: the point of the nuance, like why is something missing?
Speaker 2: What should be there in the first place. Hardly anybody
Speaker 2: seems to know. That's the biggest problem with the negative
Speaker 2: template idea among the general public. It seems like there
Speaker 2: are people that seem to think that certain things should
Speaker 2: be in files, or certain things should be included that
Speaker 2: are not necessarily sensible considering what it is they're looking at.
Speaker 2: Sometimes you know, and now it sounds like I talked
Speaker 2: in a circle, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: I didn't try to. It's just said, this is what's happening. Noah,
Speaker 1: go ahead, I think.
Speaker 3: Check what to really dial that down. The bottom line is,
Speaker 3: unless you put that sort of information in front of
Speaker 3: people who know what the standard practical what is SOP?
Speaker 3: What was SOP? Then what was the standard actor operating practice?
Speaker 3: So you've got to have somebody from either from inside
Speaker 3: the agency, right or you've got to have somebody who's
Speaker 3: really studied the agency long enough to know. You've got
Speaker 3: to have somebody to look at it to say, look,
Speaker 3: this is just it's just a one time anomaly. Okay,
Speaker 3: the standard operating practice? You know, could this happen? Sure
Speaker 3: somebody could have pulled the file for a week because
Speaker 3: they were looking at the sky and we'll put it
Speaker 3: back in Okay. Not You've got to have somebody. That's
Speaker 3: why when Jeff Morley and John Newman did the right
Speaker 3: thing when when they took this issue and took the
Speaker 3: documents of what was in the file, what wasn't in
Speaker 3: the file, they went to a CIA personnel operations person
Speaker 3: who knew what this you know, is this significant? Is
Speaker 3: it not significant?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 3: The problem is, even you know, twenty five thirty years later,
Speaker 3: this lady is still under you know, security constraints, she's
Speaker 3: still loyal to the agency. She's you know, if she
Speaker 3: if she was going to say something like, well, geez,
Speaker 3: you know the day after the assassination, I knew there
Speaker 3: was something wrong and something going on with Oswald, she
Speaker 3: would have been telling the Warrant Commission. But she didn't, right, Okay,
Speaker 3: So you've got that problem that you're facing historically. Bottom
Speaker 3: line is they went to her and said, you know,
Speaker 3: is this right? Is this standard operating practice? And if
Speaker 3: it's not, tell us if it is, and if it's not,
Speaker 3: what does it suggest to you? And her remark was no,
Speaker 3: it's not standard practice, and it would suggest that there
Speaker 3: was someone within the agency had a special interest in
Speaker 3: Ousle at that point in time and was compartment information
Speaker 3: from other groups because they had an operational interest. That
Speaker 3: didn't mean that they were you. Now, she didn't say
Speaker 3: all that, right, She just said enough so that you
Speaker 3: could go, Okay, you don't want to let it all
Speaker 3: hang out there, do you, lady?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 3: She But she couldn't deny it, basically, And so it
Speaker 3: tells us at that point in time. And that's not
Speaker 3: the only thing. By the way, we have a trove
Speaker 3: of new information that we've just learned based on what
Speaker 3: we got released in regard to join edies that confirms that.
Speaker 3: But what it does say is no, it's not standard practice.
Speaker 3: It should have been there, it should have been missing,
Speaker 3: should have been missing for months. It shouldn't have had
Speaker 3: to be put back in after the assassination. You know,
Speaker 3: somebody had a special interest, an operational interest. That doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that they were using him, doesn't mean he was
Speaker 3: witting or unwitting. It just means they had some interest
Speaker 3: and enough interest to preserve information to themselves and not
Speaker 3: share it throughout the agency. Another example of that that
Speaker 3: we have from that period of time has to do
Speaker 3: with Coebela, who was a Cuban regime figure who the
Speaker 3: CIA was contacting about. You know, possibly even assassinating Castro.
Speaker 3: And you will look and find that his information was
Speaker 3: all compartment wise. They weren't sharing their contacts with him
Speaker 3: with anybody else, you know. So when when things do
Speaker 3: start to get operationally serious, information starts being shielded because
Speaker 3: it's it's what's called operational security, right opsec. If you're
Speaker 3: getting serious, you're not only concerned about your adversaries, you're
Speaker 3: concerned about honestly leaks, somebody saying something that they shouldn't,
Speaker 3: somebody knowing something unintentionally, you know, letting the cat out
Speaker 3: of the bag. But the upshot of all of this
Speaker 3: is that we know, both from that two O one
Speaker 3: file activity and from now from what we know was
Speaker 3: widely distributed within jam Wave and Special Fair staff in
Speaker 3: Miami about Oswald and is not in their records and
Speaker 3: is gone literally and should have been there, that Oswald
Speaker 3: was a special operationally, I have no doubt in my
Speaker 3: mind at this point in time.
Speaker 1: And that doesn't necessarily mean that he's an employee.
Speaker 2: That means, like you said, he could be associated to somebody.
Speaker 2: He could be in a group with people that are problematic,
Speaker 2: He could be connected to somebody directly. Let's just say,
Speaker 2: you know, even his wife could be an issue here
Speaker 2: right where it's like, well, you know, there is some
Speaker 2: special interest we have in somebody who is in close proximity.
Speaker 1: To this individual. Maybe, oh, there's a lot of possibilities, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: There's even a sheet for that. I mean, because that
Speaker 3: happened all of the time. And back on that two
Speaker 3: to one file, one of the forums has a sheet
Speaker 3: that says, you know this person, you know, this person
Speaker 3: could be a value to us. Here's the information on him,
Speaker 3: and they are an unwitting asset. It is even conceivably important.
Speaker 3: If November twenty second had not happened, the file might
Speaker 3: have gone into his folder, or quite frankly, it might
Speaker 3: have gone in there and then disappeared after November twenty second.
Speaker 3: That said he was an unwitting asset because the CIA
Speaker 3: had to manage that part of it. They had a
Speaker 3: lot of people that they were doing things with, maneuvering,
Speaker 3: manipulating that had no clue, and quite frankly, that applies
Speaker 3: to a lot of their media assets. You will find
Speaker 3: people that show up in files that yeah, here's a
Speaker 3: media asset. We talked to them, they're trusted, you know,
Speaker 3: we'll give them, but that person didn't know the CIA
Speaker 3: considered them an asset. One of the things I've always found,
Speaker 3: and it's not just the CIA. I always found it
Speaker 3: interesting when I came across an FBI file for James Angleton,
Speaker 3: and the FBI file with a code name for James
Speaker 3: Angleton says this is Angleton is a source for the FBI,
Speaker 3: Like the director of Counterintelligence is a source for the FBI.
Speaker 3: How interesting? Why is he a source because he's telling
Speaker 3: the FBI what career criminals that they're using in his
Speaker 3: division for break ins and bank robberies not bank robbery,
Speaker 3: sorry burutaries that it's like, okay, we're using these guys
Speaker 3: right now, so would you not arrest them for a
Speaker 3: little bit because we're using That's why he's a source.
Speaker 3: But now this is a game that was played by
Speaker 3: the FBI and the CIA and by other intelligence agencies.
Speaker 2: Well, and there's also what I call secondary sourcing. There's
Speaker 2: probably a better term for that. But here's the thing again,
Speaker 2: if he's in communication with somebody, let's just take Angleton
Speaker 2: as an example, and he's got a trusted, I don't know, secretary, Well,
Speaker 2: they might have the secretary as a source, you know,
Speaker 2: the FBI, and they're getting information that originates with Angleton
Speaker 2: that the secretary is feeding to them. So therefore Angleton
Speaker 2: is a source, and he's an unwitting and even on
Speaker 2: knowing source for certain types of information that are coming
Speaker 2: through the secretary.
Speaker 3: Theoretically, right, It's a complex business, and people get wrapped.
Speaker 3: I mean people get wrapped up, People get confused, they
Speaker 3: make mistakes. What you just discussed might well be in
Speaker 3: a soft file, which we have not discussed. Those are
Speaker 3: files that are somebody's desk. Like, okay, so somebody's secretary
Speaker 3: is giving us information. Do we want to put that
Speaker 3: into the permanent system. Well, as long as she's give
Speaker 3: me us information, I'm going to have a file on
Speaker 3: my desk on what's coming from her. But I'm not
Speaker 3: necessarily going to put her into the main system. Why
Speaker 3: because it may blow back on her. And for that matter,
Speaker 3: if you're playing this game within the FBI, some other
Speaker 3: FBI office may try to steal that asset. It was
Speaker 3: quite common within the FBI for field offices to try
Speaker 3: to essentially grab other offices sources and assets because they
Speaker 3: had points. How many do you have? That's one of
Speaker 3: the ways Hoover ran the game. So not to get
Speaker 3: too far off track, but but yeah, there's the issue
Speaker 3: of there's always the issue of what do I put
Speaker 3: in the headquarters file. If it's you know, if it's
Speaker 3: a value just to me right at the moment, maybe
Speaker 3: I won't share it with headquarters.
Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to unfairly put something in current events
Speaker 2: into this context real fast. This idea that you know
Speaker 2: that the Speaker of the House put out there about
Speaker 2: you know, Trump being an informant to the FBI. Now, sorry,
Speaker 2: I know, I know, but but here's the thing. Informant
Speaker 2: is probably the wrong word. But is it possible that
Speaker 2: Trump was some kind of asset, either in a secondary way,
Speaker 2: in a soft file somewhere or in an.
Speaker 1: Official agency file.
Speaker 2: Because one thing you got to say about Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: no matter what your political orientation is, he likes to
Speaker 2: talk to people about things. So he might be talking
Speaker 2: to somebody and who knows, maybe his wife at the
Speaker 2: time is an informant and she's informing about information being
Speaker 2: fed to her by Donald Trump. Regarding the Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: think is at one point you got to admit they
Speaker 2: were at least in proximity to one another. And you
Speaker 2: could say that, and I'm being as benign about this
Speaker 2: as possible, it is plausible that he's in those files
Speaker 2: as somebody who is informing on a circumstance that the
Speaker 2: FBI is investigating. Whether he knows it or not another
Speaker 2: issue you'd have to pull that apart. I mean, but
Speaker 2: is he literally an informant and maybe that guy's using
Speaker 2: the wrong word but describing something that he does have
Speaker 2: the clearance to.
Speaker 1: See as the speaker of the House. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think we can.
Speaker 3: I think we can parse that out because we we
Speaker 3: actually know how that works for the FBI, you know,
Speaker 3: first of us.
Speaker 2: Why that's why the way, just so you know, I
Speaker 2: knew that you could parse us out.
Speaker 1: That's why I gave it to you.
Speaker 3: So he can't. He would There they're two ways. He
Speaker 3: could have voluntarily gone to the FBI and provided information
Speaker 3: and have been considered a source, okay, and the FBI
Speaker 3: would have opened a file just saying we received this
Speaker 3: report from Donald Trump. That's it, you know, He's just
Speaker 3: we just got a report from And that happens, you know,
Speaker 3: hundreds of times a day, on hundreds of cases people
Speaker 3: walk in, people call up, say they have information about something,
Speaker 3: So he could have been a source, very very benign. Okay.
Speaker 3: To take it to the next step, he would have
Speaker 3: to actually be considered as a criminal informant. The first
Speaker 3: step would be to consider him as a potential criminal
Speaker 3: environment informant, because he would have had he would have
Speaker 3: had to take the next step to say or they
Speaker 3: would have had to go let's say he's a source
Speaker 3: and they investigate him and find out, yeah, okay, he
Speaker 3: knows what he's talking about, he knows these people, he
Speaker 3: associates with these people, He's seen something that might be illegal.
Speaker 3: You know, maybe he could be useful. So, uh, we
Speaker 3: might consider him as a potential criminal informant because he's
Speaker 3: a he's a source that might have information that we
Speaker 3: could use in court. So they would have to go
Speaker 3: back and ask him if he's going to be a
Speaker 3: criminal informant. Now he's going to have to agree to that.
Speaker 3: But the problem is, he won't be a criminal informant
Speaker 3: unless he is actually deep enough into something that's illegal
Speaker 3: to tell they about it, which means he's seen a crime.
Speaker 3: Which is an interesting situation because because he has seen
Speaker 3: a crime and he let it go on. You know,
Speaker 3: he just called it in. He didn't asially get to
Speaker 3: that point. As a criminal informant, he's going to have
Speaker 3: to be paid because he is going to express to him,
Speaker 3: So he's going to be in kind of a buying basically, Okay,
Speaker 3: we know you've seen something illegal. Do you want to
Speaker 3: be a criminal informant for us? Or we shall we
Speaker 3: just press charges against you? You know, Oh okay, that's interesting.
Speaker 3: But to be an actual criminal informant, he's going to
Speaker 3: have to take money and be willing to be called
Speaker 3: into court, not an open court session necessarily, but to
Speaker 3: give s foreign testimony.
Speaker 1: Well, and from the devils want to be a record.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and from a devil's advocate position, The same sort
Speaker 2: of circumstance could be created if he were the victim
Speaker 2: of a crime, right where he can say, look, I
Speaker 2: have first hand information because I was a victim of
Speaker 2: a crime.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to report it. I don't want to
Speaker 1: report it, but I can tell you what happened. You know.
Speaker 2: Let's just say a mob guide decides to try and
Speaker 2: intimidate you. They've literally tried to extort you.
Speaker 1: You're now a witness. But also a victim.
Speaker 2: It doesn't necessarily mean you're a participant in the crime, right, Yeah, but.
Speaker 3: He would not be a criminal informant then.
Speaker 1: No, that would be a different to me.
Speaker 3: A criminal informative implies that you are involved in not
Speaker 3: the not the you're not on the receiving end. You
Speaker 3: somehow have information about how the crime is being conducted
Speaker 3: or was conducted. For example, taking it back to the JFK,
Speaker 3: Jack Ruby was a provisional and criminal informant in Dallas
Speaker 3: for two years and the FBI put him in that category.
Speaker 3: They actually bought him equipment, they took statements from him.
Speaker 3: We know nothing about that as to what he was
Speaker 3: a criminal informant on. We just know he was so
Speaker 3: in any event. But to get back to your original question, Yeah,
Speaker 3: he could have been a source, but for it to
Speaker 3: go anything further, the FBI would have had to check
Speaker 3: him out as the source, determined that he was legitimate,
Speaker 3: and essentially bring him in, bring him into the legal process.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: So my point here though, overall, is that the Speaker
Speaker 2: of the House using the term informant that is particular
Speaker 2: and there are different types of informants, and look, I'm
Speaker 2: just trying to be as open minded about this as possible.
Speaker 2: That is a possibility, But we haven't seen that publicly
Speaker 2: displayed in the files, have we.
Speaker 3: And it would be I mean, we have what we
Speaker 3: have not seen, and I just be really forthright about this.
Speaker 3: What we are seeing and have seen so far is
Speaker 3: not what we really need to see. We need to
Speaker 3: see the criminal investigation materials. We don't need to see
Speaker 3: what came from the families bad enough, but we really
Speaker 3: need to see the criminal investigation files with all of
Speaker 3: the details that are in there. And that's the only
Speaker 3: way that you could actually verify what you were just saying.
Speaker 3: He would have to have been identified as a criminal informant.
Speaker 3: But again, people shouldn't throw those words around. It. Appaused
Speaker 3: me that people in the position you don't throw those
Speaker 3: words around and lets you know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3: That's just you didn't protect him, you did. You know, Actually,
Speaker 3: if if he was an informant on that activity, you
Speaker 3: just confirmed that he had seen pedophilia in action. Sorry
Speaker 3: like it or don't like it? Good intention, bad intention?
Speaker 3: That would have confirmed it.
Speaker 1: See now that's what I thought. But I said to myself,
Speaker 1: is it just you know, using the wrong word. Is
Speaker 1: it just a miss because now he's saying I misspoke,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 2: But anyway, going back to the historical which we know
Speaker 2: much more about than this current situation, regardless of the
Speaker 2: fact that people did work for many years investigative journalists,
Speaker 2: there are public records out there, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: We know a lot more about what happened here with
Speaker 2: Oswald's to a one file than we certainly used to.
Speaker 2: I mean, in fact, we could go back to the
Speaker 2: evolution where there was a state meant that there was
Speaker 2: no file at one point, and then we find out
Speaker 2: there is a file, and then we find out there's
Speaker 2: things missing.
Speaker 1: We've had to go back to this negative template.
Speaker 2: So again, when you know that there is something happening
Speaker 2: and yet there are things missing, how can we use
Speaker 2: this to, like you said, reverse engineer what should be there?
Speaker 2: And then what have more informant questions moving forward?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I think that's the point I was trying
Speaker 3: to make early on. Only the people that are really
Speaker 3: you do have to use the right terminology, you do
Speaker 3: have to know the practices. So when I was talking
Speaker 3: about these congressional committee hearings, if you just have somebody
Speaker 3: that you ute in and you maybe even they have
Speaker 3: good information. But if you can't balance that out with oh,
Speaker 3: you know, mister DoD employ, mister air Force person, you know,
Speaker 3: tell me about what they just said. Do you have
Speaker 3: a record of it? Should you have had a record
Speaker 3: of it? What's the what's the process for having a
Speaker 3: record of it? If there's not, why not? You know,
Speaker 3: you missed the whole side of the story. If we
Speaker 3: just if we just had this anomaly in Oswald's record
Speaker 3: and we didn't know what the standard practice is, then
Speaker 3: we can't reverse engineer it. You can't reverse engineer something
Speaker 3: that you didn't know how to engineer in the first place, right,
Speaker 3: I know that. Okay, wait a minute, what did he
Speaker 3: just say? But you really can't. You've got to You've
Speaker 3: got to go, Oh, I know what these parts are,
Speaker 3: I know how they fit together. Let's look at the Oh,
Speaker 3: look at that. Okay, I can reverse engineer it from
Speaker 3: the pieces. But if I don't know how to build
Speaker 3: something like that in the first place, it's not happening.
Speaker 1: Right, So there you have it. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you pretty much put this in a nutshell very well.
Speaker 1: But what else needs to be said, as we go forward,
Speaker 1: you know, with again.
Speaker 2: Still the explo there has been some progress here when
Speaker 2: it comes to Joe and Edes, when it comes to
Speaker 2: obviously the files overall. You know, I say progress in
Speaker 2: that we have an increased volume of information. As for
Speaker 2: how valuable that information is your your experience may vary.
Speaker 2: And I know some people are screaming that there has
Speaker 2: been a great victory here. I wouldn't say that there's
Speaker 2: been no victory. But have we actually gotten finally to
Speaker 2: the bottom of any of these questions is something that
Speaker 2: I keep asking and a lot of people will get,
Speaker 2: you know, WinCE when I say that, because ultimately I
Speaker 2: want to know what, you know, the quality of the
Speaker 2: progress is not just that there was progress.
Speaker 1: So, you know, do we understand this?
Speaker 2: I'm still sorting it out personally myself, still looking back
Speaker 2: at this and still trying to put it in context
Speaker 2: with what we knew before. And I don't claim to
Speaker 2: be somebody who knows that engineer all of these things
Speaker 2: in detail to begin with, But for those that do
Speaker 2: know that, there is a way to try and figure
Speaker 2: out what's missing and why, what's been manipulated and why
Speaker 2: you know, and what else should have resulted from it, right,
Speaker 2: because outside of Oswalt's to a one file, let's just say,
Speaker 2: going back to that example, there should be other things
Speaker 2: that occur because of what's in that file, and then
Speaker 2: you can go look at those things.
Speaker 1: Right, it should have changed as.
Speaker 2: You know, like if you still have a file saying
Speaker 2: he had crypto clearance after he had been to the
Speaker 2: Soviet Union, you know as a tourist, something's wrong there. No,
Speaker 2: you know, they wouldn't have pulled that security at some point.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't have changed his status. I mean, he's no
Speaker 2: longer a marine. Also by the time he goes over there, right,
Speaker 2: he has been discharged. There's a change in status that
Speaker 2: occurs here. If you didn't change that, what are you doing?
Speaker 2: And is this to a one file even of value
Speaker 2: at the time of the assassination question?
Speaker 1: I guess I.
Speaker 3: Guess the thing is, Yeah, the way I've wrapped that
Speaker 3: up is we have known everything that you just said
Speaker 3: about is file. We have known. This is not new information.
Speaker 3: Ninety five percent of what's come out of the administration
Speaker 3: file releases. Kind of like okay, just go FBI, go
Speaker 3: to to NAR and say tell them everything we sent
Speaker 3: you they can have CIA tell them everything. That's effectively
Speaker 3: what it was the President saying, you, agencies, you've got
Speaker 3: to tell them, you can have they can release everything
Speaker 3: that they've already sent you. We've seen that before, or
Speaker 3: anything that was significant important after thirty thirty five years
Speaker 3: before your work and research, we've seen that.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: What we're seeing new out of that is is what
Speaker 3: somebody didn't think was important enough to hand off to
Speaker 3: the Warrant Commission or the our House Select Committee or
Speaker 3: the you know who's seen that. So not that there's
Speaker 3: not interesting historical information in there, how the State Department
Speaker 3: responded to the rfk assassination. We can look at new
Speaker 3: files that we had not seen there and see that
Speaker 3: the State Department was really intent in not allowing the
Speaker 3: international element of that to come into play because it
Speaker 3: was a problem across the Arab world. That so that's
Speaker 3: that's new. We've not seen those before. But that's historic
Speaker 3: historical information. It's not so much forensic or crime scene stuff.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 3: What our real opportunity is seems to me to be
Speaker 3: not that massive. Okay, just give them what's already at Nara.
Speaker 3: Thing it has to do with the opportunity for people
Speaker 3: to testify to the oversight committees, and then for the
Speaker 3: oversight committee itself to put pressure on based on what
Speaker 3: they're hearing. If the oversight committees don't get overly political,
Speaker 3: just take some notes from what they hear and then
Speaker 3: go back to the agency's involved and say, why in
Speaker 3: the heck haven't you shared this? What do you have
Speaker 3: explain this to us? You know, if Congress actually acted,
Speaker 3: an oversight committee is great if it does something. If
Speaker 3: it just takes testimony and does nothing, it fails. So
Speaker 3: that's where the opportunity lies. In a nutshell in my view, Okay,
Speaker 3: you called people, you took testimony, they showed you interesting stuff,
Speaker 3: Now do something with it.
Speaker 2: Well, there you have it, and ultimately that's the question
Speaker 2: that everybody should be asking, what are you going to
Speaker 2: do with it next? And that's the weird thing is
Speaker 2: I've seen people complain, now, how come we're not getting
Speaker 2: a full investigation. That's not the point of the oversight committee.
Speaker 2: That's not their function. You know, people said, oh, we
Speaker 2: could get at least an HSCA out of this, and
Speaker 2: I'm like, oh boy, you guys don't understand the process
Speaker 2: that took to create that thing, and this is not
Speaker 2: what this committee is doing. They are doing guess what oversight,
Speaker 2: you know, not trying to be redundant here, It's just
Speaker 2: that's not their function. They're not there to investigate.
Speaker 1: Sorry.
Speaker 3: The practical matter is, you'll put this in a nutshell too.
Speaker 3: The practical matter is Luna's boss in Congress would have
Speaker 3: to say, there's enough political capital in this for me
Speaker 3: to elevate it up to make it a congressional issue,
Speaker 3: not a committee issue, a congressional issue. Now do you
Speaker 3: really think her boss is going to make the Epstein
Speaker 3: files a congressional issue? I don't. No, do you think
Speaker 3: he's gonna take UFO is a congressional issue? I don't.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure at this point in time that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I would love to say that's what should happen next.
Speaker 3: There should be congressional investigations of some of these things,
Speaker 3: but that's not happening. So one has to be rational
Speaker 3: and unfortunately pragmatical. But Luna's committee can only do so much.
Speaker 3: They can ask for things that they have been told about,
Speaker 3: and she's been pretty successful in asking the CIA for
Speaker 3: things and asking for camera footage from NBC but Aushington
Speaker 3: is ask and you know, kind of leverage her position,
Speaker 3: but for it to be taken into an actual forced
Speaker 3: collection and yeah, that's another story entirely.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 2: And yet again this story will continue, probably two weeks
Speaker 2: from now, we'll talk to Larry Hancock again to give
Speaker 2: us the context of what's actually happening and what has
Speaker 2: been happening regarding let's just say transparency in general, but
Speaker 2: specifically focusing on some of the history that people do
Speaker 2: want to know the information about. But we must be
Speaker 2: reasonable about the mechanisms that we've been handed and the
Speaker 2: strength of the committee members and etc. As far as
Speaker 2: what it is we're going to receive from all of this.
Speaker 2: And progress has been made, no doubt, but is it
Speaker 2: exactly what everybody wanted? I guess we all have to
Speaker 2: stay tuned, and you should stay tuned. Go to Larrydashncock
Speaker 2: dot com check out his blog. I'm sure he'll be
Speaker 2: talking about these things and has been talking about these things,
Speaker 2: but also highly recommend all of his books links in
Speaker 2: the show notes to follow Larry's work. And also he'll
Speaker 2: be presenting at the Lancer Conference the twenty first to
Speaker 2: the twenty third this year in November. Larry will be
Speaker 2: there virtually, David Boylan will be with him, and I
Speaker 2: highly recommend the Oswald puzzle, although Larry, you're currently kind
Speaker 2: of working on maybe in addendum to that, I wonder
Speaker 2: if you want to tell any I.
Speaker 1: Don't know that.
Speaker 3: I don't know if there is no I actually blogged
Speaker 3: over that recently. David and I are doing what we
Speaker 3: promised to do. We promised we would see if we
Speaker 3: could pick up the story of Oswell and New Orleans
Speaker 3: and carry that a little bit further. You know, I'd
Speaker 3: love to be able to say, carry it all the
Speaker 3: way to the school book depository. That doesn't seem feasible,
Speaker 3: but I think we might. We're working on a white paper,
Speaker 3: and our presentation will be based on the white paper
Speaker 3: looking at the indications that Oswell actually became of operational
Speaker 3: use to both the CIA and the Conspiracy at almost
Speaker 3: the same time. The irony of that is terrific, and
Speaker 3: we're a lot of speculation involved. Not on the CI side,
Speaker 3: with the work Jeff is done and some other things
Speaker 3: that have come together, that's pretty much concrete in my view.
Speaker 3: The other side more speculative. But yeah, we'll be pre
Speaker 3: ending on at least the first part of that in Dallas,
Speaker 3: because I'm not sure that we have time. But that's
Speaker 3: that's the extension that we're working on. Oswald of operational Interest.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm looking forward to that as I look forward
Speaker 2: to all of the releases.
Speaker 1: And again, thank you Larry for doing this with.
Speaker 2: Me, and I appreciate you guys for listening and going
Speaker 2: through this conversation, which I hope has given you a
Speaker 2: couple of new pieces of enlightenment to move forward with
Speaker 2: as you interpret what's coming out from the committees, the
Speaker 2: people releasing, you know, these different interpretations of what's.
Speaker 1: Being released, et cetera.
Speaker 2: It's all worthy, it's all worthwhile and hopefully.
Speaker 6: Revel leg.
Speaker 7: Through calm section.
Speaker 6: Here Oh chill fact, Oh chilly fact, dream that from
Speaker 6: right day from.
Speaker 5: You, I ain't on the world.
Speaker 7: Oh chili dot com?
Speaker 4: Sure through conversation, what the effect?
Speaker 1: Decide it's broken.
Speaker 6: Through spoken revelation.
Speaker 4: Through conversation, stop line, so show fact, revelation, the saba
Speaker 4: A devastation, revelation through conversation, the effect you are the
Speaker 4: effects true.
Speaker 5: Conversation all raised a stranger or selling effect. Last conversation
Speaker 5: through a season through conversation, or shall leave effect revelations
Speaker 5: of conversation gone have forgotten?
Speaker 6: What show you effect?
Speaker 1: Beyond display of raps and fears of the safe?
Speaker 4: The gears find enough mind me afraid, and that is not.
Speaker 1: A debate with the scroll.
Speaker 5: I am the master of my fate.
Speaker 4: I am the chat of my soul.
Speaker 5: So fatten brother kind of horse continued cashing in and.
Speaker 4: Teach us about religion, keeping score at home?
Speaker 5: Are people you'd like to see even by wolves disrupted
Speaker 5: dying soon The tangles my Taco texs and has continued
Speaker 5: gulfs starring tour him when he streak, since.
Speaker 1: God spared him and decided.
Speaker 4: A firefighter dies.
Speaker 5: In the.
Speaker 1: Revelasa the center.
Speaker 5: Of that.
Speaker 7: In Denial the Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks
Speaker 7: by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 7: covert operation are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 7: rips the cover off many of them.
Speaker 1: Using new files.
Speaker 8: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 8: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 8: really failed and why the United States did not earn
Speaker 8: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 8: doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
Speaker 8: that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 8: In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 8: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com.
Speaker 8: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 8: com in digital or physical force.
Speaker 2: Uncole, do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said
Speaker 2: that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninja's
Speaker 2: to take down the Illuminati?
Speaker 3: Ooh, that's interesting, Yeah and the Claton?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Did that ever work out? To day?
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Cola speak about the DAFA assassation right, Well,
Speaker 3: what do you want to know?
Speaker 2: Toddy Baker's wild claim? Oswald girlfriends he knew?
Speaker 3: Ruby and Barrie answer weapons?
Speaker 1: Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 5: But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to
Speaker 5: prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Speaker 7: Come on now, has a real effort on the DAFA
Speaker 7: assassination claim.
Speaker 2: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 2: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 2: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 2: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 2: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith
Speaker 2: Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself,
Speaker 2: signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
Speaker 2: k I A s jfk at aol dot com. It's
Speaker 2: a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many
Speaker 2: fantastic claims Judith very Baker in her own words.
Speaker 5: Thank you for all the great information.
Speaker 3: Shelley dot com Radio Network