Ochelli Effect 12-17-2025 Larry Hancock

com Radio your one stop shop for Christmas bliss. Anyway, it is Wednesday, Woden's Day, and I did give you the date already, so surprisingly, I have Larry Hancock with me. Okay, little rant I went through and I explained that before I went live with Larry on Friday. I know I did that, guys, but is what it is. And in case you didn't understand it, I made sure Larry understood it straight up front and go ahead and play the

tape clipman anyway you want. Okay, so far, I'm just getting angry notes about people that I didn't openly criticize directly. I didn't name anybody, but still it's like, how dare you not, you know, say a nice thing about Yeah, okay, whatever. And I don't just say nice things about Larry because

he's my friend. It's because he's a real person. And you know, I got to tell you even the side conversations I have with him where he tells me what he's doing in his daily life outside of any sort of research, his authorship, you know, what he's doing in this field whatever. Yeah, he's probably one of the most genuine people that I talk to, even in the side conversations. So you know, it is what it is. Just because there ain't many of you out there doesn't mean I'm

not going to recognize the one that I have contact with. Okay, So putting that all aside, Larry Hancock, now you no longer go to Larry's website, but the word press link is in the show description. Now I know he didn't get banned off his website, but there's an issue there. Whatever, Maybe in the future we'll see a new Larry Hancock website, but then again maybe not. Larry could just do his blog, and it's not like he wants to, you know, have a constant radio presence. You can go on Amazon dot

com check out his other page. It's loaded with plenty of stuff. Hey, if you want to look at the o'ceelly dot com archive or the last couple hundred shows, you'll find plenty of stuff from Larry. You can follow it, and his constant work on his blog is good enough. So look for the WordPress link in the show notes, Okay, which I do. I thought I had in front of me, but now I don't. Of course, you know, I'll get

that later. But either way, if I forget in the show notes, I promise you is and it's always been there, but now we got rid of the website, so it's the word press. Okay, the dot WordPress page anyway, I'll

shut up about that and get into other things. I highly recommend all of Larry's books, especially one that I'm waiting for an additional printing of, because hey, he's going to add some material and it's a good thing, and not because he made mistakes in the first place, but because there's always work to be done no matter how much somebody does in this field. Strangely, if they're paying attention and all that, you know, the final definitive, all

that is never actually true. And Larry always admits that with the reissues of things, the additions, there can always be more work done, etc. But still Larry does a hell of a job. The Oswald Puzzle there will be a reissue next year. Pre orders are already happening on Amazon. I'm getting all this out of the way now, Larry, because we're going to be uninterrupted here and discuss Lee, Harvey, Oswald and New Orleans on some level. So I'm waiting

to do that. But before we go to any of it, how are you doing tonight, sir, I'm doing good, Chuck.

possibly be ahead? But so it's looking good. The only downside here in Oklahoma's we're in the midst of a tremendous growth, one of the worst this time of year in ages, which is really hard on agriculture and animal husbandry and that sort of stuff and on your sinuses if you happen not to light dust right.

is killing my sinuses just trying to stay warm. Christmas preparation has been strange and quite frankly again, I tried to get some you know, food ahead of time so that we could have a nice Christmas dinner, but frankly I can't seem to keep extra food around all that long, so you know, work in progress regarding that. I want to give my son at least a nice Christmas dinner, and you know, a couple of presents would be nice.

And it's been a struggle this year, as per usual and as you could imagine, but as I do that, it's just I got these headaches and this problem, and it's a really basic, simple thing. I'm drying out my sinuses with these you know, heaters that are not usually active in the house. You know, normally it's we're fighting with the air conditioning and electric and all that. And it's been really really cold in Georgia off and on. So you know, whether anomalies do cause us issues holiday

or no, so it happens anyways. Look, I'm just saying, you know, the season is interesting, not just for the pressure on people's travel. And I'm not going nowhere. I can't even hardly leave the house unless I'm going to a doctor at this point. So you know, it is what it is. But uh, let's put it all aside and talk about New Orleans now, just before we go straight into it, you were recently on the Lone Gunman podcast, Right, Yeah, I.

Was he really on the CIA's radar? Was he really operational? How did he get across the line into being a patsy in the conspiracy? So that that's what we've been working on since, and that's what we presented at Lancer and talked with on the Long Gun and all of that. That story turned out to be a lot longer than we thought, which is why we ended up actually with an addition, making a second edition of the paperback version of the book. Because it's as you and I thought before.

It's sort of like when David and I sat down and say, you know, we should maybe write a short paper on what we've learned. Short papers never stay short. And the only good thing in this case is they didn't turn totally book link.

into something that's a little longer. Well, maybe it's got to. And this evolved gradually, not because you know the work was bad, but because there is almost a bottomless amount

of questions here regarding just this issue. And in my mind, why you know, being an observer of the literature for decades, right, I mean no offense, Larry, but long before you wrote your first book, it seems I was observing people struggling with wrestling with this, sometimes with way less resources than you had, you know, writing the Oswald Puzzle, right, And This has been a constant need to revisit this because there are so many open, unanswered pieces to the puzzle,

so to speak. And that's what's weird here. It evolved because it needed to, but also in real time, your thing evolves from well I got an article to okay, now I got a paper, to well, maybe i'll turn it into a monograph to you know what, David is really going to have to do some heavy lifting on

part of this because I'm doing something else. Like a real sincere need for the co author was there, and really it wouldn't hurt you guys if you could find, you know, a couple of copies of yourselves and have you know, four authors altogether, just to do the work so that there was focuses from individuals who were actually being conscientious about their work the whole way through. So

I watched this evolve into what eventually becomes the book. Okay, as somebody who got to see drafts all along the way, right then I get to see, well, you know what,

maybe you need to go back in. And it's not like we didn't think we gave a complete manuscript to people when we turned in the book, but we need to add to it now, you know, which to me is actually great because the people that think they've reached the ultimate conclusion all the time in this type of work are often the people that make the largest mistakes. I have the greatest answer. I know how it worked. I have the solution, and you're going to have to read my book or buy my DVD to get it.

And there it is, you got it. And those people are often way off a couple of years later, when all of a sudden somebody unearth's contradictory stuff, et cetera, et cetera, and you and David are doing something entirely different in that you're answering more more responsibly with this evolving process. So I just want to recognize that and

also say that you know, it stands out to me. Instead, it stood out to me even more listening to Rob and Joe talk to you guys, and having finally caught the lancer presentation in its entirety, you know, which took me a little while to get to due to circumstances outside of my control. But when I was able to focus and everything else. I think people need to appreciate that, and I encourage you if you have appreciated any of

Larry's work. Not only the existing Oswald puzzle is great, but there will be additional material in this new one with good reason. And here's the thing again, Larry, no offense to you or David. None of this will be entirely definitive, I think. But you're getting real close now and you can actually watch the process, watch this thing evolve, so that this is the way work should be done. You're being given a template, folks, about how this work

should be done. And I just want to stop, pause and mention that before we go into the minutia of Oswald and New Orleans, which has been a question for a very very long time. I'm openly in the public in the author's works out there, people have been fascinated and also led down different rabbit holes because of guess what, not Dallas, but because of Oswald in New Orleans and Oswald's defection. What does this mean? Who is he around? You know? It goes well beyond the Oliver Stone film.

It goes well beyond the story of Jim Garrison. There is a lot to get to. Although those things are important too, there is still, you know, as we speak, some more things that need to be explored, and I'm looking forward to see how much of it you get to with this re release of the Oswald puzzle. So, Larry, that being said, if you want to say anything else about that, go ahead, But if not, let's really, you know, go soup to nuts, so to speak, on Lee Harvey

Oswald and New Orleans. Starting with it's you know, why is this important to say the uninitiated? Why is this an important thing? Oswald in New Orleans? He didn't kill anybody there that we know of. He handed out the pamphlets there, Yes, indeed, but why is this so important in your mind to study? Please?

didn't do with Dallas, and that's where it happened, you know. So it's it's interesting that that that is a quite common question to ask. But to step back, the comment I would make is that I think one of the things that we're suffering from at this point in time is that a lot of us have all worked on this for so long that it's tempting to get moved from the position of exploration to a position of defending

your positions, like, Okay, we did find it. We understand what happened, and we understand the nature of the conspiracy see it, and we've learned that, and we just need to stand from all that and convince you people, this is what happened. Well, you can do that, but the

problem is, it's like setting up a series offenses. You're you're going to stay inside those boundaries because you just set up your own boundaries, because you picked your own evidence, your own assessments, you know, and you're going to that. And I'm afraid in many cases we've moved into a

position of promotion rather than researchch exploration. We're not doing stuff with new data that comes out because we don't we really don't need it because we already understand what's going on, and we've been saying it for some time. Now and it would just be intrusive. It we're just get in the way and the approach David and I

are taking. David is especially good at this, as David will will challenge me with a piece of information or it's like, well, you know, we just learned this, we just saw this document, you know, or do we just ignore this or are we going to examine where there's new implications that we haven't considered. And that all leads me back to the point of what is there about New Orleans that all of us have not paid nearly enough attention to?

going on. Now, you weren't one of those guys, but you were asking at a distance at that point from those guys. Right there were people that later become the iconic authors in the historiography, if you will, of the assassination who are documenting things you know now they're just in the pile of conspiracy theorists. But there were some unique individuals that included David Lifton. I don't remember if Lyfton made direct contact with Garrison, but he was studying

it as a very guy back then. Even though best evidence was a decade and a half away or whatever from being the phenomena, not from being released. It was about a decade away from being released in context with the time where you were asking this question, but there were authors that were active writers at that time that

involved themselves in Garrison before you observed it. Because you were observing it, it seems like through the literature, and you didn't live in New Orleans, so you weren't getting local newscasts. You weren't getting the local TV cast or the local newspaper coverage, so you were in the second hand column there as far as authors, creators, and people really directly involved as researchers, you were just an observer, a bystander, if you will, from the public perspective, And

that's interesting. But those guys even then who were closer to the situation were working with very little information compared to what's available today to own anyone. So they were bringing things out. You're looking at it and saying, okay, why is this important? Because in my mind, these people were authors at the time simply took it as a pivot point. Okay, since we know about this, we need

to go somewhere else from here. And so therefore, their trip through this information, their trip through this period on Oswald's timeline or whatever it is you want to call it, was a very temporary thing and just part of the directions that they were going through to get to whereever it is they were going, whether it was to bring the story into Dallas. You need to know this, and okay,

move on or listen. We need to recognize why the media was sharing certain things, you know, because as I've observed, you know, during that weekend between when Kennedy was killed and when Oswald was killed, we already got to hear stuff that was recorded in New Orleans months before, knowing that you know, this Oswald was a kooky communist. He's

getting arrested. You know, the berengear thing that was being shared and often forgotten in the constant coverage that emerged post assassination and immediately too, where they had part of the audio, you know, being shared out there. But again it was about establishing a background as opposed to actually studying what was going on there. They were giving a summary for that, and their version was, look, he was being a comedy in New Orleans before he went to Dallas.

Huh huh. That's what they were doing with it. But nobody really studied it unless you were deep, deep, deep into the Garrison investigation. And we know now that he definitely had limited access to everything and he was attempting to prosecute Okay, you know anyway, I'm just trying to

put that in context. I think that's a fair thing to do here, because when you say I'm paying attention to it in nineteen seven or seventy one or sixty nine, that's after the trial, that's after some public outcry, that's after a Playboy interview in sixty eight, right, So this is after the media has shared this in its way, and I mean all of the media at the time,

you know, no Internet, et cetera. But all the media of the time has already filtered this, redistributed it and given you here's the hints about Oswald and New Orleans. So there's a good reason to set that perspective in its own box. Okay, I think, and somebody might say, well, welcome, Larry didn't write about it in nineteen seventy one, then you know, where were you in nineteen seventy one, Larry? How come you didn't have a book on this already?

But it was it would be like being in the middle of the war zone and trying to really deal with what's and make sense out of the information. You know, it's fog of battle and that sort of thing. Garrison had supporters, he had attractors. Shaw had a lot of local support just because of cultural issues. No everybody knew that the FBI and the CIA or sometimes how I'm trying to undermine Garrison. But they had no idea how Garrison knew he was trying to be undermined. He had

no idea how he had suspicions. It just people began taking sides, even within the research community for all and anti Garrison. He's going the right way, he's going the wrong way. He's making a case out of nothing. Why didn't he stay with this? It was a very combative situation and a lot of heat and you know, smoke and fog of battle. Like I said, to even try to deal at that time with what came out. That's that's cleared some what now because we can answer a

lot of those questions. We know what the CIA was doing to undermine them, We know what they were concerned about. The same way goes with the FBI. We know what they were concerned about. No need for speculation. We can see it. Uh. You know, perhaps this is long enough

after the battle to see it. But the interesting thing is a lot of those positions that were taken immediately and in the years right following that the investigation are still being defended without stepping back and looking at what we've learned, you know, because the other and that's what

proples me a bit. If you lock yourself into that mode and you don't, if you're now just defending Garrison and his investigation and his positioning of Oswald and and and then what the first researchers wrote, then you're kind of locked several decades back, you know, And I consider that to be a problem.

and cultural issues involved in this situation too. Immediately, there were some people that quietly talked about, you know, Garrison is persecuting Shaw because he's gay, which does not seem to be a valid criticism to me. But there are people you know, Oh, wow, an invalid criticism in a political or you know, a social charged issue. Wow, what a shock. But that stuff went on. Garrison's track record is called into question. Oh he's not blaming the mob

because he's been bought out by the mob. These things have emerged and re emerged over the years, as you know, criticisms of Garrison's investigation of the man himself. Oh well, actually it was because you know, I've heard everything now from you know, he was in the mob's pocket to you know, but he was really fighting them to he was persecuting Gaze, because that's just the way it was. To know, he was a champion of the Gaze to

all the way. To guess what ultimately what it actually is is, Well, you know the answer, Larry, Ultimately, with some people, every answer is the juice, you know, and I you know, orange or apple or whatever the juice that you got to let loose. Right, I'm making a mocking judgment of that, because I don't see how you get from A to P without ever counting any of the letters in between. But you know, to each his own. But these things that keep emerging now afterwards are echoes

of what was hot at the time. You know, is it because Garrison's a liberal? Is it because Garrison is this? Is he just bought out? Is he just crazy? And you know, we got a maniac at the switch? It happens. Those things were happening back then, They happened when Stone released the movie. They're still occurring. I mean, there are hit pieces and books still coming out about the man, and he's been dead for a couple decades, right, I mean,

you know what are we talking about here. I'm just saying that contemporaneous issues and political issues and social issues played a role in all these lenses and on the people who were writing about it, covering it, trying to contribute to it. Whether it was Mary Ferrell, good call there, but there were others that also showed up. I think Sylvia mar might have even contacted him at one point.

argument that I see all the time. You know what, you're judging it based on modern considerations and you're not putting it in context with the time. But what's unique about this Oswald you know in New Orleans issue, is that it's the same issues from then that keep just re emerging and getting heated in different ways. It's like, how many different ways are you going to cook that

turkey from Thanksgiving? Now it's the same turkey, but now you've had the sandwiches, You've made turkey salad out of it. You know, you've definitely gone and just reheated it once and we've gotten everything out of this and it keeps going as if the bird is you know, has unlimited meat on it, and they just keep redoing it and redoing it. But it's the same arguments from then to now. It's not just the modern influence. It's literally the thing

that won't shut up. As far as these different socio political, religious aspects, you know, whatever you want to call them, depending on which area we're talking about. These things are what came with the turkey in the first place and are still being recycled and reused, and the leftovers from Thanksgiving keep on giving. That's all there is to it.

It's not something that oh, now they're adding, you know, stuff from modern times into it, like you know, they're using a new technology that wouldn't count for that at the time, et cetera, et cetera. No, it's the same things that just haven't actually ever stopped. It's just they have new forums, like you said, and I don't mean just in the digital sense, to argue these things in that's all it is. You know, back in those days,

you might have gotten radio debates about it. You might have gotten television shows that showed one side and another television show sewing another side. Maybe newspaper articles for a moment, going back and forth editorials. Nowadays you've got instantaneous I can type whatever the hell it is I want, even though I'm nobody from Nowhereville, and they're still having literally all the same arguments that we're there to begin with. It hasn't changed there. So that's an interesting thing about

this that really, I mean, tell me if I'm wrong. Realistically, it has just remained with these arguments that keep re emerging and somebody claims to now have won the argument.

And that's the only thing that actually changes here. Different people are claiming victory with the very same issues that were there from day one on the New Orleans issue, and it's only really been amplified and meant to be a cause celeb now and then because of Jim Garrison's work in my mind, But it's it's always been the same thing. It's always been the same arguments, except now, you know, it's the Jewish mafia, you know, and that's

not new. That was an old thing. It's the Garrison's not paying attention to it because of the pinball machines. And now we go back into his record, you know, etcetera, etcetera. Which is why I liked when Joan wrote the you know that other book on Garrison after a Farewell to justice, you know, she releases how about the rest of his Life book? I forget the name of it, but I have it behind me because it was necessary, you know, because people were like, well, he's actually a cowtowing to

the mob. The Jewish mafia owned him. Hey, you know what, it's Bobby Kennedy's people that were actually interfering with his election, not the CIA, you know, or maybe that's you know, a bird by a feather and a different name. It's the same thing. Okay. Well I'm saying is that this is interesting to me in that it's really consistent. It's not new crap being thrown on the pile. It's just the same pile, you know, being reheated like that Thanksgiving

bird I brought up over and over again. It's just like I said, sometimes you're making you know, turkey gravy out of it because you're toward the end. Sometimes you making turkey soup because you're picking the last off of the bone, you think. But either way, it's the same turkey. Okay, that's been there since wow, you know, nineteen sixty eight, I guess really when this emerged media wise. But either way, what do you think of that idea that I'm explaining

to you? This is a little different in that it's really remained the same no matter how you try to slice it.

amount of energy and a huge amount of resource. And actually very few of those arguments, you know, they're not going to be resolved, and they really you know, it's like noise in the system, to be perfectly honest, But it's great because they're good arguments to be having people become enthralled in them and then they get diverted away from more basic questions. So yeah, going to New Orleans does plunge you into a midst of decades of noise

on the Garrison investigation. And at this point in time, what's interesting in David and I about the Garrison Information Investigation is is the leads that it generated and actually the data that's exposed in terms of the FBI and the CIA relating to the Garrison investigation. You know, Garrison did raise names, It could come up with names that

we can now check. But it led us into I think the two the two biggest areas that led us to and the one that David and I are focused on in regard to the FBI, and so let's let's cut to the chase on this.

core data. They just kind of state that as by the way, I did myself back in the beginning, because I took it as an article of faith. Now I'm I'm more like challenging articles of faith. So it's sort of like, Okay, first of all, let's ask some fundamental questions. What do we have. Do we do we show reports within the FBI talking about what information they got from him. Do we do we have contacts with him? With the FBI. What we we have, list of FBI sources in New Orleans,

CIA sources in New Orleans, sources domestics OPA. I mean, there's a whole body of information out there that should pertain to that basic question. You know, what was Oswell doing in relation to the intelligence agencies? And so that is one of the big questions that David and I addressed in the book and have carried on in the additional work, and and what everybody seems to avoid, and I'll just throw this out is the fact that we know that Oswell actually did provide information to the FBI,

not covertly as he would if he were an asset. Not. You know, we know how sources and informants work. Okay, fine, well that works. We know how I should be reported, we show, but we find reports on Oswell providing information to the FBI, voluntarily approaching them, asking them to meet with him, not on some unscheduled you know, here I'm passing a coded message to you. You know, we'll use a drop out on the street. None of this spy stuff.

He goes into the office and we have that interview and which they say, well, he was a little bit and more informative. He told us some things. He promised to report to us if he had any subversive contacts. And by the way, in that second interview, he lied to the FBI about a couple of things, minor things about what had gone on in Russia, and we can

record it because they recorded what he told him. So we had contacts with the FBI all the way back to Fort Worth and HOSTI comes into the picture later, but Hasty eventually picks up and gets you know, the Oswall files for the FBI. That file starts in Dallas Fort Worth. That's kind of the office of record because that's the first time they interview him, you know, domestically. But in New Orleans, the point of contact is very clear,

and he goes to the FBI. He actually volunteers. The interesting thing is he doesn't just walk into the FBI office after his arrest. He asked the New Orleans police to contact the FBI because he has information for the FBI. It's a really interesting thing. So the police are acting as a moderary, you know, he is going to volunteer information. And then it starts to get a little complex. But the upshot of the whole deal is he gives the police and the FBI documents about his contacts with the

Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He gives them membership cards, he gives them he is providing information to them. You know, they didn't have to send him out to get it. He's providing information to them. And the big upshot of the whole thing is eighty percent of it is false. He is actually lying to the FBI, and he triggers an FBI investigation that's going to go on for the

next four months and consume FBI manpower. The FBI goes out to their sources and ask them Oswald has sent them to look for this subversive fair play for committee commute group that meets clandestinely. They don't reveal their names. They have a secret leader, and he names the leader guy named Hydell. He gives them all sorts of untrue information, which is fascinating because obviously, if he were an actual some kind of FBI intelligence collection source, this is not

a good thing. When your guy comes out, it starts sending you off on wild goose chases. So this pretty well deconstructs the whole fundamental concept that he's an intelligence source of good information that has been sent out to collect stuff locally in New Orleans to bring back to them. And by the way, we now know the names of all of their sources because they go back and ask these guys about Oswald and who Oswell might have been

in contact with. And interestingly enough, most of these sources go, we never really heard of Lee Harvey and the fact they lie to the FBI, which makes it even more interesting. But the very fundamental point that we have repeated over and over and over again for decades is disproven by

this exchange with the FBI. Now you can make a case that for a period of time the FBI actually may really have carried him as a potential subversive informant, and actually they should have according to standard practices, but that would have been you know, at his initiative by contacting him them and offering information. So that's one big foundational thing that we have to deal with. Another is

that Oswell has lied to the FBI. This is a federal crime along with everything else in his Backgroundswell any minute could be charged and he would have been convicted and he would have done time in the US. And the only reason he doesn't is because, first off, he has successfully diverted the FBI. So they're looking for this hygel character and they don't even talk to Oswald. They don't go to you know, if they talk to him, you know, maybe it's on a straight corner, maybe whatever,

But they don't. They don't begin investigating Oswald. They begin investigating Hydel and this clandestine group, and by the time they start to figure out that they've been led down the garden Path, he's gone from New Orleans and they don't even catch up with him until he's back in Dallas and they start passing things to host He and host He starts looking into him. But the fascinating thing is, even at that time they're not sure about this Highdell thing.

They haven't closed out that investigation. But if the assassination had not occurred, and if they had closed out the investigation and determined that included that he had lied to them, it's quite possible that he would have gone to jail. And Oswald must have known that because he knew he lied to them well, And then there may be part of the explanation of why os Will keept jumping around using the part, you know, like he knows he's just done something that could get him in real trouble. This

is not a little lie. This is a big.

the Soviet Union. So he's got a Soviet wife, he's got a passed you know, you didn't even bring up any of that here, right, But that would have been forget about if the Pair Play community, you know, fair Play for Cuba committee existed or not, or if it was volunteered or any of that. Without any of that, the FBI would have still been on them or should have been, right.

FBI subversive list. And at the FPCC Cuba and Cuba Desk at FBI headquarters, the guy who chairs that desk and is supposed to be on top of all of this, actually writes Hosting a memo and says, is this is Lee Harvey Oswald an object of national security concern, literal national concerti concern. That's that's as high get as it

gets for the FBI. So at that level, and by the way, they write the CIA and copy that letter, and they copy Hosty's response, who gives them background on Oswald and fort Worth with a Russian wife, maybe meets his wife. He can't hold the job. This is happening at FBI headquarters and is being copied to the CIA. So that's all going on in parallel. Oswell has no idea of that. While in New Orleans, the local guys are just really concerned about this clandestine chapter that that

he that there began to investigate. So you're right, chucked there. But at that as of the end of August, Oswell is seriously on the radar as a national security concern because he has been in the Soviet Union as a Russian eye. He's contacting the FPCC and that's why he goes back. He's been off the FBI watch list because fort Worth investigated and couldn't show him in contact with communists. Now he's going to go back on the watch list. And what pulls them off the watch list? You know,

they're they're looking for him. We don't know exactly what pulls them off the watch list. But one thing we don't we do know is they did close down the New Orleans and investigation and conclude that there was no real chapter, there was no real highdel you know. Uh, but that came that came months later. So yeah, you

have to you have to keep in mind. And something that none of us have fully paid attention to is all of these people after the fact tried to step away from their knowledge of Oswald, and while in reality they were doing their day job, they were communicating on Oswald, they were taking Oswald's information, they were investigating it. You have to wonder there's nothing wrong with what they were doing.

Actually that was what they should have been doing. So why did they want all want to step back from it after the fact? You know, like when when you Bury's who's the guy in charge of the subversive desk in New Orleans is viewed by the HSCA, it's sort of like, were you aware of Lee Harvy Oswell, well, we were aware of him, Okay, now that's you can look at his testimony. They weren't just aware of him.

And if your Burius had not been personally engaged with his case, he would have should dereliction of duty, you know. And at one point in time the Attorney General of the United States even interceded with Garrison to limit the number of questions to buriaus could have been asked. So the fascinating thing is not Oswald as an agent of the FBI, but what in the heck was going on with the FBI and the CIA, etc. That made them so sensitive to what they had been doing with Oswald,

when in respect it was very legitimate. It was Oswald that was at fault providing false information.

You know, the whole thing about he's on that list of people there or there's an alert present with the FBI right and jay Ed Gruber himself drops the alert right before the assassination. Basically you know, okay, guys, there's really not much to see here right now, so you know he's not We're going to drop him on the priority list here regarding this. That's literally what happened. We go ahead.

It's like, I want this master list. All these people are potential subversives, and if something goes down, we pick them up and we jail them immediately before they can begin sabotage and so on and so forth. That's what that list was for. Because actually it's not like the FBI stopped watching Lee Harvey Oswald. Hosty is contacting his wife, he's visiting the pains there. They did a pretext cot Paul to confirm his employment at the school book Depository.

It's not like the FBI backed off from Lee Harvey Oswald. That watch list and what they're doing with him and monitoring him and trying to interview him are two different things. One is very bureaucratic, one is operational in the field. And I do get neither the neither the FBI nor the CIA, uh you know, stopped looking at Lee Harvey Oswell's And for that matter, I just I have to assert again Lee RV. Oswell at that point in time, as far as anybody knew, you know, he had not

had communist contacts. The FBI throughout the whole span of investigation could never confirm a Communist contact. He had avowed on air that he was not a communist, so they really they put him on and off the list because their criteria was, is this guy, you know, in touch with the Communist Party? Is he a Communist tool? Would

he be a subversive actor? That was their criteria, you know, So as he was setting in quite frankly in October November, as far as the New Orleans office is concerned, he might have still been on their list as a provisional subversive informant. And by the way, maybe we should take him off to watch list if he's our informant. I

don't know. I can't, but you know, you've got to separate a lot of the things that we've just blithely said at a high level from what was really going on in reality that we can see from the documents now that we could not see before, and that's really

changed things. How many times have we discussed this without bringing up the point that as of you know, as of the end of August and early September, you had somebody at FB high headquarters asking if he was a national security threat and going back to Dallas to investigate it. You know, have we really discussed that before. I don't think so. No, I had never seen that memo before. I had never seen that memo copied to the CIA and copied the CIA headquarters and the Cuba Project down

in Miami. One of the things that we've talked about for ages is, you know, who really even knew about Lee Harvey Oswald and the fair Play for Cuba committee, and you know, as an activist and everything. Now we know that that information was being circulated fairly widely within certain parts of the CIA and held back from other parts of the CIA as the story we could see before.

I mean open question? And he had the you know, he pinpointed here's Hoover dropping the alert, you know, which was completely bizarre to me at the time. You know,

given the information I had, it made no sense. But now with a bit of you know, hindsight number one, but number two, with newly emergent documents, you guys can show us maybe why that happened or or give us a better answer as to what was being confused here anyway, because again there's a lot of things going in two different directions at once where you know, you could see

that maybe it was crazy to drop that alert. But then on the other hand, given what the alert is supposed to do and the type of list it's meant to maintain, here we go there is an issue because he's not directly this or that. They checked with the Communist Party of the USA. They had a correspondence which you know, the FBI already knew about, where Oswald's writing to them asking for advice.

after the fact. What happens to us after the fact is we we get access to files and information from different sources at different times is lumped into it, and you kind of think, well, like these people knew all of this at one point in time. It's not that simple. Who knew who had seen that letter, who'd reviewed it? And I will say, at this point in time, that letter, you can't really track it down and say did anybody

respond to that letter? What the letter actually is? And again we've I think we've mischaracterized it a little bit now that I've looked at it again, and David showed me again what what Lee Arvy Oswell is doing is really writing to different different organizations and expressing the fact that he thinks he has screwed up. It's like all of us, the socialists, the communist everybody is behind the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. We're behind Cuba, you know.

And I've been going on the air and defending this in New Orleans. But then if you read the second and third pages of the letter. What he's saying is did I do the right thing? Maybe I didn't do the right thing, because now everybody's going to associate with me, with you, with communism, and I actually should I. What he's saying is should I lower my profile? Should I stop doing this? Should I go back underground not be

out where I was promoting it? Because simply associating Cuba and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with the Soviet Union and my Russian wife and my background is doing more damage than good. That's what his letter is actually saying. Now that we can see all the pages and all the content.

to it, regardless of what their role was. So this is far more complex than simply laying out a timeline, right, I mean, this is how I'm trying to break it down. Does this make sense to you?

And some of those things are missing because I'll be I'll be real straightforward. It appears at this point in time that that some of the communications. Let's talk about the communications that should have existed if the Burius was actually considering oswald as a as a PSI, which you

should have according to FBI practice, that's gone. Yet we have somebody out of the New Orleans office, William Walter, who said, when I worked in the office as a clerk, I saw that file and it was in the subversive desk file with Oswald as an informant, just exactly where it should have been by all the rules and regulations. That the man was telling the truth, right, And that's gone. That file is gone. Anything relating to him as a PSI has gone. The Bureau's obfuscates about it, lies about it.

And when we got further into that, as it turns out, Hoover actually required every agent in the New Orleans office to sign a statement saying that no such file had ever existed.

New Orleans would have ended up. Is it like Alaska field offices?

something was hidden if you don't know the normal procedures? Right, that's the first problem, right, But then there's other issues of context here that don't simply boil down to well, they knew this in September, so therefore they should have acted on it by November. No, because not everybody had that information. So therefore some of the people that are acting in a way that makes no sense in November might have been ready misinformed because they didn't have all

the information. That might have been intentional, that might have been because of the process that might have been because Oswald was lying that might have been. I mean, here we go. So you've got to lay these things out on multiple timelines to make sense out of what was occurring. And you need to know what should have happened in the first place in a normal, typical situation where you're not dealing with, you know, in hindsight, a presidential assassin

suspect and on and on. So you know, these things that you're doing and redoing are necessary because you're now able to put it in its ready proper context and say, look, just because that information existed and we know when it was generated, now we have to figure out when it was distributed and who it was distributed to. Okay, great, now look at those actors again and take a look

at their actions. This is why revision is necessary on this Or have I just made that clear, do you think, Larry or because we're over an hour now, and I mean, you know, but I think this is helpful because I don't think you have broke this down with other people in exactly this way to understand why there is a continuous need to re examine these things, because the new information doesn't just add to the pile. Sometimes it redivides it. You know, the math is not as simple as plus

and minus all the time. Sometimes you have to determine these other factors that create you know, other mechanics in the mathematics, so to speak. So you know, is that fair or do you think I'm going too far with it?

effort to generate sources. Which is why I can step back and say, if Uburus didn't consider Oswell's a potential source, he wasn't doing his job and I think he was, uh, and I think that did create a file. See, you've got to you've also got to incorporate their their agendas. You know what what the what was Hosti's agenda in Dallas? You know what was what was driving him on his day job? People you know what was his priority? You know,

was Oswald really his priority? At that point in time, the file had simply been passed back to hosting because it was determined that Oswell was resident in Dallas. Again, New Orleans had not completed its investigation. So nobody said, oh, Jim, you know this guy lied to us. Bring him in, put his back against the wall, and tell him he's going up for you know, five years. Well, and let's see what happens. Nobody did that.

the homicide unit is checking things out. Now, in the course of their investigation, they find out this guy was like, you know, selling marijuana. All right, you know who is the murder suspect. That's not a homicide divisions problem. Okay. Now they can take that information and pass it away long to narcotics are passing along to regular detectives, but their focus is on the homicide. Okay, So unless the distribution of marijuana had something to do with the homicide,

it's not their problem necessarily. Now, most people would assume that always the police have to investigate everything. They found a crime, they needed to investigate it. But now we have a different circumstance where maybe that's somebody else's job. It's not their job to figure out the whole marijuana thing unless it ties directly to the homicide. They're working on the homicide. This happens in you know, local crimes. You so in a way you could look at the FBI that way.

This is why this is done. It's not simply because well, the homicide guys don't care because it's not their job. In a way, that's true, But in another way, they have to be careful with it so as not to screw up somebody else's work that they're unaware of. You know what I'm saying. It's like, well, that is these guys problem, not because I don't want to deal with it or I can only focus on my thing. Even they probably could figure it out, but that's not the point.

There could be a whole separate operation that they're not involved with, not supposed to know about because they're trying to keep it quiet because it's let's just say, potentially it's related to a cartel. So if somebody finds out there's an informant in there, people are going to get killed. The homicide people could wind up making more work for themselves by getting an informant killed, you know. So therefore,

there are reasons why these things are compartmentalized. Like you said, is that not a fair sort of you know, way to take it out of context with this, but to give you an idea of why it is. Okay, this is this guy's job, this is that guy's job, and maybe they didn't need to know about this or that because it's not part of their job. But also so they don't step on somebody else's work. Both of these

things are valid concerns. So therefore, I mean, again, I'm usually the guy who's willing to point the dirty end of the stick of the government real quick. But you got to be logical, You got to be reasonable about this. There are certain things that happen here for good reason, where information is not shared, it's withheld, or it's handled in a certain way that doesn't necessarily make sense to you.

If you're trying to wrap up, you know, the half hour hour long you know, Law and Order episode, Okay, it makes more sense to move it right along. We shared the information real quick, and in real life, that is not how this works. You know there's reasons for shutting it down, handing it over to certain people, and certain people only have certain jobs. Am I right or wrong about that?

had couriers assaulted to steal code books. They did dirty tricks. Okay, And we know that Angleton and Harvey both ran staff D for periods of time, and that we know, for example, Angleton had a relationship with the FBI where he would give the FBI a list of well known and expert burglars and essentially say, you know, for this period of time, would you please not pick these guys up because I've got work for them.

Maybe what if CIA reached out to this guy at the Cuba desk at FBI headquarters and said, could you might maybe not hassle this guy, like, don't pick him up, don't we have some things We want him to go ahead and do what he's doing because we have a use for what he's doing. And you know, this gets even more interesting when it all has to be covert.

It's like, you know, don't don't harass him, don't take him off the street, don't lock him up, whatever, let him run, because he's doing some things that we have found would be useful to us. We don't know that did happen, when we don't know that it did happen, but it would be an example of compartmentalization of information.

be fighting you know, the government down there. So therefore they're being allowed to operate as drug dealers because guess what, they're giving information to the DEA as distributors. And they're also working, you know, on the covert plot to arm certain people, which unfortunately, even though nobody's supposed to do this, they're making exchanges for you need guns, you have cocaine, we'll take the cocaine, we'll take, We'll give you your guns.

That's going on, and certain agencies are letting it happen because that's part of the plan. This is how we're going to fund it. Off the books, and some of these you know boy scouts during the day are going well, that makes no sense, of course, it makes no sense. But they're not always going to jump up front and challenge it because sometimes things don't appear, you know, sometimes things appear in ways and they're not actually that way.

You know, the guys who would have arrested Donnie Brasco you know, while he's undercover, right, you know, they would have arrested him because he's part of the mob. Well, no he's not. He's actually an FBI guy. But you need to have somebody tell you back off and a guy because you don't want to arrest him and maybe potentially reveal him as an FBI agent, you know, because if he doesn't get treated just like the other guys, then it's gonna look bad. So, you know, in other words, it's not as.

flying this stuff. And I go, well, wait a minute, and you're told that, oh, by the way, the ci was no longer authorized to do that. That authorization was taken away. And the guys that you've been working with and we're working with that have been flying stuff back and forth, have now been just doing drugs and you're going to go but but but and you know, and

you might go to jail. So it's, uh, we have to be it's it's not too good to be too simple mind it about all of this, right, there are wheels within wheels, right.

around New Year's Eve. I don't know if that would work for you or not.

I don't know if people are getting their books yet or not. Larry, I don't know what the progress is there. I think.

you the autopsy photos with the RFK. Maybe we'll cover that briefly, and you know, yeah, just to talk about that because that was, you know, relative to me, relatively, that's the only semi new thing that was really released. But then again, I've seen those before. Anyway, we'll get into that maybe during that discussion Are we done yet? Next time with Larry Hancock, But until then, go to his word press get yourself a copy of the Oswald Puzzle.

It's at the top of the list of all the things that Larry's written that I recommend spoiler alert, I recommend them all. And you can check out all of his books on Amazon et cetera, et cetera, and there will be links in the show notes. So with that, Larry, you got a final word on your way out the door.

just rare in the world. So I highly recommend him, not just because of his scholarly work, but because this is a legitimate good guy out there who is informing you, in educating you through all of his books, which I highly recommend. And go head over to Larry's word press blog because you can learn a tremendous amount of what's being revealed currently and you might get some spoilers as to are we there yet before we do the podcast that we might title exactly that next time in about

two weeks from now. So in the meantime, remember this, I am merely Ocelli. You the listener, are The effect.

In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was

up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com.

Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical.