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