The o' chile effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you Yeah Yeah Media yea twenty fourth day of January twenty twenty four, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and here is the o'celly effect live. So uh you know, of course, if you're catching it by a podcast, it isn't live, but it was live at one point in time. Anyway, when you do broadcasts, you know, snapshot of what
was occurring at the time. Maybe we're going to get into that. My guest tonight Larry Hancock, who is now appearing on Wednesdays and every other Wednesday you should be hearing from Larry put the foreseeable future and will it be JFK every time? No, but tonight it might have to come up along with
some current events. Why because well, I got this interesting email Actually that started a conversation between Larry and myself by a text, and it was sort of like, what would Larry Hancock do if Larry Hancock was like in control of a massive media mechanism, if he could get out there and get the story out regarding the JFK case, what is it that he would do?
Well? I think it's informative to take a look back at a couple of things, maybe some recent history, maybe some ancient history or semi ancient history sixty years ago, right, and say to ourselves, well, what actually did happen, and how did the narratives get fed to people, and how were they then controlled and et cetera, et cetera. Anyway, Larrydashancock dot com, you go there, you can find out. Of course, he takes up a whole lot of room on my bookshelf. I bring this up
every single time. Creating Chaos definitely a book I recommend. Apparently, you know, I still need to do my entire explanation as to how I'm viewing the Ukraine conflict, but we're gonna suspend that for tonight, although we might have to touch upon it just a bit. Why, Because there's a lot of things going on. I mean, there are narratives flying right now,
There are active shooting situations occurring on the planet. Some people are even arguing that we've already escalated into a time when we are just you know, inches from World War three, not necessarily the nuclear World War three, but world War three because of the regional conflicts that begin to spread out, et cetera, et cetera. But what's the media telling you outside of what happened in
New Hampshire in America? In America, Let's let's keep it on that too, because after all, international news might look a little different anyway, Larry Hancock is with me. Larry, how you doing tonight? I'm doing fine, Chuck. It's good to be back. Now. This is a little different for you and me because you know, a lot of times you and I decide we're going to speak about something that is currently occurring, or we're
going to speak about historical information. We still have a lot of stuff to cover UAP wise with you, and by the way, I've noticed a few things being fed into the media stream lately regarding UAPs. I think seems like there's a culmination of certain events going on regarding that part of the narrative.
But it's not at the top of the news feed at the moment. What is at the top of the news feed outside of again, our you know, ridiculous political puppet show that goes on in America every few years, What is in the main headline feed out there, Well, it's the wars, it's the rumors, of wars. I'm starting to feel, you know, just a little nineteen eighty four is here, a little new, brave, new world. This year we are dealing with some news speak, I feel
like. But anyway, forget about my paranoid conspiracy theory. Let's put things in context with a historian like you, and yeah, I feel probably more like nineteen thirty eight ish, oh, okay, which is maybe even scarier.
But yeah, if you just kind of put it pinned down, like, where's there active fighting in nineteen thirty eight, Well, it's there, and it's you know, there's some in Africa, and there's some you know, and there's some in China, and there's and it's it doesn't look terrible, and then all of a sudden it is, well, all you need right now is what some central European powers to start shooting at each other or something in Boom, We're there, right, I mean, what are we
missing? Italy, Germany? I mean I found it even strange that South Africa, of all nations, got involved in the uh you know, in the international courts here regarding Israel, right, and that narrative has shifted in a very weird way. In fact, it seemed to be all absolutely controlled. Although you notice they didn't broadcast South Africa's case against Israel, but they did broadcast Israel's case answering South Africa's case. Right. But anyway, again,
I don't want to drag you into the politics of it all. Let's talk about the narrative and what's being represented, and not necessarily start in Israel. Let's start somewhere else, because you know, in case you haven't noticed, and I don't mean you, Larry, but in case you haven't noticed, two years now, there's an active conflict in Ukraine and the Russian Federation
is well involved. And now we've had to hear about well maybe North Korea because they upped them with some ammunition and they're involved, and what is their situation? And oh, by the way, here comes another test firing of a rocket. And I gotta tell you, Larry, it's very difficult to sort out. But what is it that you're observing when it comes to this stuff, and from the Russian side of it, from the you know, the the American cheerleading side of things. What are we looking at right now?
I mean, and and of course we're going to have to get into a historical case before we're all done. But yeah, go ahead, And in one sense, we do have a world war going on, a conventional war. It's not declared, I think would be the big difference. It's
not declared. The sides are all informal their alliances, their affiliations. But for example, one of the big news stories today out of out of Russia, and it's it's worth examining from several angles, including damage control, is the fact that a heavy transport, a heavy airlifter one of Russia, only starting the conflict in Ukraine, had perhaps one hundred of these aircraft. They now maybe have seventy left. They're kind of like our galaxies are heavy lifters,
they're keyed to them supporting any long range conventional warfare. Crashed in Belgrond inside Russia, and they immediately seize the narrative, which is something you and I have talked about, Chuck, because there's always this incessant, like knee jerk reaction for everybody to seize the narrative in case of a citensational event. It could be Dallas in nineteen sixty three, but in this case, the
Russians immediately seized the narrative. I wanted to control the story by linking this aircraft to being shot down by the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians made a terrible mistake because the aircraft was actually carrying prisoners Ukrainians for prisoner exchange, which was scheduled today. During the course of the day, it's kind of as in Dallas, you can come up with a narrative and it worked. They seize the headlines. If you look at the first set of headlines this afternoon,
that is all doing nothing. The media worldwide did nothing but repeat that story. Just sort of reminds you of Dallas. You know, the media, we're just reporting the news. That's what the Russians said, you know,
when we're just reporting it. But during the course of the day, one of the things that has emerged is that aircraft actually originated its flight in Iran, and unfortunately for the Russians, there are transponders and there's global flight tracking, and people quickly posted maps showing the flight path of that aircraft originating in Iran and flying into Russia into the area of Belacride. Okay, so it's
like, you probably not transporting Ukrainian prisoners of war from Iran. Well, right, I was just going to ask you, is that has there ever been a report that the Russians were stowing their prisoners of war in Iran? Because I don't think so, you know not, now there's not, and there is history there. There have been lots of prisoner of war exchanges, and in Ukraine, everybody knows how it happens. They know where they're kept
there. They're either bussed or trucked into dispersal points and that's where the exchange is. Because you want to do it one to one, that's when they know where it happens. Uh. If if that's going to happen anytime. Up to this point in time, there's been a notice by the Russians saying, you know this is going to happen, this is a secure area. Don't do anything in this area or you might hurt your own people. That didn't happen today. Okay, So yeah, there are precedents that you can
refer to for context. But in this instance, the other thing that's begun the backfar on the Russians is that video emerged of the aircraft actually crassing and you know, flying at a low altitude crashing, uh and and it could be geolocated and people have gotten very good at that because nobody trusts anybody, you know, about these kind of news reports. And it became clear from the location was that the aircraft was flying back into Russia, not from Russia
to bellak Rode, with prisoners on it. And it's like the most the most At the moment, nobody knows for sure. I certainly don't know for sure, but the Russian story began to fall apart within hours, you know. And of course things are advanced today, just as we would say, guys, the story about Dallas began to fall apart, you know, after a bit. But things are much faster these days. Well so that headlines nobody will ever those headlines were all the majority of the public will ever read.
They'll never read the second story, well, believe it or not. Even the intelligence assets in the world in nineteen sixty three would have turned to broadcast media. I mean, I'm not saying that they don't today, but they would have relied on it kind of heavily to see what was being said. There are things that are available to people that are open source at this point where you could find out, you know, there are enough cameras on
the planet. There are enough tracking of all sorts of vehicles on the planet where you could figure out a lot of things all by yourself independently. Now that wasn't available in the sixties, you know it was. You can lose the narrative much faster now. I think that's something that we can discuss because you know, we know that in regard to the Kennedy assassination, they began to lose the narrative, I would say within a year, within eight months,
six eight months. You know, you could say that they began to lose the narrative when OSWA was shot on TV within you know, forty eight hours. But it took a lot longer for the narratives to collapse now because quite frankly, the message the media were under there wasn't the counter media there was forgetting Maybe there really wasn't a counter media the way that we have today today. I can relate to things to you this way that I'm tracking on
military blogs from guys that really know what they're talking about. As of right now, after ten hours, the mainstream media has not picked up on anything of what we just I just went over that. You know, you would still read the same headline, but the counter narrative develops much more quickly now. That didn't happen in nineteen sixty three. It'd be fascinating if it had, but it didn't. Right now, this is not even a judgment.
I mean, quite frankly, for the Russians, when they are in the midst of a conflict, it makes no sense for them to actually be entirely truthful about what's going on. Anyway, the idea that they're being shot at by the Ukrainians, this has come up a few times, and sometimes it's been accurate and sometimes it hasn't been. But either way, they have seized upon it and put out the first headlines saying that they were being attacked one
way or another, right in different ways. And sometimes you know, in this case, they wanted to turn around and say, look, you attacked a transport that was carrying your own people, sort of again steering things a certain way. Now, you wouldn't even expect them to be directly honest about this. What do we think really happen here? Probably you just have a mishap that just occurs, right, I mean, that's why it seems. I think the best guess is I don't think anyone will ever know, for
someone will know for sure. One of the things that did emerge was at that point in time, the Bellgrond area was under an air defense alert, okay, and the Russians have displayed an unfortunate, well it's unfortunate, a pattern of shooting down there on aircraft during air defense alerts. I think the videos quite clearly show the plane was at low altitude, right and relatively low
altitude, and was shot down. I think that will emerge whether it could have been a Russian stake as has occurred actually fairly frequently, or a Russian strike I mean a Ukrainian strike. I mean, after all, this is these are military transports flying in a war zone, and this particular military transport could have been tracked. I mean everybody could attracted it flying into Russia from Iran and carrying weapons. I mean, why would the Ukrainians not shoot it
down if they could? You know, that would just make absolute sense. But so one thing that's kind of clouded the whole issue is the Russians also released a list of Ukrainian present prisoners of war that were supposedly on the aircraft, and quit data searches revealed about third of them were already released or in
earlier releases than already in Ukraine, you know. So it just it just shows you today how badly, how quickly you can lose the narrative, if you want to consider that losing it, because I said that they really the first out of the gate gets the mainstream media headlines and you could just you know, that's that's we got it. Now eighty percent of those people will
never hear anything more. That story will never be revisited. You and I both discuss how quick news cycles are, right, you know, do you think I'm going to see headlines on that again tomorrow? But maybe not at all. So in other words, look, the initial statement comes out, it doesn't matter that it's been fact checked or corrected if nobody picks it up and runs with it, because you'll have to go and find it if you want to. And if you're somebody who is a passive receiver of the news,
you might never get another headline about it. That's all it was. And it doesn't matter that, like you said, one third of those guys were already released, you know whatever, it doesn't matter because nobody bothers to follow up. You know, it's sort of like they in the old days, right, you'd wait a week, two weeks, a month for retraction.
And what did they used to do? Even though it was on the front page of the paper, The retraction would be back, you know in section seven a, you know of the Sunday paper that nobody bothered to read, right because it was a continuation of another section or some other nonsense. And let's take another one. Check going to interim state bag history. Let's go back to the Tonking golf thing, which literally was the precursor to kicking
off full scale warfare in Vietnam. That event happened. President Johnson seized it is statements were issued to the media, which within actually within three hours after they'd been issued, Johnson was advised that they were incorrect. The military commanders on the scene advised them, and they were incorrect. There was no retraction. The headlines were there, had had been seized, and it never changed and the full story was not known for decades. So it's sort of like
whether you call it damnage, it's like seizing the situation. Whenever someone seizes the situation and sees this is the media, it's real hard to catch up to it. And I think one of the reasons I bring that up is this happens every time. This is not anomalist. Dallas was not unique. That this is what happens every time. It's just how quick that cycle. It's just how quick the cycle is, and when it deconstructs, basically,
and if anybody ever hears that, it deconstructs. In the case of the Gulf of Talking, nobody but those people in the know at the Pentagon and in the field knew that what was being given to the American public was quite literally false. I mean, we have a radio transcript of a theater commander flying over the area radioing back that there are no North Vietnamese ships around those destroyers. I'm here, I'm looking down, They're not there. That waited
thirty years, yea. And then they returned that night and I think had to give a report. And then there was like maybe there was a bullet hole, maybe, and they weren't sure about that, and that was it. We're sure it's from them or one of our Yeah, we're not sure where it came from, but we do have a bullet hole, like over here, and we have a bullet right, that's it. And that was
all there were so okay, and when it came to Dallas. I'll tell you this, this is a funny thing I thought of as you were speaking. Is that all the way into the nineteen eighties when I really started to get serious about the case, right late eighties. You know that statement that came out of the news about Oswald's arrest, I got me a cup, but a president I'm gonna get me one more or whatever. It was, right, that weird statement that was like said on local Dallas media that was
repeated in a couple of other markets. That statement that I think NBC rebroadcast when they figured out how to hookup with their local affiliate. That thing carried on until the eighties, that that's what Oswald said in the movie Theater right, because they got it out there, and then we heard about McDonald afterwards, and he was kind of famous for a minute, and he did TV
shows and this and that twentieth anniversary nineteen eighty three, et cetera. Nineteen eighty eight, I think they still he was still around, and here we
go. That narrative stuck around for twenty five years, and it was just because it was the first thing out there, not that anybody verified it, and even though there were other people on the scene who said nah, he said something like this is it or whatever, and all these other things like this really weird, like almost you know, like I don't know, nineteen forties gangster nahsh he, I'm the guy who's gonna come in there and I'm
gonna be the big fellow on the street, you know, gangsters statement like it was almost that silly. Remember the whole thing I got up, I got a president, like and it just stuck around because of the way things work back then. But like you said, the counter narrative can show up now. But if it's never picked up, isn't the result about the same? What do you think? And people people in position know this, I mean, administrations know this, whether they're Russian or Chinese or America that this
is kind of like politics. Everybody understands how the game is played. We have to seize the narrative now. And you and I have talked about another instance, and that was following the the MLK assassination, where both the FBI director and the head of Justice issued a statement that's saying within hours saying it was only a single person, it was not racist and there's no conspiracy. And they both admitted later they didn't know that. They were just trying to
prove event riots and minimize riots, and that's it's just it's instinct. And so none of this now by itself, none of it indicates conspiracy. It's just behavior. And one of the things that we've always got to worry about is, you know, picking out a nominalist behavior from what we would expect. You know, it's kind of like if this didn't occur, if somebody didn't move to seize the narrative, he would be like if everybody sat back and went, oh, we don't really know what happened, then it would
be like, wow, this is interesting. I'm not sure that ever does. I don't think that that ever really occurs. I mean, I'm thinking back to one more recent incident, by the way, and then I want to move back to Dallas. But the thing is the Solmany thing, where there was that terrorist attack at the Memorial. Right immediately, I think it was blinking came out from the State Department and said, you know, first of all, America had nothing to do with this attack, and we have
no reason to believe Israel did either. Now, I found that rather odd, okay, that he needed to come out and do that. Now. Of course, it's because we are in the midst of the post you know, October seventh situation now, But it was very weird that he did that, and I found it very strange at the time. But as I look back at it now, that's the only narrative that got dropped. Now, Larry, to your mind, has anybody really discussed what really happened as far
as our mainstream media and the SOLEMNY thing at the memorial? You do recall the incident I'm talking about, right, and now I don't recall it being revisited. No, so no follow up. Just like the other, even more dramatic kind of seizing the narrative is when the mos sees the narrative of the hospital strike, right, Okay, good one. I mean they seize
the narrative. In that case, it was it took probably about three or four days of satellite SAT photography and other things to deconstruct it, but it was long gone and and literally everything that's happened since I mean that one incident totally stole the narrative from Israel to Hamas and and it's just like they got their first and the media repeated what they'd said with no fact checking. And that's why we're where we are right now. One of the main reasons Israel.
Israel lost the narrative then and there across most of the globe right well, and it's fascinating too. I mean, what will we call this the slow and steady doesn't win the race narrative. I mean this, if I go back to my PR handbook, it says, whoever does the first release wins? Okay, okay, Well I guess so, because that is what it seems to be, and it prevails regardless of the Again, the speed of the media today, like you said, we have the ability to independently
check things. I mean, even without resources, without being in the news organization, you can do searches and find out information that is open source at this point that would never have been remotely available twenty years ago, thirty years ago, forty keep going, it gets worse, right, Commercial satellite photography, yeah, I mean something relevant to a couple of things we just talked
about. This Russian incident, video streamed over the internet real time from smart phones that you can't regulate aircraft transponder tracking satellite photos in case of the set, and you know, in case of the hospital struct none of that was And this is independent. I mean, the fascinating thing is there is no if there were an independent, truly end dependent news outlet that used those things rather than you know, looked at breast releases or the wire services or whatever.
You know, we'd give you a different view. But those things are kind of like all by themselves. You know, someone has to accumulate them, and it takes time to do that. But you're right, check that that's all new. And in a way that's great because we get the real story much more quickly. But you still can't get out ahead of the narrative. You see. It almost seems like, okay, if you were because everybody, like I said, we started with the whole what would Larry do?
I mean, Larry, would you not you know, if you had unlimited resources? Okay, just temporarily, I mean, wouldn't you like to see an independent news organization that did that, that use the open source stuff to answer the narratives to actually you know, do stuff like hey, look, according to satellite potus, according to what we could pick up commercial according to what we were able to find out through satellite tracking. Wouldn't that be
amazing? You know? Yeah. The other thing I do is ide issue. I'd have a code of conduct band that says something like equal treatment is not equal. For example, much of today you were seeing major outlets saying, well, Russia said this and Ukraine said that, and we don't know. It's like, okay, guys, so you just repeated both their press releases and said you don't know, that's that's not really good reporting that? Who needs that? And I could put that on, you know, a
marquee in Times Square and just run them one over the other. Is that like, okay, it's a press release outlet thing that that sort of thing today, I mean you can almost say, well, back when when they didn't have anything better, but they had a lot of reporters, you know, okay, maybe that was acceptable. Now one of the things that's happened, I'm afraid and talking about current events, I'm sure you've read about LA
Times cutting immensely out of their editorial and reporting staff. Yes, today mainstream news is almost in that they have become outlets. They've become outlets. Not to report, I report usually means interaction. Right, It's like I send somebody out and they ask them questions and try to give me a balance story. They don't just get two statements and we run them both and that's all there is to it. We'll see, And that's the other thing, that's
what it's becoming. Yeah, that's the other unbalanced thing when it comes to these different circumstances where there are people that are killed in interactions with police. And this is one of my main complaints, and this is with all sorts of local outlets, my local TV. I've gone to them directly about this about how you know, guys, you're just reading the police press release.
That's it. You're not going looking at anything, You're not talking to anybody unless the controversy persists for a minute, then a couple of days later you go out there and hey, did you do anybody happen to see anything? Days later, But generally speaking, when they report on this stuff, they're reading the public affairs officers release like hot right off of their emails. That's
it. Yeah exactly, and yeah, right, well but look and in fairness and again, I'm one of these people, and I know you might be on the other side of this issue with me, Larry. But here's the thing. I don't trust the police. I never do. But you know what, unlike people that you know are all in or all out with the cops, here's what I would do in that position, which is not just read their press release. You know, if you're honestly going to report
on this, go investigate. You know, see there's side you know, Chak having worked in public relations. No, I'm totally in on that. I think it's it's if you have to report it, you need to put some context to it. I mean, yeah, you can repeat their statement like okay, but this is it's not as if this is really what happened.
It's sort of like the police position is, and and then with some context, we know that the police can't say this and that, and you know, we know that police practices are never to release all the details of a crime because they've got internal affairs has to take a look at things. And if they're still investigating it, they're not going to tell you stuff they want to keep secret. You know, there should be like it should be
an intelligent adult to adult conversation. You know, just I'm telling you this, but you need to understand as always, like attached at the bottom of it, as in any ongoing investigation, there will not be a complete you know, transparency here regarding this. That would be an honest statement right across the board. They're not going to release every detail. It's an ongoing investigation. And yes, that makes sense, you can say that along with this
is what the police have to say. This is what local residents have to say. This is what we could obtain on our own right if they were able to obtain video from a you know, a commercial source, you know, somebody's ring camera. Doesn't matter. You know, here's what we got from three different directions. Okay, But usually what happens on the you know, and it doesn't matter small towns cities. It's always the police press release
and they speak it as if it's a matter of fact. They say, you know, and you can you notice because all the jargon is in there, right, the suspect did this, and then this happened, and then this occurred. They don't stay this is according to the police report. This is you know, yeah, that's it, you got it right there.
The statement should be it should be this is the news for denied. No, don't say that like these are the press releases for the evening news news to follow, right, I mean, and again, if you're to say, okay, here's the press release, here's what you know, the the victim had to say, here's what the victim's family had to say, and
here's what we could obtain independently. If there's a way to do that, it seems to me you need a triangulation here, okay, of things in order to make a presentation where you say, look, we may not necessarily know all of what occurred here, but this is what we could gather, and this would be three fair you know elements. Now, how would you apply that to this circumstance with Ukraine and Russia? Right, you'd say, okay, here's what the Russians had to say, this is according to what
the Ukrainians have to say. We must honestly understand that they are two nations and conflicts, so therefore their statements might be a bit askew, and independently, here's what we could determine. But I think we do have a good
example of that in some instances. For example, I was looking at Seeing earlier, and you know, they carry headlines and they carry stories, but also sometimes they put up live scrolling information, right, so that they actually have a feed that's chronological and you can kind of go down through it and say, oh, here is the first thing said, here's the second thing said, there's a then there's a what we're hearing now, and and you have a way to kind of look at the history of the story, right,
and that that makes some sense. I think that's a It does give you some balance, it gives you and it gives you a feel it's it's evolving, people are learning more about it. It wasn't just a hit and run type thing. The headline, yeah, and those scrolls. What you usually get is, look, this statement was made here at this time. Then in a press conference at this time, this was said. Like you
have a chronology where you see the statements emerging at different times. Then this person could be reached and this thing happened, and they made this statement, this information was released. You see an order to it, right. But normally what happens is they consolidate this contenset into a report and a lot of times they're giving you things as if it is known fact and that This is the biggest complaint to me. I mean, I know this is not exactly
where we meant to go, but we're gonna get there. This is the biggest complaint, right, is that, Look, they pushed that narrative out. That's great, that's what they had to work with to begin with. They don't qualify it necessarily. Okay, fine, but isn't there a way to follow up now when we go back to Dallas and where the narrative got lost? And by the way, I didn't even stick on the Israeli thing too long because that could become a very messy maze. And we are seeing
a shift in the narrative. But again I urge people to really pay attention to what's being ignored and what's being dropped off, because, as Larry said, you get there first with that first statement, then there's a lot of things that could be followed through on. Take note of what is not being trumpeted afterwards, but is verifiable, right, do that always. It's going to allow you to educate yourself. Don't rely on Anderson Cooper to read it.
Okay, it's going to have to come from what you can discover on your own. But let's go back to Dallas and why it was and what happened, and I don't know, maybe we could wrap it around to how it is. We could regain some sort of ground here, some integrity in the narrative, because that's really what people were aiming for here with this. What would Larry do, right, is what is it that you would tell people now that would be so important, so advantageous to getting at the reality.
I know you listen, we'd all love to rewind it and say, you know what I mean, let's try and witness it right the going back to the Twilight Zone. If you will, remember the Twilight Zone episode in the eighties where you know they sent the historian back, Okay, just go to witness the assassination and it so happened that he was a professor Fitzgerald or whatever he was related to Kennedy. Okay, fun story. If you've never seen you guys out there, have you've never seen that Twilight Zone episode.
I definitely recommend it. It's not the greatest twilight Zone ever. It's not the greatest Kennedy thing ever, but it's really interesting, I think, and fun, a lot more fun than Stephen King's crap. Oh did I say
that out loud? I think I did anyways, But Larry, putting time travel aside, what is it that we could do now with the way that this narrative has gotten away from indeed the official explanation, but has also gotten away from the conspiracy advocate, you know, and and they're seeming, you know, constant efforts to you know, what is it we can all agree upon? Right? What are the basic tenets here? It didn't happen that way? Right? Everybody agrees with that? Okay, we can do that.
Is there more than one person involved? Almost everybody can agree to that. Okay, now everybody does that, and then it drops because it becomes this we talked about it last time. In fact, this weird milieu that you end up with a Rob Reiner situation where okay, it's not on the side of the warrant commission, it's not on the side of the brief explanation in history books, which has evolved some but not much in the past thirty
years, forty years. What is it that we could do now if we had the power to do it outside of asking for this, you know, more ethical reporting, which I think you just demonstrated would be would be you know, so much better for all of us. To be well informed about what's actually happening in the world. But then again, might not serve those that like to leave things nice and cloudy and like you to attach yourself to sentimentality as opposed to the reality. What is it we could do with it?
Now? You think, well, I think the first thing would be to back up to the very beginning and and try to establish where a narrative emerges and how a narrative emerged, because there were multiple narratives. I mean, you don't you'd have to take It's like almost to require an AI to do this. An individual gave me another thirty years and maybe assessive I could do it. But you start going through the newspapers and you say, you know what was reported minute by minute, and where did it come from?
And is it credible? You know? And long term did it prove in you know? So that that would be one way to establish the evolution of the story, because clearly the story as it started to be told that afternoon Ashley was the story of conspiracy. It was a story of multiple shooters. Okay, now not that that story's right, but that was the story that was reported for some time. I mean, I think you would you could literally say, from you know, twelve thirty until about oh, I would
say until sometime on Sunday. There were several storylines emerging about conspiracy. I'm not saying that they were right at all. I would just say there are multiple stories in play. Then at one particular point in time, an actual narrative emerged that became the official narrative, if you will, and then sources
started changing. But I think you'd have to walk through it almost statement by statement, story by story, and to do a fact check, to do a reality check kind of the same way we would we would do with this. And the problem being is we relied on the Warren Commission, with input from the Dallas Police and the FBI to do that story. They really wrote a story. They we know that they did not do an investigation. They
created a story they were given an assignment to do. So, I mean, it's just well, everybody wanted to note now, let's just do it this way because the first week from the twenty second to the twenty ninth, I believe, because the twenty ninth is when the Warrant commission was proposed.
Basically, right, if I'm recalling off the top of my head, correctly, wasn't it first declared on the twenty ninth of November that they were going to assemble the Blue Ribbon Commission and all of that, Like they had the basic idea about a week later. That seems a little early. I mean, Johnson went through three stages. He went through making an entirely at a Texas Commission matter with the AG driving it. He went through making an fbimatter
with Hoover driving it. But you could be it took him at least a good solid week to jail on the fact that he was going to have to have a presidential commission. Okay, I'm not trying to I'm not trying to declare that. I know, trying to get a frame here. So I'm thinking that that first week is a bit of chaos, right. I mean, you have the initial reporting where you have multiple arrests. There was a man and a woman taken into custody, There was multiple people that were arrested.
There was a guy that they brought in. The first guy they showed on the news actually was kind of I refer to him as the short chubby Oswald because he kind of looked like Oswald if he was shorter and like thicker, who was allegedly screaming his innocence when they brought him into the Dallas PD. Right, that was the first guy arrested. They showed him on TV. They talked about a man and a woman, and they took away another guy and somebody else had seen the pipe through the window and all this,
so there was a bit of chaos and there was multiple people involved. Then, of course you have two days after Oswald's arrested. He's shot dead on TV. Now everybody says, oh, he's shot dead on TV everywhere. Really, actually only one live broadcast went out through one of the networks. Everybody picked up on it, and then everybody kind of you know, got to witness it after whatever. Once that happened, that caused a bit of
suspicion. I think there was initial suspicion also in the conspiracy world immediately, you know, credit to Nigel Turner's scriptwriters there on the men who killed Kennedy. Tongues were lagging in Texas already, right, And I know that was a bad impression, but you know what I'm talking about. Obviously, Johnson is a player in Texas, and isn't it weird that Kennedy got killed in Texas. Kind of strange. The governor also got shot up, you know,
another thing. So you have a bit of loose talk happening. You have a bit of how did he get shot from the front, from the side from this, because the initial report was he shot in the front, And by the way, initial reports on TV and radio, a lot of them did state that he was shot in the throat, not the back or the back of the neck or any of this. He was shot in the
throat. There was the school book depository was in the initial because I've gone over the initial reports many times over many different networks, I mean independent broadcasts, talk shows that were going on in all over the country to see what was emerging, what was being stated first, and it's very confusing. Various
guns, various players, various possibilities of conspiracy. One could say, in those first couple of days, the mainstream reporting did enough because a lot of people think it was Oswald from day one, but it wasn't necessarily all Oswald to begin with. It became all Oswald. But that first week is a little more messy than that, right, So let's talk about the initial narrative and where it starts a little bit of confusion gun Well, and I think
that gives us something of a clue as to what's going on. As you say, it was chaotic, there was no official there. As matter of fact, the official narrative in regard to JFK emerged much later than the narrative on MLK, right, the narrative of MLK was out there within hours. Single shooter. You know, here's the narrative that didn't happen to Dallas.
One of the arguments I have against the grand conspiracy thing with like this is really a grand conspiracy of kind of like everybody within the establishment, from the military industrial complex and the Joint chiefs to the city like this grand conspiracy,
is that there was no immediate narrative. Anybody in their right mind, with the kind of professionals in hand, would have had a narrative with the evidence to support it, and it would be there and it would be good, it would be solid, and you dump it out on the street immediately. If you were going to frame somebody, you'd frame up good, not bad,
which is what we have with Oswald that narrative. They actually don't even make a decision to start putting their narrative together until Sunday, Sunday afternoon, when the word is given within the FBI that will write a report that it's just Oswald. And one of my arguments if if you look at when the narrative emerges, you don't have a really organized, grand prepared conspiracy and not
seize the narrative immediately. And you don't have to just seize upon MLK, by the way, because RFK, who dies a few months later, Honestly, they had both of those narratives much more streamlined immediately. In fact, you hear instantaneously almost with RFK, look we're not going to have another Dallas situation here. It was almost like you know, I mean that literally came out of more than one person's mouth. If I'm running a good frame,
I set this up. So whoever is going to get set up really is you know, he's seen in the act, he's caught just like sure him. I mean, that's a good frame. I would you know, Okay, this is well done. Professionally, I don't say I like it, but I am at least you can say it's it's well done. And you had the narrative from the get go, and you had evidence from the get go. I mean, there was no waffling around who's gun it was and that sort of thing. And so I do think this is a lesson that
we can learn in these incidents like was it? People have argued that are often argue about incidents being planned in advance. You know, Well, one of the ways that you can judge that is when does the narrative, how much chaos is there for how long? When does the narrative really emerge, and how solid is it? Because if it's really planned well in advanced by professionals, you know, there's a checklist, like you know, it will be well done right, and we don't. What we see in Dallas is
chaos, and which is why we're left with all these leads. I mean, you do not want, you know, the chief of Polief in Dallas to go on TV that afternoon saying, oh, yeah, we saw this guy run down the knole and jump in the car with another guy and he drives them off and this that's where the assassin escape. You don't want that. This is not good unless you know, if you've plan for a conspiracy to be your narrative, right. Well, see, there's the thing with
sir hand. Look, he's literally, you know, taken in, he's grabbed by people on the scene with a gun in his hand. Kind of good enough as far as you're not going to need to go outside of that story. Right, they got a guy with a gun in his hand who was shooting at the time. Now as to whether he shot Bobby Kennedy or not, another story, but pretty good as far as there's plenty of people there to back it up. There's a gun in the guy's hand, for
sure. In the case of Ray, you've got a guy fleeing, you've got his stuff left behind. Okay, there is plenty there to work with and sir, and you've got a history. He hated RFK spoke out against RFK people saying that you've got nothing like that with Oswald, Right, you know, it's just like what my argument is, you can't have a totally expert professional conspiracy and screw the thing up this much. Well, somebody dropped
the ball. Now, somebody might argue. Somebody might argue that his pro castro demonstrations in public is enough to say, well, obviously hated you know, like they said in that movie, who was it? I forget which character said it in JFK. But I remember it. Oswald he hated this country, he hated he was. Okay, so that part of the narrative sort of fits, But everything else is a freaking mess, because, well, if you're doing it right, I mean, the CIA's got some good
people. I mean, at least Surahan had a notebook saying I hate Kennedy. Now why is it that Oswald's notebook? We have notebooks from both of them. Yes, I'm doing an addition job at some point in time. Over three years of notebooks and several there should be something written, even if I had to write it for him and plant it right now, why is that missing? Well? Yeah, why isn't there you know, some sort of anarchist cookbook in their you know, circling assassination, you know what I
mean? Why isn't there you know, something about even let's just say they wanted to plant I don't know, a fictional book on him that has to do with a high level assassination or historical book regarding a political assassination where he's underlining things, anything like that would have been a lot more evidence, right, something to look we have means motive, opportunity, well, when you when you look at sir Han, like I said, here's here, you
know, your your motive is there, your means is there. He's got a gun in his hand. Okay, again not saying that it connects to the evidence. I'm just saying that prima facia first base, a guy with a gun in his hand who is tackled on the scene might be the shooter. You know, the other guy Ray from King. I mean, this is a guy you can go back and show demonstrate he did not like black people, that he made racist remarks that he you know, you've got a
history there, at least that lends some credibility. I mean, even within a you know, a couple of days, you can find a storyline there, so at least to that extent, you know, it's you've got a backstory. We just don't even have any backstory really on all in terms of Cuba. And I agree with you, Chuck, I mean, the only backstory that you've got there really is And it showed up in a headline in a Texas newspaper that Castro supporter kills Kennedy. Well that the strange thing is
that's not really the narrative, is it? The narrative that emerges. The official narrative is not that a Castro supporter killed Kennedy. It's not like, no, it's if anything that's counter because he's we don't want to go there, right, We don't want we don't want to commedy whack the president because if the comedy whack the president, we might have to go after the comedies. No no, no, no no no no no no. Yeah, that's that's a bad backstory from the narrative that emerged. You know, So
did somebody switch the narrative? Okay, oh gosh, guys, we we didn't think that that would be a bad story. We need to Okay, who's going to throw the switch and switch the narrative and turn that Castro Cuba part off? Okay, you can just see the back room meeting about that.
Okay, Fred, did you not think of this? So Step one is to deconstruct how the narrative was assembled in the first place, right, not just the the typical official tracking, which again, you know, I highly recommend wall Brown's Warren Omission on this, a couple of other books that are out there that really detail how the Warrent Commission was put together. Exactly what the purpose was. How we get from the Gimberling report, you know,
to the you know, the President's Commission on the assassination. How we get from one to the other. These things are chronicled, so there is a good possibility at being able to deconstruct the official government narrative, not a problem, but the media narrative is a little tricky, ear because there was a lot of loose things floating around, Like we both just said, and you saw some interesting headlines. Yeah, there was only one headline. You're
right, I think it was. It wasn't a Houston newspaper. Maybe that's yeah, I think so, well, Houston or yeah, maybe San Antonio. Not sure Houston or San Antonio. Wasn't even a Dallas paper that basically said, you know, the Kami whacked the president pretty much. I mean, and I'm paraphrasing the headline, but it might as well have been that,
right, which is kind of strange considering the loose media network. I mean, actually, if you would have expected anything with Lus's you know, obsession with the communist and with Cuba, that's you should have seen headlines. He should have called up, you know, picked up the desk and you know, you guys go look for a lead. You know, if this was if this was the Hurst era, certainly should have would have done it. But actually you're kind of missing all of those stories that you could have
had. Yeah see, and nobody immedia. I mean it evolved over time, Okay, I'd start of surfacing that up in life and time over time, but not not for that first grab the headlines thing. Right. So look, there's two very weird elements here in this deconstruction of the narrative that one would have to take up, all right. And I offered one of them in our text conversation, which you and I both agree is very weird.
And it's the absence of two things, all right. One of them is, you know, being that Joe Kennedy Sr. Had gotten involved with media, had been you know, involved with Hollywood and all that. It's strange to me that he didn't have a media organization, okay, ready to deal with this stuff, like he didn't have his own version of Life magazine, of the Loose network, you know what I mean, It wasn't there.
Weird because you would have thought it would have been useful for his political aspirations, for his family it would have been extremely useful to have, you know, basically Joe Kennedy be the first ruper Murdoch, you know what I'm saying. Assemble. You couldn't assemble a TV network like that back then because there were rules against it. Although they stepped around it a little bit with Ladybird owning TV stations, but that story for another day. But you didn't
have a media arm that was ready to roll. Okay, So that's one weird thing. The other thing is I am, in retrospect a little shocked that Life magazine. I mean, we know what they ran with. You and I have been over, you know, the evolution of Life magazine one way or another. We didn't specifically focus on it on a show, but we've had to touch upon it because it was a shockwave. Life Magazine was a huge thing. How Come we didn't have a Life magazine that basically said,
you know, the comedies did this. Oswald's a comedy. Here's pictures of him handing out you know, here's some still frames from a film from WDSU TV in New Orleans of him handing out communist literature. I mean, you and I both know it's pro pastro stuff and we know the history of it. But either way, he could have put out pictures saying that here
is Oswald handing out pro communist literature. This is his motivation. So there's the motivation, here's the gun the Dallas police found, there's your your your means right, and where's your opportunity? He was right about you could have Let's look at the photograph that they had on the cover of Life and the cover photograph they didn't. The cover they had on the cover of Life is Oswald with a rifle on a pistol, showing up holding up two newspapers,
right, which yeah, are socialist and communist oriented. Nothing about Cuba. But for the last two years every other week at least Live magazine has been running headlines of Cuban exile raids against Castro Anto. Where where was Why didn't we see the photo of Oswa holding up a fair Play for Cuba committee leaflet or nothing tied Oswald to Cuba? They tell you kind of tied him to
being like a radical, Okay, fine, but nothing. Life never tied him to Cuba, nor did Time, or really did any of the media didn't use all that stuff that was available. I think it's kind of funny because again we've talked about the fact and I've been writing about it. When somebody called up Scripts Howard News on that day and said, where can I get some background on this Oswald guy? They were referred to a fellow in Miami who was a friend and bosom buddy of David Phillips, who had a
full resume on Oswell's castro activities pro castro activities. I mean, he was set to go and that's who people got calls to, just like you know, wasn't Oswell part of a group you know, on that news press meeting that night, But none of that really went to the next stage. It was all there. His background was available to everybody, but the press didn't focus on it. Well, here's the weird part of that too, Larry, because this is where it gets really strange in my mind. It's not
like wdsu's footage was not available. It's not like the audio of that interview was not available, because I heard it rebroadcast over the course of that weekend. They already had the tapes in rapid fire, you know, based all over the country. They had distributed tapes and sent the audio everywhere really quickly. Him defending the whole thing about uh no, so no, I'm not
a Communist. I'm actually a Marxist Leninist. That was out there, And yet the Booth looses, you know, Claire or you know, either way, nobody picks up on that, Like it is the strangest absentee thing I've ever seen. You would have thought, I'll give you something even stranger than that. That night, Claire Booth loose, husband of the guy who runs the US national media. I mean, if if Luc's group does something, everybody will follow, you know, that's he's going to lead the way.
She got a call from Dre folks who she had actually been. She knew them, she had been donating money to sponsor boats, on and so forth. They told her, and we've got we've got a transcript essentially several interviews. They said, Look, we have infield traded Oswald's group. We have tapes, we have photos of him working with Cuban intelligence agents and being part of a sniper team that Castro sent to Dallas. Now, okay, fine, and we know she is a flaming anti communist as her husband is.
So what would you expect. I would expect like five hundred time Life reporters to be on a plane going to pick that stuff up, right, and we're going to break this story. This is how hot could you get. I've been trying to go after Castro for three years and now these guys have got the goods on Castro. She didn't do that. She apparently doesn't even talk to her husband about it. She calls the FBI and says, I
get the call. Maybe you guys should look into it. She doesn't really do even do that immediately, and they're FBI documents, But it's like, oh, the losers are not going to treat this as the biggest news story in history. They're just gonna file like the average person and call up the FBI number say oh, okay, how does that even happen? Yeah,
that's that's the weird, Like I said, very strange thing. Unless somebody said, listen, don't focus on this because maybe it's not exactly what it looks like, that would be the only reason I would think that there wasn't a full page, you know, a full huge article, all right. You know they go through all the trouble of publishing those zu bruder frames. You mean to tell me they couldn't have gotten still shots off of his interview.
They couldn't have gotten you know that that other short piece where you got the guy with the microphone standing there with him. You mean to tell me the footage of him when he's leaving court and he's got his arms crossed and he's watching bereng Geir walk by and people know Carlos Berengear is right. I mean, how did that not end up as a again a front page story. I mean, you put the gun in his hand and on his hip in one one big, you know, front page. Well how about we
put again the procastro leaflets in his hand the next roun page. So not only does he have the gun, here's his motive. Now all we gotta do is what publish his work record next and show that he's you know, at the book depository. I mean it almost clear back there's a choke point on the narrative, right, I mean, I think that's one that that one thing that you could say, now it occurs well after the fact,
it's not choked in front. I mean if it were choked in the front, those calls a lot of that would never happen, right right, So at some point, it's it's choked and there's I mean, the interesting thing is, as an interesting thing, we know that there were a number of calls between President Johnson and Loose's personal calls if you go back and look at
his call log that occurred in the days immediately following the assassination. Was Johnson the choke point, I suspect, so because I suspect Louise wanted to the depth of his his gut to go with that story, just as Hoover wanted to go with that story. Hoover even wrote in a cover sheet to go along with the FBI report to Johnson that says, you know, there's still leads pointing to Castro that we'd like to pursue, so we would like you, you know, we'd like to have that in the report, so we
don't entirely write off conspiracy. And Johnson just kind of ignored him. So there was a choke point, right. So, but that is informative because I guarantee that these are not the only instances where you would almost think something was a fit of complete with a certainty was going to occur given the information about it. Like I said, it's not like these things were not available, and the audio even of the stuff from DSU was being played in Cleveland
already, you know what I mean. Oh yeah, it was flown out of well, I think we've talked about it before. You know, they had they had the translations done that English, but they had translations of Oswalt's remarks made into Spanish, right, I mean, a Spanish version of that interview was ready to go and did go within weeks onto a record, So it wasn't like the material was was curated. But that's that's where when we
talk about the narrative and when it occurs and how it's happened. My thought was, if you look at all the stuff that was available, obviously that wasn't nobody shows to use it to seize the day for that narrative. So that kind of eliminates that from being eliminates it from being a part of a grand conspiracy where the people don't have a joke over it. You know. It's not not to say that you couldn't use it and put it in play, but somebody that's at the top of the food, yeah, food chain,
somebody can turn the switch too. And this is another reason why I'm anxiously awaiting this, you know, for lack of a better word here, and I know it's going to sound a little strange, but the reframing of Oswald, if you will, that you're kind of doing at the moment, the reevaluation, and that that monograph that's going to come out. Do we have an ETA on that? By the way, well, actually, if anybody knows a publisher or an agent, we might want to take that even
a little further. Oh okay, it's been suggested me. The thing is is now up to one hundred and fifty pages, and if it was published in conjunction with the Redbird Airport leads would make a pretty interesting book. How do I expect it to be in shape by the end of this month early next month to start going to peer review, have half a dozen people that don't want a peer review in fact check it in draft form, you know, rework it after that. But I expect the draft to be done in
a matter of weeks. It's been making pretty good progress and one of the things I find fascinating about it to me is it's not going necessarily where I've been before. It's causing me to rethink, get a lot of input from some other people, and it's it's not a rehash. If anything, it's kind of like a kick in the butt, Right, did you not think of this before? Well, I'm looking forward to it. And I'll tell you if you were looking for a seven set of eyes, I know you
said half a dozen people. I'm not saying that I would peer review, because I wouldn't necessarily count myself as one of your peers. But I would love a first look at it because you know, on occasion, I come up with some interesting things for authors to consider before they publish things. And oh yeah, and I'm looking for logical inconsistencies too, so that's no problem.
A lot of this really is again if you try to step outside the box and say, I'm just not going to accept what we've been saying, and I'm not going to accept what I said before. You know, it's like, okay, I know I said that, but I didn't even have possession of all the facts then. I just I just saw I see material on people that I'm talking to almost every two or three days that makes me
revisit things that I thought I knew. Oh yeah, I mean, I've tried to explain that many times that, you know, even in my position, you know, where people say, well, you know, you've changed a little bit about what you said about you know, ten years ago or so regards darting, you know, some little aspect, and I go, well, the fact is that new information has become available in the past ten
years. Okay, there's been more documents come out. There's been a couple of other interesting things that have you know, that have crossed my path in the past ten years that caused me to reevaluate and to alter my understanding of it. You know, I didn't come to a conclusion already. I'm sorry, but I have not, and a lot of things are still open questions in my mind. It doesn't mean that i'm considering, you know, I'm still not on the side of saying, uh, well, I figure maybe
the Warrant Commission got it mostly right. No, I'm not there. Yeah, I'm not going there. But a lot of other things that maybe I considered to be well this is absolutely the way it is, became a little less certain. Some things that I didn't know I do now know. And you know, so things do change when new information comes in, and I
think a reevaluation of this stuff is necessary. I mean, it drove me crazy when there was like a certain little let's call them, a clique of people that for a little while said, you know, I don't need to read any of the new documentation. I already know enough from the Warren Commission in the HSCI. And I would say, you mean to tell me you haven't considered any of the post you know, AARRB information. You haven't considered
any of that. And there was a little group of people that were like that for a while, Larry, I'm sure you heard it before, right, Why do I need the new information? The old information works just fine. And I'd say, well, you know, if you want to make an open conclusion and you want to state that you know you're not on Gerald Posner's side here, okay, fine, But if you're looking to understand what happened, if you're looking to come to some conclusions here, that might be
you know, a certainty regarding whatever occurred in your mind. At least you mean to tell me you're not considering any of this new stuff. Nothing is legitimate that came out beyond you know, nineteen seventy nine. Seriously, and by the way, even though the work was completed in nineteen seventy nine. We didn't see most of it, you know. I know there were some public hearings and whatnot, and yes those were interesting, but you didn't even
see most of what happened there. So what you're telling me is what was available in seventy nine effectively was most of what the Warrant Commission had. But I don't even think all the executive sessions were available yet. I got to think probably a little bit. But yeah, OK, And I think one of the things that I think one of the things that may have held us back a little bit, like the question of, well, you've had all these new documents released, so tell me what the smoking gun was like,
No, there's no smoking gun. There's material. It helps us understand things that you know before I saw. Give you an example, before I had not seen I had seen photos of Oswald, two photos of Oswald at the walker House. I had not seen the whole investigation. I didn't realize there were two other photos. I didn't realize that they confirmed the positions from Oswell's camera. There's a whole nother story that I didn't know, and that's occurred
in many of these areas. There you know, when I started out, there were bits of a story, and you might reach a conclusion off that. But then these other bits, not sensational in themselves, take you not necessarily to the same place. So they don't have to be sensational in themselves. They simply have to be relevant. And that's a that's really big deal. Everybody wants a smoking gun. Everybody, you know, did you finally
find the documents that tell us what, you know, what happened? Well, I don't think there are documents that tell us what happened because they decided not to do an investigation. What can I tell you anyway? But well, in that that's covering the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't
do better. Well that's the thing. You could still refine stuff and it's not you know, and the other foolish thing, you know, like like you talked about it, you know again, I pointed to the Lancer presentation you did, where like, look, if you're going to disqualify all this and tell me that, well, listen, you're not going to get anything useful because they've destroyed everything that would have been useful. Okay, that might be an explanation, And indeed, there is a lot of document destruction.
Okay, maybe more than we thought we saw before even, but it doesn't mean Yeah, the good news Jack is, if you've been following our Murray Ferrell court case, you see that we have been given a win on document destruction by the judge. Well, tell people about that, by the way, if you ken real quick, and then I'm gonna let you go because I mean I've actually taken you well over an hour here. I'm sorry, but I got you know, I get entrenched in this and it's necessary because
again, what would Larry Hancock do? Well, first we got to deconstruct what we have in front of us, and then maybe we'll have to do a follow up on this, like what theoretically would you do with it after we've actually figured it all out or not figured it all out, but you know what I'm saying, after we've actually got the framework and we know exactly where the narrative was fed from and what. Anyway, maybe there'll be a part two to this, But go go ahead and tell people about this this
interesting win. Yeah. The best thing to do would they take a look at the Murray Farrell Foundation website, where we do have summary of ongoing findings and decisions in the court case. And it's true that we have lost part of the THEE have lost part of the case, I mean, especially against the President. But there are areas that the judge has found in our favor, and one of the more interesting ones has to do with destroyed and recovered
documents, and we're advancing along that line. It may give us the ability to do discovery. I'm not going to the website says it better than I can do in the correct legal terms, but certainly the ability to pursue destroyed documents and say, take do depositions on the Secret Service destruction of documents about JFKSE trips that fall would be a real win for us. You know, that may not sound sensational, but it's certainly a real win for things that
we have been pursuing that haven't been given to us. So yeah, I would just the quickst thing to do is kind of take a look at that and keep up to date on how the thanks are going in that court case. Right. Well, perhaps Larry, you'll give me the proper link so I can direct people to have them look at it for themselves, and we'll make sure to include that in the show notes, along with a link to Larry's blog and a couple of his books for sure, because again I recommend
all of them. Although I'm telling you I'm anxiously awaiting this reevaluation of Lee Harvey Oswald because and that's a brilliant idea to put it together with the Redbird information. I think, even though the Redbird information has been out there freely and people can get a hold of it, I mean, possibly a refined version of that, maybe a few additions to be made, a little bit of this and that trimmed off of it could be a rather interesting book.
I don't know what we would title it, but might be again, just more of a reevaluation of this rather interesting figure in history. Uh you know, a retrospective A I don't know what would you call that? A retcon retrospective? I don't know. Uh yeah, my I am wrestling with how
you titled it. But the real, the real thing is, you know, Lee Oswald is a real person, you know, in three dimensions, and looking at him not just from the way the Warrant Commission did or the way that the skeptical community does, you know, taking him out of the boxes that's that's the real thing is taking him out of the boxes. Well, you know what a three D character sketch of Lee Harvey Oswald? Right, sketching a sketch of the character in three D? Uh? Something like
that? And who knows, maybe a cover Maybe that's really the the cover idea that needs to be done, right, somebody actually trying to draw a three dimensional version of Oswald, you know, kind of an incomplete portrait, but in three D represented on the cover. Maybe that's the way to go. Not saying that's the title, but maybe that's the way to go with
it visually, because that's what you're attempting to do. Is you know what, stop having the two dimensional character that we've been dealing with, whether it's the presentation given to you by the government you know that created the Warrant Commission supposedly to track down everything having to do with the president's assassination. But what did they do? Well? The first three people they interviewed happened to be
all linked to this one guy who worked at the school book depository. And oh, by the way, three out of the four committees that they assembled to divide up the investigation I think actually had Oswald in the title of each of these three out of the four committees, if I remember correctly. You know, it's a weird organization when you're supposed to be investigating the president and they seem to have a fixation on a guy who was temporarily hired at the
school book depository in Texas. You know, a phrase that I think would have never even entered the nomenclature had it not been for the events of November twenty second, nineteen sixty three. You know who it was looking for a job at the time. Yeah, I mean, who ever heard of a school book depository outside of that? I don't remember one being in my local area in Jersey. I mean maybe where you grow up, Larry, there was a school book depository, but it's not like it's the local library,
you know, and every town has one. Anyway, I'm joking around now and again, want to point you guys out to go to larrydash Hancock dot com. I highly recommend many of Larry's books, all of them, indeed, and you can't you can't go wrong. So if you have a few and you want to fill in a few more, I suggest you do so.
Creating Chaos Shadow warfare and some of the stuff that's available out there on the internet for free, even still because that Redbird lead might end up in a book that would be nice, but that's still available out there for free, as well as work on RFK work on MLK. The Awful Grace of God is a co authored book you and Stu Wexler. Of course, you know, I need to speak to Stu. Haven't spoken to him in a long time and would love to hear what he has to say about certain current
events, even if he feels up to it. Maybe pass along a message next time you talk to Stu. But you know, Larry, it's always great to talk to you. What should we kind of close the night with? As far as considering these things, first you have to deconstruct what went wrong before you can figure out how to set it right. Would that be the way to go or what? Well? Either that or I would definitely
say don't go with the first headline. There you go, so again, author his story and really fascinating guy who puts up with me every other week on Wednesdays now Larry Hancock, and there will be links in the description on the podcast for you to follow up. We're gonna give you that link to the Mary Farrell Foundation's recent progress. Let's call it in one of the court cases, even though it wasn't a total victory, and a few other things
as they go. And I'm anxiously awaiting when we can sit down and talk about I don't know, Oswald in three D or something like maybe a title like that'll do you well, you know, Lee Harvey Oswald in three D. That's it, no subtitle, just leave it like that, you know what, Ask your wife, because I think she came up with some of the best titles you ever had. Right anyway, no matter who you are, where you are, when you are, remember this, I am merely
o'celly, all of you are indeed the effect. We had a very good hour almost and a half with Larry Hancock, and thank you Larry for doing this with me. Happy to do it. And we'll probably talk to Hilarry in another two weeks, and who knows what we'll be talking about. Then take care revelation through conversation. Wall Street window dot dot, gold, silver, the stock market, Wall Street Window dot dot. Perhaps you're invested deeply,
perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street Windows, do Condo, don com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street streamdo dot dot go there, now go there, now go there now radio nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is, right? Think called nuclear weapons and other things like
lots of you know what uranium is? Right? Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad things nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is, right? I have been agree nuclear holocaust is nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is, right, think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what uranium is? Right? Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad things nuclear holocaust, nuclear holoclear Holocaust, nuclear holocaust,
nuclear holocaust, nuclear holo. This is James Corby at Couper Report dot com and you're listening to the Olly Affected dot com. Go ahead about today assassination? Right, Well, what do you want to know? Baker's wild claim? Oswald Girl rinds you knew Ruby and Barry answer weapons? Really? I imagine I could claim I have four wheels? Does to make me a wagon? But okay, Wald was on the building and trying to present the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now has a real effort on the daffa
as fascination book into her claims. 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 kias 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. The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been
president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War, and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic. 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 armed 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 will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com. In Denial The Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial ripped 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 Handcock
dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical form. If youse expressed by caller stools, there anyone else who happens to get on the air to Jelly dot com. You not necessarily replan views of the Jelly dot com or jocko Jelly, and we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue. Thank it. Do you like history?
Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Moms and nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swans, Oh Chilly dot Com,
My grandma I got college. They it well, you will be actionous within your dime asage double well more and more people putting down. We got diy for man stand it's getting a wound? Well not lie, no, no, I me because no one ever died from smoking wed. You're kidding me. You're kidding me. Yeah, yeah, you're kidding me. Well, then it wouldn't ur job. They had to find another way to trick. That's the best thing that could come up. Bewa, it's a gay
way, drugg and leads to other substances. You're kidding me, You're kidding me, Yeah, you're kidding me. Well, more and more people putting down, but we got badly for matter. Sand is getting a run? Well what on the line nom now my being because no one ever died from smoking? And we your hair? Uh are your kidding me? Are your kidding me? Yeah? Yeah, are your kidding me? Real mother consteader, majority man, the authority, five people like you and me? You're
kidding me? Are your kidding me? Yeah? Yeah? Are your kidding me? Well? More more people put it down? You got that prefer that the sand skirting around the word off blie darling now not heaving because no one ever died from smoking. We hair you're kidding mean, but you're kidding me.