Get ready for.
October twenty second, twenty twenty four. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this is the show that doesn't seem to be able to get.
To the internet lately.
Yeah, my internet's been down for the majority of many hours over the past few days. So not active. You don't see me on social media. I was going to do a live show on Monday night, didn't get to it. But here we are on Tuesday, and I am able to do a live show and was able to reschedule from last week when I was really not feeling well. Larry Hancock, So I've got him with me here on a Tuesday, which is unusual, but pleased to do. So why Larry's got Well, you know, it's always great to
talk to Larry number one. He takes up a lot of space on my bookshelf. I've told you you got to go over to Larry dash Handcocked Larry hyphenhandcock dot com, follow his blog, check out as many many books. I recommend all of them. And you know, we could follow his work on UAPs, which he's actively involved in a group of people, an academic group that is studying things like that. So it's not all about little green men or anything. And he's also been a participant in the
Lancer conferences for geez a long time. He's going to be participating this year remotely. I think he'll be running the Facebook group and also, hey, doing a presentation at Lancer, but he won't be there physically.
I will because I'm the MC.
But anyway, he's also got a brand new book coming out about well, something that you might care about if you know what the Lancer conference is in the first place, Lee Rvy Oswald, the Oswald Puzzle, and it is available.
For pre order.
I have put the link in my chat at ochelly dot com, the live chat, but also I'm gonna make sure it's in the show notes and all that good stuff. So anyway, Larry, okay, I know it's geez.
Look at this.
It's exactly one month from now that November twenty second through the twenty fourth will be alive in Dallas and Lancer will commence. So how you doing tonight? And you know you're feeling good about one month from now, after I travel a while and you turn on your computer and get into the Facebook group on that Friday, how are you feeling about that, and how are you feeling in general, Larry.
I'm feeling good in general. I feel it's kind of strange because the temperature here this week is going to be going into the nineties. So the thought that you know, Lancer and the conference in Dallas is that close, it just doesn't doesn't feel right. You know, it's not even fall here yet, so how could we possibly be having
a conference? So that that seems a little strange. But I will say my co author on the Oswald Postle, David Boylan, will be in Dallas and in person, and he will be representing us, and so we'll be We'll be jointly doing a presentation. I'll join him remotely, but he will be there in person to take questions. And you know, so between the two of us we have one one physical participation. So I do wish I could be there, but it's just not happening this year, and it does feel strange.
Well, yeah, I was going to ask you if it did feel odd you're not going, but uh, are you actually going to be live remotely or are we just going to get a recording of you remotely? And then David's going to handle all the live stuff.
Now I'll be live. Uh, that'll bring us in and actually David will run our PowerPoint and uh, I'll be doing the presentation. You may join in on questions where the title of the presentation kind of interesting. The title is Oswell gaming the FBI. The effective on the relationship between Oswell and the FBI will be revealed to be a little different than many people's views.
Well, you know, hardly anybody usually mentions Oswald in the FBI, right, the jump to the immediate preoccupation is always Oswald in the CIA. And we've learned a lot about that in recent years. Even was, you know, the whole standard answer that they were never interested in Lee Harvey Oswald whatsoever.
Look, he was a loser, et cetera.
Kinda doesn't hold all as much water as they said for many years in the day. I do mean, the the the sort of powers that be, the establishment so so so to speak, had always maintained that Oswald was not useful to the CIA. The CIA wouldn't have been interested in him, And of course John Newman wrote a whole book on it called ironically Oswald and the CIA.
But yeah, Oswald in the FBI. Oswald and what.
Was he doing during certain times he was speaking.
To the FBI.
We know that factually, even if you don't go and do you know the the more far flung theories, we know factually he was interacting with the FBI. So it would be interesting he was gaming the FBI or Oswald. That's just a provocative statement in and of itself. Are you gonna make some new friends and some new enemies there you think in the community.
I suspect we will, and I think a number of people who haven't really read the documents on Oswald's test statements to both the New Orleans Police Department and the FBI may want to go back and reread them because when you look at what Oswa was actually telling, the folks, ay it was all a lie and b it was something that the FBI had to be taking quite seriously,
seriously enough, So I'll get out and say it. They buy the book, they should have at least considered him as a potential subversive informant because of the information he was following tearing to them.
Now, are you going to cover the fact that alert that seemed to get dropped right before the assassination? You know something that I don't know, maybe should have been kept in place. Are you going to go over that
whole thing and explain that. I mean, I know Newman's done a pretty interesting presentation on it years and years ago in fact, and you know, even people who have a very superficial understanding of the case, maybe we're very much into the JFK movie, might recall that even during these little rushes in that movie, he's supposedly trying to
contact an FBI agent in the movie named John Quigley. Now, some of the names are changed and swapped around in that movie, and very, very many things were not known at that time because the JFK Records Act had not come to fruition when Oliver Stone was making this thing, and again it was not meant to be a one hundred percent factual all the way through, et cetera. But yeah, he actually asked to speak to an FBI agent when he's arrested for something, and that's kind of weird. I mean,
if you're just arrested for disturbing the piece. Basically, he wouldn't think that most people would ask to speak to an FBI agent unless there was a good reason for it.
So are you going to.
Ask us generally had good reasons for what he did, and so we yeah, we do spend in the book, we go into that period of time in great detail. We also, I mean, one of the things that I think most people don't appreciate and which I did not appreciate when I was first writing about Oswald or the Kennedy assassination, was something that Stu Westley and I learned
when we were researching the Keen assassination. And that was really how the FBI operated, how it's local offices operated, What they told headquarters, what they told other offices, who copied what on whom, and who who knew what at a given time. And again we often think of information as being compartmentalized within the CIA, Well, information was compartmentalized
within the FBI as well. And one of the purposes for compartmentalizing information was the FBI each field office actually had a quota of criminal informants, criminal sources, subversive informants versus forces. They were required to go out prospecting and identify certain number of people every month, make up list,
work them, move them from one classification to another. And that's one of the things the office was rated on and Again, when you actually read enough FBI reports, you see that in a lot of instances what the FBI offices were really doing was just that they weren't necessarily certainly they did investigationations, but a good part of their time was spent on just identifying and cultivating sources. Now
you didn't. For example, in Dallas, Jack Ruby for a period of time was identified as a source, and then he was a provisional criminal informant, and then after they either used him and decided to take that out of the record because the testimony was offered in confidence in court, he was moved off that list. But to some of these things, unless you understand the operations of the FBI, again, as per usual, many things look mysterious unless you know
what standard practices are. And I think now once we got a good taste for standard practices, it's easier to see what easier to see what is anomalous and what is not. And one of the things I will just point out in regard to this, it's somewhat fascinating that virtually everybody in the FBI who touched Oswald got reprimanded by direct Hoover after the fact. Some of them, like host he got moved to other assignments which were not
good assignments. The only people in the in for organization who were not criticized, critiqued or penalized by Hoover with the people in New Orleans, which raises a really interesting fact. In fact, what they appear to have gotten off scott free, which raises a big question as to why did they do something right? Did they do something wrong? Hoover wasn't. Hoover was quite ready to deal with anybody he felt
did something wrong. But here we have Oswald talking at some links to the FBI and an FBI investigation in New Orleans, and it like it just disappears afterwards. In fact, agent Deburys is given authorization from the Justice Department not to answer certain questions. So New Orleans, the experience in New Orleans is quite different than the rest of the FBI experience with.
Oswald, right, That's why I found it interesting.
Joan mellen Wentz goes into a bunch of stuff about Debrui's debris. However it is you want to say his name, and you know, and focused on him quite a bit. People criticize that, you know, basically saying, look, it's not
a big deal. But it is when you consider what you just said, which is that, look, if everybody else that pretty much touched him got punished one way or another, reprimanded, whatever, except those guys, then well, that means one of two interesting things to me in my mind, Either they did something very right and therefore were not worthy of punishment, or there was something that needed to not be delved into that needed to be put aside so that nobody.
Now, let's not even dig into.
This at all, because if we do, it might kick over something else, you know. And that's another consideration here that I think people forget about, which is that, you know, it may not be primarily and I think that's the case with a whole bunch of things that people have discovered over the years, where they think things are very mysterious because oh, this person must be important because they
were not delved into. And I say, no, not necessarily them, but something that's connected to them could.
Be actually the target of the problem.
You know, if you I don't know, maybe I'm not explaining this clearly.
Do you know what I'm trying to get at here?
When you don't want to, Okay, if it's not necessarily what Oswald did. Maybe it is something that was around him that they didn't want, Like with the clay Shaw situation. The reason why the CIA was resistant, in my mind, is not because the guy was directly involved in the assassination, but it's because he was ause somebody who was useful to the agency and they didn't necessarily want to reveal whatever the hell else he was connected to, you know what I.
Mean, which always manages to revealing your other sources. One of the fascinating things that we know now that nobody knew before Garrison, or to some extent even after Garrison until the HSCA is virtually everyone that Oswald contacted in New Orleans, certainly in the Cuban community, but even in the ultra right community was already an FBI source. So the thought that he would be collecting information from all of these people who were already FBI sources is kind
of fascinating. If anything, it's interesting to turn around and go, well, what did they report about him? If we know they're already FBI sources, and we know that they had files and they were reporting on so in any event, but so to answer your overall question, we spend a good bit of time on this in the in the book, and we'll we'll be that will be the focus of our presentation at the Lancer conference.
Is there any touching upon this whole thing with what becomes ice immigration and all that, because there was a discussion about that, uh in a couple of books before, and there was also something about him maybe being involved with customs US customs at one point.
Uh.
Do do you end up touching upon any of that we.
Talked about I N S. Interestingly enough, the first person to actually interview Oswald after his arrest and after he spent the night in jail was somebody from I N S. Because uh, New Orleans PD for some reason reached the conclusion, perhaps because he had been protesting forecastro on Cuba, that Oswald was Cuban. So the first thing that they did was called I N S over determine whether this person
was actually an American citizens citizen or not. So certainly there was an involvement there, and and I S did confirm to them and then pretty much dropped out of the picture. Now that doesn't mean that they dropped out of the picture entirely. So there is there is a documented I n S connection, and as far as Customs is concerned, Oswell, of course was was leaf liting in
the dock area. And Oswald had you remember, Oswald had worked for companies and actually applied for work in the as a courier and for and for companies that were doing uh shipping and handling off the docks in New Orleans.
Right, So, just to clarify, I said ICE, I should have said Immigration and Naturalization Services because that's I n s uh. But later on, I mean, that's what ICE covers now, but it was then it was iron S. Then, Okay, I do find it.
I've read somewhere, and it just I don't even see how I can fathom this. Somebody wrote that Lee Harvey Oswell was actually working for either Customs or Ions and had a desk in their office. Kind of like, No, that did not happen. I'm sorry. I don't know where you got that. I don't know who said that, but no, there's just no sign that sort of thing happened.
Right right.
Well, you know, a lot of times when a couple of pieces of evidence emerged, people try to put a desk in somebody's office.
I mean, it just seems to be a very common thing, don't they.
Uh, you probably know which jokes I'm referring to there, But we'll leave it at that, all of a sudden, there's a desk in somebody's office, even if the office doesn't contain desks, right, anyways, it just happens that way.
Uh.
But but back to the seriousness of this. You know, how do you feel.
Overall about the book though?
I mean, now that you've completed it and it's you know, you're you're no longer working on it, right, I mean the photographs. I mean, we talked about the photographic section last time. What do you think Do you think that this is going to be a very serious change in the way people that mew Oswald? Or have you only made some minor adjustments? Do you think it's radical or not?
Oh, it will be a different, a serious change, there's no doubt about that. It's not just a tweaking. And the last thing we finished it has an extremely extensive index. That was the last task that we finished. No, it will be it will be extreme from both views. It's an extremely different picture of Oswald than the official story. Quite frankly, it's certainly an extremely different version and the Warrant Commission presented and it's a much different version than
much has been written about in the conspiracy community. So we've we've tried to be very balanced with this, which that means we will annoy all parties, which is the way history is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be, you know, the agenda driven. So and I guess the other thing, and I pointed out it's some of the things in the book are developmental. They're not sound bites. If I were just to say it, you would go,
huh what. But if you read you know, the ten pages in front of it, the fifty pages in front of it, the continuity, the context, it has to be taken as a whole because Oswald, as an individual with his own agendas, is a developmental thing and has to be taken as a whole. So I think that's all Also one of the reasons will be a bit contrarian because up to now, all of us, including me, have written bits and pieces about Oswald, and we picked the thing that fit what we were writing about and kind
of threw him into the mix. But this is quite different from that perspective. It's it's very developmental and constantly asked the question does this make sense and what we've already learned in light of what we've already learned?
Right, And so in fact, we have a live comment that that's kind of interesting because we were discussing I in S a few minutes ago, and you know, the live comment is from Kevin Florida, and his whole thing is, Look, it makes perfect sense.
I'm going to condense what you said, Kevin.
It makes perfect sense that the I n S would be interested in Oswald anyway due to the fact that he had a Russian wife. So there should be something that we can track with the I in S records regarding that alone. And to his knowledge, he's never seen anybody really lay that out. He is, after all married to Marina. He brought her from Russia.
That was an unusual situation. And what about that? Is that covered in your book? No, it is not.
I mean the State department side of that. Again, his we cover in great deal his exchanges with the State Department, a role that the State Department played that may have been secret quite frankly, a negotiation with Oswald. We cover the State Department side of things as far as getting Lee and Marina into the United States, and of course we'd cover it from a domestics OP, domestic OP, CIA
and FBI perspective. But as far as I in S Is concerned, you know, the state Department that, let's just put it, all the paperwork was in place for her to legally be inside the United States. So you know, I would expect those records would have been on file, would have been copied, but I'm not sure that they
definitely had files on him. And as a matter of fact, it looks like when the I n S guy was called in to New Orleans police that he may well have checked his files on Oswald or at least put in a query, because you can see in the in the police question of Oswald himself, the I N S officer does do some work on Oswald and then assures, you know, n O PD that he is an American citizen.
Another thing here is uh the the question about At one point a character was mentioned by by the attorney in New Orleans that was played by John Candy in the film. The guy can't remember his name at the moment, uh, but the guy was who was the uh that jazz talking attorney in New Orleans? Named Oswaldo something or other. Is that maybe a confusion of oswald and a Cuban identity that was just floating around?
What about that?
Certainly there was in Oswaldo as a matter of fact, if you look in the crypt files, I mean, uh, there were there was at least one and perhaps more Cuban exile that used the name Oswaldo. Uh uh, so that could have been some confusion. Uh, there's there's no indication that oswald himself was ever called that or used
that with anybody. Yeah, but there were there were Cubans and actually I think, as I recall David's probably we've we've looked at the files of two or three individuals that even were cleared by CIA for various operations where oswald was a, if not a war name, at least a name associated with the individual. But I'm not I would not say that that has anything to do with the attorney that you're talking about.
Yeah, Dean Andrews is the guy, by the way.
It's just that he couldn't remember the name, but it was Dean Andrews, and Dean Andrews had mentioned that on the NBC special and it actually named this Oswaldo something or other during that discussion.
Yeah, as one of a group of a group of people that came to visitors office. I think there were there other young Cubans that were supposed to be also along during that visit.
Right, right, And that's what that was about. But that's what the guy was referring to when he was asking about it. But he was just wondering if there was possibly just a confusion of that name. But what you're saying is that name existed independent of Lee Harvey Oswald's correct.
Yeah, Yeah, I don't think. I don't think there could have been. There could have been a confusion with an individual, a Cuban actually, who was using the name Oswaldo, but not our Lee Harvey Oswald.
Right, Okay, just hey, I'm just you know, asking the questions as they're handed to me, and uh oh sure that one was a little messy, but I figured we'll put it in.
I was quite surprised, you know, when we ran across the files of I think even like I say, more than one Oswaldough. It's like, okay, that's interesting. Wasn't expecting that.
Yeah, well, it's almost like how many guys named Martin there were, which I found funny from last year's Lancer conference.
But there are a ton of.
Them, and uh, you know, we won't even get into Hernandez and Rodriguez.
Hernandez Rodriguez, Oh my goodness. Uh yeah, I mean in first name and last name. By the way, you never know where it's gonna go. H what was it Hernandez I think was a first name even.
Anyways, and DFA, as long as we were talking, the FBI kept transposing them. It's like, wait a minute, could you guys at least keep the Spanish names in the right sequence. Yeah, that that's just really be helpful.
That's what I was actually referring to is that when depending on what you're reading, it can go one way or the other, and it gets very confusing, especially when you have something that sounds similar.
So I don't think it's a bad question.
Is Oswaldo possibly just a you know, weird transposition of them thinking he's Cuban?
Anyways, So aside.
From this, we also in the past, well what is it now, about fifteen days I guess, since the big announcement from well, you know, the vice president there of the Mary Farrell Foundation, right vice chair whatever it is they call him, Jefferson Morley put out announcement that he had a you know, an earth shattering sort of thing that the media had to catch and I went over it and had my views on it. Did you take a look at what he put out and what are your thoughts if you have any? Oh?
Yeah, there were there were several pieces that were kind of melted together and what Jeff published, But I think that what his the real main thrust was that he had found the source a whistleblower and collected some information, and the two main points of information, although again for us it's probably not shocking for the general public, maybe it's a different story, but the two main points where the source had confirmed to him having seen a physical
container that had material in it labeled JFK assassination that had been isolated in a not part of the CIA's on headquarters building. It was a secure facility. But you know, for some reason, there's this box of JFK related materials that's still setting around over there and has never been shared with anyone apparently, which is kind of curious at
this stage, you know. But I think the more important thing was that the same individual stated that they had actually come across a file which was and CIA Inspector's General file, and the Inspector General's file had to do with the CIA's behavior during the House Select Committee on Assassinations inquiry, and the way I read it essentially was the ig was evaluating what they had done and more or less commending them for their ability to shield information
from the HSCA. It was kind of a read the work you did, and you did a good job, and know they didn't learn what they wanted to learn. Now, that's that would be far more dramatic from my perspective that the existence of that would be explosive if someone could actually turn that up, because that would, you know, confirm that at the highest level a government agency was commending itself on how well it had done as an agent and see not an individual CIA officer, Okay, we've
seen that all the time. People have you know, committed perjury and have been happy, But that the agency itself had had had an organized effort to withhold information that I would consider explosive.
Yeah.
Well, especially because you're talking about a congressional committee which is investigating the circumstances which we already know. I mean, I don't care what anybody says, we already know George Joe and Edes Okay was sent over there in bad faith to run interference.
There's no other answer for.
Why he was there, and they were lied to about that, I mean, g Robert Blakey for years.
We also know that CIA officer was was literally caught red handed rifling through an HSCA evidence safe.
Yeah, having to do with the you're talking about, Oh my goodness, the guy's name Regis, But kidding, no.
I don't think so. No. Sorry, So that's why I say to us in our community, you know, it's like we're we're kind of like, well, g Jeff, we already knew that they were trying to stiff the hsc A. Well, the general public does not necessarily know that. And if there truly was an IG report, you know, unfortunately, all you've got is a whistle blower who's under protection. Now we have no idea how Jeff is handling that understander whistle blower guidelines, but you know, if that that would
be a major story. I think. I think the other thing that one of the reasons why the box of the box of materials is really not so stunning is we know that there. Even the HSCA was told and hsc A staff members listen to tapes, okay, that we're never put into evidence. We know, we know that there were agreements between the hs c A and the c i A that you know, people could listen to information, people could view things, but it wasn't going to be
provided physically and they couldn't have copies. So we know that game was played. Now. According to Jeff, the whistleblower actually made the comment that the i g's report appeared to comment that mister Blakey was not nearly as inquisitive as they were afraid the event and had been essentially more gullible. I think we were generally of that opinion within the community before, so that might have been not
been shocking. But the fact that the that the c I could We knew they were playing games, right, Chuck. We knew there was there's every sign that they were. They were walking a very tight line, and that stuff existed that the HSCA did not manage to collect and take into evidence. Now, if you're going to play that game, A,
are you going to leave that at CIA headquarters? Are you going to put you know, the photos and the tapes and a little box and storm and a sub facility that nobody ever looked worries about.
Uh.
I will say this, At one point in time Stu Wexler and I were tipped off by Malcolm Blunt that there was a box within Justice Department in a safe and a walk in safe that said JFK assassination materials.
And actually Stu we jumped through the hoops contacted people and actually traced it down and they acknowledged that that box was there and that they'd opened it up and that there was nothing significant in it, right, Like, Okay, I trust that, but you know, so the fact that there could be little boxes left dangling out in different facilities is not a shocker to me.
No, not at all.
The thing that I was starting to refer to, and I couldn't remember the exact agents, but there were two guys that were punished I think when autopsy materials were mishandled during the HSCA. That's what you were referring to, though, right.
Yeah, correct, it was autopsy materials photos or X rays or something like that.
Yeah, definitely was images and it was supposed to be kept in a secured safe and only viewed through a certain procedure and all this other stuff, and yeah, these two guys got there's a hearing about it. There's an audio hearing about it. I don't remember. I'd probably have
to look it up. But the truth is that there was two guys that ended up getting in some trouble here, but also Blakey for years and years, right, they used to haul him out for all sorts of the documentaries to have him say, no, I'm pretty sure the CIA was straight with me about stuff. He said that for a lot of years until he has confronted with a few things. Indeed, I think what Tunaim even went to him and said a few things to him, you know.
Did you realize this or did you realize that?
And in recent years I think he's finally said, you know, well, I think they might have misled me. But it only took about forty years to get there, right, I.
Mean, And that would actually seem to if there was such a thing as this mysterious IT report their assessment was, you know, that would tend to confirm their assessment that
it was possible to play the CIA. Another piece of evidence that we have on that I've written about is that you know, sixty Minutes did an investigation of some documents information about Oswald in the Soviet Union that the CIA apparently held and denied, although I have no idea why they would deny that, since everybody was aware from the beginning, but we even you know, during that piece, we had ended up with documents essentially suggesting that they
had had managed to dodge a bullet, that that materials had not actually made it onto sixty Minutes, that they had able to been able to divert the whole matter. And so we do know that the CIA, you know, to corroborate just with Blower. We do know that the CIA was actively involved in trying to control information related to the HSCA, that they did an effective job of it in many instances, and apparently we're quite happy about the fact that how they were managed to carry that off.
Yeah, and there's a lot to that, I mean.
Anyway, So overall, though you would say that it is you see, I don't know if the general public would find it earth shattering either, but it's definitely interesting. And if we have a you know, still living whistleblower that could come out with some information, obviously it would have to be more detailed than what was released to really land I think, or if there is some more documentation that should be collected, that should be brought into the collection,
you know, let's get this over with. I mean, is sixty years not long enough already? You know, I don't know. Maybe it's just me and that whole idea I have in my head that you know, just seems to me like they should have released all this stuff already. But still that's going on, dragging of the feet. Nobody's quite gotten there.
And yet what do.
They try to tell us all the time, and what have they been telling us now for decades? Look, whatever's left in there, there's nothing important anyway, There's nothing that's going to really make a difference, Larry, isn't that the general IMPRESSI that we're supposed to take from all this right, according to well the CIA and the government in general. Right, just look, there's some things still classified, but none of that's going to tell you anything, Come on, right.
I think the real cut of that though, that sometimes get what they're what they're really saying is there's nothing specific to do with the assassination. You know, the documents that and we do kind of lose sight of the fact that when these documents were collected, both originally you know, by the different government inquiries and then under the JFK Records Act, it was very It's like using a bulldozer. There was no investigative body following leads and collecting stuff
that was particularly relevant. It was more like, Okay, you guys, go through the master files, the headquarter files, and anything you see associated with the CIA and JFK or CIA in Cuba or Sierra Russia. Just bring it all in, which is why so many of us has spent so long looking at materials that are very historically significant and they're great for historians of that era and the Kennedy administration, but they really do not have anything to do with
the assassination. And you and I have talked about this previous land and that's the fact that to a large extent, if the CIA, who was not assigned to investigate the assassination, you know, it didn't. I mean, there are CIA records that are useful and interesting and helpful for us to investigate it, but they didn't investigate it except for the one report out of jf WAVE where they did and
it disappeared. But other than that one report. So we face the fact that they're literally tens of thousands of pages of information that were scooped up, some of which they consider, you know, we need to sanitize it, and you know, but it's not like I will. I have to say, I don't expect that there. I still don't expect there is a smoking gun document there that's like the CIA investigation of the assassination that says who did it that they're not sharing with us.
Yeah, I think that, But I'll tell you something else. And I have this weird open question for you, And maybe it's a silly one, Isn't there though a ton of Inspector General reports that you would think would logically exist based on the fact that there were a bunch and I do mean more than one. Inspector General should have had reports evaluating a whole bunch of different elements here, you know the investigation, how about you know the IG reports on.
The Secret Service?
I do mean multiple reports should have been generated regarding the Secret Service. How about you know the CIA, Yeah, they should have had one. There should have been inspector general reports from many agencies that I don't think have been I don't know revealed or have been studied up to this time.
Am I wrong about that?
Because it just seems logically there should be a ton more than I've ever seen.
There should Well, let's look at who has an Inspector General. The FBI really did not, right, the Justice Department did. There There should have been a Justice Department report on the performance of the FBI. Absolutely, yeah, not within the FBI, but in Justice Department. Although at the time the problem with with you know, with the Attorney General being RFK. You know, RFK would have had to order that. R have had to prove it. It's not automatically going to
be done unless somebody is tasked with it. And Inspector General's report on projects, big projects that the agency does, and quite frankly, they're usually not so much. Sometimes their performance reports, like the IG reports on the Cuba project and the Bay of Pigs, you know, if there's something at that level. Otherwise, a lot of what the ig IG does is financial. Quite frankly, how are we handling money?
You know?
How how are the different groups? Uh, you know, we've seen IG reports all over the place within the military. But so okay, back back to your question. So we write off the FBI. Probably we write off the Justice Department, the c I A well, the CIA's position is going to be, we had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. We weren't asked to investigate it, and so we weren't tasked with it. So the IGS, you know, we weren't
tasked to do anything. We didn't do anything. What would the IG have to report on the department that you would expect to see it come out of, as you're talking about, would be the Secret Service? Right there, certainly should be an IG report on the Secret Service handling of the protection of the president, and that appears to be missing.
Well, there's a key, but I'm saying I still feel like there should be a whole lot of other reports there, especially because Okay, there's another weird thing that comes to mind here, and I am pulling random questions out of the air, Larry, because this is I'm just having an open discussion with you.
Right. Here's the thing.
I don't know if you recall this, but somewhere around the twenty fifth anniversary, there were claims that there was a Department of Justice inquiry into the case. Okay, and there were people that stated that they were approached by individuals claiming to be from the DJ We have never
seen evidence of that investigation in any files anywhere. Do you think this is pigment of the imagination that's gotten spread around because it seems rather odd to me some of the people that have reported about this, For instance, the photographer's family that was you know, connected to the to the White House, right, his family said there was
some sort of investigation around that time period. There were a couple of other people that stated this, a couple of former FBI agents that said something about it.
And I've never.
Seen I've heard that too, Chuck, and I've heard. I mean, there are people. But one of the things that gets confusing is you had talked about you know, I gez. But one of the things that gets confus using about, of course, is there there have on occasion, you know, we've we've had congressional investigators. We had congressional investigators that were asking questions before the Church Committee, right right, Uh, we had congressional investigators that were asking questions before the HSCA.
We've had It's really hard to parse out. You know, Yes, I talked to somebody and they were on a fact finding mission and they asked this or that, Well, was that relevant to an investigation that jail later? Who was you know, unless you know who that they were working for or were they just working for a congressman That happens to Uh. Congress persons have have pursued these things
for their own particular agendas and interest. So, yeah, if you can't connect the dots, but I I've heard of I've heard of those two like, well, somebody was here talking to me about Well, tell me exactly when and what agency were they from, and what were they going to do with it, and maybe we could parse it out. But I've never seen that level of specificity. It was just somebody was asking about this.
Yeah.
The only reason why I find it out is because it's in the nineteen eighties. It's in the late eighties that this happened, and from what I could tell, there is no investigation current to this. There's no reason for it.
You know what I mean.
That may be, it may be that some congress person was considering it and didn't get enough information to push it right, But I can't see why any agency itself, I could I cannot. I could see why the CIA would rea you know it sert itself into the HSCA. But as you say, there's no known official congressional or
other government inquiry going on in the art. What I'd have to do is which I can't do, I said, is you know what political access might have been ground in that time period where somebody was looking to pursue this because of their interest or because it you know,
it represented a political leverage for them or whatever. But uh, we do know quite that congressional committees have asked questions, not standing committees, not special committees, but standing committees on intelligence, standing committees on you know, on different subjects, have have freely sent people out to ask questions. Uh, over time.
Well that was my next Yeah, that was my next sort of question for you, was about the idea that, look, we have standing committees on intelligence, right, and if somebody says that something links back to that in some way or other, you could have somebody emerge and say, well, let's talk to somebody who was in that office in the sixties, and therefore it would cross back over.
The Kennedy assassination, right, And we're.
Seeing that it really the questions may have been about how a department was operating you know, never know, maybe they're investing. They might have an inquiry going on into into a department that they're you know, have concerns about, are investigating, and they're just trying to pull up some history. Like these guys have a background of screwing up or covering up information. Uh. But I will tell you right at the moment, we're seeing the same thing in regard
to UFOs. Okay, right, there are a couple of there's one committee in the Senate, one committee in the House. The House in particular has investigators out asking lots of people questions about UFOs. There's some political agendas at work, and there is no there's no House committee. Mean, there is an affairs committee. It's not even an intelligence committee. And what they're really trying to do is dig up
dirt on misbehavior, harassment of whistleblowers, this and that. I'm not even saying it's all wrong, but there is it's a sitting committee, but there is no special committee on the subject.
Yet.
The Citying Committee and each congress person can do this by themselves, right, They don't have to have the committee behind them. They can have staffers go out to collect information on subjects they want to pursue.
Well, like, my thought is, if somebody wanted to look into presidential or Secret Service protection and say, okay, you know the recent attempts on Trump, right, you would say, okay, well, there have been failures in the past.
Maybe we go out and ask questions.
Of people that might know something a little bit more about what happened to Ronald Reagan. Yeah, maybe we ask some people about what happened to Gerald Ford. Maybe we ask about other failures in the past, whether the assass and succeeded or not according to the official record. And you might tip over some Kennedy stuff while you're at it, but only because they're building a history on again failures by the Secret Service in the past. And well, one would say that November the month.
Yeah, I mean you you would love to have it in it. It's saying not only have they screwed up, but they have covered it up.
And here's an example, right, especially when you're looking at is there a way to you know, improve this?
Right, Well, how do we prevent this?
You would think that was one of the main priorities of the Secret Service following nineteen sixty three, and yet we ended up with another rash of attempts, right.
Uh, you know in the seventies.
Uh.
And I brought it up on here that there have been many failed attempts that have you know, not gone as well. For the assassins even you know, they're not necessarily the big headlines because nobody got close. But when somebody got close to Trump, there there you go. Now the discussions come back open.
Uh.
And like I said, they could even go into the Reagan stuff. They could go in to Gerald Ford had uniquely two female assassin attempts.
Right, Ama Clinton. I mean, the Secret Service, unfortunately, especially internationally, has a woeful record of their agent's behavior, right. I mean that as compared to military organizations whatever. They just they really have a poor track record, whether it's drinking or prostitutes or whatever. And people have investigated that over and over again, and I'm not sure that there's been any sign of institutional change.
Right, although occasionally, what you know, you get a little reprimand you get a little hey, these guys could have done better, whatever, But the behavior pattern persists because like you said, I mean, we see the whole thing, Okay, we know about the drinking the night before in the Kennedy assassination, right, but that continued on and on and on.
As a matter of fact, there were several instances in international trips with Obama we have the Secret Service was caught, you know, partying and all this other stuff, and uh, like you mentioned prostitutes. I don't think any of Kennedy's guys had prostitutes, but the drinking was like practically ah, I don't know anything built in. It was like an epidemic with the Secret Service in the sixties up until that point.
Anyway, I think.
That's what would make we're telling you in terms of what Jeff was pointing out, what would make that really explosive if truly there was an IG report, Because as you're saying, a lot of a lot of questions get asked over time for various reasons, Okay, and they can be asked by you know, standing committee and uh, sitting committee on different subjects. I mean they're sitting committees that are strictly administrative. That would raise questions like we're what
we're talking about. It's kind of like who are you paying what to do? How's how's the how's this being received? How are these guys filing their trip receipts. You know, there are lots of reasons to inquiries. But if it truly an Inspector General had indeed done a formal report and put it in the file somewhere, and by the way, a compartmental fives file about the CIA's actually having an official tasking to subvert the HCA, that would be so totally different than all, you know, all of what we're
talking about here. It would be explosive, no, for certain.
And again, just one last thing to point out. I mean, one could even say, look, if you want to look at the the interactions with local law enforcement, right, that's another topic that came up post the incident in Pennsylvania.
Oh, you know, and.
The Secret Service has always utilized local assets, right, I mean we've heard about this all along, even back to the Kennedy time. Well, one might say, how has this changed since then? Right, because there was plenty of controversy about the you know, the Dallas sheriffs not being involved in protection. Uh, you know, what were the DPD doing. Of course they got plenty of criticism, rightfully, so uh and so on and so forth, And then you look at Pennsylvania and you still have this issue of well,
did local law enforcement know about this? Yeah, they did? What were they told to do? How is it that this guy got that close in that elevated position? Which was my initial question anyway, Uh, it makes no sense that that that should have been absolutely covered over and over again, I mean blanketed more than once that entire area.
There should have been no change. Yeah.
What it reminds me a little bit of is you know, and it was reported. I mean people were reporting him, but the communications apparently between local law enforcement and the Secret Service or you know, the reaction time was terrible.
But what it reminds me of a little bit is in Dallas, where we know that there were police report, there was at least one police report in advance of the motor keke going through Daley Plaza of where the Dallas Police reported and investigated people seen apparently practicing shooting from behind the parking lot behind the fence, right, and that clearly never got to the Secret Service, well as far as we know, it didn't get you know, talk
about talk about lack of coordination. What if the Secret Service, if Lawson or those guys would go, oh, well, gosh, there are people in Dallas that are practicing shooting at the motor Cave. You know, maybe we should change our plan a little bit here, could. It's sad because it doesn't seem to ever really change.
Right, right, No, But I just wanted to point it out that there's a whole lot of aspects here that that could cause somebody to look back at the history and say, okay, but but anyway, that's but that's interesting. So overall you would say that it's a point of interest what Morley put out, And yeah.
It's a point of interest. But without that whistleblower, you know, unless he has which I do not know I have talked with Jeff, unless he has it set up for that whistle blower to talk to a congress person, to actually become you know, known, and to go on record, and then then it unfortunately, it's just it's it's just anecdotal, you know. It just confirms our suspicions and you can't do anything with it. It's kind of like, as Jeff
would point out, it's like the Joines Joynedies thing. We ever have every reason to suspect this, but they won't show us the documents, so we won't know. And Jeff will go and It's just like the Secret Service trip records. We have every reason to believe that there were known threats that the Secret Service didn't respond to, and they destroyed the records and they won't tell us who to authorize the record. Just you know, it's the same old thing over and over again.
Right, So there you go. Sometimes business as usual is just that anyway. What won't be business as usual is what we're gonna do in Dallas November twenty second to the twenty fourth. Okay, And just want to give you guys another heads up on that before we're done. But Larry, in closing tonight on this though, is there anything you want to add that we didn't get to or or should I just do the uh the Dallas plug here
and get that over with? I mean, I I want to I want to tell people again and you can attend the conference virtually, and I'm gonna explain all that in just a minute. But I mean, is there anything else that you need to touch on here to wrap all of this up that we've covered tonight? You know, mostly I wanted to hover on the Oswalt thing, but I also wanted to get your take on what Jeff Morley put out.
Because I find it interesting.
But is the general public even gonna get you know, interested in it based on that?
I don't know.
And I see the you know, the the research community in general not necessarily reacting to it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's not something important or couldn't be developed into something very important later, which if that whistleblower were to come forward and there were a couple of hard pieces of evidence to offer in some way, this could be really remarkable, really fast, and I would love to
see some headline news on it. But are we going to I guess your guess is as good as mine, And unless you're Jeff Morley, you don't necessarily know what the next step is there.
Knowing Jeff a little bit, I think my synopsis would be sometimes you have some of these things are foundational. Yes, he had a press conference. Yeah, he got some news people to cover it. There were a couple of programs on it, and he's got that in the record. Does that suggest he, I mean, this stuff all has to be done step by step. We didn't just the HSCA
just didn't start right. The Church Committee preceded it. There were other committees that you know, sometimes you have to build a foundation to get people's attention, and in this instance it also proves something else. If you think about it for a minute, you would have gained the whistleblowers trust because he didn't expose them, right, So that also allows him to, I'm sure, maintain a dialogue with the whistleblower.
So for all we know, it's your speculation on my part, this could all be part of building a foundation to gain the trust, encourage the whistleblower to come forward, and to be able to put that whistle blower in front of a congress person in a credible fashion. And you and I have talked. It's not that whistleblowers haven't come forth before, but in some instance they've actually been compromised before you could get them in the right place, talking
to the right person. Jeff is playing it very much by the book in doing this, so against speculation on my part, but sometimes sometimes you slight baby steps.
Right, And I would say this generally speaking, foundation building is extremely important because significant actions do often come after other foundational pieces have been laid in place. Okay, what do I mean by that, Well, there was a citizens committee, there was a bit of a public outcry. There was interest in the public in general that got Congress involved. There were committees that preceded the House Select Committee on Assassinations,
which say what you will about it. It was a more significant action that was built upon previous.
Smaller ones.
Indeed, even the JFK Records Collection Act, which everybody loves to point to Oliver Stone's movie. And it was a unique catalyst for that, you know, to bring that stuff forward, and again to bring forward the rest of the secret files from the HSCA. And it did have that effect. We cannot forget. There were people out there campaigning for releasing the files. There were people out there bothering their Congress people and saying, look, this is of interest, we
need the truth on this. And all of those things culminated came together as sort of a composite foundation for what later becomes a law written, the JFK Records Collection Act, which leads to the AARRB and so on and so forth. So a lot of these things are actually built incrementally that allow us to get at more of the records, that allow us to get at more information. And sometimes it can take a decade to build it. Sometimes it
takes a couple of years to build it. Sometimes it takes a couple of smaller committees, you know, like we discussed on here when we went through the one oh one series and we went through every official investigation, right that was known on this show, and what do we see? There was a sort of snowball. This led to this, This led to that, you know, so on and so forth. I mean, even the clerk panel plays a role in what ends up becoming the HSCA later.
You have to acknowledge all that. So the idea that Jeff is.
Building something here, it could be that we're only seeing one of the early pieces of the foundation for something that could later roll out over into something much more significant.
Would you agree with that, Larry.
Oh, absolutely, and quite frankly, sometimes there is a political aspect sometimes, you know, you have to wait for a congressman or senator who sees this particular topic to be match their agenda. I'd say it but that we wouldn't have seen the HSCA if it had not matched political agendas of the period, right. And this goes across the aisles, you know. Sometimes it's somebody from one side of the aisle, sometimes the other. So again, that's part part of the
foundational thing. Somebody may look at it and go, hm, you know, once I get on the right committee, you know, once I get the right assignment and my party has this the House or whatever, you know, I might be able to take advantage of this. So I hate to add that element to it, but that's part of it being foundational.
No, politics is definitely part of it. Again, you can watch the politics percolate in the nineteen seventies, you know, going from you know, a Pike and Rockefeller on right, you see that. You have to admit that even Watergate and the public outcry that resulted from it participates in that overall percolation that's sort of blending together of this need to get at something that maybe the government's hiding.
I think that is a significant thing to consider that without that sentiment, without that, you know, again backing that the Congress got, you would have never seen the HSCA, you would have never seen any of this stuff. So again, politics, of course, it has to play a role in it because those are the people that have the power to actually.
Dig into these things. So there you go.
And I'm not saying every official investigation results in anything I'm just saying that you get a really good chance anyway, though, to have them at least look into the things that are connected to the government. Okay, does that always answer the questions? Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn't still be asking the questions.
We are over sixty each years later.
Anyways, November in Dallas JFKL Answer Conference November twenty second to the twenty fourth. That is this year, and it's exactly a month from when I'm speaking right now.
But of course you could.
Be catching this podcast later and probably you are. Virtual tickets start at seventy four ninety nine. In person tickets one hundred and forty four ninety nine for the whole weekend. There's also a student price, but you got to show proof of being a student, and you can.
Use code Shelley ten.
Okay, code o Shelley ten to get ten percent off your tickets at Assassination Conference dot com. Okay, and uh, it's always great to just show that you're you're you know, picking up this information from my show too. And the hotel is the Dallas Marriott Downtown in case you're going in person, and I'd love to see you there because I'm.
Going to be there.
Uh, there's room prices and all that information will be in with my show notes. But it'll be at the the Dallas Marriotte Downtown and uh, let's see. You can get a hold of them at one eight hundred two two eight nine two nine oh or two one four nine seven nine nine thousand and make sure to mention the November and Dallas conference group rate. Okay, and that way you will, uh you'll you'll get a discount there
as well. All that information is in the show notes, but I wanted to let you guys know that because it's exactly one month from now, and like I said, Larry Hancock will be there presenting with David boy Len, who is his co author on the book. Uh, the Oswald Puzzle. Is it the Oswald Puzzle or Oswald Puzzle?
Let me look at this real the Oswald Puzzles. Pull it all out on three words for the title this time.
Yeah.
You know why though, because Amazon has it as Oswald Puzzle.
That's why.
Yeah, but the cover.
I've changed that and we've asked you Amazon is its own universe.
Of course it is.
But look the book cover says the Oswald Puzzles.
So that's the way it is.
That's the way I can guarantee that for the cover, whatever ammas, that that's the that's the right cover. I will add one remark to the it's not so much a pitch foot for the Lancer conference in Dallas. One of the things that makes it a bit unique, I won't say just a bit unique, is it always has offered a real diversity of views. You're not going to hear the same story from every speaker. You are going to hear disagreements, uh, controversial interpretations from one speaker to
the other. Uh, speakers aren't are aren't all following the same track? You know? Can that be confusing? Yeah? But if you're if you intend to be a researcher yourself, you have to be prepared for that. You go into everybody with healthy skepticism. You weigh one against the other, and the Lancer conferences have always sought to have some balance. They're not just a platform. And quite frankly, there are other conferences there are more like platforms for positions. That's
not what you're going to see at Lancer. So if you if you do participate, expect that you're going to see some diversity and in this subject, diversity is a good thing.
Absolutely. Look, the conference is going to lead off. You want to hear about diversity, I'll give you a quick overview. I'm not going to mention every name, but this will give you an idea if you're familiar with the Unity. It's gonna lead off with Mike Swanson this year, and he's going to be talking about overall political things that
were occurring during the Kennedy administration. And I don't even want to go into the details of his presentation because I'm hoping to get him on here before the conference to discuss it himself. But when you take a look at Mike being there leading it off, you have Robert Grodin, who was somebody who was part of the HSCA and has released more photographic evidence on the case than I
think any other individual author. For sure, Janet Groden will be with him, Larry of course, Doug Campbell, Alex Harris, one of the youngest people I've well, the youngest person I've ever seen present at a conference this year. He can't be because he was last year. But meanwhile, interesting Bill Simpitch, who definitely goes into the legalistic end of things, because he's a lawyer. You have me as at mc okay,
Gail Nick Jackson. We all know about her quest for the film, but who knows what Gail is going to wind up talking about.
I mean, please, we have a very diverse group here.
Joe Barelli just to butt in, but again, Gail again is a perfect example of diversity because we think about Gail in the film. Most of her research work has to do with the Walker shooting yep, And we had her last year speak about the Walker shooting and she's a person who's done her homework and offers some contrarian perspectives on that that actually really influenced my work and stuff that I hadn't seen. So you go to the conference not to see the stuff you already discussed on
a Facebook page. Right, that's the whole point of a conference. If you were part of a forum, you've already seen that. You don't need to see it again. You need to hear from people that you hadn't heard from before.
Right, And it's good to hear from some people you have heard from before, like Larry, like Dick Russell who's going to be there, like Bob Nelson, who's going to be there, Okay, Casey Quinlan, who has some interesting thoughts about stuff, but I didn't expect from Casey, you know, on a few very very fascinating connections to individuals that were connected to things or in the JFK assassination universe, let's say. And speaking of that, Carmine Sabastano will may
be making a virtual presentation as well. And when you put all of that together, okay, with the fact that, well, let me just say this very cryptically, I was told that certain worries I had about restricting my commentary are no longer going to be a consideration.
So the handcuffs are off on a few things this year. Okay.
I'm just telling you that now we may have a little more controversy than usual. There may be a bit more contrary points of view and statements coming out this year at the conference. Of course, up to the speakers themselves, because nobody's controlling them, Okay, but just letting you know, this could be really really different this year, all right, So.
Let's put it that way. And I didn't even give you all the names on the list.
There are many other presenters and it will be occurring from November twenty second, to the twenty fourth, and again, of course I'm looking very forward to Larry Hancock and David boy Len's discussion. Plus are you going to be part of a panel as well, or is David going to be part of a panel.
Do you know about that yet?
Or I have volunteered for that. I have not heard from Gabby back on that yet.
Okay, there are various people that have volunteered for panels, and it could be that I will have to organize them on the fly there, so that might happen.
I'll be around, So I'm going to.
Call upon you, Larry. I need you for context. But of course Larry has authored you know, a good handful of books on this already. But I do advise you to go and look for the Oswald Puzzle and pre order it on Amazon, and yeah, get to it. It's going to be different. I mean, I am anxiously awaiting my own copy of it myself. I definitely want this thing, and I urge you to get it out there. And also if you pre order, sometimes even if they tell you it's at a certain date, occasionally Amazon sends it
to you early somehow. So I don't know I would get on that if I was you guys and get yours reserved, definitely, and maybe just maybe Larry, there might be a way that I can get a hold of a book or two maybe at the conference.
Is that a possibility still, we.
Beat our deadline, so I have hopes that we're gonna it's gonna be out before the official mid January release date. I just don't know if it's going to be that quickly.
Well, look, if there is a way though, maybe just maybe I could come up with a way of putting one out for a drawing or something.
I think that would be a lot of fun.
Oh we can do something about that. Absolutely, yeah.
And you know what, even if I don't physically have the book, maybe we could just somehow come up with a way of, look, you'll have a ticket that's going to get you the free book when.
It comes out.
I think we can do that, you.
Know, how about something like that, because I would love to offer this to somebody who you know, is really interested but also would like to contribute to the cause, so to speak. So anyway, and I didn't even talk to Larry about this before air, so I kind of put him on the spot. Apologies Larry, but but I know we discussed this, and I definitely want to have some promotional materials from you in hand. So you got to get those mailed to me soon, Okay, so I can bring them with me.
Actually, David, da talk to David. David has something already. Oh, I sent it to you.
Excellent. Did you get my address? No? Oh he might have it though, huh.
But I know, yeah, I know he has how to find you electronically, but no I did not.
Oh, okay, well I'll check with David on that.
But anyways, I don't need to check with anybody else about a lot of things if I go to straight to Larry Hancock because he's a great source on a whole lot of this historical research and again the Oswalt puzzle. But don't forget the other books on the case, like Tipping Point, like someone would have talked, how about Nexus, which touches upon many many things that would be of interest to a JFK researcher. But gee, what else could
we recommend Larry? I mean, I could recommend all of your books, because I do, and I think I have every single one on my books show. So there you go, and I'm looking forward to adding the Oswalt puzzle to my collection. So anything else Larry, before we're all done.
Here today, I think that should do it.
So there you have it, guys.
Once again, I thank Larry Hancock for joining us tonight, and even though it is a Tuesday, I had to reschedule from last week. But it's always great to talk to Larry Hancock, and always great to talk to you guys, because after all, I am merely o'chelly. All of you
are indeed the effect. Go to Larry dash Hancock for further information on his work, follow us log do all that, and check us out in Dallas November twenty second to the twenty fourth, either virtually or in person at the Downtown the Dallas Marriotte Downtown in Dallas, Texas for the JFK Lancer November in Dallas conference.
Take care.
If you've expressed my callers, tools there anyone else who happens to get on the air, it was Kelly dot com. If you not necessarily reflect the views over Kelly dot com or up Kelly and we are not responsible, we're getting stupidity.
Which go ahead, call it.
About the JFA assassination.
Right, Well, what do you want to know Judy.
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, I'm building.
And trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Come on now has a real effort on the DFA assassination in 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.
Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret Wars became a staple of US covert operations and 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 Larryhncock. 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 Revelation Through Conversation, The.
War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the content next 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 to.
Use expressed by Colers Schools. There anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com if you not necessarily reflect the views little Jelly dot com or job o' chilly, and we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue.
Thank you.
The Incentertioner, a local found the inc comm