Is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you Yeah and Nowgted Noise and in our media shack April seventeen, twenty twenty four, allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this is indeed the o'celly effect, and I am live on a woldenes Day, Wednesday, middle of the week, hump day, whatever you want to call it. Uh, But most of you will catch this further on down the stream, et cetera,
et cetera, cause we are also a podcast, the o'cell effect. That is, I'm not a podcast, although sometimes I play one on your device of choice. Anyway, it is what it is. It is Wednesday.
This day in history, in fact, is relevant to tonight's discussion and my returning co host once again for the evening, Larry Hancock, who is the author on many, many, many subjects, often revolving around the intelligence reactions, the United States actions, the geopolitical spheres of influence, many many things, aside from the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which, oh, by the way, we might have to discuss here because the Bay of Pigs
happened sixty three years ago. Now, all your numerology people might be going sixty three years ago for the thing that happened in nineteen sixty three, and then you're gonna tell me which parallel it occurred on and what time of day it actually was on the clock according to the Sun dial. Let's calm down,
everybody and get some real context from Larry Hancock about this. And while you're at it, check out Larry's work takes up a lot of space on my bookshelf, et cetera, et cetera, And it doesn't just take up space or collect dust, because it's very useful stuff and some of the best
stuff out there. From Surprise Attack, Shadow Warfare. You might think that something like the Bay of Pigs would get mentioned in those books, and indeed, I'm sure they do, as well as in Tipping Point, as well as in someone would have talked maybe not unidentified, because I don't remember any sort of unidentified flying objects at least, you know, maybe there were some in the rooms in DC when things were occurring, but I don't think there
were unidentified flying objects at the Bay of Pigs, this location near Cuba. Of course, we're back to talking about Cuba and what might have been involved there, and many people discuss it and reference it when talking about the assassination. Oh, by the way, did I mention tipping point? Did I mention someone would have talked? Did I mention that? Larry has many other books out there, either authored or co authored by him, The Awful Grace
of God Killing King one an update of the other. You know this kind of stuff, So that assassination various interactions UAPs, which we have discussed recently on the show, A wide variety of topics where you get some very clean, good solid analysis from a man who I'm satisfied to call not only an author but a historian. I don't think you technically have that training per se, but all the work you've done, you've definitely laid out a historical set
of references, and all of them valuable. I recommend all of them highly well. And indeed you might want to look at a detailed discussion of the Bay of Pigs in a book called in Denial, which you might recognize that title because I do run a spot almost every show that comes through this network for that book authored by Larry Hancock, and I happen to have a copy of that, and well, every one of Larry's books, and I'm looking forward to the new one, which I'm not sure when it's coming out.
Maybe Larry can help us and fill us in as to when that might be presentable. But a new book taking another look at Lee Harvey Oswald, when does that do to come out? Larry? And how you doing tonight? By the way, Oh, I'm fine, Jack. I certainly hope that the Osweall book will be out by the end of the year. I hope
it will be out by the time of the Lancer conference in November. It's we have the going into the final edit with Rex right now, but then there's proofreading, there's publishing, but the writing part is essentially done, so that's relief and turn out. There were only four hundred and twenty seven footnotes, so people can really look forward to that too. Oh, there you go, four hundred and twenty seven footnotes. I mean, Larry, what
are you getting lazy? I mean, what's going on here? And by the way, I believe that out numbers the number of pages, and I'm obviously busting your chops. But I look forward to that as well as looking forward to Lancer, which we'll both be participating in this coming year. Although as it stands right now, I am planning on being there in person to MC and maybe do some other things, and you may or may not be
there in person. That's still not fully decided, I guess, but looks like either way you'll be presenting somehow though, whether it's virtually or in person, you're going to do that and probably participate in the online situation. Maybe I heard a rumor that you might actually, I don't know, be running the little Facebook group that they have as the live conference is happening. Something
like that. Maybe I heard wrong. You could tell us later, because all we know right now is the dates, which coincidentally, speaking of this day in history, are going to line up rather nicely because it's going to begin this year on the twenty second, as far as we're planning thus far, so the weekend of the twenty second, of the twenty fourth in November, the Lancer Conference will happen, and if you're watching it online or you're
there in person, you'll be suffering through me in person, but you'll get Larry Hancock either virtually or maybybe we'll have a live connection with you, even if you're from a remote location. Still to be determined what you're going to do exactly right. That depends on how early the book is and whether I survive the publishing. Yeah, one never knows. It's like given birth. But I've done it a few times now, so I know what's coming up. Well, there you go. So we will sit in anticipation and see
exactly what participation you'll have. But you will be involved with Lancer this year, one way or another, so we have that to look forward to. Only geez, it's about seven months away now. But before we get there, let's talk about this day in history, just briefly, and of course only one event April seventeen right now. I hear this reference constantly when people
do podcasts, when people do presentations, documentaries. It is worthy of mention when you're going to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the time period it is a watershed event. Some interesting things occur in the face of the public, in the public, not the face of the public really, but in the public's view that quite often didn't used to occur in the public's
view. How would you approach this If somebody's like, look, I've heard of the Bay of Pigs, but I don't know much think it happened in
Cuba. I heard that once from somebody. I think that happened in Cuba, and that was the extent of what they had heard about it, not somebody who was, you know, extremely interested in all of the minutia of the Kennedy assassination, obviously, but a general kind of introduction, how would you introduce not only the historical event to someone who might not be read in on it, but also how would you explain the context as to why it
is of note regarding the assassination, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, obviously without speculating, just in a very general, pedestrian, easily accessible way. Larry, what would you say about the Bay of Pigs for somebody who's only familiar with the freeze? Let's say yeah. I think one of the problems that we face from a historical standpoint is we we fight the same problem with the discussion of the Bay of Pigs that we do with the Kennedy
assassination. What is written about both in the history books is very menialist, minimalist. You often find, you know, a paragraph of you know, when the assassin app assassination nappened in Dallas Learsrey Oswald the loan Shooter and you're done. Uh. The same thing goes with the Bay of Pigs. The Bay of Pigs was essentially a landing of a Cuban force at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Uh. It was a disaster over some three days.
The force was essentially landed successfully and operated for a day day and a half successfully and then was basically overwhelmed. And it was an immense political disaster for brand new president President Kennedy. And and when it's talked about, that's the ways talked about it, sort of like it was. It was Kennedy's first trial by fire. It was a disaster, you know, And and it sets a very negative tone for the administration, which which he later came back
with during the Missile crisis. But in the history books, it's it's presented as a Kennedy disaster based on Kennedy's decision making. Unfortunately, as with a jfk assassination, which we've learned far more about over the decades, that's not as simple it is is in the history book, and neither is the bfpis isn't it right? So let me let me get the story for the ball.
Let me interrupt you. Let me just interrupt you real quick for one reason only because we require quick snapshots here of two things, uh one, the event itself. But also let's put into context the idea that in real time and ever after, according to history, you have the figure of Fidel Castro, who's a person of interest, clearly somebody that you have to mention when you're discussing the Cold War in general, et cetera, et cetera.
So it goes far beyond the Kennedy assassination, and you'd have to say that, you know, regardless of whether it was during those days when the news reports are happening and Kennedy gives the famous press conference where basically he says, you know, I'm gonna very badly paraphrase here, the buck stops here.
I'm responsible for this mess, et cetera. He says that in public, But there's a public and private occurrence here, and it's in the context of the height of the Cold War, before the Cuban Missile crisis seen as a victory, you know, for the administration for America in general. So there's a context of what was going on then and how it has been carried out through history, as you said, with really not even a full paragraph,
a few sentences in a lot of history books. So you have to kind of land those two things before you even get into the description, don't you. Absolutely, And you've got a key point there. It's three days, and it's always one. It's described is described as the Bay of Pigs land E's three days, when in essence, the operation was initiated by President at
Eisenhower the year before. The operation is approved and conceived under Eisenhower was nothing at all similar to what was instituted by the CIA only weeks after JFK had
come into office. But that backstory has never given that nobody ever writes about, oh, the Bay of Pigs as part of a much longer Cuba project that had been you know, it's three days, compared to what had actually been in play for over a year, and without the backstory of how, what author what Eisenhower had authorized, what came about what Kennedy had authorized, which was actually nothing at all similar to what actually happened at the Bay of
Pigs. Your left hanging, as we often are with the JFK assassination, with only a very small part of the story, and I think that that's one of the things that makes it important. We can learn a lot from the Bay of Pigs in terms of educating ourselves of how how the sound bites and the history books are really not helpful for understanding what happened historically. And if you know, if that's all you ever read, and if that's what
you just repeat, then it's wrong. You're making a mistake. Everybody's making a mistake. Yet, I will say, sixty three years after the fact, articles are being written in papers around the nation about the Bay of Pigs, and they continue to recite a whole set of things that are faults that
we took this quite a while to learn. But there's still it's like they're repeated year after year after year simply because that was what was said in the beginning, and it never gets any more accurate, which is is definitely frustrating for historians and anybody that would really like to understand that, you know, the real story. But the newspaper, it's easy. They just pick up the copy and the copy is extremely negative because that's the way people were talking
about it immediately afterwards. Well, and much like you know, any real time news story. There's also remnants of things that do get retained over time, like the introduction of Richard Nixon to the conversation, because he was the uh, you know, the officer of the White House who was given responsibilities regarding this. According to the very well, what do we call it, the very sort of condensed version of the historical sound bites, Nixon is the
executive action officer under Eisenhower. He had knowledge of this. He had more knowledge about it than the president who was being told about it as he's coming into office, according to well, a lot of reports. So there's some context here. You got to think about that. This is during that transition and all of it. But this can get confusing, so let's cut through
that and get to the event itself. Right, we've given a lot of the context and a lot of the cautionary tales about being careful about what was recorded in public and real time. What we've been able to learn the arguments over you know, could he have given air cover? Did he give air cover? Is that really the thing? Did that build resentment? Put it all aside, and let's get to the event itself. If you don't mind,
what do you think Larry, is that appropriate. It's appropriate only with one caveat, and that's the fact that what Kennedy actually authorized was the landing of a Cuban force inside Cuba. This force had been prepared over some ten months. Originally it only supposed to was supposed to be a very small group of people who were highly trained, who would go in and lead a revolution. There was no way what Eisenhower prewed was in no way resembling what happened
at the Bay of Pigs. And so I think we can talk about what did happen at the Bay of Pigs, which was a literal D Day style landing craft, tanks, aircraft, transports, paratroops, was in no way what was supposed to have happened. It all morphed literally into something brand new over approximately four months at the very end of the Icenower administration, and Kennedy
basically inherited it and asked some questions about it. It's interesting when Kennedy asked for a brief and actually asked whether or not the Joint Chiefs of Staff had approved it as a military action. He was told no, they hadn't, and he said, well, then send them over the plan and let them take a look at it. And the answer was, well, there's no plan, there's no written plan, we have nothing to send them. This is a denial operation. It's all verbal. Well, okay, go ahead
and brief them. And when you read the documents, it's kind of like the Joint Chief people are going, we're not even sure. We have to talk to these people and they're telling these bits and pieces, so we're going to give you an opinion, but it's not like they've given us a well
thought out plan. And basically all we can tell you is, yeah, it looks like they will be able to land a force, they'll be able to put them on the beach, but it absolutely looks like they do not have a plan in place that would allow them to support them over a long term, that would allow them logistically to do that support. And by the way, the Joint Chief's recommendation, which went back to the CIA, said
two things. A, this is not going to work at all, and the group will literally be wiped out unless there is a massive internal revolution that happens at the same time as the landing. And B you've got to pull this off in such a fashion that there are absolutely no Cuban aircraft operating over the beach that can target those landing ships. Because you're only putting the small number of ships in there, they're loaded with ammunition and if you don't have
total air control, haul it off. So that just sets you a little context for what happened and during the next three days after the landing, which was totally hand violation of all the warnings that the CIA had been given. Right and again for context, this is beyond because a lot of people just imagine it as the great invasion that is meant to be Okay, there's an invasion boom done. The idea here, although there wasn't a formal plan,
it seems like was for a revolution to be sparked. This was meant to be an inciting incident beyond the invasion, Like the invasion is almost a secondary thing. It is the landing of the parties there, But what they're supposed
to do is create a popular uprising and that's really the key year. And yet am I correct in thinking there was no specific plan for doing that from what we can discern, or is it possible it's actually worse than that, Chuck, And by the way, for people that I'm not really making this stuff up. This all came up. There were, as you can imagine, numerous inquiries, investigations, histories done internally within the CIA, which were
extremely damning to the people in charge within the CIA. But literally in the month before the landings, the CIA became aware that Castro had essentially rolled up the major revolutionary groups on the island, had had penetrated them, either killed their leaders or locked them up, and there were literally thousands of people in jail at that point that might have helped with the popular revolution, and the CIA absolutely knew that that was not going to happen, and they did not
even bring it up as an issue to the president. You find we find that in the transcripts of the meetings. And not only did they not do that, but the people they had trained over the better part of the year to infeil trade and lead that sort of revolutionary action were not inserted either.
Even some of the most basic things that you would do, like put these people in as pathfinders, have them block roads and the interior, blow up bridges sort of, none of those people were even deployed with the landing. So, yeah, to answer your question, it's not an overstatement to say that the major part of the plan, which relied upon an internal revolution. In fact, the plan even called for sending in hundreds of thousands of rounds
of ammunition to support this revolution. It was not even that the picture at the time of the landings, and the CI officer in charge, Richards Bissel and Tracy Barnes, knew that and were aware of it, weren't telling anybody well. In fact, one of the leading figures that was imagined to basically take over if Castro's overthrown, at least one of them was not even in the country or near the country at the time, which I find interesting.
But here's the thing the post wortem get asked on that note, Chuck, just to expand on that. Sure, the CIA actually locked up all of the major revolutionary leaders that were inside the United States. That again, you would expect, you know, if this is going to be a popular revolution, you've got to have people at the Cuban populace identifies with, recognizes, you know, participating with this. You'd even you don't want them on to
be you want you want them there. No, they're all locked up in a hotel room in Miami because somebody's concerned that they're going to talk and give away the operation, right and the mortem. One last note on the post mortem, and is often pointed to, is that this leads to they often say, oh, he fired the head of the CIA and various other people, et cetera. We know those names, we know who they were. But Kennedy didn't fire them. He asked for their resignations and got them.
Uh. Key figure, their biggest name, key figure anyway, who plays a role later on in this entire narrative and even into the assassination and into the days of the Warren Commission, Alan Dullas Uh. Not only that, but the brother of the mayor of Dallas, you know who as a CIA building named after him. When you're leaving town, which I noted walking to the greyhound station in Dallas. You know Cavell, all right, you got
you got Earl Cabll and Charles Cavell. Charles, Uh, somebody who is involved with the CIA seemingly asked to offer a resignation along with Dallas and some others. But he's got a building named after him, a CIA building in Dallas, right there on that same strip where the Greyhound bus station is I noted that because I took a look up and realized I was standing in front of the Charles cabll CIA building. And that's part of the story as well.
But often one of the things that people focus on that takes us away from the historical event a little bit. But is significant or what do you think? I think it's significant only that you know, nobody ever asked the question. Nobody really explores what Dulles or Cabell or what the officers did or didn't do. The discussion is always in terms of Kennedy. You know, what did Kennedy do or not do the which means the only blame for the
whole thing is placed on Kennedy. There really is no discussion. You read a biography of Dallas, or you read something about now there's nothing in there about oh associated with the disaster at the bay. You know it's missing. So to me, it's just it's a missing just another part of the missing
piece of the puzzle that didn't get any discussions. And if if you actually read the historical reports, the CIA historical reports or the commission that studied the Bay of Pigs, you would see what these people didn't do and it's just it's amazing what they didn't do. Actually, Kennedy was more than graceful and simply offering to let them resign, both of them. If they had been in the military and you looked at what they did and what they didn't do,
would have been court martial offenses dereliction of duty. I mean, there is just absolutely no doubt about it. Cabbell give an example in that regard. Kennedy authorized a whole bunch of things that are never talked about during the three days of the landings that he had said no to before and when it became clear how bad things were going on the beach head. He authorized air
strikes by American pilots which he had initially ordered not to happen. He authorized air drops by Air Force aircraft, and Cabell was supposed to take care of that and did not. It's just amazing. Kennedy authorizes first on day two, but actually day one, day two air strikes by American pilots flying B twenty six aircraft, and then he authorizes air cover from the Navy, and the Navy screwed up both of them. They got their timing wrong, communications
wrong. They weren't even using the same frequency as the landing force was. It's just but the fact is, on the anniversary, none of that will ever be discussed by anybody except here, because it will all be a regurgitation of Kennedy's, you know, failure of decisiveness somehow because he didn't go ahead in order a full military invasion of Cuba. Well, and that's the way it stands. So how is it we should interpret this, put this in its right context the event itself. Let's go into that. I mean,
do we need to get into the reference. I mean, we've mentioned the landing good The simple explanation is that this whole broad checkt was not run by Dulles, It was not run Buck Cabell. It was really run by Tracy Barnes and Richard Bissel. These were the two senior operations officers that were given the project. And it's a very unusual organizational thing within the CIA. In fact, it received heavy criticism because it was not the way they normally did
things. But these guys were given the mission because they had been in charge of a very successful overthrow of our bents in Guatemala years before, and they were felt to be the best on hand for you know, regime change.
They got into this and basically for the better part of eight months, Barnes and Bissell put together a you know what was supposed to be an infiltration program land people in Cuba take leadership role of these revolutionary groups, and the whole thing was actually, you mentioned Richard Nixon, The whole thing was supposed to result in the overthrow of Castro before the elections, and Nixon would have a
shoe in the Icenower administration would have had a very victory. Actually, both Icenower and Nixon were appalled when they found out that nothing was on schedule and nothing had happened in the way that they had been promised. Was an immense shock to them. And at that point in time, since the first caught Plan one, if you will, Plan one clearly was way too late. Castro had managed to arm him self far better. The Soviets were beginning to
ship in everything up to jet fighters. They did a quick reset and built an entirely new plan and trained an entirely new force. Over some four months October November December January, they totally shifted the plan to this full scale invasion with landing craft and tanks and heavy weapons groups and paratroopers, which was totally
different than what it had been. This was all essentially a kind of a hail Mary, with Bistol and Barnes recrafting the whole thing into something that might work and at least stood a chance so they didn't have to admit, you know, back off and admit failure. And one of the things we see in the documentations when Kennedy took over again and again, he asked Biscile if he just wanted to drop the whole thing, like it looks like this is
really challenging, looks like they're real issues. The joint chiefs have some problems, you know, just tell me no and it's okay, we'll we'll back off it. And they would not do that. Bisil and Barnes would not
do that. In fact, really the upshot in what kind of wraps it all together is decades after the fact, a very good author and reporter showed documents that discuss this whole process to the two actual military officers who who were in charge of the Cubans, who were in charge with you know, field operations with Cubans, Hawkins and the Easter Line, and they showed them to them, including what Kennedy had been told, what he had not been told,
what commitments, et cetera. And their immediate reaction was Bistle was lined
to Kennedy and he was lined to us at the same time. You know, we we don't know what in the world was in his head, but you know, these guys had walked into Bissele's home and said they were resigning weeks before the landing because the whole thing was nonsense unless they got, you know, major extensive support, more aircraft, more air raids, and Bistle persuaded them, I'm sorry, Bissell persuaded them not to resign and he would
go to Kennedy and get what they needed, absolutely committed to them. What we now know he did was to go to Kennedy and actually cut the request for air power right now, even yes, sorry, day of the land date, you refuse to argue for more air strikes right now. Look, this is a key thing, and just for in the show notes, you'll see that I've provided some references to the JFK Library about the Bay of Pigs and also THECIA dot Gov's official story about this. Why do I present this
because after we study documentation and go through a whole bunch of things. As Larry is describing, you find that, you know, the story that is generally told, not unfairly but in an incomplete fashion, is that Kennedy was misled regarding this. But it seems as though so was Nixon, so were
other members of the CIA, so were military. It seems as though there was a whole lot of misleading going on here, and it was done, what I can read, with the intention of causing people to have to react, to add more things into the mix, to add more resources, more reactions in real time because they would sort of be cornered into doing so.
And you presented it or the people that were in charge presented it as something that was well taken care of. But at the same time, it goes further because, as you said, Kennedy authorizes some things, others might have authorized some things, and then these guys don't even take advantage of that, which could have been helpful to the overall plan, which again on paper, was an incomplete plan. But somebody had to a bad an idea in mind here. I mean, I'm sure they didn't just throw it at the wall
and say, let's see what happens. I'm sure it'll turn out good, you know. To take it to the street level. I'm sorry, Larry, but I mean that's the story that's emerging here. A great concrete example that it's not that we don't have unfortunate The Cubans, who were awesome fighters and did everything they possibly could after having been landed, were not aware they had not been told the full story, partially because the sea officers had not
been told in charge of them hadn't been told the full story either. Give a very simple example, Graceton Lynch, who was one of the leaders at the landing, actually the American leader at the landing, and went in with the group, wrote a book which was a very good book in terms of what he understood was supposed to happen, which we now know was in no
way what Kennedy had authorized. But just a very simple example is Kennedy had given a direct, explicit order that in terms of dying deniability, the whole landing had to be accomplished in darkness, and that all the ships, the landing ships, supply ships, troop ships, everything would be outside of Cuban Cuba's national waters by daybreak, which from his standpoint would make you know,
we're just here to land these people. We insert them. If things go wrong, they'll go guerrilla, which he had been promised, and they weren't trained for work for But it's at that standard because everybody knew that the ships could be setting ducks for the Cuban Air Force if anybody had if they had survived, which by the way, Bissel knew that a good part of the
Cuban Air Force was still operational. Okay, those ships were the ones that were hit by the Cuban aircraft exploded, The main ammunition carrier exploded, the others fled for their lives and their captains refused to ever bring them back to the beachhead. That the ships were not run by the brigade itself. They were commercial ships that had been volunteered by the Cuban owner of a fleet of ships. They were not really they were just brought in separate from the brigade.
But said in his book, it's sort of like no, nobody, nobody, no. We never expected that we could have the landing done by daylight. That was never part of the plan. We had tanks to unload, we had trucks to armored, trucks to unload heavy weapons. It's insane. No nobody ever mentioned that to us, yet the president's directive was explicit that that was to happen, So that there's a whole breakdown between what Kennedy
set as requirements what the officers in the field were expecting. It just it was an operational nightmare as far as command and control goes, right, And it's a back and forth of people not informing whether they're in charge not in charge. On the ground, they're simply not being informed the whole way. This complete ball of miscommunication, which you know, I'm assuming the majority of it is intentional. I guess you could put some of it off on the
incompetence side of the board. But I mean, honestly, it seems as though it's intentional in order to cause certain events to occur. And I don't think failure was the thing that anybody involved had in mind. I don't think there was an intentional failure here. This was meant something else, Chuck. And here's what really clouds that question. We have learned only relatively recently that Bissell had three different things going that might have changed this whole picture. At
first, something we did know about before. He had an assassination plot and played a poison Castro which almost worked, and then another assassination plot to take him out with a sniper team. If you taken cast Her out of the equation, it would have been entirely different theme. Bisil Bisil, I mean, only half a dozen people knew about these things, and Bisil was the
one running them. The other thing was that they had they had used the Navy base at Guantanamo to move in a massive amount of explosives and into stage what can only be interpreted as a false flag attack on Guantanamo. If that had happened and the Navy had inter intervened to defend Guantanamo massively, it would have been all over. Because the third thing we know is that Bissile had made an arrangement with the commander of the Atlantic Fleet to put a carrier task
group off of Cuba that nobody told Kennedy about. This was a massive task force. And if if Guantana had indeed been attacked in a false flag and that carrier group in deploy had been activated by the admiral who said he was in his notes which I've read, said he's totally prepared to do this. Then it would have been over in three days. The Navy jet. The Navy jets were equipped with everything they needed, including air to ground weaponry,
to take out the entire Castro military. Just to make about this, in the interest of absolute clarity, just to get this very straight, there is a group of assets sitting off of the shores of Cuba, of US assets fully prepared to back militarily to launch further attacks, prepared sitting there waiting. We did not know about this until very recently. In my mind, I don't think historians knew it. It was not part of the general conversation.
Is that true or false? That is true, and it only was revealed to us by like a couple of articles and Navy populate publications, the oral history written by this admiral, and a couple of comments from people serving in the ships that had come up over time. Even even the command ship for the landing force. Okay, this one, Kennedy knew it was out there the carrier Essex. Later years later, people on the ship you know,
personnel were commenting. One of the things surprising is that a group of carrier ground attack aircraft, including all the weapons that they needed for a large scale ground attack campaign had been loaded on that ship offshore very covertly. Now, if you look at what Kennedy had authorized, there's no way that US Navy jets were ever going to be ordered or allowed to conduct, you know, ground attacks across Cuba with those kind of weapons. So somebody had that in
mind. I would propose Bissile had it in mind. So I'm just inserting this to say, you know, things that look intentional as versus stupid may not be quite as wild if certainly these other things had happened. You know, these are wild cards that Bissole had in his pocket. None of them worked for different reasons. But is that what made him make stupid mistakes because
he thought he still had cards to play? I have no idea. What I do know is that even the night that the landing group was launched, that it sailed, he and Cabelle were given the opportunity to talk to Kennedy and argue for more air attacks, and they chose not to do so. And when someone asked him, well, you know, is this not dangerous, and he said, well, the only thing I would have been able to tell the president is you know, there is a possibility that we could
have lost, you know, ships in the landing group. Wait a minute, that's all the ships you got, you don't have anymore. That's all the ammunition you've got. There are no plans to resupply any of that. If you lose it, it's all over. He's a smart guy. He knows that. So it's like one of the dumbest answers you could possibly expect. Is that because he knew more? Or is it because he just was so egotistical? Or you know, is he a person who thinks that he's
always going to win? I don't know. And you do go into a deep discussion of this in the book In Denial, correct, because yes, and just forth and all those elements, including the other carrier group and the false flag and yeah, the other things they may have had play right. All of this is described in detail in the book In Denial, secret wars with air strikes and tanks, which I'm also going to provide you guys the
link to. And as a matter of fact, as we go to a break here, because I want to take a break for a moment, let people digest this. That the assets to further this entire circumstance were available, but due to miscommunications and some unknown factors were not implemented, we're not utilized. And what do we end up with at the end. Well, we're going to find out about that from Larry Hancock after we take a little break.
But in the meantime, you can always study for yourself by going and picking up IRI's book, checking out some of the articles that I'm going to attach to these show notes and all of that, because further study is necessary here regarding this event that is given short shrip by most documentary filmmakers, podcasters, and even authors about John F. Kennedy, whether they're talking about the assassination or simply the administration. Either way, This is James Corvin at coorb
report dot com and you're listening to the O'Kelly affected O'Kelly dot com. In Denial 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 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 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 larryheiphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of
In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical form. 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 we'll show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The Warstate dot com. Oh cool. Do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninja's to take down the Illuminati? Ooh that's interesting, Yeah in the clatchoon? Yeah did that
ever work out too good? No? It didn't, did it? But here on o'chelly dot com radio network things work out a bit better, don't they? Much better? Much money is clear and understanding about the programs, the programs, how much clearer getting live people into it. They really have a good conversation going much better, much better scene. I say, forget Benjamin Fullford than his ninjas and listen to the ochelly dot com radio network. I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like
that idea. O Cholly dot com, This world get you down? Are you living your bliss? Tired of therapies that don't offer you any real direction? Or answers. Did you know that Maria does personal life coaching sessions? Save thousands of therapy dollars and get the direction and answers you need to live an authentic life based on your own personal blueprint for this life. All this typically in just one private session with Maria, not countless hours on a couch.
Maria combines her professional experience, life experience, and her heredity into inted gifts to get you back on track. Email Maria today for an appointment at Maria at Maria dot nette. That's m E R I A at me eri i A dot net. Get on with the best life you can possibly have. Check out the other side of this happy, loving, passionate woman at www dot Maria Heller dot com and amail yourself of the best coaching and I'll in the privacy of your home via the telephone, gift yourself with yourself.
Make an appointment today bright Maria at Maria that bet if you was expressed my caller stools there anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com. Do not necessarily reflect he views little Jelly dot com ord Jumbo Jelly, and we are not responsible for getting stupidity, which might have students thank you revelation through conversation, let them know, let know no doubt, to let them know I'm a real shock luck and tear rocks with the bullet out
of the drug show. I'm bringing all shot block and tear rocks of the bullet lout at the drug shows. The ah we just met that the world's worst professional propocket tool took them like it's two thousands something and Bucker's back on tool. You never really wanted me anyway. Alcohol turns me into your enemies. I go some of me sad with some highnessy. I used to think that bottle was the remedy picked it up once or twice after I let it
go, but finally had to let it be. I used to roll over the fat there she would have given me a lett timpers and literacy, I mean literally, I figure, I mean the letter. They all want chances meet, except as chances to learn the let it go. We learned the letter go, oh it take. I think the Tokaa have a couple of
years. The Toka fair flows how in the stay Sober without Sandford Oh Chili dot com Yeah, and finishing out this Wednesday edition of The Ocell Effect discussing the Bay of Pigs, which happened on this day, April seventeenth, in nineteen sixty one. Okay, but it is currently April seventeen, twenty twenty four, according to all those things called calendars. And yeah, the Bay
of Pigs invasion. Again, it happened on this day. It began on this day, but it went on for a while too, the invasion itself, as Larry points out, the planning, and we've discussed what was happening in the time of the invasion, in the time of the landing, whatever
it is you want to call it. But now I think it's appropriate to get to, well, what was the end result, what actually occurred at the end, despite the fact that there's a battle group waiting to join in, despite the fact that the President didn't authorize that it's sitting and waiting. There's many things about what the president authorized, what he didn't authorize, what was going on. But okay, Larry, how does this event shake out? And let's talk about the aftermath if you don't mind what is it.
People need to take a hof about the conclusion and then, as you say,
the aftermath, because it's it's really two different things. Yes. Unfortunately, the way it ended was Kennedy had in all the planning sessions, the discussions with the admirals with Bissel, Kennedy had insisted that if for some reason the landing failed, that there'd be a plan for the Navy to evacuate and reland the force, because, in Kennedy's mind, again, the national directive he'd getten given was simply to land a Cuban force in Cuba and let them
essentially fight it out, okay. So his expectation was that the Navy would be prepared, the troops would be trained, here's a plan to evacuate them if they can't hold the beach, okay, and they would be landed someplace else, or they would be prepared to go into conducts guerrilla warfare. Especially you'll see evacuation and guerrilla warfare throughout all of the discussions. What we now know was that there were never any preparations for that. There were no evacuation
plans. The troops were never briefed on this. They were not supplied, equipped, or trained or prepared with plans to go into guerrilla warfare. And the landing site really didn't support that. It was physically, especially when the Cubans had had time to lock the roads coming into it, it was swamps. So neither one of those options were really going to work. So whatever
Kennedy had expected as they fall back was never realistic. So at the end he gave another order which said, the Navy is to provide fighter cover to evacuate the troops, and you know, we'll execute that plan. The Navy jets got there at the wrong time. There was no coordination, no communication with the ground forces, and when actually Lynch discussed that with the Cuban commander on the beach, the Cuban commander on the beach basically rejected that whole idea.
You know, we're here to fight. We'll continue to fight as best we can. And essentially the majority of the force was taken captive, taken prisoner, and remained in Cuban prison camps for another couple of years. That was the end of the landing. What the aftermath of the landing was you discussed earlier, Chuck, and it was the press coverage, and it was Kennedy's decision to accept total responsibility, and that's what ended up in the history
books. But what didn't end up in the history books is the fact that there was an intense internal CIA investigation of this disaster, and the Inspector General of the CIA looked into it in great detail, interviewed people, and wrote a scathing report on Bissle and Barnes, and the fact that this was, you know, dysfunctional, that they their chain of command was terrible, just highlighted all these different things. Bisil was so irt by this that he managed
to persuade the CIA director to let him write a response. I mean that never happens. So you had two stories. One was the inspector general story was this is our problem, it wasn't Kennedy's. We totally screwed up this operation, and an apologia from Bisle saying, oh no, we did everything right. Just you know, don't listen to that other guy. That's what's
in the historical record which never gets covered. But the offshoot of that was that Bissile had the opportunity to talk to Hawkins, an easter line who with the actual American military commanders of the force, and Bissile got the chance to tell them his story. It was all Kennedy's fault. He didn't listen to me, he wouldn't do the things I asked him to do, and bistle,
I'm sorry. Hawkins an easter Line just became tremendously bitter and actually carried that story down to Florida and started telling the operations people in Florida Biscil's story about how it was all Kennedy's fault. So unfortunately, even the Cuban forces themselves only heard that story. They have never seen or never told the other story. And so to this day, of course, they developed an extremely
hostile added towards truths. They used the term treason, abandonment, you know, all of these, which is what Hawkins and easter Line got from Bistol and Barns. And year decades later, when they're shown the real documents, they realized and apologized for what they had done. You know, we didn't realize we were telling them a wrong story. But it's way too late.
I mean, it was thirty years after the fact. So that's where we are now, really, with the history books which describe it as Kennedy's disaster, the documents and Scoothing Inspector General Report giving a totally different picture, and the Cuban community and a lot of the CIA group in Miami having Barnes and Bissell story of Kennedy screw up. And then, of course, like I said, the public, you know, look at this, and ever after
you have the ideas the combination of ideas that come out. This leads directly into the discussions of the Howard hunt, long before the alleged deathbed confession. But he wrote a book about it, he made statements about it, he was tied to it, the Watergate guys, right, this comes back up
and what about that? I mean, obviously there's the press conference that I mentioned where you know, the president takes responsibility and all this, which clearly the responsibility should lay with whoever's idea was to completely not have communication function or be so dysfunctional that it's almost laughable. But at the same time, there's more to it, right, and there's still as yet unknown elements to this, isn't there? Or am I mistaken about that? Oh well, it
becomes a mystery. You know, you you covered it is so stupid that it raised the question of was this intentional? Right? Were they? You know, are they this stupid and this uncoordinated and displayed this much hubrius or is this part of a plan that that remains an open question. The know to force Kennedy's hand, that's still discussed. Uh. Some of the things we just uh, that we discussed were that were not known at the time. I mean, those assassination attempts were not known at the time. That
eventually came out through the work of the Church Committee and the HSCA. But that was what fifteen years after the fact, and it's only more recently that we've learned more about the false flag what might have been in play there. So yeah, I guess that it's kind of like Howard Hunt. You mentioned Howard Hunt. Howard Hunt was not involved with any of this. He was
a political action officer. He knew nothing about any of this. But Howard of course claimed to know everything about everything, right, So you know, Howard just adds more disinformation to the mix about all he would have known were a couple of names out of jam Wave in Miami, guys who were in
operations and we're doing some support for this, like David Morales. But so you just it kind of piles on top of each other in terms of mystery after the fact and leaves us chasing our tail when if you go back to the IG's report and the inquiry into this, which which never surfaces, but but nobody does. I mean, yes, there have been a couple of books written on that, good books written on that, not just in denial,
but nobody reads them. I mean they're deep history books, and nobody reads deep story, so that those parts never make it really into discussion discussions that we're interested in. The Bay of Pigs remains a mystery. It remains all Kennedy's fault, or it remains something weak, you know, we'll just puzzle over forever, like the only thing that they don't need to Yeah, well, the only thing that can be agreed upon is that it's a massive failure. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. As to
who's responsible for it and everything else. There's open questions, and the open questions have a lot of leading pieces, you know, you have, I have some pretty decent priority suspects here. As for their motivation, though, it's difficult to connect the motivation to it, but it's still relevant even sixty three late years later, right, it still is relevant? And does it The ultimate question, which a lot of people who listen to my show might
have is does this have any relevance to the assassination in your opinion? Is it relevant to that discussion in a realistic and direct way that that's the certainly it is. Certainly it's relevant to discussion in my view of what happened because it raised the issue of motive. There is no doubt that the anti Castro Cubans regarded JFK's action as treachery and literally leading to the deaths of many of
their friends. I mean, this became a very personal thing and whether that was right or wrong, that was the belief that they were left with. That's what people they trusted told them. And so it established a level of individual bitterness towards JFK that you still see repeated in their remarks. And that was a prelude to the missile crisis, where again, is resolution of that
without an invading Cuba and without a war just elevated that bitterness. So yes, in terms of motive, and you know, Chuck, my take on the actual motive behind the attack in Dallas is yeah, I think it's more than relevant because the story that they were given created the motive of revenge. It created an intense emotional state in people that felt that they had more than
adequate reason to take an action against JFK. So yeah, in terms of motive and conditioning, I think it's more than relevant to the attack in Dallas, right, And I'd like to add an addendum to what you just said, and if you want to object to it, please do. I don't like to add on to what you have to say, but I think this
is necessary. Is that even for those that might not wish to entertain the idea that anti Castro Cubans are the responsible party, the masterminds, the planners, whatever, here's one thing that I think is beyond argument, and that is that a group of individuals, through various things that happen, including the Bay of Pigs, definitely have one of the best motivators for murder and makes them eligible to be a useful group and have useful individuals within their group for
an operation if you wanted to partake of an operation of this kind, and they are a useful group who are probably readily available and at lead helpful if you wanted to plan out such an operation, even if they're not the planners themselves, the anti Castro Cubans are fully eligible to be for lack of a better term in play. Regarding the attack in Dallas. Do you feel as
though that's an adequate or reasonable statement. No, I think that's quite reasonable, And I think the one thing that has to be added to that is they not only have motive, they not only have emotion. They're not only available to other people who know them, who've worked with them, and if they choose to put this together, know who to talk to. But they are extremely well trained, extremely proficient. By the time of the Bay of Pigs, there's a cadre who's been trained and been in and out of Cuba.
They know infiltration, exfiltration, they're extremely skilled at that. And they are skilled in the tactics of assault and assassination because some of them have involved in several attempts, including sniper attacks on Fidel Castro. So we're not just talking about a group of potential candidates. We're talking about a group of highly
skilled potential candidates. So one could easily argue that in the classic framework of means, motive and opportunity, what you have here is an easy assumption of motive and an easy assumption of means on a lot of levels. Due to the fact that there was training, access to equipment, access to information, connection to undercover people, intelligence people, underground people, etc. Et cetera. Now, only thing left there is opportunity in the classic structure, and
that's it. So two out of three of the criteria are met regarding an eligible suspect group, and that's something to keep in mind as you go further and as you study this, and that is relevant. Now does that mean that they absolutely are involved? No? No, no, no no no. I can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. But who knows evidence might emerge to that effect. And if it did, at the very least two thirds of the three pronged or the triad of necessary elements are already
attached easily observably. So with all that in mind, I urge you guys to go to Larrydashancock dot com read the blog that Larry puts out. Obviously
I recommend all of his books. A great discussion about the Bay of Pigs, though, is included in the book in Denial, which you might recognize as one of those things that we do a book commercial for here Onnochelly dot com and during podcasts, etc. But not just because he's my friend, and he's a great writer, but because you can be educated rather deeply by observing his work, and not just on this case, this sub section of the case, this part of history nineteen sixty one, etc. Etc.
But on a lot of things all the way from unidentified creating chaos, shadow warfare, the awful grace of God, and one more time, let's mention it in denial, which has a lot to do with the failures and the successes and lack of successes by US assets regarding secret wars that are not always so secret, but quite often are and could involve anything from air strikes and tanks to flotillas of individuals who are rebels being landed on their native soil in
order to retake it, despite whatever the communication is at the moment, or despite whatever assets could be lying in wait. Success or lack thereof, is not necessarily ensured. As you study the history of the Cold War, the twentieth century, the United States, and totality, there's a lot to be
said and a lot to be studied. Once again, just recognizing that on this day in history, yeah, we're talking about the beginning of the Bay of Pigs and the landing, but there's a lot more to it, the lead up to it, the overall program that the Bay of Pigs was clearly born out of, and the aftermath and residual resonance which has continued to echo through history. So, all of that having been said, any final thoughts, Larry Hancock, anything else you want to drop on here? Or do
you think we've covered this pretty well for today? Now? I think we've covered it well, and I think I appreciate doing this, and it's always good to revisits this particular one and try to I won't say correct the historical
record, but maybe maybe expand it a little bit. So I appreciate being on shock, clarification, expansion and addition of real facts, real information I think is always relevant and good to know, because how are you going to know how to avoid the mistakes of history if you don't know the history to begin with, if it's all kept undercover, how are you ever going to
witness what may have been that you don't want to repeat? And also, how is it that you could relive some of the successful efforts in the past if you're not informed? So you can be informed by checking out all the works of Larry Hancock again, larrydsh Hancock dot com. In weeks coming up, we will be discussing more about Lancer as those details are planned out, and the twenty twenty four conference we do know is going to occur between the
twenty second and the twenty fourth in November. Larry will be part of it, so will I. But in the meantime we're also on the lookout for the Oswald book and any idea what we might discuss in two more weeks when you come back around like every other Wednesday, Larry is with us. I don't know if we were talked kind of talked about the Bay of Pigs as
being like a mystery of black hole whatever, there's more to it. I think maybe we should talk about Mexico City and the jfk Assass Nation, Chuck, because I mean, if we start started this one, that's another good place to go into mysteries. True enough, true enough, And just as a teaser to that, I'll tell you this. You know, the first time I heard about Mexico City and all that scary thing, do you know
where that was? I mean, you have an idea about my history with what I've studied, where I've been through in the literature and stuff I've done in research. Where do you think I first actually learned about Mexico City and Oswald and all that. Oh goodness, Peter Dale Scott, No, you would think it would be something good like that, right, it's kind of laughable. I saw that mock trial, right, which made it to America a little bit after, because they did it in eighty six, and I
got really interested. My interest begins in eighty eight, you understand around there, I mean I was mildly interested, but around the twenty fifth anniversary, because of all the media attention, it drew my eye to the jfk assassination particularly, and I'm watching that mock trial and what did uh you know one
of the lawyers decided to call up this guy Ed Lopez. Oh yeah, And it was funny because Ed Lopez comes on the stand there in this mock trial, which you know, later on I learned how ridiculous this thing was, but I thought I was watching, you know, something really really incredibly insightful because it was real witnesses, right, and you know, Bugliosi's supposed to be America's lawyer and all that, and Jerry Spence is involved, and
they're using real jurors from Dallas, and they were pretending they were in the Dallas courtroom. Turns out they were actually in the UK. But anyway, all that's going on and we're bringing real witnesses, and they brought this guy on who was an investigator for the House Select Committee, Ed Lopez, And this is all I knew. And there's Eddie Lopez. He's on the stand, and over and over again, he pretty much says, yeah, I can't talk about much of this. I mean, he's a witness. I
couldn't talk, but I can't talk about it. Yeah, yeah, And I watched that and I went, ooh, that's got to be the good stuff. And I was not educated on the case at all. It was it was almost all brand new to me. Larry and I just went, that's got to be the good stuff. And ever after there is a serious learning curve there that I had to get on. And but isn't that funny that that's the way I was kind of introduced. Oh that is, And
I'm sure Ed would have liked to say more. I can picture him going, I can't talk about it, but if I could, I'd tell you not to believe any of them. Yeah, maybe I'll include a link to that with tonight's show or whatever, but I think we should go over the Obviously, we're gonna have to talk about the Lopez Report, which is written by Ed Lopez and Dan Hardaway. I think Mexico City would be great, unless something else comes up in the news that might be more relevant to our
discussion, because we could do Mexico City later. But two weeks from now, I'd love to cover Mexico City with you. So let's plan on that for now, tentatively, let's pencil it in. Does that sound good? Sounds good? All right, guys. So in two weeks, hopefully Larry will be back with us and we'll talk about Oswald and Mexico City and that debacle chicanery that went on there. And why do I say that? Well, I guess you'll have to listen in two weeks and find out. In
the meantime, Larrydshncock dot com all of Larry's books. There are links to his books from that website, from the word press site, which is available. I'll give you the links to both in the show notes. And I thank you Larry for doing this with us once again. So it's good to be here. We'll see in a couple of weeks. Absolutely, and hopefully you guys will be back with us as time turns on and we get closer
to November in Dallas, because that's going to be an interesting one. But we'll get educated more and more with Larry Hancock every other week as often as we can get him, and talk about Mexico City next time. In the meanwhile, I am merely ocelly. All of you are indeed the effect. And by the way, I could certainly use any help that you want to kick forward, because I just got done paying some pretty big annual bills for ochelly dot com and the free podcast and all that. It's free to you
guys, not to me. I am merely ocelly. All of you are indeed the effect, and you can be more of the effect if you make a contribution at the oh donate button on ochelly dot com. Be well,