Ready, Get Ready, April nine, twenty twenty five.
Allegedly, according to that thing we call a counter, this is the o'celly effect.
You are listening to us there, and I'll tell you this.
I am watching what I'm saying a little more carefully at the beginning of the show because now we have transcripts available that are automatically generated. If you go to the spreaker feed, God help you all, you have to read what I say if you decide to open that tab. But anyway, there it is. It is Wednesday, or the middle of the week, and I'm starting a little late if you're on the live stream, but that's okay because most of you listen to the podcast anyway. Larry Handcock
is with me. Larry Dash Handcock dot com does it. Nobody even says the Dash, But what are you gonna do? Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. That's the website he's got, Okay. You can catch up on his blog. You can see all the books he's written, which, by the way, I recommend every single one of them, but relevance for tonight would be well a handful of them, really, But the latest one, the Oswald Puzzle, that's co authored with David Boylan, and I always pronounce his name differently every time I
say it. That's all right, I guess, as long as I remember how to spell it, and there'll be links in the show notes the Oswald Puzzle, but of course Tipping Point as well as someone would have talked, why do I bring up those books? Well, because we're going to talk a little JFK tonight and get an update on a few things, maybe get an update on a
few things that we don't have updates on Tomorrow. We're going to discuss the whiplash in the markets and what that really means, maybe unless the entire world shakes in a different direction by tomorrow. But then again, Thor's Day is not upon us just yet. Anyhow, Larry Hancock is with me and not talking about the markets. Larry, although that's part of why I went to air late, because you and I were chatting about current events before airtime and we went ten minutes late to air.
But again, most people are going to hear the podcast, so whatever, So Larry, how are you tonight?
I'm doing good.
It's spring here, it's warming up, starting to work outside. Really enjoy this time of year, so doing good and trying not to obsess over the stock market.
I look all I can say, and I don't know anything about Larry's finances or anything like that. But I really really hope that you're not being hurt by it. That's all I can say. Anyway, News Nation, I saw something on TV somebody mentioned your book there. Then I saw on a couple other little interviews people whose names I don't even know. We're mentioning your book. Apparently people are reading it. I see they're not really reviewing it as well as they should. On Amazon.
I added a review to a book site. Man, what was it two weeks ago? A week ago? I forget?
But either way, you know, but there's a lot to discuss in the news here, or maybe there isn't, you know, where should we begin the underhill thing?
Now?
I have a piece that's going to be published on the front page at Ocelli dot com. I delayed a week, by the way, because other people did not get their edits back to me. And I have a flow that I want to maintain, and there is an article coming up regarding what we're talking about tonight, so this will be good.
I'll attach this to that article. But anyway, let's.
Talk about these the document dump of twenty twenty five, right, I mean, Jeff Morley's out there telling us a lot of things. He's made a lot of appearances in a lot of places. Geez, he talked to everybody. It looks like he seemed like he could, uh many many podcasters of all stripes, TV shows, everywhere.
What's new? What's happening? We had the hearings. I haven't spoken to you since those hearings?
How I no, No, you haven't and and and yeah, Jeff, is I see more than one email a day from from Jeff. There's small group of us and it shows up and it's like, Okay, here's this new line or this new piece or this new paragraph and this document. You know, does it mean what we think it means that sort of thing. So it exchanges with Jeff are very lively, even like, you know, is this really new? It seems to be new, or did they It's it's
a it's an ongoing dialogue. And I think part of the reason why, of course, the document release feels kind of like the rest of the world at the moment, chaotic, because what we do know is that the White House said that it was going to receive plans for releasing these documents JFK, MLK, RFK, and they've had those plans now for a couple of months. Even for the MLK RFK stuff, we have not seen anything from the White House on that. And it's kind of irksome because this
whole thing of release has to do with transparency. Well, if you can't even see the plan, how do you know if that's not transparency, So we really don't know. We've got eighty thousand pages that is that it? You know, was that all it was supposed to be. Have we
seen all of the JFK stuff. It does not appear that we've seen the twenty three hundred pages documents that the FBI just found and submitted irrespective of this, So one of the things that's keeping it chaotic is if there is a plan, it's not being shown to us, so we can't measure it.
Let's just be clear about this real fast, right.
The MLK and RFK Assassination Transparency, which was also part of that executive order, released all the stuff that the federal government has, et cetera, et cetera.
We've seen zero.
There not even a plan regarding what will happen with those two cases. However, a lot of people say, look, they released all the documents on JFK, it's over.
That's done.
First of all, that only catches us up to where we should have been in twenty seventeen in my mind, And secondly, it does not reveal anything new. That announcement the FBI had brand new documents. I don't know what cash Pttel is doing about that. I had heard at one point that he couldn't get hold of the documents that were supposedly found himself, and he's supposed to be the head. Yeah, all right, well there's the unseen FBI stuff, right,
but also no plan to go further. It looks like Representative Luna, though, is enthusiastic despite the fact that the task force I hold up in air quotes here is not very well educated on the topic the releases. Okay, how this is supposed to work? And clearly they don't have a plan because they don't even know what they're looking at. I mean, I'm sorry, but Representative Bobert, I watched Live as she mixed up you know Roger Stone with Oliverstone and you know Larry. I mean, can you
not say that. It was a clear demonstration of the people in Congress have no idea what they're looking for, what they're not looking for, what they can and cannot do.
Good news. I guess with the NBC, maybe there'll be a subpoena for the film, et cetera. Blah blah.
But what do we have at the end of the day, and what does it look like going forward? Despite the fact that Representative Luna is willing to show up on Morley's podcast and again she seems enthusiastic and sincere about the project, but what else do we have so far?
In your mind?
Yeah, what we have again? And it illustrates the chaos once more. You know, the White House presented this as a great advance for transparency and government. Okay, releasing documents is a good thing. No one can argue about that. Releasing them without a plan, so you know what you've gotten what you don't is not so good. But the White House seems to We've heard remarks that you know, something more is going to happen, but we don't know what that would be. It's kind of like the rest
of the world at the moment. We just don't know what's going to happen next Luna is a different story. At least we know.
What her charter is.
She will say what she intends to do, what she intends to cover. You know, you can relate it to her goals at least, so you know where she is. And we do know, and I think this is fairly obvious at this point, is that she's in the midst of regardless of her sincerity, which is there, there's no doubt about that, she's in the midst of a highly charged political thing. And it's not all her call. She's reporting to someone up her party chain of command who
is going to be pulling her strings. Does he let her continue with JFK and do more work or does he say no, the White House said, we've got.
To move on. We're done.
You need to don't hold another JFK hearing, hold an MLK hearing, holding our You know what, that makes it very hard to get the big picture because they're really pulling the strings on her, not as to what she does, but what her focus is now. What she is doing, as she said Chuck, is I think she is using her her leverage at the moment to reach out and try to collect some materi as that we brought to her attention right well, that are not in the JFK collection.
As we've talked before. That's really the key, because it's not like we didn't know what was in the JFK collection largely ninety nine percent. What we need is this other stuff to put together to rest issues that have surfaced in the last several decades. So I think a summary of the whole situation is, if there is any progress being made at all, it's being made in regard of empowering Luna to at least make some request, write
some letters, requests some materials. People want to really cooperate with the administration now for whatever reason, and they may force out some of this stuff, but to really go any further than that, I keep seeing posts on forms. Oh, she should pursue this lead, She should pursue that lead. She does not running an investigation. She is head of a chair that is looking to collect information, release things. That's that's your charter, okay, So but let me think more out of her than that.
Right, And this is almost the same problem we had with the ARRB, which was there was a lot of enthusiasm from the community et cetera, to go after this, go after that, find out about this, find out about that. And the truth is that wasn't the arrb's mandate. That wasn't their design. That's not Luna's design to go investigate right now. Her whole thing really is just the collection and it is subject to what the higher ups want here. So we got to be careful that people aren't completely
satisfied at this point. This is the thing I want to warn against and I want to see if you agree with me. I don't want people saying, well, that's it, we got everything we asked for.
It's done.
Because if there's no pressure, if there's no desire to go forward, she's going to lose that leverage. And she's to be told, look, we got other priorities here. You got to get on this. That the third thing. It could be the MLK stuff, It could be further transparency, it could be the RFK stuff. But then again, it could be something else, and it could be another priority unless we stick to it and keep up the idea that look, more stuff needs to be collected, more stuff
needs to be shown. If we don't do that, then I think she'll she'll go in another direction, and also she might give in to the idea that, yeah, there was a bit of a sloppiness here, which I think is inexcusable considering the amount of time that they actually had these documents.
You know, it should have.
Been in their hands for preparation for release long time. There's no excuse about you know, the release of the social Security.
Numbers and all that kind of stuff.
You heard about that as well, And I mean they even had a privacy document guy there at the hearing, you know, in addition to the three people we always talk about, there was that other guy there who was saying, look, people's personal information got released here too. And I get that argument, and I get that that needs to be
protected against. And good that morally made the statement he did about Mary Ferrell and going to add reactions to make sure that there's no further damage done when they upload this stuff to their website, their portal.
And all that.
But in all honesty, do you think we're also in danger of losing some of the steam and Luna losing some of her leverage. Therefore they will move on from the JFK case and that'll be the end of it.
Yeah, I absolutely do, And I think people the pressure is going. If there can be pressure applied, it has to be on the White House, and it has to be on her party because yeah, quite frankly, this is this whole transparency point is a political issue. She's carrying out her part of the art. But that wasn't her is she? I mean she's she's fulfilling that issue. So you you can't really give her anymore. You can't pressure her. She's doing what she can do with her resources in her time.
Uh. It has to go back up the food chain. And this this.
Issue of transparency, which is a bible, should be a bipartisan issue. Although I'm not sure we saw that in the committee.
Yeah that was the problem.
There, didn't hear that was there. This whole issue of transparency has to can't be just JFK. It has to be government transparency. Uh, because that's the political issue. I've been on enough shows lately to understand that that's really the political issue. It's not just JFK. But that's where the leverage has to go. Otherwise, Chuck, what I'm afraid of is that the here's what we saw with Luna's
other committee. She had a community on on UFO's UFAPS, and there was a big push for transparency, again on a political basis, got to have transparency about UAPs. What happened and net result of that was that a government committee, a government office was created. The ARO won't go into that, but the bottom line is that the government did start collecting reports, investigating reports, and containing those reports, not sharing them.
So you emphasized a really important subject and you ended up with, oh, great, there's action being taken, but it's not going to be transparent because of national security issues. I don't think we'll see that with JFK unless somebody created a new investigations committee, then you might see it. But the history of this in terms of total transparency, good for Luna, not necessarily good for the system.
Right.
And the thing is, look, bottom line, in my opinion, unless frankly, Donald Trump gets a bug in his ear about there's more to be done here, there may not be any more commanded from up top because he is of the mind that, look, I got a lot of other things to do here. It looks like to me, I mean just being objective, not even taking this in the political direction like my opinions or anything else. Let's
just look at situational behavior. Okay, If he thinks he already accomplished what he needed to here, that's that, you know, the dusting off of the hands. Let's move on, and that's what he'll do now. If he thinks that there's a public outcry still, if he thinks that people are still of the mind that he didn't do all what needed to be done, then perhaps pressure could be applied in that direction and LUNOI get different marching orders, you know,
very simple. All I'm saying is we got to make sure that JFK is not like just sort of okay, that's satisfied alone, and we do want to move on to the other things, yes, but we don't want to let go of the JFK thing again and have us accomplish nothing new. And like I said, I feel like it we almost just played catch up to twenty seventeen where we should have been and that's it so far.
What do you think about that? Am I wrong?
Yeah?
The only difference is her subcommittee in terms of the record release, I would say that's absolutely true.
Okay.
The only difference here is that it was an important enough political issue so that it actually got kicked into Congress to you know, like we're going to deliver on our promise before nobody even really talked about delivering a promise. So at least this has gone that far. So we're ahead if where we were overall and possibilities. But as far as the release is, again, I was looking at some stuff this afternoon and it's like, well has this
been Is this really redacted? And my buddy Bill Simpitch comes back and says, it's been released twelve times and yeah, it's finally redacted, but it was you know what are we seeing three more sentences?
That's it?
Well finally yeah, finally unredacted stuff. Yeah, finally unredacted. You mean to say, but I get where you're at underredacted.
Yeah, that would be right.
Yes, it's because if it's redacted, that's when they cover it up, but if it's unredacted, that means they removed the cover ups. You got to keep track of these terms, folks, just saying not you, Larry. I know you're you're practically yawning over this because you've been through this a thousand times, but I'm just saying it's one of those things we
need to keep track of. So my live chat reminds me that there have been conversations where people are asking me questions privately and you know, what do I think about this and that? And oh, this isn't that big a deal, And I've seen this before, and I'm watching you know, lots of people that are a different leg levels of research, uh, you know, interpreting this stuff. And I've even watched a few YouTube channels go in depth on these documents and you know, make statements like nothing
big came out of this, this is this is garbage anyway. Uh, their interpretations, I mean, look, they're there, their opinions are a noted and be there, entitled to them. But you know, without a large background, some of these people have no idea what they're looking at.
Uh.
But anyway, my live chat reminds me, though that a lot of people have asked this question and have positive this and I wonder what your thoughts are on it. Uh that without a say, Senate subcommittee to go further investigation wise, Uh, we're only in the collection the recovery stage here of stuff from the past. That's all we're onto.
We're not going to get any further investigation unless one is launched, and it seems like, you know, a Senate subcommittee would be something that could happen, but is it likely, especially in the political climate we have right now.
I don't think it's.
It's on the one hand, something that's possible, but on the other hand, are they going to have time for it and is it going to a surface with enough public pressure because people are going to be worried about a lot of other things ahead of let's get another investigation going and finally close up some of these loops regarding JFK. So what are your thoughts on the possibility of a Senate subcommittee or even say a HSCA if you will, for twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six, something
like that. I mean, what do you think about that possibility? Have you heard anything, et cetera, et cetera.
I think it's absolutely a good call, and a good insight is that is that we're not going to you know, we're not going to have an investigation. This is not an investigation. Our real question is can you even have a criminal investigation sixty years plus? In all honesty, is that really even viable? Is that not wishful thinking? But if you're talking about an actual legal criminal investigation with subpoena power, with you know, basically the ability to collect anything.
You know, we're talking, we're talking beyond Luna. It's like imminent domain. Yes, I want that piece of evidence. I'm taking it. Without that kind of criminal investigation, no, I can't really see us proceeding any further. And the real question that comes up there is how do you fund it?
I mean, at this point in time, coming up with money and a budget to fund anything within the government that's new, aside from space or military national defense order, you know, clearly money is going to be channeled that direction. But to do a good criminal investigation, you're talking about a reasonably good sized budget, and I don't think it would be funded. I'm not even sure it's a matter
of will or politics. I'm thinking it's a big question of money, right, you know, where would you get a budget for it at this point in time, and it's something that would have to continue for two years, three years. Again, you're going to have to fund it, not just for one year.
But.
Because it would have to be the criminal investigation that wasn't done before we all know what wasn't done, But so that that would be my call Chuck, is A you'd have to have that, but B you'd have to fund it. And with the fight that there's going to be over money in the government, it's hard for me to see that happening.
Yeah.
See, that's why when I when I use a sweeping word like priorities, that encompasses the idea that yes, you'd have to fund it, and it's not going to be a funding priority. We're in a time when people are very happy with the idea that we're cutting the government down, So this would be an expansion of government action at a time when that's not really you know, in the zeitgeist. Okay, it's just not there. So it's counterintuitive at the moment.
But would it be something that people would desire if it was sort of put, you know, to a vote, maybe, but would they fund it? Would we be able to get action on that? Is there not one hundred other things that are going to be ahead of it?
In line? There's your problem.
And like you said, you also have to have the foresight to know this has to go on for a few years. You know the HSCA for instance, Yeah, they issued their report in seventy nine, but they were working on that since what the bi centennial at least, so it was like a three year process, wasn't it seventy six when they got to work.
You know, you got to get if you're going to do this right, given what we know now, there's certainly a group of people that will disagree with this, but given what we know about the primary forensics evidence, including fingerprints, and all of that should be restudied with today's techniques, with professionals, with people that are truly independent, which we know wasn't the case the first time around. So you're
not just talking about pursuing leads to people. You're talking about a new legitimate criminal investigation, which I think you and I would agree never happen in the first place. For those who think it did, sorry, too bad, okay, But if you want to get real, you're going to have to do all that work again.
Right, It's just that simple. Okay.
So now that we've covered all that underhill, I want to return to that because I just want to get a couple of comments from about it, because I've gone over this a little bit and I don't know, you know, on the one hand, it is significant, but then again, when I study exactly where some of that information comes from, is it? You know, it's kind of an open question to me where it's like, you know, again, we're dealing with half a lead here in my mind, because this
is what keeps happening. We have these fragments of something that could have been investigated more thoroughly. And I'm speaking very generally here to leave it open for you, because I just want to get your take on it. Now that we've had a little time for this to sort of settle in, we've seen the rest of this stuff posted,
it appears as though they're done. Yes, indeed, they did finally at least come up with the eighty thousand pages around approximately that Trump said we're going to drop that one day, right when he was at the Kennedy Center and made the announcement, he said, eighty thousand pages, it's coming.
It did happen. Got to give them that. But here we are.
What is the significance of the Underhill stuff, and you know, and how complete or incomplete is that information, et cetera.
What are your thoughts on that?
I actually I think the Underhill thing is a perfect example of what we have gained and why it's much more important. Probably than most people will realize. I first wrote about it, and I think I was probably one of the first people to write about Underhill back in two thousand and six, and someone would have talked, and at that time, I didn't think it was nearly as meaningful as I do now. But hopefully that's because in twenty some years we learned a lot. We've been able
to connect a lot of dots that weren't visible. But those dots go back to really understanding the documents great level of detail and being able to do connective tissue. Give you an example, Back when I first wrote about Underhill, one of the one of the pure questions is why would he think people would know about him? Why would he know that these people had a history in Southeast Asia? Why would he know that these people had a history
with smuggling. You know, it's because it's a nebulous group of people that he's scared of, right, well, as long as it's a nebulist group, and it was then right because I didn't know, I don't think anybody really, you know, he just he thinks it's a it's a group and he gives a.
General description of them.
Now we can put names to those people, We can put names to the operations that they were engaged in, and we can even answer some.
Of the questions.
The question I got the other day was, well, how in the world, you know, what was he doing during that period of time in the summer fall of nineteen sixty three that would have got him deeply inside anything with his connection through Sam Cummings, you know, and weaponshipments, And how could he have gotten inside anything that would have named some of these people and convinced them that they were really dangerous.
Well, can you do me a quick favor here, because let's just say, somebody is going, okay, underhill, I kind of recognize the n Who the.
Hell was this guy in nineteen sixty three?
Like, can you you and I know who we're talking about it, but somebody listening might not. Could you just do the ABC on this for me, just so that I know it was covered and somebody doesn't go you never explained who that was, you know, for somebody who doesn't like, who were we talking about? And why is this even remotely important? If you don't mind, and you know, the very basic like the Wikipedia as sort of bullet points, if you don't mind.
Garrett Garrett Underhill was a weapons expert. His specialty was studying weapons, especially foreign weapons. He had served as an advisor to the military during World War II on weapons and what those weapons were capable of, and where they come from and how many of them there are. He actually got a deferment during the war because he was considered so valuable in terms of that knowledge that he got a military service deferment. He really made a career
out of that understanding. You know, who was dealing with what weapons, not just in America, but to say say, mostly foreign weapons. And he became involved with through this both the CIA, but the CIA through a fellow named Sam Cummings. Sam Cummings was became was involved with the CIA and became basically the biggest international arms trader in the world, selling weapons from all over the world to people. But for the CIA, he provided a new unique source
of deniable weapons. In other words, that they want to go do a covert operation and a regime change without looking like it's American behind it.
You've got to give.
Your people, your surrogates, not American weapons.
You know.
So this is great because Sam comings this is his business. So you do a deal with Sam and he gets you weapons that are deniable and gets them to your people, and you trust him because you've vetted in. And he essentially a major CIA asset, and his company is to some extent a cover company because obviously the CIA's concealed its relationship with him. Well, Garrett over this period of time becomes very close to Sam Comings and Comings company
called inter Armco International Arms Company, So he remains. After the World War Two, he becomes a consultant for various national magazines when they write about military affairs, and he is his business in the world is kind of what what's monitoring what's going on in hotspots around the world, whether it's laws or after the Congo or Guatemala, whatever, He's got to monitor what's going on there. You know, what factions are involved, where are they getting their weapons from,
and what does that mean? And so he becomes a consultant to a lot of magazine articles, right are they're written about these things. So that's the backstory of Sam Cummings. After the assassination of President Kennedy, Comings panics. He goes
to personal friends of his. He's he's obviously terrified and he's basically says you know, I've been doing some research and I'm studied and one of the things I came across with this was this group of people who have been doing smuggling, who've been involved with weapons transfers, who've been involved in drugs. Uh, and they're doing these in it's rogue, They're not they're he's obviously suggesting that it's CIA officers. They're doing activities to make money for themselves,
but the things they're doing are not administration policy. And he feels that JFK finally found out about it, they knew he found out about it, and to preserve themselves, they killed them. And he is terrified about this, tells his friends about this, is almost frantic about you know, these people, I not only know what they know, they know me. They know that I've been asking the wrong questions, and they know I know what they were doing.
Uh. It's always terrified.
Right well, because at the end of the day, look forget about the JFK assassination.
In a lot of other cases where you see.
A foreign leader who is killed, especially like in a coup attempt, people start asking questions as to where the people and the coup got their weapons from.
This guy would know that.
And look in circumstances where there's narco state kind of situations and stuff like that, and people are creating let's call them, off the books funding resources, right, you know, where they're creating revenue that nobody's ever going to report anywhere, but can be used to fund projects, pay assets on the ground, take care of business, et cetera in other places. And the chicanery that we learn about, you know through I Ran Contra leader and all that kind of stuff,
et cetera, et cetera. Right, it's reasonable this guy is actually a little worried, okay, because in another country they definitely would have no problem with Okay, Well, the president who might have you know, the president of country X, whatever you want to say, might have powers to go ahead and punish some of the people that failed in a coup attempt against him, stuff like that, you know, so they might seek to eliminate that guy to capitate
the government, make sure there's nobody to strike back against them. And well maybe that's one of the theories that works here regarding JFK.
Right, So, and I think you bringing up a run Contra is a perfect example because we know across history there have been times when there have been CIA officers and their surrogates and people people doing things that were obviously against administration policy, against what the administration says it's doing is legally allowed to do, as with a ran contra. Now in some cases there we found out, oh it was the president himself who was act against official State Department policy.
Okay, but you don't know. You wouldn't know that at the time.
Right at the time, it's like, good lord, you know, what if the presidents find out about this drug smuggling to from Nicaragua and Central America and what if he finds out this is somebody is going to get you know, jailed or whatever. And now later on at the time you would be terrified thinking about what was going on. And it's not until later on you know that this is actually sanctioned by this rogue thing within the government itself.
So in regard to Underhill, I think what has emerged now that I would say about Underhill that I couldn't say then is And this came from a question someone asked me the other day. They said, do we know what under Hill was working on? And the thing is we do because of his friends and some of the letters and conversations that they had after this and after his death, and one of the things he was working for, Fortune magazine. Fortune Magazine, like Life Magazine, was a loose publication.
Louis was a rabbit anti Communist, a rabbit anti Castro. He was so rabbid. He had been paying for reporters to go on missions, to do photo coverage of missions against Cuba. He was a rabbit about Cuba. And Louise, we now know, had been convinced that Russian missiles had been left in Cuba and that JFK had been totally gamed by Khruschef, and was so naive that it was virtually amounted to treason.
As he was that naive.
Loose was very interested in Cuban missiles, in Russian missiles in Cuba, and that's what Underhill was working on in the summer and fall of nineteen sixty three. Now that by itself doesn't mean anything until you put together the connection to Operation Tilt, which is a big thing in JFK literature, which was a mission financed by Henry Loose, supported by the CIA, and was totally against administration policy.
As a matter of fact, what Lewis wanted to do was bring out Soviet missile techs, missile texts, and he had arranged with certain CIA officers to bring them out and take them immediately to a congressional committee where they would testify about missiles inside Cuba and JFK would be made to look like a fool.
It was Tilt.
Was TILT or Operation Red Cross or whatever you want to call it was a mission inside the CIA that was politically motivated to essentially hang JFK out to look like an idiot. And if if that's where Anderill was looking, he would have seen a bunch of CI officers that were doing something that appeared to be totally rogue and totally you know, explosive. If JFK had found out what they were doing, which it appears that he never did.
It was it was either.
JFK or RFK ever heard of that mission or understood it or its implications. If you want to continue that on a couple of months, then we have m World and the m World project, which was intended to initiate
military action. It gets Cuba from offshore, but it was so deniable that the people that were being recruited into that project, were told that JFK had deserted them, that the US couldn't be trusted, they had new sponsors, and that yes, they were going to be buying a lot of weapons and a lot of armaments and ships and planes.
All the money was coming from overseas. If Underhill had seen that happening, and since the weapons were coming through inter Armcow, most likely he did, he would once again have come across this same group of people who appear to be acting totally against the President, and the guy that's leading this new operation named Hecksher had just come over and been reassigned, having been chief Assation in Laos and worked in the Golden Triangle, and we all know
what that means. So if you reverse engineer a lot of those things which were not meaningful to me back in two thousand and six, suddenly I have very good reason to feel that under His had every reason to think he had stumbled across something that was extremely dangerous.
Right, And you know, for people that think all of that just sounded too complex, I would recommend Larry's book Nexus, which makes perfect sense here because you're talking about a complex nexus of connections. But this is the way the world worked then and still I argue works today when it comes to this stuff. You know, there's often confusion about like, well, that doesn't make sense, why would they support that that's not with them politically or whatever. It's
not always about politics. It's all political, but it's not always about the surface level of the politics. You know, there are operations that are going on constantly where there's outside influence being exerted on various nations for different reasons over resources, strategic positioning, et cetera, et cetera. Maybe there is the surface level political consideration, but you don't understand these things as they just well, gee, the US sends an envoy and they deal with it. No, it doesn't
always work that way. You know, there's a lot of things going on here. But again I recommend to all of Larry's books, and I don't mention nexus enough, although I use the term constantly.
So it is.
But that's what's relevant here regarding Underhill, right, is that there is a reason why this guy was nervous. There is a reason why this was reported, as for who reported it and why you got these different sources going on in the paperwork. The way I see it, and again it's because of the incomplete nature of so many things that could have been investigated that we're stuck with.
We only have this or that source to work with here, right, So you know about that, there's nothing can be done about it now, even if we did empower a Senate subcommittee something like that. I mean, the majority of people just again, just you know, time keeps ticking and sixty let's see now sixty two years later, right from the date of the assassination. People that were forty years old are likely dead. People that are thirty years old might be alive. But you know, you're not dealing with a
lively group of living witnesses any longer. You're not dealing with active operations that are even remotely related any longer. You know, things are very far flung at this point. So there is that difficulty trying to do something, say in twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six, or on into you know, twenty thirty, almost by the time if they did get a committee started, So you know, there's that hurdle regarding all this too. Anyway, Larry, I think we've
actually covered everything pretty well here. Is there anything you'd like to add add to this? About and you know, hopefully next time we speak we'll talk about other things. Unless there's more releases, I'll be more than happy to discuss if there's more transparency to observe here. But you know, as we said, it's kind of difficult to predict if when slash whatever, considering we haven't seen the plans for
it yet. And again, we know we have an enthusiastic partner, let's say, in the Government in Luna Representative Luna at this point, and of course Jeff is definitely doing his best to keep this in the public's mind, and the rest of us are trying to, I mean, you know, as much as we can to keep people aware that there's still work to be done, et cetera. There's still things to be revealed, et cetera. But I stand by
all the statements I made earlier. You know, we've gotten to a point of transparency where we're sort of caught up to twenty seventeen as far as documentation goes, but now going further unless you know, voluntarily, there are things pride out of agencies, you know, in the background somehow In the meantime, I don't know where else we're going to go on this, So what are your thoughts and we'll just kind of close it out now.
I think that's I think that's a good summary. The under lead illustrates what the kind of lead that could have been useful back in nineteen sixty four, right, you know, if you took that, regardless of his death suicide or not, if you took that just to this fellow you know, has real good sources within the CIA and came across something to make him think that there were a group of rogue actors within the agency and at surrogates who were so dangerous that they might even have killed the president.
Then that would have been a good lead. You know.
It's just one of many leads actually that we know about today that that might in the direction, but it's no longer. Then it would have been a lead, it would have been worth investigating, and it would have pointed to the people that I was talking about earlier. But now, you know, it's interesting. There's a lot of stuff in the records that we see now that is historically relevant. You know, I've got I've got to say that it's
good history. But the leads that are there, including the details like people and names and sources and where this came from and who knew this when it's too.
Late for us.
It helps us with our speculation, but I'm not sure that it would help you know, criminal investigation. It's too late, right, and that's that's frustrating. But I think I think it's reality. I would find My summary is if I was starting this all over again, as far as the criminal investigation, and I would focus on items of evidence, forensics materials, autopsy materials. I would have that revisited to see if they really support the government story, which most of us
no longer believe. I think that that could lead to a resolution. It could literally lead to a statement that says, no, it didn't happen the way the history books say it happened.
Here's why. We don't know, and we won't know.
But that would be good history, and that would be good for the country because it would force the country to face up to its history, bring in the criminals to justice. Not so much, but you know, resolving our history. Maybe so, But I doubt that anybody's going to call and put me in charge of that effort.
So yeah, because objectively, if anybody asked my opinion, here's you know, you want to hear something that probably sounds ridiculous but true.
This would be a baseline.
We would actually have to exhume Kennedy's body to retrace some of this stuff properly, and it could be done. It could be done. You know there it is at Arlington. Somebody could crack open that tomb and I guarantee you it's encased well enough that he would be preserved. I know that sounds crazy to some people, but believe it or not, that would be helpful and would be extremely informative and would close a whole lot of open loops here, a whole lot of open questions.
Yeah, closure, maybe that's what we should be talking about, Jack Klouicher, justice, but closure.
Right, and that's really what we can hope for in the future.
It looks like to me, I.
As time goes on, I gotta tell you, I'm less and less enthusiastic about you know, gee, we could still hold a criminal hearing here and you know, hold somebody accountable. I'm feeling like that ship might have sailed. But the idea that we could get closure, that we could get a reality check on this and actually solve a whole lot of open questions and put a lot of things to rest and say, look, for the most part, we
understand it now completely. And yeah, they didn't do a good investigation in the first place, but now we know this, and now we know that.
It could be done.
But again, it would require some radical actions and one of those things that I guarantee you the Kennedy family would definitely fight, but so would many others, just on the basis of you know, not disrespecting the memory.
Da da da da dah is.
Stuff like what I just said, And some people might even find that offensive, the exhumation of JFK.
What's wrong with you?
But that would be a proper way to re examine, you know, with primary evidence that is preserved.
I'm sorry, but that's what it is.
Anyway, Larry, Is there anything you want to say in closing year or you think we covered it all?
No?
I think I think that was a good summary as to what a reality check maybe even call it. Don't call it a summary, call it a reality check.
Yeah, there you go.
Yeah, we we more records and more collections will help us refine our speculation, but without going back to a real reset for you know, the basics of a kriminal investigation.
Uh no, it's going to require that for closure. Good. I think that's a good that's a good summary. I'm going to start using those words.
There you go.
See I've added somehow to your to your lexicon, right little little bit my contribution. I've added to Larry Hancock's lexicon. If that's the best I can do, that's not bad anyway. Go to Larry dash Hancock dot com. I'm sure that you have also blogged about some of this stuff in recent weeks, right yeah, And people can follow that there as well as find out about all of Larry's books. By the way, I recommend them all. But aside from the fact that he takes up a lot of space
on my bookshelf. Got to tell you the most recent book, The Oswald Puzzle. If you don't have it and you're interested in this case, or even remotely interested in the individual historically we know is Lee Harvey Oswald, I strongly advise you pick that one up in digital or physical form. I like the book though the book looks nice. It's a black and white picture, and you know the cover of the hardcover is very nice looking, but also a solid reference book. In my mind, there's very few things
in this case that I count as reference books. Right, A lot of people get deep into their speculations, their theoretical assumations, I guess their assumptions, whatever it is. And you know, I like this book because it's very, very straightforward. And again you can flip the different things. Just use the uh, you know, the table of contents as a guide, and you can flip the different things in this book and really go deep on a bunch of a bunch
of stuff about the character of Lee Harvey Oswald. So I definitely advise you to pick that up if that's what you're interested in.
So I thank Larry for you doing this with me.
We'll talk again in a couple of weeks, I guess, and who knows, maybe by then we'll have a UAP project to talk about, or god knows what by then, because the world keeps changing hour by hour, but.
Yeah, i'll have we we're publishing a u UAP study within the next couple of weeks.
Excellent, Maybe that's what we'll be discussed the next time. And really glad to have had you along and you listening out there. I appreciate you as well, because I am merely o'celly, all of you.
Go ahead, Colin, I'm just sit in the truth about the day.
If I have talked those right, well, what do you want to know?
Nady Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon. But okay, Oswald on the building and I'm trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Come on now, has a real effort on the DAFA assassination.
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 Chili dot com.
In Denial The Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larryhancock. 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 and Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not learn 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 Larryhancock. 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, radio.
Level through Comsage, Oh Shell, Oh Sally.
Day World.
Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times, and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy would up against. For more information, The War State dot Com, dot Com Radio, New Nuclear Holocaust.
You know what uranium is, right, you think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what uranium is right, bad things.
Revelation through Conversation dot Com Radio Network