The Ochelli Effect 5-21-2025 Larry Hancock

Ready, get ready.

For May twenty one of twenty twenty five.

Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, This Theocelli effect. You listening and thank you for it. Anyway, boy, the month of May has gone by quickly. I mean, it just seems like yesterday was May Day. Anyway, I have Larry Hancock with me Larry dash Hancock dot com. Of course, he's going to be authoring an upcoming article. I just had one minor thing that I wanted him to maybe, you know, touch up on, and we'll get that probably next week. So you will see an article

I don't know. Was that a bad joke? Probably? Larry, How are you doing tonight?

I'm doing good. Check as you say.

It just seems like the month just started. I think definitely, time is ahead of me. I just can't keep up with it.

Yeah, so three weeks into the month already, I mean, doesn't that I don't know.

It just doesn't feel right right. It's like, where did the time go?

You know?

They say that as we get older that happens, but man, sometimes months just vanish on me.

I don't know.

What I can't really understand is time is supposed to slow down as you go faster, so I generally think I'm going slower and that's not happening.

It's something's out of saint.

But otherwise otherwise I'm fine. It just does never seems to be enough time.

Who knows time dilation?

Maybe again, we'll have to talk about that when we get to some UAP stuff. But this week there were some well new hearings right on the JFK declassifications, et cetera. Were they new hearings on declassifications? Well, in part, Doug Horn was there, Dan Hardaway was there. I was a

Judge Tunheim there, and as a.

Matter of fact, I want to play a little audio because maybe you want to talk about the doctor a bit. Yet again, one of the medical wits this is in part, you know, always going to be dissected and vivisected in one way or another when a living witness comes forward in any way, shape or form.

Oh and Abraham Bolden was.

There as well, although there were audio difficulties during his testimony, but I think some of that stuff got on the record anyway. And there were also other remarks that weren't broadcast or even read out that were put into the Congressional record. So that took place only what two days ago, now, right, Larry Gosh, I.

Was yeah, two days like yesterday, you know, yes, it's this is is still real news. People are still listening to, you know, copies of recordings of the thing. It's still a lively discussion. I think for one intent, the second hearing was much different than the first, when in some ways this, the hearing that we just had, is probab probably more on target for what this this committee hearing is all about. One of the things this kind of like we always do in setting the context.

You know, Representative Lena really has two charters. Uh.

One of her charters is under the President's Transparency Initiative, which is to force it out documents and materials and get them on the record that haven't been available to the public. You know, that's one agenda, and then the first the first hearing dealt with that to a large extent. But her committee, really, if you look at the title of her or hearing or hearing here is is an oversight a government oversight committee.

It's kind of like, did the government do its job correctly? You know, did it screw up whatever? You know, really two different things.

And that's why I think there are two hearings and two sets of witnesses, and we can't confuse them, or we shouldn't confuse them, because it creates the it creates a misunderstanding for what's really going on in the hearing with these two different missions that she's both carrying out in a way.

And the thing is, you know, we were dealing with a very say, disruptive pattern break in kind of administration for the most part, and a lot of executive orders flying around. But in truth, the fact that the Oversight Committee is dealing with this right now is probably proper should have been done earlier, frankly, because look, you're talking about okay, documentation collected starting in nineteen.

Sixty three, that's the earliest that could have started.

Then you have other investigations that took place in the sixties, the seventies, even possibly the eighties, but maybe that's a point of contention. You have the assassination records of view Board and Executive Branch Office an executive branch not office agency created in order to what gather up documentation from all the other agencies and make it public, and then a twenty five year delay on that, and then more delays.

The Trump administration's behavior here.

But realistically, come on already, all right, that is such a minor issue when it comes to all this mess that they created for themselves in my opinion. Anyway, enough of my opinions, let's listen to mister Garcia, you know, kind of like finish the questioning with Judge Tunheim and then begin the questioning with the doctor witness, yet another doctor of sorts. Various residents, student, doctors, nurses over the years from Parkland Hospital have said many things. Curious choice

Similar to what I to I asked, miss Co, do you think that this release of the records that just happened has added any substantial new information to what we already know?

You know, I think any release of records gives you more, more color, more pieces of the puzzle. So does and I think this has been very interesting. I haven't a chance to look through a lot of the materials, but a lot of the materials that have reactions in were materials we never saw, so they weren't shown to us before. So I think that is significant that there are documents being released there. I don't see any answers, any new answers to any of the old questions here, but it's

Well think, so now really quickly, Larry, I interrupt this because Tuneim has just given us context, a advocate point of view about transparency, and rather concisely, and just a few moments there, pivoting away from the question a little bit.

But I was pretty satisfied with that.

Conclusion to two Nime's testimony, like, yeah, that's about where I'm at with it.

And indeed, let's put that context there.

We're now closer to uh, you know, it was closer to World War One when this happened than we are to the assassination today.

Interesting, I think, but you know, anyway.

Back back to it, we'll hear the progression into the doctor's comments, and then i'd like to get your thoughts on all this.

With a heel back.

Thinking, Rep Garcia, the chair would now like to recognize, mister Birchett, that's misty.

Chair, Doctor Curtis.

What happened when the Warren Commission called you to testify about what you knew about the JFK ones, Doctor Curtis, Yes, sir, I'm sorry, I've got hearing aids.

Just don't worry about it, brother. What happened when the Warren commissioned.

Called you to testify about what you knew about JFK's ones.

Okay, that's Representative Burchett. By the way, b U R C H E T T.

I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, which is also curious because he's got supprud or frames behind him up on some interesting display boards. But anyway, let's hear the doctors at least opening that's the first question they asked him.

Apparently, Well, the one commission that hasn't called me to testify at all, not at all. Okay, the uh I didn't use up all my time, and I like to make some additional comments regarding sir.

You have the time that you need, so please proceed.

Okay.

Yeah, because his opening statement, he apparently didn't get everything out he wanted to get out there. So this is where the commentary begins. But first off, he's got a correct the same guy who seems to have an interest. But what did you say before the ward commission? I wasn't actually called before the ward commission. A little reminiscent, but not quite as bad as you wrote a book, mister Stone, and she had the wrong mister Stone.

But that was the previous hearing anyway, Well, let me know when I can do it.

Well, now, sir, I believe mister Burchette has a line of questions for you, so you're free to talk to mister Burchett.

Yes, sir, can you explain what condition when President Kennedy arrived in the emergency room?

What was his condition at that point?

He had already died?

Okay, how many wounds did you observe on President Kennedy?

How many wounds? President Kennedy had a wound to of course, the big wound to his head, right, but he also had a wound to his throat. And I've got a little diagram here I can point out out how that worked if you'd let me to.

And that wouldn't have been a single bullet wound though, right they talk about this magical bullet that traveled.

That would have been more than one bullet.

You think that magic bullet was not It didn't strike the president at all.

Okay, that was a clean bullet.

I saw the picture given, Do what what.

Play?

Show the diagram?

Okay, the bullets that were fired. The blue bullet is the bar. It was the bullet that arrived first, and you can see it started from probably from the railroad trestle which is to the southwest, and came up and first struck President Kennedy before he got out from under the tree. That prevented the window shooter from shooting then. And we know that because the Zapruder film showed the President Kennedy holding his throat real distress when the separator film started.

Okay, the reason why I'm playing all this And by the way, now he's got an aerial shot of Dally Plaza behind him with colored diagrams about trajectories of bullets and all these things. This kind of gets into some of the messiness that went on during this hearing, and the messiness of both hearings actually, where it seems like things were well planned out, but they weren't. You know, like people were asking questions of the wrong people. They

Yeah, I think the focus what you obviously have is a lack of focus and and and that it makes sense in some extense because you have, you know, you have different members with different views, with different political agendas, with obviously radically different knowledge of this incident and event.

You know, and it's it turns into a free for all.

And that's it is neither an investigation, right, because you don't have people that as you would in a jury.

Process, much less.

A criminal investigation, who've prepped themselves, who you know the background in detail. Look at ton time as much as I like Tonne in you know, he's talking about well we didn't see this or that.

Well he hasn't looked at.

It since the ARRB releases, and we know the majority of what we see today they didn't see and that is a problem, But it doesn't mean that we haven't seen it for twenty years now. So when you make a comment like I think it should finally all be released because I'm seeing new stuff, that just means you didn't see it decades ago.

It's almost irrelevant.

Well, and you're so curious.

Thing that people need to keep in mind as they look at this and if they're coming into this even you know, with a let's just say they have a passionate interest, but they don't have you know, the years and years and years of reading through this stuff. You know, they've read a couple of books, they understand the case basics,

And I do.

Think there's literally like a thousand people on the planet that really know the material. Seriously, I think that's an honest number. The people in Congress are not among them. The people in the media are not among them. The people so you know, here we go. You have people that are not well informed on the minutia the details. Like I said, they would have no idea whether this guy was before the Warrant Commission.

They mix up the House Select Committee. They think the ARRB was an investigation.

And meanwhile, they haven't even been through our one oh one class on this right where we.

Went through the investigations.

They haven't even been that far into it to even begin to identify what box to put these things in. Even when they do see brand new document or they see slightly less redacted documentation or oh, we never saw that page of this before. They don't know what we saw before, So how are they going to even know what's new or what you know what I'm saying.

So we can't have unreasonable expectations here, exactly right, And I think a lot of people that are panning it are do have I see post all the time that you know, they're not investigating this. They're not investigating that. It's not an investigation. If you had two simple questions to ask you guys, okay, congress person that you can't ask anything other than this question.

One, are there documents.

Or records relating to the assassination that you're aware of that should be released that haven't been released, or should be collected.

That haven't been collected. That's all we want to know. Just we'll cut this Short's that's what we're there for.

One set of questions, and that would have been the first here, second set of questions, you know, second set of questions, and the second witness is like the doctor. The bad news here is they're treating the doctor and the doctor has kind of moved himself into mode which we've seen before when witnesses start becoming involved in solving the assassination, things go bad.

Right.

He's an extremely critical witness. He's been on record with his own personal observations from what went on in that trauma room. That's what he should be talking about. He shouldn't be talking about trajectories. He's talking about womans. What did you see as a witness. But that's where you know, we've run into that people with witnesses before that decide their investigators.

Well, and here's the issue with it, right, is that someone who is knowledgeable. This is where I truly wish and I'm not trying to put anybody down here, but I really wish that among those of us that do have enough knowledge to direct somebody like Birchant, that somebody would give him some notes that say, look, stick to this guy's observations, because that's what's important here. That's where the information that he actually has in his brain is relevant and important.

Here, tell me what. And he's kind of started that way. You know, after he.

Got over the whole Warren commission, what did you tell them? Once he got past that, he said, well, what condition was he in? Tell us about that?

And you know, the sad part of it, check is he is a smoking witness.

I will say this right out loud.

If he had been, he will correctly And he's been interviewed before, and it's on record before. He did an interview with a newspaper before. He literally, if you believe that man, the ruling Commission is a fraud, He literally describes what went on in the trauma room. He literally describes what Kip Clark did, what he showed the doctors, what all their doctors agreed to as to the major damage to the president's head to a frontal entry, and

He would which he would relate to.

And which would the other doctors relate to about the Secret Service and warring commissioned people coming down and suppressing that information.

That's the topic for this oversight hearing.

That's this is like if they had just gone that direction, the rest of it is meaningless. Just that doctor alone pursuing that line of inquiry could shift this whole narrative.

Right, I'll give you.

I'll give you a simple thing, and I want you to think about this real quick, because you have talked to a few I know you have at least encountered one or two of the doctors from Parkland and talk to you personally, So I have to McClelland is the one that I got to the most.

But anyway, here's a weird thing about that.

And I've always been curious about this as to whether it was encouraged by the government or if it was like sort of a silent thing, or if they agreed to it. But here's the weird thing that this guy does that others don't. I asked, and I could get them to say something. If I'm not going to take notes, if I'm not going to record it, I could get them to say, you know, basically, he was dead.

When he got there.

Okay, like there was no point in the life saving stuff that went on.

They wouldn't say that on the record anywhere.

Okay for me, this guy's always said that, and that's the beginning of where his testimony is different. Okay, there more to it than that, but that's just one of the minor things. And I've always wondered if that was pressured by the government to don't say that, or if that was again one of those like agreements between the doctors, like we shouldn't say that part because you know, then we might get blamed somehow or something.

My guess, I guess on that as you've got to look at what his role was. He is not a medical doctor treating the president.

He has no medical liability. The other doctors do.

The other doctors in a position of even though we think he's dead, if we don't treat him, you know, their arguments that we didn't do all we you know, professionally, all we could have done, we.

Didn't, right, we didn't honor, our oath. You know, we're not going.

To say that now, that's we're going to say what we tried to do it in a way, it's cover, but it is. It's a professional obligation. He does not have that obligation. He was there as a resident. He's not treating the doctor, which makes him the perfect witness. He's actually a better witness because he has no skin in the game from a medical treatment standpoint.

Good.

I'm glad you said it, because that's what I was trying to get at. I was trying to set it up for you to get there. So uncle, you go out there, well done.

Yes, as you can see him at the point these days where I pull very few punches.

I may be wrong, but I still don't pull any punches.

No.

Look, but that's what needed to be done.

Here is if you're gonna go for this sort of a demonstration, you know you've got like an hour or two of TV time, okay, And in order to make an effective this is for exposition, Okay.

So I get it.

They want them to be able to use their charts. They're letting them, they're giving them leeway to say what they want. But you see a difference here again, where you have a witness that's now giving you his solutions based on the information he has versus what should be just the raw testimony. If you're involved in testifying in a case, a criminal case, and you start telling them about what you think happened, they tell you to stop that right away.

Now, No, noet.

You tell us what you saw, what you did, and that's what you can tell us. You can't tell us what was in anybody else's mind, what happened outside of your blind of sight.

You can't tell us that stuff.

That is hearsay, that is your supposition, That is one hundred different things other than what you can testify to.

But I would say to support your point on it's sad.

But if the person running the hearing really had the background or the staff work, as soon as that doctor testified that, all the doctors in the room that observe this, you know, then the chair would have read into the record statements from McClelland and other doctors as to where as to the extent to which they had been rest and their testimony had been suppressed.

They don't have. They've already said that, They've said that for years we've known it for years. It should have been entered.

Into the record all in one spot, and unfortunately that didn't happen.

See, but there you go.

But there is a difference between being able to collate this stuff together based on a level of knowledge of the material, and then there's what's happened here. So and on the one I'm not trying to be hypercritical here and saying that these people did a bad job. I'm simply saying that you're only going to get what you're going to get out of this, you know, I'm trying to be realistic. So that's what I'm trying to explain here. I hope I'm getting that point across. I don't know

I think it's good that it happened.

But the expectations that a lot of people had, I think we're I don't know, out of whack with the real reality of what it is we have here before us.

Everybody so desperately wants another investigation. We have learned so much in the last few decades, the last couple of decades in particular. You know, you'll hear people like, you know, like Tunheim and those folks say, if we had only known then what we know now, you know, and they're sincere that. Everybody, including them, was like, if only we could take this and do another real criminal investigation, we might resolve all this.

Everybody wants that, But that's not what these hearings are. These hearings are.

You know, in this case, Luna is operating under two charters. One political charter is the president said, we're going to prove to everybody that we're transparent. I've got to introduce a little political humor here. We're going to be transparent releasing all those records. But when the public wants to see the records from Dodgers' activities, we're going to have justice go to court.

And I do against tet just can't stand it.

You know.

Okay, But that's a that's a charter, and that's and actually some of that is going on. It's important to note, as had been noted, that Louaz has asked people, She's asked NBC for films.

They came back to her and gave her the wrong film.

Okay, for the record.

According to her, they gave her twenty hours of footage, but not the Wegman film, just saying just saying go ahead.

They've asked, She's asked for the join EDI's CIA, for the joint ed stuff, and they're going, well, we can't give it to you right now, and we may not be able to find it. But and and by the way, then then you've got to say to yourself, you've been in court for years and years defending it.

Did you not even.

Locate it for the previous court hearing so that you had something to show the judge. And by the way, if you showed something to the judge, have you lost it since you were in those court areas? You know?

And there's stone walling here.

So there's some good stuff from that regard happening. She's doing things, but you have to kind of what we're talking about here. You know, it's limited. She has a very limited amount of time. She's her time's almost up already. So the one thing that I'm kind of upset about with this, the second hearing in particular, is that it

Well, not only that, but even at a time when the investigation was in the hands of Congress, okay, during the House Select Committee on Assassinations, they had a medical panel there that did not exactly operate, you know, openly investigating things when they.

Were empowered to do so.

So you could again bring up the sins of the entirety of the government here and say, look, nobody has done this properly yet, and here's alan why. And these witnesses could have prove if I had context for that, from Tunheim to this doctor perfectly right, I mean, for adding about Bolden and all the mess that went on with him. Even if you just put that aside and he wasn't there, you still have this and Hardaway is there.

He's an example of.

What went on during because he's part of the investigation in Congress in the seventies. I mean, unless I'm missing something, the very best outcome that one could hope for out of all of this is a recommendation when the committee closes up shop that there should be a new investigation, there should be new searches for documentation, and there should be well guess what a bit of something to bring about enforcement. Because here's the problem, right, the ARB closes

I forget was it one or two years? Extra two?

I think too?

Right?

Okay, Well, either way, one or the other. They actually extended the life even though it was only supposed to go just so long signed in the law by George hw. Bush, brought into reality by Bill Clinton, the ARB did its work and then.

Closed up shop. There is no enforcement arm for the law after that. So it yeah, I could perfectly.

Right if they had used Tonnheim as a segue on that part, just like using the doctor as a segue.

If they has.

Used Tonnheim's statement as a segue to enter into the record the statements by Blakey and by other people that have been on these committees that said the government withheld information intentionally obfuscated our investigations. If that had been entered into the congressional record, that serves as ammunition for.

Getting justice to do another investigation. Maybe just as not. I don't hew you do it.

But this should have this whole thing should have been laying the foundation to make the argument that the government did not properly investigate the Kennedy assassination over and over again, and so maybe you should try to do it right finally.

Well, and there you go, And that could be, you know, a sort of adjunct creation of an ar RB two which you know, could get back into it, and if it had some level of enforcement.

They could go after some of these things.

That people drag their feet on all the way through the existence of the of the review board and everything else.

But that is not what has occurred yet.

And like I said, at the end of it, perhaps Luna could have a you know, a list of recommendations as the chair of that committee, right which say, you know what, we recommend this and this and this happened, and in the past there have been recommendations that a further investigation of certain things occur, mostly ignored. But even so, that's probably the best outcome we could even see out of all this, right at this point.

Yeah, we have a precedent. The King assassination. The Justice Department was basically forced by the civil trial to reopen its investigation. Now, I personally I think they screwed that up, but they were forced by events. They were forced by the civil trial, which brought out so many issues with the original criminal trial that somebody had to step up and address it.

And Justice did at least do that.

Okay, stepped in and said, all right, it looks like justice was not done.

We'll tackle it. Justice could do that.

Same thing right now, based on Luna's hearings, they don't need Congress, and I'm not even saying that they but they could do it. Today we see another investigation opened on the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Now this is like the fourth investigation.

It's not that government agencies can't do those things rightly or wrongly on their own. And that's you know, under this administration, we might have hoped for that.

With Luna's work.

If she has made a case that the government did not honor its commitments to its citizenry, then the administration the Justice could.

Do something, and she may.

I don't know whether they gave her such broad marching orders.

I don't know that.

They're really up to that, but we do have a precedent in her UAP hearings or UFO hearings. She did actually stimulate the government to create an agency. Right from a Department of Defense standpoint, you legislation has been passed and new groups have been set up to collect data. You know, her work has triggered government action before and maybe it can again. I'm just a concern that it you know that the way this ended up as being

And she didn't capture the same headlines.

Now, wrongly or rightly, you must admit that the guy who went up there and basically said, you know, we have captured alien technology and all that, as much as people might say, oh, well, that was just ridiculous. You know what, though, it stimulated the public to have a minor outcry about this and say, look, if this kind.

Of crap's going on, don't you need to look at it, you know.

I mean, you're right, Chuck. But in one way, we have an even stronger case here. Yeah, what if the headline has been witnesses. Witnesses testify that the federal go force the doctors that Parkland hospital to lie. Right, Yeah, that's an actually much stronger argument than the quote unquote whistleblowers, because that is on the record with names and statements and testimony. We haven't we haven't seen the whistleblower stuff officially.

Right, So there you have it.

I mean, uh, and this is like I said, it's not just an academic exercise either, because we are in a political climate where I think of enough noise is made the current administration and various people that are in positions.

Of power will respond to that, okay, they will respond to it wrongly, rightly, okay, and if.

They think they can score political I'm just being blunt about this, and I'm being objective here.

This is not even a judgment.

This is about if you can make enough noise and convince let's just say cash Pttel, the head of the FBI, right to if you can encourage him, that he could score political points here on behalf of the Trump administration by reopening an investigation.

I think he'd sign on to it.

You're right, Looking at some of the charges they're already bringing, you know, it's not too much of a stretch, right.

Quite Frankly, they seem to be willing to.

Entire investigate almost anything, everybody over anything.

You know. I'm not saying I'm even in favor of that. That's just a reality check.

There doates some things that you want far less evidence than we have here.

Right, But listen, that most an objective statement. That was not a judgmental statement. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong or anything. I'm just saying that it appears to me is okay, this could be done. That's all

And I don't know what else should we or could we take from all of this.

And then I'll let you go for the night because I know you got other things to do, and hey, I'll probably do a second part to the show anyway. So but by all means, I want to give you a chance to say whatever else it is we missed so far during this discussion. But I think we hit most of the key points that we had in mind before we went to air.

So go ahead.

Yeah, I think what at look at it is overall, as much whining as I'm doing and as much criticism as say do it.

I think it's positive to the extent that it's it's we.

Knew all this stuff right, right, as you said, there are a thousand people, hundreds of people in all all this stuff. The general public does not know all this stuff. And the fact that it did manage to service surface some important points like important records have been withheld and and and things.

Are still being withheld.

Uh, you know, even after you know there's there's something left to do.

It surfaced that it with this, this hearing today clearly surfaced the fact that.

You know, there was information available to the War and Commission that it chose not to use. And the current public it's refreshed. This it's kind of like a reset, a historical reset, if you will. And I think that's it's good because it, you know, this had all gone.

Stale as it were.

Uh, even the fact, the amazing, amazing fact is it's gone stale after two two decades.

Of learning more than we ever knew.

Like, if anything, it should be much more real and much more significant now than it was forty years ago because we know so much more. But that didn't happen, you know, it just the new stuff just laid there, got buried. Books were written, were read by a few hundred people, a few thousand people.

But historically it went stale, which is.

Said, now it's back, it's surfaced, it's refreshing, and something could happen to take it further. So overall, I am a fan of hearings. I just wish that they were conducted in a more focused, organized, structured manner and they weren't so politicized.

But I think the hearing probably.

Did as much as you could expect it to do with such a sensitive subject.

It's kind of like the UFO UAP hearings they do. They're a communications vehicle and that's worked.

And if you think about it, we did see signs of denial in the committee, like people stepping up and saying, oh.

This is all silly.

I don't want to hear all that. But we're used to that, right, I mean, we've heard that for decades, so we can just kind of ignore that.

We know that happens. You need to look at the other side, which is much more positive.

No, definitely, and that's the thing. This is a positive role. But for the people that are disappointed, I think you're a little too disappointed. You know, we were only going to get so much out of this to begin with, so I think people need to keep that in mind.

As well.

You know, it's not like you were looking at we have a potential new investigation here.

No, we didn't. We never did. It was a matter of maybe we can get the stuff we should have gotten twenty seventeen.

Okay maybe, And then a few new things came out and a few unexpected pieces actually landed, and possibilities to continue happened.

So there's still work to be done. And I think that's the best way to kind of frame the whole thing, don't you.

Oh.

Absolutely, I think we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There wouldn't have been anything new injured into the congressional record. You know, it's it's kind of amazing that it's even occurring now in twenty twenty five, you know, other than the last few people that knew anything about this just die off in the next two years.

Yeah, definitely.

And that's the other thing too, is that we got to keep in mind everything is on a clock at this point, and you know, not too much longer. Look, we're now down to the young residence here because all of the older experienced doctors that were President Barkland or gone.

And etcetera, etcetera.

So you know, here we are who's left from the original Congressional investigation in the seventies, who's left from the Warren Commission?

You know here we are nobody from the Warren Commission anyway. But you know, what are you going to do? I mean, Arlen Spector was one of the last surviving members I think, wasn't he.

Yeah?

Yeah, I mean that's pretty rough.

So we got something, and you know, we had nothing before, we have something now, So it's kind of be a net gain. As I say, The biggest thing I'm taking out of it, quite honestly, is what he didn't get to say, the remarks he didn't get to make from the resident who is the area is a witness. But

Head that's a very important story.

That's the sort of story that should go in textbooks, you know, about how you deal with suppression of history.

And that's when this occurs.

Yeah, and that's from the beginning on the scene immediately with the Secret Service, right, you know, everything from what about the fact that we should have basically done the autopsy right then and there to you know, to note the Secret Services removing the body first of all, and then on and on into the Warren Commission the next year.

I mean, it just continues. So there you go.

Anyway, you can continue to follow this and a few other things. And I have a funny feeling next time you and I get together, we're going to be talking about a totally different subject. But who knows, Representative Lea's name might come up in that one too, But anyway, we'll get to that when we get to it. Larry, I want to thank you for doing this, and again, you guys go to Larry Dashancock dot com. Follow Larry's blog for sure, and every one of the books, one of the books.

That you see there at Larry's website.

I recommend there's a word press link which will also be in the show notes and I'll probably put The Oswald Puzzle Amazon Lincoln there as well. I highly recommend that book. It is not just another book on Lee Harvey Oswald. It is not just another book on the Kennedy assassination. I value it as a reference. So I just want you guys to know that that's a very rare thing for me to call somebody's work a reference. But it is a solid piece of work. It's very different.

Sounds good. I enjoyed the conversation.

All right.

Anyway, guys, stick around. I'm gonna get to some other stuff on the other side of a break. But again, thanks to Larry Hancock, and thank you guys for listening.

I'm merely o'celly. All of you are.

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.

This is James Corbet at corner Report dot com.

And you're listening to the Olly Affected Olly dot com.

Such Face Life, Spin.

Through Conday.

Here all, Oh.

Hell.

A fall a.

Break infro.

In Denial. Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larryhncock. Secret Wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did.

Not 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 larryhyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical forms.