Get ready June eighteen, twenty twenty five. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this is the o'celli effect. It is Wednesday Wodnesday, and that's the way it was. That's the way it is. Anyhow, glad you could join us tonight, and I'm really really pleased as always when this happens to have Larry Hancock along with me. I meant to get together with Larry earlier than we are
alive on the stream. You listening in the podcast form don't care, but I did mean to get together with him earlier, not just because I wanted to be on time for the live stream, but I wanted to talk to Larry before we went to air about some stuff and didn't get a chance to really do it. So anyway, maybe maybe next time you and I get together we can do that. We have the occasion to talk a
few more times before November, if plans go according to plan. Anyway, So Larry Hancock, of course the author taking up a lot of space on my bookshelf, but not just taking up space, giving me an education over the years on a great many things, And tonight's focus will not be the JFK thing and the November reference I just gave you. We're going to continue on with something that's rather fascinating as well and just as necessary to study if you
want to understand intelligence agency behaviors. In my opinion, that would be the uap UFO et cetera, et cetera contramacy, as they say, on the other side of the pond. Larry has authored a book called Unidentified. It is a dark, dark colored you know, I got it behind me. I should have put it in front of me, dark colored book with some blue writing on it, I believe, And it says unidentified. And it has a longer title which
I do not recall. But either way, it comes along with the highly recommended works of Larry Hancock, and there will be a link in the show note for you to go and find out about it and go get it anyway. You can always go to Larry dash Handcock dot com and check out Larry's work, his blog, his books, et cetera, anyway, plus all the other references in my library. So Larry, first of all, how you doing tonight?
I'm doing good?
Check why to be back? Listen. I am more grateful to you than your no because I needed a break from the news, and actually I needed a break from JFK stuff because of what I'm doing privately, So thank you, thank you. Anyway, the thing is, you passed me an article which was in the Wall Street Journal. Now, let's see what you know, what I should have memorized when the data of this article was but I did not. It is from the from the sixth Okay, so it's this month and it's just from the sixth.
Uh.
It's interesting because here's the headline, guys, the Pentagon disinformation that fueled America's UFO mythology. All right, there is a mouthful in a loaded statement right there. Why, because I gotta be honest with you. I start skimming over this thing and all I see is standard operating procedure. Why because you know, the the one armed man, the smoking man all rolled into one, Okay, is the unnamed source when it comes to politics, parapolitics, political conspiracy research, et cetera,
et cetera. The unnamed source that you can't name, who's close close to the situation, larry or maybe involved in the situation, etc. And meanwhile, we got people on the internet being surprised that there might have been a two oh one file of RFK, and I don't mean junior that existed in the CIA's hands. They're surprised over that because they don't understand the functionality of any of these things.
And anyway, I'm not going to get into that, and we're not talking RFK tonight, But I'm just saying a profound misunderstanding which is perpetuated by the intelligence agency's army intelligence, the military itself, in order to keep people in the dark and guessing, feeling around, much as you would be
if you were literally suddenly thrust into darkness. For most people here we are, this kind of stuff reads to me like, let's keep people guessing, and let's make sure that we perpetuate the open question and open door for the kookie conspiracy stuff, the speculation, the reasonable questions, and all of it all at once, because you know what, it all serves to keep people from doing what actually getting to an answer regarding the subject at hand. And
here we are with UAPs. How am I doing so far? Larry? Is this reading correct to you? Or am I just you know, crazy and spouting off at the mouth here?
Well, it does sound something like we we encountered this all the time, as you say, an article shows up in a newspaper from a journalist, you know, And basically what we've learned over time is the way the Pentagon operates, the way the agencies operate, the way the CIA always operated is they had they had people within the media community and there was a quid book low.
You know.
If those folks were curious about a particular topic or what was going on in a particular area, you know, they would they would feed, you know, into the agency or the government or what they were hearing, and then they would be given information. Sometimes it was good information, sometimes it was bad information. But you know, there was never an attributable source. As you said, it's like the article appears and according to reliable sources, and there's nothing
to go with it. You know, there's no documentation, there's no official statement. And the problem, as you kind of outlined, is it has to be real to work sometimes, but you never know. It reminds me of a movie from a couple of decades ago about this fellow who.
Published a conspiracy newsletter. Yeah, and then he became.
Threatened and at risk and it's like, well, I know it's over something at my newsletter, but I don't know what it is. You know, well, you can't tell, you can't tell what's going on.
It's all there and you don't really know for sure.
See there's that. Plus. Look, they don't just float fake stories and just give reporters fake stories, because after a while, first of all, you know, the unnamed source would lose credibility and people would go, yeah, here we go, unnamed source. It never pans out, So they got to give him some real stuff now and then. And sometimes I think they're brainstorming a little bit. You know, what do they call that? There's a methodology.
Like a market task just a focused group.
Yeah, a focus group, except you know it's wide. It's the readership of whoever, and what are we doing. We're floating the idea to see how people react to it, to see if they're going to get mad, to see if they care, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And I think that's true in some ways. And sometimes they give some information in there, Like I said, so people can point back and go, look, you know that unnamed source, look at how correct he was, or look at out
incorrect he was. Guess what plausible deniability? Hey, who knows who that unnamed source was. So you have a variety of things going on here, but again it's it's one of those issues. Right, Let's see if the public's even interested in UFO cover up, et cetera. Right, I mean that's what it seemed like to me here in this article. I mean I can't read the whole thing because I don't have a Wall Street Journal, you know, and I
already used up my articles for the month. So you know, hopefully some of you guys listening, I'll give you a link to the article as well, so you guys can go see it yourselves. But the thing is, when you do this, it can be useful for a variety of reasons, but once again, you have to blend it with speculation that makes sense, with some real stuff that makes sense and will come out later. So it does look like it was, you know, prognosticating something on occasion, not always,
but on occasion. Right. And also, just like you said, the test market idea, let's see how it flies in the South, because if they'll buy this kind of fried chicken in the South, we got a shot in the North. I mean, you know, it's like a fast food restaurant. Try it out, you know, when they did Mick Pizza and thank god that didn't take off. But you know what I'm saying, it didn't work out, So they go, Okay, let's move on to another idea we have or maybe and then in.
This case, they still they still have to come up with them. This agency, the agency has chared with this, and we have no idea who these reporters actually talked to. Not only do we not have a name, we don't have an agency or you know, there's they're not They weren't given an official statement that they're writing from.
You know, this is just a source somewhere.
But assuming that it's within the agency that was created by legislative action, that's a r O who's supposed to resolve the issue of anomalous objects.
Uh, assuming it.
Came from them, we know, as you mentioned in the Luna hearings, that that they face a problem because they had whistle blowers and they had people that said, oh, you know, I've talked to people that have seen this and that, or you know, they're still they still have to deal with it.
They haven't really resolved it, and this is one way to resolve it.
One approach that they've taken is that these people were simply hearing secondhand information and and you know, the people that they were talking to misunderstood, you know, perhaps Yeah, this is this is to kind of perpetuate the concept that there's something going on and circulating and cover stories are being used that can confuse people. So we're really the takeaways you really shouldn't be surprised at people even within the military or intelligence agencies here cover stories and
bad stuff and misinterpret them and then pass it on. Yeah, that's that's the real message here, Like okay, there it's an effort to address second hand information isn't work.
There's that, Plus there is the ability to protect you know, secrets or secretive actions or things that need to be handled a certain way and sort of edited for public consumption. And I give you a Luna we talkalked about before we went to air. Really but Luna's hearings on JFK we talked about recently and I've talked about him without you on the show, and you hear the convoluted defense that occurs as a result of those hearings. What do I mean some other podcasters that you know have larger
audiences in me quite frankly. But we'll sit there and say, how come Luna's not investigating stuff, not realizing that this isn't the HSCA. And yes, it's a public hearing Congress, but it's not the same thing. And what happens is she and she plays a role in this, by the way, directly for listeners who might have forgotten, because she was involved in those UAP hearings too. You know, she's disclosure lady. And I'm not blaming her, by the way, but here's
the thing. They float that out in public and now the public things since the Congress entertained it. It is the same thing as the HSCA. Oh well, the Rocker Pefeller commission. They went and did this. Yeah, this isn't the Rockefeller Commission. This isn't the House Select Committee on Assassinations. This is the people dealing with declassification. And yes, this is where that guy went on you know, and made headlines. Yes, I know directly about alien technology, we reverse engineered, etc.
And that stuff is another pillar of this obfuscation. Really, I'm trying to come up with another word, but I can't. By design that appears to be efforts toward disclosure and transparency. And that's the way it's meant to appear for an unsuspecting public that doesn't understand the mechanisms, doesn't necessarily understand the material, but reflexively states, you know what, I want more, I want this whatever, And they do what politicians do.
They take polls and figure out what is it that the public will accept, will want, will demand, and they work that into the program as well. And that's what I see when I see articles like this, the hearings, all of these things coming out. They are a symptom of what the protection of national security via various methods. And I still think it's the defense by by convoluting the subject is I mean, that's kind of a mouthy
way to put it. There's probably a better phrase I could come up with, but that's.
What it is.
You convolute everything so that people take that grab bag cherry pick out of it what they want. And now they've got the pulse of the public. What is it they're willing to accept? What is it they're willing to accept that we keep to ourselves, you know, like the acceptable defense over well, you know, the public couldn't handle for what decades, many decades the public probably couldn't handle it if we told them that we knew about aliens anyway, not saying we do, but if we did, why would
we tell the public about it? And oh, by the way, if they have these you know, crazy things lying in the air that are well beyond on our technology that we can't shoot down, we can't deal with at all, why should we alarm the public that despite all of our technological advances, we can't do anything about these craft. Whether they're from a foreign adversary or from another planet, it's irrelevant because the public doesn't need to know. It'll
just alarm them needlessly. You know, those arguments, right are born of it, and the Gerald Posner argument. Of course, you know, the psychology of the American public is such that they can't believe a great man was taken down by a loser like Lee Harvey Oswald. So you know, therefore that's why they don't accept the you know, loan nut theory. So on. And I know this sounds like I'm convoluting things together here, but I'm not. It's the same methodology. Or again, am I seeing a pattern where
there's no pattern? Larry Well, I.
Certainly there's a pattern.
The pattern is kind of flawed in a way because, if you think about it, essentially an issue I'm providing information that says, look, over time, we the Air Force, the intelligence community.
But let's just say the Air Force used UFOs as a cover.
For new technology developments, and we actually at Area fifty one, we sent somebody out to a local bar and showed them pictures that you know, okay, and that story started circulating or or in another instance, you know, we know this happens.
I mean, this is nothing new.
Wall Street Journal started with something in nineteen eighty, but we have known that cover stories were in play, and some pretty nasty cover stories are in play for decades.
So that part's not new.
But if you think about the problem, you really have it sort of like, well, I'm going to be honest with you and tell you that I foment hoaxes and rumors and send out information and cover stories to protect what I'm doing. But now you should accept that I'm telling you the truth. It's kind of a a catch twenty two. It's like, yes, I admit, I admit that I lie to you, but not this time, which and maybe not this time, but how would I know because that's the part you.
Talked about it.
It actually adds to the chaos because they give you some some real examples and you listen to them and they're perfectly logical, but they don't give you a paper trail.
They don't give you any history.
So again you have to accept it or not accept it on faith. So it really doesn't clear up anything unless you know you wanted to be reassured. If you wanted to be reassured, it probably works. And that's maybe what they're testing, like, is this a good enough.
Story so that everybody will calm down?
And this deals with the reason gossip that were talked about in that hearing.
Is this good enough?
And again, you know, to put it into uh to personify this, right is I think back to E. Howard Hunt and the quote deathbed end quote confession where people were like, look, this guy finally gave it to us. He was a CIA guy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And at the end of those you know, excited rants where people said, finally we have the truth. You know, how many times have you heard that in JFK circles? Right, finally we got this and boom, that's what it is.
Hold on, hass let me ask you a question. What was E. Howard Hunt's job? Was he not in a disinformation guy? You know? So you're supposed to believe his stories when he does give us our day or give us this our day or whatever that book was called about the Bay of Pigs. You're supposed to believe the deathbed confession that his son shopped around, but don't worry about all the other b s he slung over the years,
because that was just that and this is now. So what you're doing is selectively choosing when someone is a reliable source, and it makes it even easier when that source is unnamed and is, you know, close to the situation. I keep bringing up that phrase because I love it. It's it's one of the constants in media, you know, sources close to uh oh, here we go. And people do that as a matter of I mean, the police admittedly use it in various jurisdictions to float stories out
there to trick a murderer. Sometimes like they know who did it, they're missing some evidence, so they've floated out there that sources close to the situation, you know, sources in the police department have said they're after this person, the guy who actually did it. Hears that, goes, oh good, they're onto him, not me, and relaxes, and they literally
do that strategically. I mean, if the local police in a metropolitan or even a small town area pull that, what makes you think that our government agencies who have you know, exceedingly more complex and sprawling issues to deal with than a singular murder case, except in some cases they do have murder cases to deal with, But that's beside the point. The point is, why would you think that that, you know, mechanism, that operational technique would not apply here to this. So to me, again, it's a
matter of perspective. Why are you going to believe it coming from here when you didn't believe it coming from there? You know, look, when I speak out of the right side of my mouth, it's the truth. When I speak out of the left side, your guests as good as mine. That's weird, isn't it.
Yeah? And sometimes if you're removed in history's let's be nice. Okay, Let's say these people, whoever the source was there, has done some historical research, and let's say that they found a couple of examples.
Of where for whatever purpose.
Us within the Air Force information with spread cover story or just someone playing around.
Maybe it's a credibility.
Test for new officers, you know, like let's see how vullible they are. We'll show on mcfielm and see if they believe it. Maybe this happens, Okay, that's fine.
But in.
If without the documentation, without the paper trail, we don't know what they found it, and we don't really know if they themselves have the history to interpret it correctly.
Uh.
For example, one of the one of the stories in the Wall Street Journal article was involved essentially a UFO taking a whole wing of ICBMs offline, you know.
And which is is pretty spectacular and would tend to worry you.
And and the what you see in the Wall Street Journal article is that this whole thing was actually a test, a control to and the wing did go offline, but it was a test to determine whether or not the bunkers, the silos, and the missiles would be affected by e MP okay, electromagnetic paulse. The problem with all of this is, again we don't even know that the person that researched it got it right. Because this incident has been researched at great length, and I sent you a week called.
A book called Faded.
Giant, which actually was researched and written by people that were involved with the contractor for this missile sit control system, and it contains a lot of documents. And one of the documents that it contains is you can see that the Strategic Air Command and the National Military Command Center took this as a real event. So if it was asked, somebody forgot to tell a Strategic Air Command that, oh, by the way, we're testing a live operational wing of missiles.
Don't be concerned if.
They go offline, We're good and you know, we'll check back with you.
And does that make any sense at all?
Well, No, the only thing that makes sense here, and this is a direct question to you is and I want to know if this is again right thinking on my part or if I'm just off. But I mean, it seems to me like this is damage control, either preemptive damage control or damage control for a circumstance which is in the public domain already, where it's like, how do we explain that. Well, you know what, people don't understand.
They think that this and this and this, But it was actually a test we were running that day, you know, and we don't tell people that because that's all classified. And this is a good way with the unnamed source
to float it out there? Is it because of researchers like you know, the work that you're doing at the SCU that they need to explain things now and say, look, you know, these guys are going to come up with patterns, but maybe we punch a few holes in there by saying, you know, some of these patterns are a little more easily explained by XYZ. There was a test going on.
We took it offline because you know, nobody knew that there was an electrical fire at a you know, a classified installation that nobody's supposed to know even exists, So we can't report that there was a fire, you know, et cetera. I mean, is does that have anything to do with this?
Do you think it's time for me to visualize that at this late date? I mean, that story is long gone. That's from the nineteen seventies. Nobody is asking.
About that anymore.
Yeah, not uch does get written about, Yeah, not particularly. There see again, an example of something that's tangible that's already known, already out there. It's not a revelation. But is there other stuff in here that maybe they're trying to get ahead of or trying to answer for, that's being produced right now, or that's you know, on its way to production or on its way to publication. Do you think that that's something going on here when they release stuff like this?
No, I honestly don't. This To me, it sounds like a conversation. I mean, the journalists that are covering Luna's hearings, Yes, clearly heard a lot.
Of people.
With some pre sensational statements, including about missiles being taken offline. So you can imagine that there is like Trump just in a conversation.
Spy.
By the way, did you guys ever find out a reasonable explanation for this?
Or should I still consider it might have been aliens? Okay? Yeah, have you found anything to explain it yet?
And somebody goes, yeah, we found out that they were doing EMP testing, and it looks like that's what really caused it, and then somebody goes and writes the story. So I think it's probably simpler. The problem that concerns me is, you know, is the person providing the information.
Did they do a third job?
Is that really a good explanation, because that is a big outstanding question for us. If if they had read the book Faded Giant, which I just gave you the link for, they would have quickly seen that, Yeah, the military was doing e MP testing and they described how it was being done, and it in no way matches what was reported at Dismissile Base. It was not being
done with flying objects. It was being done with stuff on trucks, and it was never done with an operational wing at first off, that's you know, you've got to think that's insane that I'm going to take down an operational wing as part of a test.
It was always done with missile installations that were offline.
And by the way, the fellow did an excellent job of research, even has the investigation itself, and you can see that one of the things that they looked at was,
you know, could this have been caused by EMP? And there's their papers in there, you know, could this like if they had done it as a test after the fact, would they be researching if it could have been you know, again, none of those things, none of the documents that we see align with this story, And of course the problem is we don't know what documents were looked at to reach that conclusion that was.
Shared with the reporters. So we have.
Documents that give us a good picture that the official investigation, and there was one of course, literally says we don't know what caused it. One one particular command control circuit logic gate change states this did it.
You know, you know, it's very detailed. So they did.
They did do a length and spent time and money trying to figure out what it was. Again, if it had been a test, they would have already known that. Even the documents in this paper trail show that, you know, when it happened, people at the highest levels of the national security establishment. You can see in their memos it's like, this is really a problem, we need to resolve this immediately. And there's nothing in this whole collection of documents that
suggests that they view that it was a test. So I guess that's the answer check that raises the question to me that it actually what it shows is the practice that you were talking about of sharing information this way maybe work sometimes, maybe it doesn't work sometimes, but
works very poorly. If somebody's already investigated it and maybe you don't know about it, so that that appears to be that's the most contentious thing about the article right at the moment that's being discussed is like did these guys just not do.
Their homework or were they wrong or you know, we've.
We've seen a lot of paper trail on this and it doesn't match with what they're saying.
So what's what's happening?
Right? And you also sent me a link to another and I'm gonna put these book links in the show notes as well, along with Larry's book Unidentified but but Project Beta, which is pretty interesting. And you know, here we are, we're talking Roswell. Now you know what what what do we what does that have to do with,
like say, the military installations? And then you got another guy who's you know, convinced that he saw, you know, extraterrestrial lights in the sky and why do they always do this Ober deserts by the way, But yeah, tell us about that as well, which.
At Beta, again something that's been researched heavily and written aback, it's probable one of the nastiest examples of disinformation. Again, if if the Wall Street Journal people are being told that, oh, the military has used disinformation in the past. Absolutely true, there is not even intentional. This Project Beta is an example with the Air Force who was working back on a Star Wars project. Okay, at Sandia Base outside Abuquerque,
New Mexico. We're doing something it has to do with adaptive optics, and that they knew that they were going to have to put a lot of stuff in orbit, and they needed to get much clearer pictures of what was going on at orble distance than they could because they were building Star Wars, just like we're supposed to be building.
The Golden Dome.
Uh.
We all know how Star Wars came out.
In any event, they're doing a lot of testing and then included laser beams and you know, signal used in a way that would would generate electro magnetic signals. And an engineer who actually had a business near San Dia, UH started observing that from his home and actually went to the Air Force and went, you know, there's something going on at one of your secure areas. I can see that you guys should look into it. There seems
to be some kind of signaling, you know. UH, And the Air Force UH decided you know, they were being compromised. But the bad thing is the fellow was also talking to you a UFO group and UFO researchers, and they were becoming interested. And from an intelligence perspective, this is not good because it's kind of like Area fifty one. You don't want to people drawing the tent to you. If all of the UFO people start showing up, guess what, the Soviet agents may be right behind him, like, we want to.
Know what's going on too.
So what they did was they created this story that indeed it was aliens. I mean we're talking something really serious and convoluted. They started playing with this guy. They even got to the point of providing him tapes of purported communications with the aliens. They co opted one of the UFO researchers who agreed to play along and feed him bad information in turn four good information at some point in the future, which actually never happened because they
played him too. The net of all of this, if you really want to read how this stuff can go bad in real life, is the fellow ended up committed suicide. He became psychotic over the information they were feeding him.
He committed suicide. And this whole experience.
Ended up being the source of rumors about secret government agreements with aliens, underground bases, abductions, we've got to we've actually signed a treaty with the aliens. All this got fed into the UFO community ultimately in the media and generated things like reptilians and underground bases and the stuff that totally co opted the UFO community for decades.
And all on the story we might have gotten either Truman or Eisenhower actually meeting in a field with aliens too, right, isn't that the same group of disinformation operations that did that as well?
Oh yeah, it's all that you know, all the way back.
You know, we did contact them at Roswell, and you know, we've had relations with them, and we've signed treaties and they get to take away people for bariments.
And we get something.
I'm never quite sure what we got in exchange, but you know, and that's what's been And actually you've heard some of that surface in the in the Luna hearings. Some of this, you know, it's it never went away. And Project Beta. This one experience with one gentleman UH, a UFO researcher, hypnotic regression person. It all steamrolled into this story that has done huge damage to UFO research for decades. That's what's in Project BEA Bishop did a
fantastic job of studying it. So unfortunately we do know that not only have cover stories been used to cover up research and development, but this is much worse than a cover story. It was an intentional co opting of innocent people using a UFO organization.
You know, they knew what they were.
Doing, and it it went so far that it ended up in a death.
Well, and there we go with the recurring thematic because a lot of times these journalists who end up, you know, uncovering things like oh, I don't know, the CIA and drug dealing or you know, actually get in but they they magically have their lives spiral to a degree where suicide is the result at the end. And that happens.
I mean, you know, you could you could talk about the Castellaro thing and and the octopus, which is strange, and you could go back to the guy who first did the stuff with the was it the San Jose Mercury, uh, you know, and on and on right. The movie Killed a Messenger, if you remember, was a way to memorialize it.
But I mean this is a recurring theme as well, right where these guys either get driven to madness or something happens that well kind of looks like a suicide is ruled a suicide, but maybe is It almost seems like one of the go tos for the agency because now you can't ask him any questions, you can't dig up his notebooks that are missing. You know, he's not like the shooter in Minnesota who's still got his hit
list sitting on his passenger seat. Okay, and now speculation is rampant, and what are you left with except you know, the real people that are affected by the destroyed life of the individual who committed suicide allegedly. And I hate to put it that way. And I know you don't often go into deep, dark subjects like this because kind of a surprise, you got a lifetime ban on Facebook considering how nice and polite a guy you are. But hey, a subject maybe for another day, but go ahead.
It just seems unfair.
I miss all of the Australian animals and the cats and everything.
But yeah, I thought I was a nice guy.
But I think it's tempting for the reporters, because all reporters that deal with national security subjects or you know, Jill politics almost have to survive by having contacts.
You know that.
Nobody's if they want to really be successful. And we have an example is that of the JFK World. I mean, one of the known media assets for JM Wave in Miami got a Pulitzer for his reporting on the landings at the Bay of Pigs. And it was clear that he was getting information from somewhere that everybody else wasn't okay. So sometimes those CIA connections can be very very useful.
Now later on they can they can go south too, because he wrote a story about a assassination and revolution at Chile and it got published unfortunately the day before it actually happened.
So you know, you've got to get your timing right. But you know, a.
Good source can make you and I think that's why the temptation is always there, uh, and for reporters to cultivate these sources.
And and maybe not be too critical if there was a story with a story like this.
You know, this UFO story is not earth shaking, but uh, the other stories you know, we've seen where reporters.
Demand some kind of a paper trail or some kind of.
Proof or you know, I'm not going to print this if you don't give me something I can use, you know, But you can also play the other way around. And when we've seen that too, which seems to be what what we're seeing here. But I just want to bring up the point is that it's it's hard to totally fault the media because it's part of their practices too. Now, their practice in terms of getting stories that establish themselves, make career for themselves.
So it's kind of like both sides are playing this game.
No, absolutely true, And how just out of curiosity, how does all of this play into the work you're doing. Did you have a conference coming up? Don't you?
Oh we just had the conference.
Oh yeah, sorry, okay, But it does.
Do tail it because we certainly studied the incidents at these these missile bases at great length, and and the thing is there were there were not just one missile base involved as far as reports of UFOs were concerning. There are five different bases all across called the Northern Tiers Northern Tier bases all the way across the northern border. Uh So it wasn't just one base were you having
these UFO reports all within the same period of time. Again, things were so bad that the National Military Command Center issued an alert to all the bases. Now, I will posit that if this is an MP test at one base, they should have known about it, and you know, I wouldn't want to alert all bases. Now they explained it it's being due to a helicopter. But that's another story.
But it does relate to us, and that's one of the reasons we're interested in it, even though what we're studying is much broader than just this one base and this one incident. Of course, that there's a document trail and the proof of stuff that we haven't seen. We need to see it, but we don't, and so we can't really make it into history. What we're seeing does not make this argument. What's in Faded Giant does not
make the argument. And we use Faded Giant as one of our sources because it does have a lot of documentation in it. So this this, certainly this incident does relate to our studies of UFOs and the atomic warfare complex. The other incidents that the Wall Street Journal sites really don't, you know, don't relate thirs, but this one certainly does.
So we had to take it seriously, and we had to look at their explanations and we're going through and kind of checking them to the extent that we can, having no documents that make this this kind of contrarian Positionally, it was it was an MP test and nobody knew about it, and it drove everybody crazy, and they investigated it and found out it wasn't MP because the conclusion of the investigation was it wasn't MP. Yeah.
So yeah, long wind and answer is it.
Is definitely related in one aspect of the studies that we've been conducting.
And it does allow you to see what the pattern of behavior is from an intelligence perspective regarding agencies trying to keep information from reaching the public with any clarity at least, right, I mean, it gives you that to work with as well, because you see what's happening here regarding well, how did they react to it, what was the public knowledge of it, how did it leak out,
et cetera. And I bet there's a lot more news stories with unnamed sources close to the situation along the way in the press too.
Anyway, well checked the challenge I think one of the fundamental challenges shows you Again, we talk about the system a lot.
Here.
You've got an organization that was legislation was passed to create and fund this organization. It's supposed to look at current cases and historical cases and you know, assess it and make reports. It's on it and that's its job, okay, And that's supposed to make people more comfortable, you know, whichever way it goes, that somebody's actually looking at.
But the problem is if if they don't.
Officially share their investigations and share the documents behind their investigations, even if they have to redact them. You know, we're all familiar with that. Take out the names, take out whatever.
If they don't share that information, we're really no better off than we were, because it's kind of like asking you know, we've asked the CIA to share certain information, you know, for decades, but if they don't give it to us in a fashion where we can evaluate it, you wasted your time, their time, you wasted the money. So again, that's the other kind of depressing standpoint. It may be that this Wall Street Journal article was just a precursor and that down the road.
Because the AR is mandated to make.
Reports, they will actually publish their study, publish their findings, give us some citations, and will be all good. And we hope that's what would happen, because that way they can fulfill their mandate from Congress when they do have a mandate to do that.
But this sort of.
Stuff, if anything, I would say, creates what we used to call fraud or fear uncertained and doubt as to whether that's going to happen. And by the way, if they're going to do that and they let this get out and the story comes out in advance, that also undermines the process. So just it does not seem to me that it's helping things, and certainly not what Congress really intended, right.
And of course there's no executive order from the Trump administration to get at UAPs at the moment, at least not that I've seen. But he does release a lot of them, so who knows. Anyway, is there anything that we missed here along the way, because I feel like I've gone over this, I've sidetracked you a little bit, and I apologize, but I felt like it was a worthy exercise. Nonetheless, but what else are we meant to take away from tonight Now.
I think we often spend time work talking about how the system works, you know, and in researching any of these things, we've got to understand the system and know that it's you know, the system does what it's built to do, and it's just just another insight into how
the system works. With government agencies, with the military services, you know, there are standard practices, and I think that the article gives us just an opportun tunity to talk about what the standard practices are from from the media standpoint and to say, from the institutional standpoint. And once you understand the standard you know what the practices are, you can at least begin to go, well, wait a minute.
Let's as we often talk about context.
Right now that I know the context, I'm going to adjust my expectations. And one of the things I just is, by the way, everything we know about this should be supported by for you, by the way, okay, just just forget releasing stuff.
I'm going to do a foya for it.
I'm going to for you you aaro for how you got this information. So to some extent, if you're young enough and live long enough, Actually the system is built to deal with these things, even within the you know, intelligence community.
But I think that's the take away check. It's not for most of the listeners.
Perhaps some UFOs are interesting, and we talked about some of that, but I think overall, it's back to again, if we're going to play in this arena and try to work in this arena, we have to understand practices.
We have to understand the rules.
You know, who's calling what signal or we just are out to launch right.
Plus I mean, you have to understand how things actually function in order to you know, to get it operations, what's really happening, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Because if you don't understand how things work, what do you know when you're looking at the evidence you don't.
You know.
That's the amazing thing I think is that you know, again, like I said, they see hearings and they say, oh, well, this and this and this should be happening, when it has nothing to do with what it is they're looking at. You know, it's amazing that way, and I think it stands even more hyperbolic when it comes to UAPs. They just haven't had the headlines lately. But anyway, that's the way it is, that's the way it was. And got to tell you it's always an interesting education to talk
to you about these things. And the nuances of the behavior that we can witness here and understand when it comes to the standard operating procedure is amazing and I think it does form a pattern. It gives you an idea of how it is. You know, real full on cover ups are achieved. But also you know, what is the use of missing disinformation where it's meant to mislead the public? Yes, but it's got more than one purpose. Just like any good tool in your box, you know
you have more than one purpose for it. But anyway, on tonight's subject matter, I would definitely recommend Unidentified, which is, you know, again one of those books you could find here and there. I think you can still get it directly from the publisher maybe if not, you can certainly get it on Amazon, et cetera. It's the National intelligence problem of UFO's is the subtitle, but the main title is unidentified. And yes, indeed the lettering is mostly in blue,
and Larry Hancock is the author of that. But I highly recommend all of Larry's books and that you go
over to his blog Larry dash Handcock dot com. Again, you can follow all the links in the show notes or roll back the live chat at Ocelli dot com and follow through and follow up on all of what you heard tonight pretty much except for the ramblings of your host, which you can always email me if you want to try and explain things that I you know, kind of mushmouth my way through, but that's okay, That's what I'm here for anyway, Larry, thank you once again.
I appreciate you taking the time here on a Wednesday, and we'll get together again in a couple of weeks, and God knows what we'll have to talk about by then, because I mean, who knew would be in the middle of a conflict you know right now, But well, if you were listening to my show, you might have known, because I said about a month and a half ago that military assets were being moved in the Middle Eastern direction, and that's usually preparation for something, but there was no
official anything at the time, and shots had not been fired in what I'm calling the Two Eyes War at this point, because you know, Iran and Israel, but I don't even know if you want to comment on that. Maybe we'll talk JFK. Maybe you'll catch up on the new RFK document dump and we'll discuss that. Who knows. I guess you'll have to tune in a couple of weeks to hear it and we'll get together in a couple of weeks.
Larry, right, It sounds good and the pace of life is definitely picked up. I just it's hard to stay is he hard to stay current on any of the subjects we normally talk about, which, you know, back to the old Chinese thing, you know, may essentially may your life be dull?
Unfortunately we're not having that.
Well, you know, may you live in interesting times? And oh, by the way, just a little ps, I haven't seen any movement on the King files yet, that's all. You know. Maybe it's not politically expedient or interesting for the current regime to get to it, But weren't we also promised that he was gonna, you know, dump a bunch of stuff on him, okay as well? Or have you noticed?
Actually actually I wrote an op ed on that last week. Jeff Morley published it on a substack. Basically, what has happened is a judge has is holding up that process because essentially the King family is strongly objected to the release of those files, as we knew they would, and the judge has taken that and not put a cease and desist order on but essentially outlined a due process that must be followed to screen out personal information that
would seriously extend in the time of release. In the out there, I wrote kind of addressed how you could deal with that issue and you know, maybe go more quickly and still make the family feel okay, how do you handle different sections of files? But yeah, that has slowed down due to legal process.
Actually, all right, well that's why I brought it up, because I also read the JFK facts emails and blog as well, and indeed Larry has it published over there on the substack along with a lot of other articles. But I would advise that you go read up on that because that was my question for a while, and I was not aware of what was going on, because it just seemed to me like no word is no word.
But you are talking about the because the King Family has kind of been two factions, and you're talking about the faction of the King family that runs the you know, the King Center here in Georgia, in Atlanta, rights obsessing to it. Yeah, and they're always very very cautious and wanting to preserve the legacy of doctor King in as respectful and highly upheld of fashion as possible. I don't know how to phrase that exactly, but they don't want
any of his legacy tarnished unnecessarily. And they're always active in that realm of actions, ideas, and even publications that occur. So that's something that's just not unusual. Larry, that's kind of normal as far as my experience goes.
What do you say, Yeah, that's been true all along, and they have reason for concern because we know through the research that we've done that the FBI did fake evidence.
I mean, well all probably.
Everybody has heard of the tape that they created and sent to Martin Luther King with a note telling him he should commit suicide. I mean, this isn't really nasty stuff coming out of the FBI. Knowing that they created, doctored and fake scandalous information of that sort. You know, we can deal with it because we know what happened. But once you turn that loose on the internet, that no longer there's no label that's going to go out with it saying fake fraud. You know, it'll become history.
And I think their injection is, you know, if you release that with no way to define it, you know you've you've gotten a personal vendetta from the director of the I that's going to translate into history. And people that look at this in four or five, ten years will have no idea that it's not.
Real, right, And for people who don't understand what that is, just I'm gonna say this because you know, I'm not quite as polite as Larry. Here's the deal. If you've heard the story of the alleged audio sex tape that occurred there for many years, you know, it was like, oh,
they fabricated this. Then it turns out it wasn't actually doctor King on the tape anyway, and it was you know, the kill yourself note that was penned by you know, various authors have claimed responsibility for it or have been implicated to be responsible for it, But it was the FBI, you know, in their co intel pro you know, behaviors at the time, and that means that there would be manufactured crap, there would be doctored stuff, there would be
slanted things. There would be you know, maybe some things are true, but maybe hyperbole comes into play here, or like I said, with the sex tape deal, right, you know, here we go, maybe it's not even him and then that'll come out under his name with a label on it, et cetera. And so they want to be careful that everything you know is in its what proper context. There's that word again, Larry. But that article, which I'll also provide a link to in the show notes is the
MLK files released the facts, not the smears. That was the article that you penned for. Did you pen that specifically for Jeff.
Or I did?
Actually, yeah, yes, I did, excellent while I was on vacation.
No list, thank you.
There you go. And also there's an article on the O'Kelly effect front page the Weekly Reader regarding JFK stuff from Larry Hancock. So you are constantly writing, a constantly active author or a constantly active writer. Seems like so glad that you are, though, because we need the sense and sensibility of a Larry Hancock. Despite your unceremonious Facebook band for life. For some reason, they've never given you a reason, have it now?
There's a generic message that says you violated violated one of our rules essentially, and then they give you a list of a dozen totally different types of rules, so you don't even know what category it was in, right, and they don't give you an example of what the violation was.
So I had but they're they're pretty good. They actually uh require you know, a.
Facial scan now facial ID, so you know once once they I appealed, and but when I appeal and they use facial wreck, that's.
Not it's you're not coming on here anymore unless you have plastic surgery. I suppose, Well, there you go.
Plus in my case, of course, I have a lockout on one of my accounts or which is my main account, et cetera, because I had to start up a whole brand new one. Thanks a lot, because why well you know, if I don't have a proper up to date government I d that I can scan it. So they want scans of your ID, your face, everything before they deal with you about community standards, Larry.
So but there you can say whatever, Brade do you want to. It's like we verified at.
You, but you're on and we have no way of judging what you're saying, whether it's true falter or but it's you.
So we're good.
Yeah, okay, great. Anyway, maybe there'll be uh, you know more coming soon or coming soon possibly more information about that. But I'm still in disbelief that you, of all people, got a lifetime ban for some violation of a community standard, like as if you don't think about every single word you ever you know, I would say, put to paper, but who the hell uses paper anymore? Every single word you ever type anywhere? Do you you know, not consider
it carefully? It makes absolutely no sense. You know.
Also, it's just too late in time for me to be find a bad boy wreck to be useful.
Well there's that. Plus I happen to know you don't really drink, you know, you don't, You're not on ambient I mean, what is the you know like? Anyway, Sorry, I just all I'm saying is that Larry Hancock is the last guy in the world I would expect to get a pan on a platform, But here we are, twenty twenty five. What a country in the year. Anyway, Larry, again, thanks so much, and I really am glad that you
also handled that tail end thing with me. Because I forgot to mention it earlier, and I put the link in the live chatroom at ochelli dot com. And we'll also include with the show notes in case I forgot to mention it the article that you wrote for JFK fax over there, which is entitled the MLK files released the Facts not the smears, how to ensure transparency and Fairness. This is the subheading how to ensure transparency and fairness in the overdue release of files related to the murder
of the civil rights leader in nineteen sixty eight. Yeah, you don't carefully consider the words you Typeer, it's like anyway, Larry Hencock, thanks again, and I thank all of you for listening again. Go to Larry Danshancock dot com every book with his name on it. I highly recommend uh the JFK stuff, especially the latest one definitely highest up on the list of recommendations, but also relevant to tonight unidentified That book I also highly recommend.
And oh Chili dot com go ahead call it the.
Truth about the Jafay assassination. Right, well, what do you want to know? Dy 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 was on the building and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.
Come on now has a real effort on the day of pay assassination.
Book into Claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different person. Let's say you can get Judithbary Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at kias jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims.
Judith Vary Baker in her own words. Thank you for information.
Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in 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 revelation through conversation.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was up against for more information the Warstate dot com mm.
Hmm udio dot com radio.
The views expressed my callers, schools, there anyone else who happens to get on the air of Chelly dot com do not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot com or CHEMOLLI, and we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue.
Thank you, m hm.
Out to the shack Sat.
I'll ten a thousand detis of.
Steel going down the count of the daw to make sound funny, a rowing bl I go a dead dat down in amount of roar as I gas in ja, I'm just doing that.
Com hell.
Just plug out, but scrap gog out, fight scraper and try down.
And fight stan go down and fight.
Hug out by slack, dug out by.
Spack woke out.
I am so just that. He's tell me Ama and me.
Call me.
I'm one.
They meet a man that'll do the job like you said, oh.
No, and I'm said, I come and they're run in man, I've gone out like mystand I'm a cold.
I'm a fire brand.
Come down, slack out.
And go down and fight flat.
I come down and fight.
Got down.
Oh now.
I sinking now.
Combat with help wire on my with you. You must of that jolt you some woman that.
Come to I'm your best friend, of.
Your must man of exactly Wow, how.
About you make me happen to be like that to the guy don't care, go down, Come down and bent, run, come down and vis go down.
Provide revelation through calm the station here.
Oh oh.
Shall you?
Oh Shelley fast rais and trows right, Jay, trow you hardy back. I ain't on the world. You are the back. Yeah, yeah, m hm.
Mm hmmm.
Mm hmmm, h yeah.
Through of that, through the breaking through.
In Denial the Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial 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 Larryhncock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In
Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical. Yo Yovis Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast presented by Wall Street Window, And you are listening to the o'cell effect. Revelation through conversation, revel.
Through calm, sage, Shell, Oh Chale fast
Stringing me from right James bro