The Chili Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot com and listeners like you and now and now in our media pack fifth day of June twenty twenty four, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar. Now, just a quick note before I get on with today's discussion, which is going to feature Larryhancock Larry dash Handcock dot com or Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. Go there follow
his blog. Of course, I recommend every book he's got out, and I'm looking forward to a book that is going to be very much focused on tonight's topic as we get into par three of Oswald's adventure in Mexico City. But anyway, before I go there, just really quick for everybody because this week I've had to resend folders again for everybody's archives. The archives have been
delayed from the first of the month to now. Probably this weekend, I'll send out all the archive folders to p that are signed up, that are members at ocelly dot com, that are supporters, et cetera. The Weeni dogs are getting acted behind me, my apologies, but they are in other
rooms that shrill bark cuts right through the walls. Sorry anyway, so those folders will be going out to everyone, and if you're not on the list and you think you should be, obviously, communicate with me blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com or info at ocelli dot com and remind me that you're supposed to be on that list. If you're not, don't do it four
months later because they don't have to send you all kinds of stuff. And I'm sending two or three gigs worth of files every month so that you have a chance to download and put them somewhere, get them out of your email once a month, and this weekend we'll be sending them out once again,
so make sure you're on the list. And yes, the delay is because I've had to resend because some people said they didn't get theirs, so let's make sure everybody's supposed to get them, and again communicate with me blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com or info at O'Kelly dot com and let me know. Hey, hey, blind guy, you missed me. I'll get to
you and I'll send you the stuff that you are entitled to. Okay, whether you're a Patreon supporter, which there are very few of, you or if you're signed up at the website, which there are even fewer of you. But either way, I appreciate you and want to get you what you deserve. All right. So Larry Hancock, again the author of Someone, would have talked tipping point a few other books on that little thing we call the jfk assassination, but we focused in the past two visits with Larry on
Oswald in Mexico City. So again part three, and now Larry, now that we've gone through some of the you know, the initiation, if you will, what kind of sort of happened, what was suggested? What did the media tell us? What did the writers say about this? For some years, you know, from the Warren Commission and to the Mark Lanes, to the rest of the people out there who made observations about this and had
questions. Sure, and then even going into the HSCA briefly I talked about it on one show that they had a lot more than one mystery Man photo from Mexico City. You know, there was one or two that circulated up until the mid seventies, and then I don't know, the HSCA had maybe a dozen. Led me to ask, well, if there's this much, then there must be more. Number one, number two? What else was there? What does this mean for surveillance? By the way, this guy
does not look like Oswald? And oh, by the bye, his mother had some things to say about this as well. When she saw the pictures. She gave observations. But Larry, as per usual, I want you to sort of tie all this together. And obviously this will be just part of what's going to be in this book on Oswald that you're in the process of editing right now, and I can't wait to see it. But anyway, Larry, where should we pick up from considering the other two episodes?
And before we even go there, how are you doing tonight? Oh? I'm doing okay, Chuck. It's summer here in Oklahoma. I always enjoy that. So now we've had some marine and I'm feeling pretty good some rain and feeling good in Oklahoma, and your internet's working pretty good. So you know what blessings we need to count? So where do we start? I think? Yeah? One of the important things to remember is that a lot of what we talk about today, a lot of the discussion the mystery,
the enigma of Mexico City, came to be long after the assassination. It
certainly went basically before the assassination, Lee Harvey Oswell showed up. He went to the Cuban consulate, went to the Russians, and essentially Oswald approached them about doing something pretty straightforward, the same, the same sort of thing he had been talking to the Russians about all year long and his wife had been writing about, and basically went to them both and said, hey, my my wife supplied for permission to go back to Russia and the families going back
to Russia, and you know, it's all it's all good, But you know, I'm really you know, I like Cuba. I'd like, well, this is happening, and while it's come together, it would be easier for me to make this happen by getting a transit visit and being in Cuba.
And and that's that's the way it was. Uh. The the mystery came about really because in the first calls that were intercepted by the CIA about this American wanting to go to Cuba, they didn't know he was, which which is I think kind of interesting because the paper trail very clearly says, oh, there's an American trying to do this. He's talking to Cubans. Looks like he's talked to the Russians, and the station chief says, find
out who he is. Well, right now, the CIA, hold on a second, because, look, the Cubans don't know who he is. Fair enough, because maybe they didn't pay attention to the news clippings on the fair Play for Cuba committee and the attention he got over the summer. Maybe they missed that. Okay, maybe I don't think so, because they had various assets, you know that they should have been aware of that he interacted with. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the Cubans
don't know who he is. The Soviets should know who he is. The CIA does know who he is, regardless of their claims. Now, the funny thing to me, they don't know at the point I'm talking about. Yeah, he goes to the Russians and tells them who he is. They contact their New York City embassy, They know who he is, and they essentially verify a story. Yeah, I've been applying for permissions. She's got papers in being processed in Moscow. It's going to take some money. So
there's the Russians know who he is. The Cubans really don't care because until the Russians say, yeah, uh, he's going to Russian his family, the Cubans just he doesn't pass the sniff test, you know, it's like, okay, so the Cubans don't really care. The Russians know he is. The CIA, it's very clear from all the All that we know is until like the fourth day that he's in Mexico City where call is actually made to the Russian embassy and he gives his name. They're still we're still frantically
trying to find out who this American was. Okay, but some parts of the CIA know who he is though, because files have already generated. I'm talking about just Mexico City station. Oh yeah, you go to JAM wave in Miami, you go to Angleton's office. Oh yeah, I'm with you.
Yeah, they know who he is, is what I'm saying. So you know, when Scott, let's go to win Scott real quick, because he's the station chief, right he would if he has no idea who Oswald is at that moment, is going to be what reaching out to the people in Washington, the people at JM wave or elsewhere, right, and say, hey, who the hell is this guy? What is going on? Do you have something on him that I can use to decipher what's happening here?
Would that or is that too elementary of a thought problem? And that's exactly what happened. Okay. Now by that time, this when Oswell's name surfaced on an intercept on a call to the Russian embassy, and Oswell's name sar First and Oswald he had mentioned interesting thing. This call has Oswald using his name, telling the Russians he had been to their embassy and he had talked to a council and he's talking to another council diplomatic staff at the embassy.
And and the Russians know because the Russians say, oh, yeah, the guy you met with was Consul Coostakov. So the Russians come forward with the name Costacoufs. But on that Tuesday, Yeah, the Mexico City Fation finds out and and Mexico then Query's headquarters and says, you know who is this guy? Send us information on this guy. Uh. Mexico City c i A tells the local FBI representative, Uh, you know, this guy oz Will has been here, He's talked with this Russian Costakov the right,
the FBI guy starts telling his own chain of command. He writes a letter directly to Hoover saying this guy Oz was so you're exactly right. Everybody starts, now you're interesting, everybody this information and asking for Scott. Mexico City says, send us what you got on this guy. We're we're into right now. That's just normal procedure. Now. The other thing is that either in written form or in the phone call, and I forget which comes first
here. Okay, uh, he says that he met with Comrade Kostin or something like that. It's a minor, minor mistake I think on the guys. He does not. He actually does not say that. That comes up in a letter that he writes once he's back in Dallas. Okay, okay, it doesn't good. I'm glad you're straight right here. It is he maybe doesn't remember the name perfectly whatever, but yeah, he does use that name later, but it's like in November, it's not in October. So
okay. So this is Allalla is very important because people that talk about Mexico City often talk about it as if that that name was planted somehow, right, but it's very clear that it is the Russians themselves who produced the name Costakov. That's on the intercept. The translates kind of like the Russian speaker came back and said, oh, yeah, you met with Costakov. Now where does it first emerge, because this becomes important for a couple different reasons.
In nineteen sixty four, Right, Mark Lane has now been in contact with Marguerite Oswald, and he's supposed to go to the Warren Commission and try and represent Oswald's interests. They tell him no, but they get him to
testify. Anyway, this kind of thing goes on. Let's not get sidetracked by it, but let's examine a couple things that have to do with Mexico City regarding this, because at some point here in that process, Marguerite Oswald gets to see a photo of the mystery man and she makes a comment and then Lean, Now, I don't remember if it was during his time in New York then he first made these statements, or if it was during some
of the public statements, and even the testimony which is recorded out there by the way, you can find it online. Mark Lane's reading of his own testimony to the Warren Commission, if you want, but where they say, look, you know what, there's this incident here, this goes on.
Marguerite makes her comments, like I said, but either Lane or somebody else attaches something to Comrade Costin and later on properly identified as Costakov, that this guy's part of Section five, which is assassination and terrorism, and blah blah blah. You know, when does that come into play? Because that almost sounds like maybe maybe the Russians had something to do with this, folks.
You know the weird idea that we got sold on that History Channel special from the former CIA guy a couple of years back, right, that possibly he was a Russian agent. That's has never really come into play. I think it's again important to it's not that there's anything secret about Oswald or Oswald meeting with Costa Colling right before the assassination agent Hasty has been notified actually hosting, not all the years that threw is chain of command. Here's it from an
I N S type, because different agencies are being copied on this. Once Mexico City communicated it to CIA headquarters, they communed it locally to the FBI guy who does his own chain of command. A letter goes out to several agencies, the Navy, I n s this guy has been in Mexico City. It's Oswald, And today people know Oswald has been in Mexico City. The people in Dallas know he's been in touch with this guy named Costakov, and Costakov at that point in five is again no shock. Costakov is already
on file as being a guy who runs agents inside the US. Now for pulous fascinations, some of that stuff is pretty wild, but Costakov is on record having been in contact with and run Russian agents working inside the US. Right. Now, here's the thing for listeners, right is I'm constantly trying to pull this away from the chronology so that Larry pulls it back because that's
what happened in the literature. Here is that what I'm doing is what people started parroting and repeating as if it was the proper timeline of events, and Larry keeps pulling it back to No, this is the order in which things actually happen. That's important. So listen to Larry's timeline, not mine. I'm trying to challenge it, Okay, Yeah, and I'm wrong, I just I know I'm right on there with the picture too, because and quite frankly, if I had not taken a many many months dive back into this,
you know, I had some of the same reaction you did. People have written about this in different ways and they didn't have it in the timeline. But for example, the photo that you're talking about, right, that photo, you know, before the assassination. This is just kind of state standard day job for anybody. The only thing that's mysterious about all this before the assassination is when Mexico City Station asks for information on Oswald. As it
turns out, Oswald's file is being held is to a one file. It's general file is being held in the Office of counter Intelligence and has been there ever since oswead went to Russia. Okay, so they're kind of controlling this. The information about Oswald and the Cubans in New Orleans and the fair play is in a separate file. It's in the FPCC file. But the thing is that nothing about Oswald in Cuba, nothing nothing about Oswald in nineteen sixty
three is sent back to Mexico City. Okay, so what is the real That's a real flashing sign, as Morley Newman would would learn later that Oswald the only reason that would happen, the only reason information would be held back from Mexico City. And frankly, the most recent information they're given is that, oh, by the way, Oswald and his wife may be returning to the US from the Soviet Union, right Like, that's a year old. Okay, So what you're telling me is that, let's imagine a world for
a moment where the assassination doesn't happen. Oswald's not tied to it in any way, shape or form. You likely have a situation where they tell Mexico City, look, this is a guy who went to Russia and he came back and we got a little bit of an eye on him, but no big deal, don't worry about it. He's probably trying to do it again. End a story, and it would have never gone anywhere, probably because they wouldn't have even informed when Scott about what was going on, because counterintelligence
wasn't willing to share that. And also the fpc SE thing, Well, it's incidental, but it's not really something that they need to know in Mexico City necessarily. Or am I incorrect about this? No? The lady that Newman and Morley interviewed who was handled that file. She wasn't in charge of it, she just handled it. Was was very clear that you know, you would withhold that kind of information if somebody had an operational interest in Oswald
for some purpose. You know, that's why they were compartment. So I would suspect if the assassination had never happened, somebody might have, you know, continued with an operation. They might have done something with Oswald. They might have done some propand about it, whatever it was, and the FBI, which the FBI had already started, I think we we we fail again to recognize it's not like the FBI was ignoring Oswald in Dallas. They had done a pretext call to find out where he worked. Uh, they had
done a visit to where his wife was staying. They were they were trying to locate which apartment he was actually in. So they were doing follow up after Mexico City, as they rightly should have, because it's kind of like, you know, we need to put this guy under some level of surveillance to see if maybe he is in touch with a Soviet handler. Yeah, but Mexico City, right, So, But according to Hosty Okay, from what I understand, all right, and maybe I'm wrong again about this,
but according to Hosty, he's still trying to chase him down. He doesn't have the most up to date information. He's gone to a place or two where Oswald was what is no longer right, And he does track down Marina eventually, which leads to Oswald getting irritated and making those statements later about how an FBI agent's harassing my wife or this or that. Right, yeah, he actually writes a he writes a letter I went first of all, he
delivers a note to the local FBI office. But in this same letter, where he mentions Coz that you brought up before, he actually asserts to the Russians that the FBI is trying to persuade Marina to defect. And it The interesting part of all of this is, again we tend to like treat this as, oh, well, there's something mysterious about this, because nobody was
interested in Noswell. Wellste was certainly interested in Oswell. In fact, there was so much interest in Oswald that the FBI became conflicted because it actually makes a better story that you know, you know you're stupid, that then you failed, and that's when the FBI actually went out and took a page out of Oswell's notebook and replaced it with another page to eliminate Hosty's visit to the Pains and Marina, because they that's why the letter to the FBI got destroyed.
It's like, it's better that they think we're stupid than and we realized that we're all over this guy and then he shot the president right, better that we didn't know that he existed or that we hadn't gotten to follow up on him yet than we did follow up and missed the mark. Basically, Yeah, so exactly, that's what the bottom line is. And this leads to Hoover making that note, because Hoover's making inquiries at this point, right
what is happening here? And even he makes a note in the margin that says he thinks he got snowed by the people from the CIA something like that right at the time, and we now know again it was We thought it was mysterious for a long time, but we know. On the day of the assassination, Hoover pulls files on Oswald at headquarters and Hoover makes the remark that, well, we know he was trying to go to Cuba. He
might have gone to Cuba. We don't know what he was trying. You know, they are aware of Oswald at headquarters, and that's kind of embarrassing too, right, you know, you don't want to see you know, BI blows it. So there, Oswald was not a mystery to the FBI. The CIA was trying to make him one to a certain extent, but he was not an unknown collector. And as I say, the FBI legat in Mexico City, who was the FBI station guy, was communicating directly with
FBI headquarters with this information he'd gotten from the local office. So up until the night of the assassination, it's kind of like everybody was doing their day job. You know, CI was hiding information about him because maybe they were thinking about doing something with you know, what had happened in New Orleans, which is what they were shielding quite frankly. And of course the FBI knew
about Oswald and New Orleans. He volunteered information to like a lot of people knew about Oswald, and suddenly nobody would want to talk about it, like, oh, did you know this guy? So suddenly this remark of hosty to the Secret Service guy and the Dallas police about oh, well we were, we were aware of OZI. Well, but it was a national security thing, so we don't share that kind of is no longer mysterious, right, yeah, yes, they were right, And then it makes sense for
them to send in another guy to take notes. So they send in, you know, the guy from the post office who is also functioning as an FBI, an agent of the FBI, not necessarily an FBI agent, but an agent working on behalf of the FBI, as many postal employees can and still do to this day. By the way, in case you don't know that, uh, your post office could actually be utilized as a collection point for information and other things for the FBI. They were actually identified as T
you know, there's a T one T two. It's kind of like our source where you really don't want to say, will the post office? Right? Right? But but but we now know what that means kind of and so I'm just I'm just pointing out the succession of events here. Okay, So now let's reintegrate the assassination comes into play this change. Night of the assassination, the next critical thing happens that will drive us nuts forever. Okay, now, but here's the change, right, This is a significant change.
Again. If there was no assassination, no connection to Oswald in any way, shape or form, we might be looking at a completely different record, or never have looked at this record at all, because it wouldn't be all that important. It would be part of the fun and games that went on with the FPCC. It would be part of CIA training and UH information gathering and et cetera, and it would be nothing that anybody would even bother
too mull over. Okay, but the assassination happens, Oswald's connected to it. You know, Hoover is supposed to have all the answers. When Johnson calls him and he pretends to it sounds like to me on the phone call, now we got this already. You know, the guy he made the shooting from the fifth floor. He's got the floor wrong. But it's okay, you know, because he's got the Gimberling report already in his hand. I think. Okay, So he's got you know, three hundred pages in
his hand already of stuff collected by various people on the ground. People went to work that weekend to try and get all that information and then he's killed on Sunday, So you know, we got to wrap this up. Now. Now we got a dead suspect, We're never going to court. The evidence has been collected, shipped to DC allegedly, you know, it gets shipped back to Dallas, and you can go over all the difficulties with that, but that's a story for another day. This changes how Mexico City is
now handled. Now there's more questions. And one of the weirdest things again is that sometime between sixty three and late sixty four, Marguerite Oswald gets shown the mystery man photo. Want to try and tie these things together and tell us where it weapons actually in November twenty third, so what really happens? And this is I will say that we totally understand, well, we know
part of what happened. We know of course, everybody's in a panic and everybody is now if they were interested about Costakov and Oswald, it's now everybody is totally panicked about, you know, this meeting in Mexico City. So Mexico City is like goes into panic mode. Let's pull what we've got in the files. We'll send it up to Dallas, they can, you know,
we need to give them what we've got. Recently, we found a very interesting note that essentially says the lady that handled the file that contained the mystery Man picture had written an internal memo and actually told several people that that picture should not be sent because they did not have total confidence that that was Oswald. But the picture was sn't and it was not Oswald. And as soon as it got to Dallas, and everybody looked around and said, that's
not Oswald. Oswald. Somebody is impersonating Oswald in Mexico City. We have no idea what's going on. This is a disaster, and so and and other things happen with the tape recording that it turns out not to be Oswald. Long long story there. But by Saturday morning, Hoover is telling Johnson that we got a real problem because, uh, you know, what we're getting from Mexico City does not match Lee Harvey Oswald. So this could be you know, maybe the Russian He didn't say this, Maybe the Russians are
you know, maybe he's Obviously that's very worrisome. And that's as of Saturday morning. So sending that photograph up, which this lady advised not doing prove to be a major disaster because it immediately made everybody think that there might be a conspiracy or something's in play. You know, if you kind of when you think about it, it's sort of like, wouldn't it have been more suspicious if it was Oswalt meeting with Costapaov. Now we got somebody meeting with
Costapov who is not Oswald. You know, if you want to frame Oswald and frame the Russians and the Cubans, it'd be better at the photo event of Oswald thinked about that. But so and it is that photo that an FBI agent takes because and chows to Marguerite as you're talking about, and there is some resemblance to Jack Ruby, and it gets into this whole dialogue about
was that Jack Ruby? Was it not Jack Ruby? And that gets into up until that point, if the FBI had not owner that photo and it became a matter of record, this probably could have all been behind closed doors, like Okay, stupid CIA sent us the wrong photo. Now it's a matter of the interviews on the record, people are going to ask questions about the photo. The photo ends up being in Volume sixteen of the volumes that
go out with the Warrant Commission report. Because of that, and as we were talking about earlier, just to show you how nuts the CIA is about everything about Mexico City. They know that if you print that photos raised the obvious question is you know this was thought to be hostible going into the Russian embassy. How'd you get the photo? I mean you raise all sorts of questions. I mean, you have Americans under surveillance in Mexico City, you
have Russians under surveillance in Mexico City. They they had to appeal this all the way up to Alan Dulles on the Warrant Commission so that when that photo was published in the volumes, it's cropped to be just the outline of this person. Well, because it's not just about the people that are surveilling,
but what about the locations are you know? And there is your big difficulty because once you let that cat out of the bag, it's not that you know, anybody would be fool enough to think that there's no surveillance on, you know, something that is in close proximity to the continental US and it's not like our you know, adversaries one way or another, however you want to count them, and even our allies would not be aware that we would
have interest in people and the goings on at you know, facilities near us like that. Uh, but now it's proof right that. Look obviously, yeah, the photo is bad. The tapes are even worse. Well, right, because somebody is going to say, so, how did you have a tape of Oswald talking to the Russians? Right, especially if you answer that question and you don't really want to say, well, it's because the
Mexican president lets us tape all these calls and we give them copy. Yeah, because now they really don't want to say that, because now that gives a heads up to anybody and everybody who's in Mexico. Basically, listen, we got a backdoor here which is absolutely supported by the Mexican government that allows us to guess what, tap all of your phones. So if you're making
a phone call in Mexico, expect us to hear it. That's not something you want to advertay, just in case anybody says that the wrong thing. It would also come out that the Mexican president was allowing the CI to tape his political rivals and other Latin American embassies and diplomatic officers. It's kind of like once you open that door, it's like it gets worse. Never know how bad it's going to get, and it gets worse because the more you
go with it. Right again, now it involves the Mexican president. Who else is involved? Is it their entire security? How about the local police? Does that mean that the phone companies are in on this because you know, I imagine they had phone companies in Mexico. I'm just saying this means, you know, who is colluding with this information collection? How unsafe is our communications in places that we might have thought had a chance at being secured.
How deep does it go? Does that mean that our encode of telex's are all being read too? Does that mean that everything that happens are we being surveilled by parabolic microphones? We don't know now right? Yeah, And the answer is yes. So yeah, So of course everybody does get They get upset for many reasons. So initially they're upset because they think something really mysterious is going on, and then they realize that they're not getting you know,
they don't have the right photograph. Somebody made a mistake with the photograph. The CIA never really explains how the mistake was made. CIA never explains anything, right, for reasons that we just talked about it, because if you explain it, you have to share details that you don't want to have
on record. But by that, you know, by that weekend, by by Saturday, you know, this is a flap about this this mystery man and the possibility of impersonation of Mexico City, and that will kind of enter the record, you know, and over time become a major deal of oh oswad was impersonated in Mexico City, coused to call poison pills. It will just generate a lot of different scenarios. And when does his mother that started out fairly simply, right, And when does his mother come out with public
statements regarding this photograph allegedly of her now dead son. I think that is a year later. Certainly it's after she starts talking to Mark Lane, right, So that's that's not immediate at all. And this is I think it's important to realize that this kind of all settles down, you know, within by that Sunday, it's like, Okay, somebody has talked to somebody else. It's not the hot topic that it was. But by the following Tuesday,
a totally new thing appears that worries everybody to death. And this is coming out of the Mexico City CIA station, and it's the Gilberto Alverado story, which is a much more sensational story of a CIA source that saw Oswell being paid in the Cuban consulate to kill JFK. Right, if everybody was a little worried about an impersonation, you can just imagine what this Alverado story does well, especially because look, if there's an impersonation and there's Oswald literally
getting paid, or is it the Oswald impersonator getting paid? This gets crazy. And remember the warrant commission was not released. The single volume was not released until September sixty four, and I don't mid the volumes followed a little bit later. They didn't come out that day that they did, you know, the big announcement on TV and you know the one hour and then there
was an hour later, you know, during the live show. Now it's officially public and Walter Kronkite's going to tell you how correct it is already because we had advanced copies. But you know that happens on TV in September.
A couple some weeks later, and I don't remember how many immediately, but some weeks later the volumes come out, and now that picture can be viewed by anybody, and the question remains still, you know, is this a matter of CIA in competence or is this an intentional switch to keep people off of the trail, And if so, why is it again an attempt to cover up? Look, we weren't ignorant, We just had the wrong photo. We were aware of the guy but didn't take him seriously as a threat.
Besides that, it looks a lot like Alex Carris. We were looking for him, you know, from Webster, the TV show Webster. I kid you not take a look at that, and then go ahead and google the guy who was on the TV show Webster, who's like the stepdad to the little kid. Go ahead and look at it looks a lot like Alex Carras at least a lot more than it does like Lee Harvey Oswald. Anyway, the thing is, how do you get from there to there? All
right? And she makes a statement that makes it even weirder, So his own mother goes, you know, first of all, that's not my son, but she makes it weirder. And that happens much later, and other people started to speculate about this, which almost makes it worse because now there's a whole lot more open questions and it seems like nobody wants to give sensible
answers to it. Right, what happened? What happened? Now? The deep research that people wind up doing later, you know, the Morley's and the Newman's and the individual who I can't remember exactly who it was that first somehow obtained a copy of when Scott's you know, biography, autobiography that was never meant to be released. But either way, right, information is distributed over the decades later, and frankly, to me, those questions remain unanswered.
But what can we say about this? And again there is a big difference between before the assassination, that time period, you know, after Mexico City happens, the assassination hasn't happened, and then the cleanup in Cya events that occur ever after post assassination. So what can we take away from all
this? And quite frankly, to give you the totally unfair question, Larry, what does all this mean, well, I think the first part what we can take away is very little of what we're just talking about had anything to do with Lee Harvey Oswald. Even under the most you know, sensational scenario, it's not even a right Oswald is somewhere else. This has nothing
to do with Oswald. Now, the fact that this person does have all the materials personal materials that Oswa would have collected from New Orleans letters, Okay, he has all that and he's doing exactly what you would expect Oswald to do. So maybe it's an impersonator. But you start going off the rails with this scenario. It's sort of like, well, okay, in this scenario. You know, in one scenario, it's Lee R. V.
Oswald and he's doing what he's always been doing. He's a CIA asset, and he's on some sort of intelligence mission against the Cubans and the Russians, even though he spends a total of maybe no more than forty five minutes with them, you know, like, how much can you really accomplish? But so it was him and he's on a mission, and whatever happened happened, or it's not him and it's impersonation. Uh, it's impersonation to frame the
Russian in the Cuban. So he's somewhere else, right, don't know where he is. We'll never know where he is, right, Well, let me pause you don't know, Yeah, let me pause you for a moment to ask a serious question here that I think is never answered by anybody adequately. All Right, in my mind, when I see what's done here, whether it's the phone calls, the visits, the dramatic, you know, dropping the uh. You know, I need this gun to protect myself and
the guy takes it and puts it in the drawer. You know, all of these events are all rather brief. They are seemingly in my mind if you find them to be mission accomplished, and you're the person running this for whatever reason, it seems to me as though all that needed to be done was that we needed to establish a presence. It needed to be noted, It needed to be taken into account that this guy arrived, appeared, and acted out in these locations and also may follow up phone calls. Those things
needed to be on the record. They needed to not be ignored. Pay attention. This guy's here, that's it. Mission accomplished by they don't seem to be there to do anything complex or extensive. But it almost makes more questions come up. Now, Okay, so they established that this guy's here. Is this part of an operation that didn't get to go to full you know, to accomplish all of its goals. Maybe this is just the opening salvo, if you will, of something. Okay, establish his presence here
now stage two. Maybe they never got there because November twenty second came along. You know, something might have happened in December around Christmas time, and maybe that was the plan. And now we have interruption here because this guy is now famous worldwide as the potential assassin and then oh, by the way,
famous again because he's been killed on television. Hello world. We can't use this guy for anything else done And the story and whether he was impersonated or it was him or it was a combination thereof his presence was established. What are your thoughts on the idea that this looks like the beginning of an operation that didn't I don't even know that it was, Like, it doesn't
look like that to me, Chuck, because Oswald didn't. If it was the beginning of an operation using Oswald for like say, propaganda purposes that would have occurred. He doesn't have to be witting nothing, nothing he did. You know, he does such minimal things. He doesn't do anything nearly as serious as he did in New Orleans. You know, this is this is kind of mild compared to his street leafleting and protesting and writing and going to
the FBI about So this is kind of mild stuff. So what you're saying is the other use it. So I certainly will say that there could have been as I said, there could have been a assass you know, special affairs operation going on with Oswald or planned to go on with Oswald. Sure that will never know. Well, but see, but that's why I asked
that question. That's what they really told us. But withholding that information right, they were thinking about doing something around Oswald that never happened because of the assassination. So there might have been more to come, but it hadn't already been planned and if they were going to utilize them to do something effective. See, here's the thing. Some people bring it up like they had to establish Oswald. It's because they had They had to, you know, they
had to have him impersonated. Here again, just like he was impersonated as a car dealership and blah blah blahlah. Okay, but the problem is that there were much wider ways for him to get attention, and there were much more productive ways to spread if he was, you know, an agent of propaganda, if he was meant to go out there and get it attention.
His appearance in New Orleans is a great example of that. He gets arrested for you know, a BS disturbing the peace thing and pleads guilty intentionally so that TV can cover him then invite him for a debate later. That is a much more successful point. A lot more people will get exposed to this guy, even if there is only an intended audience and you want just the local FBI office to pay attention to him. You got that, You got
the general public involved. You have him, you know, publicly identified. He's in newspapers now, he's been on television. So there's a much more effective spread of information here as opposed to doing something there in Mexico City that would not be as advantageous for spreading something like a propaganda operation, a counterintelligence thing where you're establishing that the fair play for Cuba committee is a much bigger
threat, which we do now know that was the thing. The FPCC, there was an operation underway to undermine it, to destroy, to go after that and other left wing organizations by utilizing people sort of like Oswald right to infiltrate, go in and discredit, undermine things that were happening. That's really going on, and there's much better ways to do that stuff. And his FPCC adventure in New Orleans mostly but also leafleting in Texas are good ways to
get him introduced into that world. This thing in Mexico City doesn't quite line up with that, does it? And it doesn't really line up. Let's
say, let's take two scenarios that are often floated today. There's a group within the CIA that really does want to frame the Cubans and Russians kill the president and we invade Cuba, right, that's okay, fine, Or we really want to use this as a poison peel so that nobody wants to admit knowing anything about Oswald and they're scared, and they're scared that it was. In either of those scenarios, you really would want the real Oswald's picture.
You would really want the real Oswell on tape you would really want a backstory, you know, a good, solid backstory, not just oh, there's a phone call where the Russians themselves mentioned Costakov. You know, you're gonna want this Oswell impersonator or Oswald to be using the name say something much more incriminating. You're gonna want the real picture coming up, real tapes, or
you did just a really bad job of this. We see Mark Lan's you know, after action commentary about this where you know, as you said, it was printed in volume sixteen, the mystery Man photos that they cropped and all that deal is, though, if you got this guy meeting with communists basically communist you know, legitimate assets of communist governments, and you can tie
them to this and that. And the third thing he said, why would that not be on the inside cover of volume one or of the report itself. If you had the real picture of Oswald And there's the baffler, right, If they actually had Oswald coming out of that embassy, and then they could tie this whole story to him, there would be no reason in the world not to put that out there, even if it was just to say, look, our enemies are still our enemies, and look at who was
swimming with them. The guy who killed the president, whether they were actively involved in it or not, as irrelevant. The guy who tried to kill the president is a comedy. They wanted to make that point. So if they had that picture, then they should have published it. Like I said, page one, Here is exhibit one, ladies and gentlemen, in the Volumes of Evidence. We'll put it on the inside cover of the Warren Commission Reports, singular volume. Here it is. Here's your COMI right there,
meeting with other comedies. I mean, I know I'm using old language here, but true right well, and you even you could go further than that. I mean, the FBI was holding copy of a letter that Oswald had written the Communist Party USA that fall, saying, you know, he was really wanted to support them, and and by the way, should he go undercover? Should he go under like? I mean, would that not make a great So the pieces of evidence that you should have for these scenarios that
really make them stick are not there. And the only one that has, the only story that has any real solid evidence seemingly behind it is this Gilberto Alvarado story, which like blows apart within about three days of FBI investigation. So you're left with the fact that it's kind of you say, if this, if somebody was running any of these programs, A, they did a terrible job of it. And you know, because none of that is setting
their post assassination. And what it really is is you have embarrassment post assassination.
Some money is the wrong photo. They showed the wrong photo of Oswell's mother, Right, listen, For somebody who doesn't know the details on this, could you please give us a brief and I mean, like, you know, a one two minute summary of what the Albarato story entails, because somebody might be hearing that and going, wait a minute, what is he talking about the Albaretto You know, because you did mention money being exchanged. But please give people like, here is what that actually, you know,
the basics, if you will. That's this guy. A cable comes out of Mexico City and it's endorsed by the ambassador, the US Ambassador to Mexico, the CIA station chief, and the head of Station counter intelligence, David Phillips, and they all go. This goes to headquarters and it says we have this source who was in the Cuban consulate he observed Lee Harvey Oswald in an extended conversation with three people, including a young woman, including a red
haired negro, and he overheard the discussion. Parts of the discussion and including a remark that Oswald saying, well, you're not man enough to do it, and the other guy saying, well, then you're going to have to do it. He saw him give him an exact amount of cash, I mean, the exact amount of cash, just like ten five hundred and thirty six dollars or something like that. That's not it, but you know, right the to the penny, Okay, he saw that. It's in what
he's providing. He got he got the girls address and passport information. You got had You got to think, where's he standing to see this? Like this is all going on in the lobby and nobody you know, somebody is paying os well, they kill the president, and they don't notice this guy's looking over their shoulder unless he's supposed to be part of the group. Unless he's supposed to be part of the group, Larry, how the hell is he observing all his details? So yeah, I mean, you know,
pininsillars are one thing, but give me a break. Yes, hardly a B movie class stuff, but they're sending it to It goes to everybody, not everybody, but every Johnson and CIA director this is and they keep supporting it, like for several days, saying, well, we've interviewed him more and he's got more detail, and he's a really credible source, and so everybody, you know, this is a very detail story, even even it's
soiled. David Phillips, who writes several books after the assassination, and one of his books would write as pure fact that it was known that Oswald carried that ten thousand dollars back to the US and had been paid to kill Kenny. This is. This is a real in your CIA officer who writes this in a book, okay, as fact. So they're just adamant that this is true. Well, the FBI shows quickly, investigates, shows this guy was not in the Cuban Counsulate when he says he was. They start deconstructing
this other thing. The whole thing explodes, starts to unravel. These three parties write another message to headquarters saying, well, we still really believe with him. He just got his days wrong. Okay, he did, he did not make a note. Okay, And by the way, in the following message, we understand he is actually an intelligence asset for Nicaragua and he was doing collections work in the agency. Well we all know now that Nicaragua
was like at the hip with CIA and David Phillips. But they're they're saying he's still credible. It just he wrote this all that. And no, he didn't report it to us at the time, right, because you might think that somebody who's an intelligence askedt for a you know, foreign country closely allied with the US, would have mentioned this. No, he only brought it up after the assassinations. Well, it's just the assassination of the president. I mean, you know, nobody wants to warn anybody about that,
Larry, do they? So you know, really you have to ask what are these guys in Mexico City on is this? Is this just a diversion so that everybody gets interested in this and doesn't ask them embarrassing questions about that picture or a lot of other embarrassing questions, you know, was it just a diversion? But I guess to answer your question, the point is that
the further we go with Mexico City. The more of the mystery originates within the strange behavior within the CIA of you know, they're doing things that appeared to be stupid, they're doing things that cover up other things that appear to be smart. You know, it's just like this whole, whole Mexican City mystery is largely and even Hoover realized that, as you said, it's sort of like, what were they doing? Why did they lie to us? They lied to us, right, you know, so I don't have an
answer. I don't know that it was, you know, wasn't something evil. You know, there's several scenarios that present themselves, But the one obvious thing is that virtually all this mystery doesn't come from Oswald. It comes from Mexico City station and CIA headquarters, who clearly are talking past each other purposefully. See. The only certainty I think someone could derive from all of this
is that there was a need for multiple cover ups. There was a decided need to cover up a lot of information, and some of it makes perfect
obvious sense. Nobody wants to reveal that the Mexican President and the Mexican government are completely in bed with all this surveillance of various foreign dignitaries that are on their soil, even though they're technically on their own soil because they're in their consulates and embassies, which are declared, you know, legally parts of Like if you're in a US consulate, that's US soil, if you're standing on
it in that foreign country, et cetera. Yeah, but they're literally surveilling people there, invading the sovereignty of other nations that were invited to be there. Okay, because beyond the intelligence gathering assets and things like that, they're also supposed to be there for various diplomatic purposes. Okay, so there's a need for cover up there because that might be an embarrassment. That makes perfect
sense. But once you get away from that, Larry, there's still a lot of open questions in my mind and what are we ultimately to take away from this go ahead? Ultimately, to me, the revelation that comes out of Mexico City, the one major overwhelming outside all of this is the CIA did have an operational interest in Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination, only weeks before the assassination, and it was an operational interest within Angleton's counterintelligence group that
appears to have been there ever since he went to Russia. You know, was this a mole hunt as Simpitch and Newman talk, very possibly. But in addition to that, the Cuba projects people, Fitzgerald and Special Affairs staff and JM. Wave clearly had some kind of knowledge and interest of Oswald in
regard to Cuba. So to me, what really is emerges from the whole thing is it's actually proof that Oswell was known, that Oswell was under investigation and to the FBI, and that Ozwele was known and of interest operationally to the CIA, which is something they could never ever admit to, and just for the record, really fast in case it wasn't made clear. Slowly but surely the entire Oswald got paid to kill the President's scenario with the reliable source
totally fell apart so that it becomes nothing. Basically, Eventually it starts out as we have a legitimate piece of intelligence here that this happened before the assassination, and slowly but surely it just sort of unraveled as people started to dig into it. So it's off the table in case anybody thinks, oh, is there something to that. It totally fell apart as anybody started to pull on any thread of it, it seems like or am I misunderstanding? Without
any pushback. I mean, this is one of the most egregious professional mistakes that you could make. For the station chief and for Phillips to promote a story that is so sensational and so stupid and have it destroyed by the FBI. You know, where is the where's their performance review? You know, somebody should have gotten burned. There should have been a memo saying you people have any idea what you're doing. But there's no pushback. It's like they
got away with it. And Phillips even continues to write as if it were real. So yeah, I think that's a very key part that there's no pushback within the agency over any of this. Right now, it goes so far, by the way, just for the record, here again, David Attley Phillips, if he's publishing something, you know after his time with the CIA, allegedly those books all get vetted by the CIA, yep, And they didn't pull that. They didn't pull him telling it all other stuff.
We actually had copies of books being vetted and they would pull minor stuff, but they let that stay in there. Yeah, that was allowed to stay by the CIA vetting his book. I just want to make that clear to people in case they missed it, because that's something you need to know, is that And that's why win Scott's biography was never formally published, right, because that never got approval. And oh, by the way, supposedly disappeared
out of his safe. But that's a story for another day after his death. Right Anyway. Ultimately, though, Larry, what do we take away from all of this is that there was clearly some sort of adventure in Mexico City. Is it the historical Lee Harvey Oswald that was absolutely involved in it? That's another question that I have for you because some people say, no, it's just all about an impersonation. Clearly it wasn't the historical Lee Harvey
Oswell. Whether people want to go with the Harvey and Lee scenario or whatever, you know, those guys are at least supposed to look like. So this doesn't make any sense with the Harvey and Lee situation where maybe it was Harvey, maybe it was Lee. No, no, no, do we have the historical Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City? And whether we can decipher what the hell he was doing there or not is another story, But that's not his fault. That would be the fault of the agencies putting out different
things, taking seriously certain things that weren't supposed to be. Mixing up stuff, whether purposely or through incompetence is almost irrelevant now because you're never going to sort that. But do we have legitimately Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, And do we really know at this point in time, even looking back with a lot of the revelations that have come out, do we know what it actually means? Quite frankly, can we kind of put a label on this?
And they put it the rest My conclusion would be much the same as the conclusion that the ag just see a officially put into our writing. What was Yes, it was Lee R. V. Oswell who had been at the Cuban and Russian embassies. Uh, that's that's the call, the way they called it, And there was there was evidence to support that. There's actually even evidence in the Warren Commission in terms of things that were brought back. I mean, you can question all of that, but there their their
evaluation was, yes, that was really all Oswald. They concluded that he might indeed have been impersonated on a telephone call, which I would agree with, and we go into in the book as to the fact that that very well was a a c I A call made specifically its pretext call to try to find out who this American was. Uh. So they agree with they
say, yes, it was him, it was likely impersonated. Uh but beyond that essential because the CIA has screwed the record up so much and it is so inconsistent, they really were not comfortable with commenting on his travel, his lodging, you know, is his day to day activities. And they felt that that, quite frankly, was the fault of the CIACI had not been straight with them, not had tried to unravel any of these mysteries. And it could have. It could have. There's several things that could have
done. There's several things that could have done to resolve this on November twenty third, right that it did not. So it was the CIA's decision to muddy the waters and keep them muddied for years. But you and I attempting to assemble let's just say, we wanted to assemble the best, you know, chronological setup here and give people an idea. Look, he stayed at this hotel, he traveled here, he ate there, et cetera, et cetera. While he was in Mexico City here, arrived via this route,
left via that route. We can't do that step by step at any point here. Regardless of all these agencies that have these different records, we're not able to assemble the complete timeline. Are we actually? We are? We are? Here's the problem. I mean, the FBI did that. It's in the Warren Commission. You've got you've got a list of you know, where he stayed, what meals he ate, You've got interviews with waiters who
served him. One fascinating interview with the waiter says Oswald didn't realize that we dessert was actually part of the meal deal. Oh, it's always appeared in Yeah, it's always appeared incompletely to Me's the thing. Lastly, Oswell, to me, the problem with all of that is if you look at it closely, which many JFK folks have done, you'll find inconsistencies. You'll find you'll look at the paperwork and you go, I don't know that signature is
not the same as that. You'll find problems throughout it. So the evidence is there. It just depends on which parts of it you want to challenge and which parts you don't want to challenge. You see, that's yeah, you tell Marina he had been there? Absolutely? Yes. And that's the weird thing about this is that to me, right, my reading of it is that it appears incomplete because there are certain parts of that record that I'm
sorry to say appear to be fabricated because they don't look legitimate. Now, there's other things there, Like you said, that whole thing with the dessert makes perfect sense if you understand that Oswald was like this sprugal guy who like if they told him he look fifty cents extra for cheese, he'd say, never mind the cheese. This is the kind of guy he was. Or he buys a souvenir for Marina that's actually made in Japan, right, I
mean, this has got to be fun thing. Would any intelligence agency do that if they wanted to make this look real? No? But is that pure Oswald? Yes, that's pure osal because it was probably the cheapest thing. I lost it. But because it was probably you think that really clouts it is the FBI really had to rely on Mexican companies and on the Mexican federal police to bring them a lot of this information. And we're talking about
the Mexican federal police who work for the president. So there are lots of questions can be raised. You know, how good was the record that the Mexicans were bringing. Did somebody talk to them and did somebody want to make this more obscure than it was for whatever reason? But I think that's the problem, Chuck. Yeah, we have a story. We just don't have any confidence in the details. See, That's what I'm saying, is that to me, it appears as though there's holes because when I look at a
detail that sort of starts to fall apart because it doesn't look right. And you know, like you said, in some cases you can say, okay, signature is wrong here. By the way, that doesn't make a lot of sense because he had to have been somewhere else when this happened. You know, a couple of things go on here where I got to say,
I discount some of it. So I don't feel as though there is a complete record, although if you're kind of trusting and accepting of it, you could lay out a the question it has to be raised is why would this be if this is a well planned under either scenario, this is oswell following orders right as part of a poison pill thing or blame the Cubans thing, whatever, There's no need for this. Let him do what he's going to do. Let the record needs to stand by itself. If it was an
impersonator, which sort of makes no sense. The thing about all of this is if this was a plan to me, if this was a plan that was a serious plan related to the assassination, it was going to need to stand up after the fact. So the details needed to look that investigated. Why would any body make it this bad? The details need to look better. Suggests that what we're seeing occurred after the fact. It wasn't, you
know, otherwise it wouldn't have all these holes in it. Well, right, because if you go, okay, say you discovered that he ate in a restaurant, you go to question the waiters, you know, three weeks, four weeks, a month, two months later, you got a problem. Now, if you collected it on that day, and you were actively doing it on that day, and you ask a waiter what happened yesterday, you got a better chance of getting your details straight, stuff like that.
So after the fact, yeah, record left there should have Oswald should have signed things, or I mean there should be a solid paper trail and a photographic trail. I mean, we just should not if this was a that's
my view. If this was a planned, structured activity for either a poison pill or whatever it is, it shouldn't have the whole Somebody made the holes after the fact, whether it was the DFS or the way the FBI conducted the investigation or the CIA involved with the DFS that it just you said this earlier. It's sort of like, why wouldn't this be on the first page of the Warrant Commissionery board rather than you know, be fuddling us after all
this time? Right. Well, the other thing is just a counterpoint to what I was saying just before about how I feel as though some of the details don't line up and therefore I discount them. Is this in any investigation, And I've looked at, you know, small murder investigations, I've read records of other investigations, not something you know, so complex as to have so many agencies in it. You know, what inconsistencies are almost a guarantee.
Yeah, if somebody is legitimate organically investigating something. So in some cases these are byproducts of organic investigations. Like I said, you don't realize you need to question the people at a certain site about certain things until two months later. By the time you get back there, their memories are not quite as good, especially if there's some a place that deals with the public a
lot. Like I said, waiters are a perfect example. They might remember that customer the next day, a week later if they made, you know, some sort of impression on them. But give them a couple of months and they might mix things up. They might not have it straight. They might not remember where the credit card receipt is anymore, et cetera, et cetera. Right because of just might want to It's sort of like, oh,
there's the other parent talking to me. You know, it might give you know, if I say too much, other people will come to talk to me, kind of like Sylvia Durant and the Mexican police. Well that's who I was going to bring. Thank your point, it's really well taken about the organic nature of any investigation. We shouldn't we shouldn't expect it to
be perfect. Never exactly. So with all that in mind, I think we've done a pretty good job of going through this and trying to give people what they should be able to take away from it with another look, yet another look at Oswald's adventure in Mexico City and what actually happened. And I'll
tell you again, my views on this have shifted over the years. There was a certain point at which I was saying to myself as I read you know, these different things, I don't even know if this guy ever went, you know, because of the confusion, because of the nature of what was coming up the way it was coming out, I was saying to myself, I don't know if this guy even went to Mexico City. You know,
maybe this is all fabricated. Now I've changed my view over the years, and obviously we've seen more evidence come out and more interesting stuff that doesn't necessarily straighten out the record, but adds to the validity that there was a record to be capped anyway, you know. So that's the way I look at it. I mean, Larry, what would be your final thoughts on this? And then I'll let you go because we're over an hour now, and I only meant to do an hour with you today. I'm sorry about
that, but I mean, there's just so many questions. It's done for me, Chuck, it's it's it moved it out of the Obviously, elements of it are still a mystery. But I see no reason to not accept the fact that it was Lee Oswald there, since everything he did was very consistent and and you know it reflected as previous activities. But for me, what it really it really leads me to do is look back at what was going on. So, yeah, what what does it really tell me that's
important to me about the assassination? It tells me that there are CI officers that new things about Lee Oswald, We're planning to do things with Lee Oswald that they lied about and that they didn't reveal and that they didn't share. So quite frankly, it makes the CIA look much more suspicious in terms of covering up information about Oswald than you might otherwise think. Well, with that, Larry, you know, if that's effectively your final thoughts will leave it
there. Go to Larry dash Hancock dot com. Obviously I highly recommend, and he takes up a lot of space on my bookshelf, which I got to reorganize this week, by the way, but still he'll be taking up a lot of space on my bookshelf. Why because the information and analysis in everything from Shadow Warfare Unidentified to you know, the awful Grace of God. There is so much information and historical analysis in Larry Hancock's work that is at
the same time sober and yet not the typical fair. It's unique. And if you go to Larry Dashncock dot com you can follow his blog, his work, his stuff on you know, the what do they call them now? The UAPs Excuse me because I was going to say UFOs again. UAPs has worked with that group. You'll be hearing about Larry's involvement with Lancer. Although he won't be there in person this year, I do believe he'll still
be involved in some way and looking forward to that in November. And indeed I'm going to let Larry go now and continue on with the podcast after a short break, but extremely important stuff Larry and what is the name of the upcoming volume on Oswald where you're re examining him once again and maybe putting him into a more again sober and Larry Hancock like perspective in a single volume coming soon. It's being edited now, well, we have it by November.
Number one, Larry, and number two, please tell people the title again so they can go look for it a few months from now. I certainly hope we will have it by then. The working title is The Oswald Puzzle, The Osweal Puzzle, a re examination of Lee Harvey Oswell, but the real title is The Oswald Puzzle. The Oswald Puzzle the primary title Larry Hancock. And thanks again Larry for having your patients, you know, run through
with me a little bit. I appreciate you answering my questions and going through a couple of scenarios that I'm very sure interested listeners would do as well. And I think we're going to learn a lot in The Oswald Puzzle in the coming months. So I look forward to that and we'll talk about it when it comes out too, Larry, if you want, sound good Lly. I enjoyed it chat absolutely, So maybe we'll hear from Larry Hancock in about two weeks. And when we do, who knows what we'll be talking about.
We could be talking about new emergent things in the news. We could be talking about the latest on UAPs, the assassination or assassinations of the sixties. You never know, But Larry Hancock has a lot of written work on all of that, and I absolutely endorse and recommend all of it. So with all that being said, stick around. I'll be back after a short
break the Ocelli if that continues to this dot com radio. 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. In Denial Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larryhancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay 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 Larry hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical foh Chili
dot com. Revelation through Conversation, Ready, Get Ready Well important information about the November in Dallas Lancer conference coming up. Just to let you know, virtual tickets are now available for in person and for the online both or one or the other if you like. There's also a student price of thirty nine ninety nine, but you must show proof of being a student if you attend.
Tickets are on sale right now online at Assassination Conference dot com. The date is November twenty second to the twenty fourth of twenty twenty four at the Hotel Dallas Marriotte Downtown. Room prices start at one hundred and sixty nine dollars per night. Book a room at the Marriotte. There's reservations if you dial one eight hundred two two eight nine two nine oh or two one four nine seven three nine thousand and mention the November in Dallas con Diference group rate.
One other special thing for listeners of the O'Kelly effect if you use code Ocelle ten for ten percent off your ticket online. You can get a discount there