Get ready for September eleventh, twenty twenty four, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar. And you know what, Larry, Okay, I heard a bit of a sound there, just disrupt my own intro. You all right now?
Not on my end, I'm fine.
Oh I heard a weird noise. I don't know what you guys heard, but I'll leave it in the recording. Whatever it is. Anyway, weird noise is aside and the fact that this is an anniversary of a tragic event. I'm not doing a nine to eleven show, not at all. But you never know how this could in some way relate to those events, or the study of them, or something else. Anyway, not the true path of this show today. Nope,
it's a Wednesday. I've got the great author Larry Hancock with me, who again takes up a lot of space on my bookshelf, but not because he's taken up space.
Everything Larry writes is wonderfully informative, gives you an idea of exactly the type of topic we're going to cover tonight, which is all about a follow up to the last time we spoke with Larry and David boy Lean, who both, by the way, will be in one way or another participating in the Lancer conference coming up this November twenty second through the twenty fourth in Dallas, Texas, where I will be the MC Larry, as far as I know,
will be remotely involved from parts another location, let's say an undisclosed location. About that, an undisclosed location his house anyway, there he will be, but he will be participating as well. David will be there a slew of individuals bringing you unique and in some cases very new information on the now sixty one year old case. And this will be in the crosshairs part in the I don't know, that's not a pun expression. How about that? You know? In
the crosshairs, so to speak. Of tonight's topic, the CIA, how it works, and we went over documentation last time. We went over, you know, how things might be shared, kept where they need to go. Why a file is created just a bit though, really an introductory course, not even a course, maybe the introductory chapter to the introductory course.
Not because that's all David knows or that's all Larry knows, but because it is rather difficult to explain, rather laborious, if you will, voluminous processes and files that are kept by guess who, your government and for what operations that you don't really need to know about. The public has no need to get all involved in stuff, and by the way, it would cease to serve its purpose if everything was known to the public, because the public would
also include our adversaries. Anyway, forget about the benign explanations. Let's get into the nuts and bolts. And that's something that Larry greatly does, you know, through things like Surprise Attack. By the way, these are names of his books. Surprise Attack, Okay, the Nexus Nexus excuse me, not the Nexus, It's not the matrix Nexus. Also, someone would have talked tipping point. I could keep going unidentified. All of these books, at one time or another have been discussed at length and
focused on on this show. And you could find that stuff in my archives past and all that. But tonight we're going to talk about something that, in one way or another is probably in nearly all of Larry's books, except I don't know. Maybe it's not in the Doctor King books. Maybe it's not it's not Nope, maybe not there, but nearly every other I.
Mean, out of twelve or fifteen books, you've got to pass on a couple.
You got to give it a break somewhere. I mean. But the thing is this type of topic fit. It's with everything, and you would have to consider it as well for the King books, but doesn't end up in there. Uh the King Books of course, the Awful Grace of God. And what is the title of the of the other the other title of the King work.
Killing King, Killing King?
See you know I should know that, but I'm kind of pushing away from that title, not because of you, not because of stew but you know it's that Bill O'Reilly character, and he was, you know, all about killing everybody. Uh you know what was it? Patent Jesus JFK. Who didn't he kill in his books?
Everybody in World War Two? Killing Japan. But but I will say in the in the King books, we do talk a lot about documentation and practices. But in that regard, it's it has to do with the Federal Bureau of Investigation because the FBI was the primary agency involved in investigating the crime. So we do go into practices there and spend a lot of time with FBI agents and documentar what how it did things. It's just that that did not involve CIA, so it was FBI and that and that particular focus.
Decidedly different bureaucracy, even though it is part of the same government, and it's certainly a similar agency to some degree. But the FBI is not the CIA, although occasionally we have seen instances where it's gotten confused. And you can go to Larry dash Handcock or Larryhypenhancock dot com. I always recommend you go over that check out his books. If you don't know about them and own them all yet,
what are you doing? Go get them? Uh. And also you could check out his blog, which runs many interesting things in real time, including his research into what is it UAPs? I always got to stop myself because I'm so used to saying UFOs, but even including some academic work on guess what the intelligence agencies reactions to these things called UFOs UAPs unidentified phenomen I'm going to etc. The most fascinating story in that book, though, to me,
is about the instance on the military base. But let's just leave it alone for now, because that's not tonight's topic. As we said, it's going to be about the bureaucratic workings and the inner workings of what ends up being a lot of paperwork for sure. Oh wait, we're not going to do that. We're going to discuss something else. But either way, it's connected to all this, how this stuff is codified, how it ends up existing in the
official record, whether it is secret or not. We're going to talk about a bunch of things and the way it works out. So where are we going, Larry, how would we title this discussion?
Well, this would be a focus Again. We're talking about an agency. It's a government agency. It does have official reporting. People do expense reports, people have budgets. There's an Office of Security, there's an office in accounting. It is a government agency, so at its core it has to operate like any other agency, even though it has to shield itself from the public. But as you said, primarily the adversaries, because the CIA, as we talked before, has as many aspects.
It collects intelligence, it does intelligence analysis, it does political action, which is an entirely different thing. But what we're focused on here is how does it actually carry out the practice is involved with operations, which means plandestine operations. So how do you do something that is supposedly deniable but still keep it under some level of control, because yeah, you've got to do expense reports and budgets.
Too, right. And the interesting part about this to me is, of course, this is often the almost banal or benign aspects of things that end up being most revelatory. For instance, and I love to bring this up, Larry, and I'm sorry heard it one hundred times already. But the fact is that, you know, even the revelation, if you will, regarding the you know, things like mk ultra, how did we really get hold of that long, long story short?
How did the public get informed about it? Wasn't you know, a parade of whistleblowers know, it was an investigation into something else that wound up turning up documentation, and it wasn't even documentation, Like, here's the evil thing we did. Here's where we drugged people. I'm being facetious obviously, you know, here's where we had people killed, et cetera at this
time and date. And oh, by the way, I hope I'm going to get my lunch reimbursement here, you know, because I had to eat while I was out there killing someone.
No.
The thing is though, that there are rather sort of you know, run of the mill expense reports. That's literally what ended up creating the record because the forensic individual, a forensic accountant type person comes in and reconstruct That's what happened based on basically the receipts. So you know, you never know which part of this which again seemingly and obviously people forgot about that part of it, although
they did destroy other documents and that's another thing. But anyway, before we get too complicated about all this, what is always said to be the thing that must be protected to keep files safe from public view, to keep people away from the deeper, darker secrets, the ugly stuff that you know, just like as a child, you don't need to know what it is that somebody had to go through to maybe earn the money to buy you the brand new jacket, but you know a jacket was provided
for you, and that's good enough for you if you're seven years old. But as a primarily adult nation, right, we feel entitled to know these things and don't always get to know them. And why because they even protect their practices, they protect their what they're you know, their means there. Jeez, what would we call that? Larry Well,
I've got an idea. How about this? The operative. Let's say the individuals, oh, the resources Wait a minute, even better, sources and methodology or sources and methods common phrase a lot more complex than it sounds, Larry. So that's where we're going tonight.
Yes, yeah, And I think the key thing to remember about that is, again, it sounds mysterious, but in one aspect it's not. Somebody has to assign a task. I mean, there's nobody in an organization. You know people, People get personnel reports done on them anually. People get reviewed, case officers get reviewed, managers get reviewed, stations get reviewed. If I'm Mexico City station, I have to review my personnel, I have to provide spending reports and finances looking over
my shoulder, and there's a caution there. It's it's yeah, the work itself is mysterious, and I it's it pays me to use surrogates and volunteers and to offload as much of it as possible so my people aren't visible. But at the core of it, you have to have practices, even for clandestine operations. I think an example of that that we often cite is one of the most sensational things related to clandestine operations, as assassinations. Okay, and we
all talk and about the Castro assassination attempts. But it's kind of interesting that when when the CIA was tasked and specifically someone was given a task, like you said with mk Ultra, someone had to be assigned a task of going after Castro. Okay, they recruited Johnny Roselli to do that. Johnny Roselli brought in some people that required money. Okay, where's the money coming from? Whose budget is it coming from?
So the interesting thing is General Cabell, who was in charge of the Geographic Directorate where Cubilize, had to know about this and had to know the money was being spent. And so when when push comes to shove and somebody really needs cash, somebody really needs to build a cash the person who's going to do this requires signatures like I am not going to pay one hundred thousand dollars out of my budget unless you sign off on it.
And thence a record had to be created of one of the most clandestine and explodes as things that was being done. And that applies to almost any clandestine action. People have to get approvals for spending money. And again the common and that's why so much of it digging into it is you don't look, you know, you don't look for it to be talked about. You have, as you were kind of saying, you have to reverse engineer it from the records trail.
Well, right, because there's a process by which this all occurs. And here's the thing. It's not like you have a standard set of let's call them, you know, chores or goals for the day. You know, if you work in a retail establishment, you know that during the course of the day, this or this or this has to be done. But in truth, when you have operations like this, investigations or things that are meant to create desired effects, whatever, you have to assign a job. But you got to
create that job. So you create the job, you create a pool of resources, you know, not just human resources, but you also need to have oh, I don't know, guns, you know, places for people to be, storage areas, vehicles, let's say. So you have to pull together great men the assets. Then you have to you know, map out where do they go, what are they going to do? What are their objectives as they move forward? So you
have to create all that. Somebody commits that to papers, so that I mean, I hate to oversimplify it, but you have to create a checklist. Okay, we have all the guns we need. Okay, we have all the people we need, we have the backup individuals. We have an alternative mode of transportation. If we can't get out of the country because of a plane, well, is there a harbor nearby, et cetera. All these things laid out one way or another. And I know it sounds very mundane,
and it's like you're being silly. You're telling me that they got to create a budget within a budget and also keep most of its secret because very few people are allowed to know about this. But still money and assets and people need to be appropriated and assigned. I mean, I don't know how much more simple you make. Yeah.
Again, as you said, he has projects that are sanctioned. Okay, Okay, this project is sanctioned, This project is funded. Everybody within that project it's tasked with doing certain things. Let's say I'm running this covert war against castro. Okay, create a project to do it, put it under a project AD. He assigned staff to it, recruits them, they get paid, they get performance reports, and then he parcels out his budget and as an example for that, they decide that
to do this deniably they have to use surrogates. So they're going to use certain Cuban anti Castro groups to do certain activities, propaganda, maritime missions, whatever. Got to be a budget for that, got to have somebody handing over that money, and you have to there's a paper trail that goes with it. So even for a clandestine operation like that, you've got you know, case off that are making reports. And when we go to the files, we find files on these various groups that are summary files.
In other words, how are things going with the DRE, How are they, what are the various people that work with them have to say about them? What missions do they do?
Well?
Are they problems for us? And that's why so much of what we dig out is from these operational reports. You know. It's if you've got an actual station report from Mexico City or from Berlin or from JM. Way, you can really find out what's going on, even though it's all shielded from the outside and cripts are used and code names are used for projects inside, You've got to have a trail. You've got to have just like
any other management system. So I think one of the things that I would like to draw a difference between is what the what the CIA did with its own at sets and covert operations, where you've got CIA people actually recruiting people, paying people, setting up supplies to support the operations, whether it's guns, money, boats, whatever, or where they actually are able to call in support from outside the CIA. That is more deniable in a way. And that's where we run into the things that are called
cover companies. I kind of actually the term CIA cover is again used much too broadly. But for example, you may recruit. You'll go out to a major corporation, let's say it's a shipping corporation. You'll contact the people on its board, you contact its president, senior officers, and ask them to volunteer to provide covers for you. Whether it's
simply travel documents for your people. You know you're going to accept that their crew on your boat, okay, or whether it's you're gonna we're going to use your ships and you'll agree to transfer our cargo for no cost and with no accounting. By the way, thank you very much.
And we'll also ask you to the company right, and we'll also ask you to create documentation for people that are going to travel with you under the guys that they are your employees. So these guys are now your employees. Don't ask them to do any work, but they have a job title and they get to travel with your other employees when we say they do so. This way, you have a sort of benign group of businessmen going to establish something that is completely normal, run of the
mill whatever. And meantime, they don't actually do any of that work. What they really do is whatever the CIA is test them with. Excuse me, but that's the reality of it. And a lot of people will use the term shell corporation as well or shell company. And why is that? Because they create something whole cloth, let's say, or partially. Like say there is a shipping company that has all the licenses and everything, but is a failing business. Well,
here's the trade off. We'll pump enough money into your business so that you can run things for a little while, maybe you can figure out how to sort this out. While you're doing that, we'll actually keep your business afloat. But here's the trade off. You have six employees, sixty employees, doesn't matter the number, but you have a handful of employees or people that are working with your company one way or another that you're just taking along for the ride. Then to do so.
Much better name for that rather than shell company is proprietary because you actually acquire business control. You put money into the firm, right, you have somebody on the board of directors, you have a couple of people in management. It's not a company volunteering to work for you. It's a company that literally is working for you. And as you say, probably without your money might be failing. With your money, they're succeeding. You know, you make up the difference.
You schedule the cargoes, you do deals, and so proprietaries are quite different from these these cover companies that I'm talking about, where there's a quid pro quo when you're working with them, you actually to show you your good faith. You'll get together with the senior managers and share certain information that the CIA is collecting about the areas where their business is working, who's doing you know, you're collecting
a lot of open source intelligence, financial intelligence. Obviously it's great if I'm running a corporation working in South America that I get briefed on that kind of stuff.
Works.
It's it's great. So I can be patriotic and at the same time benefit from being patriotic, or you can have a very different instant situation than with the proprietaries that I'm talking.
About, right. So, and another added benefit here is that you may indeed have ways to be paid for things even though you don't have to do them necessarily. You tell them because of the amount of weight that is in a particular you know, cargo container that Look, what you're going to do is say you're a furniture company as benign as that. Well, really, what we're going to do is we're going to stick a bunch of guns in with the metal bed frames that you're shipping in
a cargo container. I know it sounds ludicrous but and quite oversimplified, but in effect, this is the kind of thing that happens. You know, Look, these are metal bed frames. Pay no attention to the fact that you know, it's actually a bunch of small arms and medium you know, arms for troops that have been clandestinely maneuvered into the same place that you are going to do business. We're going to deliver some guns while you're delivering some bedframes
and we'll make up for that difference. So you get paid for those You don't even have to sell them because they didn't exist in the first place.
And as it turns out, there's actually an alternative to doing that, because as you chuck you that can get pretty complex. It can get pretty complex. People are smart, they realize something else is going on. Wait a minute, this is not right. The shipment didn't go where I thought it would, and we somehow failed to recognize that. Over the decades, in the col War, especially the first couple of decades, the CIA relied quite heavily on the
US military. Right, they relied on the military for people. These people were actually vetted and assigned to the CIA. They generally went out of uniform, although not necessarily, and they became detailed and that was the term detailed to the CIA for various activities, generally training activities, you know, not actual special operations, that sort of thing. If the CIA wanted an military person for actual covert action, they hired them, the person would resign their position, They would
be hired as a contract employee. But the reason I'm bringing this up is actually the CIA operations that were most covert during those years were where they actually had the military, either the military or proprietary working, not where the CIA managed it itself. For example, in Guatemala, one of the reasons they were very successful in that overthrow regime was they actually went to Air America, which was a prietary, and literally hired pilots and aircraft. These guys
are experienced, they know what they're doing. They come in, they're on the spot, and the air operation of Guatemala was excellent and actually probably made the whole thing work. Okay, in Indonesia they used the US Navy. In the end it didn't work as well, but the actual shipments and delivery of weapons to the groups worked exceedingly well. One of the examples of how not to do it is when, and we've talked about this before, when we got to
the Cuban operation in the Bay of Pigs. The CI officers that were doing that were of the fact that the CIO ought to do everything for itself, and so over a period of time, the CIA had built its own air force. Okay, as we saw on Gulf you can have a priory terry Air America. Not a problem you're gonna have. You're gonna have people that really know how to do this stuff in a relationship with you.
But these officers that were running the Cuba projects decided they did not want to use the method that had worked for them several times before because that wouldn't for some reason, be deniable. They decided that they were going to have to create their own air operation, recruit their own pilots from the Cuban exile community, train their own pilots, and not use uh trained pilots that were detailed. Yeah, they brought in some people from the Alabama Air National Guard,
but for training purposes, not to fly missions. As it ended up ended up, they as a last resort JFK let them fly some missions over the over the beachhead which were fatal to the pilots. But it's I guess the reason I'm bringing this up is almost like every operation became a different mix of these different alternatives. It's kind of like we have a we've got a playbook, which ones are we going to pick to throw into
this operation. And as you can understand, if you keep doing that, and if you keep changing the playbook over time, guess what, things get worse and worse. Because nobody really knows how it's going to work this time, and it's like you're starting from fresh every time, and that's where
things ended up in Vietnam and laws. But so I just clearly wanted to separate things like cover companies, proprietaries, military detailes, and internal groups like the cis on Air Force that it created to replace what the Air Force had been doing for it very successfully before wars, like we don't we don't want the military in this, Okay, we'll do it ourselves. We don't want the Navy involved
in this amphibious operation. We'll do it for ourselves. And as you as you're talking, you're going and how is that going to work for you? The answer is not well?
Right, And this is uh covered in in detail in in Denial right.
And shadow warfare, and in Denial Share shadow warfare really goes into the history of the practices and you know, how how you do some of the things that we've been talking about with examples, how did you do it you know in Guatemala, how did you do it in Loos, how did you do it in Burma? You know what? What were the actual cover companies? You know, who did
you do partnerships with it? It actually got to the point under the ICE and our administration where for a lot of these cover companies, we're major corporations doing business in say South America or the pre and they would the CIA would call in the presidents for these these companies. General Cabell would meet with them and fill them in about the plans to overthrow this regime and kind of help them plan how to take advantage of what was going to happen.
Right, Yeah, that.
Sounds amazing, But we actually have the records of those meetings.
Right. This is the thing is that it sounds like the plot of a movie. I hate to keep repeating that, but it really does. And it's truly based on true stories. You have literal situations. Now this whole you know kettle that's boiling here. You know, people argue all the time as to whether it still exists in one way or another, or if it's just you know, now a footnote, a practice that got out of control, as most creatures of
the Central Intelligence Agency apparently do. Because and but it's difficult to say, because the truth is, if they have great control over it. The first thing is you generally don't know much about it because it's just they are hiding in plain sight, and these become, I said, creatures. I'm quoting something or some things from the past that
I've seen and heard. But the reality is, yes, if you pulled off a covert operation, oh so well, people should not know about it within a couple of years, a couple of months, a couple of days that this kind of thing happened.
But when that was the whole thrust of my book in Denial, Right, does anybody really think that you can do deniable operations? The Russians were so much smarter about that. The Russians did deniability in a very classic fashion. Right, Okay, so did they send Russian fighter pilots to Korea? You bet they did. In fact, for the first year or so, all the air combat was actually between the US and Russia. That Rusians just didn't talk about it. They didn't worry
about covering it up. There was no there were no special you know, we could intercept their radio communications and you see it's a Russian pilot. We absolutely knew that. They didn't worry about it. Don't worry about deniability.
Well, and here's the other problem, because now here's where it gets overly complex. If you're writing a movie script. Somebody's gonna drop something on the table and say to you, look, stop, you're going too far, because now it's a big mix up. And the deal is that these things happened this way. But the Russians could get away with, say, just openly having the Russian pilots there because the people that witnessed
the Russian pilots they weren't supposed to be there. So you had games like that going on where.
Well, and they're military, so you don't you don't have our military reporting. The decision was made to classify that right the same way as in Vietnam. We now know there's an ex extensive research that's been done that the Russian and Chinese participation in the VS. Vietnam War was immense. I mean we're talking about whole battalions of troops, whole formations of Chinese troops in North Vietnam. Yes, we're talking about immense Russian participation. At the time, we knew that
because we're pretty good at signals, intelligence and collections. But the decision is always made, well, they're just not talking about it if we accuse them of even if when we capture their equipment, we're in laws, we capture their tanks whatever, they just deny it. So their version of deniability is just to deny it, where our version of deniability is, well, we'll do it in such a fashion that you can't trace it to us even if you find it. So that adds like several layers of complexity.
We can't use our own weapons. Russians don't care. They use their own weapons. We got a biome O receives and ship them in so they can't be traced us.
Now, and there's the thing. You have to do something that makes sense so that if it is revealed. Okay, for instance, you know you need to use US military troops to accomplish something a larger operation it requires or not a larger operation, but let's just create it theoretically here quickly, you need thirty guys to capture a base. Why. Logistically, you need a certain amount of guys to be able to run roadblocks. You need guys to be able to control, say,
the contingent that is manning the base. Right, you need another group of guys to handle the vehicles, make sure none of them are moving. Somebody captures the centralized motor pool area whatever. By the time you get all that done, somebody says, well, here's the thing. If somebody gets killed during this operation or drops a gun, I'd rather that if we're in Vietnam, it looks like something that was manufactured in China, right, or it is manufactured and generally
used by name a troop from somewhere else, the French. Okay, say they want older guns from the French, because it would make sense that there are French weapons laying around because of the incursion just previous. Right, So you have to account for all of this. You don't want to leave American you know, M sixteen's laying around, because somebody's gonna go, wait a minute, why is it that, you know,
people from Laos have these brand new American weapons. Why is it that they have German weapons that were manufactured two months ago? You can't leave that kind of stuff laying around, right, or you know, the idea of don't let them get captured in a particular uniform whatever.
Except the problem is the world being not naive and pre charp That never works.
Right.
In the book, I describe a walk through it page, and there has never been a deniable operation that stayed deniable because everybody can see what's going on. It's no matter how many layers you go through, people are going to like, like we do follow the money, Like who would have done that all? Who would be screwing around with us? Then that kind of a mission in North Vietnam, Let's say, do I think it would be the Chinese
rating in North Vietnamese? No? Do I think it's the friend is obviously that it's the Americans.
Right.
So the whole concept of deniability from the way that we traditionally pursued it just didn't work and it never does work. And it's even back in nineteen sixty one after the Bay of Pigs when they had the follow up meetings and inquiries that got to the point where even the Director of the CIA at that time, Alan Dulles, acknowledged, is on record the CIA cannot do covert military action.
You just need to take that stuff and hand it over to the military, which actually JFK was the problem in the process of doing.
But it discussed.
It never does work. It just sounds like it. It's tempting. It makes it makes sense. We'll do this, we'll do it, and we'll make it deniable so nobody will know that we did it right.
And this is why we've had the extended conversation regarding how many responsibilities that had previously been in the hands of the CIA were being transferred to the d IA. Uh, you know, and what is that? The Defense Intelligence Agency? What does it sound like, boys and girls? It sounds like it's got something to do with the military, doesn't it? Because it does? It is okay. But see, now we've spun all into another area, haven't we. But that's the thing.
Yeah, and we didn't even Will me comment a little on the question that you just asked, sure that we didn't talk about, and and that is is this the same way to day? And I will say that in the book Surprise Attack, I dealt with that question quite a bit like our CI operations covert operations today like they were then. And the answer is no, they're not.
And one of the reasons. One of the reasons is the decision after nine nine to eleven, quite frankly, decision was made to start authorizing military action under the CIA under the federal laws that you know, Title fifty in Title ten are the keys there. The President will authorize it under covert actions and national security. But it's assigned to the military, and the CIA will always be put
in a support role. So when we started creating the special task Forces and operations after nine nine to eleven, those were military operations that would have CIA people assigned to them. You might find a team where there's a CIA drone operator, you might find this or that. But the CAA moved into much more of a support role than beforehand because the decision was, if if you're going
to do military you might as well do it. We're going to let them report to Sentcom like when Ben Lauden was when they went after Ben Lauden, it was authorized under National security the sort of thing that the CIA operates under, but it was tasked to the military, not the CIA, because the military isn't supposed to do certain things under its federal guidelines, which are okay under
the National Security Act of nineteen forty seven. So I just want to get into the fact, since you'd ask the question, has changed, things changed over time, and they did quite dramatically starting in the last decade after following the nine.
To eleven attacks. Less two decades really, right, because yeah, isn't that amazing that Yeah, and you have the whole reorganization.
I use that term loosely because of a lot of things we've seen, but well, you definitely had is the outgrowth or the growth from a very pardon the pun, centralized you know, singular place to the now what is it seventeen agencies now that are involved in these Okay, so one agency, which was supposed to be the clearing house the centralized I keep using that word location for all of this ends up becoming the octopus with sixteen tentacles.
All right, Clearly that has to make things better, right, Yeah.
I mean that should make things a lot better and less confusing, I think, again facetious comments. But so where do we go with this from here?
Larry?
I mean we talked about now you know, the way it was evolving in a way, and where it stands today.
Well, I think it's it is much differently today. But I think one of the things I wanted to bring up in regard to the era that we normally talk about in regard to the JFK ASSASS nations, there's there's one there's one other area of deniability. We don't know how many times it happened. We know for sure one time that it happened because it's well documented. But all of these things projects tasking, could be tied to performance reports and expense reports and budgets and that sort of thing.
But they always the one thing was that the CIA was in control. The CIA was control of the money. Ostensibly, the CIA was in control of the people. You know, So if you had if you had surrogates that were working for you, you stayed in touch with them, you knew what they were doing, you paid them a regular fee, you had some control. And there is an instance in which I write about in Denial, where the decision was
made that that wasn't deniable enough. It can't really be deniable if you've got that paper you know, that kind of paperwork trail. If you want to be totally deniable, these people have to look like and play like they're totally on their own. They've got to have the money, right. This happened with something we have talked about many times, which was the Amoral Project, which was supposed to represent
the epitome of deniability. A military force totally on its own, buying its own weapons, buying its own boats, conducting its own missions, totally no connection to the United States, right, and to do that. One of the big dangers was they were given the money.
So what overall, outside of the fact that we have a situation where it's like we're going to hand over complete control, you're not coming in to check in with your with everybody who's over your head. When you have to do stuff, you have to operate sort of independently. What is the big deal about am world or am World when you speak to people that say, have no clue about what the significance of that operation is. What's the Larry Handcock cliff Notes version of how to put Amworld in context?
Please, The point is you lost control or you exposed yourself to being a situation. For example, with am World, there were some CI officers assigned to it that we're there to support logistics, you know, if travel needed to be arranged. Okay, well but we're like a logistics support team.
Well we'll, yeah, we'll and and actually to try to gain control, they tried to infiltrate some people into the group to report on them because they were so concerned that they could possibly go rope because in that period of time, the CIA was always using surrogates. I'm sorry, I couldn't help gru people who had, you know, an agenda of their own, and you're just helping them accomplish it.
Right. I'm sorry I had to chuckle there, because it's it's an interesting thing to just consider this. Okay, guys, not you Larry, you know this, but I mean, consider this for a moment. You have a circumstance in which you have a very sensitive operation in the hands of people that are not usually in charge of the operation. According to what i'll call the chain of command, right, they're making decisions that might have been made a different
way and by different people in the food chain. The chain of command again, I'll just use that, and am world is interesting in that and I'm not saying this is the only time it happened, But when you've got to literally send people to go infiltrate your infiltration group, it becomes again one of those added layers of complexity that I got to be frank with you, I'm not sure if they imagine that to begin with, or if the concept here was to eliminate the problems that would
cause you to have to investigate your own investigators.
Because the CI officers themselves anticipated it.
Yeah, I'm getting at though.
You how difficult. It was to control surrogates, because when I say surrogates, I mean I'm talking about a group of people who are combat ready. They've declared themselves to be revolutionaries. They're armed, they're committed, they're somewhat fanatical, they're somewhat obsessive. You know, they've adopted, they they've engaged. They're engaging in a crusade, and you are supporting their crusade.
But clearly their goal in line is their top priority, not your international interest or your geopolitics, or if you want to finest something at a particular time. That's not their problem. Their problem is their focus is their focus, not yours. The CIA knew that because all the groups that they worked with ever had the same problems, not just the Cuban ones, Eastern Europe same thing. But the problem was, and frankly, we have to be honest about this,
AM World was not the CIA's idea. AM World and its leader our teammate. And while our teammate was Robert Kennedy's idea, because Robert Kennedy had gotten to the point where he didn't he thought the CIA was being too bureaucratic, He thought they were being too controlling. The Cubans kept telling him, if you just let us go, give us the money, give us some exploit, we'll do it. You've been holding us back for years. We could have had
Castro overthrown by now. It's all these controls that they keep imposing on us.
Right now, our teammate for the listener, just to just to be clear, here is literally a very key figure because he's actually, according to some supposed to be the guy who is going to take over even right, I mean, am I missing something here?
He is supposed to replace Castro.
He's supposed to replace Castro. And here's the again fascinating, a little bit frightening though, because here's the thing. The agency is doing this and the very the very characteristics that make our teammate and anybody who is you know, use the word fanatic before, and it could be fanatical, or you could just describe it as really deeply held
dedication to your work. Yeah, the very thing that makes them useful and effective and qualifies them to do the job is simultaneously I mean talking about the proverbial double edged sword is literally the problem that can now create problems for the project that they're on your team you're with them, but your agendas might not line up exactly. And yet that's still the most useful part of them
that they're willing to go. They're willing to put the sacrifice in, they're willing to do the dangerous work because this is something they are attached to. This is their life, this is their country, this is their I know I'm sounding preachy, right.
But now they're patriot they consider themselves patriots, right, but they're ejectorily dedicated. But the other factor is they're always political because you've got to remember, these are the guys who got thrown out of somebody someplace.
Kay.
They're all expatriots, they're all exiles or whatever. So there's all kinds of politics going on, right, which the CI knows it has to cope with. It's all as difficult. It even gets to the point where with Amworld, where the CIA guy in charge of am World, our teammate comes in and says, you know, these other guys are like giving us a real problem and Nolah Ray and Jura, and he says, well, that's okay if you run across
them when you're doing missions against Cuba, sink them. But wait a minute, they're also a anichest I don't care they're getting in our way sync. So all of these patriots I have their own politics too.
Well, and just like our guys are willing to accept their extremist ideas. And okay, that's a little outside the law, but you're not really our guy. So you could do this right like, you know you are our guy, but you're not so and when you do that, you're not our guy. When you come back and do this, you're our representative again, you know, in our But that's a balance where you've got to balance between what their agenda is,
how you can make that work for you. And it's at the same time the other edge of the sword. You got to make sure that it doesn't come back and cut off or cut into one of the things that you have on your agenda as something that should be protected or vice versa. You want to protect something and they don't, or they want to protect it and you don't care what happens to it. It can cut both ways, and you know, at the drop of a dime or a hat, right, So.
The CI officers know this, and they've been facing these problems their career professionals. They know that they're always going to face those problems with surrogates. So you know, how as a manager, how can I keep them on target, on control? It's going to be tough. So when RFK is told by them that it's the CIA itself that's the problem. If you just get them out of our hair, will be good, and essentially accepted that because the CI had been failing on one end, you've got yes to
say I had failed. They haven't assassinated Castro, they haven't caused a coup, they haven't done anything effectively, and so there's a good proposition to be made that, well, we've got to do something radically different. The CIA, on the other hand, would come back and say, well, you know, we're trying to do it deniably and in a control fashion,
and you know, so there's a fundamental argument there. But the reason we come back to this is that the CIA very much opposed this level of deniability because of the risk involved, especially the risk involved with the fact that these people had their own not just proprietaries or cover companies. These people set up their own companies to buy stuff. They had their own money and tens of millions of dollars to buy boats, ships to buy weapons
in Europe, deniable weapons. And they had their own operating accounts that they're like open checking accounts. The CIA just dumps money into them, whatever happens with it. Why do they have those Because we're going to be moving out of the US, we're new identities, We're going to go into the Caribbean where we can operate deniability, new names, and we need to be able to have money that we can just have on demand. Okay, buy what you need,
go where you need whatever. That's at the point where it gets to be a really high risk operation.
And just like with many many businesses that are not connected to you know, black or gray operations one way or another, guess what. Nobody knows what happens to the extra money. The accountant might have something representing where that money went, but in reality, it could have went toward guess what one of these guys' personal agendas. Yeah, you know, so here we go.
Well, we saw the worst example of that years later when a certain military person was assigned by a certain president to do a completely deniable, off the books operation against the contras in Nicaragua. And what did that turn into the biggest drug smuggling operation in history, did anybody monitor the money that was given? Oh? Yeah, we actually now we can monitor it, and we saw how much of it was used for boats and planes for smuggling drugs.
You know when the pursuit of deniability and I'll make the argument here never leads to good things.
Yeah, so herein is the problem. So again back to am world though or am World, and I don't know why I keep bouncing back and forth between those. I think people used to say it the other way is what what happened? Right? At some point I think I'll announce her.
I'm not even sure at this point which was first?
That's the thing. I'm confused now too, because it's just been around and people have kicked this around. Why is the am World operation? Key one and two, Just to inform the listener, there's a purpose to the cryptonem here that is easily discernible and you can trace it through other operations. Right regarding am World.
First off, it is not supposed to relate the cube at all. I mean, but it's not. It's not going to fall under the directorate that handles America. It's not going to fall fall under Cabell it's it's supposed to be. It's it's kind of like the crypts that are used over and over again because they don't relate to anything else, you know, it's it's a standalone thing.
Uh.
But for your first question, the reason we the reason I write and spent so much time about it is it's the best documented example of a totally deniable operation that we have. Why is that because it was was investigated as far as of the JFK assassination inquiries. Otherwise there certainly can be other operations, although, let's face it, unless something it's called on the carpet, like a run contra, you know, you just don't have that level of detail.
But we have an immense amount of detail on how much money was paid, what was shipped where, But that only came out because that some of the individuals involved, like our teammate. Quite frankly, we're considered at one time as possibly being involved in the assassination. The HSCA was actually given our teammates name as someone that might know I might have heard, might have Okay, this is the guy you want to look at, and of course in looking at him, they determine what was he doing in
nineteen sixty three am World. So two reasons why it really stands out. One because we have so much information on it, and two because there are suspicions that it in some circles that it might have been associated with the assassination because it was so essentially untouchable it was we can't We don't know where the people that were
involved when it were in November. All we know is that they essentially went off the books, and they go off the record for four or five months until they show up again outside the United States, which too many people as suspicious. But there are a couple of reasons. I write about it in my books and in Denial and in Shadow Warfare as an example of deniable autonomous operation,
because they have a lot of data on it. But in the other in other books it comes up because it's it's has some connections to the assassination.
No, it's just important to bring up because I've seen other mentions of this where you know, and this was a big feature a few years back when the discussion I hate to, I don't want to. I'm not going to bring up somebody else's work here on you, Okay, but you probably know what I'm thinking because it was a big source, yes, you know, and and the concept of C Day right instead of D Day comes out again.
I'm not trying to pick on anybody in particular, because a lot of people thought that this might be the key to the why of the assassination, the actual here's the thing that needed to be covered up so badly that they were willing to let Kennedy die and not have the truth revealed in order to protect at this operation, right.
And absolutely right, there there was a time and I think I think it's safe to say one of the that reveals one of the things that we're all subject to. There are things that look mysterious way mysterious way suspicion suspicions at one point in time, and when you learn more about it, they're not nearly so mysterious. But there's also a real trap of kind of like I just learned about this and I want to make the world
aware of it. There may this may answer the whole thing, and then you get caught by what follows kind of like, oh geez, now we have more documents, me of more records, we know more about all of this, and I just I leapt too quickly.
And sometimes, look, it's rather forgivable because you know, you spend twenty years, thirty years, you know, on something, and suddenly something that appears to answer a whole lot of questions that are legitimate questions, is sort of dropped in
front of you. And excuse me. We've seen this happen a few times with things that are have a lot less meat on the bone, let's say, than this by a long shot, you know, Like I've even talked about very early on, again, I was still a teenager, the French gunman, you know, the French gunman theory, the Marseille gangsters, right,
that to me looked plausible. I wasn't well read into anything at that point, but to me, it just appeared plausible because of the way that it was presented, and it seemed to be rather and I don't even think the first time I heard about it wasn't on the Men who killed Kennedy. But a whole lot of people point to that and say, I remember that show. You know, that's the thing that got me going or whatever back then, and other people have said, oh, look, there's this confession
from a mobster, and you know what, I'm referring to there. Yeah, you know the camtext whatever they refer to it documents right where you have a gangster in prison confessing to his sell me. I did this right, supposedly. I mean, I'm shortening all these stories, but.
I can't tell you how many years I just lost out of my life following Fred Chrisman and Thomas Beckham because that sounded so intriguing at the time, So it can happen to anybody. The danger is, you know, the temptation is always there to be the first to tell that story, right. And in regard to am World, it's kind of funny because I was reaching it researching Amworld and had come across the crypt and had documents on it as the same type as C Day was being investigated,
and I was actually talking to the other person. It's like, well, I'm about to I'm about to publish this, so you know, if you could hold off talking about it, okay, yeah, that'll you know, I don't know enough about it yet to do anything, so it so as a temptation as to how sensational it looks. And you know, if you want to claim a territory or be the first to reveal the information.
Well, there is that aspect, right, but there's also just the you know what, finally I have something that has fallen into place and and didn't have to be you know, forced or coaxed real hard to make sense of a whole lot of things that appeared to have no solution. I mean that that. I mean, I know I'm kind of repeating myself here and just you know, rewording it,
but it's true. And again, after a lot of frustration and a bunch of dead ends and so on and so forth, and maybe you lucked out and you've got an interview with somebody who's still alive, but other people don't necessarily know where he is or what he's doing. You know, these kinds of things all come together and it creates an effect. So I don't want to linger on this too long, but I'm just pointing out that with am World, this is definitely one of those things
that had a lot to it. You know, you started to line up the evidence. Okay, if this is happening, this should exist. Some of those things started to come up, right, I mean, it.
Was, And that doesn't mean that one scenario, one particular scenario related to it might turn out to be false, maybe another scenarios. You know, it doesn't. It relates to your interpretation, not to data. I mean, the data that we have on it now is there. You go, it's solid. You know, it's just a matter of interpretation. So but you're right, I kind of it's been discussed for so long now it's kind of like I can understand and you list would be, well, why are you making so
much out of that? That's just one crypt that's just one thing. But it's it's been in play for much longer than I even like to think about, right.
Right, So anyway, all of these things aside, and we've talked about, you know, how some of this works and how some of this doesn't work, which is always the most fascinating part about the things you write. I love that you know it's not all about the success of the operation and literally building on the legend of the boogeyman CIA. Okay, that's not what Larry Hancock does in his writing. It's not let me create the monster, let me make it more nefarious, let me make it more imposing,
let it cast a larger shadow. You don't do that, you you know, the way you do this. This is why I love your writing actually, because it's always sober, and I don't mean sober to the point of holy crap, these people are boring as hell because there's so I mean, it's sober in the way it needs to be. This is the way that these things need to be examined.
So I know I took us off track a little bit, and I apologize, but I think it was worth it to go through and kind of let people examine this along with us and consider what it is we're dealing with here. Okay, so let's bring it all the way back around. Let's try and wrap a bow on it. Larry, what do you think?
Yeah, I think what I'd like to get out of these two sessions the one we did last week in this is that the good news for us anybody that's looking into this, is this is history, and good or bad, we have learned so much about the history of the last several decades that a lot of things that were totally mysterious, that were totally classified at the time, we've the efforts of the research community in Toto, regardless of how many directions we've stumbled off in, have documented a
huge amount of American history, and we should be able to take credit for that, how the CIA operates, how the FBI operated. They don't write books and publish them all. A couple of their former employees have done that. But we now understand a lot of things that were totally mysterious to us when they were happening and decades afterwards, and we ought to be able to take credit for that. But we also need to get past the point that
it's all mysterious, because it isn't anymore. We really do understand their practices, and we have a great knowledge for how they operated then versus how they operated now. We ought to be able to profit from that and not leave it as all mysterious, right.
And I mean along the way again, I think it's relative relatively necessary excuse me for that, uh, to recognize that, you know, there is a time when we're going to have to wrap up and clear away a lot of the clutter that mystery the legend, like I'm saying that it's built around these things. Oh, you are right, and that was me.
I dropped a bottle, Oh my goodness, by it soda.
But we won't go there, no problem, that's your business. But anyway, is Larry completely sober. He's dropping his bottle over there.
Oh yeah, we were just talking about being sober, weren't we were. Maybe that's too much, too dull, but anyway, but anyhow so, but the other thing I'd like to wrap it up is that, And one of the reasons I wrote in Denial is I don't know that we have even to this day, gotten over the lessons that we should be learning in terms that actually telling the
truth is more efficacious. We're just doing it is more ficacious doing things that where you fool yourself, that you can finess things or do things deniably, that always takes so much energy in so many levels, the complexity that just doing it to saying what you're doing and doing it is always more effective. And that's why in recent decades of history we've been outflanked so many times because we really just wrapped ourselves up in our own narrative
and nobody ever believed it. It's just so much more straight. It's not like we could ever did deniable action deniably never ever. Everybody everybody knew, but we haven't learned that lesson yet. In in current politics whatever, we just can't seem to get past that where a lot of our adversary nations just do it, and so so from that perspective, there are still lessons to be learned that are relevant today.
No, absolutely, And look even with the changing technologies and everything else, and the fact that the surveillance grid that can be created, manufactured, or intensified around any circumstance is literally super accessible. You don't need a guy to build gadgets anymore. To tap telephone lines or to discover the locations of individuals. You can literally track them, you know, from a satellite if you like. There's a lot of different things that are so much more evolved now. But again,
In Denials is a great book for this reason. In my mind, it's not the only reason. Larry's written a lot of great stuff and I'm looking extremely forward to and we're going to have to make a mention about Lancer before we're done. I've kept Larry a little longer than I wanted to, and I'm sorry about that, Larry. But we're going to finish here, you know, in just
a few moments. The thing is this, after all this stuff that's gone on, in some ways, it becomes better to work with an open source approach as opposed to creating these massive webs that you end up having to unravel to even get at the initial objective any longer. Over Complexity and oversimplification are two grand enemies of people
that wish to accomplish larger goals. That's the way I see it, That's what's laid out, and that's the lesson that our agencies, one way or another, are still having a very hard time learning, absorbing, submitting to and ultimately
that's the biggest problem. So in my mind, you're going to have to touch on some of this though at Lancer this year, even though you're gonna present through a video and I think there's gonna be a video of you and then David Boylan right along with you, and you're gonna kind of work together at Lancer, right.
Yeah, we're I've made myself available for one on ones remotely if necessary or if possible, But David and I will be presenting to doing a presentation and I'm just didn't disclose what we'll be talking about. We will be talking about Lee, Harvey Oswell and the FBI and New Orleans.
I'm totally picturing Larry being passed around on an iPad or something at a bar while we're having discussions after hours at the conference. Hey, somebody bring Larry over to my table.
Sounds good to me. I better stop up before we start that, though, I don't want to be left out entirely. Let's see a shiner bock. Okay, I'll get.
Some sounds good. Make sure, though, that you keep the camera up nice and high in case you have to take a you know, bathroom room break. Nobody needs to see that, so you know, because you're you're definitely not Jeffrey whatever his name was from CNN. Anyway, I'm making ridiculous jokes. I'm trying to have a little fun with it. Hopefully you guys have learned a bit of something out
of this and learn to consider things. See people wave around documentation, and people wave around terminologies that they picked up by examining documation. Documation. That's a good one documentation. They'll tell you, Look, we learned this because this agency was doing that, et cetera, et cetera. Here's the key, right, the olds shaking around the piece of paper, and probably there's nothing written on a trick in a lot of
cases right when people make presentations. But the truth is that you need to be very considerate about how these operations ran, what was memorialized, and what is the truth about What you'll be able to glean from what remains long after the operation is complete, whether it was successful or not, or whether it was a complete failure. Well that is for history to judge, if history is ever informed. So there you go, Larry, anything you want to, you know,
hit people two about this. I mean, well, we'll try and have another talk or to excuse me before Dallas.
But I think I think this, well, this pretty much covers the practices, so I'm pretty comfortable with that. Now we can move on to other areas. But now I think I think we told the story pretty well, and these two together. If people thought the CIA was mysterious, hopefully we resolve some of that covert yeah, clandestine, Yeah okay, but no longer that mysterious.
And I think people need to adjust their interpretations. You know, the big spooky CIA is not responsible for everything. You know, It's almost like everybody thinks or I get into little groups of people on occasion where everything from the fact that their cell phone call dropped to you know, to their neighbor got into a car accident might have something to do with the CIA, you know, because they're researching something. I mean, I've heard people said, do you.
Give me a thought for wrapping it up? Though that might be interesting, it's not like the CIA wasn't interested in promoting that view anyway. And one of the books I write about the fact that their very first overseas operation that was hugely successful was a coup in ron, Okay. We now know all about that coup and why it succeeded, and the fact that the CIA had nothing to do
with it, and actually their planned coup totally failed. But after what happened, more or less by coincidence that they had nothing to do with, the CIA managed to generate its own story that got and released it to the press talking about how they had done such a wonderful job, and Alan Dalles that had secret meetings with Shaw's representatives in Switzerland, and so the stories from the very beginning, THEA is determined it would create this impression of its
own infallibility, make itself mysterious and always successful. So one thing that we could attribute to them is what a lot of this infallibility and mystery didn't come from their actual actions that came from their pr.
Yeah, it's the legend. It's the legend, you know. And that's the thing about it, just like ch That's why I didn't object to that book title for the Oswald thing at one time, where somebody called it legend. But we now know about the motivations. Let's say that author a little more than we used to. But the thing is, that's what made sense, is that it was the legend that was being generated. And today, you know, like I make the joke all the time, Lee rby Oswald, who
will cover next time? Maybe you know, he goes everywhere across the spectrum from a full, a complete foal who's out playing games that he has no idea about. He's like the seven year old playing pretend fireman, okay to some people. To others, he's James Bond, you know. And you know what I'm saying. And it's based on the legends,
positive or negative one way or another. It swings both ways, and it ends up out there both ways without people ever really giving context and real world connection to a human being that lived to be twenty four years old, that had an interesting life. But then again, you know what did I say before we started the show. You know, sometimes you have plans and other times plans have you Anyway, that's my food for thought.
Larry's sitting there down that earlier check. We might have used the quote in the book. I'm sorry, the manuscript is are already at the publishers. What can I say?
Well, if you need a blurb, I'll work on one for you.
About that, Okay, we'll work on.
That anyway, Larry Hancock, everybody go over to Larry dash Handcock dot com. I kept him way longer than I wanted to. My apologies, Larry. It's been a weird week for me, recovering from an injury and such. But but hey, it is what it is, and again life goes on. But go to Larry dash Handcock dot com, and once again I want to remind you that we're both involved. I'll be there in person, Larry'll be there remotely at the Lancer Conference twenty second to the twenty fourth of
November in Dallas, Texas at the at the Marriott there. Anyway, All that information will be in with the show notes, including links to Larry's blog, Larry's website, you know a couple of his books. All that plus all the lanswer information and you can get a ten percent discount I think on all your tickets one way or another ten percent off if you use the code o'celly ten at
Assassinationconference dot com. But again it's all linked in the show notes, and Larry, anything you want to throw at us before I check us off for the day.
Now, I think I'm good. It was fun as usual.
Excellent well, always happy to talk to Larry Hancock, and always happy to talk to all of you, because after all, I am merely o'celly. All of you are the effect. Good night.
In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay and Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not.
Learn from it.
It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light.
In Denial, secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com.
In digital or physical.
Revelation through conversation? 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.
Like like, like pernet like.
Oh Chilli dot com?
Go ahead?
The truth about the JAFA.
Assassination Right, Well, what do you want to know?
Baker's wild claim Oswell, girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry cancer weapons.
Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
But okay, Oswald was on the JILD and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now, has a real effort on the day of hay Assassinationlaim.
Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself signed if you request it by contracting doctor Brown at k I as jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith very Baker in her own words.
Thank you for all the great information.
Well so you've expressed, like caller Schools or anyone else allowed us to get on the air of jelly dot com. If you not necessarily reflect the views little Jelly dot com or Jocko Chilly and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which might have student Thank you.
This world get you down? Are you living you bliss diet of therapies that don't offer you any real direction or answers? Did you know that Maria does personal life coaching sessions? Save thousands of therapy dollars and get the direction and answers. You need to live an authentic life based on your own personal blueprint for this life. All this typically in just one private session with Maria. I'm
countless hours on a couch. Maria, come on, minds her professional experience, life experience, and her heredity into what it gives to get you back on track. Email Maria today for an appointment at Maria at Maria dot net. That's m E r i A at m E r i a dot net. Get on with the best life you
can possibly have. Check out the other side of this happy, loving, passionate woman at www dot Maria Heller dot com and amvail yourself the best coaching around, all in the privacy of your home via the telephone.
Gift yourself with yourself.
Make an appointment today, right Maria at Maria dot net.
Uncle, do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret society was going to dispatch ninja's to take down the Illuminati?
Ooh, that's interesting, Yeah and the Claton?
Yeah?
Did that ever work out too good?
No?
At didn't did it? But here on o'chelly dot com Radio network, things work out a bit better, don't they much better?
Much and understanding about the programs, the programs, how much clear getting live people into it. They really have a good conversation going much better, so much better scene.
I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninches and listen to the o'chelly dot com radio network.
I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk and I like that idea.
Call yo, yo, This Doug Campbell, host of the Dallas Action podcast presented by Wall Street Window, and you are listening to the o'chill effect revelation through conversation, go ahead.
Calling the truth about the JAFA assassination.
Right, Well, what do you want to know?
Judy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry hanswer weapons?
Really? I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon.
But okaywal was on the building and trying to event the leader of John Kennedy Come on now has a real effort on the daya assassination ream.
Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get judith Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I A s JFK at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith Ary Baker in her own words.
Thank you for all the great information.