The Ochelli Effect 10-29-2025 Larry Hancock

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
I read.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
October twenty nine, twenty five, allegedly according to that thing
we call a calendar, This the o'celly effect. You catching
it because most likely you got it on the podcast feed.
But we are live on a Wednesday, Wolden's Day, middle
of a week, all that good stuff. Yeah, hump day,
some people say, But I don't know. I'm disinterested, so

(00:33):
I'm not all about the hump day thing. I don't
even know what that's about, except I guess it's the
hump in the middle of the week or whatever. But
that's not what I'm here to talk about tonight. I
got Larry Hancock with me, okay, and I'm more than
happy we might get another chance to hear from Larry.
I'm hoping that we pull off this Halloween special on Friday,

(00:55):
where Larry said he would drop in briefly and probably
you'll give a quick summary about well, part of what
we're going to talk about tonight on that show, along
with a bunch of other people that are scheduled. But
let's see what happens, because so far, I can't get
somebody to understand the difference between no, I can't call you,
you got to call me and a few other issues

(01:17):
regarding communication that day. But we'll see, we'll see if
I can sort it by then worse comes to worst,
we'll do something about you know, hey, the lead up
to Lancer on Friday and let you guys know a
little more about it. Then of course that's going to
be the twenty first to the twenty third, you know,
in Dallas, Texas. And if you go to Assassination Conference

(01:39):
dot com, whether you're planning on attending in person or
virtually Assassinationconference dot com, you can sign up there and
if you want ten percent off, use the code o'elly ten. Okay,
so that's my name, o'ceelly and ten the number ten
one zero okay, not not the nuts, don't spell it,

(02:01):
so O'Kelly and one zero o'celly ten. You get ten
percent off from the conference whatever it is you're deciding
to attend or get. And if you use most browsers,
although not on Firefox, if you use most browsers, you'll
be able to download the videos and keep them too.
Uh So, just so you know, that's the way it is.

(02:23):
And hopefully everything is all good by then. But I
should be traveling in a couple of weeks and we're
going to take some time off anyway. Until then, Larryhncock
is with me, larrydash Hancock dot com. Go over there
follow his blog Larry Hyphenhancock dot com. However you want
to put it, and I'll there's links in the show notes.

(02:45):
By the way, if you don't listen to what I'm
saying and don't want to type it out, click on
it larrydash Handcock dot com. And yeah, you can also
read about his books and his blogs. And you recently
blogged actually about something in the past day or so,
I think, and might be what we're discussing tonight, Larry,
But then again who knows. So first of all, how

(03:07):
are you doing, sir?

Speaker 1 (03:12):
I'm doing as you'd say.

Speaker 3 (03:14):
I am blogging again, probably be a little bit more
active blogging now that we're with the Now that we've
finished our we finished our presentation for the Lancer conference,
so David and I have kind of we might have
some time to go back and blog, which that really
doesn't seem like a pad for months.

Speaker 2 (03:38):
So just so everybody knows, there's a little little issue
with teams and we might might have a little bit
of an odd exchange here and there, just so everybody knows.
I don't know, I might change that up with Larry
in the near future. But he's working with David Boyland
b O Y L A N. Who is his co
author on the Oswald Puzzle, and those two together we'll
be making a presentation virtual at the Lancer conference, uh

(04:02):
you know again the twenty first of the twenty third
in Dallas, Texas in November. So November in Dallas and
all that good stuff at the Lancer conference. Anyway, So Larry,
what what exactly? What's the title of that blog? I
don't have it in front of me or anything, and
I'm just gonna mute up and listen to you talk
about it.

Speaker 4 (04:20):
It's a WordPress blog and the title for for the
this evening was the post I made this morning was
the Devil and the Details and and.

Speaker 3 (04:31):
Basically it's a it's a discussion of how even my
anger in coming out with the document released those things
you know, from a personnel file, not operational files that
can can really change our perspective and kind of take
us out of the box.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
Depending on what.

Speaker 5 (04:54):
We know now. And yeah, h h it, yeah, it's all.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
Decades of dealing with kil.

Speaker 3 (05:10):
If we had seen it twenty years ago, we probably
wouldn't have understood it or appreciated it. But the world
has changed and now we have so much more contact
than we had had.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
That h.

Speaker 3 (05:39):
What uh how information comes together? But it was a speculation.
Now at the point, we're at the point we're going
to actually trace it in the documents.

Speaker 2 (05:52):
Mhmm. Okay, I am okay. I'm gonna take a quick
break here and see if I can't straighten things out
real fast and get hooked back up with Larry. Let's
just see if this is my problem over here or what,

(06:12):
and hopefully we'll be able to continue this here on
a Wednesday, o Chelli effects stick.

Speaker 6 (06:17):
Around Otilly dot com.

Speaker 7 (07:17):
Do you like history, Real history that you were never
taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and
Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War,

(07:37):
Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike.

Speaker 8 (07:50):
Swanson, the dot Com Radio Network were were.

Speaker 9 (08:55):
In Denial the Secret Wars with air Strikes and Tanks
by Lairry Hancock. 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.

Speaker 10 (09:12):
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 Larry Hancock.

(09:37):
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.

Speaker 7 (09:46):
Revelation through conversation.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
To the effect, Sure through conversation.

Speaker 11 (10:03):
The time, postop your lives, show fact revelation, conaba, I'm
a devastation. Revelation through conversation the effect you are the effect.

Speaker 7 (10:24):
Listen to conversation all.

Speaker 11 (10:27):
Lay demonstrator, I'll tell you effect. Relasten conversation season through conversation,
Oh shall effect revelations consation gone, had forgotten what's show?
The effect beyond display of lass and fears are the shape.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
And the mid of years. Find the shot, find.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
Me afraid and that is not a three decay not
charge with scroll. I am the master of of my face.

Speaker 8 (11:03):
I am the chat of my soul.

Speaker 9 (11:07):
Un fact revelation.

Speaker 8 (11:11):
Protection propaganda.

Speaker 7 (11:12):
Horse continued cashing in teachers about religion, keeping score at home.

Speaker 11 (11:20):
People you'd like to see eaten by wolves, miss dropped,
dying soon. The tangles are Tago taps and his continued golf.

Speaker 5 (11:26):
Storming tour him.

Speaker 7 (11:27):
When he streak, he says God sparred him and decided
a firefighter dies.

Speaker 5 (11:32):
In the.

Speaker 11 (11:34):
Revelation conversation.

Speaker 9 (11:38):
Affect, you are the effect, You are the effect.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Revelation to conversations are.

Speaker 2 (11:56):
Okay, rejoining the Ocelli effect live and hopefully you're still
with us now. It might be the Microsoft teams just
had a nasty, nasty network issue, So Larry and I
have moved to an alternative form of communication and you're
hearing it live. So sorry about the broken up audio
on everybody, and also frustrating Larry while he's trying to speak,
but here we are back at it anyway, Larry again,

(12:20):
I'm gonna shut up and lets you talk about your
blog and let's begin from there again, because things got
a little robotic sounding and I'd rather hear your voice, Larry,
and let you explain yourself. So, like I said, you know,
based partially on what's going on regarding the presentation. We
already covered that, David Boyl and of course you're co

(12:42):
author on the Oswalt puzzle. Both of you will be
doing that. But yeah, talk to us about the blog.
You're getting more active lately, et cetera. That's kind of
where we left off.

Speaker 3 (12:54):
Yeah, basically, the blog post called Devil the Devil is
in the Details kind of introduces my thoughts on the
fact that we're now at a point, after several decades
of what i'd call grant work, of being able to
take even small details and look at them and say,
you know, does this challenge the assumptions that we've been making,

(13:17):
Does it challenge our ideas, or does it take us further?

Speaker 1 (13:21):
A lot of things. Everybody who's been in.

Speaker 3 (13:23):
For this for decades knows a lot of what we've
discussed has been speculation, you know, things that were intuitive,
that were logical, bits and pieces that seem like they
should come together, but we didn't have the connective tissue.
But some of the details that are emerging are giving
that the connective tissue to us where we can actually

(13:45):
follow things and go, oh, this is not just speculation anymore.
We thought people at Miami station knew about.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
Lee Harvey Osco. In fact, we thought, you know, we
weren't sure.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
We were sure that somebody there knew about Lee Harvey
Oswald and didn't talk about Le osweo Harvey Oswell after
the assassination. Now we can trace through to the point
and based on David's a lot of David's workers saying, yeah,
we can follow the the iMOS, We can follow the

(14:21):
DRE communications. We can see eight people at Miami Base,
both than the Spacer's Cuba Project staff and and the
JM Wave Paramilitary Operation staff who were aware of Oswald,
who was being copied on Oswald, copied on Oswald because
of his connections to the Fair Play commit for Cuba Committee,

(14:43):
his connections and engagement with a DRE.

Speaker 1 (14:46):
You know, we can verify that people were well.

Speaker 3 (14:49):
Maybe maybe joint edies just didn't pass information on the
Cuban stole them and he kept it, and so now
we know the same information was coming from the FBI.

Speaker 1 (14:58):
Okay, so we can connect a lot of these things.

Speaker 2 (15:01):
Yea, let me interrupt you for a moment, because it
sounds like a lot of little details coming together to
finally topple this the old adage, right when we used
to watch the television specials and we used to read,
you know, the brand new articles in the in the
earlier legacy media, not the stuff today where stuff blasts,
you know, instantaneously out there. You know, we're not getting

(15:24):
the instant Russian translation like we did, you know, from
the documents that were finally handed over.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
And this and that.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
In the days when you watched the television special and
government people would come on and say, look, I worked
in the government, and I can tell you unequivocally, we
had no idea about this loan nut. We knew nothing,
you know pretty much that that's what it was. And
it was almost left to an argument of is this
incompetence on their part that they didn't know about this guy,
or you know, is it something else. They would answer with,

(15:56):
we had no idea about him. We can't possibly keep
track of every loan. It's not a maya coopa. It's
just like a hey, what can you do? The world's
a dangerous place? Right? I mean literally going into the
thesis that a Gerald Posner feeds us about this, right,
is that, oh, you know, these conspiracy theorist people, they
don't want to believe that, you know, some loser like

(16:18):
Oswald could actually pull this off. And hey, isn't it
crazy that the government even knew about this guy? I mean,
who is He's nobody. What you're telling me is that
we now have documentation that proves that all of that
was absolutely false, and that there were plenty of people
within different government structures who should have been, would have been,

(16:40):
and were well aware of Lee Harvey Oswald. And we're
actually looking at him for different reasons, from different angles,
different agencies, all coming together here. And what we have
again is further confirmation of that. Or am I reading
this wrong?

Speaker 1 (17:02):
No, that's exactly correct, and we can see the detail.

Speaker 3 (17:06):
I mean before I think you're right, they could claim, well,
you know, he just wasn't on our radar like David
Phillips did.

Speaker 1 (17:15):
Now he's a nobody, he's doing nothing.

Speaker 3 (17:18):
Why should we have been concerned about him, you know,
and kind of be take that position of well, it's
no big deal.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
He was no big deal. But when you go back
and look and you find the guy who was.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
The head of the Cuba desk at the FBI sending
a copy of the FBI's arrest report on Oswald of
his activities with the air fair Play for Cuba Committee
with his arrest for demonstrating, and the FBI fellow actually
is circulating a member that says, is this a national

(17:54):
security issue?

Speaker 1 (17:56):
You know, we know this guy's been enraged, this national
security issue.

Speaker 3 (18:00):
And Agent Hosty out of Dallas replies and starts giving
background information on Oswald in.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Dallas at the previous fall.

Speaker 3 (18:12):
Uh And that information is not only goes to the FBI,
but the FBI does this job and it passes it
on to counter intelligence at CIAD quarters, who pass it on.

Speaker 1 (18:23):
Down to Miami.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
And so this is we're looking to someone who the
FBI was concerned about, is what he's doing this summer
and national security issue, and we're sharing that with everybody.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
So it's it's not just somebody, it's somebody who is.

Speaker 3 (18:41):
Interacting with the fair Play for Cuba Committee, who has
been designated as a subversive organization. And also there's there's
every reason that this should have been passed to counter
intelligence at headquarters and the people who are dealing with
the fair play for Cuba may and so they were

(19:01):
doing their job before, as you said, maybe pleading ignorants,
and we're supposed to think that they weren't really doing
their day jobs.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
Now we know they were, and they were doing them
for multiple directions.

Speaker 3 (19:15):
And these people are getting information from the FBI, and
they're also getting it through their own assets at the DRE,
the Student Revolutionary Committee from New Orleans.

Speaker 1 (19:28):
And one of the things that David and I began to.

Speaker 3 (19:31):
Explore is that the CIA had a lot of assets
in New Orleans and they actually had a spotter project
in New Orleans to identify individuals who might be Castro agents,
Castro supporters. There's this whole network in place to capture
information about exactly who and what OSWA was doing. So

(19:56):
they should have had that information and they did, which
is perhap that's the shocking thing, and nobody admitted.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
It right now. Perhaps David has focused on this more,
but I'm going to ask you the question. Anyway, they
also were likely to know that his fair Play for
Cuba Committee chapter that he was out there representing publicly
and also ended up getting you know, we all know
about the radio interviews and all that stuff and the

(20:23):
TV footage when he's out there doing that, these people
should have also known that he didn't have a legitimate chapter.
Even so he's out there independently hawking the fair Play
for Cuba Committee without even actually creating a chapter and
running it, which he could have done. And even the
fair Play for Cuba Committee people, you know, they had

(20:45):
been contacted or whatever at some point, but he never
had a legitimate chapter. So you're right, or did we
learn something else here? Because to me, this is like
a bigger red flag, even because he's independently doing that
as a pro Castro publicly pro Castro agent on the
streets in New Orleans, which of course leads to the

(21:08):
you know, the public scuffle let's call it, with bereng
gear and all that, the arrest, he gets fined, I mean,
and that gives him notoriety. There's no way that they
didn't catch that situation and know that he doesn't have
a legitimate chapter and that he's literally volunteering on his own,
like we learned later that he actually hired people to

(21:30):
go out and help him hand out the leaflets, right,
I mean, this is something that should have gotten noticed
and definitely did. Sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (21:42):
This is another point of where the devil is in
the details, and this time the detail is the chronology.
Even though and you've got to really dig in at
exact dates on this, which David is great at.

Speaker 5 (21:56):
Even though.

Speaker 3 (21:58):
The FBI I was advising, you know, of his arrest
and of his fpc C connections. Even though they were
advising certain people at the CIA about that, the CI
was not really going back and asking for any details,
which is a rather fascinating thing because we have a

(22:20):
lot of message traffic that is going into CIA from
FBI on him and nothing going back to which quite unusual.
And as far as what you just pointed out, actually,
even the FBI itself, and I've seen the documents, where
they did not realize that Oswell was scamming them four

(22:43):
weeks they actually actively started to investigate Hidel and not Oswell.
By that matter, They didn't you'd think they would jump
all over Oswell, but they started investigating and looking for
this This highdel person going to their sources. And it
was not until just about the time that Oswell actually

(23:04):
left New Orleans that the FBI began to, I think,
get suspicious. And there's a memo saying and now we
think that this Oswald and Heidel may.

Speaker 1 (23:14):
Have been the same person. But it took them weeks
to get there.

Speaker 3 (23:18):
And so there was a period of time when Oswald
when when nobody knew that that was a bogus chapter,
when nobody knew that there was no real high tell that.
That's one of the reasons that David and I have
pointed out that according to standard FBI practice, Oswald should
have been treated as a provincial provisional subversive informant because

(23:42):
he went to the FBI and volunteered them information on
this way you might call a cell within the FPCC
and I there's there are a lot of good reasons
to think that they may.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
Have actually had him on the leash.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
Uh and later actually covered that up, explaining why Deburius
was giving presidential approval not to answer all the questions.

Speaker 1 (24:08):
That were asked of him.

Speaker 3 (24:11):
You know, the FBI, No, the FBI really didn't know
for some time what the real deal was with Hydell.
They were suspicious of this connection, but they didn't know
ideal Hydell and Oswa were the same person.

Speaker 5 (24:26):
It.

Speaker 3 (24:26):
Strangely enough, we don't even see that until we get
to November twenty second, when one hundred and twelfth Military
Intelligence Group, who's been copied by the FBI, comes up
with a document that's from New Orleans from the FBI
that says, oh, now we think this highdel person might

(24:48):
have been this Lee Harvey Oswell person. So if you
see the name Hidel, maybe it means Oswald. So again,
if you don't, if you don't have a really strict
chronology on this stuff, you get trapped as to who
knew what win Well.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
And this is very important because he was representing Hydell
as like the head of that cell, the head of
that chapter. And he was meanwhile advertised as what the
treasurer uh, which is like, you know, a secondary I'm
not the leader of this, I'm just the treasurer uh,
you know. So therefore I'm in charge of figuring out

(25:25):
how we're gonna spend money on coffee when we get together,
uh whatever, or we're gonna spend money on you know,
flyers and whatnot. But but that's what he's figuring out,
and he's doing that publicly, which is an interesting move.

Speaker 6 (25:38):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (25:39):
And and they hadn't caught up to the fact that
they're the same guy, uh until later and even you know,
in more of this, when they find out that it's
Hidel who ordered the rifles supposedly, uh, you know, and
everything else. I mean, this continues to be a problem,
but they weren't aware of it, is what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (25:58):
All the way up until the assassination, they hadn't figured
it out, although that military group said, hey, maybe it
is a little bit.

Speaker 3 (26:05):
Before that, the FBI guys and the FBI guys in
New Orleans thought they had it figured out. I would say,
you know, in set by the end of September early October,
one of the guys on the case is in a
memo is saying, we think it might be the same person.
And that's what ended up with military intelligence. There was

(26:27):
never any follow on. Here's a fascinating thing, Chuck, There
was never.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
Any follow on.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
There's never any follow on that says, oh, yeah, we
actually determined they are one of the same.

Speaker 1 (26:39):
And oh, by the way, we tracked oswell.

Speaker 3 (26:41):
Down and he talked about this because you know, he
lied to the FBI, and we usually don't have a
sense of humor about that. But when HOSTI is brought
back into this whole thing in Dallas because Oswell was
back in Dallas, there's no memo that says, jerk this
guy into the office and charge him, which is really strange.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
It's just like, you know, you might want to keep
back of him.

Speaker 3 (27:07):
But by the way, we think he lied to us,
and you know, lying to the FBI and New Orleans
translates in Dallas into looking up Marina at Ruth and
asking her or husband works. That's that's not standard FBI practice.
It seems to me there's got to be a real disconnect.

Speaker 1 (27:28):
Something's going on, right, and now.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
It looks a whole lot more reasonable. Why host he
got so angry because if you remember in the aftermath,
I mean, he was like, hey, don't stick me with
this problem, because look, my superiors are telling me to
do stuff. I mean, it's not just about the note
he destroyed, which you know, again is a problem. But
he's always claimed that he was told get rid of it,

(27:53):
but it seems like he was kind of told not
to pursue this in a way that he probably thought
was normal to pus do it all together, which is.

Speaker 3 (28:03):
You know, very standard, yeah, very standard stuff. Do a
pretext call, find this location? Not I mean, in any
other case, you might wonder why didn't they go ahead
and fly to Buries, down to Dallas and pull Oswell
into a room, into an interview case and stay, why
do you lie to me?

Speaker 1 (28:24):
You know? And in the end, the strangest thing in
the world.

Speaker 3 (28:28):
Is if you track down the documents as to why
they supposedly closed out that lead.

Speaker 1 (28:33):
They closed it out because the.

Speaker 3 (28:34):
FBI called up the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and said,
do you have a chapter in New Orleans? And the
Fair Play for Cuba Committee wrote back and said, we don't.
And the FBI Headquarters file says, well they don't, so
we're good.

Speaker 1 (28:51):
That seems insane.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
There are all sorts of you know, you have to
wonder what's missing out of the file. Why is this
that'th so innocuous? Why what was there in New Orleans?
Did New Orleans make a major mistake and take Oswell
seriously and then become embarrassed by it? You know, because
we don't have the New Orleans files. We only have

(29:15):
what ended up at headquarters, which looks pretty routine. But
you know, you don't have a guy volunteer. The FBI
is always looking for.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
Sources, right, right, So this guy walks in after being.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
Arrested and volunteers as a source, and you just let
him go and never talk to him again, which is
according to the record what happened. But according to people
in New Orleans who said, oh, well we saw Hosweald
with FBI guys with you know, with government people, I'm
now inclined to believe.

Speaker 1 (29:50):
That they were right.

Speaker 3 (29:52):
And there was an interaction going on with Oswald after
his exchange after being arrested that the FBI, if want
to put keep in the file.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
Right well cause? And was it about the post assassination
embarrassment or was it about embarrassment before that. That's another
question because like like I said, look, you you could
almost chalk this up to well, look, the FBI was
aware of the guy and they dropped the ball, so
it makes sense that they don't want to really get
into it too much. But the weird thing again is

(30:27):
that all the follow up, I mean, I'm even thinking
to myself the tactic that the FBI and I don't
find it exactly to be, you know, an admirable tact
kick on their part. But one of the things that
they would have done to a guy like this is
probably put FBI guys at his workplace, you know, to
be obvious and get the you know, other workers and

(30:49):
the boss nervous about Hey, the FBI is looking into
this guy. Even they did stuff like that as a
matter of routine, especially then, and you would have thought
this guy is a perfect candidate for that, especially because
they find him lying. He's involved with these you know,
subversive organizations he's claiming and like you said, offers himself

(31:09):
up as a source and all this other stuff. I mean,
it's almost inconceivable that there weren't FBI guys that were
seen in his vicinity, even if they were there just
to sort of intimidate and just stand there all day
while he's working. Uh, that's the kind of crap they
would do. I mean, unless I'm reading this wrong again,
Uh that that why didn't that happen? Yeah? Good?

Speaker 1 (31:33):
Certainly not talking to him again.

Speaker 3 (31:36):
Having no apparent follow on contact for weeks until he
left New Orleans is strange, right, I mean.

Speaker 1 (31:44):
That's it's sort of like we don't. We don't go
to the apartment and say, has this high Dell guy
called you again? Have you been in touch with him again?
When's the next meeting.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
We'd like to kind of monitor this next meeting, tell
us when it's going to be.

Speaker 1 (32:00):
None of that happens. The other thing, and this is
kind of off off the rails a bit. The other
thing that doesn't.

Speaker 3 (32:07):
Happen, which when you get out of the box and
you begin to think about what should have happened. I mean,
Oswald is arrested after the Cubans rush up, and the
Cubans have have bounced him twice, they've interfered with two
of his leafleting things, and they've engaged with him on

(32:27):
the street, and they've gone to court. Yet he goes
on picketing. In fact, he goes on to have his
biggest protest outside the trademark and no Cubans show up,
not even counter pickets. Okay, we don't have to punch
the guy, but they were. They were very outgoing in

(32:48):
a servant that we don't even see any placards saying
this guy lies. Cuba's a prison. It's like hands off.
Nobody beats him up in an alley. This is a
violent time. There's a very very assertive, aggressive anti Castro
group and New Orleans enhancement. That's why the Fair Play
for Que Committee told him not to start a chapter

(33:10):
because it's actually even dangerous out there, and you're not
gonna They don't show up. It's like somebody called them off.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
And one begins to wonder, did deburaus talk to somebody?
Did he talk to Guy Banister?

Speaker 3 (33:24):
Did somebody say, hey, Oswald has given us some information
and we're watching things.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
Don't bother them.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
Well see, and there you go, because at a bare minimum,
guys would have been standing across the street yelling at
these guys handing out the fleaflets. Right, They would have
at least been don't take you know, like you see
in the JFK movie, don't take this people, it's communist propaganda.
You would have had guys standing, even if they were
trying to be not so confrontational or violent, they would

(33:51):
be standing across the street yelling at people that were
passing by, don't take that, hey, guy in the white shirt,
don't take that crap. It's communist crap. They would have
at least been in that you would have thought at
least a handful of those guys would have time to
show up, but they.

Speaker 3 (34:05):
Didn't, and they don't and they don't seem to, you know,
they thought enough of him at first to like do
their own bogus call on him and have somebody go
and try to you know, is he real is he
really support Cuba?

Speaker 1 (34:24):
What's going on?

Speaker 3 (34:25):
And then apparently he keeps on, He's going on the
media and nobody, nobody says anything or engages with him.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
In fact, when the FBI goes back to one of
the guys who was at.

Speaker 3 (34:37):
His hearing, Artes Marta says, I never heard of Oswald's
which is a risky thing to do to the FBI
because you've been filmed at his hearing.

Speaker 1 (34:49):
You know, if the FBI I had.

Speaker 3 (34:51):
Done their work, they would have gone back to Partiest
and said, where are you lying to us?

Speaker 1 (34:56):
What's going on? You know, what are you not telling us?

Speaker 3 (34:59):
So there are people lying all over the place and
not doing what you would expect them to be doing, right.

Speaker 2 (35:06):
Which leads you to believe that what is likely in
my mind is that they were directed to do so,
you know, is that somebody said, look, just deny it,
just walk away. Just let it be what it is,
because there's something happening here. You know, we have a
handle on this. In other words, so I would think
that that message might have gotten and look at the amount,

(35:27):
look at the different places that message could have been
coming from. Oh it's funny because now it seems like
we have documentation showing that those places where those kind
of words would have came from to these people were informed.
So you know, it leads to a logical conclusion that
the people that were working with the DRE said, listen,

(35:49):
leave them alone, right, The people that were CIA said
leave them alone. The people that were FBI said, look,
we have a handle on this already, leave them alone.
And thus they did. Or am I drawing the wrong
conclusion here? No, and we would.

Speaker 3 (36:05):
It would be understandable. It would be understandable. And by
the way, Chuck, are we still connected?

Speaker 2 (36:14):
Yes, yes, we're good.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
Okay, I got a strange blip and message. But anyway,
it would be understandable that.

Speaker 3 (36:21):
The FBI would take that position if they did consider
him as a potential source, right, if they were kind
of in the background, monitoring, waiting, waiting for a high
down meeting, waiting for whatever or talking to him. Uh
that would that would make some sense from the FBI's perspective. Uh, now,
it certainly doesn't make any spend. You know, you've read

(36:42):
Hosty's book and from hostings you it's sort of like
Oswell is not even a host He's not even heard
of Oswell until he gets this file on his desk
the day before the assassination, you know, just just days before.
Whereas now we know Hosty had been the guy who
had been asked by FBI headquarters to give them background

(37:04):
on Oswald in at the end of August and in
September when he becomes a potential national security question for headquarters.
So it's not like Hosty didn't know what was going
on in New Orleans either. So that's but anyway, so
the FBI, pursuing its own path and its own practices,

(37:25):
might have had a legitimate reason to keep hands off
for a while, at least. I don't quite understand why
that would last all the way up to the.

Speaker 1 (37:35):
Time of the assassination.

Speaker 3 (37:36):
But that the question is why would the CIA not
be responding, what would the why would the CIA know
about him and apparently not be interested in him because
their own group we know now, and we know that
the student director was reporting it to their case officer.

(37:57):
And you know, we know that the CIA was aware
that its own surrogates, its own people, had already started
to do propaganda around Oswald and would continue to do
that because.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
He was a perfect foil.

Speaker 3 (38:13):
I mean, he's the perfect mixture of you know, former
you know FBI, sorry from former marine, you know, young, naive, gullible,
the Cubans and the Communists have warped his war. He's
great propaganda vehicle. But suddenly the DR stops doing that

(38:35):
and everything goes silent.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
It's like, what's going on at the CIA level?

Speaker 3 (38:42):
Everybody we now know knows about him, But why don't
they engage with him. Why don't they get behind the
d R and support that effort, because that's what they're
paying the DR to do. Why you know, what's going on?
We see this silence to send all over all over
the not only headquarters in Miami. In fact, it's so

(39:05):
silent that when he goes to Mexico City and Mexico
City ask for information on him, nobody will share it.
So it's not silent because somebody's ignoring it or missed
the point. It's that a conscious decision was made not
to share it. And as Bill Simpacz pointed out, somebody

(39:26):
already pulled his two oh one and made a SAFT
file and cleaned it out for some purpose. Okay, And
they just did that that fall. So there is something
active going on with the CIA. Also, it's not just ignorance.
It's not just doing their job. They're doing their job,

(39:47):
and actually they're doing a job that they don't want
to explain later after the assassination.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
Well, right, because here's the thing again, the two you know,
most likely explanations are that either he's useless as you know,
an asset for whatever purpose, or he is useful, and
therefore they don't want to admit that they had, you know,
hands on him pretty much and should have known what
he was doing. So, you know, one way or the other,

(40:15):
they don't want to cop to that and say, look,
we knew about him, We knew all about him, because
whether he's their guy or not, you know, here we go,
So you knew about the guy who killed the president, right,
how come you didn't know that he was going to
do that? You know, it's it's it's so much, it's

(40:36):
it's it's crazy because again, this was speculating about for
a long time and now we have, you know, solid
proof that no, you can't claim ignorance, you can't claim well,
we didn't know, he was just some loser, you know, again,
totally destroying Daryl Posner's whole gig pretty much when he
shows up on media and goes, oh, you know, people

(40:56):
just don't want to admit that this guy, you didn't
really matter to anybody, you know, pulled this off. That's
his whole thing, right, I mean, that's why nobody wants
to accept his book. That's why nobody wants to accept
the low nut solution, because we just don't want to
accept that there's nobody did this and he says it
today even I mean, he's been doing this for thirty

(41:19):
years now, right, I mean, what do you do with this?
This is the narrative falling apart, is what it is.

Speaker 3 (41:27):
The narrative falls apart, and I think what it does
is open the doors for us, because that's what my
blog post was about, is so we have made a
box for ourselves of what we thought was going on
with Oswald. Now Posner and others tried to make a
box for us and force us in it.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
But we've made a bit of a box ourselves.

Speaker 3 (41:48):
By making assumptions before we really understood how these agencies
operated on a daily basis, before we had these documents
that showed who was sharing information with who.

Speaker 1 (42:04):
You know, we made a lot of We not that
these were bad assumptions.

Speaker 3 (42:10):
It's kind of like you did the best you could
with what you had at the time. But we've got
We've got a lot more now, and we should be
opening up a lot more doors.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
For example, and.

Speaker 3 (42:21):
If if I, if I were, you know, able to
give Representative Luna list, I would say, you know, if
I were asking for documents for the see from the
CIA from nineteen sixty three, I would want to know
about all of the propaganda operations that the Cuba Project

(42:43):
was doing that might have involved like Harvey Oswald, not
necessarily personally, but by name, because as it turns out,
we now know that half of their budget was going
to propaganda and political action, and we have no documents

(43:04):
on any of that. We know everything there is to
know about their paramilitary operations, sabotage missions, you know, second
Naval Gorilla and what we know about all those guys
down in the Keys and what they were doing, right,
but we know nothing about what the other staffers were doing,

(43:24):
people like Tilton and folks that David has discovered that
are now names to us.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
That we didn't even know about before.

Speaker 3 (43:33):
What were they doing because they would have been the
ones who OSWA would have been of interest to.

Speaker 2 (43:39):
So what we're what we're missing here in those documents? Yeah,
So what we're missing here from the entire anti Cuban operation,
the anti Castro excuse me not anti Cuban, anti Castro
operation focusing on Cuba, is where's the propaganda stuff? Because
clearly there had to be that there was a public

(44:00):
you know, thing going on there regardless of all this
stuff we're learning about that you know clearly wouldn't have
been in the public's view. There was clearly public operations
that were happening to get people to say, look, it's
just a communist thing. You know, they're nothing but a
Russian puppet. That's it. You know, Castro is a dictator.
I mean to continuously put that across in the media,

(44:24):
in the public's consciousness, to make it just a given point.
I mean, you have a propaganda operation obviously in you know,
in in full view, and clearly Oswald is also in
full view. He's doing his thing. So is it part
of it or is it something that they're working against?
And we now know that they were fully aware of them.

(44:46):
So where is that stuff? Where is the propaganda operation
that touches upon this character? I mean, is that what
we're getting to here?

Speaker 1 (44:56):
Yeah, and we know we have the connective tissue, and
this kind of amazes me.

Speaker 3 (45:01):
It's one of the things moving moving me out of
my box is between what Bill Simpitch has done and
what Dave has done. As I mentioned earlier, the FBI
was providing all sorts of information of the CIA, which
is kind of funny because the FBI, you know, we
always say they don't share anything with anybody.

Speaker 1 (45:21):
Well, actually they.

Speaker 3 (45:22):
Were sharing Lee Harvey Ossel with the CIA, not everything,
and the CIA wasn't asking for much.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
But one of the things that we found going back from.

Speaker 3 (45:32):
The CIA to the FBI is the CIA sends a
memo to the guy who's at the FBI Cuba ask
and says, hey, we're in September, We're about to launch
this new black propaganda project against the FPCC, and we're
going to do this internationally and we need to actually,

(45:54):
we need to help you to help us, because you've
got a source inside the FPCC. We need copies of
correspondence letters to the FPCC, responses names, you know, because
we're going to make up a bunch of bad stuff
about the FPCC and start planning it overseas in Central

(46:16):
America Caribbean where they still had FPC still had a voice,
because there was a lot more support for Cuba, and
that's where we're going to.

Speaker 1 (46:24):
Wage our propaganda war.

Speaker 3 (46:26):
So we'd like for you to provide us with some
stuff from your source, you know, that we can use
in this mission, because we're launching this new project. Right
and that's the last we hear of it. Not a
single follow on document from the special staff about what

(46:46):
the project was, what it involved. But what we do
know is that they're the asset that the FBI turned to,
was the one who passed on the correspondence who had
been corresponding with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Speaker 2 (47:04):
So meanwhile, and it makes perfect.

Speaker 3 (47:07):
That Lee Harvey Oswell comes up again. Oh we just
heard of Lee Harvey Oswell and the FPCC. Oh, and
here we have correspondents from Lee Harvey Oswell, Lee, if
you know, maybe we should use this buy in the
propaganda project.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
Well, at the very least, Look, if he's an informant,
then he's useful in that project. And if he's an
informant who is not going to be cooperative, then he's still,
guess what, useful in that project. So either way, no
matter what his orientation is, he's useful. This isn't the
only thing you're going to be discussing at Lancer though, right.
I mean, there's there's a lot more stuff that you

(47:43):
guys are going to go into.

Speaker 1 (47:45):
Uh. Yeah, there's a lot more. There's a lot more detail,
of course of who knows what.

Speaker 3 (47:51):
But I think two of the key things we'll be
discussing is what the FBI knew and might have been
doing with Oswald and acknowledge, what the CIA knew and
might have been doing with Oswald and dignity acknowledge. But
there is other information that's coming available, for example, but

(48:12):
you know, we're not going to have time to cover
all of that. There is information as to that develops
from this, as to who else might have known about
Oswald that could have pulled them into a conspiracy and
started to manage them because you've got to take trace
those trails to Jmwave and Miami Base as well and
the Cuban community there. The other thing that comes up

(48:35):
that I brought up in the bog post is we
now know from some of the information that's just been
released after, you know, making us take another look at it,
that the Castro assassination project, which involved JMWAVE staff paramilitary staff,
which was referred specifically to by Harvey as ZR Rifle

(48:58):
slash em I for Miami Station, was very much alive
and operational and didn't get canceled out and was still
a very very going.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
Thing up to the time of the assassination.

Speaker 3 (49:13):
We have no records on it, and one of the
things that's becoming a real question is was it so
strictly compartmentalized that nobody, even Fitzgerald, the head of Special
Affair staff, was aware of it.

Speaker 1 (49:29):
Harvey may have been running this bottom line chucked to
a nutshell.

Speaker 3 (49:35):
At the point is Bissell had given Harvey the task
to set up an executive assassination program. Harvey had been
removed and Helms allowed that to continue, and Helms allowed
it to be funded, but there's no sign that anybody
ever told Fitzgerald about it. And Fitzgerald launched his own

(49:59):
Castro assassination project with Coebella, and so you may very
well have had to completely compartmentalized assassination projects running at
the same time through some of the same people, and
we never heard.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
About that either.

Speaker 3 (50:19):
There's just a lot that's that these bits of data there,
we didn't never really accepted that Harvey was running for
sure with the guys at JM Wave, the paramilitary staff
like Morales and Robertson Bradley errors that told us that,

(50:39):
but we had no proof of it. Now we find
a record of Harvey that says exactly that, and that's
where he was charging his expenses, right.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
And meanwhile we also have this other anomalist thing that
went on what we talked about regarding the you know,
the the FAA credentials and all these other things that
go on, which now you have to look at it
all differently based on the new information, right, I mean, anyway,
there's a lot to cover here, and clearly you're going
to get into it in depth as you and David

(51:11):
do this presentation, uh and and really show us a
lot of new stuff. And the funny thing is, look
the Oswald puzzle. It kind of almost seems like it
needs an addendum.

Speaker 3 (51:21):
Now, uh, you know that happens to me every time
I swear it's it's kind of it's great in a way,
and then you go, well, you know, how could you
Why did you put that in the first book?

Speaker 1 (51:33):
Well, because I didn't know it for the first edition.
What can I tell you?

Speaker 5 (51:36):
You know, we did.

Speaker 3 (51:37):
I did three editions, as somewhat have talked, and people went, well,
why did why'd you do three editions?

Speaker 1 (51:43):
Well, you know, you learn things over time. You didn't
know that, and it's the amazing.

Speaker 3 (51:49):
Thing is we're still learning things well news, which is
almost unbelievable this much later.

Speaker 2 (51:55):
Well, new stuff comes out all the time, and I'll
take it away from you on that. You know, so
it's not just you, but yeah, you have had to
add and you've done three versions off someone would have talked,
which I advise all of them are useful, but but
if you get the latest one, you get the most
complete because new stuff came out. But I always find
it funny when some people start saying things about like,
you know, the JFK movie with you know, Oliver Stone.

(52:17):
And they turn around and they go, how come you
didn't put this in the movie? And I look at
it and I go, guys, do you realize that that
stuff like came out after the movie? It came out
as a result of the boost that the movie gave
to the release the files movement. Like, so it's impossible

(52:38):
for Oliverstone to have put that in the movie. We
didn't have it yet. You know, this is new, so
you can't you know, you can't rewind. You can't go
back in your time machine and go, okay, now add
this to the movie. And if you did, you'd screw
things up badly because we didn't have it yet, you know.
I mean, you know you've heard that before where somebody

(53:00):
said it's kind of weird that he didn't put this
in the movie, and I go, yeah, he couldn't.

Speaker 3 (53:04):
Yeah, And it's tough because somebody will say, well, now
we know that what you had in your first edition
was wrong on this point.

Speaker 1 (53:13):
I'm like, yeah, we do, and I wish I could
edit it, but I do not have a time machine, right,
you know, That's just the way it is. Do you
do the basketball is what you have at the moment, right, and.

Speaker 2 (53:24):
This has contented. Look, and it has continued to evolve,
and there have been, you know, times of rapid evolution,
and there have been very slow years where things have
not gone on. I mean, it felt like forever waiting
to get to twenty seventeen, Larry, I got to tell you,
and I often talk about this because it was so
frustrating waiting to get to twenty seventeen. And then, of course,

(53:47):
you know, Trump comes in and everybody screaming at me,
you know that was happy about that. They say, oh, well,
he's definitely going to release everything, you know, and don't worry.
And I'm like, oh, no, guys, And I told everybody
in advance that I said, no, you're about to learn
a very very rough lesson because I'm telling you that,
no matter who's in that office, there is always a

(54:08):
reluctance to drop everything out there in the public's you know,
in the public's fingers. It's not going to happen. And
everybody thought, oh, you know, you're just a guy who
doesn't want to support Trump. So I'm like, no, it's
got nothing to do with Trump. I'm telling you that
they will not release all this stuff, even though we've
been waiting twenty five years, and we did. We waited

(54:31):
twenty five years to get to twenty seventeen, and a
lot of people forget that. And then when Trump did
what he did, and then they went, well, don't worry,
because we'll get another president there and he'll do it different.
And I shook my head again and said, no, guys, listen,
we are going to deal with the resistance still. I
promise you. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or

(54:52):
a publican, or it doesn't matter. The government doesn't want
to give us this stuff. Watch and learn and what
did Biden do? So, you know, and that's when the
lawsuit started with Mary Farrell and everything, and everybody went, oh,
we got to sue bide him because he was terrible.
And I'm like, guys, remember that whole Trump disappointment. It's

(55:14):
still gonna happen. So I got to say, at least
over this past you know, ten years, it's been interesting
to watch the evolution and to watch that, you know,
finally we do have a bunch of stuff that we
should have had about, you know, eight years ago or so,
you know, finally come out. And I'm glad I'm happy
for the progress. But anybody that thinks that, you know,

(55:37):
it's like flip a switch and it's all gonna come out,
you know, I just I always advise the caution against it, because, sadly,
this comes right back to the point that you made. Sadly,
as we write about these things and we analyze them,
we can only work with what we have. And true,
the new stuff will change that if there's anything new

(55:59):
in it, and sometimes there is. Yes, it's buried in
a lot of stuff. And you know this too, and
I just want to get your take on this and
then we'll just close it out. But a whole lot
of the many many, many, many many pages they come out, right,
and the many many, many many documents that come out,
a whole lot of this stuff. Yes we have seen

(56:21):
it before, but it takes somebody, and you're not going
to do it with an AI yet. It takes somebody
going through it and comparing what we had with what
we now see in order to figure out what's different,
just to begin to know what was added to the information.
And then once you do that, you got to take

(56:42):
it and put it into context. And that's what Larry does.
But again he can only work with what he has.
So you know, when was the first version of someone
would have talked. I'm embarrassed to say, I don't remember
what year it came out, but when was the first
version of that book published?

Speaker 1 (57:00):
It was two thousand and six, okay six, and it
came out. It came out as a as a well.

Speaker 3 (57:07):
I think actually two thousand and four was the very
first version, and it came out in a comb binding
in two thousand and six. Two years later we did
the hardcover, and then in twenty and ten we did
the soft cover. So it had that happened over period
of about six years, right for those three editions.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
So the initial thing you're talking about with the combinding,
that's like that plastic spiral stuff that you see sometimes
on that version. I saw those, but I don't have one.
I saw those and it was remarkable. It was interesting.
It was like a collection of exactly how far we
could have gone? Ready for this, guys around the fortieth anniversary,

(57:53):
Like Larry waited for the fortieth anniversary to come and
go and then drop that out there as like this
is how far we've got on and you know, now
we're past the sixtieth anniversary, okay, and hello, it's twenty
years later plus, and yeah, there's been new information. And

(58:16):
you know that is not the fault of a guy
like Larry Hancock or really anybody else that is you know,
doing their best to show you what is available. We
can only work with what we have at the time.
And as time has gone on, we've gotten more and
that's the important thing. And even if it's small stuff,
here we go. We're now filling in things and able

(58:38):
to you know, finally clear up any of these sorts
of you know, issues. Like I said before, for many years,
there was this argument in legacy media especially like you know, look,
this loser did this and there's no way that anybody
could have stopped him, and you know, and so on
and so forth. And we're on the other side going, yeah,

(59:00):
but he didn't really do it, you know, and they're going, look,
you don't want to accept it, because you know, that
whole argument has now been undermined. Even though they made
that argument for probably I don't know, those first forty
years pretty much, you know, I mean, they did it
well ahead of Posner. Posner was just the he's kind
of like the last survivor of that group from the

(59:21):
nineties that were introduced out there to counter you know,
the counter myth of you know, of Oliver Stones film
and the impact it made. And therefore we're still dealing
with the legacy of that because guess what, that's where
a lot of these documents came from the aftermath of that.

(59:42):
So anyway, Larry, anyway you want to close this out,
let's just do that and we may talk on Friday
briefly and we may get one more chance to talk
before Lancer. But really grateful that you took the time
to do this with us tonight. But anything you want
to say in closing the floor is yours.

Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
Yeah, I think, just to illustrate your last point, it's
come a higher level point.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Shock is at some point in time, we have to
learn that we're not going to be given all the
information we want, and we have to accept that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:15):
But we're also going to have to learn that we
can't necessarily trust all the denials. People should have said
things we now know they knew things that they should
have said. There should have been whistleblowers, there were not
at the time. That just didn't happen, and so people
like Posner and those folks should not be allowed to

(01:00:37):
get away with the premise that, well, if there'd been
something shady going on at any level, people would have
revealed that. Their consciousness would have been clear, they would
have shared that, and so we can really trust what
we're you know, we can trust their lack of information. Okay,
we don't have to question that there's nothing more in there,

(01:00:57):
or they would have told us.

Speaker 1 (01:00:59):
I kind of strikes me. It's like I interviewed the.

Speaker 3 (01:01:05):
News photographer video guy who had been in the sixty
four schoolbook depository on the sixty four after the assassination.
He saw the bullets being picked up, he saw them
being thrown down, he saw them being taken in, photographed
his evidence after they've been picked up and thrown down.

(01:01:26):
And I challenged him about that, and basically he said, yeah,
that's right. So the police, what's the photographic record regarding
to the halls, shellcaseinges, and the boxes. It's false because
they screwed up how they did it. The crime scene

(01:01:48):
guy didn't know what he was doing. He mishandled it
and they had to refilm all of that later. And
I said, well, okay, Tom, all right, And then he said,
but of course, all the other evident was good. So
it's like, Tom, you just told me that the Dallas
Police reconfigured crime scene evidence and it doesn't reflect the

(01:02:10):
true story. And then they swore that it was accurate.
Yet you trust everything else that they said, and he
said yeah, And so at that point in time, I
just paid for lunch and we walked away.

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
And it's like, wait a minute, no, you can't.

Speaker 3 (01:02:27):
If you can prove this part is false, you can't
just blithely accept everything else as being through.

Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
You're talking about Tom Olier, the guy who actually took
the film inside the uh, you know, the sixth floor
and threw his film out the window to get it
out to the team.

Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
Stay, we lost the connection.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me just double check.

Speaker 1 (01:02:47):
Here, Chuck, I think you went away.

Speaker 2 (01:02:48):
Here we are, here, we are. I got it. You're talking. Yeah,
you're talking about Tom Olier and Tom And what's amazing, guy,
what's amazing is this is the guy who is just
for the listeners. This is the guy who's responsible for
filming inside the sixth floor, you know, of the depository
and that black and white film of the alleged search

(01:03:10):
and everything. And he's the guy who you know legendarily
threw his film out the window to get it over
to the TV station. And it's a great piece of
film and everything. But when you learn that a lot
of things were photographed and staged afterwards, and then you go, okay, now,
I know I have staged photographs of the evidence being

(01:03:30):
laid down, but he's willing to accept the rest of it.
I mean, it's kind of funny because it negates all
those analyzes of, well, look at where the bullets are.
Did they actually you know, get ejected from the rifle
like this or that? Yeah, it doesn't really matter if
these guys just threw them back on the floor, okay,
because they've destroyed the crime scene. Now, okay, that's that's it.

(01:03:53):
It's over.

Speaker 3 (01:03:54):
And yeah, for all the boxes like that, if you
go to the Warrant Commission and you look at this
great layout and photographs of Oswalds shooting position right.

Speaker 1 (01:04:04):
And Tom told me, no, that box was not out
in the window like that. I thought it was not
out in the window like that.

Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
It's like they put it out it what you know,
it just made no sense whatsoever. Which so that's kind
of a you know, one of those moments when you go, oh, geez, okay,
I better, I better open the filter a little bit.
I can't take all of this is self evident, right.

Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
And here's the funny part about that is that metaphorically
it's perfect what you're bringing up because for years people said, look,
they're staring at photographs and film pieces and saying, the
boxes have been moved. Right, So people were doing that
from way outside with a blurry picture, going the boxes
have been moved. They're not in the same configuration they

(01:04:52):
were fifteen minutes ago, and people did studies on this,
and people were thought people were nuts. Why are you
studying the boxes? They're moving them, is why? Okay, they're
being moved. So this whole concept and even when you
go to look at the six floor Museum, I'm sorry
to say, you go to look at the six floor

(01:05:13):
Museum and they have, you know, the glass around the
sixth floor window with the boxes, and they go, okay, indeed,
those may be exactly the same kind of boxes that
were there in nineteen sixty three. They may even be
the boxes, but they're not configured correctly. They're not shown
because they were being moved around and people knew it

(01:05:36):
from outside the window with a blurry picture for years
and years, and remarkably, you could have heard from other people.
They could have blown the whistle, like you said, and said,
I saw these things move, I knew this, this happened,
and that happened. Well, why didn't you say anything? Well,
the rest of the evidence seemed good. So and that's that.

(01:05:57):
That explains a lot, doesn't.

Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
I'm going to trust everything else, The crime scene guy said, yeah,
And I tended to. I tended to give Tom some credibility.
And here's the reason, other than he was just being
sincere and adamant about it.

Speaker 1 (01:06:11):
But it was like he published on his.

Speaker 3 (01:06:14):
Own three different newsletters which I bought copies of, that
asserted the absolute truth of Oswald being the low nut shooter.
I mean, his whole point was to push back against
conspiracy people. Yet as part of that he was presenting
his own information, you know, undermining the evidence in custody

(01:06:37):
by the Dallas police. And so it's like I figured
he must be he must be sincere. If he's that
you know that bipolar.

Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
Well there you go, because why would you even undermine
your own case otherwise? So no, and I find that completely.

Speaker 12 (01:07:15):
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.

(01:07:38):
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 aren't 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

(01:08:00):
go to war anyway.

Speaker 8 (01:08:01):
The War State by Michael Swanson.

Speaker 12 (01:08:03):
Reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Ochelli Effect 10-29-2025 Larry Hancock

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

The Ochelli Effect 10-29-2025 Larry Hancock

On Purpose with Jay Shetty