The Ochelli Effect 7-15-2025 Larry Hancock

The Ochelli Effect 7-16-2025 Larry Hancock
Larry and Chuck discussed the National Security State and The Media.
The Recent Release of a C.I.A. file that has eluded Jefferson Morley for 20+ Years has finally been freed!
What will it lead to?

LARRY HANCOCK:
http://larry-hancock.com/
https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/
https://aarclibrary.org/larry-hancock-archive/

Oswald Puzzle: Reconsidering Lee Harvey Oswald 
https://www.amazon.com/Oswald-Puzzle-Reconsidering-Lee-Harvey/dp/1510783407

Media Reactions to Oswald-CIA Report: Story Reverberates Around the World
It took nine days for Axios' bombshell JFK assassination piece about CIA officer George Joannides to hit the Washington Post
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/media-reactions-to-oswald-cia-report?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=315632&post_id=168332032

---

BE THE EFFECT
OUR PAYPAL has been deactivated
Emergency help for Ochelli and The Network
Mrs.O
LUNA ROSA CANDLES
http://www.paypal.me/Kimberlysonn1
Still Fighting Them

Ochelli Link Tree
https://linktr.ee/chuckochelli

---

NOVEMBER IN DALLAS 
LANCER CONFERENCE
DISCOUNT FOR YOU
10 % OFF code = Ochelli10
https://assassinationconference.com/

Coming SOON Room Discount Details 

The Fairmont Dallas hotel 
1717 N Akard Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 
Easy access to Dealey Plaza


BE THE EFFECT
Listen/Chat on the Site
https://ochelli.com/listen-live/
TuneIn
http://tun.in/sfxkx
APPLE
https://music.apple.com/us/station/ochelli-com/ra.1461174708
Ochelli Link Tree
https://linktr.ee/chuckochelli
Anything is a blessing if you have the means

Without YOUR support we go silent.

---

NOVEMBER IN DALLAS 
LANCER CONFERENCE
DISCOUNT FOR YOU
10 % OFF code = Ochelli10
https://assassinationconference.com/

Coming SOON Room Discount Details 
The Fairmont Dallas hotel 
1717 N Akard Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 
easy access to Dealey Plaza

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Get get ready for July sixteenth, twenty twenty five, allegedly
according to that thing we call a calendar, this Woden's Day, Wednesday,
middle of the week, hump day, whatever you want to
call it. And we're doing a double live show on
the stream now, two completely diverse topics for sewer and

(00:31):
in the first hour we're gonna be talking to Larry Hancock.
Of course, go to larrydash Hancock dot com. If you
have listened to my show before, you're familiar, and you
should be familiar with the fact that I highly recommend
all of his books. But gotta tell you a special
place for not only things like in Denial and I
don't know, Creating Chaos and a few other things that

(00:52):
are oh so oh maybe not relevant to today's news,
right chuck, he said sarcastically as I read my own
parenthetical commentary. The thing is this, Larry's got a lot
to say, and he's usually ahead of the curve, and
I love that. Plus he's a responsible historian and if
you don't know it, you need to know it, So
go get the books. The Oswald Puzzle is the latest

(01:14):
and the one that I highly recommend in the future.
I might want to talk to Larry about Joean Mellon
a little, but I did a two part tribute to
her already on this show, so not today. We have
other things in the news, and indeed I'm going to
get to it and again go to larrydash Hancock dot
com and any one of Larry's books you don't already have,
go get it. Anyhow, back to the subject at hand.

(01:37):
The fact is I had Jefferson Morley on this show
long time ago, and I used to follow them when
all I was doing was reading things like Deep Politics
Quarterly and gee, what was that other thing, the Crosswinds
or whatever? I forget what it was called. And you
know different magazines out there, zines, in general newsletters, etc.

(01:57):
Email chains. You know, was even on the Vince Landria
email chain for a minute, although my name wasn't on it.
It was actually somebody else's and I ended up inheriting it.
Strange story there, Maybe someday I'll tell it. But the
point is I've been involved in the community a long
time and one of the things that we learned very

(02:17):
early on was that there was this guy, George Joannides
who got sent to the hsca as a liaison from
the CIA. Why because they needed one, They needed to
communicate with the agency during the investigation. I'm speaking in shorthand.
If you're not a JFK person, you might not be
savvy on this, but trust me, you might get that

(02:40):
way because it's been in the news. Anyway, back to it.
Jefferson Morley, who was a journalist and still is a
journalist of sorts, but is also now the I think
he's the vice chair of the Mary Farrell Foundation, et cetera,
et cetera. Anyway, Jeff is a published author, highly respected

(03:03):
in the community, et cetera. But he sued the CIA
and most famously was turned down on his last go
round by Brett Kavanaugh. Even you know the guy who's
on the Supreme Court. Now, yeah, that Trump judge said, now,
you're not getting the CIA files on this guy. Joe Needes,
who was the liaison to the HSCA, who was involved
in the DRE, who was maybe privy to some things

(03:26):
about Oswald, et cetera, et cetera. Big mess, big lies,
lot of stuff there. We in the community knew that
Jeff was right, but he kept suing the CIA, trying
to get him to just give over their documentations, whatever
is left of it, and they wouldn't budge, and he
kept going to court, and kept going to court, and
kept going to court. And now recent transparencies allegedly have

(03:50):
finally freed the Joe and Edes files. Now are they
all of them? Are they part of them? Are they
more than what we had before? Are they a bit
beyond the bootleg bits that did float around when people
got a hold of documents they weren't supposed to, not
because they were international spies or anything, but because it
was such a nightmare at NARA or the National Archives

(04:14):
that sometimes you got a hold of things you weren't
supposed to do, and also they changed the rules about
things you were supposed to get hold of it. At
one point, indeed, you didn't know if you had declassified
or classified documentation in your hand at a certain point
in JFK research history. But put all that confusion aside,
we may have some clarity. We may have a new

(04:34):
revelation and confirmation of what it is we've suspected for
a long time, what it is that Jeff Morley has
said for a long time, and what it is that
CIA and the government in general has denied and obfuscated
and completely obstructed about regarding freedom of information and this
character George, Joe, and Ed's now Larry. That is my

(04:59):
quick summary, and I'm trying to be as objective as
possible here. But the fact is the government lied to us.
We knew they lied to us because we knew about
Joe and Eades, but we didn't have the files to
confirm certain things. And Jeff was the crusader, was the
guy who in the government was going after it seemingly

(05:19):
as a journalist slash author slash researcher for years and years.
I mean indeed I had him on after the case
was virtually dead but then resurrected once again in twenty
fourteen or fifteen somewhere in there. So ten years ago,
I'm talking to Jeff about a case he had already
been at for a while, and yeah, we knew that

(05:42):
this was what it was. But now we've got some
new documentation and it has made some headlines. So I
just want to throw it on the table. Maybe I'm
all wet regarding this, right they used to use that phrase,
you're all wet, like you don't know what you talking about.
I don't know how you're you're wet and confused at

(06:04):
the same time. But then again, if I think back
to parties as a teenager, I could I can imagine that.
But anyway, Larry, and you've been in the military, So anyhow,
what are we talking about here? I mean, the Joe
Needy stuff is finally, at least in part release, do
we do we have what Jeff was suing for for years?

(06:25):
And in that case, do we end up with a
big yawn because we knew all this or is there
something new in it? Is there? I don't know. There's
a lot to be said and a lot to be
looked at. And quite honestly, I haven't done my own
analysis of this yet, so I'm not going to make
any solid declaration here, but maybe you could. What have

(06:45):
you seen?

Speaker 2 (06:46):
What do you know?

Speaker 1 (06:47):
And have I given this a fair introduction?

Speaker 3 (06:51):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (06:52):
At you And we've been beating this David, and I've
been beating this back and forth with David the last
few weeks as it is, anyway, just kind of trying
to see what he's getting, what it means, that sort
of thing. I think. I think one of the fundamental
things is this takes us back to something that Peter
Dale'scot came up with decades ago, which is the concept

(07:13):
of a negative template. You know, if somebody is trying
to hide something from you, and somebody is smart and
somebody has a lot of control, they will mean, they
will destroy things, they'll move things around. And if you
if you expect to find something that the CIA has

(07:35):
been hiding from you since nineteen sixty three, and something
that's so explosive that they chose to do that for
the Warrant Commission and the House Select Committee and everybody.
You know, it's got to be significant enough, so it
creates a whole Are you going to find that? You know?

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Just say no, no, just one second there, because something
you reminded me of a Peterdale Scott presentation and I'm
gonna butcher what he said. Uh, but he wanted to
remind everybody at the end of his you know discussion.
It was one of those you know, Dallas sixty three
things he did and I'm sure you know what I'm
talking about, where he did a series of him and
they were they were kind of similar, but they picked

(08:17):
up little bits of things and then he answered questions
and he always had way more to say than he
had time. But Peter Dell Scott, who is the guy who,
by the way, is responsible for the concept of the
deep politics and deep state and all of this, whether
he wants to be or not, he is, you know

(08:37):
that phrase and all that he said at one point.
You know, you got to keep in mind another thing
about this, which is, you know, you want two pages,
they're gonna dump two thousand on you. Or you want
two pages, they're going to hide two thousand and make
you fight for each one of those two thousand, so
that nineteen hundred and ninety eight of them end up

(09:00):
being nothing. And the idea is that through attrition, you'll surrender.
And that is a strategy that's also been part of
this that I think a lot of researchers never bothered
to mention because it you know, it used to be
a big gigantic waste of time, paper, energy, money. Okay,
you know you're paying for pages. I mean I remember

(09:21):
getting angry, and I've told you this several times. You know,
I request and pay for you know, thirty pages, and
what I got are ten copies of the same newspaper
cutout article that we're in, you know, ten different folders,
so therefore at different numbers, but were literally the same
repetitive crap that I already had, you know, and I

(09:42):
had a better copy than the congressman did. That kind
of thing happened to me, and it happened to a
lot of researchers, and it did cause people to say,
you know what, there's nothing to see here. There's just
a bunch of redundant garbage. And in other cases, when
you're trying to pry things out, you'd be confused because
you'd get a hold of some things and you'd say
to yourself, like I said, with the newspaper articles, why

(10:04):
is this classified? This is something that was publicly available.
They stuck it in their workfolder, and therefore it's classified.
What a waste of time. So you have this double
waste of time thing that also goes in with this
regular hiding, destruction moving, you know, claims of ignorance. We
can't find it, we don't know where that is, we

(10:24):
never heard of that person, et cetera, et cetera. There
is a wide array of weapons that are used to
keep things away from the public, Am I right or wrong?

Speaker 3 (10:37):
Well?

Speaker 4 (10:37):
Yeah, and I think we see it in the join
The first thing is we have to acknowledge that that
people were dealing with their smart people, right, they were
coping with foreign intelligence agencies, not just a KGV, but
even foreign intelligence agencies British, French allies who would have
liked to know thinks about what we were doing. Now,

(10:59):
these are professional people who have to cope with controlling information.
And if you don't think they're smart and that they
have good practices for that, you just be naive. So
the fact that they don't have a body of best
practices that they can use against us, even if it
was just for us, you know, they know how to
do this. So first off, you have to accept that.

(11:22):
And the sources of things that you're describing are in
their Their best practice is manual. You know, trainees get that.
And in what Jeff is pursuing, we have a good
reflection of that because we have the We have the
CIA fighting Jeff in court for years and years and
years over Joinees administrative file. Now this is his personal

(11:46):
admin file, what jobs he held, what clearances he got.
We have had personal files on Hunt and Morales and
other well known CIA figures for ages. You know, it's
not like they have not shared that stuff before I
shared them with committees, you know this, So you'd have
to say, why in the world, you know, would I

(12:09):
have David Phillips adman file or David Morales sadmin file
and I don't have you know, I don't have Joan
edies And they're fighting in court? What what is the
big deal? And I think it gets back to what
you're saying. You know, there's there's kind of like a
first line of defense. You define, you defend something that's

(12:30):
relatively innocuous and that holds you at bay. So you
can't request his operational files or the special affairs staff
files pertaining to him, or the DRE files, or you
can't you don't get the opportunity to really pursue the
question of all why months and months of his DRE

(12:53):
files uh just went missing? Now you're stuck on this
admind Phil edmin file. So I think it's it's like
what you're saying, Chuck, we all wondered, why would they
be so stubborn in protecting that. Well, it's like first
line of defense. If you can keep winning in court
on that, then you don't open the door going to

(13:15):
the really critical stuff, which might tell you the Osbale story.
So that's part of it. Because so we need to remember,
first off, what Representative Luna managed to get for us
is literally to persuade the CIA to release that admin file.

(13:36):
And they didn't make a big deal. They kind of
snuck it out onto the server on Friday evening, you know,
and there it is. So there's the admin file. Finally,
it's like, what's the big deal. You were in court
for years and years and then and then you told
Jeff in court, oh, we can't find it, but oh
you found it when the congress person asked for it,

(13:58):
and you just put it on there. So you know,
this does kind of expose the fact that there's something
of interest here. None of us expected a smoking gun
in an admin file, that would be ridiculous, but this,
if they're fighting this hard to hold back even the
most basic information about Joe and Edes, it's it's interest signal.

(14:24):
And I'm amazed by the number of people that say, oh, well,
this means there's nothing there our contrere. It absolutely means
that there's something there, maybe not in their file, but
something associated with Joe and Edes and the dre in
nineteen sixty three.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
Right, And a quick note on context. Jeff Morley started
suing the CIA, from what I can understand publicly in
two thousand and three, folks, So you know around the
fortieth anniversary is when he started suing the CIA to
get to get this, among other things, but to get this.
And here's the funny part. Let's not forget ten years

(15:03):
before that, there was supposed to be a whole lot
of collection anything that would be relevant. You know, the
JFK Records Collection Act, right put into law by George
hw Bush and then enacted by Bill Clinton when he
took office because it was an executive branch agency. Just
giving you that context that in ninety three you have

(15:23):
the HSCA in existence. I mean, no, excuse me, the
ARRB in existence. My fault there, Sorry, I misspoke. And
in two thousand and three Jeff starts to sue the government. Okay,
as far as I know publicly, all right, I don't know.
Maybe the case was worked on before that, etc. I'm
not sure. I'm just telling you that first filings I

(15:45):
see here in two thousand and three, Okay, But it
went on and on and on and like I said,
all the way up to right before Kavanaugh's last decision
before going to the Supreme Court is shooting down this
situation in court. Meanwhile, one congress person happens to ask
for it. That causes me to ask a few questions.
But I'll leave it alone, Larry, and let you get

(16:07):
back to it. But I think that context is necessary
to understand as we sit here in twenty twenty five,
almost sixty two years after the assassination, when he started
suing them, forty years after the assassination, and we had
a you know, an agreed upon bipartisan bill that went
through Congress, and a law created and an executive branch

(16:27):
agency created to collect anything relevant, you know, in ten
years before Jeff started suing in the early nineties. I'm
just saying, I mean, you want to keep going backwards.
We could talk about the seventies and the HCA and
the Warrant Commission and what the hell is going on here,
But anyway, just the context I want to give people

(16:48):
is that after sixty two years, almost here you go
because a congress person asked, go ahead, Larry, please continue.

Speaker 4 (16:57):
Well, and let's pull back for and go back that
far for just a little bit more context. If you
want to pull like three basic things out of this.
It's sort of one basic thing is that Jeff knew
because the Cubans that he was talking to within the

(17:17):
Student Directorate told him that they report repeatedly met with
and talked with and passed on information about Lee Rvy
Oswald to their case officer. You know, they've talked repeatedly
about that over the years. There was no mystery to them.
They passed on to their case officer propaganda pieces and

(17:41):
letters that they were preparing about Lee Harvey Oswall's okay. Now,
as far as Johan Edes is concerned, he never admitted
to anybody that he was in contact with the DRE,
that he was in contact with the DR about oz Wall.
When he was assigned to be liaison to the HSCA,

(18:05):
he knew the HSCA was asking him about the Student Directorate.
You know, we're trying to find out about the student Directorate.
We knew that they had contact with Oswald. Could you
help us locate information on this? Joinees never brought forth
that he's the guy. Okay, Now there's a real problem

(18:26):
there because there's no reason he shouldn't do that. There
was nothing in world. Now you might argue domestic surveillance,
domestic operations. But in any event, he made the decision
not to share that information. So you have to ask
why the CIA made the decision not to share the

(18:47):
information that their case officer had been getting this stuff.
So none of this would could be officially confirmed to
Jeff he knew what had happened, he could not essentially
confirm that the CIA was lined and the Joean Edes
with wisoling information with this ADMIN file. One of the

(19:12):
key parts, not the only key part, but one of
the key parts is it confirmed the alias that the
Cubans had said that they were using in their contacts
with their case officer Howard. Okay, kind of innocuous Howard.
They even had a copy of a receipt we sent
stuff to Howard. This this exposes the fundamental why that

(19:37):
the CIA knew Joeann Edes knew. They knew about these
contacts with the DRE. They knew all about Oswald. There
was information going into a file, a case officer's file
at made a minimum at JM WAVE about Oswald and
within the Special Affairs staff, oswelld was a non figure

(19:58):
in an old character and there was a body of
information in their in their possession there at the CIA. Okay, Okay,
So this, this one thing in that admin file gave
lie to the CIA's denial. That's that's a big thing,
because why would they do that. There's by itself that's no.

(20:21):
But this was his job. He's supposed to talk to
these people, you know, why why not disclose that? Okay,
So that's the first thing that you have to back
off and say, why in the world were they defending that. Well,
one of the things is it gives lie to the
to the depth of information that the CIA held on
Oswald prior to the assassination. But it exposes another big

(20:44):
thing that we need to bring into the context that
Jeff and John Newman had pursued years before earlier as well,
and that was conversations about Oswald in Mexico City and
conversations with ci off Sir Jane Roman, in which they
pointed out to her that CIA co headquarters had been

(21:06):
asked by their Mexico City station to pass on current
information about Lee Harvey Oswald and they had not done so.
In fact, they had overtly not done so, saying basically,
we know he's about to come back from Russia. Oh,
by the way, he's been back for over a year. Okay,
and that's the most recent thing in the files where

(21:27):
we know now without a doubt that there was a
body of data in CIA at wave within spatial Affairs staff,
and the two guys got Roman to even admit that
what this looks like was that there was an operational
interest in Oswald and the information of him on it
was being compartmentalized, compartmentalized within SaaS from the rest of CIA,

(21:53):
certainly in compared to life from Mexico City. So in
the second stroke to all of this, without putting it in,
you know, in a little memo to anybody, we now
know that the CIA was holding information on Oswald that
they were not sharing internally, and just on that piece alone,

(22:16):
it's almost impossible to think there was not a reason
there was there was, indeed an operational interest. To Jeff
in his articles has interviewed you know, two or three
CI officers and said, look at this, look at this situation,
look at what we now know, and tell me what
you think it means. And they're all going, based on

(22:38):
our experience, it clearly means there was an operational interest
in Oswald. For something how serious, whatever, you know, anybody
within the experience in the CIA would draw the same conclusion.
So now we've learned that too. The only question is
where are those files?

Speaker 5 (22:56):
Right?

Speaker 4 (22:56):
And the funny thing is we may be getting close
to where they should be. Getting them would be another story,
but this laid to us a big step in the
direction of where they should have existed.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
Well, I don't want to pass by this too quickly
and forget that. We need to hammer the fact that
the House Select Committee on Assassinations wanted people that were
going to liaise with them from various government agencies and
representing industries and all kinds of stuff, and their one
condition seemed to be, we want people that weren't involved

(23:29):
in the events in nineteen sixty three, and we need
liaisons that will be knowledgeable enough to go find what
we need found, you know, during the course of our investigation, etc.
And they send Joe Eadies, who clearly at some point
had to say, no, I don't know anything about any
of this stuff, and yet he's being asked specific questions

(23:50):
in the seventies. Right, So isn't this the big red flag?
Isn't this the thing that really got Jeff to chase
it in general.

Speaker 4 (24:00):
Oh yeah, it's a huge red flag when you know
somebody knows something. Now, the thing is, Jeff knew that
because of what the Cubans had told him, and multiple
Cubans had told him that he believed that. Jeff just
couldn't hold up anything and wave it and say, you
know you're lying to me. You know, he did know

(24:22):
this information, He did that have this information. He made
a conscious decision he didn't have that he now does
have it. So yeah, it's a huge red flag. And
I will say, you know, going all the way back
to that time, because the other thing that was revealed
by that work is the fact that the DR reports

(24:45):
their reports to the CIA, which everybody acknowledged they were
making they were being paid to make on their activities.
And by the way, there is there is a master
DRI file. Okay, so we need to clarify this. You can.
You can log on and look at a CIA head
quarter file that symblarizes the activities of the DRE. So

(25:08):
we absolutely know that CIA was collecting information on this group,
which I mean they're paying them, so they should get
something in return, and then information is being reported into
this file But here's another instance of the negative template.
You go through this file and you see the file
contains incidents in which DRE people were involved in propaganda,

(25:33):
you know, sending out flyers, letters, doing radio shows, they
were involved in media activities. In one document I read
sort of some students had been to Cuba and they
had come back and made a strong endorsement of Cuba,
and the CIA is asking the DRI to go on
the radio and respond to that, and you know, you know,

(25:54):
and so there's this whole file on the DRE at headquarters,
but there's absolutely nothing in it about New Orleans, about Oswald,
about the propaganda that DRI has done on Oswald, which
Jeff is documented and which they confirmed, and so it's
another part of the negative template. It just raises the question,

(26:17):
you know, did somebody scrub the DRA file after the fact,
or was somebody in again controlling information at Special Affairs
staff in Miami and not even reporting that to headquarters.
Why is it all? What was so damaging or threatening

(26:37):
about this information related to Oswald that somebody decided that
it had to be kept even out of the internal records.

Speaker 1 (26:47):
So therefore you have something that's either scrubbed or redirected.
And if it was redirected, where to right? Isn't that
the point of it? Because look, if you take away
the Oswald information that should be connected to the dr
refile just because they're tracking an asset, very simple, It
would be malpractice for them not to do so. But

(27:08):
the idea that you have Oswald running up against these
people and clearly in the same sphere, in the same
social circles, all kinds of things going on. He's handing
out procastro leaflets and he's not appearing in that file.
That means it's either like you said, scrub or directed
elsewhere or or am I incorrect about it?

Speaker 4 (27:29):
Or or held I mean held. One of the things
we had to get back to CIA file structures. Okay,
you know things go in the headquarters file that are
routine information collections. You know, they're they're generally not related
to a specific project. You know, those that goes into
operational files. You know, uh, you know this this master

(27:55):
file in the DRA is just kind of like what's
going on with DRI, what's in the papers? What are
they doing? Mean? And it doesn't relate to any specific
operation that you're doing with them. You know that you've
you've pulled them in and made them a specific asset
of what you're doing. For example, Uh, we do know
that the the DRE was invited to participate in a

(28:20):
new autonomous deniable operation against Cuba and over several months
came up with a plan for that. That doesn't show
up in this headquarters file. That shows up in operational
files related to that activity. So, I mean, there's a
reason for compartmentalizing data. It's just that you've got to

(28:43):
know what to expect to find where. The other thing
we have to consider is if somebody is simply thinking
about a project or an activity, it's it's uh, you
know there, it's we haven't decided on it yet, we're
talking about it. We're talking about it in the local office.
Those sorts of things are set kept in saw files

(29:05):
in somebody's desk, drawer, file, cabinet until they really gel
to the point of well, let's propose it the headquarters
and let's get it somebody to kick it off as
a as a proof project, fund it, you know, do
a tasking on it, you know. So there may as
well have been if you're looking for an operational file

(29:26):
related to Lee Harvey Oswall. It could have never passed
that stage. It could have been setting in a you know,
we might be able to do with this with Oswell,
we've got these propaganda programs that we're considering. We'll work
with INC and New Orleans. They'll make up some propaganda materials.
But we're you know, we're just it's just generating. You know,

(29:47):
we're just generating it. And you know maybe that's only
in a SAW file. Uh. And saw files don't necessarily
go to headquarters. We know that, especially if they don't
get you know, fully endorsed. So we we just have
to face the fact that the people that say, oh,
there's no smoking gun because you haven't found an OLATA

(30:07):
while operations file are being either very naive or they're
literally just being in denial, or they have no clue
to how things really worked within the CIA, right.

Speaker 1 (30:20):
And that that operated, that that type of file could
be under you know, code named Henry at this point,
you know, we got Howard over here. Maybe this guy's Henry.
Remember when they put his his middle name as Lee
Henry Oswald. Maybe that's it, right, Henry.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (30:33):
These are no, yeah, these are notional files. Interesting thing
about a notional file. It could you haven't even applied
to headquarters for security clearances, or you know, you haven't
gotten aliases assigned, you haven't got pseudonyms of sign that's
all when it's at a notional level. That's before that happens.

(30:53):
So yeah, we have come across the fact that even
the CI officers themselves often used use their own alias
outside the system for things that they were just kind
of developing and pursuing before they they elevated it. So
you're right it and it quite frankly, there are also

(31:15):
things that we know never get reported to headquarters, and
we've talked about that before. It's sort of like, you know,
this is risky. Maybe we want to test it a
little bit, see how it's working, and you know, then
we'll take it to washing and run it up the flagpole.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
Well, the other interesting thing here is the name Howard, Right.
I've heard that name used loosely in some of these
sort of like less organized operations and things and mentioned
by people who seem to like, I don't know, Howard
is just an interesting there must have been a connotation
to that name, right, because I mean, at a certain point,

(31:52):
you know, e Howard Hunt obviously It's just at some
point was called Howard, but there was other people called Howard. Okay,
and it's a weird thing, like maybe Howard meant something
like you might not know it, but in the nineteen eighties,
if you called somebody Becky, there was a meaning to that,
and it might have been just that, like a little
inside joke about being a Howard.

Speaker 4 (32:14):
I don't know, strictly, within a group of people in
Miami who know each other, it's a code where when
they talk about things.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
You know, because he just said, it's a white man.
I mean, I'm speculating here. I'm not saying that that's
what it is, but I'm my speculation is here, it
is a white man who lives among you know, Latino people.
So there you go, boom, he's a Howard. I mean,
I'm just saying it could be theoretically. But please continue,

(32:42):
because a lot of people who are like not as
deeply read into this or not as familiar with a
lot of the things that you just very clearly explained
are probably saying to themselves, Okay, but what does this
really mean, Larry? What does it mean that you know
he finally got this and what can be plainly explained

(33:03):
based on this thing that was held back now for
what twenty years, What.

Speaker 4 (33:09):
Can be plainly explained is that the CIA and Johnied
himself made a decision to hold back something that would
be seemingly innocuous. You know, part of his regular job,
he's assigned as a case officer. He's assigned as a

(33:30):
case offer to m SPELL, which is their code for DRE. Right,
there's nothing, like I said, this is day job type information.
So what has been exposed is the fact that someone
decided that there's something associated with this that is threatening.

(33:50):
That is, you know, still decades later, there's something behind that.
There's something behind this Howard DRE connection. There's something about
this compartmentalization of Oswald information. There's something that was dangerous.
It was considered dangerous for decades. So you just can't

(34:12):
avoid the fact that information was compartmentalized by about Oswald,
about Oswald and the DRE. You can't avoid that that
that shows up all over the places now. So there's
that's a very serious lead, perhaps the most serious lead
that we have. There's something going on in Miami with

(34:34):
Howard and with those DRE contacts that was evolving into
into something that had to be protected. Now there's something
else in the file that my my friend David has
really seized on. I probably would have missed the fact
that the file shows that Joyne's got A had to
go through a special clearance process and get read into

(34:57):
and approved for some new covert project in the late
spring of nineteen sixty three, apart from his regular day jobs.
This is something new. The fact that he would actually
have to be cleared and go through a new security
process read into a new program. That's very interesting because

(35:21):
that's more, you know, more than his just been a
staff officer and a case officer. What's this new project?
And the interesting thing, of course is we know some
interesting projects that got kicked off in that timeframe. The
other interesting thing that has been disclosed is that David

(35:43):
Phillips got read into and assigned to a news project
within specialized fair staff in this same period of time.
Does that confirm anything to us, No, but we can
say both men had expertise and properanda and in Phillips's case,

(36:04):
especially in what's called black propaganda. So what it's his
leading us to is, you know, is again, is there
something explosive in an admin file. No, But the fact is,
again it points to something going on with Joan needs
that may lead us to what they're trying to protect,
is there and what was threatening which could lead us

(36:28):
with one to one or more operations involving the Harvey
Oswald well, not necessarily involved, but built around Lee Harvey Oswald.

Speaker 1 (36:38):
Fair enough. But here's the thing that everybody's going to wonder, right,
is there some new direction? Is there something new that's
been learned here where it's like, Okay, now we did
not know that this agency, this subset, this special Operations
Group or whatever existed before, but now it's in the
file here, we can request files on that group because

(37:00):
it's clearly associated to this which was clearly associated to
Like do we have Domino's falling here that are going
to bring us into a fresh direction?

Speaker 4 (37:08):
That's the question, and they certainly could. Luna has asked
for the DRE files. Uh, Luna has asked for the
d r E files, which up to now the CIA
has maintained or they're missing, we can't locate them. And
but of course they had said that about join Ed's
admin file two. Right, if we could obtain the full

(37:35):
set of case files, we would we would know the
depth of information being provided, and more importantly, we would
know what join Edes was saying back to these people.
You know, who was he talking to?

Speaker 3 (37:48):
Was he was he?

Speaker 4 (37:49):
Was it one way? We don't know. They may have
just been providing him information and just getting ahead. Nods
came like that's good or was there some than going
the other direction? And uh, there's been requests for operational
files related to join adios. If we can really find
out what this way was cleared for, what is this

(38:12):
new project? Yeah, it opens the door and it actually
allows Luna to specifically locate these files beyond the admin file.
You know. That really puts the pressure on Uh. So, Yeah,
there's there's a great opportunity there if they comply, and

(38:32):
if they don't comply, certainly it will be yet another signal. Right,
But I can't say that any of this is is
going to be easy because we don't really we don't
have the and have we've we've gotten a lot of
files on Miami, Miami Operating Base in terms of military activities. Uh,

(38:57):
and David has gotten a great doing great work and
digging into those works. We know what their maritime guys
were doing. We don't have nearly the same view into
what psychological operations propaganda operations we're going on with these
new initiatives that it really raises the question. And we've

(39:18):
talked to Jeff somebody should be requesting memoranda or documents
related to phillips new assignment, because Phillips may end up
being a key factor in this, as many of us
has speculated for a long time. So yeah, it does
target us to specific things, whether we can get them

(39:39):
or not. You know, I don't know where they destroyed
long ago, may have been. They've gone through a lot
of work to even hold back the basic leads that
we're following up now, and we have to acknowledge that.
So again we're back to the a thing of are

(40:01):
we going to end up with the cold hard data
that we want to see the operational file? You know,
what we're Joe and Ed's and maybe Phillip's doing with
Lee Harvey Oswell is in terms of propaganda, black propaganda,
white propaganda, maybe something more sinister. Certainly, if it's more sinistor,

(40:23):
I don't expect we're kind of see it.

Speaker 1 (40:26):
Well, there's that. Plus, look, I got an email as
we're speaking by the way, because I've had a little
back and forth with somebody and they asked a question
which I find kind of interesting, and I'm just going
to throw it at you. It's a bit of a curveball, though.
Does this mean I should dust off my old unauthorized
copy of the Winston Scott book because there will be

(40:48):
new connections to some loose ends there.

Speaker 4 (40:53):
Yeah, I think that that's certainly well. I will say
the answer the question is David and I certainly did
that when we were writing the Hospital Puzzle because it
became far more important. Let's let's since it's a curveball,
I'll give you a little longer winded answer than I might.

Speaker 1 (41:12):
Sure.

Speaker 4 (41:14):
The point is that David Phillips was assigned to jobs
in Mexico City. Is his day job now his new job?
We don't know much about that, but his day job
would have made him the lead guy to investigate Oswald
in Mexico City. Okay, And you know that's very important.

(41:41):
But when you look at it, you step back and
look at it from an instance, you see that things
got so obscure, and especially with the HSCA, with the
CIA trying to explain itself that they actually got to
the point where they said ignore anything they as Phillips
is telling you, because he's not really aware of what's

(42:03):
going on. Wow, now that's strange. On the other hand,
David Phillips himself wrote in one book that Oswell wasn't
even on the radar, wrote in another book later actually
same book, if I recall, But Phillips wrote like two
or three different books. He wrote in the book and

(42:25):
asserted that he absolutely was convinced that Oswell had come
back from Mexico City with ten thousand dollars in his possession,
that he had been given by the Cubans to kill JFK,
which is the old Gilberto Alvarado story. So you've got
you got three things going on in Mexico City. You've

(42:47):
got owe Phillips doesn't even know anything about you know,
Oswell's time here, So don't talk to him. Don't let
him confuse you, or Phillips saying, oh, it was important
to Oh, by the way, actually the Cubans paid them
to kill JFK. That's a strong reason to go back
to look at everything that's being said at Mexico City,

(43:11):
because again, this is the level of disconnect that's not tolerable.
It absolutely hads to mean that Phillips was going on
was doing something related to Lee Harvey Oswell in Mexico City,
maybe after the fact. I'm not saying it was before
the fact. Maybe after the fact in regard to that visit.

(43:32):
And we're not we're not being given the truth, and
we're going to have to try to piece it together.
That Alverado story is extremely interesting because it's Simpach and
still have pointed out there are elements of the Alverado
story that are quite real, right in terms of personnel
within the Cuban Somebody knew what they were doing when

(43:54):
they put that story together. Now the real question was
did they put that whole story together on Ova twenty
second or had that story been being assembled before that
for some other purpose. I have to raise that possibility
because that's the sort of thing that Phillips did. Phillips
can already be traced back to black propaganda, which involved

(44:20):
threats by Cuba against JFK in nineteen sixty one. It
all traces back to his role during the Cuba project.
Was David Phillips thinking about revising that and bringing Lee
Harvey Oswell into a new Black propagand to project before
the assassination. I don't know, it's an interesting thought.

Speaker 1 (44:40):
Well, it's an interesting thought. And again, when these guys
prepare things like this, they usually do it so they
have options for something that is upcoming and anticipated. So
the idea that he would do that for some other
purpose and it just so happens this guy got swept
up into other things is not the craziest thing I've

(45:01):
ever heard.

Speaker 4 (45:02):
I mean, it's not the craziest thing to say, oh, look,
we have this almost together and we didn't get a
chance to use it, and there's some loose ends. But look,
Lee rv els Will in Dallas, let's just throw this out.
We can do that and you know see how it works.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
Yep, exactly. And so with that, Larry.

Speaker 4 (45:20):
It almost did. I mean it almost did. That was
the one thing that drove worshing DC distraction for forty
eight hours.

Speaker 1 (45:28):
Right, so much so that you got Jay grew Hoover saying, look,
I'm being lied to here, you know, like that's pretty
rough when he when he's writing that on a memo.
I mean, I always point to that. I know, it's
one of my favorite things, but because it's so funny
to me. It's so rare to see him say, you know,
I got slowed it is. It is very rare. Anyway, Larry,

(45:54):
this has been extremely enlightening. But would you like to
tie a bow on it in the last few minutes
here and give us an idea of what it is?
I don't know, we can anticipate possibly in the future.
Do you have an idea about that or you know?
And and by the way, when Larry keeps saying his
friend David, of course he's talking about David Boylan, who

(46:14):
is the co author of the Oswald Puzzle. Again, that book,
which I do recommend. I recommend all of the books
with Larry as a author or co author. But either way,
that is the latest and one of the greatest. To
be honest with you, I enjoy that book and it's
a great reference. I've got a copy of it within
an arm's length. So just telling you as I speak.

(46:36):
But Larry, what you know, what should we take away
from all of this? Ultimately? How would you kind of
give us a quick summary?

Speaker 4 (46:44):
Well, the first thing is Jeff is not going to
give up on this now that he is, He's proved
his basic point. There's just no doubt that he's proved
his basic point.

Speaker 6 (46:54):
Right.

Speaker 4 (46:54):
I don't think Representative Luna is going to get back
off from it. She's not the person that backs off
for much. She has already made a public speech in
which a public appearance in which she has made a
statement stronger than that which Striker said way back in

(47:15):
decades ago. She just made a statement that there's every
evidence that what has been revealed is that the CIA
lied and that indeed rove CI officers maybe have been
involved in the assassination of the president. Now, this is
the first time we've heard had a reputable congress person
saying that in a long time. You know, could that

(47:35):
actually lead to a true investigation, not just a records release?
Interesting concept with as much chaos as there is, you know,
it's just I don't know that the president is going
to get away with not having an investigation of Epstein.
If you can investigate that, you could investigate this again,

(47:58):
a real investigation this time. Uh So, this is a
story that has some legs to it. That's that's on
one side. You know, it's when you when you can
prove that the CIA is line and clearly had something
to cover up that was important enough to do so,
I mean, not just the routine stuff, but in regard
to a presidential assassination. That's one story as far as

(48:21):
the leads I discussed. Yeah, that's opened the door. I
think you you will definitely hear more from Jeff. You
will definitely hear more from David and I once we
work through some scenarios on this. I suspect you'll hear
from you know, there are there are researchers that have
been you know, necked deep in JF wave and special

(48:44):
affairs staff for years now, building the database, building the
org chart building the crypt base that would let us
go to work if we actually had you know, if
we had a find like this and join d And
is it that kind of a fine Phillips, Maybe that
kind of a fine too.

Speaker 1 (49:04):
There you go. And I mean, so there's a lot
more to come from this. If anything else comes loose,
it's going to be interesting, that's for sure. However, I
gotta say, just as a counterweight to part of what
you just said, it's almost impossible to predict exactly what

(49:24):
is going to come out of this administration when it
comes to releasing stuff like this, Because I'll tell you something.
I thought he would have put the Epstein thing up front,
you know, priority wise. I didn't think this was a priority.
He feels like he's done with it whenever he's asked
about it, even off and hey, you know what about
the Jay I already did that, you know, like it's
already done as far as he's concerned. And you know,

(49:48):
Trump is the key element here when it comes to
getting things done, it seems like in that administration. But
then again, maybe I'm misreading stuff.

Speaker 4 (49:57):
Anyway, I'm expecting two things might happen. Jeff might either
get a shipment of Patriot missiles in his apartment, or
he could be sanctioned. I don't know. Could he be
a tariff it with this level of chaos, who knows?

Speaker 1 (50:14):
Or a big bill for Look, we'll print out all
this stuff for you, and then they'll just bury him
in an office boxes. I mean, you know, who knows. Really,
it's a roll of the dice in my mind. So
I just have to make that point, Larry. I love
how optimistic you just sounded, but I gotta say, I

(50:34):
hold my breath and go, let's see.

Speaker 4 (50:37):
Well, at least there's a game in town, Chuck. I
would say it like that. I'm not a gambler, but
it's kind of like, at least there's a game in town.
Before there wasn't even a game, you know what?

Speaker 1 (50:46):
That is absolutely true and a positive spin we can
end on. So again, go to Larrydash Hancock dot com.
I recommend all of his books. You can find his
books through Larryhancock dot com. And it's just got that
hyphen or that dash whatever you want to say between
Larry and Hancock. And again, once more, I highly recommend
the latest book, The Oswald Puzzle. But I also recommend

(51:09):
there's going to be some discussions here at Lancer this year.
I'm going to be there in person. Larry should be
presenting virtually, but David might be there in person. I
don't know. We're waiting to see, but who knows who
else might show up and have something to say. Representative
Luna has been invited. Now I don't know where that

(51:31):
invite has gone. I don't know if she's even seen
it or just her staff has, but I do know
it's been sent. So who knows what will happen in
November between the twenty first and the twenty third this
year in Dallas Texas, and I'll get into more details
about that very very soon and give you the discount
code if you want to sign up at Assassination Conference
dot com you ken, but primarily I want you to

(51:53):
go to larrydsh Hancock dot com. And again, if you're
missing any of those books, get them, get them while
you can, and if they're on sale, get to Anyways,
I'm merely o'celly. All of you are the effect. Thank you,
Larry Hancock. And I'm gonna do another hour after this,
so keep listening to ocelli dot com live, and if

(52:14):
you're catching the podcast, as most of you do, do
me a favor and go to the next one because
it's going to be a little more about declassifications and
files and oh hell, I'm gonna be talking to Pierce
Redmond about the Epstein thing. So two points of interest
about you know, transparency, let's put it that way. On

(52:36):
a Wednesday, on the Ocelly Effect, stick around, uncle.

Speaker 6 (53:37):
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.

Speaker 7 (53:45):
Oh that's interesting, yeah in the latroon.

Speaker 6 (53:48):
Yeah, did that ever work? Out too good. No, it didn't,
did it? But here on Ocelli dot com radio network,
things work out a bit better, don't they?

Speaker 4 (53:58):
Much better.

Speaker 7 (54:01):
And understanding about the programs, the programs, how much clear
getting live people into it. They really have a good
conversation going much better, much better scene.

Speaker 6 (54:14):
I say, forget Benjamin Fulford and his ninches and listen
to the Ochelly dot com Radio network.

Speaker 7 (54:20):
I agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and
I like that idea.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
Oh, Chelley dot call, go ahead, call.

Speaker 5 (54:26):
It the truth about the Dayfay assassination.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
Right, Well, what do you want to know Judy Baker's
wild claim Oswald girlfriend if he knew Ruby and Barry
answer weapons? Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
It doesn't make me a wagon.

Speaker 5 (54:39):
But Okayal was on the building and trying to prevent
the murder of John Kennedy.

Speaker 8 (54:43):
Come on now, has a.

Speaker 9 (54:44):
Real effort on the day of Hay assassination. Book into
her claim.

Speaker 1 (54:48):
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 Cave to get at
Well a different perspective, Let's say you can get Judith
Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself,

(55:08):
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 very Baker in her own.

Speaker 5 (55:22):
Words, thank you for all the great information under.

Speaker 8 (55:26):
Full of brass rail pull.

Speaker 4 (55:29):
Fire flow through everythaise.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
Go ahead call it.

Speaker 5 (55:34):
About the JFA assassination.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
Right, Well, what do you want to know Judy Baker's
wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby and Barrie answer weapons, Really,
I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
doesn't make me a wagon, but okay.

Speaker 4 (55:46):
I'm building and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Come on now, has a real.

Speaker 4 (55:50):
Effort on the DAFA assassination claim.

Speaker 1 (55:53):
Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
own words. You'll get the results for 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 Barry
Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed

(56:14):
if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at kias
jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and
it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Arry
Baker in her own words, thank you for all the
great information the use expressed by caller schools. There anyone
else who happens to get on the air who Jelly
dot com can not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly

(56:36):
dot com or jocko Jelly and we are not responsible.

Speaker 4 (56:38):
We're in stupidity, which might ensue.

Speaker 5 (56:40):
King in Denial the Secret Wars with air strikes and
tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of
US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's
book in Denial rips the cover off many of them,
using new files.

Speaker 1 (56:58):
It exposes things about the Bay of Pig that no
one has ever written about before. It shows why it
really failed and why the United States did not earn
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.

(57:23):
For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
com in digital or.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
Physical force hotelly dot com. 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.

(57:52):
Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in
Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen teen sixty one.
Get your copy to day at Amazon dot com. Why
the Vietnam War by author Mike.

Speaker 4 (58:07):
Swantz dot com, Radio.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
Netword Revelation through Conversation.

Speaker 9 (58:13):
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.

(58:36):
Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
but knew that there were short range missiles on the
island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
led to a Third World War, and they wanted to

(58:58):
go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy was
up against. For more information, the War State dot com.

Speaker 3 (59:10):
Episode relies rebord.

Speaker 8 (59:19):
Revel through calm sage.

Speaker 3 (59:29):
Here oh Shell, Oh Sally.

Speaker 8 (59:53):
Yeah, revelation.

Speaker 3 (01:00:07):
Through coversation Carril