The Ochelli Effect 8-6-2025 Larry Hancock

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

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Hey, August six, twenty twenty five. Allegedly, according to that
thing we call a calendar, this is the Ocelli effect,
and we do this live sometimes. Now. Gotta tell you,
I am going to reduce schedule lately, and I am
only only doing the shows that are being requested by
people that support the network. So that's it. That's the

(00:33):
cut down schedule right now until I can maneuver and
get a few things done and fix some problems. And
we're not going to go into that anymore. It is
a Wednesday Wednesday. And you know what's funny, I'm real
happy to have Larry Hancock with us. And I know Larry,
I told you Harry Hancock. That's hilarious. Larry Hancock, whose
name I've said a thousand times, and I don't know

(00:54):
how many times I've screwed it up, but I don't
think it's that many. Anyway, Allergies getting in my way
on a and you know, everybody requests Larry. It is
usually very highly informative, sometimes extremely entertaining when we're talking
to Larry, and I'm extremely grateful to probably have him
as the longest running He's not a guest on this show.

(01:16):
He's a co host basically, and I'm happy to have
him along anytime, but here in August for God's sake,
of twenty twenty five. It's been a while, and I
got to say every single time he's on, I learned something,
so I know you guys too. Go to Larrydshancock dot com.
Of course, we're going to focus on some issues that

(01:37):
might relate to one of Larry's latest books, and one
of the best, really, even though I highly recommend them all,
The Oswald Puzzle, which is co authored with David Boyle,
in whose name I pronounced differently every time I say it,
and I'm hoping that they'll be presenting at Lancer in
some fashion this year. Well, I'll be there, and I

(01:59):
was even talking for a little bit, and we went
to air late in order so that I could discuss
a few issues with Larry just before with what I
plan to present, because he's probably the only guy who
woman to take advice from. And I might do something
a little weird Atlanta this year and we'll see how
it's received. Anyway, Hey, why not? You got to take

(02:21):
a shot Larry. How are you this Wednesday evening? First
of all, I'm.

Speaker 3 (02:26):
Doing good, Chuck. We had a little break in our
heat wave last week. It was cooler for at least
a few days. We had some brain Now we're going
back into August weather. But that kind of relieved things.
Although I have the same sinus problems you're having, so good,
but sinus is with us at summer.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Yeah, well, who wants to complain. I mean, my eyes
are running, my nose is running. I guess if they
all run in the same direction, it won't hurt so much.
But anyway, look, there has been and I just want
to get right into the subject matter. There has been
some talk lately, and finally, uh, you know, Jeff Morley

(03:06):
got part of what it is, at least in part.
I'm not sure he got all of what he wanted,
but part of what was denied to him by Brett
Kavanaugh finally not too long ago, you know, being given
to him as in the Joe and Needy stuff, right,
And there was a bit of celebration, There was a
bit of understanding, it seemed like, and then everybody kind

(03:27):
of went back to sleep as per normal, or they
tried to convolute it with other events that involved let's say,
government transparency, criminal Acts Intelligence. Maybe yeah, I'm trying to
avoid saying Epstein, But what am I going to do?
The Epstein files? The you know, show us the show

(03:50):
us the files, show us the information. And the general
public now is kind of a sleep on JFK because well,
they're giving us MLK files on they need to give
us the Epstein files. They already gave us the JFK files,
and that's happening. And I'm just being blunt here and

(04:10):
trying to summarize in case, you know, nobody's keeping score
at home. Seems like, what do you think of this?
And what is happening here? Because I'm seeing what Jef's writing.
I'm seeing that he's still doing you know that podcast.
He's had a lot to say. Some of his supporters
have written supportive articles about this. I know what my

(04:34):
thoughts are after looking over what has been released, and
you might be able to tell. I'm thinking there's more
they should have given him. But you know, you can
leave it there and say, first of all, what the
hell took so long? Because you know, and you've got
to be read into this. I'm not going to waste
Larry's time by explaining to you. Although Larry could probably

(04:57):
give you a quick summary about you know what it
is I'm talking about here. Why is Joe Needy's important
for various reasons and everything else? And why was he
covered up? There might be multiple reasons for that, and
what the hell is the difference when it comes to it.
He's not a shooter, He's not Oswald. But you know, Okay,

(05:20):
here we go, Larry. I know I've thrown you a
terribly wobbly spitball here, but I'm conn I believe you
could at least get a base hit out of this. So,
by all means, where should we take this for people
that are somewhat read into it, because that's all the

(05:41):
people that are going to want to hear this. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:43):
I think one of the interesting things about it, Chuck,
is that Jeff has had probably more response, more luck,
more visibility with portions of the media, not the entire media,
not the mainstream media. To some he's add more receptivity

(06:04):
to this story and of the fact that clearly there's
something sensitive going on in regard to Lee, Harvey Oswald
and the CIA. I mean just that basic theme. It's like, okay, ouch,
because there's no reason for the CIA to have been
as obstructionist.

Speaker 4 (06:22):
As they were there.

Speaker 3 (06:24):
So the media is responsive to that, I would say
in large And what it was perhaps surprising is that
to me, the research community has not been They've let
themselves be diverted. Maybe it's sensory overload, you know, by
everything quote unquote being released at once, although it really hasn't.

(06:45):
We all know that, but like you're getting questions about
so many things at once, and you're curious, and have
you read through the five thousand MLK files? No? I haven't, Well,
then we can't talk about it yet because you haven't read. Yeah,
just just that level of the the community trying to

(07:07):
respond to all of this at one time, it has
not been very effective. The only the only really insightful, straightforward,
pithy response I've seen to it is Malcolm Blunt's article
about you know, yes there is something here, Yeah, there's
some things that we could do, and Malcolm essentially challenging

(07:30):
all the people that were saying it's a nothing burger
because it was not at all nothing burger. But Malcolm
kind of stands alone in that regard. The the research
community is not following the story the lead that Jeff
produced and that's that's a bit depressing. Now agreed to

(07:52):
follow his lead. You've got to know a lot, You've
got to have a lot of context. But but there
are people that do have that, and if if they're following,
I guess the good news is if they're seriously following it,
they're following it to the extent that they're not talking
about it because they're too busy. And the people that
just get on boards and chat and like bring up

(08:13):
the same things over and over again haven't changed. They're
not engaging at all with it. Really, So yeah, I
think my general response is there's a lot of potential
and just the administrative file that Jeff got, there's a
lot of potential in getting the operational files that that
points to that might tell us some really serious and

(08:38):
props even incriminating stuff. But the one thing that puzzles
me is all of us conspiracy folks have said for years, Oh,
you're not going to find a report that says this
is how somebody killed the president. You know, a file,
a document. Yeah, we looked at it, we investigated it's here.

(09:00):
You know, you're not going to found that sort of thing.
And now when we get the joint Edies file. Everybody
is going, well, now the CEEIA didn't give us the
smoking gun, or are we expecting it? I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (09:14):
Well. Here's the other thing I need to ask right
here in this context, and that is, and I'm not
going to point the finger at any particular platform, but
I am going to suggest that it represents the current
culture of communication when you are restricted to two hundred
and eighty characters to try and make a point, okay,
and people already are not receptive, open minded, or looking

(09:37):
to cooperate as a general condition. Because we've seen this
shift in the in the research community, we've seen the
shift in the general public. Nobody wants to work with anybody.
You disagree with me, you're out. God. Uh okay, that's
just the culture. I'm not even pointing a finger in
any left or right direction. I'm saying that's the culture,

(09:57):
but also the culture of communication, keep it keep it real, pithy,
so much so that it doesn't carry very much information,
but must make a strong declaration. This just seems to
be the cultural shift in my mind. So you know,
the younger people are not going to do any better
the older people that are setting the ways they're not
going to do any better. The people that refuse to

(10:19):
use a computer mostly are dead now, but still right,
nobody is going to cooperate correctly, and nobody is going
to communicate correctly, and that means they're not going to
receive or send correctly at this point to make an
actual point with context and texture or am I just
you know, being picky about you know, modern tech and

(10:40):
getting my grumpy old man on even though I'm only
in my fifties here, Larry, I mean going. You can
tell me I can handle it.

Speaker 3 (10:48):
No, I think we've fallen into a bit of a
trap in the vehicles we're using. As you say, our
bandwidths have really been dialed down there are you know,
every everybody wants to see something addressed, you know, like
give me the fact in five sentences or I'll move

(11:09):
on to something else, you know, like was it in
the text? No it didn't fit. Sorry. I have a
problem with a lot these days because someone will want
to talk to me and have a question. Let's say
it's about Oswa, Mexico City, and you know it's really
if you don't have the full story, the full background,

(11:32):
the field context, you and I can't really discuss it.
So the best I can do is refer refer them
to the book, because otherwise I'm not doing them a favor.
They're not going to get what they want. You know,
are they going to get a yes or no? Was
he there? Was he not there? Yes or no is
not a good answer, you know, a on these complex subjects,

(11:53):
you you can't you can't compress it to a character limit.
It's so No, you're absolutely right. And interestingly, I see
even on forums that I visit a lot shorter post
where people seem to compel to say, oh, I agree
with you, or I agree with that post, or I

(12:14):
don't agree with that post, or you know, let me
post something I posted fifty times before in response to this,
just so you're forced to read it again. You know,
the threads get derailed, and there's just no coherent dialogue
on these things that are really complex history. You know,

(12:35):
you don't discuss history with you know, soundbites just doesn't
work that way.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
No, And that's the bottom line. It's not soundbites. It's
not going to be in a you know, in a
TikTok video, it's not going to be in a tweet
it's not in the abbreviated form that you're going to
be able to do this unless you can think it's
super speed, and I don't know too many people that can.
I gotta be honest. Nobody thinks as quickly and goes
through material as quickly as you know a super speed reader.

(13:07):
They just don't. So they're not absorbing any of the
nuances and understanding that you know, a connection to or
a somebody who's working for, or somebody who's a contract agent,
or somebody who's an asset, whether knowing or unknowing, these
are nuances and differences in these narratives that nobody's picking

(13:29):
up on anything new. They are just you know, repeating
their own positions and therefore paying no attention to any
progress that's being made or redefining of any terms, people's
positions or anything else that could be had even in
their own paradigms. If they just realized something might have

(13:49):
changed here, we might have learned something new. Collectively. Well,
see there's my problem right there. Nobody thinks there is
a collective. There's only the camps and the compartmentalized algorithm,
and that is where people are living. And I'm not
just talking about on the computers, I mean in their
personal lives and their willingness to engage. And you know,

(14:13):
I mean people talk about the Socratic methods still, but
they don't use it. Nobody gets together and has a
discussion anymore, where a actual debate. They think a debate
is when you lose. That's not the purpose of a debate. Actually,
you know, I mean, yeah, everybody likes the win and loss,

(14:33):
and we're Americans, we love that sort of conflict, but
that's not the full purpose of a debate. And that's
not how you're going to learn anything, because if you
think you know it already, what's the purpose of learning anything. See,
here's the problem, right, And I'm talking about psychology as
opposed to even the technology here or again, you know,

(14:56):
I accept, No, you mean a grumpy old man truck.
You're just saying these kids don't know what the doing.
I'm not even saying the kids, because I see this
in people older than me, younger than me, my age.
It doesn't matter. It's across the board, it seems like.
And I think that's one of the major problems. But
let's put that aside. Can you talk to me about
what it is that people could see here if they

(15:18):
were willing to listen, if they were willing to see
the progress a couple of points. Maybe not you know,
the same points that Jep's making, but maybe you see
some progress here. Malcolm sees some progress. And Malcolm Brunn
is one of the best brains on this case that
we have that people should really have utilized differently earlier on,

(15:41):
but didn't. Only a few very intelligent people did. Just
in praise to Malcolm Brunt right here, Okay, because I
don't want to just say nice things about people when
they're gone. Okay, here we go. What is your thought
about that? What is it that we could learn here
if we were willing to pick up and you know,

(16:01):
follow the newly presented pieces of evidence here that obviously
had some import because they hit it for over a decade.
They sent the guy to the Supreme Court, who basically
killed it in court for Jeff to begin with, and
without the special circumstance of his connection to Representative Luna
and a few other pieces of luck, Jeff might have

(16:25):
never seen this while he was alive. Let's be honest.
Other researchers have died waiting to get documents and Jeff
might have done the same, even though he starts out
as a reporter, as a guy trying to put together
a story as you know the author, or that it's
a long journey Jeff's been on. Some people have been
on longer ones, I admit. But let's talk about what

(16:47):
it is that he may have finally loosed that we
could take further in your mind.

Speaker 3 (16:54):
Yeah, I think one of the big takeaways is confirmation
Jeff had been told over a number of years by
people within the student directorate that they had been providing
detailed information on Oswle's activities in New Orleans. Is his
media visibility, his political stance to the CIA, and that

(17:20):
would have been reported up within the CIA organization at JM.
Waven Miami, up within the Specialistairs Affair staff, going up
to Des Fitzgerald, going up to J. C.

Speaker 2 (17:34):
King.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
We know enough to know how the information should have traveled.
We basically we would have known enough to know a
number of names of significant people that would have been
aware of what Oswald was doing. And we know that
because we've seen other memoranda and paper trails on people
of much less significance. You know, I will give an example.

(17:58):
An example would be that a Cuban reported another Cuban
in Miami of being a potential CIA deep asset. You know,
this guy is just your every day you know, works
for cleaners, he works in manual labor. They report him
to the CIA, they report him to the FBI, and

(18:19):
for two years they try to investigate this guy to
see what his real alliances are. How do we know
about this Well, actually, in Dallas, Walter Heypman, FBI subversive
desk guy in Dallas, is still working on this case
in November twenty second, nineteen sixty three, a year after

(18:41):
it started. Because this guy's now living in Dallas and
they're still investigating him, and they don't finish that investigation
for another eight months after the assassination because Heypman is
pulled off to work on the JFK inquiry. So this
is like a trivial person, you know, not visible in

(19:03):
the media, not with an obvious political He's just a
kind of a suspect. We don't know if he's Procastro,
we don't know if he's anti Castro. But it's minutia
and we have a paper trail on that within the
CIA and the FBI. And yet what we find with Oswald,

(19:24):
even though they know about Oswald and the Cubans have
been telling him about Oswald and running their own propaganda,
which Jeff is confirmed that disappears within the CIA. Now,
their their position has always been, oh, well, we didn't,
it's not in the case officers materials. We didn't. We

(19:45):
disclaim all the knowledge of this because this guy Joannides
is not the Howard that they were talking to that
they told you, Jeff, He's not you know, he's not
even in our files. He's not different guys, you must
be wrong. They must be wrong. Now we know that's
all not true. That information was being passed in great detail,

(20:09):
and it starts not showing up in places we should
be able to look for it because these people have
day jobs. It's a bureaucracy. I was just looking at
a case file on the headquarters file on the student
director that goes into great detail. In fact, there's one
entry registrate that says, oh, there were these students that

(20:31):
were on the air in New York City and they've
been to Cuba and they were promoting the Cuban experience.
And yes, the DRE is going to is going to
respond to it, you know, counter this media. Well, heck,
we have a major media confrontation in New Orleans between
Oswald and Vre that goes into multiple venues over several weeks.

(20:56):
That doesn't even show up in this dre case file.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
Why not right now? This is now let me just
interrupt with this because this is very important. You bring
up the Howard issue. To my mind, first of all,
we need to define the difference between what something suggests
and what something proves. And for a long time we've
known that this was suggested. Many things were suggested that

(21:21):
have now been proven by these files. Like you said, confirmation,
We now have confirmation to certain things. But the Howard issue,
to my mind, there's more than one Howard. This is
what the thing is. Howard is almost like a title,
not even a person. Okay, in my mind, that's what
it suggests. Now. I have not thoroughly gone through this

(21:41):
as well as some others, but that's what I see there.
That's what I see the potential for for certain. In
addition to that, do we get at any of the
Joe and Needy stuff involving is then later on interactions
in the investigation, or do we have to piece that together,
you know, because they told the House Select Committee, Okay,

(22:02):
you know what do you want? We want people that
had no connection to any of the events in nineteen
sixty three, and they were lied to. I'm probably gonna
have to turn my mic down because I think I
hear the dogs getting upset about something. But anyway, the
thing is, this is a series question here, right, the
after action and the Howard issue. If you don't mind,

(22:23):
just go back over that Howard thing real quick because
they might have missed it. And yeah, talk to me
about this House Select Committee thing and Joan's involvement. And
again I'm gonna kill my mic quickly just to keep
the dogs out because I want them to hear you
marry more than anything. God.

Speaker 5 (22:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (22:37):
And the Howard thing, the good news is that was
resolved in the admin file because all the questions about
it might have been another Howard. Officially there was no Howard,
there was no Howard alias. The admin file that was
released to Jeff shows that indeed there was a cover backstop.

(22:58):
For example, one example it in there is is a
driver's license in the name of Howard and with his residence,
and clearly there was a cover for and this is
for join Edes. By the way, there was a cover
for Joines to operate as Howard, which was the name
that was used with the Cubans. It was that the

(23:20):
name on the address that the Cubans were given to
send information to, So that that was resolved in the
admin file there you know, as to whether or not
it was you know, kind of a soft file situation
where it was only known at jam wave and maybe
it was lonely a local AVOs and not a headquarters alias,

(23:43):
and debate that all day long, but the file itself
shows that clearly a backstop cover had been put in place,
including a driver's license for joint eds as the Howard
that the Cubans were were contacting and providing information to.
So that got resolved, which is a big deal because
now that's not even it's not even argument. What what,

(24:07):
of course is not resolved is that what was given
to Morley is just the admin file. And you don't
find operational level activities in an admin file. At best.
You might find some promotions, some you know, job endorsements
or evaluations. You know, we're talking about a regular business

(24:30):
admin file. So no one would have expected or should
have expected anything explosive in that. In fact, it's kind
of amazing that that backstop cover showed up there tom
of the driver's license.

Speaker 2 (24:44):
To translate this, this is the same type of file
that I might have kept on an employee when I
ran businesses. That's all this is in an agency sense,
it's you know, this is what the guy did. This
is any major incidents, This is his promotions, his position,
you know, this kind of thing. That's what he really
got his confirmation that this guy was you know, official reagency.

(25:08):
And some of those details are helpful, but I mean,
am I essentially correct or is that really the bottom line?

Speaker 3 (25:16):
That's absolutely there, although one of the sometimes you can
you can pull stuff out of that. For example, another
thing in the file was the fact that he had
gone had to go through another security clearance and a
special security check to give him the clearance to assign
him to a new project in the late spring of

(25:36):
nineteen sixty three. Doesn't name the project, doesn't give us
a crypt for the project, but we can see he
had to go to that process. So he had been
assigned as a case officer, fairly routine staff job, even
though at a high level, I mean, because he's not
operating just individuals. He's operating groups. The our student director

(25:57):
as a group, not an individual. He's a case officer
at a higher level than most. But he's being assigned
to something beyond that. That's really special that we don't
we don't know what it is. We know it's something
new going on. It wave and that provides us a
lot of ground to look because we know what join
ed specialties are, we know what he does, we know

(26:21):
what he's capable of, so we can start matching to
that too. Oh, what where should we look for operational files?
What might he have been engaged in that justice getting
started and kicked off in the late spring of nineteen
sixty three. That's that's super secret that he had to
get a new clearance for. That's way beyond just his

(26:41):
case officer activities.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
Well, right, so that gives us timelines, That gives us,
you know, new open possibilities. Why is it that he
needs extra training if what it is he's already trained in.
We have confirmation of what he was capable of. Like
you said, he's capable of running groups. That is a
difference for running individuals. It's a different skill set, it's
a different requirement, it's a different money level, you have

(27:06):
access to funding resources, et cetera. There's a lot of
things that can be drawn from this, right, So that
is a positive and it's great. What it doesn't give
us the whole story, and it doesn't assign to us
even a beginning explanation in my mind for what happened
with the HSCA or am I wrong about that?

Speaker 4 (27:30):
Well?

Speaker 3 (27:31):
As far as what happened with the HSCA with to
get back with that, Joinese John eds at the time
that the hsc was not in good health, it was
considering going into retirement. But among all of the other
officers that the CIA would have had to select to

(27:52):
service the liaison to the HSCA, you know, to be
the guy that knows how the CIA work, that knows
overall how to help the HSCA do his job. Actually,
you would probably want to pick somebody from headquarters, somebody
who has real expertise with the c AA record systems,

(28:16):
you know, not join It is not a very good
personnel pick to do that job. So one of the
things that immediate the question has raised is, you know,
we've all talked about the fact, why would you pick
James Angleton to be the CIA liaison to the Warrant Commission,

(28:37):
you know, to help the Warrant Commission. You know, Angleton
being counter intelligence CI sigg you know, not not the
most helpful sort of person in the world. Ankleton's skills
are covering things up, not exploring things. But and so
here we have again a CI officer picked whose skill

(28:59):
set really doesn't match the job. So then you raise
the question of just like Angleton might have known something
that he wanted to make sure it didn't get shared
with the Warren Commission, perhaps Joe and Edies knows something
that we want to make sure it doesn't get shared
with the HSCA. Oh, what might that be the CIA's

(29:22):
interest in Lee Harvey Oswald.

Speaker 2 (29:23):
Well, let me challenge you from a different activement that
perhaps you learn about that.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
Uh, here's this happened.

Speaker 2 (29:32):
Well, but here's why. Let me explain. You know, I mean,
I'm not just gonna say you want I'm not on
my firms. Okay, I'm not a jerk. Uh, but but
here's the thing. Angleton fits the job for the Warren
Commission based on the type of inquiry it was. If
you want to deflect and make sure that you control

(29:52):
the flow of information, Angleton might be positioned well to
not get them started on something that will end up
on the record. And indeed, Joe Eddies might be positioned
well because of his intimate knowledge of what the HSCA
was actually after. The Warrant Commission only wanted to know

(30:13):
about Oswald. If you take a look at the subcommittees
that were laid out, the investigative groups. Okay, sorry, but
where you have a junior and a senior council, you
have four groups, and three of them have the name
Oswald and the damn title of the group. They were
all after Oswald. With the Warren Commission. Okay, the HSCA
didn't do that. They broke it down a little differently

(30:35):
and went after very particular things. So indeed Joe Edens
might have been positioned to take care of the one
particular thing that they were going after at the time.
And he's available, he's not busy with other things because,
as you said, his health was bad. So actually he
might be the right man for that job, just like
Angleton was the right man for the CIA job with

(30:55):
the Warren Commission, to control the flow, to make sure
that only certain things would reach them, whether they are evocative, provocative,
et cetera. But only certain things would reach them because really,
at the end of the day, they're there to filter
things properly. Both of them.

Speaker 3 (31:13):
Oh, I agree with that, take Chuck, and that's actually
what I'm trying to say. Oh, it's just a lif
if you have a particular goal in my let's talk
about personnel selection, right, Okay, what's what is my goal
for this job? Okay, my goal for this job is
not the same as the goal that you know. May
not my goal is CIA may not be the same

(31:36):
as the goal that Earl Warren has, or maybe it is.
I don't know. But the job descriptions might not match.
The goal of exposing information and an inquiry is on
their side, the goal of controlling information on an inquiry
is on my side. So the job descriptions aren't quite meshing.

(31:56):
And I would say, yeah, I think both of them
fit exactly the profile for shielding information whether than open. Yeah,
they're in a position to keep doors closed, not to
open doors. And and their activities absolutely with their respective
commissions show that you know that there intentionally. We know

(32:22):
that Angleton was intentionally and demonstrates that he was intentionally
closing doors, especially in regard to Mexico City, Joe and Eddies.
When asked directly some questions related that would relate to
the ERE, and Oswald absolutely closed the door. He did

(32:43):
not volunteer the fact that, oh, yeah, I can get
you that information because I happen to have it. So yeah,
Actually in this case, darn looks like we agree.

Speaker 2 (32:54):
Oh it does. Actually, I see I was misinterpreting and
thinking you're saying that, you know, joean Nis is not
really greatest fit for this job, and I'm thinking to
myself now it's And also context once again, I love
using that word with you because it is really your
key word all the time. Context, the information that was
going to be presented to the public as the end

(33:17):
product of each of these inquiries will use loosely. Is
different because word commission time, there is no awareness of
the castrow plots. There is no awareness. I mean this,
The CIA is a mythical organization that is, you know,
run the up and up in nineteen sixty four on
the Naples at their report. Right by the time the

(33:40):
HSCA is full swing of its work, seconding up in
the seventies we already know the public even knows the
CIA might not be behaving. You know, bout boards all
the time. Oh, we have a different context, a different
dat of information, so a slightly different you'll set, a
slightly different familiarity is required of that control officer that's

(34:07):
called in between Angleton and Joanne's, who is supposed to
be a liaison to help but also has to control
for his side what's going to be fed. It's a
different context. Joannes can fed stuff to the HSCA make
them happy, they couldn't be fed to the Warrant Commission,

(34:27):
and vice versa. You know, things that seem very benign
in nineteen sixty four no longer look benign in nineteen
seventy four or seventy six or any of that time period.
Do you think that that's an important thing to realize
here when comparing those.

Speaker 3 (34:43):
Two Yeah, I would say that as you a set
presents it essentially, angle then has to worry about the
door to the CIA as an entity, because there are
a lot of embarrassing things you don't want to reveal
as you're going along. Do I want to reveal the

(35:04):
castro plots? Do I want to reveal the CIA uses
criminals on occasion. Do I want to really reveal that
the CIA acts domestically against citizens? Lots of things I
don't really want to reveal at the level of the
total agency. But when we get to the HSCA, you
know that a lot of that's come out because of

(35:26):
the Church Committee. That's no longer shocking. That's no longer
Oh yeah, we know the CIA does assassinations, big deal.
We know they have media people in their control, and
we know they do domestic property. Okay, we know all that,
all right, So what's the big secret By the time
we get to HS the HSCA, you know, like, where

(35:47):
would the explosive part be at that point in time,
because the CIA has already been suffering. Uh, and it
probably has to do specifically with the agency Lee Harvey Oswald.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
Right, and here we go, and again all they had
to do is make a basic denial. In nineteen sixty four,
CIA says they weren't connected to him. We accept it. Done.
Plus we have the former head of the CIA or
on our panel, so therefore we know Oswald's not connected
to CIA. Done. I mean, it's not simple in sixty four,

(36:20):
it's not ten years later. Okay, it's just not.

Speaker 3 (36:24):
The CIA is not nearly as trusted ten years later
as it was before.

Speaker 2 (36:28):
Well well yeah, remember you know the warrant commissions made
up of several what did they say, prestigious individuals who
are you know all that Alan Dolls being one of them,
who very much controlled the activity of the Warrant Commission.
If you take a look at the executive sessions, the
amount of questions asked, a lot of things. I still

(36:48):
love a Waltz book on this, the moron Omission. But
anyway they shout out to Walt Brown. The thing is,
it's a different landscape for a different skill set required. Okay,
you know, the guy who makes your French fries might
not be able to form your potato, but if they're
part of the same process, Okay, So I want to

(37:13):
shut up now and let you continue on this and
kind of, you know, give us the ultimate conclusion here
in short form, as best you'd like, you know about
what it is this progress represents. And I do want
people to read Malcolm Blunt's article, but I don't have
a link to it available right away. I will find one,

(37:34):
or maybe you could pass me one. Larry and we'll
put it in the show notes. But I want to
get to that point where it's like, Okay, now that
we've gone through this and tried to explain some context
and some reality is connected to what was actually handed over,
what does it mean ultimately or what should it mean
going forward?

Speaker 3 (37:54):
Well, part of it is that a it does confirm
another point as well, and that's the point that and
John Newman had developed years ago in regard to Jane Roman,
and in regard to the fact that the CIA had
provably withheld current information on Lee Harvey Oswald after his

(38:15):
return from Russia from its own people. It had withheld
it from its people in Mexico City, and when Lee
Harvey Oswell was there and being queries were being made
about him, the only reason that happens is if the
CIA does have an operational interest in him, whether or
not there already using him knowingly for something, have an

(38:37):
idea about a notional idea about using him for something.
There's every reason for us to accept the fact that
there were operational interests, possibly in several different venues. There's
several given the image that he had created for himself
in New Orleans, given the fact that he had volunteered
to the FBI to provide information on the FPCC. Both

(39:03):
the FBI and the CIA have operations going on something
called Amsanta related to the FPCC. Every reason to think
that over a course of some ninety days there could
have been different types of operational interest within the agency
in Lee Harvey oswelld Okay, there's just our job now

(39:28):
would be to pursue that. Because we know what was
going on within the agency, we know the kind of
things that we're doing. There are places we could look
to try to find evidence of that, unless that's been
taken away. But that's an important lead. But I think
the more important lead, and where this all really comes
down to is let's take that as a given, as

(39:52):
a hypothesis. Lee Harvey Oswell is of operational interest. He's
an operational interest as of late August through September, through
October and November. And there may be an evolving interest
in him, you know, immediately in New Orleans propaganda wise,

(40:14):
with the DRE evolving into something more in regard to
Mexico City. But there's an operational interest in him within
the CIA.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
Now.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
One of the things that we all most all of
us can serious types have talked about for a long time,
is if you're going to hijack Lee Harvey Oswall and
make him a real poisoned pill, make him really dangerous
to the CIA, because they have an operational interest in him,

(40:45):
who's going to hijack him? Where would you turn to
look for somebody that would know about that operational interest
and be in a position to say, Aha, actually, if
we pass this guy, and if we use them, and
we take their plan the air propaganda and we make
it ours. Let's take let's say that they were already

(41:07):
working on the Gilberto Alvarado story of Cuban's contracting Oswald
to kill JFK giving him money, which David Phillips maintained
to his death, say that was already project. That's great,
we can hijack that, we can make them a patsy.
We can turn this whole thing against Cuban a heartbeating

(41:29):
and problem solved. Where would that hijack occur? You know,
of all the potential characters that have been offered, all
the scenarios that have been offered for this conspiracy, who
wouldn't know enough about that operational interest to hijacket My
point be obviously somebody within his CIA and somebody that's

(41:52):
involved in that operational interest. That's where the hijack has
to occur. So just what I'm going to toss out
is this gives as a real direction. Look, we've made
apotheses about all this before, but now it's giving us
a real suggestion of Yeah, we were thinking we were
looking in the right place. Now we should look more closely.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
Okay, I actually have a live question, which I didn't expect,
but he then also emailed me to make sure I
looked at it, and I'm not sure if I've got
the right question. I hope it's right. Let's see where
is this thing so I could get the scoop on
the context of this the document they mentioned a couple

(42:37):
of KGB mails on trial where these are the ones
known before. Jeez, this is kind of a bit of
a complex thing for me to try to read. I
really want you to restate that question in the chat
rooms that you're listening live quickly though, because Larry's almost
out of time with me. Yeah, please, because I don't
know if you want to ask the question about you know,

(42:59):
he had just come back from Greece. It just come
back from Greece. There's one part one thing that looks
like a question there, and then there's some other things.
But there's a bit more chat going on in the room,
so I'm not sure which thing he wants to ask here,
so please enter it back in the chat room. The
exact question, well, just a couple.

Speaker 3 (43:18):
Of comments while that's been done. Is we do know
John Ed's background is not unlike David phillips background. Both
of them were case officers. They handed individuals. Increasingly, they
handed handled higher level individuals up to political action type individuals.

(43:40):
Join Edes actually appears to have been a serious factor
in regime change in Greece and had some regimes games
regime change skills, just like David Phillips did. But both
of these are former case officers who have advanced through
the ranks and have specializations in propaganda, especially black propaganda,

(44:05):
something that should be very much on our minds in
the fall of nineteen sixty three.

Speaker 2 (44:11):
Yeah, okay, let's see I get the scoop on the Okay,
the context of this Mary Ferrell document. Yikes, let's see
in the document they mentioned a couple of KGB models
in trial where these ones known before and George joannides

(44:32):
to had to testify concerning a phone call and Bruce Soli,
who was alive Jezu. Yeah, it is a very complex issue.
So you know, if we look at the member from
Bruce L. Soli chief SAG regarding camp files. Okay, you

(44:57):
might have seen this before, Larry, Do you know what
I'm referring to it even to begin with? Or no?

Speaker 3 (45:02):
Oh, just very generally, it seemed to me that that
was separate from what he was doing in nineteen sixty three.
So I have read it and I noted it, but
it didn't really seem directly relevant to what he was
doing in sixty three, so I didn't pursue it, honestly.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
Okay, Well, the beginning the memo is on this day,
George Joani's number forty one six fifty five was received
the May nineteen seventy eight letter from subject was interviewed
by WFO slash FBI agents Terry Neast and Ken Patten.
The interview was conducted in for eed S thirteen. Prior

(45:45):
to the interview, the undersign had obtained the original letter
from Vivian Psachos. However, you pronounced that and it was
furnished to the above agent or permanent FBI retention. The
undersigned was not present during the interview, but it should

(46:07):
be noted that Joe and Needes in all caps had
open heart surgery about the time he received the above letter,
and that was from solely there and this is dated.
Let's see when is this day to day? Seventeen August
nineteen seventy eight. Anyway, it's a bit of a complexity there.

(46:27):
I don't know how you would answer that anyway. In short,
if you want.

Speaker 3 (46:32):
To put it in the chat or drop me an email,
I can try to give you a response that you
could put in the chat, but it looks like I
would have to do some background reading to give any
reasonable response.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
Yeah, I'll do that. And what we'll do is I'll
get your response after the show, my friend, because I
don't want to short change your question, Okay, to be
honest with you, especially because that guy's actually a supporter
of the show, who you know, sometimes gives me a
little heart burning on the calling show. But that's okay.
I would rather answer his question for even if we

(47:08):
got to do it after. But anyway, the total discussion here,
you know, we got we got a bit of progress
out of this confirmation. For sure, you got some more context,
but it's still as yet incomplete, as per usual. I mean,

(47:30):
this is almost where Yeah, I kind of go along
with the people that go yeah, yes, same old, but
it's not because it's part of what was being held
back for a long time, no matter how long you know,
morally sued to get the documentation. This is part of
what he wanted, but it's not everything. And that seems

(47:52):
to be the name of the game with all this, right.

Speaker 3 (47:56):
Yeah, and we wouldn't expect it to be. I mean,
this is this is a lead. Is it any different
than Jane Roman going Yeah, they'rewithholding information, So that looks
like there's an optional interest. No, it's not quite that good.

(48:16):
But basically Jeff has interviewed a couple of people to
go along with the lead that are about that level.
You know, it's like, this is yet one more confirmation
from real people working within the CIA and talking to
the CIA about an operational interest.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
Yeah. I did copy and paste it, by the way,
the live listener, But I'm telling you he's saying he'd
want to look over it before he answers it.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
So I am looking at the link check and I see.
All I see is like a one page letter from
nineteen seventy eight. So security and now this group is
interviewed Joe and Needes obviously well after his uh you know,
his retirement, and it rapes to a letter from I

(49:13):
don't see the letter. So they've reviewed interviewed him about
a letter that they and this is the FBI interviewing
about a letter. So I to give a comment, I've
got to see what uh uh Vivian was asking about.
You know, it's like, we interviewed him about the letter. Well,
where's the letter. I need to see that.

Speaker 2 (49:34):
I know this is the problem with a singular document.
And I get he's saying, look, it's a cold war question,
but it's not that simple. You got to know the
fully what's going on here, not just what's in that letter.
And you know, off the top of your head, it's
not easy to know the precise details. You got to
look back over them to be honest with you.

Speaker 3 (49:54):
Well, it's it's it's it's FBI.

Speaker 2 (49:57):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (49:58):
This is so Chief Security Analysis Group within the CIA
talking about the fact that Joe and Edes was interviewed
by FBI agents about this letter. So here's here's a
CI officer who's in retirement who solely is allowed has

(50:19):
given permission to be interviewed by the FBI because he'd
have to do that. In regard to whatever is being
asserted in the letter, is is this new information? I
don't think we've ever seen this letter, so to that extent,
I would say it would be new. I know, there's
I guess the bottom line is there's a lot of

(50:41):
talk these debates about solely because of what John Newman
is writing about solely, and perhaps this relates, you know,
something new about the fact that Solely would let Joe
and Edes be interviewed. But again, I'm sorry, I just
I don't have another context to just make a reasonable observation.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
Yeah, I know, I know. I just this is what
I try to explain all the time, and people go, oh,
that's because you don't know what you're doing, and I'm like, no,
it's because I don't have all the information that you
really need to fully decode what you're asking, and I
need other information along with you know, it's not what
happened here is on the internet, modern Internet, Larry. And

(51:30):
this is how I'm going to break this down, is
that people came to expect I have the one document
in my hands. You probably know who I'm imitating some listeners,
But anyway, I have this one document right here. It
proves this, and it never does because in and of
itself shows nothing, and you have to take it and

(51:50):
have the other context to be able to know what's
going on altogether. And I'll tell you what, after reading
millions of pages, as I'm sure you have, Look, you're
not going to memorize the specifics on everything or trust
your memory anymore on everything because it gets blurred after
a while.

Speaker 3 (52:11):
Well, sorry, in regard to this check, it's kind of
triggering a little bit. I think I have read some
more dialogue about this letter, and the issue was the
FBI agents interviewed Joannides, and I think there was a
complaint that he was not being cooperative, he was being
testing and grumpy with them, and that they were actually

(52:34):
complaining to Solely that he was not being helpful and
had not been helpful. And that's the reason for that
item number two in the letter. It's sort of like
Solely is going by the way, you guys realize that
you know he has had open heart surgery, He's probably
not at his best. You know, this is a polite
way for the for Solely to go back and say, well, yeah,

(52:56):
he's an old guy's retired and he said searcher recently,
and yes he was grumpy. You know, get a life.
I saw that somewhere else. It's that much as coming
back to me. But it's still not coming back to
me what the interviewed him about.

Speaker 2 (53:12):
Right, And what he says in the room is as
he's trying to get, you know, at the question, but
he says, you know, George Joanedi's had to testify in
the trial concerning Soviet moles.

Speaker 3 (53:21):
Yeah, okay, so that makes sense. So otherwise Solely would
not be it wouldn't have come under the security. So
obviously there was some kind of claim about moles. Right,
And that's interesting because obviously, you know, my first thought
would be, you know, George was just about to read

(53:44):
you know, what did George. I'm wondering if it does
not have to do with his time in Greece more
than what we're talking about here in nineteen sixty three
in terms of people that he may have run across
who were being investigated as being moles. But so, yeah,
that that part makes perfect sense to me and to

(54:07):
that to that extent, in all honesty, Joan Edes, We've
we've looked at Joann edes entire career has not been
looked at in the same fashion that say, David phillips
entire career has been looked at, because Joe and Ed's
up to this point had been a and the CIA
had managed to make him a rather trivial figure. I

(54:28):
will say, there are all sorts of people now that
we know of that our major figures in regard to
the JFK assassination as persons of interest or suspects. You know,
that includes Morales more Joe and Edes now that that
we didn't even know about, or that the HSC that

(54:51):
the CIA effectively stonewalled for years, so we wouldn't even
be able to investigate their entire the background, right.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
And they also did a little bit of diversion where
they can you know, contrive some you know, a whole
lot of that in misdirection that goes on in order
to keep you off the trail. So this is actually
a step down the trail, but it leads to other trails.
And that's what the problem is again, because they turned
around and they did keep some trivial nonsense, a whole

(55:23):
bunch of it away from us that has nothing to
do with anything. And they fought tooth and nail to
keep that hidden, right, and it.

Speaker 3 (55:31):
Works because if you keep everything hidden, we have no
idea where should we be spending her time?

Speaker 2 (55:36):
Right right? You know exactly. This is why I point
out that whole thing when I know spent that money
and then got my documents in the mail and got,
you know, five copies of the same cut out badly
cut out, by the way, photo copied or xerox newspaper
article that was just part of somebody's file. And I
got five copies of this stupid thing now and it

(55:57):
was something that was in the public domain. That come
on you. But I'm leasting my money, my time doing that,
and what does that meant to do? Maybe you give
up after a while. You know, if you keep digging
for treasure and you got holes all over your yard,
you're gonna stop digging in your yard after a while.
It's just pretty simple. You can't walk across the yard anymore. Anyway, Larry,

(56:21):
I really appreciate you taking the time today and we
went over a little bit. Sorry about that. But would
you this is my final question for you, just real quickly,
would this have changed anything or do we already see
an update maybe to the Oswall puzzle or an addendum?

Speaker 3 (56:39):
Oh, definitely, it doesn't change to me. It doesn't change
anything about Lee Harvey Oswell per se. What it does
is extend significantly what was going on around here at
the moment. There are half a dozen different operational possibilities

(57:00):
that David and I are examining. I think it greatly
extends the areas that we have to look at for
these operations, especially to find operations that both Joe and
Edes and Phillips, who were propaganda backgrounds may have been
participating in. They direct us towards this new super secret

(57:21):
operation that was forming at the same time. Both Phillips
and joann Edes appear to have been assigned to it,
or to assign We know what Phillips was assigned to
at that point in time, it was the new Autonomous
Operations Special Operations under des Fitzgerald, and if join Edes,

(57:43):
if that was the operation that joann Edes was assigned to,
There's a huge range of possibilities and some very dark
possibilities that are going on there. So not so much
on what's in the eye puzzle, but what might have
been going around the Oswald puzzle. And as I said,

(58:06):
even raising the possibility for at least some speculation on
a scenario of this time exactly who and when and
how they hijacked Oswald.

Speaker 2 (58:20):
Almost seems like you could write a sequel called the
Oswald Frame, because this is well I was thinking of it.

Speaker 3 (58:26):
I was thinking of a short monograph, Chuck, you know,
twenty or thirty pages. But that's what I was thinking
of when I started the Oswa puzzle too.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
That I was about to crack up, because that's exactly
what happened with the Oswell puzzle. As you went, you
know what I'm going to write like an article? Yeah,
and then you know it might be big enough that
I might have to make a monograph. We'll post it
online somewhere for free. It'll be that okay. And I said,
oh oh, because if if.

Speaker 3 (58:54):
Jeff just got a few more operational documents.

Speaker 2 (58:57):
Who knows, then then we might have, you know, the
sequel to the Osma puzzle from Larry. I'm laughing because
Larry has several times tried to tell me basically, look,
I think I'm gonna put the JFK thing away now,
and I went, great, let's go in other directions. And
you know it's like that, which, by the way, here's

(59:19):
a hint at what I may do during the Myths
presentation at Lancer, and it's gonna be worth your ticket
that day, you know, the whole Godfather trilogy, all right.
Every time I try to get out, they pulled me
back in. Larry is suffering that and he's not even Italian. Anyway,

(59:43):
we'll we'll, we'll get into that more in the in
the future. And thanks Larry for taking the time to
do this. Maybe a little follow up, you know, if
you get a chance to take a look at this,
who knows, maybe it'll be the seed of something interesting
for you, and maybe you'll be able to add to it,
because you know, your mind those to different places sometimes.
I mean, I look at things, I put them in context.

(01:00:03):
I try to follow up on each thing. First of all,
I define things, and this is my oversimplified explanation. I
want to know what that letter says, since they mention it.
I want to know who the person is that's mentioned.
So I go and I study those things, and it
seems like a sidetrack, but it's not. It's to put
total context so that I'm reading this as if I'm

(01:00:23):
knowledgeable on every subject in the paragraph. Even That's why
it takes me time to figure things out, because sometimes
I'm familiar with the people and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes
I'm familiar with the subject, sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I'm
familiar with the kryptonym, sometimes not. And this is the
process I go through, probably not the most efficient way.

(01:00:46):
And you know, I would like to see a well
trained AI that can do it. But as smart as
those things are, they don't get very far with this.
You still people, So I mean, there may be technology
that's you know, in certain industries that I haven't seen yet,
but as far as what the public has seen so far,

(01:01:07):
there is not a researcher AI for JFK. Not yet.
Maybe we'll get there, Larry, Maybe maybe we'll become unnecessary.

Speaker 3 (01:01:19):
The only remark I can make, Chuck, is if the
AIS trained themselves into a certain position the same way
we have trained ourselves into different positions, you know, that
makes them no smarter than we are. The problem with
AI is it's still a matter of training. If if
what you're training them to do is fairly straightforward, and

(01:01:40):
you just give them tons of data. Cool, more data
than any human can handle. Cool, right, which means AIS
and science and astronomy, geology, physics, cool AIS in the
areas we cover maybe not so cool right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:58):
And you know what's funny is just gave you the
punchline I wanted to give, and he did it better,
so I appreciate it. Follow Larry's blog Larry not Harry,
Larry Larry Dash, Handcock dot com or hyphen whatever you
want to call it. Go there. Follow his blog. He
does give you some information on occasion over there about

(01:02:19):
a variety of subjects, not just the jfk assassination. And
although I'm highly recommending the book The Osma Puzzle at
the moment all year year and a half, actually now
you know this is the thing. I was recommending it
before it came out because well, I had an idea
what was in it, and it was necessary. Here's the thing,

(01:02:40):
it's required reading. But I got a shelf full of
Larry Hancock books and not a one of them is
something you waste your money on, whether it's nexus, or
it is creating chaos, or it is surprise attack. His
co authors have changed a few times. Occasionally his wife
has given him the title of the book, But the
content and the context of those books is an incredible

(01:03:03):
education on the behavior of the security state, whether it's
about UAPs they call them now, or it's about you know,
spheres of influence, the intelligence agencies, the JFK assassination. You
have a serious library that Larry has put out all
by himself, and I'm really proud and happy to have

(01:03:25):
him on here and grateful.

Speaker 6 (01:04:24):
Do you like history, real history that you were never
taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War

(01:04:44):
Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson,
Revelation Conversation Chili dot Com.

Speaker 5 (01:05:03):
Revelation through Conversation.

Speaker 7 (01:05:13):
Here it oh.

Speaker 1 (01:05:18):
Ll you.

Speaker 5 (01:05:24):
Fact, oh Shelley Fashion Trams and truth right Jay trow.

Speaker 7 (01:05:38):
RYA ain't all the world your fact?

Speaker 1 (01:05:51):
Yeah? Yeah?

Speaker 7 (01:05:57):
Mm hmmm.

Speaker 4 (01:06:10):
Through that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:23):
Of that.

Speaker 3 (01:06:25):
Truth.

Speaker 4 (01:06:26):
Breaking through 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

(01:06:46):
context of the Cold War and the rise of the
national security state. Before World War II, the United States
was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it
became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not
only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were
short range missiles on the island aren't with nuclear warheads
that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers.

(01:07:08):
Their invasion could have led to a Third World War,
and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War
State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you
what President Kennedy was up against.

Speaker 2 (01:07:20):
For more information, The War State dot.

Speaker 3 (01:07:22):
Com dot com radio the.

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
Vius expressed by caller Stools. There anyone else who happens
to get on the air of Jelly dot com. You
not necessarily reflected the US little Jelly dot com or
Jelly and we are not responsible. We're getting stupidity which
might ensued.

Speaker 3 (01:07:36):
Thank you revelation.

Speaker 7 (01:07:41):
Through com sage.

Speaker 2 (01:07:47):
Here Shell you.

Speaker 5 (01:08:01):
Oh Shelley, Fast, trais and truth right Jay True, you
are the fast.

Speaker 7 (01:08:16):
I ain't on the world. You are the hop back. Yeah, yeah,
mm hmmm mm hmmm.

Speaker 1 (01:08:41):
Mm hmmm yeah.

Speaker 7 (01:09:13):
River like.

Speaker 5 (01:09:17):
Through cover, shot, carried sound, a lie aside.

Speaker 7 (01:09:30):
A reason, truth ran true.

Speaker 3 (01:10:05):
M.

Speaker 1 (01:11:45):
Own Oh.

Speaker 8 (01:12:02):
Baseline crowds raise the strings, black smoke, bleed, kick drunk,
crushed bone, snaps from the beats, greed, brass, screams, loud raise,
a cuts through the night, little swap.

Speaker 7 (01:12:14):
And blues bleed, dice in a fighter.

Speaker 8 (01:12:20):
Spear crashed with fire, rhythms oft the change, sweat hits
the stage, pleasure point from paint, saxophone whales, shark like
a fang, hip hop, Bloke, glen were chaos, sun chained,
infernal roars, let the boy, John.

Speaker 9 (01:12:37):
Soon, grassing beads, pain O, sonic toom, metal grime.

Speaker 8 (01:12:45):
Soul breaks in Soon, Horns.

Speaker 9 (01:12:48):
Of madness, screaming, boom, twist, bite deep twist, the groove,
insane blues and beats, breaking through the pain, trumpets, how

(01:13:11):
violence caught en rage, fury unleashed on his burden stake,
hip hop breaks, weathing.

Speaker 8 (01:13:21):
Through the Red, Swagger breaks, Chaos still meets brass neck.

Speaker 7 (01:13:24):
Trump, Phil murders.

Speaker 8 (01:13:25):
Cash just feels like why look Bruce talked down.

Speaker 7 (01:13:28):
The end of time.

Speaker 1 (01:13:47):
Out.

Speaker 7 (01:13:47):
It burn on Morse let the void.

Speaker 9 (01:13:50):
Consume, rossing beats, pain or sonic toom.

Speaker 7 (01:13:57):
Little Grid Soul breaks in too. It's a madness streaming.

Speaker 1 (01:15:00):
Fye more the n

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

24/7 News: The Latest

.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 8-6-2025 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;}Stuff You Should Know

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

24/7 News: The Latest

All Episodes

The Ochelli Effect 8-6-2025 Larry Hancock

Stuff You Should Know