Larry Hancock: Impressions from November in Dallas--JFK Lancer Conference

New post on Larry Hancock Impressions by larryjoe2 Its hard to convey the extent of the material that gets covered at the annual November in Dallas research conference. That's partially because of the breadth of speakers but beyond that its the extent to which informal conversations and dialogs allow you to explore thoughts stimulated by those presentations.  Having been around the subject of President Kennedy's assassination for some time I'm going to share a few of the points which intrigued me personally. First, the extent to which Malcolm Blunt and John Newman have been able to map out so much of the CIA's organizational structure and internal communications is amazing.  And while that might not seem of interest to all those who continually search for smoking guns - it should. As an example it appears not that they have traced out a routing request which directed that internal communications relating to Lee Oswald's defection were to only be circulated to Counter Intelligence - before you yawn, the second point is that the request appears to have been placed before Oswald's pseudo defection to Russia. In another presentation, John Newman reviewed documents which showed that Henry Hecksher - a topic of previous posts here and a candidate for Richard Case Nagell's "Bob" in Mexico City - had been stationed in Havana at the same time as David Phillips and was heavily involved in security activities for Phillips, who was under commercial cover in Cuba. When you add that to travel documents showing Hecksher going to Mexico City at the same time Nagell was there and the fact that Hecksher was later assigned to head the AM/WORLD project, things become even more interesting. Finally, I have to say that for the first time in a great many years I am fairly well convinced - by Michael Chesser's conference presentation on the enhanced HSCA skull X-rays - that there were two shots to JFK's head and that one was most definitely from the front and into the hairline, impacting at exactly the same point the Parkland Doctor indicated in his television interview that afternoon as he pointed to his own head. The presentation also confirmed the degree of post Bethesda tampering with the medical evidence which have become so clear over the years. I can't even begin to detail the rest of the conferences, DVD's will be available from Lancer early next year. I can say that after all these years it is encouraging to see that dedicated researchers are still surfacing important new information. copied from Larry Hancock and here is a link to the page: https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/impressions/ Thanks, Larry, for all of your hard work and research on this very important issue.

Larry Hancock Talks LBJ and the Odd Way He Acted After the Assassination

LBJ on Nov 22 1963 by Larry Hancock

One of my long time interests has been behavior of Vice President Johnson during the hours immediately following the attack on President Kennedy – an attack which at the time could not have been known to be limited to an action against only the President. There has been a good deal of speculation, including some of my own, that Johnson’s actions were not what should have been expected of the Vice President. Others have suggested that there was a broader pattern of national security failure.

One way to test such speculation is to actually compare the response of the people at the very top of the national security chain of command during major crises, including events that would have produced fears that the nation itself might shortly come under attack. To do that effectively it’s necessary to really dig into what the plans and preparations for such crises have been and to study their evolution over time.  As it turns out there are ample incidents which do allow comparison, beginning with at least two instances under President Eisenhower when he was informed of an apparent, incoming Soviet attack on the United States. I’m not talking about some quickly resolved NORAD alert, but presumed incoming atomic bomber strikes which were tracked and monitored over several hours.

An even more direct comparison can be made concerning the Vice Presidential and national security response to the shooting and near death of President Reagan. One of the most dubious parts of Johnson’s response to President Kennedy’s death is his apparent ignorance of his responsibilities as Commander in Chief and his conduct in taking over those duties on November 22. Of course if he had prior knowledge that a Soviet “decapitation” attack was not actually in play, it would provide an explanation for what appears to be a dereliction of duty on his part. Some have painted the brush even more broadly, pointing to similar failure to act by the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser and other senior officials – indicative of a conspiracy involving one or even all of them.

The question then is how their actions compare to those of their counterparts during other crises, including President Reagan’s shooting or the attacks of 9/11. It is possible to explore that question in detail, even to the point of comparing events on and communications from the Presidential and Vice Presidential aircraft during major crises. I tackle those comparisons in Surprise Attack and while I’m not going to give away the conclusions I can say I found doing the research absolutely fascinating. The comparisons in the book apply not only to Johnson’s performance but to that of other positions, specifically that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser and beyond that to the Presidential military aides.

I can also say that certain of Johnson’s activities on November 22, 1963 were impossible to compare – and for readers of Someone Would Have Talked, I refer to the calls from Presidential aides to Texas on the evening of November 22. What would be most revealing, and something someone should undertake, is a study of the phone calls and contacts made by Johnson immediately following the Tonkin Gulf incident and the attack on the intelligence ship Liberty. The question being, was it routine practice for Johnson to initiate major cover ups for any incident in which he failed his duties as Commander in Chief. I have gone down that trail to a certain extent and some of that is discussed in the book; there is a much expanded story to tell though, of that I’m sure.

Chloe Louise says:

July 26, 2015 at 12:14 am

Dear Larry…..Just can’t resist mentioning…..just today I asked the guy at the dog park, “who do you think killed JFK,” as I had just been watching the you-tube show about Tippit by the author McBride…….

I said to my friend it is so fascinating and I often spend my spare time looking at this kind of thing.

He said he did not know who killed JFK and he did not care since it was 30 years ago and people have moved on.

Well, not only does he have a problem with addition, but he should be more interested in the whole thing–this ultimate mystery of the century really should be solved–the cover-up won the minute LHO appeared on the cover of Life Magazine.

Has anyone ever noticed how odd LHO acts in custody…..to me he does not act like the average 25 year old just accused of murdering the president……always admiring your work…..what do you think?

copied from the webpage of Larry Hancock............

About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

Related articles

• RV park caters to travelers -- and dogs
• Huntsman and Hillary: A Brilliant Combination
• Eric Holder and President Obama Talk About Commitment, Michael Brown and Trust: Spreading the Word
• Free School in Norway: I'm going there right now.......
• Geraldo Rivera Bashes Bombastic Barbie Ann Coulter on Immigration.........
• At the end of the day Bill O'Reilly does not count
• Geraldo Rivera: Giving a Voice to The Working Class

Larry Hancock Talks David Atlee Phillips

A Broader View by Larry Hancock The recent written confirmation from Anthony Veciana that his long time associate Maurice Bishop was indeed CIA officer David Phillips gives me the opportunity not only to write a bit about that revelation but also about how it fits into the much broader picture that we developed with "Shadow Warfare".   Actually there was no doubt in my mind about the identity of Bishop and I think the extensive information developed by Gaeton Fonzi and Tony Summers fully supports the expanded study which I did in my Phillips chapter in SWHT.   Veciana also made it quite clear to Fonzi and others why he would not identify Phillips in his formal testimony without Phillips permission and its clear that he has now only done so following Fonzi's death and out of respect for Gaeton and his wife Marie. What a good deal of the discussion about Veciana's recent statement is missing however, is that the relationship between the two men started in 1960 inside Cuba and continued for a full decade, with Phillips assisting Veciana to get a USAID position in Latin America in 1968 - even while Veciana was under official INS restriction to Miami's Dade county and should have never have been allowed out of the U.S.  This long term relationship becomes extremely important in two areas that we address in "Shadow Warfare". First, in the context of Kennedy Administration policies and CIA official  positions, it is clear that Phillips worked with and was in contact inside Cuba with a very well organized revolutionary group which almost did assassinate Fidel Castro in a bazooka attack...only very bad luck on their part saved Castro.  And it appears that Phillips continued to contact and work with Veciana in attempts to kill Castro over the next decade, including one extremely complex plot developed in Chile in 1971. Given that there appears to be no Presidential approval or CIA executive sanction for the ongoing attempts, a serious question is raised as to whether Phillips was pursuing his own private agenda and to what extent the plots were supported by CIA vs. private resources.  There is also a major question about whether or not his superiors were aware of this, to what level within the Agency and to what extent the Agency officially covered up his activities to the Church Committee and HSCA investigations. That becomes much more critical in terms of Phillip's long term influence on events in Latin America, including his admitted contacts with Louis Posada, Posada's terror attacks and the activities of other CIA related Cuban exiles across South America - something we discuss in great detail in "Shadow Warfare", including Phillips (and David Morales) seminal activities in what became known as the Condor operation. Another explosive issue raised by Veciana's confirmation is the relationship between the CIA and Alpha 66, which according to Veciana was instigated, funded and directed by Bishop/Phillips.   Exactly who inside the CIA knew that Phillips was helping create Alpha 66 and who knew that he was directing it towards attacks on Russian targets inside Cuba though 62/63 in direct opposition to Kennedy Administration policies and presidential directives?  In "Shadow Warfare", we discuss the issue of CIA rogue action and the real risk posed by decisions by officers who decide to obstruct and subvert administration policies. In short,  those interested in the Kennedy assassination sometimes come to view people like Phillips, Hecksher, Morales, Shackley, Sforza, Robertson and their Cuban exile associates only in terms of 1963, in "Shadow Warfare" we follow their careers and activities over some 30 years and readers will see there impact on a global scale.  Its a much broader view and we think a much more revealing one. copied from the blog of Larry Hancock Thank you, Larry, for all of your hard work and sharing it with us.......cl just saying shall we put this together with the recent post from the Boston Globe talking about the suspicions of RFK after JFK was shot?   Then we will ask Vincent Bugliosi his opinion after that. ............................................................... links to more info about David Atlee Phillips: from wiki:     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Atlee_Phillips from Spartacus Educational:  http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKphillips.htm from JFKfacts.org and very interesting comments:  http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/from-the-files/what-has-bill-oreilly-learned/

Related articles

• Jfk: the Zionist Manifold Cover-up
• The Jfk Assassination
• Presidents Serve at the Pleasure of the CIA
• At Warren Commission conference, a Cuban militant tells his Oswald story
• JFK theorists gather, press for document release
• In Search of an Uncluttered Life
• CNN's Fred Whitfield: I'm So Proud Of My Man Avery Friedman
• Art Bell Vs. George Noory: The Coast to Coast AM Controversy
• Seriously, Everyone Loves Wolf Blitzer and I do To
• Noam Laden: Anchoring the Anchors at WABC Radio New York

Larry Hancock, top-notch JFK Assassination Researcher on the Jeff Bushman Radio Show Tonight

New post on Larry Hancock Patsy 102 by Larry Hancock Before I continue further down this train of thought, I need to mention that if anyone would think it entertaining to hear me discourse in person, there are a couple of new opportunities.  This coming Wednesday evening I will be on Jeff Bushman's internet radio show for about an hour.  We will be covering a broad variety of topics and Jeff's a great host so it should be a good session.  In addition, a recent lengthy interview by Alan Dale is now up on the Lancer web site and archived for access.  The links are below: http://tunein.com/radio/The-Jeff-Bushman-p484957/ http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html I've been following a number of the current media interviews on the anniversary of the assassination as well as a couple of the television specials - not all of them, after close to 20 years on this subject I do hit overflow now and then - and it appears that there is a new trend.  Many quotable personalities are acknowledging that the Warren Commission inquiry was lacking in a great many ways, even "dysfunctional", and that it was not provided with a considerable amount of information as well as with questionable evidence.  Now that's a good thing, its only taken four decades or so to have that point acknowledged.  Beyond that however, the new operative responses seem to be  for the speakers to fall back on a position of stating that its important to keep an open mind or simply to pontificate that we will simply never know what really happened.  Both of which are pretty safe positions to take, although I've note noticed any of the "open minded" folks on my voice mail, clamoring to be informed of what they might have missed in the past 50 years.  Perhaps we will see all of them joining our ranks in Dallas? Perhaps the most striking recent comment came from John Kerry, who seems to have taken the position that conspiracy of some sort may well have been in play - with his first thought being that perhaps another look should be taken at Oswald's Cuban and Russian associations. Which of course, in my view, is exactly what the plotters in the Dallas attack wanted to happen - Kerry is simply behind their playbook about 50 years, for those of them still living, it must be pretty frustrating.  In that regard, lets take a step further in thinking about the "patsy" concept I introduced in my last post. How many of you mystery fans, print or television, have seen the show which begins with the police arresting the supposed murderer - who generally has at least some level of motive but who has been stupid enough to take the murder weapon, with their prints all over it, and hide it in their dresser drawer, in the trashcan out back or maybe the utility shed.  The police and DA are happy, and justice is about to prevail...until Jessica Fletcher, Matlock or Perry Mason steps in to reveal that many murderers are just a little brighter than that.  In other words, the obvious suspect is not necessarily the guilty party, no matter how the evidence originally stacks up.  And the bad guys have usually taken some pains to stack the deck, not only with the evidence but in creating a series of associations and a motive that falls apart with a bit of work -  within half an hour or so of air time. Now this concept of setting up patsies is not really all that complex, William Harvey's notes address the fact that any ZRRIFLE operative will have to have a fake document trail and evidence pointing them out as a Soviet or perhaps Eastern bloc asset in case they are caught.  And in SWHT I describe Veciana's remarks about how similar one Castro assassination attempt they set up in Latin America was to Dallas, even going so far setting up the patsy with photographs implicating him as a Communist and other evidence showing he was acting for Communist handlers.  So, if Mr. Kerry is open to a conspiracy I would encourage him to consider the fact that the now obvious sponsors might be just a bit too obvious. I would also suggest he consider that both the Soviets and Russians had an excellent reputation for intelligence work and would be unlikely to leave such an obvious trail positioning Lee Oswald as being associated with them if they were indeed the true instigators of a conspiracy.  In other words, lets give the real bad guys just a trace of credit here. In this series of posts I've brought forth a number of specific incidents and sources that associated Lee Oswald with unknown individuals who were positioning themselves as Castro agents. As we get closer to the attack in Dallas those associations and suspicions continued to grow.  In Dallas Sylvia Odio was introduced to an individual identical to Lee Oswald and told later, out of his presence, that he was a hired gun who could equally kill either Castro or Kennedy.  In SWHT I review Odio (and her fathers) suspicions that those individuals were not the peo0ple they claimed to be but were playing some sort of deeper game in those remarks.  Currently Bill Simpich is in the process further detailing the same type of false associations being planted in Mexico City and later in Dallas, according to FBI Agent Hosty, Oswald would still be in contact with "subversives".   I would submit that it was not Russian or Cuban agents handling Oswald in such a matter so as to implicate themselves in such a transparent fashion, surely insuring American retaliation following an attack on the U.S. President. I will also submit that Lee Oswald was not stupid enough to shoot the president with his rifle and then think about hiding it at the same location, with fingerprints likely on it and then adamantly deny any such act immediately upon being taken into custody.  If I hear that "he did it to become famous" motive on one more TV show...well enough for now. Larry Hancock | November 11, 2013 at 1:03 am | Categories: Everything else | URL:http://wp.me/p1DeOb-5Q copied from Larry Hancock...........