There, Chris Matthews--Take That: Larry Hancock Solves the JFK Murder Mystery

New post on Larry Hancock

Smoking Gun by Larry Hancock Readers of SWHT and NEXUS are aware that they present some pretty tightly focused scenarios for both the JFK conspiracy and the coverup; with SWHT being more detailed on the coverup and NEXUS on the origins, nature and individuals involved in the actual Dallas attack itself.  Unfortunately because of the size (and depth I suppose) of SWHT, certain key things get missed even by repeat readers.  Bill Simpich and I had a discussion of that the other day.  Bill is wrapping up the final chapter of his new boolork - hopefully everyone is following it chapter by chapter on the Mary Ferrell web site.  One of the things he called me about was to discuss what we both feel is a "smoking gun" event that further points the figure at some of the key figures involved in the Kennedy assassination. If you have SWHT, I'd refer you to Chapter 9,  page 126 which starts a discussion of "A political H bomb".  This is in the chapter on John Roselli and it begins in 1966, years after the murder of the president, with Roselli himself still  under FBI surveillance and with Hoover still putting on pressure to deport him as an illegal alien.  Its probably safe to say that at that point the last thing in the world Roselli should or would want is to raise his profile with any government agency.  Yet what it does, beginning in December of 1966 is to expose himself as a major potential political problem to a host of figures involving not only the FBI and CIA but President Johnson and ultimately the public via Jack Anderson and Drew Pearson. What he does is detailed in the book, but essentially its to offer concrete information that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, that the conspiracy involved CIA trained Cuban exiles who had been prepared and were being used by the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro inside Cuba.  Given that Roselli was personally involved in multiple assassination efforts, using Cuban exiles, for several years, that would seem to give him a good deal of credibility on the subject - indeed Johnson took it seriously enough to call in the CIA Director and force him to spill the details on the assassination project, something Nixon himself attempted without success during his administration. Of course Roselli did put just a bit of spin on the story, claiming that the Cuban exiles had been captured inside Cuba and sent back by Castro to kill Kennedy under his direction - now exactly how Roselli would know that is a good question, how Castro would control them another and what happened to them afterwards an equally good question.  Strangely, nobody seems to have asked Roselli such questions - not then and apparently not even later during his congressional committee interviews.  Well at least when I wrote SWHT it seemed nobody had; more recently new research suggests that following his effort to promote the story, the CIA took Johnny into a safehouse in Maryland and held a chat with him that lasted some two weeks. But even more interesting than that, is that Bill Simpich has turned up the point that Jack Anderson and Pearson eventually received corroboration of the Roselli story - from none other than William Harvey, the man who worked with Roselli on the assassination projects.  Roselli and Harvey had become close, much to the dismay of the CIA but for Harvey to actually confirm the assassination story is a really big deal; we can only wonder what the CIA thought about that. Now - to the even larger question, the smoking gun - why in the world would first Roselli and then William Harvey, bring such a story to Earl Warren, the Secret Service, the FBI, the White House and the press (all of which other than the press showed no interest at all).   And why in the late winter of 1966.  The answer is that the Garrison investigation was just getting into swing but was very closely held at that point.  The only outsider who knew about it, and who would later blow it to the press, was Bernardo de Torres, the private investigator Garrison's people were referred to in Miami to chase down exile leads to the assassination. What stimulated John Roselli to a very risky outreach, what led William Harvey to back him up in a preemptive strike supporting conspiracy, but a very special "Castro used CIA trained Cuban exiles" to kill JFK scenario.  I'd suggest the two were warned by their gatekeepers in Miami and decided they had best move to take control of the situation by getting ahead of Garrison and also by making key folks in Washington extremely nervous.  The details of how they did that and exactly how nervous Johnson became are in SWHT.  My point is that in this case, rather than constantly looking for the "smoking gun" in the TSBD,  taking a broader view of the assassination can be very useful. Alan Dale and I are doing some further work on this matter and hopefully before too long we may be able to record a  discussion of the Roselli/Harvey/Angleton connection and explore Roselli's very strange public outreach on conspiracy in much more detail. -- Larry copied from the website of Larry Hancock and the title is added by the ronnie re.

Why Chris Matthews is wrong and Chloe Louise is right....Chris Christie wins it easily over Rand Paul

Right, I watch Chris Matthew’s Hardball on MSNBC each and every day.  Love Chris but this time he has got it wrong--except for his name, that is.

He is predicting Rand Paul for the presidential nominee of the republican party.....

Chris, sorry about this one but you are dead wrong.

Chris Christie, republican rock star, will easily be the chosen one to bring his party out of darkness--out of the walking dead of negativity headed by fox new and the ROWG branch of the GOP--which Rand Paul is, indeed, a part of and now embarrassed about his position.

Chris, it’s already over and done with.....

Chris Christie already proved it....Rand Paul tried to go to battle with the great fighter, lost and has tried to beg forgiveness.  Christie won the ground over his statement about libertarianism with the comment focused on Rand Paul.

Rand Paul can’t keep up.  Chris Christie did not need to try and get together with loser Paul and like confrontations will continue.  

Christie can fight without being ugly.

He has the back of the citizens of New Jersey and he will show he also has the back of the working class citizens of the United States.

He has that certain something--the Christie Swagger--Rand Paul comes off as little, afraid and whining, just like his fox news cohorts.  That is a bad choice of a gang to hang-out with.  That will bring him down.

Chris Christie has already ditched the limbaugh sinking ship of fools of the republican party.

Chris Christie has a certain panache--he rolls with the big boys--talking about President Obama being the biggest boy of all.

He won the race with his passion on Sandy and he will ride home on a clean finish--the tea-partiers will be crying in the wind as they are left behind.

My only fear and hope at the same time--Chris Christie will be much harder to beat for my girl Hillary Clinton but the race will be great.

See you there Chris Mathews--I love you but you are wrong on this one--Chloe Louise is right.

chloe louise...Hillary girl forever.

this is from Real Clear Politics.........

 

•

Edit

•

Reply

•

Share ›

• 

  Kordane  Chloe Louise 

  • 42 minutes ago

  You're wrong because you're thinking like a Democrat whilst trying to predict how Republicans will vote. You have to think like a Republican to know how Republicans will vote.

  You guys thought that Huntsman was the best Republican candidate ever, even though he barely got any support at all among Republicans.

  The same will happen with Chris Christie.

   

  •

  Reply

  •

  Share ›
  • 

    Chloe Louise  Kordane 

    • 3 minutes ago

    Your dog is pretty. Actually, you are absolutely right--I hate to admit it. I was so sure that Huntsman would take off--he was the only sensible choice. Romney was a disaster--he was so weak; he would have had a fighting chance if he would have just stuck to his original plans--he just kept getting weaker and weaker. Then the next question is what is wrong with republicans? Who are the voters? What is the make up of the voters and the US? Who won the election. Even the tea-party-est of the GOP must realize they have to change if they want to win. The crazy rush-ite era is over for the republican party--even they have to know that--if they can count--that is. Strength is attractive--with dogs and politicians--that is why Christie will win the nomination. The repubs have got to think it through this time. Christie is a breath of fresh air from the O'Reilly haters.