Jump to content
The Education Forum

Larry Hancock

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Larry Hancock

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Oklahoma USA

Recent Profile Visitors

18,370 profile views
  1. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66 run by U.S. Army

    Off the top of my head I don't think he brought up any of the Army contacts with he or Alpha 66. But as you say, that really wasn't were Fonzi was looking at the time; he was looking into the Miami community and towards Cubans and the CIA. I probably need to reread SWHT myself, every time I got into it to respond to a question or check a new document I find something I had forgotten about...then again I wrote it largely as a research resource, good thing.
  2. Larry Hancock

    Alternative Assassins (names)

    On the subject of crypts, I think a quick glance at the list on the MFF would settle the question.. https://www.maryferrell.org/php/cryptdb.php My personal favorite has always been AMSANTA....clearly that was not a randomized crypt. The crypts for other agencies are pretty expressive too. You just can't beat ODENVY for the FBI
  3. The mob connections in Ultimate Sacrifice are to Marcello, Giancana and Trafficante...primarily Marcello and New Orleans. Waldron does not really pursue the Roselli/LA or Roselli/ Lansky connections - the LA connections may have been far more important to Dallas given the contacts from LA to Ruby immediately before and after the assassination. And for what its worth Roselli had no OSS connection, his WWII service was basic and limited as was his military training. His connection to the CIA was first two the Castro poison plots and then to Harvey and the second phase of assassination attempts. https://www.amazon.com/All-American-Mafioso-Johnny-Rosseli-ebook/dp/B00LSWEDJ8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1531168282&sr=1-1&keywords=rappleye+and+becker
  4. Larry Hancock

    Shackley's SSCIA Testimony

    Strange, no remark about the AMOTS were actually trained and deployed for in regard to the Cuban invasion...and "provided information" is a very genteel expression. Also no word about their activities in Mexico City...
  5. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66

    Steve, I think that CI did indeed increasingly become a driver, the word has always been that both Security and CI had to vet all operations personnel and missions. A good example is the fact that Angleton was called in post BOP and worked with the Cuban exiles as part of a project to deal with Cuban intel penetration of the overall Cuba project...which had leaked like a sieve. That put him into contact with both Morales and the AMOTS at that point. Angleton had his fingers all over the place and was an intrusive force..greatly complicating individual station operations at points. I certainly suspect there were some side deals going on in MC and around Lee Oswald in the fall of 63 and Simpich has done a great job opening up those possibilities. Its good odds that some of the apparent confusion we see in MC relates to such side deals as well as in Phillips own trip back to DC while Oswald was in MC. And yes, I would surely put that on the wish list although the odds are slightly less than seeing Santa when leaving cookies out at Christmas.
  6. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66

    Wow, that is a great find David, especially with the suggestion that the station inquiry was a major priority (not something limited strictly to a tasking by Sforza) and went on well into 1964; it certainly gives lie to Shackley's later remarks... I find it hard to think that a COS could order an inquiry of that nature without HQ authorization nor that it could be conducted without a report to HQ...and as far as I know no sign of any such report, specifically including a detailed inquiry into the exile community, has ever surfaced in any form. That should certainly be a high priority item for future document searches but I would have to think its either something that never went into the files. If Shackley did it strictly on his own authority, and lied about it later, it would suggest that something really serious turned up in the station inquiry.
  7. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66

    Steve, the answer would be "no" in terms of official chain of command - on the organization chart and in terms of who filled out his personnel reviews. However Phillips often wore a couple of hats and due to the success of the Guatemala operation was seen as sort of a psyops guru, providing consulting on projects outside his normal tasking including projects out of HQ. To make it more complex, in Mexico City he performed a Counter Intelligence role, organized psyops against various targets and by the fall of 63 had a new job working for the new Cuba project head at HQ all the while doing certain tasks relating to the new AM/WORLD project and even working high profile exfiltrations from Cuba with Morales at JM/WAVE (Castro's sister being one, worked by Sforza, Morales and Phillips). He was very much in a job transition at that point in time. By the fall of 63 he had his fingers in a great many pies and so did James Angleton who was waging a turf war at HQ claiming he should be in charge of CIA both in Mexico City and Saigon. There is some reason, Bill Simpich pursues this line of thought and I address it in NEXUS, to think that Angleton and Phillips might have been working certain special projects that fall, perhaps without the full knowledge of the COS. Its interesting that both Phillips and Angleton's person in MC both got relatively poor reviews from the COS that year, possibly because of unhappiness over Phillips divided loyalties. See, now wasn't that simple...not...grin, Larry
  8. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66

    Thanks for posting that source David; much better than my general memory of it. In reading that we should remember that Shackley himself later testified that his station, JM/WAVE had conducted no JFK assassination inquiries since that work had been assigned to the Warren Commission and the FBI. Yeah, right.
  9. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66

    I think its a very important take away to differentiate individuals from groups in regard to their "effectiveness" and the possibility that certain individuals would be stand outs for violent action, with respectable track records for carrying off missions. Generally speaking JM/WAVE itself had a pretty poor record of attacks inside Cuba even though it had very experienced CIA paramilitary officers like Jenkins and Robertson organizing missions. In comparison Alpha 66 leaders like Cuesta, Commands L teams including Bernardo de Torres and even independents like Roy Hargraves carried out successful missions against Cuban installations and ships. Certain CIA associated Cuban exiles were also imminently successful in independent, covert operations - Felix Rodriquez being a stand out. You find people like that moving from group to group, not only from the Cuban brigade onward but through the 60's and on into anti-Communist missions from the Congo, to Vietnam and on to Nicaragua. Its also worth mentioning that when the mysterious internal JM/WAVE investigation (ordered by Sforza) was ordered to look into Cuban exiles who might have been involved in the assassination, it not only addressed CIA associated exiles but all sorts of independents as well (before you asked, we know the inquiry was done, we even know a few of the questions asked, we have that anecdotally from someone at JM/WAVE but that's all we have - whatever information was collected either didn't actually make it into a report or was quickly suppressed). It occurred to me I should add something to this post and that relates to the fact that the CIA, at least JM/WAVE, may have on occasion provided unspecified levels of support to unsanctioned groups like Alpha 66 and Commandos L in a "factually" deniable fashion - deniable to the point the groups themselves would be unable to provide evidence to claim CIA support, even if for some reason they wished to do so. I cover this on page 357 of SWHT 2010 in reference to a CIA memo discussing support for both Alpha 66 and Commandos L. The discussion pertains to using a particular asset who is reporting in advance on missions by those groups and the fact that he would not be useful for that particular function.
  10. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66

    I'm working in this area now and a general observation would be that during 1963 Alpha 66 became more politically active in exile organizing and fund raising but several of its more combat and mission active members moved to join Commandos L. Commandos L gained considerable media attention for its missions and continued a focus on Russian targets: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/norman-key.htm
  11. Larry Hancock

    New document releases 2017

    There are a couple of LI crypts still in review but I'm afraid I don't find any on these...
  12. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66 run by U.S. Army

    Paul, I think Ron quoted me earlier on this, "By January of 1962, U.S. Army counter-intelligence had been established on Alpha 66 members, and contacts were made throughout 1963. In particular, Army counter-intelligence (CI) had made contact with Antonio Veciana in October 1962. He was assigned code number DUP 748 on January 30, 1063." Army Counter Intelligence definitely had an interest in both Alpha 66 and Veciana but from the documents posted above it appears other Army functions were copied on the CI contacts and may have had their own interests - including collecting samples of Soviet weapons. You would have to run through all the new documents being posted by Michael and David for a full list of Army units who were following the contacts or who had an interest. I have not done that, I'm off chasing some names and connections David pointed out -
  13. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66 run by U.S. Army

    You raise and interesting question B.A. Actually we have had at least some documents outlining the contacts by the Army with Alpha 66, their direct contacts with Veciana and their designation of him as an informant for Army intelligence for a relatively long time. I had some of those documents as long ago as 2005 when I was working on the first edition of SWHT. My memory is far from perfect but I don't recall Veciana talking to Fonzi about the Army contacts and the Army interest in Alpha 66. I wonder if Veciana discussed it in his recently published autobiography - where he presents a greatly expanded role with the CIA inside Cuba. For those more current with those books, does this sort of Army connection - on them? And does Veciana significantly expand on the sorts of activities with Alpha 66 that are described in these new documents?
  14. Larry Hancock

    Alpha 66 run by U.S. Army

    Looks like a crypt for an individual not a project or group
  15. Larry Hancock

    Wishlist for researchers

    I think it would have to be someone the CIA would trust as a source and also someone deep enough with the plotters to be trusted as a CIA contact...