Jump to content
The Education Forum

Larry Hancock

Members
  • Posts

    3,372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oklahoma USA

Recent Profile Visitors

23,931 profile views

Larry Hancock's Achievements

  1. I wanted to advise everyone that we now have a registration page up for the JFK Lancer 2021 Conference - you will find it at: https://jfklancerpublications.com/ Note the new domain name for JFK Lancer - as I noted before Debra is going to have to move to a new host and initially recreate a Lancer Web site. That is obviously going to take some time but as I said, the conference itself will stream separately as well as have its own attendee Facebook page so the domain and web site change is not a problem for the conference itself. I had also gotten a comment on my own blog about missing the guided walking tours of the Plaza that we had done over the years. As it so happens Gabriella and I recorded and extended video of that walking tour last year, unfortunately we had some problems getting it posted on Facebook but this year she has new video editing software and we are certainly going to try to make that available for the attendees. The good news is that it would not involve the rain or sleet or cold wind we sometimes ran into in November in the "live" tours. As a reminder, this years scheduled speakers include: Scheduled presenters at this time include Jim DiEugenio, David Boylan, Donald Jeffries with Chuck Ochelli, Larry Schnapf, Mike Chesser, Bill Simpich, Andrew Kiel, Debra Conway, Larry Hancock, Stuart Wexler, Malcolm Blunt, Bill Kelly, Russ Baker, Gill Jesus, Robert Groden, and Brent Holland.
  2. Thanks John, I was really only trying to draw the distinction because with one time event witnesses its even more challenging as there is no real change for "learning" at the time - however "learning" does occur after the incident - from other sources - and that makes trusting witnesses well after the fact even more challenging. First off in the event of a crime or accident they get personally engaged so that distracts them, then you have the retention problem with what little they pick up and finally the "false learning" that they pick up afterwards. Which is why if you take witness reports its really important to get it down within hours and before they begin talking to people.
  3. In the classroom It's not necessarily all about "retention", its also about learning - John noted the need to develop several ways to present information to encourage retention. Decades ago in my education and training courses it was emphasized that it was mandatory to present material in multiple ways because students are individuals and they simply don't engage with information in the same ways. We were required to build lessons plans with multiple ways to present (five column plans for that matter). That even held in my Air Force instructor training. If you get lucky you hit on some way to express it or demonstrate it in a way that at least gets a few to engage enough to get it - and perhaps even retain it - more engagement equals more retention. All of which makes matters worse when relying on witnesses who only had one brief shot to capture anything, flesh what they did get (often unknowingly) with conversations after the fact, reading or viewing media, giving testimony, responding to questions, etc. To think that you can come back later and confirm more than a minimal set of observations is quite well documented - as Gil brought out above.
  4. Thanks Benjamin, the website is still a work in progress, should be very close but it seems like something new turns up every day... In some ways virtual conferences are easier to organize but in other respects it just seems to spread the last minute stress out over a longer time...grin. I am particularly looking forward to it as a forum for people to share new research and we are particularly happy to have Gil Jusus join us this year given how busy he has been on the forum and his web site in recent months. Jim's insights into the Stone documentary should be really welcome and the review of Malcolm Blunt's new archives will be very important.
  5. The web site thing has been immensely frustrating and chewed up a lot of time and mental energy for Deb, its about the strangest thing I have ever seen. I stay in touch with Bill but I think he spends most of his time communicating via his blog. As to James Richards, several of us have tried various means to contact him over the past year but with no success. He had a unique collection of photos and some equally unique contacts in Miami that were always way beyond me. We communicated literally for years, but I've had no responses from him for some time now. Interestingly enough I'm still working one of the leads (and photos) he gave me something like two decades ago...amazing.
  6. JFK Lancer will host its 2021 annual conference November 19-21. The conference will again be “virtual” with presentations streamed during the conference dates and with a dedicated Facebook page for registered attendees to ask questions and participate in dialogs with presenters. The feel will be $64.99 for conference viewing only and $119.99 for conference viewing plus digital download. Scheduled presenters at this time include Jim DiEugenio, David Boylan, Donald Jeffries with Chuck Ochelli, Larry Schnapf, Mike Chesser, Bill Simpich, Andrew Kiel, Debra Conway, Larry Hancock, Stuart Wexler, Malcolm Blunt, Bill Kelly, Russ Baker, Gill Jesus, Robert Groden, and Brent Holland. Other presenters have been invited but have not yet committed as of this date. As I understand from Debra Conway, something like three weeks ago Lancer’s web host removed the JFK Lancer web site from the host server without any notification. Initially it appeared that would be quickly corrected and the Lancer home page was shown as being under construction. Then the hosting company loaded pages from 2019 and that totally confused matters for those going to the site address. Its a long three weeks for Debra, which I'm not going to attempt to describe in any detail, but the result is that she is now working on the creation of a new site under a new domain name and and should be available very shortly. That site will provide the access to register for the 2021 conference. Work on the conference itself is well under way and proceeding on schedule - the conference itself will be streamed independently. Apologies for any confusion, its been a pretty bad experience for Debra. I will provide further updates here but if possible please share with others that the 2021 conference itself is indeed alive, well and proceeding towards November.
  7. Micah, unfortunately Lancer's web host first took down their server with no notice, then put up the wrong pages and after over three weeks have yet to restore it. The site may have to be moved to a new host and may even have to have a new domain name. It's a nightmare at the moment. The 2021 conference is well underway and will be held on schedule in November but the issues with the Web site have been distressing for Debra and that struggle is still underway. I will be posting separately on the 2021 conference and advise on progress with the site. Unfortunately the story from her web host has changed almost daily over the last weeks...a literal nightmare.
  8. Ron, I know that I did comment on the possibility of Oswald getting rid of his rifle some time before the assassination and other parties using it to frame him but that's as far as I would go. I'm very well aware of David's article on the official story of the issues with the rifle purchase, but I will straight up say that any plan to kill the President of the United States which relies on the sole proof of "framing" a "lone nut" with the ownership of a weapon that associates that individual with the weapon by being contrived by the FBI totally after the fact makes no sense to me at all. Especially when it leaves all the loose ends with the purchase and delivery issue that David and others point out. Especially if you accept a plan leaving all those loose ends to be part of a highly efficient and even professional assassination. The thing is (as we often complain about) that if you discount a rifle owned by Oswald and you can't connect Oswald to either the rifle or the ammunition used, there is no evidentiary "frame" in place at all at the time of the shooting. The best you have is a guy working in the building who has been to Russia and protested in favor of the Castro regime. Pretty darn weak. Given that, the only option I could see would be that nobody really worked on seriously framing Oswald with any evidence, at best they left a rifle and some hulls in the TSBD and after the fact the FBI and all involved in a cover up contrived the evidence to frame Oswald out of whole cloth. I could even accept that as possible since I posit that the damage control/cover up was almost entirely built in a helter skelter fashion after the fact. For me it could go either way - Oswald did have a rifle and somebody framed him with it at the time of the shooting - or he didn't and he was totally framed with a sloppy evidence trail after the fact. Unfortunately choosing between the two is not a lot easier for me now than it ever has been.
  9. Jim, you might want to pass that reference on to Bill Simpich, as I recall he put up that particular crypt onto the site.
  10. It should be noted that RX is not among the standard crypt bigrams listed in the Mary Ferrell Foundation overview,and the purported crypt itself is described as "alleged" - from the Wilcott testimony. The crypt itself is noted as "contested" and its status as "speculative", indicating that no documents or other sources have been found to support it. It is referenced among the cryptonyms because it is in the literature and people may be curious about it. The presentation text gives an objective view as to its source and level of verification.
  11. In regard to Prouty, David was good enough to come up with the document I was referring to, and yes Prouty was strictly an Air Force contact (Air Force Office of Special Operations) for the Cuba Project. His involvement had to do with acquiring aircraft for the Cuba Project. The early 1961 document discussing that can be found here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146516#relPageId=70
  12. On Anthony's question, there are documents reflecting that SAS Counter Intelligence at JMWAVE was using AMOTS and the Cuban Intelligence service not only in Florida but in New Orleans and in Mexico City. For that matter one DRE case officer (William Kent) actually too up residence in New Orleans for a time (you will find details on that in Tipping Point as well as some document references on Kent). I don't recall any specific reference to SAS or AMOT activity in Dallas - although its possible if SAS (or the DRE) was following Oswald after New Orleans. If that were true it would be in documents either already destroyed or in those that Moreley has been fighting for in court. Beyond that, the SAS and the AMOTS were active in New York city in regard to Cuban diplomats at the U.N. but I don't recall seeing any activities outside Florida, New Orleans, Mexico City and NYC.
  13. We ran into the reference to Prouty and his support (or CIA project officer griping about lack thereof) for the Cuba project circa late 60, early 61. Hopefully David Boylan can produce the document with some slogging, since he found it in the first place. I looked and did not find a specific reference in the book but I may have missed it. We are working on an expanded index but that's still upcoming. I did trace the timing on his career with SACSA in Shadow Warrior but don't normally try to give exact dates from memory. It is certainly possible he may have simply been working for the Air Force in regard to responding to Cuba Project requests...which may have been in regard to getting additional B-26's in the last months when they were still woefully short of aircraft, but that's just one possibility. I don't recall it having anything to do with the Navy or ships though because CIA officers were working directly with the Navy itself on that.
  14. I don't know that Prouty was involved with sourcing the Barbara J, it had been formerly a Navy vessel. The Houston came from Garcia Lines. The history of both ships is found in detail in the records pertaining to the Cuba Project - and is cited in my book In Denial. It would be nice to see someone go back to source documents I referenced. As I've mentioned before, we did find some minor reference to Prouty in documents related to the project, primarily in the form of complaints about his responsiveness.
  15. That should be interesting Matt, I interviewed a Navy crewman who was offshore on the aircraft carrier Essex, he was very helpful in confirming several points but as with most of those who participated in the operation, he had no idea of the rules of engagement, restraints, and directives that JFK had issued - which were not complied with by either Bissell or CINCLANT who was giving orders in regard to the Navy participation. Of course that also likely explains why the Essex comm logs and other mission logs were actually destroyed on board before the carrier ever left the area. Another JFK directive was that if the force was detected during the landings or engaged at all, the landings should abort and fall back to a plan to land elsewhere. There is no indication such a plan was ever prepared and of course the landing was engaged by Cuban forces from the very beginning. I found no sign that there were ever any orders issued or plans made for that contingency. Another was that the Brigade leaders were to be directly told that there would no condition would American military forces would be committed for any reason, there would be no American military support of any sort, air or sea. The records state they were so briefed, but neither the officers with the Brigade itself nor the Brigade members appear to have have received that message - and were clearly expected something much different, which is why they have always felt so abandoned. However be prepared for the response that the the entire operation was an exercise in futility and could never have succeeded without overtly committing the American military. There is certainly an argument for that - what you have to be prepared for is that the CIA led everyone to think there would be a major on island uprising going on in conjunction with it and totally managed to duck that point in the final weeks and in the after action assessments. Strangely is was a CIA historian who called that out most aggressively, years after the fact. Unless you dig into what a two faced game Bissell played, how totally useless and ineffectual Cabell was, and how JC King was even worse, its hard to appreciate how JFK could have let it go forward. The thing is that it was not just his trust in Dulles that was misplaced, it was an inherent weakness and incompetence up and down the high level chain of command for the operation. Which of course is why the actual IG report on the failure - which explicitly called that out - was suppressed and Bissell allowed to write his own version...
×
×
  • Create New...