Larry Hancock

Paul, nobody was saying you could not start as many threads as you wished and have as much content as you wished (at least I wasn't) - what we were trying to do is give you advice on actually bringing more attention to anything new you have to say. I think it has been explained very simply and very well, if you don't wish to see that its your issue. Actually it would even be more effective if Harry had his own thread in order to make his comments stand out...but you probably won't see that either.

Paul, its just this simple.....certainly new information may come out - you have been projecting that it will for some time now. If and when it does it will be more visible in a brand new and specific thread under a new title...not sure why that would not be obvious to you? On another point, as I've made clear, we have ample documents that the FBI did report Milteers remarks to other agencies including the Secret Service as well as to several of its own field offices. Those offices did investigate the threat, contacting all the individuals Milteer had mentioned. The Secret Service referred the threat to Washington DC since Milteer had mentioned that city in conjunction with the shooting threat. Unfortunately both the FBI and SS totally dropped the ball in a meaningful investigation but in reality they way each group did it was pretty much SOP for them at the time. Adams may not know all this but just because he did not do the follow up does not mean that none was done - however ineffectual it was. But more to the point, why don't you just wait and start a new thread on Caufields book and his revelations when they appear? This thread has turned into nothing but repetition and constant promotion of your theory with the same information over and over. In your own best interest you would be better served by starting new threads with real new information....otherwise it will very possibly remain obscured by this giant thread. Kathy is trying to help you understand that, and so am I.

Paul, if you did have something really new to contribute it would be far better to put it in a new, specific headlined thread. People are much more likely to read a new thread under a new topic than to keep coming back to this huge one. That's true for virtually any subject. Your opinions and position are very clear in this one. New research or new information should really have a new thread. Kathy may have something else in mind but the logic for new threads seems pretty clear to me.

Best wishes Robert, I think it would be interesting to see an actual narrative from you, basically a story of the attack as you see it. But I understand that sort of writing may not come naturally, if that ever changes and you do something of the sort II will certainly be happy to read it.

Ernie, just as a technical note, on the morning of either Nov 23 or 24, in a call to the White House, Hoover did note that he had identified a Federal statue which would have given authority...it was a stretch, one of the general "conspiracy to deprive of rights" type as I recall..in this case right to live. Of course Johnson had already directed him to take over well before that and had not particular concern for legal justification when he did so. Its interesting that Hoover would cite that statute given that seems that it might have also applied to justify FBI involvement several of the incidents MLK would pressure him to move the Bureau into addressing.

It is fairly well accepted not that initially Hoover was in a conflict with MLK simply because MLK was constantly prodding the FBI to intervene in local racial violence which Hoover did not view as a Federal crime and part of the Bureau's responsibilities. In certain instances Hoover did direct Bureau involvement, specifically when directed by the Attorney General or the President to do so. Hoover was irate that on at least one occasion he was ordered to provide a level of FBI security for a series of King appearances in Mississippi. As time passed and King continued to push, it became a very personal matter with Hoover and his response and directives within the Bureau went far beyond anything rational. That story has been told in many places; Gerry McKnight does a fine job with portions of it in his book The Last Crusade and we pick up portions of it in The Awful Grace of God. The sad part is that by maintaining a personal and legal advisory relationship with one or two people who had been Communist Party members and who were circumspect, King simply gave Hoover an opening to continue what had become a personal vendetta against him. In the final years, his attack on King centered far more around purported moral issues than the earlier Communist slant...you can see that in the extensive warning reports on King being circulated by the FBI in early 1968 as Hoover was moving to undermine King's Washington march project.

Robert, I have no intention of inserting myself into your thread beyond this comment but I think that people new to the forum should appreciate that a great deal of the ground you are covering and points you bring out have been discussed extensively in the past. You obviously have reached your very own conclusions and state them firmly as if their were no other interpretations - and that everyone else has totally missed what you are seeing for 50 years. Certainly in some instances that might be true, however it would really be more useful - as other posters have asked - for you to lay down an inclusive scenario based on your interpretations - write a monograph, write a book, present your detailed reasoning and evidence. That would allow people to critique it and it would also answer the question raised earlier as to exactly what your interpretations reveal about the conspiracy and its sponsors. As an example of what I'm talking about you made the comment above that if "a car bomb had exploded it would have certainly pointed to a conspiracy, which may not have been possible to sweep under the rug". That leads you to totally exclude it as being a fringe idea. However other views of the assassination - mine for example, grin - offer the point that their was a major effort to make the assassination appear to be a conspiracy and not to conceal evidence of that nature. That view decouples the "cover up" (actually several types of cover up ranging from both passive and active suppression of any true conspiracy investigation to a good deal of CYA within agencies that were very much aware of Lee Oswald). I don't come here to evangelize that view, its covered in my book so people can take it, evaluate it and leave it if they find it doesn't hang together. I have followed the thread because I find your interpretations interesting, but it begins to pale a bit when you start rejecting anything but your views as to what is important and what isn't. Don't mean to be offensive with that but its something you might want to consider.

Pamela, I was referring to Ed Haslam and the first two editions of Mary's Monkey, I got each of them as they became available. I'm sure you are familiar with them. Certainly in his first writing on the subject he was totally focused on possible consequences of the polio vaccine, ultimately on immune deficiency diseases and on the a covert effort to deal with those issues. That was all there was to it, the only linke was Ferrie's purported personal interest in cancer research. There was nothing in those scenarios that included Judyth nor mention of either her or an unnamed character that would resemble the way she eventually came to present herself. At least that's the way I recall it at this distance in time.

Brad, basically SWHT explores my studies and my view as to who were the most likely individuals involved in the actual attack in Dallas. That is based on my assessment of the most credible sources who knew at least something about the conspiracy and their proven associates. Having profiled and in some cases named those individuals I offer my own scenario for the attack - that goes into some of the areas mentioned above. My comfort level does not lead me to specific conclusions about exactly who shot form where - I leave that to others. Instead I deal with the types of individuals involved and the type of paramilitary operations they can be shown to be familiar with and actually have been involved with in their previous activities. I don't want to make it sound like I dug all that up myself, its an analysis largely based in the work of others - I have added a few parts myself but you can readily identify those in the book. Often its little things, for example Noel Twyman came up with one solid identification of Roy Hargraves as having been the individual reported by an informant as having held secret service ID, having gone to Dallas and having participated in one of the "biggest" things in the countries history. For my part I developed a completely independent corroboration of the same identification. Anyway, that gives you some idea of what it is, and what it isn't. If you do choose to read it I'm always available by email to chat. A google search will also show you a few of my interviews and that might move you to either get the book or take a pass...grin. -- Larry

Brad, a lot of the points you outlined have been discussed - one interesting point is that Roy Hargraves related to Noel Tywman that he had been brought to Dallas specifically to build a bomb but that it was not used since the rifle attack succeeded. In Someone Would Have Talked I discuss in fairly great detail the possibilities of military type diversions including the ambulance in the intersection, the pick under the overpass, etc and also the possibility of a car bomb on the access lane to the freeway. All of that is speculation of course but it is well in line with the capabilities of the paramilitary team that very likely was in Dallas. We do know from Antonio Veciana's remarks that the attack was very similar to a complex multi-stage plan that was prepared for use against Fidel Castro in Latin America.

Could Sloman/Sforza be David Morales? If not, were the names Sloman and Sforza aliases for someone? I thought that is where Newman was going with that. I am not sure which edition of SWHT I have. I'll check. ......Sloman was the internal CIA crypt used for the true CIA employee name Tony Sforza (Newman maintains that was not his true family name). While in Cuba Sforza used the cover name Frank Stevens and the cover of a gambler, in covert contacts inside Cuba he used the alias Enrique. All that continued after Morales had returned to the US and was assigned first to the JMARC project, moving to JMWAVE headquarters in Miami. Morales and Sforza may have known each other in Cuba, certainly they did know each other circa 1963 and became trusted associates. At that point Morales was in charge of JMWAVE operations and Sforza was doing a variety of things including having responsibility for the AMOT Cuban exile intelligence group. The most recent 2010 version of SWHT is the softcover/paperback version

Paul, I did listen to it all again and also read through the scrollable transcript which was very helpful. John's tracing of the Sloman names was fascinating although not totally new. I thought it sounded familiar and on page 343-342 of the 2010 edition of SWHT I find that I described Sloman as using the name Frank Stevens inside Cuba as well as the alias Enrique. For reference, Frank's cover was as a gambler. I got that out of a RIF document, vague now but it may have been one of the follow up documents where Jenkins is doing a debrief of people coming out of Cuba and they get into the various contacts with Castro's sister and one generally described assassination effort against Castro. Sloman appears to have been somehow involved with both. I can almost picture the document but to put my hands on it at this point...sigh. Anyway, those names are in SWHT as well as the point about Sloman/Sforza going on to take over the AMOTS and being close to Morales. As to John's presentation, I don't know if I'm lost or not. The major portion was about his derivation of the related Sloman names but then there seemed to be a huge jump to discussing the conspiracy, the poison pill in Mexico City and the things he added to his latest book. I did not see any obvious link between the two nor anything he had not mentioned in that book. Then again maybe I'm missing it. Interestingly enough, I'm told there were Sforza family members in attendance at the conference.

I have watched most of it Paul and certainly enjoyed it. Actually I write about many of the same elements of trade-craft in Shadow Warfare - trying to differentiate between pseudonyms, aliases and crypts. I have also spent some time talking about how individuals such as Phillips used multiple names under those guidelines but also appear to have adopted some names for their own personal use, very possibly in unsanctioned activities. Certainly you do find multiple names used - I've even seen documents where true names are written in to help the reader figure it all our - or in other cases a pseudo by a crypt for the same reason. The authorized ones often changed as the individual moved into different officers or into major operations. My notes often include three or more names that we know of for our familiar characters, changing over time. John's techniques are super, of course he is a trained professional, but in reason years Bill Simpich and I have been attempted much the same thing in going through JMWAVE and Mexico City files where things get terribly confusing as people are assigned to Counter Intelligence operations. At the moment I know Bill has newly cracked several crypts, hopefully John as also. Newman mentioned that much of the practice of multiple names was in regard to Counter Intelligence and that is certainly accurate, first you want to deny the opposing intel groups true names but then you want to find out if they have inside access to your communications. This stuff was not really to fool us but certainly to fool the KGB, etc. On the other hand, I'm convinced that people like Morales and Phillips adopted such techniques for their own agendas. I'll go back to the video and take a look at the punchline as you ask, I may have missed something at the end.

Tony Sforza was most definitely not David Phillips and certainly not Frank Sturgis...I talk about Sforza at some length in SWHT and again in Shadow Warfare where I got into the PP staff and differentiate the paramilitary, propaganda, and political elements and personnel. Sforza operated in Cuba well after Phillips had come out, was working with Castro's sister in an exfiltration in the fall of 63 and that plan separately involved Sforza inside Cuba, Morales at JMWAVE and Phillips in Mexico City. After Sforza came out he headed the AMMOTS out of JMWAVE and was quite close to Morales. Sforza also operated independently in Latin America, in particular in Chile.

Well said Pamela, it seems to be very hard for people to follow how long and sad this saga has been - and that is from someone who was very interested in Ed's first version of his story - when it was something far different and outside what has become the Judyth universe. Larry

Paul, we have been over this before - the answer is that we specifically concentrated on Joseph Milteer and all his ultra right contacts. We found his Texas contacts and connections to to be pretty much run of the mill - he had contacts in more than a dozen states - when compared to much deeper and more operational (by that I mean plans to kill people) contacts with Stoner of the NSRP and the Swift network. That is all in the book I mentioned above and have referred to you before. We did not focus on Walker nor talk about him specifically any more than dozens of other similar folks Stoner met with, went to conferences with or corresponded with...which is why I said I would eagerly await the book you are promoting... I said something similar to this on other threads, most likely the gigantic Harry Dean thread but I hope this makes it clear. Larry

Paul, I'm afraid that should be taken with a small grain of salt, perhaps more than a few grains. There are actually years of extensive FBI files on Milteer, at headquarters at least. And his JFK remarks in Miami were communicated to the Secret Service as well as several FBI field offices, no cover up there at all. You can fault the FBI's investigation - as Stu and I do - but it involved field offices in several states and they were indeed very interested in both Milteer and the informants they were using against them. Much of that is in The Awful Grace of God. I'm not sure how much of this Adams even knew or knows but after Stu spent great amounts of time and years of FOIA requests on Milteer we have a fair picture of the overall investigation of him -- including their history with the key informant they were using. I would agree that FBI headquarters including Hoover did compromise one area of the Milteer investigation, but that was in regard to the King assassination where Milteer may well have had involvement and knowledge. -- Larry

Paul, you keep writing about this as if it were entirely new information. Several researchers have written about Milteer's contacts with virtually any and all right wing figures during this period of time - he constantly traveled the country by automobile. His travels to Texas and his correspondence with a number of right wing individuals has also been documented (there were so many of them that I can't recall if I have a copy of a specific Walker letter or not; I do have a lot of his letters). Stu and I write at length about Milteer and his ultra right connections in The Awful Grace of God. It should be noted that the HSCA actually collected an extensive set of documents on Milteer, including a motel receipt for his room on November 22, 1963 - in North Carolina. Those documents are still in place in a courthouse in Georgia. That is someone else's story to tell and a book may be forthcoming on that as well...not by me. I will be most interested to see Dr. Caufield's book, especially having spent considerable time researching Milteer's overall activities - there is no doubt that "operationally" he was heavily involved with Stoner of the NSRP and with the network created by Wesley Swift....as well as a couple of very violent groups in the southern states. At one point he offered to actually work with one of the groups to attack the Supreme Court - he had previously had work experience in the capital and was familiar with the buildings and floor plans. My point is that a number of researchers have spent a good deal of time looking into Milteer, hopefully Dr. Caufield even contacted some of them for their information and perspectives rather than working entirely on his own. When his book does come out there will be considerable contextual material to reference it against, that is always a good thing. I will eagerly await the book. -- Larry

It also doesn't do to much good for the "official" version in the report itself including the nice little photo with dotted lines showing it on the floor....no bag you understand because the crime scene photos were just not totally comprehensive....but dotted lines added to fully document where it was found - except of course according to what Pat just found, that would be incorrect according to the officer who actually found it.....

Pamela, I'd be sure it would not be a donation to someone who would make it vanish. Lots of folks have not followed the entire Judyth saga and I'm sure some that have would prefer that such items simply were not readily available...causes unnecessary confusion you know.

Actually I think his files turned up, sorry for the memory lapse but the fellow who wrote about the monkey virus actually saw what he thought were the majority of them, in the possession of INCA after Bannister's death. That would make a great deal of sense; Bannister might even have been building them for INCA. Stephen can probably clear that up but I do recall it being in either the first or second issue of the monkey virus book. There were also some descriptions of those files, some subjects being largely newspaper clippings...but that's just my memory. Of course INCA appears to have been largely an anti-communist messaging and propaganda effort. As to Bannister, we do know that it was standard practice for former FBI agents to start their own investigative / PI offices and provide information to the Bureau, generally on an unsolicited basis but on occasion the Bureau seems to have referred jobs their way as well. The CIA did the same as in the case of Robert Meheau. Easy enough to use them for illegal wire taps or other activities that crossed the border line for the bureau or the CIA's domestic boundaries. Beyond that, they could also serve as domestic covers in the same way that government agencies overseas do. In late 1961 Bannister's business was evaluated as a domestic CIA cover. All voluntary of course. The CIA had a list of vetted professionals including lawyers, doctors, psychologists etc. The FBI had its own lists of private investigators. It simply was and no doubt remains common trade-craft to use certain types of media, business and investigative agencies for domestic intelligence activities. Not trying to bore anybody with this but its important to point out that those have been practices in place for decades, not at all unique to the early 60s' where we normally focus our attentions.

Paul, as I said, I can easily imagine that at some point the FBI would indeed want to monitor the diploma mills....for a variety of purposes, heck, religious deferrals had been an issue all the way back to WWII and dramatically escalated in the 60's in regard to draft evasion. Ordination papers and titles could also be used as a cover for foreign agents, especially useful if they wanted to be mobile and come with a credible sort of introduction. I've recently posted on my blog that the FBI went to the trouble to track and monitor ex-patriots in Mexico, in the process they collected information from a host of both Mexican and American groups on both sides of the border. Beyond that, given that many of the traveling Bishops were violating federal laws, using the diploma mills as an information source would be little different from planting a source inside the FPCC to copy all its various mailing and contact lists (which we know they did). Cooperating with the FBI is neither illegal or that hard to understand, during most of my life it would have been considered a duty and highly patriotic. You won't find an argument from me that the FBI might well have tried to obtain domestic intelligence that way, seems very consistent with all my research.

Thanks Stephen, I do recall that in the latter part of the 60's several of the diploma mill type sources which were being used for draft dodging were getting referrals from "gay friendly" pastors in California, in some instances that appears to have been their entree to certain groups, especially among college students. Just another historical factor to stir into our mix...

Thanks Gary, this not being my area, it does then seem that one of the key issues is the nature of a "tangential" wound, which would seem to speak strongly against the official WC shooting scenario? Linda is not a member here, if the moderators pick up this thread it would be good if she could be added to discuss this thread. I have no idea how that works at the current time. -- Larry

Paul, I have to ask what documentation or source Levenda has on the FBI clearance - if its solid enough the only thing that strikes me is that as I mentioned in the late 60's many of those with ordination papers were active as draft dodgers and were being investigated and prosecuted by the FBI. On that basis I can see that they might well be investigating who he was giving certificates to.. as to Bishops in New Orleans, given Ferrie's religious interests and is effect on his friends I don't know if that surprises me or not. I would need to visit the list, look at the social network etc...been to long to offer a top of the head opinion. As to the last question, I can honestly say that the FBI had thousands of sources who walked walked both sides of the legal line - it seems to me that many of them looked on being a source as offering them some sort of leverage. Again I would have to know a lot more than I do aobut those two to offer an opinion - my trip into this subject was a good decade ago and I'm not trusting my memory beyond the general impressions in my earlier post. Plus, after two abortive attempts to locate the proper notebook, I'm no closer to refreshing my memory than before. Sorry.