Larry Hancock

Paul, since you addressed me by name I will respond one more time, but in the future I won't be monitoring these threads so if you want to communicate something or ask a question feel free to email me at larryjoe@westok.net The points you have listed have been noted and generally discussed in multiple places over the decades, you will find reference to Walker in Jerry Rose's Third and Fourth Decade Journals. His contacts with people such as Hemming and company, with other exiles, the shooting at his house, his politics and his various social network connections have been general knowledge and discussion in the research community since the earliest days. When the ultra right was considered as a conspiracy sponsor, his name routinely came up. Regardless of all that discussion, the majority of folks didn't find connections that they felt proved in anything directly connecting him to the attack in Dallas and focused elsewhere - as Mark noted in a separate post, its not necessary to prove a negative, only a positive so nobody invested a great deal of work in writing up reasons they didn't chase him further - that I recall at least. Just because you have chosen to continue down that path pretty much on your own doesn't mean nobody ever considered it ... I know other individuals who are pursuing non-mainstream leads and have been for ages, that's just their choice. Early on I actually tried to provide you with some leads - such as Walkers summer visit to Florida - that I thought might be helpful. I don't recall seeing you post any research on that. Instead you continue to rely on sources and "confessions" that many in the research community find pretty questionable. That's your call of course. In any event, I won't be returning so I'll leave your threads to those who choose to go forward with them. Actually I have learned a great deal on the threat but that largely comes from Ernie's posts on FBI records and record searches as well as his research on Harry Dean. Both were helpful but 95 pages is enough....adios, Larry l

Paul, I would certainly expect that anyone following the 95 pages of this immense thread should appreciate your beliefs and comprehend your scenario by this point in time. And I'm sure that you are aware that almost the investigators and researchers you mention were very much aware of Walker, his politics and his activities of the period, the fact that they did not choose to go down the path you are pursuing doesn't mean they were unaware of the people you often mention or the remarks and comments they made. You've chosen the scenario you wish to pursue and I think we all get that.....the fact that some of us keep responding to it seems only lengthen this thread, to little other purpose. Hopefully in the future I can discipline myself not to make it any longer than it already is....

And here I was just going to take a nap on Sunday afternoon, now I need to clean out the library......should free up a good deal of space for something though. Now that I think of it though, Paul's remark sort of sounds like a classic "appeal to authority" - trust in the professionals and the system, those who have solved or rendered career judgements on crimes would be the arbiters. Given that, perhaps I should leave some room on the shelves for the Warren Commission report - and for that matter Bugliosi's study. After all, he was a hugely successful criminal prosecution attorney so his judgements would be the ones to go by....

Greg, do you have a link or reference to the actual CIA file that states Hemming served at Atsuki? It may be in your article and I might just have missed it but if not I'd like to see the original...thanks, Larry

Paul, this is getting a bit embarrassing but you are confusing and entangling two completely separate sets of events. The activities with Cubela occured during 63 and 64 and involved his request for first a pen which could dispense poison at close range and later focus on a sniper rifle. Helms did testify about these activities, to the Church Committee inquiry. Please cite a reference that indicates he stated that Phillips was directly involved in the AMLASH activities - which were extremely compartmentalized. You seem to be confusing this with the pre-BOP, 1961 activities involving John Roselli which did indeed focus on poison attempts. While certain former Havana crime associated contacts were used to move the poison into Cuba, that has nothing to do with 1963 and had absolutely nothing to do with David Phillips. That poison came from the CIA's own tech services area. You said that you had read NEXUS and I go though all this in great detail there... As to Judyth Vary Baker, its best I hold my piece on that but I can assure you she had nothing to do with the poison used in 1961 and absolutely noting to to with the Cubela activities two and three years later....we will leave it at that. Now I admit that the thought of killing was near and dear to Phillips - his first contact with such an effort had been inside Cuba in 1959, with a group including Antonio Veciana - and that he personally pursued similar efforts (apparently not CIA sanctioned) well beyond the United States in later years, but he did that using his own personal Cuban exile assets and they made their plans around rifles and bombs - and that is another story indeed. The point being that when Phillips wrote his fictional piece, both the 61 poison attempts and the later AMLASH story ahd been related to the the Church committee hearings, so he simply worked it into the piece - ensuring that if it went anywhere the Agency could not come down on him for violating his security agreements on confidential information.

Paul, David Phillips was not in charge of AMLASH (AMLASH was not a project, it was the crypt for Cuebela) nor was that project specifically an assassination project. It, along with the AMWHIP series of internal Cuban assets were derivatives of AMTRUNK (which actually was a project)- all of which involved a project started under Fitzgerald after Mongoose ended to stage a coup to overthrow Castro.....one of the aspects of the effort was that their Cuban contacts kept saying that somebody had to take out Castro first and indeed Cubela was eventually persuaded to assume that role....part his idea, part his case officers it appears but he kept pushing that button - very possible in a Castro orchestrated sting against the project. All of that started before Phillips even began to move under SAS. Beyond that, again, please cite some corroboration for Phillips working with Bannister in 1963, for AMLASH involving the Mafia in any way (per your post in the other thread) and for Morales meeting with Marcello - unless you already did that and I missed it.

Paul, in all honesty Ernie is asking Harry the questions you should have asked him long ago if you are to accept him as a credible source.....if you don't appreciate that and if Harry does not and is unwilling to answer them then it simply raises credibility issues with him as a source. Given the weight you put on his observations that should be an issue for you - but in truth they are the sort of questions that are pretty routine in certifying sources - its just that we rarely get the chance to ask them at this stage in the inquiry. Not to mention that most of the people we would be interested in would/would have not necessarily been interested in volunteering information, unlike Harry. But then I don't know why I keep entering this thread, got to get control of myself. What I would like to see is some comment from someone who has found some real value in it or who has decided to follow you in researching your scenario....it would be interesting to see what in particular broad them on board or what they see as valuable.

Paul, its pretty clear that what Wes is talking about is external reporting of statistics for its own promotional purposes. Everybody should have a pretty good idea of Hoover's tendencies toward departmental self promotion by now. It would be naive to assume that SAIC's did not prepare such reports to make their operations look as good as possible, or to ignore Hoover's constant efforts to shine his Bureau's reputation. Swearingen's remarks appear to me to have little to do with internal communications. On the other hand, Ernie has generated a very good list of questions for Harry; I hope you encourage Harry to respond to them - it would really help clarify matters at this point - especially in what has surely become one of the internet's longest and most convoluted threads.

Of course the quote is from a draft piece of fiction (the AMLASH Legacy) that Phillips roughly laid out and then circulated...unclear whether it was to be a play or a fictional book but it was certainly not positioned as fact (nor was he the individual being quoted). Of course Phillips didn't say anything like that in his own books on his career (of which he wrote two more after Night Watch that hardly anyone reads). Speculation is that the draft was circulated as a calculated warning to a number of figures - most likely within the Agency. Earlier he had also pursued the idea of a TV special highlighting CIA successes, sort of on the FBI Story model....with his entertainment friend Gordon McLendon out of Dallas (I think that is the right name, didn't check it). As an alternative to the warning, perhaps at some point in time he could do as well with fictional stories as Howard Hunt had done with his adventure books? -- Larry

"Phillips is still not guaranteed as a JFK plotter, since his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald circled around the plot to murder Fidel Castro, first and foremost, and there's no proof of any other scenario." Paul, if you cannot see that sentence from your previous post as definitive, then you just can't I suppose...it reads as proved with any other scenario unproven. I stated that it was simply one of several scenarios, probably the most radical of the alternatives. "Larry, I deny that I state matters as proven -- I consistently repeat that I have only a THEORY." Paul, you do indeed do that as to your overall theory - however some of hour more specific about people and events often don't carry much qualification. "Yet it was David Atlee Phillips himself who said that he worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to murder Fidel Castro (in his 1982 book, Night Watch . Further, Alpha 66 leader Antonio Veciana reported that he met Lee Harvey Oswald along with David Atlee Phillips together in Dallas in the context of a plot to murder Fidel Castro." Please give cite that Phillips statement in Night Watch. As to Veciana, what he said was that he was meeting to talk with Phillips about Castro assassination plans so when he saw Oswald he assumed that the two were involved in the same thing - simply speculation on his part and of course he had not idea of Phillips full range of CIA activities at that point in time... "That's pretty solid evidence, Larry. I admit it's not PROOF, but it's pretty solid evidence." Actually its not evidence at all, its pure speculation "Also -- even if Phillips was involved with Lee Oswald in a plot against the FPCC, the immediate target there was Cuba and Fidel Castro again -- obviously." A propaganda or psch warfare operationa against the FPCC would not be a plot - what it would be would be would be part of Phillip's normal job assignment. "Beyond that, I also hope that Bill Simpich joins the Forum to discuss his new book, State Secret (2014), because I'd like to hear his opinion of my interpretation of his findings." I would as well... "Surely there are other possible interpretations, but mine seems to me to be the most straight-forward, using Occam's Razor, so to speak. The Oswald tape impersonation is the critical factor under scrutiny. The CIA mole-hunt makes this clear." Paul, you fail to appreciate that Occams Razor does not work with covert and clandestine operations, especially CI - all of which are intentionally designed not to be straight forward. "If the mole-hunt was led by Phillips, then this suggests to me that Phillips didn't know that David Morales was trying to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the COMMUNISTS (in the same way that Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier were trying to link Oswald with the FPCC in New Orleans that same summer)." Phillips would not have led a mole hunt although he might have cooperated in one conducted by SAS - Phillips reported to SAS not to Angleton and CI/SIG "As for Joan Mellen's claim (as I recall) about David Morales meeting with Banister/Walker in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, I'll dig that out of my notes as soon as I.." That would be appreciated; its a very strong claim since we know a good deal about what Morales was and was not doing that summer...as such it certainly needs some solid corroboration. Hopefully there will be dates for the meeting... -- Larry

Paul, it you consistently state things as if they were proven fact - there is absolutely no proof that Lee Oswald was involved with Phillips in a Castro murder plot. While that might be one alternative - and while Phillips himself played something of that card in a disinformation effort against the HSCA (he being the master of psychop spin) there are many other scenarios equally or more probable including his involvement in an AMSANTA related project with Oswald or a multiple set of operations against the Cuban embassy and its employees as well as setting up a propaganda op against the FPCC. Beyond that, I do wish Bill would join in because based on my work with him I think you are sorely oversimplifying his study of events in Mexico City. The mole hunt was a CI operation and there may have been both CI/SIG and SAS/CI activities of a similar nature in play. That was independent of the tape impersonation event - which drove its own effort, most likely led by Phillips, to find out who knew enough about the system in MC to conduct a technically astute operation to place a call on a tape which should only have recorded calls from the Cuban office...on a day when the office was closed. I'm in no way going to devote time wading though this, if Bill joins in he can carry the ball and save me making any mistakes by doing so. On another note, that's a major claim about proving Morales in a New Orleans meeting with Marcello....that deserves some details and some source citations including what Joan uses as sources. If you could provide that it would be really helpful in evaluating such a claim.

Not to be a pain in the rear but perhaps someone might speculate on what sort of documents Lorenz could conceivably have. She had done several news interviews and she did give testimony to the HSCA which rejected her story citing no corroboration. At the risk of being seen as cynical, her remarks indicate documentation on: " OP40, the Cuban invasion, Castro, planning for the Kennedy assassination, and other covert operations that she had knowledge of" . These documents were going to be delivered to the House Assassination Hearings.” Documents on OP40 and the Cuban invasion would pretty much have to be CIA documents. Given her history - mistress to Castro, work as a hostess in Miami for social events primarily involving Latin American diplomats, tourists, etc - having a child to a Latin American dictator in exile, launching a 1963 paternity suit against said individual and being pursued by Miami photo journalists for stories relating to the paternity suit, into the fall of 1963 (I have cover photos of her from Miami papers) what sort government / specifically CIA documents could she possibly have held? Does that make any sense at all? As to documents related to planning the JFK assassination....was anybody really writing down notes on that and giving copies to a lady who in a highly public legal action and a very photogenic object of the local media? And other covert operations? To be objective, I suspect that Lorenz could well have thought that a number of things that Sturgis talked to her about might have been government covert operations - that was his standard line. Perhaps she had notes from him, motel or travel receipts etc? But apparently she did not take anyting along when giving her HSCA testimony? I just can't fathom what sort of real documents she might have....any suggestions?

Yeah, me too.....every now and again I hear this cracking sound inside my head, I'm tempted to look around and see if my wife hears it too - but I really don't want to know...

Robert, thanks for the kind words and the point is well taken about his exploration of the "inner workings of the elite and how conspiracy works." I think its critically important to understand how social networks at the highest level of power do develop and operate. Of course Peter Dale Scott had worked in that area for ages and the concept of "deep politics". To me that is a counterpoint to a study of how the CIA actually conducted/conducts executive action or covert political operations. You have to have a firm "construct" of how the process works in the real world before you try to map actual events against it. From my own experience, I've seen enough of Corporate America, from strategic planning to public relations, to appreciate that "deep politics" is always in play, where its business alliances for market growth and profit or political alliance for the power to manipulate events for profit (not being cynical, that's just the way it is). And the PR and image folks are always there to tidy up, handle loose ends and deal with damage control (well "we" were before CEO's started texting for themselves.....glad I'm out of PR now). That's part of the reason I'm always alert for CYA as an alternative to "conspiracy". -- of course its also important not to confuse incompetence with conspiracy (I stole that from the actual quote which I don't recall word for word). Larry

David, that's a very good point although actually I've written about the event itself, simply using the Commission's report as one source. Since my focus is on warning, preparedness and response (primarily in regard to national command authority performance and command and control) I don't spend a lot of time on the Commission per se, although I do take its report to task for political correctness in several areas. I also take them to task for choosing not to comment on data which they discovered - an example being the history of NORAD exercises against airborne terror attacks. It is worthwhile noting that a great deal of the information produced by their efforts actually resulted tin data produced their report was done - in that regard their work simply served as the "point of the spear". Working with their interviews, documents and with supplemental info like the transcripts from NECAP allows us to absolutely refute portions of the official record as well as comments from individuals such as Condi Rice and the NORAD commander of that day. As to the Commission itself, my view is that Shenon's book did a fantastic job deconstructing the Commissions work and pointing out the White House manipulation efforts, especially by individuals closely associated with Condi Rice. Shenon's study is not just a study of the 9/11 Commission but to a great extent the agenda and conduct of the GWB Administration. Which is why I was so disappointed by his book on the Warren Commission - which is in no way comparable. The main reason I find for that is that there were 9/11 Commission staff who quickly realized they were being manipulated, resented it, tried to push back against it (and generally lost) and were willing to tell the story afterwards. Nothing similar can be seen with the WC, indeed its staff still seem to be in a state of pure denial....so Shenon had no comparable sources from within the WC. I should also say that I spent a good deal of time comparing the national command authority response on 9/11 to that of Nov 22, 1962 and that is pretty interesting. Its also interesting that at least the phones worked on AF1 in 1963 even if LBJ totally ignored his Commander in Chief role in using them- ditto for GWB in 2001 but reportedly even the AF1 phones didn't work then..........

Actually I blog about a number of the weaknesses of Congressional oversight and investigations on a fairly routine basis - with many of the same comments as yours. Certainly I agree that most of the investigations do not have the necessary powers or staff - such as those which would be used in criminal investigations - or fail to aggressively use those they do (including bringing charges of perjury). However I have to add that almost all investigations are heavily compromised by political obfuscation, not only by panel members but by the administrations involved. They are also heavily compromised by the fundamental imbalance in national security powers i.e. the people they are investigating are under oaths and legal constraints relating to revealing information which are much stronger than the equivalent legal disclosure powers of the committees. Beyond that in some of the instances we now know about, agreements between CIA and DOJ have exempted the Agency from laws and disclosures which would have normally been in play. That was a huge deal in Iran Contra. Unfortunately in many cases the Congress persons involved don't really seem to understand all this - and the agencies have a far better understanding of their legal responsibilities under the national security act of 1947 (and related legal code) than to do the people on the committees (or their legal staff). In regard to the 9/11 investigation - well I deal with that in great detail in my next work and it's one of the most irritating things I've ever seen in regard to administration obfuscation - and either incompetence or denial by the principals, its hard to tell which is which. But that's another story. And in regard to "other" stories, its not that government agencies practice CYA just the areas we are interested in.....the lack of financial oversight over the immense loss of investments in Iraq is hard to comprehend...and even when oversight agencies jump on it, nothing happens and nobody is ever penalized. The story behind this link is simply one of the most recent and minor examples of failure in waste and failure of effective oversight: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-the-pentagon-quietly-turned-half-a-billion-dollars-into-32-000-78410958269e

Paul, I do not consider either the Church Commission, the Kerry Commission or a series of other Congressional oversight efforts including those on Angola to be frauds. I think many of those participating had good and sincere intentions and that a great deal of misconduct was exposed and highlighted. Now having said that, of course both agencies and individuals being investigated to exercised their own damage control, conducted knowing CYA and in many instances actively obfuscated and undermined the investigations. In several instances the investigations exposed issues and provided information that is still being worked and producing new insights. ....as I noted above, the CIA's own Inspector General exposes a key element of the Contra drug smuggling some years after the initial Kerry Committee work and in doing so confirmed many of the conclusions of the Committee. The Kerry committee's work forced the DEA to issue a report that while obfuscating, actually contained substantial data confirming the committee's conclusions. The same thing can be said for the Church Committee investigations of Guatemala. The fact that Congress as a whole, the Reagan Administration and its principals at DEA, CIA and Justice did not come clean on the issues and deal with them just reflects a fact of life relating to political CYA and the fact that for those involved the "mission" generally overrides peripheral issues and collateral damage. Shadow Warfare wrestles with some hard realities of that nature. I do equate Sheehan with sensationalist news just as I do a number of contemporary journalists, but that's not a negative. The same can be said of the muckrakers of a century ago, to some reporters have to produce sensational stories to get them published. Real time reporting is sensationalist by its very nature (and the demands of the media which fund it), more so now than ever before, and because it is real time lots of things get tossed into the story, some turn out to be true, some not. The thing is that someone needs to come along behind them a few years later when more data and more details area available and try to reconcile their "real time" reporting with more in depth studies that can truly only be made sometime after the initial reporting - to a large extent that's what I attempt to do. And for the UFO crowd, no the MJ-12 documents are not real, sorry. Larry

Oh there were definitely redaction's all over the place....but far more important (as usual) was the intentional withholding of information. The most egregious example of that was the concealment of an agreement between the CIA Director and the Attorney General to allow the CIA not to report drug dealing among its Contra assets. Its unclear how far down the agreement was communicated internally but it certainly gave Contra figures a free hand and allowed the CIA simply to distance itself from what they were doing, as well as preventing reports to DEA. The CIA's own Inspector General exposed that agreement something like a decade later and it got virtually no media coverage.

Thank you David, that is much appreciated! I'm not really trying to sell the book - history books don't sell all that well anyway - although obviously I would like to see more people read it. And I know its pretty dense and not an easy read - even with the help of three different editors. The subject is a deep one and I tend towards excessive detail (disclaimer...grin). The book has not gotten any real discussion here, but then neither did NEXUS. I think my real frustration is that over the last couple of decades, I've seen an immense trove of real historical data emerge form government archives and good oral history work - but the discussion trends have been away from actual data (such as the data Bill Simpich used for his most recent work) and towards promotion of more spectacular but much more entertaining conspiracy "stories". As I mentioned separately, it reflects what happened to the History channel and to a more dangerous extent what has happened to American news media. Every story is pitched around a political world view, around sensationalism (you knew you were in trouble when CNN named a segment "the situation room"...like all news has to be breaking and probably dangerous). And it seems to me everyone is simply looking for information their own supports their political, historical or world view. As an example of that, for the past four or five years, I get probably eight or nine forwarded emails or Facebook posts a day on news items (almost all political or religious oriented) that can quickly be shown to be either only partially true or totally false. Yet only in one instance, upon responding to the originator of a message, has anyone ever acknowledged their was a problem with what they were forwarding to hundreds of people and in no instance has any sender (including actual friends) ever issued a retraction or passed my factual information back. This probably sounds like a rant but my main message was not about Shadow Warfare or even the Kerry hearings, it was about the apparent death of rational skepticism. As for me, I suppose I just need to suck it up....I have a new manuscript with my publisher, no final contract yet but it may be out in 2015. It deals with surprise attacks on the United States, from 1941 to the present - in the areas of warnings intelligence, preparedness and command and control. It is fairly controversial and is not kind to most administrations or either political party (as Shadow Warfare was not) but I'm not sure it will get into print because frankly its not sensational enough for the current market. We'll see. -- did I mention earlier that my wife says I'm now a full fledged curmudgeon? Larry

Paul, I would beg to differ on the Kerry Hearings. I've read the hearings material in great detail as well as the responses that it forced out of various government agencies. Just on the aircraft/drug carrier topic along it made a very solid case for drug running not only by the Contras but an acceptance of it by North and company. As a matter of fact, the committees work laid the groundwork for a later admission by the CIA's own Inspector General of a deal between CIA and Justice authorizing it. Just because that happened a decade later and the media didn't cover it and nobody else has written about it does not mean that the original investigation didn't develop some solid information - its one of the few instances we have of actual Congressional oversight working to at least some extent. I cover all of that in "Shadow Warfare" but my impression is that hard research has become way too dull and books like that get little attention beside the sort of material in Sheehan's story's. Its easy enough to write that sort of material - having studied UFO's for over 30 years I'm pretty familiar with that subject. I should probably keep my mouth shut on this but I'm increasingly frustrated by the extent to which actual historical research has now devolved into lots of stories that simply "ring true". No offense intended, now that I have that off my chest I probably had better just go off and play in my own little ball park...

I suspect Sturgis or for that matter Hunt could fool anyone and everyone for at least a time....which is why accepting any of their remarks without solid independent corroboration - and a whole lot of contextual background - is highly risky IMHO. After talking with Fonzi at some length, certainly he became increasingly conscious that attempting to deconstruct Sturgis was a major challenge.

Tommy, I'm afraid that - as usual - there is a bit of truth in the Lorenz/Sturgis stuff and a lot of garbage. Let's take one example....her claims about being an operational participant in training with the OP40 guys. That is total nonsense, she might have been out around some exile training (we have a photo of her out with the Interpen folks at one media parachute jump event and I tracked down one newspaper report suggesting she might have been around at another incident where one of the volunteers shot another in the leg accidentally) but there is no way she was out in the bush doing what she says with Morales and Jenkins real teams...on the other hand, both she and Sturgis did have some experience with Cadre's cadre and both may have provided identifications, names, background info on their activities etc that was used in the OP40 training, after all those guys had a specific mission of locating and eliminating senior Castro cadre. So are there bits and pieces of truth around their claims, sure. But Fonzi does a great job investigating and deflating most of them. Its also important to separate what Lorenz and Sturgis gave to the FBI and their relationships with the NY FBI office from anything in Miami or having to do with JMWAVE, etc. Thing is, we have had a ton of good documents on both of them for some two decades now, including Sturgis' offer to set up an assassination on Castro circa 59 before he left Cuba...extended through the US embassy staff in Havana to the CIA and rejected. What is bothering/frustrating me is that we have so much real information now - but it constantly gets trumped by all the dramatic stuff which circulates via the WEB. All the work that went into getting the documents, getting the real story is being neutralized - its sort of like what happened to the History Channel on cable. Once it was history, now its entertainment - and draws lots ore viewers. But then as my wife notes, I'm certainly becoming more curmudgeonly as well...

There is a good deal of important background on COG, in both government documents and histories. Actually Eisenhower started it informally, sending letters to a number of trusted individuals essentially giving them authority to take over sections of the government and reboot them following a nuclear attack. JFK was especially concerned following the Cuban missile crisis and was the first president to issue a set of executive orders to actually initiate most of the COG activities.

Perhaps everyone could better appreciate Sturgis if they had heard the tapes of he and his lawyer discussing Sturgis efforts to make radical comments, hoping they would get in the press and then he could generate libel suits. The tapes were obtained by a collector from estate sales after his death and Debra played them at a Lancer conference, don't know where they are at the moment but it gives you a better context for Sturgis....just as did the charity scam he and some relatives operated for a time in the 60's. Beyond that, take a read of Gaeton Fonzi's detailed dialog on the Sturgis / Lorenz relationship and see more of the media games in play....as well as Fonzi's evaluation. Taking a lot of these "confessions" literally without doing a lot of homework on the characters involved is....well I'll just leave it there...plenty of diversions to go around, with many personal motives in play. Larry

Understood David, certainly if he were involved I'd expect to find him somewhere else other than on the ground - the only thing I could come up with is that he might have played a role in working on planting a number of quick links to a Castro plot. Thing is, we know of a bunch of those and they all seem to have happened through other channels or without him. I certainly can see Hunt hearing details of the conspiracy though his contacts, in particular though Artime/Quintero....but I have problems seeing an actual role for him. And of course if Morales had offered it to him as Hunt himself stated...and Hunt had taken a pass.....Hunt would have most likely met with a quick and untimely accident.