Larry Hancock

That's fine David but its my understanding the Kindle version should be out shortly in any event; I'll try get a date on that from the publisher. Oh, I should note that its been difficult to get the Amazon product description updated. The book is actually 600 pages in length (606 to be specific) almost 50 pages of end notes...a great number with appropriate source document or article url links.... -- Larry

In a fit of crass merchandising, I just wanted to let everybody know that Shadow Warfare is now shipping though Amazon and in bookstores.. http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Warfare-History-Americas-Undeclared/dp/1619022443/ref=la_B004FOXTAK_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395339407&sr=1-1 I stand ready to answer questions but somebody has to read it first...grin. Larry

That's an interesting thought Paul, but unless or until l someone conclusively "solves" the murder I'm not sure anyone will give up their favorite suspect - I see the same suspects discussed now that were on the very early lists but what I haven't seen is anyone giving up their favorites. We see that every time a poll is done. Now I've personally eliminated a lot of sources and leads, some I really hated to give up, but I didn't start with a particular villain so I haven't had to make that choice... It would be interesting and educational to see a few volunteer posts from researchers who have given up a particular suspect whom they were very fixed on - and why.

Fair enough Ernie, I have my own issues with many conspiracy theories - far too easy to pick your preferred villain and work backwards. Seems to be the same in political conspiracies as in politics.

As much as I would prefer to avoid it, I'll probably have to at least follow this thread forward. I can only say, if you do have SWHT/2010 and do reread my appendix on Odio Revisited, you will find my assessment going in a far different direction than I anticipate Paul is going to go... If you have the book, you can make your own comparisons and decisions. Otherwise this is merely a disclaimer for anyone who does not have the book. As far as Ernie's more remarks in the thread, my reaction is that he paints with an awfully broad brush in certain of them. As for myself, I set forth my criteria for acceptable evidence in my Preface, readers are at least forewarned. Personally i find the following generic remark a bit offensive: "And, lastly, the adherents of conspiracy theories NEVER apply their declared standard of acceptable evidence TO THEIR OWN WRITINGS!" -- Larry

Well I certainly agree with that Ron - and it would be most consistent. The patrolman would be coming down from the overpass and have to cross main street, then cross the infield to Elm. From what I recall Walthers route to the south side of Elm, where we see both Walthers and a Patrolman pondering something in the grass, would likely have been from the area east of there. The patrolman's route seems more likely to intersect Teague first. Walthers was clearly wondering around the area. Perhaps Walthers just became the primary image in his memory? No answers here but we do see a patrolman and Walthers together later on the south side of Elm so it seems possible that they were both with Teague at some point...

I'm going to guess that its a rather simple matter of memory. We know that one of the patrolmen (don't remember the name but it should be easy to find) came down from the overpass, made his way across Main and ended up with Walther's in the area of the "phantom" bullet recovery on the south side of Elm. He's even on record in his report as investigating that and is clearly seen in the area with Walthers. Perhaps James T. simply mingled the two in his memory as time passed. We have discussed the issues of memory before and how scientific tests demonstrate that details begin to blur after as short a time as a few hours and can become substantially different over the years. Lab experiments have shown that test subjects can write down their detailed impressions within hours and begin to misremember details within weeks. Year's later they will even challenge their own written statements and sincerely recall something different (not notes made by someone else but their own writing). One mre reason to stay with "first day" evidence. Larry ,

Paul, I wouldn't discourage anyone from digging or from following their own path - that's why I mentioned Walker's trip to Miami. There's also the interesting thing about the post cards from Texas and the leaflet that was distributed in Miami both of which express wishes for something to happen to JFK and for Johnson to take over. Each to his own, I've satisfied myself on the basics of the conspiracy and describe that in my books and a variety of other material - clearly there are lots of folks still digging to satisfy themselves and I wish everyone success on that score. -- Larry

Actually Paul, Stu and I spent a great deal of time tracing Milteer's connections and associates and you find a lot of that in The Awful Grace of God. Its a long story but the short of it is that Milteer's fundamental connections were to Stoner and the NSRP, as well as to the Swift/Gale organization and to a very covert NSRP networked effort which created and trained rifle teams in both California and Florida to attack JFK and a number of other senior government targets as well as a set of Jewish financial figures. Miami was simply one of about four hubs of their network circa 62/63....however most of the clique was forced out of there over a series of terror bombing attacks they orchestrated circa 64. I won't yammer on about it here but as I've said from the very beginning, hearing discussion in certain right wing circles of a plot against JFK in 63 would have been equivalent to hearing certain criminal figures talking about killing him. Both of those things were occurring. Indeed on the Texas Trip, a NSRP member was picked up by the SS in San Antonio talking about it. Its the same thing as hearing Oswald's name being tossed around in gossip, that occurred in Miami - in the Parrot Jungle incident among others. The issue is that not all the gossip was at all related to the actual attack in Dallas; filtering what was is one of the major challenges. I've presented my views of that in SWHT and in NEXUS. Milteer and his key connections including the ones to the MLK assassination are dealt with at some length in AGOG. After two books on the subject of the JFK assassination, my conclusions on that are certainly on record so no reason to revisit them here. -- Larry

Thanks Ernie, its good to see solid research on the forum... Larry

David, I'm not going to go far down that road other than to say that I have long been on record that the FBI did have far more contact with Oswald than they ever acknowledged and subversive files on him that have been destroyed. They also knew that he had been impersonated and that it was more than likely multiple identifies were in play - I very much doubt that as of that weekend they had anything like a full handle on Oswald as an "identity". It was a mad scramble for information, and collecting data helps in several ways, including the fact that if you have it all you can at least try to "control" the story. Anyone can become immersed in the disconnects and inconsistencies of the data, as you highlight. Just as anyone can become immersed in the physical evidence, the evidence and all the inconsistencies there. I played that game for many years before deciding that it had all been so managed and stage handled as to simply create uncertainty and doubt - which is why I took a different direction with SWHT and NEXUS. I'll call and raise with another Oswald teaser though - my friend the former Marine intelligence officer at Atsuki spent a lot of time investigating one of the photographs from Oswald's filming. It shows a Marine fighter aircraft which at first seems to be no problem; it was taken from close range on a Marine flight line security area, bit more of a problem. But the real problem turned out to be that that particular aircraft could be traced and the photo had been taken on a flight line at a base where Oswald had never been, never visited, never even close....so who took the picture with Lee's camera. For that matter, does anyone have a record of all the photos on the films taken into evidence, where and when they were shot and how that matched Oswald's locations? -- Larry

Dawn, I've always felt John's research was excellent. I might disagree with some of his analysis and conclusions but as a resource the book is a very valuable - so valuable my copy remains on loan most of the time because its been hard to get copies at times... -- Larry

Very interesting Paul, some of it familiar and some of it I might even have known at one time long ago and forgotten; I did spend a great deal of time on Hall, Howard et al and their California connections. If you have a copy of the 2010 edition of SWHT I'd suggest you review the appendix "Odio Revisited"... My thought would be that it would be very useful for you to convert those posts into a thread of its own and make it something you retain for use online after this forum goes away. I really think its more useful to viewers in that format. I do share certain of Ernie's concerns but as far as I can tell the answer to the whole credibility issue is developing further points of corroboration. If you have not investigated it, I suggest you look into Walker's time in Miami during the summer of 1963 and the contacts he made there - it seems to have been follow on to the various approaches to him for financial support, which he certainly didn't have all that much of personally. -- Larry

Lets focus even further Paul: Beyond Harry's personal statement, what is the corroboration for Harry being in specific meetings with those individuals on those dates? Is there any contemporary evidence of any of those named by Harry ever having mentioned the name Oswald - as reported by someone else - before the assassination? How exactly did Harry know of Hall and Howard being on the road with Oswald, when did he know it and when did he first state that for the record? As a side comment, after years spent researching both Hall and Howard I wouldn't trust a word they ever said without considerable corroboration. Not a point I'd want to argue, strictly my opinion. To me, something far more useful than a debate over Harry's "status" with the FBI would be a detailed timeline of what he knew, when he revealed it and what independent corroboration exists for each point. -- Larry

Ernie, I think your post actually clarifies one of the reasons why this thread is so long. Certainly you and Paul can have an indefinite dialog about the technically correct relationship between Harry and the FBI. Indeed there are very specific criteria which could be used to judge that and you are acknowledged a master of those criteria. The distinctions are valid and meaningful in the evaluation of Harry's true status. From my perspective Harry's remarks and related stories about him are not new; I was fallowing it long before this thread and before the Education forum was even created. However in my very pragmatic view, they are meaningless in terms of evaluating the fundamental importance of Harry's story - either he was in meetings with the true Lee Oswald and those involved very specific planning in regard to Lee Oswald, connecting the figures in the meetings to Oswald and ultimately to the attack in Dallas - or not. If true it supports Paul's time and effort with Harry. if not it is simply one more diversion. From that perspective, which is solely mine, that is the core of the matter. Given that I've seen other actual reports of sources telling the FBI about right wing plans to attack JFK, any general discussion on that subject related by Harry would not be inconsistent. For that matter the Secret Service took a lead and picked up an NSRP member in San Antonio who was talking about an attack in Texas. That's all an old story. The key point in this matter - IMHO - is whether Harry and Paul can provably link between specific meetings and specific people to Lee Oswald and a conspiracy. That's why the rest is semantics to me; I know that's a tightly focused view but after 20 plus years at this that's were I am.

It seems that just because I've been foolish enough to respond to a couple of calls for comment in this thread I've become part of it.... Let me clarify that it is the length and breadth of the number of posts on this single thread that cautions me from having missed something since I've not read all of them and never will. My remark was that I might have missed something but that I recalled no instance in which Ernie had stated that Harry was a sanctioned or even paid informant although other individuals seem to have made such claims for Harry in past years. Quit frankly the whole thing seems something of an exercise in semantics since the FBI always took information and statements from sources. Indeed they might maintain contact and take information over an extended period of time without ever even making the move to convert someone to a higher status relationship. You find numerous examples of folks like Hemming calling up the Bureau and providing information, often for their own purposes but also seemingly to attempt to establish some sort of relationship. We found the same thing in one of the most violent Klan terrorists ever to hit Mississippi; he continued to visit the FBI even while conducting terror bombings. Perhaps the term "source" would help clarify matters in regard to Harry because he did attempt to provide information...then the focus could remain on what he did provide when. And of course hearing conversations about the folks he was associating with talking about killing Kennedy is not particularly exceptional. In AGOG Stu and I cite numerous instances of the same network of right wing radicals having conversations, making plans and even training rifle squads. None of that means they orchestrated the attack in Dallas. And all those conversations were accurately reported by multiple sources to the FBI, triggered investigations and show up in Bureau documents. Perhaps if Paul and Ernie could dial down on the one key element - did Harry see Lee Oswald with specific people on the west coast, when did he see that and was it reported and captured in FBI documents before or after the assassination, this could move forward. Otherwise it seems like it will go on like this right up to the time that John takes down the forum, with no real forward movement. -- Larry

Paul in all honesty the length of this single threat is overwhelming but my impression is as follows: Ernie has been saying that other people including a couple of other people who promoted Harry's story positioned Harry as an undercover agent, paid informant etc...having some ongoing connection to the Bureau -- while Ernie himself has only described Harry as an individual who offered information to the Bureau on occasion. Now the latter sounds very much like I see in the quote in the field office Bureau file No idea whether my view is correct but its based on my only on my recollection of reading those dozens of long and convoluted posts ...so the short answer is no I don't think it sounds like the opposite. -- Larry

Given Eugenio Martinez's record of Cuban penetration missions and his obvious bravery and effectiveness in that role, I'd say his actual mission/combat/paramilitary record would give him a number of points over Hemming in those areas. Martinez may have gotten snookered by Hunt but even in the break-ins his trade-craft was a lot better than the former CIA officers with him.

Ernie, could you give me some references to such training say circa 1963-1968. That's the period where I'm most familiar with from reading literally thousands of FBI interviews and reports. I'm not challenging the training happened although I'd like to see the reference just for my eduction - but I certainly seem to recall a number of interviews that seemed to me to be far from open ended...beginning following the JFK assassination and going though the end of the decade. And that would not be out of just one field office but several... In one particular one out of Dallas, the witness kept trying to bring the subject back to his main point but once he mentions having been at Ruby's club its as if he tripped a switch and they never go back, just hammer on his potential connections to Ruby. As to a "non-confrontational approach", I've also seen reports where literally the first exchange is something like..."we have a report that you did...(fill in the blank)....amazingly enough the suspect almost always moves to immediate denial...and not much happens after that... I'm not at all assuming any malign intent but I can certainly recall a number of interviews that would not seen to pass the training criteria you listed...which are of course the correct way to go about it.....we discuss a number of such interviews in The Awful Grace of God.....as well as the agents assessment practices, including one incident in which a suspect is clearly telling an untruth based on available Bureau records but in which the agents close it out in their report simply because the suspect was a known and respected business figure in the community, hence could not have had the radical Klan contacts reported... And of course these comments have nothing at all to do with your and Paul's exchanges and Harry's story, they are simply my impressions from reading numerous documents, many with fine interviewing and assessment skills in play - and in others, not so much... -- Larry

Although not nearly as valuable as the more experienced comments above, the only thing that I've seen that would add to it is a matter of "focus" in reporting. Often agents were sent to do an interview and very clearly were tightly focused in their questions (I've seen very few of what I would call open ended) interviews. Over and over again in reviewing files we tended to gasp at the obvious questions that were not asked, even about contradictory statements. However after a time I came to realize that a lot of the questioning was very "canned", the agents were sent to get certain information and that was what they did. Also, in many instances, agents seemed to be essentially closing off leads to get them off their workload. Their investigations were more collection of facts and taking of statements - which the interviewees never got to see, so what the agent wrote down was what was important to them and sometimes not nearly as comprehensive as the persons remarks. This whole pattern tightens up even further when you move from the agent to the SAC, whose reports often leave out a lot of detail and you are left clueless because the only remaining files are headquarters files and you can't even be sure what the SAC chose not to mention in the summary report to headquarters. It also really is important to understand the reports in the context of what the agent was being asked to do - simply to follow up on a call and take down some information, to query a source, to actually collect factual information for a federal case being pursued by the Justice Department etc. But from a purely pragmatic view I certainly agree with the above, there was no reason to lie about anything in a document because there was never even a thought that anybody would see those reports - as a verification of that viewpoint, just look at the totally illegal, immoral and just flat stupid stuff that showed up when a) Bureau offices got burgled or documents did get released. Check some of they things the regional offices reported to Hoover about in their quest to stop MLK's march on Washington, you can be pretty sure there was never a thought to the fact that would become public. In comparison, the CIA left its dirty laundry largely verbal; being the Hoover centric organization it was, the Bureau of the 60's actually put it on paper and sent it to the Director. -- Larry

I think Ernie has been quite knowledgeable and is a very valuable source on FBI procedures, practices and protocols. I thought I was reasonably well informed in many areas of their documentation and process but he is far more so - given that I always value his comments and analysis. -- Larry

I was going to comment on this but nausea overcame me...

Gene, I think you will find that Oswald worked as an "order filler" pulling books. My recollection of hos work clipboard is that he was supposed to be working at pulling books to fill shipments on Nov. 22. That would be a job that would take him across all the upper floors where the books were stacked on a regular basis. I'd also assume it would take him down to shipping after he had done his pulls. Actually that would probably be a more "flexible" job than working on the flooring as he would be moving around and up and down routinely rather than being stuck in one area working on the floor. As to the watches, I'm right handed but always wore my watch on the "wrong" hand - after being clumsy enough to break a couple of glass watch crystals... -- Larry

Ellesworth described the entire Nonte/Masen incident from his perspective and the need for the meeting but talked only briefly about the meeting itself. Once they got on the same page it began to make a lot more sense to all of them, especially to him since he had no clue that there was a separate FBI sting in play already and the FBI knew a lot more about the gun deals from Nonte than Ellesworth had learned in his Masen contacts. If you have SWHT you Chapter 21 where I go though all this including the Terrell theft, Ruby, etc. -- Larry

Tommy, doing this from memory. I studied Powell at great length many years ago and collected all his documents then. He made a statement to his 112th commander shortly after the event. As I recall he also gave a statement to the FBI or the Secret Service (FBI I think), whoever he turned his photos over too. I would imagine all this is on Mary Ferrell now; originally I put his documents into my CD Keys to the Conspiracy but that was way back before the online documents databases. Wish I could be more helpful, all those paper files are either buried in my garage or gone now. The CD is still available from Lancer. But I can confirm he made other, fairly extensive statements about his activities and they were very contemporary, within days or weeks of the assassination, I don't recall any major conflicts in his remarks but of course in one instance he was reporting has activities of the day to his military superior and in the other answer questions and making statements to the FBI. Larry