Larry Hancock

Well first off, we actually have enough historical data including detailed radar, optical and electronic emissions to do a pretty strong job of characterizing what is obviously unconventional technology. Beyond that there is enough detail in over the 30 years of existing, Air Force unidentified flying object records which we do have to perform a reasonable intelligence analysis of UAP intentions, especially in the military domain. Those studies have already been done and are available on peer reviewed reports on the SCU web site - they are extensive, illustrated and "deep" - and not nearly sensational enough to get popular readership or press attention. Here is a link to one a physical characteristics study as an illustration: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/An%20Evaluation%20of%20UAP%20Shapes%20and%20Characteristics%20Powell%20et%20al.pdf In terms of "wresting" though, its very different from the JFK record challenge. After 1970 their was literally no centralized collection of UAP reports and no official field investigations. Not that there were not serious military incidents, but the only records of them were in the form of situation reports, operations reports or national security alerts at NORAD, NMCC, SAC or with Navy commands. So the legislation asking for UAP reports to be simply handed over is relatively useless. That's why we needed a Review Board and appropriate staff to go out and prospect for documents from all government agencies (although most have no doubt been destroyed simply due to aging and standard document retention practices).

Ben, UAP reports cover such a wide range of phenomena that it would really be best if there were a taxonomy to guide the conversations. However the physical constructs that I focus on myself are pretty well defined in shape, performance and even acoustic and EM effects...there are good papers on that on the SCU site at the link I posted. I don't claim to have a clue to their origins but the team I'm working with is now into its fourth year using the practices of strategic intelligence to evaluate the most probable intentions in both the military and public domains. We have published two peer reviewed papers on the military domain and our first on the public domain activities will come out in January. As with most intelligence work all we can do is assess the relative probabilities during the three decades we have studied but its been a fascinating trek and at least we are offering something tangible for discussion.

As usual I turned to my friend David Boylan for help and he refreshed my memory with the following documents from the work of the HSCA, suggesting that both Fain initially in Dallas and later Hosty himself in Dallas may have at least considered Oswald as a potential recruit as a PSI. In regard to New Orleans we have to consider that there Oswald's status changed dramatically for the NO FBI office following Oswald's volunteer interview - when the issue of the FPCC, the Hidell name and the possibility of an essentially shadow FPCC group involving both Hidell and Oswald became the overriding question. But as far as Fain and Hosty and Oswald as a potential PSI, the following are certainly interesting: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1462#relPageId=36 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1463#relPageId=168

We know that FBI offices did document incidents in which individuals volunteered to be both sources and informants (Stu Wexler and I documented that in our MLK assassination research). We know that offices maintained lists of individuals considered as potential PCI's and of course we know they maintained files on those that were PCI's. However those files were all local office working files so they would not necessarily show up at SOG/FBI HQ. Sometimes they were shared with another field office (perhaps to prevent poaching?, sometimes not). We also know that the FBI did not even volunteer that Ruby had been used as an actual PCI until Hoover was forced to acknowledge that and we have never seen the Ruby full PCI file (just enough to know he was given certain equipment as part of his activities) - so if we have not seen Ruby's, then we may well have not seen the local NO file on Oswald. Given that Burey's testimony was restricted - by the White House as I recall (somebody likely has more details on that than I am prepared to give from memory) there is some reason to suspect there were at least soft, working files related to Oswald in the NO FBI office which we did not enter the official WC record.

We know that Oswald volunteered information to the FBI in New Orleans, he had also volunteered to report any foreign or subversive approaches made to him to the FBI when he was first interviewed after his return from Russia. There is reason to think he was prepared to provide information to the FBI when it suited him, as it did in New Orleans, and that there was an FBI file on him there - as a source. Not as informant, which is a very different thing, but as a source. Beyond that he could have been pursued as either a potential security informant (PSI) or as a potential criminal informant (PCI as Ruby was at one point for the FBI). For Oswald the more likely choice would be PSI since PCI would apply only if it appeared he might be in or get into a position to ultimately provide inside information to a federal crime being investigated by the Bureau and function as a witness to it in a prosecution. Bureau offices were actually measured on the production of informants of both types and it was counted as a performance measure for the SAC, and they were especially responsive to sources who might prove to have value longer term. Generally those sources had to be "insiders" of some sort to be cultivated longer term - again, as Ruby was (perhaps in regard to gun running, neither Hoover or the Dallas office ever disclosed exactly what his provisional status was based on).

I think it would lean towards Mexico City, that would actually portray Oswald in possible contact with foreign agents and be a true national security threat in retrospect. Its the sort of thing the FBI likely would not share with the SS (I don't recall SS being copied on anything regarding MC and Oswald) and it has the weight to make Hosty become very sensitive about it as the days passed and it appeared people were really sensitive to a Russian or Cuban sponsorship or influence on Oswald. And it would have definitely been a PR nightmare for the Bureau if headlines had come out about that and revealed that the Bureau had not pursued it, perhaps because of a legal technicality. It has the same flavor of the FBI holding internal warnings from field offices concerned about commercial pilot training for foreigners before 911 and not elevating that to a national security issue.

There is no doubt that FBI agents or sources attended ACLU meetings and generated lists of attendees when possible or noted individuals already on watch lists attending. It certainly sounds like Hosty was talking about something more specific, especially since the information was intentionally being held inside the Bureau (that would normally suggest actual subversives, individuals potentially acting illegally). That's a pretty strong statement if it were just about Oswald attending a legal, open, public meeting. Bit if it were that, then the FBI should definitely have been looking at Michael Paine as well and reporting his meeting with subversives because of ACLU attendance given that he worked for a government contractor. For that matter if ACLU was equated that strongly as viewed as subversive, it would have probably called for an actual security investigation of Michael Paine himself. Perhaps the Russian embassy staff would described as "subversives" but more likely foreign agents although that is worth considering - can you document something in the files Hosty held prior to November 22/23 that had that information on the Oswald/Russian embassy or Cuban consulate visits in it? Bottom line is the FBI used the term 'subversives" so broadly (the FBI Security Index included a Rabble Rouse appendix) its really hard to say who was being described - but its important to note that if such a contact occurred (even if it were an ACLU meeting) in Dallas it should have been noted in Oswald's FBI file, and Hosty should have known that even if it had come off the subversive desk ala Heitman. It also raises the point that whoever made the report would a) already have been aware of Oswald and able to identify him in a meeting, b) actually conducting surveillance on Oswald or the individual he was meeting and also able to recognize Oswald and name him.

Gerry, since the remark from Hosty specifically referred to an FBI observation of Oswald meeting with subversives and included the remark that the information had been held within the FBI due to security concerns, it seems that it could not have evolved out of DPD activities going on around Molina. His comment that he was sure the FBI would share it with the Secret Service...which never happened, suggests it was something which was with the FBI, possibly in a soft file from Dallas, the sort of thing we never got to see. The fact that Hosty refused to answer questions on that particular issue - including direct questions from me suggests its something more than a myth, that he did make the remark and it had nothing to do with the DPD.

Marcus, the backstory on Grusch is a bit different than that; he was assigned do a DOD group which was reviewing information on the subject after Congress began to raise the issue based on UAP incidents related to the US Navy off both US coasts. During that assignment he came into contact with a number of people who have been making a variety of claims over the last couple of decades. You will find he is largely repeating the claims from the Disclosure Project associates, individuals have been bringing those stories forward for about that period of time, some are solid, some not so much. There is actually no "very strong evidence" about non-human craft or bodies no matter how much of that has made it into movies ( I say that having followed the subject pretty deeply since 1964). If you would like to dig into what some of the current research on UAP's. is doing, from propulsion studies, though image capture to intentions studies I would refer you to the group I work with - the Scientific Coalition for UAP studies - at this link: https://www.explorescu.org/

Certifying UFO photos has always been a challenge, you needed the negative from a still camera or the film from an aircraft gun camera. There are a few of the latter that can be certified but the image is at such a distance and apparent speed it does not tell you much. With digital cameras you need the metadata and full details of the camera system itself and even then somebody will come up with a challenge. Overall the images are not the key, its the elements of measured speed and acceleration including G loading on the structure itself that prove in truly unconventional performance i.e. technology. We have had those number of instances of those for decades - from unidentifieds in Project Bluebook to the current AARO, its just a matter of facing up to the data and accepting it. Instead, now as back then, those incidents just get dumped in an unidentified bucket and there they stay - as far as I know the only people still looking them or doing serious studies are citizen researchers, outside both the military and academic establishments.

I'm not sure how you/we would know the best records are still not being released? Personally I'd bet anything really sensational (say like the Hosty note) or the JMWAVE inquiry into Cuban involvement in a conspiracy (which was confirmed to us via documents from the act's releases) went missing decades ago. Sort of like the stuff from Angleton's private files - when an agency itself gets to decide what gets destroyed vs what is kept you can pretty well guess how that will play out. Still, with the right staff and powers beyond that given even the ARRB with the JFK Act, I think the UAP legislation could have been at least equally effective if it has passed as written in the Senate. As it stands now there will nothing to truly force serious collections of UAP incidents, especially historical ones from within military files such as those at NORAD or the NMCC.

Well Ben, we know what we did get - with the records collection and with the work of the ARRB. Which is a huge step forward beyond what we knew about everything from the autopsy and related records to the operations of JMWAVE, of SAS, and revelations about things ranging from threats against the President in 1963 to the events of the first 48 hours that we had no clue to before ie NIPIC, storyboards, etc. Arguably much of that was due to the work of the Board staff, but the UAP legislation called for just such a Board and staff which would have been able to do records "discovery" - something arguably at least as lacking in that venue. Say what you will, I certainly feel like we have come a great way - enabled by the JFK records act and the work of the ARRB, and might have done so with the same model for UAP, these days even that can't even get the equivalent through Congress.

Ben, the records act was a huge success - especially given that it included the ARRB, what we know now though its efforts as compared to what we had available when I started in this three decades and more ago is monumental. We certainly don't have everything we want but it would be wrong to slam it as unproductive.

Great to see you back Anna Marie!

Yes, he did speak at the Wecht conference and had exchanges with Bill Simpich and others there, perhaps Bill will post on that.

Oswald did say on a couple of occasions that he had begun thinking of actually going to Russia as earl as in his time Japan. Of course it can get pretty chilly during the Japanese winter as well. I would think that Robert's remark did indeed relate to his visit to Robert and his mother on leave after his return to the US, December time frame, and Robert might have noticed his having new and exceptionally heavy weather clothing at that time.

An FBI document contains the information that the DPD did polygraph Frazier the evening of the assassination, that he was shown the actual bag recovered from the TSBD and that he stated that it was no the bag he had seen Oswald carry that morning...which is indeed the most likely reason the DPD report itself was never entered into any official record...as Pat said above.

Thanks Ben, I was just thinking it might be "neater", interesting that he now feels that what he picked up did indeed look to be a match for CE399....and given his finding it on the back seat he certainly should have been suspicious of the official story all this time. If its CE 399 the entire official shooting sequence is bogus and he should have realized that should he not?

Well it certainly would be interesting if fragments and a virtually intact bullet were found in the rear seat, that bullet was put on a stretcher and taken into custody by the SS (removing it from local police custody which had legal responsibility for the investigation) and somehow that bullet then - like other material in reputedly in SS custody at different points - went missing while in Chief Rowley's custody and a Carcano bullet bullet emerged....(might even explain the FBI's furious search to turn up Carcano ammo that weekend). Its wildly speculative (but consistent with the description given of the bullet by those that saw it at the hospital) but it does make me wonder if Landis recalls the shape of the bullet he picked up - it certainly would be interesting if he had noted if it were "pointed" which might have been quite evident if it were generally undamaged.

Well said Richard, and aside from Plumlee and a couple of fiction books I have never seen any documentation (other than assertions in JFK literature) of the term "illusionary warfare" (military deception is a term which is used and the Army uses the term illusory concept in regard to psychological warfare) of such a specialty or of specific, related training under that name at Nag's Head or anywhere else. I would also like to see some documented support for both that term and also for an ONI Defector program targeted on Russia. That gets talked about frequently and seeing some actual source material would be really helpful.

Anyone serious about Cummings should dig into the book linked below; I discuss him and his role with (and later outside) the CIA at length in Shadow Warfare: https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Business-Cummings-Interarms-Trade/dp/0393017664

Joe I don't impose my ideas on anybody and yes I am saying the individual talking to the young women in one view, the same as seen in a separate photo closer to Oswald, is Beckham. He ways he was there, he says he observed Oswald, he provably worked in New Orleans and in that area at the time. If you want to bring somebody else in strictly based on appearance that's your call - personally I have always needed more than appearances to prove in a suspect for myself, but that's just me.

Just for reference, at the time of the photo Beckham had just gotten a new job at a radio station - as a disc jockey - and was considerably more "respectable" than previously. He also had a new, underage, wife and would shortly face morals charges over that. In an expanded view of the leafleting photo he can be seen talking with a group of young, very well dressed girls one of whom I suspect was his new wife. Admittedly speculation but it is one thing that would back up his assertion that he had encountered Oswald leafleting on the street. Given that context I'm still maintaining that the individual in question was Thomas Beckham.

Paul, I posted the links as background and context, the remark about the plane and flying to the Amazon was not my statement, rather it was from one of the articles I mentioned. I did not offer an evaluation of the book, simply gave some references for those who are interested in beginning their studies of it. Hopefully anyone reading the book will do the background work to bring it into context and attempt to corroborate it - or not. Fortunately in this instance there is a great deal of that background readily available.

For those who decide to dig into these claims, the good news is that the history, including work history, of Jerri Cobb of aviation and potential astronaut fame is well known, very public and well documented. That should give a good baseline for checking out the claims and proposition in the book: https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=CO010 https://medium.com/the-vintage-space/was-jerrie-cobbs-first-female-astronaut-good-girl-image-an-act-877c94428c55 https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/remembering-geraldyn-jerrie-cobb-pioneering-woman-aviator The final article listed has her buying an Aero Commander in 1963 but instead of Dallas flying it into the Amazon as a missionary pilot. So in this instance we have an individual who has a substantial public record for reference, not to mention prior historical studies and research on her life - contained in numerous other books.