Larry Hancock

And amazingly he managed to bring it all together just in time for an anniversary year...   

Hi Miles, if  you  purchase the virtual conference  you get to see all presenters, the ones in person in Dallas and those coming in remotely via Zoom, and also revisit the stream though the end of November; there is an additional option to download all the presentations in December.

The "Virtual Conference Only" price will give you access to the conference online and access to rewatch the presentations until the 30th of November.

***** The "Virtual Conference and Digital Download" price gives you access to the conference online, ability to rewatch the presentations until the 30th of November, and the ability to download the digital files starting the first week of December.

Don't know how long you were in New Mexico, I graduated from UNM in Albuquerque and later lived outside DC in Centreville and down near Lynchburg for a time. 

This is the most current speaker list and schedule:

https://jfklancerpublications.com/

John Hunt would be another...

The list should include Ian Griggs

Gerry, I don't know where that came from but having done a good bit of work and written about both the MLK and RFK assassinations I have seen nothing like that.  In particular the LAPD held onto all the crime scene evidence and did their own muddling and obfuscation with no real outside help; the FBI did some field work with interviews including Sirhan Sirhan's psychic mentor and with Kyber Khan but both were minimal and added virtually nothing. They did not work directly with the crime scene material. John Hunt's book is definitely the gold standard for what happened with the RFK evidence.   As to MLK, the local police processed the crime scene material which largely consisted of ballistics evidence and material from the room house and Ray's personal possessions in his car. The FBI did begin an inquiry into known ultra right figures and worked with tracking the rifle purchase, then the manhunt for Ray....but in neither case was the crime scene evidence lifted out of town in mass as happened in Dallas. 

At this point the regular in person tickets are sold out - of course  you can still register for virtual attendance since there is no limit on that...and their are options to access the sessions at will online once the conference is over. 

I'm looking forward to seeing a lot of people in Dallas this year...     Larry

Of those posting on this forum I know David Boylan and I will be there in person, we will be joining in two separate presentations. Not sure who else here will be in Dallas although I know that several are flying over from the DPUK group.

Well said Jim, I knew a long time JFK researcher from LA who had grown up in the industry and he recalled MM coming to readings and group practices and she was interested in nothing except improving her craft.  She wanted to be  a superior actress; he said he never saw her in anything other than a sloppy sweat shirt and slacks during all those sessions....or until she made it into the movies.

I really don't think anybody has to say anything loudly Joe, I passed the comments on to Rex myself...he has day job, he does everything on MFF voluntarily as he can find time for it and he had a lot of requests for a smartphone fix....I don't think he has to be pushed into anything, he just needs feedback.

Joe, have you communicated this directly to Rex?

Ah Steve, good catch - the thing is David Boylan has turned up a lead that might explain a number of other things related to Odio in 1963, including that  flight to Dallas, Odio's time in Puerto Rico and ultimately provide a reason for that special visit by people from New Orleans (and Miami).

It makes a lot more sense than a weapons buy and would have involved Odio in something pretty special if it had not been compromised...but enough said on that for now.

The thing is David and I will be speaking on that lead as well as others in conjunction with his talk at the Lancer conference - specifically on the Odio visit.  So I'm going to have to keep that to myself for a few more weeks (David, if  you visit this thread, don't give it away yet...grin).

  -- Larry

Escalante published a book which made strong case for all sorts of nefarious CIA and US activities against Cuba (a mild case compared to what we know now) and in doing so he connected the CIA to JFK's assassination.  Given the book theme it was totally consistent to link the CIA to JFK's murder as well and he did so, as far as I could tell with a lot of material and speculation already found in previously published JFK assassination books.  He also attended a conference with a number of JFK researchers and that helped promote the book as well as Cuba's case against the US.

The book also contained claims that captured Cuban exiles had talked about their knowledge of a conspiracy involving the CIA as well....that has shown  up in several places over the  years as well - totally undocumented and not used as Cuban propaganda at the time, but held privately - to wait for books apparently. 

I went though the Escalante book repeatedly looking for anything unique or anything he could document from actual files or corroborate independently - things that had not been in newspapers and books prior to his own book's publication. I could not find anything significant but if anyone else has I'd like to see it.  

Tom, I'm afraid some of the Cuban intelligence books - like Escalante's - actually contain a good bit of material that appears to have come out of JFK books and of course the Cuban books are constructed to make a case against the CIA and its evil actions against Cuba (not all that much of a challenge).

An associated problem is that as far as I know very virtually no real, verifiable Cuban intel files have been brought forward; Escalante says most were damaged or lost though bad storage practices and water damage.  What we most often hear about are things people describe from memory based on there having seen in said files...

Having said that, we can verify that Castro actually visited the Brazilian embassy only weeks before the assassination and made a warning statement that the CIA efforts to assassinate him could blow back on the U.S. and on JFK; he actually said that the anti-Castro Cuban exiles were so volatile that they might turn on JFK himself.

I'm sure that Cuban G2 was picking up some of the same rumors and gossip the FBI was, with a lot of threats and volatile remarks coming out of the exile community for several months at that time.  After all it was so bad the SS actually asked for CIA cooperation in regard to Cuban threats in Miami during the president's visit there.

I talked to him in person following his appearance at a Lancer conference several years ago, cannot give  you the exact date from memory, and during at least one telephone call and several email exchanges for at least a  year after that...best guess on the date pf the conference appearance would be the early 2000s but that is just a guess.  I provided him with a copy of the SS service memo about his subversive remarks in person and think I mailed a copy later as well.

Steve, I recall from my 112th work that the regional Army command definitely had a strong relationship with police in major metro areas and that included Dallas, which is why we so the extended exchanges between them on Nov 22, with the 112th offering info in its files on Oswald (material forwarded to them earlier from the FBI in NO).

And on  your second point, that is absolutely true - I had extensive talks with a DPD intelligence reserve officer who that day was assigned to surveillance on the Black Panther group, DPD was focused on groups, the Secret Service was so provincial that they could not even visualize a mobile threat against the president (even when warned by the FBI) and when they did the security PRS pull for Dallas found nothing in the file...sigh.  

It seems at the time the security systems only envisioned direct, proximity attacks or protests by groups turning violent...now that seems like the good old days by comparison..

Actually I don't think that hour reference is at all true as far as the investigation by the DPD was concerned, they continued questioning people, picking up people like Molina and Frazier and examining evidence as long as they could before the FBI carted off much of it by midnight. Certainly officers I have talked to considered it a very real and live investigation into the weekend.  We can argue that pieces disappears later and even that there might have been malfeasance within the force but we even have comments from individual officers that suggest some thought themselves under suspicion for some sort of involvement. 

We should not get carried away thinking that all this was locked up and tied down as part of some master plan during the first day, the weekend etc...if it had been the hundreds of loose ends from Dallas to Bethesda would not have been left for us all to pick apart over the decades.

Could be Steve, but perhaps that was just a "pick up sheet" and he was actively working it...that would be interesting as well...in any event surely somebody here knows a DPD officer or has some solid experience to bring to the question.  As to the notebook, well it certainly would not be the only item from the DPD that ultimately went missing and never entered the official record - the list of of patrons at the theater comes to mind.

If I'm not mistaken outstanding warrants, stolen cars etc are public information - of course the reason hot sheets would be on a clip board would be that the clip board can be concealed (just turn it over)..during breaks etc.  I think the photo above pretty well confirms that  you could expect to find "operational" info on a clipboard.

Someone here with law enforcement experience should comment but my understanding is that the patrol car clipboards contained hot items for each day, outstanding warrants related to the patrol area , stolen car tag numbers, recent robbery suspects, recent complaints from local residents that might server as something to watch for - basically prompts for the patrol officer to be watching for during the days duty.  Having a mug shot of a suspect at the top of the clipboard would make perfect sense if the clipboards were used that way in Dallas. 

Paul, others and I have both written at length about Hosty's remarks on Nov 23, later reported by the SS agent to the HSCA, you will find it in SWHT in some detail and probably with a search here as well.  As with most remarks we have no idea exactly who was being referred to or where it occurred. 

All I can tell you is that even when I provided a copy of the HSCA document describing his remarks as commented on by the SS agent, he simply refused to engage with it, turning exchanges in other directions. 

As to my guesses, I think that the subversives were Cuban exiles engaged in weapons buys in Dallas and that the FBI was monitoring them and observed Oswald in contact with one or more of them , again you will find that discussed in SWHT - most recently David Boylan have speculated on exactly who they might have been in our Wheaton leads work and our recent presentations on the Red Bird leads - I don't want to make it sound like anything brand new although we have much more detail on exactly which activist exiles were traveling from the Miami area to both New Orleans and Dallas now than when I was doing the various editions of SWHT.

That was indeed one of the related incidents over material from MC that I recall David, but I also know that there also a separate chain of CIA communications expressing virtual panic over material that might expose their activities in MC - and of course it was the CIA who had an immense infrastructure and political connections to pretect in terms of doing espionage in Mexico, not in regard to just Mexico but all of Central America.  There electronic and film and travel surveillance "takes" were routinely provided to multiple nations and were the backbone of monitoring Cuban covert activities throughout central and even south America.

As to reliability, personally I think JFK research in general sometimes goes over the edge in judging reliability based on whether sources are saying what we expect to hear, or want to hear.  Probably better to admit that to a large extent we are simply left to make subjective calls on credibility and reliability.

I found Hosty to be quite sincere, but also to only talk about what he was interested in, and to totally avoid certain direct questions - particularly in regard to FBI knowledge of Oswald in Dallas, and the FBI monitoring of Oswald in contact with "subversives", as reported in his very early remarks to Secret Service, remarks heard by DPD officers. Which also reinforces the issue that we have to accept that information from virtually any source can be "situational".

In that regard, and anecdotally, Host was told explicitly by his FBI contacts that it was Oswald himself who was photographed.   However, based on only the document linked above its possible that photos were taken at the Russian embassy and misidentified as Oswald - and that just got translated into rumor and gossip that it was him.

Nothing ever seems definitive in these incidents - although it could have been resolved early on if the names had been provided and the individuals interviewed....which might cause one to think that it would have been confirmed as Oswald.  On the other hand we have the perennial question of why an actual photo of Oswald in Mexico City would be concealed at all since it would simply support the official story of his activities?

The counter to that is that CIA was so ultra-sensitive to exposing the extent of its activities in MC, at all levels including photo surveillance, that it blocked the showing of anything that might become public and expose that.  As I recall they went ballistic when a request was made to show a photo from Mexico in Dallas for identification purposes related to Jack Ruby.....there was a whole series of memos stonewalling it simply on the basis that under no circumstances must photo surveillance of any sort be shared if there was a potential that it might become public and expose sensitive national security activities in a foreign country (including the fact that it would jeopardize the political relationship that enabled that activity).

  -- to quote Paul Simon in Slip Sliding Away  -  "the answer is unavailable... to the mortal man"

Jim, I was referring to a series of memorandum from over the weekend where he complains about DPD officers talking too much in front of the media including the TV appearance describing Oswald being picked up in a car.  Its all part of the same issue he has with the Dallas Police talking about the case when he wants it under "control".  And of course the FBI had it under control in an evidentiary since given that much of the crime scene material had been hustled out of town around midnight.

Given that the DPD was starting to do things like show the bag found in the TSBD to Frazier - with him denying it was what he had seen Oswald carrying, having DPD carry out its own investigation could indeed have created a lot of problems for what was going to emerge as the official story .

It certainly is interesting although we have seen a good bit of this before in terms of his complaining about the DPD talking and the fact that they needed to be shut up (which of course would cover their earlier interviews about a possible conspiracy related Oswald being picked up and driven away).

Of course it also classic Hoover scene stealing - take all the evidence away from DPD by midnight before they have a chance to work it and then claim  you solved it all yourself, nice PR touch as usual.