Larry Hancock

That's a fascinating question. For starters I would say the Cuba Backstory stands out as we have learned so much more about the evolution of roles and the social networks that began with the Cuba Project and developed from 1960 though 1963. The documents (and oral histories) give us details about about actual assignments and operations that we can see personalities develop among both CIA officers and the Cuban volunteers, creating what you might think of as "trusted networks", the "band of brothers" type relationships which we can now understand in much more detail than when I was working on SWHT back in 2010. Going along with that is our expanded understanding of several Castro assassination efforts which were completely independent of the poison plots. Ultimately that allows decoding Roselli's explosive disclosure that it was CIA Cuban assets from the Castro assassination project (shooters, not people from his poison attempts) who were actually turned against JFK. The question always was - how could he have known that and who would he have had in mind. It is particularly important that we can now trace the very complex relationships of certain of the Cuban exiles as they moved from CIA activities, to anti-Castro activities and back. That demonstrates the limitations that the CIA had in controlling them and how independent they actually were....independent of the CIA but still aligned with individual CIA officers who they felt shared their own commitments. We knew those special relationships existed, now we can map them to specific individuals. The details we have learned also allow mapping out some key associations in regard to Jack Ruby and Robert McKewon, a very much ignored figure who actually, with what we have learned, may allow us to know exactly who was in contact with Oswald as he left New Orleans. I would say the other major new area of discovery was a much deeper understanding of who was involved in exactly what roles and with what tasks by the fall of 1963, both within the CIA and among the Cuban exiles. That allowed setting up scenarios for Oswald's use (in person and simply as an identity) by several different groups within SAS, at JM WAVE, and within Domestic Operations. It was something of a shock to find Oswald likely so well known that any conspiracy involving staff from JMWAVE would have easily picked him up as a useful aspect of the plot - not to kill JFK but to cast blame on Castro. Again, we have had that view in concept for a long time, now we can tie it down to individuals. Bottom line, there was no single "aha" document, nor two or three, it was really the overall body of information that developed which allowed filling in blanks and connecting dots. That and the possibility of actually coming up with a device for selecting and hiding the tactical team assets that were involved Dallas.

That's good to hear Jim, I've done a couple with her as well - and yesterday afternoon she fought Sunday traffic jams in Dallas to get downtown and film the walking tour I normally did at the in person conferences , in this case the weather was beautiful (much better weather than later in the month). I'll be narrating it for the conference. In a strange quirk of fate, as she was filming down from the railroad overpass looking at Elm and Main, a giant skeleton figure came down the street (from the area Day of the Dead celebration last week). Its hard for things to get stranger in 2020...

Thanks Joe, much appreciated! I am pleased to have been able to work out some connections and bring together some threads that have been dangling for some years. And I really tried to dial in the focus on this one, putting a lot of the supplemental information into extended end note commentary rather than giving in to the temptation of putting everything new into the body copy. Actually much of the newest research, some of which was quite surprising to me, is in those commentaries. In only one instance, related to Jack Ruby, did the editing process pull something back into the body. I'm also pleased to return Ruby to the dialog, he seemed to sort of gone missing in more recent years.

Thanks John, its good to hear from you. And this gives me a chance to note that much of the most recent research in Tipping Point is based on the work of a network of researchers - I probably wasn't able to fully capture that but I did attempt to name names of numerous individuals that laid a foundation or provided key leads or document references. Its just impossible to acknowledge everyone that has been at work for all these decades.

Thanks Anthony, we will probably be able to put Part 1 up in a week - its pretty detailed and rather dense, with lots of citations and document links. Rex has to do links for each section so he is the one doing all the work at this point. But if you are anyone else has questions about the Introduction (which pretty much tells how I got to this point) just drop me a note or post in the book section of the forum.

You are most welcome Steven, of course its only taken 30 years or so to get to this viewpoint....so I appreciate "tenacity"...my wife would probably call it an obsession...grin.

Much appreciated Robert, I hope you find it useful! I hadn't really seen it as being a book project in the beginning, but it grew far beyond the size I had anticipated. Also, it does get pretty dense, with some extensive commentary in the citations - so it seemed like there might be a need for it to be in print form for easier use as a resource.

It will be fully available for a free read and then later available in book form on Amazon as well. I'm happy to take questions or chat about it here, on my Wordpress blog or via email at larryjoe@westok.net Here is the link to get you started if you are interested: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point.html

This is simply a notice that Rex Bradford has finished an immense amount of work and Tipping Point is now beginning on the MFF site. I will post a notice in the book section of the forum as well and answer question and engage in discussions there rather in this main section. I will also be blogging on it and am happy to chat there or via email at larryjoe@westok.net As I said earlier, Tipping Point represents my personal analysis and observations on the conspiracy. I know there will be disagreement and that is to be expected. For those who want to engage with it, and hopefully profit form the research and information it presents - great. It's not intended to sway anyone else from their preferred scenarios or views. We will put up a new section every one to two weeks, finishing it up online in December for a totally free read - with the book to follow for those who would want it all together in print. I hope that will allow readers to really dig into the references and cited documents, several of which are hot linked either in the body or in the end notes. In that regard, kudos to David Boylan and Bill Simpich who were involved with a great deal of the brand new documents research which went into Tipping Point. If you wish to pursue it, this link will get you there: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point.html

I don't know that I disagree at all about Lansdale's activities in that period, I actually thought I had said that earlier but maybe not....what I do find questionable are Prouty's remarks about presidential protection, about the activation of the 112th and its then being shut down etc...the points he appears to me to have recanted in his ARRB remarks. That has little to nothing to do with his identification of Lansdale in Dallas or of his speculation about Lansdale and a conspiracy. I'm ambivalent about that; if somebody can prove that it was Lansdale in Dallas (I did dabble in that for a time, fruitlessly) and in the photo that would be very interesting...but then you need to take that and work it into a full hypothesis on his role, his contacts, the larger picture of the conspiracy. Which is why I don't really have anything to contribute beyond that point other than personal opinions...when I hit that point in a thread it seems a good time for me to move on.

I'd say the first part of that - before he gets into Mongoose/Camelot and the conspiracy material - is pretty accurate and consistent with the source I recommended as well as other materials on Lansdale that I've examined. However its pretty clear that anything that doesn't fit Prouty's personal narrative, his views on Lansdale or the conspiracy is not going to be well received in this thread so I'll just butt out once again.... However having said that, I should repeat that I personally consider him a valuable source on the activities he was directly involved with, including the practices and protocols for providing support to various CIA covert actions.

I certainly go with the idea of "secret teams" but I think to a large extent they were situational. For example in Nicaragua we effectively saw a secret team formed under North which included field CIA personnel (acting against orders), CIA paramilitary assets (some former, some still on call, the use of CIA cover companies (without their even realizing it) and the cooperation and active support of high level military officers (some retired; some still serving). My take would be that common political beliefs and agendas tend to generate such teams (which are self organizing) rather than their existing in a straight line sense. You could find another example in the first Afghanistan experience. However their are incubators for such teams which do exist long term, the World Anti Communist League was one that I explored in Shadow Warfare. These days I suspect several of the neo-Conservative think tanks serve the same function of pulling people together who form their own teams and then secure their own political, financial and other assets. My usual long winded way of saying, yes...

There are a couple of early and more recent books on Lansdale that I found helpful. I'd start with this one: https://www.amazon.com/Edward-Lansdale-American-Cecil-Currey/dp/0395385105/ref=pd_sbs_14_3/147-1704450-1909043?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0395385105&pd_rd_r=3fd64c12-2e97-4d6c-acd4-ddab71e05e6e&pd_rd_w=3iAwA&pd_rd_wg=fl7MJ&pf_rd_p=ff9b5089-1414-4e8f-9675-3397e98bf276&pf_rd_r=BTR781CPXFQ5GZX2MM8A&psc=1&refRID=BTR781CPXFQ5GZX2MM8A My friend Mike Swanson is coming out with a new book on the early days in Vietnam which discusses a lot of his role there and is very good. I cited a number of sources on him in Shadow Warfare but I can't pull them off the top of my head, several were excerpts from individuals referencing their own experiences with him.

JFK was quite impressed by Lansdale in some early briefing meetings on Vietnam - which is why he picked him to lead the Mongoose inter-agency Cuba effort, where he Lansdale nobody - especially nobody in the CIA. Later JFL actually proposed him to various parties for a significant role at the CIA station in Saigon and even as ambassador. As he turned out he was virtually Lansdale's only champion, Taylor was jealous of Lansdale's connection and avocation of Diam, nobody who was comfortable with Diem liked Lansdale including the sitting Ambassador and State Dept staff. Basically everyone who JFK approached in regard to Lansdale pushed back on the initiatives to put him in a mainstream position in Vietnam and in the end he ended up stuck on the JCS staff and something of an odd man out, getting a variety of misc jobs.

Happy Birthday indeed Ron, and on the conference wish us luck and good weather for this weekend. We will be recording a virtual walking tour of the Plaza. Gabby has the walking script I used for years and I will coach her by phone as she records and then dub in the narrative for the conference. Its our first try and pretty ambitious but if it comes out well it ought to be really helpful for folks who have never made it to Dallas before. And a lot nicer than many years when I led the tour in high north winds or even in sleet...

Actually there are two pages, one is a page on the Lancer web site and is more more of an announcement, with just a speaker list: http://jfklancer.com/Dallas2020/index.html The one you just posted above with the photos is the Conference page: http://www.assassinationconference.com/ It is a work in progress since Gabby has to wait on getting photos and bios from the speakers. It seems the virtual conference is a bit like in-person conferences, there are always additions and cancellations. However in this case at least we don't have last minute issues like a speaker missing a flight or becoming ill the day they are scheduled to travel....that's the sort of thing that used to lead to us printing and posting revised schedules each day during the live conference as people had to be moved and substitutes recruited. I can say from experience that aged moderators quickly....and sent them to the bar early.

I’ve been getting a few questions on the JFK Lancer conference and hopefully the following will help with those. First off it is not a “live” Zoom type session but rather the streaming of a series of pre-recorded speaker and panel sessions. The initial streaming will be over the period of November 20-22 but for the basic conference fee registered attendees will be able to log in and view (including rewatching) the content through November 30. The advanced registration feel allows the attendee to download the full conference beginning in December. Further details are as follows: 1. Ticket numbers will be emailed to attendees within 48 hours of ticket purchase. 2. Starting on November 20th at 9am CST all attendees can go to assassinationconference.com and enter in the ticket number received through email. 3. Once logged in, attendees will be redirected to watch the conference videos as they air. 4. The attendee may click on the video archives tab to view any speakers they may have missed or would like to rewatch through November 30th. 5. Those who purchased the digital downloads will receive an email on December 5th with the link to download the presentations. If you have more questions about the process, you can contact Gabriella or Debra directly: Debra +1 817-371-1260 Gabbie +1 817-456-8074 Registration and a speaker list may be viewed at: http://jfklancer.com/Dallas2020/index.html As of this date we have over 25 speakers committed, on a broad variety of topics. I haven’t checked all the prior conferences but if memory serves, that number meets or exceeds the speakers for most of them – that makes the basic viewing price (non-student) pretty attractive.

In regard to the report, I checked with my friend Mike Swanson who had been researching the most current information on the evolution of the Vietnam War and is close to having a new book out on events through 1961. He referenced Howard Jones book Death of a Generation. While the full report was written by a committee under Bundy, Krulak did contribute at least part of it and as Prouty's boss may well have given him notes from the meeting and asked him to do a rough draft for Krulak's review. That would be a regular staff duty. Prouty may have exaggerated a bit but it seems likely he did read materials from the meeting in Hawaii and did do at least some writing related to the report. ....and I think Jeff's post above seems a pretty good synopsis. Certainly several people were suspicious of the CIA (RFK very possibly the first the afternoon of the assassination).

I would have to do a lot more research and see some actual documentation to make any comment on Prouty in regard to that particular report....and for that matter in regard to his role in Vietnam period. I do know what SACSA was doing in regard to Vietnam, which was trying to manage the switchback program to move CIA covert action from the CIA to the military and that was way behind schedule and going poorly. As for counter insurgency and covert action inside Vietnam that was a MACV responsibility and I have not studied SACSA's role in that circa 1963. I do know a good bit about Lansdale's role in MACV in the period through 1962 but I also know he pretty much ended up with the Joint Chiefs staff because neither State nor the CIA nor the military wanted him in the positions in Vietnam that JFK tried to move him into - all of them assumed his allegiance was to one of the others. I guess my first question is whether there is any documentation or another source to support his assertions on his activity related to 1963? SACSA as a whole was doing a lot of study work on Cuba, I do know that because JFK had assigned it to them. But I don't claim to know what Prouty was or was not doing in his own staff assignments other than the liaison role in supporting covert operations that he had held for a number of years. My other thought would be that even if he was involved in the report, what about it would specifically make him suspect a plot to kill JFK was in play....just a question, not trying to start an argument. And....has anybody asked John Newman about Prouty's involvement in that report; seems like if anyone would know he would.

I hesitate to weigh in on a heated discussion but its a subject I've tackled for years now - including publishing a CD with all the 112th and Prouty ARRB materials on it years ago - and encouraging people to listen to the interviews - and read the documents about Reich as well as the data collected on the 112th. Its also extremely important to read the documents we have on Prouty's staff position with the Joint Chiefs (as well as Lansdale's assignment there and how that came about) for context. Prouty was in a senior staff position, no doubt about that - he writes about his duties and we now have operational documents relating to some of his activities. Basically his job was as a JCS coordinator and CIA covert ops liaison. That meant facilitating the protocols and processing of requests to clandestinely supply American military equipment and support for covert CIA operations. But its important to remember that itwas American equipment and support; much of the support coming from special "black" air units - such as those being used to support operations like those in Tibet. He was not involved in sourcing deniable non-American equipment and support - the CIA did that for itself with cover companies. David Boylan and I ran across his activities in regard to the first Cuba project - and internal memos from the CIA folks complaining that he difficult to deal with and requests moved way too slowly. I suspect that was more a part of the system than him personally, but they do help confirm his duties. Its really important to understand SACSA overall and its expanding role as JFK moved the military more into covert operations. The real issue here is that the question of Prouty receiving staff assignments such as going to Antarctica is not really a mystery; that's why the JCS have staff. What has always puzzled me is what he thought he would have seen in his position and in his regular job duties if he had been in DC? He only had a view into certain officially sanctioned projects, usually those involving major equipment transfers or covert air support. How that would translate to a paramilitary ambush in Dallas eludes me. On the other hand he had ample reason to understand the scope of CIA covert ops and the attitudes of some of his people. If he had just voiced suspicions on that level - as others with similar exposure have and did - that makes sense to me. But what specific knowledge other than a rumor from an unknown source at the 112th (which he could not corroborate and whose source he did not know personally) he could have had about Dallas eludes me. Given that his extensive personal interview with the ARRB was voluntary and that he did recant a number of former statements, its probably more reasonable to fall back on looking at what he really had to offer other than suspicions of CIA involvement (which I'm likely the last person to reject) and an identification of Lansdale in Dallas. Which, if you really dig into Lansdale's career and even why he was on the JCS staff at that point in time, is another issue entirely and one that has to include the fact that JFK had actually been a personal champion of Lansdale in two major venues - Vietnam and Cuba.

In regard to the carillon, in one of Penn Jones newsletters there was mention that at one of the early JFK knoll observances on Nov. 22 (third possibly) those in attendance were surprised to hear a carillon and they traced it to a Church some blocks away. He gave the Church and location but my copies of his full newsletter collection have been gone for some years now and I don't recall any specifics. Apparently it was an older instrument and did not play all the time; he described how surprised they were to hear it,

Stu will be speaking on the MLK assassination and the work he was involved in to actually get legislation passed which opens up access to files both on that case and other civil rights cold cases. We will be posting topics for all the speakers when we get closer to the date (some are still picking their topic), this year we have reached out to a number of people including several DPUK members, that you might not routinely see on this forum. Beyond that one of the realities is that a number of the "classic" researchers either have left the field (after fifty plus years age is a real factor) for personal reasons or are tied up with their private projects. Garry Murr is and example, he has spoken in past years but at this time is totally wrapped up in editing on John Hunt's book. More and more getting new research requires us to stretch a bit, hence new names. I suspect the conference topics will be broader in scope this year, partially because we will have some new presenters, but also because we will have more speakers than in past years when a two day schedule (even with evening sessions) tied us down a good bit in terms of speaker slots. I also suspect sessions will tend to go longer for some presenters since we do not have to enforce a "back end" on their time slots to conform to the overall schedule - and not short change anyone. I'll post a link to current speakers below but that list is going to grow over the next week or so as we do confirmations and add people. As an example yesterday we confirmed both Jeff Morley and Rex Bradford, who remain to be listed. http://jfklancer.com/Dallas2020/index.html

I think so as well Ron, publishing a posthumous work is especially challenging since Deb has to get additional help and also make a lot of layout decisions the author would normally participate in along with the editing. Both Ian and John put immense amounts of time and energy into their work and actually being able to bring them out without losing all that will be a great way to honor that effort. John's work is especially challenging from a publishing standpoint because of the huge amount of graphics material that he developed to support it, it is the sort of thing that is simply unique. Fortunately Stu Wexler and I would able to help a bit in organizing it and Gary Murr is doing the true yeoman's work in editing it for Debra. It simply would not be possible without his effort.

Thanks for the encouragement Ron! Of course it is a new type of venue and mastering some of the technology issues was and is the first challenge (although doing AV and recording at the live conferences has never been as easy as it might appear). We will make the virtual walking tour as real as possible - and their are advantages to this, I've done a number of live tours which had to be abbreviated because of frigid winds or sleet. Dallas can have some very variable weather in late November. Hopefully this time we will be able to record it on a sunny, clear day. We are trialing virtual panel discussions, this year, I just participated in one with four people and it actually worked more smoothly than many of the live panels we have had in the past - one major advantage to this is that their is no "back end" on the presentations so speakers don't get forced to cut early to meet the speaker schedule. I suspect a number of the virtual sessions will run longer than the slots at the live conference. I should point out that Debra is focusing her time and energies on publishing while the virtual conference is largely in the hands of Gabriella, who our speakers are working with for recording and preparations. She is doing a huge amount of work making this happen, including all the tech work. I remain involved searching for presenters and helping coordinate their topics - we were a bit behind on the curve for that this year and I'm always eager to hear from folks who want to present new research (the conference remains largely devoted to new research on the assassinations as well as the history of the period and of the Kennedy Administration). Gabriella has a number of ides for taking this forward and making it more interactive and ongoing and I think we will be able to do more with virtual "tours" as well as with round-tables and panels. I can also visualize live Facebook or even Zoom sessions with particular speakers may come into play over the next year or so. There is no reason not to think it could not continue to be a platform for both new research and analysis. For that matter it could also expand to address related subjects like the RFK assassination. Given John Hunt's posthumous book publication, there will actually be a lot of new things to discuss on that subject in 2021.

Since its not a "live" virtual event we are unable to do that. However the plan is to create a private Facebook group for all registered attendees. Presenters will be "tagged" and attendees can direct questions to individual presenters and have them referred for answers. That private group will stay active for some time after the actual conference dates and presenters would be encouraged to stay involved with the conference Facebook page. In addition the overall conference would be available for download to registered attendees and potentially made available presentation by presentation in the months that follow. So the answer is yes, but not in real time. If this works to the general satisfaction, there is some thought to keep it ongoing and scheduling additional presentations during 2021. Those could involve the new books that Lancer hopes to publish as well, specifically John Hunt's work on the RFK assassination and Ian Griggs work on the Dallas Police Department. Clearly this is a challenge and there are pros and cons between the methods of doing virtual events - with this approach we are trying to make it as available long term ongoing as possible.