Larry Hancock

As a brief follow on to Pat's remarks - and having worked with Debra for over a decade on the Lancer conference and serving as speaker chair for many years - I would point out that our strategy for conferences was three fold. First they were viewed as an educational opportunity for people new to the subject (that usually constituted at least a third of the audience and in the earlier years we often had teachers bringing classes with up to thirty or more students attending). There was also a "tourist" aspect since many people wanted to experience the venues associated with the assassination for themselves - which meant walking and bus tours often expanded to areas such as the Dallas jail or other sites that were normally hard to get into. Second, we needed to have some published authors who were familiar to the more experienced attendees, giving them a chance to judge them in person and interact with them. Podcasts and YouTube are fine but lack the personal context of having real personal dialogs; to that extent we often had break out groups which allowed for topical focus and interaction. The third element was perhaps more important since we viewed it as a research and resource conference - in the days before the internet life was much different so document collections were presented and made available, in paper and later on CD. For many without access directly to NARA that was the only option to do document research. Beyond that the conference served as a platform to talk about research - I remember quite well Rex Bradford's first presentation on the potential of pdf files and html for research. Now everyone takes that for granted but it was ground breaking in the days before the Mary Ferrell Foundation or Black Vault. Along with that we always tried to bring in what I would describe as "deep" researchers that did not publish but who did amazingly detailed and professional research - the list for that is long but Gary Murr, John Hunt, Ian Griggs, John Newman, (who did his first document presentation on Mexico City, to the amazement of everyone at the time) and and many others shared information with the conference as their venue - sadly some of them never were able to publish so the DVD's of their presentations are the only record. Fortunately others eventually did get their work in print. I'm not sure if the time for that sort of conference is past - certainly we don't have annually breaking stories from document releases as we did when the ARRB work was coming out. The teacher and student attendance diminished over time - even with Lancer doing teacher/program donations. Much of what we did then has shifted to the internet, many of the witnesses and participants in Dallas events have passed. Everyone will have to judge for themselves but to a large extent that was what the Lancer conferences were about, it was a mix, with a sincere effort to serve multiple types of attendees. I don't think it produced fragmentation although there were a few "scenes" during presentations, until we got that under a bit more control. And some avid discussions in the hallway. On the other hand there was some really good collaboration in the hallway...and in the bar of course.

That's easy enough to do at least through Amazon. You can make a list of titles and look for their relative standings in both electronic and print versions. You will find the comparable sales for each book - at least relative to all Amazon sales. You can also use World cat to find sales to libraries. Those will give you some basic measure of sales, especially since retail store front is not all that big a deal these days.

Trine-Day has been very committed and active in supporting her story. They brook no objections to it and have been aggressive in helping with her conferences and overall marketing. That certainly has to be a significant factor, her visibility definitely increased when she was signed by them.

For clarification, my remarks were in regard to Daniel Sheehan, the lawyer associated with the Christic Institute - who became focused on actions involving a number of Contra figures: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-02-04-mn-1518-story.html

Paul, Sheehan is associated peripherally primarily because of his reporting on the Contra affairs and his contact with certain of the same individuals Jenkins knew during those events. Our take is that Sheehan was actually fed certain types of misinformation, some of it specifically intended to jeopardize Wheaton as a source - exactly what Jenkins and Quintero promised to do to him. Certainly it is true that some of his writing and speculation (Sheehan's) on Contra era events appears to have been a little off the mark based on later revelations. In one way there is no dispute as Sheenhan verifies Wheaton as being involved (or attempting to be involved) in the chaos of North's private war. In another there is since Sheenhan, based on unnamed sources paints a picture of Wheaton as being something of a conspiracy fan - of course in later years that could be said to be true because what Wheaton had heard and his own experiences convinced him that official government stories about sensational events were often not to be trusted. That is something entirely different from his earliest efforts to take the the JFK remarks very secretly to select Congresspersons for investigation. If Stu sees this he may have more cogent remarks, once again its been several years since we went though what Sheehan and others had to say about Wheaton and I would not want to be more specific simply off the top of my head.

The link to the interview (its not really a podcast but rather a video taped interview) is on one of my Wheaton Names posts on my WordPress blog...you should be able to find it with a quick search. It should be in the Wheaton Names research paper that is mentioned there as well. Beyond that I'm guessing a general search for Gene Wheaton Interview will find it.

Actually Wheaton mentioned a couple of legislators that he was friends with and who might have the right influence, Stu tracked down one but unfortunately his name escapes me at the moment. Anecdotal corroboration of Wheaton's remarks continues to come up in strange places. While I was presenting on the Wheaton names two years ago at the Lancer Conference, one of the attendees did some real time searching and found that one of Wheaton's relatives had posted about attending an event in Washington DC and being introduced to one of the individual's Wheaton mentioned as being a government contact. It is true that Wheaton's own experiences made him sensitive to cover ups and conspiracies and in later years his attention moved on beyond JFK, largely because he had been totally stymied there. When we tracked down interviews that he did with one media person in later years they were both interested in more contemporary events and hardly touched on JFK. Actually I think that is a form of corroboration in itself because Wheaton consistently made very limited statements and never claimed to know more than the remarks he had heard in the private bull sessions - I'm always impressed by sources who don't elaborate and whose content and claims do not expand over time. As to Jenkins, given the absolute anathema which prevails in regard to CIA sponsored assassination, Jenkins may well remain tight lipped not just because of the JFK remarks Wheaton described, but because he could well be questioned about the Castro assassination efforts with Felix Rodriquez and possibly Segundo Borges - something the HSCA failed to do. That would open up yet another can of worms about Agency cover ups.

In regard to records on Jenkins being classified, I don't think that is the real problem. What we would really like to know is more about the sniper attack plan (and possibly other similar plans) that he was associated with in early 1961. Unfortunately it appears that much of that was verbal only - as would be standard practice. The HSCA did a serious search and found little on it. My guess is that like other still mysterious elements of the first Cuba project the files were destroyed before the official inquires on that began. And as with the "black lists" for the Cuba project, none of the officers involved were willing to admit that such things as assassination were ever sanctioned.

Brenden, hopefully you have been following my blog posts on the Wheaton names research. If not you will find me on wordpress. David and I are doing ongoing research on the Wheaton names and I have posted Version 5 of our working paper (you will find the link on the blog posts). We are up to Version 9 now and will likely post a new edition sometime early next year....the work on developing the names and associations is a slog at best (thankfully David does most of it...grin). I will be telling a lot of the story of Jenkins and the people associated with him during the Cuba project in my upcoming book (In Denial) which will be out in March/April next year. As to the falling out, Stu Wexler and I looked into that a good bit as well as the Sheenhan writing on Jenkins and our take is based on the fact that Jenkins and Quintero had warned Wheaton that they had the connections necessary to smear him and tarnish his credibly if he did try to do anything with his remarks - that was after he offered to try an obtain some level of protection for them if they would talk. Our conclusion is that by leaking the right remarks to the right people they managed to do that to some extent. As far as Wheaton was concerned there was no falling out with Quintero who he considered a true friend; things did cool with Jenkins considerably - and Jenkins has been far more aggressive in calling Wheaton a xxxx. Quintero did not call him a xxxx and even said that he had indeed heard what he described, but simply that he had misunderstood some of what was being said.

What Bart said...grin.. For the record though, I was only confirming that Frazier had been asked some questions about the doorway photo and repeating what I had heard him say. Personally I think there are things that he knows that he is not telling us...could be any number of things, some of them quite serious. I doubt it wold be to his advantage to say such things at this point in time and am skeptical that we will ever hear more from him than he has said up to this point.

I'm not going to go much further, about the best I can offer is that Frazier has been asked and has consistently said he did not see Oswald on the stops and when shown the pictures did not identify Oswald or the unknown individual at all. My recollection is that at some point he did indicate he saw Lovelady out front but that's just an impression, someone else will probably have a more accurate comment on that ....given I've been convinced for a long time that Lovelady was on the steps and in the photos in the waiting area afterwards I've never really focused on that point and I don't think I asked Frazier about that specifically. Its also my impression that Frazier said he was not looking around at folks on the steps much and might not even have looked laterally or around to his right in the area of most interest.

I can corroborate Pat, we asked Frazier at two Lancer conferences and Debra took the time privately to take doorway photos and show him - they discussed them at length and he made the same remarks to her Pat described and has not changed his position in any way. There may be things he is hesitant to talk about but for what its worth he has been consistent on this point.

John, as to facts, I referenced a recent book by Walt Brown, Pamela has posted here repeatedly as to her personal experience with Judyth. It does not take much searching to find similar experience and a host of detail on Judyth's changing story. I seriously doubt that most of us in this thread who warn about her want to go though all that here again - I certainly don't. Its not like this is a new story or a new issue; Stone himself could have learned all about her - with facts - had he wished to do so and certainly Jim D would have guided him in that. I would consider these posts to be educational in the sense we are recommending you do your own homework on her before accepting her story. I would advise the same as to James Files, Tosh Plumlee, Fred Crisman etc - and have done so. After 30 years at this sort of research the best I can offer is advice, you'll need to take it from there.

Pamela may provide more detail but there is also the point that Judyth's story is quite iterative, as I recall she is actually in her third version of her book and ended up disavowing the earlier versions when issues and inconsistencies were identified. No doubt Walt's book goes into that - its just important to know that she had been very adept at collecting information from other parties and weaving it into or reworking it as her on. I honestly gave up on even trying to follow the whole thing.

Having spent years on that particular subject I can tell you that the search was restricted to open spaces in the TSBD as well as the drop ceiling above the sixth floor. No boxes were opened, in particular the large wooden crates. That was first discussed many years ago in a book whose name escapes me at the moment - the authors thesis was that it was simple to knock off the wooden end of one of those crates, leave it loose...then throw in a rifle and quickly slam the end back on. Actually that seemed a really interesting idea to me but at this point there is no way to prove or disprove it - we can only say the crates were not opened and searched. We can also say the search itself was fast paces and rudimentary and largely ended with the finding of the rifle and hulls. As an example, Oswald's clipboard was not recovered until many days after the shooting. There descriptions from various officers of their actions in the building but no documentation other than as to the materials take into evidence - and there is a good deal of confusing on some of those including the soda bottles and chicken lunch which Tom Alyea says were on the fifth not the sixth floor.

I think I can safely say from personal knowledge that Debra was interested in Judyth early on and did a good bit inquiry into her story - (as did Mary Ferrell herself) until Judyth's factual issues began to become clear to both of them. But that can be said of many of the early interested parties - many of them women - who showed support until they learned better. Many of them have gone on record as to that experience, as has Pamela here. Its just a matter of listening to the details they offer as to how Judyth operates. On the other hand Judyth's fans will never be dissuaded. And sadly that has come to include Hasslam and now apparently Stone. Its not the first time fandom has become a problem for serious research, probably won't be the last.

I would counter Shackleford with this recent work by Walt Brown....anyone championing Judyth and her story should give it a read. https://www.amazon.com/Judyth-Vary-Baker-Edited-Commentary-ebook/dp/B07RH9FXBG/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=In+her+own+words+Walt+Brown&qid=1574885601&s=books&sr=1-1

Given Hall's well known practice of expanding on his contacts I'm not sure I find his name dropping strange. Beyond that Martino was very visible in the papers and media and various folks like Tosh Plumlee were weaving him into their own stories as an attempt at corrboration. I can say from working with Martino's family that unlike people like Vidal, Sturgis and Robertson, Hall was not a regular contact with Martino and Martino himself was irate about Trafficante because he felt he had set him up to be jailed in Cuba for not paying dues ad part of Trafficante's network. On the other hand Hall does appear to have been one of the early characters being fed the stories about Russian missile technicians in Cuba - which do appear to have been a scam to get support for sending in an armed team, so that part may very well be the most reliable element of his testimony.

My respect for Stone as a historian is somewhat limited - being honest here - because I think he has a particular worldview and sensationalizes a bit. My own view of the military situation during this era is in Surprise Attack and I try to be as balanced as possible. But to your point, if you trace the evolution of the SIOP, which was the Nuclear strike plan, it is absolutely true that it evolved, under Eisenhower's direction, to contain a target list that included not only Russia and all the Eastern block nations but also China. That plan had grown and been in place for some years before 1962 and continued under JFK although when he realized how much it limited his options and how simplistic it was, he immediately ordered it to be redefined. There is no doubt he was appalled by it but as with many of our commanders in chief he had not really taken a close look at it until a crisis arose. I present the evolution of the SIOP from its origins though JFK and beyond but if you really want the true and detailed history of it I would recommend Stockpile; the story behind 10,000 strategic nuclear weapons by Jerry Miller. Its not pretty but it is balanced and accurate. In any event, that was the SIOP plan as of the Cuban missile crisis but it was nothing unique to that time or situation, it had been in place for years before that, signed off on by Ike and with very specific presidential direction on when and how it could be authorized. JFK would have had to quickly come up with a new, tailored strike plan for Cuba if it had come to that - much as he had for Berlin, with a plan that at its maximum did involve nuclear weapons to be used against a Russian advance. The real risk was that if he had approved a limited tactical strike on the missile sites - as I described above - that would likely have caused a Russian launch of one or more of the Cuban missiles given that was Russian field doctrine. And that could have lead to a very large scale retaliation with JFK having little time to exercise restraint.

Now that is a darn good question.....she is in communication with enough individuals that he could certainly have had an introduction and very likely a meeting...and gotten a much different story.

He definitely deserves that credit, honestly everybody underestimated the risk that Khrushchev was willing to take - and he in turn was seriously scared of the massive American strategic advantage at that point in time and felt it had to be countered that we might make a first strike. JFK was actually sensitive to that point and raised it in a high level strategic review. Actually by the time we fully realized what they had pulled off the initial missiles coming into operation were capable of taking out most of SAC and any other target east of the Rockies - with the next to be installed covering all the continental U.S. The ballistic missiles being placed in Cuba were medium and intermediate range weapons - initially developed for use against western Europe. The Soviets actually had so few intercontinental missiles that during the crisis they pulled a planetary probe off a space missile and reconfigured it with a nuclear warhead. The really scary part was that we literally had no radar in place at all to deal with missiles launched from only 90 miles off shore - there would have been no warning at all. Worse yet, at the height of the crisis, we were desperately trying to redirect radar installations and in the process triggered a couple of false alerts, one specifically warning of a missile from Cuba impacting Florida. There was no time to respond and it was only when the local atomic blast detectors did not record an impact that anybody was willing to breath. JFK did a masterful job of holding things together - and it was only years later that we learned the Soviet rocket forces had a standing order for their missile units was to launch rather than lose their weapons; if they had come under any sort of attack they would have launched and again after the fact we learned that we had missed a good number of their sites and entirely missed the warhead storage sites. Any strike of any sort against the installations on the island would have precipitated a full scale atomic exchange. Its only been in the last couple of decades that historians have come to realize how dangerous it really was - and I remember being pretty darn scared even without knowing what we know now. I recall hearing the broadcast that the Cubans had shot down one of our U-2s and we all looked around and figured it was done (I happen live only about 30 miles from one of the first Atlas ICBM bases...downwind no less). We assumed we would be a primary target.

So much for history....

The estimates of Russian missile force in Cuba were largely accurate, well based on photo analysis - and in recent decades joint meetings of Russian and US historians have confirmed those estimates, actually overall the American estimates were low, we did not identify the number of nuclear warheads, nor did we ID the tactical nukes and nuke cable short range missiles. We also grossly underestimated the ground forces and strike aircraft, good on ballistic missiles, not so good on the rest. We also were unaware of the nuke torpedoes deployed. And we also did not know they had covertly moved tactical nuclear missiles within ten miles of Guantanamo and those were fully operational. There are some solid and very detailed historical works on all this, not sure what you have read ? Certainly at first JFK and McNamara did not fully appreciate the difference in the threat of missiles in Cuba vs. USSR based on the much shorter flight times and very reduced angles of flight which would have negated our radar screens....not to mention that we had virtually no radar screen on the south....missiles in Cuba totally outflanked our massive expenditure on the radar nets we had set up to give advance warning of launches from the USSR.

The military information in that little note is so historically incorrect that its hard not to see it as an intentional slam on JFK. First, the crisis was over complete squadrons of Soviet missiles already in Cuba - a combination of medium and intermediate ballistic missiles. Almost instantly virtually all of SAC and the young US ICBM force was at immediate risk and within a short period all of it - as well as every target in the entire continental U.S. would have been. The Russian missile deployment was supported by a major Soviet ground force with more tactical nuclear weapons, including short range missiles and jet strike bombers. That was all in place in Cuba, not at sea, when JFK initiated the embargo on incoming shipments to Cuba. Secondly the missiles in Turkey were due to come out anyway, to a large extent replaced by the Polaris sub force - and JFK simply put a sub into the Med, immediately canceling out the effect of removing the missiles in Turkey. Finally, comparing the Soviet sub launched missiles to the missiles in Cuba is blatantly incorrect, in range, number and warhead size. Not to mention that problems with Soviet nuke subs took the entire fleet out of action for several years in the early 1960s. JFK's solution to what was an existential strategic threat was gutsy and effective and very likely saved us all...so did the courage of the Russian sub captain who refused his KGB officers order to fire a nuclear torpedo at a U.S. destroyer.

I certainly agree that Burkley had some unique information and indeed had a special role in the autopsy. I would say however that in the role he was initially overridden in his effort to direct the Bethesda staff and its commander to skip an autopsy; they flatly denied him on that. If you look closely at the timeline for the autopsy and start to parse out when it went bad, you can see Burkley constantly trying to minimize its scope. Of course later you find considerable intervention to manage the reports and all types of the evidence from the autopsy. I personally have little doubt that Johnson issues orders throughout the evening to restrict the investigations and shut down indications of a conspiracy beyond Oswald as a lone shooter. How that got to each element is something I wrestle with in detail in Chapter 15 of SWHT/2010 - which I completely rewrote based on the ARRB work and other new research. Unfortunately I've seen nothing sense that makes me any smarter or pins it down in any further detail since then. I certainly can't say that Kenney was not involved but I would say the key people in the obstruction had to be someone Johnson could reach out and touch, as the did the Secret Service chief. If you put all the various acts of suppression within the first 72 hours together, at the top the reach to Johnson including orders that we know he personally directed towards law enforcement in Texas. It does need to be noted that while he was not questioned, Burkley did make statements before the Commission was announced and that appears in the 26 volumes as CE 1126, a report Burkley wrote 2 days before the Commission was announced. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/The_Missing_Physician.html