Larry Hancock

Very good question on his use of a pysical ID, its one thing to use a name as an alias as he did with his FPCC letters but to actually have it on an ID card is another story. Does anyone have an idea of what purpose a Hidell ID card would have since the only known use of the name - as far as I recall - was in conjunction with the FPCC. It would be pretty useless to use it in Mexico City when showing FPCC materials if you are applying for a transit visa as Oswald. -- very good line of inquiry Steve! Including the police officer referred to as BO...

Its always good to be organized......very helpful on Kelley's part, Thanks Steve, that was a new one to me.

Talking with Harry was always entertaining, whatever else the man displayed an immense amount of energy - focus, not so much. Harry was one of those folks who sometimes seemed convincing simply because he was so convinced of whatever he might be talking about at the time.

Paul, I don't claim to be an expert in this but my understanding is that the 2017 date was established in the JFK records act; when individual records are released or when redaction are removed before that point is up to NARA and to the agencies whose records it holds (we are talking about records in the NARA collection, not any new records). I don't think there was any Presidential order involved, this process is driven by the law, by NARA and by the Agencies whose records are in question. Take a look at the following from NARA. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html Having said that, I'll defer to folks that know much more about it - that's one reason why we are devoting a good bit of the Dallas conference to this subject, including one major panel on just that alone.

Paul, Clinton won't have anything to do with it - although after the beating she has taken over classification of emails there is no reason she should step into the middle of it, It will be very much routine, the Agencies will unredact what they think is OK, and release those. And they will designate some as being retained under national security guidelines - if you want those you can appeal or sue and hope that a Judge will override...which has proved to be pretty unlikely. Its a big thing to us and I hope we will get some new information out of it, but the actual process is pretty clear and if any Agency decides to fight for a document or documents its going to be SOP to go after them. At least that's the way I see it - but that's one reason we are having a special panel on it at the JFK Lancer conference and throwing the question up to some of the best NARA researchers still in the game.

I didn't say I was cutting them any slack - what I said is that there is a new reality in media. We need a little dose of realism now and then, at one point in time media was a business but also a profession. With media conglomeration it has become almost entirely a business. We can complain about that all we want; as I pointed out today's media is not the media I grew up with and that is a shame. But that media, when it was far more independent and investigative, missed the JFK story even though individual reports like Dorothy Kilgallon tried. Even LIFE did a second inquiry, directed towards conspiracy...only to have it internally aborted at the highest levels of management. The new media is generally far worse, and far more sensational but the public has to bear a large part of that fault - the media gives them what they want and we have moved into the age of sound bytes. One of the few media efforts to reassert actual investigative reporting is the current Fact Checking initiative which I really admire; has that been getting a lot of praise? Do you see a loud public commendation and a turn to using Fact Checking and actual data before posting or in private discussions - I don't. So - no I don't like it. No I don't think its what reporting should be. And it irritates me. If we want better then the public has to demand it, or somebody has to accumulate enough money to start their own retro media. Don't expect that from the new Trump media enterprise that will emerge next year, or from RT. Now I'm returning to my "no whining" zone. Maybe I'll take a listen to the Eagles "Get Over It" for a little inspiration first.

Jim, I'm honestly not sure if its a matter of confronting the evidence or the fact that media in general, not just MSM but the hundreds of talk radio and internet blogging news sites have become entertainment sites, not news sites. News used to be reported, with relatively little comment - that was reserved for editorial slots as it was in newspapers. My view of media in general now is that its entertainment, driven by either sensation or "performance art - a type of trade-craft itself in itself. There is limited investigative reporting, now devoted to "fact checking" statements by people the media covers. The media in general has moved to the People Magazine" model - which appears to be what the public wants. This year's election campaign clearly shows that the public just wants to hear things that appeal to them or agitate them, they don't want both sides - which of course was forecast by the coming of "shock jocks" and agenda driven talk radio. Does the public really have any interest in what we are turning up on the JFK assassination? Or are they more interested in hearing coverage of a bunch of nut cases...? Media is a business, so I suggest the later fits better with the entertainment model. It also reflects the fact that what Trump is really doing in this election is laying the groundwork for a new media empire, one that will be far more profitable for him than real estate. The Media I knew in the 60's is dead. People actually believe the talk radio celebrities and think reality TV is real. I'm not saying I like it, I'm saying that as far as the media are concerned we are about 20 years late. Don Henley described it all perfectly in his song "Dirty Laundry".

Cheers to both DPUK and Bart...

Perhaps the fact that the media does not take our work seriously is not entirely their fault?

Yes, you will find it in the Garrison investigation materials... One young man was positively identified, name, parents, residence, etc. The second young man has never been identified. This link will give you the name and info on one man as well as some additional context: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2016/06/cruz.html

Just for a bit of clarity, the crew of the Liberty noted low level reconnaissance passes over their ship well before the attack began. Now take a look at the attached photo of the ship or other photos on the internet and convince yourself that the ship could be mistaken for a trawler....especially with those large satellite dishes on the Liberty. No accident.... https://www.google.com/search?q=uss+liberty+photo&biw=1143&bih=680&tbm=isch&imgil=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%253A%253BsunMc4lpwIk2eM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fnotimeforsilence.wordpress.com%25252Fuss-liberty-gtr-5%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%253A%252CsunMc4lpwIk2eM%252C_&usg=__aNTacfOIKC-aK9WozKl-9RtxhUs%3D&dpr=0.9&ved=0ahUKEwiVx-2ejtbPAhUd0IMKHZvJBQAQyjcINw&ei=1Z3-V9WIIJ2gjwSbkxc#imgrc=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%3A

Pat, I'm afraid the Israeli's did not make a simple mistake....and once they were aware of the vessel as flagged U.S. they kept on attacking...and attacking....the Israeli ID was was even monitored on SIGNET by U.S. intel aircraft. I'm not going into this here further since I wrote about it in some detail in Surprise Attack, including the latest research done on the intercepts and who knew what as well as Johnson's despicable orders to call back carrier aircraft on their way to repel attacks that were still in progress on the ship. Why the Israeli's did what they did, with full knowledge of the identity of the ship has been discussed...including what the ship itself may well have picked up in terms of a war crime in progress. Anyway, anyone who has Surprise Attack can see the story I pieced together from some really good and relatively recent investigative work by others. As to LBJ, he should have been prosecuted and jailed for his actions on this alone...

Sandy, I follow your distinction on the systems, I'm familiar with expert systems and their development and familiar with AFIS. I have to admit I didn't know a true "expert system" for fingerprint ID even existed so I really can't say anything about that one way or the other.

Thanks Dawn...got it, so the exact material Darby used was stolen but it was actually a print of what Jaye had obtained. Which means that Jaye still retained the material and I suppose should have received it with Jaye's effects. Which means it existed separately and Walt might have gotten it. I'm not really in touch with Walt and it seems to me that I have not heard him weighing in on the print issue for some time... would be nice to hear from him..

Dawn, could you elaborate on who stole the material Darby had to work with...did someone steal it from Jaye, did not Walt Brown get film with the rest of Jaye's material. What happened to the first generation copy that Jaye, gave to Darby? If Richard had a copy of that film then its not really lost and he could make it available to everyone - including Joan's fingerprint person? Just not following this...

Sandy, you wrote: "Expert systems are not very good. If they were they would be widely used." ......but the FBI's AFIS Automated Fingerprint Identification is in very wide use and has been for some time...could you give us a reference for your statement?

Chris, I had the same problem. I can see test/development flights done under Army contract having some sort of security clearance for observers but I'd think would come from the Army security folks or from TI itself who obviously had to comply with government security regs as a contractor. On the other hand, a plane with generic equipment that would be used for marketing and sales flights would be a bit different. TI might still have to comply with some security regs but it seems to me then the passenger list would just be vetted by TI to make sure the folks are real government customers with the appropriate clearance that goes with their jobs.

If it was indeed Ruby as Jack remembers I suspect its more likely that it was a joy ride....but doesn't Jack say the flight was out of the East Coast and not Dallas, which was one of the reasons he was so surprised to see him? At one time I thought maybe somebody was sneaking Jack on to the flight to make him comfortable with some sort of covert mission but I could never figure out what that might be given the date. Such a flight would have little to do with getting weapons into Cuba but if there was some particular individual that would only go in or out in Jack's company it might make sense....question is who...

There is actually a good deal more background on that, apparently TI first submitted the technology for the Army contract and a good deal of work was done under that, from what I see that dates back to as early as 1958 and its possible that the low level water Gulf flights might have been done for that development, the Army apparently never fielded the missile but TI marketed the tech for a bunch of other contracts and it was used in the F-111 and the Navy A-7. The F-111 was already under development in the 62-63 time frame. Anyway, TI was marketing it for a number of purposes to the military and some government agencies - which explains the flights out of DC and over the Appalachians. I've looked extensively into DARPA history and also the history of the Air Force Big Safari program which used custom tech to modify a number of aircraft for special projects - including work on one off, special use aircraft and helicopters for the CIA - but I have not found anything that fits into this.

Chris, I think there were two sets of flights, developmental flights out of Texas over the Gulf and marketing flights out of Virginia; if I recall correctly those involved flights over the Appalachians. You might want to check out this link on the history of the radar: http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/timeline/defense/1950/docs/58-terrain.htm Flights over the Gulf out of Texas certainly are reasonable enough for development, but I don't quite follow his remarks about the secrecy of the developmental flights? Certainly there was nothing secret about the marketing flights he wrote about in Virginia, they were just very low altitude. That would have been one of the flights he logged Jack in on according to his remarks. I'm wondering if what he was describing occurred after they actually signed a government contract and were developing specific military systems for it? After all the F-111 actually flew with that radar only a few years later so it had to be fairly well developed in 1961, they were actively trying to sell it and bidding on contracts. Of course it would not be the first or only time the CIA used new technology, just trying to figure out what they would have done with one of the planes or Jack in the fall of 61, following the BOP all the Cuban operations really turned down for most of the rest of the year, the CIA was more busy exfiltrating people by boat than anything else. The big question is what Jack would have to contribute to anything the CIA was doing at that point in time?

Chris, one of my thoughts early on was that it was some sort of cover for Cuban operations. But as far as I could tell the flights were all out of the East Coast, far beyond any effective operations over Cuba. Also why put Jack in on a flight which was still clearly a marketing/sales flight. As I read it these were flights were not developmental as much as sales and marketing demonstrations. At one point I thought somebody might have had a plan to insert Jack into Cuba and flew him just to show him that it was safe - Jack being something of the nervous type. Perhaps the key is to try and dope out what Jack could have contributed at that pint in time? How could he have been used? Anyway, its a very interesting track and one I wrestled with but with no success...we know more now so its definitely worthwhile - good luck!.

It would also be good to get more detailed about what a "security clearance" can really mean or might have meant for this particular incident. I'd suggest defining specifically what it meant in terms of getting on the list, who actually gave the clearance - was it the company, some agency, etc. Being on a list as being cleared by "security" can mean a number of things depending on who is "security" and what rules they impose for clearance. The other area would be to post a bit of context for Jack at that point in time....how does it tally with the time frame were he was treated as a potential informant, where was he traveling then, what would have put him in D.C. on that date.... I probably should elaborate a bit although I'm sure Chris and others know these distinctions quite well - personally I have held a military/government security clearance related to military duties, but I have also held various security clearances totally unrelated to that - several for what would strictly be called access control, issued by Corporate or industrial security groups. That has extended to clearance to enter government restricted facilities for business purposes, cleared by yet a different level of industrial security, required by everyone doing business with the government. There are different levels and standards for that too, my company was on government sales lists and had one level of clearance, others that I visited were actually classified business and that was another matter entirely, just to get inside one of their buildings. So just a caution, being on a cleared list produced by "security" can mean lots of things.

I looked into this at the time, talked with Jack several times about it and in particular about that aircraft, who might have been interested in it for what purpose etc. Its a fascinating story but totally dependent on his memories as far as I recall, in terms of both the identification and his memory of the log in sheet. I'd like to see someone dive into it really deeply, I could never take it further than that or come up with a scenario that would make much sense given the details of the timing, Jack's activities and what the motive of putting him on such an aircraft could have been. The ground following radar aspect of the aircraft technology is pretty interesting in regard to covert mission operations but it was still in development and being marketed at that point.

For reference, other accounts describe the flooring crew as being TSBD employees pulled from regular duties and assigned to the work...including people from the second company building a few blocks away where the company had its headquarters. The big end of summer back to school shipping rush was over and employees were available for misc work...as I recall, the fact that there was even an opening for Oswald during what was normally the off season was because a "puller" had been assigned to the flooring and Oswald's job was most likely temporary. As to the building itself, Ian Griggs interviewed employees in the building who made it clear it was unlocked through early evening because of the book company folks who had space in the building and who came and went after hours on occasion. The same fellow told Ian that even that weekend when he came back to Dallas from vacation he found the place unlocked and walked to throughout the place without meeting a policeman or seeing any security. Later the reason given for not further vetting prints was that the building had indeed been open and uncontrolled all weekend so just matching to a list of employees was a waste of energy.

I honestly don't know Brad, the folks who are reconstructing for the Ed forum may have just started by grabbing pages and rebuilding from scratch with all new linkages. If so their desgin is probably something new and their security will likely be different because I'm guessing any package they use now is far different and hopefully offers more security. I'm just not techie enough to know...my html goes back to about 1994, even in dinosaur years that makes me dated...grin.