Larry Hancock

Another good reason to trust virtually none of the chat on the internet unless its from a relative or close friend and you check that they really sent it.....the internet is fast becoming one of the best psychological warfare tools known to both political operatives and the Russian intel community - which has a rich tradition of much more sophisticated propaganda than the US ever dreamed of conducting....and by the way, if you think the Russians are not smart enough to craft entire documents or server dumpss and sneak them into wikileaks, then you underestimate them... And anybody thinking that buddying up to Putin could ever be a good idea....wow...just wow....I suggest a little reading on the history of international relations with the Russians....we learned a good deal about how that worked early in the Cold War, seems we are on the verge of forgetting all that now....its a cultural thing, not just political.

Well OK, I can't argue that one.....I suppose I was unfair in saying he only thought about business deals....

Ron, I think he was referring to the private email server she had when she was SecState.......of course she is far from the first to keep a private server and an officer server or even use a party campaign server while in office for that matter but that's a separate point. I'm not sure Trump even understands the difference in servers though? This gets much deeper into the issue....if you want to focus on the security issue as the Republican story line has been, you get to the point that a private server might already have been hacked, that the Russians or someone else already hold the hack/data, server file etc. Appealing to them to feed it to the media, or for that matter to go ahead an hack any American's server or any campaign server (the DNC's) shows that he thinks only in terms of one on one, matters....hey, hack one of my competitors and give it to me or just to the media, can only help me. But in truth, I don't really think Trump even understood what he was saying, he just talks off the top of his head and has so little understanding of almost everything outside his business or what he gets off twitter feeds that it just bites him in the rear when people that do understand the implications challenge him. Then its all just a joke.

Ron, if you look at Trumps other remarks he specifically mentions giving the information to the media and discusses how much the media would appreciate that. My remark about the Russians helping the US by giving it to us was the primary point about intelligence but I'm pretty sure if the full server pull were turned over it would probably reveals some clues about - and if not, you could well imagine the data could be manipulated for a host of different purposes. Again, Trump may have been serious or he may have been joking, he is so uniformed about most things he discusses that its really hard to tell. I will give him his due though, he's a salesman, I worked with and supported a lot of really good sales people and generally speaking they didn't have to master what they were pitching, unless it was really deep tech. The pitch was important, the delivery was important, "craft is king" in those matters, which also goes for a lot of radio and TV talk show folks as well...

Ron, Trump did not call for the Russians to pass on what the has been been touted as confidential information (rightly or wrongly) to the US government, he asked for them to hand them over to the media for public and obviously political purposes. Bit of a difference there? And how naive would the man have to be to think Putin would pass US classified information to the US government rather than keeping it for his own use.... Side note: Putin is career KGB....so you tell me, does a career KGB agent disclose Russian intelligence tactics including cyber-warfare skills, collections and methods to the US by "sharing". Honestly, Trump just has no clue at all in terms of either security or real international relations....which are a lot deeper than just "negotiations" and "deals".

Trump suggested that it would be great if Russia could locate, hack or otherwise obtain emails taken from Clinton's personal email server and provide them to the US media - or to try and locate those emails which might have been provided to Wikilinks by other sources and make them available to the media. In doing so he seems to have endorsed the actions of whoever had hacked the DNC server and provided those contents to the media via wikilinks. And since Russian hackers are at least suspects in the DNC hack he appears to be endorsing foreign hackers to illegally obtaining election material and feed it to the media. All of which certainly sounds a lot like encouraging foreign hacking and interference in an American election.

Probably the same people, right.....wow......talk about alternative history....

Thanks Joe, glad it helped. Hey, it took me about ten years just to get my head around the JFK thing enough to write about it - and that was after about half a dozen totally false starts. And each of the other assassinations took another five years or so to get up to speed. It does take time, hopefully we are making resources available to speed up the process, that's why I mainly just post to point folks to them. There's no doubt its still a slog though...

Ron, actually there are some good explanations for why the individuals involved would behave that way...actually they had been doing so for several weeks before the attack, including at least one aborted incident targeting RFK and a private campaign function. They were leaving a trail a mile wide..if you take the trouble to trace it, which LAPD actually did - and then shut it down. The Robbies Restaurant attack was nearly averted by a security officer guarding the event. If you want more details you can check my blog and a series of interviews on the subject that are linked from it. I've blogged on this a good bit over the years, its certainly a conspiracy, no doubt about that...

Joe, to your question, LAPD had offered security the the RFK campaign but at that point in history things were pretty tense between many of his supporters and the police and the LAPD offers was rebuffed - the campaign even hired its own motorcycle officers for security during a couple of his appearances. I know that's hard to understand but at that time there was a lot of mistrust going around, the same thing happened in Memphis where the local organizers did not trust police and police spies and rejected a police security detail sent to meet King at the airport on his arrival - its doubtful King even knew about that as it was done by local folks who recognized certain of the officers sent as police intelligence. In LA security just was not on RFK's mind that much, he left it to supporters he trusted but who in turn had little experience themselves themselves. . If you would like a free read for some background, I do have a series of essays available on Mary Ferrell that cover the RFK assassination: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Incomplete_Justice_-_At_the_Ambassador_Hotel.html As to this new book, which I have studied, the majority of its comment is not really new, it is covered extensively in documents from the original LAPD and FBI investigation because the story was given to them, the salesman source talked to law enforcement and the media extensively. The author has made a couple of questionable extensions relating to names in this new work but that's all I'll say about that. In any event, my essays are available to anyone who is not familiar with the RFK assassination and include a number of illustrations Sherry Feister helped me with - taken from the documents in the original police files - as well as links to a great deal of the original witness testimony and statements.

Would make sense, William Law has been working most recently with the casket party members...

Well spoken Don, and certainly I'm a big fan of William. He's presented at the Lancer conference a number of times and his work is ground breaking. I do think its fair to share - as William has remarked to me personally - that many of the speakers involved at the New Orleans conference and with Judyth in Dallas for that matter are Trine Day authors. Of some of the Lancer speakers - like myself - have been published by Lancer. Nothing particularly surprising about that. Obviously I agree you you a hundred percent on William's work, he and I stay in touch and I'm eagerly following some of the things he's working on now.

Don, as speaker chair for the Lancer conference I think its only fair to respond to you. Mark and Carmine are both researchers, just because you might not agree with their conclusions is no reason to dismiss them without even hearing what they have to say. Its also fair to say that not all our presenters agree with each other - that's called balanced. If they all believed the same thing it would be an evangelical gathering or political event, not a research conference. Of course whether or not someone chooses to attend the conference and hear them is a personal decision. As it happens I personally disagree with the views of some of our presenters, at least in certain areas. But in almost all cases I find there is something I can learn from their research and their data. But first of course I have to listen to them. And heck, even Jim and I disagree on occasion....all you have to do is read his reviews of my books to see that....grin. -- opinion registered, that's enough from me, Larry

At the time Martino most definitely approved - he and the others already believed that JFK had betrayed the exiles (whose cause Martino was very involved with) at both the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis. When he and the others were told that JFK was beginning back channel negotiations with Castro which would end the boycott they all considered it to be treasonous behavior and viewed the President as a threat to the nation. Some years later there are suggestions that Martino began to feel that he and some of the others had been misled and used, most likely being promised a subsequent US invasion of Cuba, but as far as I know he never expressed any specific regret over the assassination.

Sandy, I got to great length offering proof in the book, its not the sort of thing you can do with a couple of sentences on a forum....and I'm not maintaining it was absolute. Some basics are the fact that he told his family JFK would be killed on the trip to Texas, before JFK arrived in Dallas. He kept his son home from school that day, very probably to make sure Ed didn't blurt out what his Dad had said. He had never done that before. Those were both things done before the assassination. Afterwards he told two of his closest friends, before his death, of his involvement and his prior knowledge...obviously that is after the fact. There is a good deal more context to this and reason to believe that he had prior knowledge but I'll leave you with those for starters. And certainly he was told only a limited amount, he never maintained he knew all that much other than what his role was and what the goal was, which was to deal with JFK's treasonous acts including his secret negotiations with Castro.

Sandy, have you read Someone Would Have Talked or the synopsis of events from his son Ed- including his remark in advance about JFK being shot during the trip to Texas? If you have and want something more, great, if not I would refer you to the book for details and also to his the statements given to the HSCA by his friends after his death.

Sandy, Martino absolutely knew about an assassination conspiracy, he served as a courier before the fact on his trips to Dallas - this was not some sort of deduction made after the fact, he knew JFK would be killed (or at least that the plan was to kill him) in Texas. He was not told a lot of tactical detail but he also knew Oswald was not the shooter and that he was being set up as the patsy.

What Jim and Tom said.....thefactual details of the Berger document theft are really old news ...

Well of course there is that fact that the CIA does not disclose employment of even full time, career officers who are on the payroll - David Morales being one example. So any statement they might make about a source or a person of interest would be even more unlikely than that.

It's also frightening to realize how some segments of the media want that sort of content....forget the manipulation, they are actively looking for sensation given that news has re-positioned itself as "reality TV" and as entertainment. I knew we were in trouble when CNN came up with the "Situation Room" thing....hey audience, this is not news, its "participation" and anything and everything can be made into a crisis or situation. And they want it so much that they just accept it, with no vetting of sources, fact checking - even to the extent of not vetting their own on screen analysts. Fox got burned just last week for long term use of a military/national security specialist who had issues which were pretty quickly found once somebody looked at his real background, which Fox had not. I'm working on a blog post for a story that came up today, yet one more anonymous source with politically explosive comments on a story years old but just now showing up. Pretty clearly political manipulation and his story is being thrown against the wall with no qualifiers at all - of course qualifiers and context would really lower the drumbeat on the story line so hey, no time for that. Its even going on a lower levels than MSM, there are so many internet news sites that they often need content, same as with lots of small papers with little or no news staff (or big ones who laid them all off) that they are just grabbing op eds or press releases for content with no checking....and of course the political consultants know full well how to take advantage of this, when to plant stories with which media outlet, when to saturate the right profiles with email blasts...if you tell them what they want to hear no worry about their fact checking it. I use to worry about the Military Industrial Complex, then it was the Military Contracting Complex and now...we have the Deep Political Complex (with due credits to Peter Dale Scott) which knows exactly how to use both the mainstream and alternative media. So.....for all you app developers out there.....the next big app should be a fact checker...make it automatic that I can run it against news stories.....maybe display pros and cons.....or perhaps just rate it as uncorroborated....

I hope everyone realizes they are witnessing history being rewritten (destroyed) in real time...or at least the attempt to do so...hopefully sanity and reality will prevail.

McAdams is fundamentally a bully, plain and simple. He disguises it well under academic pretense but ultimately it always surfaces.... It's a shame its not being viewed in terms of what he really is and does but that sort of denial is a pervasive thing these days. His behavior is shameful, not calling it what it is even more so.

This link will provide the identification on Steele, as David pointed out above: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62265&search=oswald_leafleting+trade+mart+hired+workers#relPageId=68&tab=page

Michael, try this link, I think it should work fine to get to Chris's timeline http://www.jfklancer.com/zapruder/Tabular_Z%20Film_Chronology.html

That was my general recollection Ron, thanks for the detail. This seems a perfect example of the issues we face - how does someone new to all this know what to make of such a supposedly factual claim as the secretary hand carrying the film...?