Larry Hancock

I understand that some folks believe that there is deep deception involved in every single national security event that occurs. On the other hand, one proven technique of disinformation is actually to endorse and promote that view - so that the level of noise is increased to the point that real conspiracies and CYA get buried in it. Its a piece of psych trade-craft well enough known so that we even see it showing up in movies - including Men in Black, no less. I would also point out that the Agency has been very good at using that technique in regard to the assassination of JFK, actually feeding out alternative conspiracies to obscure and divert from the real one; we have discussed even more contemporary examples of manipulation, beyond Gus Russo.

In this instance I would just repeat what Jim said - OMG, Sy Hersh at work again...and again....

Nope, they are just showing that even the MSM can love conspiracy ...if it stirs the political pot, doesn't challenge their own reputation and fits with their editorial guidelines. For a much more credible

article and source, try the following:

http://www.cnn.com/2...eath/index.html

Paul, other than the entries in his notebook (which clearly run the gamut of the political spectrum) and a some sort of a relationship with Ferrie (who was staunchly anti-Communist, and avidly Catholic) what is the proof that Oswald was somehow a hard core racist/Facist and a fantastic actor from even during his time in the Marine Corps - good enough to ultimately fool a sophisticated fellow like Demohrenschieldt (sp) into thinking he was a proto hippie? As I read the comments, my impression is that the book is representing that as he left New Orleans for the Marine Corps, Oswald was hard core, ultra right, racist and a bit Fascist in his beliefs.....and reverted to that that true character upon his return to New Orleans, coming under the control of Bannister for whatever projects Bannister had in mind at that point in time. If you could list four or five bullet points supporting that it would be helpful. I saw a couple but a full list would make a good reference before going further.

-- is that the right take or did I over state?

I gather this is the Glenn Altschuler David is referring to:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Glenn+Altschuler

Regardless of his credentials, its pretty clear that once you move even slightly over the line in regard to conspiracy, you do become tainted in the academic circles which Altschuler represents. Actually it does not take a lot of work to corroborate at least a CIA interest in and intelligence connection to the anti-de Gaulle forces circa 1963. Certainly James Angleton was heavily involved with their representatives and the CIA arranged for travel for at least one of their senior representatives to the United States, where he pitched Soviet penetration of the French government and argued for US involvement against the de Gaulle regime as an anti-Communist imperative. I found the CIA documents on that as well as Angleton's personal involvement and wrote about them years ago.

I also share Talbot's pain in regard to the media, obviously his media connections are far better than mine and his publisher is a major force, but with regard to Surprise Attack we (myself and my publishers PR folks) have found a far greater push back against revelations in regard to the Bush Administration and 9/11, about Benghazi and about contemporary CIA covert operations than I encountered with my earlier books - and I only explore gross negligence, obfuscation, perjury and failed CIA operations, not even heavy duty conspiracy. It's as if once the MSM and academia establishes a story line, they really don't want to hear anything further about it, at least anything contrary.

Of course just after I wrote this comment I found the following conspiracy article by the New York Times - which suggests that some of the MSM does love conspiracy stories, but perhaps only ones which fit a particular editorial guideline. Strange days indeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/opinions/bergen-new-york-times-bin-laden-death/index.html

Ernie, that is a good point in regard to the Soviets military capabilities....and I explore it in great detail in Surprise Attack. The Soviets had to totally regroup on their ICBM's because of a bad initial decision on fuels and above ground launcer deployment plus all their nuke subs were back in port with massive reactor problems. They did have an IRBM advantage which could have played havoc in Western Europe....anyway, long story but the situation had been so bad at the time of the missile crisis that they pulled a mars probe off its booster and prepared it for military use just because they had so very few operational ICBM's.

Paul, once again I'm just going to have to leave you to your opinions and certainties....and to some pretty broad generalizations such as the FBI literally engaging in armed combat with a large body of Minutemen who were not directly involved in the assassination.. Obviously we can't shift you back to the reality of how the FBI would actually have operated in any legal action against the Minutemen, regardless of what actually happened in its real world dealings with their leaders, ultra right Klan leaders, and the militant and armed groups in southern California. I suggest you read Bill Turner's work on the fBI and ultra right in Southern Cal in that period for a reality check on what happened when the FBI did occasionally confront and take those leaders into custody.

I've posted, as I usually do, for lurkers that might be following the thread...which has once again strayed from a review of the book...so I've said all I need to at this point.

Paul, having just published two books studying the sixty year history of both covert and military confrontations with the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation I can assure you I'm not ignoring the Soviets and in 1963 they were most definitely an elephant in any room in 63 - in fact their strategic weakness was so great their leadership had made a hugely risky play to add at least a minimal level of balance by secretly deploying missiles to Cuba a year earlier...and they were still jockeying internally from that embarrassment. It would be several years before they moved back into a position of at least parity. They had no leverage to stick their nose in American affairs in 63 and after Cuba their nose was actually pretty well busted at that point in time.

And yes, I can equate the FBI's response in Mississippi burning to the potential arrest of a dozen or so ultra right Kennedy conspirators....because that is history, and documented in many instances when the FBI moved to arrest and take right wing leaders into custody. You might want to take a look at when that actually happened to Minutemen leaders only a few years later....not much sign of any armed resistance there. I don't underestimate any right wing support, especially in the south and in Texas - I was living there in 1963 and saw a good deal of it in person. My brother was at Little Rock, in the Army, he followed orders there and enforced the law just as did the other soldiers, many from the south. Many of the US marshals and FBI officers at the U of Mississippi were from the south, they may not have liked it but they did their duty and enforced the law. Stu and I interviewed a number of them for our research on AGOG...you might try asking their opinion or any Bureau officers opinion about the ability of the FBI to confront and arrest ultra right leaders as necessary.

Paul, certainly Hoover could not have legally proceeded generically against all Minutemen any more than he could have proceeded against all the Klansmen in Mississippi over civil rights crimes. He could only have investigated individuals, eventually creating cases against individuals who then would have been subject to legal action. Which is exactly what the FBI did with arrests of dozens of armed and very violent Klan members across Mississippi.....with no physical resistance on their part much less some general armed insurgency or uprising.

Even In your scenario all the Minutemen in the country didn't kill JFK - even if they wanted to - at best three or four individuals might have been charged with murder and a handful of others as accessories....how you generalize that to potential military action against every armed Minuteman is beyond me. Also, if memory serves, there were multiple instances of Minutemen and other ultra right group leaders being arrested and tried for crimes without their supporters rushing to engage in their armed defense.

As to the USSR in 1963, they fully understood the immense strategic military advantage held by he United States, it had been demonstrated to them only a year before and was even more pronounced in 1963. Their ability to "tamper" with American civil matters was also minimal at that point in time.... I'm pretty sure Hoover had the means and will to round up a few dozen Commie agitators along with a dozen or so Kennedy conspirators - even without calling out the National Guard, much less the Army.

Paul, you do understand that the FBI could not prosecute anyone...that it was not a Federal crime...that if it had been the prosecution would have been a Justice Department responsibility. The FBI is an investigative arm and in regard to the assassination was tasked with collecting information and writing a report - specifically tasked with writing a report on Oswald alone as of Sunday. That was not Hoover's decision, in fact he wanted to tweak the report to leave an opening to address a Communist conspiracy and Johnson didn't buy into that. If for some reason Hoover had produced solid evidence identifying some group of Minutemen I'm pretty sure there would have been sufficient force available to deal with taking them into custody....do you think the country would not have supported that...?

Pat, that was a pretty strong statement so just to be clear:

"Dr. McClelland saw the wound depicted in the autopsy photos. He will never admit this, of course. But I'm convinced that will be the verdict of history."

It sounds as if you are stating that Dr. McClelland is consciously and intentionally telling an untruth...repeatedly. Or did I misunderstand you?

Thanks Pat, good to see my recollection was reasonably close...and that you had the right name ready to hand...

Chris, twenty years ago certainly does feel wrong...not sure if it seems longer or shorter than that though. The individual who presented was not a practicing Doctor at the time of the assassination, only an intern - wish I could remember his name but he presented well after that summary was done, at least ten years or more. I'll ask Deb and see if she remembers him....

I've posted this numerous times but just to be redundant....we had a speaker at the Lancer conference several years ago, he was an intern at Parkland and one of the first individuals into the trauma room albeit soon replaced by more senior staff. He described being asked to slightly elevate the rear of the President's head, which he did by holding the rear in the area illustrated above in green - holding with both hands. He described the portion of the head that he was holding as feeling very much like a hard boiled egg which has its shell broken for peeling - he felt that the bone in that area was totally shattered and being held together only by tissue and hair. He did not actually look at it but only felt it briefly before being replaced. That suggested to me that it was very likely that pieces of bone in that area would eventually begin falling out, leaving a large open wound which might not have been easily visible at first. I forget his name, he was recorded and others may recall it; was a good eight years or so ago.

Paul, I would second that. There have been numerous articles and a good deal of research - a lot of it around Oswald's diary entries - about Oswald's interest in right wing organizations (for whatever reason) and definitely about Bannister's apparent anti-integration activities (for whatever reason, probably anti communism). I'm sure Dr Caulfield does well with that but it would be interesting to move on to something a bit more "remarkable" as you say.

Paul, I really don't know - or recall at this point - the detailed timing of the Garrison investigation enough have an opinion on his shifts other than the fact that when De Torres and friends aborted his Cuban inquiry he pretty much had to turn another direction. All that ties to the Roselli H bomb media campaign of early 67 as well. I think its Bill who is suggesting Garrison was intimidated to focus on the CIA. My own research suggests the CIA's main worry was that Garrison was getting names of a number of Cuban exiles and other associated with anti-Castro activities and the he would be exposing not only operational information but possibly the Castro assassination effort. The FBI was worried about something else entirely...having to do direct with Oswald.

Bill, it would be interesting to see a timeline on that since we do know that very early on, either by late November or certainly December Garrison was very much interested in the mysterious Cubans Oswald might have been in contact with in Dallas and was sending investigators to Miami to start an inquiry there...and it was at that point Bernardo de Torres inserted himself. I gather than that the book focuses on leads earlier than that which show his first inquiries were actually about the ultra right groups. Of course as soon as Banisters name came up it would have been obvious that there were leads there given Bannister's interest and volunteer offer to the collect information targeting Communists in the civil rights movement. That aspect was discussed in great detail decades ago in Jerry Rose's third and fourth decade journal articles.

Tom, that's an interesting point, those guys never missed a chance to push the commie/Castro line....they want conspiracy to circulate, just with the appropriate sponsor. We should remember that Hemming and Hargraves tried for years to push that story and even engaged in plans for others types of attacks inside America which would stimulate retaliation against Cuba. It was sort of a mantra. As with Bernardo de Torres, they actively sought opportunities to encourage conspiracy talk and even investigations....it was just important to steer it back to the commies and whenever possible, Cuban connections. As you say though, once you get them talking, sometimes things do spill. Noel told me that on a couple of occasions he would pass by the room where they were set up and he heard comments about being cautious and not going to far in certain areas, they even made calls back to Hemming.

If you haven't checked out the JFK Lancer conference speaker list lately I would encourage you to do so. We have added some very strong researchers to the list and I'd like to introduce one of them here:

Michael Chesser is a neurologist with 24 years of combined experience in academics and private practice. He was approved to view the original autopsy x-rays and photographs at the National Archives this year, and he will review his findings and interpretation. This will include a review of the HSCA x-rays at the Archives and the key differences between the original x-rays and the HSCA and Fox copies. In addition optical density measurements of the original skull x-ray from 1960 will be compared with optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays.

The entire list is still being updated but you can find it in the conference area of the Lancer web site. A direct link is below:

http://jfklancer.com/Dallas2015/welcome.html

On the Vidal ID, I think its important that both Hemming and Hargraves were not just friends with Vidal but respected him immensely. Hemming names a son for him, Hargraves went on missions with him, almost lost his life in that mysterious boat explosion after the assassination along with him. And both respected him a great deal. What we sometimes fail to appreciate is that especially in the first decades those involved with the attack and conspiracy were very proud of what they had done, felt those involved should be honored and sincerely believed they had acted for patriotic motives and were morally right - regardless of what the rest of the world believed. There was no shame, later there was some suspicion they might have been manipulated but that was only suspicion. So why not mention your friend, whom you still honor. Not too much, but enough to keep him remembered.

-- as Garrison said, in looking at this its like looking at a mirror, the morality is reversed - and black is white, we need to get our head around the fact that those we consider villains viewed themselves the ultimate patriots

Greg, I've studied Hargraves character a great deal but of course it would be a huge guess. First off we have to realize that first Hemming agreed to talk to Noel first. Maybe that was just to talk - which he loved to do - and to pass on some misinformation, which even Hargraves and Hemming's brother said was important for Hemming to continue in order to ensure others that he was not a threat. Hemmings was a talker, so was Hargraves. Hargraves had already talked too much way back in 63 and been investigated and cleared by the FBI in 64. Both Hemming and Hargraves had been involved in helping abort the Garrison inquiry and by the point in time they talked to Noel it was pretty clear no official body would ever challenge them on the JFK crime....under any circumstances. They were safe. And Hemming had seen Noel would only push so hard. Why not talk a bit, what could it hurt. But it is risky as Roselli learned because people may think you are saying more than you are and if you have a conscience it just may kick in when you least expect...as it may have done for Hemming with his remark about changing his sons name and Felipe Vidal. Probably best for Noel that he was to cautious to follow that lead and push at the time. Noel certainly felt that way. As to Hargraves, always a risk taker, no doubt about that and one of the most successful of the outsiders in independent Cuban missions. Why not talk a little, finally. Don't say too much....which he almost did in naming Vidal, but he backed off quick in confirming him as the guy on Elm. And afterwards you probably sit back and say, hey, maybe I said too much anyway.

-- Just rambling but its pretty interesting that the point both Hemming and Hargraves stopped talking and pulled up short was when Vidal's name surfaced.

Thanks for the kind words Tom - I hope you enjoy it and I'll look forward to discussing it as you read.

On your question, as Noel related it to me, Hemming's brother - who was present with Hargraves for the interview - was the one who raised the objections with Noel. I only dimly recall it but I think there was supposed to be a read and approve agreement in place but the pair had shown no interest in reading the transcript and after a goodly time Noel assumed they had just moved on. That's a fairly dim memory at this point. Anyway, Noel was concerned over possible legal action and certainly I honored his request. Later, in talking with Hemming's brother at a Lancer conference in Dallas, the subject came up and again, strictly from memory, he downplayed the whole thing essentially saying there were some minor things discussed during the interview which they felt could be used in the event Hargraves himself faced some rather dated legal problems. Nothing to do with JFK but of course Hargraves did have a lengthy history including suspicion and investigation related to bombings in L.A. That's pretty much the gist of it. As I recall only one day of the interviews ever got transcribed and when I asked Noel he stated the transcription had been really expensive and the tapes of the other part were in deep storage, not something he wanted to get back into.

I can only speculate but I think that Burkley was at a minimum in the same position as the FBI agents William Law interviewed. He saw things that did not match with the official report - and of course the documents he prepared do not match either. That may well have made him skeptical to even withhold certain autopsy items that were available to him. But he would be in the position of several others, knowing there were problems but also knowing he would be steamrolled if he attempted to go public, he may well have had some communication with RFK on that point. For that matter, he was in a position in the motorcade to have seen a shot from the front, just as JFK's aides apparently did and determined to keep to themselves. Whether he documented any of that or even shared it with his lawyer is speculative; given his outreach to the HSCA he may have asked an opinion of his lawyer first. Apparently his lawyer was prepared to be very cooperative with the ARRB but obviously could not given the daughter's objections. As to Burkley himself, as with others, a number of bright people who could have provided into to the HSCA pretty quickly saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to back off...I suspect Burkley was quick enough on the uptake to see that with the early change in management, it was not really going to be a true criminal investigation and decided to back off.

Greg, actually the 2010 version has a good bit more material than the other versions except in one respect. In particular it is far more detailed in regard to what I see as the transition from the attack to the cover up and the actions by both the conspirators and the individuals who drove the cover over the first 72 hours. Actually the book had been ready to go to press when Doug Horne's ARRB volumes came out and I found much in there to be so compelling that I totally reworked Chapter 15 and probably doubled its size. The multiple NPIC visits are especially key in tracking the progress of the cover up and reveal much about what was going on in the small NSC gatherings that occurred that weekend and the missing dialogs between Johnson and Hoover. I also added a chapter to discuss points such as the "confession" from Howard Hunt and to present new information on the DalTex building occupants.

What is missing, and has been since the very first spiral bound edition, is the transcript of Noel Twyman's interview with Roy Hargraves. Following initial publication Noel was pressured to take that out of circulation and withdrew his permission for my use. Fortunately the transcript can be found online in various places now and of course is very revealing in regard to Hargrave's admissions about he and Felipe Vidal being in Dallas for the attack.

Hope that answers your question, let me know if it didn't, Larry

Martin, in further comment I will offer the point that John Martino privately remarked that the plan, beyond killing JFK, had gone entirely off the rails with Oswald being taken alive and into custody. I don't know if you have SWHT 2010 but I analyze the whole sequence of events as to the change in the plan - including the change in Ruby's role - and the implementation of the damage control / cover-up in Chapter 15. In addition I offer a very specific scenario with dates, events and names for how Johnson himself might have been advised in advance that if something did happen to JFK in November, it would be best for all if he forestalled any true and full investigation of conspiracy. It certainly would explain the otherwise anomalous calls from Washington to Texas that evening. I'm truly not trying to pitch the book, but given that I offer such a specific level of detail, actually corroborated with documents at a number of points, for the over all transition from attack to cover up, I'd actually like to see it discussed when this subject comes up - as it does periodically. Unfortunately I've never been able to get a detailed dialog going about my research/scenario so I'm just offering this in one last attempt it to get the attention of those interested. I promise it will be the last, time for me to move on.

Well I'll say it just one more time and then leave it alone. The answer to the question is - nobody. The conspirators were happy to leave ample evidence of multiple shooters and a conspiracy, a Cuban related one. However as always happens in national security crises, the first response of those officially in charge is damage control, then containment and reassurance of the public and ultimately management of the story line so as to prevent panic and overreaction. The system consistently reacts that way to crises in order to minimize career damage, perform CYA for those who made mistakes before and during the crises and as quickly as possible allow those in control to return to something like normality. That's just the way it works. In the end, the President was dead and and those directly involved in the attack ended up being frustrated in their secondary goal.

OK, said that enough, wrote about it enough....no need to be redundant.