Larry Hancock's new website

[Francesca Akhtar]

The website for Someone would have Talked is online and has some great documents, photos etc on there. Great stuff Larry, thanks for making it available on this site. Also congratulations to James R for the charts. Good work!

The URL is:

http://www.larry-hancock.com/

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Franceska, you beat me to it. I was just about the post the welcome notice (which

I will do below). One quick note, we've already changed the site to give Phil Hopley credit

for the social diagram charts. He and James Richards share the honor for major

contributions with James doing the photo pages and Phil the new charts - both being

Australian researchers it should be noted! To save electrons, my invitation message is

as follows:

"Hello all, just wanted to let you all know that the book is at

the printers and the WEB site is live now at:

www.larry-hancock.com

I want to give a big thank you to Debra for her extensive work on the site and on the document uplaods; it was a massive project and indeed is still going on. New documents will continue to go up this week. I'd also like to thank James Richards for all the photo pages and Phil Hopley for his work in creating the social network charts - a number of people suggested diagrams to help relate all the names and events and Phil jumped in to create what you see on the site.

One note, the resources on the site are organized to support the book and to support the reader as they proceed through it. New documents in the second edition have been designated separately from the first edition document exhibits and documents will be added for the new appendices as well.

Orders for the book may be placed through the book web site now; for those wanting to buy from Amazon or from book stores its going to take a few more weeks to get it set up and available through those outlets.

-- Larry

[Francesca Akhtar]

Sorry to steal your thunder Larry! Thanks for the extra info. Can't wait to get hold of a copy.

[John Simkin]

Larry, you have a photograph of Abraham Bolden on your website:

http://www.larry-hancock.com/photos/Chapter14%20photos.jpg

I also had it on my webpage on Bolden. However, I received an email from someone who knows him to say that it is a picture of someone else. He claims that the picture in Lamar Waldron's Ultimate Sacrifice was the right one.

You can see it here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbolden.htm

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks John, I'll check with James as to his source for the Bolden photo and

change it accordingly...

-- Larry

[Myra Bronstein]

The website for Someone would have Talked is online and has some great documents, photos etc on there. Great stuff Larry, thanks for making it available on this site. Also congratulations to James R for the charts. Good work!

The URL is:

http://www.larry-hancock.com/

Hi Larry. I'm really glad to see you here. I've ordered your book but I haven't read it yet. And I have a question that is driving me crazy. Tho' I understand if you don't have time to answer all of the ones that come your way.

Question:

1-Do you think that Mr. Oswald was a complicit patsy (thinking that he was part of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy) or an innocent/hero patsy (thinking he was trying to infiltrate and thwart the plot to assassinate President Kennedy)?

Thank you.

Myra

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Myra, based on John Martino's observations and my own studies I would

consider Oswald to be an unwitting albeit not entirely innocent patsy.

Certainly he knew that he was in contact with "subversives" and I would

speculate that they may well have fed him a line which included some

act which would have focused attention on the US assassination attempts on

Castro. There is solid evidence that Owald had joined up to participate

in some sort of act/demonstration in the DC area in September.

However on November 22, Oswald was expecting to leave Dallas and

head out for Cuba, most likely via Mexico. Something may have been

said to him about some incident with JFK but clearly he was also

told something which kept him "off the street" for the passage of the

motorcade.

As to informing, I do think Oswald passed on a variety of information

to the FBI and may well have passed on talk against JFK in New Orleans

while he was there. There was plenty of it going on among Bannister's

crowd including Ferrie and Shaw.

In any event, I hope that works as a quick response to your question, basically

Oswald was just what he proclaimed himself to be, a "patsy" ....but certainly

not a simple patsy who was doing nothing more that day than planning

on going to work and ending up in his own room that evening.

-- Larry

[Larry Hancock]

Just wanted to post to let Myra know I had responded to her question and also

to let John know that James has sent in a revised photo page with a corrected

Bolden photo and that it should be posted on the book web site later

today.

-- thanks for the quick catch John, Larry

[Myra Bronstein]

Hi Myra, based on John Martino's observations and my own studies I would

consider Oswald to be an unwitting albeit not entirely innocent patsy.

Certainly he knew that he was in contact with "subversives" and I would

speculate that they may well have fed him a line which included some

act which would have focused attention on the US assassination attempts on

Castro. There is solid evidence that Owald had joined up to participate

in some sort of act/demonstration in the DC area in September.

However on November 22, Oswald was expecting to leave Dallas and

head out for Cuba, most likely via Mexico. Something may have been

said to him about some incident with JFK but clearly he was also

told something which kept him "off the street" for the passage of the

motorcade.

As to informing, I do think Oswald passed on a variety of information

to the FBI and may well have passed on talk against JFK in New Orleans

while he was there. There was plenty of it going on among Bannister's

crowd including Ferrie and Shaw.

In any event, I hope that works as a quick response to your question, basically

Oswald was just what he proclaimed himself to be, a "patsy" ....but certainly

not a simple patsy who was doing nothing more that day than planning

on going to work and ending up in his own room that evening.

-- Larry

Thanks very much Larry. I can't wait to read the book. (I thought I had it ordered but it turns out it was an update to an earlier edition. Well, twas the library so no harm done. Guess this is one I'll have to buy.

[Michael Hogan]

SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED and http://www.larry-hancock.com

The book can now be ordered through Amazon but there will be the regular distribution

delay as JFL Lancer fills their requests. If you order through the book site below

the book shouldl be shipped from stock in hand. If you are ordering

from outside the U.S. it that may prove to be quicker and in some cases possibly less

expensive. JFK Lancer will take travelers checks in payment if you have

no other payment option and ship on receipt of the checks with your order.

http://www.larry-hancock.com/order.html

-- hope that helps, Larry

If there had been more men like Gaeton Fonzi on the HSCA, the case might have been solved.

I hope Larry won't mind that I am reproducing Fonzi's review here:

There have been two official U.S. Government investigations of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The first resulted in the Warren Commission Report. Rank with so many blatant distortions and manipulations of the evidence, its conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin quickly disintegrated under objective scrutiny. But the Report's arrogant fallaciousness seeded in the public's psyche a new distrust of Government that would grow over the next decade into a trenchant and sometimes fiery force in American history. An element in that force produced enough political pressure for a new investigation and the subsequent formation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Congressionally mandated to "conduct a full and complete investigation" of JFK's murder, the HSCA's priority was quickly castrated. The Committee was intimidated and manipulated by the very government agencies it was investigating and its final report emerged as misleading as the Warren Commission's. While the HSCA report masked a truncated investigation, it also unavoidably left slivers of light revealing certain areas of inquiry the Committee dared not pursue. The forces governing the Committee knew that pursuing leads in those areas would have opened doors it did not want opened, doors marked with the names of operators and assets of the Government's intelligence community. Now, with his experience and analytical acumen, Larry Hancock has pushed wide those doors, naming names and detailing the culpable conspiratorial associations. Among the most respected researchers of the JFK assassination, Hancock has produced an awesomely comprehensive and impressive work of compelling validity. A "must-read" in the field.

Gaeton Fonzi, former staff investigator for the U.S. House Committee on

Investigations and author of

The Last Investigation

[Chuck Robbins]

Hi Myra, based on John Martino's observations and my own studies I would

consider Oswald to be an unwitting albeit not entirely innocent patsy.

Certainly he knew that he was in contact with "subversives" and I would

speculate that they may well have fed him a line which included some

act which would have focused attention on the US assassination attempts on

Castro. There is solid evidence that Owald had joined up to participate

in some sort of act/demonstration in the DC area in September.

However on November 22, Oswald was expecting to leave Dallas and

head out for Cuba, most likely via Mexico. Something may have been

said to him about some incident with JFK but clearly he was also

told something which kept him "off the street" for the passage of the

motorcade.

As to informing, I do think Oswald passed on a variety of information

to the FBI and may well have passed on talk against JFK in New Orleans

while he was there. There was plenty of it going on among Bannister's

crowd including Ferrie and Shaw.

In any event, I hope that works as a quick response to your question, basically

Oswald was just what he proclaimed himself to be, a "patsy" ....but certainly

not a simple patsy who was doing nothing more that day than planning

on going to work and ending up in his own room that evening.

-- Larry

This document states that Oswald had contact with legat while in Mexico City.

This is not the same thing as being observed by legat while in Mexico City.

Why would LHO have contact with the Naval Attache at the very same time he was actively contacting the cuban and soviet embassies?

What more proof would one need to establish LHO's involvement in a govt. intel operation?

Any thoughts on this, pro or con?

As an aside, it has been reported that Oswald held a secret FPFC meeting in Chicago in April of 1963.

Is it possible that the April contact, described in this document as being reported by Hosty in Sept., is this

meeting?

[William Kelly]

CHUCK,

Where's the CHICAGO connection again? I don't see it, but maybe it's me.

BK

Larry,

This document states that Oswald had contact with legat while in Mexico City......

.....As an aside, it has been reported that Oswald held a secret FPFC meeting in Chicago in April of 1963.

Is it possible that the April contact, described in this document as being reported by Hosty in Sept., is this

meeting?

[Chuck Robbins]

CHUCK,

Where's the CHICAGO connection again? I don't see it, but maybe it's me.

BK

Larry,

This document states that Oswald had contact with legat while in Mexico City......

.....As an aside, it has been reported that Oswald held a secret FPFC meeting in Chicago in April of 1963.

Is it possible that the April contact, described in this document as being reported by Hosty in Sept., is this

meeting?

Bill,

I apologise. The meeting I was thinking of was one that never happened...it was alleged to have been true

by Richard Cain, but, it is believed to have been a false lead to link Cuba to the JFK assassination.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Chuck Robbins

[William Kelly]

Bill,

I apologise. The meeting I was thinking of was one that never happened...it was alleged to have been true

by Richard Cain, but, it is believed to have been a false lead to link Cuba to the JFK assassination.

Okay Chuck, I hadn't heard of any LHO sightings in Chicago, and almost hoped it was true, but alas, Richard Cain just doesn't come clean.

The thing about Cain that always got me was sometime after the assassination he showed up in Mexico with Giancana.

Since this is a thread about Larry Hancock's book "Someone Would Have Talked," I want to say how important I think Larry's book is, certainly more significant, though less harped, than Ultimate Sac and A Fairwell to Justice. We should all give it close attention.

BK