Larry Hancock's Blog, page 4

JFK and the CIA

It has become something of the article of faith in some circles that JFK was totally hostile towards the CIA and even dedicated to breaking it apart or smashing it. While it is true that JFK had been more than irritated with the agency following the disaster at the Bay of Pigs – and had expressed that verbally – it would be a disservice to President Kennedy to think that he would act that emotionally at the height of the Cold War. Especially so given the political ramifications – and the fact that in 1962 the CIA intelligence work had been showcased and made much of during the Cuban missile crisis.

In reality President Kennedy faced a number of intelligence challenges, beginning with the history of discord between SAC intelligence and the CIA in terms of Russian ICBM capabilities. The reliance on the Air Force for Soviet intelligence collections diminished significantly under JFK, with the U-2 program being run by the CIA and the new Defense Intelligence Agency beginning its role of consolidating intelligence from the services, primarily the Air Force and Navy. But as far as intelligence collections, analysis, and reporting was concerned JFK would continue to rely primarily on the CIA and its Director until the time of his death.

In contrast, the role of the CIA in covert military operations was something that JFK mistrusted and had begun to move under the Joint Chiefs of Staff. First in SE Asia, specifically in covert missions against North Vietnam, and by 1963 in regard to Cuba. By mid-1963 the Joint Chiefs had been directed to begin planning and preparations for covert military operations against Cuba and had begun that process.

However the transition was clearly going to somewhat chaotic with the CIA continuing both a covert operations role into 1964 and the new idea of a totally independent and deniable offshore effort against Cuba (AMWORLD) just coming into play.

It was a complex and chaotic time, with JFK trying to shift roles while not exposing the US to either another major intelligence failure or further embarrassment while trying to keep covert action efforts against both North Vietnam and Cuba in play.

Chuck Ochelli and I recently had the opportunity to chat about how pragmatically the President was trying to restructure both intelligence and covert action at the height of the Cold War. Those interested can find that conversation at this link:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/966-the-ochelli-effect-61777378/episode/the-ochelli-effect-7-30-2024-larry-hancock-201215619/

Oswald Book Update

Just wanted those interested to know that at long last the manuscript for the book has been completed, including the completion of an extensive and demanding editing process. The end result of what began with an idea for a 50 page monograph is likely to end up as something close to a 425 page book (more with index and photo pages). And something like 460 extensive end notes, most with document or source links.

Its a level of work I certainly never anticipated – nor actually intended. I can’t give a publication date yet as options are still in play on that but at least I know what’s in the book now…grin.

Given that I finally have some free time, if anyone has standing questions or subjects you would like to see me comment on just drop me an email or post something here and I will respond.

In my other life, the UAP Intentions study team I’m involved with should be sending its fourth paper into peer review this month. This one deals with UAP activities in the public space and examines what appears to be a change in focus over the period of the study. Hopefully we will have the paper through review and published by the end of the year…given the rigor and extent of the study review and response to critiques takes a good deal of time.

But as far as this blog goes, if you do want to see other topics discussed, just send something my way… Larry

Template for Dallas

I recently jointed Jim DiEugenio in a lengthy discussion of our views on the context of the Kennedy assassination. We covered a good bit of ground, with a particular focus on the question of whether the assassination matched the standard practices of “regime change” which had first developed within the CIA during the Eisenhower Administration. Historical research has given us a pretty clear model for how regime change was practices, who was charged with it inside the CIA, what types of assets they used and most importantly how it was carried out with full deniability in mind.

I’ve written about that at length in my books Shadow Warfare and In Denial, and clearly my view is that the murder of JFK was carried out by individuals with different levels of motive, as it always was in real world regime change. The surrogates involved had their own motives and agendas while those inciting and enabling it had theirs. As I’ve written that fits well with John Martino’s remarks that those who carried out the attack in Dallas did not realize at the time that they were being used by people above them, that they trusted.

In any event, if you would like to hear the discussion with Jim and I and Paul Bleau, check out the following link:

https://www.blackopradio.com/archives2024.html

Oswald in Mexico City

By now anyone following this blog is aware that I have been at work on my own study of Lee Harvey Oswald, what I view as a reconsideration of things I had read, taken for granted and even written in my previous books on the JFK assassination.

When I first started writing, in the late 90’s, the ARRB had just begun to release sections of its work and we were getting a picture of how Oswald related events in Mexico City some weeks before the assassination had triggered concerns of Russian or Cuban influence behind the attack in Dallas. That concern had begun to develop as early as the evening of the assassination, and continued for several days – in particular due to a detailed story of Oswald being a paid Cuban assassin, a story intensely promoted by the US Ambassador in Mexico, the CIA’s Mexico City station chief and the station’s senior counter intelligence officer.

Over the years, more and more focus has developed around Oswald and Mexico City, with many seeing it as critical to the assassination conspiracy. That’s something I will be discussing at length in my upcoming book on Oswald, and I’ve actually just done three separate shows with Chuck Ochelli exploring and weighing in on various views of that – as well as Oswald’s actual activities with the Cubans and Russians. Interestingly those contacts were quite limited and actually quite consistent with the agendas and activities he and his wife had begun to pursue from the earliest months of 1963.

Those interested in the subject will find a good bit of context which is not normally discussed in regard to Mexico City in the third and final show with Chuck:

UFO Crash and Recovery

Anyone following this subject (whether historically as UFOs or under the more contemporary UAP designation) knows that this has been one of the most sensational, energetically discussed, and debated topics over the topics entire history….dating back to 1947 at Roswell.

It continues to gain traction and is the cornerstone of the most active government / military industrial conspiracy dialog that has recently overwhelmed Congressional panels – and social networking.

I’ve been following the dialog on crash and recoveries relatively seriously since the early 1970s and spent a good deal of time exploring both the sensational and real world aspects – yes the Air Force did have field intelligence units that were tasked with investigating UFOs and with covert recoveries of a variety of things from our own crashed test aircraft, missiles, stratospheric balloons (both domestically and internationally) to reentered or unsuccessfully launches of Russian spacecraft and satellites.

What else might have been recovered is another story entirely. I just completed a solid interview with Tim Ventura which would bring anyone interested in the most recent aspects of this story and for those interested you will find it here:

The Real Story of the Bay of Pigs

Each year the disastrous landings of the Cuban Brigade at the Bay of Pigs receive at least some retroactive mention, and in most cases the dialog is the same – including references to the failure of President Kennedy to support the effort. In some venues the terms “betrayal” and “treason” even appear. Unfortunately that conversation reflects nothing of what has actually been learned over the decades as to the full history of the Cuba Project, and JFK’s true actions during the early months of 1962, as well as during the days of the landings in Cuba.

In my book In Denial I give as true a historical picture of those events as possible – one that is dramatically different than those standard anniversary articles, or what is in most history books in regard to the event.

This year Chuck Ochelli and I discussed what we have learned over the decades, what is actually documented, and the misleading story which was circulated following the landings – by CIA officers directly involved in leading the Cuba Project and sending the Brigade onto the beaches.

That interview covers only some of the details which In Denial explores, but it is at least a start and you can find it here:

The Pentagon’s False Narrative About UAP And US Nuclear Warfare Assets

Actually that is not my title, its the title of an article by Kevin Wright that I thought some of you might find interesting; Kevin is a follower of our Intentions studies and refers to them in his article which I will add to this post below.

As for myself, I’mjust back from a long eclipse chase trip which looked like a total bust until about five minutes before totality when the clouds began to thin. From that point on we had a great view as full totality approached and then were able to see all the major elements – the solar corona, two large and extremely bright red flares off the sun (far brighter and redder visually than I have seen in any of the many photos), the diamond ring effect (again far more dramatic than in photos) and Venus in the sky near the sun at totality . I had been tempted to pan folks on television who were describing it as ‘amazing’ and then mentally apologized as there was literally no other word for it…truly an amazing in person experience.

Here is Kevin’s article on the issue of what nobody at DOD/AARO appears to have addressed yet in their releases on the atomic warfare/UAP issue to date:

Scientific studies and the historical record of foreign technologies negate the Pentagon’s narratives about UAP interest in US atomic warfare assets. By Kevin Wright Those who have studied unidentified anomalous phenomena(UAP) over several decades, like Dr. Jacques Vallée, historian Richard Dolan, and many others, have come to differing conclusions about the nature, origin, and or meaning of UAP. One prevalent conclusion, however, is that the phenomena are tricksters.The same attribution could be given to the Department of Defense (DoD), the Intelligence Community, and others involved in keeping secret what elements of the government know about the UAP enigma.
In my column with the Roswell Daily Record last week, I asked what the Pentagon is hiding from the American public about what it knows or doesn’t know about UAP, particularly the relationship between UAP and US nuclear and military assets.The recent report by the DoD’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) on the “Historical Record of US Government Involvement” with UAP barely mentions incidents involving UAP and atomic warfare assets despite putatively covering eight decades of reported UAP activity.

Indeed, the white paper ignores hundreds of documented accounts of such incidents.Neither AARO’s findings nor Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the former Director of the AARO, indicated anything beyond actions of a foreign adversary or inadvertent/unauthorized disclosures of legitimate US programs that have nothing to do with UAP. Of course, there were also the usual explanations of atmospheric weather anomalies, balloons, and swamp gas.

None of this adds up.

Recent groundbreaking research by members of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), an organization I advise on public relations, offers fascinating insights into UAP activities intertwined with US nuclear warfare assets.

The SCU’s thorough examinations of UAP activities in the post-World War II era, spanning from 1945 to 1975, revealed a convincing narrative intricately linked with the development and deployment of US atomic warfare capabilities.

The initial investigation, the UAP Pattern Recognition Study, uncovered a significant connection between reported bursts of UAP activity and critical milestones in nuclear weapons technology advancement. Spikes in UAP presence notably coincided with activities at sites involved in atomic weaponry development, including missile complexes and initiatives for warhead deployment.

Going deeper into the motives behind these UAP incidents, the second inquiry, the UAP Indications Analysis, identified a distinct pattern wherein UAP activities evolved in tandem with advancements in nuclear warfare capabilities. Notably, as weapons delivery systems advanced, the intensity and nature of UAP encounters also progressed, suggesting systematic scrutiny of America’s atomic warfare infrastructure.

The most recent comprehensive examination, the UAP Activity Pattern Study, released last week, unveiled a nuanced shift in UAP behavior, transitioning from prominent daytime sightings to nighttime close encounters, particularly with civilian observers. Additionally, the study highlights a significant rise in UAP loitering, especially during the late1960s, indicating a shift from military to public spheres.

Furthermore, disc-shaped UAP were observed executing extraordinary maneuvers, including instantaneous vertical acceleration, speeds surpassing 9,000 miles per hour, and 90-degree turns without altering their speed, emphasizing the complexity and sophistication of these phenomena.

In other words, UAP exhibited mind-boggling capabilities and initially focused on the atomic development complex: radioactive materials production and shipment, weapons design, and stockpiling. Then, curiously, the concentrated focus on these assets never repeated after the development period. Instead, the activity and apparent surveillance followed the deployment of strategic weapons, major Strategic Air Command bomber bases, and new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) bases, many of which were extensions of the bomber facilities.

After the first-generation ICBMs were replaced, UAP surveillance of the sites that housed them did not continue; only the sites that received the newest types of missiles received attention.  That pattern continued until the end of SCU’s study period.

These peer-reviewed studies, meticulously curated from official reports and government data, offer unprecedented insights into the intersection of UAP phenomena and atomic warfare assets in the post-World War II era, revealing significant discrepancies with the Pentagon’s prevailing explanations, e.g., that UAP results from the actions of foreign adversaries. Notably, the timelines of technological advancements by prominent geopolitical players such as China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Iran cast doubt on any theory that UAP is tethered to foreign countries, emphasizing the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the origins of UAP.

Suppose Russia, China, and others failed to reach atomic warfare capabilities from a technological standpoint, at least until after the initial phase of UAP surveillance. Is it plausible that these foreign adversaries were technologically advanced enough to observe highly sensitive national security assets half a world away before their nuclear technology maturity with impunity?

China’s maiden nuclear weapon test occurred in October 1964, which postdates numerous earlier UAP incidents. Similarly, the Soviet Union’s initial atomic bomb test happened in 1949, following the emergence of UAP reports.

China’s inaugural ICBM test transpired in 1971, nearly 30 years after documented UAP events began. The Soviet Union, a significant global player, only launched its first genuine ICBM in 1957. For later context, it is also important to note that the US did not successfully test its first true ICBM until 1958.

North Korea’s technological strides, evidenced by its first satellite launch in 1998 and its debut nuclear weapon test in 2006, took place long after the scrutinized period ended.
Iran, a recent entrant into the geopolitical sphere, achieved its first domestically-produced satellite launch in February 2009.

These incongruences raise serious questions about the veracity of the foreign adversaries hypothesis in explaining the origins of UAP, particularly in the early decades of the Atomic Age, beginning in the mid-1940s.So, what are we left with if we eliminate the foreign adversary hypothesis and discount the likelihood that the US had such top-secret, black-budget advanced aerospace technologies surveilling its own atomic warfare assets in the 1940s and 1950s?

Again, there is no way the DoD hasn’t done its due diligence on unidentified craft intruding on atomic warfare assets, whether or not the government agencies charged with national security want to admit to it. The question remains: what is the Pentagon not telling the American public?

About the author: Kevin Wright has 20+ years of experience in Washington, DC, in public relations, communications, and issue advocacy. He founded Solve Advocacy, an issue advocacy and communications consulting firm dedicated to UAP and edge science issues. He advises the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies‘ (SCU) Board of Directors on public affairs and public relations and is a consultant to Daniel Sheehan’s New Paradigm Institute..

UFO’s/UAP’s and the Public

I just wanted to let everyone know that our SCU (Scientific Coalition for UAP studies) team has just had our third peer reviewed study paper published. It deals with patterns of UAP activity as reported by the general public from 1945-1975. Earlier pattern studies dealt with military reports, both from conventional military facilities and the atomic warfare complex.

This new report focuses on UAP visibility and activities related to close approaches to observers, loitering near observers and related activities, comparing what was happening with the public during the same time as the military activities discussed in the earlier reports (including aircraft encounters and engagements as well as reports from the White Sands test range in New Mexico).

Our newest report is especially interesting for the definite patterns that were found, and the transition in UAP activity from the military domain to the public. Work on this paper was in progress for over a year; the team is now well into our fourth study in this series, assessing and evaluating what the patterns of activity suggest in terms of UAP intentions as related to the general public.

You will find a copy of this newest report at this link:

https://www.explorescu.org/post/scu-publishes-pattern-study-1945-1975-military-and-public-activities

Walker Shooting

In my new normal, I’ve not been posting much recently, but that may change a bit over the coming months. As an alternative, I recently did a Walker shooting podcast which offered a great point-count point format for me to bring up how my views on issues such as that incident have evolved over time – and during the research and writing on my (actually “our”, with David Boylan) upcoming Oswald book. It provided an opportunity for me to point out how I’ve come to abandon some of the earlier “memes” about Oswald that I followed and even wrote in my own earlier books, and why I now have different views on a number of conspiracy related issues. Different in many ways but not in the basics – spoiler alert, no he did not shoot the president, yes he was a patsy.

If you would like to check out the podcast you can find it here:

In regard to the upcoming Oswald book itself, the manuscript is now in fact checking/peer review with several of the most knowledgeable JFK researchers I know and once that is done it will go into actual edit. So its not imminent but it might be possible to have it out this year; given the positions it takes on many of the most controversial Oswald issues it needs to be as factually clean as we can make it.

Oswald Dialog

Well the work on the new Oswald piece continues, in an effort to call out issues with both the Warren Commission positioning of Oswald, and the skeptical communities’ counter views its taking a lot of work to pursue some balance – and be as transparent as possible as to what is fact and what is speculation. 

Its also necessary to revisit most all the major points of controversy that have emerged over the years – this is definitely one of those “where angels fear to tread, fools walk in” endeavors.

Along the way I’m taking a good deal of time with peer review and fact checking, but also in conversations about the standard views which have become almost ‘foundational’ in the skeptical community – that generally means if you don’t agree with them some may consider you to be naive, uninformed or possibly a tool of the establishment (if not worse).

Fortunately I had the chance to engage in an extended dialog and some friendly point counterpoint on Oswald in on one of Robbie’s recent “Out of the Blank” podcasts. It was fun and a good exercise and a very real part of working though and sometimes out of the box in regard to views of Lee Harvey Oswald. You can check it out here: