Milteer Dialog

Anyone relatively new to and interested in the JFK assassination will continually run into the hundreds of the reports collected in the months and years following the assassination, in many cases generated by leads provided to the Secret Service or FBI which were at least minimally investigated at the time but resurfaced in the work of private researchers or even in follow on inquiries during the Garrison investigation, the HSCA, etc. Each of those reports can lead down trails that consume months and years even years of questions, as I learned the hard way over the decades.

Many of the names and leads recycle forever, beyond the endless repetition on forums and in discussion groups they even lead beyond Dallas to other assassinations and events of the Sixties and Seventies.

One of those reports came out of Florida, taken from a sting on an ultra right figure who was being investigated for activities related to obtaining weapons for an attack on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Recently someone interested in that lead, and that individual, contacted me and wanted to discuss Joseph Milteer – an individual Stu Wexler and I researched intensely on our two books related to the King Assassination, particularly in The Awful Grace of God.

We ended up having an extended conversation about Milteer, in particular the possibility that he might somehow have been involved in moth investigations – and the challenge presented by the fact that while Milteer had been talking to a police and FBI source in the sting operation. Both Milteer and those individuals he was associated with were aware that the source was suspected of being a “snitch”, and were warned about what could be said to him – presenting the issue of misinformation being involved.

Actually misinformation became did come into play to the the extent that while Miami police retained the source as a valued informant, the FBI ultimately determined him to become have become increasingly unreliable in the years after 1963, something that Stu and I cover in our writing.

In any event, it our extended conversation rambled a bit but if you are interested in Milteer, or much of what had been brought up in regard to him, you might find it interesting and the link to the conversation is below.

Just as a teaser, after much research Stu and I (as well as Lamar Waldron) determined that Milteer was indeed a actor in the King assassination and responsible for the money used in the bounty that brought James Earl Ray into that conspiracy.


Interview on new UAP/UFO atomic weapons study

For those that might be interested, the following is a recent interview by Tim Ventura on the first phase of our study of UFO/UAP activity in the military domain – from 1945 to 1975. The interview was really tightly focused on a set of very good questions and moves quickly so I thought it might be useful to those of you who had just read my post about the study and didn’t want to dig into all 64 pages of charts and statistics.

I and other Intentions Team members will also be presenting at the upcoming SCU virtual conference this summer; we will give an overview not only of our pattern recognition study and intentions analysis but of a model which we have developed (based in the practices of strategic intelligence studies) that can be applied to other domains of activity. Anyone interested in this subject will find the conference of real interest; we have a very diverse set of academic and scientific speakers.

UFO / UAP Studies

As I’ve mentioned, the last few years have seen the majority of my time go into a different venue than much of my earlier research and writing, more in line with the work I did for my book Unidentified:

The good news is that the first results of that research is now published and available.

The breadth of the UFO/UAP phenomenon is daunting, from the complexity of how unidentified objects maneuver and accelerate in ways that violate known principles of contemporary physics to the related questions of both intelligence and intentions rising from the decades of official reports and investigations which began at the end of World War II.  

Over the past three years I have been part of a team of SCU (Scientific Coalition for the study of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena) members which has been deeply involved in applying the practices of pattern recognition and indications analysis to the questions of UAP intelligence and intention. The first step in that process was the development of a curated database which could be used in a search for anomalous patterns in UAP activity over the period of 1945-1975 (the period covering the development and deployment of atomic weapons).  

The team then moved to an extended series of pattern analysis and statistical studies, focused on UAP activities in the military and aerospace domains. The goal of that work was to search for, document, and characterize any anomalous patterns of activity related to elements of the American atomic warfare complex (radioactive materials manufacturing, weapons assembly and storage, and weapons deployment) over the period of the study.

Patterns of UAP activity at atomic warfare complex facilities were also compared to UAP reports from conventional military facilities, reports from United States’ aerospace test and development facilities, reports related to atomic power plants, and to the incidence of overall UAP reports submitted to the United States Air Force’s long term UFO studies conducted during its Sign, Grudge and Blue Book projects.

The details and assessments of this SCU study have now been published in an extended academic paper – SCU
UAP Pattern Recognition Study 1945-1975 US Military Atomic Warfare Complex, Hancock et al. 2023 1.

If you would really like to dig into the subject you can download the full report at:

I’ll be interested in comments, feedback and questions from those who have the interest and stamina to engage with the first of what we hope to be two major studies dealing with intelligence and intention as related to UFO/UAP activities over the earliest decades of the Cold War.

The First 72 Hours

JFK assassination research and dialog has largely focused on the attack in Dallas and the events of November 22, 1963, with virtually never ending discussions of the crime scene, evidentiary issues, the autopsies and related forensics. Given the problems in all those areas, including chains of possession, conflicting testimony and the very real indications of manipulation in both the areas of the evidence put into the official record and the autopsy of the President, those discussions will likely never come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Much less attention and dialog has been associated with the period of time beyond that evening’s autopsy at Bethesda, in particular the indications that a variety of meetings, and conversations which would have pointed towards an early suspicion of conspiracy in the attack have been intentionally obfuscated or entirely deleted from the historical record.

In the 2010 edition of Someone Would Have Talked, I tried to present considerable detail and a chronology of the first 72 hours, extending into the iterative efforts by LBJ to control the narrative of the assassination, beginning with his hope to circumvent anything beyond the production of a report by the FBI – which by Sunday afternoon can be shown to have consisted of no more than a “difficult task” (as described in an internal FBI memo) of preparing a report to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole individual involved in the attack.

That 2010 edition was built around the then newly released material from the ARRB and the work and writing of Douglas Horne, the work of Rex Bradford on a key conversation between Johnson and Hoover on Saturday, November 23, and my own research into the earliest work of William Manchester as compared to extant records at the Johnson Library – suggesting that the Johnson call logs had been altered to conceal a very critical Friday night call between Johnson and Hoover which had simply resumed the following morning.

Later work by Bill Kelly and some of my own studies related to the Air Force 1 radio transmissions suggested that there was also considerable communication while that aircraft was in the air that did not make it into the final transcripts which were released to the media, including the fact that LBJ specifically had the materials reviewed and cleared for release when the press eventually learned they existed.

Those elements, plus some anecdotal reports of conversations with senior national security figures, support the idea that there were discussions and decisions made to suppress indications of conspiracy – and a full, open ended inquiry into that possibility during the first 72 hours. Beyond that, even more recent remarks and document releases prove that the possibility of a Cuban or Cuban exile conspiracy in the attack was investigated quite seriously and the results suppressed within the CIA – not just internally but officially in testimony to the Warren Commission and records provided to the Church Committee.

Most recently, my friend Mike Swanson has discovered and written about even more evidence that certain early conversations very likely related to the assassination and having national security impact were also either suppressed or literally removed from the historical record.

Considered as a body of information, these elements all seem to me to lend support to the fact that there were two conspiracies involved in the murder of President Kennedy, the one which killed him and a separate one which occurred after the fact which suppressed even the idea of conspiracy. That second effort was hastily and iteratively implemented, to the extend that conversations, tapes, photos etc had to be cleared from the record and those involved had to overtly lie and obfuscate about what had gone on in the first 72 hours after the assassination – not the execution of some well planned and structured coverup planned as part of a grand conspiracy, but rather something separate where actions that were critical and even reasonable at the time, in the interest of national security, had to be dealt with and obscured piece meal, after the fact, once the decision on a lone nut solution became set as a top level policy.

Where in the world is Larry?

Its pretty clear I’ve been noticeably absent here for a number of weeks – so what’s going on? To some extent I’ve been involved with the Mary Ferrell Foundation Board which is involved in legal action against President Biden and the National Archives over the release of documents under the JFK Records Act. You can find the information on that at the MFF site:

But primarily I continue to be involved with ongoing research and writing on the subject of UFO/UAPs as well as supporting the the work of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies:

I’ve been involved with two major UAP research projects, one involving the study of the physical characteristics gained from very close observations of UAPs (our team reviewed something like 100,000 incident reports, and using some very rigorous criteria, ended up actually studying some 300 extremely credible observations). Our report on that is in peer review at present. Separately I’m involved with a team studying UAP intentions in the Military/Aerospace domain. In that study we focus on something like 2,000 reports officially submitted to military and law enforcement from 1945-1947. We have done three articles on the study and now have one major study in peer review with another to be submitted shortly. If you would like to see the articles they are available in the SCU Review:

Our third article will summarize our work to date and present a model for structured studies which might be used in a variety of topical domains including physiological and psychological studies.

Of course I also continue to do various shows, including a routine appearance with Chuck Ochilli where we discuss things such as political warfare and topical issues including Ukraine and China. And I continue to do background research on some very focused areas of the JFK assassination.

I also still have a long term project going which will provide a rather contrarian hypothesis regarding Lee Oswald’s activities during 1963, built around his own personal agendas – but including his use in CIA and DRE propaganda activities – and ending with a rather detailed speculation on the road to Dallas how he ended up as a patsy. But that is a long story, months down the road and still jelling in the work David Boylan and I are doing.

So that’s were I’ve been, for the next few months my focus will remain on the UAP work and I hope to be able to post bits of that here for those interested.

JFK Assassination Records Update

If you have not been following the effort to obtain the release of known JFK related documents and the collection of additional assassination related materials, you may be unaware of the pending December deadline for a presidential decision on records release.  Past presidents, including Donald Trump, failed to authorize a full, legally mandated release of records, and last year President Biden postponed the mandated release. 

With another deadline imminent and no sign that the national security agencies will not once again manage to stall document release, the Mary Ferrell Foundation is now in court, seeking a legal decision which would force President Biden and the National Archives to comply with their designated responsibilities under the JFK Records Act – legislation passed by Congress some thirty years ago.

You will find a full description of what the law calls for and the failures to comply, as well as the current legal action at the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site:

The main page of the site will give you links to information on the law suit as well as a recent press event at the National Press Club, which detailed the need for action and in which examples of documents which may be key to the history of the assassination, and to the CIA’s activities relating to Lee Oswald are described.

I plan to post more information on what we now know about the CIA’s knowledge of Oswald prior to the assassination (information which was withheld from the Warren Commission inquiry) as well as to the indications of operational use of Lee Oswald by the Agency – operational use which may well explain the extent to which that Agency has stonewalled release of records over the years.

Both the CIA and FBI’s actions in concealing information are remarkable for several reasons, but the CIA stands out as an ongoing bad actor, for years after the Warren Commission concluded its inquiry. During the press conference Jeff Morley related one area of noncompliance related to a CIA officer who was in charge of the anti-Castro student group (DRE) who Lee Oswald contacted in New Orleans in 1963 – and who, when assigned as a liaison in support of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, failed not only to make DRE reports and records available but actually concealed his role in that key period of time prior to the assassination.

Even in matters which would seem to be completely innocent the CIA has refused to fully release Oswald related documents.  When Lee Oswald and his wife returned to the US from Russia, the CIA’s Domestic Contacts officer (J Walton Moore) in the Fort Worth/Dallas area initiated an effort to monitor them, using sources within the local Russian community.  That sort of activity was certainly standard CIA operating procedure and few would have found fault with it.  Yet after almost 60 years some 200 pages of known CIA files on Moore remain unreleased and the documents we do have are heavily redacted.

For comparison, over the last decade the CIA and other agencies have released virtually every document related to the American spy satellite networks that were established during the decades of the sixties and seventies – with satellite capabilities specified and even the engineering diagrams for much of the equipment involved.  During those decades those satellites represented the epitome of Top Secret Code Word classification.

Which leaves us with the question, if that sort of national security related information is now released and public, why in the world would there be such obvious gaps in the file of a CIA Domestic Operations officer, who in 1962/63 was simply checking on Lee Oswald after his return from Russia – in what would seem to be routine, due diligence activity. 

Update on JFK Lancer Conference 2022

The conference continues to add new speakers, and in an hour interview with Chuck Ochelli, the conference administrator (Gabriella Glen) and I went into considerable detail on both the format and operation of this year’s virtual conference as well as the speakers.

In addition Chuck and I spent some time at the end discussing the nature of the Mary Ferrell Foundation law suit and its importance as essentially the action of last resort (beyond FOIA) to deal with the objections of various Federal agencies in providing both known and new JFK assassination materials for public access. The legal responsibilities of both the President and the National Archives are specifically called out in the JFK Records Act legislation and it appears that the force of law had become the only option for insuring real world compliance with that legislation.

That’s a much broader subject than Chuck and I remarked on though, and I anticipate that he will be calling on the principal lawyers involved in the law suit to provide a much more detailed explanation of the issues and the recourse requested this new legal action.

Those lawyers will both be giving an update as part of the upcoming (imminent) Lancer conference on November 18-20.

In addition, beyond new speakers like Bart Kamp and Malcolm Blunt, Rex Bradford will also be presenting on new activities at the Mary Ferrell Foundation including the exciting effort to restore and archive the full research content of the JFK Lancer web site. Given the decades of work which developed that content, its recovery will make a host of materials available that have simply gone missing for the last few years.

For those of you interested in more details on the conference, including registration information use the following links:


To purchase tickets:

…..the link is for the 2022 conference even though the text says 2021, still having hosting content issues.

To view the conference:

Conference Updates:
JFK Lancer Facebook Group:

For a detailed discussion of the conference tune into the second hour of the show itself for Gabriella and my dialog with Chuck.

I hope to see you online myself during the virtual conference as I will be active in the live conference Facebook page all three days for questions on my presentation, as well as assistance and commentary.

New Lawsuit Over JFK Records

The Mary Ferrell Foundation has just filed a lawsuit which not only presses for a full release of documents potentially related to the Kennedy assassination as well as to Lee Harvey Oswald. The action is broad, asking the Court to ensure full compliance with the JFK Records Act, not just in terms of documents, but in regard to all the issues the Act demands in regard to redactions, release and access.

Full details on the lawsuit itself as well as the related issues may be found here:

JFK Lancer 2022 Conference Update

I realize I haven’t been very active blogging recently, but most of my time has been taken up with presentations for this year’s JFK Research conferences.

In doing that I’ve been taking a new look at Lee Oswald using resources that are not much referenced in prior decades of writings, and its given me some new thoughts about his activities in 1963, in particular his activities in New Orleans.

My view is becoming more nuanced, and a bit contrarian, both to the image the Warren Commission presented and in regard to some of what has been written (including by myself) previously.

Time seems to have turned Lee Oswald into something of a one dimensional character; I increasingly find him to be far more complex than either a lone nut or a simple “order taker”. If anything shows up repeatedly in Oswald’s character, it is not a propensity to blindly take orders but rather an ongoing effort to adjust everything he touched to his own agendas, at least as far as he could manage things.

Now on to the conference update:

Here is the current, updated, speaker list for the 2022 JFK Lancer virtual conference – which will streamed online Friday, November 18th, Saturday, November 19th and Sunday, November 20th.  

The format will be the same as the previous JFK Lancer virtual conferences – as will the prices. There will be student prices and students will have access to everything listed for the conference-only price. The conference only price is $64.99, the student price will be $34.99 and the full Conference and Digital Download fee is $119.99

The “Conference Only” price will give you access to the conference online, access to re watch the presentations until the 30th of November, and access to the conference Facebook group.  For an additional fee, you will be able to do digital downloads of the entire conference.

Speakers/Presenters include:

Bill Simpich

Larry Hancock

Robert Groden

Gil Jesus

David Boylan

Brent Holland

Jim DiEugenio

Monica Weisak

Mike Chesser

Larry Schnapf

Johnny Cairns

Rex Bradford

I’d like to note that Rex Bradford will be reviewing enhancements to the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site as well as plans for restoring access to the extensive research and resources formerly available on the JFK Lancer web site.

Please use the following link to register for the 2022 conference (we know it is the earlier 2021 conference page, but it is what we are using for 2022 as we still are not able to update the actual content on the page due to hosting problems).

If you have questions concerning registration please conduct Gabriella Glenn, the conference administrator, directly at her email:

JFK Lancer 2022 Conference

Early announcement of this year’s JFK Lancer 2022 research conference –

The JFK Lancer 2022 Virtual Conference will be held online Friday, November 18th, Saturday, November 19th and Sunday, November 20th.

The format will be the same as the previous JFK Lancer virtual conferences – as will the prices. There will be student prices and students will have access to everything listed for the conference-only price. The conference only price is $64.99, the student price will be $34.99 and the full Conference and Digital Download fee is $119.99

The “Conference Only” price will give you access to the conference online, access to re-watch the presentations until the 30th of November, and access to the conference Facebook group.  For an additional fee, you will be able to do digital downloads of the entire conference.

We are still finalizing the full speaker list and schedule but a partial list includes:

Bill Simpich, David Boylan, Johnny Cairns, Mike Chesser, Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock,

Robert Groden and Gil Jesus. 

I will post the registration page link and additional information as it becomes available, however Gabriella Glen is serving as the administrator and web operator again this year and you may contact her directly at her email with questions: