I thought it would be a good time to offer some information about the upcoming JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas as well as on the subject of where we stand on the 50th Anniversary.  Certainly given the number and quality of presenters the Lancer conference is hosting, attendees will receive a breadth of information that may be hard to replicate in the future.  If you have not taken a look  you should check out the speaker list  and schedule on the Lancer site:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Dallas2013/schedule.html

For my part, other than helping with speaker moderation and staff work – which will be much greater this  year with several rooms and venues involved – I will be doing a short presentation and chairing several focus groups ranging from one on the Coverup and one on Cuban exile connections to a joint group on the Oswald impersonations in Mexico City with Bill Simpich.  For those who are not following Bill’s work on Oswald and Mexico City, chapters from his new book – State Secret – are being posted on the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site prior to the full book becoming available.  As I’ve mentioned before, Bill is presenting a level of detail rarely seen before and in regard to Mexico City and its relationship to the JMWAVE station in Miami, never seen before, since nobody else slogged though the documents as Bill has.

Which leads me a few remarks on the general perspective of the assassination after 50 years and after that to my topic and Dallas presentation.  As of the 50th anniversary a great number of people who make light of any possible conspiracy in regard to the murder of President Kennedy are stressing two points – first that the evidence presented by the Warren Commission is definitive and second that subsequent work, in particular the work of the ARRB, and the release of an immense number of documents has offered no solid proof of conspiracy.  Generally speaking they prefer not to mention the HSCA report although they often cite its medical evidence while panning the rest of its work.

My comment on both those positions is that the first response is simply a form of denial.  With an open mind it is simply not possible to study Breach of Trust by Gerald McKnight or Eyewitness to History by William Law and not admit that certain items of the official evidence are highly questionable – and that that the evidence was filtered to support the official story of a single shooter.  You only have to read William’s interviews with the FBI agents at Bethesda, or the ballistics panel evaluation of CE399 or the FBI memo describing Frazier’s absolute denial that the paper sack shown to  him Friday evening was not the sack he and seen Oswald carry to the TSBD that morning to know that there are fundamental problems with the Warren Commission evidence.

The second point, that no documentation of conspiracy has been uncovered in the files is….well either naive or intentionally obtuse….to think that any government agency would have solid evidence of conspiracy and leave it in files to be released is just ludicrous.  Do I have proof of such a harsh statement, well actually there is some and I’ve written about it.  One item would be the missing meeting information from a national security session of Sunday November 24, which apparently dealt with the assassination and Mexico City.  A more striking example would be the information we now have about an internal investigation of possible Cuban exile participation, ordered by Ted Shackley, carried out by Tony Sforza and the AMOTS  and addressing a number of very specific questions – a report which disappeared and an investigation which Shackley denied under oath was ever ordered.

Now, at this point I was going to share some remarks about my presentation in Dallas and what I think we do know about the assassination, very specifically in regard to the tactical events in the period of August through November 1963 which led to the attack in Dallas.  What I will be discussing in Dallas pertains to connecting the dots from New Orleans though Mexico City to Dallas. But I’ve already been too long winded here so I’ll hold that for a follow on post on “Connecting the Dots”.  The strange thing is that we can pretty well do that at this point in time, with specific events, groups and people…but of course that’s something those folks who prefer to deny a conspiracy would also find a way to avoid.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

About Larry Hancock

Larry Hancock is a leading historian-researcher in the JFK assassination. Co-author with Connie Kritzberg of November Patriots and author of the 2003 research analysis publication titled also Someone Would Have Talked. In addition, Hancock has published several document collections addressing the 112th Army Intelligence Group, John Martino, and Richard Case Nagell. In 2000, Hancock received the prestigious Mary Ferrell New Frontier Award for the contribution of new evidence in the Kennedy assassination case. In 2001, he was also awarded the Mary Ferrell Legacy Award for his contributions of documents released under the JFK Act.

8 responses »

  1. Greg Kooyman says:

    Wonderful information Larry.. I look forward to your continuing posts as I will sincerely miss your presentation in Dallas this year. Good luck with everything there, I know you will be and are very busy.

    • Hi Greg, and thanks! I suspect I will focus on JFK related posts between now and Dallas and then shift my attention to Shadow Warfare as it comes out early next year. In the interim, before the conference I face a couple of weeks of intense review of the copy edited version of the new book before it goes to preliminary galleys. Given that the book is well over 500 pages that is going to be a slog…I think I need to shift to pamphlets or flyers…grin.

      If anyone has anything specific down the JFK line please post on it and I’ll respond or do a post accordingly. As you can see from my recent comments, my own view is that we truly do know more about both the coverup and the conspiracy that most people are willing to accept. I’m not exactly sure why that’s true but I suspect that its because many people want to see their particular villains involved or to have the conspiracy match their personal political concerns – no real judgement intended, that is simply an observation.

      Still, given that this is the anniversary and this is a blog, I figure its about time to boil down my own views into a set of limited sound bytes, sort of like that pamphlet or flyer thing I mentioned above but in post format. I do find that in talking with readers, SWHT can be overwhelming in terms of detail and its possible to miss things even in the smaller and tightly focused NEXUS.

  2. hi larry you are doing a great job.i admire your courage for getting at the truth of president kennedys murder.

    • Thanks Bobby, its good to have feedback because after about 15 years at it, with the first five or so spent pursuing primarily false trails and diversions, its gotten to be quite a slog. Having written three editions of SWHT and then NEXUS I had pretty well decided to leave it behind, having put enough in print. However with the anniversary pending, I’ve decided to start a new series of posts leading up to the anniversary week and the Lancer conference in Dallas. My purpose will be to tightly focus in on a series of points/incidents which I feel represent the true path to the attack on President Kennedy. In many cases I will have to refer readers to my books but at least this string of posts will leave no doubt at what I feel did happen, and the manner in which Lee Oswald was used as part of a plan murder JFK and to make the attack appear to have been an action incited and sponsored by Fidel Castro.

  3. Another interesting essay Larry.
    I’ve always thought myself pretty up to date with assassination info having followed the progress that researchers have made over the last 50 years but every now and again I see something which I didn’t know and really knocks me sideways and that was your comment about Frazier and the FBI memo that says he denies that the paper bag shown him on Friday evening was the one that Oswald took to work. This is completely fundamental stuff and when we consider Fraziers statements about the bag and the size and how Lee carried it -holding it tucked up under his armpit- its pretty clear that this wasn’t a rifle at all as has been long implied. I’d be interested to see if there were any police reports regarding the contents of Lee’s works locker -assuming he had one.

    • Steve, I’ve never seen any documents in regard to his possessions at the TSBD, I’ll have to ask about lockers. Another fundamental point that does come to mind in regard to the rifle is the Warren Commission’s position that it had been brought in un-assembled, put together and used for the shooting. Of course anyone familiar with shooting realizes what that implies about hitting anything with the scope given that it could not have been re-sighted in any fashion at that point. People with experience shooting side mounted scopes also say its heck using the iron sights with that type of mounting, having the scope
      right up there in your face, especially for multiple shots.

      The more fundamental point though is that the WC assumed Oswald had put the rifle back together with a small coin since no screwdriver was available. Ian Griggs checked that out and yes you could reassemble the rifle with a coin but you could not do it without leaving scratching around the screw hole…and of course there is none of that on the rifle in evidence. There are a number of things like that which the WC managed to get by with, simply because there was no challenge to their evidence.

      — thanks for the response, Larry

      • Larry,
        Further to the rifle, in Mark Lanes classic book, ‘Rush To Judgement’ published in -way back in 1964- Mark quotes the Warren Commission regarding the FBI testing Oswalds rifle; they found the scope wasn’t properly aligned, in fact it couldn’t be aligned at all until they added ‘metal shims’ to the gun, so in fact the FBI test fired the mannlicher carcano in a set up thats wasn’t available to Lee Oswald or anyone firing that gun!

      • Hi Steve, yes I recall that. Plus there is the factor of reacquiring a moving target in your sights using a bold action rifle..just not gonna happen. If the rifle had been used at all it would have been with the open sights, which are hard to use with a rifle having the scope mounting on the side as on that MC – and even then reacquiring and firing is a challenge. It just didn’t happen in six seconds or in eight seconds or whatever. Now somebody might have fired the rifle and shot high causing the Elm street strike, wounding Teague but that’s about it. I’ve never talked to any real marksmen familiar with the MC who buys the story.

        Plus, you really do have to be in practice to make those sorts of shots even at that range. I was a reasonably good shot as a teenager, qualified with an M16 in basic training and the other day had a chance to do some target practice with a .223 very high quality rifle with great sights. After about 30 rounds of getting back into practice I think its safe to say I could have hit the limo once or twice at the required distance but to hit two individuals with two shots in a row and nowhere else in the car….not happening. I don’t care how good a shot you are you have to be in practice and I’ve never seen anything to convince me that Oswald was in practice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s