OK, so I’m not really planning on turning this blog into a political outlet but in line with my most recent posts I felt I had to continue to give some attention to how a new form of Cold War is emerging.  It’s something I forecast in Surprise Attack and I do think its serious, particularly so since it plays to some of the real strengths of what is a particularly nasty form of psychological warfare – one which integrates a moderate level of deniable military action (most often through surrogate forces) with some extremely effective geopolitical propaganda.  We are seeing that in the Ukraine now, and in Syria. The Russians have always been extremely adept at this sort of thing, much more so than the U.S.   Not that we didn’t try it a great deal back in the Cold War, we just didn’t ever make it work that well.  And it frequently turned back on us in domestic politics while a given administration was trying to execute it internationally.  A two party system helps in that regard. On the other hand, the Russians with their Cold War level of  control over their press were much more efficient. Now with Putin’s renewed control over Russia and its media –  and with what is effectively now a single party system or at best an oligarchy, Russia is once again prepared to be very effective with such tactics.

Actually its a good thing that our open press so often deconstructed our own efforts in deniable and covert warfare – the contemporary problem with the Russians using it against is two fold, first that the Russian press had been brought massively in line and shows some success in channeling their propaganda message – even thought ostensibly independent news channels.  The second is that internet news sources and blogs makes it much easier to feed stories into the American public and into our political process.

We were all rather naive about such things back during the Cold War, we can see it all much more clearly in retrospect. The danger is not applying such history lessons and insights to what is happening today in real time….its not clear to me we are doing that, hence my continued focus on the issue.  For starters, take the little piece of internet news below and just remember that it is all a very artful propaganda construct, actually incorporating pieces of real news stories for a purely dis-informational pitch – a very nice job indeed, so nice its scary (and note how easily it picks up the NATO theme, something omnipresent with Russian propaganda these days).





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.

2 responses »

  1. Carter Dary says:

    Hi Larry,

    I just read a book by Clint Hill in which he says emphatically that Oswald was the lone shooter. And then he goes on to say they were separate shots which hit JFK and then Connolly. He cannot have it both ways! Why doesn’t he understand that after all these years? Separate shots=2 shooters, period. He’s too experienced with weapons and too smart to believe that. Why?


    On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Larry Hancock wrote:

    > Larry Hancock posted: “OK, so I’m not really planning on turning this blog > into a political outlet but in line with my most recent posts I felt I had > to continue to give some attention to how a new form of Cold War is > emerging. It’s something I forecast in Surprise Attack and ” >

    • Carter, I’m afraid that Clint has the same problem that plagues several of the agents. After all Kellerman adamantly told the WC in his own testimony that a flurry of shots came into the vehicle at the same time, clearly indicating multiple shooters and he never backed off that. He said that for the record within a few months of the actual shooting. As far as Clint Hill is concerned, we know that he had serious psychological problems with the shooting and his own actions including that of being out late the night before, very late… His early TV appearances in interviews were quite painful. I’m sure he had reached a better place by now but honestly anything he says at this late date is reasonably meaningless. I’ve posted here before on the problems with witnesses in terms of delayed statements…anything past a few minutes or at best hours becomes quite questionable as to details. The scientific fact is that time and successive exposure to others begins to overwrite the event itself. Which I’m sure is what you are seeing with Mr. Hill. As to what he believes and why he believes it…the simple matter of fact is that he is far too immersed in the original scenario to abandon it, for a host of reasons, many of which may even be unconscious. He took his position decades ago, to expect him to logically re-evaluate it or to even research what we know now is just not in the cards.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s