I’ve already given some fairly detailed insights into the content and scope of Unidentified on this blog so rather than any further extended discussion I’ll just be referring you to the interviews that I’ve done and continue to do on the new book.

I’m a bit surprised that there have been so few reader posts about it here – I’m always happy to chat about it here or respond to questions. Given that it seems like such a departure for me (although in the context of my intelligence studies and writings it really isn’t) I would have expected to have a lot more “UFO” type questions tossed my way.

The interview show hosts have not been bashful about that though, so you can learn more by listening to the shows.  The newest is another interview with Brent Holland on his Night Fright show:


I have been on Brent’s shows a number of times and he likes to push the edge with me a bit, leading me down paths that move into some of the broader themes and issues related to the subject of UFO’s.  He knows I will go some distance with him but then back off since I’m pretty conservative by nature. Nothing like a few unexpected questions to keep a guest on their toes…grin. Well that and he makes me do video interviews which I try to avoid…and makes fun of my shirts.

There will be another Unidentified interview coming up this Friday, two hours on the Chuck Ochelli show.  I’m expecting Chuck to be pretty pointed about the subject and that’s good; it should be a very in depth interview.


Actually I will be talking with Chuck two nights in a row because Chuck, Carmine Savastano and I will be on his show this Thursday doing the sixth program in our series of JFK 101 discussions, an effort to deal with the evolution of the official investigations and inquiries which dealt with the assassination of President Kennedy.

Its part tutorial, part myth busting and part attitude in regard to what was and was not done to develop the official story that shows up in the history books. The fact that none of us are personally satisfied with either the official story or some of the alternative histories that are being propagated decades after the event leads to the aforementioned “attitude” now and then.

If you do have UFO and Unidentified book related questions be sure to bring them up here or in email, beginning in September I’ll be doing some more JFK related posts as a warm up to the JFK Lancer conference in November.



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.

9 responses »

  1. Matt says:

    For awhile now I have been willing to suffer through Holland, Dale, and Ochelli to hear what you have to say… I actually caught these before you posted this so it looks like I aim to continue – even if I yell “would you stop!” at the speakers from time to time… (Carmine seems cool… making my way towards his book soon)

    Unidentified will be my first UFO book…

  2. Matt says:

    That seems a little mean – I’ve definitely listened (and in a couple cases relistened) to all of Alan Dale’s interviews… At the end of the day I enjoy those programs. Keep up the good work.

    • Thanks Matt, I know the programs can sometimes become convoluted, its easy to get sucked into tangents on the Kennedy assassination in particular. But short of spending two or three hours in a conference presentation room, in the hallway outside -or preferably in the conference bar after hours – its a way to get more personal than the content of the books.

      I suppose in a way I might be thankful that I haven’t made it on to some of late night UFO talk shows, it would be hard to compete with some of the routine conversations in those venues and those hosts – and their listeners – might find me insufferably dull by comparison. I definitely want to chat with you after you read Unidentified; having waded through so much of that material over the decades I look forward to a dialog with anyone who enters the field via my book.

  3. Andrew Grosd says:

    Big fan. l recommend you concentrate on JFK TOP 10 Remaining Mysteries you hope to be resolved by release of remaining docs. I think Jim Marrs RIP reduced the efficacy of his entire body of work by the concentration of his efforts on the UFO topic. Just one fans opinion.

    • Hi Andrew, well I’m certainly taking a look at the documents being released and in organizing the JFK Lancer conference this fall I’ve been talking with John Newman, Jeff Morley, Malcolm Blunt and Bill Simpich, all of whom are doing the same and all of whom will be speaking on the document releases at the conference. Bill and I will specifically discussing what the documents have helped us tie down in regard to ZR/RIFLE and QJ/WIN.

      However I have to caution that up to this point there is little sign that we are going to find anything that would resolve the top ten mysteries (at least what my top ten might be, if you want to toss your top ten this way I would be happy to comment). After doing what amounts to three books and dozens of presentations and appearances related to the Kennedy assassination I’m not sure that I have that much more to contribute.

      As to reducing the body of work, if you do happen to read Unidentified I think you will find that it fully meets the standards for historical research and balance in not only my JFK work but in my broader historical studies such as those in Shadow Warfare and Surprise Attack. To some extent it actually exceeds them since I was able to access a structured and at least partially vetted data set that allows more sophisticated analysis to be performed. Of course its easy to cast aspersions on UFO literature in general but frankly many would say the same for the full body of literature on the JFK assassination or political assassination in general. If I wanted to remain “pure” (or at least academically credible) in terms of historical research I’d probably have to avoid both genre’s – of course remaining totally objective and trying to deal with the intelligence community and national security subjects in general is quite a challenge.

      At this time I have no further books related to UFOs planned, although there are areas that interest me. What I do have is a new book coming out next spring on the King assassination, a sequel to The Awful Grace of God, and yet another book which will take me back into the broader history of American and Russian political intelligence activities and serve as a companion to Shadow Warfare. More on that down the road.

      I appreciate and understand your concerns but overall my personal interest is in tackling a number of the more controversial subjects related to Cold War and contemporary history. Which means I have ample opportunity to trip over my feet in many venues…but to this point it seems to me there is little chance of doing any unique damage to the fields I’ve entered.

  4. Anthony says:

    ‘Unidentified’ is on my birthday list so this is partially from Surprise Attack, which I found very interesting indeed. I was wondering what your view on the likely origin of the Midland / Dow Chemicals debris that you mention was?

    • The fascinating thing about this is that the Midland/Dow and other similar “recoveries” suggest rocket technology in the same class as the World War II liquid fuel rockets such as the V-2. Although I briefly touched on this in Surprise Attack it is explored much more extensively in Unidentified and includes a series of recoveries of quite similar remains.

      All of them were studied in great detail – but not by the Air Force. In one instance an apparent thrust chamber was partially reconstructed and the scientist working with it commented that the material and structure was not unlike the rockets he had recently worked with at White Sands.

      More than one prominent scientist looking into the subject offered – again outside of the Air Force investigations – opinions that these devices might well be small, very specialized and very long range relatively unguided “pencil rockets” – being used for psychological warfare purposes.

      However in the end those recoveries have to be placed within the much larger – and decades long – context of all the true unknown reports and that makes things much more tricky. When you do get through Unidentified please come back with this question again and we can discuss it further, I should be able to take it at least a bit further at that point.

  5. Matt says:

    There is a kind of glory in the way you disappoint some of these radio hosts looking for you tell tell them that there is proof of their darkest conspiracy fantasies. I have noticed you often take a deep breath before laying down a sober set of observations in response to questions loaded with preconceived notions (“Did the Bush administration let 9/11 happen” or “did the Obama administration let Benghazi happen?”). Isn’t the mundane reality dramatic enough? I recently wrote a book that includes a treatment of Benghazi in context of the collapse of the Arab Spring. My editor called me when he got to the Benghazi section and said he was pleasantly surprised that it was so apolitical in the partisan sense. He expected partisanship. Like with politics, a similar set of expectations arise when dealing in conspiracy theories, especially on entertainment programs devoted to them. People are almost taken aback when they learn that I don’t subscribe to 9/11 Truther narratives while advocating alternative theories on the Kennedy and King assassinations (to be fair, I have plenty of 9/11 truther books in my library, enough that it looks something like commitment)! For them, believing one precluded believing the other. Conspiracies as package deal. Similarly, those who only know Oliver Stone’s JFK are surprised to hear me criticize Jim Garrison. Stone was effective enough at packaging Garrison as a hero that some of my friends are almost pained to hear him skewered (I developed prejudices of my own in this regard – it took me a long time, maybe too long, to get to Jim Dieugenio’s work out of this antipathy). Well meaning friends have put me in contact with people who they thought shared interests with me. Before long I’m listening to a diatribe about how the Sandy Hook shootings were staged! It was depressing how angry this man got when I told him he was wrong. His commitment to these theories was emotional and on some level he had allowed them to become part of his identity. It is an ugly time to be known as someone who believes in (some) conspiracies!

    I can relate to the entertainment impulse towards conspiracies. In interviews Bill Simpich has perfectly articulated how much enjoyment he has found researching the Kennedy case. I know exactly what Simpich is talking about. It is rewarding because it is interesting – researching this stuff is entertaining! My Dad follows politics the way many people follow basebalI or football and he passed that approach on to us. Certainly for him there was an entertainment aspect to politics. In High School I watched the X-Files avidly and by college I was reading true crime literature. One reads or watches this material, in part, for the thrills of horror. So I am not dismissing entertainment as a driver for engaging in this material. I came to the literature of the Kennedy assassination through that horror/true crime prism as well as political interest and I was probably lucky that I would have been just as satisfied if Oswald was a deranged nut as I would have been if there was a conspiracy. Obviously I found myself persuaded by the case for conspiracy. Unfortunately, already being “in it,” I have no perspective on whether it is possible to find Bill Simpich or Larry Hancock unless one is already on board with skepticism. My hope is that Jefferson Morley’s project is an adequate gateway for the larger population to sober critics of the official story. The hope that I refer to is that those who are curious about this body of literature are on board with the winding path to the truth, however incomplete and mundane as it may end up being. Fantasy has to be put aside.

    • It’s a challenge Matt, and I have to say some of the most exciting areas of my research on all these subjects were the really sensational leads that would get me hyped up…sometimes for months or even years until they fell apart. It’s really a strange thing to deal with this stuff and appear so wild eyed to some and then terrifically naive to others. My bookshelves and tubs of books also include an immense volume of books and research materials that simply didn’t make the cut, even if they were educational in one sense.

      I made a remark in an interview last night that the one thing I’ve learned is not to assume mysterious and sinister when systemic or stupid will do for an explanation. That’s probably why I take a deep breath when its obvious where the dialog is about to go.

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