I’ve been totally inactive in terms of blogging lately so I thought it would be good to give an update to what I’m actually doing –

First off, I’ve waded back into JFK research for at least a time, focusing on the mysteries related to the months immediately before the attack in Dallas. To a large extent that’s driven by what we have learned from the Red Bird leads as well as the more detailed view into how Lee Oswald (or more specifically his identity and the public image of him that emerged in New Orleans that summer) was being used by three/four different factions (including two individually compartmentalized within the CIA – CI/SIG and SAS). We can now track both down to specific individuals and fairly specific time lines and an overview of that is in Tipping Point.

Yet while we are now able to draw a much clearer picture of how others were using Oswald as a “useful idiot”, we are left with what Oswald himself perceived that he was doing during that period, in New Orleans, especially in regard to his Cuban goals and his self generated cover of a return to Russia for Marina (or he and Marina, just to add more complexity). Which of course takes me back into the most challenging territory of all – Oswald himself. Something that at this point in time is like taking a bungee jump off the rim of the Grand Canyon.

I will say that as I (and to the extent that David Boylan and others provide some sanity checks on me) take that direction, I am much more sensitive to the fact that decades of JFK research may have added more to the mystery of Oswald than is justified.

To some extent that is based on my own aging and appreciation of two facts: a) having researched several political assassinations as well as decades of cover operations and shadow warfare I’ve become aware that history and contemporary record keeping is just plain messy and that its far too easy to find disconnects and impute large scale conspiracy in almost any situationa and b) errors of witness perception and memory are so prevalent that corroboration is absolutely mandatory before factoring in individual observations, much less claims and leads (yes, this is a reductionist view, not one which makes me comfortable with grand conspiracies or even most JFK researchers).

As if that was not enough, work in the venue of UFOs/UAPs is proceeding at a rapid pace and I’m happy to say that the pattern analysis/indention study approach is proving highly productive – mostly because I’m engaged with a team that is extremely competent in the areas of database/tools development as well as pattern and statistical analysis.

Our work in the domain of anomalous UAP activity in the atomic warfare complex and aerospace technology domains is revealing some fascinating patterns. Interpreting them with the tools of scenario development and indications mapping is just about to begin and that should be even more interesting. Anyone who wishes to follow our project work might want to consider joining the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies or at least attending its upcoming conference, where we will present an overview of our activities to date:


6 responses »

  1. russtarby@netscape.net says:

    Hi Larry

    I may have found a typo toward the end of your Update’s second paragraph: We can not track both down to specific individuals and fairly specific time lines I’ll bet the bank that you meant to type now… maybe you can correct it… anyhow, I enjoyed the Update.welcome back to the JFK case, man!

  2. larryjoe2 says:

    Absolutely correct Russ; I just corrected it. Thanks for the “welcome back”…

  3. Edward Moore says:

    Really confirming what I thought for awhile, you’ve been on the CIA payroll all along, focusing on irrelevant minutia, instead of accepting what’s been proved. It’s no longer a conspiracy theory.

  4. larryjoe2 says:

    Now all I have to do is figure out where I stashed their checks and cash in….on the other hand I thought producing one new book and two major white papers all pursuing conspiracy leads with brand new research and data – all within a couple of years – would have worked as a cover…darn.

  5. John F Davies says:

    Good comment on the current state of JFK research and the muddled mess that it’s now become. As I’ve said before, when one researches such controversial subjects as the JFK murder and UFOs, its like walking through a minefield. There are trip wires everywhere.

    In the three decades since the Oliver Stone Film came out, I’ve noticed that not one independent JFK researcher (With the occasional exception of Jeff Morley.) has ever been interviewed on mainstream media. From my own research there can be no doubt that there has been a deliberate and unified decision by the corporate owners of the media to suppress any further discussion of the JFK assassination. And that the pressure to do this came from their allies within the National Security Establishment.

    There can be no better example than the huge PR campaign led by Random House chief Robert Loomis that pushed Gerald Posner’s book “Case Closed” on the public. I don’t recall an ad campaign for any non fiction work that matched the intensity and coverage that it had. Any publication or media outlet of note had something featured about “Case Closed”. Gerald Posner was interviewed on every TV and Radio outlet, with every major newspaper and magazine ( Both Liberal and Conservative.), running reviews of the book. That this coincided with the thirtieth anniversary of the JFK assassination was not a coincidence either.
    The same thing can also be applied to Vincent Bugliosi’s tome “Reclaiming History”.

    Something else.
    Years ago, one JFK researcher I knew mentioned that believing the Warren Report served as a type of “Loyalty Test”. And questioning it is considered to be a form of heresy.
    From my own personal experience, I have found this to true. Publicly oppose the Warren report and one risks destruction of career and livelihood, as well as opening one up for public ridicule. This uniformity of belief transcends everything else, including political affiliation. Media personalities like Liberal Racheal Maddow and Conservative Bill O’Reilly may be on opposite ends politically, but they both march in lockstep when it comes to supporting the Warren Report. The message is clear to anyone who wants to advance to any position of influence, support the official story on JFK- Or that’s it, and that’s all…..

    In spite of of my differences with him, a few years back Jim Di Eugenio gave one of the best presentations I’ve heard about the media and its decades long campaign to suppress any criticism of the Warren Report. https://archive.org/details/TheJFKAssassinationInThePressThePublicEye

  6. larryjoe2 says:

    One of the problems with contemporary visibility – which I have experienced book after book – is that to get media attention you need either a major publisher with the connections to get book reviews or columnist type attention (one type of media attention) or you need a sensational story, what is considered “news” (the second type, true national media). I’ve had some limited success with the first type of media, none on the second.

    As far as JFK writing as a whole goes there have been spurts over the decades where individuals coming forward with truly sensational claims have registered on at least some level of national news – including press tours….Ricky White managed that in the eighties, Judyth Baker more recently.

    That sort of media fades quickly and has limited historical impact (not a bad thing).

    Jeff’s ongoing legal actions against the national level have gained some serious media attention, which is to the good that has exposed some true historical issues. And of course the periodic records release stories occur….with no lasting impact really since the reporters want smoking guns and they have not been forthcoming nor will they likely be at this late date.

    Based on my own research I could point out various times where there was true national media attention, during the Church Committee, the HSCA – even the series of Jack Anderson columns on news of conspiracy that he touted at the level of an “H Bomb”. So I don’t know that its fair to totally trash the media – even though as someone who writes on a lot of new leads and information I can’t say I’m not tempted…sigh.

    The problem as I see it is that the media failed during multiple opportunities in the sixties when real investigative journalism could have changed the national dialog (we know now that LIFE magazine even had an important series on conspiracy researched and documented – which never saw the light of day). That failure, when the story was still “live”, is the most egregious in my view.

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 )

Connecting to %s