Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was Lansdale in Dealey Plaza?


Recommended Posts

You can laugh all you want, but I think Brad Ayers is a very reliable witness,

Thank you Bill, we all need a good laugh ever now and then.

But since we are dealing with the murder of a human being -- in fact we are dealing with the murder of several human beings -- if you want to introduce the kind of oafish humor that involves a CREEP like Bradley Ayers, then maybe you should start your own COMEDY FORUM.

Well, I'm not the one who recruited Ayers, an US Army officer out of Ranger training, and assign him to train anti-Castro Cuban raiders including Julio Fernandez, one of Clare Luce Booth's "boys." That would have been Gen. Krulak, the guy Gen. LeMay, temporary chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made responsible for handling all DOD assistance to the CIA's JMWAVE maritime raiders, incluidng the ship REX.

It's a shame we can't just chose what witnesses we like.

You like Marina. Not many people would trust her as a contestant on What's My Line, but we're stuck with her regardless of people's opinion of her.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you read Brad Ayers book on the assassination and JMWAVE he describes how he was taken up in a helicopter to witness the murder of a senior JMWAVE officer,

BK

If Brad Ayers (or anyone else) claims to have witnessed a murder, and if he failed to report that murder in a timely manner to the proper authorities, then where I come from he would be considered an accessory to murder.

But maybe you and I come from different kinds of places.

[by that I mean that, where I come from, anyone who tried to cite a guy like Brad Ayers as a reliable witness would be laughed out of town]

In my opinion, (not a legal opinion), in most states within the United States, if you fail to report a crime that you witnessed, it could potentially be "Misprison of a Felony" and it is a crime if you actively conceal the fact, as opposed to only "failing to report" the crime.

By contrast, "an accessory to a crime" knowingly, actively, and voluntarily participated in the commission of the crime before, during, or after the fact by providing ANY type of support. If a person provides any type of aid, support, shelter, financing, etc. to the perpetrator after the crime is committed they may be an accessory after the fact.

In Tx mere failure to report a crime is NOT a crime, unless the crime is child abuse.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From right here on Spartacus:

In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives. The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.

Lansdale also argued against the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: There's a constitution in place… Please don't destroy that when you're trying to change the government. Remember there's a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who's been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.

It was these views that got him removed from office.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I know that this came from SPARTACUS, but who or what is the original source? Thanks.

From right here on Spartacus:

In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.”

Lansdale also argued against the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: “There's a constitution in place… Please don't destroy that when you're trying to change the government. Remember there's a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who's been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.”

It was these views that got him removed from office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I know that this came from SPARTACUS, but who or what is the original source? Thanks.

From right here on Spartacus:

In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives. The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.

Lansdale also argued against the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: There's a constitution in place… Please don't destroy that when you're trying to change the government. Remember there's a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who's been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.

It was these views that got him removed from office.

Good question , Greg. I believe that we know a lot more than is detailed here. But John Simkin is very objective and careful about what he writes about a man.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I know that this came from SPARTACUS, but who or what is the original source? Thanks.

From right here on Spartacus:

In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.”

Lansdale also argued against the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: “There's a constitution in place… Please don't destroy that when you're trying to change the government. Remember there's a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who's been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.”

It was these views that got him removed from office.

Good question , Greg. I believe that we know a lot more than is detailed here. But John Simkin is very objective and careful about what he writes about a man.

Peter,

I don't doubt John Simkin. But, I didn't know who wrote the piece. So, is John Simkin the source, then? I'm sorry if I'm asking a question whose answer might be a "given" -- but I don't know who wrote the original information that you posted. Are you saying John wrote it--or is it just something that was written on Spartacus? Thanks--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt from a letter to Jim Garrison from Colonel Prouty:

"At about 1957 Lansdale was brought back to Washington and assigned to Air Force Headquarters in a Plans office near mine. He was a fish out of water. He didn't know Air Force people and Air Force ways. After about six months of that, Dulles got the Office of Special Operations under General Erskine to ask for Lansdale to work for the Secretary of Defense. Erskine was man enough to control him.

By 1960 Erskine had me head the Air Force shop there. He had an Army shop and a Navy shop and we were responsible for all CIA relationships as well as for the National Security Agency. Ed was still out of his element because he did not know the services; but the CIA sent work his way.

Then in the Fall of 1960 something happened that fired him up. Kennedy was elected over Nixon. Right away Lansdale figured out what he was going to do with the new President. Overnight he left for Saigon to see Diem and to set up a deal that would make him, Lansdale, Ambassador to Vietnam. He had me buy a "Father of his Country" gift for Diem...$700.00.

I can't repeat all of this but you should get a copy of the Gravel edition, 5 Vol.'s, of the Pentagon Papers and read it. The Lansdale accounts are quite good and reasonably accurate.

Ed came back just before the Inauguration and was brought into the White House for a long presentation to Kennedy about Vietnam. Kennedy was taken by it and promised he would have Lansdale back in Vietnam "in a high office". Ed told us in OSO he had the Ambassadorship sewed up. He lived for that job.

He had not reckoned with some of JFK's inner staff, George Ball, etc. Finally the whole thing turned around and month by month Lansdale's star sank over the horizon. Erskine retired and his whole shop was scattered. The Navy men went back to the navy as did the Army folks. Gen Wheeler in the JCS asked to have me assigned to the Joint Staff. This wiped out the whole Erskine (Office of Special Operations) office. It was comical. There was Lansdale up there all by himself with no office and no one else. He boiled and he blamed it on Kennedy for not giving him the "promised" Ambassadorship to let him "save" Vietnam.

Then with the failure of the Bay of Pigs, caused by that phone call to cancel the air strikes by McGeorge Bundy, the military was given the job of reconstituting some sort of Anti-Castro operation. It was headed by an Army Colonel; but somehow Lansdale (most likely CIA influence) got put into the plans for Operation Mongoose...to get Castro...ostensibly.

The U.S. Army has a think-tank at American University. It was called "Operation Camelot". This is where the "Camelot" concept came from. It was anti-JFK's Vietnam strategy. The men running it were Lansdale types, Special Forces background. "Camelot" was King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table: not JFK...then.

Through 1962 and 1963 Mongoose and "Camelot" became strong and silent organizations dedicated to countering JFK. Mongoose had access to the CIA's best "hit men" in the business and a lot of "strike" capability. Lansdale had many old friends in the media business such as Joe Alsop, Henry Luce among others. With this background and with his poisoned motivation I am positive that he got collateral orders to manage the Dallas event under the guise of "getting" Castro. It is so simple at that level. A nod from the right place, source immaterial, and the job's done.

The "hit" is the easy part. The "escape" must be quick and professional. The cover-up and the scenario are the big jobs. They more than anything else prove the Lansdale mastery.

Lansdale was a master writer and planner. He was a great "scenario" guy. It still have a lot of his personally typed material in my files. I am certain that he was behind the elaborate plan and mostly the intricate and enduring cover-up. Given a little help from friends at PEPSICO he could easily have gotten Nixon into Dallas, for "orientation': and LBJ in the cavalcade at the same time, contrary to Secret Service policy.

He knew the "Protection" units and the "Secret Service", who was needed and who wasn't. Those were routine calls for him, and they would have believed him. Cabell could handle the police.

The "hit men" were from CIA overseas sources, for instance, from the "Camp near Athena, Greece. They are trained, stateless, and ready to go at any time. They ask no questions: speak to no one. They are simply told what to do, when and where. Then they are told how they will be removed and protected. After all, they work for the U.S. Government. The "Tramps" were actors doing the job of cover-up. The hit men are just pros. They do the job for the CIA anywhere. They are impersonal. They get paid. They get protected, and they have enough experience to "blackmail" anyone, if anyone ever turns on them...just like Drug agents. The job was clean, quick and neat. No ripples.

The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in Texas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher.

The first man LBJ met with on Nov 29th, after he had cleared the foreign dignitaries out of Washington was Waggoner Carr, Atty Gen'l, Texas to tell him, "No trial in Texas...ever."

The next man he met, also on Nov 29th, was J. Edgar Hoover. The first question LBJ asked his old "19 year" neighbor in DC was "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ thought that THEY had been shooting at him also as they shot at his friend John Connally. Note that he asked, "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ knew there were several hitmen. That's the ultimate clue...THEY.

The Connallys said the same thing...THEY. Not Oswald.

Then came the heavily loaded press releases about Oswald all written before the deal and released actually before LHO had ever been charged with the crime. I bought the first newspaper EXTRA on the streets of Christchurch, New Zealand with the whole LHO story in that first news...photos and columns of it before the police in Dallas had yet to charge him with that crime. All this canned material about LHO was flashed around the world.

Lansdale and his Time-Life and other media friends, with Valenti in Hollywood, have been doing that cover-up since Nov 1963. Even the deMorenschildt story enhances all of this. In deM's personal telephone/address notebook he had the name of an Air Force Colonel friend of mine, Howard Burrus. Burrus was always deep in intelligence. He had been in one of the most sensitive Attache spots in Europe...Switzerland. He was a close friend of another Air Force Colonel and Attache, Godfrey McHugh, who used to date Jackie Bouvier. DeM had Burrus listed under a DC telephone number and on that same telephone number he had "L.B.Johnson, Congressman." Quite a connection. Why...from the Fifties yet.?

Godfrey McHugh was the Air Force Attache in Paris. Another most important job. I knew him well, and I transferred his former Ass't Attache to my office in the Pentagon. This gave me access to a lot of information I wanted in the Fifties. This is how I learned that McHugh's long-time special "date" was the fair Jacqueline...yes, the same Jackie Bouvier. Sen. Kennedy met Jackie in Paris when he was on a trip. At that time JFK was dating a beautiful SAS Airline Stewardess who was the date of that Ass't Attache who came to my office. JFK dumped her and stole Jackie away from McHugh. Leaves McHugh happy????

At the JFK Inaugural Ball who should be there but the SAS stewardess, Jackie--of course, and Col Godfrey McHugh. JFK made McHugh a General and made him his "Military Advisor" in the White House where he was near Jackie while JFK was doing all that official travelling connected with his office AND other special interests. Who recommended McHugh for the job?

General McHugh was in Dallas and was on Air Force One, with Jackie, on the flight back to Washington..as was Jack Valenti. Why was LBJ's old cohort there at that time and why was he on Air Force One? He is now the Movie Czar. Why in Dallas?

See how carefully all of this is interwoven. Burrus is now a very wealthy man in Washington. I have lost track of McHugh. And Jackie is doing well. All in the Lansdale--deM shadows.

One of Lansdale's special "black" intelligence associates in the Pentagon was Dorothy Matlack of U.S. Army Intelligence. How does it happen that when deM. flew from Haiti to testify, he was met at the National Airport by Dorothy?

The Lansdale story is endless. What people do not do is study the entire environment of his strange career. For example: the most important part of my book, "The Secret Team", is not something that I wrote. It is Appendix III under the title, "Training Under The Mutual Security Program". This is a most important bit of material. It tells more about the period 1963 to 1990 than anything. I fought to have it included verbatim in the book. This material was the work of Lansdale and his crony General Dick Stillwell. Anyone interested in the "JFK Coup d'Etat" ought to know it by heart.

I believe this document tells why the Coup took place. It was to reverse the sudden JFK re-orientation of the U.S. Government from Asia to Europe, in keeping with plans made in 1943 at Cairo and Teheran by T.V. Soong and his Asian masterminds. Lansdale and Stillwell were long-time "Asia hands" as were Gen Erskine, Adm Radford, Cardinal Spellman, Henry Luce and so many others.

In October 1963, JFK had just signalled this reversal, to Europe, when he published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life.

JFK came to that "Pro-Europe" conclusion in the Summer of 1963 and sent Gen Krulak to Vietnam for advance work. Kurlak and I (with others) wrote that long "Taylor-McNamara" Report of their "Visit to Vietnam" (obviously they did not write, illustrate and bind it as they traveled). Krulak got his information daily in the White House. We simply wrote it. That led to NSAM #263. This same Trip Report is Document #142 and appears on page 751 to 766 of Vol. II of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers. NSAM #263 appears on pages 769-770 (It makes the Report official). This major Report and NSAM indicated an enormous shift in the orientation of U.S. Foreign Policy from Asia back to Europe. JFK was much more Europe- oriented, as was his father, than pro-Asia. This position was anathema to the Asia-born Luces, etc.

There is the story from an insider. I sat in the same office with Lansdale, (OSO of OSD) for years. I listened to him in Manila and read his flurry of notes from 1952 to 1964. I know all this stuff, and much more. I could write ten books. I send this to you because I believe you are one of the most sincere of the "true researchers". You may do with it as you please. I know you will do it right. I may give copies of this to certain other people of our persuasion. (Years ago I told this to Mae Brussell on the promise she would hold it. She did.)

Now you can see why I have always said that identification of the "Tramps" was unnecessary, i.e. they are actors. The first time I saw that picture I saw the man I knew and I realized why he was there. He caused the political world to spin on its axis. Now, back to recuperating."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lansdale was definitely an operator in coup's around the globe.

Sterling Seagrave has some interesting things to say about Lansdale on this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13678&st=0.

(Hi there Sterling, we have not heard from you in a while -- hope all is well)

I submit that, as a general rule, the only reliable way to identify someone is by their FACIAL FEATURES (In extreme cases you might need dental records). Accordingly, I am not at all persuaded by Prouty's ID of a man who can be seen only from behind.

But the funny thing is that I and others DO SEE A LANSDALE LOOKALIKE in one tramp photo, and he is not the guy that Prouty claims to identify.

Please take at a look at the tramp photo linked below, and note the man seen in profile just to the left of "Frenchy" (his head merges into Frenchy's). To me this man DOES BEAR a remarkable resemblance to Lansdale, down to the COLOR AND LENGTH OF HIS HAIR (Grey/White, crew-cut)). In my mind he is definitely not the man with JET-BLACK hair that Prouty refers to. Note that the tall (middle) tramp seems to be making eye contact with the Lansdale lookalike in this photo, and that eye-contact has a conspiratorial appearance, in the eyes of this innocent country boy.

This profile view looks identical to Lansdale as seen in a 1965 photo in Vietnam, Photo No. 18 in Cecil B. Currey's Lansdale biography. By 1965, at least, photos show that Lansdale could no longer be described as dark-haired.

I regret I am unable to post the 1965 photo from Currey's book,(Edward Lansdale, the Unquiet American

Cecil B. Currey) nor find it in Google images. If you, dear reader, can post that photo you will win a special prize (details TBA).

Here is the tramp photo which shows the man I contend is the Lansdale lookalike in Dealey Plaza.

http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/21/tramps.png

I would also not be surprised if the well-dressed, well-groomed man with the conventioneers ID who is now walking behind the police is the SAME MAN seen earlier from behind, the man Prouty claims is Lansdale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I know that this came from SPARTACUS, but who or what is the original source? Thanks.

From right here on Spartacus:

In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.”

Lansdale also argued against the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: “There's a constitution in place… Please don't destroy that when you're trying to change the government. Remember there's a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who's been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.”

It was these views that got him removed from office.

Good question , Greg. I believe that we know a lot more than is detailed here. But John Simkin is very objective and careful about what he writes about a man.

Peter,

I don't doubt John Simkin. But, I didn't know who wrote the piece. So, is John Simkin the source, then? I'm sorry if I'm asking a question whose answer might be a "given" -- but I don't know who wrote the original information that you posted. Are you saying John wrote it--or is it just something that was written on Spartacus? Thanks--

I wrote it but as you can see I am quoting the words of Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American. There is no doubt that JFK took notice of what Lansdale had to say on foreign policy and brought him in to run Operation Mongoose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for joining the discussion John.

You had mentioned before that focusing on who was behind the conspiracy may be a better use of time than rehashing the minutia about something that has already been proven. I couldn't agree more and there is actually plenty to go on.

Landsdale, who was never in a combat situation himself, likely played a major role in a operation to kill a sitting president, and one that, although was orchestrated by the "CIA", I know John, you have an appropriate description of the compilation of intelligence organizations - and I agree with that term, was , for practical purposes , a military operation - conducted domestically, with a sitting president as the "target".

What would make us believe that little weasel, Landsdale was involved? Well this could help us understand.

All the stuff about him being in Fort Worth etc. is true as certified by records unearthed by John Newman. John was thinking of doing a full scale in-depth biography of Lansdale at the time.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

In studying the photo that Prouty claims shows Landsdale in Dealey Plaza walking past the three tramps next to the Texas School Book Depository building in the early afternoon of 11,22,1963 I have tried to see how close the man in the photo does resemble Lansdale, even to someone like me - a total laymen in photo subject identification and who didn't know Lansdale like Prouty and Krulak did.

Here are my observations of similarities between the DP/tramp/TXSBD photo man and the full frontal photo of Lansdale in the Prouty video in the original post of this thread.

The head shape ( rectangular and vertically thinner and longer versus wide  ) seems clearly identical. You can also see that the DP man has a very high forehead. The DP man's ears are the exact same size, location and shape and distance from the head as the Lansdale frontal photo.

The hair cut is the same. The hair ( even in black and white) seems the same salt and pepper color appropriate for a man 55 years old.

Since the frontal comparison photo is of Lansdale sitting down, I cannot compare the rest of Lansdale in the DP photo accurately but defer to the much more knowledgable comparisons Prouty makes of these features.

One poster ( Kelley?) states that the DP photo is lacking in detail. I disagree. The bright light of the early afternoon sun in that photo reveals much light and shadow detail.  

I would ask however, did Lansdale wear glasses at the age of 55?  The man in the Dealey Plaza/tramp walk by photo is wearing glasses.

You can see them if you look closely and the shadow of this man's head on the diamond shape plate on the chain link type gate to his right clearly shows glasses on the front part of the head shadow.

Another curious question for me is this:

That area next to the TXSBD  building where this DP photo was taken is quite removed or set back from the heavy traffic front of the building.

In fact, it looks like a set back loading zone to me. What reason would the Lansdale look-a-like person in that business type suit have in walking through that area at that time?  Just some naive curious guy wondering "Hmmm, wonder whats back this away?" ???

 I need to edit in this disclaimer. I am not certain that the possible Lansdale DP photo location is actually part of the Texas School Book Depository building.  If not, my uniformed admission apologies.

And another poster here states that Lansdale was actually registered at the same Fort Worth hotel JFK and Jackie were staying in at the same time during this Texas visit?

Whoa...please... not another one of these incredible ( but meaningless ? ) coincidences.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, could you maybe provide us with the two photos ( the Prouty video frontal one and the DP/Tramp Walk one ) side by side?

I would but just do not know how to do this.

Thanks, JB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...