Jeff Carter

Kirk, what you left out is the fact that the critic referred has engaged a process of insults and name-calling from the start in the interest of reputational disparagement, using a technique known as the “prosecutor’s brief”, whereby one amplifies all the information reckoned to support a “case” while excising or otherwise diminishing information which doesn’t. Rhetorically, as a means of argument or seeking to convince, the prosecutor’s brief properly requires being put to the test (or cross-examined). The other day, for example, the critic offered a list of twelve bullet points to bolster his argument, but put to the test every single one of those points could be shown to be either factually incorrect or a gross distortion of the facts - and I am very confident saying that. That’s a bad track record, which suggests the need to continue to "test" further assertions. Things that stick out in this regard are, for example, the characterization of a “close and prolonged” relationship with the Lobby's top leadership when there is no record to even suggest the parties had ever met or corresponded in any way. Or cite a willingness to be a “character witness” which not only never materialized but there is also no contextual information available to describe the process by which that allegedly occurred (the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief). There is also the insistence that through submission of articles for publication or appearance on a nationally syndicated radio program one is necessarily endorsing a set of ideological principles expressed through “hundreds” of extremist articles, but put to the test such formulation does not in fact seem exactly accurate as the Wikipedia description contradicts the notion. So what is more accurate - that the newspaper in question published “hundreds” of extremist articles or that it gave “no indication” of its ideological underpinnings? That said, using the Liberty Lobby as a stick is an effective point of argument as it, by default, puts a cross-examination on the backfoot, in a “when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of way. Therefore, trying to understand what a reasonable person should have known about the publication in the late 1980s - which I do not know - becomes a “whitewash of a vile and racist” newspaper. Faced with that sort of inflamed rhetoric, one might decide is is best to avoid the topic altogether and forego any sort of cross-examination. That is ultimately the purpose of the insults in the first place - as seen elsewhere in the “conspiracy theorist” attacks on Stone following “JFK” or the gratuitous drive-bys which fill Bugliosi’s book. On the South Pole trip, we have two primary sources, both written by Prouty, neither of which express any certainty as to the purpose of the trip, and therefore serve - openly and directly - as a speculation or a surmise. The criticism which has appeared in this thread instead portrays it as a factual “claim”. This rhetorical process is the prosecutor’s brief at work.

This does not square at all with the description of the paper as appears on Wikipedia: "In 1975, Liberty Lobby began publishing a weekly newspaper called The Spotlight, which ran news and opinion articles with a very populist and anti-establishment slant on a variety of subjects, but gave little indication of being extreme-right or neo-National Socialist. However, critics charged The Spotlight was intended as a subtle recruiting tool for the extreme right, using populist-sounding articles to attract people from all points on the political spectrum including liberals, moderates, and conservatives, and special-interest articles to attract people interested in such subjects as alternative medicine." Prouty never suggested anywhere ever that he was sent South Pole to specifically “help strip JFK of security”, and certainly not on pp 283-285 of the book. The “suggestions” (an idea put forward for consideration) Prouty did entertain never once amounted to a “claim” (an assertion that something is the case) he had to back-peddle from, as can be easily confirmed from the primary sources.

Prouty’s source for the information re: Jonestown was an After-Action Report written for the Joint Chiefs which included a detailed chronology. “Guyana Operations,” After-Action Report, 18-27 November, 1978, prepared by the Special Study Group, Operations Directorate, USMC Directorate, Joint Chiefs of Staff This report is also referred in an article linked below by the respected journalist Jim Hougan, who did several pieces on Jonestown. https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16572#_ftn24

The inscription “hunter of fascists ha-ha” is intriguing because it is not Marina Oswald’s handwriting, but the exclamation “ha-ha” is a figure of speech which she was known to use. In a footnote to my article, the handwriting of the phrase is compared - the DeMohrenschildt print with handwritten notes Marina jotted for Priscilla McMillan. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3#_n4

I would agree with this perspective, and would add that the Liberty Lobby was barely mentioned at all by Prouty's critic here in his first run of posts, and then suddenly blew up to maximalist proportions over the course of a few hours. That is, I don't get the vibe of someone who has carefully worked through the details and is presenting a thorough reasoned analysis. He started with a highly biased opinion, received some pushback, and went searching for anything else that could be used as a pretext.

Once your line of argument reduces to a series of crude associative smears, you are merely waving a flag which signals you have nothing of value or interest to add to the conversation.

I have had reason to do a bit of a dive into Prouty’s career and record, which inevitably includes noting the semi-successful efforts of character assassination unleashed in the wake of the “JFK” film. It is a bit shocking to encounter the persistence of these efforts, particularly since Griffith is merely repeating the clearly one-sided and agenda-driven things he has read. Continuing efforts directed against Prouty’s reputation did at least influence a classic essay describing online narrative management techniques: https://wikipediaonlineatrocity.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/anatomy-of-an-online-atrocity-wikipedia-gamaliel-and-the-fletcher-prouty-entry/ That said, it is further of note that every single one of the bullet points which concludes Griffith’s post are either factually incorrect or represent a gross distortion of the record: -- He lied about his role in presidential protection. Factually incorrect. His statements were entirely consistent with his experience. -- He lied about the sinister nature of his trip to the South Pole. Factually incorrect. See his Letter to Garrison Oct 2, 1985 -- When he was asked to produce the putatively historic notes… Gross distortion of the record. The notes exist. -- He made the slanderous claim that Lansdale was involved in the Lumumba and Trujillo murders. Factually incorrect. -- He made the slanderous claim that Lansdale hated JFK and wanted him dead. Factually incorrect. - He made the bogus claim that Lansdale wanted to see a huge escalation in the American involvement in South Vietnam. Factually incorrect. -- Without a shred of supporting evidence, he claimed that Lansdale was involved in the assassination plot and was even in Dealey Plaza on the day it happened Gross distortion and factually incorrect. Lansdale has been traced to Dallas outer suburb Denton on November 21, 1963. - He said that Princess Diana may have been assassinated by "the secret team." He said he "would not be surprised" to learn that the secret team had killed Diana. Gross distortion.Cherry-picked speculation presented out-of-context. -- He approvingly quoted Stalin's nutty theory that Churchill poisoned FDR. Gross distortion of the record. Prouty cited a published quotation. -- He associated with known anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers… Gross distortion of the record. - He repeatedly defended the crook and quack Ron Hubbard. He stridently attacked Russell Miller's excellent expose of Hubbard and Scientology Bare-Faced Messiah. Gross distortion of the record. “Expert witness” is legally an objective party. - He publicly praised the cult of Scientology. Factually incorrect.

credulous: having or showing too great a readiness to believe things There is nothing even to defend here. You started on another thread by making inaccurate claims about the “JFK” film, and have followed by parroting lame associative slanders dating to the 1980s here. I am half-convinced you are in fact engaged in satire, slyly confirming Niederhut’s thread proposition by posing as exactly the sort of credulous nitwit who would refer angry partisan rants as anything substantive.

Prouty was hired by a legal team to serve as an “expert witness”. “Expert witnesses are called upon in the court system to serve as an objective party to the lawsuit and never function as an advocate for one side or the other.” Cohen, Kenneth (2015-08-05). Expert Witnessing and Scientific Testimony : A Guidebook, Second Edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

For the record, the following is the primary documentation which informed the General Y aspect of the "JFK" screenplay. It appears in a private letter sent by Prouty to Jim Garrison, dated October 2 1985 (emphasis added): "As a strange aside, and perhaps no more than a coincidence, I was sent to the South Pole leaving early in Nov 1963. Now here I was the Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I had been in that work for 9 consecutive years in the Pentagon...and they send me for a VIP vacation to the South Pole. Was that on purpose? The man who sent me was Ed Lansdale. He said I had been working hard and would benefit from the change. He made all the arrangements and I went as "the escort for a VIP group" I was in New Zealand when JFK was killed and the man in the first picture of the Tramps, just outside the Texas School Book Bldg. just after JFK was murdered, the man who is walking in the opposite direction from the Tramps and the phony police, is none other than Ed Lansdale! I have had this verified by high-ranking close associates. Why was he in Dallas that day?" As can be determined, this brief "aside" contains two certainties: a trip to the South Pole and an ID based on a photograph. Otherwise, it is uncertain and speculative. The flood of insults presumes definitive conclusions, which obviously do not appear in this letter. The flood of insults, exemplified by particular posts on this thread, is based on a poor and biased reading of the primary material and a failure to account for the concept of "dramatic licence" as was applied in the screenplay.

Attacking Prouty based on a very brief consultancy performed on the outskirts of the extremely dense and confusing universe associated with Scientology has very little relevancy other than the choice opportunity for use as an associative slur by persons already disposed to speak poorly of the man. It functions as a reputational shorthand to deter or confuse, a context-free talking point dangled inside an insult-laden prosecutor’s brief (“crackpot” “nut job” “kook”). It’s purpose is purely rhetorical, to spin clarifications of Prouty’s work into defences of sketchy quasi religious outfits or “sleazy extremists” or anything else which can be used as both tar and feather. While Griffith lauds his linked article, objectively it is clear the author is personally partisanly involved with the topic, which stemmed from a factional lawsuit dating to the late ‘80s; the author relies in part on the heavily-edited Prouty Wikipedia entry; and that other non-partisan researchers have since also concluded that Hubbard’s murky military records do show a tie to naval intelligence - which is the entire rub against Prouty (for example see Levenda, Sinister Forces Vol. 1, p154). Point being, the attacks on Prouty’s credibility basically whittle down to a very thinly-sourced foundation of half-truths and out-of-context cherry-picked quotations, buttressed by a high wall of insults and slurs. It is not a “scholarly” effort.

I think there will be a sophisticated smear campaign, of which whispers of an alleged "Bannon link" is just one facet. The campaign, looking at that Twitter thread, will include MAGA, anti-vaxx, Sirhan apologist etc but the real issue is that RFK Jr is not afraid to publicly discuss issues even Bernie Sanders shied away from: "“The Ukraine war is the final collapse of the neocon's short-lived ‘American Century,’” Kennedy said. “The neocon projects in Iraq and Ukraine have cost $8.1 trillion, hollowed out our middle class, made a laughingstock of US military power and moral authority, pushed China and Russia into an invincible alliance, destroyed the dollar as the global currency, cost millions of lives and done nothing to advance democracy or win friendships or influence.”

“Loon” “nutty” “crackpot”. - these are all boiler-plate playground insults. Linguistically, they represent the expression of an opinion, or a prejudice. So basically, in your run of posts, you have somewhat crudely expressed a personal animus towards Fletcher Prouty. Fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, you have also thrown around terms such as “fraud”, which is more serious, as it amounts to a determination of deliberate deception, and this is where your posts veer into irresponsibility and character assassination. If you feel that Lansdale’s reputation was sullied during a particular sequence in a Hollywood motion picture made 30 years ago, then make your case (as you have been doing). But your posts drip with visceral anger and repeated insults which suggest something else is being triggered here. Again, your list of minor details - or as you put it “false accusations” - are taken from the screenplay of a Hollywood motion picture, from a sequence which the creators openly describe as relying on dramatic licence. Prouty did not write the screenplay, so your anger is misplaced. Here’s a tip - Garrison never made the closing courtroom speech either! Sound the alarm! Why not then move on to Shakespeare’s “Richard III” - it is filled with historic inaccuracies! Can you feel the weight of western civilization crumbling because of this? Or let’s get more contemporary: John Adams’ opera “Nixon in China” (1987) - “WTF Nixon never sang aloud. Kissinger wasn’t a tenor.” The majority of criticism directed at “JFK” centered on a) defence of the Warren Commission and b) a rejection of the concept that Kennedy was removing the US armed services from Vietnam. If anything, the declassification of documents from the era have bolstered the basic premise of the film and undercut the critic’s arguments. You have greatly exaggerated a supposed centrality of “Mister X” and “General Y”, and correspondingly have wildly overstated the relevance of Prouty’s 1997 ARRB appearance let alone Stone’s recent and obviously objective observation that a positive ID cannot be derived from the Tramp photo in question. Nether event can be spun as a “repudiation” other than in the minds of those already convinced. In turn, you have repeated standard out-of-context slurs directed at Prouty which originate from a list compiled by John McAdams thirty years ago as part of the attack on the “JFK” film, and which cannot be described as adhering to any scholarly standards. Posting insults on an Internet forum does not adhere to such standards either.

The degree of vitriol (“fraud”, crackpot”) is always in inverse proportion to the rather thin gruel offered as nourishment to the charges. In this case it remains a recitation of minor details as they appear in a motion picture (”JFK”) which openly engaged dramatic licence to simplify and condense complex information. That this continues thirty years after the fact is amazing.

The logic of Mister X’s monologue establishes that the assembly of a sniper team, the security stripping of the motorcade, and a subsequent cover-up were key to success of a plot, and there is no inference within the film that General Y was directly involved in these or was even elevated beyond a presumed compartmentalization of information. I would say at least 95% of the film’s audience have no idea who Lansdale was, nor come away from the film convinced that General Y was a “key figure”. Oliver Stone has been consistent he applied dramatic licence to the Mister X sequence because it introduced a “higher level” to the movie. Much of the hysterical reaction, particularly in 1992-93, focussed on making literal small details within this sequence without allowing for the dramatic licence common within any dramatized production dealing with historic or documentary events. Was the ID of Lansdale “reckless” or “baseless”? Prouty was part of a discussion group in the late ‘60s / early ‘70s, and a collection of “Tramp photos” was disseminated within this group. Close attention was paid to all the strange and enigmatic details within these photos. Through this process, Prouty made his observation based on his professional proximity to Lansdale extending over a decade. Having arrived at this hypothesis, Prouty - logically - sought to account for this presence and engaged in speculation but I am not aware of any formulation which concludes Lansdale was a “key figure” in an assassination plot. There’s a very interesting and wide-ranging previous discussion of the many sides of Lansdale on this forum: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/13678-edward-lansdale/

“General Y” is obviously based on Lansdale but is not portrayed as a “master plotter” or a “key figure”. He is not, for example, in the smoky room of power brokers where the grievances against Kennedy are aired. General Y is seen receiving a phone call - presented as a speculation, as something that “maybe” happened. General Y is portrayed as an “agent” of higher powers, which is exactly how Prouty always characterized him. It appears you set up a sort of “straw man” with the attributions of “master plotter” and “key figure” which you use to apply a dismissive term (“quack”) to your target (Prouty). The film doesn’t make those attributions and as far as I am aware neither did Prouty. So there is no “reckless baseless charge” in the first place other than those directed towards the film.

Can you cite where Fletcher Prouty specifically identified Lansdale as a "master plotter" of the assassination? Or how exactly the "JFK" film implied Lansdale was a "key figure behind the assassination"?

Kalinin writes an objective academic report which acknowledges Dugin’s work had influence, particularly in the years after its 1997 publication, but concludes the influence was “limited” and did not result in the sort of “strategic plan” or “blueprint” or “playbook” which you assert.

The Stanford paper is easily found via its title. The Abstract describes the methodology used. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10199694 You have described Dugin’s work as central to “Putin’s geopolitical playbook” and crucial to understanding “Putin’s strategic plans.” This opinion appears to parrot widespread opinion-making centred in western security-oriented think tanks and periodicals. The frequent reference to a “playbook” or “blueprint” suggests a particular trope is being repeated via an echo chamber of like-minded analysts, most of whom have little to no actual experience within Russia itself. What is the evidence of Dugin’s alleged influence? Again, Ambassador Burns’ February 2008 memo regarding Russia’s geopolitical outlook on NATO expansion and Ukraine is remarkable for its predictive qualities. Burns had as close access as any American to the top level of Russia’s government and had a deep understanding of their mindset. No where at all in his descriptions of Russian perspectives on geopolitical challenges does Dugin's name come up, nor does he reference an overriding desire to recreate the Soviet Union.

A peer-reviewed essay by a Stanford academic published in the journal Post-Soviet Affairs (2019, Vol. 35, Not 5-6) is titled “Neo-Eurasianism and the Russian Elite: the irrelevance of Aleksandr Dugin’s geopolitics”. ABSTRACT The consistency and effectiveness of Russia’s assertive foreign policy has earned Putin, both domestically and internationally, the image of a powerful and ambitious leader with a strategic plan to re-establish the Russian empire and defend Russia’s core national interests. Speculation among scholars and practitioners regarding the existence of such a “strategic plan” makes Aleksandr Dugin’s conspiratorial neo-Eurasianism project an especially appealing subject of research. This paper explores key ideas of Dugin’s neo-Eurasianism, as described in his Foundations of Geopolitics, and tests them empirically with data from the Survey of Russian Elites: 1993–2016 using a Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling approach. Its main finding is that the theory has limited utility for understanding elites’ foreign policy perceptions and therefore its influence should not be over- stated. Moreover, there is no evidence that Dugin’s theory is more salient in the post-Crimean period than in the pre-Crimean period. A cursory search engine check confirms that the presumed influence of Dugin’s “conspiratorial neo-Eurasianism project” is in fact an over-stated obsession couched in a familiar “paranoid style” and limited to the chattering networks of western foreign policy wonks whose consistently mediocre analysis diverges only in whether to describe Dugin’s work as a “playbook” or a “blueprint”.

So your longstanding endorsement of a Manafort/Kilimnik/polling-data/social-media theory has been replaced by a Manafort/Klimink/polling-data/voter-registration-database-hack theory. Note that the voter registration database hack concept is distinguished by an inability to determine who was responsible, what exactly occurred, and even uncertainty if anything occurred in the first place.

I’m sorry, but the longstanding association of Kliminik with Manafort Associates is a material documented fact, not a baseless “assurance”. That you continue to refute basic established information and do so prodigiously throughout numerous threads is an entirely exhausting and ultimately time-wasting procedure. That you continue to impute foreign influence in the expression of documented fact is intellectually barren. Suspicion directed at Klimink was generated by Mueller’s deputy Weissman during a presser in early 2018. Weissman insisted that communication between Klimink and Manafort in the summer of 2016 was entirely unusual and therefore perhaps sinister, despite the two men having been business associates for a decade and likely in communication every single day throughout that time period. The concept that Klimink is a “GRU agent” is not sourced and is therefore merely an assertion. His background as a key source of information for State Dept officials working from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, as well as his ten years of service with the International Republican Institute in Moscow - part of the secretive and meddling National Endowment for Democracy apparatus - is rarely acknowledged and strongly suggests such claim is, as Rick Gates has said, “ludicrous”. The concept that “polling data” handed by Manafort to Klimink was used to inform Facebook and Twitter posts which were somehow instrumental in swaying swing state voters to change their preference to Trump is not only ridiculous with even cursory reflection, but has been effectively debunked by all analysis of the posts themselves, most rigorously by the academic study released several weeks ago. The only reason this story has any legs at all is due to continuing promotion by the mainstream journalists who failed to do their job professionally in the first place, buttressed by an astonishingly credulous rump of partisan true believers.

All I can say is clarification regarding the found negatives and other questions such as where did version C come from should have appeared in Studebaker’s executive testimony to the HSCA as he was the person best positioned to have first hand knowledge. But the HSCA interviewers did not ask the appropriate questions and therefore failed to clarify the issues raised by their own photographic panel. Their lack of curiosity revealed by the transcript is stunning.

There is no reference to 133-C prior to the Dees copy, other than the recreation photo, which would be difficult to conceive as a coincidence. The Secret Service participated in the recreation so they also , with the DPD, knew of this photo in 1963. My speculation as to why this photo was effectively “disappeared” : it was the photo which was in DPD possession on the Friday night, and its removal from the record assisted the provenance established with the “discovery” of A and B the following afternoon.