Was it Lansdale?

[Brian Schmidt]

Mark - thanks for posting the information. What source is that from? I don't doubt it's true. In the past, I have always understood that the tramps episode occurred shortly after the shooting and everything I have read supported this. I could never find a source for the nearly two hour time frame but have heard it by members of this forum.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Thanks Brian -- Pictures of the Pain has been valuable in placing the photos and their timing in context.

[Ron Ecker]

Well, this scenario presupposes that Holt was one of the tramps, which he was not.

I have in mind E. Howard Hunt, not Holt.

If one or more of the tramps was involved in the plot, the fact that they were hiding in a train car would naturally be of concern to the command center. It's therefore quite possible that Lansdale would not leave the command center till it was known that the tramps were safely away on the train. The train gets stopped, the tramps are arrested, and Lansdale heads for the plaza.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Well, this scenario presupposes that Holt was one of the tramps, which he was not.

I have in mind E. Howard Hunt, not Holt.

If one or more of the tramps was involved in the plot, the fact that they were hiding in a train car would naturally be of concern to the command center. It's therefore quite possible that Lansdale would not leave the command center till it was known that the tramps were safely away on the train. The train gets stopped, the tramps are arrested, and Lansdale heads for the plaza.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Larry Hancock]

What is known is that the train that was stopped had not been parked on the TSBD yards but had actually been stopped a good distance from there when

Bowers put a hold on train traffic for the motorcade. The train only began to move after he released traffic and it was headed out over the overpass ...so

if the tramps had gotten on there in Dallas it was not from in the immediate vicinity of the plaza...and they would have to be pretty stupid to board a train

going back through the plaza when they were well away and facing the likelihood that it would be stopped sand searched going that direction.

[Thomas Graves]

What is known is that the train that was stopped had not been parked on the TSBD yards but had actually been stopped a good distance from there when

Bowers put a hold on train traffic for the motorcade. The train only began to move after he released traffic and it was headed out over the overpass ...so

if the tramps had gotten on there in Dallas it was not from in the immediate vicinity of the plaza...and they would have to be pretty stupid to board a train

going back through the plaza when they were well away and facing the likelihood that it would be stopped sand searched going that direction.

Larry,

"It was headed out over the overpass" -- going towards the TSBD or in the other direction?

--Tommy

Edited April 13, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

Bowers notified the police that he had stopped a train moving past his tower and out of the yards over the overpass. The way I read the report is that the engine was pointing away from the yard/TSBD and the train had

been coming from down town when he spotted a tramp in a hopper car and stopped the train. The report is part of the police radio calls for that afternoon. So...the train was coming from beyond the TSBD and headed

away from it when he stopped it.

[Paul Trejo]

OK, I still believe Fletcher Prouty who claims that this photo of a back of a man is really of General Lansdale.

Yet I cannot persuade myself to jump to the conclusion that Lansdale was therefore part of the JFK Kill-Team.

I can accept that E.G. Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 in response to rumors that JFK was going to be killed in Dallas.

I can accept that Lansdale sent Prouty to the South Pole because Prouty was a "loose cannon" who was "paranoid about the CIA."

I've thought since 1991 -- as Oliver Stone also thought -- that General E.G. Lansdale was indeed the proof that elements of the CIA and the JCS were involved in the murder of JFK.

Yet with consideration for Larry Hancock's work on this topic in 2013, I now suspend judgment on Lansdale.

It is at least *possible* that Lansdale was innocent in the murder of JFK -- EVEN THOUGH HE WAS VERY OBVIOUSLY PRESENT IN DEALEY PLAZA on 11/22/1963.

We cannot identify a man from the rear based on mere photographs -- however, somebody who worked with the man for months or years, and knew his walk, his stance, his gait, his rings, his ears, his height, weight, haircut and so on -- IMHO can easily identify a person from behind.

I will agree that Fletcher Prouty could be mistaken about the MOTIVES of Lansdale in Dallas, but I disagree that Prouty could be mistaken about the IDENTIFICATION of Lansdale in that photograph/film. Prouty knew Lansdale too well.

I'm convinced that it was Lansdale in Dallas that day -- but I'm unconvinced about his MOTIVE there.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Bolded text from Prouty's letter:

To have your confirmation of my belief that our mutual friend (Lansdale) was there at that time means quite a lot. I join with you in the question, What in the world was he doing there?

Again - and it bears repeating - Prouty claimed that Krulak made an INDEPENDENT identification of Lansdale in that photo. This is not true.

This led to the discovery that the "tramps" had not even been booked in the Sheriff's office where they had been taken so conspicuously, and that there were no records of or by the police.

This is not true.

Attempts have been made through the years to identify the "tramps" and the "police". Many have said one of the tramps was Howard Hunt. It looks like him.

The tramps were Gedney, Abrams and Doyle.

As you will recall, the Dallas police did not even charge Oswald with the crime until after midnight...that is, on Nov 23rd. They had picked him up on the suspicion of having shot the police officer named Tippet, not JFK.

The ENTIRE WORLD knew that Oswald was suspected of killing JFK. He wasn't formally charged until later but it's silly to pretend that people only thought he killed Tippit.

Former VP Nixon, despite his uncertain stories about his whereabouts to the contrary, was still in Dallas that afternoon where he had been with a meeting of Pepsi Cola officials.

This is not true.

Bumping this in order to demonstrate the things that Prouty got wrong. And if he got these details wrong, how can you put your utter faith in his ID of Lansdale?

[Larry Hancock]

I hate to be repetitive but I'm curious to see if anyone posting on this has read the Prouty's ARRB interview and related ARRB memos as I suggested earlier. Or actually studied SACSA, where Prouty and

Lansdale worked and developed the timeline for how long the two men actually worked together, what their respective roles were, what their duties were and essentially established a context this

discussion? Or overlaid Lansdale's career during this period with Prouty's remarks from a chronological standpoint?

In other words, since its an education forum I was just wondering if anyone had done some homework they would be willing to share....

[Paul Brancato]

Mark

You are dead set on discrediting Prouty in this instance, but your proofs of his 'lying' are overdone in my non expert opinion. Yes Krulak knew that Prouty thought the photo was of Lansdale, but he very definitely concurred with that opinion independently. So you are right that Krulak didn't come up with that identification before he knew what Prouty thought. But so what? Its a minor difference. We are not in a court of law and we are not lawyers arguing a case.

Was Prouty wrong about the identities of the 3 tramps? Are we so sure we have the right identities now? Was Prouty just not keeping up with the latest research? Again, its not so serious a slip as you make it out to be. Was Nixon at that convention the night before? Are we so sure he was gone by the next day? What does it really matter?

In my opinion none of your objections are enough to negate Prouty's opinion that it was Lansdale.

[David Josephs]

I've done quite a lot of work on the tramps...

DPD Harkness informs us in his reports that "on the day of the assassintion there were several individuals removed from the train other than the three indiviuals previously identified"

I am convinced and can prove that the tramps paraded thru DP were NOT the same three men released from jail 3 days later: Doyle, Abrahms and Gedney...

The tramps in these photos were all releases later that day...

DJ

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Mark

You are dead set on discrediting Prouty in this instance, but your proofs of his 'lying' are overdone in my non expert opinion. Yes Krulak knew that Prouty thought the photo was of Lansdale, but he very definitely concurred with that opinion independently. So you are right that Krulak didn't come up with that identification before he knew what Prouty thought. But so what? Its a minor difference. We are not in a court of law and we are not lawyers arguing a case.

Was Prouty wrong about the identities of the 3 tramps? Are we so sure we have the right identities now? Was Prouty just not keeping up with the latest research? Again, its not so serious a slip as you make it out to be. Was Nixon at that convention the night before? Are we so sure he was gone by the next day? What does it really matter?

In my opinion none of your objections are enough to negate Prouty's opinion that it was Lansdale.

It's utterly fascinating the lengths people will go to in order to prop up Prouty's take on ths scenario.

You say yourself: "So you are right that Krulak didn't come up with that identification before he knew what Prouty thought."

THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PROUTY SAID HAPPENED. Not just a little bit different. Completely different.

You say what's the big deal? The big deal is that Prouty lied. He bolstered his own story by claiming something that wasn't true. It's part of a pattern.

A "minor difference" my ass. If I'm a lawyer and I ask a leading question, it gets struck from the record. Why? Because it taints the answer, that's why. Prouty was clearly seeking affirmation and he got it from an old buddy.

We're not in a court of law so the truth doesn't matter? Precision doesn't matter? It seems you have a clear bias toward believing Prouty, no matter how many details he got wrong. The main thing is to believe him, right?

You ask "was Prouty just not keeping up with the latest research?"

Christ, how far are you willing to go to cut the guy some slack when he gets things wrong? Why not cut Posner or Bugliosi or McAdams or any of the other kooks the same slack while you're at it? After all, maybe they aren't keeping up with the latest research.

No. This is important because Prouty's alleged ID of Lansdale in DP sparked a flame that continues to feed theories to this very day.

By the way, Paul, I notice you conveniently omitted this one:

This led to the discovery that the "tramps" had not even been booked in the Sheriff's office where they had been taken so conspicuously, and that there were no records of or by the police.

Another Prouty boner.

So what, he got all the "small" facts wrong but he managed to get the "big" one correct? Come on.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I hate to be repetitive but I'm curious to see if anyone posting on this has read the Prouty's ARRB interview and related ARRB memos as I suggested earlier. Or actually studied SACSA, where Prouty and

Lansdale worked and developed the timeline for how long the two men actually worked together, what their respective roles were, what their duties were and essentially established a context this

discussion?

Lansdale sent Prouty on an errand to buy a gift for Diem.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm convinced that it was Lansdale in Dallas that day -- but I'm unconvinced about his MOTIVE there.

If Lansdale was in Dallas but his motive was benign, why would he keep it a secret? Unless, of course, he was part of yet another failed abort team, in which case he would have some explaining to do.

,