Lone Gunman podcast: L. Fletcher Prouty a xxxx?

[B. A. Copeland]

On 10/11/2020 at 5:21 PM, Chris Barnard said:

Amateur hour ...

Uhh...what? I think its best to keep our emotions in check and focus strictly on the evidence which is exactly what Rob seems to have done and always does. Its in our best interest as a research community (and student in my case) to challenge ourselves to not become "fans" of anyone. I have some of my favorite researchers and scholars but they are certainly human and are prone to being in error on such a complex historical study. I remember reading these ARRB documents on Prouty and wow, its nice to see such hardcore facts to challenge what anyone might say or offer to those interested in the facts of this tragic case.

Edited October 13, 2020 by B. A. Copeland

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Yeah, I'm the host, and I'm not hormonal... unless rage counts. 🤷‍♂️  Useless comments from someone that didn't bother to listen to the show....

Ok Rob, sorry but, that made me switch it off, it was a silly piece of dialogue. But, I understand the time it must take to put something together and it must be disheartening to see neggy remarks. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Uhh...what? I think its best to keep our emotions in check and focus strictly on the evidence which is exactly what Rob seems to have done and always does. Its in our best interest as a research community (and student in my case) to challenge ourselves to not become "fans" of anyone. I have some of my favorite researchers and scholars but they are certainly human and are prone to being in error on such a complex historical study. I remember reading these ARRB documents on Prouty and wow, its nice to see such hardcore facts to challenge what anyone might say or offer to those interested in the facts of this tragic case.

Maybe I should have given it longer if it got better but, my criticism of the question above was entirely valid. 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/12/2020 at 2:47 PM, David Andrews said:

On 10/12/2020 at 2:44 PM, Rob Clark said:

Again, a ring...back of man's head...captured mid stride? Evidence of nothing...show me photo of the same man captured with a clear facial shot , and we can talk. You really think Gen. Ed Landsdale would be caught dead walking in Dealey Plaza after the assassination in front of all those newsmen and cameras? It's laughable...

Not too long ago, it was discussed here that the "Lansdale" figure in the photo appears to be wearing eyeglasses.

 

The Landsdale figure in the tramps photo is apparently wearing fake prescription glasses. You can tell because the sunlight going through the lenses leave no shadow on the fence to Landsdale's right. I've read that lenses always leave a shadow because they bend light inward or outward depending on whether they are for nearsightedness or farsightedness, and either one creates a shadow. (Though the shadow for one can also contain a bright area.)

I haven't tested this phenomenon extensively, but a shadow does appear with both my farsighted and nearsighted glasses as long as they aren't too close to the surface upon which the shadow is projected.

It is for this reason that I leave open the possibility that the person is indeed Landsdale. I mean, why else would a person be wearing fake prescription glasses (i.e. with plain glass rather than corrective lenses) unless it were to provide some degree of disguise?

 

 

[Mark Stevens]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The Landsdale figure in the tramps photo is apparently wearing fake prescription glasses. You can tell because the sunlight going through the lenses leave no shadow on the fence to Landsdale's right. I've read that lenses always leave a shadow because they bend light inward or outward depending on whether they are for nearsightedness or farsightedness, and either one creates a shadow. (Though the shadow for one can also contain a bright area.)

I haven't tested this phenomenon extensively, but a shadow does appear with both my farsighted and nearsighted glasses as long as they aren't too close to the surface upon which the shadow is projected.

It is for this reason that I leave open the possibility that the person is indeed Landsdale. I mean, why else would a person be wearing fake prescription glasses (i.e. with plain glass rather than corrective lenses) unless it were to provide some degree of disguise?

 

 

Have you tested this using appropriate lens types? 

In this time period, from what I understand at least, lenses were either glass or plastic. 

Today these materials are used less in favor of polycarbonate and other materials. 

Additionally, almost all glasses today have UV coating (which is likely creating the "shadows" in your picture). 

[Joe Bauer]

I've mentioned before the need to have the lanky man Dealey Plaza photo analyzed by more than one expert in the field of physical anatomy, motion and body recognition.

There are such experts and this is a well developed science now with high tech means of physical identification.

You've probably heard of such in surveillance science where a person's gate while walking and hand, arm and head movement can reveal traits specific to certain degrees.

We all know how far advanced we are in facial recognition science. Used everywhere now.

These experts could look at extensive numbers of known Lansdale pictures and maybe even film of him walking and compare them to the Dealey Plaza lanky man photo. Their comparative identification conclusions would be the only real way of deciding whether this was Lansdale to a scientific degree of certainty.

Ahhh, but we all know the reality of monetary cost and effort in making a study like this happen.

Only a wealthy person could afford such a project. A project many would say is frivolous in the larger picture of JFK assassination research.

So, such a study will probably never happen.

My own study of past pictures of Lansdale and comparing them to the lanky walking man one leaves me with a gut feeling it is Lansdale. 

However, I also believe the Patterson/Gimlin video shows a real Big Foot as well.

So, take my unscientific guess as you will ... and should?

Edited October 14, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

 

On 10/14/2020 at 7:32 AM, Mark Stevens said:

Additionally, almost all glasses today have UV coating (which is likely creating the "shadows" in your picture).

 

If that were true, then that same "shadow" would be cast onto the eyes of the wearer. They would essentially be sunglasses.

Here's the real reason for the shadow:  Why do glass of spectacles cast a shadow?

The photo below shows the shadows of a concave lens (top) and convex lens (bottom). A convex lens is what a person would be wearing outdoors to correct for nearsightedness. In contrast, the glasses worn by the Lansdale figure cast no lens shadow whatsoever... the sunlight travels straight through, indicating the lenses are plain glass.

 

 

Note that the light source must be a point (or approximately so) -- such as the sun -- for the shadows to appear this way.

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Mark Stevens]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

If that were true, then that same "shadow" would be cast onto the eyes of the wearer. They would essentially be sunglasses.

Here's the real reason for the shadow:  Why do glass of spectacles cast a shadow?

The photo below shows the shadows of a concave lens (top) and convex lens (bottom). A convex lens is what a person would be wearing outdoors to correct for nearsightedness. Incontrast, the glasses worn by the Lansdale figure cast no lens shadow whatsoever... the sunlight travels straight through, indicating the lenses are plain glass.

 

 

Note that the light source must be a point (or approximately so) -- such as the sun -- for the shadows to appear this way.

 

I wasn't sure what was being referred to. After looking at the best picture of the "tramps" that I have, I think I see what's being referred to.

The sunlight isn't actually traveling through the lens....

At best, I think it supports the idea that these are not fake glasses as you can possibly see a shadow from the lens. I can't tell if the glasses have a frame, if so the shadow is likely the frame. If not, the shadow would have to be the lens its self. The light opening is not coming through the lens but is coming through the frame.

[Steve Roe]

No it's not Landsdale in Dealey Plaza. I believe Rob Clark covered that very well in his podcast. 

Prouty (aka Mr. X) was debunked. Time to move on.....

[Joe Bauer]

 

Lansdale was photographed many times through the decades.

Surely there are pictures of him from behind.

Again, I am no expert, but from what little comparative analysis I have done looking at as many Lansdale pictures as I could find in a general search of such, he does have a quite distinct block head like the one we see in the most well known Dealey Plaza/tramp walk photo.

His head also is thinner rather than wide and his head rest on a longer neck and his head leans up and forward in an unusual kind of stiff way.

The hair style, thickness, color and even cut of the tramp photo looks very close to all other Lansdale pics.

Hair ID is important and often a good way of eliminating or finding similarities imo.

Even that thin strip of white dress shirt showing above the back of the tramp photo man is an ID clue worth considering.

It can often be distinctive if seen in many other photos.

JFK himself was photographed hundreds of thousands of times. I believe one could ID JFK just from the back because of things like coat style and fit, shirt collar type and view, shoulder shape and size and head and shoulder lean and posture.

And who couldn't ID JFK just from his famous head of hair?

The left arm of the tramp walk man, it's length to leg, it's turn, the hand type and turn, like Prouty mentioned, if you've been physically close to someone off and on for years, you do notice many more subtleties like this. The ring on the tramp walk man's hand shouldn't be dismissed entirely.

I would think a high tech enlargement of the tramp walk man's ring would be something to consider in comparing to Lansdale's ring in other photos.

Lansdale was a man of extreme hands on action from what I have read.

Kind of a control freak in this way?

He sounds like the kind of person who would take the bold risk to be on scene of the most important event of his life if he was involved.

Lansdale was a man of the most boldest action taking. That's no exaggeration.

 

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

On 10/13/2020 at 11:12 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The Landsdale figure in the tramps photo is apparently wearing fake prescription glasses.

I must admit, Sandy is one amazing guy. First, we discover he is a forensic dentistry expert. Now, we find he is an ophthalmologist as well.

[Mark Stevens]

8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

The left arm of the tramp walk man, it's length to leg, it's turn, the hand type and turn, like Prouty mentioned, if you've been physically close to someone off and on for years, you do notice many more subtleties like this. The ring on the tramp walk man's hand shouldn't be dismissed entirely.

I would think a high tech enlargement of the tramp walk man's ring would be something to consider in comparing to Lansdale's ring in other photos.

In the photo I have I'm fairly certain the ring is a wedding band. Either way, is just a band. There is nothing on it which denotes a class ring, military ring, or any other type of ring. It is just a simple band, likely a wedding band. To the best of my knowledge, this doesn't match the ring he typically wore which was a military style ring.

The other photos I've seen of this ring have been manipulated in some way. Maybe just to highlight the ring, some seem like it has "enhanced" the ring in some manner though.

[Sandy Larsen]

 

On 10/15/2020 at 6:17 AM, Mark Stevens said:

 

The sunlight isn't actually traveling through the lens....

 

The sunlight most certainly is traveling through the lens... the right lens, to be specific.

According to your interpretation, that bright area between the glasses and face in the shadow corresponds to an empty gap between the actual glasses and face. Problem is, the is NO such gap for which the sunlight to travel unimpeded.

Look at the profile of men wearing glasses and you'll see that I'm right. Here's an example:

 

From photos like this, it is easy to see that any path of light travelling between the face and the glasses must first travel through the lens. (Unless the sun is high overhead, which it clearly is not.)

From careful observtion and study of the full photograph, it is clear that the sun hits the Landsdale figure primarily on his left side but also somewhat on his front. The photo below approximately illustrates how the sun is hitting the Lansdale figure. Imagine that the camera's line-of-sight is the same as the sun's direction-of-shine. So what we see looking at this photo is roughly the same as what the sun would see if it had eyes.

Using this thought experiment and photo below, we can see that sunlight would pass through Landsdale's right glasses lens and onto the fence to his side.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Jeff Carter]

These complaints are much ado about nothing, IMO, and the “debunking” seems more aimed at portrayals within the JFK film rather than Prouty himself. This is obvious reading the ARRB document, which several times refers to “the segment dealing with ‘Mr. X’.”

Re: Antarctica. Rather than some sort of direct allegation of a sinister plotting, Prouty framed his suspicions (such as they were) as a surmise, based in part on the fact that it was Lansdale who recommended him for the Nov ’63 trip. (“I have always wondered…”). Even if the “JFK” screenwriters used self-acknowledged dramatic license in its portrayal or description of Prouty’s surmising, acknowledging such does not amount to a “debunking” of Prouty. Note that absolutely nothing of Garrison’s case -factually in New Orleans or as portrayed in the film - relied or hinged on Prouty’s Antarctica trip.

Christchurch Star - Again, this is more about the “JFK” film’s use of dramatic license than Prouty’s own descriptions of receiving word of the assassination while in New Zealand. Prouty had a unique experience in being so far away and thus hearing about the event in limited fashion rather than the encompassing saturation of developing information received stateside. While the Christchurch Star’s wire service report was not premature, Prouty’s remove enabled him to note - intuitively - that the extent of published information on a man who barely qualified as a suspect suggested what in tradecraft would be considered a cover story. Is his intuition wrong? I don’t think so. Someone had informed the major media outlets that Oswald was primary suspect re: the assassination although no supporting evidence would appear for another 24 hours. It remains one of the key mysteries: why and on what basis was Oswald fingered so early on? Prouty realized something was wrong in that regard only hours after the shooting,

Likewise, his intuition about the quality of motorcade security seems well placed. Was Dealey Plaza not a massive security breakdown? What exactly do you think you are “debunking” here? Prouty is not making absolute statements or claiming expertise or credentials outside of his personal opinion based on his own experiences, as the ARRB interviewers concede. I’m not sure that any serious scholarship on Secret Service/motorcade security relies on Prouty’s opinions, although I do seem to recall Vince Palamara mention on BOR once or twice that Prouty’s basic assumptions were correct. Similarly, his basic assumptions about Texas military intelligence units seem to be correct even if the detail of phone call to which he refers seems confused at the time of the ARRB interview. Even so, stating that “the content of the call and its implications are central to Prouty’s entire argument and allegations”, as the ARRB document does, is an overreach to say the least.

re: Lansdale. Obviously, since the man in the photograph is seen only from the rear, a positive ID will never be possible. However, Krulak did - apparently without prompting - follow Prouty in IDing the man as Lansdale. Prouty never claimed Lansdale to be the “mastermind” of the assassination, but rather pointed out that an important high-level operation would require experts in various capacities including the formation of cover stories and misdirections, and that Lansdale’s presence in Dallas could indicate both a specific task and point to a related operation. Are the debunkers arguing that there was no high-level plot in operation on that day?

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

These complaints are much ado about nothing, IMO, and the “debunking” seems more aimed at portrayals within the JFK film rather than Prouty himself. This is obvious reading the ARRB document, which several times refers to “the segment dealing with ‘Mr. X’.”

Re: Antarctica. Rather than some sort of direct allegation of a sinister plotting, Prouty framed his suspicions (such as they were) as a surmise, based in part on the fact that it was Lansdale who recommended him for the Nov ’63 trip. (“I have always wondered…”). Even if the “JFK” screenwriters used self-acknowledged dramatic license in its portrayal or description of Prouty’s surmising, acknowledging such does not amount to a “debunking” of Prouty. Note that absolutely nothing of Garrison’s case -factually in New Orleans or as portrayed in the film - relied or hinged on Prouty’s Antarctica trip.

Christchurch Star - Again, this is more about the “JFK” film’s use of dramatic license than Prouty’s own descriptions of receiving word of the assassination while in New Zealand. Prouty had a unique experience in being so far away and thus hearing about the event in limited fashion rather than the encompassing saturation of developing information received stateside. While the Christchurch Star’s wire service report was not premature, Prouty’s remove enabled him to note - intuitively - that the extent of published information on a man who barely qualified as a suspect suggested what in tradecraft would be considered a cover story. Is his intuition wrong? I don’t think so. Someone had informed the major media outlets that Oswald was primary suspect re: the assassination although no supporting evidence would appear for another 24 hours. It remains one of the key mysteries: why and on what basis was Oswald fingered so early on? Prouty realized something was wrong in that regard only hours after the shooting,

Likewise, his intuition about the quality of motorcade security seems well placed. Was Dealey Plaza not a massive security breakdown? What exactly do you think you are “debunking” here? Prouty is not making absolute statements or claiming expertise or credentials outside of his personal opinion based on his own experiences, as the ARRB interviewers concede. I’m not sure that any serious scholarship on Secret Service/motorcade security relies on Prouty’s opinions, although I do seem to recall Vince Palamara mention on BOR once or twice that Prouty’s basic assumptions were correct. Similarly, his basic assumptions about Texas military intelligence units seem to be correct even if the detail of phone call to which he refers seems confused at the time of the ARRB interview. Even so, stating that “the content of the call and its implications are central to Prouty’s entire argument and allegations”, as the ARRB document does, is an overreach to say the least.

re: Lansdale. Obviously, since the man in the photograph is seen only from the rear, a positive ID will never be possible. However, Krulak did - apparently without prompting - follow Prouty in IDing the man as Lansdale. Prouty never claimed Lansdale to be the “mastermind” of the assassination, but rather pointed out that an important high-level operation would require experts in various capacities including the formation of cover stories and misdirections, and that Lansdale’s presence in Dallas could indicate both a specific task and point to a related operation. Are the debunkers arguing that there was no high-level plot in operation on that day?

Good post.

One thing I would add is that Prouty had worked with Lansdale at Saigon Station, and was very familiar with Lansdale's history of managing black ops and psy ops in Vietnam and in the Philippines.  He discusses Landale's black ops history in considerable detail in, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.

Identifying Lansdale in the Dealey Plaza photos was only one aspect of a much broader inquiry by Prouty into the details surrounding JFK's assassination-- including, as mentioned above, the curious experience of Lansdale sending Prouty on a strange trip to Antarctica during the black op in Dallas.